Thesis Examination Guide

Western is currently transitioning its thesis examination workflow to the new Veritas platform. Please use the appropriate links and forms below based on your exam's scheduling track:

Track A: Scholarship@Western System (Exam Requests Submitted Before June 3)

If the examination was originally scheduled through Scholarship@Western, the board must use the legacy Qualtrics modules during the defense session:

• Thesis Examination Evaluation Form – For individual examiners to log their decisions during the deliberation phase.
• Thesis Examination Chair Report – For the Examination Chair to record the final collective verdict and list required revisions.

Track B: Veritas Thesis Examination Portal (Exams Requests Submitted On or After June 3)

For all newly scheduled examinations, all evaluations, revision tracking, and final sign-offs are managed natively inside the unified portal. Examiner and Chair Reports are distributed to the board on the date of the examination via email.

Graduate Program Coordinator / Assistant:

• Coordinates scheduling details, locks the defense format (in-person, remote, or hybrid) into the system, and distributes the unified Zoom invitation link containing backup telephone connection data.
• Monitors the Stage 1 Preliminary Evaluation deadline (5 working days before the defense) and acts as the primary contact for emergency board substitutions or cancellations.

Thesis Examination Chair:

• Presides over the entire examination process, ensuring strict adherence to School of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (SGPS) regulations.
• Maintains full authority to suspend proceedings if technical disruptions or behavioral issues compromise the academic integrity of the defense.
• Manages the strict time boundaries for questioning, coordinates the secret voting, and compiles the official final report.

Examiners (Program, University, and External):

• Independently review the thesis manuscript and submit their preliminary reports.
• Actively participate in the oral defense by delivering expert scholarly criticism and casting their final, confidential votes.

Supervisor(s):

• Attend the examination to witness the defense but must remain entirely silent during the questioning and examiner deliberation phases. They do not cross-examine the candidate or vote on the final outcome.
• Policy Constraint: If a thesis was submitted without the supervisor’s approval, the Graduate Chair (or designate) takes on the supervisor’s role and attends the examination instead.

Candidate:

• Delivers the required research presentation and orally defends their methodology, findings, and conclusions under direct questioning to prove authentic authorship.

The Examination Chair must execute the defense according to the following highly structured sequence, keeping in mind that the entire block may take up to 3 hours:

Phase 1: The Call to Order & Pre-Exam Meeting

1. The Chair opens the session, introduces the candidate, examiners, and themselves, and presents Western’s official Land Acknowledgement.
2. The Chair explicitly warns all participants of the potential for suspending the exam if technical problems interfere with the integrity of the defense.
3. The Chair excuses the candidate to a physical waiting area or a secure digital Zoom waiting room.
4. In the candidate’s absence, the examiners formalize the sequence of questioners and lock in time limits (typically 15–20 minutes per examiner for the first round, and 5–10 minutes for the second round).
5. The Chair reminds those present to minimize outside distractions and ensures that all remote participants have active video/audio fields to see and hear each other perfectly.
6. The Chair recalls the candidate from the waiting room (and admits approved visitors if the exam is designated as an open session).
   
   

Phase 2: The Questioning

1. If the candidate's program does not mandate a separate public lecture (or if it was waived), the candidate may speak briefly for 10–15 minutes to introduce their research.
2. The examiners question the candidate in the agreed-upon order. The Chair tracks time limits strictly. If the External Examiner is not physically or digitally present, the Chair ensures that the questions raised in the External Examiner's Report are explicitly read aloud and put to the candidate.
3. Once questioning finishes, the Chair excuses the candidate and any open-session visitors. Visitors do not return for the remainder of the event. The supervisor remains in the room for the first part of deliberations.
   
   

Phase 3: Deliberations and Voting

1. The Chair invites the supervisor to speak on the candidate’s history, the project timeline, and aspects of the oral defense. If the thesis was submitted without supervisor approval, the Chair reads the supervisor’s written objections before inviting the Graduate Chair designate to speak.
2. The supervisor is then asked to remain silent while the examiners alone discuss the academic merits of the written manuscript and oral performance. If an absent External Examiner issued a negative preliminary grade, the Chair provides copies of their report to the board to aid the discussion.
3. The Chair outlines the official voting paths and ensures examiners can access their electronic forms (either via Veritas or the legacy Track A Qualtrics link).
4. Examiners submit their confidential forms. The Chair tallies the results to determine the official verdict.
5. The Chair recalls the candidate and supervisor to the room and formally pronounces the final decision of the Thesis Examination Board.

The final assessment divides evaluations into the written thesis artifact (Pass, Pass Conditional, Unacceptable) and the oral defense (Acceptable, Unacceptable):

Pass

• Definition: The thesis artifact is acceptable as it stands and the oral defense is acceptable.
• Action: No formal revisions are mandated for graduation. Examiners may suggest minor grammatical, typographical, or formatting adjustments on the report. The student is encouraged to apply these improvements within 1 to 2 weeks before their final submission.

Pass Conditional Upon Revisions

• Definition: The oral defense is acceptable, but the written manuscript contains technical flaws, errors in calculations, unclear sections, or insufficient data discussions that must be remedied to meet Western's scholarly standards.
• Action: A clear majority of examiners must agree on the revisions. The committee must select a single member of the board to act as the Designated Examiner to review and approve the final modifications. Crucial Policy Rule: The Supervisor cannot serve as the Designated Examiner. Revisions must normally be completed within 6 weeks of the defense.

Unacceptable

• Definition: The written work contains profound conceptual deficits, inappropriate methodology, systematic misuse of data, a failure to engage the scholarly context, or severely flawed presentation. Alternatively, the oral defense failed to verify authentic authorship or satisfactory knowledge.
• Action: The thesis is blocked from graduation. The Chair must document the exact scientific and structural reasons for the failure on the report, and the Vice-Provost (SGPS) will automatically refer the case to a formal Re-Submission Hearing Committee.

Voting Math and Deadlocks:

• A candidate fully passes the examination if a majority of the board marks the thesis content a pass and the oral defense acceptable.
• If the board splits evenly (such as a 2/2 tie on a four-member panel) on either the written manuscript or the oral defense quality, the vote is automatically weighted in favor of the External Examiner's decision to break the tie.
• Once the Chair submits the final report, an automated system email transmits the structural results to SGPS, the supervisor, and the Chair. Successful students will receive detailed automated instructions regarding publication parameters and repository uploads.