View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Final Examination of the UK PhD: Fit for Purpose?

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Final Examination of the UK PhD: Fit for Purpose?
Language: English
Authors: Gillian Houston (ORCID 0009-0007-4932-8313), Ingrid Lunt
Source: Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2024 49(8):1182-1195.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 14
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Doctoral Degrees, Doctoral Dissertations, Degree Requirements, Research Committees, Research Training, Graduate Students, College Faculty, Faculty Advisers, Examiners, Test Validity, Career Readiness
Geographic Terms: United Kingdom
DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2024.2364026
ISSN: 0260-2938
1469-297X
Abstract: In recent decades the doctorate and its purposes have undergone fundamental change. The scholarly model has evolved from one of 'apprentice' to independent, supported learner and the doctoral training process has been revolutionised; many candidates now experience cohort-based, structured research. The UK's final PhD examination, however, has changed little in response and as a result has been called into question: does the current model -- thesis evaluation followed by a viva voce examination -- adequately assess the candidate, their achievements and their potential? This article includes data from a larger study that included live observations of viva examinations and interviews with candidates, supervisors and examiners. In the article, we explore the developments that have transformed the UK PhD from an elite 'licence to practise' for a minority to a mainstream qualification increasingly used to enhance career prospects. We consider the fitness for purpose of the examination by analysing the attributes assessed through the thesis and the viva. The article concludes by questioning whether the examination process enables examiners to communicate the attributes on which judgements are based: the candidate's ability to conduct research independently, their professional and personal characteristics, and their potential career prospects.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1451214
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHJ3hhfr07psBZwqlucme4QAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDOajWhX4MxCQhK9UywIBEICBm2jZwe3n5dmDi_9-cTL__QXUiWVOHmILmvUiPhecCf9s2fakhqFZzo5UKCs9vFGO3f4J4p86d7dugzBc-YAaSEU932Pgdzp4dHZ6iYH0VmxVM7JAAD06J6yOJhO43OkS23iM8VeQN-v-zq3HQ9sY6G9rywL31WUtwtVbejmCm-V6_6c1EtiOy-1GAWzwLZ7jK5ON-X80rr1yiOIB
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0181234178;eva01dec.24;2024Dec04.05:29;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0181234178-1">The final examination of the UK PhD: fit for purpose? </title> <p>In recent decades the doctorate and its purposes have undergone fundamental change. The scholarly model has evolved from one of 'apprentice' to independent, supported learner and the doctoral training process has been revolutionised; many candidates now experience cohort-based, structured research. The UK's final PhD examination, however, has changed little in response and as a result has been called into question: does the current model – thesis evaluation followed by a viva voce examination – adequately assess the candidate, their achievements and their potential? This article includes data from a larger study that included live observations of viva examinations and interviews with candidates, supervisors and examiners. In the article, we explore the developments that have transformed the UK PhD from an elite 'licence to practise' for a minority to a mainstream qualification increasingly used to enhance career prospects. We consider the fitness for purpose of the examination by analysing the attributes assessed through the thesis and the viva. The article concludes by questioning whether the examination process enables examiners to communicate the attributes on which judgements are based: the candidate's ability to conduct research independently, their professional and personal characteristics, and their potential career prospects.</p> <p>Keywords: Doctoral research; PhD; final examination; doctorate; doctoral attributes</p> <hd id="AN0181234178-2">Introduction</hd> <p>The past 30 years have seen major changes in the nature and purpose of the PhD globally. This article focuses on the UK PhD – in particular, its final assessment – asking the question: given these changes in the PhD, is the final examination fit for purpose? The UK PhD is examined through a two-stage process, independent evaluation of the thesis/dissertation by two or more examiners, followed by a private oral assessment (viva voce) with the same examiners and the candidate, in which the examiners question the candidate on their research as presented in the thesis. The two or more examiners include one from the candidate's own university (the internal) and one or more from another university (the external). This process has remained largely unchanged since the introduction of the PhD.</p> <p>Many factors have contributed to the PhD's evolution, with the result that the doctorate is arguably now a very different degree. An increased political interest in the role of the doctorate and its economic implications for the 'knowledge economy' and a significant expansion in the numbers of doctoral researchers have been major contributing factors. Other influences include a greater emphasis on 'employability', increasingly diverse careers and the introduction of structured doctorates that have become the norm and could be said to constitute a revolution in doctoral training, along with the influence of professional and practitioner doctorates.</p> <hd id="AN0181234178-3">The global PhD and the knowledge economy</hd> <p>The PhD has long had international recognition as the academic qualification undertaken by a minority seeking an academic career (Russell [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref1">44</reflink>]). During the twenty-first century, however, it has evolved globally into a degree that prepares graduates for a wide range of careers, within academia and increasingly in other spheres. This change of purpose has been led by factors including: policy decisions of funders looking for value for money for their investment in expensive training for a growing number of doctoral graduates; acknowledgement of the transferability of 'doctoral' capabilities to wide-ranging employment; and the lack of availability of academic roles in higher education. Global expansion of the doctorate is due in part to acknowledgement of the value that universities and research add to society and the knowledge economy (Boud, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref2">4</reflink>] Oxford Economics [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref3">36</reflink>]) and the need to remain competitive in recruiting international candidates (Kemp et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref4">25</reflink>]; Higher Education Commission [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref5">18</reflink>]; Schwab [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref6">45</reflink>]). Some argue that this recognition of doctoral graduates' value as individuals has led to greater focus on their employability and economic potential than their contribution to research (Radder [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref7">42</reflink>], Frick, McKenna, and Muthama [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref8">13</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181234178-4">Demographic changes</hd> <p>Inevitably the higher numbers of bachelors and masters graduates resulting from the UK government's policies to 'democratise' higher education have led to more doctoral enrolments, increasing from 101,350 in 2019–20 to 104,965 in 2020–21 (HESA [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref9">15</reflink>]). Perceptions of the doctorate's contribution to career enhancement and the need for individuals to be more competitive in the job market have fuelled this significant increase, leading to greater awareness of the value of doctoral graduates in the workplace and in society. The introduction of professional and practitioner doctorates in the 1990s contributed to a greater diversity of student background and aspiration and led to more part-time candidates.</p> <hd id="AN0181234178-5">Employability</hd> <p>The demands of the knowledge economy and employability increased commitment to transferable skills training (Roberts, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref10">43</reflink>]). This was accompanied by suggestions that the focus of doctoral training was too narrow, with insufficient focus on the generic skills valued by employers (Nyquist and Woodford [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref11">35</reflink>]; Higher Education Commission [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref12">18</reflink>]). Yet doctoral graduates continued to enjoy a high level of employment, which remains the case. According to the HESA, 84% (74% FT; 10% PT) of doctoral graduate leavers in 2021 were in employment in May 2023, compared with 75% (66% FT; 9% PT) of taught masters leavers, with only 2% of doctoral graduates and 5% of taught masters graduates still unemployed (HESA [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref13">16</reflink>]). HESA figures ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref14">17</reflink>]) also show that doctoral graduates experience higher earning power when compared with all graduates, with three times as many doctoral (18%) as other graduates (6%) in the highest category of earnings above £51,000. Despite the financial benefits for graduates, acknowledged in Britton et al.'s [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref15">6</reflink>] report, Yi and McMurtrey ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref16">51</reflink>]) suggested that academic inflation in the U.S. labour market was a disadvantage.</p> <hd id="AN0181234178-6">Increasingly structured PhDs</hd> <p>Greater structure to the PhD, as experienced by many doctoral researchers, was initiated by the UK research councils in the early 2000s following publication of the Roberts report (2002) which became highly influential in informing training for all postgraduate researchers, sponsored or otherwise. In the same decade, public funding was linked to the establishment of doctoral training centres (DTCs) or doctoral training partnerships (DTPs), with the aim of supporting skills development through a cohort learning model. This is still seen as a watershed in UK doctoral education (Lunt, McAlpine, and Mills [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref17">31</reflink>]). While it would be difficult to establish a causal relationship between structured, skills-enhanced training and employability, the change to principally cohort-based learning, encouraging peer interaction and increased opportunities to acquire professional and personal skills, has doubtless smoothed the transition to employment for many.</p> <p>These developments, effectively 'modernising' the PhD, have prompted questions about its purposes and utility as a modern qualification (Bryan and Guccione [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref18">7</reflink>]). A corollary is that the final examination is considered too limited in scope, having been designed primarily to test the candidate's research abilities and not their potential as an individual or for employment. Perhaps this was to be expected: the purpose of the final examination of the UK PhD – to assess if the candidate is capable of undertaking independent research – remains virtually unchanged as a result of developments in the nature and structure of the degree, even though doctoral graduates are now expected to possess many professional and personal attributes in addition to their research competence.</p> <hd id="AN0181234178-7">The changing nature and purposes of the doctorate in relation to its assessment</hd> <p>The changes outlined have transformed the PhD from a focus on a career in the academy to a qualification that increasing numbers of entrants believe will enhance their life chances, especially their employability and earning power. Yet the two-part final examination, during which candidates are assessed on their suitability to undertake independent research, remains unchanged. Although they are acknowledged to play an important part in the doctorate and in post-doctoral employability, professional and personal attributes make no explicit contribution to the final assessment.</p> <p>The PhD examination is a '<emph>high stakes</emph>', summative assessment (Biggs and Tang [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>]:142; Lovitts [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref20">30</reflink>]:20; Bourke and Holbrook [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref21">5</reflink>]:407) that, because of its idiographic nature (Houston [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref22">19</reflink>]), struggles to meet current expectations of assessment practice, especially the concepts of consistency and transparency. The viva in particular is considered not to conform to these standards (Morley, Leonard, and David [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref23">32</reflink>]). There is thus a tension between seeking consistency and uniform standards in doctoral examinations, while acknowledging the individuality of the research process and the disciplinary expectations that influence doctoral education.</p> <p>Several studies have suggested that the viva does not make a major contribution to the final doctoral examination, contending for example that it is expensive, and time-consuming for examiners, for little impact on the final outcome (Jackson and Tinkler [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref24">24</reflink>]; Lovat et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref25">29</reflink>]; Poole [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref26">39</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref27">40</reflink>]), and that some doctoral candidates' experiences of the viva are unfulfilling at best, harmful at worst (Wallace and Marsh [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref28">50</reflink>]). Others, however, consider it has an important role to play in moderating examiners' judgements (Houston et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref29">23</reflink>]) and providing a 'rite of passage' for candidates that, with the thesis, confers the status of independent researcher. The viva has been criticised by social scientists in particular for its perceived secrecy and the potential for inconsistency in examiners' judgements (Tinkler and Jackson [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref30">47</reflink>]; Denicolo [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref31">10</reflink>]). The individuality of every doctorate, defined by the originality of the research undertaken, and the unique assessment experienced by each candidate, prevent the final examination from being fully aligned with current assessment principles.</p> <hd id="AN0181234178-8">The doctoral examination in the context of assessment practice in higher education</hd> <p>Since the 1990s, government intervention in universities in the UK through the introduction of quality assurance systems has aimed to increase the transparency and consistency of assessment practices (Leathwood [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref32">27</reflink>]; Bloxham and Boyd [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref33">3</reflink>]). Concepts such as 'intended student learning outcomes' (ILOs), have become embedded in higher education and alignment with national exemplars continues to be considered good practice. The UK's Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications (QAA [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref34">41</reflink>]) provide an example of this standard setting and contain expectations for the attributes graduates typically possess at the point of graduation, in 'qualification descriptors' for each level of degree, including the doctorate. These doctoral qualification descriptors remain the reference point in the UK (QAA [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref35">41</reflink>]), and in Europe (EHEA Paris, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref36">12</reflink>]), containing intended learning outcomes applicable to all graduates. They focus on the graduate's ability to undertake original research leading to the -creation of knowledge and the possession of professional and personal attributes, including:</p> <p>The qualities and transferable skills necessary for employment requiring the exercise of personal responsibility and largely autonomous initiative in complex and unpredictable situations, in professional or equivalent environments (QAA [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref37">41</reflink>]: 29).</p> <p>The extent to which the ILOs described in doctoral qualification descriptors are employed by examiners in the unique final examination is difficult to evaluate, although the QAA doctoral qualification descriptor is reproduced or referenced by some UK institutions in exam regulations.</p> <p>Ambiguity concerning the testing of doctoral learning outcomes in the final examination and the difficulty of evidencing the consistency and fairness of the process, together with the lack of change in response to the modern PhD have contributed to contentions that the doctoral examination is not fit for purpose.</p> <hd id="AN0181234178-9">Methodology</hd> <p>This article draws on data from a larger study (Houston [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref38">19</reflink>]) in which the first author attended ten PhD viva examinations across a range of disciplines in six universities, observing and note-taking but not participating. One of the main challenges for the study was obtaining access, despite full ethical approval having been granted by the six participating universities, resulting in opportunistic sampling. It was nonetheless possible to sample a range of both AHSS and STEM disciplines. Agreement to their involvement was obtained from senior staff at each university. Ethical approval required the agreement of all actors, who each received a form explaining the nature and purpose of the research and requesting their agreement to being observed. This inevitably led to delays when some declined, but eventually all participants in ten vivas agreed. This process meant that data collection was challenging and took more than two years.</p> <p>Observations and interviews were combined with interviews of seven experienced examiners in different subjects, plus limited input from a single-university focus group, making a total of 43 interviews. The researcher was not given access to examiners' reports.</p> <hd id="AN0181234178-10">The examination process</hd> <p>In different disciplinary settings, observations and respondents' views of the examination, enabled an analysis of the process and its effectiveness.</p> <hd id="AN0181234178-11">Disciplinary differences</hd> <p>Assertions of inconsistency are normally directed at the process, for example, the perceived unregulated nature of how examiners go about making judgements, the lack of evidence that doctoral student learning outcomes are applied, and the closed nature of the oral examination. A contributory factor is that the subject or field of a doctoral candidate affects both how the student does and learns about research, and the attributes sought by their examiners, who value topic and discipline-related characteristics in addition to the commonly cited, higher level criteria, such as a contribution to knowledge and the ability to present a well-argued thesis.</p> <hd id="AN0181234178-12">Research into the examination</hd> <p>As described, the problem with research into the doctoral examination and the viva in particular is lack of access to such a private process (Trafford [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref39">49</reflink>]). Although small changes, such as the increasingly widespread use of an independent chair or convenor, have improved transparency (Kumar, Sanderson, and Kaur [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref40">26</reflink>]), independent, non-discipline specific enquiry into the examination process remains limited, and this study provided a novel approach that explored the examination process and its integrity.</p> <p>Another hypothesis for limited research is that examiners and supervisors in subjects other than social sciences accept the examination's appropriateness for assessing a candidate's ability to undertake independent research, even though the structure and purpose of the doctorate has changed. As Poole ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref41">39</reflink>]:92) remarked: '<emph>experienced academics...rarely turn their critical gaze on to doctoral assessment itself'</emph>. This unquestioning approach is understandable: evaluation of a social phenomenon such as the doctoral examination would not necessarily arise in disciplines other than social sciences; and the rationale for any doctorate is the highly focused pursuit of knowledge in a specific field/subject/topic, whereas in the twenty first century a significant secondary purpose is preparation for diverse forms of employment.</p> <p>Many supervisors and examiners appreciate the efficacy of the current examination, with the viva as the second element of an interdependent, two-part process that enables rounded judgement of the candidate's achievements. Tinkler and Jackson ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref42">46</reflink>]:179) survey suggested: '<emph>the PhD examination was</emph> uniformly <emph>defined as a two-stage assessment involving the submission of a thesis and, normally, a viva voce</emph>'. This supports the examination as a coherent assessment, with the principal evidence taken from the thesis and the viva acting as a 'checking' device (Jackson and Tinkler [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref43">24</reflink>]), a perspective supported by the study's respondents. But the viva has more significance than this (Tinkler and Jackson [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref44">48</reflink>]; Murray [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref45">34</reflink>]; Phillips and Pugh [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref46">38</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181234178-13">Respondents' views on the effectiveness of the process compared with others</hd> <p>Respondents were coded according to discipline and role, as follows: STEM = Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics/Medicine; AHSS = Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences; E = external examiner; I = Internal examiner; S = supervisor; D = director of studies/main supervisor; C = candidate; Ex = non case related examiner. In each case, the discipline and role code, plus number is the interviewee's unique identifier.</p> <p>While this study did not explicitly ask about fitness for purpose of the examination, one of the questions posed to supervisors and examiners was: '<emph>How does the final assessment of a PhD candidate enable all those involved to be confident that the right decision has been made about the outcome?</emph>'. In responding, some chose to analyse the process, and although none suggested it was perfect, several suggested it was preferable to how doctoral examinations are conducted in other systems they were familiar with. Some, though, compared the UK process adversely with practices across mainland Europe, where the oral examination is normally held in public and the candidate's friends and family, as well as others, may attend. Superficially, this might be considered an improvement to the UK system, but as one respondent suggested: '<emph>In Europe, they do more of these... public vivas, where you have a panel, but that's...more of a show and the decision has already been made</emph>' (STEM-E4). This may be true in some cases, but not all: each country has its own process and there are always disciplinary influences. Where the judgement is made in advance, there is no opportunity to correct the thesis post-examination. Two strengths of the UK system are that it helps to maintain the quality of theses and examiners have flexibility to adjust their judgement after the viva. In the study, the outcome of three of the examinations was influenced by the viva in relation to major or minor amendments to the thesis.</p> <p>Several respondents contended that two independent examiners helped to maintain fairness in the examination. One candidate suggested it was important supervisors were not involved, that the input of an external examiner was '<emph>absolutely essential</emph>' (STEM-C4) but that perhaps having two externals would add rigour. Another candidate summarised the process leading up to and including the examination: '<emph>I think the whole process is set up to be quite transparent...there are checks and balances all the way through so that you know if you're...hitting the quality levels required, so...it works well as it is</emph> (AHSS-C5)'.</p> <p>This internal examiner argued for the strengths of the decision process:</p> <p>It works quite well...the...pre -report, and then the exchange of that, so you have time... to...reflect on your own response [and] to digest the other person's...then the pre-meeting, at which you...talk about the...overlap and differences between your responses, ...then the viva, and...post-viva discussion. I honestly can't think of how it could be improved...I'm not saying it's perfect because...a lot of it does come down to the...complementarity...of the examiners... [As]...a...process...it's well thought through and well structured. (AHSS-I4)</p> <p>Other respondents tended to agree, e.g.: '<emph>Examiners read the thesis thoroughly and at the viva just completed we went through it carefully with the candidate. They asked questions that allowed the candidate to show [they] had a strong academic understanding of what [they] had done'</emph> (STEM-I1), and: '<emph>The way the exam is designed demonstrates rigour. We all know how it should operate and what our roles are</emph>' (AHSS-D1).</p> <p>Contentment with the process was not universal, however, and some, such as this examiner, would prefer a public viva:</p> <p>Is a PhD examination process that only involves two people satisfactory?...In some ways it isn't ideal. As a scientist who works on large sample sizes, I would say that two isn't very good. A public viva is better than two people behind closed doors, which isn't transparent. It would be preferable to have a more transparent and robust system...A larger panel would perhaps help to make the process more rigorous. (STEM-E1)</p> <p>This quotation contains two main criticisms of the UK doctoral examination: that a larger assessment panel would be preferable; and that a 'closed doors' system is overly secretive. As discussed, there are advantages and disadvantages associated with public examination. A contrasting view was:</p> <p>It's pretty rigorous...to have the thesis read by two people, completely independently, and then to go through a three-hour discussion of it... I can't really think how else you could do it that would increase confidence about the decisions...the examiners get time to chat in private before and after, and re-align any differences they have...I can't think of anything else I would want to do. (STEM-E4)</p> <p>This examiner also expressed the view that private vivas enable examiners to be more persistent in questioning the candidate on anything they are concerned about:</p> <p>When there's just the three or four of us in the room... that...more intimate setting...I try and put the student at ease at the beginning...then it enables you to actually push them much harder...[In a public setting]...I would feel so uncomfortable doing that, I wouldn't do it, and then it could become less rigorous.</p> <p>Regarding the advantages of a larger panel of examiners, the United States' system of the doctoral assessment process (Clarke, with Wynne, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref47">9</reflink>]) is advocated by some: independent, external readers give feedback on the dissertation before it is formally submitted, a process that doubtless improves quality. A disadvantage of the US system is that the candidate's advisor (supervisor in the UK), sits on the assessment panel, a practice not permitted in the UK because of potential conflict of interest.</p> <p>Denicolo ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref48">10</reflink>]:87), cites '<emph>the very different practice in European and North American countries in which public vivas are the norm</emph>' but does not suggest that her respondents favoured these alternatives. More recently, Lovat et al. ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref49">29</reflink>]) conclude that elements of all three systems they compare (Australia, New Zealand and the UK) have merit.</p> <p>Despite perceived weaknesses, the two-part doctoral examination process safeguards the integrity of examiners' judgements, with the viva complementing the thesis examination and enabling examiners to gain a greater understanding of the candidate and their research. As one candidate observed, the integrity of examination outcomes was strengthened by '<emph>the experience of examiners in their field and the knowledge and skills of the student. That's why people have two or more examiners</emph>' (STEM-C3).</p> <hd id="AN0181234178-14">The two part final examination: how judgements emerge</hd> <p>Data show that assessment begins with initial reading of the thesis and ends during the examiners' private discussions prior to disclosing their recommendations, suggesting the process constitutes a continuum in which the viva has a critical moderating role. According to Murray ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref50">34</reflink>]:16), the viva '<emph>is the final assessment of the research, the thesis and the student</emph>' (and see Denicolo [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref51">10</reflink>]; Tinkler and Jackson [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref52">48</reflink>]; Lovat, Holbrook, and Bourke [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref53">28</reflink>]; Boud, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref54">4</reflink>]; Åkerlind and McAlpine [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref55">1</reflink>]). Outcomes of the study suggest three broad stages, as summarised in Figure 1:</p> <p>While most examiners confirmed they usually broadly agreed with their co-examiner(s) about the thesis and the candidate's overall achievement, opinions are rarely fully aligned at the start, and while only three stages are suggested here, '<emph>the reality may be more complex, depending on the quality of the thesis, information the examiners discover in the viva, the performance of the candidate and their future career</emph>' (Houston [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref56">19</reflink>]). The judgement arising from first reading of the thesis in stage 1 may alter as more in-depth analysis is undertaken before individual judgements are shared with the other examiner. Stage 2 is the critical point where judgements are compared and synchronised, as examiners become more focused in their analysis of the thesis. Moderation of initial evaluations occurs either through the exchange of reports in advance or during a pre-viva discussion on the day of the viva, or both. Adjustments often involve relatively minor shifts of judgement, for instance, if examiners have focused on different aspects of the thesis, have complementary knowledge of the topic, or if experienced and novice examiners are working together. For a successful viva they must co-ordinate their comments and questions and elicit what is required from the candidate. Co-ordination of approaches was evident from observations, suggesting that despite different backgrounds, knowledge, experience and perspectives on the topic, examiners agreed on several elements of the process. These included: the most pertinent questions to ask; who would take the lead on particular sections; and what corrections the candidate should undertake. In Stage 3, with the added dimension of input from the candidate, examiners consolidate judgements, the viva adding another layer to their knowledge of the candidate and their work, including any difficulties encountered. As Murray asserts (2009:16):</p> <p>The viva can be seen not only as a defining moment in the doctoral experience but as, in many ways, <emph>the</emph> defining element of doctorate research. It is the final assessment of the research, the thesis and the student.</p> <p>Views vary as to whether the examination is assessing the candidate or their work. Mullins and Kiley ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref57">33</reflink>]) concluded that examiners are assessing the candidate rather than their work, yet Lovitts ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref58">30</reflink>]:117) found that there were differences among faculty, with some focusing on the candidate's work, and others on the person and the process. Lovitts also discovered that '<emph>it was not uncommon for faculty to say that they held students to different standards based on their assessment of the students' capabilities and goals</emph>'. Others (Denicolo [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref59">10</reflink>]; Hall [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref60">14</reflink>]) emphasise the dual purpose of the examination: to evaluate the candidate's contribution to knowledge through their output and to determine if they are capable of independent research. Morley, Leonard, and David ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref61">32</reflink>]) go further, suggesting that the viva should have a more overt function in assessing the candidate's personal attributes.</p> <p>The interdependent relationship between thesis and viva is core to the examiners' developing judgements. Viewing the process as a continuum allows time for reflection and for individual and collective judgements to mature.</p> <p>In the next section, we explore the viva's contribution in greater detail.</p> <hd id="AN0181234178-15">Thesis and viva: the interdependent relationship and the viva's contribution</hd> <p>While originally, the viva was the sole form of assessment of the doctorate, the thesis has long assumed primary importance in evaluating a candidate's readiness to become an independent researcher. The centrality of the thesis was confirmed by the study, but several respondents emphasised the viva's increased significance should there be concerns about the thesis, e.g. one suggested that, having submitted a '<emph>wobbly</emph>' thesis (AHSS-E1), a candidate could retrieve the situation in the viva. In the UK and elsewhere, the viva is compulsory, yet the relative importance of the thesis and viva is variable and, like other characteristics of the assessment, highly individual: '<emph>the relative weighting of the two components...varies dramatically across different students</emph>' (STEM-S4).</p> <p>The viva is a dynamic event and requires candidates and examiners to interact effectively in a short space of time, giving candidates the critical opportunity to 'defend' their thesis. Data suggest that even if the viva does not cause examiners to change their views radically, it fulfils an important role for candidates and examiners: '<emph>It's to assess the suitability of the candidate for the award of the doctorate. To find out whether they really know their subject well and can give a good account of what their thesis is about</emph>' (STEM-I2):</p> <p>To ensure the candidate has undertaken the work [and] is conversant with the field; [to] provide an opportunity for [them] to clarify aspects of the thesis, and to ensure quality control for the award of the degree. (STEM-E5)</p> <p>Candidates identified other key functions of the viva:</p> <p>It's probably to give you a way to defend yourself? In some cases there's a reason for doing something but maybe [you] didn't explain it too well in [the] thesis, although it might be reasonable, so [the viva gives you] a chance to explain it. (STEM-C2)</p> <p>and:</p> <p>It gives you a chance to defend the bits that are weaker...to explain – when they challenge something you can say, 'Look, I've said something else here', or, 'But the reason it looks like that is because of this'...that can be important when it's a marginal pass. (AHSS-C1)</p> <p>These two candidates from widely differing subjects articulated the need for a discussion with examiners to explain their thoughts and actions. Others: referred to the possibility that examiners might '<emph>mis-assess you by judging things in your thesis which you don't have the opportunity to defend...Maybe if you explain it further in the viva...it makes sense'</emph> (STEM-C5); and suggested the viva was an opportunity to demonstrate the ability to think quickly and synthesise knowledge: '<emph>Pulling in everything you know about the subject area and being able to defend it on the spot</emph>' (STEM-C4).</p> <p>The opportunity provided by the viva for in-depth exploration of the research is another significant purpose that supports the concept of fairness and confirms the integrity of the work:</p> <p>To discuss and...test the candidate – if [their] theory or findings are really consistent...It's necessary for answering questions...from...[the thesis]...and for a proper evaluation...testing...the research...When you write the thesis you have constraints of time and space so there are...things that are not written...that the examiners could think you aren't aware of, or you didn't think of, or that [you] don't have a clue about...the viva is an opportunity to test [if the] researcher...knows the subject. (AHSS-C3)</p> <p>Although this candidate's response is firmly rooted in 'testing' the candidate, they make another important point – that practical constraints might prevent the inclusion of some details about the research that needs to be explained face to face. Another agreed: '<emph>There's always so much more that doesn't go into it...theoretically [the thesis] is supposed to be everything but [there are some things] you don't write up</emph>' (STEM-C3).</p> <p>A further candidate explained they were aware beforehand of several theoretical questions that the external examiner '<emph>wanted to clear up'</emph> and that during the viva they asked about some '<emph>omissions of things that probably should have been</emph> [in the thesis]' (AHSS-C4). The observation (confirmed by the internal), suggested the candidate had strongly defended their theoretical position in the viva, providing an acceptable explanation to the external about why information had been omitted. This candidate showed additional insight into the viva process as formative learning:</p> <p>It's maybe not so much about the assessment of you as a PhD candidate but how helpful it can be to...talk about your work and listen to what other people think about it. ...For that purpose...it could be incredibly useful. (AHSS-C4)</p> <p>These candidates all implied examiners would have had an incomplete understanding of their research without the viva and that the examination would have been less fair without it. Examiners concurred:</p> <p>It's important for there to be an opportunity for the candidate to be able to defend their work face to face...I'd be unhappy about failing somebody without giving them a chance to explain what they're doing. (STEM-I3)</p> <p>Others developed this theme, one suggesting that the viva helped them: '<emph>To understand...choices [the candidate] has made...to clarify any misunderstandings, you've got...to push them on their position and get them to defend those choices'</emph> (AHSS-I2), another asking:</p> <p>[Can they]...engage in [the]...dialogue that is characteristic of the ...viva where...people challenge what they've done and they've got to defend it...has this candidate understood the questions...are they making a reasonable defence? (AHSS-E1)</p> <p>Respondents identified a key purpose of the viva: to enable the candidate to 'defend' their work. The concept of defence contributes to the viva being seen as a contested element of the examination. Questions that appear 'challenging' may be misinterpreted by candidates as a personal attack, leading to examiners being seen as over-zealous or bullying. An examination convenor or independent chair can act as a useful mediator in such cases.</p> <p>One examiner suggested the viva had become '<emph>a sort of ritual</emph>', more like '<emph>a scientific discussion and not so much an exam</emph>' (STEM-I4), citing the few instances of failure as showing it not to be a real test. The study indicated that most doctoral candidates pass with minor amendments and that outright failure or the award of a lower degree is rare. Although STEM-I4 was comparing the UK system with the continental public defence in which examiners overtly 'oppose' the thesis, their subsequent comment that '<emph>it's not any more a defence because...we were always very nice with the candidate. We never...attacked the candidate for them to defend the work</emph>' (ibid), again raises the question of exactly how challenging examiners should be in the UK viva without intimidating the candidate:</p> <p>It's a very...hard thing...a viva...sometimes...people can under-perform...you might be more impressed by the thesis and when you meet the candidate you can be quite surprised [by] how difficult they find what...you might think [of] as quite gentle questioning...the viva does play a part. (AHSS-E1)</p> <p>This examiner had encountered several candidates who were unprepared for the viva and who found questions more challenging than expected. Such instances demonstrate the need for examiners to adapt their approach in the viva to extract as much information as possible from less well prepared doctoral researchers, e.g. to establish if the candidate has led the research, and how much help they have had in writing the thesis, especially if their responses do not resolve these doubts. A final element of doctoral training is a mock viva (Houston [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref62">22</reflink>]), usually with supervisors role-playing as examiners. The benefits of this for preparing candidates for the actual viva are considerable: although it is not possible to know exactly what questions the examiners will ask, the mock viva gives them an understanding of the process and what examiners will be seeking.</p> <p>While most examiners agreed their impressions of the candidate and their work were usually confirmed in the viva, for example '<emph>Yes, my impressions were borne out in the viva</emph>' (STEM-I), and '<emph>My answer would be that, on the whole, vivas do bear out previous conclusions'</emph> (AHSS-D2), they also suggested that the viva can be influential when the thesis does not inspire confidence. An example of this arose when a candidate, also a part-time clinician, had submitted a thesis both examiners considered was of poor quality. Several components they would have expected were either missing or deficient. The observation demonstrated that the thesis quality contrasted starkly with the outstanding experimental work of the candidate, who had undertaken basic science techniques to produce high quality data resulting in a significant contribution to knowledge. It emerged that they had experienced challenges in accessing data due to a shortage of patients, together with a change of supervisor at a critical time. Initially the examiners were considering a re-submission, but as in many successful vivas, the exchanges between them and the candidate developed into a peer-to-peer discussion of the findings, the candidate confidently defending their research. Having been reassured of the candidate's contribution, the examiners recommended major amendments to be completed within six months – a successful outcome for the candidate after the three-hour viva, resulting in significant improvements to the thesis. Afterwards, the external examiner confirmed it had revealed important context:</p> <p>There were concerns...about the structure of the thesis [and]...lack of consideration of how the results fitted with those in the field...the viva did clarify...those issues, and there was quite a lot of discussion...to be able to understand the situation...the student was in (STEM-E5)</p> <p>Such situations arise across disciplines, as in this example:</p> <p>The viva is an important part of the process...most of the examiners I've worked with... see...that it can tip the balance one way or the other. I don't think I've ever been in a situation where we've had a...strong thesis and...a terrible viva...[but] I have been in [a situation] where [the thesis is] on the borderline and actually they retrieve it and...argue it well. (AHSS-S2)</p> <p>In this section, we have shown the multiple purposes of the viva, including how it can raise examiners' awareness and increase their understanding of positive and negative influences on the candidate's experience and their work. This, we argue, leads to fairer outcomes and higher quality theses.</p> <hd id="AN0181234178-16">Attributes sought by examiners</hd> <p>One of the striking findings in the study was how important professional and personal attributes seemed to be in examiners' judgements. Overtly, the primary purpose of the final examination remains the evaluation of the candidate's ability to conduct research independently, yet the study revealed the complexity of the judgement process, which takes account of qualities transferable to other contexts.</p> <p>Analysis of data regarding attributes enabled identification of four groups considered central to examiners' judgements, suggesting they share much common ground. Houston ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref63">19</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref64">21</reflink>]) explores these in detail and suggests if they are apparent from the thesis, viva or both. To summarise, while the thesis contributes most to evaluating the research-centred attributes of originality, publishability and research competence, the viva also plays a part. Conversely, the viva makes a more significant contribution to assessing the core professional and personal attributes, although some of these are apparent also in the thesis. The extent of the contribution to examiners' judgements of professional and personal attributes and the implications of this are explored in the conclusion.</p> <hd id="AN0181234178-17">Conclusion</hd> <p>Despite the contested role of the viva and the lack of absolute conformity of the PhD examination to current norms in higher education assessment practices, the study demonstrated that the final doctoral assessment process enables examiners to make informed judgements about whether candidates are capable of independent research. This is fundamental to the purposes of the PhD, irrespective of the graduate's career choice. The viva plays a crucial role in enabling the examiners to determine if the candidate possesses attributes essential not only for an academic career but for many professional roles. Research, professional and personal attributes are tested in either the thesis or viva, but often in both. Currently, however, the final examination does not explicitly assess professional or personal attributes, which examiners are not required to mention in reports, even though they contribute to the candidate's 'doctorateness' (Denicolo and Park [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref65">11</reflink>]). Rather, they focus on the quality of the research and its presentation in the thesis. The study demonstrated that while professional and personal skills are significant in examiners' judgements, they are implicit (Lovitts [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref66">30</reflink>]), and assessed mainly during the viva, where examiners expect the candidate to think quickly, respond meaningfully to their questions, display analytical and problem-solving skills, research leadership and more. Examiners also expect candidates to be receptive to constructive criticism and to argue their case effectively when discussing the thesis. These and other attributes have a significant bearing on examination outcomes but are not normally referenced in examiners' reports. Candidates were expecting examiners to test them on their research project, its outcomes and presentation in the thesis, unaware that they were also being judged on their professional and personal attributes. Candidates may also not realise that, additionally to any specific training undertaken, doing and learning about research will have equipped them with many of these qualities and developed their potential, in their professional and personal lives.</p> <p>More emphasis on the way professional and personal skills are developed alongside research capability during doctoral education would help candidates to perform better in both parts of the final examination, raising awareness of the valuable attributes they will possess as graduates. Two recent Australian studies complement this contention in relation to doctoral employability. Chen, Mewburn, and Suominen systematic literature review (2023) found that action could be taken to address the perceived lack of employability of doctoral graduates – a concept that prevails in Australia and the UK in particular. Their recommendations include improving stakeholder understanding of the value of doctorates and doctoral graduates, for the benefit of graduates. Pham ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref67">37</reflink>]), who conducted a small study of 23 interviews with doctoral graduates in their 30s and 40s, concluded that '<emph>life skills' acquired through personal experiences after graduation had helped them more than their degree to cope with a variety of demands</emph>'. However, this study did not explore further with the interviewees whether they acknowledged that some of the skills required to complete their doctorate might have helped them to manage their lives afterwards.</p> <p>Greater emphasis is needed on the interdependence of research, personal and professional skills acquired through undertaking a doctorate, both during the degree and during the assessment. We offer two practical suggestions for achieving this. The first is that doctoral candidates should be encouraged to think about their experience holistically and to consider how doing and learning about research contributes to the range of professional and personal attributes they will have acquired during their degree as well as subsequently (Pham [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref68">37</reflink>]). In some European countries, doctoral candidates are asked to summarise in an appendix to their thesis the range of attributes that have been important in helping them to develop, as a researcher, an individual, and as a potential employee. This could also be considered in the UK, irrespective of the candidate's discipline. The second is that examiners could be required to offer feedback in their reports about how the candidate's professional and personal attributes, in addition to their research achievements, contributed to their judgement. The aims would be to: instil greater confidence in graduates of their employability; provide evidence of their wide-ranging attributes to employers; and increase employers' insight into how research degrees can develop many transferable skills.</p> <p>While the primary purpose of the PhD final examination is to test the candidate's ability to conduct independent research, professional and personal attributes have become increasingly important in examiners' judgements. Existing outcomes of the final examination are not sufficiently explicit to confirm their readiness, or to provide evidence of their range of abilities, for non-academic, as well as academic roles – an essential requirement now that doctoral graduates are most likely to pursue careers outside academia.</p> <p>Since the doctorate and its purpose have changed, arguably irrevocably, these small but essential variations could be made to doctoral education and examination to ensure: candidates are fully aware of the wide range of interdependent research, professional and personal attributes that contribute to successful completion of their doctorate and subsequent employability; and that these are explicitly acknowledged by examiners in the assessment process and its outcomes.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Stages of PhD assessment (Houston [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref69">19</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref70">20</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181234178-18">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <ref id="AN0181234178-19"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref55" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Åkerlind, G., and L. McAlpine. 2017. " Supervising Doctoral Students: Variation in Purpose and Pedagogy." Studies in Higher Education 42 (9): 1686 – 1698. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1118031.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref19" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Biggs, J., and C. Tang. 2007. Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does, 3rd ed. Maidenhead : Open University Press, McGraw Hill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref33" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bloxham, S., and P. Boyd. 2007. Developing Effective Assessment in Higher Education: A Practical Guide. Maidenhead : Open University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref2" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Boud, L. eds. 2009. Changing Practices of Doctoral Education. Oxon : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref21" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bourke, S., and A. P. Holbrook. 2013. " Examining PhD and Research Masters Theses." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 38 (4): 407 – 416. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2011.638738.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref15" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Britton, J., F. Buscha, M. Dickson, L. van der Erve, A. Vignoles, I. Walker, B. Waltmann, and Y. Zhu. 2020. The Earnings Returns to Postgraduate Degrees in the UK. London : Institute for Fiscal Studies. https://ifs.org.uk/publications/earnings-returns-postgraduate-degrees-uk. [Accessed 05 June 2023]</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref18" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bryan, B., and K. Guccione. 2018. " Was It Worth It? A Qualitative Exploration into Graduate Perceptions of Doctoral Value." Higher Education Research and Development 37-6 : 1124 – 1140. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2018.1479378.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Chen, L., I. Mewburn, and H. Suominen. 2023. " Australian Doctoral Employability: A Systematic Review of Challenges and Opportunities." Higher Education Research and Development 43 : 298 – 314. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2023.2240715.[Accessed 29 February 2024]</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref47" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Clarke, G., and C. Wynne. 2016. " A Comparative Study of Doctoral Assessment: The United States, Germany, the Netherlands and Macau." https://ukcge.ac.uk/resources/resource-library?themes%5B13%5D=doctoral-examination-assessment [Accessed 23 October 2023]</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Denicolo, P. 2003. " Assessing the PhD: A Constructive View of Criteria." Quality Assurance in Education 11 (2): 84 – 91. doi: 10.1108/09684880310471506.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Denicolo, P., and C. Park. 2013. " Doctorateness – an Elusive Concept ?" In Critical Issues in Higher Education, edited by P. Denicolo and M. Kompf, Vol. 8, 191 – 197. Leiden, Netherlands : Brill Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-94-6209-046-0.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> EHEA Paris. 2018. " Paris Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, 24-25 May 2018. Appendix III : Overarching Framework of Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area (Revised 2018)." https://ehea.info/Upload/document/ministerial%5fdeclarations/EHEAParis2018%5fCommunique%5fAppendixIII%5f952778.pdf [Accessed 05 March 2024]</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frick, L., S. McKenna, and E. Muthama. 2017. " Death of the PhD: When Industry Partners Determine Doctoral Outcomes." Higher Education Research & Development 36 (2): 444 – 447. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2017.1263467.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hall, F. 2006. " Canadian Practices Related to the Examination of PhD Theses." Report for Canadian Association of Graduate Studies, Provided by Professor G Slater, Dean of the Graduate School, University of Ottawa.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> HESA. 2023a. " Figure 3 – HE Student Enrolments by Level of Study 2016–17 to 2020–21." https://<ulink href="http://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/sb262/figure-3">www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/sb262/figure-3</ulink> [Accessed 13 June 2023]</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> HESA. 2023b." Table 9 - Graduate Activities by Level of Qualification Obtained and Sex." https://<ulink href="http://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/graduates/table-9">www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/graduates/table-9</ulink> [Accessed 05 June 2023]</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> HESA. 2023c. " Figure 13 - Percentage of Graduates in Full-time Paid Employment in the UK by Salary Band and Personal Characteristics." https://<ulink href="http://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/sb266/figure-13">www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/sb266/figure-13</ulink> [Accessed 05 June 2023]</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Higher Education Commission. 2012. " Postgraduate Education: An Independent Enquiry by the Higher Education Commission." https://<ulink href="http://www.policyconnect.org.uk/hec/research/report-postgraduate-education">www.policyconnect.org.uk/hec/research/report-postgraduate-education</ulink> [Accessed 06 June 2023]</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Houston, G. 2019. " A Study of the PhD Examination: Process, Attributes, and Outcomes." Unpublished doctor of philosophy (DPhil) thesis, University of Oxford. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:07291f0e-e80b-4b06-a6af-b3ac8b90a00e [Accessed 06 June 2023]</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Houston, G. 2020. " Continuum of Judgement Diagram (Fig.9)." In Delivering Inspiring Doctoral Assessment, edited by P. Denicolo, D. Duke, and J. Reeves, 136. London : Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Houston, G. 2021. " Doctoral Examiners' Judgements: Do Examiners Agree on Doctoral Attributes and How Important Are Professional and Personal Characteristics." In The Future of Doctoral Research: Challenges and Opportunities, edited by A. Lee and R Bongaardt, 263 – 276. London : Routledge. [Online]</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Houston, G. 2022. " Chapter 9 the Role of Supervisors in Preparing Doctoral Researchers for the Final Examination." In Doctoral Education as If People Matter. Leiden, the Netherlands : Brill. doi: 10.1163/9789004529304_009.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Houston, G., T. Lovat, I. Lunt, A. Holbrook, and K. Dally. 2023. " The Viva in Doctoral Examination: A Habermasian Dialogic Occasion." In Education, Religion, and Ethics – a Scholarly Collection, D. Rayson. Berlin, Germany : Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jackson, C., and P. Tinkler. 2001. " Back to Basics: A Consideration of the Purposes of the PhD Viva." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 26 (4): 355 – 366. doi: 10.1080/02602930120063501.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kemp, N., W. Archer, C. Gilligan, and C. Humfrey. 2008. The UK's Competitive Advantage: The Market for International Research Students. London : Universities UK, UK Higher Education International Unit.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kumar, V., L. Sanderson, and A. Kaur. 2020. " Investigating the Role of Convenors in the PhD Viva." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 46 (7): 1080 – 1091. https://srhe.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02602938.2020.1841092?journalCode=caeh20#.X%5fdGXy2cZ8V. [Accessed 07 January 2021] doi: 10.1080/02602938.2020.1841092.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leathwood, C. 2005. " Assessment Policy and Practice in Higher Education: Purposes, Standards and Equity." Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 30 (3): 307 – 324.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lovat, T., A. Holbrook, and S. Bourke. 2008. " Ways of Knowing in Doctoral Examination: How Well is the Doctoral Regime? " Educational Research Review 3 (1): 66 – 76. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2007.06.002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lovat, T., A. Holbrook, S. Bourke, H. Fairbairn, M. Kiley, B. Paltridge, and S. Starfield. 2015. " Examining Doctoral Examination and the Question of the Viva." Higher Education Review 47 (3): 5 – 23.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lovitts, B. 2007. Making the Implicit Explicit: Creating Performance Expectations for the Dissertation, 20. Sterling, Virginia : Stylus.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lunt, I., L. McAlpine, and D. Mills. 2014. " Lively Bureaucracy? The ESRC's Doctoral Training Centres and UK Universities." Oxford Review of Education 40 (2): 151 – 169. doi: 10.1080/03054985.2013.862167.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morley, L., D. Leonard, and M. David. 2002. " Variations in Vivas: Quality and Equality in British PhD Assessments." Studies in Higher Education 27 (3): 263 – 273. doi: 10.1080/03075070220000653.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mullins, G., and M. Kiley. 2002. " It's a PhD, Not a Nobel Prize': How Experienced Examiners Assess Research Theses." Studies in Higher Education 27 (4): 369 – 386. ' doi: 10.1080/0307507022000011507.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murray, R. 2009. How to Survive Your Viva: Defending a Thesis in an Oral Examination, 2nd ed. Maidenhead : Open University Press, McGraw Hill Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nyquist, J., and B. Woodford. 2000. Seven Propositions from 2000 Conference, 4. Seattle : University of Washington.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oxford Economics. 2017. " The Economic Impact of UK Universities 2014–15." Report for Universities UK. https://<ulink href="http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/Documents/2017/the-economic-impact-of-universities.pdf">www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/Documents/2017/the-economic-impact-of-universities.pdf</ulink> [Accessed 23 September 2018]</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pham, T. 2023. " What Really Contributes to Employability of PhD Graduates in Uncertain Labour Markets? " Globalisation, Societies and Education. doi: 10.1080/14767724.2023.2192908.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Phillips, E., and D. Pugh. 2010. How to Get a PhD: A Handbook for Students and Their Supervisors, 5th ed. Buckingham : Open University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poole, B. 2015. " Examining the Doctoral Viva: Perspectives from a Sample of UK Academics." London Review of Education 13 (3): 92 – 105. doi: 10.18546/LRE.13.3.12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poole, B. 2017. " The Rather Elusive Concept of 'Doctorateness': A Reaction to Wellington." Studies in Higher Education 40 (9): 1507 – 1522. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2013.873026.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> QAA. 2024. " The Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications for UK Degree Awarding Bodies." Descriptor for a Higher Education Qualification at Level 8 on the FHEQ and SCQF Level 12 on the FQHEIS, 2nd ed, 27 – 28. https://<ulink href="http://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/quality-code/the-frameworks-for-higher-education-qualifications-of-uk-degree-awarding-bodies-2024.pdf?sfvrsn=3562b281%5f11">www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/quality-code/the-frameworks-for-higher-education-qualifications-of-uk-degree-awarding-bodies-2024.pdf?sfvrsn=3562b281%5f11</ulink>. [Accessed 29 February 2024]</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Radder, H. 2010. The Commodification of Academic Research: Science and the Modern University, edited by H. Radder. Pittsburgh, PA : University of Pittsburgh Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roberts, G. 2002. " Set for Success: The Supply of People with Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematical Skills." HM Treasury. <ulink href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20091115201121/">http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20091115201121/</ulink><ulink href="http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/ent%5fres%5froberts.htm">http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/ent%5fres%5froberts.htm</ulink> [Accessed 23 September 2018].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Russell, C. 1988. Letter to the Editor, 12. London : Times Higher Education Supplement.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwab, K. ed. 2014. " The Global Competitiveness Report 2014–15." http://www..weforum.org/docs/WEF%5fGlobalCompetitivenessReport%5f2014-15.pdf [Accessed 07 November 2017]</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tinkler, P., and C. Jackson. 2000. " Examining the Doctorate: Institutional Policy and the PhD Examination Process in Britain." Studies in Higher Education 25 (2): 167 – 180. doi: 10.1080/713696136.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tinkler, P., and C. Jackson. 2002. " In the Dark? Preparing for the PhD Viva." Quality Assurance in Education 10 (2): 86 – 97. doi: 10.1108/09684880210423573.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tinkler, P., and C. Jackson. 2004. The Doctoral Examination Process. Maidenhead : Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trafford, V. 2003. " Questions in Doctoral Vivas: Views from the inside." Quality Assurance in Education 3 11 (2): 114 – 122. doi: 10.1108/09684880310471542.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wallace, S., and C. Marsh. 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.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yi, G., and M. McMurtrey. 2013. " The Impact of Academic Inflation on the Labour Market: If Everyone Has a PhD, Who Will Be the Custodian? " International Journal of Electronic Finance 7 (3–4): 250 – 262. doi: 10.1504/IJEF.2013.058605.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Gillian Houston and Ingrid Lunt</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref70"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1451214
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Final Examination of the UK PhD: Fit for Purpose?
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gillian+Houston%22">Gillian Houston</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0009-0007-4932-8313">0009-0007-4932-8313</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ingrid+Lunt%22">Ingrid Lunt</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Assessment+%26+Evaluation+in+Higher+Education%22"><i>Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education</i></searchLink>. 2024 49(8):1182-1195.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 14
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Doctoral+Degrees%22">Doctoral Degrees</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Doctoral+Dissertations%22">Doctoral Dissertations</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Degree+Requirements%22">Degree Requirements</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Committees%22">Research Committees</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Training%22">Research Training</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Graduate+Students%22">Graduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Advisers%22">Faculty Advisers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Examiners%22">Examiners</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Validity%22">Test Validity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Career+Readiness%22">Career Readiness</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom%22">United Kingdom</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/02602938.2024.2364026
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0260-2938<br />1469-297X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: In recent decades the doctorate and its purposes have undergone fundamental change. The scholarly model has evolved from one of 'apprentice' to independent, supported learner and the doctoral training process has been revolutionised; many candidates now experience cohort-based, structured research. The UK's final PhD examination, however, has changed little in response and as a result has been called into question: does the current model -- thesis evaluation followed by a viva voce examination -- adequately assess the candidate, their achievements and their potential? This article includes data from a larger study that included live observations of viva examinations and interviews with candidates, supervisors and examiners. In the article, we explore the developments that have transformed the UK PhD from an elite 'licence to practise' for a minority to a mainstream qualification increasingly used to enhance career prospects. We consider the fitness for purpose of the examination by analysing the attributes assessed through the thesis and the viva. The article concludes by questioning whether the examination process enables examiners to communicate the attributes on which judgements are based: the candidate's ability to conduct research independently, their professional and personal characteristics, and their potential career prospects.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1451214
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1451214
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/02602938.2024.2364026
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 14
        StartPage: 1182
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Doctoral Degrees
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Doctoral Dissertations
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Degree Requirements
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Committees
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Training
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Graduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Faculty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Faculty Advisers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Examiners
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Validity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Career Readiness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United Kingdom
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Final Examination of the UK PhD: Fit for Purpose?
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gillian Houston
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ingrid Lunt
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0260-2938
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1469-297X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 49
            – Type: issue
              Value: 8
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1