Law and Policy Reform Evolving Status of Courts in Dispute Resolution: Judicialization of Politics and Credibility Insolvency Law Reform in Kenya
The study sought to evaluate feedback from doctoral supervisors on thesis drafts using the model Kumar and Stracke (2007). The scope of the study differs from the studies by Hyatt (2005) and Kumar and Stracke (2007) both in terms of focus and methodology. Hyatt (2005) focused on analysis of feedback by lecturers of Masters students on assignments undertaken predominantly in the field of Education. While Kumar and Stracke (2007) analyzed supervisors’ written feedback on the first draft of PhD thesis. The study focused on reviewing examiner’s written and oral comments of final draft of the thesis. The in-text feedback was evaluated using the three categories advanced in the model by Kumar and Stracke (2007). The study revealed that in text feedback by the external examiner and internal examiners consisted of all three (3) categories of feedback, namely, referential, directive and expressive as propounded in the model by Kumar and Stracke. The distribution of comments was as follows: referential (39.8%) directive (15.3%) expressive (44.9%) translating into a ratio of 4:2:4 where the most dominant category were the expressive comments. The ratio in the Kumar and Stracke (2007) study was 5:3:2 with the majority of comments being referential. The variance between the study and the Kumar and Stracke model was explained by the findings that: the stage of examination; and; the level of advancement of the drafts impacted on the type of comments that examiners would make. The study examined final drafts of thesis where comments were less directive and more expressive and referential. Whereas in Kumar and Stracke study, the thesis examined were first drafts. The study proposes the development of integrated model (combination of more than one model) to cover the limitations of a single model approach or in other contexts to complement the merits of one model over another.
