Supervisor perspectives on the ‘end-stage’ of the doctoral examination process

There has been substantial research on doctoral supervision and examination, yet rarely a focus on what happens at the end-stage of the process when examiner feedback is received and addressed. This article reports survey findings (n = 262) from a study investigating supervisor perceptions about Australian end-stage doctoral examination processes. In general, supervisors believed that existing university processes were satisfactory, with the caveat that, at times, there was undue variability between examiners, or difficult-to-reconcile committee decisions about the outcome. Supervisors generally identified that revisions and the preparation of the response-to-examiner report was a ‘shared responsibility’. While supervisors strongly agreed that graduates achieve doctoral level in terms of substantive knowledge, they were less sanguine about their research autonomy. This impression was compounded if candidate input into the decisions about examiner comments was undervalued or if there was no direct avenue of response by the candidate

Autonomy · Doctoral dissertation · Higher education · Medical education · Political science · Supervisor · Computer Science · Doctoral Education Challenges and Solutions · Innovations in Medical Education · Law · Medicine · Psychology · Student Assessment and Feedback

• Oral defence as a feedback mechanism in doctoral development and examination

  Open Access•Terence Lovat, Kerry Dally et al.•The Australian Educational…•2022

  Incluir item

• What do examiners look for in a PhD thesis? Explicit and implicit criteria used by examiners across disciplines

  Deborah Chetcuti, Joseph Cacciottolo et al.•Assessment & Evaluation in Higher…•2022

  Incluir item

• Conditions that enable effective feedback

  Open Access•M Henderson, Michael Phillips et al.•Higher Education Research &…•2019

  Incluir item

• Developing evaluative judgement

  Open Access•Jeanne Tai, Joanna Tai et al.•Higher Education•2018

  Incluir item

• Know what I mean? Enhancing student understanding of assessment standards and criteria

  Berry M O’donovan, BERRY O'DONOVAN et al.•Teaching in Higher Education•2004

  Incluir item

• Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research.

  Leandre R Fabrigar, Duane T Wegener et al.•Psychological Methods•1999

  Incluir item

• Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems

  Open Access•D Royce Sadler•Instructional Science•1989

  Incluir item

• Challenging formative assessment

  John B Pryor, John Pryor et al.•Assessment & Evaluation in Higher…•2010

  Incluir item

• What examiners do

  Clinton Golding, Sharon Sharmini et al.•Assessment & Evaluation in Higher…•2014

  Incluir item

• Sustainable assessment revisited

  David Boud, Rebeca Soler•Assessment & Evaluation in Higher…•2016

  Incluir item

• Content and context in knowledge production

  Wendy Bastalich•Studies in Higher Education•2017

  Incluir item

• We were there too

  Open Access•Geraldine Brown, Elizabeth Bos et al.•Methodological Innovations•2017

  Incluir item

• Conceptual models to guide integration during analysis in convergent mixed methods studies

  Open Access•Ellen Moseholm, Michael D Fetters•Methodological Innovations•2017

  Incluir item

• The focus and substance of formative comment provided by PhD examiners

  Allyson Holbrook, Sid Bourke et al.•Studies in Higher Education•2014

  Incluir item

• The rather elusive concept of 'doctorateness

  Brian Poole•Studies in Higher Education•2015

  Incluir item