The selection of external examiners for research degrees

Quality Assurance in Education

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 123-127

  Joyner, Richard W ^a  

^a NOTTINGHAM TRENT UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Procedures; Professional qualifications; Research methods; Selection; Supervisors; Universities

Indexed keywords

EID: 84986166500     PISSN: 09684883     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/09684880310471551     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. Bassnett, S. (2002), The Independent, higher education section, 4 April, p. 19.
2. Burnham, P. (1994), “Surviving the viva: Unravelling the mystery of the PhD oral”, Journal of Graduate Education, Vol. 1, p. 30.
3. Deem, R. and Brehony, K.J. (2000), “Doctoral student's access to research cultures”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 25, p. 149.
4. Delamont, S., Parry, O. and Atkinson, P. (1997), “Critical mass and pedagogic continuity: Studies in academic habitus”, British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol. 18, p. 533.
5. Delamont, S., Parry, O. and Atkinson, P. (1998), “Creating a delicate balance: The doctoral supervisor's dilemmas”, Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 3, p. 157.
6. Graves, N. and Varma, V. (Eds) (1997), Working for a Doctorate, Routledge, London.
7. Hockey, J. (1995), “Change and the social science PhD”, Oxford Rev. Education, Vol. 21, p. 195.
8. Hockey, J. (1997), “A complex craft: UK PhD supervision in the social sciences”, Results in Post-compulsory Education, Vol. 2, p. 45.
9. Jackson, C. and Tinkler, P. (2001), “Back to basics: A consideration of the purposes of the PhD viva”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 26, p. 355.
10. Wallace, S. and Marsh, C. (2001), “Trial by ordeal or the chummy game?”, Higher Education Review, Vol. 34, p. 35.