WHAT EXAMINERS SAY: EXPECTATIONS AND SURPRISES JOHN SIMWINGA (PHD) ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (RESEARCH) DIRECTORATE OF RESEARCH AND GRADUATE STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF ZAMBIA

Title: Expectations Title should clearly reflect the specific focus of the study Title should not be more than twenty words long (stipulated by some universities) Title should reflect the discipline in which the degree is being sought Title should be in form of a statement Title should reflect content

Title: Surprises Title presented in form of a question Title presented in form of an objective Title is too broad, lacks focus Title is too simplistic Title is at variance with content Title requires the application of quantitative design but candidate has used qualitative design Title does not reflect the discipline in which degree is being sought

Abstract: Expectations one page of not more than 500 words-single spacing Containing: What was investigated Why it was investigated Purpose/aim Objectives

Abstract: Expectations How it was investigated - Data collection - Data analysis Major findings of the investigation Implications of the findings Conclusion Recommendations for further research

Abstract: Surprises The abstract has not brought out clearly what the study investigated in general The specific focus of the study is not clear It is not clear how data were collected and analysed The major findings of the study and their implications have not been presented

Abstract: Surprises The conclusion is missing The recommendations are missing The abstract is not coherently presented The abstract is too long (sometimes 4 pages and titled Executive Summary) There is lack of congruence between the abstract and the content of the study

Content of Chapter 1: Expectations General/Overview Background Statement of the Problem Rationale/Justification/Significance Purpose/Aim/General Objective Objectives Methodological framework (optional)

Content of Chapter 1: Expectations Theoretical framework or Conceptual framework Literature Review (optional can also be in Chapter 2) Scope of the study (optional) Structure/Organisation of the dissertation/thesis (optional) Summary (optional)

Content of Chapter 1 : Surprises Introduction/Background section not directly related to the title Introduction/Background is too brief Introduction/Background has not sufficiently described the project being evaluated Introduction/Background is too long Problem or knowledge gap not clearly stated

Content of Chapter 1 : Surprises Stated problem or knowledge gap not related to title Aim/Purpose/General Objective of the study section not included Aim/ Purpose/General Objective of the study not clearly stated Aim/Purpose/General Objective of the study not reflected in the specific objectives

Content of Chapter 1: Surprises Specific objectives not clear Specific objectives not related to the title Some of the specific objectives are not addressed in the study The “objectives” section is not included in the dissertation

Content of Chapter 1: Surprises Research questions/hypotheses not clear Research questions/hypotheses not related to the objectives Some of the research questions/hypotheses are not addressed in the study

Content of Chapter 1: Surprises Research questions/hypotheses section not included in the dissertation Rationale/significance/justification not clearly stated Rationale/significance/justification same as statement of the problem Rationale, significance, justification and even motivation presented as separate sections

Content of Chapter 1: Surprises Theoretical/Conceptual framework not clear Theoretical/Conceptual framework not appropriate to the situation under investigation Theoretical/Conceptual framework not clearly linked to the title or to the findings

Chapter One: Surprises Theoretical/Conceptual framework not justified Theoretical/Conceptual framework not applied in the discussion of the findings The dissertation is incoherent, lacks logical development from theory to application

Literature review: Surprises Literature review should directly relate to the title Literature review should provide a detailed, coherent and adequate scholarly critique of existing literature in terms of knowledge gap and in relation to the present study Literature reviewed should include both convergent and divergent views

Literature review: Surprises Literature review inadequate Literature review section too long Literature merely presented, not reviewed in terms of knowledge gap and in relation to the present study Literature reviewed has excluded divergent views Literature reviewed inappropriate for the present study

Literature review: Surprises Theories and concepts cited in the Literature review not applied anywhere to support or refute some of the findings Literature Review Section/Chapter not included in the dissertation Literature review not logically/coherently presented

Literature review: Surprises Literature review not clearly linked to the present study Literature review contains a lot of factual statements which are not supported by the literature

METHODOLOGY OR MATERIALS AND METHODS: EXPECTATIONS Clear identification and justification of research design applied Clear categorization of type of data collection methods: qualitative? quantitative? or mixed methods? Clear explanation and justification of inclusion/exclusion criteria Clear explanation and justification of the control measures applied

METHODOLOGY OR MATERIALS AND METHODS: EXPECTATIONS Detailed description of data collection process: sampling, sampling frame, sample size, sampling techniques, data collection instruments Data analysis – content analysis? Discourse analysis? statistical analysis? For statistical analysis, indication of the specific type of statistics used eg. T-test, ANOVA, Chi-Square etc and justification

METHODOLOGY OR MATERIALS AND METHODS: SURPRISES Research design not appropriate Research design not fully described Research design not fully justified Sample size inadequate Sampling procedure not fully described Sampling frame not clearly stated Exclusion/inclusion criteria not clearly stated

METHODOLOGY OR MATERIALS AND METHODS: SURPRISES Qualitative data not adequately analysed Procedure for analysing qualitative data not fully described Materials and methods used for data collection not sufficiently justified Materials and methods used for data collection not appropriate

METHODOLOGY OR MATERIALS AND METHODS: SURPRISES The study population is not clearly identified There is no information on the control measures applied Control measures applied inadequate/inappropriate/ non-standard Inadequate description of the project targets

METHODOLOGY OR MATERIALS AND METHODS: SURPRISES Inadequate information on how data were collected and analysed Methodology is not clear and does not include the main tools used in the study No clear indication of how many FGDs were held and with whom The expressions Focus Group Discussions and Interviews are used interchangeably yet they are different

METHODOLOGY OR MATERIALS AND METHODS: SURPRISES Not indicated the number of people interviewed and how these were selected There is no justification for the use of the specific data collection instruments indicated No indication of the specific type of statistics used to analyse data – candidate has simply indicated SPSS.

Findings: Expectations Findings should be presented and explained in relation to the objectives and/or research questions Extracts of verbatim responses should be presented for qualitative studies Specific statistical test results should be presented for quantitative studies

Findings: Surprises Findings merely stated, not explained in relation to the objectives or research questions or hypotheses Some of the findings not related to any of the objectives or research questions or hypotheses Results from some of the statistical tests carried out not presented

Findings: Surprises For a qualitative based study, the candidate has not presented sufficient direct quotations from the respondents Findings have been presented in form of raw data based on the sources of data instead of being synthesized in relation to the objectives or research questions or hypotheses

Discussion of Findings: Expectations Discussion section should deliberate the findings in relation to the title, the statement of the problem, the main objective, the specific objectives, the literature review and the theoretical or conceptual framework Qualitative explanation of Quantitative data

Discussion of Findings: Surprises Discussion section repeats the presentation of findings/results and does not discuss them in relation to the title, the statement of the problem, the main objective, the specific objectives, the literature review and the theoretical or conceptual framework

Discussion of Findings: Surprises The candidate makes claims which are not substantiated by either the findings, the literature or theory The discussion chapter or section is not included in the dissertation Quantitative data have not been backed with qualitative explanation

Discussion of Findings: Surprises There are too many quotations which obscure the clear flow of the researcher’s interpretation of the findings

Conclusion and Recommendations: Expectations Both the conclusion and the recommendations should logically follow from the findings and the discussion thereof

Conclusion and Recommendations: Surprises The conclusions are not derived from findings, lack evidence The conclusions are appropriate but are not emphatically stated There are too many recommendations The recommendations are not clear

Conclusion and Recommendations: Surprises Some of the recommendations are not linked to the conclusion The section on ‘suggestions for further research’ is not included in the dissertation The recommendations are too long and some of them contain more than one idea

GENERAL SURPRISES Grammatical errors – eg. subject verb agreement, use of incomplete sentences Stylistic errors – use of non-academic writing style (eg. vocabulary selection, use of first person narrative, inappropriate thematic progression etc.) inconsistency in referencing style (APA vs MLA vs Vancouver vs Harvard) inconsistency in spelling between British and American

GENERAL SURPRISES Non-adherence to DRGS Guidelines as stipulated in the handbook e.g. Title page Order of preliminary pages Naming of chapters

GENERAL SURPRISES Non-numbering of entries eg. Chapter entries, table entries, figure entries Inconsistency in numbering of entries Non-titling of chapters Chapters start abruptly and end abruptly Non-narrative explanation of table entries, figure entries and graph or bar chart entries Non-narrative explanation of statistical test results

STAY BLESSED