Examiner comment on the literature review in Ph.D. theses

The review of literature, so central to scholarly work and disciplined inquiry, is expected of the Ph.D. student, but how far along the road are they expected to travel? This article investigates the expectations of ‘the literature’ in research and scholarship at Ph.D. level from the examiner and assessment perspective. The analysis draws on the examiner report data for 501 candidates (1310 reports) across five Australian universities. On average about one‐tenth of an examiner report is devoted to the literature and examiners provide detail about coverage, types of errors and the nature of use of the literature. It was the latter type of comment about coherent and substantive use of the literature that provided the most information about ‘expectation’. Examiners identified ‘working understanding’, ‘critical appraisal’ of the body of literature, ‘connection of the literature to findings’, and ‘disciplinary perspective’ as key indicators of performance in the candidate’s use of the literature. While examiners appeared to anticipate that all these elements should be present in scholarly work (and identified them in the best theses), they were prepared to accept less for a barely passable thesis, but pressed for at least some demonstration of critical appraisal.

[1]  Cathy Nutbrown,et al.  Justifying Enquiry: a students' guide to methodology London: , 2002 .

[2]  K. Hyland,et al.  Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal , 2004 .

[3]  S. Bourke,et al.  Investigating PhD thesis examination reports , 2004 .

[4]  Penny Tinkler,et al.  The Doctoral Examination Process: A Handbook For Students, Examiners And Supervisors , 2004 .

[5]  Louise Morley,et al.  Variations in Vivas: Quality and equality in British PhD assessments , 2002 .

[6]  R. Glaser,et al.  Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment , 2001 .

[7]  Kerry Dally,et al.  Qualities and characteristics in the written reports of doctoral thesis examiners | NOVA. The University of Newcastle's Digital Repository , 2004 .

[8]  Margaret Kiley,et al.  'It's a PhD, not a Nobel Prize': How experienced examiners assess research theses , 2002 .

[9]  Paul Atkinson,et al.  Supervising the PhD : a guide to success , 1997 .

[10]  S. Johnston.  Examining the Examiners: An Analysis of Examiners' Reports on Doctoral Theses. , 1997 .

[11]  Angela Brew,et al.  The nature of research : inquiry in academic contexts , 2001 .

[12]  Jill M. Aldridge,et al.  Use of Multitrait-Multimethod Modelling to Validate Actual and Preferred Forms of the Technology-Rich Outcomes-Focused Learning Environment Inventory (TROFLEI). , 2004 .

[13]  Ruth Vinz,et al.  On Writing Qualitative Research: Living by Words , 1997 .

[14]  J. Lilly.  Researching the ineffable — That which cannot be expressed in words , 2002 .

[15]  L. Yates.  What does good education research look like? : situating a field and its practices , 2004 .

[16]  Donna E. Alvermann,et al.  On Writing Qualitative Research. , 1996 .

[17]  P. Nightingale.  Examination of Research Theses , 1984 .

[18]  Sandra C. Jones.  Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia , 1998 .

[19]  Mary Lea,et al.  Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach , 1998 .

[20]  B. Hansford,et al.  A Masters Degree Program: Structural Components and Examiners' Comments , 1993 .

[21]  C. Bruce.  Research students' early experiences of the dissertation literature review , 1994 .

[22]  R. Winter,et al.  The 'Academic' Qualities of Practice: What are the criteria for a practice-based PhD? , 2000 .

[23]  V. Trafford.  Questions in doctoral vivas: views from the inside , 2003 .

[24]  T. Lillis,et al.  Student Writing in Higher Education: Contemporary confusion, traditional concerns , 2001 .

[25]  P. Denicolo.  Assessing the PhD: a constructive view of criteria , 2003 .

[26]  S. Bourke,et al.  An Investigation of PhD Examination Outcome in Australia Using a Mixed Method Approach. , 2004 .