Questions asked in phd viva and prep for a viva

1. PhD viva questions
I completed my PhD in 2004. My thesis was a media sociological study of the use of
the internet as a political media in Croatia in the mid – late 1990s. I submitted in
September and had the viva in December. The result was that I made minor
revisions (typos, change the title, reword the abstract, add a few sentences and redo
the bibliography) to be completed in 30 days.
For me, the PhD viva was rather stressful and I dealt with this with endless
preparation. One step I took was to think of all the possible questions that could
arise. Listed below are the non-thesis specific ones and the answers I prepared for
them.
I also did many other things such as summarize every page into one sentence,
summarize each paragraph and each chapter. I listed and defined all the major
concepts and had a ‘quick-response’ prepared in case I was challenged on any of
them. I eventually had a set of notes numbering over 10,000 words which I carried
around with me all the time (like some kind of religious relic for protection). I re-read
my thesis about twenty times and knew it back to front.
Then I went a bit mad and read everything my external examiner had ever written,
and was able to defend most of the method and rationality of my work by direct
reference to his, there could be no attack that I could not defend.
In the end my viva lasted less than 45 minutes, and it was only that long because I
told a couple of self-depreciating but amusing anecdotes I had prepared (as I said I
went a bit weird towards the end). I was asked a couple of the questions covered
here. It got through with minor amendments and a month later was conferred.
This list has been circulated to people about to do their viva and the only payment
asked is that if you are asked any questions that don’t appear here please can you
add them and email me back this document to marcus.leaning@winchester.ac.uk.
The questions that are included here at the end that do not have answers are those
that have been asked of other people in their vivas who used this list. In a number of
cases the only questions asked had already been covered here, so maybe the list is
getting to the point of saturation.
GOOD LUCK! Remember it only has to be good enough.
Finally, if all else fails and it’s going wrong, punch them hard in the throat and run for
the door (I had a plan that if I failed NOBODY was leaving that room alive).

2. Questions
What is the area in which you wish to be examined?
Within the field of media studies. The structure of the thesis reflects this, it is not a
traditional empirical sociological thesis that has a clearly discernable hypothesis and
methodology. Rather it reflects the cross disciplinarily of the field of media studies. It
is however concerned with adopting an approach that is sociological in nature.
In one sentence, what is your thesis?
That the internet is a contigent form of media; it may operate in a particular fashion in
some circumstances but not in all, its ability to operate as expected is dependent
upon the social form of the environment in which it is deployed and used, because of
this researchers in the field need to adopt what I have termed a sociological
conception, a view that prioritises social and cultural interpretations above others.
What have you done that merits a PhD?
Under most university regulations a phd is defined by being a significant contribution
to the field of knowledge and by being original.
The thesis makes a significant contribution to the field of knowledge by offering
contributions towards a methodological position. This has been done by developing
a new standpoint for the examination of the Internet where social phenomenon are
accorded as much significance as technological characteristics. This step if
seemingly small is significant as it orientates the field toward a more critical and
sociological perspective and away from what may be termed naïve approaches that
accept terms and ideas uncritically.
Furthermore, the thesis is original in that no existing piece of work has examined the
Internet in Croatia, nor has there been an attempt to critically describe multipart
contemporary interpretation of the Internet.
Summarise your key findings.
That the contemporary interpretation of the Internet owes much to understandings of
technology, politics and the media.
That in Croatia the Internet did not operate as expected.
And therefore that the Internet may not function in the same way where ever it is
used.
That ability of the Internet to operate in the expected fashion is tied to it being used
in societies of late modernity.
What are you most proud of, and why?
Developing critical distance on the Internet and the theorisation of why technology
should not be seen singularly in instrumental terms.

3. The research on Croatia, the new evidence, and the theorisation surrounding the use
of the Internet.
What's original about your work? Where is the novelty?
The history of the Internet in Croatia. It has not been systematically documented
elsewhere.
Theorising about linkage between the effectiveness of the Internet and social form.
What are the contributions (to knowledge) of your thesis?
1. New evidence concerning the use of the Internet in Croatia – not published
previously.
2. Theoretical advances associated with methodology, to alert researchers to
methodological issues. This is detailed in the conclusion and consists of three
arguments: Firstly, That technology is a sociological concern, particularly for
researchers of the Internet. Researchers should not accept technology at face value
but should examine the way in which it is discussed. Secondly that the form of
identity formation prevalent in high or late modernity and the Internet are deeply
interrelated. Thirdly, that the Internet is a socially contingent media.
Which topics overlap with your area?
Philosophy of technology – Feenberg’s work.
Social history of technology – particularly Internet technology.
Who are the main `players' in the field?
In theories of technology Andrew Feenberg is producing interesting work, though not
directly relevant to methodological concerns. Christine Hine’s book has proven very
significant though I do not subscribe to her radical constructivism, though it is an
interesting area. James Slevin’s book on the internet and society was very
interesting, he uses Giddens though in a different way to me. Miller and Slater’s book
is probably the closest though being Anthropologists they have a slightly different
approach. Selwyn’s own work on the deconstruction of the digital divide is interesting
and certainly a step in the right direction of problematising terms. Steve Jones
Methodology work was also good. In studies of Croatia John Allcock’s work is by far
the most comprehensive and scholarly work.
What did you do for your MPhil, and how does your PhD extend it? Did you
make any changes to the system you implemented for your MPhil?
The thesis started out as an investigation into identity on the Internet. It followed the
same pattern as many other studies of this nature by focusing upon a number of
virtual communities and exploring the construction of identity, I was particularly
interested in how the technology of the internet contributed to the presented
persona. However, with the help of a British Council grant I was able to go to
Croatia, initially to give a couple of lectures, and conduct some research and
establish links with a university there. The more I studied the situation in Croatia

4. however the more I began to realise that perhaps there was something wrong with
the general model of the Internet I had been working with, that we didn’t actually
approach it sociologically. I therefore went back to my original ideas and began a
critique of them.
What are the strongest/weakest parts of your work?
Strongest elements are: 1. the idea that we need to step back from a direct
acceptance of the nature of internet, that it will perform in a particular way: 2. the
investigation into the Internet in Croatia and the theorising of it.
Weakest or my least favourite elements would be the description of the idea of what
the Internet can do, chapter 2. This is because it is a snapshot of what is going on
and although I believe that the qualities associated are generally understood to be
the qualities of such new technology it seems in some ways a little arbitrary. It is also
a hostage to fortune to some degree: new interpretations can and of course will
come out.
Where did you go wrong?
I should have learnt Serbo-Croat, this would have extended the amount of people I
could have interviewed, I should have come to the theoretical line initially.
Why didn't you do it this way (the way everyone else does it)?
The evidence I collected in Croatia just did not fit the existing model. The problems
of the model became more significant than trying to explain issues of identity.
Strangely enough when I began to conceptualise the Internet differently the
problems of how identity operated in croatia seemingly became far more solvable.
Looking back, what might you have done differently? I should have learnt more
Serbo –croat as this would have helped in extending the range of interviewees
How have you evaluated your work?
intrinsic evaluation: Data gathered for Croatia was triangulated with multiple
respondents, and sources. I usually used at least two – three sources for any
information in the thesis.
extrinsic evaluation: Even if my approach is not adopted I feel that by bringing to the
fore issues of methodology is of key import.
How could you improve your work?
It could be extended by looking at other case studies, Fellowship in Japan to do just
this.
What are the motivations for your research?

5. Problems with the evidence from Croatia not fitting into contemporary models. This
encouraged me to go back and re-examine the existing model and to critically
evaluate it.
Why is the problem you have tackled worth tackling?
Existing methodological approaches just did not fit the situation in Croatia and that
as John Downing notes there is little research on the media (let alone the internet) in
actual different societies, (not just diasporic communities using the internet).
What is the relevance of your contributions?
to other researchers – to decentre technology in accounts and to question
approaches to technology. How is technology regarded by other societies.
to industry? To challenge naïve assertions in technologies ability to fix problems,
multiple ways of reading technology and multiple ways in which technology may be
used. To raise awareness of methodological concerns.
Have you solved the field's problem that you claim to have solved?
I believe I have answered the three questions that I set myself: How do we
understand the Internet – answered using the multipart model. How has the Internet
been used in a society with a different social form – the examination of Croatia. How
should the Internet be studied – the overall methodological contribution.
Is your field going in the right direction?
Gradual increase in research from outside of the Europe and the USA is good. As in
a more critical engagement with the terms of study and with the ideas surrounding
the Internet and ICT.
Where will you publish your work?
Prime journals are New Media and Society and Convergence. There have already
been a number of papers presented at conferences trailing ideas. For the theoretical
elements these were in Huddersfield at the Understanding Social Worlds
Conference, At the American Literature and Science Conference in Atlanta. At the
Internet researchers Conference in Gottingen in Germany, and at the European
Sociological Association Conference in Helsinki. The Croatian elements were
presented at the Croatian Sociological Association Conference in Zagreb. All these
papers were generally well received.
Which aspects of your thesis could be published?
Ideally I would like a book contract, to publish the entire thesis. I also expect to
obtain a number of journal articles out of chapters 5-6 and possible chapter 1.

6. Chapter 1 has also been provisionally accepted as a book chapter to be published
by Roldophi.
What have you learned from the process of doing your PhD?
Sometimes you study something for a long time without grasping its significance.
Where did your research-project come from? How did your research-questions
emerge?
The thesis started out as an investigation into identity on the Internet. It followed the
same pattern as many other studies of this nature by focusing upon a number of
virtual communities and exploring the construction of identity, I was particularly
interested in how the technology of the internet contributed to the presented
persona. However, with the help of a British Council grant I was able to go to
Croatia, initially to give a couple of lectures, and conduct some research and
establish links with a university there. The more I studied the situation in Croatia
however the more I began to realise that perhaps there was something wrong with
the general model of the Internet I had been working with, that we didn’t actually
approach it sociologically. I therefore went back to my original ideas and began a
critique of them.
Has your view of your research topic changed during the course of the
research?
Why have you done it this way?
What are the alternatives to your approach?
What do you gain by your approach?
What would you gain by approach X?
What do your results mean?
Who are your envisioned users?