We like to think that the viva is the end of the doctoral process; the final step in the long journey to a PhD. However, for most, it isn’t the final hurdle. The outcome of the viva in most cases is another three to sixth months work to deal with corrections (which may range from correcting typos, to rewriting or adding entire chapters). This means you need to preserve some energy and be prepared to exert some considerable post-viva brainpower. 

You’ll leave your viva with a good understanding of what revisions you’re going to be required, and, no doubt, many, many notes summarising the main discussion points and areas for improvement. However, as tempting as it may be to start picking apart particular sections or chapters, wait until your examination committee send over their report, which will be the formal record of the revisions that they recommend. 

Read through it carefully several times. I left mine for a day or so and then came back to it to reread it. I found this an effective way to pick up on some of the more nuanced aspects of their suggestions.

When you first receive it, you may be alarmed at its length and the detail that the examiner has gone into. Try not to be disheartened; in some ways, having detailed feedback on each suggested revision can help you, as it is providing you with clear (hopefully) instructions on how to proceed. 

Either way, you may feel disheartened. It’s hard to have someone critique our work, especially when we’ve put so much energy into it in the first place. However, critique is part of the academic process. It is not intended to shame you for any real or perceived shortcomings, but instead to make your work as effective and academically rigorous as it can be.

There are two things to bear in mind. First, through engaging with such critique and making the necessary changes (or refuting them, where appropriate) you are developing not just the quality of your study, but also your critical thinking skills. The process of receiving, digesting and responding to reviewer critique in this way is a valuable skill and, in some ways, a necessary part of the doctoral journey. 

The challenge you will have is in understanding which of the reviewer’s comments are practical, appropriate and based in an accurate reading of the thesis and the wider discipline, and which are refutable or that you don’t agree with. When you submit your revised thesis, you are within your rights to exclude a particular revision, but you need to very carefully and convincingly justify your decision to do so. Perhaps your examiner has misunderstood something or has failed to take something into consideration that renders their suggestion mute. Point this out diplomatically, drawing on your own text and the wider literature to back up your response.

Sometimes though you may have more serious grievances with the nature of the examiner’s comments and you may feel unfairly treated. In these instances, it is vital that you talk to your supervisory committee and department leads. They will be able to offer you advice tailored to your context and institution.

The fantastic ’Thesis Whisperer’ blog has written a useful post on how to deal with unhelpful or conflicting feedback. You can find it here.

When you sit down to work on your revisions, it is easy to spot additional problems and flaws with your thesis. As you approach completion, your critical thinking skills are very well developed, so it is only natural that you will be critiquing your own work. It is tempting to change things that aren’t listed in the examiner’s report in our ongoing quest for perfection. Do not do this. Only do what the examiner asked for.

Why? Two reasons. First, you may be limited for time. Two, you may be created additional problems.

You’ll have plenty of time to iron out any additional changes in a post-doc.

Just because you get major corrections, isn’t the end of the world. Examiners have subjective views on what classes as each type of correction. Some may think that problems with page numbering or typos constitute minor corrections, some may turn a blind eye. While most universities have guidelines on what should be classed as, say, a major or minor correction, often the lines can be blurred. I have known students be told they have minor corrections to make to then be presented with twenty pages of suggested revision. Conversely, I have seen students successfully address major corrections in less than one week.

I’ve also seen outstanding PhDs be awarded major corrections just because the examiner wanted to push the student to turn a brilliant piece of research into something world-class.

I’ve also seen weaker PhDs awarded minor or even no corrections.

Every examiner is different, and some will be expecting more of students than others. This is particularly the case if your examiner has particular expertise in a particular approach your thesis is taking (of course, examiners will be subject-experts, but in some cases, they may be leading experts on, say, a particular theoretical approach too, or your methodology). In these cases, they might be more liable to call you out on things that the other examiner may have missed or not realised the significance of.

One upside of this is that a strict examiner can push your research to a higher level. This is useful if you plan on turning it into a book, or carry on research in a post-doc.