When Examiner Disagreement Creates Examination Uncertainty
Most Malaysian postgraduate viva examinations proceed with the examining panel broadly aligned in their evaluation of the thesis. Occasionally, however, examiners hold genuinely different views about a methodological choice, a theoretical framing, or an analytical conclusion — and they express these views during the examination in ways that put the candidate in an awkward position. One examiner suggests that purposive sampling was appropriate; the other implies it was a significant limitation. One examiner endorses the theoretical framework; the other proposes an alternative as more suitable. Knowing how to handle a viva where examiners disagree is a preparation task that most candidates never consider but that can significantly affect examination performance when it is needed.
The First Rule: Do Not Take Sides Immediately
When two examiners express different or conflicting views in the viva, the instinctive response is often to agree with whichever examiner spoke most recently or most forcefully. Resist this instinct. Immediately siding with one examiner against another creates unnecessary interpersonal tension and can alienate the examiner whose view you appear to dismiss. Instead, acknowledge that you have heard both perspectives: “I can see the basis for both positions — let me think through how the two relate to my study.” This response buys you time, signals intellectual openness, and avoids the appearance of seeking social approval rather than engaging academically.
Returning to Your Evidence-Based Position
After acknowledging both perspectives, return to your own evidence-grounded position. You chose your methodology, your framework, and your analytical approach for principled reasons — you should be able to defend them based on the logic of the research design rather than on which examiner is currently speaking. “Both perspectives have merit. My position is grounded in [specific reason] — which is why I chose [your approach] rather than the alternative. I acknowledge the limitation that [specific constraint], which is why I noted it in the conclusion.” This response honours both examiners’ views while maintaining your own scholarly position based on your own reasoning.
When Examiners Resolve the Disagreement Themselves
Sometimes examiner disagreements resolve themselves during the viva as the two examiners discuss the issue with each other, occasionally drawing you into a three-way scholarly conversation. This is one of the most intellectually stimulating experiences a viva can offer — being part of a genuine scholarly debate about your own research. Engage with it as a scholar rather than as an anxious student. Offer your evidence, acknowledge the complexity, and demonstrate that you can hold multiple perspectives in mind simultaneously. Handling a viva where examiners disagree is ultimately an opportunity to demonstrate exactly the kind of nuanced, evidence-based, multi-perspective thinking that doctoral scholarship is designed to develop.
