Viva feedback should test fairness, not just satisfaction
Updated Sep 01, 2026
At one Australian university, the viva changed the recorded examination result for more than one in three doctoral candidates. Yet outcome data alone could not show whether the process felt fair, supportive, or well run. That is why Alistair McCulloch, Cassandra Loeser and Rachel Bageas's Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education paper, "Does the viva matter? PhD student experiences of the oral examination and its contribution to examination outcome and researcher development", matters for UK universities. It shows why doctoral colleges should read examination outcomes alongside candidate comments, especially when PRES and local PGR feedback are expected to support practical quality enhancement.
Context and research question
The viva is a familiar part of doctoral examination in the UK, but its purpose is not always clear to candidates. It can act as a final assessment, a developmental conversation, and a symbolic transition into an independent research identity. That ambiguity can create anxiety and makes it harder for institutions to decide what a good candidate experience should look like.
The University of South Australia offers a useful case because it introduced a compulsory oral defence for doctoral candidates entering from 2016. The authors evaluated that change using two sources. They compared preliminary examiner recommendations with final outcomes for 357 candidates who completed an oral defence between 2019 and 2023. They also surveyed those candidates in December 2024. Seventy responded, a 19.6% response rate, and 45 left at least one open comment.
The study asks two linked questions: what was the candidate experience of the oral defence, and did the viva make a difference? For UK higher education teams, the value lies less in whether vivas should exist and more in how universities can test the quality, fairness, and developmental value of a process they already use.
Key findings
Most respondents viewed the oral defence positively, but the overall pattern concealed important variation. Positive comments outnumbered negative comments by more than three to one, and over half of the comments described the experience as positive or enjoyable. Only 3% of respondents thought adding the oral defence to the examination process had been negative. Those figures are reassuring, but they are not enough on their own to establish that the process worked equally well for every candidate.
The viva was a substantive part of the examination, not simply a ritual. Of the 357 candidates in the outcome analysis, 232, or 65%, received the same result as the examiners' preliminary recommendation. A further 120, or 34%, received a higher result after the oral defence, while five, fewer than 1%, received a lower result. In this institutional model, direct discussion gave candidates a meaningful opportunity to clarify their work before the examiners agreed a final outcome.
The paper also shows how that discussion could make revisions easier to understand:
"Having this defence helped clarify these remarks and made the revision process easier."
The developmental benefit extended beyond the final result. About 15% of respondents commented without prompting that the viva had provided significant feedback for their future work. More than a quarter, 27%, remained in contact with one or both examiners after graduating. Candidates described later mentorship, publication support, and research collaboration. This suggests that a well-run viva can contribute to researcher development as well as assessment.
Chairing, examiner conduct, and administration shaped whether the experience felt fair. Candidates reported delays in appointing examiners, technical problems in online defences, and occasions when the oral discussion did not reduce the revision burden. Five respondents raised concerns about inadequate or insufficiently impartial chairing. Some accounts were highly positive, while others described distress and a sense that the chair had not protected the integrity of the process. For institutions, this is the critical student voice finding: a positive average can coexist with rare but serious failures.
Preparation appears to matter, but the evidence should be read cautiously. The authors note that only 26 candidates who began before the oral defence became compulsory chose to opt in, whereas just 3% of surveyed candidates later judged its introduction negatively. They interpret that contrast as suggesting that much viva anxiety may be anticipatory. Candidate workshops, compulsory chair training, and clear online resources may have helped, but the study does not isolate the effect of each support.
Practical implications
UK universities should first ask about the components of the viva experience, not only overall satisfaction. A short post-viva survey can cover preparation, role clarity, chair impartiality, examiner conduct, administration, accessibility, technical delivery, usefulness of feedback, and confidence about the outcome. Add an open prompt asking what helped and what should change. The benefit is evidence that identifies the part of the process needing attention instead of producing one undiagnostic score.
Second, doctoral colleges should review outcome data and experience data together. Changes between preliminary and final recommendations can show whether discussion affects assessment, while candidate comments reveal whether that change felt understandable and fair. Neither source can answer both questions alone. Combining them gives quality teams a stronger basis for examiner development and policy review.
Third, institutions should treat severe negative comments as safeguarding and process evidence, even when they are uncommon. Anonymous feedback is valuable for identifying patterns, but it should sit alongside a clear route for candidates to raise urgent concerns about bias, conduct, accessibility, or psychological safety. A governed process, supported by a student comment analysis governance checklist, helps teams retain context, protect confidentiality, and route serious issues to the right owner. The benefit is a feedback system that can respond to both recurring friction and individual harm.
Fourth, universities should analyse variation rather than assuming one viva model works uniformly. Compare comments by discipline, online or in-person format, candidate characteristics, examiner location, and chair experience where sample sizes and privacy safeguards allow. Student Voice Analytics fits here by grouping recurring PGR comments on fairness, preparation, supervision, administration, feedback, and researcher development across local surveys and PRES. The benefit is a clearer view of whether a problem is isolated, disciplinary, or institutional.
Finally, chair and examiner development should use candidate evidence. Training can include case material on intervention, impartiality, difficult questioning, technical disruption, and the boundary between rigorous examination and harmful conduct. That creates a practical route from harmful doctoral feedback experiences to better examination practice.
FAQ
Q: How can a university apply these findings to its own doctoral viva process?
A: Send a short, standardised survey soon after the examination, while giving candidates a separate confidential route for urgent concerns. Keep a stable set of questions on preparation, fairness, chairing, examiner conduct, administration, and developmental value, then add one open-text prompt. Review the results alongside outcome changes and assign recurring issues to a named owner.
Q: What methodological limits should teams keep in mind?
A: The experience evidence comes from 70 respondents at one Australian university, with a 19.6% response rate. Some former candidates may no longer have checked the student email account used for the invitation, and people with especially positive or negative experiences may have been more likely to respond. The outcome analysis covers all 357 candidates, but the findings still reflect one institution's examination model and cannot show that the viva alone caused every change.
Q: What does this study change about student voice in doctoral education?
A: It shows why student voice should examine high-stakes processes at the level where candidates experience them. Overall satisfaction can miss whether preparation was adequate, the chair was impartial, examiner behaviour was appropriate, or feedback supported the next stage of a research career. A stable PGR comment framework helps universities connect those accounts to wider evidence on supervision, research culture, support, and wellbeing.
References
[Paper Source]: Alistair McCulloch, Cassandra Loeser and Rachel Bageas "Does the viva matter? PhD student experiences of the oral examination and its contribution to examination outcome and researcher development" DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2025.2566652
Request a walkthrough
Book a free Student Voice Analytics demo
See all-comment coverage, sector benchmarks, and reporting designed for OfS quality and NSS requirements.
- All-comment coverage with HE-tuned taxonomy and sentiment.
- Versioned outputs with TEF-ready reporting.
- Benchmarks and BI-ready exports for boards and Senate.
UK-hosted · No public LLM APIs · Same-day turnaround