ISCAP Proceedings: Abstract Presentation
Beyond Feedback: Exploring Peer Review in Doctoral Level Information Systems Education
Katarzyna Toskin
Southern Connecticut State University
Abstract
Peer review plays a central role in advancing scholarly knowledge and offers significant opportunities in enhancing student learning. Research on peer assessment and feedback suggests that engaging students as both providers and recipients of feedback can strengthen critical thinking, analytical skills, self-assessment, metacognition, and the ability to apply disciplinary standards (Topping, 1998; Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006; Nicol, Thomson, & Breslin, 2014). Providing feedback requires students to evaluate ideas, apply criteria, articulate and justify judgments, and communicate constructive recommendations, while receiving feedback encourages reflection and reconsideration of their own work. Despite substantial evidence that peer review can enhance student learning, relatively little attention has been given to how it can be designed and integrated into doctoral level courses, particularly Information Systems (IS) courses in practitioner-oriented doctoral programs.
IS courses in professional doctoral programs provide a particularly relevant context for peer review. Doctoral level IS education requires students to engage with theories, research, and methodological approaches while applying scholarly knowledge to complex, technology enabled organizational problems. Peer review can provide opportunities for students to critically evaluate research proposals, literature reviews, conceptual models, case analyses, technology assessments, and applied IS projects. Through these activities, students can develop their ability to assess theoretical foundations, methodological rigor, practical relevance, and potential organizational impact. For Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) students in particular, peer review may help bridge scholarly inquiry and professional practice by exposing students to diverse organizational perspectives and requiring them to provide and respond to evidence based feedback. Peer review may also contribute to doctoral socialization by familiarizing students with the evaluative practices and expectations of scholarly communities (Gardner, 2008; Carless, Jung, & Li, 2024).
This research idea proposes further exploration of structured peer review as a pedagogical practice in doctoral level Information Systems courses, with particular attention to practitioner oriented doctoral and DBA programs. Future research could examine how doctoral students experience peer review, what research and practitioner competencies they develop through the process, and which characteristics of peer review activities contribute to meaningful learning. The proposed research would consider whether and how peer review can help bridge scholarly and applied learning, enabling DBA students to become more effective critical consumers of Information Systems research, contributors to scholarly dialogue, and reflective scholar-practitioners.
References
Carless, D., Jung, J., & Li, Y. (2024). Feedback as socialization in doctoral education: Towards the enactment of authentic feedback. Studies in Higher Education, 49(3), 534–545. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2242888
Gardner, S. K. (2008). “What’s too much and what’s too little?”: The process of becoming an independent researcher in doctoral education. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(3), 326–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2008.11772101
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.795518
Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068003249