Ways of knowing and power discourse in doctoral examination

Abstract

As illustrated in an earlier iteration of this study, the 'Ways of Knowing' thesis of Jurgen Habermas suggests that there is a consistent pattern across discipline areas by which knowledge is revealed and further negotiated, and that this is an important thesis for a project attempting to identify and define patterns of research higher degree examination across discipline areas. Furthermore, this earlier work was able to identify ways in which these patterns revealed themselves in the text of the doctoral thesis examination report, including some case study work on re-examination reports. In summary, this work has concluded that the preponderant mode of assessment employed by examiners resembles closely Habermas's empirical-analytic way of knowing, complete with the potential discouragement of both original thought and genuinely new contributions to knowledge. This article will re-capture the findings of this earlier work and extend the resultant thesis in three ways: first, it will apply to each of the ways of knowing an analysis of the positioning between the examiner and the candidate, summed up in the notions of 'expertise', 'partnership' and 'symmetrical' texts; second it will include an exploration of the ramifications of the thesis for the role played by supervision and supervisors in research higher degree work; and, third, it will begin making connections between the thesis and the literature of power discourse. r

What examiners do: what thesis students should know

“…master's theses in Hansford and Maxwell (1993)), while others provide conclusions about a particular aspect of thesis assessment (e.g. the power relations indicated in examiner reports in Lovat, Monfries, and Morrison (2004); formative feedback in Kumar and Stracke (2011); or comments on the literature review in Holbrook (2007)). …”

Consistency and Inconsistency in PhD Thesis Examination

“…In the larger study we coded and analysed the data over many iterations.We undertook analysis institution by institution, comparing and combining them along the way. The core analyses are informed by and contribute, in turn, to 'extended' analyses.The latter explore examiner discourse and meta-themes of power, gender, discipline and 'doctorateness' (see Holbrook, Bourke, Lovat & Dally, 2004c;Lovat, Monfries & Morrison, 2004). In them we seek to understand how examination process is translated into action and examination culture .These extended analyses are still in progress.…”

Unity and Detachment: A Discourse Analysis of Doctoral Supervision

“…Therefore, although the doctoral examination marks the final hurdle and epitomizes autonomy and detachment of the scholar, still, the discourse of unity exists, marked by the collegiality and unity of supervisors and student in preparation for the challenge. The capillary form of power is evidenced yet again within the examination process, in that the gaze of the examiner in doctoral examination is not restricted to the learner (Lovat, Monfries, & Morrison, 2004); the examiner casts a gaze over student and supervisors as a “unit.” In addition, in a similar vein to the requirement of supervisors to read draft copies of students' work, in spite of heavy workloads most examiners spend several days examining a thesis (Mullins & Kiley, 2002).…”