THE RESEARCH DEGREES HANDBOOK CONTENTS

of 2 Research Degrees Handbook Contents

THE RESEARCH DEGREES HANDBOOK This Research Degrees handbook is for use by postgraduate research students and staff involved in delivery research provision. It covers regulations for the award of research degrees, and arrangements for postgraduate research students and their supervisors relating to admissions, supervision, progress monitoring, annual review, student feedback, external examining, vivas, and appeals.

CONTENTS

SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction to Research Awards SECTION 2 – ACADEMIC REGULATIONS FOR RESEARCH AWARDS 2.1 Introduction to General Regulations for Research Awards 2.2 General Regulations for Higher Doctorates 2.3 General Regulations for Doctorates by Published Work 2.4 General Regulations for Doctorates and Masters by Theses and Dissertation

2.4.1 Grade Descriptors for MA by Research/MSc by Research in Science and Medicine/ LLM by Research

2.5 Special Programme Regulations SECTION 3 – POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR RESEARCH AWARDS PART A – NEW RESEARCH PROGRAMME APPROVAL

3A.1 New Research Programme Approval Procedure 3A.1.1 Checklist for Approval of New Research Programme

PART B – ADMISSIONS AND RECRUITMENT

3B.1 Admissions and Recruitment Procedure 3B.1.1 Application for Admission as a Postgraduate Students 3B.1.2 Checklist for Registration of a Research Student

PART C – ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES AND INDUCTION FOR RESEARCH STAFF AND STUDENTS 3C.1 Roles, Responsibilities and Induction for Research Staff and Students PART D – SUPERVISION AND STUDYING 3D.1 Supervision and Studying Policy and Procedure PART E – TERMS OF STUDY 3E.1 Terms of Study Policy and Procedure

3E.1.1 Application for Extension of Time Form

of 2 Research Degrees Handbook Contents

PART F – LEARNING RESOURCES 3F.1 Learning Resources – Guidance for Students PART G – PROGRESS MONITORING AND TRANSFERS 3G.1 Progress Monitoring and Transfers Policy and Procedure

3G.1.1 Progress Report to Research Committee Template 3G.1.2 Transfer from MSc/MA/LLM – PhD Form

PART H – ANNUAL REVIEWS AND UPGRADES 3H.1 Annual Reviews and Upgrades Policy and Procedure

3H.1.1. Guidelines and Form for the Annual Review PART I – ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT 3I.1 Academic Misconduct Guidance for Research Students PART J – TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT 3J.1 Training and Development Guidance for Research Students

3J.1.1 Postgraduate Student Conference Fund PART K – STUDENT FEEDBACK AND REPRESENTATION 3K.1 Research Student Feedback and Representation Policy

3K.1.1 – Postgraduate Student Feedback Questionnaire PART L – SUBMISSION OF THESIS/DISSERTATION 3L.1 Submission of Thesis/Dissertation Policy and Procedure

3L.1.1 – Proof Reading and Editing Guidance Research Students 3L.1.2 - Rules for the Format of Thesis 3L.1.3 – Notice of Intention to Submit Form

PART M – EXTERNAL EXAMINING AND VIVAS 3M.1 External Examining and Vivas Policy and Procedure

3M.1.1 External Examiners Nomination and Approval Form 3M.1.2 Instructions to Examiners for Higher Degrees 3M.1.3 Report on Thesis Submitted for a Research Degree 3M.1.4 Video Conferencing Procedure for Vivas

PART N – PUBLICATION, COPYRIGHT, DATA PROTECTION AND ETHICS 3N.1 Publication, Copyright, Data Protection and Ethics Policy and Procedure

3N.1.1 Code of Practice for Studying by Research 3N.1.2 Restriction of Access for a Thesis/Dissertation Form 3N.1.3 Privacy Notice for Research Participants For Appeals and Complaints please refer to the Regulations Handbook here

https://fb77c667c4d6e21c1e06.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2.2-Applicants-Appeals-and-Complaints-Procedure.pdf



of 2 Introduction to Research Awards

1.1 INTRODUCTION TO RESEARCH AWARDS i) The University of Buckingham offers a full range of research degrees. If you are interested in

studying for a research degree, please contact the University Admissions Office ([email protected]) who will put you in contact with an appropriate member of the academic staff. Students may undertake research in any of the areas of study offered at the University for which effective arrangements for supervision can be made. Undertaking research for a higher degree is a deeply rewarding experience. However, it also requires patience, self-discipline, and determination, and the ability to work in a self-directed and independent manner. It is important, because of this, to play as full a part in the life of the University as you can, and to take advantage of the social and support services that the University offers.

ii) The University prides itself on the high level of personal attention that it is able to offer to individual students, and this particularly applies to its research students. They are offered support and advice in the selection of a suitable topic for research. Individual arrangements are made with them to provide the support they need to undertake effective research. They have regular meetings with their supervisor and their progress is closely monitored. For PhD students an Annual Review is held to evaluate progress, to ensure that there are appropriate plans for continuing the research over the next year, to review the work plan and timetable for the research, and to provide an opportunity for considering the arrangements for supervision.

iii) As a research student you are an important member of the University’s academic community. You will become an expert in your field, maybe even a world expert. You will work closely with staff and may, with the approval of your supervisor and head of department, perform teaching or other responsibilities for undergraduate or taught Master’s students.

iv) Research can be a lonely occupation and requires a great deal of self-discipline, even for the most dedicated scholar. Do take advantage of the help offered by your supervisor, your department, and other departments and agencies both within and outside the University.

v) Your relationship with your supervisor is vital to the success of your studies. If you encounter any difficulties with your studies or with any other aspect of University life, try initially to resolve them with your supervisor. If this is not possible, then refer the matter to your Research Officer.

vi) If your first language is not English, and you would like to improve your language skills, you are advised to visit the Language Centre and seek the advice of EFL staff. They will recommend videos, cassette tapes, and study-skills leaflets and can advise on English language classes if these are considered appropriate.

vii) Buckingham has developed a strong welfare system to address any problems you may have. The Student Welfare team is organised under the leadership of the Senior Tutor who has responsibility for pastoral care and also deals with breaches of general regulations. The team also consists of two Deputy Senior Tutor with specific responsibility for disciplinary issues, and the administration of the Student Hardship Fund. The Senior Tutors work closely with the Student Welfare Department. This supports students' physical and emotional welfare as well as their academic learning. The department comprises of a Welfare Adviser, a Welfare Officer, a Counsellor and a Learning Support/Disability Officer as well as two secretaries. It offers support,

mailto:[email protected]

of 2 Introduction to Research Awards

advice and a referral service to students experiencing or wishing to discuss personal concerns, and emotional or physical health issues.

viii) In order to ensure that you are making satisfactory progress and to give you an opportunity to express any concerns about your studies, you will be subject to periodical reviews held at least once each year. These reviews will also give you an opportunity to prepare for your final viva voce examination (if applicable).

ix) Make sure you are familiar with the process of annual review and the requirements for submission of your thesis (see the procedures in this handbook), and discuss with your supervisor the arrangements for the viva voce so that you can be properly prepared.

of 1 Introduction to General Regulations for Research Awards

2.1 INTRODUCTION TO GENERAL REGULATIONS FOR RESEARCH AWARDS The following procedure reflects the general recommendations of the QAA Quality Code: Chapter B11

i. The higher doctorates (the degrees of LLD, DLitt, and DSc) may be awarded on the basis of published work.

ii. The degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) may be awarded either on the basis of a programme of supervised research assessed by means of a thesis or on the basis of published work.

iii. The degree of Master of Philosophy (MPhil) may be awarded on the basis of a programme of supervised research assessed by means of a thesis.

iv. The degrees of MA, MSc, and LLM may be awarded either on the basis of a programme of taught courses and assessment by examination or by examination and dissertation or on the basis of a programme of supervised research assessed by means of a thesis. These last are called the MA by research, the MSc by research, and the LLM by research respectively.

v. The regulations for these degrees are set out in this section.

of 2 General Regulations for Higher Doctorate

2.2 GENERAL REGULATIONS FOR HIGHER DOCTORATES i) These degrees represent the pinnacle of academic achievement. They are awarded

to candidates who have already established a position as a leading authority through their contribution to scholarship. Candidates ‘must have … published work which… gives clear proof that the candidate is a leading authority in the field of study concerned and has made an original and distinguished contribution to the advancement or application of knowledge in that field’.

ii) Candidates must also be graduates of the University of Buckingham or members of staff of the University of Buckingham. Graduates of other universities seeking a higher doctorate should contact the university from which they graduated. The degrees awarded as higher doctorates are the LLS (Doctor of Laws), the DLitt (Doctor of Letters), and DSc (Doctor of Science).

iii) The degrees of Doctor of Laws (LLD), Doctor of Letters (DLitt), and Doctor of Science (DSc) may be conferred on:

a) graduates of this University of not less than seven years standing; b) holders of a higher degree of this University of not less than four years

standing; c) graduates of another University of not less than seven years standing who

have also held an appointment as a member of staff of this University for at least two years.

iv) Candidates must have fulfilled such conditions as are prescribed below and have submitted published work which, in the opinion of the examiners, gives clear proof that the candidate is a leading authority in the field of study concerned and has made an original and distinguished contribution to the advancement or application of knowledge in that field.

v) A person wishing to be admitted to the degree shall submit to the Registry Officer, with the appropriate fee, three copies of:

a) a list of the published works upon which the application is based. The list should indicate whether and with what result any of the works have previously been submitted for any degree of any university or awarding body;

b) a supporting statement indicating the area of knowledge to which the published work relates and the ways in which it makes an original and distinguished contribution to the advancement or application of knowledge meriting the award of the degree;

c) where any of the works submitted have been produced jointly with others, a written statement signed by the other contributors to the works concerned indicating the share which the candidate took personally in the work;

d) the published works upon which the application is based.

of 2 General Regulations for Higher Doctorate

vi) The works submitted as part of the application must be published and freely available. Unpublished work, or material in the course of being published, will not be accepted. Work which has successfully been submitted for the award of a degree at this or any other university or awarding body can only be considered as supporting material explaining the context or background to other works submitted. All the works submitted shall be written in English, except where the prior approval of the Research Committee has been given for the submission of work in another language.

vii) Any application for the degree shall first be considered by the Dean who, after such consultation as may be considered necessary or desirable, shall determine whether in his or her opinion there is a prima facie case for the award of the degree. Where the Dean is of the opinion that a prima facie case has been made, s/he shall proceed to nominate examiners for the degree to be appointed by Senate and where applicable to be approved by the Academic Advisory Council. Where the Dean is not of the opinion that there is a prima facie case for the award of the degree, the candidate shall be so informed and the published works submitted shall be returned together with such portion of the fee as is prescribed.

viii) There shall be three examiners for the degree, at least two of whom shall be external examiners. The examination shall consist of a consideration of the works and prescribed materials submitted. In cases where the examiners consider it desirable, the candidate may be given an oral examination on the works submitted and on the general area of knowledge to which they relate.

ix) Each examiner shall make an independent report on the published works and shall indicate whether in his or her opinion the candidate has achieved the standard required for the award of the degree and whether an oral examination should be held. Each examiner should be present at any oral examination, and shall sign a joint statement of the result of the oral examination.

x) The reports and statement of the examiners shall be considered by the Research Committee which may recommend to Senate the award of the degree, permit a further examination on such conditions as it sees fit, or decline to award the degree. Except where the Research Committee permits further examination, no further application for the award of the degree may be made until the expiry of at least two calendar years from the date upon which any previous application was made.

xi) Where Senate confirms the award of the degree, one copy of the works and prescribed materials submitted shall be deposited in the University Library. Except where the nature of the publications renders this impracticable (for instance where they are in book form), they should be bound together with the prescribed materials in a form similar to that required by the Rules for the Form and Submission of Theses for Higher Degrees.

of 3 General Regulations for Doctorates by Published Work

2.3 GENERAL REGULATIONS FOR DOCTORATES BY PUBLISHED WORK a) Candidates seeking the degree of PhD on the basis of published work must be graduates of the

University of Buckingham or members of staff of the University of Buckingham. Graduates of other universities seeking to obtain a doctorate on the basis of published work should contact the university from which they graduated.

b) The criteria for the award of the degree on the basis of published work are the same as those for the PhD for supervised research.

c) The candidate must submit published work which gives clear proof of a significant and original contribution to the knowledge of the discipline either by the discovery of new knowledge, or by the exercise of a new and independent critical approach, for example the connection of previously unrelated facts, the development of new theory, or the revision of previously held views.

d) In the case of PhD by published work the candidate must show, by means of a commentary on the submitted work and in the oral examination, that he or she appreciates the relationship of his or her special work to a wider field of knowledge. The commentary must be in the region of 20,000 words. Registration must be for a period of one year minimum during which time the candidate will have regular supervisions with the supervisor and be guided in accordance with the same process and provision as if registered for the PhD by research programme.

e) The degree of PhD on the basis of published work may be conferred on:

i. graduates of this university of not less than five years standing;

ii. graduates of another university of not less than five years standing who have also held an appointment as a member of staff of this university for at least two years;

iii. graduates of another university of not less than five years standing who have also held a Fellowship of this university for at least two years.

f) Candidates must have fulfilled such conditions as are prescribed below and have submitted published work which, in the opinion of the examiners, gives clear proof of a significant and original contribution to learning, for example through the discovery of new knowledge, the connection of previously unrelated facts, the development of new theory, or the revision of older views. The standard required for the degree is the same as that required for a PhD.

g) In the first instance, a person wishing to pursue a PhD by published works should contact the appropriate Research Officer, who will identify an appropriate supervisor. The supervisor will be appointed for a minimum of 12 months and be responsible for providing assistance to the student in preparing the submission for the degree. In due course, the submission for the degree will be delivered to the Registry Officer, with the appropriate fee, and will comprise three copies of:


i. a list of the published works upon which the application is based. The list should indicate whether and with what result any of the works have previously been submitted for any degree of any university or awarding body;

ii. a supporting commentary indicating the area of knowledge to which the published work relates and the ways in which it makes a significant and original contribution to learning meriting the award of the degree;

iii. where any of the works submitted have been produced jointly with others, a written statement signed by the other contributors to the works concerned indicating the share which the candidate took personally in the work;

iv. the published works upon which the application is based.

v. a curriculum vitae.

h) The works submitted as part of the application must be published and freely available. Unpublished work, or material in the course of being published, will not be accepted. Work which has successfully been submitted for the award of a degree at this or any other university or awarding body can only be considered as supporting material explaining the context or background to other works submitted. All the works submitted shall be written in English, except where the prior approval of the Research Committee has been given for the submission of work in another language.

i) Any application for the degree shall first be considered by the Research Officer and or supervisor (for PhD by Publication) who, after such consultation as may be considered necessary or desirable, shall determine whether in his or her opinion there is a prima facie case for the award of the degree. Where the Research Officer and supervisor is of the opinion that a prima facie case has been made, s/he shall proceed to nominate examiners for the degree to be appointed by Senate. Where the Research Officer and supervisor is not of the opinion that there is a prima facie case for the award of the degree, the candidate shall be so informed and the published works submitted shall be returned.

j) There shall be three examiners for the degree, at least two of whom shall be external examiners. The examination shall consist of a consideration of the works and prescribed materials submitted together with the commentary and an oral examination on the works submitted.

k) Each examiner shall make an independent report on the published works and the commentary before the oral examination, shall be present at the oral examination, and shall sign a joint statement of the result of the oral examination.


l) The reports and statement of the examiners shall be considered by the Research Committee which may recommend to Senate the award of the degree, permit a further examination on such conditions as it sees fit, or decline to award the degree. Except where the Research Committee permits further examination, no further application for the award of the degree may be made until the expiry of at least two calendar years from the date upon which any previous application was made.

m) Where Senate confirms the award of the degree, one copy of the works and prescribed materials submitted shall be deposited in the University Library. Except where the nature of the publications renders this impracticable (for instance where they are in book form), they should be bound together with the prescribed materials in a form similar to that required by the Rules for the Form and Submission of Theses for Higher Degrees.

of 4 General Regulations for Research Doctorates and Masters

2.4 GENERAL REGULATIONS FOR RESEARCH DOCTORATES AND MASTERS a) The degree of MA, MSc, LLM (by research), MPhil, or PhD may be conferred on graduates of this

University or on those of other Universities or on such other persons as may be deemed acceptable by Senate. (In the case of the LLM the qualifying degree must be in Law or in a degree with a substantial Law component.)

Candidates must have:

i. undertaken such research as approved by Senate for not less than the period prescribed below;

ii. fulfilled such other conditions as may be prescribed below; iii. submitted the results of their research in a thesis satisfactory to the Examiners appointed

by the University who at their discretion may further examine the candidate in any matters relating to the research and the thesis.

b) A member of staff of the University may be registered on a programme of study as a candidate for a higher degree if he is a full-time member of the academic, library, administrative or other related staff of the University; research or analogous staff may be similarly registered on a programme of study. The normal regulations for higher degrees will apply in the case of such candidates.

MA - MASTER OF ARTS

c) The degree of Masters of Arts (MA) is available both as a research degree and as a taught degree. Candidates seeking the degree on the basis of research undertake one year of supervised research (two years if studying part-time) on a topic in an area for which the first degree would be the degree of Bachelor of Arts, at the end of which they submit a dissertation embodying the results of their research.

Candidates seeking the degree as a taught degree follow a prescribed curriculum and are assessed by examination, or by examination and dissertation. The degree is classified Pass, Merit, Distinction. (Grade descriptors for the research degree are provided in this section.)

Candidates for the degree of MA must already hold a good honours degree or the equivalent. The candidate, with the help of the supervisor, refines the proposal for the research, including developing a work plan and identifying requirements for support and resources and how these will be met.

Candidates submitting a successful (i.e. passing) thesis for the degree award of MA by Research must have demonstrated in their final written submission:

i. Familiarity with, and systematic understanding of their chosen research subject, its primary and secondary sources and its principal authorities, much of which is at, or informed by, the forefront of their academic discipline or field of study;

ii. Critical discrimination and a sense of proportion in evaluating evidence and the judgements of such sources and authorities;

iii. Dealing with their subject in a competent and scholarly manner that evidences


(a) understanding of the methodologies and techniques applicable to their own research (b) an ability, when appropriate, to critique such methodologies and techniques, and to

propose new hypotheses (c) originality in the application of knowledge to their specific research topic;

iv. Their ability to conduct independent research in a self-directed, autonomous manner, exercising judgement and discrimination, and to communicate their findings clearly to specialist and non-specialist audiences;

v. Presentation of their research in a coherent and organized manner, at a professional or equivalent level (e.g. by means of consistent adherence to an established style guide or scholarly house style).

MSc – MASTER OF SCIENCE

d) The degree of Master of Science (MSc) is available both as a research degree and as a taught degree. Candidates seeking the degree on the basis of research undertake one year of supervised research (two years if studying part-time) on a topic in an area for which the first degree would be the degree of Bachelor of Science, at the end of which they submit a thesis embodying the results of their research and normally have an oral examination. Candidates seeking the degree as a taught degree follow a prescribed curriculum and are assessed by examination, or by examination and dissertation. The degree is classified Pass, Merit, Distinction. (Grade descriptors for the research degree are provided in this section.)

Candidates for the degree of MSc must already hold a good honours degree or the equivalent. The candidate, with the help of the supervisor, refines the proposal for the research, including developing a work plan and identifying the requirements for support and resources and how these will be met.

Candidates submitting a successful (i.e. passing) thesis for the degree of MSc by Research must have demonstrated in their final written submission:

i. Familiarity with, and understanding of the chosen research subject; ii. Critical discrimination and a sense of proportion in evaluating evidence and the

judgements of others in the field of study; iii. Analysis of research issues in the field of study, which is informed by current knowledge; iv. The formulation of a hypothesis to address a research issue; v. Understanding of the methodologies and techniques applicable to their own research; vi. The design and conduct of experiments that, if the chosen hypothesis were correct, would

contribute to publications or conference presentations; vii. An ability to analyse data, to interpret it in relation to current understanding of the field,

and to discuss its limitations; viii. An ability to conduct research independently in a self-directed, autonomous manner, and

to communicate findings clearly; ix. The coherent and organized presentation of material at a near-professional or equivalent

level (e.g. by means of consistent adherence to an established style guide.

LLM - MASTER OF LAWS

e) The degree of Master of Laws (LLM) is available both as a research degree and as a taught degree. Candidates seeking the degree on the basis of research undertake one year of supervised research on a topic relating to law (two years if they are studying part-time) at the end of which they submit a thesis embodying the results of their research. (Grade descriptors for the research degree are provided in this section.) Candidates seeking the degree as a taught degree


follow a prescribed curriculum and are assessed by examination or by examination and dissertation.

Candidates for the degree of LLM must already hold a good honours degree or the equivalent in law or with a substantial law component. The candidate, with the help of the supervisor, refines the proposal for the research, including developing a work plan and identifying the requirements for support and resources and how these will be met.

The subject should be dealt with in a competent and scholarly manner. Candidates who are awarded the degree of LLM will have demonstrated their ability to conduct independent research using a range of primary and/or secondary sources and to present this in an organized, coherent, and scholarly manner.

This thesis:

i. Must demonstrate familiarity with, and an understanding of the subject, its principal sources and authorities.

ii. It should display critical discrimination and a sense of proportion in evaluating evidence and the opinions of others.

MPhil - MASTER OF PHILOSOPHY

f) The degree of Master of Philosophy (MPhil) is a degree that is awarded on the basis of a thesis embodying the results of supervised research. Despite the name of the degree, it may be awarded in any subject or discipline.

Candidates for the degree must already hold a good honours degree or equivalent. The candidate, with the help of the supervisor, refines the proposal for the research, including developing a work plan and identifying the requirements for support and resources and how these will be met.

Candidates spend a period of two years full-time or four years part-time undertaking supervised research, at the end of which they submit a thesis embodying the results of that research. This thesis:


ii. Should display critical discrimination and a sense of proportion in evaluating evidence and the judgements of others.

iii. Must advance understanding in the field or area of study concerned, for example through a contribution to knowledge or by means of a commentary on existing knowledge.

iv. The subject should be dealt with in a competent and scholarly manner.

The candidate must show, by means of the thesis or in the oral examination, that he or she appreciates the relationship of his or her special work to a wider field of knowledge.

PhD - DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

g) This degree may be obtained in one of two ways: through a period of supervised research and the submission of a thesis, or through the submission of a portfolio of published work. The standard required for the award of the degree is the same in both cases. The degree awarded by the University of Buckingham is known as a PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) regardless of the field of study concerned.


Supervised research:

Candidates seeking the degree of Doctor of Philosophy on the basis of a thesis embodying the results of supervised research must already hold a good honours degree or the equivalent. The candidate, with the help of the supervisor, refines the proposal for the research, including developing a work plan and identifying the requirements for support and resources and how these will be met.

Students are registered initially for the degree of PhD (Doctor of Philosophy), although their status is probationary until the first Annual Review has taken place normally between 12 and 18 months from first registration. Probationary status ends once the student has demonstrated through the submission of draft written work that he or she has the ability to conduct research at the advanced level required for the award of the degree, through the normal procedures for Annual Reviews and Upgrades

The period of study required for the award of a PhD is three years full-time or six years part-time. At the end of this period (or earlier in exceptional cases), the candidate submits a thesis embodying the results of the research.

This thesis:


ii. Should display critical discrimination and a sense of proportion in evaluating evidence and the opinions of others.

iii. Must also embody a significant and original contribution to the knowledge of the discipline either by the discovery of new knowledge, or by the exercise of a new and independent critical approach, for example through the discovery of new knowledge, the connection of previously unrelated facts, the development of new theory, or the revision of older views.

iv. A thesis should therefore contain matter worthy of publication, although it need not be submitted in a form which is suitable for immediate publication.

of 7 Grade Descriptors

2.3B GRADE DESCRIPTORS GRADE DESCRIPTORS FOR MA BY RESEARCH Examiners are invited to consider a dissertation submitted for the award of MA by Research according to the following criteria, and to grade work in the following classifications according to their judgement as to whether the candidate has demonstrated:

70%+ D I S T I N C T I O N

• detailed familiarity with, and systematic understanding of the chosen research subject, its primary and secondary sources and its principal authorities,

• sophisticated analysis which is at the forefront of the academic discipline, or field of study

• precise critical discrimination and sense of proportion in evaluating evidence and the judgements of such sources and authorities

• full capacity to deal with their subject in a highly professional and scholarly manner that evidences

o excellent understanding of the methodologies and techniques applicable to their own research

o advanced ability, when appropriate, to critique such methodologies and techniques, and to propose new hypotheses

o consistent originality in the application of knowledge to their specific research topic

• notable ability to conduct research independently in a self-directed, autonomous manner, and to communicate findings persuasively to specialist and non-specialist audiences

• fully coherent and organized presentation of material throughout, at a professional or equivalent level (e.g. by means of consistent adherence to an established style guide or scholarly house style)

60%+ M E R I T

• broad familiarity with and understanding of the chosen research subject, its primary and secondary sources and its principal authorities,

• analysis which is at, or informed by, the forefront of the academic discipline, or field of study

• sound critical discrimination and sense of proportion in evaluating evidence and the judgements of sources and authorities

• capacity deal with their subject in a near-professional and scholarly manner that evidences

o very good/good understanding of the methodologies and techniques applicable to their own research

o very good/good ability, when appropriate, to critique such methodologies and techniques, and to propose new hypotheses

o frequent originality in the application of knowledge to their specific research topic

• clear ability to conduct independent research in a self-directed, autonomous manner, and to communicate findings well to specialist and non-specialist audiences

• coherent and well organized presentation of material, at a near-professional or equivalent level (e.g. by means of consistent adherence to an established style guide or scholarly house style)


50%+

P A S S

• familiarity with and understanding of the chosen research subject, its primary and secondary sources and its principal authorities, that is satisfactory though not always comprehensive

• analysis which is informed by, if not consistently aware of, the latest developments in the academic discipline, or field of study

• a degree of critical discrimination and sense of proportion in evaluating evidence and the judgements of sources and authorities

• capacity to deal with their subject in a competent if not always professional manner that evidences

o fair understanding of the methodologies and techniques applicable to their own research

o ability, when appropriate, to critique such methodologies and techniques, and to propose new hypotheses

o occasional originality in the application of knowledge to their specific research topic

• fair ability to conduct independent research in a self-directed, autonomous manner, and to communicate findings clearly to specialist and non-specialist audiences

• reasonably coherent and organized presentation of material, usually at a near-professional or equivalent level (e.g. by means of consistent adherence to an established style guide or scholarly house style)

<50% F A I L

• limited familiarity and understanding of the chosen research subject, its primary and secondary sources and its principal authorities

• analysis which is seldom at or informed by the latest developments in the academic discipline, or field of study

• lack of critical discrimination and sense of proportion in evaluating evidence and the judgements of sources and authorities

• limited capacity to deal with their subject in a competent professional manner, that evidences

o occasional misunderstandings of the methodologies and techniques applicable to their own research

o reluctance or inability to critique such methodologies and techniques, and to propose new hypotheses when appropriate

o little or no originality in the application of knowledge to their specific research topic

• difficulties in carrying out independent research in a self-directed, autonomous manner, and in communicating their findings clearly to specialist or non-specialist audiences

• organization of material that is not consistently coherent, or presented at a near-professional or equivalent level (e.g. by because of inconsistent adherence to an established style guide or scholarly house style)


GRADE DESCRIPTORS FOR MSC BY RESEARCH IN THE SCHOOL OF SCIENCE AND MEDICINE All students for the degree of MSc by research will have a viva with the internal and external examiners. Examiners are asked to grade dissertations submitted for the award of MSc by Research according to the following criteria. It is not necessary for the candidate to meet each criterion at the appropriate level in order to achieve the corresponding grade – slight weakness in one area may be balanced by strength in another. However, examiners should allow little flexibility regarding standards for understanding of the research subject, design of experiments, and analysis and interpretation of data.


• detailed familiarity with, and understanding of the chosen research subject • precise critical discrimination and sense of proportion in evaluating evidence and the

judgements of others in the field of study • sophisticated analysis of current research issues in the field of study • excellent formulation of an hypothesis to address an important research issue • excellent understanding of the methodologies and techniques applicable to own

research • design and conduct of experiments that, if the chosen hypothesis were correct, would

generate sufficient data to form the core of a publication/presentation in/at a good quality journal or conference

• production of such data • excellent analysis of data, including appropriate statistics • excellent interpretation of data in relation to current understanding of the field • excellent analysis of limitations of work conducted and ideas for future work • notable ability to conduct research independently in a self-directed, autonomous

manner, and to communicate findings persuasively to specialist and non-specialist audiences

• fully coherent and organized presentation of material throughout, at a professional or equivalent level (e.g. by means of consistent adherence to an established style guide)

60%+

M E R I T

• broad familiarity with, and understanding of the chosen research subject • sound critical discrimination and sense of proportion in evaluating evidence and

the judgements of others in the field of study • sound analysis of current research issues in the field of study • very good/good formulation of an hypothesis to address a research issue • very good/good understanding of the methodologies and techniques applicable

to own research • design and conduct of experiments that, if the chosen hypothesis were correct,

would generate sufficient data to contribute to a publication/presentation in/at a good quality journal or conference

• production of such data • very good/good analysis of data, including appropriate statistics • very good/good interpretation of data in relation to current understanding of the

field • very good/good analysis of limitations of work conducted and ideas for future

work • clear ability to conduct research independently in a self-directed, autonomous

manner, and to communicate findings well to specialist and non-specialist audiences

• coherent and well-organized presentation of material throughout, at a near-professional or equivalent level (e.g. by means of consistent adherence to an established style guide)


50%+ P A S S

• familiarity with, and understanding of the chosen research subject • a degree of critical discrimination and sense of proportion in evaluating

evidence and the judgements of others in the field of study • analysis of research issues in the field of study, which is informed by but not

consistently aware of current knowledge • formulation of a reasonable hypothesis to address a research issue • fair understanding of the methodologies and techniques applicable to own

research • design and conduct of experiments that, if the chosen hypothesis were correct,

would generate data upon which others could build for a publications or conference presentations

• fair analysis of data • fair interpretation of data in relation to current understanding of the field • fair analysis of limitations of work conducted and ideas for future work • fair ability to conduct research independently in a self-directed, autonomous

manner, and to communicate findings clearly • reasonably coherent and organized presentation of material, usually at a near-

professional or equivalent level (e.g. by means of consistent adherence to an established style guide)

<50% F A I L

• limited familiarity with, and understanding of the chosen research subject • lack of critical discrimination and sense of proportion in evaluating evidence and

the judgements of others in the field of study • analysis of research issues in the field of study, which is seldom informed by

current knowledge • failure to formulate a reasonable hypothesis to address a research issue • poor understanding of the methodologies and techniques applicable to own

research • inability to design and conduct of experiments that, if the chosen hypothesis

were correct, would generate data upon which others could build for a publications

• poor analysis of data • poor interpretation of data in relation to current understanding of the field • poor analysis of limitations of work conducted and ideas for future work • difficulties in conducting research independently in a self-directed, autonomous

manner, and in communicating findings clearly • organization of material that is not consistently coherent, or presented at a

near-professional or equivalent level (e.g. by means of consistent adherence to an established style guide)


GRADE DESCRIPTORS FOR THE LLM BY RESEARCH Examiners are invited to consider dissertations submitted for the award of LLM by Research according to the following criteria, and to grade work in the following classifications according to their judgement as to whether the candidate has demonstrated:


• Detailed knowledge and sophisticated understanding of the legal concepts, values, principles and rules relevant to their research topic and ability to explain the relationships between them in a number of complex areas.

• High level of ability to apply the legal concepts, values, principles and rules relevant to their research topic to concrete data and factual situations.

• Deep understanding, when needed, of the relationship between the legal concepts, values, principles and rules relevant to their research topic and the relevant economic, social, commercial or political context.

• Detailed familiarity with, and in-depth systematic understanding of, the primary and secondary sources and authorities relevant to their research topic.

• Strong critical discrimination and a sense of proportion in evaluating evidence and the judgements of such sources and authorities.

• Notable ability to produce a clear and accurate presentation of the law relevant to their research topic and to use techniques of legal interpretation to complex issues arising from them.

• High degree of understanding of why their research topic is of interest and a sophisticated articulation of the reason for and merit of the research question addressed.

• Notable ability to deal with their subject in a competent and scholarly manner that evidences, as necessary: A. Excellent understanding of the methodologies and techniques applicable to their own

research B. Advanced ability, when appropriate, to critique such methodologies and techniques,

and to propose new hypotheses C. Consistent originality in the application of knowledge to their specific research topic.

• Notable ability to conduct independent research in a self-directed, autonomous manner, exercising judgement and discrimination, and to communicate their findings clearly to specialist and non-specialist audiences.

• Fully coherent and organised presentation of material throughout, at a professional or equivalent level (e.g. by means of consistent adherence to an established style guide or scholarly house style).

60%+

M E R

• Good knowledge and broad understanding of the legal concepts, values, principles and rules relevant to their research topic and ability to explain the relationships between them in a number of complex areas.

• Good level of ability to apply the legal concepts, values, principles and rules relevant to their research topic to concrete data and factual situations.

• Good understanding, when needed, of the relationship between the legal concepts, values, principles and rules relevant to their research topic and the relevant economic, social, commercial or political context.

• Broad familiarity with, and good systematic understanding of, the primary and secondary sources and authorities relevant to their research topic.

• Competent critical discrimination and a sense of proportion in evaluating evidence and the judgements of such sources and authorities.

• Clear ability to produce a clear and accurate presentation of the law relevant to their research topic and to use techniques of legal interpretation to complex issues arising from them.

• A good degree of understanding of why their research topic is of interest and a good articulation of the reason for and merit of the research question addressed.

• Good ability to deal with their subject in a competent and scholarly manner that evidences,


I T

as necessary: A. Good understanding of the methodologies and techniques applicable to their own research B. Good ability, when appropriate, to critique such methodologies and techniques, and to propose new hypotheses C. A good measure of originality in the application of knowledge to their specific research topic.

• Good ability to conduct independent research in a self-directed, autonomous manner, exercising judgement and discrimination, and to communicate their findings clearly to specialist and non-specialist audiences.

• A coherent and organised presentation of material throughout, at a professional or equivalent level (e.g. by means of consistent adherence to an established style guide or scholarly house style).

50%+

P A S S

• Knowledge and general understanding of the legal concepts, values, principles and rules relevant to their research topic and ability to explain the relationships between them in a number of complex areas.

• Some ability to apply the legal concepts, values, principles and rules relevant to their research topic to concrete data and factual situations.

• Some understanding, when needed, of the relationship between the legal concepts, values, principles and rules relevant to their research topic and the relevant economic, social, commercial or political context.

• General familiarity with, and adequate systematic understanding of, the primary and secondary sources and authorities relevant to their research topic.

• Some critical discrimination and sense of proportion in evaluating evidence and the judgements of such sources and authorities.

• Some ability to produce a fairly accurate presentation of the law relevant to their research topic and to use techniques of legal interpretation to complex issues arising from them.

• A fair degree of understanding of why their research topic is of interest and some articulation of the reason for and merit of the research question addressed.

• Some ability to deal with their subject in a competent and scholarly manner that evidences, as necessary A. Understanding of the methodologies and techniques applicable to their own research B. Some ability, when appropriate, to critique such methodologies and techniques, and

to propose new hypotheses C. A small measure of originality in the application of knowledge to their specific

research topic. • Some ability to conduct independent research in a self-directed, autonomous manner,

exercising judgement and discrimination, and to communicate their findings clearly to specialist and non-specialist audiences.

• A coherent and organised presentation of material throughout, at a professional or equivalent level (e.g. by means of consistent adherence to an established style guide or scholarly house style).

<50%

F A

• Limited knowledge and little understanding of the legal concepts, values, principles and rules relevant to their research topic and ability to explain the relationships between them in a number of complex areas.

• Poor level of ability to apply the legal concepts, values, principles and rules relevant to their research topic to concrete data and factual situations.

• Limited to no understanding, when needed, of the relationship between the legal concepts, values, principles and rules relevant to their research topic and the relevant economic, social, commercial or political context.

• Little familiarity with, and poor systematic understanding of, the primary and secondary sources and authorities relevant to their research topic.

• Little to no critical discrimination and a sense of proportion in evaluating evidence and the judgements of such sources and authorities.


I

L

• Little ability to produce a clear and accurate presentation of the law relevant to their research topic and to use techniques of legal interpretation to complex issues arising from them.

• A poor level of understanding of why their research topic is of interest and poor articulation of the reason for, and merit of, the research question addressed.

• Little ability to deal with their subject in a competent and scholarly manner that evidences A. Little understanding of the methodologies and techniques applicable to their own

research B. Little to no ability, when appropriate, to critique such methodologies and techniques,

and to propose new hypotheses C. Little to no measure of originality in the application of knowledge to their specific

research topic. • Limited ability to conduct independent research in a self-directed, autonomous manner,

exercising judgement and discrimination, and to communicate their findings clearly to specialist and non-specialist audiences.

• A poorly organised presentation of material throughout, at a professional or equivalent level (e.g. a failure to consistently adhere to an established style guide or scholarly house style).

of 3 Special Programme Regulations for Research Awards

2.5 SPECIAL PROGRAMME REGULATIONS FOR RESEARCH AWARDS a) INTEGRATED PHD – SARAJEVO SCHOOL OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (SSST)

i) Students at the Sarajevo School of Science and Technology may be admitted to undertake an Integrated Doctoral Programme which has a taught phase and a research phase. The taught phase will last for a minimum of one year and a maximum of two years. The minimum length of the degree will be 4 years.

ii) The General Regulations for Higher Degrees as set out in Section 3 of the Research Degrees Handbook above shall apply to doctoral candidates on the Integrated PhD programme at the Sarajevo School of Science and Technology, with additional special regulations as follows:

a) On commencement on the taught phase of the programme, a supervisor/mentor must be approved and appointed in accordance with the policy and procedures in the University of Buckingham Research Degrees Handbook. The role of this supervisor will be to advise and monitor progress during the taught phase of the programme

b) A supervisory team for the research phase must be approved and appointed in accordance with the policy and procedures in the University of Buckingham Research Degrees Handbook.

c) The taught phase of the programme will be specific to the area of the PhD and must be approved by the SSST Research Committee

d) The taught phase of the programme must include a Research Methods component

e) Students must complete the taught phase of the programme successfully in order to progress to the research phase of their studies

f) Assessment of the taught phase will be by examination or by the presentation of papers (with a viva voce if required by the examiners)

g) Following completion of the taught phase of the programme, students are required to pass an assessment conducted by a Review Panel in order to continue with their studies.

h) The external examiner will be approved and appointed in accordance with the policy and procedures in the University of Buckingham Research Degrees Handbook. The final thesis viva voce examination will be conducted in accordance with the policy and procedures in the University of Buckingham Research Degrees Handbook.

b) DOCTOR OF MEDICINE (MD) ON THE BASIS OF PUBLISHED RESEARCH

i) The degree of Doctor of Medicine shall be awarded to medical graduates for original published contributions of excellence in any branch of medical science. The degree of MD on the basis of published work may be conferred on:


a) holders of the degrees of Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MB BS), or equivalent approved medical qualifications, of not less than five years standing who have held an appointment as a member of staff of this university for at least two years;

b) holders of the degrees of MB BS, or equivalent approved medical qualifications, of not less than five years standing who have held a Fellowship of this university for at least two years.

ii) Candidates must have fulfilled such conditions as are prescribed below and have submitted published work which, in the opinion of the examiners, gives clear proof of an original contribution to learning in the field of medical science.

iii) In the first instance, a person wishing to be registered on a programme of study should contact the appropriate Research Officer, who will identify an appropriate supervisor. The supervisor will be appointed for a minimum of 12 months and be responsible for providing assistance to the student in preparing the submission for the degree. In due course, the submission for the degree will be delivered to the Registry Officer, with the appropriate fee, and will comprise three copies of:

a) a list of the published works upon which the application is based. The list should indicate whether and with what result any of the works have previously been submitted for any degree of any university or awarding body;

b) a supporting commentary indicating the area of knowledge to which the published work relates and the ways in which it makes an original contribution to medical learning meriting the award of the degree;

c) where any of the works submitted have been produced jointly with others, a written statement signed by the other contributors to the works concerned indicating the share that the candidate took personally in the work;

d) a curriculum vitae. e) the published works upon which the application is based.

iv) All applications will be considered first by the Dean who, after such consultation as may be considered necessary or desirable, shall determine whether in his/her opinion there is a prima facie case for the award of the degree.

v) Where the Dean is of the opinion that a prima facie case has been made, the candidate will be asked to submit two copies of the works upon which the application is based, together with the required fee. Additional work, published or unpublished, may be submitted in support of the application. Permanently bound copies are acceptable if the work is already in that format.

Where the Dean is of the opinion that a prima facie case has not been made, the candidate will be so informed and all submitted materials will be returned.

vi) The submitted work shall be assessed by two examiners, at least one of whom shall be an external examiner. The examination shall consist of a consideration of the works and materials submitted, with an oral examination on these works and on the general area of knowledge to which they relate.


vii) Each examiner shall make an independent report on the published works before the oral examination; they shall be present at the oral examination, and they shall sign a joint statement of the result of the oral examination.

viii) The reports and joint statement of the examiners shall be considered by the Research Committee which may recommend to Senate the award of the degree, permit a further examination on such conditions as it deems fit, or decline the award of the degree. Except where the Research Committee permits further examination, no further application for admission to the degree may be made until the expiry of at least two calendar years from the date upon which any previous application was made.

ix) Where Senate confirms the award of the degree one copy of the works and prescribed materials shall be deposited in the University Library. Except where the nature of the publication renders this impracticable (e.g. where they are in the form of a book), or where bound copies were submitted originally, the submitted works should be bound together with the prescribed materials in a form similar to that required by the Rules for the Format of Theses.

of 5 New Research Programme Approval Procedure

3A.1 NEW RESEARCH PROGRAMME APPROVAL PROCEDURE AND GUIDANCE NOTES

These guidance notes and procedures have been prepared with reference to the UK Quality Code for Higher Education, and their aim is to ensure that the University of Buckingham sets and maintains threshold academic standards for its awards. Any deviation from the agreed procedures would require consultation with the Quality Assurance Office and agreement from the Chair of the University Research Committee.

GUIDANCE NOTES A. Background Research degree programmes range from research master’s degrees to doctoral degrees. Some are more traditional academic programmes, others are routed in professional practice. Research degrees can include structured teaching aimed to enhance subject knowledge, and also develop research skills. Research degrees are distinguished from taught degrees in that the majority of students’ time is spent undertaking independent research, with supervision and guidance. B. Scope of Procedure This procedure covers the following types of research programmes (all leading to the award of academic credit and/or contribute to a higher education award at Level 7 or above in the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications):

• Programmes that include a structured element of teaching or assessment outside of the traditional thesis and/or requiring special regulations beyond those in the Research Degrees Handbook;

• Subject areas that do not form part of the current provision at the University; • Research programmes which are partially or fully delivered (or directed) off campus; • Research programmes delivered in partnership with third parties (e.g. hospitals, galleries)

The current procedure for approving individual PhD research degrees (provided the general subject area forms part of the current provision at the University) remains as outlined in the University Research Degrees Handbook, with individual research proposals being considered at School level.

C. Timing Wherever possible, proposers of new programmes that fall within the scope above should begin their planning at least 12 months before the programme is due to begin. This is to ensure that there is sufficient time for consultation, development, committee approval, and marketing to be undertaken before programmes begin. D. External Reference Points Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ) http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/qualifications-frameworks.pdf The FHEQ sets out qualification descriptors that set out the generic outcomes and attributes expected for the award of individual qualifications. The fundamental premise of the FHEQ is that qualifications should be awarded on the basis of achievement of outcomes and attainment rather than years of study. When preparing a research programme of study, it is essential to ensure that all programmes and modules are aligned to the relevant qualification descriptor. The research Master’s degree must be at Level 7 and the Doctoral degree must be at Level 8. The documentation put forward in support of a new research programme must provide evidence that the programme is set at the appropriate level for the qualification.

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/qualifications-frameworks.pdf


One of the most important purposes of the level descriptors is to achieve equivalence of academic standards across awards by summarising the key attributes expected of a graduate at that level. The master’s and doctoral qualification descriptors promote a high level of consistency but still allow universities the autonomy they are entitled to as research degree awarding bodies. This allows institutions to supplement the generic requirements in the descriptors with detailed assessment criteria that are appropriate for different subjects and qualifications they wish to award. QAA Quality Code, Chapter B11: Research Degrees http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Pages/Quality-Code-Chapter-B11.aspx#.VaeEOqJwaic The Quality Code sets out the formal Expectations that all UK higher education providers reviewed by QAA are required to meet. It is the nationally agreed, definitive point of reference for all those involved in delivering higher education programmes that lead to an award from, or are validated by, a UK higher education awarding body (a provider entitled to award degrees). All higher education providers reviewed by QAA must commit to meeting the Expectations that it sets out. The Code sets out Expectations and Indicators in respect of the systems, policies and procedures that are conducive to an excellent experience for research students and that support the University in maintaining the academic standards of its research degrees. QAA (2015) Master’s Degree Characteristics http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/Masters-Degree-Characteristics-15.pdf This reference point offers guidance on the nature of different types of master's degree, all of which are expected to meet the outcomes identified in the qualification descriptor in the Framework for HE Qualifications. The characteristics described in it relate to the different ways in which a master's degree may be provided in delivering the outcomes identified in the national qualification descriptor. The University may also draw upon subject benchmark statements for research master’s degrees in a particular subject or the guidance provided by the relevant professional, statutory or regulatory body. QAA (2015) Doctoral Degree Characteristics http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/Doctoral-Degree-Characteristics-15.pdf This guide provides a summary of UK doctoral degree characteristics, highlighting similarities and differences between doctoral degrees. It is a practical reference text that provides definitive information about UK doctoral programmes, including their purposes, structures, content, titles and assessment methods. The guide is complementary to the Master's degree characteristics and provides an extension of information from that publication. Subject Benchmark Statements http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality/the-quality-code/subject-benchmark-statements

Subject benchmark statements set out expectations about standards of degrees in a range of subject areas. They describe what gives a discipline its coherence and identity, and define what can be expected of a graduate in terms of the abilities and skills needed to develop understanding or competence in the subject. Subject benchmark statements do not represent a national curriculum in a subject area. Rather, they allow for flexibility and innovation in programme design within an overall conceptual framework established by an academic subject community. They are intended to assist those involved in programme design, delivery and review and may also be of interest to prospective students and employers, seeking information about the nature and standards of awards in a subject area.

Subject benchmark statements are available for master's degrees. Where there is no subject specific Subject benchmark Statement at Masters Level, reference should be made to “Masters degree characteristics (Sept 2015)”

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

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/Masters-Degree-Characteristics-15.pdf

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/Doctoral-Degree-Characteristics-15.pdf

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality/the-quality-code/subject-benchmark-statements

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/AssuringStandardsAndQuality/subject-guidance/Pages/Master%27s-degree-benchmark-statements.aspx


E. Business Case During the ‘Development’ stage of the process, proposers of new programmes are required to develop a Business Case (see appendix for form) for approval by the Executive Committee. This is to ensure that all new programmes are financially sustainable. The Business Case outlines the rationale for introduction; evidence of demand and the projected student intake; the fees, income and costs; the marketing strategy and any requirements for existing and additional resources. Once the Executive Committee has approved the Business Case, the form should also be included in the full documentation submitted to the School Board of Study and University Research Committee. NEW RESEARCH PROGRAMME APPROVAL PROCEDURE This approval procedure covers the following types of research programmes:

• Programmes that include a structured element of teaching or assessment outside of the traditional thesis and/or requiring special regulations beyond those in the Research Degrees Handbook;

• Subject areas that do not form part of the current provision at the University; • Research programmes which are partially or fully delivered (or directed) off campus; and • Research programmes delivered in partnership with third parties (e.g. hospitals, galleries)

1. Outline Permission 1.1 Obtain clearance from Dean (for Programmes) or Head of Department (for Modules). 2 Initial Consultations 2.1 Consult Quality Assurance Manager regarding QAA guidance and timeline for approval. Consult the Quality Assurance Manager to ensure that the award is permitted under University Regulations, and that any proposed Special Regulations for the award are also consistent with University Regulations. 2.2 Consult colleagues and others internally with expertise in the area. 2.3 Consult the Librarian and Head of IT (regarding library and IT resources) 2.4 Consult with the Visa Compliance Officer to establish whether the programme complies with Tier 4 visa

requirements (e.g. relating to mode of teaching and attendance requirements). Consult the Head of Marketing and Admissions (regarding student demand and minimum numbers, marketing plan and viability).

2.5 Consult with the Head of HR to identify staffing needs. 2.6 Where necessary, consult with students and employers to establish demand. 3 Detailed Development 3.1 Business Case 3.1.2 For new programmes, a complete Business Case form should be completed (see template below) including the following:

a) Draw up a rationale and give reasons for the introduction of the programme. b) Include evidence of demand and the projected student intake c) Include an outline of any marketing plans and the potential student market (including a consideration of any visa issues d) Include details of fees, income and costs associated with the programme e) Outline the existing and additional resources that the programme will require.

3.1.3 Submit the Business Case to the Dean of the relevant School who takes it to the Executive Committee for approval.


3.2 Academic Development and Documentation Requirements Draw up your proposal to include the following information. This may be covered in various types of documents.

For example: a written proposal/rationale, special programme regulations, programme and/or module specifications, lecture timetables/outlines, staff and student handbooks, contracts etc.

3.2.1 Programme Particulars

• Full award title, including the post nominal abbreviation (e.g. MA) • Brief outline of programme aim • Proposed start date • Mode (full time/part time) and length of programme • Any minimum and maximum registration periods • Programme Director and relevant Research Officer • Programme venue

3.2.2 Academic Regulations

• Outline units/credits (if these are assigned – see QAA doctoral guidance here). • Level of the award (7 or 8) and detail of the criteria for the award if it differs from that in Section 1 of

the Research Degree Handbook. • Alignment with the relevant external reference points (see guidance notes) • Alignment with existing University regulations and procedures as detailed in the University

Research Handbook. Where these differ, provide detail of this.

3.2.3 Admissions and Marketing • Admissions arrangements including entry requirements, credit transfers or admissions processes

(e.g. interviews) • Any relevant marketing plans

3.2.4 Teaching and Supervision

• Supervision arrangements - including as appropriate any differing arrangements for the appointment of supervisors, and list of supervisory staff

• Student induction and support arrangements (personal tutors etc) • Teaching and curriculum information and supervision arrangements, and any detail on

curriculum/seminar content, aims and learning outcomes, associated reading and list of teaching/lecturing staff, and any recruitment requirements

3.2.5 Progression and Review • Progression and review arrangements, including alignment with University procedures for annual

review and upgrades • Alignment with University procedures for extension of time and suspension of studies.

3.2.6 Assessment and Examination

• Assessment arrangements, including detail of assessment types and weighting, and any additional grading, examining or progression procedures.

3.2.7 Learning Resources • Learning resources required and provided, including IT and library, and the outcomes of any

consultations with these relevant departments


3.2.8 Legal and Ethical Considerations • Contractual information or agreements with third parties, including detail of responsibilities for

admission teaching, assessment • Ethical implications of the proposal – demonstrate these have been addressed by consulting with

the appropriate School ethics representative. • Outline and Health and Safety requirements have been met.

3.2.9 Complaints and Appeals • Confirm alignment with University procedures for complaints and appeals

4 External Contributions 4.1 Proposers are encouraged to seek the comments and/or endorsement of relevant external academics,

professionals or organisations as appropriate to submit with their proposal. If formal external review is required for structured teaching within of the programme, please contact the Quality Assurance Office.

5 Final Revisions 5.1 Proposer to amend documentation in light of external feedback/consultations. 6 Committee Stage NB: Board and URC Chairman’s action CANNOT be taken on approval of new programmes. 6.1 Proposer to submit full documentation to the School Research Committee and the School Board of Study.

Board to approve (with or without conditions or recommendations), or reject the proposal in its submitted form, and make a recommendation to the University Research Committee (URC).

6.2 The University Research Committee to consider the Board of Study recommendations (supported by full

documentation as indicated above), and approve (with or without conditions or recommendations) or reject the proposal in its submitted form.

6.3 URC to report its decision to Senate.

of 3 New Research Programmes

APPROVAL CHECKLIST FOR NEW RESEARCH PROGRAMMES

Any application for a new Research Programme should include a completed Checklist.

Programme Details Full programme name Initial Consultations YES/NO/COMMENTS Have you consulted with

Quality Assurance Manager? Colleagues and those with expertise in the area? Librarian? Head of IT? Visa Compliance Officer Head of Human Resources? Head of Marketing and Admissions? Current students? Employers/PSRB’s?

Rationale and Business Case YES/NO/COMMENTS Have you written a rationale? Has a Business Case been approved? Academic Development and Documentation YES/NO/COMMENTS Have the programme and constituent module specifications, along with a module map been drawn up?

Has the programme been prepared with reference to:

The QAA Framework for HE Qualifications (FHEQ)?

The relevant QAA Masters/Doctoral Characteristics Statement?

The relevant chapters from the UK Quality Code?

The requirements of any PSRB’s? The University Disability Policy? The University Research Degrees Handbook?

Does your proposal/other submitted documentation include information on:

Programme Particulars • Full award title, including the post

nominal abbreviation (e.g. MA) • Brief outline of programme aim • Proposed start date • Mode (full time/part time) and

length of programme • Any minimum and maximum

registration periods • Programme Director and relevant

Research Officer • Programme venue

Academic Regulations • Outline units/credits (if these are

assigned – see QAA doctoral guidance here).

• Level of the award (7 or 8) and detail of the criteria for the award if


it differs from that in Section 1 of the Research Degree Handbook.

• Alignment with the relevant external reference points (see guidance notes)

• Alignment with existing University regulations and procedures as detailed in the University Research Handbook. Where these differ, provide detail of this.

Admissions and Marketing • Admissions arrangements

including entry requirements, credit transfers or admissions processes (e.g. interviews)

• Any relevant marketing plans

Teaching and Supervision • Supervision arrangements -

including as appropriate any differing arrangements for the appointment of supervisors, and list of supervisory staff

• Student induction and support arrangements (personal tutors etc)

• Teaching and curriculum information and supervision arrangements, and any detail on curriculum/seminar content, aims and learning outcomes, associated reading and list of teaching/lecturing staff, and any recruitment requirements

Progression and Review • Progression and review

arrangements, including alignment with University procedures for annual review and upgrades

• Alignment with University procedures for extension of time and suspension of studies.

Assessment and Examination • Assessment arrangements,

including detail of assessment types and weighting, and any additional grading, examining or progression procedures.

Learning Resources • Learning resources required and

provided, including IT and library, and the outcomes of any consultations with these relevant departments.

Legal and Ethical Considerations • Contractual information or

agreements with third parties,


including detail of responsibilities for admission teaching, assessment

• Ethical implications of the proposal – demonstrate these have been addressed by consulting with the appropriate School ethics representative.

• Outline and Health and Safety requirements have been met.

Complaints and Appeals • Confirm alignment with

University procedures for complaints and appeals

Resourcing Requirements YES/NO/COMMENTS Is there sufficient teaching staff to cover the programme requirements? Is there sufficient teaching space to cover the programme requirements? Is the timetable able to accommodate the introduction of the programme? Is there sufficient library and IT provision to cover the programme requirements? Have any assessment arrangements been provided for? Is there a sufficient budget to meet the needs of the programme? Have any Health and Safety requirements been met? Committee Approval Date/Term Approved School Board of Study University Research Committee

of 3 Admissions and Recruitment Procedure

3B.1 ADMISSIONS AND RECRUITMENT FOR RESEARCH DEGREES POLICY AND PROCEDURE ADMISSION

i) A person wishing to begin a course of research for a higher degree by thesis shall apply as indicated on the website or send to the Admissions Officer an application on the prescribed form.

ii) The application must be scrutinised and agreed by at least two members of academic staff in the area of study, one of whom may be the Research Officer. They should draw on the full range of information supplied by the prospective student, and may if necessary require the student to attend for interview or ask for further information from the student, or from referees, so as to ensure that only a student appropriately qualified and prepared commences work on a higher degree. In some areas of study, it is normal to require a research proposal from the prospective student, which will allow the academic staff to determine if appropriate supervision can be offered. Any special needs or disabilities should ideally be declared prior to commencement, but must be dealt with as they emerge between the Admissions Tutor and Student Welfare.

iii) In the process of admission particular care must be taken with English language level. Entry level should normally be in the range IELTS 6.0–6.5, though Admissions Tutors retain discretion in this regard. Where there is any doubt or concern about an applicant’s language level, the Admissions Tutor should seek more information (via interview, sample essays, telephone/web interview) to assess more precisely the applicant’s level in relation to the demands of the particular degree. If an applicant has potentially borderline language level and is registered on a programme of study, it must be with the proviso that s/he takes pre-sessional courses to improve his or her language level before formally commencing the degree or alternatively takes language-support courses to run in parallel with the degree.

iv) A ‘Checklist for Registration of a Research Student’ (see appendix) must be completed for each registering student. Departments may vary the Checklist to their particular needs but the main heads should remain. A copy of the Checklist should be sent for approval to the Research Officer and copied to the Admissions Officer. Admission is subject to approval by the Research Officer. Only the Admissions Office may make an offer of admission on behalf of the University.

v) The Offer Letter to the prospective student constitutes a contract between the student and the institution. Departments may vary the standard template letter, but must retain the main sets of information, including the approximate total fees, the expected period of study, the arrangements for enrolment and registration, and the references to this Handbook and to other relevant website material.


RECRUITMENT AND ORGANISATION

vi) The policy for the admission of research students is a matter for each Research Officer. The organisation for consideration of postgraduate applications is a matter for agreement between each Department and the Research Officer.

PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS

vii) An individual contemplating application as a postgraduate research student of the University may wish to have informal discussions with the Department in advance. This may involve the preliminary identification of a possible supervisor and discussion between the potential supervisor and the applicant concerning the topic and scope of the potential research, before formal application is made. There is no formal procedure for recording these preliminary discussions.

viii) All enquiries which are not addressed to a named member of staff should be referred to the Research Officer. All initial enquiries received by the Admissions Office or other University Office should be referred to the Research Officer who appears most appropriate.

ix) The Research Officer is responsible for ensuring that informal enquiries referred to him or her are properly dealt with, that any information necessary to deal with an enquiry is obtained, and that any decisions are made promptly and communicated to the enquirer. Research Officers should maintain a record of all such decisions.

APPLICATION

x) Applications for admission for registration as a research student should be made as directed on the University website, or via hard copy of forms downloaded or available from the Admissions Office. Before making a decision and completing the Department’s checklist (included as an Appendix to this section) the Research Officer or potential supervisors may wish to interview the applicant or to take up references.

xi) The appropriate Sub-Dean or Head of Department and the Research Officer must countersign the checklist to confirm the approval of the arrangements for tuition and resources (including payment of an external supervisor or supervisor). Where a bursary award is being made, the appropriate authorisation must be given (see Fees, below).

xii) It is important to ensure that applications for registration are made at the earliest stage possible since prior to registration applicants are not entitled to the benefits of student membership of the University, and no period of study prior to registration will count towards the period of supervised study required for the award of a degree.

OFFER LETTER

xiii) Where the Research Officer has indicated that an application should be rejected following receipt of a formal application, the decision will be communicated to the applicant by the Admissions Office. Where the Research Officer has indicated that an application should be accepted, an offer letter is sent to the applicant by the Admissions Office, together with a financial


questionnaire (where one has not already been completed by the applicant). A copy of any offer of admission should be sent by the Admissions Office to the Registry Officer.

xiv) The Admissions Office is responsible for ensuring that for each applicant a financial questionnaire has been completed and for forwarding this to the Finance Office. The Finance Office will inform the applicant directly whether and for what period financial clearance has been given. A copy of any financial clearance letter should be sent by the Finance Officer to the Registry Officer.

REGISTRATION

xv) Once an applicant has received both an offer of admission from the Admissions Office and financial clearance from the Finance Officer, the applicant may register as a student of the University with the Registry office with effect from the beginning of any University term. Registration will date from the first day of the University term, provided that the student registers within four weeks of the beginning of that term. No retrospective registration will be allowed.

xvi) The research proposal or plan will be defined by the student with the assistance of the supervisor(s). The research proposal or plan should be completed within the time-frames specified in the General Regulations for Higher Degrees. The prescribed period of study for each degree is specified in the regulations.

xvii) Students are registered initially for the degree of PhD (Doctor of Philosophy), although their status is probationary until the first Annual Review has taken place normally between 12 and 18 months from first registration. Procedures for Annual Reviews and Upgrades outline when probationary status ends.

xviii) Accreditation of prior learning is not generally applicable to postgraduate research awards; however, admission with exemption from the probationary period is possible where the applicant can demonstrate that previous work is of sufficient standing to justify this.

of 9 Application for Admission as a Postgraduate Student

APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION AS A POSTGRADUATE STUDENT

PLEASE COMPLETE EVERY SECTION. IF NOT APPLICABLE, WRITE N/A. PLEASE WRITE IN BLOCK CAPITALS. WHEN COMPLETE, THIS FORM SHOULD BE RETURNED TO: The Admissions Office (Postgraduate) email: [email protected] The University of Buckingham Tel: Buckingham (01280) 814080 Buckingham MK18 1EG Fax: Buckingham (01280) 824081 United Kingdom International Tel: +44 1280 814080

COURSE SELECTION APPLICATION FOR: Taught Course * MBA / MA* / LLM* / MSc* / Diploma* Research Degree* DPhil* / MPhil* / LLM* / MSc* / MA* Full-Time * / Part-Time* FOR TAUGHT COURSES: Name of Course: Date of Commencement: FOR RESEARCH DEGREES: School of Study / Department: Anticipated Date of Commencement: Title of Proposed Research: (if known)# (# If you already have a research proposal please submit on a separate sheet) (*Delete as applicable) PERSONAL DETAILS LAST NAME:

GIVEN NAMES:

SEX: MARITAL STATUS:

DATE OF BIRTH: PLACE OF BIRTH:

NATIONALITY NOW:

NATIONALITY AT BIRTH:

PERMANENT HOME ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO: E-MAIL ADDRESS:

ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE: TELEPHONE NO: EMAIL ADDRESS:



IF YOU NOW LIVE OUTSIDE THE UK BUT HAVE LIVED IN THE UK, GIVE LAST PERIOD OF RESIDENCE: DECLARATION: I CONFIRM THAT I HAVE COMPLETED ALL RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THIS APPLICATION FORM AND THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. SIGNED: ……………………………………………….DATED: ………………………………………………..


EDUCATION Copies of all transcripts / certificates are required in support of your application. If possible, please supply the relevant copies with your completed application form. UNIVERSITIES ATTENDED AND DEGREES OBTAINED OR PENDING: University or equivalent institution, and relevant Department attended:

Dates of Attendance:

Degrees Awarded with Class of Honours and / or other distinctions:

Degrees Pending (give dates):

SUBJECTS STUDIED FOR FIRST DEGREE AND AT POSTGRADUATE LEVEL (if applicable): SUBJECTS STUDIED AT A-LEVEL (OR EQUIVALENT), GIVE GRADES: ADDITIONAL RELEVANT STUDY OR QUALIFICATIONS IN COMPUTING, MATHS, ETC. OTHER EDUCATION, AND / OR PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS: LANGUAGES: (FOR STUDENTS WHOSE FIRST LANGUAGE IS ENGLISH) Have you the ability to read in any foreign language YES / NO If YES, to what level?


PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (if any) PRESENT OCCUPATION (with dates) POSITION:

FROM: TO:

NATURE OF WORK:

OTHER POSITIONS HELD

FOR STUDENTS WHOSE FIRST LANGUAGE IS NOT ENGLISH: What is your first language?

How much formal English tuition have you had?

Did you attend an English-medium school? YES / NO

Have you taken a formal English assessment e.g. ELTS? YES / NO

(Please supply results and provide evidence)

If Yes, what was your score? (Please attach documentary evidence)

Have you the ability to read in any language other than English or your first language? YES / NO If YES, which, and approximately to what level?


OTHER QUALIFICATIONS, AND/OR INTERESTS (INCLUDING CAREER AMBITIONS, PASTIMES, HOBBIES): APPLICANTS FOR DEGREES BY RESEARCH ONLY OUTLINE RESEARCH YOU HAVE ALREADY UNDERTAKEN: e.g. Final year project, relevant vacation work, etc.


PUBLICATIONS (if any)

HEALTH FOR OUR RECORDS, PLEASE GIVE THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF YOUR USUAL DOCTOR FROM WHOM ANY NECESSARY MEDICAL RECORDS COULD BE OBTAINED: HAVE YOU ANY HEALTH PROBLEMS OR DISABILITY, WHICH MIGHT AFFECT YOUR STUDIES?


FINANCE HOW DO YOU INTEND TO SUPPORT YOUR STUDIES AT BUCKINGHAM? WILL YOUR STUDIES BE SUPPORTED FROM YOUR OWN FUNDS YES / NO WILL YOUR STUDIES BE SUPPORTED BY A SPONSOR? YES / NO IF YES, PLEASE PROVIDE NAME AND ADDRESS: WILL YOUR STUDIES BE SUPPORTED IN ANOTHER WAY? YES / NO IF YES, PLEASSE SPECIFY: NOTE: Successful candidates will be expected to produce evidence (e.g. from Sponsoring Institution, Research Foundation, Bank or Personal Guarantor) that they will be able to meet their financial obligations to the University, unless applying for a Research Council Studentship.

REFEREES PLEASE SUPPLY THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF TWO ACADEMIC REFEREES. PLEASE INCLUDE TELEPHONE NUMBERS AND, IF POSSIBLE, FAX NUMBERS. REFEREE 1: NAME: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NUMBER: FAX NUMBER: EMAIL:

REFEREE 2: NAME: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NUMBER: FAX NUMBER: EMAIL:

PLEASE WRITE YOUR NAME AND YOUR PROPOSED COURSE DETAILS ON THE REFERENCE FORMS ENCLOSED AND SEND THEM TO THE TWO ACADEMIC REFEREES NAMED ABOVE WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH YOUR WORK.

IF POSSIBLE, PLEASE INDICATE WHERE YOU HEARD ABOUT THE UNIVERSITY AND THE COURSE:


ACADEMIC REFEREE’S REPORT Section A should be completed by the Applicant. The form should then be forwarded to the referee named below for completion. Once completed, the form should be returned by the Referee to: The Admissions Office (Postgraduate), The University of Buckingham, Buckingham, MK18 1EG, United Kingdom. Tel: Buckingham (01280) 814080 / Fax: Buckingham (01280) 824081 / International Tel: +44 1280 814080 SECTION A: (To be completed by the Applicant) FULL NAME:

ADDRESS:

TITLE AND NAME OF PROPOSED COURSE: FULL-TIME / PART-TIME* TAUGHT COURSE / RESEARCH DEGREE* (delete as applicable*) SECTION B: (To be completed by the Referee) NAME OF REFEREE: PROFESSIONAL ADDRESS:

POSITION: TELEPHONE NUMBER: FAX NUMBER: EMAIL: LENGTH OF TIME YOU HAVE KNOWN THE

APPLICANT: IN WHAT CAPACITY?

TO THE ACADEMIC REFEREE: The applicant who has asked you to act as referee is applying to the University of Buckingham to undertake postgraduate studies. We should be grateful if you would comment on the academic ability of the applicant and, in particular, on the following: Performance in examinations and written course work Performance in practical work and research projects (where applicable) Research ability (research degrees only) Ability to organise working time Ability to express ideas in speech and writing Originality Drive and initiative Willingness to accept responsibility Reliability Maturity, ease of social contact and co-operation with others PLEASE WRITE OR TYPE YOUR ASSESSMENT OVERLEAF


SIGNATURE OF REFEREE: DATE

OFFICIAL STAMP:

THE UNIVERSITY WISHES TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND TROUBLE ON BEHALF OF THIS APPLICANT

of 1 Checklist for Registration of a Research Student

Checklist for Registration of a Research Student [This checklist may be adapted to a particular department’s needs.] A copy of the Checklist should be sent for approval to the Research Officer and copied to the Admissions Officer. NAME:

Expected Entry Date

Degree

Academic Discipline

Area of Research

Full or Part-time □ Full-time □ Part-time

Course length

Supervisor

Second Supervisor (if known)

Ext. Supervisor required □ Yes □ No

English Language Level □ Acceptable □ Problematic IELTS if known:

Pre-sessional required □ Yes □ No □ Recommended

Fees amount

Bursary Award

Bursary Source □ School Fund □ Central Fund

Approval of Bursary funding

Signature:

Further Notes:

Approval of arrangements by Dean / Sub-Dean / HoD

Signature:

1 of 5 Roles, Responsibilities and Induction for Research Staff and Students

3C.1 ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES and INDUCTION – RESEARCH STUDENTS AND STAFF GUIDANCE

ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE RESEARCH OFFICER

i) Each School, or significant area of research activity, has a senior academic to act as overseer of post-graduate research students: the Research Officer. There are Research Officers at the present time in the Schools of Business, Clore Lab, Humanities, Law, Psychology, Applied Computing, Medicine and Allied Health. The Research Officers meet termly, at the University Research Committee.

ii) The responsibilities of the Research Officer shall include:

a) appointing appropriate supervisors in their area, and inducting new supervisors; b) requesting and collating the supervisors’ termly reports on postgraduate research

students in their area, and presenting the reports to the Research Committee; c) [for PhD students (not for Masters students)] organising an Annual Review in which

the student's progress during the previous year is evaluated and the proposals for the forthcoming year outlined. This should provide the student with practice in oral examinations, but should also include written reports from the first supervisor and the student on which to base further discussion. Following the Annual Review the Research Officer will prepare a brief report. A copy of this must be given to the student, and another copy sent to the Registry Officer for inclusion in the student’s central file.

d) problem-solving in their area. For example, where a student’s first supervisor leaves the University, the Research Officer may either permit a transfer of registration to the supervisor’s new institution (if appropriate), or appoint an alternative supervisor (normally in consultation with the student).

ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SUPERVISOR

iii) There are normally two supervisors per student, called the first and second supervisor. Their role is to lead the student through a successful apprenticeship in research in their area, to guide their project, hopefully towards the successful completion of the degree for which they are enrolled. (The following procedure reflects the general recommendations of the UK Quality Code: Chapter B11: Research Degrees.

iv) The responsibilities and duties of the supervisor shall include:

a) Ensuring that s/he has sufficient time to take on a new postgraduate research student, where appropriate via sensible discussion with the Dean/sub-Dean. The review of the workload management shall be included within the Personal Development Review (PDR) process.

b) Checking at the beginning of a student’s studies that an appropriate Personal Tutor has been appointed.

c) Assisting the student with the preparation of the research proposal/plan, and ensuring that this is completed within the time-limits specified in the General


Regulations for Candidates Intending to Proceed by Thesis. d) Providing guidance to the student on, and talking through with the student at least

the following: (a) the ‘Postgraduate Feedback Questionnaire’, as a means of considering

responsibilities and entitlements, and the process of the degree; (b) sections of this Research Degrees Handbook, highlighting at the

appropriate time the parts relevant to the progression of the student’s studies;

(c) the nature of research and the standards expected; (d) requisite techniques; (e) the literature and resources available. This should include directing the

student to the subject-specialist librarian for induction and for SCONUL card and Athens password to electronic resources.

e) Providing guidance to the student on the wide range of ethical issues that may potentially arise in the course of research thereby raising student awareness and informing the student of the University’s framework for the promotion and consideration of ethics in relation to research: i.e. the working of the University’s Ethics Committee; the working of the School Ethics Committee, or the committee within the School where ethical issues are considered; the Code of Practice for Study by Research, School-specific ethical guidelines, where these exist; other ethical codes in the research area;

f) Providing guidance to the student on the issue of plagiarism raising student awareness and informing the student of the academic and University’s antiplagiarism code, including the seriousness of plagiarism as viewed by the wider academic and professional community. Guiding the student on copyright and the need to obtain permission from third parties.

g) Checking the work submitted for the annual report and the draft thesis for evidence of plagiarism using Turnitin and discussing with the student any issues that arise.

h) Taking special care of overseas students. The supervisor has a specific responsibility for care of overseas students in that they may need frequent contact in the early stages of their studies. Problems with English language must be highlighted and where necessary appropriate advice about English language training given.

i) Maintaining contact through regular meetings in accordance with the General and Special Regulations for Higher Degrees to ensure that the student's progress remains focused and progress is maintained within the student's overall plan.

j) Being accessible to the student at other appropriate times when the student may need advice.

k) Advising on the necessary completion dates of successive stages of the work so that the work may be submitted within the scheduled time.

l) Requesting written work as appropriate, and returning such work with constructive criticism within a reasonable time.

m) Ensuring that the student is made aware of inadequacy of progress or of standards of work below that generally expected.

n) Providing a brief termly report on the student, in the prescribed format, to the Research Officer, for consideration by the Research Committee; and, in addition, for a PhD student, a brief annual report to the Research Officer as part of the Annual Review.

o) Ensuring that the student is made aware of any subsidiary guidelines, which may


be provided by the Degree Programme. p) Reading the thesis in its near-final or final form, and approving for submission for

examination, or recording any reservations, via completion of the ‘Notice of Intention to Submit a Thesis for a Higher Degree’.

INDUCTION OF SUPERVISORS

v) Where a proposed supervisor, who has a successful record of supervision elsewhere, is newly in post at the University, then s/he must undergo at least A (ii), B (iv), and C in the induction process for new supervisors (below).

vi) The Research Officer in each subject-area is primarily responsible for the induction of a new supervisor. There are four elements:

A. The new supervisor should him/herself seek to understand proactively the role. This should involve at least:

i. the study of educational literature on the role and responsibilities of a supervisor, and on what helps and hinders effective supervision. Standard works are in the library: i.e. Delamont, Sarah, et al. Supervising the PhD: A Guide to Success (2nd edn, 2004), etc.;

ii. reading of the Research Degrees Handbook (obtainable in hard copy from Registry, or on the university website), in particular the ‘Postgraduate Feedback Questionnaire’

iii. reading one successful recent PhD thesis from within their department or subject-area, and the examiners’ report on the thesis obtainable from Registry;

iv. reading feedback from previous students of the same School if this is available.

B. The induction meeting with the Research Officer should cover at least the following:

i. the needs of research students and the issues they face. The new supervisor should reflect on her/his own experience of supervision when working for the PhD, and what was good and bad in that experience;

ii. effective approaches to supervision and the range of strategies available;

iii. how both the supervisor and his/her students will effectively engage in the wider research environment, both within and beyond the University: this may involve consideration of Funding councils, conference/seminar attendance, funding and grant applications, research resources and libraries elsewhere, computer and data-based resources, research grants available within the university, and so forth (in accordance with QAA Quality Code Chapter B11: Research Degrees).

iv. the normal progression of a research student, and the formal Regulations and

Procedures governing that progression, as laid out in the Research Degrees Handbook. This will include discussion of how the supervisor advises the student on development of a research plan and maintains contact with the student;

v. transferable skills outlined by the UK Research Councils and how these might be developed in the student. See Research Council training requirements, see QAA Quality Code Chapter B11: Research Degrees);


vi. An awareness of the workload management of the supervisor so he can manage his supervisory obligations accordingly.

C. A new Supervisor should normally attend at the meeting of the Research Committee, in the term s/he is starting supervision or in the next term. Meetings are on the Wednesday afternoon in the second week of each term. Attendance at the meeting will allow the new supervisor to meet the other Research Officers, get a wider view of the university’s research environments, and see in the round how research students’ progression is discussed and monitored, and the problems research students face.

D. Where it is deemed appropriate, and where available, the new supervisor should be funded to attend the next appropriate external course on the role of the supervisor.

ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PERSONAL TUTOR

1. Every student upon Registration will be allocated a Personal Tutor. Each School will notify the student of this allocation, of any subsequent alterations and how a student can request alternative Personal Tutor arrangements in exceptional circumstances.

2. The number of tutees allocated to Personal Tutors is set by the School at an appropriate level to ensure that they can have meaningful contact with each of their personal tutees.

3. Personal Tutors have an over-riding duty of care to report concerns about their tutees to the Head of School, should this occur the student may request alternative personal tutorial support if they feel the existing tutorial relationship will compromise their position.

The Personal Tutor will:

1. Establish initial contact with tutees following Registration; this is regarded as the single most important element in establishing the basis of a sound tutor: tutee relationship.

2. Arrange a schedule of individual one-to-one meetings with tutees, with a reminder that Personal Tutors are in a position to advise and guide at all times, not just when difficulties occur.

3. Wherever circumstances allow and within office hours, respond positively to requests from tutees for assistance in understanding School or University procedures, provide careers advice and mentoring in research scholarship.

4. Check that any necessary reasonable adjustments or concessions are in place to support learning on the research programme.

5. Refer students to the University Welfare Support Team as necessary, with the student’s agreement.

6. Keep a written record of each meeting or significant contact with tutees. 7. Act as an advocate for students during appeals or similar processes

ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE STUDENT

v) A postgraduate research student should work diligently in their research, gradually taking ownership of their project, while being guided by their supervisor(s) towards the project’s completion. The responsibilities of the student shall include:

a) The preparation of a fully-fledged research proposal/plan, with the support and guidance of the supervisor, within the timeframe specified.

b) Discussing with the supervisor the type of guidance and comment he or she finds most helpful, and agreeing a schedule of meetings.

c) Taking the initiative in raising problems or difficulties at meetings, however


elementary they may seem. d) Maintaining the progress of the work in accordance with the schedule agreed with

the supervisor, including in particular the presentation of written material as required.

e) Considering carefully the importance of avoiding plagiarism taking heed of the academic and University’s antiplagiarism code, including the seriousness of plagiarism as viewed by the wider academic and professional community. Checking the work submitted for the annual report and the draft thesis for evidence of plagiarism by using Turnitin. Checking copyright issues and the need to obtain permission from third parties.

f) Considering carefully the importance of ethical questions in research and the need to consider University (and where relevant Departmental) guidelines.

g) (for PhD students, not for Masters students) providing a brief annual report on progress to the Research Officer, to form part of the Annual Review. It will also be usual for the student to submit a part-chapter or chapter, and/or to prepare a brief presentation of their work, and to deliver this at the Annual Review.

h) Deciding when he or she wishes to submit in accordance with the General Regulations for Higher Degrees, having taken the advice of his or her supervisor.

i) Consulting with the supervisor before undertaking any work requested or assigned by another member of staff.

j) Contacting their Personal Tutor for pastoral support when concerns or problems arise.

INDUCTION OF STUDENTS

vi) The induction of research students is delivered in Schools by supervisors and Research Officers. Students are made aware of the Research Degrees Handbook, and discuss relevant content with their supervisors, including arrangements for supervision, meetings and feedback, and procedures for annual review and assessment. They also set objectives and agree projects outlines. Students are advised about the research environment, their personal development and any local opportunities provided for them including research seminars and skills development training. All students are assigned, and meet with early in their programmes, two supervisors and a Personal Tutor.

vii) Supervisors and Research Officers should also bring to the attention of students the following initiatives:

a) Library seminars for research students to help them with article searching and literature databases.

b) Research Methods courses and specialised writing workshops delivered in a number of programmes to support students in improving their research skills.

c) Social ‘meet and greet’ sessions, as well as networking events, seminar series and symposiums for students to formally present their work.

d) Centrally organised training workshops for students on research skills. e) Mentoring systems for senior research students to support newer students

MATTERS RELATING TO RESPONSIBILITIES

viii) Where a student or supervisor has difficulty in establishing a good working relationship with the other, this should be reported to the Research Officer for resolution. If the problem cannot be


resolved by the Research Officer the matter should be referred to the Research Committee. The Complaints Procedure should only be used as a last resort.

ix) The division of responsibilities between supervisors should always be clear, as, for example, between first and second supervisors, or where there are two joint supervisors, or a supervisory team. The principle supervisor allocated to a student, should be an employee of the University. The precise division of responsibilities between supervisors should be made clear at the Annual Review and if necessary be a point of discussion at the Review.

x) Where the Supervisor and the Research Officer are one and the same person the rules outlined above are to be read with common sense.

of 2 Supervision and Studying

SUPERVISION AND STUDYING POLICY AND PROCEDURE FOR RESEARCH DEGREES

SUPERVISION

i. The supervisor(s)-student relationship lies at the heart of successful research practice, the one leading the other in what is essentially an apprenticeship in research/scholarship. The following regulations are to help ensure the integrity and quality of that relationship.(See QAA Quality Code Chapter B11: Research Degrees)

ii. A supervisor is appointed to his/her role by the Research Officer in conjunction with the Head of Department/Dean. The following must be considered regarding eligibility: a supervisor should normally:

a. have a DPhil/PhD; b. be research-active and publishing in one or more specialist fields; c. not carry an undergraduate teaching-load or administrative-load that is

incompatible with having appropriate time for supervision.

i. Before a student is registered on a programme of study it is crucial to ensure that there is an appropriate match between the potential student’s research interests or agenda and those of a supervisor, depending on the supervisor’s experience and range of interests. See ‘Checklist for registration as a research student’.

ii. The supervisory role may be appropriately considered at each supervisor’s PDR to ensure the on-going development of the supervisor’s own research, research expertise, and teaching knowledge, and to identify training needs.

iii. Where it is possible, students will have joint supervision, i.e. two named and equally-acting supervisors. At least one of the supervisors should be an employee of the University, and that the principle supervisor allocated to a student, should be an employee of the University. Where that is not possible or appropriate supervision will involve one named supervisor (first supervisor), and a second named supervisor who takes a subsidiary role. The first supervisor must be identified prior to entry and named at entry; the second (joint) or (subsidiary) supervisor may be appropriately appointed later, but within the first year, as the precise direction of the research becomes clear. The supervisor shall normally have had successful experience of supervising to the level of the degree proposed, either solely or as co-supervisor. Where the subject-specialist supervisor does not have such supervisory experience, a director of studies (i.e. principal supervisor with appropriate supervisory experience) must be appointed. Where a proposed supervisor is wholly new to the role, s/he will usually be appointed to act in the first instance as second supervisor with an experienced supervisor who, in the initial stages, is first supervisor. If the student is based abroad, a local person will normally be appointed to act as a second supervisor.

of 2 Supervision and Studying

RESEARCH PROPOSAL OR PLAN

iv. At the commencement of studies for all higher degrees by research the student and supervisor(s) must work together to develop or refine the research proposal/plan. The research proposal should specify

a. the field of study; b. the working title; c. an outline of the proposed plan of work; d. iv. the facilities available for the investigation (an outline bibliography, for

example), and, where appropriate, the resources identified elsewhere;

v. any additional support, including supporting studies, that the student will require.

vi. For a PhD student, the research proposal must be available at the first Annual Review, and will form an important part of the discussion at the Review. For Masters level students by research (MA, MSc, LLM), the research proposal should normally be fully evolved and a work-in-progress by the end of the second term of study (fourth term for part-time students).

vii. If the research proposal for PhD is not considered satisfactory at the first Annual Review, the review panel may grant an extension of time to achieve a satisfactory proposal or may terminate the student’s studies. If the research proposal at Masters level is not considered satisfactory after two terms by the supervisor(s) and the Research Officer (after four terms for part-time students), they may grant an extension of time to achieve a satisfactory proposal or may terminate the student’s studies. In both instances the student will be informed from the Registry by letter, which will indicate the student’s right of appeal. A student who withdraws or whose studies are terminated within the first six months from registration will not count for the purposes of completion statistics.

of 4 Terms of Study for Research

3E.1 TERMS OF STUDY FOR RESEARCH POLICY AND PROCEDURE FOR RESEARCH DEGREES

METHOD AND CONTACT

i. Candidates may be registered on a full-time or part-time basis.

ii. During the time of their study many students will live in or near the university and attend regularly.For those at a distance and/or part-time, individual departments may require the student to spenda stipulated minimum number of days at the university each year to help ensure the progress oftheir research, and this minimum number of days must be adhered to.

iii. The supervisor and student should maintain such appropriate regular serious intellectual contactas will further the student’s project in a timely way. Compliance by both the supervisor and thestudent is ensured in the following three ways:

iv. A minimum number of formal supervisor-led meetings with students should be held:a. Humanities - a minimum of 8 meetings per annumb. Business - a minimum of 12 meetings per annumc. Science - a minimum of 12 meetings per annumd. Law - a minimum of 10 meetings per annum

v. the supervisor should maintain a logbook of contact, signed jointly with the student, of formalmeetings, and of video conference/telephone/e-mail discussion, so that it is possible to reviewthe contact; an acceptable alternative is a filed e-mail correspondence, whereby the studentwrites a brief e-mail summary of each supervisory meeting and the supervisor replies emendingor adding to the content;

vi. at the Annual Review, the pattern of contact and its effectiveness should be considered, and aformal note made of the plan for meetings and consultations in the next period of study.

vii. In the event that certain candidates, for reasons approved by the Research Officer, are engagedin their research at a distance from the University, then, where appropriate, alternativesupplementary supervisory arrangements shall also be approved by the Research Officer, toinclude a specified minimum number of visits by the supervisor and/or the additional supervisorand an undertaking that student and supervisor (and additional supervisor, where appropriate)shall place with the Registry office full contact details, including telephone numbers and emailaddresses and that each undertake to ensure that these are kept up to date at all times duringthe research student’s registration for the degree.

viii. Students who are permitted to spend part of the period of their research elsewhere than inBuckingham shall be required to maintain such personal contact with their supervisors as thelatter specify. In such cases the appointment of an additional supervisor other than a member ofthe University shall be made when circumstances make such an appointment desirable.


PERIOD OF STUDY

ix. The prescribed periods of study (excluding suspensions) shall be:

(full-time) (part-time)

a. MA - one academic year (two years) b. MSc - one academic year (two years) c. LLM - one academic year (two years) d. MPhil - two academic years (four years) e. PhD - three academic years (six years)

x. These periods may be reduced in specific cases with the approval of the Research Committee, which may permit submission to be made no earlier than after the lapse of two-thirds of the prescribed period of study.

xi. The maximum registration periods (including extensions but excluding suspensions) shall be:

(full-time) (part-time)

a. MA - two academic years (three years) b. MSc - two academic years (three years) c. LLM - two academic years (three years) d. MPhil - three academic years (six years) e. PhD - six academic years (eight years)

xii. Students may be granted mitigating circumstances beyond these maximum registration periods, but only in exceptional circumstances and with the agreement of the University Research Committee.

EXTENSION OF TIME

xii. Students, both full-time and part-time, should submit the thesis within the prescribed periods of study or apply for an extension of time. For all students a first extension of time of up to a year may be granted within the department with the agreement of the supervisor(s) and the Research Officer. This is called a Departmental Extension. In the case of PhD, the extension request should be discussed at the Annual Review, in the second or third year of study respectively, and the reasons for it noted in the Annual Review report form. The Application for Extension of Time Form should then be completed, selecting ‘Departmental Extension’ and the form returned to Registry.

xiii. If at the end of this first extension of time the thesis is not ready for submission; or if the first

extension request is for longer than one year, an application for a Research Committee Extension must be made by completion of the Application for Extension of Time Form, selecting ‘Research Committee Extension’, and the form returned to Registry. Registry then coordinate the approval of the request with the Chairman of the University Research Committee. All Departmental Extensions and Research Committee Extensions are reported to the next Research Committee by Registry.

SUSPENSION OF STUDIES


xiv. The Research Officer will not normally grant a suspension of studies. Periods of suspension will not be counted towards the prescribed period of study for the degree.

xv. Once registered, students who wish to suspend their studies for whatever reason, must first seek

the approval of the Research Officer. Approval for a suspension of studies will only be granted in exceptional circumstances and cannot in any instance exceed twelve months in total. If granted, notification must be sent by the Research Officer to Registry and to the Finance Office, and the student will be required to pay the termly administration fee to maintain their registration. Periods of suspension do not count towards the prescribed period of study. At the end of any period of suspension, if one year or more has elapsed since the last annual review a review should be held to redefine the timescale and work plan for the programme of study.

xvi. Where a student wishes to suspend studies for a period exceeding twelve months, or where studies have been suspend for more than twelve months, the student will be expected to withdraw from the programme of study and to apply for readmission when in a position to resume studies. Account may be taken on readmission of any previous period of study.

WITHDRAWAL/TERMINATION

xvii. A student who is in arrears of fees of two terms, and who has not made special arrangements with the Finance Director, will be presumed to have withdrawn. Once the debt has been cleared, any resumption of studies will need the formal approval of the Research Officer.

xviii. Where five terms elapse without an Annual Review being held it will be presumed that the student has withdrawn. The outcomes of Annual Review may also lead to withdrawal or termination (see the relevant section for these regulations).

xix. If the student has not responded to communication for two consecutive terms, it will be presumed that the student has withdrawn.

FEES

xx. Fees are agreed each year by the Finance, Estates and Resources Committee and should be paid promptly through the period of study. No awards will be made until the Finance Office has confirmed that there are no outstanding academic fees.

xxi. For all higher degrees by research fees cease at the end of the prescribed periods of study or on submission, whichever comes first. For an early-submitted MPhil or PhD thesis, fees cease at the point of submission, unless an early-submitted thesis receives recommendations 3 or 4 from the examiners and hence requires more work, when supervision and fees must continue to the end of the prescribed period of study.

xxii. The cessation of fees at submission does not apply to Masters Degrees by research: in the unusual event of an early-submitted thesis at Masters Level (i.e. submitted at 8 months for a full-time student, or 16 months for a part-time student) the full fees must be paid.

xxiii. All students are subject to the payment of full fees unless other financial support has been obtained. This may be an internally or externally funded bursary award, or external sponsorship. A recommendation for a bursary award in the case of an applicant for a research degree requires the prior approval of the authorised signatory for the relevant bursary fund.


xxiv. Research students who have reached the end of the prescribed period of study for their programme and have been granted an extension to their studies in order to satisfactorily complete their degree are required to pay a supervision fee of up to £250 per term. This fee is determined by the School of Study dependent on the following factors – sponsorship status, mitigating circumstances and any other factors the School may deem of relevance. Students who exceed the prescribed period of study and have not been granted an extension and/or whose status is unclear (i.e. they have not responded to communications from their supervisor) will also be subject to the £250 per term charge.

of 4 Application for Extension of Time

3E.1.1 APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Note A: Departmental Extensions For all students an extension of time of up to a year may be granted. These extensions, provided they are one year or less, should follow the Departmental Extensions Process and complete Section A, B, C and D before returning the form to Registry. Research Committee Extensions Subsequent extensions or first extensions that are requested for more than one year should follow the process for Research Committee Extensions and complete sections A, B, C and D, returning the form to Registry who then coordinate the completion of section E with the Chairman of the Research Committee. If an application for an extension of time is not approved then the thesis must be submitted within any previously agreed deadline. Note B: International Students If in exceptional circumstances a student applies for an extension of 18 months and is an international student, please indicate that checks have been made to ensure that the student’s sponsor is happy and his/her visa will cover the length of the extension. Note C: Additional Documentation In relation to questions 5 and 6, please give the detailed information required on separate sheets. SECTION A – Student Details Name: Title of Degree: Title of Project: Mode: Full Time Part Time Department: Contact telephone/email: SECTION B – Extension Details Date of Registration Original Submission Date Previous Extensions Granted

(include previous expected submission dates)

Type of Extension Now Requested (see note A above)

Departmental Research Committee

Number of Months Extension Now Requested (see note B above and confirm)

New Submission Date End Date


SECTION C – Case for Extension 1. Is the main research for your thesis completed? If not, how much is completed and when do you expect it to be completed?

2. How much of the thesis is written? a. How many chapters/sections are proposed? b. How many chapters/sections are completed?

3. How much of your thesis has been reviewed by your first and/or second supervisor?

4. Please give an indication of the percentage of the working week you intend to spend on your thesis over the time of the requested extension.

5. Please provide a detailed explanation for the requested extension, including any relevant circumstances. 6. Please provide a realistic plan and a timetable for the work on your thesis you will be undertaking during the extension requested. This should indicate specific milestones and approximate dates leading to final submission. This may be submitted as a separate document. Student’s signature: Date:


SECTION D – School Approval Supervisor Approval Name: Comments: Please indicate, with reasons, whether you believe the proposed arrangements will result in the thesis being submitted for formal assessment by the end of the proposed extension period. If recommending approval, please set out the agreed objectives and timeframes , if different to Section C; 6 Recommendation: Approved: Not Approved: Supervisor’s Signature: Date: Research Officer Approval Name: Comments Please indicate, with reasons, whether you believe these arrangements to be appropriate to the current circumstances of the student and their studies to date. Recommendation: Approved: Not Approved: Research Officer’s Signature: Date: Confirmation that previous annual review is attached: Once Section D has been completed, please return to [email protected] or by internal mail to Registry. Where the request is for a Research Committee Extension, the completion of Section E is coordinated by Registry and the Chairman of the University Research Committee. All extensions are reported termly to the University Research Committee. SECTION E – Research Committee Approval



Chairman of Research Committee Chairman Comments: Recommendation: Approved: Not Approved Chairman of Research Committee Signature:

Date: Received In Registry: Date:

of 1 Learning Resources – Guidance for Students

3F.1 LEARNING RESOURCES GUIDANCE FOR RESEARCH DEGREES

i. It is the responsibility of the Department to inform the student fully, prior to admission, of the facilities that will be available.

ii. With the exception of Sciences, for which an additional bench fee is charged (see below), no research student is entitled to any special arrangements or facilities (such as the provision of personal office space) other than the general computer and social facilities for postgraduate students.

LIBRARY FACILITIES

iii. Purchases of books for the library required for research students, or requested by them, will be permitted only in accordance with the parameters and procedures approved by the library service after the usual consultation. Inter-library loan provision is generous, but limits may apply on the extent to which students can use inter-library loan and database services without additional charge. This should be explained in general terms to students prior to admission.

GRANTS IN AID OF RESEARCH COSTS

iv. Grants in aid of research costs will not be given to individual students from University funds. This policy should be made clear to research students prior to admission. Departments bear a responsibility to inform prospective students, prior to acceptance, of any facilities or costs that the students are likely to incur (e.g. informing them of the need to spend periods of study at libraries outside Buckingham, the costs of postage and printing for survey work, the cost of travelling for field studies or interviews).

SCIENCES

v. The bench fee payable by students within the Sciences assumes a greater level of support than for other students through the availability of laboratory space, equipment, and consumables. The extent of this support should be agreed with the student prior to admission.

of 1 Progress Monitoring and Transfers

PROGRESS MONITORING AND TRANSFERS POLICY AND PROCEDURE FOR RESEARCH DEGREES PROGRESS MONITORING

i. A student's progress is formally monitored via the termly reports of the supervisor(s) to the Research Officer. These reports are reviewed at the termly meetings of the Research Committee, where problems with progress can be considered and actions recommended.

ii. For MPhil and PhD students formal monitoring also takes place by means of an Annual Review (see relevant section).

TRANSFER

iii. A student who has been registered on the MA by Research, MSc by Research or LLM by Research programme(s) shall not normally be permitted to transfer to the PhD. If however this is deemed appropriate, the following steps should be adhered to:

a) the research project must be scrutinized by the supervisor(s) and the Research

Officer, to check that it is appropriate to the higher level of degree; b) ii. a transfer meeting must be held with student, supervisor(s) and Research

Officer, and if the outcome approves the re-registration, the application to re-register as an MPhil or PhD student form should be completed and sent to Registry;

c) the student will then be re-registered onto the MPhil programme or on the PhD programme for the probationary period as outlined before Annual Review and Upgrade

d) the student should be made aware of the new requirements for the higher degree in the Research Degrees Handbook.

iv. As the work carried out at Masters level can be carried over to the higher degree, the time spent

at Masters level should also be able to count directly towards the MPhil or PhD, if that is deemed appropriate by the supervisor(s) and the Research Officer. Thus it is possible for the re-registering student to complete their PG research studies three years after commencing.

v. The timing of the first Annual Review after re-registration is flexible, but would not normally take place within the first six months after re-registration onto the MPhil or PhD programme. The exact timing will depend on the progress the student has made during the Masters level period and how easily they adapt to working at the PhD level.

vi. It should be remembered that work at a Masters level has different expectations, descriptors, etc. from work at MPhil or PhD level (see General Regulations in the Research Degrees Handbook). Although one year will have been spent on work at Masters Level this is not necessarily at the same level as one year on an MPhil/PhD. Therefore, before confirmation of the completion of the probationary period for PhD registration a student would need to demonstrate that they were achieving the level of MPhil and all things being equal capable of achieving work of a PhD level.

of 1 Transfer from MSc MA LLM to MPhil DPhil Meeting Report Form

TRANSFER FROM MSc / MA / LLM TO MPhil / PhD MEETING REPORT FORM Student’s Name: Current Degree Course: e.g. Law LLM, Psychology MSc, etc. Thesis Title: Date of commencement on MSc / MA / LLM: Expected date of completion of PhD: Research Officer: Supervisors: Date Review Held: Participants: Outcome: Please complete the following checklist:- If your response to items (a)-(d) is NO, then please provide an explanation. (a) Have you received a written report from the Supervisor?

(a) Have you received a written proposal/report from the Student?

(b) Have you provided the Student's sponsor with a brief report of the outcome of the transfer meeting (if applicable)?

(c) Have you provided the Student with a brief report of the outcome of the transfer meeting?

Will you please ensure that details of item (e) are contained in your report overleaf. (e) Is transfer from MSc / MA / LLM to MPhil / DPhil recommended?

• Is the work to date of an appropriate level of quality?

• Has the student engaged with the research thus far and made satisfactory progress?

• Has a clear proposal of the direction of future research been articulated by the

student?

Meeting Report:- Signed:

Date:

Please forward a copy of this report to Registry and the Dean of Research for submission to the next meeting of the Research Committee.

of 2 Annual Reviews and Upgrades

3H.1 ANNUAL REVIEWS AND UPGRADES POLICY AND PROCEDURE FOR RESEARCH DEGREES

TIMING

i. The main progress review for each PhD research student is called the Annual Review. (This review does not apply to the MA, MSc, and LLM by research.) However, student progress is routinely monitored by the supervisor throughout the degree programme.

ii. The Research Officer is responsible for ensuring that an Annual Review is held at least once each year and that the decision following the review is communicated to the student and to the Registry Officer for report to the Research Committee.

iii. For full-time students the review will be conducted at the end of the first year of study, and then in each subsequent year of study, at any time within the calendar year as appropriate to the student’s needs and development. For part-time students the first three reviews follow this same pattern (i.e. yearly), but after the third-year review, assuming progress is good, the review may take place every 18 months.

iv. The student is responsible for ensuring that he or she is available for a review in the term falling one year after the previous review and where for any reason this is not possible, making alternative arrangements with the Research Officer. Where five terms elapse without a review being held it will be presumed that the student has withdrawn.

PURPOSE

v. The purpose of the Annual Review is to enable the Research Officer to be satisfied that the

student is maintaining his/her progress and is performing at a sustained and acceptable level for the ultimate award of the degree. The review also serves the purpose of ensuring that appropriate plans have been made for the continuation of studies over the following year, including review of the work plan and timetable for those studies. In addition, it provides an opportunity for both the student and the supervisor to comment on matters concerning research support and supervision without the presence of the other, thus trying to identify and avoid difficulties before they become formal complaints.

vi. Its purpose is:

a. to make a considered review of the progress of the research project in both intellectual and practical terms;

b. to ensure arrangements for supervision are satisfactory; c. to receive feedback from the student via the completion of the ‘Research Postgraduate

Feedback Questionnaire’, and, where appropriate, to take action in relation to that feedback;

d. to act, at the appropriate time, as the formal stage-review for the completion of the probationary PhD status and confirmation of upgrade to full PhD status;

e. to discuss and grant an extension of time of up to a year if this is required.

of 2 Annual Reviews and Upgrades

PROCESS

i. The Research Officer in the area of study is responsible for convening and chairing the review (unless s/he is the supervisor, when another designated colleague will take this role), and will be responsible for sending a written report of the review to the Registry Officer and to the student. The panel for the review will normally comprise the Research Officer (or a designated colleague) as chair, the supervisor(s), and at least one other member of the academic staff. The discussion with the student should be a substantial one. At some point in the review the supervisor(s) should leave the room to allow the student the opportunity to discuss progress independently with the other panel members.

vii. The student should be reminded that s/he should have been given an opportunity to raise any problems or concerns but that if this opportunity had not been provided the student was invited to write directly to the Chairman of the Research Committee.

viii. The review will comprise a summary of progress by the student in the prescribed form; a written report on progress by the student's supervisor(s); and a viva voce examination. The first supervisor will check that the summary of progress does not contain plagiarized material.

ix. In the case of a student registered for a PhD, consideration may be given at the Annual Review regarding the completion of the probationary period for the PhD registration and the upgrade to full PhD status; or the continuation of the probationary period and/or registration as an MPhil student. The completion of the probationary PhD period and the upgrade to full PhD status s not possible without a review. At that review the student must demonstrate by submission of draft written work or in some other appropriate way:

a) an understanding of any secondary literature; b) an ability for detailed criticism and argument, and c) an ability to collect and organise new information from original sources.

OUTCOME

ii. Following the preparation of a report on the Annual Review, the Research Officer must decide what action is necessary. The Research Officer may approve the continuation of the student's studies; impose conditions on the continuation of study; or terminate the student's studies. The student has the right of appeal against such a decision. In cases where the student has been allowed to waive the residence requirement, the viva voce examination component of the annual review shall involve the student's supervisor and, if possible and appropriate, the additional supervisor where applicable, and, if possible, and in cases where the student is affiliated to, or conducting research at, another academic institution, a member of the academic staff from that institution. The supervisor shall prepare a full report of the viva voce examination for the Research Officer at the University of Buckingham. The Research Officer shall prepare a brief report which shall be forwarded to the Registry Officer. The Registry Officer shall send a copy to the student concerned.

iii. Confirmation of the completion of the probationary period and upgrade to full PhD status, must be reported to Registry and to the Finance Office, and the student’s date of completion confirmed accordingly.

iv. The Research Officer will be responsible for, or will oversee, the resulting formal report on the review, a copy of which must be given to the student, and another copy sent to the Registry Officer for inclusion in the student’s central file.

of 3 Guidelines and Report Form for the Annual Review

3H.1.1 GUIDELINES FOR THE ANNUAL REVIEW

A student’s first Annual Review should be held promptly twelve months after first registration. Thereafter it should occur yearly, but may be held flexibly within the calendar year in accord with the needs of the student. It should be a serious intellectual consideration of the student’s research project and of how that research can best be taken forward. 1 The review panel should comprise at least three people: the Research Officer, the

first supervisor, and one other member of staff from the department or related department. Where the Research Officer is the supervisor then s/he should appoint a different chair; other overlaps should be treated in the same way. The panel might ideally comprise more people, the supervisor and Research Officer sensibly drawing in other members of staff with expertise that might aid the discussion. What is crucial is that the panel comprise both staff closely involved with the research project, and one or more staff at a distance from the project, to give perspective and an outside view.

2 Both the supervisor and the student should write a brief report on progress for the

Annual Review. If the student wishes, s/he may also fill in the first part of the Postgraduate Feedback Questionnaire to form the basis of discussion. (Even if this is not formally done, the headings in the questionnaire may usefully be considered as providing some key points for discussion.) For the first Annual Review a copy of the student’s detailed research proposal/plan should be circulated beforehand so that it can be a focus for discussion. For all later reviews experimental data/extracts/chapters from the student’s work-in-progress should be circulated prior to the review so as to form the basis for discussion.

3 The aims of the review are to assess the progress of the research project but also, as

much as is possible, to aid with that progress by free and open intellectual discussion. The review should be an opportunity for the student to raise problems about the work-in-progress and obtain candid feedback about how these matters might be solved. It is an opportunity for pooling knowledge and for other members of staff to aid the supervisor(s) by giving their perspective on the project. It is also an opportunity to think through the plan for the next year’s research, to consider, for example, resource implications, upcoming conferences, software needs, etc.

4 After the full discussion has run its course, the Research Officer, or chair of the panel, should ask the supervisor(s) to withdraw for 5–10 minutes. In this time, the Research Officer (or chair) and the other panel member should ask the student candidly about how well the supervisory arrangements are working and whether there is anything that could be improved. This is an opportunity for the student to raise any difficulties in the relationship with the supervisor(s) and to consider with the help of others if there are ways in which these could be alleviated.

5 At the end of the Annual Review, the Research Officer (or chair) should write a brief report, a copy of which should be sent to the student and another copy of which should be sent to the Registry for inclusion in the student’s central file.


ANNUAL REVIEW REPORT FORM Student’s Name: Degree Course:

Title:

Date of commencement:

Expected date of completion: Research Officer: Supervisor:

Date of Last Review:

(If any of these details are incorrect please amend accordingly) Date Review Held: __________________________________________ Participants: __________________________________________

__________________________________________

__________________________________________

Outcome:

(delete as applicable)

Please complete the following checklist:- If your response to items (a)-(g) is NO will you please provide an explanation why.

(a) Have you referred the Student to parts of the Research Degrees Handbook relevant to the stage of study? Yes/No

(b) Have you received the Supervisor's report? Yes/No

(c) Have you received the Student's report? Yes/No

(d) Have you examined the Student’s report or draft thesis for evidence of plagiarism using Turnitin and discussed any issues with the student? Yes/No (e) Have you provided the Student's sponsor with an annual

report? Yes/No

(f) Have you provided the Student with a brief report of the outcome of the review? Yes/No

(g) Has the student filled in relevant parts of the feedback questionnaire and returned it to you or the


Chairman of the URC (Appendix 8)? Yes/No

Will you please ensure that details of items (h) and (j) are contained in your report on page 2.

(h) Have you considered any changes to the nature or structure of the course? If so what? Yes/No

(i) Is upgrade to DPhil recommended Yes/No

(j) Has the title of the thesis been approved or any proposals for change submitted to the Board for further approval?

Please complete the Report form overleaf <<<<< REPORT: Signed: .................................. Date: .................. Please ensure that all relevant facts and recommendations are included in a brief report which should be sent to the Registry Office. PGRADSTU/VIVAREP.PRI

of 2 Academic Misconduct Guidance for Research

3I.1 ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT GUIDANCE FOR RESEARCH DEGREES

ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT

i. The University’s Academic Misconduct Policy and Procedure (which can be found in the University Handbook – here: http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/life/handbook sets out the policy for identifying and responding to academic misconduct. Appendix 7 sets out the University’s Code of Practice for Study by Research, the principles of which provide information about good practice in research.

ii. The supervisor is responsible for providing students with guidance on the issue of plagiarism, raising student awareness about good practice in research, and informing the student of the University’s academic misconduct policy and procedures, including the seriousness of plagiarism as viewed by the wider academic and professional community. The supervisor is also responsible for guiding the student on copyright and the need to obtain permission from third parties.

iii. The student is responsible for considering carefully the importance of avoiding plagiarism, and taking heed of the University’s academic misconduct policy and procedures, including the seriousness of plagiarism as viewed by the wider academic and professional community and the principles of good research contained within the University’s guidance in Appendix 7 in the Code of Practice for Study by Research. The student is also responsible for checking copyright issues and the need to obtain permission from third parties; signing the originality declaration on the Intention to Submit form and disclosing full particulars of all sources of information consulted and any money paid in respect of the preparation of the work.

iv. The internal and the external examiner will be provided with the outcome of any investigation or enquiry into alleged academic misconduct if this has been identified before the thesis has been released to the examining team and where a judgement of Poor Academic Practice or Academic Misconduct has been applied. However, should the internal or external examiner have any concerns about the presentation or originality of the work when assessing the thesis, the assessment process should cease and advice should be sought from the University’s Central Academic Misconduct Offer in Registry.

v. TurnItIn is a service currently used by the University to check for originality and potential instances of plagiarism in student work. Postgraduate research students have the opportunity to submit their penultimate draft through Turnitin via their supervisors. The Turnitin report will be used to help identify potential instances of plagiarism or concerns over originality and will contribute to the overall assurance of academic integrity prior to formal submission to examiners. The University’s resources on academic writing, referencing and plagiarism include a sample TurnItIn report, which can be found in the ‘Useful Resources’ section of this page: http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/life/library/authorship-plagiarism.

http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/life/library/authorship-plagiarism

of 2 Academic Misconduct Guidance for Research

vi. The supervisor is responsible for checking the work submitted for the annual report and the

draft thesis for evidence of plagiarism using Turnitin and discussing with the student any issues that arise. The supervisor is also responsible for providing a copy of the final TurnItIn report when the thesis is submitted as part of the Intention to Submit process, and signing the relevant declaration.

vii. The University provides a number of helpful resources for students around academic writing and referencing. These can be found here: http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/life/library/authorship-plagiarism. Support and referencing workshops are also run by the Foundation and Academic Skills department.

of 1 Training and Development

3J.1 TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE FOR RESEARCH DEGREES

GRANTS IN AID OF RESEARCH COSTS

i) Grants in aid of research costs will not be given to individual students from University funds. This policy should be made clear to research students prior to admission. Departments bear a responsibility to inform prospective students, prior to acceptance, of any facilities or costs that the students are likely to incur (e.g. informing them of the need to spend periods of study at libraries outside Buckingham, the costs of postage and printing for survey work, the cost of travelling for field studies or interviews).

SUPPORT FOR RESEARCH STUDENTS UNDERTAKING TEACHING DUTIES

ii) Teaching posts for research students are limited to a small number of students at the discretion of the department. However, the University does recognise the development opportunities that teaching posts for research students provide, and the following good practice guidance for departments provides information to support students undertaking or involved in teaching activities:

a) In order to ensure fairness, teaching opportunities are to be advertised to all eligible students in the department.

b) Teaching opportunities on modules on pre-degree, Foundation programmes or on preliminary level modules, as well as non-credit bearing modules and skills workshops are likely to provide appropriate introductory opportunities for students new to teaching.

c) Mentoring schemes, where a member of academic staff provides support and review sessions for students can help to identify areas of good practice in teaching, and areas for improvement and development. Combining review sessions with the student and supervisor also ensures careful monitoring of the impact of teaching on the intended timeline for completion of the students thesis/dissertation.

d) Teaching sessions run by or involving PGR students should be planned and discussed in advance, with review meetings held afterwards.

e) The attendance at external courses for students new to teaching (for example, run by the Higher Education Academy) is encouraged, as is the development of PGR students who teach to become HEA Fellows.

POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH STUDENT CONFERENCE FUND

iii) The University operates a Postgraduate Research Student Conference fund, for students to attend and/or present at conferences. Details can be found in the Appendix to this section.

of 2 Postgraduate Research Student Conference Fund

Postgraduate Research Student Conference Fund

Postgraduate Research Students are invited to apply to the Postgraduate Research Student Conference Fund. The University has made available a sum of £5,000, on an annual basis, to provide funding to students, especially those who are not in receipt of conference funding from their sponsors. The lack of opportunity to attend such conferences, particularly of students who are self financed, was voiced at the Research Committee meeting in April 2012 by one of the students in attendance who suggested setting up such a fund. The University responded swiftly to this request.

For 2018, a total of £5,000 is made available across the University as a whole. Whilst this is a limited fund it is also significant that many other Universities expect students to find their own source of funding.

Eligibility – All Postgraduate Research Students are eligible to apply. Preference will be given to

those with financial need especially those who are not in receipt of any sponsorship.

How to Apply

If you wish to apply, please submit a proposal, to include:

An Outline of your Research Project (at least 300 words). This should indicate a clearly defined, focused research project, on-going or commencing, for which conference assistance is sought. It should be worded to be accessible to the non-specialist, detailing the background and the theoretical underpinnings of the proposal, together with the aims and objectives and likely contribution to knowledge or practice, and impact. You should discuss your application with your supervisor(s) and Research Officer before submitting an application to ensure that you have their support. In addition the application should contain:

i. Details of other sources of funding whether personal or sponsored ii. A detailed submission on a breakdown of costings (the early bird rate is encouraged as

is the cheapest rail or other travel and Accommodation) iii. Details of the Conference to be attended. A description of how your research will benefit

from attending the Conference. iv. Details of the paper/ presentation to be delivered (where relevant) v. Proposed Outcome(s) (up to 500 words): a description of what, immediately or in the longer

term, will be the benefit of the conference attendance. vi. A supporting statement from your Head of Department or Research Officer and

supervisor(s). An upper limit of £500 is available per student (in each year), however it is anticipated that much smaller amounts will be applied for to enable as many students across the University to benefit from the fund and the amount awarded is at the discretion of the Committee or its Chairperson on behalf of the Committee. Successful applicants are required to write a short report outlining the benefits to them of the conference. This report should be submitted to the University Research Committee (URC) following the conference attendance. Date of receipt of Applications: Applicants may apply all the year round. Applications to be considered at the next round of the URC should be submitted in good time. Please submit applications well in advance of the conference date to be attended. The University Research Committee meets four times a year in the second week of each term. In cases where the timing of a decision is critical to the conference attendance the Chair may exercise Chairperson’s action and consider the application.

of 2 Postgraduate Research Student Conference Fund

Applications should be sent to the University Research Committee Secretary [email protected] cc: [email protected]

Successful and unsuccessful applicants will be informed shortly after the meeting of the URC or otherwise by the Chairperson of the Committee. Unsuccessful applicants will be eligible to apply the following year.

Professor Susan Edwards Chairwoman – University Research Committee

3K.1 STUDENT FEEDBACK AND REPRESENTATION POLICY FOR RESEARCH DEGREES

(POLICY UNDER DEVELOPMENT)

of 10 Postgraduate Feedback Questionnaire

APPENDIX 8

POSTGRADUATE FEEDBACK QUESTIONNAIRE

Your degree title: Submission date of thesis [expected or actual]:

Thank you for agreeing to fill in this questionnaire about your experience as a research postgraduate student reading for a higher degree. You should first see this questionnaire during the period of your induction. Your supervisor should talk it through with you, to that you can understand the framework of care surrounding your degree and have an awareness of your entitlements and duties. An awareness of it can help with discussions with your supervisor(s) and with taking forward your research in a positive way. Questions 1 to 19 should be filled in annually, prior to your Annual Review, so that your answers can then form the basis of discussions about your ongoing support and development. The form can be returned to your supervisor, or, if you feel uncomfortable with this, to the Research Officer or another academic helping with your review. To help the university to continue to enhance the research postgraduate experience, you will also be asked to fill in this questionnaire at the completion of your degree, at that time including feedback on questions 20 to 23. Your answers will be treated seriously and in confidence. The findings from this ongoing survey will be used to enhance the postgraduate research experience. In each case, please ring or tick the answer that best fits your experience. After each question, there is a space for further comment. 1. ADMISSIONS Acceptance onto a higher research degree can be straightforward – the filling in of a form and an interview. Sometimes it involves contact with the university prior to formal application: discussion with the relevant department and/or potential supervisors as arrangements are made to identify your research needs. We are essentially speaking here of your first contacts with the university, with Admissions, and with the Research Officer/proposed supervisor(s), and the processes by which you were formally given a place at the university. How well did this Admissions process go? Poorly Satisfactorily Well Very well Excellently

Comments……………………………………………………………………………………………….


2. INDUCTION Once you were registered at the university, you were inducted into your degree. This involved your first formal contacts with your supervisor(s), learning research methods or laboratory processes and practices; beginning to define/delimit the research project; searching/accessing of primary/secondary research papers/ journals; and finding out about the research environment [for a definition of research environment, please see question 9 below]. While more intense in the first months, this will have been to some extent an ongoing process. Do you feel this induction was? Bad Satisfactory Good Very good Excellent

Comments………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3. RESPONSIBILITIES AND ENTITLEMENTS Every research postgraduate has responsibilities and entitlements: responsibilities include: gradually developing a clearly-defined research proposal; discussing with the supervisor(s) the kind of guidance found most helpful and agreeing a schedule of meetings; sticking to that schedule; maintaining a good work-rate and progress; writing a short annual report for the Annual Review; treating all academic staff with courtesy and respect. Entitlements include: regular contact with the supervisor(s); appropriate feedback (written and oral) from the supervisor(s); being alerted to opportunities and enrichments within the research environment; being given clear guidance and advice about the different stages of the degree (confirmation of status, Annual Review, final preparation of thesis, the viva); always being treated with courtesy and respect by academic staff. How clear were your responsibilities and entitlements from early on in your degree? I was not aware of them

I had a limited sense of them

Basically clear

Very Clear Very clear: they were a helpful groundwork to my development

Comments……………………………………………………………………………………………..


4. ETHICS AND GOOD RESEARCH PRACTICE Research should always be carried out with integrity and honesty. Sometimes, in particular areas of research, there are significant ethical implications, which need to be considered early on, with guidance and approval sought and given. The university defines a ‘Code of Practice for study by research’, covering these matters. It also has an Ethics Committee. You should have been properly inducted into the Code, and (if appropriate) ethical issues should have been properly raised and considered. How well were these issues dealt with? Poorly Satisfactorily Well Very well Excellently

Comments…………………………………………………………………………………………. 5. SUPERVISION CONTACT TIME Contact time with your supervisor(s) can be a question of number of hours and also of appropriateness and quality of contact. Hours of contact differ between subject-areas, and your schedule of meetings with your supervisor(s) will probably vary according to need across the time of your degree. Bearing these factors in mind, and in general terms: Do you feel you have sufficiently frequent meetings with your supervisor(s) and enough contact-time overall? Insufficient Contact

Just enough Contact

Appropriate contact

A good amount of contact

A generous amount of contact

Comments……………………………………………………………………………………………….

6. RESEARCH MATERIALS To carry out the research for your thesis, you require access to research materials, depending on your subject-field: books; articles/papers in journals; databases; interlibrary loans; access to other libraries; computer programmes and software; laboratory equipment and consumables, and so forth. You should have been clear about the allocation of resources and how to apply for more or different resources. How good is the access to the research materials appropriate to your needs? Difficult/ Inadequate

Adequate Good Very good Excellent

Comments……………………………………………………………………………………………….


7. OWNERSHIP OF YOUR RESEARCH As your research progresses, you should have been able to choose a subject that interested you, and been able to influence the direction of your studies in the light of your findings or results. You should, in other words, be able to take intellectual ownership of your project and hence mature as a researcher. To what extent are you achieving/did you achieve intellectual ownership of your project? Hardly at all Adequately Well Very well I feel in

charge of the project and that I am leading my research forward

Comments………………………………………………………………………………………………. 8. ACCESSIBILITY OF SUPERVISOR(S) At various times you may have felt the need to seek advice or guidance from your supervisor(s) (sometimes outside prearranged times). This may have been telephone/email contact, to arrange the next meeting, or other informal contact. Generally speaking, how accessible is / was your supervisor? Relatively inaccessible

Hard of access Appropriately accessible

Easily accessible

Very easily accessible

Comments……………………………………………………………………………………………….

9. RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT How you interact with the research environment will depend to some extent on you individually and on your subject-area. The research environment can be comprised of different kinds of experiences and opportunities – for example, interaction with other research students (formally and informally); attending paper-led seminars (internal to the university, or external); attending at conferences in the UK or overseas; presenting work or papers to others; making presentations at lab meetings; listening to invited speakers; and so forth. Broadly speaking, there should be ways in which you feel able to participate in, and learn from, a wider research environment.


To what extent do you feel you have the opportunity to learn from a wider research culture? Hardly at all A bare

minimum of opportunity

Adequate opportunities for learning

Good opportunities for learning

Excellent opportunities for learning

Comments………………………………………………………………………………………………. 10. EXPERTISE OF SUPERVISOR(S) Your supervisor(s) should be expert in your broad subject-area, and where appropriate in your specific subject-area, able to lead you forward in knowledge, make suggestions about the directions of your research, and place you in contact with others who can help you. Sometimes you may be researching new areas, so that the supervisor’s knowledge cannot be wholly greater than your own developing knowledge, but you should nonetheless feel that the supervisor’s or supervisors’ related knowledge in the subject-field as a whole allows him/her to guide and foster your research. Do you feel that your supervisor has / had the knowledge needed to support you? Limited knowledge to support me

Just adequate knowledge to support me

Good knowledge to support me

Very good knowledge to support me

Excellent knowledge to support me

Comments……………………………………………………………………………………………… 11. COMPLAINTS PROCEDURES It may be that no complaints or problems arise during the time or your supervision, or that if they have arisen, they have been resolved easily, informally, or wisely. Sometimes, however, there may have been problems, with resources, administration, supervision, or some other aspect of your degree, which were more intractable. Do you know the procedures for taking forward a complaint or problem? If such a case has arisen, was it dealt with fairly and sympathetically? Answering one or both of these questions, How do you rank the procedures for complaint? Poor Adequate Reasonable Good Very clear

and fair Comments……………………………………………………………………………………………….


12. INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL SUPPORT Morale, in the broadest sense, is an important element in the development of your research. Ideally your supervisor(s) should act as constructive friend(s) to your research and help to build this confidence. You should feel backed up and supported by your supervisor in your research endeavour. Generally speaking, how well do you feel supported by your supervisor? Inadequately Supported

Supported in some aspects

Appropriately supported

Well supported

Thoroughly backed up and supported

Comments………………………………………………………………………………………………. 13. QUALITY OF SUPERVISORY FEEDBACK One duty of a supervisor is to act as a critical friend to your developing research, giving you feedback (oral and/or written) on the ideas/results/written work/ and help or advice on the drafting and revision of chapters/reports, as you start to produce them. How conscientious do you feel your supervisor is / was in giving appropriate feedback? Not conscientious

Less than I would have wished

Appropriately Conscientious

Very Conscientious

Extremely thorough and conscientious

Comments………………………………………………………………………………………………. 14. ANNUAL REVIEW – (to be completed from end of year 1, and then on an annual basis) If you are an MPhil or PhD student The Annual Review of your research is conducted with your supervisor and with other appropriate academics. It should be a thorough attempt to evaluate the state of your research, its progress over the previous year, and its development into the future. There is a formal report to be completed concerning your Annual Review, and its contents are reported to the Research Committee.


How helpful did you find your last Annual Review? A negative experience

Of little help

Slightly helpful Very helpful

A very positive experience

Comments………………………………………………………………………………………………. 15. TRANSFERABLE SKILLS Your research degree should initiate you into the highest level of activity in your subject-field and into the forward edge of that subject-field. At the same time, it should equip you with a range of transferable skills (depending on your field) that have wider applications and in particular wider career applications. These could include, for example: communication skills, networking skills; skills in team-working; general high-level critical and analytical skills; skills of presentation and report writing; the taking ownership of career progression; etc. Have you been made properly aware of these transferable skills? And do you feel that, over the time of your degree, you have appropriately achieved them? I have no awareness of transferable skills

I have little awareness/ limited achievement of them

Some awareness / some achievement of them

Good awareness / Positive achievement of them

Very full awareness of them / they feel enabling for my future

Comments………………………………………………………………………………………………. 16. FEEDBACK BY YOU The feedback in this questionnaire will be used to improve the experience of postgraduate research degrees for the future, but your feedback should be both formal and informal and have reasonable opportunities. Do you feel there are adequate means or mechanisms for your feedback about your experience to be articulated either via your supervisor, the Research Officer, your personal tutor, postgraduate student rep, or other formal or informal forums? How do you rate the feedback opportunities? Very limited Poor

Reasonable

Good Excellent

Comments……………………………………………………………………………………………….


17. APPEALS PROCEDURE The university has formal procedures for dealing with appeals against academic decisions, in relation to full registration, upgrade from MPhil to PhD, final result, etc. Are you aware of these procedures? I do not know about the Appeals procedure

I am only vaguely aware of the Appeals procedure

I am aware of the Appeals procedure

I know about the Appeals procedure from the Research Degrees Handbook

Yes, fully aware, and discussed with supervisor

Comments………………………………………………………………………………………………... 18. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK There is an institutional framework designed to foster and monitor the life of each research postgraduate. This includes: the regulations/procedures governing higher degrees, the work of the Research Officer, and the termly progress reports on you to the Research Committee. You may not feel you need to know much about this. On the other hand, perhaps there are times when you feel in the dark, when a better awareness of the governing structures might be useful. Overall, do you feel adequately informed about the institutional framework for your degree in relation to your particular needs? Inadequately informed/ in the dark

As informed as I need to be

Well informed

Very well informed

I feel fully informed about everything I need to know

Comments………………………………………………………………………………………………


19. ADMINISTRATION Your degree is administered in your School of Study and centrally through the Registry Office. You will have received letters and e-mails about – admission; changes of status; the date of your Annual Review; your progress; your fees; the date of your viva; etc. At various times you may have needed to request information or letters (references, visa letters, etc.). How efficient and courteous do you find the administration concerning your degree? Inefficient/ confusing

Adequately efficient

Efficient Very efficient Extremely efficient, clear, and timely

Comments………………………………………………………………………………………………. AFTER COMPLETION OF YOUR DEGREE: 20. SUBMISSSION OF THESIS In the final months of study, a lot was required to prepare and submit the final version of your thesis. You will have had to intensify your understanding of referencing and correct academic forms; submit a final draft for approval to your supervisor; discuss possible examiners with your supervisor; get the thesis into the correct form for submission; fill in the submission form; etc. How well was this intense submission period and its particular needs handled? In a confusing way

Adequately Well handled

In a helpful, clear manner

Excellently

Comments………………………………………………………………………………………….. 21. THE VIVA For the majority of higher degrees, a viva is required. The viva can be a wholly agreeable or a very nervous experience, or something in between. The university’s regulations and our general practice try to encourage a courteous, considerate, equable, well-informed, and fair process. In your view, how well conducted was your viva? It was a very confusing/ unpleasant experience

It was poorly conducted

It was conducted fairly

It was very well conducted

It was a positive experience, clearly fair-minded and well-informed


Comments………………………………………………………………………………………………. 22. OVERVIEW Your studies for a higher research degree will hopefully have been a positive experience, achieving one or more of the following: helping you find a career direction; equipping you for that career; provided valuable training; enlarged your personal/intellectual horizons; making publication of a book possible; etc. Reflecting on these matters, How would you characterize your experience of the degree in broad terms?

A negative experience

A poor experience

Neither a good nor a bad experience

A positive experience

An excellent experience

OTHER COMMENTS Do you have any other comments about matters not obviously covered by the points above? (Please continue on a separate sheet if necessary.) 23. DESTINATION We hope you will stay in touch with the university via the Alumni organisation. In the meantime, we would very much value information about your intended destination (if you know this) or your ideas and plans for the future. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

NAME………………………………….

SIGNATURE ………………………… DATE…………………………………..

of 3 Submission of Thesis Dissertation

3L.1 SUBMISSION OF THESIS/DISSERTATION POLICY AND PROCEDURE FOR RESEARCH DEGREES

THE THESIS

i. The thesis embodying the results of the candidate's research, together with an abstract of it, may be sent to the Registry Officer at any time after the beginning of the final term of the prescribed period of study. The thesis must be accompanied by a completed ‘Notice of Intention to Submit a Thesis for a Higher Degree’ form.

ii. The thesis shall be written in English unless prior permission has been obtained. Reference to sources shall be made in such a manner as to be readily identifiable. A list of books and other sources used to prepare the thesis shall be included in it. The literary form of the thesis must be satisfactory and the text free from typographical errors. It should be suitable for publication in whole or in part, either as submitted or in amended form. (See Rules for the Form and Submission of Theses for Higher Degrees.)

NOTICE OF INTENTION TO SUBMIT A THESIS

iii. Some months prior to the intended submission date for a thesis, the candidate and supervisor should begin to consider the matters raised in the 'Notice of Intention to Submit a Thesis for a Higher Degree'. A fully completed and signed copy of the ‘Notice of Intention to Submit’ form must be submitted to Registry in the week before the copies of the thesis are delivered there, or, at the latest, actually with the copies of the thesis.

iv. The examination process can only go forward once the Registry Officer has received the form, and candidates should bear this in mind during their final work to complete their theses, so as to avoid delays. Care should be taken in relation to the section ‘Retention of Thesis’. It is normal that a successful thesis is made widely available to other scholars and researchers, for the good dissemination of knowledge, and this is in fact required by most of the research councils as a term of their funding. Exceptionally a candidate may request that access to his/her thesis be restricted. The most likely acceptable reasons are:

a. it is intended to be published in a book or a journal form at a future date and it is reasonable that it should be withheld until that date or two years from this date, whichever is sooner

b. the contents constitute a trade secret, or its disclosure would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person;

c. disclosure would be likely to endanger an individual’s health or safety; d. publication would cause the candidate or third parties mentioned in the text to be open to

persecution eg racial, ethnic, political.

v. If the student wishes to apply for restriction of access this would be done via completion of the ‘Restriction on Access’ form detailing the reasons for the application and the period for which the restriction is required. The Research Officer should bring the application to the next Research Committee for approval


FINAL OR NEAR-FINAL DRAFT

vi. In order for Section D of the ‘Notice of Intention to Submit a Thesis for a Higher Degree’ to be signed, the supervisor should have been able to see a final or near-final copy of the thesis in a timely way before the intended submission date. The candidate should submit three copies of the thesis (two wire/comb bound, and one unbound) to the Registry Officer. The form and content of the thesis shall conform to the ‘Rules for the Form and Submission of Theses for Higher Degrees’

vii. A candidate shall not be permitted to submit as his/her thesis a thesis which is being submitted for a degree in another university or for which a degree has already been conferred on him/her in this or any other university. A candidate shall not be precluded, however, from incorporating work which s/he has already submitted for a degree in this or any other university, or work which has been published previously, provided that:

a. he/she indicates which work has been so incorporated; b. the work must not have been published in the same form as it appears in the thesis.

EARLY SUBMISSION

viii. A thesis may not normally be submitted until the end of the prescribed period of study. Early submission requires the approval of the Research Committee, to whom application may be made via the Research Officer in the area of study.

APPROVAL OF EXAMINERS

ix. Section B of the ‘Notice of Intention to Submit a Thesis for a Higher Degree’ must be completed giving the names of the recommended internal examiner and confirming the name of the approved external examiner (recorded on the ‘External Examiner Nomination and Approval Form: Higher Degrees and Research Degrees’). Section B must be signed by the supervisor and the Research Officer, and then returned to the Registry Officer. The regulations for the approval of examiners are given in Section M.

SUBMISSION

i. A candidate must submit to the Registry Officer:

a. Three copies of the thesis in the required form, including the title page and abstract. Two copies should be soft-bound (e.g. wire/comb bound), and the third should be unbound.


b. A statement showing what part, if any, of the material offered has previously been submitted by the candidate for the degree in this or any other university, and if joint work is submitted, what part of it is the candidate's independent contribution. The usual form of this declaration of originality will be:

I hereby declare that my thesis/dissertation entitled . . . is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text, and is not substantially the same as any that I have submitted, or, is concurrently submitted for a degree or diploma or other qualification at the University of Buckingham or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. I further state that no substantial part of my thesis has already been submitted, or is concurrently submitted for any such degree, diploma, or other qualification at the University of Buckingham or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text.

Signature: Date:

ii. It is the student’s responsibility to ensure that each copy has been accurately and fully copied and properly collated. Where this has not been done, and work is required by the Registry Officer, a charge for any such work may be imposed. These rules also apply to resubmission and also to major modifications not amounting to resubmission.

iii. The Registry Officer is responsible for sending the thesis, together with ‘Instructions to Examiners for Higher Degrees’ and the report forms, to the internal and external examiners. The examiners' report and final recommendation, together with the copies of the thesis, should be returned to the Registry Officer. The Registry Officer is responsible for ensuring that due internal process is carried out with regard to the examiners’ final recommendation. The Registry Office communicates the final result to the candidate.

iv. If the degree is awarded, the Registry Officer will arrange for the binding of the copy of the thesis to be deposited in the library; one of the comb-bound copies will be deposited with the Department; and one copy will be retained by the first supervisor. If a candidate is successful, the unbound copy of the thesis will be bound in boards with a blue cloth back and bear the name of the candidate, the style of the degree, and the year of submission upon successful examination and will be deposited in the University Library. Of the two soft-bound copies, one will be retained by the candidate's supervisor, and one will be retained by the Department.

v. If the thesis requires modification or resubmission prior to the award of the degree, one copy of the thesis as originally submitted will be returned to the student, but the other two copies may be retained by the University in order to ensure that any modifications or changes have been made in accordance with the examiners’ advice. When the modifications have been made the student must resubmit a further three copies incorporating the modifications as outlined in the Rules for the Format of Theses.

of 3 Proof Reading and Editing Guidance Research Students

3L.1.1 PROOF-READING AND EDITING – RESEARCH STUDENTS ADVISORY NOTE FOR RESEARCH STUDENTS AND SUPERVISORS The University expects a high quality of written English in candidates for all higher degrees. To ensure this, it checks the English language capacity and level of applicants at the point of admission, particularly when English is an additional language. All those admitted to postgraduate research degrees should be capable of writing clearly and appropriately, even when this is challenging for them. Achieving a postgraduate degree indicates that the student is able to write independently in an appropriate academic style in their chosen discipline.

These guidelines set out the best practice for supervisors and students regarding the proof-reading of all written work that is part of the assessment in postgraduate degrees, up to and including research Masters dissertations and doctoral theses. Note: these guidelines do not apply at undergraduate level, where both proof-reading and editing are the student’s responsibility and part of the learning process.

1. SUPERVISORS RESPONSIBILITIES

1.1 Supervisors can and should help postgraduate research students with their written work, in terms of grammar, style, and the quality of subject-specific discourse. This is a normal part of the teaching process and should be encouraged. The induction into a fluent use of particular discourses or styles of writing is an important part of any higher degree, and will most often happen through comments and markings on the student’s draft work, where the supervisor can:

(a) indicate to the student how to emend or improve language so that it better achieves the appropriate style of academic discourse, and (b) indicate characteristic faults of grammar, punctuation, syntax, styling, or referencing.

1.2 Examples may be given to help the student achieve a style of discourse appropriate to their academic discipline. Such comments and feedback by the supervisor must be given within the normal time allowed for supervision and supervision-related feedback, e.g. the supervisor’s reading of draft work. If the student requires more than this level of help, that is to say more than the appropriate advice available within normal supervisory time, the matter should be raised at Annual Review.

1.3 The following are legitimate means for students to improve the quality of their written style:

(a) attending at any appropriate skills seasons available from the Foundation department; (b) consulting appropriate style guides and grammar books; (c) using all the automatic correction facilities available on Microsoft Word and similar word processing software; (d) using programmes like ‘Grammarly’.

Different subject-areas will be able to direct students to different kinds of support in this respect.


2. STUDENT RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1 Many PGR students will enjoy proof-reading their own work, i.e. refining it to a professional standard of presentation, and learning the skill of this by doing it. There are a number of guidance documents available for students who wish to learn how to edit and proof read their own work, including:

https://www.learning.ox.ac.uk/media/global/wwwadminoxacuk/localsites/oxfordlearninginstitute/documents/pdg/managingyourself/1_guide-to-editing-and-proofreading.pdf

2.2 It is legitimate, however, if they wish, for PGR students to seek help from others (whether family, friends, or professionals) to proof-read their work, but this should normally be strictly proof-reading not editing (see definitions below). Anything that could be construed as editing risks being a breach of academic integrity. If a student has any doubts about what is reasonable, s/he should consult with their supervisor.

2.3 Students are required to observe the following in the use of proof-readers:

a) It is the student’s responsibility to provide proof-readers with a copy of these guidelines

b) The University expects that any piece of work submitted for assessment is the student’s own work, and any assistance by a proof-reader should not compromise the expectations outlined in the Academic Misconduct Policy and Procedure

c) Students should note that the use of a proof-reader will not be accepted as mitigation for any deficiencies in their work

d) Failure to adhere to these guidelines could be judged a breach of academic integrity and contravene the Academic Misconduct Policy and Procedure.

3. PROOF READING

3.1 Proof-reading involves minor corrections to achieve a fully accurate presentation of ideas and findings. Licit proof-reading may, for example:

• Identify literals, i.e. typing mistakes • Indicate missing words • Indicate spelling errors in complex/subject-specific words • Indicate missing punctuation • Indicate a missing paragraph indent • Indicate wrong placing of footnote numbers • Indicate wrong use of double or single quotation marks • Indicate accidental changes of font within the text • Indicate failure to use italics properly (e.g. on book titles) • Indicate omissions in footnote references (e.g. missing out of place, or

publisher, or date, or page range) • check author references in the text for consistency with

bibliography/reference-list/works cited • Indicate errors in the bibliography that do not follow the Style Guide used • Identify errors in the labelling of diagrams, charts, or figures •




4. EDITING

4.1 A PGR student may not usually seek help from others that involves editing or sub-editing her or his work. Editing, as defined here, is an intervention that makes more significant changes in the student's text and manifestly improves the quality of the written style. Professional editors or sub-editors should not be used by a PGR student. Examples of what counts as editing are:

• Suggesting word substitutions to improve sense or nuance • Creating new content, phrases, or full sentences to insert in the text • Re-ordering of words in a sentence to create a grammatical or better syntax • Re-ordering the sentences of a paragraph to create better logic and clarity • The rephrasing of one or more sentences to improve syntax and grammar • Improving structure or argument by moving sentences or paragraphs into

different positions in the text • Deleting individual sentences or paragraphs to improve the logic or rhetoric

of argument • Deleting paragraphs that repeat material and are considered redundant • Reducing content so as to comply with a specified word limit • Inserting new sub-headings or other divisions of the text • Translating any part of the work into English • Re-labelling, checking, or correcting diagrams, charts, figures, calculations or

formulae

4.2 The logic of the distinction drawn here between proof-reading and editing is that the former involves the correction of minor errors, omissions, or mistakes, while the latter is a more fundamental invention, often at sentence or paragraph level, and usually involving some significant form of rewriting of the text. The use of professional editors, making these kind of significant interventions, would make it unclear if students had themselves, at the completion of their degrees, achieved the ability to write in an appropriate academic style in their chosen disciplines. For this reason professional editors should not be used.

July 2018

of 9 Rules for the Format of Theses

3L.1.2 RULES FOR THE FORMAT OF THESES These rules and guidelines apply to theses submitted for Higher Degrees by Research. They do not apply to work submitted as a dissertation as part only of the examination for a higher degree by Examination and Dissertation.

FORMAT AND WORD LIMITS

i. The text of a thesis should not normally exceed the following limits: for the MA by research, MSc by research, and LLM by research: 40,000 words; for the MPhil: 80,000 words; for the PhD: 100,000 words. These word limits exclude appendices, footnotes, tables, references, and bibliography/works cited, unless there are departmental rules to the contrary. The abstract of the thesis (counted separately) should not exceed 1,000 words in length.

ii. All thesis must be written in English, unless prior permission is obtained.

iii. A candidate is required to submit the thesis in a condition which is suitable for preservation in the University Library and for clear photographic reproduction.

iv. The texts of theses must be printed with a left-hand margin of 40mm on good quality international A4 (297mm x 210mm) paper and paginated.

v. One copy of an abstract of the thesis, not exceeding 1000 words, should be placed at the front of each copy of the thesis submitted and bound with the text. This abstract shall be clearly typed or printed and shall be headed by the word 'Abstract', the candidate's name, and thesis title.

vi. The title page should bear the full title and sub-title; (exceptionally) the total number of volumes, if more than one, and the number of the particular volume; the full name of the author, including forenames; the qualification for which the thesis is submitted, in the form ‘Thesis submitted for the degree of . . . to the School of . . . in the University of Buckingham’; and the month and year of submission. (The arrangement of this material should be available from previous theses submitted within the School of Study.)

vii. All works consulted should be listed in a bibliography at the end of the text; and may also appear as footnotes on the relevant page. The form of these references should conform to the stylistic conventions in the referencing system used.

viii. Diagrams, maps, or similar documents may be submitted in a portfolio of any size and must bear equally the particulars mentioned above.


USE OF STYLE SYSTEMS

ix. The thesis should be presented as professionally as possible, conforming to the conventions used in high-level scholarship or research in the particular field. It should be correctly presented, in conformity with one of the standard scholarly style manuals. The supervisor will advise on the most appropriate styling/referencing system to use. In the Humanities, New Hart’s Rules, ed. R. M. Ritter (Oxford, 2005), and the MHRA Style Guide, 2nd edn (Modern Humanities Research Association, 2008) (available on the web), are the two most obvious systems. The former is adapted from the fuller The Oxford Guide to Style, ed. Robert Ritter (OUP, 2002). This is as comprehensive as The Chicago Manual of Style: For Authors, Editors and Copywriters, 13 edn. (Chicago, 2003), often used in the USA, but which has much that is useful in relation to UK systems. Social science theses often deploy the Author-date system (also called the Harvard system) which is well explained in The Oxford Guide to Style, p. 564 f. For references in a science thesis, see the two sections below.

x. In all subject-fields it is consistency and accuracy that are crucial. Apart from the fact that it is double spaced, the thesis should as far as possible conform to the appearance of a good scholarly book or series of journal articles in the chosen field. It is important that it be correctly styled in all respects, with regard to everything from simple matters of punctuation and paragraphing, to correct use of notes and internal references, through to consistency in punctuation and indenting, use of abbreviations, quality of diagrams, and so forth.

PAPER SIZE AND FONT SIZE

xi. A4. The paper should be of good quality and not be transparent. One-sided printing is usual, but two-sided printing is acceptable provided the paper is of sufficient thickness. The minimum font size for text is 11pt (12pt is preferred) and 10pt for footnotes. Easily readable fonts are preferred (e.g. Times New Roman, Garamond, Ariel, Georgia, etc.).

MARGINS

xii. At least 20mm should be left all round, and a left-hand margin of 40mm to allow for binding. Larger margins, however, at the top and bottom sometimes make for a clearer appearance.

SPACING

xiii. One-and-a-half or double spacing should be used throughout, except for indented quotations or footnotes, where single spacing is adequate, if this is preferred.

PAGINATION

xiv. Pages should be numbered consecutively throughout the thesis, including preliminaries and appendices. The preliminary sections should be in lower case roman, and the text of the thesis itself in Arabic numerals. If there is more than one volume, each volume should be separately paginated and have its own title page. The majority of theses will be one volume, given the word limits. Please remember these: for the MA by research, MSc by research, and LLM by research: 40,000 words; for the MPhil: 80,000 words; for the PhD: 100,000 words. These word limits exclude appendices, footnotes, tables, references, and bibliography/works cited, unless there are departmental rules to the contrary.


PDF

xv. The thesis should be available as a PDF, so that, where appropriate, it can be held on the Library’s digital archival repository. The hard copies should be printed on a high-quality paper on a good quality printer

BINDING

xvi. Once an award is confirmed, the University will make arrangements for the thesis to be firmly bound, all pages being permanently secured, in blue cloth back. The spine should bear the candidate's name, the degree, and year of submission. The front cover should bear the thesis title. If, unusually, the work extends to more than one volume, the spine and front cover should also carry the volume number.

ACCOMPANYING OR ILLUSTRATIVE MATERIAL

xvii. Wherever possible diagrams, figures, illustrations, photographic prints, and computer tables should be scanned or printed into the text near the text to which they refer. Material which cannot be bound in the text such as maps, slides, film, computer programmes, or CD-Rom may be held in a pocket bound into the back of the thesis. If the amount of such material is substantial or awkward, it should be gathered into a supplementary volume and packaged in a rigid container similar in format to the bound thesis and similarly labelled and titled. Large, unfoldable pieces such as maps should be submitted in a similarly labelled portfolio.

ORDER OF CONTENTS

xviii. (a) Title Page:

The title page should state:

a. the full title and sub-title; b. the total number of volumes, if more than one, and the number of the particular volume; c. the full name of the author including forenames; d. the qualification for which the thesis is submitted: (Thesis submitted for the degree of ...

to the School of ... in the University of Buckingham); e. the month and year of submission.

The title should describe the subject-matter accurately and comprehensively, as it will subsequently appear in electronic archives and bibliographies, which will be consulted by other research workers.


(b) Abstract:

A concise abstract of the thesis, not exceeding 1000 words in length, should be bound in the thesis immediately after the title page. The abstract should be clearly typed or printed, and headed with the author and title of the thesis. One copy will eventually be submitted for inclusion in the Index to theses accepted for higher degrees in the Universities of Great Britain and Ireland, published by Aslib, and a second copy may be submitted to an abstracting journal in the appropriate subject.

(c) Acknowledgements:

(Optional).

(d) Abbreviations:

A list of all abbreviations used in the text should be provided. A glossary of terms may be recommended by the Supervisor.

(e) Table of Contents:

The table of contents should list, with page numbers, all the sub-divisions of the thesis. For theses comprising more than one volume, the contents of the whole thesis should be shown in the first volume and the contents of subsequent volumes in a separate contents list in the appropriate volume.

(f) List of Figures:

This may also include lists of photographic plates or other illustrations, giving their page numbers.

(g) List of Tables:

Giving page numbers.

(h) Declaration of Originality:

A declaration should be included which indicates what material contained in the thesis has previously been submitted for a degree in this or any other university, and, if it is based on joint research, what part of it is the author's individual contribution: see Rules for the Submission of Theses for Higher Degrees, 5.8, iii (above).

(i) Main Text of Thesis:

The main text of the thesis should be divided into chapters, each with a clear title.

It is usual in an experimental Science thesis to follow the format of a research paper i.e. Introduction; Methods and Materials (or Experimental), Results, Discussion (& Conclusions); in some cases it may be more appropriate to sub-divide individual chapters in this way.


(j) Appendices:

Appendices, if any, each with a descriptive title.

(k) Bibliography (or in Science theses: References):

List of sources consulted. See notes below.

(l) Prior Publication:

If any of the work embodied in the thesis has been, or is expected to be, published in a book or journal, copies of such publications or manuscripts should be bound at the end of the thesis. It should be noted that whilst such prior publication is positively encouraged for Science theses it is not normally permissible in Law and Humanities theses.

FOOTNOTES AND ENDNOTES (not Science theses)

xix. Notes may appear as either footnotes or, where the usual style for a discipline is to use endnotes and this has been approved by the supervisor, as notes at the end of each chapter. Given how easy it now is to set up footnotes in Word, and how convenient they are for the reader, footnotes may now often be preferred. It is not permitted to use both footnotes and endnotes.

Footnotes or endnotes may be used for any of the following reasons:

a. to amplify a point which is not central to the main argument of the text, introducing parenthetical discussion which is not long enough to form an appendix;

b. to provide a cross reference to other parts of the thesis; c. to acknowledge direct quotations or sources of information; d. to cite the authority for statements in the text, allowing the reader to check the evidence

on which the argument is based.

In all cases, notes are an interruption to the reader and should be kept down to what is strictly necessary.

LAYOUT

xx. Notes are identified in the text by numbers, typed as superscripts, or, if on the line, enclosed in round brackets. For the placing of such numbers, see New Hart’s Rules, or other style systems. Footnotes should appear at the foot of the same page, separated from the text by a ruled line. Endnotes should appear at the end of each chapter, each set of endnotes beginning on a new page. In both cases the note number should be typed on the line, followed by the note itself. Notes may be typed single spaced, but should be separated from each other by a double space.


FORM OF REFERENCE

xxi. Notes that give bibliographic citations should be clear and accurate, but nevertheless be as concise as possible. If there is a full bibliography of works consulted, only the first note to a work will need to give full publication details; thereafter a shorter form of reference that acts as a cue to the bibliography may be all that is required. As per Hart’s Rules, the first reference to a monograph should include at least:

a. the name of the author, forename or initials first; b. the complete title of the work, in italics; c. place of publication and date, in brackets; d. the appropriate page numbers.

e.g. 1Kate L. Turabian, A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses and

Dissertations (London, 1982), 92–107.

MHRA style and some other style systems would also add in the name of the publisher, in its shortest form, and also p. or pp. For pagination, thus:

1Kate L. Turabian, A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses and Dissertations (London: Heinemann, 1982), pp. 92–107.

Subsequent references to the same work may be given in abbreviated as:

2Turabian, A Manual for Writers, 56.

Or even just

2Turabian, 56.

Or

2Turabian, p. 56.

See the details of different style systems.

CITATIONS IN SCIENCE THESES

xxii. In Science theses footnotes and endnotes should be avoided. It is recommended that candidates use a program such as EndNote (not to be confused with endnotes in Microsoft Word) to organise their references. All references should consist of a bracketed insertion in the text of the author's name and year of publication, e.g. (Turabian, 2010). The reference is then given in full in the alphabetically arranged bibliography at the end of the thesis. Where two author papers are cited, both names should be listed e.g. (Turabian and Evans, 2010); references with three or more authors should be cited using the first author followed by "et al." e.g. (Turabian et al., 1976). If more than one references of any of these types in a given year are cited then lower case letters should be used to distinguish the publications, e.g. (Turabian, 1976a; Turabian and Evans, 1976b; Turabian et al., 2010c ). This name-and-year system of citation is sometimes called the Harvard system. The British Journal of Pharmacology, Psychology of Music, and Journal of Computer Assisted Learning are examples of journals that use the Harvard style.

Minor variations from the format given below for the reference list are acceptable, but the references must be listed in alphabetical order, titles must be given, and names of authors must


be given in the text, as described above. References may be listed as in press if they are listed on a journal’s website, or the candidate can provide evidence that they have been accepted for publication without further revision. If they are listed on a journal’s website, a URL should be given in the reference list. Articles that are submitted but not accepted for publication may be cited in the text as personal communications but not listed in the reference list.

BIBLIOGRAPHY (not Science theses)

xxiii. Arrangement:

A bibliography differs from a list of references in that it includes all the relevant material, which has been consulted and found useful, whether or not it has been cited in the text of the thesis. (Such a distinction does not apply in the sciences, when everything, which is relevant, will have been cited, and the bibliography and list of references are one and the same.) A bibliography may be split into several sections for broad subject classes, or (if appropriate) divided into manuscript sources, primary sources, and secondary sources. Manuscript sources are listed according to the places in which they are to be found; the references to printed items are arranged alphabetically by author's last name, and full bibliographical details are given.

Form of bibliography entry:

xxiv. There are various styles of bibliography entry, but any reasonable system can be followed if it is clear and entirely consistent. It may be helpful to conform to the pattern of one of the major journals in the chosen field of study, or to follow the practice of a major academic publisher of this country. Students in any doubt are advised to consult New Hart’s Rules (OUP, 2005)

Book references should consist of author's last names, first name (in full), full title of book, edition, place of publication, publisher, year. The total pagination, including index and preliminaries, may also be given. It is not necessary in the bibliography to enclose publication details in brackets, though this is standard practice in the footnotes.

References to periodical articles consist of the author's last name, first name, title of article, periodical title (underlined), volume number, issue number, date, first and last page numbers, though it is not necessary to give the issue number if the entire volume has continuous pagination. Journal titles may be abbreviated provided a well-known scheme is consistently followed (students in doubt should consult The World List of Abbreviations – copy in University Library).

It is usual in the case of manuscripts to list the place in which the depository is located (if this is not immediately obvious), the name of the depository, the collection name and the number of the specific item. If the manuscript has a title and the author's name is known, these facts can be added.

Titles of unpublished works, whether manuscripts or theses, are normally enclosed within quotation marks.


EXAMPLES

i) Monograph:

Hurt, Peyton, Bibliography and Footnotes: a Style Manual for Students and Writers, 3rd edn (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968)

Under the Harvard system mentioned above the same elements are included in the reference but the order is rearranged so that the author's name is immediately followed by the date:

Hurt, Peyton (1968), Bibliography and Footnotes: a Style Manual for Students and Writers, 3rd edn. Berkeley: University of California Press.

ii) Article in a Journal:

Laborie, Tim, and Michael Halperin, ‘Citation Patterns in Library Science and Dissertations’, Journal of Education for Librarianship, 16 (1976), 271–83

iii) Edition:

McKerrow, Ronald B., ed., The Works of Thomas Nashe, 2nd edn, rev. by F. P. Wilson, 5 vols (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1958)

iv) Manuscripts:

Public Record Office, SP 10, State Papers, Domestic, Edward VI

Edinburgh, University Library, MSDc. 2-392. "Novum organum botanicum" (by John Walker).

v) Contribution to a collective volume:

Bettelheim, Bruno, ’Violence: a Neglected Mode of Behaviour', in Violence in the Streets, ed. by Shalon Endleman (Chicago: Quadrangle Books,1968)

vi) Unpublished thesis:

Bossy, John A., 'Elizabethan Catholicism: the Link with France' (unpublished doctoral thesis, Cambridge University, 1961)

REFERENCES (Science thesis)

xxv. All articles cited in the text of the thesis (and none which are not cited) should be listed in full in alphabetical order (and in date order where more than one publication by an author(s) has been cited). The format should be as follows:


i) Periodical articles:

The names of journals may be abbreviated in the accepted manner.

example:

Swain GWJ, Farrar RA, Hutton SP (1970) The use of controlled copper dissolution as an antifouling system. J Mater Sci 17: 1070-1094.

If the article is an abstract this should be stated after the page numbers i.e. (abstr). Do not cite abstracts if full articles are available and include URLs for abstracts where possible.

ii) Article in Collective Volume:

example:

Morse DE (1984) Biochemical control of larval recruitment. In: Costlow JD, Tipper RC (eds) Marine Biodeterioration : An Interdisciplinary Study. US Naval Institute, Annapolis, MD, pp. 134-140.

iii) Book:

example:

Watson JD, Hopkins NH, Roberts JW, Steitz JA, Weiner AM (1987) Molecular Biology of the Gene. 4th Ed, Benjamin/Cummings, Redwood City, CA, Vol I.

Specific page numbers should be given in the text, where these are especially relevant.

Where there are more than six authors, the author list may be truncated at six authors and completed as et al.

of 3 Notice of Intention to Submit a Thesis for a Higher Degree May 2019

NOTICE OF INTENTION TO SUBMIT A THESIS FOR A HIGHER DEGREE Candidates must complete Section A only. The form should be returned to your Department for completion of Sections B, C, and D by the Research Officer and Supervisor. The form will then be forwarded to Registry no later than the intended date of submission of your thesis. You will then be invoiced for any outstanding fees.

SECTION A (To be completed by the candidate∗): SURNAME: FORENAMES:

DEGREE: DEPARTMENT: AREA OF STUDY:

HOME ADDRESS: EMAIL ADDRESS:

ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE* (if different): EMAIL ADDRESS:

* It is important to keep Registry informed of your current address for correspondence. Please ensure you have the approval of the supervisor, as set out in Section C. If you ignore the advice of the supervisor with regard to submission, the thesis may still be submitted, but at your own risk.

EXACT TITLE OF THESIS (as previously approved) WORD COUNT (excluding appendices, footnotes, tables, references and bibliography/words cites, unless there are departmental rules to the contrary.)

DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY I certify that I have read and agree with the University of Buckingham’s Academic Misconduct Policy and Procedures, and declare that this thesis/dissertation is the result of my own work, complies with these regulations, and does not contain any plagiarised material. This thesis/dissertation includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text, and is not substantially the same as any that I have submitted, or is concurrently submitted, for a degree or diploma or other qualification at the University of Buckingham or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. I confirm I have disclosed full particulars of all sources of information consulted and any money paid in respect of the preparation of this work. SIGNED (CANDIDATE): DATE:


RETENTION OF THESIS: If approved for the degree, your thesis will be retained in the University Library under one or more of the following arrangements. Please select the arrangement(s) you require: ☐I give permission for my thesis to be made available, at the discretion of the Librarian, for consultation by bona fide scholars and readers, either in the University Library, or the library of another university. ☐ Request exemption ☐I grant the University a non-exclusive licence for the thesis to be stored in the University Library’s digital archival repository to be ‘communicated to the public’. ☐ Request exemption ☐MPhil / PhD Theses only) I give permission for a copy of the title page, abstract, and list of contents of my thesis to be submitted to the British Library / EThOS,

☐I give permission to the University of Buckingham Registry Office to supply a PDF copy of the thesis to the Library ([email protected]) to upload it for public use onto the BEAR (Buckingham E-Archive of Research) and EThOS website. EThOS may request to digitise the thesis if a copy is not supplied to them. (I understand if my thesis contains any copyright material created by others, third-party copyright materials, I will need to seek permission from the creator or copyright owner to include the material in my thesis). If any embargo is required please complete and append the Restriction of Access form and state the terms i.e. “delay PDF upload by a year”. ☐Request exemption ☐Exceptionally, I wish that access to my thesis be restricted for one or more of the reasons outlined in the Research Degrees Handbook. I have completed and appended the ‘Restriction on Access’ Form detailing the reasons for the application and the period for which the restriction is required. The Research Committee has approved the application. ☐ Request exemption

SIGNED (CANDIDATE): DATE: PLEASE NOTE: The following criteria must be satisfied before any candidate will be permitted to graduate:

1. Certification that all required corrections to the thesis have been carried out. 2. Payment of any outstanding fees has been made.

SECTION B: (To be completed by the Research Officer and Supervisor) We confirm that we approve the particulars given by the candidate in Section A above, and nominate the following as Examiner(s): INTERNAL EXAMINER(S) NAME OF INTERNAL EXAMINER(S): STATUS: EXTERNAL EXAMINER(S) We confirm that the following External Examiner (s) has been approved in accordance with the Nomination and Approval Form (Higher and Research Degrees), and this approval documentation has been submitted to the Registry Office. NAME OF EXTERNAL EXAMINER:



SIGNED (SUPERVISOR): DATE: SIGNED (RESEARCH OFFICER) DATE:

SECTION C: (To be completed by the Supervisor)

DECLARATION OF SUPERVISOR I confirm that I do/do not consider this thesis worthy of consideration for the degree for which it is submitted and is in a form appropriate for examination. I confirm that I have communicated my judgement to the candidate. (Please delete as appropriate). I confirm that I have given appropriate guidance to the candidate in accordance with Regulation 2.4 vi-vii Research Degrees Handbook.

I confirm that I have run this thesis through TurnItIn and have provided Registry with a copy of the report on submission of this form. I am satisfied that no part of this thesis has been plagiarised.

SIGNED (SUPERVISOR): DATE: SECTION D : (To be completed by the Research Officer) RETENTION OF THESIS - Please refer to the candidate's wishes as indicated above. Please indicate if you believe these arrangements to be appropriate to the thesis, and in the case of an application for restricting access, whether the application has been submitted to and approved by the University Research Committee. DECLARATION OF RESEARCH OFFICER- I accept the above declaration of the Supervisor. SIGNED (RESEARCH OFFICER): DATE:

http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Roles-and-responsibilities.pdf#page=3

of 6 External Examining and Vivas

3M.1 EXTERNAL EXAMINING AND VIVAS POLICY AND PROCEDURE FOR RESEARCH DEGREES EXAMINING TEAM

i) Normally there should be one External Examiner, who shall be an established authority within the field, and one Internal Examiner, who shall be a member of the academic staff who has not supervised the candidate. The examining team (internal and external/s) shall normally be appointed for the duration of the examining process, including any resubmissions. The supervisor is required to be available in the Department/School to provide any information requested by the examiners, and may, if s/he wishes, volunteer information in advance of the oral examination. The supervisor will not normally be present at the oral examination. At the discretion of the Examiners and the candidate jointly, however, the supervisor may be present at the oral examination but only in a non-participatory role.

ii) Alternatively, and exceptionally, there shall be two External Examiners. Both these Examiners shall be approved by the procedures above. This situation will occur in the following circumstances:

a) Where, aside from the supervisor, there is no appropriate member of the academic staff to act as Internal Examiner. (The supervisor cannot act as an Internal Examiner.) In these circumstances, two external examiners may be appointed, and a senior member of the University’s academic staff will also attend the oral examination in a non-participatory role. This member of staff will normally be the Research Officer.

b) A less experienced External Examiner is approved (e.g. when they are subject specialists with a good publication record). In this case, two external examiners should be appointed and the internal examiner must be experienced in the assessment process.

c) Two external examiners must be appointed in those cases where the candidate is a current or former member of staff of the University.

iv) Where no appropriate UK based external examiner is available, external examiners may be nominated who are based overseas. Research Officers will need to consider the experience the overseas external examiners have with examining UK research degrees, in accordance with the criteria for nomination clauses A1 and A3.

EXPENSES

v) Nomination requests to the QA Office for overseas external examiners should include information about the expected costs (including airfares, accommodation, other travel/transfers, and visas) before the nomination is progressed.

vii) External Examiners are provided with the University’s expenses policy with their contract on appointment.


VIDEO CONFERENCING

vi) In person vivas are the preferred norm as they offer a candidate the best opportunity to present their work and present fewer problems than remote vivas.

vii) Applications to hold vivas by video conferencing are considered exceptional; and should be made using the form in the Appendix to this section. The form will be completed and returned to Registry by the Head of Department as soon as possible and in all cases prior to the thesis being released for assessment by Registry to the examining team.

viii) Examples of circumstances indicating that the use of video conferencing might be appropriate includes:

• The availability of the examiner ) particularly if based overseas • The level of expenses incurred for the examiner to travel to the University • The availability of the student

vix) Requests for candidates to partake in vivas remotely are not normally agreed. Remotely held vivas for candidates can present issues concerned with the integrity of the examination process (for example, the involvement of third parties). Where candidates are based outside of the UK when the examination is due to be held, permission may only be granted for the candidate to partake in the viva remotely where sufficient evidence is provided to the Chair of the University Research Committee as follows:

• Why travel to the University is not possible • Confirmation of location and time of viva for all parties involved (taking into account time

differences so as not to disadvantage the candidate). • Detailed arrangements for the security of examination practices. These will normally includes:

the attendance by a third party chair (approved by the University) at the remote location and at the University location with the examining team; recording of the viva; report of the process to Registry by the University based independent chair following the viva.

APPROVAL AND APPOINTMENT OF EXTERNAL EXAMINERS

EXTERNAL EXAMINER FOR PhD STUDENTS

MA, MPHIL OR MSC STUDENT

(appointed for an individual thesis)


(appointed to a programme of study)

The Supervisor will discuss possible examiners with the candidate; The Supervisor will submit a Nomination and Approval Form, and a CV for the proposed examiner to the Quality Assurance (QA) Office;

The Supervisor will submit a Nomination and Approval Form, and a CV for the proposed examiner to the Quality Assurance (QA) Office;

The Research Officer will submit a Nomination and Approval Form, and a CV for the proposed examiner to the Quality Assurance (QA) Office;

The QA Office then sends the nomination to the Research Officer, and the Vice-Chancellor, Deputy Vice-Chancellor or a Pro Vice-Chancellor on behalf of Senate, for approval.


Once the nomination has received approval from the Research Officer and on behalf of Senate, the QA Office notify the Research Officer, Supervisor and Registry Office. The QA Office will then prepare and send a contract to the examiner. The Supervisor and the Research Officer submit the ‘Notice of Intention to Submit a Thesis for a Higher Degree’ form to the Registry Office, including the name of the approved external examiner, and the examination procedure will commence.

MAXIMUM LIMITS FOR EXAMINATION OF THESES

iv) Examiners appointed to a programme for a four year term are permitted to examine no more than eight theses per year. Examiners appointed to a thesis should not normally be appointed to examine more than two research degree candidates in the same department in any 12 month period, and more than four research degree candidates in the same department in any 36 month period.

VIVA VOCE EXAMINATION

v) On receipt of the returned contract, the Registry Officer shall forward the thesis and abstract, instructions for Examiners and the External Examiners Report Form to the Examiners. S/he shall request them to fix within a reasonable time afterwards a date on which they may require the candidate to present him/herself for oral examination. An oral examination is mandatory for MPhil and PhD. An oral examination is normally a requirement for the MSc by research; it is not normally a requirement for the MA by research and the LLM by research, though it may be held for these degrees if the examiners require it.

vi) Internal and external examiners should communicate before the viva to determine between themselves how the viva should be conducted. Examiners have the full confidence of the University and are given a substantial degree of discretion as to how the viva should be conducted. Consideration should be given to using video conferencing for conducting the viva in certain circumstances (see appendix). They are asked, however, to observe the following guidelines:

a. Candidates are liable to be nervous and examiners should do everything that is possible to put candidates at their ease to give them the best chance of performing well;

b. Examiners should not, however, give any indication of likely recommendations at the beginning of the viva. They may take the opportunity to explain that the viva itself is part of the examination process and hence no final recommendation can be determined until after it has been completed;

RECOMMENDATIONS AND RESUBMISSIONS

vii) At first submission, there are a number of recommendations open to the examiners, which may be summarised as follows:

1. approval for the degree and approval, where applicable, of mark and/or classification 2. approval for the degree subject to minor modifications to the thesis being carried out to the

satisfaction of the Internal Examiner 3. approval for the degree subject to major modifications to the thesis being carried out to the

satisfaction of the Internal Examiner/Both Internal and External Examiner 4. leave to revise the thesis more broadly and subsequently to resubmit it for the degree. A further

oral examination for PhD would normally be held in this case


5. the award of an appropriate lower degree which shall be awarded if the candidate accepts (and provided that the candidate shall have been given the right to appeal)

6. the award of an appropriate lower degree subject to minor modifications being carried out to the satisfaction of the Internal Examiner, which shall be awarded if the candidate accepts (and provided that the candidate shall have been given the right to appeal)

7. the award of an appropriate lower degree subject to major modifications being carried out to the satisfaction of the Internal Examiner/Both Internal and External Examiner, which shall be awarded if the candidate accepts (and provided that the candidate shall have been given the right to appeal)

8. leave to revise the thesis more broadly and subsequently to resubmit it for an appropriate lower degree.

vii) The revisions required by a resubmission are more substantial than those for ‘major modifications’, and it is usual for the thesis to then be re-examined by way of a new viva voce.

viii) Where examiners make a recommendation of a resubmission, candidates are permitted one resubmission only, exclusive of any minor or major modifications that the panel may later recommend.

a) MPhil and PhD candidates who are given leave to resubmit their thesis may present themselves for re-examination (resubmission) on one subsequent occasion within two years of the original decision being made known.

b) Students on all other programmes, including Masters programmes (MA, and MSc and the LLM by research) may present themselves for re-examination (resubmission) on one subsequent occasion within one year of the original decision being made known.

ix) At resubmission, there are a number of recommendations open to the examiners, which may be summarised as follows:

1. approval for the degree and approval, where applicable, of mark and/or classification 2. approval for the degree subject to minor modifications to the thesis being carried out to the

satisfaction of the Internal Examiner 3. approval for the degree subject to major modifications to the thesis being carried out to the

satisfaction of the Internal Examiner/Both Internal and External Examiner 4. the award of an appropriate lower degree which shall be awarded if the candidate accepts (and

provided that the candidate shall have been given the right to appeal) 5. the award of an appropriate lower degree subject to minor modifications being carried out to the

satisfaction of the Internal Examiner, which shall be awarded if the candidate accepts (and provided that the candidate shall have been given the right to appeal)

6. the award of an appropriate lower degree subject to major modifications being carried out to the satisfaction of the Internal Examiner/Both Internal and External Examiner, which shall be awarded if the candidate accepts (and provided that the candidate shall have been given the right to appeal)

7. fail

x) Recommendations leading to the award of an appropriate lower degree are subject to the candidate’s acceptance: see Appeals procedure.

xi) At the conclusion of the viva, the examiners may inform the candidate of their recommendation (provided that this recommendation is for a pass, revision, or referral). Examiners should not give any indication of their recommendation if this is likely to be a fail. Examiners should inform the candidate that further discussion is needed before any recommendation can be made. If examiners decide to give the candidate some indication of their likely recommendation, they should make it clear


that their report is a recommendation only and that the final decision remains with Senate or with the Vice-Chancellor acting on behalf of Senate.

MINOR AND MAJOR MODIFICATIONS

xii) Where examiners make a recommendation of major or minor modifications, candidates must satisfy the examiners that the prescribed actions have been taken; the satisfaction of the examiners will be demonstrated by their endorsing of the Certificate of Corrections.

xiii) Minor modifications are of two types:

a) simple corrections (typographical errors, references, etc.), and b) changes of statement or arrangement that do not alter or affect the conclusions of the thesis

in any significant manner. xiv) If the examiners require such amendments, they will make the candidate aware of them directly on

the occasion of the oral examination, usually by handing him/her a list of corrections or indicative corrections, and/or by, in the report, indicating the nature and extent of the corrections, and/or in a statement they should prepare for the candidate’s guidance.

a) Minor modifications should normally be made within three months, unless stipulated by the examining team. Submission beyond this requires approval from the University Research Committee Chair.

xvi) Where major modifications are required, the examiners are required to provide clear and detailed feedback to the candidate, via their report and any additional material that seems advisable, so that the nature of the re-workings required to bring the thesis up to the standard of the degree are clear both to the candidate and to the candidate’s supervisor(s).

a) Major modifications should normally take a minimum of six months, unless stipulated by the examining team. Submission before six months has elapsed, or after twelve months has elapsed, requires approval from the University Research Committee Chair.

xvii) The Internal Examiner should indicate to the Registry Officer when they have been satisfactorily completed by checking the edited thesis and signing the recommendations form. This process ensures that the copy of the thesis deposited in the library is professionally presented for the benefit of future researchers who may wish to consult it.

FAILURE TO REACH CONSENSUS

xviii) In cases where the original examiners are unable to reach agreement on the recommendation on the outcome of the examination the following shall apply:

a) If the submission is the first submission, the candidate shall be re-examined by new examiners. The new examiners shall be appointed in accordance with the above regulations, except where two external examiners may be appointed if no suitable internal examiner is available. None of the new examiners shall have been an original examiner.

b) The new examiners shall conduct a fresh examination of the original thesis. They shall not see the reports of the original examiners, and no candidate shall have the right to amend a thesis in any way before re-examination by the new examiners.

c) If the new examiners are unable to reach agreement on re-examination of the original thesis an appropriately-qualified adjudicator, who may or may not be a member of staff of the University, should be appointed by the Chairman of the Research Committee (see f, below).


d) If the new examiners of the original thesis reach agreement that the thesis undergo major modifications or be resubmitted, they remain the examiners of the resubmitted/revised thesis. If the new examiners are then unable to reach agreement following examination of the resubmitted/revised thesis an appropriately-qualified adjudicator, who may or may not be a member of staff of the University, should be appointed by the Chairman of the Research Committee (see f, below).

e) If the submission is a resubmission: If the original examiners are unable to reach agreement following resubmission of, or major modifications on the thesis, an appropriately-qualified adjudicator, who may or may not be a member of staff of the University, should be appointed by the Chairman of the Research Committee.

f) The adjudicator should make a recommendation based on the thesis and the reports of the original and of the new examiners. The adjudicator should not have been the chairperson of the oral examinations. They should not normally conduct an oral examination.

CONFIRMATION OF AWARD xix) Examiners’ recommendation shall be communicated to the Registry Officer, and thereafter shall be

reported to Senate (Examination Senate). The following internal process will apply:

a) When the Examiners’ Report recommends the award of the degree without conditions, the Registry Officer is to send the Examiners’ Report for checking and signing off to the Chairman of the Research Committee, and then to the Vice-Chancellor, or the Vice-Chancellor’s representative, for Chairman’s action to be reported to Senate (Examination Senate).

b) When the Examiners’ Report recommends the award of the degree subject to minor modifications to the thesis, then the Registry Officer will inform the Internal Examiner. The Internal Examiner will certify to the Registry Officer that the required changes have been made. Then the Registry Officer is to send the examiners’ report for checking and signing off to the Chairman of the Research Committee, and then to the Vice-Chancellor, or the Vice-Chancellor’s representative, for Chairman’s action to be reported to Senate (Examination Senate).

c) When the Examiners’ Report recommends resubmission, the Registry Officer is to inform the Chairman of the Research Committee.

d) When the Examiners’ Report recommends rejection or the award of a lower degree, the Registry Officer is to inform the Chairman of the Research Committee. Thereafter, if the candidate accepts the lower degree, the Registry Officer is to send the examiners’ report for checking and signing off to the Chairman of the Research Committee, and then to the Vice-Chancellor, or the Vice-Chancellor’s representative, for Chairman’s action to be reported to Senate (Examination Senate).

xx) After due internal process, and as soon as possible thereafter, the Registry Officer will inform the candidate of the final result.

of 4 External Examiners Nomination and Approval Form – Higher Degrees and Research Masters Degrees

EXTERNAL EXAMINERS NOMINATION AND APPROVAL FORM Higher Degrees and Research Masters Degrees Please read this form and the guidelines for appointment fully before completion, and consult the Quality Assurance Office if you have a query regarding a nomination. Once supervisors have completed this form, it should be sent electronically to the Quality Assurance Office ([email protected]) along with a copy of the candidate’s curriculum vitae. Approval for the appointment is then sought from the Research Officer and the Vice-Chancellor or Pro Vice-Chancellor on behalf of Senate. This recommendation is then recorded at the end of this form and the Quality Assurance Office informs the relevant parties of the outcome. PROCEDURE FOR THE APPROVAL AND APPOINTMENT OF EXTERNAL EXAMINERS

EXTERNAL EXAMINER FOR PhD

STUDENTS MA, MPHIL OR MSC STUDENT

(appointed for an individual thesis)


(appointed to a programme of study) The Supervisor will discuss possible examiners with the candidate; The Supervisor will submit a Nomination and Approval Form, and a CV for the proposed examiner to the Quality Assurance (QA) Office;

The Supervisor will submit a Nomination and Approval Form, and a CV for the proposed examiner to the Quality Assurance (QA) Office;

The Research Officer will submit a Nomination and Approval Form, and a CV for the proposed examiner to the Quality Assurance (QA) Office;

The QA Office then sends the nomination to the Research Officer, and the Vice-Chancellor, Deputy Vice-Chancellor or a Pro Vice-Chancellor on behalf of Senate, for approval. Once the nomination has received approval from the Research Officer and on behalf of Senate, the QA Office notify the Research Officer, Supervisor and Registry Office. The QA Office will then prepare and send a contract to the examiner. The Supervisor and the Research Officer submit the ‘Notice of Intention to Submit a Thesis for a Higher Degree’ form to the Registry Office, including the name of the approved external examiner, and the examination procedure will commence.

DETAILS OF EXAMINER Name of proposed External Examiner

Home Institution

Department:

Current job title: Address

Email Telephone



N.B: Where no appropriate UK based external examiner is available, external examiners may be nominated who are based overseas. Research Officers will need to consider the experience the overseas external examiners have with examining UK research degrees, in accordance with the criteria for nomination clauses A1 and A3. Nomination requests to the QA Office for overseas external examiners should include information about the expected costs (including airfares, accommodation, other travel/transfers, and visas) before the nomination is progressed. DETAILS OF RESEARCH AREA Title of thesis to be examined

Full name of award (E.g. PhD in English Literature)

Has the examiner informally agreed to act?

INSTITUTIONAL LINKS Has the proposed External Examiner previously held a paid appointment in the University - other than as an External Examiner - within the last five years?

Has the proposed External Examiner previously been appointed as an External Examiner by the University?

TERM OF OFFICE (For examiners appointed to programmes rather than an individual thesis) Term of Office* *examiners appointed to a programme are permitted to examine no more than eight theses per year.

Term of Office (four years maximum) From: (DATE) To: (DATE)

Guidelines for the appointment of External Examiners for Research Degrees

The UK Quality Code, Chapter B11 (Research Degrees) Indicator 17 provides the following guidance:- “The criteria used in appointing examiners determine how many examiners are to be appointed and other details. Higher education providers that are research degree awarding bodies may appoint additional external examiners where the research student is also a member of staff or in cases where the thesis is highly interdisciplinary. There is a methodology for establishing that the examiners have relevant qualifications and experience and a clear understanding of the task, and for determining in what circumstances and with what support an inexperienced examiner might be appointed. The higher education provider also decides what guidance is to be given to the examiners.” Additional guidance is provided in Chapter B7 Indicator 5 (External Examiners). Research into practice at other Higher Education Institutions has been undertaken and the following criteria seem common to many of them. These are proposed as the basis for appointment guidelines at University of Buckingham.

A. Guidelines for appointment of Research External Examiners

1. External examiners should have prior knowledge or experience of UK research degree examinations and standards and should normally be senior members of staff of a University or higher education establishment, or of a research institute or other professional research organisation.

2. External examiners should have academic qualifications to at least the level of the qualification being externally examined and have competence and experience in the field covered.

3. External examiners should have familiarity with the standard to be expected of students referenced to the appropriate level descriptors (levels 7 or 8) in the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications


(FHEQ) 4. External examiners should have experience of examining at the level for which they are acting as an

external examiner.

5. In case where a less experienced External Examiner is approved (e.g. when they are subject specialists with a good publication record) two external examiners should be appointed and the internal examiner must be experienced in the assessment process.

B. Institutional Links 1. Individuals appointed as external examiner must be independent of the University and of the

Department concerned and therefore should not undertake any form of employment within the University.

2. No person should be nominated as external examiner if s/he has been a member of staff at the University of Buckingham, unless five years must have elapsed since leaving the institution.

3. If the proposed external examiner has retired from their academic post, his/her curriculum vitae should provide evidence of continued involvement in the academic area in question.

C. Categories that preclude appointment

1. Individuals holding honorary appointments within the University may not act as external examiners.

2. Former students should not be nominated to become external examiners before a lapse of at least five years.

3. A person who has been involved in the research of a candidate, or who has collaborated in the research of the first or second supervisor within the past three years, should not normally be appointed as external examiner.

4. Two external examiners must be appointed in those cases where the candidate is a current or former member of staff of the University.

5. No individual who has a close personal or professional relationship with the student under examination or a supervisor may be appointed as an examiner.

6. No individual who is closely associated with the sponsorship of students on the course may be appointed as an examiner.

7. In the case of a submission of a thesis in a language other than English, information about the experience of proposed examiners will be required at the time of appointment. Examiners will only be eligible for appointment where they have a clear understanding of the nature and quality of UK research degrees. The examiners must be proficient both in the language of submission and in English.

By nominating this external examiner, you are confirming that you have taken the above into consideration, and have provided further information if the examiner does not meet the above guidelines. CONFIRMATION OF NOMINATION BY SUPERVISOR (For examiners appointed on an individual thesis basis only) Comments/Supporting Information


(name) (date) (signature) APPROVAL BY RESEARCH OFFICER Comments Recommendation (name) (date) (signature) APPROVAL BY SENATE Comments Recommendation (name) (date) (signature)

of 3 Instructions to Examiners for Higher Degrees

3M.1.2 INSTRUCTIONS TO EXAMINERS FOR HIGHER DEGREES (For candidates proceeding by thesis) Note: Examiners are asked to send their reports and recommendations to the Registry Officer within two months from the date on which the Examiner receives a candidate’s thesis. (See paragraph 6 below). One External Examiner and one Internal Examiner are ordinarily appointed for each candidate in the first instance. Periods of Study 1 Candidates for higher degrees by thesis are required to submit a thesis embodying the results of advanced study. The following are the minimum periods of prescribed study: MA/MSc/LLM 1 year (2 years part-time) MPhil 2 years (4 years part-time) PhD 3 years (6 years part-time) Assessment Criteria 2 In examining theses the following are the criteria, which Examiners are specifically asked to take into account. All degrees The examiners should satisfy themselves that the candidate’s work shows evidence of adequate industry and application. The subject should be dealt with in a competent and scholarly manner. The thesis should be clear, well written, and orderly in arrangement. In the case of work done jointly or under direction it is important that the extent of the candidate’s own contribution shall be ascertained. Doctor of Philosophy This degree may be obtained in one of two ways: through a period of supervised research and the submission of a thesis, or through the submission of a portfolio of published work. The standard required for the award of the degree is the same in both cases. The thesis or other work submitted must demonstrate familiarity with, and an understanding of the subject, its principal sources and authorities. It should display critical discrimination and a sense of proportion in evaluating evidence and the opinions of others. It must also embody a significant and original contribution to the knowledge of the discipline either by the discovery of new knowledge, or by the exercise of a new and independent critical approach, for example through the discovery of new knowledge, the connection of previously unrelated facts, the development of new theory, or the revision of older views. A thesis should therefore contain matter worthy of publication, although it need not be submitted in a form which is suitable for immediate publication. The candidate must show, by means of the thesis or in the oral examination, that he or she appreciates the relationship of his or her special work to a wider field of knowledge.


Master of Philosophy This thesis must demonstrate familiarity with, and an understanding of the subject, its principal sources and authorities. It should display critical discrimination and a sense of proportion in evaluating evidence and the opinions of others. It must advance understanding in the field or area of study concerned, for example through a contribution to knowledge or by means of a commentary on existing knowledge. The thesis should therefore contain matter worthy of publication, although it need not be submitted in a form which is suitable for immediate publication. The candidate must show, by means of the thesis or in the oral examination, that he or she appreciates the relationship of his or her special work to a wider field of knowledge. Other degrees of Master (Master of Arts, Master of Science, and Master of Laws) The grade descriptors for the Masters by Research are available in the Research Degrees Handbook, and if you are examining a thesis for one of these degrees a copy of the appropriate descriptors should have been enclosed. If they have been omitted, please be in touch with the Registry or with the Internal examiner. Format of Thesis 3 The text of an MA, MSc, or LLM thesis should not normally exceed 40,000 words, an MPhil 80,000 words and a PhD 100,000 words. Permission to exceed these word limits may be given, but a thesis should not be failed on grounds of length alone. References to sources and authorities should be made in such a manner as to be readily identifiable. The thesis should also contain a list bibliography of books and other sources. Oral Examination 4 An oral examination is mandatory for PhD and MPhil. An oral examination is normally a requirement for the MSc by Research; it is not normally a requirement for the MA by Research and the LLM by Research, but may be held at the discretion of the examiners. (See page 4 of the Report form.) If exceptionally, two external examiners are required, a member of the academic staff will be present in a non-participating role. Academic Misconduct 5. TurnItIn is a commercial service currently used by the University to check for originality and potential instances of plagiarism in student work. Postgraduate research students have the opportunity to submit their penultimate draft through Turnitin via their Supervisors. The Turnitin report will be used to help identify potential instances of plagiarism or concerns over originality and will contribute to the overall assurance of academic integrity prior to formal submission to examiners. The submitted thesis for assessment has been scrutinised using TurnItIn and other means where applicable. In approving this thesis to be submitted for the assessment process, the Supervisor and Research Officer have confirmed that they have no reason to believe there are concerns over originality or academic misconduct.


Where irregularities have been identified, an initial enquiry and/or full investigation has been held in accordance with the University’s Academic Misconduct Policy and Procedure and there will have been three outcomes of this process: a. All material has been properly presented and no further action is taken. b. For minor irregularities in presentation of material (e.g. inconsistent referencing, inadequate/excessive paraphrasing, incorrect application of scholarly style), a judgement of Poor Academic Practice has been applied in accordance with 5.2 of the University’s Academic Misconduct Policy and Procedures. The candidate is therefore required to take appropriate remedial action (in addition to any final recommendation of the examining team) before the award is confirmed and publication of the thesis occurs. This judgment has been included already in Part D of the examiner’s report for the candidate, which is enclosed. c. A judgement of Academic Misconduct and an associated sanction has been applied. This will either have required the candidate to revise and resubmit the work for a capped mark, or receive a lesser award. This judgment has been included already in Part D of the examiner’s report for the candidate, which is enclosed. IMPORTANT NOTE: Should you have any concerns about the presentation or originality of the work when assessing the thesis, you should cease assessment and seek advice from the University’s Central Academic Misconduct Offer, Miles Exelby, using the contact details in his enclosed letter. The Examiners' Recommendation 6 Having considered all the evidence at their disposal, the Examiners shall: i) present a written statement of their opinion concerning the candidate's performance and the extent to which his/her work meets the assessment criteria; ii) make a specific recommendation that the thesis be accepted (with or without amendments) or rejected; or iii) make a specific recommendation that the candidate be awarded a lower degree; iv) in the case of the Masters by Research, agree a numerical grade and a classification (Pass, Merit, Distinction) in line with the criteria given in the grade descriptors, and indicate this grade and this classification clearly in their report. Where the recommendation is rejection, provided the candidate is submitting for the first time, the examiners may recommend that the candidate be permitted to submit the thesis in a revised form for the same degree or for a lower degree (if appropriate). In such a case the extent of the revision should be such that the candidate could reasonably be expected to complete it within two years. Any further recommendation shall be accompanied by a full statement of reasons. 7 The report and recommendations of the examiners should be sent to the Registry not more than two months after the date of receipt. If an examiner is unable to send his report within this period, he should communicate with the registry as soon as possible.

of 14 Report on Thesis Submitted for a Research Degree

3M.1.3 REPORT ON THESIS SUBMITTED FOR A RESEARCH DEGREE CONTENTS PART A: Guidance Notes and Assessment Criteria A – Periods of Study B – Format of Thesis C – Oral Examinations

D - Submission of Reports E - Assessment Criteria F – Academic Misconduct G – The Examiners’ Recommendation PART B: Written Report on Thesis Section One – Internal Examiner Report Section Two – External Examiner Report PART C: Oral Examination Rationale

for completion when holding an oral examination where this is not a requirement, and waiving an oral examination where one is required.

PART D: Joint Report on Thesis and Final Recommendation Section One – Joint Internal/External Report on Thesis: for completion for all submissions Section Two – Final Recommendation

PART E: Modifications/Resubmission Section One – Modifications/Re-submission guidance Section Two – Certificate of Corrections Section One (to be completed by Registry) Name of Candidate:

Student ID No:

School/Department: Title of Thesis:

Degree Submitted for:

Internal Examiner: Internal Examiner Email:

External Examiner: External Examiner Address and Email:

Supervisor: PART A GUIDANCE NOTES TO EXAMINERS One External Examiner and one Internal Examiner are ordinarily appointed for each


candidate in the first instance. A. Periods of Study Candidates for higher degrees by thesis are required to submit a thesis embodying the results of advanced study. The following are the minimum periods of prescribed study: MA/MSc/LLM 1 year (2 years part-time) MPhil 2 years (4 years part-time) PhD 3 years (6 years part-time B. Format of Thesis The text of an MA, MSc or LLM thesis should not normally exceed 40,000 words, an MPhil 80,000 words and a PhD 100,000 words. Permission to exceed these word limits may be given, but a thesis should not be failed on grounds of length alone. References to sources and authorities should be made in such a manner as to be readily identifiable. The thesis should also contain a list bibliography of books and other sources. C. Oral Examinations 1. An oral examination is mandatory for PhD and MPhil. An oral examination is normally a

requirement for the MSc by Research; it is not normally a requirement for the MA by Research and the LLM by Research, but may be held at the discretion of the examiners on completion of Part C.

D. Submission of Reports

1. Internal and external examiners should provide individual examination reports using

Part B. If an oral examination is being held, this is normally completed beforehand. The main joint report from the examining team in Part D should be written after the oral examination and may is appropriate incorporate comment upon it. Where an oral examination is not held, a joint report should be completed by the examining team after consideration of the individual reports.

2. If an oral examination is not to be held, the examining team are required only to submit the main joint report using Part D; and if appropriate, Part C, to the below address.

3. If exceptionally, two external examiners are required, a member of the academic staff will be present at the oral examination in a non-participating role.

4. Please submit your report electronically to: [email protected] as soon as possible following the viva, where required (MA Examiners are asked to submit their reports and recommendations within two months from the date on which the Examiner receives a candidate’s thesis) to ensure it reaches the appropriate parties. Submitting your report electronically also helps us to ensure that fee payments are processed as soon as possible. Electronic signatures are permitted.




E. Assessment Criteria In examining theses the following are the criteria, which Examiners are specifically asked to take into account. All degrees The examiners should satisfy themselves that the candidate’s work shows evidence of adequate industry and application. The subject should be dealt with in a competent and scholarly manner. The thesis should be clear, well written and orderly in arrangement. MPhil - MASTER OF PHILOSOPHY Please submit your main joint report on the next sheet, with additional sheets if necessary. The report should be a minimum of 500 words in length, and for MPhil should address the following areas: (NOTE: the report will, of course, reflect the subject field of the thesis with regard to the areas covered)

a. Does the candidate’s thesis:

i. Demonstrate familiarity with, and an understanding of the subject, its principal sources and authorities?

ii. Display critical analysis and a sense of proportion in evaluating evidence and the judgements of others?

iii. Reflect an appropriate methodology for the study? iv. Demonstrate an understanding in the field or area of study concerned, for

example through a contribution to knowledge or by means of a commentary on existing knowledge?

v. Demonstrate clear dealing with the subject in a competent and scholarly manner?

b. Did the candidate show, by means of the thesis or in the oral examination, that he

or she appreciates the relationship of his or her special work to a wider field of knowledge?

OR PhD - DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Please submit your main joint report on the next sheet, with additional sheets if necessary. The report should be a minimum of 500 words in length, and for PhD should address the following areas: (NOTE: the report will, of course, reflect the subject field of the thesis with regard to the areas covered.)

a. Does the candidate’s thesis:

i. Demonstrate familiarity with, and an understanding of the subject, its principal sources and authorities?

ii. Display critical analysis and a sense of proportion in evaluating evidence and the opinions of others.

iii. Reflect an appropriate methodology for the study?


iv. Embody a significant and original contribution to the knowledge of the discipline either by the discovery of new knowledge, or by the exercise of a new and independent critical approach, for example through the discovery of new knowledge, the connection of previously unrelated facts, the development of new theory, or the revision of older views?

v. Contain matter worthy of publication? MA by Research; MSc by Research; LLM by Research The grade descriptors for the Masters by Research are available in the Research Degrees Handbook, and if you are examining a thesis for one of these degrees a copy of the appropriate descriptors should have been enclosed. If they have been omitted, please be in touch with the Registry or with the internal examiner. The report should be a minimum of 500 words in length, and should relate to the grade descriptors for the degree supplied with this form. (Please contact Registry if a copy is not enclosed.) The four classifications are <50% Fail; 50%+ Pass; 60%+ Merit; 70+ Distinction. The report should indicate the original numerical grades awarded by the Internal and the External examiner, and the grade and classification agreed between them after discussion. Please also indicate the final recommendation on pages 7–8. F. ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT TurnItIn is a commercial service currently used by the University to check for originality and potential instances of plagiarism in student work. Postgraduate research students have the opportunity to submit their penultimate draft through Turnitin via their Supervisors. The Turnitin report will be used to help identify potential instances of plagiarism or concerns over originality and will contribute to the overall assurance of academic integrity prior to formal submission to examiners. The submitted thesis for assessment has been scrutinised using TurnItIn and other means where applicable. In approving this thesis to be submitted for the assessment process, the Supervisor and Research Officer have confirmed that they have no reason to believe there are concerns over originality or academic misconduct. Where irregularities have been identified, an initial enquiry and/or full investigation has been held in accordance with the University’s Academic Misconduct Policy and Procedure and there will have been three outcomes of this process: a. All material has been properly presented and no further action is taken. b. For minor irregularities in presentation of material (e.g. inconsistent referencing, inadequate/excessive paraphrasing, incorrect application of scholarly style), a judgement of Poor Academic Practice has been applied in accordance with 5.2 of the University’s Academic Misconduct Policy and Procedures. The candidate is therefore required to take appropriate remedial action (in addition to any final recommendation of the examining team) before the award is confirmed and publication of the thesis occurs. This judgment has been included already in Part D of the examiner’s report for the candidate, which is enclosed. c. A judgement of Academic Misconduct and an associated sanction has been applied. This will either have required the candidate to revise and resubmit the work for a capped mark, or receive a lesser award. This judgment has been included already in Part D of the examiner’s report for the candidate, which is enclosed.


IMPORTANT NOTE: Should you have any concerns about the presentation or originality of the work when assessing the thesis, you should cease assessment and seek advice from the University’s Central Academic Misconduct Offer, Miles Exelby ([email protected]) G. THE EXAMINERS’ RECOMMENDATION Having considered all the evidence at their disposal, the Examiners shall: i) present a written statement of their opinion concerning the candidate's performance and the extent to which his/her work meets the assessment criteria; ii) make a specific recommendation that the thesis be accepted (with or without amendments) or rejected; or iii) make a specific recommendation that the candidate be awarded a lower degree; iv) in the case of the Masters by Research, agree a numerical grade and a classification (Pass, Merit, Distinction) in line with the criteria given in the grade descriptors, and indicate this grade and this classification clearly in their report. Where the recommendation is rejection, provided the candidate is submitting for the first time, the examiners may recommend that the candidate be permitted to submit the thesis in a revised form for the same degree or for a lower degree (if appropriate). In such a case the extent of the revision should be such that the candidate could reasonably be expected to complete it within two years. Any further recommendation shall be accompanied by a full statement of reasons.



PART B: SECTION ONE WRITTEN REPORT ON THESIS: INTERNAL EXAMINER Name of Candidate: Student ID Number: Title of Thesis:

Mark/Classification Recommendation (if applicable): ………………………………………. Signed: Internal Examiner ................................. Date .....…........


PART B: SECTION TWO WRITTEN REPORT ON THESIS: EXTERNAL EXAMINER Name of Candidate: Student ID Number: Title of Thesis: Mark/Classification Recommendation (if applicable):……………………………………. Signed: External Examiner ................................. Date .....…........


PART C: ORAL EXAMINATION RATIONALE Name of Candidate: Student ID Number: SECTION ONE Please enter here a case for holding an oral examination where this is not a requirement: Please enter here a case for waiving an oral examination where this is a requirement (any case here should normally only relate to re-submissions where an oral examination is at the discretion of the Examiners).


PART D: SECTION ONE JOINT REPORT Name of Candidate: Student ID Number: Note: This section is to be used for providing a joint report on the thesis/dissertation, including a report on the oral examination if held. Date of Oral Examination (if held): REPORT: Agreed Mark/Classification (if applicable): ……………………………….. Name (Block Capitals)………………………………………………………………………… Signed……………………………………………………. Date………………………… (Internal/External Examiner*) Name (Block Capitals)………………………………………………………………………… Signed……………………………………………………. Date………………………… (Internal/External Examiner*) (*delete as appropriate)


PART D: SECTION TWO FINAL RECOMMENDATION Name of candidate: Student ID Number: Note: This section is to be used for making a final recommendation in all cases Where possible, an agreed recommendation should be the final result. Where the original Examiners are unable to reach agreement, The regulations for Failure to Reach Consensus should be followed. Academic Misconduct/Poor Academic Practice (REGISTRY OFFICE USE):- A. A judgement of Poor Academic Practice was applied and therefore

appropriate action is required to the satisfaction of the Internal Examiner, in addition to the following recommendation:

B. The thesis has been revised and resubmitted (for capped marks where appropriate) following the application of a sanction under the University’s Academic Misconduct procedure. The following recommendation is FINAL, and is made in light of this:

C. Following the application of a sanction under the University’s Academic Misconduct procedure, a lesser final award is given. The following recommendation is FINAL and is made in light of this:

At FIRST Submission (EXAMINERS TO COMPLETE – tick as appropriate):- 1. approval for the degree and approval, where applicable, of mark and/or classification

2. approval for the degree subject to minor modifications to the thesis being carried out to the satisfaction of the Internal Examiner

3. approval for the degree subject to major modifications to the thesis being carried out to the satisfaction of the Internal Examiner/Both Internal and External Examiner (delete as applicable)

4. leave to revise the thesis more broadly and subsequently to resubmit it for the degree. A further oral examination for PhD would normally be held in this case

5. the award of an appropriate lower degree, which shall be awarded if the candidate accepts (and provided that the candidate shall have been given the right to appeal)

Name of lower degree:…………………………………………………………………………

6. the award of an appropriate lower degree subject to minor modifications being carried out to the satisfaction of the Internal Examiner (delete as applicable), which shall be awarded if the candidate accepts (and provided that the candidate shall have been given the right to appeal)


Name of lower degree:…………………………………………………………………………

7. the award of an appropriate lower degree subject to major modifications being carried out to the satisfaction of the Internal Examiner/Both Internal and External Examiner (delete as applicable), which shall be awarded if the candidate accepts (and provided that the candidate shall have been given the right to appeal) Name of lower degree:…………………………………………………………………………

8. leave to revise the thesis more broadly and subsequently to resubmit it for an appropriate lower degree.

Name (Block Capitals)………………………………………………………………….. Signed (Internal Examiner)..............................................................Date…… Signed (External Examiner)………………………...........................……Date…………………


At RE-SUBMISSION (EXAMINERS TO COMPLETE – tick as appropriate):- 1. approval for the degree and approval, where applicable, of mark and/or

classification

2. approval for the degree subject to minor modifications to the thesis being carried out to the satisfaction of the Internal Examiner (delete as applicable)

3. approval for the degree subject to major modifications to the thesis being carried out to the satisfaction of the Internal Examiner/Both Internal and External Examiner (delete as applicable)

4. the award of an appropriate lower degree, which shall be awarded if the candidate accepts (and provided that the candidate shall have been given the right to appeal)

Name of lower degree:………………………………………………………………………………. 5. the award of an appropriate lower degree subject to minor modifications being

carried out to the satisfaction of the Internal Examiner (delete as applicable), which shall be awarded if the candidate accepts (and provided that the candidate shall have been given the right to appeal)

Name of lower degree:……………………………………………………………………………….

6. the award of an appropriate lower degree subject to major modifications being carried out to the satisfaction of the Internal Examiner/Both Internal and External Examiner (delete as applicable), which shall be awarded if the candidate accepts (and provided that the candidate shall have been given the right to appeal)

Name of lower degree:……………………………………………………………………………….

7. fail

Name (Block Capitals)………………………………………………………………………….….. Signed (Internal Examiner)..............................................................Date………………….….. Signed (External Examiner)………………………...........................……Date…………………


Name of candidate: Student ID Number

PART E MODIFICATIONS/RE-SUBMISSION SECTION ONE – MODIFICATIONS/RE-SUBMISSION GUIDANCE This section must be completed in all cases where a recommendation is made which involves minor or major modifications to the thesis or a re-submission. Each Examiner should provide comments on the work to guide the Candidate and should also provide a clear specification of the amendments (on a separate sheet if convenient) which can be transmitted to the Candidate with the report. This may be a joint report. Name (Block Capitals)………………………………………………………………………… Signed……………………………………………………. Date………………………… (Internal/External Examiner*) Name (Block Capitals)………………………………………………………………………… Signed……………………………………………………. Date………………………… (Internal/External Examiner*) (*delete as appropriate)


PART E SECTION TWO - CERTIFICATION OF CORRECTIONS

EXAMINATION OF A THESIS: CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTIONS To be completed by either the Internal Examiner or both Examiners, as appropriate. Name of candidate : Student ID Number: Degree submitted for: I confirm that the corrections and modifications have been carried out to my/our satisfaction. Name (Block Capitals)………………………………………………………………………… Signed……………………………………………………. Date………………………… (Internal/External Examiner) Name (Block Capitals)………………………………………………………………………… Signed……………………………………………………. Date………………………… (Internal/External Examiner) Please submit this form electronically to [email protected]


1 of 1 Use of Video Conferencing when Conducting a Viva

3M.1.4 USE OF VIDEO CONFERENCING WHEN CONDUCTING A VIVA SECTION A To be completed by the Research Officer: Name of Student ID number Degree Course Dept Name of Internal

Name and Address of External Examiner

Name of Chair

Name of participant that video conferencing is requested for

External examiner/internal examiner/candidate/ALL PARTICIPANTS – delete as applicable)

Reason for consideration of video conferencing

Academic Integrity Have arrangements have been made to record the viva?

Have the supervisor and student discussed academic misconduct in relation to online vivas?

Is the Chair aware of the obligation to submit their own report of the online viva?

Practical Considerations Are the students and examining team familiar with the software being used to conduct the viva? (e.g Zoom/Skype/Microsoft Teams).

Are there any access or environment considerations? (e.g hardware/internet connection/home environment)

2 of 1 Use of Video Conferencing when Conducting a Viva

What time zone will the participants be in and how has this been considered when scheduling the viva?

Either Section B or C should be approved and signed by the Head of Department and returned to Registry: SECTION B I agree to the use of video conferencing for the purpose of the viva. The student and examining team have been informed of this intention and are in agreement. Name: Signature: Date:

SECTION C I do not agree to the use of video conferencing for the purpose of the viva. The rationale for this is as indicated:

Name: Signature: Date:

of 1 Publication, Copyright, Data Protection and Ethics

3N.1 PUBLICATION, COPYRIGHT, DATA PROTECTION AND ETHICS POLICY, PROCEDURE AND GUIDANCE FOR RESEARCH DEGREES

FAIR DEALING AND THIRD PARTY COPYRIGHT

i. The rules on ‘fair dealing for the purposes of criticism and review’ apply to sources and authorities quoted within the thesis, so it is normal to quote widely via the usual scholarly protocols. However, in cases where it is appropriate, it is important to request permission to use copyright material created by other people (3rd party copyright materials) at the time of writing the thesis if, as is now likely, it is to be made available electronically, as for example, in the Library’s digital archival repository or on British Library’s EThOS (see ‘Notice of Intention to Submit a Thesis for a Higher Degree’, appendix 5). Where copyright permissions are required and are not forthcoming from the rights owners, third-party material might have to be removed from the thesis. Alternately, the thesis may only be made available in the University Library as hard copy, since print theses deposited in the Library are legally seen as unpublished manuscripts. The supervisor should advise the student on these matters.

ii. For the requirements of theses for the different higher degrees by research, see Section 1 on ‘Higher Degrees’. For the MA by research, MSc by research, and LLM by research, see also the Grade Descriptors in Appendices 9, 10, and 11 respectively, which make clear the expectations in each case.

COPYRIGHT:

iii. Ownership of copyright of a research degree thesis resides with the Research Student unless there is a separate contract to the contrary.

DATA PROTECTION:

iv. Researchers must familiarise themselves and only process personal information of third parties in accordance with the University’s Data Protection Policy and Privacy Notice. Works submitted should be anonymised wherever possible unless the personal data contained therein is already widely available in the public domain. If it is necessary to include personal information that is not in the public domain, the express consent of the individuals concerned must be obtained prior to submitting the work.

https://www.buckingham.ac.uk/privacy-policy/

https://www.buckingham.ac.uk/privacy-policy/

of 4 Code of Practice for Study by Research

3N.1.1 CODE OF PRACTICE FOR STUDY BY RESEARCH INTRODUCTION The reputation of the University of Buckingham is critically dependent on the integrity of those members of its staff who conduct or supervise research. The University has a responsibility to ensure that its own funds and any funds that it administers on behalf of research councils or similar organisations are spent properly, in accordance with the law and in the public interest. This statement provides guidance on good research practice. It also describes how it will be monitored and which procedures will be used to investigate and deal with alleged misconduct at the University of Buckingham. It is intended for all researchers, their support staff and any with responsibility for the activities of such staff. It applies to employees of the University and any others conducting their work at the University. Such workers should also be satisfied that any of their external collaborators adhere to the principles of the statement. The statement is designed to fulfil the principles of a joint statement by the Director General of the Research Councils and the Chief Executives of the UK Research Councils entitled ‘Safeguarding Good Scientific Practice’ and issued on 18th December 1998 (http://www.dti.gov.uk/ost/ostbusiness/safe.htm) PRINCIPLES

i. Results shall not be fabricated or falsified. Inconvenient or conflicting or contradictory data shall not be ignored in order to deceive.

ii. The results of others shall not be plagiarised, misquoted or misappropriated. iii. Collusion or concealment of the misconduct of others, including external

collaborators, is itself misconduct. iv. The University shall investigate all allegations of misconduct appropriately, and shall

ensure that any person requesting such an investigation in good faith is protected and not victimised.

GOOD RESEARCH PRACTICE A) Honesty

Researchers must show honesty in all aspects of their work, including experimental design, recording, analysing, interpreting and publishing of results, and acknowledging the contributions of others. They must not plagiarise ideas given to them in confidence, whether explicitly or implicitly; nor must they plagiarise results. The work and opinions of other researchers should be represented honestly.

B) Openness

The University recognises the need to protect research ideas, avoid publication or public oral presentation of potentially patentable work, and adhere to confidentiality agreements. With these constraints, researchers should be as open as possible in discussing their work. In particular, there should be little impediment to, and considerable benefit to be gained from discussing results openly with other members of the researcher’s department at the University.

http://www.dti.gov.uk/ost/ostbusiness/safe.htm)


C) Publication

Researchers are encouraged to present their work at internal and external meetings. They should also publish their results in an appropriate form – usually refereed journals – as soon as it is reasonable so to do. However, before any external presentation or publication, they must first:

i. Take reasonable steps to check that their presentation and

interpretation of their data is of high quality. Usually, this will involve discussion with co-authors, supervisor or other suitably qualified colleague.

ii. Ensure that any confidentiality agreement is adhered to.

iii. Consider with a suitably experienced colleague and if necessary a

patent agent, whether any of the material could form the basis of a patent.

iv. Be satisfied that repetition of the work would probably produce

essentially similar results, or be honest about problems that may be encountered in reproducing the results.

v. Include as authors all those who have made a significant contribution

to the work. Minor contributions, such as supply of materials, suggestions for improvement to the manuscript or limited support during the course of the work should be acknowledged. All authors must agree to their authorship. Other members of the main author’s department should have access to the manuscript (e.g. on a shared database) before it is submitted for publication so that any dispute about authorship can be aired. Final decisions about authorship will usually be made by the Departmental Head. If work is conducted under the terms of a confidentiality agreement or with collaborators, the external body must be consulted about authorship. The author submitting the publication should keep documentary evidence (e-mails or paper) to show that proper consultation concerning authorship has been made.

vi. All sources of funding, especially from sponsors who are not listed as authors, must be revealed in manuscripts.

D) Documentation and storage of data

Researchers must keep clear and accurate records of their methods and results, including primary data. Methods used to analyse data for publication or preparation of reports to sponsors must be clearly recorded. This information may be recorded electronically or on paper. It must be stored at the University for at least seven years, or it may be returned to the sponsor if there be one. If the results of the research are published the period of storage shall be at least five years from the date of publication.


E) Leadership

The Vice-Chancellor, Heads of Research Departments and supervisors of those conducting research shall create an environment of mutual co-operation and open exchange of ideas. One measure of such an environment is the holding of regular meetings, seminars, etc., at which researchers can present and discuss their ideas and results in a relaxed and supportive setting. Researchers are also expected to support their colleagues in practical ways, provided that such support is reasonable and necessary, and that they are acknowledged appropriately in publications.

F) Education of new researchers

Research Department Heads and supervisors shall ensure that new researchers read this statement and discuss any issues that arise from it.

ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES AND CONSULTANCY

A. When applying for support of any kind, applicants must ensure that the information that they submit is clear and accurate, and accords with the guidance provided. Applicants must not attempt to identify or approach assessors.

B. All information submitted to researchers as assessors or reviewers must be treated in

confidence. Often such information is provided on the understanding that it may be discussed in confidence with colleagues who can provide assistance in the assessment. Assessors and reviewers must be sure that this is so before seeking advice.

C. Assessors must not take advantage of information provided for their own research

proposals.

D. Researchers must declare any potential conflicts of interest to all relevant parties when asked to act in any confidential role, such as an assessor, referee or consultant.

ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT A ‘Misconduct’ in relation to research matters that requires action as described below

shall be generally taken to mean one of the following:

Dishonest conduct Deliberate contravention of the processes described above. Unintentional contraventions of policy Issues of Openness, Leadership (3.5) and Education (3.6) may also be raised and

addressed by the same individuals and groups described below. Failure to respond to recommendations or instructions made by an appropriate

authority.


B Misconduct in relation to research matters may be brought to light through several

channels, these are: Complaint from a source external to the University. Complaint from an internal university source. Direct investigation by a Head of Department.

C Where misconduct is initially raised as a complaint by a third party (external or

internal), the issue will be dealt with through the University Grievance procedure. Where the investigations relating to the grievance show that misconduct has occurred measures may be taken in line with the University Discipline procedure.

Where the misconduct is not brought to light by a complaint, but through the investigations of the Head of Department, it may be appropriate to refer immediately to the University Disciplinary procedures.

D It may be necessary during the course of an investigation into a complaint or

misconduct of this nature to bring in an external expert in the field the research was carried out in. This expert will be nominated by the Head of Department of the Accused, or if the Head of Department is accused by the Vice-Chancellor.

E For specific details relating to the procedures for dealing with complaints and/or

misconduct you should refer to:

1) The University of Buckingham Discipline Procedures 2) The University of Buckingham Grievance Procedure

of 3 Restriction on Access for a Thesis or Dissertation

3N.1.2 RESTRICTION ON ACCESS FOR A THESIS/DISSERTATION This document provides guidance on the process for seeking approval of a restriction on access for any postgraduate taught or postgraduate research thesis, dissertation or project. 1. Postgraduate Research Students 1.1 For postgraduate research students, this form provides supplementary information to the ‘Intention to

Submit form declarations under ‘Retention of Thesis’ made by the student and agreed by the supervisor and Research Officer.

1.2 Postgraduate research students should follow the regulations under 3.63 of the Research Degrees

Handbook if a bar on access is requested. This Restriction on Access form should be used to provide supplementary information to the Research Officer signing the Intention to Submit Form about the detail for the request. The application for a bar on access should then be brought to the next Research Committee for approval.

1.3 The completed form and any relevant supporting documentation for applications once approved must be submitted to Registry, stored with all hard copies of the dissertation, and appear at the front of all electronic copies. N.B Please note that some funding bodies do not allow students to restrict access to their theses. If candidates are externally funded in any way, they must ensure that they have checked with their respective funding body whether the terms of their funding allow them to restrict access to their thesis. 2. Postgraduate Taught Students 2.1 For students following taught masters programmes, this form provides the formal approval for a request to

restrict access to a thesis, dissertation or project. 2.2 A request may be submitted to place a bar on access to a candidate's work for a specified period normally

of no longer duration than 1-2 years but can be up to 5 years in exceptional circumstances. The recommendation must include a statement of the grounds on which the request is being made.

2.3 This form should be completed by the student and supervisor. It shall be the responsibility of the student

and supervisor to make the application as soon as is reasonably practicable. The request must be approved by the student’s supervisor, the relevant Research Officer and the Chairman of the University Research Committee.

2.4 The completed form and any relevant supporting documentation for applications once approved must be

submitted to the School of Study, stored with all hard copies of the dissertation, and appear at the front of all electronic copies.


APPLICATION FOR A RESTRICTION ON ACCESS TO A THESIS/DISSERTATION Please note that the Title and Summary of the thesis shall normally be freely available but the thesis will not be made available until after the expiry of an approved restriction on access. The restriction on access shall be regarded as operative as soon as the work is submitted but the period approved is calculated from the date on which the candidate is formally notified by the University that s/he has qualified for a degree. SECTION A: CANDIDATE’S DETAILS

SCHOOL

STUDENT NAME

STUDENT NUMBER

PROGRAMME OF STUDY

THESIS/DISSERTATION TITLE

IS THE STUDENT SPONSORED? (If yes, please indicate name of the

sponsor body)

YES/NO

Please confirm that the student has checked with their sponsor to ensure that the terms of their funding body allow restriction on access.

YES/NO

SECTION B: DETAILS OF RESTRICTION ON ACCESS REQUEST Please indicate reason, for example, there are grounds for commercial or public sensitivity, individual confidentiality or security, or to allow the author to prepare the work for publication:

PLEASE PROVIDE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION WHERE APPROPRIATE


SECTION C: SUPPORTING STATEMENT FROM SUPERVISOR SECTION D: TIME LIMIT 1 to 2 years normally (but up to 5 years in exceptional circumstances) although a Restriction on Access in order to allow the author to prepare the work for publication is normally only for two years. Please indicate number of years in box below:

Restriction on access over 2 years Only exceptional cases can be approved for up to 5 years so please give reason if Restriction on Access request is for more than 2 years. SECTION E: REQUIRED SIGNATURES

CHAIRMAN OF THE RESEARCH COMMITTEE DATE

Please Print Name

RESEARCH OFFICER DATE

Please Print Name

SUPERVISOR DATE

Please Print Name

CANDIDATE DATE

Please Print Name Name and email address of member of staff to be notified of the outcome of the restriction on access application.

of 5 Privacy Notice for Research Participants

3N.1.3 PRIVACY NOTICE – FOR RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS Privacy Notice for Research Participants

This privacy notice provides information on how the University of Buckingham (“the University”) processes your personal information when you take part in one of our research projects. It is important that you read this privacy notice together with the Participant Information Sheet for the study in which you are taking part.

The Participant Information Sheet will explain the purpose of the project and contain more specific details about what information will be collected about you and how it will be used to achieve the project’s objectives.

This privacy notice was prepared following the introduction of new data protection laws in May 2018: the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR); and the UK Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA).

1. General Information

The University is an independent institution of higher learning and a registered charity. It conducts tasks that are considered to be in the public interest such as education and research activities. The processing of information, including personal information of participants is necessary for the purposes of conducting research, this being a legitimate interest of the University. Unless otherwise stated in the Participant Information Sheet, the legal basis for processing personal information in a research project will be that is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the University.

Research may be conducted by staff or students of the University. Most research projects are intended to add to existing knowledge and the outcomes of those projects may be shared through reports and publications. Student projects, however, such as those conducted by our undergraduate students, may not add to existing knowledge but must be undertaken to fulfil their education requirements. Projects undertaken as an educational requirement are also considered a task in the public interest. Therefore, this privacy notice applies to both staff and student research projects.

We always strive to uphold high standards in our research projects. This means that our researchers must follow strict codes of conduct, policies and procedures to ensure the research they conduct under the University complies with regulations and legislation. This includes data protection laws which protect and safeguard the use of personal information. Although many of the principles are the same as previous data protection laws, the GDPR and DPA 2018 have introduced some key changes to further safeguard the use of your personal information.

The principles of data protection law require that your personal data must be:

Used lawfully, fairly and in a transparent way;

Collected only for valid purposes that we have clearly explained to you and not used in any way that is incompatible with those purposes;

Relevant to the purposes we have told you about and limited only to those purposes;

Accurate and kept up to date;

Kept only as long as necessary for the purposes we have told you about; and,

Kept securely.


In the case of Health and Care research, where we have to demonstrate that our research serves the interests of society as a whole, we also do this by following the UK Policy Framework for Health and Social Care Research.

2. Personal Data (also referred to as ‘Personal Information’)

‘Personal Data’ means any information that relates to and is capable of identifying you as an individual. This includes information that identifies you directly such as your name, location or identification number. It can also include data where direct identifiers (such as your name) are not used or have been removed but a person can still be identified by combining the information with other data. For example, a study collecting or using data on music preferences or shopping trends may allow an individual to be indirectly identified when combined with other information such as age or place of work. Research studies that use information that could allow a person to be identified directly or indirectly will be conducted in accordance with data protection laws.

Some research projects may use information about you that is considered ‘sensitive’ (also known as ‘special category’ data). This includes information about: your ethnicity; your sexual orientation; your gender identity; your religious beliefs; your genetic data; your biometric data from which you can be uniquely identified; and, your health data. These types of Personal Information require the researchers to take extra care when collecting, storing and using the information. Personal Information relating to criminal convictions must also be treated with extra care.

The types of Personal Information that may be used will depend on the research project. Unless specified to the contrary in the Participation Information Sheet, special category data will only be processed if it is necessary for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes and such processing is proportionate to the aim pursued with due respect for participants’ rights to data protection.

You should ask a member of the study team if you have any questions or require further clarification. Contact details will be provided on the Participant Information Sheet or the invitation asking you to participate. What our researchers collect and use will always be proportionate to achieving the particular research project objectives.

3. Responsibility for Personal Information

The University is the ‘Data Controller’ when it manages research projects, which means that we are responsible for looking after your Personal Information and using it properly for that project.

Where we work together with other Data Controllers (such as other Universities or our research funders) on a research project, this will be made clear in the Participant Information Sheet provided to you, along with information about how we have agreed to share our responsibilities for handling your data. If you have any further questions about the research collaborations for the project you are taking part in, please contact your project’s research team using the contact details on the Participant Information Sheet.

4. Safeguards to Protect Personal Information

All Personal Information is handled according to the University’s policies in line with legal and regulatory requirements.

We expect all our staff and students to respect the confidentiality and sensitivity of the Personal Information they use for their research projects from whatever source, whether provided by you, as a participant in our research, or whether received or shared from other organisations

In order to protect your rights and freedoms when using your Personal Information for research purposes, the University will not do anything with your Personal Information that you would not reasonably expect.


We will use your personal information only for achieving the objectives of the research you are participating in and we will not usually use your information further or contact you for any purpose other than this research unless you have agreed to this or de-identification processes are applied to your data. We commit to keeping your Personal Information safe and secure.

We also have the following technical, legal, and organisational safeguards in place to help protect your Personal Information:

Staff and students participating in research projects must undergo training on data protection which includes instruction on how to collect and use your information safely.

Security standards and technical measures are in place that ensure your information is stored safely and securely.

All research projects involving personal data are reviewed and approved by a research ethics committee to ensure the research does not expose you to undue risk or cause you distress (e.g., physical harm, financial loss or psychological distress).

Contracts are put in place with collaborators on a research project (e.g. companies or individuals not associated with the University) which will include setting out each party’s responsibilities for protecting and keeping your personal information confidential.

The University will carry out data protection impact assessments on high risk projects to ensure that your privacy, rights as an individual, or freedoms, are not affected.

If we use collaborators outside of the European Economic Area, we will ensure that they have adequate data protection laws, or are part of privacy and security schemes (such as the Privacy Shield self-certification programme in the US).

5. With whom will my Personal Information be shared?

Your information will usually be shared within the research team conducting the project you are participating in, mainly so that they can identify you as a participant and contact you about the research project. All our researchers are asked to anonymise, pseudonymise or delete Personal Information collected as part of their research at the earliest opportunity where it becomes clear that any information held is not necessary to achieve the research project objectives, or it is clearly inaccurate.

Responsible members of the University may also be given access to Personal Information used in a research project for monitoring purposes and/or to carry out an audit of the study to ensure that the research is complying with applicable regulations. Individuals from regulatory authorities (people who check that we are carrying out the study correctly) may require access to your records. All of these people have a duty to keep your information, as a research participant, strictly confidential.

If we are working with other organisations and information is shared about you, we will inform you in the Participant Information Sheet. Information shared will be on a ‘need to know’ basis relative to achieving the research project’s objectives, and with all appropriate safeguards in place to ensure the security of your information.

Aside from the research project team, most Personal Information used in research will be anonymised or pseudonymised before being shared externally with other researchers or publishing the research outcomes. If it is not possible to de-identify your information, we may ask for your consent to share it. Where there is a risk that you can be identified, your data will only be shared in research that has been independently reviewed and approved by an ethics committee. The information cannot be used to contact you or to decide something in relation to you that might affect you. It will not be used to make decisions about future services available to you, such as your care or insurance. If this is relevant to the research


you are involved with, you will be provided with information about this in your Participant Information Sheet.

Sometimes researchers will use a third party product or service to support the research project which may require them having access to your Personal Information. If this is the case, the researchers will provide you with details about the third party (‘Processor’) and their roles and responsibilities on the Participant Information Sheet.

We may also have to disclose your information if required to do so by law in order to comply with a legal obligation, to protect our rights, interests or property and those of others, to act in urgent circumstances to protect the personal safety of our staff, students and the public or to protect us against any legal liability.

6. Your rights

The GDPR and the DPA give you rights in relation to the Personal Information we hold about you. These include rights to request the following:

Access the information/receive a copy of the information;

Correct any inaccurate information;

Have any information deleted;

Restrict or object to our processing of information; and

Move your information (“portability”).

Where Personal Information is processed as part of a research project, the extent to which these rights apply varies under the GDPR and the DPA. In particular, your rights to access, change, or move your information may be limited, as we need to manage your information in specific ways in order for the research to be reliable and accurate. If you withdraw from the study, we may not be able to remove the information that we have already obtained. To safeguard your rights, we will use the minimum personally-identifiable information possible. The Participant Information Sheet will detail up to what point in the study data can be withdrawn.

If you submit a data protection rights request to the University, you will be informed of the decision within one month. If it is considered necessary to refuse to comply with any of your data protection rights, you also have the right to complain about our decision to the UK supervisory authority for data protection, the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Please note that when the University is no longer in a position to identify you from the information we hold, it will not be possible for the University to implement your rights following a request about such information. In particular, once data collected as part of a research project have been irreversibly anonymised, it will no longer be possible to identify what data we hold about you specifically.

7. How long is my information kept?

You will be informed in your Participant Information Sheet how long your Personal Information will be retained.


8. Who can I contact?

In the first instance, if you have any questions about how your Personal Information is being used in a specific study, you should contact a member of the study team as detailed in the Participant Information Sheet.

If you have any concerns or you wish to exercise any of your rights, please consult the University’s Data Protection Officer ([email protected]).

If you are not happy with the way your Personal Information is being handled, or with the response received from us, you have the right to lodge a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, SK9 5AF (https://ico.org.uk/). The University’s registration number with the Information Commissioner’s Office is Z8974286.

THE RESEARCH DEGREES HANDBOOK CONTENTS

Documents

Transcript of THE RESEARCH DEGREES HANDBOOK CONTENTS