How do you go about supporting your PGR through the final stages of the doctoral journey?

Here, we are using the Good Supervisory Practice Framework to provide you with some key points to reflect on and some further reading to help you engage with the scholarship of supervisory practice.

Thesis completion

In the final stages, candidates may need support to produce the end product, namely a thesis or argument which is substantiated by evidence (see Taylor et al 2018), appropriately structured (see Neville 2008), written in an appropriate and error-free style (see Carter 2008). Normally this involves supervisors in giving feedback on drafts. It is normally the student who decides whether to submit the thesis, but most will ask their supervisors whether it will pass. Supervisors then need to understand the standards for the award, which may be evidenced by reference to institutional criteria and previous experience as an examiner.

You might want to reflect on how you give feedback, and how you engage with your PGR student when you do so. You might also want to ensure that you have a good understanding of the institutional criteria for awarding the PhD, as these may differ slightly from your previous experience.

Examination

Supervisors are normally asked to nominate appropriate examiners for the submission. In order to do this, as Pearce (2008) has pointed out, they have to be aware of the institution’s criteria for the appointment of examiners. They may also have to consider the appropriateness of particular examiners (see Joyner 2003, Kiley and Mullins 2004, Kiley 2009). Additionally, supervisors need to understand relevant institutional policies, i.e. who arranges the viva, who chairs it, what (if any) their own role is and the criteria for success and the range of recommendations that can be made (see for example Tinkler and Jackson (2004).

You might want to reflect on the choices you make in nominating examiners for your candidates. You might also want to ensure that you are aware of the local and institutional proceedures for examinations and how you can communicate these effectively to your PGR students.

Viva preparation

Candidates may have gained some experience of oral examination through presentations and feedback from progression panels, but the viva itself may still be seen as a huge hurdle (see Wellington 2010b, Watts 2011). Supervisors may have a role to play in explaining what to expect and, where appropriate, arranging mock vivas to accustom candidates to the format. This can be particularly important for candidates for whom English is not their first language (see Carter 2011) or who have disabilities (see Chown et al 2015) or who are from non-traditional backgrounds (Harrison et al 2011).

You might want to reflect on your own experience of the viva examination as well as the support your candidates expect or need in preparing for their viva. You might also familiarise yourself with the support available to PGR students at the university in order to signpost your students to these resources.

Useful references

Carter, S. (2008) Examining the doctoral thesis: a discussion. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(4): 365-74. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14703290802377208

Carter, S. (2011) English as an additional language (EAL) viva voce. The EAL doctoral oral examination experience. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 37(3): 273-84. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02602938.2010.528555

Chown, M, Bearson, L., Martin, N. and Ellis, S. (2015) Examining intellectual ability not social prowess: removing barriers from the doctoral viva for autistic candidates. Autism Policy and Practice, 2: 1-14. https://openaccessautism.org/index.php/app/article/view/7/31

Harrison, N., Trudgett, M. and Page, S. (2011) The dissertation examination: identifying critical factors in the success of indifenous Australian doctoral students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(1): 115-127. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02602938.2015.1085488

Joyner, R. (2003) The selection of external examiners for research degrees. Quality in Higher Education, 11(2): 123-27. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/09684880310471551/full/html

Kiley, M. and Mullins, G. (2004) Examining the examiners: how inexperienced examiners approach the assessment of research theses. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(2): 121-35. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222085728_Examining_the_examiners_How_inexperienced_examiners_approach_the_assessment_of_research_theses

Kiley, M. (2009) ‘You don’t want a smart Alec’: selecting examiners to assess doctoral dissertations. Studies in Higher Education, 34(8): 889-903. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03075070802713112

Neville, B. (2008) Creating a research community Qualitative Research Journal, 8(1): 37-46. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.3316/QRJ0801037/full/html

Pearce, L. (2005) How to Examine a Thesis. Buckingham: Open University Press and Society for Research into Higher Education.

Taylor, S., Kiley M. and Humphrey, R. (2018) A Handbook for Doctoral Supervisors. 2nd Ed. London, Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/A-Handbook-for-Doctoral-Supervisors-2nd-Edition/Taylor-Kiley-Humphrey/p/book/9781138194793

Tinkler, P. and Jackson, C. (2004) The Doctoral Examination Process: A Handbook for Students, Examiners and Supervisors. Buckingham, Open University Press and Society for Research into Higher Education.

Watts, J. (2011) Preparing doctoral candidates for the viva: issues for students and supervisors. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 36(3): 371-81. http://oro.open.ac.uk/30394/

Wellington, J. (2010b) Supporting students’ preparation for their viva: their pre-conceptions and implications for practice. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(1): 71-84. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13562510903487867