Exam panel chair guidance

Table of contents

Introduction

This material provides guidance on how to carry out the role of Examination Panel Chair (EPC) for MPhil and Doctoral degrees.

EPCs are also required for the examination of Open University (OU) Higher Doctorates and Aegrotat/In Absentia award. If you have been appointed to chair a panel for these qualifications, please contact the Research Degrees team in the OU Graduate School by:

• emailing research-degrees-[FACULTY]@open.ac.uk, or
• emailiing the Research Degrees ARC team

as there are some parts of the role that differ in these instances.

This guidance is designed to be used after you have completed the exam panel chair course. It provides suggestions and advice as to how to carry out each step of the role and provides a series of case studies to enable you to explore the scope of the Chair role.

1 Role and duties

The EPC is a neutral party who oversees the arrangements for, and progress of, the examination process for research degrees. They ensure the exam is carried out within the regulatory framework, support the candidate, support the examiners, and complete the relevant documentation.

Regulatory framework

• ensure that the oral exam, the viva, is arranged and conducted fairly, and in a way that meets the expectations of The Open University and in accordance with the Research Degree Regulations
• ensure the examiners and any observer understand their roles
• chair the viva and the pre- and post-viva meetings
• resolve queries prior to the viva with the Research Degrees team
• ensure the examiners complete their oral examination of the candidate to their satisfaction
• ensure that any amendments specified in the examination report match the criteria associated with the appropriate recommended outcome.

Supporting the candidate and examiners

• look after the welfare of the candidate and the examiners
• ensure reasonable adjustments for candidates with disabilities are appropriately shared with examiners and applied for the viva
• ensure reasonable adjustments for any examiners with disabilities are applied for the viva.

Documentation

• oversee the arrangements for the viva and confirm the arrangements through the Open University PGR Manager system
• ensure timely completion of all examination related documentation
• document the actions taken to provide an independent record of the viva
• collate the pre-viva reports on PGR Manager and work with the examiners to identify the main points to be raised at the viva
• ensure that the examination report is completed in agreement with all the examiners at the end of the viva.

As chair of the viva, the EPC:

• introduces the panel and explaining everyone’s roles
• ensures fair play and balanced discussion
• attends to the candidate’s wellbeing
• implements reasonable adjustments for the candidate and examiners
• oversees compliance with the regulations
• keeps track of progress of the viva
• calls for periodic breaks appropriately
• keep notes.

The role of the EPC starts when the examination panel is approved by the Progress Board (ideally before the candidate submits their thesis) and when you accept the role by responding to an email from the Research Degrees team confirming your appointment. 

The role of the EPC ends when the candidate receives confirmation that the academic requirements for the award of the degree have been met. The whole process could run to 18 months or more if the first viva outcome is ‘resubmission’, which includes a second viva and, potentially, further thesis corrections.

2 Making the arrangements for the viva

You will need to work closely with the Research Degrees team during the pre-viva period.

2.1 PGR Manager workflow

EPCs can view the details of a candidate’s examination on PGR Manager once the appointment has been confirmed.

Guidance can be found on the Forms and policy section on the Graduate School Network.

2.2 Appointment, contracting and right to work

The thesis will be released to the examiners as soon as the formal processes have been finalised and (obviously) the thesis submitted!

Before the thesis can be released, examiners are required to formally accept their role via a contractual agreement.

Panels convened at the OU

For panels convened for directly registered students (i.e., those based at the OU rather than in an Affiliated Research Centre), external examiners are required to complete a UK Right to Work (RTW) check with the OU and sign a contract formalising their role on the panel.

The Research Degrees team will arrange all these formalities, but examiners will need to engage with People Services and Contracting to ensure all paperwork is completed.

Sometimes significant delays can occur with contracting. There may also be (luckily rare) situations in which external examiners have felt unable to formally accept the role, and they may withdraw at the point of contracting or RTW checks.

Delays in completing the contracting process for the externals can impact the candidate’s experience of the viva process. It is therefore important for the EPC to:

1. Clearly explain this phase of the examination panel lifecycle to the candidate so their expectations concerning the arrangement and timing of their viva can be appropriately managed.
2. Remind the examiner to look out for messages that originate from OU addresses they may not have seen previously.
3. Serve as a contact point should the examiner(s) have any questions and refer the examiner to the Contracting team who will hopefully be able to resolve the query.

Panels convened at an Affiliated Research Centre

ARC-based EPCs should leave the Right to Work checkbox in PGR Manager blank.

For panels examining ARC candidates, examiner appointment processes will vary depending on national legal requirements local to the ARC at which the candidate is based.

ARC-based EPCs should consult their ARC Research Degrees coordinator at the point of Progress Board approval of the panel for further details to ensure their communications with the examiners and the candidate are accurate.

All panels

All EPCs should  maintain in contact with the Research Degrees team in the OU Graduate School by:

• emailing research-degrees-[FACULTY]@open.ac.uk, or
• emailiing the Research Degrees ARC team

while waiting for the thesis to be released.

After the candidate has submitted, and the examiners have formally accepted their roles, all panel members will receive the thesis via PGR Manager. The EPC is not examining the candidate and should not influence the views of the examiners, so it is not necessary for the EPC to read the thesis. However, the examiners should satisfy themselves that the thesis adheres to the Thesis submission guidelines and the EPC should contact the Research Degrees team in the Graduate School by:

• emailing research-degrees-[FACULTY]@open.ac.uk, or
• emailiing the Research Degrees ARC team

if any queries or concerns are raised.

It may be helpful for the EPC check that all expected files are in the portfolio (e.g., thesis plus any supplementary materials).

2.3 Date and time

The EPC is required to take the lead and work with the examiners and the candidate to determine a mutually acceptable date and time for the viva.

Fixing a date requires appropriate balancing between:

• the needs of the candidate (e.g. due to issues related to their employment, immigration status, caring responsibilities etc.)
• the needs of the examiners (e.g. provision of sufficient time to properly read and evaluate the thesis, competing workload priorities, international conference attendance/work-related travel etc.), and 
• awareness of events such as national/international holiday periods and festivals and school holidays.

The start time of the viva should consider:

• balancing any need for the examiners, the candidate (and the EPC!) to travel to the site of the viva
• balancing time zone differences between stakeholders (for hybrid/fully online vivas)
• the disposition of the candidate for example, nerves can preclude eating, and in such cases an afternoon viva could mean hunger, low sugar levels and fatigue and so reduce the performance of the candidate.
• the time needed for the pre- and post-viva meetings.  

2.4 Venue

The OU offers in person, hybrid (defined as at least one participant attending the viva online) and fully online vivas and this will impact the organisational activities the EPC is required to perform with respect to the viva venue. The EPC should review the preference of the candidate for the mode of the viva (as stated on the EPN on PGR Manager) and may wish to confirm with the candidate whether their preference remains unchanged. The candidate should be consulted if an examiner requests a change in mode.

In person and hybrid vivas

The EPC should book a suitable room in which to hold the viva. This must be within an OU-owned facility (typically the Walton Hall campus but could be a nation office) or an OU ARC.

At the OU  

Travel expenses for external examiners are reimbursed by the Graduate School. There may be different expectations around travel reimbursement for internal examiners to Nation offices so all parties should check with unit budget holders (e.g in faculties) to ascertain which travel funds, if any, are available. EPCs are expected to book the viva room, but can contact the Research Degrees team on research-degrees-[FACULTY]@open.ac.uk for suggestions.

At an ARC 

Please check with the ARC coordinators about examiner travel expenses and what is locally permissible.

The EPC is ultimately responsible for ensuring the arrangements have been made and that the room is appropriate, but levels of support offered by each ARC will vary according to local practice.

The comfort of the candidate and panel members during the viva is important. Please consider the following when identifying an appropriate viva venue:

• Light: A room with natural light is beneficial.
• Sound: A room in a quiet, private area is beneficial for all. The room should have reasonable internal acoustics (e.g., it should not be echoey) and be at negligible risk of external noises which could be disruptive (e.g., plumbing, mechanical noises, loud discussions, nearby construction).
• Climate control: Is the room well-ventilated/air conditioned (for summer vivas) and is the heating effective (for winter vivas)?
• Size: Consider the number of people attending the viva. The minimum would be the three panel members and the candidate; this could be augmented with a second external examiner and an observer – make sure that the room is large enough and has appropriate furnishing to ensure everyone can be seated comfortably.
• Equipment: The EPC should ensure the room contains any additional resources that may be required such as a whiteboard/pens and screen for projection with necessary cables, and that everything is working correctly.
• Location: Consider whether there is a toilet nearby, and whether there is somewhere for the candidate (and observer if required) to sit and wait during the post-viva discussion.
• Configuration: The EPC needs to be able to make notes and observe proceedings without intruding unnecessarily on the interaction between the examiners and candidate.The observer should be out of line-of-sight of the candidate and should also have access to a work surface. Try to face the candidate away from distractions (such as busy windows). If appropriate, arrange for a ‘Quiet please, Viva in Progress’ sign for the door.

Hybrid vivas

In addition to the requirements for in-person vivas, EPCs for hybrid vivas must also ensure that the in-person participants must be able to see, hear and speak to the online participant(s) easily. The EPC should ideally be present in person at the viva to be available for trouble shooting on the day.

The EPC should secure a room with up-to-date video conferencing infrastructure. Participants should be as ‘visible’ as possible (via a large, high-quality screen) and ‘audible’ as possible (via a powerful and clear speaker system). The microphones in the viva room must ensure online participant(s) do not receive ‘muffled’ audio from the room which can make it much more difficult to follow discussion. It’s always useful to run a test before the day of the viva.

The EPC must also arrange a suitable back-up should a technical error occur (e.g. hotspot from their mobile device, dialling into the viva by phone or can a device in the viva venue be used to phone them to enable them to continue to participate).

At the OU

Hybrid vivas should run through Microsoft Teams scheduled via the EPC’s OU account.

At an ARC

Please use the local institutional conferencing software.  

For all vivas

Hybrid vivas can be challenging to manage due to the time it takes for audio to be transmitted and received. Online participant(s) may feel less able to interject into conversations occurring amongst the in-person participant(s). You should be aware if any imbalance develops and intervene to ensure everyone feels able to participate equitably and effectively.

Online vivas

This mode of viva requires the EPC to focus primarily on ensuring the meeting is scheduled on an appropriate platform (see hybrid viva section) and that all stakeholders can access it.

At the OU

Online vivas should run through Microsoft Teams scheduled via the EPC’s OU account.

At an ARC

Please use the local institutional conferencing software.

For all vivas

The EPC should identify a suitable back-up platform and provide instructions to all viva participants to minimise any disruption to the viva should a technical fault develop as far as possible.

In advance of a fully online viva, the EPC should consider sharing the list of considerations for viva venue selection for in-person vivas listed above to all participants. Participants should choose a quiet private space where disruptions are minimised for the duration of the viva. Please note that the living arrangements of some candidates (e.g., in house shares) may limit their access to private spaces beyond their bedroom. The EPC should confirm in advance with the candidate that use of this space is acceptable to them and, if necessary, work with the candidate to identify another suitable location. Participating in the viva from a cafe, airport, train or similar is not considered appropriate for any member of the viva party.

2.5 Support for the candidate

The candidate is likely to be particularly nervous immediately before the viva is due to begin, and during the time between the end of the viva and the conclusion of the Panel’s post-viva discussion. The EPC should ensure that support, ideally through a member of the supervisory team (if not already provided through the observer role), is readily available for the candidate should they need it. Ready availability of supervisory team support is crucial in cases of an adverse viva outcome.

For in-person vivas, one or more members of the supervisory team should ideally be available in person during the day. The EPC may wish to contact the supervisory team soon after the date/time of the viva has been agreed and determine whether they are planning to be on site and available to support the candidate. If they are unable to do so, the EPC should ensure there is a mechanism in place by which they can be rapidly contacted and/or determine if another suitable colleague (e.g., the candidate’s independent advisor) can be physically present on site on the day of the viva.

For hybrid vivas, the EPC and observer should endeavour to be physically co-located with the candidate (in an OU or ARC facility) to maximise in-person support available to the candidate on the day. If the candidate is one of the online participants, or if the viva is fully online, the EPC should ensure that members of the Supervisory team have multiple methods available by which to contact the candidate and have an awareness of their physical location.

2.6 Lunch and refreshments

Vivas at the OU

For vivas held in person at the Walton Hall campus, catering vouchers will be provided by the Graduate School so long as the EPC and at least one examiner are attending in person.

The EPC is responsible for requesting the vouchers and collecting them in advance from the OU Graduate School (ground floor Library building). No meal provision is available if the viva is fully online.

Please contact Research-Degrees-[FACULTY]@open.ac.uk to determine what refreshment provision is available in the unit and/or to determine the available catering arrangements if the viva is to be held at an OU nations office

Vivas at ARCs 

Meal provision for in-person panels at ARCs is determined by the local rules in place at each ARC institution. EPCs of such panels should contact the local ARC Research Degrees coordinator for further details.

For all vivas

The EPC should ensure that delivery or removal of any catering does not interfere with the viva.

Refreshments can also be offered during the viva. At minimum, this should include the availability of fresh water and suitable glasses (which the EPC should ensure are available in the viva venue in advance), but some units or ARCs may offer more extensive provision including tea/coffee/fruit juice/biscuits.

2.7 Reasonable adjustments/additional requirements

Reasonable adjustments aim to ensure that, as far as is reasonable, a disabled candidate or panel member has the same access to everything that is involved in studying and being examined, or carrying out the examining, as a non-disabled person.

There is a legal requirement to:

• make changes to the way things are done
• make changes to overcome physical barriers
• provide additional equipment, or
• provide someone to assist the disabled person.

Adjustments will be considered in the light of the disability or disabling condition to be overcome and must be reasonably practical to implement.

The candidate is responsible for requesting reasonable adjustments via PGR Manager or directly to the Research Degrees team, preferably when they provide their Intention to Submit form, and/or at least two weeks before the viva.

The examiners and observers are responsible for ensuring that any reasonable adjustments that they may require are communicated to the EPC.

The EPC is responsible for implementing any adjustments required for the candidate, examiners, observer or themselves if required. These adjustments could be physical (e.g. ensuring room and bathroom access for wheelchair users) or adjustments to the structure of the viva (e.g., scheduling regular breaks, providing lines of questioning in advance). The EPC should contact the Research Degrees team for any advice/guidance if necessary.

Any reasonable adjustments for the Candidate will be provided to the EPC in advance via the OU Graduate School and the EPC should contact the Research Degrees team via:

• emailing research-degrees-[FACULTY]@open.ac.uk, or
• emailiing the Research Degrees ARC team

should they need support with implementing them.

Should a candidate declare a disability and/or request reasonable adjustments directly to the EPC, it is the EPC’s responsibility to check with the Research Degrees team to ensure that this declaration is recorded.

2.8 Confirming the arrangements

To confirm arrangements including date, time, venue, catering and/or reasonable adjustments, the EPC should enter the details into the Viva Scheduling form on PGR Manager.

2.9 Communication principles and practices

Safeguarding the integrity of the viva is a vital aspect of the EPC role, so it is the EPC’s responsibility to carefully control all communication concerning the viva. 
In particular:

• The candidate and the supervisory team must not communicate with the examiners in advance of the viva and vice versa – unless through the EPC.
• The examiners must not confer with each other in advance of the pre-viva meeting (see later in this training module) - unless through the EPC.

The EPC should communicate these principles to all stakeholders (the candidate and their supervisory team and the examiners) once Progress Board approval for the panel has been confirmed. The EPC should also highlight that their role (and their mediation of communications between the stakeholders) continues until the candidate receives their letter of award and has uploaded the final version of their thesis to the relevant institutional repository/ies.

The EPC should communicate with various stakeholders at numerous points during the viva organisation process. These include:

At the point of Progress Board approval of the panel

An introductory email to the candidate (the EPC may wish to cc this message to the supervisory team) - here the EPC should introduce themselves and briefly explain their role to the candidate. They should also clearly set expectations with respect to the timeline for organising the viva (including any relevant contracting and RTW processes) and that they will update the candidate regularly with respect to this. They should also highlight to the candidate that any viva-related questions can be directed to them and that they should not attempt to directly communicate with their examiners.

An introductory email to the examiners (the EPC may wish to send separate emails to each examiner or a single combined message) - here the EPC should introduce themselves and briefly explain their role. EPCs are not universally appointed across UK HEIs and external examiners may be unfamiliar with the role. They should also highlight the contracting and RTW processes and emphasise to the examiners the importance of completing them in as timely a manner as possible. They should also highlight to the examiners that they should not communicate with each other directly about the viva or contact the candidate and/or their supervisory team.

At the point of contracting and RTW process completion

An email to update the candidate on the viva organisation timeline and to ask them for their preferred date(s)/time(s) for their viva. EPCs should aim to provide examiners with approximately six weeks to read and evaluate the candidate’s thesis and this should be used to provide the candidate with an initial date range to look at. EPCs may also wish to confirm the mode of viva preference of the candidate at this stage.

An email to the examiners advising them that the candidate’s thesis should now be available for download via PGR Manger. EPCs may wish to provide a link to the PGRM system in the email for ease of examiner access. Examiners should also be asked to provide their preferred date(s)/time(s) for the viva using the same six-week period to establish an initial target date range. At this stage, the EPC should remind examiners of their requirement to independently complete a pre-viva report on the candidate’s thesis which must be submitted via the PGR Manager system no less than five days before the candidate’s viva date.

At the point of finalising the viva date/time/venue

 An email to the candidate (copied to their supervisory team) to confirm the date/time/venue of their viva and to provide confirmation of any reasonable adjustments that have been put in place.

An email to the supervisory team to determine their plans and availability on the day of the viva.

An email to the examiners to confirm the date/time/venue of the viva. The EPC should also make the examiners aware of any reasonable adjustments that have been put in place for the viva. For in-person vivas and in-person participants of hybrid vivas, the EPC should also provide relevant travel/logistics information (e.g., campus maps) and ask if participants will be driving to the venue to arrange parking and visitor badges if required.

Two weeks before the viva date

A reminder email to the candidate (cc’ed to the supervisory team) of the date/time/venue for their viva, highlighting that the candidate is welcome to raise any questions related to their viva with the EPC is strongly recommended at this stage. The EPC should also take the opportunity to recommend that the candidate brings appropriate materials with them to support their thesis defence and aid their comfort, e.g., notebook and pens/pencils, copy of their thesis, supporting material that may be helpful to present, any materials accepted for publication or conference presentation, preferred soft drinks, confectionary, etc.

A reminder email to the examiners of the deadline for submitting their pre-viva reports on PGR Manager at least five days prior to the viva date. The EPC should also flag to the examiners the need to hold a pre-viva meeting in which their pre-viva reports will be discussed and the approach to the viva determined. This meeting can only be held after both examiners have submitted their pre-viva reports and the PGR Manager system has given each examiner access to the other’s report for review. 
It is always sensible to pencil in an online pre-viva meeting with the examiners two to three days before the viva at the point when the thesis is released – it can always be cancelled if not needed. 

Six days before the viva

A final reminder to the examiners of the deadline for pre-viva report submission (five days pre-viva) if these have yet to be logged on PGR Manager and a reminder regarding the pre-viva meeting.

The day before the viva

A final reminder to the candidate (copied to the supervisory team) of the viva date/time/venue.

A final reminder to the examiners of the viva date/time/venue and any key logistical information (e.g., parking, visitor badges).

3 The pre-viva meeting(s)

The EPC and examiners should meet before the viva to:

• consider the preliminary reports and the thesis
• confirm the structure of the questioning and the main points to be raised at the examination
• identify any issues that require additional information from the observer
• determine approaches to implementing any reasonable adjustments.

The timing of this meeting (before the day of the viva or on the day of the viva) very much depends on the nature of the examiners’ comments and the nature of any reasonable adjustments requested from the candidate.

It is sensible to conduct a pre-viva meeting a day or two before the viva if:

• reasonable adjustments that involve requests for lines of questioning in advance have been requested
• there is an indication that the viva might not go smoothly, for example if there are known issues with the thesis outlined in the submission workflow on PGR Manager or if pre-viva reports suggest the examiners are clearly in disagreement or outline a very different approach.

If, due to availability, the pre-viva meeting needs to take place on the day of the viva then please schedule in enough time to avoid delays to the start of the exam. Please remember that a nervous student is waiting for the exam to start.

Preliminary assessment

The EPC should encourage the examiners to:

• explain their preliminary assessment in terms of pass/fail/somewhere between, and 
• explore common ground and differences of opinion at this stage, based on the reading of the dissertation. 

It is appropriate for the panel to take time to explore any major disagreements (usually evident from the pre-viva reports), so the examiners go into the viva knowing what key input they need from the candidate to reach agreement - and hence prioritising those key issues in the viva plan.

Roles/plan

Together the panel should discuss how it wants the viva to proceed, in terms both of prioritisation of questions, and examiner roles. If there is an agreed approach, including the key points for exploration, then the format is determined by the examiners. There are many different approaches, for example, priority order, chapter-by-chapter, or theme-by-theme.

The viva should cover all aspects of the thesis (note that 'coverage' can simply be an acknowledgement that an aspect is satisfactory). Different panels use different dynamics, e.g., the external leads, the examiners take turns, the examiners decide who leads on specific topics, etc. The outcome of the meeting should be an agreed plan or agenda for the viva.

Supervisor(s)/observer

Supervisors as observers must not be involved in the pre-viva meeting. If the examiners have a particular question to pose to a supervisor, they can do so, but the supervisor must only be invited for that question and then will leave. It is appropriate for the EPC to ask at the start of the pre-viva meeting if there are any such questions. The EPC should know how to contact any relevant parties efficiently. 

Reasonable adjustments

Any reasonable adjustments for the candidate will be provided to the EPC in advance via the OU Graduate School – see example form provided in Appendix 2. Considerations may need to be applied to lines of questioning or structure of the viva including breaks.

4 On the day

An aide memoire for what to do on the day is provided in Appendix 1.

4a Pre-examination

If the viva is being held in person, the EPC should factor in time before the viva to check and arrange the room. If catering has been requested, ensure that the delivery time is sufficiently in advance of the viva start time to avoid disruption or a late start – or that there is a drop-off point outside the viva room.

If the viva is being held fully or partly online, then checks should be made that everyone is able to access the relevant platform(s).

4b The examination

An aide memoire to capture notes about timings and progress of the viva is provided in Appendix 3.

As chair of the viva the EPC:

• introduces the panel and explaining everyone’s roles
• ensures fair play and balanced discussion
• attends to the Candidate’s wellbeing
• implements reasonable adjustments for the Candidate and Examiners
• oversees compliance with the regulations
• keeps track of progress of the viva
• calls for periodic breaks appropriately
• keep notes.

Reference to “room” below includes online and physical rooms.

Introductions

Invite the candidate and observer (if there is one) into the room. If the viva is in person, indicate where they should sit, ensure they have water, and give them time to arrange themselves and their materials. Avoid making the candidate feel under scrutiny at this stage.

When the candidate is ready:

• Introduce yourself as the chair.
• Explain that the chair is a neutral party, that your role is to oversee the proceedings, to ensure that the viva is in accordance with the regulations, and to keep a record of proceedings.
• Introduce the examiners and explain that they will conduct the exam.
• Note that you will be suggesting breaks at intervals, but that the candidate (or anyone else in the room) may ask for a break at any time, may ask questions, or may just ask for a pause to think.
• Confirm any additional reasonable adjustments that have been made.
• Explain that the observer's role is to observe and take notes, and that the observer is expected to remain silent unless the examiners or EPC ask otherwise explicitly.
• Explain that, once questioning is complete, the candidate and observer will be asked to exit the room whilst the examiners decide on the recommended outcome. For online situations, explain how the candidate will be invited back in.
• Ask if the candidate has any questions. 

Then get going!

Timekeeping

The EPC monitors the time, and it can be useful to let the examiners know when they have reached one hour, and then subsequent hours, so that they can keep track of progress through the questions. However, there are no minimum or maximum times for the viva.

Note taking

Notes are particularly useful for “difficult” vivas – for example one in which the examiners have differed significantly in their pre-viva report opinions or where other issues may be foreseen. It is useful for the EPC to record key details of the viva, and to note anything that the EPC may consider pertinent. For example, it can be helpful to note start, break, and finish times; moments when clarification was requested by the candidate and how it was provided; procedural questions by any participant; etc. Take time to consider whether you will take notes using a laptop or paper and pen/pencil. Each has advantages (e.g., speed of capture) and disadvantages (e.g., noise). A suggested aide memoire is provided in Appendix 3.

Intervention 

During the questioning, the EPC is usually quiet, but may occasionally intervene to help the proceedings, e.g., if there is a miscommunication that can be resolved simply, if discussion has lingered too long on one question, if questioning has lingered too long with a single examiner, or resolve a candidate welfare issue. The only time an Observer should intervene is if they have concerns for candidate welfare.

Breaks

Regular breaks are useful in pacing a viva and enabling all to function at their best. Times vary, but many EPCs suggest breaks every hour. The EPC should make clear that anyone in the room can request a short break as needed. Breaks can also be used as an intervention tool, e.g., if the EPC has concerns over the candidate’s welfare, if there is ‘heat’ between the examiners, if the observer is contributing to the discussion, if there is a need to consult the regulations or the Research Degrees team, etc. – many issues can be addressed calmly during a break. If the viva is being conducted online, consider how to discuss issues with examiners away from the candidate. If the candidate is visibly uncomfortable, a break can allow the EPC to discuss any concerns with the candidate and/or with the examiners. Similarly, ensure that all participants feel free to access any refreshments if applicable.

The observer

The observer's role is to support the candidate. The observer usually takes notes that act as an aide memoir for the candidate. The observer must not interject or communicate in any way with the candidate or examiners during the viva, unless invited to do so by the EPC or one of the examiners. The EPC has the right to ask the observer to leave if the observer is acting outside of their role.

End of questions

When the examiners have finished questioning, the EPC should ask whether the candidate has any questions if the examiners have not already asked this. The EPC then explains that the panel will discuss outcome recommendation and asks the candidate and the observer to leave the room. The EPC should either know or ask where the candidate and observer will wait, so that they can be called back promptly. It is helpful to tell the candidate that the discussion may take some time (e.g., for comfort breaks, form-filling, etc.), but that the duration does not correlate with the outcome.

4c Post-examination

After the viva, the EPC facilitates the discussion between the examiners and keeps notes of key elements of their assessment and reasoning. The candidate and observer (if applicable) will have left the room, and the examiners will discuss the possible outcomes based on the candidate’s thesis and defence.

The following recommendations are available to the panel:

1. The candidate be awarded the degree.
2. The candidate be awarded the degree subject to minor corrections and modifications to the thesis.
3. The candidate be awarded the degree subject to substantial amendments to the thesis.
4. The candidate be permitted to resubmit their thesis for re-examination and re-viva following substantial revision. 
5. The candidate be awarded the degree of MPhil (rather than a doctoral degree) subject to the presentation of the thesis amended to the satisfaction of the examiners.
6. The candidate be permitted to resubmit their thesis for re-examination and re-viva for an MPhil award (rather than a doctoral degree) following substantive revision.
7. The candidate be not awarded the degree and not be permitted to be re-examined.

The discussion can be facilitated in different ways, but the following workflow has been suggested as good practice over time:

Discussion

Encourage the examiners to discuss their thoughts freely; this provides the EPC with the opportunity to gauge whether unanimity is likely, and which of the seven possible viva outcomes best suits the examiners' assessments. Take notes of any key issues or revisions discussed; this can help later in drafting the Examination Report form.

Identifying and aligning the outcome

Once the discussion has started to conclude (or when requested) provide the examiners with the list of possible outcomes (as per the Regulations or the Examination Guidelines) and ask which they feel is appropriate. Consider whether you feel this aligns with their discussion.

It is helpful to have a laptop linked to a shared display, so that the outcomes and the forms can be shared during the discussion.

If the examiners are unanimous, check with them that the outcome matches their intentions, i.e., that their interpretation of the outcomes aligns with OU thinking. For example, if they recommend revisions, what do they think is required to bring the dissertation up to the required standard? Make note of the revisions. Do the revisions align with the definition of minor corrections or substantial amendments – noting that different universities interpret ‘major’ and ‘minor’ revisions differently?

Pursue unanimity  

If the examiners are non-unanimous, you will need to work toward unanimity; this may require compromise and another round of examiner discussions whilst you draw on the possible outcomes in the regulations/guidelines, and on the pre-viva reports and your notes of the viva. It is imperative that the decision is unanimous before concluding this meeting, and that you facilitate the decision while remaining neutral. (What to do on the rare occasion that the examiners cannot agree is addressed in Section 6b.)

Extent of corrections

The recommendation is based solely on the extent of the revisions, not the time needed for revision (if any). To be clear, there are two separate concerns: 

• the amends required to bring the thesis up to the correct standard (the level of these form the basis for the appropriate recommendation), and
• how much time the Candidate needs for the corrections given personal circumstances – which should not affect the recommendation but can be addressed separately.

For example, if the recommendation is minor amendments, but the candidate needs more than three months due to exceptional health/work/domestic circumstances, then the EPC can request an extension of the time for revisions from RDRAC (the Research Degrees Examination Result Approval Committee).

Examination Report form

Most panels complete – or at least draft – the Examination Report form during the post-viva meeting, depending on how long the discussion has taken. The EPC's notes, pre-viva reports, and a shared display can be helpful here, because most panels anticipate the contents of the Examination Report form in their discussions. Completion of the Examination Report form is discussed further in Section 5.

The questions asked of the examiners are:

• Please comment on the presentation and style of the thesis.
• Does the thesis show evidence of being a significant contribution to knowledge?
• Does the thesis and candidate's performance at the viva show evidence of the candidate's capacity to pursue further research without supervision?
• Does the thesis contain material worthy of publication? (The candidate declaration form should give details of how much of the thesis, if any, has already been published or accepted for publication.)
• Please indicate if any typographical changes are required.
• Please include any general comments about the value of the thesis and how it contributes to knowledge, if appropriate.

Pay attention to time

It is worth bearing mind that there is a nervous candidate (and supervisors) waiting to hear the outcome. Once a unanimous decision is made (including any revisions), decide who will announce it to the candidate. (This depends on the panel; sometimes it is the external, sometimes the EPC, sometimes the internal.)

Communicate the recommendation

Bring the candidate and observer back into the room.

The designated panel member will deliver the recommended outcome.

The EPC should explain clearly to the candidate that this is a recommendation and not a final outcome. The recommendation on the extent of corrections must be assessed and ratified by RDRAC, based on the pre-viva reports, as well as the examination report.

Where revisions are recommended, they may be outlined for the candidate. This is often done by the EPC, working from notes agreed with the examiners, but it may be offered by an examiner.

Explain that, where corrections are required, the timescale for them to be made starts on receipt of the letter from the Research Degrees team with the list of corrections. It is important to note that the examiners should not provide the candidate with a written list of corrections after the exam, because – like the outcome recommendation – the recommended revisions need to be ratified by RDRAC.

Once the recommendations and process have been communicated, ask if the candidate has any questions.

The candidate may take annotated hard or electronic copies of the thesis away after the viva. The observer may share the corrections that they may have recorded in their notes. However, these must be on the clear understanding that the candidate should not commence revisions until they receive the ratification letter from the Research Degrees team.

5 Report and ratification

The Examination Report form should be completed collectively by the examiners. Typically, the EPC facilitates filling in the form on PGR Manager (a shared screen helps), often extracting relevant material from the pre-viva reports as directed by the examiners, referring to notes from the viva and post-viva discussion, and/or typing from dictation. PGR Manager shares the form with the examiners (linearly, in the order in which they appear in the system) to check and confirm. The process must be completed within 48 hours from the end of the viva.

The Examination Report form is typically completed during the post-viva discussion. Sometimes (e.g., if the discussion took longer than planned) it is completed after the recommended outcome is communicated to the candidate. The recommended outcome should not be communicated until there is clear agreement about the recommendation and any required revisions.

Sometimes examiners ask for 24 hours to reflect on the report or to clarify details; in this case, the EPC must ensure that the process is completed, with confirmation by all Examiners, within 48 hours of the end of the exam.

Corrections above the level of typographical errors must be stated explicitly in the Examination Report form. Typographical errors may be annotated on an electronic copy of the thesis and shared with the candidate directly or submitted with the Examination Report form. If typographical corrections are deemed essential to the award of the degree (as opposed to suggested only), they must be stated explicitly in the Examination Report form.

All required changes should be listed clearly, so that they can be understood by the candidate, and checked by the examiners. This can include grouped corrections, e.g., ‘the word “rhythm” is mis-spelled throughout chapter 2, please correct’.

Where the recommendation is substantial amendments, all examiners must check the corrected thesis; be sure to list all the examiners in the relevant field. For minor corrections, it is sufficient for the panel to nominate one examiner (often the internal).

Once the report has been submitted and confirmed by all examiners on PGR Manager, it will be sent to the Research Degrees team. The EPC should ensure that all the forms are completed to a satisfactory level of detail, and that the list of corrections is written with clarity, so that the candidate knows what is required in each point.

The recommended outcome is reviewed by RDRAC. Where information is missing (for example, incomplete forms, or ambiguous statements), RDRAC will ask the Research Degrees team to contact the EPC for clarification. The EPC could draw on notes made during the viva and/or go back to the examiners for clarification or more information. Ultimately, it is better for the EPC to ensure that the paperwork is in order before going to RDRAC, because any request by RDRAC for information delays the candidate receiving their outcome letter with their corrections.

Most requests for clarifications from RDRAC relate to required and suggested corrections.

If changes are suggested (rather than required), they can be covered in broader text – because the examiner is not obliged to verify that these changes have been made.

All communications between the candidate and examiners at this stage must go through the EPC, including requests for clarification on any of the required corrections. The EPC may also wish to keep in contact with the candidate and supervisor during the thesis correction period, to remind them of the submission deadline and to monitor if additional time is required due to changing circumstances after the exam. If this is the case, then the EPC should contact the Research Degrees team for advice. It is good practice to keep records of all communications.

The candidate’s deadline for corrections is calculated from the date of the outcome letter from the Research Degrees team.

6 Exceptional issues

Please raise any issues arising around the viva, however seemingly trivial, with the Research Degrees team, who can quickly refer the issue to the Graduate School Director for a decision.

The EPC is the gatekeeper for the viva process and is responsible for raising anything (real or perceived) that could compromise the integrity of the exam. The EPC is not the decision-maker.

Some of the examples below could be countered with "oh, it won’t matter, it’ll work out ok". Most of the time this is true. However, following due process is critical – if the candidate makes a complaint and due process was not followed then the complaint may well be upheld. Candidates cannot appeal against academic judgement.

Always err on the side of caution and raise any concerns with the Research Degrees team. The team are there to support EPCs in challenging times and are keen to help to resolve matters to ensure the best experience and outcome for the candidate.

6a Reasons to halt any part of the examination process

Any of the following may result in the Graduate School Director cancelling the viva and asking for a new panel nomination. Therefore, if any of the following instances applies, you need to raise them and discuss how to proceed with the Research Degrees team.

These are real examples:

Run up to the exam

• the candidate or supervisor sending out an electronic copy of the thesis directly to an examiner
• the candidate or supervisor communicate with the examiners about the thesis
• if any of the examiners or members of their research team are acknowledged for assistance with any of the thesis work
• if the thesis a collection of manuscripts and not a monograph
• the examiners comparing pre-viva reports before submitting them to the EPC
• the examiners communicating about the viva without mediation by the EPC.

The day of the viva

• power cut or conferencing software malfunction such that the viva cannot be conducted effectively.

Pre-viva meeting

• if the external examiner describes teaching the candidate at undergraduate level or hosting the candidate as an intern at any point
• if any other undeclared conflict of interest emerges
• if an examiner reveals that they did not read the thesis
• if the examiners appear to be intoxicated, under the influence of drugs, or too ill to participate.

In the viva

• if the candidate appears to be intoxicated, under the influence of drugs, or too ill to participate
• if the candidate walks out of the viva and refuse to return.

This is not an exhaustive list, but it provides a flavour of what we have experienced. Anything that meets the ‘flavour’ of this list should be run past the Research Degrees team, and, if sufficiently serious, it will be directed to the Graduate School Director for a decision.

6b When examiners cannot agree

Very rarely, the examiners cannot agree on a recommended outcome. This is truly the rare exception. It is essential for the EPC to take effective notes throughout the examiners’ discussions.

Usually, disagreements between examiners can be resolved through discussion, when the basis of their differences can be explored, and adjustments can be made for differences of perspective, prioritisation, etc.

Sometimes, disagreement comes down to interpretation of (or disagreement with) the Regulations – often, this can be resolved by the EPC (who can clarify the intention and interpretation of the regulations), or by the Research Degree team (who can provide clarification of OU norms), or by the Graduate School Director.

It can be helpful to ask each examiner precisely what would be required to move their assessment one step closer to the other examiner’s assessment (e.g., Why is this a resubmission, rather than substantial amendments?). Sometimes, the EPC can suggest or reiterate alternatives for the examiners to consider. Sometimes, just taking a break can give examiners a chance to reflect and consider priorities.

If the EPC can identify the essence of the discrepancy and find a way to bridge it, for example, by asking about underlying assumptions, interpretations, working practices in the examiners’ institutions, differences of perspective in different fields, then that can be helpful. Distillation of the problem can help to identify and articulate the crux of the issue and hence what the minimum resolution would be.

Unfortunately, sometimes the examiners simply cannot agree. There are regulations pertaining to non-unanimous decisions which you should consult as required:

• RD 19.28-29
• RDD 18.28-29
• PD 17.28-29.

The candidate must be informed that the examiners have not reached agreement, and that there will be a delay in communicating the recommendation. No further detail about the nature of the disagreement may be conveyed to the candidate or supervisors; the discussion must remain confidential within the panel and RDRAC. The length of the delay will depend on further conversations and may be substantial.

Following the candidate being informed on the non-agreement, the EPC must arrange a new meeting with two working days with both/all the examiners to seek a resolution.

Where the examiners remain adamant in their views and there is no resolution, the EPC should submit a report of the meeting(s), together with the examiners’ separate reports and recommendations through PGR Manager.

RDRAC may:

• accept the decision of the external examiner
• appoint an additional external examiner, or
• if there are more than two examiners, accept a majority decision.

It is the EPC’s responsibility to liaise between RDRAC and the examiners and ensure that the examiners, the candidate and the supervisors are kept abreast of the situation.

7 Scenarios

These scenarios cover the most common issues/instances that EPCs have faced in the last five years.

Please contact the Research Degrees team if any further support is needed.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Suggested checklist for the viva day

Appendix 2: Reasonable adjustment form

Reasonable adjustment form (Word, 96 KB)

Appendix 3: Exam panel chair aide memoire

Exam panel chair aide memoire (Word, 40 KB)