Making Sense of the Doctoral Dissertation Defense: A Student-Experience-Based Perspective

  • Shuhua Chen


An oral defense of a written dissertation is a requirement for most doctoral programs in the world, yet little has been written about this exam. The numerous how-to guides tend to focus on offering “survival strategies” to doctoral students and have largely failed to reveal the nature of the defense. Also missing in these books is doctoral student voices about the experience of defending their dissertation. This chapter explores the nature of the doctoral dissertation defense and its significance in the doctoral experience. It synthesizes ideas from how-to guides, findings from the existing research literature, and findings from the author’s ongoing study. In particular, the chapter draws on interviews with recent PhD graduates as well as observation notes taken by the author (a PhD candidate) from several successful dissertation defenses in order to open up a space for doctoral student voices about this exam. It also raises questions for supervisors and their doctoral students to consider and discuss when preparing for the dissertation defense.


Doctoral Student Doctoral Candidate Experienced Researcher Doctoral Education Student Researcher 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Cone, J. D., & Foster, S. L. (2006). Dissertations and theses from start to finish: Psychology and related fields (2nd ed.). Washington: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  2. Garson, G. D. (2002). Guide to writing empirical papers, theses, and dissertations. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
  3. Glatthorn, A. A. (1998). Writing the winning dissertation: A step-by-step guide. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  4. Fraser, G., & Rowarth, J. (2007). Preparing candidates for oral examination. In C. J. Denholm & T. D. Evans (Eds.), Supervising doctorates downunder: Keys to effective supervision in Australia and New Zealand (pp. 243–250). Camberwell: ACER Press.Google Scholar
  5. Hartley, J., & Jory, S. (2000). Lifting the veil on the viva: The experiences of psychology PhD candidates in the UK. Psychology Teaching Review, 9(2), 76–90.Google Scholar
  6. Jackson, C., & Tinkler, P. (2001). Back to basics: A consideration of the purposes of the PhD viva. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(4), 355–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. McGill Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies. (2009). Thesis preparation and submission guidelines. Accessed April 26, 2010.
  8. Murray, R. (2003). Students’ questions and their implications for the viva. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(2), 109–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Swales, J. M. (2004). The Ph.D. defense in Research genres: Explorations and applications (pp. 145–172). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Tinkler, P., & Jackson, C. (2000). Examining the doctorate: Institutional policy and the PhD examination process in Britain. Studies in Higher Education, 25(2), 167–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Tinkler, P., & Jackson, C. (2004). The doctoral examination process: A handbook for students, examiners and supervisors. Glasgow: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Trafford, V. (2003). Questions in doctoral vivas: Views from the inside. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(2), 114–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Trafford, V., & Leshem, S. (2002). Starting at the end to undertake doctoral research: Predictable questions as stepping stones. Higher Education Review, 35(1), 31–49.Google Scholar
  14. Trafford, V., & Leshem, S. (2008). Stepping stones to achieving your doctorate: Focusing on your viva from the start. Berkshire: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Wellington, J. (2010). Supporting students’ preparation for the viva: Their pre-conceptions and implications for practice. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(1), 71–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wellington, J., Bathmaker, A. M., Hunt, C., McCulloch, G., & Sikes, P. (2005). Succeed with your doctorate. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Wisker, G. (2005). The good supervisor: Supervising postgraduate and undergraduate research for doctoral theses and dissertations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Further Reading

  1. Cryer, P., & Mertens, P. (2003). The PhD examination: Support and training for supervisors and examiners. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(2), 92–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Denicolo, P. (2003). Assessing the PhD: A constructive view of criteria. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(2), 84–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Grabbe, L. L. (2003). The trials of being a PhD external examiner. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(2), 128–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hartley, J., & Fox, C. (2004). Assessing the mock viva: The experiences of British doctoral students. Studies in Higher Education, 29(6), 727–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Isaac, P. D., Quinlan, S. V., & Walker, M. M. (1992). Faculty perceptions of the doctoral dissertation. Journal of Higher Education, 63(3), 241–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jackson, C., & Tinkler, P. (2000). The PhD examination: An exercise in community-building and gatekeeping. In I. McNay (Ed.), Higher education and its communities (pp. 38–50). Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Morley, L., Leonard, D., & David, M. (2002). Variations in vivas: Quality and equality in British PhD assessments. Studies in Higher Education, 27(3), 263–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Powell, S., & Green, H. (2003). Research degree examining: Quality issues of principle and practice. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(2), 55–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Powell, S., & Green, H. (Eds.). (2007). The doctorate worldwide. Berkshire: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Powell, S., & McCauley, C. (2003). The process of examining research degrees: Some issues of quality. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(2), 73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Tinkler, P., & Jackson, C. (2002). In the dark? Preparing for the PhD viva. Quality Assurance in Education, 10(2), 86–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Trafford, V., & Leshem, S. (2002). Anatomy of a doctoral viva. Journal of Graduate Education, 3, 33–41.Google Scholar
  13. Wallace, S. (2003). Figuratively speaking: Six accounts of the PhD viva. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(2), 100–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Wallace, S., & Marsh, C. (2001). Trial by ordeal or the chummy game? Six case studies in the conduct of the British PhD viva examination. Higher Education Review, 34(1), 35–59.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.McGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations