The document outlines the expectations of 15 examiners for a research thesis. In general, examiners expect the thesis to:
1) Make an academic, practical, or social contribution and ask rigorous research questions addressed through an appropriate methodology.
2) Have a precise title that describes what was done and not be too ambitious.
3) Include an in-depth, relevant literature review of seminal and highly cited works that shows a deep understanding beyond the specific context.
4) Have a sound conceptualization supported by theory that leads to clear hypotheses or a conceptual framework.
5) Use valid and appropriate quantitative and qualitative methods, measures, and analyses to properly justify the methodology and interpret all findings.
2. Overall
Has the thesis made a contribution (academic, practice,
social significance)?
Has the research question/s been rigorously developed
based on gap analysis and hypotheses?
Has the research methodology is appropriate?
Is there sufficient rigour overall?
Is it written in academic language?
Is it free from plagiarism-check for plagiarism check by
URKUND or Turnitin.
Expectation of Examiner 2
3. Title
Is it precise?
Does it describe what has been done?
Is it too ambitious?
Expectation of Examiner 3
4. Literature Review
Are there too many theoretical streams? Which
theoretical stream is adopted for study?
Is it in-depth?
Is it relevant?
Does it include seminal works?
Does it include the most cited research?
Does it show deep understanding
Does it consider concepts / theoretical issues, beyond
the specific context?
Does it provide a logical pathway to the research
questions?
Expectation of Examiner 4
5. Conceptualisation /
Hypothesis Development
Is the conceptualisation sound?
Is it supported by rigorous theoretical understanding?
Is it logical and well argued?
Does it lead to a conceptual framework and/or
hypotheses
For inductive research, does it provide a sufficiently
strong conceptual base?
Expectation of Examiner 5
6. Hypothesis Development
Are the hypotheses developed and argued with a strong
theoretical / conceptual logic?
Are the hypotheses correctly presented?
Are they simply and clearly presented?
One relationship per hypothesis (use sub-hypotheses for
related areas)
Are they ‘testable’?
Expectation of Examiner 6
7. Model Development
Are the variables (types) valid e.g. latent, observable,
nominal, categorical etc?
Are the measures appropriate for the model and
variables (e.g. formative and reflective measures)?
Are the relationships understood and explained properly
with rigorous logic (e.g. direct, interaction effects
(moderating and mediating).
Expectation of Examiner 7
8. Justifying Methodological
Choice
Sound and rigorous justification is necessary
Very good overview articles:
Edmondson & McManus
Van Manen
Academy of Management Review and Academy of
Management Journal have excellent methodology /
theory development articles (often Editorials)
Expectation of Examiner 8
9. Methodology
Is the methodology being used properly justified (see
previous slide)
Mixed methodology
Is the role of the qualitative and quantitative components
clear and clearly explained? Use references to justify.
Expectation of Examiner 9
10. Quantitative Methodology
Are the methods being used appropriate and properly
justified?
Data collection:
Is the survey design appropriate / tested?
Are the constructs clearly understood and obtained from
the literature
Does the questionnaire draw on established measures and
scales
Expectation of Examiner 10
11. Quantitative Methodology
Data Analysis
Are the correct analytical tools being used?
Are they sophisticated enough?
Have you done the necessary checks for validity,
reliability, etc?
Have you tested for bias (e.g. non-response bias, social
desirability effects common method bias, indigeneity,
single informant bias, etc.)?
Expectation of Examiner 11
12. Qualitative Methodology
Is the appropriate method/s being used – and justified?
Cases study/ies
Interviews
Ethnography
Focus groups
Action research
Etc.
Is the conceptualisation rigorous (very important)?
Are you clear about whether it is inductive or deductive
(or abductive)?
Expectation of Examiner 12
13. Qualitative Methodology
Data Analysis
Is it rigorous?
Are you using appropriate tools?
Justifications!!
Expectation of Examiner 13
14. Discussion: Interpretation of
findings
Very important part of the thesis!
Is it logical, creative, in-depth, insightful?
Is it well linked to the literature?
Must cover all the findings – including non-significant
findings, which may be important!
Is the contribution clear and clearly stated?
Expectation of Examiner 14
15. Conclusion, Implications and
Limitations
Does this section provide a clear and rigorous overview of
the thesis and its contribution?
Does it note the important implications?
Theoretical implications? (or perhaps methodological, if
relevant)
Managerial implications?
Policy implications? (if relevant)
Implications for future research? (Important!)
Have the limitations been noted (mention only important
limitations)
These need to be discussed in a sound manner, with a good
understanding demonstrated
Suggestions for overcoming limitations should be made
Expectation of Examiner 15