Quality assurance of doctoral thesis assessment at South African universities
A systematic literature review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.20853/40-5-8517Keywords:
doctoral thesis assessment, assessment quality, examiners’ reportsAbstract
In South Africa, the assessment of doctoral theses should follow structured processes that ensure fair, consistent, and rigorous evaluation of research outputs. The quality and integrity of doctoral thesis assessment processes depend on robust assessment systems, appropriate examiner selection, and the consistent application of assessment criteria across universities. The objective of the study was to ascertain the challenges faced by both universities and students regarding the quality of doctoral thesis assessments. The appointment of suitable examiners and the production of examiners’ reports are among the most critical aspects of assessment. The assessment process comprises written reports from examiners who are supposed to assess the thesis on institutionally set criteria. However, the literature reveals notable variation in assessment criteria across institutions. Such discrepancies pose a significant barrier to maintaining assessment quality. More specifically, any variance in how examiners apply criteria can lead to inconsistent evaluation outcomes. The examination process can become very protracted by delaying final decisions, often resulting in delayed graduation. The PRISMA methodology was used to execute a systematic literature review. Three library databases were used to identify 71 articles, where the advanced search function was used to deploy keywords employing Boolean operators. The inclusion criteria were journal articles published from 2019 to 2024. After screening the abstracts of all the articles, 21 articles were found to be relevant to this study. Using thematic analysis, the research findings were teased out to provide a clear understanding of the quality of assessments and the challenges they pose. The key findings included a lack of standardisation of assessment criteria across institutions, inconsistencies in examiner reports for the same thesis, and inconsistent application of set criteria, including institutional criteria independent of the examiners and subjective criteria dependent on the examiners. This study recommends establishing a community of practice of examiners within faculties, in which appointed examiners are inducted and offered the opportunity to discuss and develop a shared understanding of the assessment framework for doctoral examination, including the interpretation of criteria and expectations.
Downloads
References
Afful, Joseph B. A. 2020. “The Discourse of Thesis Assessment Reports in a Disciplinary Community at the University of Cape Coast: An Exploratory Study.” International Journal of Language, Literature and Gender Studies 9 (1): 117–134. https://www.ajol.info/index.php/laligens/article/view/195327.
Albertyn, Ruth. 2022. “Making a Case for Doctoral Intelligence: Conceptualisation and Insights for Researcher Development.” Innovations in Education and Teaching International 59 (6): 623–633. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2021.1899033.
Alexander, Deborah E., and Ian R. Davis. 2019. “The PhD System under Pressure: An Examiner’s Viewpoint.” Quality Assurance in Education 27 (1): 2–12. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-04-2018-0033.
Andreini, Daniela, and Cristina Bettinelli, eds. 2017. Business Model Innovation: From Systematic Literature Review to Future Research Directions. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53351-3.
Bao, Ying, Barbara M. Kehm, and Yanjun Ma. 2018. “From Product to Process: The Reform of Doctoral Education in Europe and China.” Studies in Higher Education 43 (3): 524–541. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1182481.
Byram, Michael, and Mila Stoicheva, eds. 2020. The Doctorate as Experience in Europe and Beyond. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351213585.
Cardoso, Sonia, Sandra Santos, Sara Diogo, Diana Soares, and Teresa Carvalho. 2022. “The Transformation of Doctoral Education: A Systematic Literature Review.” Higher Education 84: 885–908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00805-5.
Chetcuti, Denise, James Cacciottolo, and Norbert Vella. 2022a. “Achieving a PhD Degree: What Examiner Reports Tell Us about the Doctoral Examination Process.” International Journal of Higher Education Pedagogies 3 (1): 1–12. https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/bitstream/123456789/105358/1/Achieving_a_PhD_Degree_What_Examiner_Reports_Tell_Us_about_the_Doctoral_Examination_Process_2022.pdf.
Chetcuti, Denise, James Cacciottolo, and Norbert Vella. 2022b. “What Do Examiners Look for in a PhD Thesis? Examiners Use Explicit and Implicit Criteria across Disciplines.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 47 (8): 1358–1373. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2048293.
Council on Higher Education. 2022. Qualification Standard for Doctoral Degrees. Pretoria: Council on Higher Education. https://www.che.ac.za.
Du Preez, Petro, and Shan Simmonds. 2016. “Higher Degree Committee Members’ Perceptions of Quality Assurance of Doctoral Education: A South African Perspective.” International Journal of Doctoral Studies 11: 341–365. https://doi.org/10.28945/3608.
Faller, Francis, Stephanie Burton, Andrew Kaniki, Alison Leitch, and Itumeleng Ntshoe. 2023. “Achieving Doctorateness: Is South African Higher Education Succeeding with Graduate Attributes?” South African Journal of Higher Education 37 (2): 93–108. https://doi.org/10.20853/37-2-5370.
Ganguly, B. B. 2020. “Perspectives of PhD Research: The Key Components for Assessing Its Quality.” Journal of Medical Science 7: 86–89. https://doi.org/10.4103/mgmj.mgmj_39_20.
Guerin, Cally, and Claire Aitchison. 2021. “Doctoral Writing and Remote Supervision: What the Literature Tells Us.” Innovations in Education and Teaching International 58 (6): 624–634. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2021.1991429.
Halibas, Al-exander S., Mehtab S. Al-Attili, A. Benjamin, R. Cordova, and M. E. L. Cruz. 2020. “A Thematic Analysis of the Quality Audit Reports in Developing a Framework for Assessing the Achievement of Graduate Attributes.” International Journal of Educational Management 34 (5): 917–935. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-07-2019-0251.
Hodgson, David. 2020. “Helping Doctoral Students Understand PhD Thesis Examination Expectations: A Framework and a Tool for Supervision.” Active Learning in Higher Education 21 (1): 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417742020.
Kraus, Sascha, Matthias Breier, and José Dasí-Rodríguez. 2020. “The Art of Crafting a Systematic Literature Review in Entrepreneurship Research.” International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 16: 1023–1042. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-020-00635-4.
Kumar, Vijay, Lyn J. Sanderson, and Amardeep Kaur. 2021. “Investigating the Role of Convenors in the PhD Viva.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 46 (7): 1080–1091. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1841092.
Lantsoght, Eva O. L. 2023. “Doctoral Defence Formats.” Studies in Higher Education 48 (2): 343–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2022.2137123.
Leitch, Alison, Stephanie Burton, Itumeleng Ntshoe, Andrew Kaniki, and Refilwe Ralebipi-Simela. 2022. Doctoral Degrees National Report: National Review of South African Doctoral Qualifications. Pretoria: Council on Higher Education. https://www.journals.ac.za/index.php/sajhe/article/view/5370.
McKenna, Sioux. 2019. “South Africa Takes Steps to Ensure the Quality of Its Doctorates.” The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/south-africa-takes-steps-to-assure-the-quality-of-its-doctorates-125774.
Page, Matthew J., Joanne E. McKenzie, Patrick M. Bossuyt, Isabelle Boutron, Tammy C. Hoffmann, Cynthia D. Mulrow, et al. 2021. “The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews.” BMJ 372: n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71.
Poole, Brian. 2015. “The Rather Elusive Concept of ‘Doctorateness’: A Reaction to Wellington.” Studies in Higher Education 40 (9): 1507–1522. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.873026.
Ramlall, S., V. S. Singaram, and T. E. Sommerville. 2020. “Doctorates by Thesis and Publication in Clinical Medicine: An Analysis of Examiners’ Reports.” Perspectives in Education 37 (1): 130–147. https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v37i1.4260.
Schulze, Salome, and Eleanor M. Lemmer. 2019. “The Administration of the Doctoral Examination at South African Higher Education Institutions.” South African Journal of Higher Education 33 (2): 180–194. https://doi.org/10.20853/33-2-2966.
Sharmini, S., and Vijay Kumar. 2018. “Examiners’ Commentary on Thesis with Publications.” Innovations in Education and Teaching International 55 (6): 672–682. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2017.1294491.
Starfield, Sue, Brian Paltridge, Robyn McMurtrie, Allyson Holbrook, Tony Lovat, Margaret Kiley, and Hazel Fairbairn. 2017. “Evaluation and Instruction in PhD Examiners’ Reports: How Grammatical Choices Construe Examiner Roles.” Linguistics and Education 41: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2017.07.008.
Taylor, Steven. 2023. “The Changing Landscape of Doctoral Education: A Framework for Analysis and Introduction to the Special Issue.” Innovations in Education and Teaching International 60 (5): 606–622. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2237962.
Temoso, Omphile, and Lungile W. Myeki. 2023. “Estimating South African Higher Education Productivity and Its Determinants Using the Färe-Primont Index: Are Historically Disadvantaged Universities Catching Up?” Research in Higher Education 64: 206–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-022-09699-3.
Tshuma, Nkosinathi, and Eli Bitzer. 2023. “Complex Legacies and Prospects: Conceptualising Changes in South African Doctoral Education.” Innovations in Education and Teaching International 60 (5): 714–724. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2237941.
Van Schalkwyk, Susan, Johann Mouton, Hannelie Redelinghuys, and Sioux McKenna. 2020. “A Systematic Analysis of Doctoral Publication Trends in South Africa.” South African Journal of Science 116 (7/8): 1–9. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC-1f5f4b10d8.
Wilkins, Stephen, J. Hazzam, and Jonathan Lean. 2021. “Doctoral Publishing as Professional Development for an Academic Career in Higher Education.” The International Journal of Management Education 19 (3): 100516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100459.
Yudkevich, Maria, Philip G. Altbach, and Hans de Wit, eds. 2020. Trends and Issues in Doctoral Education: A Global Perspective. New Delhi: Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9789353885991.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Manduth Ramchander, Dr Manikam Michael Nadar
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
This journal is an open access journal, and the authors and journal should be properly acknowledged, when works are cited.
Authors, copyright holders, may use the publishers version for teaching purposes, in books, theses, dissertations, conferences and conference papers.
A copy of the authors' publishers version may also be hosted on the following websites:
- Non-commercial personal homepage or blog.
- Institutional webpage.
- Authors Institutional Repository.
The following notice should accompany such a posting on the website: This is an electronic version of an article published in SAJHE, Volume XXX, number XXX, pages XXX “XXX", DOI. Authors should also supply a hyperlink to the original paper or indicate where the original paper (http://www.journals.ac.za/index.php/SAJHE) may be found.
Authors publishers version, affiliated with the Stellenbosch University will be automatically deposited in the University Institutional Repository SUNScholar.
Articles as a whole, may not be re-published with another journal.
The following license applies:
Attribution CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
