The following is an extract of a talk given to the University of Canberra Postgraduate Students Association.
What is it that makes for an excellent thesis? What can we distil in order to send the right signals to get the outcome we want -- a good report and a pass without revision? Here is some advice, assuming of course that there is a solid kernel of a good thesis in the research you have done.
First of all, it is important to keep the thesis in the right perspective. It is not an end in itself, but rather your attempt to undertake a substantial piece of research as one further step in developing a research career. The thesis should be couched in this broader context, for it is from there that the examiners will view it. It pays to keep this in mind. Now for some specifics:
Does the thesis contain a succinct critical review of what is currently known so that the examiner is not left pondering as to how the work fits into the broader scheme of things? Is there sufficient background provided so that the examiner can appreciate the research problems that you are to tackle, and the objectives of the thesis?
Have the deficiencies in our current knowledge been clearly identified and the significance of addressing them been established? Do not leave the examiner thinking "Why bother?". In other words, have you identified an interesting and manageable problem?
Has the scope of the current work been clearly articulated so as to avoid a mismatch in the examiner's expectations and what is actually delivered?
Have the research objectives been stated with sufficient precision to enable the examiner to assess whether they have been achieved or not? Is it possible NOT to achieve the objectives, and if it isn't, then the objectives are not of substance.
Do the objectives fit comfortably with (a) the critical review, do they arise from (b) the significant deficiencies in our current knowledge or understanding, and do they lie within (c) the scope of the study [as outlined above]?
Have the principal results and conclusions been stated early, usually in the abstract, so that the examiner knows where the thesis is heading from the very beginning? Do not leave the examiner in the dark.
Are the materials and methods detailed enough to ensure that the work is reproducible?
Is the use of novel or non-standard methods or approaches fully justified in a way that convinces the examiner that the candidate is fully conversant with the subject?
Is the experimental design clearly articulated and appropriate to the objectives, and are the methods of statistical analysis appropriate?
Are the results unequivocal and of substance? Does the thesis make an original contribution to knowledge?
Is the significance of the results fully explored in relation to the current literature, especially where the results are at odds with current understanding?
Are the substantive discussion points brought home with finality? Can the examiner see clearly what the candidate has concluded, before the thesis moves on to the next idea?
Has clear ownership of your contribution been established? Now is not the time to be modest. Say "This is the first time this has been demonstrated for any vertebrate group", if in fact that is the case.
Are all the linkages between discrete elements of the results brought together where they are relevant to substantive conclusions? The examiner is looking for a synopsis, not a summary.
Are all the conclusions and is all of the discussion clearly linked to the results or to the established results of others. Speculation outside the realms of that supported by concrete data has its place, but it should not dominate the discussion.
Have all the stated research objectives of the thesis been addressed, regardless of the outcome?
Have the avenues for future work opened up by the thesis been clearly articulated?
Has the thesis made a substantive original contribution to our knowledge and understanding?
Good luck . . . . . Arthur Georges 15/7/96