Module 4, Session 2: Research Committee Membership and Examination

[Nwabisa]

#3009

In the department of Economics at Rhodes, proposals are first presented at the departmental committee. The students present their work in the presence of the supervisor, the reader and other colleagues in the department. The reader will provide his or her input and sometimes raise questions after that everyone is welcome to comment on the proposal. The student and the supervisor respond to questions and give clarity where necessary. If all is well, then the proposal can proceed to the Higher Degrees Committee, if not, the student will go back and implement suggested changes. I personally commend this system because it provides support for both the student and the supervisor before the proposal is submitted to the Higher Degrees Committee.

In the process of discussing the proposal as a member of the Higher Degrees Committee, one needs to be cautious not to kill the spirit of the student and also not to undermine the supervisor as this may cause unnecessary tensions. Also, as the supervisor, you need to be open to suggestions and not to take other people’s comments as personal attacks. This may lead to a silent war which may affect the students in a negative way. Collegial support is of utmost importance in this regard. I have no experience in examining a thesis as I am a novice supervisor.

[Wil Hout]

#3025

Thanks for the posts on assessment and examination. It is clear from the responses that supervisors need to take on different roles. From your comments it is clear that the supervisor is a gatekeeper between discussants and the student whose work is being discussed, while she/he needs to ensure at the same time that the students takes up the relevant issues that were raised by discussants.

[Charles O]

#3026

The power point presentation is very informative and a reminder of the roles of university lecturers / supervisors. The process of supervision is well summarized to examination, role of higher degree committees and their neglected roles etc. From personal experience, the higher degree committees need a robust chair to bring in objectivity during examination of a proposal. Some of my students had it rough due to personal differences between members of this committee and unnecessary competition. As an examiner,its often difficult to give a report for a rejection of the thesis. Most of the times, the students are either examined by fellow colleagues at work and as such a rejection may not auger very well at the work place. This for me is an eye opener as we need to clearly examine the role of all players in the process of post graduate learning. From supervisors, departmental, graduate school, higher degree committees, examiners (external and internal) etc. Capacity ought to be enhanced at all levels for a smooth running of PG knowledge acquisition.

[Charles O]

#3028

Supervisors should prepare their students for oral or viva examinations. I have had experiences where the students “freezes” out during their oral thesis defense as the supervisor stares either helplessly or very uncomfortable as the failure of the student often reflect negatively on the supervision

[Kefa S]

#3035

The issues raised in PPT presentation resonate with what I continue to be asked to do at my institution. At my institution, the nomenclature for the Higher Degrees Committe if School of Graduate Studies Committee. I have severally served on this Committee and my experience is mixed! All the dynamics raised in the PPT presentation are evident, but I suppose, the situation will get better as manpower numbers increase! The tasks here can at times be too onerous that it is very easy for some weighty research issue to be missed! ‘Error is humanly’, as they say!
With regard to the examination of written thesis reports and the viva voces, the situation is also challenging! The PPT presenter was right to indicate that part of the solution to the challenges would be a ‘firn and just’ chair of the sessions! It is noteworthy that at my institution we have dynamic leadership that is streamlining the standards of operations! Overall, as the PPT implies, it is the institutionalisation of the postgraduate processes that need emphasis in all our centres of higher education.

[Yakub]

#3046

Thanks Chrissie for this PPT!
The presentation content is quite close to what we do in Maseno University, Kenya. There are some unique experiences we have had in the School Postgraduate Studies Review Committee sessions. The committee has had touchy issues with some PhD students who are also colleagues in the school. They come with the mind that they should just go through the process successfully even when their proposals are clearly below par. The Committee must just be objective and provide the correct verdict however painful or nice it might be! It is also clear that the Committee should always understand the students’ presentation and not have a preconceived attitude towards the proposal. Objectivity is the key here.
Mock theses presentations would suffice to help prepare the student very well for the eventual real oral examination. This can be done at the Departmental or School level just to enable the student get the ‘feel’ of the examination. The supervisor needs to actually guide the student to enhance the golden thread concept. The thesis should seamlessly communicate the core parts into one. However, if the student does not cooperate it becomes quite a frustration. We have come across some ‘final’ theses sent out for examinations that are really substandard and eventually fail at the oral presentations. Hence, proper cooperation between the student and supervisor is paramount for success. Subsequently, the choice of examiners must be done carefully to give the student the correct and objective feedback. Some examiners truly miss the point due to attitude and lack of discipline knowledge which become obvious from their reports. The Postgraduate Oral Examination Panels have had to overrule some examiners reports as unacceptable!

[Wil Hout]

#3059

These were again some pertinent comments on examination. One of the things that came to mind is that it would be helpful not to wait with bringing in outside discussants for students’ work until the very end (i.e., the examination stage), but rather to organise moments at which students get feedback from externals on their work. At the International Institute of Social Studies (ISS) at Erasmus University, we have good experiences with the organisation of three different “seminars” on PhD students’ work. During all stages, external discussants are part of the discussion: a design seminar is organised at the end of year 1; a seminar to reflect on fieldwork is organised by the end of year 2 or somewhat later; a seminar for the discussion of the final draft PhD thesis is organised ahead of the examination, and at such a stage when students are still able to incorporate comments.

[Lucas]

#3065

There are two committees in my institution which give PG students a hearing and feedback before the final defence at the School of Graduate Studies. The committees are Departmental Postgraduate Studies Committee and School/Faculty Postgraduate Studies Committee. The former is chaired by the HoD and the latter by an appointed Chair.

As a supervisor, I have found attending the meetings important to avoid misunderstandings among Faculty especially when the thesis requires specific expertise. Apart from clarifying issues that may be misunderstood by my colleagues, my presence usually gives the student confidence.

Three examiners’ reports are used to guide the panelists in the final defence; 1 from an external examiner and two from internal examiners. The Dean School of Graduate Studies (or his nominee) chairs the defence attended by the relevant Dean of the candidate’s School, the Supervisors, the 2 Internal Examiners, 2 representatives from the relevant School and an Admin Assistant to take minutes. The external examiner need not attend the final defence unless s/he has failed the candidate in which case attendance is mandatory. As much as the three examiners may recommend a PASS, the student must also pass in the orals. I have found it useful to organize at least one timed presentations from my students before allowing them to go for the final defence.

[Damiannah Kieti]

#3071

The Power point presentation captures some of my experiences as a supervisor, internal examiner, external examiner and member of School graduate studies committee. As a supervisor, I have in several occasions experienced the feelings of being examined along the students during viva and it can be very distressing, particularly when the student develops some signs of panic during oral examination, and not able to express himself or herself. However, as a supervisor, I try as much as possible to prepare my students for the Viva, sometimes, by taking them through ‘mock ‘ oral presentations, so as to get the them identify areas of concerns, possible questions and answers etc
In my University, there are clear guidelines for awarding of marks in thesis examination process for both oral examination and written report. From my experience, with exception of few cases, most of the scores awarded by examiners do not vary significantly and address closely related qualities and this makes it easy for the board of examiners to reach a consensus on final verdict.
I find the following important while supporting my students to engage with examiners reports: Going through the comments from examiners and the board of examiners; and getting to understand what is expected to be addressed; giving the student an opportunity to respond to the examiner comments/concerns/questions as much as possible and generate a summary capturing key issues raised and corresponding corrections/responses; identifying issues which may not be addressed and possible reasons.

[Jacqueline]

#3085

Being an academic faculty comes with other numerous responsibilities that have an impact on the postgraduate students and also staff within the faculty and/or institution. At one point, you have to examine theses, both in writing and orally in a viva. In as much as the procedures of appointing examiners do not differ very much from what is presented, you sometimes find yourself in a very challenging situation when you get information that you are an examiner just a couple of days before a candidate’s oral defense. So you walk into the defense room and a copy of the candidate’s thesis is presented to you. You have just a few minutes to scan through the document and at the same time follow what the candidate is presenting. This can influence one’s objectivity in examining the candidate’s defense.

[Nelson]

#3087

As a PG supervisor, i am engaged in a number of academic activities within and without the university, such as supervision, internal/external examination, approval of proposal from across schools and faculties alongside community service. These are challenging and often too demanding. At times i am not able to meet timelines agreed upon with my students.

[Titus]

#3146

The Key issues that I consider critical in examination at postgraduate level are Professionalism and objectivity on the part of examiner and enforcing of the Rules and Regulations on the part of the postgraduate studies administration. Three concerns arise from my experience as an internal as well as external examiner; first, scenarios where examination of a thesis in a multidisciplinary is done by a person(s) who have strength in an area of specialty even though the research cuts across multiple fields. Secondly, a scenario where there are huge disparities between the scores awarded by the examiners of the same thesis. Thirdly, given the busy schedule for most academic staff at the university, some examiners go beyond the prescribed time and have to be followed for a long time before they can submit the marked reports – and it is always clear that they hurried through the marking process.
Effective examination has a number of ingredients; professionalism, objectivity, adequate time, clearly stipulated rules and guidelines in examination, indepth understanding of subject and context & academic Integrity etc. As an examining committee member, I have tried to stick to these good practices.

[Wil Hout]

#3189

Thanks to participants for their reflection on the examination process and committee membership. Your comments clearly point out that many see a variety of roles for supervisors, including preparing students for examination, addressing feedback from examiners and putting students at ease during an examination/viva. It is clear that most or all participants see their roles in function of their students’ learning process as young academics.

[Rox]

#3192

I am a new academic in the High degree committee of my faculty and each of the six times I have participated in those long meetings of high degrees committe has been incredibly revealing about the responsibility and power I have as a gatekeeper in the academic realm. Being new, my first impression was to notice the silent power dynamics of the room. My sociological/journalist side appears and start noticing patterns on who are the academics that speak more, who do not speak and who are the professors who receive larger number of observations in the proposals of their advisees. This space has showed me the politics of knowledge that underly our practice and identity as knowledge producers. Yet, colleagues, being political and protective of what they know and the norms and values of their respective fields, are at the same time kind and generous with their observations.

[Jamin]

#3195

The PPT is insightful and speaks to my experience both as a supervisor, examiner and member in examination committees. I have examined many postgraduate theses both as an internal and external examiner and my experiences sometimes bring out some of the dilemmas that characterize the duty involved. In my university there is an elaborate guideline on the scoring of the various aspects of the thesis. However, there are instances where written report does not correspond with the overall marks awarded e.g. a highly critical report but a high mark and vice-versa. Given the multi-disciplinary nature of my faculty, the evaluation guidelines sometimes don’t capture the disciplinary practices in the various fields. Sometimes in the viva it emerges the written evaluation reports from the internal examiner (From the Department and School/university) and ‘external’ examiners are in agreement but the final verdict in terms of pass with minor corrections; major corrections required; re-submission or fail differ widely between the two categories of examiners. However, the rules and regulations governing postgraduate examination are clear and therefore consulted to resolve such issues.

[Author]

Posts