Preparing for the Viva Voce
I defend my thesis on 17th November. This blog introduces a series of future themed blogs as I gather my thoughts alongside likely questions to be asked. This series is for my benefit but is otherwise intended to share with my fellow cohort (and/or others interested in the academic specifics of the UK viva voce).
Geographic distinctions
For academic context, the modern-day viva voce is the name for the in-person defence of the PhD thesis. From the Latin, Viva Voce translates literally as live voice. Borrowing from the higher education literature, the UK version of the viva voce is categorised as a closed door approach (Kumar et al., 2021; Stephenson et al., 2024). Stephenson et al., (2024) review of this literature, with focus upon candidate experiences from the UK. If you are based in the UK (like I am) then for purposes of preparation this distinction helps frame the formality of this examination. By example, the possibility of failure at this late stage in the doctoral process is said to be different from hybrid approaches taken in other Anglo-relatable geographies. They reference US and Australia specifically, and relate those Anglo-relatable geographies more akin to European hybrids. The hybrid sits between the extremes of the formal UK closed-door viva and the opposing end where the viva is more processional than a determinant of passing through it (so to speak). Metaphorically, the UK closed door approach can therefore be a door that remains closed should the candidate fail to impress the examiners. This approach is furthermore distinguished by offering very limited grounds for appeal should the candidate feel unfairly treated in the process itself. The lack of transparency and potential subjectivity of this closed-door approach are therefore flagged as key criticism of it. The closed-door metaphor as used by these scholars is however more a reference it being “conducted in private” (Stephenson et al., 2024, p.2). By either framing of the closed-door, if facing the viva in the UK, there is therefore good reason to preparing thoroughly for this defence.
Candidate experiences and guides (UK specific)
The UK candidate experiences also vary significantly (Stephenson et al., 2024). Based upon candidate experiences gathered in this literature, the length of the viva ranges from an hour or up to four hours. Some candidates were told from the outset what the outcome was (i.e., turning the viva into a more processional experience for those few). The experiences of candidates also ranges from surprising convivial but probing discussion on the one hand, to others who said to be left wondering if the examiners had read their thesis at all. Being on the defensive was also not necessarily bad. Some reporting that they thought the viva went terribly, with negative experience of the whole process, but then being surprised to be told they had passed.
The format of the viva can also vary. University of Leeds guidance seems to sit somewhere in the middle-ground of UK range of viva set-up—i.e., applicable to my cohort and my own preparations. Stephenson et al., (2024) suggests the typical UK format is chaired and can have supervisors present. The external and internal examiner set-up is standard. My own viva has a nominated chair on my records but I do not think they attend the viva and instead sign-off the reporting of it. The guidance within Leeds seems to vary by faculty (guidance states “if appointed”). Specific also within the school of civil engineering it has been my choice to have one of my two supervisor attend.
I have also opted for a fully remote option (where all attend online). The following rather foreboding words also accompany the guidance for University of Leeds PGRs (post-graduate researchers). Notwithstanding if the viva format is all-present, all on-line or hybrid, pastoral support must be “available to the PGR [post-graduate researcher] immediately after the viva, should this be necessary” (Policy and guidance on using video calls for a research degree transfer or viva | Students | University of Leeds).
Guidance from Examiners on LinkedIn (UK-relevant)
Yikes!! I guess with the mandatory availability of pastoral care we are now forewarned. Next, I turn to social media sources to guide my preparations for what questions might be posed. In truth, I have been preparing for the viva since the start of this journey. LinkedIn is a treasure-trove of academics offering benefit of their wisdom and in some cases experiences of being the viva examiner. What follows are insights picked up over four years of engaging with it and a few links back to those source posts will be included for anyone wanting to see those source posts.
Regardless of geography some advice is ubiquitous. For example, positioning oneself in the examiner’s shoes: “Start evaluating your work not as a writer but as an examiner. Because at the end, the question is not: “Did you write enough?” It is: “Can you defend what you wrote?” (Laraib Abbas, PhD March 2026). Furthermore, consider what the examiners are seeking to elicit from the candidate: “Two examiners sit down to establish three things: [1] that the work is yours; [2] that you understand what you did, and why; [3] That you know where it is weak” (Prof. Emmanuel Tsekleves, August 2026). Christopher Preece links the thesis to the viva because this is where the challenges are to be made. “When I examine a thesis, I reconstruct its argument: Problem → Questions → Method → Findings → Contribution”. Furthermore, “I examine whether those chapters make one defensible argument” (August 2026). Regardless of the category of viva voce being prepared for, these seem universally applicable concerns. The questioning seems to follow themes, and with this understood the thesis is perhaps where much of what is being questioned should already be addressed.
The UK-specific closed-door approach next helps select advice from the wealth of sources on LinkedIn. Emmanuel Tsekleves is based at Lancaster University and guides doctoral students in business administration. He has been an external examiner for fifteen years. By this experience, he asserts that most decision-making is concluded prior to the viva beginning. Reports are said to have already been shared between examiners, and therefore opinions are already formed. As the viva begins “the first 15 minutes decide if I change it”. Reading this in the context of the candidate experiences captured in the higher education literature (cf. Stephenson et al., 2024) adds different perspective on what the more difficult viva experiences might therefore relate to. The recommendations from the candidate perspective are then on the one hand, know what the examination is about—which UK and overseas academics all point to as bound to the quality of the thesis per se. On the other hand, preparing the candidate, ensuring the process is sufficiently transparent, or changing the closed door approach (Stephenson et al., 2024).
The future blogs in this series will address some of the questions being posed by these social media sourced prompts. Beginning with introductory framing, the motivation behind choosing this topic. Future blogs will further address the contribution made by addressing this topic, as theory, practice or methodological contribution. What did the extant literature state and what is now known differently? What do you understand of research methodology, what methods did you apply and consider but not use, and why opt for this methodology and specific methods? How did the research design develop? What were the key findings, how does this compare to prior understanding, what was unexpected? What is the impact of such findings and this research? What theory has been related to. Who benefits, what are the limitations and how does this restrict the contribution to knowledge claimed? Were objectives achieved, research question answered? What would you do differently if starting the PhD now? (Emmanuel Tsekleves 26 Feb 2025).
To be continued…
Academic References
Kumar, V., Sanderson, L.J. and Kaur, A. 2021. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education Investigating the role of convenors in the PhD viva Investigating the role of convenors in the PhD viva. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 46(7), pp.1080–1091.
Stephenson, Z., Jackson, A., Wilkes, V., Stephenson, Z., Jackson, A. and Wilkes, V. 2024. Student experiences of the ‘ closed-door ’ PhD and doctorate level viva voce : a systematic review of the literature. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 49(5), pp.601–615.