I'm delighted to be able to sincerely congratulate Chris Jenkin who, after many years of sustained effort, has finally completed (and passed) her doctoral examinations.  Her area of research was concerned with investigating barriers and strategies for implementing bicultural pedagogy in early childhood.  I won't go into the details of the thesis here except to comment that Chris intentionally applied an appreciative inquiry (strengths-based) approach not just as a methodology but also as a conceptual framework for informing her data analysis.  She was able to do this even though she retained the various steps of inquiry which are more typically associated with action research.  She's labelled her synthesis of the two methodologies as Action Development and I'm confident that there will be a lot more written about this before Chris hangs up her doctoral robes.  (And just for the record, here is a photo of Chris in her academic gown - the photograph was taken on the front porch at the Retreat some little while after she'd been capped.)

But I'm bound to tell you that a number of very constructive features accompanied the actual examination process and the subsequent oral examination process, the viva voce.  I think that these warrant reporting:

First, the examiners reports, when received, were released to the candidate some seven or eight days prior to the oral exam being conducted.  In previous instances and at other universities, I've only known of examiners' reports being made available to the candidate at the time of the oral exam.  So it was with some considerable pleasure that I was able, as Chris’ mentor of some eight years standing, able to see the reports prior to that event rather than, as has always been the case with other candidates, afterwards. 

In my view, the practice AUT has introduced is a very welcome innovation and I see it as a vast improvement in examination practice.  Letting the candidate (and supervisors/mentors) see what that crucially critical audience of three examiners have had to say about a thesis is an excellent idea because no-one is ambushed.  It’s great idea too because it not only allows the candidate to digest the feedback and think about the comments received from that very important audience, but it also allows the candidate to marshal their thinking prior to defending the thesis.  After all, there’s invariably been a huge effort in preparing the thesis and hence the process of defending it should be a breeze – right?  Of course it should and the emphasis is on the viva voce being a defence, not an apology.  (Associate Professor Love Chile, Chris’ principal supervisor was, therefore, right on the button in advising Chris that her challenge was to defend the thesis – not to be an apologist for any typos and variations in thinking she may have devised!)

Second, the reports that Chris received from her examiners were, without doubt, all consistent, not just in praising the thesis, but also in signalling the kinds of areas that they would like to see probed during the oral exam.  That strategy, that template of requirements from the examiners was also very useful because it allowed Chris to focus her preparation.  It wasn’t a matter of over-preparing either – instead it was a matter of being aware of the various domains that would be explored during the viva and being well prepared for what was to become a conversation between peers. 

Of course the argument can be made that the candidate should be prepared for anything, they should enter the defence blind, and not knowing what is to be asked.  I don’t accept that line of reasoning because in my view, the best way for ensuring that people can achieve a high calibre conversation about a body of high level scholastic work, is to have an agreed upon agenda.  The agenda will undoubtedly traverse areas of the thesis which may need to be clarified or even strengthened, but prospects for future research and further writing can also be visited and that’s the exciting part of it all. 

Third, the examiners, whether by design or by good fortune (and I really do think it was by design), were each very thorough indeed.  They literally checked each of the references which had been cited; they listed any typographical errors they had noted, and they mentioned any grammatical matters they felt warranted commenting upon.  Hence, making emendations becomes a relatively easy matter. 

Fourth, and finally, the two week opportunity to scrutinise the feedback prior to the viva voce allowed the candidate to critically review her own work against a series of thoughtfully crafted peer reviews.  I’m convinced that having the examiners’ reports sharpened the critical self-review process because it provided a focus for review.  It was delightful to see a candidate who was able to tell her supervisor that there were some matters from the examiners’ reports which had prompted her to reread her own work and review her thinking whereas other matters were, in her view, contestable. 

So well done, Chris, for having passed this set of examinations after having experienced such a tumultuous journey.  Let’s also say well done Associate Professor Love Chile for being very thorough in your supervision, especially at the end of the journey.  And let’s finally acknowledge the three examiners who took only three-quarters of an hour to conduct the oral examination and who provided such professional feedback.