literature review defense phd

Research Voyage

Research Tips and Infromation

PhD Defence Process: A Comprehensive Guide

Embarking on the journey toward a PhD is an intellectual odyssey marked by tireless research, countless hours of contemplation, and a fervent commitment to contributing to the body of knowledge in one’s field. As the culmination of this formidable journey, the PhD defence stands as the final frontier, the proverbial bridge between student and scholar.

In this comprehensive guide, we unravel the intricacies of the PhD defence—a momentous occasion that is both a celebration of scholarly achievement and a rigorous evaluation of academic prowess. Join us as we explore the nuances of the defence process, addressing questions about its duration, contemplating the possibility of failure, and delving into the subtle distinctions of language that surround it.

Beyond the formalities, we aim to shed light on the significance of this rite of passage, dispelling misconceptions about its nature. Moreover, we’ll consider the impact of one’s attire on this critical day and share personal experiences and practical tips from those who have successfully navigated the defence journey.

Whether you are on the precipice of your own defence or are simply curious about the process, this guide seeks to demystify the PhD defence, providing a roadmap for success and a nuanced understanding of the pivotal event that marks the transition from student to scholar.

Introduction

A. definition and purpose:, b. overview of the oral examination:, a. general duration of a typical defense, b. factors influencing the duration:, c. preparation and flexibility:, a. preparation and thorough understanding of the research:, b. handling questions effectively:, c. confidence and composure during the presentation:, d. posture of continuous improvement:, a. exploring the possibility of failure:, b. common reasons for failure:, c. steps to mitigate the risk of failure:, d. post-failure resilience:, a. addressing the language variation:, b. conforming to regional preferences:, c. consistency in usage:, d. flexibility and adaptability:, e. navigating language in a globalized academic landscape:, a. debunking myths around the formality of the defense:, b. significance in validating research contributions:, c. post-defense impact:, a. appropriate attire for different settings:, b. professionalism and the impact of appearance:, c. practical tips for dressing success:, b. practical tips for a successful defense:, c. post-defense reflections:, career options after phd.

Embarking on the doctoral journey is a formidable undertaking, where aspiring scholars immerse themselves in the pursuit of knowledge, contributing new insights to their respective fields. At the pinnacle of this academic odyssey lies the PhD defence—a culmination that transcends the boundaries of a mere formality, symbolizing the transformation from a student of a discipline to a recognized contributor to the academic tapestry.

The PhD defence, also known as the viva voce or oral examination, is a pivotal moment in the life of a doctoral candidate.

PhD defence is not merely a ritualistic ceremony; rather, it serves as a platform for scholars to present, defend, and elucidate the findings and implications of their research. The defence is the crucible where ideas are tested, hypotheses scrutinized, and the depth of scholarly understanding is laid bare.

The importance of the PhD defence reverberates throughout the academic landscape. It is not just a capstone event; it is the juncture where academic rigour meets real-world application. The defence is the litmus test of a researcher’s ability to articulate, defend, and contextualize their work—an evaluation that extends beyond the pages of a dissertation.

Beyond its evaluative nature, the defence serves as a rite of passage, validating the years of dedication, perseverance, and intellectual rigour invested in the research endeavour. Success in the defence is a testament to the candidate’s mastery of their subject matter and the originality and impact of their contributions to the academic community.

Furthermore, a successful defence paves the way for future contributions, positioning the scholar as a recognized authority in their field. The defence is not just an endpoint; it is a launchpad, propelling researchers into the next phase of their academic journey as they continue to shape and redefine the boundaries of knowledge.

In essence, the PhD defence is more than a ceremonial checkpoint—it is a transformative experience that validates the intellectual journey, underscores the significance of scholarly contributions, and sets the stage for a continued legacy of academic excellence. As we navigate the intricacies of this process, we invite you to explore the multifaceted dimensions that make the PhD defence an indispensable chapter in the narrative of academic achievement.

What is a PhD Defence?

At its core, a PhD defence is a rigorous and comprehensive examination that marks the culmination of a doctoral candidate’s research journey. It is an essential component of the doctoral process in which the candidate is required to defend their dissertation before a committee of experts in the field. The defence serves multiple purposes, acting as both a showcase of the candidate’s work and an evaluative measure of their understanding, critical thinking, and contributions to the academic domain.

The primary goals of a PhD defence include:

• Presentation of Research: The candidate presents the key findings, methodology, and significance of their research.
• Demonstration of Mastery: The defence assesses the candidate’s depth of understanding, mastery of the subject matter, and ability to engage in scholarly discourse.
• Critical Examination: Committee members rigorously question the candidate, challenging assumptions, testing methodologies, and probing the boundaries of the research.
• Validation of Originality: The defence validates the originality and contribution of the candidate’s work to the existing body of knowledge.

The PhD defence often takes the form of an oral examination, commonly referred to as the viva voce. This oral component adds a dynamic and interactive dimension to the evaluation process. Key elements of the oral examination include:

• Presentation: The candidate typically begins with a formal presentation, summarizing the dissertation’s main components, methodology, and findings. This presentation is an opportunity to showcase the significance and novelty of the research.
• Questioning and Discussion: Following the presentation, the candidate engages in a thorough questioning session with the examination committee. Committee members explore various aspects of the research, challenging the candidates to articulate their rationale, defend their conclusions, and respond to critiques.
• Defence of Methodology: The candidate is often required to defend the chosen research methodology, demonstrating its appropriateness, rigour, and contribution to the field.
• Evaluation of Contributions: Committee members assess the originality and impact of the candidate’s contributions to the academic discipline, seeking to understand how the research advances existing knowledge.

The oral examination is not a mere formality; it is a dynamic exchange that tests the candidate’s intellectual acumen, research skills, and capacity to contribute meaningfully to the scholarly community.

In essence, the PhD defence is a comprehensive and interactive evaluation that encapsulates the essence of a candidate’s research journey, demanding a synthesis of knowledge, clarity of expression, and the ability to navigate the complexities of academic inquiry. As we delve into the specifics of the defence process, we will unravel the layers of preparation and skill required to navigate this transformative academic milestone.

How Long is a PhD Defence?

The duration of a PhD defence can vary widely, but it typically ranges from two to three hours. This time frame encompasses the candidate’s presentation of their research, questioning and discussions with the examination committee, and any additional deliberations or decisions by the committee. However, it’s essential to note that this is a general guideline, and actual defence durations may vary based on numerous factors.

• Sciences and Engineering: Defenses in these fields might lean towards the shorter end of the spectrum, often around two hours. The focus is often on the methodology, results, and technical aspects.
• Humanities and Social Sciences: Given the theoretical and interpretive nature of research in these fields, defences might extend closer to three hours or more. Discussions may delve into philosophical underpinnings and nuanced interpretations.
• Simple vs. Complex Studies: The complexity of the research itself plays a role. Elaborate experiments, extensive datasets, or intricate theoretical frameworks may necessitate a more extended defence.
• Number of Committee Members: A larger committee or one with diverse expertise may lead to more extensive discussions and varied perspectives, potentially elongating the defence.
• Committee Engagement: The level of engagement and probing by committee members can influence the overall duration. In-depth discussions or debates may extend the defence time.
• Cultural Norms: In some countries, the oral defence might be more ceremonial, with less emphasis on intense questioning. In others, a rigorous and extended defence might be the norm.
• Evaluation Practices: Different academic systems have varying evaluation criteria, which can impact the duration of the defence.
• Institutional Guidelines: Some institutions may have specific guidelines on defence durations, influencing the overall time allotted for the process.

Candidates should be well-prepared for a defence of any duration. Adequate preparation not only involves a concise presentation of the research but also anticipates potential questions and engages in thoughtful discussions. Additionally, candidates should be flexible and responsive to the dynamics of the defense, adapting to the pace set by the committee.

Success Factors in a PhD Defence

• Successful defence begins with a deep and comprehensive understanding of the research. Candidates should be well-versed in every aspect of their study, from the theoretical framework to the methodology and findings.
• Thorough preparation involves anticipating potential questions from the examination committee. Candidates should consider the strengths and limitations of their research and be ready to address queries related to methodology, data analysis, and theoretical underpinnings.
• Conducting mock defences with peers or mentors can be invaluable. It helps refine the presentation, exposes potential areas of weakness, and provides an opportunity to practice responding to challenging questions.
• Actively listen to questions without interruption. Understanding the nuances of each question is crucial for providing precise and relevant responses.
• Responses should be clear, concise, and directly address the question. Avoid unnecessary jargon, and strive to convey complex concepts in a manner that is accessible to the entire committee.
• It’s acceptable not to have all the answers. If faced with a question that stumps you, acknowledge it honestly. Expressing a willingness to explore the topic further demonstrates intellectual humility.
• Use questions as opportunities to reinforce key messages from the research. Skillfully link responses back to the core contributions of the study, emphasizing its significance.
• Rehearse the presentation multiple times to build familiarity with the material. This enhances confidence, reduces nervousness, and ensures a smooth and engaging delivery.
• Maintain confident and open body language. Stand tall, make eye contact, and use gestures judiciously. A composed demeanour contributes to a positive impression.
• Acknowledge and manage nervousness. It’s natural to feel some anxiety, but channelling that energy into enthusiasm for presenting your research can turn nervousness into a positive force.
• Engage with the committee through a dynamic and interactive presentation. Invite questions during the presentation to create a more conversational atmosphere.
• Utilize visual aids effectively. Slides or other visual elements should complement the spoken presentation, reinforcing key points without overwhelming the audience.
• View the defence not only as an evaluation but also as an opportunity for continuous improvement. Feedback received during the defence can inform future research endeavours and scholarly pursuits.

In essence, success in a PhD defence hinges on meticulous preparation, adept handling of questions, and projecting confidence and composure during the presentation. A well-prepared and resilient candidate is better positioned to navigate the challenges of the defence, transforming it from a moment of evaluation into an affirmation of scholarly achievement.

Failure in PhD Defence

• While the prospect of failing a PhD defence is relatively rare, it’s essential for candidates to acknowledge that the possibility exists. Understanding this reality can motivate diligent preparation and a proactive approach to mitigate potential risks.
• Failure, if it occurs, should be seen as a learning opportunity rather than a definitive endpoint. It may highlight areas for improvement and offer insights into refining the research and presentation.
• Lack of thorough preparation, including a weak grasp of the research content, inadequate rehearsal, and failure to anticipate potential questions, can contribute to failure.
• Inability to effectively defend the chosen research methodology, including justifying its appropriateness and demonstrating its rigour, can be a critical factor.
• Failing to clearly articulate the original contributions of the research and its significance to the field may lead to a negative assessment.
• Responding defensively to questions, exhibiting a lack of openness to critique, or being unwilling to acknowledge limitations can impact the overall impression.
• Inability to address committee concerns or incorporate constructive feedback received during the defense may contribute to a negative outcome.
• Comprehensive preparation is the cornerstone of success. Candidates should dedicate ample time to understanding every facet of their research, conducting mock defences, and seeking feedback.
• Identify potential weaknesses in the research and address them proactively. Being aware of limitations and articulating plans for addressing them in future work demonstrates foresight.
• Engage with mentors, peers, or advisors before the defence. Solicit constructive feedback on both the content and delivery of the presentation to refine and strengthen the defence.
• Develop strategies to manage stress and nervousness. Techniques such as mindfulness, deep breathing, or visualization can be effective in maintaining composure during the defence.
• Conduct a pre-defense review of all materials, ensuring that the presentation aligns with the dissertation and that visual aids are clear and supportive.
• Approach the defence with an open and reflective attitude. Embrace critique as an opportunity for improvement rather than as a personal affront.
• Clarify expectations with the examination committee beforehand. Understanding the committee’s focus areas and preferences can guide preparation efforts.
• In the event of failure, candidates should approach the situation with resilience. Seek feedback from the committee, understand the reasons for the outcome, and use the experience as a springboard for improvement.

In summary, while the prospect of failing a PhD defence is uncommon, acknowledging its possibility and taking proactive steps to mitigate risks are crucial elements of a well-rounded defence strategy. By addressing common failure factors through thorough preparation, openness to critique, and a resilient attitude, candidates can increase their chances of a successful defence outcome.

PhD Defense or Defence?

• The choice between “defense” and “defence” is primarily a matter of British English versus American English spelling conventions. “Defense” is the preferred spelling in American English, while “defence” is the British English spelling.
• In the global academic community, both spellings are generally understood and accepted. However, the choice of spelling may be influenced by the academic institution’s language conventions or the preferences of individual scholars.
• Academic institutions may have specific guidelines regarding language conventions, and candidates are often expected to adhere to the institution’s preferred spelling.
• Candidates may also consider the preferences of their advisors or committee members. If there is a consistent spelling convention used within the academic department, it is advisable to align with those preferences.
• Consideration should be given to the spelling conventions of scholarly journals in the candidate’s field. If intending to publish research stemming from the dissertation, aligning with the conventions of target journals is prudent.
• If the defense presentation or dissertation will be shared with an international audience, using a more universally recognized spelling (such as “defense”) may be preferred to ensure clarity and accessibility.
• Regardless of the chosen spelling, it’s crucial to maintain consistency throughout the document. Mixing spellings can distract from the content and may be perceived as an oversight.
• In oral presentations and written correspondence related to the defence, including emails, it’s advisable to maintain consistency with the chosen spelling to present a professional and polished image.
• Recognizing that language conventions can vary, candidates should approach the choice of spelling with flexibility. Being adaptable to the preferences of the academic context and demonstrating an awareness of regional variations reflects a nuanced understanding of language usage.
• With the increasing globalization of academia, an awareness of language variations becomes essential. Scholars often collaborate across borders, and an inclusive approach to language conventions contributes to effective communication and collaboration.

In summary, the choice between “PhD defense” and “PhD defence” boils down to regional language conventions and institutional preferences. Maintaining consistency, being mindful of the target audience, and adapting to the expectations of the academic community contribute to a polished and professional presentation, whether in written documents or oral defences.

Is PhD Defense a Formality?

• While the PhD defence is a structured and ritualistic event, it is far from being a mere formality. It is a critical and substantive part of the doctoral journey, designed to rigorously evaluate the candidate’s research contributions, understanding of the field, and ability to engage in scholarly discourse.
• The defence is not a checkbox to be marked but rather a dynamic process where the candidate’s research is evaluated for its scholarly merit. The committee scrutinizes the originality, significance, and methodology of the research, aiming to ensure it meets the standards of advanced academic work.
• Far from a passive or purely ceremonial event, the defence involves active engagement between the candidate and the examination committee. Questions, discussions, and debates are integral components that enrich the scholarly exchange during the defence.
• The defence serves as a platform for the candidate to demonstrate the originality of their research. Committee members assess the novelty of the contributions, ensuring that the work adds value to the existing body of knowledge.
• Beyond the content, the defence evaluates the methodological rigour of the research. Committee members assess whether the chosen methodology is appropriate, well-executed, and contributes to the validity of the findings.
• Successful completion of the defence affirms the candidate’s ability to contribute meaningfully to the academic discourse in their field. It is an endorsement of the candidate’s position as a knowledgeable and respected scholar.
• The defence process acts as a quality assurance mechanism in academia. It ensures that individuals awarded a doctoral degree have undergone a thorough and rigorous evaluation, upholding the standards of excellence in research and scholarly inquiry.
• Institutions have specific criteria and standards for awarding a PhD. The defence process aligns with these institutional and academic standards, providing a consistent and transparent mechanism for evaluating candidates.
• Successful completion of the defence is a pivotal moment that marks the transition from a doctoral candidate to a recognized scholar. It opens doors to further contributions, collaborations, and opportunities within the academic community.
• Research presented during the defence often forms the basis for future publications. The validation received in the defence enhances the credibility of the research, facilitating its dissemination and impact within the academic community.
• Beyond the academic realm, a successfully defended PhD is a key credential for professional advancement. It enhances one’s standing in the broader professional landscape, opening doors to research positions, teaching opportunities, and leadership roles.

In essence, the PhD defence is a rigorous and meaningful process that goes beyond formalities, playing a crucial role in affirming the academic merit of a candidate’s research and marking the culmination of their journey toward scholarly recognition.

Dressing for Success: PhD Defense Outfit

• For Men: A well-fitted suit in neutral colours (black, navy, grey), a collared dress shirt, a tie, and formal dress shoes.
• For Women: A tailored suit, a blouse or button-down shirt, and closed-toe dress shoes.
• Dress codes can vary based on cultural expectations. It’s advisable to be aware of any cultural nuances within the academic institution and to adapt attire accordingly.
• With the rise of virtual defenses, considerations for attire remain relevant. Even in online settings, dressing professionally contributes to a polished and serious demeanor. Virtual attire can mirror what one would wear in-person, focusing on the upper body visible on camera.
• The attire chosen for a PhD defense contributes to the first impression that a candidate makes on the examination committee. A professional and polished appearance sets a positive tone for the defense.
• Dressing appropriately reflects respect for the gravity of the occasion. It acknowledges the significance of the defense as a formal evaluation of one’s scholarly contributions.
• Wearing professional attire can contribute to a boost in confidence. When individuals feel well-dressed and put-together, it can positively impact their mindset and overall presentation.
• The PhD defense is a serious academic event, and dressing professionally fosters an atmosphere of seriousness and commitment to the scholarly process. It aligns with the respect one accords to academic traditions.
• Institutional norms may influence dress expectations. Some academic institutions may have specific guidelines regarding attire for formal events, and candidates should be aware of and adhere to these norms.
• While adhering to the formality expected in academic settings, individuals can also express their personal style within the bounds of professionalism. It’s about finding a balance between institutional expectations and personal comfort.
• Select and prepare the outfit well in advance to avoid last-minute stress. Ensure that the attire is clean, well-ironed, and in good condition.
• Accessories such as ties, scarves, or jewelry should complement the outfit. However, it’s advisable to keep accessories subtle to maintain a professional appearance.
• While dressing professionally, prioritize comfort. PhD defenses can be mentally demanding, and comfortable attire can contribute to a more confident and composed demeanor.
• Pay attention to grooming, including personal hygiene and haircare. A well-groomed appearance contributes to an overall polished look.
• Start preparation well in advance of the defense date. Know your research inside out, anticipate potential questions, and be ready to discuss the nuances of your methodology, findings, and contributions.
• Conduct mock defenses with peers, mentors, or colleagues. Mock defenses provide an opportunity to receive constructive feedback, practice responses to potential questions, and refine your presentation.
• Strike a balance between confidence and humility. Confidence in presenting your research is essential, but being open to acknowledging limitations and areas for improvement demonstrates intellectual honesty.
• Actively engage with the examination committee during the defense. Listen carefully to questions, respond thoughtfully, and view the defense as a scholarly exchange rather than a mere formality.
• Understand the expertise and backgrounds of the committee members. Tailor your presentation and responses to align with the interests and expectations of your specific audience.
• Practice time management during your presentation. Ensure that you allocate sufficient time to cover key aspects of your research, leaving ample time for questions and discussions.
• It’s normal to feel nervous, but practicing mindfulness and staying calm under pressure is crucial. Take deep breaths, maintain eye contact, and focus on delivering a clear and composed presentation.
• Have a plan for post-defense activities. Whether it’s revisions to the dissertation, publications, or future research endeavors, having a roadmap for what comes next demonstrates foresight and commitment to ongoing scholarly contributions.
• After successfully defending, individuals often emphasize the importance of taking time to reflect on the entire doctoral journey. Acknowledge personal and academic growth, celebrate achievements, and use the experience to inform future scholarly pursuits.

In summary, learning from the experiences of others who have successfully defended offers a wealth of practical wisdom. These insights, combined with thoughtful preparation and a proactive approach, contribute to a successful and fulfilling defense experience.

You have plenty of career options after completing a PhD. For more details, visit my blog posts:

7 Essential Steps for Building a Robust Research Portfolio

Exciting Career Opportunities for PhD Researchers and Research Scholars

Freelance Writing or Editing Opportunities for Researchers A Comprehensive Guide

Research Consultancy: An Alternate Career for Researchers

The Insider’s Guide to Becoming a Patent Agent: Opportunities, Requirements, and Challenges

The journey from a curious researcher to a recognized scholar culminates in the PhD defence—an intellectual odyssey marked by dedication, resilience, and a relentless pursuit of knowledge. As we navigate the intricacies of this pivotal event, it becomes evident that the PhD defence is far more than a ceremonial rite; it is a substantive evaluation that validates the contributions of a researcher to the academic landscape.

Upcoming Events

• Visit the Upcoming International Conferences at Exotic Travel Destinations with Travel Plan
• Visit for  Research Internships Worldwide

Recent Posts

• Best 5 Journals for Quick Review and High Impact in August 2024
• 05 Quick Review, High Impact, Best Research Journals for Submissions for July 2024
• Top Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Research Paper
• Average Stipend for Research/Academic Internships
• These Institutes Offer Remote Research/Academic Internships
• All Blog Posts
• Research Career
• Research Conference
• Research Internship
• Research Journal
• Research Tools
• Uncategorized
• Research Conferences
• Research Journals
• Research Grants
• Internships
• Research Internships
• Email Templates
• Conferences
• Blog Partners
• Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Research Voyage

Design by ThemesDNA.com

• Scholar's Toolbox

What? Why? How? A list of potential PhD defense questions

In August 2020, I defended my PhD successfully. In the preceding months, I had generated a list of potential defense questions by using various different sources (websites, other defenses I watched, colleagues, and my supervisors). The list ended up helping me a lot. Today I shared this list with a colleague who is soon defending, and I thought: Why not share it publicly?

Note: The questions were compiled with a Finnish PhD defense in mind. In Finland, the defense is at the very end of the research process, and no changes to the PhD will be made after the event. The defense is also a public event.

The list was last edited: November 3rd, 2022

Title and cover.

• Why did you choose this title? Were there any other kinds of titles you were considering?
• Why did you choose this photo/image as your thesis cover? (if there is one)

Topic and contribution to the field

• Why did you choose this research topic?
• Why do you think this topic is important? For whom is it important?
• What do you think your work has added to the discipline/field/study of this topic?
• How is your study original?
• [Your topic] seems to be something that is usually studied discipline X. However, your thesis represents discipline Y. How did you navigate the interdisciplinarity of your work?

Paradigm/theory/concepts

• How did you decide to use this particular conceptual/theoretical framework?
• How did your chosen framework help you to explore your research problem?
• How would someone using another theoretical framework interpret your results?
• What are the shortcomings of this particular theory/conceptual framework?
• How would you describe/define/summarise … [insert a term]
• In your work, you introduce a new concept/theory. Why did you decide to do that instead of using an existing concept/theory?
• Could you describe your theoretical/methodological framework in a way that the audience also understands it? (for public defenses)

Literature review

• Why did your literature review cover these areas but not others?
• The literature review looks very tidy – doesn’t anything challenge it?
• Why did you (not) include the work by X in your study?
• Which scholar(s) have you been influenced by the most?

Research question(s)

• How did you come to formulate this particular research question / these research questions?
• How did your research questions/problem changed during the research process?
• Were there research questions you decided to add/remove during the research process?
• Why don’t you have a research question?
• How did you decide to use these particular methods of data collection/analysis? Were there other options you considered?
• Why did you choose quantitative/qualitative/mixed methods approach?
• What informed your choice of methods?
• What are the advantages/disadvantages of the chosen methods?
• How did you select your participants/this particular data?
• Describe how you generated your data.
• Why did you analyse your data in this way? What other ways were there available? Why didn’t you choose those methods?
• If you could still improve this measure/procedure/etc., how would you do it?
• How would you explain the low/high response rate of your survey?
• How did you triangulate your data?
• If you could do your study all over again with unlimited resources, how would you do it?
• How do you explain the discrepancy between your findings and the findings of previous studies?
• Did you expect these kinds of results? Why (not)?
• What is the most important result of your work?
• Who should care about your work and the results?
• How generalizable are your findings and why?
• Were there any other ways to present your results?
• Based on your findings, how would you develop [your topic]?
• What is common or different to these substudies included in your dissertation?
• What did [your approach] reveal that other approaches could not have reveal?
• What did you not see because you did your work [in this way]?
• How could [x] now be rethought in the light of COVID-19?
• What kinds of implications do your results have for further research/practice/policy?

Research process

• How did your own position/background/bias affect your research?
• Describe your researcher positionality.
• What were the biggest challenges during the research process?
• Were there any surprises during your research, pleasant or unpleasant?
• What was the most interesting part of your work?
• How did you address research ethics during your research?
• What implications do your findings have for [your topic]?
• What do you see as the problems in your study? What limitations do these impose on what you can say? How would you address these limitations in future studies?
• What could you not study in the end? Why?
• What kind of a dissertation did you want to do originally? Why did your plans change?
• If you could now redo the work, what would you differently?
• Is there anything else that you would like to tell us about your thesis which you have not had the opportunity to tell us during the defense?

Future research

• What do you plan to do next with your data?
• What would be the next logical study to do as a follow-up to this one?
• What will you study next?
• How does gaining a doctorate advance your career plans?

Photo by Vadim Bogulov on Unsplash

Leave a reply cancel reply.

• Scholar’s Toolbox
• In the Spotlight
• Working in Academia
• Miscellanea
• Contributors
• About ECHER

Defending Your Dissertation: A Guide

Written by Luke Wink-Moran | Photo by insta_photos

Dissertation defenses are daunting, and no wonder; it’s not a “dissertation discussion,” or a “dissertation dialogue.” The name alone implies that the dissertation you’ve spent the last x number of years working on is subject to attack. And if you don’t feel trepidation for semantic reasons, you might be nervous because you don’t know what to expect. Our imaginations are great at making The Unknown scarier than reality. The good news is that you’ll find in this newsletter article experts who can shed light on what dissertations defenses are really like, and what you can do to prepare for them.

The first thing you should know is that your defense has already begun. It started the minute you began working on your dissertation— maybe even in some of the classes you took beforehand that helped you formulate your ideas. This, according to Dr. Celeste Atkins, is why it’s so important to identify a good mentor early in graduate school.

“To me,” noted Dr. Atkins, who wrote her dissertation on how sociology faculty from traditionally marginalized backgrounds teach about privilege and inequality, “the most important part of the doctoral journey was finding an advisor who understood and supported what I wanted from my education and who was willing to challenge me and push me, while not delaying me.  I would encourage future PhDs to really take the time to get to know the faculty before choosing an advisor and to make sure that the members of their committee work well together.”

Your advisor will be the one who helps you refine arguments and strengthen your work so that by the time it reaches your dissertation committee, it’s ready. Next comes the writing process, which many students have said was the hardest part of their PhD. I’ve included this section on the writing process because this is where you’ll create all the material you’ll present during your defense, so it’s important to navigate it successfully. The writing process is intellectually grueling, it eats time and energy, and it’s where many students find themselves paddling frantically to avoid languishing in the “All-But-Dissertation” doldrums. The writing process is also likely to encroach on other parts of your life. For instance, Dr. Cynthia Trejo wrote her dissertation on college preparation for Latin American students while caring for a twelve-year-old, two adult children, and her aging parents—in the middle of a pandemic. When I asked Dr. Trejo how she did this, she replied:

“I don’t take the privilege of education for granted. My son knew I got up at 4:00 a.m. every morning, even on weekends, even on holidays; and it’s a blessing that he’s seen that work ethic and that dedication and the end result.”

Importantly, Dr. Trejo also exercised regularly and joined several online writing groups at UArizona. She mobilized her support network— her partner, parents, and even friends from high school to help care for her son.

The challenges you face during the writing process can vary by discipline. Jessika Iwanski is an MD/PhD student who in 2022 defended her dissertation on genetic mutations in sarcomeric proteins that lead to severe, neonatal dilated cardiomyopathy. She described her writing experience as “an intricate process of balancing many things at once with a deadline (defense day) that seems to be creeping up faster and faster— finishing up experiments, drafting the dissertation, preparing your presentation, filling out all the necessary documents for your defense and also, for MD/PhD students, beginning to reintegrate into the clinical world (reviewing your clinical knowledge and skill sets)!”

But no matter what your unique challenges are, writing a dissertation can take a toll on your mental health. Almost every student I spoke with said they saw a therapist and found their sessions enormously helpful. They also looked to the people in their lives for support. Dr. Betsy Labiner, who wrote her dissertation on Interiority, Truth, and Violence in Early Modern Drama, recommended, “Keep your loved ones close! This is so hard – the dissertation lends itself to isolation, especially in the final stages. Plus, a huge number of your family and friends simply won’t understand what you’re going through. But they love you and want to help and are great for getting you out of your head and into a space where you can enjoy life even when you feel like your dissertation is a flaming heap of trash.”

While you might sometimes feel like your dissertation is a flaming heap of trash, remember: a) no it’s not, you brilliant scholar, and b) the best dissertations aren’t necessarily perfect dissertations. According to Dr. Trejo, “The best dissertation is a done dissertation.” So don’t get hung up on perfecting every detail of your work. Think of your dissertation as a long-form assignment that you need to finish in order to move onto the next stage of your career. Many students continue revising after graduation and submit their work for publication or other professional objectives.

When you do finish writing your dissertation, it’s time to schedule your defense and invite friends and family to the part of the exam that’s open to the public. When that moment comes, how do you prepare to present your work and field questions about it?

“I reread my dissertation in full in one sitting,” said Dr. Labiner. “During all my time writing it, I’d never read more than one complete chapter at a time! It was a huge confidence boost to read my work in full and realize that I had produced a compelling, engaging, original argument.”

There are many other ways to prepare: create presentation slides and practice presenting them to friends or alone; think of questions you might be asked and answer them; think about what you want to wear or where you might want to sit (if you’re presenting on Zoom) that might give you a confidence boost. Iwanksi practiced presenting with her mentor and reviewed current papers to anticipate what questions her committee might ask.  If you want to really get in the zone, you can emulate Dr. Labiner and do a full dress rehearsal on Zoom the day before your defense.

But no matter what you do, you’ll still be nervous:

“I had a sense of the logistics, the timing, and so on, but I didn’t really have clear expectations outside of the structure. It was a sort of nebulous three hours in which I expected to be nauseatingly terrified,” recalled Dr. Labiner.

“I expected it to be terrifying, with lots of difficult questions and constructive criticism/comments given,” agreed Iwanski.

“I expected it to be very scary,” said Dr. Trejo.

“I expected it to be like I was on trial, and I’d have to defend myself and prove I deserved a PhD,” said Dr Atkins.

And, eventually, inexorably, it will be time to present.  

“It was actually very enjoyable” said Iwanski. “It was more of a celebration of years of work put into this project—not only by me but by my mentor, colleagues, lab members and collaborators! I felt very supported by all my committee members and, rather than it being a rapid fire of questions, it was more of a scientific discussion amongst colleagues who are passionate about heart disease and muscle biology.”

“I was anxious right when I logged on to the Zoom call for it,” said Dr. Labiner, “but I was blown away by the number of family and friends that showed up to support me. I had invited a lot of people who I didn’t at all think would come, but every single person I invited was there! Having about 40 guests – many of them joining from different states and several from different countries! – made me feel so loved and celebrated that my nerves were steadied very quickly. It also helped me go into ‘teaching mode’ about my work, so it felt like getting to lead a seminar on my most favorite literature.”

“In reality, my dissertation defense was similar to presenting at an academic conference,” said Dr. Atkins. “I went over my research in a practiced and organized way, and I fielded questions from the audience.

“It was a celebration and an important benchmark for me,” said Dr. Trejo. “It was a pretty happy day. Like the punctuation at the end of your sentence: this sentence is done; this journey is done. You can start the next sentence.”

If you want to learn more about dissertations in your own discipline, don’t hesitate to reach out to graduates from your program and ask them about their experiences. If you’d like to avail yourself of some of the resources that helped students in this article while they wrote and defended their dissertations, check out these links:

The Graduate Writing Lab

https://thinktank.arizona.edu/writing-center/graduate-writing-lab

The Writing Skills Improvement Program

https://wsip.arizona.edu

Campus Health Counseling and Psych Services

https://caps.arizona.edu

https://www.scribbr.com/

Tips for preparing your PhD defense [EASY dissertation defense]

Embarking on the final hurdle of your doctoral journey, the PhD dissertation defense, can feel daunting.

This significant event involves presenting and justifying years of research to a committee of field experts, showcasing your comprehension, originality, and critical thinking skills.

With various expectations from committee members, it’s crucial to know what makes a compelling thesis and how to adeptly defend your arguments. Preparation is key; from choosing well-suited examiners to meticulously preparing for potential questions, every step counts.

This article provides easy-to-follow tips for this process, from how to approach revisions to the actual defense duration, ensuring a smoother dissertation defense.

Top tips for your PhD defence process

• Understand Expectations : Understand what your examiners are looking for in your thesis. They expect it to be relevant to the field, have a clear title, a comprehensive abstract, engage with relevant literature, answer clear research questions, provide a consistent argument, and make a significant contribution to knowledge. They also value the ability to show connections between different parts of the thesis and a confident, positive attitude during the defense.
• Choose the Right Examiners : Make strategic decisions when selecting your examiners. They should be experts in your field, open-minded about cross-discipline work, cited in your work, have a constructive approach, align with your methodology, and respect critical viewpoints. Consider your supervisor’s advice, as they can help identify suitable examiners.
• Thorough Preparation : Understand your institute’s specific defense requirements and practice rigorously. Break down your thesis into sections, time your presentation, focus on key points, and prepare for potential questions. Consider setting up a mock defense to familiarize yourself with the process.
• Master Your Content : Understand your work inside out. Rather than cramming as much information as possible, focus on thoroughly comprehending your research. If faced with an unexpected question during the defense, take a moment to formulate an organized response.
• Manage Your Time : Be aware that dissertation defenses usually last between one to three hours, so ensure your presentation fits within this timeframe. Remember, the defense is an opportunity to showcase your hard work. Be confident and composed throughout the process.

What Is Dissertation Defense?

A PhD defense, also known as a viva , is a critical process that marks the completion of a doctoral degree. It varies from one institution to another and between different countries.

It could be a private examination by a panel of experts in the field or a public defense before an audience. 

In this defense, you present and justify the research you have conducted over many years.

You’ll engage in a rigorous academic conversation about the different aspects of your research, answer questions, and explain your findings and their implications. 

The defense is a chance for the panel to test your comprehension of your chosen subject area, your work’s originality, and its contribution to the field. It also tests your ability to think critically, to articulate your thoughts, and how effectively you can defend your arguments under pressure.

The essence of a PhD defense is not only to assess the validity of the thesis but also to assess the candidate’s proficiency in their subject.

What Are the Expectations of PhD Defence Examiners? Understand your dissertation committee.

Meeting the expectations of committee members in the context of a dissertation is essential for the successful completion of the research.

They will have read your thesis and will be looking for any mistakes or areas that they are unsure about to ask you during your PhD defence.

Here are what PhD defence examiners are looking for in your thesis and may have questions at your oral defence:

A dissertation committee typically consists of external experts (in a similar field) who will engage in robust discussion about your PhD and submitted thesis.  

As committee members, their primary role is to actively engage with the dissertation research, offering constructive feedback and suggestions as well as deciding if you have satisfied the requirements of the university to be awarded a PhD

Here’s my video about the common questions you’ll likely encounter during your defence and how you can answer them:

How to Choose your PhD examiners and committee members

Choosing your PhD examiners requires strategic thinking and insightful conversations with your supervisor. It’s a very important decision and can make your PhD defence much smoother. 

During my PhD, I chose examiners that I had cited and based my work on their preliminary investigations. 

But there are more things to think about before you write down their names!

Here’s a table checklist for choosing your PhD examiners.

First, compile a list of potential examiners who you believe would be appropriate for reviewing your thesis. Discuss your choices with your supervisor, explaining why you consider them suitable. 

If your thesis spans multiple disciplines, consider choosing examiners from each discipline; it ensures intricate knowledge of each field is utilized.

However, ensure these examiners are open-minded about cross-discipline work, as disciplines tend to have unique ways of presenting their findings.

Listen to your supervisor’s advice.

They have experience in these matters and know who would be best qualified to examine your work.

Even if a scholar is high-profile or an editor of a favored journal, they might not be suitable due to methodological differences or varying research approaches. 

Choosing the right examiner is crucial, as an ill-suited examiner could result in undesired outcomes. The goal is to establish a thoughtful academic conversation about your work.

How to Prepare for Dissertation Defense?

To prepare for your dissertation defense, start by understanding the specific requirements of your institute, as the process can vary across countries.

This could include:

• a presentation,
• a conversation with examiners,
• or a combination of both.

Once you know what to expect, practice vigorously. This should not be your first time discussing your work with others – engage in academic conversation, seek feedback and address challenging questions prior to the defense.

Breakdown your thesis into sections and time yourself on each section to manage length. Focus on the key points and avoid irrelevant details.

Creating a mock defense will be helpful in managing time and getting familiar with the process.

Prepare for potential questions. It’s not about cramming as much information as possible, but about understanding your work inside out. Start by preparing answers to common defense questions. In case of an unexpected question, don’t rush to answer. Take a moment, write down key points, and formulate an organized response.

Remember that the defense is an opportunity to showcase years of hard work.

Be confident, and don’t forget to breathe!

How Long Do Dissertation Defenses Usually Last?

 The length of a dissertation defense can vary depending on factors such as the specific requirements of the institution and the complexity of the research being presented.

On average, a dissertation defense usually lasts between one to three hours.

During this time, the candidate will present their research and findings to a panel of experts, often including faculty members and fellow researchers.

The defense typically begins with an introduction by the candidate, followed by a detailed presentation of the research methodology, results, and conclusions.

Panel members then have the opportunity to ask questions and engage in a discussion with the candidate.

It is not unusual for defenses to be quite intense and challenging, as the panel seeks to assess the depth of the candidate’s knowledge and understanding of their research. In some cases, the candidate may be asked to leave the room while the panel deliberates before ultimately reaching a decision on the acceptance or rejection of the dissertation. 

Wrapping up

As the culmination of the doctoral journey, the PhD defense demands meticulous preparation and understanding of its unique rigors.

This entails knowing the expectations of your dissertation committee, choosing the right examiners who offer constructive feedback, and putting considerable time into preparing for your oral defense.

The defense process isn’t a mere formality; it’s a critical examination of the candidate’s comprehension, originality, and critical thinking skills.

It provides an opportunity to exhibit your research and its contribution to your field, defend your arguments, and validate your years of labor.

Thus, selecting well-qualified examiners, anticipating potential questions, and honing your presentation skills are vital for a successful defense.

Students must be registered for their PhD program and finalize their dissertation prior to the defense, which can last anywhere from one to three hours, depending on the institution and the complexity of the research.

Any corrections or major revisions suggested by the dissertation committee members must be completed and submitted weeks prior to the conferral date.

A PhD defense isn’t just a rite of passage for doctoral candidates—it’s the final, decisive step on the journey to earning a doctorate.

It requires the full commitment of the candidate, their dissertation advisor, the committee chair, and all members involved, ensuring that the graduate studies department’s requirements are met, and that the student is admitted to the next phase of their academic or professional journey.

Dr Andrew Stapleton has a Masters and PhD in Chemistry from the UK and Australia. He has many years of research experience and has worked as a Postdoctoral Fellow and Associate at a number of Universities. Although having secured funding for his own research, he left academia to help others with his YouTube channel all about the inner workings of academia and how to make it work for you.

Thank you for visiting Academia Insider.

We are here to help you navigate Academia as painlessly as possible. We are supported by our readers and by visiting you are helping us earn a small amount through ads and affiliate revenue - Thank you!

2024 © Academia Insider

• A Guide to Writing a PhD Literature Review

Written by Ben Taylor

Most PhD projects begin with a literature review, which usually serves as the first chapter of your dissertation. This provides an opportunity for you to show that you understand the body of academic work that has already been done in relation to your topic, including books, articles, data and research papers.

You should be prepared to offer your own critical analysis of this literature, as well as illustrating where your own research lies within the field – and how it contributes something new / significant to your subject.

This page will give you an overview of what you need to know about writing a literature review, with detail on structure, length and conclusions.

On this page

What is a phd literature review.

A literature review is usually one of the first things you’ll do after beginning your PhD . Once you’ve met with your supervisor and discussed the scope of your research project, you’ll conduct a survey of the scholarly work that’s already been done in your area.

Depending on the nature of your PhD, this work could comprise books, publications, articles, experimental data and more. This body of work is collectively known as the ‘scholarly literature’, on your subject. You won’t have to tackle any novels, poetry or drama during this review (unless, of course, you’re actually studying a PhD in English Literature, in which case that comes later).

The purpose of the PhD literature review isn’t just to summarise what other scholars have done before you. You should analyse and evaluate the current body of work , situating your own research within that context and demonstrating the significant original contribution your research will make.

Planning your PhD literature review

Your supervisor will be able to give you advice if you’re not quite sure where to begin your review, pointing you in the direction of key texts and research that you can then investigate. It’s worth paying attention to the bibliographies (and literature reviews!) of these publications, which can often lead you towards even more specialist texts that could prove invaluable in your research. At the same time, it’s important not to let yourself fall down an academic rabbit hole – make sure that the books and articles you’re surveying are genuinely relevant to your own project.

You should aim to include a broad range of literature in your review, showing the scope of your knowledge, from foundational texts to the most recent publications.

The note-taking process is crucial while you’re in the early stages of your literature review. Keep a clear record of the sources you’ve read, along with your critical analysis of their key arguments and what you think makes them relevant to your research project.

How long should a literature review be?

The length of a PhD literature review varies greatly by subject. In Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences the review will typically be around 5,000 words long, while STEM literature reviews will usually be closer to 10,000 words long. In any case, you should consult with your supervisor on the optimum length for your own literature review.

Structuring a PhD literature review

When you begin to write your PhD literature review, it’s important to have a clear idea of its outline. Roughly speaking, the literature review structure should:

• Introduce your topic and explain its significance
• Evaluate the existing literature with reference to your thesis
• Give a conclusion that considers the implications of your research for future study

The main body of your literature review will be spent critiquing the existing work that scholars have done in your field. There are a few different ways you may want to structure this part of the review, depending on the subject and the nature of your dissertation:

• Chronologically – If your research looks at how something has changed over time, it may make sense to review the literature chronologically, tracking the way that ideas, attitudes and theories have shifted. This might seem like quite a simple way to structure the review, but it’s also imperative to identify the common threads and sticking points between academics along the way, rather than merely reeling off a list of books and articles.
• Thematically – If your dissertation encompasses several different themes, you might want to group the literature by these subjects, while also emphasising the connections between them.
• Methodologically – If you are going to be working with experimental data or statistics, it could be a good idea to assess the different methods that previous scholars have used in your field to produce relevant literature.

Whichever technique you use to structure your literature review, you should take care not to simply list different books, articles and research papers without offering your own commentary.

Always highlight the similarities (and differences) between them, giving your analysis of the significance of these relationships, connections and contrasts.

Writing up a PhD literature review

The process of writing a literature review is different to that of writing the bulk of the dissertation itself. The aim at this point isn’t necessarily to illustrate your own original ideas and research – that’s what the dissertation is for – but rather to show the depth of your knowledge of the field and your ability to assess the work of other scholars . It’s also an opportunity for you to indicate exactly how your dissertation will make an original contribution to your subject area.

These are some tips to bear in mind when writing a literature review:

• Avoid paraphrasing – instead, offer your own evaluation of a source and its assertions
• Follow a logical path from one source or theme to the next – don’t make leaps between different books or articles without explaining the connection between them
• Critically analyse the literature – challenge assumptions, assess the validity of argument and write with authority
• Don’t be too broad in your scope – it can be easy to get carried away including every piece of related literature you come across, but it’s also important not to let your review become too sprawling or rambling

The fact that you usually begin your literature review right at the start of a PhD means that it’s likely you’ll come across plenty more relevant books and papers during the course of your research and while writing the dissertation. So, it’s useful to think of this first draft as a work-in-progress that you keep up-to-date as you write your thesis.

Finishing a PhD literature review

As you come to the end of your dissertation, it’s vital to take a close look at your initial literature review and make sure that it’s consistent with the conclusions that you’ve reached. Of course, a lot can change over the course of a PhD so it’s entirely possible that your research led you in a different direction than you imagined at the beginning.

The conclusion of your literature review should summarise the significance of the survey that you’ve just completed, explaining its relevance for the research your dissertation will undertake.

Literature reviews and PhD upgrade exams

The literature review is usually one of the first sections of a PhD to be completed, at least in its draft form. As such, it is often part of the material that you may submit for your PhD upgrade exam . This usually takes place at the end of your first year (though not all PhDs require it). Involves you discussing your work so far with academics in your department to confirm that your project is on track for a PhD. The feedback you get at this point may help shape your literature review, or reveal any areas you’ve missed.

Doing a PhD

For more information on what it’s like to do a PhD, read our guides to research proposals , dissertations and the viva . Or, search for your perfect PhD course on our website.

Our postgrad newsletter shares courses, funding news, stories and advice

You may also like....

What happens during a typical PhD, and when? We've summarised the main milestones of a doctoral research journey.

The PhD thesis is the most important part of a doctoral degree. This page will introduce you to what you need to know about the PhD dissertation.

This page will give you an idea of what to expect from your routine as a PhD student, explaining how your daily life will look at you progress through a doctoral degree.

PhD fees can vary based on subject, university and location. Use our guide to find out the PhD fees in the UK and other destinations, as well as doctoral living costs.

Our guide tells you everything about the application process for studying a PhD in the USA.

Postgraduate students in the UK are not eligible for the same funding as undergraduates or the free-hours entitlement for workers. So, what childcare support are postgraduate students eligible for?

FindAPhD. Copyright 2005-2024 All rights reserved.

Unknown    ( change )

Have you got time to answer some quick questions about PhD study?

Select your nearest city

You haven’t completed your profile yet. To get the most out of FindAPhD, finish your profile and receive these benefits:

• Monthly chance to win one of ten £10 Amazon vouchers ; winners will be notified every month.*
• The latest PhD projects delivered straight to your inbox
• Access to our £6,000 scholarship competition
• Weekly newsletter with funding opportunities, research proposal tips and much more
• Early access to our physical and virtual postgraduate study fairs

Or begin browsing FindAPhD.com

or begin browsing FindAPhD.com

*Offer only available for the duration of your active subscription, and subject to change. You MUST claim your prize within 72 hours, if not we will redraw.

Do you want hassle-free information and advice?

Create your FindAPhD account and sign up to our newsletter:

• Find out about funding opportunities and application tips
• Receive weekly advice, student stories and the latest PhD news
• Hear about our upcoming study fairs
• Save your favourite projects, track enquiries and get personalised subject updates

Create your account

Looking to list your PhD opportunities? Log in here .

How to structure your viva presentation (with examples)

Most PhD vivas and PhD defences start with a short presentation by the candidate. The structure of these presentations is very important! There are several factors and approaches to consider when developing your viva presentation structure.

Factors to consider when developing a viva presentation structure

Presenting a whole PhD in a short amount of time is very challenging. After all, a PhD is often the result of several years of work!

It is simply impossible to include everything in a viva presentation.

The structure of a viva presentation plays a crucial role in bringing across the key messages of your PhD.

Structuring your viva presentation traditionally

A very traditional viva presentation structure simply follows the structure of the PhD thesis.

The disadvantage of this traditional format is that it is very challenging to fit all the information in a – let’s say – 10-minute presentation.

Structuring your viva presentation around key findings

For instance, you can select your three main findings which you each connect to the existing literature, your unique research approach and your (new) empirical insights.

Furthermore, it might be tricky to find enough time during the presentation to discuss your theoretical framework and embed your discussion in the existing literature when addressing complex issues.

Structuring your viva presentation around key arguments

So, for example, your key argument 1 is your stance on an issue, combining your theoretical and empirical understanding of it. You use the existing theory to understand your empirical data, and your empirical data analysis to develop your theoretical understanding.

Structuring your viva presentation around case studies

Another common way to structure a viva presentation is around case studies or study contexts.

A viva presentation structure around case studies can be easy to follow for the audience, and shed light on the similarities and differences of cases.

Final thoughts on viva presentation structures

The key to a good viva presentation is to choose a structure which reflects the key points of your PhD thesis that you want to convey to the examiners.

The example viva presentation structures discussed here intend to showcase variety and possibilities and to provide inspiration.

Master Academia

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox, 18 common audience questions at academic conferences (+ how to react), 10 reasons to do a master's degree right after graduation, related articles, how to organize and structure academic panel discussions, the best way to cold emailing professors, asking for a recommendation letter from a phd supervisor, energy management in academia.

13 Tips to Prepare for Your PhD Dissertation Defense

How well do you know your project? Years of experiments, analysis of results, and tons of literature study, leads you to how well you know your research study. And, PhD dissertation defense is a finale to your PhD years. Often, researchers question how to excel at their thesis defense and spend countless hours on it. Days, weeks, months, and probably years of practice to complete your doctorate, needs to surpass the dissertation defense hurdle.

In this article, we will discuss details of how to excel at PhD dissertation defense and list down some interesting tips to prepare for your thesis defense.

Table of Contents

What Is Dissertation Defense?

Dissertation defense or Thesis defense is an opportunity to defend your research study amidst the academic professionals who will evaluate of your academic work. While a thesis defense can sometimes be like a cross-examination session, but in reality you need not fear the thesis defense process and be well prepared.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/c/JamesHaytonPhDacademy

What are the expectations of committee members.

Choosing the dissertation committee is one of the most important decision for a research student. However, putting your dissertation committee becomes easier once you understand the expectations of committee members.

The basic function of your dissertation committee is to guide you through the process of proposing, writing, and revising your dissertation. Moreover, the committee members serve as mentors, giving constructive feedback on your writing and research, also guiding your revision efforts.

The dissertation committee is usually formed once the academic coursework is completed. Furthermore, by the time you begin your dissertation research, you get acquainted to the faculty members who will serve on your dissertation committee. Ultimately, who serves on your dissertation committee depends upon you.

Some universities allow an outside expert (a former professor or academic mentor) to serve on your committee. It is advisable to choose a faculty member who knows you and your research work.

How to Choose a Dissertation Committee Member?

• Avoid popular and eminent faculty member
• Choose the one you know very well and can approach whenever you need them
• A faculty member whom you can learn from is apt.
• Members of the committee can be your future mentors, co-authors, and research collaborators. Choose them keeping your future in mind.

How to Prepare for Dissertation Defense?

1. Start Your Preparations Early

Thesis defense is not a 3 or 6 months’ exercise. Don’t wait until you have completed all your research objectives. Start your preparation well in advance, and make sure you know all the intricacies of your thesis and reasons to all the research experiments you conducted.

2. Attend Presentations by Other Candidates

Look out for open dissertation presentations at your university. In fact, you can attend open dissertation presentations at other universities too. Firstly, this will help you realize how thesis defense is not a scary process. Secondly, you will get the tricks and hacks on how other researchers are defending their thesis. Finally, you will understand why dissertation defense is necessary for the university, as well as the scientific community.

3. Take Enough Time to Prepare the Slides

Dissertation defense process harder than submitting your thesis well before the deadline. Ideally, you could start preparing the slides after finalizing your thesis. Spend more time in preparing the slides. Make sure you got the right data on the slides and rephrase your inferences, to create a logical flow to your presentation.

4. Structure the Presentation

Do not be haphazard in designing your presentation. Take time to create a good structured presentation. Furthermore, create high-quality slides which impresses the committee members. Make slides that hold your audience’s attention. Keep the presentation thorough and accurate, and use smart art to create better slides.

5. Practice Breathing Techniques

Watch a few TED talk videos and you will notice that speakers and orators are very fluent at their speech. In fact, you will not notice them taking a breath or falling short of breath. The only reason behind such effortless oratory skill is practice — practice in breathing technique.

Moreover, every speaker knows how to control their breath. Long and steady breaths are crucial. Pay attention to your breathing and slow it down. All you need I some practice prior to this moment.

6. Create an Impactful Introduction

The audience expects a lot from you. So your opening statement should enthrall the audience. Furthermore, your thesis should create an impact on the members; they should be thrilled by your thesis and the way you expose it.

The introduction answers most important questions, and most important of all “Is this presentation worth the time?” Therefore, it is important to make a good first impression , because the first few minutes sets the tone for your entire presentation.

7. Maintain Your Own List of Questions

While preparing for the presentation, make a note of all the questions that you ask yourself. Try to approach all the questions from a reader’s point of view. You could pretend like you do not know the topic and think of questions that could help you know the topic much better.

The list of questions will prepare you for the questions the members may pose while trying to understand your research. Attending other candidates’ open discussion will also help you assume the dissertation defense questions.

8. Practice Speech and Body Language

After successfully preparing your slides and practicing, you could start focusing on how you look while presenting your thesis. This exercise is not for your appearance but to know your body language and relax if need be.

Pay attention to your body language. Stand with your back straight, but relax your shoulders. The correct posture will give you the feel of self-confidence. So, observe yourself in the mirror and pay attention to movements you make.

9. Give Mock Presentation

Giving a trial defense in advance is a good practice. The most important factor for the mock defense is its similarity to your real defense, so that you get the experience that prepares for the actual defense.

10. Learn How to Handle Mistakes

Everyone makes mistakes. However, it is important to carry on. Do not let the mistakes affect your thesis defense. Take a deep breath and move on to the next point.

11. Do Not Run Through the Presentation

If you are nervous, you would want to end the presentation as soon as possible. However, this situation will give rise to anxiety and you will speak too fast, skipping the essential details. Eventually, creating a fiasco of your dissertation defense .

12. Get Plenty of Rest

Out of the dissertation defense preparation points, this one is extremely important. Obviously, sleeping a day before your big event is hard, but you have to focus and go to bed early, with the clear intentions of getting the rest you deserve.

13. Visualize Yourself Defending Your Thesis

This simple exercise creates an immense impact on your self-confidence. All you have to do is visualize yourself giving a successful presentation each evening before going to sleep. Everyday till the day of your thesis defense, see yourself standing in front of the audience and going from one point to another.

This exercise takes a lot of commitment and persistence, but the results in the end are worth it. Visualization makes you see yourself doing the scary thing of defending your thesis.

If you have taken all these points into consideration, you are ready for your big day. You have worked relentlessly for your PhD degree , and you will definitely give your best in this final step.

Have you completed your thesis defense? How did you prepare for it and how was your experience throughout your dissertation defense ? Do write to us or comment below.

The tips are very useful.I will recomend it to our students.

Excellent. As a therapist trying to help a parent of a candidate, I am very impressed and thankful your concise, clear, action-oriented article. Thank you.

Thanks for your sharing. It is so good. I can learn a lot from your ideas. Hope that in my dissertation defense next time I can pass

The tips are effective. Will definitely apply them in my dissertation.

My dissertation defense is coming up in less than two weeks from now, I find this tips quite instructive, I’ll definitely apply them. Thank you so much.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Reporting Research

Choosing the Right Analytical Approach: Thematic analysis vs. content analysis for data interpretation

In research, choosing the right approach to understand data is crucial for deriving meaningful insights.…

Comparing Cross Sectional and Longitudinal Studies: 5 steps for choosing the right approach

The process of choosing the right research design can put ourselves at the crossroads of…

• Career Corner

Unlocking the Power of Networking in Academic Conferences

Embarking on your first academic conference experience? Fear not, we got you covered! Academic conferences…

Research Recommendations – Guiding policy-makers for evidence-based decision making

Research recommendations play a crucial role in guiding scholars and researchers toward fruitful avenues of…

• AI in Academia

Disclosing the Use of Generative AI: Best practices for authors in manuscript preparation

The rapid proliferation of generative and other AI-based tools in research writing has ignited an…

Setting Rationale in Research: Cracking the code for excelling at research

Mitigating Survivorship Bias in Scholarly Research: 10 tips to enhance data integrity

The Power of Proofreading: Taking your academic work to the next level

Facing Difficulty Writing an Academic Essay? — Here is your one-stop solution!

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

Preparing For Your Dissertation Defense

13 Key Questions To Expect In The Viva Voce

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) & David Phair (PhD) . Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | June 2021

Preparing for your dissertation or thesis defense (also called a “viva voce”) is a formidable task . All your hard work over the years leads you to this one point, and you’ll need to defend yourself against some of the most experienced researchers you’ve encountered so far.

It’s natural to feel a little nervous.

In this post, we’ll cover some of the most important questions you should be able to answer in your viva voce, whether it’s for a Masters or PhD degree. Naturally, they might not arise in exactly the same form (some may not come up at all), but if you can answer these questions well, it means you’re in a good position to tackle your oral defense.

Viva Voce Prep: 13 Essential Questions

• What is your study about and why did you choose to research this in particular?
• How did your research questions evolve during the research process?
• How did you decide on which sources to include in your literature review?
• How did you design your study and why did you take this approach?
• How generalisable and valid are the findings?
• What were the main shortcomings and limitations created by your research design?
• How did your findings relate to the existing literature?
• What were your key findings in relation to the research questions?
• Were there any findings that surprised you?
• What biases may exist in your research?
• How can your findings be put into practice?
• How has your research contributed to current thinking in the field?
• If you could redo your research, how would you alter your approach?

#1: What is your study about and why did you choose to research this in particular?

This question, a classic party starter, is pretty straightforward.

What the dissertation or thesis committee is assessing here is your ability to clearly articulate your research aims, objectives and research questions in a concise manner. Concise is the keyword here – you need to clearly explain your research topic without rambling on for a half-hour. Don’t feel the need to go into the weeds here – you’ll have many opportunities to unpack the details later on.

In the second half of the question, they’re looking for a brief explanation of the justification of your research. In other words, why was this particular set of research aims, objectives and questions worth addressing? To address this question well in your oral defense, you need to make it clear what gap existed within the research and why that gap was worth filling.

#2: How did your research questions evolve during the research process?

Good research generally follows a long and winding path . It’s seldom a straight line (unless you got really lucky). What they’re assessing here is your ability to follow that path and let the research process unfold.

Specifically, they’ll want to hear about the impact that the literature review process had on you in terms of shaping the research aims, objectives and research questions . For example, you may have started with a certain set of aims, but then as you immersed yourself in the literature, you may have changed direction. Similarly, your initial fieldwork findings may have turned out some unexpected data that drove you to adjust or expand on your initial research questions.

Long story short – a good defense involves clearly describing your research journey , including all the twists and turns. Adjusting your direction based on findings in the literature or the fieldwork shows that you’re responsive , which is essential for high-quality research.

#3: How did you decide on which sources to include in your literature review?

A comprehensive literature review is the foundation of any high-quality piece of research. With this question, your dissertation or thesis committee are trying to assess which quality criteria and approach you used to select the sources for your literature review.

Typically, good research draws on both the seminal work in the respective field and more recent sources . In other words, a combination of the older landmark studies and pivotal work, along with up-to-date sources that build on to those older studies. This combination ensures that the study has a rock-solid foundation but is not out of date.

So, make sure that your study draws on a mix of both the “classics” and new kids on the block, and take note of any major evolutions in the literature that you can use as an example when asked this question in your viva voce.

#4: How did you design your study and why did you take this approach?

This is a classic methodological question that you can almost certainly expect in some or other shape.

What they’re looking for here is a clear articulation of the research design and methodology, as well as a strong justification of each choice . So, you need to be able to walk through each methodological choice and clearly explain both what you did and why you did it. The why is particularly important – you need to be able to justify each choice you made by clearly linking your design back to your research aims, objectives and research questions, while also taking into account practical constraints.

To ensure you cover every base, check out our research methodology vlog post , as well as our post covering the Research Onion .

#5: How generalizable and valid are the findings?

This question is aimed at specifically digging into your understanding of the sample and how that relates to the population, as well as potential validity issues in your methodology.

To answer question this well, you’ll need to critically assess your sample and findings and consider if they truly apply to the entire population, as well as whether they assessed what they set out to. Note that there are two components here – generalizability and validity . Generalizability is about how well the sample represents the population. Validity is about how accurately you’ve measured what you intended to measure .

To ace this part of your dissertation defense, make sure that you’re very familiar with the concepts of generalizability , validity and reliability , and how these apply to your research. Remember, you don’t need to achieve perfection – you just need to be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of your research (and how the weaknesses could be improved upon).

Need a helping hand?

#6: What were the main shortcomings and limitations created by your research design?

This question picks up where the last one left off.

As I mentioned, it’s perfectly natural that your research will have shortcomings and limitations as a result of your chosen design and methodology. No piece of research is flawless. Therefore, a good dissertation defense is not about arguing that your work is perfect, but rather it’s about clearly articulating the strengths and weaknesses of your approach.

To address this question well, you need to think critically about all of the potential weaknesses your design may have, as well as potential responses to these (which could be adopted in future research) to ensure you’re well prepared for this question. For a list of common methodological limitations, check out our video about research limitations here .

#7: How did your findings relate to the existing literature?

This common dissertation defense question links directly to your discussion chapter , where you would have presented and discussed the findings in relation to your literature review.

What your dissertation or thesis committee is assessing here is your ability to compare your study’s findings to the findings of existing research . Specifically, you need to discuss which findings aligned with existing research and which findings did not. For those findings that contrasted against existing research, you should also explain what you believe to be the reasons for this.

As with many questions in a viva voce, it’s both the what and the why that matter here. So, you need to think deeply about what the underlying reasons may be for both the similarities and differences between your findings and those of similar studies.

#8: What were your key findings in relation to the research questions?

This question is similar to the last one in that it too focuses on your research findings. However, here the focus is specifically on the findings that directly relate to your research questions (as opposed to findings in general).

So, a good way to prepare for this question is to step back and revisit your research questions . Ask yourself the following:

• What exactly were you asking in those questions, and what did your research uncover concerning them?
• Which questions were well answered by your study and which ones were lacking?
• Why were they lacking and what more could be done to address this in future research?

Conquering this part dissertation defense requires that you focus squarely on the research questions. Your study will have provided many findings (hopefully!), and not all of these will link directly to the research questions. Therefore, you need to clear your mind of all of the fascinating side paths your study may have lead you down and regain a clear focus on the research questions .

#9: Were there any findings that surprised you?

This question is two-pronged.

First, you should discuss the surprising findings that were directly related to the original research questions . Going into your research, you likely had some expectations in terms of what you would find, so this is your opportunity to discuss the outcomes that emerged as contrary to what you initially expected. You’ll also want to think about what the reasons for these contrasts may be.

Second, you should discuss the findings that weren’t directly related to the research questions, but that emerged from the data set . You may have a few or you may have none – although generally there are a handful of interesting musings that you can glean from the data set. Again, make sure you can articulate why you find these interesting and what it means for future research in the area.

What the committee is looking for in this type of question is your ability to interpret the findings holistically and comprehensively , and to respond to unexpected data. So, take the time to zoom out and reflect on your findings thoroughly.

#10: What biases may exist in your research?

Biases… we all have them.

For this question, you’ll need to think about potential biases in your research , in the data itself but also in your interpretation of the data. With this question, your committee is assessing whether you have considered your own potential biases and the biases inherent in your analysis approach (i.e. your methodology). So, think carefully about these research biases and be ready to explain how these may exist in your study.

In an oral defense, this question is often followed up with a question on how the biases were mitigated or could be mitigated in future research. So, give some thought not just to what biases may exist, but also the mitigation measures (in your own study and for future research).

#11: How can your findings be put into practice?

Another classic question in the typical viva voce.

With this question, your committee is assessing your ability to bring your findings back down to earth and demonstrate their practical value and application. Importantly, this question is not about the contribution to academia or the overall field of research (we’ll get to that next) – it is specifically asking about how this newly created knowledge can be used in the real world.

Naturally, the actionability of your findings will vary depending on the nature of your research topic. Some studies will produce many action points and some won’t. If you’re researching marketing strategies within an industry, for example, you should be able to make some very specific recommendations for marketing practitioners in that industry.

To help you flesh out points for this question, look back at your original justification for the research (i.e. in your introduction and literature review chapters). What were the driving forces that led you to research your specific topic? That justification should help you identify ways in which your findings can be put into practice.

#12: How has your research contributed to current thinking in the field?

While the previous question was aimed at practical contribution, this question is aimed at theoretical contribution . In other words, what is the significance of your study within the current body of research? How does it fit into the existing research and what does it add to it?

This question is often asked by a field specialist and is used to assess whether you’re able to place your findings into the research field to critically convey what your research contributed. This argument needs to be well justified – in other words, you can’t just discuss what your research contributed, you need to also back each proposition up with a strong why .

To answer this question well, you need to humbly consider the quality and impact of your work and to be realistic in your response. You don’t want to come across as arrogant (“my work is groundbreaking”), nor do you want to undersell the impact of your work. So, it’s important to strike the right balance between realistic and pessimistic .

This question also opens the door to questions about potential future research . So, think about what future research opportunities your study has created and which of these you feel are of the highest priority.

#13: If you could redo your research, how would you alter your approach?

This question is often used to wrap up a viva voce as it brings the discussion full circle.

Here, your committee is again assessing your ability to clearly identify and articulate the limitations and shortcomings of your research, both in terms of research design and topic focus . Perhaps, in hindsight, it would have been better to use a different analysis method or data set. Perhaps the research questions should have leaned in a slightly different direction. And so on.

This question intends to assess whether you’re able to look at your work critically , assess where the weaknesses are and make recommendations for the future . This question often sets apart those who did the research purely because it was required, from those that genuinely engaged with their research. So, don’t hold back here – reflect on your entire research journey ask yourself how you’d do things differently if you were starting with a  blank canvas today.

Recap: The 13 Key Dissertation Defense Questions

To recap, here are the 13 questions you need to be ready for to ace your dissertation or thesis oral defense:

As I mentioned, this list of dissertation defense questions is certainly not exhaustive – don’t assume that we’ve covered every possible question here. However, these questions are quite likely to come up in some shape or form in a typical dissertation or thesis defense, whether it’s for a Master’s degree, PhD or any other research degree. So, you should take the time to make sure you can answer them well.

If you need assistance preparing for your dissertation defense or viva voce, get in touch with us to discuss 1-on-1 coaching. We can critically review your research and identify potential issues and responses, as well as undertake a mock oral defense to prepare you for the pressures and stresses on the day.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

14 Comments

Very interesting

Interesting. I appreciate!

Really appreciating

My field is International Trade

Interesting

This is a full course on defence. I was fabulously enlightened and I gained enough confidence for my upcoming Masters Defence.

There are many lessons to learn and the simplicity in presentationmakes thee reader say “YesI can”

This is so helping… it has Enlightened me on how to answer specific questions. I pray to make it through for my upcoming defense

Lovely to hear that 🙂

Really educative and beneficial

Interesting. On-point and elaborate. And comforting too! Thanks.

Thank you very much for the enlightening me, be blessed

Thankyou so much. I am planning to defend my thesis soon and I found this very useful

Very interesting and useful to all masters and PhD students

Wow! this is enlightening. Thanks for the great work.

Thank you very much ,it will help me My Master Degree. and am comfortable to my defense.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

Reference management. Clean and simple.

How to prepare an excellent thesis defense

What is a thesis defense?

How long is a thesis defense, what happens at a thesis defense, your presentation, questions from the committee, 6 tips to help you prepare for your thesis defense, 1. anticipate questions and prepare for them, 2. dress for success, 3. ask for help, as needed, 4. have a backup plan, 5. prepare for the possibility that you might not know an answer, 6. de-stress before, during, and after, frequently asked questions about preparing an excellent thesis defense, related articles.

If you're about to complete, or have ever completed a graduate degree, you have most likely come across the term "thesis defense." In many countries, to finish a graduate degree, you have to write a thesis .

A thesis is a large paper, or multi-chapter work, based on a topic relating to your field of study.

Once you hand in your thesis, you will be assigned a date to defend your work. Your thesis defense meeting usually consists of you and a committee of two or more professors working in your program. It may also include other people, like professionals from other colleges or those who are working in your field.

During your thesis defense, you will be asked questions about your work. The main purpose of your thesis defense is for the committee to make sure that you actually understand your field and focus area.

The questions are usually open-ended and require the student to think critically about their work. By the time of your thesis defense, your paper has already been evaluated. The questions asked are not designed so that you actually have to aggressively "defend" your work; often, your thesis defense is more of a formality required so that you can get your degree.

• Check with your department about requirements and timing.
• Re-read your thesis.
• Anticipate questions and prepare for them.
• Create a back-up plan to deal with technology hiccups.
• Plan de-stressing activities both before, and after, your defense.

How long your oral thesis defense is depends largely on the institution and requirements of your degree. It is best to consult your department or institution about this. In general, a thesis defense may take only 20 minutes, but it may also take two hours or more. The length also depends on how much time is allocated to the presentation and questioning part.

Tip: Check with your department or institution as soon as possible to determine the approved length for a thesis defense.

First of all, be aware that a thesis defense varies from country to country. This is just a general overview, but a thesis defense can take many different formats. Some are closed, others are public defenses. Some take place with two committee members, some with more examiners.

The same goes for the length of your thesis defense, as mentioned above. The most important first step for you is to clarify with your department what the structure of your thesis defense will look like. In general, your thesis defense will include:

• your presentation of around 20-30 minutes
• questions from the committee
• questions from the audience (if the defense is public and the department allows it)

You might have to give a presentation, often with Powerpoint, Google slides, or Keynote slides. Make sure to prepare an appropriate amount of slides. A general rule is to use about 10 slides for a 20-minute presentation.

But that also depends on your specific topic and the way you present. The good news is that there will be plenty of time ahead of your thesis defense to prepare your slides and practice your presentation alone and in front of friends or family.

Tip: Practice delivering your thesis presentation in front of family, friends, or colleagues.

You can prepare your slides by using information from your thesis' first chapter (the overview of your thesis) as a framework or outline. Substantive information in your thesis should correspond with your slides.

Make sure your slides are of good quality— both in terms of the integrity of the information and the appearance. If you need more help with how to prepare your presentation slides, both the ASQ Higher Education Brief and James Hayton have good guidelines on the topic.

The committee will ask questions about your work after you finish your presentation. The questions will most likely be about the core content of your thesis, such as what you learned from the study you conducted. They may also ask you to summarize certain findings and to discuss how your work will contribute to the existing body of knowledge.

Tip: Read your entire thesis in preparation of the questions, so you have a refreshed perspective on your work.

While you are preparing, you can create a list of possible questions and try to answer them. You can foresee many of the questions you will get by simply spending some time rereading your thesis.

Here are a few tips on how to prepare for your thesis defense:

You can absolutely prepare for most of the questions you will be asked. Read through your thesis and while you're reading it, create a list of possible questions. In addition, since you will know who will be on the committee, look at the academic expertise of the committee members. In what areas would they most likely be focused?

If possible, sit at other thesis defenses with these committee members to get a feel for how they ask and what they ask. As a graduate student, you should generally be adept at anticipating test questions, so use this advantage to gather as much information as possible before your thesis defense meeting.

Your thesis defense is a formal event, often the entire department or university is invited to participate. It signals a critical rite of passage for graduate students and faculty who have supported them throughout a long and challenging process.

While most universities don't have specific rules on how to dress for that event, do regard it with dignity and respect. This one might be a no-brainer, but know that you should dress as if you were on a job interview or delivering a paper at a conference.

It might help you deal with your stress before your thesis defense to entrust someone with the smaller but important responsibilities of your defense well ahead of schedule. This trusted person could be responsible for:

• preparing the room of the day of defense
• setting up equipment for the presentation
• preparing and distributing handouts

Technology is unpredictable. Life is too. There are no guarantees that your Powerpoint presentation will work at all or look the way it is supposed to on the big screen. We've all been there. Make sure to have a plan B for these situations. Handouts can help when technology fails, and an additional clean shirt can save the day if you have a spill.

One of the scariest aspects of the defense is the possibility of being asked a question you can't answer. While you can prepare for some questions, you can never know exactly what the committee will ask.

There will always be gaps in your knowledge. But your thesis defense is not about being perfect and knowing everything, it's about how you deal with challenging situations. You are not expected to know everything.

James Hayton writes on his blog that examiners will sometimes even ask questions they don't know the answer to, out of curiosity, or because they want to see how you think. While it is ok sometimes to just say "I don't know", he advises to try something like "I don't know, but I would think [...] because of x and y, but you would need to do [...] in order to find out.” This shows that you have the ability to think as an academic.

You will be nervous. But your examiners will expect you to be nervous. Being well prepared can help minimize your stress, but do know that your examiners have seen this many times before and are willing to help, by repeating questions, for example. Dora Farkas at finishyourthesis.com notes that it’s a myth that thesis committees are out to get you.

Two common symptoms of being nervous are talking really fast and nervous laughs. Try to slow yourself down and take a deep breath. Remember what feels like hours to you are just a few seconds in real life.

• Try meditational breathing right before your defense.
• Get plenty of exercise and sleep in the weeks prior to your defense.
• Have your clothes or other items you need ready to go the night before.
• During your defense, allow yourself to process each question before answering.
• Go to dinner with friends and family, or to a fun activity like mini-golf, after your defense.

Allow yourself to process each question, respond to it, and stop talking once you have responded. While a smile can often help dissolve a difficult situation, remember that nervous laughs can be irritating for your audience.

We all make mistakes and your thesis defense will not be perfect. However, careful preparation, mindfulness, and confidence can help you feel less stressful both before, and during, your defense.

Finally, consider planning something fun that you can look forward to after your defense.

It is completely normal to be nervous. Being well prepared can help minimize your stress, but do know that your examiners have seen this many times before and are willing to help, by repeating questions for example if needed. Slow yourself down, and take a deep breath.

Your thesis defense is not about being perfect and knowing everything, it's about how you deal with challenging situations. James Hayton writes on his blog that it is ok sometimes to just say "I don't know", but he advises to try something like "I don't know, but I would think [...] because of x and y, you would need to do [...] in order to find out".

Your Powerpoint presentation can get stuck or not look the way it is supposed to do on the big screen. It can happen and your supervisors know it. In general, handouts can always save the day when technology fails.

• Dress for success.
• Ask for help setting up.
• Have a backup plan (in case technology fails you).
• Deal with your nerves.

PhD Dissertation Defense Slides Design: Example slides

• Tips for designing the slides
• Presentation checklist
• Example slides
• Additional Resources

Acknowledgments

Thank all ph.d.s for sharing their presentations. if you are interested in sharing your slides, please contact julie chen ([email protected])., civil and environmental engineering.

• Carl Malings (2017)
• Irem Velibeyoglu (2018)
• Chelsea Kolb (2018)
• I. Daniel Posen (2016)
• Kerim Dickson (2018)
• Lauren M. Cook (2018)
• Xiaoju Chen (2017)
• Wei Ma (2019)
• Miranda Gorman (2019)
• Tim Bartholomew (2019)
• << Previous: Presentation checklist
• Next: Additional Resources >>
• Last Updated: Jan 9, 2024 11:18 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.cmu.edu/c.php?g=883178

Ten Tips for Surviving your PhD Defense

• May 1, 2014
• evalantsoght_uw8lmy
• Uncategorized

These previous posts were mostly written from my point of view, and tied very closely to my personal experience during the preparation for my defense and the Big Day itself.

Now that it’s almost been a year since my defense, and the whole experience has been digested and thought over, I want to give something of more general value (or at least, that’s what I hope).

Here is my list of ten tips for the defense, regardless of your field.

1. Know your committee

If you have not had the chance to meet your committee members before the defense, then at least read up on their latest work, and use this knowledge to get an idea of what type of questions you can expect from them. If possible, ask some people who had your committee members for their defense to see how they behave during the defense. Do they like quizzing you on general knowledge about your research field, do they like to go into the nitty-gritty of your research, do they care more about the broader societal impact?

2. Know your assumptions and limitations of your conclusions

It’s very unlikely that your PhD thesis is the Holy Grail, the Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything (well, we know that is 42), or the Theory that Replaces All Previous Theories. So, revise the assumptions that you made in your analysis parts. Know the limitations of the assumptions, and prepare for questions that might be just out of the scope of your assumptions (and have an idea of what to do when your assumptions are not valid).

3. Bring something visual

Bring something to show – this could be a scale model of your experiment, a simple “experiment” to demonstrate a basic principle that you used, copies of important papers on which you based your work to put on the projector, some additional graphs,… If you got an idea from the meetings with your committee members what they might ask (something that is maybe missing in your dissertation), then work through that problem and bring it along with you to show them.

4. Prepare for questions that are right at the edge of your work

One of my colleagues told me the following: “Your committee members are going to look at the periphery of your work, and tie that to something they have been working on (and find the intersection between your respective fields of expertise), and from there they will try to pull you out of your circle of comfort and into their own circle. That’s where the dangerous questions come from.” Absolutely true.

5. Trust yourself

Come on, you’ve come so far as to actually defend your thesis, and by now you are the big expert in your (tiny) field of expertise. You’ve been working on this dissertation for 3 to 4 years, and unless you were playing Farmville or Angry Birds all the time, you should know this stuff by heart.

6. Brush up on your literature knowledge

When did you write your literature review? Chances are, you wrote that maybe 2 years ago. In those 2 years, a whole slew of new papers have been published. Try to identify the most important papers of the last year, read up on the latest developments, and -if possible- attend a few conferences to know what is hot at the moment and what new research folks are working on. Be ready to show your committee members that you know what is going on.

7. Know your schedule for the Big Day

Know who has to be where at which time, and communicate this to all parties involved (promotor, committee members, paranymphs, friends, families and fans). Since I’m a bit obsessed with planning, and because I had a nightmare a few weeks before the defense that my promotor forgot about my defense and arrive too late, I had my itinerary for the day very well planned out, and I repeated to everybody ad nauseum where they were expected to be and at what time.

8. Eat well

And now for the Granny Eva advice: eat your veggies in the days before the defense for great energy. Right before the defense, it depends on you personally. I think I ate some bread with cheese to avoid being so hungry that I’d want to eat my committee or faint during the defense. Just avoid that food becomes a worry (right) before your defense. Oh, and of course, don’t drink yourself into stupor the night before, thinking that it might help you relax.

9. Get enough sleep

Zzzzzzs are good for your brain, so try to relax the afternoon and evening before your defense. I tend to get nervous and unable to sleep before big events, but I did all my magic tricks to make sure I’d sleep well the night before my defense (I washed my hair -for some reason I sleep better with wet hair and believe that fresh hair brings me good luck (don’t ask)-, I spent some time reading a novel on my bed with my husband and cat by my side, I had everything packed up and ready for the next day,…) and I actually really slept very well and woke up feeling rested and refreshed (and nervous, of course).

10. Enjoy your big day

You’re only defending once in your life, so enjoy it. Most likely, all your friends and family will be coming out to see the event and then celebrate with you – so except for big birthday bashes and weddings, you don’t often get the chance to get all your loved ones together. You’re going to be in the center of attention for a day, so bask in the light!

These are my best tips for the PhD defense. What worked well for you? Let me know in the comments below!

Time for writing a dissertation

Some PhD students wait until the very end of their…

Q&A: Binaural Beats

For a reason I am not aware of, this post…

Blogging as a means to tackle publication bias?

Today, I was watching the following talk on publication bias:http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swfMany…

great post its really useful to us

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• previous post: Writers’ Lab: Five Steps to Completing your First Draft – the Academic Writing Edition
• next post: Why consuming sugar is a bad idea
• Research and Publications
• Guest Posts

Free Templates for your Research

Sign up here to get access to worksheets for your research that help you have more efficient meetings, reflect on your work, and plan your month. Suitable for anyone from Master’s thesis students to full professors!

• Utility Menu

Psychology Graduate Program

• Psychology Department
• Dissertation & Defense

The doctoral dissertation is the culmination of scholarly work in graduate school. Every PhD candidate in the Harvard Griffin Graduate School of Arts and Sciences is required to successfully complete and submit a dissertation to qualify for degree conferral. The dissertation must be submitted in one of two formats.  

• The traditional format is described in detail here .
• Three articles describing original empirical research that the dissertation committee deems “of publishable quality.”  The student must be the first author on each paper  or obtain approval from their committee to include papers for which they are not the first author . At least one of the three papers must be under review, in press, or published in a peer-reviewed journal. 
• An introductory chapter that thoroughly reviews the literature relevant to the three papers.
• A concluding chapter that describes what was learned from the three papers.

Post-prospectus changes :  If students would like to make substantive changes to the content and/or format of the dissertation after prospectus approval, they must revise their prospectus and obtain approval of the revised version from all committee members. Another meeting of the prospectus committee may be required if the changes are substantial.

If students would like to make changes to the composition of their dissertation committee after prospectus approval, they must obtain 1) approval from the primary advisor/ committee chair to make the change, 2) approval from the DGS by submitting their revised committee using this form , and 3) approval of the prospectus by any new committee member(s). If the new member doesn't approve of the prospectus as written, the prospectus may need to be revised. If the revisions are substantial, students may need to have another full prospectus meeting to ensure the revised version of the prospectus is approved by every member of the committee.  

Dissertation Advisory Committee:   The Dissertation Advisory Committee (DAC) is comprised of the three members of the prospectus committee. Students also have the option to add one or more committee members who were not a member of the prospectus committee. The GSAS DAC guidelines can be found here . DACs must be approved by the DGS. If there are post-prospectus changes or additions to the DAC, students should submit your new committee for review using this form at least two weeks before submitting the dissertation to your committee. Students will need to submit a CV for any requested non-Harvard committee members.   

Dissertation Approval:   The dissertation must be approved by the student’s advisor before it is submitted to the dissertation advisory committee. After the student sends the dissertation to the committee, they will have three weeks to read and assess the work. Each committee member should complete a  Dissertation Approval Form  and return it to the student and Graduate Office within three weeks. 

The committee members will receive an evaluation form, where they select among these options:

• Not acceptable in current form and cannot be corrected without major revisions and consultation of committee.
• Needs considerable revision, to be seen by me again. Needs committee consultation: [yes/no]
• Is acceptable with a few minor revisions, to be seen by me again.
• Is acceptable with voluntary minor revisions.
• Is acceptable as is.

If substantive revisions are required, the student will need to respond to these revisions, distribute a revised version to the committee, and the committee will have two more weeks to read and assess the revised version. All committee members must approve "as is" or "with voluntary minor revisions" before the defense can proceed.  

Dissertation Defense Date: Students are responsible for coordinating the schedule for their dissertation defense date. Due to the difficulty of coordinating schedules for several faculty, students are encouraged to find a mutually agreeable tentative date and time (we recommend a 2-hour duration) for the defense and ask committee members to pencil it in. However, it is crucial to recognize that this date will be confirmed only when the student has received approval from all members of their committee. In addition, the department must advertise the defense for two weeks before the date it can be held. Therefore, we strongly recommend the dissertation be submitted to the committee ten weeks before tentative defense date to accommodate time for rounds of revisions. The date will be pushed back if the student has not received approval from all members. 

Defenses can take place at any point in the year, as long as the committee agrees to convene. However, note there are deadlines to complete the defense in time for November, February, and May degree conferrals. The Department recommends that the defense be held at least 1-2 weeks prior to the dissertation submission deadline for that degree period. Deadlines for the current year can be found online on the  Harvard Griffin GSAS Degree Calendar .

To submit: Email your dissertation as a single Word Doc or PDF file (or both) to your committee, cc’ing the Graduate Program. The Graduate Program will follow up on this email by distributing the Dissertation Approval Form .  

Oral Defense:   Once the dissertation committee has approved the written dissertation, the student should book a room for the defense and send an abstract to the Graduate Office, which will announce the defense to the Department. WJH 1550 and 105, and NW 243 are the most common choices for a room. Students should submit a room request through FAS RoomBook . Committee members may participate remotely via Zoom, if necessary.  The Department does not have a budget to fly in committee members from other institutions, although students should consult with their individual advisors to determine whether they would cover travel costs. A parking pass can be provided for committee members at nearby institutions.

The oral examination is moderated by the student's advisor, who is the DAC Chair. The advisor will introduce the student. The student gives a formal presentation summarizing their dissertation work. The duration of this presentation varies by area; please check in with your advisor to confirm. Next, each committee member will take turns asking questions (this is what is referred to as the ‘defense’). If there is time, the advisor may invite questions from the audience. At the conclusion of the questions, the candidate and audience are dismissed, and the committee meets to make a final evaluation of the student’s candidacy for a Ph.D. In cases of a positive evaluation, the committee members sign the Thesis Acceptance Certificate . 

Thesis Acceptance Certificate (TAC):   Students must complete a thesis acceptance certificate (TAC), which includes the title of the dissertation and signatures of all committee members. Prior to the oral defense, the Graduate Office will prepare a TAC, which includes the title of the dissertation, student name, and signature lines for each committee member The title on the TAC must read exactly as it does on the title page of the dissertation. A copy of the signed TAC should appear before the title page of the online dissertation submission; no page number should be assigned to the TAC. The TAC will be included in all copies of the dissertation.  

Final Dissertation Submission to GSAS:   Following the successful oral defense, students must submit their dissertation in PDF format to the FAS Registrar’s Office through  ProQuest ETD by the deadline established for each degree conferral date (see the Harvard Griffin GSAS  Degree Calendar  or the  Registrar’s Office website ). Please carefully review the  dissertation formatting  before submitting online. Formatting errors may prevent students from receiving their degree. The TAC must additionally be uploaded as a separate "Administrative Document" when submitting the electronic dissertation. The Registrar’s Office will review the dissertation for compliance and will contact the student to confirm acceptance or to request alterations. More details on the dissertation submission process can be found here .

• Required Courses
• First Year Project
• Second Year Project
• Master's in Passing
• Graduating & Commencement

Department of English

Best practices: dissertation and defense.

After you have received approval for your post-quals prospectus by your committee, you proceed to research, write, and refine your dissertation, using your approved prospectus as a blueprint for this stage. Your finished dissertation, along with its oral defense, is the final part of your requirements for the PhD degree.

The dissertation defense routing form , has been developed to clarify the program's expectations for you, the committee, the dissertation, and the defense.

The dissertation planning worksheet has also been developed to help you plan and write your dissertation proposal. 

Committee Communications

The TCR program generally expects that the entire committee will work closely with you during your preparation for the qualifying exam and the subsequent period of developing a solid dissertation proposal.

After the proposal has been accepted by the entire committee, the next stage of work will generally involve you and your chair, with periodic progress reports to the entire committee. Every committee may set up its own rules for progress reports, the sharing of text, and communication channels, but the default position of the program is that you and your chair work closely to transition from the post-quals proposal to finished dissertation prose. Further, the faculty expect to receive the first two or three finished chapters midway between quals and the defense as a way of ensuring that the work is progressing according to the proposal. Committee practices may vary, but we generally agree that early approval of the first three chapters helps keep the project on track. For many committees, these chapters include the introduction, literature review, and methods, that is, material that deals with the nature and scope of the project itself, your coverage of the foundations in the pertinent scholarship, and your research methods. Other types of dissertations may proceed in different ways, of course; you should discuss the order of submissions with your committee.

You should plan on submitting brief progress reports to your committee at least every semester, identifying work completed, changes made, proposed changes to the proposal, and work remaining. Be sure to set up good protocols for archiving and version control. Many of the TCR faculty spend hours providing feedback to better your dissertation; please make sure to deal with every comment made before sending in another version. If a committee member feels that his or her earlier comments were not yet dealt with, he or she can refuse to review again until they are.

For the faculty's part, you may expect us to respond to your polished prose within four weeks. Many times, we will be able to read and comment more quickly, of course, but you should factor faculty workload into your expectations for progress.

One of the main reasons for the development of the dissertation routing form  [pdf] is to reaffirm a philosophy about scheduling defenses. It is not acceptable to "plant your flag" on a particular semester of graduation, and then insist that the faculty meet your calendar of deadlines. Doing so creates incredible pressure on both the student and the committee, and almost always results in a weak and unfinished dissertation, not to mention a sometimes contentious defense. To clarify the process, your faculty have written this document to lay out the steps and timing of the dissertation defense. You'll graduate when you are finished with the outlined steps.

These expectations are represented in the dissertation defense routing sheet. As you complete a stage, collect a signature, or check a box, please submit an electronic copy to your committee and the Director of Graduate Studies so that we can all be on the same page (literally). When you have secured your committee's approval of a defensible draft, then you may schedule a date and a room for your defense. Please note: From the time you have finished your dissertation draft, which is as complete and proofread as you know how to make your dissertation, it is 3 months to your defense date. The chair gets four weeks with the dissertation defense draft, the committee receives another four weeks, and when the entire committee says you are ready to defend (at the end of these eight weeks), you can schedule a defense four weeks in the future. There may still be revisions after the defense, too, so keep that in mind when hoping to graduate in a certain semester.

Quality and Completeness of Work

When you submit work to your chair, and when you and your chair are ready to send that work to the rest of the committee, we expect that work to be polished. We expect it to be well-argued, proofread, grammatically and structurally correct, and free from spelling errors. We expect the formatting to be consistent, with page numbers, appendices and other back matter included. Work that needs basic editing will be returned--that's your job, not the committee's. Committee members will send the chapter back if it's full of typos and other basic problems.

What is a defensible draft of a dissertation ? It is all of the above, consistently applied across the entire dissertation. It is as close to a finished document as you are able to produce, understanding that the defense may raise questions that will need to be addressed before the dissertation is finally approved. You have finished everything you know that needs to be done, including completed front matter, bibliography, and appendices.There are no comments about "to be inserted," no missing references. It is as perfect as you alone can make it. The only changes that remain are those that the committee requests, and this may be little or much, depending on how well written the document is and how much of the document the committee has already seen. This is the way academic publishing works for everyone--we produce our best work, submit it to peer review, and make changes to satisfy the reviewers (who represent the values of the field) until the work is deemed finished. The same principle holds for you and your dissertation.

By submitting the advisor-approved dissertation draft to your committee two months before your defense, both you and your committee will experience a productive (and enjoyable) defense that focuses on your ideas, research, process, and significance, rather than dwelling on structure, confusion, and errors. Plus, you will have that month before the defense to incorporate their comments, which means less work for you after the defense.

A good starting point for thinking about the defense is the Graduate School's " Doctoral Oral Defense Guidelines ." Please expect to adhere to these guidelines.

As you can see from the Graduate School's guidelines, the oral defense is an examination, and you should arrive prepared to discuss your dissertation, methods, findings, and significance. The defense is a thorough interrogation of your methods, theories, and findings, and it calls for serious deliberation and a vote by the committee at the end of the exam.

In order to proceed to the examination, we request that you keep your initial remarks brief. In the past, some students have consumed more than 45 minutes, and this length makes it impossible for faculty to participate fully in a thorough exam. Different committees have different expectations, but 20-25 minutes is more than enough time to both refresh the committee's memory and also to introduce the visitors in the room to the exigence of the problem, your research question, your approach, and your findings. In other words, these "introductory remarks" are not a comprehensive lecture, but rather contextualizing remarks to kick off the exam. Please restrict yourself to a short presentation, then sit down for the defense.

You must bring the printed defense copy of your dissertation with you. It should be the same copy the committee received 8 weeks previous, so that the committee can ask you questions about specific sections and pages. When asked a question about your method for generating the figure on page 145, for example, you will be able to turn to that page and answer specific questions.

It is also up to you to bring the signature form for your committee to sign. All relevant forms are available at the Graduate School's website , including dissertation templates.

We strongly encourage PhD candidates to come to Lubbock and be physically present with their committees and the public for their dissertation defenses. But if coming to Lubbock creates too much hardship on the student, and the student's dissertation committee agrees, then the committee can decide to allow the student to defend at a distance (e.g. via video conferencing technology). The committee's decision should be informed by the TTU Graduate School's " Doctoral Oral Defense Guidelines ," which remind us that "the examination is a public affair and the candidate should be prepared to defend his or her work before anyone who may question it."

For students defending from a distance, technological connections must be robust enough that students can explain, discuss, and defend dissertations in a manner equivalent with that of students who are physically present in the defense room.

If a defense is unable to proceed for any reason, the committee will require the student to postpone the defense, which may, in turn, delay graduation.

• Like Department of English on Facebook Like Department of English on Facebook
• Follow Department of English on X (twitter) Follow Department of English on X (twitter)
• Subscribe to Department of English on YouTube Subscribe to Department of English on YouTube
• Follow Department of English on Instagram Follow Department of English on Instagram

Get the Reddit app

A subreddit dedicated to PhDs.

I just attended my first defense, and I'm confused, to say the least

I'm a first year PhD student, and I attended my first defense today. It's fair to say I went into it with some preconceived notions, but it was nothing like I was expecting. I suppose reading this subreddit and talking to people I know who have completed their PhDs made it seem like the defense is a borderline cultic torture session, where you're just picked apart and put on the defensive for a couple hours to try and poke holes in your dissertation and make sure you actually know what you're talking about. I totally expected to witness a brutal grill session, and instead, it was literally just an hour long Powerpoint presentation that was super relaxed (I'd dare say borderline unprofessional, the student referring to everyone by first name, lots of laughing and joking from both the committee and the student). There were maybe 5 or 6 questions along the way, and I could have asked any of the questions myself, despite the dissertation being way outside my area of expertise, so I'd almost describe them as softballs, but not even. They were more like, clarifying questions. Am I missing something? Is there a super secret not open to the public version that takes place later? Was this just a fluke? I guess this whole time I have almost dreaded the defense, but after watching what I just watched, if that's all it is, is there really nothing to worry about?

By continuing, you agree to our User Agreement and acknowledge that you understand the Privacy Policy .

Enter the 6-digit code from your authenticator app

You’ve set up two-factor authentication for this account.

Enter a 6-digit backup code

Create your username and password.

Reddit is anonymous, so your username is what you’ll go by here. Choose wisely—because once you get a name, you can’t change it.

Reset your password

Enter your email address or username and we’ll send you a link to reset your password

Check your inbox

An email with a link to reset your password was sent to the email address associated with your account

Choose a Reddit account to continue

Want to Get your Dissertation Accepted?

Discover how we've helped doctoral students complete their dissertations and advance their academic careers!

Join 200+ Graduated Students

Get Your Dissertation Accepted On Your Next Submission

Get customized coaching for:.

• Crafting your proposal,
• Collecting and analyzing your data, or
• Preparing your defense.

Trapped in dissertation revisions?

How to write a literature review for a dissertation, published by steve tippins on july 5, 2019 july 5, 2019.

Last Updated on: 22nd May 2024, 04:06 am

Chapter 2 of your dissertation, your literature review, may be the longest chapter. It is not uncommon to see lit reviews in the 40- to 60-page range. That may seem daunting, but I contend that the literature review could be the easiest part of your dissertation.

It is also foundational. To be able to select an appropriate research topic and craft expert research questions, you’ll need to know what has already been discovered and what mysteries remain. 

Remember, your degree is meant to indicate your achieving the highest level of expertise in your area of study. The lit review for your dissertation could very well form the foundation for your entire career.

In this article, I’ll give you detailed instructions for how to write the literature review of your dissertation without stress. I’ll also provide a sample outline.

When to Write the Literature Review for your Dissertation

Though technically Chapter 2 of your dissertation, many students write their literature review first. Why? Because having a solid foundation in the research informs the way you write Chapter 1.

Also, when writing Chapter 1, you’ll need to become familiar with the literature anyway. It only makes sense to write down what you learn to form the start of your lit review.

Some institutions even encourage students to write Chapter 2 first. But it’s important to talk with your Chair to see what he or she recommends.

How Long Should a Literature Review Be?

There is no set length for a literature review. The length largely depends on your area of study. However, I have found that most literature reviews are between 40-60 pages.

If your literature review is significantly shorter than that, ask yourself (a) if there is other relevant research that you have not explored, or (b) if you have provided enough of a discussion about the information you did explore.

Preparing to Write the Literature Review for your Dissertation

Step 1. Search Using Key Terms

Most people start their lit review searching appropriate databases using key terms. For example, if you’re researching the impact of social media on adult learning, some key terms you would use at the start of your search would be adult learning, androgogy, social media, and “learning and social media” together. 

If your topic was the impact of natural disasters on stock prices, then you would need to explore all types of natural disasters, other market factors that impact stock prices, and the methodologies used. 

You can save time by skimming the abstracts first; if the article is not what you thought it might be you can move on quickly.

Once you start finding articles using key terms, two different things will usually happen: you will find new key terms to search, and the articles will lead you directly to other articles related to what you are studying. It becomes like a snowball rolling downhill. 

Note that the vast majority of your sources should be articles from peer-reviewed journals. 

Step 2. Immerse Yourself in the Literature

When people ask what they should do first for their dissertation the most common answer is “immerse yourself in the literature.” What exactly does this mean?

Think of this stage as a trip into the quiet heart of the forest. Your questions are at the center of this journey, and you’ll need to help your reader understand which trees — which particular theories, studies, and lines of reasoning — got you there. 

There are lots of trees in this particular forest, but there are particular trees that mark your path.  What makes them unique? What about J’s methodology made you choose that study over Y’s? How did B’s argument triumph over A’s, thus leading you to C’s theory? 

You are showing your reader that you’ve fully explored the forest of your topic and chosen this particular path, leading to these particular questions (your research questions), for these particular reasons.

Step 3. Consider Gaps in the Research

The gaps in the research are where current knowledge ends and your study begins. In order to build a case for doing your study, you must demonstrate that it:

• Is worthy of doctoral-level research, and
• Has not already been studied

Defining the gaps in the literature should help accomplish both aims. Identifying studies on related topics helps make the case that your study is relevant, since other researchers have conducted related studies.

And showing where they fall short will help make the case that your study is the appropriate next step. Pay special attention to the recommendations for further research that the authors of studies make.

Step 4. Organize What You Find

As you find articles, you will have to come up with methods to organize what you find. 

Whether you find a computer-based system (three popular systems are Zotero, endNote, and Mendeley) or some sort of manual system such as index cards, you need to devise a method where you can easily group your references by subject and methodology and find what you are looking for when you need it. It is very frustrating to know you have found an article that supports a point that you are trying to make, but you can’t find the article!

One way to save time and keep things organized is to cut and paste relevant quotations (and their references) under topic headings. You’ll be able to rearrange and do some paraphrasing later, but if you’ve got the quotations and the citations that are important to you already embedded in your text, you’ll have an easier time of it.  

If you choose this method, be sure to list the whole reference on the reference/bibliography page so you don’t have to do this page separately later. Some students use Scrivener for this purpose, as it offers a clear way to view and easily navigate to all sections of a written document.

Need help with your literature review? Take a look at my dissertation coaching and dissertation editing services.

How to Write the Literature Review for your Dissertation

Once you have gathered a sufficient number of pertinent references, you’ll need to string them together in a way that tells your story. Explain what previous researchers have done by telling the story of how knowledge on this topic has evolved. Here, you are laying the support for your topic and showing that your research questions need to be answered. Let’s dive into how to actually write your dissertation’s literature review.

Step 1. Create an Outline

If you’ve created a system for keeping track of the sources you’ve found, you likely already have the bones of an outline. Even if not, it may be relatively easy to see how to organize it all. The main thing to remember is, keep it simple and don’t overthink it. There are several ways to organize your dissertation’s literature review, and I’ll discuss some of the most common below:

• By topic. This is by far the most common approach, and it’s the one I recommend unless there’s a clear reason to do otherwise. Topics are things like servant leadership, transformational leadership, employee retention, organizational knowledge, etc. Organizing by topic is fairly simple and it makes sense to the reader.
• Chronologically. In some cases, it makes sense to tell the story of how knowledge and thought on a given subject have evolved. In this case, sub-sections may indicate important advances or contributions. 
• By methodology. Some students organize their literature review by the methodology of the studies. This makes sense when conducting a mixed-methods study, and in cases where methodology is at the forefront.

Step 2. Write the Paragraphs 

I said earlier that I thought the lit review was the easiest part to write, and here is why. When you write about the findings of others, you can do it in small, discrete time periods. You go down the path awhile, then you rest. 

Once you have many small pieces written, you can then piece them together. You can write each piece without worrying about the flow of the chapter; that can all be done at the end when you put the jigsaw puzzle of references together.

Step 3. Analyze

The literature review is a demonstration of your ability to think critically about existing research and build meaningfully on it in your study. Avoid simply stating what other researchers said. Find the relationships between studies, note where researchers agree and disagree, and– especiallyy–relate it to your own study. 

Pay special attention to controversial issues, and don’t be afraid to give space to researchers who you disagree with. Including differing opinions will only strengthen the credibility of your study, as it demonstrates that you’re willing to consider all sides.

Step 4. Justify the Methodology

In addition to discussing studies related to your topic, include some background on the methodology you will be using. This is especially important if you are using a new or little-used methodology, as it may help get committee members onboard. 

I have seen several students get slowed down in the process trying to get committees to buy into the planned methodology. Providing references and samples of where the planned methodology has been used makes the job of the committee easier, and it will also help your reader trust the outcomes.

Advice for Writing Your Dissertation’s Literature Review

• Remember to relate each section back to your study (your Problem and Purpose statements).
• Discuss conflicting findings or theoretical positions. Avoid the temptation to only include research that you agree with.
• Sections should flow together, the way sections of a chapter in a nonfiction book do. They should relate to each other and relate back to the purpose of your study. Avoid making each section an island.
• Discuss how each study or theory relates to the others in that section.
• Avoid relying on direct quotes–you should demonstrate that you understand the study and can describe it accurately.

Sample Outline of a Literature Review (Dissertation Chapter 2)

Here is a sample outline, with some brief instructions. Note that your institution probably has specific requirements for the structure of your dissertation’s literature review. But to give you a general idea, I’ve provided a sample outline of a dissertation ’s literature review here.

• Introduction
• State the problem and the purpose of the study
• Give a brief synopsis of literature that establishes the relevance of the problem
• Very briefly summarize the major sections of your chapter

Documentation of Literature Search Strategy

• Include the library databases and search engines you used
• List the key terms you used
• Describe the scope (qualitative) or iterative process (quantitative). Explain why and based on what criteria you selected the articles you did.

Literature Review (this is the meat of the chapter)

• Sub-topic a
• Sub-topic b
• Sub-topic c

See below for an example of what this outline might look like.

How to Write a Literature Review for a Dissertation: An Example 

Let’s take an example that will make the organization, and the outline, a little bit more clear. Below, I’ll fill out the example outline based on the topics discussed.

If your questions have to do with the impact of the servant leadership style of management on employee retention, you may want to saunter down the path of servant leadership first, learning of its origins , its principles , its values , and its methods . 

You’ll note the different ways the style is employed based on different practitioners’ perspectives or circumstances and how studies have evaluated these differences. Researchers will draw conclusions that you’ll want to note, and these conclusions will lead you to your next questions. 

Next, you’ll want to wander into the territory of management styles to discover their impact on employee retention in general. Does management style really make a difference in employee retention, and if so, what factors, exactly, make this impact?

Employee retention is its own path, and you’ll discover factors, internal and external, that encourage people to stick with their jobs.

You’ll likely find paradoxes and contradictions in here that just bring up more questions. How do internal and external factors mix and match? How can employers influence both psychology and context ? Is it of benefit to try and do so?

At first, these three paths seem somewhat remote from one another, but your interest is where the three converge. Taking the lit review section by section like this before tying it all together will not only make it more manageable to write but will help you lead your reader down the same path you traveled, thereby increasing clarity. 

Example Outline

So the main sections of your literature review might look something like this:

• Literature Search Strategy
• Conceptual Framework or Theoretical Foundation
• Literature that supports your methodology
• Origins, principles, values
• Seminal research
• Current research
• Management Styles’ Impact on employee retention
• Internal Factors
• External Factors
• Influencing psychology and context
• Summary and Conclusion

Final Thoughts on Writing Your Dissertation’s Chapter 2

The lit review provides the foundation for your study and perhaps for your career. Spend time reading and getting lost in the literature. The “aha” moments will come where you see how everything fits together. 

At that point, it will just be a matter of clearly recording and tracing your path, keeping your references organized, and conveying clearly how your research questions are a natural evolution of previous work that has been done.

PS. If you’re struggling with your literature review, I can help. I offer dissertation coaching and editing services.

Steve Tippins

Steve Tippins, PhD, has thrived in academia for over thirty years. He continues to love teaching in addition to coaching recent PhD graduates as well as students writing their dissertations. Learn more about his dissertation coaching and career coaching services. Book a Free Consultation with Steve Tippins

Related Posts

Dissertation

Dissertation memes.

Sometimes you can’t dissertate anymore and you just need to meme. Don’t worry, I’ve got you. Here are some of my favorite dissertation memes that I’ve seen lately. My Favorite Dissertation Memes For when you Read more…

Surviving Post Dissertation Stress Disorder

The process of earning a doctorate can be long and stressful – and for some people, it can even be traumatic. This may be hard for those who haven’t been through a doctoral program to Read more…

PhD by Publication

PhD by publication, also known as “PhD by portfolio” or “PhD by published works,” is a relatively new route to completing your dissertation requirements for your doctoral degree. In the traditional dissertation route, you have Read more…

Wrestling an elephant into a cupboard: how to write a PhD literature review in nine easy steps

Feb 10, 2019

When I was writing my PhD I hated the literature review. I was scared of it. One day, my supervisor took me to one side and told me that I had no choice: ‘It was going to have to be done before you start fieldwork’. I was terrified.

Sound familiar? According to Google, 5,000 people a month search for advice on how to conduct a literature review. And we know from the one-on-one PhD coaching we offer and from the theses we proofread that many students struggle with this part of their thesis. 

If you’re feeling lost, keep reading. In this guide, I’ll walk you through the nine steps involved in conducting and writing a PhD literature review.

You’ll realise what I eventually found out: C onducting a literature review is easy. Okay, perhaps that’s a bit much. Let me rephrase: Conducting a PhD literature review isn’t as hard as you think.

What a PhD literature review isn’t

Let us make one thing very clear. A PhD literature review isn’t just a summary of existing literature. That’s an annotated bibliography and that isn’t what a PhD literature review is about. This is the mistake I see most frequently in the PhDs I proofread.

Not only will your examiners send this back for corrections, but it may mean the whole PhD thesis is problematic because it isn’t grounded in a critical review of the literature.

What a PhD literature review is

A PhD literature review is a critical assessment of the literature in your field and related to your specific research topic. When discussing each relevant piece of literature, the review must highlight where the gaps are and what the strengths and weaknesses are of particular studies, papers, books, etc. Also, different pieces of literature are compared and contrasted with one another so that themes and relationships are highlighted.

The job of a literature review is to show five things (if you’re using our PhD Writing Template , you may recognise these):

1. What has been written on your topic 2. Who the key authors are and what the key works are 3. The main theories and hypotheses 4. The main themes that exist in the literature 5. Gaps and weaknesses that your study will then help fill

Who cares what other people have written and said, or what they haven’t said? Well, you should and your examiners definitely will. For your own study to make sense, it has to be situated in the literature. That means you must relate it to what others are talking about.

If you wanted to build a new mobile phone, you would have to research how other mobile phones are built, find out where they can be improved and then design one that makes those improvements.

The literature review is the same.

But where do I start? Here, we list nine steps. Follow each and you’ll be on your way to literature review greatness.

We’ve made the infographic below to help you on your way. Click the image to download it.

Step One: Pick a Broad Topic

You will be reviewing literature on a particular topic, so knowing what your topic is beforehand means you can narrow down your search. At this stage your topic is broad. You won’t be able to know the specifics until you do the review itself.

For my PhD, which looked at the contributions that local government made to climate change policy, my literature review started with a broad topic of ‘climate change policy’. I didn’t focus in on local government until I had read the literature on climate change policy and realized there was a gap.

So, having a clearly defined purpose is really important. Otherwise you are searching blind. If you refer to your PhD Writing Template, take a look at the box titled ‘Aims & Objectives’ – you’ll need to make sure you have established your aims, scope and research questions.

Step Two: Find the Way In

If you search for your broad topic in Google Scholar, you’ll be presented with millions of results. With my own PhD, a search for ‘climate change policy’ bought up over 3 million results.

  Obviously it’s unfeasible to read through all these.

So where do you start? Easy: choose the biggest names in your field.

There are three ways to find these:

1. Textbooks 2. Review articles 3. Most-cited articles

Read through these seminal texts and you’ll begin to get an idea of the broad topic.

Step Three: Who’s Saying What & When

Your job at this stage is to find out the key debates in the field. 

• Who is making the most significant contribution?
• What are they saying?
• How are they saying it?
• What aren’t they saying?

Step Four: Notes, Notes, Notes.

Whenever you read anything you should be taking notes. Detailed notes. These need to cover the following points: 

• What is the author saying?
• How is it relevant to your research?
• What are the gaps/weaknesses?
• What are the key references that you should read?

The more of these kind of standardised notes you have, the easier it will be when you write your literature review.

Step Five: Narrow Down the Field

As you read the key texts, you will begin to see what the key debates are in your field. There might be a number of ’schools’, for example. When you become aware of them, start to focus your literature review around them.

Step Six: Filter Through Your Growing List of References

Don’t just read everything. You need to find a way to filter through the articles or books that are relevant. For example, scan the abstracts, introduction, keywords, titles and references.

Filter the sources you come across into three separate categories:

• Probably won’t read

Step Seven: Use Snowball Sampling

As you read through these articles, look at their reference list. Collect articles that you think will be relevant and use them in your literature review. This is known as snowball sampling.

Step Eight: Think About the Questions that Haven’t Been Asked

You must be reading critically, which means asking what the weaknesses are and where particular articles or book could be improved.

In order to tease out your own specific research topic, you need to think of the questions that haven’t been asked.

Master your lit review & theory framework.

Learn what goes where (and why), and how it all fit together with this free, interactive guide to the PhD literature review and theory framework.

Step Nine: Writing Up Your Literature Review

  The review will broadly follow the key debates you have spotted in step five above. As you write, focus on putting in more detail about particular sources (i.e. flesh out steps six and seven). The focus when writing is to elaborate upon the key patterns and themes that have emerged.

However, you need to include your own synthesis of the material. I said earlier that you shouldn’t just summarize the literature. Instead you should write critically. You should clearly and precisely present your argument. The argument will focus around the questions that haven’t been asked – step nine above – and will ground the literature review. We’ve written a guide to being critical in your literature review . You should read it if you’re unsure what’s required.

So, write early and write that first draft quickly. The earlier you start writing your literature review the better. You must accept that your first draft is going to be just that: a draft. When you write the first draft, focus on the broad structure first. This means focus on the broad themes you want to discuss in the review.

Something you need to consider is how to structure the chapter. The simple answer is that you can either structure it chronologically or thematically.

The long answer is that chronological literature reviews are restrictive and over-simplify the field. They are useful for very early drafts of the review and can help you to arrange the literature and trace threads and connections within it. However, your supervisors and examiners are looking for thematic reviews (unless they have told you otherwise), where you discuss the literature with reference to the themes that have emerged.

Equally important is knowing when to stop reviewing the literature.

The sooner you go out and do your fieldwork, the better. The literature review is a cruel mistress; you’ll struggle to fully nail down its various components and fully understand how everything you have read is related. But don’t despair; aspects of the literature review will become clearer when you enter the field and start to collect data.

Don’t fall into the trap of spending too long in the library and too little time doing fieldwork.

  It’s natural to be scared of the literature review. To conduct one, you have to read, process and synthesise hundreds of thousands of words. But it’s not impossible. Keep this guide to hand and refer to it when you feel yourself getting lost. Share it with your colleagues so they too can conquer their fear of the literature review.

Now read our guide to being critical in the literature review and, if you haven’t already, download our PhD writing template .

And if you need a little extra support, check out our one-on-one PhD coaching . It’s like having a personal trainer, but for your PhD. 

Hello, Doctor…

Sounds good, doesn’t it?  Be able to call yourself Doctor sooner with our five-star rated How to Write A PhD email-course. Learn everything your supervisor should have taught you about planning and completing a PhD.

Now half price. Join hundreds of other students and become a better thesis writer, or your money back. 

Share this:

24 comments.

Good. Clear guidance

I have read the guidelines and noted numerous tricks of writing a thesis. My understanding of writing literature review has improved a lot. Thanks a lot

You’re welcome :)

Another Great piece.

It’s understandable and clearer now. I do appreciate you. Thanks so much

Many thanks for the kind words.

You are just brilliant. Outstanding piece for the literature review.

You’re too kind. Thanks!

Great insights! Thanks indeed.

Thank you very much for your clear advice. I am beginning to see where my early literature review drafts were lacking and my feelings of panic are reducing!

is the process the same a research paper?

Broadly speaking, yes. It’ll follow the same overall structure, but you won’t be going into as much detail.

This is very helpful. Thank you so much for sharing

Great advice. Thank you!

You’re welcome!

Thank you for this! I’m a first-year Ph.D. candidate, and I’m super nervous about writing my first literature review. I’ll be sure to use this for some more insight!

Thanks for the kind words. You’re welcome to join us on a PhD Masterclass. We’re currently putting together the Spring 24 calendar and we always run literature review sessions. You can bookmark this page to be the first to hear when our new programme is ready for bookings: https://www.thephdproofreaders.com/phd-workshops/

I cannot tell you how much more concise this makes everything for my ADHD brain. Thank you!

I’m so glad. Thanks for the kind words Kimberly.

I’m staring down the barrel of my literature review and this article made it much clearer what I’m trying to accomplish and actually feel more doable. Thank you!

You’re welcome. I’m glad it helped. Best of luck with it. If you need any support you can get me at max[at]thephdproofreaders.com

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search The PhD Knowledge Base

Most popular articles from the phd knowlege base.

The PhD Knowledge Base Categories

• Your PhD and Covid
• Mastering your theory and literature review chapters
• How to structure and write every chapter of the PhD
• How to stay motivated and productive
• Techniques to improve your writing and fluency
• Advice on maintaining good mental health
• Resources designed for non-native English speakers
• PhD Writing Template
• Explore our back-catalogue of motivational advice

Dr-Qais.Com

Sharing ideas, helping people.., how to evaluate literature review in phd proposal defense, august 26, 2020 dr-qais.com.

How To Evaluate Literature Review In PhD Proposal Defense: Series 3

Review of the literature is the life cycle of every proposal. Literature review connotes a systematic account of documented literature by qualified and accredited scholars and researchers. When writing review of the literature you must show to your examiners and readers that what knowledge has been documented about your problem statement and what knowledge has not been documented yet so that you are about to document it. Your piece of literature must speak loud and clear about your research objectives, questions and your problem statement. As thus, your literature review should define and strengthen your research. It should not be a long list of bibliographic references or a summary of rearticulated materials to persuade your readers.

When evaluating literature review in PhD proposal defense, you must ask yourself:

Does the literature review discuss about authenticity of his problem statement? Does the literature review significantly support the severity of his problem statement? Does the researcher agree or disagree with existing knowledge, and why? Is his/her final judgment or conclusion is sound, logical and persuasive? Does the researcher find literatures that prove or disprove his problem statement?

Dr. Faryadi (FST)

Exploring perspectives: a scoping review of the challenges facing doctoral training in Africa

• Open access
• Published: 06 September 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Oluwatomilayo Omoya   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0545-5341 1 ,
• Udeme Samuel Jacob   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3234-8226 2 ,
• Olumide A. Odeyemi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6041-5027 3 &
• Omowale A. Odeyemi 4  

Given the growing demand to produce PhD holders in Africa, it is crucial to grasp the intricacies faced by PhD candidates. This review aimed to synthesise the existing studies that explore the perspectives of candidates pursuing or completing a PhD in Africa. In conjunction with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews, a scoping review guide developed by Arksey and O’Malley ( 2005 ) was used. Multiple databases were searched, including EBSCO Host, Scopus, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Medline (Ovid), and Google Scholar. Of the 51 articles that were retrieved, 12 were included in the review from various African countries. All articles were screened for quality before inclusion. The studies explored the types and characteristics of the included articles. The studies were descriptively mapped using qualitative content analysis, which revealed five themes: the sociodemographic profile of the PhD candidates, funding, resources and training, supervision experiences, and coping mechanisms. There is evidence on sociodemographic characteristics, challenges posed by funding, inadequate resources, and supervisor–candidate relationships, the research addressing why African candidates are studying at a later age, gender-specific environmental and cultural barriers, and coping strategies used during candidature is comparatively limited. Consequently, further investigations in these areas are crucial to better support PhD candidates in Africa.

Similar content being viewed by others

Doctoral programmes in the nursing discipline: a scoping review

Scoping review about the professional integration of internationally educated health professionals.

Beyond the bedside: protocol for a scoping review exploring the experiences of non-practicing healthcare professionals within health professions education

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degrees are considered to be a high priority in many continents, including Africa because they contribute to research output, innovation, economic and scientific growth (Alabi & Mohammed, 2018 ; Akudolu & Adeyemo, 2018 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ; Molla & Cuthbert, 2016 ; ASSF, 2010 ). Furthermore, doctoral education is viewed as a driver for the strengthening of economic knowledge, and the development of capital driven by academia has been described as pivotal for the continent of Africa (ASSF, 2010 ; Bitzer & Matimbo, 2017 ; Lindtjørn et al., 2019 ; Molla & Cuthbert, 2016 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ). Academic capital is the knowledge gained at a higher level of education with ideas and creativity that informs societal, economic, and scientific growth (Asongu & Nwachukwu, 2018 ; Bitzer & Matimbo, 2017 ; Gurib-Fakim & Signe, 2022 ). However, study delays, longer completion times, high attrition rates, low research training capacity and productivity pose challenges that impair the contribution of academic knowledge (Molla & Cuthbert, 2016 ; Alabi & Mohammed, 2018 ; Akudolu & Adeyemo, 2018 ).

In Africa, there has been an increase in the recognition of the need for investment in research and innovation, driven by African-led researchers to provide relevant solutions that address challenges within Africa (HIRSA, 2019 ). Reports by the British Council in partnership with the German Academic Exchange Service study included reports from six African countries: Ethiopia, Kenya, Ghana, Nigeria, Senegal, and South Africa (Alabi & Mohammed, 2018 ; Akudolu & Adeyemo, 2018 ; Barasa & Omulando, 2018 ; Nega & Kassaye, 2018 ; Herman & Sehoole, 2018 ; Dimé, 2018 ). The report commissioned a study that surveyed research and doctoral training capacity in sub-Saharan Africa. Several challenges were common across these countries. One of these was the limited source of funding to sustain quality PhD training, which was reflected in the experiences of the PhD candidates. Reports have indicated that candidates are generally satisfied with their programmes, but improvements are required in terms of funding, research infrastructure, and supervision (Alabi & Mohammed, 2018 ; Akudolu & Adeyemo, 2018 ; Nega & Kassaye, 2018 ; Herman & Sehoole, 2018 ; Dimé, 2018 , Barasa & Omulando, 2018 ). Supervision was reported to lack quality, especially due to supervisor shortages, and at times, candidates worked with supervisors who were not necessarily interested in their area of focus (Akudolu & Adeyemo, 2018 ; Molla & Cuthbert, 2016 ; Nega & Kassaye, 2018 ). As such, this has an impact on the quality of education, research output, and the challenges experienced in PhD training within universities.

A PhD is challenging regardless of the setting. Within the context of Africa, it appears that most PhD candidates are a cohort who work within the industry even though collaboration between academia and industry in Africa is lacking, especially in PhD training, which tends to follow a traditional, discipline-focused approach (Akudolu & Adeyemo, 2018 ; Nyemba et al., 2021 ; Osiru et al., 2022 ; Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ). However, candidates may have to maintain full-time employment due to a lack of funding to support their PhD. Collaborations with international institutions are an important factor that has driven positive research output in some African countries (Herman & Sehoole, 2018 ), for example, South Africa has reported an increase in its research output due to strong international collaboration as well as national policies with strategic plans and visons (Gurib-Fakim & Signe, 2022 ; Herman & Sehoole, 2018 ). The number of PhD programmes available in some universities appears to have increased over the past decade, but several of these universities have noted low completion and high attrition rates (Barasa & Omulando, 2018 ; Dimé, 2018 ; Herman & Sehoole, 2018 ; Nega & Kassaye, 2018 ), for example, in Ethiopia, the completion rate has not consistently grown even though the number of programmes available has increased (Nega & Kassaye, 2018 ). Like Ethiopia, Kenya has a 5 to 50% attrition rate in its various institutions (Barasa & Omulando, 2018 ). At six Ghanaian universities, a total of 42,246 candidates were enrolled from 2012–2013, and only 65 of those candidates graduated (Alabi & Mohammed, 2018 ). These statistics show that intentional efforts are needed to address the challenges that doctoral candidates encounter.

Research output on a global level, from Africa currently occurs at a low rate of approximately 2%, indicating that Africa’s research capacity is lacking compared to that of other Western countries (Asongu & Nwachukwu, 2018 ; Gurib-Fakim & Signe, 2022 ). In addition, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) strategy for research in Africa has shown that improving global health and economic development is based on high-quality research and the best scientific evidence (WHO, 2012 ). While efficiency in research capacity and output in Africa has been identified as a priority, there are still gaps in education, health care, food insecurity, and skills. Thus, knowledge-driven by research outputs has been indicated to stimulate growth in various organisations and sectors (Whitworth et al., 2008 ; WHO, 2012 ). For growth to occur, the training of PhD candidates has been identified as a strategy to alleviate some of the poor outcomes in Africa’s health and economic development (Gurib-Fakim & Signe, 2022 ; Lindtjørn et al., 2019 ).

Efforts to boost Africa’s research abilities are being made by various organisations and government bodies. Studies have examined ways to strengthen Africa’s research capacity and its integration into policies (Bates et al., 2014 ; Dean et al., 2015 ; Mugabo et al., 2015 ). One of these studies suggests setting goals early, collaborative planning with diverse teams, assessing current capacity, making action plans, and evaluating progress until capacity is strengthened (Bates et al., 2014 ). Research collaboration with international organisations as an initiative to improve research capacity has been shown to benefit both sides (Dean et al., 2015 ). The Consortium for Advanced Research Training in Africa (CARTA) model is a key player in boosting research capacity. It focuses on restructuring and strengthening African Universities to produce skilled local scholars (Ezeh et al., 2010 , Balogun et al., 2021 ). Evaluations of the CARTA model show its significant impact on doctoral training, networking, equitable resource provision, research quality, and supervisory satisfaction (Christoplos et al., 2015 ; Balogun et al., 2021 ; Adedokun et al., 2014 ). Moreover, investments in informatics, bioinformatics, and data science training in Mali are enhancing research capacity in sub-Saharan Africa, fostering scientific innovation and knowledge dissemination (Shaffer et al., 2019 ).

The training of PhD candidates was largely identified as one of the major focus areas to strengthen research capacity (Balogun et al., 2021 ; Bates et al., 2014 . Mugabo et al., 2015 ; Fonn et al., 2016 ; Adedokun et al., 2014 ). In the training of PhD candidates, personalised development plans, quality assurance in PhD training, institutional polices, research facilities, and student well-being were often identified as gaps for needing improvement. Some of the common suggestions identified to address these gaps include improving internet access, providing dedicated office spaces for PhD candidates, training supervisors, and increasing the number of supervisors. Similarly, CARTA’s model of training PhD candidates emphasises collaboration to strengthen African universities’ research capacity and infrastructure.

Research examining the perspectives of doctoral students reveals that despite finding aspects of their programmes challenging, they also perceive them as valuable opportunities for personal growth and development (Nyarigoti, 2021 ; Sibomana, 2021 ). These challenges often serve as catalysts for growth and advancement. Successful doctoral students attribute their achievements to their confidence in tackling difficult tasks with determination. However, female doctoral students express encountering obstacles related to gender biases in both social and professional domains, hindering the fulfilment of their PhD aspirations. Additionally, African students relocating to other African countries for their PhDs report a unique experience of feeling like outsiders despite being in an African country (Herman & Meki Kombe, 2019 ). There is a need to understand more about the challenges faced by PhD and doctoral candidates in the African context. It is important to determine whether improvements have been made to further inform the research capacity and training of PhD candidates in Africa. Therefore, the aim of this scoping review was to map out the available literature on the challenges faced by PhD candidates in Africa to identify gaps and inform future research, policy, and practice.

A scoping review was undertaken to map out the current available literature on the experiences of PhD candidates in Africa. A scoping review protocol that guided the process is available as an open-access publication (Omoya et al., 2023 ). The proposed scoping review was conducted in accordance with Arksey and O’Malley’s ( 2005 ) six-step framework in conjunction with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews (Peters et al., 2020 ). The six-step framework includes the following steps: (1) developing the research question; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) selecting the study; (4) charting the data; (5) collating, summarising, and reporting results; and (6) consultations (not required in this review). The JBI approach to conducting and reporting scoping reviews and the meta-analyses extension checklist (Fig. S1 ) for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) are attached for consistency in reporting (Tricco et al., 2018 ).

Research question

The scoping review question was developed using the JBI population, concept, and context (PCC) mnemonic as well as the Arksey and O’Malley ( 2005 ) framework for identifying a research question. The research question was developed from the need to produce knowledge that informs the challenges facing doctoral training in African Universities. From this research question, the title of the review was structured to reflect the PCC mnemonics. For example, in the PCC mnemonic, P stands for the population, and in this review, these are the “PhD candidates”. C is a concept, that is the “challenges facing doctoral training”, and the C-context is “Africa”. The scoping review question was titled “Exploring perspectives: A scoping review of the challenges facing doctoral training in Africa . ”.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

In the second step, the identification of the relevant studies was assessed against the eligibility criteria as well as the objectives and aims of the scoping review detailed in the previously published protocol (Omoya et al., 2023 ). The inclusion criteria were research studies examining participants who had undertaken their PhD in Africa, studies that focused on the barriers and facilitators that have impacted doctoral training in Africa, and research studies written in English Language with a 20-year limit range. Studies that focused on the experiences of PhD candidates and supervisors were included, and studies that compared the experiences of people who undertook their PhD in Africa and outside of Africa were included if they contained information relating to the experiences of doing a PhD in Africa. Studies were excluded if they were based on the perspectives of postgraduate students who were not doing a PhD, if they focused only on PhD candidates outside of Africa, if they were research studies not written in the English Language, or if they were reviews or expert reports. Studies that focused on the evaluation of training programmes provided to PhD candidates during their candidature were excluded.

Search strategy

Within the second step of the framework, an in-depth process of the search process was performed, and the search terms were identified. The first search was initiated on August 08, 2023, across multiple databases: EBSCO Host, Scopus, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Medline (Ovid), and Google Scholar. These databases were selected for a comprehensive overview across various disciplines. The initial search of the literature was performed with no inclusion or exclusion criteria applied.

Search terms

The search methods used the following keywords and phrases in combination: (“Experiences of doing a PhD”, OR “Attitudes”, OR “Lived Experience” OR “Perception”) AND (“PhD Candidate in West Africa” OR “Doctoral Candidate in Africa” OR “PhD Students in Sahara” OR “Doctoral Students in Nigeria”) AND (“West Africa” OR “South Africa” OR “Sahara” OR “Dark Continent” OR “East Africa” OR “North Africa”). As recommended by the JBI review methods, a three-step search strategy was employed. The first step utilised the use of EBSCO Host, Scopus, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Medline (Ovid), and Google Scholar. From this search, a list of keywords and phrases was generated by analysing the title and abstract of the identified studies. The second step of the database search was undertaken using the newly generated keywords across all the databases. Truncations were used in the second search to capture variations in terminologies and plural wordings in articles from different settings. Finally, a manual search of the reference lists and bibliographies of the articles was performed to identify other relevant studies. The full search strategy for one database, MEDLINE (OVID), is attached (Fig. 1 ).

Data base search. Data base search diagram showing the full search strategy of one database: MEDLINE (OVID)

Article selection

In accordance with the third step of the framework, relevant articles were selected and imported into Covidence. Duplicates were removed, and an initial title screen was performed (OO 1 ). The results obtained were then screened by examining their titles and abstracts (OO 1 , USJ, OO 3 ). The full texts of the studies were retrieved and further reviewed against the inclusion criteria (OO 1 , OO 2 , USJ). At this stage, three members of the research team (OO 1 , OO 2 , USJ) independently screened the articles, and any disagreements were resolved by unanimous decision (OO 1 , USJ, OO 2 ) and independently by another member of the research team (OO 3 ). The quality of the review was ensured by using Covidence to search for and remove duplicate articles. Evaluation of each article was based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. One reviewer extracted all the data (OO 1 ). A flowchart of the review using PRISMA showed the detailed process of the initial search to data extraction (Fig. 2 ).

PRISMA flowchart. The PRISMA flow chart is the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses that shows the detailed process of the initial search to data extraction

Data extraction

An adapted quality assessment tool by Hawker et al. ( 2002 ) was used to screen the 12 included studies (Table I ). All the included articles were rated as high-quality ranging between a score of 33–36. The data were extracted (OO 1 ) and reviewed by the research team (USJ, OO 2 , OO 3 ) for consistency and to ensure that the extracted data matched the aim of the scoping review. The data were incorporated into a template data extraction instrument using the JBI methodology guidance for scoping reviews (Tables 1 and 2 ). The draft data extracted in the scoping protocol were used, and no modifications were made throughout the process (Omoya et al., 2023 ) Footnote 1 . The descriptions of the data extracted into Table I included the author, date and location, title of the article, aims/purpose, sample size and setting, journal type, methodology, and key findings. This step allowed for a visual representation of the major findings of each article and how they address the aims of the scoping review.

A total of 51 articles were retrieved and imported into Covidence. After duplicates were removed and a brief tile screen was performed, 20 studies were subjected to the title and abstract screening stage. A total of 16 studies underwent full-text review, and 12 studies were included, as shown in the PRISMA flow chart (Fig. 2 ). Of the 12 studies included 33% ( N = 4) used mixed methods, 58% ( N = 7) were qualitative studies, and 8% ( N = 1) were descriptive quantitative studies. The studies were from different parts of Africa. There were two studies with participants from various African countries; others were evenly distributed, with two studies each from Ethiopia, Uganda, and South Africa. One study each was from Kenya and Nigeria. Two other studies, one from Ethiopia and one from Tanzania, collaborated with authors from South Africa. More articles were published in journals that focus on higher education, such as Higher Education Policy , Higher Education Research & Development , and the Journal of Education and Practice , Transformation in Higher Education , Higher Education , Innovations in Education and Teaching International . All the authors in the study worked in academia and higher education.

Sociodemographic profile of PhD candidates

Of the included articles, 75% ( N = 9) focused on the impact of gender and age on the experiences of PhD candidates. The number of male candidates was significantly greater in most of the studies than was the number of female candidates (Adekunle & Madukoma, 2022 ; Bireda, 2015 ; Mbogo et al., 2020 ;Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ); however, studies that focused on women indicated that the challenges faced by doctoral students vary according to gender (Bireda, 2015 ; Mkhize, 2022a , 2022b ; Mkhize, 2023 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ). Most of the candidates were within the age bracket of 30–45 years (Adekunle & Madukoma, 2022 ; Bireda, 2015 ; Mkhize, 2022a , 2022b ; Mkhize, 2023 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ). Most of the participants were identified as African but from different ethnic groups within the same African country. This was prominent in studies from South Africa that included participants who identified as Afrikaans, Coloured, or White (Mkhize, 2022a , 2022b ; Mkhize, 2023 ). One of the studies reported the marital status of the candidates in their study, and most of the candidates identified themselves as married with children (Bireda, 2015 ). According to a study of African and European candidates, African candidates were more likely to be married with children than their European counterparts (Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ).

Many of the articles reported on funding and financial challenges experienced by PhD candidates (Adekunle & Madukoma, 2022 ; Bireda, 2015 ; Bitzer & Matimbo, 2017 ; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ; Mbogo et al., 2020 ; Muriisa, 2015 ; Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ). The availability of scholarships for African doctoral students studying in Africa was commonly reported to be low. The lack of funding was a barrier to the depth, scope, and quality of the research produced (Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ). Four studies reported on initiatives such as fee waivers, partial funding, travel, and thesis (proof reading, printing, and editing) grants that were more available but insufficient to reduce financial pressure and the need to work full-time while studying (Bireda, 2015 ; Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ). The need for training on how to access funding opportunities and grant writing was reported in three studies (Bireda, 2015 ;Muriisa, 2015 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ). Three studies (Bireda, 2015 ; Mkhize, 2022a , 2022b : Mkhize, 2023 ) reported the emotional, psychological, and social factors that stemmed from financial uncertainties for women due to the unique set of challenges involved in balancing personal and professional roles.

Resources and training

Similar to insufficient funding, 67% ( N = 8) of the included studies described how the unavailability of institutional resources impacted the experiences of PhD candidates (Bireda, 2015 ; Muriisa, 2015 ; Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ). The most reported resources that were lacking included information and communication technology services, library and electronic search resources, lack of provision for learners with disabilities, unequipped laboratory and clinical facilities, lack of personal and study workspaces, noise pollution, insufficient physical library space, and other general services (Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ; Muriisa, 2015 ; Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ) . However, a university based in South Africa reported that their institution had good support and resources (Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ), for example, access to internet services, library resources, and office spaces. Additionally, workshop training was available on key topics, such as methodologies, literature reviews, and proposal writing, and was found to be beneficial. Five articles reported on the specific resources and training needs of PhD candidates (Bireda, 2015 ; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ; Muriisa, 2015 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ). In the study by Muriisa ( 2015 ) and Tamrat and Fetene ( 2022 ), participants reported specific training needs on the literature review process and writing, proposal writing, in-depth information on methodologies, software used for data analysis, the publication process, and securing dissertation grants. However, resources to facilitate these requests were unavailable, and when additional training was provided, it was often unplanned, rarely organised, and not institutionally initiated. In the study by (Muriisa  2015 ), participants requested training on how to access funds and write grants. One of the studies (Bireda, 2015 ) examined the experiences of PhD candidates enrolled in distance learning; candidates in their study requested access to resources and training on academic and writing skills, digital literacy, and research software because they were not readily available. Two studies reported on the pre-training and unpreparedness of PhD candidates who enrolled in PhD programmes and struggled to meet the demands of writing a thesis (Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ; Muriisa, 2015 ).

Supervision experiences

Supervision experiences during the PhD programme were identified in 75% ( N = 9) of the studies (Bitzer & Matimbo, 2017 ; Craig et al., 2023 ; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ; Mbogo et al., 2020 ; Mkhize, 2023 ; Muriisa, 2015 ; Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ). These studies provided various descriptors to characterise the experiences of participants. Two studies from Kenya and Ethiopia reported on supervisors’ lack of expertise and experience in the areas they were allocated to provide supervision (Mbogo et al., 2020 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ). Two other studies from Uganda and Ethiopia reported that the qualifications required to be able to undertake supervision were not met at some universities (Muriisa, 2015 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ). Supervisors also had excessive workloads, teaching, and administrative responsibilities with significant time constraints, which were reported as reasons for supervisory challenges in three studies (Craig et al., 2023 ; Mbogo et al., 2020 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ).

One study compared African and European candidates’ supervisory experiences and reported that African respondents rated their supervisors highly more than European students did even though supervisory meetings were less frequent (Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ). In another study from Uganda, although most participants seemed satisfied with their supervision experiences, they still raised issues such as those of other studies including lack of communication and disengagement from student research (Bireda, 2015 ; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ; Muriisa, 2015 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ), low levels of support, delays in providing feedback, unhelpful feedback, inappropriate guidance (Bireda, 2015 ; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ; Mbogo et al., 2020 ; Mkhize, 2022a , 2022b ), and difficulty finding a suitable supervisor (Craig et al., 2023 ; Mbogo et al., 2020 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ). Four articles reported more specifically on the common style of supervision experienced in the African context (Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ; Mbogo et al., 2020 ; Muriisa, 2015 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ). Two studies (Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ; Muriisa, 2015 ) described the context and setting of the research environment as unconducive due to power imbalances between supervisors and students. Two studies from South Africa (Bitzer & Matimbo, 2017 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ) provided a different view of supervision. The supervisory relationship was based on effective communication, trust, and mutual respect, which contributed to successful completion. Eight of those studies (Bireda, 2015 ; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ; Mbogo et al., 2020 ; Mkhize, 2022a , 2022b ; Muriisa, 2015 ; Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ) explored the causes of delays and completion times. A supportive relationship was reported as a major precursor for timely completion (Mbogo et al., 2020 ; Muriisa, 2015 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ). Other common causes of delays were related to students juggling work with family commitments (Bireda, 2015 ; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ; Mbogo et al., 2020 ; Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ). However, the supervisory challenges and factors impacting the completion times experienced by female doctoral candidates were distinct (Mkhize, 2022a , 2022b ; Mkhize, 2023 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ). In South Africa, female doctoral candidates’ experiences were more challenging due to reports of racism, classism, xenophobia, and patriarchy (Mkhize, 2022a , 2022b ; Mkhize, 2023 ).

Five studies explored the role of supervisors (Bireda, 2015 ; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ; Mbogo et al., 2020 ; Muriisa, 2015 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ) and the role of PhD candidates (Mbogo et al., 2020 ; Muriisa, 2015 ). These roles were described from the perspective of the supervisors and PhD candidates. PhD candidates expected supportive supervisors who provided encouragement in tough times (Bireda, 2015 ; Bitzer & Matimbo, 2017 ; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ;Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ) and supervisors who shared beneficial information, e.g., access to funding, professional development, and conference attendance (Bireda, 2015 ; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ; Mbogo et al., 2020 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ). Supervisors expect PhD students to be accountable, take initiative (Bitzer & Matimbo, 2017 ; Mbogo et al., 2020 ; Muriisa, 2015 ), have good writing skills (Mbogo et al., 2020 ), and be able to work independently (Mbogo et al., 2020 ; Muriisa, 2015 ).

Coping mechanism

Four studies have reported on various strategies used by PhD candidates to address challenges concerning funding, resources, training, and supervisor support (Adekunle & Madukoma, 2022 ; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ). In the study by Fetene and Tamrat ( 2021 ), students who had had similar experiences with these challenges in the past were supportive of how to access funding; they also gave tips on supervisor rapport building and shared library resources. In the study by Tsephe and Potgieter ( 2022 ), which examined contributors to African women’s doctoral graduate success, factors including family/spousal support and a belief in God were important for coping when they encountered difficulties. As a coping mechanism, self-efficacy and education resilience are personal attributes that candidates believe are important for survival and contribute to research productivity (Adekunle & Madukoma, 2022 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ). Even though research productivity was low, research self-efficacy scores were high (Adekunle & Madukoma, 2022 ). Most respondents believe that they have the individual capacity and resilience to adhere to behaviours that are important for them to succeed in their research undertaking. Two studies examined mental and emotional health (Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ). Emotional difficulties were present at times, but participants rarely felt depressed . One study by Fetene and Tamrat ( 2021 ) discussed the coping strategies used by doctoral candidates in more detail, for instance, students adopted various coping mechanisms, such as diligently fostering positive relationships with their supervisors. Additionally, some resorted to utilising libraries beyond their institution, particularly those with dependable internet access, to obtain articles and research materials. Some also reached out to colleagues abroad, requesting assistance in downloading articles relevant to their field of study (Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ). Other strategies include the use of YouTube videos to self-teach and gain knowledge in certain areas of research (Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ). Some students stay with their families in the same household rather than paying rent in different locations or saving enough capital before commencing their programmes (Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ).

The impact of sociodemographic factors: age

In this review, sociodemographic factors such as age, gender, marital status, and ethnic group were commonly reported. However, in some articles (Bireda, 2015 ; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ; Mkhize, 2022a , 2022b ; Mkhize, 2023 ; Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ), the challenges faced by doctoral students varied according to these demographic factors. African students were often reported to be within the higher age bracket due to personal life challenges and barriers that prevented enrolment in a PhD at an earlier age (Fetene & Yeshak, 2022 ;Sooryamoorthy & Scherer, 2022a , 2022b ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ). This review revealed that doctoral students from Africa were studying later in life and reported a longer time between qualifications. Access to training and the ability to receive funding are also impacted by age, and funders have restrictions on the age limit for which students are eligible (Balogun et al., 2021 ; Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ).

Most African candidates are mature-age students, with an average age of 45 years reported (Scherer & Sooryamoorthy, 2022 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ). Most PhD students, at the time of enrolment, will have the responsibilities of family and work, which can impact their ability to devote the time needed for their PhD studies (Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ). Furthermore, most candidates are left with no choice due to the economic climate but to seek additional work to supplement their income and support their family (Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ). However, in South Africa, the percentage of graduates under the age of 30 was greater for white graduates than for their black counterparts (ASSF, 2010 ; Cloete et al., 2016 ). There is an inherent need for resources and interventions for PhD candidates in Africa with the knowledge that a high percentage of candidates are within the higher age brackets and need to juggle family and work commitments. Although the impacts of age on the experiences of African PhD candidates have been adequately reported, further research should focus on exploring the specific reasons why African candidates are studying at a later age so that interventions can be tailored to meet the needs of potential candidates.

The impact of sociodemographic factors: gender

Current evidence has shown that women may face a unique set of challenges during their PhD (Bireda, 2015 ; Mkhize, 2022a , 2022b ; Mkhize, 2023 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ). Although the number of women enrolling is increasing in some African Universities, many others still report low enrolments. Moreover, African candidates were more likely to be married and have had children (Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ). The traditional role of caretaking combined with the role of a PhD candidate tends to increase stress and cause delays in study (Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ). Although progress has been made in strengthening research capacity, as evidenced by The Consortium for Advanced Research Training in Africa (CARTA), that focused on addressing the practical needs of African women by providing support for gender roles that can inhibit their participation in training (Khisa et al., 2019 ). However, there is a greater need for support that is gender-responsive. According to a report by the British Council and DAAD ( 2018 ) examining several selected African countries (Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal, and South Africa), the number of females enrolling in PhD training is increasing, but the attrition rate is still significantly high (Ayee, 2022 ; Sooryamoorthy & Scherer, 2022a , 2022b ). The reasons for this difference were attributed to the cultural responsibilities and expectations that women give priority to family rather than professional accomplishments (El Allame et al., 2022 ).

Similarly, in an Ethiopian study, the underrepresentation of female doctoral students was found to be significant at all postgraduate levels, including doctoral studies (Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ). In other countries, such as Mozambique, Ghana, and Uganda, female students enrolled in a doctoral study was still lower than that of men (Ayee, 2022 ; Etomaru et al., 2023 ; Mariano et al., 2022 ). The disproportionate representation of women in PhD training in Africa signifies the need for additional investigations to address the inadequate participation of women in research and innovation. Balancing personal and professional roles is challenging, and support that meets African women’s needs during their PhD candidature is warranted. Moreover, in countries where apartheid and colonisation policies still permeate into present times, the experiences of women during their PhD were challenging, and women candidates rarely completed on time (Mkhize, 2022a , 2022b ; Mkhize, 2023 ). Black women felt that they were looked down on, undermined, and underestimated in a structural system that worked to exclude them (Mkhize, 2022a , 2022b ; Mkhize, 2023 ). Beyond the need to further understand the expectations placed on women academics, an opportunity exists to explore the environmental and cultural barriers that are oppressive to the needs of women during their PhD journeys.

The role of supervisors

The significant impact that supervisors have on the successful completion of a PhD has been reported in several studies. With respect to the supervisory experiences of students, studies have shown an increased chance of completion (Bitzer & Matimbo, 2017 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ); longer duration (Adekunle & Madukoma, 2022 ; Mkhize, 2023 ; Muriisa, 2015 ; Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ); or an increase in attrition rate (Adekunle & Madukoma, 2022 ; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ; Muriisa, 2015 ; Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ) based on the supervisor–student relationship. For PhD candidates, having a relationship with their supervisor based on mutual respect was one of the highest reported accounts of successful completion (Bitzer & Matimbo, 2017 ; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ). Although, evidence has shown that some African Universities have increased the amount of PhD enrolment and the availability of potential supervisors, but completion rate has remained low (Akudolu & Adeyemo, 2018 ; Jowi, 2021 ; Muriisa, 2015 ). This difference was attributed to the style of supervision used in most African institutions, which is often characterised by power imbalances between the supervisor and the supervisee (Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ; Mkhize, 2023 ; Muriisa, 2015 ).

In addition to the supervisor–student relationship, expectations are placed on each other’s roles. Like PhD candidates, supervisors also had expectations of their students. Nonetheless, when expectations are clearly communicated immediately from the onset, successful completion, and a smooth relationship are achieved (Bitzer & Matimbo, 2017 ; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ; Muriisa, 2015 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ). Furthermore, supervisors’ expectations are based on the approach that a PhD is an independent study and largely driven by the student; students should be accountable, motivated, and take initiative (Muriisa, 2015 ). Based on these insights into supervisory experiences, the importance of defined expectations and joint understanding of roles is a facilitator in the completion of doctoral studies. In a report exploring the research and PhD capacities in sub-Saharan Africa that surveyed alumni to determine their satisfaction with their PhD programmes, the top aspects that indicated how satisfied they were with their training were based on competence, capacity, and quality of supervision, as well as the professional relationships they had with their supervisors (Alabi & Mohammed, 2018 ). Overall, the high workload of supervisors also impacts the quality of supervision (Dime, 2018 ; Barasa & Omulando, 2018 ).

Therefore, reforms and policies to enhance the quality of supervision are warranted. Recommendations have been made for establishing ethical guidelines for supervisors to alleviate issues around hierarchical organisational culture and poor supervisory practices (Barasa & Omulando, 2018 ; British Council & DAAD, 2018 ). Additionally, potential PhD candidates need to be aware of expectations regarding workload, research capacity, and the knowledge of the research itself. To boost research capacity, the professional development of supervisors by providing training and courses has been reported in some South African Universities (Molla & Cuthbert, 2016 ). Even though there is recognition of the need for training potential supervisors, the impacts of the training that has been provided in some contexts have not often been reported (Lindtjørn et al., 2019 ; Maluwa et al., 2019 ). More research exploring the evaluation and benefits of these professional trainings are needed. A recent study by Alio et al. ( 2021 ) investigated the enhancement of research capabilities for innovation in sub-Saharan Africa. The report highlighted certain African nations including Nigeria, South Africa, Senegal, Kenya, Angola, and Ethiopia have addressed their limited research capacity by investing in training initiatives to enhance research skills. These efforts aim to improve the standard of research activities and productivity. Training such as this is crucial because it is important that both supervisors and students have the resources needed to support them in order to fulfil their roles.

The relationship between coping strategies and research productivity

In this review, various survival strategies that are used as coping mechanisms are commonly linked to research productivity (Adekunle & Madukoma, 2022 ; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ). Generally, PhD productivity and success tend to be linked to institutional and governmental practices, whereas most African institutions have inefficient systemic practices and relatively low government budgetary allocations to facilitate completion and productivity (Akudolu & Adeyemo, 2018 ; Molla & Cuthbert, 2016 ). Therefore, to enhance research productivity, African candidates must develop their own coping mechanisms and strategies outside of institutions. In one study, one of the coping mechanisms that accounted for success for African women who completed their PhD was their belief in God (Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ). The women in the study stated that their belief in God played a significant role in their success and completion. As a coping mechanism, the women believed that God had orchestrated their undertaking of a PhD and that God would see them through, and even when they encountered any difficulties, their belief in God was a source of strength not to give up but rather to keep going (Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ). Despite the strong association between the belief in God and the completion of a PhD, the available literature in this area is scarce. A qualitative exploration of this phenomenon will inform supervisors, stake holders, international collaborators, and government bodies of some specific aspects that contribute to success for African PhD candidates.

In two other studies, a strong sense of self-efficacy was used as a coping strategy that contributed to research productivity (Adekunle & Madukoma, 2022 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ). The PhD candidates’ self-efficacy was demonstrated through their belief and confidence in their own abilities. Candidates who rated their research self-efficacy believed they could conceptualise research that was feasible, collect data, analyse data, and disseminate findings, with the individual capacity to adhere to behaviours that are important for them to succeed in their research undertaking. However, most of the issues surrounding research productivity were external factors and were out of their own control, for example, issues such as publications, grants, and funding for projects were not always supported by their home institution. Despite these issues, resilience has been demonstrated, and other ways to achieve success have been sought by individual candidates (Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ), for example, other coping mechanisms and survival strategies candidates used involved seeking international collaborations and networks that provide access to funding and resources (Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ). Some African Universities have partnered with international collaborators to develop PhD programmes and research profiles (Jowi, 2021 ). Collaborations with international agencies and institutions can support partial or fully funded scholarships, access to equipment, subject expertise, and training to enhance the quality of PhD programmes (Alabi & Mohammed, 2018 ; British Council & DAAD, 2018 ; Dimé, 2018 ). Currently, there is a lack of evidence on the coping mechanisms and strategies of African PhD candidates. Further research examining the capabilities that enable research productivity may assist in informing the development of specific interventions for PhD candidates in Africa. A qualitative approach to exploring the coping strategies of African PhD candidates may inform the practice of higher institutions and supervisors of the support needed to ensure success.

Limitations

A limitation of the review lies in the overrepresentation of research articles from some African countries as opposed to others. The second limitation is the exclusion of articles that were not in English since the reviewers cannot use resources to interpret articles published in languages other than English. The review was limited to peer-reviewed literature, and gray literature was not included. The review acknowledges that Africa is vast in numerous sociocultural values and norms that impact people’s experiences, and this review does not attempt to minimise these experiences. Thus, this review should be interpreted in light of the fact that some of these distinctive values and norms from various African settings might not have been captured here.

The literature examining the experiences of pursuing a PhD in Africa reflects a combination of challenges and achievements that significantly influence the journey toward completion and the attainment of a doctoral degree. These factors encompass the sociodemographic characteristics of PhD candidates, financial obstacles, insufficient resources and training, supervisory encounters, and the coping strategies employed by those undertaking PhD programmes. The distinct sociodemographic, cultural, and institutional contexts present opportunities for comprehending the specific issues within the African higher education landscape. Resources and interventions are essential for African PhD candidates, particularly as many are older and must balance family and work commitments, necessitating further research into the specific reasons behind their delayed study to tailor interventions accordingly. While there has been notable progress in the number of women obtaining PhDs, environmental and cultural barriers that hinder women’s academics during their PhD journeys still exist. Systematic and institutional barriers need to be acknowledged and addressed to foster women’s contribution to knowledge-based economic growth. For supervisors and student relations, training with the necessary resources for fulfilling their roles is crucial. Subsequent research should delve into understanding some of the specific environmental and cultural barriers impacting potential candidates from diverse backgrounds, genders, and ethnicities. Addressing the identified needs of doctoral students, such as inadequate investment in research funding, substandard infrastructures, and systemic challenges, requires collaborative initiatives involving academic institutions, government bodies, and international partners to enhance the quality of PhD training in Africa. By doing so, a supportive system can be fostered that effectively caters to the diverse needs of doctoral students.

Authors with same initials and superscript numbering for differentiation:

OO 1 Oluwatomilayo Omoya

OO 2 Olumide Odeyemi

OO 3 Omowale Odeyemi

Academy of Science of South Africa. (2010). The PhD study: An evidence-based study on how to meet the demands for high-level skills in an emerging economy. Pretoria ASSAF. Retrieved October 31, 2022, from https://research.assaf.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.11911/34/2010_assaf_phd_study.pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y

Adedokun, B., Nyasulu, P., Maseko, F., Adedini, S., Akinyemi, J., Afolabi, S., et al. (2014). Sharing perspectives and experiences of doctoral fellows in the first cohort of consortium for advanced research training in Africa: 2011–2014. Global Health Action, 7 (1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.3402/gha.v7.25127

Article   Google Scholar  

Adekunle, A. P., & Madukoma, E. (2022). Research self-efficacy and research productivity of doctoral students in universities in Ogun State. Library Philosophy and Practice , 1–23.

Akudolu, L. R., & Adeyemo, K. S. (2018). Research and PhD capacities in sub-Saharan Africa: Nigeria report. International Higher Education. Retrieved October 31, 2022, from https://www2.daad.de/medien/der-daad/analysen-studien/research_and_phd_capacities_in_sub-saharan_africa_-_nigeria_report.pdf

Alabi, G., & Mohammed, I. (2018). Research and PhD capacities in sub-Saharan Africa: Ghana report. International Higher Education. Retrieved October 31, 2022, from https://static.daad.de/media/daad_de/pdfs_nicht_barrierefrei/laenderinformationen/afrika/research_and_phd_capacities_in_sub-saharan_africa_-_ghana_report.pdf

Alio, D., Agea, J. G., Egeru, A., Okwakol, M. J. N., & Adipala, E. (2021). Strengthening research capacity for innovation in sub-Saharan Africa. The Seventh Africa Higher Education Week and Ruforum Triennial Conference 6-10 December, 19 (1), 1070-1080.

Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8 (1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616

Asongu, S. A., & Nwachukwu, J. C. (2018). PhD by publication as an argument for innovation and technology transfer: With emphasis on Africa. Higher Education Quarterly, 72 (1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12141

Ayee, J. R. (2022). Doctoral education in Ghana: Retrospect and prospects. In C. Scherer & R. Sooryamoorthy (Eds.), Doctoral training and higher education in Africa (1st ed., pp. 137–158). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003183952-8

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Balogun, F. M., Malele-Kolisa, Y., Nieuwoudt, S. J., Jepngetich, H., Kiplagat, J., Morakinyo, O. M., et al. (2021). Experiences of doctoral students enrolled in a research fellowship program to support doctoral training in Africa (2014 to 2018): The consortium for advanced research training in Africa odyssey. PLoS One, 16 (6), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252863

Barasa, P. L., & Omulando, C. (2018). Research and PhD capacities in sub-Saharan Africa: Kenya report. International Higher Education. Retrieved October 31, 2022, from http://41.89.205.12/bitstream/handle/123456789/399/research_and_phd_capacities_in_sub-saharan_africa_-_kenya_report.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Bates, I., Boyd, A., Smith, H., & Cole, D. C. (2014). A practical and systematic approach to organisational capacity strengthening for research in the health sector in Africa. Health Research Policy and Systems, 12 , 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-12-11

Bireda, A. D. (2015). Challenges to the doctoral journey: A case of female doctoral students from Ethiopia. Open Praxis, 7 (4), 287–297.

Bitzer, E., & Matimbo, F. (2017). Cultivating African academic capital–Intersectional narratives of an African graduate and his PhD study supervisor. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54 (6), 539–549. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.7.4.243

British Council & DAAD (Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst german academic exchange service) (2018). Research and PhD capacities in sub-Saharan Africa. International Higher Education. Retrieved October 31, 2022, from https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/h233_07_synthesis_report_final_web.pdf

Christoplos, I., Zwi, A., & Lindegaard, L. S. (2015). Evaluation of the Consortium for advanced research training in Africa (CARTA). Sida Decentralised Evaluation . Retrieved May 10, 2024, from https://www.sida.se/publications

Cloete, N., Mouton, J., & Sheppard, C. (2016). Doctoral education in South Africa . African Minds.

Book   Google Scholar  

Craig, W., Khan, W., Rambharose, S., & Stassen, W. (2023). The views and experiences of candidates and graduates from a South African emergency medicine doctoral programme. African Journal of Emergency Medicine, 13 (2), 78–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.afjem.2023.03.005

Dean, L., Njelesani, J., Smith, H., & Imelda, B. (2015). Promoting sustainable research partnerships: a mixed-method evaluation of a United Kingdom-Africa capacity strengthening award scheme. Health Research Policy and Systems, 13 (1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-015-0071-2

Dimé, M. (2018). Research and PhD capacities in sub-Saharan Africa: Senegal report. International Higher Education. Retrieved October 31, 2022, from https://static.daad.de/media/daad_de/pdfs_nicht_barrierefrei/laenderinformationen/afrika/research_and_phd_capacities_in_sub-saharan_africa_-_senegal_report.pdf

El Allame, Y. E. K., Kassou, I., & Anas, H. (2022). Doctoral education in Morocco: Current status, challenges and future prospects. In C. Scherer & R. Sooryamoorthy (Eds.), Doctoral training and higher education in Africa (1st ed., pp. 159–181). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003183952-9

Etomaru, I., Bakkabulindi, K. F. E., & Balojja, T. D. (2023). Trajectory of doctoral education and training in Uganda. Higher Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01006-y

Ezeh, A. C., Izugbara, C. O., Kabiru, C. W., Fonn, S., Kahn, K., Manderson, L., et al. (2010). Building capacity for public and population health research in Africa: The consortium for advanced research training in Africa (CARTA) model. Global Health Action, 3 (1), 5693. https://doi.org/10.3402/gha.v3i0.5693

Fetene, G. T., & Tamrat, W. (2021). The PhD journey at Addis Ababa University: Study delays, causes and coping mechanisms. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 16 , 319–337. https://doi.org/10.28945/4744

Fetene, M., & Yeshak, M. Y. (2022). Doctoral education at Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia. In C. Scherer & R. Sooryamoorthy (Eds.), Doctoral training and higher education in Africa (1st ed., pp. 81–104). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003183952-5

Fonn, S., Egesah, O., Cole, D., Griffiths, F., Manderson, L., Kabiru, C., et al. (2016). Building the capacity to solve complex health challenges in sub-Saharan Africa: CARTA’s multidisciplinary PhD training. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 107 (4), 381–386. https://doi.org/10.17269/CJPH.107.5511

Gurib-Fakim, A., & Signe, L. (2022). Investment in science and technology is key to an African economic boom. Africa in focus. Retrieved October 31,2022, from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/africa-in-focus/2022/01/26/investment-in-science-and-technology-is-key-to-an-african-economic-boom/#:~:text=The%20picture%20is%20particularly%20bleak,0.1%20percent%20of%20all%20patents

Hawker, S., Payne, S., Kerr, C., Hardey, M., & Powell, J. (2002). Appraising the evidence: Reviewing disparate data systematically. Qualitative Health Research, 12 (9), 1284–1299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732302238251

Health Research and Innovation Strategy for Africa. (2019): 2018-2030. Africa Union Development Agency-NEPAD. Retrieved November 11, 2023, from file:///C:/Users/ades0009/OneDrive%20-%20Flinders/Scoping%20review%20articles/English-%20HRISA_compressed.pdf

Herman, C., & Meki Kombe, C. L. (2019). The role of social networks in the transitional experiences of international African doctoral students at one university in South Africa. Higher Education Research & Development, 38 (3), 508–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1556618

Herman, C., & Sehoole, C. (2018). Research and PhD capacities in sub-Saharan Africa: South Africa report. International Higher Education. Retrieved October 31, 2022, from https://static.daad.de/media/daad_de/pdfs_nicht_barrierefrei/laenderinformationen/afrika/research_and_phd_capacities_in_sub-saharan_africa_south_africa_report_1_.pdf

Jowi, J. O. (2021). Doctoral training in African universities: Recent trends, developments and issues. Journal of the British Academy, 9 (1), 159–181. https://doi.org/10.5871/jba/009s1.159

Khisa, A. M., Ngure, P., Gitau, E., Musasiah, J., Kilonzo, E., Otukpa, E., & …& Fonn, S. (2019). Gender responsive multidisciplinary doctoral training program: The consortium for advanced research training in Africa (CARTA) experience. Global Health Action, 12 (1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2019.1670002

Lindtjørn, B., Tadesse, M., & Loha, E. (2019). Developing a sustainable PhD programme: Experiences from southern Ethiopia. In T. Halvorsen, K. S. Orgeret, & R. Krovel (Eds.), Sharing knowledge transforming societies: The Norhed programme 2013–2020 (1st ed., pp. 442–456). African Minds.

Google Scholar  

Maluwa, A., Maimbolwa, M., Haruzivishe, C., Katowa-Mukwato, P., Odland, J. O., Pedersen, B. S., & Chirwa, E. (2019). Promoting professionalisation in nursing and midwifery. In T. Halvorsen, K. S. Orgeret, & R. Krovel (Eds.), Sharing knowledge transforming societies: The Norhed programme 2013–2020 (1st ed., pp. 214–230). African Minds.

Mariano, E., Manuel, C. J., Januário, F., Amâncio, H., & Capurchande, R. (2022). Challenges of doctoral programmes in Mozambique: Experiences from the case of Eduardo Mondlane University. In C. Scherer & R. Sooryamoorthy (Eds.), Doctoral training and higher education in Africa (1st ed., pp. 61–80). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003183952-4

Mbogo, R. W., Ndiao, E., Wambua, J. M., Ireri, N. W., & Ngala, F. W. (2020). Supervision challenges and delays in completion of PhD programmes in public and private universities: Experiences of supervisors and graduate students in selected universities in Nairobi, Kenya. European Journal of Education Studies, 6 (11), 261–278. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3653866

Mkhize, N. (2022a). The state of doctoral training in South Africa: Current and emerging practices. In C. Scherer & R. Sooryamoorthy (Eds.), Doctoral training and higher education in Africa (1st ed., pp. 36–60). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003183952-3

Mkhize, Z. (2022b). ‘They are just women, what do they know?’: The lived experiences of African women doctoral students in the mathematics discipline in South African universities. Transformation in Higher Education, 7 , 218–228. https://doi.org/10.4102/the.v7i0.218

Mkhize, Z. (2023). Is it transformation or reform? The lived experiences of African women doctoral students in STEM disciplines in South African universities. Higher Education, 86 (3), 637–659. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00918-5

Molla, T., & Cuthbert, D. (2016). In pursuit of the African PhD: A critical survey of emergent policy issues in select sub-Saharan African nations, Ethiopia, Ghana and South Africa. Policy Futures in Education, 14 (6), 635–654. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210316641567

Mugabo, L., Rouleau, D., Odhiambo, J., Nisingizwe, M. P., Amoroso, C., Barebwanuwe, P., et al. (2015). Approaches and impact of non-academic research capacity strengthening training models in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review. Health Research Policy and Systems, 13 , 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-015-0017-8

Muriisa, R. K. (2015). The state of doctoral education in social sciences in Uganda: Experiences and challenges of doctoral training at Mbarara university of science and technology 2003-2010. Journal of Education and Practice, 6 (10), 204–213.

Nega, M., & Kassaye, M. (2018). Research and PhD capacities in sub-Saharan Africa: Ethiopia report. International higher education. Retrieved October 31, 2022, from https://static.daad.de/media/daad_de/pdfs_nicht_barrierefrei/laenderinformationen/afrika/research_and_phd_capacities_in_sub-saharan_africa_-_ethiopia_report.pdf

Nyarigoti, N. (2021). Lived experiences of women with PhDs in Kenya. Journal of Language, Technology & Entrepreneurship in Africa, 12 (1), 36–53.

Nyemba, W. R., Mbohwa, C., & Carter, K. F. (2021). Bridging the academia industry divide: Innovation and industrialisation perspective using systems thinking research in sub-Saharan Africa . EAI/Springer Innovations in Communication and Computing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70493-3

Omoya, O., Jacob, U. S., Odeyemi, O. A., & Odeyemi, O. A. (2023). A scoping review protocol of the lived experiences of doing a PhD in Africa. PLoS One, 18 (9), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290701

Osiru, M., Nguku, E., Nyagah, B., Oremo, C., Tambo, E. G., Cheo, A. E., ... & Mainguy, G. (2022). PhD programs in Africa: The arrows, the targets and the archers. UNESCO world higher education conference (WHEC2022) https://repository.rsif-paset.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/268/PhD%20programs%20in%20Africa%20-%20the%20arrows,%20the%20targets%20and%20the%20archers.pdf?sequence=1 . Accessed 10 Mar 2022

Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Munn, Z., Tricco, A. C., & Khalil, H. (2020). Scoping reviews. In E. Aromataris & Z. Munn (Eds.), JBI manual for evidence synthesis (2020 version) . JBI. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-12

Scherer, C., & Sooryamoorthy, R. (2022). Understanding higher education in Africa from distinct geographies: Reflections on the episteme of doctoral education. In C. Scherer & R. Sooryamoorthy (Eds.), Doctoral training and higher education in Africa (1st ed., pp. 18–35). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003183952-2

Shaffer, J. G., Mather, F. J., Wele, M., Li, J., Tangara, C. O., Kassogue, Y., et al. (2019). Expanding research capacity in sub-Saharan Africa through informatics, bioinformatics, and data science training programs in Mali. Frontiers in Genetics, 10 , 331.1-33113. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2019.00331

Sibomana, E. (2021). How to get through a PhD journey: A personal reflection and experience. Journal of Language, Technology & Entrepreneurship in Africa, 12 (1), 111–125.

Sooryamoorthy, R., & Scherer, C. (2022a). Moving forward: Revitalising doctoral training in Africa. In C. Scherer & R. Sooryamoorthy (Eds.), Doctoral training and higher education in Africa (1st ed., pp. 184–198). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003183952-10

Sooryamoorthy, R., & Scherer, C. (2022b). Doctoral training in Africa: Taking stock. In C. Scherer & R. Sooryamoorthy (Eds.), Doctoral training and higher education in Africa (1st ed., pp. 1–17). Routledge.

Stackhouse, J., & Harle, J. (2014). The experiences and needs of African doctoral students: Current conditions and future support. Higher Education Policy, 27 , 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2014.2

Tamrat, W., & Fetene, G. T. (2022). The achilles-heel of doctoral education in African higher education institutions: An Ethiopian university in perspective. Higher Education Research & Development, 41 (4), 1294–1308. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1901664

Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., et al. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169 (7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850

Tsephe, L., & Potgieter, C. (2022). African female doctoral graduates account for success in their doctoral journeys. HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies, 78 (1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v78i1.7911

Whitworth, J. A., Kokwaro, G., Kinyanjui, S., Snewin, V. A., Tanner, M., Walport, M., & Sewankambo, N. (2008). Strengthening capacity for health research in Africa. The Lancet, 372 (9649), 1590–1593. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61660-8

World Health Organization. (2012). The WHO strategy on research for health. WHO library cataloguing-in-publication data. Retrieved November 11, 2023, from https://www.afro.who.int/sites/default/files/2020-11/WHO_Strategy_on_research_for_health.pdf . Accessed 10 Mar 2024

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to sincerely thank the reviewers for their invaluable feedback and contributions that have strengthened the manuscript.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Nursing and Health Science, Flinders University, Sturt Road, Bedford Park, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA, 5042, Australia

Oluwatomilayo Omoya

Department of Special Education, Faculty of Education, University of Ibadan, Nigeria

Udeme Samuel Jacob

University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, 7005, Australia

Olumide A. Odeyemi

Centre for Child & Adolescent Mental Health (CCAMH), University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria

Omowale A. Odeyemi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors whose names appear on the submission made substantial contributions to the work; conceptualization: Oluwatomilayo Omoya and Olumide A. Odeyemi; literature search, data analysis, and interpretation of the data: Oluwatomilayo Omoya; Udeme Samuel Jacob, Olumide A. Odeyemi, and Omowale A. Odeyemi; writing—original draft preparation: Oluwatomilayo Omoya; writing—review and editing: Oluwatomilayo Omoya, Udeme Samuel Jacob, Olumide A. Odeyemi, and Omowale A. Odeyemi; writing—revision and editing: all authors; and supervision: Oluwatomilayo Omoya

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oluwatomilayo Omoya .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Consultations

No consultations were required for the scoping review, and this review did not contribute to a degree award.

Supplementary information

(DOCX 55 kb)

(DOCX 24.4 KB)

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Omoya, O., Jacob, U.S., Odeyemi, O.A. et al. Exploring perspectives: a scoping review of the challenges facing doctoral training in Africa. High Educ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01264-4

Download citation

Accepted : 03 July 2024

Published : 06 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01264-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Higher education
• PhD candidates
• PhD supervisors
• Lived experiences
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research