Abstract
This article reports the results of a mixed methodology analysis of the assumptions of academic staff and Masters students in an Iranian university regarding various aspects of the assessment of the Masters degree thesis, including the main objective for writing the thesis, the role of the students, supervisors and advisors in writing the proposal, conducting the project, writing the thesis, and asking/answering questions in the viva. Assuming that the Masters degree oral exams are important historical moments to investigate these issues, qualitative observations were made of 32 Masters vivas in an Iranian university, leading to 18 core categories. These were then drawn upon to develop two questionnaires, which were completed by 57 academic staff and 101 Masters students in various disciplines in the same institution. The results indicate lack of consistency and transparency with regard to roles, responsibilities, and obligations of various stakeholders in handling various aspects of the Masters thesis.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Agar, M. (1996). The professional stranger: An informal introduction to ethnography. San Diego, London: Academic Press.
Bazargan, A. (2007). Problems of organizing and reporting internal and external evaluation in developing countries: The case of Iran. Quality in Higher Education, 13(3), 207–214.
Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Bristol: Open University Press.
Boot, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3–15.
Carter, S. (2008). Examining the doctoral thesis: Discussion. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(4), 365–374.
Denicolo, P. (2003). Assessing the PhD: A constructive view of criteria. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(2), 84–91.
Golde, C. M. (2007). Signature pedagogies in doctoral education: Are they adaptable for the preparation of education researchers? Educational Researcher, 36(6), 344–351.
Grabbe, L. L. (2003). The trials of being a PhD external examiner. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(2), 128–133.
Hartley, J., & Fox, C. (2004). Assessing the mock viva: The experiences of British doctoral students. Studies in Higher Education, 29(6), 727–738.
Hasrati, M. (2005). Academic writing in Iranian universities: The lost ring of the chain. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 11(1&2), 103–138. (In Persian)
Hasrati, M. (2013). Material and credentialing incentives as symbolic violence: Local engagement and global participation through joint publication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 27(2), 154–179.
Hasrati, M., & Hashemi, R. (2011). The PhD game in a Middle Eastern setting: A small scale study of science students in an Iranian university. Quality in Higher Education, 17(1), 331–352.
Hasrati, M., & Mohammadzadeh, M. (2012). Exam papers as social spaces for control and manipulation: “Dear Dr X, please I need to pass this course”. Critical Discourse Studies, 9(2), 177–190.
Holbrooke, A., Bourke, S., Fairbairn, H., & Lovat, T. (2007). Examiner comment on the literature review in PhD theses. Studies in Higher Education, 32(3), 337–356.
Holbrooke, A., Bourke, S., Lovat, T., & Dally, K. (2004). Investigating PhD thesis examination reports. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 98–120.
Holbrooke, A., Bourke, S., Lovat, T., & Fairbairn, H. (2008). Consistency and inconsistency in PhD thesis examination. Australian Journal of Education, 52(1), 36–48.
Jackson, C., & Tinkler, P. (2001). Back to basics: A consideration of purposes of the PhD viva. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(4), 355–366.
Kehm, B. M. (2001). Oral examinations at German universities. Assessment in Education, 8(1), 25–31.
Kelly, F. (2010). Reflecting on the purpose of the PhD oral examination. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 45(1), 77–83.
Kiley, M., & Mullins, G. (2004). Examining the examiners: How inexperienced examiners approach the assessment of research theses. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 121–135.
Kumar, V., & Stracke, E. (2011). Examiners’ reports on theses: Feedback or assessment? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10, 211–222.
Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, G. N. (2012). Revisiting the global market for higher education. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 24(5), 717–737.
Mitchell, C. (1984). Case studies. In R. Ellen (Ed.), Ethnographic research: A guide to general conduct (pp. 237–241). London: Academic Press.
Morley, L. (2004). Interrogating doctoral assessment (Editorial). International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 91–97.
Morley, L., Leonard, D., & David, M. (2002). Variations in vivas: Quality and equality in British PhD assessment. Studies in Higher Education, 27(3), 263–273.
Muijs, D. (2004). Doing quantitative research in education: with SPSS. London: SAGE Publications.
Mullins, G., & Kiley, M. (2002). It’s a PhD, not a Nobel Prize: How experienced examiners assess research theses. Studies in higher Education, 27(4), 369–386.
Nightingale, P. (1984). Examination of research theses. Higher Education Research and Development, 3(2), 137–150.
Powell, S., & Green, H. (2003). Research degree examining: Quality issues of principle and practice. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(2), 55–63.
Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Shaw, M., & Green, H. (1996). Standards in research awards: Length, weight or quality? Developing an approach for resolving the dilemma. Innovation & Learning in Education, 2, 4–10.
Stracke, E., & Kumar, V. (2010). Feedback and self-regulated learning: Insights from supervisors’ and PhD examiners’ reports. Reflective Practice, 11(1), 19–32.
Tavakoli, P., & Hasrati, M. (2013). Are MA TESOL dissertations changing in Anglophone countries? The impact of a globalized education context. 46th Annual Meeting of the British Association for Applied Linguistics. Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK, 5–7 September 2013.
Tight, M. (2004). Research into higher education: An a-theoretical community of practice? Higher Education Research and Development, 23, 395–411.
Tinkler, P., & Jackson, C. (2000). Examining the Doctorate: Institutional policy and the PhD examination process in Britain. Studies in Higher Education, 25(2), 167–180.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix: Staff Questionnaire
Appendix: Staff Questionnaire
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hasrati, M. Why bother about writing a Masters dissertation? Assumptions of faculty and Masters students in an Iranian setting. Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. 14, 455–465 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-013-9273-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-013-9273-x