The reflective examiner
I love it when an examiner talks about "the PhD" in general, rather than simply the particulars of the one under consideration. When this happens, we get an insight into what examiners are looking for. Usually, such reflection occurs when the examiner is trying to explain to the candidate how a thesis might be improved - this is the formative part of the report.
Here's a summary of the sorts of comments that often arise:
Normally in academic writing, especially at the PhD level, it is crucial to begin with a statement of a research problem. A research problem is at the core of an academic study. It is the main idea of the research and represents the philosophical view of the PhD candidate. Without this philosophical view, the thesis only deals with technical aspects and this does not suffice for a PhD.
A research problem is created by intensive, extensive, comprehensive, and critical reading of the literature. Any gap in the literature, caused by methodological problems or incorrect interpretations of data, can become a general statement that can subsequently be enhanced by the researcher's opinion on the issue. Thus, there must be old knowledge and new knowledge in the thesis.
A literature review is not a re-echoing of the literature; it must be a critical review of it. First and foremost, a literature review is the researcher's own opinions and comments about previous writings and studies in the area. These opinions are built from the reading. They may be directed towards methodological shortcomings or weaknesses in previously published work. These opinions of the candidate should be categorized, labelled as sub-topics, and discussed. Additionally, some part of the literature review will be a gathering together of known data, statistics, opinions and definitions that will be used to justify or support the argument put forward by the candidate.