FASS Research Training Programme
General Handbook for Staff and Students
2015-16
http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/graduateschool/training/
Contents
Who’s Who
2
What is the Faculty of Art & Social Sciences Research Training Programme?
5
Who teaches on the RTP?
5
Who are the RTP modules for?
5
Do I pay to attend these modules?
6
Which modules should I take?
6
How do I go about assessing my training needs?
7
How do I enrol?
7
How will you contact me?
8
When do modules take place?
8
What if I am taking an assessed (credit bearing) module?
8
How do I know that the modules are of high quality?
10
What happens if I want to learn more about teaching in higher education?
11
What if I want to learn more about statistics?
11
What if I want advice on careers?
12
What if I want to learn more about the Library?
12
What happens if I have a complaint or concern about any aspect of the RTP?
12
Ethics and research: ensuring that your study complies with Lancaster’s standards for ethical
research
13
Appendices
Appendix 1:
Referencing Guidelines for Students
14
Appendix 2:
Faculty Marking/Grade Criteria for Masters Level Assessments
15
Appendix 3:
A Plagiarism Framework
25
This RTP General Handbook for Staff and Students should be read in conjunction with the RTP
Modules Handbook.
1
Who’s Who?
Faculty
Associate Dean for Postgraduate Studies
Sigrun Skogly
Law
s.skogly@lancaster.ac.uk
Programme Director
Uta Papen
Linguistics
u.papen@lancaster.ac.uk
Programme Administrator
Michaela Scott
Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences
fass-rtp@lancaster.ac.uk
Michaela is usually available to talk to students at: 10.00-12.00, Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays
Module Convenors
FASS502:
Introduction to the Library and Literature Searching
Tanya Williamson
Library
t.williamson1@lancaster.ac.uk
FASS506:
FASS510:
FASS522:
Designing, Undertaking and Surviving Doctoral Research
Qualitative Methods in the Social Sciences
The Ethics Approval Process at Lancaster University: How to Write an Application
to the University's Ethics Committee
Introduction to Qualitative Research
Ethnography & Participant Observation
Ethnography (distance learning)
Interviewing as a Research Technique
Mixed Methods Research
Validity, Reliability & Generalisability in Qualitative Research
Focus Groups
How to Make the Most of your Supervision
The PhD Viva: Tragedy or Triumph? (Final Year Students only)
Ethics in Arts & Social Science Research – a self-learning resource
Action research, Autoethnography and Arts-based Research Methods
Writing a Literature Review
FASS610:
FASS611:
FASS611d:
FASS612:
FASS613:
FASS614:
FASS615:
FASS617:
FASS618:
FASS625:
FASS630:
FASS633:
Uta Papen
Linguistics
u.papen@lancaster.ac.uk
2
FASS507:
Introduction to the Philosophy of the Social Sciences
FASS507d:
Introduction to the Philosophy of the Social Sciences (distance learning)
Michael Kraetke
Sociology
m.kraetke@lancaster.ac.uk
FASS508:
Quantitative Research Methods Introduction
FASS509:
Quantitative Research Methods 1
(distance learning)
FASS512:
Quantitative Research Methods 2
FASS512d:
Quantitative Research Methods 2
(distance learning)
Andrew Wilson
Linguistics
a.wilson@lancaster.ac.uk
FASS513:
Approaches to Qualitative Analysis: A Workshop for Second and Third Year PGRs
only
Lucy Suchman
Sociology
l.suchman@lancaster.ac.uk
FASS516:
FASS516d:
FASS519:
FASS521:
FASS521d:
FASS619:
FASS619d:
FASS620:
FASS620d:
Thesis Writing (First-Year Students only)
Thesis Writing (First-Year Students only) (distance learning)
Presenting Conference Papers
Writing for Publication (Second/Third/Final Year Students only)
Writing for Publication (Second/Third/Final Year Students only) (distance learning)
Advanced Thesis Writing (Second Year Students only): Refocusing the Thesis
Advanced Thesis Writing (Second Year Students only): Refocusing the Thesis
(distance learning)
Advanced Thesis Writing (Final Year Students only): Towards Completion
Advanced Thesis Writing (Final Year Students only): Towards Completion (distance
learning)
Feminist Literary and Cultural Theory
FASS626:
Lynne Pearce
English & Creative Writing
l.pearce@lancaster.ac.uk
FASS517:
Discourse Analysis
Veronika Koller
Linguistics
v.koller@lancaster.ac.uk
FASS604: The Analysis of Culture
Cornelia Graebner/Erika Fülöp
European Languages & Cultures
c.grabner@lancaster.ac.uk
e.fulop@lancaster.ac.uk
3
FASS605:
Gramsci
FASS635:
Karl Marx
FASS636:
Crisis: Critical Approaches
Bob Jessop
Sociology
b.jessop@lancaster.ac.uk
FASS616:
Text Analysis for Social Scientists
Karin Tusting
Linguistics
k.tusting@lancaster.ac.uk
FASS622:
Postgraduate Employability
Joe Buglass
Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences
j.buglass@lancaster.ac.uk
FASS627:
Spatial Theory
Jo Carruthers
English & Creative Writing
j.carruthers@lancaster.ac.uk
FASS628:
Interdisciplinarity
Jo Carruthers
English & Creative Writing
j.carruthers@lancaster.ac.uk
FASS627:
Textual Practice
Jo Carruthers
English & Creative Writing
j.carruthers@lancaster.ac.uk
FASS634:
Introduction to Engaging with Government and Politics (Second/Third/Final Year
Students only)
Rebecca Willis
Sociology
r.willis@lancaster.ac.uk
FASS637:
Qualitative Research Interviews – Theory and Practice
Hazel Morbey
Health Research
h.morbey@lancaster.ac.uk
Full information about the Programme, including module outlines and timetables, is available online
at http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/graduateschool/training/
4
What is the Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences Research Training Programme?
The RTP consists of modules and short courses on research methods, theories and philosophies of
the social sciences and humanities, thesis writing and other generic skills relevant to PhD study. The
RTP is designed to complement more specialised subject or discipline-based training modules
offered in the departments.
The RTP offers:


On-site modules and short courses
Distance learning modules (please note that these are provided for part-time and away
students in the first instance, and they will be given precedence on these modules)
The RTP includes:


Modules for PhD students in the early stages of their studies, for example on research design
and research methods
More advanced modules and short courses that are intended for more experienced research
students already engaged in data gathering and data analysis
All our teaching is designed to help you considerably with aspects of your research, from design, to
data collection and analysis, to writing up and successfully defending your thesis.
Who teaches on the RTP?
The RTP has two core tutors:


Uta Papen, Department of Linguistics and English Language
Lynne Pearce, Department of English and Creative Writing
Uta and Lynne teach about thesis writing, supervision, ethics, qualitative research methods, writing
for publication, ethics, and other topics.
To ensure that all aspects of research training that you may need are covered, other colleagues from
across the Faculty offer modules in specific areas, including quantitative methods, data analysis,
textual analysis and others.
Who are the RTP modules for?
All our modules are designed for research students. Some modules may also be attended by Masters
students (who intend to study for a PhD the year after) or research staff (colleagues who are
employed as researchers on projects). Students from other faculties can also attend our modules.
5
Do I pay to attend these modules?
No, the modules are free to both FASS and non-FASS students (but FASS students will be given
precedence if modules are oversubscribed).
Which modules should I take?
The Economic & Social Research Council (the main funder of UK full-time social science research
students) recommends that all social science research students become familiar with both
quantitative and qualitative approaches to research and with the philosophy of the social sciences as
well as with more specialised subject-specific requirements. Even though you may not plan to use
both quantitative and qualitative data in your research, you are likely to find that future employers
will expect you to have at least a basic understanding of both approaches and forms of data. Your
own reading will often require you to be able to understand and interpret both quantitative and
qualitative data.
The Arts & Humanities Research Council (the main funder of UK full-time arts and humanities
research students) recommends that students in the arts and humanities should develop generic
skills such as written and oral presentation skills (including giving research papers), designing and
managing a project, ICT skills, bibliographic skills and contextualising practice-based research,
identifying and using web-based resources, record-keeping and record management, and personal
and career development.
The Faculty recommends that all first year full time and all first/second year part-time students who
have not either already done a specialised research methods Master’s degree or had considerable
relevant experience as a research assistant on a funded project should aim to take the following
generic modules:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
Introduction to the Philosophy of the Social Sciences (FASS507) (also available as online
distance learning).
Qualitative Methods in the Social Sciences (FASS510).
Quantitative Research Methods Introduction (FASS508) or Quantitative Research Methods 1
(FASS509) – online distance learning.
Quantitative Research Methods 2 (FASS512) (also available as online distance learning).
The three thesis writing modules, for students at different stages of their degree, (all of
which are also available as online distance learning):
a. Thesis Writing (First Year Students only) (FASS516).
b. Advanced Thesis Writing (Second Year Students only): Refocusing the Thesis
(FASS619).
c. Advanced Thesis Writing (Final Year Students only): Towards Completion
(FASS620).
Full details of the modules (together with timetables) appear in the companion RTP Modules
Handbook and on the RTP website.
6
How do I go about assessing my training needs?
If you are funded by an Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC) studentship or an Arts &
Humanities Research Council (AHRC) studentship, your training requirements will have been
discussed at the time of your application. You and your supervisor or Masters Course Director
should remind yourselves of these when you actually register. For other students, you should discuss
your training needs with your supervisor(s), bearing in mind your own previous postgraduate
education and relevant research work experience, the research you are planning to undertake and
the comments made in the previous section concerning the importance of gaining a range of skills
and knowledge about different kinds of research. Your Department and supervisor will require you
to carry out a development needs analysis and this will also help you identity any training needs you
might have in the area of research methods and thesis writing.
The ESRC’s Training Guidelines for postgraduate training should also be consulted. The guidelines
can be found online at http://www.esrc.ac.uk/funding-and-guidance/postgraduates/dtc/dtcpolicy/dtc-network/ptguidelines.aspx
For information about the AHRC’s policy of training for postgraduate researchers, consult their
research training framework at
http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/documents/guides/research-training-framework-guide
The RTP Director, Uta Papen, will also be happy to provide you with advice on your choice of
modules and workshops.
How do I enrol? Is there a lot of bureaucracy involved in registering for modules?
No; it's a quick and straightforward process.
i.
There are just two simple steps to be taken. First discuss the modules in the Modules
Handbook with your supervisor(s), who will help you to assess your training needs. Then
simply complete the registration form (available from the RTP website at
http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/gradschool/training), save it as a Word document, and
email it to fass-rtp@lancaster.ac.uk.
Please make sure to register for any modules you wish to take, whether or not you intend to
undertake assessment for them.
NB You should not assume that you definitely have a place on a module for which you have
signed up. If modules are oversubscribed we will need to operate a quota. For modules
running in Michaelmas Term, we will confirm registrations as soon as we can (which may be
after some modules have started) so until you have heard from us please go to the modules
you want to take. We will contact you towards the end of Michaelmas Term to confirm
registrations for Lent Term, and towards the end of Lent Term to confirm registrations for
Summer Term.
7
ii. We would advise that, as far as possible, you should apply as soon as you are able, rather
than waiting until the term in which modules run. This gives you a better chance of being
given a place on the module, and allows us to plan better. We understand, however, that
your training needs may change. It is fine to register for modules throughout the year.
Important note – it is essential to register for those modules you wish to take and to
deregister from any you decide you no longer wish to take. This helps us to prepare for
modules (eg booking a suitably-sized room) and ensures that students who wish to take a
module on which a quota is applied don’t miss out because other people accepted on to the
module don’t turn up. It also means that students have access to online module materials for
the appropriate modules, and that, if we need to contact students about a module, we are
contacting all the correct people. In addition, students’ attendance at previous RTP modules
will be taken into consideration when we are applying quotas to modules that are
oversubscribed.
If you wish to withdraw from a particular module, or if you are unable to attend one or more
individual sessions of a module on which you have registered, please email
fass-rtp@lancaster.ac.uk to let us know.
How will you contact me?
i.
In most cases, we will contact you by email. We will always use your Lancaster email address
(***@lancaster.ac.uk), so you need to ensure that you check this account regularly. If you
want to use another address to read your email, you will need to ensure that you set up
your Lancaster account to forward messages to your preferred address.
ii.
If we need to contact you in writing, we will use your departmental address. You will need
to find out where your departmental pigeonhole is and check it regularly.
When do modules take place?
Timetables for all three terms appear in the Modules Handbook and on the timetable page of the
RTP website (http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/gradschool/training/timetable.htm). In some cases
the information about timing and rooms may be incomplete, but it will be updated as soon as the
modules concerned have been timetabled and suitable rooms allocated.
What if I am taking an assessed (credit-bearing) module?
For the majority of PhD students, the RTP is valuable as a non-assessed component of their studies.
Therefore, most of the RTP modules do not include an assessment option. If they do, the
assessment is voluntary for PhD students and most of you will choose not to take part in the
assessment. If you are studying for an MA or are enrolled in a Thesis and Coursework programme,
you may take FASS507, FASS507d, FASS510, FASS512 and FASS512d as credit-bearing modules
contributing to the coursework element of your PhD.
8
If you are taking part in the assessment, you are required to submit the coursework electronically,
through the module’s Moodle site. The coursework cover sheet is available online at
http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/graduateschool/training/docs/coursework-coversheet.docx ), and
needs be attached as the first page of the coursework. Feedback will be provided electronically by
the module convenor.
Pass levels: Following University regulations, the overall pass mark for Master’s schemes is 50%. For
the award of a Master’s degree the final mark for a module or unit of assessment should not
normally be below 50%. The Board of Examiners of the programme you are registered with has
specific rules for action to be undertaken in case you have failed an assignment. Usually this includes
resubmission. In exceptional circumstances, failed assignments can be condoned. Only assignments
receiving a mark between 40-49% can be condoned. One course work assessment awarded a mark
in the 40% - 49% range may be condoned.
Students undertaking MRes or research pathway schemes should note that acquiring a pass mark of
50% is no guarantee in itself of securing a place on an MPhil/PhD programme at Lancaster
University. Normally, students will be considered for a place on an MPhil/PhD if they achieve a
minimum average mark of 60% overall and a mark of at least 60% on their dissertation.
Failed work: If on completion of the assessed work the module is referred as a fail at the level
required, students are allowed one re-submission only per module. On successful resubmission the
student will only be awarded a pass mark which represents an appropriate pass at the required level
(ie 50% for Masters level).
The University may impose a resubmission fee for the resubmission of a failed assignment or
dissertation.
Deadlines and Extensions: Please note that all students undertaking Faculty modules as part of a
Taught Masters scheme (whether ESRC or other) will be subject to the Faculty regulations on
deadlines and penalties. That is, that prior to the maximum data, there are published deadlines for
the submission of coursework; there are published procedures for the granting of extensions; work
submitted after a deadline but without an approved extension shall normally be penalised, as
follows:
Failure to submit by the published deadline without securing an agreed extension will result in an
automatic reduction of 10% points for up to three working days late (eg if the deadline is on Monday
14 March at 2.00 pm, a penalty of 10% points is applied to work submitted after 2.00 pm on Monday
14 March and up to 2.00 pm on Thursday 17 March). A mark of 0 (non-submission) is given
thereafter (eg after 2.00 pm on Thursday 17 March) for the assessment, subject to any consideration
of mitigating circumstance. Students who fail modules as a result of penalties shall be subject to the
Faculty’s regulations on failed modules.
9
Students who need an extension are required to contact in writing their module tutor prior to the
deadline and giving the tutor sufficient time to consider the reasons for requesting an extension.
Please bear in mind that sending an email at 8.00 pm on the evening if an assignment is due the next
morning at 9.00 am is not acceptable. We are not able to give students extensions once the deadline
has passed, unless exceptional circumstances apply.
We recognise that sometimes, for good reasons, you may be unable to submit your work on time.
Reasonable causes for extensions include illness and serious personal problems. If you require an
extension, you need to explain in what ways your work has been affected by the circumstances
leading to your request (eg if you have fallen ill, please explain since when you were ill and how
many days you were unable to work).
Please note that the Turnitin plagiarism-detection service may be used to check coursework.
Referencing Guidelines, Information on Faculty Marking/Grade Criteria, and the University
Plagiarism Framework can be found in appendices at the back of this handbook.
How do I know that the modules are of high quality? How is the quality of RTP modules
monitored?
The Faculty Research Training Programme has run successfully for many years, and is widely
recognised, in conjunction with relevant more specialised modules, as being of suitable quality for
the receipt of students with research studentships from a range of funding sources. The RTP is being
revised on a regular basis to ensure that it meets the needs and interests of students in the Faculty.
These include students funded through ESRC 1+3 programmes within the North West Doctoral
Training Centre in the following departments and institutes:
Educational Research; Geography (in the Faculty of Science & Technology ); History; Division
of Health Research (in the Faculty of Health & Medicine); Linguistics and English Language;
Management School; Mathematics and Statistics (in the Faculty of Science & Technology);
Politics, Philosophy & Religion; Psychology (in the Faculty of Science & Technology);
Sociology.
and AHRC PhD programmes within the North West Consortium Doctoral Training Partnership in the
following departments and institutes:
English and Creative Writing; European Languages and Cultures; History; Lancaster Institute
for the Contemporary Arts (LICA): Law; Linguistics and English Language; Politics, Philosophy
& Religion; Sociology.
Each module is subject to a student evaluation/feedback exercise. At the end of each academic
year, as part of the Research Training Programme Annual Review, staff teaching on the RTP
discuss and review the year’s programme and the modules and courses that were taught.
Suggestions are made about improvements and changes for the following year. The RTP Director
maintains regular contact with students and with colleagues who teach on the programme to
10
ensure that all modules and short courses that are part of the RTP meet students’ needs and
offer teaching of a high quality.
What happens if I want to learn more about teaching in higher education?
Support for associate teachers, in particular Postgraduates and researchers who teach, is provided
through the Higher Education Academy accredited Supporting Learning Programme (SLP) and the
one-day Introduction to Teaching workshops.
The Supporting Learning Programme is designed to provide a framework for the academic and
professional development of those who hold posts which involve some duties and responsibilities
for supporting the development and/or delivery of learning opportunities. There is a requirement
that participants have at least 10 hours of teaching contact time, or where contact hours are less,
that they have a significant level of responsibility for that teaching.
There are two routes:


The SLP Intensive Route
The SLP Top-Up Route
Further information about the programme, including the application forms, is available on-line:
http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/hr/OED/ED/SLP/
The one-day Introduction to Teaching at Lancaster course is designed to help postgraduates,
researchers and others involved in modest amounts of demonstrating or seminar teaching to
address some of the basic skills and understanding they will need for their work. It assumes that
participants have little or no previous teaching experience. Further information is available online at
http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/hr/OED/ED/ITL/
What if I want to learn more about statistics?
The RTP offers several modules on statistics. In addition to these, the Postgraduate Statistics Centre
within the Department of Mathematics and Statistics (in the Faculty of Science and Technology) is
the only UK HEFCE-funded Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning that specialises in
postgraduate statistics.
Further information about the short courses provided by the Centre, including booking and
timetable details, is available online at: http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/maths/postgraduate/shortcourses-and-cpd/ If you wish to take any of these courses please book direct with the Centre, at
psc@lancaster.ac.uk.
The free Statistical Advisory Service drop-in sessions run by the Department of Mathematics and
Statistics will return at the beginning of October. This service is available to PhD students and
members of staff, from any department, who have queries about aspects of experimental design or
statistical analysis relating to their research.
11
For further details, please see
http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/maths/postgraduate/statistical-advisory-service/
or contact the Advisory Co-ordinator at advice@stats.lancs.ac.uk.
What if I want advice on careers?
The Careers Service has files on hundreds of career occupations and work sectors, with booklets and
vacancy directories freely available to take away. They also run a variety of workshops for PhD
students on career opportunities and development. These are extremely useful and highly
recommended. See their website for further information:
http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/careers/students-graduates/
What if I want to learn more about the Library?
The Library provides access to print and electronic collections for all members of the University. See
information about using the Library at http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/library/using-the-library/.
The Library co-ordinates a series of short lunchtime sessions called Research Bites for postgraduate
students, supervisors and researchers, with the aim of delivering useful information, starting
discussions and answering questions for the benefit of anyone conducting research at Lancaster
University. There is also a blog with details of past sessions, including slides and recordings. For
details please see http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/library/news-and-training-events/training-andevents/research-bites/. If you have any questions or ideas, please contact Tanya Williamson
(t.williamson1@lancaster.ac.uk, 01524 594284).
The Library Training Sessions are longer talks and workshops on everything from research data
management to literature searching. For more information about these sessions, please see
http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/library/news-training-and-events/training-and-events/library-trainingsessions/ or contact Jenny Brine (j.brine@lancaster.ac.uk, 01524 592545).
What happens if I have a complaint or concern about any aspect of the RTP?
If it is something that you cannot resolve with the appropriate module tutor or convenor, you should
approach the RTP Director explaining your concern or complaint. If after discussion, you are still
dissatisfied, you may approach the Faculty’s Associate Dean for Postgraduate Studies, Professor
Sigrun Skogly, e-mail s.skogly@lancaster.ac.uk
12
Ethics and research: ensuring that your study complies with Lancaster’s standards for ethical
research
Whatever your research topic - actual or proposed - you should give early consideration to ensuring
that your research practice is ethical. No field of arts & social science research is exempt from
ethical concerns, no matter how ethically unproblematic it may at first appear. To find out more
about ethics you can:



Have a look at the web-based resource:
Ethical Guidelines for Research with Human Participants:
http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/depts/research/ethics.html
Discuss the ethical dimensions of your research with your supervisor(s)
Consider taking FASS522: The Ethics Approval Process at Lancaster University: How
to Write an Application to the University's Ethics Committee or FASS625: Ethics in
Arts & Social Science Research – a self-learning resource.
13
APPENDIX 1
Referencing: guidelines for students
We place emphasis on proper documentation and presentation of essays, dissertations and theses.
All sources must be fully acknowledged in the text of short or long essays as well as dissertations and
theses. This includes the use of ideas and information as well as direct quotations. Failure to
acknowledge the source of your material is plagiarism, a very serious offence that is commonly
penalised by a fail mark. Thus essays etc. should include a full ‘Reference List’ or Bibliography.
Various reference systems are used in the social sciences and humanities and you may want to
consults with your supervisor when deciding which system to follow. In principle, you can use any
system that is commonly used in your discipline and which your supervisor and Department deem to
be appropriate. The most important issue is that you are consistent and stick to the rules of the
system you have chosen. If you want to have a look at a specific system, the Harvard Referencing
System is widely used, and you can find information about it here:
http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/library/referencing/referencing-guides
14
APPENDIX 2
Faculty Marking/Grade Criteria for Masters Level Assignments
General
These guidelines are intended to spell out the criteria that are used to assess written work. The
criteria show the features we expect to see in work of a given mark or grade. To achieve a given
grade, students do not have to have met all the criteria listed; however, they must have
demonstrated a preponderance of those qualities in their work. Although modes of assessment vary
(essays, dissertations, other forms of written output) the principles by which markers arrive at their
judgements remain the same. Below is a list of aspects of students’ work which may be taken into
account during assessment, as appropriate.














Relevance of material in the essay to the title of the assignment.
Relevance to the content of the course.
Understanding of issues or problems under discussion.
Knowledge and understanding of relevant readings.
Critical discussion of relevant readings.
Use of suitable data.
Clarity and depth in the analysis of theory, data and issues under discussion.
Coherence of argument.
Clarity and relevance of introduction and conclusion.
Clarity and precision of expression.
Use of appropriate and consistent conventions for referring to other people’s work.
Clarity of presentation (layout, including use of paragraphs and tables, for example).
Clarity of writing including grammar, punctuation, spelling and sentence construction.
Compliance with published regulations on the completion of assessed work by the
coursework deadline
Criteria for the award of marks
70 + (distinction)
A piece of written work in the 70+ range is one of exceptional quality, requiring a high level of
conceptual ability and an extremely thorough and conscientious approach to study. Work in this
range will clearly demonstrate the capacity to proceed to a higher research degree. It is
distinguished by:
15
Argument

A clearly expressed and convincing argument which is used to develop a coherent and logical
framework within which to answer the question or address the topic, and which is well
grounded in existing theory and research, leading to a reasoned conclusion fully supported
by the foregoing material.

A capacity to relate consistently the theoretical and empirical material to the conceptual
framework.

Substantial evidence of independent research.

The absence of irrelevant or extraneous material.
Understanding

A thorough understanding of the topic and its implications.

A clear and consistent focus on the issues raised by the question/topic.

An insightful argument showing signs of originality.
Style


Good grammar, punctuation, spelling and sentence construction.
Thorough use of conventions of referring to other people’s work
Marks within this classification may vary due to–

An original capacity to develop arguments beyond those available in the literature.

The depth and sophistication of the conceptual argument.

The level of familiarity with the theoretical and research literature.
60-69 (Merit)
A piece of written work of a good to very good standard requiring clarity of thought and expression.
It will display an ability to handle the relevant literature in an analytical manner. It will be more than
a good description of the various theories and/or studies relevant to the question – it will
demonstrate a marshalling of relevant information by means of analysis and interpretation. It will
not necessarily have a water-tight argument, but it will be clearly structured and its conclusions will
not take the reader by surprise. Such a piece of work will generally show less independence of
thought and mastery of detail that is required for a mark of 70 or over. There may be some errors or
misjudgements with regard to issues which are not central to the argument. Work in this range will
normally demonstrate the capacity to proceed to a higher research degree. It is distinguished by:
16
Argument

A logical, coherent framework within which to answer the question or address the topic.

An ability to organise the data in a way that provides a clear and logical answer to, or
discussion of, the question/topic.

A clearly expressed theme or argument developed from a critical consideration of relevant
literature.
Understanding

A good understanding of the topic and its implications.

Familiarity with the relevant literature and empirical data.

The avoidance of irrelevant or extraneous material.

Evaluation of competing arguments.

Conclusion supported by the body of the argument and evidence.

Some evidence of independent research.

Avoidance of unsubstantiated assertions.
Style


Good grammar, punctuation, spelling and sentence construction.
Good use of conventions of referring to other people’s work
Marks within this category may vary due to–

The clarity and cogency of the overall argument.

The level of familiarity with the relevant literature and data.

The depth and coherence of the answer.
50-59 (Pass)
A piece of written work of a moderate to good standard. It will be descriptively strong. It is
distinguished from the 60-69 piece by the level of analysis displayed and by the coherence with
which the material is organised. There may be some significant errors, misjudgements or omissions
of important details. A mark in this range would not normally demonstrate the capacity to proceed
to a higher research degree. It is characterised by:
Argument

An attempt to answer the question or address the topic,

A conclusion not entirely supported by or relevant to the body of the essay.

A failure to adequately organise an answer into a coherent whole.
17
Understanding

A reasonable understanding of the topic and its implications.

A level of empirical knowledge and relevant reading which demonstrates a conscientious
attempt to tackle the question/topic.

The intrusion of some extraneous material.

A failure to grasp at least some relevant points or address some relevant literature.
Style


Adequate grammar, punctuation, spelling and sentence construction.
Referencing that is incomplete or fails to observe some conventions for referring to other
people's work.
Marks within this category may vary due to–

The level of empirical and theoretical knowledge displayed.

The seriousness with which an attempt has been made to answer the question or address
the topic.

The number of major points that have been covered.

The coherence of the essay.

The degree of unsubstantiated assertion.

Written style (grammar, spelling, punctuation and sentence construction).
40- 49 (Fail - with the possibility of condonation in accordance with the Faculty regulations.)
A piece of written work in this category shows signs of engagement with the question or topic, but
has inadequacies at Master’s level. It signals a failure to give sufficient thought to the work in hand,
displaying inconsistent argument, unsubstantiated assertions, and a patchy acquaintance with the
relevant literature. It may lack a convincing conclusion and it is likely to include significant errors,
omissions and misunderstandings. It is characterised by:
Argument

A failure to order this material so as to provide an adequate answer to the question.

An ability to pick out some of the points required for a satisfactory answer.

Inadequate conclusion.
Understanding

Some knowledge of appropriate empirical material.

The intrusion of irrelevant material.

An inadequate familiarity with relevant literature.
18
Marks within this category may vary due to–

The level of empirical knowledge displayed.

The extent to which an effort has been made to answer the question or address the topic.

Evidence of conscientious effort.

The degree of unsubstantiated assertion.

Written style (grammar, punctuation, spelling and sentence construction).
Style


Sub-standard grammar, punctuation, spelling and sentence construction.
Inadequate use of conventions of referring to other people’s work
Marks below 40 (Fail - without possibility of condonation)
Marks in the 30 - 39 range indicate that the piece of written work is inadequate in every respect with
pronounced errors and misunderstandings. It is characterised by:

Some empirical knowledge.

Some evidence of study in the area concerned.

An inability to develop any but the flimsiest answer to the question.

Problematic conclusion.
Using the full range of marks
Departments are encouraged to make use of the full range of marks available, including using marks
of below 30% and of above 80% where this is appropriate.
High marks
Marks above 80 (High distinction)
Marks above 80% will given to work that demonstrates the strengths listed for marks above 70%. In
addition, it will show original thinking going beyond that in the existing literature and backed up by
appropriate evidence and reasoning. Marks above 90% will be given to work that is of a quality
suitable for publication in an international refereed journal.
Low marks
Marks below 30 (A poor Fail)
A mark below 30 means that the student has not given sufficient attention to study, has a lack of
basic knowledge, and an inability to tackle the question or topic. It is characterised by:
19






Inadequate knowledge of relevant literature.
Inadequate understanding of relevant literature.
No or totally flawed attempt to examine the issue(s) posed in the question.
No or totally confused attempt to answer the question.
Little or no structure in the presentation of argument.
No, or irrelevant conclusion.
Marks of below 20% will be given to work demonstrating almost no knowledge or understanding of
the literature and of the subject area. Any knowledge displayed will be completely misinterpreted.
Marks of below 10% will be given to work demonstrating almost complete incoherence and
irrelevance.
Individual modules
FASS507:
FASS507d:
Introduction to the Philosophy of the Social Sciences
Introduction to the Philosophy of the Social Sciences (distance learning)
The standard Faculty marking criteria apply.
FASS510:
Qualitative Methods in the Social Sciences
Marks will be reached in accordance with the FASS marking scheme (see above). Marks in the
following range can be achieved:
70% +
60-69%
50-59%
40-49%
Marks below 40%
(Distinction)
(Merit)
(Pass)
(Fail with the possibility of condonation in accordance with Faculty
regulations – see below)
(Fail without the possibility of condonation)
The Faculty’s marking scheme is supplemented by consideration of the particular learning outcomes
of FASS510:
20
At the end of the module students are expected:
 to be familiar with key methodological issues and challenges concerning qualitative research
 to be familiar with different qualitative research methods
 to be able to identify the advantages and challenges of different methods
 to have an idea about how research questions and your underlying theories relate to
research methods
 to be able to describe in writing the methods they use in their own research and to discuss
their strengths and weaknesses
This means that the learning outcomes will be used as additional criteria to assess what mark a
specific essay will achieve. However, given that each essay is specific and taking account of the
particular essay title agreed with the tutor, the criteria will need to be specified and are not fully
fixed. For example, for students who write about one specific method, the second and third learning
outcomes (familiarity with different qualitative research methods and ability to identify the
advantages and challenges of different methods) do not fully apply. The fourth learning outcome (to
have an idea about how research questions and your underlying theories relate to research
methods) will apply to some essays only, depending on the specific essay title that was agreed. The
fifth learning outcomes (to be able to describe in writing the methods they use in their own research
and to discuss their strengths and weaknesses) usually applies to all essays, regardless of their
specific content.
With regards to the band of marks, in addition to the criteria listed in the FASS marking scheme, the
following points apply:
Evidence of independent research may or may not be required, depending on the essay topic.
In order to achieve a distinction the argument made regarding the specific methods that are
examined needs to be clearly expressed and convincing. It needs to be well grounded in existing
discussions about the method(s) and their underlying epistemology and ontology. It needs to show
exceptional ability to evaluate different arguments about specific methods. Depending on the essay
topic, the assignment will also show the writer’s exceptional ability to comment critically on their
research, whether planned or already in progress.
Marks in the 60 to 69 range will display a good ability to handle the relevant literature on the
methods examined. They will also show an understanding of epistemological and ontological
perspectives informing different research methods. They will show the writer’s ability to present
different methods and to evaluate different arguments about specific methods. If applicable to the
essay topic, some insightful comments on the student's own research are expected.
21
Essays achieving a mark in the range of 50 to 59 will show knowledge and understanding of different
research methods as they relate to the specific topic in question, but less ability to describe these
clearly and evaluate them critically and in relation to epistemology and ontology. Essays will display
less ability to think critically about the students’ own research.
Essays in the 40 to 49 range may show some signs of engagement with the methods specific for the
topic, but overall the discussion of these methods is poor in terms of argumentation and structure
and often shows significant gaps in the student’s understanding of the methods and their ability to
describe and discuss them in writing. If an essay comments on the student's own research, there
tends to be a lack of understanding of how specific methods can be applied to the research in
question and what potential problems might arise.
Marks below 40 show serious errors and misunderstandings with regards to the research methods
discussed and how they apply to the topic in question.
FASS512:
FASS512d:
Quantitative Research Methods 2
Quantitative Research Methods 2 (distance learning)
Three short assignments (2 x 1,500 words; 1 x 2,000 words) based on analysing and interpreting real
data relating to research or policy issues in the social sciences and humanities. The assignments will
assess students' ability to input and analyse a data set in "R", choose appropriate methods for the
given data set, and interpret the output from "R", having applied the chosen methods correctly and
with relevance to the specific questions of interest.
Assessment one (20% of total mark):
Descriptive data analysis, numerical summaries, tables, graphics, etc.
Assessment two (40% of total mark):
Confidence intervals and significance testing.
Assessment three (40% of total mark):
Regression analysis and correlation.
Mark categories and associated classifications of ability:
70% and over



High competence in the use of “R”.
Ability to make a basic level interpretation of output in nearly all situations.
Ability to make an in-depth interpretation of output in most situations.
60 to 69%

High competence in the use of “R”.
22


Ability to make a basic level interpretation of output in most situations.
Ability to make an in-depth interpretation of output in a substantial number of situations.
50 to 59% (Pass)


Moderate competence in the use of “R”.
Ability to make a basic level interpretation of output in most situations.
40 to 49%


Moderate competence in the use of “R”.
Ability to make a basic level interpretation of output in a substantial number of situations
but not most situations.
Below 40%

Ability to make a basic level interpretation of output in less than a substantial number of
situations or very low competence in the use of “R”..
23
APPENDIX 3
Lancaster University
Plagiarism Working Party
A PLAGIARISM FRAMEWORK
Our Commitment, Approach and Procedures for Promoting Good Academic Practices
(Revised version of 2013, for implementation from 1 October 2014)
Section 1: Commitments and Responsibilities
INTRODUCTION
Plagiarism involves the unacknowledged use of someone else’s work and passing it off as if it were
one’s own. This may occur for many reasons. For example, the University recognises that students
may submit plagiarised work because of poorly developed study skills, and that some students,
particularly those from different cultures and educational systems, may find UK academic
referencing/acknowledgement systems and conventions unfamiliar.
However, some students do plagiarise deliberately, sometimes because they are unable or unwilling
to do the required work, and with the intent to deceive and gain academic benefit. This is a
conscious, pre-mediated form of cheating and is regarded as a serious breach of the core values of
the University and damaging to the reputation of the University and its programmes.
This Plagiarism Framework explains how the issues of plagiarism are to be handled at Lancaster
University and defines how possible cases of plagiarism will be dealt with under the terms of the
University Rules, and the institutional procedures by which this will be done.
This framework applies equally to all assessments submitted by students for examination by the
University in all academic taught programmes (UG and PGT).
24
PLAGIARISM AS AN OFFENCE
Lancaster University is committed to:
a)
b)
c)
d)
defending the academic credibility and reputation of the institution
protecting the standards of its awards and their value to graduates
ensuring that its students receive due credit for the work they submit for assessment
advising its students of the need for academic integrity, and providing them with guidance
on best practice in studying and learning
e) educating its students about what intellectual property is, why it matters, how to protect
their own, and how to legitimately access other people’s, and
f) protecting the interests of those students who do not cheat.
In support of these commitments plagiarism is understood to include, in whatever format it is
presented, including written work, online submissions, groupwork or oral presentations, the
following:


the act of copying or paraphrasing a paper from a source text, whether in manuscript,
printed or electronic form, without appropriate acknowledgement (this includes quoting
directly from another source with a reference but without quotation marks);

the submission of all or part of another student’s work, whether with or without that
student’s knowledge or consent;

the commissioning or use of work by the student which is not his/her own and representing
it as if it were;


the submission of all or part of work purchased or obtained from a commercial service;
the submission of all or part of work written by another person, whether by another
member of the University or a person who is not a member of the University;

reproduction of the same or almost identical own work, in full or in part, for more than one
module or unit of assessment of the same Lancaster University programme of study;

directly copying from model solutions/answers made available in previous years.
Where any of the above occur then in consideration of that case due account will be taken of such
things as the level of intent, the proportion of assessment affected and any previous offences of
the same kind.
PREVENTING PLAGIARISM
Lancaster University recognises that preventing plagiarism is of at least equal importance to dealing
with cases that are detected, and will therefore develop, periodically review and improve:
25
The informing and education of students:
(i) by raising awareness of the positive and negative reasons why they should not plagiarise
(positive reasons including getting reliable feedback on their progress and learning,
upholding core values of academic integrity; negative reasons including risk of being caught
and penalised)
(ii) by ensuring that students are advised of good study practices and how to avoid
unintentional plagiarism.
(iii) by requiring that each department or programme of study makes clear to its students its
expectations and norms for how students should use quotations, cite sources, paraphrase
material, and construct bibliographies.
(iv) by providing appropriate study skills advice, both generic and subject-specific, to inform
students about best practice in note-taking and writing assignments, and to warn against
poor practices that may lead to plagiarism.
(v) by ensuring that all students receive study skills advice at the start of their studies, sufficient
that students understand expectations and proper procedures for quotations, citations and
referencing.
The informing, development and support of teaching
(i) Ensuring all staff teaching or assessing students understand their responsibilities regarding
plagiarism and are given guidance on how to deal with suspected cases.
(ii) Encouraging and developing good practice in the design of assignments that best allow
students to demonstrate their achievement of expected learning outcomes without giving
opportunities for plagiarism
(iii) The promotion of a clear understanding of how plagiarism is dealt with at Lancaster
University, in order that that students and staff understand the policy and procedures for
dealing with suspected cases, including what the outcomes of any investigations might be.
DETECTING PLAGIARISM
Responsibilities
The primary responsibility for detecting plagiarism in student work rests with the individual marker,
who must always use their specialist knowledge and academic judgement in deciding what is and
what is not acceptable within their subject. For example, in many subjects it is difficult to decide
what is common knowledge and what should be attributed to sources, which is where the marker’s
expert judgement is exercised.
Where a marker is uncertain of whether plagiarism or poor academic practice has occurred or how
to deal with it then they should be able seek the advice or a more experienced colleague, their Head
of Department or the Academic Officer for the department or equivalent unit.
26
Assessment by non-university staff
Where student work is assessed by anyone other than a member of Lancaster University academic
staff eg by external teachers or Graduate Teaching Assistants, then there must be a nominated staff
member with responsibility for the assessment procedures , including moderating the assessments
in respect to plagiarism. This will by default be a nominated module convenor or in their absence the
Head of Department.
Use of software
Markers may use software such as Turnitin to assist in their responsibility to detect plagiarism but
should be aware of the limitations of such software, the care needed in interpreting reports and
understand that use of such software does not replace the need to employ their own knowledge and
academic judgement.
Where the administrative staff of a department or programme passes submitted student work
through such software, either separately or as part of electronic submission via a Virtual Learning
Environment, then this is done to assist the academic processes, not to replace any part of them. It
remains the responsibility of the marker, not the administrative staff, to review and interpret the
results.
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Academic Marker
Each academic marker identified as such by a department or equivalent shall be responsible for (in
addition to the expected award of appropriate credit and feedback for the assignment) identifying
poor academic practices or plagiarism in assessed work and dealing with this in the appropriate way
(as detailed below).
Academic Officer
Each department or equivalent shall designate one senior academic member of staff, to be known as
the Academic Officer, who shall when required take responsibility for the investigation of and
subsequent action for plagiarism in coursework at undergraduate and postgraduate levels.
LU Students’ Union
When any case of poor academic practice or suspected plagiarism or academic malpractice is
suspected then the student shall have access to LU Students’ Union support and advice at all stages
in the procedures that follow, and an appropriate LUSU representative may accompany the student
in any meetings/hearings or correspondence with the Academic Officer or the Standing Academic
Committee.
27
Standing Academic Committee
The Standing Academic Committee of the Senate shall hear cases referred by the Academic Officer
or where a student appeals a decision taken by the Department. Meetings of the Standing Academic
Committee will be conducted as detailed in the University Rules. At such meetings in respect to
suspected plagiarism the Academic Officer will normally be accompanied by the Academic Marker or
person responsible for the degree scheme for which the student is registered. The Academic Officer
will normally present first the evidence at the hearing.
The Academic Officer and student will have equal rights to question or challenge evidence
presented.
Section 2: Procedures and Outcomes
The following procedures shall be followed for all cases of suspected plagiarism or other form of
academic malpractice in coursework in any Lancaster University taught programme (UG and PGT).
The steps may be concluded at any point in the procedures.
ACADEMIC MARKERS
It is part of the normal academic responsibilities of academic markers to be aware of and alert to all
forms of academic malpractice, including plagiarism. All academic markers should follow
departmental procedures for assessment or ensure that they have followed alternative procedures
that are justifiable to the External Examiners of that module.
Academic markers should, if they suspect plagiarism or some other form of academic malpractice
has occurred, use their judgement to:EITHER
Decide that plagiarism has occurred because of poor study skills and there has been no
attempt to gain unfair advantage.
In this case the marker should:
 Give the submitted work an appropriate mark by deducting marks for poor academic
practices or marking the work remaining after setting aside the affected text.

Ensure that the feedback to the student identifies the problem and the sections
concerned.

Offer a meeting to the student to discuss their mark, the action taken and provide
appropriate academic advice for the improvement of future work.

Ensure that a record is made in the Academic Practice and Support section of the
student‘s record in LUSI that marks have been lost through poor academic practice.
28
OR
Decide that the quantity of the plagiarised text is too great to be dealt with by setting the
text aside or that there is suspicion of some form of academic malpractice.
In this case the marker should:
 Refer the case for consideration by the Academic Officer.

Provide all the evidence they can, including Turnitin reports and source texts,
including the work of other students, where possible.

Recognise that where there is a clearly identified match to work already submitted
to Turnitin then that match is sufficient evidence and there is no requirement to
produce a copy of the previously submitted material.

Record no mark for the student work or record a mark of zero until the case is
resolved.

Inform the student that the mark is being withheld, that the case is being
investigated and the nature of the concerns.
Ensure a temporary entry is immediately made in the Academic Practice and
Support section of the student‘s record in LUSI to record that the case has been
referred to the Academic Officer.

ACADEMIC OFFICERS
The Academic Officer shall, when a case of suspected plagiarism or academic malpractice has been
passed to them use their academic judgement and experience to decide that:
EITHER
The case is one that would normally be dealt with by the Academic Marker and not
warranting further investigation or a Hearing.
In this case the Academic Officer should:
 Instruct that the work be given an appropriate mark with the plagiarised passages
set aside as above, along with the relevant communications about the reasons for a
reduced mark being communicated to the student.
 Ensure that a record is made in the Academic Practice and Support section of the
student‘s record in LUSI that marks have been lost through poor academic practice.
OR
The case is one that warrants further investigation and a Hearing.
Hearings by the Academic Officer
When an Academic Officer decides that a case should be investigated and discussed at a Hearing
then they should:
29




Arrange for a Hearing where the student will have the opportunity to discuss the case.
Encourage the student to be accompanied by a friend, a LUSU representative or College
personal tutor or Departmental tutor.
Provide the student with the opportunity to see any documentary evidence prior to any
hearing, eg a Turnitin report or coursework annotated by the academic marker.
Check in the LUSI Student Record System for any previous difficulties recorded in the same
student’s Academic Practice and Support.
Attending at the Hearing will be:




The Academic Officer
The Student with, if they wish, a friend as suggested above.
One non-academic staff member from the student’s department, who should take a record
of the hearing
The Academic Marker of the submitted work.
The student will be asked to respond to the allegations regarding their work and may also wish to
consider if there are any mitigating circumstances which should be made known to the Academic
Officer. The Academic Officer may ask the academic marker or course convener to present evidence.
After the hearing all the evidence the Academic Officer shall decide on appropriate action.
The student will be formally informed of the decision and outcomes of the Hearing within three
working days, though an informal communication of the outcomes may be given sooner.
POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF A HEARING BY AN ACADEMIC OFFICER
The Academic Officer may decide that either
There has been no offence and will instruct the Academic Marker to mark the work normally
or
There has been plagiarism but due to poor study practices and instruct the Academic Marker
to mark the work on that basis.
or
There has been a plagiarism offence or some other form of academic malpractice.
Where a plagiarism offence or academic malpractice has occurred
Where it is decided that a plagiarism offence or some other form of academic malpractice has
occurred then the Academic Officer may:
30
1. Require the student to undertake a new assessment item. This work shall be eligible to
receive only the minimum pass mark appropriate to the student’s programme of study. If
the student refuses or fails to submit the new work, a mark of zero shall be recorded. A
record of plagiarism will be recorded in the Academic Practice and Support section of the
student’s record in LUSI. Where the offence is in connection with cheating in a class test this
choice is never available. Where the offence is in connection to an already granted
resubmission opportunity then this choice is never available.
2. The student is awarded zero for the assessment with no opportunity for resubmission. Only
where this later results in a failed module that would prevent graduation or progression
would a later resubmission will be permitted as part of the Summer or other re-assessment
arrangements. A record of plagiarism or malpractice (as appropriate) will be recorded in the
Academic Practice and Support section of the student’s record in LUSI.
3. Refer the case to Standing Academic Committee, with or without a recommendation for a
particular outcome.
Where multiple offences are discovered, after the Senate Deadline (or PG equivalent), the case shall
be referred to the Standing Academic Committee.
If the student does not accept the decision of the Academic Officer, he/she shall have the right to
appeal it to the Standing Academic Committee, at which he/she will have the right to be heard,
accompanied by a representative if desired.
THE STANDING ACADEMIC COMMITTEE
Where the Academic Officer refers a major offence, or where the student appeals a decision of the
Academic Officer, to the Standing Academic Committee that body, having conducted a hearing with
the student present (accompanied by a representative if desired) may, if it decided that a major
offence has been committed by the student, impose one of the following penalties:(i) To impose any action which might have been imposed by the Academic Marker or Academic
Officer previously.
(ii) To award zero for the assessment with no opportunity for resubmission even though this
may later prevent graduation or progression.
(iii) To award zero for the whole coursework element for that module (or dissertation)
(iv) To award zero for the unit or module;
(v) To award zero as under (iii) and, where the inclusion makes no difference to the class of
award, to recommend that one class lower than the one determined by the arithmetic be
awarded;
(vi) To exclude the student permanently from the university, where the offence is detected
before the final assessment is completed;
(vii) Not to award the degree, where the offence is detected after the final assessment has been
completed.
If the Standing Academic Committee confirms an offence, the student shall have the right of appeal
to the Vice-Chancellor under Statute 21.
31
The Standing Academic Committee should consider the full impact of their decision for the future
career opportunities of the student concerned.
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Notification and support


For each offence of plagiarism the student will be sent a standard University letter which –
spells out what they have done wrong, and why it is wrong

points them towards appropriate sources of study skills help

reminds them of the need to discuss their work with academic staff if they are uncertain
about how to avoid subsequent difficulties

warns of the serious consequences of subsequent offences, and spells out the sanctions that
would be applied

outlines the student’s rights
Group Projects
Where plagiarism has been discovered in a group project, wherever possible the individual(s)
responsible for the plagiarized sections will be identified and treated in the normal manner. If it is
not possible to identify individuals responsible, the case will be treated as a serious offence and
whatever penalty is imposed will apply in full and equally to all members of the group.
Retrospective detection
Retrospective work is defined as any work that has been subject to final moderation and/or approval
by an Examination Board.
The University reserves the right to review work retrospectively, and apply appropriate sanctions, if
there are reasonable grounds for doing so. Where there are reasonable grounds, an Academic
Officer should instigate a retrospective review, requiring the student to re-submit assessed work and
referring the matter to the Standing Academic Committee with a recommended sanction where
appropriate. The Standing Academic Committee can also request the retrospective review of any
work in relation to cases referred to it. The existing University Charter allows for it to rescind or
change the classification of a degree after one has been awarded.
Exam Boards
Exam Boards may not revisit decisions and or change the penalties already applied after a case has
been heard by either a Hearing conducted by an Academic Officer or considered by Standing
Academic Committee.
32
The decisions and recommendations of the Final Exam Board of any year of academic study will
normally be regarded as the cut-off point beyond which allegations of plagiarism will not be
considered.
Right of appeal
If the student does not accept the decision of the academic marker they should ask for a review by
the Academic Officer.
If the student does not accept the decision of the Academic Officer they can opt to appear before
the Standing Academic Committee.
In all cases the student has a statutory right of appeal under Statute 21.
Reporting of study histories
Each department will have discretion to decide whether any part of the student’s Academic Practice
and Support record should be mentioned if a request is received (particularly from another
University or a professional body) for an academic reference for a Lancaster graduate, or whether to
report any part of such record to professional bodies.
Amnesty on graduating
Any Lancaster graduate, who subsequently registers for any further studies at Lancaster, shall begin
those studies with a clear record of Academic Practice and Support for equity of treatment with
other postgraduate students from elsewhere.
33
APPENDIX A : MALPRACTICE IN UNDERGRADUATE AND POSTGRADUATE EXAMINATIONS AND
COURSEWORK
These regulations also form Appendix two of the Examination Regulations of the University and the
appendix to Ordinance 7.
A.1
DEFINITION
A.1.1
The university values a culture of honesty and mutual trust (academic integrity)
and expects all members of the university to respect and uphold these core
values.
It is an academic offence for a candidate to commit any act (defined in
paragraphs A.1.2, A.1.3, and A.2.2) designed to obtain for himself or herself an
unfair advantage with a view to achieving a higher grade or mark than he or she
would otherwise secure. Any attempt to convey deceitfully the impression of
acquired knowledge, skills, understanding, or credentials, shall represent a
contravention of Rule 6 of the University, and may constitute grounds for
exclusion.
A.1.2
Cheating in examinations
Occurs when: a candidate communicates, or attempts to communicate, with a
fellow candidate or individual who is neither an invigilator or member of staff;
copies, or attempts to copy from a fellow candidate; attempts to introduce or
consult during the examination, any unauthorised printed or written material, or
electronic calculating or information storage device; or mobile phones or other
communication device, or personates or allows himself or herself to be
impersonated.
A.1.3
Academic Malpractice in Coursework
Occurs when a student attempts to obtain by unfair means academic credit for
assessed work. It may take several forms including but not necessarily limited to:
1.3.1 Collusion, where a piece of work prepared by a group is represented as if it
were the student’s own.
1.3.2 Commissioning or use of work by the student which is not his or her own
and representing it as if it were.
This includes both:
The purchase or obtaining of a paper from a commercial service, including
internet sites, whether pre-written or specially prepared for the student
concerned,
The submission of a paper written by another person, either by a fellow
student or a person who is not a member of the university;
34
1.3.3 Cheating in class tests
1.3.4 Assisting academic malpractice by enabling a fellow student to obtain
academic credit to which they are not entitled . This includes providing
material, especially electronic copies of work, or performing all or part of
an assigned task so that unfair advantage or credit may be obtained by
another student.
1.3.5 Attempting to gain unfair credit by submission of the same or almost
identical work for more than one unit of assessment.
A.1.4
Plagiarism
Occurs when a student, having been informed of the required academic
standards for written academic work at Lancaster University copies or
paraphrases some or all of a source text, whether in manuscript, printed or
electronic form, without appropriate acknowledgement of the source, in a
submission for assessment.
Plagiarism is a form of Academic Malpractice.
A.1.5
Fabrication of results
Fabrication of results occurs when a student claims to have carried out tests,
experiments or observations that have not taken place or presents results not
supported by the evidence with the object of obtaining an unfair advantage.
The fabrication of results is a form of Academic Malpractice.
A.2
GUIDELINES FOR USE OF ELECTRONIC DEVICES IN UNIVERSITY EXAMINATIONS
A.2.1
The use in examinations of electronic calculators and other portable
microcomputing and electronic devices (hereafter shortened to ‘electronic
devices’) will only be allowed when permission has been granted by the
appropriate department, subject (where appropriate) to the approval of the
external examiner(s) and prior consultation with those students taking the
course. Any change in a department’s regulations for the use of electronic
devices in examinations shall be announced not later than the beginning of the
Lent term.
A.2.2
Carrying a mobile phone, or similar electronic device such as a pager in an
examination is an academic offence. If a candidate has such a device, it should be
switched off and placed at the perimeter of the room with the candidate’s other
belongings, or handed to an invigilator.
35
A.2.3
Electronic devices under A.2.1, where permitted, must be of the hand-held type,
quiet in operation, compact and having their own power supply. External or userwritten programs, or storage media, and/or instruction manuals may not
normally be taken into the examination room and students must be able to
demonstrate that internal user storage has been cleared before the start of the
examination. Candidates shall be entirely responsible for ensuring that their
electronic devices are in good working order (eg fully charged), and for making
alternative provision (eg slide rule) in case the instrument should fail.
A.2.4
Where required by a department, and so indicated on the examination question
paper, candidates shall state the make and model of their electronic device on
the examination script.
A.2.5
In setting questions for examinations in which candidates may use their own
electronic devices examiners should take careful account of the different
potentialities of such devices, and require candidates to show sufficient
intermediate calculations to demonstrate that they understand what they are
calculating.
A.2.6
Candidates shall not be allowed to borrow electronic devices from each other
during examinations.
A.2.7
Departments, with the agreement of external examiners (where relevant) and
after consultation with the students concerned, may introduce supplementary
regulations (additional to these general regulations) for particular examinations.
Such regulations may specify or limit the types and facilities of electronic
calculators or other electronic devices which can be used in particular
examinations.
36
A.3
PROCEDURE IN CASES OF SUSPECTED MALPRACTICE IN UNDERGRADUATE AND
POSTGRADUATE EXAMINATIONS
A.3.1
Preliminary action and investigation
3.1.1 If a student is suspected of an academic offence under Section A.1.2, the
invigilator shall at once telephone the Head of the Student Registry (or
nominee) who will immediately go to the examination venue to investigate
and will also inform the University Dean (or the Deputy Dean) or the
relevant Academic Officer of the incident. The student will be permitted to
continue the particular examination in which he or she is suspected of
malpractice, but the invigilator will request that the student remains
behind at the end of the examination for interview by the Head of the
Student Registry (or nominee), at which a representative of Lancaster
University Students’ Union shall be invited to be present and written notes
will be made. If after this preliminary interview it is clear that no offence
has taken place then the investigating officer(s) shall take no further action.
If it is decided to carry out a formal investigation the student shall be
informed of this but also told that he or she will be permitted to complete
all the examinations he or she would normally take at that stage in his or
her course. The invigilator shall, immediately after the examination,
provide the Head of the Student Registry with a written report giving full
details of the alleged offence and enclosing any material evidence relevant
to the case. The report and any material evidence shall be submitted to
the Head of the Student Registry, who shall inform the head(s) of the
student’s major department(s) and, if different, of the department
responsible for the examination.
3.1.2 On receipt of the report, the University Dean or relevant Academic Officer
shall investigate the alleged offence, making such enquiries as he or she
sees fit and with access to all relevant documents. The student shall be
interviewed and asked whether he or she wishes to say anything or to
provide any information relevant to the alleged offence. If after
preliminary investigation the University Dean or Academic Officer is not
satisfied that there is a prima facie case to answer, he or she shall inform
the student and the other parties concerned, and the matter shall end
there. If the University Dean or Academic Officer is satisfied that there is a
prima facie case to answer, he or she shall formally notify the student in
writing of the charge and inform him or her that the case will be referred
to the Standing Academic Committee of the Senate.
3.1.3 Approval by an examination board of a degree classification shall not
prevent the reasonable application of retrospective review: see A.4.4
below.
37
A.3.2
The Standing Academic Committee of the Senate
3.2.1 The Standing Academic Committee shall investigate all cases of alleged
examination malpractice referred to it by the University Dean or relevant
Academic Officers and determine whether an academic offence as defined
in Section A.1 has been committed.
3.2.2 The Standing Academic Committee shall consist of three members
(including the Chairperson), each representing a different faculty. In no
case may a serving member of the Standing Academic Committee be a
member of any of the departments in which the student has studied, or is
studying, or be a witness for the Academic Officer or for the student.
3.2.3 The procedures of the Standing Academic Committee be as follows:
(a)
All hearings shall be held in private.
(b)
The Committee will be convened with all possible speed. Once the
time, date and place of its meeting are known the referred student
shall be informed in writing:
(c)
(i)
that he or she is to be called to a hearing;
(ii)
of the nature, date and time of the alleged offence;
(iii)
that he or she may present evidence in his or her defence
orally at the hearing and/or in writing;
(iv)
that he or she may be accompanied by a friend who will
normally be a member of the University;
(v)
(d)
that he or she may call witnesses to support his or her case
(whose identity must be notified to the secretary of the
Committee prior to the hearing in order that their
attendance can be assured).
The Committee shall have the power to adjourn, continue or
postpone an investigation at its discretion but shall at all times
endeavour to complete its examination of the matter at the earliest
opportunity. If the student does not appear on the date and time or
at the place appointed, reasonable notice having been given, the
Committee may proceed to investigate the matter in his or her
absence.
38
(e)
If the student wishes to admit the charge, he or she may do so in
writing to the secretary of the Committee. In this event the student
will be advised that he or she should still appear before the
Committee for the formal presentation of evidence by the University
Dean or relevant Academic Officers and for examination of the
evidence by the Committee.
(f)
If the student wishes to deny the charge, he or she shall so inform
the secretary of the Committee once notice of the hearing has been
received. If no letter of admission is received, it will be assumed that
the charge is denied. The University Dean or relevant Academic
Officer shall present the case in person to the Standing Academic
Committee.
(g)
The Committee may hear evidence in any way it sees fit. This
includes the testimony of witnesses, and the production of
documents or other relevant material evidence. The University Dean
or relevant Academic Officer and the student (or the person
accompanying the student) shall be entitled at the hearing to make
an opening statement, to give evidence, to call witnesses, to cross
examine witnesses and to address the Committee.
(h)
The Committee will find the charge proven if all or all but one of its
members agree, on the evidence before it, that it is beyond all
reasonable doubt that the offence was committed. If the Committee
does not find the charge proven, it shall inform the student and all
parties concerned immediately, and the matter shall end there. If
the Committee finds the charge proven, it may take one of the
following courses of action:
3.2.3.1 decide that no further action is required;
3.2.3.2 require the student to resit the examination in which he or
she cheated and if deemed appropriate other examinations
or units of assessment;
3.2.3.3 award a mark of 0 for the examination;
3.2.3.4 award a mark of 0 for the entire unit of assessment;
3.2.3.5 direct that the student be awarded a classification lower
than the one derived from the mark profile (after any 0
mark awarded under 3.2.3.3 or 3.2.3.4 has been included);
39
3.2.3.6 direct that the student be awarded no more than a Pass
degree;
3.2.3.7 in addition to one of 3.2.3.2 to 3.2.3.6 temporarily exclude
the student from the University;
3.2.3.8 permanently exclude the student from the University
without a degree;
3.2.3.9 exceptionally not impose a specific penalty, but refer the
case to the appropriate board of examiners with a full
statement of findings together with suggestions for
appropriate action.
3.2.4
A.3.3
The Standing Academic Committee shall act on behalf of the
Senate and the Committee of the Senate, and its decisions
(subject to A.3.3, below) shall be binding on boards of
examiners.
Procedure where the Standing Academic Committee refers a case of
malpractice in an examination to a board of examiners
Any student found by the Standing Academic Committee to be guilty of an
academic offence under Section A.1.2, and whose case is referred to a board of
examiners, shall have the right to submit to the board a written plea in mitigation
but he or she shall not have the right to appear or to be represented by another
before the board. Boards of examiners have absolute discretion to take into
account, in making their decisions, such evidence as they may consider relevant
to a student’s academic performance and to decide whether to call for further
oral or written evidence. They may also take into account, but shall not be bound
by, the suggestions of the Standing Academic Committee. In considering the
suggestions of the Standing Academic Committee, the decisions of boards of
examiners shall be subject to ratification by the Committee of the Senate.
A.4
PROCEDURE IN CASES OF SUSPECTED MALPRACTICE IN UNDERGRADUATE AND
POSTGRADUATE COURSEWORK
A.4.1
Definition of roles relating to suspected malpractice including plagiarism in
assessed coursework and tests.
40
4.1.1 Academic marker
Each academic marker identified as such by a department or equivalent
shall be responsible for providing an appropriate mark and feedback for
student work and shall reporting on cases for which they have marking
responsibilities to the relevant Academic Officer, and for producing
evidence in support of such a claim.
Where the academic marker is not permanently employed by the
University in an academic position then the above responsibilities shall be
upon the named Module Convenor or relevant Head of Department.
4.1.2 Academic Officer
Each department or equivalent shall designate one academic member of
staff, to be known as the Academic Officer, who shall take responsibility for
the investigation of and subsequent action where appropriate for academic
malpractice in coursework at undergraduate and postgraduate levels.
The duties of the Academic Officer shall include reporting cases of poor
academic practice or malpractice and keeping a written record of all cases
of alleged academic malpractice.
4.1.3 Student Registry
Student Registry shall be responsible for recording or providing the means
for Academic Officers to record all alleged and detected cases of academic
malpractice, including plagiarism in coursework and cheating in
examinations. Student Registry shall also provide information and other
support to Academic Officers to assist them in discharging their duties;
communicating information between departments about academic
malpractice as appropriate; and offering assistance and advice to Academic
Officers about procedures and best practices.
4.1.4 LU Students’ Union
Any student who is alleged to have been involved in an act of academic
malpractice shall have access to LU Students’ Union support and advice at
all stages in the procedures that follow, and appropriate LUSU staff may
accompany the student in any meetings or correspondence with the
department, an Academic Officer or the Standing Academic Committee.
41
4.1.5 Standing Academic Committee
The Standing Academic Committee of the Senate shall hear cases:
(a)
referred to it by an Academic Officer;
(b)
relating to offences where the student does not accept the decision
of the Academic Officer on the grounds of proper procedures having
not been followed.
(c)
relating to alleged multiple offences after the Senate deadline for
the final submission of coursework (or postgraduate equivalent).
The committee’s decisions shall be informed by the seriousness of
the offence rather than by the time of year.
The committee shall in all instances where it hears a case use the
procedures set out in A.3.2 (above).
A.4.2
Procedures dealing with Academic Malpractice and poor academic practice in
coursework
4.2.1 All academic markers shall make a positive effort to identify poor
scholarship practices , plagiarism or academic malpractice, in all
assessment items. This is a responsibility of their academic employment
and a vital part of delivering the high quality learning experience that
students expect.
4.2.2 Academic markers shall, when concern is identified, use their judgement to
decide if some form of poor academic practice or some form of academic
malpractice has occurred.
4.2.3 Dealing with Poor Academic Practice
(a) Where it is decided that student work displays some form of poor
academic practice but not malpractice the academic marker will deal
with this as part of the normal feedback and assessment procedures.
The academic judgement of the academic marker may be that the poor
academic practice should lead to a significant reduction in the mark
awarded. The student must be informed of the nature of the problem
and why it is unacceptable and a note of ‘poor academic practice’ shall
be recorded by the department in the LUSI Student Record.
42
(b) Where the student work displays some form of poor academic practice
as above, but the student has not taken note of previous advice of
similar problems previously, then the student must be informed of the
repeated problems, be required to meet with their Director of Studies
and an ‘academic warning’ shall be recorded by the department in the
LUSI Student Record.
4.2.4 Dealing with Academic Malpractice
4.2.4.1
Where the Academic Marker believes that Academic Malpractice in
the form of plagiarism has occurred then they may, as prescribed in
the University’s Plagiarism Framework, choose to deal with this
within the normal feedback and assessment procedures by ‘striking
out’ all the plagiarised material and assessing the work on what
remains. Where this is done the student must be informed and
guided towards appropriate advice. A record of ‘Poor academic
practice’ or ‘Minor plagiarism’ or ‘Major plagiarism’ will be recorded
will be recorded by the department in the LUSI Student Record as
appropriate.
Where the Academic Marker does not believe this is appropriate or
suspects that some other form of Academic Malpractice has
occurred then the case should normally be referred to the Academic
Officer as the first step in an investigation.
4.2.4.2
Hearings by the Academic Officer
When informed of a case of possible academic malpractice the
Academic Officer shall conduct an investigation of the matter and
arrange for a Hearing with the student. The Hearing shall include the
Academic Marker and at least one other (non-academic) staff
member from the student’s department who should take a record of
the Hearing.
Prior to the Hearing:
(a) The student should be encouraged to be accompanied by a
friend (eg a LUSU representative or College personal tutor).
(b) The students should be able to review any documentary
evidence prior to any hearing, including in the case of plagiarism
any Turnitin reports or coursework annotated by the Academic
Marker.
(c) The Academic Officer shall check in the LUSI Student Record
System for any previous offences.
43
At the Hearing
(d) The student will be asked to respond to the allegations regarding
their work and may also wish to consider if there are any
mitigating circumstances which should be made known to the
Academic Officer.
(e) The Academic Officer may ask the academic marker or course
convener to present evidence.
4.2.4.3
Outcomes of a Hearing
The Academic Officer may decide that the appropriate action after
hearing any case is that:
(a)
No action of any kind will be taken. Where appropriate this
may mean that the Academic Marker shall be instructed to
mark the work normally
(b)
The matter should be considered as a matter of poor
academic practice and dealt with as described in 4.2.3
(c)
The student will be required to resubmit the work or submit
alternative work and such work shall be eligible to receive
only the minimum pass mark appropriate to the student’s
programme of study. If the student refuses or fails to repeat
and resubmit the work, a mark of zero shall be recorded.
(d)
That no form of resubmission should be allowed and a mark
of zero should be recorded for the work.
(e)
That the case should be referred to the Standing Academic
Committee because of its serious nature or there being
repeated offences.
The Academic Officer should inform the student of his/her decision as soon
as possible and at latest, in writing within 7 days. Where appropriate the
record of ‘Poor Academic Practice’, ‘Plagiarism’ or ‘Academic Malpractice’
will be recorded by the department in the LUSI Student Record
Where multiple first offences are discovered, after the Senate Deadline (or
PG equivalent), the case shall be referred to the Standing Academic
Committee.
44
If the student does not accept the decision of the Academic Officer, he/she
shall have the right to appeal it to the Standing Academic Committee, at
which he/she will have the right to be heard, accompanied by a
representative if desired.
45