Creating Postgraduate Collaborations › Forums › CPC Supervision Development Course 2 › Module 4 › Module 4, Session 4: dive deeper
Tagged: Key readings discussion
-
AuthorPosts
-
Address the questions in chapter 6
Remember to click “subscribe” (top right corner) to receive responses to your comments via email.
In the spirit of diving deeper, please use this forum to tell us how an article, chapter of some other text you have read challenges, affirms or explains your own practice as a supervisor or what you have experienced as a student being supervised.
I would like to ‘dive deeper’ on the topic of publishing as a prerequisite to obtaining a PhD, after reading Moradi’s (2019) article on the matter. When I first heard of some countries requiring publishing before obtaining a PhD, my immediate and first reaction was ‘that’s a great idea!’. After reading Moradi’s reasons why he disagrees with this practice, I can certainly see that this is a complicated matter that can be argued both ways. However, despite the drawbacks that Moradi outlines, I still lean towards feeling that the benefits outweigh the harms. One of the major tenets of conducting PhD studies is the production of new knowledge. However, when this knowledge sits in the ‘dusty tomes’ of PhD theses that are never read by anybody other than the examining committee, this means that the knowledge is never truly disseminated or communicated, and that to me seems like an incredible waste. I fully appreciate Moradi’s point that PhD candidates need to develop many other skills such as management, communication, team-work, etc. but that does not take away from the fact that new knowledge still needs to be produced. I personally would have much rather handed in my thesis as a collection of articles that had been published or at least submitted for publication, rather than this huge tome of knowledge which I then later had to sit and turn into articles for publication after my PhD was completed. Additionally, I was lucky I had the opportunity to take a postdoc position where I could use my time to publish my PhD work, but many people then simply move on and don’t publish, which as I mentioned before, I think is a terrible waste. I would also argue that there is a unique set of skills one needs to learn when publishing (how to identify the correct journal, how to deal with reviewer’s comments), which should be taught as part of the PhD journey. I also disagree with Moradi when he states that this prerequisite might call into question “the reliability of the thesis reviewing committee if their evaluation is considered valuable only when the work has already been peer-reviewed”. Having already gone through a peer-review process does not take away the need for the examiner’s to identify whether the candidate has produced new knowledge, whether the candidate has the required analytical and critical thinking skills, etc.
Several papers show that there is no set of well-defined, universal evaluation criteria for assessing a PhD thesis, but that certain topics keep recurring therefore the evaluation criteria in my opinion that is important should be inclusive in terms of the composition of the jury. That is the supervisors of the PhD student, at least two representative members of the faculty where the PhD is situated and who are PhD holder, one external senior PhD examiners with relevant knowledge of the research area, and the chair at the school of post graduate studies. This is inclusive because both internal and external are coopted. In my opinion publications should be part of (and guarantee) a quality PhD thesis because if the findings are accepted in credible publishing journals and the findings are shared through the publication then this knowledge can reach many and that is the essence of a scholar. To increase increase/guarantee the reliability of the evaluation of PhD theses is by being ethical and objective with the verdict depending on the issues deliberated of course guided by a marking scheme. Divergent assessments by different evaluators at times may not work well on the verdict but it is important to understand that knowledge differs so research also differs and this brings in the Horizontal and the hierarchical dimensions. The bottom line is that knowledge gap must clearly be seen to have been generated or filled
The paper on cognitive change shows that a PhD track involves a learning path for both the student and the supervisor (where their knowledge structures can take different paths, e.g. grow towards each other or not) and that supervisors and students look at a PhD differently: This implications can make the work delay and drug if clear harmonization is not taken care of. The supervisor should be a mentor and a coach in this case when the views are divergingMy take here is on the Consistency and inconsistency in PhD thesis examination by Holbrook et al., (2008). They undertook a study in several Australian Universities to determine how external examiners recommendations influence the final decision of University examination committees in the assessment of Theses. Whereas the decisions by most of the unversity committees were consistent with the recommendations of the external examiners, there were still inconistencies that were experienced in certain universities, there recommendations by the external examiners were overruled. Indeed Holbrook et al., (2008) argue that there are no written down regulations on how Phd theses should be examined meaning that most universities are at liberty to rely on their laid down regulations to ensure that due process is followed during the examination of PhD theses.
In situations where the external examiners tend to recommend a resubmmission of the thesis, I feel that the Australian Universities should adopt a policy of inviting the external examiner to appear in person to defend thier position and not just support or overrule theor decisions. This is a position that is taken by some Universities in Kenya. Additionally, some universities make it mandatory for external examiners to be available for Vivas. In this way, students are able to get a break down of the recommendations by each member of the examination committee and have insights as to how the final decisions were made on their thesis: Whether it is accepted the way it is, with minor corrections, major corrections or may require a resubmission/
After reading chapter 6 of Mckena et al. (2017), Ifind it to be general and not giving the intended information. Thus, as a supervisor or a student, not all required information one is looking for can be found under one book or article but in several books or articles. This means, one must develop a culture of reading…
Mckena et al. has shown that all solutions of a research problem cannot be obtained from one book or one chapter. This means that a lot of reading has to be done for comprehensive work to be compiled. The researcher might not have enough of time and resources to accomplish this therefore a sub-standard work.
I have a different opinion contrary to Moradi (2019) in his article on “Publication should not be a prerequisite to obtaining a degree”. He describes several other PhD assessments that can be used like PhD skills (Presentation skills, scientific reasoning, management, communication skills, and international experience), public defence and/or development of a product or a service. The proposed assessments can suffice but the PhD project findings need to be disseminated and one way of doing it is through publication which reaches a wider audience than the other methods. The publication will enable the PhD student to communicate ideas to the wider academic world meaning the idea got to be appreciated. It is also a measure in which a PhD student gauges the understanding of a particular subject especially if the publication is done in peer-reviewed journals.
The use of external examiners’ reports to gauge the quality of a PhD is acceptable widely as one way of maintaining the quality of PhD work. As mentioned by Sid Bourke (2008) that the written examiner reports and recommendations are normally considered by the university committee in awarding a PhD. This is the case with my university, once the student has satisfied all other criteria spelt out by the University Senate, the external examiner’s report is used to make the final decision.
For a PhD I prefer an annual evaluation report since a PhD is a 4-year program and although in other Universities it can be more than 4 years. It must be evaluated by the standing committee selected by the HDC.
I think yes, on the issue of publications, in that every PhD work must be published upon completion. This gives the institution assurance that the work is of quality and is necessary to bridge the gap and above all add to the literature.
reliability of the evaluation of a PhD thesis can be increased by assessing candidates by at least different evaluators.
the cognitive change really involves a learning path for both the student and the supervisor to grow towards each other.Thank you for analysis. I like your argument on PhDs vs publication.
I feel your path was better because you finished first and then embarked on publishing, as separate chuncks of work.
On Moradi (2019 paper on publications before PhD, i find it a good way to promote publications through the process of acquiring PhD. This is the time the student has adequate focus, compared to when they get consumed by external environment.
Assessment of Ph.D. theses is could be more subjective than objective as long as there are no well-defined criteria to ensure impartiality and consistency in the examiners’ reports. But the question is then, is it possible to create such criteria in the first place? and if not, what to do then?
I personally believe that given the heterogeneity of areas of research, it is definitely impossible to have well-defined criteria for all disciplines for several reasons. First of all, whether the research is quantitative, qualitative, or mixed has implications on how to assess it. Quantitative research needs certain criteria that are not possible to be used in assessing qualitative research. The former needs to focus on certain criteria to ensure that the research methods and results are valid and credible, whereas the latter does not seek consistency or validity in the results as much as it needs to show the fact that inconsistencies are not a problem in the research, but rather a finding that needs to taken into account when it comes to understanding or explaining a research topic. Secondly, in qualitative research, there are many methods, case studies, interviews, etc. Different methods require different criteria for assessment. Having one set of criteria does injustice to the research in question and to the researcher. Finally, researchers do not all have access to the same sources. Those with more access, their research can be more robust than others with limited sources (databases, books, archives, etc.). However, such constraints on the researchers can be structural (lack of financial resources to get access to expensive databases, for instance). In such cases, in my opinion, a researcher’s work cannot be assessed in the same way as one does with a researcher with abundant stock of sources.
Therefore, I think seeking to establish one-size-fits-all criteria for assessment can do more harm than good. Examiners should take into account the above variables when they assess research works.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.