======= Date Modified 02 Mar 2011 13:08:21 =======
I am looking into doing a part time PhD but have been put off by what happened to a friend of mine. They were doing a part time PhD in Social Science and after 5 years of study she has been failed. Firstly, the examiner failed her because she did not clearly outline her aims so she made the recommended revisions (with her supervisors help) and then they failed her again saying that her PhD offers nothing new to the field and she just merely presented and pieced together information that was already available. She is gutted!



My question, she failed because the examiners felt her PhD offered nothing new BUT why did her supervisor or anyone in her department spot this failing before she submitted? She spent 5 years on her PhD, attended and presented at numerous conferences, departmental meetings etc why did no one spot these obvious failings? Surely a supervisor reads the thesis before it submitted why did he not spot it? In fact, it was the supervisor’s thesis idea so he should have known if it was up to scratch! Why did the head of post graduate admissions, who after reviewing the proposal 5 years ago gave the OK for my friend to study, not spot the failings?



I find it hard to believe that experienced supervisors cannot spot whether a PhD thesis is up to scratch in the 5 years it took the complete. Call me cynical but I assume the supervisor gets to keep all the 5 years worth of data and findings that my mate worked hard for?! I bet he saves a lot of significant time in his research! All my mate gets after 5 years of hard work is thousands of pounds down the drain and a MPhill.



This should not be allowed to happen!! Surely she can take the university to court since her supervisor should have spotted the failings? My friend is not the type of person who would go against her supervisor, so if he said it was not upto it she would never have submitted. If the external examiner felt that it offered nothing new then this is a obvious failing that experts in the field should be able to spot within 5 years!!

It must be great being a supervisor of a part time self funded student - someone who does part of your research for free and they pay for the privlidge as well!!

Whilst it is very unfortunate for your friend to be awarded an MPhil after 5 years of work, supervisors cannot read the minds of the examiners.  There are many candidates that have been assured a pass only to get a tough time from egotistical examiners. The fault is not that of the candidate or the supervisor although it is nice to be able to blame someone!

As for supervisors using self-funded part-time PhDers to do their boring research, well this seems a rather generalised statement suggesting exploitation of such students.  I don't see this as being the case as there are many part-time self funding students who present their own research proposal, merely needing a uni supervisor to assist with the uni endorsement of their PhD.

I'm really sorry to hear about your friend Dark_Jester.

My viva will take place within the next few weeks and knowing that PhD students do fail their PhDs is really worrying me! My sups said there is a possibility of an MPhil if I'm not clear on my research aims, but fortunately my thesis benefits from originality, so I'm hoping and praying for a resubmit/major corrections rather than an MPhil.

I'm so sorry to hear this has happened,  I find it astonishing that supervisors allow PhDs through to submission if there's a possibility of failure- again something that's keeping me awake at night. I have to agree with the other reply, it's very difficult to predict what the examiners will say- which really makes the lead up to the viva extremely stressful!

My heart really goes out to your friend

I fear my post has added to your stress. Im sorry about that it was not my intention to scare anyone. Im looking to do a PhD as well and these scenarios scare me as well.


What do you mean when you wrote that "you might get an MPhil if your not clear on your research aim"? My friend was failed for the exact same reason and this is what Im confused about. Surely, if your aim is not clear then would it not be obvious during the early stages of your studies that your theis is not PhD standard? Surely a supervisor and the countless experts that you present your thesis too at conferences would have spotted that you have no clear aim and warned you in advance. How come people only realise the lack of a research aim in the last possible moment? The "aim" (or point) of your research is the most important things, without an aim how do you even get through the proposal stage?! Therefore if my friend had no clear aim why the university take her money for 5 years and allow her to study?

======= Date Modified 02 Mar 2011 17:32:17 =======
Hi Dark Jester.

Well my thesis was very extensive and very long (120,000 words) and they said that it's more than likely that my examiners lost their way with my thesis and lost the objectives of my work. My thesis includes a lengthy research question/objectives chapter, but I think given the amount of depth I've gone into with my thesis, it's perhaps understandable why confusion exists around my thesis area. Although both myself and my supervisors are pretty clear of my research questions and objectives, given the amount of different analyses and presentations of different things within my thesis, there's room for improvement in terms of linking everything back to my primary objectives. I know every social science thesis differs in some way, but in my thesis I've integrated a variety of different participant perspectives, collected data from all over the UK, presented four different studies (overall mixed methods), introduced new measures, developed sampling directories for further research and presented content analyses of six peer reviewed journals to show how under-researched my field is and also to highlight the originality/ contribution to knowledge aspects. Furthermore, my internal examiner marked my upgrade report and was extremely positive about my work and from his feedback from my 2nd year report he clearly understood my research aims and objectives. Simiarily, some of my studies explictly extend and validate some of external examiners previous work, so he will (hopefully) have a clear understanding of my overall primary objectives. Hopefully, both my examiners will have a clear understanding of my research objectives, but I know there's room for improvement in linking the different aspects of my thesis back to the primary objectives. I've had a clear series of objectives all along, it's not as if I've worked all these years without a clear objective- far from it! I just need to work on being concise and presenting crystal clear and punchy objectives.

Judging from the findings from my content analyses of peer reviewed journals and from the content explored in my literature review chapters, my thesis also taps into a very under-researched field so I'm pretty confident I can argue originality and contribution to knowledge. Also, I've deliberately explored and researched specific research questions that my external examiner argued needs to be explored. My external examiner is on of the very few researchers that specialises in my thesis area, so he will also know how under-researched this field is. In sum, I hope I can demonstrate some contribution to knowledge!
 
Given the amount of work I've put into this thesis, I'm hoping and praying that my work is worthy of a PhD rather than an MPhil. It's just a question of whether my examiners will allow me to resubmit for a doctorate. BUT, I know it's up to the examiners to make their final decision and not my supervisors! At the moment, I'm trying to block out negativity and focus on delivering the best defence possible, remaining positive and fighting my corner :)

All in all, I'm feeling more confident and positive about my work, all I want is my examiners to recognise the merit with my work and allow me to submit for a doctorate! I know exactly where I could improve my work and I know my thesis very well.

Sorry to say this, but there is always a possibility of failure. This applies to the very best students and very best theses too. It happened to a student in my department, an excellent student with an excellent supervisor. She was failed outright, not even offered an MPhil. This sent shockwaves through my department, for all supervisors and students. Often this sort of result can be down to politics, but it can also sometimes be very difficult to predict how the examiners (especially the crucial external examiner) will react to a thesis. This is not a failing of a supervisor at all, but more a failing of an examination system that has fundamental flaws.

However this shouldn't stop people trying to get PhDs. By far most people who get to the submission stage come out the other end with a PhD, even if some have to resubmit to get there. But don't assume it's a given. There are no guarantees in this.

======= Date Modified 02 Mar 2011 22:33:44 =======
I know people fail their PhDs and it's the stuff of nightmares for pre viva PhD students. Oh well, what will be will be I guess!! :$ I'm just going to have to do my best and fight for a resubmission, but I won't know for sure until the viva. I really don't know why I'm putting myself through this. I'm soooooooo tempted to cancel the whole thing! I will be disappointing so many people, including myself, if I don't pull through. Absolute nightmare. (Mental note to self, please stay positive!!!).

Anyway, sorry dark jester, I don't want to hijack your post with my worries.

I hope your friend is ok. It could have been an outright fail, so at least your friend is receiving a degree at the end of it all.

All the best

This is so scary. I am being sponsored by work - if I don't get a PhD I will have to pay back 3 years of wages which will literally bankrupt the family. :$ And on that note.....better stop procrastinating!

I'm really sorry to hear yet another horror story about a PhD failures on the basis of academic egotism. There must be hundreds of cases on this forum alone. Surely its about time these colleges were named and shamed?
I myself was subjected to exactly the same type of academic incompetence in my PhD. 5 years down the line I didn't get a hint that there was problems with my reports, set up my own company on the back of the work, succeeded in all the progress reports and submitted my work chapter by chapter for review. At the end I was told by the external examiner that there were instances of plagiarism in the work, something that I hoped my supervisor was looking out for and helping to prevent. I was totally wrong. So I was downgraded to MPhil. And I'm one of those 'lucky' part-time self funded sorts. Believe me its no picnic being self-funded.
That said, don't be so quick to dismiss a MPhil though, its regarded as a proper research degree which demonstrates that the student is clearly capable of carrying out research to the same level of technical ability of the PhD. The only difference is the contribution to the field and the thesis is generally only 50,000words as opposed to 80,000 words. It can also get you into a PhD programme at a later date.
Bottom line, if you think that you have a good shot at doing this PhD then do it. Don't trust your supervisor they're only in this for the money so get a second or third opinion. The students union can be hit and miss in cases like the one above, they have little or no power against the academics and most definitely 'close ranks'. Academic integrity is a myth.