Publication: Sunday Independent Issued: Date: 2007-06-03 Reporter: Professor Doug Blackmur

Was Shaik's Examiner Independent?

 

Publication 

Sunday Independent

Date

2007-06-03

Reporter

 Professor Doug Blackmur PhD

Web Link

www.sundayindependent.co.za

 

Several of the claims attributed to Professor Sarp Adali in The Sunday Independent are cause for concern (Noelene Barbeau, "Academic supervisor defends veracity of Shaik's PhD", May 27).

The examination of the thesis was apparently conducted by the principal supervisor, the co-supervisor and an external examiner *1.

This is ultra vires international good practice. At a minimum, there ought to have been the same number of external examiners as there were internal examiners. The external examiners, moreover, should have had absolutely no academic or other connections with the PhD student.

In the Shaik case, was the external examiner independent *2 in all relevant respects, or was he/she also a co-author of various papers with Shaik, as were the internal examiners?

If so, the external examiner was not appropriately independent. If so, we have an alarming situation in which not just a majority but all three examiners had an academic relationship with the candidate.

Professor Adali says: " Each chapter of [Shaik's] thesis had co-authored conference papers… I was co-author on some of the papers and Professor Verijenko was co-author on all." What does "had" mean in this context? Does each chapter consist entirely, or significantly, of co-authored conference papers?*3

In both cases, it is essential that the thesis indicate the exact contribution that was made by each author. Otherwise, it would be impossible to determine the precise nature of the "contribution to knowledge" *4 which was made by Chippy Shaik, and, therefore, to decide if his contribution deserved the award of a PhD *5.

It is also unusual for conference papers*6 to be reproduced verbatim as part of a PhD thesis, as apparently happened in this case.

And Professor Adali's rejection of spelling mistakes and missing pages in the final version of the thesis as neither here nor there is disappointing to all who insist on the highest standards in South African postgraduate education. No doubt other accusations concerning "flawed calculations" in the thesis will be tested by the University of KwaZulu-Natal, but what is Professor Adali's view on this? He is, I assume, an expert in the particular field, otherwise why was he an examiner?

Professor Doug Blackmur PhD
F Instit D SA
University of the Western Cape

With acknowledgements to Professor Doug Blackmur and Sunday Independent.


*1       If this is true Professor Blackmur seems to know more than other outsiders, the University itself has been keeping most mum on this subject, despite specific enquiry.

My understanding, from reading the newspapers, is that there was one internal examiner and three external examiners.


*2      Without a doubt not.


*3      Each chapter consists entirely of journal papers and conference papers, but only two of these papers seem to have been co-authored by the candidate.


*4      The "contribution to knowledge" by the candidate in this case is essentially zero.


*5      An irony, indeed a self-incriminating one, is that the candidate has attested in the Declaration included within the thesis that it is his "own unaided work".

By acknowledging by means of a formal public statement that the thesis is an aggregation of co-authored conference papers, he is contradicting his declaration.


*6      Conference papers generally have no or very little true academic value. Only true peer reviewed journal papers have such value.

In any case, in this instance the one conference paper has been recycled at least three times with different authors being cited as the primary author in each instance.

In one such instance the clearly genuine primary author has indicated that the candidate was allowed to cite primary authorship because he presented the paper at the locally-held conference.


Overall, it is intriguing why someone would want a doctoral degree so badly that a whole bunch of supervisors and examiners would have to collude with the candidate in order to gyppo the system to get it awarded by the Senate on the recommendations of both the Board of the Faculty of Engineering and the Higher Degree Committee.

By if blame were apportionable, then the conduct of the colluding staff members is infinitely worse and more despicable than that of the candidate.

Indeed the conduct of the former is conspiratorial, fraudulent, corrupt and criminal.

The University would also have a number of civil claims against the perpetrators, like delict and dereliction of the duty of care.

Might make those juicy pensions vulnerable.