I obtained these questions when attending doctoral school/class at UMIST in year 2002/2003. The classes was conducted by Prof. Wood-Harper.

Background (Remenyi 2003 and Wood-Harper et al 1999)1. Why did you undertake a PhD?

2. Who are the main stakeholders in this research? In which way will they be able to benefit from the results of your research?

3. What do we know now that we did not know before you started your PhD?

4. What are the important lessons from your research in terms of personal development and from a contribution to Information Systems?

5. What would you do differently if you were starting now?

Research Question(s)/Theory? (Remenyi 2003 and Wood-Harper 2003)6. What was the original problem/research question?

7. In which theoretical frame of reference were you able to place this research questions?

8. How was the research question modified as a result of the literature question?

9. Why was it changed?

10. Specifically which authors most influenced you thinking about your research question?

11. In what way does your research question seek to establish a new theory, refute an old theory or develop an extension of the old theory?

12. Research Methodology? (Remenyi 2003)13. How would you describe you research methodology?

14. What influenced you to choose this approach to your research?

15. What other research methods did you give serious consideration to and why did you reject them?

16. What would you say were the methodology difficulties you experience whilst doing your research and how did you overcome these challenges?

17. How would you advise your research students on the choice of the research process and methodology?

18. What are the philosophical assumptions underpinning your methodology?-epistemology; positivism;

19. Fieldwork? (Remenyi 2003)20. Did you undertake a pilot and if so how would you describe it’s outcome?

21. How did you locate a suitable interview people for interview?

22. How do you know the people that you used representative? If it is not how do you defend it’s use?

23. What sort of research protocol did you use?

24. How did you decide when you had enough information to proceed with your analysis?

25. How would you describe the achievements of your fieldwork?

26. What, on reflection, are the limitations, if any, of the approach you used in your fieldwork?

27. Analysis of the field work (Remenyi 2003)28. What analytical techniques/methods/tools did you use to help you

understand the data you collected on your case study?

29. Why did you choose these specific tools?

30. What other tools did you consider and why did you reject them?

31. Research Results (Remenyi 2003 and Wood-Harper 1999 & 2003)32. How would you describe your thesis?

33. How did you arrive at your final thesis?

34. In what way does it contribute to the IS Theoritical, Methological and Situational knowledge?

35. How do you regard your work from the point of view of the validity and reliability of the findings?

36. Questions related to the value of your results (Remenyi 2003 and Wood-Harper 1999 & 2003)

37. How might the results of this research be converted into a practical application or out come?

38. What are the relative strengths and weaknesses of your research?

39. What questions have you discovered in your research that still need to be explored by further work?

40. Where might this research go from here?

42. How do you counter argument – anti-thesis?-your thesis does not have any contributions? How do you defend it? Your method is wrong – how do you defend it?

The first question will almost certainly be a very general one, such as

describe the rationale of your research project

what are the key findings of your thesis?

what is original in it?

what is its position in relation to the current state of knowledge in your area?

Their training may have encouraged them to start with a simple warm-up question

such as this - do not assume that it is a trap: it isn't.

After some general questions, you should expect more detailed questions. Examiners

may go so far as to refer to a single statement ("on page x, line y."), asking you to

justify/explain or expand on it. You are not supposed to know your thesis by heart, but

you still need to remember its general structure and the key points of each section.

(You can bring a copy of your thesis with you).

The closing questions may concern the potential development of your (and in your)

field of research, that is

what is the position of your contribution as to the most recent developments

in your area?

can you take your research further?

what do you expect the next steps in your area to be?

what are your publication plans?

As soon as your viva ends, you will be asked to leave the room, so that examiners can

freely exchange their views about your exam. The results may be communicated on

the same day as the viva, but again this is not the rule and depends on your

institution's stipulations and who actually holds the authority to recommend the

degree.

Nota bene: Unfortunately it is very common to spend time on minor errors, such as

inconsistencies in scholarly presentation. This is a depressing waste of interesting

discussion time, since the viva constitutes a rare and precious opportunity to get

serious feedback from specialists in your field. Therefore try to get the presentation

right so that the viva is not taken up by typos and other minor imperfections.

What will they ask me?

Granted once again that each viva is unique in its own way, a certain number of

questions tends to recur. We can group them into these five sections (what you will

find below is a concise version; it is very likely that the examiners will expand these

"cores" into a fuller question):

General (opening) questions about contents

 What is your thesis about?

  Explain in your own words what you have done?

 What is the contribution of your thesis to scholarly knowledge?

 Summarise your key findings

 Why did you choose this topic?

 Why have you chosen to organize your research into these  stages/chapters?

 Why is the problem you have investigated worth investigating?

 Is it possible to draw a general rule from your single observations?

 How have you evaluated your work?

 How do you know that your findings are correct?

 How do your findings relate to the critical literature in this field of studies?

 What have you done to be awarded a PhD?

 What is original in your thesis?

General questions about method

 Why did you choose this method to analyze your topic?

 Describe your methodological approach

 Would your approach be as effective for other periods and places?

 What have you learned by carrying out your PhD?

 What would you do differently today if you were to start again?

 What are the alternatives to your approach?

Questions concerning one specific aspect of your research

 What do you know about the history of this particular aspect of your

research?

 What are the recent major developments in this topic?

 Which are the most important papers concerning this aspect of your

research?

 Why have you tackled this problem in this way?

Questions about possible development of your research

 Do you have any plans for publication?

 Which aspects of your thesis are worth publishing?

 Where will you publish your work?

Questions about the future development in your area of study

 What is the relevance of your contribution to other researchers?

 How do you expect the research in your field to progress over the next few

years?

 Where do you think your research will move in the future? Back to top