http://myresearchspace.grs.uwa.edu.au/blogs/theezoneblog/archive/2008/06/26/description-versus-interpretation.aspxA recent examiner has noted that the thesis he was considering was heavy on description but light on interpretation. He thought that descriptive theses are acceptable at the Masters level but that the goal of the PhD is to generate new knowledge and goenCommunityServer 2.1 SP1 (Build: 61025.2)http://myresearchspace.grs.uwa.edu.au/blogs/theezoneblog/archive/2008/06/26/description-versus-interpretation.aspx#23825Thu, 10 Jul 2008 03:20:28 GMT8a7e208b-72ee-48b9-aab7-de231d5a09bf:23825Andrew.Rate<p>I'm not sure that the question is about *theory* so much as it is about scholarship. Last week, for the first time ever, I returned a PhD thesis I'd examined with a recommendation to re-submit. My contention seems similar to the comments you describe - lots of data (i.e., _what_ was observed) but insufficient discussion (i.e., interpretation, even in light of established theory or the empirical findings of other workers in the discipline). It would be great if all PhD theses developed or extended theories, but for me it is suffiecient to demonstrate high-level scholarship and evidence of having a good, hard think about the data. I guess I make a distinction between information (=results, data,...) and knowledge (how does this information further human understanding?).</p>