A framework of ‘doctorateness’ for the social sciences and postgraduate researchers’ perceptions of key attributes of an excellent PhD thesis

ABSTRACT

Debate about the defining features of ‘doctorateness’ or what examiners look for in a PhD thesis is on-going, but hardly any attention has been paid in related literature to Postgraduate Researchers’ (PGRs) perceptions of the key attributes that make a PhD thesis excellent. In this study we examine the state of play of the former to then go on to investigate the latter. We begin by developing a synthesis of the conventional wisdom on the key attributes of an excellent PhD thesis, leading to what we call here the ‘Seven Attributes Framework’ (SAF). We then conduct focus groups and interviews with PGRs enrolled in PhD programmes in Business & Management and related disciplines, to gauge their perceptions of key attributes, benchmarked against the SAF hereby developed. We find considerable misalignment particularly in terms of a merely superficial understanding of ‘significant contribution’ and ‘theory’, with a non-trivial degree of confusion as to how PGRs think these attributes could be evidenced in thesis writing. PGRs in the first two years of their PhD also show limited, at best unidimensional conceptions of ‘originality’, ‘criticality’ and ‘rigour’. Taken jointly, the SAF alongside the overall methodological process outlined in this study to benchmark PGR perceptions of key attributes, not only contribute to increasing the transparency of doctoral assessment, they also provide a valuable blueprint to complement Training Needs Analyses (TNAs) increasingly seen as a necessary tool in the provision of targeted doctoral training by awarding institutions, Doctoral Training Partnerships and Centres for Doctoral Training.

KEYWORDS:

• Postgraduate researchers (PGR)
• PGR perceptions
• PhD thesis
• PhD assessment
• doctoral assessment criteria

Notes

1 The term ‘doctorateness’ (henceforth no speech marks) has been used with reference to the universal scholarship qualities expected of PhD candidates as well as aspects of both the process and outcome of doctoral research (Poole 2015). In this paper, we use the term as per Trafford and Leshem’s (2009, 309) description, namely ‘pre-requisite elements of good-quality research that examiners expect to find in doctoral theses.’

2 By way of example, to corroborate the suggestion that the guidelines given to examiners are often basic and vague, we invite the reader to consider the criterion of ‘publishability’, one that is increasingly featuring in doctoral colleges’ official documents of PhD assessment criteria. For instance, The University of Bath ‘Guidelines for Examiners of Doctoral Degrees’ lists as ‘criterion (c)’ that the doctoral thesis submitted for examination should satisfy the Board of Examiners as ‘containing material worthy of peer-reviewed publication’ (see p. 3, available at: https://www.bath.ac.uk/publications/guidelines-for-research-examiners/attachments/guidelines-for-examiners-of-doctoral-degrees-july-2021-plus-covid-note.pdf). Yet, as many academics’ own experiences with academic journals’ peer-review process would attest to, what is to be regarded as ‘worthy of publication’ remains a very subjective assessment even among experienced reviewers/referees. Not to mention the fact that such stated criteria in assessment guidelines for examiners lack any descriptors detailing what, precisely, would make the doctoral output of ‘publishable standard’ or the attributes that are expected to be satisfied for the thesis to demonstrate ‘publishability’. This is the reason many PhD candidates (alongside their supervisors) are now eager to try to publish from the PhD thesis even before its submission, in an attempt to gain greater credibility with doctoral examiners.

3 The notable exceptions are studies investigating doctoral students’ perspectives of a single attribute, such as critical thinking (e.g. Brodin 2016).

4 To any PGR who may feel shamed by the evidence, we apologetically respond by drawing a parallel with a quote from the movie ‘Gladiator’ in which the reigning emperor Marcus Aurelius tells his disappointing heir, Commodus: ‘your faults as a son, are my failures as a father’.