This page contains links to blogs about the Viva experience, plus some accounts of the experience. In reading the different accounts, it is worth keeping in mind that the experience can vary a little from university to university and a lot from country to country. There is also a record of the recent Twitter discussion on this topic.
How to have a successful Viva
By @addychua (http://about.me/Adeline_Chua)
Having just defended my PhD thesis last week, it would be good to share my experience about the viva while it's still 'fresh in my head'! :-) Bearing in mind that every university may have a different format for a viva, this was how mine went at the University of Otago in New Zealand.
A viva is basically an oral examination that the PhD student has to go through to ensure that the work that he/she has claimed to do is truly an original piece of work (i.e. 'original contribution to knowledge'), and most importantly - your own. In other words, it legitimises your work in the research area that you've chosen. At Otago University, the viva isn't normally a public session - it only involves the convenor (who chairs and moderates the viva session), examiners, supervisors (although they are not usually allowed to say anything during the viva - they are primarily there for moral support) and the candidate him/herself.
This is how a viva usually starts. The convenor first introduces everyone in the room, explains that it would start with the candidate (me) giving an 'opening note' about the area of my research, how I came about researching such a topic, my major contributions, etc. After that, the floor is open for questions by the examiners (who could ask you to respond to their comments as per the examination report OR ask you ANYTHING that wasn't in the report too - yeah, scary huh!). Then after the Q&A session has ended, the candidate would be asked to leave the room while the convenor and the examiners deliberate your result. Subsequently you will be called in for the result. Then the convenor goes through the changes that have to be made to your thesis (if any) as agreed upon by the examiners and the candidate. After that, everyone goes out for some lunch/tea to celebrate.
My viva was relatively easy. I guess it was quite expected as I received good coherence about the quality of my thesis from all 3 examiners, and that is usually a good indication of how your viva would go. But of course, despite the highlighted comments in each of the examiner's report, there is also the possibility that you may not have to address all of them, especially if you are able to defend your thesis convincingly. But having said that, you should also be ready to address additional issues, especially if new concerns were raised (that weren't in the report) during the viva itself. In other words, be prepared for anything and everything!
In terms of advice to other PhD students on ensuring a successful viva, here are some tips that I found especially helpful with mine:-
1. Have some publications, prior to the thesis submission. Conference papers are great, but journal papers are best. I had 6 publications related to the thesis prior-submission. An even spread of 2 journal papers, 2 conference papers and 2 doctoral colloquium papers. This indicates that you were actively publishing during your PhD journey and that your work has been critically evaluated by external parties (which may have helped to improve the thesis along the way).
2. Make sure you know the research area like the back of your hand. I started preparing my 'opening speech' even after submitting my thesis for examination. In other words, it never 'left my head', so much so that I found myself rehearsing it many times (in the shower, car, cooking in the kitchen, etc.). This helped me to familiarise and be comfortable talking about my research at length. So when it was time for the viva, it was pretty easy for me. Plus, I made it more interesting by including my personal background and how it led me to the birth of my PhD topic. Examiners like that - the personal story, it gives a nice touch to your PhD journey; that you didnt just do it for the sake of getting a PhD, but did it because there was some level of personal interest/passion on your part. Mine was blogging and I linked it to my history of keeping diaries since the age of 15 (I have 5 thick volumes sitting at home. True story!)
3. You must be capable of delineating the parameters of your research contribution well. Remember, it's not a Nobel Prize so be realistic. What did you cover? How far is it 'generalisable' or 'inherently useful'? What is it that you could have looked at, but didn't? Why? Be honest and humble. This indicates that you're aware of the limitations of your research and openly acknowledging it.
4. Have some solid ideas on improving/extending your area for future research. This is very important, as examiners want to see that your research is viable and can be extended. Yes, they are talking in terms of publication potential here. Academics + Publications = Epic Win. 'Nuff said.
5. Be humble in acknowledging the variance in the opposing methodological/philosophical views but assertive enough to stake your own opinion about it. The convenor was especially impressed by my method of responding to the examiners' questions, and went on to say that he especially liked how I 'fielded' hard questions. He noted that I always went for a harmonious approach by first acknowledging the variance in the opposing views voiced by the examiners (or any literature references) then 'BAM!' (this is straight from the horse's mouth, he literally said "BAM!" while knocking his fist on the table) I put forward my own opinions. Hahaha... I guess he was just trying to say that I was assertive but fair? hahaha...
6. Smile, relax and enjoy the session. Don't rush through your answers. See it as a discussion, and not as a defence. It's a whole lot easier that way. Not only for the examiners, but for your own nerves as well.
7. Make sure that in responding to the examiners, you are able to quote some literature references to strengthen your claim. This helps a lot, as it shows that you are knowledgeable about the literature area and not talking out of your arse. LOL
8. Be ready for tough questions that weren't in the exam report. For example, I was asked "How and when do you foresee xxx confirmed or accepted as a 'theory'?" Phwoarrr.... I was stumped for a while... because seriously this was a HARD question. So what did I do? I first applied some humour. I smiled, and said "Excuse me for a minute while I consult my crystal ball..." and that made everyone laugh. So, tension released. Ok, now for the serious part. My answer to that question? Well, I said that I was no expert in being able to predict how and when perspectives or frameworks such as xxx will become legitimised as a theory, but I guess when we see more acceptance among both scholars and practitioners about the relevance/significance of the concept, along with increased publications in terms of books, journal papers and probably some meaningful discussions about it in the media - that might be an indication that we've hit the sweet spot" (or something to that effect). I was also asked another question that wasn't in the exam report 'How would we know that yyy has actually occurred? What should we expect to see/observe to know that it is effective?" (or something along those lines). Again, this was a tough one, but I managed to answer it by basing it on my own frame of reference (i.e. Web 2.0). In hindsight, my answers could have been situated within a more generic context (i.e. other facets of my discipline - marketing, other frameworks, environments) - but I wanted to emphasise my contribution/knowledge to the area that I researched in (which was Web 2.0). I guess that's important in a way, as it shows that you are able to relate it to the relevant discipline/area.
9. When asked a tough question, make sure you reiterate it by saying something like "If I understand you correctly, what you're asking is whether ...yadayadayada" This helps to elucidate your thoughts (buying you more time to think) and sometimes - you might even find examiners stumped at their own question while subsequently trying to make it simpler for you. This happened to me twice; the examiner realised that 2 questions were confusingly bundled as a single question. So clarifying this helped.
10. Make sure you order the most expensive meal on the menu during your lunch treat by the department later... and oh, don't forget a glass of wine too! ;-) Yes, you're allowed to! Just kidding. No, really :-) LOL
In summary, I really enjoyed my viva session and it would remain as one of the best moments in my life. It gave me an opportunity to meaningfully engage in discussion with my examiners about my research area. I am now able to call myself a fully professional researcher who is aware of the state of knowledge in my area and how I can extend/improve it. Most importantly, it validated the work that I've been doing for the past ~3 years!
So, I hope this helps all of you out there! If you would like to get in touch with me - do follow me on Twitter (@classyadele) or email me at addychua@gmail.com. Cheers!
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.