Theses, nailed to plank

The “opponent” system: my experience at a Swedish PhD defence

Photo: A “nailed” thesis abstract (photo S. Heard)

 I recently returned from a trip to Stockholm, where I went to be the “opponent” (in North America, we would say “external examiner”) for a PhD defence. Get this: at the defence, the PhD candidate didn’t present his work – I did.  Curious? Read on.

It’s no surprise that academic systems vary – but the “opponent” system used in a number of European countries is an interesting variant, and one not well known (I think) in North America.  My sample size is very small, of course, involving one defence at one university in one country*, but I was impressed. I’ll describe my experience, and share some thoughts about its advantages and disadvantages compared to the North American convention.


The process

I was invited to be the opponent about five months before the defence.  About two months before the defence, I received the candidate’s thesis. That seems like a long time, but I needed to work harder on this than on a typical North American defence, so I was grateful for the time.  You’ll see why as I go on.

Although I didn’t participate in this part, about three weeks before the defence, the candidate had a “nailing” ceremony – in which the Abstract of the thesis was (literally) nailed to a plank in a department common room.  The nailing symbolizes the public release of the thesis, which cannot be defended until it has been public for three weeks. (The whole thesis, of course, is made available electronically at the time of the nailing.)

At defence time, I flew to Sweden to spend two days in the host department. The day before the defence, I gave a seminar in the host department (as one does).  More importantly, the candidate and I went for lunch, along with his supervisors and the Chair of the defence.  This lunch serves to let the candidate meet the opponent in an informal, low-pressure setting, rather than at or just before the defence. (The Chair of the defence was there, though, to enforce a rule that we not talk about the thesis.)  This contrasts with the North American system, in which the external examiner is discouraged, or even disallowed, from making any contact with candidate or supervisor before the defence.

The day of the defence was a big day and a long one.  The defence, in the morning, was attended by ~80 people, including students and faculty but also a large contingent of the candidate’s friends and family. Here’s how it went:

      • The candidate was up first, with 10 min to speak – but only to introduce the study system and the most important methods he had used.
      • Next, I presented the candidate’s thesis, taking about 30 min to introduce the context, present the methods, results, and interpretation, and to discuss its meaning for the broader field. I used a powerpoint illustrated with graphs and other elements taken from the thesis, but also material I gathered myself. This, of course, is exactly what the candidate would do him/herself in a North American defence.  But here I was doing it instead – with the candidate, who knew the work far better than I did, sitting right in front of me.  His presence, by the way, made it obvious that I couldn’t count on my usual reason for not being nervous when I give talks.
      • Following the presentations, the candidate and I sat at facing tables at the front of the auditorium, and I questioned him for about an hour. This was just like the North American questioning by the examining committee, except that it was one-on-one: the 3-member examining committee just watched and listened.
      • When I had finished, the examining committee had a chance to ask some very brief questions, and then the audience had their turn. These together took less than 10 min, though, and obviously weren’t a critical part of the candidate’s assessment.
      • The Chair then declared the defence closed, and the candidate and audience left. The examining committee asked me for my overall assessment and comments, then the asked the principal supervisor the same.
  • The supervisor and I then left, so the examining committee could deliberate. (We left the room to discover a very large party in progress, with snacks and multiple bottles of champagne. Pass or fail, the bubby had already been poured!**)  You’ll notice another big difference from the North American model here: I wasn’t a voting member of the examining committee.  My role as the opponent was to give the thesis, and the candidate’s knowledge, a good airing out; but I did so to help the examining committee judge the defence, not to judge it myself.

  • After perhaps 5 minutes, the examining committee emerged to announce the candidate’s success.

That was the defence, but it wasn’t the end of the day. There was another lunch for candidate, opponent, and committee; and then in the evening, a very big party including dinner, toasts and toastmasters, speeches, songs, gifts from supervisor to candidate and candidate to supervisor, and dancing that lasted longer into the wee hours than I did.  Of course we celebrate defences in North America too, but I was struck by the scale of the celebration and the involvement of family and academics on an equal footing.


Advantages of the “opponent” system

The biggest advantage of the opponent system is that it ensures independent review of the thesis by someone who knows the thesis very, very well.  I had to know the thesis inside out and backwards, because I had to present it!  And my knowledge (or lack thereof) was on conspicuous display, so the examining committee could be sure of it.  (I rush to assure you that when I’m an external examiner in the North American system, I take the job seriously; but I won’t try to argue that I absorb every thesis in the detail I absorbed this Swedish one.  And, of course, not every external examiner is as conscientious as I claim to be.)

Another strength is that the opponent’s presentation of the work (rather than the student’s) gives the examining committee two different perspectives on the interpretation and importance of the research.  There were several points where I think I interpreted the results and what they meant for the big picture a bit differently than the candidate did.  This makes the defence more interesting, and it also aids the committee’s assessment of the way the work challenges or changes our understanding of the thesis topic.

Finally, the opponent system disentangles two different function of the examination: on the one hand, discovering (if you prefer, putting on display) the work and the candidate’s understanding of it; and on the other hand, judging that work and understanding.  This means, for instance, that the opponent can disagree fervently with the thesis, but the examining committee can judge the candidate’s response without having a direct stake in the disagreement.


Disadvantages of the “opponent” system

The main disadvantage of the opponent system seems to be its placement of a lot of eggs in one basket.  I presented the thesis and examined the candidate almost single-handedly.  What if I had done a poor job?  What if (despite my close-reading-assurance argument above) I hadn’t read the thesis carefully? Or had misunderstood it, or missed a major issue?  Or simply stopped questioning the candidate after a few minutes? I’m told in cases like this, the examining committee is expected to step up; but for the very reason that the opponent will (usually) be overprepared, I wouldn’t be surprised if the other examiners were sometimes underprepared.  Such defences must happen, but I don’t know how often.

I suppose one could argue that another “disadvantage” of the system is that it’s a lot of work for the opponent.  I don’t know if this makes it more difficult to secure an opponent for a defence. I’d accept another invitation in a heartbeat, and if I’m typical, this isn’t really a concern.

Finally, I’m told that a disadvantage of the system’s naming (rather than of the system itself) is that North Americans sometimes interpret the English word “opponent” too literally.  I wasn’t there to oppose the candidate’s work, but rather to hold it up to the light – by presenting it with both praise and criticism and by probing the candidate’s understanding.  This certainly makes rigorous questioning appropriate, but not one-sided or unreasoned opposition. Fortunately, I was well briefed!


Final thoughts

There’s more than one way to skin a cat, and I think more variance in the quality of PhD exams is explained by choice and behaviour of examiners than by opponent vs. external examiner system. So I don’t think either system is “better”. I do think that comparing these different systems is a useful way for us to think carefully about what it is we’re trying to do when we examine a PhD thesis.  It’s funny that the thesis and its defence is considered a critical, even defining, piece of a student’s graduate education – but I’ve never had any formal instruction in, or heard any formal discussion of, what we’re doing when we examine one. My “opponent” experience made me think about this a bit; maybe hearing about it has done the same for you.

© Stephen Heard ( June 16, 2016

*^Want to triple that sample size? Here’s Carol Boggs’s account of her experience. But both of us were at Stockholm University. Here’s a description from Jonas Waldenström of the defences of two of his students.  But the process differs in details among universities and definitely among countries – in Norway, I believe, the candidate presents the thesis; in Finland, the opponent does but the process is enriched with top hats, robes, and a sword (really). I’m sure there are many other variations.

**^Just as in North America, failures at the defence stage are quite rare. This is not because the process isn’t rigorous. It’s because we don’t allow students to reach the defence stage until we’re confident that the work is excellent and the student can defend it well.  This makes the defence usually more of a celebration than a bar-hurdling – but only because the bar has already been hurdled.


28 thoughts on “The “opponent” system: my experience at a Swedish PhD defence

  1. Amy Parachnowitsch

    One interesting thing to note is that not even all Swedish defences look the same, although the general pattern is similar. For example, at Uppsala (at least for our department) the student presents their work for ~30 mins and then the opponent has a talk where they are meant to put the thesis in a broader perspective. The contrast of the NA and Swedish/Scandinavian systems certainly got me thinking about the purpose of PhD defences (wrote a post ages ago on Small Pond Science).


    1. Dr. Lisa (@DFTmavin)

      it is the same at Lund, Chalmers, Umeå, and Linköping…so I think the student presenting their work is more common in Sweden (at least in Chemistry/Physics departments)
      I had actually never heard of the opponent presenting the thesis but I have heard of no presentation from the student just a area overview by the opponent and then the questioning.


  2. Chall

    Well written & fun to read “from the other side”. – both NA and opponent. I’d second the “the opponent doesn’t always present the thesis but puts it in context of the field in general”. I defended at another uni than Stockholm in Sweden and presented my thesis ~30 mins, the opponent then introduced my research in context of the field, and then he went through the thesis with questions. About 2 hours, then the committee for another 30-1h.

    I think the defense really serves two purposes. It’s public since all (most) universities in Sweden are public with public funding so the people have a right to know and listen. Secondly, it’s the one time when the graduate student get to shine and it’s a huge deal of graduating. The eveningparty, which is very formal with the dinner and mixing of work and family (not at all common in Sweden compared to NA. Sweden don’t generally bring spouses to Christmas parties etc for example), is the time when everyone calls the successful candidate Doktor – and the attitude change in faculty the next day is usually noticeable. “You transcended into PhD!”.

    And I’ve been to a couple of “not so nice defenses”. In one case the candidate wasn’t super prepared, that was painful. In another the opponent was from competing research group and disliked the research (I personally think it might have been a poor judgement to ask them but people also behave quite differently at times….) however, 2 less lovely out of at least 30 attended defenses during the years is ok % to me. And as said earlier, you’re not allowed to defend if your thesis isn’t up to par, they won’t let you through to that stage.


  3. jeffollerton

    Nice insight into the system, Steve, though as Amy notes not all Swedish defences are the same. This variability of PhD examining fascinates me and I’m sure there’s a book to be written about it (unless someone has already done it). It’s been my pleasure to examine 27 PhDs by defence in England, Scotland, Ireland, Sweden, Norway, Spain, Switzerland and (in written format) South Africa and Australia. And whilst most of the variation is between-country, there’s also significant within-country variation too. My one piece of advice to the novice examiner is – read the accompanying documentation in detail and don’t assume that you know the process!


    1. ScientistSeesSquirrel Post author

      That does sound like really good advice, and not just for “novice” examiners! I would add “don’t be afraid to ask questions; your host will understand that you’d rather ask a dumb question than do something even dumber at the defence! (And I’m green with envy at your list of countries; mine now stands at just 3 (Canada, US, and Sweden).

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Emilie Champagne (@MissEmilieC)

    Just a comment on the celebration part…my lab (considered slightly atypical) does something quite similar. After the defence, we roast the new doctor, then celebratory drinks (payed by the supervisor!) and then dinner + party. Family and friends are usually a part of all this and we all join together to offer a gift to the new doctor.


  5. Jeremy Fox

    “This contrasts with the North American system, in which the external examiner is discouraged, or even disallowed, from making any contact with candidate or supervisor before the defence.”

    Quibble: that’s the *Canadian* system. At most US universities, the external committee member is just that–a regular committee member. I think that’s a much better system. I think the benefits to the student far outweigh the tiny risk that everyone on the committee will club together and give the student a degree he or she hasn’t earned.


      1. Jeremy Fox

        It may well vary between institutions, of course, but I think the Canadian system is rare in the US. At Rutgers, Bob Holt was my external, and I learned a tremendous amount from him. And I’ve served or am currently serving as the external for students at Texas and Colorado.


        1. ScientistSeesSquirrel Post author

          Peter Morin was mine (at Penn) – which makes us some kind of weird academic kin. Peter was terrific, and I just honestly don’t remember if I was able to correspond with him in advance of the defence or not.


          1. Jeremy Fox

            p.s. Speaking of Peter, back when I was in grad school he was an opponent for a Swedish PhD defense as well. The lab thought this was hilarious. I recall joking that the Swedes were going to give the Swedish student a PhD and take Peter’s away. 🙂


  6. Elina Mäntylä

    The system in Finland is quite similar to the one described here, except that there is not examining committee. The opponent writes a letter after the defence to tell the department officials (I don’t know the correct name) how he thought the defence went and how good the thesis was. In my own defence, I gave a 10 minute talk first in Finnish (because there were non-academic audience, like my family). The rest of the defence was in English. The opponent first described my thesis for maybe 20-30 minutes and then we had 1.5 hour discussion about it. I remember that I was quite nervous but also super-concentrated and everything went well. There was a possibility for the audience to ask questions but that never happens (and if happens it’s seen a horrible mistake of etiquette). Then it was time for glass of sparkling for everyone present and lunch with opponent, supervisors and chair. In the evening was then a dinner party (dark suits for men and fancy dresses for women) for colleagues and hand-picked family & friends. Talks, toasts and presents. 🙂 Here are some photos of my PhD defence and dinner party

    The thing about top hats and swords in Finnish PhD defence is not that simple. After your PhD you can take part in an official university promotion event. That is three days of official events and parties with other (recent) doctors. For that you need to buy the top hat and sword yourself. And pay also a lot for the other costs. I will do that one day but too expensive at the moment. 😉


    1. Elina Mäntylä

      One more thing about the Finnish system. Before the PhD defence, the thesis is checked by two external examiners. After that is still possible to correct the text before printing the thesis. The PhD defence with the opponent is not only theatre but I haven’t heard of anyone who had failed to pass it with acceptance.


  7. Pingback: Fish out of water: a scientist examines a poetry thesis | Scientist Sees Squirrel

  8. Pingback: About my PhD defense in Germany – biologyforfun

  9. Anna Fogdell-Hahn

    Interesting post and thank you for sharing you experience.
    As stated above, the procedure varies between universities in Sweden and at the Karolinska Institutet we let the opponent start with an overview of the field for 20-30 minutes, then the respondent gives an overview of the articles included in the thesis. Thereafter they have a discussion.
    As my first assignment in an examining committee I did have the unlucky experience of the opponent asking too few questions. This professor from Spain stopped after like half an hour and none of the questions were especially critical or interesting. In these occasions it it the duty of the committee to fill up the time with relevant questions to the respondent. This is where you start with your method questions, moving on to the general applicability in health care and if there is still plenty of time to fill out you can always draw the evolution card and discuss how this model/protein/genes fit into the survivor of the fittest algorithm.


  10. Javad

    Thank you for sharing your experience of the Swedish PhD defence so thoroughly. I recently defended my PhD at UNB and truly enjoyed the North American system. I had several questions in my mind about why it is set up in the way it is set up, which were resolved once I went through the experience myself. I can see the advantages of the opponent system you described, but I think someone who has spent a long time on a research project/program would prefer to have more than one expert engage with the work and fully participate in the examination process. Also the thesis may have elements that require different expertise for a deeper probe (as in interdisciplinary studies); doesn’t this make finding an opponent who would be an exact fit difficult? I was privileged to have a committee and examiners each of whom was an expert and authority on complementary aspects (themes, theories, genres, and eras) of the research, hence they connected with and asked questions about chapters or parts of the work that were of greater interest to them.


  11. Pingback: Historical perspective in science? – Walking in my science shoes

  12. Pingback: Viva, Soutenance, Disputation: How PhD Students around the World Defend Their Thesis | Lex Academic®

  13. Pingback: How to Prepare for your PhD Viva | Lex Academic Blog | Lex Academic®

Comment on this post:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.