The day started with a trial lecture. This entailed the candidate having an hour to respond to two questions the examining committee had submitted and that she had prepared for. There was a break for lunch then the 'actual defence'. This, I imagine was a bit like a normal viva, only made more formal by everyone watching the back and forth as the examiner quizzed Karina on all aspects of her work (everything from why there, positionality, methodology, theoretical stances and omissions). This was about 2 hours and even as an audience it felt harrowing! There was time for a quick comfort break before the second examiner took to the lecturn to further question the defendee. This was a lot shorter, but by the end it was 4pm - a very intense day!
A plus side to this system is that by the time it gets to the public defense, it is basically a certainty that the written thesis is accepted and some comments have been given to the candidate already. This means you can plan a little bit for afterwards and order in the food and wine ready for refreshments after the ordeal. This and the public nature of the defense makes the whole thing a more convivial process as we all shared the experience, from the safety of being an audience at least and it felt only right to celebrate with her for having gotten through it. Congratulations Karina!
I'm not sure I would want to go through all of that publically, but I really like the de-mystification and honesty of the approach. I am also enormously grateful to get a real insight into the kind of questions that get asked in a viva generally. I have to say there's quite a bit to recommend doing a PhD in Nordic countries: more time, more money and less mystery. I'll be heading back to Wales soon though and there's no place like home...