When AI writes the doctoral thesis: reclaiming the oral defence as a learning development intervention
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47408/jldhe.vi39.1809Keywords:
AI detection,, academic integrity,, large language models, learning development, oral examination, thesis defenceAbstract
Large language models have fundamentally challenged traditional methods of verifying doctoral competency as AI-generated text becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish from human scholarship. This paper argues that thesis committees and doctoral supervisors must reclaim the oral defence as a critical checkpoint for assessing authentic threshold crossing rather than a ceremonial rite of passage. Drawing on historical examples from medieval oral disputations through to the rise of written theses, this paper asserts the necessity of returning to rigorous oral assessment. Given the limitations of detection technologies and the growing use of AI in thesis writing, oral defences must move from confirmatory questions that permit regurgitated responses to exploratory inquiry that demonstrates genuine conceptual transformation. This requires developing assessment literacy among examiners to distinguish candidates who have achieved deep disciplinary understanding from those who have merely assembled AI-generated text, thereby revealing human capacities for critical thinking, spontaneous reasoning, and scholarly judgment.
References
Barnett, J. V., Harris, R. A., & Mulvany, M. J. (2017). A comparison of best practices for doctoral training in Europe and North America. FEBS Open Bio, 7(10),1444–1452. https://doi.org/10.1002/2211-5463.12305
Boud, D., & Dawson, P. (2023). What feedback literate teachers do: An empirically-derived competency framework. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(2), 158–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1910928
Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8),1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
Carlin, D. B., & Perlmutter, D. D. (2006, September 5). Advising the new adviser. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(3), 66. https://www.chronicle.com/article/advising-the-new-adviser/#:~:text=By%20Diana%20B.,unlimited%20time%20to%20helping%20you
Hill, G., & Vaughan, S. (2018). Conversations about research supervision – enabling and accrediting a Community of Practice model for research degree supervisor development. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 55(2), 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2017.1406388
Hilsdon, J. (2011). What is learning development? In P. Hartley, J. Hilsdon, C. Keenan, S. Sinfield, & M. Verity (Eds.), Learning development in higher education (pp. 13–27). Palgrave Macmillan.
Kensington-Miller, B., Renc-Roe, J., & Morón-García, S. (2015). The chameleon on a tartan rug: Adaptations of three academic developers’ professional identities. International Journal for Academic Development, 20(3), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2015.1047373
Kruse, O. (2006). The origins of writing in the disciplines: Traditions of seminar writing and the Humboldtian ideal of the research university. Written Communication, 23(3), 331– 352. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088306289259
Lansoght, E. O. L. (2022). Effectiveness of doctoral defense preparation methods. Education Sciences, 12(7), Article 473. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12070473
Malone, T. L. (1981). A history of the Doctor of Philosophy dissertation in the United States, 1861–1930 [Doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. https://www.proquest.com/openview/d98263ea9b2641c14aec00114ae769f5/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
Mirick, R. G., Davis, A., & Wladkowski, S. P. (2020). Social work dissertation committee chairs’ perceptions of their role. Journal of Social Work Education, 56(1), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2019.1642273
Nir, A., & Bogler, R. (2021). International examiners' participation of the viva: A ritual or an actual indicator of research quality? Quality Assurance in Education, 29(2–3),189–203. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-01-2021-0005
Paullet, K., Pinchot, J., Kinney, E., & Stewart, T. (2025). Precision check: A critical look at the reliability of AI detection tools. Issues in Information Systems, 26(3), 401–412. https://doi.org/10.48009/3_iis_2025_2025_132
Pearson, M., & Brew, A. (2002). Research training and supervision development. Studies in Higher Education, 27(2), 135–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070220119986c
Russell, D. R. (2002). Writing in the academic disciplines: A curricular history. Southern Illinois University Press.
Sadasivan, V. S., Kumar, A., Balasubramanian, S., Wang, W., & Feizi, S. (2023). Can AI-generated text be reliably detected? arXiv, Article 2303.11156. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.11156
Sotiriadou, P., Logan, D., Daly, A., & Guest, R. (2020). The role of authentic assessment to preserve academic integrity and promote skill development and employability. Studies in Higher Education, 45(11), 2132–2148. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1582015
Teng, M. F., & Mizumoto, A. (2024). Validation of metacognitive knowledge in vocabulary learning and its predictive effects on incidental vocabulary learning from reading. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 63(3), 1941–1972. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2023-0294
Wichmann-Hansen, G., Eika, B., & Mørcke, A. M. (2020). What skills do PhD supervisors need? A systematic review. The Clinical Teacher, 17(4), 396–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.13122
Willis, J., Inman, D., & Valenti, R. (2010). Completing a professional practice dissertation: A guide for doctoral students and faculty. Information Age Publishing.
World Population Review. (2025). Doctorates awarded by country. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/doctorates-awarded-by-country
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
