742020

research-article2017
ALH0010.1177/1469787417742020Active Learning in Higher EducationHodgson

Article

Active Learning in Higher Education

1­–13
Helping doctoral students © The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
understand PhD thesis [Link]/[Link]
DOI: 10.1177/1469787417742020
[Link]
examination expectations: A [Link]/home/alh

framework and a tool for

supervision

David Hodgson
Edith Cowan University, Australia

Abstract
The examination of a PhD thesis marks an important stage in the PhD student journey. Here, the student’s
research, thinking and writing are assessed by experts in their field. Yet, in the early stages of candidature,
students often do not know what is expected of their thesis, nor what examiners will scrutinise and comment
on. However, what examiners look for, expect and comment on has been the subject of recent research.
This article synthesises the literature on examiner expectations into a framework and tool that can assist
students to understand PhD thesis examination expectations. Suggestions of how this tool may be used as
part of a broader supervision pedagogy are offered.

Keywords
PhD examination, PhD supervision, PhD supervision tool

The challenges and demands of the PhD journey

Undertaking PhD research is a demanding enterprise, and writing a doctoral thesis can present one
of the most challenging aspects of the PhD journey overall (Lindsay, 2015). The reason for this is
because the student PhD experience is uniquely felt and involves a complex mix of practical, intel-
lectual and emotional struggles and transformations (Amran and Ibrahim, 2012; Deconinck, 2015;
Trotter, 2003). Deconinck’s (2015) essay is a ‘survival guide’ in the form of advice to would-be
students. In it, he quips that students who struggle frequently do not understand what a PhD is and
what it involves. Deconinck (2015) contends that students need to develop some psychological
tricks to overcome the various obstacles that this new experience will present. Amran and Ibrahim
(2012) consider that completing a PhD is a journey – a rite of passage – whereby the student moves
through a series of transformations: some emotional, some intellectual and scholarly. Trotter (2003)

Corresponding author:
David Hodgson, School of Arts and Humanities, Edith Cowan University, South West Campus, Robertson Drive,
Bunbury, WA 6230, Australia.
Email: [Link]@[Link]
2 Active Learning in Higher Education 00(0)

recounts her PhD journey as involving numerous practical, emotional, ethical and institutional
struggles and dilemmas. Therefore, the pathway to producing a PhD thesis of acceptable scope and
quality involves a progressive and transformative movement not only towards meeting the require-
ments of thesis examination but also of entering an academic and scholarly community (Amran
and Ibrahim, 2012; Stracke and Kumar, 2010).
In general terms, PhD programmes promise that students will acquire attributes such as origi-
nality, competence in research, critical use of knowledge, and ability to situate research and new
knowledge in a broader field (Australian Qualifications Framework Council, 2013; The Group of
Eight, 2013; The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, 2008). However, these mean-
ings are not self-evident and need to be understood and developed over time as part of the doctoral
learning process. The supervisor plays a formative role in facilitating this understanding (Peelo,
2010). For this learning to occur, some work by the student and supervisor needs to be undertaken
within a supportive and effective supervision pedagogy (Lindsay, 2015). Students and supervisors
need a clear vision of what standard they are working towards and a strategy of how to attain it.
This may take the form, for example, of a strong supervisory relationship that supports continuous
writing, project management and feedback (Lindsay, 2015). It should include close alignment
between student and supervisor expectations and views about the forms and functions of supervi-
sion (Pyhältö et al., 2015).
This article is focused specifically on the written thesis component of the PhD rather than vivas
or coursework examination. The argument here is that PhD students need to know and understand
the kinds of things that examiners look for and expect in a PhD thesis. The discussion that follows
is primarily conceptual and based on a review of guidelines on PhD standards and the empirical
literature on PhD thesis examiner expectations. This literature is synthesised into a framework of
attributes of PhD examiner expectations, which could be incorporated into a supervision pedagogy
for PhD students. The contribution to knowledge this article makes is an accessible tool for super-
visors and students that can assist students to understand and conceptualise the goals and expecta-
tions of a PhD programme of study, particularly the thesis component.

Policy and curriculum contexts for standards of doctoral

education
In recent times – among a burgeoning growth in world-wide doctoral enrolments (Nerad, 2011;
The Group of Eight, 2013) – literature has emerged that investigates and advises students, supervi-
sors, examiners and University administrators on how to improve the quality, experience and suc-
cess rate of this complex area of higher degree study (Delamont et al., 2004; Lindsay, 2015; Murray,
2009; Phillips and Pugh, 2010; Pyhältö et al., 2015; Tinkler and Jackson, 2004). Yet, different
countries have different requirement for doctoral study. For example, Australia only requires a
thesis for examination, whereas other jurisdictions like the United Kingdom and United States
include a viva or oral defence as part of the assessment process, and yet others require substantial
coursework and subject examination components (The Group of Eight, 2013). Notwithstanding
these different forms of assessment, a major objective and function of the PhD student’s learning
and development process is to progressively improve research skills and knowledge to an accept-
able standard, the form of which typically includes, and culminates in, examination of a PhD thesis
(The Group of Eight, 2013).
Amidst the expansion in doctoral education generally, national guidelines that stipulate the
standards and expectations of doctoral education are increasingly relevant for students and supervi-
sors to grasp. For example, in the United Kingdom, the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) is
responsible for setting and monitoring higher education standards (QAA, 2017). The UK
Hodgson 3

Framework for Higher Education contains descriptors for doctoral degrees, and these have a par-
ticular emphasis on new knowledge, originality and substantial depth of understanding within a
specific discipline or practice area (The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, 2008).
The underlying skills or attributes required to meet these aspirations emphasise the ability to make
informed judgements, communication skills and an ability to work autonomously and indepen-
dently ‘in complex and unpredictable situations’ (The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher
Education, 2008: 24). In Australia, the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) contends that
PhD graduates should have specialised knowledge in a field or topic and that the PhD student’s
approach to knowledge should be systematic, critical and that they should demonstrate skills in
designing, executing and reporting on research at an advanced level (Australian Qualifications
Framework Council, 2013). Similarly, the detailed Australian ‘Group of 8’ report on the changing
nature of the PhD includes an appendix on attributes of PhD graduates (The Group of Eight, 2013).
These attributes include a focus on advanced disciplinary knowledge, research skills, technical
skills and an ability to contribute to knowledge (The Group of Eight, 2013).
In summary, common among these policy and curriculum objectives are the expectations for
PhD students to acquire skills in research, to show the ability to apply and generate knowledge
critically and to demonstrate an ability to understand and contribute to one’s discipline through
substantial original insights and contributions to knowledge, understanding and debate. Yet, as
mentioned, PhD students must comprehend these expectations and objectives in ways that make
disciplinary and institutional sense. Ultimately, students will be locating and developing their work
in a context and tradition of research that has disciplinary conventions and expectations (Australian
Qualifications Framework Council, 2013; The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education,
2008). Hence, the student needs to work out what these disciplinary conventions are and begin to
systematically apply them to their work. Reading the disciplinary and professional literature –
including recently published cognate PhDs – will assist in this task. Even so, despite a unifying
discipline, there may be substantial differences in the form, scope and presentation of different
PhDs, and disciplinary literatures are becoming increasingly interdisciplinary (Moran, 2010;
Smeby, 2000). Therefore, using the disciplinary literature alone may only go part-way to helping
establish clear guidance for the kinds of styles and markers of quality expected from a PhD thesis.
Furthermore, interpreting from these published sources the underlying markers and indicators of
PhD thesis quality is difficult. What else can students and supervisors turn to in order to assist
students to develop a deep and nuanced understanding of the expectations of doctoral research and
thesis presentation?

Examiner expectations of a PhD thesis: what does the literature

say?
There is a body of empirical research that has looked at the question of what examiners favourably
respond to and what they object to when examining PhD theses (Bourke and Holbrook, 2013;
Holbrook et al., 2004, 2007, 2014, 2015; Kiley and Mullins, 2004; Mullins and Kiley, 2002). Other
research has looked at supervisor feedback to students on the first draft of the thesis (Kumar and
Stracke, 2007), and yet others report on the experiences of examiners and how to improve the
examination process (Grabbe, 2003). This literature provides value to students and supervisors in
working out expectations for examination. Research by Holbrook et al. (2014) into examiner com-
ment of Australian science and education theses found that examiners provided formative com-
ment in relation to presentation; methods and techniques; theory and conceptual framework; depth
and scope of literature; levels, forms and understanding of the data; methods of analysis; argument
and reasoning; sufficiency and completeness; and depth and sophistication of thinking. A further
4 Active Learning in Higher Education 00(0)

study (Holbrook et al., 2015) specifically investigating examiner comment on the use of theory in
PhD theses found that examiners favoured a PhD thesis that demonstrated engagement with theory.
This engagement is demonstrated through the use of up-to-date sources and evidence of under-
standing pertinent theoretical criticisms. Examiners also expected students to demonstrate theoreti-
cal grasp, as evidenced by depth, breadth and critique. Grasp is also demonstrated through
theoretical consistency and alignment between the use of theory, research design and research
question. Furthermore, theoretical mastery is evidenced through a systematic discussion of theory
and consistent use of ideas, concepts and associated terminology (Holbrook et al., 2015).
Other research using semi-structured interviews with experienced examiners about their exami-
nation and expectations of PhD theses revealed numerous insights into the examination process
generally, particularly that examiners favour theses that demonstrate clear connections between
introductions, conclusions, points made and claims asserted (Mullins and Kiley, 2002). Holbrook
et al. (2007) sampled 1310 PhD examiner reports from five Australian universities and explored
the commentary on literature reviews specifically. The findings show that examiners expect broad
coverage of literature, demonstrated understanding and critical appraisal of literature, connections
between literature and findings, and, importantly, evidence of a disciplinary perspective achieved
through systematic use of literature throughout the thesis. A good thesis will exhibit clarity in
explaining the research project and the thinking that informs it, a substantial and up-to-date bibli-
ography, worthwhile results and evidence of work and effort in the research (Mullins and Kiley,
2002). The thesis should also convey confidence that the student knows what they are doing and
what they understand, as evidenced through coherence, the development of a compelling argu-
ment, originality and consistent use of theory and method (Mullins and Kiley, 2002).
Excellent PhD theses are said to demonstrate creativity, synthesis, evidence of published work
by the student in a reputable journal and critical self-assessment by student (Mullins and Kiley,
2002). Bourke and Holbrook (2013) investigated examiner comment on PhD and Masters theses in
order to compare differences and similarities between the examination of the two different awards.
In their study, they developed 12 indicators of quality as follows: Analysis/Findings (effective
interpretation), Approach/Methodology (appropriate), Analysis/Findings (appropriateness),
Literature Review (accuracy), Approach/Methodology (effective application), Contribution (origi-
nality), Presentation (communicative competence); Contribution (substantive), Contribution
(advance knowledge), Literature Review (use/application), Literature Review (coverage) and
Presentation (correct expression) (Bourke and Holbrook, 2013).
The PhD examination process is an opportunity to give formative feedback to students; how-
ever, the examination process itself constitutes a mechanism for upholding standards through the
use of options for resubmission and re-examination. A study by Holbrook et al. (2004) looked at
examiner feedback on PhD theses that were resubmitted for examination, by comparing initial and
re-examined comments. They found that examiners may enter into expert and gatekeeping roles,
particularly in cases of re-examined theses, where they were examining according to standards that
they see themselves as having a duty to uphold. Holbrook et al. (2004) found that examiners of
re-examined thesis may be willing to overlook deficiencies in presentation, but held fast to stand-
ards concerning thesis content, overall systematic approach, analysis, use of literature and contri-
bution of new knowledge (Holbrook et al., 2004).

Learning outcomes for doctoral education

The derivation of specific learning outcomes and criterion for PhD assessment turns on what
counts as a PhD and what purpose it is said to fulfil. This is largely a matter of debate. Arguably, a
PhD learning journey may encompass the full span of Bloom’s taxonomy of learning to include
Hodgson 5

cognitive processes such as remembering, understanding, applying, analysis, evaluation and crea-
tion (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001). Bloom’s higher order cognitive processes such as evalua-
tion (e.g. critique) and creation (e.g. the development of a hypothesis, methodology and new
knowledge) are typically emphasised in PhD learning outcomes. The knowledge dimension in
Bloom’s taxonomy moves from factual, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive knowledge
(Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001). Learning outcomes for PhD programmes particularly emphasise
the grasp of existing factual and conceptual knowledge (such as theory), independence in the appli-
cation of procedural knowledge (such as methodology) and demonstration of metacognitive
knowledge (such as critical self-reflexivity). The actual form that these cognitive and knowledge
dimensions take in a PhD programme would be subject to debate and variability. Mowbray and
Halse (2010) state that the purpose of the contemporary PhD is plagued with ‘epistemological
ambiguities’ (p. 653), particularly in the context of a recent push for graduates to have employabil-
ity skills beyond the academy and into industry and government (Mowbray and Halse, 2010), and
Kyvik (2014) notes that ‘the variation between individual countries in the performance of assess-
ment and defence of doctoral theses is fairly large’ (p. 108).
It is also the case that there are disciplinary differences that emphasise different aspects of the
research study and how it is reported. For example, in science, examiners will emphasise data and
data analysis, whereas in education and in qualitative studies, the emphasis is on argument
(Holbrook et al., 2014). Furthermore, institutions that award PhDs will develop their own state-
ments of learning outcomes for doctoral programmes and criterion for examination. For example,
most if not all institutions offer PhD programmes in different discipline areas; however, the learn-
ing outcomes are typically generic insofar as they include the demonstration and application of
high-level conceptual, technical and methodological research skills, as well as comprehensive con-
tributions to the development and dissemination of knowledge. Broadly, examiners are usually
required to focus their assessment on matters such as originality, criticality, independence and
contribution to knowledge. However, as Tinkler and Jackson (2004) point out, institutional criteria
used for thesis examination purposes vary, they may be ignored and many examiners receive little
to no training on how to approach the examination process. This means that examiners rely on
‘tacit knowledge about what a PhD in their discipline should be like’ (p. 109). Consequently, disa-
greement between examiners is likely (Kemp and McGuigan, 2009).

A tool for helping PhD students understand thesis examination

expectations
The purpose here was to create a tool that may assist students to conceptualise the expectations of
examination. It is apparent from the above review of literature that amidst the debates about the forms
and functions of the PhD, there are many similarities and common themes concerning what examiners
expect and comment upon when examining PhD theses, such as clarity, coherence, contribution to
knowledge and originality (Tinkler and Jackson, 2004). These are articulated in learning outcomes,
and disciplinary and institutional requirements of the PhD. Organising the central themes in the litera-
ture on examiner expectations into an accessible framework can be a beginning way to help students
understand, conceptualise and work towards examination expectations. As discussed below, this
should be used in conjunction with supervision pedagogies and learning process, throughout the dura-
tion of the PhD journey. The tool can provide a way to help the supervisor and PhD student to locate
common ground around what is expected from the PhD and what PhD research means and involves.
The framework that is presented in Table 1 is the result of a synthesis of the policy, curriculum
and empirical work discussed earlier on PhD examiner expectations (specifically, Australian
Qualifications Framework Council, 2013; Bourke and Holbrook, 2013; Holbrook et al., 2004,
 6

Table 1.  Attributes of PhD examiner expectations.

Mastery/command Argument Coherence Independence Criticality Depth/breadth Clarity/accuracy

Extensive and Connections between Systematic and complete Original interpretations, Interrogation and Coverage of different Writing is clear and
exhaustive treatment introductions, discussion of theory adaptations, or critique of knowledge, literatures is unambiguous
of relevant literature conclusions, points made, applications of ideas, theory, comprehensive
(empirical, theoretical, claims asserted knowledge concepts, literature
methodological)
Understanding and Arguments and claims Consistent use of ideas, Thinking and intellectual Interrogation and Project scope is Sources are
engagement in pertinent made supported with concepts and terminology contribution evident critique of own sufficient and evidence accurately cited and
criticisms, debates evidence, logic, warrants interpretations, of ‘background’ or reported
and alternate views in analysis, findings and behind-the-scenes
literature conclusions work and effort
Grasp, interrogation and Reasoning and logic (links Coherent hypothesis Confident and grounded Conclusions and claims Questions and ideas Aim, purpose,
appropriate application between parts and whole) or question grounded assertions made about made are explored developed thoroughly question clearly
of theory, concepts, in literature and knowledge beyond face value stated
methods systematically explored
Demonstrate detailed, Thesis contains a clearly Consistency and Rigour in own standards Exceptions, Substantial and up-to- Data is accurately
comprehensive and stated overarching clear alignment of work, intellectual alternatives, gaps date bibliography presented and
accurate understanding perspective, point, and links between discipline and inconsistencies interpreted
of the field/subject/topic argument, which is question → literature →  identified and (connected to theory,
compelling and defended theory → design →  discussed literature)
data → conclusions
Creative and insightful Adoption and presentation Approach/topic is Critical appraisal Concepts/ideas Interpretations
view of topic of a clear disciplinary/ innovative, novel, of literature, field, well explained and and descriptions of
(demonstrated in theoretical perspective creative and justified debates elaborated in detail theory, concepts and
form, style, structure debates accurate
and presentation and
‘crafting’ of the work)
Active Learning in Higher Education 00(0)
 Hodgson

Table 1. (Continued)
Mastery/command Argument Coherence Independence Criticality Depth/breadth Clarity/accuracy

Seamless integration of Consistency in Authoritative voice Critical self-assessment Results and conclusions Methods are valid and
knowledge throughout presentation and of own work, thinking, are worthwhile, new, accurately and clearly
thesis application of knowledge bias, etcetera important – worthy of described
publication
Evidence of published/ Explanations for Multiple levels of Examination and Writing contains no
presented work from problems encountered analysis of theory, presentation of errors (edit, proof,
the study and how they were method, data data and methods/ organisation and
solved techniques are presentation)
thorough and complete
Specialised knowledge Explanations and Understanding and Other aspects of the Thesis is well
of subject/topic, but also full justifications for responsiveness to study/thesis generally organised and easy to
strong grasp of how this decisions and choices ethical matters, worthy of publication follow/read
topic relates to (cross) made responsibilities
discipline/context,
broader issues
Evidence of mastery and Demonstration of Critical discussion of  
command over research sound, professional, study scope and other
methods, search ethical judgement limitations
strategies, reporting and
analysis
7
8 Active Learning in Higher Education 00(0)

2007, 2014, 2015; Kemp and McGuigan, 2009; Kumar and Stracke, 2007; Mullins and Kiley,
2002; Stracke and Kumar, 2010; The Group of Eight, 2013; The Quality Assurance Agency for
Higher Education, 2008). The synthesis is the result of a process of identifying recurring themes,
concepts and ideas in the empirical literature that aligned well with the statements made from
policy and curriculum documents discussed earlier. That is to say, statements on what examiners
expect from a thesis as reported in empirical studies were identified as matches to statements about
PhD objectives and purposes as articulated in the curriculum and policy literature. In total, seven
main themes were derived from the findings of the above-mentioned literature, and these form the
top row of the tool (see Table 1). These themes are briefly described here as follows:

•• Mastery/command – comprehensive and exhaustive coverage and understanding of the

subject;
•• Argument – an overarching point, which is explained and defended;
•• Coherence – consistency and clear links between parts and the whole;
•• Independence – originality and ownership of the work;
•• Criticality – evaluation of existing knowledge and self-evaluation of own work;
•• Depth/breadth – thoroughness and completeness of work with sufficient detail;
•• Clarity/accuracy – thesis is correctly written and sources accurately cited.

These seven themes represented a first cycle of analysis that was used to provide a framework for re-
reading the literature. The literature underwent a second review and relevant examples or illustrations
were identified that described these overarching themes in more detail. These were then plotted into the
table under each heading in the form of attributes. It is interesting to note that the themes of coherency,
argument and mastery of the subject seemed strong overall. These are attributes that can be demonstrated
in the thesis as well as oral forms, such as a viva. Many of these attributes overlap and in some cases they
point towards similar things but are conceptualised in different ways. This indicates the integration of
skills and knowledge expectations across different aspects of the PhD process and outcome.

Supervision pedagogy: time, beliefs about knowledge and

disciplinarity
PhD supervisors want a comprehensive answer to the question often posed by students: ‘what will
examiners expect from my thesis?’ Table 1 outlines a synthesis of the literature on PhD thesis exami-
nation, but the practical application of this tool should be used reflexively and contextualised within
the student PhD journey and their experience, through supervision. It should be pointed out, then, that
this is a tool and not a substitute for good supervision. Rather, it is an aid to it. Simply highlighting or
pointing out these various expectations of a PhD (such as criticality, or originality) will do little help
PhD students conceptualise, interpret and develop these in their research work, and their thinking and
writing. Instead, it is argued here that PhD supervision is the relationship and the space that should
involve processes that help PhD students gain a clear picture of what they are aiming for with their
thesis and the background work that informs it. Hence, it is the supervisor who can provide the means
to assist PhD students to navigate those differences, and the tool in Table 1 can provide a starting
point for a critical discussion and interpretation of the requirements of the PhD thesis in context.
Supervision is key to providing the space for the reflexive academic development that PhD study
demands, and it is the supervisor’s role to facilitate and support this journey. This requires an effective
and a robust supervision pedagogy and feedback to the PhD student (Kumar and Stracke, 2007;
Stracke and Kumar, 2010). As discussed below, using the tool in supervision should assist the PhD
Hodgson 9

researcher to conceptualise their learning as occurring in different time phases and through ongoing
discussions about disciplinarity and critical reflection on beliefs about knowledge.

Time
Doctoral learning occurs over a span of time (Phillips and Pugh, 2010). Araújo (2005) conceptual-
ises PhD time as a phase, which is not strictly linear. Rather, PhD time can be ‘seen as circular’
(Araújo, 2005: 197). ‘Doing a PhD’ involves a series of continual time negotiations, which places
students in something of a suspended holding pattern or liminal space as they cycle around and
attempt to integrate in iterative fashion different time periods and their meanings. These include
past experiences (e.g. prior learning, feelings and emotions), present situations (e.g. specific tasks
they may be working on, current problems and challenges) and future expectations (e.g. where they
are heading and what they are working towards, their hopes and aspirations). Because there are
different phases of the PhD journey, the movements through these phases are ambiguous and
uncertain (Araújo, 2005; Phillips and Pugh, 2010). Hence, acquisition of the technical aspects of
the examination attributes in Table 1 are far from instrumental tasks that can be developed quickly,
but must instead be rehearsed in cyclic fashion taking into account different time phases and how
they relate together. Gender, age and field of study are variables that influence how time is concep-
tualised, and they influence how PhD researchers negotiate and use their time on their research
(Araújo, 2005). Furthermore, different time phases may involve different feelings, ranging from
enthusiasm to boredom and frustration (Phillips and Pugh, 2010). In short, supervisors should be
prepared to invest their own time in supervision because ‘students flounder without structure, clear
expectations, encouragement, accountability and guidance’ (McDonald, 2017: 158).

Beliefs about knowledge

Effective supervision depends on many factors, one of which is mutual understanding between
student and supervisor of the expectations from supervision (Hair, 2006), but it also relies on a
shared understanding of the goals and objectives of the research process and final outcome. One
area of understanding that should be explored – within the context of discussions about examina-
tion and thesis expectations – concerns beliefs about knowledge: specifically, different epistemo-
logical views and how this influences the teaching and learning process of supervision
(Päuler-Kuppinger and Jucks, 2017). King and Kitchener (2004) conceptualise epistemological
beliefs into seven levels, from basic beliefs that knowledge is simple, absolute and objective,
through to more complex beliefs that knowledge is context-dependent, and subject to evaluation
and revision in light of better explanations or evidence. Hofer and Pintrich (1997) review a range
of epistemological models and their relationship to learning, contending that there are at least four
dimensions of knowledge where variations in beliefs may occur, including how certain knowledge
is, its levels of simplicity versus complexity, sources of knowledge and criterion for justification.
This variation in epistemological beliefs is important to understand not only in light of the attrib-
utes in Table 1 (which itself may be subject to varying and often unstated epistemological assump-
tions) but also in relation to how it might be used in a supervision pedagogy. For example, a study
by Päuler-Kuppinger and Jucks (2017) found that academics and students tend to hold different
epistemological beliefs. Most notably, they observed that academics viewed knowledge as less cer-
tain than students. Prior knowledge and experience, while valuable and important, ‘may also distort
further learning, and needs both validation and possible self-correction’ (Toynton, 2005: 115). A
study by Kember et al. (2012) found that students who are schooled in rote learning fixed answers
10 Active Learning in Higher Education 00(0)

to problems may have difficulty transitioning to a learning environment that expects them to func-
tion at higher levels of independence and adopt multiple perspectives, particularly in relation to
complex ill-structured problems that are common in PhD research. Such differences in beliefs and
expectations – which are also conditioned by discipline area (Päuler-Kuppinger and Jucks, 2017) –
may account for different views about teaching and supervision. These differences concern where
the responsibility for learning rests (student or supervisor) and the extent to which PhD researchers
are expected to become independent learners and how responsible they should be for figuring out
expectations and what is involved in a PhD. Hence, the supervision process should contextualise the
attributes in Table 1 in light of phases in time, epistemological beliefs (including prior experiences
beliefs about teaching and learning) and disciplinary conventions and perspectives.

Practical application
Finally, in recognition of the way that time and epistemological beliefs shape the learning process,
there are at least two ways that the tool in Table 1 can be utilised in a practical sense through super-
vision. The first is within a peer setting and the second within a continuous writing and critical
thinking approach to supervision. First, peer approaches to supervision can assist students to gain
their bearings on expectations through regular interactions with other PhD students in their school
or discipline area (Stracke, 2010). Table 1 can work as a tool for students to discuss with other
students the requirements of their research, what writing a thesis is demanding from them, how
they are approaching such demands and the kinds of practical steps they are taking to increase their
scholarship and research expertise overall. Similarly, facilitating students’ access into a broader
research and professional community can also help students to self-evaluate the standards of their
work and practice, as they can situate what they are doing in relation to their academic peers.
Connecting with other researchers in their discipline and field of specialisation is again a way to
gain support and connectedness with a scholarly community (Pyhältö et al., 2009). It is here that
Table 1 can serve as a road map into exploring disciplinary conventions, styles, emphases and
expectations. For example, McCarthy et al. (2010) report on a peer-to-peer supervision exercise
they call ‘PhD Away Days’, which are annual 1-day seminars where PhD students share their work,
discuss progress, explore challenges and support one another. The tool in Table 1 would provide a
framework to support students to present their work and discuss challenges in a way that is
grounded in the expectations of a PhD research and thesis. In such an exercise, supervisors can use
Table 1 to formulate a series of prompts or critical questions to promote critical discussion and
debate in a peer-to-peer seminar format.
Second, it is known that writing and critical thinking are central activities to PhD research over-
all, and Table 1 provides a framework to describe these skills and capabilities, but steps are needed
to develop these through practice and feedback. For example, some research has shown that taking
an instructional design approach and embedding writing into teaching can improve not only con-
tent understanding but also disciplinary writing conventions (Hunter and Tse, 2013; Wingate et al.,
2011). A study by Lindsay (2015) identified factors that are indicated in successful thesis comple-
tion, which include continuous writing and critical thinking where the supervisor encourages ‘the
student to question and analyse their work’ (p. 195). In other words, the supervisor can use the tool
in Table 1 as a prompt to focus the student’s critical self-reflection and evaluation of their work.
For example, by producing writing such as a chapter, the student and supervisor can reflect on and
critique the ways that piece of writing addresses or captures select and relevant attributes as
depicted in Table 1. This may increase the student’s awareness and comprehension of relevant
expectations. That is, to critically examine aspects of Table 1 for relevancy and applicability to
institutional examination criteria and learning outcomes. For example, in the beginning of the
Hodgson 11

student’s candidature, when the supervisor asks the student to look at the institutional examination
criteria, the student could be asked to connect these with the Table 1 attributes. This would form
part of a feedback approach to supervision, but also pave the way into further conversations about
the requirements of PhD research and writing. Such conversations would also support students and
supervisors to develop learning plans and identify further research training opportunities.
The framework presented in this article will assist PhD researchers and supervisors in under-
standing the kinds of things that examiners look for and expect in a PhD thesis. In practice, it
should be used as a way to conduct supervision conversations around expectations and to develop
a broad conceptualisation of the end-point of a PhD thesis. The framework can also assist in plan-
ning a programme of learning and development for the student as part of their PhD journey and as
a form of critical self-assessment – not just in terms of preparing and finalising the thesis for
examination but also in regard to the underlying skills and attributes that need to be developed as
part of the student learning journey. It is important to develop this depth of understanding of exami-
nation expectations early in the student’s candidature because the sorts of attributes, capabilities
and abilities stipulated in Table 1 take time to develop. The table provides an outline of a vision of
where the student is heading with their thesis and serves as an effective basis for feedback and sup-
port. Supervision should provide a pedagogical context to enable students to develop these through-
out the course of their candidature. Finally, further evaluative research on this tool in practice
would be welcome.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References
Amran NN and Ibrahim R (2012) Academic rites of passage: Reflection on a PhD journey. Procedia – Social
and Behavioral Sciences 59: 528–34.
Anderson L and Krathwohl D (eds) (2001) A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision
of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman.
Araújo ER (2005) Understanding the PhD as a phase in time. Time & Society 14(2–3): 191–211.
Australian Qualifications Framework Council (2013) Australian Qualifications Framework, 2nd edn.
Adelaide, SA, Australia: Australian Qualifications Framework Council, pp. 112.
Bourke S and Holbrook AP (2013) Examining PhD and research masters theses. Assessment and Evaluation
in Higher Education 38(4): 407–16.
Deconinck K (2015) Trust me, I’m a doctor: A PhD survival guide. Journal of Economic Education 46(4):
360–75.
Delamont S, Atkinson P and Parry O (2004) Supervising the doctorate: A guide to success, 2nd edn.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Grabbe LL (2003) The trials of being a PhD external examiner. Quality Assurance in Education 11(2): 128–
33.
Hair M (2006) Superqual: A tool to explore the initial expectations of PhD students and supervisors. Active
Learning in Higher Education 7(1): 9–23.
Hofer BK and Pintrich PR (1997) The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and
knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research 67(1): 88–140.
Holbrook A, Bourke S and Fairbairn H (2015) Examiner reference to theory in PhD theses. Innovations in
Education and Teaching International 52(1): 75–85.
12 Active Learning in Higher Education 00(0)

Holbrook A, Bourke S, Fairbairn H, et al. (2007) Examiner comment on the literature review in Ph.D. theses.
Studies in Higher Education 32(3): 337–56.
Holbrook A, Bourke S, Fairbairn H, et al. (2014) The focus and substance of formative comment provided by
PhD examiners. Studies in Higher Education 39(6): 983–1000.
Holbrook A, Bourke S, Lovat T, et al. (2004) PhD theses at the margin: Examiner comment on re-examined
theses. Melbourne Studies in Education 45(1): 89–115.
Hunter K and Tse H (2013) Making disciplinary writing and thinking practices an integral part of academic
content teaching. Active Learning in Higher Education 14(3): 227–39.
Kember D, Hong C and Ho A (2012) From model answers to multiple perspectives: Adapting study approaches
to suit university study. Active Learning in Higher Education 14(1): 23–35.
Kemp S and McGuigan C (2009) Do PhD examiners agree on their recommendations? New Zealand Journal
of Educational Studies 44(1): 47–57.
Kiley M and Mullins G (2004) Examining the examiners: How inexperienced examiners approach the assess-
ment of research theses. International Journal of Educational Research 41(2): 121–35.
King PM and Kitchener KS (2004) Reflective judgment: Theory and research on the development of epis-
temic assumptions through adulthood. Educational Psychologist 39(1): 5–18.
Kumar V and Stracke E (2007) An analysis of written feedback on a PhD thesis. Teaching in Higher Education
12(4): 461–70.
Kyvik S (2014) Assessment procedures of Norwegian PhD theses as viewed by examiners from the USA, the
UK and Sweden. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 39(2): 140–53.
Lindsay S (2015) What works for doctoral students in completing their thesis? Teaching in Higher Education
20(2): 183–96.
McCarthy G, Hegarty J, Savage E, et al. (2010) PhD away days: A component of PhD supervision.
International Nursing Review 57(4): 415–8.
McDonald DA (2017) PhD supervisors: Invest more time. Nature 545(7653): 158.
Moran J (2010) Interdisciplinarity. Florence, KY: Taylor & Francis.
Mowbray S and Halse C (2010) The purpose of the PhD: Theorising the skills acquired by students. Higher
Education Research and Development 29(6): 653–64.
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): 369–86.
Murray R (2009) How to Survive Your Viva: Defending a Thesis in an Oral Examination, 2Nd ed. Maidenhead:
Open University Press.
Nerad M (2011) What we know about the dramatic Increase in PhD degrees and the reform of doctoral educa-
tion worldwide: Implications for South Africa. Perspectives in Education 29(3): 1–12.
Päuler-Kuppinger L and Jucks R (2017) Perspectives on teaching: Conceptions of teaching and epistemo-
logical beliefs of university academics and students in different domains. Active Learning in Higher
Education 18: 163–76.
Peelo M (2010) Understanding Supervision and the PhD. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Phillips E and Pugh DS (2010) How to Get a PhD: A Handbook for Students and Their Supervisors, 5th edn.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Pyhältö K, Stubb J and Lonka K (2009) Developing scholarly communities as learning environments for
doctoral students. International Journal for Academic Development 14(3): 221–32.
Pyhältö K, Vekkaila J and Keskinen J (2015) Fit matters in the supervisory relationship: Doctoral students
and supervisors perceptions about the supervisory activities. Innovations in Education and Teaching
International 52(1): 4–16.
Quality Assurance Agency (2017) About the QAA. Available at: [Link] (accessed 1
February 2017).
Smeby J-C (2000) Disciplinary differences in Norwegian graduate education. Studies in Higher Education
25(1): 53–67.
Stracke E (2010) Undertaking the journey together: Peer learning for a successful and enjoyable PhD experi-
ence. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice 7(1): 1–10.
Hodgson 13

Stracke E and Kumar V (2010) Feedback and self-regulated learning: Insights from supervisors’ and PhD
examiners’ reports. Reflective Practice 11(1): 19–32.
The Group of Eight (2013) The changing PhD: Discussion paper. Available at: [Link]
default/files/docs/the-changing-phd_final.pdf (accessed 11 November 2017).
The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (2008) The framework for higher education qualifi-
cations in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Available at: [Link]
Documents/[Link] (accessed 1 February 2017).
Tinkler P and Jackson C (2004) The Doctoral Examination Process: A Handbook for Students, Examiners
and Supervisors. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Education.
Toynton R (2005) Degrees of interdisciplinarity in equipping mature students in higher education for engage-
ment and success in lifelong learning. Active Learning in Higher Education 6(2): 106–17.
Trotter J (2003) Researching, studying or jumping through hoops? Reflections on a PhD. Social Work
Education 22(1): 59–70.
Wingate U, Andon N and Cogo A (2011) Embedding academic writing instruction into subject teaching: A
case study. Active Learning in Higher Education 12(1): 69–81.

Author biography
David Hodgson is a Senior Lecturer in social work. His teaching and research interests include social work
theory, ethics and ethical reasoning, governmental studies of social and education policy, and social work
education. Address: School of Arts and Humanities, Edith Cowan University, South West Campus, Robertson
Drive, Bunbury, WA 6230, Australia. [email: [Link]@[Link]]