Graduate School - Research Degrees Code of Practice

Section 5 - Examination

This section covers all aspects of examination, from writing up the final thesis to completion of amendments.

1. Examination (introduction)
2. Timing of submission
3. Thesis
4. Selecting examiners
5. Arranging the viva
6. Preparing for the viva
7. The examination
8. After the examination

1. Examination

1.1 The process of gaining a postgraduate research degree is one of transition from an apprentice status to that of a mature scholar who has fully demonstrated the capacity for independent professional research. It is the task of the supervisory team, led by the Director of Studies, to manage this transition to the stage of final examination. It deserves the strongest emphasis that at this final stage the candidate is independently responsible for the quality of the thesis, and that the responsibility for the defence of the thesis is the candidate’s alone. Nevertheless, it should not be forgotten that in this final examination, the standards and procedures of the institution are under external scrutiny as well as the achievements of the candidate. The University is required to monitor and report on viva outcomes and has a vested interest in gaining a reputation for producing strong graduates.

2. Timing of submission

2.1 Research Councils recommend that a student should be able to complete a PhD in three years if full-time, six years part-time. This timescale will only be met if no unforeseen obstacles or delays occur; as such unforeseen delays are not uncommon many students do in fact submit during the course of their fourth year (FTE).

2.2 The University is required to monitor and report on its completion rates. Therefore students and supervisors are encouraged to do everything they can to prioritise timely submission of the thesis. Schools should be wary of inviting students to become involved in other activities, such as teaching or other research projects, at the expense of completing the thesis.

2.3 If a student is not going to be able to submit on time he or she may apply for an extension. The Research Degrees Committee has a responsibility to enforce deadlines equitably and will only grant extensions where the student can demonstrate that circumstances beyond his or her control have prevented the deadline from being met. Extensions are not an automatic right.

2.4 The thesis must be the candidate’s own work and responsibility for its eventual success or failure rests with the student. Supervisors should be willing to comment on drafts of the thesis, but they are not in a position to state definitively that the thesis will or will not pass. Only the examiners may make that judgement. At best supervisors can offer their opinion that the thesis is good enough to give the student a reasonable chance of passing, providing the student defends the work adequately at viva.

2.5 Students should appreciate that positive feedback from supervisors is not a valid ground for appeal as only the examiners’ assessment of the quality of the thesis can be considered.

2.6 All theses contain strengths and weaknesses and it is normal for the examiners to require some amendments. Examiners will not be overly concerned about weakness in the written work if the student shows a good understanding of the subject and an awareness of any limitations. Examiners will however be concerned if the student appears unable to understand that there are any deficiencies in his or her work even when these are pointed out. For this reason, producing a defensible thesis is not in itself a guarantee of a good result. Much depends on the conversation during the viva. (See more below)

2.7 The decision to submit the thesis is the student's own and it is up to the student to decide whether or not the thesis is ready, although advice from supervisors is clearly important. Some factors that should be considered include:

• Fees. If the thesis is submitted by the end of the prescribed period no continuation fee will be charged. This should only make a difference to the timing of submission if the thesis is more or less finished – rushing submission is likely to lead to more substantial amendments at the very least and a more difficult viva experience. Students should contact the Quality Enhancement Unit if concerned about the fees position.
• Editing ends eventually. It is always possible to keep revising a thesis but there comes a point when it is better to submit than to continue editing. No thesis is perfect and almost all require some revision post examination.

2.8 When the student receives feedback from supervisors on the final draft it is the student’s decision how to incorporate that feedback. The student has the right to ignore supervisory advice. In some cases, where the supervisors themselves disagree on a point, only the student can make the final decision. It is the student who will have to defend the thesis and he or she must feel able to argue the case for choices made. Equally, the student must accept the consequences if the examiners disagree with those choices.

2.9 If the supervisors have significant concerns about the quality of the thesis, this should be recorded on the candidate declaration form. This form serves two functions:

• Confirmation of authorship. The student formally confirms that the text of the thesis is all his or her own work. The supervisors must have read the final version of the thesis so they too can confirm this statement. The form should also confirm whether any parts of the thesis have been published independently, eg as part of journal papers.
• Confirmation of supervisory approval. Normally, the supervisory team will have discussed the final draft extensively with the student and will be comfortable that the submitted thesis is at least defensible. However, if there have been disagreements with the student or if the supervisors have concerns about the quality of the thesis this should be recorded.

2.10 Where the supervisors indicate concerns on the declaration form, there are two options. If the student has time left before the final registration date, he or she may take the thesis back to make further changes. If the final registration date has passed, it may be possible to ask the Research Degrees Committee for a short extension in order to make amendments (depending on the circumstances of the case). However, if the student does not wish to make any further changes he or she may proceed with the submission. The student must sign to confirm he or she is aware of the supervisors’ opinion but still wishes to proceed.

2.11 Sometimes when a student is running out of time there may be no option other than to submit the thesis in an unpolished state. This is permissible within the regulations. It is likely that the examiners will require substantial amendments or possibly even resubmission. However, the student would then receive the appropriate amount of time to make those amendments. This therefore may be the pragmatic option when the deadline is looming.

(back to top)

3 Thesis

3.1 The final decision as to how to structure the thesis and what to include is the student’s own. However, the normal structure would be:

• Abstract (no more than 300 words)
• Acknowledgements
• Contents (including a list of tables, figures and diagrams)
• Introduction
• Literature review
• Methods
• Results
• Discussion
• Conclusion
• References and bibliography
• Appendices

3.2 Students should refer to section 10 of the research degree regulations for more detailed information on the required format.

3.3 The maximum length of a thesis is 100,000 words for PhD and 60,000 words for MPhil, as stated in Regulation 10.2.1. The figures given for minimum length (70,000 words for PhD and 40,000 words for MPhil) are indicative only as this may vary with the conventions of different subject areas. Students should seek guidance from supervisors on normal expectations in their discipline.

3.4 In the case of a thesis including creative writing, the critical commentary should normally be within the range of 30,000 to 40,000 words for PhD or 15,000 to 25,000 words for MPhil. These word lengths relate to the critical text only – any text being commented on is excluded from the word count.

3.5 Students should be wary of exceeding the word limit. A thesis which is over the word limit will not be accepted. In exceptional circumstances, the student may apply to the Research Degrees Committee for permission to exceed the limit. However, experience suggests that most lengthy theses would benefit from editing. The editing process forces the student to clarify what are the most important points, thus making the argument tighter and more focussed. A shorter thesis is generally easier and more pleasurable for an examiner to read, and this should also be taken into account.

3.6 Similarly, bulky appendices should be avoided. Examiners should be able to understand the thesis from the full argument presented in the main body of the text. It is not necessary to provide all data collected. Anonymised samples of questionnaires or interviews may be included but it would not normally be appropriate to include all interviews.

3.7 Accompanying creative work may be provided as an appendix. The format in which it is presented will vary, but it must be in such a way as to be easily referenced and accessed by the examiners. Each item should be individually labelled, with relevant details including the candidate’s name. For instance, it may be appropriate to include a DVD of a performance or photographs of artistic works.

3.8 Copies of published material should be made available in accordance with Regulation 10.5. Reference shall be made in the thesis to any such work. Where material is jointly authored the student must clarify the extent of his or her role. The examiners will make their judgement solely on the thesis itself, but it provides useful context if they can see published material that has arisen from the project.

3.9 No part of a thesis may have been included in a submission for any other degree or qualification without the permission of the Research Degrees Committee (Regulation 9.6.2). The aim of this Regulation is to protect against double submission. The student should be able to use and refer to his or her previous work, but this should not be included verbatim. It is considered legitimate to use data from a different degree, but only small amounts of previous data would be acceptable for this purpose.

3.10 Outsize documents and non-print items should be placed in a pocket attached to the inside back cover of the thesis [or in a large envelope in the case of examination copies] (see Regulation 10.7). In some cases it might be helpful for the examiners to have access to an electronic form of data, where a disk would be included as an appendix. However there has to be a rationale for including non-print data for examination or as part of the documentation in terms of an archive.

3.11 Students are strongly advised to make arrangements to have the thesis proof-checked prior to submission. Supervisors are unlikely to have time to make line by line correction of spelling, grammatical and typographical errors. While examiners are more interested in the academic substance of the thesis than its presentation, professionalism and accuracy are very important. One of the criteria for award is the ability to communicate at the standard of published work.

3.12 One copy of the thesis and any additional material must be provided for each examiner. In some cases an extra copy may be required for the Chair (see below). A further electronic copy should be submitted by email or on a memory stick. These should be submitted, along with the Candidate’s Declaration form, to the Secretary to the Research Degrees Committee in Registry for distribution to the examiners.

(back to top)

4 Selecting examiners

4.1 For most students there will be an internal and an external examiner. Candidates who are members of staff must have two external examiners. Examiners should have a PhD or equivalent experience.

4.2 The internal examiner must be somebody with enough general knowledge of the subject to understand the arguments of the thesis, but not necessarily an expert in that area. The external examiner, however, should be more specialist. It is preferred that the external examiner have experience of examining at this level so that he or she is in a position to confirm that the award is comparable with similar degrees awarded at other universities.

4.3 Possible external examiners may be identified from the literature search if they have published in the field or from attendance at conferences. If the external is an expert in the field it would be expected that the student would have read the examiner’s work and referred to it in the thesis.

4.4 The Director of Studies and student should discuss possible examiners to confirm their suitability. It is important that the student reveals any previous contact with the suggested examiners to avoid either possible conflict of interest or personal antagonism. No member of the candidate’s current or previous supervisory team (including any formal advisors), research collaborators or anyone with a close association with the candidate's research, may act as an examiner. Obviously, relatives or personal friends would not be appropriate.

4.5 The Director of Studies should then consult with the Dean of School. Normally the Dean will approach the internal examiner as this may be viewed as an allocation of workload. The Director of Studies may approach the external personally or may ask the Dean to do this if it is felt more appropriate (eg if the proposed external is quite senior and it was felt the approach should come from an equally senior member of staff). In both cases, the examiners should be told the likely date of submission of the thesis and hence the likely date for the viva (6-8 weeks after submission). If both examiners confirm they are willing and able, the Director of Studies must prepare paperwork for the Research Degrees Committee.

4.6 Students and supervisors should note that if there is a delay in submission examiners who had previously expected to be available at the right time for the viva may find themselves with other commitments. The Director of Studies should alert the proposed examiners to any change in timescales.

4.7 The thesis cannot be sent to the examiners until the Committee has approved the team. Therefore it is advised that the examination arrangements form and supporting short CVs is forwarded to the committee secretary prior to submission.

4.8 If the Research Degrees Committee feels there is insufficient examining experience within the team it may appoint a Chair. The role of the Chair is discussed below.

4.9 Candidates and supervisors must have no contact before the oral examination with any examiner on any matter relating to the thesis or the examination arrangements until the oral examination (except as necessary for practice-based research – see regulation 9.5.5).

(back to top)

5 Arranging the viva

5.1 The viva will be arranged by staff of the Quality Enhancement Unit, who will send the examiners the thesis and ask for possible dates. The final date will be agreed between the examiners and the candidate. If the candidate wants one of the supervisory team to attend as an observer, every effort will be made to ensure the date also suits the observer but exceptionally it may be necessary to hold the viva on a day when he or she cannot attend.

5.2 QEU will provide the examiners with extracts of the regulations and guidance on the examining process at QMU. In addition, QEU will:

• Book a suitable room and arrange catering
• Send the detailed timetable for the day to all parties
• Arrange travel and accommodation for external examiners if required
• Arrange visitor passes and car parking (if required)
• Provide travel expenses and payroll forms for external examiners
• On receipt of completed forms, arrange for financial authorisation and payment
• Arrange for the candidate to be invoiced for the examination fee

5.3 Thought should be given to the best interests of the candidate, by making arrangements for appropriate tables and chairs, telephones to be switched off, the room temperature to be suitable, drinking water, tea or coffee to be provided, and a notice to be put on the door to prevent disturbance. Particular care should be taken to make any arrangements necessary for the convenience of disabled participants.

5.4 Candidates with disabilities are strongly advised to contact the Disabled Students Adviser prior to the viva to discuss what adjustments or special arrangements may be appropriate. The Disabled Students Adviser may liaise with QEU on the student’s behalf, if so requested by the student.

5.5 All candidates must be prepared to attend an oral examination in the University, at their own expense. (Candidates absent from Scotland must therefore be prepared to return.) In exceptional circumstances, such as when the external and internal examiners and the candidate are all attending a conference outside Scotland, the Research Degrees Committee may be asked to allow the oral examination to be conducted elsewhere than in the University. In certain circumstances, and with the agreement of the examiners and the student, it may be appropriate to conduct the oral examination by video-conferencing.

(back to top)

6 Preparing for the viva

6.1 The examiners should be sent their copies of the thesis, and the preliminary report forms, a minimum of six weeks before any possible date for the oral examination, in order to be able to do justice to the complex task of reaching a careful initial judgement on the merits of the thesis. The oral examination should normally be held not earlier than six weeks after the date of submission, and not later than three months after submission.

6.2 The examiners should write their preliminary reports completely independently. The reports should be forwarded to Registry at least two working days in advance of the date of the oral examination, and should be kept fully confidential until then. The examiners should not see each other’s preliminary reports until all reports have been independently submitted to Registry.

6.3 Where there are major adverse circumstances faced by a candidate in the period leading up to the oral examination (e.g. bereavement), at the discretion of the Convener of the Research Degrees Committee such circumstances may be revealed to the examiners. However, this should only be undertaken where alternative responses to the difficulties (e.g. postponement) have been fully explored.

6.4 If a student discovers errors in the thesis following submission, he or she may bring them to the attention of the examiners. A list of such errors may be passed to the examiners to help them in compiling their own lists of required amendments. However material submitted after the thesis may not be regarded as replacing the submission. The examiners should still make their recommendation based on the thesis as originally submitted.

(back to top)

7.1 The formal purpose of the examination is to allow the examiners to establish that the candidate meets the requirements for a research degree:

7.2 Equally, where the research involves creative writing, a portfolio of creative work, or the preparation of a scholarly edition, the critical commentary on the material under discussion must be judged by the examiners to be satisfactory in the respects listed above.

7.3 Examiners will make their judgement mainly on the thesis. A strong performance at viva may allay the examiners’ doubts and improve the result; a weak performance should not normally lead to a poorer result. The only exceptions would be if the candidate’s answers were such as to cast doubt on the authorship of the thesis or to reveal poor research conduct (eg serious disregard for ethical procedures or misrepresentation of data).

7.4 The oral examination should be used to establish the extent of any collaboration, and to confirm that the work is the candidate’s own. It must always be possible to track the individual work of the candidate. This may be particularly important when the outline of the project has been set by the supervisor, not the student (eg as part of a grant-funded project). For this reason, it is appropriate for the questions at viva to cover the broad field of study as well as the project itself, to explore the candidate’s general understanding.

7.5 The examiners may also wish to offer the candidate their personal advice about possible future publication, and about possible avenues and strategies of further research.

7.6 The role of any supervisors attending the oral examination is to respond to potential questions from the examiners on matters of clarification. The presence of a member of the supervisory team may also be helpful in ensuring an understanding of any specific amendments recommended by the examiners and approved by the Research Degrees Committee. The supervisors must on no account contribute in any way whatsoever to matters of judgement, and should not seek to intervene without invitation. If the Chair is concerned that an observer is not adhering to this protocol, the Chair may eject him or her from the room.

7.7 Oral examinations must take sufficient time for the examiners to reach confident conclusions. However a duration of longer than two hours of questioning should be exceptional. It is recommended that a break should be scheduled for around the 1 hour 30 minute point if the examination is likely to continue much beyond this time. In total a period of three hours should be sufficient for the examination proceedings, including the completion of the examiners’ report and feedback to the candidate.

7.8 To allow candidates the opportunity of performing to their maximum potential, the oral examination should be conducted in a courteous spirit, as between fellow-professionals, avoiding unproductive confrontation. Examiners should be aware that many candidates will be initially nervous. It is therefore good practice to begin with some positive comments in the oral examination, and state what is good about the thesis. It is recommended that examiners start off with general comments and questions and / or concentrate on strengths.

7.9 Normally the internal examiner will chair the viva. If the internal is inexperienced, a non-voting chair will be appointed by the Research Degrees Committee. The non-voting chair does not normally read the thesis and will not ask specific questions. His or her role is to run the meeting, put the candidate at ease and ensure adherence to the University’s regulations and Code of Practice. The chair may, for instance, intervene to stop an inappropriate line of questioning or to clarify whether or not the observer may be asked for a comment. The chair will also complete the examiners’ decision form and draw up the list of feedback to the candidate.

7.10 A recommended structure for the oral examination, which examiners should feel free to vary for good reason, is as follows:

Pre-examination

• examiners read each other’s preliminary reports and provisional decisions
• agree the key questions for the candidate
• assign particular topics for each examiner to lead off on

The chair should list the topics to be covered and tick them off during the course of the viva. It is a good idea to note possible areas for amendments as they come up.

Examination

• welcome the candidate and supervisor
• explain the intended structure and sequence of the oral
• questions and comments
• ask the candidate if he or she wants to make any further comments
• ask the candidate and supervisor to leave, temporarily
• consider the recommendation options and make the final decision

Recommendation and Feedback

• ask the candidate and supervisor to return
• tell the candidate the recommendation
• remind the candidate about the process and timetable of recommendation
• explain recommended amendments to the candidate and supervisor
• discuss of publication issues and possibilities of further research
• type and sign the final agreed report

7.11 At any stage, the oral examination may be suspended temporarily at the request of any party for such purposes as a comfort break. However an examiner (or other designated person) should accompany the candidate at all times. Such suspensions should be no longer than 10 minutes in duration. If the candidate is unable to continue after such a period, the chair of the examination panel shall judge whether the examination should be formally terminated and whether it is appropriate for it to be reconvened at a later date.

7.12 At their discretion, examiners may ask the supervisor to leave the room before the candidate in order that the candidate is given an opportunity to comment on his or her supervision.

7.13 Examiners need to realise that the examination is of the thesis as it stands, and that it is unfair not to accept this premise. They should not allow their own vision or viewpoint to colour the questioning, and the internal examiner needs to steer the external away from asking inappropriate questions. The thesis requires to be good enough, not perfect, and as such amendments are about addressing essentials and not about trying to revise the thesis to match the examiner’s vision. The key question is whether the thesis and performance at viva demonstrate that the student is ready to take on the role of unsupervised researcher. If yes, the award of PhD should be made, subject to amendments as necessary. If no, examiners should consider what the candidate would need to do to demonstrate that readiness and frame amendments accordingly.

7.14 The decision about whether the amendments required are “minor” or “major” is made partly on the basis of time. The candidate should be able to complete minor amendments within two months, with major amendments taking up to six months to complete. If examiners feel the amendments are minor but the individual circumstances of the candidate might prevent him or her from completing them within two months they should still recommend minor amendments, but with the recommendation that an extension to the time period be allowed by the Research Degrees Committee.

7.15 To provide some guidance on the possible outcomes of the viva the following examples are provided:

• Minor Amendments – typographical and grammatical corrections; insert several new paragraphs in specified chapters; rework aspects of the conclusion; redraft the abstract.
• Major Amendments – all of the above plus rework up to half of the chapters of the thesis.
• Resubmission – all of the aspects of the minor amendments plus rework the majority of the chapters of the thesis; reanalyse data.

7.16 The examiners must complete and agree a word processed report for the Research Degrees Committee, making clear the grounds for their decision and specifying exactly what amendments are required. It is important to provide as clear advice to the candidate as possible to aid him or her with the revisions. Examiners should also bear in mind that only the amendments listed at this stage must be made: the examiner(s) cannot introduce additional requirements at a later stage.

7.17 There may be occasions when the examiners are unable to agree on their recommendation. In this situation the Secretary to the Research Degrees Committee should be consulted for advice. In exceptional cases the examiners may prepare separate reports.

7.18 After the examination, the external examiner should be invited to make any comments to the Convener of the Research Degrees Committee on any problematic aspects of the examination process, or to advise on any procedural changes he or she wishes to offer for the consideration of the Committee.

(back to top)

8 After the examination

8.1 The recommendation of the Board of Examiners is considered by the Research Degrees Committee, which has the power in exceptional circumstances, such as failure of the examiners to agree a final report, to change the recommendation to be forwarded to Senate. Normally, the Convener of the Committee will take Convener’s Action to allow the result to be formally notified to the student as soon as possible. Time limits for amendments will commence from receipt of this letter.

8.2 After the examination, the student should meet with the Director of Studies for a formal debriefing. If the Director of Studies was present at the examination, he or she will be able to provide feedback on the student’s performance and clarify the nature of the amendments the examiners require. If another member of the supervisory team acted as observer, he or she should be present at the debriefing.

8.3 At the debriefing, the Director of Studies and student should agree the full list of amendments that require to be undertaken. If there is any doubt about what the examiners intended by a particular amendment, clarification should be sought. Students should not normally contact the examiners direct (unless the examiners invite them to do so) but can ask for clarification through the Quality Enhancement Unit.

8.4 For minor amendments, the student will normally complete the amendments and submit them without any further input from the supervisor.

8.5 For major amendments, the student may submit the amended text to the supervisor for feedback once. It is the responsibility of the student to act upon this feedback and decide whether the amendments are ready for submission.

8.6 When a student requires to resubmit, supervision will continue as it did before the examination. All supervisors must read and sign off the resubmitted thesis.

8.7 There can be no “re-negotiation” about the amendments specified following the submission of the examiners’ report and its approval by the Research Degrees Committee. If a student is unhappy with an examiner’s recommendation he or she fails to make the required amendment at their own risk.

8.8 Amendments are normally verified by the internal examiner. Candidates are advised to submit an amended thesis with a cover sheet indicating where the revised passages may be found. If the amendments are fairly limited and discrete, the student may submit only the amended chapters.

8.9 If the examiner has concerns that the amendments have not been fully completed, the Secretary to the Research Degrees Committee should be consulted. Normally, the candidate will be informed and given the opportunity to make the required amendments within a period of 2 weeks. If after this the thesis does not incorporate the required amendments all examiners must view the amended thesis and discuss it. Where the amendments have been partially completed, the examiners should consider whether the thesis, as it stands, is worthy of a PhD. Should the examiners be unable to reach agreement, regulation 9.7.14 applies.

8.10 Once it is confirmed that the amendments have been completed satisfactorily, the Research Degrees Committee should then make its formal recommendation to Senate that the candidate be awarded the degree.

8.11 It may be the case that the candidate is required to resubmit a substantially amended version of the thesis for re-examination. The appointment of the original examiners normally remains in force for the re-examination, the process of which follows the pattern of the first examination, except that a restricted set of final recommendations is available (see Regulation 9.8.1). A further examination fee will be charged, and external examiners will be paid a second fee.

8.12 If the original examiners are unavailable for any reason, paperwork should be presented to the Research Degrees Committee to approve a revised examination team. The new examiner should be provided with a copy of the original examiners’ report to provide context. It should be stressed that a resubmitted thesis is likely to be so different from the original that it would have to be assessed in its entirety. Therefore the revisions suggested by the original examiners cannot be treated as an exhaustive list of issues to be addressed. In reading the revised text, it is possible that new issues will come to light. However, examiners should strive to be consistent with their earlier comments.

8.13 It may be the case that, following examination or re-examination, it is agreed that a PhD candidate should be awarded the alternative degree of MPhil in lieu of PhD. The candidate may be required to make suitable amendments, within a maximum of six months. The amended MPhil thesis would normally be verified by both / all examiners. The award of MPhil may not be made unless the candidate meets the criteria for the award.

8.14 After the decision of Senate to accept a recommendation of the Research Degrees Committee that a candidate should be awarded the degree of PhD or MPhil, Registry will write formally to the candidate with full details, including graduation dates and procedures.

8.15 It may be the case that, following examination or re-examination, it is recommended that the candidate should be neither awarded the degree nor awarded an alternative degree. Just as the authority to award research degrees rests solely with Senate, so too does the final decision that no degree should be awarded.

(back to top)

Resources:

Forms Library: http://www.qmu.ac.uk/quality/fm/researchDegree.htm
Guidance for examiners (MSWord)
Books:

• Tinkler, P. and Jackson, C. 2004 The doctoral examination process: a handbook for students, examiners and supervisors Open University Press
• Pearce, L. 2005 How to examine a thesis Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press

^ to top