Senate Code of Practice
on
Postgraduate Research Programmes
Procedural Document
for 2005-06
January 2006
1
Foreword
This Procedural Document should be read in conjunction with the Senate Code of Practice
on Postgraduate Research Programmes, approved by Senatei. It describes the detailed
operation of the Senate Code of Practice in 2005-06.
The document is particularly intended for research supervisors, Faculty Directors of
Research, Chairs, Members and Executive Secretaries of Faculty Research Degrees Sub
Committees and the University’s Research Degrees Committee, and staff within Research
and Development Services.
The Senate Code of Practice on Postgraduate Research Programmes is one of a series of
Codes through which, in conjunction with other mechanisms, the University’s academic
standards and quality of education are maintained, assured and enhanced.
The complete set of Codes as at 1 September 2005 covers (the date of initial Senate
approval is shown in brackets):

External Examiners for Taught Programmes of Study (11 January 2003)

Approval, Annual Monitoring and Periodic Review of Taught Programmes of Study
(18 June 2003 )

Collaborative Provision: International (18 June 2003)

Assessment of Students (15 June 2005)

Postgraduate Research Programmes (12 October 2005)
An electronic copy of this Procedural Document and the related Senate Code of Practice is
available on: http://web.apu.ac.uk/anet/academic/qad/sen_codes_practice/senate.phtml
All enquiries related to both documents should be directed to Rachel Ryan, Deputy Director,
Academic and Quality Systems Office (r.ryan@anglia.ac.uk) in the first instance.
Malcolm Morrison
Director of the Academic and Quality Systems Office
January 2006
i
12 October 2005
2
Contents
Section
Page
1.
Enquiry and Admission
5
2.
Nominations for appointment as Supervisors
7
3.
Approval of Research Proposal (RD1)
7
4.
Confidentiality of Thesis
9
5.
Ethics Procedures for Students and Staff undertaking Research
10
6.
Faculty Annual Monitoring
29
7.
Confirmation of Candidature
30
8.
Withdrawal
32
9.
Intermission
32
10.
Change of Supervisory Team
33
11.
Extension to Period of Registration
33
12.
Preparation and Submission of Thesis
34
13.
Nomination of Examiners
35
14.
Postgraduate Research Training Framework
36
15.
The Viva Voce Examination
36
16.
Re-examination
41
17.
Conferment of the Award
42
18.
Review of an Examination Decision
43
19.
Professional Doctorates
45
20.
PhD by Published Work
46
3
Appendices
Page
1.
Research Degrees Application Form
48
2.
Interview Record Sheet (Research Degrees)
53
3.
RD1.2 – Outline CV for Staff acting as a Research Degree Supervisor
54
4.
RD1 – Approval of research proposal
56
5.
RD12 – Reference for a research degree proposal
64
6.
RD14 – Recommendation of Faculty Research Degrees Sub Committee for
approval of a research proposal
66
7.
Ethics Review Check List
67
8.
Ethics Application Form
69
9.
Ethics Participant Information Sheet
74
10.
Ethics Participant Consent Form
75
11.
Annual Monitoring Report Form and Notes of Guidance
76
12.
RD4 – Confirmation of Candidature
81
13.
RD13 – Reference for application for Confirmation of Candidature
82
14.
RD15 – Notification of Confirmation of Candidature
84
15.
R1A – Withdrawal from Studies (not on web, available from Registry)
85
16.
R1B – Intermission from Studies (not on web, available from Registry)
86
17.
RD2 – Application for Change in Approved Arrangements for Supervision
87
18.
RD3 – Application for Extension of Period of Registration
88
19.
RD9 – Declaration Form
90
20.
RD5 – Appointment of Examiners
91
21.
RD6 – Preliminary Report and Recommendation on a Candidate for the
degree of MPhil
93
RD7 – Preliminary Report and Recommendation on a Candidate for the
degree of PhD
94
RD7(a) - Preliminary Report and Recommendation on a Candidate for the
award of a Professional Doctorate
95
RD8 – Recommendation of the Examiners on a Candidate for the degree of
MPhil
97
RD8 – Recommendation of the Examiners on a Candidate for the degree of
PhD
100
RD8 – Recommendation of the Examiners on a Candidate for the award of
Professional Doctorate
103
27.
Examination Evaluation Form
106
28.
RD16 – Authenticity of Permanently Bound Copy of Thesis
107
29.
Terms of Reference for Moderators for Professional Doctorate Programmes
108
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
4
1.
Enquiry and Admission
1.1
Initial enquiries from potential research degree students are received by the
Research Office, Research & Development Services, at any time of the year,
although there are only two dates for registration as a student of Anglia Ruskin
University. These are in September or February of each year.
1.2
Potential research degree students are required to complete an application form
(Appendix 1) which is available from Research & Development Services or can
be downloaded from the website at www.apu.ac.uk/research. Potential research
degree students should return the completed application form to the Research
Office in Chelmsford.
1.3
The Research Office in Chelmsford will enter all applicants’ details on the
Student Record System. All applications will be checked to ensure they are
appropriately qualified and all those which are appropriate will be forwarded to
the Director of Research in the appropriate Faculty. The Faculty will write to the
applicants to advise them whether or not they are required to attend for an
interview.
1.4
The Faculty Director of Research is responsible for determining whether or not
supervision can be provided in the proposed subject area. If supervision can be
provided, the Faculty Director of Research will interview the potential research
degree student, together with at least one other member of the Faculty. At least
one member of the Interview Panel must be trained in equal opportunities
requirements. In the case of international applicants the Faculty Director of
Research should evaluate any qualifications to establish comparability of
credentials with the UK, using the criteria supplied.
1.5
The general entry requirements are set out in Section 2 of the Research Degrees
Regulations.
1.6
In admitting a candidate to a research degree programme, the Interview Panel
must ensure that:
the applicant is appropriately qualified, in accordance with Section 2 of
the Research Degrees Regulations;

the proposed programme of research is viable;

adequate supervision is available which is likely to be sustainable;
and

the necessary facilities exist for the conduct of scholarly research in
the area of the research proposal.
5
1.7
Following the interview, the Faculty Director of Research should complete and
sign the interview proforma (Appendix 2) to confirm the admission decision and
to confirm that the applicant’s qualifications have been checked and are
satisfactory.
1.8
All admission decisions must be authorised by the Dean of Faculty/Associate
Dean with responsibility for Research. In so doing, the Dean/Associate Dean is
responsible for ensuring that the necessary facilities will be made available to the
student.
1.9
The interview proforma, signed by the Director of Research and the
Dean/Associate Dean, should be returned to the Research Office in Chelmsford,
and if successful, a formal offer letter will be sent by the Research Office to the
applicant. This letter constitutes a contract between the student and the
University and shall include the following information:







expected total fees or fee waiver where this has been approved
expected period of study for which the student is enrolled
the name and contact details of the student’s First Supervisor (Director
of Studies)
details of the Faculty in which the student will be located
if full time, details of space and facilities allocated for personal use
the nature of programmes and specific requirements, e.g. registration;
re-registration; approval; confirmation of candidature; examination;
annual monitoring
outline of the Research Training Framework including the subject
specific elements
the name of the Faculty Director of Research/Faculty Research
Degrees Co-ordinator whom the student can contact if they are
experiencing problems.
In addition each student shall receive:


a copy of the Research Degree Regulations
a separate booklet on Intellectual Property rights.
Other information shall be provided separately e.g. the requirements
and conditions of any sponsor.
1.10 If the applicant wishes to accept the offer to study at Anglia Ruskin University
s/he must do so in writing. Once confirmation of acceptance of the offer has
been received by the Research Office, an induction pack containing ‘joining’
information, research student handbook and Registration Forms, will be sent out
to the applicant.
1.11 The completed Registration Forms should be returned to Registration Services in
Cambridge, together with payment of the fees.
6
2.
3.
Nominations for Appointment as Supervisors
2.1
Nominations for appointment as supervisors will be considered from all members
of the permanent staff or those who have a contract of employment with the
University, partner institution or organisations which are research collaborators.
2.2
Supervisors should have appropriate subject expertise and the necessary skills
and experience to monitor, support and direct research students’ work. Faculties
may appoint and pay for an external supervisor where this is deemed necessary.
2.3
Members of Anglia Ruskin University staff will need to complete form RD1.2
(Appendix 2), available on the Research and Development Services website, or
from the Secretary to the Faculty Research Degrees Sub Committee.
2.4
Nominations for appointment as supervisors are considered by the Faculty
Research Degrees Sub Committee as part of the consideration of a student’s
research proposal.
2.5
In appointing supervisors, Faculty Research Degrees Sub Committees will need
to be aware of, and guided by, the overall workload of the individual, including
teaching, research, administration and other responsibilities, for example,
external examining duties and other professional commitments such as
consultancy or clinical responsibilities. The Faculty’s Director of Research is
expected to provide such guidance on the overall workload of the individual being
nominated as a supervisor.
2.6
New supervisors are required to attend the University’s Supervisors Support
Programme, as a condition of approval of a student’s research proposal.
Approval of Research Proposal (RD1)
3.1
All registered students are required to seek approval of their research proposal,
normally within six months of registration for full-time students and twelve months
for part-time students. During the initial period of registration students have
access to the full resources of the University (or partner institution) in designing
the research proposal.
3.2
The RD1 form (Appendix 4) requests basic information about the research
student and the proposed research project. The form is available on the
Research and Development Services website or from the Secretary to the
Faculty Research Degrees Sub Committee. The form should be fully completed
and signed by the student, all members of the supervisory team and the Dean of
Faculty. Details of all members of the supervisory team must be included. The
name, designation and address of an independent academic must also be
provided as they will be asked to comment on the viability of the research
proposal. The independent referee may be internal to the University, however, if
there is no one within the University with the necessary knowledge and expertise
to act as a referee, the name and address of the external referee must be
provided. The Chair of the Faculty Research Degrees Sub Committee will
determine whether an external referee is required.
7
3.3
Where a student or the University wishes the thesis to remain confidential for a
period of time after completing, please refer to Section 4 of this Procedural
Document.
3.4
The completed RD1 form should be submitted to the Secretary to the Faculty
Research Degrees Sub Committee no later than six weeks before the date of the
next meeting. The Secretary will send the application to the nominated
independent referee seeking their comments on the proposal. Form RD12 is
used for this purpose which specifies the particular aspects which the referee is
invited to comment upon. (Appendix 5) The referee’s comments will be included
with the RD1 form when it is presented to the Faculty Research Degrees Sub
Committee for approval.
3.5
In order for the Faculty Research Degrees Sub Committee to consider research
proposals the following information must be provided:




completed RD1 form
details of the supervisory team, RD1.2
a research proposal (normally no more than three sides of A4)
the independent referee’s comments
confirmation of Ethics approval (where required – see Section 5 fof
this Procedural Document for further details)
3.6
Section 5 of the Research Degrees Regulations sets out the criteria regarding
the composition of the supervisory team. One supervisor will be designated as
the First Supervisor (Director of Studies) who will have responsibility for
supervising the candidate on a regular and frequent basis and who will act as the
principal point of contact on administrative matters.
3.7
In considering research proposals, Faculty Research Degrees Sub Committees
will consider:






3.8
whether the qualifications and background of the student are
appropriate for the level of the award proposed;
whether the research proposal is an appropriate topic which is likely to
lead to the award specified;
whether the proposed research strategy and methodology is
appropriate;
whether the programme of related training is appropriate and whether
the student has attended, or made arrangements to attend, the
Induction Programme within the Research Training Framework;
whether the supervisory team is appropriately qualified and constituted
in accordance with the Research Degrees Regulations, and whether
the supporting resources which have been identified are adequate;
whether ethics approval has been obtained (where applicable);
whether the independent referee’s comments are supportive.
The Secretary of the Sub Committee will formally record the Sub Committee’s
comments against each of the above criteria.
8
3.9
The Faculty Research Degrees Sub Committee may make any of the following
recommendations to the Research Degrees Committee, having considered the
research proposal:






to approve the research proposal;
to approve subject to evidence of Ethics approval;
to approve subject to attendance at the Induction Programme within
the Research Training Framework;
to approve subject to satisfactory comments from the independent
referee;
to request revisions to the research proposal which can be approved
by Chair’s action;
to require a resubmitted proposal to be re-presented to the next
meeting of the Sub Committee;
to not approve the research proposal.
3.10 Following the meeting of the Sub Committee the Secretary will inform the
student, in writing, of the outcome of the Sub Committee’s deliberations.
3.11 Once the research proposal has been approved, or conditionally approved, by
the Faculty Research Degrees Sub Committee, the recommendation for approval
will be forwarded to the Research Degrees Committee for ratification. The
Secretary to the Faculty Research Degrees Sub Committee will complete a
RD14 form (Appendix 6) for the Chair of the Faculty Research Degrees Sub
Committee’s signature. The RD14 form should be sent to the Secretary to the
Research Degrees Committee for inclusion on the agenda of the next meeting.
3.12 Following ratification by the Research Degrees Committee of the
recommendation of the Faculty Research Degrees Sub Committee, the
Secretary to the Research Degrees Committee will write to the student to inform
them of the decision, copying the letter to the members of the supervisory team
and the Secretary of the Faculty Research Degrees Sub Committee.
3.13 The date of approval is normally backdated to the date of registration.
4.
Confidentiality of Thesis
4.1
Where a student or the University wishes the thesis to remain confidential for a
period of time after completion of the research, application for approval shall
normally be made to the University’s Research Degrees Committee at the time of
seeking approval of the research proposal.
4.2
The Research Degrees Committee normally only approves an application for
confidentiality in order to enable a patent application to be lodged or to protect
commercially or politically sensitive material. A thesis shall not be protected in
this way in order to protect research leads.
4.3
The normal maximum period of confidentiality is two years. In exceptional
circumstances the Research Degrees Committee may approve a longer period.
Where a shorter period would be adequate the Research Degrees Committee
will not automatically grant confidentiality for two years.
4.4
In cases where the need for confidentiality emerges at a subsequent stage, a
special application for the thesis to remain confidential after submission must be
made immediately to the Research Degrees Committee.
9
4.5
5.
Where the confidential nature of the candidate’s work is such as to preclude the
thesis being made freely available in the University Library, collaborating
establishment or partner institution, the thesis will be retained by the University
on restricted access and shall only be made available to those who were directly
involved in the project.
Ethics Procedures for Students and Staff undertaking Research
Making an Application
5.1
In order to make an application it will be essential to consult the following Ethics
Committee Procedures for the Conduct of Research to ascertain whether or not
the planned research falls within the remit of the University Research Ethics
Committee.
5.2
By completing the Ethics Review Check List (Appendix 7), it will indicate whether
or not formal approval is required. A copy of the Check List is included in the
Induction Pack and is available on the Research and Development Services
website.
5.3
If formal approval is required from either the University Research Ethics
Committee or the Faculty Panel, the following documentation will be needed:


5.4
a completed Ethics Application Form (Appendix 8), available from the
Research and Development Services website;
a completed Ethics Participant Information Sheet (Appendix 9),
available from the Research and Development Services website;
Ethics Participant Consent Form (Appendix 10) available from the
Research and Development Services website.
The complete set of documentation should be forwarded to the Secretary to the
University Research Ethics Committee.
10
ETHICS COMMITTEE PROCEDURES
FOR THE CONDUCT OF RESEARCH
A document for staff, undergraduate and postgraduate students intending to engage in
research involving human participants at Anglia Polytechnic University
INTRODUCTION
Members of staff and undergraduate and postgraduate students who wish to undertake
research involving human participants are advised to consider ethical issues at the
EARLIEST POSSIBLE STAGE in the planning and writing of their proposal for two reasons.
First, practically they must allow for consultation and for the University ethics review process
and, should their application be referred on by the Faculty to the full University Research Ethics
Committee (UREC) the timing of UREC meetings. In such cases the UREC may request
changes to an application before giving ethics approval, and these applications may need
resubmission.
Second, additional preparation time should also be allowed because a proper
consideration of ethical principles is relevant to, and will almost certainly influence
fundamental aspects of the research design - from research methods to sampling.
There is general consensus that this is time well spent. Not only does a proposal
receive ethics approval but it is often methodologically sounder and more coherent
as a result.
If you were employed, or a registered student, at Anglia Ruskin University before
31 May 2002, you may not have the required Criminal Records Bureau clearance
to work with children under the age of 16 or vulnerable groups. It is incumbent on
you to ensure you have this clearance before commencing work with members of
these groups.
How to proceed:
1.
Read the document "Ethics Committee Procedures for the Conduct of Research" and
complete the form " Request for Ethics Approval".
2.
This form should normally be submitted to the UREC representative from your Faculty.
3.
2.1
The proposal will first be considered by the Faculty, and if it falls within
categories detailed below then Ethics Committee delegated approval can be
given at the Faculty level.
2.2
If the project falls outside these categories then the proposal will be
considered by the full UREC.
2.3
One member of UREC will be designated to sponsor your project and they
may contact you for further information before UREC meets.
If you do not wish to submit the project through your Faculty representative, or if you
believe the project clearly falls outside the categories allowing Faculty level approval,
then you may submit the application directly to the Ethics Secretariat in the Research
and Development Services Office for consideration by UREC.
11
RULES FOR DELEGATED AUTHORISATION OF PROPOSALS:
The University Research Ethics Committee has delegated to designated members of Faculties the authority for giving
approval to the following categories of applications.
1.
Where an application, covering all the procedures to be used, has been approved by,
or is being made to a properly constituted external ethics committee.
OR
2.
Where the participants in the research are over the age of 16, and are not members
of any vulnerable group.
AND
If the two persons appointed by the Faculty with delegated authority from the
University Research Ethics Committee to give ethics approval certify in writing that
they are satisfied that all of the following conditions are fulfilled.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
the procedure does not include the penetration of a participant's skin or body
orifices by any substance or device, and
a participant will not be presented with painful stimuli or high intensities of
auditory, visual, electrical or other stimuli, and
a participant will not be required to undergo long periods of sleeplessness,
confinement, sensory deprivation or any other form of stress, and
there is no foreseeable risk of physical, social or psychological harm to a
participant arising from the procedure, and
there is no foreseeable invasion of privacy, and
the experiments are designed to lead to worthwhile conclusions, and
the applicant will adhere to the procedures outlined in the “Ethics Committee
Procedures for the Conduct of Research”.
A copy of the certificate, attached to a copy of the relevant protocol, should be
retained by each of the person or persons conducting the procedure and the two
persons appointed by the Faculty with delegated authority from the University
Research Ethics Committee to give ethics approval.
Notwithstanding the above, if the project deals with anything of a sensitive or
controversial nature, it may be advisable to submit the proposal to the Committee for
its approval, or at least its information. This would help protect investigators, should
adverse publicity arise.
The delegated approval will become invalid if the above conditions or risks
alter in any way, in which case the application must be resubmitted.
July 2005
12
OVERVIEW TO THE PROCEDURES
1.
These Proceduresii are intended for the guidance of staff, undergraduate and
postgraduate students (hereafter called students) and their Directors of Studies and
Supervisors who wish to undertake research with human participantsiii as an aspect of
formal academic activity, including taught research degrees. These procedures do not
cover work with animals.
2.
Defining an ethical standpoint as being about the minimisation of risk and the balancing
of risk against value in a context of informed consent, the Procedures draw attention to
some of the ethical issues which must be addressed in all research with human
participants. This includes participants in interviews, surveys and experimental
methods, whether communicating face to face or via postal, telephone, email or
internet contactsiv which may subject those involved to any possibility of social,
psychological, physical or professional harm.v They also cover research where usual
forms of consent are bypassed, where those involved may be subject to possible
breaches of legislation, confidentiality and trust and research which calls for the
secondary use of existing human specimens.
3.
All research involving human participants as subjects undertaken by staff and students
as an aspect of formal University academic activity will be subject to these Procedures.
ETHICS AND RESEARCH
4.
The Procedures address ethical issues that commonly arise in the planning, execution
and reporting back of research involving human participants. Many of the issues
explored have a wider application to research more generally in a university context.
5.
Explicitly or implicitly all research incorporates ethical dimensions. Questions as to why
a piece of research is necessary, how, when, where and with whom it is conducted,
how it is funded and about its wider value are integral to its undertaking. Further issues
arise in regard to relations and procedures between participantsvi researchers, hosts
and sponsors. Researchers inevitably face ethical and sometimes legal dilemmas
which arise out of competing obligations and conflicts of interests.
6.
Further, in research with human participants we can never completely guarantee that
no harm, in the most general interpretation, will come to participants. Many projects
may involve some very limited risk, others more substantial possibilities. An ethical
standpoint is one which sets out to minimise risk, and which allows everyone involved
in a piece of research to balance risk against value in the most open, informed and
independent fashion.
13
7.
These Procedures assume but do not spell out, a wider context of ethical values
relating to academic life more generally.vii These might include, for example:
7.1
safeguarding the freedom of individuals to study, research and publish;
7.2
a responsibility to acknowledge the contributions of others, including
colleagues, co-workers and employees;
7.3
a responsibility to report findings accurately and truthfully;
7.4
a responsibility to contribute to a body of knowledge and a wider
community of interests beyond the immediate rewards to an individual.
8.
The University assumes that the strongest reason for compliance with an ethics policy
is the desire of the researcher to treat participants and other researchers or students
with whom the researcher works, in an ethical manner, and that self-monitoring would
make disciplinary action unnecessary.
SCOPE AND REMIT
9.
10.
11.
12.
All research involving human participants as subjects undertaken as an aspect of
formal University academic activity will be subject to these Procedures. This includes
research undertaken or overseen by:
9.1
candidates undertaking undergraduate, postgraduate and research degrees;
9.2
Directors of Studies and Supervisors of undergraduates, postgraduates and
students on research degrees;
9.3
those doing personal research, those involved in collaborative research with
external institutions, contract research projects and those working with client
organisations and consultancy work engaged in through the University;
9.4
members of staff who undertake research with students or with other members
of staff.
The Procedures have three broad objectives:
10.1
to set out the substantive ethical requirements and legal obligationsviii to which
researchers should adhere as principles guiding their conduct in research
involving human subjects as participants;
10.2
to document the procedures for ethics approval which must be obtained prior to
commencement of research from appropriate persons, Supervisors,
committees or bodies;
10.3
to outline the indemnity cover offered to researchers by the University when
these requirements and procedures are followed and the penalties when they
are not.
They are wide in scope, offering a framework for considering ethical principles relating
to research at all stages of the research process.
While the prime consideration is ethical issues regarding relations between researchers
and those who are the subjects of their research, they also take into account relations
14
between researchers, between students and their Supervisors and between
researchers and client organisations.
WHY DOES RESEARCH WITH HUMAN SUBJECTS NEED ETHICS APPROVAL?
13.
Ethics approval for research with human participants is required for the following
reasons:
13.1
to protect the rights and welfare of participants and minimise risk of
physical and mental discomfort, harm and danger from research procedures;
14.
13.2
to protect your rights as a researcher to carry out legitimate investigation as well
as the reputation of the University for research conducted and sponsored by it;
13.3
to minimise the potential for claims of negligence made against you, the
University and any collaborating individual or organisation;
13.4
because increasingly external funding bodies and refereed journals require a
statement of ethical practice in applications for research funds and as a
precondition of publication.ix
University procedures for gaining ethics approval for research with human participants
are outlined below.
If you are a student wanting to undertake such research then ethical issues should be
discussed with your Supervisor or Director of Studies at the planning stage, well in
advance of any contact or engagement with participants.x Staff and contract
researchers are advised to give early consideration to such issues so that they may be
fully integrated into the design and methodology of their project
WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVAL?
15.
Your project must comply with these Procedures and any additional codes of ethics
which apply in specific disciplines or organisations within which you do your researchfor example comply with ethical codes of conduct set out by British Educational
Research Association, the British Sociological Association etc, or codes within Local
Education Authorities or the Home Office.xi Any research which involves patients,
staff or resources within the NHS must submit their research to and receive
approval from an NHS Research Ethics Committee (LREC or MREC).xii NHS REC
approval is accepted by the University as equivalent to approval from the University
Research Ethics Committee.xiii You will need to familiarise yourself with these and the
requirements listed here and ensure that your research complies with these standards,
before submitting your application for approval.
16.
Advice on research to be carried out in NHS Trusts can be obtained from the Director
of the Centre for Research in Health and Social Care at Anglia Ruskin University.
15
HOW TO JUDGE IF YOUR RESEARCH NEEDS ETHICS APPROVAL?
16.
If your research involves human participants in any way, including those participating
via interviews, surveys and experimental methods, via face to face, postal, telephone,
email or internet contacts you must submit your application to the Faculty UREC
representative or to the Ethics Secretariat in the Research and Development Services
Office.
It is not the decision of the researcher as to whether or not the proposal requires ethics
approval.
ETHICAL/LEGAL ISSUES IN RESEARCH WITH HUMAN SUBJECTS
17.
While ethics approval for research of this kind covers a wide range of important issues
that must be addressed (see 23) some entail legal liabilities and carry specific legal
requirements. These are outlined in A-D below.
(A)
The research may carry risk of social, psychological, physical or professional harm to
the participant for which the researcher may be liable
18.
These risks may arise in both individual and collaborative projects involving:
18.1
surveys, interviews and experimental methods that could reasonably
result in placing the participant, the researcher and/or the University at risk from:
criminal or civil liability
damage to his or her financial and/or social standing and employability
emotional distress
18.2
projects involving participants under the age of 16 or who are members of
vulnerable groupsxiv
18.3
treatments or therapeutic techniques;
18.4
the administration of any substance or agent;
18.5
the collection of any body tissues or fluid samples
18.6
procedures which include the penetration of a participant’s skin or body orifices
by any substance or device
16
(B)
19.
18.7
the administration of pain or high intensities of auditory, visual, electrical or
other stimuli
18.8
confining the participant or requiring them to undergo long periods of
sleeplessness, sensory deprivation or other forms of stress
18.9
where there is any risk of social, psychological or physical harm arising out of
18.2 to 18.5
The research may breach legislation, confidentiality and trust
Some research requires access to, or collection of banks of existing data or records of
personal information of participants held by a third party (either a public or a private
organisation, agency or individual)xv There is a legal requirement that you seek ethics
approval where:
19.1
the information is not publicly available;
19.2
the data has been recorded in such a way that the participant(s) can
be identified directly or through identifiers linked to the participant(s);
(C)
20.
19.3
the disclosure of information held in this way requires consent of the
participant(s).
19.4
the third party cannot provide confirmation that they have obtained prior consent
from the data participant.xvi
The research may call for secondary use of existing human specimens
Some research requires access to human pathology or diagnostic specimens e.g.
urine or blood sera held by other authorities (pathology laboratories, clinicians etc).
You must seek ethics approval for access where:
20.1
the materials or specimens were originally provided by participants for
purposes other than those sought by the project;
20.2
they would not be provided as a rule to the researcher for the proposed
research without the consent of the participant(s) or clearance by the authority
or agency in possession of the specimens.
(D) The research may require bypassing of usual form of written consent from participants
21.
While envisaged as unusual, such a situation may occasionally arise. In all
circumstances you must submit full details of the proposed research, together with
surrounding circumstances, for ethics approval.
17
ETHICAL ISSUES THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED IN YOUR PROPOSAL
22.
23.
If your proposal requires ethics approval you will need to comment on the ways in
which the following issues have been incorporated into your design and methodology,
and the ways in which these will be put into practice:
Summary of issues you must address in your proposal.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
(n)
(o)
rationale and statement of value for the research
informed consent
openness and honesty
right to withdraw without penalty
confidentiality
protection from harm
briefing and debriefing
reimbursements, payments and rewards
suitability/experience of researcher
the design and method of analysis is appropriate to address the research
question; in particular, for experimental studies, a power calculation should be
provided.
the ethics standards of external bodies and institutions (if appropriate)
reporting on ethical issues throughout
research for client organisations/consultancy
modification of proposal
intended dissemination
These issues are described in more detail below.
(a)
24.
Rationale and statement of value for the research
You are asked to briefly outline the contribution that your research will make, and if
and how this justifies the methods adopted. You should indicate how the research will
be funded.
A clear description of the research design should be given. Researchers may need to
justify sample composition and size as appropriate to the study and the case that is
being made for its value, and to issues such as 'necessary withholding of consent' (see
(b)). Consideration of any conflicts of interest that may arise should also be noted here.
(b)
25.
Informed consent
You should obtain freely given, explicit and informed consent of those participating in
the research, preferably in written form, before it proceeds.
18
26.
A statement of evidence of informed consent must include the following:
 clear identification of who will be doing the research (university, department and
chief investigator) and contact details
 a statement that the participant has been given written information (27.3) about and
understands the nature of the research and what is expected of them
 acknowledgement by participants (where applicable) that they have understood:
- what procedures will be undertaken as part of the research
- any risks related to these procedures
- any discomfort, inconvenience or longer term effects that may be entailed
- any measures to be taken should effects arise
- their right to withdraw at any time
- their satisfaction that confidentiality will be safeguarded
 signatures of participant and investigator. Where the participant is under 16, the
signature of parent or guardian should also be included and informed consent
should also be sought from the young person themselves where the participant
might be defined as vulnerablexvii additional safeguards should be sought .
27.
Even with full provision of information, researchers should bear in mind that there may
be imbalances of power between themselves and the participantxviii in the requesting of
consent;
27.1
participants should not be pressurised to take part, and should be
made aware of their right to refuse for any reason whatsoever;
27.2
consent should be periodically renegotiated throughout the life of the project;
27.3
respondents, co-workers and participating students ('participants') should be
given advance written information about the research in a clear and
comprehensible manner, in language that the participant will understand. It
should include information about:
Checklist: summary of information to be given to participants










the duration, aims and nature of the research
who is funding it
the university department, principal investigator and project team who will carry it
out
contact addresses and telephone numbers of one of the above
the amount of time involved for the participant
the right to withdraw without penalty
description of any procedures to be undertaken
description of any discomfort or inconvenience involved
description of any risks that may be entailed, including long term effects
description of procedures to be followed by participant should effects arise
19







procedures to protect from harm during the research
procedures to assure confidentiality and anonymity
information about storage of data
how the results will be disseminated
unless it is absolutely necessary, the methods that will be used should also be fully
described. [See (c) below]
complaints procedures
indemnity cover as outlined in 55-57 below.
27.4
consent must be gained for the use of tape recordings, videos or other
material data, and information about confidentiality and anonymity of data
provided [see (e)];
27.5
where participants are under the age of 16, as a minimum, the requirements of
the Children Act 1989 must be followed. Consent should be sought following
‘Gillick competent’ procedures. Other wide-ranging and thought provoking
suggestions are available concerning children and young people as research
participants.xix
27.6
special care must taken in the case of consent of the very young and the very
ill, the mentally vulnerable or impaired or those in dependent relationships or
situations and those whose native language is different from that in which the
research is being conducted. In some cases a translation of information relating
to consent will need to be given. A proxy may be needed to collect data;
27.7
special care with consent must be taken where participants are approached
through a 'gatekeeper'.xx Consent must be obtained from the participant directly
without denying the gatekeeper's interests. The research process should not
intrude upon or damage relationships (for example between a pupil and a
teacher, a dependent person and a carer) which will continue during and after
the completion of the research.
(c)
Openness and honesty
28.
It is envisaged that the vast majority of research undertaken in the University will be
such that researchers will be open and honest with participants about the research its
purpose and application. Full information should be given and all questions should be
answered frankly. [See (a)(b) above].
29.
Where research requires that information be withheld from participants, ethics approval
will only be given under the following conditions:
29.1
if withholding of information is absolutely essential to the integrity of
the research;
29.2
and if a case can be made for the research as having exceptional value;
29.3
and if potential harm arising from the withholding of information can be
effectively neutralised or reversed by debriefing procedures.
20
30.
Withholding information about specific purpose or methods of the study at outset is
acceptable provided all other information is fully available. [See (b) above]
31.
Covert observation (ie gathering information about, observing, listening to and
recording participants without their knowledge and/or when their informed consent for
such activities has not been sought) should only be resorted to in exceptional
circumstances and if no other method of meeting research objectives is possible. In
these cases, consent should be sought from the participants after the observations are
completed.
(d)
Right to withdraw without penalty
32.
(e)
You should inform participants at the outset of the study that they have the right to
withdraw at any time without penalty. This is of particular importance where clients,
patients or other potentially vulnerable groups are involved, some of whom may be
concerned about subsequent preferential or prejudicial treatment or care. Children
and/or parents/teachers acting on their behalf, should have the same rights of
withdrawal as other participants.
Confidentiality and anonymity
33.
Except with the consent of the participant, you are required to ensure confidentiality
and anonymity of the participant's identity and data. Data should be worked upon and
stored in encoded form, without the participant's name attached. It should be available
only to specified researchers, for the purpose for which it was collected, and not used
more widely without consent.
34.
In publication care should be taken to ensure that the identity of the participant
remains anonymous. However unrealistic assurances should be guarded against. It
may not always be possible to completely disguise the identity of a participant, for
example within a small scale or organisational setting.
35.
Thought must be given to the practicalities of secure, long term storage of data and its
ultimate disposal. It is customary for research data to be kept for 5yrs following
publication of results , and for 15yrs in the case of clinical data. Researchers are
reminded that in some of these respects they are bound by the Data Protection Act.xxi
(f)
Protection from harm
36.
You must endeavour to protect research participants from physical and psychological
harm at all times during the investigation. Researchers and co-workers must also be
protected from harm while carrying out research duties. Principal investigators,
Supervisors and Directors of Studies have a particular responsibility in advising those
working for or with them or under their guidance in this respect.
21
37.
Experiments should be designed so that the results and processes are periodically
reviewed so as to ensure there are no harmful effects
38.
Provision must be made for follow up of new therapeutic or experimental procedures
which may have long term effects
39.
Participants and researchers must be fully informed in advance of and protected
against, hazardous and stressful contexts and procedures. Applications for ethics
approval must describe how this will be achieved and what procedures, practical,
medical or therapeutic, will be available to protect and assist the participant and
researcher should they fail.
40.
The application should consider the safety of all those involved in the research process,
and specifically those required to work in isolated or potentially dangerous contexts.xxii
41.
The research must be immediately halted or modified in the event of evidence of harm
arising from it and the University Research Ethics Committee immediately informed.
(g)
Briefing and debriefing
42.
You should provide the participant with adequate information about the purpose of the
research in advance and where applicable and practicable, as it proceeds. (see (b)
above) Where possible, the participant should be informed of the intended outcomes
of the research and how they will be used.
43.
Where debriefing occurs you should, if practicable, also inform participants of actual
outcomes of the research.
(h)
Reimbursement, payments and rewards
44.
You should clearly state in advance any arrangements to reimburse participants for
expenses or loss of earnings, and set money aside for this purpose. Incentives,
additional payments and rewards must be justified and likewise honoured.
45.
The principle aim of payments is to recognise time spent and inconvenience caused
rather than to induce participation
(i)
Suitability/experience of researcher
46.
Your submission should indicate that those who will oversee, supervise and conduct
the research are suitable for, have experience of or will be trained to do, the work in
hand. You should also indicate who will take responsibility in the event of any
emergency.
22
47.
Thought should be given to suitability, experience and training of researchers in regard
to working in sensitive subjects areas, to potentially intrusive research methods and
interventions and with potentially vulnerable participants.
(j)
The design and method of analysis is appropriate to address the research
question
48.
You should provide a brief description of the research design and method of analysis
to show how the research question is to be addressed. If the study involves a survey
or experimental study of a sample of participants please state the number and
relevant characteristics of the participants (inclusion and exclusion criteria) and how
they are to be selected.
49.
If the study is experimental, you should specify how the sample size was determined.
It is important in such studies to ensure that the study has sufficient power to be able
to answer the research question. The required sample size must be calculated prior
to the start of the study. The power calculation should be provided, if necessary, with
the help of a statistician. For example in a clinical trial the sample size must be large
enough to give the study sufficient power to find a clinically important difference
between the groups, if it exists.
(k)
Ethics standards of external bodies and institutions (if appropriate)
50.
The permission of external bodies is required where research involves the use of their
resources. If applicable, you must follow the ethics standards and procedures of
external bodies if the research is conducted in institutional settings, for example
hospitals, schools, prisons etc. Ethics codes must also be followed in regard to
membership of professional or regulatory bodies related to the research.xxiii
(l)
Reporting on ethical issues throughout
51.
You should incorporate discussion of ethical issues into interim reports. It is expected
that Directors of Studies, Supervisors and students will do this as a part of annual
monitoring reports. Sponsored projects should cover such issues as part of
requirements from their sponsoring body.
(m)
Research for client organisations/consultancy
52.
Because of uncertainty and sometimes conflicting interpretations of ethical dimensions
to research, you should discuss these issues (alongside all other aspects of the
research) with clients during the joint planning stage of a project, and agree them in
writing before work proceeds.
23
53.
Any changes which may have ethical implications should be noted, and further
clarification sought if necessary. If unethical practice is encountered advice must be
sought from supervisors or the UREC.
54.
Researchers should also clarify in advance ownership and access to data and rights to
publish findings.xxiv Researchers must retain sufficient data to enable them to fulfil
academic and ethical obligations.
(n)
Modification of proposal
55.
Ethics approval is given on the basis of the submitted proposal. Further changes which
substantially affect any aspect laid down in these Procedures must be re-notified for
further approval.
(o)
Intended dissemination
56.
You should advise participants how, when and in what form you intended to
disseminate the findings of the research. Where practicable participants should be sent
information about the actual findings when they are available.
INDEMNITY COVER FOR STAFF, STUDENTS AND UNIVERSITY EMPLOYED RESEARCH
WORKERS
57.
If you work with human participants as part of your research, employment or studies at
the University, and you have followed these Procedures and received ethics approval
from the Faculty Research Committee you will in most circumstances be covered by
the University's Clinical Trial indemnity cover.xxv
58.
Those covered include:
59.
58.1
employees involved in contract research;
58.2
students who carry out research with human participants as part of their
studies;
58.3
students undertaking research on placements made by the University unless
the Host Organisation is providing the insurance such as NHS Trusts.
Those who are not covered include:
59.1
staff or student members of the University, who do not apply for or
who do not receive approval from a suitable ethics committee;
59.2
employees of the University who are engaged in private research/consultancy;
24
59.3
60.
students who are injured whilst acting as research participants in contexts or
institutions outside the scope of the University.
Disciplinary action may be taken against students and staff who do not follow
University requirements.
Footnotes to the Ethics Committee Procedures for the Conduct of Research
ii
These Procedures, which were updated in 2002, came into being as a result of the deliberations of The
Research Ethics Working Group which met between October 1995 and March 1996, and as a result of
intensive consultation throughout the University. The working group also drew upon ethics statements
from a number of external bodies and institutions, and gratefully acknowledges the following:
La Trobe University (1994) Manual of Policy and Procedures for Ethical Review and (1994) Ethics
Approval for Research with Human Subjects Victoria, Australia;
Kings College, London (1995) Procedure for Obtaining Approval of Research Ethics Committee for
Research Involving Human Subjects;
Cheltenham & Gloucester College of Higher Education (1995) Ethical principles and Procedures for
Research with Human Participants;
University of Plymouth (1995) Ethical Principles for Research Involving Human Participants;
The British Sociological Association (1992) Statement of Ethical Practice. Sociology 26 [4]
703-7.
iii
The phrase 'human subject' is commonly used in the field of ethics where a person or persons are the
focus of study as opposed to other possible subjects, i.e. animals. It encompasses persons as
participants in all kinds of research, including that using qualitative methods (for example interviews,
focus groups, observation) and quantitative and experimental methods (for example questionnaires,
surveys, and randomised control trials). It is not intended to denigrate people or imply that they are the
passive objects of the research process. The word ‘participant’ is preferred everyday usage, particularly in
direct communication.
iv
For example, see E-Health Ethics Draft Code, Journal of Medical Internet Research (2000) E2:
http://www.jmir.org/2000/1/e2/
v
Barnes has defined ethics decisions in research as 'those which arise when we try to decide between
one course of action or another not in terms of expediency or efficiency but by reference to standards of
what is morally right or wrong', J.A. Barnes (1979:16) Who should know what? Harmondsworth: Penguin.
As May points out, while this distinction between expediency and standards is helpful, it begs many
questions. Knowledge is not simply a politically neutral product, therefore decisions will depend upon the
values of researchers and their communities. These values will inform all aspects of the research
process, from negotiation between participants [5] and the sample that is chosen, to the methodologies
and forms of dissemination that are adopted. T. May (1993) Social Research. Issues, methods and
processes: Buckingham: Open University Press.
While ethics frameworks vary, Alderson notes that they all draw upon some combination of the duties of
the researcher (to be just, to have respect for autonomy, to do no harm) the rights of the individual (to
non-interference, to treatment and resources, to protection from harm, to self determination) and a wider
utilitarian ethic of risk/benefit equation (to reduce harm, increase benefit, the prioritising of interests, the
meaning and effects of inclusion in and exclusion from research). P. Alderson (1995) Listening to
Children. Children, ethics and social research. London: Barnardo's.
25
A very useful overview of the role of research ethics committees, can be found in J. Neuberger (1992)
Ethics and Health Care: The role of research ethics committees in the United Kingdom. London: Kings
Fund
vi
The term 'participant' in research has a wide definition. Here it is taken to include both those who are
participants of research [2] and those responsible for and/or undertaking the research as well as, where
appropriate, participating groups, bodies and institutions.
vii
University Code of Conduct: Treating Colleagues and Students with Dignity, Courtesy and Respect
(January 2002)
viii
Legal obligations as set out in 55-57
ix
For example the Economic and Social Research Council (1996) requires explicit consideration of
ethical issues in applications for funded research, including 'at a minimum, honesty to research staff and
participants about the purpose, methods and intended and possible uses or the research and any risks
involved; confidentiality of information supplied by research participants and anonymity of respondents;
independence and impartiality of researchers to the subject of research'; The European Union requires
applicants for research funds involving human subjects to observe the largely medically defined
Declaration of Helsinki (1964/1989) in the Handbook of Declaration, Ferney-Voltaire: World Medical
Association. This states that research of this kind should be reviewed by an ethics committee; that
protocols should describe what ethical issues are at stake; that reports of 'experimentation' not in accord
with the Declaration should not be accepted for publication.
x
Students undertaking doctorates will consult with their Director of Studies and students undertaking
taught, research and undergraduate degrees will consult with their Supervisor.
xi
British Educational Research Association, British Sociological Association, etc.
xii
Those whose research falls into these categories must contact the Director of the Centre for Health &
Social Care, The Research and Development Services Office, for guidance on LREC approval.
xiii
The University also accepts as equivalent, positive ethics approval from properly constituted ethics
committees of other universities and professional bodies.
Participants might belong to ‘vulnerable’ groups or might become vulnerable as a result of the data
they are asked to provide or methods used in the research. Under the 1998 Data Protection Act (part i:
2) ‘sensitive personal data’ is defined as information about a person’s:
xiv
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
racial or ethnic origins
political beliefs
religious or similar beliefs
membership of a trade union
physical or mental health or condition
sexual life
offences or alleged offences
any proceedings or sentence in connection with an offence
26
xv
It should be noted that personal data collected for research purposes is exempt from some
provisions of the 1998 Data Protection Act (part iv: 33 (1)) provided that (a) personal data are not
processed to ‘support measures or decisions with respect to particular individuals’ and (b) that
personal data are not processed ‘in such a way that substantial damage or substantial distress is, or is
likely to be, caused to any data subject’. Exemptions allow personal data collected for research
purposes to be:
(part iv:33 (2)) subject to further processing for research purposes only
(part iv:33 (3)) kept indefinitely.
(part iv:33 (4)) exempt from the rights of data subjects and others to access to personal data (part ii:7)
(provided that such data are properly processed (see (a) (b) above) and that the results are not
made available in a form which identifies data subjects)
xvi
Where data is not collected direct from the data participant, the data controller is still under a duty
to ensure that the appropriate participant information notice has been given or he must give the notice
within a reasonable time of commencing processing activity. There are limited exceptions where the
data is sourced from a third party, the data controller may not need to give notice if this would involve
disproportionate effort or if the disclosure is required by law. If the data controller intends to rely on the
disproportionate effort argument, then he must keep a record of the decision and the reasons for it.
xvii
In certain circumstances assent can be given for the participation of an adult, ie of 18 years and over,
and whether or not of full mental capacity. If such necessity arises in University research individual cases
must be referred to the University Secretary before ethics approval is sought.
Once a participant is 16 they are deemed able to give consent for therapeutic procedures without
obtaining the consent of parents or guardians. In the case of non-therapeutic procedures most LRECS
advice parental consent up to the age of 18. While consent of parents/guardians must be obtained for
those aged under 16, it is now widely felt that consent can and should also be sought from young people
and from younger age groups. At whatever age consent is sought the young person should be judged
‘Gillick competent’: as having sufficient understanding and intelligence to enable them to understand fully
what is proposed.
The Children Act for England and Wales (1989) is mainly concerned with children in need of local
authority services. Discussing the child mostly in the context of parental responsibilities and rights it also
makes reference to their 'ascertainable wishes and feelings' and their right to refuse consent in certain
circumstances. Dept of Health (1991) The Children Act (1989). London: HMSO.
xviii
'Imbalance of power' is used here to mean imbalances whereby one person has access to wider
experience and knowledge, or access to greater powers of authority or control, or where one person
might be at a disadvantage because of physical or mental dependence or incapacity in any way that
influences their ability to freely consent or dissent to, and how they participate in the research process.
May [4] suggests that almost all social and medical research is 'unbalanced' in this respect, since the
researcher has prior agendas and knowledge and access to forms of analysis, cross-referencing and
communication not available to participants. Further, it is often less powerful groups who are selected as
research participants in the first place.
xix
More detailed discussion concerning research with children can be found in: V. Morrow and M.
Richards, 'The ethics of social research with children' Children and Society (July 1996); R.Nicholson
(1986) (ed) Medical Research with Children: Ethics, Law and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
and P. Alderson (1995) Listening to Children. Children, ethics and social research. London: Barnardo's.
xx
'Gatekeepers' are defined by May [4] as 'those who control access to the information which the
researcher seeks. It is used here to also mean those who control access to persons who the researcher
27
would like contact as participants of the research. This includes both informal and formal gatekeepers
who determine access to persons in their care and control, for example as parents, carers, teachers,
doctors, at home, and in hospitals, schools and prisons, by virtue of personal relations, kinship, age,
incapacity or legal requirements.
Data Protection Act (2000) – further advice can be obtained from the Office of the Information
Commissioner or on the website www.dataprotection.gov.uk
xxi
xxii
Health and Safety at Work Act (1974) See Health and Safety Executive ((1990) Guide to the Health
and Safety at Work Act (1974). London: HMSO.
xxiii
See for example: Department of Health (1991) Local Research Ethics Committees, Lancashire:
Health Publications Unit; United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting
(1992) Code of Conduct. London: UKCC
xxiv
See Making a Bid for External Research Funding, Anglia Ruskin University. Available from the
Research and Development Services Office, Chelmsford.
xxv
More detailed advice/guidance on aspects concerning insurance should be sought from the
University Secretary’s Office. Advice should also be sought on ethics consent as applied to non-UK
based research projects which are done through Anglia Ruskin University.
28
6.
Faculty Annual Monitoring
6.1
The Annual Monitoring process is intended to ensure that students are
progressing at an appropriate rate through their studies. It provides an
opportunity for the student and the supervisory team to assess the progress
made during the previous twelve months and to ensure that training is
undertaken at the appropriate stage and to agree the objectives for the
forthcoming year.
6.2
An annual monitoring form is required to be completed in every year of a
student’s registration. This shall be completed with the assistance of the
supervisory team. Notes of guidance on completing the annual monitoring form
are available from Research and Development Services and are sent out with the
annual monitoring form. The Annual Monitoring report form is included as part of
the student’s Research Development Portfolio.
6.3
The Annual Monitoring procedures require:

6.4
The timetable for the process is set out below:









6.5
completion of the Annual Monitoring Report form (Appendix 11), which
is sent out to the First Supervisor (Director of Studies) by Research
and Development Services;
a Faculty Monitoring meeting (except where the student is subject to
either approval or confirmation of candidature processes).
Distribution of documentation by Research and Development Services
Office to First Supervisor (Director of Studies). (June 2005)
Consultation of First Supervisor (Director of Studies) with other members
of the supervisory team
Review meeting with research student
Completion of annual monitoring report (AMR) by First Supervisor
(Director of Studies), including comments from research student
Return signed AMR to Research Office, Research and Development
Services Office by 31 August 2005 for recording on SITS
Supervisory team and student return AMR to the panel review team at
least 7 working days prior to the annual panel meeting
Hold annual panel meeting
Remedial action by Associate Dean/Director of Research (by end of
November 2005)
Consideration of Associate Deans/Directors of Research synoptic reports
by appropriate FRDSC (by December 2005)
Synoptic report of annual monitoring process by University Director of
Research and Graduate Studies (Prof John Davies) to Research Degrees
Committee and Senate.
It is the responsibility of the First Supervisor (Director of Studies) to complete the
Annual Monitoring report form, taking into account the salient points discussed
with the supervisory team. The Annual Monitoring Report form should also
indicate the extent to which it is thought that the student’s skills meet the
requirements of the Research Councils’ Joint Statement on Research Skills.
This should be monitored through the skills diagnostic form which is appended to
the Annual Monitoring Report form. The completed form should be signed by the
First Supervisor (Director of Studies) and the student and returned to Research
29
and Development Services, who will then send a copy to the Faculty Director of
Research for their comments.
30
6.6
The completed forms shall be submitted to a sub-group of the Faculty Research
Degrees Sub Committee comprising:


The Head of Department
The Supervisory Team
The Faculty Director of Research
6.7
The completed forms shall be circulated to members of the sub-group no later
than 48 hours before the meeting.
6.8
The Faculty Annual Monitoring meetings will include:

6.9
a short presentation by students on the progress of their research,
their plans for completion including detailed plans for the forthcoming
year and the development of research skills.
questions from the members of the sub-group including a discussion
of progress in the last twelve months and recommended actions for
the forthcoming year.
The Faculty Annual Monitoring Sub-Group may request a separate discussion
with members of the supervisory team and/or the student as appropriate.
6.10 The Sub-Group will identify any additional training from which the student may
benefit and any actions to be taken to further enhance the student’s research.
These shall be recorded on the Annual Monitoring Report form. The Faculty
Director of Research will sign the Annual Monitoring From at the conclusion of
the meeting to approve continued registration and will be responsible for
implementing any necessary remedial action.
6.11 Each Faculty will produce an overview report, based on a template provided by
Research and Development Services. These reports will be considered by the
Faculty Research Degrees Sub Committees at their autumn meetings and will be
used as a basis for drafting the University Annual Research Monitoring Report
which is considered by the Research Degrees Committee and Senate each year.
7.
Confirmation of Candidature
Procedure
7.1
All candidates for PhD are required to apply for confirmation of candidature
normally two years after registration for full time candidates and three years
after registration for part time candidates.
7.2
All candidates seeking confirmation of candidature must have either attended, or
made arrangements to attend, Stage 2 of the University’s Research Training
Programme.
7.3
To apply for confirmation of candidature, all candidates are required to submit to
the appropriate Faculty Research Degrees Sub Committee Secretary six weeks
prior to the date of the meeting:
a) a progress report of no more than 3,000 words. The progress report should
include:
31



a clarification of the gap in knowledge that the research seeks to
address;
a description of the context of the research and how it relates to other
work in the discipline;
a statement of the likely original contribution to knowledge;
an outline of the programme of study and methodology;



a critical review of the research undertaken to date;
an indicative thesis structure;
an action plan detailing the necessary steps to completion.

b) two examples of doctoral level work in progress. These examples could take
the form of two draft chapters, publications, or other material relevant to the
discipline. Taken together these examples should demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Faculty Research Degrees Sub Committee:


evidence of originality in the research;
a significant contribution to knowledge;
the potential for a successful outcome at doctoral level.
c) completed form RD4. This document must be endorsed by the First
Supervisor (Director of Studies) and identify an appropriate internal referee. If
there is no one within the University with the necessary knowledge and
expertise an external referee must be sought. The Chair of the Faculty
Research Degrees Sub Committee shall be responsible for determining
whether or not an external referee is required.
7.4
To assist candidates in the preparation of the progress report an ‘audit tool’ is
available from Research and Development Services and from the research
website. There is, however, no formal requirement to use the ‘audit tool’.
7.5
On receipt, the Secretary shall send the documentation to the identified internal
referee and a member of the Faculty Research Degrees sub Committee for
assessment. Assessors shall be invited to comment on specific issues, as
indicated on form RD13 (Appendix 13). These comments shall be circulated to
the Sub Committee prior to the meeting and will form the basis of its discussion
and decision. If there is no one within the University with the necessary
knowledge and expertise to act as referee, an external referee should be sought.
The Chair of the FRDSC shall determine whether an external referee is required.
7.6
The Sub Committee shall normally consider form RD4, the progress report and
the written comments of the referees. Decisions shall be communicated in
writing to the candidate and all members of the Supervisory Team. Feedback
shall normally include the detailed comments of the internal and external
assessors.
7.7
The Secretary to the Faculty Research Degrees Sub Committee shall also
inform the Secretary to the Research Degrees Committee of the outcome using
form RD14 (Appendix 14).
32
8.
9.
Withdrawal
8.1
Students may withdraw from their studies at any time.
8.2
Students wishing to withdraw from their studies are required to notify the
Secretary to the Faculty Research Degrees Sub Committee by completing form
R1 (Appendix 17), available from the Secretary to the Sub Committee or from the
Research and Development Services website.
8.3
All withdrawals are reported to the Faculty Research Degrees Sub Committee.
Following the meeting of the Sub Committee the Secretary will inform both the
Registry and the Secretary to the Research Degrees Committee of the
withdrawal.
8.4
The Research Degrees Committee will note all research student withdrawals.
8.5
In cases where the contact with a student has become limited and progress is
imperceptible, the Secretary to the Faculty Research Degrees Sub Committee
will write to the candidate at their last known address asking them to re-establish
contact with their supervisor by a given date. If no reply has been received by
the deadline the student should be withdrawn using the procedures set out
above.
Intermission
9.1
Intermission may be requested by a student if it has become necessary for them
to take a break from their studies for a certain period.
9.2
Students who wish to intermit from their studies must seek approval from the
Faculty Research Degrees Sub Committee, prior to the date of commencement
of the intermission. Requests to intermit should be made by the student
completing form R1B (Appendix 16) available from the Secretary to the Faculty
Research Degrees Sub Committee or from Registration Services in Registry.
9.3
Intermissions shall normally be granted for a period of up to six months. Further
periods of intermission may be granted by the Faculty Research Degrees Sub
Committee, provided the student has submitted a further formal request.
9.4
If the Faculty Research Degrees Sub Committee agrees to the intermission it will
need to decide on the length and agree a date by which the student will be
expected to resume their studies.
9.5
The Secretary to the Faculty Research Degrees Sub Committee will write to the
student informing them of the decision and will notify Registry by completing form
R1, to ensure that no fees are charged during the period of intermission.
9.6
During the period of intermission the student should not have access to the
Library, C&ITS or their supervisors.
9.7
If the Faculty Research Degrees Sub Committee does not approve the request
for intermission, the student will be liable for the full level of fees.
9.8
The Secretary to the Faculty Research Degrees Sub Committee will write to the
student, with copies to all members of the supervisory team, towards the end of
the period of intermission to confirm that the student intends to resume their
studies on the given date.
33
10.
Change of Supervisory Team
10.1 There may be occasions when a research student requests a change in the
composition of their supervisory team, for example, to address a gap in the
subject expertise of the team that may have become apparent as the studies
progressed. There may also be cases where there has been a breakdown in the
working relationship between the student and the supervisor. Though this may
require sensitivity, all changes to the supervisory team must be approved by the
Faculty Director of Research.
10.2 Supervisors can neither volunteer themselves for, nor resign from, their role as
supervisors without the approval of the Faculty Director of Research.
10.3 Students or supervisors should notify the Secretary to the Faculty Research
Degrees Sub Committee of proposed changes to a supervisory team using form
RD2 (Appendix 17), available from the Secretary or from the Research and
Development Services website. Form RD1.2 providing a brief CV of the person
being proposed to join the Supervisory Team should be attached to form RD2.
10.4 The proposal should be considered by the Faculty Research Degrees Sub
Committee and the Secretary should write to the student following the meeting to
confirm the change in the supervisory team.
11.
Extension to Period of Registration
11.1 As stated in paragraph 3.12 the date of approval is normally backdated to the
date of registration.
11.2 The minimum and maximum periods of registration within which the thesis must
be submitted are set out in Section 4 of the Research Degrees Regulations.
Full-time PhD students are required to submit within 60 months of the date of
registration and part-time PhD and Professional Doctorate students within 72
months of the date of registration.
11.3 If a student does not complete their research degree within the stated period,
they are required to request an extension of their registration, by completing form
RD3 (Appendix 18), available from the Secretary to the Faculty Research
Degrees Sub Committee or from the Research and Development Services
website.
11.4 Requests for extensions to the period of registration will be considered by the
Faculty Research Degrees Sub Committee. Extensions are normally granted for
no more than six months at a time. Extensions should not be granted without
sufficient evidence that the student is moving towards completion. If there is
insufficient evidence of progress the Faculty Research Degrees Sub Committee
may decide that the student should be withdrawn.
11.5 The Secretary to the Faculty Research Degrees Sub Committee will write to the
student to notify them of the Sub Committee’s decision.
34
12.
Preparation and Submission of the Thesis
12.1 The technical specifications for the research degree thesis are set out in Section
7 of the Research Degrees Regulations. It is the responsibility of the supervisor
to draw the student’s attention to these regulations.
12.2 The Academic Secretariat of the Academic and Quality Systems Office will
inform the research student of the procedure to be followed for the submission of
the thesis, including the number of copies to be submitted for the examination
and any conditions which must be satisfied before the student may be
considered eligible for the examination.
12.3 Research students must ensure that the thesis is submitted to the Academic
Secretariat before the expiry of the registration period.
Declaration
12.4 All research students are required to confirm, by completing a declaration form,
RD9 (Appendix 19), available from the Academic Secretariat, or on the Research
and Development Services website, that the thesis has not been submitted for a
comparable academic award. Students are not precluded from incorporating in
the thesis, covering a wider field, work which has already been submitted for a
degree or comparable award, provided that it is indicated on the declaration form
and also in the thesis, which work has been so incorporated.
12.5 The submission of the thesis for examination is at the sole discretion of the
student. While a student would be unwise to submit the thesis for examination
against the advice of the First Supervisor (Director of Studies), it is still their right
to do so. Equally, a student should not assume that a First Supervisor (Director
of Studies) agreement to the submission of the thesis guarantees the award of
the degree.
Mitigating Circumstances
12.6 Students may bring any mitigating circumstances which may have affected their
research work to the attention of the examiners by writing to the Secretary to the
Research Degrees Committee, prior to the oral examination.
12.7 However, in many circumstances, the First Supervisor (Director of Studies), will
be aware of any problems their candidate is experiencing and may request a
deferral of the oral examination.
12.8 In all cases a statement of mitigating circumstances shall be supported by
appropriate evidence. The Secretary to the Research Degrees Committee, on
receipt of the claim, which should be submitted in a sealed envelope marked
‘Confidential – to be opened in the event of failure’ will pass the envelope to the
Chair of the Examination panel. The Chair of the Examination panel will inform
the Examiners at the end of the oral examination of the claim, and before a
decision on the outcome of the examination is agreed. The sealed envelope will
be returned to the student at the end of the examination if it has not been
necessary to open the envelope.
12.9 Mitigating circumstances which could have been brought to the attention of the
examiners will only, in very exceptional circumstances, be admitted later as
grounds for a review.
35
Confidentiality
12.8 Where the University’s Research Degrees Committee has approved a student’s
request for confidentiality of the thesis, the examiners and the Chair will be
required to sign a Confidentiality Agreement and to return copies of the thesis to
the student at the conclusion of the examination. These obligations do not apply
to any information which is public knowledge at the time of its disclosure.
13.
Nomination of Examiners
13.1 Following a candidate’s successful confirmation of candidature, the examiners
should be proposed by the supervisory team, in consultation with the candidate
by completing form RD5 (Appendix 20 available from the Research and
Development Services website).
13.2 It is the responsibility of the supervisory team to make an informal approach to
the potential examiners to ascertain their interest and availability. If they agree to
act as an examiner, a recent CV should be requested.
13.3 Students will normally be examined by one external and one internal examiner or
two external examiners where no suitable internal examiner is available. Where
a student is a member of staff of the University or a partner institution, two
external examiners will be required. Where more than two examiners are
appointed, the majority are generally from outside the University.
13.4 Both internal and external examiners must be independent and have not had any
direct involvement in the student’s work.
13.5 Former members of staff of the University will not normally be approved as
external examiners until three years after the termination of their employment
with the University.
13.6 An internal examiner is defined as an examiner who is:
 a member of staff of the University or partner institution
or
 a member of staff of the student’s Collaborating Establishment
13.7 Examiners shall normally possess a PhD, 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.
13.8 At least one supervisor shall have substantial experience of examining research
degree candidates (i.e. normally have examined at least three research degree
students). In an examination for a professional doctorate at least one external
examiner shall have substantial experience of examining professional doctorate
candidates.
13.9 Normally an external examiner shall examine no more than three research
degree students over a period of three years.
13.10 Once the examiner’s CV has been received, this should be sent with the RD5
form signed by the student’s First Supervisor (Director of Studies), to the Chair
of the Faculty Research Degrees Sub Committee for recommendation of
approval.
36
13.11 Once approved by the Chair of the Faculty Research Degrees Sub Committee
the RD5 and CVs should be sent to the Secretary to the Research Degrees
Committee, for approval at the next meeting, or by Chair’s action where the
need for consideration is urgent.
14.
Postgraduate Research Training Framework
14.1
15.
In accordance with the Joint Statement by the Research Councils/AHRB
(2003), students are required to have attended or made arrangements to attend
all elements of the University’s generic three-stage research training framework
and all compulsory elements of the Faculty’s research training programme.
The Viva Voce Examination
The Chair
15.1 Each examination will be chaired by a member (or nominee) of the University’s
Research Degrees Committee. The role of the Chair is to ensure that the
assessment processes are operated rigorously, fairly, reliably and consistently
and to offer advice (if needed) on the examination process. The Chair has a
neutral role in the assessment process and takes no part in the actual
assessment of the research. He/she should not be called upon for specialist
discipline knowledge, but for knowledge and interpretation of regulations,
procedures, policy and practice. The Chair will be responsible for hosting the
examination on behalf of the University.
The Supervisor(s)
15.2 Each candidate is permitted to have his/her supervisor(s) in attendance during
the examination (at the discretion of the candidate). Some candidates may
choose not to have a supervisor present. Supervisors, where present, act only
as observers, unless invited to comment by the examiners and will normally
withdraw before the examiners agree their recommendation.
The Interpreter (in respect of Israeli candidates)
15.3 The academic arrangements for the International PhD Programme require the
examination to be conducted in English and candidates are permitted to use an
interpreter who shall be appointed by the University. The role of the interpreter
is to assist the candidate and the examiners, as necessary, in interpreting from
Hebrew to English or English to Hebrew. Most candidates have a good
command of English and verbatim translation is not required. The candidate will
be introduced to the interpreter briefly before the start of the examination.
Interpreters are sent a copy of the Abstract and Contents Pages from the
candidate’s thesis before the examination to assist them in preparing for the
examination.
Other Participants
15.4 The University’s Regulations provide that supervisors, advisers and the Chair of
the Research Degrees Committee may, at the discretion of the candidate, be
present in the examination room for the examination. Anyone attending in this
role is an observer and will withdraw before the examiners agree their
recommendation.
37
General Procedure and Timetable for the Examination
15.5 The Academic Secretariat will agree a mutually convenient date for the
examination with the candidate, the examiners, the candidate’s First Supervisor
(Director of Studies) and the Chair.
15.6 The candidate is responsible for submitting three copies of the thesis in a semipermanent bindingxxvi to the Academic Secretariat. It is not possible to finalise
the examination arrangements, including the date of the examination, until the
thesis has been submitted to the University.
15.7 Copies of the thesis will be dispatched to the examiners with the University
Research Degrees Regulations. Examiners will be contacted by the Academic
Secretariat to arrange a date for the examination which will normally be 6-8
weeks after submission of the thesis.
15.8 On the examination day the examiners are normally invited to lunch at the
University and given the opportunity to hold a pre-examination meeting. A
candidate’s Supervisor [usually the First Supervisor (Director of Studies)] and the
Dean of Faculty (or his/her nominee) may also attend the lunch. The formal
examination follows lunch. When it is more convenient for the examination to be
held in the morning a lunch is normally provided at the conclusion of the
examination.
Confidential Theses
15.9 Where the University’s Research Degrees Committee has approved a
candidate’s request for confidentiality of the thesis, the examiners and the chair
will be required to sign a Confidentiality Agreement and to return copies of the
thesis to the candidate at the conclusion of the examination. These obligations
do not apply to any information which is public knowledge at the time of its
disclosure.
Examiners' Reports
Preliminary Reports
15.10 The preliminary reports of the examiners must be written without consultation
between the examiners and should provide sufficiently detailed comment on
the scope and quality of the work for the University to satisfy itself that its
criteria for the award have been met. Form RD6 or RD7 [or RD7(a)] are
provided for this purpose and should be completed and returned to the
Academic Secretariat at least five working days prior to the date of the
examination. (Forms RD6, RD7 and RD7(a) are included as Appendices 21,
22 and 23)
15.11 If, having read the thesis, the examiners are of the opinion that it is so
unsatisfactory that no useful purpose would be served by conducting an oral
examination, they may recommend that the Research Degrees Committee
dispense with the oral examination and refer the thesis for further work. In
such cases the examiners shall provide the Research Degrees Committee with
written guidance for the candidate concerning the deficiencies of the thesis.
The examiners shall not recommend that a candidate fail outright without
holding an oral examination or other alternative examination.
xxvi
For example, comb-binding or glue-binding
38
Final Report
15.12 After examination, the examiners should, where they are in agreement,
complete a joint report and recommendation for the award of the degree on
form RD8. The report, together with written details of amendments, should be
returned to the Academic Secretariat as soon as possible and within 10
working days of the oral examination. The examiners’ preliminary reports and
joint recommendation must, together, provide sufficiently detailed comments on
the scope and quality of the work to justify the chosen recommendation.
15.13 If the examiners are not in agreement, separate reports and recommendations
must be submitted using form RD8. (Forms RD8 for MPhil, PhD and
professional doctorates are included as Appendices 24, 25 and 26).
15.14 If the examiners wish to refer the candidate and require a re-examination, they
must make clear on the day of the examination and in the final examiners’
report, what is needed to correct the deficiencies and the timescale for
completion of the necessary work.
15.15 Where the examiners decide that the degree be not awarded and that no reexamination be permitted, the examiners shall prepare an agreed statement of
the deficiencies of the thesis and the reason for their recommendation, which
shall be forwarded to the candidate by the Secretary to the Research Degrees
Committee.
15.16 The Examiners' Preliminary and Final Recommendations will be considered by
the Research Degrees Committee (or the Chair acting on behalf of the
Committee) once the examination (including any re-submission) has been
completed.
15.17 The Academic Secretariat is responsible for writing to the candidate after the
examination to confirm the outcome of the examination and for sending details
of amendments which the examiners require to be made to the thesis.
Examiners should not enter into direct communication with a candidate either
before or after the examination.
The Viva Voce Examination
Conduct of the Viva Voce Examination
15.18 The conduct of the viva voce examination is entirely a matter for the academic
judgement of the examiners, though the following University guidance may be
helpful.
15.19 The pre-examination meeting provides the examiners with a valuable
opportunity to discuss the preliminary reports, identify the strengths and
weaknesses of the thesis and agree with the Chair the structure and process of
the viva.
15.20 The first stage of the viva is normally used to establish rapport and dispel any
natural nervousness. The candidate should feel relaxed and able to defend the
thesis in a rational and logical manner. Examiners are expected to behave
towards the candidate in a courteous and non-aggressive manner and to give
credit to the candidate’s work where this is appropriate.
39
15.21 During the oral examination, the examiners of MPhil and PhD theses will wish to
identify successful aspects of the research, discuss with the candidate major
questions and interpretations raised in the work, as well as the possibilities for
scholarly publication.
15.22 Examiners of professional doctorate theses will wish to identify the nature of
engagement by candidates with the re-defining and development of
professional practice in their respective contexts. The thesis must have the
equivalence to the PhD in terms of scholarship, specificity, critical comment,
intellectual argument and presentation.
15.23 In addition, the examiners can use the viva to examine and, if possible, resolve
any problems or weaknesses in the candidate's research. If the standard of
presentation is poor in terms of proof reading, or basic grammar, spelling,
punctuation and the use of statistics, the candidate may be given a list of
indicative corrections to be carried out after the viva. In extreme cases, the
candidate may be required to re-submit a corrected and re-typed thesis.
15.24 At the conclusion of the viva the candidate (and supervisor if present) shall
leave the room. The Chair will remain to advise the examiners, if necessary,
on the options available to them in accordance with the Regulations.
15.25 Examiners should note that the University strongly encourages postgraduate
research students to participate actively in conferences and seminars and
publish their research during and after their candidature.
After the Viva Voce Examination
Announcement of the decision
15.26 The examiners may indicate to the candidate their decision to recommend the
award at any stage in the proceedings or wait to the end of the viva.
15.27 Once the examiners have agreed their recommendation on the candidate’s
viva the Chair will invite the candidate, supervisor and, in the case of an Israeli
candidate, the interpreter to return to discuss the outcome of the examination.
15.28 The following options are available:Award of MPhil or PhD
That the award of PhD or MPhil be made without the need for any
amendments.
Minor Amendments
The award of PhD or MPhil be made subject to minor amendments being
made to the thesis. This would normally include editorial corrections, or
providing additional explanatory information which the candidate could
normally be expected to complete within a one month timescale.
40
Re-submission of Thesis
The candidate be permitted to resubmit for the degree and be reexamined, with or without an oral examination. Normally, one resubmission, with or without a second viva voce examination, is allowed by
the University. A candidate required to resubmit his/her thesis would
normally be expected to have to carry out substantial corrections and/or
additional or new work, re-order chapters etc. In this case the candidate
may be given up to 12 months to revise and resubmit his/her thesis.
In these circumstances, it is important that the examiners’ report clearly
includes: the deficiencies in the thesis
 the remedial action required (including any additional research or
experimental work)
 the agreed time-scale to carry out this additional work.
Award of MPhil to PhD Candidate
The PhD candidate be awarded the degree of MPhil provided the criteria
for the award of MPhil have been met and subject to the presentation of
the thesis amended to the satisfaction of the examiners.
The Degree be Not Awarded
That the candidate be not awarded the degree of MPhil or PhD and be not
permitted to be re-examined.
Completion of Recommendation Form RD8
15.29 In all cases the candidate must be given a clear and reasonable timescale in
which to complete the work. The maximum time allowed for amendments to be
completed is normally twelve months from the date of the examination.
Generally candidates are expected to complete minor amendments within one
month.
15.30 The Chair should see that the RD8 recommendation form is appropriately
completed and signed by the examiners. The comments should clearly indicate
that any concerns expressed in the preliminary reports were appropriately
discussed in the viva to the satisfaction of the examiners. The Regulations
allow the examiners, if they so wish, to take the final report away with them,
complete and return it to the Academic Secretariat within 10 working days of
the date of the examination - in practice most prefer to do it on the day.
15.31 If the examiners cannot come to an agreed outcome, each examiner should be
given a RD8 form for completion. These recommendations will then be
considered by the Research Degrees Committee which will decide how to
proceed.
Fees and Travel Expenses
15.32 The University pays a fee to each external examiner and interpreter, plus
reasonable travelling expenses (normally second class rail fares or car
mileage). Full details, including claim forms are sent to the examiners by the
Academic Secretariat.
41
15.33 If an external examiner or interpreter requires overnight accommodation this
can booked by the Academic Secretariat, provided sufficient advance notice is
given.
15.34 Completed claim forms (which require a National Insurance Number) may be
given to the Chair attending the examination or sent direct to the Academic
Secretariat.
15.35 A self-employed examiner or interpreter may submit an invoice for fees and
expenses instead of completing a claim form. Invoices should be sent to the
Academic Secretariat.
Feedback on the Examination Process
15.36 The Chair of the examination is invited to provide feedback on the examination
process by completing an evaluation form (Appendix 27) sent out by the
Academic Secretariat.
15.37 A report is presented annually to the Research Degrees Committee on the
outcomes of the examinations which have taken place during the year, together
with the feedback received from the Chairs.
16.
Re-examination
16.1
One re-examination may be permitted by the Research Degrees Committee,
subject to the following requirements:(a)
(b)
(c)
16.2
a candidate who fails to satisfy the examiners at the first examination,
including where appropriate the oral or approved alternative examination
(Research Degrees Regulations, section 10.5) may, on the
recommendation of the examiners and with the approval of the Research
Degrees Committee, be permitted to revise the thesis and be reexamined.
the examiners shall provide the candidate, through the Research
Degrees Committee, with written guidance on the deficiencies of the first
submission; and
the candidate shall submit for re-examination within the period of one
calendar year from the date of the first oral examination. Where the
Research Degrees Committee has dispensed with the oral examination
the re-examination shall take place within one calendar year of the date
of this dispensation (see Research Degrees Regulations section 10.10).
The Research Degrees Committee may, where there are good reasons,
approve an extension of the resubmission period.
There are five forms of re-examination:(a)
where the candidate’s performance in the first oral or approved
alternative examination (Research Degrees Regulations section 10.5)
was satisfactory but the thesis was unsatisfactory and the examiners
on re-examination certify that the thesis as revised is satisfactory, the
Research Degrees Committee may exempt the candidate from further
examination, oral or otherwise;
42
(b)
where the candidate’s performance in the first oral or approved
alternative examination (see Research Degrees Regulations section
10.5) was unsatisfactory and the thesis was also unsatisfactory, any
re-examination shall include a re-examination of the thesis and (on the
recommendation of the examiners) an oral examination.
(c)
where on the first examination the candidate’s thesis was so
unsatisfactory that the Research Degrees Committee dispensed with
the oral examination (see Research Degrees Regulations section
10.10), any re-examination shall include a re-examination of the thesis
and an oral examination.
(d)
where on the first examination the candidate’s thesis was satisfactory
but the performance in the oral and/or other examination(s) was not
satisfactory the candidate shall be re-examined in the oral and/or
other examination(s), subject to the time limits prescribed in Research
Degrees Regulations sub-section 11.1(c), without being requested to
revise and re-submit the thesis;
(e)
where on the first examination the thesis was satisfactory but the
candidate’s performance in relation to the other requirements for the
award of the degree was not satisfactory, the examiners may propose
instead a different form of re-examination to test the candidate’s
abilities; such examination may take place only with the approval of
the Research Degrees Committee.
Failure on Re-examination
17.
16.3
The Research Degrees Committee may decide, on the recommendation of the
examiners, that the degree be not awarded and that no re-examination be
permitted. In such cases, the examiners shall prepare an agreed statement of
the deficiencies of the thesis and the reason for their recommendation, which
shall be forwarded to the candidate by the Secretary to the Research Degrees
Committee.
16.4
Normally a candidate shall have only one opportunity to resubmit their thesis
and to be re-examined. In exceptional circumstances, on the recommendation
of the examiners, a candidate may be permitted a second resubmission. In
such cases the examiners' recommendation shall require the approval of the
Research Degrees Committee (i.e. not by Chair’s action).
Conferment of Award
17.1
The Research Degrees Committee (or the Chair acting on behalf of the
Committee) shall receive the reports and recommendations of the examiners
and shall, if appropriate, endorse the decision to confer the award. The power
to confer the award shall rest with the Research Degrees Committee acting on
behalf of the Senate of the University.
17.2
The Chair of the Research Degrees Committee will sign a list recording the
awards conferred at each Committee meeting. The signed list is submitted to
the Conferments Unit which produce the degree certificates.
43
17.3
The Academic Secretariat will write to inform the candidate, the supervisory
team, the Faculty Director of Research, the Research and Development
Services Office and the Secretary of the Faculty Research Degrees Sub
Committee of the approval of an award, and a copy of the letter will be sent to
the examiners.
17.4
Following the award of the degree the Academic Secretariat shall:
(a)
send one copy of the title page, Abstract and contents pages of a
PhD, DBA, EdD and PrD thesis to the British Library together with the
candidate’s signed Doctoral Thesis Agreement Form;
(b)
notify the ASLIB Index to Theses of all doctoral theses;
(c)
lodge one copy of the thesis in the University Library and in the library
of any Collaborating Establishment or Regional Partner College.
Students are required to submit form RD16 (Appendix 28) with the
bound copy of their thesis.
Research Degree Certificates
17.5
18.
Following the conferment of the award the candidate will be invited by the
Conferment Unit to attend a graduation ceremony at which the certificate will
be presented. Candidates unable to attend a graduation ceremony will receive
their certificate through the post.
Review of an Examination Decision
18.1
A request for a review of an examination decision may only be made on the
following grounds:(a)
that there were circumstances affecting the candidate’s performance of
which the examiners were not aware at the oral examination; and/or
(b)
that there is evidence of procedural irregularity in the conduct of the
examination (including administrative error) of such a nature as to cause
doubt as to whether the result might have been different had there not
been such irregularity; and/or
(c)
18.2
that there is evidence of unfair or improper assessment on the part of one
or more of the examiners; a candidate may not otherwise challenge the
academic judgement of the examiners.
A request for a review of an examination decision will not normally be allowed
unless:(a)
a medical certificate or other documentary evidence acceptable to the
examiners is produced; and
(b)
valid reason can be shown why the candidate was unable or unwilling to
make the relevant facts known to the examiners before the original
decision was taken.
44
Time Limit for Requesting a Review of an Examination Decision
18.3 The candidate shall give notice, in a letter to the Secretary of the Research
Degrees Committee, within three months from the date of notification of the result
of the examination that the candidate wishes to request a review and shall submit
the case for review within a further three months from the date of giving notice.
Procedure for Considering a Request for a Review of an Examination Decision
18.4 The request for a review shall first be considered by the Secretary to the
Research Degrees Committee who shall consult with the Chair of the Research
Degrees Committee, and who shall determine whether there is a prima facie case
for a review. If it is considered that the request is clearly frivolous, vexatious or
outside the permitted grounds, the Secretary to the Research Degrees Committee
shall inform the candidate in writing that there is no prima facie case for a review
and the reasons for this decision.
18.5 If the candidate is dissatisfied with the decision of the Secretary to the Research
Degrees Committee, the candidate may request in writing that it be reviewed by
the Pro-Vice Chancellor (Quality & Enhancement). Any such request must be
received in writing within two weeks of the despatch of the decision by the
Secretary of the Research Degrees Committee. The decision of the Pro-Vice
Chancellor shall be final.
18.6 If it is considered that there is a prima facie case for a review the Secretary to the
Research Degrees Committee shall gather such evidence as is considered
appropriate to assist a review panel in reviewing the case. This may include
seeking written or oral testimony from the examiners and the independent Chair,
from other persons present at the oral examination, from supervisors or other
members of the academic staff, or further evidence or statements by way of
elucidation from the candidate.
18.7 The request for a review shall be considered by a panel of at least three
members, constituted by the Research Degrees Committee, who possess
experience of supervising and examining research degrees. At least one member
of the Panel shall have significant experience of research degree examining.
Panel members shall not include the Director of Research of the Faculty in which
the candidate is enrolled or members of staff with previous involvement with the
supervision of the candidate. No student or research degree candidate shall be a
member of a research degree Review Panel.
18.8 The Review Panel shall hear the case. The conduct of the hearing is at the
discretion of the Chair, but the candidate and the examiners shall have the right
to:
(a)
submit written representations;
(b)
appear at the hearing;
(c)
call witnesses;
(d)
examine any witness called;
(e)
be accompanied by a friend or a member of their supervisory team.
45
18.9
If the Review Panel decides that a candidate has valid grounds for a review, then
it shall, in consultation with the examiners, recommend to the Research Degrees
Committee one of the following:
that the candidate be given the opportunity to be examined as a first
attempt, where a candidate’s performance in the original viva was
affected. This may be with or without a viva voce examination;

that the candidate be given a further resubmission, with or without a
viva voce examination.
18.10 If the examiners are not willing to accept the recommendation of the Review
Panel, the Research Degrees Committee may appoint new examiners to
consider the resubmitted thesis.
18.11 If the Review Panel decides that a candidate does not have valid grounds for a
review the original decision of the examiners will be upheld.
18.12 There shall be no appeal against the decision of the Review Panel.
18.13 A review panel shall not be constituted as an examination board and shall not
have the authority to set aside the decision of the Research Degrees Committee
and thereby to recommend the award of the degree.
19. Professional Doctorates
19.1
While the standard University processes and procedures apply equally to
candidates for the award of Professional Doctorates, there are additional specific
requirements which are outlined below. In addition, the section on Professional
Doctorates in the University’s Research Degrees Regulations should also be
consulted.
Submission of Stage 1 Papers and Progression to Stage 2
19.2
19.3
The examination of a Professional Doctorate involves three stages:Stage 1
- submission of three written papers of 7,000 words
Stage 2
- submission of a progress report as set out in section 6.2(a) of
the Research Degrees Regulations for Confirmation of
Candidature
Stage 3
- submission of the thesis and its defence by oral examination or
other approved alternative examination
The three papers which constitute Stage 1 of the award, should be submitted to
the Secretary to the Faculty Research Degrees Sub Committee. The Secretary
will send the papers to an internal marker for assessment. The internal marker
should return the marked paper to the Secretary to the Faculty Research
Degrees Sub Committee who will then send the work to the External Moderator.
The terms of reference for moderators for Professional Doctorate programmes
are set out in Appendix 29.
46
19.4
The Faculty Research Degrees Sub Committee is responsible for determining
whether Professional Doctorate candidates have satisfied the requirements of
progression to Stage 2. In order to do so, the Sub Committee will receive all
Stage 1 papers and consider any pleas for mitigation. The External Moderator is
expected to attend the meeting of the Faculty Research Degrees sub Committee
at which the progression of students is determined.
20. PhD by Published Work
20.1
The University’s Research Degrees Regulations set out the requirements and
procedures for considering applications for the award of a PhD by Published
Work.
47
48