Las preguntas que enfrentas en tu viva dependen en gran medida de tu disciplina. Un examinador de química y un examinador de literatura inglesa buscan cosas fundamentalmente diferentes. Aquí está lo que puedes esperar en cada campo.
One of the most frustrating things about preparing for a viva is that most advice is generic. "Know your thesis." "Be ready to defend your methodology." "Prepare a summary." All true, all unhelpful if you don't know what [examiners in your specific field](/blog/what-examiners-actually-look-for-in-a-viva) actually care about.
The reality is that a viva in molecular biology looks nothing like a viva in philosophy, and both are completely different from a viva in sociology. The questions are different, the expectations are different, and what counts as a strong answer is different. A biochemist who spends an hour discussing the epistemological foundations of their research is wasting time. A philosopher who can't do exactly that is in trouble.
This guide breaks down what to expect in three broad disciplinary areas: the sciences, the humanities, and the social sciences. Within each, we cover the types of questions examiners tend to ask, what they're really looking for, and where candidates most commonly stumble.
Science vivas tend to be the most predictable in structure, though not necessarily the easiest. Examiners in the sciences are primarily interested in whether you understand your experimental work at a deep level, whether your conclusions are justified by your data, and whether you can place your findings within the broader field.
Methodology and experimental design dominate science vivas. Expect detailed questions about why you chose specific techniques, what alternatives you considered, and what the limitations of your approach are. An examiner might ask something like: "You used qPCR rather than RNA-seq for your expression analysis. What was the rationale for that choice, and how might your results differ if you'd taken the other approach?" They're not suggesting you made the wrong choice. They want to know you made a deliberate one.
Data interpretation is the other major area. Examiners will probe specific results, often in granular detail. They might point to a particular figure and ask you to walk through it, or ask why a result in Chapter 4 appears to contradict something in Chapter 6. They may ask about outliers, unexpected findings, or results you chose not to include. The underlying question is always: do you understand what your data actually shows, as opposed to what you wanted it to show?
Statistical methods come up frequently, particularly in fields like biology, psychology, and environmental science where statistical analysis is central. Be ready to justify your choice of statistical tests, explain your sample size calculations, and discuss the difference between statistical significance and biological or practical significance. If you used a technique you don't fully understand because your supervisor told you to, this is where it'll show.
Broader significance and future work usually come toward the end. How does your work fit into the wider field? What does it change? What would you do next? Science examiners tend to like concrete, specific answers here. "I would extend the analysis to include X" is better than "there are many interesting future directions."
Beyond the specific questions, science examiners are assessing whether you think like a scientist. Can you reason from evidence? Can you identify the limitations of your own work? Can you distinguish between what your data shows and what you're interpreting it to show? The strongest candidates are those who can say "this result suggests X, but an alternative explanation is Y, and you'd need Z experiment to distinguish between them." That kind of critical thinking is what separates a PhD from a technician.
The most common mistake in science vivas is not knowing your own data well enough. If an examiner asks about a specific figure and you can't remember what it shows without flipping through your thesis, that's a problem. Re-read your results chapters carefully before the viva, and make sure you can talk through every figure, table, and statistical test from memory.
The second most common mistake is getting defensive about limitations. Every experiment has limitations. Examiners know this. If you try to argue that your methodology was flawless, you'll lose credibility. Own the limitations and show you've thought about how they affect your conclusions.
Humanities vivas are a different beast entirely. Where science vivas focus on data and methods, humanities vivas focus on argument, interpretation, and theoretical positioning. The conversation tends to be more open-ended, more discursive, and often longer.
Theoretical and philosophical foundations are central to humanities vivas. Examiners want to understand why you adopted your particular theoretical framework, what it allowed you to see that other frameworks wouldn't, and where its limits are. In a literature viva, you might be asked: "Your reading of this text relies heavily on post-colonial theory. How would a purely formalist analysis challenge your interpretation, and how would you respond?" In a history viva: "You've framed this through the lens of social history. What would a political history approach reveal that your analysis misses?"
Originality of argument is scrutinised more explicitly in humanities than in other disciplines. An examiner might ask directly: "What is the single most original claim in this thesis, and what would be lost from the field if you hadn't made it?" This isn't vanity. In the humanities, the contribution is the argument itself, not a dataset or a technical innovation. You need to be able to articulate what your thesis adds to the scholarly conversation with precision and confidence.
Close reading and textual analysis come up in literature, philosophy, languages, and related fields. An examiner might open your thesis to a specific passage and ask you to walk through your analysis in real time, or present you with a passage you didn't analyse and ask how your framework would approach it. This tests whether you've genuinely internalised your methodology or just applied it mechanically to pre-selected examples.
Historiographical and disciplinary awareness matters more in humanities than in other fields. Examiners want to know that you understand the scholarly conversation your thesis is entering. Who are you agreeing with? Who are you challenging? Where does your work sit in relation to the major debates in your field? A thin literature review will be exposed in the viva, even if it passed muster on paper.
The "so what?" question is particularly pointed in humanities vivas. Why does this matter? Not just to other scholars in your niche, but to the wider discipline and beyond? Candidates sometimes struggle with this because the significance of their work can feel self-evident to them. It isn't. Be ready to make the case.
Humanities examiners are assessing the quality of your thinking. Can you hold complexity without collapsing it into simplistic conclusions? Can you engage with objections to your argument without abandoning it? Can you articulate the difference between what you know, what you argue, and what you speculate? The best humanities candidates are those who can defend a strong interpretive position while remaining genuinely open to alternative readings.
The biggest risk in a viva is being unable to step outside your own argument. If you've spent three years immersed in a particular theoretical framework, you may struggle when an examiner asks you to evaluate your own premises from the outside. Practise this before the viva. Ask yourself: what would someone who disagrees with my entire approach say about this thesis? If you can't answer that question, you're not ready.
The other common issue is vagueness. Humanities candidates sometimes fall into abstract, jargon-heavy language that obscures rather than clarifies their argument. If an examiner asks "what is your thesis actually arguing?" and you can't give a clear, direct answer in plain language, the sophistication of your theoretical apparatus won't save you.
Social science vivas sit somewhere between the science and humanities models, which makes them both versatile and unpredictable. Depending on your field and your methods, your viva might feel more like a science viva (if you're quantitative) or more like a humanities viva (if you're qualitative or theoretical). Mixed-methods researchers get both.
Methodological justification is usually the centrepiece of a social science viva, regardless of your specific methods. Quantitative researchers will face questions about sampling, measurement validity, statistical approaches, and generalisability. Qualitative researchers will face questions about their epistemological position, their approach to coding and analysis, reflexivity, and the trustworthiness of their findings. Mixed-methods researchers need to justify not just each method individually but the logic of combining them.
Positionality and reflexivity come up far more in social science vivas than in either science or humanities. If your research involves human participants, particularly in sensitive contexts, examiners will want to know how your own identity, background, and assumptions shaped the research process. This is not a trap. It's an invitation to demonstrate methodological sophistication. The answer isn't "I was completely objective." The answer is a thoughtful account of how you recognised and managed your biases.
Research ethics are examined more rigorously in social sciences than in other fields, particularly for research involving vulnerable populations, sensitive topics, or fieldwork in challenging contexts. Be ready to discuss not just the formal ethical approval process but the ethical dilemmas you encountered during your research and how you navigated them.
Policy and practical implications are often expected in social science vivas, especially in applied fields like education, public health, social work, and criminology. Examiners want to see that you can bridge the gap between academic analysis and real-world application, while being appropriately cautious about overgeneralising from your findings.
Theoretical contribution is expected but approached differently than in the humanities. Social science examiners typically want to see that you've engaged with relevant theoretical frameworks and that your empirical findings either support, challenge, or extend existing theory. They're less likely to expect the kind of deep philosophical engagement that a humanities examiner would, but they do want to see that your work isn't just descriptive.
Social science examiners are looking for methodological rigour combined with analytical insight. Can you justify every decision you made in the research process? Can you discuss the trade-offs inherent in your methodological choices? Can you move fluently between your data and your theoretical framework? The strongest social science candidates are those who can zoom in to the specifics of a particular interview or data point and then zoom out to discuss its broader significance, without losing coherence in either direction.
The most common problem in social science vivas is methodological vulnerability. If you chose a qualitative approach, be ready for the question "why didn't you use quantitative methods?" and vice versa. If you used mixed methods, be ready for "what does the qualitative data add that the quantitative data doesn't already show?" These aren't hostile questions. They're testing whether you understand the logic of your own research design.
The second common issue is the relationship between theory and data. Make sure you have a firm grasp of the relationship between the two. If your theory and data feel like they exist in separate chapters, the viva will expose that disconnect.
Whatever your field, three things hold true.
First, know your thesis inside out. Not just the argument and the conclusions, but the decisions you made along the way and why you made them. Every methodology chapter is a record of choices, and every choice can be questioned.
Second, practise answering out loud. Reading your thesis and mentally rehearsing answers is not the same as articulating them under pressure. Find someone to ask you difficult questions, or use a tool like [VivaCoach](https://vivacoach.ai) that generates discipline-specific questions based on your actual thesis. The goal isn't to memorise answers. It's to become comfortable thinking on your feet about your own work.
Third, know your examiners. Read their recent publications. Understand their methodological preferences and theoretical positions. If your external examiner is a committed positivist and your thesis is interpretivist, you can predict exactly where the challenging questions will come. That's not a reason to panic. It's an advantage.
For general viva questions that apply across all disciplines, see our [50 common viva questions](/blog/50-common-viva-questions-and-how-to-answer-them).
Your viva is a conversation about work you know better than anyone else. The [questions](/blog/50-common-viva-questions-and-how-to-answer-them) will be tough, but they're coming from people who've read your thesis carefully and want to engage with it seriously. That's not something to fear. Embrace it, and good luck!
Want to practise with questions tailored to your discipline and thesis? [See our plans](/pricing).