The Student Experience of the Viva
On June 12th, we welcomed Dr Zoe Stephenson from the University of Birmingham, who presented findings from research which she and Dr Amy Jackson (University of Birmingham) have conducted about viva experiences within UK universities.
The event began with an introduction from the Director of UKCGE, Dr Owen Gower, and an opportunity for participants to network and discuss what current viva safeguards are in place at their own institutions compared to what they would like to see in place.
On their return, Dr Stephenson introduced herself and outlined her background working on the forensic doctorate programme at the University of Birmingham. She explained that both she and Dr Jackson had come to the topic via negative viva experiences themselves, but they wanted to investigate it with as much transparency as possible.
As she explained, the UK uses a closed-door model — meaning that the assessment takes place in private, typically with one internal examiner, one external examiner and a chairperson. She acknowledged that concerns about the viva as an assessment method are not new (citing Matthews, 1957; Park, 2003 and Sikes 2017 as instances where it has been critiqued) but also said that, for most people, the experience is positive. However, what about those instances when it is not?
To remove the emotional aspects, she and Dr Jackson began their investigation with a literature review, noting that the key concerns related to transparency, consistency, and examiner conduct. She added that approximately 10% of candidates have a poor experience, which is not an insignificant number. They followed the literature review with an anonymous, online survey which was open to UK academics who had examined at least one viva.
The headline findings of the survey were that most people supported changing the viva:
- 97.2% of participants said some form of improvement is needed.
- 85% agreed there was a need to consider more significant change.
The key areas for improvement emerged as follows:
- Examiner selection.
- Examiner conduct.
- Candidate well-being and support.
- Training (examiners and chairs).
- Gathering candidate feedback.
Dr Stephenson observed that people were quite candid in their responses and it’s clearly an emotive topic. Some of the strategies which examiners most wanted to see implemented were greater diligence in selecting examiners and training for chairs. There were some participants who had reviewed in other countries, which provided additional insights in comparison with UK practices.
Dr Stephenson concluded with a brief overview of the results – the details of which can be found in “Addressing the shortcomings of the closed-door viva for PhD and doctoral candidates in the UK: a voice for academic examiners” (linked below). She concluded her talk with the hope that the conversation around UK vivas could be continued, adding that – while some are clearly open to change – there will be resistance from others. Although the viva remains an emotive topic, she said, this report has “cemented the view that improvements are needed and academics want to achieve best practice”.