1. WHAT EXAMINERS SAY: EXPECTATIONS AND SURPRISES
JOHN SIMWINGA (PHD)
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (RESEARCH) DIRECTORATE OF RESEARCH AND GRADUATE STUDIES
UNIVERSITY OF ZAMBIA

3. Title: Expectations
Title should clearly reflect the specific focus of the study
Title should not be more than twenty words long (stipulated by some universities)
Title should reflect the discipline in which the degree is being sought
Title should be in form of a statement
Title should reflect content

4. Title: Surprises Title presented in form of a question
Title presented in form of an objective
Title is too broad, lacks focus
Title is too simplistic
Title is at variance with content
Title requires the application of quantitative design but candidate has used qualitative design
Title does not reflect the discipline in which degree is being sought

5. Abstract: Expectations
one page of not more than 500 words-single spacing
Containing:
What was investigated
Why it was investigated
Purpose/aim
Objectives

6. Abstract: Expectations
How it was investigated
- Data collection
- Data analysis
Major findings of the investigation
Implications of the findings
Conclusion
Recommendations for further research

7. Abstract: Surprises
The abstract has not brought out clearly what the study investigated in general
The specific focus of the study is not clear
It is not clear how data were collected and analysed
The major findings of the study and their implications have not been presented

8. Abstract: Surprises The conclusion is missing
The recommendations are missing
The abstract is not coherently presented
The abstract is too long (sometimes 4 pages and titled Executive Summary)
There is lack of congruence between the abstract and the content of the study

9. Content of Chapter 1: Expectations
General/Overview
Background
Statement of the Problem
Rationale/Justification/Significance
Purpose/Aim/General Objective
Objectives
Methodological framework (optional)

10. Content of Chapter 1: Expectations
Theoretical framework or
Conceptual framework
Literature Review (optional can also be in Chapter 2)
Scope of the study (optional)
Structure/Organisation of the dissertation/thesis (optional)
Summary (optional)

11. Content of Chapter 1 : Surprises
Introduction/Background section not directly related to the title
Introduction/Background is too brief
Introduction/Background has not sufficiently described the project being evaluated
Introduction/Background is too long
Problem or knowledge gap not clearly stated

12. Content of Chapter 1 : Surprises
Stated problem or knowledge gap not related to title
Aim/Purpose/General Objective of the study section not included
Aim/ Purpose/General Objective of the study not clearly stated
Aim/Purpose/General Objective of the study not reflected in the specific objectives

13. Content of Chapter 1: Surprises
Specific objectives not clear
Specific objectives not related to the title
Some of the specific objectives are not addressed in the study
The “objectives” section is not included in the dissertation

14. Content of Chapter 1: Surprises
Research questions/hypotheses not clear
Research questions/hypotheses not related to the objectives
Some of the research questions/hypotheses are not addressed in the study

15. Content of Chapter 1: Surprises
Research questions/hypotheses section not included in the dissertation
Rationale/significance/justification not clearly stated
Rationale/significance/justification same as statement of the problem
Rationale, significance, justification and even motivation presented as separate sections

16. Content of Chapter 1: Surprises
Theoretical/Conceptual framework not clear
Theoretical/Conceptual framework not appropriate to the situation under investigation
Theoretical/Conceptual framework not clearly linked to the title or to the findings

17. Chapter One: Surprises
Theoretical/Conceptual framework not justified
Theoretical/Conceptual framework not applied in the discussion of the findings
The dissertation is incoherent, lacks logical development from theory to application

18. Literature review: Surprises
Literature review should directly relate to the title
Literature review should provide a detailed, coherent and adequate scholarly critique of existing literature in terms of knowledge gap and in relation to the present study
Literature reviewed should include both convergent and divergent views

19. Literature review: Surprises
Literature review inadequate
Literature review section too long
Literature merely presented, not reviewed in terms of knowledge gap and in relation to the present study
Literature reviewed has excluded divergent views
Literature reviewed inappropriate for the present study

20. Literature review: Surprises
Theories and concepts cited in the Literature review not applied anywhere to support or refute some of the findings
Literature Review Section/Chapter not included in the dissertation
Literature review not logically/coherently presented

21. Literature review: Surprises
Literature review not clearly linked to the present study
Literature review contains a lot of factual statements which are not supported by the literature

22. METHODOLOGY OR MATERIALS AND METHODS: EXPECTATIONS
Clear identification and justification of research design applied
Clear categorization of type of data collection methods: qualitative? quantitative? or mixed methods?
Clear explanation and justification of inclusion/exclusion criteria
Clear explanation and justification of the control measures applied

23. METHODOLOGY OR MATERIALS AND METHODS: EXPECTATIONS
Detailed description of data collection process: sampling, sampling frame, sample size, sampling techniques, data collection instruments
Data analysis – content analysis? Discourse analysis? statistical analysis?
For statistical analysis, indication of the specific type of statistics used eg. T-test, ANOVA, Chi-Square etc and justification

24. METHODOLOGY OR MATERIALS AND METHODS: SURPRISES
Research design not appropriate
Research design not fully described
Research design not fully justified
Sample size inadequate
Sampling procedure not fully described
Sampling frame not clearly stated
Exclusion/inclusion criteria not clearly stated

25. METHODOLOGY OR MATERIALS AND METHODS: SURPRISES
Qualitative data not adequately analysed
Procedure for analysing qualitative data not fully described
Materials and methods used for data collection not sufficiently justified
Materials and methods used for data collection not appropriate

26. METHODOLOGY OR MATERIALS AND METHODS: SURPRISES
The study population is not clearly identified
There is no information on the control measures applied
Control measures applied inadequate/inappropriate/ non-standard
Inadequate description of the project targets

27. METHODOLOGY OR MATERIALS AND METHODS: SURPRISES
Inadequate information on how data were collected and analysed
Methodology is not clear and does not include the main tools used in the study
No clear indication of how many FGDs were held and with whom
The expressions Focus Group Discussions and Interviews are used interchangeably yet they are different

28. METHODOLOGY OR MATERIALS AND METHODS: SURPRISES
Not indicated the number of people interviewed and how these were selected
There is no justification for the use of the specific data collection instruments indicated
No indication of the specific type of statistics used to analyse data – candidate has simply indicated SPSS.

29. Findings: Expectations
Findings should be presented and explained in relation to the objectives and/or research questions
Extracts of verbatim responses should be presented for qualitative studies
Specific statistical test results should be presented for quantitative studies

30. Findings: Surprises
Findings merely stated, not explained in relation to the objectives or research questions or hypotheses
Some of the findings not related to any of the objectives or research questions or hypotheses
Results from some of the statistical tests carried out not presented

31. Findings: Surprises
For a qualitative based study, the candidate has not presented sufficient direct quotations from the respondents
Findings have been presented in form of raw data based on the sources of data instead of being synthesized in relation to the objectives or research questions or hypotheses

32. Discussion of Findings: Expectations
Discussion section should deliberate the findings in relation to the title, the statement of the problem, the main objective, the specific objectives, the literature review and the theoretical or conceptual framework
Qualitative explanation of Quantitative data

33. Discussion of Findings: Surprises
Discussion section repeats the presentation of findings/results and does not discuss them in relation to the title, the statement of the problem, the main objective, the specific objectives, the literature review and the theoretical or conceptual framework

34. Discussion of Findings: Surprises
The candidate makes claims which are not substantiated by either the findings, the literature or theory
The discussion chapter or section is not included in the dissertation
Quantitative data have not been backed with qualitative explanation

35. Discussion of Findings: Surprises
There are too many quotations which obscure the clear flow of the researcher’s interpretation of the findings

36. Conclusion and Recommendations: Expectations
Both the conclusion and the recommendations should logically follow from the findings and the discussion thereof

37. Conclusion and Recommendations: Surprises
The conclusions are not derived from findings, lack evidence
The conclusions are appropriate but are not emphatically stated
There are too many recommendations
The recommendations are not clear

38. Conclusion and Recommendations: Surprises
Some of the recommendations are not linked to the conclusion
The section on ‘suggestions for further research’ is not included in the dissertation
The recommendations are too long and some of them contain more than one idea

39. GENERAL SURPRISES
Grammatical errors – eg. subject verb agreement, use of incomplete sentences
Stylistic errors – use of non-academic writing style (eg. vocabulary selection, use of first person narrative, inappropriate thematic progression etc.)
inconsistency in referencing style (APA vs MLA vs Vancouver vs Harvard)
inconsistency in spelling between British and American

40. GENERAL SURPRISES
Non-adherence to DRGS Guidelines as stipulated in the handbook e.g.
Title page
Order of preliminary pages
Naming of chapters

41. GENERAL SURPRISES
Non-numbering of entries eg. Chapter entries, table entries, figure entries
Inconsistency in numbering of entries
Non-titling of chapters
Chapters start abruptly and end abruptly
Non-narrative explanation of table entries, figure entries and graph or bar chart entries
Non-narrative explanation of statistical test results

42. STAY BLESSED