Attention: The Dean
Faculty of Arts
31st March 2008
After waiting a full year, the second time round, since I had submitted my thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, I was finally presented with the outcome of the long deliberations (your letter to me of 10 January, 2008). To this stage I have been awarded a Master of Arts only, and not the intended Doctor of Philosophy. Though the Arts Faculty has given me an opportunity “to comment on the foreshadowed resolution”.
Whilst I had been quite prepared to accept a fair overall decision I could not help but being struck, after reading the examiners’ four sets of comments (three examiners and an Assessor/4th examiner), by the complete lack of objectivity and independence of the Assessor, as it seemed ‘taking shelter entirely behind’ (to use the phrase of a colleague of mine) the comments of the unfavourable 3rd examiner, whose criticisms I also found to be quite one-sided and inadequate. And this despite the recommendations by two of the three examiners (the 1st and 2nd), that the doctorate ought to be awarded, and even that a large part of the thesis could be published.
I cannot accept this critical combination (3rd and 4th examiners) as being a valid assessment of my difficult and detailed thesis.
The Assessor’s decision, against awarding the doctorate, seemed to be based entirely on the views of the 3rd examiner, who had previously ruled in the negative. This is immediately commented upon by those who have now read the 4th examiner’s remarks. In fact the Assessor says as much in one of only two paragraphs, when writing:
"I fully agree with the detailed comments of the third examiner who has laid out the main weaknesses of the thesis, and they should be consulted for more detail on my position".
This Assessor did not in fact make even one specific allusion to any aspect of my thesis, nor to the comments of the two favourable examiners. Not once! The Assessor gave, apart from the paragraph already quoted, only one other (fairly large) paragraph that was critical of the thesis, in general terms, without any specific references whatsoever: e.g., “methodology utilized is flawed”; “not aware of up-to-date bibliography” (nothing specified); “has ignored major basic studies in field” (none mentioned); “treatment of ancient texts … is literal and naïve”; “does not ultilize tools such as dictionaries”; “does not regard or address questions of possible sources, genres … variants in different versions”; “arguments are irrational”; “conclusions … unsubstantiated and fanciful”. Compare these with the 3rd examiner’s very similar, general points, “argument … quite unbalanced and skewed”; “failure to incorporate some key primary sources”, “never appraised or weighed in terms of genre, accuracy …”, “vast majority of the argument was premised on a series of unproved ‘if’ statements”; “conclusions … not … congruent”.
The 3rd examiner had, in a total of 16 numbered paragraphs of criticism, offered only one remotely favourable paragraph (re-numbered 1), right at the end, “one minor strength in the thesis”, but heavily qualified (“with some reservation”, “in no way provides an opening to salvage the thesis”). The 3rd examiner had at least, though, provided a systematic series of points (sometimes specific) of criticism. The Assessor had then, presumably with the full set of examiners’ comments at hand, ‘sheltered completely behind’ the 15 critical points of this 3rd examiner, without once alluding to the favourable 1st and 2nd examiners. In fact if one counts the total number of paragraphs submitted by the 3rd and 4th (Assessor) examiners, namely eighteen, it will be found that only one of these entire eighteen paragraphs (the 3rd examiner’s last one) shows even the least semblance of being favourable, and this is still heavily qualified as just shown.
So there you have it, half a decade of work on an extremely difficult PhD thesis ultimately brushed aside in a most biased fashion! In the opinion of another colleague: “This is discrimination and a violation of the department’s fiduciary scholastic responsibility”. One would at least have expected in the case of a PhD that a fair assessment of the overall effort would have been made, whether or not one had agreed with the conclusions reached. That is exactly how the 1st examiner begins:
"The primary reason for requiring a doctoral dissertation is to give the PhD candidate an opportunity to demonstrate his/her ability to conduct original research at the highest level in one’s chosen area of specialization. Let it be said at the outset that Damien Mackey has displayed this academic achievement whether or not you agree with his conclusions and/or his methodology".
Whilst, according to the 2nd examiner:
"… [Mackey] has fulfilled the scholar’s brief by showing his capacity to sift evidence carefully, as well as consulting mainstream opinion. …. The thesis fulfills the stated criteria necessary to achieve the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. It makes an original contribution to knowledge, shows copious evidence of independent critical ability on the part of Mackey, as well as having discovered new facts".
Neither of these examiners may necessarily agree with the actual model being proposed, and both personally in fact queried some of my specific identifications (e.g., “I am uncertain of all his identifications” [1st examiner]; or, “some suggestions offered by the thesis were somewhat perturbing … however these are the bone of scholarly contention”, [2nd examiner]), but both of these examiners had judged the thesis fairly on its stated terms, concluding that it was an “original” work and one that had satisfactorily achieved its intended aims. Their comments showed no bias, and also indicated that each examiner had the critical ability to cope with the complexity of the project at hand.
The 3rd examiner on the other hand delivered a completely one-sided view, with no indication that he/she could cope with the newness of this thesis and the methodological problems that this necessarily involved. This 3rd examiner, as one observer sees it, “was merely showing off what HE knew”. Whilst I shall take up in more detail in the APPENDIX [See previous post] following this letter the 3rd examiner’s criticisms, I shall here give just one example of how I think this examiner missed the whole point. In paragraph #13, we read: “… there was an assumption that any notion of a ‘dark age’ is of necessity an anomaly which needs to explained [sic] away. This, however, was not demonstrated”.
My comment: The whole foundation however upon which my entire thesis was built was that the centuries of presumed ‘dark age’ (c. 1200-9/700 BC) are an artificial device necessitated by the chronological over-extension of Egyptian history (Sothic chronology) that has become the marker for the other nations (such as Greece, Anatolia and Ethiopia). That apparent artificiality was the very reason for my proposing what I considered to be my “more acceptable alternative” model, as a previous examiner had said was now justified; an ‘alternative’ to the Sothic theory that does not require the insertion of these particular dark ages. I nowhere claimed that ‘any notion of a dark age’ is unwarranted, as the 3rd examiner claims, just this specific period of dark age. In Chapter 1 of my thesis I had painstakingly included a large portion of critical Sothic theory, summarizing what I had laid out in that previous thesis (Masters, 1993), in order to emphasise that this was the foundation upon which this new PhD thesis was being built, and that this latter was the “more acceptable alternative” that a previous examiner had said was now allowable. Moreover, in Chapter 1 I listed a full page (p. 18) of archaeological anomalies that a diverse range of competent scholars have encountered in conventional history, pointing to a necessary lowering, by centuries, of Egyptian chronology.
How, then, can the 3rd examiner say that ‘this was not demonstrated’?
Furthermore, as we shall also find in the APPENDIX, the 3rd examiner is inclined to selectivity, several times mentioning only one aspect (sometimes quite minor) of a multi-facetted reconstruction, and then treating that as if it were the only evidence provided.
The final verdict by the Assessor, based upon the 3rd examiner, not only casts my research in a “naïve” and “irrational” light, but also does the same for the credibility and professionalism of the 1st and 2nd examiners, not to mention those who had passed the previous MA. In good faith I wrote and submitted my thesis on an approved topic, in consultation with my supervisor, Professor Rifaat Ebied, and in the full understanding that – in the climate of academic freedom that universities are supposed to enjoy – I should not be expected to write a thesis according to someone else’s demands, and that it would be written and examined free from prejudice.
But, above all, I wrote and submitted my thesis in the genuine belief that my endeavour would contribute – however little – to academic research, and would be helpful in introducing an archaeologically-based model of history that might hopefully serve as a “more acceptable alternative” to the current model. In this aim I was successful (‘fulfilled the stated criteria’) according to two examiners (who, as I said, may not necessarily agree with my particular model), with the 1st examiner going so far as to say that my thesis made “… far more historical sense than currently accepted thinking”; whilst, according to the 2nd examiner I had “… evaluated the arguments of so-called conventional scholars soundly …. I particularly appreciated [Mackey’s] usage of archaeological data to support his argument”. And all this despite the enormity of the task undertaken”, despite, according to the 1st examiner, “… [Mackey’s having] taken on a vast amount of material …”; “subject-matter” that, according to the 2nd examiner, “[covered] an enormous expanse from Egypt to Mesopotamia”.
Not once, however, did the 3rd or 4th examiners refer to the degree of difficulty involved in one’s putting together so far-reaching and ground-breaking a doctoral thesis (including the scarcity of mainstream literature dealing with the actual issues faced)!
I have no difficulty whatsoever with constructive criticism. But I am convinced – and I am sure that many other academics would share my opinion (and some have already vehemently said so) – that the combination of comments by the 3rd and the 4th examiner (Assessor) go far beyond what is normally understood by the phrase ‘constructive criticism’. But not only is my credibility at stake here, as I have already noted. The 3rd and 4th examiners have impugned the professional reputations of the two other international examiners (1st and 2nd), and of those who had passed my previous thesis (1993). This is a real slur on the academic integrity of all of these. Not once in the space of a mere two paragraphs does the Assessor mention the 1st and 2nd examiners, but alludes only to the 3rd examiner and fully takes that examiner’s side. But rarely does one feel that the 3rd examiner, either, is making direct contact with the actual substance of my thesis. It all smacks of the a priori.
As I have just said, I have no problem at all with constructive criticism. But I do not accept the biased combination of the 3rd and 4th examiners as being reasonable. The thesis has been firmly passed by two international examiners, and should therefore be awarded the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Yours sincerelyWhilst I had been quite prepared to accept a fair overall decision I could not help but being struck, after reading the examiners’ four sets of comments (three examiners and an Assessor/4th examiner), by the complete lack of objectivity and independence of the Assessor, as it seemed ‘taking shelter entirely behind’ (to use the phrase of a colleague of mine) the comments of the unfavourable 3rd examiner, whose criticisms I also found to be quite one-sided and inadequate. And this despite the recommendations by two of the three examiners (the 1st and 2nd), that the doctorate ought to be awarded, and even that a large part of the thesis could be published.
I cannot accept this critical combination (3rd and 4th examiners) as being a valid assessment of my difficult and detailed thesis.
The Assessor’s decision, against awarding the doctorate, seemed to be based entirely on the views of the 3rd examiner, who had previously ruled in the negative. This is immediately commented upon by those who have now read the 4th examiner’s remarks. In fact the Assessor says as much in one of only two paragraphs, when writing:
"I fully agree with the detailed comments of the third examiner who has laid out the main weaknesses of the thesis, and they should be consulted for more detail on my position".
This Assessor did not in fact make even one specific allusion to any aspect of my thesis, nor to the comments of the two favourable examiners. Not once! The Assessor gave, apart from the paragraph already quoted, only one other (fairly large) paragraph that was critical of the thesis, in general terms, without any specific references whatsoever: e.g., “methodology utilized is flawed”; “not aware of up-to-date bibliography” (nothing specified); “has ignored major basic studies in field” (none mentioned); “treatment of ancient texts … is literal and naïve”; “does not ultilize tools such as dictionaries”; “does not regard or address questions of possible sources, genres … variants in different versions”; “arguments are irrational”; “conclusions … unsubstantiated and fanciful”. Compare these with the 3rd examiner’s very similar, general points, “argument … quite unbalanced and skewed”; “failure to incorporate some key primary sources”, “never appraised or weighed in terms of genre, accuracy …”, “vast majority of the argument was premised on a series of unproved ‘if’ statements”; “conclusions … not … congruent”.
The 3rd examiner had, in a total of 16 numbered paragraphs of criticism, offered only one remotely favourable paragraph (re-numbered 1), right at the end, “one minor strength in the thesis”, but heavily qualified (“with some reservation”, “in no way provides an opening to salvage the thesis”). The 3rd examiner had at least, though, provided a systematic series of points (sometimes specific) of criticism. The Assessor had then, presumably with the full set of examiners’ comments at hand, ‘sheltered completely behind’ the 15 critical points of this 3rd examiner, without once alluding to the favourable 1st and 2nd examiners. In fact if one counts the total number of paragraphs submitted by the 3rd and 4th (Assessor) examiners, namely eighteen, it will be found that only one of these entire eighteen paragraphs (the 3rd examiner’s last one) shows even the least semblance of being favourable, and this is still heavily qualified as just shown.
So there you have it, half a decade of work on an extremely difficult PhD thesis ultimately brushed aside in a most biased fashion! In the opinion of another colleague: “This is discrimination and a violation of the department’s fiduciary scholastic responsibility”. One would at least have expected in the case of a PhD that a fair assessment of the overall effort would have been made, whether or not one had agreed with the conclusions reached. That is exactly how the 1st examiner begins:
"The primary reason for requiring a doctoral dissertation is to give the PhD candidate an opportunity to demonstrate his/her ability to conduct original research at the highest level in one’s chosen area of specialization. Let it be said at the outset that Damien Mackey has displayed this academic achievement whether or not you agree with his conclusions and/or his methodology".
Whilst, according to the 2nd examiner:
"… [Mackey] has fulfilled the scholar’s brief by showing his capacity to sift evidence carefully, as well as consulting mainstream opinion. …. The thesis fulfills the stated criteria necessary to achieve the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. It makes an original contribution to knowledge, shows copious evidence of independent critical ability on the part of Mackey, as well as having discovered new facts".
Neither of these examiners may necessarily agree with the actual model being proposed, and both personally in fact queried some of my specific identifications (e.g., “I am uncertain of all his identifications” [1st examiner]; or, “some suggestions offered by the thesis were somewhat perturbing … however these are the bone of scholarly contention”, [2nd examiner]), but both of these examiners had judged the thesis fairly on its stated terms, concluding that it was an “original” work and one that had satisfactorily achieved its intended aims. Their comments showed no bias, and also indicated that each examiner had the critical ability to cope with the complexity of the project at hand.
The 3rd examiner on the other hand delivered a completely one-sided view, with no indication that he/she could cope with the newness of this thesis and the methodological problems that this necessarily involved. This 3rd examiner, as one observer sees it, “was merely showing off what HE knew”. Whilst I shall take up in more detail in the APPENDIX [See previous post] following this letter the 3rd examiner’s criticisms, I shall here give just one example of how I think this examiner missed the whole point. In paragraph #13, we read: “… there was an assumption that any notion of a ‘dark age’ is of necessity an anomaly which needs to explained [sic] away. This, however, was not demonstrated”.
My comment: The whole foundation however upon which my entire thesis was built was that the centuries of presumed ‘dark age’ (c. 1200-9/700 BC) are an artificial device necessitated by the chronological over-extension of Egyptian history (Sothic chronology) that has become the marker for the other nations (such as Greece, Anatolia and Ethiopia). That apparent artificiality was the very reason for my proposing what I considered to be my “more acceptable alternative” model, as a previous examiner had said was now justified; an ‘alternative’ to the Sothic theory that does not require the insertion of these particular dark ages. I nowhere claimed that ‘any notion of a dark age’ is unwarranted, as the 3rd examiner claims, just this specific period of dark age. In Chapter 1 of my thesis I had painstakingly included a large portion of critical Sothic theory, summarizing what I had laid out in that previous thesis (Masters, 1993), in order to emphasise that this was the foundation upon which this new PhD thesis was being built, and that this latter was the “more acceptable alternative” that a previous examiner had said was now allowable. Moreover, in Chapter 1 I listed a full page (p. 18) of archaeological anomalies that a diverse range of competent scholars have encountered in conventional history, pointing to a necessary lowering, by centuries, of Egyptian chronology.
How, then, can the 3rd examiner say that ‘this was not demonstrated’?
Furthermore, as we shall also find in the APPENDIX, the 3rd examiner is inclined to selectivity, several times mentioning only one aspect (sometimes quite minor) of a multi-facetted reconstruction, and then treating that as if it were the only evidence provided.
The final verdict by the Assessor, based upon the 3rd examiner, not only casts my research in a “naïve” and “irrational” light, but also does the same for the credibility and professionalism of the 1st and 2nd examiners, not to mention those who had passed the previous MA. In good faith I wrote and submitted my thesis on an approved topic, in consultation with my supervisor, Professor Rifaat Ebied, and in the full understanding that – in the climate of academic freedom that universities are supposed to enjoy – I should not be expected to write a thesis according to someone else’s demands, and that it would be written and examined free from prejudice.
But, above all, I wrote and submitted my thesis in the genuine belief that my endeavour would contribute – however little – to academic research, and would be helpful in introducing an archaeologically-based model of history that might hopefully serve as a “more acceptable alternative” to the current model. In this aim I was successful (‘fulfilled the stated criteria’) according to two examiners (who, as I said, may not necessarily agree with my particular model), with the 1st examiner going so far as to say that my thesis made “… far more historical sense than currently accepted thinking”; whilst, according to the 2nd examiner I had “… evaluated the arguments of so-called conventional scholars soundly …. I particularly appreciated [Mackey’s] usage of archaeological data to support his argument”. And all this despite the enormity of the task undertaken”, despite, according to the 1st examiner, “… [Mackey’s having] taken on a vast amount of material …”; “subject-matter” that, according to the 2nd examiner, “[covered] an enormous expanse from Egypt to Mesopotamia”.
Not once, however, did the 3rd or 4th examiners refer to the degree of difficulty involved in one’s putting together so far-reaching and ground-breaking a doctoral thesis (including the scarcity of mainstream literature dealing with the actual issues faced)!
I have no difficulty whatsoever with constructive criticism. But I am convinced – and I am sure that many other academics would share my opinion (and some have already vehemently said so) – that the combination of comments by the 3rd and the 4th examiner (Assessor) go far beyond what is normally understood by the phrase ‘constructive criticism’. But not only is my credibility at stake here, as I have already noted. The 3rd and 4th examiners have impugned the professional reputations of the two other international examiners (1st and 2nd), and of those who had passed my previous thesis (1993). This is a real slur on the academic integrity of all of these. Not once in the space of a mere two paragraphs does the Assessor mention the 1st and 2nd examiners, but alludes only to the 3rd examiner and fully takes that examiner’s side. But rarely does one feel that the 3rd examiner, either, is making direct contact with the actual substance of my thesis. It all smacks of the a priori.
As I have just said, I have no problem at all with constructive criticism. But I do not accept the biased combination of the 3rd and 4th examiners as being reasonable. The thesis has been firmly passed by two international examiners, and should therefore be awarded the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Damien F. Mackey
....
2 comments:
Pretty good post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed reading your blog posts. Any way I’ll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you post again soon.
Obat Gondok
Cara Konsumsi Ace Maxs Yang Benarjavascript:void(0)
Obat Gondok Herbal
Obat Gondok Tradisional
http://obatgondok.infosehatalami.com/
very interesting article bro , nice article
http://acemaxs44.com/
http://acemaxs44.com/obat-tradisional-diabetes/
http://acemaxs44.com/obat-tradisional-asam-urat/
http://obatgondok.infosehatalami.com/
http://acemaxscare.com/
http://acemaxscare.com/obat-herbal-leukimia/
http://acemaxscare.com/obat-herbal-wasir/
http://acemaxscare.com/obat-herbal-gagal-ginjal/
http://obatdiabetes.toko-gumilar.com/
http://obatdiabetes.toko-gumilar.com/obat-penyakit-stroke/
http://obatdiabetes.toko-gumilar.com/obat-penyakit-tbc/
http://obatdiabetes.toko-gumilar.com/obat-penyakit-wasir/
http://obatdiabetes.toko-gumilar.com/obat-penyakit-tipes/
Post a Comment