Yes. It can be very dangerous to share in viva that "We just won funding worth $2m..."
You need to act fast. Just in case, the examiner is also looking for funding and telling the industry the new method fails in the viva. The examiner could be doing some damage when he is telling whoever he meets about this "failed viva". There could be political reasons for the whole thing; but we may never know.

You may want to ask your sup if this examiner also works with the same industry partners...

Hi Brit27,
You're right having issues with the internal is unfortunate, and in my case I'm certain it is ego since he's very passionate about something that I strongly criticise in my viva :(. At any rate I'm waiting until mid this month and then send him an email to find out what's happening. In the end, I just hope he approves the corrections so I can move on with my life.

You're right: in my view your case sounds like more of a "pass with corrections" than a resubmission. Acknowledging the other methods can be easily done by including a section in a chapter (your theoretical framework chapter or introduction depending on how you structure your thesis). Are the other points raised in the report all content related, or are some grammatical/minor?

If you've a known problem examiner, if you complain you will not be able to change the verdict directly. However, you might be able to be re-examined with two new examiners. The fact they consider this examiner a 'problem' character suggests you might be in with a chance.

As you describe it, I'd give it a go. The route is Uni. first (exhaust all options internally first) then ombudsman.

Ian (Mackem_Beefy)

Good point! Here is summary of action plan for questionable viva outcome…
1. Supervisor privately negotiate with the examiner
2. Proceed with Appeal
3. Contact the ombudsman

Meanwhile establish the following:
1. The examiner has gap in knowledge?
2. Other postgraduates have used similar research methods and passed with PhD?
3. Possible rivalry between the supervisor and the examiner? Competition for funding?
4. Compile a list of citation for your papers.

Hi all. I am posting almost after a year but I thought I should give an update on my situation. I finally graduated in Feb after almost 8 months of making changes to my thesis. I ended up making same changes almost three times which took almost 6 months due to lethargy on my supervisor's part, and extremely difficult nature of the other examiner. These changes would not take any phd student more than 2-3 weeks to make.

In another development, the other examiner revealed that he was not given any instructions at the viva by the independent chair, and as a result he was under the impression that my supervisor would have the final word on the viva result. He even raised this formally at the end of the viva, but by then it was too late. When I read the report by the independent chair, it clearly stated that the rules had not been explained to the examiners "as I never do that".

At the end of this whole process I was left disillusioned and unhappy. It is only now that I can approach the subject without feeling too depressed or angry. This severely affected my family life over the last year.

Sorry for the long post, but I really can't emphasise more to all who are going to appear for their viva, to not take the selection of examiners lightly. Of course you may not have a say in selecting them, but at least you should make sure that your supervisor has done a proper review of the selected examiners and that they are aware of the research methods and are not known as problem characters. Also, make sure that YOU know the rules of viva and the process that should be followed. I am sure that I was a minority case and this is not meant to scare anyone off.

It seems that the outcome was based on an impression or insufficient communication.
These "8 months of thesis amendment" really seem crazy as they could have been done within 2 to 3 weeks.

Perhaps the moral of the story is three papers published may not help in viva.
Anyway, this is a road less travelled. Good luck! Dr Brit27.

Brit27: you are describing my life. My external examiner was also 'unknown'; I did not know her, neither did my supervisor. She was also a professor. The result was a resubmission. She did not disagree with me during the viva, but she wanted me to add more things. I should have expected this: she wanted to see more discussions that were more related to her own research interests. Anyway, I did the revisions, even though I did not agree with all of them. I was nice to her during the viva, even after they told me that I had to resubmit. I thanked both examiners for the valuable feedback, etc... I did not argue. 2.5 years later, I resubmitted a much better thesis. I am now waiting for the results. So, moral of the story: to all friends out there, do not choose examiners you or your supervisor do not know. Do not choose professors, older examiners with great academic experience.

Brit27, I would take some time off and see what corrections I can do. Make a list of them. Make another list of the corrections you cannot do. Can you justify why you cannot do these corrections? My supervisor told me that if you can justify why you cannot do certain corrections, you don't have to do them. I did all corrections in the end, but it was nice to know that not doing all of them was an option.