Why Contradictory Examiner Feedback Happens
One of the more disorienting experiences a Malaysian postgraduate student can have in the viva voce is hearing two examiners express clearly opposite views about the same aspect of the thesis. One examiner praises the theoretical framework as appropriate and well-applied; the other questions whether it was the right choice at all. One examiner suggests the sample size is sufficient given the qualitative nature of the study; the other implies that more data points would have strengthened the findings. Contradictory examiner feedback in viva is more common than students expect, and it can be deeply destabilising if you have no framework for handling it.
Understanding why this happens helps. Examiners are scholars with their own theoretical commitments, methodological preferences, and disciplinary backgrounds. They bring these perspectives to the viva, and they will not always agree. A senior researcher trained in the positivist tradition may evaluate your study very differently from one who works primarily in interpretivist frameworks. Their disagreement reflects genuine scholarly diversity, not a failure on your part.
Do Not Immediately Side With One Examiner Against the Other
When you receive contradictory examiner feedback in viva, the instinct is often to agree with whichever examiner you find more sympathetic or whose comment you find easier to defend in the moment. Resist this. Quickly siding with one examiner can alienate the other and give the impression that you are responding to social dynamics rather than engaging intellectually with both perspectives.
Instead, acknowledge that you have heard both views: “I can see where both of those perspectives are coming from, and I think they reflect different ways of approaching this kind of research question.” This response is not evasive — it is honest. You are recognising that scholarly disagreement exists without prematurely resolving it in favour of one side. This buys you time to think and positions you as a candidate who can hold multiple perspectives in mind simultaneously.
Ask for Clarification Before You Respond
Before you try to navigate contradictory examiner feedback in viva, it is entirely appropriate to ask a clarifying question to each examiner. Understanding precisely what each one is concerned about helps you assess whether they are actually disagreeing about the same thing or whether they are addressing slightly different aspects of the same issue.
Sometimes what looks like a direct contradiction turns out to be two examiners focusing on different dimensions of a decision you made. One might be commenting on theoretical coherence while the other is commenting on methodological execution. These are not contradictory — they are complementary critiques that you can respond to separately and honestly. Asking a precise clarifying question — “When you say the framework may not be the right fit, are you referring to the theoretical assumptions underlying it or the way I operationalised it in the instrument?” — shows analytical precision and gives you better information to work with.
Your Thesis Decisions Are Yours to Defend
Regardless of how examiners disagree with each other, every methodological and theoretical decision in your thesis was made by you, and you are responsible for defending it. When handling contradictory examiner feedback in viva, come back to your own rationale. Explain why you made the choice you made, what alternatives you considered and why you did not use them, and what the strengths and limitations of your chosen approach are.
If both examiners have valid points — and they often do — you can acknowledge both honestly: “I agree with [Examiner A] that the framework provides a strong foundation for the kind of interpretive analysis I conducted. I also understand [Examiner B]’s concern that an alternative framework might have surfaced different dimensions of the data. In retrospect, there is certainly a case for both approaches, and this is something I would address if extending the research.” This kind of response is academically mature: it defends your choice, acknowledges the legitimacy of the alternative, and demonstrates forward-thinking reflection.
Handling Contradictory Feedback in Your Corrections
After the viva, contradictory examiner feedback sometimes appears again in the written corrections report. You may find that Comment 7 from one examiner asks you to add something, while Comment 12 from the other asks you to reduce or remove that same thing. This is more common in cases of major corrections and can be genuinely confusing.
In this situation, the standard advice is to contact your internal examiner or supervisor and ask how to proceed. In Malaysian universities, the internal examiner typically coordinates the corrections process and can advise on how to reconcile contradictory requests. In some cases, you may need to write a response letter explaining what you have done and why, acknowledging both comments and providing a clear rationale for how you resolved the tension. Do not simply ignore one correction in favour of another without documenting your reasoning.
The Broader Lesson: Examiners Are Not a Monolith
The experience of receiving contradictory examiner feedback in viva is uncomfortable, but it teaches something important about scholarship: there are often no definitively correct methodological choices, only choices that are more or less appropriate given the research questions, context, and constraints. Examiners who disagree are not revealing a fatal flaw in your thesis — they are demonstrating that thoughtful scholars can evaluate the same work differently.
Your job in the viva is not to give the one correct answer that satisfies everyone. Your job is to show that you made conscious, reasoned decisions about your research design, that you understand the implications of those decisions, and that you can discuss them with intellectual honesty. A candidate who navigates contradictory examiner feedback with calmness and clarity leaves a strong final impression — arguably a stronger one than a candidate whose thesis generated no disagreement at all.
