Regulations for Postgraduate Research Students (PGR ... · Independent Research by Thesis forming a part of Professional or Practice-based Doctoral awards . October 2019 . These regulations

Sensitivity: Confidential

Regulations for Postgraduate Research Students (PGR) working towards the awards of

Master of Philosophy (MPhil), Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) and Independent Research by Thesis forming a part of Professional or Practice-based Doctoral awards

October 2019 These regulations supersede ALL previous versions of regulations.

Approved by Academic Board 06.07.2015 for Implementation from 01.08.2015 Updated August 2017, October 2019


Table of Contents

Part A: Introductory overview ................................................................................ 1

A1. Nature and Purpose of the Postgraduate Research Degrees .............................................. 2

A2. Key Products of Postgraduate Research in these Regulations ............................................. 3 3.1 Route 1 is the ‘Traditional PhD’........................................................................................................ 3 3.2 Route 2 is the ‘Integrated PhD’ ........................................................................................................ 4 3.3 Route 3 is the ‘PhD by Concurrent Publication’ and is available for University of Derby staff only 4 3.4 Route 4 is the ‘PhD by Published Works’ ......................................................................................... 5

A4. Professional or Practice-Based Doctorates (DProfs) ............................................................ 6

A5. The Research Development Environment and Research Training ........................................ 8 5.1 Research Development Environment .............................................................................................. 8 5.2 Research Training Beyond Direct Supervisory Support ................................................................... 8

A6. Academic Governance of Awards and Examinations of Doctoral Outcomes ...................... 10 6.1 Academic Governance of ‘Integrated’ route (2) towards MPhil or PhD ....................................... 10 6.2 Oversight of Professional or Practice-based Doctorates: .............................................................. 11

A7. The Structure of the Main Body of the Regulations .......................................................... 12 7.1 Generally Applicable Regulations, Variants and Supplements ...................................................... 12

A8. Appendices to the Regulations ........................................................................................ 13 8.1 Guide for the conduct of viva-voce examinations ......................................................................... 13 8.2 Guidance for chairs of viva-voce examinations ............................................................................. 13 8.3 Style/format for the front cover layout for the soft bound thesis submitted for examination ..... 13 8.4 Guide on the use of interactive media in connection with thesis presentation ............................ 13 8.5 University Intellectual Property Rights policy for students ........................................................... 13

A9. Other Relevant University Regulations and Policies .......................................................... 14 9.1 Other Relevant University Regulations .......................................................................................... 14 9.2 Other Relevant University Policies ................................................................................................. 14

Part B: Generally Applicable Regulations .............................................................. 16

B1. Admissions and Enrolment .............................................................................................. 17 1.1 Admissions ..................................................................................................................................... 17 1.2 College Responsibilities Prior to Enrolment ................................................................................... 17 1.3 Distance Learning Applicants ......................................................................................................... 18 1.4 Research Involving the Examination of Creative Work(s) .............................................................. 19 1.5 Decision-Making on Applications ................................................................................................... 20 1.6 Qualifications.................................................................................................................................. 20 1.7 Students Transferring to the University of Derby .......................................................................... 21 1.8 Enrolment ....................................................................................................................................... 22

B2. Registration .................................................................................................................... 24 2.1 Application for Registration ........................................................................................................... 24 2.2 Criteria for Registration .................................................................................................................. 25


2.3. Transfer of Registration Between MPhil/Master of Practice and PhD/Professional and Practice-based doctorates ............................................................................................................................ 26

2.4 The Target Submission Period ........................................................................................................ 27 2.5 Changing the Target Submission Period/Mode of Study ............................................................... 28 2.6 Expiry of the Target Submission Period ......................................................................................... 29 2.7 The Registration Period .................................................................................................................. 29 2.8 Suspension of Registration ............................................................................................................. 29 2.9 Extension of the Period of Registration ......................................................................................... 30 2.10 Withdrawal from Registration........................................................................................................ 30 2.11 Termination of Registration ........................................................................................................... 30 2.12 Student Participation Policy ........................................................................................................... 31

B3. Supervision of Research Students and Training and Mentoring of Supervisors ................... 33 3.1 The Appointment of the Director of Studies and Second Supervisor ............................................ 33 3.2 The Appointment of Approved Mentors to Support Supervisors with Less Experience of

Supervision ..................................................................................................................................... 34 3.3 Changes to the Supervisory Arrangements ................................................................................... 34 3.4 Staff Development for PGR Supervisors ......................................................................................... 35 3.5 The Appointment of Advisers......................................................................................................... 35 3.6 Annual Progress Reports ................................................................................................................ 35

B4. Confirmation of Registration ........................................................................................... 37 4.1 The Purpose of the Process ............................................................................................................ 37 4.2 The Confirmation of Registration Report ....................................................................................... 38 4.3 The Appointment of an Assessor ................................................................................................... 39 4.4 The viva-voce Assessment .............................................................................................................. 39 4.5 The Assessor’s Recommendation to CRC ....................................................................................... 40 4.6 The CRC Decision ............................................................................................................................ 40

B5. Final Examination for an MPhil or PhD, or for a Professional or Practice-based Doctorate . 42 5.1 The Two Stages of Assessment ...................................................................................................... 42 5.2 Notification of Intention to Submit for Examination ..................................................................... 42 5.3 The Appointment and Qualifications of the Examiners ................................................................. 42 5.4 The Examination Process: Submission ........................................................................................... 44 5.5 Formatting and Presentation of What is Submitted for Examination ........................................... 45 5.6 The Examination Process: Reports ................................................................................................. 50 5.7 Assessment Criteria for the Award of the Doctorate ..................................................................... 50 5.8 Assessment Criteria for the Award of the MPhil ............................................................................ 52 5.9 Assessment Criteria for the Award of the Independent Research element of the MRes staged

award within the Integrated Route PhD ........................................................................................ 53 5.10 Examination of Submissions with Both Theory and Creative Work(s) Elements ........................... 55 5.11 The Viva-Voce Process and the Appointment of a Chair ............................................................... 57 5.12 The Doctoral or MPhil Viva-Voce examination .............................................................................. 57 5.13 The Recommendations of the Examiners ...................................................................................... 59 5.14 The Referral Opportunity ............................................................................................................... 61 5.15 Feedback to Candidates Following the viva-voce examination .................................................... 62 5.16 Approval of Recommendations for PhDs and Professional Doctorate Awards ............................. 62 5.17 Communication of Recommendations for Re-examination .......................................................... 63

B6. Re-examination for an MPhil or PhD ................................................................................ 64 6.1 The Forms of Re-examination ........................................................................................................ 64 6.2 Period Permitted for Preparing for Re-Examination ...................................................................... 64 6.3 Action Required When Necessary to Appoint a New Examiner .................................................... 64 6.4 Recommendations Following Re-examination .............................................................................. 65


6.5 Registration for Master’s Awards Following Unsuccessful Amendments ..................................... 66

Part C: Extended Regulatory Supplements or Variants .......................................... 67

C1. Published Works Route Extended Regulations for the Appointment of the Assessor(s) for the Application for Registration in this Route......................................................................... 68

C2. Concurrent Publications and Published Works Routes Extended Regulations for Examination ......................................................................................................................... 70

Appendix 1 ........................................................................................................................... 72

Appendix 2 ........................................................................................................................... 75

Appendix 3 ........................................................................................................................... 77

Appendix 4 ........................................................................................................................... 78

Appendix 5 ........................................................................................................................... 79

1


Part A: Introductory overview

Introductory overview of the postgraduate research degrees offered by the University of Derby

2


A1. Nature and Purpose of the Postgraduate Research Degrees

The University of Derby offers suitably qualified applicants the opportunity to achieve a Level 8 Postgraduate Research (PGR) qualification consistent with the Quality Assurance Agency’s documentation on Doctoral Degree Characteristics http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/Doctoral_Characteristics.pdf, September 2011 and the UK Quality Code for Higher Education Chapter B11: Research Degrees, http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Pages/Quality-Code- Chapter-B11.aspx#.VXQCh2RwZLM, June 2012.

1.1 This includes four possible routes to the award of the Master of Philosophy (MPhil)

or Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), as well as a number of programmes leading to the award of a Professional or Practice-based doctorate.

1.2 Common to all these routes is academic recognition based on the successful

conduct of supervised research culminating (variously as specified for the individual routes or awards) in the production of either a research thesis; a critical review accompanied by creative works; or publications accompanied by a critical review. The primary aims across all these awards are to enable students to:

- through research training develop a range of skills in research; - undertake work leading to an original contribution in a field of enquiry; - engage in academic research which promotes innovative thinking and

creativity.

1.3 And in the Professional or Practice-based doctorates, additionally, to:

- critically reflect on and evaluate the process and outcomes of their research and apply this deeper understanding, including from the outcomes of their independent research, within their profession or field of practice.

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/Doctoral_Characteristics.pdf

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Pages/Quality-Code-Chapter-B11.aspx#.VXQCh2RwZLM

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Pages/Quality-Code-Chapter-B11.aspx#.VXQCh2RwZLM

3


A2. Key Products of Postgraduate Research in these Regulations

Within all these regulations the following meanings of ‘thesis’, ‘publication(s)’, ‘creative work(s)’ and ‘critical review’ shall apply:

2.1 A ‘thesis’ shall be taken to mean an extended and structured piece of research

informed writing (including what some Professional or Practitioner-based doctorates call a ‘Practitioner Project’ undertaken at Level 8), to be submitted for examination, either on its own or together in defined proportions with a creative work(s), and being of defined minimum and maximum length.

2.2 ‘Publication(s)’ shall be taken as referring to research-informed and (unless

restricted on grounds of confidentiality) publicly available outputs (through traditional means of publication, or open access means such as institutional repositories) such as papers in journals, chapters, monographs, research volumes, and conference papers that are published with ISSN numbers, patents, public exhibitions with published catalogues and public performances with published programmes. Exceptionally, unpublished works may be submitted if they can be evidenced as having been accepted for publication.

2.3 ‘Creative work(s)’ shall be taken as including the production of inventions, media,

patents or artefacts in any field including, for example, fine art, photography, film, design, sound, musical composition, architecture, engineering and information technology, or a combination of them. It also includes performance disciplines such as dance and drama. To be eligible for examination these must be presented appropriately (e.g. by exhibition) in the public sphere in a way that is capable of subsequently being evidenced.

2.4 A ‘critical review’ shall be taken to mean a structured piece of research- informed

writing, to be submitted for examination always in combination (as appropriate to the route/award concerned) with publication(s) and/or creative work(s).A3. Routes to the Awards of MPhil or PhD

The University offers four routes to the award of MPhil or PhD:

3.1 Route 1 is the ‘Traditional PhD’

This PhD route involves the undertaking of independent research under academic supervision, and leading to the production of one or the other of:

- a written thesis focused on a chosen field of enquiry - a written thesis focused on a chosen field of enquiry accompanied by

creative work(s) where this forms part of the evidence for new

4


understanding - creative work(s) accompanied by a written critical review which

contextualises the work and the new understanding which stems from the work.

3.2 Route 2 is the ‘Integrated PhD’

This PhD route involves the prior undertaking of a modular-based master’s stage of integrated broader research training, the successful completion of which leads to the Master of Research (MRes) intermediate award.

As well as the undertaking of independent research under academic supervision leading to the production of:

- a written thesis focused on a chosen field of enquiry - a written thesis focused on a chosen field of enquiry accompanied by

creative work(s) where it forms part of the evidence for new understanding - creative work(s) accompanied by a written critical review which

contextualises the work and the new understanding which stems from the work.

3.2.1 When the student has satisfactorily completed all the master’s stage modules

normally the registration for the Doctor of Philosophy is confirmed allowing the student to progress to the doctoral stage of independent research undertaken under academic supervision.

3.2.2 Step-off awards are available, if needed, of the Postgraduate Certificate in

Research Methods; the Postgraduate Diploma in Research Methods; and the (generic) Master of Research. Details of the Master’s stage are held in the Master of Research Framework regulations, September 2012, to which users of these regulations are referred.

3.3 Route 3 is the ‘PhD by Concurrent Publication’ and is available for University

of Derby staff only

This route is designed for staff only who would prefer to pursue their training in research through the production, publication and collation, during their period of registration, of research-informed publication(s) or creative work(s) accompanied by a critical appraisal, of at least similar total overall volume to that required in a Traditional PhD.

3.3.1 Under academic supervision, the candidate prepares and submits for Level 8 examination the research-informed publication(s) to relevant journals/publishers or the creative work(s) for public exhibition or other public recognition while also developing a written critical appraisal of these works which contextualises and reflects upon them, identifying the specific, individual and substantive contribution made by the candidate, assessing the contribution made by each work and the collective whole to understanding in the field of enquiry.

5


3.4 Route 4 is the ‘PhD by Published Works’

This route is designed for those who wish to gain doctoral recognition for their research achievements contained in a body of (largely) already (at the point of application) published or creative works accompanied by a critical appraisal, of at least similar total overall volume to that required in a Traditional PhD.

3.4.1 Under academic supervision, this route involves the collation and

preparation for Level 8 examination, of a largely already existing (but not previously submitted for similar examination elsewhere) series of research-informed published or creative work(s) which are accompanied by a critical appraisal that contextualises and reflects upon them, identifying the specific, individual and substantive contribution made by the candidate, and assessing the contribution made by each work and the collective whole to understanding in the field of enquiry.

6

Sensitivity: Confidential Sensitivity: Confidential

A4. Professional or Practice-Based Doctorates (DProfs)

The distinctive focus of these programmes, including the Level 8 research that is undertaken within them, is on the needs of career professionals and other practitioners. It is this which provides a clear distinction between these programmes and a PhD. PhD research may also focus on these, but are not required to do so. Therefore in addition to the undertaking of independent research under academic supervision leading to the production of either:

- a written thesis involving originality and focused on a chosen field of enquiry - a written thesis focused on a chosen field of enquiry accompanied by a

creative work(s) where these form part of the evidence for new understanding

- a creative work(s) accompanied by a text or dissertation which contextualises the work and the new understanding stemming from it

Through this and the modules undertaken as part of the award prior to the commencement of the independent research, students are enabled critically to reflect upon and evaluate the process and outcomes of their research and to apply this deeper understanding within their profession or field of practice. 4.1 Like the ‘Integrated PhD’ route, Professional or Practice-based doctoral

programmes comprise two phases: the taught stage and the independent research phase under academic supervision, leading to the production of a thesis or creative work(s) and critical appraisal.

4.2 To qualify as doctoral awards, these programmes must include at least the

minimum proportion of independent research as specified by the Quality Assurance Agency guidance on The Higher Education Credit Framework for England, August 2008 (http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/publications/documents/academic-credit-framework.pdf).

4.3 A Masters Award may be available if validated as part of individual Professional

and Practice-based doctoral programmes whereby students who have progressed by successful completion of the specified level 7 modules may be permitted to enrol on a 60 credit independent research masters module. Details of these Master’s level awards are held in the individual programme specifications.

4.4 Successful completion of both phases of these programmes culminates in the

doctoral award. The taught phase of the programme is formalised into a series of taught modules. The taught modules provide students with the research skills needed, not only for the immediate programme of research but for future research in the general field.

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/publications/documents/academic-credit-framework.pdf

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/publications/documents/academic-credit-framework.pdf

7

Sensitivity: Confidential Sensitivity: Confidential

4.5 The Independent Research phase module of these programmes is not normally commenced until the credits associated with the taught phase have already been achieved.

4.6 Details of each Professional or Practice-based doctoral award is held in its

programme and module specifications, to which readers of these regulations are therefore also referred as needed.

f

8


A5. The Research Development Environment and Research Training

5.1 Research Development Environment

The environment for the training and development of postgraduate research students is constituted via the integrated role of research in the life of the University and its Colleges, and the University’s engagement with the sectoral environment for research development including the Higher Education Funding Council for England’s Research Excellence Framework and Universities UK’ Concordat to Support Research Integrity. Internally to the University, it is developed in line with the University’s Research Strategy and its associated Research Governance Infrastructure. In particular, this includes a pattern of University recognized Institutes, Research Centres (and any ‘clusters’ of research associated with these), and similar as constituted from time to time by the University and/or its Colleges, as well by the research outputs, impact and research environment associated with the Units of Assessment submitted by the University to the Research Excellence Framework.

5.2 Research Training Beyond Direct Supervisory Support

The research training provided by the University is composed of a mix appropriate to the doctoral route or qualification taken from a range of the following: the supervision provided by its research degrees supervisors; research skills and training seminars with a more substantive focus (as offered from time to time by the University centrally, through Colleges, Institutes, Research Centres and any ‘clusters‘ of research associated with these in which there is relevant subject expertise of a group of staff who can provide high quality supervision); a generic set of core Level 7 research skills modules available on either a non-credit or a credit-bearing basis and which, on a credit accumulation basis form an integral part of the Master’s phase of the Integrated route PhD; Level 7 modules that form a validated part of the University’s Professional or Practice-based doctorates; and other Level 7 modules offered by the University. During the application and admission stages, a diagnostic approach is taken to the likely benefits of an applicant undertaking the various routes and options available. Within this diagnostic approach, an applicant who is suitably qualified may be counselled/ supported towards one of the following:

5.2.1 The ‘Traditional’ Route; the ‘Concurrent Publications’ Route; and the ‘Published

Works’ routes towards MPhil or PhD, in each of which students and their supervisors have access to a suite of standard and bespoke training beyond the core supervisory relationship in order to meet specific developmental needs

f

9


5.2.2 The ‘Integrated’ route towards MPhil or PhD which has a programme

structure that includes the requirement to enrol on a pattern of validated Level 7 core research skills and training modules, the successful completion of which leads to the generic Master of Research (MRes) award, as an intermediate award en route to the successful completion of Level 8 Independent Studies research resulting in a thesis or creative work plus critical appraisal and the award of PhD.

5.2.3 The core PGR research skills modules that constitute the MRes award are, in

principle, also available for all PGR students (all MPhil or PhD routes and all Professional or Practice-based doctorates) to engage with on either a non-credit or credit-bearing basis.

5.2.4 Those from outside the ‘Integrated’ route towards MPhil or PhD and who may

be recommended, or wish to, undertake and be assessed and credited for these or other Level 7 modules offered by the University may do so, with the agreement of the relevant module leader, on payment of the appropriate module tuition fee.

The Professional or Practice-based doctorates offer an overall programme structure which includes the requirement successfully to complete the pattern of validated modules in each validated programme before also successfully completing the Level 8 Independent Studies phase module to achieve the doctorate.

10


A6. Academic Governance of Awards and Examinations of Doctoral Outcomes

The University and its Colleges (note: in what follows, the term ‘College’ also includes the University of Derby Online Learning and any University-recognised Institutes) share responsibility for the academic governance of awards and examinations of doctoral outcomes. In particular, the University Research Committee (URC), as accountable to Academic Board as a formal Committee of that Board, and working with and through the College Research Committees (CRCs), monitors the overall progress of students on all routes towards MPhil and PhD, and also in the Independent Research phase of the Professional or Practice-based doctorates. It approves the appointment of viva-voce examiners and of viva-voce outcomes and awards of MPhils, PhDs and Professional or Practice-based doctorates. In addition to this overall responsibility, the following bodies have distinctive roles in relation to the integrated route towards MPhil or PhD, and the Professional or Practice-based doctorates, as appropriate:

6.1 Academic Governance of ‘Integrated’ route (2) towards MPhil or PhD

6.1.1 For the Integrated route there is also a specific MRes Programme Committee;

a Research Skills Module Assessment Board, for research skills modules associated with the MRes; and an Integrated PhD Programme Assessment Board.

6.1.2 The MRes Programme Committee is a forum for discussion with students about

the delivery and curriculum development including any awards that utilize the level 7 modules located within the generic MRes Framework, although decisions about the curriculum structure of those programmes lie with the programmes themselves.

6.1.3 The Research Skills Module Assessment Board is responsible for formally

recommending the results on all modules to the Programme Assessment Board, of which these modules form a part, including to the Integrated PhD Programme Assessment Board.

6.1.4 The ‘Integrated PhD’ Programme Assessment Board monitors the performance of the students in the taught phase of this route and is responsible for recommending intermediate and step-off awards, as appropriate, for ‘Integrated’ route students within the taught phase.

6.1.5 Formally assessed work is internally moderated prior to the Research Skills Module Assessment Board. The Module Leaders are required to submit the moderated marks before the meeting of the Board.

11


6.1.6 The moderated assessed works are, prior to the Assessment Board, also

subject to external scrutiny by the external examiner who has responsibility for the modules. The Programme Assessment Board recommends step-off awards where these are appropriate.

6.1.7 The composition of the Programme Assessment Board is: - Chair of the Programme Assessment Board - Programme Leader of the taught phase of the Integrated Route PhD - The External Examiner of the Level 7 Research Skills modules - The Module Leader for each PGR Research Skills module - The Registrar’s Representative - The Servicing Officer

6.2 Oversight of Professional or Practice-based Doctorates:

6.2.1 Professional or Practice-based Doctorates are part of a Programme Committee

cluster within their owning Colleges which provides a forum for operational issues relating to the programme and for the discussion and adoption of quality enhancement plans.

6.2.2 Programme Assessment Boards note and receive final awards; can make a

decision to fail/ terminate students following poor academic progress or non-engagement in the taught phase of the programmes prior to the commencement of the Independent Research phase module; and can recommend step-off awards at Level 7 where these are appropriate.

6.2.3 The composition of the Professional or Practice-based Programme Assessment Board (including these elements if ‘clustered’ with another Assessment Board) is:

- Chair of the Programme Assessment Board - Programme Leader - Deputy Programme Leader - The External Examiner for the taught modules - The Module Leader for each module - The Registrar’s Representative - The Servicing Officer.

12


A7. The Structure of the Main Body of the Regulations

7.1 Generally Applicable Regulations, Variants and Supplements

The regulations that are generally applicable to all Postgraduate Research Degrees are set out in Part B of this document. Where small ‘supplements’ (i.e. additions to what is stated in the general regulations) or ‘variants’ (i.e. differences from the general regulations) apply to various ways of taking doctoral qualifications these are flagged under the titles of the relevant overall section, the relevant sub-sections of which should then be read in the light of these. In other words, ‘supplements’ add something to what is generically said in relation to a particular form of doctoral qualification, while ‘variants’ replace what is said on this matter within the general regulations by something specific to the particular route or qualification.

7.1.1 Where, in limited instances, variants or supplements require

lengthier explanation than can be included in Part B without unduly disturbing the readability and flow of the text they are set out in Part C of this document on Extended Regulatory Supplements and Variants.

7.1.2 Where this is the case, readers of Part B in this document are

signposted to the relevant sections of Part C in this document where the lengthier ‘supplement’ and ‘variant’ text is set out.

13


A8. Appendices to the Regulations

A number of appendices are included for guidance because of their close relationship to the application of the regulations, as follows: 8.1 Guide for the conduct of viva-voce examinations 8.2 Guidance for chairs of viva-voce examinations 8.3 Style/format for the front cover layout for the soft bound thesis submitted for

examination 8.4 Guide on the use of interactive media in connection with thesis presentation 8.5 University Intellectual Property Rights policy for students

14


A9. Other Relevant University Regulations and Policies

9.1 Other Relevant University Regulations The present regulations need, in some instances, to be read in conjunction with other key regulatory frameworks of the University of Derby, as follows:

9.1.1 The Professional or Practice-based doctorates are separately validated programmes, for which there are individual programme and module specifications that set out their individual overall structures.

9.1.2 The exception to the above is that regulations for the Independent Studies

phase of all Professional or Practice-based awards of the University are shared in common and also with all the routes to the PhD, and so are included in this document.

9.1.3 Level 7 modules play a key role within the phase prior to the Independent

Research within the Professional or Practice-based doctorates, and also in the ‘Integrated’ route towards MPhil or PhD, including in relation to the intermediate Master of Research (MRes) award, the full regulations for which can be found in the separate MRes Regulations, August 2012 edition.

9.1.4 The general assessment regulations for all Level 7 modules are located in the

University’s overall Rights, Responsibilities and Regulations document (http://www.derby.ac.uk/about/organisation/academic-regulations/). Readers should therefore refer to this additional document for information about the assessment process for Level 7 modules; the PG grade scale; referrals; admissions; and other related matters.

9.2 Other Relevant University Policies

From among the other University Policies, of particular relevance to the Postgraduate Research Student Regulations are the separately maintained University Policies and Procedures to which readers are referred as appropriate:

9.2.1 University Research Strategy 9.2.2 University Research Infrastructure 9.2.3 Academic appeals 9.2.4 Complaints 9.2.5 Academic offences 9.2.6 University Research Ethics Policy and Code of Practice

http://www.derby.ac.uk/about/organisation/academic-regulations/)

15


9.2.7 University Intellectual Property Policy 9.2.8 University Policy on Promoting Good Scientific Practice Incorporating

Procedures in the Event of Alleged Scientific Misconduct 9.2.9 University Policy on Recognition of Prior Learning 9.2.10 Student Code of Conduct

For general information and advice on the regulations, contact the Research Office.

f

16


Part B: Generally Applicable Regulations

Generally applicable regulations for postgraduate research degrees offered by the University of Derby

17 of

17

Sensitivity: Internal

B1. Admissions and Enrolment

1.1 Admissions (For a Supplement in Professional or Practice-based doctorates, see further below) Admission is the process by which the University’s Colleges exercise their responsibility to ensure that individuals who are admitted to undertake a Postgraduate Research are suitably qualified and demonstrate a capable and enquiring mind and the clear potential to complete the award successfully.

1.1.1 For all Postgraduate Research programmes those academics considering applications are expected to adopt both a facilitative and carefully diagnostic approach to admissions.

1.1.2 This should also be informed by an awareness of the University’s legal

obligations with regard to equality and diversity and appropriate risk awareness. Along with the necessary academic qualifications and the necessary English language qualifications or appropriate facility with the language, appropriate references, a research mind, sound financial arrangements for maintenance and the payment of fees should all be taken into account. Shortfalls across a number of these areas would be an indication of likely substantial risk.

Supplement for Professional or Practice-based Doctorates: Professional or Practice-based doctorates wishing to add any required professional or practice qualifications and/or requirements of evidenceable experience may put forward a rationale for such during the normal programme validation or enhancement processes of these programmes.

1.1.3 There will be 3 doctoral intakes per year, September, December and March. A fourth intake (June) will be exceptional. For June intakes, the CRC must confirm that induction and supervisory support will be available during the summer months.

1.2 College Responsibilities Prior to Enrolment

The Colleges carry responsibility for establishing each of the following aspects prior to acceptance and initial enrolment:

1.2.1 The applicant is appropriately qualified for embarking on the MPhil or PhD planned route or Professional or Practice-based doctoral programme.

1.2.2 The applicant is embarking on a viable programme of research which relates

broadly to the existing expertise and research interests of the College and one

18 of

18


of the University’s recognised Institutes, Research Centres (and any ‘clusters’ of research associated with these), or research aligned with one of the University Units of Assessment in the Research Excellence Framework;

1.2.3 The College is able to make satisfactory supervisory arrangements including training (where appropriate for the student) in a broader range of research methods, supported by central provision and/or locally provided within a College to address specific skills;

1.2.4 The University or the College is prepared to make available the necessary

facilities to support on-campus students; or that (where appropriate) suitable facilities are known to be available for distance learning students.

1.2.5 The College is satisfied with the proposed arrangements for the mode of study

(full time or part time) and the location of study (at the University, workplace or other agreed location).

1.2.6 The College is satisfied that the prospective student's commitments to other

activities are not such as to render the prospects of successful completion of the research improbable.

1.2.7 a) The College should ensure that in any formal agreement with a collaborating

organisation that access to resources which a doctoral students’ project is dependent upon is guaranteed for the registration period.

1.2.7 b) Where access to data sources and resources are linked to a supervisor, the

College should ensure that if the supervisor leaves the University a letter of agreement between the supervisor and the University is made ensuring access to those data sources for the candidates registration period.

1.2.8 There must be an agreed learning contract between the student and supervisors

which schedules the first year’s supervisory interactions indicating how and where they will take place. This must be completed prior to enrolment.

1.3 Distance Learning Applicants

Distance learning (DL) applicants are defined as those students who propose to reside and study from a location outside the United Kingdom.

1.3.1 Prospective DL students will normally be interviewed either in person in their

home country, or by peer to peer networking or equivalent relational means, to confirm the availability, as appropriate, of a suitable research environment and/or facilities, prior to receipt of an unconditional offer. It must be confirmed that the applicant is highly motivated and understands the commitment involved and the challenges to meet in order to achieve a Postgraduate Research degree as a distance learner.

1.3.2 DL students are normally expected to undertake the final examination viva-voce

19 of

19


in Derby. If any variation to this is proposed, this should be noted on the Confirmation of Registration documentation.

1.3.3 There must be an agreed indicative supervisory schedule between the student

and supervisors, ideally, completed prior to enrolment but at the discretion of the supervisory team and student, within the first 3 months of study. The learning plan maybe amended throughout the doctoral journey with agreement of all parties. In the case of distance learning students this must be completed prior to enrolment.

1.4 Research Involving the Examination of Creative Work(s)

Where the research involves the production of creative work(s) alongside a dissertation, thesis or critical appraisal, there should be an appropriate balance between the theory and the creative work(s) which, prior to any enrolment, is agreed by the student and director of studies.

1.4.1 Unless being submitted as part of the PhD by Published Works, the creative

work(s) element to be examined must be developed while enrolled and registered for doctoral research under academic supervision.

1.4.2 What the creative work(s) element is must be identified and may comprise up to 80% of the total planned effort. The balance should be quantified for future reference in any offer letter.

1.4.3 When the Application for Registration is completed and submitted to the CRC, it should also include a clear rationale and scope for the proposed independent research, including the relative balance of the theory and creative work(s)/invention(s) components.

1.4.4 There should be a coherent relationship between theory and the creative work(s) with the two forming an integrated whole. The relationship may evolve as the research develops but must be confirmed at the Confirmation of Registration and cannot be changed beyond that and prior to examination. Normally the theory element should contextualise that which makes up the creative work(s)/invention(s) element but other relationships may be valid and acceptable.

1.4.5 The theory element should have level 8 characteristics of enquiry and scholarship. A high standard must be attained in both the theory and creative work(s)/invention(s). A documentary sketch book or portfolio may be included as a planned and significant element of the submission but this will not suffice alone as the theory element.

1.4.6 Prior to enrolment a discussion should be held between the student and the

20 of

20


Director of Studies about how the work will be exhibited for the examination. A realistic assessment of the possibilities should be undertaken in order to manage the expectations of what can be accommodated in terms of venues and equipment.

1.5 Decision-Making on Applications

(For a Variant in Professional or Practice-based doctorates, see further below) Consideration of the application should normally be undertaken by two suitable doctoral supervisors working with the Chair of the relevant Research Committee. In the case of the Traditional PhD route this will normally include a prospective Director of Studies. Variant for Professional or Practice-based doctorates Applications are normally considered by the Programme Leader in conjunction with a supervisor from within the relevant programme.

1.6 Qualifications

(For a Variant in the Professional or practice-based doctorates, and for Supplements in the Integrated route, the Published Works route and in Professional or practice-based doctorates, see further below)

1.6.1 Applicants for doctoral qualification routes in the University should normally hold

at least a first or second class honours degree of a UK University, or demonstrate qualifications or relevant experience, which is deemed by the University to be equivalent.

1.6.2 The College must be satisfied that the student has the necessary command of the English Language. This can, for example, be demonstrated through the recent successful completion of an award- bearing programme from a UK university, or by a score of at least 6.5 IELTS with a minimum of 5.5 in each component.

1.6.3 International applicants may be required to complete a University course in English as a Foreign Language before being made an unconditional offer.

1.6.4 Certificates or Transcripts of qualifications should be checked by staff of the Admissions Office to confirm the legitimacy of the awarding institution.

Variant for Professional or Practice-based Doctorates Professional or Practice-based doctorates with professional requirements for a higher IELTS score for applicants may propose such during their validation. Supplement for ‘Integrated’ route towards MPhil or PhD

21 of

21


If Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) consideration is requested, normal University RPL requirements apply. The student may only be awarded RPL for certificated achievement in respect of the Level 7 research skills or subject modules and the student must take at least 50% (90 credits) of the MRes award at Derby. Formal RPL is not available in respect of Independent Research. Supplement for ‘Published Works’ route towards MPhil or PhD The applicant should, at the point of application, have in place a sufficient body of published or creative work that is already published or formally accepted for publication so that, once enrolled, they can proceed to preparing those works and the accompanying critical review for examination without need to add a significant number of published works during the period of enrolment. Supplement for Professional or Practice-based Doctorates Applicants for a Professional or Practice-based doctoral programme should normally hold a Master’s degree of a UK University or else hold a qualification or can demonstrate relevant experience, which is deemed by the University to be equivalent. RPL is not available in respect of the Independent Research module, unless required by a Professional body in the context of a validation/professional body accreditation, in which case any such requirement must be carefully considered and justified on the basis of a strong rationale that fully considers all the potential implications of this. For these and other matters, the individual programme and module specifications of the relevant Professional or Practice-based doctorate should, in each case, be consulted.

1.7 Students Transferring to the University of Derby

(For Supplements in Professional or Practice-based doctorates, see further below)

A student who has commenced research elsewhere may sometimes request transfer of registration to the University of Derby. This should only occur if there are compelling reasons for the student to leave their former institution. In addition to the standard considerations for application, the following aspects should be considered:

1.7.1 The transfer must be considered with a view to the further research necessary

to bring a research investigation to completion. The further research required should be significant and not normally less than the equivalent of one year’s full-time studies.

1.7.2 The University does not normally accept students who have effectively failed to satisfy requirements for awards elsewhere. If a student has already been examined elsewhere, or is very close to completion elsewhere, it is normally

22 of

22


inappropriate to consider transfer.

1.7.3 If the transfer proceeds, it will be necessary to decide whether it is desirable for the transferred student to prepare an Application for Confirmation of Registration for confirmation of the registered award. The prospective director of studies should make a recommendation on this matter for CRC to approve.

1.7.4 If work on a doctoral thesis is moderately advanced, only transfer to the ‘Traditional’ route will be appropriate. If the student wants to transfer into the ‘Integrated Route’ s/he will need to confirm an intention to take the programme of modules, subject to any RPL which is approved. If the student is already approaching preparation for Confirmation of Registration, then it will not be appropriate to transfer to the Integrated Route.

Supplement for Professional or Practice-based doctorates It is only appropriate to consider transfer to the DProf if the student is at an early stage. If RPL consideration is requested, normal University RPL requirements apply. The student may only be awarded RPL for certificated achievement in respect of the taught modules. Formal RPL is not available in respect of Independent Research. The applicant should have a full interview with the Programme Leader and the prospective Director of Studies. If, having considered the points above, they are satisfied that the transfer to the DProf would benefit the student and the University is equipped and willing to support the student, the student will need to confirm an intention to take the programme of modules, subject to any RPL which is approved.

1.8 Enrolment

Enrolment is the process by which the University formally accepts a student and the student signifies acceptance of the University regulations and procedures.

1.8.1 All new PGR students should normally become aligned with an Institute or

Research Centre formally recognised by the University and any ‘clusters’ associated with these in which there is relevant subject expertise of a group of staff who can provide high quality supervision), and/or in relation to staff research and expertise that is aligned with one of the University’s Units of Assessment in the Research Excellence Framework.

1.8.2 Tuition fees and any project related charges (if applicable) are payable from the date of enrolment. All continuing PGR students are required to re-enrol in August each year.

1.8.3 If a student fails to re-enrol this will be reported to the relevant College

Research Committee. Research students are not entitled to any formal supervisory or advisory support, or access to any facilities, until enrolment or re-

23 of

23


enrolment has been completed. Where a student fails to re-enrol within 3 months the student will be automatically de-registered.

24 of

24


B2. Registration

2.1 Application for Registration

(For Variants in Integrated route and in the Professional or Practice-based doctorates, see further below)

Registration is the process by which the University formally recognises that the proposed work has the potential to satisfy the academic requirements of a specified award, including any specific training required beyond that provided by direct supervisory support. The responsibility rests with the College that has accepted and enrolled the student. Using the Application for Registration proforma, students may apply to register, as appropriate, for the

- the Master of Philosophy or - the Doctor of Philosophy

- the independent research phase/module of a Professional or Practice- based doctorate

2.1.1 Full or part-time Traditional Route students are normally required to upload an

Application for Registration within 12 weeks of enrolment. The CRC has the responsibility for considering applications for registration and deciding the outcomes.

2.1.2 The date of registration is backdated to the original date of enrolment.

Variant for the Integrated route towards MPhil or PhD:

These students are required to upload an application for registration within 6 months of enrolment.

Variant for Professional or Practice-based Doctorates

In order to remain on the programme Professional or Practice-based doctoral students are required to upload an application for registration for the Independent Research Module within 12 weeks of completing the taught element of the programme. The application for registration must be successfully completed within 8 months of completing the taught element of the programme, and the Independent Research Module cannot commence until registration has been approved.

25 of

25


2.2 Criteria for Registration

(For Supplements in the Integrated and Concurrent Publication routes and Variant in Published Works route, see further below)

In registering a student for a research degree of the University, the CRC should satisfy itself on each of the following:

2.2.1 The aims and objectives of the independent research are academically sound

and that the title reflects the proposed programme of research. 2.2.2 The further information sets out in clear terms the rationale and the scope of the

proposed independent research and the relative balance of any practice and theory components have been confirmed.

2.2.3 The plan of work is realistic and achievable. 2.2.4 The supervisory team arrangements are robust. 2.2.5 The student is scheduled to participate in any agreed programme of research

training beyond direct supervisory support and which is designed to strengthen her/his experience and knowledge of relevant research methods.

2.2.6 Any research training beyond that of direct supervisory support and which is set

down on the Application for Registration should be understood as a commitment on the part of the student, supported by the director of studies.

2.2.7 If the CRC is not satisfied with the application for registration it may, on one

occasion only, request major or minor revision. Major revision must return to the Committee for approval at its next meeting but minor revision may be approved by Chair’s action. The date of registration is backdated to the original date of enrolment. Where the application is judged to remain unsatisfactory, the student is failed and terminated.

2.2.8 Consideration has been given to all aspects of research governance including

relevant commercial contracts; risk assessment relative to health and safety; and initial ethical consideration.

2.2.9 Full ethical consideration and approval is sought via the University’s research

ethics processes in place at the time before any primary/practical research is undertaken.

2.2.10 If the student is working as a member of a research team, the work to be

undertaken by the student is clearly distinguishable from that of the wider team or the research worker who s/he is employed to assist. The student’s IPR position must be clear and satisfactory. Where the project is to be part of a piece of funded research, the terms on which the research is funded do not detract from the aims and requirements of the doctoral research.

26 of

26


Supplement for Professional or Practice-based Doctorates:

All students must successfully complete the modules specified in the programme and module specifications of their Professional or Practice-based doctorate before they can commence the Independent Studies phase/module. Supplement for Concurrent Publications route towards MPhil or PhD Students on this route must set out their plan of work with reference to the nature and planned location of the published and creative works they intend to produce during the period of registration Variant for Published Works route towards MPhil or PhD An Assessor is appointed and requested to comment on the coherence, quality and quantity of the published works, and their potential suitability for the award of Doctor of Philosophy/Master of Philosophy. For details, see Part C, section 1 of this document. The Assessor(s) considers the quality of evidence in the context of the field of research and also considers the candidate's contribution to multi-authored works where this is necessary. The Assessor receives a copy of these regulations and attention is drawn to the criteria used for the award of the PhD by Published Works. The purpose of the assessment is to decide whether there is a reasonable case for proceeding to registration.

2.3. Transfer of Registration Between MPhil/Master of Practice and

PhD/Professional and Practice-based doctorates

(For Supplement in Integrated Route and Variant in Professional or Practice-based doctorates, see further below)

Subject to support from the Director of Studies and any specific requirements of each route or the Programme Specifications of the Professional and Practice- based doctorates, students may apply for transfer between the four University of Derby routes towards MPhil/PhD and between these and the UoD Professional or Practice –based doctorates. For professional/practice based doctorates transfer to the PhD route can only be made at the RD5 stage.

2.3.1 A student who is on any route towards a PhD or who is on a Professional or Practice-based doctoral programme has decided that for personal reasons s/he would wish to change registration to the Master of Philosophy degree. This change may be requested at any time before the notification to submit for assessment.

2.3.2 A student who has been unsuccessful in the examination for the Doctor of Philosophy and has been advised to transfer to the Master of Philosophy because the thesis is considered to be at or close to the necessary standard. The master’s award may not be awarded simply by default following failure in an examination for the PhD.

27 of

27


2.3.3 Any change from Master of Philosophy to Doctor of Philosophy will have tuition fee and registration period implications. These will be confirmed by the Research Office.

Supplement for ‘Integrated’ route towards MPhil or PhD ‘Integrated’ doctorate students should have embarked already on the taught programme of research training which is mandatory for these students. If the student, having obtained the MRes, subsequently submits for Confirmation of Registration but does not fully satisfy the CRC that s/he is capable of meeting the more demanding requirements for the PhD, the CRC may decide that the student should progress to the degree Master of Philosophy. In this situation, the student will be required to change the registration to the Master of Philosophy (or terminate their studies). If the CRC is not satisfied with the submitted Application for Confirmation of Registration it may request major or minor revision. Major revision must return to the Committee for approval at its next meeting but minor revision may be approved by Chair’s action. Variant for Professional or Practice-based Doctorates Transfer to a track towards examination for an appropriate Master of Practice award may be approved when: (i) the student has completed the taught element of their programme but has been advised that they are unlikely to be successful in meeting the requirements for the Professional or Practice-based Doctorate; (ii) The student has completed the taught element of their programme and does not wish to progress any further but would like the opportunity to submit for the Masters award (iii) The student has failed to satisfy the examiners for the registered award after examination of a thesis which has been revised following referral. A student who has failed to obtain a Professional or Practice-based doctoral award may transfer registration to the Master of Practice award and be examined for that award within (normally) 3 months. Such students enrol on a 60 credit independent masters module (see individual Professional or Practice-based programme and module specifications, as appropriate). If the student is unsuccessful in the independent research masters module there will be no further options to resubmit.

2.4 The Target Submission Period

(For Variants in the Integrated and Published Works routes, and in Professional or Practice-based doctorates, see further below)

2.4.1 There is a strong expectation that students, supported by their directors of studies, will aim to complete and submit their works for examination within the target submission period.

28 of

28


2.4.2 The target submission periods for doctoral students are set out in the Table below, including for students enrolled on a Distance Learning basis.

Variant for Published Works route towards MPhil or PhD

The target period for submission is 1 year full time and 2 years part time. If the candidate has not given notification of the intention to submit by the end of the target period, the CRC will request a short Progress Report (100-500 words) to be submitted within one month. This Progress Report should be written by the candidate and endorsed by the Director of Studies. The Report should indicate the cause of the delay and the expected date of submission. In the event that the candidate encounters exceptional and compelling extenuating circumstances that make completion within the registration period unlikely CRC is authorised to extend the period of registration for up to twelve months giving a maximum total registration period of three years for full-time students and four years for part-time students.

Table Showing Target and Maximum Registration Periods

2.5 Changing the Target Submission Period/Mode of Study

In exceptional circumstances, a full time student may request that s/he be transferred to a part time mode with a longer target submission period and maximum registration period.

2.5.1 This facility is only available up to the end of the second year of full-time study for a student who is unable, for compelling personal reasons, to continue on a

Award Full or Part time Target Submission Period

Maximum Registration Period

For Traditional route MPhil; MPhil by Concurrent Publication route (staff only);

FT PT

2 years 4 years

3 years 6 years

Traditional route PhD; PhD by Concurrent Publication route (staff only);

FT PT

3 years 6 years

4 years 8 years

Integrated route PhD

FT PT

4 years 6 years

5 years 8 years

PhD by Published Works route

FT PT

1 year 2 years

2 years 3 years

Doctoral Award in Professional and Practice-based doctorates (including the taught phase)

FT PT

N/A 6 years

N/A 8 years

29 of

29


full time basis. In this situation, any studentship held is usually terminated and the student’s Confirmation of Registration due date, target submission date and maximum date are revised by the Research Office.

2.5.2 If circumstances argue for it, with the approval of their Director of Studies, students may also apply also to change from part-time to full-time student, as well as to and from Distance Learning.

2.5.3 Such proposed changes are subject to CRC approval normally through Chair’s Action. Full time students are not permitted to change the target submission period after the end of their second year. Changes should be approved by the Chair of CRC and reported to the next Committee meeting.

2.6 Expiry of the Target Submission Period

PGR students are discouraged from exceeding the target submission period. However, students may be permitted to continue their studies on an agreed basis.

2.6.1 At this point any change from full to part time study does not result in a change

to the registration period. Full Time Students that have not submitted their final thesis for examination by their target submission date have their supervisory hours reduced to the part time rate. At this point the fee changes to the part time annual fee until the thesis is submitted for examination.

2.7 The Registration Period

The registration period is the maximum time that a student is permitted to undertake and complete the examination for the award.

2.7.1 Once the registration is approved, the period of registration is taken from the date of initial enrolment and is therefore defined as the time between the date of enrolment and the date of the [final] viva-voce examination.

2.7.2 If the student has not submitted a thesis by the time the registration period expires, the student is deemed to have failed to complete.

2.7.3 When there are exceptional and evidenced personal circumstances, the CRC has powers to approve a request for the suspension or extension of the registration period.

2.8 Suspension of Registration

In the event of exceptional adverse personal circumstances, a student may request that their registration be suspended for up to three periods totalling a maximum of one year.

30 of

30


2.8.1 The student should gain the agreement of the director of studies and submit a written request to the Chair of the CRC. All suspensions of registration must be reported to the next Committee meeting and where appropriate seek advice from Student Wellbeing.

2.8.2 As a consequence of a period of suspension the end of the registration period is moved back by a period equal to the duration of the suspended registration. Suspensions cannot be backdated. For the duration of any suspension the individual suspended ceases to be classified as an active student.

2.8.3 Students in their final year of registration may not request a suspension of registration but should rather seek an extension to their registration period.

2.9 Extension of the Period of Registration

Students who are affected by exceptional adverse personal circumstances in the final year of the registration period may request that their registration period be extended.

2.9.1 The student should gain the agreement of the director of studies and submit a

written request to the Chair of the CRC and where appropriate seek advice from Student Wellbeing.

2.9.2 The request should be accompanied by a progress chart for approval. All extensions of registration must be reported to the next Committee meeting. This should be done at least one month before the expiry of the registration period.

2.9.3 The period of registration may be extended for a period of up to one year on one occasion only.

2.9.4 The period of extension commences from the date of expiry of registration.

2.10 Withdrawal from Registration

Students who are contemplating withdrawal from registration are required to consult with the director of studies before taking action. All reasonable avenues for the continuation of the research will be considered. MPhil or PhD students or Professional or Practice-based doctoral students in their Independent Studies phase who finally decide to withdraw are requested to complete the withdrawal proforma. Any adjustments to fees due upon withdrawal from the programme will be calculated from the date the withdrawal form is received by the Research Office.

2.11 Termination of Registration

31 of

31


If, in the consideration of a registered student, the CRC decides that her/his academic progress is unsatisfactory, the Committee is empowered to require the student to be formally interviewed by the Chair of the CRC or nominee and/or write to the student with a formal warning. These actions can be undertaken in connection with the application for Registration; with the review of the annual progress reports submitted by the student and/or the Director of Studies; with the Confirmation of Registration process; on the advice of the Director of Studies and/or at other times deemed necessary by the Committee. The Committee is able to take into account the student’s engagement or otherwise with any special reporting or progress mechanisms put into place by the University in connection with the terms or conditions of the grant of a University of Derby postgraduate research studentship (in one or other of the forms – Postgraduate Teaching Assistantship, Postgraduate Research Assistantship, and Postgraduate Studentship; a University of Derby “fees only” doctoral bursary; or the conditions of any externally sponsored studentship; or “fees only” bursary on the basis of which the University has enrolled the student.

2.11.1 The formal interview and/or warning should explain why the progress is

considered unsatisfactory and should set out any conditions which the Committee may decide to be necessary for continued registration.

2.11.2 If a formal warning has been given and any specified conditions and milestones have not been met, the Committee may terminate the student’s registration. The decision to terminate based on unsatisfactory progress may take into account such factors as: failure to produce work in a timely manner or in a way that is commensurate with the quality expected for ultimately successful doctoral level submission for examination; and/or failure to engage with supervision or other aspects of the programme.

2.11.3 The grounds for the decision must be explained, and the student shall be reminded of her/his rights to use the University Appeals Procedure.

2.12 Student Participation Policy

The University expects students who have enrolled on a programme to participate fully in the learning activities associated with the programme to undertake any assessment attached to the programmes or modules on which they are enrolled. To this end the completion of the enrolment process includes a commitment to the following Participation Contract:

‘Unless I have specifically elected not to do so at the time of enrolment, I undertake to participate fully in those activities which are described in the programme as essential and that I will inform my Director of Studies if circumstances oblige me to miss any of these activities. I recognise that failure to participate adequately in these essential activities may lead to termination of the enrolment of my programme of study I understand that I will be invited to explain my failure to participate before termination of the programme occurs

32 of

32


and failure to engage in this process will be considered to be withdrawal.’ For PGR students, the participation contract will also be considered as breached in either of the following circumstances, unless the student has negotiated alternative acceptable arrangements with their Director of Studies.

2.12.1 The student has missed any 3 consecutive expected interactions without good

cause. The student will be given 14 days to confirm their intention to continue studying on the programme. If there is a nil response, or a negative response, their enrolment on the programme will be terminated.

2.12.2 The student has intermittently missed 3 or more expected contacts without approved extenuating circumstances. The student will be given 14 days to contact either their Director of Studies or the Research Office. If this action is not forthcoming, registrations for the programme will be terminated. 2.12.3 The termination of a student’s study must be approved by the relevant CRC.

33 of

33


B3. Supervision of Research Students and Training and Mentoring of Supervisors

3.1 The Appointment of the Director of Studies and Second Supervisor

Normally, all students are assigned two supervisors each, one of whom is designated Director of Studies, and the other is designated second supervisor.

3.1.1 It is the responsibility of the supervisors to provide academic guidance in the

conduct of the research. The director of studies is responsible for monitoring the progress of the student, co-ordinating the supervision and providing proactive academic and pastoral support. The supervisors are expected to be in contact with the student on an agreed regular basis.

3.1.2 All the supervisors shall normally hold a doctorate and the two supervisors should, between them, have expertise relevant to the research topic and have supervised at least two Doctoral students to successful completion.

3.1.3

No member of the supervisory team should themselves be registered for a supervised postgraduate research degree at the University and should normally be an established (full time or fractional) member of academic staff of the University, or an Associate Lecturer with a Schedule of Work to undertake the research supervision concerned. The second supervisor may be external, in which case s/he is required to sign a formal written agreement to undertake this role and should normally be contracted as an Associated Lecturer with a Schedule of Work for this role.

3.1.4 For distance learning students, the second supervisor may be located in the student’s country of residence. If the second supervisor is external, the College should appoint this person to a formal contract as an Associated Lecturer with a Schedule of Work to provide proactive advice on an agreed regular basis over the target submission period.

3.1.5 Neither the director of studies nor the second supervisor should be a close

relation (spouse/partner/sibling/parent) of the student.

3.1.6 If a college/department manager wishes to enrol for a postgraduate research degree they must be enrolled in a different college/department or University. The University does not permit those holding a management role in a college/department to enrol as a research student in the same college/department, or to be supervised by a Director of Studies that they line manage.

34 of

34


3.1.7 The number of concurrent supervisions across all forms of doctoral supervision [as director of studies or second supervisor] that a member of staff undertakes is assessed on a points system as set out in the table below. The maximum number of points for any one supervisor is normally forty.

Category Director of Studies DoS

Second Supervisor SS

1 Full Time (MPhil or PhD) 4 points 2 points

2 Part Time (MPhil or PhD)

3 points 1.5 points

3 Full Time (DProf) 4 points 2 points

4 Part Time (DProf) 3 points 1.5 points

3.1.8 If a proposed supervisory package has satisfactory research experience but

insufficient supervisory experience, the Chair of CRC may appoint a CRC approved mentor to the supervisors. This should be reported to the next meeting of CRC.

3.2 The Appointment of Approved Mentors to Support Supervisors with Less

Experience of Supervision

In the case of a proposed supervisory package which has sufficient research qualifications or experience but insufficient supervisory experience, the Chair of CRC may appoint a Mentor to the supervisors.

3.2.1 The function of the mentor is to offer advice to the supervisors on a regular and on-going basis. The mentor is not an additional supervisor. The Chair may only appoint Mentors who have been approved for this role by CRC.

3.2.2 In order to be considered for recognition as a mentor, researchers can apply to the CRC via a short statement of 100-200 words and provide a list of successful doctoral supervisions with dates. To be approved as mentors, researchers must have supervised at least two PGR students to completion at doctoral level and have a good reputation as a supervisor.

3.3 Changes to the Supervisory Arrangements

Following enrolment and the appointment of the supervisors the student may seek, or the CRC may deem it necessary to make, changes to the supervisory arrangements.

3.3.1 Any proposed change must have the agreement of the student and must be

35 of

35


formally approved by the Chair of CRC and reported to the next CRC meeting. The College is responsible for taking immediate steps to replace supervisors who leave the University. The interests of the student are paramount and disruption to the supervisory package is to be regarded as a serious matter.

3.3.2 In the event of a change being sought as a result of a student complaint, students should normally demonstrate that they have first attempted to resolve the difficulty directly with the director of studies and the Chair of the CRC.

3.3.3 In highly exceptional circumstances where it becomes clear that the University is no longer able to provide a satisfactory supervisory arrangement, it may be deemed necessary to arrange for the student to be transferred to another institution.

3.4 Staff Development for PGR Supervisors

Staff development is important for all supervisors.

3.4.1 Prospective supervisors are expected to take the centrally organised training in

Research Supervision at the first opportunity which may be done simultaneously with the first supervisory duties.

3.4.2 Experienced supervisors who join the University and start to become assigned to supervisory packages are also encouraged to attend the training in order to become familiar with the University of Derby’s PGR procedures and arrangements.

3.5 The Appointment of Advisers

In addition to the supervisors, the College may, at its discretion, appoint formally recognised internal or external Advisers who can, for example, contribute specialised knowledge, or provide a link with an external organisation. Such Advisers do not carry supervisory responsibility or accountability.

3.6 Annual Progress Reports

All MPhil or PhD students and Professional or Practice-based doctoral students in their Independent Research phase are required to upload a brief annual progress report at the end of each academic year.

3.6.1 Submission of the annual report is a pre-requisite for re-enrolment. The purpose

of the report is to assure the CRC that progress is satisfactory. If there have been problems the report should indicate whether they have been addressed. The director of studies writes a separate report.

3.6.2 Both reports are considered by the Chair of the CRC who, where appropriate, should provide feedback expressing recommendations or concerns and, where needed, may bring individual student matters to the attention of CRCs.

36 of

36


3.6.3 If a Chair of CRC considers that a report is unsatisfactory he or she can require

a meeting with the student and/or Director of Studies, following which a letter should set out the reason for concern and set down any requirements. This may be issued as a formal written warning of unsatisfactory progress as a first step towards termination of registration, although every reasonable step should be taken to avoid this eventuality.

3.6.4 Additionally to the normal requirements for all postgraduate research students enrolled with the University, special reporting or progress mechanisms may be put into place by the University in connection the terms or conditions of the grant of a University of Derby postgraduate research studentship (in one or other of the forms – Postgraduate Teaching Assistantship, Postgraduate Research Assistantship, and Postgraduate Studentship); a University of Derby “fees only” doctoral bursary; or in connection with the conditions of any externally sponsored studentship or “fees only” bursary on the basis of which the University has enrolled the student.

37 of

37


B4. Confirmation of Registration

4.1 The Purpose of the Process

(For Variants in the Integrated and Published Works Routes, see further below). Students are required to confirm their Registration towards a specific award, normally either the Master of Philosophy or the Doctor of Philosophy, or a Professional or Practice-based doctorate.

4.1.1 To do this, students need to upload a completed Confirmation of Registration

proforma, upload a confirmation report and undertake a viva- voce with an approved assessor.

4.1.2 Full time students should aim to upload for Confirmation of Registration 15 months after initial enrolment, part time students should aim to upload for Confirmation of Registration 24 months after initial enrolment.

4.1.3 T h e CRC arrives at a decision based upon the recommendation of the Assessor who has read the documentation and discussed the research at the viva-voce examination.

Variant for Integrated route towards the MPhil or PhD Registration Full time Integrated route students are expected to have completed the taught programme and submitted their independent research to date for the award of the Master of Research within 16 months of initial enrolment. Part time students should aim to have reached the same stage within 22 months of initial enrolment. The decision to award the MRes is taken by the Programme Assessment Board in the form of a recommendation to the University Research Committee. Once the Programme Assessment Board has recommended the award of an MRes, the student is required to submit only the completed Confirmation of Registration proforma and a copy of the MRes dissertation abstract to the College Research Degrees Committee, and does not need to undertake a viva-voce examination. Full time students should aim to submit for Confirmation of Registration 24 months after initial enrolment, part time students should aim to submit for Confirmation of Registration 30 months after initial enrolment. The decision to confirm Registration towards the Doctor of Philosophy is taken by the College Research Committee after the award of the MRes. While Confirmation of Registration towards the PhD is dependent upon the award of the MRes, the award of the MRes degree does not mean that the CRC will automatically confirm Registration towards the PhD. For students on this route, the CRC must also review a transcript of the student’s performance in the MRes phase, including the grades achieved in the modules taken, together with the examiners’ reports on the Master’s independent

38 of

38


research submitted by the student. Variant for Published Works route There is no Confirmation of Progress for students on this route.

4.2 The Confirmation of Registration Report

(For Variant in the Concurrent Publication route, see further below)

The purpose of the Confirmation of Registration report is for the PGR student to demonstrate that s/he has developed a very good understanding of the field and is progressing with the research investigation in a manner which convinces the Independent Assessor that the intended award is appropriate.

4.2.1 The report should enable the Assessor to evaluate the progress achieved so far

in terms of the amount and standard of the research. Students are required to present a summary of the progress; an introduction including the rationale, aim and objectives, together with a full and critical literature review OR a full discussion of the research methodology.

4.2.2 The literature review/research methodology should be in the form of a well-developed draft chapter designed to contribute to the final thesis. This should be followed by a discussion of any problems, and a summary of the planned doctoral research.

4.2.3 The Confirmation of Registration report should include:

- A summary which is in the range of 300 to 1,200 words; - A clear statement of the rationale, aim(s) and objectives of the research with a

discussion of the progress achieved and a comment on the continuing appropriateness of the aim and objectives. Any changes to the approach, aim or objectives set out in the original registration application should be highlighted here;

- A copy of the research ethics application(s) and approval, and a note of any change in, or additional ethical approvals required prior to submission of the research for examination;

- A chapter presenting a full literature review OR a chapter providing a full discussion of the research methodology including a careful selection of representational data;

- A discussion of any problems encountered and the steps taken or planned to address them;

- A concluding section which sets out the programme of doctoral level research which will achieve the planned objectives.

39 of

39


Variant for Concurrent Publication route towards MPhil or PhD Within this route, instead of, as in the above, “a chapter presenting a full literature review OR a chapter providing a full discussion of the research methodology including a careful selection of representational data”, the Confirmation of Progress report should be accompanied by copies of any published or creative works, and/or such that are submitted and under formal consideration for publication/exhibition. 4.2.4 The length of the Confirmation of Registration report should be as follows.

- In the life and natural sciences, computing and engineering and similar

disciplines: the length should normally be in the range of 3,000 to 4,000 words and not exceed 6,000 words. This excludes the summary, figures, tables, list of references and appendices.

- In the arts, business, humanities, social sciences, education and law: the length should normally be in the order of 4,000 to 6,000 words and not exceed 12,000 words. This excludes the summary, figures, tables, list of references and appendices.

4.3 The Appointment of an Assessor

The Director of Studies should recommend the name of a researcher who can serve as an independent Assessor.

4.3.1 This researcher may be internal or external to the University but must not be a

member of the supervisory team. It is acceptable for an Adviser or a Mentor to undertake this role.

4.3.2 If the student is a member of staff of the University it is strongly advised that the assessor comes from outside the member of staff’s department.

4.3.3 The appointment of the Assessor should be approved by the Chair of the CRC. The director of studies is responsible for informing the Assessor of the requirements and is responsible for sending the completed Confirmation of Registration proforma and associated documents to the Assessor at a mutually agreed time.

4.4 The viva-voce Assessment

The director of studies is responsible for negotiating a mutually convenient date and venue for the Confirmation of Registration viva-voce examination between the PGR student and the Assessor. The venue will normally be held at one of sites of the University of Derby, although electronically supported personal interactions can also be utilised. From the supervisory team, normally at least the Director of Studies should participate.

4.4.1 The purpose of the viva-voce examination is for the Assessor to question the

PGR student on her/his critical knowledge and understanding of the research field and report progress in the research. It is an early opportunity for the PGR

40 of

40


student to experience deeper questions in a manner that can be expected in the final examination.

4.4.2 The student is expected to learn how to deal with questions which may challenge the approach, the methods and some interpretations. S/he is permitted to take a copy of the report into the viva-voce examination.

4.5 The Assessor’s Recommendation to CRC

The Assessor is asked to recommend whether, on the basis of the evidence presented in the report and the responses to questions posed in the viva-voce, there are good prospects of the student satisfying the requirements of the intended award.

4.5.1 If there are significant variations in the research from what was originally

approved at registration the PGR student should be advised whether the direction of the research is valid and acceptable. In the case of theory and practice elements it may be advisable to reconsider the balance. The recommendation should be one of the following:

(i) The student has made good/excellent progress in the independent research and CRC is recommended to confirm registration for the award stated in the Confirmation of Registration application. Suggestions may be offered to assist the student as s/he continues the research.

(ii) The student has made sound progress, however the student is asked to

address some significant matters and upload a revised Confirmation Report before a final decision can be made via Chair’s action.

(iii) The student has made limited progress and there are some serious

deficiencies in the Confirmation Report which are a cause for concern. The student is asked to rework and re upload the Confirmation of Registration report for re-assessment, with submission to be made by the next meeting of the CRC. A second viva-voce may be required. There is a risk that the Confirmation Report may be unsuccessful.

4.6 The CRC Decision

(For Supplement in the Integrated route, see further below)

CRC considers the uploaded RD7 together with the Assessor’s Report and recommendation. If, in the opinion of the Assessor, the student's progress and performance provide clear evidence of the potential to accomplish research at a doctoral standard, CRC will normally confirm registration for the higher award.

4.6.1 A positive recommendation (category (i)) should enable CRC to confirm the

registration.

41 of

41


4.6.2 Any suggested minor amendments can be noted by the student for the future work. Outcomes in categories (ii) and (iii) should lead to referral, of which there is only one opportunity.

4.6.3 If the Assessor is not satisfied following a referral opportunity, CRC has the option of either recommending a lower target award [if applicable] or concluding that the registration cannot be confirmed. The Director of Studies should warn the student informally that this outcome is probable. It may be advisable for the Director of Studies and the Chair of CRC to hold a meeting with the student to consider the implications of an unsuccessful outcome.

4.6.4 In the exceptional circumstance of very unsatisfactory progress CRC has the authority to terminate the registration.

Supplement for Integrated route towards MPhil or PhD

CRC can also take into account whether a student has struggled to attain the Master of Research degree and CRC has serious doubts about the ability of the student to gain the doctoral award. In this context, the CRC can decide that the student must either transfer registration to the Master of Philosophy or terminate their research studies. Continuation of registration for the Doctor of Philosophy is not an option.

42 of

42


B5. Final Examination for an MPhil or PhD, or for a Professional or Practice-based Doctorate

5.1 The Two Stages of Assessment

Candidates for the final examination must have satisfied the requirements for the Confirmation of Registration. The final examination has two components. Firstly, the works submitted are formally examined. Secondly, the candidate is examined through a discussion of the principal outcomes of the research. The candidate is expected to be able to defend the validity of any contribution which is judged to be original. This constitutes a viva-voce examination.

5.2 Notification of Intention to Submit for Examination

The decision to submit works for examination is the responsibility and right of the candidate. The candidate is, however, required to seek the signed agreement of the Director of Studies and should ensure that s/he has satisfied any outstanding requirements relating to research training.

5.2.1 Notification of the intention to submit should be submitted to the Research

Office, on the appropriate form, three months in advance of the proposed date of submission. Following submission of the relevant proforma, if the thesis is not submitted within 6 months the profroma becomes void and a new proforma must be submitted.

5.2.2 If the director of studies does not agree that the thesis is ready for submission, s/he must indicate this view in the space provided on the form and should submit separately a confidential statement to the Research Office explaining why s/he does not support the candidate’s decision to submit at this time.

5.2.3 This statement should be made known to the Chair of the examination before the examination takes place, but must not be conveyed to the examiners. The information is made known to the University Research Committee when it receives the recommendations of the examiners.

5.3 The Appointment and Qualifications of the Examiners

It is the responsibility of the director of studies to recommend to the Chair of CRC the names of the examiners to be appointed.

5.3.1 The Chair of CRC considers the suitability of the proposed examiners and makes recommendations for appointment to be reported to the next Committee meeting. The Chair or Vice Chair of the University Research Committee considers the recommendations for approval.

43 of

43


5.3.2 Following the approval of the proposed examiners, responsibility for making the arrangements for the viva-voce examination rests with the Research Office in consultation with the Director of Studies and the candidate.

5.3.3 The appointment of all examiners is formally undertaken by the Registrar on behalf of the Academic Board of the University. The Director of Studies should confirm informally the willingness of the proposed examiner to act in this capacity but under no circumstances should s/he attempt personally to appoint the examiner or make arrangements for the examination.

5.3.4 There shall normally be two examiners; one external and one internal. An internal examiner is defined as a member of the established academic staff (whether full-time or fractional) of the University or an Associated Lecturer holding a Schedule of Work covering the conduct of the examination. The Research Office appoints the Chair of the proceedings. (See Appendix 2 for guidance on the role of the Chair)

5.3.5 When the candidate is employed as an established (either full-time or fractional) member of staff at the University, or is an Associate Lecturer fulfilling a current Schedule of Work, both examiners should be external.

5.3.6 Examiners should be experienced in research in the general area of the candidate's work and, where practicable, have experience as a specialist in the topic(s) to be examined. They must not be registered for a supervised research degree.

5.3.7 The examiners should normally have, between them, experience of examining at least three previous research degrees. In the case of an examination of a doctoral candidate, the three examining experiences should be at this award level. In the case of an examination of a candidate for the Master of Philosophy, the examining experience must be at least at this award level. Any exception to this normal requirement shall be subject to the approval of the Chair of the University Research Committee and reported to its next meeting.

5.3.8 Exceptionally, where there is doubt about the adequacy of the two examiners to fulfil the objectives of the examination, a third examiner (external or internal) may be appointed.

5.3.9 The supervisors of the candidate are not permitted to serve as examiners of the candidate.

5.3.10 It is permissible for a researcher who has served as an Assessor of a submission for the Confirmation of Registration to be appointed as an Internal Examiner.

44 of

44


Supplement for Integrated Route towards MPhil or PhD

The University appoints an External and Internal Examiner for the assessment of the Independent Research leading to the MRes according to same procedure and considerations as above. It is acceptable for an examiner of the MRes thesis to examine the same candidate’s doctoral thesis. Variant for Published Works route towards MPhil or PhD In this route it is not acceptable for an Assessor of the prima facie case for registration to be appointed as an examiner.

5.3.11 An External Examiner must be independent of both the University

and any collaborating institution, and should not have acted previously as a supervisor of the candidate or another candidate in the same department within the last three years. Former members of staff of the University should not be approved as external examiners until at least three years after the termination of their employment at the University.

5.3.12 An external examiner should not be appointed so frequently that her/his familiarity with the department might prejudice objective judgement. A researcher should not normally be appointed as external examiner on more than three occasions in three years without compelling reason.

5.4 The Examination Process: Submission

5.4.1 Candidates must take no part in making the arrangements for the examination

and should have no formal contact with the external examiners between the appointment of the examiners and the viva-voce examination. Candidates must not discuss their thesis with their appointed examiners prior to the viva-voce examination.

5.4.2

A candidate should hand in to the Research Student Office four copies of the works [soft bound] which is to be assessed, within three months of submitting the notification to submit and upload to the system. When there are three examiners, an extra copy will be required at submission. Under no circumstances should the candidate or supervisors send the thesis directly to the examiners. A copy of the work to be assessed is also to be uploaded to the system and the Turnitin report completed.

5.4.3 Candidates should submit those works or materials which have been agreed

with the Director of Studies and set down in the notification to submit.

45 of

45


5.4.4 Candidates should ensure that any materials which provide evidence of the

sources of data cited in the printed works are available for the scrutiny of the examiners should the examiners request it via Research Office in advance of the examination.

5.4.5 Candidates must ensure that the format of the thesis is in accordance with the

regulations. 5.4.6 The Research Office is responsible for securely despatching the materials to the

examiners.

5.5 Formatting and Presentation of What is Submitted for Examination (For Variants in the Concurrent Publication and Published Works routes, and in Professional and Practice-based routes, see further below)

5.5.1 Conforming to the format requirements

The format and presentation of what is presented should conform to the requirements below. The Research Office may return submitted works that deviate significantly from these requirements to the candidate for re- formatting and will inform the supervisors of this.

5.5.2 The language of communication

Normally, the materials submitted for examination shall be written in English and the viva-voce examination shall also be conducted in English. Exceptionally, because of the inclusion in the thesis of reference to original materials in other than the English language, the nature of the study or of the works submitted may necessitate a variation of this norm in which case the candidate should seek approval from the CRC.

5.5.3 The written length of theses

The normal range in length for the body of theses submitted is set out below. If a candidate anticipates that the thesis which they are preparing is likely to vary outside the ranges given in the relevant part of the table, s/he should seek the formal approval of the Chair of CRC before proceeding to submission. These word numbers do not include references, bibliography, or appendices. Diagrams and charts are usually regarded as equivalent to the number of words otherwise occupying that space.

46 of

46


The general field of the thesis

Master of Philosophy Doctor of Philosophy

Science, computing, technology and arts & design

Up to 30,000 words Up to 60,000 words

Education, humanities, law, social sciences

40,000 – 60,000 words 75,000 – 100,000 words

The written length of the thesis when there is a creative element

Theory 20-40% of the whole MPhil: 15,000-20,000 words

Theory 40-80% of the whole MPhil: 20,000 to 25,000 words

Theory 20-40% of the whole PhD: 20,000-30,000 words

Theory 40-80% of the whole PhD: 30,000 to 60,000 words

Variant for the Concurrent Publication route towards MPhil/PhD Within this route, it is not a thesis, but a critical review that is prepared and submitted for examination along with the published works. For details of this see Part C section 2 of this document Variant for the Published Works route towards MPhil/PhD Within this route, it is not a thesis, but a critical review that is prepared and submitted for examination along with the published works. For details of this see Part C section 2 of this document. Variant for Professional or Practice-based doctorates

The general field of the thesis Masters Award Doctoral Award

Science, computing, technology, colour imaging 10,000 – 15,000 words 50,000 – 60,000

words

Education, humanities, law, social sciences, business, arts 15,000 – 20,000 words 50,000 – 60,000

words

The written length of the thesis when there is a creative element

47 of

47


Theory 20-40% of the whole Masters: 15,000-20,000 words

Theory 40-80% of the whole Masters: 20,000 to 25,000 words

Theory 20-40% of the whole Doctoral: 20,000-30,000 words

Theory 40-80% of the whole Doctoral: 30,000 to 60,000 words

5.5.4 The statement of intellectual ownership

In the case of a collaborative research investigation or publications presented for examination, the candidate should include as a preface to the thesis, a full statement setting out clearly the part played by the candidate in the investigation and the extent to which s/he is responsible for the different sections of the submitted thesis. Any significant input of original material by the supervisors must be stated here. (See also University Intellectual Property Rights Policy). Candidates should place the statement of intellectual ownership on a separate page following the contents page and preceding the abstract.

5.5.5 The abstract

The thesis or critical review must include an abstract of 300-500 words which provides a synopsis of the thesis stating the nature and scope of the work undertaken and the contribution to knowledge and understanding of the subject studied.

5.5.6 References or Bibliography

The thesis or critical review shall contain a comprehensive systematic listing of the published sources of material consulted. This may take the form of a bibliography of relevant works or it may take the form of a list of references for every work that has been cited in the thesis or critical review. The extensive use of footnotes to provide references for cited sources of information is not acceptable. The decision as to whether to use a bibliography or references is a matter for the candidate in consultation with the Director of Studies. The main consideration should be the practice norm in the discipline under investigation.

5.5.7 Appended works

A candidate may place materials that s/he judges to be essential supporting information in appendices which follow the bibliography or references. Appendices must be of hard copies only. USBs and CDRoms are not acceptable. The decision as to what should, or should not, be included in the appendices is a matter for the candidate with the advice of the Director of

48 of

48


Studies. Some subjects operate a normal practice in the use of appendices.

5.5.8 Request for confidentiality

Theses and other materials submitted for doctoral examination are generally to be understood as being a publicly available contribution to knowledge. Following the approval of the award of a degree the student shall lodge an electronic copy of the final thesis with the library for uploading onto the University of Derby Online Research Archive (UDORA) and the Research Office will not authorise the Certificate of Award until the library has confirmed that the thesis has been uploaded onto UDORA. The University's regulations on the Intellectual Property Rights of students apply. On request to the library, and to enable them to publish their work elsewhere, a PGR student has the right to an embargo on making their thesis publically available through the University’s Electronic Repository (UDORA) for a period not exceeding 24 months. If a student wishes confidentiality to remain in force for a period longer that 24 months, then the student must, prior to submission of their thesis to Research Office for examination, apply for this to the University Research Committee. Extended confidentiality permission will normally only be granted on grounds of commercial or public sensitivity or security, or to protect a source of information rather than because of any delay in relation to publication as such. If the thesis is agreed as embargoed for public access, it shall nevertheless still be uploaded onto UDORA on restricted access for the duration of the approved period.

5.5.9 Formatting of the thesis and critical appraisal

(i) The format should be A4 size, white and within the range of 70

g m² to 100 g m². (ii) The text should be clear and legible using a standard font such as Times

Roman or CG Times. The print size for standard text should be 12 point although a smaller size down to 10 point may be used in specific situations such as tables where this is appropriate, such as in tables or figures.

(iii) The text should be printed with one and a half line spacing. (iv) The text should normally be printed on both sides of the paper

but if there are reasons why this would be unsatisfactory, the printing may be on the right hand page [recto] only.

(v) Margins should not be less than 20mm unless printed on one side only then the left hand margin [bound side] should not be less than 20 mm.

(vi) The pages shall be consecutively numbered through the main body of the text and the bibliography/references. The pagination should apply to diagrams or charts that occupy a

49 of

49


whole page. The appendices should have a separate pagination.

5.5.10 The order of contents of the thesis or critical review

Candidates should normally present the thesis with the contents ordered as follows:

(i) the title page [see appendix 3(i) for the format]; (ii) the list of contents including chapters and chapter sections; (iii) the list of figures, tables and a glossary of nomenclature if relevant; (iv) the preface stating that the research and writing are the candidate’s own

and, if undertaken as part of a wider project, the extent of the candidate’s contribution and confirming that their research has been ethically approved;

(v) the abstract; (vi) the acknowledgements; (vii) the main body of the thesis or critical review; (viii) the list of references or the bibliography; (ix) the appendices, including a copy of the request for ethical approval and a

copy of confirmation of that approval; (x) pocket with other hard copy materials as appropriate.

5.5.11 The binding of theses

It is acceptable for theses or critical reviews which are being submitted for examination, to be soft-bound or comb-bound such that the order of pages is fixed and the examiner can handle the document with ease. The use of files and ring binders is not acceptable.

5.5.12 The number of copies required

A candidate should hand in to the Research Student Office four copies of the works [soft bound] which is to be assessed, within three months of submitting the notification to submit. When there are three examiners, an extra copy will be required at submission. Under no circumstances should the candidate or supervisors send the thesis directly to the examiners. A copy of the work to be assessed is also to be uploaded to the system and the Turnitin report completed.

5.5.13 The examination of creative works

The examiners must have the opportunity to view any creative works in an exhibition or other suitably accessible format. It is not sufficient to present images of the works within the theory element. The exhibition should normally be mounted in Derby. Alternative venues are only permitted with the approval of the relevant Dean of College and the Research Office.

5.5.14 Upload of thesis to UDORA

50 of

50


Following corrections/revision, an electronic copy of the final thesis or critical review should be submitted to the library for uploading into the University of Derby Online Research Archive (UDORA). The Research Office will not authorise the Certificate of Award until the final version of the thesis has been uploaded to UDORA.

5.6 The Examination Process: Reports

Each examiner examines the works submitted and decides provisionally whether these works satisfy the requirements of the degree. S/he then completes a preliminary report setting out the provisional recommendations for the outcome of the examination and explaining the reasons for these recommendations.

5.6.1 The preliminary reports must be completed independently on the designated

forms without consultation with the supervisors or the other examiner, and submitted to the Research Office at least seven working days before the viva-voce examination. The provisional recommendation may be revised following the viva-voce examination. Copies of the preliminary reports will be sent to the Chair and exchanged between the examiners.

5.6.2 Normally, the examiners are expected to proceed to a viva-voce examination. However, where, they may recommend fail (see 5.12 E); transfer of registration to masters award (5.12 D) or exceptionally where an academic offence is suspected (5.12 E) they may proceed without holding the viva-voce examination. In the case of 5.6.2 occurring, the candidate should seek a further meeting with normally the Independent Chair, the internal examiner and a representative of the Research Office in the presence of their supervisors, to clarify the decision. The Research Office should allow reasonable time for the decision.

5.6.3 A recommendation to cancel the viva-voce examination must be received at least seven working days before the scheduled date. It is normally deemed unacceptable to cancel the viva-voce examination after that point.

5.7 Assessment Criteria for the Award of the Doctorate

Each criterion should be considered and applied in context.

5.7.1 The originality of the works submitted and the advancement of the subject.

Guidance: The originality of the contribution is of fundamental importance in the consideration of the doctoral thesis. The assessment of originality can only be made in the context of the subject of enquiry but in general terms the plain addition of information [adding knowledge] may not be deemed sufficient. The development and refinement of concepts, theories or models [deepening understanding] is generally regarded as more significant. Translation from one language to another may be deemed to making an original contribution only if

51 of

51


the candidate can demonstrate further analysis, interpretation or other significant contribution in the critical appraisal. Translation may form a substantial part of the work but there must be a further contribution.

5.7.2 Powers of critical analysis and/or synthesis Guidance: Examiners will consider the intellectual rigour of the study, in particular, they will consider the depth of the critical analysis and the effectiveness of any synthesis contained in the submitted work.

5.7.3 Understanding of the context Guidance: The candidate must demonstrate that they have a good appreciation and understanding of the historical, conceptual and theoretical context of the research which has been undertaken.

5.7.4 Command of the relevant research methodology Guidance: An important part of research training is the development of research skills and knowledge of the research methodology in the field. This should be strongly evident in the submitted work.

5.7.5 Coherence of the overall submission Guidance: There should be a demonstrable coherence to the thesis. Examiners are advised to assess the coherence on the strength of the arguments presented rather than with reference to pre-determined expectations.

5.7.6 Critical reflection by the researcher Guidance: The candidate should make a well-balanced and self-critical evaluation of the extent of their contribution. This evaluation may extend to the candidate’s own developing understanding of the research methodology. The examiner should find evidence of a critical and objective assessment on the part of the candidate.

5.7.7 The quality of presentation Guidance: The examiner should assess the thesis for a high level of attainment in the structure, design, cogency of argument and literary style of the submitted work. They should also assess the quality of illustrations and charts.

5.7.8 Sufficiency of materials Guidance: In so far as it is possible, the examiner is asked to assess whether the magnitude of the submitted work compares satisfactorily with doctoral requirements elsewhere. The candidate is given some guidance in terms of

52 of

52


expected length.

5.8 Assessment Criteria for the Award of the MPhil

Each criterion should be considered and applied in context.

5.8.1 A contribution to the understanding and advancement of the subject.

Guidance: The thesis should make a contribution to the understanding and advancement of the subject. The plain addition of information [adding knowledge] may not be deemed sufficient. Some development and refinement of concepts, theories or models [deepening understanding] is generally regarded as more significant. Translation from one language to another may be deemed to making an advancement only if the candidate can demonstrate further analysis and interpretation or other significant contribution in the critical appraisal. Translation may form a substantial part of the work but there must be a further contribution.

5.8.2 Powers of critical analysis and/or synthesis Guidance: Examiners will consider the intellectual rigour of the study, in particular, they will consider the critical analysis and the effectiveness of any synthesis contained in the submitted work.

5.8.3 Understanding of the context Guidance: The candidates must demonstrate that they have some appreciation and understanding of the historical, conceptual and theoretical context of the research which has been undertaken.

5.8.4 Command of the relevant research methodology Guidance: An important part of research training is the development of research skills and knowledge of the research methodology in the field. This should be evident in the submitted work.

5.8.5 Coherence of the overall submission Guidance: There should be a demonstrable coherence to the thesis. Examiners are advised to assess the coherence on the strength of the arguments presented rather than with reference to pre-determined expectations.

5.8.6 Critical reflection by the researcher Guidance: The candidate should make some evaluation of the extent of their contribution. This evaluation may extend to the candidate’s own developing understanding of the research methodology. The examiner should find evidence

53 of

53


of a critical and objective assessment on the part of the candidate.

5.8.7 The quality of presentation Guidance: The examiner should assess the thesis for the competence of its structure, design, cogency of argument and literary style. They should also assess the quality of illustrations and charts.

5.8.8 Sufficiency of materials Guidance: In so far as it is possible, the examiner is asked to assess whether the magnitude of the thesis and any collective works compares satisfactorily with research Master’s requirements elsewhere. The candidate is given some guidance in terms of expected length.

5.9 Assessment Criteria for the Award of the Independent Research element of the MRes staged award within the Integrated Route PhD

(For Supplement in the Integrated Route, see Part C below)

MODULE SPECIFICATION for the Independent Research element of the MRes staged award within the Integrated Route PhD

Module Title - INDEPENDENT RESEARCH

Module Level - 7

Credit Value - 80

Total Number of Learning Hours - 800 notional learning hours

Key Words - original research, independent learning

Mode - Online/Distance Blended/Face to face Work based learning

Module Description In this module master’s students will undertake an independent piece of research. This involves the planning, design, organisation and conduct of your research drawing upon the research methods and skills that you have developed in the earlier part of the programme. Consideration of any ethical and risk aspects of the investigation is important. The purpose of this module is to prepare you for more substantial research investigations at doctoral level. You will be working closely with your first and second supervisors to define the aims and objectives of your research and develop the detailed plan. You have the responsibility for the planning, development and conduct of the research but your supervisors will provide critical advice and guidance on the application of the methods, the interpretation of the data and the communication of the research in a thesis. Doctoral students taking this module in the master’s stage of the New Route PhD are expected to prepare a series of chapters which reflect the development of the research thus far. Normally, these chapters will include a literature

54 of

54


review discussing the setting of the research, the identified aim(s) and objectives, the methodology and perhaps some initial results. The research submission should provide a substantial base for the further development of the research in the doctoral stage. All students are expected to build confidence in their effectiveness as researchers capable of contributing significant new knowledge and understanding to their discipline.

Module Learning Outcomes

On successful completion of this module, students will be able to:

1. Demonstrate an advanced knowledge of the context of the research enquiry and the associated literature.

2. Demonstrate a command of the relevant research methods.

3. Demonstrate an ability to identify suitably challenging and appropriate aims and objectives worthy of investigation through a programme of research.

4. Demonstrate the ability to plan, organise and conduct a research investigation.

5. Demonstrate the ability to communicate, critically and effectively, the research arguments which enable the reader to appreciate and assess the new understanding.

6. Demonstrate the ability and readiness to progress to doctoral level research.

Module Content The module will include the following aspects: The identification of appropriate and suitable research aims and objectives The preparation of a literature review which introduces, enlightens and explains thereby giving the reader a critical understanding of the field. A critical analysis of the research methods which may be applied and the adaptations of the research methods that will be necessary in order to conduct the research. The planning and organisation of the research giving full consideration to any ethical or risk aspects which may apply. The drawing upon research skills developed through the online modules to enrich and inform the research. The structuring of a thesis in a logical and coherent manner. The communication of research data in a succinct and informative manner which makes the research accessible to the interested reader. The presentation of research findings in a coherent and cogent form.

55 of

55


Module Learning and Teaching

Methods Guided independent learning: 100%

Module Assessment Method - Formative Assessment Learning from formative assessment constitutes an important part of this module. Between them, the supervisors are expected to offer critical comment once on a draft version of every chapter of the thesis. This formative feedback in the form of guidance is the main vehicle for student learning.

Summative Assessment

Component 1: COURSEWORK

The assessment of the final thesis comprises two parts:

1. Assessment of the thesis with regard to content of the research, the originality of the research, the application of research methods, the quality of the literature review and the communication of the research.

2. A viva-voce examination which tests the ownership of the research and the ability to defend the research findings in a constructive dialogue. Students on master’s programmes are assessed independently by the first and second supervisors. They assess the thesis and then conduct a viva-voce examination in the order of one hour in length. In assessing the thesis the supervisors give particular consideration to the improvements achieved by the students in response to the critical guidance given through the formative assessment of the thesis chapters. Theses that are initially strong and theses where the student has clearly taken on board the advice and guidance given and responded positively and fully, perhaps going beyond the comments and suggestions, should be recognised in the marking. Students registered for the New Route PhD must be assessed by an external and internal examiner who should assess the thesis as the first part and foundation of a major research enquiry.

10000 – 15000 words. (100% weighting)

5.10 Examination of Submissions with Both Theory and Creative Work(s) Elements

5.10.1 The examiners should be informed of the following prior to agreeing to serve:

(i) The title and purpose of the doctoral study; (ii) The balance of weighting between the creative and theory elements as agreed

at the confirmation of registration stage; (iii) The planned location of the exhibition of the artworks; (iv) The expected timing of the submission and the exhibition. If the timing

56 of

56


subsequently changes, it is the responsibility of the director of studies to ensure that the Research Office is informed.

5.10.2 The examiner should examine the submitted works as an integrated whole.

The quantified weighting, re-confirmed Confirmation of Registration, should serve as a guide to the respective magnitude and importance of the elements.

5.10.3 The examiner should have regard to the totality of the works submitted in order to judge the sufficiency of the submission. For example, s/he should not expect or require a series of major artworks and a major thesis which might together equate to two doctoral theses. However, while the theory element in the critical review will normally be smaller in magnitude than a standard doctoral thesis, the standard of scholarship should be high and commensurate with the doctoral [or master’s] standard. The quality of written English and presentation including referencing should be high.

5.10.4 The viva-voce examination should follow examination of the exhibited creative works and the theory element in the critical review. The viva should be concerned with the overall work submitted and not just the creative works or the critical review.

5.10.5 Following the viva-voce examination, the examiners should come to a decision. They should comment on the creative works; the theory element in the critical review; and the performance in the viva-voce. All three elements must be satisfactory for the award to be made. Examiners may refer the theory element for revision, as necessary, even if the creative works form the major element and are considered satisfactory. If the creative works are considered unsatisfactory, the candidate should be referred and invited to resubmit. If the viva is unsatisfactory, the candidate may be asked to retake the viva-voce.

57 of

57


5.11 The Viva-Voce Process and the Appointment of a Chair The Research Office appoints a non-examining Chair for every viva-voce Examination.

5.11.1 The Chair is appointed from a pool of suitably qualified persons constituted by

lists of academic staff drawn up by Chairs of CRCs.

5.11.2 The function of the Chair is to conduct the examination and to ensure that the examiners are informed of the relevant University regulations during the examination process. The examiners are expected to plan and structure the viva-voce examination in a private meeting immediately before the viva-voce examination.

5.11.3 If confirmed by agreement on the part of the candidate and the examiners, the Director of Studies is expected to make every effort to attend. In this situation, the supervisors are strictly non-participatory unless the examiners choose to ask them questions.

5.12 The Doctoral or MPhil Viva-Voce examination

The viva-voce examination is concerned with the content of the submitted works and any other matters the examiners deem to be relevant to the assessment.

5.12.1 Waiving the viva-voce examination in exceptional circumstances

The viva-voce examination is a critically important part of the examination. However, if as the result of serious illness or disability or other extreme circumstance, the candidate is unable, or would be seriously disadvantaged if s/he was required to undergo a viva-voce examination, exceptionally the Chair of the University Research Committee may, in consultation with the examiners, decide by Chair’s action that the viva- voce is not required, reporting this to the next meeting of URC.

5.12.2 The location of the viva-voce examination

The viva-voce examination is normally held in the UK. In exceptional circumstances, the Chair of the University Research Committee may give approval for the examination to be held abroad or via video conferencing, reporting this to the next meeting of URC.

5.12.3 Presentations at viva-voce examinations

Candidates, following discussion with their director of studies, may ask the examiners for permission to present a brief (maximum 10 minutes) presentation at the beginning of the viva-voce examination. In making their decision the examiners will take into account sector practice in their discipline. Presentation is a facility the University permits rather than a practice that it recommends.

58 of

58


5.12.4 The examiners should aim to confirm that the contribution made by the candidate is consistent with the claims made in the works submitted for examination.

5.12.5 This applies particularly in the context of collaborative research and/or multi-

authored work, where the extent of the contribution may be in doubt. If the examiners remain uncertain on this matter, they may request an additional written statement from the candidate before coming to their decision as to the outcome.

5.12.6 The examiners have the right to ask supervisors to withdraw from the exam if

they deem it necessary. However they must be invited to return for the post viva feedback.

5.12.7 The Chair of the CRC and URC (or a designated senior member of those

Committees) may attend a viva-voce examination by right for the purpose of monitoring the process and reporting to the relevant Committee.

5.12.8 The viva-voce examination normally forms part of the formal examination of

the candidate and so it is not appropriate, prior to its completion, for the examiners to convey information regarding their overall assessment of the thesis. The examiners may, however, make opening remarks about (any) positive qualities of the thesis that they have identified and they are recommended to indicate the major areas that they will wish to discuss with the candidate. The discussion should be structured and constructive in spirit. (See the full guidelines on the conduct of viva-voce examinations in Appendix 1).

5.12.9 Following the viva-voce examination the examiners are expected to decide

their recommendations (Section 6.15) and to prepare and submit a joint post-examination report to the Research Office. The preliminary and the joint reports together should provide sufficiently detailed comments on the scope of the work and the quality of the performance to enable the Chair or Vice-Chair of the University Research Committee to understand the basis for the examiners' recommendations.

5.12.10Where the examiners are not in agreement, they should submit separate

post-examination reports with their recommendations. 5.12.11The examiners’ post-examination report(s) should be completed, signed and

submitted to the Research Office before they depart from the site where the viva-voce examination has been held. In addition, the examiners should also submit the list of any significant requirements for the resubmission of revised submitted works.

59 of

59


5.13 The Recommendations of the Examiners

(For Supplements in the Concurrent and Published Works routes, see further below)

5.13.1 Following completion of the first examination the examiners shall

recommend one of the outcomes listed below to the URC:

Recommendation Guidance: typical deficiencies- illustrative Only

Please tick

A PASS

The substance of the submitted work is acceptable as it stands. No substantive corrections or amendments are required. If minor textual or formatting matters have been identified by the examiners in a written list, these should be addressed and submitted within one month via the Research Office for the Chair to check they have been made before the Pass is formally confirmed via the Research Office on behalf of the University Research Committee

B MINOR AMENDMENTS

Some limited revision of matters of substance as distinct from textual or formatting matters alone is required but there are no significant problems which challenge the integrity of the research. A combination of such matters as: typographical and/or grammatical errors; minor omissions; presentational matters; some re- drawing of diagrams; references missing combined with more substantive but still relatively minor matters such as some rewriting of text to clarify arguments; the rewriting of an abstract, or the addition of literature references. In this instance it is normal for the internal examiner to check the amendments have been satisfactorily made and confirm this to the Research Office. Normally granted with up to six months.

C MAJOR AMENDMENTS

Major revision is required; a number of significant matters of substance to address such as significant omissions in the written discussion or errors of interpretation; inconsistent arguments; significant oversight in literature review; concerns about the sufficiency of the research; significant or major re-writing needed; major restructuring needed; poor English; a combination of these. In this instance it is normal for both examiners to check that the candidate has fulfilled the requirements for a successful outcome. Normally granted with between six and a maximum of twelve months. If given “major amendments” without another viva, the examiners’ decision stands.

60 of

60


D

FOR DOCTORAL AWARDS ONLY THE CANDIDATE IS ADVISED TO TRANSFER REGISTRATION TO THE MASTERS AWARD

A combination of such matters as: a lack of originality; serious flaws in the methodology; seriously inadequate interpretation; direction of research questionable; evidence of modest command of the subject; very weak presentation; many significant errors.

E1 FAIL: NO AWARD THE CANDIDATE IS NOT PERMITTED TO RESUBMIT

An academic offence is suspected by the examiners or has been acknowledged by the candidate. Examples of offences include: fabrication and/or falsification of evidence; plagiarism.

E2 An outcome of fail following resubmission and a second viva if applicable.

Supplement for the Concurrent Publications route towards MPhil or PhD In this route, the examiners cannot award a pass if the concurrent publications submitted for examination are judged to fall below the academic level appropriate to the examination in question, even if the critical view is judged to be at the appropriate level. If the examiners judge the concurrent publications to be at the appropriate level, but there are deficiencies identified in the critical review, then the examiners can require minor or major amendments to the critical review to be resubmitted by the candidate for the possibility of achieving an award at the original level examined. Exceptionally, if the examiners judge the concurrent publications to be at an appropriate level, but of insufficient volume for the academic level appropriate to the examination in question, but which nevertheless might realistically be supplemented within a resubmission period of one year, then they can require major amendments. This can include the opportunity for the candidate to achieve a small number of additional concurrent publications (including works formally accepted for publication within the timeframe), amending also the critical review as may be appropriate to include reference to these new concurrent publications, or in any other matter identified by the examiners as needing amendment. Supplement for the Published Works route towards MPhil or PhD In this route, the examiners cannot award a pass and nor can the candidate resubmit for an award at the same level if the published works submitted for examination are judged not to be sufficient in volume and/or to fall below the academic level appropriate to the examination in question. This is because this award is not designed as one within the framework of which the candidate is able

61 of

61


to produce new publications to meet the requirements of the award. However, if the examiners judge the published works to be at the appropriate level, but there to be deficiencies in the critical review, then they can require minor or major amendments to be resubmitted by the candidate for the possibility of achieving an award at the original level examined.

5.13.2 If the performance in the viva-voce examination was unsatisfactory, or if there are very substantial major amendments required where it may be advisable for the candidate to have opportunity, on resubmission, in person to explain aspects of what they have attempted to do in response to the requirements of the examiners, the student should also be required to retake the viva- voce examination.

5.13.3 If the submitted work is judged to be well below the necessary standard for the doctoral award, the situation must be treated very carefully. When they have very serious concerns about the ability of the candidate to respond to the revision that is required to achieve a Doctor of Philosophy or Professional or Practice-based doctorate, for routes 1-3 to the PhD the examiners should make the recommendation to transfer to the MPhil, or for Professional or Practice-based doctorates to the Master of Practice.

5.13.4 In the case of 5.13.3 occurring, the candidate should seek a further meeting with normally the Independent Chair, the internal examiner and a representative of the Research Office in the presence of their supervisors, to clarify the decision. The Research Office should normally allow up to 1 month for the decision.

5.13.5 In making the recommendation to transfer registration to the MPhil, the examiners should both outline the major amendments which are necessary for the candidate to undertake in order to achieve the doctoral award, but additionally outline what would be necessary for the candidate to do if submitting the research for examination for an MPhil or Master of Practice, as appropriate.

5.14 The Referral Opportunity

Candidates for an initial examination for MPhil, or for a PhD, or a Professional or Practice-based doctorate who are unsuccessful at the first attempt shall normally be offered only one further opportunity for resubmission for examination.

5.14.1 In the case of a candidate who has committed an academic offence which has

been proven or admitted, s/he shall not be awarded the research degree and shall not be permitted to resubmit for the award for which they originally submitted.

62 of

62


5.14.2 If the resubmission for an award is not successful, then the candidate is

deemed to have failed that award.

5.14.3 A candidate who transfers registration to the MPhil or Master’s of Research following failure at the doctoral level is only permitted to make one submission. If this is unsuccessful, then no degree is awarded.

5.15 Feedback to Candidates Following the viva-voce examination

Following the viva-voce examination, the examiners should inform the candidate of the outcomes of the examination.

5.15.1 The supervisors are entitled to be present for this feedback. There should be

sufficient explanation given for the candidate to understand fully the basis for the recommendation. However, the examiners must make it clear that their recommendations are subject to confirmation in writing via the Research Office, and that all recommendations are subject to confirmation by URC.

5.16 Approval of Recommendations for PhDs and Professional Doctorate Awards

Recommendations for the award of PhDs, the degrees of MRes and MPhil, and Professional or Practice-based doctorates are considered by the University Research Committee.

5.16.1 The URC must be satisfied that the examiners are in agreement that the

process has been conducted in accordance with these regulations.

5.16.2 The Chair or Vice Chair of URC may act on its behalf, providing that the list of examination outcomes for every successful candidate is presented to URC.

5.16.3 When the examiners are not in agreement, the examiners should submit separate post-examination reports in place of a joint post-examination report. The Research Office forwards the conflicting recommendations to the University Research Committee for consideration.

5.16.4 In the case of conflicting recommendations from the examiners, URC may take one of the following actions: - accept the recommendation of the external examiner; - in the event of an examination undertaken by three examiners providing at least one external examiner is in accord with the majority view, accept the majority recommendation - instruct that an additional external examiner should be appointed.

5.16.5 When an additional external examiner is appointed, s/he shall prepare an independent preliminary report on the basis of the submitted works and, if considered necessary, may conduct a further viva-voce examination. The new examiner should not be informed of the recommendations of the other

63 of

63


examiners.

5.16.6 The Research Office will present all the examiners’ reports and recommendations to the University Research Committee. URC must decide whether it will accept the recommendation of the additional external examiner. It must also confirm that the examination process has been conducted in accordance with the University regulations. If URC is not satisfied on both of these points it may order a full re-examination with new examiners.

5.17 Communication of Recommendations for Re-examination

In the event of a recommendation for minor or major amendments, the information must be communicated as follows.

5.17.1 Immediately following the viva-voce examination the examiners should

complete the joint post-examination report appending a list of the substantive points to be addressed in the revised submission. This must set out in sufficient detail to leave no doubt on the part of the candidate and his/her supervisors, the matters which must be addressed in order to allow a successful resubmission and re-examination.

5.17.2 The post-examination report, together with any list, should be submitted immediately following the viva to the Research Office, which is responsible for forwarding promptly a letter carefully explaining the outcome of the viva and the options for the way forward to the candidate and the director of studies.

5.17.3 If the examiners have compiled a list of minor errors for correction this should be included in the post-examination report.

5.17.4 The outcome of the examination is confirmed by written communication from the Research Office.

5.17.5 The candidate is not given the pre-examination reports because examiners may have modified their views following the candidate’s performance in the viva-voce examination.

64 of

64


B6. Re-examination for an MPhil or PhD

6.1 The Forms of Re-examination

A candidate who has been asked to undertake amendments may be re- examined once only. If the candidate has following a first examination transferred registration from the PhD to the MPhil, or from the Professional or Practice-based doctorate to the Master of Practice, the candidate has just one more opportunity.

6.1.2 Re-examination may take any one of the following forms: - re-examination of the submitted work only; - re-examination of the submitted work and a viva-voce examination; 6.1.3 The candidate should not have any direct contact with the examiners following

the formal feedback meeting. If there are queries, these must be communicated through the Research Office to the examiners.

6.1.4 The revised works must be submitted to the Research Office. The candidate does not need to give a further notification to submit unless a second viva is required as a deadline for re-submission is set by the examiners.

6.2 Period Permitted for Preparing for Re-Examination

The examiners should set a date by which a candidate who is required to revise a thesis must resubmit the work.

6.2.1 The period should be reasonable and sufficient. The maximum time allowed is

one calendar year from the date of the formal outcome of the first examination. 6.2.2 In exceptional circumstances the Chair or Vice-Chair of the University Research

Committee, advised by the chair of the CRC in consultation with the examiners, may approve a request for an extension of this period.

6.3 Action Required When Necessary to Appoint a New Examiner

Normally, the original examiners are expected to conduct the re-examination. This arrangement is intended to ensure continuity and consistency in the application of the standard for the award of a higher degree.

6.3.1 In certain circumstances such as long term illness or sabbatical overseas, an

examiner may not be available for the re-examination. In this situation it may be necessary for the Research Office to request the Chair of CRC to propose a replacement examiner.

65 of

65


6.3.2 The process of further appointment follows the normal procedure which requires consideration of the suitability of the examiner package.

6.3.3 Following approval of the revised examination package, the Research Office will

send a letter to the new examiner(s) confirming that the assessment is a re-examination. The letter shall be accompanied by a copy of the completed post-examination form from the first examination and a list of the requirements. The examiner is advised that the candidate has been asked to satisfy these requirements, and the examination should therefore focus on those matters rather than introduce new ones.

6.3.4 Where there may be a conflict in view between the original and the replacement

examiners, the new examiners are requested to act in continuity with the requirements of the first examination but are free to record their views for the attention of the University Research Committee

6.4 Recommendations Following Re-examination

6.4.1 The examiners may make the following recommendations following re-

examination:

- the candidate be awarded the degree for which s/he is registered, if necessary subject to minor textual or formatting matters only to be confirmed by the internal examiner;

- the candidate fails the degree and no further examination is permitted. - the candidate has failed a doctoral degree and is permitted to transfer

registration to the Master of Philosophy or Master of Practice award. 6.4.2 Following the resubmission of a thesis or critical appraisal or creative works, both

[or all] of the examiners must be satisfied that the revision has been carried out to a satisfactory standard if a positive recommendation is to go forward.

6.4.3 Where no viva voce examination is scheduled as part of the examination of

resubmitted work, if one of the examiners has, in their independently submitted report, indicated that the revised work does not in his/her opinion meet the standard for the award, then the Research Office, working with the Chair of URC or a designated representative, should facilitate a discussion between the examiners with a view to seeing if as a result of academic dialogue the examiners might be able to reach a common recommendation. But if following such dialogue, the examiners maintain a difference of view on the outcome, the award cannot be made. Where dialogue between the examiners has been necessary this should be reported to the University Research Committee for its awareness.

6.4.4 In the event of a recommendation from the examiners that the candidate should

fail, this recommendation is subject to confirmation by URC. The Committee may request a report from the CRC which sets out the circumstances, identifies the

66 of

66


causative factors, draws attention to any lessons which the College has learned and draws attention to any changes which URC may wish to consider.

6.5 Registration for Master’s Awards Following Unsuccessful Amendments

(For Variants in Professional and Practice-based doctorates, see further below) In the event of failure of a referral from a doctorate, the examiners may advise the candidate to register, as appropriate, for the Master of Philosophy or Master of Practice, or the candidate may themselves decide to register for these.

6.5.1 6.5.1 a) In these circumstances the registration must be lodged within one month

of the outcome of the referral and the period of registration is limited to a maximum of three months. The candidate must submit the thesis before the expiry of the registration period.

6.5.1 b) Following the resubmission of a thesis or critical appraisal or creative works, both [or all] of the examiners must be satisfied that the revision has been carried out to a satisfactory standard if a positive recommendation is to go forward.

6.5.2 If a further examination is deemed necessary the candidate will be required to pay

an examination fee, to be determined by the Research Office, at the time of submission of the thesis.

6.5.3 The outcome of this assessment is final. No further opportunity can be given to the

PGR student. In appropriate circumstances (as set out in the relevant policy) students may invoke the University appeals policy which does not, however, extend to matters of academic judgement.

67

Part C: Extended Regulatory Supplements or Variants

for Postgraduate Research Students (PGR) [via routes set out in the document] towards the awards of Master of Philosophy (MPhil), Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

and Independent Research by Thesis forming a part of Professional or Practice-based Doctoral awards

68

C1. Published Works Route Extended Regulations for the Appointment of the Assessor(s) for the Application for Registration in this Route

1.1 The Chair of the CRC will appoint a suitably qualified and experienced individual to act as an Assessor of the application for registration. The Assessor may be internal or external to the University but may not be one of the candidate’s supervisors.

1.2 The Research Office should send the relevant Application for Registration

form to the assessor(s) for completion of the assessors report and a recommendation. Normally, one assessor will be sufficient. However, if the Chair of CRC has concerns about the breadth of the field of research or the types of published works undertaken by the candidate, s/he may seek to appoint two assessors.

1.3 In the case of an external Assessor being appointed, a fee will be paid. A fee

of approximately one-half of the current standard examination fee is recommended.

1.4 The candidate prepares the Application for Registration in consultation with

the supervisors. The purpose of the Application for Registration is to demonstrate that there is a sound basis for proceeding to a formal examination of materials in about nine months’ time. A positive outcome should not be seen as a guarantee of a successful submission for the research degree in due course. The application for registration should include the following:

(i) details of the current position and period of employment; (ii) a brief summary of post-secondary educational background and

employment history; (iii) a list of all the published works on which the application is based and

which will be submitted in the final body of work and/or a list of the cited creative work(s) which are or have been in the public domain (e.g. public exhibitions) together with independent critical reviews of the work

(iv) a Summary, not exceeding 1000 words and Pub Work Application for Registration process to be the same as other doctoral routes.

(v) a declaration to confirm that the works have not been submitted for any other award or at any other institution;

(vi) a declaration to confirm that, where appropriate, ethical clearance has been obtained for research upon which the publications are based;

(vii) a statement to confirm the relative contribution made by the candidate in the case of collaborative works;

69

(viii) a statement to confirm when and where the work was carried out. The statement should also indicate any further work intended to complete the proposed submission of publications/creative works.

1.5 The candidate should submit two /three copies of the entire documentation

including a completed Application for Registration to the Research Office. The Research Office will forward the documentation to the Assessor(s) as soon as possible following receipt. The assessor will not be able to provide a sound recommendation on the basis of the titles of the works alone. Three copies are required if there are two assessors.

1.6 Following scrutiny of the documentation, the Assessor(s) completes the Assessor's Report section of the Application for Registration and returns the completed proforma and the supporting documentation to the Research Office. The Assessor(s) may make one of the following recommendations:

(i) acceptance of the case for registration for the award applied for; (ii) acceptance of the case, subject to minor amendments; (iii) referral of the case and an indication of the revision/further work to be

carried out; (iv) rejection of the case for registration for PhD with a recommendation

for registration for MPhil (v) rejection of the case for registration

1.7 Where there is more than one Assessor, if the reports of the Assessors are

not in agreement, the Chair of CRC should seek the advice of the Research Office and the Chair of URC.

1.8 If the CRC is not satisfied with the recommendation of the Assessor(s), it may request a report from a further Assessor. The Chair of CRC is advised to discuss the circumstance with the Chair of URC.

1.9 In the case of rejection, candidates should not normally re-apply for entry to this route to MPhil or PhD in less than two years unless the Chair of CRC encourages an earlier re-application.

70

C2. Concurrent Publications and Published Works Routes Extended Regulations for Examination

For the examination of works in these routes, the following shall apply:

2.1 A contents page and title page. The title page shall include in the following order; the approved title; the full name of the Candidate and the following statement ‘A submission in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the University of

Derby for the award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy or Master of Philosophy by Published Works’. or ‘A submission in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the University of Derby for the award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy or Master of Philosophy by Concurrent Publication’ as appropriate. The title should be followed by the name of the College in which the programme was undertaken and the month and year of submission;

2.2 An abstract, not normally exceeding 300 words, providing a statement of the nature and scope of the work undertaken and the contribution made to the knowledge or development of the subject;

2.3 A critical appraisal of the cited published/accepted works (all works

submitted must be either published or accepted for publication) which states the aims and provides a description of the research programme, an analysis of its component parts and a synthesis of the works as a coherent study. The length should not be less than 5,000 words and can be up to 8,000 words. The contribution of the original works to the advancement of the field of study shall be noted and an account given of its significance. Where the Candidate's own creative or scholarly work has formed a significant part or the whole of the intellectual enquiry, the critical appraisal shall clearly set the creative work, including scholarly text(s), in its relevant theoretical, historical, critical or design context. A full list of the references cited should be included. The critical appraisal should be softbound with thin card covers.

2.4 Candidates shall include an annex to the critical appraisal which sets out

concisely the following information:

a. an explanation of the candidate’s intellectual and written contribution to any co-authored works;

b. a brief explanation of the status and referee arrangements for each journal in which the candidate’s submitted works have appeared. In the case of unpublished reports, books or book chapters the candidate should explain the review and editing arrangements that have applied to each work.

71

C3. Integrated Route Extended Regulations on the Relationship between Research Reported in the MRes Thesis and the Following PhD Thesis

In the Integrated route PhD, the candidate is expected to undertake a single major research investigation culminating in a PhD thesis. The MRes thesis is therefore expected to mark a staging point in that work. 3.1 The Master of Research thesis should contain the elements which contribute

to the research and provide sufficient new material to satisfy the examiner that the candidate has a Master’s level grasp of the subject and the investigation. The candidate is expected to identify the aims and objectives; to critically discuss the methodology used in the research; and also provide an incisive literature review. Some candidates may also have some initial results which they can interpret.

3.2 It is not however expected to be a completed investigation. There should be

sufficient evidence to determine whether or not there is some original thinking evident. Naturally, much more will be expected of the subsequent doctoral thesis.

3.3 The outcome of the assessment of the Independent Research module in the

MRes Framework when taken as part of the Integrated PhD is Pass or Fail. In this instance grades are not applicable because the fundamental role of the research to date is formative rather than summative.

3.4 The material which makes up the MRes Independent Research thesis is

expected to provide the core material for the further development of the research and the preparation of a full doctoral thesis. It is expected that during the doctoral stage all aspects of the research will advance significantly as the on-going research leads to new in-sights and re-evaluation of the early material.

3.5 Therefore the doctoral thesis in the integrated route should build upon the

earlier thesis submitted for the Master of Research degree. The two principles are: (i) the examiners should be able to obtain a full picture of the research without recourse to previous works and (ii) the examiners are perfectly clear as to whether the presented work is drawn from an earlier work or is new.

3.6 In order to meet these two principles, the candidate should acknowledge the

earlier work citing properly the previous thesis as appropriate. Where it is desirable to restate information in order that the examiner fully understands the context for this second thesis, the MRes thesis should be quoted or a figure reproduced and acknowledged in the standard way.

3.7 In examining the doctoral thesis submitted in the integrated route, the criterion

of originality should be interpreted as the originality of the submitted works and the advancement of the subject achieved since the initial research reported in the Master of Research thesis.

72

Appendix 1 University of Derby

University Research Committee Postgraduate Research Degrees

Guide for the conduct of viva-voce examinations This short guide is designed to accompany the University regulations for candidates taking a higher degree by research. The viva-voce examination normally takes place after the assessment of the submitted work has been completed. This document is advisory in status.

1. The purpose of a viva-voce examination

There are two primary reasons for conducting viva-voce examinations. The first is to establish that the candidate is the owner of the intellectual property contained in the submitted work. The second reason is that the viva-voce examination has a major role to play in establishing the ability of the candidate to contextualise their practice. In the studio arts there is rather less concern about intellectual ownership and more concern about the candidate’s ability to contextualise their creative work. Through a structured discussion the viva-voce examination is expected to test the candidate’s command of the methodological and conceptual issues explored in the submitted work. The viva- voce is a significant part of the examination and is not a mere formality.

General principles

• It is the responsibility of the University Research Office, having consulted the Director of Studies and the candidate, to fix the date of the viva-voce examination. The Research Office requires a minimum of four weeks to arrange a viva voce examination. The candidate should have maximum possible advanced warning of the date and time of the viva-voce examination. In practice the Research Office should confirm the precise date, time and location in writing at least two weeks before the event.

• Normally, two examiners, one external and one internal, should conduct the viva- voce examination for a research degree. In certain circumstances, three examiners may be approved by the University Research Committee. In this situation all three examiners participate in the viva-voce. The maximum number of examiners who may examine a candidate in a viva-voce is three.

• In the case of candidates who are members of staff of the University the regulations require that there should be two External Examiners.

• An internal member of staff should be appointed by the Research Office as a Chair of the Examination Panel. The Chair should be experienced in research but s/he does not require a close knowledge of the field to be examined. The Chair has a neutral role in the viva-voce and is not an examiner. They will help to ensure that all the necessary arrangements are in place and that the University’s Regulations are understood and followed. The Chair will attend the viva-voce examination, and should be present at the agenda setting part of the examiner’s pre- meeting (see appendix 2 for full guidance on the role of the Chair).

• Examiners are required to forward their completed pre-examination reports to the Research Office seven working days prior to the viva-voce examination. The Director of Studies, supervisor/s and the candidate are not permitted to see these reports. The Chair appointed for the examination will be sent confidential copies of the reports prior to the examination.

73

• If examiners deem the work so unsatisfactory that a viva-voce would not serve any benefit, they can refer the work without holding a viva-voce. Any recommendation by the examiners to cancel the viva-voce examination must be received by the Research Office at least seven working days before the scheduled date.

• Directors of Study should organise a mock viva for the candidate at least two weeks before the viva, during which the candidate should be advised as to the general format of the viva

• The examination room for the viva should be set out so that the candidate has equal space and facility to the examiners. An arrangement of furniture with tables and chairs for both the examiners and the candidate will enable all parties to organise their reference materials. However, it may be decided that a less formal arrangement is preferable.

• The candidate should be advised of the approximate time envelope for the viva-voce examination (the average time for viva-voce examinations is 1hr 40mins).

Conduct of the viva-voce examination

• It is advisable to allow at least 30 minutes for a pre-viva meeting of the examiners to identify the issues to be raised.

• The code for the use of names should also be established at the beginning of the viva. Some examiners like to use first names to convey some sense of informality but it should be borne in mind that some older candidates may be offended by the assumption of first name terms. It is recommended that formal titles are normally used for both the candidates and examiners.

• Supervisors are encouraged to be present as observers subject to the agreement of the candidate and the examiners.

• Examiners may wish to use the introductions to gauge the state of confidence of the candidate. This may help in deciding the approach to be taken in the opening question.

• It may be helpful to offer some favourable comments on positive elements of the academic performance at the beginning of the viva if much of the viva is to be focused on concerns. The positive comments provide an appropriate balance. NOTE: It is important that the candidate should not know the formal outcome until after the viva is complete. The viva-voce examination is an important part of the overall assessment.

• It is good practice at the beginning of the viva-voce examination for one of the examiners to outline the main headings that they will follow in asking questions of the candidate. Naturally, it may prove necessary to adjust the provisional timing of the different sections depending on the responses.

• The candidate may ask to make an opening presentation. This is permitted subject to the approval of the examiners but it is not a University requirement and neither is it recommended practice. It is recommended that if a presentation is agreed that it should normally be no more than ten minutes in length and it should be used to highlight one or two critical points and updates rather than to summarise the content of the thesis which the examiners will have read. The primary purpose of the viva voce examination is to enable the examiners to ask questions and see how well the candidate understands the field and can defend the findings of the research.

The atmosphere in the viva-voce examination

• The atmosphere of the viva-voce examination is very important. Ideally, the overall spirit of a viva-voce examination should be intellectually stimulating. The examiners

74

are expected to provide an environment in which the candidate is able to do justice to her/his knowledge and understanding. Examiners are asked to be rigorous but to avoid seeming aggressive in their questioning. Questions should be clear, firm and carefully designed to enable the candidate to demonstrate their depth of understanding [or lack of it]. The candidate should be given ample time to respond and not be subjected to undue pressure through rapid-fire questions. From time to time the examiners may wish to make complimentary comments or criticisms. At all times the discussion should be constructive.

• Examiners are advised to focus their questions on concerns or areas of interest, which they consider to be first and second order in importance. Minor errors can be communicated through notes given to the candidate after the viva-voce examination.

• Some discussion of the future work, which the candidate would like to undertake, may well be appreciated by the candidate.

After the viva-voce examination

• The examiners will require a private discussion before deciding their recommendations.

• After the private discussion, the examiners should draft the post-examination report. In the event of revision being necessary, the examiners are asked to describe the revision required and indicate their recommended deadline. One year is the maximum time permitted but normally the revision should be completed much more quickly (the post-examination proforma gives guidance on timescales in relation to amendments). If the examiners cannot reach an agreement on the recommendation, they may submit separate post-examination reports. The report must be submitted to the Research Office on the same day as the viva.

• The examiners convey the outcome to the candidate and the supervisors if they are present. The examiners are asked to make clear that their recommendation is subject to confirmation and ratification by the University Research Committee.

• If the candidate needs to undertake minor or major revision, the action required should be set out clearly on a sheet of paper and summarised in the Post- examination Report. The examiners should complete the Post-examination Report immediately after they have conveyed the outcome to the candidate. A copy of the sheet detailing the revision required should be attached to the Post-examination Report and these together should be submitted to the Research Office.

• The Research Office sends an examination outcome letter (based on the information in the post-examination form), along with any sheet setting out the revisions, to the candidate. This is also copied to the supervisors. The examination outcome and recommendations are also reported to the University Research Committee. [The Pre-examination Reports are not available to the candidate or the supervisors because these provisional views are commonly amended in the light of the further evidence, which is forthcoming at the viva-voce examination]

Updated for August 2015 onwards as part of the PGR Review Implementation.

75

Appendix 2 University of Derby

University Research Committee Postgraduate Research Degrees

Guidance for Chairs of viva-voce examinations

1. Background

There are considerable benefits for the examination process if an experienced researcher is appointed as a Chair of the viva voce examination. In situations where there are two external examiners who are unfamiliar with the regulations, the assistance of a senior researcher can be valuable and may on occasions prevent inappropriate recommendations. On other occasions where there is a particular tension, for example, in a re-examination, the presence of a Chair can be critically important. 2. Policy

The Research Office appoints the Chair for each viva-voce examination from a pool of suitably qualified persons. This pool is drawn up from lists of suitable academic staff drawn up by the Chairs of CRCs. The function of the Chair is to conduct the examination and to ensure that the examiners are informed of the relevant University regulations during the examination process (see Appendix 2).

3. Roles and responsibilities of the Chair It is important to emphasise that, although the Chair has a proactive role in the viva voce examination, s/he is not an examiner and plays no part in making the judgements on the performance of the candidate. However, the Chair may assist in recording and communicating the judgements. The Chair should be an experienced researcher with some examination experience. A supervisor of the candidate cannot serve as Chair. The Chair does not need to be expert in the field of the research to be examined.

(i) To ensure that all the arrangements are in place and satisfactory. (The Research Office

is responsible for confirming the date, time and venue of the examination.)

(ii) To be familiar with the content of the examiners’ pre-reports prior to the viva voce examination. (The Research Office sends these to the Chair prior to the viva voce.)

(iii) To meet and welcome the examiners and to join them in the agenda setting meeting prior

to the viva voce examination. The Chair needs to be acquainted with the structure and general content of the thesis but is not expected to have a detailed knowledge of the thesis. (A copy of the thesis is available to the Chair prior to/for the examination, if required).

(iv) To Chair the viva-voce examination, making sure that this is conducted in accordance

with the University’s regulations and guidelines on viva-voce examinations.

76

(v) To assist the examiners with any advice required with regard to the University’s regulations that apply in arriving at the examiners’ recommendations. The examiners must be made aware of the candidate’s rights in the event of any recommendation to transfer registration.

(vi) To ensure that the post examination report is written up immediately after the

examination. In addition, to also ensure that, in the event of any revision (major or minor), a list of the significant shortcomings and the actions required is prepared on the day of the examination and made available to the Research Office. The post examination report must be submitted to the Research Office - this should not be deferred to the next day

(vii) To ensure that the candidate is given an oral report on the day, immediately after the

completion of the post-examination report has been prepared. The Chair should also ensure that if the supervisors are present and wish to accompany the candidate, they are permitted to do so. Candidate and supervisors should normally receive feedback together. This helps the candidate after the examination. It is also much more satisfying for the supervisors. It must be made clear to the candidate that any outcome given is subject to ratification by URC.

(viii) To ensure that the examiners are content that the examination process has proceeded

properly and satisfactorily.

(ix) In the event of all of the examiners being external to the university the Chair may if s/he wishes offer to check the re-submission following very minor amendments (i.e. typos).

PHB/27th February 2004 Updated August 2011 Updated for August 2015 onwards as part of the PGR Review Implementation

77

Appendix 3 Required style/format for the front cover layout for the softbound thesis for examination

UNIVERSITY OF DERBY

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

COMMUNICATION, LISTENING AND

ACTION: AN EXPERIENCE FROM LIFE

Peter Harrison

Doctor of Philosophy 2014

78

Appendix 4

Guidance on the use of Digitally-based Media for thesis presentation The use of interactive media should be undertaken with great care.

• The flexibility of CD-ROM or other digitally-based interactive media is useful wherever the

reflective relationship of ideas is not well represented by linear text especially in the creative arts where processes can sometimes appear disorderly, although the format might prove illuminating even in those fields where a more linear approach has been the norm.

• Interactive media formats can be valuable in the publication of practice-based research in the visual arts and other fields such as the performing arts. They support high quality illustrations, and the relationship between practical and theoretical elements of the research can remain reflective and discursive in a way not possible with a linear text.

• When submitting digitally-based interactive media it is strongly advised to work within this format from a very early stage. This allows images and text to be continuously integrated, whereas to write on paper first and then transfer to such media misses the interactivity that can be central to the development of ideas.

• It is important to understand that these media formats require a particular writing style. Each page needs to make sufficient self-contained sense so that it could fit into whatever path might be taken through the thesis, while at the same time not preventing a linear reading. Where a thesis does not need an interactive approach not only would such drafting care be redundant but the use of digitally-based interactive media might be questionable.

• During research and at assessment first hand inspection of practice-based work is crucial, but eventually the material has to be translated into an archival/retrievable form. Digitally based interactive media are particularly suited to this. There is potential for video clips, sound and other material to be included which is impossible in the standard form of a bound thesis.

• The problems of technical fluency and transcription suggest that a late decision to use the format may produce problems and should be taken with care.

• Digitally-based interactive media formats are less instantly controllable than might appear. The amount of specialist knowledge and skill needed to author a fully interactive media that maximises the potential of the format requires enormous attention. Where the student is fully conversant with the format and where both student and supervisor have access to compatible hardware (and where the supervisor is competent) the problem will be minimised. Even where there is a very high level of fluency and the existence of good specialist support, time consuming set backs and false starts can be encountered.

• Where use of digitally based interactive media is the chosen format the University may, as part of the registration requirements, require some training in IT.

• Even where a researcher plans to use digitally-based interactive media formats from the outset, if the evolution of critical thought through practical activity results in more weight needing to be given to verbal forms, it may be better to revert to a printed format.

• Printouts may prove preferable to working from the screen for close reading of the candidate’s draft documents during preparation and proof reading. The examiners should be consulted on whether they require a hard copy of the thesis as well as the interactive media.

Approved by University Research and Research Degrees Committee, June 2004 (The University is grateful to Professor Martyn Chalk for his input to the original version of this guidance which was focused on the use of CDROM formats in particular). Updated for August 2015 onwards as part of the PGR Review Implementation, July 2015

79

Appendix 5 Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) for PGR students (as carried forward from the August 2014 edition of the PhD Regulations)

1 Introduction

These Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) regulations set out the University’s position in relation to all students of the University. The regulations apply to students on taught programmes as well as those enrolled for research awards. The regulations apply to students, irrespective of whether they study on-campus or at home, outreach centre or workplace. They also apply to students registered for University awards under collaborative arrangements and to University students registered for awards accredited by other bodies.

Guidance: If students agree to undertake teaching or research under a formal University staff contract, their IPR in respect of the works carried out under that contract are set out in the University of Derby IPR Staff Regulations. However, in the absence of a staff contract, the University does not possess IPR ownership and their contributions remain subject to these IPR Student Regulations.

2 The definition of Intellectual property rights

The ownership of the products of creative thought is hereon referred to as Intellectual Property Rights. IPR encompasses a very wide range of intellectual products. There are four general categories listed below with examples: Copyright: essays, reports, creative writing, computer programs, music, drawings, images, independent studies and any other creative works undertaken for assessment.

Design Rights and Registered Designs: Patterns and shapes.

Trade Marks: For example, logos and signs. Trade Marks may be registered.

Patents: Invented products and processes that may be patented.

Guidance: These regulations are primarily concerned with copyright. Copyright signifies that the work may not in any way be reproduced, adapted (eg translated), exhibited or published without explicit permission of the student. Guidance on all aspects of IPR is available from the IPR Co-ordinator located in the Business Development Unit. Programme Leaders, Directors of Studies and students are welcome to consult the IPR Co-ordinator on confidential non-disclosure agreements, the registration of designs and patents and any other matters relating to IPR.

3 The general position on the IPR of students

Students of the University have Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) over that which they create. Except where transfer of copyright has been agreed, the copyright for all student works, as listed in Section 10.2 above, belongs to the student who originated the works. However, the University has license to copy and use the works for the purposes of assessment as set out in Section 10.5 below. There are also circumstances in which the student may agree to share copyright or to transfer copyright to another party (Section 10.7). If students have concerns regarding the protection of IPR during the preparation and development of works for assessment, the Programme Leader or the Director of Studies (as appropriate) may ask the relevant parties, for example external examiners, to sign a confidential non-disclosure

80

agreement. Guidance: Students who are in receipt of a University of Derby Research Studentship have the same IPR as other students. The studentship is a grant and not a salary, so the University does not have statutory IPR on the creative works as it does on the works of its employees. Similarly, students who are in receipt of research council studentships have normal IP Rights. In any case the University automatically grants IPR to authors of scholarly works. However, if a sponsoring or commissioning organisation stipulates IPR requirements, the student is advised to give careful consideration as to whether these stipulations are reasonable and acceptable before proceeding with the study. The Business Development Unit is pleased to advise Programme Leaders, Directors of Studies and students on IPR matters and the preparation of confidential non-disclosure agreements.

4 The ownership of physical artefacts

Except in the circumstances set out in Section 9.5, students are the owners of the physical artefacts that they create for assessment. This includes essays, reports, dissertations and other creative works such as paintings, sculptures, photographs, films, videos, prototypes and designs for fabrics. However, students may be required to lodge a good copy of their work with the University on a temporary or permanent basis. Sponsoring or commissioning organisations, such as the University or external bodies may make contractual agreements relating to the provision of materials and the ownership of the creative works. 5 The University’s rights to hold works submitted for assessment

The University has rights to hold work submitted for assessment until the assessment has been completed. The work is normally returned on the understanding that it may need to be re-submitted for the purpose of moderation or scrutiny by external examiners or for evaluation by external quality assessors/auditors. Copies of work may be passed to external agencies to help with the identification of plagiarism. In the case of major written works such as dissertations and theses the University may require that good copies be lodged in a reference collection. Theses that have satisfied the examiners for the award of the degree of Master of Philosophy and all doctoral awards must be uploaded to the University of Derby Online Research Archive (UDORA). If there are concerns about the protection of the IPR of works which have been submitted for assessment, the Programme leader or the Director of Studies may draw up a confidential non-disclosure agreement with the help of the University. This should state the name(s) of the students, the titles of their works and it should be signed by the examiners. The IPR of all submitted assessments remains the property of the student. Works submitted only for assessment may not be copied or used by any other person, except in connection with the assessment of that work. Members of staff must ask the permission of a student if they wish to use the assessed work (anonymously) for the purpose of teaching and learning. Works that are lodged in reference collections are available for consultation by researchers on the understanding that the contents may only be used if a full acknowledgement is made by the researcher in any written work, published or non-published, that s/he may write. 6 Publication of research works

In the case of postgraduate students preparing a research thesis, the student is normally expected to prepare the work for publication at the earliest opportunity. If the student has not submitted works for publication or has not made substantial progress towards the preparation of a major work within a period of one year from the date of acceptance of the thesis, the Director of Studies may

81

prepare a joint paper for publication. Normally, the student should be indicated as the principal author or originator of the work. The Director of Studies must inform the student of this action and s/he should seek the co-operation of the student. All reasonable steps must be taken to ensure that the interpretations expressed in the paper(s) represent the views of the principal author. The Director of Studies is responsible for giving due consideration to any sensitivity that the data may have. Guidance: This is a matter of some sensitivity. Pro-active communications and good-will should prevail. It is important to protect the interests of both the student whose IPR are extremely vulnerable at this stage of their research career and the supervisor(s) who may have made a significant contribution in terms of ideas and information (IP). The supervisor(s) are expected to advise the students throughout the period of the preparation of the thesis and the preparation of any publications during the period of registration. The research student should acknowledge the advice provided by the supervisor(s) in the thesis and in any published works. This may include ideas and suggestions for development and alternative interpretations. However, if a supervisor has made a greater contribution, for example in the collection or analysis of the data, then this should be fully acknowledged in the thesis and the student should consider inviting the supervisor to be a co-author of the paper. A supervisor should not assume an automatic right to be included as a co-author of publications prepared by a research student. Research students who are uncertain of the action that they should take should consult the Chair of the FRRDC or contact the Research Office for independent and impartial advice.

7 The transfer of IPR

A student may agree to the transfer of copyright to the University or to a named body on terms which are agreeable to the student, for example, on payment of a fee or acceptance of a commission. Such a transfer may be made providing there is no adverse affect on a collaborative project. (See Section 9.8). 8 Collaborative work on a project

If a student is engaged in a joint study with staff or other students, it is essential that the IPR are discussed, agreed and recorded in writing at the planning stage of the work. A student may agree to share the copyright with other named persons, staff or students, or s/he may agree to transfer copyright to the University or an external body, which has commissioned the work in return for remuneration. A student who participates in a collaborative project must not transfer copyright without the agreement of others engaged in the project or take any action, which might jeopardise the continuation of the project. Guidance: If the project is commercially sensitive the student should expect to be bound by the conditions which apply to the University. The student will normally be entitled to a share in any financial benefits arising from the project, providing these have been formally agreed as part of the contract engaging the student in the research. If the student is employed as an assistant on the project then the IPR belongs to the University, although the student should be credited with the author of any report s/he has written. Where a student participates in a research project being conducted by members of academic staff, the research staff concerned have the right to the results of the student’s research and have the right to publish such results, subject to acknowledgement of the student’s contribution.