Abstract
Oral defence is recognised as an important part of doctoral examination and candidate development. Unlike the UK and New Zealand, the Australian examination process does not normally include an end-of-process viva. This paper appraises the views of 20 supervisors and 13 Deans or Directors of Graduate Research from 11 Australian universities as they contemplate the advantages and disadvantages of adding an oral defence component to the Australian process. The majority preferred a ‘pre-completion seminar’ prior to thesis submission, rather than a viva after thesis submission. Such a seminar is believed to offer the candidate greater opportunity to reflect on their findings and integrate feedback into the final product. The findings are discussed in light of formative assessment and learner agency.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
NA
Code availability
NA
References
Åkerlind, G., & McAlpine, L. (2017). Supervising doctoral students: Variation in purpose and pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 42(9), 1686–1698. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1118031
Archibald, M. M., Ambagtsheer, R. C., Casey, M. G., & Lawless, M. (2019). Using Zoom videoconferencing for qualitative data collection: Perceptions and experiences of researchers and participants. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919874596
Askew, S., & Lodge, C. (2000). Gifts, ping-pong and loops-linking feedback and learning. In S. Askew (Ed.), Feedback for learning (pp. 1–17). Routledge Falmer.
Australian Qualifications Framework Council (AQF) (2013). Australian qualifications framework (2nd ed.). Australian Qualifications Framework Council. https://www.aqf.edu.au/sites/aqf/files/aqf- 2nd-edition-january-2013.pdf
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2020). Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern-based qualitative analytic approaches. Counselling & Psychotherapy Research. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12360
Carless, D. (2016). Feedback as dialogue. In M. Peters (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational philosophy and theory (pp. 1–6). Springer.
Carter, B., & Whittaker, K. (2009). Examining the British PhD viva: Opening new doors or scarring for life? Contemporary Nurse: A Journal for the Australian Nursing Profession, 32(1–2), 169–178. https://doi.org/10.5172/conu.32.1-2.169
Dally, K., Holbrook, A., Fairbairn, H., & Lovat, T. (2020). Supervisor perspectives on the ‘end-stage’ of the doctoral examination process. Higher Education Research & Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1847049
Dally, K., Holbrook, A., Lovat, T., & Budd, J. (2019). Examiner feedback and Australian doctoral examination processes. Australian Universities’ Review, 61(2), 31–41.
Denicolo, P. (2003). Assessing the PhD: A constructive view of criteria. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(2), 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880310471506
Erikson, M. G., & Erikson, M. (2019). Learning outcomes and critical thinking: Good intentions in conflict. Studies in Higher Education, 44(12), 2293–2303. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1486813
Kobayashi, S., Berge, M., Grout, B. W., & Rump, C. O. (2017). Experiencing variation: Learning opportunities in doctoral supervision. Instructional Science, 45, 805–826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9422-4
Lovat, T., Holbrook, A., & Bourke, S. (2008). Ways of knowing in doctoral examination: How well is the doctoral regime? Educational Research Review, 3, 66–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2007.06.002
Lovat, T., Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., Fairbairn, H., Kiley, M., Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (2015). Examining doctoral examination and the question of the viva. Higher Education Review, 47(3), 5–23.
Mantai, L. (2019). “Feeling more academic now”: Doctoral stories of becoming an academic. The Australian Educational Researcher, 46, 137–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-018-0283-x
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). A realist approach for qualitative research. Sage.
McGagh, J., Marsh, H., Western, M., Thomas, P., Hastings, A., Mihailova, M., & Wenham, M. 2016. Review of Australia’s research training system. Report for the Australian Council of Learned Academies. www.acola.org.au.
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
Poole, B. (2017). The rather elusive concept of ‘doctorateness’: A reaction to Wellington. Studies in Higher Education, 40(9), 1507–1522. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.873026
Silva, L., & Marcuccio, M. (2020). Advisor’s feedback as assessment practices in Doctoral Programs: A scoping review of empirical research. Form@re Open Journal per la formazione in rete, 19(3), 26–47. https://doi.org/10.13128/form-7701
Tinkler, P., & Jackson, C. (2004). The doctoral examination process: A handbook for students, examiners and supervisors. Open University Press.
Tonks, A., & Williams, A. (2018). Identifying unmet training needs for postgraduate research students in the biomedical sciences through audit of examiners’ reports. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 13, 169–191. https://doi.org/10.28945/4003
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by an Australian Research Council Discovery Project Grant (DP180100448). This sponsor had no involvement in the design or implementation of this study, in analyses of data, or in the drafting of this manuscript.
Funding
This study was funded by an Australian Research Council Discovery Project Grant (DP180100448). This sponsor had no involvement in the design or implementation of this study, in analyses of data, or in the drafting of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lovat, T., Dally, K., Holbrook, A. et al. Oral defence as a feedback mechanism in doctoral development and examination. Aust. Educ. Res. 49, 845–860 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-021-00456-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-021-00456-6