Examining the Doctorate
Institutional policy and the PhD examination process in Britain
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4791983 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Penny Tinkler (0000-0002-9918-9821, a University of Manchester , UK), Carolyn Jackson (0000-0003-0237-0307, b University of York , UK) |
| Year | 2000 |
| Volume | 25 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 167-180 |
| Publication date | 2000-06-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Studies in Higher Education (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0307-5079 • E-ISSN: 1470-174X |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/713696136 |
| OpenAlex | W2121102951 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 41 |
| References cited | 10 |
In this article the authors attempt to shed some light on the PhD examination process, a process that is arguably far less transparent than those at other levels of British higher education. More specifically, the authors focus upon institutional policy from a sample of 20 British universities and attempt to document policy and interrogate the principles underpinning guidelines governing examination practices. They examine definitions of what constitutes a doctorate and policies governing a range of practices that are integral to the examination process. The research reveals that although there is a large degree of inter-institutional consistency regarding key criteria for the award of a PhD, close inspection of institutional policy suggests that the PhD examination is in fact conceptualised and operationalised in diverse ways
Higher education · Pedagogy · Policy analysis · Political science · Public relations · Sociology · Underpinning · Educational Theory and Curriculum Studies · Engineering · Higher Education Learning Practices · Law · Legal Education and Practice Innovations · Public Administration
Doctoral Education, Danger and Risk Management
Navigating the PhD viva ‘tug of war’
Students’ Perceptions of Doctoral Defense Formats
Students’ Perceptions of Doctoral Defense in Relation to Sociodemographic Characteristics
‘Don't become so much high sounding’
‘I am just saying maybe …’
Assessing and predicting the quality of research master’s theses
Doctoral examiners’ narratives of learning to examine in the PhD viva
Assessing the person or the project? How disciplinary ontological and epistemological assumptions shape doctoral admissions in elite UK institutions
Research Ethics and the Moral Enterprise of Ethnography
Speaking the language of defence
DBA Examination Procedures and Protocols
Feminist sociology and feminist knowledges
The doctoral viva voce as a cultural practice
Navigating Academic Integrity in Doctoral Education
Doctoral Dissertation Defenses
Assessment feedback in examiner reports on master’s dissertations in translation studies
Investigating the role of convenors in the PhD viva
The concept of ‘originality’ in the Ph.D
Assessing the quality of PhD dissertations. A survey of external committee members
Balancing knowing and not-knowing
A framework for evaluating the doctoral curriculum
Why not rubrics in doctoral education
What examiners do
Back to Basics
What do examiners look for in a PhD thesis? Explicit and implicit criteria used by examiners across disciplines
Ensuring accuracy and quality for oral examinations in translation
The final examination of the UK PhD
Preserving doctoral integrity – an international study of examiner perspectives on the role of the oral examination in doctoral study
Evaluation Practices of Doctoral Examination Committees
Variations in Vivas
A framework of ‘doctorateness’ for the social sciences and postgraduate researchers’ perceptions of key attributes of an excellent PhD thesis
The Transition to Independent Research
New Variant PhD
It's just a comment not really a question
Análise do processo de exame de grau na pós-graduação stricto sensu
The focus and substance of formative comment provided by PhD examiners
Doctoral defence formats
It's a PhD, not a Nobel Prize
Being a good course-taker is not enough
Assessing the mock viva
| Unique citing works | 41 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1,64 |
| Citation span | 2001 - 2026 (26) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 41 |