"I recommend that the candidate be required to resubmit the thesis in revised form for examination after a specified period of study and research " that's what research students most dread to read in an examiner's report. Which could be worse. A doctoral thesis could be downgraded to a master's. Or, "the candidate be not awarded the degree."

After years of sitting through mind-numbing thesis committee meetings, I've read copious reports of what examiners judged were weak research and poor writing. Over time, I've compiled the examiners' remarks to help my students shape and edit their thesis. The following descriptors on what-to-avoid may find some relevance to journalism, which essentially involves empirical research, substantiated observations and clear writing.

Structure

The introduction typically sets the scene and context for the study, but it does not clearly articulate the thesis objectives.

Discussion of the subject matter is purely descriptive, and insufficiently analytical.

Summary of chapter contents does not describe the central argument. How this argument will be developed and proved over the course of the thesis not explained.

In the conclusion, the candidate presents many caveats, but not elaborated or justified.

The work is disjointed, sections are poorly related sometimes not at all. The work lacks the coherence of a unifying theme.

The thesis is not proven. It must start from a problem identified in relevant literature, and expounded accordingly. Needs extensive revision.

Research and literature review

Whether qualitative or quantitative research methods are used, the research questions should be clearly identified and the results of the data collection (interviews, documents) presented to address the specific questions.

I have grave concern with the methodology, more specifically the epistemological status of the interviews and the transcripts. The interviews are, arguably, too "neat". They are all transcribed in Indonesian (and then translated into English) without ever a word of Javanese or a colloquial expression inserted. Which makes me wonder if the interview quotes are reconstructed narratives. The problem is that they are presented as verbatim transcripts of what an actual individual told the researcher. This I find a questionable practice. Need to add a substantial discussion on methodology of how the data was collected.

Within its prescribed contours, the thesis overall was dull, safe and predictable, and its conclusions unsurprising. The candidate's slavish following of theory has constrained him from asking deeper and more interesting questions.

The candidate is quite truthful when he informs the reader that "a simple research question was elusive in this work". This is because he did not formulate a central topic on which to conduct his research, but instead, collected information on general issues from disparate sources.

Overarching problems: partial and selective use of sources, vague and often descriptive interpretation of literature rather than demonstrating critique, use of inferential leaps and assertions.

Impossible in many places to determine whether apparent blunders or oxymorons are a result of inadequate expression or the inability or neglecting to grasp some of the key tenets of fundamental literature in the discipline.

Arguments and analysis

Candidate's dialectical style is a major concern. Promises not met. At important points in the discussion the candidate simply says "I maintain that X is Y" and expects the reader to accept this without any further evidence. There is a real failure to understand what is required if one is to make a case for a claim.

Thesis suffers from vagueness and ambiguity, without sufficient attention to or demonstrated awareness of logical connections and implications.

Candidate's comments are suggestive without a sustained defense. Reader frequently encounters paragraphs of other author's position presented briefly, followed by the candidate's statement of agreement or disagreement, without sustained argument or analysis of the literature.

Thesis fails to provide any compelling and consistent reasons as to why we should believe that this is a serious problem.

The problem with the argument is the failure to be more precise about what the target of the critique might be.

Throughout the thesis, the logic simply does not flow or follow. Points are presented as following one from another, when they do nothing of the sort.

Argument of the thesis is flawed from the title onwards. 'Democratic fascism' is never adequately defined. The candidate is entitled to idiosyncratic coinages and even to the creative use of apparent oxymorons, but it is encumbent on him to define the key terms of his thesis, and to do so clearly and consistently.

Whatever terms are used, they need to be defined. Apart from definitional problems, there are shortcomings in the clarity and logical soundness of the argument.

Need to establish his point with evidence and with clarity. He needs to ask himself: what is my point; why do I believe it; how can I prove it to my critics.

Scholarship does not usually start with a naive plunge into the 'common sense' of that reality. We all live in reality and yet have different views of it.

The thesis needs to be focused tightly on one problem and then argued. The gaps in the research already undertaken can then be identified and filled systematically to avoid the sort of speculation in the thesis.

Writing

Text could have benefitted from further edits to improve writing style, grammar and word usage.

Structurally flawed sentences; subject/verb number disagreement; lack of punctuation; spelling/word use errors, and clumsy expression.

Punctuation offenses include completely random use of commas.

Poorly presented, written in sluggish, ponderous prose, with sloppy and imprecise expression, careless phrasing, many misplaced and unnecessary commas, overuse of capitals.

Contains an astounding numbers of typing errors and, more seriously, numerous errors of fact.

The thesis represents a body of original work but there are problems with the writing, to the extent that the contribution to knowledge is not obvious.

Standard of writing does not reach PhD level, in terms of clarity, organization, coherence, chapter organization, etc.

Expression is so incoherent in innumerable places that it defies the most intense and 'goodwilled' efforts at comprehension.

Too many incomplete footnotes; errors of grammar and incomprehensible slang.

Where important assertions are made, facts and figures need to be provided to substantiate.

Some intensive, guided reading is called for, in addition to some training in writing (including editing).

Part 2, which will appear in a fortnight, will look into what examiners judged were commendable research work and writing.

Part Two will appear in a fortnight