Research degree examining: quality issues of principle and practice

Abstract

Raises questions about the research degree examination and in particular the apparent reluctance on the part of institutions and both regulatory and funding agencies to develop a common and transparent approach. Research degree examining is discussed as a quality issue in which the absence of norms adopted for taught programmes is questioned. What results is a confusing and muddled picture of assessment of the highest award of UK universities. The editorial reviews issues arising from candidates’ perceptions of the process of examination, including the viva, prior to the event, the choice of examiners and the approach adopted by the examiners. Examining the criteria employed in the examination and the approach taken, the paper highlights the enormous diversity of practice. The resulting discussion highlights the need for national guidelines and points to the lack of clear direction in the recent joint funding councils’ report.

Investigating PhD thesis examination reports

“…Confusion about what constitutes appropriate research at the doctoral level, and the lack of benchmarks for doctoral outcomes, including standards for the thesis and its assessment, have been identified as problems within the academic community (Noble, 1994, pp. 32-33, 39;Morley, Leonard, & David, 2002;Shaw & Green, 2002;Powell & Green, 2003;Lawson, Marsh, & Tansley, 2003;Tinkler & Jackson, 2004). Many thousands of theses are examined annually, and while it is clear that examiners are applying criteria and standards of some kind, it remains to be seen if they are using some more consistently than others, and whether the criteria and standards vary across disciplines, institutions and nations.…”

Artists, creativity and knowledge: a challenge for doctoral change

“…Across the doctoral spectrum, there is little argument that demonstrations of excellence, independent critical thought and, most particularly, originality are the critical assessment criteria of doctorateness (Denicolo 2003;Pakes 2003, Powell andGreen 2003;Cantwell and Scevak 2004;Piccini 2005;Barrett 2007). Over time, disciplines have mapped out their intellectual territory, gradually constructing methodologies and theoretical positions by which examiners or peer assessors could distinguish whether or not the benchmarks had been achieved in a particular thesis.…”

Doctorate programme: Some implications for doctorate programmes of Turkish universities

“…Jüri üyelerinin sözlü sınavdan önce birer rapor hazırlamalarının gerektiği, bazı kurumlarda ise önceden rapor hazırlamalarının gerekmediği, sınav sürecinin bir parçası olarak öneride bulunmalarının gerektiği gibi durumlar söz konusu olabilmektedir. Dış jüri üyelerini seçiminde adayın/öğrencinin hiç söz hakkının olmaması, sadece araştırma komitesi ve veya danışmanın kararının olması gibi uygulamalar bulunmaktadır (Powell & Green, 2003).…”

“…Bu konuda eşitlik ve standartların bir alana jüri üyesi seçiminde temel belirleyici olması gerektiği söylenebilir. Dış jüri üyelerinin genelde, katkılarının öğrenci ile informel ilişkiler içinde onlara yardımcı olmakla sınırlı kalması beklenmektedir (Powell & Green, 2003). Ne var ki adayın belki de hiç tanımadığı bir dış jüri üyesi ile informel ilişkiye girmesi, informel ilişki içinde yardım alması ne derecede mümkündür tartışılır.…”

“…Bazen tez başarılı bulunurken savunma başarısız olmaktadır. Ya da tersi başarılı bir savunma olmasına karşın tez yetersiz görülebilmektedir (Powell & Green, 2003).…”