Central Services

Graduate School

Explore this Section

COP ANNEXES A1-3

ANNEXES

Annex A1: University criteria for making research degree awards at doctoral and masters level

Keele University wishes to ensure that its awards are made at the recognisable national standard, and subscribes to the descriptions of learning outcomes required at doctoral and masters level as set out by the Quality Assurance Agency in August 2008 (The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, now incorporated as part of Chapter 1 of the Quality Code). Examiners should use the following criteria when deciding whether candidates for research degrees have met the requirements for an award.

Doctoral level

D1 For an award to be made at Doctoral level (PhD, EdD, DBA, DM, MD, DPsych, DPharm, DSW), students must achieve the required learning outcomes:

Doctorates are awarded to students who have demonstrated:

the creation and interpretation of new knowledge, through original research, or other advanced scholarship, of a quality to satisfy peer review, extend the forefront of the discipline, and merit publication;
a systematic acquisition and understanding of a substantial body of knowledge which is at the forefront of an academic discipline or area of professional practice;
the general ability to conceptualise, design and implement a project for the generation of new knowledge, applications or understanding at the forefront of the discipline, and to adjust the project design in the light of unforeseen problems;
a detailed understanding of applicable techniques for research and advanced academic enquiry.

D2 The thesis shall be no longer than 100,000 words (to include main text and footnotes, but not references and appendices). Although there is no lower word limit for thesis length, the thesis must be long enough to explore the subject in sufficient depth and breadth to fulfil the requirements for the degree. Clarity and succinctness of expression is valued. The literary style and presentation of the thesis should be satisfactory. The candidate will be required to satisfy the Senate that it affords evidence of originality, shown either by the discovery of new facts or by the exercise of independent critical power.

D3 Musical composition

A candidate in musical composition is required to submit a folio of original compositions, in the form of scores or, in the case of electronic music, recordings (or equivalent) on appropriate media. A written introduction is also required, which covers all the works submitted, giving background information as well as details relating to aesthetic and technical concerns.

Where part of a candidate's research has included the production of original software or other tools which have assisted the realisation of the portfolio then these may also form part of the submission. Alternatively, and particularly where the compositions or other musical examples are mainly illustrative of the capability of such tools, then the candidate should submit under regulation D1. Wherever possible, the appropriate submission pathway should be determined at the outset with the supervisor.

For submissions consisting solely of musical compositions the following guidelines will apply:

A folio should either consist of several compositions, of which at least three shall be considered substantial by the examiners by virtue of content (e.g. in terms of scale, duration, original techniques or use of authored software tools) OR a single large-scale work such as an opera.
In musical composition a candidate will be required to satisfy the Senate that the submission shows clear evidence of creative ability and academic competence, and represents an original and significant contribution to the art of music. Also, that instruments and voices are written for within their capabilities, and that performing instructions and layout are accurate in detail.

D4 Visual arts

A candidate wishing to combine academic and creative research may, instead of a thesis, submit all three of the following:

a) a substantial body of creative work which has been documented and recorded by means appropriate for the purposes of examination and eventual deposit in the University Library

b) an accompanying thesis of no more than 50,000 words showing clear evidence of academic competence, an awareness of the current critical context in which the creative work has been produced and an original contribution to research into the relationship between history and/or theory and practice

c) a selection of work, referred to under (a) suitable for exhibition.

D5 Professional and taught doctorates

Professional and other taught doctorates will be required to have Programme Regulations which set out the formal structure of the course including cohort work and research training, and any forms of interim and summative assessment, as well as any additional entry requirements.

The thesis for a professional or taught doctorate will be no longer than 60,000 words (to include main text and footnotes, but not references and appendices). Although there is no lower word limit for thesis length, the thesis must be long enough to explore the subject in sufficient depth and breadth to fulfil the requirements for the degree. Clarity and succinctness of expression is valued. Additionally candidates may be required to be formally assessed (through in-course assessment or written examination or both) on the taught and group elements of the Programme of Study, as set out in the Programme Regulations.

A candidate shall be required to satisfy the Senate of competence in independent work, professional activity or experimentation, of understanding of the appropriate techniques, and of competence in making critical use of published work and source materials. The thesis shall be a major contribution to the creation and interpretation of new knowledge.

D6 Doctoral degree by published work

A PhD degree by published work falls under University Regulation 3, and is mostly beyond the scope of the Code of Practice in so far as it deals with supervision.

Candidates for the degree of PhD by Publication shall be required to meet the same standards of award as candidates for the PhD by supervision, as set out in this Annex.

The candidate must submit to the Quality Assurance Officer (with responsibility for PGR activities) three copies of a portfolio which shall include the following:

a title page setting out the candidate's name, approved title of the submission, and award for which the submission is made
details of the candidate's qualifications
a critical commentary on the submission which comprises a review of the contribution the work makes to the academic field in question (not exceeding 10,000 words)
a list of the publications submitted in the order submitted
copies of all the relevant published material, appropriately ordered.

The examiners will examine the work submitted, write independent reports, and conduct an oral examination, in a way similar to research degrees by supervision. They will make a recommendation to Research Degrees Committee who, after consideration, shall make a recommendation to Senate.

The requirement for an oral examination will be at the discretion of the examiners, with a presumption in favour. Any examiners wishing to waive the oral examination will need to justify it and obtain the agreement of the Research Degrees Committee.

Recommendations available to examiners of research degrees are set out in Regulation 2D (11.3), except that for degrees by published research only recommendations1, 2, 6 and 7 are available (see Annex A2). No resubmissions will be permitted, and any minor revisions may relate only to the critical commentary.

Masters level

M1 For an award to be made at Masters level (MPhil) students must achieve the required learning outcomes:

Masters degrees are awarded to students who have demonstrated:

I. a systematic understanding of knowledge, and a critical awareness of current problems and/or new insights, much of which is at, or informed by, the forefront of their academic discipline, field of study, or area of professional practice

II. a comprehensive understanding of techniques applicable to their own research or advanced scholarship

III. originality in the application of knowledge, together with a practical understanding of how established techniques of research and enquiry are used to create and interpret knowledge in the discipline

IV. conceptual understanding that enables the student:

to evaluate critically current research and advanced scholarship in the discipline; and
to evaluate methodologies and develop critiques of them and, where appropriate, to propose new hypotheses.

M2 The thesis shall be no longer than 60,000 words (to include main text and footnotes, but not references and appendices). Although there is no lower word limit for thesis length, the thesis must be long enough to explore the subject in sufficient depth and breadth to fulfil the requirements for the degree. Clarity and succinctness of expression is valued. The literary style and presentation of the thesis should be satisfactory. The candidate will be required to satisfy the Senate of competence in independent work or experimentation, of understanding of the appropriate techniques, and of competence in making critical use of published work and source materials. The thesis shall normally consist of a critical review of the field of research together with some new results but may, if approved by the Senate, take the form of a critical review only.

M3 Musical composition

A candidate in musical composition is required to submit a folio of original compositions, in the form of scores, or, in the case of electronic music, recordings (or equivalent) on appropriate media. A written introduction is also required, which covers all the works submitted, giving background information as well as details relating to aesthetic and technical concerns.

Where part of a candidate's research has included the production of original software or other tools which have assisted the realisation of the portfolio then these may also form part of the submission. Alternatively, and particularly where the compositions or other musical examples are mainly illustrative of the capability of such tools, then the candidate should submit under regulation M1. Wherever possible, the appropriate submission pathway should be determined at the outset with the supervisor.

For submissions consisting solely of musical compositions the following guidelines will apply:

The submission should either consist of up to three contrasted pieces of music of moderate substance and/or length or a single extended work. In musical composition a candidate will be required to satisfy the Senate that the submission shows clear evidence of creative ability and academic competence, and represents an original and significant contribution to the art of music. Also, that instruments and voices are written for within their capabilities, and that performing instructions and layout are accurate in detail.

M4 Visual arts

Instead of a thesis, candidates may submit all three of the following:

a) a body of creative work which has been documented and recorded by means appropriate for the purposes of examination and eventual deposit in the University Library

b) an accompanying thesis of no more than 30,000 words showing clear evidence of academic competence and awareness of the current critical context in which the creative work has been produced

c) a selection of work referred to under (a) suitable for exhibition.

The proposed submission must be approved at the start of the course by the Director of the relevant Research Institute.

Annex A2: Recommendations available to examiners of research degrees

There are seven possible recommendations available to examiners of a research degree thesis. Some of the recommendations may not be available for all candidates, as indicated below.

Recommendation 1 The student be awarded the degree for which he or she has made a submission.

Guidance - This is appropriate if the thesis is acceptable and the student satisfies the examiners in all other parts of the examination.

Recommendation 2 The student be awarded the degree for which he or she has made a submission once revisions have been made to the thesis to the satisfaction of the examiner(s) named.

Guidance - Minor revisions is the appropriate recommendation where the thesis is sound and virtually complete in terms of its aims, methods, results, interpretation and conclusions, but has minor errors, or is poorly assembled or presented.

The required revisions fall typically within the following categories and should not require re-working or re-interpretation of the intellectual content of the thesis:

Typographical errors
Grammatical errors
Checking and correcting references
Presentation of bibliographical data
Improving aspects of figures (e.g. labelling, quality of reproduction)
Minor corrections of fact
Minor additional material
Minor revisions to interpretation of data, results, conclusions
Minor reorganisation of material
Minor rewriting of the text.

The normal expectation is that minor revisions will be completed within 3 months. However, examiners may recommend a longer period (up to a maximum of 6 months) if the nature of the revisions or the current circumstances of the candidate justify it. Examiners must justify any recommendation for an extended period.

Recommendation 3 [Only for original submissions, not for re-submissions.]

Although the required standard for the award for which the student has submitted has not been met, the submission is of sufficient merit to justify the student being permitted to re-present the thesis and to submit to a further oral examination within two calendar years from the date of the decision at the relevant meeting of Senate.

Guidance - Resubmission is the appropriate recommendation where the thesis is unsound or incomplete in terms of its aims, methods, results, interpretation or conclusions. Substantial additional work is required which may lead to a significant change in the results, interpretation and conclusions.

The required revisions fall typically within the following categories:

Reinterpretation of the data (including background literature)
Collection of new data or additional research to be carried out
Substantial rewriting of large portions of the text
Substantial additional material to be incorporated within the text
Substantial revisions to results and conclusions
Thorough revision of presentational matters which require a complete editing.

Following resubmission of the thesis, the oral examination is at the discretion of the examiners.

Recommendation 4 [Only for doctoral candidates, not for masters candidates.]

The student should be approved for a Masters level award, not a Doctoral level award.

Guidance - This is appropriate if, after completion of the whole examination process, the examiners determine that the student has not reached the standard required for the award of a doctoral degree nor for re-presentation of the thesis in a revised form, and that the examiners determine that the student has reached the standard required for the award of a masters degree, subject to any minor amendments which may be required.

Recommendation 5 [Only for original submissions by doctoral candidates, not for re-submissions, nor for masters candidates.]

The required standard for a doctoral level award has not been met, and the submission is of insufficient merit to justify the award of a doctoral degree. However, the student should be permitted to re-present the thesis for the award of a masters degree, and to submit to a further oral examination, within two calendar years from the date of the decision at the relevant meeting of Senate.

Guidance - This is appropriate if after completion of the whole examination process, the examiners determine that the student has not reached the standard required for the award of a doctoral degree nor for re-presentation of the thesis in a revised form for a doctoral award. However, the submission, though unsatisfactory, contains sufficient merit and potential for the examiners to recommend that the student be permitted to re-present the thesis in a revised form for a masters award. Following resubmission of the thesis, the oral examination is at the discretion of the examiners.

Recommendation 6 The student should not be awarded any degree, nor be permitted to re-present the thesis, nor submit to any further examination.

Guidance - This is appropriate if, after completion of the whole examination process, the examiners determine that the student has not satisfied the conditions for the award of a research degree and should not be allowed to re-present the thesis nor to submit to any further examination.

Recommendation 7 The examiners are unable to come to a joint recommendation and an additional examiner or examiners should be appointed whose decision shall resolve the matter.

Guidance - This is appropriate if, after completion of the whole examination process, the examiners cannot come to an agreed view about the appropriate recommendation.

Annex A3: Registration mode of attendance

A research student will always have one, and only one, mode of attendance (MOA) at any one time, though students may change from one MOA to another during the course of their programmes. Possible MOA options are as follows:

Full-time
Part-time
Continuation
Leave of absence.

The level of resources and facilities available to students on each MOA is set out in Annex D2. The general requirements relating to each of these options is as follows:

Full-time

Students make a full-time commitment to their research degrees, which is normally at a level of about 35 hours a week, 12 months a year, with up to 6 weeks for holidays (details agreed with Research Institutes)
Students may not be employed full-time, though may have some part-time employment
The requirement is that masters students must complete within two years and doctoral students must complete within four years. The expectation is that these completion times will be considerably less (see 3.2.1)
Students pay tuition fees at the full-time level.

Part-time

Students make a part-time commitment to their research degrees, which is normally at a level of about half that expected for a full-time student
Students may simultaneously be employed full-time or part-time
The requirement is that masters students must complete within four years and doctoral students must complete within eight years. The expectation is that these completion times will be considerably less (see 3.2.1)
Transfer to part-time study is normally permitted only if a student becomes unable to continue studying on a full-time basis because of employment or other commitments (such as a carer role) for a significant part of the working week, or due to health problems
Requests to transfer to part-time study are subject to approval by Research Degrees Committee and by the appropriate Research Council for Research Council funded students
Students pay tuition fees at the part-time level, which is normally half the full-time level.

Continuation

Students are expected to make a level of commitment as agreed with their Research Institutes, in the light of their circumstances, such that the thesis can be completed and submitted in the shortest possible time and within the maximum period of study (see Code of Practice 3.2.1 and regulation 2D (7))
Students may normally be on continuation MOA for no longer than 12 months (24 months PT) from the date of approval to change to continuation MOA
Students pay tuition fees at the continuation fees level, normally 15% of the full-time level.

Leave of absence

Students are not expected to make any commitment to their research degrees
There are no requirements about the use of time during periods of leave of absence
Approved periods of leave of absence automatically extend the maximum period within which a student is required to submit by an equivalent period
Students pay no tuition fees
All Research Council funded students are entitled to take 6 months of maternity leave on full stipend and a further 6 months of unpaid maternity leave. For part-time students leave payments will be calculated on a pro-rata basis. For non-Research Council funded students, the stipend

COP ANNEXES B1-7

Annex B1: Submission for a research degree

The student is required to submit a two-part declaration along with their dissertation or thesis.

Part 1 is bound into the dissertation or thesis and is essentially a confirmation that the work is the student’s own.

Part 2 is supplied loose (not bound into the dissertation or thesis) on submission and is a series of declarations by (1) the student, (2) the lead supervisor and (3) interested parties such as the non-academic supervisor if the thesis contains confidential information.

Part 2 is not supplied to the examiners of the degree.

Part 2 section 3 is also important if there is to be an embargo on access to the thesis within the library.

The two-part declaration can be downloaded at http://www.keele.ac.uk/

Annex B2: Format for research institute Personal Development and Learning Plan

From September 2011, all new students are required to develop and maintain a Personal Development and Learning Plan (see 1.6.6) instead of the previous two part Learning Plan. [It is hoped that Research Institutes will also adopt such plans for continuing students as appropriate.]

Research Institutes are required to develop their own format for the Personal Development and Learning Plan to be used by their students (see 1.4.3), but as a minimum the Personal Development and Learning Plan must make clear the minimum RT requirements as set out in CoP 2.2, and include the following sections A pro forma is available on the web for Research Institutes wishing to use or adapt it.

Personal Development and Learning Plan for Postgraduate Research Students

To be discussed with supervisory team and submitted to RI PGR committee within 3 months of registration. Thereafter to be maintained by the student and made electronically accessible at all times to the supervisors and the PGR Director.

Student details
Identification of roles of each member of the supervisory team
Any changes to the supervisory team
Timetable for milestones in the completion of the research degree
Programme of regular review of progress
Record of approved leaves of absence and extensions
Record of approved changes to the mode of attendance
Analysis of student’s learning needs and skills development objectives
Record of changes to analysis of learning needs and skills development objectives
Details of any compulsory research training to be completed
Details of previous research training and skills development, including any agreed credit exemption
Record of research training and skills development completed including reflection on value
Plan and record of research activities including research objectives with target dates for their achievement
List of proposed thesis chapters including progress towards their completion
Record of supervision meetings

Annex B3: Contents of research institute handbooks for research students

Paragraph 1.4.6 of the Code of Practice sets out in general terms the requirements of Research Institute Handbooks for Research Students, and specifies that Handbooks are an integral part of the Code of Practice. This Annex provides a checklist for Research Institutes of all the sections which must be included as a minimum within Handbooks.

The research environment

The Research Institute, its research environment and its staff (including contact list)
Objectives for postgraduate research education
The role and membership of any Research Institute committees dealing with postgraduate issues and allowing for student representation
Opportunities within the Research Institute for interaction with other research students
Admission criteria, particularly those specific to the Research Institute
Health and safety issues
Sources of help and advice
Facilities and resources for research students
Details of any internal bursary schemes.

Expectations within the discipline

The expectations of research degree study with respect to the individual Research Institute and academic discipline (e.g. frequency and nature of contact with supervisor, academic and professional standards, nature of research, timetable of requirements of the programme of study, ethical issues)
What the student and supervisor should expect from each other, including frequency and type of contact
Guidance on avoiding plagiarism or other academic dishonesty (referring also to university guidance)
Research training programme – guidance for relevant disciplines.

Research Institute procedures

Procedures for monitoring student progress, including confirmation of doctoral progression and progression to continuation mode of attendance
Constitution of panel for doctoral progression
Where RIs have specific dates for submission of progress report forms by supervisors and students (one in Spring and one in Autumn) these should be specified
Period during which doctoral progression panels will be convened
Procedures for handling feedback, problems and complaints within the Research Institute (informal).

Annex B4: Doctoral progression procedures

Section 3.6 of the Code of Practice describes the formal doctoral progression procedures. This Annex sets out the typical contents of the written report and the typical criteria for satisfactory progress and continuation to PhD study as well as the constitution of the panel which should consider each student’s case. Research Institutes may modify these to meet the particular needs of their disciplines provided details are clearly set out in Research Institute Handbooks.

Report – Typically the report (up to 5,000 words) will include the following (as appropriate) and should be accompanied by an updated copy of the Personal Development and Learning Plan:

Literature review summary and/or update
Background and rationale for proposed research
Research methods to be used
Acquisition of skills and techniques
Report on preliminary studies
Research plan for the next year.

Ethics - All research involving human participants, their tissues, or personal information must be approved by a recognised research ethics committee before the research can commence. This includes social science research (e.g. fieldwork-based, interview and questionnaire studies). For more information about how to obtain the appropriate ethical approval for your research please access http://www.keele.ac.uk/researchsupport/researchethics/

Criteria – Criteria for satisfactory progress and continuation to PhD study typically include:

Demonstrated progress in developing the intellectual and cognitive skills necessary for the satisfactory completion of a doctoral thesis
Thorough literature review and demonstrated understanding of the context of the research
Clearly identified research question or topic
Appropriate research plan and methodologies
Acquisition of necessary skills and competences to carry out the research plan
Demonstrated an ability to set and keep to realistic deadlines for the production of work
Approval, where required, by one of the University’s Ethical Review Panels (or by a recognised external committee, such as an NHS-REC). Where approval has not yet been granted, a satisfactory explanation of either why approval is not required or what plans are in place for obtaining it must be provided.

No student may pass doctoral progression unless and until he or she has fulfilled the relevant research training requirements as set out in COP section 2.2.

Panel – The composition of the doctoral progression panel should be given in the RI Handbook. When determining the composition, RIs should consider the following:

The Chair should be a member of staff experienced in postgraduate research education – there may be some value in consistency and some RIs may wish to have the Director of Postgraduate Research

The panel may not include members of the supervisory team, but they could be present as observers and only with agreement of the student and other panel members.

Annex B5: Required sections for progress monitoring forms

(including grading scale relating to student progress)

Paragraph 3.5 of the Code of Practice requires Research Institutes to devise their own 6-monthly progress monitoring forms. With the introduction of Personal Development and Learning Plans, progress monitoring forms are no longer required to include sections outlining the activities undertaken by students. Instead, Instead, Postgraduate Committees may request that the student submit their Personal Development and Learning Plan to be considered alongside the Progress Monitoring Forms.

There are two separate Progress Monitoring Forms, one completed by the Lead Supervisor and one completed by the Student, each submitted separately to the Postgraduate Committee (with a copy to the other for information – Lead Supervisor or Student). The two parts should include at least the following sections. Pro formas covering these two reports are available on the web for Research Institutes wishing to use or adapt them.

Lead Supervisor’s report on progress

[not to repeat information in the Personal Development and Learning Plan]

1 Comments on the student’s progress on the research project and their success in meeting research objectives

2 Comments on the student’s overall progress and standard of work

3 Comments on student’s general progress and record in keeping to the agreed timescales

4 Recommended overall grade with reference to the following scale:

A excellent, B good, C satisfactory, D poor, E unsatisfactory

Postgraduate Committees must choose one clear grade.

The grade should be determined by reference to the Personal Development and Learning Plan and to section 3.3 of the Code of Practice (Requirement to remain in good academic standing), and should take into account both the adequacy and standard of work, and the level of active study, evaluated in accordance with the student’s mode of attendance. See paragraph 3.3.5 (b) of the Code of Practice for details of the implications for a student of receiving a grade E (unsatisfactory).

5 Any action recommended, and by whom.

Student’s report on progress

[not to repeat information in the Personal Development and Learning Plan]

1 Comments on adequacy of progress on the research project

2 Comments on whether you are keeping to the agreed timescales and, if not, give reasons and suggestions for improvement

3 Comments on progress with thesis writing if appropriate

4 Comments on your progress with the Personal Development and Learning Plan

5 Comment on any problems encountered with access to supervision or facilities or the quality of these.

Annex B6: Approval of supervisors and mentors

This Annex sets out the approval process for anyone who is to be a member of a supervisory team, and for approval of mentors to supervisors.

1 The University considers that the quality of the educational experience for research students is to a large extent determined by the quality of the supervision which they receive, and consequently places a very high priority on ensuring that supervisors are able to carry out their role effectively.

2 Academic staff (including honorary clinical staff) must undergo a formal process of approval by the Research Degrees Committee in order to be able to supervise research students.

3 In order to become Approved Supervisors, academic staff will normally need to fulfil the following conditions:

Already have a higher degree by research
Be active in research as evidenced by recent publications and / or research grants
Hold an academic post at the University
Have undertaken supervisor training, or be able to demonstrate a track record of successful supervision
Have undertaken research governance training or otherwise demonstrate that they understand the implications of research governance
Have taken the Lead Supervisor role (as an Associate Supervisor at Keele, or as Associate or Approved Supervisor elsewhere) and supervised to successful completion one or more candidates at PhD level.

4 Staff who can fulfil the first three conditions, but have little or no experience of supervision, may be approved initially as Associate Supervisors. Associate Supervisors will be allowed to supervise higher degrees (including as Lead Supervisor) provided:

They undertake supervisor training
They undertake research governance training, or otherwise demonstrate that they understand the implications of research governance
They are allocated a Mentor, who will provide guidance and mentoring to the Associate Supervisor.

5 Mentors to Associate Supervisors will be Approved Supervisors with several years’ experience of successful supervision.

In putting forward a case to be a mentor, the individual, supported by a case made by the Director of Postgraduate Research for the Research Institute of which they are a member, will need to demonstrate a history of successful supervision. Additional relevant experience might include participation in supervisor training, engagement with issues of research governance and a management or development role in postgraduate research education.

6 Postgraduate Committees will allocate Mentors to Associate Supervisors at the same time as they put forward Associate Supervisors for approval. Mentors do not need to be in the same subject area as the Associate Supervisor, though if possible a Mentor should be in a cognate discipline.

7 Research Institutes will raise any concerns about supervisory performance with the Research Degrees Committee. Where the performance of Approved or Associate Supervisors gives cause for concern, the Research Degrees Committee will review whether such approval should be allowed to continue and, if so, on what terms or conditions.

Annex B7: Approval of examiners and chair of oral examination

This Annex sets out the procedures for the approval of internal and external examiners, and of the Independent Chair.

Nomination of examiners

1 The examiners are nominated by the student’s Postgraduate Committee to the Research Degrees Committee, which approves the appointments on behalf of Senate.

2 The thesis is referred to a minimum of two examiners, normally one internal and one external. In no circumstances will a member of the candidate’s Supervisory team be an examiner. A second external examiner will be appointed instead of an internal examiner in the following circumstances:

If the candidate is a member of the academic staff of Keele University
If no appropriate internal examiner can be found
Any other circumstances which the Research Degrees Committee considers would warrant a second external examiner (possibly in addition to an internal examiner).

Exceptionally there may be a third examiner.

3 When nominating examiners for research degrees, Postgraduate Committees should take account of the following criteria used by the Research Degrees Committee:

Examiners are expected to be experts in the field of knowledge covered by the research thesis being examined, and have an established reputation for research and scholarship.
Examiners will normally hold a higher degree of at least the level for which they are to be nominated examiner.
Examiners will normally hold a post of senior lecturer or above (though other individuals may be nominated provided information and justification is provided).
The combined experience of the examiners must include both examining and supervision of research theses of the level to be examined either at Keele or elsewhere, with each examiner being experienced in at least one of these areas
Examiners must not be collaborators in the research, and any links between the candidate and the proposed examiners (particularly in relation to research collaboration) must be declared when making nominations. Examiners will not be approved if the extent of collaboration is such that a joint publication might result from the work. The normal exchange which might, for instance, take place during normal working contact such as in a laboratory or departmental discussion would not constitute collaboration in this context. If there is any doubt about the level of collaboration, the recommendation of examiner will not be approved.
Examiners should not be nominated if their work is the focus of the candidate’s research project.

4 The Lead supervisor and student will be invited by the Postgraduate Committee to discuss possible examiners and Postgraduate Committee will then make recommendations to Research Degrees Committee. The Lead supervisor and candidate will thereafter be informed of the names of the approved examiners.

5 All examiners, when confirming their willingness to so act, will be required to confirm also that they have read and understood the sections of the Code of Practice which relate to the examination of a research thesis, and will comply with its provisions.

Nomination and Allocation of Chair of oral examination.

6 Each oral examination will have an Independent Chair, who manages the conduct of the oral examination and who will take no part in the examination itself.

An Independent Chair will be a member of Keele academic staff. It is a condition of full Research Institute Membership that full RI members identified by their RI as potential Independent viva chairs put themselves forward for nomination as an Independent Chair, undertake training as appropriate, and subsequently make themselves generally available to chair vivas.

Independent Chairs are nominated by the student’s Postgraduate Committee to the Research Degrees Committee, which approves the appointments on behalf of Senate. The Records & Exams Officer for Postgraduate Research Students will maintain a list of approved Independent Chairs who will be allocated, subject to confirmation by Research Degrees Committee, by the student’s Postgraduate Committee. The Independent Chair will normally be from the same Research Institute as the student, but Postgraduate Committees may approach approved Independent Chairs from other Research Institutes.

In exceptional circumstances the Research Degrees Committee reserves the right to allocate the Chair for a particular oral examination. Directors of Postgraduate Research may not act as Independent Chairs.

The normal expectation is that an Independent Chair will have an established reputation for research and scholarship and experience or training in the research degree examination process.

Annex B8: Oral examination procedures

All research students, whether doctoral or masters students, will be required to take part in an oral examination (also known as ‘viva’ or ‘viva voce’). This Annex sets out the procedures for the conduct of the oral examination and suggests ways in which participants should prepare for it.

Aims and objectives of the oral examination

1 The oral examination is an integral part of the examination process, and so its aim is to evaluate whether the student has met the standards for the award. (These standards are set out in Annex A1.)

2 Within the examination process, the oral examination has the following objectives:

to confirm or revise the examiner’s initial views about the standard of the student’s research, based on the thesis
to identify and discuss any amendments to the thesis which may be required to meet the standard for the award
to determine as far as possible whether the Part 1 Declaration made by the student on submission of the thesis is true.

3 These objectives will be achieved through the examiners discussing the research and the thesis with the student, to gain clarification, probe background knowledge, and assure themselves of the student’s full understanding of the relevant issues. In particular the examiners may wish to elicit information on the following issues:

explanation of the structure of the thesis
justification for the inclusion or exclusion of material
explanation for and justification of the use of particular research methods and techniques
defence of the originality of the thesis, and how it relates to the work of others
clarification of any points of ambiguity within the thesis
justification for the conceptual approach taken in the thesis
the depth of knowledge of the contextual background to the subject of the thesis.

4 While it is recognised that apparently minor errors may conceal more fundamental problems, in general the purpose of the oral examination is not to identify and question the candidate on minor errors or amendments. Examiners should present to the student a list of such amendments required at the end of the examination, and incorporate them into Part II of the examiners’ report.

5 The final recommendation will be made on the basis of the total examination process with the examiners having formed a view about whether the student has achieved the standards required for the award. If amendments to the thesis are required to reflect their judgement about the student’s achievements, this should be reflected in the recommendation made, and guidance about revisions given in Part II of the examiners’ reports.

6 Note: Where research programmes approved by Senate incorporate a taught or professional element students may, in addition, be required to complete and pass an approved course of study and assessment, before the final award can be made.

Preparing for the oral examination – examiners

7 Organisation of oral examination: The arrangements for the oral examination will be made through the Research Institutes. The organiser of the viva, who is normally the internal examiner or the Independent Chair, must ensure that all parties (both examiners, Independent Chair and student) are included in the process and are involved in the decision relating to the date, time and place of the viva. The organiser must then inform both the Quality Assurance Officer (with responsibility for PGR activities) and the RI PGR Director of the agreed date, time and location of the viva. If any additional facilities are needed for the examination these must be identified by the examiners in advance and organised through the Research Institute.

8 Planning the examination: The Independent Chair should arrange to meet (or otherwise communicate with) the examiners, prior to the oral examination, to discuss how they will conduct the examination within the guidelines outlined in this annex. In particular they will consider which key issues they wish to address and how they will organise the discussion.

9 Notice of additional requirements: In the majority of subject disciplines the examination will normally take the form of oral discussion only. In cases where the examiners wish to request a presentation or demonstration by the candidate the examiners must notify the Independent Chair of their requirements and the student must be notified by the Independent Chair of such a request at least two weeks in advance of the oral examination, together with a statement about the intended purpose.

Preparing for the oral examination – students

10 It is desirable that students remain engaged with their research material during the months prior to the oral examination by, for example, re-reading their written submission, giving talks on their research, or preparing material for publication, as appropriate. Students should also continue reading new relevant material as it is published.

11 Students should ensure that they know their thesis thoroughly, and have a clear understanding of, and can articulate briefly, the key points which are important and new in the research. They should be able to respond to questions which address the issues listed above under 3.

12 Students should ensure that they have read and understood this guidance on the examination process.

13 Students should preferably have undertaken some form of training or practice in the oral examination, such as the session provided in the University’s Research Training programme, and a mock viva.

14 Students must not communicate directly with the examiners about the thesis or its assessment (see Annex D3).

Conduct of the oral examination

15 The oral examination of the student will be carried out by both (or all) examiners, with the Independent Chair governing the conduct of the examination. The normal expectation is that no other persons will be present. However, if all parties agree, Supervisors may be present as observers, and may answer questions directly addressed to them by the examiners in terms of background and contextual information. Where Supervisors are not present it is expected they will be available for consultation if the examiners wish.

16 It is the role of the Independent Chair to ensure that the appropriate tone and environment are created and maintained. The oral examination should be conducted in a non-intimidating way, reassuring the students, putting them at their ease, and minimising the inevitable stress of the occasion. Students should be treated with respect, courtesy, and understanding.

17 The Independent Chair should ensure, at the outset, that the student understands the purpose of the oral examination, introduce the examiners, and outline for the student the way the examination will be conducted. In addition, the Independent Chair should inform the student that no information about outcomes will be provided until the end of the examination, and that no conclusions should be drawn about this. The Independent Chair should refer to this guidance as being the document which governs the conduct of the oral examination.

18 The oral examination will be in the form of discussion, question and answer. Unless notified in advance (see 9 above) the examiners may not request any other activity such as a presentation or demonstration. The Independent Chair should ensure that questioning is not excessively protracted and keeps to the key purpose of the oral examination.

19 An oral examination will normally last for at least one hour, and rarely more than two hours. If it is necessary for the examination to last for more than two hours, the student will be offered a break.

20 At the end of the oral examination, the Independent Chair will ask the student to leave the room while the examiners reach a definitive conclusion about the outcome of the examination process. The decision should be reached as quickly as possible to minimise unnecessary stress.

The Independent Chair of the oral examination has the responsibility for the conduct of the oral examination at Keele. Full guidance is available at http://www.keele.ac.uk/gradschool/codeofpractice/copannexcformsforsubmisisontordc/ . It must be made clear to the student that the Research Degrees Committee may not always confirm the examiners’ recommendations. (Where recommendations do not appear to be fully justified by the reports they may be referred back to the examiners by Research Degrees Committee (see also paragraph 5.3.1.)

On completion of the oral examination, examiners should indicate to the student what amendments and corrections to the thesis are required, if any. They are asked to return a list of corrections and amendments to the Quality Assurance Officer (with responsibility for PGR activities) as part of their joint report (Part II), and to provide a copy of this list to the student. Where the list of corrections is partly or wholly annotated within the copy of the thesis, the Independent Chair will ensure that these are returned to the Quality Assurance Officer (with responsibility for PGR activities) who will then forward such copies to the student.

COP ANNEXES B8-15

Annex B8: Oral examination procedures

Aims and objectives of the oral examination

2 Within the examination process, the oral examination has the following objectives:

to confirm or revise the examiner’s initial views about the standard of the student’s research, based on the thesis
to identify and discuss any amendments to the thesis which may be required to meet the standard for the award
to determine as far as possible whether the Part 1 Declaration made by the student on submission of the thesis is true.

explanation of the structure of the thesis
justification for the inclusion or exclusion of material
explanation for and justification of the use of particular research methods and techniques
defence of the originality of the thesis, and how it relates to the work of others
clarification of any points of ambiguity within the thesis
justification for the conceptual approach taken in the thesis
the depth of knowledge of the contextual background to the subject of the thesis.

4 While it is recognised that apparently minor errors may conceal more fundamental problems, in general the purpose of the oral examination is not to identify and question the candidate on minor errors or amendments. Examiners should normally present to the student a list of such amendments required at the end of the examination, and incorporate them into Part II of the examiners’ report.

Preparing for the oral examination – examiners

Preparing for the oral examination – students

12 Students should ensure that they have read and understood this guidance on the examination process.

14 Students must not communicate directly with the examiners about the thesis or its assessment (see Annex D3).

Conduct of the oral examination

The Independent Chair of the oral examination has the responsibility for the conduct of the oral examination at Keele. Full guidance is available at. http://www.keele.ac.uk/gradschool/codeofpractice/ . It must be made clear to the student that the Research Degrees Committee may not always confirm the examiners’ recommendations. (Where recommendations do not appear to be fully justified by the reports they may be referred back to the examiners by Research Degrees Committee (see also paragraph 5.3.1.)

Annex B9: Format for examiners’ reports

1 On submission of the thesis by the candidate, each examiner will be sent a copy of the thesis together with a request for a report on the thesis.

2 Examiners’ reports will be in two parts, Part I written independently, Part II written jointly. Part I will be written on consideration of the thesis alone. Part II will be written after consultation with the other examiner(s) and after the oral examination. In addition, immediately after the oral examination the examiners will sign a joint certificate with their recommendation.

3 Part I of the report should be written after consideration of the thesis, and should include the following:

a critical synopsis of the thesis
comments on the standard and originality of the work submitted
areas to be explored in the oral examination
any suspicions about academic malpractice, or other doubts about the veracity of the student’s Part 1 Declaration
a preliminary recommendation, referring to the standards required for an award at doctoral and masters level as set out in Annex A1 and the available recommendations as set out in Annex A2
grounds upon which the preliminary recommendation is made.

Examiners should feel free to make notes on the thesis as they read it.

4 Part I of the report should be sent to the Quality Assurance Officer (with responsibility for PGR activities) at least one week before the oral examination, and no later than one month after receiving the thesis and request for the report. The Quality Assurance Officer (with responsibility for PGR activities) will ensure that a copy of each report is sent to the other examiner(s) prior to the oral examination. Each report should be accompanied by a Part I cover sheet which bears the initial recommendation and the signature of the Examiner.

5 Part II of the report should be written jointly by the examiners after the oral examination, and should include the following:

any supplementary comments arising from discussion between the examiners and the oral examination, including reasons for any changes of opinion from those expressed in Part I of the examiners’ reports
justification for the final recommendation as set out in the joint certificate signed immediately following the oral examination, referring to the standards required for an award at doctoral and masters level as set out in Annex A1
clear reasons for the recommendation, and details of any required amendments and revisions, so that Research Degrees Committee can be confident in the appropriateness of the recommendation and the student understands the reason for the outcome and can take appropriate corrective action if necessary
a statement that the examiners are satisfied that the student’s Part 1 Declaration is true or, if not so satisfied, the areas and grounds on which the examiners have concerns about its veracity.

6 Part II of the report should normally be sent to the Quality Assurance Officer (with responsibility for PGR activities) within a week of the oral examination, together with return of thesis (unless this has already been returned to the candidate at the oral examination). The Part II cover sheet should normally be sent to the Quality Assurance Officer (with responsibility for PGR activities) on the day of the viva. It bears the final Recommendation as well as the signatures of the Examination Panel.

7 All reports must be typed, dated and signed by the examiner.

8 Examiners’ reports are not confidential, and copies will be sent to students and supervisors on completion of the examination process.

Annex B10: Terms and conditions for appointment of graduate teaching assistantships

1. Graduate Teaching Assistantships

1.1. A standard Graduate Teaching Assistantship lasts for three years, and includes the following (for further terms and conditions):

1.1.1. Payment of fees (up to EU level only; international students are eligible, but will need to cover the difference between EU and international fees).

1.1.2. A stipend at standard RCUK level (currently £13,590), of which a maximum of £2,052 will be remuneration for teaching.

1.1.3. An agreed (by School in consultation with lead supervisor) programme of teaching (undergraduate and, if appropriate, postgraduate) for each year (no more than six hours a week of teaching or teaching-related activity, excluding formal training, averaged over the course of each year).

1.1.4. A full programme of development, mentorship and support.

1.1.5. An expectation of satisfactory performance in both research (evaluated in the normal way) and teaching; unsatisfactory performance in either to lead to termination of the Assistantship.

1.1.6. An expectation that the programme of research will be completed within normal time limits.

2. Other teaching opportunities

2.1. Availability of GTAs is entirely compatible with arrangements whereby some PGR students undertake, on a sessional basis, less teaching than would be expected of a student holding a GTA.

2.2. It is not the intention that the reintroduction of GTAs should necessarily lead to alteration of current practice. If established arrangements are working well, there is no reason to change them

2.3. Where no framework for doing so currently exists, Schools and RIs are expected work together to ensure equity and transparency in allocation of teaching responsibilities to PGRs who do not hold GTAs. Procedures can and should be light-touch but rigorous.

2.4. PGR students who undertake teaching are currently eligible to take advantage of formal training offered by the LPDU.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF GRADUATE TEACHING ASSISTANTSHIPS

This Annex sets out the terms and conditions which apply to all Graduate Teaching Assistantships (GTAs), including the following:

Strategic role of GTAs
Funding issues
Recruitment
Roles and responsibilities of students holding GTAs
Training and support for students holding GTAs

1 Strategic role of GTAs

Schools and Research Institutes (RIs) should be encouraged to consider and articulate the strategic role of GTAs within their overall teaching and research strategies, including any or all of the following:

Recruitment of high quality research students, giving a competitive edge in the market, particularly where there is very little external funding for research students – without being able to fund GTAs there might be no research students in the discipline
Integral and important part of the research culture within the Research Institute, contributing to specific research outputs
Valuable resource dedicated to specific research areas within the RI
Essential to the delivery of certain teaching functions such as laboratory teaching and demonstrating, examples classes, and teaching large cohorts of undergraduate students
Provide excellent teaching, are well motivated and enthusiastic, contribute ideas and input from the training programme, and become experts in their field, providing significant added value over 3 years
Provide continuity, are reliable, under School control, and are more fully members of the School than PT tutors would be
An important factor in the renewal of the academic community

2 Funding issues

2.1 All funding for GTAs will come from School/RI funds (or external funds which have been obtained for the purpose). GTAs may be funded in one of two ways, either from School/RI budgets or through making a bid in lieu of other staff.

2.2 The funds for a GTA must include both the stipend paid to the GTA-holder and the relevant tuition fees payable to the university.

2.3 GTA awards are normally for three years. Continuation of GTAs is dependent on satisfactory progress in research, as measured by established mechanisms, and on satisfactory performance of teaching duties.

3 Recruitment

3.1 The selection process for GTAs must be in all respects transparent and equitable.

3.2 GTA opportunities should be advertised alongside other forms of student support (full and part studentships etc.), with full details on the website.

3.3 Selection criteria should include both research and teaching potential, including the necessary social and communication skills. Candidates’ career intentions should be ascertained at interview.

3.4 Eligibility for a GTA award should be restricted to full-time research students intending to complete a PhD. If an award is made to a student who is required to pay overseas fees, the student will normally be required to pay the difference between the home level and overseas level of fees.

3.5 Further particulars of each GTA post advertised should include a copy of these guidelines, as well as more specific details of expected duties and the level of stipend.

3.6 Offers of a GTA award will include a contract supplemented by a statement of duties (Schedule of Work), support arrangements, training requirements, name of mentor, etc).

4 Roles and responsibilities of GTA-holders

4.1 GTA-holders are research students who, by virtue of their aptitude, training and expertise, have been selected to provide teaching and related administrative support to their academic Schools. In return for this support, the university pays them an annual stipend and their tuition fees for their research degree. Their primary purpose is to undertake and complete a research degree.

4.2 All GTA-holders are required to register for, attend and satisfactorily complete an appropriate training course to support their teaching role.

4.3 When determining the general teaching programme for a GTA-holder, Heads of Schools should discuss proposals with the student, be aware of the overall load (teaching and research), and take into account the following guidelines:

a) Teaching should be no more than 6 contact hours a week during semester time (a maximum of 144 hours a year). With preparation, marking, office hours, meetings and other teaching-related activity, this should not require more than 180 hours’ commitment a year.

b) Teaching-related activity is additional to contact hours and unquantified within the maximum of 180 hours’ commitment. Teaching duties should not normally be such as to require other than relatively modest amounts of preparation time.

c) GTA-holders should, over the course of their three years, have the opportunity to contribute to the delivery of a range of modules appropriate to their development and to the needs of the School.

d) GTA-holders, through their experience and training, are preparing for an academic career, and should be given the opportunity to practise a range of academic teaching activities and levels over the period of their award.

e) Activities appropriate to early stages of the GTA award:

Tutorial teaching of level 1 and level 2 modules
Laboratory classes and demonstrating
Examples classes
Fieldwork
Supervised assessment of level 1 and level 2 modules
Office hours/surgery
Participation in course team meetings
Attendance at School meetings

e) Additional activities appropriate to later stages of the GTA award, after some training and experience (general teaching training):

Tutorial teaching of level 3 modules
Second marker for level 3 modules
Lecturing in area of research expertise
Some involvement in module design

f)GTA-holders should be treated as a full member of the relevant course team, and consulted about the course and their students in the same way as a junior lecturer. This will include attending relevant examiners’ meetings.

5 Training and support for GTA-holders

5.1 All GTA-holders are required to participate in a relevant training scheme (see 4.2 above), and Schools/RIs must ensure that they are given the time to do so and the opportunities to fulfil the requirements of the training.

5.2 Ultimate responsibility for management of the teaching undertaken by a GTA-holder lies with the Head of School, who may delegate this as appropriate.

5.3 All GTA-holders will be allocated a mentor or teaching supervisor (who will not normally be the research supervisor). The mentor provides the following support for the GTA-holder:

Provides advice on all aspects of teaching, including presentations, course materials, and organisational matters appropriate to the subject
Monitors the GTA-holder’s participation in training programmes, ensures attendance, advises on additional training and discusses progress
Liaises with research supervisor and ensures that overall load is not excessive
Conducts ongoing reviews
Recommendations concerning continuation

5.4 All teaching and assessment work must be supervised by a member of the academic staff.

5.5 GTAs are entitled to the same research facilities as all other research students in the RI. In addition, they should have access to sufficient School resources to enable them to carry out their teaching duties.

5.6 GTA-holders who are unable to work due to sickness must inform their School of the reason for absence and its likely duration, as soon as possible, and in any event within 30 minutes of the GTA-holder’s normal start time. Consideration should be given by the School, in consultation with the GTA-holder, as whether the teaching commitment can be rescheduled to an alternative time.

Annex B11: Ownership and management of intellectual property

1 During the course of a research degree at the University research students will contribute to the generation of intellectual property e.g. patentable technologies, design rights, copyright, including copyright in computer code, know-how, etc. As this Intellectual Property is generated with the benefit of the University environment (this includes resources, facilities and intellectual capital of the University) in all cases (subject to 2 below) the University owns the Intellectual Property.

2 The exception to this occurs where students are sponsored by a third party (e.g. company or charity) where contractually it has been agreed, prior to the start of the degree, that the sponsor owns the intellectual property arising from the body of sponsored work.

3 In the event of commercialisation of the intellectual property, the University agrees to offer the student a share in any financial gain in accordance with the University Commercialisation Policy. Where appropriate students are required to notify the University of the existence of any Intellectual Property, through the IP and Innovation Manager (Research and Enterprise Services), and are required to complete an Intellectual Property Disclosure form.

4 Students should not disclose commercially important intellectual property unless such disclosure is covered by a confidentiality agreement, approved by the Research and Enterprise Services. Students are encouraged to publish their work but where such publications relate to commercially important intellectual property students must seek advice from the IP and Innovation Manager (Research and Enterprise Services) prior to publication.

Annex B12: Standard agreement for the provision of supervision services

(See paragraph 1.6.5. Note that the WHEREAS clauses may be changed in different circumstances, such as where clinical staff hold honorary contracts.)

AGREEMENT

between

KEELE UNIVERSITY

and

[NAME] (“Supervisor”)

Concerning the provision of supervision services for

[STUDENT] (“Student”)

RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR [NAME]

Effective Date of Agreement

WHEREAS

The Supervisor has been a member of the Keele staff, but will no longer be so at the Effective Date, following retirement or resignation.
The Supervisor has been supervising the Student, and the specific circumstances make it desirable that the Supervisor continues to be involved in the supervision of the Student after leaving the University.
This Agreement sets out the terms and conditions for the Supervisor to provide such supervision services to the University in relation to the Student.

1 Period of the Agreement

1.1 This Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date shown above, and shall continue until the Student submits his or her thesis for examination (or such other time as is mutually agreed). The Agreement may be extended or renewed for a further period if the Student is permitted to resubmit his or her thesis.

1.2 The University may terminate the Agreement at any time with immediate effect if the Supervisor fails to provide supervision services to the satisfaction of the University, such failure constituting a material breach of the Agreement.

1.3 Either party may terminate the Agreement for any reason by giving one month’s written notice to the other.

2 Supervision Services

2.1 The conduct of research degree programmes at Keele University is governed by the Code of Practice on Postgraduate Research Degrees (“Code of Practice”). A copy of the latest version accompanies this Agreement (receipt of which the Supervisor confirms), and the most up-to-date version is always available on the University’s website at www.keele.ac.uk/gradschool.

The Supervisor agrees to ensure that he or she is aware of, and follows the requirements of, the most recent version of the Code of Practice at any time. The Director of Postgraduate Research will bring to the attention of the Supervisor any significant amendments which may affect the provision of the supervision services specified.

2.2 The Supervisor will be directly accountable to the Director of Postgraduate Research in the Student’s Research Institute for the provision of supervision services.

2.3 In general terms, the Supervisor will be required to perform all those services which are required of Supervisors under the Code of Practice, including those additional services set out in the Research Institute’s Postgraduate Research Degree Handbook (which forms an integral part of the Code of Practice).

This shall include at least the activities listed in Annex D3 of the Code of Practice (insofar as they are relevant to the stage of progress of the Student). In specific circumstances, some of these activities may be either unnecessary (because of the stage of progress of the student) or may be undertaken by University staff members.

2.4 The exact nature of the supervision services as set out in 2.3 above may be moderated by details set out in the attached Schedule relating to the circumstances of the specific Student.

2.5 The Supervisor will perform the supervision services personally, and undertakes that appropriate time will be spent (if appropriate, at the University) on the supervision services, including the preparation of any documentation, to ensure the timely completion of work within any set deadlines.

2.6 The Supervisor shall keep detailed records of all things done in relation to the provision of supervision services, and at the University’s request shall make them available for inspection and/or provide copies to the University.

3 Remuneration for supervision services

3.1 The University shall pay to the Supervisor a fee of £250 with respect to each 6 month period of supervision (pro rata) which has been undertaken to the satisfaction of the University. No variation to this price will be permitted unless the University gives its consent in writing in advance to any variation.

3.2 If the Supervisor incurs any necessary travel expenses in relation to providing supervision services, these may be paid in addition to the fee provided this has been agreed in advance with the University through the relevant Director of Postgraduate Research.

3.3 Payment will be made at the end of each 6 month period, and is conditional on receipt of a satisfactory progress report on the Student, or on submission of the thesis. A satisfactory progress report will be one which is sufficiently detailed to give the Research Institute’s Postgraduate Committee a realistic picture of the progress of the student during the period covered by the report.

3.4 The Supervisor should submit an invoice, and the payment (fee and any expenses) will be authorised by the Director of Postgraduate Research in the relevant Research Institute, to be charged to the Research Institute.

4 Contractual status

4.1 It is the intention of the parties that the Supervisor shall be self-employed and that nothing in this Agreement shall give rise to a contract of employment between the parties. During the period of the Agreement the Supervisor may accept and perform engagements from other organisations which do not impinge upon his or her ability to provide the supervision services as required by the University.

4.2 The Supervisor bears sole responsibility for the payment of any tax and National Insurance contributions due with respect to payments made under this Agreement. Nevertheless, the Supervisor agrees to provide the University Finance Department with his or her National Insurance number, so that the University can fulfil its obligations with respect to completing annual returns.

4.3 The construction, performance and validity of this Agreement will be governed by the laws of England and the parties agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the English courts.

I agree to the terms and conditions set out in this Agreement and the attached Schedule.

Signed ______________________________________ Date _________

(The Supervisor)

Signed ______________________________________ Date _________

(Director of Postgraduate Research for Research Institute)

Signed ______________________________________ Date _________

(Head of Human Resources Department)

On behalf of Keele University

Cc: Director of Postgraduate Research, Research Institute for

Director of Research Institute

SCHEDULE TO AGREEMENT FOR SUPERVISION SERVICES

RESEARCH INSTITUTE

SUPERVISOR

STUDENT (reg no)

DIRECTOR OF POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH

EFFECTIVE DATE

1 Details of student registration

Degree programme

Initial registration date

Mode of attendance

Final date for submission (university maximum)

Final date for submission (departmental requirements)

Sponsorship (if any)

2 Tasks still to be completed by the Student prior to thesis submission, as at the Effective Date:

3 For the purposes of this specific Agreement, the following additions or modifications to the general requirements set out in 2.3 of the Agreement will apply:

4 The University, the Student and the Director of Postgraduate Research may contact the Supervisor through any of the following routes:

Address:

Telephone:

Fax:

Email:

5 Student contact details held on the University records system as at the Effective Date are as follows:

Address:

Telephone:

Fax:

Email:

Annex B13: Guidance on research degrees by published works - PhD

The University may award research degrees by published work to individuals who have demonstrated a sustained record of academic publication.

The degrees to which a candidate may proceed under this Regulation are those of PhD (Doctor of Philosophy).

Please note that a student registered on a Keele PhD by Research or Professional Doctorate at Keele shall not be allowed to transfer to the research degree by published works.

1 Standards Of Award

1.1 Candidates for the degree of PhD by publication shall be required to meet the same standards of award as candidates for the PhD by supervision (See Regulation 2D and Code of Practice Annex A1). The latest version of the Regulations is available on the University website and the Code of Practice is always available on the Postgraduate Research webpages.

1.2 The PhD by publication award is based on the submission of a critical overview and portfolio of evidence containing peer reviewed published work and other outputs.

2 Eligibility

2.1 In order to be eligible to submit for a degree by published work, a candidate must fulfil at least one of the following criteria:

a) be a graduate of this University of at least six years standing

b) hold a Masters Degree of this University of at least five years standing

c) be a graduate of any other University approved for this purpose of at least six years standing and have been a full-time member of the academic staff of this University for at least three years

d) be any other person associated with the work of the University whose qualifications are deemed by the Research Degrees Committee, on behalf of Senate, to be acceptable.

The University will normally only consider applications in relation to subjects for which it currently offers supervision for a research degree and where appropriate supervision is available.

3 Application Procedure (Primae Facie Case)

3.1 To apply for a PhD by Published Work a candidate must, in the first instance, submit the following to the Director of Planning and Academic Administration:

a statement of the intended award
a critical commentary, including a précis of the work to be submitted and a justification for the award, not exceeding 500 words
their c.v. including a full list of publications
a proposed title.

3.2 A student registered on a Keele PhD by research or Professional Doctorate Programme at Keele shall not be allowed to transfer to the research degree by published works.

3.3 The Director of Planning and Academic Administration will consult with the appropriate Research Institute to confirm that there is a primae facie case that the application is appropriate and that appropriate supervision is available prior to arranging for the Research Degrees Committee to consider the application. The Research Degrees Committee may take additional advice from within the University or externally.

3.4 If the Research Degrees Committee determines that a primae facie case exists, the candidate will be required to make a submission within six calendar months of the notification of the decision of Research Degrees Committee.

3.5 There will be two external examiners for a PhD by Publication. The title and examiners will be approved following the same procedures as for PhDs by supervision and can be found in the Code of Practice.

4 Supervision

4.1 Candidates for a PhD by Published Work will be provided with an appropriate supervisor by the Research Institute Committee. The supervisor will normally be an approved supervisor, preferably of mentor status.

4.2 The supervisor will:

Guide the candidate in the selection of publications for inclusion in the submission
Guide the candidate as to whether further submissions are needed
Support and advise on the critical commentary
Provide guidance on the body of work to be submitted.

5 Submission

5.1 The candidate must submit to the Quality Assurance Officer (with responsibility for PGR activities) three copies of a portfolio which shall include the following:

a title page setting out the candidate's name, approved title and award for which the submission is made
details of the candidate’s qualifications
a critical commentary on the submission which comprises a review of the contribution the work makes to the academic field in question (not exceeding 10,000 words)
a list of the publications submitted in the order published
copies of all the relevant published material, appropriately ordered
a full statement on the extent of the contributions to all papers is required where there are multiple authors (where an academic is submitting work undertaken by a student particular attention must be paid to the students’ element).

5.2 Guidance on what may be submitted:-

Papers in peer reviewed journals
Books, or chapters in books
Patents
Monographs
Other published work
The publications should normally have been published no more than 10 years prior to the first date of student registration
Work “in press” can be considered as published where there is a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) or publishing contract
Outputs to be included must not have been used in the submission for another higher research degree at this or any other University
Electronic publications may be submitted but only with evidence that they will be publicly available for the foreseeable future in the current form and that they are of the appropriate quality for submission. Web links for the journal publishing the paper should be included in the critical commentary to ensure copyright requirements are covered
The number of publications will depend on the academic discipline and type of publication, but the submission should normally comprise at least ten publications.

5.3 The critical commentary, which must be submitted with the publications should demonstrate the coherence of and rationale for the submitted work. It should be no longer than 10,000 words excluding the submitted works. As a minimum it should contain the following:

Autobiographical context for the portfolio of evidence
Chronological description of the submission and the development of the work
An evaluative description of the originality of each output
Demonstration of the original and independent contribution to knowledge and a rationale to prove that the work submitted equates to PhD standard
A critical review of the overall contribution to the research area which has been made by the body of work submitted for examination. This could include any published reviews of the submitted work
A critical reflection on the candidate’s development as a researcher
Conclusions and suggestions for future work.

5.4 The contents of the submission must be in the English language unless specific permission to the contrary has been granted by Research Degrees Committee.

5.5 The submission must be accompanied by the relevant examination fee (available on the Postgraduate Research webpages). The copies should be bound in comb binding where possible.

6 Examination

6.1 The examiners will examine the work submitted; write independent reports following the guidance in the Code of Practice, and a further joint report agreeing their recommendation to Research Degrees Committee. They will make a recommendation to Research Degrees Committee who, after consideration, shall make a recommendation to Senate.

6.2 An oral examination is required for all submissions.

6.3 Arrangements for the oral examination are made in the same was for a PhD by supervision.

6.4 Recommendations available to examiners of research degrees are:

the student be awarded the degree for which he/she has made a submission; or
the student be awarded the degree for which he/she has made a submission once revisions to the critical commentary have been made to the satisfaction of the examiner(s); or
the student should be not awarded any degree nor be permitted to re-present the thesis, nor submit to any further examination.
the examiners are unable to come to a joint recommendation and an additional examiner or examiners should be appointed whose decision shall resolve the matter.

6.5 Research Degrees Committee will communicate the outcome of the examination process to the candidate and any subsequent instructions prior to approval at Senate.

7 Appeals

7.1 Appeals can only be made following the outcome of the award and will follow the procedures laid out in Regulation 7.

8 Academic Misconduct

8.1 Any allegation of academic misconduct shall be dealt with in accordance with the following procedures. Academic misconduct is most likely to be, but is not exclusively, collusion, where a piece of work is prepared by more than one student, including work deriving from a piece of authorised collaborative group-work, and is presented in whole or in part for assessment as if it were the student’s own work.

8.2 Any such investigation shall be carried out by a panel consisting of a senior member of the academic staff nominated by the Vice-Chancellor as chair, the Dean or his/her nominee from the Faculty in which the alleged offence has taken place and one other Dean or his/her nominee. If the alleged offence has taken place in the Dean's department, then the Dean shall nominate a senior member of the academic staff from another department in that Faculty to act on his/her behalf.

Annex B14: Guidance on research degrees by published work - higher doctorates DLitt, LLD or DSC

The University may award research degrees by published work to individuals who have demonstrated a record of academic publication and achieved a reputation for academic excellence in their field.

The degrees to which a candidate may proceed under this Regulation are those of Doctor of Letters (DLitt), Doctor of Laws (LLD) and Doctor of Science (DSc).

1 Standards Of Award

1.1 Candidates for a higher doctorate (DLitt, LLD, DSc) shall be required to meet a standard substantially higher than that expected for a PhD. The work submitted should represent a significant, substantial, original and long-term contribution over a sustained period to the development of knowledge within a discipline, demonstrating international recognised excellence and that the candidate is a recognised authority in the relevant field of study.

2 Eligibility

2.1 In order to be eligible to submit for a degree by published work, a candidate must fulfil at least one of the following criteria:

a) be a graduate of this University of at least nine years standing

b) hold a Masters Degree of this University of at least eight years standing

c) hold a Doctoral Degree of this University of at least six years standing

d) be a graduate of any other University approved for this purpose of at least nine years standing and have been a full-time member of the academic staff of this University for at least three years

e) be any other person associated with the work of the University whose qualifications are deemed by the Senate to be acceptable.

3 Application Procedure

3.1 In the first instance the candidate should submit the following to the Director of Planning and Academic Administration:

a statement of the award intended
a précis of the work to be submitted, not exceeding 1000 words explaining the relevance of the works to the advancement of knowledge in the research area
a summary list of publications
a proposed title.

3.2 The Director of Planning and Academic Administration will consult with the appropriate Research Institute to confirm that there is a prima facie case that the application is appropriate prior to arranging for Research Degrees Committee to consider the application. The Research Degrees Committee may take additional advice from within the University or externally.

3.3 If the Research Degrees Committee determines that a prima facie case exists, the candidate will be required to make a submission within six calendar months of the decision of Research Degrees Committee.

3.4 The approved title will be confirmed, and the Senate will appoint two external examiners and an Independent Chair on the recommendation of the Committee. The candidate will be required to nominate at least six external examiners to their Research Institute Committee who will propose two of these examiners to Research Degrees Committee along with an internal Independent Chair. The candidate is required to declare all links with the examiners they nominate. Research Degrees Committee reserves the right to consult the candidate.

4 Submission

4.1 The candidate must submit to the Quality Assurance Officer (with responsibility for PGR activities) Office three copies of a portfolio which shall include the following:

a title page setting out the candidate's name, approved title of the submission, and award for which the submission is made
details of the candidate’s qualifications
a critical commentary on the submission which comprises a review of the contribution the work makes to the academic field in question (not exceeding 10,000 words)
a list of the publications submitted in the order submitted
copies of all the relevant published material, appropriately ordered
a full statement on the extent of the contributions to all papers is required where there are multiple authors (where an academic is submitting work undertaken by a student particular attention must be paid to the students’ element).

4.2 Guidance on what may be submitted:-

Papers in peer reviewed journals
Books, or chapters in books
Patents
Monographs
Other published work
Work “in press” can be considered as published where there is a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) or publishing contract
Electronic publications may be submitted but only with evidence that they will be publicly available for the foreseeable future in the current form and that they are of the appropriate quality for submission. Web links for the journal publishing the paper should be included in the critical commentary to ensure copyright requirements are covered.
The number of outputs will depend on the academic discipline and type of publication.

4.3 The critical commentary which must be submitted with the publications should demonstrate the coherence of and rationale for the submitted work. It should be no longer than 10,000 words excluding the submitted works. As a minimum it should contain the following:

Autobiographical context for the portfolio of evidence.
Chronological description of the submission and the development of the work
An evaluative description of the originality of each output.
Demonstration of the original and independent contribution to knowledge and a rationale to prove that the work submitted equates to the standard of a higher doctorate
A critical review of the overall contribution to the research area.

4.4 The submission must be accompanied by the relevant examination fee.

5 Examination

5.1 The examiners will examine the work submitted, write independent reports, and may conduct an oral examination, in a way similar to research degrees by supervision. They will make a recommendation to Research Degrees Committee who, after consideration, shall make a recommendation to Senate.

5.2 The requirement for an oral examination will be at the discretion of the examiners with a presumption against for a higher doctorate submission. Examiners will be required to make their decision on whether or not to viva clear in their initial reports.

5.3 The examiners will be required to write independent reports evaluating the work submitted and to subsequently provide a joint recommendation which will be considered by Research Degrees Committee.

5.4 Recommendations available to examiners of research degrees are

the candidate be awarded the degree for which he/she has made a submission; or
the candidate be awarded the degree for which he/she has made a submission once revisions to the critical commentary have been made to the satisfaction of the examiner(s); or
the candidate should be not awarded any degree nor be permitted to re-present the thesis, nor submit to any further examination.
the examiners are unable to come to a joint recommendation and an additional examiner or examiners should be appointed whose decision shall resolve the matter.

5.5 Research Degrees Committee will communicate the outcome of the examination process to the candidate.

6 Appeals

6.1 Appeals can only be made following the outcome of the award and will follow the procedures laid out in Regulation 7.

7 Academic Misconduct

7.1 Any allegation of academic misconduct shall be dealt with in accordance with the following procedures. Academic misconduct is most likely to be, but is not exclusively, collusion, where a piece of work is prepared by more than one student, including work deriving from a piece of authorised collaborative group-work, and is presented in whole or in part for assessment as if it were the student’s own work.

7.2 Any such investigation shall be carried out by a panel consisting of a senior member of the academic staff nominated by the Vice-Chancellor as chair, the Dean or his/her nominee from the Faculty in which the alleged offence has taken place and one other Dean or his/her nominee. If the alleged offence has taken place in the Dean's department, then the Dean shall nominate a senior member of the academic staff from another department in that Faculty to act on his/her behalf.

Annex B15: Joint PhD Programmes with External Partners

1 Background

1.1 This annex covers the generic elements which must be addressed and included in the development and implementation of collaborative PhD programmes with external partners.

1.2 While those engaged in the development of joint PhD programmes will be responsible for the initial proposals, the final proposal must be prepared in conjunction with the Research and Enterprise office and must include all aspects of a legal agreement with a partner such as dispute resolution, indemnity, intellectual property rights and other contractual issues. The agreement must be signed on behalf of Keele by the Secretary and Registrar.

1.3 While a range of different partnerships models are possible, this Annex is focused solely on partnership programmes which lead to a Keele degree.

2 Joint PhD programmes

2.1 Where students in a partnership are expecting to receive a Keele degree then they must be:

Subject to the Keele Code of Practice for Postgraduate Research Degrees (COP) except for the variations set out in this Annex
Subject to a legally binding agreement with the partner institution.

2.2 The following areas, where there is likely to be variation from the COP, must be covered in any agreement with the partner institution:

Admissions – admissions standards and eligibility shall be in accordance with Keele’s admission’s policy, including English language requirements, which may vary according to subject area
Enrolment and induction – it is recognised that where students are based abroad they may not be able to attend induction at Keele. Specific arrangements must be put in place to ensure that the same level and quality of induction takes place at the partner institution
Supervisory arrangements – as a minimum Keele should provide the lead or second supervisor. Keele would also formally approve supervisors assigned by partner institutions using normal procedures set out in Annex B6
Contact with student – the collaboration agreement should state the minimum number of contacts between the Keele supervisor and the student. While regular contact may be by e-mail, telephone or video conference, face-to-face meetings will normally be required at least once a year. The responsibility for providing funding associated with these meetings must be specified (see below). The Keele supervisor must keep records of all contact and communications with the student and supervisor at the partner institution. The student must keep records in the Personal Development and Learning plan of all such contact and communication (see COP section 3.3.2 and Annex B2)
The nature and extent of visits, in either direction, for face-to-face meetings between the student and a supervisor or for research on the project, must be specified along with the source and extent of funding (travel, accommodation, project costs etc) required for these visits
Research training – research training needs and the organisational units at Keele or the partner institution which would deliver the training must be identified in advance. For students based in the partner academic institution, the training requirements in the COP will need to be addressed, and any variance agreed, in advance. Options available include remote completion or exemption for equivalent training
Progress monitoring – all PGRs studying for a Keele degree will follow the progress monitoring arrangements set out in the COP section 3.5. The Keele supervisor must work with the supervisor at the partner institution to ensure that all progress report forms are complete
Academic facilities and resources – where the student is based at Keele, even for part of the duration of their study, they should expect to be supported as any other Keele PGR as set out in the COP section 2.1. For students based in the partner institution academic facilities and resources need to be separately identified in the agreement and should be equivalent to the support provided at Keele. Jointly supervised students, regardless of location, would be registered at Keele and should have a Keele email account
Examination – Given that Keele is the awarding body, jointly supervised PhD students will be subject to the Keele examinations process as set out in the COP section 4.2 and Annex B7. Where students are based abroad the oral examination may take place in the partner institution or at Keele. In exceptional circumstances the viva could be via video conference (but not telephone)
Fees – specific fee levels may be set for students on a joint programme and these should be set out in the agreement. The sharing of the fee income and other costs should also be specified in the agreement and should reflect the balance of input of resources from each partner.

COP ANNEXES D1-D5

Annex D1: Guidance on avoidance of plagiarism and academic dishonesty

This Annex gives some guidance on how to avoid academic dishonesty (particularly plagiarism, falsification of results and collusion), and identifies the regulations which are applied in suspected cases of academic dishonesty.

Declaration and academic dishonesty

1 When submitting a thesis (or approved alternative) for examination for a higher degree, students are required to sign a two-part Declaration (see 1.6.4 and Annexes B1 & C1 of the Code of Practice). The Part 1 Declaration includes a commitment to having undertaken research in an ethical and appropriate manner.

2 Examiners are required to confirm, as part of the examination process, that they are satisfied as far as possible that the Part 1 Declaration made by the student is true.

3 It is the students’ responsibility from the outset of their research programmes to ensure that they fully understand the implications of the Declarations for the conduct of their research and for the way in which they write it up in the thesis presented for examination.

4 Academic dishonesty includes plagiarism, falsification of research results, collusion, cheating in examinations, and any other action by the student which gives a false impression (intentionally or unintentionally) to an examiner or assessor that what is put forward for examination or assessment is the student’s own work.

Plagiarism

5 In the course of their research, research students will inevitably draw on a wide range of previously published material, of which some will directly inform and influence their own lines of enquiry. It is important that reference to other people’s work is acknowledged properly while the student’s own research should be related to it carefully and unambiguously. Sources of information should always be acknowledged, both by a footnote and in the bibliography/reference section.

6 This account of plagiarism is adapted from the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, ed by Joseph Gibaldi and Walter S Achtert, 2nd edn (New York: MLA, 1984). The following paragraphs are largely quotations from this source.

Please note that the illustrations given are from literary criticism and anthropology but the issues are the same in all disciplines. In mathematics and science, for example, the unacknowledged usage of data constitutes plagiarism even if it is adapted in presentation. If in doubt, students must check with their supervisors.

7 TO PLAGIARISE IS TO GIVE THE IMPRESSION THAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN OR THOUGHT SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE IN FACT BORROWED FROM SOMEONE ELSE. Plagiarism is the act of using another person's ideas or expressions in your writing without acknowledging the source. The word comes from the Latin word plagiarius ('kidnapper'), and Alexander Lindey defines it as 'the false assumption of authorship: the wrongful act of taking the product of another person's mind, and presenting it as one's own' (Plagiarism and Originality [New York: Harper, 1952] 2).

8 Plagiarism in student writing is often unintentional, as when a school pupil, assigned to do a report on a certain topic, goes home and copies down, word for word, everything on the subject in an encyclopaedia. Unfortunately, some students continue to use such 'research methods' without realising that these practices constitute plagiarism. Students may certainly use other persons' words and thoughts in their essays or research papers, but they must acknowledge the authors.

9 The most blatant form of plagiarism is to repeat as your own someone else's sentences, more or less verbatim. Suppose, for example, that you want to use the material in the following passage, which appears on page 906 in volume 1 of the Literary History of the United States:

"The major concerns of Dickinson's poetry early and late, her 'flood subjects', may be defined as the seasons and nature, death and a problematic afterlife, the kinds and phases of love, and poetry as the divine art."

If you write the following without any documentation, you have committed plagiarism:

The chief subjects of Emily Dickinson's poetry include nature and the seasons, death and the afterlife, the various types and stages of love, and poetry itself as a divine art.

You may present the information if you credit the authors:

Gibson and Williams suggest that the chief subjects of Emily Dickinson's poetry include nature, death, love and poetry as a divine art (1974, 1, 906)

The sentence and the parenthetical documentation at the end indicate the source, since the authors' names and the volume and page numbers refer the reader to the corresponding entry in the bibliography:

Gibson, W.M. and Williams, S.T. 1974. 'Experiment in Poetry: Emily Dickinson and Sidney Lanier in Literary History of the United States, ed. by Robert E. Spiller and others, 4th edn, 2 vols, New York: Macmillan, 1, 899-916

10 Other forms of plagiarism include repeating someone else's particularly apt phrase without appropriate acknowledgment, paraphrasing another person's argument as your own, and presenting another's line of thinking in the development of an idea as though it were your own. Two more examples follow:

Original source

This, of course, raises the central question of this paper: What should we be doing? Research and training in the whole field of restructuring the world as an 'ecotopia' (eco, from oikos, household; - topia from topos, place, with implication of 'eutopia' - 'good place') will presumably be the goal. (From E.N. Anderson, Jnr., 'The Life and Culture of Ecotopia' in Reinventing Anthropology, ed. by Dell Hymes, New York: Vintage-Random, 1974, 275.)

Plagiarised in student writing

At this point in time humankind should be attempting to create what we might call an 'ecotopia'.

Here, the writer borrowed a specific term ('ecotopia') without acknowledgment. Plagiarism could be avoided by rewording slightly and inserting appropriate parenthetical documentation.

At this point in time humankind should be attempting to create what E.N. Anderson, Jnr (1974) has called an 'ecotopia' (275).

As before, the sentence and the parenthetical documentation in each revision identify the source of the borrowed material and refer the reader to the full description of the work in the bibliography at the end of the paper.

Anderson, E.N., Jnr. (1974). 'The Life and Culture of Ecotopia' in Reinventing Anthropology, ed. by Dell Hymes, New York: Vintage-Random, 264-81

11 If you have any doubt about whether or not you are committing plagiarism, cite your source or sources.

12 In addition to correctly attributing extracts or ideas of previously published work to the author(s) students must also ensure that their own personal share in any investigation is clearly stated, where any collaboration has taken place between the student and their supervisor or another person.

13 Plagiarism may also take place when one student copies work from another student, without the knowledge of that student. In this case both students may be suspected of academic dishonesty and be subject to a disciplinary investigation.

14 Care should be taken to present all data in such a manner that allows no room for doubt as to the authorship of the research.

Falsification of results

15 Researchers may be tempted to falsify the outcomes or results of research if experiments or surveys or other research methods produce data which do not confirm the researcher’s expectations or hopes. Such falsification of results is dishonest.

16 Research needs to be reproducible, by the same or other researchers, to gain validity, and research students may need to repeat their research activity several times in order to be confident in the results they have obtained. It is crucial that the research design is appropriate from the start if results are to be valid.

17 Data collected through research needs to be recorded accurately. Researchers must use appropriate forms of analysis to identify patterns and correlations, and then seek explanations for what has actually been found, not for what they wish had been found. There may be creativity and insight about the implications of the results, but not about the core data nor about the analysis of that data.

Collusion

18 Collusion is also a form of academic dishonesty. This is similar to plagiarism, but involves two or more students working together, without the prior authorisation of the supervisor, to produce the same piece of work, and then attempting to present this work individually as entirely their own work. Any suspected cases of collusion will be subject to the regulation governing academic misconduct.

Regulatory framework

19 Ordinance IV (6) states that A student found to have cheated in degree assessments/examinations (including those for research degrees) may by decision of the Vice-Chancellor be denied a degree and be denied the right to be re-examined/re-assessed. The student will also be liable to other action by the Vice Chancellor.

20 Any allegation or suspicion (by the examiners or the University) of academic dishonesty in relation to examined or assessed work will be investigated under procedures set out in Regulation 8 (12) relating to cheating and other misconduct in examinations. The investigation and subsequent procedures will in general follow the normal disciplinary procedures (see Regulation 20).

Annex D2: Normal expectations of research institute facilities and resources for research students

The level of resources available to research students at any time will depend upon their mode of attendance (see Annex A3). For guidance, the following resources should be available within all Research Institutes, though there may be minor variations depending on the needs of specific disciplines. Research Institute Handbooks will set out full details for each RI.

Full-time

supervision as set out in Research Institute Handbooks and agreed between student and supervisor – an initial rule of thumb should be regular meetings (somewhere between weekly and monthly), with perhaps an uninterrupted hour made available on each occasion, even if the full time does not always need to be used
office space, cabinet or bookshelf, desk and chair
access to PC with Internet connection and necessary software
access to shared printer
reasonable access to telephone for internal and external calls (not overseas)
reasonable use of stationery, postage and fax
costs towards inter-library loans and photocopying (see RI Handbook for more detail)
ability to bid for funds for research travel and conferences.

Part-time

same facilities as for full-time, but level of supervision, access and provision to be negotiated with students to meet their needs and to reflect the reduced annual time commitment.

Continuation

minimal supervision, primarily related to reading and commenting on draft thesis chapters
access to the library and other facilities
use of computing facilities in the Research Institute.

Leave of absence

Students on leave of absence are not entitled to any access to facilities, resources or supervision.

Annex D3: Roles and responsibilities of students and supervisors

Chapter B11: Research degrees of the QAA Quality Code (referred to below) can be referenced at www.qaa.ac.uk. It was published in 2012 and replaced Section 1: Postgraduate research programmes (2004) from the Code of Practice. The Chapter represents the broadly shared view of those responsible for research degrees about the systems, policies and procedures that are conducive to an excellent experience for research students and that support higher education providers in maintaining academic standards for research degrees.

This Annex gives some additional guidance for students and supervisors. Research Institute Handbooks should set out any disciplinary differences or more precise guidelines.

Students

1 Written work should be well-presented, and given to supervisors for comment in a timely fashion. Work should be of an appropriate standard for the degree, and any concerns expressed by the supervisor or by the Postgraduate Committee should be taken seriously and acted upon.

2 Where the student experiences any problems, it is the student’s responsibility to make these known, to the supervisor in the first place, or following Research Institute procedures. If issues are not raised at the time, they cannot be used later as grounds for formal appeal.

3 More specifically, students are expected to

discuss with their supervisor the type of guidance and comment they find most helpful, and agree a schedule of meetings
take the initiative in raising problems or difficulties, however elementary they may seem
maintain the progress of work in accordance with the stages agreed with the supervisor, including in particular the presentation of material as required in sufficient time to allow for comments and discussion before proceeding to the next stage
request written feedback from supervisors, particularly where supervisors express concern with the student’s standard of work
provide reports as required for consideration by the Postgraduate Committee
decide when they wish to submit in accordance with the Regulations, taking informed advice as appropriate.

4 Students must on no account communicate directly with the appointed examiners of the thesis on any matters related to its content or the assessment process. This includes any matters relating to revisions to the thesis. If it is felt that communication with one or more examiners is needed, the student should contact the Quality Assurance Officer (with responsibility for PGR activities).

5 Indicator 7 of Chapter B11 of the Quality Code relates to the entitlements and responsibilities of research students, including the following guidance, which all students should follow.

Institutions should assure themselves that students are made aware of their responsibilities at the beginning of their programme. Students’ responsibilities normally include:

their own personal and professional development, including, where possible, recognising when they need help and seeking it in a timely manner
maintaining regular contact with supervisor (joint responsibility with supervisors)
preparing adequately for meetings with supervisors
setting and keeping to timetables and deadlines, including planning and submitting work as and when required and generally maintaining satisfactory progress with the programme of research
maintaining research records in such a way that they can be accessed and understood by anyone with a legitimate need to see them
raising awareness of specific needs of any specific needs or circumstances likely to affect their work
attending any development opportunities (research-related and other) that have been identified when agreeing their development needs with their supervisors
being familiar with institutional regulations and policies that affect them, including those relating to their award, health and safety, intellectual property, electronic repositories and ethical research guidelines .

Supervisors and supervisory teams

6 The role of the supervisory team will include:

giving guidance about the nature of research and the standard expected, about the planning of the research programme, about literature and sources, attendance at taught classes, about requisite techniques (including arranging for instruction where necessary), and about the problem of plagiarism
ensuring they are aware of any external codes of practice or guidance in relation to research ethics and governance applicable to their fields of research supervision, complying with such codes as appropriate, and ensuring students are aware of and comply with such codes as appropriate
maintaining contact through regular tutorial and seminar meetings, in accordance with Research Institute policy and in the light of discussion of arrangements with the student and agreements set out in the Personal Development and Learning Plan
being accessible to the student at other appropriate times when he or she may need advice
giving detailed advice on the necessary completion dates of successive stages of the work so that the whole may be submitted within the scheduled time
giving advice to the student on whether areas of their work could be commercially sensitive and so require a confidentiality disclosure agreement (CDA) or embargo on publishing
requiring written work as appropriate, and returning such work with constructive criticism in writing and in reasonable time
arranging as appropriate for the student to talk about their work to staff at graduate seminars
ensuring that the student is made aware of inadequacy of progress or of standards of work below that expected – all such comments and feedback must be made in writing to the student.

7 Monitoring student work and training and academic progress will normally be exercised through such activities as regular meetings with students, recording key points agreed, written feedback on progress in general and on drafts of thesis chapters, and regular progress reports monitored by the Postgraduate Committee, including drawing to the attention of the Research Institute in a timely fashion any issues affecting satisfactory progress of the student.

8 A clear understanding between supervisor and student needs to be established at an early stage about the supervisor's responsibility in relation to the student's written submission, and this may change as the project develops and is subject to continued negotiation. The understanding must cover the nature of guidance or comment the supervisor will offer, and the proportion of the final submission the supervisor will read (perhaps the whole), within the general principle that a thesis must be the student's own work.

9 Indicator 11 of Chapter B11 of the Quality Code, which relates to the responsibilities of supervisors, includes the following guidance, which all supervisors should follow.

It is important that supervisor(s) and student are fully aware of the extent of one another’s responsibilities, to enable both to understand the supervisor’s contribution to supporting the student and where the supervisor’s responsibilities end.

Depending on institutional sponsor(s) and research council guidance, supervisory responsibilities may include:

introducing the research student to the department (or equivalent), its facilities and procedures, and to other research students and relevant staff
providing satisfactory guidance and advice
monitoring the progress of the student’s research programme
establishing and maintaining regular contact with the student (guided by the institute's stated regulations and guidance)
being accessible to the research student to give advice (by whatever means is most suitable given the student's location and mode of study)
contributing to the assessment of a student’s development needs
providing timely, constructive and effective feedback on the student’s work, including his/her overall progress within the programme
ensuring that the student is aware of the need to exercise probity and conduct his/her research according to ethical principles, including intellectual property rights, and of the implications of research misconduct
ensuring that the research student is aware of sources of advice including careers guidance
helping research students understand health and safety responsibilities
providing effective pastoral support and/or referring the student to other sources of such support, including Student Support and Development Services staff and others within the student’s academic community
helping the student to interact with others working in the field of research, for example, encouraging the student to attend relevant conferences, supporting him/her in seeking funding for such events; and where appropriate to submit conference papers and articles to refereed journals
where appropriate, giving encouragement and guidance to the research student on the submission of conference papers and articles to refereed journals
maintaining the necessary supervisory expertise, including the appropriate skills, to perform all of the role satisfactorily, supported by relevant continuing professional development opportunities.

Annex D4: Preparation and presentation of a research thesis

This Annex sets out guidance for students about the nature of a thesis, its normal structure and content, and the formalities of presenting the thesis in terms both of format and process. There are clearly differences between disciplines in terms of the emphasis placed on different aspects of a thesis, and you should seek additional advice from your Research Institute, but there are some common points which you should take into account. In particular you should note that the following sections are requirements for all students:

format for presentation of a thesis
submitting your thesis for examination
after examination
lodging the thesis in the library and copyright issues.

WRITING THE THESIS SHOULD START VERY EARLY ON IN YOUR RESEARCH DEGREE PROGRAMME. IT IS NOT SOMETHING TO BE LEFT UNTIL THE END.

Purpose of a thesis

1 First and foremost, the thesis is the document which forms your examination submission. It is on this basis that examiners will determine whether you have fulfilled the criteria for the award (see Annex A1). Therefore from the outset you should ensure that you are familiar with the relevant award criteria, and when writing your thesis aim to demonstrate that you have fulfilled them.

2 The thesis is also a description of your research project, its definition, purpose, methods, results and conclusions. It needs to be a self-contained work which places your project in context and then sets out in a coherent and logical way how and why you pursued the project in the way you did, what new results or data were obtained, or how you developed your arguments and theories, and what conclusions you draw from them. Examiners will look carefully at the methods you have used and whether they are appropriate to the project. If you have published work from your thesis prior to submission of the thesis you can include some of the same text in the thesis provided the thesis as a whole is a self-contained and coherent work. The publication should be referenced.

3 The thesis (particularly for a doctoral award) should provide evidence of originality. Originality may be in terms of a previously unexplored field or topic (or aspect), or may consist in a re-analysis of previous findings or a new interpretation of events. You will need to demonstrate independent critical thought. If you have collaborated with anyone else on aspects of your research your own original contribution needs to be clearly identified. For example, if you have separately published some findings in a multi-authored publication prior to submission you will need to set out very clearly your own contribution.

4 You should also place your findings in the context of current research and debates, and suggest some implications, including identifying further research which may be useful.

Literature search and referencing

5 In most projects, at a very early stage you will need to conduct a literature search in order to discover what has already been written about your topic, so that you can take previous findings into account in your own work and not duplicate work already done.

6 From the outset you will need to determine which system you intend to use to keep a note of your reading. This will need to be in a form which you can access readily when you wish to reference an item in your thesis, or compile your bibliography. There are different views about whether you need both a list of references and a bibliography – some people advocate just a list of references since this should incorporate all relevant items. Ask your Research Institute for guidance.

7 The University has a site licence for bibliographic software - Refworks. Refworks is one of the bibliographic services bought by the University Library, who also provide training and support. Further information is available from the Library website. You are strongly advised to use Refworks to routinely store details of all publications referred to during the course of your research.

8 It is essential that in writing your thesis you have a consistent format for referencing. There are various different systems available, and your Research Institute will advise you about what is most appropriate or usual in your discipline. However, different journals also require different referencing styles. One of the advantages of using bibliographic software is that you can produce bibliographies and references in a number of different styles, at the click of the mouse. This will help you greatly, therefore, to have consistent referencing in any document, in a style of your choice.

Structure of a thesis

9 There will be variations between disciplines. However, as a guide, a typical thesis would have the following structure:

Preliminary pages

Title page
Student declaration Part 1 (bound into the thesis)
Abstract (not exceeding 300 words in accordance with section 8.3.4 of Regulation 2D)
Contents page (which can often be generated automatically if set up in word processing software)
List of tables and figures (if appropriate)
Acknowledgements.

Principal chapters

Articulate the research question or topic, and why it is important or interesting
Give background about other research in the field, largely as the result of your literature search
Set out how you approached the research and justify your choice of research method
Describe the research process
Give your results, or line of argument, as clearly as possible – some detailed aspects may be in annexes
Set out your conclusions – this will be one of the most important chapters, the kernel of what you set out to explore, the evidence of your originality
Summary of the whole thesis, implications and suggestions for further research.

Annexes

References (sometimes these come after the final chapter rather than in an Annex) – this will be a consolidated list which doubles as the bibliography
Bibliography (some Research Institutes may advise having this as well as the list of references, though it will normally be redundant)
Detailed tables of results
Questionnaires used
Where relevant, a letter from the approving body confirming that ethical approval has been given should be bound in the thesis as an Annex
Any other detail which would interrupt the flow of your argument if included in the main text
If not too long, you could bind in a copy of any paper published arising from the research, but often this would be repetitive and more normally the paper would just be referenced.

10 All chapters and sections should be clearly numbered and titled.

Examiners’ dislikes

11 You should be aware that examiners tend to dislike, or be irritated by, the following:

Poor linkage between the research question, the methods used and the final results
Carelessness
Minor typing errors
Inconsistency
Incomplete references or bibliography
Diagrams and tables incorrectly (or not) labelled.

Format for presentation of a thesis

[formal requirements which must be complied with]

12 All theses must be typewritten and printed clearly, using the following format:

Paper size A4 (210mm x 297mm), or the intended close equivalent used on some printers.

Font size Font for all text, including footnotes where used, should be no smaller than 10 point.

Spacing Double line spacing for main text including quotations, single line spacing for footnotes.

Margins 40mm left hand side, 15mm right hand side of each page.

Length Doctoral degrees maximum of 100,000 words, masters degrees maximum of 60,000 words. There are some variations. See Annex A1 for details. Thesis length includes footnotes but not references or appendices.

Pages Single sided only.

Numbering It is recommended that preliminary pages should bear roman numerals (i, ii, iii, etc). Principal pages must bear arabic numerals (1, 2, 3 etc).

Footnotes These may either be footnotes or endnotes, but if footnotes (which tend to be easier to read) they must appear on the same page as the textual number. If a numerical referencing system is used, references and footnotes must be distinguishable or combined.

Where possible maps, plans or diagrams forming part of the thesis must be of the same size, being reduced or enlarged to conform to A4.

13 If there are special reasons why a thesis should be submitted in a format other than the above, permission should be sought from the Research Degrees Committee (RDC) at least three months before submission, supported by a precise statement of what variation from the norm is proposed. The request must be supported by your Research Institute’s Postgraduate Committee.

14 Thesis title

The title of the thesis must be approved by the Research Institute’s Postgraduate Committee before the Committee makes a recommendation to the Research Degrees Committee (RDC) about examiners for the thesis. It is recommended that this should take place about 3 months prior to expected submission date (see COP section 4.1.3).

Thesis titles should be no more than 20 words, and should be such as to make clear to readers the research field and topic of the thesis. In some information retrieval systems the title may be the only field searched, and you should include key words.

Titles may be divided into two halves, separated by a colon. In this case, the first half will tend to specify the topic, while the second half will tend to explain the approach taken. Except for an initial capital, the full title should be in lower case except where capitals are necessary (for example, generic and specific names of organisms, proper nouns, etc). Use italics for genus and species names, and foreign language words.

15 Title page

The title page is the first page of the thesis and must include the following details:

Title of thesis (exactly as approved)
Author’s name (without qualifications listed)
Degree for which the thesis has been submitted
Month and year (of thesis submission for soft bound (pre-examination) and month and year of Senate approval of the award for hard bound version lodged with library)
Keele University.

16 Abstract

The page should be headed Abstract, followed by not more than 300 words describing the key features of the thesis. Many information retrieval systems will search abstracts rather than complete works, and you should include key words. Note that Regulation 2D (10.3.4) specifies the requirement to include an abstract of no more than 300 words.

17 Declaration

When submitting your thesis you are required to sign a two-part Declaration. You should obtain this in advance from the Postgraduate Research webpages, complete and sign it (except date of submission) and bind Part 1 into your thesis and supply Part 2 loose along with your thesis.

Notes Part 1:

You are required to state the number of words in the thesis on the Part 1 Declaration.
You should be aware of the statements on the Part 1 Declaration form from the beginning of your research degree programme (see COP section 1.6.4 and Annexes B1 & C1) since they specify that you have conducted your research in an appropriate way. You need to ensure that this is indeed the case.

Notes Part 2:

You should not rely on being able to get any signatures required for the document on the day you wish to submit and should therefore plan to have the document completed prior to submission.

The Quality Assurance Officer (with responsibility for PGR activities) will complete the date of submission on the original and each copy when you are ready to submit.

18 Acknowledgements

If the research degree is set within a broader programme of work involving a group of investigators – particularly if this programme of work predates the candidate’s registration – the candidate should provide an explicit statement (in an ‘Acknowledgments’ section) of the respective roles of the candidate and these other individuals in relevant aspects of the work reported in the thesis. For example, it should make clear, where relevant, the candidate’s role in designing the study, developing data collection instruments, collecting primary data, analysing such data, and formulating conclusions from the analysis. Others involved in these aspects of the research should be named, and their contributions relative to that of the candidate should be specified (this would not apply to the ordinary supervision process, only if the supervisor or supervisory team has had greater-than-usual involvement).

19 Ethics

All research involving human participants, their tissues, or personal information must be approved by a recognised research ethics committee. This includes social science research (e.g. fieldwork-based, interview and questionnaire studies). Where relevant a letter from the approving body confirming that ethical approval has been given should be bound in the thesis as an Annex.

20 You should check the thesis carefully before presentation. Defects in style of presentation may lead to your thesis being refused for examination until they are rectified.

Submitting your thesis for examination

[formal requirements which must be complied with]

21 Normally three copies of the thesis will be required, one for each examiner and one (the top copy) for yourself. However, exceptionally, if there are more than two examiners an additional copy will be required. A copy of the thesis is not required for the Independent Chair.

22 Each copy should be bound in a secure plastic ring-binding (also known as comb-binding) between card covers. This service can be provided by the Student Union Print Shop. Altnernatively, the thesis may be glue (heat) or clamp bound.

23 When you are ready to submit your thesis you should take your two (exceptionally three) copies of the thesis to the Quality Assurance Officer (with responsibility for PGR activities), together with an extra copy of your Declaration forms. The thesis will be accepted only if the title is exactly the same as the final title approved by your Research Institute’s Postgraduate Committee.

24 The Quality Assurance Officer (with responsibility for PGR activities) will insert the date of submission on your Declaration forms and will give you a receipt for your thesis copies. Copies of the declaration forms will also be sent to your Lead Supervisor and Director of Postgraduate Research, as confirmation that you have submitted your thesis.

After examination

[formal requirements which must be complied with]

25 There are various possible outcomes from the examination process. See Annex A2 for details. The actions you need to take with respect to your thesis will depend on the outcome of the examination.

26 Minor revisions

The most common outcome from the examination process is that students may be awarded the degree subject to the completion of minor revisions (Recommendation 2). These revisions must be completed and submitted to the Records & Exams Officer for Postgraduate Research Students within the three month period allowed. Exceptionally, students are allowed longer than three months, up to a maximum of six months, to complete minor revisions.

The top copy of the thesis must have the revisions made to it, substituting pages as necessary. The Records & Exams Officer for Postgraduate Research Students will communicate the revisions to the relevant examiner(s). The changes should not be submitted direct to the examiner(s) by the student. If the examiners agree, it may be possible to submit the revisions to the examiner in an electronic (pdf) format.

Those examiner(s) who are required to certify that the revisions have been made to their satisfaction must complete and sign a statement to that effect (form from the Records & Exams Officer for Postgraduate Research Students) and return the form to the Records & Exams Officer for Postgraduate Research Students

27 Doctoral candidates awarded masters degrees

If you have submitted your thesis for a doctoral degree but been awarded a masters degree, you need to reflect this in the title page and binding of your final thesis. The binding will need to show the masters award. The title page of the thesis can either just indicate that a masters degree was awarded, or can indicate that the thesis was submitted for a doctoral degree but was awarded a masters degree.

28 Resubmission

If the recommendation approved by Senate is that you be permitted to resubmit your thesis (Recommendation 3), then in effect you go back to the beginning again, taking particular account of the points raised by the examiners in their reports. The required revisions may relate to intellectual content, presentational matters and/or other matters of substance. You will be required to pay a resubmission fee before the resubmitted work can be re-examined. After you have resubmitted the thesis, examiners will pay particular attention to whether you have addressed satisfactorily the issues they raised at the first examination. You only have one opportunity to resubmit a thesis. Note that for the hard bound version lodged with the library the year to be given on the spine and front board, and the month and year given on the title page, is the date of Senate approval of the award (see 29). For the soft bound (pre-examination) version the date on teh title page is the month and year of the thesis resubmission.

29 Binding the thesis

Once you are being recommended for an award, you should prepare your thesis for lodging in the library. The thesis should be printed on 100gsm (or 120gsm) paper and then hard bound, with a cloth colour of dark blue (colour code 544). Arbeleve Buckram binding is recommended.

The Part 1 declaration of your final, completed submission must be bound into the thesis submitted to the library.

You may also clamp bind the thesis but you should bear in mind that this method may not be as permanent as the traditional stitched Arbeleve Buckram binding. A clamp binding service can be provided by the Student Union Print Shop. The Library will accept a dark blue linen clamp bound copy, as long as it conforms to the presentation requirements set out below.

Please note: No more than 240 sheets of @100gsm paper can be clamp bound in one volume, so traditional stitiched binding (Arbeleve Buckram) is still the preferred option for larger theses.

In general, the more urgently you need your thesis bound (48 or 24 hours) the more expensive it will be.

The title page is the first page of the thesis and must include the following details:

Title of thesis (exactly as approved)
Author's name (without qualifications listed)
Degree for which the thesis has been submitted
Month and year (that Senate will approve the ward*)
Keele University.

* Please remember that this date is not the year of submission, which may be different. The year of award may fall in the following year if submitting in November or December. If you are in any doubt, please check with the Records & Exams Officer for Postgraduate Research Students.

The bound thesis must indicate (lettered in gold) on the front board

thesis title (front board only)
author’s name (full name in the same form as appears on your student record)
degree which has been awarded
year of award.

The bound thesis must indicate (lettered in gold) up the spine (reading from bottom to top, in upper case lettering)

author’s name
degree which has been awarded
year of award (that Senate will approve the award*).

Multi-volume theses must display the volume number, in gold-lettered Arabic numerals, across the base of the spine and below the thesis title.

A thesis with multiple parts (such as scores, published works, DVDs) should be boxed together in dark blue cloth and lettered as above.

Although the University requirement is for one bound copy for the Library, most students have two or three copies bound, one for the library, one for their Research Institute and one for themselves. Some Research Institutes require a bound copy for their library, so you should check with your RI.

Electronic deposit of thesis in the library

30 Why does the University require edeposit?

It is now a regulatory requirement (University regulation 2D 10.3.8) that all Keele postgraduate research students enrolled from September 2011 onwards deposit an electronic copy of their final approved thesis for uploading to the University’s open access Research Repository. This is in addition to the required bound paper copy. The hard copy thesis is the full, final, examined and awarded version and remains the authoritative copy. Where possible, the electronic version should be the same as the hard copy, but there will be some exceptions, which this guidance explains.

Research degree candidates who commenced study before September 2011 are strongly encouraged to edeposit voluntarily.

31 What are the benefits?

Like most universities, Keele has established a Research Repository to capture, store, index, preserve and redistribute the University’s scholarly research in digital formats.

Your thesis will be uploaded to the repository, becoming exposed to internet search engines and harvesters, as well as being made available to EThOS and linked to Index to Theses, the comprehensive UK thesis listing.

As a result, your research is more readily available, easily searchable and more visible worldwide. This has potential implications for your career progression and research success - as your thesis is picked up and cited more widely, so it makes a greater impact in your subject discipline.

32 What changes to do I need to know about?

Online access to theses constitutes publication and requires more careful consideration of issues related to sensitivity to copyright, confidentiality, Intellectual Property Rights and co-sponsorship. Before depositing your ethesis, and ideally at an early stage in your research, you should read the following guidance.

33 Third Party Copyright

Copyright in theses is covered by the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. Third party copyright is where the rights are owned by others – you may have included published extracts, quotations, images, maps, tables, diagrams, music scores or other third party copyright material in your thesis. Third party copyright also includes extracts from publications that you have authored and use depends upon the agreement you entered into with the publisher. If you have included unpublished material, such as manuscripts and photographs, remember that much unpublished work remains in copyright until 2039.

For the purpose of examination, it has been acceptable to quote from copyrighted works without seeking permission from the rights holder. However, electronic availability is a form of publication, and therefore permission must be obtained from copyright holders before including extensive and significant third party copyright material in your ethesis.

34 Fair dealing

Under ‘fair dealing’, it is not necessary to seek permission from the copyright holders where extracts are short and insubstantial and are cited accurately. It is important to reference correctly to avoid accusations of plagiarism. However, the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 does not define what constitutes short or insubstantial, so if in doubt, you should seek permission. Inclusion of images and music extracts in copyright will certainly require permission. When making a judgement, consider whether you would be happy for others to copy a similar quantity of your work in such a way.

35 Contacting copyright holders

When seeking copyright clearance to include ‘substantial’ material from published books or journals in your thesis, contacting the publisher is usually the best starting point. Contact addresses can be found on publishers’ websites and the larger companies usually have Rights and Permissions departments (or search under ‘copyright’ and ‘clearance’). Seeking approval can take time, so don’t leave it until the last minute. Be aware that images from publications usually have different rights holders who need to be contacted separately. Where permission has been granted, remember to include evidence in your full thesis, e.g. ‘Permission to reproduce…has been granted by…’ You might find the following sample text helpful when contacting rights holders:

Sample permission letter 1

I am completing a research degree thesis at Keele University and I am contacting you to request permission to include the following material within the electronic version of my thesis:

[Insert citation details of the original work and a full description of the excerpts and/or specifics relating to content to be reproduced] [“the Material”]

An electronic version of my thesis will be deposited in Keele University’s Research Repository. Once available in digital format, access to the thesis will be freely available via the Web and through the ‘Electronic Thesis Online Service’ (EThOS). The User of the thesis will be required to agree that they shall only use the thesis for non-commercial research, private study, criticism, review and news reporting, illustration for teaching, and/or other educational purposes in electronic or print form.

I would be grateful if you, or the company you represent, could grant me permission to include the Material in my thesis and to use the Material, as set out above, royalty free in perpetuity. If you are not the owner of the copyright in this material I would be most grateful if you would confirm this and advise me who to contact.

Sample permission letter 2

I am the author of [insert full citation details for the work] [“the Work”] which was published by [insert publisher’s name] in [insert name of publication/s] and which was assigned to [you or your company] by an agreement dated [insert date].

I would like to include the Work in my research degree thesis, ‘[title of thesis]’. My thesis will be made available electronically in Keele University’s Research Repository. Once available in digital format, access to the thesis will be freely available via the Web and through the ‘Electronic Thesis Online Service’ (EThOS). The User of the thesis will be required to agree that they shall only use the thesis for non-commercial research, private study, criticism, review and news reporting, illustration for teaching, and/or other educational purposes in electronic or print form.

I would be grateful if you, or the company you represent, could grant me permission to include the Work in my thesis and to use the Work, as set out above, royalty free in perpetuity.

36 Editing your eThesis

Where approval from a rights holder has not been obtained, or where a publication fee is being requested and you do not wish to pay this, then the ethesis should not be made available online, unless you first remove the relevant third party copyright material from the e-version. Remember, you should not compromise what is included in your hard copy thesis as this is the authoritative copy.

The thesis deposit agreement gives the option to deposit an abridged electronic version. Where third party copyright material has been removed from the ethesis, you should include reference to where this material can be found. On the title page of an edited ethesis, you should include wording similar to:

‘This electronic version of the thesis has been edited solely to ensure compliance with copyright legislation and excluded material is referenced in the text. The full, final, examined and awarded version of the thesis is available for consultation in hard copy via the University Library’

37 Intellectual Property

Where a student or supervisor believes a thesis may contain intellectual property with potential commercial value, this should be brought to the attention of Research and Enterprise Services before any disclosure takes place.

If you are seeking to patent an idea, it must not have been published already. Electronic availability of your thesis constitutes publication, so do seek advice.

You may decide to place a time-limited restriction on access to the hard copy and the electronic thesis, or to place an embargo on the electronic version only. The duration of an embargo is most commonly between 2 and 5 years. Please refer to the options on the thesis deposit agreement.

38 Co-sponsorship

Where a studentship is funded by an external organisation and governed by a formal contract, in order to prevent a possible breach of contractual obligation, advice should be sought from Research and Enterprise Services. It might well be decided to place a time-limited restriction on access to the hard copy and electronic version, or to restrict access to the ethesis only. Embargoes do not usually exceed 5 years. Please see the access options on the thesis deposit agreement.

39 Publishing

Many publishers are not concerned about availability of theses in repositories and do not consider them to be equivalent publications. However, if you are seeking to publish your research and are concerned that electronic availability of your thesis could constitute prior publication, do consult your supervisor and contact your publisher to ask for their policy on etheses. After consultation, it may be decided to restrict access to both print and electronic versions. In such cases, an embargo period of between 2 and 5 years is advisable. Access options can be found on the thesis deposit agreement.

40 Plagiarism

Plagiarism can occur in any medium. By making your thesis available electronically, it becomes easier to discover whether your work has been plagiarised and appropriate action can then be taken. As your research becomes widely available, it can be recognised and acknowledged as your work and appropriately referenced. Keele’s Research Repository and EThOS both operate an immediate thesis take-down policy, should issues arise.

Lodging your thesis in the Library and licensing use

41 Before your degree can be awarded by Senate, both hard copy and electronic copy of your thesis must be deposited in the Library, along with your completed thesis deposit agreement, available on the Code of Practice website http://www.keele.ac.uk/gradschool/codeofpractice/ or from the Library Administrator.

If you commenced study prior to September 2011 and are chosing not to deposite an electronic copy, please be aware that your thesis can still be requested for digitisation and made available online. The thesis deposite agreement allows you to permit or restrict electronic access, so please complete with care.

The ethesis should be the full and final approved thesis, unless an edited version is being deposited for reasons relating to copyright. There may be some delay before your ethesis is uploaded to the Research Repository as we need to check it against the hard copy and create metadata.

42 Access restrictions

If you are placing an access restriction on your thesis (see guidance on Intellectual Property, Co-sponsorship and Publishing) you must still deposit a full electronic copy with the Library for preservation. The ethesis will be accessed by authorised persons only and uploaded to the Research Repository once the embargo has expired.

43 Format

The ethesis should be deposited as a single PDF on CD, as PDF is a recognised international standard and will ensure retention of the original layout. The file should be readable text and not digitised images of the pages of your thesis. Ensure that the CD is clearly labelled.

Further reading and advice

44 Several books have been written about preparing a research thesis, and you may find them of interest and help. Some which have been recommended by research students are listed below.

How to get a PhD – A Handbook for Students and their Supervisors Estelle M Phillips and DS Pugh (1994. Buckingham Open University)

The Research Student’s Guide to Success Pat Cryer (3rd edition. 2006. Buckingham Open University)

Managing Information for Research Elizabeth Orna (Open University Press)

Working for a Doctorate: A Guide for the Humanities and Social Sciences N Graves and V Varma (eds) (1997. Routledge)

How to Write a Thesis Rowena Murray (2002. Open University Press)

The Doctoral Examination Process P Tinkler and C Jackson (2004. Open University Press)

Authoring a PhD: How to plan, write and finish a doctoral thesis or dissertation Patrick Dunleavy (2003. Palgrave Macmillan)

The Postgraduate Research Handbook Gina Wisker (2001 Palgrave Macmillan)

45 A number of web sites may be of interest to research students seeking further advice about how to successfully complete a research degree. Some suggestions are given below.

www.vitae.ac.uk

www.srhe.ac.uk

Annex D5: Joint Statement of the Research Councils' Skills Training Requirements for Research Students

Introduction

The Research Councils play an important role in setting standards and identifying best practice in research training. This document sets out a joint statement of the skills that doctoral research students funded by the Research Councils would be expected to develop during their research training.

These skills may be present on commencement, explicitly taught, or developed during the course of the research. It is expected that different mechanisms will be used to support learning as appropriate, including self-direction, supervisor support and mentoring, departmental support, workshops, conferences, elective training courses, formally assessed courses and informal opportunities.

The Research Councils would also want to re-emphasise their belief that training in research skills and techniques is the key element in the development of a research student, and that PhD students are expected to make a substantial, original contribution to knowledge in their area, normally leading to published work. The development of wider employment-related skills should not detract from that core objective.

The purpose of this statement is to give a common view of the skills and experience of a typical research student thereby providing universities with a clear and consistent message aimed at helping them to ensure that all research training was of the highest standard, across all disciplines. It is not the intention of this document to provide assessment criteria for research training.

It is expected that each Council will have additional requirements specific to their field of interest and will continue to have their own measures for the evaluation of research training within institutions.

(A) Research Skills and Techniques - to be able to demonstrate:

I. the ability to recognise and validate problems
II. original, independent and critical thinking, and the ability to develop theoretical concepts
III. a knowledge of recent advances within one's field and in related areas
IV. an understanding of relevant research methodologies and techniques and their appropriate application within one's research field
V. the ability to critically analyse and evaluate one's findings and those of others
VI. an ability to summarise, document, report and reflect on progress

B) Research Environment - to be able to:

I. show a broad understanding of the context, at the national and international level, in which research takes place
II. demonstrate awareness of issues relating to the rights of other researchers, of research subjects, and of others who may be affected by the research, e.g. confidentiality, ethical issues, attribution, copyright, malpractice, ownership of data and the requirements of the Data Protection Act
III. demonstrate appreciation of standards of good research practice in their institution and/or discipline
IV. understand relevant health and safety issues and demonstrate responsible working practices
V. understand the processes for funding and evaluation of research
VI. justify the principles and experimental techniques used in one's own research
VII. understand the process of academic or commercial exploitation of research results

I. apply effective project management through the setting of research goals, intermediate milestones and prioritisation of activities
II. design and execute systems for the acquisition and collation of information through the effective use of appropriate resources and equipment
III. identify and access appropriate bibliographical resources, archives, and other sources of relevant information
IV. use information technology appropriately for database management, recording and presenting information

(D) Personal Effectiveness - to be able to:

I. demonstrate a willingness and ability to learn and acquire knowledge
II. be creative, innovative and original in one's approach to research
III. demonstrate flexibility and open-mindedness
IV. demonstrate self-awareness and the ability to identify own training needs
V. demonstrate self-discipline, motivation, and thoroughness
VI. recognise boundaries and draw upon/use sources of support as appropriate
VII. show initiative, work independently and be self-reliant

(E) Communication Skills - to be able to:

I. write clearly and in a style appropriate to purpose, e.g. progress reports, published documents, thesis
II. construct coherent arguments and articulate ideas clearly to a range of audiences, formally and informally through a variety of techniques
III. constructively defend research outcomes at seminars and viva examination
IV. contribute to promoting the public understanding of one's research field
V. effectively support the learning of others when involved in teaching, mentoring or demonstrating activities

(F) Networking and Teamworking - to be able to:

VI. develop and maintain co-operative networks and working relationships with supervisors, colleagues and peers, within the institution and the wider research community
I. understand one's behaviours and impact on others when working in and contributing to the success of formal and informal teams
II. listen, give and receive feedback and respond perceptively to others

G) Career Management - to be able to:

I. appreciate the need for and show commitment to continued professional development
II. take ownership for and manage one's career progression, set realistic and achievable career goals, and identify and develop ways to improve employability
III. demonstrate an insight into the transferable nature of research skills to other work environments and the range of career opportunities within and outside academia
IV. present one's skills, personal attributes and experiences through effective CVs, applications and interviews.

Source: Joint Skills Statement 2001

Undergraduate Study

Postgraduate Taught Study

Postgraduate Research

International Students

Information for Schools and Colleges

Open Days and Visit Days

Keele Scholarships

Distinctive Keele Curriculum (DKC)

Student Placements

Faculty of Health

Faculty of Humanities and Social Science

Faculty of Natural Sciences

Research Institutes

Central Services

Graduate School

Explore this Section

COP ANNEXES A1-3

COP ANNEXES B1-7

COP ANNEXES B8-15

COP ANNEXES D1-D5

online facilities:

Data Protection

FOI

Charity Registration

Feedback | Terms and Conditions