Maynooth University Code of Practice for Viva Voce Examinations

Code of Practice for Viva Voce Examinations

Viva Voceexaminations should normally be held on campus but, in exceptional circumstances (for example, the examination of language students based overseas), the examination may be held elsewhere, provided the candidate agrees to the arrangement. Video conferencing may be used in some circumstances. Care should be taken in choosing the location for the Viva to ensure that the examination can be conducted in an accessible, relaxed and comfortable atmosphere, without risk of interruption and extraneous noise.

Chair

At Maynooth University Viva Voce Examinations are chaired by an independent senior permanent academic staff member of the University. The Independent Chair is not a member of the Department from which the thesis is submitted. The presence of an Independent Chair is designed to ensure that integrity and fairness is maintained by all parties during the Viva Voce Examination.

The Registrar/Dean of Graduate Studies appoints the Chair, when the thesis has been submitted for examination to the Examination Office. The Registrar (Examinations Office) forwards, to each of the Examiners and the Chair, a copy of the PhD thesis, together with a copy of the 300-word summary, a report form and a copy of the PhD regulations.

The department from which theViva originates, is responsible for:

  • Establishing a mutually convenient date, time and venue for examination
  • Communicating information on the date, time and venue of the examination to all Examiners, including the Chair and to the candidate.

The Chair is not responsible for:

  • Having any knowledge of the subject of the thesis, nor is she/he required to read the thesis.

Prior to examination the Chair is responsible for:

  • Ensuring the agreement of the Examiners and the candidate that the Supervisor may attend the examination
  • Informing the Supervisor that they neither examine nor question the candidate, and only provide clarification on any matters when requested by the Board.
  • Ensuring receipt ofthe individual written reports from the Examiners in advance of the preliminary meeting.

During the Viva Voce Examination the Chair is responsible for:

Chairing the preliminary meeting of the Examiners and agreeing the structure, roles and format of the Viva Voce examination.
Introducing all those present at the Viva Voce examination, including attempting to put all parties at their ease.
Outlining the structure and format of the Viva Voce to the Examiners and candidates.
Intervening in the examining process only if there appears to be bias, misconduct or unfairness, or if the Examiners are diverting from the agreed format of the Viva Voce in such a manner as to disadvantage the student, or if the Chair believes the Viva Voce is progressing in a manner which could compromise the University’s academic standards. Actions which might be taken include calling a temporary halt to the meeting, holding a private discussion with the Examiners or the candidate, or, most exceptionally, ending the examination.
  • Chairing the post-Viva Voce discussion of the Examiners and assisting them in the formulation of a recommendation.
Ensuring the Examiners complete and sign the relevant forms at the end of the Viva Voce.

After the examination the Chair is responsible for:

  • Ensuring that the candidate is informed of the recommendations made by the Examination Board.
  • Ensuring that a Report on the recommendation of the Examiners (where necessary, indicating details of major/minor amendments required) is sent to the Registrar (Examinations Office) for approval by Faculty.
  • Ensuring that a copy of the report is also sent to the Head of Department and Supervisor.
Providing information for any subsequent appeal procedure.
Submitting all other documentation, including the preliminary reports to the Examinations Office.

Criteria for appointment of research examiners (internal and external)

Examiners should normally have the following qualities and competencies:

  • Experience in supervising postgraduate candidates and in the examination process of such candidates
  • Formal academic qualification, normally at doctoral level, and/or a professional qualification or experience at an appropriate level and relevant to the area being examined
  • A willingness to respond to requests to read dissertations within specified time deadlines and to be available to attend such oral examinations and/or examiners meetings as are appropriate.

Examiners should not have a close personal relationship with other examiners, supervisors or a candidate, if it might be construed by a reasonable person as entailing a conflict of interest.

Criteria for appointment of external examiners

For research awards, external examiners are appointed for specific candidates. External examiners for research candidates should not normally be appointed more than twice in a four-year period. Such appointments may be made irrespective of external examiners' duties with regard to taught programmes. No distinction should be made, for the purposes of appointing external examiners, between master's and doctoral degree students.

External examiners should have recognised expertise in the subject matter of the thesis being examined.

The external examiner should be independent of the university, of its internal examiners, supervisors, and of the candidates presenting themselves for examination. Thus, all external examiners:

  • should not have been in the employ of the university (in any capacity) in the five years prior to appointment
  • should not have been a student of the university in the five years prior to appointment.
  • should not, in the past five years, have been a beneficiary of any bursary or remuneration from the university other than from posts such as external examiner, member of accreditation panel, member of quality review panel, member of recruitment/promotions panel or similar
  • should not have assisted/advised the postgraduate candidate on the work underpinning the preparation of his/her thesis.

Criteria for appointment of internal examiners

The internal examiner should normally be a member of the academic staff of the university who has the appropriate expertise in the candidate's subject area. If departments wish to recommend nominees who do not satisfy this criterion, this should be highlighted in the nomination form and a case provided for consideration by faculty.

Examining

Prior to the Viva Voce examination each examiner should separately complete an individual written report on the thesis. A preparatory meeting should be held to review the written reports (often on the same day but prior to the time scheduled for the candidate and their supervisor to attend) and to agree the approach of the examination. This preparatory meeting should allow sufficient time to (1) agree the approach of the Viva Voce and (2) review the written reports. The Supervisor should normally be available for consultation with the Examiners during this meeting.

With the agreement of the Examiners and the candidate, the Supervisor may attend the examination, but does not examine or question the candidate and can only provide clarification on any matters when requested by the Board. The Supervisor does not participate in the final decision and leaves the examination room while deliberations take place, unless asked to remain by the Chair.

Examiners Report and Recommendations

The examiners should not recommend awarding the degree unless they judge the work to be worthy of publication, in full or in part, as a work of serious scholarship. Following the examination where Examiners are in agreement, a joint report should be made recommending the award or otherwise of the Degree. Where the Examiners are not in agreement, separate reports should be submitted but examiners must complete and sign the relevant forms at the end of the Viva Voce.

The report should comment on:

  • Quality of research contained in the thesis
  • The contribution the thesis makes to knowledge and scholarship
  • The written style and overall presentation of the thesis
  • The nature of minor corrections required (if any)

The Examiners may recommend that the candidate
1. Be awarded the degree of Doctor of Philosophy without further examination or amendment.

2. Be awarded the degree of Doctor of Philosophy without further examination, subject to making the minor changes specified which must be subsequently carried out to the satisfaction of the Internal Examiner. (This recommendation should be applied where examiners estimate up to six weeks further work is required)

3. Be awarded the degree of Doctor of Philosophy without further examination, subject to making the changes specified by the examiners which must be subsequently carried out to the satisfaction of the Internal and External Examiners. (This recommendation should be applied where examiners estimate that less than six months additional work is required)

4. Not be awarded the degree, but be permitted to re-submit the thesis in a revised form for re-examination by the same Examiners. In this case areas requiring major amendments will be detailed by the Examiners in the examination report (This recommendation should be applied where examiners estimate that there is more than six months additional work required).

5. Not be awarded the degree of Doctor of Philosophy and not be permitted to submit for re-examination for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

If the Examiners recommend that the PhD Degree be awarded, the candidate must re-submit three hard bound copies of the PhD thesis, plus an electronic copy (on CD/DVD) of one PDF file mirroring the hard bound copy) embodying any changes prescribed by the Examiners, where recommended. The Examiners’ report will not be considered by Faculty until three hardbound copies of the revised thesis incorporating the recommended changes, and confirmed by the Internal Examiner, have been lodged with the Examinations Office of the University.

Where the opinions of the Examiners differ, each Examiner should submit a separate written report for consideration by the appropriate Faculty without the requirement for submission of hard-bound copies of the thesis.

Where the Examiners' recommendations are not unanimous, the Faculty may:

  • Accept a majority recommendation (provided that the majority recommendation includes at least one External Examiner);
  • Accept the recommendation of the External Examiner; or
  • Require the appointment of an additional External Examiner.

In the case where the Examiners recommend that the PhD not be awarded and that the candidate not be permitted to submit for re-examination, the Examiners may subsequently consider whether or not the work is sufficient for the award of a masters level degree. If they agree that a masters level award would be merited then a separate recommendation may be made in writing to that effect. Application of this option should be seen as exceptional, rather than as one of the usual possible outcomes of a PhD examination.

Unless candidates indicate otherwise, a copy of the thesis will be lodged in the University Library.

16 March 2015

VERSION HISTORY

Version / Date / Summary / Changed by
1 / Oct 2008 / Extracted from the PhD Supervisory Policy / Prof Ray O’Neill
2 / December 2010 / Independent Chairs / Prof Honor Fagan
3 / September 2011 / Criteria for selection of external examiners / Prof Honor Fagan
4 / May 2012 / Independent Chairs / Prof Honor Fagan
5 / January 2015 / Criteria for Appointing Research Examiners / Prof Ronan Reilly