Publisher's Synopsis
Our concern in this study is with the way in which dissertation jury members assess and rate the research reports defended by candidates during examination sessions. We wonder whether the variation in marks awarded is normal, converging towards an average trend insofar as detailed reading and marking criteria do not appear to be uniform and consistent. What's more, defense juries are not given sufficient guidance, and are therefore left to their own discretion, when judging the value of previous briefs. This approach seems to give examiners more freedom to indulge in sentiment and thus stray from objectivity. As a result, divergence between jury members is likely to increase further, even though we know that divergence of views is not a bad thing in itself. However, the problem arises when the threshold of acceptability is crossed. In other words, when reviewers get carried away by subjective variables, far from the established criteria of appreciation.
