Session 4A from City University London's Researchers' Development Day, held on Friday 4th May 2012.

1. Preparing for your Viva
Dr Malcolm Cross
May 2012

2. Information for research candidates before the viva examination
• Supplied to you before the viva or on the day and outlines roles of all present
Examiners
• The examiners have been appointed in accordance with the University’s
policies and processes contained within the Framework for Research Degree
Provision. The examiners have been given a copy of the University’s
regulations to ensure that all parties have had the same information on rules,
regulations and procedure.

3. Chairperson
• The role of the Chairperson is to ensure that the assessment processes
are operated rigorously, fairly, reliably and consistently. At the start of
the viva examination the Chairperson will ask if the candidate has read
the relevant information contained under the University’s Framework for
Research Degree provision.
• The Chairperson has a neutral role in the assessment process and
takes no part in the actual assessment of the research. He/she should
not be called upon for specialist discipline knowledge, but for
knowledge of regulations, procedures, policy and practice as defined
under the University’s Framework for Research Degree provision.

4. Process
• The examination will be led by the examiners who may turn to the
Chairperson and Supervisor(s) for factual advice; the Chairperson for
regulations, procedure, policy and practice, the Supervisor on the
particular research work and study experience.
The format of the exam: there will probably be discussion on the
research and the candidate (and possibly the supervisor) will then
be asked to leave the room whilst the examiners make their
decision, and that the candidate (and supervisor) will then be
asked back to hear the outcome.

5. Reports and Formal Communication of Results
• The Examiners will produce a written report of the outcome of the
examination and they may make notes during the examination. They
are also invited to make general comments about the University’s
research study provision in a separate report.
• The Chairperson will be making a record of the process by ticking the
checklist and may note down comments on the process as well. These
notes will not contain academic judgement.

6. Process
• Both the checklist and examiners’ assessment report will be made
available to the candidate, examiners, supervisor(s) and Senior
Tutor/Director of Research after the examination. They will be read by
the Academic Development Unit and any comments or items of good or
bad practice will be brought to the attention of the Chairperson of the
University’s Academic Practice, Programmes & Standards Committee
for him/her to take action or refer them for dissemination as appropriate.
The original will be kept in the candidate’s School/Departmental file.

7. Process
• A letter will be sent to the candidate giving formal notification of the
outcome of the examination and giving information on what to do next
(letter of award with details of graduation, information about minor
amendments or resubmission, or - very seldom - failure and appeal
procedures)
• The University has an equal opportunities policy for students and only
matters relating to the research study will be considered in the
assessment.

8. Why?
• Establish that the work is your own
• May involve you explaining key concepts / methodological choices
• Clarifying your role if the work was part of a larger project
• Enable an independent and external assessment that it meets the
standards for the award
• Seek to clarify areas where the examiners are unclear and which may
enhance the thesis overall.

9. Why?
• The viva voce or oral examination provides the opportunity for you to
meet the examiners, to explain and defend your thesis, and to spend
an hour or two discussing the topic on which you are an expert. This
is a unique opportunity for you to engage with two independent
academics who are independent from your work and have read and
considered it carefully.

10. Preparation falls into two domains:
technical and inter/intra personal.
Technical
•Assessed primarily on the product submitted
•Be familiar with your work
•Understand the purpose and procedures related to the viva
•Understand the roles of those present

11. Interpersonal Matters
• Examiners may never have met before
• They may be anxious that the other has identified something they had
missed
• They are performing and may feel under scrutiny
• Anxiety can be contagious
• They are individuals subject to the same pressures as you and I

12. Intra - personal
• Manage your anxiety
• Deep breathing
• Relaxation strategies
• Positive self talk
• Aim to have a conversation - never an argument

13. Some questions you might want to entertain and might be asked…
• In one sentence, what is your thesis?
• What have you done that merits a PhD?
• Summarise your key findings?
• What’s original about your work?
• What are the contributions (to knowledge) of your thesis?

14. Some questions you might want to entertain and might be asked…
• What were some motivating factors behind your research?
• Why is the problem you have tackled worth tackling?
• What is the relevance of your contributions?
• to other researchers?
• to industry?
• How did your research questions emerge?

15. Some questions you might want to entertain and might be asked…
• Who are your envisioned users? What use would your work be in
situation X?
• What are the strongest / weakest parts of your work?
• Why have you done it this way?
• You need to justify your approach – don’t assume the examiners
share your view.

16. Some questions you might want to entertain and might be asked…
• Why didn’t you do it the way everyone else does it? This requires
having done extensive reading.
• What are the alternatives to your approach?
• What do you gain by your approach?
• What would you gain by approach X?

17. Some questions you might want to entertain and might be asked…
• Looking back, what might you have done differently? This requires a
thoughtful answer, whilst defending what you did at the time.
• What do your results mean?
• How would your system cope with bigger examples?
Does it scale up?

18. Some questions you might want to entertain and might be asked…
• How have you evaluated your work?
• intrinsic evaluation: how have you demonstrated that it works, and
how well it performs?
• extrinsic evaluation: how have you demonstrated its usefulness for
external or future contexts?
end