In this episode, guest host Dr. Edward Mills talks to Professor Jon Blount, Director of Postgraduate Researcher in the College of Life and Environmental Sciences about preparing for your viva in STEMM subjects.
A couple of claifications on rules and regulations at Exeter:
This is the first in a new series of podcasts on the viva, being developed as part of a suite of online resources by Edward for the University of Exeter Doctoral College.
Music credit: Happy Boy Theme Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
Podcast transcript
1 00:00:09,260 --> 00:00:15,880 Hello and welcome, R, D And in betweens, I'm your host, Kelly Preece.
2 00:00:15,880 --> 00:00:32,260 And every fortnight I talk to a different guest about researchers development and everything in between.
3 00:00:32,260 --> 00:00:36,200 And welcome to the latest episode of R, D and the In Betweens.
4 00:00:36,200 --> 00:00:44,580 This episode comes to you a little late due to an incident with a microphone cable that sadly is no more.
5 00:00:44,580 --> 00:00:51,170 But I'm really delighted for the first time to bring you guest host for R, D and the In Betweens.
6 00:00:51,170 --> 00:00:55,880 So this week, Dr. Edward Mills, who has been a frequent guest on the podcast,
7 00:00:55,880 --> 00:01:02,960 is taking over and bringing us an episode all about preparing for your viiva
8 00:01:02,960 --> 00:01:08,930 So Edward is working with me to develop some online resources and training about preparing for your viva
9 00:01:08,930 --> 00:01:16,550 and that includes a series of podcasts with different academics and examiners and researchers all about the process.
10 00:01:16,550 --> 00:01:23,480 So this is the first of a new series. And over to you, Edward.
11 00:01:23,480 --> 00:01:27,050 Hello. As Kelly said in her intro, my name is Edward.
12 00:01:27,050 --> 00:01:33,890 I am a postdoc in Modern languages. And this episode of R, D and The In Betweens comes to you courtesy of Jon Blount
13 00:01:33,890 --> 00:01:42,080 director of Postgraduate Researchers in CLES, the College of Life Environmental Sciences here at the University of Exeter.
14 00:01:42,080 --> 00:01:48,110 It's part of a series of interviews that I'm doing with DPGRs and examiners from around the
15 00:01:48,110 --> 00:01:54,260 university as part of the preparation for a new suite of resources on preparing for your viva.
16 00:01:54,260 --> 00:02:03,110 And Jon has very kindly agreed that we can use the long form version of our discussion as part of this podcast series.
17 00:02:03,110 --> 00:02:09,470 So I started by asking, Jonn, as you can probably imagine, whether he'd be willing to introduce himself.
18 00:02:09,470 --> 00:02:13,730 Yeah, sure. So I'm I'm Jon Blount. As you said, I'm a professor of animal physiology.
19 00:02:13,730 --> 00:02:17,720 So my sort of parent discipline is bio sciences.
20 00:02:17,720 --> 00:02:25,220 But in CLES, I oversee, in addition to bio sciences, geography, sport and health sciences and psychology as well, including clinical psychology.
21 00:02:25,220 --> 00:02:29,090 So it's quite a diverse range of subject areas and quite large college.
22 00:02:29,090 --> 00:02:34,160 We've got about five hundred and seventy five students, something of that in that order.
23 00:02:34,160 --> 00:02:37,310 You mentioned the diverse college that you have in CLES
24 00:02:37,310 --> 00:02:46,550 And I was really interested to hear about this during the preinterview chat that we had in that you've got researchers from
25 00:02:46,550 --> 00:02:52,190 areas that say human geography who might be quite close to some of the work that we do in humanities and social sciences.
26 00:02:52,190 --> 00:02:59,670 Then you also have, of course, a lot of researchers who are nearer towards the what you might call the hard sciences and in CLES
27 00:02:59,670 --> 00:03:01,370 Is that right? That's right. Yeah.
28 00:03:01,370 --> 00:03:09,140 I mean, most of most of the theses that are examined in this college would be, I guess, what you would call STEM related.
29 00:03:09,140 --> 00:03:13,730 But as you say, towards the sort of human geography and of the geography spectrum,
30 00:03:13,730 --> 00:03:20,150 we do see PhDs that can be examined, including elements of performing arts, for example.
31 00:03:20,150 --> 00:03:25,760 So, you know, a very diverse range of presentations. Yes.
32 00:03:25,760 --> 00:03:34,940 And certainly we're hoping that the material in this discussion that will be useful to people then has people in STEM and everything in between.
33 00:03:34,940 --> 00:03:37,370 I was wondering if we could start just with me,
34 00:03:37,370 --> 00:03:47,960 asking when you tend to advise these students to start thinking about the viva as a moment in their course of study.
35 00:03:47,960 --> 00:03:55,100 I think this is a conversation that will naturally emerge in the final you know, the final year, let's say.
36 00:03:55,100 --> 00:04:01,640 It should be it should be around the time when you're getting deep into writing up and thinking about the
37 00:04:01,640 --> 00:04:06,740 kind of literature that you should be citing to properly represent the field of work that you're in.
38 00:04:06,740 --> 00:04:13,400 I mean, the choice of examiners will be strongly informed by the experience of your supervisory team.
39 00:04:13,400 --> 00:04:19,700 And I think it's important. You know, it's usually the case that students are aware of who their examiners are going to be.
40 00:04:19,700 --> 00:04:26,120 At some point during the latter months when they're finishing up the up stage and end it.
41 00:04:26,120 --> 00:04:29,330 And it's useful at that stage to kind of, you know,
42 00:04:29,330 --> 00:04:36,070 your audience really to think about who's going to be reading this and what literature they are going to be familiar with.
43 00:04:36,070 --> 00:04:40,040 You know, making sure that you properly represent their own research,
44 00:04:40,040 --> 00:04:46,730 perhaps not just the broader field of literature that they will be most knowledgeable about.
45 00:04:46,730 --> 00:04:53,120 So as a sort of follow up to that, then just to sort of try and demystify the process of it.
46 00:04:53,120 --> 00:05:01,580 Could I ask what you as an examiner will do when you're given a thesis or
47 00:05:01,580 --> 00:05:08,330 approached by one of the supervisors first to ask if it's an area you'd be willing to examine.
48 00:05:08,330 --> 00:05:09,540 Yeah.
49 00:05:09,540 --> 00:05:19,200 Your typically you'd be approached by the primary supervisor who would tell you roughly what the subject area is and what how many chapters there are,
50 00:05:19,200 --> 00:05:23,220 roughly how long the thesis says and what kind of format it's in and so on.
51 00:05:23,220 --> 00:05:30,330 And then you decide, you know, whether you're available and able to do it within the timescale that they will identify for.
52 00:05:30,330 --> 00:05:34,770 You know, they'll say to you, look, the candidates looking to submit around so and so and so we you know,
53 00:05:34,770 --> 00:05:38,390 we'd really like to have this done within two or three months of that date. Is that possible?
54 00:05:38,390 --> 00:05:47,070 And you agree or you decline depending on what what you know, what you've got on your plate at the time and so on when the thesis arrives to you,
55 00:05:47,070 --> 00:05:53,880 it will, of course, come electronically and it should also arrive as hard copy.
56 00:05:53,880 --> 00:05:59,160 If it doesn't, most examiners will request that because it's a lot easier to read a large document,
57 00:05:59,160 --> 00:06:03,810 as we all know, you know, in hard copy than on screen.
58 00:06:03,810 --> 00:06:11,040 And most examiners will have a quick flick through the thing when it arrives and just get a sense of the scale of the task ahead of them.
59 00:06:11,040 --> 00:06:17,690 You know, how much time do they feel that they will need to set aside to read this ahead of the thev viva?
60 00:06:17,690 --> 00:06:25,560 Well, if there is a viva. And then usually, you know what most people will do because we've all got a lot of things going on.
61 00:06:25,560 --> 00:06:37,140 It will normally be put to the side until a week or two before the date of the exam or the deadline for the submission of the report for the viva.
62 00:06:37,140 --> 00:06:46,290 And then they will they will intensively read it over a period of whatever's required, you know, two, three days as required and write the comments.
63 00:06:46,290 --> 00:06:54,030 I, I tend to go through the thesis and mark up the hard copy.
64 00:06:54,030 --> 00:06:56,520 And then after I've gone through each chapter,
65 00:06:56,520 --> 00:07:04,680 I'll then type up my notes and think about which bits of it are actually substantive and need to be discussed in a in a viva or
66 00:07:04,680 --> 00:07:11,790 would need to be presented to the candidate as a something they should respond to could potentially require revision and so on.
67 00:07:11,790 --> 00:07:21,620 So in that sort of post submission pre viva period, how do you typically advise a candidate to prepare for the viva?
68 00:07:21,620 --> 00:07:26,730 OK, so after you submit, obviously, there's a great sense of elation that you've sort of crossed the line and you
69 00:07:26,730 --> 00:07:32,100 tend to put the thing in the top drawer and forget about it for a few weeks,
70 00:07:32,100 --> 00:07:38,500 and that's absolutely the right thing to do. You know, just go away and forget about it, relax and do something else.
71 00:07:38,500 --> 00:07:49,390 But when it, when you when you know the date of your viva, I feel it's very important to make sure that you read the thesis and know its contents.
72 00:07:49,390 --> 00:07:53,560 Well, you know, you you can to a greater or lesser extent,
73 00:07:53,560 --> 00:08:00,010 anticipate the kinds of questions they're going to ask about each chapter and perhaps overall
74 00:08:00,010 --> 00:08:03,920 about how the thesis hangs together as a whole and what it what is its broader significance.
75 00:08:03,920 --> 00:08:11,320 So for each chapter, I would encourage candidates to just read it not immediately before the viva
76 00:08:11,320 --> 00:08:15,430 I'm not talking about the day before. I'm talking about maybe a week or two before.
77 00:08:15,430 --> 00:08:20,860 Read the chapter. Make sure you can or are clear in your own mind.
78 00:08:20,860 --> 00:08:26,710 What was the overall aim or question that we were setting out to address here?
79 00:08:26,710 --> 00:08:31,330 What were the what were the major questions and hypotheses that we approach?
80 00:08:31,330 --> 00:08:39,800 What were the major findings? And how do these findings change the way we think about the original question that we set out to answer at the outset?
81 00:08:39,800 --> 00:08:45,520 You know, you can you can if you can answer those sorts of questions in relation to each chapter,
82 00:08:45,520 --> 00:08:50,710 you're going to do absolutely fine, because you're almost certainly going to be asked to explain.
83 00:08:50,710 --> 00:08:55,990 What did you do? Why did you do it? What did you find out?
84 00:08:55,990 --> 00:09:02,980 You want to be all you want to almost be able to explain the purpose or the outcome of each chapter,
85 00:09:02,980 --> 00:09:10,300 as if you were writing a lay summary or or as if you were, you know, explaining to a non-specialist in the kitchen a party.
86 00:09:10,300 --> 00:09:14,540 You know what? Why what do you do? Why did you do that? What who cares?
87 00:09:14,540 --> 00:09:23,080 What did you find out? And in a conversational kind of way, you want to give a fairly pithy answer to those sorts of questions,
88 00:09:23,080 --> 00:09:32,660 because you're almost certainly going to be asked. And that's really I think preparation is the key.
89 00:09:32,660 --> 00:09:40,220 Think about potential weaknesses. It's not your role to hide any potential weaknesses that you're aware of.
90 00:09:40,220 --> 00:09:50,180 It's okay to be open and talk about them, too. The examiner's main job is, as I said before, is to make sure that you wrote the thesis.
91 00:09:50,180 --> 00:09:55,130 So just make sure that you you do remember its content.
92 00:09:55,130 --> 00:09:59,140 Don't put it to one side and then literally don't look at it again for three months and
93 00:09:59,140 --> 00:10:04,050 then go into the room because you're gonna be asked detailed questions about his content.
94 00:10:04,050 --> 00:10:09,050 And you mentioned this sort of writing of reports that takes place before the viva.
95 00:10:09,050 --> 00:10:12,800 Could you say a bit more about that and about the role of different examiners?
96 00:10:12,800 --> 00:10:22,040 Because, of course, there will be more than one. Yeah, there'll be an external examiner and one or more internal examiners.
97 00:10:22,040 --> 00:10:29,510 If, for example, a member of staff themselves went for a PhD, if they didn't have a PhD already, they might do a PhD as
98 00:10:29,510 --> 00:10:33,860 part of their work for Exeter. They would then require two internal examiners.
99 00:10:33,860 --> 00:10:40,070 But, you know, there there are sort of process related things like that that might determine how many people are in the room.
100 00:10:40,070 --> 00:10:46,400 But, you know, there's going to be an internal examiner. At least one of those is going to be one external examiner potentially two external examiners.
101 00:10:46,400 --> 00:10:54,290 If the thesis covers a very broad range of expertise, is that requires a bit more inputs to examine.
102 00:10:54,290 --> 00:10:58,550 And there might be a non examining independent chair whose role is just to oversee proceedings.
103 00:10:58,550 --> 00:11:03,320 They don't they don't read the thesis and they won't contributes the conversation
104 00:11:03,320 --> 00:11:07,340 other than to chip in and sort of bring things back on course if they feel that,
105 00:11:07,340 --> 00:11:13,370 you know, you've overrun the time that's available or something like that. And I think that's actually our requirement, isn't it?
106 00:11:13,370 --> 00:11:19,910 With the new virtual Vivas in the age of COVID, it is a requirement of the online virtual Vivas.
107 00:11:19,910 --> 00:11:26,990 It's not a requirement, typically, unless there's something like, you know, one of the examiners has not examined at the level of the award before.
108 00:11:26,990 --> 00:11:31,800 It might require a non-examiningchair to be present just to oversee, oversee proceedings.
109 00:11:31,800 --> 00:11:35,480 As I say, their role is just to make sure that the regulations are followed really,
110 00:11:35,480 --> 00:11:41,140 and that the candidate has a fair crack, the whip to defend their thesis, as we say.
111 00:11:41,140 --> 00:11:42,800 And obviously the first step, I imagine,
112 00:11:42,800 --> 00:11:50,870 is defending the thesis comes in the form of the examiners producing these reports on what you as a candidate have written.
113 00:11:50,870 --> 00:11:54,920 Could you say a bit more about what goes into these reports at all?
114 00:11:54,920 --> 00:12:02,540 Yes. So that the preliminary reports are written independently by the each individual examiner.
115 00:12:02,540 --> 00:12:12,080 And they will give an abridged version of their overall comments that they've already written up in note form or in longhand.
116 00:12:12,080 --> 00:12:15,470 You know, they would just give a sort of a sense of where they of
117 00:12:15,470 --> 00:12:19,550 what they feel the likely outcome will be on the basis of the thesis that they've read.
118 00:12:19,550 --> 00:12:30,980 They will give a tentative recommendation at the end. I think this is I think this is worthy of the award of PhD
119 00:12:30,980 --> 00:12:35,390 It's subject to perhaps some revisions in the areas that I've outlined above.
120 00:12:35,390 --> 00:12:41,540 That's the kind of the way that that report typically. And and then then then examiners share those reports with each other.
121 00:12:41,540 --> 00:12:47,570 Usually the day before the exam, just so they're aware of the gist of what each other's feelings are.
122 00:12:47,570 --> 00:12:55,490 It's useful to have that for context. And then but you wouldn't modify those reports at that stage, even if you identified differences in your view.
123 00:12:55,490 --> 00:12:58,700 So that's that's quite normal.
124 00:12:58,700 --> 00:13:08,450 But then on that, you know, after the after the viva has taken place, the examiners would then get together virtually.
125 00:13:08,450 --> 00:13:14,990 In the current circumstances or physically, they would get together a room and they would draw up a report,
126 00:13:14,990 --> 00:13:18,710 a joint report where they make their recommendation.
127 00:13:18,710 --> 00:13:26,360 This should be awarded, you know, subject to revisions or whatever the recommendation is, though, they'll state, what their recommendation is.
128 00:13:26,360 --> 00:13:32,380 And then if there are revisions required, they'll list them. That's that's the function of the final report.
129 00:13:32,380 --> 00:13:40,580 The period, of course, when the examiners are doing this before the viva itself starts is one of high tension for the student candidate.
130 00:13:40,580 --> 00:13:53,140 I remember it myself, very well, what advice do you tend to give to PGR is going into the viva about nerves and how to handle them?
131 00:13:53,140 --> 00:13:54,800 I think I think the first thing to say is, you know,
132 00:13:54,800 --> 00:14:00,030 try not to be nervous because you know more about this thing than anyone else does almost certainly.
133 00:14:00,030 --> 00:14:06,570 And that the primary function of the examiners is just to make sure to verify that you indeed wrote this thing yourself.
134 00:14:06,570 --> 00:14:10,850 You know, this is an independent, independent piece of research. And you are the author. That's their primary function.
135 00:14:10,850 --> 00:14:14,330 So, you know, of course, that is almost invariably going to be the case.
136 00:14:14,330 --> 00:14:20,180 So, you know, you should go into this feeling that you're in control.
137 00:14:20,180 --> 00:14:24,600 You know, to us to a greater or lesser extent, that you know more about this than anyone else.
138 00:14:24,600 --> 00:14:31,760 So you shouldn't. Although it's almost impossible. Not to become anxious ahead of a major life event like this.
139 00:14:31,760 --> 00:14:35,850 The examiners are going to want you to do well. And I think it's important that, you know,
140 00:14:35,850 --> 00:14:42,970 that the candidates recognise that good examiners will set you at ease when you walk into the room just by
141 00:14:42,970 --> 00:14:51,210 asking you some rather banal questions about what you've been up to since you submitted the thing or you know,
142 00:14:51,210 --> 00:15:00,190 that just conversation starts ready to break the ice. They might even give you a sense of the likely outcome before that final proper begins.
143 00:15:00,190 --> 00:15:04,110 So everybody wants you to do well.
144 00:15:04,110 --> 00:15:11,290 And in an ideal world, you will be put at ease relatively quickly after the thing starts.
145 00:15:11,290 --> 00:15:18,520 And that's something that's come up a lot, actually, in the discussions I've had with examiners and DPGRs across across colleges that
146 00:15:18,520 --> 00:15:24,130 examiners will often give an indication early on over the way the wind is blowing.
147 00:15:24,130 --> 00:15:24,430 Obviously,
148 00:15:24,430 --> 00:15:32,020 that might not always be the case and you might not get this sort of early indication of whether you're going to pass with major corrections,
149 00:15:32,020 --> 00:15:35,440 minor corrections, no corrections or so on if you don't get that.
150 00:15:35,440 --> 00:15:39,470 Is that necessarily a bad thing from the outset of either place?
151 00:15:39,470 --> 00:15:47,500 So it's sometimes quite difficult to give a precise indication because it may not be cut and dry whether they will want you to make revisions or not.
152 00:15:47,500 --> 00:15:54,520 You know, some of the some of the items that they've, some of the things they've itemised in the provisional list of corrections that
153 00:15:54,520 --> 00:15:58,750 they they want to discuss with you will end up just being put to one side,
154 00:15:58,750 --> 00:16:03,550 having had a discussion. It's the misunderstandings cleared up and it doesn't actually require revision.
155 00:16:03,550 --> 00:16:13,150 So I think I wouldn't be at all concerned if you're not given an indication of the likely outcome is is quite often
156 00:16:13,150 --> 00:16:20,680 difficult to be definitive before you've actually heard the candidate speak and wants to do the questions in.
157 00:16:20,680 --> 00:16:27,820 So once we're into the meat of the viva, if you like, past the initial introductions, those those early questions.
158 00:16:27,820 --> 00:16:34,270 Is there anything that you as an examiner like to see that gives you confidence in the
159 00:16:34,270 --> 00:16:38,380 candidate that you examine in confidence that the candidate knows what they're doing,
160 00:16:38,380 --> 00:16:42,400 knows what they're talking about? I mean, you're you know, you're an examiner.
161 00:16:42,400 --> 00:16:47,050 You're looking for a thesis, a thesis that's well, well presented and has been proofs
162 00:16:47,050 --> 00:16:49,210 Read
163 00:16:49,210 --> 00:16:59,230 It makes the task of examining so much more enjoyable if you feel that the candidate has taken care over the presentation and then the proofreading,
164 00:16:59,230 --> 00:17:01,660 you know, there's really no excuse for it to be littered with typos.
165 00:17:01,660 --> 00:17:08,470 And it sets the tone in the wrong direction from the outset because you're creating a
166 00:17:08,470 --> 00:17:13,660 great deal more work for the examiners if you haven't had time or bothered to do that,
167 00:17:13,660 --> 00:17:20,800 work yourself. You know, similarly, you want to see a good you want to be easy to navigate.
168 00:17:20,800 --> 00:17:28,350 So you want see a good context content section so you can find all the different bits easily and cross-reference things when you need to.
169 00:17:28,350 --> 00:17:33,940 You're to make sure that the literature is appropriately cited. We've touched on that already.
170 00:17:33,940 --> 00:17:40,450 And the other thing I suppose to say here is I think it's important to make sure
171 00:17:40,450 --> 00:17:44,950 that you deal with all all the revisions that you're given at the end of it.
172 00:17:44,950 --> 00:17:49,360 You know that the final report that you receive at the end of viva will
173 00:17:49,360 --> 00:17:54,760 potentially have a list of things that the examiners want you to correct or amend.
174 00:17:54,760 --> 00:17:59,590 And, you know, occasionally candidates don't agree with all of those things.
175 00:17:59,590 --> 00:18:03,080 And and they might then choose to sort of argue the point.
176 00:18:03,080 --> 00:18:11,890 And I would strongly advise against that, because it doesn't it just doesn't end well for the candidate, because it just draws out the process.
177 00:18:11,890 --> 00:18:19,410 And basically the examiners are highly unlikely to. To back down on an amendment that they've asked for.
178 00:18:19,410 --> 00:18:28,890 So that's a really interesting point, Just to check are you referring specifically to amendments that are proposed post Viva or to the kind of
179 00:18:28,890 --> 00:18:35,280 discussions that you'd have in the propositions made by the examiners during the viva itself?
180 00:18:35,280 --> 00:18:36,180 No. No,
181 00:18:36,180 --> 00:18:44,220 During the discussion, I mean, it's absolutely fine to sort of argue, argue the point and perhaps not argue, but of robust discussion about something.
182 00:18:44,220 --> 00:18:50,160 If if the examiners ask you to change the way some piece of statistical analysis is done or something and you don't agree,
183 00:18:50,160 --> 00:18:56,260 then it's absolutely your prerogative to figure out why you feel that they're wrong and they may well be wrong.
184 00:18:56,260 --> 00:19:00,000 I mean, that could be an example of a potential amendment that they then just scrub
185 00:19:00,000 --> 00:19:03,810 out off the list because they realise that they misunderstood or something.
186 00:19:03,810 --> 00:19:10,800 But at the end of the process, if there are amendments or corrections requested, it will come in the form of a list.
187 00:19:10,800 --> 00:19:15,810 And, you know, you've basically just got to do what you've been asked to do at that stage.
188 00:19:15,810 --> 00:19:21,480 There's no point arguing candidates occasionally will feel that they want to do that.
189 00:19:21,480 --> 00:19:26,790 But it's a pointless exercise would be my advice.
190 00:19:26,790 --> 00:19:29,010 Yeah. Thanks for clarifying that.
191 00:19:29,010 --> 00:19:38,620 Actually, I think that resonates with a lot of what people have heard in HASS subjects as well about the need to engage in this robust discussion,
192 00:19:38,620 --> 00:19:44,700 during the viva itsel on that topic, actually, of a sort of robust discussion.
193 00:19:44,700 --> 00:19:52,130 How do you tend to encourage candidates to reach that stage?
194 00:19:52,130 --> 00:19:59,060 Well, one thing that I've heard before from a lot of people is the value of not getting too defensive in the viva
195 00:19:59,060 --> 00:20:08,130 Yes. I think, you know, you got a break. You got to recognise that. You know, exams will vary and some examiners are just human beings,
196 00:20:08,130 --> 00:20:14,810 right so they will have different demeanours and ways of approaching things and different manners of asking questions.
197 00:20:14,810 --> 00:20:21,930 But as a candidate, whatever you're presented with, you've just got to stay cool and listen to the question carefully.
198 00:20:21,930 --> 00:20:26,190 And, you know, above all, don't don't don't argue.
199 00:20:26,190 --> 00:20:32,580 Just take your time. Listen to it. Ask. Ask for a clarification if you don't understand the question properly.
200 00:20:32,580 --> 00:20:37,200 Once you do understand what they're getting out, you know, whatever it is.
201 00:20:37,200 --> 00:20:47,100 Just give a calm answer. This is the best advice really is absolutely no point folding your arms and arguing.
202 00:20:47,100 --> 00:20:51,930 So when you say don't argue. It sounds like a kind of demeanour thing.
203 00:20:51,930 --> 00:20:55,890 Almost. Don't don't snap back. Just keep your cool. If that makes sense.
204 00:20:55,890 --> 00:21:03,000 Very often in in STEM subject areas that, you know, there will be multiple ways of doing something.
205 00:21:03,000 --> 00:21:07,770 And the examiners may have their own particular preference of how something should be done.
206 00:21:07,770 --> 00:21:09,870 And they may say to you, I think you should do it like this.
207 00:21:09,870 --> 00:21:20,280 And it say it's absolutely fine to try to reason with the examiner why you feel the way you've done it is it is an alternative or adequate approach to.
208 00:21:20,280 --> 00:21:25,500 And, you know, a good examiner, a good board of examiners would accept that they'd listen to and accept that.
209 00:21:25,500 --> 00:21:28,860 And actually, that will sort of bolster their confidence that you are in command of this.
210 00:21:28,860 --> 00:21:32,940 And as I said, it is your PhD. And you know more about this to anyone else.
211 00:21:32,940 --> 00:21:37,950 And in many cases, examiners will simply say, that's absolutely fine.
212 00:21:37,950 --> 00:21:44,400 And drop the point. You will occasionally get situations where examiner is absolutely adamant that they want something done in a particular way.
213 00:21:44,400 --> 00:21:51,990 And you very strongly disagree. And that's the sort of bit where the internal examiners role really comes to the fore there,
214 00:21:51,990 --> 00:21:59,370 because they ought to be experienced enough to, you know, recognise a point when, you know, we've exhausted this.
215 00:21:59,370 --> 00:22:05,130 Now let's move on. And they will potentially intervene and say, I think we think we've covered this now.
216 00:22:05,130 --> 00:22:06,120 We'll move on at the end.
217 00:22:06,120 --> 00:22:12,660 And then, you know, yet when you see the report, the and you'll find out what the decision has been as to what they want you to do.
218 00:22:12,660 --> 00:22:19,830 But that's the point at which you there's no point arguing, just jumping back slightly, if that's okay.
219 00:22:19,830 --> 00:22:25,350 One thing that you mentioned earlier was the importance of signposting and there being a clear structure throughout the thesis.
220 00:22:25,350 --> 00:22:32,820 And another thing that came out of our discussion before I hit the big red record button was this notion of the results chapter,
221 00:22:32,820 --> 00:22:42,240 which sounds in some ways that's quite a specific STEM thing for listeners who are a maybe HASS subjects.
222 00:22:42,240 --> 00:22:50,790 Would you be able to say a little bit more about what you mean by that and how that might apply more generally, this notion of results chapter?
223 00:22:50,790 --> 00:22:57,060 So the typical structure of a PhDthesis in STEM would be an introductory chapter,
224 00:22:57,060 --> 00:23:04,230 which might be a sort of a literature review type chapter that sets the research questions in the context of the existing
225 00:23:04,230 --> 00:23:11,550 literature and identifies the gaps in knowledge that you're going to address that may or may not be publishable units,
226 00:23:11,550 --> 00:23:17,910 if you like, in its own right. It might end up being a review article in in in in the STEM literature,
227 00:23:17,910 --> 00:23:25,230 or it might just serve the purpose of being part of the thesis that sort of bookends the results chapters which are in the middle.
228 00:23:25,230 --> 00:23:32,370 So after your introductory general introduction, you would typically then have a series of, you know, what we call results chapters.
229 00:23:32,370 --> 00:23:38,730 So each of those will have its own introduction methods, results, discussion, reference list and so on.
230 00:23:38,730 --> 00:23:49,740 They may or may not have been submitted for publication, as you know, individual publishable units at the point by which you have the viva.
231 00:23:49,740 --> 00:23:51,060 If they have been published,
232 00:23:51,060 --> 00:23:57,630 it's very often the case that you'll just have an interesting chat about the contents of it and what we found out about it.
233 00:23:57,630 --> 00:24:02,100 You know, what was the main question? How did you address it? What were the main findings?
234 00:24:02,100 --> 00:24:07,380 How does this change the way we view the world? You know, but they won't nit pick about details.
235 00:24:07,380 --> 00:24:11,820 And why did you do your analysis in this way? Did you think about doing in a different way?
236 00:24:11,820 --> 00:24:16,460 Because it's already been subject to peer review and and it's published.
237 00:24:16,460 --> 00:24:22,470 You know, what's the point of changing a part of a thesis that's already in the public domain as a published article?
238 00:24:22,470 --> 00:24:27,900 So most examiners won't ask you to revise published chapters.
239 00:24:27,900 --> 00:24:31,620 It can happen, but it's it's relatively unusual.
240 00:24:31,620 --> 00:24:37,180 They're more likely to spend more time talking about the aspects of the thesis which are potentially publishable,
241 00:24:37,180 --> 00:24:41,460 i.e., the results chapters which have not yet been submitted for peer review.
242 00:24:41,460 --> 00:24:46,690 So they'll be doing the job of external peer review is at that stage.
243 00:24:46,690 --> 00:24:54,540 And actually, that conversation that happens in the Viva is really, really helpful for you for when you come to write those papers up for publication,
244 00:24:54,540 --> 00:25:00,480 submit them, because hopefully with all of that expert opinion you've already had about this piece of work,
245 00:25:00,480 --> 00:25:02,920 you'll have covered many of the issues that the.
246 00:25:02,920 --> 00:25:11,110 The reviewers might might have picked up and how helpful is it, at least in in STEM specifically to compartmentalise in this way?
247 00:25:11,110 --> 00:25:17,610 I mean, I'm assuming most reviewers will take it in a relatively chapter by chapter like fashion.
248 00:25:17,610 --> 00:25:23,100 They will actually, in this subject it's actually the most common format for these conversations will be to let's start with
249 00:25:23,100 --> 00:25:30,060 chapter one and then two and three and so on you can you can approach this and examine other ways entirely up to you,
250 00:25:30,060 --> 00:25:35,940 how you approach it. But with the agreement of all the examiners, you could go it in a very much wider way.
251 00:25:35,940 --> 00:25:40,050 And just and just start with the really broad questions about, you know, what have we learnt?
252 00:25:40,050 --> 00:25:46,530 How does this how does this how does the findings of your thesis change the way we think about the original questions you set out?
253 00:25:46,530 --> 00:25:53,400 And then just sort of pick up on individual bits of it as you as you sort of navigate through that conversation.
254 00:25:53,400 --> 00:25:59,970 And that might be the more appropriate way to do it. If, for example, as exceptionally to be fair, but if, for example,
255 00:25:59,970 --> 00:26:07,110 the candidate had already published all of their results, chapters in the peer reviewed scientific literature,
256 00:26:07,110 --> 00:26:15,930 then it might be appropriate to have a slightly different style of conversation in the viva, where you just go at it from a much broader perspective.
257 00:26:15,930 --> 00:26:20,010 I was going to ask actually on that subjects, would you recommend, therefore,
258 00:26:20,010 --> 00:26:30,180 at least in STEMM subject that candidates try and sort of publish as much as possible prior to their PhD just to give themselves that insurance?
259 00:26:30,180 --> 00:26:34,610 I wouldn't say recommend because it's so project specific. You know, some it's some projects.
260 00:26:34,610 --> 00:26:38,760 The results only come towards the end. It's just a necessary part of it.
261 00:26:38,760 --> 00:26:44,460 You know, if you're working on a longitudinal study of a mammal in the wild or something,
262 00:26:44,460 --> 00:26:49,920 you might only get all of your data in the final year and so on. So it's almost impossible to publish as you go.
263 00:26:49,920 --> 00:26:56,160 But, you know, in in this subject area, we are we're all obsessed, if you like,
264 00:26:56,160 --> 00:27:01,590 in our careers are judged on the numbers and quality of the publications that we produce.
265 00:27:01,590 --> 00:27:09,420 And so, you know, all all supervisors will be encouraging you to look for opportunities to publish as you go.
266 00:27:09,420 --> 00:27:14,510 Based on that, then, would publication make you untouchable in a viva on a given chapter,
267 00:27:14,510 --> 00:27:18,540 or is that, as I suspect, something of an oversimplification?
268 00:27:18,540 --> 00:27:25,290 It's an oversimplification, but, you know, the role of the examiners is to make sure you have been examined.
269 00:27:25,290 --> 00:27:31,350 You know, it'd be remiss of them just to have a laid back conversation if you just because you've published everything,
270 00:27:31,350 --> 00:27:37,710 they would be looking to test you on your thoughts about what are the most significant parts of what you've found.
271 00:27:37,710 --> 00:27:42,990 And, you know, why should we care about what you've found and how could this apply to fields, you know,
272 00:27:42,990 --> 00:27:48,240 outside of your immediate gaze and subject area and so on, mean they will as experienced academics,
273 00:27:48,240 --> 00:27:51,360 they will want to make you feel like you've had an exam,
274 00:27:51,360 --> 00:28:02,510 although a constructive and enjoyable conversation that just for the final part of our conversation, I was wondering if we could look at little bit more.
275 00:28:02,510 --> 00:28:07,950 Are some of the outcomes. We've briefly touched on these already.
276 00:28:07,950 --> 00:28:10,230 But just to begin with the basic points.
277 00:28:10,230 --> 00:28:17,910 Am I right in thinking that the standard outcomes od pass with no corrections, with minor corrections, major corrections,
278 00:28:17,910 --> 00:28:27,370 that sort of range of outcomes and of course, other ones alongside that are broadly consistent in STEM subjects as well as in HASS?
279 00:28:27,370 --> 00:28:29,100 The potential outcomes are the same.
280 00:28:29,100 --> 00:28:36,150 And at the end of the viva of the examiners will send you out of the room, you know, physically or figuratively speaking,
281 00:28:36,150 --> 00:28:40,770 if it was a virtual viva and they'll have a conversation about what their recommendations are going to be,
282 00:28:40,770 --> 00:28:44,700 then they'll call you back in and they'll tell you verbally what the recommendation is.
283 00:28:44,700 --> 00:28:50,700 Of course, if it's no corrections, it's just a case of, you know, slapping each other on the back and wishing you well.
284 00:28:50,700 --> 00:28:54,960 If it's if the recommendation is for major or minor corrections,
285 00:28:54,960 --> 00:29:02,400 then they'll explain to you why they feel that's justified and what you're required to do for the award.
286 00:29:02,400 --> 00:29:09,020 And then you will be sent the written up report once they've conferred and actually got it down in writing.
287 00:29:09,020 --> 00:29:17,100 You will be sent that within a few days usually, and you'll be given a period of time in which you need to turn it around and resubmit it.
288 00:29:17,100 --> 00:29:21,300 And then once the revisions are received back at the university administrative hub,
289 00:29:21,300 --> 00:29:29,900 they will be sent to the internal examiners whose role is just to go through and check that you've done all that you were asked to do.
290 00:29:29,900 --> 00:29:35,160 And if there's any uncertainty in their mind about that, they will confer with the external examiner.
291 00:29:35,160 --> 00:29:39,600 But in most cases, the external examiner isn't consulted at that point.
292 00:29:39,600 --> 00:29:47,970 And it the case in sciences as it is in, has subjects that you're not allowed to contact your examiners for further feedback.
293 00:29:47,970 --> 00:29:54,060 No, it's really important you don't contact the examiners. It compromises their position.
294 00:29:54,060 --> 00:29:57,420 They won't welcome the approach and it and it contravenes our rules.
295 00:29:57,420 --> 00:30:04,310 And regs so potentially would render the examination invalid and you'd have to do it again.
296 00:30:04,310 --> 00:30:10,170 There is that the option of going through your supervisor. But that can only happen once.
297 00:30:10,170 --> 00:30:15,090 As I understand it. Yeah. I don't know about the frequency, whether it once or whatever.
298 00:30:15,090 --> 00:30:22,270 It's some it. It's not generally considered to be a good idea for any one to confer with the examiners would be my advice.
299 00:30:22,270 --> 00:30:27,520 You can go back to the internal examiner would be that the supervisor could approach the
300 00:30:27,520 --> 00:30:32,880 internal examiner and ask for clarification about the wording of something that would be okay.
301 00:30:32,880 --> 00:30:39,490 Yeah. I think that would be fine once. And what is the distribution curve, if that's the right term?
302 00:30:39,490 --> 00:30:46,330 Look like what percentage of candidates will get no minor major correction.
303 00:30:46,330 --> 00:30:52,870 So in our college, minor corrections is the most common outcome.
304 00:30:52,870 --> 00:31:00,160 Something like 80 percent of submitted theses will get minor corrections, no corrections,
305 00:31:00,160 --> 00:31:12,070 about 10 percent major corrections or other potential outcomes like a fail or award of a lower degree and MPhil or that sort of thing.
306 00:31:12,070 --> 00:31:20,760 That would be, you know, in the single figures. And how do people tend to react to all of the different outcomes that they might achieve?
307 00:31:20,760 --> 00:31:25,410 I went into my viva I remember hoping for minor corrections.
308 00:31:25,410 --> 00:31:28,930 Is that sort of the attitude to take, would you say? I think so.
309 00:31:28,930 --> 00:31:32,410 I mean, if you if you've prepared the thesis, you know,
310 00:31:32,410 --> 00:31:38,170 if you've if you've had it read by your supervisors and you've gone through rounds of revision and so on, us,
311 00:31:38,170 --> 00:31:43,570 as should be the case, then everyone should feel reasonably confident that the point that which is submitted,
312 00:31:43,570 --> 00:31:47,480 that this is going to get a pass with no no major difficulties.
313 00:31:47,480 --> 00:31:53,830 That's why major corrections or a fail or award of a lower degree is that is a relatively rare outcome.
314 00:31:53,830 --> 00:32:00,060 Yes. Can I ask first what constitutes minor corrections as opposed to say no corrections?
315 00:32:00,060 --> 00:32:08,320 Yeah. So minor corrections is typically could just be a list of typos, you know, or very minor things.
316 00:32:08,320 --> 00:32:13,240 Like I think you should reference this additional area of literature, which you haven't mentioned.
317 00:32:13,240 --> 00:32:21,610 If that list of very minor issues becomes increasingly very long and pervasive throughout the thesis,
318 00:32:21,610 --> 00:32:28,300 then potentially that could in itself swing it towards major corrections because it would require longer than,
319 00:32:28,300 --> 00:32:34,750 you know, just two months to fix sort of thing. It's it's a wholesale rewriting that could potentially constitute major corrections.
320 00:32:34,750 --> 00:32:42,370 The more common justification for the requests of major corrections is if there are aspects of the analysis,
321 00:32:42,370 --> 00:32:48,420 i.e. the data analysis in STEM that require doing again.
322 00:32:48,420 --> 00:32:53,740 And that could potentially also the interpretation, because the results are not known,
323 00:32:53,740 --> 00:33:01,060 because the analysis hasn't been revised and might not require more data gathering.
324 00:33:01,060 --> 00:33:06,360 Or would it be a question for major corrections of reinterpreting the data they already have?
325 00:33:06,360 --> 00:33:12,670 If it required more data to be collected, that would almost invariably constitute a recommendation of major corrections.
326 00:33:12,670 --> 00:33:14,980 Because you can't predict what the outcome of that would be.
327 00:33:14,980 --> 00:33:21,670 That would in fact probably be the sort of thesis that might be failed and would be, you know,
328 00:33:21,670 --> 00:33:25,880 you're asking a student to do more work, substantially more work and then try again.
329 00:33:25,880 --> 00:33:30,610 That that would that would be major corrections. But it's typically it's typically, you know,
330 00:33:30,610 --> 00:33:35,890 examiners might not like the way that the statistical modelling has been done and they feel there's
331 00:33:35,890 --> 00:33:41,260 a reasonable chance that it could render a result that you think is statistically significant,
332 00:33:41,260 --> 00:33:46,840 being non significant, or it could be that they think there's more to this story,
333 00:33:46,840 --> 00:33:50,530 that your analysis hasn't done it justice and, you know, you should do it in a different way.
334 00:33:50,530 --> 00:33:57,010 And that, almost by definition, is is going to result in a recommendation of major corrections.
335 00:33:57,010 --> 00:34:02,350 Presumably, the simple fact of there being more can be done in a given area would not be enough to constitute corrections, though.
336 00:34:02,350 --> 00:34:06,410 It's more to do with your individual project. Yes.
337 00:34:06,410 --> 00:34:14,770 And will more to be done to properly interpret the outcomes of the results that you've posed and the results from your studies?
338 00:34:14,770 --> 00:34:19,210 This has nothing to do with the fact that you may not have covered all the different things you might have done.
339 00:34:19,210 --> 00:34:23,110 That's not their role, but that's not their role to assess.
340 00:34:23,110 --> 00:34:29,740 And how the candidates usually respond if they come out and provide them with major corrections as opposed to, say, minor corrections.
341 00:34:29,740 --> 00:34:36,640 It's usually apparent by the end of the discussion that, you know, if if a thesis is going to get a recommendation of major corrections,
342 00:34:36,640 --> 00:34:41,140 I think the candidate would come out of the viva pretty much expecting that outcome.
343 00:34:41,140 --> 00:34:47,680 It wouldn't typically be a surprise. They'd be told at the end. You know, we're recommending major corrections for the following reasons.
344 00:34:47,680 --> 00:34:55,450 But I think because of that, the nature of the conversation that they've had for the last whatever is two and a half to four hours,
345 00:34:55,450 --> 00:35:02,380 then they would they would have a rough idea of what way the wind is blowing by the end of it.
346 00:35:02,380 --> 00:35:07,340 How do people tend to respond to that? Is it sort of disappointment, acceptance somewhere in between?
347 00:35:07,340 --> 00:35:14,260 Well, I think in acceptance. I mean, most of us, you know, we some people some people will submit a thesis where they know there are issues,
348 00:35:14,260 --> 00:35:20,890 you know, they expect there to be conversation about one ot Two aspects of that already have an inkling that they're going to be asked to do revisions.
349 00:35:20,890 --> 00:35:23,260 It's just a question of how much they're asked to do.
350 00:35:23,260 --> 00:35:29,980 And I don't think it's it's not usually a surprise some people will hand in a thesis in a wishing
351 00:35:29,980 --> 00:35:36,340 they'd had an additional two weeks to polish all the little bits which that could otherwise have done.
352 00:35:36,340 --> 00:35:38,300 And so they'll be expecting some revisions.
353 00:35:38,300 --> 00:35:45,170 But it's just down to the judgement of the examiners really to decide whether it's whether they want revisions and whether it's major or minor.
354 00:35:45,170 --> 00:35:47,020 There are a couple of other points I'd make.
355 00:35:47,020 --> 00:35:56,290 One is that, you know, if it were a recommendation of no corrections doesn't mean that the thesis is absolutely polished and there are no typos in it.
356 00:35:56,290 --> 00:36:02,530 It it's it's at the discretion of the examiners to make a recommendation of no corrections if they feel that it's.
357 00:36:02,530 --> 00:36:06,010 I mean, clearly, it's you know, it's really top notch work.
358 00:36:06,010 --> 00:36:14,260 They just they don't want to burden you with going through and fixing the fact that you you've missed a Full Stop on page 116.
359 00:36:14,260 --> 00:36:19,270 You know, that that's that's the sort of thing the recommendation. No correction doesn't mean there's absolutely nothing wrong.
360 00:36:19,270 --> 00:36:24,850 It just means they've taken the view that you've done far away enough for the award.
361 00:36:24,850 --> 00:36:31,540 So just to conclude, could I ask what your advice would be to somebody who comes out of viva specifically with major corrections,
362 00:36:31,540 --> 00:36:36,400 whether they expected it or otherwise? Well, you know,
363 00:36:36,400 --> 00:36:41,020 take a minute to digest what's being asked of you and the scale of the task of what you need to do and
364 00:36:41,020 --> 00:36:46,420 then confer with your supervisory team and come up with a plan about how you're going to tackle this.
365 00:36:46,420 --> 00:36:55,060 And the timeline of when you're going to achieve this and so on. I think it's worth the risk worth reflecting on the fact that a recommendation
366 00:36:55,060 --> 00:36:59,560 of major corrections or minor corrections or whatever the recommendation is,
367 00:36:59,560 --> 00:37:03,550 it is down to the examiners in their judgement to come up with this view.
368 00:37:03,550 --> 00:37:09,220 But but that decision is also checked by two other senior experienced academics.
369 00:37:09,220 --> 00:37:12,370 It's checked by the college director of postgraduate research.
370 00:37:12,370 --> 00:37:23,420 So every single examiners recommendation that gets submitted back to the PGR administrative team then gets referred to the college director of PGR.
371 00:37:23,420 --> 00:37:32,590 So me in CLES and I go through and I'm specifically looking to see whether I feel the list of recommendations that they've come up with.
372 00:37:32,590 --> 00:37:39,250 Sorry, the list, the list of revisions or amendments that the examiners are requesting justifies the
373 00:37:39,250 --> 00:37:44,560 recommendation that I'm looking for correspondence between the recommendation of major minor,
374 00:37:44,560 --> 00:37:48,960 no corrections and so on. And the revisions are being asked for.
375 00:37:48,960 --> 00:37:55,240 And I and I will sometimes challenge the examiners on that and occasionally I'll overturn it.
376 00:37:55,240 --> 00:38:04,460 But it's usually it's usually the case that I agree with the recommendation after the college director of PGR is checked,
377 00:38:04,460 --> 00:38:08,320 that it then gets referred to the dean of the doctoral college as well.
378 00:38:08,320 --> 00:38:18,460 So to two other people have checked this. And so it should be a sort of a robust recommendation.
379 00:38:18,460 --> 00:38:23,710 Thank you very much to Jon Blount there for taking the time to discuss these questions with me.
380 00:38:23,710 --> 00:38:33,750 It's certainly been really interesting for me from a predominately humanities perspective to get a STEM view on these questions of the viva,
381 00:38:33,750 --> 00:38:38,590 and that would nevertheless hopefully be useful for people from all manner of backgrounds.
382 00:38:38,590 --> 00:38:43,060 I hope it is a useful topic to discuss.
383 00:38:43,060 --> 00:38:45,540 If you're preparing for your own viva yourself.
384 00:38:45,540 --> 00:38:53,290 And I also hope that this interview that we had has done double duty effectively as an episode of R, D and in betweens
385 00:38:53,290 --> 00:38:59,790 Thank you very much to Jon again and thanks for joining me.
386 00:38:59,790 --> 00:39:04,620 And that's it for this episode. Forget to like, rate and subscribe.
387 00:39:04,620 --> 00:39:31,531 Join me next time. We'll be talking to somebody else about researchers development and everything in between.