“the presentation of the thesis falls short,,,substantial proof reading,,,”

2. “the presentation of the thesis falls short,,,substantial proof reading,,,” • “the literature ,,raises a number of issues,,,many of them are also left open, without being resolved” • “this chapter is, however, way too long and almost lacking in analysis. There is simply a regurgitation of very long quotes from the interviews” • “I am reasonably happy that the candidate understands the topic, but he does not marshal his arguments well” • “this is sheer waffle. This is the first time I have seen a researcher grand-standing in their own thesis. This section should be deleted” • “one odd statement “none of the managers in this study are ageist or hold prejudices against older people”. How does the candidate know this?” • “The chapter is somewhat heavy with data and there might have been some more discussion and analysis of the data” • “The study is missing a research methodology chapter” • “ p 57 the research questions start appearing. They are buried in the chapter and should be more evident”

3. What Examiners Look for in a Thesis Professor Alan Brown School of Management Edith Cowan University

4. What is a good PhD? • No specific criteria apart from university guidelines for examiners • Makes “a substantial and original contribution to knowledge” - what is substantial, what is original? • It is important to show your contribution • Judgement of supervisors • Mullins, G and Kiley, M. (2002) “It’s a PhD, not a Nobel Prize”: how experienced examiners assess research theses, Studies in Higher Education, 27, 4, 369-386

5. Examiners • ECU requires 3 external • Some universities use 2 • Comments often conflict • Supervisor + student select or supervisor only • Who are best? (junior/senior, used their work, supervisors network, sympathetic to methods, etc) • Several levels of pass can be awarded • Have you/your supervisor published with them?

6. Examiners checklist • Identify and justify a topic > research problem • Formulate research question(s) • Review relevant literature • Develop theoretical/conceptual framework • Identify appropriate methodologies • Obtain valid and reliable data • Conduct appropriate analysis • Draw appropriate conclusions • Communicate clearly

7. Research questions • Not too broad • Define boundaries • Limitations • Significance (academic, practical) • Link to a gap in the literature • Primary and secondary Q’s

8. Introduction • Gain the readers (examiners) interest • Clarity, specify Q’s, etc • Research is relevant • Has academic merit • Has practical value • Not on basis of personal interest • A comprehensive yet concise overview

9. Literature review • Extensive yet concise • Include key references in the field • Not a kitchen sink, not padding > relevant • Up to date (check list <5years old) • Structure - cluster references by dates and themes • Link to research question • Need to address conflicts • Synthesize with conceptual framework

10. Methodology • General overview of methodology options • Fully explained details for your research • Justification of methodology (eg why 2?) • How questionnaire/interviews developed • Using existing questionnaires • Pilot work • Validity/reliability checks • Links to theoretical framework • Proposed data analysis

11. Analysis • Could be several chapters eg qualitative and quantitative • Keep some stats in an appendix • Present facts and offer explanations • Avoid broad generalisations • Some link back to the literature/theory • May be long and boring so good summaries are important

12. Conclusions • Answers to research questions • No new ideas introduced here • Theoretical contribution - worthwhile • Practical contribution - worthwhile • Limitations • Further research • Interesting to read • Strong link back to chapter 1

13. References • Current • Properly presented • Cross referenced in text-reference list • Good references not just conference papers • Don’t over use your own publications • Many examiners look at this first!

14. For each chapter…. • Introduction • Summary • Sections clearly identified • Table of contents gives an idea of how well structured the thesis is

15. Top Tips! Don’t make examiners guess – make it easy for them to read and follow • Structure • References • Chapter introductions and summaries • Justify methodology • Final chapter • Conceptual/theoretical framework – linkages • Explanations, summaries of findings • Your contribution is clear