While my research is beginning to show that Roel van Leeuwen has made some unsubstaniated claims, it is worthwhile considering how much of the blame rests with him, and how much must be apportioned to his co-supervisors, Professor Dov Bing and Ms. Marg Coldham-Fussell.
Looking through information on the University of Waikato website relating to Graduate Study and Supervision, the following is very insightful.
“Dissertations and theses are the students’ own research work, but are developed under the supervision of one or more academic staff. In many cases one staff member will be the sole supervisor; alternatively there may be a main supervisor, with others involved as secondary supervisors for their knowledge of a specialist area of the research, or for their experience in the supervision process. Another arrangement is for two or more staff to act as equal co-supervisors. As well as being assessed by a supervisor, Masters theses are sent out for external assessment by a scholar at another university. MPhil and DPhil theses are sent to two or more external assessors.
The supervision begins with a discussion between student and potential supervisor(s) to agree on a topic and the form the research will take. These initial meetings should be held before the end of teaching in the academic year preceding the year of enrolment for the research project, dissertation or thesis. The student may develop, under the lecturer’s guidance, a reading list or other tasks to prepare for the project over the summer before formal enrolment.
Once the project is formally under way, there should be regular supervisory meetings to discuss progress (fortnightly is a common frequency for dissertation or thesis supervision meetings). Once writing up of the project begins, the supervisor provides feedback on written drafts of the work. The final draft of a thesis should be approved by the main supervisor before it is bound. Supervision involves balancing two priorities: students’ need to develop their own reading and research, and to express the results of this process in their own words; and supervisors’ responsibility to ensure that students are aware of the range of sources and publications in the topic area, and that students’ work meets current standards of research and scholarly debate in the subject.
In practice this means that students need to read, write and plan for themselves in the lead-up to supervisory meetings, and then take seriously the criticisms and suggestions made by their supervisors – rejecting them only if they can meet the objection with arguments which persuade the supervisor around to the student’s point of view. In many cases the supervisory process takes the form of an ongoing collegial discussion, in which the supervisor may raise various objections. These points may anticipate the sort of objections which the supervisor suspects will be raised by external assessors and other workers in the field. Such criticisms invite students to develop further their methodology and arguments.”
Facts:
1. The supervisor provides feedback on written drafts of the work.
2. The final draft of a thesis should be approved by the main supervisor before it is bound.
3. Supervisors’ responsibility [is] to ensure that students are aware of the range of sources and publications in the topic area, and that students’ work meets current standards of research and scholarly debate in the subject.
4. Students need to … take seriously the criticisms and suggestions made by their supervisors – rejecting them only if they can meet the objection with arguments which persuade the supervisor around to the student’s point of view.
5. These points may anticipate the sort of objections which the supervisor suspects will be raised by external assessors and other workers in the field.
Let’s look at these facts.
1. Having already looked at anomalies in the Appendices, Bibliography and Introduction of the thesis, and having mentioned the numerous points raised by Kerry Bolton, it is worth asking what feedback was offered by Professor Dov Bing and Ms. Marg Coldham-Fussell?
2. With the glaring errors, and an apparent lack of scholarly research having been done, as well as some questionable claims, who was the “main supervisor” that approved the thesis? Professor Dov Bing or Ms. Marg Coldham-Fussell, please raise your hand if it was you, or was it a joint effort?
3. Professor Dov Bing and Ms. Marg Coldham-Fussell, what checks were in place to ensure the student’s work meet current standards of research and scholarly debate in the subject? Or, are we to make the assumption that this work is indicative of the “current standards” held and endorsed by the University of Waikato, and other New Zealand Universities, whose Academic staff acted as external assessors and agreed with the supervisors that the work met “current standards of research and scholarly debate in the subject.”
4. This one will be particularly problematic for the University of Waikato. Did Roel van Leeuwen (perhaps using his neo-Pagan occult powers of persuasion) persuade Professor Dov Bing and Ms. Marg Coldham-Fussell around to his point of view? Or, were Professor Dov Bing and Ms. Marg Coldham-Fussell unable to provide an appropriate level of supervision to Roel van Leeuwen? Or perhaps one or both of the supervisors insisted the Mr van Leeuwen “tow the line” and produce a thesis with an oversimplified typology, lack of references for key points, and a muddled bibliography?
5. It must be assumed that by the “final proof” (fact 2) when the thesis was approved by one or both supervisors, either Roel van Leeuwen had persuaded his supervisors that his arguments were watertight (“look into my eyes, you are getting sleepy”) or the supervisors were at fault (before the external assessors were somehow persuaded that the thesis was of a sufficient standard to pass it). The supervisors had to either intentionally ignore the lack of referencing, lack of research, and general problematic themes raises in the thesis, or they did this unintentionally, either through lack of ability or personal bias due to the emotive theme of the thesis.
This is only five points (a Diabolic Pentagonal Terms of Reference to use the pseudo-babble that seems to be part of the Satanic culture) based on one section of one document from University of Waikato. It would be difficult to assess all the potential ethical problems without knowledge of processes the University of Waikato have in place for ensuring their published ethical codes are followed.
Tags: Dov Bing, Dreamers of the Dark, Kerry Bolton, Marg Coldham-Fussell, neo-Nazism, Roel van Leeuwen, Satanism, thesis, Waikato University
