PhD Student Journey - Thesis preparation

Scope and length of thesis / project

The level of award, length of research program in semesters of study, discipline, and research methodology all affect the length of a research thesis. The following provides a guide to the approximate number of words in the text, excluding references and appendices, for different types of theses:

Award Words of Text
Doctor of Philosophy: 80,000 - 100,000 max

Checking of the draft/s of a thesis or project

Careful reading of thesis or project drafts, by both the student and supervisor, is particularly important. The following checklist from Howard and Sharp (1983, pp. 207-208) provides a useful guide.

1. Evidence of an original investigation or the testing of ideas

* Was the aim of the research clearly described?
* Were the hypotheses to be tested, questions to be answered, or methods to be developed clearly stated?
* Was the relationship between the current and previous research in related topic areas defined, with similarities and differences stressed?
* Are the nature and extent of the original contribution clear?

2. Competence in independent work or experimentation

* Was the methodology employed appropriate? Was its use justified and was the way it was applied adequately described?
* Were variables that might influence the study recognised and either controlled in the research design or properly measured?
* Were valid and reliable instruments used to collect the data?
* Was there evidence of care and accuracy in recording and summarising the data?
* Is evidence displayed of knowledge of and the ability to use all relevant data sources?
* Were limitations inherent in the study recognised and stated?
* Were the conclusions reached justifiable in the light of the data and the way they were analysed?

3. An understanding of appropriate techniques

* Given the facilities available, did it seem that the best possible techniques were employed to gather and analyse data?
* Was full justification given for the use of the techniques selected and were they adequately described? In particular were they properly related to the stated aims of the research?

4. Ability to make critical use of published work and source materials

* Was the literature referenced pertinent to the research?
* To what extent could general reference to the literature be criticised on the grounds of insufficiency or excessiveness?
* Was evidence presented of skills in searching the literature?
* Was due credit given to previous workers for ideas and techniques used by the author?
* Is evidence displayed of the ability to identify key items in the literature and to compare, contrast and critically review them?

5. Appreciation of the relationship between the special theme to the wider field of knowledge (for doctoral theses only)

* Was the relationship between the current and previous research in related topic areas defined, with similarities and differences stressed?
* Was literature in related disciplines reviewed?
* Was an attempt made to present previous work within the overall conceptual framework and in a systematic way?

6. Worthy, in part, of publication

* Was the organisation of the report logical and was the style attractive?
* With appropriate extraction and editing could the basis of articles or a book be identified?

7. Originality as shown by the topic researched or the methodology employed

* To what extent was the topic-selected novel?
* Was there evidence of innovation in research methodology compared with previous practice in the field?

8. Distinct contribution to knowledge

* What new material was reported?
* To what extent would the new material be perceived as a valuable addition to a field of knowledge?
* To what extent do the conclusions overturn or challenge previous beliefs?
* Were the findings compared with the findings of any similar studies?
* Was the new contribution clearly delimited and prospects for further work identified?
* To what extent does the work open up whole new areas for future research?

Editing the final draft

Candidates and supervisors are responsible for checking the final version of the thesis. A useful reference during this process is Anderson and Poole’s book, Assignment and Thesis Writing (2001, chap. 15). Included in this volume is a chapter on editing and evaluating the final draft of the thesis. This chapter contains a series of checklists, including one for evaluating empirical/experimental research studies and one for evaluating analytical/literary research studies, which provide candidates with a means of judging the final quality of their work.
The editing of research theses by professional editors

Candidates who are considering using a professional editor should read the policy developed by the Deans and Directors of Graduate Studies collaboratively with the Council of Australian Societies of Editors. The policy is outlined below, but is also available from: http://www.ddogs.edu.au
Background

Professional editors need to be clear about the extent and nature of help they offer in the editing of research students’ theses and dissertations. Academic supervisors of research students also need to be clear about the role of the professional editor as well as their own editorial role. This policy has been developed primarily to give guidance to professional editors. It also provides a guide for academic supervisors. This document has been developed with close attention to the current Australian Standards for Editing Practice (ASEP). Academic supervisors are encouraged to become familiar with this very useful publication.
Proof-reading and Editing of Research Theses and Dissertations

It is expected that the academic supervisors of research higher degree students will provide editorial advice to their students. This type of advice is covered in Standards C, D and E of ASEP:

* Standard C, Substance and Structure
* Standard D, Language and Illustrations
* Standard E, Completeness and Consistency.

Students may use a professional editor in preparing their thesis for submission, but they should discuss this with their Principal Supervisor and provide the editor with a copy of this policy before they commence work.

Professional editorial intervention should be restricted to:

* Standard D
* Standard E

Where a professional editor provides advice on matters of structure (Standard C), exemplars only should be given.

Material for editing or proofreading should be submitted in hard copy. In electronic copy it is too easy for the student to accept editorial suggestions without thinking about their implications.

When a thesis has had the benefit of professional editorial advice, of any form, the name of the editor and a brief description of the service rendered, in terms of Australian Standards for Editing Practice, should be printed as part of the list of acknowledgements or other 18 prefatory matter. If the professional editor’s current or former area of academic specialisation is similar to that of the candidate, this too should be stated in the prefatory matter of the thesis.

Australian Standards for Editing Practice is available on the following website: www.case-editors.org

Plagiarism

Edith Cowan University regards academic misconduct of any form as unacceptable. Academic misconduct includes, but is now limited to:

* plagiarism;
* unauthorised collaboration;
* cheating in examinations;
* theft of other students' work.

The university defines academic misconduct as follows:

"academic misconduct" means conduct in relation to any academic work that is dishonest or unfair; this includes but is not limited to plagiarism.
"cheating" means conduct in any assessment that is dishonest.
"plagiarism" means

to knowingly or unknowingly present by any means as one's own work the ideas or writings of another without appropriate acknowledgment or referencing. This includes but is not limited to:

* paraphrasing text without acknowledgment of the source;
* paraphrasing text inadequately with acknowledgment of the source;
* copying all or a significant part of the text of another student's assignment or other students' assignments;
and
* copying all or a significant part of visual representations (cartoons, line drawings, photos, paintings and computer programs).

A staff member who has reasonable grounds to believe that a candidate has committed some form of academic misconduct will discuss the matter with the candidate. If some form of academic misconduct has been committed then an appropriate penalty will be applied as outlined in University Statute 22: Student Obligations and Rules 19 and 40 of the Edith Cowan University (Admission, Enrollment and Academic Progress) Rules.

University Statute No. 22: Student Obligations is available at: http://www.ecu.edu.au/GPPS/legal_legis/ uni_statutes.html

The Edith Cowan University (Admission, Enrollment and Academic Progress) Rules are available at: http://www.ecu.edu.au/GPPS/legal_legis/ uni_rules.html

The University Academic Misconduct Protocol (including plagiarism) is available at: http://www.ecu.edu.au/GPPS/policies_db/tmp/ ac047.pdf

Source: http://www.chs.ecu.edu.au/org/rhd/journeys/phd/thesis.php