Search

Globally there is recognition that doctoral programmes need to offer the opportunity for career pathways beyond academia, as PhD graduates are entering a range of careers. Consequently, some doctoral programmes now provide opportunities to develop a broader skill set. However, most PhD programmes in the United Kingdom and Australasia still concentrate on disciplinary knowledge and developing research skills. Moreover, the assessment has remained narrowly focused on a written thesis and an oral examination. Here we apply the notion of 'constructive alignment' to doctoral education and find that, even in terms of preparing PhD graduates for academic and research careers, the curriculum lacks opportunities to develop and assess relevant skills. The situation is even more extreme for wider careers beyond academia. To achieve alignment, we suggest providing more structured learning opportunities and personalised professional development plans with formative portfolios. If wanting true alignment in the PhD, a portfolio would be the summative assessment, but this is likely a step too far for a conservative academy.

Feedback plays an intervention role in the writing process. It is through feedback that writers are guided to achieve negotiated writing goals. Feedback encourages a process of discovery and this plays a developmental role in the writing process. In this paper, we report on three case studies that sought to understand cognitive processes when writers attended to feedback. Three ESL postgraduate students were asked to think aloud while attending to lecturer written feedback. Concurrent verbal protocols were analysed qualitatively using computer assisted data analysis software called Nvivo8. The findings from this study indicate that attending to written feedback is a recursive process. While recursively attending to feedback, the writers planned globally, locally, reflected, and justified. The findings suggest that dialogical type of feedback encourage recursiveness and planning. These are essential for the potential development of a writer. (Contains 1 figure.)

Doctoral examiners are increasingly assessing theses that include publications that have been peer reviewed and accepted for publication. This paper presents insights into the nature of commentary that examiners provide on doctoral theses that include publications. Data were gathered from examiners who had experience assessing publication-based theses (PBTs) over the past ten years at a research intensive university in New Zealand. Data were procured through a survey (n = 62), interviews (n = 15) and written examiners' reports (n = 12). The survey data were analysed using a descriptive analysis, while free form comments and interview data were analysed using a general inductive approach. A linguistic analysis was used to identify the nature of commentaries on examiners' reports. A qualitative analysis of the data showed that examiners provided a range of feedback and assessment commentary. Even though PBTs incorporate work that has been published, examiners still consider it as work in progress. The findings indicate that they provide similar amounts of commentaries as compared to traditional theses, provide more feedback than summative assessment, and expected candidates to make changes on published chapters.

In this article we explore how examiners assess a thesis that includes published work. An online survey was used to gather data on approaches to assessing publication-based theses (PBTs). The respondents were 62 supervisors who had experience examining PBTs across a range of disciplines at a research-intensive university in New Zealand. Nearly half of the respondents had examined 'hybrid' theses with papers inserted as chapters, 41% had examined theses with publications appended and 14% had examined PhDs by publication (i.e. papers alone). Twenty-nine per cent of examiners used their own extended set of criteria to assess PBTs, 48% found them easier to assess but 26% wanted more guidance. Our analysis also indicated that 86% of the examiners were highly influenced by publications in top-ranked journals and international peer-reviewed journals. Among the concerns of the examiners was the intellectual input of the candidate in any multi-authored publication, as well as the coherence of the thesis. We recommend the need for clearer guidelines for doctoral candidates, supervisors and examiners managing PBTs.

Although many articles have been written about thesis assessment, none provide a comprehensive, general picture of what examiners do as they assess a thesis. To synthesise this diverse literature, we reviewed 30 articles, triangulated their conclusions and identified 11 examiner practices. Thesis examiners tend to be broadly consistent in their practices and recommendations; they expect and want a thesis to pass, but first impressions are also very important. They read with academic expectations and the expectations of a normal reader. Like any reader, thesis examiners get annoyed and distracted by presentation errors, and they want to read a work that is a coherent whole. As academic readers, examiners favour a thesis with a convincing approach that engages with the literature and the findings, but they require a thesis to be publishable research. Finally, examiners give not only a final evaluation of a thesis, but also instruction and advice to improve the thesis and further publications and research. We hope that these generalisations will demystify the often secret process of assessing a thesis, and reassure, guide and encourage students as they write their theses.