Disability Adjustments and the Viva
On May 15th 2025, we held an online discussion around Disability Adjustments and the Viva, which was chaired by Susanna Broom (Co-Chair, UKCGE PEP Network and Head of the Sussex Researcher School).
Firstly, Susanna welcomed attendees and welcomed the speakers: Dr Theresa McKinven (Head of Doctoral Training Programmes, University of Nottingham), Dr Katherine Deane (Associate Professor, Health Sciences, University of East Anglia) and Dr Paula Holland (Senior Lecturer, Health & Medicine, Lancaster University). Dr Charlotte Round (Disability Support Services, University of Nottingham) was not present at the event but has contributed to the work which the group presented.
Dr McKinven opened by saying that they had come together through a shared interest in how disabled PGRs experienced the viva. She explained that they want to develop a consistent practice in this area and to challenge the belief that disability is just too complex for consistent adjustments to be made. To kick off the discussion, she ran a quick poll of the 155 attendees asking: “Do you think a PhD assessment requires a spoken, oral viva?” (68% attendees answered yes and 32%, no).
Following the poll, Dr McKinven explained the group’s aim as “to establish sector-wide understanding and agreement on standard adjustments” so that the viva can be made “inclusive by design”. The group’s main challenge is: “to implement legal and regulatory obligations in the context of traditional, closed-door, high stakes assessment”. She went on to discuss three provisions relating to the Equality Act 2010, which she emphasised as legal duties for education providers.
She then passed over to Dr Deane, who highlighted the tragic case of the University of Bristol vs. Abrahart (2022) in which a student who struggled with social anxiety took her own life on the morning she was scheduled to deliver an oral presentation to fellow students and lecturers. The court judgment stipulated that the mode of assessment does not automatically require a face-to-face examination, and that competency can be assessed using a variety of modes. Additionally, it is not the student’s responsibility to suggest, agree or arrange their own reasonable adjustments ahead of a viva – this responsibility lies with their university.
Dr Holland then took the floor to discuss the purpose of the viva, which she outlined as follows:
- To confirm the candidate’s authorship of the thesis.
- To discuss points arising from the examiners’ reading.
- To discuss with the candidate the wider context of the specific area of research.
- To clarify areas of uncertainty or doubt.
She observed that a legacy from the pandemic had been that a lot more online formats were now in use. She also turned to the QAA’s Assessment (2018) to show that “Level 8 descriptors do not state an oral viva is required” and that assessment is “not related to whether the candidate meets assumptions about preparation for future employment”. She added that the University of Sydney, Australia, allows students to choose between a viva or a thesis-only exam, but they had only found anecdotal evidence of this being allowed in the UK.
Dr McKinven then made some closing remarks, arguing that it would be “simpler to understand everyone has sensory needs” and that basic choices such as having accessible toilets nearby should be a question of “basic human dignity”. She also re-ran the poll asking, “Do you think a PhD assessment requires a spoken, oral viva?” (29% answered yes, 71%, no).
A ten-minute breakout session followed in which attendees discussed which adjustments to the viva should be made as standard. The event concluded with questions and there was also a lively debate in the chat – a selection of sample comments are below:
As a student planning for my viva at the moment, I have found it really hard to ask for accommodations without an idea of what might be possible. Almost all the ones I suggested I was told no. But I was not given alternatives.
A counter question (devil’s advocate…) with the introduction of AI a lot of taught programmes are moving to vivas and oral assessment to examine the student’s understanding — could a written PGR examination lead to concerns relating to AI that are being seen at the taught side?
South Africa used to be non viva I understand but is now moving towards their use in many institutions. Probably due to gen AI and similar.
If you’re a student who has requested adjustments and had them refused, please ask them to confirm the reasons why in writing — this will help make a case for discrimination.
The group is planning further activities to raise awareness of the need for agreed reasonable adjustments as standard practice, including a comment piece in WonkHE, and a workshop at the International Research Culture Conference in September in Warwick.