Postgraduate Research
Tutors Forum 2009
Part 1
Introduction to the Role and
Responsibilities of Postgraduate Tutor
Dr Andy Mullis
Jackie Findlay
Tutors
Dr Andrew Mullis
• Chair of Graduate Board’s Programmes of Study and Audit Group
Jackie Findlay
• Senior Assistant Registrar, Research Degrees and Scholarships
Office
Aim
To introduce new postgraduate research tutors to the
responsibilities of their new position as defined in the
University Code of Practice for Research Degree
Candidatures.
Overview
Postgraduate Research Tutor’s Responsibilities
Funding
Administrative Framework
Code of Practice for Research Degree Candidatures
English Language Requirements
Training of Supervisors and Internal Examiners
Qualities Required
Diplomat / Negotiator
Approachable
Realist / Decision Maker
Quality Controller
Administrator / Manager
Saint (patience, resilience)
Responsibilities
To the School / Faculty
• Ensure Code of Practice is in place and monitored.
To the students
• Best interests of student – may mean taking difficult decisions as well as
pastoral care.
To the Graduate Board
• Ensure that University policy is observed.
For the Support Staff
• Ensure that the appropriate systems are in place to deliver effective
administration and monitoring.
Responsibilities (cont)
To Faculty Graduate School Committees
• Usually a member (but always should have access to discussions on
policy and procedures).
Postgraduate Scholarships
• Role in selection procedures for School nominations for University and
external competitions.
Appeal Groups
• May have to appear before University panels.
Liaise with Research Student Administration
Link with Head of School
Rely on Head of School and their authority in dealing with
difficult / serious issues and as a source of HR information.
Build a relationship – report regularly.
Responsibility also to the Director of the Faculty Graduate
School.
Examples of relevant support and
advice
Difficulties with supervisors (in observing University / School procedures,
inadequate supervision, etc).
Difficulties with students (ensure that action is taken, where appropriate,
and formal warnings issued if progress is unsatisfactory, complaints by
students are handled speedily and fairly, etc).
Need to have access to HR information on staff (to ensure that supervisory
arrangements are compatible with University policy)
• Staff on probation
• Staff on sabbatical
• Extended absences (for more than 3 months)
Significant Student Issues
Admissions:
• Is the applicant of the appropriate quality?
• Do the appropriate facilities and expertise exist for the research project?
• Has the application been considered / discussed by at least two people?
• Where practical an interview should be held.
• Be aware of the different categories of research degrees and special
nature of the Mastership by Research.
• Issues of eligibility of supervisors.
• English Language issues – see web site
www.leeds.ac.uk/rds/admissionsandregistration/forstaff/english.html
Significant Student Issues (cont)
Registration:
• Ensure that the appropriate administrative arrangements are in place for students to
register properly.
Training Plans:
• Within one month of commencement, training needs analysis to be conducted between
student and supervisors. This is a new requirement in the last few years – appropriate
procedures to be put in place by support staff and to be monitored by Postgraduate
Research Tutors.
Personal Development Record:
•
Ensure a Personal Development Record is created and maintained for each student. This
must include evidence of training needs analysis, record of training and development
undertaken and records of official supervisory meetings.
Monitoring Absence and Attendance:
•
Ensure appropriate arrangements are in place for monitoring attendance with absence
being reported – more on this later
Significant Student Issues (cont)
Supervision Meetings:
• Ensure notes are kept and filed appropriately of all formal supervision
meetings and they are “fit for purpose”.
• Reservations about progress must be recorded. Students must be made
aware of any reservations.
Annual Meeting:
• To take place in absence of the supervisor, normally undertaken by the
Postgraduate Research Tutor.
Transfer from provisional category to full degree (PhD):
• Ensure that all time scales and procedures are in place and a transfer
report is produced.
Significant Student Issues (cont)
Recommendation of Examiners on behalf of School:
• Ensure that the proposed examiners meet University criteria.
• Avoid excessive use of external examiners (particularly by the same research
group/supervisor).
Awareness of examination results:
• Does the report adequately explain whether the criteria have been met?
• Is there a pattern to referral/failures?
• Particular supervisors / research groups?
• Any issues for Head of School/Director of Graduate School?
Handover to successor:
• Ensure that appropriate handover material and advice is available.
Submission and Completion
It is in the interests of all concerned for a research student to
complete their research degree
The University and external bodies, such as HESA collect
data on “submissions” and “completions (awards)”
All students leaving before or at the 12 month point do not
count in “submission” rate or “completion” rate statistics
Those permitted to proceed into the second year do count
Both the AHRC and ESRC impose sanctions on those with
poor “submission” rates
Submission Rates
Starters in 11/03-10/04
Full-time students
Faculty Withdrew Started Submitted Suspensions Granted Non Submit
in Year 1 in Year within 4
of study Extensions as FT PHD
2
years
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
1
29
62.1
10.3
17.2
10.3
Arts
5
34
38.2
11.8
41.2
8.8
PVAC
5
37
59.5
24.3
10.8
5.4
ESSL
7
61
75.4
9.8
11.5
3.3
Bio Sci
2
39
76.9
10.3
2.6
10.3
Env
7
81
77.8
3.7
11.1
7.4
MAPS
9
99
66.7
8.1
18.2
7.1
Eng
2
30
60.0
6.7
16.7
16.7
M&H
1
22
63.6
4.5
27.3
4.5
LUBS
39
432
67.1
9.3
16.0
7.6
Total
HEFCE Qualification Rates
doctoral students* doctoral students*
HEFCE bench
starting in 99/00
qualifying by 05/06 (%) mark#
Southampton
254
90
80
Bristol
455
90
80
York
160
86
76
Sheffield
237
84
78
Leeds
288
78
78
* Full-time home and EU doctoral students
# expected qualification rate based on institutions profile
Qualification Rates
• HEFCE will monitor “completion rates” (qualifications) in
HESA returns
• The time that students take to obtain their qualifications
• If concern, QAA to investigate
• Account taken of discipline, mode of study, local
conditions
• Information has been published in THES (“league
tables”)
• Funding implications
Issue of extensions and suspensions
Explained fully on page 31 – 32 of the ‘Guide for Research
Degree Supervisors’
Points to note
Requests for indefinite suspensions
• Unlikely to be granted. 12 months might be approved and might be
extended after a review at the end of 12 months.
• Request will not succeed when the full-time period of study has been
completed, the student is in the overtime period and is now in full-time
employment and makes the request on the basis of “pressure of work”.
• Must be clear relation between the amount of extra time being requested
and the problem encountered.
• Legitimate reasons include ill health (of candidate or close relative),
maternity, accidents, unexpected events (e.g. equipment not being
delivered).
Funding for UK/EU Students
Census date for registration
• 1st December
• No income unless student registered
Allocation to resource centres based on
• Cost weight of subject
• Subject to School receiving at least grade 4 in RAE 2001
UK/EU Student Funding Rates
2007/08 HEFCE research
student funding rates per
full-time student
Research Cost Band
Weighting
High cost laboratory
subjects
1.6
£6,813 (+ academic fees)
Intermediate cost
subjects
1.3
£5,536 (+ academic fees)
Others
1.0
£4,258 (+ academic fees)
Year 4 of a Full-Time PhD
Overtime Period
No HEFCE funding for the University
No funding for schools
But candidate still entitled to supervision
Administrative Framework
Senate
Graduate Board
Research Degrees Office
Makes formal offer of a place and final award of degrees
Publishes the Research Student handbook and
Ordnances and Regulations for Research Degrees
Student file
Faculty Graduate School Committee (Director)
School
Postgraduate tutor
Student file
Supervisor
Student file
Student
Graduate Board
Responsible for research students and for overall strategy
concerning all postgraduates
• Representatives from each Faculty
• Student representation (PGA representative and Education Secretary of
University Union)
• Groups to address various matters:
Board Works Through:
• Faculty Graduate School Committees
• Postgraduate Research Tutors
• Research Student Administration
Graduate Board Groups
Faculty Graduate School Committees
Programmes of Study and Audit Group
Examinations
Higher Doctorates
Postgraduate Scholarships
Researcher Training and Career Development Steering Group
Steering Committee on Doctoral Training Grants
Graduate Board Terms of
Reference (Summary)
•
Recommendations to Senate
•
Formulation of policies and procedures
•
Maintenance of quality and standards
•
Communication with Learning and Teaching Board and
other University committees
•
Delegation of authority to its Groups (e.g. Examinations
Group ratifies examination results and awards degrees)
Graduate Board Terms of
Reference (Summary) continued
• Approval of new programmes of study and amendments to
regulations
• Liaison with LUU and the Postgraduate Assembly
• Oversight of Scholarships for postgraduate students
Code of Practice for Research
Degree Candidatures 1
Defines responsibilities of
• Deans
• Faculty Graduate School Committees
• Postgraduate Research Tutors
• Supervisors
• Students
At least two members of staff to consider an application
Supervision by a lead supervisor and at least one other cosupervisor; or one main supervisor together with a
Mentor/Adviser
Statement of minimum standards of facilities
Code of Practice for Research
Degree Candidatures 2
• Training plan to be agreed within one month of start and to
be reviewed at least annually
• Students encouraged to keep Personal Development Plans
• Students to consult their supervisor before undertaking any
additional work at the University
• At least 12 supervision meetings a year for full-time students
who first registered before September 2005. At least 10
supervision meetings a year for those who first registered in
or after September 2005.
• Supervisors responsible for ensuring that there are written
records of formal supervisory meetings
Code of Practice for Research
Degree Candidatures 3
• PGR Tutor or Head of School (or senior member of the
School) to meet with student at least annually without
supervisors
• Reading and commenting on the whole of the draft thesis
prior to submission
• “Mock viva” to be provided when requested by the student
• At least one internal and one external examiner
• Examiners required to submit independent reports prior to
the oral
• Supervisors may be an observer at the examination but if
not present must be available for consultation
Minimum English Language
Requirements 1
For entry to research degree study
IELTS 6.0
• not less than 5.5 in listening and reading and
• not less than 5.0 in speaking and writing)
Internet Based TOEFL (iBT)
• 83 (Overall)
• 18 (Listening),
• 20 (Reading and Speaking)
• 21 (Writing)
Minimum English Language
Requirements 2
TOEFL 550
• 4.0 on the Test of Written English or
Computer based TOEFL 220
• an essay rating of 4.0
Some Schools have requirements above these
Students required to provide evidence of English language
qualifications before registration
Training For Supervisors
Staff must attend an SDDU course on Research Degree
Supervision before being recommended for appointment.
Includes experienced staff who are new to Leeds.
Different courses are available:
• Courses for new staff.
• “Briefing” for experienced supervisors.
Training For Internal Examiners
• Graduate Board now requires all members of staff to attend
a formal University training course on the role of the internal
examiner (SDDU) before being recommended for
appointment as an Internal Examiner for the first time
• Should also have passed probation.
• From September 2007: where it has been more than 60
months since a member of staff either acted as Internal
Examiner or attended the SDDU training course on the role
of the Internal Examiner it will be necessary for the
individual to attend the SDDU briefing course for
experienced examiners before being appointed as Internal
Examiner
Training For Internal Examiners
(continued)
On-line Briefing on the Role of the Internal Examiner
currently under development – aim to introduce from
September 2009
•
•
•
•
Take training at any point in the year from any PC
Increase take up of course
Expand the pool of potential internal examiners to
schools.
Encourage examiners to undergo training to revise
knowledge of procedures even if not needed under
60 months rule?
Summary
The role of the Postgraduate Research Tutor may be
summarised as
the enhancement of research quality and research culture
within their school, department or unit
the University is committed, as part of its Research
Strategy, to increasing the numbers of research
students, but not at the expense of quality.
Postgraduate Research
Tutors Forum 2009
Part 2
Overview
Recent Developments
E-thesis and Copyright
The Office of The Independent Adjudicator
Examiners’ Reports
Recruitment and Retention of Postgraduate
Research Students
The Postgraduate Tutor’s Leadership Role
Discussion
Recent Developments
Dr Andy Mullis
Jackie Findlay
Recent Developments
Strategy Map – PGR issues
Points-based System
Qualification rates
Registration/HESA issues
Roberts (Generic Skills) Training
On-line Registration
E-theses
Strategy Map
Key theme:
Strategy Map
Student experience
PRES increased significance in PGR consciousness.
Faculties likely to be more responsive to issues raised
The role of the PGRT
Recruit students of highest quality
Maintain appropriate academic standards
Taking hard decisions
Encouraging staff to supervise students where they are
not already doing so.
Points Based System – Tier 4
Where are we now?
•
All students are now applying for a student visa or student visa
extension under the Points Based System
•
All students with a start date up to November 2009 should now be
in receipt of a “General Student Visa Letter” from the University of
Leeds. Whenever a new official University offer letter is sent to an
international student, RSA also produce a GSVL.
•
RSA also produce the letters for students seeking to extend their
visa.
•
Only RSA can produce the letters
•
Without a correct General Student Visa Letter, UKBA will not
issue a visa under any circumstances
Points Based System – Tier 4
What happens Next?
• Attendance Monitoring
•
•
•
Universities must report unauthorised non attendance, non registration, suspension and withdrawals to
UKBA
Guidance produced by the University of Leeds to be issued on monitoring non attendance
System to be developed by ISS to assist with attendance monitoring
Certificate of Acceptance for Studies (CAS)
•
•
•
•
•
General Student Visa Letters to be replaced by an electronic system known as the Sponsor
Management System which generates a CAS (this is a unique number).
An applicant can be in receipt of multiple CAS but must choose which CAS they wish their Visa to
be linked to. It is important that we make offers and issue the CAS quickly.
The SMS also allows Universities to report on attendance.
Autumn 2009 – system to be tested on students seeking visa extensions
Spring 2010 – full go live of PBS and attendance monitoring of all international students who have come
to UK under PBS
Points Based System – Tier 4
ISSUES
• Still a lot of unknown detail and awaiting further info from UKBA
• CAS costs the University £10 for each student
• Frequent changes of start date may require multiple CASs, or change of
circumstance notifications and will add to administrative load
• UKBA – visa delays. Visa processing previously took between 3 to 14
days across the various countries, it is now taking up to 3 months.
• Issues with attendance monitoring – not easy for RP students
• Must notify RSA of withdrawals and suspensions in a timely manner
HEFCE Qualification Rates
doctoral students* doctoral students*
HEFCE bench
starting in 99/00
qualifying by 05/06 (%) mark#
Southampton
254
90
80
Bristol
455
90
80
York
160
86
76
Sheffield
237
84
78
Leeds
288
78
78
Newcastle
158
70
80
* Full-time home and EU doctoral students
# expected qualification rate based on institutions profile
Qualification Rates
• HEFCE published first data in Autumn 2007 (1999/2000
starters) - League Tables appeared in THES
• Annual exercise – but – Autumn 2008 data (2000/01
starters) not yet published
• Leeds access to own data – Internal modelling for 2000/01
& 2001/02 starters
Future modelling
Full-time students
Qualification achieved within 7 years
• 1999/00 starters = 78% (already published)
• 2000/01 starters = 85.2%
• 2001/02 starters = 80.8%
Part-time/Mode switch
Qualification achieved within 9 years
• 1999/00 starters = 57.3%
• Significant disparity between Faculties
• Rates from 26.9% - 80%
Future Modelling - Faculty Figures
(Includes both Home /EC and Overseas)
2000-01 Cohort 2001-02 Cohort
1999-00 Cohort
Full-time
88.2%
Full-time
72.2%
Part-time/Mode Switch
ESSL
70.0%
71.7%
26.9%
LUBS
66.7%
66.7%
50.0%
PVAC
76.0%
81.3%
42.9%
University
Totals
85.2%
80.8%
57.3%
Arts
47.4%
Future Modelling
Continued
2000-01 Cohort 2001-02 Cohort
1999-00 Cohort
Full-time
88.7%
Full-time
87.5%
Part-time/Mode Switch
79.1%
75.0%
50.0%
Environment
91.7%
75.8%
33.3%
MAPS
88.5%
86.7%
80.0%
Medicine &
Health
University
Totals
89.8%
90.9%
74.2%
85.2%
80.8%
57.3%
Biological
Sciences
Engineering
80.0%
Non Registration - HESA
Preventing re-registration until upgrade complete
• 01 December – no funding for School
• PBS implications - Universities must report non registration
• HESA – University must report students correctly in HESA
return - HEFCE compares 1 December return with the
HESA data to ensure the level of funding is appropriate
• Research Excellence Framework (REF) - HEFCE may take
data on students and income straight from HESA return
For full-time students - complete upgrade before the end
of first year!
Roberts (Generic Skills) Training
May come to an end 2011
On-line Registration
• On-line Registration for research students went live
in Spring 2009.
• Further information and workshops will take place
with School administrative staff in July to prepare
for mass registration.
E-Theses
From 2009/10:
•
Submission of an electronic version of a final, successful doctoral
thesis will be mandatory for all new students commencing study
from September 2009;
•
All current doctoral students will be strongly encouraged to
submit an electronic version of their final thesis from a date to be
announced;
•
All new electronic theses deposited by successful doctoral
candidates will be assigned an ISBN number;
•
Electronic thesis to be provided in PDF format on CD in
addition to the hard bound copies of the final thesis already
required by the regulations.
•
Arrangements to be reviewed after 12 months
E-theses
Actions in place
• Small scale pilot - Thesis Deposit Agreement Form & necessary
changes to the Regulations for the Format and Presentation of
Theses
• Review to take place after 12 months
• SDDU has incorporated training on copyright issues into its
programme of workshops. The Library training for Postgraduate
Research Students also highlights copyright issues.
• Doctoral Theses Only - the position with MPhil and Mastership by
Research candidates will be reviewed at a later stage. At present
these are not made available to the British Library.
• Copyright and Publication Guidance
Secretariat: Legal Affairs
E-THESES and Copyright
Janet Juřica, University Copyright Officer
© 2009 The University of Leeds and Janet Juřica
These slides and related presentation do not constitute legal advice. Specific legal
advice should be taken before acting on any topics covered.
Legal Adviser’s Office
Aims
To provide a general overview of

why Copyright becomes an issue for E-theses

the type of Copyright issues that may be encountered

the guidance and assistance available ‘centrally’ and
through the way the University is handling the
development

the implications for supervisors and postgraduate tutors

Hints on how to survive
Legal Adviser’s Office
Copyright and Theses: The Basic Issue
Before Digitised Resources Became Available
 No third party copyright material in the thesis submitted for examination
and subsequently deposited in the Library needed to have been cleared
for copyright permissions on an ‘article by article’ or ‘extract by extract’
basis
 Copyright issues could be addressed after examination if the thesis
content was to be the basis for publications
With Digitisation and E-Thesis Publication
 All third party copyright material in an intended E-thesis must be cleared
for copyright permission before examination
 The copyright status of digitally sourced material is not as clear cut as is
the case with ‘hard-copy’ publication
Legal Adviser’s Office
WHY MAKE THESES AVAILABLE ELECTRONICALLY
 General move internationally
 Improved perception of the University’s position as a
leading research intensive university
 ‘Vanity’ publishers approaching candidates on an individual
basis which potentially results in:
 The University’s graduates doing substantial work in preparing their
thesis electronically for minimal academic and financial reward
 Increased risks in relation to potential copyright infringement
with/and repercussions for the University’s reputation
Legal Adviser’s Office
COPYRIGHT: THE LAW
UK Copyright Law [Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988 (CPDA 1988)]
 Approach dates back to Queen Anne
 Principles are printed (hard copy) source based
 Covers the right to copy all recorded forms of ‘expression’ or ‘performance’ regardless of
the media
 Copyright infringement and encouraging or facilitating infringement (Secondary
Infringement) are criminal offences
 Based on the principle that, with some exceptions, you can only copy what the copyright
holder is prepared to allow you to copy
 Developments in the law lag behind what and how it is possible to copy
CPDA 1988 is not appropriate for the digital age
The Government and European Union are moving very slowly (and contentiously)
 May be over-ridden by the contract/terms and conditions imposed by the suppliers of
digital media
 Claims of infringement are decided under Common Law (copyright holder pursues a case
of alleged infringement through the Courts him- or herself)
 Highly complex and specialist branch of the law (‘one of the most challenging legal issues
for information professionals’ CILIP 2008)
Legal Adviser’s Office
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AND
CONSEQUENCES
 Copying copyright material without explicit permission (copyright
infringement) is a civil and criminal offence unless
 The copying falls within the limits set by the CPDA 1988 as subsequently
amended (’Fair Dealing’, ‘out-of-copyright’ or ‘for criticism and review’) or
 The copying is under the terms of a purchased licence: BUT currently in the
UK the terms of a licence can over-ride the exceptions under CPDA 1988
 Infringement (including Secondary Infringement) can lead to
 Fines AND Imprisonment
 BUT
 Legal costs so high cases rarely come to court
 Restitution usually in respect of loss of income (damages) to the copyright
holder
Legal Adviser’s Office
THE EXTERNAL ISSUES
 Individual copyright holders asserting their rights individually particularly
for digitally sourced material
 Some times aggressively
 The copyright permissions status for every (particularly digitally
sources) item needs to be checked individually before use
 Just because it’s on the Internet does not mean it is ‘copyright free’
(particularly U-tube, Wikipedia etc)
 Copyright status may depend on whether the copying is ‘commercial’ or
‘non-commercial’
 Proposed copyright enforcement by Internet Service Providers
Legal Adviser’s Office
EXTERNAL FACTORS THAT MAY HELP
CDPA 1988 exceptions which may be valuable in thesis publication are:

Fair-Dealing - inclusion of an INSUBSTANTIAL extract
 But UK Fair Dealing principles are not as generous as under, say, US Law (Fair
Use and Educational use)

Criticism and review
 But the legal position appears never yet to have needed have been tested in the
courts over the use of this exceptions as a defence for inclusion of third party
copyright material in a thesis
 Included extract must be no more than essential



Some e-journals may permit re-use of digitised extracts to students but most do
not – depends on the Publishers (STM Group relatively generous)
Some publications may be on ‘copyleft’ or ‘Creative Commons’ licence
principles permitting copying for non-commercial purposes
Repositories of copyright cleared articles for educational use have been
developed (e.g. under JISC project funding)
Legal Adviser’s Office
WHAT WE HAVE
 Staff and students are already required to follow the
University’s position on copyright (and IPR)
 the Library’s Copyright pages are part of the terms and conditions
of service/registration
 Experience of academic staff in the varying approaches to
the use of copyright material in different disciplines
 Promotion of the publication of general ‘take down’ policies
 Guidance on copyright issues for theses supported by more
specific guidance in the training provided through services
including SDDU, the Graduate Centres, the Library and ISS
Legal Adviser’s Office
MAIN SPECIFIC ISSUES IDENTIFIED
 Including Pre-Published Material in Thesis
 Additional evidence/material
 Supplementary (contextual) Material
 Extracts (charts/diagrams)
 Embargoing Possible to Cover
 Confidentiality Agreements
 Commercial exploitation Issues
 Future publication in refereed journals
Legal Adviser’s Office
How to Survive I
 Keep Records
 ALWAYS include proper acknowledgement of
‘source’
 Provide a link to the URL on which the resource is
published rather than downloading a copy
 When you find something you want to use check its
copyright status. Has it
 Been published with permissions enabling its use?
 Been published under a Creative Commons or Copyleft type
licence?
 Been published by one of the STM Publishers who’ve signed up to
its scheme permitting some limited digital re-use?
Legal Adviser’s Office
How to Survive II
 If not (and not necessarily in this order)
 See whether it is available for use via an educational repository
 Request permission from the copyright holder (and keep records of
your searches/requests to cover the situation of any possible
‘orphan’ work)
 Contact the Author to see if the author will let you have (and use) a
pre-publication version for which (s)he holds the copyright
 If none of the preceding works - assess with great caution
whether the material has been reproduced so widely by
others than the copyright holder that there is very strong
evidence of implied consent – but thereafter only copy with
a ‘take down’ policy in place
Legal Adviser’s Office
FAVOURITE QUOTES
“the fact that our system of communication, teaching and
entertainment does not grind to a standstill is in large part due
to the fact that in most cases infringement of copyright has,
historically, been ignored”
Mr Justice Laddie, 1996 (reproduced with thanks to Professor Sol Picotto)
Extract from the new Russian Copyright Act, as translated into
English (reproduced with thanks to Professor Charles Oppenheimer) :
"In cases of repeated or gross violation of intellectual property,
a legal person committing such a violation may be liquidated."
Legal Adviser’s Office
HELPFUL LINKS and FURTHER INFORMATION
University Copyright Guidance published by the Library
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/library/rights/
Creative Commons http://creativecommons.org/international/uk/
STM (International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical
Publishers) http://www.stm-assoc.org/about-stm/
But get the right ‘guidance’ “2008.2” at http://www.stm-assoc.org/documentsstatements-publicco/2008.2%20Scholarly%20Publisher%20Guidelines%20for%20Quotation%20%
20Other%20Academic%20Uses%20of%20Excerpts%20Ver%202.pdf
Copyright Compliance: practical steps to stay within the Law,
Paul Pedley, Facet Publishing, London 2008
JISC IPR Toolkit (simpler than the earlier version)
Legal Adviser’s Office
COMMERCIAL BREAK
US LAW – THE VIDEO
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ul2ODT2-Bc8
The Office of The Independent
Adjudicator
David Wardle
Examiners’ Reports
Dr Bob Cochrane
Dr Jim Baxter
Graduate Board’s
Examinations Group
• Role in maintaining the quality of Leeds research degrees
• Is made up of a chair and an academic representative
from each faculty
• Review every research degree examiners’ report
• Approve, or ask for modifications to, examiners’ reports
Examiners’ Reports
• Are written by examiners
• Are signed off by the post graduate tutor
• Are reviewed and approved by Examinations Group
• Proportion not initially approved
• ~20% of pass grades
• ~75% of referrals
• Unapproved reports now returned to postgraduate tutor (previously
they were returned to the internal)
Preliminary Examiners’
Reports Should
• Be completed independently
• Indicate areas for discussion at the viva
• Issues should be closed in the final report
• Not indicate a recommendation
Examiners’ Reports Should
• Make a recommendation that is backed up by the
contents
• Evidence provided should substantiate the examiners
claims
• In the case of referral, describe the work that if completed
to the satisfaction of the examiners will result in the award
of the research degree
A report will not be approved if
• The recommendation is inconsistent with the content to the
report
• There is an absence of evidence supporting claims
• Referral notes for guidance are not sufficiently specific or
too constricting
• Absence of signatures or dates
• Unusual dates for example report dated weeks after viva
date
• There is any evidence that the report is not joint
• Issues from the preliminary reports are not closed
Examples from reports
The following examples were all taken from reports
considered at one Examinations Group meeting.
What would have been your view if you had been a member
of Examinations Group?
Consider this from a referral
(ii) comment on the evidence of originality, with an indication
of the nature of any such evidence (specific examples should
be given):
“The thesis does not offer original material and potential for
original contribution to conceptual debates. The thesis needs
to be restructured in order to better represent that original
contribution.”
Consider this from a referral
(iv) comment on the extent to which the thesis contains matter
suitable for publication (specific examples should be given)
“The reverse effect mentioned above has potential subject to
further validation
Celebrity endorsement in cross national context”
(v) comment on the written style and overall presentation of
the thesis:
“Reability and clarity could be improved”
Consider this recommendation
From a recommendation to award MPhil resulting from a PhD
examination
(iv) comment on the extent to which the thesis contains matter
suitable for publication (specific examples should be given)
“The thesis is not publishable in whole or part.”
Consider this from a referral
Examiners’ Guidance
(a)(i) provide a brief summary of the reasons for referral:
“Thesis requires changes that are estimated to take greater than 3 months,
namely:
1. Re-write the literature review around pre-dominant themes and in a
more integrated manner
2. Discussion chapter needs explanation on findings rather than
descriptive sections repeating summary of results. Elaboration and link of
literature review needs integrating also.
3. Sections of the results chapter need substantial improvements in terms
of clarity and focus.
No second viva required.”
Summary
• Ensure
• Decisions are substantiated with evidence
• Narrative is consistent with recommendation
• The exam question is answered
Recruitment and Retention of
Postgraduate Research Students
Professor Marjorie Wilson
Esme Caulfield
The Postgraduate Tutor’s Leadership
Role
Professor Ian Kirkpatrick
Finally…
Any Questions?