Examiner reference to theory in PhD theses

References

• Anyon, J. (2009). Theory and educational research: Toward critical social explanation. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Benge, C., Onwuegbuzie, A., Mallette, M., & Burgess, M. (2010). Doctoral students’ perceptions of barriers to reading empirical literature: A mixed analysis. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 5, 1–24. Retrieved from http://ijds.org/Volume5/IJDSv5p055-077Benge304.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Berman, J. (2013). Utility of a conceptual framework within doctoral study: A researcher’s reflection. Issues in Educational Research, 23, 1–18.
   Google Scholar
• Bourke, S., Hattie, J., & Anderson, L. (2004). Predicting examiner recommendations on PhD theses. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 178–194.10.1016/j.ijer.2005.04.012
   Google Scholar
• Bourke, S., & Holbrook, A. (2013). Examining PhD and research masters theses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38, 407–416.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourke, S., & Holbrook, A. (2010, November–December). How examiners identify quality of research theses. Paper presented at the 2010 AARE International Research Conference, Melbourne.
   Google Scholar
• Gulson, K., & Parkes, R. (2010). Bringing theory to doctoral research. In P. Thomson & M. Walker (Eds.), The Routledge doctoral student’s companion: Getting to grips with research in education and the social sciences (pp. 76–84). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Holbrook, A., & Bourke, S. (2004). An investigation of PhD examination outcome in Australia using a mixed method approach. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 4, 153–169.
   Google Scholar
• Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., Fairbairn, H., & Lovat, T. (2007). Examiner comment on the literature review in PhD theses. Studies in Higher Education, 32, 337–356.10.1080/03075070701346899
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., Fairbairn, H., & Lovat, T. (2014). The focus and substance of formative comment provided by PhD examiners. Studies in Higher Education, 39, 983–1000.10.1080/03075079.2012.750289
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiley, M., & Wisker, G. (2009). Threshold concepts in research education and evidence of threshold crossing. Higher Education Research & Development, 28, 431–441.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lamont, M. (2009). How professors think: Inside the curious world of academic judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lovat, T., Holbrook, A., & Bourke, S. (2008). Ways of knowing in doctoral examination: How well is the doctoral regime? Educational Research Review, 3, 66–76.10.1016/j.edurev.2007.06.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lovitts, B. (2007). Making the implicit explicit: Creating performance expectations for the dissertation. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
   Google Scholar
• McMillan, D., Bell, S., Benson, E., Mandzuk, L., Matias, D., McIvor, M., … Wilkins, K. (2007). From anxiety to enthusiasm: Facilitating graduate nursing students’ knowledge development in science and theory. Journal of Nursing Education, 46, 88–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mullins, G., & Kiley, M. (2002). ‘It’s a PhD, not a Nobel Prize’: How experienced examiners assess research theses. Studies in Higher Education, 27, 369–386.10.1080/0307507022000011507
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parry, S. (2007). Disciplines and doctorates. Higher Education Dynamics,16. Online Book. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F1-4020-5312-6
   Google Scholar
• Pedersen, E. (2007). Theory is everywhere: A discourse on theory. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 25, 106–128.10.1177/0887302X06296872
   Google Scholar
• Trafford, V., & Leshem, S. (2008). Stepping stones to achieving your doctorate: Focusing on your viva from the start. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Winter, R., Griffiths, M., & Green, K. (2000). The ‘Academic’ qualities of practice: What are the criteria for a practice-based PhD? Studies in Higher Education, 25, 25–37.10.1080/030750700115993
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar