Examiners’ Perspectives on Assessment Criteria for Doctoral Dissertations and Oral Examinations in English Language Education in Thailand
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
While concerns regarding evaluation criteria in doctoral assessment persist, existing research has largely focused on student experiences. Apart from a single-institution account (Adunyarittigun et al., 2023), the practices of dissertation assessment and oral examination in Thailand’s English language education (ELE) programs remain largely uninvestigated. This study explores doctoral assessment practices in ELE and related fields in Thailand from the perspectives of experienced examiners, with particular attention to evaluation criteria. Of the 121 eligible participants, 71, each with experience supervising and/or examining doctoral dissertations, completed a survey; 19 informants agreed to participate in a follow-up interview. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize participants’ backgrounds and perceptions, while qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis with intercoder reliability checks. The findings revealed that, although institutional documents outline assessment procedures, they lack detailed rubrics. Interviews identified seven key evaluation criteria: mastery of the intellectual landscape, argumentative rigor, effective presentation, research integrity, methodological rigor, originality, and publishability. The examiners adopted a holistic approach, emphasizing the interconnectedness of these criteria. Nevertheless, argumentative rigor was expected to be evident throughout the dissertation, suggesting greater emphasis on this criterion than reported in other international contexts. Examiners also showed tolerance for minor linguistic inaccuracies, prioritizing argument quality, and demonstrated a distinct, context-specific interpretation of originality in terms of utility. The findings provide insights into discipline-specific criteria for doctoral assessment. Informing candidates of these expectations may help demystify the assessment process and support them more effectively during their doctoral journey.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms: Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).References
Adunyarittigun, D., Thongrin, S., Sriharuksa, K., & Seenak, P. (2023). Thammasat University, Thailand. In M. Byram & M. Stoicheva (Eds.), The experience of examining the PhD: An international comparative study of processes and standards of doctoral examination (pp. 134–148). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003248569
ALLEA – All European Academies. (2023). European code of conduct for research integrity: 2023 revised edition. ALLEA Secretariat. https://doi.org/10.26356/ECoC
Athiworakun, C., Pawabunsiriwong, K., Astsawaraksawong, N., & Adunyarittigun, D. (2026). The washback effects of the Thai general aptitude test (TGAT1) (English Communication) on teaching in the upper secondary school level in the Bangkok area. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 19(2), 532–557. https://doi.org/10.70730/ZMWP9429
Bourke, S., & Holbrook, A. P. (2013). Examining PhD and research masters theses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(4), 407–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2011.638738
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2024). Thematic analysis. In N. K. Denzin, Y. Lincoln, M. D. Giardina, & G. S. Cannella (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (6th ed., pp. 385–402). SAGE.
Bruce, C. S. (1994). Research students’ early experiences of the dissertation literature review. Studies in Higher Education, 19(2), 217–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079412331382057
Byram, M., & Stoicheva, M. (Eds.). (2023). The experience of examining the PhD: An international comparative study of processes and standards of doctoral examination. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003248569
Carter, S., & Kumar, V. (2017). ‘Ignoring me is part of learning’: Supervisory feedback on doctoral writing. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(1), 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2015.1123104
Charters, E. (2003). The use of think-aloud methods in qualitative research: An introduction to think-aloud methods. Brock Education, 12(2), 68–82. https://doi.org/10.26522/brocked.v12i2.38
Chetcuti, D., Cacciottolo, J., & Vella, N. (2022). What do examiners look for in a PhD thesis? Explicit and implicit criteria used by examiners across disciplines. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(8), 1358–1373. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2048293
Clarke, G., & Lunt, I. (2014). The concept of ‘originality’ in the PhD: How is it interpreted by examiners? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(7), 803–820. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.870970
Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.). (2014). Next generation assessment: Moving beyond the bubble test to support 21st century learning. Jossey-Bass.
Denicolo, P. (2003). Assessing the PhD: A constructive view of criteria. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(2), 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880310471506
De Vita, G., & Begley, J. (2024). A framework of ‘doctorateness’ for the social sciences and postgraduate researchers’ perceptions of key attributes of an excellent PhD thesis. Studies in Higher Education, 49(11), 1884–1899. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2281540
Durling, D. (2002). Discourses on research and the PhD in design. Quality Assurance in Education, 10(2), 79–85. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880210423192
Elmgren, M., Lindberg-Sand, Å., & Sonesson, A. (2024). Evaluation practices of doctoral examination committees: Boundary-work under pressure. Minerva, 62, 427–456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-024-09523-5
Gantogtokh, O. (2026). Navigating academic integrity in doctoral education: A study of misconduct in doctoral defence practices in Mongolia. Higher Education Quarterly, 80(2), e70109. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.70109
Geerativudhipong, O., Rattanajaru, W., Chaloemkiti, T., Rattanasongkhroh, N., & Sangserm, U. (2020). A study of students and professors’ needs in a PhD program of applied linguistics. FOYER: The Journal of Humanities, Social Sciences, and Education, 3(2), 14–22. https://so02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/lajournal/article/view/242630
Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781–795. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095325
Golding, C., Sharmini, S., & Lazarovitch, A. (2014). What examiners do: What thesis students should know. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(5), 563–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.859230
Hartley, J., & Fox, C. (2004). Assessing the mock viva: The experiences of British doctoral students. Studies in Higher Education, 29(6), 727–738. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070420007221
Higher Education Standards Committee. (2022). Announcement of the Higher Education Standards Committee regarding the standard criteria for graduate programs, B.E. 2565 (2022). Royal Thai Government Gazette, 139(Special Part 212), 21–34. https://www.ops.go.th/th/role/edu-standard/item/6943-2022-07-22-03-20-23
Hodgson, D. (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
Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., & Fairbairn, H. (2015). Examiner reference to theory in PhD theses. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(1), 75-85. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2014.981842
Holbrook, 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070701346899
Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., Lovat, T., & Dally, K. (2004). Investigating PhD thesis examination reports. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(2), 98–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2005.04.008
Holbrook, A., Burke, R., & Fairbairn, H. (2022). Linguistic diversity and doctoral assessment: Exploring examiner treatment of candidate language. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(2), 375–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1842336
Houston, G. (2021). Doctoral examiners’ judgements: Do examiners agree on doctoral attributes and how important are professional and personal characteristics? In A. Lee & R. Bongaardt (Eds.), The future of doctoral research: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 263–276). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003015383
Houston, G., & Lunt, I. (2024). The final examination of the UK PhD: fit for purpose? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(8), 1182–1195. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2364026
Johnson, L., & Lee, A. (2014). Recognising and supporting a scholarship of research education: An analysis of the field. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(6), 1081–1093. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.892169
Johnston, S. (1997). Examining the examiners: An analysis of examiners’ reports on doctoral theses. Studies in Higher Education, 22(3), 333–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079712331380936
Kiley, M. (2009). Rethinking the Australian doctoral examination process. Australian Universities’ Review, 51(2), 32–41.
Kobayashi, S., & Emmeche, C. (2023). What makes a good PhD thesis? Norms of science as reflected in written assessments of PhD theses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(8), 1310–1324. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2023.2200917
Kumar, V., Kaur, A., & Sanderson, L. J. (2022). PhD orals from the convenors’ perspective: Implications for academics and candidates. International Journal for Academic Development, 29(1), 62–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2022.2051516
Kyvik, S., & Thune, T. (2015). Assessing the quality of PhD dissertations: A survey of external committee members. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(5), 768–782. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.956283
Lantsoght, E. O. L. (2023). Doctoral defence formats. Studies in Higher Education, 48(2), 343–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2022.2137123
Lee, A., & Kamler, B. (2010). Bringing pedagogy to doctoral publishing. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(2), 227–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562511003616309
Lovitts, B. (2007). Making the implicit explicit: creating performance expectations for the dissertation. Stylus.
Ministry of Education. (2015). Announcement of the Ministry of Education regarding the standards for graduate studies programs, B.E.2558 (2015). Royal Thai Government Gazette, 132(Special Part 295), 12–24.
Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation. (2019). Higher Education Act, B.E. 2562 (2019). Royal Thai Government Gazette, 136(Part 57), 54-78. https://www.ratchakitcha.soc.go.th/DATA/PDF/2562/A/057/T_0054.PDF
Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research, and Innovation. (2025). หลักสูตรที่เปิดสอนในระดับอุดมศึกษา [Higher education programs offered] [Data set]. MHESI Open Data. https://data.mhesi.go.th/en/dataset/univ_cur_11_01
Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation. (2026, March 16). List of qualified reviewers for evaluating academic work and academic ethics and professional conduct [บัญชีรายชื่อผู้ทรงคุณวุฒิเพื่อทำหน้าที่ประเมินผลงานทางวิชาการและจริยธรรมและจรรยาบรรณทางวิชาการ]. https://www.ops.go.th/th/content_page/item/14305-2026-03-16-01-31-31
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/0307507022000011507
Murch, H., Worley, M., & Volk, F. (2025). A comparative analysis of the prevalence of artificial intelligence and plagiarism in doctoral dissertations using Turnitin. Journal of Academic Ethics, 23, 1915–1933. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-025-09634-y
Murray, R., & Newton, M. (2008). Facilitating writing for publication. Physiotherapy, 94(1), 29–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2007.06.004
Nassaji, H. (2026). Applied linguistics research: A comprehensive guide to methodology, design, analysis, and evaluation. Cambridge University Press.
O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2020). Characteristics statement: Doctoral degree. https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/quality-code/doctoral-degree-characteristics-statement-2020.pdf
Razoumova, O., & Hooley, N. (2024). Formations of new knowledge in doctoral supervision and examination in Australia: A preliminary investigation of the adequacy of the written thesis. Higher Education Research & Development, 43(8), 1846–1861. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2024.2376131
Tan, W. C. (2022). Speaking the language of defence: Narratives of doctoral examiners on the PhD viva. Qualitative Research Journal, 22(4), 478–488. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-01-2022-0009
Tan, W. C. (2023). Purpose-driven oral examination: Insights from doctoral viva examiners. Discover Education, 2, Article 52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-023-00083-6
Tetteh, G. (2025). “It’s just a comment, not really a question”: Meeting examiners’ expectations during questioning interactions in PhD vivas. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 78, Article 101588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101588
Thammasat University. (2025). Thammasat University Graduate Studies Regulation 2568 B.E. (2025). https://db.legal.tu.ac.th/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/ข้อบังคับมหาวิทยาลัยธรรมศาสตร์ว่าด้วยการศึกษาระดับบัณฑิตศึกษา-พ.ศ.-2568.pdf
Tinkler, P., & Jackson, C. (2000). Examining the doctorate: Institutional policy and the PhD examination. Studies in Higher Education, 25(2), 167–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/713696136
Tinkler, P., & Jackson, C. (2004). The doctoral examination process: a handbook for students, examiners, and supervisors. McGraw-Hill Education.
Trafford, V., & Leshem, S. (2008). Stepping stones to achieving your doctorate: Focusing on your viva from the start. Open University Press.
Vittorio, N. (2015). European doctoral programs in light of EHEA and ERA. In A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi, & P. Scott (Eds.), The European higher education area between critical reflections and future policies (pp. 545–560). Springer.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wellington, J. (2013). Searching for ‘doctorateness’. Studies in Higher Education, 38(10), 1490–1503. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.634901
Winter, R., Griffiths, M., & Green, K. (2000). The ‘academic’ qualities of practice: What are the criteria for a practice-based PhD? Studies in Higher Education, 25(1), 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/030750700115993
