Abstract
The supervision of doctoral theses remains one of the few areas of academic activity in which there is little regulation. While opposing an extension of bureaucratic rigidity to the process, this article, based upon findings from various conferences and discussions, indicates that ‘ad hocery’ is not always beneficial to the supervisor or doctoral student. The absence of guidance to the student means that the climax of the PhD process – the oral examination – is often shrouded in unnecessary mystery.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Dunleavy, P. (2004) Authoring a PhD Thesis, London: Palgrave.
Gordon, R. (1952) Doctor in the House, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Mullins, G. and 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.
Murray, R. (2003) How to Survive your Viva, Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Phillips, E. and Pugh, D. (1998) How to get a PhD, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Salmon, P. (1992) Achieving a PhD – Ten Students' Experience, Stoke: Trentham.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tonge, J. the last bastion of ad hocery? research supervision from idea to viva. Eur Polit Sci 4, 230–237 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.eps.2210020
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.eps.2210020