Defending
your PhD thesis to just two academics means the outcome can be subjective. We
need to find a better way
‘All I can do is cross my fingers that it will all work
out for the best.’ Photograph: Alamy
Anonymous
Academic
Friday
26 February 2016 07.00 GMTLast modified on Friday 26 February 201607.04 GMT
·
I submitted my PhD thesis a year ago, but I still don’t know if
it has passed the viva. I still don’t know if I am qualified to say that I have
a PhD, despite dedicating three years of work to it.
Bad PhD supervisors can ruin research. So why
aren't they accountable?
Anonymous academic
Read more
I sent my thesis for examination with the approval of my
supervisors, both of whom are professors in their disciplines. Since then, it
has been examined twice and has been awarded an MPhil with minor corrections
and an MPhil with major corrections (an MPhil is an in-between qualification,
considered to be twice as much work as a master’s but half that of a PhD). A
final decision has still not been made, and the university is considering my
appeal and formal complaint.
Like most postgraduates, I’m hugely emotionally invested in my
PhD. One of the most hurtful things I’ve been told during this process is that
I am not “intellectually capable” of completing it. That kind of comment –
along with the ongoing anguish over the result – has damaged my sense of self and
my confidence, and the stress has caused problems in my personal relationships.
All I can do is cross my fingers that it will all work out for
the best. With such discrepancies in opinions of my examiners, it is difficult
to see the process as anything more than luck.
It seems wrong that a PhD is judged on an examination that only
takes a few hours, with just two examiners having the final say on whether a
contribution merits the qualification. Most candidates pass with minor
corrections, being instructed to fix typographical errors, for example. Failure
may sound implausible, but it can and does happen.
Although this situation can never be prevented entirely, the
British system could look to other parts of Europe, Canada and the US to make
the viva process fairer.
Academics Anonymous: so many PhD students, so few jobs
Read more
Candidates in those countries are examined in front of an
audience of their friends, family and colleagues, several of whom will also
have read the thesis. This is known as the public defence system and can reduce
the likelihood of examiners abusing the protection of a closed exam.
The greatest advantage of this is the potential for public
scrutiny. It also gives candidates more confidence to challenge examiners when
they are incorrect or focusing on irrelevant information.
Public defences usually have a greater number of examiners,
including an independent chair and one of the candidate’s supervisors. The
presence of a supervisor who believes that the thesis should pass can provide
support and encouragement to the candidate. And an independent chair, who knows
very little about the subject of the thesis, is better placed to examine the
logic of the argument and the strength of the evidence.
The current system means that the academic judgement of
examiners cannot be challenged. This allows examiners the freedom to make a
decision based purely on the merit of the thesis, but it also means that they
can make mistakes. A career in academia does not make one infallible.
There is the possibility of achieving a PhD by publication in
the UK, allowing peer-review to partly take the place of examination. But this
rarely used and once a thesis has been submitted through the traditional
method, the possibility of a PhD through publication is removed.
Academics Anonymous: 'Why are you doing a PhD at your
age?'
Read more
Instead, a thesis that has been failed based on academic
judgement should be presented to the scholarly community as a whole. The
written testimonials of a number of internationally respected researchers who
have read the thesis and judged it to have reached doctoral level should be
able to overrule the academic judgement of the examiners. A PhD is, after all,
a contribution to knowledge, not a piece of work designed to placate an
examiner.
We need to make the viva system more balanced and PhD examiners
more accountable. We need to look again at a system that allows students to
study for four years, pass all preliminary checks, and yet leave without any
qualification.
Reform is both necessary and urgent – to reassure candidates
that their futures are not subject to the whims of examiners and to maintain
the international standard of the British PhD qualification in an increasingly
globalised university system. My experience is just one example of what an
unaccountable viva system can mean, and it isn’t good.
Join the higher education network for
more comment, analysis and job opportunities, direct to your inbox. Follow us
on Twitter @gdnhighered. And if you have
an idea for a story, please read our guidelines and email
your pitch to us at highereducationnetwork@theguardian.com
24 JUL 2012 
BY CHANEL GRAHAM
Remember the days when Christians used to blush over conversations about sex? Sermons on the Song of Solomon left us avoiding eye contact with our pastors and safe sex talks in public school meant guaranteed giggling after class. I guess we’re all grown up now. The generation of kids who once kissed dating goodbye and held fast to the promise that True Love Waits is no longer hanging its moral hat on the hook of sexual purity.