COP screen view sections 1 - 6 - Keele University
grad school banner

 

 

Graduate School

COP SECTION 1

Guidance to applicants, research students, candidates for research degrees, academic staff, administrative staff, and examiners

 

This Code of Practice relates to all students taking supervised research degree programmes within Keele University, specifically those on PhD, MD, DM and MPhil programmes, and those in the research stage of professional doctorate programmes such as EdD, DBA and DMedEth.  It should be read in conjunction with the University’s Ordinances and Regulations for research degrees (primarily Ordinances III, IV, V, and XVIII and Regulations 2D and 26, and Research Institute Handbooks for Research Students, which constitute supplements to the Code of Practice.  Together these documents set out the regulations, support and procedures for research students.

 

SECTION 1 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

  • The University
  • The Graduate School
  • Administrative Directorates
  • Research Institutes
  • Schools
  • Research Students
  • Supervisors and Supervisory Teams.

1.1  The University

 The University sets the institutional framework for the management of research degree programmes, designed to comply with the QAA Code of Practice on Postgraduate Research Programmes, HEFCE good practice guidance, and the requirements of good research governance.  The specific areas for which it sets out requirements are:

  • The roles and responsibilities of the key parties (university, research institutes, the Graduate School, research students, supervisors and supervisory teams)
  • The facilities, resources, support and training which should be available to research students
  • The processes and procedures for managing and monitoring student admission and progress
  • Examination and appeal processes and procedures
  • Quality assurance processes and procedures
  • Mechanisms for obtaining feedback from students and for students to make complaints.

 University–level requirements are set out in the University Regulations (“Regulations”) and in this Code of Practice (“COP”).

 1.2       The Graduate School

 1.2.1    The Graduate School Board has the overarching strategic responsibility for all research degree programmes and students, including policy development and quality assurance.

 1.2.2    In carrying out this role the Graduate School Board has oversight of the following specific areas:

  • Generic marketing and recruitment in relation to research degrees (including production of marketing materials and website), and oversight of targeted Research Institute marketing and recruitment activities
  • Oversight of all studentships and bursaries to support research students, and management of any university-funded studentship schemes
  • Management of the university’s external relations as they affect research students, and in particular close liaison with research councils
  • Identifying issues relating to research degrees and students which need to be improved and developed, and taking these forward (including recruitment, curriculum issues, quality assurance, facilities, research training, etc)
  • Responsibility for monitoring quality assurance in relation to research degree programmes and driving up standards as necessary
  • Ensuring that Research Institutes are adequately meeting their responsibilities towards postgraduate research education
  • Overseeing the research training programme, including commissioning and approving research training modules
  • Overseeing supervisor training and the career development of contract research staff.

 1.3       Administrative Directorates

 1.3.1  The University Administrative Directorates are the primary administrative departments which supports postgraduate research students and programmes, and the processes and procedures regulating them.  They are also the principal central source of information about research student and degree matters, ensuring that information for all parties is accessible, clear, accurate, comprehensive and up-to-date.  This includes the following:

  • Managing the studentship applications process
  • Induction and admission processes
  • Enrolment and re-registration
  • Maintaining student records
  • Managing the examination processes
  • Managing Research Degrees Committee (RDC) processes
  • Managing the award processes
  • Liaising with Research Institutes.

 1.3.2  The Graduate School manages much of its business through the Graduate School Board which includes representation from each Research Institute, and research students.

 1.4       Research Institutes (RI)

 1.4.1    The Research Institute is responsible to students, the Faculty and the University for student recruitment, for their students’ research degree programmes and for monitoring and supporting their progress on those programmes, within the institutional framework.  The Research Institute reports formally to the Faculty and will agree recruitment targets each year with the Dean of the Faculty.

 1.4.2    Postgraduate Committees:  Each Research Institute has a Postgraduate Committee through which it exercises its responsibilities for research degree programmes and students (or such other arrangements as best suit the needs of students and the organisation of the Research Institute).  All such arrangements must be approved by the Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research and Enterprise.

a)      It is expected that this role will normally be carried out by a distinct Postgraduate Committee (though in some RIs the role may be carried out by another committee within the RI structure) 

b)      The Postgraduate Committee should be chaired by a Director of Postgraduate Research (who reports to the Director of the RI), and should include RI members who are experienced researchers and supervisors

c)      The Postgraduate Committee should meet at least 4 times a year (not virtual meetings), and should record its arrangements for formal delegation in respect of those matters (‘chair’s action’) which fall between meetings

d)      The creation of sub-committees of the Postgraduate Committee reflecting, for example, disciplinary interests or other structures within the RI are permissible provided they report to a RI-wide Postgraduate Committee

e)      As a minimum, all decisions of the Postgraduate Committee (including decisions taken under delegated arrangements between meetings) should be clearly recorded in the Minutes of the meeting.

 1.4.3    Research environment and context:  By the start of the academic year each Postgraduate Committee is required to undertake a review of its work and record its objectives for postgraduate research education within the Research Institute for the coming year.  

a)      This planning and review activity may be undertaken as part of the routine cycle of meetings of the Postgraduate Committee but should, as a minimum, be clearly recorded in the Minutes.  The Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research and Enterprise should be invited to comment on the plans of the Research Institute and may request further details be provided

b)      The review and planning process should be one that best suits the needs of the particular RI but may include the following:

  • Recruitment strategy for the coming year, including recruitment targets
  • Plans for securing bursaries during the year to support the recruitment process and processes for allocating them
  • Criteria and procedures for managing and monitoring student admission
  • Allocation of resources to support postgraduate education
  • The research environment: facilities, resources, support and training available
  • Arrangements for student supervision
  • Training needs of supervisors
  • Development of good supervisory practice
  • Procedures for managing and monitoring student progress, including for students required to resubmit
  • Format of the Personal Development and Learning Plans to be used by the RI (see Annex B for minimum requirements)
  • Procedures for ensuring compliance with the requirements of appropriate research governance systems and procedures
  • Mechanisms for student liaison, feedback and complaints
  • Communication and liaison arrangements for MRes students linked to the RI
  • Mechanisms for maintaining oversight of research council funded students.

 See also Annex D2 (Normal expectations of Research Institute facilities and resources for research students).

 These arrangements, as a minimum, must comply with the Code of Practice.

 1.4.4    Monitoring admission and progress of individual students:  In relation to specific students, the Postgraduate Committee has the responsibility for the following, keeping the University Administrative Directorates informed as necessary:

  • Authorising the admission of each student, including identifying an appropriate Lead Supervisor and second supervisor and whether the Research Institute has appropriate and sufficient resources for the specific project
  • Allocating any bursaries or other form of student support available to the Research Institute
  • Approving the initial Personal Development and Learning Plan for each student no later than 3 months after the student’s start date
  • Monitoring and reviewing the progress and training of each student periodically, including the updated Personal Development and Learning Plan, and specifically confirming progression in accordance with established criteria and procedures at different stages of their programme, and alerting the Research Degrees Committee to any concerns about student progress
  • Ensuring that sponsored students meet the conditions of their sponsorship and in particular ensuring that research council funded students comply with research council requirements
  • Approving administrative matters, such as changes of registration status or Lead Supervisor, thesis titles
  • Administration of 30 month review and report to Research Degrees Committee
  • Administration and approval of transfer to continuation status and report to Research Degrees Committee for final approval
  • After consultation with supervisors and students making recommendations to Research Degrees Committee about examiners.

1.4.5    Each Research Institute is required to agree with the Faculty Dean their target submission rate.  For details of how this is to be calculated see COP section 3.2.  The effectiveness of Research Institute procedures for monitoring and managing student progression will be evaluated in part by their success in meeting their agreed submission rate target.

 1.4.6    Each Research Institute shall produce a RI Handbook for Research Students (approved by the Postgraduate Committee and updated and distributed annually), which shall include all information which students need to know about the RI’s research environment, processes and procedures, and expectations of research degree study.  A check list of contents for RI Handbooks is given in Annex B3.  RIs may, of course, add to this, but should not attempt to replicate University-wide guidance, instead referring to the original documents (primarily this Code of Practice and the Regulations) so that information is consistent and up-to-date.

RI Handbooks form a supplement to this Code of Practice, and should be authoritative and definitive.

 1.4.7    Postgraduate Committees are required to maintain accurate records relating to student progress, specifically relating to work and training completed, and to the academic progress of students.

 1.4.8    Postgraduate Committees should ensure that their formal procedures are fair, and made explicit to all students.

 1.5       Schools

 1.5.1    Research Training modules may be delivered by various different organisational units, but it is likely that many will be delivered by Schools.

 1.5.2    In addition, Schools have the principal responsibility for MRes students (who are formally postgraduate taught course students) and for delivering all aspects of MRes programmes.  While MRes students are associated mostly with Schools, they may also be affiliate members of Research Institutes, in preparation for application to a research degree after completion of the MRes.  This is likely to include the identification of a future Lead Supervisor.

 1.6       Research students

1.6.1    Students are expected to familiarise themselves at an early stage with all the relevant Regulations (particularly Regulation 2D) and the provisions of this Code of Practice.

 1.6.2    Students must ensure that they read their Keele email messages in a timely fashion.  Members of the University will communicate with students via the Keele email and it is the student’s responsibility to respond as appropriate.

 1.6.3    The research and the thesis are the work of the student, and the student is expected to take responsibility for the progress of their work.  During the progress of a research degree, students are expected increasingly to become independent thinkers and researchers.

 1.6.4    Having taken such informed advice as they consider appropriate, students have responsibility for determining the time of submission of their theses, within the time limits established by University Regulations (see section 3.2).  It is generally considered best practice for the student and Lead Supervisor jointly to agree that the thesis is ready for submission.

 1.6.5    Students should ensure from the outset that they conduct their research and present the findings in their thesis in accordance with good research practice.  On submitting the thesis a student will be required to sign a Declaration to confirm this as set out in Annex B1.

 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). 

Students should consult the University guidance on avoidance of plagiarism and academic dishonesty (see Annex D1).

1.6.6    Students are required to develop (with their supervisory team) and keep up-to-date a Personal Development and Learning Plan.  Annex B2 describes the minimum requirements of a Personal Development and Learning Plan.  Each Research Institute will develop its own format to incorporate these requirements.

 1.6.7    Students are expected to have regular contact with supervisors, to discuss a programme of practical and written work and training, and keep to an agreed schedule as set out in the Personal Development and Learning Plan.  Students should consider seriously any guidance provided by the supervisory team, and should address any concerns expressed about their academic progress.  Work should be of an appropriate standard for the degree.  Any problems should be raised with the Lead Supervisor (or another member of the supervisory team) in the first instance. 

 1.6.8    Students are required to complete and submit Progress Report Forms in accordance with the timescale required by the Research Institute.  Failure to do this may result in a low progress grade (see COP section 3.5).

 1.6.9    Under the terms of Regulation 2D (12) Keele University owns any Intellectual Property arising from the student's studies for a research degree at the University.  Arrangements for ownership and management of intellectual property rights are set out in Annex B11.

 1.6.10  Additional guidance on the responsibilities of the student is given in Annex D3.

 1.7       Supervisors and supervisory teams

 1.7.1    All research students shall have one lead supervisor (“the Lead Supervisor”) and normally at least one other member of a supervisory team.  The Lead Supervisor shall have the primary accountability for the student.  The supervisory team shall include individuals (who may be proposed by the Lead Supervisor, the student or the Research Institute, and will be approved by the Postgraduate Committee) who provide specific identified expertise or support for the student to draw on.  The roles of each member of the supervisory team shall be specified in the Personal Development and Learning Plan.

 1.7.2    Subject to provisions set out below in 1.7.5, both the Lead Supervisor (who must be a full member of the relevant Research Institute) and the second supervisor should normally be Keele staff (including honorary clinical staff), not from an external body, and they must have been approved as supervisors by Research Degrees Committee using the procedures and criteria set out in Annex B6 (Approval of supervisors and mentors).

 Where there is collaboration with another organisation (a university, company or other organisation) there may be additional members of the supervisory team from that organisation, not subject to the same formal approval procedures.  (Where the student’s primary registration is at another university, the student will be subject to the regulations and requirements of the university making the award.)

 1.7.3    The Lead Supervisor should be selected primarily on the basis of appropriate subject expertise, and will normally have the necessary skills and experience to monitor, support and direct research students’ work.  Where the most appropriate Lead Supervisor lacks supervisory experience, the Postgraduate Committee will arrange for the Lead Supervisor to be allocated a mentor to provide support and guidance, and the Lead Supervisor will also be offered supervisor training.  (Mentoring and training are requirements of approval as Associate Supervisor – see Annex B6.)

 A research student should not be supervised by a member of staff who is currently studying for a research degree at the same level, except in exceptional circumstances such as where the member of staff concerned had previously attained approved supervisor status and has already been supervising the student for some time.

 1.7.4    The second (or other additional) supervisor does not need to have core subject expertise, but may bring other qualities to the supervisory team (e.g. experience, complementary expertise, methodological advice, etc).  Note, however, that the second supervisor should not be the Lead Supervisor’s Mentor if there is one, as this would be a confusion of roles.

 When selecting the second supervisor it should be borne in mind that there will be a need for an internal examiner, and the most appropriate person for that role (normally next closest in subject expertise) should not normally be selected as the second supervisor.

 The function of the second supervisor is to act as an alternative source of advice for the student (on all kinds of matters, not just the precise subject), to ensure that a second person is aware of the student's progress and any issues arising, generally to open up the supervisory relationship, and to provide for continuity if the Lead Supervisor leaves for any reason (temporarily or permanently).  Therefore it may be positively beneficial if the second supervisor is not in the precise subject area of the research project.

 1.7.5    In a restricted number of circumstances it may be possible for individuals who are not employees of the university (or honorary clinical staff) to act as Lead or second supervisors for research students.  In such circumstances the individuals so appointed will need to have been approved as supervisors using the normal procedures set out in Annex B6, and will also need to sign an Agreement for the Provision of Supervision Services, approved by the Director of Planning and Academic Administration in order to ensure appropriate accountability to the University.  (See Annex B12 for the form of the Agreement.)

 Circumstances already identified where this procedure may be appropriate are where a student’s Lead Supervisor leaves the University.  The following conditions should normally apply:

  • no alternative appropriate supervisor with the relevant subject expertise can be found for the student within the University
  • the student is realistically expected to submit his or her thesis within 12 months
  • the options have been fully discussed with the student, including the possibility of transferring registration to another institution
  • the Research Institute appoints a Lead Supervisor who is a member of Keele staff to take overall responsibility for the student and to ensure that the terms of the Agreement for the Provision of Supervision Services are met.

 In any other circumstances, such arrangements need to be approved by the Research Degrees Committee.

 1.7.6    The Lead Supervisor will ensure that the student has access to the support and direction necessary for the satisfactory completion of the research degree.  This includes supervisory advice and guidance, Research Institute and university resources and facilities, and research training.  In particular the Lead Supervisor will ensure that the student is aware of any inadequacy of progress or of standards of work below that expected (and provide written confirmation of what has been discussed).

 1.7.7    Lead Supervisors are accountable to the Postgraduate Committee, the Research Degrees Committee and the University (and to any external sponsor) for providing such reports as are required on the work, training and academic progress of research students (see COP section 3.5).

 1.7.8    Where at all possible, continuity of supervision should be maintained.  If Lead Supervisors are on sabbatical leave, or temporarily absent for other reasons, where possible they should maintain continuity of supervision, but otherwise clear arrangements should be made for the period of absence and approved by the Postgraduate Committee.

 1.7.9    Where a change of Lead Supervisor is unavoidable, the circumstances should be fully discussed with the student, and changes approved by the Postgraduate Committee.

 1.7.10  All supervisors have a responsibility to ensure that they are trained in supervision and that they continue to develop their supervision skills through continuing professional development as appropriate.

 1.7.11  Additional guidance about the role of the supervisory team is given in Annex D3.

COP SECTION 2

SECTION 2 RESOURCES AND SUPPORT

  • Academic facilities and resources
  • Research training
  • Graduate School
  • Student support services
  • Bursaries and studentships.

 2.1       Academic facilities and resources

 As a minimum, Research Institutes shall provide to research students (or ensure that research students have access to) appropriate and necessary facilities and resources.  The level of access depends on the student’s registration status (full-time, part-time, continuation, or leave of absence).  Normal expectations are set out in Annex D2.  Research Institutes may enhance these levels as appropriate and as resources allow. 

 These facilities relate to the status of being a research student, and do not relate to the requirements for carrying out any particular project.  Project resources and facilities need to be separately identified, and availability and access agreed with students.

 2.1.3    University academic resources are available to research students primarily through the Library, and relate to computing and library facilities, including direct and remote access. 

 2.2       Research training (See Regulation 2D (4), (6) and (10))

 2.2.1    Formal research training for research students is a compulsory part of a research degree programme, as set out in Regulation 2D.  More detailed information and guidelines on Research Training are provided in the Research Training Handbook (http://www.keele.ac.uk/media/keeleuniversity/graduateschool/Research%20Training%20Handbook%202012-13.pdf)

 2.2.2    Formal research training is required by the universities’ funding council (HEFCE) and the research councils as well as the university.  The expectation is that you will evaluate your needs against the Joint statement of the Research Councils’ skills training requirements for research students – to be found as Annex D5.

 2.2.3    The objectives of the research training programme are to develop skills and understanding in a number of key areas, some related specifically to research, some relating to personal development and employability, also referred to as generic skills. The key areas as set out in the RCUK Joint Skills Statement are:

  • Research skills and techniques
  • Research environment
  • Research management
  • Personal effectiveness
  • Communication skills
  • Networking and team working
  • Career management.

 2.2.4    In addition to the appropriate research skills and techniques, all students need to have acquired, by the end of their programme, the range of skills associated with personal development and employability set out in the RCUK Joint Skills Statement. The normal expectation is that all research students will need to include some ‘generic’ skills modules to achieve this.

 2.2.5    In summary the minimum requirements are as follows:

Doctoral level – PhD, MD

Timing

Minimum credits

Before doctoral progression (and a requirement of doctoral progression)

40

After doctoral progression and before submission

20

Total (a requirement of submission)

At least 20 of these credits must relate to research skills and techniques (RCUK skills category A) and at least 20 to the broader (generic) skills associated with personal development and employability (RCUK skills categories B-G)

60

 

Masters level

Timing

Minimum credits

Total (a requirement of submission)

At least 10 of these credits must relate to research skills and techniques (RCUK skills category A) and at least 10 to the broader (generic) skills associated with personal development and employability (RCUK skills category A)

20

 

Doctoral Level - DM

1. University-based modular Research Training (as for PhD)

 

Timing

Minimum credits

Before doctoral progression (and a requirement of doctoral progression)

40

After doctoral progression and before submission

20

Total (a requirement of submission)

At least 20 of these credits must relate to research skills and techniques (RCUK skills category A), and at least 20 to the broader (generic) skills associated with personal development and employability (RCUK skills categories B-G)

60

2. Clinical research training in speciality

 

Prior to submission (and a requirement of submission)

40

 2.2.6    The University provides a number of Research Training modules designed to help students gain the skills they need to design and complete their programmes effectively and to help prepare themselves for their subsequent career.  Approved Research Training modules are listed in the Research Training Handbook each year.

 2.2.7    Students must take approved Research Training modules to meet the formal minimum requirements for research training.  All approved Research Training modules are available to all research students.  Modules should be selected on the basis of need, as discussed with the Lead Supervisor and recorded in the Personal Development and Learning Plan.  Any individual module may be seen as developing either transferable and employability (generic) skills or subject-specific research skills, depending on the needs of the student and the nature of the research project.  Students may take additional Research Training modules as considered appropriate provided this is agreed in advance with the Postgraduate Committee in the RI. 

 2.2.8    Exceptions or exemptions to the research training requirements may be made for students who have already successfully completed the whole or parts of an equivalent programme.  Students are required to apply to their PI PG Committee for exemption using the form provided on the Graduate school website..  No more than 40 credits of research training exemptions will be granted before doctoral progression; subject to satisfactory doctoral progression and the completion of the procedures for applying for module exemptions, up to a further 20 credits of exemption may be requested.

 2.2.9    All research training agreed and/or taken (and formal exemptions) must be recorded by the student in the student’s Personal Development and Learning Plan, including a critical review of what the student has learned and how this will contribute to the development of the research project or to the acquisition or development of ‘generic’ or subject-specific research skills.

 2.3       Student support services

 2.3.1    The University provides a range of student support services, all of which are available for research students who wish to make use of them.  Services include learning support, disability, careers, and counselling.

 2.3.2    The Keele Postgraduate Association (KPA) is the body responsible for promotion of the general interests of postgraduate students and for giving a recognised channel of communication between postgraduate students and the University authorities.  It provides additional support services geared to the needs of postgraduate students, and has elected officers including Chair, Secretary, Treasurer, Welfare Officer, and both Postgraduate Research Degree (PGR) and Postgraduate Taught Course (PGT) representatives for each faculty.

 2.3.3    Keele University Students’ Union (KUSU) is responsible for promoting the general interests of all students (including postgraduates) and, again, gives a recognised channel of communication between students and the University authorities.  KUSU provides a variety of support services such as the Independent Advice Unit, and elected officers who can help students with academic and welfare advice.

 2.4       Bursaries and studentships

 2.4.1    The University normally has a number of bursaries and studentships (“awards”) available for research degree study.  They may be funded by the University centrally, the Research Institute, or by an external sponsor (following competition, negotiation or an allocation process).

 2.4.2    All awards will be advertised, at least on the Postgraduate Research Studentships website (http://www.keele.ac.uk/pgresearch/choosingaresearchdegree/studentships).  Eligibility and selection criteria will be clear in all further particulars of awards, application processes and closing dates clearly identified, and the processes used for selection will be mindful of equal opportunities issues.

 2.4.3    In some cases, the University may require that recipients of awards undertake some hours’ work experience, which may be teaching, research or administration.  The precise nature of the work experience may be a condition of the award (as set out in the further particulars), or it may be subject to negotiation.  Some forms of work may also be subject to training requirements. 

COP SECTION 3

 SECTION 3 MANAGING AND MONITORING STUDENT ADMISSION AND PROGRESS

  • Admission, registration and arrival
  • Period of registration until submission
  • Requirement to remain in good academic standing
  • Academic warnings
  • Regular progress monitoring
  • Formal doctoral progression procedures
  • Progression to continuation mode of attendance
  • Withdrawal from research degree study
  • The student record.

 3.1       Admission, registration and arrival (See Regulation 2D (2), (3))

 3.1.1    The minimum requirement for admission to a research degree shall be as specified in Regulation 2D (2).  Research Institutes may have additional criteria which they apply in selecting candidates for research degrees.  Where the applicant’s first language is not English, the applicant will be required to demonstrate proficiency in English language which meets UK Borders Agency (UKBA) requirements.

 3.1.2    No applicant will be accepted unless the University is confident that they have the capacity to complete a research degree successfully, and that the University has the expertise and facilities to support the applicant’s proposed research.

 3.1.3    No project will be approved unless it is appropriate for the degree concerned, and it can reasonably be undertaken within the required timescale with the resources available.

 3.1.4    All applications will be considered by a Postgraduate Administrator in the RI and by at least two academic staff within the relevant Research Institute, representing the Postgraduate Committee.  Selection will be made on the basis of all information available, including the application form, proposed area of research, qualifications, references and (where used) interview.  Applicants will be accepted only if the University believes that they are likely to be successful in completing the research degree for which they have applied.

3.1.5    Equal opportunities information will be collected from all applicants, using a form separate from the application form.  This information will not be used in the selection process, except in so far as the University will wish to ascertain that it has the appropriate facilities to support applicants with disabilities.

 3.1.6    All offers of a place will be made by the University following positive assessment and recommendation by the relevant Director of Postgraduate Research.,

 3.1.7    Any student wishing to change course from MPhil to PhD should make a formal request to the Research Institute Postgraduate Committee for permission to transfer from MPhil to PhD and permission to submit for PhD progression.  The Committee will consider the following issues in relation to the request:

  • Does the student have the appropriate qualifications and experience for the PhD programme?
  • Is the scale and nature of the project appropriate for a PhD?
  • Is the student’s MPhil work to date likely to meet PhD progression criteria (see 3.6)?
  • Does the time spent and training completed on the MPhil meet, in part, PhD timescale and training requirements?
  • What allowance should be made towards PhD requirements in light of the time, work and training completed on the MPhil?

 If the RI Postgraduate Committee finds that the student meets the criteria for the PhD programme, the student will be permitted to submit for PhD progression.  The Committee should arrange for a PhD progression as soon as possible.  If the student passes PhD progression, the Committee will approve transfer onto and progression with the PhD programme.  Research Institutes should inform the Records & Exams Officer for Postgraduate Research Students of any change of course approved, together with the time allowance agreed towards the PhD period, the date of transfer, and PhD submission deadline.

3.1.8    For as long as students are pursuing their programmes of study, they must remain formally registered with the University and pay the appropriate level of fees.  Although the normal expectation is that students will retain the same mode of attendance throughout their periods of study, they may choose to change their mode of attendance.  Possible mode of attendance options are as follows:

  • Full-time
  • Part-time
  • Leave of absence
  • Continuation.

 More information about mode of attendance is given in Annex A3.  Approval needs to be obtained from the Postgraduate Committee for any change of mode of attendance.  There are additional requirements and procedures for Leave of Absence (see 3.1.9), transfer to continuation status (see 3.8) and for transfer from Full-time to Part-time (see Annex A3).

3.1.9    Students may be permitted to take leave of absence from their programmes for a specified and limited period, for good reason (examples on the application for a leave of absence form).  In summary, students should make requests (using the required documentation) to the Postgraduate Committee, which will make a recommendation to the Research Degrees Committee (RDC).  During periods of approved leave of absence, students will not be required to maintain active study on their research programmes, will not have access to university resources and facilities, and will not be required to pay any fees (also see 3.2.5 and Annex A3).

3.1.10 Any student who wishes to transfer from PhD to MPhil should make a formal request to the Research Institute Postgraduate Committee for permission to transfer from PhD to MPhil stating the reasons for the request and the expected time to completion and submission of the MPhil thesis.  This request may be accompanied by a request to transfer to Continuation status (see 3.8 and Annex A3) if appropriate.  The time allowed to complete and submit the MPhil from the transfer date shall not exceed the maximum continuation period (see 3.2.1 and Regulation 2D) of 1 year for FT and 2 years for PT, and will normally be significantly less.  Any request for transfer that includes a submission date beyond that allowed for MPhil (calculated from initial registration, see 3.2.1 and Regulation 2D), will be subject to approval of an extension (see 3.2.7) by Research Degrees Committee.

 3.1.11  Fees for research degree study are set annually for a 12 month period from 1 October.  Research students are required to pay the level of fee appropriate to their Research Institute and mode of attendance, on a pro rata basis.

 3.1.12  At least once a year there will be a University induction programme to introduce new research students to the University and key staff, to postgraduate research study, and to one another.  In addition, Postgraduate Committees shall arrange their own induction programmes for new students.

 3.2       Period of registration until submission (See Regulation 2D (4), (7))

 3.2.1    The time limits for completion of a research degree are set out in Regulation 2D.  In summary, the requirements are as follows:

Degree registered for

Mode of attendance

(registration status)

Minimum period of supervision from initial registration

Expected time to submission from initial registration

Maximum time to submission from initial registration

 

Masters degree (MPhil)

Full-time

12 months

18 months

24 months

Part-time

24 months

36 months

48 months

Doctoral degree (PhD, DM, MD)

Full-time

24 months

36 months

48 months

Part-time

48 months

72 months

96 months

 The expected time to submission will be extended appropriately where an external funder provides a studentship for a longer period, but will not exceed the maximum period listed above.  The normal expectation is that for all or part of any period of study beyond the expected time to submission the student will be on continuation mode of attendance, but this is subject to the student meeting the requirements for continuation mode of attendance (see 3.8 below).

 3.2.2    The University will be paying particular attention to the percentage of students who submit their thesis for examination within the maximum timescales allowed.

a)      Each Research Institute is required to agree with their Faculty Dean their target submission rate, which is unlikely to be less than 100% for any Research Institute, and will be 100% for all research council funded students

b)      Statistics will be calculated on the basis of the full-time and part-time cohorts of students starting in any academic year (1 August–31 July), and the percentage who submit within the maximum time allowed, which will be an anniversary of their start date

c)      Periods of leave of absence agreed by  Research Degrees Committee and where appropriate the research council will be taken into account when determining the percentage of students meeting the submission rate target.

3.2.3    Students will be required to pay full-time or part-time fees for the full period of their registration until submission; unless and until they are permitted by the Postgraduate Committee and Research Degrees Committee to progress to continuation mode of attendance (see 3.8).

 3.2.4    Any agreed periods of leave of absence will automatically extend the student’s maximum period for submission by an equivalent period. 

 3.2.5    If students are sponsored it is their responsibility to ensure that these details are entered on the request for LOA form and, for non-research council sponsored students, to establish that their sponsor approves any leave of absence and is willing to extend the expected submission date accordingly.  If the sponsor is a UK Research Council then any approval of LOA by Research Degrees Committee will be subject to approval by the Research Council.  Research Council approval will then be sought by the Records and Exams Officer for Postgraduate Research Students and the student informed of the outcome.  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.

 3.2.6    Any student who fails to submit their thesis by the due date for any reason will be withdrawn from the University.

3.2.7    In exceptional circumstances the maximum period may be extended by the Research Degrees Committee, on behalf of Senate, by not more than 12 months.  The procedure for requesting an extension is as follows:

  • Any request for an extension to the maximum time must come from the Research Institute’s Postgraduate Committee
  • A case needs to be made on the basis of the whole period of study since initial registration, explaining why the student has not been able to complete within the normal maximum time, estimating the time which the student will need to complete, and advising on an appropriate extension.  [Note:  The case should include such factors as:  Has there been a history of illness?  Is there a record of non-submission of work?  Has the student always been hampered by heavy work loads in their employment?  Research Degrees Committee needs to see the full picture, as set out by the department, so that it can make a reasonable decision on the specific case]
  • Research Degrees Committee will normally allow only one extension.

 3.2.8    Students who fail to maintain satisfactory academic progress, in accordance with university requirements, may be required to withdraw (see 3.3).

 3.3       Requirement to remain in good academic standing (See Regulation 2D (8))

 3.3.1    In order to remain in good academic standing, all students are required to maintain active study and a satisfactory standard of work, and failure to do so may result in a requirement to withdraw from the University.

 3.3.2    In order to demonstrate that students are actively studying they will be expected to keep in regular contact with their Lead Supervisor, and submit work regularly in accordance with the schedule agreed with the Lead Supervisor and set out in the Personal Development and Learning Plan.  It is the responsibility of students to ensure that Lead Supervisors are kept informed about any barriers to their satisfactory progress.

 3.3.3    Students will be informed of any concerns about the standard of their work, either by their Lead Supervisor (during normal supervision sessions or in written comments on work submitted) or as a result of formal progress reviews by Postgraduate Committees.  Students should take such concerns expressed seriously and ensure that they take steps to improve the standard of their work.  If comments from supervisors are not made in writing, students should request that such feedback be put in writing.

 3.3.4    There are a number of mechanisms available to Research Institutes to manage the progress of research students, as set out in the following paragraphs of this section.  However, there may be circumstances where it is clear that the student does not have a realistic likelihood of successful completion of a research degree within the permitted time limits, and the student may be required to withdraw.  It should be noted that it is no one’s interests for the student to continue to pursue a research degree in such circumstances.

 3.3.5    There are three ways in which a student may be required to withdraw on the basis of failure to maintain good academic standing:

a)      Procedures under the academic warning process (see 3.4 below) can give rise to a recommendation for a student to withdraw.  This would arise should a student be issued a third and final warning and fail to comply with the terms of the warning

b)      Procedures under regular progress monitoring (see 3.5 below) can give rise to a recommendation for a student to withdraw.  Specifically, if a student receives two successive grade E grades (unsatisfactory) on progress reports, the Postgraduate Committee can recommend to the Research Degrees Committee that the student be required to withdraw

c)      Procedures under doctoral progression (see 3.6 below) can give rise to a recommendation for a student to withdraw.  Following the doctoral progression procedure the Postgraduate Committee can recommend to the Research Degrees Committee that the student be required to withdraw.

 3.3.6    The student has the right of appeal against the decision taken by Research Degrees Committee that the student be required to withdraw.

 3.4       Academic warnings

 3.4.1    At any time, where the Postgraduate Committee, on advice from a Lead Supervisor, is dissatisfied with the amount or quality of work submitted or undertaken by the student, the Director of Postgraduate Research may issue a formal warning to the student under the terms of Regulation 2D (8), specifying the work which must be undertaken during the following 4 weeks.  Failure to comply with the requirements may give rise to a second formal warning from the Director of Postgraduate Research.  If the student has still failed to comply sufficiently with the terms of the second warning, the Director of Postgraduate Research can issue a third and final warning to the student.  If the student fails to comply with the terms of the third warning, the Postgraduate Committee can recommend to the Research Degrees Committee that the student be required to withdraw. 

 3.4.2    Students under warning are not in good academic standing.  Once the terms of a warning have been fulfilled, the student will return to being in good academic standing.  Any further problems would be subject to another initial warning.

 3.4.3    Where the supervisors have serious concerns about the standard of work, or the student’s level of active study, Directors of Postgraduate Research should not delay seeking the approval of the Postgraduate Committee for the issuing of a first warning since the period from issuing the first warning until the expiry of the third and final warning is a minimum of 12 weeks.

 3.4.4    Research Institutes should ensure that warning letters to students are very clear about the nature of the work which is required to be completed and/or submitted within the 4-week timescale in order to fulfil the terms of the warning.

 3.4.5    Copies of all warning letters should be sent to the Records & Exams Officer for Postgraduate Research Students

 3.5       Regular progress monitoring

 3.5.1    All Postgraduate Committees shall have procedures for the regular formal monitoring of research students’ progress, to take place no less frequently than 6-monthly (in Spring and Autumn).  Postgraduate Committees may find it useful to specify in the RI Handbooks the deadlines in the year for submission of progress reports.

a)      Note that if doctoral progression for a student falls at the same time the RI is not required also to conduct a progress review at that time

b)      Students on leave of absence at the time the progress review is due should have their Personal Development and Learning Plan reassessed on their return to study, and then be reviewed at the next due date after their return.

 3.5.2    Postgraduate Committees should devise two report forms for completion separately by the Supervisor and student, to suit their own requirements.  However, as a minimum they should include the sections and questions set out in Annex B5.

 3.5.3    It is the Lead Supervisor’s responsibility to ensure that Supervisor progress report forms are completed and submitted to the Postgraduate Committee in a timely manner. 

 All Supervisor progress reports will include a recommended grade of the student’s progress in accordance with the scale set out in Annex B5.  Any student who receives an Unsatisfactory six-monthly progress report (grade E) is considered to be failing to meet the requirements for maintaining good academic standing.  If the subsequent progress report is also unsatisfactory, then the student may be required to withdraw from the University. 

 3.5.4    It is the student’s responsibility to ensure that Student progress report forms are completed and submitted to the Postgraduate Committee in a timely manner, together with the most up-to-date version of the Personal Development and Learning Plan.  Failure by the student to complete their progress report form or to keep their Personal Development and Learning Plan up to date is likely to lead to the student receiving a low grade.

 3.5.5    Postgraduate Committees should consider together the reports from the Lead Supervisor and the student, informed by the most up-to-date Personal Development and Learning Plan, and determine an overall grade as well as any action required.  Students should be informed of the outcome of the progress review.

 3.5.6    Postgraduate Committees are required to update the student record when students have been reviewed.  Where the Postgraduate Committee requires the University to take any action, this should be notified separately in a memo from the Director of Postgraduate Research to the Research Degrees Committee.

 3.5.7    All recommendations from Postgraduate Committees that students be required to withdraw for not remaining in good academic standing must be sent to the Research Degrees Committee for approval.

 3.6       Formal doctoral progression procedures (See Regulation 2D (6))

 3.6.1    For intending doctoral candidates, all Postgraduate Committees shall have formal procedures for determining a student’s suitability for doctoral study, normally within the first 10-12 months’ full-time study (or equivalent for part-time).  If appropriate this will replace the normal 6-monthly progress review (see 3.5.1).  At this stage, the Postgraduate Committee should have sufficient information to be able to determine one of the following:

  • The student is suitable for doctoral study and may progress
  • The student is not suitable for doctoral study, but is suitable for masters level study and should now be required to prepare a thesis for submission for a research masters degree
  • The student is unlikely successfully to complete a research degree and should be required to withdraw
  • The student is not yet suitable for progression and, following review, has been given a programme of work to complete over a period not exceeding 2 months (or equivalent part-time) at which time the student’s suitability for doctoral study will be reassessed.

 3.6.2    Following Assessment or Reassessment, the Research Institute Postgraduate Committee will recommend the appropriate final outcome to the Research Degrees Committee which will issue formal approval.

 3.6.3    In exceptional circumstances only, the Postgraduate Committee may choose to give the student an additional period of time beyond the initial 12 months before being assessed for progression.

 3.6.4    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.

 3.6.5    Confirmation of doctoral progression should be a formal process which includes both a written report (up to 5,000 words) and an oral discussion with the panel considering the case.  It may also include a presentation.  Further information about appropriate procedures and criteria, and the constitution of the panel, is given in Annex B4.

 3.6.6    Postgraduate Committees are required to make recommendations to the Research Degrees Committee about the outcome of the process (giving full details in cases where the recommendation is that students should either submit a masters degree or withdraw).  Postgraduate Committees should also inform students of their recommendations immediately, making it clear that the recommendations need to be confirmed by Research Degrees Committee.

 3.7       30 Month review procedures

 3.7.1    All students must undergo a presubmission review at no later than 30 months (FT) or 60 months (PT). The presubmission form (countersigned by the supervisor) must be submitted to the relevant RI postgraduate committee.

 3.8       Progression to continuation mode of attendance

 3.8.1    In order to transfer registration to continuation mode of attendance students must have completed the minimum period of supervision and also be formally evaluated by the Postgraduate Committee to ensure that they have satisfied the criteria for such status.  Postgraduate Committees must have procedures in place for such evaluation.

 3.8.2    In order for a student to be allowed to register as a continuation student, Postgraduate Committees must be satisfied

a)      (that the student will submit the thesis within a maximum of 12 months     (24 months PT)

           and

b)      that the 30 month review has been completed to a satisfactory standard for FT students (60 months for PT)

           and

c)      that a Personal Development and Learning Plan and thesis plan with clear timescales for completion of chapters / sections is in place

           and

d)      that the work still required to be completed up to submission of the thesis is such that it can be satisfactorily completed using only the following level of resources:

  • 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.

 If additional resources are required, particularly project-related resources or a higher level of supervision, then Postgraduate Committees should not recommend registration as a continuation student.

 3.8.3    Postgraduate Committees should report the outcome of the process to Research Degrees Committee.  Research Degrees Committee will approve all transfers to continuation status.

 3.9       Withdrawal from research degree study

 3.9.1    At any stage of research degree study, students may wish to, or be required to, withdraw from their studies (subject to due process as set out above). 

 3.10     The student record

 3.10.1  All parties associated with a student must recognise their responsibility for ensuring that accurate and complete student records are maintained, with recognition and understanding of the Data Protection Act and the Freedom of Information Act.

 3.10.2  The Directorate of Planning and Academic Administration will have the primary responsibility for maintaining the electronic student record, recording student personal details, qualifications, and registration details.  Research Institutes are required to inform the Records & Exams Officer for Postgraduate Research Students of any changes of which they become aware.  Students are required to keep the Records & Exams Officer informed of any changes which affect their record, including changes of address or other contact details.  The Records & Exams Officer will also maintain a paper file on each student to include essential documents and correspondence.

 3.10.3  Research Institute Postgraduate Committees are required to maintain accurate records of their meetings, recording all decisions relating to students.

 3.10.4  Supervisors are required to maintain records of formal supervisory meetings with students, noting the dates, a brief outline of the issues discussed and any decisions taken.  Supervisors may delegate this responsibility to the students provided both parties have a copy of the meeting note and agree to it.  Students are required to maintain records of all supervisory meetings in their Personal Development and Learning Plan.

 3.10.5  All parties should recognise that in the case of any disagreement, a full record of meetings, decisions and actions will be to everyone’s benefit in determining whether the parties have behaved reasonably.

COP SECTION 4

SECTION 4 EXAMINATIONS AND APPEALS (SEE REGULATION 2D (4), (7), (10 AND (11)

  • Submission
  • Examination
  • Research Degrees Committee (RDC) and Senate
  • Appeals
  • Resubmission.

 4.1       Submission

 Students are expected to submit their thesis in accordance with the time limits set out Regulation 2D (see also 3.2 above) as amended by any formal extensions granted by the Research Degrees Committee or as granted automatically following periods of leave of absence.

 4.1.2    Within those time limits, it is the student’s responsibility to decide when to submit the thesis.  When submitting a thesis for examination, the student will be required to sign a Part 1 Declaration about the conduct of the research and the presentation of the research in the thesis (see 1.6.5 above).  Lead supervisors will be notified that students have submitted their theses.

 4.1.3    Prior to submission it is essential that the Postgraduate Committee has approved the final thesis title (see Annex D4 section 14 for details) and that the Research Degrees Committee has subsequently approved the examiners for the thesis and the chair of the oral examination (see Annex B7 for details).  It is recommended that these processes be initiated at least 3 months prior to expected submission date.

 4.1.4    No student may submit their thesis unless and until he or she has fulfilled the relevant research training requirements as set out in COP section 2.2.

 4.1.5    When preparing a thesis for submission, students should follow the guidance set out in Annex D4.  In particular students should note that the following sections of Annex D4 are formal requirements which must be complied with if students are not to jeopardise the acceptance of their thesis or the award of their degree:

  • Format for presentation of a thesis (sections 12-20)
  • Submitting your thesis for examination (sections 21-24).

 4.1.6    Students should submit their thesis to the Quality Assurance Officer (with responsibility for PGR activities).  There are some circumstances in which the Quality Assurance Officer will refuse to accept a thesis for examination, as set out below:

  • Where the student has not successfully completed the required research training
  • Where a student fails to sign the Declarations required on submission
  • Where the Part 1 Declaration is not bound into the submission
  • Where there is no Abstract
  • Where no thesis title has been approved
  • Where the thesis title on the thesis differs from the approved title
  • Where the thesis is over the word limit
  • Where the thesis does not comply significantly with the guidance on preparation and presentation of a research thesis (see Annex D4 on Preparation and presentation of a research thesis, sections 12-24).

 As a general principle, if the failure relates to faults on the part of the University rather than the student, the student will not in any way be penalised for this.

 4.2       Examination

 4.2.1    There will normally be two examiners for a research thesis, one external and one internal.  In some circumstances (e.g. where the candidate is a member of staff, or if no appropriate internal examiner can be found, or at the discretion of Research Degrees Committee), a second external examiner will take the place of the internal examiner.  Exceptionally there may be a third examiner.  In no circumstances will a member of the candidate’s Supervisory team be an examiner.

 4.2.2    All oral examinations will have an Independent Chair.  The Independent Chair, who will be provided with the abstract of the thesis rather than the entire thesis, will be responsible for the conduct of the viva and the timely submission of all reports.

 4.2.3    Both examiners, Independent Chair and the candidate must be present during the oral examination.  All examinations normally take place on the premises of Keele University (including off campus research facilities which are part of the Keele RI structure) but in exceptional circumstances video-conferencing of vivas and other locations may be employed.  Prior permission for video conference vivas and non Keele University venues must be approved by Research Degrees Committee.  Under no circumstances will a viva be conducted by telephone.

 4.2.4    The examination of the thesis will be conducted in reference to the criteria for awards (see Annex A1).

 4.2.5    The thesis will be sent to each of the examiners with a request for an independent report, to include a preliminary recommendation.  (In a few cases, where the thesis contains confidential material, examiners may be asked to sign a confidentiality agreement.)  The report (known as the “Part I report”) should normally be submitted no later than one month after receiving the request, and at least one week before the oral examination.

4.2.6    The supervisor may exceptionally be present if all parties wish it.

 4.2.7    The aim of the oral examination is to evaluate whether the candidate has met the standards for the award.  It has the following specific objectives:

  • To confirm or revise the examiner’s initial views about the standard of the candidate’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 Declaration Part 1 made by the candidate on submission of the thesis is true.

4.2.8    On conclusion of the oral examination the examiners will agree a recommendation (see Annex A2 for available recommendations) and write a joint report (which will include details of any required revisions to the thesis).  The joint report must normally be completed immediately after the examination and submitted to the Quality Assurance Officer (with responsibility for PGR activities) by the Independent Chair.

 4.2.9    The expectation is that the whole examination process, from date of submission of thesis to receiving the joint recommendation from the examiners and Part II of their reports after the oral examination, should take no longer than three months.

 4.2.10  The candidate will have the right, after completion of the examination process, to receive a copy of all the examiners’ reports.  These will be sent to the student as a matter of course.

 4.2.11  Full details of oral examination procedures and format for examiners’ reports are given in Annexes B8 and B9.

 4.3       Research Degrees Committee and Senate

 4.3.1    Examiners’ reports and recommendations are considered by the Research Degrees Committee, which makes recommendations to Senate.  (Available recommendations listed in Annex A2.)

 4.3.2    Where an award is recommended (recommendations 1, 2, 4), no recommendation will be made to Senate until all required revisions have been completed and signed off, and the thesis has been lodged in the Library.

 4.3.3    Where the recommendation is 3 (resubmission for PhD), 5 (resubmission for MPhil) or 6 (fail), the recommendation will be made to the Senate following the meeting of Research Degrees Committee.

 4.3.4    Where the recommendation is 2 (minor revisions), if the candidate fails to complete the minor revisions within the period allowed the candidate will be failed.  There is a right of appeal.

 4.3.5    Where the recommendation is 3 (resubmission for PhD) or 5 (resubmission for MPhil), if the candidate fails to resubmit within the period allowed the candidate will be failed.  There is a right of appeal.

 4.3.6    The procedures to be followed after examination are set out in the following sections of Annex D4, and will vary according to the Recommendation being made by the Research Degrees Committee:

  • After examination (sections 25-29)
  • Lodging the thesis in the library and copyright issues (sections 30-45).

 4.4       Appeals (see Regulation 7)

 4.4.1    Candidates have the right to appeal to the University Academic Appeals Committee against decisions of Research Degrees Committee concerning the following:

  • Doctoral progression procedures (see 3.6)
  • Requirement to withdraw for not maintaining good academic standing (see 3.3-3.6)
  • Award following examination (see 4.3 and Annex A2).

 All appeals will be conducted in accordance with procedures set out in Regulation 7.

 4.4.2    Doctoral progression procedures    

Students have the right to appeal against the decision of the Research Degrees Committee concerning doctoral progression only on the following grounds:

  • Procedural irregularities during the process of considering the request for doctoral progression
  • Extenuating Circumstances exist affecting the student’s progress of which the Research Degrees Committee was not aware at the time it made its decision, that these circumstances can be substantiated, and that there is a valid reason for not notifying the Research Degrees Committee
  • Inadequacy of supervision, training, facilities or resources, contrary to the requirements set out in the Code of Practice including the Research Institute Handbook or other written agreement between the Research Institute and the student.

 Appeals will be heard by the University Academic Appeals Committee.

 4.4.3    Requirement to withdraw for not maintaining good academic standing

 Students have the right to appeal against the decision of the Research Degrees Committee that they be required to withdraw for not maintaining good academic standing only on the following grounds:

  • Procedural irregularities in relation to recording and reporting the student’s academic progress
  • Extenuating Circumstances exist affecting the student’s academic progress of which the Research Degrees Committee was not aware at the time it made its decision, that these circumstances can be substantiated, and that there is a valid reason for not notifying the Research Degrees Committee
  • Inadequacy of supervision, training, facilities or resources, contrary to the requirements set out in the Code of Practice including the Research Institute Handbook or other written agreement between the Research Institute and the student, including the Personal Development and Learning Plan.

 Appeals will be heard by the University Academic Appeals Committee.

 4.4.4    Award following examination

 Students have the right to appeal against the recommendation of Research Degrees Committee to Senate about an award only on the following grounds:

  • If there were procedural irregularities in the conduct of the examination
  • If Extenuating Circumstances exist affecting the candidate’s performance at oral examination of which the examiners were not aware.

Appeals will be heard by the University Academic Appeals Committee.

 4.4.5    For clarification, the following are NOT eligible grounds for appeal:

  • The academic judgement of examiners does not constitute grounds for appeal
  • For award following examination:  alleged inadequacy of supervisory or other arrangements during the period of study – any concerns must be raised during the period of active supervision, and do not constitute grounds for appeal against award following submission of the thesis (though students are permitted to submit a complaint at this stage).

 4.4.6    All appeals must be lodged with the secretary to the University Academic Appeals Committee in accordance with timescales and procedures set out in Regulation 7.

 4.5       Resubmission 

4.5.1    If the student is invited to resubmit the thesis (Recommendation 3 or 5) resubmission may be at any time within two years of the date of Senate approving the recommendation.  The normal expectation is that the original examiners will be used also for the resubmission.  Candidates should not consult the examiners between completion of the original examination process and resubmission but will be guided by their supervisors in the light of the examiners’ reports and any other feedback. 

 4.5.2    Examination of the resubmitted thesis shall focus upon whether the revisions required after the first examination have been completed satisfactorily.  Examiners may not introduce new requirements at this stage.  In other respects the thesis will be examined in the same way as the original submission, except that examiners may choose not to require a second oral examination if the resubmitted thesis is satisfactory.  Only one resubmission is allowed.

 4.5.3    Where a recommendation of Resubmission is confirmed by Senate, the Director of Postgraduate Research in the student’s Research Institute will arrange to meet the student within one month (if possible) of the Senate decision and discuss the implications of the decision.  Also present at the meeting should be the intended Lead Supervisor for the student’s period of resubmission.  The outcome from the meeting should include a written statement of the following:

  • Name of the student, department and thesis title
  • Confirmation of whether or not the student does intend to make a resubmission
  • The name of the Lead Supervisor who will support the student during the period of resubmission (who may or may not be the same as the original Lead Supervisor)
  • A work plan and timetable for meeting the requirements of the examiners as set out in the examiners’ reports
  • A signed statement from the student that the requirements have been explained and that they are satisfied that appropriate arrangements have been put in place to support them during the period of resubmission
  • Date of the meeting, and signatures of the Lead Supervisor and Director of Postgraduate Research.

 A copy of this statement must be given to the student and sent to the Research Degrees Committee (RDC) for approval.

 4.5.4    Where the student confirms in this statement that he or she will not be making a resubmission, the case will be referred back to Research Degrees Committee for a recommendation about whether the thesis should fail or be awarded a lesser degree.

 4.5.5    Students will be required to pay Continuation fees for the period of resubmission, though they may take a period of leave of absence if they wish during that period (for which no fees will be payable and no support available).  Any period of leave of absence will not increase the length of time available to the student for completing the required revisions and resubmitting the thesis.

 4.5.6    In exceptional circumstances the maximum period for resubmission may be extended by the Research Degrees Committee (Research Degrees Committee), on behalf of Senate, by not more than 12 months.  The procedure for requesting an extension is as set out in paragraph 3.2.7.

 4.5.7    If the candidate fails to resubmit within the two years allowed (or any approved extended period), the candidate will be failed.  There is a right of appeal.

COP SECTION 5

 SECTION 5 QUALITY ASSURANCE

  • Criteria for awards
  • Graduate School, Research Institutes and Schools
  • Research Degrees Committee
  • Quality Assurance Committee.

 5.1       Criteria for awards

 Standards of awards are assured in part by having clearly articulated criteria for awards which conform to national standards (see Annex A1), and a single set of recommendations for examiners with clear guidance about circumstances in which they should be used (see Annex A2).

 5.2       Graduate School, Research Institutes and Schools

 5.2.1    Research Institutes have the primary responsibility for the delivery of research degree programmes.  Schools and Research Institutes have responsibility for the delivery of research training modules.  The Graduate School Board has the responsibility for monitoring the quality of research degree programmes delivered by Research Institutes and the overall quality of the research training programme delivered by Research Institutes and Schools.

 5.2.2    The Graduate School Board, including representation from each Research Institute and from students, is a principal mechanism for ensuring consistency of process across the University, spread of good practice, and identification of issues to be addressed.

 5.2.3    The Graduate School Board is responsible for developing mechanisms for obtaining feedback from students about the quality of research degree provision and for addressing issues arising as appropriate.  (See also COP section 6)

5.3       Research Degrees Committee

 5.3.1    The Research Degrees Committee (RDC) is responsible for considering reports and recommendations from examiners and for agreeing a final recommendation to Senate.  In carrying out this role they will have particular regard to the following:

  • Whether examiners have taken appropriate account of the criteria for awards
  • Whether there is consistency between the detail of each report and the recommendation
  • Whether there is sufficient agreement between the examiners for a joint recommendation to be appropriate
  • Whether reports provide sufficient guidance about required revisions (a) for the Committee to determine whether the recommendation should be minor revisions or resubmission, and (b) for the candidate to make the necessary revisions
  • Whether the reports are an adequate basis on which to make any recommendation.

 5.3.2    The Research Degrees Committee also has a role in ensuring the quality and consistency of research degree programmes by monitoring and approving matters with respect to individual staff and students, on the basis of recommendations from Research Institutes:

 With respect to individual staff

  • Approval of supervisors and mentors (see Annex B6).

 With respect to individual students

  • Progression for doctoral study
  • Extensions to maximum date for submission
  • Changes to the mode of attendance
  • Applications for leave of absence
  • Withdrawal of students for not maintaining good academic standing
  • Approval of examiners and chair for specific thesis (see Annex B7)
  • Progression to continuation
  • Approval of resubmission statements
  • Considering any other matter about the progress of individual students referred to it by Research Institutes.

 5.3.3    In addition, when considering examiners’ reports, the Research Degrees Committee will identify where there may be any cause for concern in the quality of the support provided to research degree candidates, and will take this up with Research Institutes.

5.3.4    The Research Degrees Committee makes an annual report to the Graduate School Board, setting out statistics of recommendations made during the year and of the number of awards made, and highlighting any issues discussed by Research Degrees Committee.

5.4       Quality Assurance Committee

 5.4.1    The Graduate School Board submits an annual report to the Quality Assurance Committee covering at least the following topics:

 Statistics, by Research Institute

  • Current student numbers
  • Thesis submission rates
  • Number of awards made
  • Number of students beyond maximum time for submission
  • Number of students withdrawn prior to submission.

 Quality assurance issues and activities

  • Key issues discussed by the Graduate School Board
  • Key issues arising from examiner reports
  • Key issues arising from research student surveys
  • QA activities undertaken during the year
  • Actions or decisions taken as a result of issues arising.

 5.4.2    The Quality Assurance Committee may request from the Graduate School Board such other reports as it considers necessary to assure itself about the quality of the University’s research degree programmes.

COP SECTION 6

 SECTION 6 STUDENT LIAISON, FEEDBACK AND COMPLAINTS

  • Student liaison and representation
  • Feedback and evaluation
  • Complaints.

 6.1       Student liaison and representation

 6.1.1    All Research Institutes should have mechanisms for ensuring research students can participate in discussions and bring forward concerns about facilities and resources available to them, including the research training programme, and any other matters which affect their progress or welfare, either individually or collectively.

 6.1.2    The University has a Research Students’ Executive Liaison Committee, chaired by the Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research and Enterprise, which meets several times during the year to discuss issues of interest and relevance to research students.  All Research Institutes are invited to send student representatives to the meetings.

 6.1.3    Both the Keele Postgraduate Association (KPA) and the Students’ Union offer representation for postgraduate students.  KPA and KUSU officers sit on major University committees such as Council, Senate, University Learning and Teaching Committee and the Graduate School Board.  The KPA has a committee of postgraduate students and KUSU has a committee of all types of students (including a specific post for Postgraduate representation).  For either committee, research students can obtain a place by standing in the elections (which normally occur in March each year).

 6.2       Feedback and evaluation

 See 5.2.3 above relating to the Graduate School’s responsibility.

 6.3       Complaints (see Regulation 26)

 6.3.1    A (student) complaint is the expression of a specific concern about the provision by the University of a service, either academic or non-academic.

 6.3.2    The University’s Student complaints procedures are described in Regulation 26, available at http://www.keele.ac.uk/regulations/ .  The University has a four stage (formal) procedure but every attempt should be made to resolve issues on an informal basis in the first instance, without recourse to a formal procedure.

 6.3.3.   All Postgraduate Committees should have clearly articulated procedures for handling problems and complaints on an informal basis, including complaints about supervision or adequacy of facilities.  Informal mechanisms may involve the Director of Postgraduate Research or other senior member of the Research Institute, or identified staff outside the Research Institute, for example the Dean of the Faculty or members of the Student Conduct Office (Directorate of Planning and Academic Administration).

6.3.4    No formal complaint will be considered unless students have exhausted informal mechanisms for resolving their problems.  Once a formal complaint is initialised, it will move through the stages described in Regulation 26.

 6.3.5    The senior officer appointed to deal with complaints is the Pro-Vice Chancellor for Education and Student Experience.

 6.3.6    At any stage (informal or formal) a student may seek the assistance of the Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research and Enterprise in dealing with their problem or in presenting their case.  Additionally a student may wish to speak to the Independent Advice Unit in the Students’ Union who can offer free independent impartial advice and representation.