Universities play a pivotal role in global higher education, ensuring that the doctoral programmes they offer are not only rigorous but also internationally recognised. While considerable resources are often invested in research supervision, the professional development of examiners receives less attention. Although progress is being made in some universities, such as the University of Otago, New Zealand, offering training for internal examiners, there is a scarcity of training specifically designed to prepare examiners for the viva. This gap raises questions about the readiness of examiners to navigate the multifaceted complexities of doctoral assessment, as it directly impacts the credibility and standing of the awarded qualifications (Bernstein et al., 2014; Chetcuti et al., 2022).

In the context of Malaysian doctoral education, the British model of assessment is adopted, involving a written thesis examination and a mandatory closed-door viva (oral examination). Notably, examiners are not part of the supervisory committee; instead, they are independently appointed from within and outside the university. Examiners take part in the PhD viva, which consists of three parts: the pre-viva meeting, the viva talk, and the post-viva meeting (Tan, 2023a). Despite variations in doctoral assessment systems across countries (Powell and Green, 2007), the potential benefits derived from examiner training remain universally applicable.

This study addresses the need for examiner support and training in doctoral assessment. With an understanding that examiners play a crucial role in upholding academic standards, it becomes imperative to enhance their capacity for rigorous and purpose-driven assessment. Drawing on my experience as a higher education researcher investigating the PhD viva and examiner practises, this paper extends my earlier work (Tan, 2023b). In the prior study, given the limited learning opportunities, I advocated for supporting examiners in their assessment endeavours and called for institutional support within the Malaysian doctoral education context. In this study, I asked the question: How should examiners and their practises in the PhD viva be supported by the university for effective assessment?

The data for this study were sourced through a review of existing professional learning initiatives for academics at selected universities. This includes universities, such as the University of Otago, New Zealand, University of Auckland, New Zealand, and University of Bristol, United Kingdom. Moreover, the IELTS training guide for prospective examiners was referred to gain insights on examiner recruitment and training.

Situated learning theory (SLT) is adopted as the theoretical framework in this study to understand doctoral examiners and their assessment practises. The theory emphasises the importance of learning within authentic contexts and social interactions. It is grounded in the work of Lave and Wenger (1991), who argue that learning is a process that occurs through legitimate peripheral participation (LPP) in communities of practise (CoP). SLT proposes that knowledge acquisition and skill development are most effective when learners actively engage in real-world tasks and experiences. According to this perspective, learning is not solely a cognitive process that occurs within the individual, but rather a social and collaborative endeavour that occurs through active participation in meaningful activities.

The integration of SLT also extends into the recognition of the importance of social participation and the establishment of communities of practise. This perspective, emphasising learning as membership in a community, aligns with the dynamic and interactive nature of examiner roles within the doctoral assessment process. The acknowledgement of collective knowledge acquisition and shared activities complements the intricate nature of the assessment. Furthermore, the theory’s acknowledgement of cultural dimensions underscores the fact that assessment practises are situated within broader social contexts, thereby influencing the outcomes and interpretations. By embracing the principles of situated learning, examiners can have meaningful learning experiences that bridge the gap between theory and practise, enhance learner engagement, and foster the development of practical examining skills and knowledge.

Three initiatives are proposed to support examiners: a PDP, a peer review of the viva, and an accreditation programme. These initiatives:

When the three initiatives are implemented together, they form a provisional training framework that universities could use to support examiners and their examining practises (Figure 1). The framework could be included in examiner education either as informal, non-structured, formal, or structured support, provided it achieves the aim of supporting examiners for the doctoral assessment. Each of the initiatives is explained below.

I have presented three initiatives to support examiners and their practises of the PhD viva: a PDP, a peer review of the viva, and an accreditation programme. These initiatives are professional development opportunities to assist novice examiners in enhancing their competence and effectiveness in conducting the doctoral assessment. The overarching aim is to support examiners’ community of practise (Lave and Wenger, 1991) by establishing standardised examining practises across the university, ensuring that potential examiners are well-equipped to meet the professional and personality requirements of the PhD assessment (Kiley, 2009).

While acknowledging the merits of these initiatives, it is crucial to recognise that their implementation may not be without challenges. The PDP is considered the most feasible initiative, with existing programmes related to supervision and thesis examination serving as favourable precedents. Various supervisory development workshops are also available (Brew and Peseta, 2004; Kiley, 2011) and are known to be effective (McCulloch and Loeser, 2016). Despite the non-mandatory nature of a viva-focused PDP, its integration into professional development opportunities holds significant potential in enhancing examiner capacities.

The second initiative, peer review of the viva, may present notable implementation complexities due to its reliance on observation and experience sharing. Although many academics recognise the benefits of peer observation, such as in developing teaching practise (Hendry and Oliver, 2012), some academics might be sceptical of using peer review in the viva. Potential concerns about the evaluative nature of the review and the resultant impact on examiner dialogue must be carefully addressed. Moreover, the intricate power dynamics within academia, particularly concerning esteemed senior professors undergoing review by junior colleagues, present additional considerations. The cultural milieu, especially in collectivist societies like Malaysia, introduces nuances in how reviewers might provide critiques, emphasising the need for thoughtful navigation of potential challenges.

The third initiative, establishing an accreditation programme, stands out as the most intricate undertaking due to its substantial resource investment. While essential for maintaining the quality of doctoral assessment, executing the programme necessitates the development of new policies, training, and allocation of financial and human resources. Appointing experienced trainers familiar with examining practises and university culture is pivotal for the programme’s efficacy. The success of the accreditation initiative, ensuring reliability and standardisation of doctoral assessment across the university, demands a high level of commitment given the ongoing and time-consuming nature of the process.

The three initiatives are believed to be beneficial in better preparing examiners for the viva and doctoral assessment, impacting both examiner and supervisory practises (McCulloch and Loeser, 2016). Nevertheless, their effectiveness and impact require careful evaluation, considering potential weaknesses within the Malaysian or international context. Applying Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2006) training evaluation model is recommended for this purpose, alongside a thorough examination of academics’ receptiveness and a comprehensive study of the risks and consequences before, during, and after implementation.

Despite the study’s foundation in personal experience and existing institutional initiatives, the training initiatives suggest a potential for implementation and further enhancement and expansion. The paper emphasises the need for future research to transcend its boundaries, exploring and implementing these initiatives to augment examiner support and refine their practical application in doctoral education worldwide.

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

WT: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.