I initially thought that the internal and external did more or less the same job, but I've recently read an article or two that suggest the external (as more of an 'expert' on the subject) will lead the Viva questioning and has greater influence on the outcome result. Is the internal really just there to 'ensure the standards of the university are met'? Even if that is the case, I would have thought these standards would require them to be very active in the Viva.

For those of you who have gone through the process, did you notice a large difference? Did your internal seem to be less engaged? Is it reasonably common for internals to have relatively little knowledge of your subject area? for example, if it is a small department would they examine based on whose 'turn' it is...

Thanks in advance for any insights you may have. :-)

Hi Lughna.

The dynamics probably vary a bit according to who your examiners are. I think it's usual for the external examiner to be a better match on topic than the internal, but (at least in the UK) it's the chairperson's job to make sure that the viva is fair and conducted according to relevant guidelines. In my viva the external examiner took the lead, but invited the internal examiner to put forward her questions at regular intervals, and in terms of number of questions it was probably 40% from the internal and 60% from the external. Having said that, the ones from the internal were tougher to deal with than the ones from the external! I'm not really sure if either has greater weight when it comes to the result, but I would imagine the external would do since they are more likel to be the expert on the topic. I got minor corrections (four sentences to add to the discussion) and I got the impression that both the internal and external contributed to that list since the external explained 3 of the corrections and the internal explained the reason for the other one. The chairperson was silent throughout except to tell us when the first hour had passed!

Best, Keenbean

In my viva it was probably 70% the external driving things, 25% the internal, and 5% the chairperson asking questions that interested him too.

The external was definitely the stronger expert in my case, but I got the impression that the internal was there to represent the department, and make sure things went ok from that point of view. I had a convenor/chairperson - not all UK vivas do - and he was in charge of organising the viva and making sure it went smoothly and according to regulations.

Thank you both for your replies. That does seem fairer, I think.
I guess the external is going to be crucial so! I'm not at that point yet, but my area of research is very niche so there is probably only two people who would know it well. Fingers crossed one of them is willing!

My research was very niche too but the external examiner chosen was one with an interest in a wider context. She was familiar with the more specific aspects of my research but her own interest was a bit different. So you need not necessarily have a limitd choice of people if your research is niche. Examiners with a wider interest can do a good job too.