cardiff university phd viva outcomes

• PhD Viva Voces – A Complete Guide
• Doing a PhD
• A PhD viva involves defending your thesis in an oral examination with at least two examiners.
• The aim of a PhD viva is to confirm that the work is your own , that you have a deep understanding of your project and, overall, that you are a competent researcher .
• There are no standard durations, but they usually range from one to three hours, with most lasting approximately two hours .
• There are six outcomes of a PhD viva: (1) pass without corrections (2) pass subject to minor corrections, (3) pass subject to major corrections, (4) downgrade to MPhil with no amendments, (5) downgrade to MPhil subject to amendments, (6) immediate fail.
• Almost all students who sit their viva pass it, with the most common outcome being ‘(2) – pass subject to minor corrections’.

What Is a PhD Viva?

A viva voce , more commonly referred to as ‘viva’, is an oral examination conducted at the end of your PhD and is essentially the final hurdle on the path to a doctorate. It is the period in which a student’s knowledge and work are evaluated by independent examiners.

In order to assess the student and their work around their research question, a viva sets out to determine:

• you understand the ideas and theories that you have put forward,
• you can answer questions about elements of your work that the examiners have questions about,
• you understand the broader research in your field and how your work contributes to this,
• you are aware of the limitations of your work and understand how it can be developed further,
• your work makes an original contribution, is your own and has not been plagiarised.

Note: A viva is a compulsory procedure for all PhD students, with the only exception being when a PhD is obtained through publication as opposed to the conventional route of study.

Who Will Attend a Viva?

In the UK, at least two examiners must take part in all vivas. Although you could have more than two examiners, most will not in an attempt to facilitate a smoother questioning process.

One of the two examiners will be internal, i.e. from your university, and the other will be external, i.e. from another university. Regardless, both will be knowledgeable in your research field and have read your thesis beforehand.

In addition to your two examiners, two other people may be present. The first is a chairperson. This is an individual who will be responsible for monitoring the interview and for ensuring proper conduct is followed at all times. The need for an external chairperson will vary between universities, as one of the examiners can also take on this role. The second is your supervisor, whose attendance is decided upon by you in agreement with your examiners. If your supervisor attends, they are prohibited from asking questions or from influencing the outcome of the viva.

To avoid any misunderstandings, we have summarised the above in a table:

Note: In some countries, such as in the United States, a viva is known as a ‘PhD defense’ and is performed publicly in front of a panel or board of examiners and an open audience. In these situations, the student presents their work in the form of a lecture and then faces questions from the examiners and audience which almost acts as a critical appraisal.

How Long Does a Viva Last?

Since all universities have different guidelines , and since all PhDs are unique, there are no standard durations. Typically, however, the duration ranges from one to three hours, with most lasting approximately two hours.

Your examiners will also influence the duration of your viva as some will favour a lengthy discussion, while others may not. Usually, your university will consult your examiners in advance and notify you of the likely duration closer to the day of your viva.

What Happens During a Viva?

Regardless of the subject area, all PhD vivas follow the same examination process format as below.

Introductions

You will introduce yourselves to each other, with the internal examiner normally introducing the external examiner. If an external chairperson is present, they too are introduced; otherwise, this role will be assumed by one of the examiners.

Procedure Explained

After the introductions, the appointed chair will explain the viva process. Although it should already be known to everyone, it will be repeated to ensure the viva remains on track during the forthcoming discussion.

Warm-Up Questions

The examiners will then begin the questioning process. This usually starts with a few simple opening questions, such as asking you to summarise your PhD thesis and what motivated you to carry out the research project.

In-Depth Questions

The viva questions will then naturally increase in difficulty as the examiners go further into the details of your thesis. These may include questions such as “What was the most critical decision you made when determining your research methodology ?”, “Do your findings agree with the current published work?” and “How do your findings impact existing theories or literature? ”. In addition to asking open-ended questions, they will also ask specific questions about the methodology, results and analysis on which your thesis is based.

Closing the Viva

Once the examiners are satisfied that they have thoroughly evaluated your knowledge and thesis, they will invite you to ask any questions you may have, and then bring the oral examination to a close.

What Happens After the Viva?

Once your viva has officially ended, your examiners will ask you to leave the room so that they can discuss your performance. Once a mutual agreement has been reached, which can take anywhere from 10 minutes to an hour, you will be invited back inside and informed of your outcome.

PhD Viva Outcomes

There are six possible outcomes to a viva:

• Immediate award of degree: A rare recommendation – congratulations, you are one of the few people who completely satisfied your examiners the first time around. You do not have to do anything further at this point.
• Minor amendments required: The most common recommendation – you obtain a pass on the condition that you make a number of minor amendments to your thesis, such as clarifying certain points and correcting grammatical errors. The time you have to make these changes depends on the number of them, but is usually one to six months.
• Major amendments required: A somewhat uncommon recommendation – you are requested to make major amendments to your thesis, ranging from further research to collecting more data or rewriting entire sections. Again, the time you have to complete this will depend on the number of changes required, but will usually be six months to one year. You will be awarded your degree once your amended thesis has been reviewed and accepted.
• Immediate award of MPhil: An uncommon recommendation – your examiners believe your thesis does not meet the standard for a doctoral degree but meets the standard for an MPhil (Master of Philosophy), a lower Master’s degree.
• Amendments required for MPhil: A rare recommendation – your examiners believe your thesis does not meet the standard for a doctoral degree, but with several amendments will meet the standard for an MPhil.
• Immediate fail: A very rare recommendation – you are given an immediate fail without the ability to resubmit and without entitlement to an MPhil.

Finding a PhD has never been this easy – search for a PhD by keyword, location or academic area of interest.

What Is the Pass Rate for Vivas?

Based on an  analysis of 26,076 PhD students  who took their viva exam between 2006 and 2017, the PhD viva pass rate in the UK is 96%; of those who passed, about 80% were required to make minor amendments to their thesis. The reason for this high pass rate is that supervisors will only put their students forward for a viva once they confidently believe they are ready for it. As a result, most candidates who sit a viva are already well-versed in their PhD topic before they even start preparing for the exam.

How Do I Arrange a Viva?

Your viva will be arranged either by the examiners or by the chairperson. The viva will be arranged at least one to two months after you have submitted your thesis and will arrange a viva date and venue that is suitable for all participants.

Can I Choose My Examiners?

At most universities, you and your supervisor will choose the internal and external examiners yourselves. This is because the examiners must have extensive knowledge of the thesis topic in order to be able to examine you and, as the author of the thesis in question, who else could better determine who they might be than you and your supervisor. The internal examiner is usually quite easy to find given they will be from your institution, but the external examiner may end up being your second or third preference depending on availability.

Can I Take Notes Into a Viva?

A viva is about testing your competence, not your memory. As such, you are allowed to take notes and other supporting material in with you. However, keep in mind that your examiners will not be overly impressed if you constantly have to refer to your notes to answer each question. Because of this, many students prefer to take an annotated copy of their thesis, with important points already highlighted and key chapters marked with post-it notes.

In addition to an annotated copy of a thesis, some students also take:

• a list of questions they would like to ask the examiners,
• notes that were created during their preparation,
• a list of minor corrections they have already identified from their viva prep work.

How Do I Prepare for a PhD Viva?

There are several ways to prepare for a PhD viva, one of the most effective being a mock viva voce examination . This allows you to familiarise yourself with the type of viva questions you will be asked and identify any weak areas you need to improve. They also give you the opportunity to practise without the pressure, giving you more time to think about your answers which will help to make sure that you know your thesis inside out. However, a mock viva exam is just one of many methods available to you – some of the other viva preparation methods can be found on our “ How to Prepare for a PhD Viva ” page.

Browse PhDs Now

Join thousands of students.

Join thousands of other students and stay up to date with the latest PhD programmes, funding opportunities and advice.

PGR Journeys ,  Research ,  Social Sciences

From day one to your initial review – four top tips for a successful start to the PhD!

doctoral-academy-blog

By Luret Lar, School of Social Sciences

Following the excitement and relief of finishing my Masters in Social Sciences Research Methods (SSRM) in Social Policy, I anticipated a long break! However, I ended up progressing to the PhD approximately a month after submitting my Masters dissertation.

Amid uncertainties, but with optimism and passion about my research, I have the following four key learnings to share from the first few months of my PhD:

1) Avoid procrastination Try to do as much as possible at the right time. Leaving important work meant to be completed today until tomorrow is a dicey alternative, especially when the inertia and fear of getting started tends to grip you. Time really does fly by! The period between starting in October and my December 11 th submission sped by. It is also pertinent not to underestimate the paperwork, number of documents for submission, time for supervisory review and the upcoming Christmas break. Therefore, dedicated time to reading and writing is compulsory.

2) Lead the research but utilise supervisor experience In taking ownership of your research, realise that supervisors are always there to support you. I wanted to bite off more than I could chew, but thankfully the experience and expertise of my supervisors provided suggestions and questions that kept me thinking. How was I to develop an intellectual project at such a short period, was my recurrent theme question for weeks on end. However, where I was reluctant and had limited confidence to take bold decisions, supervisors patiently guided me from an ambitious to a narrower and more feasible research plan that is achievable within the PhD timescale. Indeed, the invaluable support of supervisors is a priceless gift.

3) Utilise available support early The Doctoral Academy is a very rich resource to engage with at this period. I recall my online Starting Out session and the mixed feelings that I had about starting. However, the breakout sessions calmed me down, knowing that my thoughts and ideas were like my peers. We all seemed to have the same anxieties and uncertainties. As I searched for training sessions and events to sign up for, some looked too early, but I am glad that I joined them because it not only helped me to populate my training needs analysis template but also built and strengthened my confidence and capacity, especially in writing. Furthermore, I met other PhD students, learnt about their research, networked, and got ideas for progressing my work through these interactions.

4) It is doable, so just do it! Through the challenges, I knew I had to fulfil a satisfactory initial review. At the beginning it seemed daunting, isolating, and impossible. However, with perseverance and the outlined lived experience, I am glad that I did not give up and I did it. Therefore, my compass might be different from yours, but I hope that you learnt a thing or two from my experience to know that you can also do this!

Search this blog

Recent posts.

• O’r diwrnod cyntaf i’ch adolygiad cychwynnol – pedwar awgrym defnyddiol er mwyn dechrau eich PhD ar y trywydd iawn! Chevron right
• From day one to your initial review – four top tips for a successful start to the PhD! Chevron right
• Cwrdd â’r tîm! Chevron right
• Meet our team! Chevron right
• 14 top tips to help you prepare for the PhD viva Chevron right

Recent Comments

• Zainab Alqublan on Finishing my PhD (in the midst of a global pandemic)
• Zainab Alqublan on The power of following your heart: A PhD journey
• Mazen Mahfouz on MS and the PhD
• Emilia on Finishing my PhD (in the midst of a global pandemic)
• Lilly Macclesfield on 22q11.2 deletion: the most common syndrome you have never heard of
• March 2024 Chevron right
• February 2024 Chevron right
• November 2023 Chevron right
• September 2023 Chevron right
• June 2023 Chevron right
• May 2023 Chevron right
• January 2023 Chevron right
• December 2022 Chevron right
• November 2022 Chevron right
• October 2022 Chevron right
• September 2022 Chevron right
• July 2022 Chevron right
• May 2022 Chevron right
• April 2022 Chevron right
• January 2022 Chevron right
• December 2021 Chevron right
• November 2021 Chevron right
• August 2021 Chevron right
• July 2021 Chevron right
• June 2021 Chevron right
• February 2021 Chevron right
• January 2021 Chevron right
• November 2020 Chevron right
• October 2020 Chevron right
• September 2020 Chevron right
• August 2020 Chevron right
• July 2020 Chevron right
• June 2020 Chevron right
• April 2020 Chevron right
• March 2020 Chevron right
• February 2020 Chevron right
• January 2020 Chevron right
• December 2019 Chevron right
• November 2019 Chevron right
• October 2019 Chevron right
• September 2019 Chevron right
• August 2019 Chevron right
• July 2019 Chevron right
• June 2019 Chevron right
• May 2019 Chevron right
• April 2019 Chevron right
• March 2019 Chevron right
• February 2019 Chevron right
• January 2019 Chevron right
• December 2018 Chevron right
• November 2018 Chevron right
• October 2018 Chevron right
• September 2018 Chevron right
• August 2018 Chevron right
• July 2018 Chevron right
• June 2018 Chevron right
• May 2018 Chevron right
• April 2018 Chevron right
• March 2018 Chevron right
• February 2018 Chevron right
• Biosciences Chevron right
• Careers Chevron right
• Conferences Chevron right
• Development Chevron right
• Doctoral Academy Champions Chevron right
• Doctoral Academy team Chevron right
• Events Chevron right
• Facilities Chevron right
• Funding Chevron right
• Humanities Chevron right
• Internships Chevron right
• Introduction Chevron right
• Mental Health Chevron right
• PGR Journeys Chevron right
• Politics Chevron right
• Public Engagement Chevron right
• Research Chevron right
• Sciences Chevron right
• Social Sciences Chevron right
• Staff Chevron right
• STEM Chevron right
• Success Stories Chevron right
• Top tips Chevron right
• Training Chevron right
• Uncategorized Chevron right
• Wellbeing Chevron right
• Working from home Chevron right
• Register Chevron right
• Log in Chevron right
• Entries feed Chevron right
• Comments feed Chevron right
• WordPress.org Chevron right

Follow us on Twitter

Doctoral academy blog.

Supporting Postgraduate Research Students at Cardiff University

Cardiff University blogs

• Start a blog
• Explore more blogs
• Report a post or blog

Unless otherwise stated, the views contained within this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of Cardiff University.

Mr George Raywood-Burke

Research student

School of Psychology

Publications

Supervisors.

As an Endeavr Wales funded Human Factors Cyber Psychology PhD Student supervised by Professor Phil Morgan (Viva passed with Minor Corrections), I worked as part of the Human Factors Excellence Research Group (HuFEx) at Cardiff University and with the Airbus Accelerator in Human-Centric Cyber Security. I have also worked as a Post-Graduate Tutor (PGT) mentoring 1st year Psychology Undergradute students to facilitate development with research skills and practical report writing, and have worked as a Final Year Module Assistant for the Decision Making module (PS3312) to deliver seminars encouraging critical discussion around key scientific articles and how findings can be applied to real life scenarios. Presently, I work as a Human Factors Scientist at Trimetis - a Bristol-based Human Factors company - leading and supporting on a variety of Human Factors projects.

As part of my PhD, I developed a series of experiments collecting objective and subjective data to advance our understanding of the risks and strengths of human decision making within workplace environments whereby cyber-security is highly important. This includes investigating the significance of cognitive load and subjective time pressure, and their influence upon cyber-security behaviours. From this, interventions targeting specific maladaptive behaviours can be designed – thus attempting to bridge the gap between research and practice.

Undergraduate education

• 2015 - 2019 : BSc (Hons) Psychology with Professional Placement, Cardiff University.

Postgraduate Education

• October 2019 - December 2023 (Viva Passed with Minor Corrections) : PhD in Psychology, 'Cognitive Load and Subjective Time Pressure: How Contextual Factors Impact the Quality of Cyber-Security Decision Making' – School of Psychology, Cardiff University; Airbus Accelerator in Human-Centric Cyber-Security
• January 2022 - January 2023 : Associate Fellowship of the HEA, Cardiff University

Professional membership

• Experimental Psychology Society (EPS) - Postgraduate Member
• British Psychological Society (BPS) - Graduate Member (GMBPsS)

Publication

• Raywood-Burke, G., Jones, D. M. and Morgan, P. L. 2023. Maladaptive behaviour in phishing susceptibility: How email context influences the impact of persuasion techniques . Presented at: AHFE 2023 Conference, 20 - 24 July 2023 Proceedings AHFE 2023 .
• Raywood-Burke, G., Bishop, L. M., Asquith, P. M. and Morgan, P. L. 2021. Human individual difference predictors in cyber-security: exploring an alternative scale method and data resolution to modelling cyber secure behavior . Presented at: 23rd HCI International Conference (HCII 2021), Virtual, 24-29 July 2021 HCI for Cybersecurity, Privacy and Trust . Lecture Notes in Computer Science Springer, Cham pp. 226-240., ( 10.1007/978-3-030-77392-2_15 )
• Morgan, P. L., Asquith, P. M., Bishop, L., Raywood-Burke, G., Wedgbury, A. and Jones, K. 2020. A new hope: human-centric cybersecurity research embedded within organizations . Presented at: 22nd International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (HCII 2020), Virtual, 19-24 July 2020 HCI for Cybersecurity, Privacy and Trust: Second International Conference, HCI-CPT 2020, Held as Part of the 22nd HCI International Conference, HCII 2020, Copenhagen, Denmark, July 19–24, 2020, Proceedings . Lecture Notes in Computer Science/Information Systems and Applications, incl. Internet/Web, and HCI Springer, Cham pp. 206-216., ( 10.1007/978-3-030-50309-3_14 )
• Bishop, L. M., Morgan, P. L., Asquith, P. M., Raywood-Burke, G., Wedgbury, A. and Jones, K. 2020. Examining human individual differences in cyber security and possible implications for human-machine interface design . Presented at: 22nd International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (HCII 2020), Virtual, 19-24 July 2020 HCI for Cybersecurity, Privacy and Trust: Second International Conference, HCI-CPT 2020, Held as Part of the 22nd HCI International Conference, HCII 2020, Copenhagen, Denmark, July 19–24, 2020, Proceedings , Vol. 12210. Lecture Notes in Computer Science/ Information Systems and Applications, incl. Internet/Web, and HCI Springer, Cham pp. 51-66., ( 10.1007/978-3-030-50309-3_4 )

Conferences

My main research interests are primarily related to Decision Making, Human Factors, and Cyber Psychology. For my PhD, I investigated factors that influence the risk of cyber-attack from a human-focused perspective such as cognitive effort, hard time constraints, and subjective time pressure in connection with potential individual vulnerabilities.

Teaching Experience

• September 2020 - July 2022 : 1st Year Psychology Post-Graduate Tutor (PGT), School of Psychology, Cardiff University
• September 2021 - December 2021 : Final Year Module Assistant (Decision Making), School of Psychology, Cardiff University

Research Experience

• January 2023 - Present : Human Factors Scientist, Trimetis
• August 2021 - September 2021 : Research Assistant, School of Psychology, Cardiff University
• October 2019 - December 2023 : PhD in Psychology (Viva Passed with Minor Corrections), School of Psychology, Cardiff University; Airbus Human-Centric Cyber-Security Centre.
• October 2018 - May 2019 : Undergraduate Final Year Project - The effects of difficulty and reporting routine on subjective evaluation of task performance, School of Psychology, Cardiff University.
• October 2017 – June 2018 : Research Assistant, Department of Forensic Psychiatry, Cardiff University.

PhD Thesis Summary

The quality of decision-making goes beyond simply considering outcomes, but is also determined by the suitability of the decision-making framework in the given circumstances, the probability of outcomes coming true, combined with the quality of the information available being utilised. However, with contextual pressures such as cognitive load and time pressure posing a threat to decision-making in cyber-security – how do people know whether they are making good decisions? This thesis aimed to examine the impact of cognitive load, how it applies to cyber-security decision-making quality, and subsequently how research to address this could be utilised in the development of tools and user-centric interventions to reduce risky cyber-security decision making. From theoretical cognitive science approaches to applied cyberpsychology research, 10 novel studies were developed, supported by systematic literature reviewing, with data collected from over 2000 participants. From this work, it was found increases in task difficulty could potentially increase insider threat when people are given the opportunity to act dishonestly, but this risk could be reduced by increasing awareness of time pressure. Sources of subjective time pressure, such as time urgency cues in emails, were found to increase susceptibility to cyber incidents – although, risk of such factors varies depending upon the perception of risk probability and outcomes. Whilst measures for individual differences in subjective time pressure were found to have a limited ability to predict safe cyber-security practices, other individual difference predictors were capable of explaining up to 43.5% of cyber-security behaviour variance. Through indicating when and where risky decision making results in maladaptive behaviour, gain in knowledge has culminated in the creation of a new phishing susceptibility tool, based upon Expected Utility Theory, which could accurately explain 68.5% of behaviour. By highlighting risks in the overarching decision-making process, metacognitive interventions could be targeted to support quality cyber-security decision-making.

Raywood-Burke, G., Jones, D., Morgan, P. (2023). Maladaptive Behaviour in Phishing Susceptibility: How Email Context Influences the Impact of Persuasion Techniques. In: Abbas Moallem (eds) Human Factors in Cybersecurity. AHFE (2023) International Conference. AHFE Open Access, vol 91 . AHFE International, USA.

Raywood-Burke G., Bishop L.M., Asquith P.M., Morgan P.L. (2021) Human Individual Difference Predictors in Cyber-Security: Exploring an Alternative Scale Method and Data Resolution to Modelling Cyber Secure Behavior. In: Moallem A. (eds) HCI for Cybersecurity, Privacy and Trust. HCII 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 12788 . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77392-2_15

Morgan P.L., Asquith P.M., Bishop L.M., Raywood-Burke G., Wedgbury A., Jones K. (2020). A New Hope: Human-Centric Cybersecurity Research Embedded Within Organizations. In: Moallem A. (eds) HCI for Cybersecurity, Privacy and Trust. HCII 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 12210 . Springer, Cham

Bishop L.M., Morgan P.L., Asquith P.M., Raywood-Burke G., Wedgbury A., Jones K. (2020). Examining Human Individual Differences in Cyber Security and Possible Implications for Human-Machine Interface Design. In: Moallem A. (eds) HCI for Cybersecurity, Privacy and Trust. HCII 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 12210 . Springer, Cham

Acknowledgements

Kalebic, N., Argent, S., Austin, H., Bramley, L., O'Connor, G., Hoskins, C., Willis, A., Withecomb, J., Forrester, A., Morgan, P., & Taylor, P. J. (2022). The all-Wales Forensic Adolescent Consultation and Treatment Service (FACTS): A 5-Year Referral Cohort Study. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health,  2022;1-16. 

Taylor, P. J., & Kalebic, N. (2018). Psychosis and Homicide. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 31 (3), 223-230.

Phillip Morgan

HuFEx Director; IROHMS Director of Research; Director - Airbus Centre of Excellence in Human-Centric Cyber Security

External profiles

• Research gate

The Savvy Scientist

Experiences of a London PhD student and beyond

What is a PhD Viva Like? Sharing Graduates’ Experiences

When you’re trying to prepare for a PhD viva it can be really difficult to know what to expect. Unlike pretty much every other exam you’ll have experienced, the viva isn’t a standardised exam so you won’t find any past papers to practice on!

In this post I’ll be sharing the inside scoop on what a PhD viva is like. Both from my own experiences plus those of a few other PhD graduates.

Preparing for your viva? You may also want to take a look at some of the other PhD viva content I’ve written:

How to Defend a Thesis: An Introduction to the PhD Viva

Common phd viva questions.

Note: Every viva is different, in this post I’m focussing on my viva which took place in the UK. Two PhD graduates in Spain and the US also share their experiences.

What is a PhD viva?

For those who aren’t already familiar with what a PhD viva is, I’d highly recommend reading my full post on How to Defend a Thesis: An Introduction to the PhD Viva . This delves into how a PhD viva is assessed, who is present, the potential outcomes and what follows after.

As a quick recap, a PhD viva (also called a defense in some countries) is the final assessment a PhD student undertakes in order to pass their PhD. The format the viva can take varies from country to country and even institution to institution, but it typically involves discussing and defending your PhD thesis with experts in your field.

In this post you’ll hear about the viva experiences of three PhD graduates, each with a slightly different format.

To get the best understanding of how PhD vivas take place at your university I’d recommend:

• Checking out any webpages your university have which formally outline the viva process
• Speaking to your PhD supervisor
• Chatting to colleagues such as postdocs who’ve been through it

Viva Experiences from PhD Grads

Prof elizabeth bondi-kelly , phd from harvard university, usa. assistant professor in computer science at university of michigan.

What was your PhD viva like? At my (virtual) defense, I had my committee, adviser, labmates, and family/friends. I was fortunate to give my job talk presentation again for my defense, so I had already had a lot of practice with presenting it and being asked questions about it.

How do you suggest people prepare for their PhD viva? For anyone who hasn’t had that opportunity, I highly recommend practicing to get a polished talk and practice answering questions about it.

Prof Raúl Santos-Rodríguez , PhD from Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Spain. Full Professor in AI at University of Bristol.

What are PhD vivas like in Spain? The viva process in Spain varies from university to university. In most cases there are a few previous filters (internal/external reports) that make it such that, once you are through those, most of the pressure is off for the actual defence. The viva consists of a public presentation (usually with colleagues, friends and family in the audience) followed by questions from a panel, with each member asking their questions in turns. Both presentation and Q&A tend to be time limited (around 45 minutes each). 

What was your PhD viva like? My viva experience was nerve-wracking but rewarding too. I remember how the exercise of putting together the presentation with the panel in mind actually gave me quite a different perspective on how to tell the story of my thesis. The event took place in a rather formal lecture room in our faculty. The panel consisted of five examiners (three externals including one from abroad, and two internals), all of whom were experts in my field of study. The panel asked me a wide range of questions, covering both very specific details and very high level matters. Once I answered their questions to their satisfaction, and after a short deliberation, I was given the good news. Overall, I found the viva to be a challenging but stimulating experience — and a good memory.

How do you suggest people prepare for their PhD viva? In terms of advice, I would suggest to:

• Expect to be surprised by unexpected questions about your research
• Be clear and concise, allowing examiners to ask for more details if needed
• Practice your presentation without being constrained to say the same things every time
• Not be afraid to ask for clarification if you don’t understand and take your time to respond
• Enjoy the interaction with the examiners as they are experts that have a lot to add to your work

Me! PhD from Imperial College London, UK. Research Fellow in AI at Bristol.

What was your PhD viva like? My viva, which took place over Microsoft Teams, included just an internal examiner, external examiner and myself. I gave a short presentation giving a summary of my PhD then about five hours were spent giving suggestions to improve content I was preparing to submit to journals. It was much less intimidating than I was expecting.

How do you suggest people prepare for their PhD viva? I mainly suggest to not over prepare! Sure, reread your thesis and swot up on any content you don’t feel comfortable describing (for instance certain techniques you’ve used), but I would caution against rehearsing too much: come to terms with the fact that you won’t be able to predict all the questions you’ll get asked.

I’ll be sharing more details on my viva experience in the rest of the post.

How To Prepare For a PhD Viva: The Advice I Was Given

Ahead of my own viva I typically got told to:

Relax and take your time in replying . This is somewhat sensible advice but a bit like telling someone to calm down: it doesn’t always work. Furthermore, relaxing can be hard to do when you also get told to…

Be prepared to answer questions about every part of your work . At face value this can seem reasonable: if you did the work, and deserve a PhD, you should be able to explain your work. Like many of us I heard the horror stories of examiners asking students to provide an explanation of fundamental techniques from first principles such as: “derive energy”!

However, I don’t think any rational examiner can expect a student to be able to answer every possible question about their PhD work. Not least because many students aren’t relaxed during the viva and instead are filled with nerves.

Thankfully, the reality is that examiners simply need to check that you’ve done the work and understand it. Therefore, yes you should be able to give a broad explanation of the techniques you’ve used but you can’t be expected to know everything about every technique.

Once it strays from your work to underlying principles I suggest that you explain as much as you feel comfortable then push back – the internal examiner (who acts as a moderator) should also step in if unreasonable questions are being asked. For more details on what PhD examiners are looking for, read this section of another post I’ve written .

How I Prepared for My PhD Viva

The time between submitting my thesis (14th February) and viva (25th March) was shorter than for most people. On top of that I didn’t spend long writing my thesis, meaning that the time between finishing my actual research and my viva was pretty short (around two months). Therefore I didn’t feel the need to “revise” for my viva. As in, sometimes you’ll hear of people reminding themselves of how certain experimental or analytic techniques work, but it was pretty fresh in my memory.

Instead, about 48 hours before my viva I started to read through my thesis. This is going to sound really bad but this was actually my first (and only) time properly reading through my thesis. No, I didn’t outsource or use ChatGPT to write my thesis!

When I submitted my thesis I had of course assembled all the chapters but had never given it a proper cohesive read all the way through. I read through the thesis over the course of 4-5 sittings. Reading fiction is definitely more fun .

I personally didn’t prepare by trying to come up with answers for lots of potential questions. But if you’re keen to have those to hand, read my Common PhD Viva Questions .

Preparing for your own viva? I’ve created a set of viva preparation worksheets which are available for free in the resource library. Click the image below for access!

Why didn’t I prepare more?

I felt pretty relaxed about my viva. This isn’t because I am crazy clever or knowledgable. In fact, like many of us I’ve felt imposter syndrome, waiting for the moment that my lack of knowledge gets discovered: and if there ever a moment you’d expect this to happen it would be at your viva.

These three things relaxed me for the viva:

• The external examiner seemed nice from the time I’d met him in the past at a conference. Certainly not a sure-fire sign that he wouldn’t turn into a scary beast during a viva but it seemed like a good starting point.
• It was virtual. My viva took place right at the start of COVID and as such took place over Teams. For some reason this felt reassuring, as if I could get away with just unplugging my internet connection if they asked anything particularly scary. Thankfully I didn’t ever feel the need to try this out!
• I had published PhD work in a well-ranked respected peer-reviewed journal. This was far and away the most reassuring thing. As mentioned in another post, examiners have to be confident in all of the following things to let you pass your PhD viva. If you have published some of your work somewhere respectable you tick many of the boxes immediately:

Oh, and I also didn’t prepare much because I was preoccupied with moving from London the week before my viva because of COVID and the start of lockdowns. Unexpectedly I ended up moving in with my girlfriend’s parents. It was rather chaotic but probably a useful distraction too.

My PhD Viva Experience

Who was at my viva.

Unlike vivas in other countries, such as the two international experiences shared above, a viva in the UK usually only involves:

• PhD student – me in this case!
• Internal examiner – an academic working in the same research area from the host university. They’re there to moderate the discussion and check that the university’s viva regulations are followed.
• External examiner – another academic working in the research area from a different university. In my case this was someone who was a leader in the field who came from another UK university.

Optionally the PhD student may ask their supervisor to attend. I’ve known of a few people who’ve had their supervisor there too, though it’s pretty rare and unnecessary in my opinion.

How long did my PhD viva last?

All in all it was about five and a half hours.

This was much longer than I anticipated. When we scheduled the viva to start at 10am I naively expected us to be finished by lunch. Admittedly the examiners did suggest stopping for a break at lunch time but again I naively thought we’d be done shortly afterwards, so declined the opportunity for more than a 5 minute comfort break. In the end we finished up around 3:30pm.

How was my PhD viva structured?

• Introductions (2 minutes) . I’d actually never met my internal examiner (who should act as a moderator) so introductions were necessary.
• Presentation (10 minutes) . A few weeks in advance of the viva I asked whether or not the examiners would like a presentation, and if so of what length. They said yes, 10-12 minutes. My supervisor strongly suggested making it on the shorter side: short and snappy is good and you’re about to have hours to discuss the details.
• Discussion (5 hours, yes, really!) . More on this in a moment.
• Decision and final comments (10 minutes) . I was asked to leave the metaphorical room (Teams call, remember!) and after a few minutes was invited back in after which they told me I’d passed with minor corrections. They gave a summary of the next steps, which were mostly administrative with paperwork, and briefly went over what changes/corrections they were expecting to the thesis.

What did we discuss for five hours?

Before my viva I had visions of it being like a job interview that lasts for hours and hours. They ask a slightly tough or awkward question, you try and answer, rinse and repeat x 100. The reality was really different.

The experience was much less intense than I was expecting. The examiners said from the outset that they were happy with the quality of the work and just aimed to give feedback to improve both the thesis and publications.

The vast majority of the viva was spent going page by page through the thesis covering points that the examiners had written down: not questions, merely suggestions. Very little of the viva involved me getting questioned: most of what I said was probably along the lines of “I agree, that’s a great idea”.

The examiners commented that they liked the [short] length of the thesis (140 pages before references) which may have helped. I was expecting at least a few dodgy questions such as explaining the content of a particular reference or deriving something from first principles. In all honestly I’m not sure I’d have been prepared for some of this, so was fine with not getting a hard time of it.

There were very few questions in general which was somewhat of a relief, though I was kind of looking forward to more of a discussion around the project. There were only two actual questions I think I got asked: one explaining why a particular technique wasn’t representative, and secondly a much more fluffy question of what would I do differently if I was starting again. That was it. I was really expecting more questions.

Every viva is unique so I can’t claim that my experience is representative but I will say that it was a relief to get through it unscathed.

What I wish I’d done differently

Asked more questions myself . The viva is one of the few times you’re likely to have hours of access to academic experts with such a keen interest in your work.

Was it tiring?

A little, just as any meeting which lasts over five hours would be. But because I didn’t feel like I was actually getting quizzed the whole time it was nowhere near as tiring as it could have been. Mostly I was tired just from having to pay attention for that long: I usually don’t sit still for more than 20 minutes!

What happened afterwards?

My viva was in March 2020, at the start of lockdown. I’d moved from London just the week prior and had to cancel the scheduled celebratory drinks with colleagues. So instead I had a glass of champagne with my girlfriend and her parents (who I was staying with).

After that, I got cracking right away the next morning on making the examiners’ suggested changes to my thesis.

My Advice If You’re Preparing For Your Own PhD Viva

• Download my free viva preparation guide .
• Read your thesis!
• Look up likely questions (if you want), here are some Common PhD Viva Questions
• Don’t over prepare
• Be honest. If you’re not sure about something, make this clear. Feel free to say you’re not sure.
• Ask questions
• Enjoy it! Channel those nerves as excitement and make the most of having experts show such an interest in your work.

Do you have any other questions about the PhD viva experience? Let me know in the comments and I’ll answer them as best I can!

If you’d like personalised help with preparing for your PhD viva I am now starting to offer a small number of one-to-one sessions. Please contact me to find out more or click here to book a call.

If you’re currently preparing for your own PhD viva, best of luck and remember to enjoy it! Be sure to check out the couple of other viva-related posts I’ve written .

Share this:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)

Related Posts

21st January 2021 30th January 2024

26th November 2020 30th January 2024

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Privacy Overview

Graduate Outcomes survey

The Graduate Outcomes survey is a statutory, national survey managed by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA).

The survey captures information on what graduates are doing fifteen months after their course has ended. All graduates who completed a course will be invited via email and text (UK mobile numbers) to complete the survey online. If they don't complete it online, they will be contacted via telephone by IFF Research, working on behalf of HESA and their university.

Your responses will not only help current and future students gain a valuable insight into career destinations, they will also help us to evaluate and promote our courses and impact the reputation of Cardiff graduates, like yourself, amongst employers.

The survey is also of national significance as it allows policymakers, charities, journalists, researchers and others to understand the higher education sector and the state of the graduate labour market.

Further information

Find out more about HESA’s Graduate Outcomes survey

Read more about how Cardiff University uses your personal data

Share your story

We'd love to hear about where life has taken you since your time at Cardiff University. Share your favourite memory, career journey or the advice you'd give knowing what you know now!

• Help & FAQ

Reflections on Variations in PhD Viva Regulations: And the Options are…

• Department of Nursing
• Centre for Applied Research in Health
• School of Human and Health Sciences
• Department of Allied Health Professions, Sport and Exercise

Research output : Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

• 10.51474/jer.v12i2.624 Licence: CC BY-SA

Fingerprint

• Doctoral Thesis Arts & Humanities 100%
• Qualification Arts & Humanities 83%
• Proportion Arts & Humanities 58%
• Education Arts & Humanities 47%

Reflections on Variations in PhD Viva Regulations : And the Options are…. / Van Teijlingen, Edwin R. ; Simkhada, Bibha ; Regmi, Pramod R. et al.

T1 - Reflections on Variations in PhD Viva Regulations

T2 - And the Options are…

AU - Van Teijlingen, Edwin R.

AU - Simkhada, Bibha

AU - Regmi, Pramod R.

AU - Simkhada, Padam

AU - Hundley, Vanora

AU - Poudel, Krishana

PY - 2022/9/30

Y1 - 2022/9/30

N2 - Getting a PhD is the highest possible education qualification which only a small proportion of all students achieve. As a consequence, examining PhD research in the form of a doctoral thesis is specialist work. This paper highlights the different options that are available for PhD examiners. There are four general options: (1) pass, (2) rewrite and resubmit; (3) lower degree, with or without resubmission; and (4) fail the PhD. However, from our experience, of both being examined for our own PhDs and examining others at a range of different universities, we have noted a considerable variety in detail within these common options. This paper outlines a variety of outcomes of a PhD examination, followed by four short case studies, each reflecting on a particular aspect /differences we experienced as examinees or as examiners. This paper further aims to alert PhD candidates and examiners to study the examination rules set by the awarding university, as the details of the PhD examination outcome, and hence the options available to both examiners and the students may differ more than one might expect.

AB - Getting a PhD is the highest possible education qualification which only a small proportion of all students achieve. As a consequence, examining PhD research in the form of a doctoral thesis is specialist work. This paper highlights the different options that are available for PhD examiners. There are four general options: (1) pass, (2) rewrite and resubmit; (3) lower degree, with or without resubmission; and (4) fail the PhD. However, from our experience, of both being examined for our own PhDs and examining others at a range of different universities, we have noted a considerable variety in detail within these common options. This paper outlines a variety of outcomes of a PhD examination, followed by four short case studies, each reflecting on a particular aspect /differences we experienced as examinees or as examiners. This paper further aims to alert PhD candidates and examiners to study the examination rules set by the awarding university, as the details of the PhD examination outcome, and hence the options available to both examiners and the students may differ more than one might expect.

KW - education

KW - degree

KW - examiner

U2 - 10.51474/jer.v12i2.624

DO - 10.51474/jer.v12i2.624

M3 - Article

JO - Journal of Education and Research

JF - Journal of Education and Research

SN - 2091-0118

Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

Personal tools

• Log in/Register Register

https://www.vitae.ac.uk/doing-research/doing-a-doctorate/completing-your-doctorate/your-viva/thesis-outcomes

This page has been reproduced from the Vitae website (www.vitae.ac.uk). Vitae is dedicated to realising the potential of researchers through transforming their professional and career development.

• Vitae members' area

Thesis outcomes and corrections

There will usually be a bit more work to do after the viva. Each institution will have its own regulations about viva outcomes and how to inform the candidate of them. Find out before you go into your viva so that you know what to expect. In the UK they typically they fall into one of the following categories:

• Outright pass. Your work needs no corrections
• Minor corrections. Your examiners have a few minor suggestions that they would like you to incorporate
• Major corrections or resubmission. The thesis needs further work to be of doctoral standard. This might include more research, rewriting sections or including new literature
• Suggestion that you resubmit for, or are awarded, a lower degree (MPhil or MSc). Research is of good quality but too narrow for a doctorate
• Outright fail. Usually used only in cases of plagiarism or where the examiners judge that the candidate will never be able to complete a doctorate.

Most candidates fall within the minor or major corrections categories. This means that you will have some corrections to complete. However, regardless of the number of corrections that you have to do most people who reach the viva stage do  go on to get their doctorate relatively quickly.

Thesis corrections

After your viva you are likely to have some corrections to complete before you are awarded your doctorate. The extent can range from a few spelling mistakes to rewriting or adding complete chapters. You may be given a deadline by your examiners or your institution but regardless of this, it is best to aim to complete your corrections as soon as possible to use the momentum acquired during thesis writing.

In order to be sure that your corrections make the right changes:

• take notes during the viva and write them up immediately after
• meet with your main supervisor to discuss the changes that you need to make
• analyse the examiners' report carefully to make sure that you have dealt with all of the issues that they raise
• proofread your work again.

Thesis resubmission

Your examiners, or often just the internal examiner, will check that all corrections have been incorporated, and then you can resubmit your thesis. Your institution will have regulations on the format of the final submitted thesis copy of your thesis, which will usually be deposited in the institutional library. It has become more common for institutions to request the submission of an electronic copy for ease of cataloguing and searching.

Bookmark & Share

Browser does not support script.

• Student intranet
• Staff intranet

Viva outcome

When will i hear about the outcome of my viva.

Although your examiners may informally tell you the outcome at the end of the viva, the official confirmation of the outcome will be emailed to you (copying in your department) by the Doctoral School team once the examiners have submitted their report forms. 

Examiners are asked to submit their report forms to the Doctoral School within two weeks of the viva and the Doctoral School aims to inform you of the outcome within one week of receiving the report forms.

What are the possible outcomes of the viva?

Your examiners will discuss the outcome of your thesis submission and will decide on one of the following outcomes of the submission:

• Pass PhD subject to minor corrections in 3 months
• Pass PhD subject to amendments to address errors of substance or omission in 9 months
• Resubmit for PhD within 18 months (with or without a second viva)
• Re-viva on the same thesis within 18 months
• Pass MPhil subject to minor corrections in 3 months
• Pass MPhil subject to amendments to address errors of substance or omission in 9 months
• Resubmit for MPhil within 12 months
• Fail at PhD and MPhil

The corrections period applies irrespective of your mode of study, and therefore applies to both full and part time students.

What are the most common outcomes?

The most common of these outcomes are:

• Pass PhD - please visit the Final thesis submission and Award process pages for information about the next stages.
• Pass subject to minor corrections in 3 months
• Pass subject to amendments to address errors of substance or omission in 9 months
• Resubmission within 12 / 18 months (with or without a second viva)

  Quick links

• Help & FAQ

PhD viva for Cardiff University

• Luo, X. (Examiner)
• Design, Manufacturing And Engineering Management

Activity : Examination types › Examination

• Schools & departments

Exam Board and Outcome

Information on possible outcomes of your viva and what they mean.

How do my examiners confirm my results?

After your viva, your examiners will compile a joint post‐viva report. As well as giving detailed comments on your thesis examination, this report also confirms the examiners’ recommendation.

What recommendations may be made?

The following is copied from the Postgraduate Assessment Regulations for Research Degrees

Examiner Recommendation. After the oral examination, the examiners must make one of the following recommendations to the College Postgraduate Committee: (a) Award PhD/Doctorate. The thesis satisfies the requirements for the award of the doctoral degree as laid down in the University’s Degree Regulations and Programmes of Study (see www.drps.ed.ac.uk/) as appropriate and the degree should be awarded. No further changes can be made to the thesis after examination; or (b) Minor Corrections Needed. The thesis satisfies the requirements for the award of the degree except that editorial corrections are required or stated minor weaknesses, as identified by the examiners, must be remedied. In the opinion of the examiners, the student will be able to remedy these without further supervision and without undertaking any further original research. The corrections to the thesis must be completed within three months and are subject to certification by the Internal Examiner(s), and by the External Examiner (where the examiner so requests), before the degree is awarded; or (c) Additional Oral Examination Needed. The thesis satisfies the requirements for the degree, or satisfies the requirements except for stated minor weaknesses, but the student’s oral defence of the thesis has been inadequate in specified respects. The student is required to undergo further assessment, written, oral or practical, and make any corrections to the thesis within a specified period of not more than four months. The degree is awarded subject to the student achieving a satisfactory standard in the further oral examination and subject to certification of the corrections by the Internal Examiner(s), and by the External Examiner (where the examiner so requests); or (d) Additional Work on Thesis Needed ‐ No Oral Re‐Examination Needed - Resubmission for PhD/Doctorate. The thesis needs work above and beyond editorial corrections or minor weaknesses in order to meet one or more of the requirements for the degree, and this work may require further supervision. However, the student appears capable of revising the thesis to satisfy the requirements. The revised thesis must be completed within a further specified period of study, which is set by the examiners, and which must not exceed six months. Exceptionally, this period may be extended to a maximum of 12 months with permission from the College. In these cases College may also recategorise the recommendation to (e) – see below. The thesis is subject to certification by the Internal Examiner(s), and by the External Examiner(s) (where the examiner so requests), before the degree is awarded; or (e) Substantial Work on Thesis and Oral Re‐Examination Needed – Resubmission for PhD/Doctorate. The thesis is substantially inadequate in one or more of the requirements for the degree, but the student appears capable of revising the thesis to satisfy the requirements. The student ought therefore to be invited to resubmit the thesis for oral examination in a substantially revised form as indicated by the examiners within a further specified period of study, which is set by the examiners, which must not exceed 12 months. Exceptionally, this period may be extended to a maximum of 24 months with permission from the College; or (f) Award MPhil. The thesis is substantially deficient in one or more of the requirements for the doctoral degree and cannot be revised to satisfy these requirements; but the thesis satisfies the requirements for the degree of MPhil; or (g) Award MPhil following Minor Corrections. The thesis is substantially deficient in one or more of the requirements for the doctoral degree and cannot be revised to satisfy these requirements. However, the thesis satisfies the requirements for the degree of MPhil except for stated minor corrections in the thesis. The student should be invited to carry out the specified minor corrections as indicated by the examiners. The corrections to the thesis must be completed within three months and are subject to certification by the Internal Examiner(s), and by the External Examiner (where the examiner so requests), before the degree is awarded; or (h) Substantial Work on Thesis Needed before Resubmission and oral examination for MPhil . The thesis is substantially inadequate in one or more of the requirements for the doctoral degree and cannot be revised to satisfy these requirements. However, the thesis may satisfy the requirements for the degree of MPhil if stated deficiencies in the thesis are remedied. Accordingly, the student should be invited to resubmit the thesis in a substantially revised form as indicated by the examiners for the degree of MPhil. The revisions should be completed within a further period which must not exceed 12 months; or (i) Award MSc by Research. The thesis is substantially deficient in respect of all or any of the requirements for the degree and cannot be revised to satisfy these requirements or the requirements of the MPhil. However, the work is of sufficient quality to merit the award of MSc by Research; or (j) Fail. The thesis is substantially deficient in respect of all or any of the requirements for the degree and cannot be revised to satisfy these or any other research degree requirements.

Can I appeal the recommendation?

Detailed guidance on the University’s appeals framework can be found below:

When will I know my results?

At the end of your viva, your examiners may indicate their recommendation to you. This is an informal notification only – formal notification of your viva result and provision of the post‐viva report will take place after approval from the College Postgraduate Research Exams Committee. Any results given prior to committee approval are provisional and may be subject to change by the Exams Committee.

The College Postgraduate Research Committee (CPRC) Examination Sub-Committee meets once a month, and will consider all examination recommendation results that have been submitted to the CPRC, however these Reports must be received 2 days prior to the meeting. Results will normally be sent to students, by email, within 3 days of the Examination Committee. Occasionally there are some clarifications required which might delay the outcome - but you will be advised of this situation if it is not possible to notify you within 7 days.

Will I get to see my examiners’ reports?

Before your viva, each examiner submits an individual pre‐viva (‘Part One’) report. After the viva, your examiners submit their joint post‐viva (‘Part Two’) report. When you are given formal notification of your viva result, the College Postgraduate Research Student Office will also send you a copy of the joint Part Two report. This will contain any necessary corrections and a critique from the Examiners.

You will not automatically be sent a copy of your pre‐viva reports. If you do wish to see them, you are able to send a request to the College Postgraduate Research Student Office that they are sent to you ( [email protected]  ) . Once we receive a written request for your pre‐viva reports, we will send copies of the reports to you after the ratification of your examination outcome by  the College Postgraduate Research Exams Committee.

Student Administration

This page contains information about preparing for your viva and viva outcomes.

The object of the viva examination is to allow you the opportunity to explore, clarify and defend your research in the presence of academic leaders in your chosen discipline. The viva examination will normally be attended by an external examiner, an internal examiner and you. Your supervisor will not be present at the viva examination.

If you are a member of University staff, two external examiners are appointed and both would attend the viva. 

There is no way of telling in advance how long the examination will last but it can be several hours.

The viva examination is usually conducted behind closed doors by at least two examiners, usually with at least one being an external examiner from another institution and an expert in your topic of research.

The internal examiner is responsible for arranging the date, time and venue for the viva which is normally held within three months of submission of the thesis.

In advance of your viva, your examiners will read your thesis and prepare independent, written reports. After the examination, a formal joint report with an agreed recommendation will be produced.

If you would like a copy of the final reports please contact the Research Degree Administration Team . The internal examiner should provide you with informal feedback, and if necessary, a copy of the revisions that have been requested.

Viva outcomes

For the degrees of PhD, MPhil and MD, examiners can recommend:

When considering a resubmitted thesis examiners can only use recommendations 1,2, 5 or 7. A candidate may only make two applications for a research degree award.

Back to: Student Administration