Module 4, Session 4: Food for thought

[Hellen wafula Kamwele]

#5917

1. What do you think of the way the PhD assessment is done in Antwerp?
There is a lot of rigour in the process of assessing PhD in Antwerp which in my view ensures quality of the final output.
a. The added value of assessing the research and doctoral education separately is to ensure objectivity in process. It rewards the students efforts in all the stages that he has to go through. This acts as an inspiration to complete the PhD and the knowledge acquired will be able to be passed over to others with confidence. More over, one step helps build on the other hence gives confidence to a student once one is sure he has grasped doctoral education.

b. The combination of (bi)yearly evaluation ensures the student is on track and where there are problems, they are sorted on time and will eventually lead to timely completion of a quality thesis.
Yearly evaluation is also important as coherence of work can be ascertained and helps check set milestones.

c. What do you think of the possible pre-defence and the public defence? The two defences are good as they help the student be on target.
pre – defence has an added value of giving the students a chance to improve on the quality of his work by incorporating the comments given. It also prepares the student for the public defence as he would have gotten insights of what is expected in a defence and hence gives him confidence. Since the overall purpose of PhD is to generate new knowledge, public defence will help in disseminating his work.

2. How is it done at your university?
In my university, a student is given a chance to present his/her work before the school postgraduate committee, whereby comments are given to help improve the work further. Once satisfied with the work as per the post graduate requirements, the work is submitted to school of graduate studies who constitute an examination panel for the student for his defence.
3. What do you see as benefits and drawbacks of the different approaches?The different approaches are good as they build on each other hence neccesary.
4. Where do you see a possible improvement of the PhD assessment process? In my university, the performance of the student in doctoral studies should be considered as part of the final assessment as normally the performance of the research determines the fate of the student.

[Lilian Diana Awuor Wanzare]

#5946

The presentation on how phd assessment is done at Antwerp is similar in many ways as how I was examined in Germany. Having yearly progress reports is good for keeping track of the phd process. Having the student take part in seminars and workshops also provide valuable feedback to the student.

A jury for examination is good and reduces individual bias. In my case in had 5 members in the jury and 2 examiners.
The issue of publication is different for various universities. I think having a publication is an important part of doing a phd and learning how to write and argue. In computing, research evolves very fast and one need to keep publishing and looking a recent publications

• This reply was modified 2 years, 2 months ago by Lilian Diana Awuor Wanzare.

[Emily Bomet]

#5952

The way Phd assessment is done in Antwerp University is good. I like the way the University manages the progress of Doctoral research. It is done by the faculty/institute. The institute can follow the progress of its students and reduce drop out rate. The mandatory doctoral study programme at University of Antwerp is key in preparing the candidates for thesis writing. In our University, the supervisor tracks the progress of the student that he/she is supervising.

[Wangamati Murumba]

#5971

The PhD assessment is rigorous and elaborate. It welcomes the student to the world of academic rigor. At Maseno University, we have generally agreed to have Faculty defenses before the final defense at the School of Graduate Studies of Maseno University Publications from Thesis chapters compound the quality of students’ theses. Independent evaluators at a pe-defense level if adopted, could add value as well.

[Zahda Yazid]

#6015

The doctoral assessment at the University of Antwerp is split into two parts: the assessment of the doctoral process and the assessment of the doctoral study program. Based on the slides of the presentation, I could not understand exactly what exactly is meant by assessment in the two cases since the Ph.D. researcher after publicly defending their thesis does not receive a grade, which means that we are dealing with evaluation rather than assessment per se. As for the study program, I assume that researchers/candidates are assessed in the courses they take, but still, it is not clear what benchmark they have to achieve to pass or fail.

I find the focus on the research reports is very helpful for the Ph.D. committee to see what progress has been made, however, it is not clear to me if the researcher in question receives feedback on their report, and if they do, how it feeds into the improvement of/changes in the ongoing research. This also raises other questions as to whether researchers/candidates get the chance to engage with their faculty community on the research they are doing, whether there are open seminars for them to present their work, and whether they are encouraged to participate in local/international conferences to present their work as a way to engage with academics in their area of research. If such avenues are available, do they take their share in the “assessment”? Moreover, the pre-defence presentation is a good opportunity for both the researchers/candidates and supervisors to present their work on a technical level and receive feedback in order to improve/modify their work. However, I still believe that more engagement with academic and non-academic communities is needed in order to explore how others relate to the ongoing research.

Having examiners from the university and outside helps set the evaluation of the research in an objective manner. The problem could arise, however, if the examiners come from totally divergent ontological worldviews (positivist versus post-structuralist) and the research to be “assessed” is entirely qualitative. The chance that a positivist examiner fails the thesis/research is very high. Therefore, the composition of the examination jury is crucial to ensure that no conflicts arise due to such ontological differences.

I think the study program offers good training for the researchers/candidates to help improve/develop their skills needed not only for the doctoral program but also for any profession they choose to do.

[Rose Burugu]

#6045

It is interesting to note the challenges cut across the continents especially considering thesis examination is a very emotional besides being academic and intended to be very objective. I saw many similarities in the paper by Holbrook et. al on consistency and inconsistency. As a matter of fact, similar incidences of discrepancies occur and some having a very wide margin, yet the board of examiners at times may be lacking clear direction especially if its under unclear circumstances on whether to moderate or maintain the examiners final verdict. I concur with the idea of contacting examiners to establish their availability and ability to mark in the scheduled timelines to avoid situations where a thesis is inadequately read and hence graded. I believe supervisors need orientation too on the expectations since there are those who have done it over the years and those that are new to it hence require tips on how best to examine thesis and effectively.

Pakzads thoughts too are concerning, because, a PhD in itself puts a lot of pressure on candidates. Hence publishing and especially without a mentor leaves candidates opting for easier ways of publishing and often fall victims of the so called predatory journals. Despite the fact that the intention may not be bad, since its enables a candidate start practicing writing, it essential that such students are appropriately mentored since this could be their first time attempting to publish.

[Rose Burugu]

#6046

It is interesting to note the challenges cut across the continents especially considering thesis examination is a very emotional besides being academic and intended to be very objective. I saw many similarities in the paper by Holbrook et. al on consistency and inconsistency. As a matter of fact, similar incidences of discrepancies occur and some having a very wide margin, yet the board of examiners at times may be lacking clear direction especially if its under unclear circumstances on whether to moderate or maintain the examiners final verdict. I concur with the idea of contacting examiners to establish their availability and ability to mark in the scheduled timelines to avoid situations where a thesis is inadequately read and hence graded. I believe supervisors need orientation too on the expectations since there are those who have done it over the years and those that are new to it hence require tips on how best to examine thesis and effectively.

Pakzads thoughts too are concerning, because, a PhD in itself puts a lot of pressure on candidates. Hence publishing and especially without a mentor leaves candidates opting for easier ways of publishing and often fall victims of the so called predatory journals. Despite the fact that the intention may not be bad, since its enables a candidate start practicing writing, it essential that such students are appropriately mentored since this could be their first time attempting to publish.

[Author]

Posts