Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]