A PhD viva (viva voce) is an oral examination where you defend your thesis in front of two examiners. Below are 52 of the most common PhD viva questions, grouped into seven categories: opening questions, research foundations, methodology, findings, evaluation, coverage, and future directions. Each question includes guidance on what examiners are looking for and how to prepare your answer.
A PhD viva is an oral examination in which you defend your doctoral thesis in front of two examiners. It is the final assessment before the degree is awarded. The viva scares people. That is normal. A room, two examiners, your thesis, and you. No notes to hide behind, no supervisor to step in. Just your work, and a conversation about it.
But here’s the thing. The viva is not a trap. It is a structured conversation, and the questions your examiners ask are, for the most part, predictable. They follow patterns. They test the same things, thesis after thesis, across disciplines and institutions.
The viva is a thinking test, not a memory test. Your examiners are not waiting for you to recite a passage from chapter four. They want to see how you reason about your own work in real time, how you handle a challenge, how you change your mind when a better idea is put in front of you. That shift in framing changes everything about how you prepare.
We asked Professor Peter Smith to compile the questions he has asked most often. He has supervised more than 60 PhD and professional doctorate students and examined a further 50. What follows are 50+ real questions, grouped by category, with guidance on what each one is really testing and how to prepare.
Key takeaways: According to Professor Peter Smith, PhD viva questions fall into nine predictable categories: opening questions, research foundations, literature, methodology, ethics and positionality, decisions and choices, findings and contribution, evaluation and limitations, and future work. Most examiners draw from the same pool of questions. Preparation means practising your thinking out loud, not memorising scripts. Below are 52 of the most common questions, with what each one tests and how to prepare.
At a glance: 52 PhD viva questions by category
| Category | Number of questions |
|---|---|
| Opening questions | 4 |
| Foundations of your research | 7 |
| Coverage of the literature | 6 |
| Methodology and methods | 7 |
| Ethics and positionality | 5 |
| Decisions and choices | 5 |
| Findings and contribution | 6 |
| Evaluation and limitations | 7 |
| Future work and after the viva | 5 |
Before you read on, where are you at with your PhD?
Take the 2-minute Doctoral Researcher Profile and find out what type of researcher you are, and what would make the biggest difference right now.
Opening questions
Examiners almost always start gently. According to Professor Smith, the opening question is not designed to catch you out. It is designed to settle you in, get you talking, and give you an early sense of control. Think of it as a warm-up, not an ambush. The first ten minutes set the tone for the next two hours, so practise these answers more than any others.
1. “Spend five to ten minutes telling us about your work, what you did, and what the contribution is”
Prepare a concise summary covering your research question, method, key findings, and contribution. Aim for five minutes, structured so a non-specialist could follow the arc of your project.
This is the most common opener in PhD vivas. Examiners want to hear you explain your research in your own words, without reading from your thesis. They are listening for clarity, confidence, and whether you can articulate the core contribution. According to Professor Smith, this question appears in almost every viva. Prepare a short, structured summary: your research question, what you did, what you found, and why it matters. Practise it out loud until it feels natural, not rehearsed. Five minutes is shorter than you think. A strong answer names the topic, the method, the key finding, and its significance in under 300 words.
2. “Summarise your thesis in a single sentence”
Distil your thesis into one sentence that names the topic, the approach, and the main argument. Write it before the viva and practise saying it aloud until it feels natural.
A harder version of the same question. It tests whether you can distil your entire PhD into one clear statement. If you cannot do it in one sentence, you may not yet have full command of what your thesis argues. Write this sentence before the viva. Refine it. It should name the topic, the approach, and the contribution. “This thesis uses [method] to investigate [topic] and argues that [finding]” is a reliable starting frame. Examiners use this question to see whether you understand the core argument, not just the detail around it.
3. “What drew you to this topic in the first place?”
Explain the intellectual curiosity or practical problem that drew you to this research, and connect it to a gap in the existing literature.
A gentle, biographical question that tests whether you have personal investment in the work. Examiners are looking for authenticity, not a polished origin story. It is fine to mention practical factors, like a supervisor’s grant or a job that exposed you to the problem, alongside intellectual ones. The strongest answers connect a real experience or curiosity to the academic question that grew out of it. Avoid sounding like you are reading from a personal statement.
4. “How would you describe your thesis to someone outside your discipline?”
Strip away the jargon and explain your work in plain language. If a smart friend outside academia could follow your answer, you have pitched it right.
A test of clarity and translation. The examiner wants to see whether you can strip away the jargon. Can you explain your work to a smart but non-specialist listener? Prepare a one-paragraph version that uses no field-specific terminology. If you find yourself reaching for a concept that needs unpacking, unpack it. The ability to do this well is one of the clearest signs of doctoral-level command of a topic.
With the opening questions covered, examiners will move on to the intellectual foundations of your research.
Foundations of your research
These questions test whether you understand why your research exists. Not just what you did, but why it needed doing, and how it connects to the wider field. According to Professor Smith, examiners are looking for intellectual ownership here, the sense that you designed this project rather than just executed it.
5. “Explain your research question and how you derived it”
State your research question clearly, then trace how it emerged from a gap, tension, or unanswered problem in the existing literature.
Examiners want to know that your research question did not appear from nowhere. They are testing whether you can trace it back to a gap in the literature, a practical problem, or an unresolved debate. Be specific: name the papers or findings that pointed you towards the question. If the question evolved during the PhD, and it usually does, say so, and explain what changed. The strongest answers show a clear line from the literature gap to the research question, with named sources at each step.
6. “What is the original contribution of your thesis?”
State the original knowledge your thesis adds to your field. Be specific: name the theory, framework, dataset, or finding that did not exist before your research.
This is the question that matters most in the entire PhD viva. Making an original contribution is the central requirement for the award of a PhD, and examiners will probe it from several angles. Your answer should be concrete and specific. Not “this thesis contributes to the literature” but “this thesis shows that [specific finding], which had not previously been demonstrated.” If you have more than one contribution, rank them. Lead with the strongest. According to Professor Smith, candidates who can state their contribution in a single clear sentence make a far stronger impression than those who talk around it.
7. “Why is this research important?”
Explain the significance of your work in terms of what it changes: a new understanding, a practical application, or a challenge to existing thinking in the field.
A simple question that many PhD candidates fumble. The examiner is not asking you to justify your existence. They want to hear you connect your work to something beyond itself. Who benefits from your findings? What problem does it help solve? What would be missing from the field without it? Avoid vague claims about “filling a gap.” Gaps exist everywhere. Explain why this particular gap needed filling and what changes now that you have filled it.
8. “How does your work relate to the broader field?”
Position your thesis within the wider scholarly conversation. Show you understand where it sits, what it builds on, and what it challenges or extends.
This is a positioning question. Examiners want to see that you understand where your thesis sits in relation to the major debates, traditions, or schools of thought in your discipline. You do not need to cover everything. Pick two or three key reference points and explain how your work connects to, extends, or challenges them. A clear thesis structure helps you answer this well, because the connections are already visible in how you have organised the work.
9. “What theoretical framework underpins your thesis, and why?”
Name your framework, explain why you chose it over alternatives, and show how it shaped the questions you asked and the way you interpreted your data.
Examiners want to see that you chose your theory deliberately. The question tests whether you understand your framework as a lens that shaped what you looked at and what you found, rather than as decoration bolted onto the front of the thesis. Name the theorists, explain what their framework lets you see that others would not, and be ready to discuss its limits. The strongest answers acknowledge that no framework is neutral and explain what yours both enables and obscures.
10. “What would you do differently if you were starting again?”
Pick one or two specific things you would change and explain why. This shows reflective maturity, not regret. Examiners want to see you can learn from your own process.
Examiners are not looking for regret. They are looking for maturity. This question tests whether you can reflect honestly on your own work and demonstrate the kind of critical self-awareness expected at doctoral level. A good answer names something specific: a different sampling strategy, an additional method, a sharper research question, and explains what you would gain from the change. Avoid saying “nothing.” Every PhD has things that could have been done differently, and pretending otherwise suggests a lack of critical awareness. The best answers connect what you learned during the research to what you would change.
11. “How has your thinking about this topic changed over the course of the PhD?”
Identify one or two shifts in your thinking: an assumption you abandoned, a concept you came to value, or a position you revised. Explain what caused the change.
A question about intellectual growth. Examiners want to hear that you are not the same researcher you were three or four years ago. Pick one or two specific shifts: an assumption you abandoned, a position you came round to, a concept you initially dismissed and later found useful. Explain what caused the change. Doctoral-level thinking is dynamic, and this question gives you a chance to show that yours is.
Once your foundations are clear, expect close questioning on what you read and why.
Coverage of the literature
Your examiners will have read your literature review closely. According to Professor Smith, these questions test whether your reading goes deeper than what made it onto the page, and whether you can talk about other researchers’ work with the same fluency you bring to your own.
12. “Which are the three most important papers that relate to your thesis?”
Choose three papers that shaped your work, not the most famous names in your field. Explain why each one mattered to your argument or method.
A deceptively difficult question. Examiners are testing your judgement, not just your reading. The papers you choose reveal how you understand your own work’s intellectual lineage. Pick papers that are foundational to your argument, not the most famous papers in the field, but the ones your thesis could not exist without. Explain why each one matters to your specific project. Professor Smith notes that this question often reveals whether a candidate owns their literature or has simply compiled a bibliography.
13. “Whose work has most influenced yours, and why?”
Name the scholar whose ideas most shaped your approach, and explain how their work gave you a foundation, a question, or a method you built on.
Similar to the previous question, but more personal. This is about intellectual influence, not citation count. The examiner wants to see that you have engaged deeply with at least some of the literature, that certain scholars have shaped how you think about the problem. Name the person, explain what you took from their work, and say how it shaped your approach. A strong answer connects the influence to a specific methodological or theoretical choice you made in your thesis.
14. “Whose work is closest to yours, and how is your work different?”
Identify the nearest study or researcher, then clearly state what your thesis does that theirs does not. The difference is your contribution.
This tests your awareness of who else is working in the same space. Every thesis has near-neighbours: researchers who have asked similar questions or used similar methods. The examiner wants to see that you know who they are and can explain, precisely, where your work diverges. If you are unsure, your literature review is the place to start. The best answers name the specific point of difference: a different population, a different method, or a different theoretical lens.
15. “Is there any work that you have not cited that you think is relevant?”
Be honest. If you know of relevant work you did not include, say why you left it out. If something was published after your submission, mention it and explain how it relates.
This is the question PhD candidates dread most. Sometimes examiners have a specific paper in mind. Sometimes they are testing your honesty. Either way, it is better to acknowledge a gap than to pretend one does not exist. If there is recent work you discovered too late, say so. If the examiner names something you have not read, be honest, ask them about it, and explain how you think it might relate. According to Professor Smith, honesty about gaps impresses examiners far more than defensive bluffing.
16. “How did you decide what to include and exclude from your literature review?”
Explain the criteria you used to set the boundaries of your review: the search strategy, the inclusion logic, and any deliberate exclusions with reasons.
Every literature review is a series of inclusion and exclusion decisions. The examiner wants to see that yours were principled. Explain your search strategy, the databases you used, the date range, the language criteria, and the conceptual boundaries you drew. If you did a systematic review, walk through the protocol. If you did a narrative review, explain how you avoided cherry-picking. Transparency is the goal. Examiners are not expecting completeness, they are expecting coherence.
17. “Are there any debates in the literature you deliberately stayed out of?”
Name a debate you chose not to enter and explain why it was tangential to your argument. Show that the decision was deliberate, not an oversight.
A clever question that probes scholarly judgement. Some debates are tangential to your argument and would have pulled the thesis off course. Others are unresolved and not yours to resolve. The examiner wants to see that you knew which was which. Pick one debate, explain why you flagged it but did not enter it, and say what you would need to have done differently to engage with it properly.
With the big-picture questions behind you, examiners typically move on to how you carried out the research.
Methodology and methods
Methodology questions test whether you chose your approach deliberately and can defend that choice. Examiners want to see that you understand the strengths and limitations of what you did, and that you considered the alternatives before committing.
18. “Why did you choose this methodological approach?”
Link your methodology to your research question. Explain why this approach was the best fit for the kind of knowledge you were trying to produce.
The examiner is testing whether your methodology was a conscious choice or a default. Explain what your research question demanded, why this approach was the best fit, and what other options you considered. If your supervisor suggested the approach, that is fine, but you need to have made it your own. Show that you understand the philosophical assumptions behind your method, not just the practical steps. A strong answer connects your epistemological position to your method choice and explains why they are consistent.
19. “What alternative approaches might you have chosen?”
Name one or two credible alternatives, explain what they would have offered, and say why you did not use them. Show you made an informed choice.
A follow-up that tests the depth of your methodological thinking. Examiners want to see that you considered more than one route and can explain the trade-offs. Name at least one credible alternative and explain what you would have gained and lost. This is not about regretting your choice; it is about demonstrating that you made it with your eyes open. According to Professor Smith, candidates who can discuss alternatives with nuance show a level of methodological maturity that examiners value highly.
20. “Why did you use [specific method] rather than [alternative]?”
Explain the trade-offs between the two methods and why your chosen one better served your research question, data, or context.
A more targeted version of the methodology question. “Why focus groups rather than interviews?” “Why case studies rather than a survey?” Examiners ask this when they want to probe a specific methodological decision. Your answer should connect the method to your research question and explain what it gave you that the alternative would not. If there were practical constraints, like access, time, or ethics approval, say so. Pragmatic decisions are fine, as long as you own them and can explain the implications for your findings.
21. “How did you select your sample or participants?”
Describe your sampling strategy and explain why it was appropriate for your research question. Acknowledge any limitations in who was included or excluded.
Sampling is where methodology meets reality. The examiner wants to know that your selection was justified, not arbitrary. Explain your criteria, how you recruited, and how many people or cases you included. If your sample is small, explain why that is appropriate for your method. If participants dropped out, say what happened. Transparency matters more than perfection here. The strongest answers explain both the sampling logic and how the sample size affects the generalisability of the findings.
22. “How did you analyse your data?”
Walk through your analytical process step by step: what you did with the raw data, which techniques you applied, and how you moved from data to findings.
The examiner wants a clear, step-by-step account of what you did with the material once you had collected it. Walk through your analytical process: the coding scheme, the software, the iterations, the moments where you refined your categories. Be ready to talk about how you handled disconfirming evidence and what you did when the data resisted your initial framing. The strongest answers show that your analysis was a structured process, not a vibe.
23. “How did you ensure the rigour or trustworthiness of your analysis?”
Describe the specific steps you took to check the quality of your analysis: member checking, triangulation, inter-rater reliability, or whatever applies to your tradition.
This question takes different shapes depending on your tradition. Quantitative researchers should talk about validity, reliability, and statistical assumptions. Qualitative researchers should talk about credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability, or whichever framework they used. Either way, name the specific steps you took: member checks, intercoder agreement, audit trails, sensitivity analyses, triangulation. Examiners are looking for procedural transparency, not perfect methods.
24. “What were the practical challenges of carrying out this research, and how did you handle them?”
Pick one or two real challenges, explain what changed as a result, and discuss the compromises you made. Honesty here shows maturity, not weakness.
Every PhD project hits problems. Recruitment falls short. Equipment breaks. A pandemic closes labs. The examiner wants to see how you adapted. Pick one or two real challenges, explain what changed, and discuss what you compromised on and why. Honesty here is a strength. Examiners know research is messy, and they trust candidates who do not airbrush the difficulties out of the story.
After discussing your methods, examiners often turn to the ethical dimensions of the work.
Ethics and positionality
Ethical questions have become more prominent in PhD vivas over the past decade. Examiners expect you to have thought carefully about the ethical dimensions of your work, not just ticked the approval box. Positionality, the question of how your identity and experience shape what you can see, is now part of that conversation in many disciplines.
25. “Explain the ethical protocols and approval procedures you followed”
Describe the formal ethics process you went through: the committee, the application, the conditions of approval, and any amendments you made during the project.
A factual question about your research ethics process. Know the name of the ethics committee that approved your work, the date of approval, and the key conditions. If there were amendments during the project, know what changed and why. Examiners are checking that you followed institutional requirements, but they are also looking for evidence that you engaged with the process rather than treated it as a bureaucratic hurdle. Be prepared to discuss any conditions that were attached to your approval.
26. “Did you obtain informed consent, and how?”
Explain how you communicated the purpose and risks of the research to participants, how they gave consent, and what steps you took to ensure it was freely given.
Informed consent is more than a signature on a form. Examiners may ask how you explained the research to participants, what they were told about data storage and withdrawal, and whether consent was ongoing or one-off. Be prepared to discuss edge cases: participants who asked questions, situations where consent was complicated by power dynamics or vulnerability, or moments where you had to make a judgement call. According to Professor Smith, the best answers show that you treated consent as an ongoing process, not a one-time checkbox.
27. “What are the wider ethical implications of your work?”
Think beyond your own study. Consider who might be affected by your findings, how they could be used or misused, and what responsibilities follow from the knowledge you have produced.
A broader question that goes beyond procedural ethics. The examiner is asking whether your findings could be misused, whether your research affected the people involved, and whether there are consequences you have considered. This is especially relevant for research involving vulnerable populations, sensitive data, or findings with policy implications. Even if your research seems ethically straightforward, have an answer ready. The strongest responses show awareness of how findings might be interpreted or applied beyond the original context.
28. “How did your own positionality shape this research?”
Explain how your background, identity, or relationship to the topic influenced the questions you asked, the access you had, and the way you interpreted the data.
A question about reflexivity. Examiners want to see that you have thought about who you are in relation to the work: your background, your identity, your prior assumptions, and how those shaped what you noticed and what you missed. This is not about confession; it is about honest reflection on the angle of vision your standpoint gave you. The strongest answers name a specific way your positionality opened doors and a specific way it closed them.
29. “How did you protect the anonymity and dignity of your participants?”
Describe the practical steps you took: pseudonyms, redacted identifiers, secure storage, and restricted access. If anonymity was difficult to guarantee, explain how you handled that.
A practical follow-up to the consent question. Walk the examiner through the steps you took to keep participants safe and recognisable only to themselves: pseudonyms, redacted identifiers, secure storage, restricted access to raw data. If your participants come from a small community where anonymity is hard to guarantee, explain how you discussed that risk with them. Describe the compromises you reached. Specificity is what convinces examiners that ethics was lived rather than ticked.
Ethical questions lead naturally into the broader decisions you made throughout the project.
Decisions and choices
Every PhD involves hundreds of small decisions: what to include, what to leave out, where to draw the boundary. Examiners know this, and they want to see that you made those decisions consciously.
30. “What was the most important decision you made during the course of your PhD?”
Pick one decision that shaped the direction of the whole project. Explain what you chose, what you gave up, and why it mattered.
A reflective question about your doctoral experience. The examiner is looking for self-awareness. Choose a decision that shaped the project: a change of direction, a methodological pivot, a decision to narrow the scope. Explain what prompted it, what the alternatives were, and what the consequences were. This question rewards honesty. A good answer often involves a moment of difficulty, not a moment of triumph. Professor Smith notes that the most memorable answers describe a turning point where the candidate had to make a difficult choice with incomplete information.
31. “Which decisions would you change if you were doing the work again?”
Name a specific decision and explain what you would do differently with the benefit of hindsight. Frame it as learning, not failure.
Similar to question 10, but more focused on specific turning points in the research process. The examiner is not looking for a list of regrets. They want evidence that you can evaluate your own choices critically. Pick one or two decisions and explain what you would do differently and why. The best answers connect the change to something you learned during the research itself. That is what doctoral-level reflection looks like. Show that your understanding deepened as the project progressed.
32. “Why did you choose to test your work on this particular group or dataset?”
Explain the reasoning behind your choice of case, sample, or dataset. Show that it was a deliberate decision tied to your research question, not convenience.
A targeted question about scope and generalisability. If your research involved a specific population, context, or dataset, be prepared to explain why you chose it and what the implications are for how far your findings can be generalised. Examiners are not expecting universal applicability. They are expecting you to understand the limits of what you can claim. Explain both why this group or dataset was appropriate and what would change if you had chosen a different one.
33. “How did you decide where to draw the boundary of your study?”
Explain what you included and excluded, and why. Every study has borders. Examiners want to see that yours were set deliberately, not by accident.
Every PhD is partly defined by what it leaves out. Examiners want to see that you set your scope deliberately and can explain why. Talk about the topics, time periods, populations, or methods you considered including and chose not to. Explain what would have been gained by going wider and what would have been lost in depth. The strongest answers show that scoping was an active choice tied to your research question, not an accident of time or energy.
34. “What role did your supervisor play in shaping the project?”
Acknowledge the guidance you received, then make clear which intellectual decisions were yours. Examiners want to confirm that the thinking in the thesis belongs to you.
A question that examiners ask carefully. They are not trying to expose dependence. They want to understand the working relationship and confirm that the intellectual ownership of the thesis sits with you. Be honest. Acknowledge the guidance you received, and then make clear which decisions were yours. Examiners know that good supervision involves real input. They are listening for whether you absorbed that input into your own thinking, rather than simply following instructions.
With your decisions explored, examiners arrive at the heart of the viva: what you found and what it means.
Findings and contribution
This is the heart of the viva. Examiners want to walk through what you found and what it means, and they want to hear you defend your interpretation against alternative readings.
35. “Walk us through your main findings”
Pick three or four headline findings, explain each in plain language, and link them back to your research questions. Move from what you observed to what you think it means.
A structured invitation to summarise the results of the thesis. Resist the temptation to dump every finding in chronological order. Pick three or four headline results, explain each in plain language, and link them to the research questions. The strongest answers move from finding to interpretation: here is what I observed, and here is what I think it means. Practise this so you can do it without notes and without going over time.
36. “Which finding surprised you most?”
Name a result you did not expect and explain how you made sense of it. This shows you can think beyond your initial assumptions.
A friendly question with a serious purpose. Examiners want to see that you engaged with your data on its own terms rather than confirming what you already believed. Pick a result you did not expect and explain what you initially thought you would find, what emerged, and how you made sense of the difference. This is also a chance to show intellectual honesty. The best answers admit that the surprise reshaped some part of your thinking.
37. “How confident are you in your findings?”
Give an honest assessment. Explain what makes you confident in your main claims and where you would want more evidence before being certain.
A question about calibration. Examiners want to see that you can distinguish between findings you would defend strongly and findings that are more provisional. Avoid two failure modes: blanket confidence, which sounds naive, and blanket hedging, which sounds evasive. Rank your findings by how solid the evidence is, and explain what would have to be true for each one to hold up in a different context.
38. “What is the single most important thing your thesis contributes to the field?”
State your contribution in one clear sentence. Be specific about the new knowledge, method, or framework your thesis provides.
A sharper version of the contribution question from the foundations section. By this point in the viva, examiners want to hear it crisply. Pick one contribution, name it in a sentence, and explain why it matters. If you have several, choose the strongest and put the others in the supporting cast. This is your headline. Make it land.
39. “How might someone disagree with your interpretation, and how would you respond?”
Anticipate the strongest counter-argument to your central claim and explain how you would defend your position or where you would concede ground.
A question that tests whether you can hold your own argument up to scrutiny. Examiners want to see that you have anticipated the strongest counter-reading and have a response ready. Steelman the disagreement before you answer it. Then explain why your interpretation still holds, or where you would concede ground. Candidates who handle this question well often turn it into one of the strongest moments of the viva.
40. “What would falsify or undermine your central claim?”
Name one or two pieces of evidence that would force you to revise your argument. Knowing the limits of your claim is a sign of doctoral-level thinking.
A philosophical question about the structure of your argument. Examiners want to see that your claim is not unfalsifiable. Name one or two pieces of evidence or counter-findings that would force you to revise the central argument. This is a sign of doctoral-level thinking: knowing the conditions under which you would change your mind.
After discussing your results, examiners will want to know how you evaluate the strengths and limitations of your own work.
Evaluation and limitations
Evaluation questions test your ability to assess your own work honestly. Examiners want to see that you can identify both the strengths and the weaknesses, and that you have a mature, balanced view of what you produced.
41. “How did you evaluate the work you did?”
Explain the criteria you used to judge the quality and success of your own research. This might include validity, reliability, impact, or alignment with your original aims.
A broad question about research quality. The examiner wants to know that you built evaluation into the research design, not bolted it on at the end. Explain how you tested the validity and reliability of your findings, how you triangulated evidence, or how you assessed the quality of your analysis. The specifics depend on your discipline and method, but the principle is the same: show that you took evaluation seriously and can explain the steps you took to ensure your findings are trustworthy.
42. “How does your work compare to that of others in the field?”
Position your thesis relative to similar studies. Explain what you did that others have not, and where your findings agree or diverge.
This brings together your knowledge of the literature and your ability to evaluate your own contribution. Pick two or three comparable studies and explain what you did differently, what you found that they did not, or what limitations you share. Avoid both false modesty and overclaiming. Position your work accurately, and the examiner will trust your judgement. The strongest answers use specific comparisons: “Study X used method A on population B, whereas I used method C on population D, which allowed me to…”
43. “What is the strongest part of your thesis?”
Name the chapter, argument, or finding you are most confident in, and explain what makes it strong. Be ready to defend it under questioning.
Play to your strengths here, but be specific. Do not say “the analysis.” Say which part of the analysis and why. The examiner is testing whether you can identify quality in your own work and articulate what makes it good. This is also an opportunity to steer the conversation towards the parts of your thesis you are most confident about. According to Professor Smith, candidates who can point to a specific chapter or finding and explain exactly why it works make a much stronger impression than those who give vague answers.
44. “Which part of your thesis are you most proud of, and why?”
Choose something specific: an elegant analysis, a hard-won dataset, or a theoretical move that tied the thesis together. Explain what it cost you to get it right.
A warmer version of the previous question. This one invites a slightly more personal answer about your PhD experience. It is fine to mention something that was difficult: a chapter that took three rewrites, a method that required learning a new skill. Examiners respond well to genuine pride backed by effort, not polished performance. The best answers show that you can connect personal investment to academic quality: “I am most proud of Chapter 5 because it required me to learn [skill] and it produced the most original finding of the thesis.”
45. “What is the weakest part of your thesis?”
Be honest and specific. Name the section, explain why it is weaker, and say what you would do to strengthen it. Self-awareness is a strength here.
The question every PhD candidate fears. But examiners already know where the weaknesses are. They want to see if you do too. Name something real. Explain why it is a limitation and, if possible, what you would do to address it. The worst answer is “I don’t think there is one.” The best answer shows that you understand the imperfection and have thought about what it means for the overall argument. Professor Smith observes that honest, specific answers to this question often lead to the most productive part of the viva conversation.
46. “What are the limitations of your study, and how do they affect your conclusions?”
List your key limitations and explain how each one narrows or qualifies your claims. Show that you understand the boundaries of what your research can say.
A more structured version of the weakness question. Examiners want a clear list of limitations, not buried hedges. Walk through them: sample size, scope, method constraints, generalisability, missing data, timing. For each one, explain how it bounds the claims you make. Doctoral-level work is not about flawless studies; it is about studies whose limits are understood and stated clearly, so the reader knows exactly how much weight the findings can carry.
47. “How generalisable are your findings?”
Explain how far your findings travel: the conditions under which they would likely hold and those under which they probably would not. Resist the urge to overclaim.
This question lands differently in different traditions. In quantitative work it is about external validity. In qualitative work it is about transferability to other contexts. Either way, the examiner is asking how far the findings travel. Resist the urge to overclaim. Explain when your findings would likely hold and when they probably would not. Specific is better than general.
With evaluation covered, the final category looks forward to what comes next.
Future work and after the viva
These final questions look forward. The PhD is the beginning of a research trajectory, not the end of one, and examiners want to see that you can think beyond the thesis.
48. “If you had another year, what would you do?”
Name one or two things that would strengthen the thesis. Pick additions that address gaps, not just more of the same work.
This tests whether you can identify the next logical step in your research programme. Name something specific: an additional study, a different population, a method you would add. The examiner is looking for evidence that you can see beyond the thesis and that you understand what the work still needs. Avoid vague answers like “more data.” Say what data, from where, and what question it would answer. The strongest answers show a clear rationale for the next study and explain how it would build on what you have already found.
49. “How would you continue this work? What are the next steps?”
Outline a credible next phase: a new research question, a larger dataset, a different context, or a methodological refinement that builds on what you have done.
A common closing question. Examiners want to hear that you have a research agenda, even if you do not plan to stay in academia. Talk about what your findings open up: new questions, new contexts, new methods. If your work has practical applications, say what they are and what would need to happen to make them real. End confidently. This is your research. You know it better than anyone in the room. According to Professor Smith, the candidates who answer this question well are the ones who have already started thinking like independent researchers.
50. “How would you turn this thesis into publications?”
Identify which chapters or findings lend themselves to journal articles. Name the target journals and explain how you would adapt the material for each.
An increasingly common question, especially from external examiners with editorial experience. They want to see that you understand the difference between a thesis chapter and a journal article. Identify two or three publishable units, name plausible target journals, and explain how you would adapt the material for each. If you have already published from the thesis, say so. Examiners take this as a sign of research maturity.
51. “How will this research influence your future work, in or out of academia?”
Connect your PhD to what comes next. Whether you stay in research or move into practice, explain how the skills and knowledge from this thesis carry forward.
A reflective question about what the PhD has prepared you for. Examiners want to hear that you can see the work as part of a longer arc, whatever direction you take next. Talk about the skills you have developed, the questions that still pull you, and the audiences you want to reach. Honesty about leaving academia is fine. The strongest answers show that the doctoral training will shape how you think and work, regardless of job title.
52. “Is there anything you wanted us to ask that we have not asked?”
Have one prepared point ready: a finding you want to highlight, a clarification you want to make, or a strength of the thesis that did not come up. If everything was covered, say so.
The closing question in many vivas. It is your chance to bring up something you prepared for that did not come up, or to clarify a point you feel was misunderstood. Have one prepared answer ready, but do not feel obliged to use it. If the conversation has covered everything, it is fine to say so. Examiners use this question to check that you feel the thesis has been heard fairly. Use it well.
The viva is a thinking test, not a memory test
This is the single most important reframe for your preparation. PhD candidates often arrive at the viva in the headspace of an undergraduate exam: trying to memorise facts, dates, page numbers, citation strings. That is the wrong model. The viva is closer to a long conversation with a thoughtful colleague who has read your work and wants to understand how you think.
Examiners are not waiting for you to recite your literature review. They are watching how you handle a question, how you respond to a challenge, how you reason about something you had not considered before. They are testing your judgement, not your recall. Once you accept that, preparation changes. You stop drilling facts and start practising thinking out loud.
Preparing for your viva in 2026
These 52 questions will not all come up in your viva. But between them, they cover the ground that examiners consistently return to: the foundations of your research, the depth of your reading, the logic of your method, the strength of your findings, and your ability to evaluate what you produced honestly.
Preparation does not mean memorising scripts. It means practising the thinking out loud. Talk through your answers with a friend, a colleague, or a recorder. Read your thesis again, the whole thing, not just the chapters you like. Mark the decisions you made and the places where you would do things differently. That reflection is what examiners are really testing.
Practise the conversation before you walk into the room.
We run one-to-one mock PhD viva sessions with experienced academics who have sat on both sides of the table. You will face examiner-style questions on your actual thesis, get honest feedback on how you reason under pressure, and walk into the real viva knowing what the conversation feels like. Most candidates say it is the single most useful thing they did in their final month.
After the viva: what happens next
Most PhD candidates pass with corrections. Minor corrections are the most common outcome, typically a list of small changes to be completed within one to three months. Major corrections are less common but not unusual, and they are not a failure. They mean the examiners see merit in the work but want more from you before they sign it off.
The viva feels like the end. In many ways, it is. But it is also the moment where your research stops being a document and becomes a conversation. The examiners have read your thesis. They want to talk about it. And you are the only person in the world who can have that conversation.
So prepare, practise, and then trust yourself. You know this work better than anyone.
For more on what happens once the viva is over, read our guide to handling PhD viva corrections.
This article has been incredibly helpful in preparing a plan and script for my upcoming viva. It introduced me to several intriguing questions I hadn’t considered before. The real test will be how well the viva goes, but at least I now have a head start. Many thanks!