Viva: Tips

Last updated on: February 12, 2007 at 10:41 pm by Nijay Gupta

Viva: Tips 2007-02-12T22:41:16-08:00 Nijay Gupta

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

The ‘viva’ is the word used in the UK for the oral thesis defense. The decision to award you a PhD results from a successful completetion of the viva, along with your written work (of course). So, its helpful to know about it. Some people may be under the impression that all you have to do is know your thesis well. Well, from reading advice and interacting with people who have gone through the experience, here are some thoughts.

This advice comes from Andrew Broad, a professor who teaches a course on thesis writing and management. Broad first mentions that there is a general reasoning behind the viva and the kind of questions asked. In general

These are the points being examined (according to Alex Gray from the University of Cardiff):

Understanding: that you’re ready to become an independent researcher.
Relationship to other work: that you have a command of your subject-area. Similarity to the work of others doesn’t detract from novelty!
Novelty – is your work publishable? If you have already published a couple of papers, that should be proof of sufficient originality. Don’t panic about recent publications that are very similar to your work – the important thing is to be aware of them, and to know the differences between your work and theirs.
What you have achieved, and that you are aware of its implications. What will it make a difference to?
Demonstration of hypothesis (what you set out to achieve). How have you evaluated/tested your hypothesis? Always be prepared to reconsider your hypothesis if you end up demonstrating something else – it’s vitally important that your results match your hypothesis, and that you have a convincing argument for this.
Why did you do it the way you did? Not just your practical work, but everything. For example, your literature review should be focused towards your hypothesis.

Broad also lists excellent ideas of what kinds of questions might be asked. Regardless of discipline, these general kinds of questions are common. I suggest, as I will also try to do, pre-answering these questions both as you write your thesis, and again when you are finished or close to finished.

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).
In one sentence, what is your thesis? (Resist the temptation to run from the room!)
What have you done that merits a PhD?
Summarise your key findings.
What are you most proud of, and why? This may be asked (again) towards the end of the viva.
What’s 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 are the contributions (to knowledge) of your thesis?
Which topics overlap with your area?
For topic X:
- How does your work relate to X?
- What do you know about the history of X?
- What is the current state of the art in X? (capabilities and limitations of existing systems)
  What techniques are commonly used?
  Where do current technologies fail such that you (could) make a contribution?
- How does/could your work enhance the state of the art in X?
- Who are the main `players’ in X? (Hint: you should cluster together papers written by the same people)
  Who are your closest competitors?
- What do you do better than them? What do you do worse?
- Which are the three most important papers in X?
- What are the recent major developments in X?
- How do you expect X to progress over the next five years? How long-term is your contribution, given the anticipated future developments in X?
What did you do for your MPhil, and how does your PhD extend it? Did you make any changes to the system you implemented for your MPhil?
What are the strongest/weakest parts of your work?
Where did you go wrong?
Why have you done it this way? You need to justify your approach – don’t assume the examiners share your views.
What are the alternatives to your approach?
What do you gain by your approach?
What would you gain by approach X?
Why didn’t you do it this way (the way everyone else does it)? This requires having done extensive reading. Be honest if you never thought of the alternative they’re suggesting, or if you just didn’t get around to it. If you try to bluff your way out, they’ll trap you in your own words.
Looking back, what might you have done differently? This requires a thoughtful answer, whilst defending what you did at the time.
How do scientists/philosophers carry out experiments?
How have you evaluated your work?
- intrinsic evaluation: how have you demonstrated that it works, and how well it performs?
- extrinsic evaluation: how have you demonstrated its usefulness for a specific application context?
What do your results mean?
How would your system cope with bigger examples? Does it scale up? This is especially important if you have only run your system on `toy’ examples, and they think it has `learned its test-data’.
How do you know that your algorithm/rules are correct?
How could you improve your work?
What are the motivations for your research? Why is the problem you have tackled worth tackling?
What is the relevance of your contributions?
- to other researchers?
- to industry?
What is the implication of your work in your area? What does it change?
How do/would you cope with known problems in your field? (e.g. combinatorial explosion)
Have you solved the field’s problem that you claim to have solved? For example, if something is too slow, and you can make it go faster – how much increase in speed is needed for the applications you claim to support?
Is your field going in the right direction? For example, if everyone’s been concentrating on speed, but the real issue is space (if the issue is time, you can just wait it out (unless it’s combinatorially explosive), but if the issue is space, the system could fall over). This is kind of justifying why you have gone into the field you’re working in.
Who are your envisioned users? What use would your work be in situation X?
How do your contributions generalise?
To what extent would they generalise to systems other than the one you’ve worked on?
Under what circumstances would your approach be useable? (Again, does it scale up?)
Where will you publish your work? Think about which journals and conferences your research would best suit. Just as popular musicians promote their latest albums by releasing singles and going on tour, you should promote your thesis by publishing papers in journals and presenting them at conferences. This takes your work to a much wider audience; this is how academics establish themselves.
Which aspects of your thesis could be published?
What have you learned from the process of doing your PhD? Remember that the aim of the PhD process is to train you to be a fully professional researcher – passing your PhD means that you know the state of the art in your area and the directions in which it could be extended, and that you have proved you are capable of making such extensions.
Where did your research-project come from? How did your research-questions emerge? You can’t just say “my supervisor told me to do it” – if this is the case, you need to talk it over with your supervisor before the viva. Think out a succinct answer (2 to 5 minutes).
Has your view of your research topic changed during the course of the research?
You discuss future work in your conclusion chapter. How long would it take to implement X, and what are the likely problems you envisage? Do not underestimate the time and the difficulties – you might be talking about your own resubmission-order! 😉

Particular Questions

Most of the viva will probably consist of questions about specific sections of your thesis, and the examiner should give a page-reference for each question. According to Alex Gray, these questions fall into six categories:

Clarification. The examiners ask you to explain a particular statement in the thesis. In some cases, their lack of understanding may be due to a typo, e.g. “Why did you connect the client to the sewer?” Also, “not” is a small word which makes a big difference! 😉
Justification.
Alternatives considered. Be honest if you didn’t consider alternatives, otherwise you’ll be digging a hole for yourself.
Awareness of other work.
Distinction from similar work. Especially recent publications where others are working in the same area – what are the similarities and differences between your work and theirs?
Correction of errors (typos, technical errors, misleading statements, and so on).

Thanks to Dr. Broad; here is his website: http://www.geocities.com/andrewbroad/cs/cs710/viva.html.
I will try and post more as I find helpful info.

PhD advice

Previous Post

February 12, 2007

Book Reviews: Reading Critically

Next Post

February 15, 2007 Amazon full-text

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category (Mis)Understanding Philippians 10 Things I Can't Live Without 2023 New Books 30 OT HB Scholars to Read and Follow 5 Books Series 50-2-Follow Academia Christian Theologians to Read and Follow Cruciform Scripture: Contributor Reflections Crux Sola TV Editors Behind Great Books in NT Studies Education Gendering the Holy Spirit Gupta FB Live Lectures In Faith and Doubt In Their Own Words Living the King Jesus Gospel My Top 6 OT Commentaries New Testament Resource Guide New Word Biblical Themes Nijay's A Very Library Christmas Shopping Guide Notes from an Editor Notes on New Books NTRG OT in the NT Paul Seminary Now The Bible in God's World The Word Felt Among Us SPENCER Translating Philippians Uncategorized Why I Use Accordance Women in Ministry

Select a Month March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 May 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz