You have already found the list of forty questions. The problem with it is that it tells you what will be asked and not what is being checked, so you cannot tell whether your answer is any good. This guide is built the other way round: every question below comes with the check hiding behind it, what a weak answer sounds like, what a strong one does, and the follow-up it invites.
The questions are drawn from the UK Council for Graduate Education's guidance for doctoral candidates and from the published criteria examiners work to, not reassembled from another website's list. Scope note, said once: these are general UK patterns. Your discipline, your institution's regulations and your two individual examiners matter more than any generalisation here, and nobody can tell you what yours will ask.
Before the questions: what examiners are required to establish
Everything below hangs off this. The UKCGE guidance reproduces one university's regulations requiring examiners to confirm that the student possesses a good general knowledge of the field; has made a significant and substantial contribution in that field; has presented the thesis in a lucid and scholarly manner; has produced a thesis that in the examiners' opinion merits the doctoral degree; and has presented a satisfactory abstract.
Alongside those, it lists the questions examiners hold in mind throughout:
- Are you the author of the thesis and, so far as can be ascertained, did you carry out the research? Candidates have to satisfy the examiners that the thesis is their own work.
- Are you competent as an independent researcher in the discipline?
- Have you made a contribution to knowledge in this field?
- Do you possess a good general knowledge of the field — could you teach your subject?
- Is the research of publishable quality?
And the calibration, which is the most reassuring fact in this whole subject: the regulation quoted in that guidance instructs examiners to judge significance against what may reasonably be expected of a capable and diligent student after three, or at most four, years of full-time study. Not a Nobel Prize — the phrase comes from Mullins and Kiley's study of how experienced examiners actually assess theses, cited in the same guidance, which also found that experienced examiners want candidates to pass and will go to considerable lengths to make that possible.
Every question below is one of those checks, wearing a disguise. Once you can see which check is being run, you can tell whether your answer landed — which is the thing a list of questions cannot teach you.
The opening questions
Examiners usually begin generally, then work through the thesis chapter by chapter. The opening is where candidates waste the most ground, because it feels like warm-up and is not.
Could you summarise your thesis for us?
- What they are checking
- The golden thread — whether there is a single argument running through the whole document, and whether you can see it from above.
- What a weak answer sounds like
- A walk through the contents page. “Chapter one introduces the topic, chapter two reviews the literature…” This describes the object rather than the argument, and it burns the best three minutes of the examination.
- What a strong answer does
- Gives the argument in three or four sentences — the problem, what you did, what you found, why it matters — and signals where the contribution sits so the examiners know where to go next.
- The follow-up this invites
- Almost always straight to the contribution: so what is original about it?
Why did you choose this subject? How did you come to this research?
- What they are checking
- Ownership and motivation — and, quietly, authorship. Someone who lived with a project for four years tells this story without effort.
- What a weak answer sounds like
- Pure biography. “I've always been interested in this since my undergraduate degree.” True, probably, but it says nothing about the research.
- What a strong answer does
- Links the personal route in to a gap in the field: what you noticed was missing or wrong, and why that was worth four years.
- The follow-up this invites
- And had nobody looked at that before? — which is the literature question arriving early.
What is the thesis about? Does it raise interesting issues — theoretical, methodological, substantive?
- What they are checking
- Whether you can locate your own work in more than one register. Listed in the UKCGE guidance among the general opening questions.
- What a weak answer sounds like
- Answering only on the substantive level, as though the thesis were just a topic and not also a set of theoretical and methodological choices.
- What a strong answer does
- Takes each register in turn, briefly, and is honest about which one carries the contribution — most theses are strong in one and competent in the others.
- The follow-up this invites
- Pressure on whichever register you claimed hardest.
What was the most interesting part of the research?
- What they are checking
- Engagement, and whether there is a researcher in the room rather than a candidate reciting. This question is kinder than it looks.
- What a weak answer sounds like
- A deflection. “It was all interesting, really.” Candidates waste this question by treating it as small talk.
- What a strong answer does
- Picks one specific thing — a result that surprised you, a moment in the field, a problem that took three months — and shows the thinking around it. This is where you sound like someone who did the work.
- The follow-up this invites
- A genuine conversation, usually, and a warmer room for the next twenty minutes.
If you are nine to eighteen months into a PhD rather than at the end of one, you are probably preparing for a progression examination instead — and upgrade and transfer viva questions are different: those panels ask about your plan, not your findings.
Questions about your contribution
What is original about your thesis? Where exactly is the novelty?
- What they are checking
- The central question of the whole examination, and the thing a UK doctorate is defined by: an original contribution to knowledge made through independent research.
- What a weak answer sounds like
- Claiming too much. “Nobody has ever studied this.” Almost always untrue, and it invites an examiner to name someone who has.
- What a strong answer does
- Claims precisely and defends the boundary: this specific thing, in this specific context, with this specific method, and here is what was already known either side of it.
- The follow-up this invites
- And what in the thesis is not original? — which is a calibration check, not a trap. Have an answer ready.
What is the significance of your findings, and the implications for further research, for policy, for practice?
- What they are checking
- The “so what” question, set out explicitly in the UKCGE guidance. Whether you can take the work outward without overclaiming.
- What a weak answer sounds like
- Either a shrug, or a leap — national policy recommendations from a study of two organisations.
- What a strong answer does
- Scales the claim to the evidence, and separates the three audiences: what other researchers should do differently, what a practitioner could use tomorrow, and what would have to be true before policy should listen.
- The follow-up this invites
- What would you need to do to make the policy claim safely?
Which parts of the thesis are your own distinct contribution?
- What they are checking
- Authorship, directly. Relevant for anyone with co-authored chapters, a publications-based thesis, or lab work done inside a group.
- What a weak answer sounds like
- Vagueness about who did what, or an answer that implies you did everything in a collaborative project.
- What a strong answer does
- Is specific and unembarrassed: on this paper you did the design and the analysis, a colleague ran the assay, your supervisor is on it for the usual reasons. Thesis-by-publication candidates should have an authorship statement ready before they are asked for one.
- The follow-up this invites
- Detail on one of the co-authored pieces — usually a question you can only answer if you were there.
Questions about the literature
Who are the key people in your field today?
- What they are checking
- Whether you know the field as a field, not just as a reference list. The UKCGE guidance tells candidates to revise four or five key figures and be able to discuss their work in some detail.
- What a weak answer sounds like
- Names with no content attached. Worse: naming people whose work you cited once and have not read.
- What a strong answer does
- Names a handful, says what each one argues, and says where you agree and disagree with them. Disagreement, reasoned, is what makes you a peer rather than a reader.
- The follow-up this invites
- And where does your work sit in relation to [the one you were least warm about]?
You cite [author] in your introduction. Summarise the relevance of their work.
- What they are checking
- Comprehension. Whether the citation is load-bearing or decorative.
- What a weak answer sounds like
- A paraphrase of the sentence as it appears in your own thesis. Examiners can read, and they have your thesis open.
- What a strong answer does
- Explains what that author actually argues, how it bears on your question, and why it is in your introduction rather than somewhere else.
- The follow-up this invites
- The same question about a second author, usually one you cited less carefully. The most feared question type on this list, and also the most predictable — it is a comprehension check, not a trap.
What has been published since you submitted?
- What they are checking
- Currency. Whether you are still a working researcher or have stopped reading since the thesis went in.
- What a weak answer sounds like
- “I haven't really kept up since submission.” Honest, and avoidable.
- What a strong answer does
- Names two or three relevant items, with a sentence on each and a line on whether they change anything. Nothing changes a conclusion in three months; being able to say why not is the point.
- The follow-up this invites
- Does that change your argument? The answer is usually no, and you should be able to say so with a reason rather than a reflex.
Questions about methodology
The longest section here because it is the longest section in most vivas. If you have limited preparation time, spend it on this one.
Why this design and not an alternative?
- What they are checking
- Whether the choice was reasoned or inherited. This is the most common opening into the methodology chapter and it spends more viva time than any other.
- What a weak answer sounds like
- “It was the most appropriate approach for my research question.” A sentence that could be written about any design for any question, which is exactly why it fails.
- What a strong answer does
- Names the alternative, says what it would have bought, says what it would have cost, and says why the trade-off went your way for this question.
- The follow-up this invites
- And if you had had twice the budget? — checking whether the constraint or the logic drove the decision. Both are acceptable; pretending it was the logic when it was the constraint is not.
Justify your sampling strategy.
- What they are checking
- Three separate things: whether the sample is adequate to the claim, whether recruitment is transparently reported, and whether the limits are acknowledged in the right place.
- What a weak answer sounds like
- Describing the sample rather than justifying it. “I recruited 42 participants through a convenience sample.”
- What a strong answer does
- Explains what the sample lets you claim and what it stops you claiming, reports who declined or dropped out, and points to where in the thesis the boundary is stated.
- The follow-up this invites
- So what can you say about [a group not in your sample]? The correct answer is often “nothing, and I don't”.
How well did the design work in practice? Did anything go wrong with data collection?
- What they are checking
- Resilience, and honesty. Examiners know fieldwork does not go to plan; what they want to see is a researcher who noticed and responded.
- What a weak answer sounds like
- “It all went to plan.” This is rarely true and almost never believed. Hiding the problem is worse than the problem.
- What a strong answer does
- Names what went wrong, what you changed, and what that did to the analysis and the claims. A deviation reported and handled reads as competence.
- The follow-up this invites
- What would you have done if that had happened six months earlier?
How did you ensure validity and reliability — or trustworthiness?
- What they are checking
- Whether you know which tradition you are working in. Using the wrong vocabulary signals a shallow methods chapter faster than almost anything else.
- What a weak answer sounds like
- Mixing the registers — claiming reliability for a six-interview study, or credibility for a regression model — or reciting four textbook terms with no connection to what you actually did.
- What a strong answer does
- Uses the right set of terms for the tradition, and attaches each one to a concrete action: this is what I did, this is the threat it addresses, this is the threat it does not address.
- The follow-up this invites
- Pressure on the weakest of the four, usually the one about transferability or external validity.
What is your positionality and how did it shape the work?
- What they are checking
- Reflexivity, and increasingly standard in social sciences, education and health research. Older question lists omit it entirely.
- What a weak answer sounds like
- A biography. Or an apology. Or a claim to have had no influence at all, which is not a position anyone holds.
- What a strong answer does
- Two or three specific sentences: what about your position gave you access, what it may have closed off, and what you did about it in the design and the analysis.
- The follow-up this invites
- Would a different researcher have found the same thing? — and in a qualitative study, “not identically, and here is why that is not a problem” is a better answer than “yes”.
Walk me through your ethics approval.
- What they are checking
- Governance, and whether you understand the ethics of your own study rather than having completed a form.
- What a weak answer sounds like
- “It went through the committee.” Which committee, when, and what did they query?
- What a strong answer does
- Names the route, the date, any conditions imposed and how you met them, and shows awareness of the one ethical issue that was genuinely difficult — because every study has one.
- The follow-up this invites
- What would you have done if a participant had disclosed [the obvious risk in your setting]?
Every question in this section is really the same question asked six ways: did you choose this, and do you know what it cost you? If the honest answer is that the design was inherited rather than chosen, that is a thing to work on before the viva — see methodology mentorship.
Questions about findings, limitations and what you would change
What are the strengths and weaknesses of your thesis?
- What they are checking
- Calibration. Whether you can see your own work the way a reader sees it.
- What a weak answer sounds like
- A fake weakness — the sample could have been bigger, there was not enough time — offered to avoid naming a real one. Examiners have heard every version.
- What a strong answer does
- Names a real weakness, shows it was anticipated, managed and reported, and then names a genuine strength without false modesty.
- The follow-up this invites
- And given that weakness, how much weight can your main conclusion take?
Did the study turn out as expected? If not, how and why?
- What they are checking
- Whether you engaged with your own results or wrote the discussion you planned before collecting data. Listed in the UKCGE guidance.
- What a weak answer sounds like
- Treating an unexpected result as a disappointment to be explained away.
- What a strong answer does
- Says what you expected, what happened, and what you think the gap means. An unexpected finding properly interrogated is frequently the most interesting part of a thesis.
- The follow-up this invites
- Did you go back to the literature after that?
If you were starting again, what would you do differently?
- What they are checking
- Researcher-level reflection. It is not an invitation to disown the thesis, and this is where candidates most often concede ground they did not need to.
- What a weak answer sounds like
- A list of regrets delivered as confession, ending somewhere near “I probably should have done the whole thing differently.” You have just argued against your own award.
- What a strong answer does
- Distinguishes between what you would change with hindsight you did not have at the time (fine, expected, intellectually healthy) and what you would defend again today (also fine, and you should say so). Reflection, not retreat.
- The follow-up this invites
- So would the findings have been different? — answer carefully.
What are the limitations of your study?
- What they are checking
- Whether you can bound a claim. Closely related to the strengths and weaknesses question but aimed at the conclusion rather than the thesis.
- What a weak answer sounds like
- Apology, or an exhaustive list that includes everything and therefore prioritises nothing.
- What a strong answer does
- Answers with scope rather than apology: here is the boundary of what this study can support, here is why that boundary is where it is, and here is where in the discussion I stay inside it.
- The follow-up this invites
- Which limitation worries you most?
Is the research of publishable quality?
- What they are checking
- One of the general goals the UKCGE guidance lists for examiners. It is a question about standard, asked indirectly.
- What a weak answer sounds like
- Modesty that reads as doubt, or a claim with no target attached.
- What a strong answer does
- Says which part is publishable, where, and why that venue — which doubles as the answer to the publication-plans question coming later.
- The follow-up this invites
- Which journal, and have you looked at what they publish?
Questions about what comes next
What are your publication plans?
- What they are checking
- Seriousness, and your sense of the field's conversation. The UKCGE guidance is explicit that you should be as specific as possible, with specific journals.
- What a weak answer sounds like
- “I'm hoping to get a couple of papers out of it.” Almost every candidate says this, which is why being specific is free ground.
- What a strong answer does
- Names two or three papers, what each argues, and the journal you are targeting for each with a reason. Most candidates underprepare this and it costs them nothing to fix the week before.
- The follow-up this invites
- Who else publishes there, and how does your paper sit against theirs?
Where would you take this research with more time or funding?
- What they are checking
- Whether you can see past the thesis to a programme of work — the difference between a student finishing and a researcher starting.
- What a weak answer sounds like
- “More participants” or “a longitudinal version of the same study”. Larger, not different.
- What a strong answer does
- Describes the next question rather than a bigger version of this one, and says what your findings make possible that was not possible before.
- The follow-up this invites
- And what would you need that you do not have?
How do you see this field developing over the next five years?
- What they are checking
- Field-level awareness. Listed in the UKCGE guidance among the general questions, and a genuine test of whether you read beyond your own literature review.
- What a weak answer sounds like
- A generic answer about more data and more AI that could be given about any field.
- What a strong answer does
- Names two or three specific movements — a methodological shift, a funding change, a theoretical argument currently unresolved — and says where your work sits in relation to them.
- The follow-up this invites
- Which side of that argument are you on?
The question underneath all the others: did you do this work?
Among the general responsibilities the UKCGE guidance sets out for examiners is establishing that the candidate is the author of the thesis and carried out the research — and it notes plainly that candidates have to satisfy the examiners the thesis is their own work.
It is almost never asked as a bare question. It is established through the texture of the whole examination: whether you can explain a choice you made eighteen months ago, whether you know why a particular reference is in your literature review, whether you can discuss a decision that is not written down anywhere in the document. Two examples of what that looks like in practice:
Why did you drop the second research question?
- What they are checking
- Authorship, through the texture of the work. Nobody asks “did you write this?” outright; they ask about a decision that is not written down anywhere.
- What a weak answer sounds like
- Hesitation, or an answer reconstructed from the thesis rather than remembered. The problem is not the pause — it is an answer that does not fit the chronology.
- What a strong answer does
- Remembers it, because you were there: it was month fourteen, recruitment for that strand was not happening, and you and your supervisor agreed to narrow the scope rather than do two things badly.
- The follow-up this invites
- More of the same, about a different decision. These questions come in sequences, and they are easy if you did the work.
Why is this particular reference in your literature review?
- What they are checking
- The same check, from the other direction. A reference list assembled by someone else contains items the candidate cannot account for.
- What a weak answer sounds like
- “It's a standard citation in this area.” Possibly — but why is it in your review, doing what?
- What a strong answer does
- Says what that source contributes to your argument and what the review would lose without it. If the honest answer is “nothing”, saying so is better than defending a citation you do not need.
- The follow-up this invites
- A second one, then a third.
This is the structural reason a ghostwritten thesis fails. Not detection software — an examiner asking why you dropped the second research question in month fourteen. If you did the work, you answer that without thinking. It is also why we coach and do not write: there is nothing anyone could hand you that would survive that conversation.
If you did the research, every question on this page is a technique problem, and technique responds to rehearsal. That is what viva preparation coaching is for.
What to do when you cannot answer
The highest-value section on this page, and the shortest to apply.
- Ask for the question to be repeated. The UKCGE guidance tells candidates not to hesitate to do this. It is permitted, it is normal, and it is not a confession.
- Answer the question asked, not the one you prepared for. The guidance names this first among its advice on answering, which tells you how often it goes wrong.
- Avoid tangents and over-long responses. Also explicitly in the guidance. A long answer to a short question reads as evasion even when it is enthusiasm.
- “I don't know, but here is how I would find out” is a researcher's answer, and examiners recognise it as one. It is far better than an invented answer, which will be followed up.
- Conceding a point is not losing. Learn the difference between a weakness you should accept — “yes, that is a limitation, and it is why I bounded the claim at page 212” — and a position you should hold — “I take the point, but I would defend the choice, because the alternative would have cost me X”. Candidates who concede everything end up arguing against their own thesis.
- Look it up. You can take your annotated thesis and notes in; Essex recommends page markers in the sections you may need. Pausing to find a page is not a failure, it is what the markers are for.
- If an examiner has misread something, say so — courteously, with the page number. They would rather be corrected than go away with a wrong impression.
How questioning differs by discipline
A sketch, honestly hedged. The weighting differs more than the questions do.
- Laboratory sciences: reproducibility, controls, instrument and reagent choice, statistical power, and — in group settings — precisely which part of the work was yours.
- Humanities: the argument itself, your theoretical commitments, why these archives or these texts and not others, and the quality of your reading rather than your procedure.
- Social sciences and health: sampling, positionality, ethics, transferability, and the implications for policy or practice.
- Engineering and computing: validation, baselines, benchmarks, what you compared against and whether the comparison was fair.
- Practice-based and professional doctorates: the relationship between the artefact or the practice and the written component, and the impact on professional practice.
The honest limit: this is a sketch. Your discipline, your institution's regulations and your two individual examiners matter more than any generalisation here.
Using this guide to run a mock viva
Written for whoever is running it — a supervisor, a colleague, or a partner who has been recruited and is reading this on the sofa.
- Pick eight to ten questions across the categories above. Do not work through all twenty-six. A mock that covers everything shallowly rehearses nothing.
- Follow up at least twice on every answer. The first answer is rehearsed; the second is not; the third is where the actual understanding is. The follow-ups are given under each question above so you do not have to invent them.
- Time it, record it, and do not interrupt. The recording is the useful part — nobody can hear their own tangents live.
- Debrief against what was being checked, not against whether the answer sounded confident. Confidence is not the thing being examined.
Then the limit, stated honestly because it is true: a supervisor running a mock knows your work too well to ask the naive question an external examiner will ask, and a partner does not know the field well enough to follow up. Both are worth doing. Neither replicates an examiner, and the gap is exactly where candidates get caught.
A full-length mock viva with an experienced examiner.
Closing that gap is what our mock viva is for: a mentor who has examined doctoral theses, your thesis read in advance, a predicted question set drawn from your own chapters, a recorded full-length examination and a written report on how you answered.
About this guide
Quick answers
How many questions are asked in a PhD viva?
There is no number, and that framing misleads. Examiners typically open generally and then work through the thesis chapter by chapter, following up on whatever each answer opens. Eight well-followed-up questions can fill two hours. Prepare for depth, not count.
What is the first question in a viva?
Most often a general one: summarise your thesis, or tell us how you came to this research. The UKCGE guidance lists both among the general opening questions. Prepare a sixty-second, three-minute and ten-minute version of your contribution and you are covered whichever arrives.
Should I memorise answers to viva questions?
No. A memorised answer survives the question and fails at the first follow-up, because the follow-up is unscripted and the change of register is audible. Rehearse the material — your argument, your decisions, your limits — so you can assemble an answer live.
Do examiners try to catch you out?
Generally no. Mullins and Kiley's study of experienced examiners found they want candidates to pass and will go to considerable lengths to enable it. Hard questioning is how they satisfy themselves, not hostility. That said, examiners vary, and a difficult examiner is a thing to prepare for rather than a thing to be shocked by.
Do examiners read the whole thesis?
They are expected to. The UKCGE guidance states that examiners will be examining your thesis, having read it carefully, as well as examining you as a researcher. They write independent reports before the viva and a joint report with a recommendation afterwards.
Can I take notes into my viva?
Yes. Essex recommends taking your thesis and your notes in, with page markers in the sections you may need to refer to, and the UKCGE guidance tells candidates to keep their highlights and markers in the copy they bring. Make sure your copy matches the examiners' pagination.
What happens if I cannot answer a question?
Ask for it to be repeated, then answer what you can and say how you would find out the rest. See what to do when you cannot answer. Inventing an answer is the only genuinely bad option, because it will be followed up.
Can you fail a PhD viva?
Outright failure is rare — the UKCGE guidance describes it, and the award of a master's degree instead, as extremely rare. Corrections are the normal outcome, and referral for resubmission is a real and considerably more common one. The categories and the correction deadlines differ by institution; ours are compared against two real universities on the viva preparation page.
Related guidance
Sources
Primary sources and institutional guidance only. No competing commercial viva page is cited or paraphrased anywhere in this guide; the question set is built from the material below. Every link was checked on 8 October 2026.
- Preparing for the Viva: A Guide for Doctoral Candidates — Prof Ingrid Lunt and Dr Gill Houston. The backbone of this guide: the examiners' responsibility questions, the five confirmations, the general question set, the chapter-by-chapter progression, the “so what” question, publication plans, and the advice on answering. PDF. UK Council for Graduate Education (UKCGE)
- Characteristics Statement: Doctoral Degree — 3rd edition, February 2020. The standard the contribution questions are testing against. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA)
- How to prepare for your viva — taking the thesis and annotated notes in, page markers, and practice vivas. University of Essex
- Viva examinations — who is in the room, the supervisor's absence, examiners' independent and joint reports, and the fact that length is not announced in advance. University of Liverpool
- Understand viva outcomes — outcome categories and correction windows at one institution, for the “can you fail” question. University of Leeds
- Mullins, G. and Kiley, M. (2002) ‘“It's a PhD, not a Nobel Prize”: how experienced examiners assess research theses’, Studies in Higher Education, 27(4), pp. 369–386. Cited by reference
- Murray, R. (2009) How to Survive Your Viva: Defending a Thesis in an Oral Examination, 2nd edn. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Cited by reference
- Burnham, P. (1994) ‘Surviving the viva: unravelling the mystery of the PhD oral’, Journal of Graduate Education, 1(1), pp. 30–34. Cited by reference
- Phillips, E. and Pugh, D. (2010) How to Get a PhD: A Handbook for Students and their Supervisors, 5th edn. Buckingham: Open University Press. Cited by reference
Last reviewed · 8 October 2026 · Next review · October 2027, or sooner if a cited institution changes its regulations
Author and reviewer · not yet supplied — see “About this guide” above
Corrections welcome: mia@globalprojectshelp.com