Mock PhD Viva: Questions, Structure and Feedback Checklist

A mock PhD viva should not be a comfortable conversation in which you repeat answers you have already memorised. It should be a diagnostic test of whether you can explain, defend and limit the claims in your thesis when an examiner changes the wording, challenges an assumption or asks for evidence.

The real viva is an oral examination. Cambridge explains that it allows candidates to defend the thesis, clarify matters raised by examiners, demonstrate knowledge of the field and establish that the work is their own. UCL explicitly recommends practice and states that a supervisor should provide a mock viva or arrange one with another suitable academic. A useful mock viva therefore tests research ownership and judgement, not only fluency.

1. What a mock PhD viva is actually testing

A strong mock viva tests six capabilities. These are thesis ownership, contribution clarity, methodological judgement, evidence navigation, limitation control and response discipline.

Thesis ownership

You should be able to explain why the research problem matters, how the project developed and which decisions were genuinely yours. This becomes especially important in collaborative projects, laboratory groups and thesis by publication formats.

Contribution clarity

You should be able to state what the thesis adds and at what level. For example, the contribution may be empirical, methodological, conceptual, theoretical, practical or evaluative. A candidate who describes the topic but cannot specify the contribution has not yet made the thesis defensible.

Methodological judgement

You need to explain why your method was suitable, which alternatives were available and what trade offs followed from your choice. Naming a method is not the same as defending it.

Evidence navigation

You should know where the evidence for each major claim appears in the thesis. This does not require memorising page numbers. It requires understanding the chain from research question to method, data, analysis, finding and conclusion.

Limitation control

A limitation does not automatically invalidate a thesis. The examiner is testing whether you understand the boundary of the claim. You need to distinguish what the thesis demonstrates, what it suggests and what it cannot establish.

Response discipline

A strong answer responds to the question asked, provides the necessary reasoning and then stops. Long answers often become weaker because the candidate introduces claims that were not required and cannot be defended.

2. Choose the right person to conduct the mock viva

The best mock examiner is not necessarily the most senior person available. The best person is someone who can identify unsupported assumptions, ask credible follow up questions and give specific feedback.

Your supervisor

Your supervisor knows the history of the project and can target known weaknesses. This is useful for questions about why the research changed, why certain data were excluded and which contribution claims may be overstated. The risk is familiarity. A supervisor may understand an unclear answer because they already know what you intended to say.

An academic outside the project

An academic who has not worked closely with you can test whether the thesis is intelligible without background knowledge. This person is especially useful for testing the two minute overview, the logic connecting chapters and the explanation of specialist concepts.

A recent doctoral graduate or research peer

A recent graduate understands the experience of answering under pressure and can run a shorter practice session at low cost. Oxford suggests organising a live practice session with fellow students or colleagues. This format is valuable when academic time is limited, provided the questions remain analytical rather than purely supportive.

A practice tool

A structured practice tool allows repeated rehearsal and can generate unfamiliar wording or follow up questions. It is useful between human mock sessions, but it should complement rather than replace feedback from someone who understands your discipline and thesis.

3. Prepare the mock viva without turning it into a script

Give the mock examiner enough information to create relevant questions, but do not agree the complete question list in advance. The candidate can know the broad areas, such as contribution, methodology and limitations, while the exact wording and follow ups remain unseen.

Send the examiner the thesis, abstract, table of contents and any institutional examination criteria. You can also identify one or two areas that cause concern, but ask the examiner to include questions you have not anticipated.

Before the session, prepare an annotated copy of the thesis and a one page thesis map. The map should connect each chapter to its function in the overall argument. For example, one chapter may define the theoretical gap, another may justify the method and two empirical chapters may provide different forms of evidence for the same central claim.

Check the regulations and conventions of your own university. Viva procedures differ between institutions and disciplines. The MockBase structure below is a practice protocol, not a prediction of the formal duration or sequence of your actual examination.

4. A 60 minute mock viva structure

A focused 60 minute session is long enough to test the main defence mechanisms without exhausting the candidate or the mock examiner. The objective is diagnosis, not exact replication.

Minutes 0 to 5: Explain the rules

Agree that the examiner may interrupt, ask for clarification and follow a weak answer. The candidate should answer aloud without reading a prepared script. Notes may be used to locate evidence, but not to replace explanation.

Minutes 5 to 12: Thesis overview

Ask the candidate to explain the thesis in approximately two minutes. Follow with questions about the research problem, the central argument and the relationship between the chapters.

Minutes 12 to 25: Originality and contribution

Test what is new, why it matters and how the contribution relates to previous work. Ask the candidate to separate the strongest contribution from secondary outputs.

Minutes 25 to 40: Methodology, findings and validity

Challenge the research design, the strongest alternative method, the quality of the evidence and possible competing explanations. The goal is to test decisions rather than ask the candidate to describe procedures.

Minutes 40 to 50: Limitations and future work

Ask which claim is most vulnerable, what the thesis cannot conclude and what evidence would be required to extend the work. This section tests whether the candidate can control the scope of the thesis without becoming defensive.

Minutes 50 to 60: Structured feedback

Do not spend the final ten minutes discussing whether the candidate appeared generally confident. Identify specific answers that failed, explain why they failed and define the repair action. The candidate should leave with a short list of changes that can be retested.

5. Mock viva questions by assessment area

The following questions are deliberately selective. For a broader question bank, see the MockBase guide to common PhD viva questions.

Thesis overview

• What is the central argument of your thesis?
• What problem does the thesis solve or clarify?
• How do the chapters combine to support the final conclusion?
• Which part of the thesis should an examiner understand first?

Original contribution

• What is the single most important contribution of the thesis?
• What can the field do or understand now that it could not do or understand before?
• Which contribution is fully demonstrated, and which remains provisional?
• If one chapter were removed, would the main contribution still survive?

Literature and positioning

• Which existing account is your thesis most directly challenging or extending?
• Which scholar or research community would be least persuaded by your argument?
• What important work has appeared since submission?
• How does your thesis change the interpretation of previous findings?

Methodology

• Why was this method more appropriate than the strongest alternative?
• Which assumption in the research design creates the greatest risk?
• How did you decide that the evidence was sufficient?
• What would another researcher need to reproduce or challenge your analysis?

Findings and interpretation

• Which finding has the strongest evidential support?
• What alternative explanation could produce a similar result?
• Where does the evidence not fit your expected pattern?
• What is the difference between your result and your interpretation of that result?

Limitations

• Which claim in the thesis is easiest to overstate?
• What is the most serious limitation of the evidence?
• Does this limitation weaken the whole thesis or only a specific conclusion?
• What additional evidence would change your confidence in the main claim?

Future work

• What is the first study that should follow this thesis?
• Which part of the work is ready for publication?
• What would you change if you began the project again?
• What new research question became visible only after completing the thesis?

6. Use examiner follow up questions

A mock viva becomes realistic when the examiner follows the logic of the answer rather than moving mechanically to the next prepared question. The pressure in a viva often comes from the second or third question, when a general statement must be converted into a precise and defensible claim.

Useful follow ups include:

• You said the method was appropriate. Appropriate compared with what?
• What evidence in the thesis supports that statement?
• Is that a finding from your data or an interpretation?
• What would someone who disagrees with you say?
• Does that limitation weaken the conclusion?
• What exactly was your independent contribution?
• Why should the field care about this result?
• Can you answer the question in one sentence first?

This sequence exposes whether the candidate can distinguish importance, representativeness and inferential scope. A single friendly question may not reveal the confusion.

7. Score the answer, not the candidate

A mock viva should not produce a vague judgement such as “good candidate” or “needs more confidence”. Score observable answer quality across six dimensions.

1. Claim clarity

Does the answer state a direct position, or does it remain descriptive and ambiguous?

2. Evidence quality

Does the candidate identify the data, analysis, literature or reasoning that supports the claim?

3. Thesis ownership

Can the candidate explain their own decisions and contribution, particularly where the research involved supervisors, coauthors or a wider team?

4. Alternative awareness

Does the answer recognise credible alternative methods, explanations or interpretations?

5. Limitation control

Does the candidate define the boundary of the claim without either hiding the limitation or allowing it to destroy a conclusion that remains supportable?

6. Verbal precision

Is the answer concise, structured and responsive to the actual question?

8. Use a feedback checklist that creates repair actions

Record feedback in a form that can be used in the next practice session. For each difficult question, capture the following information:

• The question that was asked
• The claim made by the candidate
• The evidence used
• The point at which the answer became unclear
• The missing alternative, limitation or justification
• The specific repair action
• The date on which the repaired answer will be retested

9. Common mock viva mistakes

Giving every question in advance

This turns the session into a memory exercise. The candidate may sound fluent without being able to defend the same claim when the wording changes.

Asking only friendly questions

Support matters, but a mock viva must also attack the weakest part of the thesis. The goal is to discover risk while there is still time to repair it.

Confusing fluency with judgement

A polished answer may still avoid the core issue. Evaluate whether the candidate makes a defensible claim and supports it, not whether the answer sounds confident.

Giving personality feedback instead of answer feedback

“Be more confident” is not an actionable instruction. “State your conclusion before describing the method” is actionable and testable.

Running a mock viva without a second test

Feedback creates value only when the repaired answer is retested. Otherwise the session produces notes rather than capability.

Trying to reproduce the real viva exactly

The actual questions, sequence and duration cannot be predicted. Design the mock around the mechanisms examiners are likely to test: ownership, significance, critical analysis, methods, conclusions and limitations.

10. A seven day mock viva repair plan

Day 1: Convert feedback into three priorities

Do not attempt to fix every minor issue. Select the three weaknesses most likely to affect multiple answers, such as an unclear contribution, weak method comparison or uncontrolled limitation.

Day 2: Repair the thesis overview and contribution answer

Rewrite both answers in plain language. Practise a two minute version and a thirty second version.

Day 3: Defend methodological alternatives

Identify the strongest alternative method and prepare a balanced comparison based on the research question, evidence requirements and trade offs.

Day 4: Practise limitations and hostile follow ups

Ask someone to challenge the scope of the claims. Practise acknowledging a limitation, explaining its effect and preserving the conclusion that remains justified.

Day 5: Run a twenty minute short mock

Use unfamiliar wording. Focus only on the three priority weaknesses from Day 1.

Day 6: Review the remaining failure patterns

Remove answers that remain too long, unsupported or defensive. Mark the relevant thesis sections so that evidence can be located quickly.

Day 7: Run the second full mock viva

Retest the same underlying areas using different questions. Improvement means the reasoning survives changed wording, not that the candidate can reproduce a revised script.

11. Frequently asked questions

How long should a mock PhD viva be?

A focused mock viva can last 45 to 90 minutes. It does not need to reproduce the full length of the real examination. It should be long enough to test the overview, contribution, methodology, findings, limitations and follow up questions.

Who should conduct a mock viva?

A supervisor, another academic, a member of an upgrade panel or a knowledgeable colleague can conduct it. The most useful person is someone who can challenge the thesis rather than only confirm that the candidate appears confident.

Should mock viva questions be given in advance?

The broad areas can be shared, but the complete question list should normally remain unseen. This preserves the diagnostic value of the session and tests whether the candidate can respond to unfamiliar wording and follow up challenges.

How many mock vivas should I do?

One full mock followed by a shorter repair session is usually more useful than several repeated sessions without analysis. The second session should retest the specific weaknesses identified in the first.