UNIVERSITY OF WOLVERHAMPTON
Graduate School
CODE OF PRACTICE FOR POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH PROGRAMMES
Approved by University Research Committee, January 2006
Contents
SECTION A. THE RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT AND QUALITY ASSURANCE
1. Academic Standards And Enhancement Of The Quality Of Postgraduate Research Programmes.
2. Monitoring The Success Of Postgraduate Research Programmes
3. The Research Environment
SECTION B. ADMISSIONS AND INDUCTION
4. Admissions Procedures
5. Admissions Requirements
6. Admissions Decisions
7. The Entitlements And Responsibilities Of Research Students
8. Information Provided To Research Students
SECTION C. SUPERVISION AND SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSIBILITIES
9. Supervisory Teams.
10. Development And Support For Supervisors
11. The Responsibilities Of Supervisors
12. Limits To The Number Of Research Supervisions Undertaken By Individual Members Of Staff
SECTION D. MONITORING AND REVIEW OF STUDENT PROGRESS
13. Monitoring And Supporting Student Progress.
14. Formal Annual Review Of Student Progress.
15. Records Of Meetings Between Supervisors And Students
SECTION E. SKILLS DEVELOPMENT
16. The Personal And Professional Development Of Research Students
17. Students’ Skills Development Programme
18. Records Of Personal Progress
1
SECTION F - FEEDBACK
19. The Collection, Review And Response To Feedback
SECTION G – ASSESSMENT OF THE THESIS
20. Criteria For The Assessment Of Research Degrees
21. Research Degree Assessment Procedures
SECTION H. STUDENT REPRESENTATION, COMPLAINTS AND APPEALS
22. Student Representation
23. Complaints And Appeals
24. Academic Misconduct
Appendices
1. Quality Assurance Of Student Management Boards
2. Intellectual Property
3. The “At Risk” Procedure
4. Skills Assessment
5. Research Skills Development
6. Personal Development Planning
7. Ethics And The Code Of Good Research Practice
8. Submission Of The Thesis
9. Guidelines For Examination Chairs
10. Appeals Procedure
11. Academic Misconduct Procedure
12. PhD By Published Work
2
Introduction
The University’s regulations for postgraduate research degree programmes are available to students
and staff as hard copy and on the Graduate School web-pages. This Code of Practice serves to
amplify the regulations and where appropriate, the Code is supplemented by subject-specific
guidance provided by approved research degree units.
This Code is closely aligned to the second edition of the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) for Higher
Education’s code of practice for postgraduate research programmes. The University of
Wolverhampton’s Code is effective from October 2005 and covers MPhil, PhD and the research
phase of professional doctorate programmes. All research students and supervisors are expected to
be conversant with the Institutional Code of Practice and to apply its principles in full.
The Institutional Code of Practice
Note: The statements in italics in each section reflect the precepts of the QAA Code
SECTION A. THE RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT AND QUALITY ASSURANCE
1. Academic Standards And Enhancement Of The Quality Of Postgraduate Research
Programmes.
The University has effective arrangements to maintain appropriate academic standards and enhance
the quality of postgraduate research programmes.
The University Research Committee (URC) is empowered by Academic Board to oversee the
management of the university’s research students. As part of this remit URC aims to ensure that all
University of Wolverhampton research students are located in high quality environments with a
community of active researchers providing robust research training. To achieve this all research
students are managed by the Student Management Boards (or equivalent) of approved Research
Degree Units, including those of the University’s Research Institutes. This ensures provision of
appropriate support and guidance to enable research students to complete their programmes on time,
and provides an environment in which students, supervisors, examiners and other staff involved in
research degree programmes are aware of and are committed to fulfil their responsibilities.
Each approved Unit has demonstrated:

the pursuit of high quality research in cognate areas by a community of academic staff and
postgraduates;

supervisors with the necessary skills and knowledge to ensure the successful completion of
students' research programmes;

access to the facilities and equipment necessary to enable students to complete their research
programmes successfully.
2. Monitoring The Success Of Postgraduate Research Programmes.
The University monitors the success of its postgraduate research programmes against appropriate
internal and/or external indicators and targets
The University Research Committee evaluates performance in each of its Student Management
Boards and reviews ongoing student performance as part of the annual monitoring process.
3
As part of this assessment, each Student Management Board provides a range of data and the
Graduate School collects other evidence, including:

submission and completion times and rates;

pass, referral and fail rates;

withdrawal rates;

appeals and complaints, the reasons for them, and how many are upheld;

comments from examiners;

recruitment profiles;

feedback from research students, and where possible from employers, sponsors and other
external funders (to be introduced from 2006);

where it is available, data on employment and career destinations of former students (to be
introduced from 2006).
Student Management Boards and the University Research Committee each compile annual reports in
which statistical and other information relating to postgraduate research programmes is considered
and acted upon. There is student representation on URC and all SMBs.
See also appendix 1 (Quality Assurance of Student Management Boards).
3. The Research Environment.
All research students are provided with a supportive research environment in which high quality
research is occurring.
Students are admitted to Research Institutes (RI) and/or Research Degree Units (RDU) with:

demonstrable research achievement/output in the subject

research active staff, including professors, post-doctoral researchers, and other research
students and

a track record in attracting external funding.
Each Research Institute or Research Degree Unit provides students with a stimulating environment
that provides:

opportunities and encouragement to exchange and develop ideas with people at appropriate
levels who are also engaged in research and/or pursuing established research programmes;

ready access to academic colleagues and others able to give advice and support;

adequate learning and research tools, including access to IT equipment, library and electronic
publications;

opportunities for students to develop peer support networks where issues or problems can be
discussed informally;

supervision that encourages the development and successful pursuance of a programme of
research;
4

guidance on the ethical pursuit of research and the avoidance of research misconduct,
including breaches of intellectual property rights;

an emphasis on the desirability of developing research-related skills that contribute to the
student's ability to complete the programme successfully, including an understanding of
research funding and the commercial exploitation of research.

opportunities to develop personal and employment-related skills to complement the advice on
career development available through the University’s Careers and Guidance Service.

access to welfare and support facilities that recognise the particular nature of research degree
study;

the opportunity for effective student representation, and for addressing students' feedback
including complaints;

sufficient monitoring to ensure that where a project is undertaken in collaboration with
another organisation, the standards of both organisations are maintained;

the opportunity for students to develop intellectual maturity and encouragement to reflect on
their own learning about research and on research outcomes.
SECTION B. ADMISSIONS AND INDUCTION
4. Admissions Procedures
Admissions procedures are clear, consistently applied and demonstrate equality of opportunity
Overview of the admissions process:
Admissions information is available in information packs from the Central Despatch Unit and on the
University’s web-site. Admission to a research degree programme at the University of
Wolverhampton is via completion of a Research Proposal and an interview. In the case of full-time
“bursaried” (i.e. those in receipt of a stipend) or externally funded students, normal admissions
procedures for the selection at interview of the best candidate should be followed. In the case of
student-generated projects and externally sponsored projects, an interview must take place before the
final draft of the Research Proposal is submitted to the relevant Student Management Board (SMB).
The granting of an interview does not imply that a student will necessarily be admitted to a research
degree programme. Supervisors nominated on the research proposal are subject to the approval of the
SMB.
Expressions of interest:
A pre-admissions phase has been introduced to provide an opportunity for potential students to signal
an interest in undertaking a research degree programme and to initiate discussions with appropriate
staff. To initiate this process potential students complete an “Expression of Interest” form and submit
this to the SMB of an approved Research Degree Unit. Informal discussions may then take place
between University staff and the potential research student provided that:
(i)
the proposed research falls within the scope of research conducted in the Unit
(ii)
potential supervisors, with the capacity to undertake further supervision, can be
identified, and
(iii)
the proposed research can be fully resourced.
Informal discussions commit neither side to the eventual admission of the student. However, once
discussions have commenced a potential student normally has the opportunity to work with a member
of staff and have limited access to a university Learning Centre to develop a robust research proposal
5
for submission to a SMB. During these informal discussions either side may conclude that the
research proposal is unlikely to be successful and that the process should cease. When this occurs it
should be reported to the SMB at the earliest opportunity.
Students cannot be formally admitted to a research degree programme until the formal Admissions
process, including a properly constituted interview, has been completed and the full Research
Proposal has been approved at a Student Management Board.
All staff responsible for admissions must be aware of and understand the legal requirements relating
to the process and the need to conform to such legislation. In respect of equal opportunities
requirements, admissions staff must ensure that:

appropriate attention is paid to legislation and guidance available internally and externally;

an effective support infrastructure is in place for students with special needs;

students are made aware of opportunities to apply for additional or special funding and how
to apply for such funds.
The Research Proposal
The information given must be sufficient to demonstrate to the relevant Student Management Board
that the proposed project is viable. Attention should therefore be paid to the formulation of a research
question/problem, the context of the proposed research, an appropriate methodology and an indicative
Bibliography. Board members scrutinising the proposal in its definitive form need to be convinced of
the eventual emergence of a thesis which is likely to demonstrate evidence of independent critical
judgement and (in the case of a projected PhD) a significant contribution to knowledge. In the
majority of cases students will be admitted to a programme leading towards MPhil in the first
instance. The possible progression to PhD is not addressed until the Confirmation of Research
Programme (see section D, 13).
A student may be admitted to a Research Degree Programme if the Board is satisfied that:






the student is appropriately qualified
the research proposal is sound and has the potential to deliver a postgraduate research award
within the relevant timescale
the supervisory team is suitably qualified, experienced and has spare capacity for additional
supervision(s),
the student and supervisory team are in agreement at the outset of the project as to their
overall roles and responsibilities
the student has a long-term commitment to the project, and
the proposal is fully resourced
The relevant Student Management Board may wish to take up academic references. The persons
named on the proposal should be different from those proposed in the supervision team; at least one
referee should be independent of both the University and of any collaborating establishment.
5. Admissions Requirements.
Only appropriately qualified and prepared students will be admitted to postgraduate research
programmes
For admission to a postgraduate research programme at the University of Wolverhampton, students
will normally have achieved one or more of the following:
6
 an honours degree, normally with class 2 (i) or equivalent in a relevant subject;
 a relevant Master's qualification or equivalent;
 evidence of prior professional practice or learning that meets the institution's criteria for the
accreditation of prior achievement (APA) and/or certificated learning.
In addition, all students are expected to have a sufficient level of English language competence. For
research students whose first language is not English they will be required to demonstrate competence
to at least the level of IELTS 6.5 (or TEOFL equivalent) before admission, unless they have
successfully completed in the last three years a recognised programme of higher education of at least
one years duration conducted and assessed in the English Language. Students from overseas will have
the opportunity to take the University’s English Language test for diagnostic purposes.
The selection process aims to identify those students most likely to successfully complete the
proposed research on time and produce a thesis that satisfies the examiners for the appropriate
research degree (MPhil or PhD). This includes the submission of a full research proposal detailing
the research question to be addressed, the background literature and the methodology to be applied in
sufficient detail to permit the relevant Student Management Board to come to an informed decision as
to the merits of the proposal.
Advanced Standing
In exceptional circumstances a student may be admitted to a postgraduate research programme with
“Advanced Standing” – usually after the partial completion of a research degree programme at
another Higher Education Institution. Where this occurs, admission is via the research proposal and
(or closely followed by) the Confirmation of Research Programme supported by appropriate evidence
of achievement as defined by that process (see section D, 13). Such students are required to complete
all aspects of the “Confirmation” stage, including the presentation on research achievements. On
confirmation of the programme, Student Management Boards will determine the maximum period to
completion of the programme, taking account of time already spent on the research. In all such cases,
the minimum period of study at the University of Wolverhampton will be 12 months (24 months parttime)
6. Admissions Decisions.
Preliminary admissions decisions involve at least two members of the University’s staff and must be
confirmed by an appropriate Student Management Board.
All candidates are to be interviewed by at least two trained staff who are knowledgeable about the
relevant regulations and conversant with the research area. In exceptional cases interviews may be
conducted by video-link or telephone. Important factors to be considered at interview are the student's
preparedness, motivation and potential to complete the programme. Academic references and other
information may also be used to assess the suitability of a candidate to undertake postgraduate
research. The Student Management Board of an approved Research Degree Unit must ratify all
admissions decisions.
The admissions procedure makes provision for the use of interviews by telephone or video-link in
exceptional circumstances. Where these take place it is essential to ensure that all candidates are
treated fairly and have an equal opportunity to present their case for selection.
Selectors will take special account of the needs of international students, including the assurance of
language proficiency and the importance of providing opportunities for candidates to improve this. As
stated above, the minimum proficiency levels set by the University for admission to research degree
programmes is an International English Language Testing System (IELTS) score of 6.5 or a
recognised equivalent (e.g. TEOFL).
7
When considering the “Research Proposal” for admission to a research degree programme, Student
Management Boards require assurance that the proposed research is fully resourced (including access
to equipment and consumables), that the appropriate University fees will be paid, and that students
have sufficient funding in place for the duration of the programme. When being offered a place to
study for a postgraduate research degree, students will be advised of all the resource and financial
implications of registering for the research programme.
Assessment of Prior Achievement
Claims for admission to a research degree programme based on the accreditation of prior learning
gained through professional practice or other appropriate experience or study will be considered in the
context of their relevance to research. Where this applies, the evidence considered at the application
stage must include the acquisition of sufficient subject knowledge and research skills to demonstrate
the student’s aptitude and ability to complete a research degree programme.
7. The Entitlements And Responsibilities Of Research Students
The entitlements and responsibilities of a research student undertaking a postgraduate research
programme are defined and communicated clearly on admission to the research degree programme.
Admission letters
The University’s letter to successful candidates confirming admission to a research degree programme
is specific to the individual applicant, and encloses a copy of the research proposal approved by the
relevant SMB Chair. The terms of the letter are binding on the institution and, following enrolment,
on the student.
From 2006 each letter will refer the student to other sources of information, including the University’s
web pages, supplemented by printed information where necessary. The letter and enclosures normally
include:

confirmation of whether full-time or part-time;

the expected total fees, including extra charges (such as 'bench' fees) which will be levied,
and any other expenditure on practical items relevant to the individual student;

details of any funding for the programme and the source of any such funding;

the expected period of study for which the student is enrolled;

the requirements which the University places upon the research student (for example,
attendance, progress reports, contact with supervisors) and arrangements for enrolment and
registration;

references to the institution's regulations, code(s) of practice, sources of funding and other
relevant information for a research degree programme, all of which will normally be available
via institutional web pages;

the responsibilities being accepted by the student for their academic studies and candidacy for
a research degree;

the requirements and conditions of any sponsor.
Additional information
On admission to the University, all research students are provided with additional information as part
of the induction process and via the web-pages. This includes details of health and safety procedures,
regulations concerning plagiarism and good practice in research, and guidance on research ethics. The
8
University’s expectations of students in relation to personal conduct and academic performance are
also provided.
The institution's policies, practices and requirements with respect to intellectual property rights are
available on the Graduate School web-pages and are included as an appendix to this Code of Practice
(see appendix 2).
Where it is anticipated that there will be opportunities (or a requirement) to undertake teaching or
other duties, any conditions associated with these activities (for example obligatory training for
teaching), will be outlined by supervisors at the beginning of the student's programme.
Students’ responsibilities
At induction, students are advised of their responsibilities, including the following:

the need to take responsibility for their own personal and professional development;

the importance of maintaining regular contact with supervisors (joint responsibility with
supervisors);

the importance of preparing adequately for meetings with supervisors;

the need to set and keep to timetables and deadlines, plan and submit work as and when
required and maintain satisfactory progress with the programme of research;

The need to advise supervisors of any specific needs or circumstances likely to affect their
work;

the importance of attending any development opportunities (research-related and other) that
have been identified when agreeing their development needs with their supervisors (see also
Section E);

the requirement to ensure familiarity with this Code of Practice and the relevant institutional
regulations and policies. These include the regulations for achieving their qualification and
University policies relating to health and safety, intellectual property, and ethical research
guidelines.
The University’s regulations set expectations in relation to timely submission and successful
completion periods. The normal duration of a full time research degree programme is up to two years
for MPhil and three years for PhD; for part-time students the relevant periods are four years for MPhil
and six years for PhD. Maximum periods of full-time registration for PhD permit an additional year
for submission – thus 4 years for PhD (full-time); eight years part-time. Students are advised to refer
to the University regulations – registration is not normally permitted beyond the maximum periods
quoted; students aiming for the PhD are strongly encouraged to submit a satisfactory thesis within
three years, or as soon as possible thereafter.
8. Information Provided To Research Students
The University provides research students with sufficient information to enable them to begin their
research degree programme with an understanding of the academic and social environment in which
they will be working.
Generic Induction
The University’s Graduate School provides a general induction programme for all research students.
This is supplemented by targeted activities organised by designated units to ensure that their research
9
students are fully briefed on their programme of study and on any local regulations and requirements.
The generic induction programme includes:

general information about the University and its postgraduate portfolio;

the institution's registration, enrolment, appeals and complaints procedures, assessment
requirements and research degree regulations;

information about how supervisory arrangements work;

the institution's research ethics and codes, including consideration of general issues
concerning authorship and intellectual property;

the institution's expectations of the independence and responsibilities of the student;

information on student support and welfare services, including counselling and guidance;

generic health and safety and other legislative information;

reference to the challenges that will typically face research students during the course of their
studies and where guidance may be sought in the event of difficulties;

details of supervision arrangements, including evaluation, monitoring and review procedures.

an opportunity for the student representative body to introduce themselves, including where
available specific postgraduate representation;

information on social activities, including that provided specifically for postgraduates;

opportunities for postgraduates to be represented by the student body;

general information on the opportunities and requirements for skills development.
At the generic induction session, students are provided with an introductory pack and referred to
information on the Graduate School web-pages.
Subject-Specific Induction
Specific induction, provided by the designated research degree units includes:

confirmation of the names and contact details of the student's Director of Studies and other
supervisor(s) and more detailed information about how supervisory arrangements work;

Supplementary information on the institution's research ethics and codes, including those
specific to relevant professional bodies and discipline groups, and consideration of issues
concerning authorship and intellectual property;

details of the facilities that will be made available to the student, including the learning
support infrastructure;

opportunities that exist for meeting other research students and staff, and for developing
scholarly competence and independent thought.

relevant discipline-based health and safety and other legislative information;

a brief outline of the proposed research programme(s), together with the normal length of
study and the facilities that will be made available to the student;
10

opportunities and requirements for discipline-based skills development, and the supervisors’
role in ensuring that skills development needs are identified and addressed.
Each student should meet his/her supervisors at the earliest opportunity to agree on their plans for the
programme including the following:

the initial objectives of the research, taking account of a sponsor's requirements where
appropriate;

the development and general educational needs of the student, measured against the Research
Councils’ Joint Skills Statement;

the means by which the student will communicate progress to the supervisor(s) and how they
will arrange regular meetings;

the frequency of meetings and how records will be maintained;

monitoring of progress in the research and training aspects of the programme.
SECTION C. SUPERVISION AND SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSIBILITIES
9. Supervisory Teams.
Each research student has a Director of Studies and at least one other supervisor, working together
as part of a supervisory team.
Students must have sufficient opportunities for contacting and receiving advice and guidance from
their supervisors throughout their programme. The nature and frequency of this contact is agreed at
the outset of the research degree programme.
Between them, the Director of Studies and other members of the supervisory team will ensure that
research students receive sufficient support and guidance to facilitate their success. The breadth of
experience and knowledge across the supervisory team should mean that the student always has
access to someone with experience of supporting research student(s) through to successful completion
of their programme. At least one member of the supervisory team will be currently engaged in
research in the relevant discipline(s), so as to ensure that the direction and monitoring of the student's
progress is informed by up to date subject knowledge and research developments.
All members of the supervisory team should normally possess qualifications equivalent to at least the
level of registration of the student, together with an established and current research record in a
relevant field. The Student Management Board will consider exceptions in the case of proposed
members of the supervisory team who have professional expertise germane to the project. A
candidate for research degree (whether registered at the University of Wolverhampton or elsewhere)
is not normally eligible to act as a member of the supervisory team for another research degree
candidate.
A supervision team shall normally also have the combined minimum levels of training and/or
experience in the supervision of research students as follows:
Successful completion of the University of Wolverhampton’s staff development programme
for supervisors of research students plus one successful completion to the level of registration
of the student (MPhil or PhD, the latter being appropriate when it is anticipated that the
student will seek confirmation of the research programme at PhD level);
11
or
Supervision of not fewer than two candidates to successful completion of MPhil or PhD, as
compatible with the level of registration with the student (see above).
Where a member of staff has not recently (i.e. within the previous three years) or previously
supervised research students s/he must participate in the University’s Research Supervisor
Development Programme. All experienced supervisors who are newly appointed to the University
must attend supervisor briefings to ensure that they are conversant with the University’s requirements.
The Director of Studies normally has the prime responsibility to supervise the candidate on a regular
and frequent basis, and to ensure that all monitoring procedures, examination arrangements, and
changes to the programme of study are completed in accordance with the University regulations and
this Code of Practice. The Director of Studies is normally a member of the academic staff of the
University, although exceptionally it may be necessary for a supervisor who is not a member of staff
to assume the role of Director of Studies, subject to the approval of the Student Management Board. If
approval is granted for this, a second supervisor from the University academic staff must also be a
member of the supervision team, and will assume the monitoring roles normally associated with the
Director of Studies.
Unless otherwise stated, the Director of Studies is the main point of contact for the student. It should
be clear to the student who the relevant contact is if the Director of Studies is not available – normally
this is the second supervisor. In addition, all Research Degree Units have a designated member of
academic staff (a postgraduate tutor) who is independent of the supervisory team and is able to
provide general advice and support.
In the case of illness or other temporary inability to supervise, other members of the supervisory team
normally provide ongoing supervision and support until the return of the absent Director of Studies or
other supervisor. However, if any supervisor is not able to continue supervising the student on a
permanent basis, where possible the Student Management Board will appoint an appropriate
substitute supervisor to assume the role.
The University recognises that on rare occasions a student/supervisor relationship may run into
difficulties. Where possible all endeavours should seek to resolve any differences. If this proves
impossible, by mutual agreement between the student and the SMB, supervisory responsibilities can
be changed, subject to the availability of equivalent supervisory expertise. Any such change may at
the request of either the student or a supervisor and is subject to the agreement of any external
sponsor. Any proposal for a change in supervision arrangements shall be made to the Student
Management Board on the “Change in Registration” form.
Where students are experiencing difficulties in relation to supervision and feel that they cannot
discuss this with one of the supervisory team they should raise the issue with their postgraduate tutor
in the first instance.
10. Development And Support For Supervisors.
All supervisors have opportunities to develop appropriate skills and subject knowledge to enable
them to support, encourage and monitor research students effectively.
The University recognises that supervisors need appropriate expertise for their role and that they
should engage in development of various kinds to equip them to supervise students. All new
supervisors will participate in specified staff development activities to assure their competence in the
role. Existing supervisors will demonstrate their continuing professional development through
participation in a range of activities organised by approved units and designed to support their work as
supervisors.
12
To assure consistency, the University, through its Research Degree Units, encourages supervisors
working in industry or professional practice to participate in developmental activities offered by the
institution.
13
11. The Responsibilities Of Supervisors
The responsibilities of all supervisors of research students are clearly articulated.
Supervisors and students need to be fully aware of the extent of one another's responsibilities, to
enable both to understand (i) the supervisor's contribution to supporting the student and (ii) where the
supervisor's responsibilities end.
Supervisors’ responsibilities include:

provision of satisfactory guidance and advice on the conduct of the student’s research
programme;

responsibility for monitoring the progress of the student's research programme;

regular contact with the student and ensuring his/her accessibility to the student when s/he
needs advice. This will normally involve face to face contact at least monthly, but may also
involve telephone or email contact depending on the student's location and mode of study;

input into the assessment of a student's development needs;

provision of timely, constructive and effective feedback on the student's work, including
his/her overall progress within the programme;

provision of advice and guidance to enable the student to conduct his/her research with
probity and according to ethical principles, and advice on the implications of research
misconduct;

ensuring that the student is aware of institutional-level sources of advice, including careers
guidance, health and safety legislation and equal opportunities policy;

provision of effective pastoral support, referring the student where appropriate to other
sources of such support, including advisers in the “Student Gateway”(for example,
counselling, careers or finance), Graduate School staff and others within the student's
academic community;

help for the student to interact with others working in the field of research, for example,
encouraging the student to attend relevant conferences, supporting him/her in seeking funding
for such events; and where appropriate to submit conference papers and articles to refereed
journals;

identification of suitable examiners and their nomination to URC at least three months prior
to the expected date of submission of the thesis. In practice, this should be midway through
year 3 of a full-time PhD programme (pro rata for part-time);

maintenance of supervisory expertise, including the appropriate skills to perform the role
satisfactorily, supported by relevant continuing professional development opportunities.
Supervisors should be sensitive to the diverse needs of individual students, including international
students, and the associated support that may be required in different circumstances. An awareness of
the range of advice and support available to students, and knowledge of how students can access it, is
an important part of the supervision process.
Supervisors have a key role in ensuring timely submission and completion of research degree
programmes. The University’s regulations set expectations in relation to successful completion
periods. In the case of the PhD the maximum periods of registration are four years full-time (eight
14
years part-time). No extensions are normally permissible, except in cases of exceptionally adverse
personal circumstances or prolonged illness, in which case application must be made to the University
Research Committee. Exceptionally, students may suspend their studies for a maximum single or
aggregate period of two years on written application to the Chair of their Student Management Board
(SMB).
12. Limits To The Number Of Research Supervisions Undertaken By Individual Members Of
Staff.
The quality of supervision must not be put at risk as a result of an excessive volume and range of
responsibilities assigned to individual supervisors
The University recognises that research students are best served by supervisory teams with sufficient
expertise, experience and commitment to fully support each student and his/her research. In this
context it is important to ensure that individual members of staff do not carry excessive supervisory
loads. To help monitor this, in 2005, the University Research Committee approved a “points” system,
with an expectation that Student Management Boards would work towards compliance in 2005-06.
SMBs retain the authority to use a lower limit, or to vary the limit to the permitted maximum
depending on the commitments of individual staff members.
The system is based on a simple points allocation:

One point is allocated for each second supervisor role and two points for Director of Studies.
The absolute maximum is 10 points.

When a supervisor crosses the threshold of 6 points a review of the supervisor’s commitments
is undertaken by the Director of the Research Institute or Head of the Research Degree Unit.

The question of whether extra supervisory commitment is in the best interests of researchers
is considered at this point, as is the potential to reduce the demand on existing staff by
extending the available pool of supervisors.

The Director of the Research Institute or Head of the Research Degree Unit has the authority
to set the maximum number of supervision points to optimise supervisor and student
performance, within the 6-10 point band.
The system aims to maximise performance in the best interests of supervisors, researchers and the
University research community. It recognises that the demand placed on supervisors varies with their
roles. The Director of Studies has more responsibility and time-commitment to the individual
researcher, particularly with the requirement to take a lead role in the completion of monitoring and
progress forms. Time-commitment also varies through the life cycle of the MPhil/PhD project. The
initial project design and implementation phase and the writing-up stage towards the end of the
programme can be particularly time-consuming.
When appointing supervisors, SMBs are guided by the overall workload of the individual, including
teaching, research, administration and other responsibilities. The University recognises that
supervisors need time to provide adequate contact with each research student and to fulfil their
responsibilities. Regular structured interaction is necessary between students and supervisors, as part
of the overall support provided, to enable students to progress satisfactorily. Supervisors and students
should agree between themselves the level of interaction required and what constitutes sufficient time,
in terms of quality as well as quantity, to devote to the supervisory role. As an absolute minimum,
students should meet (or have other meaningful contact) with their supervisors at least once per
month.
15
To ensure effective supervision, when a research student makes contact for advice or guidance,
assuming that they are available supervisors should normally respond within a maximum of seven
days.
SECTION D. MONITORING AND REVIEW OF STUDENT PROGRESS
13. Monitoring And Supporting Student Progress.
There are clearly defined mechanisms for monitoring and supporting student progress.
The main purpose of the monitoring process is to provide encouragement and support to students to
enable them to complete research programmes successfully within an appropriate time-scale. The
purpose and frequency of monitoring arrangements need to be clear from the outset, so that both the
student and the supervisor can plan adequately for them, prepare relevant documents and consult
other individuals as appropriate. Should a student's progress not be satisfactory, the monitoring
process includes provision to ensure that support is available for the student to make improvements.
Students and supervisors should be aware of:

the implications of the possible outcomes of review meetings;

the criteria to be used for making decisions about the suspension or termination of a student's
registration;

the circumstances in which student appeal processes may be used.
Progress and review arrangements
There are three distinct types of review:
(i)
relatively frequent meetings where the student and members of the supervisory team meet
to discuss general matters relating to the research and to review progress
(ii)
confirmation of the programme of study at the end of 12 months full-time study (24
months part-time) and
(iii)
the formal annual review of the student's progress and forward planning (see section D,
14).
(i) General review meetings
Students and supervisors are expected to meet informally, and frequently enough to address the
student's need for general guidance. These arrangements made between the student and supervisor
allow some flexibility, if both are satisfied that adequate support is being provided for the student and
there are sufficient opportunities for formally monitoring progress. Notes should be taken at these
meetings and the record of meetings should form part of each student’s personal development
portfolio (see section E)
Students and supervisors are jointly responsible for ensuring that regular and frequent contact is
maintained and there will be times when the student, as well as the supervisor, needs to take the
initiative. The nature and frequency of contact between student and supervisor(s) will vary, depending
on the duration of the programme, the way the research is being conducted and the amount of support
needed by the student (see also section C).
Taking account of these variables, and the University’s expectation of monthly face-to-face meetings,
the following should be agreed by and clear to both student and supervisor(s) from the start of the
programme:
16

the minimum frequency of scheduled meetings between student and supervisor, or
supervisory team, and the purpose of such meetings;

gguidance on the nature and style of the student/supervisor interaction, including discussions
about academic and personal progress.

the action to be taken if progress is unsatisfactory (see appendix 3, the “At Risk” procedure)
(ii) Confirmation of the programme of study
The decision about whether or not to transfer a full time student’s registration to a doctoral
qualification should take place 12 months (24 months for part-time students) after admission when
there is sufficient evidence to assess the student's performance. Failure to submit within these periods
will result in the student being placed ‘at risk’ (see appendix 3).
An overview of the process:
1. The student completes the “Confirmation of Research Programme” form (see below) and
gives an oral presentation on the achievements on his/her research programme and future
research plans. The supervisory team and an independent internal assessor appointed by the
SMB should be present during the presentation, which may be arranged as part of an ongoing
seminar series.
2. The supervisors undertake an initial assessment, based on the written evidence provided and
on the oral presentation.
3. The independent assessor reviews all aspects of the application and makes a recommendation
to the SMB.
4. The SMB considers the outcome
Note: SMBs will need to be proactive in appointing the independent assessor for each student at an
appropriate point in time (i.e. well before the 12 month/24 month deadline) so that s/he can be present
at the student presentation.
The “Confirmation of Research Programme” application
The application is made on the “Confirmation of Research Programme” form and students will
provide appropriate evidence (see below) to support their application.
The “Confirmation of Research Programme” stage requires the following information:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
a statement of the hypothesis and/or research question(s)
an outline of the academic and intellectual context in which the hypothesis is located
a description of the methodology employed
a statement of ethical concerns presented by the proposed research and how these have
been or will be addressed
v. a comprehensive bibliography
vi. a statement of the award sought (MPhil or PhD)
vii. a statement outlining how the confirmed programme will meet the learning outcomes for
the award sought
viii. a detailed timetable of work and objectives for the next 12 months, and an indicative
timetable and objectives for any periods beyond that.
The evidence provided (or cited) by students in support of their application will include:
17
i.
examples of written work such as draft chapters, essays, literature reviews or conference
papers to demonstrate their ability to work at the appropriate level
ii. evidence of successful delivery of presentations, externally or internally, for example to
specialist and non-specialist audiences
iii. demonstrable engagement with the University’s skills development programme and the
opportunities provided through personal development planning.
Role of the supervisors
A preliminary assessment of the application is made by the supervisory team, who are required to
comment specifically on the student’s:
i.
ability to express themselves in writing at an appropriate level
ii. knowledge of the field in which the research is located
iii. ability to evaluate the theoretical framework and/or methodologies relevant to their field of
investigation
iv. mastery of related skills and their skills development since beginning their programme of
study
v. ability to meet deadlines with work that is of an acceptable quality
Supervisors are also asked to comment on their assessment of the student’s commitment to the
project.
Role of the independent assessor and the Student Management Board
An independent assessor, nominated by the Student Management Board, reviews the application,
together with the evidence provided, the student’s presentation and the supervisors’ assessment. The
independent assessor provides evaluative comments and a recommendation as to the outcome of the
application, which is then considered by the appropriate SMB. Where the independent assessor
highlights concerns or criticisms, these must be addressed with the supervisors and student prior to
recommendations being forwarded to the SMB. The SMB will consider the Confirmation of Research
Programme and recommend that the student (i) proceed as proposed (ii) proceed subject to changes or
amendments being made (this may require a change in the research degree sought) or (iii) be placed
‘at risk’.
14. Formal Annual Review Of Student Progress.
There are clearly defined mechanisms for formal annual review of student progress.
The University has an established annual process for reviewing student progress that involves
members of academic staff who are independent of the supervisor(s) and the student.
Student Management Boards (SMBs) are responsible for monitoring students’ progress and are
required to respond to any identified problems. They must be satisfied that individual students are
making progress with their research and are on target to complete on time before approving reenrolment to the next year of the programme. Students are required to provide details of progress
with their research, of any issues they wish to bring to the attention of their supervisory team and a
plan of work for the following year.
Only students in certain categories do not need to give full details; a simple statement will suffice.
These are students who:
18
1.
2.
3.
4.
have submitted their thesis and are awaiting examination;
have been examined but are completing minor amendments or are awaiting conferment;
are currently on suspension; or
have been on suspension for the majority of the year and have therefore made very little
progress.
As part of this process all students are interviewed by an independent member of staff from the
Student Management Board. Students are encouraged to use this opportunity to discuss their progress
and to raise any issues that have arisen in the course of their studies over the past year.
Where a student has not made satisfactory progress, the student is designated “at risk”. The Director
of Studies will discuss progress with the student and if an action plan to resolve any difficulties
cannot be achieved s/he may recommend withdrawal of registration. Students cannot be enrolled for
a subsequent year until annual monitoring has established satisfactory progress to the satisfaction of
the Chair of the SMB. Likewise any student who is a debtor cannot enrol and must be placed “at
risk” until the situation is resolved.
The procedures outlined above represent a minimum level of progress review. SMBs are encouraged
to develop a range of measures that exceed the minimum threshold shown above, including where
appropriate poster competitions and other forms of peer and staff review. Following the completion of
annual progress review Student Management Boards are required, by the due date, to advise the
Graduate School of the status of each research student and whether eligible to proceed.
15. Records Of Meetings Between Supervisors And Students
Students and supervisors should keep appropriate records of the outcomes of meetings and related
activities
Records of all formal meetings between students and supervisors must be kept securely. As a
minimum requirement the record of each meeting should state: the date, time, duration, venue, those
present, a brief summary of progress made, reflection on any problems that have arisen and an action
plan/targets for the next meeting. The record should include discussion of skills development as well
as progress on the research project.
The records may be paper-based or electronic. Where they are paper-based, signatures should confirm
agreement of the record and a copy should be held by the student and (at least one of) the supervisory
team, usually the Director of Studies. In general, it should be the student’s responsibility to compile
the records and to store these in her/his personal development file, whether paper-based or electronic.
Supervisors must maintain full records of all meetings and brief notes of other interactions (including
email exchanges) in case needed as part of future monitoring/review that may be required by the
Student Management Board or University Research Committee.
SECTION E. SKILLS DEVELOPMENT
16. The Personal And Professional Development Of Research Students
Research students are provided with opportunities for personal and professional development
through the acquisition of transferable skills.
The research councils have an acknowledged role in setting standards and identifying best practice in
research training. In their joint statement “Skills training requirements for research students” they set
out the skills that doctoral research students they fund should have achieved on completion of their
19
programmes. The University believes that all students, irrespective of funding source should have the
same opportunities.
The University also acknowledges the importance of acquiring research and other skills during
research degree programmes to enhance students' ability to complete the research programme
successfully and on time. Such skills are significant in the research graduate's capability for sustaining
learning throughout his or her career, whether in an academic role, or in other employment.
On admission to the University students have the opportunity to identify their development needs
through a research skills assessment conducted at the outset of their research degree programme.
Although subsequent development is undertaken in consultation with supervisors, all research
students are encouraged to take ownership and responsibility for their own learning, during and after
their programme of study.
The University’s skills development programme is outlined below.
17. Students’ Skills Development Programme.
Each student's development needs are identified and agreed jointly by the student and the supervisory
team at the start of the programme. They are regularly reviewed and updated as the research
programme progresses.
When developing its skills development scheme, the University recognised that some research and
other transferable skills may be present on commencement (for example in the case of some mature
students), explicitly taught, or developed during the research programme. A skills assessment
conducted at the start of each research degree programme helps to identify students’ skills
development needs, taking account of their different circumstances and the diversity of the research
student population (appendix 4).
Personal and professional development opportunities for research students are spread throughout the
duration of the research degree. The extent to which research students are required to take advantage
of these opportunities will normally be negotiated through the supervision process, taking account of
subject and individual needs (appendix 5).
Key features of the University of Wolverhampton scheme are as follows:









Research skills development in line with the recommendations of QAA and the Research
Councils
A comprehensive induction for all students to provide students with a good understanding of
the research degree programme and its significant landmarks
Generic workshops co-ordinated by the Graduate School with discipline-specific support from
Schools, Research Institutes and Student Management Boards
An identified generic skills co-ordinator in each Student Management Board
Student ownership of the process, with supervisor involvement as a key to success
The student-supervisor relationship at the centre of the process with regular meetings to
assess individual research skills development needs
Access to generic and subject-specific skills development opportunities, with the opportunity
to review and reflect on progress at regular intervals
Personal development and action planning an integral part of the overall programme
Tangible sources of evidence (progress files: paper-based/e-portfolio plus SMB student
records) used as a basis for robust annual monitoring and progression.
Records of activity and achievement will contribute to each student’s portfolio of achievement
considered at annual monitoring, and evidence of satisfactory progress is a requirement when
confirming the final target award (MPhil or PhD).
20
Where postgraduate students are provided with opportunities for teaching (for example, acting as
demonstrators in laboratories, or teaching small groups), appropriate guidance and support will be
provided. If the student's teaching activity also extends to assessing students, the training they receive
must reflect this. Where possible, students who undertake teaching will do so as part of a teaching
team and will benefit from the peer support provided.
To ensure that students' needs are being met, the University reviews its research and generic skills
training as part of the quality assurance mechanisms for research programmes.
18. Records Of Personal Progress
Research students are encouraged to maintain a record of personal progress, including the
development of research and other skills
It is good practice for students to reflect on their learning, supported by frameworks developed by
institutions for recording personal development. Research students at the University of
Wolverhampton have the opportunity to use electronic or paper-based tools for recording personal
development and other achievements, including research and other skills (appendix 6). In addition,
students are expected to discuss with their supervisors the ethical implications of their work and to be
conversant with the University’s Code of Good Research Practice (appendix 7).
Students who, on entry to the research programme, are unfamiliar with keeping records of their
progress and development can access additional guidance and support from the Postgraduate Skills
Tutor in their Research Degree Unit. Workshops on the use of personal development portfolios are
provided as part of the skills development programme for research students.
Demonstrable progress with personal development planning is required as a part of the annual
monitoring and research programme action planning cycle, and at the Confirmation of Research
Programme stage.
SECTION F - FEEDBACK
19. The Collection, Review And Response To Feedback
There are mechanisms to collect, review and, where appropriate, respond to feedback from all
concerned with postgraduate research programmes. Feedback is considered openly and
constructively and the results are communicated to the key stakeholders.
Constructive feedback from all concerned with research degree programmes is regarded as a valuable
contribution to quality enhancement. The University encourages feedback in the following ways:




Examiners – examiners’ reports and the comments therein form part of the University’s
evaluation of the quality of its research degree programmes.
Examination Chairs – feedback is sought on the conduct of all viva voce examinations and on
examiners’ comments.
Supervisors – from 2006 the views of supervisors will be canvassed following each successful
research degree completion. In addition supervisors have the opportunity to feed comments on the
progress of individual students and on the University’s processes and procedures through
representation at Student Management Boards. Feedback obtained from participants in the
research supervisor development programme is used to ensure its relevance and fitness for
purpose.
Students – there are arrangements for student representation on all Student Management Boards
or other local committees and on the full University Research Committee (see section H).
Commencing in 2005-06, as part of ongoing quality assurance and monitoring procedures there
are annual meetings with students from all Student Management Boards in which their views are
21


actively sought. Reports from this monitoring are to be presented annually to University Research
Committee (see appendix 1). Finally, all students have the opportunity to make observations on
their experiences through questionnaires issued on completion of their research degree
programme.
Research Administrators – from 2006 the Graduate School will convene a research
administrators’ forum to act as a mutual support network and to share problems and successes.
The feedback obtained from the forum will help to ensure the dissemination of good practice.
Sponsors – Student Management Boards are expected to seek the views of external sponsors as
part of their normal ongoing review processes.
A summary report, drawing together all aspects of the feedback obtained through the mechanisms
outlined above is to be presented annually to the September URC sub-committee meeting and
thereafter disseminated to Student Management Boards, and through student representation on these
Boards to the student community.
SECTION G – ASSESSMENT OF THE THESIS
20. Criteria For The Assessment Of Research Degrees
The University has adopted criteria for research degrees that define the academic standards of MPhil
and PhD research programmes and the achievements of our graduates.
The University’s generic learning outcomes for the award of MPhil are:







Evidence of the critical investigation and evaluation of a topic through individual
research and analysis, which is at, or informed by findings at, the forefront of
knowledge in the discipline and which is expressed in a work of publishable quality;
Evidence of thorough and current knowledge of the specific field to which the topic of
the thesis belongs, as well as an understanding of the intellectual context in which that
topic is located;
The demonstration of a comprehensive understanding of appropriate research
methodologies;
The demonstration of originality in the application of knowledge;
The demonstration of ability to analyse critically one’s own findings and those of
others;
The demonstration of ability to formulate a hypothesis or research question(s);
The demonstration of ability to design, plan and implement a research programme to
test, explore and evaluate the hypothesis or question(s).
Assessment will be through:
i. successful completion of any required formal research training and personal development;
ii. a thesis and defence of that thesis at an oral examination which together demonstrate the
achievement of the above learning outcomes to the satisfaction of the examiners.
The University’s generic learning outcomes for the award of PhD are:


The demonstration of substantial critical investigation and evaluation of a topic or set
of related topics resulting in an independent and original contribution to knowledge and
understanding in the field of knowledge to which the topic belongs, and which is
expressed in a work of publishable quality;
Originality as demonstrated through the discovery of new facts or methodologies,
through subjecting known facts or methodologies to new insights derived from
22





i.
investigation, and/or through the revision, confirmation or adaptation of existing
theories or methodologies to the new circumstances described in the thesis;
Evidence of systematic, thorough, current and detailed knowledge of the specific
subject area of the research as well as the general context in which that subject area is
located;
Evidence of knowledge of an appropriate range of research methodologies and a
critical evaluation of their merits;
Evidence of an ability to develop new hypotheses or research questions that have the
capacity to extend the frontier of knowledge of the discipline;
Evidence of an ability to design, plan and implement a research programme to test,
explore and evaluate these hypotheses or questions;
Evidence of an ability to analyse critically one’s own findings and those of others.
Assessment will be through:
successful completion of any required formal research training and personal development;
ii. a thesis and defence of that thesis at an oral examination which together demonstrate the
achievement of the above learning outcomes to the satisfaction of the examiners.
In each case the criteria for success (ie the “assessment criteria”) are the achievement of the learning
outcomes for the relevant award. In setting the criteria for MPhil and PhD research programmes, the
University drew upon the qualification descriptors for doctoral and master's degrees in the QAA
Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications and the definitions arising from the Bologna
Process. The PhD by published work is assessed using the same criteria. The University is working
towards separate assessment criteria to be used in different subjects such as the performing or visual
arts and for different types of research programmes, including professional doctorates. The criteria
used to assess research degrees are available to students, staff and external examiners in the
Regulations, in this Code of Practice and on the Graduate School’s web-pages.
Each set of learning outcomes recognises positive achievement by the student. Where a student who
has been examined for PhD is judged not to have achieved the learning outcomes for PhD but is likely
to achieve the outcomes for MPhil, the thesis may be revised and resubmitted for examination to
achieve that award.
If the examiners find evidence of cheating, plagiarism or other irregularity in the preparation of the
thesis or in the candidate’s conduct at the oral examination, they must report the matter to the
University’s Research Committee (URC). The URC will refer the matter for investigation and where
appropriate instigate the penalties for academic misconduct according to the procedures outlines in
appendix 11 (see also section H, 24).
21. Research Degree Assessment Procedures
Research degree assessment procedures are clear, and are operated rigorously, fairly, and
consistently. These procedures are communicated clearly to all the parties involved (students,
supervisors and examiners).
The University Research Committee ensures that all examinations are conducted and
recommendations of the examiners are presented wholly in accordance with the University’s
regulations. In any instance where the University Research Committee is made aware of a failure to
comply with all the procedures of the examination process, it may declare the examination null and
void and appoint new examiners.
General principles
23
The precise requirements relating to the thesis and its submission are included in appendix 8. On
receipt of a thesis, submitted in accordance with the requirements in appendix 8, the work of each
candidate for a research degree is assessed in accordance with the following principles:

the student is examined on the basis of a thesis and an oral examination (viva voce);

as a minimum, two appropriately qualified examiners are appointed for the purpose, at least
one of whom is external to the institution. Where more than two examiners are appointed, the
majority are usually from outside the institution;

except where there is a strong industrial focus to the research, external examiners will
normally hold, or have recently held, a substantive academic appointment in a UK or overseas
University;

external examiners are expected to be able to demonstrate recent and relevant research
activity in the field being examined and to have substantial examining experience at the level
of the examination (MPhil or PhD). Taking the examining team as a whole, there is an
expectation that the examiners will have examined a minimum of three previous candidates at
the appropriate level;

where the candidate is a member of staff there will be one internal examiner and two external
examiners. A member of staff is one who holds a substantive appointment as a lecturer,
demonstrator or technician with the University or who is regularly engaged as a Visiting
Lecturer for more than 50% of his or her time;

two external examiners may be appointed in addition to the internal examiner in cases where
the thesis is highly interdisciplinary;

examiners are fully briefed on their role and are provided with the learning outcomes for
research degrees;

none of the student's supervisors may be appointed as an examiner;

Researchers who have had a substantial direct involvement in the student's work or whose
own work is the focus of the research project may not be appointed as internal or external
examiners;
The Candidate’s Responsibilities in the Examination Process
i.
The candidate must ensure that sufficient copies of the thesis are submitted to the Graduate
School before the expiry of the registration period. The number of copies will be advised
when examination arrangements are approved (one per examiner). Where insufficient copies
of the thesis are provided, or if the thesis is submitted before examination arrangements have
been approved, the Graduate School will acknowledge receipt of the thesis, but the thesis will
not be regarded as submitted until these requirements are met.
ii. The submission of the thesis for examination shall be at the sole discretion of the candidate.
While it is unwise to submit the thesis for examination against the advice of the supervisors, it
is a candidate’s right to do so. Equally, candidates should not assume that a supervisor’s
agreement to the submission of a thesis guarantees the award of the degree.
iii. The candidate shall satisfy any conditions of eligibility for examination required by the
University Research Committee.
24
iv. The candidate shall take no part in the arrangement of the examination and shall have no
formal contact with the external examiner(s) between the appointment of the examiners and
the oral examination.
v
The candidate must ensure that the format of the thesis is in accordance with the requirements
of the University (see appendix 8). Theses must be submitted for examination in a secure
temporarily bound form.
vi. Where a student has been advised that a thesis has met the learning outcomes for the award of
MPhil or PhD (either at the conclusion of an examination or following the approval of minor
amendments) s/he must submit within one month an electronic copy of the thesis, in the
appropriate format, accompanied by the relevant documentation, in order that the award may
be conferred. The format of the e-thesis must be in accordance with the requirements of the
University (see appendix 8).
vii Following successful examination, the candidate must confirm, through the submission of a
“declaration form”, that the thesis has not been submitted for a comparable academic award.
The candidate shall not be precluded from incorporating in the thesis work that has already
been submitted for a degree or comparable award, provided that it is clearly indicated, on the
declaration form and also in the thesis, which work has been so incorporated.
The
declaration will also confirm that the contents of the e-thesis are identical with the version
submitted for examination, except where amendments have been made to meet the
requirements of the examiners. The completed declaration form must be submitted to the
Secretary of the University Research Committee along with the final electronic copy of the
thesis The University Research Committee will not confer the award until the electronic copy
of the thesis and all associated paperwork has been received and checked.
The Supervisors’ responsibilities
The Director of Studies must propose on the “Examination Arrangements” form (previously known as
the “Res 4”) the proposed arrangements for the candidate’s examination to the Student Management
Board, in the first instance. Full details of the proposed examiners’ relevant experience, research
background and a justification for their appointment must be made on the form.
It is good practice for research students to be offered support to prepare them for the viva voce
examination. This may involve a 'mock' viva with suitably qualified staff. The internal examiner must
have no part in any such mock examination.
A candidate’s supervisor may not be proposed as an internal examiner. However, at the request of the
candidate and with the agreement of the examiners, a candidate’s supervisor would be allowed to
attend the examination in the capacity of observer. Any such request must be made in writing to the
Graduate School at the point of submission of the thesis.
Responsibilities of the Student Management Board
When considering the proposed examiners, the Student Management Board must satisfy itself that the
arrangements are appropriate and should take account of the balance of expertise of the examining
team and the training needs of any inexperienced staff. Where a proposed internal examiner has
limited experience of examining at the level proposed s/he will be provided with training.
The timing of the submission should allow the SMB to consider the application and, if approved by
the SMB, submit the proposal to the URC sub-committee for approval at least three months before
25
the expected date of the examination. The examination may not take place until the examination
arrangements have been formally approved by the URC sub-committee In exceptional circumstances,
the University Research Committee may act directly to appoint examiners and arrange the
examination of a candidate for a research degree.
The Independent Chair
The University Research Committee will appoint an independent Chair to conduct the examination.
The Chair, who will not take part in the evaluation of the thesis or the deliberations of the examining
team, will ensure that the examination is conducted fairly and in accordance with University
procedures.
Where the examining team recommends awarding the degree subject to minor amendments, or resubmission of the thesis (see later), the Chair will ensure that a record is kept of suggested
amendments or recommendations proposed by the examiners. S/he will agree with the examining
team the date by which amendments should be completed (within 12 weeks) or that the thesis be
resubmitted for examination within one year. The Chair will ensure that these recommendations and
deadlines are communicated to the candidate, in writing, normally within two weeks of the
examination. The Chair will also have responsibility for ensuring that all reports and
recommendations are forwarded to the University Research Committee so that the examination
process can be completed.
Examiners
Each candidate will be examined by a minimum of two examiners, of whom at least one must be
external to the University. Where the candidate is a member of the permanent staff of the University,
he/she shall be examined by a minimum of three examiners, of whom at least two must be external to
the University.
Except with the permission of the University Research Committee, an external examiner must be
independent of both the University and any collaborating establishment and must not have acted
previously as the candidate’s supervisor or adviser. Former members of staff of the University shall
normally not be approved as external examiners until three years after the termination of their
employment with the University.
Examiners shall be experienced in research in the general area of the candidate’s thesis and, where
practicable, have experience as a specialist in the topic(s) to be examined. However, examiners shall
have had no substantial direct involvement in the work of the candidate, in terms of its development,
implementation or assessment, nor shall their work be the focus of the research project.
The University Research Committee will ensure that the same external examiner is not approved so
frequently that his/her familiarity with a research group might be considered to prejudice objective
judgement.
External examiners shall normally have substantial experience (three or more previous examinations)
of examining research degree candidates at the level of the degree sought (ie in an examination for
PhD, an external examiner shall normally have substantial experience of PhD examining). In
exceptional circumstances an external examiner who is recognised as an expert in their subject
discipline, but who has little or no formal examining experience, may be appointed as long as the
combined proposed examining team has experience of 3 or more previous examinations.
Examination outcomes
26
First Examination:
Each examiner will read and examine the thesis and submit an independent preliminary report the
secretary of the University Research Committee before any oral or alternative form of examination is
held. In completing the preliminary report, each examiner shall consider whether the thesis
provisionally satisfies the learning outcomes of the degree (as set out above) and where possible make
an appropriate provisional recommendation subject to the outcome of any oral examination.
Following the oral examination the examiners will, where they are in agreement, submit, on the
appropriate form, a joint report and recommendation relating to the award of the degree to the
secretary of the University Research Committee. The preliminary reports and joint recommendation
of the examiners shall together provide sufficiently detailed comments on the scope and quality of the
work to enable the University Research Committee to satisfy itself that the recommendation chosen is
correct.
Following the oral examination, the examiners will make one of the following recommendations:
(a) Pass.
(b) Pass, subject to the correction of minor editorial or other stated deficiencies within twelve
weeks. The degree will not be awarded until confirmation that the corrections have been
completed is received. Where the candidate does not submit the thesis within twelve
weeks, and in the absence of recorded extenuating circumstances, the University reserves
the right not to confer the award.
(c) Re-submit and/or be re-examined orally for the degree of PhD (see regulations 5.14 and
5.18).
(d) Re-submit and/or be re-examined orally for the degree of MPhil (see regulations 5.15 and
5.18).
(e) Fail. The candidate has no further opportunity for submission.
Examiners may indicate informally their recommendation on the result of the examination to the
candidate but they shall make it clear that the decision rests with the University Research Committee.
Minor amendments:
Where the degree is to be awarded following the completion of minor amendments, students will
be advised in writing of the required amendments within 14 days of the examination. It is a
condition of the award that minor amendments are submitted for approval within 12 weeks of the
date of examination.
Resubmission:
Where the student is offered the opportunity to resubmit a thesis for examination s/he will be
advised in writing of the deficiencies of the thesis within 14 days of the examination. If
resubmission does not occur within 12 months of the date of first examination the University
reserves the right not to confer any academic award.
Where the examiners are not in agreement as to their recommendations, separate reports and
recommendations shall be submitted. The University Research Committee may then:
a)
accept a majority recommendation (in cases where three examiners are appointed);
b)
accept the recommendation of the external examiner; or,
c)
require the appointment of an additional external examiner.
27
Where an additional external examiner is appointed under this provision, s/he shall prepare an
independent preliminary report on the thesis. If considered necessary a further oral examination may
be conducted. This additional examiner shall neither seek nor be informed of the individual
recommendations of the other examiners.
Exceptionally, where the examiners jointly conclude that there are such serious deficiencies in a
thesis that no purpose would be served by proceeding to viva voce examination, the student will be
advised in writing of the deficiencies of the thesis within 14 days of that decision and will be offered
the opportunity to resubmit the thesis. It is a condition of the award that a resubmission occurs within
12 months of the date of first examination. The examiners shall not recommend that a candidate fail
outright without holding an oral examination or other alternative examination.
Where the examiners recommend that a candidate has failed the examination (ie the degree should be
not awarded and that no re-examination will be permitted), the examiners will prepare an agreed
statement of the deficiencies of the thesis and the reason for their recommendation. Upon ratification
by the University Research Committee, the statement will be forwarded to the candidate by the
secretary to the committee.
On receipt of all reports and recommendations the University Research Committee will complete the
examination process and where appropriate confer the relevant degree.
Students are not routinely given copies of the preliminary examiners’ report or the final examiners’
joint report but can request these where they are required to resubmit or in cases of outright failure.
Examiners are informed in advance that their reports may be made available, on request, to the
candidate.
SECTION H.
STUDENT REPRESENTATION, COMPLAINTS AND APPEALS PROCEDURES
22. Student Representation
The University has procedures for ensuring that student representations are fair, clear to all
concerned, robust and applied consistently. Such procedures allow students access to relevant
information and an opportunity to present their case collectively or individually.
Student representation operates at a number of levels:

Informal: all research students have access to a Postgraduate Tutor on their Student
Management Board. This member of staff co-ordinates skills development on behalf of
students located in the relevant RI or RDU, and is also available to offer support and guidance
on general matters. This member of staff is available to help when there are difficulties that
cannot be resolved informally with a student’s supervisors.

Formal: all Research Institutes and approved Research Degree units have student
representation on their Student Management Boards or other committees and the University
Research Committee also has student representatives. There is also an opportunity for
research students to stand for election as a Students Union representative for the Graduate
School.
28
23. Complaints and Appeals
Formal procedures exist to resolve complaints from research students about the quality of the
institution's learning and support. There is also a formal procedure for any appeals made by
research students. The acceptable grounds for appeals are clearly defined.
It is in the interests of all concerned to resolve problems at an early stage and to ensure that where
possible informal ways of making representations are exhausted before students (and/or staff) proceed
with formal complaints or appeals. It is also important to distinguish between complaints, which are
defined as being representations about general matters (including conduct), and appeals, which are
against specific academic outcomes or decisions. The University has defined procedures for
Complaints and Appeals as indicated below and in more detail in appendix 10.
Complaints: where students feel that things have gone wrong and that maters have not been
dealt with properly or fully there is a University complaints procedures that is available to all
students, including those undertaking research degree programmes. Details are available on the
University’s home pages (www.wlv.ac.uk).
The Appeals procedure may be used where a student wishes to appeal against an assessment
decision, or one relating to progression on their research degree programme. The Appeals
procedure for postgraduate research students is articulated in appendix 10 of this Code of
Practice. It aims to be clear, impartial, and to protect the rights of all those concerned.
Where a student is not satisfied with the outcome of either process, s/he may make representations to
the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, which provides an independent
scheme for the review of student complaints and appeals.
24. Academic Misconduct
Research students are required to conduct their research with honesty and probity and to adhere to the
University’s Code of Good Research Practice, including those aspects relating to research ethics
(appendix 7). In particular, all students are reminded of the significance of declaring that material
being submitted for publication or presented for assessment at any stage in their research degree
programme is their own work. The University’s procedures for the investigation of suspected
academic misconduct are included in appendix 11 - research students are advised that the penalties for
plagiarism are severe.
Acknowledgement: Section 2 of the Quality Assurance Agency’s Code of Practice (revised
September 2004).
29
UNIVERSITY OF WOLVERHAMPTON
Graduate School
INSTITUTIONAL CODE OF PRACTICE FOR POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH
PROGRAMMES
Appendices
1. Quality Assurance Of Student Management Boards
2. Intellectual Property
3. The “At Risk” Procedure
4. Skills Assessment
5. Research Skills Development
6. Personal Development Planning
7. Ethics And The Code Of Good Research Practice
8. Submission Of The Thesis
9. Guidelines For Examination Chairs
10. Appeals Procedure
11. Academic Misconduct
30
Appendix 1. Quality Assurance Monitoring Of Student Management Boards
Context
The University Research Committee has responsibility for the university’s research students. At an
operational level management of these students is delegated to approved Research Degree Units who
assumed this role from School Research Committees in 2003-04. In 2004-05 students were hosted in
five units, three of which are Research Institutes - Advanced Technologies (RIATec), History and
Governance (HAGRI) and Healthcare Science (RIHS); the two other units are Business and
Management and Art and Design. From September 2005 three further units have been approved – a
Research Institute in Information and Language Processing and two Research Centres, one in Sport
and the other in Applied Sciences.
Each of the Research Institutes/Centres has a Student Management Board (SMB) with responsibility
for MPhil/PhD research students. The RIHS SMB also has responsibility for two groups of
professional doctorate students during the thesis phase of their programmes. All SMBs have an
external representative who is required to be present when decisions are taken about the admission of
students and in relation to student progression.
The University Research Committee (URC) must be assured that the SMBs are managing their
postgraduate research programmes efficiently and effectively. To achieve this the work of each SMB
is formally monitored by URC on an annual basis. The outcomes of the monitoring process are
reported to URC and incorporated in the annual report from URC to Academic Board.
A sub-committee of URC meets monthly to consider research student management issues,
examination arrangements and the recommendations of examiners. In addition to the annual exercise,
and to ensure ongoing scrutiny, copies of SMB minutes are now presented to the next available URC
sub-committee as they are produced. The sub-committee draws the attention of URC to matters of
significance or interest.
Annual Monitoring Of Student Management Boards




The annual monitoring period will be in the month of July each year and will cover the
previous 12 months activity.
The work of each SMB will be reviewed by a team of two URC members who are
independent of the unit, working with the Chair and Administrator of the relevant SMB.
Annual monitoring will attempt to gain an insight into the extent to which Student
Management Board procedures and practices are compliant with the QAA and Institutional
Codes of Practice and how well these are embedded into supervision practice and the student
experience. Therefore, teams will primarily focus on meetings with students and other
appropriate staff (including supervisors) to identify issues of concern and examples of good
practice.
Although it is not the intention to reproduce the in-year monitoring during the end-of year
exercise, teams may also request, as part of the evidence-gathering, access to SMB records
and other documentation including:
 Original documentation supplied to the Board.

Minutes of Student Management Board meetings (including consideration of
quoracy and the effectiveness of the decision-making process)



Student progression, submissions and completions
Provision by the SMB of research skills development and other support
Communications with stakeholders (GS, Schools, students, supervisors)
31



Reports will be presented to URC. Each report will focus on the role of SMBs in enhancing
the student experience and their strategies to ensure timely completion. Aspects of good
practice will be disseminated.
Where necessary URC will apply supportive measures to ensure that each SMB is able to
discharge its responsibilities effectively.
In the event of serious underperformance, URC will implement special measures to closely
monitor the activities of a Student Management Board. This could involve restrictions on the
admission of further research students until URC is satisfied that the provision has improved
to acceptable threshold standards.
32
Appendix 2. Intellectual Property and Copyright
The University of Wolverhampton recognises the necessity for establishing procedures for the
identification, assessment and protection of expertise and discoveries and for securing appropriate
commercial exploitation.
These general guidelines are provided to ensure, so far as is possible, a basis for amicable
relationships between the University, its employees, Research Students and external sponsoring
organisations. They intend to obviate those tensions, which might arise due to conflicting interests
between large diverse sponsors and individual researchers. The aim is to achieve balance between the
prestige to be gained by the University, its employees and Research Students from research,
publications and patents and the status conferred by the support of sponsors, and the financial rewards
of exploitations accruing to all parties.
The relationships between a sponsor and the University must be of mutual advantage but a distinction
shall be made between the provision by the University of consultancy and research. In the former, the
University through its wholly owned subsidiary companies sells its expertise (at a profit) and can
expect to have to negotiate the terms of the provision, having regard to the clients' commercial
pressures, whereas in the latter case, the publication of research results is of paramount importance
and whilst costs must be covered, the profit motive is often incidental.
1.
Intellectual Property Rights
1.1 In so far as the results of research arise from employment and the use of facilities within the
University, staff are encouraged to publish those results with due acknowledgement, and to
use them in the service of the University. Intellectual property rights are vested in the
University as is the exercise of control over decisions to publicise or to publish the results of
University sponsored research.
1.2 In the case of externally sponsored research, there must be due regard paid to the
commercial sensitivities of the sponsoring body. Sponsors usually have a right to review a
paper prior to publication and to receive acknowledgement for the support provided. They
may also have a right to edit or delay a publication for an agreed period, where there are
valid reasons such as necessary secrecy during commercial exploitation. Because of the
competitive nature of research, however, publication delays should be kept to a minimum
and any restrictive conditions of this type should be clearly established in any contract
agreed prior to the start of the research.
1.3 In order for the University to be able to claim from HEFCE a recurrent grant allocation for
Generic Research, it is necessary for it to retain Intellectual Property rights.
1.4 Supervised Research Students (both full-time and part-time), Research Assistants and
Fellows, working on projects fully or partially sponsored by the University, or using the
facilities of the University for the furtherance of the project, should understand that the
Intellectual Property in their work belongs to the University.
2.
Exploitation Rights
5.1 Where patentable inventions clearly arise from duties assigned by the University and/or from
use of its facilities, exploitation rights belong to the University.
5.2 Unless alternative arrangements regarding patents have been agreed between the University
and a sponsor, all patentable inventions are the property of the University. In the case of
externally sponsored research, however, a sponsor will normally be given the first
33
opportunity for exploitation, subject to an agreed apportionment of income. Such conditions
should be clearly established in preliminary negotiations and embodied in the contract prior
to the start of the research.
2.3 Staff are encouraged to be closely involved in exploitation and in the negotiations and
liaison with exploiting agencies. They and their research students and/or other research
associates are encouraged to take the initiative in the identification of exploitable
discoveries.
In particular, they are encouraged to ensure that the patent applications are filed before the
right to do so is abdicated with publication. In the cases where the University holds the sole
exploitation rights and it is considered appropriate so to do, the University provides
assistance in this process on the basis that the patenting costs and expenditure are recouped
first from any resultant income.
2.4 The University will normally consult professional advisers in appropriate circumstances to
determine whether inventions are patentable and exploitable. Once costs and expenditure
are recouped, income from the invention is then shared with staff inventors on the following
basis:
Up to £3000 of annual income
On the next £3000 "
"
"
On the next £3000 "
"
"
On the next £3000 "
"
"
On the remainder "
"
"
Inventor(s)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
University
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
2.5 A student, whether full-time or part-time, who is the co-inventor of an exploitable discovery
will be required to accept the same terms and conditions applying to members of staff.
2.6 If the University does not exercise its right to patent or exploit an invention, it will normally
assign its responsibilities and rights to the inventor(s) on being so requested. In such cases,
subject to satisfactory arrangements for the University to receive a share in royalties,
members of staff may propose patent arrangements and pursue the matter of exploitation
themselves.
3.
Monitoring
3.1 The University Research Committee, through the agencies of the School Research
Committees, undertakes monitoring of the quality and progress of registration and related
matters as well as the performances of candidates and supervisors within approved research
programmes. Additionally the Committee reviews and monitors funding and exploitation
matters and reports on such aspects of the University's research effort to the Academic
Board of the University.
3.2 At the start of the research project, when a Preliminary Enrolment Form is completed on
behalf of a Research Student, it is the responsibility of the relevant Dean of School and the
proposed Director of Studies to respond particularly carefully to the section dealing with
intellectual property and possible exploitation and to keep under review the outcomes of the
research to determine whether steps should be taken to protect intellectual property in the
research.
3.3 The University will produce an annual report on the results of exploitation activities and
advise funding bodies, including Research Councils appropriately.
34
5
Matters Of Copyright Affecting Research Students And Other Researchers
5.1 The law provides that, unless it is agreed otherwise, the first owner of the Copyright of a
thesis is the author, and a statement identifying the author as the first copyright owner shall
be included, in accordance with the Regulations, on all MPhil and PhD theses (see
Regulations for the award of the University's Degrees of Master of Philosophy and Doctor of
Philosophy, September 2001).
5.2 The author of a thesis may at some future stage assign or transfer his copyright to another (eg
to a publisher). Such transfer will not however prejudice the authors rights at law to be
expressly identified as the author, provided that at or before the time of transfer the author
asserts such "moral rights" in accordance with Section 78 of the Copyrights Design &
Protection Act 1988.
An increasing number of publishers of academic journals require authors to transfer copyright
to them as a condition of publication and this may prevent or restrict the author's rights to
reproduce the work later. Authors are also often asked to transfer copyright in those works to
the publisher in advance of the work being submitted to referees. Students are advised to
have regard to all these issues before entering into any publication agreements.
5.3 Complications may arise in cases where collaborators are involved in research projects. If a
collaborating third party is also the sponsor of a research student, then matters relating to
both copyright and intellectual property will almost certainly be contained within the
contractual agreement binding the parties.
Alternatively, if the third party acts purely as a collaborator, in the sense of providing
resources and/or facilities, there might not be any contractual arrangement and the issue of
copyright should be unproblematic.
Since there are so many possible levels of both sponsorship and collaboration, supervisors of
research students are advised to seek advice from the office of the University Secretary (ext
2626).
5.4 Use of material belonging to others and incorporated into a thesis or other publication may
require clearance. Should an author want to reproduce material from a copyright work then
the written permission of the publisher should first be obtained; it is also courteous to write
to the author as well. If there are any doubts as to whether such permission should be
obtained, authors should contact the Copyright Liaison Officer, (ext 3986)
J Gilkison
September 2001
35
Appendix 3. The “At Risk” Procedure
The “At Risk” procedure is intended to give early warning that a research degree programme is at risk
of either not achieving the learning outcomes or such delays as to make timely completion unlikely. It
may be instigated at any point in the year if it can be demonstrated that a student has not achieved
agreed targets or is not in regular contact with his or her supervisor(s).
A recommendation to withdraw must be preceded by the implementation of the ‘at risk’ procedure
outlined below. A student is identified as ‘at risk’ if there is evidence that:

they are making insufficient academic progress for their mode of study; or

they lack a commitment to the research project, as demonstrated by repeated failure to
produce agreed interim outcomes, to attend supervisory sessions and/or to attend a prescribed
programme of related studies.
As soon as the Director of Studies identifies a student as ‘at risk’ for any of the reasons given above,
s/he should immediately (i) notify the Chair of the Student Management Board and (ii) write to the
student detailing the reasons for concern and inviting the student to attend an emergency session to
discuss the situation and to devise an action plan where appropriate. The emergency session should
normally be scheduled within two working weeks and should be attended by a representative of the
SMB who has not been associated previously with the project. The student may be accompanied by a
friend or student representative.
A summary of the emergency session, including any action plan or revisions to the research
programme, should be agreed by the Director of Studies and the student, and kept by the Director of
Studies as part of the record of supervision. The SMB should be notified of the outcome of the
emergency session and may instigate any further monitoring procedures it deems necessary.
If a student fails to respond to the letter, fails to attend the emergency session, or is unable to address
satisfactorily the concerns of the Director of Studies, the Director of Studies may, with the agreement
of the other members of the supervisory team, recommend to the SMB that the student be withdrawn.
Students have a right of Appeal against any such decision.
36
Appendix 4. Skills Assessment
Assessment of research training needs
We are asking you to assess your research training needs so that we can review what we
provide centrally through our generic research training workshops and other support and to
help you determine some personal and/or subject-specific requirements for negotiation with
your supervisory team.
Note that your research skills development needs may be provided centrally (ie by the
Graduate School), within your School or Research Institute or at a more individual level by
your supervisory team. The table below reflects this hierarchy and (*) indicates where generic
skills are addressed and/or developed within the GS workshops planned for January – June
next year.
Name
School/Research Institute
Project title
In completing this form please indicate in the left hand column (on a score of 1 to 10) the
extent to which you already possess these skills. Lower scores indicate a need for these skills
to be developed; higher scores suggest that you feel confident in that particular skill. Please
indicate with a tick or cross in the other columns whether you feel that these should be
developed primarily in the generic research training modules, by your School/Research
Institute, in conjunction with your supervisor or on your own initiative. In practice most skills
will be developed in more than one category and utilising a range of resources.
Where * appears, this indicates that the issue is introduced or addressed in the Graduate
School workshops, but it is likely that further development of these skills will be beneficial.
Remember that most skills will continue to be enhanced in later years as your research
progresses and it is not necessary for these all to be fully developed in your first year as a
postgraduate student. We hope that you will refer back to this form on an ongoing basis as
you review your research training needs with your supervisor(s). Records of your
personalised skills development programme can be recorded in your professional
development portfolio.
Sources and acknowledgements:
 HEFCE threshold standards for research degree programmes
 Research Councils' joint statement on research training
 AHRB research training framework.
37
Research Councils' recommendations
Research skills and techniques
Score
from
1–
10
AGRS
Ability to recognise and evaluate problems
and develop research questions
Develop original independent and critical
thinking
Knowledge of recent advances within your
field and in related areas
Understanding of relevant research
methodologies and techniques and their
application within your research field
The ability to critically analyse and
evaluate your own findings and those of
others
An ability to summarise, document, report
and reflect on progress
Research environment
RMPD
RI or
School
S'visor
Studen
t
RI or
School
S'visor
Studen
t
*
*
*
*
*
Score
from
110
A broad understanding of the context, at a
national and international level, in which
research takes place
Awareness of issues relating to the rights
of all those involved in, or affected by
your research (confidentiality, ethics,
attribution, copyright, data protection etc)
Appreciation of how the principles of
"Good Research Practice" translate into
practice at UoW and in your discipline.
Understand relevant health and safety
issues and their application to your
research
Understand processes for the funding and
evaluation of research
Be able to justify the principles and
investigative and/or experimental
techniques used in your research
Understand the process of academic and
commercial exploitation of research
results
AGRS
RMPD
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
38
Research management
Score
from
110
Apply effective project management
through the setting of research goals,
intermediate milestones and prioritisation
of activities
Design and implement systems for the
acquisition and collation of information
through the effective use of resources and
equipment
Identify and access appropriate
bibliographical resources, archives and
other sources of relevant information
Use information technology appropriately
for database management, recording and
presenting information
Personal effectiveness
AGRS
RMPD
RI or
School
S'visor
Student
*
*
*
*
*
Scor
e
from
110
Demonstrate willingness and ability to learn
and acquire knowledge
Be creative, innovative and original in your
approach to research
Demonstrate flexibility and open-minded
approach to research
Demonstrate self-awareness and the ability
to identify your own training needs
Demonstrate self-discipline, motivation and
thoroughness
Recognise boundaries and draw upon/use
support as appropriate
Show initiative, work independently and be
self reliant.
AGRS
RMPD
*
*
*
39
*
RI or
School
S’viso Stude
r
nt
Communication skills
Scor
e
from
110
Write clearly, in a style appropriate to
purpose (eg progress reports, publications,
thesis)
Construct coherent arguments and articulate
ideas clearly to a range of audiences,
formally and informally through a variety of
techniques.
Constructively defend research outcomes at
seminars and viva examination
Contribute to promoting the public
understanding of one's research field
Effectively support the learning of others (if
involved in teaching, demonstrating or
mentoring)
Networking and teamworking
AGRS
RMP
D
*
*
RI or
Schoo
l
S’visor
Student
*
*
*
Score
from
110
Develop and maintain co-operative
networks and working relationships with
supervisors, colleagues and peers both
within UoW and in the wider research
community
Understand your behaviour and impact on
others when working in (and contributing
to) informal and formal research teams
Listen, give and receive feedback and
respond perceptively to others
AGRS
*
40
RMPD
RI or
School
S’visor
Studen
t
Career management
Score
from
110
Appreciate the need for, and show
commitment to, continued professional
development
Take ownership for and manage one's
own career progression, set realistic and
achievable career goals, an identify and
develop ways to improve employability
Demonstrate an insight into the
transferable nature of research skills to
other work environments, taking account
of career opportunities outside academia.
Present your skills, personal attributes and
experiences through effective CVs,
applications and interviews
AGRS
RMPD
RI or
School
S’visor
Studen
t
*
*
*
Research project specific skills
In this section enter those additional skills you need to
develop specifically for your project through discussion with
your supervisory team
41
Actions agreed with supervisory
team
AHRB requirements
Score
from
110
Written communication skills appropriate
to the academic context of the research
project and beyond.
Oral presentation skills including giving
research papers and discussing the
research findings of others.
ICT skills (including word-processing,
creating and using spread-sheets and
databases) relevant to the research topic.
Bibliographic skills and ability to
contextualise practice-based research.
Identifying and using web-based
resources.
Record keeping and record management.
Designing and managing a project.
Personal and career development.
Employment-related skills (including
participation in workshops and
conferences, support and training for any
teaching undertaken)
Understanding theoretical issues
underpinning the research
The nature of the evidence and argument
required to support conclusions in your
field
Developing specific research methods,
skills and practical techniques as
appropriate to your project
Specialist knowledge and understanding
and the development of significant new
skills (eg new methodology, novel
techniques or new language)
Knowledge, understanding and skills in
the analysis and synthesis of research
materials
Developing knowledge and understanding
of related disciplines
AGRS
RMPD
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
42
RI or
School
S'visor
Studen
t
Appendix 5. Research Skills Development
Framework For Generic Research Skills Development From September 2005
In September 2004 a group convened by the Graduate School undertook a review of the University’s
current research skills development modules. The rationale for the review, and the preliminary
conclusions were presented in an earlier paper to University Research Committee. A consultation
paper in circulation from January 2005 invited comments from URC (full and sub-committee),
Research Institute and Research Degree Unit Student Management Boards, module teams and
students. Feedback indicates general agreement that the proposed changes are desirable and that they
meet current expectations, including those of the revised QAA Code of Practice. The key features of
the proposal are as follows:









Research skills development in line with the recommendations of QAA and the Research
Councils
A comprehensive induction for all students to provide students with a good understanding of
the research degree programme and its significant landmarks
Generic workshops co-ordinated by the Graduate School with discipline-specific support from
Schools, Research Institutes and Student Management Boards
An identified generic skills co-ordinator in each Student Management Board
Student ownership of the process, with supervisor involvement as a key to success
The student-supervisor relationship at the centre of the process with regular meetings to
assess individual research skills development needs
Access to generic and subject-specific skills development opportunities, with the opportunity
to review and reflect on progress at regular intervals
Personal development and action planning an integral part of the overall programme
Tangible sources of evidence (progress files: paper-based/e-portfolio plus SMB student
records) used as a basis for robust annual monitoring and progression.
It is proposed that students will continue to have the opportunity to undertake the assignments
currently linked to the GS modules, but these will not be credit rated. Records of activity and
achievement will contribute to each student’s portfolio of achievement considered at annual
monitoring, and evidence of satisfactory progress (with successful completion of the any assignments)
will be a requirement when confirming the final target award (MPhil or PhD.
Implementation is from September 2005
JDP, Sept 2005
43
Appendix 6. Personal Development Planning
All research students are encouraged to participate in personal development planning (PDP), and it is
expected that supervisory teams will support them in this. PDP is particularly important in research
degree programmes, where students are largely working on their own and need to develop the selfdiscipline to plan workloads and deliver results. The majority of these activities are carried out
independently, albeit with the support of the supervisory team.
The University offers two quite distinct opportunities for recording personal development – one
paper-based and the other electronic. Although very different in concept and operation, these systems
are not mutually exclusive. Indeed there may be significant advantages in using the electronic
portfolio (“e-portfolio”) system for aspects such as CV development, career planning and the other
“non-academic” aspects, although it should be stressed that the system is very flexible and quite
capable of supporting a wide range of materials and formats, including published works.
The paper-based system, in two booklets developed in the University’s History and Governance
Research Institute but also utilised by the other Research Institutes and Centres, is closely aligned to
stages in a typical research degree programme. It addresses many of the aspects familiar to research
students and their supervisors, including the recording of research objectives, records of meetings
with supervisors, skills development undertaken and the major milestones in a research degree
programme. All students and supervisors should ensure that they are using the version adopted by
their Research Institute or Centre – some have made slight modifications to meet the particular
requirements of their subject area.
Whether or not individual research students adopt both systems is a matter for agreement between the
student concerned and his/her supervisory team. All supervisors and research students should note
that the relevant Regulations (updated in 2005) include “successful completion of any required
research training and personal development” in the assessment criteria for MPhil and PhD so as to
ensure that these activities are fully embedded in all research degree programmes.
All materials are available electronically – the e-portfolio by clicking the icon on any University
desktop computer and the paper-based record system via the Graduate School web-pages
http://asp.wlv.ac.uk/Level4.asp?UserType=6&Level4=2377
44
Appendix 7. Ethical Implications And The Code Of Good Research Practice
Research that involves systematic collection and / or storage of data taken from human subjects will
require ethical approval and / or be subject to restrictions under the Data Protection Act. In these
cases, ethical approval must be sought from the appropriate School and, where appropriate external
Ethics Committee(s). Ideally, this should be done at the time of submission of the Research Proposal,
but occasionally the ethical dimensions of a project may only become clear as it develops. In any case,
ethical approval MUST be granted BEFORE the relevant research is begun, so it is necessary to
complete the appropriate forms and submit them as soon as possible to avoid delays in the research
programme.
UNIVERSITY OF WOLVERHAMPTON
CODE OF GOOD RESEARCH PRACTICE
1.
Introduction
The University of Wolverhampton requires anyone associated with the University and engaged
in research to be aware of and agree to abide by its Code of Good Research Practice.
2.
Integrity
Researchers should be honest in respect of their own actions in research and in their responses
to the actions of other researchers. This applies to the whole range of research work, including
research design, generating and analysing data, applying for funding, publishing results, and
acknowledging the direct and indirect contribution of colleagues, collaborators and others.
Plagiarism, deception or the fabrication or falsification of results are regarded as serious
disciplinary offences which are potentially acts of gross misconduct which will be dealt with as
set out in Section 10.
Researchers should declare and manage any actual or potential conflicts of interest, as set out in
the policy & procedures document covering this area.
Researchers should declare any cases where the topic of research has the potential to
compromise the reputation of either the individual or the institution, and should ensure that the
research is appropriately managed and that all relevant guidelines and codes of practice are
observed.
3.
Openness
While recognizing the need for researchers to protect their own research interests and any
Intellectual Property (IP) arising from their research programme, the University encourages its
researchers to publish their findings and to be as open as possible in discussing their work with
other colleagues and with the public. However, researchers must be mindful that the public
disclosure of inventions or potentially patentable ideas before registration may prejudice the
opportunity to exploit fully the fruits of such research (see University of Wolverhampton’s IP
Management Procedures and the University of Wolverhampton’s IP Policy & Procedures for
Students). Additionally, where the research is funded or part-funded by a third party, in
particular for industrially sponsored research, the contractual agreement associated with the
funding must be adhered to.
Once any IP arising from their research programme has been protected, and the results have
been published, the University expects researchers to be able to make available relevant data
and materials to other researchers, on request. However, such release of data and materials
45
should be consistent with ethical principles governing consent, confidentiality and anonymity,
and should respect any intellectual property rights that arise either as a matter of general legal
principles or specifically as a result of a research contract.
4.
Guidance from professional bodies
Whilst this Code shall take precedence, the University expects researchers to observe the
standards of research practice set out in guidelines published by scientific and learned societies
and other relevant professional bodies, where appropriate.
All researchers should be aware of the legal requirements which regulate their work. They
should be aware of and abide by all relevant health & safety and environmental legislation and
procedures and legislation covering, e.g., radiation protection, ionising radiation and lasers, and
GMOs.
5.
Leadership and cooperation
The University undertakes to maintain a research climate of mutual cooperation in which all
members of a research team are encouraged to develop their skills and in which the open
exchange of ideas is fostered, whilst maintaining the confidentiality of these internal
disclosures.
6.
Supervision and Training
All members of staff engaged in supervision are required to ensure that they achieve and
maintain expertise in supervision practice.
All supervisors are expected to be aware of the University’s code of good supervision practice
as set out in the Supervisors’ Handbook, to be aware of current University regulations
governing research degrees, to be aware of the requirements of University of Wolverhampton’s
IP Management Procedures, and of the University of Wolverhampton’s IP Policy & Procedures
for Students.
All supervisors should ensure that their supervisees receive appropriate and timely training in
research design, regulatory and ethical approval and consent, equipment use, confidentiality,
data management, record keeping, data protection, and in the protection of IP.
7.
Primary data/samples
There should be clarity at the outset of the research programme as to the ownership of, where
relevant:
• data and samples used or created in the course of the research;
• the results of the research; and
• any ideas, designs or inventions generated through the research programme.
Researchers should keep clear and accurate records of the procedures followed and the
approvals granted during the research process, including records of the interim results obtained
as well as of the final research outcomes.
Data generated in the course of research should be kept securely and in accordance with the
principles prescribed under the Data Protection Act, the requirements of learned or professional
bodies, the requirements of University of Wolverhampton’s IP Management Procedures, and of
the University of Wolverhampton’s IP Policy & Procedures for Students.
Copies should be kept of all research findings (preferably in a bound notebook with dated
entries) and back-up records should always be kept for data stored on a computer.
46
8.
Ethical practice
The University recognises the importance of keeping its activities under review in order to
ensure compliance with external developments, and has vested in the University Ethics
Committee the responsibility for doing this.
8.1
Research involving human participants
Approval from the appropriate University research ethics committee(s) is required for all
research involving human participants. This includes research involving human cells, tissues
and organs. Where approval from other regulatory bodies is required, this must be sought and
granted in accordance with their requirements.
Researchers should ensure the confidentiality of personal information relating to the
participants in research, and that the research fulfils any legal requirements such as those of the
Helsinki Accord and the Data Protection Act.
8.2
Research involving animals
The University does not carry out experimental procedures as defined by the 1986 Animals
(Scientific Procedures) Act on vertebrate animals. Where members of staff are involved in
collaborative projects at other institutions licensed under the 1986 Act, they must comply fully
with the precepts of that Act and keep their activities under ethical review.
8.3
Nuclear/Radiological Research
To ensure statutory compliance, Researchers involved in such activity must notify the
University Secretary after the appropriate approval process has been undertaken.
9.
Publication practice
Anyone listed, as an author on a paper should accept responsibility for ensuring that they can
identify their contribution to it.
The practice of honorary or gift authorship is unacceptable.
The contributions of formal collaborators and all others who directly assist or indirectly support
the research should be properly acknowledged.
Protocols for joint authorship of research results should be agreed in advance of submission for
publication with all researchers involved in the project. Unless otherwise specified, the
University assumes that joint authorship of a publication, conference paper or other form of
collaboration between researchers leading to output implies substantial and identifiable
contributions from those involved.
10.
Handling of allegations of misconduct
‘Research misconduct’ is defined as any breach of this Code of Good Research Practice and
includes but is not limited to:
Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or deception in proposing, carrying out or reporting results
of research or deliberate, dangerous or negligent deviations from accepted practices in carrying
out research. It includes failure to follow established protocols if this failure results in
unreasonable risk or harm to humans, other vertebrates or the environment and facilitating of
misconduct in research by collusion in, or concealment of, such actions by others. It also
includes intentional, unauthorised use, disclosure, publication, and removal or damage of
research-related property of another, including apparatus, materials, writings, data, hardware or
software or any other substances or devices used in or produced by the conduct of research.
47
Any allegations made against University staff will be conducted in accordance with the
University’s disciplinary procedures as set out in the relevant Staff Terms & Conditions of
Employment. Allegations against research students will be conducted in accordance with the
regulations, in particular those governing the degrees of MPhil/PhD.
The University takes research misconduct seriously. Anyone intending to raise bona fide
concerns should have regard to the University’s policy on Public Interest Disclosure, which
provides inter-alia that persons may do so confidentially in the first instance, and without fear
of suffering any detriment when raising bona fide concerns. Victimising a member of
University Staff or a research student by raising malicious or unfounded issues could result in
disciplinary action being taken against the perpetrator.
The University undertakes to inform any funding or collaborative agency involved in a project
of substantiated allegations of misconduct. Where research results have been disseminated
publicly or accepted for dissemination, the University undertakes to inform the appropriate
body of any substantiated allegations of misconduct.
48
Appendix 8. Submission Of The Thesis.
Except with the specific permission of the University Research Committee the thesis shall be
presented in English. Such permission will normally only be granted if the following conditions have
been demonstrated to obtain:

a substantial majority of the theoretical literature is written in the non-English language
relevant to the case;

all members of the supervisory team have at least adequate reading knowledge of the
proposed language;

the submission of the thesis in a language other than English will in no way prejudice the
selection of appropriate external examiners;

submission in a language other than English is integrally related to the subject matter of
the proposed thesis.

Permission to submit the thesis in a non-English language should normally be sought at
the time of submission of the Research Proposal.
In case where approval to submit in a language other than English is granted, all RES forms including
the MPhil/PhD transfer document must be submitted in English, and the candidate must also include a
summary of the thesis, in English, which should not exceed 1000 words.
There shall be a table of contents and associated page numbers at the front of the thesis.
There shall be a one page abstract of approximately 300 words included at the start of the thesis
which shall provide a synopsis of the thesis stating the nature and scope of the work undertaken and
of the contribution made to the knowledge of the subject treated.
The thesis shall include a statement of the candidate’s objective and shall acknowledge published or
other sources of material consulted (including an appropriate bibliography) and any assistance
received.
Where a candidate’s research programme is part of a collaborative group project, the thesis shall
indicate clearly the candidate’s individual contribution and the extent of the collaboration.
The candidate shall be free to publish or exhibit material in advance of the thesis but reference shall
be made in the thesis to any such work.
The University Research Committee shall normally only approve an application for confidentiality in
order to enable a patent application to be lodged or to protect commercially, politically or personally
sensitive material. A thesis shall not be restricted in this way in order to protect research leads.
While the normal maximum period of confidentiality is two years, in exceptional circumstances the
University Research Committee may approve a longer period. Where a shorter period would be
adequate the University Research Committee shall not automatically grant confidentiality for two
years. Requests for confidentiality should be confirmed when examination arrangements are
submitted.
Where the University Research Committee has agreed that the confidential nature of the candidate’s
work is such as to preclude the thesis being made freely available in the library of the University (and
Collaborating Establishment, if any) and, in the case of a PhD, via the British Library, the thesis shall,
49
immediately on completion of the programme of work, be retained by the University on restricted
access and, for a time not exceeding the approved period, shall only be made available to those who
were directly involved in the project.
The copies of the thesis submitted for examination shall remain the property of the University but the
copyright of the thesis shall be vested in the candidate.
The following requirements shall be adhered to in the format of the thesis submitted for examination:

Theses shall normally be in A4 format; the University Research Committee may give
permission for a thesis to be submitted in another format where it is satisfied that the contents
of the thesis can be better expressed in that format; a candidate using a format larger than A4
should note that the production of microfiche copies and full-size enlargements may not be
feasible;

copies of the thesis shall be presented in a permanent and legible form either in typescript or
print; where copies are produced by photocopying processes, these shall be of a permanent
nature; where word processor and printing devices are used, the printer shall be capable of
producing test of a satisfactory quality; the size of character used in the main text, including
displayed matter and notes, shall not be less than 2.0mm for capitals and 1.5mm for x-height
(that is, the height of lower-case x).

the thesis may be printed on one or both sides of the paper which shall normally be white, of
good quality and sufficiently opaque to avoid show-through;

the margin at the binding edge of the page shall not be less than 40mm; other margins shall
not be less than 15mm;

spacing of typescript should be consistent with clarity;

pages shall be numbered consecutively through the main text including photographs and/or
diagrams included as whole pages;

the title page shall give the following information (see specimen later):


the full title of the thesis;

the full name and qualifications of the author;

that the degree is awarded by the University;

the award for which the degree is submitted in partial fulfilment of its requirements;

the Collaborating Establishment(s), if any;

the month and year of submission; and

statement of copyright.
Theses must be submitted for examination in a secure temporarily bound form.
50
Following successful examination, the final thesis must be submitted in electronic format (as detailed
below) along with an electronic cataloguing information sheet and hard copy of the signed title page
and declaration document. This is used to confirm that the electronic copy is identical to the copy
submitted for examination, save for any approved amendments by the examiners. Following the award
of the degree the Secretary to the University Research Committee shall send the electronic copy of the
thesis to the Learning Centre for placement in the University's on-line repository (WIRE). It is the
responsibility of the candidate to send a copy of the thesis to any Collaborating Establishment, in the
agreed format.
The format of the e-thesis should be as follows:

A single merged file as either a Word document or PDF file, in the following order:

Title Page

Abstract

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements (optional - unless there is formal collaboration in which case this is
required)

Chapters in sequential order

Bibliography

All paginated sequentially

Submitted to the Graduate School either

e-mailed as an attachment to a specified address (details issued following successful
examination)

sent or handed in on a CD

sent or handed in on a memory stick

Any non-text elements examined under regulation 4.2 (2005 regulations) should be
submitted as a separate file

In addition, the candidate is required to submit
i)
an electronic copy of the Cataloguing Information Form
ii)
a hard copy of the signed and dated Title Page
iii) a hard copy of the signed and dated Declaration Document
Please note that the electronic copy of the thesis will be made available via WIRE, the University’s
institutional repository. As such, you should be aware that substantial third party copyright material
used in your thesis (e.g. substantial quotations from books or journals, pictures, photographs,
maps etc) must be either cleared for deposit with the copyright holder or removed from the thesis
before deposit. 'Substantial' in copyright law does not only cover the amount used but also relates to
the quality of the quotation.
This does not affect the inclusion of fully referenced and acknowledged third party material in your
thesis for examination purposes: it only applies to the deposit of the thesis into the University
repository. If you are in any doubt, please contact the Copyright Co-ordinator, Gary O'Dea
(g.odea@wlv.ac.uk, 01902-323435), for further advice and assistance with clearing third party
material.
51
[Specimen thesis title page]
THE ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE FARMING
CO-OPERATIVES IN WESSEX
JOHN SMITH BSc
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the
requirements of the University of Wolverhampton
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
This research programme was carried out
in collaboration with the Christminster Agricultural College
July 2002
This work or any part thereof has not previously been presented in any form to the University
or to any other body whether for the purposes of assessment, publication or for any other
purpose (unless otherwise indicated). Save for any express acknowledgments, references
and/or bibliographies cited in the work, I confirm that the intellectual content of the work is
the result of my own efforts and of no other person.
The right of John Smith to be identified as author of this work is asserted in accordance with ss.77
and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. At this date copyright is owned by the
author.
Signature………………………………………..
Date……………………………………………..
52
Appendix 9. Guidelines For Chairs Of Examinations.
GUIDELINES FOR INDEPENDENT CHAIRS OF MPhil/PhD EXAMINATIONS
University regulations, section 12.2 stipulates that an Independent Chair will be appointed by the
University Research Committee (URC) to conduct MPhil/PhD examinations. The following
guidelines are designed to make clear the role of the Chair and the extent of his/her responsibilities.
1
The primary role of the Chair is to conduct the examination in order to ensure (i) fairness to
the candidate and (ii) full observance of University procedures and regulations. In addition,
the Chair is responsible for ensuring that the recommendations of the examiners are
communicated to the candidate and the Graduate School (GS).
2
The Chair should not (i) read the thesis; (ii) make any contributions to the academic
examination of the thesis; (iii) make any contributions to the academic evaluation of the thesis
by the Examiners. The Chair is not expected to have any academic expertise in the area being
examined, nor to bring to the examining process any such expertise s/he may coincidentally
possess.
Only the candidate, the approved examining team and the Chair of the examination will be expected
to be in attendance. Candidates who wish their Director of Studies (or other member of their
supervisory team) to attend the examination must make this request in writing to either the Dean of
Research and Graduate Studies or their deputy prior to the examination. Approval for such requests
will be granted after liaison with the approved examining team. If permission is given for a member
of the supervisory team to attend the examination, s/he may only be present at the same time as the
candidate (see too below, 6e).
3
Prior to the examination:
a)
The Graduate School (GS) will contact the proposed Chair of an examination
following the approval of the examination arrangements (RES 4). Members of the
URC will be approached in the first instance on a rota basis, although the Dean of
Research and Graduate Studies may co-opt other members of the University research
community if necessary.
b)
The Internal Examiner will be responsible for liaising with the Independent Chair and
with members of the examining team in order to establish a mutually convenient date,
time and venue (i.e. site) for the examination and for communicating this information
to the GS well in advance of the examination.
c)
The GS will be responsible for (i) sending copies of the thesis, the regulations, and
forms RES 10/12 (preliminary report and recommendation) to members of the
examining team and (ii) communicating information on the date, time and venue of
the examination to all members of the examining team, the student and the
Independent Chair.
d)
Immediately prior to the examination, the GS will provide the Independent Chair with
all relevant forms / information, including:
 RES 11/13 (recommendations of Examiners)
 RES 14 (candidate’s declaration regarding the work)
53






Current copy of the regulations
Copies of the preliminary reports from each Examiner
Details on binding of thesis
Home address form to be completed by student
Supplementary travelling expenses form(s) for the External Examiner(s)
Questionnaire on the procedural aspects of the exam for completion by Chair
The Chair will also be notified if approval has been given for any member(s) of the candidate’s
supervisory team to attend the examination.
4
At the outset of the examination the Chair
a) should explain the status and role of the Independent Chair during the examination, and the
reason for taking notes (see 5b below);
b) should ensure that any procedural questions that the Examiners may have are discussed and
resolved prior to the start of the examination; this may include a discussion on how exactly
the thesis will be examined (e.g. turn-taking by the Examiners, chapter-by-chapter analysis,
etc);
c) should ensure that the candidate is introduced to each member of the examining team before
questioning begins;
d) should endeavour to establish an atmosphere in which the candidate will be able to perform to
the best of her/his ability;
e) should make it clear that any member(s) of the supervisory team attending the examination do
so as observers only, and that they may not take part in either the examination nor in the
evaluation of the thesis after the examination;
f) should ensure that the candidate is advised that no information on the outcome of the
examination will be given before the end of the viva voce and that s/he should not infer any
decision from the questions and discussion.
5
During the examination the Chair
a) should intervene in the examining process if s/he judges that fairness to the candidate at risk;
b) should take brief notes on procedural matters only, e.g. those outlined in 4b above, on the
overall conduct of the examination (including areas / questions which the candidate had
difficulty with, and the ways in which the Examiners dealt with such difficulties); these notes
should be returned to GS, with the Recommendation of the Examiners, within seven days of
the Viva;
c) offer the candidate and members of the examining team the opportunity for a brief ‘comfort
break’, where appropriate.
54
6
After the examination the Chair
a) will request that any member(s) of the supervisory team leave the room during the Examiners’
discussion (although they may accompany the candidate for any final feedback session the
Examiners wish to give);
b) will ensure that the examiners’ recommendations comply with the University regulations
(13.3 and 13.4);
c) will ensure that any other documentation supplied by the GS (e.g. details on binding of thesis,
home address form, extra travelling expenses forms) be handed, as appropriate, to the relevant
person (candidate / External Examiner(s)); and that form RES 11 / 13 is completed and sent to
the GS as soon as possible;
d) will ensure that any recommended revisions or amendments are clearly stated, and that these
are communicated to the candidate. Where these are of a specialist academic nature, it may
be more appropriate for a member of the examining team to communicate directly with the
candidate, in which case the Chair should ensure that responsibility for so doing is clearly
designated.
Please note: When the recommendation of the Examiners is that the candidate should be granted
the award subject to minor amendments and corrections (RES 11 / 13, section 6.2), the
Examiners should normally indicate to the candidate a time scale within which they would
expect to see such modifications. The University’s regulations do not stipulate any maximum,
although clearly the degree cannot be awarded until the approved thesis is submitted.
When the recommendation of the Examiners is that the candidate should permitted to re-submit
(RES 11 / 13, section 6.3, i-iii), the candidate is entitled to 12 months in which to modify the
thesis and re-submit. If there are sound reasons why this automatic entitlement could cause
problems (for example, if one of the Examiners will be on a sabbatical at the time of
resubmission), the candidate should be informed. However, any recommendation on the part of
the Examiners that the candidate should submit prior to the 12-month deadline will not supplant
the candidate’s entitlement to the full period*.
e) may communicate informally the recommendations of the examiners to the candidate, in
accordance with the final paragraph of University regulations, section 12.3 (“examiners may
indicate informally their recommendations on the result of the examination to the candidate
but they shall make it clear that the decision rests with the University Research Committee”).
7
In the event of a review of an examination decision (University regulations, section 17), the
Chair of the examination may be approached by the Chair of the University Research
Committee or the review panel for further information.
*
for PhD by Publication, there is no provision for re-submission. However, the candidate may
apply to re-register for this award, but only after a minimum of three years from the date of
the original examination has elapsed.
55
Working Definition of ‘minor amendments’
N.B. for Guidance only to Examiners of PhDs/MPhils
Minor amendments are defined both by the nature of the work to be carried out on the thesis
and the timescale within which such completion is thought reasonable.
1)
Nature of the Work
Minor amendments should not involve any of the following:
i.
a major re-think of the methodology employed in the project, nor a major recasting of whole
sections/chapters of the thesis (or original composition)
ii. re-running of experiments, fieldwork or other methods of data collection
iii. conducting new experiments or additional fieldwork.
Typically, minor amendments entail improvements to the satisfaction of the Examiners on:
i. the presentation of the thesis (spelling, punctuation, syntax)
ii. correction of minor errors of fact or interpretation
iii. minor re-writing to make the context, focus or originality of the thesis clearer to the reader
(this may include suggested revision of the thesis title by the Examiners)
iv. integration of graphic/statistical material into relevant parts of the text
v. bibliography and references
vi. minor re-organisation of material within or between sections/chapters for easier
comprehension by the reader (including more effective cross-referencing)
vii. clarification of particular points or of terminology employed.
2)
Timescale
As a general rule, the minor amendments proposed should be susceptible to completion within a
maximum of three months by a candidate who will have reasonable time at her/his disposal (i.e.
who will not employed for more than 40 hours a week over the subsequent months or, who does not
have exceptional personal commitments, which would prevent her/him from devoting a substantial
amount of ‘spare time’ to necessary completion of the recommended amendments).
Examiners are urged to agree with the candidate a date by which they can normally expect the
amendments to be completed, but to exercise their judgement where exceptional circumstances
prevail, and to record their mutual decision on the RES 11 / 13 accordingly. (The Chair will also
record this decision on the Notes on the Oral Examination.)
56
Appendix 10 - Appeals
10.1
Extract From The Research Degree Regulations (September 2005)
Regulation 7.2 Prior to the submission of the thesis for examination, a student may appeal
against any recommendation not to progress.
Regulation 7.3
may include:
Grounds for appeal against a recommendation not to progress


Procedural irregularity in arriving at the recommendation;
Evidence of unfair or improper assessment by either one or more members of the
supervisory team or of the designated authority;

Evidence of unsatisfactory or insufficient supervision, inadequate access to
basic support facilities, or lack of provision of agreed specialist or other
facilities, that can be demonstrated to have had a negative impact on the
student’s ability to progress.
Regulation 7.4 A student may appeal against the recommendation of the examiners following
examination or re-examination.
Regulation 7.5 Grounds for appeal against an examiners’ recommendation may include:



Evidence that there were circumstances of which the Chair and the examiners were
not aware that affected the student’s performance at the oral examination;
Evidence of procedural irregularity in the conduct of the examination (including
administrative error) of such a nature as to cause doubt on the reliability of the
recommendation;
Evidence of unfair or improper assessment on the part of one or more of the
examiners.
Regulation 7.6 Grounds for appeal against an examiners’ recommendation shall not include:


The academic judgement of the examiners;
Allegations of unsatisfactory or insufficient supervision.
57
10.2
Appeals Procedure For Postgraduate Research Students
Appeals Procedure For Postgraduate Research Students
1. The University’s appeals procedure applies to the decisions of Assessment Boards of the
University, including those convened to assess research degrees. The assessment of research
degree programmes is performed by examiners specifically approved by a sub-committee of
the University Research Committee (URC). After completion of the examination, the
examiners’ recommendations are subject to the approval of URC. Research students may also
appeal against decisions relating to progression made by Student Management Boards.
Important note: For the purposes of this procedure and depending on the context, any reference
to an “assessment board” may refer to the thesis examining team (including the Chair), an
appropriate Student Management Board and/or the URC sub-committee.
2. An appeal may only be lodged where a student believes that an administrative error or other
procedural irregularity has occurred, or where there were personal circumstances which, had
an Assessment Board been aware of them, might have affected its decision. In cases of illness
or other personal circumstances the appellant must have good reason not to have advised the
examiners or the independent Chair or otherwise used the University extenuating
circumstances procedure (www.wlv.ac.uk). There is no right of appeal against academic
judgements, whether internal or external.
3. The purpose of the appeals procedure is to enable a research student who believes s/he has a
case under the regulations, to request a review of a decision of:
i.
a Student Management Board relating to progression, including the Confirmation of
Research Proposal (regulations 7.2 – 7.3)
ii.
the approved examiners in relation to the thesis and/or viva voce examination
(regulations 7.4 – 7.6) or
iii.
another Assessment Board, in this case the URC or its sub-committee.
The Appeals procedure may also be used where a penalty has been applied following proven
academic misconduct. It does not deal with disciplinary matters for which there is a separate
procedure. (University Regulations for Students - www.wlv.ac.uk).
4. There is no right of appeal against the academic judgement of assessors or other examiners in
relation to marks or grades awarded for work presented during the course of a research degree
programme, or decisions as to progression, unless the grounds for appeal relate to
administrative error or material irregularity.
5. When a research student requests a review of an assessment decision, every effort will be
made to resolve the case without recourse to a formal hearing. In the first instance, a student
considering an appeal should discuss the matter informally with:
i. the Chair of the URC sub-committee (as the relevant Assessment Board)
ii. the Academic Affairs Co-ordinator or other Officer of the Students’ Union who may
also advise on the grounds for appeal
If the student then decides to appeal, s/he should write to the Head of the Conduct and
Appeals Unit as soon as possible, and no later than three months after the publication of the
challenged decision, stating in detail the grounds for appeal (as listed in Regulations 7.3 –
58
7.5) and enclosing any relevant documentary evidence.
6. The Conduct and Appeals Unit will then investigate the case and determine whether the
student has valid grounds for appeal based on the relevant Regulations. If there are valid
grounds, the Head of the Conduct and Appeals Unit will attempt to resolve the case without
recourse to an appeal hearing. Where an administrative error or material irregularity has
occurred, the Head of the Conduct and Appeals Unit is empowered to uphold the appeal in
favour of the student.
Other circumstances may require that the case be referred to an Appeals Panel.
7. The membership of an Appeals Panel for Research Degree Programmes will be:
A senior member of academic staff representing Academic Board (normally the Chair of
URC), at least two other members of URC and/or the Professoriate, and the President of the
Students’ Union or nominee,
An officer of the Conduct and Appeals Unit, will act as secretary to the panel
No member of an Appeals Panel may come from a School or Research Institute/Centre of the
University directly involved or implicated in the appeal. A quorum for a meeting of the
Appeals Panel is three.
8. An Appeals Panel is empowered to act on behalf of the URC and Academic Board to consider
and determine requests for a review of a decision of an Assessment Board*, with the
exception of appeals arising from disciplinary matters.
9. The appellant must be given written notice, at least seven days prior to the hearing, of the date
and place of the hearing, and a copy of the University’s appeals procedure, drawing attention
to the appellant’s rights under the procedure.
At least five working days before the hearing, members of the Appeals Panel will be provided
with the following documents, together with any other documents thought relevant by the
Chair of the Appeals Panel:
i. a copy of the relevant assessment regulations
ii. the examiners’ reports and the relevant Minutes of the Assessment Board* meeting;
iii.
a copy of the appellant’s letter of application for a hearing, together with supporting
documentary evidence;
iv. any evidence gathered by the Conduct and Appeals Unit
v.
a copy of the University’s appeals procedure.
10. The appellant has the right upon request to receive, in advance of the hearing, all papers
circulated to members of the Appeals Panel, except confidential documents of Assessment
Boards.
The appellant, and any other person(s) cited in the appeal, have the right to appear before and
be heard by the Academic Appeals Panel. The appellant(s) may be accompanied by a friend
or other representative. (The student shall be responsible for notifying the Conduct and
Appeals Unit of the identify of the friend and of any witnesses to be called not less than two
working days prior to the interview meeting).
While the appeal remains unresolved, the student may be required to suspend their studies.
59
The examiners and the Chair of the relevant Assessment and/or Student Management Board
have the right to be represented at a hearing of an Appeals Panel.
An Appeals Panel has the authority to require the attendance at a hearing of any member of
staff, providing reasonable notice is given, and must be given access to any relevant records
and documents which the Chair requests.
11. The procedure to be followed at a hearing is normally as follows. The parties to the appeal
will remain in the room during the proceedings. Witnesses may be called in to give evidence.
12. In cases where the appellant is appealing against withdrawal, the Appeals Panel has the
authority to confirm or revoke the decision. If the decision is revoked, the student may be
permitted to proceed on the programme.
13. The appellant is notified of the outcome of the appeal, in writing within five working days of
the Appeal hearing.
14. In cases of appeal against an assessment decision, if the Appeals Panel decides for the
appellant, the matter will be referred to the URC sub-committee so that the student’s results
can be reconsidered. If it proves necessary to appoint fresh examiners there may be some
delay at this stage. The URC sub-committee is required to have regard to the report of the
Appeals Panel and its recommendations.
15. In appeals against withdrawal where the assessment decision leading to the withdrawal also
becomes subject to appeal, the Appeals Panel must rule separately on the two appeals.
16. Where the Appeals Panel upholds an appeal against an assessment decision, the student will
be permitted reassessment on the first practicable occasion, subject to the availability of
suitable examiners.
17. The Appeals Panel has the right to make observations and recommendations concerning any
matters of detail or principle arising from a hearing.
18. The proceedings of appeals hearings are confidential to the parties involved. A report of the
decision must be communicated to the URC and Academic Board.
60
Appendix 11. Procedure For The Investigation Of Academic Misconduct
Procedure for the Investigation of Academic Misconduct by Research Students
1.
Definitions
A research student is defined as a student of the University who is enrolled on a research
degree programme leading to the degrees of Master of Philosophy (MPhil), Doctor of
Philosophy (PhD) or a Masters degree by research. Students studying for a professional
doctorate who are in the thesis phase of their study programme are also defined as research
students for the purposes of this procedure.
The definition of academic misconduct by research students includes any breach of the
University’s Code of Good Research Practice. In particular:
Cheating
Cheating is defined as any attempt by a candidate to gain unfair advantage in an
assessment by dishonest means, and includes e.g. all breaches of examination rules,
falsifying data
Plagiarism
Plagiarism is defined as incorporating a significant amount of unattributed direct
quotation from, or unattributed substantial paraphrasing of, the work of another.
Collusion
Collusion occurs when two or more students (and/or researchers) collaborate to
produce a piece of work to be submitted (in whole or part) for assessment and the
work is presented as the work of one student alone, without due acknowledgement of
the contribution of others.
In the context of all three definitions: where research students are working in closely
related fields to one another, or are supported by technical staff, it is important that
each student takes care not to claim deliberately or inadvertently that a given piece of
work carried out by someone else is their own work. Due acknowledgement must
always be made to the contributions of others, whether in work submitted for
assessment, presented at a conference or placed in the public domain through
publication or any other medium.
2.
Where a case of academic misconduct as defined above is suspected in a piece of
work* contributing to a research award of the University, the matter must be referred
to the relevant Director/Head of the Research Institute/Centre or Dean of School (or
nominee), who will determine whether a prima facie case exists to investigate the
matter further. The Director/Head/Dean or nominee may seek advice from the
Conduct and Appeals Unit in considering the matter. If the Director/Head/Dean or
nominee then decides that the matter should be investigated further he or she must
inform the Head of the Conduct and Appeals Unit.
* For the purpose of this procedure a “piece of work contributing to a research award
of the University” is any written work or oral presentation submitted to the
61
supervisors for assessment or submitted to a Student Management Board in support of
an application to Confirm a Research Degree Programme or as part of annual
monitoring.
3.
If a prima facie case for further investigation is established. A letter inviting the student to a
meeting will be sent by the Research Institute/Centre (RI/RC).
The meeting will have in attendance:




The Director/Head of the RI or RC, or Dean of School, or nominee
The Head of the Conduct and Appeals Unit
Director of Studies or other member of the supervisory team
Student (and friend)
Note taker (provided by the Conduct and Appeals Unit)
4.
If, as a result of this meeting, academic misconduct is admitted by the student or the evidence
clearly shows that academic misconduct has occurred, the relevant Student Management
Board will be informed and will be requested to apply the appropriate penalty (see paragraph
7 below). The student will be informed in writing within five working days of the meeting.
5.
Investigation by Panel
5.1
If there is no conclusive result after this stage of investigation, and there are still grounds to
suspect academic misconduct the matter will be referred back to the Conduct and Appeals
Unit and a panel will be established to review the circumstances, comprising:




Associate Dean/Director of Graduate Studies (Graduate School) – Chair
Representative member of staff from another research Degree Unit
Student representative nominated by the President of the Students’ Union.
Secretary to the panel (provided by the Conduct and Appeals Unit)
None of the members of the panel may come from a School or Unit directly involved in the
case.
5.2
The panel may as a result of its deliberations make recommendations and observations to the
University Research Committee and to Academic Board concerning general principles
relating to the operation of research degree programmes. The panel may carry out its
investigation by whatever means it judges to be necessary and may require the attendance of
members of staff or students to give evidence.
5.3
The Conduct and Appeals Unit will notify the student whose conduct is in question:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
that a panel has been established;
the precise nature of any allegations against him/her;
that he/she has the right to present evidence in person and to be accompanied by a
“friend” who should normally be a fellow student or an officer of the Students Union.
The student shall be responsible for notifying the Conduct and Appeals Unit of the
identity of the friend and of any witnesses to be called not less than 48 hours prior to
the interview meeting.
that s/he has the right to see all the documents put to the panel for the purpose of
establishing proof of the allegation(s);
that s/he may submit a written statement to the panel prior to a personal appearance;
62
f.
that s/he may proceed with his/her programme of study while the matter remains
unresolved, including any scheduled assessment; and that in these circumstances the
payment of fees will be deferred until the matter is resolved. If the student is required
to withdraw, the fees for the period of registration during consideration of the case will
be waived.
Unless s/he agreed to a shorter period, the student must be given written notice at least
one week prior to a request for attendance at a meeting of the panel.
5.4
The Head of the Conduct and Appeals Unit must inform the student of the decision of the
panel as soon as is reasonably practicable and must confirm the decision in writing, no later
than five working days after the hearing.
6
If the panel upholds the allegation of academic misconduct a written report of the
panel’s findings agreed by the members together with the agreed penalty, must be
submitted to the relevant Student Management Board and to the University Research
Committee (URC) sub-committee. The agreed penalty will normally be that listed in
section 7 below. The URC sub-committee, which meets most months, will receive for
ratification the report of the panel at the earliest opportunity following the hearing. In
exceptional circumstances, to avoid undue delay, the matter may be dealt with by
Chair’s action or by correspondence if appropriate to do so.
7
Penalties
Academic Board has agreed that the penalty for academic misconduct by any
postgraduate research student is a requirement to withdraw from the University.
Note: academic misconduct is defined as any case of deliberate, premeditated cheating,
(including deliberate plagiarism or collusion) which has either been admitted by a student, or
which a panel has judged to be a premeditated attempt to deceive and gain unfair advantage
(see paragraph 1 above).
8
Right of Appeal
Students have the right of appeal against a penalty that includes a requirement to withdraw,
restricts the final award or affects progression in any other way. In this case the student may
resort to the Appeals procedure for Postgraduate Research Students. An Appeal Panel may
only consider an appeal against a penalty for academic misconduct on the grounds specified
in the Procedure for Academic Appeals. If the Panel upholds the appeal in the student’s
favour, it may decide either to impose an alternative penalty or to rule that no penalty should
be imposed.
63
Appendix 12
PhD by Published Work
The purpose of this section of the University’s Code of Practice is to add clarification to these
clauses in the Regulations. This clarification is shown in italics following each extract from
the Regulations.
Extracts from the 2005 Regulations:
10.1 Registration for the award of PhD by Published Work is available to people who are
eligible members of the University’s staff …………………
Eligible members of staff are defined for this purpose as academic staff of the University of
Wolverhampton appointed to a full-time contract or occupying a substantive part-time post
equivalent to at least 0.5 of a full-time contract. Staff undertaking a PhD by Published Work
must be in such employment at the time of approval of the Research proposal and at the time
of submission of the PhD. They will have been in post for at least one year prior to submission
of the Research Proposal.
10.2 The learning outcomes for the PhD by Published Work are as follows:
substantial critical investigation and evaluation of a topic or set of related topics resulting in
an independent and original contribution to knowledge and understanding in the field of
knowledge to which the topic belongs, and which is expressed in a body of work of peerreviewed, published material, a substantial proportion of which will either be singleauthored by the candidate or will have her/his name as lead or ‘first’ author.
Originality is demonstrated through the discovery of new facts or methodologies, to subjecting
known facts or methodologies to new insights derived from investigation, and/or to the
revision, confirmation or adaptation of existing theories or methodologies to the new
circumstances described in the thesis.
 Evidence of systematic, thorough, current and detailed knowledge of the specific
subject area of the research as well as the general context in which that subject area is
located
 Evidence of knowledge of an appropriate range of research methodologies and a
critical evaluation of their merits
 Evidence of an ability to develop new hypotheses or research questions that have the
capacity to extend the frontier of knowledge of the discipline
 Evidence of an ability to design, plan and implement a research programme to test,
explore and evaluate these hypotheses or questions.
 Evidence of an ability to analyse critically one’s own findings and those of others
 Assessment will be through:
(i)
submission of a body of peer-reviewed publications, and
(ii)
a written commentary, and (iii)
an oral examination
The learning outcomes expressly refer to peer review and sole or lead authorship (see also
10.7, below). The learning outcomes must all be demonstrated in the written commentary
and/or peer reviewed original research-based publications. Note that publications that have
not been peer reviewed cannot be submitted for a PhD by Published Work. The publications
submitted for examination will constitute a corpus of work that contributes a coherent body of
knowledge rather than a series of disconnected research outputs.
64
10.6 The written submission will normally be equivalent in length to a PhD thesis (4.6
above) and will contain:
(i)
the published works, at least 80% of which have appeared within the five years prior to
the date of submission for examination with the remaining 20% appearing within the 10 years
prior to the date of submission
(ii)
the written commentary of 10,000 (for Science, Engineering and Technology subjects)
or 20,000 (for Arts, Social Sciences, Education and Business subjects) words that provides a
context for the published work, a statement (or re-statement) of the original contribution(s) to
knowledge that they together advance, and a statement (or re-statement) of the argument
(including theoretical and methodological underpinnings) that the publications together put
forward.
The maximum length of a PhD thesis in Science, Engineering and Technology is 45000 words
and for one in Humanities (Arts, Social Sciences, Education and Business) is 90000 words.
The written submission comprising the published works and the commentary should be of
similar length. Thus the published works may be up to 35000 words in Science, Engineering
and Technology and up to 70000 words in Arts, Social Sciences, Education and Business
Subjects.
The regulations state that 80% of the published works must have appeared within five years
of the date of submission for examination. The 80% is calculated as the proportion of
separately published outputs rather than as a proportion of total word count. Given the
expected duration of the period of study prior to examination, it is expected that at least 80%
of the published works will have appeared within 4 years prior to the approval of the
Research Proposal. Where appropriate, a maximum of 20% of outputs may have appeared
within 9 years prior to its approval.
The definition of a published work can include individual chapters in a multi-authored book,
but as noted above (Regulation 10.2) there is a clear expectation that such works will have
been peer reviewed. Where more than one chapter in a single book is included in a Research
Proposal for PhD by Published Work, there is strong expectation that, taken together, these
will comprise less than half of the research outputs under consideration. Unless a specific
exemption is sought at the time of submission of the Research Proposal the written
commentary and the |published works will all be presented in the English language.
10.7 Candidates may include co-authored works in the published works, provided that the
candidate is the lead author or is of equal status with other authors, and that the candidate’s
contribution to such works is clearly stated.
To provide evidence of this, where jointly authored works are to be included, a statement from
the co-authors clearly identifying the candidate’s intellectual ownership and contribution to
each publication should be sought. In addition the written commentary must clarify the
candidate’s contribution and identify the basis for his/her claim to the intellectual content of
any jointly authored works. Where multi-authored works are to be examined, candidates
should expect their individual contribution to be a focus of the oral examination.
65