Examiner Perfection

A list of characteristics a candidate should look for in examiners is very short: do they have PhDs in a relevant area? Do they have enough post-PhD experience and training?

That’s it. After that you and your supervisor are not looking for the best examiners: you’re trying to find examiners who are available and who are best for you.

What attributes would your ideal examiners have? Would they be people whose work you’ve cited? Would they be people who do similar things to you? Would you want someone with a long career and significant expertise? Or someone who has finished their own PhD in the last few years?

You can’t find examiner perfection, but you can find “good for you” if you reflect on what you think you need, ask the right questions and explore who might be available with your supervisor.

Selecting Examiners

I like things to be just right. I’m not fussy, I’m particular.

Which means I’m never satisfied by Christmas selection boxes: a collection of chocolate bars in one festive package. My grandmother would say, “You mustn’t eat them all at once or you’ll spoil your appetite!”

Well, I couldn’t eat them all at once. Because I didn’t like the bars with nuts in. And I wasn’t keen on the chewy one. And that other one has a funny texture…

So many treats aren’t to my taste even though there’s nothing wrong with them. I’ve not found a selection box that is just right for me.

For similar reasons I think many capable examiners would feel unsuitable for any candidate. There’s nothing wrong them, but their selection would feel wrong.

There are no universal criteria for good examiners. There are criteria that academics must satisfy  – a length of time in post or level of experience – but after that everything comes down to personal taste of the candidate.

Have you cited your examiners? That could feel right for some but not for others. Are they an expert in your field? A lot of candidates could find that scary! A friend of your supervisor? Is that really the best thing to focus on?

So much of what would make an examiner feel right to a candidate comes down to what matters to the candidate.

Fundamentally, you can’t choose your examiners but you can talk with your supervisor. You can make a case for what you think would work well. Reflect in advance on what you would ideally like.

  • What are you really looking for?
  • What criteria would make for someone who is close to perfect?
  • How do you find academics who meet your requirements?

Your supervisor will ultimately nominate your examiners but you can put forward ideas for the kinds of people who would be just right for you. Be particular.

Find the best selection for you.

Who Chooses Your Examiners?

Verbs matter. You don’t choose your examiners.

  • Your supervisors nominate potential examiners, and more often than not these nominations turn out to be your examiners.
  • Your supervisors nominate, but your faculty or graduate school have to approve the nominations.
  • The nominations are approved, but your examiners have to accept the requests and agree to examine your thesis.

Your examiners have to accept, after your institution has approved the nominations made by your supervisors.

Where do the ideas for these nominations come from? From the judgment of your supervisors. From the research in your thesis and the work you’ve done. From your suggestions – you are allowed to share your opinions on who would be good examiners with your supervisors. Consider your preferences, what criteria do you think a good examiner would have to satisfy? Then think about which academics you know of might meet those criteria and share your ideas with your supervisors.

Then you wait for the nomination, the approval, the acceptance – but you don’t choose your examiners.

Experts

When I first got interested about the viva someone told me, “People hopefully pick an internal who they like, and hopefully pick an external that is an expert in their field.” I’m not sure that’s the best advice for picking examiners, but it’s a starting point for today.

It could certainly help to have an expert for an examiner: then you would feel confident that they would understand the implications of what you have done without needing to spell it out again.

But suppose they know it all too well? Suppose they understand it better than you? Suppose they can appreciate problems that you haven’t? Suppose, suppose, suppose…

Don’t forget: by the time you submit your thesis you are an expert. No-one else has done what you’ve done. No-one else has your lived-in experience of doing your PhD. Maybe it takes an expert to examine an expert?