What Counts as Academic Rigour? Epistemic Politics in the Assessment of Master of Arts Dissertations in an Algerian English as a Foreign Language Department

Abstract

Drawing on a qualitative multi-method study conducted at the English Department of the University of Batna 2, this paper investigates how standards of academic rigour are articulated and enacted in the assessment of Master of Arts (MA) dissertations. Data comprise a purposive corpus of 120 dissertations defended between May 2023 and June 2025, along with their associated examiner reports and semi-structured interviews with 12 supervisors and 13 examiners. A stratified sub-sample of 36 dissertations was analysed in depth. Findings reveal that, although official rubrics supply procedural criteria, evaluators also rely on unspoken interpretive standards, resulting in only partial alignment between written policy and actual practice. Three mechanisms mediate this gap: methodological legibility, supervisory socialisation, and internal board composition. The study contends that improving fairness requires a combined approach of calibrated rubrics supplemented by annotated exemplars, examiner calibration workshops, and supervisor development aimed at enhancing analytic transparency. Implications for assessment policy and comparative research are discussed.