(DOC) DETAILED Ph D REPORT | Dr.Rangarajan C.S. - Academia.edu
PhD theses at the margin: Examiner comment on re‐examined thesesMelbourne Studies in Education, 2004
It is rare for a PhD candidate rvho submits a rhesis for cxemin:rrion to fail outright..lf a thesis exhibits significar.rt flaws thc candidate may bc rcquited to make major rcvisions and rcsubmit the work io, r..-.xrn-ti.ation' The writtcn comments of examincrs before and after rcsubmission can provide important insights into the Process of examination and the tlualities .*"fii,.r.r, identilyin a marginal thesis' Drawing on 101 of the most rcccnt, completccl thcses "cross fields in one Australian university, this ariicle investigates the differencc's in examiner ..r-"n,.on the qualities of theset by the same candidatcs before 'and after m"lor revision and rc-submission (N = 6), and benveen these thcses and those that n'ere 'passed' at the first exatnination (N=95). Crirical comments about the literaturc revieu' and the j"gr..',o which the examincr moved into a supervisory role *."r. fo.r.td to be strong indicators of theses'at the margin" Since the 1980s there has been a growing interest in the'visibiliry'of doctorai processes, particularly with respect to supervision, but more recenrly *i,h ,.rp"., to examination. Questions are being asked that ..r.o-p"r,. .".rg. of issues from examiner selection through to the rigour an,1 cr.difility of assessment procedures (Lawson et al' 2003, pJwell and Green 2003). Many commenrarors have pointed out that doctoral examination, and doctoral study generally, is an exceedingly complex phenomenon that has yet-to be subiected to sustained and ,yrt.-"ti. research. How students achieve success, the role the supervisor plays in getting a candidate's thesis to submission stage' or through an or"i d"f."n.", ""rrd *h", consrirures quality in postgraduate research are ail areas that are receiving attention in the field of research training in higher education. Alltlsott Holbrook cl nl. There are ferv empirical studies addressing the written examination of docroral theses or dissertations in rhe Iiteratu|e. As Morley et al. (.2002) have indicated, studies of the assessment Process atld its consistency rencl ro be rare because :rccess to exatninatiot.t d.lcumentation is difficult' In addition, many universiries do nor call for extensive documentation of process. Jackson and Tinklcr (200 l) investigated examination pro..dur., and student and staff resPonses to examination in the UK Th.1','1-'1"1ned documentation from 20 universities (b1sed on a stfatifieci sample of old and neu, insritutions) ancl clrerv on quesrio^nnaire.re.spo-nses fro,-,r r,,,t" 100 examiners ancl candidatcs fronr two of the'old'. With fespccr ro rhe viva (oral cxanrination) rhel' Founcl rhere w:rs 'no consensus "b.r.rr tlr"'roles'plaved by the viv:r and there rvere itrconsistencies ancl contradictions at the levels of policy and Practice (p. 364) ln Atrstralia ,r compulsory oral examination is n()t the norm, rather examinltior-r hingcs on the written cxaminer rePorts on the thesis. In an attempt to .*pl.,r. this process lvlullins ancl Kilel' Q002) collectetl inr"rvi.* cl:rta-front 30 experienccd examiners about examination in Austrllia. Johnston (1997) ,-rndertc,ok a conte nt anlly.sis of t[e text of 5I exanrincr rep()rts flc,nt one Australian r-rniversity across five fucultiet over so'eral years. Pitkethl,v and Prosser (1995) utilised the reports of 74 rhesis candidares ar one Australian university. The findings include general agreement among examiners and abt)r'rt the core exPect:r'tionsJ i.,"-.lv rhat th.y expecr the thesis will derrionstrate oriqinaliry and makc a cont;ibution to the field. I'.''idenc,e From a colnParative cross-national survcy by Kouptsov (1994) further bears rlut general widespreacl agreenlenr on thls poinr. However, some polarisation occurs arour-rd the issue .,f rvh,rt in-,ri" importantthe cor.rtribution, or the training (Powell and Green 2003). Johnston (1997) found examiners tended to follow universitl' guidelines or recommendations about how to rePort on a thesil, whereas Mullin, and Kile1, Q0o2) reporrecl the opposite on rhe basis of interview data. Tl-rey fbund examiners had established their orvn criteria, and that thev noted, but did not use, guidelines providecl. It would seem rhar those rvho examine are inhe rently intercsred in doing so and approach tlie task in a positive light (Johnston 1997, Jackson "nd J'inkler 2001, Mullins and Kiley 2002). However, a poorll'rvritten thesis gencrally had a negative effect on the examit.rer (Johnston i997' Mulliris and Kiley 2002). A panel of 67 scholars from the USA, UK' Australia and Canada iclentified rvriting qualiry as one oF the most problerlatic issucs about PhD studr.(Noble 1994). N4ost researchers in rhe field have pointecl out th:lt editorial errors and Presentrtion issrtes attract a slLbsrantial proportion of examiner colnment. PhD Theses ot the Mnrgitt Mullins and Kiley (2002) nored that examiners appeared very clear in the clistinctions they made between Poor, acccptable.and outstanding rheses, bur they also dete cted that examiners approache.d the exami,nation process anticiparing rhar stuclcnts ruor-rld pass. It has been remarked by "*"-in.r. ,f,"i th"y-rrr.ly fail a rhesis outright (Mullins and Krley 2002, Grabbe 2003), h,r*.t"i, thev mar. suggesr r.ajor revisions and reexamination. Becher's (1993 p. 134) similar comment re-infbrces this view. An exceprion is Johnstor.r's (1997) studt'comprising all i6 theses rhat hacl been examined in a'newef universiry" o[u,hich six theses were required ro be reexamined. Despire the latte r sn.rall stuclv, the expectation in iustr"lian universities is that a candidate will not Present their thesis for examin:rtion unless ir is ready (i.e. of pass sranclard). Reports on those theses rhat clo require re-examination Provide a rare and important opportunity to identiFy' the qualities that identil,v, and are used to .r rb itrat e,' rr'adi ncss' fo r .xa rr r i nariotr.