1) General questions:

Summarise your thesis/summarise the main points of your thesis 

 

In one sentence, what is your thesis? (Resist the temptation to run from the room!) 

 

What is the area in which you wish to be examined? (particularly difficult and important if your thesis fits into several areas, or has several aspects, or seems to fit into an area of its own as mine does). 

 

Can you summarise your core thesis for us? 

 

What do you mean when use the term...? 

 

Why should we accept your interpretation of...? 

 

What is your most important recommendation and why? 

 

Research design, presentation, coherent argument, quality of writing, a kind of three way 'fit' of design, outcomes and conclusion and initial and final contextulisation. 

 

2) Justify and defend your thesis: the why questions:

 

Why did you choose this topic for doctoral research? 

 

Why this angle on the topic, rather than some other? 

 

Why these methods, sources and techniques, as opposed to others? 

 

Why these modes of analysis? 

 

Why these conclusions? 

 

Key to answers: 

The most convincing answers to why questions are those that engage with alternative approaches and, following from this, identify the merits of the particular choices that you made in producing the thesis. 

 

How did you come to research this subject?  = What made you do this piece of research? = Why did you choose this topic? = Why was the area of study chosen? 

 

What institutional, economic and socioeconomic factors affected the choice? 

 

How did you come to be doing research in this area? Tell us a bit about how you came to do research in this area.  

 

4) Questions related to position: 

 

What is your own position (professional or personal) in relation to this field and these research questions? 

 

What prior conceptions and/or experiences did you bring to this study? 

 

How did your own position/background/bias affect your data analysis and your data collection? 

 

Please talk us through the main research questions that you were trying to address in your work.  

 

What was the origin of these questions? (your research questions) 

 

What theories/theoretical frameworks/perspectives have you drawn upon in your research? 

 

Which theories did your study illuminate, if any? 

 

6) Questions about the literature review / knowledge of the field: 

 

Why is this subject important?  

 

What would you regard as the most significant previous piece of research on this subject? 

 

What had not been done before? 

 

Who has worked on this subject before? 

 

Who has done something similar to what you did? 

 

Which topics overlap with your area? 

 

Why the use of certain literature and theories and not others? 

 

What shaped or guided your literature review? 

 

Who are the major theorists who influenced your thinking? 

 

Who would you say are the key people in your field today? 

 

What studies most contributed to your understanding of the issues? 

 

What are the conflicts in the field? 

 

What did you find especially useful in X’s book/ article? 

 

Can you remind us of the main argument in X’s book? 

 

What do you make of more recent work relating to your emergent theoretical resources? 

 

7) Questions related to methodology: 

 

What method did you choose? Why? = What led you to select these...? 

 

What method did you reject? Why? 

 

What are the pros and cons of the methods you chose? 

 

How did you use your conceptual framework to design your research and analyse your findings? 

 

How did you make the sampling decision of X? 

 

Why did you select this sample? Can you see any problems with it? 

 

If it is a small-scale study, can you justify why so few were involved? (Note that these questions would only apply with certain types of research) 

 

Why did you select those two schools in particular, for your sample? 

 

What precautions were taken against likely source of bias? 

 

What are the limitations in the design? = In the circumstances, has the best design been chosen? 

 

Is the methodology for data collection appropriate? 

 

Are the techniques used for data analysis appropriate? 

 

How did you analyse your data? 

 

How did you categorise/filter the data? 

 

Did themes emerge from your data (a posteriori) or did you ‘bring them to the data’ (a priori)? 

 

Why did you analyse it in this way? 

 

Could it have been done in another way? 

 

When you were collecting your observational data, what sort of impact do you feel you had on the research field? 

 

What ethical issues did this raise for you? 

 

Was there an ethical/political dimension to the choice of this method? 

 

How important were ethical considerations in your study? How did you handle them? 

 

You employed three separate cycles of data collection. Did the data from one cycle affect your data collection strategy in the next? 

 

Where have you see this particular method in use elsewhere? 

 

How do the initial questions relate to the final product? 

 

In quantitative research, can the size of the sample be defended? 

 

In qualitative research, to what extent did the candidate’s presence impact on the outcome of the research? 

 

Would you take this approach again if you were pursuing this issue? (when a student has applied an inappropriate method that yielded little) 

 

What would you do differently, with hindsight? 

 

How did you develop the ... you used in your study? 

 

Why should we trust the analysis you present in Table X? 

 

8) Questions related to findings: 

 

Did anything surprise you in the data (‘hit you in the face’)? Any anomalies? 

 

Did your study turn out as you expected? 

 

Summarise your key findings = What were your findings? 

 

What are the theoretical components of your framework? 

 

9) Contribution questions: 

 

What does the research contribute on? = What original contribution to knowledge do you feel that you have made? = What are the contributions (to knowledge) of your thesis? = What is your contribution to the field? 

 

In what ways will your work contribute to knowledge in your specialization? 

 

In what ways will your work contribute to clarify the conflicts in your field? 

 

Why do you think it is important? 

 

What have you done that merits a PhD? 

 

What is the implication of the research? 

 

What will it be used after this PhD research? 

 

What would somebody from this field learn from reading your thesis that they did not know before? 

 

Who will use your material? 

 

10) The ‘originality’ questions: 

 

What is original about your work? Where is the novelty?  

(Don’t leave it to the examiners to make up their own minds - they may get it wrong!) 

 

What sets your work apart from others? 

 

What do you think you produced that was really new? 

 

How to respond the 'originality' type questions, thinking one of these aspects: (Phillips and Pugh 1994: 61-62) 

• setting down a major piece of new information in writing for the first time 
• continuing a previously original piece of work 
• carrying out original work designed by your supervisor 
• providing a single original technique, observation, or result in an otherwise unoriginal but competent piece of research 
• having many original ideas, methods and interpretations all performed by others under the direction of the postgraduate 
• showing originality in testing somebody else’s idea 
• carrying out empirical work that hasn’t yet been done before 
• making a synthesis that hasn’t been made before 
• using already known material but with a new interpretation 
• trying out something in this country that has previously only been done in other countries 
• taking a particular technique and applying it to a new area 
• bringing new evidence to bear on an old issue 
• being cross-disciplinary and using different methodologies 
• looking at areas that people in the discipline haven’t looked at before 
• adding to knowledge in a way that hasn’t previously been done before 

 

11) Questions related to further work: 

 

Which aspects of the work could be taken further? How? 

 

What impact do you think your research findings will have upon this subject field? 

 

Where do you think your specialization is going now? 

 

How do you see research developing in the next five years? 

 

12) Questions related to generalisability and key messages: 

 

How far do you think you can generalise from your work? 

 

What lessens can be learnt from it by practitioners/policy-makers/other researchers?  

 

The ‘so what’ question: what are its key messages and implications? 

   

13) Reflections on the thesis: 

 

What are you most proud of, and why? This may be asked (again) towards the end of the viva. 

 

What are its strengths? And its limitations or weaknesses (with hindsight)? 

 

Is there anything else you would like to say or discuss that we have not asked you about? 

 

If you were starting today to create a research project, what might it be? Might it build on your own study? 

 

If you were asked to participate in reconceptualizing our doctoral program, what might you suggest we consider? 

 

What did you learn from doing it? 

 

14) Publication: 

 

What plans do you have for publication and dissemination?  

 

Has any of the work been published or presented already (Note that the practice of disseminating some of the work via [say] a conference presentation or a journal paper is within the regulations of most universities – check your regulations on this)? 

 

Q: How does your work relate to Jim Bloggs’s recent paper? (when you’ve never heard of Bloggs) 

A: I’m not familiar with that paper. Does he take an X approach or a Y approach?  

C (comments): Show something you do know that’s relevant; then, when the examiner offers a precis: ‘Ah, so it’s like so-and-so’s work?’ 

 

Q: The recent research by Dr X and Professor Y on this subject is very interesting. What did you think to that? 

C: If you have not read, you should certainly not feel nervous if asked such a question. Try saying ‘actually, I have not read that piece of work. Could you explain the findings briefly, and I will try to relate them to my own research’. You then have the opportunity to engage in a discussion with the examiners, rather than just feeling awkward because you are unfamiliar with the article they have mentioned. It is best not to try and answer a question about which you are unclear. 

 

Q: I noticed on page Z that you argued as follows. Could you explain how that paragraph relates to what you suggested on page X? 

C: You should not rush to provide an answer. If you are absolutely certain of what you argued, then you can provide an immediate answer but, if not, you should say ‘Could you just indicate exactly the paragraphs you are referring to, as I would like to refresh my memory about exactly what I wrote’. Then read the paragraphs carefully, before providing an answer. Try not to let yourself be rushed. 

 

Q: I see that you decided to do X under those circumstances; would it not have been better to do Y? 

A: Ah yes, I see what you are suggesting. I am sure that would have worked well, but on balance, there were a number of factors which influenced me to do X. 

C: You should not assume from the form of this question that the examiner actually believes that Y would be a better alternative. It is simply that the examiner would like to hear your explanation for not adopting procedure Y. 

 

Q: Isn’t this obvious? 

A: Well, it may appear that way with hindsight, but there was surprisingly little work on this topic in the literature, and the question needed to be properly answered. 

C: Many dissertations codify what people think they already know but which has never been properly established. ‘Obvious’ can be good; it can make a contribution. Marian’s external examiner asked her this and, fortunately, her internal examiner answered him that it was only obvious because he’d read her dissertation. You might try a modestly phrased version of this answer yourself if nobody offers it for you. 

 

Q: Isn’t it just like Brown’s work? 

A: It differs from Brown’s work because … 

C: Everyone worries that someone else is going to ‘gazump’ them and publish exactly their work just before they do. Forget it. There will be something – a different approach, of techniques, of sample – that distinguishes your work and protects your contribution. If you know Brown’s work already, them you should have already identified how it differs from yours; if you don’t, ask about Brown’s work until the answers reveal a difference. 

 

Q: You use the term X in two different ways in Chapter 4 and 6. What do you mean? 

A: In Chapter 4, I was using Smith’s definition, which was most appropriate for that part of the thesis. In Chapter 6, I was using Brown’s … 

C: Answer the question, giving a concise clarification. Make a note of what you say because you’ll probably be asked to amend the text with the clarification when you do your corrections. 

 

Q: Why didn’t you …? 

A: Because … 

C: This is why you reread your thesis and have a mock viva. Rereading your thesis will remind you of why you did things the way you did (and, conversely, tell you why you didn’t use the other options). This will also give a sanity check that you haven’t missed anything obvious. If the suggestion is something little known in your field, then you can reply along the lines of, ‘That’s interesting, and it sounds as if it should be more widely known in this field’. You can then turn this into a discussion of methods in the field and in opportunity to talk about the things you do know about. 

 

16) A Checklist 

• Do you know the benefits and limitations of your research?  
• Do you know the backgrounds of your examiners?  
• Have you brushed up on the current research in your area?  
• Do you have backed-up evidence of your results and conclusions?  
• Have you had a mock viva with your supervisor? 

Quotations from Tinkler, Penny and Jackson, Carolyn (2004). The Doctoral Examination Process: a handbook for students, examiners and supervisors.  

p.44: 

Identify your strengths and weakness in terms of: 

-          thinking on your feet; 

-          performing and communicating clearly whilst under pressure; 

-          explaining, justifying and defending your PhD work with different audiences; 

-          knowing the ‘broader context’ of your thesis; 

-          coping with different styles of academic exchange; 

-          dealing with complex interpersonal dynamics. 

 

 

p.150: 

Justify and defend your thesis: the ‘why’ questions. Identify key ‘why’ questions relating to your thesis. Then write down brief answers to these questions (these are probably addressed in more detail in your thesis). Likely ‘why’ questions are: 

-          Why this topic? 

-          Why this angle on the topic, rather than some other? 

-          Why the use of certain literatures and theories and not others? 

-          Why these methods, sources and techniques, as opposed to others? 

-          Why these modes of analyses? 

-          Why these conclusions? 

 

Remember that the most convincing answers to ‘why’ questions are those that engage with alternative approaches and, following from this, identify the merits of the particular choices that you made in producing the thesis. 

When tackling this task pay special attention to rehearsing your rationale for sections of the thesis that you are least confident about. 

 

p.152: 

Identify the originality, contribution to knowledge and implications of the thesis 

What is original about your thesis? 

How does it contribute to knowledge? 

What implications does the thesis have for future work in the area? 

These three questions should all be addressed in a PhD thesis, but in the time between submission and the oral examination, you may discover new or fresh perspectives. You are therefore advised to revisit these three questions in the weeks preceding your viva. Although these questions are often explored with rigour, they can also serve as a warm-up at the beginning of the viva.  

 

p.159: 

You need to take into the viva: 

-          the thesis – with identical pagination to the examiners’ copies.(same to the one examiners have) 

-          Paper. 

-          Pen or pencils. 

-          List of typographical errors and corrections 

-          Notes, perhaps your revision aid. 

-          Tissues. 

-          Water. 

-          Any medication that you require. 

 

p.192: 

An overview of the types of questions that most readily link to the different viva purposes: 

 

Examination and developmental purposes	Types of questions
Clarification	‘How many…?’  ‘How did…?’  ‘When…?’  ‘What…?’  ‘What do you mean by..?’
Check understanding	‘Explain how…’  ‘Explain the meaning of …’
Prompt justification/defence	‘Why’ types of question –  ‘Why did you …?’  ‘Can you explain why…?’  ‘Can you account for …?’
Link to broader context	Questions about application, relevance, contribution to filed, originality.   Also comparative questions-  ‘How does your approach compare with …?’
Prompt evaluation (judge in relation to own objectives); particularly valuable in pursuing developmental purposes	Questions that encourage reflection on the candidate’s work and self-assessment:  ‘Can you reflect on …?’  ‘How would you assess…?’  ‘How might you …?’  ‘To what extent…?’  Also hypothetical questions – ‘What if you …?’