Rethinking doctoral assessment for a changing PhD

This blog was kindly authored by Dr Charlotte Fawcett, former HEPI intern and Pathways Outreach Assistant at De Montfort University.

For decades, PhD assessment has followed a broadly consistent model: candidates submit a written thesis before defending their research in an oral viva voce. Internal and external examiners use the viva to test the candidate’s understanding, establish ownership of the work and assess its original contribution to knowledge.

But as the PhD itself changes, an important question is becoming harder to ignore: does the traditional assessment model still adequately assess candidates, their work and their potential?

A model built around the monograph

The traditional PhD thesis is usually a monograph: a substantial, long-form work focused on a single subject and often written by a single author. This allows candidates to demonstrate sustained engagement with a research question and develop a coherent argument in depth.

However, the monograph may not be suitable for all types of PhD research. Increasingly, doctoral projects are collaborative: involving communities, organisations and industry partners, with contributions that extend beyond the written thesis. These ethical, social, community and policy contributions can be difficult to capture in an assessment model focused on individual research outputs.

This raises a broader question about what PhD assessment should recognise. If the purpose of a PhD is to demonstrate the ability to conduct rigorous, original research and contribute to knowledge, why should there be only one preferred way of demonstrating that achievement?

The viva: tradition under scrutiny

The viva is often presented as an essential and long-established feature of doctoral education. Its intellectual roots can be traced to traditions of oral disputation associated with Ancient Greece, where questioning and debate were used to test arguments.

There is a strong case for retaining this element of PhD assessment. The viva allows candidates to explain decisions that may not be apparent from the thesis, address weaknesses in their written work and demonstrate ownership of their research.

Yet tradition alone should not justify retaining a particular assessment method. In the UK, vivas are often conducted behind closed doors, raising questions about their transparency and validity. There are also concerns about whether the viva provides an equitable and reliable way of assessing candidates.

These concerns do not necessarily mean that the viva should be abolished. Instead, they demonstrate why one assessment format should not be treated as universally appropriate.

The problem with standardisation

The viva can be highly variable, with differences in questioning, examiner interactions and decision-making raising concerns about consistency. The format may also disadvantage some candidates, particularly those who experience anxiety or are neurodivergent. Vivas commonly last several hours and can involve significant costs, particularly when external examiners must travel.

It might be tempting to respond to these inconsistencies by making the viva more standardised. But this could solve one problem while creating another.

The diversity of doctoral research makes complete standardisation neither desirable nor necessarily possible. A two-hour oral examination may be appropriate for one candidate and discipline but poorly suited to another. A monograph may provide an excellent assessment of some research while being an inadequate representation of collaborative, creative, practice-based or community-engaged research.

The answer to inconsistency, therefore, should not necessarily be to make every PhD look the same. It should be to establish consistent expectations while allowing diverse forms of evidence.

Alternatives already exist

The traditional model can be adapted. Alternative thesis formats have long been used in disciplines such as music, drama and creative writing. Another established model is the journal or publication-based thesis. Candidates submit a series of peer-reviewed articles alongside introductory and concluding chapters that establish the coherence and contribution of the research.

These approaches demonstrate that doctoral assessment does not need to have a single format. They also highlight an important distinction – standardising the criteria for a doctorate is not the same as standardising the way those criteria are demonstrated.

A PhD should continue to meet robust expectations around originality, methodological rigour, critical thinking and contribution to knowledge. But candidates should have greater scope to demonstrate those qualities through outputs appropriate to their research.

From standardised processes to common standards

As the PhD continues to evolve, the range of outputs submitted for assessment is likely to expand.

Collaborative research may generate community resources, policy outputs or other forms of impact. Creative and practice-based research may require artefacts or performances. Digital research may generate datasets, software or other outputs that cannot be adequately represented through conventional means.

This does not mean that anything should count as a PhD. Greater diversity in assessment requires clearer principles, not weaker standards. Universities could establish a common framework defining what doctoral achievement means while giving candidates greater choice in how they demonstrate those achievements.

Reimagining doctoral assessment

There is an understandable institutional desire to standardise PhD assessment. Common processes can support quality assurance, consistency and comparability. But standardisation also has limits.

The PhD is, by nature, an individual research qualification. Research questions, methodologies, disciplines, outputs and collaborations vary enormously. A highly standardised assessment system risks producing consistency of process at the expense of validity of assessment.

We need common standards for what a doctorate represents, but greater diversity in how candidates demonstrate that they have achieved them.

This could mean broader recognition of different research outputs, greater consideration of collaborative and societal contributions, alternative approaches to the viva, and more flexibility for different disciplines and candidates.

The flaws in current PhD assessment should not lead us towards a more uniform system. They should prompt us to ask whether uniformity was ever the right goal. The future of doctoral assessment should be diverse by design, recognising the increasingly diverse ways in which PhD research creates knowledge and value.