There is a lot of mystique, and not much research, about the thesis examin- ation. While many students are unaware of the criteria that will be used in the oral examination, the Handbook for External Examiners in Higher Education (Partington et al. 1993) may give more than a clue. The handbook helpfully outlines general features of the examiner’s role and, for students, can help them to see their work from the examiner’s perspective. While each doctorate is different, the approach taken here is that the process of examination is
‘generalizable’ to all doctorates:
Many, if not most, colleagues in higher education see themselves primar- ily as subject specialists. They will often maintain that their subject is unique and that what applied to other courses does not therefore apply to them. This is true to a limited extent only. This handbook is written in the belief that assessment techniques are to a large extent generalisable: the issues raised here are those which external examiners could raise as appropriate in any department or course.
(Partington et al. 1993: 1–2) In other words, while you may see your thesis as ‘unique’ – and in some ways it is – there is a set of core criteria – and behaviours – that can be said to cross disciplinary boundaries. This means that you do not have to adopt the ‘wait- and-see’ position with your examination, but can anticipate, and prepare to answer, specific types of questions.
This handbook guides examiners through their initial and detailed readings of a thesis, all the way to the examination itself. Examiners are advised to read the completed thesis and form an initial, holistic impression of the strengths and weaknesses of the work. Next, they are prompted to move on to ‘systematic reading with questions in mind’. These questions are designed to focus the examiner’s detailed reading and, possibly, to identify questions for the viva. There are lists of questions for each chapter of a thesis (pp. 76–7):
The external examiner will scrutinize . . .
• Review of the literature
• Design of the study
• Presentation of the results
• Discussion and conclusions
There is an additional set of questions in section 4.7 of Partington et al. (1993:
76–7). The chapter headings listed there may at first sight appear to be more appropriate for a science or engineering doctorate; however, it could be argued that they are relevant to other disciplines, particularly when you see the specific questions listed for each ‘chapter’. Some of these are bound to be relevant to theses in other areas:
Students often ask about the second question, ‘Has the candidate slipped into “here is all I know about x?”.’ This uncertainty may be an indication of the work students have to do in order to understand the examiner’s perspective.
There are lists of such questions for all the key phases in the academic argument that is expected in a thesis. These will be dealt with in more detail in Chapter 10, which focuses on the viva. However, at this early stage in the process the questions can be used to generate a focus for thinking, reading and writing, and if the questions do not ‘fit’ your thesis, then you can write some that do.
If these questions still seem too far removed from your work it may be useful to adapt them so that they fit and provide more useful prompts for thinking and writing. It may be that a discussion with the supervisor about these expectations, questions or prompts would provide further insights into what the reader of your thesis is likely to be looking for.
Review of the literature
• To what extent is the review relevant to the research study?
• Has the candidate slipped into ‘here is all I know about x’?
• Is there evidence of critical appraisal of other work, or is the review just descriptive? . . .
• Does the candidate make explicit the links between the review and his or her design of the study? (p. 76)
Design of the study
• What precautions were taken against likely sources of bias?
• What are the limitations in the design? Is the candidate aware of them?
. . .
• Has the candidate given an adequate justification for the design used?
(pp. 76–7)
WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA? 55
These convey the type of thinking the reader of a thesis will be doing, at the point of examination, when the thesis has been completed. For those just starting a thesis, they may help to define the writing tasks yet to be done; some of these questions, if not all, can be translated into action points for early writing:
These prompts provide focal points for the initial research proposal, for revi- sions of the proposal or for sections of early chapters in the thesis. All of the questions in the handbook can be adapted into prompts for writing in this way. This is not just to say that you are constricting your thinking right from the start in order to ‘pass the exam’, but that you are working on the right types of questions, right from the start.
Examiners may or may not have read this handbook. They may or may not agree with this list of questions as the ‘agenda’ for their reading and probing of a thesis. The point is that these questions can focus early thinking and writing.
While the actual expectations of real readers remain unknown, there is no reason why you should not begin to define a core set of expectations so that you can start writing. Audience and purpose are, after all, key in any writing task, and the effective writer develops a sense of audience, even where there is to be a multiple audience.
Students are often keen to get hold of this handbook. It dissolves some of the mystique surrounding the doctorate. Because it can be difficult to get a straight answer to questions like ‘What is expected?’ or ‘When will I have done enough?’ and ‘How will I know?’, any hints can be very appealing. To be fair to supervisors and examiners, these are difficult questions to answer;
in fact, it may not be possible, or wise, to attempt to give a definitive answer to any one of them. Yet while these insights may be demystifying and in some ways reassuring, they are only a starting point. They are not necessar- ily the questions that will be asked at everyone’s viva. Clearly they cannot be.
Adapting these sentences so that they are relevant to your thesis is the first step, then thinking about how the questions are to be answered and then noting explicit answers. ‘Explicit’ is a key word here; it may be that direct
What can I write about? The design of the study
• What precautions will I take against likely sources of bias? I am most likely to be biased in . . . I am least likely to be biased in . . . Bias would reveal itself as . . . would be shown by . . .
• I will limit the design in order to make it feasible by . . . This is a positive choice – rather than weakness – because . . .
• I can justify the design I am using/going to use by . . .
answers to these questions will help you to be more explicit about some of the thinking you are doing.
More recently, further definition of criteria is provided by the British Psy- chological Society’s Guidelines for the Assessment of the PhD in Psychology and Related Disciplines (BPS 2000), which includes a section on ‘Criteria for assess- ing PhD theses in psychology’. For student and examiner alike, these shed light on a question often shrouded in mystique. The criteria provided here are refreshingly free of the heavy style often associated with the term ‘criteria’ in this context:
• The text should be clear and ‘tell a story’.
• The submission should be ‘user-friendly’. The reader should be able to find his or her way around the submission, locating tables and figures, and being able to cross-reference with ease. A numbering system for chapters, sections, and, sometimes, paragraphs can be very helpful . . .
• The submission should be no longer than necessary. Typically this will mean 75–80,000 words, with an absolute maximum of 100,000 words (p. 28).
For those who are not writing a thesis in psychology, there may be the question of how relevant these guidelines will – genuinely, in practice – be for their disciplines. At the very least, these guidelines can lead to some very important discussions with supervisors. Starting questions could be ‘Have you read these?’ and ‘What do you think of them?’ You could then discuss your reactions. You could describe – or show – the writing you have done as a result of reading the guidelines. Above all, you need to try and form your own view of the relevance of these guides for your writing.
Once you have read, and discussed, the university’s Code of Practice, UCoSDA’s (Universities’ and Colleges’ Staff Development Agency) Guidelines, the Quality Assurance Code of Practice, and so on, the key point to remember is that there is wide variation in the practice of the oral examination.
Recent research shows that there are not only variations, but inconsistencies:
This paper examines the roles and significance of the viva in the doctoral examination process. More specifically, it addresses the following ques- tion – what purposes does the viva serve in the PhD assessment process?
Discussion focuses upon (1) the roles of the viva as delineated within university policy; and (2) the purposes of the viva from the perspectives of examiners, supervisors and doctoral candidates. The findings suggest that, whether viewed in terms of institutional statements, or in terms of the perspective of academics or candidates, there is no consensus regarding the roles of the viva in the PhD examination process. Moreover, our research reveals that there are inconsistencies and contradictions concern- ing the purposes of the viva, both at the level of policy and practice.
( Jackson and Tinkler 2001: 354) WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA? 57
For anyone facing a thesis examination – either in the long or short term – the ‘inconsistencies and contradictions’ in policy are perhaps less interesting than those in practice. If you conduct some informal, anecdotal ‘research’ on criteria and practices for examining theses in your department, you might find some variety. This is not to say that people in your department are inconsistent and contradictory; rather, they see each doctorate as unique, with its own set of unique parameters and criteria. However, you should not leave such matters undefined. The situation is not so complex that you can- not begin to define how your writing will be assessed. Your study is not so unique that a completely new combination of criteria will have to be drawn up. What is more likely is that the question will be deferred as long as you leave it unasked. For a fuller understanding of the whole examination pro- cess, from the examiner’s perspective, see Pearce’s How to Examine a Thesis (2005).
The outcome of reading all the codes, guides and regulations should not be that you are even more convinced that thesis writing is ‘the great unknown’ or
‘inaccessible pinnacle’ of higher education. Quite the reverse. Over the past ten years, much more work has gone into defining what is required of you – and of your supervisor and your institution – and how you can be developed in order to produce a thesis than was the case before. You have more options – more forms of study and writing to choose from – than were available as recently as ten years ago.
Any questions that remain can be treated as prompts for writing and fur- ther discussion. The more difficult the questions the better, since these will help you to refine your arguments and will prevent you from being tripped up by a tricky question at your viva, or before. These questions represent one of many pretexts for writing. Practising writing when you are genuinely uncertain, and using writing to work through uncertainty, is a key skill for writing a thesis and will have uses in other contexts, after you have completed it.