Linguistic diversity and doctoral assessment: exploring examiner treatment of candidate language

Overseas students who have learned English as a second or foreign language (L2) form a prominent subgroup of research students in Australian universities. However, there is a paucity of research exploring the linguistic experiences of this population in connection with thesis examination and in comparison with first language users of English (L1). Drawing on a two-phase design, we utilised an archived corpus of de-identified PhD examiner reports (n = 2117) that incorporated demographic data on candidate language background to determine if there were significant differences in examiner emphasis between L1 and L2 English speakers in three Broad Fields of Study (BFOS): Health; Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences (HASS); Science and Engineering. We found some significant differences in content emphases in examiner comments between L1 and L2 candidates by BFOS but no significant differences in examiner recommendation or committee decision between these groups. This suggested examiners were accommodating language differences. To explore this more closely, we identified 27 reports where examiners had surmised an L2 background and examined these informed by Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT). The case analyses confirmed that rather than rejecting or responding negatively to non-standard language, overall, examiners were accommodating of unconventional style (where meaning is not impaired) taking considerable effort to instruct the candidate in instances where intelligibility was obstructed. The findings are particularly apposite in light of widening postgraduate participation by students from linguistically diverse backgrounds.

Automated summary

This study examines the linguistic experiences and accommodation of overseas students who have learned English as a second or foreign language (L2) in Australian universities. Using archived PhD examiner reports, the study explores the differences between L1 and L2 English speakers in terms of examiner emphasis in different fields of study. The findings suggest that examiners accommodate language differences and are willing to guide L2 candidates when their language proficiency may obstruct intelligibility.