We all know (at least, I hope I do!) what a PhD needs to do to pass: contribution to knowledge, originality, critical awareness...

But what actually makes one fail?

is it just down to not demonstating those things, or could something else provoke a thumbs down, d'ya reckon?

Some of the things PhD examiners hate:

- A lack of understanding of where your research fits in the broader picture. Why is it important? Why is it relevant? If you cannot answer this questions, then you have to think again.
- A lack of a critical literature review. In general a lack of critical thinking will get you in trouble.
- Sloppiness in your writing, figures that are not clear, a lack of a clear argument in the thesis. You can lose a reviewers in the first lines if you writing is poor, and never win him/her back.
- Not knowing what other people did, and is doing in your field. Your PhD is not an island, is part of the whole, and you must know where it fits.

I would advise you to look for a paper name "It is a PhD, not a nobel prize", or something like that. It exposes the views of different examiners, I find it very useful before my viva.

Best of lucks

======= Date Modified 04 Aug 2009 17:45:56 =======
In terms of *actual* reasons I've heard of:

- Not being long enough (obviously depends on the subject, but it appears size does matter).
- Bad luck of the draw with examiners.
- Failing to recognise the standard of a UK PhD.

======= Date Modified 04 Aug 2009 13:56:42 =======
Main failing points are:

1) inappropriate research proposal

2) wrong research methodology (produces lack of interest and inconsistent attitude, too much reading online, heavy use of Internet etc)

3) lack of resources (how do you decide what is needed or not?)

4) ill supervision (lack of time, management, ignorant, inexperience. If you proposed research but did not know the past of research questions, if supervisor proposed and you obliged and started research but s/he cannot give you time).

5) financial stress and (no money, no food, no sleep, no research)

6) cultural differences (In research, culture is not only the name of colour, clothes, customs, race, religion, rituals, food or weather but it also shows the attitude towards posing a question and then reflecting accordingly for the proper answer. Some customs, traditions advocate high regards for teacher (i.e., Asia, Africa and Middle East, etc) and believe that teachers know every thing and have command on the subject and to avoid personal ignorance the students simply avoid enquiry. In addition, Language barrier often restrict overseas researcher to ask or reply accordingly. Mostly they simply nod (like a jack in the box) and then suffer as they have to recall every item from supervisor’s meeting. Notes taking during the meeting can improve this problem.



One important thing to remember is that...PhD is a first stage of learning about 'how to do research', it is not like doing an academic degree (i.e. MA/MSc/MBA or BSc or BEng etc) therefore an active mind, focused personality is required. If you want to do research then follow the ‘codes of research’ in your subject. Even after completion of PhD, you are not a true researcher. A new PhD is like a new car driver with green L plate who should avoid driving on Motorway or highway or in the night or rainy weather.One cannot become expert in few more lessons…. Be honest, dedicated and look inside yourself, review your aims of proposed research and your personal knowledge and profession. You will evaluate and discover more and more……

Every PhD is different story so don't take anyone's verdict. like car driving learning example, you need to learn yourself.......the supervisor (like car instructor) can only assist you in code of research practice BUT they do have power (like Instructor have extra breaks to do emergency STOP) and influence to select a suitable examiner to pass you. Supervisors are also examiners for someone's students. So they are out there to pass students....but its a professional attitude, they cannot simply pass or fail students. They need research funds, grants and hence better researchers....

Best of Luck to you all.
MYJamro

Not having a 'Thesis' i.e. not having a premise for your argument.

======= Date Modified 04 Aug 2009 21:10:07 =======
======= Date Modified 04 Aug 2009 21:07:16 =======
If you can, try and get a hold of these references.

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

Murray, R. (2006). How to write a thesis. Open University Press

Murray, R. (2003). How to survive a viva. Open University press.

Trafford, V. (2003). Questions in doctoral vivas: views from the inside. Quality assurance in education, 11, 2, 114-122

These papers and books provide some really good advice on what makes a passable PhD and characteristics which are common for a failed PhD.

Questions in an unsuccessful doctoral viva (Trafford, 2003, p.121)

1. What was the purpose of this study?
2. What do you mean by influence (title stated influence of X on Y)
1. Why do people want to achieve? (Achievement was a central construct in the research
2. What reading influenced your thinking and guided your research
1. Was your research inductive or deductive and why
2. What was your conceptual framework?
3. What was your research question (title suggested one, the choice of literature another, and the abstract another)
1. How and why did you come to select this research design
2. What was your methodology? (The candidate answered incorrectly by describing the research method)
3. Please distinguish between methods and methodology
4. Why did you use both quantitative and qualitative approaches
5. How did you analyse the interview data (there was no reference to any such analysis in the thesis.
6. Explain in detail (missing from the thesis) how the research instruments were developed and used.
7. Where did the questions in the questionnaire come from? Did you make them up?
8. What are the differences between a simulation and real life?
9. You only measured what you could measure, not the full story of what was occurring. What are the consequences of this?

Questions within a successful viva (Trafford, 2003, p.121)

1. What led you to choose this topic? What excited you about it
1. How did you know that it had not been studied previously, was it because of the academic or professional literature?
2. Did your knowledge of the area allow you to anticipate your results or where you totally detached for the enquiry
3. What led you to choose your models of organisational culture?
4. What other models of culture did you consider
1. How did you decide on the variables to be included in your conceptual framework
2. Were you theory testing or developing theory in your research
3. Why did you include the achievement variable in your research design.

I hope this helps!

I'm TERRIFIED about what the future holds regarding my Viva! I'm working to get a first draft of the whole thesis done by end of September (when my registration finishes) and the whole process of having to defend my thesis is already making me feel quite ill!! But I'm rather comforted to know that there is no way my supervisors will let me go through the viva unless they felt my work wasn't good enough or if I wasn't ready (so I guess that's a good thing!).

"Doctorateness"? - see below:

Trafford, V. & Leshem, S. (2009) Doctorateness as a threshold concept. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 46(3), 305-316.

“Doctorateness is a jigsaw puzzle that can only be fully appreciated when all the components are present and fitted together. Thus, the whole may be greater than the sum of its parts (von Bertalanffy, 1968). Doctorateness therefore results from specific critical research features being present in a doctoral thesis. These features should form a mutually interdependent network system of parts that have practical relationships within the thesis (Trafford & Leshem, 2008, pp. 51–52).” (Trafford & Leshem, 2009: 308)

“These individual features are not, of themselves, ‘a research mystery’ (Burnham, 1994) since they are familiar items in serious texts on research methodologies. Each is an obvious and essential component in research that starts with a gap in knowledge, or professional practice, which is worthy of investigation.” (Trafford & Leshem, 2009: 308)

“The views of examiners, supervisors and candidates offer similar perspectives into what constitutes doctoral research. They see it as a pluralist notion in which numerous complementary factors have to be present for research and a thesis to be complete as integrated processes. When these factors are present then the result is synergy that examiners, in particular, recognise as a resultant quality of doctoral research. It follows, though, that if any factor receives inappropriate attention by a candidate, or is missing, then their thesis is unlikely to achieve a pass. Thus, the notion of doctorateness represents a template that is used by examiners, supervisors and candidates to assess the scholarly merit of a thesis. Although these individuals may not use the term doctorateness to describe how they view doctoral quality, nevertheless it can explain their tacit understanding of this process.” (Trafford & Leshem, 2009: 310)

“Until candidates recognise the theoretical and practical significance of doctorateness their ability to produce the high-quality research and coherent theses that examiners expect to read will be limited. Candidates may well be familiar with each of the components in Figure 1, but they will not have developed an appreciative lens that allows them to integrate the components into a coherent whole. Instead of achieving synergy, the result for them will be dysergy. In this situation, the whole is less than the sum of its parts (von Bertalanffy, 1968, p. 68). As a result, the overall quality of a candidate’s submitted thesis will therefore be judged by examiners as being ‘poor,’ and so it will either fail or major alterations will be required.” (Trafford & Leshem, 2009: 311)