WikiTeach

In doctoral programmes that don't use a viva or oral exam, a PhD thesis is assessed by one or more external examiners, who write a report recommending either a pass, amendments, or failure. These reports are usually confidential, so I was fascinated to come across a 1997 paper by the late Sue Johnston of the University of Canberra that analysed the common themes and concerns of 51 of them. Some highlights:

• Examiners put a lot of work into their reports: they were up to 16 pages long. Generally they were positive and supportive attempts to help the student see what changes could be made to enable a pass—far from the hatchet jobs that candidates fear.
• There was often significant variation between examiners of the same thesis: in one case, two recommended a pass as is, but the third failed it. Differences of opinion seems mostly to do with the expertise of the examiners in the technical details of the research, as well as some conceptual or methodological bias.
• Examiners were unclear in practice about the difference between a pass-with-corrections and a revise-and-resubmit. Very different standards were applied. In some cases, theses were passed [as is], accompanied by a list of recommended substantive changes!
• Writing quality matters. Writing was the number one concern: sentence structure, proof reading, referencing errors, clear arguments, even clear presentation. As an examiner put it, “One has to keep in mind that there is often a relationship between the quality of presentation and quality of scientific results.”
• An important criterion for a pass was that the research was “publishable”, but examiners interpreted this widely, some thinking this meant the thesis could be published as is, others that the results could be worked up and submitted.
• Attitudes towards supervisors ranged from blame for not picking up on issues of argument or presentation, to praise for collaborating on the thesis with the candidate.
• And the worst thing? Something I wouldn’t wish on any candidate: to have their thesis described, in the words of one examiner, as “benumbingly boring”.

Johnston, S. (1997). Examining the examiners: An analysis of examiners’ reports on doctoral theses. Studies In Higher Education, 22(3), 333–347.