REGULATIONS FOR THE AWARD
OF THE UNIVERSITY’S DEGREES
OF MASTER OF PHILOSOPHY
AND DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
including
PhD BY PUBLISHED WORK
and
AEGROTAT POSTGRADUATE DIPLOMA
(by Research)
September 2003
Contents
1.
Principles
2.
Application and qualifications for registration
3.
Initial registration
4.
The registration period
5.
Discontinuing of registration
6.
Supervision
7.
Transfer of registration from MPhil to PhD
8.
Thesis
9.
Examinations - general
10.
Examination procedures
11.
The candidate’s responsibilities in the examination process
12.
Examiners
13.
First Examination
14.
Re-examination
15.
Complaints
16.
Appeals
17.
Review of an examination decision
18.
Academic misconduct (including plagiarism and collusion)
19-26. Regulations for the PhD by Published Work
27-30. Regulations for the Aegrotat Award – Postgraduate Diploma (by Research)
Annexes
1.
The role and responsibilities of the University Research Committee
2.
The role and responsibilities of School Research Committees
3.
List of the University’s research degree forms
1
Principles
1.1
The University of Wolverhampton (hereinafter referred to as ‘the University’) shall award
the degrees of Master of Philosophy (MPhil) and Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) to registered
candidates who successfully complete approved programmes of supervised research.
1.2
Programmes of research may be proposed in any field of study subject to the requirement
that the proposed programme is capable of leading to scholarly research and to its
presentation for assessment by appropriate examiners. The written thesis may be
supplemented by material in other than written form. All proposed research programmes
shall be considered for research degree registration on their academic merits and without
reference to the concerns or interests of any associated funding body.
1.3
The MPhil shall be awarded to a candidate who, having critically investigated and evaluated
an approved topic and demonstrated an understanding of research methods appropriate to
the chosen field, has presented and defended a thesis by oral examination to the satisfaction
of the examiners.
1.4
The PhD shall be awarded to a candidate who, having critically investigated and evaluated
an approved topic resulting in an independent and original contribution to knowledge and
demonstrated an understanding of research methods appropriate to the chosen field, has
presented and defended a thesis by oral examination to the satisfaction of the examiners.
1.5
The University shall encourage co-operation and collaboration with industrial, commercial,
professional or research establishments for the purposes of research leading to research
degree awards. Such co-operation shall be intended:
a)
to encourage outward-looking and relevant research;
b)
to extend the candidate’s own experience and perspectives of the work;
c)
to provide a wider range of experience and expertise to assist in the development of
the project;
d)
to be mutually beneficial; and
e)
where appropriate, to enable the candidate to become a member of a research
community.
Collaboration may be formalised with one or more bodies external to the University. For
the purpose of the research degree regulations these shall be referred to as Collaborating
Establishments. Formal collaboration shall normally involve the candidate’s use of facilities
and other resources, including supervision, which are provided jointly by the University and
the Collaborating Establishment.
1.6
Registration may only take place following recommendation of approval by the School
Research Committee and subsequent ratification by the University Research Committee of
the Academic Board acting on behalf of the University. In giving approval such committees
shall take into consideration the following:
a)
the suitability of the candidate to undertake research;
b)
the programme of research; and
c)
the supervision arrangements and research facilities.
Since this approval requires appropriate academic judgement to be brought to bear on the
viability of each research proposal, both the School Research Committee and the University
Research Committee are composed of persons who are or have recently been engaged in
research and who have appropriate experience of successful research degrees supervision.
1.7
All registrations shall be monitored by the University Research Committee. Where a School
Research Committee submits an application to register for ratification, which does not
appear to meet the academic standard set by the University Research Committee, the
University Research Committee shall:
a)
feed back to the School Research Committee specific concerns with individual
registrations;
b)
ensure that the School Research Committee receives guidance on the academic
standard expected; and
c)
scrutinize registrations for a specific period until the standard has improved.
Where a School Research Committee persistently submits applications to register which fail
to meet the required standard, or where a single application is so poor as to call into question
the judgement of the School Research Committee, then that Committee may have its
authority to make registrations suspended or withdrawn. In such cases, the University
Research Committee will resume responsibility for registering that School’s Students and
will inform the School of the steps that need to be taken, and over what time period, before
an application for reinstatement of delegated authority can be made.
2
Application and qualifications for registration
2.1
An initial notification of intention to undertake a research project should be made on form
RES1 (see Annex 3). This should be completed and submitted to the Secretary of the
University Research Committee within the first month of a candidate’s starting research.
A person may apply to register, by completing form RES 2 (see Annex 3), for the degree of:
a)
Master of Philosophy; or
b)
Master of Philosophy with possibility of transfer to Doctor of Philosophy; or
c)
Doctor of Philosophy.
This must then go forward to the School Research Committee for consideration.
2.2
In approving an application for registration, the School Research Committee shall satisfy
itself that:
a)
the candidate is suitably qualified;
b)
the candidate is embarking on a viable research programme;
c)
supervision is adequate and likely to be sustained; and
d)
the University is able to provide appropriate facilities for the conduct of scholarly
research in the area of the research programme.
2.3
An applicant for the degree of MPhil or MPhil with possibility of transfer to PhD shall
normally hold a first or upper second class honours degree of the University or of a
university in the UK or a qualification which is regarded by the University Research
Committee as equivalent to such an honours degree. In addition, students who are nonnative speakers of English should normally be required to demonstrate that they have
achieved an IELTS score of 7 (or equivalent).
2.4
Applicants holding qualifications other than those in regulation 2.3 shall be considered on
their merits and in relation to the nature and scope of the programme of work proposed. In
considering an applicant in this category, the School Research Committee shall look for
evidence of the candidate’s ability and background knowledge in relation to the proposed
research. Professional experience, publications, written reports or other appropriate
evidence of accomplishment shall be taken into consideration. The School Research
Committee may require an applicant to pass an externally assessed qualifying examination
at final year honours degree level before registration is approved. An applicant wishing to
be considered under this regulation shall include in the application for registration the names
of two suitable persons whom the University may consult concerning the candidate’s
academic attainment and fitness for research.
2.5
Direct registration for the degree of PhD may be permitted to an applicant who holds an
appropriate Master’s degree awarded by the University or the Council for National
Academic Awards or a UK university or an overseas Master’s degree of equivalent standard,
provided that the Master’s degree is in an appropriate subject area and included training in
research and the execution of a research project. The School Research Committee may also
register for PhD direct a candidate who, although lacking a suitable Master’s degree, has a
good honours degree (or equivalent) in an appropriate discipline and has had appropriate
research or professional experience at postgraduate level which has resulted in published
work, written reports or other appropriate evidence of accomplishment.
2.6
An applicant whose work forms part of a larger group project may register for a research
degree. In such cases each individually registered project shall in itself be distinguishable
for the purposes of assessment and be appropriate for the award being sought. The
application shall indicate clearly each individual contribution and its relationship to the
group project.
2.7
Where a research degree project is part of a piece of funded research, the School Research
Committee will wish to be satisfied that the terms on which the research is funded do not
detract from the fulfilment of the objectives and requirements of the candidate’s research
degree.
2.8
The School Research Committee may approve an application from a person proposing to
work outside the UK, provided that:
a)
the proposed research project is supported by an existing academic link between the
University and an appropriate institution in the applicant’s country of residence;
b)
there is satisfactory evidence as to the facilities available for the research both in the
University and abroad; and
c)
a statement detailing supervision arrangements, including how contact is to be
maintained, agreed turnaround time for feedback and provision for face-to-face
meetings, is provided as part of the RES 2. The basic costs of supervision are met by
the standard fee payable by the student; any additional costs (e.g., visits by the
supervisor, equipment, etc.) must be specified on a RES 23, which should be
appended to the RES 2.
2.9
Registration will normally take place within six months from the date of the receipt by GSO
of the Notification of intention to undertake a research project (RES 1).
2.10
Where a candidate has previously undertaken research as a registered candidate for a
research degree (at this University or elsewhere), the School Research Committee may
approve a shorter than usual registration period which takes account of all or part of the time
already spent by the candidate on such research.
2.11
The School Research Committee will forward all applications relating to any aspect of the
registration to the Secretary of the University Research Committee. The University
Research Committee will monitor all such applications and the secretary shall notify
candidates and supervisors of all formal decisions.
2.12
The Secretary to the University Research Committee shall hold the definitive records of
Student registrations and School Research Committees shall keep the Secretary to the
University Research Committee informed at all times.
2.13
In cases where the School Research Committee is unable to approve the registration of the
project (RES 2), it may recommend to the University Research Committee that the student
be withdrawn. Grounds for a recommendation to withdraw at this stage will include:
a)
The project is academically non-viable;
b)
the School or University is unable to provide access to appropriate supervisory or
other facilities, or is unable to support unanticipated additional costs of the research
project;
c)
there is evidence that the student lacks academic or personal commitment to the
project.
Any recommendation to withdraw must be preceded by the University’s ‘at risk’ procedure,
outlined in Sections 5.4 – 5.7 below.
3
Initial Registration
3.1
A candidate shall follow a programme of related studies where this is necessary for the
attainment of competence in research methods and skills and of knowledge related to the
subject of the thesis. This programme shall be intended:
a)
to provide the candidate with the skills and knowledge necessary for the pursuit of
the proposed research;
b)
to provide a body of knowledge normally associated with a degree in the field of
study of the proposed research; and
c)
to provide breadth of knowledge in the related subjects.
Where the programme of related studies includes an approved programme of studies leading
to another awards and a candidate is registered for that programme and fulfils all its
requirements, he/she may be recommended for that award in addition to the degree of MPhil
or PhD (see also regulation 3.7).
3.2
A candidate may undertake a programme of research in which the candidate’s own creative
work forms, as a point of origin or reference, a significant part of the intellectual enquiry.
Such creative work may be in any field (for instance, fine art, design, engineering and
technology, architecture, creative writing, musical composition, film, dance and
performance), but shall have been undertaken as part of the registered research programme.
In such cases, the presentation and submission may be partly in other than written form.
The creative work shall be clearly presented in relation to the argument of a written thesis
and set in its relevant theoretical, historical, critical or design context. The thesis itself shall
conform to the usual scholarly requirements and be of an appropriate length (see regulation
8.7).
The final submission shall be accompanied by some permanent record (for instance, video,
photographic record, musical score, and diagrammatic representation) of the creative work
bound, where practicable, with the thesis.
The application for registration shall set out the form of the candidate’s intended submission
and of the proposed methods of assessment.
3.3
A candidate may undertake a programme of research in which the principal focus is the
preparation of a scholarly edition of a text or texts, musical or choreographic work, or other
original artefacts.
The final submission shall include a copy of the edited text(s) or a collection of artefact(s),
appropriate textual and explanatory annotations, and a substantial introduction and critical
commentary which set the text in the relevant historical, theoretical or critical context. The
thesis itself shall conform to the usual scholarly requirements and be of an appropriate
length (see regulation 8.7).
3.4
A candidate for the award of MPhil, or for MPhil with possibility of transfer to PhD shall
undertake an integrated programme of work. This programme of work shall be agreed at the
time of the student’s first enrolment and shall include, as well as the research element, a
programme of postgraduate study on which her/his performance shall be formally assessed,
and which the candidate must pass in order to proceed. Such a course of study shall not
occupy more than one third of the total period of registration and shall complement the
research. Candidates who can demonstrate prior achievement of the learning outcomes of
the formally assessed programme of postgraduate study may apply for exemption.
3.5
Except where permission has been given for the thesis and the oral examination to be in
another language, the University Research Committee shall satisfy itself that the candidate
has sufficient command of the English language to complete satisfactorily the programme of
work and to prepare and defend a thesis in English. Permission to present a thesis in another
language shall normally be sought at the time of application for registration. Permission to
present a thesis in a language other than English shall normally only be given if the subject
matter of the thesis involves language and related studies. (See regulation 8.1)
3.6
A candidate may register on a full-time or a part-time basis. A full-time candidate shall
normally devote on average at least 35 hours per week to the research; a part-time candidate
on average at least 12 hours per week.
3.7
The University Research Committee may permit a candidate to be registered for another
course of study concurrently with the research degree registration, provided that either the
research degree registration or the other course is by part-time study and that, in the opinion
of the University Research Committee, the dual registration will not detract from the
research.
3.8
Where a candidate, the University or a Collaborator wishes the thesis to remain confidential
for a period of time after completion of the work, application for approval shall normally be
made to the University Research Committee at the time of registration. In cases where the
need for confidentiality emerges at a subsequent stage, a special application for the thesis to
remain confidential after submission shall be made immediately to the University Research
Committee. The period approved shall normally not exceed two years from the date of the
oral examination (see regulation 8.9).
4
The Registration Period
4.1
The minimum and maximum periods of registration shall normally be as follows:
EFFECTIVE FOR ALL STUDENTS WHOSE START DATE* IS ON or BEFORE
31st DECEMBER 2003
Minimum
Maximum
1 year 6 months
2 years 6 months
3 years
4 years
MPhil
full-time
part-time
PhD [via transfer from MPhil registration and including that period of MPhil
registration]
full-time
part-time
2 years 9 months
3 years 9 months
5 years
6 years
2 years
3 years
5 years
6 years
PhD [direct]
full-time
part-time
PERIODS OF REGISTRATION FOR ALL STUDENTS WHOSE START DATE* IS
ON or AFTER 1st JANUARY 2004
Minimum
Maximum
1 year 6 months
2 years 6 months
2 years
4 years
MPhil
full-time
part-time
PhD [via transfer from MPhil registration and including that period of MPhil
registration]
full-time
part-time
2 years 9 months
5 years
4 years
8 years
2 years
3 years
3 years 6 months
6 years
PhD [direct]
full-time
part-time
* Start date is as specified on the RES 1.
4.2
The School Research Committee may recommend an extension of a candidate’s period of
registration, normally for not more than one year. A candidate seeking such an extension
shall apply on form RES 5 (see Annex 3). The candidate has no automatic entitlement to an
extension to the period of registration, but if an extension is granted, will be liable for fees at
the current rate for the mode of study (full- or part-time).
4.3
Where there is evidence that the research is proceeding exceptionally well, the University
Research Committee may approve a shorter minimum period of registration. A written
application for such shortening should accompany the application for approval of
examination arrangements.
4.4
Where a candidate changes from full-time to part-time study or vice versa, the minimum and
maximum registration periods shall be recalculated and the candidate informed. The
secretary of the School Research Committee should be notified of any such change on form
RES 7 (see Annex 3).
4.5
By means of the annual monitoring process, the School Research Committee shall establish
whether a candidate is still actively engaged on the research programme, is progressing
satisfactorily and is maintaining regular and frequent contact with the supervisors (Form
RES 15 – see Annex 3). A report shall be made to the University Research Committee,
annually, as requested. Failure to submit a RES 15 by the stipulated date will result in the
‘at risk’ procedure being invoked (see sections 5.4 – 5.7 below).
In the case of unsatisfactory progress having been made, the School Research Committee
may recommend to the University Research Committee that the student should be
withdrawn. The recommendation to withdraw must be preceded by the ‘at risk’ procedure.
4.6
Where the candidate is prevented, by ill-health or other cause, from making progress with
the research, the School Research Committee may recommend that the registration be
suspended, normally for not more than one year at a time. A candidate seeking such a
suspension shall apply on form RES 8 (see Annex 3). The candidate has no automatic
entitlement to a suspension of registration.
4.7
A candidate shall submit the requisite number of copies of the thesis to the Secretary of the
University Research Committee before the expiry of the period of registration. (See 11.1.)
4.8
Where a candidate has discontinued the research, recommendation for the withdrawal of
registration shall be notified to the School Research Committee on form RES 9 (see Annex
3).
4.9
A candidate shall pay such fees as may be determined from time to time by the University.
4.10
A candidate seeking a change to the title or content of a registered research programme
shall apply in writing to the School Research Committee for approval, who will notify the
Secretary of the University Research Committee of any such changes.
5
Discontinuing of Registration
5.1
The School Research Committee may recommend that a student’s registration for a research
degree be withdrawn if unsatisfactory progress has been made.
5.2
A recommendation to withdraw (RES 9) will normally be made upon receipt of an
unsatisfactory annual monitoring report (Section 4.5), an unsatisfactory transfer report
(Section 7.4), or the failure of the student to abide by the ‘at risk’ procedures outlined below
and any action rising from them (Section 5.7).
5.3
A recommendation to withdraw must be preceded by the implementation of the ‘at risk’
procedure outlined in 5.4 – 5.7.
5.4
A student is identified as ‘at risk’ if there is evidence that
a)
they are making insufficient academic progress for their mode of study; or
b)
they lack a commitment to the research project, as demonstrated by repeated failure
to produce agreed interim outcomes, to attend supervisory sessions and/or to attend a
prescribed programme of related studies.
5.5
As soon as the Director of Studies identifies a student as ‘at risk’ for any of the reasons
given above, s/he should immediately (i) notify the School Research Committee and (ii)
write to the student detailing the reasons for concern and inviting the student to attend an
emergency session to discuss the situation and to devise an action plan where appropriate.
The emergency session should normally be scheduled within two working weeks and should
be attended by a representative of the School Research Committee who has not been
associated previously with the project. The student may be accompanied by a friend or
student representative.
5.6
A summary of the emergency session, including any action plan or revisions to the research
programme, should be agreed by the Director of Studies and the student, and kept by the
Director of Studies as part of the record of supervision. The School Research Committee
should be notified of the outcome of the emergency session so that it might instigate any
further monitoring procedures it deems necessary.
5.7
If a student fails to respond to the letter, fails to attend the emergency session, or is unable to
address satisfactorily the concerns of the Director of Studies, the Director of Studies may,
with the agreement of the other members of the supervisory team, recommend to the School
Research Committee that the student be withdrawn.
6
Supervision
6.1
A research degree candidate shall normally have at least two and not more than three
supervisors. If, exceptionally, more than three supervisors are proposed, the application
should contain a brief description of the roles performed by each supervisor within the team.
6.2
All members of the supervisory team should normally possess qualifications equivalent to at
least the level of registration of the student, and/or an established and current research
record in a relevant field. The URC will consider exceptions only in the case of proposed
members of the supervisory team who have professional expertise germane to the project. A
candidate for research degree (whether registered at the University of Wolverhampton or
elsewhere) shall be ineligible to act as a member of the supervisory team for another
research degree candidate.
6.3
A supervision team shall normally also have the combined minimum levels of training and
/or experience in the supervision of research students as follows:
Either
Successful completion of the University of Wolverhampton’s staff development programme
for supervisors of research students plus one successful completion to the level of
registration of the student (MPhil or PhD, the latter being appropriate when the student is
registering for MPhil with the possibility of transfer to PhD);
Or
Supervision of not fewer than two candidates to successful completion of MPhil or PhD, as
compatible with the level of registration with the student (see above).
6.4
One supervisor shall be the Director of Studies (first supervisor) with responsibility to
supervise the candidate on a regular and frequent basis, and to ensure that all monitoring
procedures, examination arrangements, and changes to the programme of study (RES forms)
are completed in accordance with the University regulations. Normally, the Director of
Studies will be a member of the academic staff of the University, although it may
occasionally be necessary for a supervisor who is not a member of staff to assume the role
of Director of Studies. Approval of such a Director of Studies must be sought from the
School Research Committee in the first instance, and then from the University Research
Committee who will consider each case on its merits. If approval is granted, a second
supervisor from the University academic staff must also be a member of the supervision
team, and will assume the monitoring roles normally associated with the Director of Studies.
If the Director of Studies has not supervised any candidates to successful completion, s/he
will normally be required to attend the University’s staff development programme for
research supervisors. If the Director of Studies has one previous successful completion,
participation in the staff development programme is strongly recommended.
6.5
In addition to the supervisors, an advisor or advisors may be proposed to contribute some
specialised knowledge or a link with an external organisation.
6.6
A proposal for a change in supervision arrangements shall be made to the School Research
Committee on form RES 6 (see Annex 3).
7
Transfer of Registration from Master to Doctor of Philosophy
7.1
Candidates registered initially for MPhil with possibility of transfer to PhD who wish to
transfer to PhD shall apply on form RES 3 (see Annex 3) to the School Research Committee
in the first instance, when they have made sufficient progress on the work to provide
evidence of the development to PhD (normally after 9-18 months of full time study or 15-24
months part-time).
7.2
In support of the application, the candidate shall prepare for the supervisors a full progress
report on the work undertaken.
The progress report should normally be 3,000 to 6,000 words in length and include:
a)
a brief review and discussion of the work already undertaken plus a 500 word
summary; and
b)
a statement of the intended further work, including details of the original
contribution to knowledge which is likely to emerge.
7.3
Before recommending the approval of a transfer from MPhil to PhD, the School Research
Committee shall arrange for the report of the supervisors to be scrutinised by an independent
assessor who will normally be internal to the University, with knowledge of the broad area
of the thesis and experience of PhD supervision. The assessor will submit a written
evaluation of the transfer document, according to the University proforma, to the Director of
Studies, who will discuss any areas of concern or recommendations with the candidate and,
where possible, the other supervisor(s). The RES 3, assessor’s report, and record of any
action taken, are then forwarded to the School Research Committee for consideration. Once
the School Research Committee is satisfied that the candidate has made sufficient progress,
and is convinced that the proposed programme provides a suitable basis for work at PhD
standard which the candidate is capable of pursuing to completion, then RES 3, independent
assessor’s report and record of any action taken shall be submitted to the University
Research Committee for approval. If the University Research Committee is not convinced
that all criteria have been met, it may seek the advice of an additional independent assessor.
7.4
If, based on the Assessor’s report and the RES 3, the SRC is unable to recommend that the
registration be transferred from MPhil to PhD, it should consider the student to be ‘at risk’
and invoke the procedures outlined in 5.4 – 5.7 above. If the concerns of the SRC are not
resolved, it may recommend to the University Research Committee either that the
registration revert to MPhil only, or that the student should be withdrawn.
7.5
A candidate who is registered for the degree of MPhil only may also apply to transfer the
registration to PhD under the terms of regulation 7.3. However, the University Research
Committee must be convinced that a suitable basis for PhD work is provided by the MPhil
studies completed and that proposed work to PhD is appropriate.
7.6
A candidate who is registered for the degree of PhD and who is unable to complete the
approved programme of work may, at any time prior to the submission of the thesis for
examination, apply to the University Research Committee for the registration to revert to
that for MPhil.
8
Thesis
8.1
Except with the specific permission of the University Research Committee the thesis shall
be presented in English. Such permission will normally only be granted if the following
conditions have been demonstrated to obtain:
a)
a substantial majority of the theoretical literature is written in the non-English
language relevant to the case;
b)
all members of the supervisory team have at least adequate reading knowledge of the
proposed language;
c)
the submission of the thesis in a language other than English will in no way
prejudice the selection of appropriate external examiners;
d)
submission in a language other than English is integrally related to the subject matter
of the proposed thesis.
Permission to submit the thesis in a non-English language should normally be sought at the
time of submission of the RES 2 form.
In case where approval to submit in a language other than English is granted, all RES forms
including the MPhil/PhD transfer document must be submitted in English, and the candidate
must also include a summary of the thesis, in English, which should not exceed 1000 words.
8.2
There shall be a table of contents and associated page number bound into the front of the
thesis.
8.3
There shall be a one page abstract of approximately 300 words bound into the thesis which
shall provide a synopsis of the thesis stating the nature and scope of the work undertaken
and of the contribution made to the knowledge of the subject treated.
8.4
The thesis shall include a statement of the candidate’s objective and shall acknowledge
published or other sources of material consulted (including an appropriate bibliography) and
any assistance received.
8.5
Where a candidate’s research programme is part of a collaborative group project, the thesis
shall indicate clearly the candidate’s individual contribution and the extent of the
collaboration.
8.6
The candidate shall be free to publish or exhibit material in advance of the thesis but
reference shall be made in the thesis to any such work. Copies of published material or
some other appropriate record should either be bound in with the thesis or placed in an
adequately secured pocket at the end of the thesis.
8.7
The text of the thesis should normally not exceed the following length (excluding ancillary
data):
for a PhD in Science, Engineering, Art and Design
40,000 words
for an MPhil in Science, Engineering, Art and Design
20,000 words
for a PhD in Arts, Social Sciences and Education
80,000 words
for an MPhil in Arts, Social Sciences and Education
40,000 words
Where the thesis is accompanied by material in other than written form or the research
involves creative writing or the preparation of a scholarly edition, the written thesis should
normally be within the range:
for a PhD
30,000 – 40,000 words
for an MPhil
15,000 – 20,000 words
8.8
Following the award of the degree the Secretary to the University Research Committee shall
lodge one copy of the thesis in the appropriate University Learning Centre and in the library
of any Collaborating Establishment.
8.9
The University Research Committee shall normally only approve an application for
confidentiality in order to enable a patent application to be lodged or to protect
commercially, politically or personally sensitive material. A thesis shall not be restricted in
this way in order to protect research leads. While the normal maximum period of
confidentiality is two years, in exceptional circumstances the University Research
Committee may approve a longer period. Where a shorter period would be adequate the
University Research Committee shall not automatically grant confidentiality for two years.
Where the University Research Committee has agreed that the confidential nature of the
candidate’s work is such as to preclude the thesis being made freely available in the library
of the University (and Collaborating Establishment, if any) and, in the case of a PhD, via the
British Library, the thesis shall, immediately on completion of the programme of work, be
retained by the University on restricted access and, for a time not exceeding the approved
period (see regulation 3.8), shall only be made available to those who were directly involved
in the project.
8.10
The copies of the thesis submitted for examination shall remain the property of the
University but the copyright of the thesis shall be vested in the candidate.
8.11
The following requirements shall be adhered to in the format of the submitted thesis.
a) Theses shall normally be in A4 format; the University Research Committee may give
permission for a thesis to be submitted in another format where it is satisfied that the
contents of the thesis can be better expressed in that format; a candidate using a format
larger than A4 should note that the production of microfiche copies and full-size
enlargements may not be feasible;
b) copies of the thesis shall be presented in a permanent and legible form either in
typescript or print; where copies are produced by photocopying processes, these shall be
of a permanent nature; where word processor and printing devices are used, the printer
shall be capable of producing test of a satisfactory quality; the size of character used in
the main text, including displayed matter and notes, shall not be less than 2.0mm for
capitals and 1.5mm for x-height (that is, the height of lower-case x).
c) the thesis may be printed on one or both sides of the paper which shall normally be
white, of good quality and sufficiently opaque to avoid show-through;
d) the margin at the binding edge of the page shall not be less than 40mm; other margins
shall not be less than 15mm;
e) spacing of typescript should be consistent with clarity;
f) pages shall be numbered consecutively through the main text including photographs
and/or diagrams included as whole pages;
g) the title page shall give the following information (see specimen following section 8.13):
-
the full title of the thesis;
-
the full name and qualifications of the author;
-
that the degree is awarded by the University;
-
the award for which the degree is submitted in partial fulfilment of its
requirements;
-
the Collaborating Establishment(s), if any;
-
the month and year of submission; and
-
statement of copyright.
8.12
Theses may be submitted for examination either in a permanently bound form or a secure
temporarily bound form (see regulation 11.6). The final thesis should be bound in
accordance with regulation 8.13 below.
8.13
The University Learning Centre copy shall be bound as follows:
a) the binding shall be of a fixed type so that leaves cannot be removed or replaced; the
front and rear boards shall have sufficient rigidity to support the weight of the work
when standing upright; and
b) in at least 24pt type the outside front board shall be embossed with the title of the work,
the name and initials of the candidate, the qualification (i.e. ‘MPhil’ or ‘PhD’), and the
year of submission; the same information (excluding the title of the work) shall be
shown on the spine of the work, reading downwards.
[Specimen thesis title page]
THE ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE FARMING
CO-OPERATIVES IN WESSEX
JOHN SMITH BSc
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the
requirements of the University of Wolverhampton
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
This research programme was carried out
in collaboration with the Christminster Agricultural College
July 2002
This work or any part thereof has not previously been presented in any form to the University or to
any other body whether for the purposes of assessment, publication or for any other purpose (unless
otherwise indicated). Save for any express acknowledgments, references and/or bibliographies
cited in the work, I confirm that the intellectual content of the work is the result of my own efforts
and of no other person.
The right of John Smith to be identified as author of this work is asserted in accordance with ss.77
and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. At this date copyright is owned by the
author.
Signature………………………………………..
Date……………………………………………..
9
Examinations – general
9.1
The examination for the MPhil and PhD shall have two stages: firstly the submission and
preliminary assessment of the thesis and secondly its defence by oral examination or
approved alternative (see regulation 9.3).
9.2
A candidate whose programme of work includes formally assessed course work in a
programme of work leading to the degree of PhD (see regulation 3.4) shall not be permitted
to proceed to a further stage of the examination for the degree until the course work
examiners are satisfied with the candidate’s performance. The result of the assessment shall
be communicated to the examiners of the thesis.
9.3
A candidate shall normally be examined orally on the programme of work and on the field
of study in which the programme lies. Where for reasons of sickness, disability or
comparable valid cause the University Research Committee is satisfied that a candidate
would be under serious disadvantage if required to undergo an oral examination, an
alternative form of examination may be approved. Such approval shall not be given on the
grounds that the candidate’s knowledge of the language in which the thesis is presented is
inadequate.
9.4
An oral examination shall normally be held in the UK. In special cases the University
Research Committee may give approval for the examination to take place abroad.
9.5
The University Research Committee shall make a decision on the reports and
recommendation(s) of the examiners in respect of the candidate. The power to confer the
degree shall rest with the University.
9.6
The degree of MPhil or PhD may be awarded posthumously on the basis of a thesis
completed by a candidate which is ready for submission for examination. In such cases the
University Research Committee shall seek evidence that the candidate would have been
likely to have been successful had the oral examination taken place.
9.7
If the examiners find evidence of cheating, plagiarism or other irregularity in the preparation
of the thesis or in the candidate’s conduct at the oral examination, they shall report the
matter to the University’s Research Committee who shall investigate and consider the matter
and take such action on it as they think fit.
9.8
The University Research Committee shall ensure that all examinations are conducted and
recommendations of the examiners are presented wholly in accordance with the University’s
regulations. In any instance where the University Research Committee is made aware of a
failure to comply with all the procedures of the examination process, it may declare the
examination null and void and appoint new examiners.
10
Examination Procedures
10.1
The Director of Studies shall propose on form RES 4 (see Annex 3) the arrangements for the
candidate’s examination to the School Research Committee, in the first instance. When
considering the RES 4, the School Research Committee should satisfy itself that the
arrangements are appropriate and should be mindful of the training of inexperienced staff
and the balance of expertise of the examining team. The timing of the submission should
allow the School Research Committee to consider the application and submit the RES 4 to
the University Research Committee for approval at least three months before the expected
date of the examination. The examination may not take place until the examination
arrangements have been approved. In special circumstances, the University Research
Committee may act directly to appoint examiners and arrange the examination of a
candidate.
10.2
The secretary to the University Research Committee or their nominee shall:
a)
make known to the candidate the procedure to be followed for the submission of the
thesis (including the number of copies to be submitted for examination) and any
conditions to be satisfied before the candidate may be considered eligible for
examination.
b)
notify the candidate, the examiners and the Independent Chair of the time and place
of the oral examination (following arrangements as set up by the Internal Examiner
and communicated to the GSO).
c)
send a copy of the thesis to each examiner, together with the examiner’s preliminary
report form (see Annex 3) and the University’s regulations, and shall ensure that the
examiners are properly briefed as to their duties.
d)
ensure that all the examiners have completed and returned the preliminary reports to
the University before the oral examination takes place.
11
The Candidate’s Responsibilities in the Examination Process
11.1
The candidate shall ensure that sufficient copies of the thesis are submitted to the
appropriate officer of the University before the expiry of the registration period. The
number of copies will be advised when examination arrangements are approved.
11.2
The submission of the thesis for examination shall be at the sole discretion of the candidate.
While it is unwise to submit the thesis for examination against the advice of the supervisors,
it is a candidate’s right to do so. Equally, candidates should not assume that a supervisor’s
agreement to the submission of a thesis guarantees the award of the degree.
11.3
The candidate shall satisfy any conditions of eligibility for examination required by the
University Research Committee.
11.4
The candidate shall take no part in the arrangement of the examination and shall have no
formal contact with the external examiner(s) between the appointment of the examiners and
the oral examination.
11.5
The candidate shall confirm, through the submission of a declaration from RES 14 (see
Annex 3), that the thesis has not been submitted for a comparable academic award. The
candidate shall not be 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. The completed form RES 14 should be submitted with the final bound copy
of the thesis to the Secretary of the University Research Committee.
11.6
The candidate shall ensure that the format of the thesis is in accordance with the
requirements of the University’s regulations (see section 8). Theses may be submitted for
examination either in a permanently bound form or in a secure temporarily bound form. A
thesis submitted in a temporarily bound form shall be in its final form in all respects save the
binding. In such cases the candidate shall confirm in writing that the contents of the
permanently bound thesis are identical with the version submitted for examination, except
where amendments have been made to meet the requirements of the examiners. The thesis
shall be presented in a permanent binding of the approved type (see regulation 8.13 for
details) before the degree may be awarded.
12
Examiners
12.1
A candidate shall be examined by at least one external and one internal examiner.
Where the candidate is a member of the permanent staff of the University, he/she shall be
examined by two external and at least one internal examiner. (See regulation 12.4)
12.2
The University Research Committee will appoint an independent Chair to conduct the
examination. The Chair, who will not take part in the evaluation of the thesis or the
deliberations of the examining team, will ensure that the examination is conducted fairly and
in accordance with University procedures (Section 13).
Where the examining team recommends awarding the degree subject to minor amendments
(13.3(b)), or re-submission of the thesis (13.3(c)), the Chair shall ensure that a record is kept
of suggested amendments or recommendations proposed by the examiners as required in
13.3 (b) and 14.1 (b), and shall agree with the examining team the date by which
amendments should be completed (13.3 (b)) or the thesis resubmitted (normally within one
year : 14.1 (c)). The Chair will ensure that these recommendations and deadlines are
communicated to the candidate, in writing, normally within 2 weeks of the examination.
The Chair will have responsibility for ensuring that all reports and recommendations are
forwarded to the University Research Committee so that the examination process can be
completed.
12.3
Except with the permission of the University, an external examiner must be independent of
both the University and any collaborating establishment and must not have acted previously
as the candidate’s supervisor or adviser. Former members of staff of the University shall
normally not be approved as external examiners until three years after the termination of
their employment with the University.
12.4
A candidate’s supervisor should be proposed as an internal examiner only in exceptional
circumstances. However, at the request of the candidate and with the agreement of the
examiners, a candidate’s supervisor would be allowed to attend the examination, but only in
the capacity of observer. Any such request must be made in writing to the Dean of Research
and Graduate Studies at the point of submission of the thesis. Exceptionally, where a
candidate’s supervisor is proposed as an internal examiner because of their subject specific
expertise, this should be clearly stated on the RES 4 and a second internal examiner shall be
appointed who is and has been independent of the supervisory team.
12.5
Examiners shall be experienced in research in the general area of the candidate’s thesis and,
where practicable, have experience as a specialist in the topic(s) to be examined. However,
examiners shall have no substantial direct involvement in the work of the candidate, in
terms of its development, implementation or assessment, nor shall their work be the
focus of the research project.
12.6
The University Research Committee shall ensure that the same external examiner is not
approved so frequently that his/her familiarity with a research group might be considered to
prejudice objective judgement.
12.7
External examiners shall normally have substantial experience (three or more previous
examinations) of examining research degree candidates. In an examination for PhD, an
external examiner shall normally have substantial experience of PhD examining. In
exceptional circumstances an external examiner who is recognised as an expert in their
subject discipline, but who has little or no formal examining experience, may be appointed
as long as the combined proposed examining team has experience of 3 or more previous
examinations.
12.8
No candidate registered for a research degree shall act as an examiner.
12.9
The University shall determine and pay the fees and expenses of external examiners.
13
First Examination
13.1
Each examiner shall read and examine the thesis and submit, on the appropriate form (see
Annex 3), an independent preliminary report on it to the secretary of the University
Research Committee before any oral or alternative form of examination is held. In
completing the preliminary report, each examiner shall consider whether the thesis
provisionally satisfies the requirements of the degree (as set out in regulations 1.3 and 1.4)
and where possible make an appropriate provisional recommendation subject to the outcome
of any oral examination.
13.2
Following the oral examination the examiners shall, where they are in agreement, submit, on
the appropriate form (see Annex 3), a joint report and recommendation relating to the award
of the degree to the secretary of the University Research Committee. The preliminary
reports and joint recommendation of the examiners shall together provide sufficiently
detailed comments on the scope and quality of the work to enable the University Research
Committee to satisfy itself that the recommendation chosen on regulation 13.3 is correct.
13.3
Following the completion of the examination the examiners may recommend that:
a)
the candidate be awarded the degree;
b)
the candidate be awarded the degree subject to minor amendments being made to the
thesis (the examiners shall indicate to the candidate in writing the nature of the
amendments and the date by which amendments should be completed);
c)
the candidate be permitted to re-submit for the degree and be re-examined, with or
without an oral examination (see section 14);
d)
the candidate be not awarded the degree and be not permitted to be re-examined (see
regulations 13.8 and 13.9); or,
e)
in the case of a PhD examination, the candidate be awarded the degree of MPhil
subject to the presentation of the thesis amended to the satisfaction of the examiners.
Examiners may indicate informally their recommendation on the result of the examination to
the candidate but they shall make it clear that the decision rests with the University Research
Committee.
13.4
Where the examiners are not in agreement, separate reports and recommendations shall be
submitted. The University Research Committee may then:
a)
accept a majority recommendation (in cases where three examiners are appointed);
b)
accept the recommendation of the external examiner; or,
c)
require the appointment of an additional external examiner.
13.5
Where an additional external examiner is appointed under 13.4 c) above, he/she shall
prepare an independent preliminary report on the thesis. If considered necessary a further
oral examination may be conducted. This additional examiner shall neither seek nor be
informed of the individual recommendations of the other examiners.
13.6
On receipt of all reports and recommendations the University Research Committee shall
complete the examination process as set out in regulation 9.5.
13.7
A further examination in addition to the oral examination may be requested by the
examiners. In such cases the approval of the University Research Committee shall be
sought without delay. Where such an examination is arranged following an oral
examination, it shall normally be held within two calendar months of the oral examination
unless the University Research Committee permits otherwise. Any such examination shall
be deemed to be part of the candidate’s First Examination.
13.8
Where the examiners are of the opinion that the thesis is so unsatisfactory that no useful
purpose would be served by conducting an oral examination, they may recommend that the
University Research Committee dispense with the oral examination and refer the thesis for
further work. In such cases the examiners shall provide the University Research Committee
with written guidance for the candidate concerning the deficiencies of the thesis. The
examiners shall not recommend that a candidate fail outright (see sub-regulation 13.3d)
without holding an oral examination or other alternative examination (see regulation 9.3).
13.9
Where the University Research Committee decides that the degree be not awarded and that
no re-examination 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 University Research Committee.
14
Re-examination
14.1
One re-examination is permitted by the University Research Committee, under the same
arrangements, subject to the following requirements:
a)
a candidate who fails to satisfy the examiners at the first examination, including
where appropriate the oral or approved alternative examination (see regulation 9.3)
or any further examination required under regulation 13.7 may, on the
recommendation of the examiners and with the approval of the University Research
Committee, be permitted to revise the thesis and be re-examined;
b)
the examiners shall provide the candidate with written guidance on the deficiencies
of the first submission; and
c)
the candidate shall submit for re-examination within the period of one calendar year
from the date of the latest part of the first examination; where the University
Research Committee has dispensed with the oral examination the re-examination
shall take place within one calendar year of the date of this dispensation (see
regulation 13.8). The University Research Committee may, where there are good
reasons, approve an extension of this period.
14.2
The University Research Committee may require that an additional external examiner be
appointed for the re-examination.
14.3
There are five forms of re-examination:
14.4
a)
where the candidate’s performance in the first oral or approved alternative
examination (see regulation 9.3) or further examination (see regulation 13.7) was
satisfactory but the thesis was unsatisfactory and the examiners on re-examination
certify that the thesis was revised and is satisfactory, the University Research
Committee may exempt the candidate from further examination, oral or otherwise;
b)
where the candidate’s performance in the first oral or
examination (see regulation 9.3) or further examination (see
unsatisfactory and the thesis was also unsatisfactory, any
include a re-examination of the thesis and an oral or
examination (see regulation 9.3);
c)
where on the first examination the candidate’s thesis was so unsatisfactory that the
University Research Committee dispensed with the oral examination (see regulation
13.8), any re-examination shall include a re-examination of the thesis and an oral or
approved alternative examination (see regulation 9.3);
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 sub-regulation 14.1 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 University Research Committee.
approved alternative
regulation 13.7) was
re-examination shall
approved alternative
In the case of a re-examination under sub-regulations 14.3 a), b) or c), each examiner shall
read and examine the thesis and submit, on the appropriate form, an independent report on it
to the secretary of the University Research Committee before any oral or alternative form of
examination is held. In completing the independent report, each examiner shall consider
whether the thesis provisionally satisfies the requirements of the degree (as set out in
regulations 1.3 and 1.4) and where possible make an appropriate provisional
recommendation subject to the outcome of any oral examination.
14.5
Following the completion of the examination the examiners may recommend that:
a)
the candidate be awarded the degree;
b)
the candidate be awarded the degree subject to miner amendments being made to the
thesis (the examiners shall indicate to the candidate in writing the nature of
amendments required);
c)
the candidate be not awarded the degree and be not permitted to be re-examined (see
regulations 14.12 and 14.13); or
d)
in the case of a PhD examination, the candidate be awarded the degree of MPhil
subject to the presentation of the thesis amended to the satisfaction of the examiners.
Examiners may indicate informally their recommendation on the result of the examination to
the candidate but they shall make it clear that the decision rests with the University Research
Committee.
14.6
Where all examiners are in agreement and make the same recommendation on the
independent report form, the combined independent reports will constitute the joint report.
Where minor modifications have been recommended, the RES 14, signed by the appropriate
examiner(s), along with the independent reports will constitute the final joint report. The
independent reports of the examiners shall together provide sufficiently detailed comments
on the scope and quality of the work to enable the University Research Committee to satisfy
itself that the recommendation chosen in regulation 14.5 is correct.
14.7
Where a further oral examination has taken place, examiners shall submit, on the
appropriate form, a joint report and recommendation to the Secretary of the University
Research Committee.
14.8
Where the examiners are not in agreement, the separate independent reports and
recommendations (along with the joint report if an oral examination has taken place) shall
be submitted to the University Research Committee who may then:
14.9
a)
accept a majority recommendation (in cases where three examiners are appointed);
b)
accept the recommendation of the external examiner; or,
c)
require the appointment of an additional external examiner.
Where an additional external examiner is appointed under regulation 14.8 c) above, he/she
shall prepare an independent preliminary report on the thesis. If considered necessary a
further oral examination may be conducted. This additional examiner shall neither seek nor
be informed of the individual recommendations of the other examiners.
14.10 On receipt of all reports and recommendations the University Research Committee shall
complete the examination process as set out in regulation 9.5.
14.11 A further examination in addition to the oral examination may be requested by the
examiners. In such cases the approval of the University Research Committee shall be
sought without delay. Where such an examination is arranged following an oral
examination, it shall normally be held within two calendar months of the oral examination
unless the University Research Committee permits otherwise.
14.12 In the case of a re-examination under sub-regulation 14.3 b), where the examiners are of the
opinion that the thesis is so unsatisfactory that no useful purpose would be served by
conducting an oral examination, they may recommend that the University Research
Committee dispense with the oral examination and not award the degree under subregulation 14.5 c) (see also regulation 14.13).
14.13 Where the University Research Committee decides that the degree be not awarded, 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
University Research Committee.
15
Complaints
15.1
A research student may make a complaint, either informally or formally, at any stage in the
research programme. Grounds for complaint may include unsatisfactory or insufficient
supervision, inadequate access to basic support facilities, or lack of provision of agreed
specialist or other facilities.
15.2
A student feeling they may have grounds for a complaint should first attempt to resolve the
issue informally, through discussions with the Director of Studies or other members of the
supervisory team. If the student feels unable to approach these, or if the matter is about
supervision, then the issue may be brought to the attention of the Chair of the School
Research Committee or other senior managers or researchers within the School.
15.3
If the informal procedure outlined in 15.2 does not result in a satisfactory resolution of the
problem, the student may proceed to a formal complaints procedure.
15.4
In the formal complaints procedure, the student should detail the nature of the complaint
using the standard University complaints form, available from School offices. This should
be forwarded to the Dean of School.
15.5
Upon receipt of the formal complaint, the Dean of School will, with the University’s
Appeals Officer, instigate a full investigation of the problem, involving all interested parties.
15.6
At the end of the investigation, the Dean of School and the Appeals Officer will put forward
their recommendation based on evidence gathered. This recommendation will be
communicated in writing to the student and other interested parties, and to the Dean of
Research and Graduate Studies.
16
Appeals
16.1
A student may appeal against a recommendation to withdraw made at any of the possible
assessment points during the normal programme of study: Registration of Research Project
(RES 2), Annual Monitoring (RES 15), and transfer from MPhil to PhD (RES 3). A student
may also, in the circumstances listed below (Section17), request a review of the
recommendation of the examiners following examination or re-examination of the thesis.
16.2
An appeal against a recommendation to withdraw may be made on the following grounds:
a)
that there is evidence of procedural irregularity in arriving at the recommendation;
b)
that there is evidence of unfair or improper assessment on the part of one or more
members of the supervisory team.
16.3
Alleged inadequacy of supervisory or other arrangements shall not constitute grounds for an
appeal, as these should have been addressed via the complaints procedure (Section 15) at the
time of occurrence.
16.4
If a student wishes to appeal against a recommendation to withdraw, s/he should forward the
grounds for the appeal together with all supporting documentation to the Dean of Research
and Graduate Studies, normally within two months of receipt of notification of the
recommendation to withdraw. The Dean of Research and Graduate Studies will then invoke
the appeals procedure, as outlined below.
16.5
Upon receipt of a formal appeal, the Dean of Research and Graduate Studies will convene
an investigation panel normally consisting of the Dean of Research and Graduate Studies,
the University Appeals Officer, one member of the School Research Committee who is not a
member of the supervisory team, a member of the University Research Committee, and the
Dean of another School.
16.6
The investigation panel will assemble all the information it needs, including records of
supervision sessions, and will conduct separate interviews with the student and the members
of the supervisory team. The student has the right to be accompanied by a friend or
representative from the Student’s Union at this interview.
16.7
Upon consideration of all the evidence, the investigation panel will make its
recommendations, in writing, to the student, the Director of Studies, the School Research
Committee and the University Research Committee. These recommendations will be
considered final and there is no further stage to the appeals procedure.
17
Review of an Examination Decision
17.1
A student may request a review of a recommendation of the examiners following
examination or re-examination of the thesis on the following grounds:
17.2
a)
that there were circumstances of which the Chair and the examiners were not aware
that affected the student’s performance at the oral examination;
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;
c)
that there is evidence of unfair or improper assessment on the part of one or more of
the examiners; the academic judgement of the examiners may not otherwise be
challenged.
Alleged inadequacy of supervisory or other arrangements during the period of study shall
not constitute grounds for appeal against the examiners’ recommendation, as these should
have been made known at the time of occurrence via the complaints procedure (Section 15).
17.3
An appeal should be made in writing to the Dean of Research and Graduate Studies within
three months of receipt of the examiners’ recommendation. The appeal should state the
grounds on which the appeal is being made (17.1 above), and include any relevant
documentation.
17.4
Upon receipt of a formal appeal based on one or more of the grounds given in 17.1 above,
the Dean of Research and Graduate Studies shall convene an investigation panel normally
consisting of the Dean of Research and Graduate Studies, the University Appeals Officer,
one member of the School Research Committee who is not a member of the supervisory
team, a member of the University Research Committee, and the Dean of another School.
17.5
The investigation panel will assemble all the information it needs including oral or written
testimony from the examiners and the Chair of the oral examination, any observers present
at the examination, the supervisors, and other members of the University’s staff or staff of a
collaborating institution, as appropriate. It will also give the student an opportunity to
present any appropriate argument or evidence. Where this opportunity consists of an
interview, the student has the right to be accompanied by a friend or a representative from
the Student’s Union.
17.6
Upon consideration of all the evidence, the investigation panel may make one of three
recommendations to the University Research Committee:
a)
that the case for appeal is unproved and that the recommendation of the examiners
should stand;
b)
that the case for appeal is proved and that the examiners should be asked to
reconsider their decision in the light of specific facts revealed as part of the appeals
process;
c)
that the case for appeal is proved and that a new examination team should be
appointed.
17.7
If new examiners are appointed under this regulation, they shall conduct the examination as
if it were a first examination under regulation 13.
17.8
The decision of the University Research Committee following recommendations from the
investigation panel shall be final and there is no further stage in this procedure.
17.9
An investigation panel is not an examination board, may not set aside a decision of the
University Research Committee and may not recommend the award of a degree.
18
Academic Misconduct (including plagiarism or collusion)
18.1
The University expects all members of its academic community including researchers and
research students to be aware of and to abide by its rules and regulations concerning
academic misconduct.
18.2
If a Director of Studies or other member(s) of the supervisory team believe that a student has
been involved in academic misconduct, they should notify the Dean of Research and
Graduate Studies, who will convene a formal panel consisting of the Dean of Research and
Graduate Studies or delegate (if the Dean of Research and Graduate Studies is a member of
the supervisory team a delegate must be appointed), the University Appeals Officer, the
Dean of another School, and at least two senior members of the University Research
Committee or their delegates from outside the School in question. The formal panel will be
empowered to consider all evidence, including written or oral testimony. The student will
be entitled to be accompanied by a friend or representative of the Student’s Union.
18.3
If the panel finds the case of academic misconduct proved, the student will be required to
withdraw immediately from the course of study. There is no further stage in this procedure.
REGULATIONS FOR THE PhD BY PUBLISHED WORK
19
Principles
19.1
The University may award the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) to members of staff of
the University, on the basis of a published academic output of appropriate quality. Such an
output can vary quite widely and may to a large extent be governed by the discipline within
which submission is made.
The work must be based upon critical investigation and evaluation, demonstrate a thorough
understanding of research methods and constitute an independent and original contribution
to knowledge.
19.2
The key criterion is that an original and coherent contribution to knowledge within the
discipline has been made through a body of peer-reviewed public output. Work submitted
should show coherence and focus and should be comparable in academic output and
significance to a conventional PhD.
19.3
The published material shall be of high quality and accessible to the public through refereed
media; a substantial proportion of the published output will be recent, appearing normally
within 5 years of the date of its submission for examination.
19.4
The acceptable extent of joint publications shall be determined by the convention of the
relevant academic discipline. In any case, a substantial proportion should have the
candidate’s name as the first author (see 22.2).
20
Procedures
20.1
Initial intention to pursue the degree should be made via form RES 1 (Publication),
accompanied by the appropriate fee. Application to register formally is made via form RES
2 (Publication). Both the RES 1 and RES 2 must be approved by the School Research
Committee, in accordance with University procedures, before being forwarded to the
University Research Committee for ratification.
20.2
Form RES 2 (Publication) includes the title for the proposal, a statement of the body of work
on which the submission is to be based and the name and qualifications of the academic
advisor nominated via the RES 1 (Publication).
21
Advisor
21.1
Prior to submission of the RES 1 (Publication), an academic advisor must be nominated. An
advisor should have appropriate standing within the discipline and have significant
supervision (and ideally examining) experience at the level of PhD. A brief C.V. showing
the advisor’s qualifications and experience should accompany the RES 1 (Publication).
21.2
Wherever possible, the advisor should be a member of the University of Wolverhampton
staff. Where the advisor is external to the University s/he will normally liase closely with
the Chair of the School Research Committee (or their delegate) to ensure that they are
familiar with the University of Wolverhampton procedures.
21.3
No candidate registered for a Higher Degree shall act as an advisor.
21.4
The role of the advisor is to advise the candidate on the standard and preparation of the work
and commentary prior to presentation for examination.
22
Submission
22.1
Within 12 months of the approved date of registration 1 the candidate shall submit to the
Graduate School Office three2 copies of the bound3 submission which shall include the
properly ordered published material and a critical commentary4, along with form RES 14.
22.2
The commentary shall provide a context for the work in general, including the overall and
incidental contribution to knowledge. It should re-state, formalise and summarise the
argument, including the theoretical and methodological underpinnings, that are contained
within the work. Where there are joint publications, the critical commentary should also
contain a statement and discussion of the candidate’s relative contributions.
In addition to this, the commentary shall also contain a title page (see below), abstract (of no
more than 300 words), table of contents and inclusive bibliography. The title page shall
have the following information and statements:
Title of work
Name and qualifications of candidate
Published Work submitted to the
University of Wolverhampton
for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Date (month and year)
A statement that the work has not been submitted for any other award
(see specimen title page after 8.13 in the body of the regulations).
22.3
The submission of the work for examination shall be at the sole discretion of the candidate.
While it would be unwise to submit for examination against the judgement of the advisor, it
is the candidate’s right to do so. Equally it should not be assumed that an advisor’s
agreement to the submission of the work in any way guarantees the award of a PhD.
22.4
The submission should be presented in a permanent and legible form. Further guidelines
may be obtained by consulting points 8.11 to 8.13 of the regulations.
22.5
Where the submission includes non-paper material, guidance on presentation can be
obtained from the Dean of Research and Graduate Studies.
23
Examination Procedures
1
In exceptional circumstances, extension can be sought via the RES 5
Where two internal examiners are appointed then FOUR copies of the submission will be required
3
If the publications included are already in the form of a published book, the remainder may be bound separately
4
The critical commentary will rarely be below 5000 and normally not more than 20,000 words depending on the
scholarly conventions within the subject discipline and the body of work put forward
2
23.1
The University Research Committee shall ensure that all examinations are conducted, and
recommendations of examiners presented, wholly in accordance with the University’s
regulations. In any instance where the Committee is made aware of a failure to comply with
all the procedures of the examination process, it may declare the examination null and void
and appoint new examiners (see also section 25).
23.2
The advisor shall submit to the University Research Committee for approval the names of
two external and at least one internal examiner on form RES 4 (Publication). Appropriate
C.V. information regarding the appropriateness and experience should be submitted if they
have not previously acted for the University in this capacity.
23.3
The Secretary to the University Research Committee (or their nominee) shall:
a)
make known to the candidate the procedure to be followed for submission of the
published material and commentary;
b)
notify the candidate, advisor and each examiner of the time and place of the oral
examination;
c)
send a copy of the published material and commentary to each examiner, together
with the preliminary report form RES 12 (Publication) and the University’s
regulations for this mode of PhD candidature and shall ensure that the examiners are
properly briefed as to their duties;
d)
ensure that all examiners have completed and returned their preliminary reports to
the University before the oral examination takes place.
24
Examiners
24.1
A candidate shall be examined by two external and at least one internal examiner. In
accordance with University procedures, the University Research Committee shall nominate
an independent Chair to conduct the examination, whose role and responsibilities will be as
outlined in section 12.2.
24.2
External examiners shall be independent of the University (see regulation 12.3) and shall not
have acted as the candidate’s advisor.
24.3
In accordance with the University regulations, no person who has acted as the candidate’s
advisor shall be on the examining team.
24.4
Examiners shall be experienced in research in the general area of the candidate’s submitted
work and have specialist knowledge of the subject matter submitted.
24.5
External examiners shall normally have substantial experience of examining PhD
candidates. The two externals together should have experience of not less than three
previous examinations.
24.6
No one shall act as an examiner who is currently registered for a Higher Degree.
24.7
The University shall determine and pay the fees and expenses of external examiners.
25
Examination
25.1
Each examiner shall read and examine the submitted work and submit on form RES 12
(Publication) an independent preliminary report on it to the Secretary of the University
Research Committee before any oral examination is held. In completing the preliminary
report, each examiner shall consider whether the work provisionally satisfies the
requirement of the degree (regulation 19.2) and where possible make an appropriate
provisional recommendation subject to the outcome of any oral examination.
25.2
Following the oral examination the examiners shall, where they are in agreement, submit on
form RES 13 (Publication), a joint report and recommendation relating to the award of the
degree to the Secretary of the University Research Committee.
25.3
The preliminary reports and joint recommendations of the examiners shall together provide
sufficiently detailed comments on the scope and quality of the work to enable the University
Research Committee to satisfy itself that the recommendation chosen in regulation 25.4 is
correct.
25.4
Examiners may recommend:
a)
the award of the PhD (either immediately or with minor editorial changes);
b)
that the degree not be awarded.
Examiners may indicate informally their recommendation on the result of the examination to
the candidate but they should make it clear that the decision rests with the University
Research Committee.
25.5
Where the examiners are not in agreement, the University Research Committee may either
accept a majority recommendation or require the appointment of a further external examiner
to mediate.
25.6
The University Research Committee shall make a decision on the reports and
recommendations of the examiners in respect of the candidate. The power to confer the
degree shall rest with the University.
25.7
If the examining team recommend that the degree not be awarded, the candidate may apply
to re-register for this award, but only after a minimum of three years from the date of the
original examination has elapsed.
25.8
Following an examination where the award of PhD was recommended with immediate
effect, the Chair shall forward a full copy of the submission to the Graduate School Office
for lodging with the appropriate University Learning Centre. Where the award of PhD was
recommended with minor editorial changes, it is the student’s responsibility to ensure that
these changes are carried out in accordance with the recommendations and submit the
revised copy of the submission to the internal examiner for approval. The internal examiner
will then ensure that the submission is forwarded to the Graduate School Office along with
confirmation that the revisions are satisfactory (RES 14 (PUB) – see Annex 3).
26
Review of an Examination Decision
The circumstances in which a candidate may request a review of an examination decision
are the same as those indicated under regulation 17.
REGULATIONS FOR AEGROTAT AWARD – POSTGRADUATE DIPLOMA (by
Research)
27
Principles
27.1
The University may award an Aegrotat Postgraduate Diploma (by Research) to students who
are currently registered for a Research Degree but who will be unable to complete in the
usual way due to irreversible health problems.
27.2
A significant proportion of the basic research (if not all of it) must have been completed but
if, through ill health, the candidate is unable to put this into the format of a thesis, they can
apply to their Director of Studies for consideration for the Aegrotat award.
27.3
Supervisors must ensure that all alternative routes to retrieve the situation must have been
thoroughly explored. The University already has comprehensive regulations in place to
cover most situations where students are having difficulty (including chronic or acute
illness): transfer to part-time, suspension, extension, termination of studies at MPhil (for
MPhil/PhD students or PhD students), and possible exemption from the oral examination
(see regulation 9.3) are all possible. Evidence that all of these options have been considered
will need to be appended to any application submitted to the URC for consideration.
27.4
Research submitted for consideration for an Aegrotat Postgraduate Diploma (by Research)
cannot subsequently be employed by the candidate towards an MPhil or PhD.
27.5
In cases where a student submits a thesis for MPhil or PhD, and where the Examiners’
recommendation is that either the candidate be required to resubmit (see 13.3(c)) or that the
candidate not be awarded the degree (see 13.3 (d)), the student may choose to submit the
research for consideration for an Aegrotat Postgraduate Diploma (by Research) provided
that all of the eligibility criteria have been met in full (see reg 28.).
28
Eligibility
28.1
The candidate must meet the following eligibility criteria:
a)
The candidate has been registered for at least 18 months full-time or 30 months parttime and must have completed a substantial body of research in that time.
b)
The candidate is deemed by the supervisors to be in such a position that completion
via the normal route is unlikely ever to be possible.
c)
The candidate is suffering irreversible health problems.
d)
All alternative routes to retrieve the situation have been thoroughly explored.
e)
In the considered opinion of the supervisors, the quality of the research undertaken
and progress made to date indicate likely successful completion.
29
Submission Criteria
29.1
The candidate must produce a body of work which includes the following elements:
a)
The successfully completed RES 2*
b)
At least one approved Annual Report (RES 15)*
c)
Successful transfer report (RES 3) (if applicable)*
d)
A coherent body of work (15-20,000 words) directed towards the original theme of
the research (based on work already completed e.g., literature reviews, lab books,
seminar work etc.)
*Since evidence of progress and potential does not constitute evidence of quality, these
items could only be used as supporting documentation and would not in themselves
constitute grounds for consideration for the award.
30
Procedure
30.1
The Director of Studies shall submit a request to URC to invoke the procedure for awarding
the Aegrotat Postgraduate Diploma (by Research). The request should contain a detailed
and reasoned explanation of why the candidate will not be able to complete in the normal
way, including full written medical evidence which the Director of Studies is empowered to
treat confidentially, an indication of other steps that have been taken to retrieve the situation
and an assessment of the likelihood of the candidate being awarded an MPhil or PhD had
they been able to complete (based on quality of work already completed).
30.2
If approved, the Secretary to the URC shall inform the supervisors and candidate and issue a
reminder of the procedure and submission criteria.
30.3
A RES 4 (AEG) shall be completed in the normal way, proposing Internal and External
Examiners in accordance with the regulations (see sections 10.1 and 12).
30.4
Both the Internal and External Examiners will be apprised of the situation at the time of
appointment and will be issued with guidelines on the examination of the Aegrotat award.
30.5
The candidate shall submit sufficient* copies of her/his work (securely bound) to the
Graduate School Office who will issue the submission and form RES 10 (AEG) to the
Examiners.
*i.e. one copy per approved examiner.
30.6
Each examiner shall return form RES 10 (AEG) to the Graduate School Office who will
check that the recommendations are consistent. The Examiners may recommend that:
a)
The award be conferred;
b)
The award be conferred following minor amendments;
c)
The award not be conferred.
30.7
If all of the Examiners recommend a) or c) above, the Graduate School Office shall forward
the forms to the URC for consideration. If Examiners recommend b) above, or if their
recommendations differ, see regulation 30.8 or 30.10.
30.8
If all of the Examiners recommend b) above, and have listed substantially similar
amendments (for cases in which Examiners differ on the amendments required, see 30.10
below), then the Graduate School Office will advise the candidate of the amendments
required and the time-scale for completion. When the amendments have been carried out,
the work shall be re-submitted to the Graduate School Office who will liaise with the
Examiner(s). This will normally be the Internal Examiner only, unless the External
Examiner specifically requests to have sight of the modifications on the RES 10 (AEG).
The Examiner(s) will subsequently re-examine the modifications and forward their
recommendation to the Graduate School Office on form RES 14 (AEG). At this stage, the
Examiner(s) may recommend either:
30.9
a)
That the award be conferred;
b)
That the award not be conferred.
The Graduate School Office shall forward all documentation to the URC for consideration
(see regulation 30.12).
30.10 If any of the recommendations on the RES 10 (AEG) forms differ, or if Examiners do not
agree on the minor amendments, then a meeting of all the Examiners will be convened to
discuss the submission in detail. The Graduate School Office will appoint an independent
member of staff (normally a member of the URC) to act as an independent Chair at any such
meeting.
30.11 Following the meeting, the Examiners must complete form RES 11 (AEG) with their agreed
recommendation as in 30.6 above. In the case of b), the Examiners will agree the
appropriate amendments and a time scale for completion, and these will be included in the
final report. The Graduate School Office will advise the candidate as in 30.8 above. The
Examiners (either internal, external or both, as specified on the RES 11 (AEG)) will need to
re-examine the modifications and agree their recommendation using form RES 14 (AEG).
The Graduate School Office will then forward all documentation to URC for consideration.
30.12 URC will consider all the documentation and make a judgement based on the Examiners’
reports. If all Examiners are in agreement that the work submitted constitutes sufficient
quality for the award, the Aegrotat Postgraduate Diploma (by Research) will be conferred.
If the Examiners feel that the work is of insufficient quality, the candidate will be so
advised, no award will be made and there will be no opportunity for re-submission. In the
case of a disagreement between the Examiners, a further External Examiner may be
appointed.
30.13 Following conferment, the candidate will be advised and a certificate requested from the
Assessment Unit.
30.14 There will be no requirement to have the submission formally bound as copies for the
Aegrotat Postgraduate Diploma (by Research) are not required to be lodged in the Learning
Centre.
Annex 1: The Role and Responsibilities of the University Research Committee
Terms of Reference
1.
On behalf of Academic Board, to formulate and advise on research strategy and policy
throughout the University.
2.
Through its own functions and those of its sub-committees, to assure Academic Board that
the regulations of the University relating to the award of its Research Degrees are complied
with, and that the academic standards of the awards are secure. In particular,
(a)
To ratify approval of registrations for the University’s degrees of MPhil, MPhil with
transfer possibility to PhD, PhD direct or PhD by Publication and to ratify approval
of transfer from MPhil to PhD.
(b)
To have the following powers relating to the examination and assessment for and
conferment of degrees, to act on behalf of the University:
(c)
(i)
to approve the appointment of internal and external examiners for research
degrees;
(ii)
to arrange for preliminary scrutiny of reports upon theses by internal and
external examiners and thereafter, where appropriate, oversee arrangements
for the conduct of the viva voce examination of candidates;
(iii)
to administer arrangements for any alternative or complementary forms of
assessment;
(iv)
to make decisions, based upon consideration of the reports and
recommendations of the examiners, with regard to the conferment of a
Research Degree;
(v)
to appoint a review panel in instances where a prima facie case for the review
of an examination decision is deemed to exist.
To scrutinise, via a purposely appointed sub-committee of experienced researchers,
applications for the award of Higher Doctorates and to administer procedures for the
examination and conferment of such degrees.
3.
To review, and where necessary revise, the regulations for the award of the University’s
research degrees.
4.
To stimulate research effort throughout the University and to provide the quality control and
monitoring processes for ensuring high calibre research performance and output.
5.
To authorise the Chairperson to act on its behalf in appropriate circumstances.
Membership
Chair: Vice-Chancellor’s nominee with responsibility for research issues
Chairperson of each School Research Committee (SRC)
1 nominated member from each School (nominated by the SRC and approved by Academic
Board)
2/3 elected members from the postgraduate research community
Co-opted members as appropriate
The secretary to the Committee is the nominee of the University Registrar.
The Quorum for the Committee shall be one third of the membership.
Annex 2: The Role and Responsibilities of School Research Committees
(under review, 2003-04)
All such committees work to common terms of reference, approved by Academic Board;
they function as sub-committees of the University Research Committee.
Terms of Reference
1.
To raise and to publicise the research profile of the School, by encouraging and fostering
research throughout the School and in collaboration with other Schools across the
University, with other institutions and with Research Agencies in the UK and abroad.
2.
To advise the Dean of School on the quality and appropriateness of proposals for research
projects and to scrutinise and select such proposals for linkage to research appointments,
whether these are funded by the University, by the Funding Council or by other agencies.
3.
Where appropriate, to advise the Dean of School on the allocation of that part of the
Recurrent Grant for Research which the School receives annually and to monitor School
expenditure against such allocation.
4.
In line with the University Research Strategy, to identify means for supporting staff research
and of monitoring research outputs.
5.
To co-ordinate the research strengths of the School and to marshal those strengths towards
maximum output in terms of:
(i)
publications of higher quality, including works of art and design;
(ii)
research degree conferments;
(iii)
generation of external funding;
(iv)
contract research.
6.
To monitor the performance of the School in respect of its research output, to provide
appropriate data to the Dean of Research and Graduate Studies for inclusion in periodic
reports to HEFCE and for the University’s Research Report and to provide data for
submissions to Research Assessment Exercises and Research Reports.
7.
Where appropriate, to advise the Dean of School on staff development so far as this relates
to Research and to supervision undertaken by members of academic staff.
8.
To monitor the progress of registered research students and the standards of research
supervisions within the School and to advise the Dean of School on additional needs and
requirements of postgraduate research students.
9.
To check annually on the number of active/registered research students and to inform the
Graduate School Office of students whose registration should be continued.
10.
To scrutinise and make recommendations to the University Research Committee regarding
registrations to MPhil, MPhil with transfer to PhD, PhD direct and PhD by publication; and
to scrutinise and make recommendations to URC regarding applications to transfer from
MPhil to PhD.
11.
12.
School Research Committees shall have the power to make recommendations to the Chair of
the University Research Committee relating to the modification of various registration
arrangements:
(i)
to change or to modify, in consultation with supervisors and candidates,
arrangements previously approved;
(ii)
to approve changes in the mode of study of research degree candidates;
(iii)
to extend the period of registration of a candidate where good and sufficient reasons
are given for such extension by the supervisors;
(iv)
to suspend registration of a candidate in circumstances where the research must of
necessity be temporarily halted, but where there is every promise of it being resumed
at a later date with a likely satisfactory outcome;
(v)
to withdraw the student from a registered programme.
Sub-Committees shall also have the following responsibilities:
(i)
to vet the appropriateness of arrangements for examination and to make
recommendations to the University Research Committee.
(ii)
to forward all paperwork relating to any aspect of a research registration (forms RES
1 to RES 9) to the Graduate School Office for onward transmission to the University
Research Committee. The Secretary of the University Research Committee will be
responsible for notifying candidates and supervisors of all decisions made.
Membership
Dean of School (ex officio)
Chair of School Research Committee (if different from the Dean)
At least 1 representative of the School’s postgraduate community.
Other research staff as appropriate.
Annex 3:
List of the University’s research degrees forms
Research Degree forms fall into three distinct categories
Registration
RES 1
-
Notification of intention to undertake a research project
RES 1 (PUB) -
Notification of intention to submit a body of published work in support of
candidature for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
RES 2
Application to register for a research degree of the University
-
RES 2 (PUB) -
Application to register for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) by
Published Work
RES 3
-
Application for transfer of registration from Master of Philosophy to
Doctor of Philosophy
RES 4
-
Application for approval of examination arrangements
RES 4 (PUB) -
Application for approval of examination arrangement for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy by Publication
RES 4 (AEG) -
Application for approval of examination arrangements for the Aegrotat award
RES 5
-
Application for extension of period of registration
RES 6
-
Application for change in approved arrangements for supervision
RES 7
-
Notification of change in approved mode of study
RES 8
-
Application for suspension of registration
RES 9
-
Recommendation for the withdrawal of registration
-
Preliminary report and recommendation of an examiner on a candidate for
the degree of Master of Philosophy
RES 10 (AEG)-
Preliminary report and recommendation of an examiner on a candidate for
the Aegrotat Diploma (by Research)
RES 11
Recommendation of the examiners on a candidate for the degree of Master
of Philosophy
Examination
RES 10
-
RES 11 (AEG)-
Recommendation of the examiners on a candidate for the Aegrotat award of
Postgraduate Diploma (by Research)
RES 12
Preliminary report and recommendation of an examiner on a candidate for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
-
RES 12 (PUB)-
Preliminary report and recommendation of an examiner on a candidate for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Publication
RES 13
-
Recommendation of the examiners on a candidate for the degree of Doctor
of Philosophy
RES 13 (PUB)-
Recommendation of the examiners on a candidate for the degree of Doctor
of Philosophy by Publication
RES 14
Candidate’s declaration form (MPhil and PhD)
-
RES 14 (PUB)-
Candidate’s declaration form (PhD by Publication)
RES 14 (AEG)-
Candidate’s declaration form (Aegrotat award)
RESUB
-
Independent report and recommendation of an examiner on a candidate’s resubmission for the degree of either MPhil or PhD
RESUB (J)
-
Joint report and recommendation of the examiners on a candidate’s resubmission for the degree of either MPhil or PhD
-
Annual monitoring form.
-
Costing form for fees for non-standard research students
Monitoring
RES 15
Fees
RES 23