The Viva Voce examination

< ADM training

Outline:
Preface.
What is a Viva for?
What happens at a Viva?
Tips for students
How to manage your examiner
Summary
References

.

Preface

Students should have attended previous Graduate Research School and Art and Design research training, particularly those dealing with thesis writing, and argument.

^ to top

What is a Viva for?

A Viva Voce is a 'live voice' examination of your thesis, and your ability to argue. In line with the role of a PhD as 'a training in research', it assumes that at some point you will need the skills of verbally discussing your work (at a crit, workshop of conference, for example). The Viva also acts as a check that the thesis is your own work, by checking your live knowledge of the debates. You are not 'marked' on your verbal responses to questions, and a Viva is very unlikely to radically change examiner's minds on the quality of the thesis, but there is a part of the form that examiners fill in, where comments on your responses are noted.

You are, however, being examined primarily on your thesis: if your thesis is very poor, then the examiners could decide in advance that a Viva would not be productive as the thesis would need to be resubmitted anyway, but this is very rare.

The Viva is the point at which you are notified of the examiners' decision, subject to ratification by Research Committee.

Remember that research is a craft - the examiner wants to make sure that you know your craft, rather than that you are omniscient!

^ to top

 

 

 

 

Bradbury rm

Bradbury room1

Examples from
Victoria
Bradbury's
viva room 2015

What happens at a Viva?

There is no standard national form for exactly what happens at a Viva, but the examiners (and chair) always meet, usually for around an hour, to discuss their written individual comments on the thesis, and plan questions, before you (and your Supervisor if you agree) enter the Viva. The examiners will then ask you questions. There is no fixed term, but a typical questioning is around an hour and a half, and the chair might ask if anyone needs a comfort break after about an hour.

In practice-based research, the Viva room often contains the presentation of other visual material (objects, videos, installations, etc. which were made as part of your thesis research). This is NOT compulsory and of course depands on the nature of the practical work. In general, examiners do appreciate the chance to handle, and see in 3 dimensions selected objects, interactive or live elements, but again, this rarely radically changes opiinions on the thesis, so do be strategic about the effort you put into preparing to answer questions, versus the effort put into displaying the practice. Examiner Stuart Evans tells a story about a candidate who entered the Viva room, and promptly fainted, because he had been up all night putting up a big exhibition.

The scope of the material presented varies from some web site links made available on a screen, or some test pieces or workbooks, to a more extensive professional-style exhibition. Whatever the level, remember that the examiners will be meeting in the room without you first, so do label the material.

Phillips and Pugh (2000, p.139ff) give some useful summaries of the processes and possible results of the Viva.

This University's regulations for outcomes says:

"a) Pass - the candidate be awarded the degree of PhD;

b) Conditional Pass (Corrections) - the candidate be awarded the degree of PhD subject to corrections being made to the thesis (see paragraph 10.4a);

c) Conditional Pass (Amendments) – the candidate be awarded the degree of PhD subject to amendments being made to the thesis (see paragraph 10.4b)

d) Resubmission for PhD/DProf - the candidate be permitted to re-submit for the degree of PhD and be re-examined, with or without an oral examination (see section 11);

e) Offer MPhil - in the case of a PhD examination and where the criteria for the award of MPhil are met but those for a PhD are not, the candidate be offered the award of the degree of MPhil subject to the presentation of the thesis being amended to the satisfaction of the examiners. The candidate may decline this offer and choose to resubmit for PhD.

f) Offer Resubmission for MPhil - in the case of a PhD examination and where the criteria for the award of neither MPhil nor PhD are met, and the examiners have concerns that resubmission for the award of PhD is unrealistic, the candidate be offered the opportunity to resubmit for the award of the degree of MPhil. The candidate may decline this offer and choose to resubmit for PhD."
(University of Sunderland, 2014, p. 14)

The kinds of questions asked are also not stipulated, but often follow this pattern:

  • Questions to put you at your ease - often about your own practice. If you have work on display, sometimes this will be done whilst walking around the room, in front of particular objects.
  • Questions about what you chose not to include in a contextual review, and why.
  • Questions about methodology.
  • Questions about your conclusions (often these are the most challenging.)
  • Picky questions about accuracy of references etc.

Do role-play with another person who knows something about your work, using these questions.

An excellent way to predict what examiners are looking for is to read guidelines for examiners. Brown, Smallwood and Bragan-Turner (1996, p. 16-18) have some excellent examples of this. Would you have convinced these examiners in your role-play answers above?

^ to top

Tips for students

Swift (1997, p.14-15) gives some useful tips for students, and a short summary of general tips is:

  • Prepare: Phillips and Pugh (2000, p.140ff) recommend writing a precis with page numbers so that you can locate exactly where in your thesis certain arguments occur. Others use post-it notes for key pages, or print out key diagrams in enlarged form so that all participants can see them at the same time. Research the interests of your examiner(s).
  • Don't take it personally! The examiners are questioning you because that is their job, not because they think you are lying or stupid.
  • As in your thesis, clear straightforward answers will win out over flowery rhetoric. Remember the structure of argument (premises and conclusions), and the difference between argument and opinion.
  • Know your own faults when under pressure: practice being firm if you tend to be too waffly or modest; practice being assertive rather than aggressive if you tend to overstate your case.

It's fine to:

  • Acknowledge that some areas are difficult, or weak, as long as you show your knowledge of the difficulties. Know how other people dealt with the same difficulties as examples.
  • Ask for clarification of ambiguous questions, or to split multi-part questions into manageable chunks.
  • Ask for the question to be repeated if you lose your way in the middle of answering (or, say something like, "Has that answered your question, or would you like more detail on certain areas in particular?")
  • Take time to think before answering. Be yourself.
  • Enjoy it - this is a rare opportunity to discuss with other experts.

Do role-play as above, only with different questions. Try to use the tips.

^ to top

How to manage your examiner

Brown, Smallwood and Bragan-Turner (1996, p. 21) identify five kinds of external examiner who present problems:

  • The proof reader.
  • The committee man [who plods through in thesis order asking unconnected questions].
  • The hobby horse rider.
  • The kite flyer.
  • The reminiscer.

Ideally, your examination chair should steer the examiner away from these faults, but occasionally you may have to acknowledge the expertise of the examiner (and show knowledge of that area), whilst gently explaining exactly why his/her particular hobby horse may not be central to your own research.

Any wild diversions should be gently brought back to the core of your own research. Whilst incorrect references are justifiable questions, typing mistakes are more usually left to written notes at the end of the Viva - so make sure there are none in your thesis!

Do role-play as above, only with questions typical of the problem examiners.

^ to top

Summary:

Vivas can be challenging, but try to make the most of them.

Make sure you have a mock Viva practice before your actual Viva. Usually this is done at your last Annual Monitoring, so it is well worth keeping to your writing schedule so that your 2 panel members can be reading your final full draft, which you can tweak in response to their comments, and then submit bang on schedule. Otherwise it can be difficult to persuade 2 other people to spend the time needed for a realistic Mock Viva.

Keep up to date with your research in the gap between submission and Viva (at least 6 weeks).

^ to top

References for this session (see also full bibliography)

Bradbury, Victoria (2015) The Performativity of Code in Participatory New Media Artworks. PhD thesis: University of Sunderland.

Brown, G., A. Smallwood and D. Bragan-Turner (1996) Introducing Arts and Humanities Graduates to Research. Universities and Colleges' Staff Development Agency.

Phillips, E. M. and D. S. Pugh (2000) How to get a PhD: A handbook for students and their supervisors. 3rd edition. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Swift, John (1997) "The Viva Voce." In: Darren Newbury (ed.) The Viva Voce. RTI Research Guides. Birmingham: University of Central England, RTI Research Training Initiative. Also available from <http://www.biad.uce.ac.uk/research/ rti/rtrc/pdfArchive/V01.PDF>. 7-9.

University of Sunderland, (2014) AQH-L1 Regulations for the award of the University's degree of Doctor of Philosophy. [Online "AQH-L1 Regulations for the award of the University_s degrees of Doctor and Master of Philosophy.pdf"]. Available from <https://docushare.sunderland.ac.uk/docushare/dsweb/Get/Version-8883/AQH-L1%20Regulations%20for%20Master%20and%20Doctor%20of%20Philosophy.pdf>.

 

DRAFT: last updated 16 Jun 2015 Beryl Graham
 

^ to top

< ADM training