Page 1

Research and Enterprise

Postgraduate Research Supervisors Handbook

www.hud.ac.uk/gradcentre


Table of Contents

1. Welcome 2. QAA 3. Regulations 4. Code of Practice for Research Degrees 5. Annual Evaluation 6. Applications 7. Charter 8. Admissions and Induction 9. Skills Training 10. Progression Monitoring 11. PGR Reps/Tutors, Conference Presentation Fund, VC’s Research Student of the Year 12. International 13. Research Degree Examinations 14. Miscellaneous 15. Ethics and IPR 16. Research Groups and Centres, QR & RDP Income 17. VITAE 18. UKRIO Code of Practice for Research 19. Committees and Groups 20. Supervisor Development


Research and Enterprise

Welcome


Message from the Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research and Enterprise Our Vision: To be an inspiring, innovative University of international renown Our Mission: To deliver an accessible and inspirational learning experience, to undertake

pioneering research and professional practice, and to engage fully with employers and the community In 2007 the University embarked on an ambitious agenda to enhance and expand its research capability through a range of initiatives aimed at increasing our postgraduate research student population and at developing our capacity for research supervision. Since then we have seen a substantial growth in PGR numbers and in staff undertaking research supervision and training. These developments have been accompanied by an impressive increase in the overall satisfaction expressed by our research students from 63% to 71%, which is far above the national average and testimony to the dedication of all involved. These achievements have been supported by the creation of effective and innovative structures for research governance and administration; by new procedures for quality assurance and control and by new regulations, policies and codes of practice. Information on all these developments has now been brought together in this comprehensive and accessible Postgraduate Research Supervisor Handbook. By means of updates made available via the Virtual Graduate Centre the Handbook will be your durable and indispensible guide to all matters related to graduate education and I therefore have no hesitation in commending it to you. If you should have any comments or suggestions please do not hesitate to contact Annabel Holland, Head of Research and Graduate Education.

Professor Andrew D. Ball Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research & Enterprise


Research and Enterprise

QAA


Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education Section 1: Postgraduate research programmes - September 2004


First published 1999 Second edition 2004 Š Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education 2004 ISBN 1 84482 168 4 All the Agency's publications are available on our web site www.qaa.ac.uk Printed copies are available from: Linney Direct Adamsway Mansfield NG18 4FN Tel 01623 450788 Fax 01623 450629 Email qaa@linneydirect.com


Postgraduate research programmes

Contents

Page

Foreword

1

Context

3

Introduction

3

Definitions

4

Precepts and explanations

5

Institutional arrangements

5

The research environment

7

Selection, admission and induction of students

9

Supervision

14

Progress and review arrangements

17

Development of research and other skills

20

Feedback mechanisms

22

Assessment

23

Student representations

26

Complaints

27

Appeals

27

Appendix 1 - The Precepts

28

Appendix 2 - Membership of the working group for the Code: Postgraduate research programmes

32

Appendix 3 - Skills training requirements for research students: joint statement by the research councils/AHRB 33


Postgraduate research programmes

Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education: Postgraduate research programmes Foreword

1 This document is the second edition of a code of practice for postgraduate research programmes provided in UK higher education institutions. It is one of a suite of inter-related documents which forms an overall Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education (the Code) for the guidance of higher education institutions subscribing to the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (the Agency). 2 The overall Code and its 10 constituent sections were originally prepared by the Agency between 1998 and 2001 in response to the reports of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education and its Scottish Committee (the Dearing and Garrick Reports). The Code supports the national arrangements within the UK for quality assurance in higher education. The Code identifies a comprehensive series of systemwide principles (precepts) covering matters relating to the management of academic quality and standards in higher education. It provides an authoritative reference point for institutions as they consciously, actively and systematically assure the academic quality and standards of their programmes, awards and qualifications. 3 The Code assumes that, taking into account principles and practices agreed UK-wide, each institution has its own systems for independent verification both of its quality and standards and of the effectiveness of its quality assurance systems. In developing the Code, extensive advice has been sought from a range of knowledgeable practitioners. 4 The Code does not incorporate statutory requirements relating to relevant legislation, for example the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. It assumes that institutions have an overriding obligation in all such cases to ensure that they meet the requirements of legislation. However, where a section of the Code is related to legislative or similar obligations, efforts have been made to ensure compatibility between them. 5 Since 2001 a number of developments in UK higher education have encouraged the Agency to begin a revision of individual sections of the Code. In undertaking this task the Agency has also decided to review the structure of the sections and, in particular, to replace the original 'precepts and guidance' format with a 'precepts and explanation' approach, using the explanations to make clear why the precepts are considered important and reducing opportunities for a 'checklist' approach to the Code. In doing so the Agency has sought to meet Recommendation 4 (part 4) of the Better Regulation Task Force in its interim report Higher Education: Easing the Burden, July 2002.

page 1


Postgraduate research programmes

6 Revised sections of the Code are therefore now structured into a series of precepts and accompanying explanations. The precepts express key matters of principle that the higher education community has identified as important for the assurance of quality and academic standards. Individual institutions should be able to demonstrate they are addressing the matters tackled by the precepts effectively, through their own management and organisational processes, taking account of institutional needs, traditions, culture and decision-making. The accompanying explanations show why the precepts are important. 7 The Code is a statement of good practice that has been endorsed by the higher education community. As such it is useful in the Agency's audit and review processes that consider the extent to which an institution, in developing and implementing its own policies, has taken account of the Code and its precepts. 8 Institutions may find the explanations useful for developing their own policy and for allowing some flexibility of practice at subject level, depending on local needs. It is important to emphasise that the explanations do not form part of the Agency's expectations of institutional practice when Agency teams are conducting audits and reviews. 9 Academic staff in departments and schools do not necessarily need to be aware of the detail of the various sections of the Code, although they might well be expected to be familiar with the institutional policies it informs and any parts which are particularly relevant to their own responsibilities. 10 To assist users, the precepts are listed, without the accompanying explanations, in Appendix 1 of this section of the Code. 11 The first version of this section of the Code was published in January 1999. The publication of this second version follows consultation with staff in institutions, who have helped to update the Code to take account of institutions' practical experience of using the guidance contained in its predecessor.

page 2


Postgraduate research programmes

Context 12 This section of the Code is written in a firmer style than some other sections, especially the precepts, to give institutions clear guidance on the funding councils', research councils' and Agency's expectations in respect of the management, quality and academic standards of research programmes. Institutions' use of the Code is monitored through the Agency's audit and review processes (see paragraph 7 above). In the case of this section, the outputs of these review processes will be used by other agencies, including the UK funding councils, for monitoring purposes. 13 This section of the Code is also designed to guide institutions on the development of institutional codes of practice in the area of postgraduate research programmes (see Precept 3 below).

Introduction 14 This revised section of the Code was developed by a working group that included representatives from academic institutions, UK funding councils, research councils and national organisations such as the UK Council for Graduate Education, the Society for Research into Higher Education and the National Postgraduate Committee. Institutions, organisations and individuals were invited to comment on a draft version and two 'round table' meetings were held in London and Sheffield as part of the consultation process. All feedback from the consultation process was considered when this section of the Code was finalised. 15 Since publication of the first version of this section of the Code, there have been many opportunities to seek and receive feedback from institutions on its content and usefulness. Latterly, there have been several publications, including: the Roberts Review of the supply of people with science, technology, engineering and mathematics skills in the UK, culminating in the SET for success report (April 2002); the threshold standards for research degree programmes developed by the UK higher education funding councils and published for consultation in Improving standards in postgraduate research degree programmes (HEFCE 03/23); and the research councils' and the Arts and Humanities Research Board's (AHRB) joint statement Skills training requirements for research students (published as Annex A to HEFCE 03/23). The threshold standards were based on existing practice across UK higher education and institutions generally supported them. 16 Institutions' responses to HEFCE 03/23 also made it clear that they would welcome a single point of reference for good practice in the provision of postgraduate research degrees. As a result, meetings took place between representatives of the funding councils and the Agency to agree how the threshold standards and the skills training requirements might be incorporated within a revised version of this section of the Code. The representative working group described above was convened in December 2003, with the remit of producing the single source of reference, as a revised section of the Code. 17 In its work, the group has referred to existing documents, including those referred to above and the Guidelines on the Quality Assurance of Research Degrees (HEQC, 1996). page 3


Postgraduate research programmes

Definitions Research

Research as defined by the funding councils in advance of the 2001 RAE (it has not been changed since then) is quoted below. This definition is applicable in its broadest sense to 'research' when used throughout this document. 'Research for the purpose of the RAE is to be understood as original investigation undertaken in order to gain knowledge and understanding. It includes work of direct relevance to the needs of commerce and industry, as well as to the public and voluntary sectors; scholarship*; the invention and generation of ideas, images, performances and artefacts including design, where these lead to new or substantially improved insights; and the use of existing knowledge in experimental development to produce new or substantially improved materials, devices, products and processes, including design and construction. It excludes routine testing and analysis of materials, components and processes, eg for the maintenance of national standards, as distinct from the development of new analytical techniques. It also excludes the development of teaching materials that do not embody original research. *Scholarship for the RAE is defined as the creation, development and maintenance of the intellectual infrastructure of subjects and disciplines, in forms such as dictionaries, scholarly editions, catalogues and contributions to major research databases.' Research students

The precepts and explanations below are intended to cover the many different types of students undertaking research programmes in the UK, including full and parttime, students of all ages and with different needs, UK and international, and from all backgrounds. Not all precepts will be equally applicable to all students and wherever possible, the explanations recognise this. Research programmes

This document is intended to apply to a wide range of research qualifications. Specifically, it covers the PhD (including the New Route PhD and PhDs awarded on the basis of published work), all forms of taught or professional doctorate, and research master's degrees where the research component (including a requirement to produce original work), is larger than the taught component when measured by student effort. Including such a broad and complex group of programmes means that not all sections of the document apply equally to all types of research programme. In some cases, the explanations are therefore open to flexible interpretation to allow for the diversity that exists across different types of programme.

page 4


Postgraduate research programmes

Precepts and explanations Institutional arrangements

Institutions offering postgraduate research programmes will safeguard the academic standards of such programmes, putting in place arrangements that will enable them to be delivered successfully according to national and, where relevant, international expectations. They will wish to assure themselves that they provide appropriate support and guidance to enable research students to complete their programmes, and for students, supervisors, examiners and other staff involved in research degree programmes to fulfil their responsibilities, as indicated in other sections of this document. 1 Institutions will put in place effective arrangements to maintain appropriate academic standards and enhance the quality of postgraduate research programmes. This objective is amplified through the requirements of the other precepts in this section. 2 Institutional regulations for postgraduate research degree programmes will be clear and readily available to students and staff. Where appropriate, regulations will be supplemented by similarly accessible, subject-specific guidance at the level of the faculty, school or department. Institutional regulations can cover: z requirements for admission to the programme; z procedures for considering claims for the accreditation of prior experiential and/or prior certificated learning (AP[E/C]L); z the academic and procedural requirements for particular postgraduate research awards; z the requirements for progression, including monitoring and review arrangements for the award and the minimum and maximum periods within which the programme may be completed; z assessment methods, requirements and procedures, including the criteria for achieving the award; z the institution's procedures for dealing with research misconduct, including plagiarism; z complaints and appeals processes. Institutions will wish to review such regulations regularly and update them when necessary, to take account of developments and innovation. page 5


Postgraduate research programmes

3 Institutions will develop, implement and keep under review a code or codes of practice applicable across the institution, which include(s) the areas covered by this document. The code(s) should be readily available to all students and staff involved in postgraduate research programmes. Institutions should use both external and internal guidance when developing their own codes of practice for research programmes. Such codes are considered an integral part of institutional quality assurance mechanisms and are valuable in assuring the quality and maintaining academic standards of research programmes. Guidance at faculty, school or departmental level, for example in handbooks, can provide useful additional advice for students and staff. Institutions will wish to bring their codes of practice to the attention of students as early as possible, and certainly no later than induction. 4 Institutions will monitor the success of their postgraduate research programmes against appropriate internal and/or external indicators and targets. Institutions have their own views of what defines success in the broad subject areas in which research programmes are undertaken, where appropriate guided by national and international expectations. In setting targets and monitoring indicators, institutions will wish to take into account the different needs and study patterns of different types of students and the diversity of their research programmes. Factors that an institution may consider when collecting evidence to evaluate the success of its postgraduate research degree programmes (normally as part of an annual monitoring process) may include: z

submission and completion times and rates;

z

pass, referral and fail rates;

z

withdrawal rates;

z

the number of appeals and complaints, the reasons for them, and how many are upheld;

z

analysis of comments from examiners;

z

recruitment profiles;

z

feedback from research students, employers, sponsors and other external funders;

z

information on employment destinations and career paths of former students.

There should be formal opportunities for institutional, faculty and departmental committees and groups to consider statistical and other information relating to postgraduate research programmes and to act upon it. Student involvement in these processes is beneficial. page 6


Postgraduate research programmes

The research environment

In each research environment a range of factors, appropriate to the subject and types of students and research programmes involved, and including one or more of the examples below, can be used to demonstrate 'high quality'. National and international reference points also provide subject-specific benchmarks appropriate to individual disciplines. 5 Institutions will only accept research students into an environment that provides support for doing and learning about research1 and where high quality research is occurring. Examples of factors that can be used to indicate high quality research include: z

demonstrable research achievement/output in the subject, such as: journal publications; books; work produced in other media, including performing arts, sculpture, fine art and design;

z

sufficient numbers of staff, including post-doctoral researchers, and research students (either within the institution or included in collaborative arrangements);

z

clinical research achievements;

z

knowledge transfer and the application of research techniques and solutions to practical problems (such as those funded by employers);

z

in some research environments, the ability to attract external funding.

Emergence of new research groups normally occurs within an environment that demonstrates research of high quality is already being achieved. The research environment, which may be located in or across one or more institutions, will be adequate for the conduct of the kind of research in question and capable of supporting the type and range of students being recruited, and their changing needs and requirements as the programme develops. The environment should be enabling and instructional, and be conceived of as a place of learning as well as of research productivity. Features of an environment well suited for doing and learning about research (see a below), are supported by other characteristics that encourage research achievement (see b, page 8). There are some other features that help to assure the quality of the research environment (see c, page 9). a

An appropriate environment in which to do and learn about research might include:

z

opportunities and encouragement to exchange and develop ideas with people at appropriate levels who are also engaged in doing and learning about research and pursuing established research programmes;

1

Please see the definition of 'research' at the beginning of the document. page 7


Postgraduate research programmes

z

ready access to academic colleagues and others able to give advice and support;

z

adequate learning and research tools including access to IT equipment, library and electronic publications;

z

opportunities for students to develop peer support networks where issues or problems can be discussed informally (this could include access to social space provided for the purpose);

z

supervision (see also the section on Supervision below) that encourages the development and successful pursuance of a programme of research;

z

guidance on the ethical pursuit of research and the avoidance of research misconduct, including breaches of intellectual property rights;

z

an emphasis on the desirability of developing: research-related skills that contribute to the student's ability to complete the programme successfully (including, where appropriate, understanding related to the funding of research and its commercial exploitation) (eg Appendix 3 A - C); personal and, where relevant, employment-related skills (eg Appendix 3 D - G);

z

availability of advice on career development, where relevant.

Such a learning environment will also enable research students to make judgements requiring creativity and critical independent thought, accepting that uncertainty is a feature of the conduct of research programmes. This environment should enable students to grapple with challenges that develop intellectual maturity and encourage a high level of reflection on the student's own learning about research as well as on research outcomes. Institutions that fund or otherwise support postgraduate-run initiatives, for example journals, conference organisation and attendance, often find this valuable in helping students develop professional skills. b

Components of an environment supportive of research achievement might include:

z

the pursuit of high quality research in cognate areas by a community of academic staff and postgraduates;

z

supervisors with the necessary skills and knowledge to facilitate the successful completion of students' research programmes;

z

access to the facilities and equipment necessary to enable students to complete their research programmes successfully.

Institutions will wish to put in place explicit expectations that are clear and readily accessible to students and supervisors concerning timely submission and successful completion periods. Such expectations are likely to be influenced by research council requirements where relevant, and by the mode of study of the student, ie full-time or part-time. They are also likely to vary according to the needs of subjects and individual students.

page 8


Postgraduate research programmes

c z z z

In addition, institutions may wish to provide: access to welfare and support facilities that recognise the particular nature of research degree study; the opportunity for effective student representation, and for addressing students' feedback including complaints; sufficient implementation and monitoring mechanisms to ensure that where a project is undertaken in collaboration with another organisation, the standards of both organisations are maintained2.

Selection, admission and induction of students

Precepts and explanations six to 10 below, and the accompanying explanations, highlight to all concerned the importance of clear admissions and induction procedures and requirements, and the need for fair and consistently applied admissions policies. 6 Admissions procedures will be clear, consistently applied and will demonstrate equality of opportunity. Institutions will make clear and accurate admissions information readily available to applicants and staff involved in the admissions process. Institutions are advised to make this information available on their web site and in printed form. Institutions should also make provision for staff responsible for admissions to be aware of and understand legal requirements relating to the processes and the need to conform to such legislation. In respect of equal opportunities requirements, institutions will wish to put in place monitoring arrangements to satisfy themselves that: z z z

appropriate attention is paid to legislation and guidance available internally and externally; an effective support infrastructure is in place for students with special needs; students are made aware of opportunities to apply for additional or special funding and how to apply for such funds. 7 Only appropriately qualified and prepared students will be admitted to research programmes.

Students will be expected to have a sufficient level of English language competence. This should be identified by a process that is consistently applied by the institution. For doctoral research, students will be expected to have one or more of the following: z z 2

a degree, normally with class 2 (i) or equivalent in a relevant subject; a relevant master's qualification or equivalent;

See also Section 2 of the Code on Collaborative provision and flexible and distributed learning (including e-learning) page 9


Postgraduate research programmes

z

evidence of prior professional practice or learning that meets the institution's criteria and good practice guidelines for the accreditation of prior experiential and/or certificated learning (AP[E/C]L). 8 Admissions decisions will involve at least two members of the institution's staff who will have received instruction, advice and guidance in respect of selection and admissions procedures. The decision-making process will enable the institution to assure itself that balanced and independent admissions decisions have been made, that support its admissions policy.

The instruction, advice and guidance provided by institutions will enable those involved in admissions decision-making to fulfil their role effectively and efficiently. Admissions staff will need to consider how interviews with applicants might be used as part of the admissions process (including arrangements for assessing the suitability of those based overseas and working at distance). In addition to familiarising selectors with the institution's admissions policies, institutional guidance will normally cover the use of references and other information used to assess the suitability of a candidate to undertake postgraduate research. Institutions will wish to put in place suitable criteria for assessing student qualifications and preparedness, including consideration of any claims made for the accreditation of prior learning gained through professional practice or other appropriate work experience or study. Important factors to be considered are the student's motivation and potential to complete the programme. The student's ability to complete the programme may be affected by financial support, and for this reason institutions may wish to assure themselves that students have sufficient funding in place for the duration of the programme. It is equally important to ensure that students are made aware at the earliest opportunity of the financial implications of registering for the programme. Guidance provided by institutions should enable selectors to be aware of issues concerning international students, including the assurance of language proficiency and the importance of providing opportunities for candidates to improve their language proficiency by taking advantage of in-house or other training. Staff and applicants will need to be aware of the minimum proficiency levels set by the institution, with appropriate reference to external guidance (such as that provided by the International English Language Testing System (IELTS)).

page 10


Postgraduate research programmes

For quality assurance purposes and to help selectors, institutions should provide clear guidance on the balance of responsibilities between staff in local units and central postgraduate administration. 9 The entitlements and responsibilities of a research student undertaking a postgraduate research programme will be defined and communicated clearly. The institution's offer to successful candidates for research degrees will normally be expressed in a formal letter that is specific to the individual applicant. This constitutes a contract between the student and the institution. The terms of the letter are binding on the institution and, upon acceptance, on the student. The letter will normally refer to or enclose other information, for example references to institutional web pages, supplemented by printed information where necessary. The letter and enclosures normally refer to: z

the expected total fees, including extra charges (such as 'bench' fees) which will be levied, and any other expenditure on practical items relevant to the individual student;

z

the expected period of study for which the student is enrolled;

z

the requirements which the institution places upon the research student (for example, attendance, progress reports, contact with supervisors) and arrangements for enrolment and registration;

z

references to the institution's regulations, student handbook, sources of funding and other relevant information for a research degree programme, all of which will normally be available via institutional web pages;

z

the responsibilities being accepted by the student for their academic studies and candidacy for a research degree;

z

if known, the requirements and conditions of any sponsor;

z

an outline of any opportunities to undertake teaching or other duties and any conditions associated with these (for example training for teaching), to be defined in principle at the beginning of the student's programme unless already part of his/her funding arrangements;

z

reference to practical information, for example concerning accommodation and financial or travel information.

Other information can be provided separately, perhaps as part of the induction process. For example, handbooks (printed or electronic) may include details of health and safety procedures, regulations concerning plagiarism and good practice in research, and guidance on research ethics. It is also important that students are aware of the institution's expectations of them in relation to personal conduct and academic performance.

page 11


Postgraduate research programmes

The institution's policies, practices and requirements with respect to intellectual property rights (including arrangements, where relevant, with external commercial or industrial organisations with their own intellectual property rights arrangements) will need to be clearly expressed to applicants and any relevant third party. Institutions should assure themselves that students are made aware of their responsibilities at the beginning of their programme. Students' responsibilities normally include: z

taking responsibility for their own personal and professional development;

z

maintaining regular contact with supervisors (joint responsibility with supervisors);

z

preparing adequately for meetings with supervisors;

z

setting and keeping to timetables and deadlines, including planning and submitting work as and when required and generally maintaining satisfactory progress with the programme of research;

z

making supervisors aware of any specific needs or circumstances likely to affect their work;

z

attending any development opportunities (research-related and other) that have been identified when agreeing their development needs with their supervisors (see explanation with precept 10 below);

z

being familiar with institutional regulations and policies that affect them, including the regulations for their qualification, health and safety, intellectual property, and ethical research guidelines (see also Precept 5 [a] above and the bullet points under Precept 10 below). 10 Institutions will provide research students with sufficient information to enable them to begin their studies with an understanding of the academic and social environment in which they will be working.

Institutions will ensure that an induction programme, the timing and content of which reflects the diversity of needs of specific groups of research students (including part-time and newly arriving international students), is delivered at the most appropriate levels (institution/faculty/school/department, or a combination). The information to be provided as part of the induction programme can usefully include: z

general information about the institution and its postgraduate portfolio in the relevant subject(s);

z

the institution's registration, enrolment, appeals and complaints procedures, assessment requirements and research degree regulations;

z

the names and contact details of the student's supervisor(s) and information about how supervisory arrangements work;

page 12


Postgraduate research programmes

z

the institution's research ethics and codes and those of relevant professional bodies and discipline groups, including consideration of issues concerning authorship and intellectual property;

z

the institution's expectations of the independence and responsibilities of the student;

z

student support and welfare services such as counselling and advice centres;

z

a summary of the facilities that will be made available to the student, including the learning support infrastructure;

z

relevant health and safety and other legislative information;

z

where appropriate, a brief outline of the proposed research programme(s), together with the normal length of study and the facilities that will be made available to the student;

z

reference to the challenges that will typically face research students during the course of their studies and where guidance may be sought in the event of difficulties;

z

any opportunity for the student representative body to introduce themselves, including specific postgraduate representation;

z

social activity, including that provided specifically for postgraduates;

z

opportunities for postgraduates to be represented by the student body;

z

details about opportunities and requirements for skills development.

It can be helpful if institutions provide students with an introductory pack, providing details about where they can find essential information. Other information is likely to include details of supervision arrangements, including evaluation, monitoring and review procedures. During the induction process, students will be provided with details of opportunities that exist for meeting other research students and staff, and for developing scholarly competence and independent thought. The student should meet his/her supervisor at the earliest opportunity, to agree on their plans for the programme including the following: z

the initial objectives of the research, taking account of the sponsor's requirements where appropriate;

z

the development and general educational needs of the student, measured against the research councils Joint Skills Statement if appropriate;

z

the means by which the student will communicate progress to the supervisor(s) and how they will arrange regular meetings;

z

monitoring of progress in the research and training aspects of the programme.

(See also the section on Supervision below)

page 13


Postgraduate research programmes

Supervision

It is important to establish systematic and clear supervision arrangements. These include: the need to provide students with opportunities for access to regular and appropriate supervisory support; encouragement to interact with other researchers; advice from one or more independent source (internal or external); and arrangements that protect the student in the event of the loss of a supervisor. These four principles are covered in more detail by the following precepts. They provide a framework for the minimum standards required by institutions in providing supervisory arrangements for research students. 11 Institutions will appoint supervisors who have the appropriate skills and subject knowledge to support, encourage and monitor research students effectively. All supervisors need appropriate expertise for their role. They will wish, and institutions will require them, to engage in development of various kinds to equip them to supervise students. New supervisors will participate in specified development activities, arranged through their institutions, to assure their competence in the role. Institutions will expect existing supervisors to demonstrate their continuing professional development through participation in a range of activities designed to support their work as supervisors. Supervisors should take the initiative in updating their knowledge and skills, supported by institutional arrangements that define and enable sharing of good practice and provide advice on effective support for different types of student. Mentoring relationships are one example of how support can be provided for supervisors. To assure consistency of supervision, institutions will wish to encourage supervisors working in industry or professional practice to participate as appropriate in any developmental activities offered by the institution. 12 Each research student will have a minimum of one main supervisor. He or she will normally be part of a supervisory team. There must always be one clearly identified point of contact for the student. Supervision arrangements will depend on the structure for research student support that exists within the institution and any guidance provided by the relevant research council, where appropriate. Involvement with a supervisory team can provide valuable staff development and grounding in the skills required to become an effective research supervisor. A supervisory team can give the student access to a multi-faceted support network, which may include: other research staff and students in the subject; a departmental page 14


Postgraduate research programmes

adviser to postgraduate students; a faculty postgraduate tutor; or other individuals in similar roles. Between them, the main supervisor and, where relevant, other members of the supervisory team, will ensure that research students receive sufficient support and guidance to facilitate their success. At least one member of the supervisory team will be currently engaged in research in the relevant discipline(s), so as to ensure that the direction and monitoring of the student's progress is informed by up to date subject knowledge and research developments. Breadth of experience and knowledge across the supervisory team will mean that the student always has access to someone with experience of supporting research student(s) through to successful completion of their programme. In all cases, a student should have an identified single point of contact, normally the main supervisor. It should be clear to the student who the relevant contact is if the main supervisor is not available. This will normally be an additional, designated member of academic staff able to provide advice and support. To avoid misunderstandings, the names, contact details and responsibilities of the main and any other supervisor(s) should be provided to students at registration and be readily available throughout their programme. As and when a main supervisor is not able to continue supervising the student, an appropriate supervisor will be appointed to assume the role. Institutions will wish to take a view on how long a main supervisor may be absent before a permanent replacement is appointed. In determining this period, institutions will be influenced by the importance of providing breadth and continuity of supervision for the student. In some circumstances, it will be appropriate for another supervisor to assume the role of main supervisor, while a replacement main supervisor is found. It is important that, if a student/supervisor relationship is not working well, alternative independent sources of advice are available to the student. By mutual agreement between the student and the institution, and where permitted by the terms of any sponsorship agreement, supervisory responsibilities can be changed, at the request of either the student or a supervisor. Students will have sufficient opportunities for contacting and receiving advice and guidance from their supervisor(s) throughout their programme, irrespective of their geographical location. Reasonable accessibility of supervisors is a priority and institutions should assure themselves that students and supervisors are aware of its importance.

page 15


Postgraduate research programmes

13 Institutions will ensure that the responsibilities of all research student supervisors are clearly communicated to supervisors and students through written guidance. It is important that supervisor(s) and student are fully aware of the extent of one another's responsibilities, to enable both to understand the supervisor's contribution to supporting the student and where the supervisor's responsibilities end. Depending on institutional and research council guidance, supervisory responsibilities may include: z

providing satisfactory guidance and advice;

z

being responsible for monitoring the progress of the student's research programme;

z

establishing and maintaining regular contact with the student (where appropriate, guided by institutional expectations), and ensuring his/her accessibility to the student when s/he needs advice, by whatever means is most suitable given the student's location and mode of study;

z

having input into the assessment of a student's development needs;

z

providing timely, constructive and effective feedback on the student's work, including his/her overall progress within the programme;

z

ensuring that the student is aware of the need to exercise probity and conduct his/her research according to ethical principles, and of the implications of research misconduct;

z

ensuring that the student is aware of institutional-level sources of advice, including careers guidance, health and safety legislation and equal opportunities policy;

z

providing effective pastoral support and/or referring the student to other sources of such support, including student advisers (or equivalent), graduate school staff and others within the student's academic community;

z

helping the student to interact with others working in the field of research, for example, encouraging the student to attend relevant conferences, supporting him/her in seeking funding for such events; and where appropriate to submit conference papers and articles to refereed journals;

z

maintaining the necessary supervisory expertise, including the appropriate skills, to perform all of the role satisfactorily, supported by relevant continuing professional development opportunities.

Supervisors will be sensitive to the diverse needs of individual students, including international students, and the associated support that may be required in different circumstances. An awareness of the range of support available (as referred to above), and how students can access it, is an important part of the supervision process. Institutions will ensure that students and supervisors always have access to relevant documents concerning the above responsibilities: electronically, in paper form, or both. page 16


Postgraduate research programmes

Institutions may find it helpful to include in their code(s) of practice (see Precept 3 above), guidance on the minimum frequency of contact advisable between students and supervisors. Such codes can also include details of procedures for dealing with extensions and suspensions of study, which students and supervisors may find helpful. 14 Institutions will ensure that the quality of supervision is not put at risk as a result of an excessive volume and range of responsibilities assigned to individual supervisors. In appointing supervisors, institutions need to be aware of and guided by the overall workload of the individual, including teaching, research, administration and other responsibilities, for example, external examining duties and other professional commitments, such as consultancy or clinical responsibilities. Institutions are encouraged to find ways of showing their support for supervisors' valuable contribution to the research environment. Supervisors need time to provide adequate contact with each research student and to fulfil the responsibilities listed under Precept 13 above. Supervisors and students should agree between themselves the level of interaction required and what constitutes sufficient time, in terms of quality as well as quantity, to devote to the supervisory role. When a student needs advice or guidance, supervisors should be able to respond within a reasonable timescale. Progress and review arrangements

Regular and structured interaction is necessary between students and supervisors, as part of the support provided to enable students to progress satisfactorily. Institutions should make it as easy as possible for students and supervisors to be aware of the requirements of the progress and review process, including knowledge of their respective responsibilities. Precepts 15, 16 and 17 below cover all types of review of student progress, including meetings that take place between the student and the supervisor(s), and other individuals, such as members of an annual review panel. There are two distinct types of review: meetings that deal with formal review of the student's progress and forward planning, and informal meetings where the student and members of the supervisory team meet to discuss general matters. Both are covered below.

page 17


Postgraduate research programmes

15 Institutions will put in place and bring to the attention of students and relevant staff clearly defined mechanisms for monitoring and supporting student progress. The main purpose of the monitoring process is to provide overall support for the student to complete the research programme successfully within an appropriate timescale. The purpose and frequency of monitoring arrangements need to be clear from the outset, so that both the student and the supervisor can plan adequately for them, prepare relevant documents and consult other individuals as appropriate. Should a student's progress not be satisfactory, the monitoring process should include ensuring that support is available for the student to make improvements. Arrangements made between the student and supervisor may allow some flexibility, if both are satisfied that adequate support is being provided for the student and there are sufficient opportunities for formally monitoring progress. As well as providing opportunities for formal interaction, institutions should make it clear that students and supervisors are expected to meet informally, and frequently enough to address the student's need for general guidance. Students and supervisors are jointly responsible for ensuring that regular and frequent contact is maintained and there will be times when the student, as well as the supervisor, needs to take the initiative. The nature and frequency of contact between student and supervisor(s) will vary, depending on the duration of the programme, the way the research is being conducted and the amount of support needed by the student. Taking account of these variables, the following should be agreed by and clear to both student and supervisor(s) from the start of the programme: z

the minimum frequency of scheduled meetings between student and supervisor, or supervisory team, and the purpose of such meetings;

z

guidance on the nature and style of the student/supervisor interaction, including discussions about academic and personal progress.

Institutions will wish to put in place opportunities for seeking independent advice should the student/supervisor relationship break down, and to ensure that students are aware of these (see also Precept 12 in the section on Supervision above) 16 Institutions will put in place and bring to the attention of students and relevant staff clearly defined mechanisms for formal reviews of student progress, including explicit review stages. Institutions will wish to establish processes for reviewing student progress involving individuals independent of the supervisor(s) and the student. Such page 18


Postgraduate research programmes

processes will operate less regularly than meetings between student and supervisor(s) and may involve, for example, an annual review by a panel or other institutionally specified body such as a research degrees committee. A significant progress review would normally be undertaken at specific points in a research student's programme, for example when completing probationary periods of training or transferring from a research master's to a doctoral degree. The student should be present at the review. The target dates of expected review stages throughout the programme, such as those referred to above, should be agreed by and clear to both student and supervisor(s). Institutions will wish to assure themselves that the following are clear to students and supervisors from the beginning of the programme: z

the implications of the possible outcomes of review meetings;

z

the criteria to be used for making decisions about the extension, suspension or termination of a student's registration;

z

the circumstances in which student appeal mechanisms may be used.

Institutional regulations will specify the minimum and maximum periods within which the student can complete the research programme. Bearing these in mind, decisions about transferring the student's registration to a doctoral qualification should take place when there is sufficient evidence to assess the student's performance. This may be part of the annual review process. The student will normally provide as a minimum a written submission, considered by a panel that includes the student's main supervisor, and some members who are independent of the supervisory team. In most cases there is likely to be an oral presentation by the student, with questions put by panel members. 17 Institutions will provide guidance to students, supervisors and others involved in progress monitoring and review processes about the importance of keeping appropriate records of the outcomes of meetings and related activities. Guidance in this area might take the form of advice about the kind of records that need to be kept in relation to different types of meeting and review. For example, the information that is recorded after an informal meeting that takes place regularly between the student and his/her supervisor is likely to be different from and less detailed than the formal record of a meeting to consider an application to transfer to a doctoral degree or a meeting of an annual review panel. In some institutions it is considered good practice for students to keep the record of regular, 'routine' meetings with supervisors. Supervisors, as well as students, should keep copies of records of supervisory meetings Institutional guidance on record keeping should be easily accessible at all times to students, supervisors and others involved in the progress and review processes. This page 19


Postgraduate research programmes

may be facilitated by the introduction of electronic logs, such as can be made available through institutional portals, perhaps as part of personal development planning (PDP). Development of research and other skills

The importance of acquiring research and other skills during research degree programmes is recognised by students, academic staff, sponsoring organisations, employers and former students. These skills improve the student's ability to complete the research programme successfully. Development and application of such skills is also understood to be significant in the research graduate's capability for sustaining learning throughout his or her career, whether in an academic role, or in other employment. Research students are encouraged to recognise the value of transferable skills in enabling them to take ownership and responsibility for their own learning, during and after their programme of study. 18 Institutions will provide research students with appropriate opportunities for personal and professional development. Research students need support to develop the research, subject specific, communication, and other skills they require to become effective researchers, to enhance their employability and assist their career progress after completion of their degree. These skills may be present on commencement (for example in the case of some mature students), explicitly taught, or developed during the research programme. In providing research students with opportunities for developing personal and research skills, institutions will wish to pay particular attention to the differing needs of individual postgraduates, arising from their diversity. It is expected that a range of mechanisms will be used to support learning and that they will be sufficiently flexible to address those individual needs. For example, the development needs of research students already employed to undertake research may be different from those of other students. The emphasis in formal training should be on quality, relevance and timeliness. Institutions will wish to consider embedding opportunities for skills development in research degree programmes. Depending on the needs of the subject and the student, personal and professional development opportunities for research students will either be spread across the duration of the research degree or will be provided at the beginning of the programme, the aim being to maximise the effectiveness of training in developing skills, both research and generic. In deciding which elements of research and skills development to make mandatory, institutions will wish to take into account advice from research councils and other sources. It will not necessarily be appropriate for all students to undertake such development; for example, mature students who may be studying for their own interest in the subject may not need to aquire skills for employment. page 20


Postgraduate research programmes

To ensure students' needs are being met, institutions will find it helpful to review on a regular basis the training in research and generic skills provided for their students, as part of the quality assurance mechanisms for research programmes. Opportunities for skills development can be provided either by the institution offering the student's research programme, or by other institutions, perhaps through regional or other collaboration. 19 Each student's development needs will be identified and agreed jointly by the student and appropriate academic staff, initially during the student's induction period; they will be regularly reviewed during the research programme and amended as appropriate. The research councils and the AHRB play an important role in setting standards and identifying best practice in research training. In their joint statement Skills training requirements for research students (attached at Appendix 3), they have set out the skills that doctoral research students they funded are expected to have on completion of their programmes. Institutions will wish to use their experience of structured training and education to establish personal and professional development opportunities for the benefit of students. The extent to which research students are required to take advantage of these opportunities will normally be negotiated through the supervision process, taking account of subject and individual needs. Where postgraduate students are provided with opportunities for teaching (for example, acting as demonstrators in laboratories, or teaching small groups), appropriate guidance and support will be provided. If the student's teaching activity also extends to assessing students, training will reflect this. It is helpful for postgraduates to be part of a larger teaching team, so they can benefit from the support and mentoring provided by experienced teachers. 20 Institutions will provide opportunities for research students to maintain a record of personal progress, which includes reference to the development of research and other skills. It is accepted as good practice for students to reflect on their learning, supported by frameworks developed by institutions for recording personal development. National guidelines (currently Guidelines for Higher Education Progress Files), suggest that PDP for students should operate across the whole higher education system. Research students may find it useful to use the PDP tools provided by their institutions to record their personal progress and development, including reference to research and other skills. Planning for skills development and checking that page 21


Postgraduate research programmes

necessary guidance and support has been provided should form part of the process of personal development planning. Students who, on entry to the research programme, are unfamiliar with keeping records of their progress and development are likely to need additional guidance and support. Institutions may also wish to implement some form of recognition of the acquisition of transferable skills in parallel with, or as part of, the academic assessment of the student's progress. Feedback mechanisms

Collecting and acting upon feedback from students, staff, examiners and others involved in research programmes is a fundamental part of the quality assurance process, at institutional and subject levels. Precept 21 and accompanying text outline how institutions may wish to approach this activity. 21 Institutions will put in place mechanisms to collect, review and, where appropriate, respond to feedback from all concerned with postgraduate research programmes. They will make arrangements for feedback to be considered openly and constructively and for the results to be communicated appropriately. Institutions will wish to establish and operate constructive feedback procedures that are as representative as possible of the views of all those involved. These include feedback mechanisms for: z

current students and recently completed research degree graduates;

z

supervisors, review panels and internal examiners;

z

research administrators;

z

external parties, including external examiners, sponsors, collaborating organisations, employers and, where possible, alumni.

(See also list of suggested evaluation factors in bullet points accompanying Precept 4 above) Separate arrangements should exist for obtaining individual and collective feedback, for example through a student forum. Individual feedback mechanisms should enable students to provide confidential views if they wish. Institutions should use the feedback in an appropriate format in their quality assurance processes, as part of the regular review of academic standards. The feedback and review cycle should normally occur at least annually. Information about action taken in response to feedback should be made easily and promptly available to those involved. page 22


Postgraduate research programmes

Assessment

Assessment processes for research qualifications are quite different from those for taught awards and usually include some kind of oral examination. The following three precepts and explanations address the most important elements of assessment for research students and qualifications. 22 Institutions will use criteria for assessing research degrees that enable them to define the academic standards of different research programmes and the achievements of their graduates. The criteria used to assess research degrees must be clear and readily available to students, staff and external examiners. In setting criteria for assessing different types of research programmes, institutions will wish to refer to the qualification descriptors for doctoral and master's degrees in the Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications (or their equivalent). They will also find it helpful to refer to the qualification nomenclature in these documents, including the guidance on the use of titles for research programmes of different kinds. Thought will also need to be given to the assessment criteria to be used in different subjects such as the performing or visual arts and for different types of research programmes, including professional doctorates and doctorates by published work. Applying assessment criteria for postgraduate research degrees helps institutions to safeguard the academic integrity of such programmes and awards, internally and externally. Making assessment criteria available to research students will give them the insight they need into what the institution expects. Criteria should enable students to show the full extent of their abilities and achievements at the level of the qualification they are aiming for. Practical advice for students is also helpful, for example on word limits and what is meant by 'originality' and other similar terms. When making an award at a different level from the qualification for which the student has been assessed (for example giving a master's award to a PhD candidate), institutions will wish to use assessment criteria that enable examiners to confer the alternative award for positive achievement by the student. 23 Research degree assessment procedures must be clear; they must be operated rigorously, fairly, and consistently; include input from an external examiner; and carried out to a reasonable timescale. Although there is some variation between institutions and between different types of research degree, the most common features of research degree assessment procedures in the UK system are as follows: z

the student is examined on the basis of an appropriate body of work and an oral examination (viva voce); page 23


Postgraduate research programmes

z

as a minimum, two appropriately qualified examiners are appointed for the purpose, at least one of whom is external to the institution. Where more than two examiners are appointed, the majority are generally from outside the institution;

z

none of the student's supervisors should be appointed as an examiner;

z

it is exceptional to appoint as internal or external examiner researchers who have had a substantial direct involvement in the student's work or whose own work is the focus of the research project;

z

examiners submit separate, independent written reports before the viva and a joint report after it.

In meeting this precept the institution will want to consider carefully: a

The criteria to be used in appointing examiners, including how many examiners are to be appointed. Some institutions appoint additional external examiners where the research student is also a member of staff or in cases where the thesis is highly interdisciplinary. Other issues include how to establish that the examiners have relevant qualifications and experience and a clear understanding of the task; in what circumstances and with what support an inexperienced examiner might be appointed; and what guidance is to be given to the examiners.

b

The preparatory period prior to the viva. Institutions will wish to consider ways of making sure that the examiners have the information and conditions they need to identify the areas to be explored at the viva. Those institutions which do not at present ask their examiners to produce separate reports might consider whether to change their practice. Thought needs to be given to the procedures for handling such reports, including to whom they should be submitted and when.

c

The way in which the viva is to be conducted. Institutions will wish to satisfy themselves that processes enable the viva to meet agreed criteria for fairness and consistency. Some institutions now appoint an independent, non-examining chair: this is thought to be good practice, not least in ensuring consistency between different vivas and in providing an additional viewpoint if the conduct of the viva should become the subject of a student appeal. Where the appointment of an independent chair is not feasible, institutions should find alternative ways of assuring fairness and consistency, acceptable to the student, that enable them to know the viva is conducted in an appropriate manner. Institutions might also consider whether the student's supervisor should be present, with the student's agreement, and if so on what basis; whether other people should be present (eg current research students); and whether it would be helpful to ask for an account of how the viva was conducted.

d How to handle cases where the examiners are unable to reach a consensus view on the outcome. e

How and when the result is to be communicated to the student. This will involve: giving thought to the range of assessment outcomes open to the examiners, including referral, or awarding a qualification different from the one

page 24


Postgraduate research programmes

for which the student has been examined; the nature and source of guidance to be given if a student is asked to revise and re-submit the thesis; and the various parties who need to be notified of the result (eg the student's sponsor). f

The criteria to be used for selecting external examiners when they have had previous affiliations with the awarding institution.

The institution will also need to consider how it assures itself that the research programme assessments carried out in its name meet the criteria set out in this precept. For example, it may want to have a system for reading the examiners' report(s) similar to that in place for reading external examiners' reports at undergraduate and taught master's levels. Additionally, it may also want to keep a 'log' to ensure that the process is being conducted promptly: undue delay is unfair to the student. 24 Institutions will communicate their assessment procedures clearly to all the parties involved, ie the students, the supervisor(s) and the examiners. The main official source of information on research degree assessment is often the institution's regulations. These are often written in semi-legal language, because they may be used in formal complaints and appeals processes. The institution may therefore need to supplement regulations to provide students and staff with a clear understanding of the assessment process and its implications. In doing so, it may help to think through the process as the student experiences it. This will include providing detailed information on timings and deadlines; the assessment process itself; the time taken to reach a decision; and the potential outcomes of the assessment. In particular, students should be warned of the penalties for plagiarism, and should be reminded of the significance of declaring that the material being presented for examination is their own work. The viva can be an especially challenging event in the research student's career, and s/he may well need support in preparing for it. The institution will want to consider providing written guidance and/or making arrangements for the student to undergo a 'mock' viva, or other, similar experience. Institutions will also need to think about whether, and if so when, students should routinely be given copies of the report and, if so, whether this should be the final report only or the final report and the separate independent reports prepared before the viva. Depending on the institution's policy in this respect, examiners may need to be informed in advance that their reports will be made available to the candidate. Whatever the institution's agreed procedure, it should be applied consistently in all cases to assure equality.

page 25


Postgraduate research programmes

Student representations

It is in the interests of students and institutions to resolve problems at an early stage. To facilitate this, institutions should ensure that students and staff know the difference between informal ways of making representations and routes they can use to make formal complaints or appeals. It is also important to distinguish between complaints, which are defined as being representations about general matters (including conduct), and appeals, which are against specific outcomes or decisions. Institutions are advised to develop their own definitions of complaints and appeals, and generally to assure themselves that staff and students are aware of the different types of representations and procedures. 25 Institutions will put in place and publicise procedures for dealing with student representations that are fair, clear to all concerned, robust and applied consistently. Such procedures will allow all students access to relevant information and an opportunity to present their case. Institutional procedures for addressing student representations at various levels (institution/faculty/school/department), will be clearly and openly publicised to research students. They will apply equally to all research students, including those who are part-time, off site, registered on collaborative programmes or on visiting programmes. Students should be made aware of the final stage in any complaint or appeal, if all other possibilities have been exhausted, including the opportunity to make representations to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, which provides an independent scheme for the review of student complaints and appeals. The importance of resolving any problems at an early stage should be made clear to students and staff. All concerned should be made aware of the stages and processes, informal and formal, through which representations can be made. Institutions will assure themselves that schools/departments have accessible mechanisms that apply when students are not able to resolve difficulties informally with their supervisor(s). Impartial person(s) with suitable experience (whose role should be widely publicised) will be appointed, to whom students can take their complaints. This is essential to assist in resolving problems at an early stage.

page 26


Postgraduate research programmes

Complaints

26 Independent and formal procedures will exist to resolve effectively complaints from research students about the quality of the institution's learning and support provision. Institutions will wish to implement complaints procedures that are appropriate for use by research students. These should include an indicative timetable for dealing with different types of complaints: some may need to be dealt with more quickly than others. The need for students to discharge their responsibilities in relation to pursuing a formal complaint will be highlighted. On receipt of a formal complaint, students will be informed promptly of the actions that will be taken. Appeals

27 Institutions will put in place formal procedures to deal with any appeals made by research students. The acceptable grounds for appeals will be clearly defined. All appeals procedures will be clear, impartial, and well publicised to protect the rights of all those concerned. They should be dealt with fairly and in a timely manner. Institutions will wish to define clearly the grounds for an appeal and how to lodge an appeal. This information will be clearly communicated to all research students. Further to this there should be clear explanation of the appeals process including: z

how decisions are taken to grant an appeal hearing;

z

the constitution of an appeal panel, and the relation of its members to those involved in the original assessment decision;

z

how records are maintained of an appeal hearing;

z

the mechanisms for communicating the results of an appeal hearing to interested parties.

page 27


Postgraduate research programmes

Appendix 1 The Precepts Institutional arrangements

1 Institutions will put in place effective arrangements to maintain appropriate academic standards and enhance the quality of postgraduate research programmes. 2 Institutional regulations for postgraduate research degree programmes will be clear and readily available to students and staff. Where appropriate, regulations will be supplemented by similarly accessible, subject-specific guidance at the level of the faculty, school or department. 3 Institutions will develop, implement and keep under review a code or codes of practice applicable across the institution, which include(s) the areas covered by this document. The code(s) should be readily available to all students and staff involved in postgraduate research programmes. 4 Institutions will monitor the success of their postgraduate research programmes against appropriate internal and/or external indicators and targets. The research environment

5 Institutions will only accept research students into an environment that provides support for doing and learning about research1 and where high quality research is occurring. Selection, admission and induction of students

6 Admissions procedures will be clear, consistently applied and will demonstrate equality of opportunity. Please see the definition of 'research' at the beginning of the document.

1

page 28


Postgraduate research programmes

7 Only appropriately qualified and prepared students will be admitted to research programmes. 8 Admissions decisions will involve at least two members of the institution's staff who will have received instruction, advice and guidance in respect of selection and admissions procedures. The decision-making process will enable the institution to assure itself that balanced and independent admissions decisions have been made, that support its admissions policy. 9 The entitlements and responsibilities of a research student undertaking a postgraduate research programme will be defined and communicated clearly. 10 Institutions will provide research students with sufficient information to enable them to begin their studies with an understanding of the academic and social environment in which they will be working. Supervision

11 Institutions will appoint supervisors who have the appropriate skills and subject knowledge to support, encourage and monitor research students effectively. 12 Each research student will have a minimum of one main supervisor. He or she will normally be part of a supervisory team. There must always be one clearly identified point of contact for the student. 13 Institutions will ensure that the responsibilities of all research student supervisors are clearly communicated to supervisors and students through written guidance. 14 Institutions will ensure that the quality of supervision is not put at risk as a result of an excessive volume and range of responsibilities assigned to individual supervisors.

page 29


Postgraduate research programmes

Progress and review arrangements

15 Institutions will put in place and bring to the attention of students and relevant staff clearly defined mechanisms for monitoring and supporting student progress. 16 Institutions will put in place and bring to the attention of students and relevant staff clearly defined mechanisms for formal reviews of student progress, including explicit review stages. 17 Institutions will provide guidance to students, supervisors and others involved in progress monitoring and review processes about the importance of keeping appropriate records of the outcomes of meetings and related activities. Development of research and other skills

18 Institutions will provide research students with appropriate opportunities for personal and professional development. 19 Each student's development needs will be identified and agreed jointly by the student and appropriate academic staff, initially during the student's induction period; they will be regularly reviewed during the research programme and amended as appropriate. 20 Institutions will provide opportunities for research students to maintain a record of personal progress, which includes reference to the development of research and other skills. Feedback mechanisms

21 Institutions will put in place mechanisms to collect, review and, where appropriate, respond to feedback from all concerned with postgraduate research programmes. They will make arrangements for feedback to be considered openly and constructively and for the results to be communicated appropriately. page 30


Postgraduate research programmes

Assessment

22 Institutions will use criteria for assessing research degrees that enable them to define the academic standards of different research programmes and the achievements of their graduates. The criteria used to assess research degrees must be clear and readily available to students, staff and external examiners. 23 Research degree assessment procedures must be clear; they must be operated rigorously, fairly, and consistently; include input from an external examiner; and carried out to a reasonable timescale. 24 Institutions will communicate their assessment procedures clearly to all the parties involved, ie the students, the supervisor(s) and the examiners. Student representations

25 Institutions will put in place and publicise procedures for dealing with student representations that are fair, clear to all concerned, robust and applied consistently. Such procedures will allow all students access to relevant information and an opportunity to present their case. Complaints

26 Independent and formal procedures will exist to resolve effectively complaints from research students about the quality of the institution's learning and support provision. Appeals

27 Institutions will put in place formal procedures to deal with any appeals made by research students. The acceptable grounds for appeals will be clearly defined.

page 31


Postgraduate research programmes

Appendix 2 Membership of the working group for the Code: Postgraduate research programmes

Patricia Ambrose, Executive Secretary, Standing Conference of Principals Professor Susan Bassnett, Pro Vice-Chancellor, University of Warwick Professor Michael Bradford, Pro Vice-Chancellor, University of Manchester Dr Tim Brown, General Secretary, National Postgraduate Committee Dr Iain Cameron, Head of Postgraduate Training, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Jen Crowe, Postgraduate Student Officer, University of Birmingham Professor Howard Green, UK Council for Graduate Education Paul Hubbard, Head of Research Policy, Higher Education Funding Council for England Professor Sandra Kemp, Director of Research, Royal College of Art Dr Tom Loeffler, Head of Postgraduate Training Policy, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council Dr Charles Marriott, Policy Officer, Universities Scotland Professor Alistair McCulloch, Head of Research, Edge Hill College of Higher Education Paul Mitchell, Academic Registrar, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne Professor Mary Ritter, Director, Graduate School of Life Sciences and Medicine, Imperial College Simeon Underwood, Senior Assistant Registrar, London School of Economics and Political Science Professor Diana Woodward, Director of Research, Napier University, Edinburgh David Young, Senior Policy Adviser, Universities UK Gill Clarke, Assistant Director, Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education and Director, Teaching Support Unit, University of Bristol Janet Bohrer, Development Officer, Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education Dr Alastair Robertson, Development Officer, Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education

page 32


Postgraduate research programmes

Appendix 3 Skills training requirements for research students: joint statement by the research councils/AHRB Introduction

The research councils and the Arts and Humanities Research Board (AHRB) play an important role in setting standards and identifying best practice in research training. This document sets out a joint statement of the skills that doctoral research students funded by the research councils/AHRB would be expected to develop during their research training. These skills may be present on commencement, explicitly taught, or developed during the course of the research. It is expected that different mechanisms will be used to support learning as appropriate, including self-direction, supervisor support and mentoring, departmental support, workshops, conferences, elective training courses, formally assessed courses and informal opportunities. The research councils and the AHRB would also want to re-emphasise their belief that training in research skills and techniques is the key element in the development of a research student, and that PhD students are expected to make a substantial, original contribution to knowledge in their area, normally leading to published work. The development of wider employment-related skills should not detract from that core objective. The purpose of this statement is to give a common view of the skills and experience of a typical research student, thereby providing universities with a clear and consistent message aimed at helping them to ensure that all research training is of the highest standard, across all disciplines. It is not the intention of this document to provide assessment criteria for research training. It is expected that each council/board will have additional requirements specific to their field of interest and will continue to have their own measures for the evaluation of research training within institutions.

page 33


Postgraduate research programmes

(A) Research skills and techniques - to be able to demonstrate:

1.

The ability to recognise and validate problems and to formulate and test hypotheses.

2.

Original, independent and critical thinking, and the ability to develop theoretical concepts.

3.

A knowledge of recent advances within one's field and in related areas.

4.

An understanding of relevant research methodologies and techniques and their appropriate application within one's research field.

5.

The ability to analyse critically and evaluate one's findings and those of others.

6.

An ability to summarise, document, report and reflect on progress.

(B) Research environment - to be able to:

1.

Show a broad understanding of the context, at the national and international level, in which research takes place.

2.

Demonstrate awareness of issues relating to the rights of other researchers, of research subjects, and of others who may be affected by the research, eg confidentiality, ethical issues, attribution, copyright, malpractice, ownership of data and the requirements of the Data Protection Act.

3.

Demonstrate appreciation of standards of good research practice in their institution and/or discipline.

4.

Understand relevant health and safety issues and demonstrate responsible working practices.

5.

Understand the processes for funding and evaluation of research.

6.

Justify the principles and experimental techniques used in one's own research.

7.

Understand the process of academic or commercial exploitation of research results.

(C) Research management - to be able to:

1.

Apply effective project management through the setting of research goals, intermediate milestones and prioritisation of activities.

2.

Design and execute systems for the acquisition and collation of information through the effective use of appropriate resources and equipment.

3.

Identify and access appropriate bibliographical resources, archives, and other sources of relevant information. Use information technology appropriately for database management, recording and resenting information.

page 34


Postgraduate research programmes

(D) Personal effectiveness - to be able to:

1.

Demonstrate a willingness and ability to learn and acquire knowledge.

2.

Be creative, innovative and original in one's approach to research.

3.

Demonstrate flexibility and open-mindedness.

4.

Demonstrate self-awareness and the ability to identify own training needs.

5.

Demonstrate self-discipline, motivation, and thoroughness.

6.

Recognise boundaries and draw upon/use sources of support as appropriate.

7.

Show initiative, work independently and be self-reliant.

(E) Communication skills - to be able to:

1.

Write clearly and in a style appropriate to purpose, eg progress reports, published documents, thesis.

2.

Construct coherent arguments and articulate ideas clearly to a range of audiences, formally and informally through a variety of techniques.

3.

Constructively defend research outcomes at seminars and viva examination.

4.

Contribute to promoting the public understanding of one's research field.

5.

Effectively support the learning of others when involved in teaching, mentoring or demonstrating activities.

(F)

Networking and teamworking - to be able to:

1.

Develop and maintain co-operative networks and working relationships with supervisors, colleagues and peers, within the institution and the wider research community.

2.

Understand one's behaviours and impact on others when working in and contributing to the success of formal and informal teams.

3.

Listen, give and receive feedback and respond perceptively to others.

(G) Career management - to be able to:

1.

Appreciate the need for and show commitment to continued professional development.

2.

Take ownership for and manage one's career progression, set realistic and achievable career goals, and identify and develop ways to improve employability.

3.

Demonstrate an insight into the transferable nature of research skills to other work environments and the range of career opportunities within and outside academia.

4.

Present one's skills, personal attributes and experiences through effective CVs, applications and interviews. page 35


Tel Fax Email Web

01452 557000 01452 557070 comms@qaa.ac.uk www.qaa.ac.uk

QAA058 09/04

The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education Southgate House Southgate Street Gloucester GL1 1UB


Postgraduate Research Programmes QAA Precepts Current Position

Responsibilties

Evidence

Institutional arrangements 1 Institutions will put in place effective arrangements to This objective is amplified through the requirements of the other precepts in maintain appropriate academic standards and enhance the this section quality of postgraduate research programmes 2 Institutional regulations for postgraduate research degree programmes will be clear and readily available to students and staff. Where appropriate regulations will be supplemented by similarly accesible, subject-specific guidance at the level of the faculty, school or department

Research Office/URC Regulations for research degree programmes are clearly set out and available on the University's web-site. The PGR student receives Regulations for Research Degrees Section F and Extracts for Research Students of the Students Handbook of Regulations amongst other guidance in the PGR Handbook distributed at initial enrolment. Supervisors receive the Supervisors' Handbook which also contains Regulations for Research Degrees Section F and Extracts for Research Students of the Students Handbook of Regulations amongst other guidance. If amendments occur, revised regulations are distributed and websites updated. All regulations, codes of practice, policies and guidance are reviewed regularly by the University Research Committee.

Regulations for Research Awards Section F and Extracts for Research Students of the Students Handbook of Regulations: PGR Handbook - hard copy. Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy.Virtual Graduate Centre Website. Registry website. Minutes of meetings: stored in WISDOM and available on the Research intranet.

3 Institutions will develop, implement and keep under review a code or codes of practice applicable across the institution, which include(s) the areas covered by this document. The code(s) should be readily available to all students and staff involved in postgraduate research programmes

Code of Practice for Research Degrees implemented and available on the Research Office/URC Virtual Graduate Centre. The PGR student receives the Code of Practice for Research Degrees amongst other guidance in the PGR Handbook distributed at initial enrolment. Supervisors receive the Supervisors' Handbook which also contains the Code of Practice for Research Degrees amongst other guidance. If amendments occur, revised versions are distributed. All regulations, codes of practice, policies and guidance are reviewed regularly by the University Research Committee.

Code of Practice for Research Degrees: PGR Handbook - hard copy. Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy.Virtual Graduate Centre. Minutes of meetings: stored in WISDOM and available on the Research intranet.

4 Institutions will monitor the success of their postgraduate research programmes against appropriate internal and/or external indicators and targets

The Annual Evaluation of Research Degrees undertaken by Schools to ensure compliance with the CoP and reported to School Research Committes and URC. Success of programmes is monitored annually during School Planning Rounds against HEFCE targets and is considered again in the Planning and Accountability Conference.

Dean/DoR/DoGE/PVC (R&E)/School Boards/URC

Annual Evaluation of Research Degrees Framework: Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy.Virtual Graduate Centre Website. Minutes of meetings: stored in WISDOM and available on the Research intranet. School Strategy and planning documents: stored within Research and Enterprise.

Dean/Supervisor/Head of Department/DoGE/School Boards/URC

Guidance for the Acceptance of Postgraduate Research Students: Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy.Virtual Graduate Centre Website. Pre-Enrolment Forms: stored in WISDOM. Postgraduate Charter: PGR Handbook - hard copy. Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy.Virtual Graduate Centre Website. Code of Practice for Research Degrees: Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy.Virtual Graduate Centre. Minutes of meetings: stored in WISDOM and available on the Research intranet.

Entry requirements are contained within Regulations for Research Degrees Section F. Requirements are outlined in the Guidance for the Acceptance of Postgraduate Research Students and Code of Practice for Research Degrees. The Application Form for Research Degrees contains clear guidance notes. The Annual Evaluation of Research Degrees is undertaken by Schools to ensure compliance with the CoP and reported to URC. School staff attend admissions briefing sessions.

Supervisor/Head of Department/DoGE/School Administrator/Research Office/ARO

Regulations for Research Awards Section F: PGR Handbook - hard copy. Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy.Virtual Graduate Centre Website. Registry website.Guidance for the Acceptance of Postgraduate Research Students: Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy.Virtual Graduate Centre Website. Application Form for Research Degrees: Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy.Available from Schools and the Research Office in hard copy or by email.Virtual Graduate Centre. Code of Practice for Research Degrees: Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy.Virtual Graduate Centre. Annual Evaluation of Research Degrees Framework: Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy.Virtual Graduate Centre Website. Minutes of meetings: stored in WISDOM and available on the Research intranet.

All admissions and offers are processed centrally by the Research Office.

Research Office

Applications and offers:stored in WISDOM.

The Research Environment 5 Institutions will only accept research students into an Requirements are outlined in the Guidance for the Acceptance of environment that provides support for doing and learning Postgraduate Research Students and Code of Practice for Research about research and where high quality research is occurring Degrees. The Postgraduate Charter also outlines School responsibilities. Documentation is reviewed annually at URC in terms of compliance and suitability. Capacity data is also considered.The Annual Evaluation of Research Degrees is undertaken by Schools to ensure compliance with the CoP and reported to URC. Academic staff sign a declaration on Preenrolment forms stating that they ensure that students are accepted into an environment that provides appropriate support.

Selection, admission and induction of students 6 Admission procedures will be clear, consistently applied and will demonstrate equality of opportunity

1 of 4


7 Only appropriate qualified and prepared students will be admitted to research programmes

Current Position

Responsibilties

Evidence

Guidelines for the Acceptance of Research Students and Code of Practice for Research Degrees make it clear that Schools must be confident about applicants qualifications and ability before offering a place. The Annual Evaluation of Research Degrees is undertaken by Schools to ensure compliance with the CoP and reported to URC. School staff attend admissions briefing sessions.

Supervisor/Head of Department/DoGE

Guidance for the Acceptance of Postgraduate Research Students: Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy.Virtual Graduate Centre Website. Code of Practice for Research Degrees: Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy.Virtual Graduate Centre. Annual Evaluation of Research Degrees Framework: Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy.Virtual Graduate Centre Website. Minutes of meetings: stored in WISDOM and available on the Research intranet.

All Schools have access to NARIC to ensure the qualifications are relevent and International Office staff are available for advice. 8 Admissions decisions will involve at least two members of the institution's staff who will have received instruction, advice and guidance in respect of selection and admissions procedures. The decision-making process will enable the institution to assure itself that balanced and independent admissions decisions have been made, that support its admissions policy

Guidelines for the Acceptance of Research Students states that at least two Supervisor/Head of members of staff will be involved in the selection and admission of students. Department/DoGE/Research The Annual Evaluation of Research Degrees is undertaken by Schools to Office ensure compliance with the CoP and reported to URC. School staff attend admissions briefing sessions. Admissions criteria are contained within Regulations for Research Degrees Section F.

Guidance for the Acceptance of Postgraduate Research Students: Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy.Virtual Graduate Centre Website. Regulations for Research Awards Section F: PGR Handbook - hard copy. Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy.Virtual Graduate Centre Website. Annual Evaluation of Research Degrees Framework: Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy.Virtual Graduate Centre Website. Minutes of meetings: stored in WISDOM and available on the Research intranet.

9 The entitlements and responsibilities of a research student The Research Office provides all formal offer letters. Entitlement and Supervisory team/ Research undertaking a postgraduate research programme will be responsibilities are set out in the documents PGR Charter, Extracts for Office defined and communicated clearly Research Students of the Students Handbook of Regulations and Code of Practice for Research Degrees all of which are contained in the PGR Handbook distributed at initial enrolment. The Virtual Graduate Centre website and Blackboard VLE provides a wealth of information. All information is reinforced at central induction and on School notice boards.

Code of Practice for Research Degrees: PGR Handbook - hard copy. Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy.Virtual Graduate Centre. Postgraduate Charter: PGR Handbook - hard copy. Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy.Virtual Graduate Centre Website. Induction information: Virtual Graduate Centre website. Blackboard VLE. Individual letter and emails to all students. Emails to supervisors and DoGE. Research Office and notice boards - hard copy.

Selection, admission and induction of students

10 Institutions will provide research students with sufficient information to enable them to begin their studies with an understanding of the academic and social environment in which they will be working

A dedicated, compulsory induction event is available centrally for all new DoGE/Research Office/URC PGR students. This is followed up by an additional event three months later. Induction programmes are also offered by all Schools.Central induction information is loaded onto the Blackboard VLE. Induction is outlined in the Code of Practice for Research Degrees and monitored via the Annual Monitoring and Review of Induction and Research Skills Development which is received by URC.

Induction information: Virtual Graduate Centre website. Blackboard VLE. Individual letter and emails to all students. Emails to supervisors and DoGE. Research Office and notice boards - hard copy.Code of Practice for Research Degrees: PGR Handbook - hard copy. Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy.Virtual Graduate Centre. Annual Monitoring and Review of Induction and Research Skills Development: Virtual Graduate Centre. Minutes of meetings: stored in WISDOM and available on the Research intranet.

11 Institutions will appoint supervisors who have the appropriate skills and subject knowledge to support, encourage and monitor research students effectively

Requirements and responsibilities are outlined in the Guidance for the DoGE/SGG/Research Office Acceptance of Postgraduate Research Students and Code of Practice for Research Degrees The Staff Development Group facilitate a range of training and developmental opportunities for academic staff including an Effective Supervision Programme and the Supervisors Networking and Best Practice Forum. The University also offers a PGCertificate in Professional Development: (HEP: Research Supervision). All information is contained in the Supervisors' Handbook.

Code of Practice for Research Degrees: Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy.Virtual Graduate Centre. PGCertificate in Professional Development: (HEP: Research Supervision): Supervisors handbook and Education & Professional Development website. Supervisor training: Supervisor handbook - hard copy. Staff Development Programme Handbook - hard copy. Staff Development Group website. Supervisor Networking and Best Practice Forum: Supervisors Handbook - hard copy, Virtual Graduate Centre and Blackboard VLE.

12 Each research student will have a minimum of one main supervisor. He or she will normally be part of a supervisory team. There must be one clearly identified point of contact for the student

Requirements are outlined in the Code of Practice for Research Degrees. All DoGE/Research Office students are informed of their main supervisor and supervisory team members in their offer letter. Students are reminded of key contact staff at induction and supervisors are invited to attend.

Code of Practice for Research Degrees: PGR Handbook - hard copy. Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy.Virtual Graduate Centre. Offer letter:stored in WISDOM. central and local induction.

13 Institutions will ensure that the responsibilities of all research student supervisors are clearly communicated to supervisors and students through written guidance

Requirements are outlined in the Code of Practice for Research Degrees and Supervisory Code of Practice for Research Degrees: PGR Handbook - hard copy. PGR Charter. team/DoGE/Research Office Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy.Virtual Graduate Centre. PGR Charter: PGR Handbook - hard copy. Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy.Virtual Graduate Centre.

Supervision

2 of 4


Current Position

Responsibilties

Evidence

Dean/DoGE

Guidance for the Acceptance of Postgraduate Research Students: Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy.Virtual Graduate Centre Website. Code of Practice for Research Degrees: Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy.Virtual Graduate Centre. Annual Evaluation of Research Degrees Framework: Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy.Virtual Graduate Centre Website. Minutes of meetings: stored in WISDOM and available on the Research intranet. Pre-Enrolment Forms: stored in WISDOM.

DoGE/Supervisor/Research Office

Code of Practice for Research Degrees: PGR Handbook - hard copy. Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy.Virtual Graduate Centre website. Supervisor's Statement of Expectations: School - hard copy.

16 Institutions will put in place and bring to the attention of students and relevant staff clearly defined mechanisms for formal reviews of student progress, including explicit review stages

This requirement is outlined in the Code of Practice for Research Degrees All DoGE/Supervisory information including forms is available in the Virtual Graduate Centre, the team/Research Office/URC PGR Handbook, the Supervisors' Handbook and the Blackboard VLE. Progress monitoring system above has clearly defined review stages. The importance and value of progression monitoring is highlighted in induction and at follow-up. An on-line system is under development.Progress monitoring information is monitored in the Annual Evaluation of Research Degrees.

Code of Practice for Research Degrees: PGR Handbook - hard copy. Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy.Virtual Graduate Centre. Induction session information: Blackboard VLE.Completed progression monitoring forms: stored in WISDOM. Annual Evaluation of Research Degrees Framework: Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy.Virtual Graduate Centre Website. Minutes of meetings: stored in WISDOM and available on the Research intranet.

17 Institutions will provide guidance to students, supervisors and others involved in progress monitoring and review processes about the importance of keeping appropriate records of the outcomes of meetings and related activites

Form 3 within progress monitoring system outlines requirements. Supervisor Supervisor/Research Office Development Programme outlines requirements and importance to staff. Central induction highlights the system and its importance to students.

Completed Form 3: hard copy lodged with student and supervisor

18 Institutions will provide research students with appropriate opportunities for personal and professional development

This requirement is outlined in the Code of Practice for Research Degrees DoGE/Supervisor/Research and a comprehensive PGR Research Skills Training programme, both on-line Office/URC and face-to-face is in place. An annual university -wide PGR Conference takes place during the Research Festival. The online resources are available in Blackboard both from EPIGEUM and developed in-house. Full, up-to-date information is available on the Blackboard VLE. Monitored by the Annual Review of Research Skills training reported to URC.

Code of Practice for Research Degrees: PGR Handbook - hard copy. Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy.Virtual Graduate Centre. Research Skills Development Programme: PGR Handbook - hard copy. Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy. Blackboard VLE. Skills Development Opportunities: Virtual Graduate Centre website, emails, Blackboard VLE , Twitter, noticeboards. PGR Conference: Research Festival website and Research Festival promotional material. Annual Monitoring and Review of Induction and Research Skills Development: Virtual Graduate Centre. Minutes of meetings: stored in WISDOM and available on the Research intranet.

19 Each student's development needs will be identified and agreed jointly by the student and appropriate academic staff, initially during the student's induction period; they will be regularly reviewed during the research programme and amended as appropriate

This requirement is outlined in the Code of Practice for Research Degrees and sskills audit and PDP information sessions are included at central induction. Both the TNA and PDP available on-line in the Blackboard VLE and also as hard copy in both the PGR and Supervisors' Handbooks Supervisors monitor development needs via progression monitoring. Individual information sessions are available with the Graduate Skills Coordinator.

Supervisor/Research Office

Code of Practice for Research Degrees: PGR Handbook - hard copy. Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy.Virtual Graduate Centre. TNA/PDP information: PGR Handbook - hard copy. Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy.Blackboard VLE.

20 Institutions will provide opportunities for research students to maintain a record of personal progress, which includes reference to the development of research and other skills

As above

As above

As above

14 Institutions will ensure that the quality of supervision is not This requirement is outlined in the Code of Practice for Research Degrees put at risk as a result of an excessive volume and range of and Guidance for the Acceptance of Postgraduate Research Students . All responsibilities assigned to individual supervisors Pre Enrolment Formss are counter signed by the DoGE. Capacity data is available to the School.The Annual Evaluation of Research Degrees is undertaken by Schools.

Progress and review arrangements 15 Institutions will put in place and bring to the attention of This requirement is outlined in the Code of Practice for Research Degrees. students and relevant staff clearly defined mechanisms for Staff are encouraged to provide a Supervisor's Statement of Expectations. monitoring and supporting student progress

Development of research and other skills

3 of 4


Current Position

Responsibilties

Evidence

Feedback mechanisms 21 Institutions will put in place mechanisms to collect, review and, where appropriate, respond to feedback from all concerned with postgraduate research programmes. They will make arrangements for feedback to be considered openly and constructively and for results to be communicated appropriately

This requirement is outlined in the Code of Practice for Research Degrees. Research The Virtual Graduate Centre website outlines a variety of ways to feedback Office/SU/DoGE/Students and this is highlighted in a presentation at induction. Form 4 on the progress monitoring system can be submitted in confidence at any time by students. PRES, Student Council, Res4Res group, the student representation system, student panels, PG researchers committee, exit questionnaire, Students' Union PG and Mature Students Officer. In addition Form 4 on the progress monitoring system can be submitted in confidence at any time by students. A number of groups report to URC including the Research Support Group, the Graduate Education Group and the University Research Group whose members include academics, administrators and students. Student feedback and representation is also included The Annual Evaluation of Research Degrees undertaken by Schools also considers student feedback and representation.

Code of Practice for Research Degrees: PGR Handbook - hard copy. Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy.Virtual Graduate Centre. Induction session information: Blackboard VLE:Virtual Graduate Centre website, WISDOM, noticeboards. Annual Evaluation of Research Degrees Framework: Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy.Virtual Graduate Centre Website. Minutes of meetings: stored in WISDOM and available on the Research intranet.

URC/Research Office/SDG Examination information is contained in both the PGR Handbook and the Supervisors Hanbook and is covered by the Code of Practice for Research Degrees, Regulations for Research Degrees Section F and the separate guidance Research Degree Theses: Format, Submission and Examinations. Training is available from the Staff Development Group for internal and external PGR examiners. The examination and assessment processis operated by the Research Office and all examiners reports are considered by the Research Office. The Annual Evaluation of Research Degrees undertaken by Schools also considers assessment. The university will be undertaking a review of the PGR examination system in 09/10.

Regulations for Research Awards Section F: PGR Handbook - hard copy. Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy. Virtual Graduate Centre. Code of Practice for Research Degrees: PGR Handbook - hard copy. Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy.Virtual Graduate Centre. Research Degree Theses: Format, Submission and Examination: PGR Handbook - hard copy. Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy. Virtual Graduate Centre. Examiners Reports: stored in WISDOM. Annual Evaluation of Research Degrees Framework: Supervisors' Handbook hard copy.Virtual Graduate Centre Website. Minutes of meetings: stored in WISDOM and available on the Research intranet.

Assessment 22 Institutions will use criteria for assessing research degrees that enable them to define the academic standards of different research programmes and the achievements of their graduates. The criteria used to assess research degrees must be clear and readily available to students, staff and external examiners

23 Research degree assessment procedures must be clear; as above they must be operated rigorously, fairly, and consistently; include input from an external examiner; and carried out to a reasonable timescale

as above

as above

24 Institutions will communicate their assessment procedures As above. In addition, viva workshops are available as part of the Research clearly to all parties involved, ie the students, the Skills Development Programme both face-to-face and on-line and this year, supervisor(s) and the examiners much of the PGR Conference is devoted to presenting skills and the viva. This year's Student Voice event is considering university assessment and a student member of the Res4Res Group is involved.

As Above

As above. Research Skills Development Programme: PGR Handbook - hard copy. Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy. Blackboard VLE. PGR Conference: Research Festival website.

Student representation 25 Institutions will put in place and publicise procedures for The complaints procedure is detailed on the Registry website and Students' Registry/Research dealing with student representations that are fair, clear to all Handbook of Regulations. The Code of Practice for Research Degrees Office/DoGE concerned, robust and applied consistently.Such outlines a variety of routes to allow PGR students to raise issues prior to any procedures will allow all students access to relevant formal stages of complaints. The University operates a PGR Student information and an opportunity to present their case Representation system with Student Panels, representatives on School Research Committees and School Boards, Student Council and University Research Committee.

Code of Practice for Research Degrees: PGR Handbook - hard copy. Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy.Virtual Graduate Centre. Regulations for Research Awards Section F and Extracts for Research Students of the Students Handbook of Regulations: PGR Handbook - hard copy. Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy.Virtual Graduate Centre Website. Registry website. Minutes of meetings: stored in WISDOM and available on the Research intranet. Postgradute Research Student Representation: PGR Handbook - hard copy. Supervisors' Handbook - hard copy.Virtual Graduate Centre.

Complaints 26 Independent and formal procedures will exist to resolve effectively complaints from research students about the quality of the institution's learning and support provision

Information available in Students Handbook of Regulations

Registry

The complaints procedure is detailed on the Registry website and Students' Handbook of Regulations

Information available in Students Handbook of Regulations. Reported annually and monitored by URC.

Registry/URC

The appeals procedure is detailed on the Registry website and Students' Handbook of Regulations

Appeals 27 Institutions will put in place formal procedures to deal with any appeals made by research students. The acceptable grounds for appeals will be clearly defined

4 of 4


This is the section 6 of the document submitted to the QAA in preparation for Institutional Audit 2010. It outlines the practice at University of Huddersfield in relation to the 27 precepts set out by the QAA. SECTION 6: INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS for POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH STUDIES 6.1

Introduction

The University of Huddersfield has undergone a significant number of changes in respect of postgraduate research since both the last audit and the QAA Special Review of Research Programmes. These include: •

The creation of the new post of PVC (R&E) and the subsequent appointment of Professor Andrew Ball.

The integration of research and enterprise at the heart of the newly articulated University strategy map and the agreement of School Research Strategies, each with attached key performance indicators.

The creation of a new University directorate, Research and Enterprise.

The creation of and appointment to twenty posts within Research and Enterprise.

The creation of 375 fee-waiver scholarships for postgraduate research students with excellent research potential.

The PVC (R&E) has overall responsibility for ensuring the University’s policies and procedures are effective in maintaining the quality and standards of its research programmes. The PVC (R&E) chairs the University Research Committee (URC), Graduate Education Group (GEG) and University Research Group (URG) and is a member of Senate, University Teaching and Learning Committee (UTLC) and Senior Management Team (SMT) thus ensuring research and enterprise issues are discussed at the highest level and fully integrated with all major policies and strategies across the University. 6.2

Institutional Arrangements and the Research Environment

The University of Huddersfield regulations are available on the main university website and the Virtual Graduate Centre website which is considered as the main source for matters relating to postgraduate researchers. An extract of relevant sections of the general


Students’ Handbook of Regulations is provided to all postgraduate research students at first enrolment and annual re-enrolment thereafter. Section F: Regulations for Research Degrees1 is also contained in the Postgraduate Researcher Handbook; these are considered annually in May at URC for presentation at Senate in July. The Postgraduate Researcher Charter2 was implemented in September 2008 and sets out the minimum standard of provision and expectation both to and from postgraduate researchers. Schools’ compliance with the Charter is monitored annually by the URC following consultation at GEG. All regulations, guidance and policy documents are

monitored and reviewed annually;

available electronically on the Virtual Graduate Centre web pages;

available in hardcopy in the Postgraduate Researcher Handbook;

brought to the attention of students at the compulsory central induction and welcome event;

considered in the academic and academic-related staff programme, Research in Context sessions.

The University guidance for research degrees is currently covered by the ‘Good Practice for Research Supervisors and Students’. The University Code of Practice for Postgraduate Research Programmes is being implemented in the 09/10 academic year. This new document, which references the QAA Code of Practice for Postgraduate Research Programmes, is intended to provide an effective framework for all staff and postgraduate researchers and will be available on the Virtual Graduate Centre website and also in the Postgraduate Researcher Handbook. The University will also be running a number of staff workshops to support the implementation of the new code of practice. A new process, Annual Review of Research Degree Provision, is currently under development and will include the systematic monitoring of all 27 precepts. As the University moves proactively to develop the broader research environment within which Postgraduate Research Students can work, the annual planning and accountability

1 2

Regulations for Awards (www.hud.ac.uk/audit) Postgraduate Researcher Charter (www.hud.ac.uk/audit)


process for research and enterprise enables each School to be accountable for and to monitor the following areas:

research grants and contracts

student numbers

completion rates

student satisfaction

research outputs

enterprise income

staff numbers

intellectual property.

This combines an annual planning meeting, 6-month review and a Planning and Accountability Conference held in September of each year, attended by members of the University Vice-Chancellor’s Office along with each School’s Dean, Department Heads, Director of Research, Director of Graduate Education, School Research Administrators and central Research and Enterprise staff. The University has set Key Performance Indicators for areas within the research and enterprise environment of the institution, and the purpose of the planning round is to consider how each School will contribute to this agreed target. All Schools are accountable for the research environment within their respective disciplines and are required to produce a strategic and operational plan that outlines numerous areas for discussion at the meeting. These plans include and focus upon the research environment within each School and the evolving areas of research for which there may be a potential return to the upcoming REF. At each planning meeting postgraduate researcher recruitment is considered through comparative data compiled from HEIDI; the meeting considers not only the internal progress but the external progress across the UK. Projected targets are also considered against the performance of benchmarked universities chosen by the respective School; this data is also sourced from HEIDI.


The number of postgraduate researchers recruited within a School will be determined upon the number of Research Active Members of Staff (RAMAS) that have supervisory experience, and realistic targets are set that support the continued progress of the University research agenda. All Schools have access to management information that enables them to set and monitor these targets. The University takes seriously the experience of its postgraduate researchers when studying, and through the planning and accountability process and Annual Review of Research Degrees, ensures that this is kept under ongoing review throughout the year by all individuals involved. All Schools have School Boards, School Research Committees, Directors of Graduate Education and Directors of Research with defined roles and responsibilities. The Directors of Research are members of the University Research Group, the Directors of Graduate Education are members of the Graduate Education Group and both the Directors of Research and Directors of Graduate Education are members of University Research Committee. Both Directors of Research and Directors of Graduate Education have delegated authority from the respective Dean and bring to the central committees any issues highlighted by their School Research Committees. The Staff Research Degree Scheme is part of a package of initiatives to strengthen and grow research and enterprise activity within the University and is open to all staff. The scheme aims to raise the profile of research, to increase the number of academic staff eligible to supervise research degree candidates, and to contribute towards the continuing professional development of staff.

All fees are waived for any member of staff registering for a research degree.

Each member of staff who registers for a research degree is allocated an experienced mentor/supervisor.

A community has been established (the Staff

Research Degree Forum), meeting regularly, enabling staff undertaking their research degrees to discuss their progress, difficulties and concerns. A pool of experienced academic staff has been identified, and two or three of these attend each forum to facilitate discussions and to provide advice. In addition, staff have a dedicated area in the University’s VLE.


Where a staff member is registered for a research degree Deans and Heads of Department takes this into account when allocating workloads.

Everyone undertaking a doctorate is eligible for a sabbatical of up to six weeks for writing-up purposes. Upon successful completion of a doctorate, a £2000 grant is made available by and with the agreement of the School specifically for researchrelated spend.

The University is actively developing the Huddersfield PGR Experience and a number of initiatives have been recently implemented or will be finalised during the 09/10 academic year.

On-line Academic Staff Profiles Phase 1 for research active staff

PGR Conference Presentation Fund of £75,000

PG Cert HEP:Research for potential new supervisors

Human and Health Sciences PGR forum led by PGRs

Business School Research Society run by PGRs

Computing and Engineering annual research conference (CEARC) with formal proceedings and an ISBN index

University-wide PGR Conference

Postgraduate Society

Computing and Library Services review of support for researchers

Supervisor Networking and Best Practice Forum

Staff Research Degree Forum

Postgraduate Research Student of the Year prize

Business School residential weekend for international PGRs

Researcher of the Week webpages which include PGRs

Researchers4Researchers steering group.

For 09/10 •

Review of provision, opportunities, training and support for Graduate Teaching Assistants

New Academics Training Programme

On-line Staff Profiles Phase 2 for postgraduate researchers and all academic staff


New PGR social and study space for use in the evenings and at weekends managed by PGRs

6.3

Computing and Engineering postgraduate researchers project web pages

Peer mentoring for postgraduate researchers

Twitter feed for postgraduate researchers Selection, Admission, Induction and Supervision of Research Students

Entry requirements for research degrees are covered in Section F: Regulations for Research Degrees, and the University has clear Guidelines for the Acceptance of Research Students; these documents are accessible via the website and Virtual Graduate Centre.3 The responsibility for selection lies with the Schools. All applications are logged centrally by the Research Office. Form PEF, Acceptance of a Research Student, is completed by the supervisory team, and the form with the supporting documentation and references is approved by the Dean of the School before a formal offer can be made and supervisory team appointed, thereby guaranteeing the involvement of at least two members of academic staff. All offers are made by the central Research Office. Supervisory capacity is considered by the School at the time the offer is considered and in the planning process, and Deans have access to management information to ensure the suitability of the environment. Monitoring of offers made takes place at each URC meeting and is considered annually, in detail. All new postgraduate researchers are required to attend a centrally managed, formal programme of induction following enrolment. Currently, there are four enrolment points across the academic year for postgraduate researchers. The main induction event takes place at the start of the academic year over three days. It is an intensive programme to ensure a sound foundation to postgraduate research and is followed up after three months with an additional half-day event. The PVC (R&E) welcomes new postgraduate researchers at the induction event, and key staff from across the university (including supervisors, personal tutors, the Students' Union and the Postgraduate Society representatives) are invited to a joint lunch on the first day of the programme. Postgraduate researchers are thereby introduced to a range of opportunities, ideas and relevant staff to guide and inform this initial phase of their research degree registration period; it is also an excellent opportunity for new researchers to meet and engage with 3

Section F2.3 Regulations of Research Degrees


members of the wider, multi-disciplinary research community, allowing them to explore similar topics from different perspectives and disciplines for mutual benefit. The content and delivery of these events are monitored and evaluated ensuring that feedback from both postgraduate researchers and staff effectively contributes to a process of continual improvement of provision. Additional induction events are held at the remaining 3 entry points of the year. All handouts, presentations and other relevant documentation are added to the Blackboard for Researchers site so that all new researchers have access to the same range of supportive material. In addition, all postgraduate researchers are introduced to their Schools via local inductions. Both the Directors of Graduate Education and the Postgraduate Research Tutors are responsible for postgraduate researcher inductions at School level as outlined in the University Code of Practice for Postgraduate Research Programmes. The entire induction process is monitored and reviewed annually at URC and forms part of the Annual Review of Research Degree Provision. 6.4

Progress and review arrangements

Student progression and monitoring is well defined and embedded into the research culture at the University of Huddersfield and is reviewed and monitored annually. The Progression Monitoring System is introduced and explained to all new postgraduate researchers at central induction and detailed information is available in both the Postgraduate Researchers’ Handbook and the Virtual Graduate Centre website. The consistency of the system is ensured by its management at a central level. Currently all forms are submitted manually to WISDOM, the University’s electronic records and document management system. From the 09/10 academic year and the implementation of the ASIS PGR module, the documents will be submitted to WISDOM electronically. The ASIS research module allows the creation of detailed postgraduate researcher records that are available to staff across the University. Each postgraduate researcher record can store details of supervisors, examiners, personal tutors, funding, publications and project information along with a variety of other user-defined information. The typical life-cycle of a research student can be mapped into the system, allowing the progress of


each individual student to be monitored and recorded at every key stage. Each event in the life cycle can be given an alarm that can be used to notify staff of imminent or overdue events. Triggers associated with these events can be used to update records automatically, to generate subsequent events, and to issue standard email notifications or standard letters to those concerned. The new ‘Questions and Answers’ component of the module allows students and supervisors to complete, via the e:Vision web interface, specific records dealing with important events, such as supervision meetings and progress reviews. The ‘mydetails’ section of the web interface, which is aimed at students, can generate a GANTT chart, which provides a graphical illustration of the student’s progress to date and of events due within the time remaining, whilst the ‘mystudents’ section, aimed at supervisors, provides a summary of the progress of that particular supervisor’s students in a simple and clear tabular format. Supervisors can also view the individual GANTT charts of their students. At the institutional level the module can be configured within a very wide range of userdefined and core parameters to produce detailed management reports tracking any aspect of the data from the application stage right through to conferment of the research award. The University has further enhanced the utility of the module by linking each student’s ASIS record to the WISDOM document management system. By digitising all student records created since January 2008 we have created secure and durable electronic student files that are available to relevant staff across the institution and which contain every important document related to a student, from the application form and offer letter to the progress reports and final conferment letter. Following acceptance and within six months for full-time (nine months for part-time) postgraduate researchers, a Programme of Research (Form 2)4 is submitted to the School Head of Research Administration and also to the central Research Office. Every three months the postgraduate researcher and supervisor complete the Personal Development Planning and Review5 (Form 3) which is a useful reflection tool for supervisory meetings. At 9 months (full time) or 18 months (part time), the Research Progression Advice (Form 46) is discussed and agreed by the supervisor and postgraduate 4

Programme of Research Form 2 (www.hud.ac.uk/audit) Personal Development Planning and Review Form 3 (www.hud.ac.uk/audit) 6 Research Progression Advice Form 4 (www.hud.ac.uk/audit) 5


researcher to ensure the student is aware of the requirement for progression and their progression to date. At the end of the first and second (full-time) or second and fourth (part-time) year of enrolment, the postgraduate researcher completes the Progress Report (Form 6).7 This is submitted to the Head of Research Administration in the School together with a copy of a 3000-6000 word progress report. The Progression Decision Form (Form 7)8 is used to record the progression of the student after the first (full-time) or second (parttime) year of research as approved through a viva voce process that includes an oral presentation by the candidate alongside the written report. Following the oral presentation a copy of the completed form is retained by the student, the main supervisor and the Head of Research Administration in the School Office. A copy of the completed form is also sent to the University Research Office. Results of this process include pass, fail and refer, and enrolment is dependant on a satisfactory outcome. The first year examination process is repeated after two years fulltime (four years part-time) and regular progress is also reported every three months using form 3. A recent example of good practice in progression monitoring is the opening of the end of year vivas to all students and the development of a training module, ‘Getting Ready for the End of Year Viva’ delivered by postgraduate researchers within their Schools with the support of the Research Office. A variant of the progression monitoring system is used for one-year research masters degrees (MPhil, MEnt, Masters by Research). 6.5

Development of Research and Other Skills (Precepts 18-20)

The Postgraduate Charter specifies that ‘a postgraduate researcher can expect to receive opportunities to provide feedback on their student experience via questionnaires, surveys, student forums and meetings and student representation in relevant forums at all levels of the University.’ All postgraduate researchers are encouraged to undertake research skills training relevant to their discipline and as required by their funding body as appropriate. In addition, in line 7 8

Progress Report Form 6 (www.hud.ac.uk/audit) Progression Decision Form 7 (www.hud.ac.uk/audit)


with QAA criteria and the UK Research Council’s Joint Skills Statement, a wide-ranging programme of research skills development has been put in place to provide support in generic and transferable skills training for all postgraduate researchers. This programme comprises a range of elements in recognition of the varying training needs of different disciplines across the University. In this context, some of the programme elements are delivered entirely within the relevant School whilst others are delivered centrally. A central funding resource has been made available to fully support this programme which takes effect from academic year 2009/10 although a number of sessions have been offered individually during 2009.

This programme complements

discipline-specific training and support delivered within Schools and offers around 50 individual sessions embracing a range of research methodologies, personal and generic skills aimed at supporting postgraduate researchers from the initial stages through to the viva examination. The university recognises the importance of PDP which is introduced at central induction and new postgraduate researchers are expected to undertake a skills audit to inform effective planning. Recognising the varied needs of part-time and split-site postgraduate researchers, all PDP documentation is available in the Blackboard for Researchers on-line pages making the system user-friendly and effective for record-keeping purposes. PDP is also considered by the supervisor in the progression monitoring process. The University is keen to draw on existing skills in this area, and in the academic year 2008/9 an external speaker was commissioned to deliver a workshop outlining the processes and value of PDP with separate sessions offered to both postgraduate researchers and supervisors to ensure that all parties fully understand the system. An external speaker has also delivered the two-day Vitae Effective Researcher Workshop to postgraduate researchers in their first 3-12 months of registration. These two events provide a solid foundation for researchers as they embark on their doctoral study. The University is working to ensure that part-time and split-site postgraduate researchers are as equally well served in the area of research skills development as full-time, on-site researchers. To this end, a comprehensive and carefully considered range of on-line skills


support is under development and the University also subscribes to Epigeum,9 a series of on-line, research training support from Imperial College London. This is complemented by in-house support for all training modules (including those delivered face-to-face) using Blackboard. A new initiative has been developed and piloted in the School of Human and Health Sciences. The International Research Student Skills Training and Support Programme is designed to facilitate integration into the UK and the University and to inhibit the potential for social and academic isolation so frequently experienced by postgraduate researchers and often heightened in an international, remote-registration context. Seven international postgraduate researchers participated in the pilot phase of this programme in the Centre for Applied Childhood Studies and the Centre for Health and Social Care Research. The programme has now been expanded to include all postgraduate researchers in the School. Developing on the existing practice of formal review and reporting to RCUK against the deployment of the Roberts funding, a formal Annual Review of Research Skills Training has been developed to monitor all training opportunities.10 6.6

Feedback Arrangements (Precept 21)

The University participates in the HEA’s Postgraduate Research Experience Survey and for 2009 had a satisfaction rate of 72%. The PRES results for the University are analysed by the PVC (R&E) and reported to URC and Senate. An action plan was developed as a result of the survey’s findings for consideration by Graduate Education Group and URC, and the PVC and Schools responded to all comments received during the survey. An overview report of the external examiners’ comments forms part of the Annual Monitoring of Research Degree Provision. In addition, postgraduate researchers’ exit questionnaires have been introduced and the results considered by URC. The Researchers4Researchers Forum acts as a conduit for the effective feedback of information from postgraduate researchers to ensure the University works together in building a connected and co-ordinated research community. Researchers4Researchers also developed the Postgraduate Research Conference (held on a Saturday) during the 9

http://www.epigeum.co.uk/ Roberts Report to RCUK (www.hud.ac.uk/audit)

10


Research Festival attended by 25% of the PGR population. One innovative session during the conference was an open question and answer session with the PVC (R&E) and the Head of Research and Graduate Education which, from feedback questionnaires, was very well received. The formal progression monitoring process includes a confidential feedback form which may be used at any point, and as often as required to provide feedback by the postgraduate researcher or supervisor to the University Research Office. Many Schools have staff/student liaison committees, known as Student Panels (all Schools will have these from 09/10 following the rise in enrolments), and research students are represented on School Boards and School Research Committees. A Postgraduate Researcher also sits on the University Council. It has been challenging, despite encouragement, to get students to act as representatives and Research Office is working with the Students’ Union to develop further relationships and support for postgraduate researcher representatives. Induction this year included a short session entitled “Making your Voice Heard” to highlight further the opportunities available for feedback. Postgraduate representatives are supported by dedicated postgraduate researcher notice boards in every building. URC provides for a Students’ Union sabbatical officer as an ex-officio member and student representatives are able to come together at the central Postgraduate Researchers Committee. 6.7

The Assessment of Research Students

The central management of the assessment process for all research degrees ensures consistency of practice across the University. The ‘Information and Guidance for Research Award Candidates and Supervisors’ which is made available to all staff, examiners and postgraduate researchers is currently under review. The review covers all aspects of research degree assessment including PhD by publication and portfolio. The results of this review will result in new policy and guidance for implementation in the 09/10 academic year.


The University offers guidance and support for both internal and external research degree examiners in the form of training sessions led by an external speaker. These are designed to •

fulfil the development needs of examiners

ensure understanding of University regulations in relation to setting up and assessing viva voce examinations

aid in the correct preparation of examiners reports.

It is recommended by the University that all internal examiners attend this course. 6.8

Representations, Complaints and Appeals Arrangements for Research Students

The University has procedures for dealing with complaints by research students, which are detailed in the University’s Student Handbook of Regulations. The preferred approach of the University is to resolve matters at the lowest level within Schools and through informal, rather than formal, means in the first instance. Students can also raise complaints with the School Director of Graduate Education, the Research Office and/or the Head of Registry. Few complaints are pursued through formal, there has been two formal complaints in recent years. The Research Office estimates approximately five or six cases of informal resolution of complaints over the last five years. The University has procedures for dealing with an appeal relating to a recommendation of an examiner, detailed in Regulations for Awards September 2008 § F2.8. There have been only three such appeals in the past five years. Formal appeals and complaints are monitored annual via URC. 6.9

Summary

The University believes that it has demonstrated the capacity to achieve significant change in building the infrastructure and environment for research over a relatively limited timescale. This has brought benefits particularly for the context in which research students work, but also for taught students.

It would draw attention to the many initiatives to

stimulate the level and underpin the quality of research activity among staff and students, and the ways in which institutional priorities and cultures have changed.


The University recognises that it is undergoing significant change to integrate the research culture within the institute. The establishment of this will result in the further development of a vibrant, embedded research environment.


Research and Enterprise

Regulations


Regulations for Research Awards Section F September 2009


CONTENTS

Section F: Regulations Governing Research Degrees F1

Principles F1.1 F1.2 F1.3 F1.4 F1.5 F1.6 F1.7 F1.8 F1.9 F1.10 F1.11 F1.12 F1.13 P

F2

General Scope Master in Research Master of Enterprise Master of Arts by Research & Master of Science by Research Awards The MPhil Award The Professional Doctorate Award The PhD Award PhD by Publication External Links Enrolment Re-Enrolment Master’s Modules P

Regulations for the award of Master in Research, Master of Enterprise, Master of Arts by Research, Master of Science by Research, Master of Philosophy, Professional Doctorates, Doctor of Philosophy and Doctor of Philosophy by Publication F2.1 F2.2 F2.3 F2.4 F2.5 F2.6 F2.7 F2.8 F2.9 F2.10

General conditions Enrolment periods Enrolment Supervision Transfer from Master to Doctor of Philosophy Complaints by candidates Examinations Appeal against the recommendation of examiners Research misconduct including plagiarism Thesis submission


REGULATIONS GOVERNING RESEARCH DEGREES F1. PRINCIPLES F1.1 General The University awards the degrees of Master in Research (MRes), Master of Enterprise (MEnt), Master of Arts by Research (MA), Master of Science by Research (MSc), Master of Philosophy (MPhil), Professional Doctorates, Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) and Doctor of Philosophy by Publication (PhD) to candidates who successfully complete approved programmes of supervised research.

F1.2 Scope Programmes of research may be proposed in any field of study subject to the requirement that the proposed programme is capable of leading to scholarly research and to its presentation for assessment by appropriate examiners. The written thesis may be supplemented by material in other than written form. All proposed research programmes will be considered on their academic merits and without reference to the concerns or interests of any associated funding body.

F1.3 The MRes award The MRes is an exit qualification awarded to a candidate for a Professional Doctorate who, having successfully completed the compulsory taught element, has presented a thesis to the satisfaction of the examiners.

F1.4 The MEnt award The MEnt is awarded to a candidate who, having successfully completed an approved programme of enterprise training and research which combines advanced study, research methodology and a substantial research project, or series of research projects in a chosen field, has presented a thesis to the satisfaction of the examiners.

F1.5 The MA by Research and MSc by Research award The MA by Research or MSc by Research is awarded to a candidate who, having successfully completed an approved programme of training and research which combines advanced study, research methodology and a substantial research project, or series of research projects in a chosen field, has presented a thesis to the satisfaction of the examiners.

F1.6 The MPhil award The MPhil is awarded to a candidate who, having critically investigated and evaluated an approved topic and demonstrated an understanding of research method appropriate to the chosen field, has presented and defended a thesis, by oral examination, to the satisfaction of the examiners.

F1.7 The Professional Doctorate award A Professional Doctorate is awarded to a candidate who, having successfully completed an approved programme of study, and having critically investigated and evaluated an approved topic resulting in an independent and original contribution to knowledge in a relevant professional discipline, and demonstrated an understanding of

-1-


research methods appropriate to the chosen field, has presented and defended a thesis, by oral examination, to the satisfaction of the examiners. The available designations for a Professional Doctorate awarded by this University are listed in Paragraph 2.1.

F1.8 The PhD award The PhD is awarded to a candidate who, having critically investigated and evaluated an approved topic resulting in an independent and original contribution to knowledge and demonstrated an understanding of research methods appropriate to the chosen field, has presented and defended a thesis, by oral examination, to the satisfaction of the examiners.

F1.9 PhD by Publication The PhD by publication is awarded to a candidate who, having submitted works constituting a coherent programme of research and making a significant contribution to knowledge, has presented and defended the work, by oral examination, to the satisfaction of examiners. Applications will normally come from existing members of staff or graduates of the University with a first or higher degree awarded not less than five years before the application date.

F1.10 External links Wherever possible the University encourages co-operation with industrial, commercial, professional or research establishments for the purposes of research leading to research degree awards. Co-operation may be formalised with one or more external bodies. For the purpose of the research degree regulations these are referred to as Collaborating Establishments. Formal collaboration normally involves the candidate’s use of facilities and other resources, including supervision, which are provided jointly by the University and the Collaborating Establishment.

F1.11 Enrolment Enrolment can only take place following approval by the Senate, or a body appointed to act on its behalf, of the suitability of the candidate to undertake research; of the programme of research; of the supervision arrangements and research facilities. This approval requires appropriate academic judgement to be brought to bear on the viability of each research proposal.

F1.12 Re-enrolment Following admission to the University, candidates must re-enrol annually for the duration of their period of study. A candidate who fails to re-enrol will be contacted by an authorised officer of the University. Failure to respond positively to this approach will be deemed evidence of the candidate’s withdrawal.

F1.13 Master’s modules Students enrolled as candidates for research degrees in the University are entitled to take up to four modules (60 credits) of Master’s modules as part of their research training without additional fees.

-2-


F2. REGULATIONS FOR THE AWARD OF MASTER IN RESEARCH, MASTER OF ENTERPRISE, MASTER OF ARTS BY RESEARCH, MASTER OF SCIENCE BY RESEARCH, MASTER OF PHILOSOPHY, PROFESSIONAL DOCTORATES, DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY AND DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY PUBLICATION

F2.1 General conditions 1. Students may enrol for: i). Master of Enterprise i) Master of Arts by Research or Master of Science by Research ii) Master of Philosophy iii) Master of Philosophy with possibility of transfer to Doctor of Philosophy iv) Professional Doctorates Doctor of Applied Criminology (D.AppCrim) Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) Doctor of Counselling (D.Couns) Doctor of Education (Ed.D) Doctor in Enterprise (Ent.D) Doctor of Midwifery (D.M) Doctor of Nursing (D.N) Doctor of Occupational Therapy (D.OT) Doctor of Physiotherapy (D.Phys) Doctor of Podiatry (D.Pod) Doctor of Social Work (D.SW) v) Doctor of Philosophy vi) Doctor of Philosophy by Publication 2. Candidates whose work forms part of a larger group project may enrol for a research degree. In such cases each individual project must in itself be distinguishable for the purposes of assessment and be appropriate for the award being sought. The application must indicate clearly each individual contribution and its relationship to the group project. 3. Candidates may undertake a programme of research in which the candidate’s own creative work forms a significant part of the intellectual enquiry. Such creative work may be in any field, but must show coherence and originality in invention and must have been undertaken as part of the approved research programme. In such cases, the presentation and submission must be accompanied by an appropriate written commentary. The creative work must be clearly presented in relation to the argument of a written thesis and set in its relevant theoretical, historical, critical or design context. The thesis itself must show critical understanding of the submitted creative work in relation to contemporary thought. The final submission must always be accompanied by some permanent record of the creative work, where

-3-


practicable bound with the thesis. The application for approval of the research programme must set out the form of the candidate’s intended submission and of the proposed methods of assessment, and must demonstrate the candidate’s ability and experience in the appropriate field of creative work. 4. Candidates may undertake a programme of research of which the principal focus is the preparation of a scholarly edition of a text or texts, musical or choreographic work or other original artefacts. In such cases the completed submission must include a copy of the edited text(s) or collection of artefact(s), appropriate textual and explanatory annotations and a substantial introduction and critical commentary which sets the text in the relevant historical, theoretical or critical context. 5. Candidates may undertake a programme of research of which the principal focus is the preparation and compilation of a portfolio of papers prepared before and/or during the period of candidature that have been formally accepted for publication by a peer-reviewed journal, in press or in print. Peer-reviewed books and book chapters are acceptable, provided that they have been formally accepted for publication, in press or in print at the time of submission of the thesis. Technical manuals and other professional outputs that have standing in a particular field are also acceptable. Where one or more of the submitted works, papers or chapters are co-authored, they collectively should be preceded by a clear statement of the intellectual contribution of the candidate to the submitted works signed by all of the contributing authors. The portfolio must be accompanied by a synopsis which should not normally exceed the specified word limit and which must not include new data or results, though results or data presented in the attached works may be reworked or integrated with results and data from literature in order to develop the argument presented. 6. Candidates may undertake an integrated programme of work which includes a programme of postgraduate study on which their performance is formally assessed, as well as the research element. Such a course of study must not normally occupy more than one third of the total period of enrolment and must complement the research. A candidate on an integrated programme may not submit a thesis for examination until the assessment of the programme of postgraduate study has been completed to the satisfaction of its examiners. 7. For the Professional Doctorate the taught element is compulsory, externally examined, and forms a specified proportion of the total programme of work. A candidate for MPhil and PhD shall be required to follow a programme of related studies, where this is necessary for the attainment of competence in research methods and of knowledge related to the subject of the thesis. 8. For the PhD by Publication a statement will be required to demonstrate that the candidate has made a significant contribution towards each publication and has been engaged in all the processes of research. Co-authors must provide a supporting appropriate statement indicating their relative contributions.

-4-


F2.2 Enrolment periods 1. The maximum periods of enrolment and additional submission pending are as follows: Postgraduate Research Degree

Duration

Submission pending

12 months 24 months

up to 4 months up to 4 months

MEnt full-time part-time

MA by Research & MSc by Research full-time part-time

12 months 24 months

up to 4 months up to 4 months

12 months 24 months

up to 12 months up to 12 months

MPhil full-time part-time

PhD (from initial MPhil/PhD enrolment) full-time part-time

36 months 72 months

up to 12 months up to 12 months

PhD (direct) full-time part-time

24-36 months up to 12 months 48-72 months up to 12 months

PhD by Publication part-time

12 months

up to 12 months

48 months 84 months

N/A N/A

Professional Doctorates full-time part-time

A full-time candidate is normally expected to reach the standard for MEnt, MA by Research, MSc by Research and MPhil within one year of enrolment and for PhD within three years. 2. Where there is evidence that the research is proceeding exceptionally well the Director of Graduate Education may approve a shorter period of enrolment than normal. 3. Where candidates change from full-time to part-time study or vice versa their enrolment period is calculated on a pro rata basis. 4. Where the candidate is prevented - by ill health or other cause - from making progress with the research, enrolment may be interrupted, normally for not more

-5-


than twelve months at a time and for no more than twenty-four months in total. Any period of interruption is excluded when calculating the maximum period of study. Periods of interruption should be as short as is necessary to deal with the circumstances. Interruptions will not normally be backdated

F2.3 Enrolment 1. In considering applications for enrolment the Senate, or a body appointed to act on its behalf, will satisfy itself that all of the following requirements are fulfilled: i) candidates are suitably qualified; ii) candidates are embarking on viable research programmes; iii) supervision is adequate and likely to be sustained; iv) the research environment is suitable. 2. The normal entry requirement for enrolment for the degree of MEnt, MA by Research, MSc by Research, MPhil or MPhil with possibility of transfer to PhD and EntD is a first or upper second class honours degree of a university in the UK or a qualification which is equivalent to such an honours degree. The normal entry requirement for EdD is a relevant UK Master’s degree or equivalent. The normal entry requirement for a Professional Doctorate other than the EdD is a relevant Postgraduate Diploma or equivalent, a recognised professional qualification (or equivalent) for the title award and a minimum of three years postgraduate professional experience directly relevant to the named professional doctoral degree for which enrolment is sought. 3. Applications from candidates holding qualifications other than those in F2.3.2 will be considered on their merits and in relation to the nature and scope of the programme of work proposed. A candidate wishing to be considered under this regulation must include in the application for enrolment the names of two suitable persons whom the Senate, or a body appointed to act on its behalf, may consult concerning the candidate’s academic attainment and fitness for research. 4. Direct enrolment for the degree of PhD may be permitted to candidates who hold a Master’s degree awarded by a UK university or an overseas Master’s degree of equivalent standard, provided that the Master’s degree is in a discipline which is appropriate to the proposed research and that the Master’s degree included training in research and the execution of a research project. Enrolment for PhD direct may also be permitted for a candidate who, although lacking a Master’s degree, has a good honours degree (or equivalent) in an appropriate discipline and has had appropriate research or professional experience at postgraduate level, which has resulted in published work, written reports or other appropriate evidence of accomplishment. 5. For PhD by publication applications will normally come from existing members of staff or graduates of the University with a first or higher degree awarded not

-6-


less than five years before the application date. 6. Except where permission has been given for the thesis/submission and the oral examination to be in another language, the Senate, or a body appointed to act on its behalf, will satisfy itself that the candidate has sufficient command of the English language to complete satisfactorily the programme of work and to prepare and defend a thesis in English. 7. The Senate, or a body appointed to act on its behalf, may exceptionally consider applications from students proposing to work outside the UK, provided the following conditions are fulfilled: i) the candidate is UK-based or establishes close links with the University; ii) there is satisfactory evidence as to the facilities available abroad for the research; iii) the arrangements proposed for supervision enable frequent and substantial contact between the candidate and the supervisor(s) based in the University, including adequate face-to-face contact with the supervisor(s). The candidate should spend normally not less than an average of 6 weeks per year in the University. 8. Candidates may enrol on a full-time or part-time basis. Full-time candidates are expected to devote on average at least 35 hours per week to their research; parttime candidates on average at least 17.5 hours per week. Candidates for the award of PhD by publication shall enrol on a part-time basis. 9. Where a research degree project is part of a piece of funded research, the Senate, or a body appointed to act on its behalf, will establish to its satisfaction that the terms on which the research is funded do not detract from the fulfilment of the objectives and requirements of the candidate’s research degree. 10. Where a candidate has previously undertaken research as a candidate for a research degree the Director of Graduate Education may approve a shorter than usual enrolment period which takes account of all or part of the time already spent by the candidate on such research. In some cases transfer from another Institution may be possible. This must have the agreement of both Institutions involved. 11. Candidates seeking a change or extension of a research degree programme must apply to the Director of Graduate Education for approval. 12. The Senate, or a body appointed to act on its behalf, may permit a candidate to enrol for another course of study concurrently with the research degree provided that, in its opinion, the dual enrolment will not detract from the research. 13. Where a candidate or the Collaborating Establishment wishes the thesis to remain confidential for a period of time after completion of the work, application for approval must normally be made when the application for examination arrangements is submitted.

-7-


14. A candidate must obtain approval of the research programme within six months of first enrolment if studying full-time or within nine months of first enrolment if studying part-time. Candidates who fail to obtain approval will be withdrawn. 15. Before the end of a full-time candidate’s first and second academic year and a part-time candidate’s second and fourth academic year s/he must submit a progress report to be considered by a panel including the candidate’s main supervisor and members who are independent of the supervisory team. There should be an oral presentation by the candidate with questions put by panel members. Satisfactory completion of this process shall constitute permission to proceed. Candidates who fail to complete this process satisfactorily may re-submit no later than three months after the first oral presentation. Candidates who do not receive permission to proceed after resubmission and re-examination will be withdrawn. For Professional Doctorate candidates this schedule of progress monitoring will be concurrent with the research element of the programme.

F2.4 Supervision 1. For the award of MEnt, MA by Research, MSc by Research, MPhil, Professional Doctorates and PhD a candidate shall have a minimum of one main supervisor who will normally be part of a supervisory team comprising up to three members. At least one member of the supervisory team must have a successful track record of supervision at the appropriate level and in the case of doctorates one supervisor must have successfully supervised to doctoral level. At least one member of the supervisory team will be currently engaged in research in the relevant discipline(s) so as to ensure that the direction and monitoring of the student’s progress is informed by up to date subject knowledge and research developments. Completion of an accredited training in research supervision will be deemed to be equivalent to one successful supervision. 2. One supervisor shall be the main supervisor with responsibility to supervise the candidate on a regular and frequent basis. 3. In addition to the supervisors, an adviser or advisers may be proposed to contribute some specialised knowledge or to provide a link with an external organisation. 4. A person who is enrolled for a research degree is ineligible to act as main supervisor for a research degree candidate, but may exceptionally act as a cosupervisor or adviser. A member of staff who is registered for a doctorate may act as main supervisor for a research degree candidate on a Master’s programme. 5. Proposals for change in supervision arrangements should be made to the Director of Graduate Education.

F2.5 Transfer from Master to Doctor of Philosophy 1. Candidates who enrolled initially for MPhil or MPhil/PhD and who wish to transfer to PhD must apply to transfer when they have made sufficient progress on the work to provide evidence of the development to PhD.

-8-


2. In support of the application, the candidate shall prepare a full progress report on the work undertaken. The progress report should typically be 3,000 to 6,000 words in length and include: a) brief review and discussion of the work already undertaken; b) a statement of the intended further work, including details of the original contribution to knowledge which is likely to emerge. 3. Before approving transfer from MPhil to PhD the Senate, or a body appointed to act on its behalf, must be satisfied that the candidate has made sufficient progress and that the proposed programme provides a suitable basis for work at PhD standard which the candidate is capable of pursuing to completion. 4. A candidate enrolled for the degree of MPhil only may apply to transfer to PhD. The candidate’s full progress report, in addition to the abstract, must be submitted with the application for transfer. Approval for such transfers will be given only where a strong case is established to the satisfaction of the Senate or a body appointed to act on its behalf. 5. A candidate who is enrolled for a Professional Doctorate or PhD and who is unable to complete the approved programme of work, may, at any time prior to the submission of the thesis for examination, apply for the enrolment to be changed to that for the degree of MPhil.

F2.6 Complaints by candidates The Senate will ensure that a formal complaints procedure for research degree candidates exists and that details of the procedures are made available to all candidates.

F2.7 Examinations General 1. The examination for Master in Research and Master of Enterprise comprises: the examination of the taught element and the thesis. Defence of the thesis by oral examination will be at the discretion of the examiners. 2. The examination for Master of Arts by Research, and Master of Science by Research consists of the assessment of the thesis by the examiners. Defence of the thesis by oral examination will be at the discretion of the examiners. 3. The examination for the MPhil and PhD has two stages: firstly the submission and preliminary assessment of the thesis and secondly its defence by oral examination. 4. The examination for Professional Doctorates comprises: the examination of the taught element, the submission and preliminary assessment of the thesis followed by its defence by oral examination. The taught element must be completed subject to the satisfaction of its examiners, including at least one external examiner, prior to the submission of the thesis for examination.

-9-


5. The examination for PhD by Publication has two stages: firstly the submission of the actual publications with a commentary which puts the total work in context and an abstract, and secondly its defence by oral examination. A literature survey should be included in the submission and the work must illustrate evidence of contemporary publications. The commentary should normally be in the range of 5,000 to 10,000 words. The submission must be made within one year of enrolment. 6. Theses may be submitted for examination either in a permanently bound form or in a temporary bound form such as perfect-binding which is sufficiently secure to ensure that pages cannot be added or removed. 7. All candidates, except those for MEnt, MRes, MA by Research and MSc by Research, are normally examined orally on the programme of work and on the field of study in which the programme lies. Where for reasons of sickness, disability or comparable valid cause, the Senate, or a body appointed to act on its behalf, is satisfied that a candidate would be under serious disadvantage if required to undergo an oral examination, an alternative form of examination may be approved. Such approval shall not be given on the grounds that the candidate’s knowledge of the language in which the thesis is presented is inadequate. 8. A candidate’s main supervisor or co-supervisors shall not act as internal examiners. 9. Normally, an examining team will consist of one internal and one external examiner. Exceptionally, a second external examiner may be appointed. Where the main supervisor or co-supervisor is exceptionally appointed as an internal examiner, a second external examiner must be appointed. 10. Where the candidate is on the permanent staff of either the University or the Collaborating Establishment, one internal examiner and two external examiners must be appointed. 11. Where the examining team is unable to agree on a recommendation, the procedure outlined in F2.7.38 shall apply. 12. For the award of PhD by Publication, the candidate shall be examined by at least two external examiners, one of whom should normally have had experience of examining PhD by Publication, and one internal examiner. In exceptional circumstances, one of the external examiners may be a senior authority in the appropriate field but without experience of examining PhD by Publication. 13. Prior to the oral examination, each examiner shall complete an independent preliminary report on the thesis. 14. The main supervisor/adviser, co-supervisors, other members of staff and research degree candidates may be invited by the candidate to attend the oral examination, but must withdraw prior to the deliberations of the examiners on the outcome of the examination.

- 10 -


15. In any instance where the Senate, or a body appointed to act on its behalf, is made aware of a failure to comply with all the procedures of the examination process, it may declare the examination null and void and appoint new examiners. 16. Oral examinations are normally held at the University. However, in special cases approval may be given for the examination to take place elsewhere in the UK or abroad. 17. The arrangements for the candidate’s examination, including the proposed examiners, must be approved by the appropriate Director of Graduate Education and the Senate, or a body appointed to act on its behalf, before the examination takes place. This will ensure that external examiners are independent of the Collaborating Establishment and that the same external examiner is not proposed so frequently that his/her familiarity with the School might prejudice objective judgement.

The candidate’s responsibilities 18. It is the responsibility of the candidate to ensure that the thesis or, in the case of PhD by Publication, the actual publications and commentary are submitted to the appropriate officer before the end of the submission pending period. 19. The submission of a thesis or publications for examination is at the sole discretion of the candidate. 20. Candidates must satisfy any conditions of eligibility for examination laid down by the Senate. 21. Candidates must take no part in the arrangement of their examination and have no formal contact with the external examiner(s) between the appointment of the examiners and the oral examination. 22. Candidates must ensure that the thesis or publications’ format is in accordance with the relevant regulations. It is the candidate’s responsibility to ensure that at least one durable backup copy of material submitted for examination is retained in a secure location away from University property. 23. The candidate must confirm, through the submission of a declaration form, that the thesis or publications have not been submitted for a comparable academic award. However, the candidate is not precluded from incorporating in the thesis, covering a wider field, work which has already been submitted for a degree or comparable award, provided that it is indicated, on the declaration form and also in the thesis, which work has been so incorporated. 24. Candidates may only request a review of the outcome of their research degree examination in the circumstances set out in F2.8.

Examiners 25. Examiners must be experienced in research in the general area of the candidate’s thesis/submission and, where practicable, have experience as a specialist in the topic(s) to be examined.

- 11 -


26. An external examiner should have expertise in the area of the work to be examined; be experienced in research, and have published, or have equivalent professional experience; have experience of the doctoral degree examination process and normally have been an examiner for a doctoral degree; hold a research degree at the level s/he is examining, or have equivalent professional experience; hold/have held an appointment within the university system, although it is permissible to appoint an appropriate person from outside the university system, e.g., a senior industrial scientist or professional practitioner. 27. An external examiner shall be independent of the Collaborating Establishment and shall not have acted previously as the candidate’s supervisor or adviser. An external examiner shall not normally be either a supervisor of another candidate or an external examiner on a taught course in the same department. 28. An external examiner shall not have had a close link with the University during the previous five years, for example as an employee or as a student. 29. An external examiner shall not normally have had a close involvement in the candidate’s previous studies as a teacher. 30. No person who is enrolled for a research degree may act as an examiner.

Duties of Examiners 31. Each examiner shall read and examine the thesis or submission and present an independent preliminary report on it before any oral or alternative form of examination is held. In completing the preliminary report, each examiner must consider whether the thesis or submission provisionally satisfies the requirements of the degree and where possible make an appropriate provisional recommendation subject to the outcome of the oral examination. 32. Following the oral examination the examiners shall, where they are in agreement, present a joint report and recommendation relating to the award of the degree. Where the examiners are not in agreement, separate reports and recommendations shall be submitted.

Outcomes of examinations for MRes, MEnt, MA by Research & MSc by Research 33. Following the completion of the examination the examiners may recommend: i) that the candidate be awarded the degree; ii) that the candidate be awarded the degree subject to minor amendments being made to the thesis. In such circumstances, the examiners must indicate to the candidate in writing what amendments and corrections are required. All minor amendments must be completed subject to the satisfaction of the appropriate examiner(s) within three months from the date of the examination; iii) that the candidate be awarded the degree subject to an oral and/or other alternative examination;

- 12 -


iv) that the candidate be permitted to revise and re-submit for the degree within four months; v) exceptionally, that the candidate be not awarded the degree and be not permitted to be re-examined; 34. Only one resubmission of a failed thesis will be allowed. The Senate, or a body appointed to act on its behalf, will agree that the grounds for allowing/not allowing a resubmission are justified. 35. A distinction may be awarded to a candidate who achieves a mark of 70% or more; a merit may be awarded to a candidate who achieves a mark between 60% and 69% and a pass may be awarded to a candidate who achieves a mark between 40% and 59%. 36. The maximum mark awarded to a resubmitted thesis shall normally be no more than 50%.

Outcomes of examinations for MPhil, PhD and Professional Doctorates 37. Following the completion of the examination the examiners may recommend: i) that the candidate be awarded the degree; ii) that the candidate be awarded the degree subject to minor amendments being made to the thesis. In such circumstances, the examiners must indicate to the candidate in writing what amendments and corrections are required. All minor amendments must be completed subject to the satisfaction of the appropriate examiner(s) within three months from the date of the oral examination; iii) that the candidate be awarded the degree subject to major amendments being made to the thesis. In such circumstances, the examiners must indicate to the candidate in writing what amendments and corrections are required. All major amendments must be completed subject to the satisfaction of the appropriate examiner(s) within six months from the date of the oral examination; iv) that the candidate be permitted to re-submit for the degree within one year and be re-examined, with or without an oral examination; v) that the candidate be not awarded the degree and be not permitted to be reexamined; vi) in the case of a Professional Doctorate thesis or PhD examination, that the candidate be awarded the degree of MPhil subject to the presentation of the thesis being amended to the satisfaction of the examiners. 38. Where the examiners’ recommendations are not unanimous the Senate, or a body appointed to act on its behalf, may: i) accept a majority recommendation;

- 13 -


ii) accept the recommendation of the external examiner; iii) require the appointment of an additional external examiner whose appointment must be proposed in the normal way. 39. A further examination in addition to the oral examination may be required. In such cases the approval of the Senate, or a body appointed to act on its behalf, must be sought without delay. Where such an examination is arranged following an oral examination, it must normally be held within two months of the oral examination. Any such examination is deemed to be part of the candidate’s first examination. 40. Where evidence of cheating or plagiarism in the preparation of the thesis or other irregularities in the conduct of the examination come to light subsequent to the recommendation of the examiners, the Senate shall consider the matter, if necessary in consultation with examiners, and take the necessary action. 41. Where the examiners are of the opinion that the thesis is so unsatisfactory that no useful purpose would be served by conducting an oral examination, they may recommend that the oral examination is dispensed with and refer the thesis for further work to be completed within one year. In such cases the examiners must provide written guidance concerning the deficiencies of the thesis for the candidate. The examiners may not recommend that a candidate fail outright without holding an oral examination or other alternative examination. 42. In the cases of a re-examination the options available to the examiners are to recommend: i) that the candidate be awarded the degree; ii) that the candidate be awarded the degree subject to minor amendments to the thesis to the satisfaction of examiners; iii) that the candidate be awarded the degree subject to major amendments to the thesis to the satisfaction of examiners; iv) that the candidate be not awarded the degree; v) in the case of a Professional Doctorate thesis or PhD examination, that the candidate be awarded the degree of MPhil subject to the presentation of the thesis amended to the satisfaction of the examiners. 43. Where the Senate decides, on the recommendation of the examiners, that the degree be not awarded and no re-examination be permitted, the examiners must prepare an agreed statement of the deficiencies of the thesis and the reason for their decision, which will be forwarded to the candidate. 44. The degrees of Master of Philosophy, Professional Doctorates, and Doctor of Philosophy may be awarded posthumously, on the basis of a thesis completed by the candidate which is ready for submission for examination. In such cases evidence will be sought that the candidate would have been likely to have been

- 14 -


successful had the oral examination taken place.

Re-submission and Re-examination 45. One re-examination may be permitted by the Senate, or a body appointed to act on its behalf, subject to the following requirements: i) a candidate who fails to satisfy the examiners at the first examination, including where appropriate the oral or approved alternative examination or any further examination required under F2.7.37 may, on the recommendation of the examiners and with the approval of the Senate, or a body appointed to act on its behalf, be allowed to revise the thesis and be re-examined; ii) the examiners must provide the candidate with written guidance on the deficiencies of the first submission; iii) the candidate must submit for re-examination within the period of one year from the date of the latest part of the examination. The Senate, or a body appointed to act on its behalf, may, where there are good reasons, approve an extension of this period. 46. The Senate, or a body appointed to act on its behalf, may require that an additional external examiner be appointed for the re-examination. Where the additional examiner is required, his/her appointment must be submitted for approval in the normal way.

Examination for PhD by Publication 47. All candidates shall attend an oral examination. 48. A PhD awarded on the basis of published work reflects the same academic standards as that which operates for a traditional PhD based upon an approved programme of supervised research. 49. Following the completion of the examination the examiners may recommend: i) the award of PhD by Publication; ii) the award of PhD by Publication subject to minor amendments to the commentary and/or possible additions to the publications; iii) that the degree be not awarded - but can be re-submitted; iv) that the degree be not awarded - no re-submission allowed. 50. Candidates are not permitted to submit a new application within two years from the date of the original examination. Any re-submission must include evidence of additional work.

F2.8 Appeal against the recommendation of examiners 1. An ‘appeal’ is defined as a request for a review of the recommendation of the

- 15 -


examiners, whether at the first examination or on the re-examination. Such an appeal will always be concerned with the conduct of the examination or with the personal circumstances of the candidate. 2. Students are advised to seek impartial help, advice, guidance from sabbatical officers in the Students’ Union.

Grounds for an appeal 3. An appeal may only be made in relation to the decision made on the recommendation of the examiners. Given the existence of procedures for complaint during the study period, alleged inadequacy of supervisory or other arrangements during the period of study do not constitute grounds for requesting a review of the examination decision. 4. An appeal is permitted only on the following grounds: i) that there are circumstances affecting the candidate’s performance of which the examiners were not aware at the oral examination; ii) that there is evidence of procedural irregularity in the conduct of the examination (including administrative error) of such a nature as to cause doubt as to whether the result might have been different had there not been any irregularity; iii) that there is evidence of unfair or improper assessment on the part of one or more of the examiners. Candidates may not otherwise challenge the academic judgement of the examiners.

Procedure for dealing with an appeal 5. A notice for an appeal against the recommendation of the examiners shall be made in writing to the Head of Registry’s office as soon as possible and normally not later than one month from the date of notification of the outcome. The candidate must submit the detailed written case for the appeal within a further three months from the date of giving notice. 6. The appeal will be considered by a panel convened by the Head of Registry. The panel will consist of three persons having experience of supervising and examining research degrees and who have had no previous involvement in the case nor be drawn from the School in which the candidate is based. No student or research degree candidate may be a member of a Research Degree Appeal Panel. 7. The Head of Registry or a nominated deputy shall act as secretary and convener of the Research Degree Appeal Panel, but shall not be a member. 8. The Research Degree Appeal Panel shall normally hold its first meeting within one month of the submission by the candidate of the written case for the appeal. Its meetings shall be held in private and its proceedings shall be confidential. 9. The candidate may, if he/she wishes, present his/her case to the Panel in person

- 16 -


and has the right to be accompanied by a friend when presenting the case to the Panel. Notification of the date of the Panel will be forwarded to the candidate at least ten working days in advance of the meeting. 10. The meeting of the Panel may be postponed for no more than ten working days, if the candidate who has made the appeal can show good reason for not being able to attend at the originally specified time. However, the failure or inability of the candidate to attend the meeting of the Panel will not preclude the Panel from reaching a decision. 11. If a Panel agrees that a candidate has valid grounds for appeal, it must either: a) recommend that the examiners be invited to reconsider their decision; or b) recommend that new examiners be appointed. 12. A Research Degree Appeal Panel is not constituted as an examination board and has no authority to set aside the decision of examiners and thereby to recommend the award of the degree. 13. The Panel shall have the powers to disallow an appeal and in such cases its decision shall be final, with the following proviso that the Senate may hear complaints of improper conduct against the Panel or require in exceptional circumstances, the Panel to be reconvened. 14. All decisions of the Panel shall be made by a majority vote of the members. 15. The Panel shall submit a written report of its conclusions within ten working days of its final meeting to the candidate, the examiners, the candidate’s main supervisor and the Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research & Enterprise. 16. The University will meet reasonable and proportionate incidental expenses (for example, travel within the UK, subsistence and essential accommodation) necessarily incurred by successful appellants as a result of attending a Research Degree Appeal Panel. The University will not meet any legal expenses. 17. The Head of Registry will prepare an annual statistical report on complaints and appeals for the University’s Teaching and Learning Committee and Research Committee. This report will identify any issues which need prompt attention.

F2.9 Research misconduct including plagiarism 1. The Senate will establish procedures under which allegations that candidates have conducted research dishonestly or plagiarised pieces of work will be investigated fairly and impartially with a view to establishing the facts (see Students’ Handbook of Regulations). 2. Where a case of research misconduct is suspected, a decision on the candidate’s performance will not be reached until the facts have been established. 3. Where it is established that a candidate has acted dishonestly or unethically or otherwise conducted research in an inappropriate manner, the University’s

- 17 -


Research Committee shall determine whether or not the candidate should be allowed to continue, submit or be re-examined.

F2.10 MA by Research, MSc by Research, MPhil, PhD, Professional Doctorate Thesis and PhD by Publication submission MA by Research, MSc by Research, MPhil, PhD and Professional Doctorate Thesis 1. Except with the specific permission of the Senate, or a body appointed to act on its behalf, the thesis must be presented in English. Permission to present a thesis in another language must normally be sought at the time of application for enrolment. Such permission is likely to be given only if the subject matter of the thesis involves language and related studies. 2. The thesis must include a statement of the candidate’s objectives and must acknowledge published or other sources of material consulted (including an appropriate bibliography) and any assistance received. 3. There shall be an abstract (of approximately 300 words) bound into the thesis which provides a synopsis of the thesis stating the nature and scope of the work undertaken and of the contribution made to the knowledge of the subject treated. Three loose copies of the abstract must be submitted with the thesis. 4. Where a candidate’s research programme is part of a collaborative group project, the thesis must indicate clearly the candidate’s individual contribution and the extent of the collaboration. 5. The copyright of the thesis is vested in the candidate, except for the abstract for which copyright rests with the University. 6. The candidate is free to publish material in advance of the thesis but reference must be made to any such work in the thesis. Copies of published material should either be bound in with the thesis or placed in an adequately secure pocket at the end of the thesis. 7. While theses must normally be presented in a hard-copy A4 format and in accordance with the specifications determined by the Senate, the Senate, or a body appointed to act on its behalf, may give permission for a thesis to be submitted in another format where it is satisfied that the contents of the thesis can be better expressed in that format. 8. The text of the thesis should not normally exceed the following length (excluding ancillary data): For MRes and MEnt

15,000 words

for MA by Research & MSc by Research (all subject areas)

25,000 words

- 18 -


in Science and Engineering and Art and Design for PhD

40,000 words

in Science and Engineering and Art and Design for MPhil

20,000 words

in Arts, Social Sciences and Education for PhD

80,000 words

in Professional Doctorates

50,000 words

in Arts, Social Sciences and Education for MPhil

40,000 words

Where the submission is accompanied by material in other than written form or the research involves creative writing or the preparation of a scholarly edition, the written commentary should normally be a minimum of: for PhD for MPhil MEnt, MA/MSc

10,000 words 5,000 words 5,000 words

9. Where the Senate, or a body appointed to act on its behalf, has agreed that the confidential nature of the candidate’s work is such as to preclude the thesis being made freely available in the library it shall be held on restricted access and only be available to those who were directly involved in the project for a time not exceeding the approved period. 10. Following the award of the degree one copy of the thesis must be lodged in the University Repository or, where necessary, in the library of both the University and any Collaborating Establishment unless the provisions of F.2.10.9 apply.

Presentation of final thesis 11. The following requirements must be adhered to in the format of the final thesis. The sections referring to physical presentation apply only to theses submitted in hardcopy where submission of a thesis in an approved digital format to the University Repository is not practicable. i) the binding shall be of a fixed type so that leaves cannot be removed or replaced. The front and rear boards shall have sufficient rigidity to support the weight of the work when standing upright; ii) the outside front board shall bear in upper case type the title of the work, the initials and surname of the candidate, the qualification and the year of submission. The same information (excluding the title of the work) shall be shown on the spine of the work. The cover of the thesis shall be black with gold lettering; iii) copies of the thesis shall be presented in a permanent and legible form either

- 19 -


in typescript or print. Where copies are produced by any photocopying processes, these must be of a permanent nature. Where word processor and printing devices are used, the printer must be capable of producing text of a satisfactory quality; iv) the thesis may be printed on one side of the paper or on both sides of the paper. Where both sides of the paper are used, the paper must be sufficiently opaque to avoid show through; v) double or one-and-a-half spacing must be used in typescript except for indented quotations or footnotes where single spacing may be used; vi) pages shall be numbered consecutively through the main text including photographs and/or diagrams which are included as whole pages; vii) The title page shall give the following information: • • • • • •

the full title of the thesis, the full name of the author, the award for which the thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of its requirements, that the degree is awarded by the University of Huddersfield, the Collaborating Establishment, if any; the month and year of submission.

PhD by Publication submission 12. Published work is defined as papers, chapters, monographs, books, scholarly editions of a text, creative work or other original artefacts as defined, for example, in the HEFCE Research Assessment Exercises. The published work should represent an original contribution to knowledge in a single well-defined, coherent subject area. The candidate must provide four copies of the submission. 13. A statement shall be required to demonstrate that the candidate has made a significant contribution towards the publication and has been engaged in all the processes of research, for example, design, data analysis and publication. Coauthors must provide a supporting appropriate statement indicating their relative contributions. 14. The University Library will retain one copy of all complete submissions which will take one of the following forms: i) ii) iii) iv)

a bound thesis, the format of which is prescribed in F2.10.11; a box file; a microfiche; photographs

[ END ]

- 20 -


EXTRACTS FOR RESEARCH STUDENTS FROM STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS

THIS HANDBOOK IS A USEFUL SOURCE OF INFORMATION KEEP IT IN A SAFE PLACE FOR EASE OF REFERENCE

September 2009 edition 1


INTRODUCTION 1.

This booklet brings together extracts from the major regulations approved by either the Senate or the University Council which affect either PGR students’ study or their personal conduct.

CONTENTS Community Code of Conduct University of Huddersfield Partnership Agreement University of Huddersfield Attendance Monitoring Policy Section 1

General Requirements

Section 2

Data Protection Act 1998

Section 4

Assessment Regulations Assessment Regulation 9:

Research misconduct for candidates registered on an approved course of supervised research

Assessment Regulation 10:

Section 6

Appeal against the recommendation of examiners (students on approved course of supervised research) The suspension and expulsion of students from the University on academic grounds

Section 7

Student Disciplinary Procedures

Section 8

Student Complaints Procedure Student Complaint Form Notes for Guidance on the conduct of a complaint hearing

Section 10

Regulations governing the use of Computing Facilities

Section 11

Regulations governing use of the University Library

iii


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________ COMMUNITY CODE OF CONDUCT The University Community The University of Huddersfield is a community brought together by a common focus on education, where staff and students work together to advance teaching, learning and the quest for knowledge. Within this framework the University maintains a commitment to freedom of expression and the exploration of complex and sometimes sensitive issues informed by the diverse nature and background of its members. To ensure an accessible and supportive environment in which to learn and work the University aims to foster an atmosphere of respect and understanding which embraces the diversity of its members and promotes respect for individual integrity. Need for a Code of Conduct To help maintain and develop good relations in the University community this Code of Conduct draws together the principles which underpin appropriate community behaviour and which can be applied on a daily basis by students and staff as they go about their work and studies. Examples of appropriate and inappropriate behaviour are included. It applies to all staff and students when on campus, on placement, study visits or in other circumstances where the interests of the University are affected. Principles The following four principles form the foundations of acceptable conduct: respect and courtesy; professionalism; self control; community. Set out below are explanations of the principles together with examples of appropriate and inappropriate conduct in each case. Some circumstances are covered by more than one principle. RESPECT AND COURTESY Exercise consideration for others: be polite and courteous, and act towards others and their property as you would want them to act towards you and your property. Examples of appropriate conduct are: • Switching mobile phones off or to silent mode in quiet areas and appropriate use of same in lectures, seminars and meetings. • Keeping conversation at a low level in corridors adjacent to lecture rooms. • Holding open a door for someone who has a lot of files or bags. • Taking turns to comment during a group discussion or meeting. Examples of inappropriate conduct are: • Drinking, smoking and rowdiness in public areas of the campus. • Carving into or writing on desks in lecture rooms. • Sexual, racial or any other form of harassment or bullying. • Having private discussions with colleagues in meetings, lectures or tutorials whilst someone else has the floor.

1


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________ PROFESSIONALISM Be accountable for your actions, reliable in your dealing with others and apply ethical standards to your work and behaviour having regard to the standards of your (intended) profession. Examples of appropriate conduct are: • Punctuality when attending lectures and meetings. If possible, apologise in advance if you are late or cannot attend. • Where there might be confusion, labelling rubbish to be thrown out to enable cleaners and other support staff to do their job. • When working in a team with other staff or students, doing what you say you will do, when you say you will do it. • Arriving properly prepared for classes or meetings. Examples of inappropriate conduct are: • Plagiarism and other forms of cheating in research, examinations and assessments. • Engaging in any activity which might constitute a criminal offence. • Posting of defamatory or otherwise inappropriate comments on social networking sites or elsewhere. SELF CONTROL Follow established rules and procedures, use language appropriate to the circumstance, and be assertive rather than aggressive when attempting to resolve disputes. Examples of appropriate conduct are: • Complying with a reasonable request to remove your car from a place where it should not be parked. • Use of appropriate language in lectures and presentations (avoiding swearing and potentially abusive terminology) Examples of inappropriate conduct are: • Shouting at or threatening support staff who have wheel clamped your car because it is parked contrary to the University's parking regulations. • Consuming food and drink in areas where it is not permitted. • Spitting in lifts and on mirrors and windows. COMMUNITY Show commitment to the University, its mission and aims and, to that end, adherence to its rules and regulations, contribution to its academic and social life, and protection of its good name. Examples of appropriate conduct are: • Using University property with care and respect. • Respecting the rights of others to freedom of belief or speech. • Being quiet when returning to accommodation late at night. • Acting as an ambassador for the University when on placement or field trips.

2


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________ Examples of inappropriate conduct are: • Misuse, misappropriation, theft or damage to property. • Conduct which constitutes a criminal offence. • Behaviour which brings the University into disrepute. • Disruption of, or improper interference with, the academic administrative, sporting, social or other activities of the University. The above examples are not an exhaustive list but serve as guidance as to behaviour which is acceptable and unacceptable. Those members of the University who display unacceptable or inappropriate behaviour may be subject to disciplinary action under the appropriate disciplinary code.

3


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________

UNIVERSITY OF HUDDERSFIELD PARTNERSHIP STATEMENT This statement sets out the University’s commitments to its students and its expectations from you in return. We aim to provide you with full, accurate and timely information on our courses, facilities and services, and our policies, regulations and procedures in areas such as equal opportunities and diversity, assessment and examination arrangements, complaints, health and safety, and the standard of behaviour we expect from you. We will: • help you to gather sufficient information to select your course • reply to all queries patiently, politely and efficiently • operate a fair and timely selection procedure for all applicants • send you clear and unambiguous letters setting out the conditions for admission • invite you, if you have a disability, to visit us to discuss any special facilities that you may need • try to provide an effective and flexible learning experience for you • deliver courses that are well designed, relevant and quality-assured • provide appropriate course materials and learning resources • carry out fair assessment that is quality-assured • provide timely feedback on all coursework and inform you of your progress towards your award • use external examiners to satisfy ourselves of the quality of our awards and the fairness and rigour of our assessment • offer you information on the range of student services intended to support your learning experience, such as welfare, counselling, financial advice, careers advice, recreational facilities, health care, and spiritual and pastoral support services • seek and listen to your comments to improve the courses we deliver • deal with complaints and appeals against results fairly and efficiently, in confidence and without bias • provide opportunities for you to participate or be represented in our decision-making processes. We ask you to make yourself aware of relevant details of our courses, facilities and services, and observe our policies, regulations and procedures in areas such as equal opportunities and diversity, assessment and examination arrangements, complaints, health and safety, and the standard of behaviour we expect from you. We ask you to: • satisfy yourself that your selected course meets your needs and aspirations, and, if not, to seek advice from your tutors • provide us with accurate information about yourself and, if you have a disability, any special facilities you need to support your studies • keep appointments for interviews and reply to letters promptly • make the most of the learning opportunities offered to you by: o studying diligently and organising yourself effectively o attending classes punctually and regularly 4


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________

• •

o taking part in additional activities as required o meeting commitments and deadlines o contributing actively to tutorials, seminars, practicals and fieldwork , and always producing your best work o submitting assignments (which must be your own work) on time o entering for and attending the relevant examinations o informing tutors immediately if you are experiencing difficulties so that we can offer you advice o acting on feedback given by tutors make the most of the opportunities that exist for you: o to become involved in the University decision-making processes o to take an interest in the affairs of the Students’ Union o to offer feedback on your learning experience o to make use of the range of support services and staff available to you, should you encounter problems or difficulties treat all your fellow students and members of staff with mutual respect be an ambassador for the University.

5


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________

SECTION 1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1.

ENROLMENT Students are not entitled to receive tuition or to use the University’s facilities until they have completed the enrolment procedure and have been issued by the Admissions and Records office with a student campus card. The campus card is issued for the duration of a student’s course or course and will be revalidated annually. A fee is charged for the replacement of lost cards.

1.2

RE-REGISTRATION Students are required to re-register for the next stage of their course on an annual basis. Normally this is completed via the internet and can be done on- or offcampus during a limited period. Exceptions may apply to non-standard year courses. Students are not entitled to receive tuition or to use the University’s facilities until they have completed the re-registration procedure.

1.3

LATE ENROLMENT PENALTY A late enrolment penalty applies to students who fail to enrol/re-register during the official enrolment/re-registration period. It removes all access rights to the University IT Systems. This includes access to Blackboard, the University network and e-mail accounts.

2.

PAYMENT OF TUITION FEES Tuition fees are due at the time of enrolment. Students either pay the fees themselves or must provide the Student Finance Office with evidence that their fees (in part or in full) will be paid by a sponsor recognised by the University as reliable (for example, the Student Loan Company, an employer, or an overseas government). The University also has in place facilities for payment by selected instalments and by direct debit. Details of these facilities are available from the Student Finance Office, Level 8, Central Services Building.

3.

ATTENDANCE Students are required to observe the University’s attendance policy (Appendix 2) and to attend the classes associated with their course and to produce work which is set by the stated deadlines. Failure to do so may result in exclusion from the University.

4.

NOTIFICATION OF ABSENCE Students must keep their course or course tutor informed of the reason for any significant absence and, in the case of sickness, will normally be required to provide supporting evidence. In the case of students in receipt of an award from a local education authority the University is obliged to advise the authority of any absence 6


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________ exceeding 28 days, whatever the cause, and this will normally result in either withdrawal of, or an adjustment to, the maintenance grant. In the case of International students the University is obliged to advise the Immigration authority of any absence exceeding ten contacts; this can be attendance at lectures, tutorials, hand in of coursework, attendance at examinations, meetings with personal tutors or research supervisors. 5.

CHANGE OF ADDRESS Students should advise either the School Office or the Admissions and Records Office, Student Centre, Level 4, Central Services Building of any change in either their term time or their permanent address. Alternatively students can up-date their personal details electronically via the My Details web-site, www.hud.ac.uk/mydetails and advise the School office that they have made the change via the web. Students should not use the University’s address to receive mail on their behalf.

6.

CHANGE OF NAME It is the student’s responsibility to ensure that their correct name has been recorded on the University ASIS database. Students should advise either the School Office or the Admissions and Records Office, of any change in name and must provide documentary evidence as soon as possible following the name change. No award certificates will be re-issued in a different name to that recorded at the Course Assessment Board and on ASIS, the University Student Information System.

7.

CHANGE OF COURSE Students must inform the Admissions and Records Office of any change in the course or course on which they are enrolled. Students in receipt of a mandatory award are strongly advised not to make any such change without first consulting their local education authority about its willingness to transfer the award.

8.

SUSPENDING STUDY Students suspending their studies must consult with their year tutor, advise the Admissions and Records Office in writing and return their student campus card. Students in receipt of a mandatory award are strongly advised not to make any such change without first consulting their local education authority about its willingness to resume the award at a later date. Students must advise their course leader and the Admissions and Records Office of their intention to re-commence study no later than three months prior to the start of the academic year.

9.

TERMINATION OF REGISTRATION Students who for any reason decide to terminate their registration before the end of the academic session must give prior written notice either to the School Office or to the Admissions and Records Office and must return their student campus card. Students are not allowed to withdraw or suspend their studies following the last Friday of revision week. 7


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________ 10.

STUDENT EMAIL ADDRESS Following enrolment students will receive a University email account. The username will be their enrolment number preceded by the letter ‘U’. The password will be set to the student’s date of birth and MUST be changed to a new password. Do not share your password with any student or member of staff.

11.

CORRESPONDENCE VIA EMAIL WITH STUDENTS It is the student’s responsibility to ensure his/her student email account is checked regularly. The University will not forward correspondence to any other external email account. Computing and Library Services provide guidance on how to forward your University email account to your preferred external email account.

12.

SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS

12.1

Students who do not comply with the University’s terms or requests for payment reminders from Financial Services or an agreed payment plan will have their access to Computing and Library Services denied until such time as their payments are brought up to date. This sanction will be repeated in cases of default against payment arrangements.

12.2

Students are expected to pay any accounts presented to them by the University promptly. Students who are experiencing serious financial difficulties should discuss their circumstances with a member of the staff of the Student Finance Office (level 8, Central Services Building) as soon as possible in order that a payment schedule can be agreed. Upon production of written supporting evidence a plan may be extended through to April only, (for previous September enrolments). In cases where accounts are outstanding as at the 31st March, the Student Finance Office will advise the appropriate Dean of School who will then advise the student that s/he will be withdrawn from the course. The University shall also refuse re-enrolment in a subsequent academic year, withhold certificates, written confirmation of awards and not allow students to attend graduation ceremonies. A student with an outstanding debt to the University may be placed in the hands of an external debt collection agency at the discretion of Financial Services.

12.3

The procedures above apply to outstanding accounts for which the student is personally liable. The procedures do not apply where an organisation such as the Student Loan Company is clearly responsible for settling the outstanding account. However, the procedures do apply where a student with an outstanding account claims his/her sponsor as detailed in paragraph 2 of Section 1 has initially agreed to pay but subsequently reneged on that agreement even though the student claims otherwise. This includes the Student Loan Company who will not pay for a student.

12.4

For those students who have outstanding accounts and no formally agreed payment schedule, the Student Finance Office will periodically produce a list of such students for distribution to Schools, Admissions and Records Office and Registry.

8


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________ 12.5

12.6

Schools will ensure that: i)

Deans exclude all student debtors following 31 March of each academic year.

ii)

Assessment Boards process and release the results of all students.

iii)

For continuing students, re-registration of students on the list published by the Student Finance Office detailed in 4 above will not be permitted without notification from the Student Finance Office until that an outstanding account is cleared.

iv)

For graduating students, invitations to the Awards Ceremony, and confirmation of award will not be permitted from students on the list published by the Student Finance Office detailed in 4 above without notification from the Student Finance Office that an outstanding account is cleared.

The Admissions and Records office will ensure that: i)

All personnel involved with the University’s enrolment process will be advised of the eligibility of continuing students with outstanding accounts to enrol.

ii)

Students with outstanding accounts are not re-enrolled in the subsequent academic year.

iii)

Students who have not paid at least 50% of their tuition fees will not be issued with visa renewal letters.

12.7 Registry will ensure that:

13

i)

Award certificates and transcripts are withheld from students with outstanding accounts;

ii)

Students with outstanding debts to the University will not be invited to the University Awards ceremonies.

RESIT TUITION FEE CHARGES All students that have to resit modules as part of their course will be charged the appropriate module fee. If a full-time student needs to resit the full academic year the full-time tuition fee will be charged.

9


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________ 14

REFUNDS Students who are required to pay tuition fees and withdraw from their studies during the year will be charged a proportion of the fee for their course as set out below assuming a start date of September each year. For starters at other times of the year the fee will be adjusted accordingly. 14.1

For Home and EU students leaving in: October November December January February March April May June July

14.2

15.

-

no fee 25% of fee 50% of fee 75% of fee 100% of fee 100% of fee 100% of fee 100% of fee 100% of fee 100% of fee

For International students who have paid a non-refundable deposit and leaving before January the non-refundable deposit will be lost. For students leaving in or after January the above tariff will apply.

SAFETY Under the Acts governing health and safety at work the University has a duty to provide, as far as is reasonably practical, a safe environment for students. The University expects students to co-operate by taking proper care for the health and safety of themselves and others. Students should expect to be instructed in safe practices and procedures and will be expected to follow instructions.

16.

SMOKING Smoking is confined to specifically designated areas within the University’s social and communal facilities. It is not permitted, for example, in classrooms, in circulation areas, in corridors, in lifts, or in toilets.

17.

PARKING Except in cases of disability there is no provision for the parking of students’ cars on the Queensgate campus. Disabled students wishing to apply for a parking permit must complete an application form available from Student Services, Level 4, Student Centre, Central Services Building.

18.

USE OF MOBILE PHONES The use of mobile phones in all classes and examinations is banned.

10


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________ 19.

CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING ISSUES CONTAINED WITHIN THIS HANDBOOK All correspondence to the office of the Head of Registry regarding issues contained within the Students’ Handbook of Regulations must be made formally in writing and this does not include via email.

20.

CODE OF PRACTICE UNDER THE EDUCATION ACT 1994 Under the Education Act 1994 the University Council is required to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to see that the Students’ Union operate in a fair and democratic manner and is accountable for its finances. In addition to this general obligation, the Act contains a number of specific requirements dealing with, for example, the rights of students not to be members of the Students’ Union, the conduct of Union elections, the conduct of the Union’s financial affairs and affiliation to external organisations. There is also a requirement for a complaints procedure available to all students who are dissatisfied with their dealings with the Students’ Union. The University and the Students’ Union have agreed a Code of Practice (as required by the Education Act 1994) which sets out in detail how the requirements of the Act are complied with. Copies of this Code of Practice may be obtained free of charge from the Head of Registry’s office.

22.

FORCE MAJEURE The University will use reasonable endeavours to provide enrolments, tuition, assessment and examinations, confirmation of results and graduation in accordance with the University’s Academic Administration Timetable but accepts no liability if it cannot adhere to these timescales due to circumstances beyond its reasonable control. These may include, but are not limited to: damage to the structure of University buildings, failure of computing systems, illness of epidemic proportions, industrial action of academic or support staffs. The University will, in the event of the above, use its reasonable endeavours to reschedule and/or make reasonable alternative arrangements.

11


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________ SECTION 2 DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998 1

The University needs to process data about you that relates to your being a student of the University subject to its regulations, policies and procedures. For example, the University will create and maintain your student record which includes data concerning your basic biographical details, admission to the University, your course of study and your academic results. Such processing will be in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 (full text at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980029.htm) and with the University’s Data Protection Policy. The Act concerns the processing of personal data and sensitive personal data relating to individuals, including the holding, use and disclosure of such information. The University complies with those provisions to ensure that data about you is processed fairly, and a description of the types of processing it undertakes can be found by searching the public register of data controllers available from http://www.ico.gov.uk/tools_and_resources/register_of_datacontrollers.aspx..

2

The processing of some data is required so that the University can fulfil its obligations to third parties such as the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and student loan companies, together with other relevant bodies or individuals.

3

The processing of some data may be undertaken on the University’s behalf by an organisation contracted for that purpose. Such organisations will be bound by an obligation to process data in accordance with the Data Protection Act and any specific contractual arrangements with the University. The minimum personal information necessary for the fulfilling of that contract will be passed on. These organisations include: i)

for students studying at partner institutions, the partner institution itself;

ii)

Turnitin UK, the JISC-funded plagiarism detection service. As part of the University’s participation in the Service, it is necessary for the personal data relating to students who submit work to the Service to be disclosed to the service provider iParadigms and transferred to countries not governed by EU Data Protection legislation. iParadigms is bound by terms of contract to abide at all times by the Data Protection Act 1998. Information for students about the service is available from http://www.jiscpas.ac.uk/documents/tipsheetsv2/TipSheet1.pdf

iii)

Northumbria University (on behalf of the NorMAN Consortium), for the provision of round the clock IT support;

iv)

the organisation that has been contracted to carry out the National Student Survey. That organisation will use your details only for that purpose, and will then delete them. About six months after you 12


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________ graduate, we will contact you to ask you to fill in the HESA ‘Destination of Leavers from HE’ survey. We will not give your contact details to HESA. You might be included in a sample of leavers who are surveyed again a few years after they graduate. If so, we will pass your contact details to the organisation that has been contracted to carry out that survey. That organisation will use your details only for that purpose, and will then delete them. (If you do not want to take part in this second survey, please let us know.) 4.

The University protects the information it has about students and the standard response to enquiries about individuals is that information cannot be disclosed to other organisations without the student’s consent, except to: i)

University staff who need the information for administrative, teaching assessment, recruitment, marketing or quality assurance purposes and/or other bodies contracted by the University for this purpose eg. Study Group International;

ii)

the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), as required by statute. This forms your HESA record, which contains details of your ethnic group and any disabilities you have. HESA will pass your HESA record to other related organisations such as DIUS and the TDA; they use the information mainly to produce statistics. This may result in information being published and released to other approved users, including academic researchers and commercial organisations. Your record will not be used in a way that could affect you personally and the organisations will take precautions to reduce the risk of you being identified from the information once it is published and released. HESA publishes up-to-date information about its use of student data at http://www.hesa.ac.uk/collection-notices.

iii)

validating and professional bodies in connection with registration and awards;

iv)

other Higher Education Institutions or government agencies for the verification of your personal data held by the University;

v)

the University’s insurers and legal advisers;

vi)

Local Education Authorities and the Student Loan Company in connection with grants, fees and student loans;

vii)

the emergency services, in emergencies and subject to certain conditions;

viii)

the Police, subject to certain conditions;

ix)

the Benefits Agency as required by the Social Security Administration Act 1992;

x)

the UK Border Agency;

xi)

the relevant local authority in relation to the collection of Council Tax; 13


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________

and additionally, in the case of specific information on a student’s progress, attendance or achievement, only in the following cases:

5.

i)

for teaching, examination or assessment purposes;

ii)

in confidential references in connection with applications for employment or further education;

iii)

in confidential references in connection with current employers;

iv)

to LEAs and the Student Loan Company in connection with grants and fees;

v)

to sponsors where this is a condition of sponsorship to which you have agreed.

Also, from time to time, limited information is given to the following bodies for educational or other beneficial services where you have opted-in: i)

the University’s Students’ Union (basic contact information to enable the Union to provide students with information about its services and where you have given permission for this);

ii)

Graduate prospects (basic information to enable access to the university’s jobShop vacancies, where you have given permission for this);

iii)

Previous school or college (information relating to your final award, where you have given permission for this);

iv)

the University’s text-messaging alerts service provider (basic information to enable SMS alerts to be sent to you concerning your course, where you have given permission for this);

v)

Health centre (changes of address, where you have requested this).

6.

Our policy regarding confidentiality applies equally to enquiries from parents and other third parties. However should you incur any debt (tax-related or not) while registered as a student at the University, it is likely the University will comply with external requests to disclose personal information about you in relation to the collection of the debt.

7.

In order to help us maintain our records, students must: i)

provide accurate information at enrolment;

ii)

inform the University promptly of any changes affecting its records (eg. name/address) and keep personal information up-to-date via My Details;

iii)

inform the University promptly in writing if they intend to withdraw from study, whether temporarily or permanently. 14


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________ 8.

Students have the right to access the information the University holds on them. Any person who wishes to exercise this right should complete a subject access request form which is available from the University’s Records Manager (details below), the University will make an administration charge of £10 on each occasion that access is requested.

9.

Any queries in the first instance should be addressed to the University’s Records Manager: Mrs M Sarah Wickham, University Records Manager University of Huddersfield HD1 3DH Tel: 01484 473 935 foi@hud.ac.uk The University Secretary has overall responsibility for data protection. Mr Tony Mears, University Secretary University of Huddersfield HD1 3DH Tel: 01484 473000

15


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________ SECTION 4 Assessment Regulation 9:

Research misconduct for candidates registered on an approved course of supervised research

9.1.

Research misconduct involving plagiarism, piracy or falsifying results is a form of dishonesty which is viewed by the University as a serious offence. The University’s Regulations for Awards contain provisions, in section F2.9, under which the University’s Research Committee may penalise candidates who are found to have dishonestly obtained work for assessment. The purpose of this section is to explain what research misconduct is, to describe the procedures which will be followed when it is suspected, and to indicate the penalties which are likely to be imposed when it is detected.

9.2.

Common forms of misconduct are piracy, plagiarism and fraud. a)

Piracy is the deliberate exploitation of ideas from others without acknowledgement.

b)

Plagiarism is the copying of ideas, data or text without permission or acknowledgement.

c)

Fraud involves deliberate deception including the invention of data and the omission from analysis, and non-publication of inconvenient data.

9.3.

Where a supervisor or an examiner (internal or external) suspects that research misconduct has occurred, the Dean of the School (or nominated deputy) will interview the candidate concerned and will establish whether or not the accusation is contested. The supervisor(s) and/or examiner(s) may also be asked to take part in the interview. If all parties agree that misconduct has taken place, a report will be prepared by the Dean (or nominated deputy) for consideration by the University’s Research Committee. The report will be signed by all parties.

9.4.

If the candidate concerned disputes the allegation, a full report will be made to the Head of Registry and a formal Academic Misconduct Committee will be convened in accordance with the procedure referred to below. The candidate’s performance will not be considered further until the Academic Misconduct Committee has completed its investigations.

9.5.

Where it has been found that research misconduct has been committed, the University’s Research Committee shall determine whether or not the candidate shall be permitted to continue, submit or be re-examined. In the latter case the candidate shall submit for re-examination within the period of one calendar year from the date of the latest part of the examination.

9.6

Action following a report to the Head of Registry of suspected dishonest behaviour by a student registered on an approved course of supervised research 9.6.1 If the Head of Registry receives a report of suspected dishonest behaviour by a candidate, a meeting of an Academic Misconduct Committee shall be 16


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________ convened, as soon as possible, to consider the case. The Academic Misconduct Committee will consist of the following persons: • Two members of the Senate with no direct involvement in the assessment in question, • One member of the relevant School’s Research Committee with no direct involvement in the assessment in question, • The Head of Registry (or nominated deputy), • The President of the Students’ Union, or a deputy. 9.6.2 The Head of Registry will inform the candidate of the action taken and will supply to the candidate a copy of the report. 9.6.3 The Academic Misconduct Committee shall consider the report and take evidence as necessary from those involved. The candidate shall have the right to appear before the Committee in person to present his/her evidence and to be accompanied by a friend when doing so. 9.6.4 Where it is established that a candidate has cheated or has otherwise sought to gain an unfair advantage, a report to that effect shall be made to the University’s Research Committee. 9.6.5 The student’s performance will not be considered further until the Academic Misconduct Committee has completed its investigations. 9.6.6 The University’s Research Committee shall then consider the matter and shall determine whether or not the candidate should be allowed to be reassessed. 9.6.7 The candidate shall be informed of the decision of the Academic Misconduct Committee and shall have a right of appeal against that decision. Note: This regulation will apply to the research element only of an integrated course and should be read in conjunction with the above regulations on research misconduct. For those candidates following a taught element of an integrated course of work, Assessment Regulations 3 and 4 will apply.

17


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________ SECTION 4 Students are advised to seek impartial help, advice, guidance and support from sabbatical officers in the Students’ Union. Assessment Regulation 10: Appeal against the recommendation of examiner (students on approved courses of supervised research) 10.1

Candidates may in the circumstances set out below request a review of the examiners’ recommendation, whether at the first examination or on re-examination. 10.1.1 An ‘appeal’ is defined as a request for a review of the recommendation of the examiners, whether at the first examination or on the re-examination. Such an appeal will always be concerned with the conduct of the examination or with the personal circumstances of the candidate. Grounds for an appeal

10.2

An appeal may only be made in relation to the decision made on the recommendation of the examiners. Given the existence of procedures for complaint during the study period, alleged inadequacy of supervisory or other arrangements during the period of study do not constitute grounds for requesting a review of the examination decision.

10.3

An appeal is permitted only on the following grounds: a)

that there are circumstances affecting the candidate’s performance of which the examiners were not aware at the oral examination;

b)

that there is evidence of procedural irregularity in the conduct of the examination (including administrative error) of such a nature as to cause doubt as to whether the result might have been different had there not been any irregularity;

c)

that there is evidence of unfair or improper assessment on the part of one or more of the examiners. Candidates may not otherwise challenge the academic judgement of the examiners.

Procedure for dealing with an appeal 10.4

A notice for an appeal against the recommendation of the examiners shall be made in writing to the Head of Registry’s office as soon as possible and normally not later than one month from the date of notification of the outcome. The candidate must submit the detailed written case for the appeal within a further three months from the date of giving notice.

10.5

The appeal will be considered by a panel convened by the Head of Registry. The panel will consist of three persons having experience of supervising and examining research degrees and who have had no previous involvement in the case nor be 18


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________ drawn from the School in which the candidate is based. No student or research degree candidate may be a member of a Research Degree Appeal Panel. 10.6

The Head of Registry or a nominated deputy shall act as secretary and convenor of the Research Degree Appeal Panel, but shall not be a member.

10.7

The Research Degree Appeal Panel shall normally hold its first meeting within one month of the submission by the candidate of the written case for the appeal. Its meetings shall be held in private and its proceedings shall be confidential.

10.8

The candidate may, if he/she wishes, present his/her case to the Panel in person and has the right to be accompanied by a friend when presenting the case to the Panel. Notification of the date of the Panel will be forwarded to the candidate at least ten working days in advance of the meeting.

10.9

The meeting of the Panel may be postponed for no more than ten working days, if the candidate who has made the appeal can show good reason for not being able to attend at the originally specified time. However, the failure or inability of the candidate to attend the meeting of the Panel will not preclude the Panel from reaching a decision.

10.10 If a Panel agrees that a candidate has valid grounds for appeal, it must either: a)

recommend that the examiners be invited to reconsider their decision; or

b)

recommend that new examiners be appointed.

10.11 A Research Degree Appeal Panel is not constituted as an examination board and has no authority to set aside the decision of examiners and thereby to recommend the award of the degree. 10.12 The Panel shall have the powers to disallow an appeal and in such cases its decision shall be final, with the following proviso that the Senate may hear complaints of improper conduct against the Panel or require in exceptional circumstances, the Panel to be reconvened. 10.13 All decisions of the Panel shall be made by a majority vote of the members. 10.14 The Panel shall submit a written report of its conclusions within ten working days of its final meeting to the candidate, the examiners, the candidate’s Director of Studies and the Chair of the University Research Committee. 10.15 The University will meet reasonable and proportionate incidental expenses (for example, travel within the UK, subsistence and essential accommodation) necessarily incurred by successful appellants as a result of attending a Research Degree Appeal Panel. The University will not meet any legal expenses. 10.16 The Head of Registry will prepare an annual statistical report on complaints and appeals for the University’s Teaching and Learning Committee and Research Committee. This report will identify any issues which need prompt attention. 19


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________

SECTION 6 THE SUSPENSION AND EXPULSION OF STUDENTS FROM THE UNIVERSITY ON ACADEMIC GROUNDS 1.

INTRODUCTION

1.1

Action to suspend or expel a student for an unsatisfactory standard of work or other academic reason can be taken either during an academic year or at the end of a year following the publication of examination results. The decision by an Assessment Board that a student has failed a year of a course does not constitute expulsion. Expulsion only occurs where a student is subsequently denied the opportunity to retrieve that failure.

2.

DECISION TO SUSPEND OR EXPEL

2.1

The power to suspend or expel a student on academic grounds rests with the Dean of School, though the decision may be delegated to the chair of a course or course committee, or a course tutor. A recommendation by an assessment board that a student should not be allowed to repeat a year of a course does not constitute a decision and cannot, therefore, be the subject of review under Assessment Regulation 7 of the University’s assessment regulations. It is for the Dean to decide whether or not to accept the recommendation.

2.2

Where the decision is taken by a person other than the Dean the student concerned has the right to ask the Dean to change or confirm the decision. The Dean must respond to such a request.

3.

APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION TO SUSPEND OR EXPEL

3.1

A student has the right to appeal against a decision to suspend or expel taken by a Dean. Notice of appeal must be sent to the Head of Registry and, except for good reason, must be lodged within ten working days of the Dean’s decision. It must state the general grounds on which the decision is being contested.

3.2

Requests will only be considered in the following circumstances: 1

Your performance in your assessed work or examinations was adversely affected by illness or other factors which you were unable or, for valid reasons, unwilling to divulge before the assessment board reached its decision. The original circumstances and the reason for their late submission must be supported by medical certificates or other independent evidence.

2

You can produce evidence demonstrating that there has been an administrative error or other irregularity that has directly affected the mark awarded.

20


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________ You must submit all evidence you are relying upon to support your appeal as this is your final opportunity to request a review of the decision you wish to challenge. There are no other grounds on which you may request a review of the Dean’s decision. 3.3

A request for an appeal of suspension or exclusion from the University shall be made using the appeal form contained within this document and accessible from : www2.hud.ac.uk/regs to the Head of Registry’s office as soon as possible and normally not later than two calendar weeks from the date of the Dean’s letter. Some reasonable delay in lodging a request will be allowed where, for example, the student is involved in either sandwich placement or teaching practice as part of his/her course. The appeal form should give an indication of the nature of and the grounds for the request.

3.4

On receipt of an application for leave to appeal, the Head of Registry or nominated deputy will review the documentation to identify if 3.2.1 or 3.2.2 has occurred and/or is demonstrated within the documentation. If leave to appeal is not granted, the Head of Registry or nominated deputy will write to the student with a full explanation.

3.5

If leave to appeal is granted the Appeals Committee shall comprise three members of the Senate, one of whom will be a student member. No member shall have been directly involved in the assessment under dispute, be a member of the Assessment Board nor be drawn from the School in which the student is based. The chair of the Committee, who may not be a student, shall be chosen by the members of the Committee.

3.6

The Head of Registry or a nominated deputy shall act as secretary and convenor of the Committee, but shall not be a member.

3.7

The Appeals Committee shall normally hold its first meeting within 20 working days of the request being lodged, provided all evidence is presented with the appeal form. Delays in providing evidence may delay a hearing. The Appeals Committee’s meetings shall be held in private and its proceedings shall be confidential.

3.8

The student may, if he/she wishes, present his/her case to the Committee in person and has the right to be accompanied by a friend when presenting the case to the Committee. Representatives from the School will present their case in the presence of the student and supporter. Notification of the date of the Appeals Committee will be forwarded to the student at least five working days in advance of the meeting.

3.9

The meeting of the Appeals Committee may be postponed, for no more than five working days, if the student who has made the appeal can show good reason for not being able to attend at the originally specified time. However, the failure or inability of a student to attend the meeting of the Appeals Committee will not preclude the Committee from reaching a decision.

3.10 The Appeals Committee shall have the powers to disallow a request and in such cases its decision shall be final, with the following provisos: 21


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________

3.10.1 The Senate may hear complaints of improper conduct against the Committee or require in exceptional circumstances, the Committee to be reconvened. 3.10.2 In cases of exclusion the decision of the Appeals Committee cannot prejudice any right of appeal under Article 87. (See regulations governing the suspension and expulsion of students from the University on academic grounds.) 3.11 In cases where an Appeals Committee believes that there is relevant new information which was not available to the Dean when the Decision was taken it may request the Dean to review the decision in the light of such information. In these cases it shall not give directions as to the outcome of the review and the student will have the right to appeal against the new decision. In cases where the request is granted, and in consequence the case is referred back, the Assessment Board shall be informed of the evidence accepted as justification for the review to be carried out and the case should be re-assessed in the light of the new totality of information on the case. 3.12 In its proceedings the Appeals Committee must pay proper deference to the role and the authority of external examiners and to the regulations of external bodies where they are material. 3.13 All decisions of the Appeals Committee shall be made by a majority vote of the members. In the event of the votes being tied the decision shall be in favour of the student and the procedure laid down in paragraph 3.11 shall be followed. 3.14 The Committee shall submit a written report of its conclusions within ten working days of its final meeting to the Chair of the Course Assessment Board and to the student. 3.15 The University will meet reasonable and proportionate incidental expenses (for example, travel within the UK, subsistence and essential accommodation) necessarily incurred by successful appellants as a result of attending an Appeals Committee. The University will not meet any legal expenses. 3.16 The Head of Registry will prepare an annual statistical report on complaints and appeals for the University’s Teaching and Learning Committee and Research Committee as appropriate. This report will identify any issues which need prompt attention. Note: This should be read in conjunction with E3.7 of the Regulations for Awards, September 2009.

22


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________ SECTION 7 STUDENT DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES 1.

INTRODUCTION

1.1

These procedures have been approved by the University Council in accordance with the provisions of the Articles of Government.

1.2

These procedures will be invoked for dealing with formal complaints about those areas of student behaviour that fall outside the scope of other procedures which cover the use of the University’s computing and library facilities and misconduct in assessment and examinations.

1.3

The existence of these procedures is not intended to discourage the practice of dealing with less serious complaints informally.

1.4

The University expects its students to behave responsibly. Actions which constitute improper interference, in the broadest sense, with the proper functioning or activities of the University or with those who work or study in it and actions which otherwise damage the University may be deemed misconduct under this code.

1.5

The following are examples of behaviour that may constitute misconduct, this is not an exhaustive list: 1.

disruption of, or improper interference with, the academic, administrative, sporting, social or other activities of the University, whether on University premises or elsewhere;

2.

improper interference with, the functions, duties or activities of any student or member of staff of the University or of any authorised visitor to the University;

3.

violent, indecent, disorderly, threatening or offensive behaviour whilst on University premises or engaged in any University activity;

4.

fraud, deceit, deception or dishonesty in relation to the University or its staff or in connection with holding any office in the University or in relation to being a student of the University;

5.

breach of professional conduct;

6.

action likely to cause injury or impair safety on University premises;

7.

sexual, homophobic or racial harassment of any student or member of staff of the University or of any authorised visitor to the University;

8.

breach of any University regulations which a student is deemed to have accepted as a condition of enrolment;

23


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________ 9.

damage to, defacement of, or theft of, University property or the property of other members of the University community caused intentionally or recklessly, and misappropriation of such property;

10.

misuse or unauthorised use of University premises or items of property;

11.

conduct which constitutes a criminal offence where that conduct a) b) c) d) e)

1.6

took place on University premises, or affected or concerned other members of the University, or damages the good name of the University, or itself constitutes misconduct within the terms of this Code, or is an offence of dishonesty, where the students holds an office of responsibility in the University;

12.

behaviour which brings the University into disrepute;

13.

failure to disclose name and registration details to an officer or employee of the University in circumstances when it is reasonable to require that such information be given;

14.

failure to comply with a previously-imposed penalty under this Code.

In cases where the alleged misconduct would also constitute an offence under the criminal law if proved in a court of law the following procedures shall apply: 1.

where the offence under the criminal law is considered not to be serious, action under the Code may continue, but such action may be deferred pending any police investigation or prosecution;

2.

in the case of all other offences under the criminal law, no action (other than suspension or exclusion pursuant to 4 below) may be taken under this Code unless the matter has been reported to the police and either prosecuted or a decision not to prosecute has been taken, at which time the Vice-Chancellor may decide whether disciplinary action under this Code should continue or be taken;

3.

where a finding of misconduct is made and the student has already been sentenced by a criminal court in respect of the same facts, the court’s penalty shall be taken into account in determining the penalty under this Code.

1.7

The Vice-Chancellor may delegate his or her powers under this Code to a nominee either generally or in respect of a particular case.

2.

SUBMISSION OF COMPLAINTS OF MISCONDUCT

2.1

Complaints of misconduct either by one student against another or by a member of staff against a student, should wherever possible be dealt with informally by consultation between the persons concerned.

24


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________ 2.2

A formal complaint about behaviour of the kind described in 1.5 above may be made by any member of the University or person(s) responsible for a professional practice placement. The complaint must be made in writing and must be lodged with the Dean of the School which administers the course on which the student who is the subject of the complaint is enrolled.

3.

PROCEDURES FOR DEALING WITH COMPLAINTS OF MISCONDUCT

3.1

The Dean in receipt of a complaint may decide that informal procedures ought to be followed in the first instance and may rule that the complaint be dealt with accordingly. Such a ruling shall not preclude informal action by way of a caution if appropriate.

3.2

In order to establish and record facts: a)

which may be relevant to a decision as to whether or not the formal procedure should be followed; or

b)

which may assist a tribunal convened under paragraphs 3.3 or 3.4;

the Dean may arrange for an investigation to be carried out by a member of staff who has no previous involvement with the case. Where the complaint involves breach of professional conduct, the Dean must ensure that the investigation team includes member(s) with the relevant professional expertise. The results of the investigation will be made available by the Dean to the student who is the subject of the complaint and to the complainant. This will be done, where the formal procedure is to be followed, not later than the date on which notice of the hearing date is given. 3.3

Where the Dean, on the advice of the Head of Registry, considers that, subject to the provisions of 1.6 above, the formal procedure must be followed and that an appropriate sanction, should the complaint be upheld, would be either a formal warning or a suspension of no more than two weeks, or a fine of up to £100 to compensate for damage to, or theft of, property, the complaint will normally be heard by a tribunal consisting of the Dean (chair), the School Administrator (convener) and a sabbatical officer of the Students’ Union. Where the complaint involves breach of professional conduct, the tribunal will also include the University’s Designated Senior Professional in the subject and an external adviser from the appropriate professional area. The Designated Senior Professional is the delegated person who is the official correspondent on matters of professional regulation in Nursing and Midwifery.

3.4

Where the Dean considers that, subject to the provisions of 1.6 above, the formal procedure must be followed and that an appropriate sanction, should the complaint be upheld would be a fine exceeding £100 and/or suspension for more than two weeks, or expulsion, the complaint will be referred at once to the Vice-Chancellor and will be heard by a tribunal consisting of the Vice-Chancellor (Chair) or nominee, the Head of Registry (convener) and a sabbatical officer of the Students’ Union. Where the complaint involves breach of professional conduct, the tribunal will also include the University’s Designated Senior Professional in the subject and an external adviser from the appropriate professional area. The overriding principle to be taken into account by such a tribunal is action by the student which contributes 25


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________ any risk to the service users, other members of the public or service providers, or deemed not ‘fit to practise’. In addition to the above mentioned sanctions should the complaint be upheld, the tribunal may determine that the student be excluded from the professional course but may be allowed to continue as a student at the University on an academic course. 3.5

In determining whether alleged misconduct should be dealt with under the provisions of 1.6 above the Dean may take advice from the University’s Legal Assistant.

3.6

A tribunal convened under either 3.3 or 3.4 above will normally meet within fifteen working days of receipt of the complaint. The student will be supplied with a copy of the complaint and will be entitled to appear before the tribunal accompanied by one other person, who has the right to speak. Notification of the date of the tribunal will be forwarded to the student at least five working days in advance of the meeting.

4.

SUSPENSION AND EXCLUSION PENDING A HEARING

4.1

A student who is the subject of a complaint of misconduct or against whom a criminal charge is pending or who is the subject of police investigation may be suspended or excluded by the Vice-Chancellor or deputy pending the disciplinary hearing or the trial.

4.2

When the Vice-Chancellor has delegated the power under this section, a full report shall be made to the Vice-Chancellor of any suspension or exclusion under this section.

4.3

a)

Suspension involves a total prohibition on attendance at or access to the University and on any participation in University activities; but it may be subject to qualification, such as permission to attend for the purpose of an examination.

b)

Exclusion involves selective restriction on attendance at or access to the University or prohibition on exercising the functions or duties of any office or committee membership in the University, the exact details to be specified in writing.

4.4.

Suspension shall be used only where exclusion from specified activities or facilities would be inadequate.

4.5

An order of suspension or exclusion may include a requirement that the student should have no contact of any kind with a named person or persons.

4.6

Suspension or exclusion pending a hearing shall not be used as a penalty. The power to suspend or exclude under this provision is to protect the members of the University community in general or a particular member or members and the power shall be used only where the Vice-Chancellor is of the opinion that it is urgent and necessary to take such action. Written reasons for the decision shall be recorded and made available to the student.

26


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________ 4.7

No student shall be suspended or excluded unless he or she has been given an opportunity to make representations in person to the Vice-Chancellor. A student who makes representations in person may be accompanied by a friend, who will have the right to speak on the student’s behalf. Where for any reason it appears to the Vice-Chancellor that it is not possible for the student to attend in person, he or she shall be entitled to make written representations.

4.8

In cases of great urgency, the Vice-Chancellor or deputy shall be empowered to suspend a student with immediate effect, provided that the opportunities mentioned in 4.7 above are given and the matter reviewed within five days.

4.9

A decision to suspend, or exclude from academic activities associated with the student’s course of study shall be subject to review, at the request of the student, where it has continued for two weeks. Such a review will not involve a hearing or submissions made in person, but the student shall be entitled to submit written representations. The review will be conducted by the Vice-Chancellor where the decision to suspend or exclude has been made by someone else, and by three members of the University Council (including at least one academic member and one lay member) where the decision has been made by the Vice-Chancellor.

4.10

The Vice-Chancellor or other person who took the original decision shall review the suspension or exclusion every two weeks in the light of any developments and of any representations made by the student or anyone else on his or her behalf.

5.

CONDUCT OF TRIBUNALS

5.1

Unless there is good reason to the contrary the proceedings of a tribunal will be conducted as follows: 1.

the presentation of evidence by the complainant, which may include the calling of witnesses;

2.

the questioning of the complainant and/or the witnesses either by the student who is the subject of the complainant or by the student’s friend;

3.

a presentation by the student who is the subject of the complaint or by the student’s friend, which may include the calling of witnesses.

5.2

Members of the tribunal may ask questions of any person who appears before them at any stage of the proceedings.

5.3

The tribunal will consider the evidence and reach its conclusion in private and will inform the parties of its decision in writing within ten working days.

5.4

A hearing may be postponed, for no more than three working days, if a student who is the subject of a complaint can show good reason for not being able to attend at the time originally specified. However, the failure of a student to attend a hearing will not preclude a tribunal from reaching a decision or from imposing a penalty if it deems fit.

27


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________ 6.

REQUESTS FOR REVIEW OF DECISIONS REACHED BY TRIBUNALS

6.1

A student who has been the subject of a complaint may request a review of a decision reached by the tribunal. Such a request must rest on the grounds either that the hearing was not conducted fairly or that there is new evidence which ought to be taken into account. A request for a review of a decision reached by the tribunal must be made within 10 working days of the tribunal.

6.2

In the case of the tribunal convened under 3.3 above, the request must be addressed to the Head of Registry and in the case of a tribunal convened under 3.4 above, it must be addressed to the Vice-Chancellor. The person to whom the request is addressed will conduct such enquiries as seem appropriate and will determine within ten working days whether the request be upheld. Where a request is upheld, the tribunal will be advised of the grounds on which this has been done and will be required to review its decision.

6.3

Disagreement with the severity of a sanction imposed by a tribunal will not of itself constitute grounds for a review.

28


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________ SECTION 8 STUDENT COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE 1

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1.1

The student complaints procedure enables students to bring matters of concern about their learning experience to the attention of the University, and provides mechanisms through which those concerns may be resolved. The procedure comprises three stages: an informal approach with emphasis on local resolution; a formal procedure incorporating mediation, and an appeal stage.

1.2

The University takes all complaints seriously and has designed this procedure to give an equitable approach to all concerned. If a student wishes to make a complaint, they will: • •

be listened to - the concern, in most instances, being dealt with at an informal level; be encouraged to seek advice from the Students’ Union.

1.3

This procedure takes effect from 1 September 2004 and supersedes all previous procedures.

2

DEFINITION

2.1

A complaint is defined as an oral or written expression of dissatisfaction about an aspect of a service or facility, which is provided to registered students of the University. This procedure applies to undergraduate and postgraduate students, including those registered for research degrees.

3

PRINCIPLES AND SCOPE

3.1

The procedure aims to be simple, clear and fair to all parties involved, with informal resolution an option at any point. From both a student and staff point of view, complaints will be handled sensitively and with due consideration to confidentiality. Any person named in a complaint will be given details of the complaint as soon as is reasonably practicable and will have the right to reply as part of any investigation.

3.2

This complaints procedure is for students enrolled on University courses. Students who have left the University may invoke this procedure within three months following termination of their academic studies . Students studying at teaching institutions away from the University are required to follow that institution’s complaints procedure in the first instance. If issues remain unresolved through these local complaints procedures, then the University's complaints procedure may be invoked though it must be appreciated that the University will not always have the authority to determine matters at partner institutions.

29


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________

3.3 3.4

3.5

A student who wishes to make a complaint must invoke the Informal Stage within one calendar month of the incident which is the cause for complaint. No student bringing a complaint under this procedure, whether successfully or otherwise, will be treated less favourably by the University than if the complaint had not been brought. Likewise, any member of staff mentioned in a complaint will not be treated less favourably by the University than if the complaint had not been brought. If, however, the complaint against a member of staff is upheld, that member may be subject to disciplinary proceedings under University policy. From time to time there will be the need to consider action under two different University procedures. For example, a student might wish to appeal against a charge of plagiarism under the Regulations for Awards and may also make a related complaint that would be considered under this procedure. Rather than delay the plagiarism defence until the complaint has been resolved, it is possible that, with the express agreement of all parties, the two interlinking matters can be considered together by invoking this complaints procedure starting, as usual, with the informal approach under Section 6.2. If, however, the related complaint is considered to be of a serious nature by any of the parties, for example, disciplinary matters which should take precedence, the two actions must be considered separately. Should it not be clear which approach is the best for all parties, the matter should be referred to the Pro Vice-Chancellor for Teaching and Learning, whose decision will be final.

4

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS

4.1

4Anonymous Complaints . 1 With reference to this procedure, such an investigation can only be effected satisfactorily if the investigator is able to collect all the background information. Clearly, this is not possible where the complaint is sent anonymously and so normally such complaints will not be considered.

4.2

4Third Party Complaints . 2 No investigation of a complaint made on behalf of a student will be undertaken. This includes complaints made by the parent or spouse of the student concerned. See also Section 4.5 below.

4.3

4Complaints to the Vice-Chancellor and Other Senior Members of Staff . 3 Should the Vice-Chancellor’s Office or the Office of any Senior Manager receive a complaint, it will be acknowledged and referred to the Head of Registry who will ensure that it enters the procedure at the appropriate point. If no substantive attempt has been made by the complainant to resolve the complaint locally using the informal procedure, the complainant will be advised to take up the issues raised with the Department/member(s) of staff concerned. 30


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________

4.4

Vexatious or Malicious Complaints The University may consider invoking the disciplinary procedures under the Student Handbook of Regulations, Section 9, in those cases where complaints are found to be vexatious or malicious. A vexatious or malicious complaint is defined as a complaint which is trivial or untrue, having been put forward so as to abuse the process of the complaints procedure or, for example, to attempt to defame the name or character of another person. Complaints Made by Students Under the Age of 18

4.5 If a complaint is made under the formal procedure by a student who is under the age of 18, unless it is the student's express wish that this should not be done, the University will notify the parents or guardians of the student in writing, and keep them informed of the progress of the complaint. The University will permit the parents or guardians of the student to act on their behalf during the process, provided the student has confirmed agreement in writing beforehand. 4.6

Complaints Made Against a Specific Member(s) of Staff It has been recognised that members of staff about whom a complaint is made, may be somewhat anxious upon hearing about the complaint whether or not it is justified. It is the University’s duty to ensure that its staff are also treated fairly throughout the process, and to that end: •

• • •

A member of staff has the right to be supported by his/her line manager or a trade union representative throughout the process. If the line manager is also involved in the complaint, then the respective Dean or Director will take the lead in providing that support. Such members of staff will be advised at the outset of any complaint. A member of staff shall have the right to reply to any such complaint at any stage in the process. A member of staff shall have the right of access to any documentary evidence presented as part or in support of any such complaint.

However, if any complaint made against a member of staff under this procedure is of a disciplinary nature or should in the view of the Pro Vice-Chancellor for Teaching and Learning be investigated under the University’s disciplinary procedures then the complaints procedure will be suspended immediately until the disciplinary matter has been concluded. 4.7

Changes to Policies or Procedures The complaints procedure may not be appropriate if the complaint concerns the process or content of an established University policy or procedure relating to an Academic or Service Department. Issues of this nature should instead be channelled through the Dean/Director or Head of the Academic or Service Department or through course, school and University committee structures as appropriate. Students wishing to receive advice on which procedure is appropriate should contact the Head of Registry, Student Services or the Students’ Union. 31


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________ 4.8

Attendance at the Complaint Hearing The Hearing may be postponed for no more than five working days if the student, who has made the complaint, or a member(s) of staff to whom a complaint is directed, can show good reason for not being able to attend at the originally specified time. However, the failure or inability of a student or member(s) of staff to attend the re-arranged meeting will not preclude the panel from reaching a decision.

4.9

Reimbursement of Out of Pocket Expenses If a complaint is upheld, the University will meet reasonable out of pocket expenses within the UK connected with the formal stage of the procedure, on production of receipts; this may include travel and subsistence costs in connection with the student's attendance at a complaint hearing.

4.10

Timing of all Communications To ensure that all complaints are dealt with as promptly as possible, both the University and the complainant will respond to all correspondence within the number of days prescribed within the procedure. The University reserves the right to make reasonable extensions during vacation periods.

5 5.1

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND REVIEW The Head of Registry will oversee the tracking of complaints progressed through the procedure in consultation with Deans and Directors/Heads of Service and will ensure that records show the nature of the complaint, how it was dealt with, the time taken for each part and the outcome. All data held will be monitored in accordance with the University's Equal Opportunities and Diversity Policy and reported on an annual basis to the Teaching and Learning Committee and the Research Committee. This report will identify any issues that need prompt attention.

6

COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE FOR STUDENTS

6.1

The procedure is divided into two parts, an Informal Procedure, which emphasises resolution at the 'local' point where the complaint arose, and a Formal Procedure, which involves the Head of Registry as manager and facilitator of the procedure. The role of the Head of Registry is to ensure that the formal procedure is operated according to these procedures and with regard to the set timescales aimed at resolving complaints within Part I and Part II as quickly as possible.

6.2

Informal Procedure Local Resolution It is anticipated that most complaints can be resolved through informal means. All parties will make strenuous efforts to resolve the complaint at this stage. This being the case, resolution should be sought by the student from within the School or Service in which the complaint arose, by expressing the complaint to the most appropriate member of staff (e.g. the module or course leader) or the Dean/Head of the Academic or Service Department. Persons, whether staff or students, who are the subject of a complaint, will be advised of the details of the complaint as soon as 32


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________ is reasonably practicable. In those departments where a local procedure to deal with complaints exists, that procedure should be followed. A student should normally expect to receive a written or verbal acknowledgement within ten working days and a full response within one calendar month. The University reserves the right to make a reasonable extension during vacation periods. Students are also advised to seek help from the Students’ Union, who have experience of dealing with such matters. 6.3

Formal Procedure Part I 6.3.1 If the response to the complaint is not considered by the student to be satisfactory, he/she may invoke Part I of the formal procedure by completing the Student Complaint Form (attached as Appendix I), and submitting it to the Head of Registry within 10 working days of receipt of a final response to the informal procedure. The form should detail why it is necessary for the issue to be taken to the formal stage and what has been done by the student to make a serious attempt at resolving the matter with the Department. The form of resolution or redress sought should also be clearly indicated. It will be expected by all parties concerned, that the matter will not be taken forward on a formal basis unless there is an indication that at least one meeting has been held with the respective Head of Department. The Head of Registry will acknowledge receipt of the complaint form within five working days. Advice on the completion of the complaint form can also be obtained from the Registry, Student Services or the Students’ Union. 6.3.2 The Head of Registry will attempt resolution at this stage either by correspondence between the parties, negotiation with the Dean, Head of Department or other senior members of staff, or facilitation of a conciliation meeting between the student(s) concerned and the Department/member(s) of staff against whom a complaint is made. The circumstances of the complaint will dictate which of these methods is considered most likely to result in a resolution of the complaint. Should a complaint concern services within the Registry or the work of the Head of Registry, the Pro Vice-Chancellor for Teaching and Learning will assign a senior manager to oversee the formal procedure. 6.3.3 It is anticipated that Part I of the formal procedure would normally be completed, with the outcome in writing from the Head of Registry, within two calendar months of the receipt date of the completed Student Complaint Form. The University reserves the right to make a reasonable extension during vacation periods. The Head of Registry will keep all parties informed of progress and the reason for any delay in proceedings, if applicable. Part II (Appeal Stage) 6.3.4 If the response to the complaint following completion of the Part I procedure is not considered by the student to be satisfactory, he/she may apply to invoke Part II (Appeal Stage) of the formal procedure by a request in writing, within ten working days from the date of the notification of the outcome of the correspondence, negotiation or meeting referred to in Part I. The request 33


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________ should be addressed to the Head of Registry outlining why the outcome of Part I is not satisfactory. Taking into account the substance of the complaint, the previous attempts at resolution and what can be achieved by an appeal, the Pro Vice-Chancellor for Teaching and Learning will then review the case and a decision will be made about the appropriateness of the matter being referred to a complaint hearing. His/her decision will be final. If a complaints hearing is not to be held, the student will be advised in writing within ten working days of the receipt of the appeal request, giving the reason(s) for not taking the matter forward. In complaints where exceptionally it is considered by the Pro Vice-Chancellor for Teaching and Learning that it is appropriate that further effort be made to resolve the matter under Part 1 (for example where weighty and significant new evidence is presented) he/she may refer the case back to the Head of Registry to mediate with all the parties. 6.3.5 Should a complaint hearing be appropriate, it will be chaired by a Dean/Head of Academic Department from outside the student's school, or a Director/Head of Service Department from another service area. A Panel will be convened, consisting of one other member of academic or support staff, drawn from academic or service departments unrelated to the complaint and a representative from the Students’ Union. The Head of Registry or his/her nominee will act as technical adviser and note-taker to the Panel. The Department may be represented by up to two members. Notes for Guidance on the conduct of a complaint hearing are attached as Appendix 2. 6.3.6 The Complaints Panel shall meet, normally within one calendar month (excluding University vacations) of the referral from Part I, and communicate its conclusions to the student and the Department within one calendar month. The Head of Registry will keep all parties informed of progress and will explain reasons for any necessary extension of the timescale, for example, if an adjournment in the proceedings is necessary. The decision of the Complaints Panel is final and not subject to appeal. 7

OUTCOMES OF THE COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE

7.1

On completion of the process, the complainant and any person, whether staff or student, complained against will have the outcomes conveyed to them simultaneously. For the student, the Head of Registry will communicate the response. In the case of an individual member of staff, this will be through their respective Dean/Director. The response will be in a form appropriate to the level of the procedure at which the complaint is dealt with and accordingly a written or verbal acknowledgement will be made within ten working days and a full response within one calendar month. The University reserves the right to make a reasonable extension during vacation periods.

7.2

Should a complaint be upheld, the Chair of the Complaints Panel may make recommendations to the Dean/Head of the Academic or Service Department.

34


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________

7.3

Recommendations may also be made to University committees in respect of quality assurance procedures or policies.

7.4

If a complaint is not upheld, the complainant will be informed in writing with reasons for its rejection. Any conclusions and recommendations on how the matter can be remedied and to prevent such an occurrence in the future will also be communicated in writing by the Head of Registry to the complainant and the Dean/Head of Department.

7.5

A report on each case which comes before the Complaints Panel will be prepared by the Head of Registry for the Pro Vice-Chancellor for Teaching and Learning, to assist in monitoring the effectiveness of the complaints procedure and to identify relevant quality assurance issues. A follow-up after six months will be made by the Head of Registry to verify that any proposed new arrangements have been introduced, a report of which will also be sent to the Pro Vice-Chancellor for Teaching and Learning.

8

INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF STUDENT COMPLAINTS

8.1

The Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) provides an independent scheme for the review of student complaints to current students of the University. If a complaint is not upheld, the complainant can ask the OIA to review the complaint. The OIA will not consider a complaint if: 1. 2. 3. 4.

8.2

it relates to a matter of academic performance the matter is or has been the subject of court proceedings it concerns a student employment matter it relates to an institution which is not a higher education institution.

For further information on the scheme: 1. write to the Head of Registry, CSB Level 9 at the University 2. see Office of the Independent Adjudicator on the Registry website: 3.

http://www.hud.ac.uk/registry see the OIA website on www.oiahe.org.uk

9

TRAINING AND AWARENESS

9.1

The Registry and Student Services will organise activities to raise awareness of the complaints procedure and how it is to be used amongst the student body. The Head of Registry will also provide support and guidance for departments in handling complaints and resolving them as closely as possible to their point of origin.

9.2

This policy will be reviewed on a regular basis.

35


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________

STUDENT COMPLAINT FORM FORMAL PROCEDURE PART I COMPLAINT PROCEDURE FOR STUDENTS This form is to be completed under Part I of the formal procedure and should be sent to the Head of Registry. Advice on completion of the form can also be obtained from Student Services and the Students’ Union. COMPLETE IN BLOCK CAPITALS OR TYPE Personal Details Full Name:……………………………………………Enrolment No:…………………………. Course and year: ………………………………………………………………………………… Address for correspondence in connection with the complaint: …………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… Postcode:…………………… Telephone/Mobile number:………………...……………… Outline of complaint, including dates of actions (please use additional sheets if necessary):

36


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________ Please explain here what steps you have taken, together with dates, to resolve your complaint locally (as per the informal procedure):

Please explain why you are unsatisfied with the response you have received:

Please indicate what outcome or further action you are expecting:

As part of the investigation of your complaint, any members of staff mentioned, for example, the course team will be made aware of the complaint, as will the Dean/Head of the Academic or Service Department involved. Declaration I declare that the information given in this form is true, and that I would be willing to answer further questions relating to it if necessary.

Signed:…………………..……………………… Date:…………………………………. 37


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________ Notes for Guidance on the Conduct of a Complaint Hearing (to be provided to all parties) 1.

Purpose

1.1

The purpose of the Complaint Hearing shall be to hear both the complaint and the response. Taking into account previous attempts to resolve issues and satisfy the student, the Panel shall determine whether the student's complaint is justified and whether the Department/member(s) of staff has provided a reasonable response or resolution.

2.

Process

2.1

A Complaint Hearing may be convened by the Head of Registry following a request in writing by the student who has brought the complaint, as Part II of the formal element of the complaints procedure. See also Section 6.3.4 of the complaints procedure guidance.

2.2

2.3

Membership of the Panel, which shall be determined by the Head of Registry in consultation with senior colleagues, shall consist of a Dean or Head of Department as Chair, one other member of staff and a representative of the Students’ Union. The Chair and staff members shall be drawn from outside the Department involved in the complaint and may be academic or support staff, depending on the nature of the complaint. The Head of Registry shall act in the capacity of technical adviser and note-taker to the Panel. The Order of Proceedings is as follows: i) ii) iii) iv) v) vi) vii) viii) ix) x)

Introduction of those present – noting that, at the discretion of the Chair of the Panel, not everyone involved in the process need be present for all the time. Outline of the purpose of the complaint hearing Reference to letter and witness statements by complainant and department/member of staff. See also section 3.2 of these notes, should the panel, for example, exceptionally wish to see a witness A4 synopsis summarising the main points of their case distributed by both parties. Complainant presentation Opportunity to question complainant's presentation by Panel and Department/member(s) of staff Department/member(s) of staff presentation Opportunity to question Department/member(s) of staff presentation by Panel and complainant Complainant summing up New evidence is not admissible at this time Department/member(s) of staff summing up New evidence is not admissible at this time

38


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________

3.

Adjournment - Chair and Panel to consider the submission in private Either side may be required to be available to provide further information or clarification of matters to the Panel. Documentation

3.1

The Panel will have access to all previous documentation in connection with the complaint. In addition, the complainant and the Department/member(s) of staff are each asked to produce an A4 synopsis of their case for distribution during the course of the Hearing to the Panel and the other party, together with statements from any witnesses pertinent to the case.

3.2

Witnesses will not normally be required to attend the hearing as their evidence will be considered by way of statement but, from time to time, it may assist the Panel’s understanding of the case if a personal appearance is made. In such circumstances, the panel will direct that a witness or witnesses should appear, or may so direct upon receiving a request from the complainant or the Department/member(s) of staff.

3.3

Other documentary evidence may be tabled at the discretion of the Chair.

4.

Conclusions and Recommendations

4.1

Should the Panel uphold the complaint, it may make any recommendations which it sees fit to the Department.

4.2

Recommendations may also be made to University committees.

4.3

It may be determined that the Department or member(s) of staff has no case to answer and acted reasonably during the earlier part of the complaints procedure.

4.4

Any conclusions and recommendations will be communicated in writing to the complainant and the appropriate Dean/Director simultaneously. In the case of a student, the Head of Registry will communicate the response. Where the complaint involves individual members of staff, the Dean/Director will personally report the findings to those members.

39


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________ SECTION 10 REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE USE OF COMPUTING FACILITIES DEFINITIONS USED IN THESE REGULATIONS University computing facilities means all computer hardware, software, and networks owned or operated by the University. General computing facilities refers to all computer hardware, software, and networks managed by Computing and Library Services. Specific computing facilities refers to computer hardware, software, and networks managed by a school or service. Appropriate authority refers to the Director of Computing and Library Services in respect of the general computing facilities and to the dean of school or head of service in respect of specific computing facilities. A designated delegate is a member of staff deputising in the absence of the appropriate authority or a member of staff whose duties include delegated responsibility for dealing with infringements of the regulations. 1.

THE PURPOSE OF THE REGULATIONS

1.1

This document provides essential information to users of the University computing facilities. After reading it, users should be aware of what does and does not constitute acceptable use. Any user still in doubt regarding the legitimacy of their intended use of the computing facilities must seek further advice before proceeding.

1.2

The regulations are designed to protect users and the University from the consequences of any misuse or illegal activity.

1.3

Students or staff with particular needs in relation to computing facilities – e.g. arising from disability – will be supported where reasonably practicable. Advice on facilities within the Library and Computing Centre is available from the Student IT Support Desk. Advice on more general support open to students with disabilities is available from Student Services. Advice for staff is available from their line manager or from the Office of Health and Safety and Occupational Health.

1.4

Subject to clause 1.5, students must not use any material in their coursework or other assessments which is or reasonably might be considered to be: 1. 2. 3. 4.

1.5

Illegal; Indecent or obscene; Offensive or abusive; and/or Promoting or supporting terrorism.

If students wish to use material detailed in clause 1.4.2 or 1.4.3 above, they must obtain the prior written approval of all necessary bodies and the University.

40


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________ 2.

THE SCOPE OF THE REGULATIONS

2.1

These regulations apply to all users of services provided by, or for which access is facilitated by, the University.

2.2

They also apply to any equipment owned by the University, or equipment for which access has been facilitated by the University.

2.3

The use of systems and services owned by other bodies, access to which has been provided by the University is also covered. In such cases, the regulations of all bodies apply. In the event of a conflict of the regulations, the more restrictive takes precedence.

3.

AUTHORITY TO USE UNIVERSITY COMPUTING FACILITIES

3.1

The use of University computing facilities requires prior authorisation.

3.2

Following enrolment, students are authorised to use systems appropriate to their course of study.

3.3

Automatic authorisation for students is extended to include some specific computing facilities; in other cases it is necessary to obtain authorisation from local system managers.

3.4

Employees are authorised to use systems appropriate to their work.

3.5

The University reserves the right to deny or revoke authorisation to use its computing facilities.

3.6

Persons who are not students or employees of the University may be authorised to use computing facilities at the absolute and sole discretion of the appropriate authority. Those who arrange access on behalf of persons who are not students or employees must ensure that they are made aware of these regulations and that they can be individually identified.

3.7

Except as may be required by law, the University accepts no liability for any direct, indirect or consequential loss, damage, costs or expenses arising from, or relating to, acts or omissions of users, their guests, members of the public or intruders.

4.

ACCESS TO UNIVERSITY COMPUTING FACILITIES

4.1

Access to University computing facilities is by unique username and password. Usernames are issued at the time of authorisation. Passwords are the responsibility of the user and must be kept secret.

4.2

It is an infringement of the regulations to allow another to access the computing facilities using your username or to attempt to access the computing facilities using the username of another. To prevent unauthorised access, users must log out or lock their workstation before leaving any computer unattended. Users are held responsible for all activities which take place under their username.

4.3

Users accessing the computing facilities are deemed to have accepted the regulations.

41


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________ 5.

AVAILABILITY OF FACILITIES AND DATA STORAGE

5.1

Every effort is made to ensure that University computing facilities and related services are available in accordance with times published on notice boards and on web pages. In general, services like e-mail and web access are always available. However, the means of delivery might not be, depending on opening hours and the reliability of hardware and software. Occasionally, computing facilities are unavailable because of system maintenance and upgrades; in such cases users will be informed in advance whenever possible.

5.2

Unless specific arrangements have been made, data is periodically removed under standard procedures carried out by system managers, for example at the end of a University session. Users must make themselves familiar with the arrangements in force regarding any data they store on University computing facilities.

5.3

Except as may be required by law the University accepts no liability for any consequences arising out of the unavailability of its computing facilities and related services, or loss of data, no matter how caused.

6.

LIMITATIONS ON USE

6.1

In general, users must only use the University computing facilities for activities directly related to their course of study or employment at the University. Some use of the facilities for other activities, such as social e-mail and web access, is tolerated at the discretion of the appropriate authority. However, users must not pursue these activities to the disadvantage of other users, or in the case of employees, to the detriment of their work.

6.2

It is an infringement of the regulations to continue to pursue social activities using University computing facilities when asked to stop by a member of staff.

6.3

Users must not undertake activities that will harm the performance or security of University computing facilities.

6.4

University computing facilities must not be used for work not connected with the University or for financial gain unless there is full compliance with the regulations on commercial use.

6.5

No equipment, including wireless networking equipment, may be attached to the University network without the permission of the appropriate authority or designated delegate.

6.6

Servers attached to the network must comply with the Computing and Library Services’ server attachment policy. This policy is published on the Computing and Library Services’ website.

6.7

The appropriate authority reserves the right to disconnect any equipment which infringes the regulations or is deemed to represent a risk to the security of systems or data.

6.8

Any equipment attached to the network must be free from malicious software and in the judgement of the appropriate authority or delegate, be maintained in a secure condition. The Director of Computing and Library Services reserves the right to charge for any configuration or remedial work which is needed. It is a 42


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________ condition of connection or access that the student or employee gives the University permission to access the hardware and software for the purpose of monitoring compliance with these regulations. 6.9

Users may not participate in file sharing networks or peer-to-peer systems without the permission of the appropriate authority.

6.10

Users must at all times abide by the regulations, the codes of conduct, and the government legislation to which the regulations refer.

6.11

Users must abide by any security policies and codes of conduct published from time to time by Computing & Library Services. These include, inter alia, ensuring the physical security of equipment, software and passwords.

7.

COMMERCIAL USE

7.1

Use of the facilities for financial gain is not allowed without prior written permission from the appropriate authority who reserves the right to levy charges in accordance with University policies. The University reserves the right to revoke authority to use the computing facilities for financial gain at any time.

7.2

The licensor’s permission is always required prior to the commercial use of any software supplied under a contract limiting its use to University study, research or administration.

7.3

Those accessing the facilities for financial gain will be invoiced in accordance with arrangements agreed by the appropriate authority. Infringement of the regulations could result in authority to use the computing facilities being withdrawn but the user will remain liable for any charges and additional costs incurred.

7.4

Individuals using University computing facilities for commercial purposes, whether or not permitted by the appropriate authority, do so at their own risk. Except as may be required by law, the University shall not be liable for any direct, indirect or consequential loss, damage, costs or expenses, including those without limitation of loss of profit, arising from such use, no matter how caused.

8.

PERSONAL CONDUCT

8.1

Smoking or eating are not permitted in open-access computing facilities. Users must not cause unnecessary noise or disturbance. Mobile telephone conversations and the use of personal stereos are not allowed in these areas.

8.2

Computing and network equipment, consumables and furniture must be treated with respect. Computers and peripheral equipment such as printers and scanners must not be moved or interfered with in any way beyond the requirements of normal use.

8.3

Users must make fair and equitable use of any shared computing facilities, such as laser printers. On leaving, users should take care to remove all personal property and to dispose of any waste material.

8.4

Rooms must be kept clean and tidy and be maintained in accordance with Health and Safety legislation.

43


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________ 8.5

Users must be prepared to identify themselves to members of staff on duty in order to help protect the integrity of the computing facilities. To this end, students and employees must carry their University campus cards when using the computing facilities.

8.6

Users are required to obey the reasonable and legitimate requests of staff on duty in respect of their general behaviour, their impact on the resources, and in the event of emergency evacuation of the premises. In the event of the continuous sounding of the fire alarm all users must leave the building immediately. Users should be aware of any emergency procedures pertaining to the areas they occupy.

8.7

Users should report the unacceptable behaviour of others, infringement of the regulations, finding of property, potential hazards, and faulty equipment to the staff responsible for the computing facilities being used.

8.8

Users must not use University computing facilities to access or make material of a potentially offensive or illegal nature, such as pornography. Deliberate viewing, printing, making or storing of such material is regarded as a serious infringement of these regulations, and will lead to disciplinary action. See Section 16.

8.9

Users who through the requirements of their employment or study need to access material of a potentially illegal/indecent/obscene/offensive/abusive nature such as pornography or material which could be seen to be promoting or supporting terrorism, should first obtain clearance via their supervisor through the University Teaching and Learning Committee and/or University Research Committee, and then inform Computing and Library Services.

9.

PRIVACY

9.1

Users are required to respect the privacy of other users and must not seek access to private or personal data or stored information for which they have no legitimate authority. Such data encountered accidentally must not be disclosed or made use of in any way.

9.2

Users must not attempt to monitor the University’s networks. Users must not attempt to access data, e-mail messages, software, systems or services beyond the scope of their authorisation. Such attempts, whether successful or not, are regarded as a serious infringement of these regulations. Unauthorised access to computer material or its modification, the introduction of a virus, or the generation of false information are all criminal offences under the Computer Misuse Act 1990.

9.3

For its part, the University respects the privacy of its users and abides by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. This act puts into UK law the statement in the Human Rights Act that any individual has a right to respect for their communications. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and its subsidiary Regulations on Lawful Business Practice set out the conditions under which the privacy of communications on networks may be lawfully breached.

9.4

At the University, there is no routine monitoring of e-mail content or individual web use, although all web activity is logged, and access to sites which are likely to cause a breach of these regulations may be blocked. However, the Director of Computing and Library Services reserves the right to sanction investigation and inspection of electronic communications, under the terms of the Act, particularly 44


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________ where there is suspicion, or there appears to be evidence, of an infringement of the regulations or of illegal activity. 9.5

Except as may be required by law, the University accepts no liability for any consequences whether direct, indirect or consequential, arising from a breach of privacy, no matter how caused and whether or not such breach was within the control of the University.

10.

DATA PROTECTION

10.1. The University is registered under the Data Protection Act 1998 and authorised employees operate and use its administrative systems under the eight Data Protection Principles established by the Act. 10.2

Others must not attempt to access any data concerning identifiable living individuals (personal data) relating to University administration unless specifically authorised to do so in writing by the appropriate authority. All users must restrict the use of such data to the purpose defined. Accessing personal data stored on a computer as a precursor to committing a criminal act is a criminal act in itself.

10.3

No member of the University may create a database or other store of information that contains data about identifiable living individuals unless it is registered under the Data Protection Act. "Users wishing to do so must consult the University’s Records Manager before proceeding. Mrs M. Sarah Wickham, University Records Manager University of Huddersfield HD1 3DH Tel: 01484 473 935 foi@hud.ac.uk The University Secretary has overall responsibility for data protection Mr Tony Mears, University Secretary University of Huddersfield HD1 3DH Tel: 01484 473000

11.

SOFTWARE LICENSING AND RECORDING

11.1

In general, software available on University computing facilities is licensed for academic use only. This description usually includes teaching, research, personal development, and the administration of the University. The licence is likely to specifically exclude commercial exploitation and written permission from the licensor must be obtained prior to use for personal or institutional financial gain.

11.2

In respect of software purchased under a collective purchase agreement scheme, the University is bound by the scheme’s code of conduct. Users must abide by the code when using scheme software and by the terms of specific product licences when using other software. Advice can be obtained from the Purchasing Office in Computing and Library Services.

11.3

Users can be confident that software placed on University open-access computing facilities by system administrators is licensed for their academic use. Users must 45


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________ not place software on University computing facilities unless they can demonstrate that they hold a valid licence and have permission from the appropriate authority. The computing facilities must not be used to hold, transmit, use, modify, decompile, or copy software unless it is permitted under the terms of a valid licence. 11.4

Records of all software purchased must be maintained by the Purchasing Office in Computing and Library Services. Anyone who purchases software from any other source must inform the Purchasing Office of the details.

12.

COPYRIGHT

12.1

Users must comply with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and the Copyright, etc. & Trade Marks (Offences and Enforcement) Act 2002. In general, users must not copy software located on University computing facilities. Except for back-up purposes, copying software for private use without the permission of the copyright holder is a civil offence. Copying software for distribution is a criminal offence. Even free software might have limitations regarding what users are allowed to do and no attempt at copying must take place before the conditions are known, understood and accepted. Advice can be obtained from the Purchasing Office in Computing and Library Services.

12.2

Copyright also applies to many other materials such as photographs, sound recordings, literary works, manuals, and logos. Copyright protection applies no matter in what form the work is held.

12.3

Permission to copy must not be assumed. For example, it is an infringement of the regulations to incorporate the University logo into a user’s own material without express permission being granted in writing from the Head of Public Relations.

12.4

If a user becomes aware of any actual or threatened breach of copyright then the user should notify a member of staff on duty, a help-desk, or appropriate authority.

13.

USING EXTERNAL COMPUTING FACILITIES

13.1

Use of JANET, the UK’s education and research network, and its links to the Internet are regulated by the JANET Acceptable Use Policy. The policy allows activity in furtherance of the aims of the user organisation with specific exceptions relating to the sort of misuse identified in these regulations.

13.2

Users of University computing facilities accessing facilities at other sites must be certain that they are not infringing the regulations of those sites. In addition, users must not indulge in any activity which might bring the University into disrepute.

14.

PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION

14.1

The distribution of information by electronic means is, in law, the publication of that information. It follows that much of the use of University computing facilities, in particular e-mail and web publication, is subject to the laws governing publishing.

14.2

Users must not create, hold, transmit, display or print material that has the potential to contravene any act of law. Guidance on web publishing is covered in the University Information and Communication Policy and Strategy.

46


STUDENTS’ HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS ________________________________________________________________________________ 14.3

In addition, users must take care not to publish any material that might cause offence to the receiver, or to an observer. A deliberate attempt to cause offence or to harass individuals, internal or external to the University, is a serious infringement of the regulations, and will lead to disciplinary action. See Section 16.

15.

USING E-MAIL

15.1

Users must abide by the law and by these regulations when engaged in internal or external e-mail. Having a HUMS address is a privilege akin to using a University letterhead and users must not debase the reputation of the University.

15.2

Chain e-mail and bulk e-mail (spamming) are strictly forbidden. Users must be certain that e-mail has an entirely legitimate purpose and that it will not cause offence or nuisance. Commercial use unrelated to the business of the University is not allowed. Disguising the identity of the sender is a criminal offence. Costs incurred by the University will be recovered from the user responsible. Formal policies relating to the provision and use of University e-mail are set out in the University Information and Communications Policy and Strategy.

16.

INFRINGEMENT OF THE REGULATIONS AND DISCIPLINARY ACTION

16.1

Accidental infringement of the regulations will be treated with tolerance and understanding. However, serious or persistent infringement will result in the appropriate authority withdrawing use of the University computing facilities pending further investigation. Instant withdrawal of the authority to use can be invoked by any member of staff responsible for the computing facilities being used. This must be ratified, or rescinded during the next working day by the appropriate authority, or designated delegate.

16.2

After an initial investigation, which must include an opportunity for the user to make representations, the appropriate authority is empowered to restore user authorisation, or to withdraw it, or to impose new conditions of use more restrictive than the regulations. The period of withdrawal will not exceed two weeks unless formal disciplinary procedures are commenced but new conditions of use could be imposed until the end of an academic session. Furthermore, if the appropriate authority is the Director of Computing and Library Services, a student will be reported to the dean of school and a member of staff will be reported to their line manager via Personnel Services.

16.3

If the alleged infringement is regarded as sufficiently serious, formal University Student or Staff Disciplinary Procedures will be invoked as detailed in the relevant handbooks. If a formal warning is the result, any further infringement may lead to escalation of the disciplinary procedures. If it is considered that a criminal act might have taken place then the police will be notified.

47


Section 11 REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE USE OF THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY SERVICES Introduction It is the aim of these regulations to help all those who use the University library services to fully exploit the resources for teaching, learning and research. These regulations apply to the Library and Computing Centre and the Music Library at Queensgate. They also apply to the Learning Resource Centre at University Centre Barnsley and the Learning Resource Centre at University Centre Oldham, but some local variations may occur. 1.

ACCESS AND MEMBERSHIP

1.1

Access to all library and information services is dependent on compliance with the regulations.

1.2

Membership is open without charge to all staff and students currently employed by, or registered at the University, and to affiliates of the University.

1.3

Borrowing by members of another institution is limited to the terms of a formal agreement with the institution concerned, or the terms of any more general reciprocal borrowing agreement to which Computing and Library Services is a signatory.

1.4

Members of the general public may use the Libraries and Learning Resource Centres for reference purposes, but may not use databases supplied under licence for educational purposes or borrow books, except as permitted under the Public Membership scheme.

2.

OPENING HOURS

2.1

Hours of opening and closing are posted at the entrance to the Libraries and Learning Resource Centres; they are also published on the Computing and Library Services web site and in a printed leaflet.

2.2

The University Archives and Special Collections which are housed within the Library and Computing Centre are available by appointment. Contact details are published on the Computing and Library Services web site and in a printed leaflet.

3.

ARRANGEMENTS FOR BORROWING

3.1

Staff and student members must obtain a University Campus card, which they must carry at all times, and which must be presented in order to gain admission to the Library and Computing Centre. The card must be shown to Computing and Library Services staff if requested. University Campus cards are not transferable and the cardholder is responsible for all items borrowed against the card.

48


3.2

Student members of the University of Huddersfield should notify Computing and Library Services and the Admissions and Records Office of any change of name and/or address.

3.3

Applications for membership from people who are neither staff nor students of the University of Huddersfield must complete a registration form in order to obtain a library card. Such members should notify Computing and Library Services of any change of name and/or address.

3.4

Lost or stolen cards should be reported to Computing and Library Services immediately to prevent fraudulent use. Student members of the University of Huddersfield will be provided with a replacement Campus card by the Admissions and Records Office upon payment of ÂŁ10.00; Staff members will be provided with a replacement card by Computing and Library Services. Other members will be provided with a replacement library card by Computing and Library Services upon payment of ÂŁ10.00.

3.5

The borrowing entitlement varies according to student, postgraduate, research or staff status. The entitlement will be publicised on the Computing and Library Services web site and through other means as appropriate. The borrowing entitlement of Affiliate members, i.e. members who are not students or staff of the University of Huddersfield, varies. New members will informed of their entitlement upon registration.

be

3.6

Items may be renewed for a further period if not required by another reader.

3.7

Student members are required to return all items on loan to them before the end of their course.

3.8

Journals and reference materials may not be borrowed.

3.9

A senior member of Computing and Library Services staff may permit items not otherwise for loan to be borrowed.

3.10 Fines will be charged for late return of all items in accordance with the advertised scale of charges. If despite written requests for its return, an item remains outstanding, the member concerned will, additionally, be required to pay the cost of replacement 3.11 A member shall pay the replacement cost of any item borrowed against his/her card which is lost, stolen (or otherwise irrecoverable) or is damaged. 3.12 Items not accessible from the Library’s own resources may be requested via the Inter-Library Loan service. Handling charges are made for this service and members will also be required to observe the terms and conditions relating to InterLibrary Loans which are outlined in a separate leaflet.

49


4.

CONDUCT, SECURITY AND SAFETY

4.1

Users must act with courtesy and consideration for other users and for Computing and Library Services staff at all times. Computing and Library Services has a policy of Zero Tolerance towards aggressive or anti-social behaviour

4.2

Users must comply with the requirements of the designated areas for silent study and quiet group study.

4.3

All mobile phones must either be switched off or switched to “silent” mode. Conversations on mobile phones may only be held in designated areas; text messaging is permitted throughout the Libraries and Learning Resource Centres.

4.4

The use of personal stereos or similar devices is permissible providing they do not disturb others.

4.5

Smoking is strictly prohibited. The consumption of food and hot drinks is permitted only in the Cyber-café; bottled water may be consumed throughout the Libraries and Learning Resource Centres.

4.6

No book or other item of University property shall be removed from Computing and Library Services without the knowledge and consent of staff designated by the Director of Computing and Library Services. Such staff have the authority to search bags being taken through the exits to satisfy themselves that this rule is being observed. However the right to search will only be invoked if the electronic security system normally used is unavailable or if staff have reasonable grounds to suspect an infringement.

4.7

No book or other item of University property shall be damaged in any way. Users will be required to pay for damage to University property.

4.8

Users must not prejudice the University’s legal obligations, particularly with regard to Copyright (e.g. photocopying), Data Protection (e.g. access to and use of information held in computer storage) and off-air recordings (all off-air broadcasts are to be used for educational purposes only). Users must comply with the directions of staff in these matters and seek their advice when in doubt.

4.9

Members must not divulge any Usernames or Passwords that are assigned to enable access to University computing systems and electronic resources.

4.10 In accordance with the University’s safety policy, all users must co-operate by taking proper care of the health and safety of themselves and others. Occupants must follow any directions of staff in the event of an evacuation or other emergency. Any accident or hazardous situation should be immediately reported to a member of staff. 4.11

Equipment such as laptop computers may be brought into the Libraries and Learning Resource Centres. Users must ensure the laptops are in good working condition, and do not pose any health and safety hazards e.g. through trailing cables. Computing and Library Services staff have the authority to ask users to remove any equipment which may cause a hazard to other users, or which may interfere with the University mains supply or networks. 50


5.

INFRINGEMENT OF REGULATIONS

5.1

In the event of any infringement of these regulations the Director of Computing and Library Services, or other designated member of staff is empowered: a) b) c)

5.2

to require an individual to leave the premises to suspend the borrowing rights of an individual to disable an individual’s computer account

In the event of an infringement by a student, The Director of Computing and Library Services (or nominee) may instigate disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary committee would be chaired by the Director of Computing and Library Services (or nominee) and attended by a representative of the Student’s Union or a friend. The Dean of the appropriate School and the course tutor would be kept informed at each stage of the procedure.

5.3

Alleged infringements of the regulations by a member of the University’s staff or by a member of the general public shall be reported to the Director of Computing and Library Services and may be referred to the Vice-Chancellor.

5.4

Acts of theft or vandalism may be reported to the police.

51


Research and Enterprise

Code of practice for Research Degrees


Code CodeofofPractice Practicefor forPostgraduate Postgraduate Research ResearchDegrees Degrees January 2010 January 2010

University Research Committee


TABLE OF CONTENTS Purpose of the Code of Practice The Research Environment Applications and Admissions Induction and Skills Training 1. Induction 2. Skills Training 3. Personal Development Planning Supervision 1. Introduction 2. Supervisory Teams and Personal Tutors 2.1. Main Supervisor 2.2. Co-supervisor 2.3. Personal Tutor 2.4. Adviser 3. Appointment of Supervisors 3.1. Criteria for the Selection of Supervisors 3.2. Procedure for the Appointment of Supervisors 4. Supervision Responsibilities 4.1. Supervisor’s Statement of Expectations 4.2. Responsibilities of the School Director of Graduate Education 4.3. Responsibilities of the Main Supervisor 4.4. Responsibilities of the Supervisory Team 4.5. Responsibilities of the Personal Tutor 4.6. Responsibilities of the Student 5. Change of Supervisor 6. Supervisory Absence 7. Completion 8. Skills Development for Supervisors Progress and Review Extensions, Suspensions and Withdrawals Research Degree Theses: Format, Submission and Examination 1. General Format 1.1. References 1.2. Page numbering 1.3. List of Contents 1.4. Title Page 1.5. Resubmission 1.6. Multiple volumes 1.7. Copyright Statement 1.8. Optional Pages 2. Submission 3. The Examination 3.1. The Preliminary Examination of the Thesis 3.2. The Oral Examination


3.3. The Final Examination Report 3.4. Referral of a Thesis and Re-examination 3.5. The Recommendation of an Award 3.6. Appeals Against Examination Decisions Complaints, Disciplinary Procedures, Academic Misconduct and Appeals Student Feedback 1. Student Representation 2. Postgraduate Research Experience Survey 3. Student Council 4. SU Mature and Postgraduate Student Officer Annual Evaluation of Research Degrees 1. Responsibility 2. Purpose 3. Timing 4. Report Outline 5. Data


Purpose of the Code of Practice The Code of Practice for Research Degrees sets out the University of Huddersfield's framework in relation to the management and coordination of postgraduate research degrees both full-time and part-time. The University is committed to ensuring the quality of every student's research experience and the Code of Practice defines minimum requirements to ensure high standards of postgraduate research degree activity. The Code of Practice aims to ensure that all research students are effectively supervised and supported to ensure the full potential of their research and to ensure timely completion. The Code of Practice should be read in conjunction with the University of Huddersfield Students’ Handbook of Regulations. This Code is intended for use by academics, administrators and postgraduate research students (PGRs) and is revised on a regular basis in consultation with its users and the University Research Committee (URC). The URC welcomes any suggestions for improvements and amendments to the Code of Practice and these should be referred to the Head of Research and Graduate Education. The University Research Committee is responsible to the Senate for progress towards the strategic objectives and targets set by the University in research and enterprise.

Page | 1


The Research Environment Students will only be offered a place on a research degree where they can be provided with a research environment fully supportive of research achievement. This includes: •

Supervisors with the necessary skills and knowledge to facilitate the successful completion of students’ research programmes.

Access to research groupings and research students in similar or related disciplines.

An active research environment/academic community that enables students to participate in research seminars as both listeners and presenters.

Opportunities to participate in external symposia, conferences and workshops and to publish in journals and respected outlets.

Appropriate access to library and computing facilities which as a minimum will include individual access to a computer with email and internet access and printing facilities.

Access to the facilities and equipment necessary to enable students to complete their research programmes successfully.

Access to a designated work space which will include desk space, an adjustable chair and computing resources for the period of full-time registration.

Access to appropriate skills training, including research and generic skills training, teaching assistant preparation, research methods and information management training.

Access to appropriate advice and support at all stages of the research project including welfare and support facilities that recognise the particular nature of research degree study.

Guidance on the ethical pursuit of research, intellectual property rights and the avoidance of research misconduct.

Opportunities for students to develop peer support networks where issues or problems can be discussed informally. Access to appropriate PGR social space.

Opportunity for effective student representation and for providing feedback and making complaints.

The research environment must be adequate for the conduct of the kind of research in question and capable of supporting the type and range of students being recruited and their changing needs and requirements. The environment should be enabling and instructional, and be conceived of as a place of learning as well as of research productivity. Such an environment will enable research students to make judgements requiring creativity and critical independent thought, accepting that uncertainty is a feature of the conduct of research projects. This environment should enable students to Page | 2


grapple with challenges that develop intellectual maturity and encourage a high level of reflection on the student’s own learning about research as well as on research outcomes.

Page | 3


Applications and Admissions Any publicity materials associated with postgraduate research programmes should be clear, accurate and of sufficient detail to inform student choice. The details must be accurate and provide information on institutional provision and the expectations and demands that will be placed upon the research student. The information should also include the relevant admissions criteria. Schools should ensure that the postgraduate prospectus is sent out with all other publicity material. Admissions staff should be aware of and understand the legal requirements relating to admissions processes and of the need to conform to such legislation. With regard to equal opportunities requirements schools should ensure that: ♦ Appropriate attention is paid to legislation and that both institutional and external guidance is taken into consideration; ♦ An effective support infrastructure is in place for postgraduate research students with special needs; ♦ Students are made aware of opportunities to apply for additional or special funding and how to apply for such funds Admissions decisions should involve at least two members of staff who have received instruction, advice and guidance in respect of selection and admissions procedures. At least two references should be sought which judge the candidate’s suitability for research. For students based overseas, the School must confirm that appropriate arrangements have been identified to ensure compliance with minimum attendance requirements at the University. Admissions staff will need to consider how interviews with applicants might be used as part of the admissions process, including arrangements for assessing the suitability of those based overseas and working at a distance. The International Office has a network of agents with video-conferencing and other I&CT facilities and can help to arrange contact with applicants based overseas. Important factors to be considered are the student’s motivation and potential to complete the programme. Schools should also satisfy themselves that the applicant is appropriately qualified and that all relevant certificates have been seen, that there are proper facilities for the student, and that the enrolment fees can be paid. Candidates whose first language is not English, and who have not been educated in English, should also possess a relevant English Language qualification, which must be of the appropriate standard, i.e., IELTS score of 6 or higher or a TOEFL score of 550 or higher, or equivalent. Advice on how international qualifications relate to those in the UK is available from the UK Government National Agency NARIC. Access to their online database (http://www.naric.org.uk/) is available via the International Office. On the recommendation of the supervisor(s) and the Director of Graduate Education applicants will be made a formal offer of a place as a postgraduate research student by the Research Office. This offer will be sent out on receipt of the fully completed PEF form approved by the Director of Graduate Education. The offer constitutes a contract between the student and the University. The terms of the offer letter are binding on the University and, upon acceptance, on the student. The offer will specify terms and conditions governing entry to and study on the course and will state the expected period of study for which the student will be enrolled, exclusive of any ‘submission pending’ period. The offer will also outline the requirements which the University places upon the research student with regard to Page | 4


progress reports, attendance and contact with supervisors. The offer made will always be subject to satisfactory progress and funding and will specify the total fees, including any other charges (such as bench fees) that will be levied, the title of the project and the names of the supervisors (subject to their availability). If the candidate is to receive funding from the University the letter will state the amount of the bursary, holiday entitlement and the nature, extent and terms of any teaching or demonstrating duties that might be undertaken by the research student and the hours of attendance. If the candidate is to receive funding from an external agency then the letter will state that the student is also bound by the requirements and conditions of the funding body. The University’s policies, practices and requirements with respect to intellectual property rights (including arrangements, where relevant, with external commercial or industrial organisations with their own intellectual property rights arrangements) will be clearly expressed to applicants and any relevant third party. The candidate will be sent details of the enrolment procedures by the Research Office.

Page | 5


Induction and Skills Training 1. INDUCTION All research students are expected to attend the central Postgraduate Researcher Welcome and Induction event in addition to events held at School level. These induction sessions take place following each of the enrolment points (1 October, 2 January, 1 April, 1 July). In addition, central follow-up events take place 3 months later. Research students receive information on the Welcome and Induction event prior to and following enrolment. Directors of Graduate Education are also informed and invited to attend central events. Schools should ensure that students are made aware of relevant Health and Safety issues and School procedures at local induction. 2. SKILLS TRAINING The University is guided by the national skills training agenda and postgraduate researchers at all stages of their registration are provided with opportunities in discipline-specific, generic and transferable skills training. The University of Huddersfield Research Skills Development Programme is designed specifically for postgraduate researchers and the structure and content of the programme is built around Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) and UK Research Council guidelines and recommendations. Full information is available on Blackboard, the university’s virtual learning environment. 3. PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT PLANNING The process of Personal Development Planning (PDP) is introduced at induction and is electronically accessible through the virtual learning environment, Blackboard; all instructions and guidelines for use are also available via this source.

Page | 6


Supervision 1. INTRODUCTION The nature of different disciplines means that supervisory practice will inevitably take a variety of forms in some of its details across the University. Supervision in laboratory based subjects, for example, requires different practices from supervision in other areas; and even in the same school the supervision of a research degree in musical composition will operate differently from the supervision of a research degree in history. Nonetheless, there are essential responsibilities of supervision that must be adhered to across the University. These responsibilities, including those of the student, are detailed in the sections that follow. For the purposes of this policy, the term ‘postgraduate research degrees’ refers to Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), Master of Philosophy (MPhil), Master of Science/Arts by Research, Master of Enterprise (MEnt) and professional doctorates. The University complies with the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education: Section 1: Postgraduate research programmes September 2004. The QAA code can be found at: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/codeOfPractice/section1/default.asp All staff members involved in research degree supervision as a member of a supervisory team or as a personal tutor must ensure that they are familiar with all of the sections that follow so that they clearly understand their responsibilities. All students are made aware of their responsibilities at the beginning of their programme and which are listed below. Where supervisors are not clear about their roles and responsibilities, they should consult the School Director of Graduate Education. 2. SUPERVISORY TEAMS AND PERSONAL TUTORS Wherever possible, this team consists of a main supervisor, who has responsibility for agreeing a suitable plan of research work with the student and overseeing its progress, and one or more academic colleagues who act as co-supervisor(s). All members of the supervisory team will be expected to keep up to date with the progress of the research and to advise the student on academic and other matters. In addition to the supervisory team, the student will have a personal tutor from among the academic staff. The supervisory team should meet with the student at periods throughout the degree. The meetings should be at least twice per year for a full-time student in addition to the regular meetings between the student and the main supervisor. 2.1. Main Supervisor The main supervisor is responsible for the overall management and direction of the student’s research degree in addition to administrative issues relating to the student's progress. Where two members of staff are involved in supervising a research student, it is still essential for one of the supervisors to be appointed main supervisor. This information is recorded on ASIS.

Page | 7


2.2. Co-Supervisor The co-supervisor(s) will normally be appointed to contribute their specific expertise in assisting the main supervisor and may act as a supervisor of sections of work in progress in consultation with the main supervisor. The co- supervisor may be required to offer specialist advice or to provide continuity of supervision when the main supervisor is absent from the University, in addition to providing the student with a second opinion on research matters., The co-supervisor should be knowledgeable in the area of research study, but does not have to have the specific expertise of the main supervisor. The balance of responsibility for the student’s day-to-day supervision should be negotiated between supervisors, in consultation with the student, as the research progresses. 2.3. Personal Tutor The personal tutor should maintain a level of independence from the supervisory team and their main role is to provide pastoral support to the student and to monitor their progress, providing advice accordingly. The personal tutor is responsible for providing additional support to research students beyond that provided by the designated main supervisor and other members of the supervisory team. A PGR personal tutor is appointed in respect of each postgraduate research student on behalf of the Dean of School by the Director of Graduate Education. If the student has any difficulties that he/she would prefer to discuss with someone other than their supervisor, they can approach their personal tutor in the first instance. 2.4. Adviser In some cases it may be appropriate to appoint an adviser, usually external, to cover industrial or clinical aspects of the research degree, or where students are pursuing research which involves collaboration with an external body. The duties of an adviser are complementary to those of the main, university supervisor and should focus on providing critical commentary on planned research and the programme of work completed. The adviser may also enable access to equipment or data resources otherwise inaccessible to the student. 3. APPOINTMENT OF SUPERVISOR 3.1. Criteria for the selection of supervisors The University considers the supervisory process to play a vital role in the quality of education for its research students. Consequently, the University places a high priority on ensuring that supervisors are able to carry out their role effectively and as such, all staff under consideration for appointment as supervisor should fulfil the following criteria: • • •

Main supervisors must have gained a doctoral degree, or have equivalent experience of research or research supervision. Members of staff appointed as a main supervisor should be full-time or parttime, permanent employees of the university. Any member of staff who is currently registered for a research degree of any university should not be appointed as main supervisor but may be appointed as

Page | 8


a member of the supervisory team. A member of staff who is registered for a doctoral level degree may act as main supervisor for a research degree candidate on a master’s level degree. Supervision should be provided by staff who themselves have undertaken research and have a research interest related to that of the student’s proposed research degree. A visiting professor, visiting research fellow or retired member of University staff, may not be appointed as main supervisor but may be appointed as a member of the supervisory team.

3.2. Procedure for the appointment of supervisors The Dean of School is ultimately responsible for overseeing the appointment of supervisor(s) for each research student but the responsibility is usually delegated to the Director of Graduate Education. • •

• •

Supervisors of postgraduate research students are normally assigned to students by the appropriate School at the time an offer of admission is made. Members of staff appointed as main supervisors should expect to be available for the anticipated duration of the research student’s degree. The University/School, however, cannot guarantee continuity with a particular supervisor throughout the full duration of any research degree. The Dean of School is responsible for ensuring that no member of staff supervises more research students than his or her experience and commitments justify. In cases where a supervisor has primary responsibility for a large number of research students, the Dean of School must take care to ensure that such supervision does not have a detrimental effect on the progress of the research student or the overall workload of the supervisor. If the initial allocation of supervisor is later identified as being inappropriate, a change of supervisor is permitted. (See section 5) Appointment as main supervisor will cease if the appointee ceases to hold an appointment at the University. If the main supervisor retires or becomes an honorary member of staff during the period of a student’s research degree, they can, however, continue to undertake a supervisory role as co-supervisor within the supervisory team, but a new main supervisor should be appointed.

4. SUPERVISION RESPONSIBILITIES 4.1. Supervisor’s Statement of Expectations As part of the University’s work towards excellence in postgraduate research and in defining the Huddersfield PGR Experience, all main supervisors are encouraged to produce a statement of expectations which can be provided to students. The purpose of the statement is to provide students with more detailed guidance about what they can expect as a research student, within the local context of the research group or discipline area where they will undertake their research. The statement of expectations should not be construed as a contract between the supervisor and student. Its function is to set out in as helpful a way as possible the realistic commitments a supervisor can make on such matters as frequency of meetings and feedback on written material; and to clarify to the student his or her responsibilities. The statement should be made available to all members of the student’s supervisory team and to the student’s personal tutor. Page | 9


Supervisors are expected to take into consideration the differing commitments of parttime students which will affect time schedules and every effort should be made to engage part-time students with the full-time cohort, the research group, School and the University either face to face or through information and communication technology. 4.2. Responsibilities of the School Director of Graduate Education • •

• •

To monitor the progress of students and the adequacy of supervisory arrangements, local induction and availability of resources. To ensure provision of the continuation of supervision where supervisors have left the employment of the University or are on formal leave of absence for a significant period of time. To provide advice to supervisors where serious concerns regarding a student’s ability or application have been identified. To provide an alternative route for research students who require advice on difficulties relating to the supervisory process.

4.3. Responsibilities of the Main Supervisor •

• •

• •

To provide guidance about the nature of the research and the standard expected, the planning of the research degree, literature and sources, attendance at taught courses, where appropriate and about requisite techniques (including arranging for instruction where necessary). To maintain contact with the student through regular meetings. The frequency of meetings will be determined by the nature of the research that is undertaken and the stage of development of the student’s research but a normal expectation would be for such meetings to take place at least every fortnight for full-time students. All disciplines should, however, expect students to meet with their supervisors at least on a monthly basis. In all cases the schedule of supervisory meetings will be agreed with the student in advance and outlined clearly in the supervisory statement of expectations. The meeting schedule for part-time students should be agreed at the beginning of the degree and some contact and communication may take the format of email, phone and video conferencing. Be accessible to the student at other appropriate times for advice and respond to difficulties raised by the student by whatever means is most suitable given the student’s location and mode of study. Provide detailed advice on the necessary completion dates of successive stages of the work so that it may be completed within the required time. Request written work or reports, as appropriate, and return it in reasonable time with constructive feedback. Students should give the supervisor due warning and adequate time for reading any drafts and the supervisor and student should agree during initial meetings a reasonable timeframe for provision of feedback. In relation to the final thesis, the supervisor’s opinion is only advisory and the student has the right to decide when to submit and if to follow the advice of the supervisor. Encourage the student to present his/her work to staff and fellow PGR researchers, partly as preparation for the oral examination of the student at the end of the degree, and partly to introduce the student to the culture of the dissemination of research. Ensure the student is made aware when progress is not satisfactory and give advice and guidance on how to improve it. Ensure the student is aware of the health and safety regulations and academic rules, regulations and codes of practice of the University, and of the need to Page | 10


• • •

• •

• •

exercise probity and conduct in his or her research according to ethical principles, and of the implications of research misconduct and plagiarism. Help the student identify his or her specific training needs, both in relation to research skills and to the development of other transferable skills; inform the student of the means to develop these skills; and monitor the student’s progress in these areas via PDP. Help the student interact with other researchers by making him or her aware of other research work in the School and University, and by encouraging attendance at conferences. Support the student in seeking funding. Where appropriate, supervisors should advise on the submission of conference papers and articles to refereed journals. Supervisors should obtain the agreement of the student for any publication of work contained in the thesis and the inclusion of the student as co-author. Ensure the student produces an assessed progression report normally annually. Keep other members of the supervisory team appraised of the student’s progress. Ensure the student is aware of institutional-level sources of advice, including careers guidance, health and safety legislation and equal opportunities policy. Help the student prepare for the oral examination of the thesis. Supervisors cannot, however, be involved in the examination of the final thesis. Ensure, where required, that his/her duties are fulfilled with regard to any formal requirements from external bodies or agencies in relation to the submission of reports, training etc. Ensure that appropriate agreement has been obtained with all parties, including external sponsors, in relation to the communication of research outputs and intellectual property. Ensure they have formal arrangements in place to prepare and initiate a plan of research and maintain contact with those research students working away from the University, such as part-time students. All newly appointed members of staff with responsibilities for supervision should attend the University’s programme of development for supervisors. Existing members of staff with supervisory experience are expected to attend continuing development sessions. Be familiar with the University’s Code of Practice for Research Degrees and Students’ Handbook of Regulations. Recommend examiners for the student’s thesis, after discussion with the student, to ensure that the proposed examiners have not had, or do not continue to have, a significant input into the project, a significant personal, financial or professional relationship with the student, or that there is no other good reason to doubt the suitability of the recommendation. Ensure that examiners are nominated in good time so that the examination can go ahead as soon as possible after submission of the thesis. Ensure that any research data is stored on a secure medium and is aware of any sensitive data issues.

4.4. Responsibilities of the Supervisory Team Members of a supervisory team are not expected to meet a student with the same frequency as the main supervisor, nor are they expected to read all of the student’s work, but the team should meet with the student a minimum of twice per year. They should be actively involved in the supervision by making themselves fully aware of the research plan that has been agreed between the student and the main supervisor and by reading some of the student’s work. Their role, then, is to be available to the student for Page | 11


consultation and advice on academic matters relating to the degree. In circumstances where the main supervisor is not able to continue supervising a student, a member of the supervisory team will normally be expected to take over this role. In addition, postdoctoral researchers within the research group working closely with a research degree student, can fulfil a valuable day-to-day research guidance role. Although members of the supervisory team may provide support and advice in the preparation of the final thesis, no members of the supervisory team can be appointed as internal examiner during the examination process. 4.5. Responsibilities of the Personal Tutor • • •

• • • •

Complements support from the formal supervisory team. Helps to identify any barriers to progress/completion. Meets with the student as necessary. The personal tutor is required to meet with the research student upon request, but may also themselves request meetings with their students. The purpose of meetings is to provide pastoral support and advice for any difficulties the student is experiencing which may affect their studies. Aims to resolve difficulties through discussion both with the student and the supervisory team. In the event of the personal tutor becoming aware of any problems it is envisaged that in most instances these can be resolved informally with the student’s main supervisor; to this end, the personal tutor will meet with the main supervisor. In the event that satisfactory resolution is not achieved, the personal tutor will have responsibility to refer his/her concerns to the Director of Graduate Education. Advises the student on further support resources within and outside the University. Liaises with the Director of Graduate Education on matters which may result in improvement in the support given to postgraduate researchers. Assists in the development of a vibrant and supportive research student community within the School. Helps organise the School’s postgraduate induction for students at various points throughout the year.

4.6. Responsibilities of the Student Students are required to take responsibility for their own personal and professional development throughout the degree. Their main supervisor is their primary point of contact for consultation on all matters, academic and professional but they should also be aware of the opportunity to consult other members of their supervisory team and their personal tutor, as indicated in the responsibilities listed above and below. In addition, research degree students will: •

Maintain regular contact with supervisors, according to the pattern of meetings agreed between the supervisor and the student. The frequency of meetings will be determined by the nature of the research that is undertaken and the stage of development of the student’s research, but a normal expectation would be for such meetings to take place every fortnight for full-time students. Keep to timetables and deadlines for the planning and submission of work, and generally maintain satisfactory progress with the research degree. Develop, in

Page | 12


• • • •

• • • • • • •

consultation with the supervisor, an agreed schedule for progressing and submitting the thesis in a timely manner. Make supervisors aware of any specific needs and of any circumstances likely to affect their work, and take the initiative in raising issues or difficulties as soon as they arise, particularly in relation to targets relating to progress and achievements. Be familiar with the Postgraduate Handbook and ensure it is kept up-to-date from the Virtual Graduate Centre web resource. Ensure that the final thesis is submitted on time and in accordance with the university guidelines. Accept ultimate responsibility for his/her own research data security. Take responsibility for his/her personal development including maintenance of a training needs analysis, personal development plan and attendance at induction and appropriate skills training courses. Use the opportunities available to feedback on his/her experiences. Negotiate absences in advance with their supervisor taking into account any academic priorities. Meet with the supervisory team as a whole to discuss progress at least twice per year. Generate appropriate research outputs and lodge them in the University Repository Contribute to the collegial, intellectual and social life of the research community and participate in School research seminars. Pay all fees on-time and ensure continuous registration. Respond to any requests without unnecessary delay.

5. CHANGE OF SUPERVISORS Schools cannot guarantee that students will be able to work with a particular supervisor or that they will have the same supervisor for the duration of their research degree, but will endeavour to ensure continuity wherever possible and make arrangements as necessary. If the initial allocation of supervisor is inappropriate, a change of supervisor may be requested by the student or supervisor through the Dean of School or his/her nominee, the Director of Graduate Education or the personal tutor, although it should be recognised that there may be difficulties in finding a replacement supervisor with experience of the research area. Funding bodies and sponsors should also be notified when the main supervisor is changed. If a supervisor is no longer in a position to continue with their supervision duties, (e.g. through moving to a new post at another institution) the Director of Graduate Education should discuss the options with the student and assess the most beneficial outcome for the student. The Director of Graduate Education should identify and allocate a new main supervisor with the appropriate academic background and supervisory experience. It may also be more appropriate in some circumstances, for the student to transfer to the supervisor’s new institution. 6. SUPERVISORY ABSENCE A situation can arise in which a supervisor retires, transfers to another institution or is absent from the University for an extended period of time due to illness, research leave Page | 13


or other reasons. Where the period of absence is less than three months the cosupervisor should normally assume responsibility for the student until the main supervisor returns. Where the period of absence exceeds three months, it is essential in these circumstances that alternative arrangements are made in advance by the supervisory team, with the Director of Graduate Education, to ensure continuity of supervision and that the student’s interests are protected. In all cases of research/sabbatical leave the Director of Graduate Education should ensure that either the person on leave continues with their supervision duties or that appropriate arrangements are made for a replacement. If the main supervisor retires or becomes an honorary member of staff during the period of a student’s research degree, they can continue to undertake a supervisory role as cosupervisor within the supervisory team, but a new main supervisor should be appointed. 7. COMPLETION The University regards the satisfactory completion of a student’s PGR degree within the allotted time as a matter of extreme importance. There are four reasons for this: • • • •

the need to preserve equity between students gaining similar awards; the harm that can be done to students’ career development by their having protracted research degrees; research council and funding body requirements for high institutional completion rates; the potential for the institution to lose postgraduate funding in the future.

It is important, therefore, that the research degree is realistically defined from the beginning as one that will meet the requirements within the required time. Normally, for doctoral degrees these periods are three to four years for full-time students and six to seven years for part-time students. The University Regulations for Research Degrees outline information on all research degree duration. Completion data is monitored by the School as part of the Annual Evaluation of Research Degree Provision and is evaluated by the University Research Committee. 8. SKILLS DEVELOPMENT FOR SUPERVISORS The Staff Development Group is responsible for delivering a supervisor development programme for new staff and also staff development opportunities for staff who are experienced supervisors. All members of staff new to the supervisory process, who are involved in the supervisory team, should attend. Overall responsibility for development of research staff rests with the Dean of each School. In addition the School of Education and Professional Development offer a Postgraduate Certificate: Higher Education Practice (Research Supervision). Supervisors should ensure they have the appropriate expertise for their role, and continue to develop by engaging in continuing professional development either through staff training offered by the University or wider training provision external to the institution.

Page | 14


Where a member of a supervisory team has little or no previous supervisory experience, other members of the team should understand their role as mentors in the development of supervisory skills. Staff are encouraged to participate in the Supervisors Networking and Best Practice Forum which addresses the needs of supervisors at all levels of experience, offering support for new supervisors and drawing on the expertise of experienced supervisors.

Page | 15


Progress and Review The progress of all students is subject to regular formal review, which includes both written reports and oral presentations. Progression data is monitored by the School as part of the Annual Evaluation of Research Degree Provision and is evaluated by the University Research Committee. Full details of progress monitoring procedures are given to students on enrolment and are available from the Virtual Graduate Centre website. Before the end of a full-time candidate’s first and second academic year and a part-time candidate’s second and fourth academic year s/he must submit a progress report to be considered by a panel including the candidate’s main supervisor and members who are independent of the supervisory team. There should be an oral presentation by the candidate with questions put by panel members. Satisfactory completion of this process shall constitute permission to proceed. Candidates who fail to complete this process satisfactorily may re-submit no later than three months after the first oral presentation. Candidates who do not receive permission to proceed after resubmission and reexamination will be withdrawn. For Professional Doctorate candidates this schedule of progress monitoring is concurrent with the research element of the programme.

Page | 16


Extensions, Suspensions and Withdrawals The standard duration of research degrees, including discretionary periods of submission pending, are stipulated in the Regulations for Research Awards section F2.2. All interruptions and extensions should be agreed in advance. Interruptions and extensions are approved at School level by the Director of Graduate Education and must be notified to the Research Office using the appropriate form at the earliest opportunity. Where the candidate is prevented - by ill health or other cause - from making progress with the research, enrolment may be interrupted, normally for not more than twelve months at a time and for no more than twenty-four months in total. Interruptions of six months’ duration will be granted automatically for maternity leave and of one month for paternity leave. These periods may be extended on application. Applications for interruption owing to ill health must be supported by medical certification. Any interruption is excluded when calculating the maximum period of study. Periods of interruption should be as short as is necessary to deal with the circumstances. Interruptions will not normally be backdated. Extensions will normally only be granted in exceptional circumstances following consideration of all relevant information by the Director of Graduate Education. Interruptions and extensions may be granted for visits to centres of excellence related to the research being undertaken but which are not integral parts of the training. Full details should be submitted to the Director of Graduate Education in good time before the visit is due to take place. The holiday entitlement for full-time students is 35 working days (per year) plus statutory and general holidays. Holidays must be taken in agreement with the main supervisor. Periods of unauthorized absence may be dealt with under disciplinary procedures, and may in the case of international students be reported to the United Kingdom Border Agency.

Page | 17


Research Degree Theses: Format, Submission and Examination 1. GENERAL FORMAT Typing should be double or one and a half line spaced, except for the abstract which must be single spaced, on one side of A4 and not exceeding 300 words. A font type and size that ensures readability must be used for the main text (for example 10 point in a font such as Arial or Verdana, or a 12 point in Times or Times New Roman); single spacing may be used for quotations, footnotes and references. Pages may be single or double-sided. 1.1. References Bibliographic citations and references must be consistent throughout the thesis; general guidance can be obtained from the candidate’s main supervisor. Any appropriate standard system of referencing may be used. 1.2. Page numbering Page numbering must consist of one single sequence of standard Arabic numerals (i.e., 1, 2, 3 … ) throughout the thesis, starting with the title page as page number 1. Page numbers must be displayed on all pages EXCEPT the title page. The pagination sequence will include not only the text of the thesis but also the preliminary pages, diagrams, tables, figures, illustrations, appendices, references etc, and will extend to cover all volumes in a multi-volume thesis. Roman numerals must not be used for page numbering. 1.3 List of Contents The thesis must have a list of contents, giving all relevant sub-divisions of the thesis and a page number for each item. In a multi-volume thesis the contents page in the first volume must show the complete contents of the thesis, volume-by-volume, and each subsequent volume must have a contents page giving the contents of that volume. The final word count, excluding appendices but including footnotes and endnotes, must be inserted at the bottom of the contents page. If a thesis contains tables there should be a separate list of each item, as appropriate, immediately after the contents page(s). Such lists must give the page number of each item on the list. 1.4 Title Page The title page shall give the following information: • • • •

the full title of the thesis; the full name of the author (which must be the same as the name under which he or she is currently enrolled); the award for which the degree is submitted in partial fulfilment of its requirements; that the degree is awarded by the University of Huddersfield; Page | 18


• •

the Collaborating Establishment, if any; the month and year of submission.

Example THE ORIGINS OF THE FARMERS' CO-OPERATIVE IN WESSEX JOHN SMITH A thesis submitted to the University of Huddersfield in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Huddersfield in collaboration with the Borchester Farmers' Club April 2008 1.5

Resubmission

A thesis which was referred for re-examination must bear the month and year of resubmission on the title-page and not the month and year of the original submission. 1.6

Multiple volumes

Where a thesis consists of more than one volume, each volume must contain a title page in the form set out above and also include the appropriate volume number, and the total number of volumes, e.g. Volume I of III. 1.7

Copyright Statement

The following notes on copyright and the ownership of intellectual property rights must be included as written below: i. The author of this thesis (including any appendices and/or schedules to this thesis) owns any copyright in it (the “Copyright”) and s/he has given The University of Huddersfield the right to use such Copyright for any administrative, promotional, educational and/or teaching purposes. ii. Copies of this thesis, either in full or in extracts, may be made only in accordance with the regulations of the University Library. Details of these regulations may be obtained from the Librarian. This page must form part of any such copies made. iii. The ownership of any patents, designs, trademarks and any and all other intellectual property rights except for the Copyright (the “Intellectual Property Rights”) and any reproductions of copyright works, for example graphs and tables (“Reproductions”), which may be described in this thesis, may not be owned by the author and may be owned by third parties. Such Intellectual Property Rights and Reproductions cannot and must not be made available for use without the prior written permission of the owner(s) of the relevant Intellectual Property Rights and/or Reproductions.

Page | 19


1.8

Optional Pages

You may include dedications, acknowledgements, list of abbreviations etc. as appropriate. You may also include a short academic biography, including details of your degrees and/or a brief background statement of your research experience. 2. SUBMISSION Temporary bound theses (using standard tape or comb binding) are recommended for examination but the conferment of the degree is subject to the submission of an electronic copy of the final thesis, i.e., the thesis as approved by the examiners. In addition, three loose copies of the abstract, title page and contents page for the British Library must be presented with the final thesis. The appropriate number of copies (one for each examiner and one to be lodged in the Research Office) must be presented formally to the Research Office. The copy for the Research Office may be submitted as an electronic document in WORD or PDF format. Submissions which do not conform to the Regulations will not be accepted. Copies will be sent to the examiners and adequate time must be allowed for the theses to be inspected and letters, copyright declarations and examination forms prepared. When the thesis is submitted it must be accompanied by a statement from the main supervisor declaring whether or not it has the supervisory team’s approval for submission. Before the thesis is submitted to examiners by the Research Office it must be scrutinised by a member of University staff. The thesis is checked to ensure that the contents page is correct, that there are no gross errors (a few random pages are checked) and that the abstract is satisfactory. 3. THE EXAMINATION 3.1 The Preliminary Examination of the Thesis Examiners are sent a copy of the thesis with a copy of the University Regulations and Notes for Guidance and the Preliminary Report form. These forms are to enable an independent preliminary report on the thesis to take place and as such must be completed and returned before the oral examination can be permitted. One of the purposes of these independent reports is to confirm that an oral examination should take place. Examiners must, therefore, return the preliminary report at least seven days before the date of the proposed oral examination to enable the oral examination to take place. If the preliminary reports recommend that an oral should not (for whatever reason) take place, examiners and the candidate will be informed, and the planned oral examination cannot take place until all examiners are satisfied that it should. If an oral examination is not recommended, the examiners must provide written guidance concerning the deficiencies of the thesis for the candidate.

Page | 20


3.2 The Oral Examination If all examiners agree that an oral examination be held, it must take place in the University unless permission from the Chair of the University Research Committee exceptionally has been given for it to be held elsewhere. The examiners will each be given copies of the independent preliminary reports prior to the oral examination and the internal examiner will also be given a form on which the final report is to be made. The nature of the oral examination is a matter for the examiners, but it is expected that the external examiner will chair the oral, determining its form and length. If there are two external examiners the chair will be determined well in advance of the oral. If the candidate wishes to show or explain items (e.g., apparatus built, or display of work arising from the research) it would be normal for this to be done before the oral examination, and informally. Supervisors of the candidates who are not themselves examiners, may attend the oral examination, but only with the prior written approval of the candidate. Other research candidates and staff are not permitted to attend. Supervisors who are not examiners may take part in the general discussion of the oral examination, but should leave, as must the candidate, before the result is discussed and the final report and recommendation proposed and signed. The examiners may if they wish indicate the results of their examination informally to the candidate, after the oral examination, provided that they make it clear that they are only making a recommendation and that any advice has no official status. This is especially important where there is doubt over the category of result and advice is being sought. Where minor or major corrections to the thesis are required, the examiners are expected to indicate clearly the extent and type of amendment all of which, when made, must be of a permanent nature. Where minor amendments are not required, the procedure described in section 3.5 applies. 3.3 The Final Examination Report The final report for a successful recommendation should normally be a joint one by the examiners. However, where examiners disagree about the outcome, separate final reports must be submitted. In such a case the areas of disagreement must be clearly stated. Where a clear recommendation for the award of the degree, without any corrections, has been made, the completed and jointly signed final report and all copies of the thesis should be returned to the Research Office. Where major or minor corrections are permitted the thesis must be amended by the candidate and submitted in its final form with a declaration signed by the examiners (or by the internal examiner where the external examiner has agreed to this) indicating that the corrections are satisfactory and completed. All minor amendments must be completed subject to the satisfaction of the appropriate examiner(s) within three months from the date of the oral examination; major amendments should be completed within six months. The final completed examination report should, however, be returned to the Research Office after the conclusion of the examination. Page | 21


Examiners must be clear when they authorise major or minor amendments, whether to the satisfaction of the internal examiner, the external examiner or both, that such amendments are only corrections. If there are doubts about the result to recommend, the Chair of the Research Committee should be consulted. 3.4 Referral of a Thesis and Re-examination If the examiners are not able to recommend the award, even with minor or major amendments, a number of choices are available. Each must be considered carefully and the selected outcome should form the basis of a joint final report. If it is not possible to agree upon a joint report, then, exceptionally, separate final reports may be submitted. In referring a thesis for resubmission, examiners must indicate clearly the degree and extent of their concern and the sections/chapters to be revised. Such amendments and corrections must be stated in writing to the candidate. It is important to note that the candidate can only resubmit once and receive the degree sought. On receipt and scrutiny of the examiners' reports the Research Office will write to the candidate and supervisors ensuring that they are aware of the requirements under the regulations and stating the last date by which an amended thesis can be received. Normally this will be 12 months from the date of the oral examination. If the resubmitted thesis remains unacceptable, even after any permitted major or minor amendments following re-examination (either with or without a further oral examination as recommended by the examiners and agreed before the resubmission by the University), then two choices remain in the case of a PhD or EdD thesis and one in the case of an MPhil thesis. In the case of a PhD or EdD they are that the degree of PhD or EdD be not granted, but that the candidate be recommended for the award (with or without corrections) for the degree of MPhil; or that the candidate is not awarded the degree. In the case of an MPhil submission no degree can be awarded. It is normally required that the same examiners who examined the candidate at the first submission will agree to re-examine the candidate. In the event that the examiners believe the oral examination to have been satisfactory even though the thesis was not, they can recommend in their final report that the oral examination be dispensed with. If they believe the candidate would suffer some severe disadvantage through a further oral examination, they could recommend an alternative form of examination. 3.5 The Recommendation of an Award The reports and recommendations of the examiners will be formally submitted to the Research Office. In those cases where: a) the examiners are in agreement b) the recommendation is that the award be conferred c) there is no significant disparity between the recommendation and the comments in the preliminary and final reports The Chair will act on behalf of the Committee and submit a formal statement of conferment to the Vice-Chancellor of the University who is also the Chair of the Senate. The statement duly signed by the Vice-Chancellor and the Chair of the Research

Page | 22


Committee will then be forwarded to the candidate. A report of successful conferments will be submitted to each meeting of the University Research Committee. Any required amendments or corrections to the thesis must be completed and the appropriate number of copies together with the three loose copies of the abstract, title page and contents page must be handed to the Research Office before any recommendation for award can be made to Senate. In addition, the copyright declaration permitting consultation and copying from the University Repository must be signed by the candidate together with a declaration that the candidate has not been at the same time enrolled for another research degree and any other degree or professional qualification. Research degrees are conferred by the Senate. The conferment of the degree is valid from the date it is awarded - as indicated on the conferment letter from the University to the candidate. Thereafter, and not before, it may be used both in title and in listing academic qualifications. Candidates must however refrain from using the research degree until the conferment letter is received. Although the relevant certificate is presented to the candidate on conferment of the award it is hoped that candidates on whom a research award has been conferred will attend the appropriate University Awards Ceremony to receive this public recognition of their peers and friends. 3.6 Appeals Against Examination Decisions i.

Candidates may in the circumstances set out below request a review of the examiners' recommendation, whether at the first examination or on reexamination.

ii.

A request for a review may only be made in relation to the decision made on the recommendation of the examiners. Given the existence of procedures for complaint and grievance during the study period, alleged inadequacy of supervisory or other arrangements during the period of study do not constitute grounds for requesting a review of the examination decision.

iii.

Requests for a review are permitted only on the following grounds: a) b)

c)

iv.

that there are circumstances affecting the candidate's performance of which the examiners were not aware at the oral examination; that there is evidence of procedural irregularity in the conduct of the examination (including administrative error) of such a nature as to cause doubt as to whether the result might have been different had there not been such irregularity; that there is evidence of unfair or improper assessment on the part of one or more of the examiners. Candidates may not otherwise challenge the academic judgement of the examiners.

A candidate must give notice that he/she wishes to request a review within three months from the date of notification of the result and must submit the case for review within a further three months from the date of giving notice. a)

The request for a review will be considered by a panel constituted by the Senate from persons having experience of supervising and examining research degrees and who have had no previous involvement in the case.

Page | 23


b)

No student or research degree candidate may be a member of a research degrees review panel. If a review panel agrees that a candidate has valid grounds for a review, it must either;

v.

recommend that the Senate invite the examiners to reconsider their decision; or

vi.

recommend that new examiners be appointed.

vii.

review panel is not constituted as an examinations board and has no authority to set aside the decision of examiners and thereby to recommend the award of the degree.

Page | 24


Complaints, Disciplinary Procedures, Academic Misconduct and Appeals The University has established procedures and regulations: • • • •

to enable students to bring matters of concern about their learning experience to the attention of the University (Complaints Procedure) to deal with actions and behaviour which may be deemed misconduct (Disciplinary Procedure) to consider any allegations against a student with respect to gaining an unfair advantage in their assessment to set out the circumstances under which a candidate may request a review of the examiners' recommendation

Details of all of these procedures can be found in the Students' Handbook of Regulations, which is issued to all students at registration, and is available on the University's website at: http://www2.hud.ac.uk/registry/students_handbook.php In all areas of these regulations, students are encouraged to consult with the Students' Union Advice Centre if they require any assistance.

Page | 25


Student Feedback Research students are able to provide feedback on any aspects of their experience through a number of mechanisms. 1. STUDENT REPRESENTATION Full details can be found in the guidance: Representation.

Postgraduate Research Student

Students are represented via this system throughout the University including the following • • • • •

Student Panel School Research Committee School Board University Research Committee PGR Researchers’ Committee

2. POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE SURVEY The University takes part in the National Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (PRES) in which students may feedback individual, anonymised comments. The feedback is considered by the University Research Committee and School Research Committees and is available on the Virtual Graduate Centre website. 3. STUDENT COUNCIL The Student Council meets three times a year to establish and review the processes for student provision in the University. The membership includes a research student representative. 4. STUDENTS’ UNION MATURE & POSTGRADUATE STUDENT OFFICER Elections take place annually for the Students’ Union position of Mature and Postgraduate Student Officer.

Page | 26


Annual Evaluation of Research Degree Provision 1. RESPONSIBILITY Responsibility for management of the annual evaluation of research degree provision lies with the School Research Committee acting on behalf of the School Board. The Annual Evaluation Report from each School is submitted to and considered by the University Research Committee acting on behalf of the Senate. The report must cover all types of research provision - including MPhil, MA/MSc by Research, MEnt, PhD and the Professional Doctorates. 2. PURPOSE The purpose of the annual evaluation of research degree provision is: a. to support the University’s Research Committee in discharging its responsibilities for the academic standards of its awards and the quality of learning opportunities; b. to support the University in monitoring achievement of its strategic priorities; c. to provide Schools with an opportunity to reflect on and evaluate their postgraduate research student activity and the quality of the student provision and learning experience; d. to provide an opportunity to ensure consistency, identify key strengths and disseminate good practice across the Schools; e. to draw to the attention of the University’s Research Committee matters of interest or concern. 3. TIMING The annual evaluation process will be completed by the end of the first term and will address activity in the previous academic session. The report will be approved by the School Research Committee in time for onward reporting to the University’s Research Committee in the second term. 4. REPORT OUTLINE The School’s Annual Evaluation Report will be a critical and reflective evaluation of the provision and its production will have taken account of contributions from relevant staff, students and stakeholders. It should be referenced against the University and School Strategic Plans, culminating in an action plan identifying: a. issues to be addressed b. timescales c. outputs d. responsibilities. 5. DATA The School’s Annual Evaluation Report will be informed by a range of qualitative and quantitative data: a. Information provided by the Research and Enterprise Office with respect to: i. Application and recruitment data ii. Entry qualifications iii. Completion and progression statistics iv. Statistics relating to supervisory capacity b. Feedback from key stakeholders: Page | 27


i. Employers ii. Sponsors iii. Supervisors c. Examiners’ reports and comments d. Results of student surveys, student panels and other feedback mechanisms e. Anonymised summary of complaints and appeals. The University’s standard pro forma should be used to guide the evaluation. Skills development and induction are the focus of a separate review and need not be referenced within this annual report. A University-wide report will be produced following receipt of the annual evaluations for consideration by the University’s Research Committee which may, at its discretion, identify specific issues for consideration and comment as part of the annual review process.

Page | 28


Research and Enterprise

Annual Evaluation


Annual Evaluation of Research Degree Provision January 2010


Annual Evaluation of Research Degree Provision January 2010

1. Responsibility for management of the annual evaluation of research degree provision lies with the School Research Committee acting on behalf of the School Board. The Annual Evaluation Report from each School is submitted to and considered by the University Research Committee acting on behalf of the Senate. The report must cover all types of research provision - including MPhil, MA/MSc by Research, MEnt, PhD and the Professional Doctorates. 2. The purpose of the annual evaluation of research degree provision is: a. to support the University’s Research Committee in discharging its responsibilities for the academic standards of its awards and the quality of learning opportunities; b. to support the University in monitoring achievement of its strategic priorities; c. to provide Schools with an opportunity to reflect on and evaluate their postgraduate research student activity and the quality of the student provision and learning experience; d. to provide an opportunity to ensure consistency, identify key strengths and disseminate good practice across the Schools; e. to draw to the attention of the University’s Research Committee matters of interest or concern. 3. The annual evaluation process will be undertaken in the latter half of the first term of each academic session and will address activity in the previous academic session. The report will be approved by the School Research Committee in time for onward reporting to the University’s Research Committee in the second term. 4. The School’s Annual Evaluation Report will be a critical and reflective evaluation of the provision and its production will have taken account of contributions from relevant staff, students and stakeholders. It should be referenced against the University and School Strategic Plans, culminating in an action plan identifying: a. issues to be addressed b. timescales c. outputs d. responsibilities. 5. The School’s Annual Evaluation Report will be informed by a range of qualitative and quantitative data: a. Information provided by the Research and Enterprise Office with respect to: i. Application and recruitment data ii. Entry qualifications iii. Completion and progression statistics iv. Statistics relating to supervisory capacity b. Feedback from key stakeholders: Page | 1


Annual Evaluation of Research Degree Provision January 2010

i. Employers ii. Sponsors iii. Supervisors c. Examiners’ reports and comments d. Results of student surveys, student panels and other feedback mechanisms e. Anonymised summary of complaints and appeals. 6. The University’s standard pro forma should be used to guide the evaluation. 7. Skills development and induction are the focus of a separate review and need not be referenced within this annual report. 8. A University-wide report will be produced following receipt of the annual evaluations for consideration by the University’s Research Committee which may, at its discretion, identify specific issues for consideration and comment as part of the annual review process.

Page | 2


Annual Evaluation of Research Degree Provision January 2010

Annual Evaluation of Research Degree Provision: Report pro forma

School:

Academic year:

Report approved by School Research Committee: Signed

Date:

Report approved by Dean of School: Signed

Date:

1. Issues outstanding from last year’s Action Plan Please list all action points identified at the conclusion of last year’s review and provide an update.

2. Research environment Please identify strengths and weaknesses of your School research environment. Key issues may include: integration of research students into the wider research community, access to resources and any planned changes for the year ahead.

3. Selection and admission of students Effectiveness of the School’s admissions processes. Key issues may include: conversion rates, breakdown of admissions statistics (home/overseas, ethnicity, gender, mode of study), and achievement of KPIs.

Page | 3


Annual Evaluation of Research Degree Provision January 2010

4. Supervision Effectiveness of supervisory arrangements. Key issues may include: Supervisor workloads, support for supervisors, effectiveness of supervisory arrangements.

5. Progress and review arrangements Effectiveness of the management of progress and review arrangements. Key issues may include: effectiveness of formal processes and actions identified as a result of these processes.

6. Student feedback and representation Effectiveness of student feedback mechanisms. Key issues may include any issues arising from questionnaires student panels or student representation on committees.

7. Assessment Key issues may include: effectiveness of appointing examiners, the operation of the viva, statistics regarding submission, resubmission, completion and withdrawal rates.

8. Dissemination of good practice Please identify examples of good practice in the School’s research degree provision.

9. Issues identified by University’s Research Committee for specific comment Please report on the issues identified.

10 Action plan Please identify issues to be addressed, timescales for completion, outputs or evidence of achievement and to whom responsibility has been allocated. An update on this section will be required at the start of next year’s annual review

Page | 4


Research and Enterprise

Applications


Application Form for Research Degrees

Vice-Chancellor: Professor Bob Cryan, BSc MBA PhD DSc


Application Form for Research Degrees Title:

Mr

Mrs

Ms

Miss

Other (please specify)

Surname/Family name: Previous surname (if any): First name(s): Address (for correspondence): Post Code Home address: (if different to correspondence address): Post Code

Daytime tel no (including codes): Mobile tel no: E-mail address: Fax no: Date of birth: Nationality: Passport No: Country of birth: Country of domicile/ permanent residence: Ethnicity: Gender:

Male

Female

Disability/special needs:

For applicants not born in the European Union (EU) Date of first entry to EU: Date of most recent entry to EU: Date from which granted permanent residence in the EU (if applicable):

p2


Please answer all questions 1. General subject you wish to study: 2. Specific specialisation:

3. Proposed title of your thesis:

4. Who will fund your studies?

(Please provide evidence of financial support)

5. Do you intend to study:

full-time

part-time

6. If you have already discussed your proposal with a member of academic staff please provide his/her name.

7. Please choose your research degree programme:

Master of Arts by Research (one year full-time or two years part-time) Master of Science by Research (one year full-time or two years part-time) Master of Philosophy (one year full-time or two years part-time) Master of Philosophy with transfer to Doctor of Philosophy (three years full-time or six years part-time) Master of Enterprise (one year full-time or two years part-time) Doctor of Philosophy (two-three years full-time or four-six years part-time)

Your start date: 8. When do you plan to begin your research degree programme? January April July

October

Part-time students at a remote location only: 9. Please confirm that you will be able to spend on average, six weeks per year at the University:

Yes

No

10. Please confirm that you will have adequate facilities and resources in your current location:

Yes

No

11. Please can you give the name of a possible supervisor or supervisors in your current location:

p3


Employment Experience Present Appointment

Employer’s name and address:

Title of post: Date of commencement: Current responsibilities:

Previous Experience (in chronological order) Employer’s name and address

p4

Full-time or Part-time

From month/year

To month/year

Position and duties


Education Academic and Professional Qualifications (including, where applicable, English Language qualifications indicating an IELTS score of at least 6 or a TOEFL score of at least 550). Please attach copies of your certificates. Awarding body/place of study

Subjects

Award

Date of award

Class/grade

Referees Please nominate two academic referees to whom the University can refer.

Name:

Name:

Position:

Position:

Address:

Address:

Tel. no:

Tel. no:

Fax no:

Fax no:

E-mail:

E-mail:

Your research proposal If you have selected a research proposal from a University advertisement please say where you saw the advertisement and enter the title of the project and the name of the supervisor in section 3 on page 3 otherwise please enclose a research proposal of approximately 500 words. Your proposal should begin by explaining the subject area in which the research is to be located, and provide an indication of the key theoretical, empirical or policy debates it plans to address.

p5


Literature review and research questions The proposal should then present a brief review of the literature you plan to contribute to in conducting your own research. You need to demonstrate a familiarity with the relevant academic literature and theories relating to your research proposal, and an awareness of the major lines of argument that have been developed in your chosen research field. You then need to discuss the

research questions you plan to address. Importantly, you need to demonstrate the manner in which you have determined your research questions, for example: from gaps in the existing empirical literature; from the application of a particular theory, or from a synthesis of a number of bodies of literature.

Methodology Depending on the nature of your subject, it is desirable to give some indication of the research methods that will be used to conduct the research. A variety of different research methods exists, so you should seek to identify the method that is most suited to your area of research.

You should give special attention to the feasibility of data collection. Your proposal may contain interesting and highly relevant research questions, and it may be well grounded in the literature, but it may not be a practical research enterprise. You must balance the scope of your proposal against the practical problems of data gathering.

Most doctoral work involves empirical research. The successful completion of doctoral work in the time allotted thus often depends on the ability to obtain the data needed. If your proposed research involves empirical work you should provide an indication of how you might collect any relevant data. For example, you might like to say something about access to particular sources of information. Importantly, you need to explain the manner in which the data you collect will enable you to address your research questions.

Contribution to knowledge

Presentation

Although no indication of the research findings can be presented, it is often beneficial to conclude the research proposal by indicating the contribution you envisage that your research will make to the literature in your particular subject area, or by indicating the potential implications of your research. This means providing an indication of the extent to which you feel your research will make an original contribution, suggesting how it may fill gaps in existing research and showing how it may extend understanding of particular topics.

Your research proposal should be word processed and written in good English. Particular attention will be paid to clarity of expression and also the structure, coherence and flow of argument. Finally, always include a bibliography with your research proposal that lists books and articles to which you make reference in your proposal.

Signed:

You will not be obliged to adhere to the specifics of your proposal if you are offered a place as a research degree candidate, but as the proposal is the foundation of your working relationship with your prospective supervisors it cannot be altered substantially without discussion and consultation with them.

Date:

This application form should be returned to: The Research Office, Level 10, Central Services Building, University of Huddersfield, Queensgate, Huddersfield HD1 3DH Tel: +44 (0) 1484 472356 Fax: +44 (0) 1484 472146 E-mail: research-office@hud.ac.uk Website: www.hud.ac.uk and click on ‘Research’ 09513

p6


Application for Postgraduate Research Degrees – Guidance Notes


Your Research Proposal If you have selected a research proposal from a University advertisement please say where you saw the advertisement and enter the title of the project and the name of the supervisor in section 3 on page 3, otherwise please enclose a research proposal of approximately 1,000 to 2,000 words. Your proposal should begin by explaining the subject area in which the research is to be located, and provide an indication of the key theoretical, empirical or policy debates it plans to address. Literature review and research questions The proposal should then present a brief review of the literature you plan to contribute to in conducting your own research. You need to demonstrate a familiarity with the relevant academic literature and theories relating to your research proposal, and an awareness of the major lines of argument that have been developed in your chosen research field. You then need to discuss the research questions you plan to address. Importantly, you need to demonstrate the manner in which you have determined your research questions, for example: from gaps in the existing empirical literature; from the application of a particular theory, or from a synthesis of a number of bodies of literature. Methodology Depending on the nature of your subject, it is desirable to give some indication of the research methods that will be used to conduct the research. A variety of different research methods exists, so you should seek to identify the method that is most suited to your area of research. Most doctoral work involves empirical research. The successful completion of doctoral work in the time allotted thus often depends on the ability to obtain the data needed. If your proposed research involves empirical work you should provide an indication of how you might collect any relevant data. For example, you might like to say something about access to particular sources of information. Importantly, you need to explain the manner in which the data you collect will enable you to address your research questions. You should give special attention to the feasibility of data collection. Your proposal may contain interesting and highly relevant research questions, and it may be well grounded in the literature, but it may not be a practical research enterprise. You must balance the scope of your proposal against the practical problems of data gathering. Contribution to Knowledge Although no indication of the research findings can be presented, it is often beneficial to conclude the research proposal by indicating the contribution you envisage that your research will make to the literature in your particular subject area, or by indicating


the potential implications of your research. This means providing an indication of the extent to which you feel your research will make an original contribution, suggesting how it may fill gaps in existing research and showing how it may extend understanding of particular topics. Presentation Your research proposal should be word processed and written in good English. Particular attention will be paid to clarity of expression and also the structure, coherence and flow of argument. Finally, always include a bibliography with your research proposal that lists books and articles to which you make reference in you proposal. You will not be obliged to adhere to the specifics of your proposal if you are offered a place as a research degree candidate, but as the proposal is the foundation of your working relationship with your prospective supervisors it cannot be altered substantially without discussion and consultation with them. Returning you application When returning your application form please take care to enclose or attach all relevant documentation, including: • Research proposal (if not applying for a research project advertised by the University or listed on the website) • Copies of your degree certificate(s) and English language certificates (if relevant) The application form should be returned to: The Research Office Level 10, Central Services Building University of Huddersfield Queensgate Huddersfield HD1 3DH United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) 1484 472356 Fax: +44 (0) 1484 472146 Email: research-office@hud.ac.uk Website: www.hud.ac.uk and click on Research


Postgraduate Research Degree Fees 2009 - 2010 Home/EU students Full time: £3,415 Part time: £1,730

Non EU students Full time : £10,750 (science based subjects) £9,000 (other subject areas) Part time: £2,130

2010 - 2011 Home/EU students Full time: £3,485 Part time: £1,765

Non EU students Full time: £11,250 (science based subjects) £9,500 (other subject areas) Part time: £2,380

For further information on postgraduate research degrees contact: The University of Huddersfield Research Office Queensgate Huddersfield HD1 3DH Tel: +44 (0) 1484 473831 E-mail: postgrad-opportunities@hud.ac.uk 09823

The University of Huddersfield, Queensgate, Huddersfield HD1 3DH

www.hud.ac.uk/research


Research Student Scholarships As part of a major expansion in research activity the University of Huddersfield has made available 375 fee-waiver scholarships for postgraduate research students. The scholarships are available for all areas of research, and are open to Home/EU and International applicants who lack funding but have outstanding academic merit and excellent research potential. The scheme supports all research students both full time and part time and will waive either 100% of tuition fees or 50% of tuition fees. To apply please complete the standard research degree application form, mark it clearly FEE-WAIVER SCHOLARSHIP APPLICATION.

For further information on postgraduate research degrees contact: The University of Huddersfield Research Office, Queensgate Huddersfield, HD1 3DH Tel: +44 (0) 1484 473831 E-mail: postgrad-opportunities@hud.ac.uk

09822

The University of Huddersfield, Queensgate, Huddersfield HD1 3DH

www.hud.ac.uk/research


Additional Programme Costs October 2008


Additional Programme Costs Guidance October 2008

Additional programme costs (sometimes known as bench fees) may be charged for research degrees in all Schools in which there are exceptional costs directly related to the research project. These could be: • high use of materials; • excessive support needs • considerable amounts of technicians/technical time in rig build or design; • special equipment; • unusual fieldwork costs Additional programme costs cover the additional, non-routine costs of a specific research project that cannot be met by the tuition fee. Additional programme costs may not be used for the provision of standard or normal items, facilities, equipment or support eg. computer, printer. It should be noted that the provision of appropriate work space including desk space, chair and computer are set out as standard in the Postgraduate Researcher Charter. If a specific research project is advertised that attracts additional programme costs then this should be made clear in both the hardcopy and website information. All students who are offered a fee-waiver scholarship should still be responsible for additional programme costs. Additional programme cost implications should be made clear to all applicants at the earliest stages of recruitment and must be clearly stated or detailed in the offer letter. Information on proposed additional programme costs including a statement of the proposed use of the fees must be detailed on the additional programme costs pro-forma. This form may be shown to both the student and the sponsor (if applicable) and should therefore be suitably worded. The costs should be averaged out across the period of research as the cost must be set at the outset and cannot rise for the duration of the period of study, normally three years full-time. Additional programme costs must be used on the research project only. Additional programme costs should be considered on a case-by-case basis and are at the discretion of the supervisor and the School. The approval of additional programme costs up to £5000 p.a. are the responsibility of the School’s Director of Graduate Education. Requests for over £5000 p.a. should be sent to the Graduate Office for consideration. A mechanism must exist at School level for the re-imbursement of unspent monies, pro-rata to a student or sponsor in the event that: • a student withdraws early from their research programme; • the period of research is reduced; • the monies are not entirely spent on the research project. Additional programme costs will be invoiced and collected by the Finance Office alongside tuition fees. They will not be subject to any central top slice.

Page 1


Additional Programme Costs Guidance October 2008

Examples of exceptional costs include: • • • • • • • • • • • •

Purchases of additional special permanent laboratory equipment Equipment maintenance costs Equipment hire Access costs to specialised equipment Photography and film processing Video tape filming, recording, CD archiving Specialised computation Patient/volunteer expenses Travelling costs - where this is integral to the research, it would not normally cover conference attendance except in special circumstances Tissue/cell culture Special reagents/materials Access to specialist facilities/resources.

Page 2


Additional Programme Costs Pro-forma School: Department: Supervisor: Student: ID Number: Start Date:

Type of Degree PhD

DOT

EdD

DPhys

DAppCrim

DPod

DCouns

DSW

DM

MPhil

DN

Masters by Research

Please specify costings for the project. These should consist of items that are exceptional and reflect the special additional costs associated with the student’s research project. Unless obvious from the item description, please explain the exceptional nature of the cost.

Item

Cost £

TOTAL Additional Programme Cost

£

AVERAGED ANNUAL Additional Programme Cost

£

SCHOOL ACCOUNT CODE TO BE PAID INTO Supervisor name: Supervisor signature: Date: Director of Graduate Education:

Copies of the form should be sent to Finance Office and Graduate Office


Research and Enterprise

Charter


Postgraduate Researcher Charter September 2009


Postgraduate Researcher Charter September 2009

Our Mission: “To be an inspiring, innovative University of international renown.” Our Aims: “To strengthen and enhance our research capability.” Postgraduate researchers are recognised and valued as an essential component of the overall strategy to develop high-level research and as such as members of the professional community at the University of Huddersfield. The postgraduate researcher charter is not only a description of the minimum standard of provision and expectation but also a 2-way pledge of commitment. University A full-time researcher can expect: • supervision by a team appropriately qualified in the student’s research area • meetings with his/her supervisor on a regular, scheduled basis • fair, formal assessment of progress with appropriate and timely feedback • appropriate advice and support at all stages of the research project • to be assigned a PGR tutor • access to appropriate work space for the period of full registration; this will include desk space, a computer and an adjustable chair • access to appropriate skills training including research and generic skills training both on-line and face-to-face, teaching assistant preparation, research methods, information management training • the opportunity to attend research seminars • access to advice on the range of IT based systems, services and facilities provided by the University • access to advice on the identification and use of information resources and services • reasonable access to the library, laboratories, studios and computing services as appropriate • access to on-going postgraduate careers progression and advice • to receive opportunities to provide feedback on their student experience via questionnaires, surveys, student forums and meetings • student representation in relevant forums at all levels of the University • access to and information on the University’s Regulations, policies and procedures • to have grievances addressed in a timely and professional manner Student/Researcher The University expects a researcher to: • accept ultimate responsibility for his/her research project • maintain contact with his/her supervisor(s) and communicate any problems • ensure that his/her thesis is submitted on time in accordance with the appropriate guidelines • ensure attendance and negotiate planned absences in advance • take responsibility for his/her personal development including maintenance of a training needs analysis, personal development plan and attendance at induction and appropriate skills training courses • familiarise himself/herself with the Postgraduate Handbook and ensure it is kept up-to-date from the appropriate web resource • participate in School research seminars • generate appropriate research outputs and lodge them in the University Repository • contribute to the collegial, intellectual and social life of the research community • use the opportunities available to feedback on his/her experiences • pay all fees on-time and ensure continuous registration • respond to requests without unnecessary delay


Research and Enterprise

Admissions and Induction


Guidelines for the Acceptance of Guidelines for theResearch Acceptance of Postgraduate Students Postgraduate September 2008 Research Students September 2008

University Research Committee


Guidelines for the Acceptance of Postgraduate Research Students September 2008

These notes set out the guidelines for accepting students for enrolment as candidates for research degree awards. They have been drawn up as a result of the publication of the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education’s Code of Practice for the Assurance of Academic Quality and Standards in Higher Education: Postgraduate Research Programmes. It is anticipated that these will be supplemented by separate School codes and guidelines covering specific School practice. The Research Environment Students will only be offered a place on a research degree where they can be provided with a research environment fully supportive of research achievement. This includes: •

Supervisors with the necessary skills and knowledge to facilitate the successful completion of students’ research programmes.

Access to research groupings and research students in similar or related disciplines that encourage students to interact with peers.

An active research environment/academic community which enables students to participate in research seminars, participating both as listeners and presenters.

Opportunities to participate in external symposia, conferences and workshops and to publish in journals and respected outlets.

Appropriate access to library and computing facilities which as a minimum will include individual access to a computer with email and internet access and printing facilities.

Access to the facilities and equipment necessary to enable students to complete their research programmes successfully.

Access to a designated work space which will include desk space, an adjustable chair and computing resources for the period of full registration.

Access to appropriate skills training, including research and generic skills training, teaching assistant preparation, research methods and information management training.

Access to appropriate advice and support at all stages of the research project including welfare and support facilities that recognise the particular nature of research degree study.

Guidance on the ethical pursuit of research, intellectual property rights and the avoidance of research misconduct.

Opportunities for students to develop peer support networks where issues or problems can be discussed informally. Access to appropriate PGR social space.

Opportunity for effective student representation and for providing feedback and Making complaints. Page | 1


Guidelines for the Acceptance of Postgraduate Research Students September 2008

The research environment must be adequate for the conduct of the kind of research in question and capable of supporting the type and range of students being recruited, and their changing needs and requirements. The environment should be enabling and instructional, and be conceived of as a place of learning as well as of research productivity. Such a learning environment will enable research students to make judgements requiring creativity and critical independent thought, accepting that uncertainty is a feature of the conduct of research projects. This environment should enable students to grapple with challenges that develop intellectual maturity and encourage a high level of reflection on the student’s own learning about research as well as on research outcomes. Selection and Admission Any publicity materials associated with postgraduate research programmes should be clear, accurate and of sufficient detail to inform student choice. The details must be accurate and provide information on institutional provision and the expectations and demands that will be placed upon the research student. The information should also include the relevant admissions criteria. Schools should ensure that the postgraduate prospectus is sent out with all other publicity material. Admissions staff should be aware of and understand the legal requirements relating to admissions processes and of the need to conform to such legislation. With regard to equal opportunities requirements schools should ensure that: ♦ Appropriate attention is paid to legislation and that both institutional and external guidance is taken into consideration; ♦ An effective support infrastructure is in place for postgraduate research students with special needs; ♦ Students are made aware of opportunities to apply for additional or special funding and how to apply for such funds Admissions decisions should involve at least two members of staff who have received instruction, advice and guidance in respect of selection and admissions procedures. Main supervisors should normally be members of staff at this University on a permanent contract and not themselves be enrolled for a research degree. At least two references should be sought which judge the candidate’s suitability for research. For students based overseas, the School must confirm that appropriate arrangements have been identified to ensure compliance with minimum attendance requirements at the University. Admissions staff will need to consider how interviews with applicants might be used as part of the admissions process, including arrangements for assessing the suitability of those based overseas and working at a distance. The International Office has a network of agents with video-conferencing and other I&CT facilities and can help to arrange contact with applicants based overseas. Important factors to be considered are the student’s motivation and potential to complete the programme. Schools should also satisfy themselves that the applicant is appropriately qualified and that all relevant certificates have been seen, that there are proper facilities for the student, and that the enrolment fees can be paid. Candidates whose first language is not English, and who have not been educated in English, should also possess a relevant English Language qualification, which must be of the appropriate standard. Advice on how international qualifications relate to those in the UK is

Page | 2


Guidelines for the Acceptance of Postgraduate Research Students September 2008

available from the UK Government National Agency NARIC. Access to their online database (http://www.naric.org.uk/) is available via the International Office. Offer letters On the recommendation of the supervisor(s) and the Director of Graduate Education applicants will be made a formal offer of a place as a postgraduate research student by the Research Office. This offer will be sent out on receipt of the fully completed PEF form approved by the Director of Graduate Education. The offer constitutes a contract between the student and the University. The terms of the offer letter are binding on the University and, upon acceptance, on the student. The offer will specify terms and conditions governing entry to and study on the course and will state the expected period of study for which the student will be enrolled, exclusive of any ‘submission pending’ period. The offer will also outline the requirements which the University places upon the research student with regard to progress reports, attendance and contact with supervisors. The offer made will always be subject to satisfactory progress and funding and will specify the total fees, including any other charges (such as bench fees) that will be levied, the title of the project and the names of the supervisors (subject to their availability). If the candidate is to receive funding from the University the letter will state the amount of the bursary, holiday entitlement and the nature, extent and terms of any teaching or demonstrating duties that might be undertaken by the research student and the hours of attendance. If the candidate is to receive funding from an external agency then the letter will state that the student is also bound by the requirements and conditions of the funding body. The University’s policies, practices and requirements with respect to intellectual property rights (including arrangements, where relevant, with external commercial or industrial organisations with their own intellectual property rights arrangements) will be clearly expressed to applicants and any relevant third party. The candidate will be sent details of the enrolment procedures by the Research Office. On enrolment the student will be given a copy of the University’s regulations together with booklets providing relevant advice and guidance, including information on personal and professional development and progression monitoring.

Page | 3


PRE-ENROLMENT FORM (PEF) ACCEPTANCE OF A RESEARCH STUDENT Full name Date of birth Nationality School Staff candidate

Applicant ID. No. Title/Gender Fee Status Department Research Centre

Yes/No

Home / EU / International

Address for correspondence:

Tel.

Email

Title of proposed research:

International students only (UKBA requirements) JACS CODE

Who needs a JACS Code? | List of Codes | FAQs

Project summary (5-6 sentences):

List of evidence used to assess this applicant’s academic ability to finish this course (i.e., level of qualification, qualification awarding body and/or institution)

Supervision Main supervisor Co-supervisor PG Tutor

Co-supervisor Co-supervisor External supervisor

Course, mode of attendance & start date Mode Course code

Full Time / Part Time

Start date Degree (e.g. MSc)

Jan / Apr / Jul / Oct

Funding arrangements Sponsor Bench fees

Self / Other (please specify) £ p.a.

School support Cost centre

£ p.a.

Fee waivers only 50% waiver

Yes/No

100% waiver

Yes/No

Please confirm that this applicant is of outstanding academic merit and excellent research potential and provide a rationale for the offer of a fee waiver below.


Special conditions Please detail any special conditions you want to include in the offer letter (e.g., requirement to give tutorials etc.) below.

Declaration I CONFIRM THAT • • • •

• • • • •

Satisfactory references to confirm the candidate’s suitability for research have been provided. Evidence of relevant qualifications for entry has been provided. Evidence of financial support has been provided (if applicable). If appropriate EITHER an English language certificate indicating an IELTS score of 6 or higher or a TOEFL score of 550 or higher (or equivalent) has been provided OR English language training will be provided. Any special needs declared by the candidate can be accommodated by the School. The required resources are available for this candidate and research project. For students based overseas: appropriate arrangements have been identified to ensure compliance with the minimum attendance of six weeks per year required at the University. No additional costs or resources (including additional laboratory space) other than those stated with this form will be incurred by the School. The supervisory team satisfies the requirements of the University’s Regulations for Research Awards, including F2.4.1.

Please issue a formal offer letter to this applicant under the conditions stated above.

Signatures Name Date Name Date Name Date

Main supervisor (on behalf of the supervisory team) Signature Head of Department Signature Director of Graduate Education Signature

PLEASE SEND THE COMPLETED FORM TO Research Office, Central Services Building Level 10 Tel ext 2516 – 2356 – 3831 or fax 2146

Notes 1. If external advisors or supervisors are appointed to the supervisory team please ensure that appropriate contracts are in place as necessary. The University Solicitor, Michaela Boryslawskyj (ext. 3796), can advise. 2. Please make sure that you select the correct School course code for the degree, mode of attendance, and duration that you want to offer.


University of Huddersfield Induction Programme for New Postgraduate Researchers (PGR). All new PGR are expected to undertake a process of induction when they first register for their research degree. The University operates four intake points each year; October, January, April and July and an induction event is organised and offered for each intake by the Research & Enterprise Office. The aim of these events is to provide relevant opportunities for personal and professional research development, at institutional level, through the provision and co-ordination of research training opportunities. This provision is designed around the recommendations drawn by the UK Research Councils in their Joint Skills Statement (JSS) and it complements the general and discipline-specific training offered by individual Schools. These events are open to researchers from across all academic disciplines within the University thereby facilitating the development of a broad research community for all PGR in the University. The induction programme runs over three days (the third day is for international researchers only). A range of sessions are built into the programme that introduce PGR to their research community at the University and raise awareness, right from the beginning of their registration, of important, research-related topics affecting all disciplines (such as Networking, Time and Project Management, Intellectual Property Rights, Academic Writing, Working with Your Supervisor etc). The Programme from each event is uploaded to the Postgraduate Researchers Blackboard pages along with any handouts distributed at the event. In this way, PGR are introduced to key university facilities and important issues associated with postgraduate study, they have the opportunity to meet fellow researchers from their own and other disciplines and they are also able able to raise any questions they may have regarding regulatory and/or general processes surrounding their research programme. PGR are required to attend this programme. The induction process also introduces new PGR to the University-wide Research Skills Development Programme (RSDP) which has been designed to enhance awareness of the breadth of methodological approaches available to researchers enabling them to make informed choices about the research methods that they will need to employ in their own work, both now and in their future career. The RSDP includes a range of blended learning opportunities including a comprehensive programme of on-line skills development courses created by staff at Imperial College London as well as a range of skills development sessions delivered by external speakers and staff in the UoH. The Programme is founded on a Training Needs Analysis (TNA) and Personal Development Planning (PDP); engagement in this process helps both PGR and their supervisors to identify and address gaps in their range of skill competencies; all information about this process is available via Blackboard, the University’s Virtual Learning Environment (VLE). As a research supervisor, you will be expected to be involved in this task. If you have any questions or need further information please contact Jean York, Graduate Skills Coordinator in the Research and Enterprise Office either by email at: j.e.york@hud.ac.uk or on Ext 1844.


Research and Enterprise

Skills Training


Research Skills Development Programme 2009/2010: List of courses The University of Huddersfield skills training framework has been designed specifically for postgraduate researchers in the University; the structure and content of the programme has been built around Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) and UK Research Council guidelines and recommendations. Participation in this programme will enable you to develop the broad range of relevant and appropriate skills demanded of a 21st century postgraduate researcher. The programme is being developed and phased in over a two year period and will be delivered through a process of blended learning (face-to-face and on-line).

Event

Time

Mode

Postgraduate Induction Programme Face-to-face Required attendance soon after registration Training Needs Analysis and Personal Development Planning Networking Skills Time Management Skills Project Management in Research University Repository Research Ethics Intellectual Property Rights Introduction to the Computing and Library Service Working with Your Supervisor Introduction to Project Management Academic English Research Project Planning

Research Ethics

Year 1 4 March 2010: 10 May 2010: Book through Staff Development

Face-to-face and Epigeum

Introduced at Induction and Epigeum. Additional sessions delivered in School where necessary.


Working with Your Supervisor

Critical Thinking Skills How to be an Effective Researcher

11 Jan 2010 10.00 – 16.00 Book through Staff Development 24 May 2010: Book through Staff Development

Intellectual Property Rights Presentation and Communication Skills

Teaching Practice in Education (TAPP)

Publishing Your Research Career Planning and Preparation

Support for Researchers: An Introduction to EndNote, MetaLib and Current Awareness SPSS Using the Thesis Framework for Researchers

15 Feb 2010: 9.15 – 16.30; 9 or 24 March 2010: 9.15 – 16.30; Book through Staff Development 11 Jan 2010: 13.15 – 16.15 18 Jan 2010: 13.15 – 16.15 25 Jan 2010: 13.15 – 16.15 1 Feb 2010: 13.15 – 16.15 8 Feb 2010: 13.15 – 16.15 24 Feb 2010: 13.15 – 16.15 1 March 210: 13.15 – 16.15 Book through Staff Development Book through Staff Development 16 Nov 2009: 14.00 – 16.00; 30 Nov 2009: 10.00 – 12.00; 14 Dec 2009: 14.00 – 16.00; 18 Jan 2010: 14.00 – 16.00 Book through Staff Development 1 Dec 2009: 15.15 – 17.15 Book through Staff Development 16 April 2010: Book through Staff Development 21 Jan 2010: 14.00 – 17.00 5 February 2010 Book through Staff Development

Introduced at Induction and Epigeum. Additional sessions delivered in School where necessary. Face-to-face One day workshop Introduced at Induction and Epigeum. Phase 2 face-to-face Face-to-face

Face-to-face

Face-to-face Face-to-face

Face-to-face

Face-to-face Face-to-face


NVivo – Managing Qualitative Data Workshop Writing Workshop

Research Posters and How to Prepare Them Getting Ready for First Year Viva

26 April 2010: 9.15 – 16.15 Book through Staff Development 13 April 2010 Whole day workshop for PGR from all Schools

Delivered in School 14 April 2010 Half day event with external speaker for PGR from all UoH Schools

Qualitative Analysis (Advanced) Quantitative Analysis (Advanced) Practice as Research Action Research Preparing for Your PhD Viva Conference Attendance and Presentation Getting Published in the Arts Getting Published in the Sciences Career Planning in the Sciences Career Planning in the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences Intellectual Property in the Research Context Research Ethics 1: Governance Research Ethics 2: Working with Human Subjects Project Management in the Research Context Working with Your Supervisor Research Methods in the Arts Research Methods in the Social Sciences Research Methods in the Sciences The Literature Review

Face-to-face

Delivered in School

Delivered in School Delivered in School Delivered in School Delivered in School Delivered in School On-line On-line On-line On-line On-line On-line

Epigeum Epigeum Epigeum Epigeum Epigeum

On-line

Epigeum

On-line On-line

Epigeum Epigeum

On-line

Epigeum

On-line On-line On-line On-line On-line

Epigeum Epigeum Epigeum Epigeum Epigeum


Research Methods and Techniques Tools for Innovation and Creativity Introduction to Qualitative Methods Surveys, Interviews and Questionnaires Introduction to Quantitative Methods and Analysis Data Protection, Confidentiality and Freedom of Information Act Writing Skills for Research Applying for Funding All-in-One (for part-time PGR) Cultural Practice as Method Enterprise in Research Commercialisation of Research

On-line On-line On-line On-line On-line

UoH e-module UoH e-module UoH e-module UoH e-module UoH e-module

2nd Phase On-line

UoH e-module


Blackboard for Researchers An area of Blackboard has been set up specifically for all researchers including PGR students, supervisors, PGR tutors and staff undertaking research degrees. 1.

Log-in to Blackboard using your usual User Name and Password. Your Welcome page will feature various tabs across the top of the screen that will look something like this: Po

Postgraduate Researchers

My Institution

Modules

Library

esearchers My Institution Modules Library 2. Click open the ‘Postgraduate Researchers’ tab and you will see a box entitled ‘My Resources’ and this will list all the Resources that you are able to access. It will include a resource called ‘Postgraduate Researchers’ and it will look something like this:

Tools Announcements Calendar Tasks View Grades Send Email User Directory Address Book Personal Information

My Announcements

No system announcements have been posted in the last 7 days. Postgraduate Researchers • Research Skills Development Programme Postgraduate Researchers: Staff Research Degrees • Careers in Research Online Survey (CROS) Postgraduate Researchers: Supervision • Supervisor's Networking and Best Practice Forum: Another date for your diary....... more...... My Resources

Resources in which you are participating: Emerging Research Groups Resources you are leading: Postgraduate Researchers: Epigeum Arts Postgraduate Researchers: Epigeum Sciences Postgraduate Researchers: Staff Research Degrees Postgraduate Researchers: Supervision Resources you are building: Postgraduate Researchers


3. The University has subscribed to 14 on-line research skills sessions which were designed by staff at Imperial College London. These are broken into two discrete areas: Epigeum Arts and Epigeum Sciences. All PGR can access either of these folders via two routes:  As a freestanding title in the Resources list (see example above) Or  Via the Postgraduate Researchers/on-line skills/Epigeum Arts or Epigeum Sciences (see Postgraduate Researchers menu box below). 4. Click open ‘Postgraduate Researchers’ and this will take you straight into the menu for this Resource which includes the following tabs in the panel on the left hand side of the screen: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

WELCOME Announcements Induction PDP Research Skills Development Programme Thesis Writing Framework On-Line Skills Plagiarism The Literature Review External Links Funding Career Development Newspaper, Journal and RC Articles Useful Information Contact us GradBritain PGR Student Representatives Grad Britain

This folder holds a comprehensive and continually developing range of useful information for PGR. Induction: Details of every Induction Programme offered since October 2008 is held in this file and includes a copy of every presentation delivered at each event. PDP: Here you can find a copy of the Training Needs Analysis (TNA) and Personal Development Plan (PDP) which all PGR are encouraged to complete within the first month of registration and on a regular basis thereafter. Supervisors should be actively involved in this process. This file contains a set of instructions (PDP Getting Started) for developing personal and shared portfolios to hold a record of courses attended and skills developed (see page 4 for downloaded copy of this text). Research Skills Development Programme: This file includes a useful overview of sessions for each academic year as well as a more detailed spreadsheet of all training events that have been confirmed to date. These documents are regularly updated. Links to three You Tube videos on the Literature Review are included here.


Thesis Writing Framework: This file contains a very useful template for the Thesis. PGR can download this document and add their own material; all the formatting and structuring has already been done. A folder containing Notes for Using the Framework as well as video illustrations of use is also available under this heading. On-Line Skills: This file contains both Epigeum packages and also 5 UoH e-modules developed by staff in the University. Plagiarism: The UoH Regulations on Plagiarism and Academic Misconduct are available here. The Literature Review: Links to various external sites which focus on approaches to producing the Literature Review are uploaded into this file. External Links: A wealth of useful weblinks can be found in this file including The Good Viva video, British Council, Research Council and Vitae documents and guidance, index to British PhD Theses, UK Border Agency and many discipline-specific associations. Funding: Open this file to find information about funding opportunities. Career Development: Links to the Career Development Agency, Jobs by Email, Prospects (the UK’s official graduate career website) and guidance on writing cv’s, letters of application etc. Newspaper, Journal and Research Council Articles: Published articles about how to be successful in the research process. Useful Information: Links to sites such as the Joint Skills Statement, World time zones, Academic Calendar, UoH Regulations etc Contact Us: Contact details for raising queries, concerns and suggestions. GradBritain: Contains archives of GradBritain, Vitae’s magazine for PGR written by PGR and details on how to subscribe individually. PGR Student Representatives: This file contains Minutes of PGR Student Panel Meetings. Any announcements relating to this content will be identified in the Announcements box on the Welcome page.

Please sign into Blackboard using your usual UoH Log-in User Name and Password and explore these files for yourself!


PDP: Getting Started

Accessing your Portfolio Area In a new window in Blackboard (Use Control + N) select My Portfolios from the left hand side of the menu in the Tools Box. A list of your our current Portfolios will appear unless you are accessing the system for the first time.

Creating your PDP and Research Diary •

Click on Add Basic Portfolio

Add information in the relevant boxes:

Title: “Your Name’s PDP portfolio”, for example “Tara’s portfolio”

Description: “This portfolio has been created to support me in my Personal Development Planning”

Click Submit to save.

A link to your newly created PDP portfolio will now appear in the list under My Portfolios.

Click on Add Basic Portfolio

Add Basic Portfolio

Add Basic Portfolio

Add information in the relevant boxes: box

Title: “Your Name’s Research Diary”, for example “Tara’s Research Diary Oct 09 – April 10”

Description: “This Research diary has been created as an on-line on line resource to support me in my Personal Development Planning”


Click Submit to save.

A link to your newly created Research Diary will now appear in the list under My Portfolios.

Adding Content to you PDP Portfolio •

Select Modify on the right hand side of your newly created Portfolio

Select Modify Content from the list provided. This will take you away from your Portfolio Area and it will be empty if accessing it for the first time.

Add an introductory item

Select Add Item

From the templates provided, select Blank Item then click Submit. Submit

Name your new menu item “Personal Snapshot”. This topic helps you to create a starting point for your PDP, where you can record brief details about yourself, your starting point and your goals and aspirations. This will personalise your PDP and even include e a photograph of yourself so that it will form an introduction to anyone you share it with, including your Supervisor(s) at your initial meeting.

Click Submit to save. A link to your newly created Personal Snapshot will now appear in your portfolio

Item

Adding ing Additional Items to Build your Portfolio

• Select Modify on the right hand side of your newly created Portfolio

Select Modify Content from the list provided. This will take you away from your Portfolio Area and it will be empty if accessing it for the first time.


Select Add Item

Item

From the templates provided, select Blank Item then click Submit. Submit

Name your new menu item “Generic PG P Skills”.

Click Submit to save. A link to your newly created Generic Skills area will now appear in your portfolio.

Continue in this way to add the following items to your portfolio:

• •

My Portfolio: Discipline Specific Skills My Portfolio: CV Building

You have now created the basic elements of your portfolio and each of the new areas can be edited, amended and updated to record your development as you progress through your research studies.


Joint Statement of the Research Councils' Skills Training Requirements for Research Students1 Introduction The Research Councils play an important role in setting standards and identifying best practice in research training. This document sets out a joint statement of the skills that doctoral research students funded by the Research Councils would be expected to develop during their research training. These skills may be present on commencement, explicitly taught, or developed during the course of the research. It is expected that different mechanisms will be used to support learning as appropriate, including self-direction, supervisor support and mentoring, departmental support, workshops, conferences, elective training courses, formally assessed courses and informal opportunities. The Research Councils would also want to re-emphasise their belief that training in research skills and techniques is the key element in the development of a research student, and that PhD students are expected to make a substantial, original contribution to knowledge in their area, normally leading to published work. The development of wider employment-related skills should not detract from that core objective. The purpose of this statement is to give a common view of the skills and experience of a typical research student thereby providing universities with a clear and consistent message aimed at helping them to ensure that all research training was of the highest standard, across all disciplines. It is not the intention of this document to provide assessment criteria for research training. It is expected that each Council will have additional requirements specific to their field of interest and will continue to have their own measures for the evaluation of research training within institutions.

1

The Joint Skills Statement was developed in 2001 by the UK GRAD Programme and the Research Councils

www.vitae.ac.uk Vitae is supported by Research Councils UK (RCUK), managed by CRAC: The Career Development Organisation and delivered in partnership with regional Hub host universities

VitaeŽ, Š The Careers Research and Advisory Centre (CRAC) Limited


(A) Research Skills and Techniques - to be able to demonstrate: • the ability to recognise and validate problems • original, independent and critical thinking, and the ability to develop theoretical concepts • a knowledge of recent advances within one's field and in related areas • an understanding of relevant research methodologies and techniques and their appropriate application within one's research field • the ability to critically analyse and evaluate one's findings and those of others • an ability to summarise, document, report and reflect on progress (B) Research Environment - to be able to: • show a broad understanding of the context, at the national and international level, in which research takes place • demonstrate awareness of issues relating to the rights of other researchers, of research subjects, and of others who may be affected by the research, e.g. confidentiality, ethical issues, attribution, copyright, malpractice, ownership of data and the requirements of the Data Protection Act • demonstrate appreciation of standards of good research practice in their institution and/or discipline • understand relevant health and safety issues and demonstrate responsible working practices • understand the processes for funding and evaluation of research • justify the principles and experimental techniques used in one's own research • understand the process of academic or commercial exploitation of research results (C) Research Management - to be able to: • apply effective project management through the setting of research goals, intermediate milestones and prioritisation of activities • design and execute systems for the acquisition and collation of information through the effective use of appropriate resources and equipment • identify and access appropriate bibliographical resources, archives, and other sources of relevant information • use information technology appropriately for database management, recording and presenting information (D) Personal Effectiveness - to be able to: • demonstrate a willingness and ability to learn and acquire knowledge • be creative, innovative and original in one's approach to research • demonstrate flexibility and open-mindedness • demonstrate self-awareness and the ability to identify own training needs • demonstrate self-discipline, motivation, and thoroughness • recognise boundaries and draw upon/use sources of support as appropriate • show initiative, work independently and be self-reliant

www.vitae.ac.uk Vitae is supported by Research Councils UK (RCUK), managed by CRAC: The Career Development Organisation and delivered in partnership with regional Hub host universities

Vitae®, © The Careers Research and Advisory Centre (CRAC) Limited


(E) Communication Skills - to be able to: • write clearly and in a style appropriate to purpose, e.g. progress reports, published documents, thesis • construct coherent arguments and articulate ideas clearly to a range of audiences, formally and informally through a variety of techniques • constructively defend research outcomes at seminars and viva examination • contribute to promoting the public understanding of one's research field • effectively support the learning of others when involved in teaching, mentoring or demonstrating activities (F) Networking and Teamworking - to be able to: • develop and maintain co-operative networks and working relationships with supervisors, colleagues and peers, within the institution and the wider research community • understand one's behaviours and impact on others when working in and contributing to the success of formal and informal teams • listen, give and receive feedback and respond perceptively to others (G) Career Management - to be able to: • appreciate the need for and show commitment to continued professional development • take ownership for and manage one's career progression, set realistic and achievable career goals, and identify and develop ways to improve employability • demonstrate an insight into the transferable nature of research skills to other work environments and the range of career opportunities within and outside academia • Present one's skills, personal attributes and experiences through effective CVs, applications and interviews

www.vitae.ac.uk Vitae is supported by Research Councils UK (RCUK), managed by CRAC: The Career Development Organisation and delivered in partnership with regional Hub host universities

Vitae®, © The Careers Research and Advisory Centre (CRAC) Limited


Teaching Assistant Preparation Programme (TAPP) The TAPP programme of workshops prepares postgraduate research students for their role in teaching and supervision of classes. This programme consists of a series of half day workshops, each of which focus on a specific aspect of teaching, supervision or assessment. The sessions are practical, providing real ideas and techniques which can be applied with groups of students. Participants can attend individual sessions. For those attending all the TAPP sessions a Certificate of Attendance is provided upon completion. Course Elements: •

Introduction to Learning and Teaching

Designing Learning Activities

Introduction to Lecturing and Teaching Large Groups

Introduction to Small Group Teaching

Introduction to Supporting Disabled Students

Student Assessment and Feedback

Evaluating Learning & Teaching

Developing Effective Presentation Skills

The TAPP programme is offered on an annual basis (minimum). It will be offered twice in 2009 / 10 The second programme will run in a condensed period 24-29 May 2010. Dates relating to the remainder of the current programme can be found together with the aims and objectives relating to each of the programme elements here: http://www.hud.ac.uk/hr/courses/a-z.php?letter=T


University of Huddersfield

Personal Development Planning (PDP) for Postgraduate Researchers What is PDP? PDP has been described as a ‘structured and supported process undertaken by an individual to reflect upon their own learning, performance and/or achievement and to plan for their personal, educational and career development’ (QAA 2001). PDP is a process that revolves around critical reflection, planning, implementing and evaluating and needs to be embedded in the whole learning experience. It represents more than a set of skills as it unleashes the ability to articulate the learning from documented experiences resulting in independent, autonomous and self-aware learners. The University of Huddersfield expects all postgraduate researchers to demonstrate a commitment to the use of PDP from September 2009. Why is PDP important for postgraduate researchers? At the beginning of your PhD journey, three years might sound like a long time but most people find it very difficult to effectively use their time and complete within the registration period without proper planning. PDP will help you to plan your work from the point of initial registration right through to completion. It will help you to take responsibility for your personal development and to monitor and evaluate your progress as you work towards your research degree. In this way, PDP can help you to become a more effective, independent, confident and self-directed researcher and will also improve your career planning skills and your employability. How will it work? PDP for researchers at the University of Huddersfield will be accessed via Blackboard, the University’s Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) platform.

Record your developments and achievements and build your cv

Reflect on your skills, personal qualities, learning style etc

Focus your idea, establish prioritised,achievable goals and evaluate progress

Develop your education, personal and career opportunities

The PDP process will be available on-line for personalised use. You will be expected to discuss your progress with your supervisor at regular intervals throughout your registration Jean York 10 June 2009


University of Huddersfield and your PDP will thereby become a fundamental part of your reflection, action and planning cycle. You will be able to share your PDP with your supervisor through the Blackboard platform if you wish so that you can discuss the content in your regular supervisory meetings. Generic and Transferable Skills All postgraduate researchers (in the University of Huddersfield and across the entire higher education sector) need to go through a programme of training in generic and transferable skills; our on-line PDP and Training Needs Analysis (TNA) will help you to determine gaps in your training, to identify courses that you can attend or pursue on-line to bridge those gaps and also to build a record of courses that you have successfully completed. Getting Started The process of PDP will be introduced at Induction and will then be electronically accessible through Blackboard; all instructions and guidelines for use will also be available via this source. You will be expected to discuss your PDP and skills development plans with your supervisor at an early meeting so that you can draw up your plan within the first month of your registration. This plan will serve as a guide as you develop your research skills and will be re-visited on a regular basis in your supervisory meetings to ensure that you are on target with the goals you have set for yourself. Monitoring Your PDP will form a part of the University’s progress monitoring discussion as you advance through your PhD. Evaluation of the process There is a strong pressure on universities to be more evaluative of practice; in the context of PDP we need to show that our systems are appropriate, effective and beneficial for users. An e-questionnaire will be circulated to all postgraduate researchers in November 2009 and April 2010 for evaluation purposes. References Guidelines for HE Progress Files, QAA 2001 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/progressfiles/guidelines/progfile2001.asp (accessed 10 June 2009) The National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, Sir Ron Dearing 23 July 1997. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/ (accessed 10 June 2009) Personal Development Planning: required documentation and process, University of Huddersfield

Jean York 10 June 2009


University of Huddersfield

Getting Started Create two document folders, one for private use and one for sharing (with your Supervisor for example). Name them ‘Shared’ and ‘Private’ so that you know which is which. Accessing your Portfolio Area In a new window (Use Control + N) select My Portfolios from the left hand side of the menu in the Tools Box. A list of your current Portfolios will appear unless you are accessing the system for the first time.

Creating your PDP and Research Diary •

Click on Add Basic Portfolio

Add information in the relevant boxes:

Title: “Your Name’s PDP portfolio”, for example “Tara’s “Tara’s portfolio”

Description: “This portfolio has been created to support me in my Personal Development Planning”

Click Submit to save.

A link to your newly created PDP portfolio will now appear in the list under My Portfolios.

Click on Add Basic Portfolio Add information in the relevant boxes:

Add Basic Portfolio

Add Basic Portfolio

Title: “Your Name’s Research Diary”, for example “Tara’s Research Diary Oct 09 – April 10”

is Research diary has been created as an on-line on line resource to Description: “This support me in my Personal Development Planning”

Click Submit to save.

A link to your newly created Research Diary will now appear in the list under My Portfolios.

Adding Content to you PDP Portfolio Po • Select Modify on the right hand side of your newly created Portfolio Jean York 10 June 2009


University of Huddersfield •

Select Modify Content from the list provided. This will take you away from your Portfolio Area and it will be empty if accessing it for the first time.

Add an introductory item

Select Add Item

From the templates provided, select Blank Item then click Submit. Submit

Name your new menu item “Personal Snapshot”. This topic helps you to create a starting point for your PDP, where you can record brief details about yourself, your starting point and your goals and aspirations. This will personalise your PDP and even include a photograph of yourself so that it will form rm an introduction to anyone you share it with, including your Supervisor(s) at your initial meeting.

Click Submit to save. A link to your newly created Personal Snapshot will now appear in your portfolio

Item

Adding Additional Items to Build your Portfolio • Select Modify on the right hand side of your newly created Portfolio •

Select Modify Content from the list provided. This will take you away from your Portfolio Area and it will be empty if accessing it for the first time.

Select Add Item

From the templates provided, select Blank Item then click Submit. Submit

Name your new menu item “Generic PG Skills”.

Click Submit to save. A link to your newly created Generic Skills area will now appear in your portfolio.

Item

Continue in this way to add the following items to your portfolio: • •

My Portfolio: Discipline Specific Skills My Portfolio: CV Building

You have now created the basic elements of your portfolio and each of the new areas can be edited, amended and updated to record your development as you progress through your research studies.

Jean York 10 June 2009


University of Huddersfield University of Huddersfield Personal Development Planning: required documentation and process

Following agreement on the principles and practice for PDP at the University of Huddersfield (appendix one), this paper sets out suggested minimum information at University and School level, and the operational support that this might entail. 1. Minimum information: 1.1 A University web page/ pages containing: • •

Principles and specification as per the agreed policy A statement from the Students’ Union - which is embedded in the student contract

1.2 A statement in all student handbooks about PDP in their course - what it is what it will mean for them, where it happens and how they will be supported. 1.3 From 2009/10 onwards a mapping grid/progress map in PSDs indicating where PDP is to happen 1.4 A statement and support during training from the UHSU student representative lead officer 2. Operational support: 2.1 Capacity within blackboard and technical support 2.2 Shared examples of good practice (on staff only web page) 2.3 Named champions at School level 2.4 Targeted support from the careers service Suggested mapping: We start from the premise that the outcomes of PDP are likely to be explicit in most courses but may not be labelled as ‘PDP’. This may include continuation with a chosen profession/ occupation, plus key skills, personal reflection and career planning. Mapping is a way of identifying that PDP activity is happening which could also then form the audit template for quality assurance; for example:

Aspect of PDP Personal reflection Jean York 10 June 2009

Place in the course – e.g. undergraduate Module Consolidation/reflection

Critical evaluation


University of Huddersfield Personal tutor?

from over the year or module

of development

EVIDENCE:

? assignment, ? SWOT of existing skills

?assignment Etc etc ? Progress update and reflection on action plan

Career planning

Meeting careers advisor (module?)

Placement/ practice experience

CV building/Personal statement development Careers drop in ? Interview portfolio

EVIDENCE

? Goal ?Placement log identification/Action Planning

Developing independence/ confidence

Module? Personal tutor?

Aspect of PDP Personal reflection

Place in the course – e.g. post graduate/ post qualifying Module Consolidation/reflection Critical evaluation Personal tutor? of development

EVIDENCE:

?review of current professional role? SWOT of existing skills

?assignment choice Etc etc ? Progress update and reflection on action plan

Professional development

Targeted optional modules

Modules including practice/ or development of aspects of practice

EVIDENCE

? artefacts/ skills developed for professional role Module? Learning set?

Developing independence/ confidence

Etc

CV building/Personal statement development ? items for inclusion in professional portfolio

Etc

Personal development Planning: Principles and Practice.

Jean York 10 June 2009

Etc

Etc


University of Huddersfield

1. Introduction: Personal Development Planning (PDP) is one of the mechanisms through which students in Higher Education are encouraged to reflect on their development and achieve their full potential. It has the ability to enhance their employability and their career. It also provides a starting point for, or continuation of the continuous professional development expected by employers, professional and statutory bodies. As such from September 2005 all HEIs should have developed mechanisms for the integration of PDP. PDP is described as a ‘structured and supported process undertaken by an individual to reflect upon their own learning, performance and/ or achievement and to plan for their personal, educational and career development’ (QAA 2001) PDP may be a new starting point for some students who have not undertaken this sort of development in the past. However, increasingly, students will already be undertaking PDP either as a continuation from school, college or work, or as part of their continuing professional development. The University scheme is tailored to each course to reflect the profile of its students. PDP has two main purposes; firstly to encourage the development of the students’ self awareness of their strengths and weaknesses, thus giving a value added element to their learning; secondly to provide a record of the students’ achievement in higher education. A full explanation of PDP development can be found at: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/progressFiles/guidelines/progfile2001.pdf The University of Huddersfield expects full compliance with the enclosed principles and practice of PDP for September 2009. It intends to use its VLE Blackboard as a repository for information about PDP for each course. In the medium to longer term it is envisaged that Blackboard will be a vehicle for delivering PDP. The principles and practice do not impose uniform processes or documentation across courses or Schools. For example many students will already have a professional portfolio to which their course at Huddersfield will be an addition. They do however require that all students have clear guidance and support in the development of their PDP and that all Schools commit to a set of principles (section two), provide structure and support for PDP (section three) and maintain effective Quality assurance processes (section four). 2. Principles: The primary principle regarding PDP is to promote student learning. In order to support this each School should – 2.1 Demonstrate a commitment to the use of PDP as part of enabling students to achieve their full potential. 2.2 Ensure that an effective mechanism [that may incorporate the personal tutor role] is in place for supporting PDP. 2.3 Provide students with guidance and support, including a mechanism of recording, for their PDP Jean York 10 June 2009


University of Huddersfield

2.4 Link, where appropriate, with employers’ and professional and statutory body requirements associated with the student’s course of study. 2.5 Ensure that PDP is explicitly included in programme specifications at validation and is reviewed through the annual evaluation process. 2.6 In addition elements of PDP may be part of the formative or summative assessment process but this is not a University requirement 3. Minimum specification; As a minimum all PDP must include: 3.1 Introductory information: what PDP is for, how students can use it and its value to them 3.2 Sessions during induction and relevant other points in the course to support the scheme, offer guidance on the sort of things PDP might be used for, and how specifically it fits into their course 3.3 Clearly identified opportunities to develop PDP – these might include for example; dedicated modules, sessions within modules, the personal tutor system or supervisory team, targeted extra sessions and materials, additional opportunities within placements or employment, dedicated external provision and at School or University level. 3.4 Forms/ templates for use in recording PDP to include: meetings with personal tutors and other relevant people, evaluation of modules, personal evaluation and developing/ enhancement of a CV. These materials should be flexible to suit the needs of different student profiles and portable so that they can be linked to learning/ professional practice out with the student’s study at Huddersfield. 3.5 Transcript of achievement (for taught courses) 4. Quality assurance: The University is required to ensure that effective strategies are in place for the management delivery of PDP. Table one defines the requirements and responsibilities for each course Table one: Monitor and audit mechanisms for quality assurance of PDP Points at which PDP must be embedded into QA Responsibility processes and student journey A strategy for managing and recording PDP is written into the Programme Specification for taught programmes and in the research students handbook for Post Graduate Researchers ( PGRRG) Jean York 10 June 2009

Course team/ Validation Panels or research office


University of Huddersfield The system and documentation for PDP are available through Blackboard ( unless this is not the main VLE used by the course)

Course team/ Validation Panels or Research office

At the start of their course students are introduced to PDP. They are given a rationale for the value of PDP, the system for recording it and advice/ guidance on opportunities in the course to develop it.

Course team or research office

Throughout the course there are regular points where PDP is involved: • the course leader for taught programmes embeds the PDP process into the course profile ( either via personal tutors or other mechanisms agreed within the School) •

students are encouraged to reflect on their progress at each stage of the course

there are opportunities to build a record of learning achievement

students are given clear advice on the opportunities to discuss PDP – personal tutors, careers advice, etc.

Course Leader

Module leaders/supervisory team Course team/ supervisory team Course team/ supervisory team

On completion of taught courses students are provided with a transcript of the achievement.

ASIS system

PDP is explicitly evaluated though the course committee/ student panel, annual evaluation process

Course leader, Dean of School, research office

Jean York 10 June 2009


University of Huddersfield

PDP e-Evaluation Form (please return to Jean York, Research & Enterprise) Name (optional): School: First year of registration: 1.

Are you registered on a full or part-time basis (please delete as appropriate)

2.

Have you used PDP on previous courses before registering for your research degree? If so, where?

3.

How long did it take you to complete you personal development plan (PDP)?

4.

Did you find it difficult to complete your plan? (i) very difficult

(ii) a bit difficult

(iii) quite easy

(iv) very easy

5.

What aspects were difficult for you to think/write about and why?

6.

How beneficial was it, to you personally, to complete the plan? (i) very beneficial (iv)

7.

(ii) somewhat beneficial

(iii) not beneficial

any other comments?

What benefits deriving from the PDP process can you identify from the following list (tick as many as are applicable). (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii)

Jean York 10 June 2009

It helped me to evaluate my existing skills and those I need to develop further It helped me to consider the link between my studies and future employability It helped me to plan what I need to develop in the future It helped me to reflect on my own learning, achievements, skills and to better appreciate how this can enhance future skills development It helped me to plan my cv and to articulate knowledge and skills that will help me with future job applications as well as effective understanding of my current studies Engagement in PDP has increased my self-motivation and enhanced my confidence The PDP process has improved my performance


University of Huddersfield

8.

Was the purpose of the process clear to you? Yes No

9. Were there any barriers to completing your plan? Yes (please circle those that apply or add information) (i) Time restrictions (ii) Purpose of exercise was not clear (iii) Lack of clarity (iv) Too difficult (v) Something else?

No

10.

What aspects of completing your plan were helped by additional information? (Please tick as many as apply or add further information). (i) clarification of the purpose of PDP at induction (ii) information outlining the purpose and guidelines for completion (iii) seeing the benefits of the PDP process (such as links with cv development) (iv) knowing that the PDP process is a University of Huddersfield policy (v) having experience of other PDP engagement (vi) anything else?

11.

Did you find it easy/helpful to discuss the plan with your supervisor?

12.

Have your perceptions/expectations changed in response to your own selfevaluation? Did the process make you think of anything that had not occurred to you before or to think differently?

13.

Do you have any further comments to make regarding the PDP process?

Jean York 10 June 2009


University of Huddersfield

Training Needs Analysis (TNA) Comprehensive planning in the early stages of your doctoral research programme can help you to follow a successful path towards completion. It is also important to develop a full range of academic, personal and professional skills to underpin your professional grasp of research as well as your professional approach. This TNA will help you to reflect on the skills that you may need to further develop and your analysis of this, along with personal development planning, will prove invaluable when you come to writing up and moving on in your career. The skills listed below have been identified in the Joint Skills Statement (JSS) by the Research Councils/AHRB and the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) Code of Practice as the threshold skills-base needed by postgraduate researchers in the pursuit of their doctoral award. Please look at the following competencies and ask yourself (honestly!): • • • • •

When have I used this skill? What evidence can I provide to confirm this skill? Do I feel confident of my ability in this area? What training and development needs can I identify? What next?

Can your rate your ability/confidence on a scale of 1-5 (where 1 = low and 4 = high) A. RESEARCH SKILLS AND TECHNIQUES – are you able to demonstrate: Ability to recognise and validate problems and to formulate and test hypotheses

1

2

3

4

Original, independent and critical thinking and the ability to develop theoretical concepts

1

2

3

4

Knowledge of recent advances within your field and in related areas

1

2

3

4


An understanding of relevant research methodologies and techniques and their appropriate application within your research field

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

The ability to analyse critically and to evaluate your findings and those of others

An ability to summarise, document, report and reflect on progress

B. RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT - are you able to: Show a broad understanding of the context, at national and international level, in which research takes place

Demonstrate awareness of issues relating to the rights of other researchers, of research subjects and of others who may be affected by the research, eg confidentiality, ethical issues, attribution, copyright, malpractice, ownership of data and the requirements of the Data Protection Act

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4


Demonstrate appreciation of standards of good research practice in your institution and/or discipline

1

2

3

4

Understand relevant health and safety issues and demonstrate responsible working practices

1

2

3

4

Justify the principles and experimental techniques used in your own research

1

2

3

4

Understand the process of academic or commercial exploitation of research results

1

2

3

4

C. RESEARCH MANAGEMENT – are you able to: Apply effective project management through the setting of research goals, intermediate milestones and prioritisation of activities

1

2

3

4


Design and execute systems for the acquisition and collation of information through the effective use of appropriate resources and equipment

1

2

3

4

Identify and access appropriate bibliographical resources, archives and other sources of relevant information. Use 1 information technology appropriately for database management, recording and presenting information

2

3

4

D. PERSONAL EFFECTIVENESS – are you able to: Demonstrate a willingness and ability to learn and acquire knowledge

1

2

3

4

Be creative, innovative and original in your approach to research

1

2

3

4

Demonstrate flexibility and open-mindedness

1

2

3

4


Demonstrate self-awareness and the ability to identify your own training needs

1

2

3

4

Recognise boundaries and draw upon/use sources of support as appropriate

1

2

3

4

Show initiative, work independently and be self-reliant

1

2

3

4

E. COMMUNICATION SKILLS – are you able to: Write clearly an in a style appropriate to purpose, eg progress reports, published documents, thesis

1

2

3

4

Construct coherent documents and articulate ideas clearly to a range of audiences, formally and informally through a variety of techniques

1

2

3

4

Constructively defend research outcomes at seminars and viva examination

1

2

3

4


Contribute to promoting the public understanding of your research field

1

2

3

4

Effectively support the learning of others when involved in teaching, mentoring or demonstrating activities

1

2

3

4

F. NETWORKING AND TEAM WORKING – are you able to: Develop and maintain co-operative networks and working relationships with supervisors, colleagues and peers within the institution and the wider research community

1

2

3

4

Understand your behaviour and impact on others when working in and contributing to the success of formal and informal teams

1

2

3

4

Listen, give and receive feedback and respond perceptively to others

1

2

3

4


G. CAREER MANAGEMENT – are you able to: Appreciate the need for and show commitment to continued professional development

1

2

3

4

Take ownership for and manage your career progression, set realistic and achievable career goals and identify and develop ways to improve employability

1

2

3

4

Demonstrate an insight into the transferable nature of research skills to other work environments and the range of career opportunities within and outside of academia

1

2

3

4

Present your skills, personal attribute and experiences through effective CVs, applications and interviews

1

2

3

4


Research and Enterprise

Progression Monitoring


POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH PROGRESSION MONITORING FORMS Form 1: Outline Programme of Research To be completed by the student within one month of enrolment. It is the responsibility of the student to complete and obtain sign-off from the main supervisor. This form is for your records; it does not have to be submitted to your School Office or to the University Research Office. Form 2: Programme of Research To be completed within six months (full time) or nine months (part time) of enrolment. It is the responsibility of the student to complete and obtain sign-off from the main supervisor. A copy should be submitted to the Head of Research Administration in your School Office who will add it to your student file and send a copy to University Research Office. Form 3: Personal Development: Planning and Review To be completed by the student at least every quarter. This is a useful reflection tool for supervisory meetings. A copy should be retained by the student and the main supervisor. Form 4: Research Progression Advice Form This form is to be discussed and agreed by the main supervisor and student 9 months (full time) or 18 months (part time) into the research project. Its aim is to ensure the student is fully aware of the requirements for progression and their progression to date. A copy should be retained by the student and main supervisor. Form 5: Confidential Student Feedback Form This form may be used at any point, and as often as necessary, during your research programme to provide feedback on your studies to the University Research Office. Form 6: Progress Report To be completed before the end of the first and second (full time) year or second and fourth (part time) year of enrolment. The candidate should complete this form and hand it to the Head of Research Administration in the School Office together with a copy of a 3000-6000-word progress report. The School Office will notify you of the date of your oral presentation. Form 7: Progression Decision Form This form is to record the progression of the student after the first (full time) or second (part time) year of research as approved through a viva voce process that includes an oral presentation by the candidate alongside a written report. After the oral presentation a copy of the completed form should be retained by the student, the main supervisor and by the Head of Research Administration in the School Office. A copy of the completed form must also be sent to the University Research Office. Form 8: Progress Advice Form This form is to record the progression of the student after the second (full time) or fourth (part time) year of research, as approved through a viva voce process that includes an oral presentation by the candidate. After the oral presentation a copy of the completed form should be retained by the student, the main supervisor and by the Head of Research Administration in the School Office. A copy of the completed form must also be sent to the University Research Office. Form 9: Notification of Intention to Submit a Thesis for Examination To be completed by the student and returned to the University Research Office not less than two months and not more than six months before the final submission date for the programme. Following receipt of this form your main supervisor will make arrangements for the appointment of examiners. Form 10: Application to Enrol for the Submission Pending Period If necessary to be completed by the student and returned to the University Research Office not less than two months before the end of the normal submission date for the programme as given in the University’s regulations.


FORM 1 (MAY 2008)

POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH OUTLINE PROGRAMME OF RESEARCH To be completed by the student within one month of enrolment. It is the responsibility of the student to complete and obtain sign-off from the main supervisor. This form is for your records; it does not have to be submitted to your School Office or to the University Research Office. Title of proposed investigation: Student name: Main supervisor: Mode: Full-time Part-time Date of first enrolment: 2 January Research programme:

MPhil

PhD

1 April

Student number: School: Department: 1 July 1 October / YEAR:

MPhil/PhD

EdD

Aim of the investigation:

Planned research methods:

Any planned collaboration:

Key areas for literature review:

Work schedule for next three months:

Any ethical issues:

Any health and safety issues:

What are your plans following completion of your degree?

SIGNATURES: Student: Date:

Main supervisor: (on behalf of the supervisory team) Date:


FORM 2 (MAY 2008)

POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH PROGRAMME OF RESEARCH To be completed by full time students within six months and by part time students within nine months of enrolment. It is the responsibility of the student to complete and obtain sign-off from the main supervisor. The form should be submitted to the Head of Research Administration in your School Office who will add it to your student file and send a copy to University Research Office.

Title of proposed investigation: Student name: Main supervisor: Date of first enrolment: Research programme:

2 January MPhil

PhD

1 April MPhil/PhD

Aim of investigation:

Plan of work Project plan

Any changes to original plan with reasons

How this builds on current research and previous work

Indicative references

Student number: School: Department: 1 July 1 October / YEAR: EdD


PROGRAMME OF RESEARCH Continued – Page 2 Ethics Any ethical issues, progress and future plans to address

Health and safety Any that have arisen, or may arise, how addressed

Date of enrolment: Mode of study:

Planned completion date: Full time

Part time

Hours/weeks dedicated to study (minimum 35 hours FT / 17.5 hours PT per week on average):

Collaboration Name of collaborating organisation Type/Details of organisation

Name of collaborator Nature of collaboration (include any issues with reference to sponsor/grant etc)

Resources Details of any resources/facilities required: (include whether these are readily available)

Notes for the Applicant • I wish to apply to my supervisory team for approval of my research programme on the basis of the information given in this application. • I confirm that the particulars given are correct. • I understand that, except with specific permission, I may not, during the period of my enrolment, be a candidate for another award. • I understand that, except with the specific permission, I must prepare and defend my thesis in English. SIGNATURES: Student:

Main supervisor:

Date:

Date:


FORM 3 (MAY 2008)

POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT: PLANNING AND REVIEW To be completed by the student at least every quarter. This is a useful reflection tool for supervisory meetings. A copy should be retained by the student and the main supervisor. Title of proposed investigation: Student name: Main supervisor: Mode: Full-time Part-time Date of first enrolment: 2 January Research programme:

MPhil

PhD

1 April MPhil/PhD

Student number: School: Department: 1 July 1 October / YEAR: EdD

Research priorities for next three months:

Any issues with current progress or area of research:

Priority areas for personal development:

Planned Outputs Journal paper(s):

Details

Conference paper(s):

Any comments:

SIGNATURES: Student: Date:

Main supervisor: Date:


FORM 4 (MAY 2008)

POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH RESEARCH PROGRESSION ADVICE FORM This form is to be discussed and agreed by the main supervisor and student 9 months (full time) or 18 months (part time) into the research project. Its aim is to ensure the student is fully aware of the requirements for progression and their progression to date. A copy should be retained by the student and main supervisor. Research project title: Student name: Main supervisor: Date of first enrolment: 2 January Mode: Full-time Part-time

Student number: School: Department: 1 April

1 July

1 October / YEAR:

TO MOVE INTO THE SECOND (FT) OR THIRD (PT) YEAR OF A DOCTORAL PROGRAMME: A student is expected to: • •

Present a report which details the research they have undertaken and details how this work may be developed into a viable programme of study to meet the criteria required for a doctorate; Take and pass a viva voce that will include an oral presentation of their research.

TO GRADUATE WITH AN MPhil A student is expected to: • •

Present a thesis in accordance with University regulations and to a standard that satisfies the examiners; Take and pass a viva voce.

Supervisory Team’s Recommendation for Progression:Options The Student should prepare a report and presentation for assessment, with nd the aim of progression into the 2 year rd (full time) or 3 year (part time) of a doctoral programme. The student should prepare a thesis with the aim of graduation with the degree of MPhil. The student is advised that they would nd not be able to progress to 2 year (full rd time) or 3 year (part time) of a doctorate or submit a suitable MPhil thesis (further explanation should be given and attached to this form). Main supervisor signature:

Check as appropriate

Target submission date for report or Thesis

Target date for viva voce

N/A

N/A

□ □ □

Date:

I have discussed my possible options for progression with my supervisory team and the format and content of any proposed reports. Student signature:


FORM 5 (MAY 2008)

POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH CONFIDENTIAL STUDENT FEEDBACK FORM This form may be used at any point, and as often as necessary, during your research programme to provide feedback on your studies to the University Research Office. Your feedback may take the form of: • • •

Major concerns regarding the progress of your work, with details. Information on the effectiveness of induction, training etc. Suggestions/concerns regarding any aspects of your course, e.g., administration and information provision.

Name: Student number: Date of first enrolment: 2 January Mode: Full-time Part-time Research programme: MPhil PhD Main supervisor: Your contact details:

1 April MPhil/PhD

1 July

1 October / YEAR:

EdD

We welcome compliments as well as criticism and will endeavour to respond to your suggestions promptly.


FORM 6 (MAY 2008)

POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH PROGRESS REPORT To be completed before the end of the first and second (full time) year or second and fourth (part time) year of enrolment. The candidate should complete this form and hand it to the Head of Research Administration in the School Office together with a copy of a 3000-6000-word progress report. The School Office will notify you of the date of your oral presentation. Student name: Main supervisor:

Date of first enrolment: 2 January Target date for final viva voce:

Student number: School: Department:

1 April

1 July

Full time Part time

1 October / YEAR:

Project title:

Induction programmes / seminars / workshops / conferences / attended:

Training & development courses attended:

PLEASE ATTACH YOUR PROGRESS REPORT OF 3000-6000 WORDS. Statement by the candidate I confirm that the particulars provided here are correct. I understand that, except with specific permission, I may not, during the period of my enrolment, be a candidate for another award. I understand that, except with specific permission, I must prepare and defend my thesis in English. SIGNED Student: Date:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FOR SCHOOL OFFICE USE ONLY: Submission date confirmed by the Head of Research Administration (Sign): Date report passed to main supervisor: Oral presentation arranged for (date): Referees appointed (names):


FORM 7 (JULY 2008)

POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH PROGRESSION DECISION FORM This form is to record the progression of the student after the first (full time) or second (part time) year of research as approved through a viva voce process that includes an oral presentation by the candidate alongside a written report. After the oral presentation a copy of the completed form should be retained by the student, the main supervisor and by the Head of Research Administration in the School Office. A copy of the completed form must also be sent to the University Research Office. Title of research programme: Student name: Main supervisor: Mode: Full-time Part-time Date of first enrolment: 2 January Research programme: MPhil PhD

Student number: School: Department: 1 April 1 July 1 October / YEAR: MPhil/PhD EdD

Assessment of progress report: (to be agreed and completed by the Internal Referee(s) and main supervisor)

(delete as applicable)

1.

YES/NO*

Does the report show evidence of an ability to plan a project intended to lead to a doctoral thesis (including resource allocation)? Supporting evidence:

2.

Does the research show evidence of the specific research skills required in the area concerned and in research management and related skills:

YES/NO*

Supporting evidence:

3.

Is the work clearly written and presented in a satisfactory manner. Does it demonstrate adequate ability in report-writing and in the use of English, in an academic context?

YES/NO*

Supporting evidence:

4.

Does the report show an adequate ability to use the facilities required to progress in the research area? Supporting evidence

YES/NO*


5.

Does the report contain adequate critical discussion of the relevant literature and evidence of ability in literature searching?

YES/NO*

Supporting evidence

6.

Does the report adequately outline the student’s intentions for two (FT) or four (PT) further years of research work?

YES/NO*

Supporting evidence:

7.

Does the report give satisfactory evidence of methods of research Such as can normally be gained by a student in one year’s work?

YES/NO*

Supporting evidence:

8.

Has the candidate carried out the work in a satisfactory manner?

YES/NO*

Supporting evidence:

9.

Is there a satisfactory discussion of the purpose of the investigation, its significance, and of any relevant previous work?

YES/NO*

Supporting evidence:

Please give a short justification for the answers provided above and, in the case of any unsatisfactory aspects, please give details of any remedial action planned.

…./continued overleaf


PROGRESSION DECISION FORM – continued Page 3

Oral presentation report Date of Oral: In addition to the above comments on the candidate’s report: Did the candidate generally provide an adequate oral presentation of their research?

YES/NO*

Did the candidate display a satisfactory level of competence in English:

YES/NO*

If the answer to either question above is NO, please indicate what remedial action is proposed.

Personal development YES/NO*

Has the candidate demonstrated satisfactory progress against the targets set out in the Personal Development Plan and Programme of Research?

If NO, what remedial action is to be taken.

DECISION OF THE PANEL ON CANDIDATE’S PROGRESSION:

Signature of Referees: 1.

Date:

2.

Date:

Signature of main supervisor:

Date:

Signature of Director of Graduate Education: (or nominee, confirming the deposition of the report in the School)

Date:


PROGRESSION DECISION FORM – continued Page 4 When completed, this form should be sent to the University Research Office to be received by the following dates without fail:

October enrolment

31st October

January enrolment

31 January

April enrolment

30 April

July enrolment

31 July

st

th

st

Failure to submit on time will result in enrolment for the session concerned being deferred until the following quarter. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FOR SCHOOL OFFICE USE ONLY: Copied to University Research Office Student Main supervisor


Skills Training Requirements For Research Students: Joint Statement by the Research Councils

(A) Research skills and techniques – to be able to demonstrate: 1) 2) 3) 4)

The ability to recognise and validate problems. Original, independent and critical thinking, and the ability to develop theoretical concepts. A knowledge of recent advances within one’s field and in related areas. An understanding of relevant research methodologies and techniques and their appropriate application within one’s research field. 5) The ability to critically analyse and evaluate one’s findings and those of others. 6) An ability to summarise, document, report and reflect on progress.

(B) Research environment – to be able to: 1) Show a broad understanding of the context, at the national and international level, in which research takes place. 2) Demonstrate awareness of issues relating to the rights of other researchers, of research subjects, and of others who may be affected by the research, e.g., confidentiality, ethical issues, attribution, copyright, malpractice, ownership of data and the requirements of the Data Protection Act. 3) Demonstrate appreciation of standards of good research practice in their institution and/or discipline. 4) Understand relevant health and safety issues and demonstrate responsible working practices. 5) Understand the processes for funding and evaluation of research. 6) Justify the principles and experimental techniques used in one’s own research. 7) Understand the process of academic or commercial exploitation of research results.

(C) Research management – to be able to: 1) Apply effective project management through the setting of research goals, intermediate milestones and prioritisation of activities. 2) Design and execute systems for the acquisition and collation of information through the effective use of appropriate resources and equipment. 3) Identify and access appropriate bibliographical resources, archives, and other sources of relevant information. 4) Use information technology appropriately for database management, recording and presenting information.

(D) Personal effectiveness – to be able to: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)

Demonstrate a willingness and ability to learn and acquire knowledge. Be creative, innovative and original in one’s approach to research. Demonstrate flexibility and open-mindedness. Demonstrate self-awareness and the ability to identify own training needs. Demonstrate self-discipline, motivation, and thoroughness. Recognise boundaries and draw upon/use sources of support as appropriate. Show initiative, work independently and be self-reliant.

(E) Communication skills – to be able to: 1) Write clearly and in a style appropriate to purpose, e.g., progress reports, published documents, thesis. 2) Construct coherent arguments and articulate ideas clearly to a range of audiences, formally and informally through a variety of techniques. 3) Constructively defend research outcomes at seminars and viva examination. 4) Contribute to promoting the public understanding of one’s research field. 5) Effectively support the learning of others when involved in teaching, mentoring or demonstrating activities.

(F) Networking and teamworking – to be able to: 1) Develop and maintain co-operative networks and working relationships with supervisors, colleagues and peers, within the institution and the wider research community. 2) Understand one’s behaviours and impact on others when working in and contributing to the success of formal and informal teams. 3) Listen, give and receive feedback and respond perceptively to others.

(G) Career management – to be able to: 1) Appreciate the need for and show commitment to continued professional development. 2) Take ownership for and manage one’s career progression, set realistic and achievable career goals, and identify and develop ways to improve employability. 3) Demonstrate an insight into the transferable nature of research skills to other work environments and the range of career opportunities within and outside academia. 4) Present one’s skills, personal attributes and experiences through effective CVs, applications and interviews.


FORM 8 (MAY 2008)

POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH PROGRESS ADVICE FORM This form is to record the progression of the student after the second (full time) or fourth (part time) year of research, as approved through a viva voce process that includes an oral presentation by the candidate. After the oral presentation a copy of the completed form should be retained by the student, the main supervisor and by the Head of Research Administration in the School Office. A copy of the completed form must also be sent to the University Research Office. Title of research programme: Student name: Main supervisor: Mode: Full-time Part-time Date of first enrolment: 2 January Research programme: MPhil PhD

Student number: School: Department: 1 April 1 July 1 October / YEAR: MPhil/PhD EdD

Assessment of Report: (to be agreed and completed by the Internal Referee(s) and main supervisor) *delete as appropriate 1.

Has the student met the objectives set:

YES/NO*

2.

Does the research continue to show evidence of the specific research skills required in the area concerned and in research management and related skills?

YES/NO*

Has the candidate shown initiative and evidence of original thought in executing the research programme?

YES/NO*

In the view of the examiners, is the project on schedule for completion within the designated timescale of the programme and are they confident that the thesis will be submitted on time?

YES/NO*

Does the report describe fully the progress achieved in the past year and is it presented in a form suitable for inclusion in a final doctoral thesis with only minor modification?

YES/NO*

Does the report adequately outline a detailed timetable for the research to be completed?

YES/NO*

In the case of a student who will complete their doctoral programme after a further submission pending period, has a timetable for writing up the thesis been agreed with the student?

YES/NO*

Is the work already completed and proposed of sufficient novelty and relevance to lead potentially to at least one publication in a recognised journal?

YES/NO*

3. 4.

5.

6. 7.

8.

Please give a short justification for the answers provided above and, in the case of any unsatisfactory aspects, please give details of any remedial action planned.

‌./continued overleaf


PROGRESS ADVICE FORM Continued – Page 2

Oral presentation report Date of Oral:

In addition to the above comments on the candidate’s report, did the candidate generally provide an adequate oral presentation of their research?

YES/NO*

If the answer to this question is NO, please indicate what remedial action is proposed.

Referees’ comments and recommendations.

…./continued overleaf


PROGRESS ADVICE FORM Continued – Page 3 Signature of Referees: 1.

Date:

2.

Date:

Signature of main supervisor:

Date:

Signature of Director of Graduate Education: (or nominee, confirming the deposition of the report in the School)

Date:

When completed, this form should be sent to the University Research Office to be received by the following dates without fail: October enrolment

31st October

January enrolment

31 January

April enrolment

30 April

July enrolment

31 July

st

th

st

Failure to submit on time will result in enrolment for the session concerned being deferred until the following quarter. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FOR SCHOOL OFFICE USE ONLY: Copied to University Research Office Student Main supervisor


Skills Training Requirements For Research Students: Joint Statement by the Research Councils

(A) Research skills and techniques – to be able to demonstrate: 1) 2) 3) 4)

The ability to recognise and validate problems. Original, independent and critical thinking, and the ability to develop theoretical concepts. A knowledge of recent advances within one’s field and in related areas. An understanding of relevant research methodologies and techniques and their appropriate application within one’s research field. 5) The ability to critically analyse and evaluate one’s findings and those of others. 6) An ability to summarise, document, report and reflect on progress.

(B) Research environment – to be able to: 1) Show a broad understanding of the context, at the national and international level, in which research takes place. 2) Demonstrate awareness of issues relating to the rights of other researchers, of research subjects, and of others who may be affected by the research, e.g., confidentiality, ethical issues, attribution, copyright, malpractice, ownership of data and the requirements of the Data Protection Act. 3) Demonstrate appreciation of standards of good research practice in their institution and/or discipline. 4) Understand relevant health and safety issues and demonstrate responsible working practices. 5) Understand the processes for funding and evaluation of research. 6) Justify the principles and experimental techniques used in one’s own research. 7) Understand the process of academic or commercial exploitation of research results.

(C) Research management – to be able to: 1) Apply effective project management through the setting of research goals, intermediate milestones and prioritisation of activities. 2) Design and execute systems for the acquisition and collation of information through the effective use of appropriate resources and equipment. 3) Identify and access appropriate bibliographical resources, archives, and other sources of relevant information. 4) Use information technology appropriately for database management, recording and presenting information.

(D) Personal effectiveness – to be able to: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)

Demonstrate a willingness and ability to learn and acquire knowledge. Be creative, innovative and original in one’s approach to research. Demonstrate flexibility and open-mindedness. Demonstrate self-awareness and the ability to identify own training needs. Demonstrate self-discipline, motivation, and thoroughness. Recognise boundaries and draw upon/use sources of support as appropriate. Show initiative, work independently and be self-reliant.

(E) Communication skills – to be able to: 1) Write clearly and in a style appropriate to purpose, e.g., progress reports, published documents, thesis. 2) Construct coherent arguments and articulate ideas clearly to a range of audiences, formally and informally through a variety of techniques. 3) Constructively defend research outcomes at seminars and viva examination. 4) Contribute to promoting the public understanding of one’s research field. 5) Effectively support the learning of others when involved in teaching, mentoring or demonstrating activities.

(F) Networking and teamworking – to be able to: 1) Develop and maintain co-operative networks and working relationships with supervisors, colleagues and peers, within the institution and the wider research community. 2) Understand one’s behaviours and impact on others when working in and contributing to the success of formal and informal teams. 3) Listen, give and receive feedback and respond perceptively to others.

(G) Career management – to be able to: 1) Appreciate the need for and show commitment to continued professional development. 2) Take ownership for and manage one’s career progression, set realistic and achievable career goals, and identify and develop ways to improve employability. 3) Demonstrate an insight into the transferable nature of research skills to other work environments and the range of career opportunities within and outside academia. 4) Present one’s skills, personal attributes and experiences through effective CVs, applications and interviews.


FORM 9 (MAY 2008)

POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH NOTIFICATION OF INTENTION TO SUBMIT A THESIS FOR EXAMINATION To be completed by the student and returned to the University Research Office not less than two months and not more than six months before the final submission date for the programme. Student name: Main supervisor: Mode of study: Full time Part time Date of first enrolment: 2 January 1 April

Student number: School: Department: 1 July 1 October / YEAR:

Title of thesis:

Thesis submitted for the degree of: MPhil

PhD

EdD

PhD by Publication

Contact details Address: Post code: Telephone number: Mobile number: Email: Are you a permanent member of staff of the University? Yes

No

Date your thesis will be submitted to the Research Office:

If you are submitting a thesis more than six months before the expiry date of your research programme please outline the circumstances that have facilitated your rapid progress

I hereby give notice of submission of the above thesis and declare that I have exercised reasonable care to ensure that the work is original and to the best of my knowledge does not breach any laws including defamation, libel and copyright. SIGNATURE Student: Date: For University Research Office use only: Copied to Main supervisor Director of Graduate Education on

(DATE)


FORM 10 (MAY 2008)

POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH APPLICATION TO ENROL FOR THE SUBMISSION PENDING PERIOD If necessary to be completed by the student and returned to the University Research Office not less than two months before the end of the normal submission date for the programme as given in the University’s regulations. Enrolment for the submission pending period (also known as the ‘attendance beyond the prescribed period’) will only be granted following confirmation from the main supervisor that the candidate has completed all primary research and laboratory work. Students must request permission to enrol for the submission pending period and will be entitled only to limited supervision and access to some general University facilities, including computing and library facilities. A student taking 12 months to complete the thesis will have reached the maximum period allowable for completion of the research programme. Student name: Main supervisor: Mode of study: Full time Part time Date of first enrolment: 2 January 1 April

Student number: School: Department: 1 July 1 October / YEAR:

Title of thesis:

Thesis to be submitted for the degree of: MPhil

PhD

EdD

Contact details Address: Post code: Telephone number: Mobile number: Email: Reason(s) for attendance beyond the prescribed period:

Main supervisor’s statement of support:

I hereby apply for permission to enrol for the submission pending period and understand that such attendance must only be for the purpose of writing up my thesis and must not exceed the maximum 12 months allowed. I accept that I will be liable for a submission pending fee. SIGNATURES: Student: Date: For University Research Office use only: Copied with decision to Main supervisor

Main supervisor: (on behalf of the supervisory team) Date:

Director of Graduate Education on

(DATE)


Research and Enterprise

PGR Reps/Tutors, Conference Presentation Fund, VC’s Research Student of the Year


Vice Chancellor’s Research Student Vice Research Student of the ofChancellor’s the Year Year February 2009 February 2009

University Research Committee


Vice Chancellor’s Research Student of the Year February 2009

Introduction This prize is granted annually to a student who has excelled in some significant manner or has had a major research achievement during their period of study e.g. high quality journal publications; conference presentations, research spin off, awards, contribution to the research community, novel experimental or theoretical technique, major research breakthrough etc. The nominee should have been registered as a research student or graduated at the University of Huddersfield in the preceding twelve months. The winner will be announced during the University Research Festival and will receive a cheque for £500 and a certificate. The prize winner will be publicised on the Research and Enterprise website. Process One nomination from each School will be requested by the Research and Enterprise Office in January with a deadline of the end of February. Nominations should be accompanied by then completed nomination form that outlines how the nominee meets the criteria for the award and should include letters of support where appropriate. A panel, chaired by the Pro Vice-Chancellor Research and Enterprise, shall select the candidate to be recommended to the Vice-Chancellor for award of the prize on the basis of research excellence evidenced by research papers or other research output. The Research and Enterprise Office shall be responsible for informing all those nominated of the final results. Details of the previous year’s winner can be found on the Virtual Graduate Centre: http://www2.hud.ac.uk/research/gradcentre/prizes.php.

Page | 1


Vice Chancellor’s Research Student of the Year February 2009

Nomination Form (for completion by the School) School Student name Enrolment date Supervisor(s) Thesis title

Please outline how the nominee has excelled in each of these areas. Major breakthrough or contribution

Novel experimental or theoretical technique

Awards and contribution to research community

Research spin off

Journals and publications/research outputs

Conference presentations

Please attach letters of support if appropriate Page | 2


Postgraduate Research Personal Tutors September 2008


Postgraduate Research Personal Tutors September 2008

The postgraduate personal tutor system exists to provide excellent support to students and to ensure compliance with precepts 12 and 13 of the QAA Code of Practice1 The responsibilities of the Postgraduate Tutor are clearly defined in the UoH Code of Practice for Research Degrees. A current list of PGR Personal Tutors is maintained on the Virtual Graduate Centre website at http://www2.hud.ac.uk/research/gradcentre/pgr_tutors.php.

Principles The PGR tutors should be appointed on behalf of the Dean of School by the Director of Graduate Education. There should be a well defined role and responsibilities (minimum example attached). PGR tutors should have appropriate representation within the School e.g., Research Committee, Student Panel. PGR students should be informed of their PGR tutor in writing and introduced at induction. There should normally be a maximum allocation of 12 full-time students per PGR tutor. PGR tutors are not members of the supervisory team and can therefore act as internal examiner at final examination providing they have the appropriate subject knowledge and fulfil internal examiners’ criteria. Support Student Support provides regular lunchtime briefing sessions for PGR tutors. All PGR Personal Tutors are provided with a full support pack by Student Services. Comprehensive student support information can be found on the Student Services website at www.hud.ac.uk/student_services.

1

Precept 12 Each research student will have a minimum of one main supervisor. He or she will normally be part of a supervisory team. There must always be one clearly identified point of contact for the student. Precept 13 Institutions will ensure that the responsibilities of all research student supervisors are clearly communicated to supervisors and students through written guidance.

Page | 1


Postgraduate Research Personal Tutors September 2008

Role and Responsibilities The PGR Tutor provides additional support to postgraduate research students beyond that provided by the designated main supervisor and other members of the supervisory team; A PGR Tutor is appointed in respect of each postgraduate research student on behalf of the Dean of the School by the Director of Graduate Education and should attend the PGR Tutor Briefing Session delivered by Student Services. If a student has any difficulties that he/she would prefer to discuss with someone other than their supervisor, they can approach their personal tutor in the first instance The PGR Tutor: • Complements support from the formal supervisory team. •

Helps to identify any barriers to progress/completion.

Meets with the student as necessary. The PGR Tutor is required to meet with the postgraduate research student upon request, but may also themselves request meetings with their students. The purpose of meetings is to provide pastoral support and advice for any difficulties the student is experiencing which may affect their studies. The PGR Tutor should ensure a system to allow students, both part-time and full-time to make appointments and that this information is available on School web pages.

Aims to resolve difficulties through discussion both with the student and the supervisory team. In the event of the PGR Tutor becoming aware of any problems it is envisaged that in most instances these can be resolved informally with the student’s main supervisor; to this end, the PGR Tutor will meet with the main supervisor. In the event that satisfactory resolution is not achieved, the PGR Tutor will have responsibility to refer his/her concerns to the Director of Graduate Education.

Advises the student on further support resources within and outside the University.

Liaises with the Director of Graduate Education on matters which may result in improvement in the support given to postgraduate researchers.

Assists in the development of a vibrant and supportive research student community within the School.

Helps organise the School’s postgraduate induction for students at various points throughout the year.

Page | 2


Postgraduate Research Student Representation December 2009


Postgraduate Research Student Representation December 2009

Becoming a PGR Rep is a really positive way to promote the views of fellow students and ensure their voices are heard, to raise issues, get things changed for the better and to make a real difference to postgraduate research student provision at the University. It is a challenging but rewarding role that ensures reps are at the centre of improving the PGR experience. PGR Reps are elected annually during the first term. Student representative training is provided by the Students’ Union the aim of which is to equip student representatives with the necessary knowledge and skills to be effective. Participation in the two-part Course Rep training will qualify you for a Level 1 STARS award. The Union has a dedicated staff member, the Democratic and Student Representation Co-ordinator, who is responsible for developing the Student Rep programme as well as offering advice and guidance as needed. You will also have access to the iZone, a brand new centre for student involvement located on the 1st floor of the Students’ Union building – your one stop shop for any support or resources you need to help you carry out your role. Formal PGR student feedback from representatives will be provided via a Student Panel in your School and the cross-university PGR Researchers’ Committee. Outline of Responsibilities for Postgraduate Research Student Representatives (PGR Reps) • To represent the interests of postgraduate research students of the School/Dept/discipline to the Students’ Union, your School and the University; • To enable fellow PGRs to make a positive impact and to help establish a vibrant community of postgraduate researchers; • To attend the Students’ Union training session; • To communicate regularly with the Students’ Union; • To act as a point of contact for PGRs in the School, to gather PGRs‘ opinions and to present these in an appropriate form at the relevant committee; • To provide constructive feedback to the University and to work in conjunction to improve the PGR student experience; • To attend PGR Induction events as requested; • To attend the School Research Committee (or equivalent); • To attend the School Student Panel; • To represent the School at the University PGR Researchers’ Committee; • To feedback responses and outcomes appropriately to fellow postgraduate researchers, both full and part-time. School responsibilities • To promote student representation at School induction and provide information (hardcopy and web based) on the procedure for elections including dates for nominations and ballot; • To organise the election of PGR Reps during the first term;

Page 1


Postgraduate Research Student Representation December 2009

• • • • •

To notify the Students’ Union and the Research Office of the elected PGR Reps; To organise Student Panels and set dates well in advance; To encourage PGR Rep attendance at School Research Committee; To provide mechanisms for PGR communication and feedback eg. notice boards, posters, PGR Reps’ pigeon holes, suggestions box, email lists; To make available copies of agendas and minutes to PGRs, the Students’ Union and the Research Office.

Student Panels Staff and students should both be effectively represented and staff membership should include the Director of Graduate Education and Heads of Department or equivalent. There should be a designated staff or student member to administrate the panel and be a set point of contact to place agenda items and produce minutes. Discussion of both academic and non-academic issues should be allowed. Issues raised at the student panel should feed into the relevant School and University level committees. The Union Postgraduate and Mature Students Officer should sit on the panel. Research Office responsibilities • To promote PGR Representation, the role and the benefits during the central Induction and Welcome events; • To make available all information on the Virtual Graduate Centre website including contact details for PGR Reps and committee members, terms of reference, agendas, minutes and meeting dates; • To organise PGR Researchers’ Committee. Postgraduate Researchers’ Committee Membership Pro Vice-Chancellor Research and Enterprise School PGR Reps Director of Research and Enterprise Head of Research and Graduate Education Director of Computing and Library Services Director of Student Services Director of International Office School Directors of Graduate Education SU Student Representation Co-ordinator Union responsibilities • To promote PGR representation and encourage PGRs to stand for election; • To provide appropriate support and training and liaise with PGR Reps; • To include PGR Reps in the Student Voice conference; • To provide a regular forum for PGR Reps; • To offer practical support and guidance for PGR Reps. Page 2


Conference Presentation Fund February 2010


Conference Presentation Fund February 2010

Guidance Notes Purpose of the Fund The Conference Presentation Fund was established by the University Research Fund in April 2009 to facilitate the presentation of papers and posters by both full-time and parttime, registered, non-staff, postgraduate researchers at conferences of national or international standing. The CPF will support 200 places up to a maximum of £500 per student per annum. Applicants must be in good standing with the University. The Fund will assist with the costs of travel, conference registration fees and accommodation expenses. The Fund is intended to supplement the applicant’s own contribution or funds from other sources where necessary. This Fund will provide postgraduate research students with the opportunity to: •

refine their research by exposing it to national and international peer review by presenting a paper or poster at a conference of national or international standing

network and interact with some of the best researchers in their field

1.

Criteria for Awards

1.1

At the time of attending the conference the student must be registered for a research degree at the University of Huddersfield as defined by the University’s regulations;

1.2

Students in the submission pending (also known as “writing up”) period are not normally eligible to apply for funding, unless the conference paper was submitted prior to the end of the normal registration period of the research programme.

1.3

Students may attend more than one conference during the any year of the Fund (1 May to 30 April) provided that the total claim does not exceed £500.

1.4

Only students who are presenting a paper or poster at a conference will be considered for funding.

1.5

If a student has existing funding for conferences through a research programme supported by the University Research Fund, through Additional Programme Costs, or other form of sponsorship, these funds should be used in preference to making an application to the Conference Presentation Fund.

2.

Levels of Support

2.1

Up to £500 maximum in any year of the Fund.

3.

Application Procedure

3.1

The applicant should complete a standard form available from the Virtual Graduate Centre website.1

1

http://www2.hud.ac.uk/research/gradcentre/links.php Page | 1


Conference Presentation Fund February 2010

3.2

The student’s main supervisor must support the application by signing the declaration on the form.

3.3

The application must be approved by the Director of Graduate Education or, in his absence, by the Deputy Director of Graduate Education or Dean of School.

3.4

Applications must be made in advance of attending the conference.

3.5

Funding will be provisional until the student provides evidence that they have attended and presented a paper/poster at the conference.

3.6

As part of the application process, applicants are asked to indicate the total amount of funding they are seeking. However, it may be decided only to provide the applicant with a proportion of the funds requested.

4.

Assessment of Applications

4.1

Competition for these funds is likely to be strong and there is no guarantee that attendance at a student’s chosen conference will be approved.

4.2

All applications will be checked and approved by the main supervisor with final sign off being undertaken by the Director of Graduate Education in each School. Applications will be judged on the following criteria: • • •

5.

the applicant’s progress and standing with the University the conference standing the relevance of the conference theme to the student’s research project

Further information Research Office Central Services Building Level 10 Tel: 01484 472516, 472356 or 473831 Email: research-office@hud.ac.uk

Page | 2


Pro Forma The Conference Presentation Fund was established by the University Research Fund in April 2009 to facilitate the presentation of papers by both full-time and part-time, registered, non-staff, postgraduate researchers at conferences of national or international standing. The CPF will support 200 places up to a maximum of £500 per student per annum. You may attend more than one conference provided that your total claim in each year of the Fund does not exceed the maximum allowed. Applicants must be in good standing with the University.

Student name: ID No: Conference details (Please also estimate actual conference costs):

Details of paper to be presented:

How will presenting at this conference support your research?

Date of conference: Amount requested: Amount of support received from other sponsor (Research Council etc)

£ £

Support I confirm that the student and conference above satisfy the criteria for support by the Conference Presentation Fund. The student in question has satisfied all progress monitoring procedures to date and is not in debt to the University for tuition fees, approved programme costs, library fees or any other fees due. Main supervisor Signature Date Approved The School supports this allocation and will cover the expenditure in the first instance. Please reimburse the amount requested above to the School cost centre below. Director of Graduate Education Signature Date School cost centre Please return the completed form to Dr Ian Pitchford in the Research Office. Expenditure supported by the School will be reimbursed retrospectively by the University Research Fund quarterly.


Research and Enterprise

International


Postgraduate Certificate English Language Proficiency and British Culture Course aims • This course is intended to provide a framework within which you can consolidate and build upon your advanced English language skills and knowledge, as well as your understanding of certain key aspects of contemporary British socio-cultural life. • It is a part-time course that can be taken by students who are working towards a Master’s or PhD qualification and who are non-native speakers of English. • The course will provide you with a bridge between your previous experiences of Higher Education in your home country and the challenges of integrating into a new learning environment in this country. • You will also have the opportunity to build a range of personal and transferable skills relevant to the future job market, further study and your own personal development.

THE

MODERN LANGUAGES CENTRE


Course requirements The minimum entry requirements for the course are an English Language equivalent to IELTS 6.5 and prior acceptance onto a Postgraduate course of study at the University.

Course structure The course is made up of three parts: • English Language in Context • Practical English • English Project

Facilities The Modern Languages Centre benefits from a suite of teaching rooms equipped with PCs, a Sanako Digital Language Laboratory System, a proven storage system for text, audio and audiovisual materials that you can access on the University’s servers, and a range of international television channels delivered to all the Modern Languages Centre rooms via digital satellite dishes and receivers. In addition, there is a self-access studio that you will use for independent learning.

Visit the Languages website:

www.hud.ac.uk/mhm/languages/ For further information please contact: Dr Malcolm Pollard Modern Languages Co-ordinator University of Huddersfield, West Building, Queensgate, HUDDERSFIELD, HD1 3DH , West Yorkshire, UK

Tel: +44 (0) 1484 472606 • E-mail: mlc@hud.ac.uk

09336


Important Notice: UK Immigration Regulations From 31 March 2009, most international students coming to study in the UK have been required to apply for a visa under the Points Based System. Under the system students need to: • • •

Prove that they have been accepted on to a course run by an institution which is a licensed Tier 4 sponsor Prove that they have the means to pay their tuition fees and support themselves Provide biometric details at their local visa application centre

Please note that if you have a conditional offer for your main degree course subject to completion of a presessional English Language Programme, you can apply through one of two routes: • •

General Student Prospective Student

You will not be able to change categories if you are here on a Student Visitor Visa and will have to return to your home country to do so. http://www.ukvisas.gov.uk/en/doineedvisa Applying for your visa The visa application process should be straightforward. For your application to be successful you will need: • • • • •

A current passport or travel document A Certificate of Acceptance for Studies (CAS) from the University Proof of maintenance funds Original evidence of the qualifications you submitted to the University Any other supporting documents relevant to your application

The Certificate of Acceptance for Studies takes the form of a unique registration or ID number. We will generate this through UKBA’s Sponsor Management System when you have met all the conditions of your offer, and will forward it to you to use in the visa application process. We will ask you to confirm your personal details including home address and passport number before we apply for your CAS number. It is your responsibility to ensure the details are correct and confirm that we can go ahead and apply for the CAS. It is vital that this information is up to date and accurate otherwise your visa application will be rejected. The information that we input to the Sponsor Management System will include details of pre-payments or deposits made by applicants (including payments for accommodation). This can be taken into account as part of the required financial support when you apply for your General Student visa. Please note that all documents submitted with your visa application must be original – if you submit photocopies then it is likely your application will be refused. Applicants who lie, withhold information and/or provide false or fraudulent documentation will be rejected and may be banned from making further visa applications for up to 10 years. Applicants who require ATAS clearance must obtain this before applying for a student visa. For full details of the ATAS scheme please access http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/fco-in-action/counter-terrorism/weapons/atas/. Clearance will take a minimum of 20 working days. The points-based policy requires Tier 4 applicants to be able to show that they have sufficient funds to pay tuition fees and support themselves while in the UK. The required amounts are outlined in the student guidelines. You should check with your local Visa Application Centre before you apply what the current rule is regarding the required period for funds to have been in your bank account. At the time of writing this period is a minimum 28 days before the visa application is submitted.


Students whose studies are supported by a Government, Ministry, employer or other financial sponsor will be required to provide proof of this financial assistance. Details of the required proof are set out in the student guidelines. You’ll also need to make an appointment at your nearest visa application centre to provide your biometric details (10 digit finger scans and a digital photograph) as part of the application process. http://www.ukvisas.gov.uk/en/howtoapply/ http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/studyingintheuk/ http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/newsarticles/newfeesfrom060409 International students with a General Student visa will be able to work up to 20 hours a week during termtime, take full-time temporary work during holidays, and undertake work placements relevant to their course. If your visa application is successful you will secure a visa for the whole length of your course with some additional time at the end to allow you to settle your affairs. After graduation you may be entitled to apply to remain in the UK for up to two years under the Post-Study Work programme. See further information at http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/workingintheuk/tier1/poststudy/ Visa conditions Your visa will be issued for a named university, college or other institution. There are strict conditions attached to the General Student visa which include: • • • • • •

The University will need to keep copies of your passport and biometric (ID) card You must notify the University of changes in your address and personal circumstances You must enrol and attend as required for your programme of study You must not undertake paid work over the permitted maximum number of hours If students want to transfer to or from another university a new visa will be required Registration with the police (your entry clearance will indicate if you need to do so)

Universities are obliged to report students who do not meet these conditions or who are suspected to be in breach of their visa status. Infringement of visa conditions is a serious offence and may lead to deportation and additional sanctions being imposed by the UK Border Agency. You are strongly recommended to read the Policy Guidelines for students (link at http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/studyingintheuk/) Immigration Advice Please note that the International Office is not authorised to provide advice or assistance with regard to immigration. If you require support with your visa application or are seeking detailed advice that is otherwise unavailable through any of the links provided here, we recommend that you contact an independent immigration advisor who is authorised or licensed to provide guidance. Alternatively, if you have applied to the university through an approved educational consultant or agency, colleagues there may be able to signpost you to a reputable source of independent advice. Useful Links Register of Tier 4 Sponsors: http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/employers/points/sponsoringmigrants/registerofsponsors/ Information Sheets (UK Council for International Students): http://www.ukcisa.org.uk/student/information_sheets.php YouTube video (various languages available): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keBOZ9rFuuk Updated January 2010 This information is intended for general guidance only, does not constitute definitive immigration advice on the part of the University and should not be referred to as such. The University accepts no responsibility for the results of reliance on this information.


The University of Huddersfield International Office The Points-Based Immigration System: Guidance notes for staff involved in working with international applicants and students From March 2009, most international students coming to study or undertake research degrees in the UK have been required to apply for a visa under the UK’s recently-introduced points-based immigration system. Most will be classified as ‘General Students’ under Tier 4 of the new system. Under the system, General Students applying for a visa need 40 points which are allocated as follows: 30 points 10 points

For demonstrating they will be attending a course of study delivered by an approved education provider Having sufficient funds to cover course fees and monthly living costs

An overview of the regulations can be accessed at http://ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/. The requirements for student entry clearance have been radically changed under the points-based system, and responsibility for compliance with the regulations rests largely with sponsors i.e. those UK organisations which issue invitations to migrants (not their financial sponsors). Students also have new responsibilities under the regulations. All UK education providers which recruit and enrol international students must now have a valid Tier 4 sponsor licence, issued by the UK Border Agency (UKBA). The current list of sponsors is available at http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/employers/points/sponsoringmigrants/registerofsponsors/. Organisations are required to apply for separate licences for other migrant categories e.g. for skilled or temporary workers. The University is also licensed as a sponsor for Tiers 2 and 5 to enable it to recruit nonEU staff either on long-term or short-term contracts. Compliance All sponsor licences are issued with clearly stated compliance conditions, primarily to ensure that UK immigration controls remain effective. As a Tier 4 licence holder and sponsor of students we must: •

• • • • •

Ensure that international applicants are only formally accepted when, to the best of our knowledge, they meet Tier 4 requirements and are likely to meet the conditions of their permission to enter and stay in the UK Maintain records and keep copies of each international student’s passport/immigration documentation/ID card showing evidence of their entitlement to study including the time of their permission to stay in the UK Keep student contact details up to date and accurate Provide information to UKBA as may be considered relevant (e.g. admissions policy, procedures for registration/enrolment, attendance monitoring, significant changes in individual circumstances etc.) Report students to UKBA for non-compliance (unauthorised absence, withdrawal, no-shows) Report students to the police in the case of suspected terrorist or criminal activity Co-operate with UKBA to minimise the risk of immigration abuse (this includes allowing UKBA staff access to any of our premises on demand for pre-arranged or unannounced visits)

in addition to maintaining appropriate institutional accreditation and continuing to offer appropriate courses to international students. International students who are given entry clearance into the UK under Tier 4 must: • • • •

Attend the institution named in their immigration documentation (visa) Provide the University with documentation as required by UKBA Seek approval from UKBA if they wish to change their education provider. Failure to do so is a criminal offence. Advise immediately if their personal circumstances change (accommodation, marital status, ill health etc.)


• • • • •

Enrol when required to do so Attend all scheduled classes, seminars, tutorials or appointments with an academic supervisor, except when absence has been authorised by the University Adhere to conditions relating to part-time employment where this is permitted Register with the police if required to do so Not attempt to claim state benefits or payments from public funds

Changes to University procedure 1.

Applicants

From 22 February 2010, international applicants whose status becomes “Unconditional Firm” (UF) will be issued with a Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies (CAS). The CAS replaces the current Letter of Acceptance or other form of authorisation issued by the University for use in the visa application/renewal process, and as such satisfies the 30 point requirement. The CAS is a unique ID number which is generated through the UKBA’s online Sponsor Management System (SMS) by request from a designated Level 1 or Level 2 user. All the information required to issue the CAS is extracted from ASIS and uploaded through an interface. Payment is made (currently £10 per CAS), the uploaded records electronically validated by UKBA and a CAS assigned. The CAS is valid for up to six months after issue. International students applying from within the UK will be requested to provide copies of their current visa so we can confirm their eligibility for a new CAS. Each applicant (and/or his/her agent) will be contacted with details of the CAS. This will be done using a “CAS Statement” which will be sent to applicants through: • •

the Applicant Portal, email or letter to applicant the Agent Portal, email to agent (where appropriate)

Action required by School colleagues: 2.

none

Students

Enrolled students who need to renew their visas will be proactively flagged up by Student Services and ARO under a new system intended to manage workflows and relieve bottlenecks created by applicant inaction or delay. Colleagues should note that this system is being phased in and will not catch all students until after September 2010. Under the system, enrolled students whose visas are due for renewal will receive automatic notification that they need to attend a visa workshop or meeting with one of the Overseas Student Support Advisors (Student Centre, Level 4 Central Services Building). CAS numbers for visa renewals will be generated in the same way as for applicants, with an associated authorisation process undertaken. Where international students require extensions to their expected end dates, revised procedures will be notified shortly Action required by School colleagues: • • • • •

Please encourage your international students to be aware of visa renewal dates and to check their university email accounts regularly. Please respond quickly to queries from IEO, ARO, the Research Office or Student Services about your international students Please do not attempt to supply any documentation for visa renewals unless specifically asked for this by Student Services Please ensure that requests for extensions to expected end dates are made on the university pro forma and include full information requested Please note that CASs will not be generated for student debtors


• 3.

International students who are regularly absent without authorisation will jeopardise their chances of successful visa renewal. You need to ensure that you keep adequate records about attendance and act quickly to report absences Examination and pathway boards should be aware that UKBA policy on re-sits, deferrals and 1 retakes may not reflect University policy . For instance, it may not be appropriate for exam boards to give international students an option of “repeating by assessment” as this may have implications for subsequent visa renewal applications. Students should be encouraged to record changes in circumstance (e.g. change of address) via “My Details” on the University webpages.

Enrolment procedures

New international students coming to study on taught courses at the University of Huddersfield are required to go through a pre-enrolment screening process during which their passports and visas are checked and scanned to the University system. During the process we also confirm that they have appropriate financial documentation, or have paid all or part of their tuition fees, before clearing them for enrolment. Students whose clearance is pending are not allowed to enrol. A similar system is being implemented for international research students. Taught course students who do not arrive in time to attend the general screening sessions should be directed to the International Office enquiry counter in the Student Centre. Checks only take a few minutes and help to streamline the enrolment process for our students. International students who have not enrolled must not be allowed to attend classes, lectures or seminars. This contravenes UKBA regulations and may jeopardise the University’s sponsor licence. Students who are transferring from another education provider, for instance where individuals are dissatisfied with the course on which they originally enrolled at a different university, must seek formal permission from UKBA to do so (although students whose visas were issued before 05/10/2009 can change before permission is granted). Unfortunately we cannot enrol these students without UKBA approval, which is unlikely to be forthcoming for several months after the initial request. In these cases students will normally have to return to their home countries and apply for a new visa. Students are permitted to transfer between taught courses at the University however, providing that there is enough time remaining in their permission to stay. The University must notify UKBA of these transfers. On arrival at the University all new international students are issued with guidance notes setting out their responsibilities under the points-based system. They are asked to confirm their understanding of the regulations in writing during the pre-enrolment screening process. Pre-arrival immigration guidelines are also available on the International Office webpages and the Applicant Portal. We are obliged to report students who have not arrived for enrolment within 10 days of the latest expected arrival date. Once this date has passed a report will be generated and uploaded to UKBA’s Sponsor Management System. An official University-wide last date of arrival will be set in advance of each intake. This date will be for reporting purposes only and Schools will not be expected to enrol students beyond individual course arrival deadllines as notified to the International Office and ARO. Action or information required by School colleagues: • • •

1

Please check that students are enrolled before issuing timetables and permitting them to attend classes. If there is any uncertainty please contact the International Office for further advice. If you become aware of a student who is already enrolled at the University transferring from or to a course for which you have responsibility, please contact ARO to advise immediately. Course leaders are asked to notify the International Office of the last date on which they are prepared to accept new international arrivals.

The official UKBA guidance is that “Institutions can sponsor all students who are required to undertake re-sits or repeats within the limits prescribed in the sponsor guidance.” The participation required during the re-sit period (during which students may attend parttime) should be “clearly justifiable”. A migrant student is allowed to re-sit examinations or repeat any part of their course up to two times for each individual examination or module.


4.

Students – monitoring and compliance

Engagement monitoring procedures are currently being put in place to help us confirm that students on taught courses are attending regularly and also to assist in identifying patterns of engagement that may require us to report to UKBA. Details of these procedures will be released in updated guidelines before they become operational. Processes to be implemented will include electronic attendance monitoring. Most Schools and Departments have already implemented systems to monitor the attendance and engagement of all students and until a University-wide system is deployed these should be used to flag up periods of unauthorised absence and missed expected contacts on the part of international students. UKBA occasionally contacts the University to confirm the regular attendance of a student who is applying to renew his/her visa. The Overseas Student Advice team and ARO will co-operate on handling these requests (which are usually made at random) and will need to ask Schools for information relating to named students. Suspensions, transfers to other universities or withdrawals must be reported to school admin staff and thence to ARO immediately via the SMP process. In these cases the student concerned will be instructed to return to his/her home country as s/he has invalidated the conditions of his/her visa. The new system will also require us to monitor international students’ work placements with care. A leaflet aimed at organisations which place our students as interns has been produced and staff involved in arranging and monitoring sandwich placements are asked to ensure that their external contacts are aware of the new regulations and the compliance duties placed upon the University. Student information has also been adapted to provide details of the new requirements. Action required by School colleagues in the meantime: • • • • • •

Please report concerns over unauthorised absences of international students to ARO Please report suspensions, transfers to other universities or withdrawals of international students to school admin staff and thence to ARO Please be prepared to confirm regular attendance of international students when requested Please contact ARO or the International Office (or the Research Office in the case of research students) for additional advice as required Schools may wish to review their current policies and procedures regarding unauthorised absences in the light of changes to immigration rules. External organisations should be encouraged to contact the relevant Work Placement Unit to report the unauthorised absences of international placement students

Other categories of student visa 1.

Student Visitor

This category will normally apply to international students who are coming to the University under an exchange programme or to undertake pre-arranged assessment, study or research, and who will be here for a period of less than six months. Students in this category are not permitted to undertake any work even if it is unpaid. This includes unpaid internships, clinical or observation placements. Student visitors are not able to “switch” categories while in the UK. 2.

Prospective Student

International students can apply under this migrant category if they want to come to the UK to choose an institution and course, or if they plan to start a course of study within six months of arriving. Prospective students are expected to have a clear idea of the type and purpose of their proposed studies and should already have been in touch with educational institutions in the UK. For example, the applicant may already have been provisionally accepted at an establishment with final acceptance dependent on an interview. A vague intention to study for qualifications or to enter an unspecified university or other institution will not meet the requirements for prior entry clearance. Under this type of visa students can transfer to a General Student (Tier 4) visa while in the UK.


Tier 1 Post Study Work This category replaces the predecessor Science & Engineering Graduate Scheme and the International Graduates Scheme, and provides a bridge into highly skilled or skilled work. Successful applicants will normally be given two years’ leave to stay in the UK. Post-study leave can only be gained once. The Overseas Student Support Advisors provide guidance and advice to current students intending to apply for PSW, and deliver regular immigration and visa surgeries for interested students. Related immigration categories Academic visitors are included in the “Business Visitor” category. Details of who qualifies under this category are published at http://www.ukvisas.gov.uk/en/ecg/visitandtransit/academicvisitor. Visiting lecturers who are to receive a fee or payment for delivering lectures or seminars will need to apply for a visa under Tier 2 of the points-based system. The same applies to sponsored researchers. Tier 2 applications are dealt with through the Human Resources Department.  This document is intended to provide a basic outline of the points-based immigration system, the changes that have been made to the University’s central admissions and enrolment procedures, and the action required in general to ensure that the University complies with the requirements of its Tier 4 sponsor licence . The guidelines do not constitute definitive advice and colleagues are requested to bear this in mind. Detailed information, guidance and advice may be obtained from staff on the following list of contacts. There is also a quick reference guide available from the International Office intranet to help colleagues signpost students or applicants.

List of Contacts


Department ARO Judith Davison

Role

Contact regarding

Contact Details

Authorising Officer for Tier 4 licence & Level 1 SMS user

Non-attendance; infractions of visa conditions; reporting procedures. General guidance on the points-based system. Visa renewalsfor current students (in conjunction with Overseas Student Advice)

j.a.davison@hud.ac.uk tel.: 2744

j.ryan@hud.ac.uk tel.: 2752 s.c.staples@hud.ac.uk tel.: 2100

Winifred Adams

Level 2 SMS user

International Office Joanne Ryan

Level 1 SMS user

Sue Staples

Level 1 SMS user

Lyndsy Bland

Level 2 SMS user

Visa process for applicants; CAS queries Visa process for applicants; CAS queries, Tier 4 queries. General guidance on the points-based system. CAS queries

Claire Butterick

Level 2 SMS user

CAS queries

Overseas Student Advice

Level 2 SMS users

Research Office

Level 2 SMS users

Visa renewals for current students; immigration and visa advice International research applicants and students Confirmation of award letters for former students

Registry HR Julie McClelland

Authorising Officer for Tier 2 licence

Visiting lecturers; non-EU appointments; sponsored researchers; postgrad researchers who do not meet the student rules

Admissionsandrecords@hud.ac.uk Tel.: 3969

l.bland@hud.ac.uk tel.: 2219 c.butterick@hud.ac.uk tel.: 2828 overseas.advice@hud.ac.uk tel.: 3008 research-office@hud.ac.uk tel.: 2516 awards@hud.ac.uk

j.mcclelland@hud.ac.uk tel.: 2471

Useful links UKBA: http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk UK Visas: http://www.ukvisas.gov.uk (includes guide to visa processing times) Q&A for Sponsors:http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/employersandsponsors/pointsbasedsys tem/t4-qanda-sponsors Proposed charges for immigration and nationality services: http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/newsarticles/2010/January/chargin-for-immigration-services Factsheet for international applicants: http://www2.hud.ac.uk/international/apply/ UK Council for International Student Affairs: http://www.ukcisa.org.uk/ International Office First issued January 2010 Revised February 2010


Student/academic visa categories

Category of student

Tier Type of visa

CAS issued by

Comments

Pre-sessional student

4 General Student International Office

Pre-Masters Programme student

4 General Student Study Group

Students on 4- and 8-week courses are given combined offer letters so no renewal required

UG student (new)

4 General Student International Office

UG student (transfer)

4 General Student International Office

UG student (visa renewal)

4 General Student International Office

UG exchange student

4 Student visitor

UG exchange student on unpaid placement

4 General Student International Office

UG student on International Diploma

4 General Student Study Group

To renew visa after completion of Diploma – new CAS issued by IO

UG student enrolling on 4 or 8 week Pre-Sess

4 General Student International Office

Course offer does not require completion of PSP so one visa only, no renewal required

International Office

UG student conditional upon Pre-Sess (12 wks+)4 General Student International Office

To renew visa after completion of PSP - new CAS issued by IO

UG student taking Pre-Sess voluntarily

4 General Student International Office

Course offer does not require completion of PSP so one visa only, no renewal required

IFY student

4 General Student Study Group

To apply for new visa after completion of IFY – new CAS issued by IO

PGT student (new)

4 General Student International Office

PGT student (transfer)

4 General Student International Office

PGT student conditional on PMP

4 General Student Study Group

To renew visa after completion of PMP – new CAS issued by IO

PGT student conditional on Pre-Sess

4 General Student International Office

To renew visa after completion of PSP – new CAS issued by IO

PGT student (renewal)

4 General Student International Office

PGT/PGR student (Post-study work)

1 Post-study Work Registry

PGR ft

4 General Student International Office

PGR (transfer)

4 General Student International Office

PGR pt (visits for short periods)

4 Student visitor

PGR conditional on Pre-Sess Postdoc/visiting scholar (unpaid)

International Office

4 General Student International Office n/a

Academic Visitor HR

Employee (not current student)

2 Migrant Worker HR

Academic visitor (unpaid)

5 GAE

HR

Visiting Entertainer

5 Creative/Sport

HR

Conference Attendance KEY CAS = Certificate of Acceptance UG = undergraduate PGT = postgraduate taught PGR = postgraduate research HR = Human Resources IFY = International Foundation Year

n/a

Business Visitor

To renew visa after completion of PSP – new CAS issued by RO Visa only required for visits of longer than six months Must pass resident labour test

Must apply for visa, where relevant, before entry to UK


Student/academic visa categories

letters so no renewal required


Enhancing the University experience for students who are nonnative English speakers on mainstream courses A report for the University Teaching and Learning Committee Kevin Orr

Introduction The University of Huddersfield has benefited from an increase in the number of foreign students who have brought our courses and campus an international dimension. Many of our British students are unable to study abroad, so foreign students have created what has been referred to as “Internationalisation at Home” (Hyland et al 2008) and thus created a global perspective for everyone at the University. This small-scale project funded by the University Teaching and Learning Research fund has analysed the experience of students who are not native speakers of English and the lecturers who teach them. It set out with two primary aims: 1. To enhance the university’s understanding of issues relating to the use of English language by non-native English speakers (NNESs) on mainstream courses. 2. To identify and disseminate good practice for what tutors can do that will benefit NNES students and not adversely affect native English speakers. In order to achieve these aims there has been consideration of existing research in this area, coupled with original research at the University of Huddersfield to discover local issues. A fuller description of methodology is below. Due to the limited scale of the project the focus is solely on language. To divide language from broader concepts of culture, identity and thought is at least questionable, and it has certainly meant making arbitrary and arguable distinctions. Similarly, the project touched on the broader internationalisation of the curriculum, but does not analyse this in depth. This significant area should be the subject of subsequent research. Nevertheless, the restricted focus on language has allowed important and useful insights into the experience of both students and staff. This paper reports on the project and its findings before making recommendations to tutors and managers involved with NNESs. A brief “good practice guide” will also be produced for lecturers working with NNES students. Definitions In April 2006 Tony Blair announced the Prime Minister’s Initiative (PMI 2 2006) to attract 100,000 international students to the UK by 2011. The government define international students as those from beyond the European Union (EU); those from within the EU are home students and pay the same fees as UK students. This project did not differentiate on the status of students, but was interested only in those who speak English as a second or other language, whether they were from the EU, the UK or further afield. Throughout this group are referred to as NNESs.

1


Like every other group of students, NNESs are heterogeneous and any generalisations should be treated with caution. However, students who travel from abroad to study in Britain are, very often, successful, self-motivated learners and so any recommendations about teaching made here should in no way imply these students require some sort of remedial academic help. Though not apparent in research carried out at the University of Huddersfield, a damaging and unfounded conflation has been made by some between lowering academic standards in universities and the influx of international students (for an analysis of this see Devos 2003). While genuine debate must be encouraged around the impact of NNES students on University courses and, for example, implications for resources and tutor workload, this project found no evidence of courses reducing academic entry or assessment criteria in order to admit international students. Methodology The aims of this report concern understanding practice relating to the use of English by NNESs on mainstream courses and the dissemination of good practice based upon the perceptions of all of those involved. Analysis or theorisation of these perceptions or use of English were beyond its scope. So as to gain a broad picture of student experience the major part of this research involved semi-structured interviews recorded in April and May 2008 with NNESs who were already established on courses at the University, and in October and November 2008 with NNESs who were newly enrolled. These students were from, amongst other countries, China, Bahrain, Poland, Czech Republic, India and France. Four staff were also interviewed about their experience of working with NNES. What is offered here is partial, as both groups were largely self-selecting and the sample is obviously not large or diverse enough to be representative of the whole University. Moreover, it was keenly understood that highly localised contingencies and exigencies on specific courses affect what practice is possible for staff, and what works successfully. This report and the accompanying guide make general points and are intended to open a discussion within course teams about NNES students since good practice is always situated within a specific context. Contents of report Drawing on data from these interviews as well as a review of published research in this area this paper will first of all set out issues regarding the admission of NNESs onto courses, including English language requirements, and the established framework of support available at the University for staff and students. It will then consider the students’ experience and their perception of what has helped them to develop on courses. The use of group work is also discussed. The experience of staff is then described before tentative recommendations are made. I am particularly grateful to Sara-Jane Postill and Dionne Coburn at the University’s International Study Centre for their invaluable help in producing this report.

2


Admission and Induction By common agreement, admissions tutors need to be careful and precise about what level of English they require students to have on entry, and what evidence they will accept of students having that required level. Moreover, like any other student, NNESs need to be aware of the expectations of the course before enrolling, including the required linguistic level. There is a tendency for native speakers to underestimate their own linguistic knowledge, and therefore there may be an underestimate of the language level needed on courses. Enrolling students with inadequate English onto a course places a huge burden on staff as well as those students required to work with the NNESs on collaborative projects, and is, moreover, unfair to the NNES students who may end up dropping out. Admissions tutors are recommended to consider the English requirement for their course in collaboration with tutors from the International Study Centre (ISC), who will be able to advise on appropriate qualifications or International English Language Testing System (IELTS) scores (discussed below). ISC staff can also administer their own robust ninety-minute diagnostic test for applicants or students who are on the campus. Some tutors also felt it useful to show samples of good course work to NNES to demonstrate the expected academic and linguistic level. Where applicants are not considered to have the required level of English, a conditional offer can be made and the applicants can be advised to join the ISC for one of their English for Academic Purposes (EAP) courses. These can last up to 48 weeks, with up to twenty-five contact hours per week. Incidentally, the intensiveness of this kind of course is an indication of how much work is required to improve some students’ language, and should make admissions tutors cautious about admitting students with inappropriate English language ability. From the students interviewed, the relationship with a course tutor willing to support them was crucial to their success, so ensuring tutors have the time for that, particularly at the beginning of the course, is itself crucial. While the focus so far has been on the role of the individual tutor or course team, admissions and induction of overseas students are the responsibility of the whole University. ...if the person at the front, i.e. the lecturer, and the support staff— because there’s a whole arena of admin and support staff here, who comes into play, say ‘oh, I don’t understand’, puts the phone down, ‘I don’t know what that degree means, you’re not entitled to come'. Unless all of those players are aware of their management role, it falls into complete disarray. (Tutor quoted in Hyland et al 2008: 10)

3


The whole University needs to continue to develop in order to welcome NNESs, and, for a good example of this, each of the students interviewed spoke positively about the help they received from librarians in particular. Language Tests IELTS is the most commonly used guide to English ability used by universities in this country, which usually require ‘band’ scores around the range of 6.5 to 8.0, depending upon the course. For more details see http://www.ielts.org . A student is placed within an IELTS band based upon an average of their marks in listening, speaking, reading and writing, and so while the score is a useful guide, it may not give the necessary detail to judge a student’s suitability for a course. Moore and Norton (2005), for example, have found that the writing tested by IELTS does not match the tasks commonly used on university courses. Although the score is an average, the individual skill scores are available. Furthermore, the authenticity of a student’s test scores can be checked on-line, though one of the respondents to Hyland et al (2008: 12) considered that there were so many practice papers available that the tests were easily “crackable”. Moreover, a glance at any EAP discussion board will reveal the concerns of many as to the accuracy and utility of these tests. Hyland et al (p25) state, and this report concurs, that: institutions should not rely too heavily on this form of assessment. The drive to recruit students should not overshadow the need for rigour in the use of entrance tests of language ability, and this should be informed by a better understanding of what they do, and do not, measure. One of the decisions that course teams need to make is what credence they give to such tests and what if any indicators of level may be required. Part of this decision may be to ask for a break down of IELTS scores: an average score of 6.0 with a minimum of 6.0 in writing, for instance

The Student Experience For all of the students the primary reason for studying in the UK was the positional advantage a British qualification would give them in their own country, or indeed internationally. What attracted them to Huddersfield were, in roughly equal measure, the availability of a particular course, the reputation of the University and the size and location of the town. A striking element amongst many of the students was the existing connection with Huddersfield through family or friends, reinforcing the importance of maintaining a good reputation. Some had been recommended Huddersfield by paid intermediaries in their own countries. Some respondents expressed surprise that there were so many NNESs in their groups, though this was not considered negatively. One remarked that she had met

4


someone in Huddersfield who turned out to be a neighbour from Poland. Apart from the ubiquitous complaints about the weather, the only negative comment, made by one African student, was about the amount of alcohol consumed by British students. “My course is so interesting. It is absolutely amazing,” one Polish student said when asked to describe her studies and every one of the students interviewed was very enthusiastic about their course and, generally, their experience of Huddersfield. This was, above all, due to their relationship with tutors who were frequently described as “helpful” and “patient” once again highlighting that the attitude of academics is crucial to the positive experience of the international student. All of the students were aware of and had been in contact with the International Office, which they had found supportive and easy to deal with. They were all aware, too, of the English language support available through the International Study Centre, though some had chosen not to take this up. Some received in-sessional English support organised and funded by their School, most had received formal help with their English from study skills tutors, but all had received substantial informal help from certain course tutors. Both from what these students perceived, as well as the experience described by staff below, it is clear that NNESs may need a great deal of support, linguistic and otherwise, at least when they first arrive. Tutors may be asked about accommodation, jobs, transport and much more. When asked what tutors had done in classes or lectures to help them engage on the course, the responses of NNESs mirror those of any group of students: the general approachability of the tutor so NNESs were not scared to make mistakes when speaking; eye contact; clarity of voice including proper use of amplification equipment in large lectures; well-structured presentations which signposted the important points; appropriate use of visual aids. It is, perhaps, worth noting that all of our students benefit from these, not just those with weaker English. None of the NNESs particularly wanted tutors to slow their verbal delivery down; general clarity was considered more important. Moreover, since English is a stresstimed language, were tutors to slow their delivery too much, their spoken language would lose the phonetic characteristics of English stress, so paradoxically making it more difficult to understand. It could also be seen to be patronising to all students. Speaking in seminars was described by one established student as a “huge psychological barrier”, and the topic of group work was raised by NNESs in several interviews. Group work was the cause of anxiety, especially for those recently enrolled on courses. There was general consensus from the established students that tutor structured groups were most successful in removing barriers between students and allowing NNESs to integrate, and to allow English speaking students to perceive an international perspective, too. Left undirected, students fell into groups with friends, or at least those with the same language, where they would remain. Therefore this is an area where careful tutor intervention can help the dynamics and integration of a class of students, to the potential benefit of all.

5


Notetaking in lectures can be difficult for all students, and evidence suggests that many students are poor note-takers (Titsworth 2004) but this is especially so for those working in a second or third language. It was strongly recommended that NNESs make notes in English and some of the NNESs who were well established on their courses had initially recorded lectures, until their confidence grew. Though not identified by respondents during this research, Kingston & Forland (2008: 214) found that pre-prepared notes assisted learning for international students. These could be produced in advance on Blackboard, for example. More generally, Titsworth (2004: 305) found that “strong organizational cues” in lectures aid effective notetaking for all students. Understanding tutors’ accents was occasionally an issue for the NNESs interviewed, especially for those early in their courses, and tutors may need to think about their pronunciation of certain words or phrases if it is unorthodox. The students had all found written work to be a challenge. They had benefited from thorough feedback on their English, rather than just underlining or circling errors, though once again that has a time implication for staff. Most of the students interviewed had worked with study skills tutors, and all were aware of this facility. Those who had taken pre-sessional language courses with the ISC were very positive about them, and recommended these courses thoroughly. As with any student, what allowed these NNESs to prosper was a combination of what they were offered here in Huddersfield, and what they brought with them in experience, ability and expectation. However, of the aspects that are under the control of the University, the relationship with individual tutors is the most important. The Staff Experience Each of the staff interviewed talked of how rewarding it had been to work with NNESs who they had seen develop academically, linguistically, and personally. They all, however, agreed that this work could be challenging, though not necessarily more so than with other groups of students. However, all could point to colleagues who would prefer not to work with NNESs. Training in this area would be useful, though Hyland et al (2008: 19) found that some staff might resent such training for being “remedial”. The idea that all NNESs would simply absorb English was challenged. According to one study skills tutor: [i]f self-study [of English] were that effective, there would not be a problem. It is a problem. Some Schools were paying for in-sessional English support, which others may wish to consider budgeting for.

6


One tutor had taken the opportunity of working with NNES to examine his own communication with all students and from his experience it is clear that clarity of expression does not have to mean dilution of content. Another described how occasionally it was difficult to decide whether a student was having academic or linguistic difficulties, but that “[it is] far, far easier to sort out an academic problem.� The staff interviewed were convinced that British students benefited from their exposure to students from around the world, far more than they might be disadvantaged by having to communicate with NNESs.

7


Recommendations These recommendations derive from the data provided by students and staff during this project, as well as from literature as cited. They are only tentative suggestions because staff will know their own course and so which if any of these may be beneficial. The intention here, above all, is to promote purposeful discussion of how NNESs can be helped on courses without adversely affecting native speakers. Prior to the course Teams should analyse the language requirements of their courses in order to assess what they will require from an NNES before they can enrol on a course so that both staff and students are clear. The following list of points may help. o What type of English is required? E.g. conceptual language for arts based courses or specialised technical language for engineering courses. Are students expected to have this language from the start or to absorb it during the course? o Can you show potential students examples of work? o How much writing is required, especially early on? o How much of the course is based on spoken lectures? o How much of the course is based around discussion or student presentations? o Are there joint student assignments to be completed in groups? How will that be organised? o What linguistic support is in place? o What is the expected balance of language groups on the course? In other words, how easy will it be for NNESs to mix with English-speaking students and so be immersed in English? Will there be a “need” to converse in English? o Will there be in-sessional support for NNESs and who will fund this? o Have you consulted with staff at the ISC to help with deciding upon entry requirements and available English support? o If students do not yet meet the course’s requirements, what conditional offer can you make them, and what will you recommend they do to improve their English?

8


o Do all staff know what to tell international students when they first contact the department? o Have course and study-skills tutors been case-loaded to reflect the extra support that NNES may require?

9


Teaching strategies (partly adapted from Hyland et al 2008: 16) o Consider activities to encourage or require students to mix early on. o Have two parallel dialogues whilst you are teaching: talk about the content, and talk about your academic approach. As with many students there may need to be a particular focus on the distinction between simple description and evaluation or critical analysis of information. o Explain how British education is delivered and what the expectations are. o How will you form groups when students work together? Will you create multi-lingual groups or allow students to find their own partners? What will the consequences be? o How will you deal with native English speakers who may resent having to work with NNESs? o Consider using international examples and case studies if appropriate. o Allow students to practise writing using small and regular writing tasks in class time. o The two websites below are particularly useful for academic English: 1. Using English for Academic Purposes [http://www.uefap.com/index.htm] which is managed by an academic from the University of Hertfordshire contains a very broad range of information and activities useful for staff and students. 2. The Academic Phrasebank [http://www.phrasebank.manchester.ac.uk/] set up by the University of Manchester is helpful for students struggling with producing the vocabulary and expressions of written academic English. o Think about how you annotate or highlight linguistic errors in written texts. Simply correcting them may not help NNESs to develop their own proofreading skills o Use active reading tasks whereby reading can be discussed in groups of mixed ability and questions can be used to guide debate. o Avoid inappropriate culture-specific idioms, proverbs and analogies. o Consider how you encourage participation in discussions. One technique is to snowball contributions by getting students to think about something

10


individually, then discussing it in small groups before finally opening up to the whole group. Thus students can think about and even rehearse what they want to say. o Consider the clarity of oral presentations, including the use of microphones, and ensure that everyone can hear and understand contributions from students. o Consider the pace of delivery and pronunciation of key phrases. o Suggest that students can record lectures if necessary. o Place lecture notes or handouts on Blackboard so students can access them before lectures to allow them to follow the thread of the lecturer’s presentation. o Consider the use of visual aids to allow better understanding in lectures and seminars. o Balance language and subject matter to cater for non-native speakers and students with high-level language ability. o Consider how you signpost important points in lectures, seminars and discussions. Predictability of structure so students can concentrate on content may be effective, as well as care over the form of discourse. Some students with limited English have not yet learned to tolerate uncertainty in listening to speech, or cannot distinguish between foreground and background language and so attempt to understand or translate very word. Compare these utterances: There is something else which I want to say at this stage before moving on which is, ehhh. Well, how can I put this? And you may not necessarily agree with this, but many economists, or at least some economists, consider the present financial crisis to be not dissimilar to that of the 1930s. Some economists consider the present financial crisis to be similar to that of the 1930s. A student struggling to understand every word may be lost before the significant information in the first utterance. The second is an illustration of how clarity of expression does not entail dilution of content. o Think about how you can check understanding where appropriate or possible, by using context-specific questions rather than “is that clear?” or “are we all right with that?” Quick, specific concept-check tasks may also be possible.

11


References Devos, A. (2003) Academic standards, internationalisation and the discursive construction of “The International Student”. Higher Education Research and Development, 24 (1), pp63-78 Hyland, F.; Trahar, S.; Anderson, J. & Dickens, A. (2008) A Changing World: the internationalisation experiences of staff and students (home and international) in UK Higher Education. Bristol: Higher Education Academy Kingston, E. & Forland, H. (2008) Bridging the Gap in Expectations between International Students and Academic Staff. Journal of studies in International Education 12 (2) pp204-221 Moore, T. & Morton, J. (2005) Dimensions of difference: a comparison of university writing and IELTS writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4 (1), pp43-66 Titsworth, B. (2004) Students’ notetaking: The Effects of Teacher Immediacy and Clarity. Communication Education 53 (4) pp305-320

12


Research and Enterprise

Research Degree Examinations


Research Degree Theses: Format, Submission and Examination May 2008


Research Degree Theses: Format, Submission & Examination May 2008

Research Degree Theses: Format, Submission and Examination Table of Contents 1.

General Format ................................................................................. 2 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8

References ................................................................................ 2 Page numbering ......................................................................... 2 List of Contents .......................................................................... 2 Title Page .................................................................................. 2 Resubmission ............................................................................ 3 Multiple volumes ........................................................................ 3 Copyright Statement .................................................................. 3 Optional Pages ........................................................................... 4

2.

Submission ....................................................................................... 4

3.

The Examination ............................................................................... 5 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6

The Preliminary Examination of the Thesis..................................... 5 The Oral Examination ................................................................. 5 The Final Examination Report ...................................................... 6 Referral of a Thesis and Re-examination ....................................... 6 The Recommendation of an Award ............................................... 7 Appeals Against Examination Decisions ......................................... 7

Page | 1


Research Degree Theses: Format, Submission & Examination May 2008

Regulations governing the form of the thesis are given in the University's Regulations for Research Awards (Section F) and must be observed.

1.

General Format

Typing should be double or one and a half line spaced, except for the abstract which must be single spaced, on one side of A4 and not exceeding 300 words. A font type and size that ensures readability must be used for the main text (for example 10 point in a font such as Arial or Verdana, or a 12 point in Times or Times New Roman); single spacing may be used for quotations, footnotes and references. Pages may be single or double-sided.

1.1

References

Bibliographic citations and references must be consistent throughout the thesis; general guidance can be obtained from the candidate’s main supervisor. Any appropriate standard system of referencing may be used.

1.2

Page numbering

Page numbering must consist of one single sequence of standard Arabic numerals (i.e., 1, 2, 3 ‌ ) throughout the thesis, starting with the title page as page number 1. Page numbers must be displayed on all pages EXCEPT the title page. The pagination sequence will include not only the text of the thesis but also the preliminary pages, diagrams, tables, figures, illustrations, appendices, references etc, and will extend to cover all volumes in a multi-volume thesis. Roman numerals must not be used for page numbering.

1.3

List of Contents

The thesis must have a list of contents, giving all relevant sub-divisions of the thesis and a page number for each item. In a multi-volume thesis the contents page in the first volume must show the complete contents of the thesis, volume-by-volume, and each subsequent volume must have a contents page giving the contents of that volume. The final word count, excluding appendices but including footnotes and endnotes, must be inserted at the bottom of the contents page. If a thesis contains tables there should be a separate list of each item, as appropriate, immediately after the contents page(s). Such lists must give the page number of each item on the list.

1.4

Title Page

The title page shall give the following information: Page | 2


Research Degree Theses: Format, Submission & Examination May 2008

the full title of the thesis; the full name of the author (which must be the same as the name under which he or she is currently enrolled); the award for which the degree is submitted in partial fulfilment of its requirements; that the degree is awarded by the University of Huddersfield; the Collaborating Establishment, if any; the month and year of submission.

Example

THE ORIGINS OF THE FARMERS' CO-OPERATIVE IN WESSEX JOHN SMITH A thesis submitted to the University of Huddersfield in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Huddersfield in collaboration with the Borchester Farmers' Club April 2008

1.5

Resubmission

A thesis which was referred for re-examination must bear the month and year of resubmission on the title-page and not the month and year of the original submission.

1.6

Multiple volumes

Where a thesis consists of more than one volume, each volume must contain a title page in the form set out above and also include the appropriate volume number, and the total number of volumes, e.g. Volume I of III.

1.7

Copyright Statement

The following notes on copyright and the ownership of intellectual property rights must be included as written below: Page | 3


Research Degree Theses: Format, Submission & Examination May 2008

i.

iii.

The author of this thesis (including any appendices and/or schedules to this thesis) owns any copyright in it (the “Copyright”) and s/he has given The University of Huddersfield the right to use such Copyright for any administrative, promotional, educational and/or teaching purposes. Copies of this thesis, either in full or in extracts, may be made only in accordance with the regulations of the University Library. Details of these regulations may be obtained from the Librarian. This page must form part of any such copies made. The ownership of any patents, designs, trade marks and any and all other intellectual property rights except for the Copyright (the “Intellectual Property Rights”) and any reproductions of copyright works, for example graphs and tables (“Reproductions”), which may be described in this thesis, may not be owned by the author and may be owned by third parties. Such Intellectual Property Rights and Reproductions cannot and must not be made available for use without the prior written permission of the owner(s) of the relevant Intellectual Property Rights and/or Reproductions.

1.8

Optional Pages

ii.

You may include dedications, acknowledgements, list of abbreviations etc. as appropriate. You may also include a short academic biography, including details of your degrees and/or a brief background statement of your research experience.

2.

Submission

Temporary bound theses (using standard tape or comb binding) are recommended for examination but the conferment of the degree is subject to the submission of an electronic copy of the final thesis, i.e., the thesis as approved by the examiners. In addition, three loose copies of the abstract, title page and contents page for the British Library must be presented with the final thesis. The appropriate number of copies (one for each examiner and one to be lodged in the Research Office) must be presented formally to the Research Office. The copy for the Research Office may be submitted as an electronic document in WORD or PDF format. Submissions which do not conform to the Regulations will not be accepted. Copies will be sent to the examiners and adequate time must be allowed for the theses to be inspected and letters, copyright declarations and examination forms prepared. When the thesis is submitted it must be accompanied by a statement from the main supervisor declaring whether or not it has the supervisory team’s approval for submission. Before the thesis is submitted to examiners by the Research Office it must be scrutinised by a member of University staff. The thesis is checked to ensure that the contents page is correct, that there are no gross errors (a few random pages are checked) and that the abstract is satisfactory.

Page | 4


Research Degree Theses: Format, Submission & Examination May 2008

3.

The Examination

3.1

The Preliminary Examination of the Thesis

Examiners are sent a copy of the thesis with a copy of the University Regulations and Notes for Guidance and the Preliminary Report form. These forms are to enable an independent preliminary report on the thesis to take place and as such must be completed and returned before the oral examination can be permitted. One of the purposes of these independent reports is to confirm that an oral examination should take place. Examiners must, therefore, return the preliminary report at least seven days before the date of the proposed oral examination to enable the oral examination to take place. If the preliminary reports recommend that an oral should not (for whatever reason) take place, examiners and the candidate will be informed, and the planned oral examination cannot take place until all examiners are satisfied that it should. If an oral examination is not recommended, the examiners must provide written guidance concerning the deficiencies of the thesis for the candidate.

3.2

The Oral Examination

If all examiners agree that an oral examination be held, it must take place in the University unless permission from the Chair of the University Research Committee exceptionally has been given for it to be held elsewhere. The examiners will each be given copies of the independent preliminary reports prior to the oral examination and the internal examiner will also be given a form on which the final report is to be made. The nature of the oral examination is a matter for the examiners, but it is expected that the external examiner will chair the oral, determining its form and length. If there are two external examiners the chair will be determined well in advance of the oral. If the candidate wishes to show or explain items (e.g., apparatus built, or display of work arising from the research) it would be normal for this to be done before the oral examination, and informally. Supervisors of the candidates who are not themselves examiners, may attend the oral examination, but only with the prior written approval of the candidate. Other research candidates and staff are not permitted to attend. Supervisors who are not examiners may take part in the general discussion of the oral examination, but should leave, as must the candidate, before the result is discussed and the final report and recommendation proposed and signed. The examiners may if they wish indicate the results of their examination informally to the candidate, after the oral examination, provided that they make it clear that they are only making a recommendation and that any advice has no official status. This is especially important where there is doubt over the category of result and advice is being sought. Where minor or major corrections to the thesis are required, the examiners are expected to indicate clearly the extent and type of amendment all of which, when made, must be of a permanent nature. Where minor amendments are not Page | 5


Research Degree Theses: Format, Submission & Examination May 2008

required, the procedure described in section 3.5 applies.

3.3

The Final Examination Report

The final report for a successful recommendation should normally be a joint one by the examiners. However, where examiners disagree about the outcome, separate final reports must be submitted. In such a case the areas of disagreement must be clearly stated. Where a clear recommendation for the award of the degree, without any corrections, has been made, the completed and jointly signed final report and all copies of the thesis should be returned to the Research Office. Where major or minor corrections are permitted the thesis must be amended by the candidate and submitted in its final form with a declaration signed by the examiners (or by the internal examiner where the external examiner has agreed to this) indicating that the corrections are satisfactory and completed. All minor amendments must be completed subject to the satisfaction of the appropriate examiner(s) within three months from the date of the oral examination; major amendments should be completed within six months. The final completed examination report should, however, be returned to the Research Office after the conclusion of the examination. Examiners must be clear when they authorise major or minor amendments, whether to the satisfaction of the internal examiner, the external examiner or both, that such amendments are only corrections. If there are doubts about the result to recommend, the Chair of the Research Committee should be consulted.

3.4

Referral of a Thesis and Re-examination

If the examiners are not able to recommend the award, even with minor or major amendments, a number of choices are available. Each must be considered carefully and the selected outcome should form the basis of a joint final report. If it is not possible to agree upon a joint report, then, exceptionally, separate final reports may be submitted. In referring a thesis for resubmission, examiners must indicate clearly the degree and extent of their concern and the sections/chapters to be revised. Such amendments and corrections must be stated in writing to the candidate. It is important to note that the candidate can only resubmit once and receive the degree sought. On receipt and scrutiny of the examiners' reports the Research Office will write to the candidate and supervisors ensuring that they are aware of the requirements under the regulations and stating the last date by which an amended thesis can be received. Normally this will be 12 months from the date of the oral examination. If the resubmitted thesis remains unacceptable, even after any permitted major or minor amendments following re-examination (either with or without a further oral examination as recommended by the examiners and agreed before the resubmission by the University), then two choices remain in the case of a PhD or EdD thesis and one in the case of an MPhil thesis. In the case of a PhD or EdD Page | 6


Research Degree Theses: Format, Submission & Examination May 2008

they are that the degree of PhD or EdD be not granted, but that the candidate be recommended for the award (with or without corrections) for the degree of MPhil; or that the candidate is not awarded the degree. In the case of an MPhil submission no degree can be awarded. It is normally required that the same examiners who examined the candidate at the first submission will agree to re-examine the candidate. In the event that the examiners believe the oral examination to have been satisfactory even though the thesis was not, they can recommend in their final report that the oral examination be dispensed with. If they believe the candidate would suffer some severe disadvantage through a further oral examination, they could recommend an alternative form of examination.

3.5

The Recommendation of an Award

The reports and recommendations of the examiners will be formally submitted to the Research Office. In those cases where: a) b) c)

the examiners are in agreement the recommendation is that the award be conferred there is no significant disparity between the recommendation and the comments in the preliminary and final reports

The Chair will act on behalf of the Committee and submit a formal statement of conferment to the Vice-Chancellor of the University who is also the Chair of the Senate. The statement duly signed by the Vice-Chancellor and the Chair of the Research Committee will then be forwarded to the candidate. A report of successful conferments will be submitted to each meeting of the University Research Committee. Any required amendments or corrections to the thesis must be completed and the appropriate number of copies together with the three loose copies of the abstract, title page and contents page must be handed to the Research Office before any recommendation for award can be made to Senate. In addition, the copyright declaration permitting consultation and copying from the University Repository must be signed by the candidate together with a declaration that the candidate has not been at the same time enrolled for another research degree and any other degree or professional qualification. Research degrees are conferred by the Senate. The conferment of the degree is valid from the date it is awarded - as indicated on the conferment letter from the University to the candidate. Thereafter, and not before, it may be used both in title and in listing academic qualifications. Candidates must however refrain from using the research degree until the conferment letter is received. Although the relevant certificate is presented to the candidate on conferment of the award it is hoped that candidates on whom a research award has been conferred will attend the appropriate University Awards Ceremony to receive this public recognition of their peers and friends.

3.6

Appeals Against Examination Decisions

i)

Candidates may in the circumstances set out below request a review of the examiners' recommendation, whether at the first examination or on reexamination. Page | 7


Research Degree Theses: Format, Submission & Examination May 2008

ii)

iii)

A request for a review may only be made in relation to the decision made on the recommendation of the examiners. Given the existence of procedures for complaint and grievance during the study period, alleged inadequacy of supervisory or other arrangements during the period of study do not constitute grounds for requesting a review of the examination decision. Requests for a review are permitted only on the following grounds: a) b)

c)

iv)

v)

vii)

A candidate must give notice that he/she wishes to request a review within three months from the date of notification of the result and must submit the case for review within a further three months from the date of giving notice. The request for a review will be considered by a panel constituted by the Senate from persons having experience of supervising and examining research degrees and who have had no previous involvement in the case. No student or research degree candidate may be a member of a research degrees review panel. If a review panel agrees that a candidate has valid grounds for a review, it must either; a) b)

viii)

that there are circumstances affecting the candidate's performance of which the examiners were not aware at the oral examination; that there is evidence of procedural irregularity in the conduct of the examination (including administrative error) of such a nature as to cause doubt as to whether the result might have been different had there not been such irregularity; that there is evidence of unfair or improper assessment on the part of one or more of the examiners. Candidates may not otherwise challenge the academic judgement of the examiners.

recommend that the Senate invite the examiners to reconsider their decision; or recommend that new examiners be appointed.

A review panel is not constituted as an examinations board and has no authority to set aside the decision of examiners and thereby to recommend the award of the degree.

Page | 8


Research and Enterprise

Miscillaneous


The Convivium ‘Sharing Life Together’

Come along to The Convivium and discover a space for postgraduate research students to sit, think and discuss. The Convivium

Level 5, Central Services Building

Opening times:

Monday - Thursday: 6.00am - 7.45pm Friday: 6.00am - 7.30pm www.hud.ac.uk/research/gradcentre/convivium.php

The Convivium

‘Sharing Life Together’

Come along to The Convivium and discover a space for postgraduate research students to sit, think and discuss. The Convivium

Level 5, Central Services Building

Opening times:

Monday - Thursday: 6.00am - 7.45pm Friday: 6.00am - 7.30pm www.hud.ac.uk/research/gradcentre/convivium.php


Is a business idea keeping you up at night?...


Thinking of becoming self-employed?...


... put your ideas into practice with these FREE services from the University’s Business Mine • Regular presentations and practical “meet the expert” events • Help to identify funding possibilities • One2one mentoring and free office facilities for Business Mine members E-mail: enterprise@hud.ac.uk www.hud.ac.uk/enterprise Web: 01484 473563 / 473907 / 473849 Tel: twitter.com/BusinessMine Twitter: Facebook: Business Mine – contact us for an invitation Or call in to see us in Huddersfield: Central Services Building, Room 10/06 XXXXX


Library and Computing Centre

IT facilities for researchers frequently asked questions What IT services are available when I’m not on campus? The vast majority of services available via the University website are available when you are off campus (eg email, Blackboard, PortalPlus, MetaLib, Library Catalogue and the Storage Area Network or SAN). To access a University Windows desktop when you are away from the University, you can use the Mobile Desktop service http://mobile.hud.ac.uk which will give you access to the SAN and to some major business systems. Contact Staff IT Support (T: 01484 473737, E: staff.it.support@hud.ac.uk) to discuss the options.

Can I use the SAN on campus if I have a Mac/Linux? If you have a Mac, then the SAN is available to you. Contact your Client Consultant or Staff IT Support to discuss your requirements. The SAN is not available from Linux PCs unless you use Mobile Desktop (see the next question).

Can I use the SAN from home if I have a Mac/Linux/PC? Yes on all counts, by using Mobile Desktop and the appropriate client software for PC, Mac or Linux.

Are there shared areas for group use on the SAN? As well as your personal area on the SAN (K: drive), you usually have access to at least two other areas. Your L: drive is typically used by your team or group, and your M: drive is used by your School or Service. You can also have other areas set up, for specific groups. Talk to Staff IT Support (ext. 3737).

How do I access e-resources? Library electronic resources (journals, books and databases, many of which are full-text) can be accessed via the MetaLib gateway. You can use MetaLib http://metalib.hud.ac.uk directly or via PortalPlus http://portalplus.hud.ac.uk

What is the University Repository? The Repository http://eprints.hud.ac.uk is an electronic archive of the research output of the University. It makes research work available to others via the web.

How do I deposit material into the Repository? As a researcher you can deposit your research output to the Repository in your User Area. For more details, see the Repository website.


What is the definition of sensitive/confidential material? The terms ‘sensitive’ and ‘confidential’ as applied to data are defined in the IT Security Procedure Manual. Some examples of confidential data are: medical, criminal or financial information about individuals or information of business critical nature. Some examples of sensitive data are: addresses, phone numbers, student records, results or general financial information.

How do I transport sensitive/confidential material? Sensitive or confidential material must be protected when it is in transit. For example, use a password-protected phone or laptop, or employ encryption. You can buy an encrypted memory stick, or software that will encrypt the data on a laptop. Data sent via e-mail is especially vulnerable. Use a program such as WinZip to encrypt it. More advice is available from your Client Consultant.

How do I store sensitive/confidential material? Much of the advice on transporting sensitive or confidential data also applies to its storage. In addition, make use of private areas of the SAN such as your K: drive. Storage of sensitive or confidential material on your computer’s hard drive, or on unencrypted memory sticks, CDs, DVDs, etc is a breach of the University’s IT Security Policy.

Where can I find the University IT security policy and procedural documents? These documents are published on the CLS website www.hud.ac.uk/cls: IT Security Policy, IT Security Procedure Manual.

How should I back up my data? Data you keep on the SAN is backed up regularly for you. You should avoid keeping data elsewhere, but if you have to, you should consider taking a daily, weekly or monthly copy of the data, and keeping that copy away from the original, ideally in a different building. The frequency at which you back up your data will depend on the rate at which it changes and its importance to you. If you are not sure, take a back up at the end of each working day. If the data you are backing up is sensitive or confidential, then you must ensure that the back ups are adequately protected too.

How do I increase my e-mail allocation? Your e-mail allocation can be increased. Contact Staff IT Support (ext 3737) to discuss the options.

How do I increase my SAN allocation? Your SAN allocation can be increased, if required for your work. Contact Staff IT Support to discuss the options.


Where do I go for IT help? Your School or Department may offer its own IT help service. Ask colleagues or your supervisor if this is the case. Centrally, Staff IT Support (ext 3737) is available to all researchers. For in depth consultancy and advice, contact your Client Consultant.

How do I find out what software packages are available? The packages available on the Standard Staff Desktop are listed on the CLS website www.hud.ac.uk/cls For advice on other software, contact your Client Consultant.

Where do I go for training for software? IT training is organised by the Staff Development Unit. The training and qualifications that are available are listed in the Staff Development Programme handbook and on their website www.hud.ac.uk/hr/courses/cit

What do I do if my PC is inadequate for my research needs? Research funds are held by Schools and Departments. Talk to your supervisor for assistance.

Where can I get advice on copyright issues? Look at the copyright website www.hud.ac.uk/cls/copyright or see your Library Subject Team for further advice and information.

I’m researching into terrorism/pornography. How do I ensure that I don’t get into trouble with the University/police/government? If you think that the subject matter of your research potentially falls into these categories, it should be referred in the first instance to your School Research Committee before work begins. The Committee will then advise you, and inform others in the University who will need to be aware of your work.


ow on Twitter PGRs now The University of Huddersfield Research Office has launched a Twitter. It’s updated regularly with news and information and aims to keep all researchers informed of what’s going on, opportunities, seminars, events etc. Please, if you haven’t already done so, create a Twitter account and follow us at http://twitter.com/GraduateCentre Twitter is a free social networking and micro-blogging service that enables its users to send and read messages known as tweets. Tweets are text-based posts of up to 140 characters. Twitter is a free service that helps people to stay connected connected through the exchange of quick, frequent answers to one simple question: What are you doing?

How do I get started? To get started, you need to create a (free) account at http://twitter.com to be able to make a remark or comment – a tweet. Once registered with a username, just type in the box, “What are you doing now?” and anyone who views your profile will see what you’ve tweeted. You can also use a mobile phone to send tweets – click on Settings -> Devices to set this is up on your Twitter account.

How do people read my tweets? They can go directly to your Twitter web page – http://twitter.com/username username (whatever username you’ve chosen). If they have a Twitter account themselves, they can follow you – this brings your tweets on to their own Twitter homepage, automatically. In Twitter they can search on a keyword or topic http://search.twitter.com This will find any tweets where you have used us this keyword.

If you require any further information or advice please email: Annabel Holland Head of Research and Graduate Education a.holland@hud.ac.uk


GEG_19JAN10_P10

Research Data Security: a proposal The Issue It is vital that research material is maintained securely, for two key reasons: 1. Research material is original work which, if lost, cannot be easily replaced. Loss can be devastating to researchers who may have years of effort invested in their electronic data and text. 2. Research material may contain sensitive or confidential data. Loss may compromise third parties, as well as those involved in the project, and could lead to financial and reputational damage, both to the researcher and the institution. The University maintains IT Security Policy and Procedure documents, which are available on the Computing and Library Services website. These documents indicate appropriate working procedures for keeping material safe. However, there are reasons to believe that some research material may not be stored correctly. A survey conducted in 2008 showed that many researchers did not back up data regularly or did not store backups securely. In 2009, the theft of a laptop and memory stick deprived a Huddersfield researcher of all copies of his work. It is proposed therefore that a more controlled approach is taken to this important issue.

The Proposal It should be part of the Supervisor’s role to seek assurance that researchers’ material is being kept safe. The appropriate degree of security should relate to the nature of the data, but the following questions should be satisfied for all research projects: 1. Is the material being stored on a secure medium? i.e., is it being stored in an environment which is regularly backed up to a safe store, and which is access-controlled? The default storage medium for all staff and students is the Storage Area Network (for example, the K: drive), which meets these criteria, and this should be the chosen option unless there are very good reasons to keep it elsewhere. C: drives, DVDs, laptops and memory sticks can fail or be stolen or lost and should normally be rejected, unless they are supported by a very well organised backup regime. 2. Is the data sensitive? If the data includes personal details relating to living persons or any information which should not be allowed to fall into the wrong hands, then additional security is required. Such data should not be stored in a shared area and passwords should be strong and kept secret; the data should not be copied to any mobile device unless there is appropriate encryption and/or password protection. It should not be copied to other media, or another device – such as a home computer, unless it is confirmed as having adequate safeguards.


GEG_19JAN10_P10

Supervisors should be responsible for ensuring that all researchers in their care can answer these questions to the supervisor’s satisfaction. Responses should be formally recorded.


The Graduate Junction is the first website to bring together Masters, PhD and Postdoctoral researchers from any discipline around the world. The Graduate Junction provides a global multidisciplinary environment in which to meet and communicate with others who share common research interests. Go online to find out what research is currently being done by other postgraduates. The Graduate Junction also aims to provide comprehensive listings of information relevant to the postgraduate research community. The Graduate Junction has been developed by other postgraduates at Durham University and Oxford University in order to benefit their community. We wanted to know if who else shared our research interests. We have bold aims and strong values to ensure The Graduate Junction is easy to use and only provides relevant information. Go online to read more about the Team, our vision and read our testimonials.

Search Research Profiles Join or Create Online Research Discussion Groups Conference and Postdoctoral Job Listings Advice Forum and Graduate Journal Listings …and much more on the way!

Launched in May 2008 and now redesigned with new functionality, go online and

BECOME PART OF THE GROWING GLOBAL RESEARCH COMMUNITY!


PGR Funding Information and Opportunities All research students can use the University's subscription to the funding database known as Research Professional. It’s simple to use and you can set up email alerts for all of the funding opportunities you are likely to be interested in. We have also created a number of standard funding queries that you can easily access from the home page including: • • • • • • • •

Early Career Opportunities Financial aid for postgraduate students Financial support for personal development Financial support for publishing Financial support for travel for research Financial support for travel to conferences and meetings Prizes Studentships

Go to: http://new.researchresearch.com/ and either  create your own account (recommended for full functionality) or  browse without logging in using the University of Huddersfield campus access. In addition, there is also funding information in the Funding folder of the Postgraduate Researchers resource in Blackboard.


Raising the profile of research and the University Research projects generally provide the most interesting stories for the media. The University is very keen to issue as many of these stories as possible, and to ensure our website carries up to date information about what is happening in research. Having up to date information on our website and in the public eye is also a very positive move in terms of funding bodies that might check out your research group’s credentials when considering a bid. If your research students are working on things that could be of interest to the media please consult your School marketing officer or Research and Enterprise (see list below) who will be able to give you advice on how to prepare a potential story for the website, they will also consult the central PR office regarding stories that they feel may have greater potential. If an extremely newsworthy story is identified which might stimulate requests for interviews, the central PR office can help coach those involved before any interviews take place, and academic colleagues in the media department can also arrange training sessions.

School marketing contacts Applied Sciences

Janet Goodridge (PR contact) Ext 3138 E-mail j.e.goodridge@hud.ac.uk

Art, Design and Architecture

Hannah Tarpey Ext 3813 E-mail h.a.tarpey@hud.ac.uk

Business School

David Colley Ext 2129 E-mail d.j.colley@hud.ac.uk

Computing and Engineering

Kelly Jakeman Ext 2931 E-mail k.d.jakeman@hud.ac.uk

Education and Professional Development

Anne Poulain Ext 8139 E-mail a.poulain@hud.ac.uk

Human and Health Sciences

Sarah Bassett Ext 3125 E-mail s.bassett@hud.ac.uk

Music, Humanities and Media

Philippa Morgan Ext 2426 E-mail p.morgan@hud.ac.uk

Research and Enterprise

Kirsty Taylor Ext 3817 E-mail k.e.taylor@hud.ac.uk


Research and Enterprise

Ethics and IPR


Ethical Guidelines for Good Practice in Teaching & Research July 2004


Ethical Guidelines for Good Practice in Teaching & Research July 2004

Ethical guidelines are both about, and for, teaching and research. The University has a responsibility for ensuring that teaching and research follow good ethical practice. This is done through the University Ethics Committee and through the School Ethics Committees. Codes of practice should be alive, i.e. open to change and reflection on an annual basis. Reference was made to the HERSDA document ‘Challenging Conceptions of Teaching: 1 Some Prompts for Good Practice’ in drawing together the following key principles. Key Principles for Good Practice 1. Diversity University staff contributing to teaching and research should be aware of and demonstrate respect for the institutions’ educational policies and goals that respect and value difference and operate in a culturally diverse environment. 2. Respect for the Institution Staff and students should respect the institution and its values, avoiding inappropriate representation both within and outside of the University. 3. Intellectual Development Research and scholarship should respect the creation of new knowledge, intellectual and professional skill development of staff and students and respect the rights and needs of participants. 4. Conflicts of Interest Staff are aware of and avoid relationships that result in a conflict of interest when teaching or researching 5. Staff/Student Relationships Active steps are taken to ensure that the experience of students and staff is managed in ways that are fair, open, valid and in line with the University’s best practice. 6. Safe Environments and Sensitive Areas Staff and students work in the context of physical, psychological and social safety. 7. Confidentiality Teaching and research respects the contributions of participants in ways that do not inappropriately diminish individuals by their participation. APPENDIX 1 8. RESEARCH: Honesty and Misconduct 8.1 Introduction • The University takes seriously the need for research to be carried out with integrity since it is well aware that breaches of good practice undermine the academic community and public confidence in research and the awards given by the University. • Research misconduct is often easier to recognize than to define but two broad categories can be distinguished. The first involves fabrication or falsification of research results; the second arises where there is plagiarism, misquoting or misappropriation of the work of others. It also includes, for example, the unethical use of material provided in a privileged way for review or assessment. • Research misconduct involving plagiarism, piracy or falsifying results is a form of dishonesty which is viewed by the University as a serious offence. The University’s Regulations for Awards contain provisions under which the University’s Research Committee may penalise candidates who are found to have dishonestly obtained work for assessment. The purpose of this section is to explain what research Page | 1


Ethical Guidelines for Good Practice in Teaching & Research July 2004

misconduct is, to describe the procedures which will be followed when it is suspected, and to indicate the penalties which are likely to be imposed when it is detected. 8.2 Good practice, ethics and plagiarism in research (i) Principles of good practice In the conduct of all research, the University expects the following general principles to be understood and observed. Honesty At the heart of all research, regardless of discipline, is the need for researchers to be honest in respect of their own actions in research and in their responses to the actions of others. This applies to the whole range of work, including experimental design, generating and analysing data, publishing results and acknowledging the direct and indirect contributions of colleagues, collaborators and others. All researchers must refrain from plagiarism, piracy or the fabrication of results. In the case of employees, committing any of these actions is regarded as a serious disciplinary offence. Openness While recognising the need for researchers to protect intellectual property rights (ipr), confidentiality agreements etc, the University expects researchers to be as open as possible in discussing their work with others and with the public. Once results have been published and where appropriate, the University expects researchers to make available relevant data and materials to others, on request. Guidance from professional bodies Where available, the University expects researchers to observe the standards of good practice set out in guidelines published by relevant societies and professional bodies. (ii) Leadership and co-operation in research groups The University is committed to ensure that a climate is created which allows research to be conducted in accordance with good practice. Within a research group, responsibility lies with the group leader who should create a research environment of mutual cooperation. They must also ensure that appropriate direction of research and supervision of researchers are provided. (iii) A critical approach to research results Researchers should always be prepared to question the outcome of their research. While acknowledging the pressures - of time and resources - under which researchers often have to work, the University expects research results to be checked before being made public. (iv) Documenting results and storing primary data Throughout their work, the University requires researchers to keep clear and accurate records of the procedures followed and of the results obtained, including interim results. This is necessary not only as a means of demonstrating proper research practice but also in case questions are subsequently asked about either the conduct of the research or the results obtained. For similar reasons, data generated in the course of research must be kept securely in paper or electronic form, as appropriate. The University expects data to be securely held for a period of five years after the completion of a research project. (v) Publishing results It is expected that research results are published in an appropriate form, usually papers in refereed journals. This has long been widely accepted as the best system for research results to be reviewed - through the refereeing process - and made available to the community for verification or replication. However, in recent years, questions have been raised, in particular about the growth in the number of authors of individual papers and the implications of increasing pressures to publish. The issue of authorship is important in the context of good practice and the University expects the matter to be taken seriously. The University expects anyone listed as an author on a paper to accept Page | 2


Ethical Guidelines for Good Practice in Teaching & Research July 2004

personal responsibility for ensuring that they are familiar with the contents of the paper and that they can identify their contributions to it. The practice of honorary authorship is unacceptable. (vi) Acknowledging the role of collaborators and other participants In all aspects of research, the contributions of formal collaborators and all others who directly assist or indirectly support the research must be properly acknowledged. This applies to any circumstances in which statements about the research are made, including provision of information about the nature and process of the research and in publishing the outcome. Failure to acknowledge the contribution of others is regarded as unprofessional conduct. Conversely, collaborators and other contributors carry their share of the responsibility for the research and its outcome. (vii)The needs of new researchers New researchers face particular difficulties. Responsibility for ensuring that students and other new researchers understand good practice lies with all members of the community but particularly with senior staff. The University expects students and new researchers to adopt best practice as quickly as possible through, for example, formal training or mentoring schemes. (viii) Integrity in applying for research funding When seeking research support of any kind (grants, fellowships and studentships), applicants must ensure that the information they submit is in accordance with the guidance provided by the granting body and is clear and accurate. All signatories of the application form carry this responsibility. In keeping with the general principles set out in this statement, plagiarism and fabrication of data are unacceptable. 8.3 What constitutes research misconduct? • Common forms of misconduct are piracy, plagiarism and fraud. • Piracy is the deliberate exploitation of ideas from others without acknowledgement. • Plagiarism is the copying of ideas, data or text without permission or acknowledgement. • Fraud involves deliberate deception including the invention of data and the omission from analysis and non publication of inconvenient data. 8.4 Procedures for dealing with research misconduct (i) Where a supervisor or examiner (internal or external) suspects that research misconduct has occurred, the Dean of the School (or nominated deputy) will interview the candidate concerned and will establish whether or not the accusation is contested. The supervisor and/or examiner(s) may also be asked to take part in the interview. If all parties agree that misconduct has taken place, a report will be prepared by the Dean (or nominated deputy) for consideration by the University’s Research Committee. The report will be signed by all parties. (ii) If the candidate concerned disputes the allegation, a full report will be made to the Academic Registrar and a formal Board of Enquiry will be convened in accordance with the procedure referred to below. The candidate’s performance will not be considered further until the Board of Enquiry has completed its investigations. 8.5 The penalties for research misconduct Where it has been found that research misconduct has been committed, The University’s Research Committee shall determine whether or not the candidate shall be permitted to continue/submit/be re-examined. In the latter case the candidate shall submit for reexamination within the period of one calendar year from the date of the latest part of the examination. 8.6 Allegations of research misconduct The University takes seriously any allegation of research misconduct and will thoroughly investigate any such claims. Common forms of misconduct are piracy, plagiarism and Page | 3


Ethical Guidelines for Good Practice in Teaching & Research July 2004

fraud. defined in 8.3. Allegations may come from others in the same institution or from outside and may be private or public but, to be followed up, they must be in writing. Whatever form the allegation takes, the University will respond to it. The University’s procedures ensure that: • the responsibilities of those dealing with the allegation are clear and understood by all interested parties • anyone accused of misconduct has the right to respond • the appropriate people are informed of the allegation • the allegation is dealt with promptly • proceedings are confidential to those directly involved • as far as possible the record should be agreed by all interested parties; where this is not possible, differences should be accurately recorded • proper records of the proceedings are kept • the outcome is made known as quickly as possible to all interested parties The procedures must be made available to all members of staff. For University employees, research misconduct is a clear breach of the staff code and disciplinary proceedings will follow. Research students found guilty of research misconduct will be dealt with according to the regulations which may result in the withdrawal of registration and suspension from the University. If the allegation is dismissed, the University will protect the interests of the researcher and make the outcome clear to all who have been involved. If the allegation was made publicly, the University will make public the outcome of the investigation. The responsibility for teaching and research is to follow good ethical practice. However, ethical decision making is not simply about being right or wrong but about making reasonable well informed judgments. The University has a responsibility to ensure that staff and students are exposed to good practice and are free from harm. The University Ethics Committee is responsible for establishing a framework for good practice and for offering advice. The Committee expects that complex and sensitive projects will normally seek advice from the School Ethics Committee and then from the University Ethics Committee, if necessary, before undertaking any project work or research. Any research projects that are not registered with either the Research Office or directly with Schools will not be either protected or supported by the University and the University will not be held responsible for that project. The University holds training sessions and induction days for new staff and students to attend and learn about ethical issues in research and good ethical practice. These are normally arranged by the Staff Development Group and also by the Research Office. APPENDIX 2 As it is arguable what constitutes a moral or ethical issue these questions can be used to suggest some of the issues you might discuss. Diversity • •

Do you make a conscious effort to be an effective role model for thinking and practice in your profession or discipline? How do you indicate to students that you respect their values and beliefs without necessarily accepting those values and beliefs?

Page | 4


Ethical Guidelines for Good Practice in Teaching & Research July 2004

• • • •

How do you build upon students’ life experience in your subjects and in your teaching? Do you take note of the gender, ethnicity and other characteristics of students in your classes and respond to their learning needs? What opportunities do you create to discuss with students the wider conditions that affect their learning? In what ways do you assist students to reflect on the values they hold and to develop ethically?

Respect for the Institution • • • • •

How do you ensure that colleagues are not exposed to inappropriate / personal criticism either internal to the University or outside? How is the quality of scholarship ensured to prevent a misrepresentation of the University in the wider context? What measures are in place to support the achievement of ethical practice in teaching and research in the local context? How are role models / poor models given feedback? How do you learn from your own experience and feed this into the University for dissemination?

Intellectual Development • • • • • • • • • • • •

How do staff keep professional expertise up to date? What strategies do you employ to reflect upon your teaching practices and identify areas for development? How do you ensure research knowledge is disseminated and of a quality that results in it being considered revolutionary by the whole academic community? How do you make ethical judgments about a funding source? What do you do to inform students of course/subject requirements and help them to understand the reasons for them? When you can, do you find out about student’s expectations of your subject and use this information to adapt your curriculum? How do you show students your enthusiasm in the subject? What strategies do you adopt to help students look critically at accepted knowledge and practice in your discipline or profession? How do you encourage questions from students and respond in a way that facilitates their learning? How do you check that your explanations are clear to students? What do you do to encourage students to become aware of the potential for learning from each other and the benefits of working in groups? How are students to understand that plagiarism is not only unacceptable it is unethical?

Conflicts of Interest • • •

How do you ensure project funding is not associated with unacceptable sources? What education or training are research and teaching staff given to support the very best ethical practice? How do you avoid friendships / personal relationships becoming a conflict of interest in either making judgments (eg student assessment) or employing project staff?

Staff/Student Relationships • •

How do you ensure consistency for students eg mitigation, assessment extension, flexible working, across all Schools and Departments? In what ways do you provide personal assistance to students, and/or refer them to the range of resources and agencies which are available to them? Page | 5


Ethical Guidelines for Good Practice in Teaching & Research July 2004

• • • • •

Do you ensure that there is consistency between your subject objectives, the ways you teach and the ways you assess? If necessary, how do you find out about the causes of disruptive behaviour and remedy them? In what ways do you ensure that your assessment methods accurately assess the learning outcomes that you intended? How do you learn from complaints? How does you research protocol ensure participants understand the nature of their contribution, protect their confidentiality and secure informed consent?

Safe Environments and Sensitive Areas • • • • •

How are sensitive topics addressed and supported in the teaching and research environment? How are inappropriate remarks or views e.g., ethnicity, gender, managed? How do students and staff complain effectively that results in change? How do researchers plan to accommodate highly sensitive areas of work (e.g., military engineering, social research in sensitive areas)? How do you ensure that students and staff working off campus (e.g., interviewing in homes) are safe?

Confidentiality • • • • • •

How is research participation anonymised? When and by what means is data protected? How do students participate without having to disclose private information? How do you ensure that student participants are supported to decline involvement in work they feel has unacceptable ethical dimensions? Can students really refuse to be your research participants? Are students ‘over-researched’?

Notes 1. ‘Challenging Conceptions of Teaching: Some Prompts for Good Practice’. Available at: http://www.herdsa.org.au/CCT.php.

Approved by the University Ethics Committee: 8 June 2004 Approved by the Teaching and Learning Committee: 15 June 2004 Approved by the University Research Committee: 23 July 2004

Page | 6


THE UNIVERSITY OF HUDDERSFIELD HANDBOOK OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND RELATED MATTERS

February 2006 edition


CONTENTS Section

Title

Page

1

ABOUT THIS HANDBOOK

2

2

A BRIEF GUIDE TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

4

3

UNIVERSITY OF HUDDERSFIELD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY POLICY

11

4

UNIVERSITY OF HUDDERSFIELD POLICY ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT & COMMERCIALISATION

16

4

Appendix 1

20

4

Appendix 2

21

4

Appendix 3

25

1


SECTION 1 ABOUT THIS HANDBOOK

2


1.

PURPOSE OF HANDBOOK

By their nature, all universities provide an environment for the generation of new ideas, inventions and other creative functions. From time to time these may be capable of commercial exploitation. The University of Huddersfield encourages such creativity, as it benefits staff, students and the University as a whole.

This Handbook attempts to bring together in one volume the University's policies and procedures relating to intellectual property (IP), its development and commercialisation. There are three main sections: •

A Brief Guide to Intellectual Property: this provides an overview of the nature of intellectual property and the rights which may attach to it.

Policy on Intellectual Property: this sets out the University's policy in a straightforward, easy to read document including the important topics of ownership and revenue sharing.

Policy and Procedures for Development and Commercialisation of Intellectual Property: this sets out the steps which must be taken from initial identification of IP through assessment of its suitability for registered protection and/or commercialisation, and the mechanism by which exploitation can become a reality.

The aim is to provide a comprehensive guide and framework of best practice which will help staff and students to identify the creation of IP at the earliest opportunity and which explains how the University can help develop, protect and exploit it.

3


SECTION 2 A BRIEF GUIDE TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

4


2.1

WHAT IS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY?

For the purposes of this handbook “intellectual property” means:

patentable and non-patentable inventions, devices, materials, products and processes

copyright and analogous rights in computer software and firmware, databases and works generated by computer hardware or software owned or operated by the University

copyright in films, videos, photographs, multimedia and other sound and vision works, typographical arrangements and other works created with the aid of University facilities

registered and unregistered designs, semiconductor chip topographies

plant breeder rights

copyright in books, lectures, articles, musical compositions and teaching materials

any other University-commissioned work including know-how and confidential information associated with the above

2.2

AVAILABLE PROTECTION

The following are brief descriptions of currently available registered and unregistered protection. 2.2.1

Patents a.

Qualification

Patent protection in the UK and Europe is available by virtue of the Patents Act 1977 and the European Patent Convention for ideas and inventions provided they: •

are novel (ie. beyond the current state of the art and not published or disclosed elsewhere in any form)

involve an inventive step

are capable of industrial application

do not fall within specifically excluded categories , namely:

*

ο

discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods (as opposed to the products of such theories)

ο

literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works and other aesthetic creations (protected mainly by copyright)

ο

computer programs (but only as such and subject to many practical qualifications, for instance software producing a technical effect in other equipment)

ο

schemes, rules or methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business and presentations of information (as opposed to equipment used in such schemes

ο

*

inventions which encourage offensive, immoral or antisocial behaviour

The exclusions are subject to interpretation and therefore include some flexibility

5


ο

plant and animal varieties and biological processes for the production of plants and animals except micro-biological processes and the products thereof (but again subject to many exceptions in practice).

Do not assume that these exceptions to patent protection cannot be circumvented with professional advice. Furthermore, overseas laws e.g. in the important USA market, differ!

b.

Protection Afforded

A successful application will result in the grant of a patent for 20 years in the country where it is made. This effectively gives the inventor a monopoly over manufacture, use, importation or sale or hire of the invention for that period of time in that given territory eg. UK, Europe, USA. Protection can be obtained in just a few key markets or at much greater expense, worldwide. c.

How to obtain cover

Applying for and maintaining a patent is a lengthy and can be an expensive process. Care must be taken prior to making an application as any prior disclosure (such as published papers, seminars etc) could nullify it. When filed, the application establishes a priority date after which the invention can be disclosed to third parties and to which any foreign applications can be backdated. Care must therefore be taken to maintain confidentiality, avoid disclosure outside the University and follow the technology disclosure procedure set out in the University’s Intellectual Property Policy. 2.2.2

Copyright a.

Qualification

(i)

Copyright covers a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work expressed in a tangible form. This includes sound recordings, films, and computer programs. Copyright exists at a number of levels because it protects the expression of the idea eg. If a music student writes a song and another student sings it at a performance which is recorded and turned into a CD, copyrights exist in the musical notation and lyrics, in the actual performance and in the CD recording.

(ii)

The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 defines 4 “moral rights” in relation to copyright:

b.

the right to be identified as author (or film director) – the “right of paternity”

the right to object to derogatory treatment of a work – the “right of integrity”

the right against false attribution of a work

the right to privacy in private photographs and films

Protection Afforded 6


Copyright in a literary, musical, dramatic or artistic work vests in the author of the work (or the person otherwise entitled by law, such as an assignee, heir or employer) and lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. Sound recordings and broadcasts are covered for 50 years, and published editions 25 years. However, where work is produced in the course of employment, the employer will own the copyright. Copyright owners can prevent unauthorised copying, use, performance etc by third parties. c.

How to obtain cover

Protection for both copyright and moral rights is automatic, arising on the creation of the work. It is however, advisable to use the legend “© A.U. Thor [year of creation]” at the beginning or end of the work (or other appropriate place). 2.2.3

Trade Marks a.

Qualification

A wide range of features may be suitable for trade mark protection including words, logos, packaging (get-up), shapes, colours and even smells, provided that they can be graphically represented, are distinctive, not descriptive and are not specifically excluded by the Trade Marks Act 1994. b.

Protection Afforded

Trade marks provide an indication of origin and often a guarantee of quality. As such, they may become valuable commodities due to the amount of goodwill they incorporate.

Registered marks are valid for an initial period of 10 years and registration may be renewed an unlimited number of times for further 10-year periods. The registered proprietor has the exclusive right to use the trade mark and can denote this with the legend “®”. Infringement occurs by the unauthorised use of the mark in the country where the mark is registered by a third party of an identical mark and identical goods or services to those registered or, if there is a risk of confusion, by use of a similar mark on the same or similar goods/services or an identical mark on similar goods/services to those protected by the registration.

Unregistered marks may be identified by the legend “™”. This can be useful eg. as a brand becomes established prior to applying for registration. However it provides no legal protection as such.

Proprietors of both registered and unregistered marks may take action against third parties for “passing off”. To succeed, the proprietor must show a significant proportion of the public has been confused into believing goods or services of a third party are those of the proprietor 7


because of a misrepresentation by the third party in relation to the mark. The proprietor must have suffered a loss as a result. c.

Registration

Applications for registration in the UK must be submitted to the Trade Marks Registry at the Patent Office, or if protection in the whole of the EU is sought, then to the Community Trade Marks Office in Alicante.

Marks which meet the requirements of the law are subject to

publication to allow objections from others.

If no valid objections are received, the mark will

be registered. Overseas applications have to be filed separately, for instance in the USA 2.2.4

Design Right: Registered Designs a.

Qualification

An EC Directive and the EC Designs Regulations 2003 set out the requirements for registered designs in the EU and in the UK respectively. Essentially, they protect a design for a product. The Regulations define "design" as “the appearance of the whole or part of a product resulting from the features of, in particular, the lines, contours, shape, texture or materials of the product or its ornamentation.” "Product" is “any industrial or handicraft item other than a computer program (although a screen icon produced by a computer program can be protected, for instance." To attract protection designs must be novel and have “individual character” at the date the application to register is made. There is therefore, as with patents, consideration of prior art, but here the criteria are less stringent. Disclosures: •

made in confidence to third parties,

which could not have become known in the normal course of a business in the EEA and specialising in the sector concerned, and

made by the designer within the previous 12 months

are all excluded when determining prior art but such disclosures can lead to further third party invalidating disclosure and so the same precautions should be taken as for patents, wherever possible. b.

Protection Afforded

Protection is afforded to the commissioner of a work, the designer’s employer and the designer in that order of precedence. Registration lasts for 5 renewable terms of 5 years each. Designs may be infringed by unauthorised use of them on anything where the overall impression is not different eg. the use of a wallpaper design on furniture fabric. Unauthorised use extends to making, offering, marketing, importing, exporting or using a product incorporating or applying the design.

8


c.

Registration

Community registered designs are granted by the Office for the Harmonisation of the Internal Market in Spain, but applications can still be made through the Designs Registry at the Patent Office. Outside of the European Community separate applications must be made in each country. 2.2.5

Design Right: Community Unregistered Design Right This right arises for designs which fulfil the criteria for registered designs, but covers those designs which require protection as soon as possible after the design is completed. Protection is the same as for registered designs except that copying must be proved (this can be expensive in litigation) and protection lasts for only 3 years from the date the design is first made available to the public. There are limitations as to those first owners without EU nationality/residence who may qualify for protection.

2.2.6

Design Right: UK Unregistered Design Right a.

Qualification

This right has remained unaffected by European law and is similar to artistic copyright applied to the shape and configuration of industrially produced articles. It applies to configuration (whether internal or external) of an article which is not “surface decoration” except “features of shape or configuration which: •

enable the article to be connected to, or placed around or against, another article so that either article may perform its function (“must fit”); or

are dependent upon the appearance of another article of which the article is intended by the designer or form an integral part (“must match”).

b.

Protection Afforded

Commissioners, employers or individuals must qualify as citizens, subjects or habitual residents of the UK, EC member states and certain other territories related to Great Britain. Such designs are protected from third parties making articles to the design which do not convey a materially different impression on the informed user for commercial purposes or from making a design document in order to make such articles or dealing with an infringing article for commercial purposes eg. selling in the course of a business. Rights last for the shorter of 15 years from the earlier of the recording of the design in a design document or 10 years from the first making of an article to the design. In the last 5 years of the term anyone can demand a licence to make the article to that design at a reasonable royalty. There is also particular protection for semi-conductor topography. 2.2.7

Know-How Know-how is confidential information, often referred to as a trade secret because it has commercial worth to a person or organisation. It could cover technical or commercial 9


(business/market) information. This type of information should not be disclosed to third parties without entering into a written confidentiality agreement. It may be patentable but, in some cases, the public disclosure necessitated by the patent application process may not be desirable. In any event, confidentiality should always be maintained prior to any disclosure for patent purposes.

10


SECTION 3 UNIVERSITY OF HUDDERSFIELD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY POLICY

11


3.1

Introduction

This document sets out the University's policy on intellectual property (IP). It aims to give an overview of what constitutes IP, the different rights which might attach to it, and the protection afforded to it. Most importantly, it explains the arrangements the University has put in place to deal with IP created by its staff and students. In this regard the overriding aim is to ensure equitable treatment of, and returns to, the originators of IP. IP and rights in it arise in many circumstances and on a regular basis throughout the University. The following are some examples: •

copyright in a research paper, book or musical composition,

a new chemical engineering process

design right in a new textile pattern

copyright in course materials and lecture notes

know-how developed during the course of a teaching company scheme.

All such IP is important to the functioning of the University.

Research, inventions and the like raise

the University’s profile and that of its staff and students in the academic and commercial world and, as funding becomes increasingly difficult to attract, the exploitation of IP has become more important. 3.2

Ownership

3.2.1

Employees

Both the Patents Act 1977 and the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 provide that an employer owns the IP originated by its employees in the course of their employment.

Academic and support

staff at the University are all subject to this legislation. In this regard, the following rules apply to all University employees but may be varied from time to time in special cases by specific agreement between the employee and the Vice-Chancellor and Principal or his nominee. •

All records in whatever form, documents and papers which pertain to the finance and administration of the University and which are made or acquired by employees in the course of their employment are the property of the University, as is the copyright in them.

The copyright in course material produced by employees in the course of the employment for the purposes of the curriculum of a course of education run by the University and supplied, used or disseminated by the University, and the copyright in the products of research solely or partially funded and supported by or through the agency of the University, belongs to the University. Copies of all such material must be handed over to the most senior member of the employing school or service by employees on or before the termination of their employment for whatever reason.

For a limited class of items subject to copyright, for example scientific textbooks, the University may waive its right to the copyright in its employees' works and allow individual employees to exploit the copyright works to their own benefit. However, employees must obtain clarification 12


about ownership from the Chair of the Research Committee before undertaking any "scholarly work" in furtherance of his or her professional career. Scholarly work defined for this purpose includes books, contributions to books, articles and conference papers, and is to be construed in the light of the common understanding of the phrase in higher education. •

In most cases, inventions by employees will result from normal or specifically assigned duties or because there is a special obligation to further the interests of the University inherent in particular posts as specified in section 39 of the Patents Act 1977. Any such invention, whether or not capable of being patented, must therefore be disclosed to the University and will belong to the University.

There is no statutory obligation on an employer to compensate an employee in respect of intellectual property generated by the employee.

However, in the sole case of patents, an

employee has the right to receive a reward if the granted patent is of outstanding benefit to his employer, taking into account among other things the size and nature of the employer’s undertaking. Otherwise, any compensation is entirely at the employer’s discretion. In such cases the University may require the employee to enter into a licence agreement or assignment at the University's cost and subject to payment of appropriate compensation within the limitations provided by the Act. 3.2.2

Students and Non-employed Research Fellows, Emeritus Staff etc.

1

It is a contractually binding condition of registration that any student who generates intellectual property in the course of his or her normal student activities will assign the rights to the University if so required. In consideration students will be treated on a par with University staff for the purpose of sharing income from exploitation. This applies also to other researchers at the University, who are neither staff nor students, such as Research Fellows and other emeritus staff. Accordingly, students are required to sign any necessary deeds and documents to vest legal title to the IP in the University and assist the University in any proceedings relating to the obtaining, exploiting or enforcement of the intellectual property concerned. The University will reimburse reasonable expenses properly incurred by students with the prior consent of the University in undertaking these activities, but otherwise will bear no costs. Where the rights assigned relate to patents or other work capable of being patented, registered designs or copyright, the University will (unless commercially unreasonable or impractical) seek to ensure that the student's contribution is acknowledged and will procure that the student participates in a revenue sharing arrangement as described in 3.3 below. However, the University retains an unfettered discretion in decisions concerning the commercial exploitation of the intellectual property.

1

Research Students are referred to the section entitled "The Ownership of Intellectual Property Rights The Patenting and Exploitation of Inventions" in the Regulations and Advice for Research Students

13


3.2.3

Third Party Contributions

Third parties may be involved in the generation of IP through eg. collaborations, externally funded projects, consultancy, placements and consortia. In such cases ownership will depend on the terms of the contract between the third party and the University. If there is any doubt about the provisions in such a contract, advice should be sought from the University Legal Officer, preferably prior to the contract being signed. Failure to do so could expose the University or its staff and students to third party actions.

Some third parties may also require repayment of funding money on successful exploitation of IP or a share in any revenue.

Any such proposals should be discussed with the Legal Officer or the

University Secretary before any agreements are signed.

3.3

Revenue Sharing Arrangements

The following guidelines apply equally to qualifying staff, students and others described in 3.2 above. The net income received by the University from the exploitation of the IP will normally be divided between the inventor or inventors, the School or Schools from which the inventor or inventors come and the University centrally, in keeping with the table below. In this context, the term net income means income after deduction of agent's commission paid to the technology transfer organisation which is employed and net of the legal or other cost of any patents or similar protection associated with the projects in question, including legal and administrative costs associated with contractual negotiations, audit and administration, delivery of know how and other technology transfer costs, defence and enforcement of the IP and any taxes paid by the University associated with the IP.

CUMULATIVE NET REVENUE TO UNIVERSITY

INVENTOR(S)

SCHOOL/SERVICE

UNIVERSITY

First £50K

75%

12.5%

12.5%

Next £200K

50%

25.0%

25.0%

Over £250K

25%

37.5%

37.5%

OR by individual agreement with the Vice-Chancellor

This shall also take account of the value of any benefits in kind received e.g. equipment grants, special responsibility allowances, additional support staff and replacement staff costs, exceptional paid sabbaticals. It is believed that the Inland Revenue will treat a payment of royalties to staff exactly like a bonus on salary.

In consequence, an Employer’s National Insurance contribution and an employee’s

contribution is attracted at the current rate for the sums paid out, which will be deducted at source. 14


Unpaid student inventors will also normally be taxed as if self employed and may also be exposed to National Insurance contributions. IP originators are however advised to seek independent advice on their own tax situation. The above scale is associated with an individual inventor or originator over their lifetime rather than an individual exploitation project. The rationale for this is to ensure that staff working in all research areas of the University are treated in an even-handed fashion for revenue sharing purposes. Because of the nature of the research involved, in some areas of the University a small number of major items of IP (such as a patent for a new pharmaceutical) are likely to arise. In others a large number of smaller items of IP (such as a number of individual computer programs) are more likely to occur. For example, if the ‘life-time inventive work’ of two members of staff, one in each of these categories, produces the same income to the University, it is fair and logical that each should receive the same personal reward. Equally it may mean that on a given project, two equal collaborators may receive different levels of reward, because of their respective “lifetime” contributions and awards. The scheme ensures this equity. NB.

THE REVENUE SHARING ARRANGEMENTS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO SPIN OUT

COMPANIES TO WHICH DIFFERENT ARRANGEMENTS WILL BE MADE AD HOC UPON CONSULTATION WITH THE INVENTORS.

15


SECTION 4 THE UNIVERSITY OF HUDDERSFIELD POLICY ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIALISATION

16


4.1

Introduction

This document sets out the University of Huddersfield’s policy and procedures for the development and commercialisation of intellectual property (IP) and should be read in conjunction with the University’s Policy on Intellectual Property. 4.2

Procedure to be Followed on Identification of Intellectual Property

4.2.1

Originators of IP who consider their idea, discovery, invention etc may have potential for commercial development or have reached a stage where formal protection might be desirable should fill out a Technology Disclosure Form (see sample at Appendix 1) and submit it to:

4.2.2

in the case of students and academic staff, their Dean

in the case of support staff, their Director or Head of Service

The person to whom the form is submitted will undertake with the Pro-Vice Chancellor (Resources) a brief review to assess if there is any IP and, if so, will then discuss with the originator what options are available and how to develop a proposal for submission to the Vice-Chancellor's Group (VCG).

4.2.3

Proposals submitted to the VCG will be dealt with in accordance with the procedure set out in Appendix 2 whether or not they relate to the establishment of a related company.

4.2.4

If the evaluation indicates potential for exploitation, the originator will, where necessary, be required to assign the IP to the University or spin-out company or to execute confirmatory or other documents. Thereafter, the originator will be required to work with the University in the exploitation of the intellectual property, due notice being taken of the time commitment this may entail.

4.2.5

The way the IP is protected, commercialised and exploited will depend on its nature and the main examples are discussed in 4.3 below. The costs associated with this will be borne by the University, which will retain sole unfettered discretion in this.

4.2.6

If the decision following evaluation by the VCG is not to proceed to commercialisation no assignment will be required and, in the case of employees, the University will assign the IP over to the employee if so requested to allow the employee to pursue exploitation independently.

4.3

Commercialisation

The main ways of commercialising IP utilised by the University are: •

licensing;

assignment; and 17


•

formation of spin-out companies.

Each is dealt with in turn below. 4.3.1

Licensing Licensing enables the University to retain ownership/control of the IP but to allow one or more licensees to make use of it for agreed purposes, over an agreed length of time and in consideration of a payment of a licence fee or royalty. Licensing may be recommended for a number of reasons eg. •

the IP may have a number of potential applications (eg. computer software). Licences could be issued to companies in different commercial/industrial areas creating multiple revenue streams.

•

licensees may develop the IP (this may be the main reason for the licence) and the University will be able to retain ownership of any such developments and grant back a further licence to allow production and sales of a developed product, subject to royalty payments based on those sales.

In the above situations the financial risk associated with development, production and marketing will be borne in large part by the licensee, thus avoiding the problems attendant on a new company start-up. However, it will be important to know the planned use, likely market and business plan of any potential licensee. 4.3.2

Assignment Assignment is the selling on of the IP.

The University loses control of the IP at the time of

assignment so it is important to decide whether the assignment will be for a one-off payment or will incorporate royalty payments.

Considerations will be similar to those for a licensing

deal. 4.3.3

Spin-out Companies Spin-out companies are new companies incorporated with the purpose of development and commercialisation of particular IP. Where the VCG recommends the formation of a spin-out company particular criteria must be satisfied and arrangements followed. These are set out in Appendix 3.

4.4

Important Points

4.4.1

IP originators should be aware that personal participation in a spin-out company as a shareholder or director brings with it certain risks. In most cases originators will become shareholders and, as such, will be subject to the vagaries of the business world. Personal legal liabilities may attach to directors, even to the extent of allowing possession of homes 18


and other property, especially if the company infringes IP rights of others or encounters financial difficulties The value of shares will rise and fall in accordance with the level of success the company achieves and its perceived worth in the market place.

Similarly,

dividends will only be paid if the company makes sufficient profit.

4.4.2

Where a revenue sharing arrangement is entered into there is no guarantee that originators will receive a return as this will be dependent on the successful exploitation of the intellectual property.

19


APPENDIX 1 TECHNOLOGY DISCLOSURE FORM (Based on procedure and form devised by AURIL) THE CONTENTS OF THIS FORM MUST REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND MUST NOT BE DISCLOSED TO ANYONE OTHER THAN THE ORIGINATOR'S DEAN, DIRECTOR OR HEAD OF SERVICE (AS APPROPRIATE).

INVENTOR(S)/ AUTHOR(S) Include title, name, employment/student status TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Include any drawings, photographs, prototypes etc. PERCEIVED NOVELTY Include description of complete technology and what is currently done POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL APPLICATION(S) Include known uses or applications, manufacturers and existing licence agreements SOURCE OF ANY BACKGROUND IP Include details of owner controller PRIOR ART Summary of relevant publications

STAFF DISCLOSEE:

20


APPENDIX 2 PROCEDURE FOR EXPLOITATION OF THE UNIVERSITY'S KNOWLEDGE BASE INCLUDING THE SETTING UP OF RELATED COMPANIES

This Appendix reproduces in modified form extracts from the document "Advice to Staff on Related Companies and Knowledge Base Exploitation" dated March 2006. The procedure set out below is based on the recommendations in HEFCE's good practice guide (HEFCE 2005/48) considered in the context of the University of Huddersfield. The guide provides helpful and detailed advice on a wide range of issues and can be accessed on the internet at http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2005/05_48/. This is required reading for anyone contemplating the use of a related company.

Stage

Action

Further steps arising from action

1

Preliminary proposal, including requests to have patents registered, to VCG and raised by an appropriate member of VCG following recommendation from the respective Dean or Director. The proposal must give details of the objectives, the partners and the likely financial contribution required by the University. VCG recommends who should be the Nominated Officer and this is approved by the Chair of Council

Nominated Officer takes responsibility to firm up the proposal and then, if approved, fully implement it.

2

Nominated Officer investigates what is the most suitable vehicle for the proposed activity and progresses the proposal on this basis.

In the context of her/his investigation of the most suitable way forward then the Nominated Officer: • Arranges the preparation of a preliminary business plan, taking account of the considerations set out in Appendix 1 of this document. • Identifies IPR issues. • Consults with the University’s nominated Risk Manager. • Considers the cost of any professional advice. • Consults with the Chair of Research Committee, and the staff involved with the project, on the procedure to be adopted for dealing with the IPR. The recommendations thus produced will be based on the procedures approved by Senate. These procedures include the protection and ownership of IPR and the sharing of benefit. • Provides a recommendation on how the staff responsible for innovation will be rewarded.

3

The Nominated Officer presents to PRG: • The vehicle (company or otherwise) for the proposed

Planning and Resources Group (PRG): • 21

With advice, where it considers appropriate, PRG considers the preliminary business plan,


• • •

activity. A preliminary business plan (refer to Schedule 1) for the activity. Recommendations on how to deal with IPR issues. Financing required from nonearmarked funds (which should include an estimate of legal costs for setting up the company (or other vehicle) and/or for the protection of the IPR).

the vehicle for the proposed activity and the recommendations for the proposed activity. If the Nominated Officer recommends that a Patent be used to protect the University’s interests, and PRG agrees with this recommendation, then before agreeing to earmark any funds for this purpose the ViceChancellor’s views will be sought as the potential cost of protecting a patent could be extremely high. When PRG is content with the preliminary business plan and the related features of the proposal then funds are earmarked, and the Nominated Officer is requested to progress the proposal. This will involve the development of a full business plan and the fulfilment of other requirements (e.g. where a company is to be formed then, inter alia, a Memorandum of Understanding has to be produced). Advice is sought from the Office of the University Secretary on legal matters (e.g. all matters associated with setting up a company). PRG prepares a summary paper on the proposal for PRC.

4.

PRC considers the summary paper from PRG and provides feedback to the Nominated Officer.

Nominated Officer takes account of feedback in developing the final proposal. The full business plan is developed in terms of the pro-forma contained in the HEFCE guideline paper.

5

The Nominated Officer presents to PRG: • Full details of the company (or other vehicle) for the proposed activity. • Recommendations for the Steering Committee or the Board associated with the activity. • The full business plan. • Confirmation that the insurance arrangements for University appointed directors and potential shadow directors have been put in place. • S/he also confirms that legal issues surrounding the proposal have been considered and agreed with the University Secretary and, where appropriate, that the Chair of Research Committee is content with the final IPR arrangements.

PRG considers the proposal and when content prepares a final summary paper for PRC.

6

PRC considers the final proposal and when content finally approves it, subject to the Council delegated financial limits. In between meetings approval is delegated to the Vice-

Nominated Officer reports outcomes of PRC discussion and then, with others involved, fully implements the proposal.

22


Chancellor and the Chair of Council or the Chair of the Finance Committee with a report to the next meeting of PRC. 7

All Nominated Officers provide an annual report on University-related companies to the Audit Committee and Planning and Resources Committee.

Nominated Officer acts on advice from PRC and the Audit Committee. The authority to establish limited companies and the appointment of Company Directors and a Company Secretary are attached at Schedule 2.

More frequent reports will be provided, as required, for current negotiations and developments.

23


Schedule 1 Preliminary Business Plan

The preliminary business plan should consider the following: •

Have alternatives, other than formation of a company, been considered?

What were the alternatives and why was it decided to recommend the formation of a company?

The feasibility of the project.

The proposed objectives of any company to be set up.

Details of the proposed management structure of the project and the company.

Financing (from non-earmarked sources) and the need for guarantees.

Constraints

Assessment of risks and sensitivities.

Exit strategy.

Formation timetable.

Schedule 2 ARRANGEMENTS TO ESTABLISH LIMITED COMPANIES AND THE APPOINTMENT OF COMPANY DIRECTORS AND COMPANY SECRETARIES •

The appointment of University-related company directors, and the establishment of limited companies will be considered, in the first instance, by the Vice-Chancellor’s Group and the Planning and Resources Group and, subject to their recommendations, this will be considered by the Planning and Resources Committee for recommendation to the University Council;

The Vice-Chancellor’s Group and the Planning and Resources Group will consider all business plans and appropriate funding arrangements for recommendation and approval of the Planning and Resources Committee.

A nominated officer will be appointed for each related company to be responsible for preparing proposals, such as business plans and patents, for presentation to the Vice-Chancellor’s Group, Planning and Resources Group and for approval at the Planning and Resources Committee. The appointment of Nominated Officer to be recommended via the ViceChancellor’s Group to the Chair of Council.

If it is necessary upon the recommendation of the Vice-Chancellor’s Group to appoint a related company director or establish a limited company in between Council and Finance Committee meetings, the authority to approve this be delegated to the Chair of Council or in his absence, the Deputy Chair or the Chair of the Finance Committee, with a report to the next meeting of the University Council.

The position of Company Secretary (where the University is able to make the appointment) will be considered and approved by the Vice-Chancellor’s Group.

A report on the progress of each University Related Company will be considered by the Planning and Resources Committee and the University Council no less than annually.

24


APPENDIX 3 INFORMATION ON SPIN-OUT COMPANIES

This section should be read in conjunction with the document "Advice to Staff on Related Companies and Knowledge Based Exploitation" dated April 2002. 1.

Incorporation

Spin-out companies will be incorporated via the Office of the University Secretary. This will be achieved either by the purchase of a ready-made “shelf” company or the incorporation of a completely new company by the University Legal Officer. In most cases the latter course will be taken as it will allow the provision of bespoke constitution. 2.

Constitution

The constitution is made up a Memorandum and Articles of Association. The former governs the company's relationship with the outside world and sets out the company's objects ie. what the company can do (or not) in the course of its business. The latter sets out the regulations for the internal governance of the company. All companies must now be limited by shares or guarantee. The latter is used most commonly by not-for profit companies and those with charitable purposes. The Legal Officer or University Secretary will explain the concept of limited liability and advise on which vehicle is the best to use. 3.

Company Officers

A company secretary and at least one founding shareholder director is required to incorporate a company. Usually the company secretary will be the University Secretary, Legal Officer or Director of Financial Services but the appointment will be subject to recommendation and approval by the ViceChancellor's Group. The first director and subsequent composition of the board of directors will be decided according to the circumstances of each spin-out, but the University reserves the right, where possible, to appoint a director to represent its interests. Whether or not a director is appointed, the University Council will appoint a Nominated Officer. Attention is again drawn to the information contained in Appendix 2. 4.

Shareholders

Like the board of directors, the shareholders will invariably be dictated by the circumstances of the spin-out but will usually include some or all of the following: •

the University (directly or by way of a nominee shareholder) to protect the University’s interest in the company

the originator(s) of the intellectual property (to reflect their contribution to the new venture and their importance to its success) 25


external investors (such as venture capitalists who can provide the up front capital needed to get the business going)

The proportion of each member’s holding will be decided having regard to the circumstances of the new business (including any requirements of external funding bodies) to ensure there is a maximum opportunity to bid for available monies. Factors to be taken into consideration include:

for originators

: extent of personal contribution to the intellectual property : time available to contribute to the company/role in the company : extent of personal cash investment (if any)

for the University

: provision of facilities and staff time (foc) on company administration : rights to improvements of intellectual property : extent of cash investment : limits imposed by third party investors/funders

5.

Documentation

5.1

At incorporation the shareholders will be required to enter into a shareholders’ agreement which will help regulate the running of the company in addition to the memorandum and article of association.

5.2

Some IP originators may be required to enter into consultancy agreements with the company.

5.3

The intellectual property will need to be assigned to the company or the University.

6.

Financial Administration

6.1

Where the University has a shareholding in the company it will usually provide some basic assistance in financial matters free of charge. Such assistance will generally extend to: •

the setting up of a bank account

the production of management and year-end accounts

the production of employee contracts and a staff handbook

26


Research and Enterprise

Research Groups and Centres, QR and RDP income


University of Huddersfield

QR and RDP Income Research and Enterprise

November 2009


Research and Enterprise QR and RDP Income

Context and Purpose The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) provides mainstream Quality-related (QR) funding to support the research infrastructure, including premises, libraries and central computing costs. These funds are spent at the institutions' discretion. The funding is intended to provide institutions with •

a base from which to undertake research commissioned by other funding sources

flexibility to react to emerging priorities and new fields of enquiry

facilities to train new researchers

capacity to undertake ground-breaking basic research which is often the foundation of strategic and applied work funded by other sponsors.1

The Research Degree Programme (RDP) Supervision element of QR funding is provided to support the training of postgraduate research students.2 The University views QR funding as an opportunity for strategic investments leading to significant quantifiable outcomes in initiatives that will enable Schools to achieve their KPIs (appendix 2). Investment should be made in a targeted way, on key individuals or areas and with specific, measurable deliverables. Step change and impact should be evident. Your proposed annual spend should be put in the context of future years’ QR and RDP income and fit with the School Research Strategy. It should be for clearly identified and specific research-related activities (appendix 1).

Relationship with the University Research Fund The University Research Fund (URF) has now been established on a two-phase format. The intention of Phase I is to make short-term tactical investments, usually over one year, to address aspects of research decided to be of importance within the University’s wider strategic plans; examples include

1 2

HEFCE research funding: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/funding/resfund/ Data for quality-related research (QR) funding: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/funding/QRFunding/


initiatives to encourage staff to become research active and to support early career researchers. The intention of Phase II is to make strategic investments over the longer term, and examples include support for cross-school research institutes and other initiatives to develop the research infrastructure.

Notes Amongst other initiatives, spend of QR is encouraged in the following areas: • • • • • • • •

Investment in research infrastructure (including software) Investment in research equipment Investment in research environment Research consumables Attendance at RAE-rated conferences where early career researchers have papers accepted and conference proceedings are published Investment in staff research skills development including PDRA Research Festival expenses (school specific costs incurred will not be paid for by the URF from 2010) Open Access Publishing – fees to allow researchers to publish in open access environments

In certain circumstances, and following agreement of the School Research Expenditure Plan, spend may be allowed on: • •

Sabbatical leave (on a strategic basic with demonstrable ROI) 2nd Year onward costs of new professors using a proportional funding model

Spend of QR on the following is deemed inappropriate: • •

Paying for routine research administration support Buying staff out of teaching

• • •

Paying outright for academic staff costs in the medium-long term Teaching support Marketing, promotion, events

Amongst other initiatives, spend of RDP is encouraged in the following areas: • • • • • • •

Investment in infrastructure for PGR (including software) Investment in research environment for PGR Marketing, promotion, events for PGR (in the short to medium term only) Provision of matching funding for the central Conference Presentation Fund, for PGR who have a conference paper to present and where the proceedings are published To provide additional skills training for PGR Student-led initiatives Provision of the previously-agreed £2k research related spend for staff who successfully complete doctoral degrees


• • • •

Payment of fees for staff to attend the PG Cert in Research Supervision Research consumables Open Access Publishing – fees to allow PGRs to publish in open access environments PGR teaching opportunities

Spend of RDP on the following is deemed inappropriate: • • • • •

Paying for routine research administration support Buying staff out of teaching Backfilling of sabbatical leave Paying outright for academic staff costs Teaching support (other than PGR teaching opportunities)


Pro Forma of Intentions – Example for a School

APPENDIX 1

Activity

Spend

Specific Deliverables (linking to KPIs)

“Bright Young Things Initiative”

£100k

High performance computing

£80k

Data Mining studentships

£45k

Updating of engine test laboratory

£110k

Establishment of funding pot for junior research active staff. Bids of £5k to £10k for junior staff to establish laboratory and related facilities to kick start their research. Combined bids of up to £25k acceptable. Bids via outcome-oriented pro forma under scrutiny of School Res. Cttee. Purchase of HP 123 Vector Processor for use by Computational Fluid Dynamics Research Group. Crucial enabling technology for one of the most strategically important research groups in the school. Establishment of three 3-year PhD studentships in the field data mining. Intention to use fee waiver scholarships and £10k p/a bursaries to attract highly capable research students. Performance criteria associated with each studentship will include generation of 2 conference and 2 high quality journal publications. Note that the School commits to £45k of matched funding to make £90k in total Creation of a world class engine test facility capable of performing Euro Cat IV emissions testing. Provision of a basis for collaborative EPSRC bids with SAPP, to include £240k bid on bio fuel emissions from diesels (Jones, Myers, Northrop), May 10.

TOTAL

£335k

Dates

Names of Staff Involved

Fund available Sept 09 to Sept 10

Staff eligible to bid: Acton, Burrows, Charles, Denton, Ericsson, Flanagan

Purchase before Xmas 09

All members of CFD Res Grp will use this facility

Available for uptake in academic year 09/10

One studentship each for Gregg, Harriet, Ingham

Work to commence Sept 09, completed May 10

Jones, Kelly, Lawson, Myers, Northrop (SAPP)


APPENDIX 2

Research and Enterprise 2013 KPIs RGC Income :

x4 on 07/08 RGC income generated

KTPs

25 registered KTPs in 2013

Enterprise Income

x2 on 07/08 enterprise income generated

PGR

750fte (approx 1,000 headcount) x2 on 07/08 of successful completions within approved timescale

Research Active

75% academic population research and/or enterprise active

Outputs

x2 on 07/08 value of high quality journal publications or equivalent research outputs, and lodged in the repository

Professorial Appointments

Increase Professoriate by 40fte over 07/08 value

Intellectual Property

Year-on-year increase in intellectual property disclosures


Procedures for Establishing Research Institutes, Centres & Groups December 2009


Procedures for Establishing Research Institutes, Centres & Groups December 2009

1.

Rationale

1.1

Organising research teams into formal structures recognised by the University can make an effective and important contribution to the University’s research strategy by: •

providing a clear identity in a specific research area to the outside world

helping to achieve a minimum number of staff and the required facilities

encouraging collaboration/sharing of research expertise, equipment etc

improving continuity of staffing and financial support

improving opportunities for the exploitation of research

1.2

The University encourages the establishment of formal research structures when these add to the University’s research credibility and performance. This policy document describes the procedures that should be followed. Three different types of research organisations are recognised in this respect: research institutes, research centres and research groups. There should be a degree of flexibility between the classifications of the latter two, to facilitate transfer between them. These different types of research organisation vary in five key respects: scale, strategic vision, governance, financial oversight and monitoring, i.e., arrangements for review and termination.

2.

Research Institutes

2.1

Research institutes operate specifically to conduct flagship research, which is often interdisciplinary in nature. They are large-scale entities with a strategic vision aligned to national and international priorities in research and global grand challenges. They have critical mass and normally a physical presence. They comprise a core team of at least six academics, one of whom assumes the role of Director, and can appoint, second or associate any number of research active staff, postdoctoral research associates, research fellows and postgraduate research students. Where necessary, and where generated income permits, administrative and/or technical support may be appointed. They operate an autonomous budget and may own or be responsible for capital infrastructure but are closely linked to the work of two or more Schools.

2.2

Proposals for establishing research institutes should be based upon a detailed business plan, setting out the research aims and scope of the institute, work plan, expenditure and funding sources, monitoring procedures and anticipated outcomes for a five year period in the first instance, although institutes are generally be expected to contribute to the vitality and sustainability of the research base over a period of ten years or more.

2.3

Proposals for establishing research institutes are considered by the University Research Committee.

2.4

The decision to set up the research institute will be based on the evidence of viability, sustainability and the contribution the institute would make to the University’s research objectives. Page | 1


Procedures for Establishing Research Institutes, Centres & Groups December 2009

2.5

Institutes have a management board which has duties clearly stipulated by a formal constitution and which details the mechanism by which the director and board are held accountable.

2.6

Institutes make annual reports of an academic standard that can be used as flagship publicity outside the University. The University Research Committee comments on all such reports before forwarding them to Senate.

2.7

Institutes are re-evaluated every two years by panels comprising representatives of the University Research Committee and external reviewers of national and international standing who conduct their appraisals against established benchmarks in the relevant fields.

3.

Research Centres

3.1

Research centres are discipline-specific or multidisciplinary research groupings within or between Schools. They are formally established to undertake research in accordance with an agreed strategy within the context of School plans. They should have a proven record of research and funding. Research centres may operate a separate budget but overall budget responsibility rests with the relevant School(s).

3.2

Responsibility for approving Research centres lies with the School Research Committee(s) and School Board(s).

3.3

The form of the submission will be determined by the School. Normally, proposals should provide details of the aims and scope of the research centre, management arrangements, membership, evidence of research record, future work plan, resource needs and funding sources, monitoring procedures and anticipated outcomes - preferably for a 3-5 year period. Centres will require reapproval after a maximum period of 5 years.

3.4

Following approval School Boards send details of new centres to the Research & Enterprise directorate.

3.5

Research centres make annual reports in an approved format to the School Research Committee(s) and School Board(s).

3.6

On the basis of the annual report and compliance with this policy the School Board makes a judgment on the continued viability of a centre and of its contribution to School strategic and operational plans.

4.

Research Groups

4.1

Research groups are formal but natural groupings of researchers established to encourage and facilitate collaborative research within a defined area. Whilst research groups may require separate financial monitoring, funding for staff and facilities will primarily operate as part of the Departments’ or Schools’ normal budget.

4.2

Responsibility for establishing research groups lies with the Schools concerned.

Page | 2


Procedures for Establishing Research Institutes, Centres & Groups December 2009

4.3

Some research groups may aspire to centre status and the case for redesignation should be based on the merits of the individual case.

4.4

Following approval Schools send details of new groups to the Research & Enterprise directorate.

5.

Web Presence

5.1

All research institutes, centres and groups maintain an appropriate and dynamic web showcase compliant with University style guidelines and policies.

5.2

Web pages for research institutes, centres and groups incorporate •

clear information on governance, membership (incorporating links to staff profiles) and current projects

a dynamic list of outputs generated by the University Repository

details of strategic partnerships and support for research collaboration

impact case studies

information on infrastructure and facilities

a statement of strategic aims and goals, including information on how these will be taken forward and sustained

information on staff development, including arrangements for early career researchers

details of any associated PGR students and completions and arrangements for training and development of postgraduate researchers

information on arrangements to support researchers working with users of research

details of policies, procedures and plans for engagement with the public

indicators of esteem

clear contact details

6.

Logos

6.1

The use of logos by institutes, centres and groups conforms to the University’s marketing policies.

7.

University Research Fund

7.1

In recognition of the importance of institutes in promoting inter-disciplinary research and knowledge transfer at the highest levels of attainment the University Research Fund may be used preferentially to support their creation and development. Page | 3


University of Huddersfield Financial Services Department Definition of research and enterprise income This paper has been compiled to act as the University’s definitive guide to research and enterprise income and activities within the University and to ensure that research and enterprise income is categorised and accounted for correctly so that the University’s financial statements and reports on research and enterprise accurately capture all relevant income. The document has been compiled by the Financial Services Department with input from the Research and Enterprise Office. 1. What is research? 1.1 The definition of research as used in the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE)1 is: ‘Research for the purpose of the RAE is understood as original investigation undertaken in order to gain knowledge and understanding. It includes work of direct relevance to the needs of commerce and industry, as well as to the public and voluntary sectors; scholarship2; the invention and generation of ideas, images, performances and artefacts including design, where these lead to new or substantially improved insights; and the use of existing knowledge in experimental development to produce new or substantially improved materials, devices, products and processes, including design and construction. It excludes routine testing and analysis of materials, components and processes, e.g. for the maintenance of national standards, as distinct from the development of new analytical techniques. It also excludes the development of teaching materials that do not embody original research’. 1.2 The Frascati manual (2002)3 is also often used to define research. The definition is: ‘Research and experimental development (R&D) comprises creative work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of man, culture and society and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications. R&D is a term covering three activities: basic research, applied research and experimental development. 1.3 Basic Research is experimental or theoretical work undertaken primarily to acquire new knowledge of the underlying foundation of phenomena and observable facts, without any particular application or use in view. 1.4 Applied Research is also original investigation undertaken in order to acquire new knowledge. It is, however, directed primarily towards a specific practical aim or objective. Experimental development is systematic work, drawing on existing knowledge gained from research and/or practical experience that is directed to producing new materials, products or devices, to installing new processes, systems and services, or to improving substantially those already produced or installed. 1.5 Experimental development is systematic work, drawing on existing knowledge gained from research and/or practical experience, that is directed to producing new materials, products or devices; to installing new processes, systems and services; or to improving substantially those already produced or installed. 2. How is it funded? 2.1 Research may be funded through a grant or a contract. Income that is coded as RGC_ on the University’s financial system, Agresso, is classed as research income, whether or not it is a grant or a contract. 2.2 Research grants are, typically, where a funder makes a contribution to the costs of the work being carried out by the institution and the institution ‘owns’ the research of its results. Such grants are classed as being part of the University’s primary purpose and so are coded to the University’s main company account 1

www.rae.ac.uk Scholarship for the RAE is defined as the creation, development and maintenance of the intellectual infrastructure of subjects and disciplines, in forms such as dictionaries, scholarly editions, catalogues and contributions to major research databases.

2

3

http://europa.eu.int/estatref/info/sdds/en/rd/rd_frascati_manual_2002.pdf Page 1 of 6


(also known as UHHEC). Research grants do not jeopardise the University’s charitable status and will not be liable for corporation tax. Funded Chairs could also fall under the definition of research grants, provided there is no supply of services to the funder. Services would incorporate either the transfer of IP or the Chair’s time. 2.2.1 Research grants4 (typically): • • • • • • • •

Funded by Research Councils, charities, the European Commission and government departments Are responsive in nature, i.e. the principal investigator proposes the research within broad areas of remit of the funder Are not particularly price sensitive, although need to demonstrate value for money Are not liable for VAT Terms and conditions are not usually negotiable; intellectual property (IP) rests with the investigating institution Payment is claimed on the basis of actual expenditure, i.e. if there is an underspend, this will have to be repaid Are time sensitive Will be counted for RAE purposes

2.3 Research contracts are formed when a funder commissions the institution to provide specific research for the benefit of the funder. The institution is then providing a service to the funder, who may, depending on the terms of the contract, ‘own’ the results of the work, i.e. the IP. 2.3.1 There are two main types of research contracts, those where the results of the research remains primarily with the funder (primarily industrial organisations), and those that where the results are in the public domain (funded in the main by government departments). 2.3.2 Where the results remain with the funder, projects: • • • • • • •

Can have negotiable overhead rates Are in response to tender invitations that specify the work to be carried out Are price sensitive and competitive Are liable for VAT Can have negotiable terms and conditions, including ownership of IP Attract payment on the basis of a fixed sum, i.e. there may be the opportunity to make a surplus (or a loss) Will be counted for RAE purposes

2.3.3 Administering such contracts via UHHEC could jeopardise the University’s charitable status and could be liable for corporation tax. As such, they will now be administered via the University’s trading arm, the University of Huddersfield Enterprises Ltd (UHEL).5 2.3.4 Where the results are in the public domain, projects: • • • • • • •

Can have negotiable overhead rates Are in response to tender invitations that specify the work to be carried out Are price sensitive and competitive Are not liable for VAT Can have negotiable terms and conditions Attract payment on the basis of a fixed sum, i.e. there may be the opportunity to make a surplus (or a loss) Will be counted for RAE purposes

2.3.5 These contracts will continue to be administered via UHHEC.

4 Research grant income must be coded to nominal 8623 (Research grants – non-VATable); it must not, under any circumstances, be coded to nominal 8472 (general and travel costs recovered). 5 For further information on UHEL, please see section 6 Page 2 of 6


2.4 Knowledge Transfer Partnerships • • • • • • •

Are part-funded by a government department6 and a host industrial organisation7 The government element of the funding is not liable for VAT The company element of the funding is liable for VAT Are administered in totality via UHHEC Will be counted for RAE purposes Are not classified as RGC income in either the University’s accounts or the HESA returns Are included as RGC income for the purpose of reporting on research income within the University

3. What isn’t research income? 3.1 The following is a list of what cannot be classed as research. This is based on the type of activity and also guidance from HEFCE and the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). •

Postgraduate research (PGR) tuition and bench fees;8

Sponsored and collaborative PhDs;

CASE, Collaborative Training Accounts (CTA) and Doctoral Training Accounts (DTA) postgraduate student grants;9

Routine testing and analysis of materials, components and processes, e.g. for the maintenance of national standards, as distinct from the development of new analytical techniques;

Routine testing and analysis of products;

Feasibility studies;

Routine software development;

General purpose data collection;

KTPs (see section 2.4);

Any income coded to nominal 8472 (general and travel costs recovered), and

Consultancy activity (as this usually involves the application of existing knowledge rather than original investigation).

3.2 However, deciding whether a piece of work is or is not research is often not straightforward, and the Frascati Manual is the key reference. This document excludes routine work except where carried out solely or primarily for the purposes of an R&D project. The principle here is that it is the context rather than the content that determines the classification. While a piece of work may appear in itself relatively routine with a tightly specified deliverable, it nonetheless may also directly contribute to wider research and for that reason be identified as research activity. In the past, the convention has been to allow a permissive and broad interpretation of the definitions in order to ensure that all the appropriate research income is declared.

6

KTP income from the government department must be coded to nominal 8634. KTP income from the host industrial organisation must be coded to nominal 8635. 8 These are classed as ‘tuition fees and education contracts’ in the University’s accounts in accordance with HESA guidelines. Bench fees are coded using nominal 8215 and do not need to be processed by the Bids, Contracts and Compliance Team within Financial Services. 7

9 Although these are funded by the Research Councils, they are classed as ‘tuition fees and education contracts’ in the University’s accounts in accordance with HESA guidelines. CASE income is coded to nominal 8230 and CTA/DTA income is coded to nominal 8240.

Page 3 of 6


4. What is enterprise income? 4.1 Enterprise is also known as third stream, third leg, knowledge transfer and reach out. The University now uses the term ‘enterprise’ to cover all this activity. This is the income generated in relation to the transfer of knowledge/expertise external to the University. The term ‘enterprise’ also incorporates some, but not all, cost centres which are classed as other income generating activity (OIGA). 4.2 The following is a list of what can be defined as enterprise activity. It is accepted that this list is not exhaustive and so will be updated regularly. •

Non award-bearing short courses for external organisations

Training needs analyses

IP, licensing and royalties income

Conferences run by the University

University spin-out companies

Networking events

Routine testing and materials analysis

Routine software development

Clinical drug trials

Hire of equipment and facilities

Market research

Feasibility studies

General purpose data collection

Regeneration grants funded by ESF, ERDF, Regional Development Agency, etc.

Graduate entrepreneurship and start-up activity

Consultancy activity

4.3 The definition of consultancy as given in the 2001-2 Higher Education-Business Interaction (HE-BI) survey conducted by HEFCE is:

...the provision of expert advice and work which, while it may involve a degree of analysis, measurement or testing, is crucially dependant on a high degree of intellectual input from the HEI to business. Such work is usually paid for at a market rate, and may deliver stronger IP rights to the business client than would apply in a collaborative research relationship." 4.4 Typically, consultancies10: • 10

Are not research, i.e. do not involve novel work

Consultancy income must be coded to nominal 8149 in UHEL; it must not, under any circumstances, be coded to nominal 8472 (general and travel costs recovered). Page 4 of 6


• • • • •

Can be carried out by an individual or a team Are costed at an all-inclusive daily rate, including overheads Are liable for VAT11 Ownership of IP may be up for negotiation Will not be counted for RAE purposes

5. What isn’t enterprise income? • • • • • • • • •

Catering operations University shops Vending machine income Conference office activities (other than University-led conferences) Hire of sports facilities Development of teaching materials, courses and progression agreements Student recruitment activities and events, including summer schools Activities funded by AimHigher and the West Yorkshire Lifelong Learning Network Any income coded to nominal 8472 (general and travel costs recovered)

6. What is UHEL? The University of Huddersfield Enterprises Limited is a private limited company (company number 02349500) that operates as a subsidiary company to the University of Huddersfield. It is located within the University’s Queensgate campus and is administered by Financial Services. The Financial Services contact for UHEL is Diane Webster (x 2234). 6.1 What does UHEL do? UHEL administers Higher Education courses for nurses and midwives (funded by the NHS), business & management consultancy, industrial-funded research and conference facilities. 6.2 Why does UHEL exist? Activities that might jeopardise the charitable status of the University cannot be administered via the main company and so UHEL was established as the University’s trading arm. 6.3 What research and enterprise activities are administered via UHEL? Not all activities that are administered via UHEL are classed as enterprise despite the title of the company. Only consultancy and conference activities within UHEL are classed as ‘true’ enterprise activity. Research contracts funded by industrial organisations, where the results of the research lie with the funder, are also administered via UHEL.

7. Accessing research and enterprise income – the internal process There is plenty of central support available to colleagues wishing to access research and enterprise income; this is offered by the Research and Enterprise Office as well as Financial Services. The role of the Research and Enterprise Office is to: • •

11

Support research administration, including postgraduate applications Inform staff of possible funding opportunities

Unless the funder is based outside the European Union, as these are outside the scope of VAT. Page 5 of 6


• • • • • • •

Work with external organisations to develop long term relationships and opportunities for the University Support Schools in identifying and securing opportunities with a range of external organisations Offer advice on pricing Manage the Business Mine and student enterprise Provide support and training in relation to securing and developing relationships that secure funding Publicise success stories Develop relationships with intermediary organisations such as the Chamber of Commerce, the Regional Development Agency and Business Links

Key contacts in the Research and Enterprise Office are: Denise Downs, Director of Research and Enterprise, x 3169 Barry Timmins, Head of Business Development, x 1165 Kelly Smith, Head of Enterprise, x 3765 Annabel Holland, Head of Research and Graduate Education, x 3809 Jacqui Pybus, External Funding Adviser, x 3901 The role of Financial Services is to: • • • • • • • • • • •

Provide expert financial advice and training on research and enterprise activities and income Cost research grants Cost research contracts, consultancies and conferences, and offer advice on pricing Check the credit status of companies before work and price are negotiated Hold and maintain the central database on all bids, grants, contracts and income Provide regular reports on research and enterprise bids, contracts, grants, income and expenditure Facilitate the internal signing off process for bids and contracts Provide institutional and electronic authorisation for bids submitted on Je-S, eGAP, etc. Determine to which University company research and enterprise income should be coded, following discussions with the School/Service Set up, and monitor, project cost centres and budgets (For funded projects) monitor expenditure, submit claims and maintain detailed audit documentation

Key contacts in Financial Services are: Denise Ogden, Manager – Bids, Contracts and Compliance Team, x 3192 Nikki Sullivan (covering Gemma Falconer’s maternity leave), Accounting Technician (Research & Enterprise) – Business School, Education & Professional Development, Music, Humanities and Media, Computing and Library Services, x 2710 Vacancy (covering Sarah Green’s maternity leave), Accounting Technician (Research & Enterprise) – Art, Design and Architecture, Human and Health Sciences, Estates and Facilities, x 2184 Vacancy, Accounting Technician (Research and Enterprise) – Computing and Engineering, Applied Sciences, Student Services, x 2287

This paper has been checked for veracity by the University’s external auditors, KPMG.

Denise Ogden Financial Services 22 April 2009 Agreed by the University Research Committee, 28 April 2009 Page 6 of 6


Research and Enterprise

VITAE


The balanced researcher Strategies for busy researchers If you’re a busy researcher juggling many demands on your time then you need to read this book. It will give you:

Strategies to be more effective in your work Strategies to balance work and other parts of your life Specific actions that will have a big impact on your work and life

Hugh Kearns Maria Gardiner


contents page 2 The balanced researcher? 3

The secret life of a researcher

4-5

How’s your balance?

6-9

Ten strategies for keeping your work in balance 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Make a plan Pick the right things Make time for research Learn how to say NO Delegate Set realistic standards Write regularly (and then submit it!) Don’t check your email first thing in the morning 9. Use the 3 Ds of paperwork (and email) 10. Deal with distractions

10-13 Ten strategies to keep the non-work part of your life in balance 1.

Establish boundaries between work and non-work 2. Get a routine 3. Ask your significant others 4. Be present 5. Book breaks and holidays 6. Delegate, outsource, get help 7. Exercise, diet and health 8. Me time 9. Review your priorities 10. Have fun!

15

Putting it into practice

The Balanced Researcher is published by Careers Research and Advisory Centre (CRAC) Limited. www.crac.org.uk Vitae is supported by Research Councils UK (RCUK) and managed by CRAC: The Career Development Organisation

To order copies please contact Vitae. Tel: 01223 448510 or email: orders@vitae.ac.uk All material appearing on The Balanced Researcher is copyrighted and may only be reproduced with permission from Vitae. Any opinions expressed are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect those of Vitae. The external links provided to other resources and websites are no responsibility of Vitae. © 2008 Careers Research and Advisory Centre (CRAC) Limited

2

The balanced researcher? So you’re a researcher. Chances are then, you’re pretty busy. Firstly, there’s your research. Proposals. Ethics. Paperwork. Meetings. Applying for grants. Getting grants, then managing the money and the people. Writing reports. And that’s all before you even get to the actual research. Then there’s papers to write, rejection letters to deal with and conferences to attend. And for most people research is just one of the things they do. You might teach or tutor, run demonstrations, manage a unit or even have another completely different job. And that’s just work. No matter how much you enjoy your research it’s likely that there are other parts to your life too. You probably have a family or friends, you may have social commitments and, who knows, you may even have some personal interests! It can be hard to fit all of this in. There are so many demands on your time, so much to do. So, is it possible to have some sort of balance or is this just the way it is if you want to be an effective researcher?

The good news The good news is that it is possible to keep a sense of balance and be an effective researcher. Over the past ten years we’ve run very successful workshops for thousands of researchers ranging from post-graduate researchers to post-docs and very senior researchers. We talk about what works and what doesn’t in terms of being a successful researcher and also how to have a life outside of research. In this book we summarise the most useful strategies and provide a range of suggestions that we and other researchers have found useful in balancing the different demands in our lives. This book is a chance for you to think about balance in your life, what you might want to change, and strategies for doing that. But first a story. Does the following situation sound familiar?


The secret life of a researcher You get in early at 8.00am because you want to finish that paper that’s been hanging around for ages. You’re sitting at your desk ready to start writing. You think – I’ll just check my emails for ten minutes and then I’ll get started on the literature review. There’s one from your co-author asking if your draft is ready. A quick shudder and on to the next one. An honours student in your department saying they can’t find a particular reference. You think – What a pain, why can’t they look it up themselves; but it’ll only take a few minutes, I’ll just do a quick check on the library electronic journals. Eventually, with great satisfaction, it’s found and emailed off. A few more emails.

It’s 9.15am. Well, you think, I may as well just get the rest of these emails cleared; glassware not cleaned in lab yesterday – send back saying it wasn’t me; astronomical society bash tonight – send back saying sorry, can’t come; interesting reference from colleague – reply saying thanks, and go look up reference – feel very satisfied when found, printed, stapled and put in pile with 40 other articles.

It’s 10.00am. Where has the morning gone? Well, it’s been pretty busy; surely it’s time for a cup of coffee. You meet a few colleagues in the coffee room and talk about how hard it is to find time to fit research in. It’s 10.30am. As it’s only an hour until the team meeting you think there’s not much point in trying to start the lit review now, so you polish up some material for your afternoon seminar. The team meeting goes on and on. Eventually it’s 12.30pm and with a sigh of relief you head off for lunch.

At 1.30pm you get back but now you’ve got that post-lunch drowsiness so you think – first I’ll just do a few of those quick jobs that have been hanging around to get me into the mood. It’s 2.30pm and a colleague knocks on the door and asks for help calibrating her sensometer. You’re really good at this so you help, and after all, she’s helped you with your statistics in the past. Then you have to give a lecture/seminar and the participants keep asking questions afterwards. After this you rush back into your office.

It’s 4.30pm already. You’re late so you shut down your computer, grab your bag and rush out. Your department head walks past and asks how your day was. You say – great, very busy, did a lot – but you have to rush now because you’re late for a meeting of the Department Research Committee and they’re discussing improving publication outcomes! Eventually you get home. Late as usual. Tired after a busy day. Family things to do. Bills to pay. Calls to return. And all the while carrying a black cloud of guilt because that paper still has to be written. Definitely going to get to it tomorrow!

3


How’s your balance? OK, so that story might not be you. Then again, we have lots of people come up to us at workshops and ask if we’ve been spying on them! So how is your balance? The balance scale on the right is a visual way of looking at balance.

Times with Family Interests

Research Community Work Admin

> Try out a few balance scales for yourself. Where would you place the following items on your balance scale? ● Work ● Home ● Administration ● Work you want to do

● Teaching

?

?

● Work you have to do

?

?

● Research ● Health ● Career progression ● External demands ● Me time ● Family/friends

? Here are some signs of imbalance: • increased stress • worry and frustration • fatigue and health problems • loss of interests and motivation • isolation

4

?


What would those who know you say? A note about balance. Many people imagine balance as a fixed state where everything is in perfect equilibrium. A better image of balance is of a tightrope walker who is in a constant state of slight imbalance but can make small adjustments to accommodate. That’s what life is like. There are always unexpected emergencies and opportunities that can knock you out of balance. The trick is how quickly you can resume your balance.

> Have you got the balance the way you want?

We worked with one woman who was on an international post-doc. She worked hard in the lab all day. When she went home she looked after her family. Because English was her second language she attended a class to help with her written English. She was exhausted. When we asked what she would like to do she said she’d love to be able to spend an hour a week doing yoga but couldn’t see how to fit it in. With a little re-organisation and re-prioritising she was able to find the hour. And just that one thing made a huge difference to how she felt.

> What would you change? > What would your ideal look like?

Effective strategies for achieving balance? What we’ve done in this book is take the most effective strategies around work-life balance, time management and effectiveness, and express them in a short, practical form that you can put into practice. First we describe ten strategies that can help you be more effective in your work and get a sense of balance in your research role. Then we describe ten strategies that apply to your non-research life.

5


Ten strategies for keeping your work in balance 1 Make a plan

2 Pick the right things

‘Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?' ‘That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,' said the Cat. ‘I don't much care where--' said Alice. ‘Then it doesn't matter which way you go,' said the Cat.

Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Caroll

Planning isn’t that exciting and when you’re feeling overwhelmed, it’s probably the last thing you feel like doing or can find time to do. However if you don’t give some thought to what you want to achieve, you are likely to be tossed around by circumstance, and become fairly reactive in your choices.

US President Dwight Eisenhower

So if you look ahead to the next year what are your plans? What would you really like to achieve by the end of the year? By the end of three months? By the end of this week? By the end of today? What is the most important thing you need to get done today?

6

It’s more important to be doing the right things than doing things right. Sometimes we make the assumption that working hard is enough. But experience tells us that this is not so. For example, spending weeks marking assignments will not get your thesis written. A massive teaching load is not going to help your research career. Sure, these are valuable activities, but you need to think about which tasks and projects deserve the most attention. So look at the tasks on your list. Are they the right things? Of course some things will be out of your control, but not everything. Are there things on your list that are taking up time but are not really helpful?

One of the reasons people give for not planning is that things change and often plans don’t work out. Eisenhower’s quote suggests that plans need to be fluid. Then you can change and update them as circumstances change.

Plans are useless but planning is essential.

A pilot announced to her passengers “I’ve got good news and bad news. The good news is that we’re 500km ahead of schedule. The bad news is that we’re travelling in completely the wrong direction.”

A senior researcher told us how busy she was. She had moved from one institution to another but several months later was still involved in many projects from her former institution. They weren’t making much effort to replace her so she was still doing some of that work. This was a clear case of working hard but at the wrong things.


3 Make time for research Research may be only one part of your role. You might also be a lecturer or a supervisor or have another job. What often happens then is that research gets squeezed in at the end when all the other, seemingly more urgent, things are done. You spend the day doing administration, attending meetings, responding to students and keep telling yourself that you must get down to your research when you find time. Unfortunately when you do find it, it’s usually at the end of the day or late at night when your brain cells are not that creative. What you have to do is MAKE time. This means setting aside specific time (in your diary!) when you will research or write.

4 Learn how to say NO There’s a song “Sorry seems to be the hardest word”. However for most people NO seems to be a harder word! It’s so easy to commit to things, to take on an extra project, to keep loading yourself up. Eventually you end up overloaded! For most of us saying NO is not easy. But there are some alternatives. A good one is to learn how not to say YES so readily. When someone asks you to take on a new commitment you might answer “That sounds interesting. Can I get back to you?” or “I’ll just need to check my diary and I’ll give you a call back”. This gives you time to think about whether you really want to take on the task or to come up with some alternatives. For example “I can’t help you with that right now but if you can wait until tomorrow I’ll have some time then”.

5 Delegate Some people get overwhelmed because they feel they have to do everything themselves. Now in every job there are some things that you personally have to do, but in most jobs there are also parts you can get help with. You might be lucky enough to have staff you can delegate tasks to. If not, there may be others who can provide assistance eg students, administrative staff. Is there money available to pay someone to help? In our experience, the most effective time for doing the demanding aspects of research, such as writing or analysis, seems to be early in the day when you’re fresh. We suggest setting aside two hours, say between 9 and 11am, that you dedicate to writing or analysis.

There are several reasons why people are reluctant to delegate. It’s faster to do it myself. Perhaps the first few times but long term you’ll be overloaded The other person won’t do it as well as I can. Possibly. But will they do it to a sufficient standard? I like doing it. Sure, but you’ve got so many other things to do too.

What could you delegate?

7


Ten strategies for keeping your work in balance 6 Set realistic standards

7 Write regularly

(and then submit it!) One researcher we worked with told us she had five articles that could be sent to journals but she couldn’t send them. She felt that they weren’t good enough, that they needed more work. That they were sure to be rejected. This was despite previous evidence to the contrary. Her strategy was to start working on the sixth paper!

In our experience researchers and research students tend to be intelligent, high achieving people. They also often tend to be perfectionistic, setting very high standards for themselves. This has pluses and minuses. The pluses are that they produce high quality work and strive to do good research. The minuses are that the high standards can get in the way of producing good work. Perfectionists can be very critical of their own work leading to a lot of self-doubt and concerns about their ability. Perfectionists, by definition, find it hard to set reasonable standards. So one strategy is to look at the objective evidence? What have you achieved? What has been the reaction to your work so far? Get an objective opinion from someone else.

> How are your standards?

8

In our experience many researchers find writing difficult. It’s not that they dislike writing. Many enjoy it. But firstly it’s hard to find the time and then there are the anxieties that it raises. Is what I’ve written good enough? Will it be rejected? Even when they write, many hesitate before submitting. They think I need to go over it one more time. I need to polish it up a bit. Some writers also suffer from binge writing. This is based on an assumption that you need big blocks of time (eg three days) to write. The problem is that three free days rarely appear. So in our experience the most productive researchers write regularly even if it is only in small amounts – research shows that even 30 minute blocks increase writing productivity.

We put one PhD student on a regime of writing for two hours three days a week. He achieved more in six weeks than he had in the previous six months.


8 Don’t check

your email first thing in the morning You can increase your daily productivity by about 20% by following this one simple tip. When most of us get to work our first inclination is to just quickly check our emails. But mostly it doesn’t turn out to be quick. And then you end up getting distracted and becoming reactive. So try this. When you get in to work don’t turn on your computer (or at least your email program). Instead you might plan out your day’s work and if possible even start on the most important thing. Then you can check your email, say after morning tea. Give it a try!

9 Use the 3 Ds of paperwork

Deal with distractions Constant distractions such as phone calls, emails or drop-in visitors can lead to feeling a bit out of control. You have plans but they keep getting waylaid. But there are some things you can do: ● Don’t answer your

phone at certain times. Let it go to the answering machine when you are trying to concentrate or writing

One professor we worked with arranged for the computer support staff to remove the Solitaire program from his computer.

(and email) Research involves a lot of paperwork. Journals to read, forms to fill out, requests for information and so on. It’s likely your desk is piled high. Some people cope fine with clutter but for others it leads to a lot of stress and lost productivity. Try this strategy for dealing with paperwork (and emails). The next time you pick up a piece of paper imagine that it is stuck to your fingers. The only way to get it off your fingers is one of the 3 Ds. 1. Do it if you can do it straight away then do it and get rid of it.

● Turn off the ‘bing’ on your email program so it

doesn’t pop up and distract you. Even better, turn off your email program ● Set up consultation times for

meetings and student consultations ● Close your office door if you

have one ● Go to a quiet place if you

need to do concentrated work

2. Dairise it if it will take more than a few minutes to do then get out your diary and find the time when you will do it. Then put the paper in the file for that project. 3. Ditch it if you don’t want to do it or diarise it then ditch it. Yes! In the bin.

9


Ten strategies for keeping the non-work part of your life in balance 1 Establish boundaries

between work and non-work It’s easy for work to spill over from your normal work day into the rest of your life. If you don’t get things done during the day it’s tempting to tell yourself that you can finish it off at home later. The internet has made this much easier. You can check your emails from home, search for references and resources and be in contact with anyone at any time. The problem with this is that you might start off just finishing off some urgent task but this then grows into responding to emails, trying to get ahead for the next day. Often because it’s quieter at home you actually get more done. This can lead to a blurring of when you are working and when you’re not. And it’s good to be off duty sometimes. That’s when you recharge, catch up with family and friends and attend to the other parts of your life. So while there are no definitive rules it’s useful to think about where the balance is for you. Clear boundaries can be helpful. For example, you might decide not to work at home at all. Or if you do work at home you might specify certain times. A senior academic described her boundaries. She decided to work hard during the week but wherever possible not to work on the weekends. She didn’t check her work emails, she switched off her work mobile and didn’t bring paperwork home with her. She reported that her weekends were much more fun but that she was also being more effective at work. She said “In the past I used to procrastinate about things because I knew I’d do them on the weekend. Now I focus on finishing things when I’m at work because I know I’m not going to work on the weekend. It’s helped me focus on the important things.”

10

Get a routine Routines can be a useful way of ensuring you get round to things that are important to you. For example, you could set one night of the week when you go out with your friends or family. If you leave this to chance, or when you find time, it’s less likely to happen. One person we worked with instituted Friday Surprise with his young family. This meant that every Friday evening after work he got to decide what the family would do eg go to the movies, have a meal. By having the routine people didn’t double-book on Friday and the fact that it was a family routine meant that it was very likely to happen. The surprise element also made it fun.

Do you have routines that have fallen into disuse? Is it worth getting one going again?


3 Ask your significant others

before taking on major commitments Often we take on major commitments, that impact on our family and friends, without really thinking about what it means for them. So when someone suggests that you apply for a new grant that will take a lot of your time you might mention it to the people close to you. They might comment “But you said you were overworked already. How are you going to fit this in?” One researcher we know took this to such extremes that people used to ring his partner first to ask if he was available for new commitments.

4 Be present Sometimes although your body has left work your mind is still on the job. Presenteeism, as opposed to absenteeism, is where you are physically there but your attention is somewhere else. You know the feeling. You’re there playing scrabble with your kids and they ask you a question and you’ve no idea what they said because your mind was back at work. You might be worrying about something you left unfinished or thinking about what’s in store for tomorrow. We sometimes tell ourselves that this going over of things in our heads, worrying, is useful because we might find a solution. There are some strategies for reducing worry. If there is something you really need to do, then do it eg call someone to check if there really is a problem. Write down your worries. Debrief with someone. Distract yourself.

Problem-solving versus worrying

A general practitioner on one of our courses recalled that his spouse told him “Your work gets the best, your family gets the rest”. It’s interesting to think that many of us give our best to people we don’t know very well and the people we do care about see us when we’re tired and worn out.

It’s important to distinguish between problem-solving and worry. Problem-solving is a fairly structured process of working out what can be done. Worrying is recycling the same thoughts over and over. It’s a pretty destructive activity because not only does it not solve the problem, it wears out your neurons.

11


Ten strategies for keeping the non-work part of your life in balance 5 Book breaks and holidays Often we tell ourselves we must have a break when we find the time. But then the time doesn’t come. An alternative is to schedule breaks and holidays well in advance. The break itself is good but looking forward to it can also be motivating. Even short breaks are helpful. They can help you get perspective on issues and often you return to work feeling more productive.

Bringing paperwork on holidays Your paperwork and your laptop need a holiday too. But the best holiday you can give them is to leave them at home while you’re away. One early career researcher described how she would feel guilty about taking a holiday so she always brought her data with her so she could analyse it. Of course she never looked at it which made her feel guilty too.

6 Delegate, outsource,

get help Some of us, high achievers and perfectionists in particular, are very reluctant to give up anything. We think we should be able to do it all. We want to perform well at work, then come home and organise a house and garden, and spend time with family and friends. The reality is that there is limited time (168 hours in a week), and heavy commitments in one area of life mean there is less time in other areas. It’s sensible to get help where you can. For example, perhaps you can afford to pay a cleaner to come in once a week, get a gardener, use a babysitter occasionally.

12

7 Exercise, diet and health When things are out of balance it’s likely that the last thing you want to do is exercise or examine your health and diet. Yet these things build up your resilience and give you more energy. It’s tempting, when you’re under pressure from looming deadlines, to work late into the night and sleep less. This might work in the short term but it becomes counter-productive. You can end up putting in more hours but getting less output. Once again, looking after yourself works better if you have a routine.

We worked with one researcher who had a history of health problems. His life seemed to go in a cycle of feeling OK for a while, and then having a serious illness where he couldn’t work. His solution was to work very hard when he was able to. In fact he would work so hard he wouldn’t get much sleep or exercise or eat very well. And of course then he would get sick and not be able to work at all. Which only made him more determined to work even harder the next time so he could catch up.

> What small changes could you make on a consistent basis?


8 Me time One woman came to our workshop because she was stuck. She wanted to do her research but couldn’t seem to find the time or energy. It turned out she had a great interest in gardening but hadn’t had time to do any for ages. When she did make some time for it, she felt much more positive and also more motivated to have a go at her research.

What do you really enjoy doing? Did you have a passion when you were a child, for example, singing, painting? Do you have some great interest or hobby? Our interests often get squeezed out when work pressure and other demands increase. Which is a shame for two reasons. Firstly, you are missing out on something you enjoy. And secondly these activities restore you and are likely to make you more motivated and productive.

> What would you do if you had some “me time”?

9 Review your priorities Sometimes it’s easy to drift into things or get carried along by peers and colleagues. Because everyone else has the latest labour-saving gadget you get one. And then you have to work harder to pay for it. And it doesn’t seem to save you much labour! We work with rural doctors and many of them work really long hours so that they can provide well for their family. But they work so hard that they don’t get to spend time with their families. And when you ask the families what they really want they say “To spend more time with Mum or Dad”.

> Does your life reflect your priorities?

Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans

John Lennon

10 Have fun! It’s tempting to think you’ll be happy when you finish this project, when the house is finished, when the next paper gets published, when your thesis is finished, when things settle down. That might happen but there’s no reason why you can’t have some fun now too!

> What are the things you enjoy? Can you do one of them now?

13


Making changes You might think all this is just common sense really. (It is!) But then why don’t we do it? One reason is that over a lifetime we develop habits or patterns of behaviour and some of these are hard to break. And secondly, we sometimes lose a bit of perspective. When you’re in the middle of something, eg writing a paper, it can seem like the most important thing in the world. When we’re busy, our thinking can get a bit muddled. So here are some tips that we have used with people to increase the chances of making changes and then making the changes stick.

> Choose something small and achievable Rather than signing up for the next Ironwoman competition or an Everest ascent, you might decide to go for a walk at lunchtime three times a week. Setting achievable goals and achieving them is likely to motivate you to keep at it and will probably lead to more changes. What is your small and achievable thing?

> Commit to the change This means doing something like writing it in your diary, telling people about it or arranging to involve other people. For example, tell your kids that you will pick them up early after school and walk home with them tomorrow. Or join a knitting group or a book group. Who can you tell?

> Choose something you can

> Reward yourself

do soon The sooner the better, ideally in the next few days. For example, call a colleague today to discuss that book chapter that’s been hanging over your head. Or tomorrow hand in that draft of a chapter you’ve been hanging onto for weeks.

If you make a change that was difficult, eg saying no to an opportunity, or finishing off a piece of work that has been hanging over your head, then give yourself a reward. The reward might be having a cup of tea or taking a break or even checking your emails! But remember that the reward must come AFTER the task, not before!

When can you start it? Today?

What’s your reward?

Here are some examples of changes that people have made. Most of them are small but have had a big impact... ✓ Stop checking emails first thing in the morning

✓ Block out two hours in the morning for writing

✓ Use a diary for scheduling work

✓ Go for a walk at lunchtime ✓ Decide not to stand for a

✓ Have lunch! ✓ Take a weekend break with my partner (and not bring work!)

committee at the next AGM

So what can you do? Can you do something about it right now e.g. write it in your diary, call someone, book a meal out? 14


Putting it into practice This short book is an opportunity to think about the current balance in your work and your life and how you might like things to be. It provides a range of practical strategies and suggestions that many researchers have used to make small but significant changes.

Balance at work 1 Make a plan 2 Pick the right things 3 Make time for research 4 Learn how to say NO 5 Delegate 6 Set realistic standards 7 Write regularly (and then submit it!) 8 Don’t check your email first thing in the morning 9 Use the 3 Ds of paperwork (and email) 10 Deal with distractions

Balance in your non-work life 1 Establish boundaries between work and non-work 2 Get a routine 3 Ask your significant others 4 Be present 5 Book breaks and holidays 6 Delegate, outsource, get help 7 Exercise, diet and health 8 Me time 9 Review your priorities 10 Have fun!

So what will work for you? If life is going along fine, then keep on doing what you are doing. If you feel a bit out of balance, or want to make some changes, then perhaps it’s worth giving one of these strategies a go. 15


About the authors Hugh Kearns is the Head of the Professional Development Unit at Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia. Maria Gardiner is a clinical psychologist and also co-ordinates a very successful mentoring scheme for researchers at Flinders University. Together they have a long history of working with high performing people to increase their effectiveness and self-management skills. They have run numerous workshops and masterclasses for academics, researchers and PhD students and are in high demand across Australia and internationally. In 2006 they were honoured with a national teaching award for their innovative programs dealing with the emotional and psychological aspects of doctoral study. They are active researchers themselves having published many papers and authored a number of very popular books aimed at PhD students and researchers. ● Defeating self-sabotage: getting your thesis finished ● The seven secrets of highly successful PhD students ● The PhD experience: what they didn't tell you at induction ● Time for research: time management for PhD students ● Turbocharging your writing (in press) ● www.ithinkwell.com.au

Vitae c/o CRAC, 2nd Floor, Sheraton House, Castle Park, Cambridge CB3 0AX T: 01223 448510 admin@vitae.ac.uk F: 01223 311708 www.vitae.ac.uk


Spring 2010

overview for supervisors and principal investigators

welcome Winter brought news of funding cuts to the sector and it is likely we have not seen the last of them. In the spring, RCUK issued their long awaited statement of expectations regarding the sustainability of researcher development (www.rcuk.ac.uk/rescareer/rcdu/training.htm) but we will have to wait for the results of an evaluation of the impact of Roberts’ funding before the framework and timetable for any transition arrangements are published. Summer this year certainly promises to ‘set in with its usual severity’ (to misquote, ever so slightly, Coleridge).

Although spring has sprung (allegedly), and summer is upon us, there is a real and metaphorical chill wind blowing around universities as I write.

But still day to day business goes on and this issue of ‘overview’ is packed with examples of innovative training programmes, information about materials which you can use with your researchers, tips for handling career discussions and a rallying call from Professor Dame Nancy Rothwell about the importance of public engagement and how to justify it in these times. We also feature news about a new Research Staff Association which aims to give a collective voice to this group. Inside this issue of ‘overview’, you will also find flyers outlining what Vitae offers to postgraduate researchers and research staff in 2010. Beside web and other resources, we have also listed activities we are organising in 2010. We hope you find this information useful. Please feel free to pass on copies to postgraduate researchers and research staff. To request further copies, please contact your Vitae Regional Hub or email us at orders@vitae.ac.uk. As usual, if you have any comments on this issue, or would like to submit an article, contact us on overview@vitae.ac.uk. Anne Goodman, Editor

Contents Why is public engagement important for HEIs and research institutes? Peer support for new principal investigators The challenge of leading leadership programmes Breaking news

Research staff blog

3

4 5

The Vitae researcher development conference 2010: realising the potential of researchers 5 Don’t take knowledge about peer review for granted

6

Inclusive programme wins award

7

Question time for researchers, principal investigators and institutions A collective voice for research staff

11

2

9 10

How to handle career development discussions with researchers – a practical guidance approach for non careers advisers 12

and horizons

18

■ European Higher Education Area: Celebrating 10 years of UK engagement in Europe...’

■ The new Researcher development 14

18 19

■ Prepare for the future: invest now in doctoral education

■ Vitae innovate 2010 – £10,000 fund open for bids

■ Research careers in Europe – landscapes

■ ‘The UK is a major research player

Vitae update framework – next steps

European round-up

19

15 Diary dates

■ Vitae resources and publications

16

■ Masterclasses

17

■ The digital researcher

17

■ Careers in academia

18

■ Advancing in academia

18

■ Leadership in action

18

Keep in touch

19 back page


overview for supervisors and principal investigators

Why is public engagement important for HEIs and Professor Dame Nancy Rothwell is Deputy President and Deputy Vice-Chancellor at the University of Manchester where she also holds a Medical Research Council Professorship. A long-standing advocate of public engagement in the higher education sector she is principal investigator of the Manchester Beacon for Public Engagement. Universities are changing. They are increasingly diversifying the types of teaching and learning they provide and the students they enrol. The change has been driven largely by external pressures, from funders, from government and from the many ‘customers’ of universities which include the students, their families and future employers, the users and benefactors of research and scholarship in universities and not least the tax payer. Now is hardly a time of economic plenty for universities, so investment of time and money in activities such as public engagement needs clear justification and some measurable outputs. The carrots and sticks wielded by the core funders of universities are powerful incentives. The forthcoming Research Excellence Framework is likely to place considerable weight on the wider ‘impact’ of research. This has caused much concern in academe and fears that the UK will no longer maintain its position amongst the very best places in the world to undertake fundamental ‘blue skies’ research. This would be a disaster, but it isn’t necessarily the outcome. If, as many of us would argue, ‘blue skies’ research has had great impact and benefit, then dissemination of its findings and clarity over that impact should be valued. Arguments over the details of measuring impact and the time scale that is needed (many decades in some cases) will run on, but there is little disagreement that universities need to get better at explaining what they do, how and why, and why it should matter to the UK. These arguments assume that public engagement is a rather defensive tactic to ensure that universities are valued and supported. But those with long experience of public engagement activities would argue that there are much wider benefits. There is nothing like trying to discuss a complicated piece of research with non-experts to make you really grapple with its true meaning or see it in a different light as I, myself, have discovered engaging with patient groups. Sometimes the most relevant questions and answers come from the ‘lay’ audience. There are also personal rewards and enjoyment in public engagement activity. This year’s winner of the Society of Biology Young Science Communicator Award, Ceri Harrup, said that she was considering giving up plans for a career in research until she became involved in public engagement. The excitement and challenge of explaining her work (on mucous, so not the most engaging topic) to non-scientists made her realise the fascination of her research. The benefits of public engagement to a university, its staff and students and wider communities are numerous, and need to be recognised, rewarded and valued by those in leadership positions. We are discovering a huge appetite for engagement inside and outside our universities as part of the Beacons initiative and, whilst public engagement activities may be a modest part of the time of a busy academic or university student, it shouldn’t have to be restricted to weekends and evenings and can be celebrated by those in the most senior positions throughout universities. You can read the full piece, as well as the views of others at www.publicengagement.ac.uk.

Page 2

Beacons for Public Engagement Set up in 2008, this initiative encourages higher education institutions to embrace public engagement as part of their core mission. Funded by the UK Higher Education Funding Councils, Research Councils UK and the Wellcome Trust, the project consists of six Beacons (based in Newcastle and Durham, Manchester, CUE East (UEA), UCL, Wales and Edinburgh) and a National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement in Bristol which captures and shares learning between the Beacons and across UK higher education institutions and research institutes. You can find out more about the project at www.publicengagement.ac.uk.


research institutes? What is public engagement? Public engagement describes the many ways in which the activity and benefits of higher education and research is shared with, and informed by, the public. Engagement is by definition a two-way process, involving interaction and listening between all parties, with the goal of generating mutual benefit. Public engagement connects the public with staff and students to share together their passions and expertise and to problem solve on societal issues. It can bring benefits to all involved. It covers all subjects, from arts and humanities to science, and a host of activities.

Peer support for new principal investigators An initiative by the Weizmann Institute, Israel may serve as a good example for institutions in the UK... Dr Tennie Videler, Programme manager for researchers, Vitae, reports

BBC Science project All of the Beacons have joined a partnership with the BBC to support the new BBC One Science series: Bang Goes the Theory. Academics from the Beacons have come together with colleagues from the Open University and BBC Editorial staff to answer questions asked by the public. Over 140 academics have taken part – helping develop new skills, raising the profile of the work of the Beacons, and providing great answers for the public. You can read more at http://www.bbc.co.uk/bang/ask_yan/q_and_a_experts.shtml.

Get involved There are lots of ways to get involved in our work. For example you could ■ join our Public Engagement

Network (PEN). Open to anyone passionate about public engagement with research, universities and research institutes, the PEN encourages people to share news, and discuss relevant topics. The NCCPE also provides a regular news digest for this network ■ apply to become a Public

Engagement Ambassador. Aimed at supporting people who are passionate about Public Engagement to develop their own skills and experience, and act as change agents within their own institution, this scheme provides funding to attend conferences and events, as well as having networking events and training sessions ■ check out the website:

www.publicengagement.ac.uk which includes information about funding, how to guides, news about public engagement and higher education institutions and also provides lots of opportunities for you to shape our work.

Vitae and Beacons working together A number of Vitae Hubs are working with their respective Beacons to deliver a range of events. The London Hub and London Beacon ran a workshop in March and on July 6 the Manchester Hub and the Manchester Beacon and the SWW Hub and the Beacon for Wales will both be running conferences – see www.vitae.ac.uk/events for details. Vitae is also planning to run a national online activity on public engagement the same week inviting articles and discussion on the topic.

The engaging researcher On 6 July Vitae and NCCPE Beacons will be jointly launching ‘The engaging researcher’ the next title in the ‘Researcher booklets’ series. This will provide very practical tips and guidance on public engagement to researchers and be developed jointly with the Beacons for Public Engagement and the NCCPE. www.vitae.ac.uk/researcherbooklets.

‘Our peers and friends are the ones that lend us the best solutions. From each other, we learn new skills and clever ways to handle the challenging situations we encounter each day.’ In the summer of 2007, 20 new principal investigators were appointed at the Weizmann institute, Rehovot, Israel. This group met for lunch every other week and were inducted together and addressed by people of importance in the institute. Once the lunch sessions organised by the institute were over, the new PIs decided to continue to meet according to the same schedule to support each other and form the Weizmann Young PI Forum. In addition to the extremely valuable peer support, the meetings have allowed the group to identify common issues and gave them a collective voice. Meetings generally fall into two types – those that deal with dilemmas and issues – supervising difficult postgraduate researchers, the impostor syndrome, and those that focus on teaching a skill – giving seminars, motivating postgraduate researchers etc. The group have drawn up guidelines which they have found useful: ■ the first 15 minutes of each meeting are for

unstructured talk and set the tone for informality throughout the meetings ■ full confidentiality is essential ■ at each meeting, one member of the group volunteers to lead the following meeting ■ it is useful to have one or two people serving as moderators of the group. The regular meetings have proved supportive of the new PIs’ steep learning curve, fostered much interdisciplinary collaboration and a real sense of belonging. For more details see http://www.weizmann.ac.il/YoungPI.

Page 3


overview for supervisors and principal investigators

The challenge of leading leadership programmes Universities are under increasing pressure to demonstrate their relevance to their local community and to prepare their researchers for leadership roles, inside or outside academia. The Manchester Leadership Programme for Researchers is an innovative approach to addressing these challenges – but came with a whole new set of challenges of its own.

How it began The Manchester Leadership Programme (MLP) was introduced in 2005. It was inspired by University President and Vice-Chancellor, Professor Alan Gilbert’s vision that in addition to pursuing academic excellence, we should also encourage students to ■ explore the challenges facing

21st Century leadership in bringing about socially, economically and environmentally sustainable development ■ reflect on the ethical dimension of

professional and civic life and help equip them with a balanced and liberal understanding of issues facing 21st Century societies. How to translate these lofty goals into an academically rigorous programme with real benefits to the students and the local community was left to the Careers Service to figure out. Luckily, we had lots of experience of delivering credit-rated skills development programmes across the university, including practical group work, external lecturers and assessment in many forms.

What we learned E-learning programme

Small beginnings – rapid growth Starting with 80 undergraduates we delivered a 10 credit unit, comprising lectures from leaders in academia, business and the 3rd sector, with group and individual practical assessments. Students were also encouraged to complete 60 hours of community volunteering (validated, but not assessed or credit-rated) to achieve the Manchester Leadership Award. A successful pilot meant rapid expansion, but we knew exactly where to turn for tutors. From our careers work with postgraduates, we were aware of the talents of our PhDs, and with the support of a band of PhD ‘e-tutors’, we now run multiple e-learning, lecture and research based programmes, for 1300+ undergraduates.

Next up – researchers In 2009, with the help of Roberts funding, we piloted the Manchester Leadership Programme for Researchers (MLP-R) for 35 researchers. This comprised an e-learning programme with regular group discussions, and an interdisciplinary group project culminating in presenting a poster on a topic relevant to the local community. Participants were also encouraged to complete 60 hours community volunteering (spread over a calendar year) to achieve the Manchester Leadership Award.

We knew we already had an excellent e-learning programme, so took a calculated risk by re-using most of the content of the undergraduate programme. We argued that core content, such as interviews with the CEO of Oxfam and other leaders, would be just as valid for a postgraduate audience. The difference would come in the quality of the discussion generated by the material, which proved to be correct. ‘The on-line unit is highly interactive and the topics are at the cutting edge of the issues facing the global community today’ However, we underestimated the time it took to complete all modules in the unit, (including Leadership Theory, Ethics, Global Poverty, Environmental Sustainability and Corporate Social Responsibility). Although researchers were attracted by the flexibility of an online programme, it proved difficult for many of them to complete it alongside their research commitments. We also had not anticipated the difficulty of accessing Blackboard (the university’s virtual learning environment) through the dial-up connections which some researchers were using at home – PGRs don’t find on-campus access as straight-forward as our undergraduates.

Group work One big attraction was the chance to engage with researchers from other disciplines. A lot of effort went into producing and presenting the group posters at a successful end of unit event, but there was some frustration that these were intellectual projects, without direct outcomes. ‘the most important aspect for me is the contact with other researchers and the opportunities this brings – be it to learn or simply to experience something new’ ‘it’s very refreshing to see intelligent educated people debating issues and exchanging perspectives’

Page 4


Volunteering One of the most rewarding aspects of the programme for us were the volunteer projects initiated by participants. Some of these new projects have a life well beyond the programme and the scope to generate further volunteer opportunities – a real exemplar for public engagement activity. Some researchers have struggled to complete the full 60 hours volunteer work, but most have at least partially reached their goal. However, a significant number of researchers dropped out during the on-line unit phase, before registering any volunteering. Interestingly, the common factor between these researchers was their long track record in volunteering – all were serial volunteers, often with amazing experience from across the world.

Pilot programme, part 2 With imminent changes to Roberts funding, we bit the bullet and funded a modified researchers programme from our core budget. The new programme, which launched in April, has a slimmed-down on-line unit (but with the original full programme available to those who want it). More radically, our Volunteer Manager has worked with local community groups to generate real projects suitable for groups of enthusiastic, skilled researchers. Each participant will be expected to devote 20 hours to their group project,

but this may be spread over 6 months or more. We believe this early engagement with community organisations is likely to appeal to those with a significant track record as a volunteer. To appeal to those with little time to spare (and to their supervisors), we have also introduced a graduated Manchester Leadership Award, allowing recognition of 20, 40 or 60 hours of community volunteering, with the group project counting towards this total.

The way forward Researchers have been integral to the success of the Manchester Leadership Programme, and our new researchers programme is one way to build on that – but we have not stopped there. With funding brought in through the MLP, we now fund three PhD research projects, with more on the horizon. Who knows where these will lead? For further information, please see our website: www.mlp.manchester.ac.uk/researchers or contact Elizabeth Wilkinson, Head of Postgraduate Career Development elizabeth.wilkinson@manchester.ac.uk or Dr Sam Hemsley, Learning and Assessment Developer, Manchester Leadership Programme sam.hemsley@manchester.ac.uk

Breaking news A new section of the Vitae website dedicated to ‘The Impact of Researcher Development’ is now live at www.vitae.ac.uk/impact. Case studies of evidence and update reports are included along with resources on evaluation methodology and using the ‘Rugby Team Impact Framework’. The website will be updated with new case studies following the Vitae conference. For more information about a call for evidencing impact of researcher development visit www.vitae.ac.uk/impact.

The Vitae researcher development conference 2010: realising the potential of researchers Bookings for the UK’s largest event for people with a commitment to the personal, professional and career development of researchers are now open. The conference will be held on 6 and 7 September 2010 in Manchester. Vitae is inviting proposals again this year for workshops and fringe sessions. The deadline for workshop proposals is Friday 25 June. To discuss your idea for a proposal, contact Peri Cihan, tel. 01223 448537. To contribute to the programme go to www.vitae.ac.uk/conference10

Page 5


overview for supervisors and principal investigators

Don’t take knowledge about peer review for granted Branwen Hide, Liaison and Partnerships Officer and Stéphane Goldstein, Head of Programmes, Research Information Network introduce a new guide on peer review for researchers which sets out the processes involved in peer review for both grant applications and publications. It also looks at the issues that have been raised in a series of recent reports on the costs of the system and how effective and fair it is. Everybody in academia knows about peer review. Or at least they think they do. This cornerstone of the research and scholarly communications processes is so habitual, so embedded in the established way of doing things, that it is easy to assume that postgraduate researchers will invariably be familiar with the principle underlying peer review, and the challenges and pressures that it faces. But are they? How well versed are they in what for them may become a fundamental part of their working lives? And what is their awareness of the pressures and challenges faced by peer review in a world where the number of research outputs in all their form continues to increase relentlessly? There is an expectation that, at the very least, postgraduate researchers will understand ‘the processes for funding and evaluation of research’, according to the view set out by the Research Councils (RCUK 20011), and more recently picked up in Vitae’s draft Researcher development framework (see page 14). This implies the need for an appreciation of the place of peer review within these processes. It is not clear, however, whether developing an informed understanding of peer review figures more explicitly in the guidance and training received by postgraduate researchers or research staff – or for that matter in courses and training run by HEIs for research supervisors. A quick trawl of half a dozen HEIs’ guidance documents on responsibilities of research supervisors did not yield a single reference to peer review. This does not mean that supervisors fail to take very seriously their responsibility with regards to making their postgraduate researchers aware of significant aspects of the research process – but nor is it clear whether they take knowledge about peer review for granted.

Page 6

20045). Thus it is clearly important that the selection of reviewers should be rigorous, and that the reviewers themselves should be subject to review.

Transparency and fairness

A new guide Help may now be at hand. The Research Information Network has just published a short guide intended for researchers (RIN 20102). This explains that peer review ■ is both a principle and a set of mechanisms

which are primarily used for evaluating and assuring the quality of research before and after it is funded or published ■ is not just about grant applications and

journal articles ■ it relates to other forms of research outputs,

such as conference presentations as well as to quality assurance in the context for instance of end-of-grant reports and post-publication evaluation. Lighter touch and somewhat less formal forms of peer review, occasioned by the development of new online applications, are also covered. The guide emphasises the continued importance and relevance of peer review, and indicates that researchers strongly support it as the cornerstone to good scholarship. It references recent reports which have examined the practice and the place of peer review in the research endeavour. However, the guide is not uncritical, and it is important for postgraduate researchers to be made aware of the pressures that peer review is subject to – and its limitations.

Limitations There have been a number of pieces in the media recently (Barbour 20103, Pearce 20104) criticising the process, as some researchers feel that reviewers are not always objective, that the judgements are often inconsistent and lend towards conservatism and stifle innovation (RIN 20102). Some reports have indicated the importance of training and the provision of written guidelines for reviewers (RIN 20102); though further work has shown that short training courses have little impact (Schroter

Many researchers feel that the level of transparency has a large role to play in ensuring fairness in the system. A large majority of researchers support the double-blind system, where the identities of the authors and the reviewers are kept from each other, as they believe this reduces bias in the system. However, there is little evidence that double-bind peer review actually decreases the risk of unfairness (RIN 20102). In an attempt to reduce bias, subjectivity and conservatism, many journals are actually increasing the transparency of their peer review process and are moving towards an open system. Publishers hope that revealing the identities of the reviewers and authors to each other and, in some cases, publishing the reviewers’ comments and editors’ reports, will not only encourage constructive referee and author comments but will also demystify editorial decisions. It is also hoped that it will help younger researchers understand what is expected of them regarding their own publications and how to deal with criticism (Clarke 20096).

New challenges In addition to these changes, technological developments and the growth of new forms of communications between researchers are presenting new challenges and opportunities for the development of peer review. Some journals are using web technologies to allow readers to post comments, and rate individual articles, augmenting and in some cases, replacing the traditional peer review process (RIN 20102). There are now designated sites, such as Faculty 1000, where experts (‘faculty’) in the field evaluate and comment on the most interesting and relevant peer reviewed papers they read each month. Moreover, researchers are beginning to communicate their results using a wide range of multimedia formats and social media sites, such as blogs, wikis, and YouTube, at various stages of the research process (RIN 2010 [in press]7). This raises questions about quality control, the role of peer review in its traditional form and whether alternative forms should be developed.


Lightening the burden Research funders are eager to see raw data published alongside or in addition to journal articles or monographs. But does peer review have the capacity to address the quality of such embedded data as well as the articles themselves? Although researchers appear to have a few concerns regarding trust and are keen in principle to see data subjected to peer review (RIN 20088) they recognize the difficultly in achieving this without adding to the burdens already placed on the peer review system and increasing the decision making process (RIN 20102). Both its principles and the practical implication of the process have given rise to reservations among researchers. It is therefore of critical importance to encourage the continual evaluation of peer review procedures – and it is never not too soon in the career of researchers to reflect on this. Download a copy of the guide at www.rin.ac.uk/peer-review-guide

References: 1

Research Councils UK (RCUK) and UK GRAD Programme (2001), Joint Statement of the UK Research Councils’ Training Requirements for Research Students – http://www.vitae.ac.uk/CMS/files/upload/RCUK-Joint-SkillsStatement-2001.pdf

2

Research Information Network (RIN) (2010), Peer review: a guide for researchers – www.rin.ac.uk/peer-review-guide

3

Barbour, V (2010), Peer review in stem cell research – http://publicationethics.org/blogs/peer-review-stem-cellresearch

4

Pearce, F (2010), Climate change emails between scientists reveal flaws in peer review – www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/hackedclimate-emails-flaws-peer-review

5

Schroter, S et al (2004), Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial, BMJ 2004;328:673 (20 March) – http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/328/7441/673 doi: 10.1136/bmj.38023.700775.AE

6

7

8

Clarke, M (2009), EMBO journal introduces transparent peer-review – http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2009/01/embo_journal_ introduces_transp_1.html Research Information Network (RIN) (2010 [in press]), Use and relevance of web 2.0 for researchers – www.rin.ac.uk/use-and-relevance-web-20-researchers Research Information Network (RIN) (2008), To share or not to share: publication and quality assurance of research data outputs – www.rin.ac.uk/to-share-research-data-outputs

Inclusive programme wins award Durham University Graduate School provides a wide-ranging and highly accessible programme of transferable skills training for doctoral candidates and early career research staff at institutional level. The members of the dedicated training team (pictured above) have worked to ensure that the innovative programme is accessible to all researchers irrespective of their mode of study or programme of study. The quality and innovative nature of this programme was recognised by it gaining the Times Higher Education Award for Outstanding Support for Early Career Researchers in 2009. Dr Lowry McComb, Director of Postgraduate Training and Dr Douglas Halliday, Dean of the Graduate School, report. By providing institutional level training, support and mentoring for researchers the Graduate School at Durham ensures that all are equipped to complete successfully their studies in a timely manner. The strategic focus on developing an inclusive community of researchers has resulted in a programme of support that is demonstrably more effective and receives a higher level of satisfaction from participants.

Inclusive approach Over the last three years the Graduate School has undertaken a systematic study of the barriers to successful completion of research degrees for disabled and part-time research students (see box on the next page). In response to the findings of this work, the Durham training programme has been modified to provide a more inclusive approach which benefits all researchers.

Page 7


overview for supervisors and principal investigators

Inclusive programme wins award Part-time and distance researchers As well as offering skills development through the traditional workshop route, we provide a wide range of online development opportunities through both material developed at Durham and modules developed as part of various Epigeum development groups (see www.epigeum.co.uk). Those who are University based and are not able to attend the face-to-face training also benefit from these materials. In addition we have developed a three-day intensive event run each summer aimed specifically at part-time and distance researchers. Tailored to support them in completing their studies, through a programme of focussed workshops, one-to-one sessions and peer support groups, the researchers can experience the research culture, receive supervisions from academic staff and undertake a range of Graduate School training. In addition an on-line virtual researcher community has been developed to enable this group to provide peer support after the intensive course.

International researchers In recognition of the growing importance of appropriate support for international researchers, we have developed an institutional level induction for international doctoral candidates. This includes: ■ explaining the research culture in our institution ■ exploring the role of a supervisory team ■ how to make the most of a supervisory team ■ an exploration of supervisory styles using a self-perception inventory. Researchers are encouraged to develop these ideas with their supervisory team to ensure a shared understanding of the role of the supervisory team is developed. Durham has also joined the EURAXESS network as a local contact point which recognises our broad ranging programme of inclusive support for internationally mobile early career researchers.

The future The ongoing development of the training programme at Durham is driven by a number of overarching aims: ■ to support researchers to complete successfully their studies at Durham ■ to instil a culture of inclusiveness and interdisciplinary working ■ to equip researchers with the ability to identify their own needs and have them met ■ to empower researchers through confidence building ■ to initiate them as full members of today’s global research community.

Page 8

Creating Inclusive Research Communities (CIRC)

Key features of Durham University doctoral training programme ■ developed over last 6 years ■ menu driven approach ■ annual Training Needs Analysis ■ 300 workshops with 7000 researchers

(postgraduate and research staff) attending ■ annual evaluations are conducted of all 1600 doctoral candidates ■ the most recent evaluation indicates that over 94% were satisfied with the training received. http://www.dur.ac.uk/graduate.school/do ctoral.training/

In September 2006 the Dean of the Graduate School commissioned Val Farrar (project officer from the Premia Project – see www.premia.ac.uk for details) to conduct a study on the barriers which exist at entry to, and completion of, research degree programmes at Durham University. Phase 2 of the CIRC project began in October 2007 with a study on part-time research students. The aims of the project were to: ■ quantify and identify current barriers to access ■ highlight best practice in management of research study ■ look at best practice in supporting research students ■ identify those areas within postgraduate study and postdoctoral research at Durham where change may be needed ■ ensure that the research training programme and support structures for all research students at Durham are aligned with best practice. Over the last two years the University has been working to implement the recommendations emerging from this work to ensure the best possible support is provided across the institution for disabled and part-time researchers. Funding was secured from the Higher Education Academy to discuss this work at a seminar in October 2008 as part of the HEA research seminar series on the theme of inclusion, funded in part by the Disability Equality Partnership. This provided an opportunity to disseminate these issues nationally; resources from the workshop are available on the HEA website (www.heacademy.ac.uk/events/detail/2008/ResearchSeminar_22Oct08). A workshop on the outcomes of the project was also given in York in December 2007.

The closing date for the THE Awards 2010 has now passed. Winners will be announced in November.


Question time for researchers, principal investigators and institutions In the second of his regular columns, Thomas Papworth, Concordat Co-ordinator reports on two of six benchmarking projects which aim to establish the state of research staff career development. These will inform future implementation activity and also enable the measurement of progress over time. The noted leadership trainer John E. Jones is believed to have originated the phrase ‘What gets measured gets done.’ This was certainly the belief of those who crafted the 2008 Concordat, who made ‘regular and collective review’ one of the fundamental principles of research career development. To this end, last year the Concordat Strategy Group outlined six discrete projects that would enable us to fill the gaps in our knowledge about research staff and their career development. In the process, it was hoped that this would set the baseline against which our progress on this agenda would be measured. Over the course of the next few issues of ‘overview’, I will discuss these six benchmarking projects. In this article I want to focus on one current and one future project that will have particular bearing on you as research leaders.

Shaping policy? The primary challenge, at least in the early stages of Concordat implementation, is to explore how adoption of the principles of the Concordat is shaping policy within institutions. At later stages it will be more interesting to examine how the Concordat is shaping practice and, eventually, outcomes. But it is too early to expect to see changes in these areas now. Even with the best will in the world, practice may be patchy, while outcomes will probably only be noticeable after a protracted period (especially if, as we suspect, the only way to test the success of the Concordat is against proxies where other factors are also influential).

Strategies survey

Get involved

The main vehicle by which we will examine changes in practice in UK higher education institutions (HEI) is through a survey of their activities to implement the Concordat and their wider policies towards research staff.

To this end we plan to involve representatives of those who will be asked to complete or to run the survey, in its design. During the spring we will invite PIs, staff development professionals and representatives of senior management in institutions to work with us to design a question set. This will ensure that the PIRLS is useful not only to those of us benchmarking the Concordat but also to the institutions and research leaders who will be asked to run and to complete it.

In January I wrote to Vice-Chancellors and Principals in every HEI to invite them to complete the HEI Strategies survey. The survey will provide the first comprehensive study of the sector’s approach to the development of research staff. The deadline for responses was in early April and I will produce a report to launch at the Vitae researcher development conference in September 2010.

Understanding PIs As I explained in ‘overview 7’, the real power to make a difference to researchers’ careers lies with the researchers themselves and with you, their PIs. However, the sector has only a very patchy understanding of how you view your role overseeing research staff, or indeed knowledge of PIs generally. Fortunately, we are determined to remedy that situation. In January the CROS Steering Group agreed to re-run the Research Leaders Survey. The original RLS was piloted in 2005/6 by 15 institutions. The new survey (renamed the Principal Investigators and Research Leaders Survey – PIRLS) will be available for all institutions to offer to their research leaders, much in the way that CROS is available (under the same Bristol Online Survey licence). It will take some time to prepare, however, not least because of our eagerness to ensure that those that will complete and use the survey have a chance to shape it. The plan is to run the PIRLS in parallel with CROS 2011. The key to making the PIRLS a success will be in ensuring that all participants have an interest in completing or running the survey. That means that the survey must not just inform national policy (and help me to measure the effect that the Concordat is having among PIs). It must also prove directly useful to the institutions that run it and the individuals who complete it.

The PIRLS is the first stage in a long project looking at PIs and your contribution to the career development of research staff. The survey will inform a report that we hope to launch at the Vitae researcher development conference in September 2011. But it will also inform a sub-project of qualitative work involving one-to-one and group discussions with research leaders throughout 2011 and 2012 that will seek to understand better ■ your views of research staff development ■ what assistance you need from your

employers to strengthen your contribution ■ what you think needs to change to help

bring this agenda forward. A third possible strand to the project looking at PIs will seek to look at you as a group and better understand you. I look forward to sharing the progress of these projects and others with you in the future.

The Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers The Concordat, launched in June 2008, is an agreement between the funders and employers of researchers in the UK. Sitting alongside a range of local, UK and European initiatives, this agreement represents a significant development in national policy to support good management of researchers and their careers. Through the implementation of its principles it aims to enhance the researcher workforce and thereby sustain research excellence bringing benefits to the health, economy and well-being of the UK. For more information visit www.vitae.ac.uk/concordat.

Page 9


overview for supervisors and principal investigators

A collective voice for research staff Dr David Proctor and Dr Liz Dodson Back in November, Vitae hosted a one-day national conference exploring some of the key issues faced by research staff in the current climate and explored how researchers can make their voice heard more effectively within institutions and by national policymakers. A report on the conference is available on www.vitae.ac.uk/publications. Following the conference, a Vitae research staff advisory group was formed. We decided at our first meeting in January 2010 that we could best provide a collective voice for researchers by forming the Research Staff Association of the UK (UKRSA), supported by Vitae, continuing and extending the work of the NRSA (National Research Staff Association). We communicate regularly online, and plan to meet again in July 2010.

Since January, we have made good progress towards our four aims: 1 Creating a sustainable research staff association We have an active committee that interacts online. In order to represent the diverse UK research community, we have sought representatives from each home nation, research discipline, and Vitae Hub.

As part of the online resource, we are developing a guide to setting up research staff associations. We plan to have this resource completed and online before the next research staff conference in November 2010.

Due to the high turnover of research staff, it is important that the committee establish mechanisms to preserve knowledge and make the committee less dependent upon individual members. Vitae’s support is vital in this and we have invited representatives from Vitae and partner organisations to participate on the committee as advisers.

Several members of the UKRSA committee have visited UK universities to share knowledge and contacts, discuss the benefits of having a local research staff association, and provide examples of the challenges and solutions for starting an association.

2 Establishing an online community for researchers There are a variety of online communities for researchers, including the Vitae research staff blog, Nature Network, and Graduate Junction. The UKRSA has no plans to compete with these resources by creating another online community. Instead, we would like to promote these communities, facilitate their use and connect them by linking to them from our website. The UKRSA website, hosted by Vitae, will signpost information on a variety of subjects, including career development, employment rights, and researcher mobility. Where relevant content on these subjects is already available online we will point researchers to this content.

Page 10

3 Support local research staff associations

4 Provide input on policy issues affecting researchers Through interactions with online communities, diverse representation on the UKRSA committee, and regular surveys of research staff across the UK, we hope to maintain an ongoing dialogue with UK research staff in order to provide a collective voice. We will gather information and report upon the opinions of the research staff community with regards to policy. We have begun to establish ties to organisations that develop and implement policy relating to UK research staff. The UKRSA is represented on the RCUK Independent Review Panel evaluating implementation of Sir Gareth Roberts Review ‘SET for Success’, as well as the Impact and Evaluation group (formally the Rugby Team).


Research staff blog What are research staff talking about? The Vitae Research Staff blog supports a lively community of research staff who post thoughtful and thought-provoking posts on a variety of topics. Take a look at this lively forum and follow up on some of these posts….

The “Ninety Per Cent” factor: Part 2. In search of Plan B By Andy Humphrey

About the UKRSA The UKRSA has four aims

OK, so what about the 90% of us who, according to my RSC careers advisor, are never going to find an academic post? Assuming we give our research careers the best possible chance, there’s still a high risk that sooner or later the funding will run out.

1. Creating a sustainable research staff association 2. Establishing an online community for researchers 3. Support local research staff associations 4. Provide input on policy issues affecting researchers The association has two co-chairs Dr Liz Dodson (a Chartered Psychologist from Loughborough University) and Dr David Proctor (see above.)

Get involved Still in its infancy, the UKRSA cannot exist independently of the research communities it aims to represent. If any of your research staff would like to get involved, please ask them to contact ukrsavitae@googlemail.com twitter.com/Vitae_news

The new budget...what will it mean for researchers? By Sarah Davies Just a quick post to note that, even from across the pond, it's obvious that the coalition government have now announced their new budget http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/24/george-osborne-6-25bn-spendi ng-cuts. While it’s clear that university places for students will fall from what was expected http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/may/24/ten-thousandfewer-university-places, I can’t find too much discussion of what the new financial regime will mean for research funding – even the THES focuses on the teaching budget http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode =26&storycode=411703&c=1 .

Is There Any Cure for Researcher Apathy? By Elizabeth Dodson Earlier this week, I attended an over-subscribed Vitae Broadening Horizons day. Being oversubscribed suggested that this was an idea that really engaged members of the research staff community. I was therefore saddened to find that only 50% of those who had been offered a place actually bothered to turn up.

Page 11


overview for supervisors and principal investigators

Having a career development discussion with researchers The results of recent CROS surveys show that many researchers will initially approach their PI or Supervisor for careers support, whether they intend to stay in academia or seek a career elsewhere. PIs and Supervisors do, of course, conduct appraisal and other progress review discussions at which career plans and progress can be discussed. However, the Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers has brought into sharper focus the career development needs of researchers and the role that their managers play in this. In this article Clare Jones and Josie Grindulis share their professional expertise and offer some practical tips.

That knock on the door….. Career discussions can, of course, occur as part of a planned progress discussion but they can also be initiated by a knock on the door and a request that begins with either ‘I’ve been thinking seriously about my career options’ or ‘I don’t think academia is for me anymore and ...’ The situations you, as PIs and Supervisors, encounter will be many and varied. These conversations obviously require time and effort – and on a practical level, how do you find the time to speak to a postgraduate researcher or a member of research staff about their career development within a busy working day? As Careers Advisers we have the luxury of planned appointment times, access to resources for our clients and some sense that our day to day contact with all types of career issues may offer background knowledge and expertise to fall back on. We also use guidance practice models to manage our work with clients. One of these is the Ali-Graham model1 and the practical tips and approaches to the range of researcher career issues you may encounter that follow are based on this.

Clare Jones is Careers Adviser, Early Career Researchers, University of Nottingham and a member of the Impact and evaluation group. Josie Grindulis is Career Development Manager – Research Staff, Cardiff University. Both are members of the (Association of Graduate Careers Advisors) AGCAS Postgraduate task group.

Lynda Ali and Barbara Graham The Counselling Approach to Careers Guidance. Routledge

1

Page 12

The careers discussion – top Getting off to a good start The unexpected knock on the door may be an unplanned meeting for you but the researcher may have been ‘planning’ this for sometime especially if they feel that the discussion could be potentially difficult. ■ Rather than holding a brief and

potentially unsatisfactory meeting, agree a more convenient time. If you continue, agree what time you have available and clarify the opportunities there may be for follow up discussions ■ If you are presented with a lengthy list of career issues ask them to prioritise what is most urgent or important to them to cover initially. If you don’t do this they may assume that you have the time to discuss everything on the list ■ Be aware that a seemingly

straightforward request, ‘I’d value some feedback on my CV’, may hide a deeper concern, such as ‘I don’t think my academic career is progressing well’.


tips Getting to the heart of the issues Researchers may begin to discuss one issue, but could be hiding what they really want to talk about. ■ Use exploratory and open questions

to clarify what the researcher wants at the start of the discussion. This avoids being surprised by the researcher asking about their career prospects just as you think the discussion is ending ■ If this happens, and it does to even the most experienced guidance practitioners, acknowledge the concern but it may be better to arrange another time for this discussion ■ Encourage your researcher to explain the background to their issues in full, avoid interrupting them or challenging their comments, views or observations at this stage even if you profoundly disagree with them. Expressing your views at too early a stage may push the discussion in a direction it was never intended to go.

Keeping it professional

Academic careers...

Remaining impartial is important especially at the start of the discussion.

You will probably be more comfortable when offering advice and insights into academic career planning especially as you can use their own experience to draw upon.

■ Discuss why someone may feel that

their research career is not progressing well; perhaps challenge them if their ambitions are unrealistic ■ Encourage the individual to explore the issues they have raised, but challenge any inconsistencies whilst still maintaining that all important impartiality.

■ This does have some potential danger,

in the careers world it is known as self-disclosure and Careers Advisers are advised to use it sparingly ■ It may be better to offer advice in a more generic format by suggesting good practice that a lot of academics may adopt rather than using your own personal approaches.

You won’t have all the answers You may feel under pressure during a career development discussion to know all the answers and provide solutions. ■ The Concordat is helpful here in that it

clearly states that researchers themselves should take responsibility for their own career development. Your role therefore is to assist them in this but not to have all the answers ■ Referral to useful resources and people is a key element of careers practice and it may be useful for you to know abut some of these resources too.

...and beyond When dealing with enquiries concerning career options outside academia you may feel that this is not an area you can discuss as your own career may have been spent predominantly in academia. ■ Being able to refer a researcher to

resources, people or other support services may be the most appropriate and practical option you can offer in this situation.

Useful resources For PGRS

Vitae

And don’t forget….

■ University careers services will offer

■ As readers of overview you will already

■ Staff development units and/or graduate

support to all registered students, some may have specialist advisers for postgraduate students.

For research staff ■ Research staff entitlements to support

will vary and it may be useful to know what level of support is available at your institution.

be aware of the careers resources available but we would particularly recommend the What Do Researchers Do? publications www.vitae.ac.uk/wdrd and the Career Stories www.vitae.ac.uk/careerstories

schools training programmes ■ University counselling service ■ Prospects.ac.uk – the occupational

profiles information is useful for initial careers research ■ AGCAS booklets – available from the careers services.

Page 13


overview for supervisors and principal investigators

Vitae update The new Researcher development framework – next steps As reported in ‘overview 7’, the Researcher development framework (RDF) was created during 2009 in response to a range of recommendations to create a UK development framework for postgraduate researchers and research staff in higher education institutions. A major consultation with the HE sector, researchers and other stakeholders took place during autumn 2009.

What is the RDF? ■ The RDF was designed to be

a tool for planning, promoting and supporting the personal, professional and career development of researchers. It describes the knowledge, skills, behaviours and personal qualities of researchers and encourages researchers to aspire to excellence through achieving higher levels of development.

Consultation results Vitae received over 240 responses to the consultation from 65 universities, key organisations and 75 individual researchers. Organisational responses included the Association of Graduate Careers and Advisory Services, the British Council, the European Commission, the Higher Education Academy, the Institute of Physics, the National Union of Students, the 1994 group, the UK Council for Graduate Education and the Universities and College Union. ■ Between 60% to 80% of respondents to all the consultation questions agreed or mostly agreed

that the RDF's proposed purpose, scope and structure were useful. ■ There was strong support that the RDF will be useful for supporting the professional

development of researchers. ■ The RDF was thought to have wide relevance and applicability, and the empirical basis was

particularly valuable in providing a credible, robust framework. ■ Those that responded were pleased that a postgraduate researcher could see the full

trajectory of skills and attributes needed to further their development and that research staff could identify areas for development, compare their capabilities with others and aspire to higher levels. There were also a range of concerns highlighted in the responses, including ■ how the RDF was perceived in relation to policy initiatives including the QAA code of practice, Concordat implementation, Research Council training requirements and other existing frameworks and subsequent expectations of HEI provision ■ the RDF could be perceived as raising expectations about the likelihood of progression within higher education and requests to make more explicit the transferability of skills and experiences outside HE. Given the quantity and richness of the feedback the RDF Advisory Group and project team have agreed a series of next steps. (See box right) For more information, please visit the RDF section of the Vitae website at www.vitae.ac.uk/rdf.

■ The RDF aims to become the

underpinning framework for researcher development in UK institutions. It will replace the Joint Skills Statement, which was agreed with the Research Councils in 2001 as the expectation of skills a doctoral researcher should have, and will be extended to include research staff.

At the Vitae conference 2009 participants initiated the wider consultation that took place in autumn 2009.

Page 14


Next steps In response to the feedback, the RDF Advisory Group and project team have agreed the following next steps, which build on the significant input to the consultation.

During June, we will: ■ publish Researcher development statement (RDS) which includes the domains and

sub-domain descriptors. This is proposed to replace the Joint Skills Statement and to enable HEIs and funders to consider their strategic plans for supporting researchers.

During July, we will: ■ publish a revised Researcher development framework taking into account further

input from employers and professional bodies and the detailed consultation feedback ■ publish a statement of expectation from RCUK and specific statements from a range

of key stakeholder organisations ■ provide a range of examples illustrating how researchers could use the framework.

In September, we will: ■ publish and seek feedback on the findings of a proposal for how Vitae will support

HEIs with incorporating the RDF into their CPD provision ■ publish and seek feedback on the appropriateness of developing an interactive UK

CPD tool for researchers ■ provide conceptual examples of ‘lenses' on the RDF that focus on specific

researcher activities, eg public engagement, teaching, intrapreneurship.

Vitae innovate 2010 – £100,000 fund open for bids Vitae innovate invites bids for funding of innovative projects to promote the personal, professional and career development of researchers with funding of up to a total of £100,000 to be allocated to successful bids.

At the end of the reflection period in November, we will:

Crucial dates

■ review any further feedback received during the ‘reflection period' and finalise the

■ invitation of bids opened 6 April 2010,

framework ■ report on HEIs’ initial responses and activities related to the RDF ■ confirm timescales and scope for resources for stakeholder groups, including potentially a UK CPD tool for researchers.

including announcement of the selection panel, assessment criteria and bidding process ■ deadline for responses to call 30 June 2010 ■ meeting of selection panel w/c 19 July 2010 ■ public announcement and start of funded projects September 2010.

During the reflection phase the Researcher development statement will be available for institutions to review their provision and consider how to embed the framework into local structures and practice. There will be opportunity also for further reflection and comment through the website on the full RDF as institutions explore how it inter-relates with institutional provision. The RDF will not be promoted directly to researchers in 2010 until an online CPD tool and associated resources are developed.

For further information, updates and news on projects which won funding last year, go to www.vitae.ac.uk/innovate.

Page 15


overview for supervisors and principal investigators

Vitae resources and publications Recruiting researchers – a survey of employer practice ‘Those who are actively engaged in recruiting doctoral graduates have many practices in place to increase the likelihood of attracting and retaining the best.’ ‘We must ensure that there is awareness on all sides of the very real commercial benefits which can be gained by the UK economy from employing an extraordinarily talented and diverse group of people.’ David Cairncross, Secretary, CBI Inter-Company Academic Relations Group (ICARG)

Employers are keen to recruit researchers both for their technical skills and for their ‘first class brains’, according to responses to a new study into the experiences and attitudes of employers towards doctoral graduates. Over 100 employers representing a diverse mix of sectors, organisation size and orientation towards doctoral graduates were surveyed. Three quarters of the respondents have some interest in recruiting doctoral graduates and would welcome more applications from them. Four groups of employers emerged from the analysis of responses. The groups describe organisations’ orientation to doctoral graduates from those who actively target doctoral graduates to those with no current engagement with this group.

Key findings Skills

‘Over one-third of the employers surveyed are already actively targeting doctoral graduates and their approaches will be interesting for other employers who want to increase their recruitment of doctoral researchers,’ said Dr Janet Metcalfe, Chair and Head of Vitae.

Typically employers rank doctoral graduates’ skills in the following order

Employers who are recruiting doctoral graduates typically have a specific recruitment process as well as offering placement, internship schemes and enhanced salary. These employers are also more likely to develop closer links with universities.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Employers ranked doctoral graduates’ competence highest in data analysis and problem solving. Next came their drive and motivation, project management and interpersonal skills. Leadership and commercial awareness were ranked lowest relative to the others. A seminar later in the year will showcase employer practice in recruiting doctoral researchers.

data analysis problem solving drive and motivation project managing interpersonal skills leadership commercial awareness

Salaries

Employers who participated in the survey include: Accenture Arcadia Group Limited AstraZenica Audit Commission AXA UK Bank of England BP British Sugar Plc Corus Credit Suisse Egbert H Taylor & Company Ltd Ely Lilly

Page 16

EMB Consultancy LLP Enterprise Rent A Car Eversheds HM Forces/The Army: Jaguar Land Rover KPMG Leeds Building Society Logica Nelsons Solicitors LLP NHS Institute for

Innovation and Improvement North Somerset Council Office Depot Ordnance Survey Oxford PharmaGenesis Pfizer Procter & Gamble Procter & Gamble Technical Centres Limited QinetiQ

Rolls-Royce PLC The National Physical Laboratory The Shephard Group The Work Foundation UBS Investment Bank Unilever Wigan Council

The main sectors which offered an enhanced salary and the average starting salary offered: ■ Banking and finance: £50,500 ■ Energy and utilities: £36,250 ■ Science and pharmaceutical:

£30,000 ■ Engineering: £26,200 The premium offered to doctoral graduates is different depending on the company, sector and job position. However, an average premium offered by the participants is £3,100 above their average graduate recruitment salary.


Masterclassses Following the success of last year's masterclass series, in 2010 Vitae is offering a programme of five masterclasses focusing on specific areas of training and development within the higher education environment. These classes are aimed at staff supporting researchers who are looking to innovate and develop their training provision. Each masterclass will be led by an expert in the particular topic area and who has experience within the higher education environment. The remaining classes in the series will cover the following topics: ■ Neuro linguistic programming (NLP) in researcher development programmes (Thursday 29 July, London) led by Dr Caron King ■ Demonstrating impact: evaluation (Tuesday 21 September, London) led by Dr Tony Bromley and Paul Kearns ■ Coaching and mentoring (Tuesday 19 October, Newcastle) led by Dr Jeremy Mead, an additional speaker tbc. Masterclasses already run: ■ Training needs analysis and PDP ■ Creativity. Places are limited to 15 participants on each course, so please book as soon as possible! www.vitae.ac.uk/masterclasses.

The digital researcher Do you know how to microblog? How to set up an RSS feed? Do you use social citation? A group of postgraduate researchers and research staff learned how at a one-day course run by Vitae and the British Library. The Digital Researcher was held to help develop the skills needed for research in an increasingly digital world and gave a range of ideas for managing information. The 80 plus researchers threw themselves into the day and took to twittering and blogging with ease. Interestingly, many of them continued to exchange ideas after the workshop, with a great deal of online networking and information sharing has gone on – if you’d like to join in follow #DR on Twitter. And below are just some of the tips the researchers were given – could be useful for you too...

Googlereader

Citation tools

http://www.google.com/reader

Zotero

Use this to bring together all your RSS feeds into one place – you need to create a Google account.

http://www.zotero.org Allows you to collect, manage, cite, and share research sources. You can also search for other researchers in your field.

Organising all your other stuff! i-google www.google.co.uk/ig You can add all sorts of widgets to this page (including google reader, calendar, Twitter etc etc) so you have everything in one place. You need to have a Goggle account to activate.

Twitter tips Even if you are not a fan, can be a useful way of picking up good links to information. Twitter in plain English http://www.commoncraft.com/Twitter Top reasons to use Twitter http://online-social-networking.com/topreasons-for-using-twitter.

Twitterfall http://twitterfall.com/ A way of following various Twitter feeds without having to update regularly – just search in the left hand box.

Citeulike http://www.citeulike.org/ Citeulike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references easily store references, automated article recommendations, share references with peers, find out who’s reading what you’re reading, store and search PDFs.

Blogs Posterous http://posterous.com/ Very simple blogging tool which is apparently very easy to set up for anyone new to the concept.

Wordle http://www.wordle.net Ever wondered how they create wordclouds on webpages and blogs – here’s how! (Warning – seriously addictive!)

Tiny url http://tinyurl.com As Twitter only allows 140 characters and web links are longer, you can use tiny url to convert a long link into a short one.

Page 17


overview for supervisors and principal investigators

Careers in academia Many postgraduate researchers are interested in having a career in academia after their PhD. To give them a taste of what is involved (and a reality check!) Vitae has developed a one day course ‘Careers in academia’ which is now freely available for HEIs to use. (The course has been running nationally since 2005.)

European round-up Research careers in Europe – landscapes and horizons

The course covers: ■ what life as an academic is really like ■ what is involved ■ what skills and strengths it will take to succeed.

Video presentations available online complement a manual which contains all the information need to run the course. For further information see www.vitae.ac.uk/resources and click on Vitae programmes. The next national Careers in academia programme will be held in Bristol on September 23.

Advancing in academia For research staff keen to move on in their academic career, this one day workshop held in March aimed to address how to succeed. Drawing on their own careers, speakers gave practical advice and insights and participants were able to discuss the balance required between skills, achievements and building a professional profile. The next national Advancing in academia programme will be held in Bristol on September 22. If you would like to speak at an Advancing in academia event, please contact Jon Roberts. Jonathan.roberts@vitae.ac.uk.

Leadership in action Following last year’s successful pilot course, Leadership in action allows postgraduate researchers and research staff to explore the concept of leadership and develop their own skills. This free course was based in Bournemouth and ran from June 8-11. www.vitae.ac.uk/leadership. ‘Overall, this has been the best course I have attended during my postgraduate study. I would equally recommend it to anyone looking to take their first steps in leadership, and to experienced leaders looking to expand their perspectives!’ Owen Jackson, University of Leeds, Leadership in action 2009 participant

‘It was hard work, tiring, but the course as a whole raised almost £1000 in just 48 hours! In the challenge we practised what we were learning in a completely unstructured way, and is why the course is not merely excellent but superlative.’ James Beattie, Leadership in action 2009 participant

Participants, Leadership in action 2009

Page 18

This report by the European Science Foundation Member Organisation Forum on research careers focuses on three key challenges that have been addressed through specific working groups: ■ research career structure and development ■ gender issues ■ transferable skills. The report provides an insight into the state of policy in Europe through the work carried out by these individual working groups and issues a set of conclusions and related recommendations. www.esf.org/activities/mofora/research-careers.html.

European Higher Education Area: Celebrating 10 years of UK engagement The Europe Unit’s campaign to celebrate 10 years of the Bologna Process was launched by Universities UK President Professor Steve Smith at the Guardian Higher Education Summit in London in March. The campaign ‘The European Higher Education Area: Celebrating 10 years of UK engagement’ includes a publication and website which aim to explain, to celebrate, and to facilitate further engagement in Bologna Process from 2010-2020 in the UK. http://ehea.europeunit.ac.uk/home.


Diary Below are events which may be of interest to you and your researchers over the next few months. For a comprehensive listing go to www.vitae.ac.uk/events.

‘The UK is a major research player in Europe…’ So said Professor Steve Smith, Universities UK President and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Exeter, on the launch of a position paper on the future direction of European research. The UK’s position concentrates on key issues identified by the UK HE sector as crucial for the future development of EU research activity, including research excellence and capacity, sustainability of European research funding, and researcher mobility. The position has been developed at a time of major change in European research policy. The European Commission is currently reviewing its research activity and priorities for research funding, with a view to developing a coherent European strategy. The position paper has been translated into four other European languages, French, German, Polish and Spanish and is available on the www.europeunit.ac.uk/home.

Prepare for the future: invest now in doctoral education The League of European Research Universities has released a statement outlining the need to invest in doctoral education. The statement argues that doctoral education is vital in bringing about a European knowledge economy, and asks what a doctorate in the 21st century should look like. www.leru.org/?bmlkPTQ3.

June

September

June 8-11 Leadership in action

September 2 Vitae SNI Hub Part time researchers conference

June 10 Vitae SWW Hub Focus on marketing tips and techniques for staff supporting researchers June 25 Vitae NW Hub/UKRC Generating change: shaping your position as an academic woman in SET

September 6-7 Vitae researcher development conference 2010 September 21 Staff supporting researchers masterclass – evaluation

June 28-29 NW Hub Broadening horizons career management for research staff

September 22 Advancing in academia for research staff, Bristol

July

September 23 Careers in academia for postgraduate researchers, Bristol

July 5 Vitae Midlands Hub regional poster competition

October

July 6 Vitae NW Hub/Manchester Beacon The engaging researcher

October 19 Staff supporting researchers masterclass – coaching and mentoring

July 6 Vitae SWW Hub/Beacon for Wales Exploring the what, why and how of public engagement

October 19-22 National GRADschool

July 8-9 GRADschool manager/administrator training

November 4 Vitae research staff conference

July 29 Staff supporting researchers masterclass – NLP in researcher development programmes

November 16-19 National GRADschool

November

August August 17-20 South West Universities GRADschool

Page 19


● ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Keep in touch Vitae has a central team and a network of eight Regional Hubs. Each Hub has a Hub Co-ordinator and a Hub Manager and is hosted by a university in the Region. If you would like to be on the mailing list of the Vitae programme or your local Hub, to receive Regional newsletters, email alerts and details of local events, contact:

Vitae central team London Midlands Scotland and Northern Ireland North West South West and Wales Yorkshire and North East East of England South East

Vitae central team Vitae, c/o CRAC, Sheraton House, 2nd Floor, Castle Park, Cambridge CB3 0AX Tel: 01223 460 277 Information requests: enquiries@vitae.ac.uk Publications information and orders: orders@vitae.ac.uk For who’s who in Vitae, visit www.vitae.ac.uk/contacts

London Hub

Midlands Hub

Dr Fiona Denney (Co-ordinator) Kay Dorelli and Dr Rachel Blanc (Hub Managers)

Rachel Davis (Co-ordinator) Vicky Crawford (Temporary Hub Manager)

The Graduate School Room WBW 5.5 King’s College London 150 Stamford Street London SE1 9NN

Student Careers and Skills University House University of Warwick Coventry CV4 8UW

Tel: 020 7848 4321 Email: londonhub@vitae.ac.uk Web: www.vitae.ac.uk/londonhub

South West and Wales Hub

Tel: 024 765 74729 Email: midlandshub@vitae.ac.uk Web: www.vitae.ac.uk/midlandshub

Scotland and Northern Ireland Hub

North West Hub

Dr Jon Turner (Co-ordinator) Dr Amy Cartwright (Hub Manager)

Dr Judy Williams Dr Emma Gillaspy (Hub Manager)

Old Faculty Office The King’s Buildings West Mains Road Edinburgh EH9 3JY

Faculty of Medical and Human Science University of Manchester Room 3.44B Simon Building Brunswick Street Manchester M13 9PL

Tel: 0131 650 7002 Email: sandnihub@vitae.ac.uk Web: www.vitae.ac.uk/snihub

Yorkshire and North East Hub

East of England Hub

Tel: 01612 751375 Email: nwhub@vitae.ac.uk Web: www.vitae.ac.uk/nwhub Follow us on Twitter: vitaenwhub Read our blog: vitaenwhub.posterous.com

South East Hub

Terri Delahunty (Co-ordinator) Anne Goodman (Hub Manager)

Dr Tony Bromley (Co-ordinator) Dr Vicky Willet (Hub Manager)

Dr Rodney Day (Co-ordinator) Joanne Warner (Hub Manager)

Gill Johnston (Co-ordinator) Dr Ross English (Hub Manager)

Graduate Schools Office Cardiff University 60 Park Place Cardiff CF10 3AU

1.35a Graduate Training Support Centre Staff Departmental Development Unit Parkinson Building University of Leeds Leeds West Yorkshire LS2 9JT

University of Hertfordshire College Lane Hatfield Hertfordshire AL10 9AB

University of Sussex Teaching and Learning Unit Essex House Brighton BN1 9QQ

Tel: 01707 289349 Email: eehub@vitae.ac.uk Web: www.vitae.ac.uk/eehub

Tel: 01273 877920 Email: sehub@vitae.ac.uk Web: www.vitae.ac.uk/sehub Follow us on Twitter: Vitae_SE_Hub

Tel: 029 2087 9179 Email: swwhub@vitae.ac.uk Web: www.vitae.ac.uk/swwhub Follow us on Twitter: @VitaeSWWHub

Tel: 0113 343 6659 Email: yorksandnehub@vitae.ac.uk Web: www.vitae.ac.uk/ynehub

Contact details

Advisory board:

Editor: Anne Goodman

Dr Odette Dewhurst, Dr Alison Leggett, Maija Sirola.

Overview, Vitae, c/o CRAC, Sheraton House, Castle Park, Cambridge CB3 0AX Tel: 01223 460 277 overview@vitae.ac.uk

The advisory board provides input to the editor of ‘overview’ about the content and style of the publication. The group communicates virtually so membership does not require attendance at meetings. If you are interested in joining the advisory board, please contact overview@vitae.ac.uk.

Vitae is supported and funded by the Research Councils UK (RCUK) and managed by The Career Development Organisation (CRAC) and delivered in partnership with regional Hub host universities.

Vitae®, © 2010 Careers Research and Advisory Centre (CRAC) Limited


Research and Enterprise

UKRIO Code of Practice for Research


AI C S I FE LL AI RA T AF LIT T EN N T Y N O ET IN -O E Y Y C IN IO Y G P TY H CO E G N H H O A E E AC O N RA X N O O AN NE D T CE ES PE NE D C EX O S SK IO L TY R S CE UN TY IL N LE T AT TY GR LL TA CO LS A NC RA IO IT EN BI -O SA CCO E H IN N ND Y CE LIT P FE U O IN CO I Y ER TY N N G AC SKIL -O NTE TR AT EX TAB EST NE CO LS PER GR AIN ION CE ILI Y ST UN SA A ITY IN IN LL TY BI Y T FE TI S G T EN LI SA A T ON A A EG CE TY F BI Y GR T ET LI EX A FET ND RIT IT RA Y I TY CE CCO Y H SK Y SK Y C IN NT TR LL U O ILL N N E A S I I E O N L E N T NT LS -O G GR IN C A ST AB EX P A IT ING E H BI Y LI GR IL C ER ND Y O IT ITY ELL AT SK CO AN NE TY SK Y C S EN IO IL -O D S ST B IL O A C N LS PE K Y

CODE OF PRACTICE FOR RESEARCH Promoting good practice and preventing misconduct September 2009

UK Research Integrity Office


Recommended checklist for researchers The Checklist lists the key points of good practice in research for a research project and is applicable to all subject areas. More detailed guidance can be found in section 3. A PDF version is available from www.ukrio.org

Before conducting your research, and bearing in mind that, subject to legal and ethical requirements, roles and contributions may change during the time span of the research: 1

Does the proposed research address pertinent question(s) and is it designed either to add to existing knowledge about the subject in question or to develop methods for research into it?

2

Is your research design appropriate for the question(s) being asked?

3

Will you have access to all necessary skills and resources to conduct the research?

4

Have you conducted a risk assessment to determine: a whether there are any ethical issues and whether ethics review is required; b the potential for risks to the organisation, the research, or the health, safety and well-being of researchers and research participants; and c what legal requirements govern the research?

5

Will your research comply with all legal and ethical requirements and other applicable guidelines, including those from other organisations and/or countries if relevant?

6

Will your research comply with all requirements of legislation and good practice relating to health and safety?

7

Has your research undergone any necessary ethics review (see 4(a) above), especially if it involves animals, human participants, human material or personal data?

8

Will your research comply with any monitoring and audit requirements?

9

Are you in compliance with any contracts and financial guidelines relating to the project?

10

Have you reached an agreement relating to intellectual property, publication and authorship?

11

Have you reached an agreement relating to collaborative working, if applicable?

12

Have you agreed the roles of researchers and responsibilities for management and supervision?

13

Have all conflicts of interest relating to your research been identified, declared and addressed?

14

Are you aware of the guidance from all applicable organisations on misconduct in research? When conducting your research:

1

Are you following the agreed research design for the project?

2

Have any changes to the agreed research design been reviewed and approved if applicable?

3

Are you following best practice for the collection, storage and management of data?

4

Are agreed roles and responsibilities for management and supervision being fulfilled?

5

Is your research complying with any monitoring and audit requirements? When finishing your research:

1

Will your research and its findings be reported accurately, honestly and within a reasonable time frame?

2

Will all contributions to the research be acknowledged?

3

Are agreements relating to intellectual property, publication and authorship being complied with?

4

Will research data be retained in a secure and accessible form and for the required duration?

5

Will your research comply with all legal, ethical and contractual requirements?


CODE OF PRACTICE FOR RESEARCH Promoting good practice and preventing misconduct September 2009

UK Research Integrity Office

UKRIO


Š UK Research Integrity Office 2009 The copyright for this publication is held by the UK Research Integrity Office. The material may be copied or reproduced provided that the source is acknowledged and the material, wholly or in part, is not used for commercial gain. Use of the material for commercial gain requires the prior written permission of the UK Research Integrity Office. This publication can be downloaded in pdf format from the UK Research Integrity Office website www.ukrio.org and readers and users of the Code of Practice are recommended to check there for updates. UKRIO’s funders and partners: UKRIO has the support of a number of UK organisations with interests in research, including the four UK Departments of Health, the four UK Higher Education Funding Councils, the Academy of Medical Sciences, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, the Association of UK University Hospitals, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, the Committee on Publication Ethics, the General Medical Council, the Medical Research Council, the Medical Schools Council, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, Research Councils UK, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, the Royal Society, Universities UK and research charities including the Wellcome Trust. UKRIO is hosted by Universities UK. Universities UK Registered Office: Woburn House, 20 Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9HQ Switchboard tel + 44 (0)20 7419 4111 direct fax +44 (0)20 7388 6256 Web www.UniversitiesUK.ac.uk Email info@UniversitiesUK.ac.uk Registered Company No. 2517018 Registered Charity No. 1001127 Text design by John Aldridge and Geoffrey Wadsley Cover design by John Aldridge Produced by Aldridge Press, Chiswick, London enquiries@aldridgepress.co.uk Printed by MWL Print Group, Pontypool, Wales

2


Contents Recommended checklist for researchers 1

inside front cover

Introduction

4

1.12 Footnote to the first edition

6

2

Principles

7

3

Standards for organisations and researchers

9

3.1

General guidance on good practice in research

9

3.2

Leadership and supervision

10

3.3

Training and mentoring

10

3.3

Research design

11

3.5

Collaborative working

12

3.6

Conflicts of interest

12

3.7

Research involving human participants, human material or personal data

13

3.8

Research involving animals

15

3.9

Health and safety

15

3.10 Intellectual property

16

3.11 Finance

16

3.12 Collection and retention of data

16

3.13 Monitoring and audit

17

3.14 Peer review

18

3.15 Publication and authorship

18

3.16 Misconduct in research

19

Appendix: Acknowledgements and bibiography

21

3


1

Introduction 1.1

The UK Research Integrity Office’s Code of Practice for Research has been designed to encourage good conduct in research and help prevent misconduct, in order to assist organisations and researchers to conduct research of the highest quality. It provides general principles and standards for good practice in research, applicable to both individual researchers and to organisations that carry out, fund, host or are otherwise involved in research.

1.2

The Code is applicable to all subject areas and does not attempt to micro-manage research. Recognising that many forms of guidance already exist, the intention is that research organisations may use the principles and standards outlined in this Code as benchmarks when drafting or revising their own, more detailed, codes of practice. No single publication can expect to cover the nuances of all types of research in all disciplines; therefore, the Code should not be seen as prescriptive but as a set of guiding principles and standards to inform the management and conduct of research.

1.3

The Code covers areas of good practice in research typically included in organisational policies for the conduct of research, drawing upon existing good practice and the experiences of the UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO) in addressing good conduct and misconduct in research. Detailed guidance is given on core standards for good practice in research but particular attention has been paid to areas where UKRIO has most often been approached for guidance, in the hope of passing on lessons learned to the research community.

1.4

The Code complements existing and forthcoming guidance on research conduct, such as that provided by Research Councils UK, the Wellcome Trust or the Council for Science and Technology. Similarly, the Code complements organisational policies, such as those for health and safety, raising concerns at work, or management of finances or of intellectual property, and does not seek to replace them. Use of the benchmarks contained in this Code can assist research organisations in fulfilling the requirements of regulatory, funding and other relevant bodies, and ensure that important issues have not been overlooked.

1.5

UKRIO recognises that there are many organisations which issue guidance on the conduct of research to the UK research community. For some time, UKRIO has been working with organisations such as Research Councils UK and the Department of Health, with a view ultimately to streamline guidance on good practice in research, to ensure clarity for the research community and avoid duplication of effort.

1.6

The Code is organised in the following Sections: a) Section 2 contains broad Principles which define the responsibilities and values in the conduct of research by both researchers and research organisations. b) A one-page Recommended Checklist for Researchers can be found on the inside of the front cover. This is a non-technical checklist summarising the key points of good practice in research and is applicable to all subject areas. The Checklist is based on the more detailed Standards given in section 3.

4


c) Section 3 lists Standards for good practice in research that researchers and research organisations should comply with. The Standards apply to all disciplines of research but organisations may wish to expand upon them by offering more detailed guidance for certain subject areas or types of research. 1.7

The Code does not stipulate how to put the promotion and support of good research practice into operation as it is quite rightly left up to organisations and researchers to determine the best way to do so in their particular research environment. It should be noted, however, that only through the endorsement and support of good practice in research at the highest level and implementation through education, training and supervision, can researchers become aware of their individual responsibilities and the collective responsibility they have to their research organisation and the wider research community.

1.8

Note that, for the purposes of this Code, “research” refers to the definition used by the Research Assessment Exercise (Research Assessment Exercise 2008, p. 34): a) “‘Research’… is to be understood as original investigation undertaken in order to gain knowledge and understanding. It includes work of direct relevance to the needs of commerce, industry, and to the public and voluntary sectors; scholarship*; the invention and generation of ideas, images, performances, artefacts including design, where these lead to new or substantially improved insights; and the use of existing knowledge in experimental development to produce new or substantially improved materials, devices, products and processes, including design and construction. It excludes routine testing and routine analysis of materials, components and processes such as for the maintenance of national standards, as distinct from the development of new analytical techniques. It also excludes the development of teaching materials that do not embody original research.” b) “* Scholarship… is defined as the creation, development and maintenance of the intellectual infrastructure of subjects and disciplines, in forms such as dictionaries, scholarly editions, catalogues and contributions to major research databases.”

1.9

Similarly, for the purposes of this Code, “organisations” refers to any bodies which: conduct, host, sponsor or fund research; employ, support or host researchers; teach research students; or allow research to be carried out under their auspices. “Researchers” refers to any person who conducts research, including but not limited to: as an employee; an independent contractor or consultant; a research student; a visiting or emeritus member of staff; or a member of staff on a joint clinical or honorary contract.

1.10

Some organisations may wish the Code to apply to undergraduate students; if so, this should be made clear in institutional policies and organisations should consider what particular education, training, supervision and support they should provide to student researchers. They should make it clear to student researchers that their research must comply with the organisation’s policies and procedures for the conduct of research.

1.11

Sources used in the development of the Code are acknowledged in the appendix. UKRIO would also like to thank the individuals and institutions who responded to the public consultation on a draft version of the publication in 2009 for their contributions to the Code.

5


1.12

Footnote to the edition Footnote to first the first edition

a)

It is the intention of UKRIO that the Code will be reviewed regularly, initially on an annual basis. UKRIO welcomes feedback from organisations and researchers on the current edition, to inform the review.

b)

To that end, the Code will be published as an online document on the UKRIO website (www.UKRIO.org), as well as hard copy and PDF versions. This online Code will include a mechanism for the research community to submit feedback on specific sections and suggest new developments in good practice in research for inclusion.

c)

Organisations and researchers are recommended to check the UKRIO website for the annual updates to the Code. The website also provides information on how to contact UKRIO to gain access to independent, confidential and expert advice and guidance on any issues relating to good practice and misconduct in research.

6


2

Principles 2.0.1

Organisations and researchers should adhere to the following Principles, which set out the responsibilities and values relevant to research. While some elements may seem selfevident, and there is some overlap, these Principles aim to encourage all involved in research to consider the wider consequences of their work and to engage critically with the practical, ethical and intellectual challenges that are inherent in the conduct of high quality research, rather than treating codes of practice such as this as just another procedure to be followed.

2.0.2

Organisations and researchers should be guided by these Principles when implementing and complying with the core Standards described in section 3 and the Recommended Checklist for Researchers on the inside of the front cover.

2.1

EXCELLENCE: organisations and researchers should strive for excellence when conducting research and aim to produce and disseminate work of the highest quality. This Code, its Principles and its Standards are intended to support these goals.

2.2

HONESTY: organisations should work to create and maintain a culture of research that fosters and supports honesty in research. Researchers should be honest in relation to their own research and that of others. They should do their utmost to ensure the accuracy of data and results, acknowledge the contributions of others, and neither engage in misconduct nor conceal it.

2.3

INTEGRITY: organisations and researchers must comply with all legal and ethical requirements relevant to their field of study. They should declare any potential or actual conflicts of interest relating to research and where necessary take steps to resolve them.

2.4

CO-OPERATION: organisations and researchers should promote the open exchange of ideas, research methods, data and results and their discussion, scrutiny and debate, subject to any considerations of confidentiality.

2.5

ACCOUNTABILITY: organisations and researchers should recognise that in and through their work they are ultimately accountable to the general public and should act accordingly. They should ensure that any research undertaken complies with any agreements, terms and conditions relating to the project, and allows for proper governance and transparency. Researchers should follow the requirements and guidance of any professional bodies in their field of research. Researchers who are members of a regulated profession must follow the requirements and guidance of the body regulating their profession.

2.6

TRAINING AND SKILLS: organisations should provide training and opportunities for development for their researchers, and the necessary resources to enable them to conduct research to the required standards. They should support researchers in identifying unmet needs for training and development. Researchers should ensure that they have the necessary skills, training and resources to carry out research, in the proposed research team or through collaboration with specialists in relevant fields, and report and resolve any unmet needs identified.

7


2.7

8

SAFETY: organisations and researchers should ensure the dignity, rights, safety and wellbeing of all involved in research and avoid unreasonable risk or harm to research subjects, patients, participants, researchers and others. They should report and address any concerns relating to the dignity, rights, safety and well-being of those involved in research. Research should be initiated and continued only if the anticipated benefits justify the risks involved.


3

Standards for organisations and researchers 3.0.1

3.1

Organisations and researchers should comply with the following core Standards, which should be interpreted in light of the Principles in section 2. Each Standard adopts the order: a) organisations and researchers; b) organisations; and c) researchers.

General guidance on good practice in research

3.1.1

Organisations and researchers must comply with all legal and ethical requirements and other guidelines that apply to their research. This includes submitting research proposals for ethics review where appropriate and abiding by the outcome of that review. They should also ensure that research projects are approved by all applicable bodies, ethical, regulatory or otherwise.

3.1.2

When conducting, or collaborating in, research in other countries, organisations and researchers based in the UK should comply with the legal and ethical requirements existing in the UK and in the countries where the research is conducted. Similarly, organisations and researchers based abroad who participate in UK-hosted research projects should comply with the legal and ethical requirements existing in the UK as well as those of their own country.

3.1.3

Organisations and researchers should ensure that all research projects have sufficient arrangements for insurance and indemnity prior to the research being conducted.

3.1.4

Organisations should: a) ensure that good practice in research forms an integral part of their research strategy or policy; b) establish clear policies and procedures that cover the Principles of good practice in research (see section 2) and offer detailed guidance on the Standards set out in this Code; c) ensure that these policies and procedures complement and are in accordance with existing organisational policies, such as those for health and safety, raising concerns at work, management of finances or of intellectual property, and equality and diversity; d) make sure that their researchers are aware of these policies and procedures and that all research carried out under the auspices of the organisation complies with them; e) provide training, resources and support to their researchers to ensure that they are aware of these policies and procedures and are able to comply with them;

9


f) encourage their researchers to consider good practice in research as a routine part of their work; and g) monitor these measures for suitability and effectiveness and review them where necessary. 3.1.5

Researchers should: a) recognise their responsibility to conduct research of high ethical standards; b) be aware of their organisation’s policies and procedures on good practice in research; c) make sure that their research complies with these policies and procedures, and seek guidance from their organisation when necessary; d) work with their organisation to ensure that they have the necessary training, resources and support to carry out their research; and e) suggest to their organisation how guidance on good practice in research might be developed or revised.

3.2

Leadership and supervision

3.2.1

Organisations and researchers should promote and maintain an environment which fosters and supports research of high ethical standards, mutual co-operation, professionalism and the open and honest exchange of ideas. They should foster a culture where good conduct in research is promoted and inappropriate conduct is identified and addressed.

3.2.2

Organisations should provide direction and supervision of research and researchers, setting out clear lines of accountability for the organisation and management of research. They should support supervisors and researchers in meeting the legal and ethical requirements of conducting research. Organisations should encourage the career development of their researchers and provide training and mentoring of new researchers. They should also offer training and support to those charged with the supervision and development of other researchers. Organisations should support the principles of the Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers.

3.2.3

Researchers involved in the supervision and development of other researchers should be aware of their responsibilities and ensure that they have the necessary training, time and resources to carry out that role, and request support if required.

3.3 3.3.1

10

Training and mentoring Training and mentoring Organisations should provide training for researchers to enable them to carry out their duties and develop their knowledge and skills throughout their career. This should include training in the responsible design, conduct and dissemination of research. They should support researchers in identifying unmet needs for training and development. Organisations should provide qualified mentors to assist in the training and career development of new researchers and also provide career development and educational opportunities for researchers who are more established in their careers. As in 3.2.2, they


should support the principles of the Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers. 3.3.2

Organisations should provide particular support for student researchers. They should make sure that student researchers understand which standards and organisational policies and procedures they are expected to comply with.

3.3.3

Researchers should undergo training in order to carry out their duties and to develop their knowledge and skills throughout their career, repeating training where necessary to ensure that skills are kept up-to-date. They should identify needs for training when they arise and report them to their manager or other appropriate person as identified by their organisation. See also section 3.2.3.

3.4 3.4.1

Research design Research design When designing research projects, organisations and researchers should ensure that: a) the proposed research addresses pertinent question(s) and is designed either to add to existing knowledge about the subject in question or to develop methods for research into it; b) the design of the study is appropriate for the question(s) being asked and addresses the most important potential sources of bias; c) the design and conduct of the study, including how data will be gathered, analysed and managed, are set out in detail in a pre-specified research plan or protocol; d) all necessary skills and experience will be available to carry out the proposed research, in the proposed research team or through collaboration with specialists in relevant fields; e) sufficient resources will be available to carry out the proposed research and that these resources meet all relevant standards; and f) any issues relating to the above are resolved as far as possible prior to the start of the research.

3.4.2

Organisations (where appropriate) and researchers should conduct a risk assessment of the planned study to determine: a) whether there are any ethical issues and whether ethics review is required; b) the potential for risks to the organisation, the research, or the health, safety and wellbeing of researchers and research participants; and c) what legal requirements govern the research.

3.4.3

Where the design of a study has been approved by ethics, regulatory or peer review, organisations and researchers should ensure that any subsequent alterations to the design are subject to appropriate review to determine that they will not compromise the integrity of the research or any terms of consent previously given.

3.4.4

Organisations should set up systems to ensure that when there are risks that proposed research or its results may be misused for purposes that are illegal or harmful, those risks

11


are identified and addressed. They should make these systems known to researchers and provide guidance and support to researchers on projects where such risks are identified. 3.4.5

Researchers should try to anticipate any risks that the proposed research might produce results that could be misused for purposes that are illegal or harmful. Researchers should report any risks to, and seek guidance from, the appropriate person(s) in their organisation and take action to minimise those risks.

3.4.6

Researchers should be prepared to make research designs available to peer reviewers and journal editors when submitting research reports for publication.

3.5

Collaborative working Collaborative working

3.5.1

Organisations and researchers should pay particular attention to projects which include participants from different countries or where work will be carried out in another country due to the additional legal and ethical requirements and other guidelines that may apply. See also sections 3.1.2, 3.7.2 and 3.8.2 .

3.5.2

Organisations should work with partner organisations to ensure the agreement of, and compliance with, common standards and procedures for the conduct of collaborative research, including the resolution of any issues or problems that might arise and the investigation of any allegations of misconduct in research if they occur.

3.5.3

Researchers should be aware of the standards and procedures for the conduct of research followed by any organisations involved in collaborative research that they are undertaking. They should also be aware of any contractual requirements involving partner organisations, seeking guidance and assistance where necessary and reporting any concerns or irregularities to the appropriate person(s) as soon as they become aware of them.

3.5.4

Researchers should try to anticipate any issues that might arise as a result of working collaboratively and agree jointly in advance how they might be addressed, communicating any decisions to all members of the research team. In particular, agreement should be sought on the specific roles of the researchers involved in the project and on issues relating to intellectual property, publication, and the attribution of authorship, recognising that, subject to legal and ethical requirements, roles and contributions may change during the time span of the research.

3.6

Conflicts of interest

3.6.1

Organisations and researchers must recognise that conflicts of interest (i.e. personal or institutional considerations, including but not limited to financial matters) can inappropriately affect research. Conflicts of interest must be identified, declared and addressed in order to avoid poor practice in research or potential misconduct.

3.6.2

When addressing a conflict of interest, it must be decided whether it is of a type and severity that poses a risk of fatally compromising the validity or integrity of the research, in which case researchers and organisations should not proceed with the research, or whether it can be adequately addressed through declarations and/or special safeguards relating to the conduct and reporting of the research.

12


3.6.3

Organisations should have a clearly-written and accessible policy for addressing conflicts of interest, including guidance for researchers on how to identify, declare and address conflicts of interest, and should disseminate and explain the policy to researchers. Organisations should ensure that researchers understand the importance of recognising, disclosing and addressing conflicts of interest in the conduct and reporting of research.

3.6.4

Organisations should comply with the requirements of their policy for addressing conflicts of interest, as well as any external requirements relating to conflicts of interest, such as those of funding bodies. Heads of organisations and other senior staff should be aware of potential or actual conflicts of interest at the institutional level and disclose them when they arise so that they can be addressed.

3.6.5

Researchers should comply with their organisation’s policy for addressing conflicts of interest, as well as any external requirements relating to conflicts of interest, such as those of funding bodies. This should include declaring any potential or actual conflicts of interest relating to their research to: their manager or other appropriate person as identified by their organisation; any ethics committee which reviews their research; and when reporting their findings at meetings or in publications. Conflicts of interest should be disclosed as soon as researchers become aware of them.

3.6.6

Researchers should agree to abide by any direction given by their organisation or any relevant ethics committee in relation to a conflict of interest.

3.7

Research involving human participants, human material or personal data

3.7.1

Organisations and researchers should make sure that any research involving human participants, human material or personal data complies with all legal and ethical requirements and other applicable guidelines. Appropriate care should be taken when research projects involve: vulnerable groups, such as the very old, children or those with mental illness; and covert studies or other forms of research which do not involve full disclosure to participants. The dignity, rights, safety and well-being of participants must be the primary consideration in any research study. Research should be initiated and continued only if the anticipated benefits justify the risks involved.

3.7.2

When conducting, or collaborating in, research in other countries, organisations and researchers based in the UK should comply with the legal and ethical requirements existing in the UK and in the countries where the research is conducted. Similarly, organisations and researchers based abroad who participate in UK-hosted research projects should comply with the legal and ethical requirements existing in the UK as well as those of their own country.

3.7.3

Organisations and researchers should ensure the confidentiality and security of: personal data relating to human participants in research; and human material involved in research projects.

3.7.4

Organisations and researchers working with, for, or under the auspices of, any of the UK Departments of Health and/or the National Health Service must adhere to all relevant guidelines, for example the Department of Health’s Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care and the National Research Ethics Service’s Guidance for Applicants.

13


Organisations and researchers involved in clinical trials on medicinal products for human use should comply with the principles of Good Clinical (Research) Practice. 3.7.5

Organisations should set up systems to ensure appropriate ethical, regulatory and peer review of research projects involving human participants, human material or personal data. The systems should include mechanisms to ensure that such research projects have been approved by all applicable bodies, ethical, regulatory or otherwise.

3.7.6

Organisations should also set up systems to ensure that appropriate procedures for obtaining informed consent are established and observed in projects involving human participants, having particular regard to the needs and capacity of the subjects involved.

3.7.7

Organisations should set up systems to ensure the confidentiality and security of: personal data relating to human participants in research; and human material involved in research projects.

3.7.8

Organisations should make sure that their researchers are aware of all of the above systems and have access to all relevant guidance and legal and ethical frameworks.

3.7.9

Researchers should submit research projects involving human participants, human material or personal data for review by all relevant ethics committees and abide by the outcome of those reviews. They should also ensure that such research projects have been approved by all applicable bodies, ethical, regulatory or otherwise.

3.7.10 Researchers on projects involving human subjects must satisfy themselves that participants are enabled, by the provision of adequate accurate information in an appropriate form through suitable procedures, to give informed consent, having particular regard to the needs and capacities of vulnerable groups, such as the very old, children and those with mental illness. 3.7.11 Researchers should inform research participants that data gathered during the course of research may be disseminated not only in a report but also in different forms for academic or other subsequent publications and meetings, albeit not in an identifiable form, unless previously agreed to, and subject to limitations imposed by legislation or any applicable bodies, ethical, regulatory or otherwise. 3.7.12 Researchers who are members of a regulated profession must ensure that research involving human participants, human material or personal data complies with any standards set by the body regulating their profession. 3.7.13 Researchers have a duty to publish the findings of all clinical research involving human participants. In addition, it is government policy to promote public access to information about any research and research findings affecting health and social care, including the principle that trials should appear on public registers. In this context “trials� means all comparative studies of health interventions, not just ones conducted in a clinical setting. 3.7.14 If researchers consider that human participants in research are subject to unreasonable risk or harm, they must report their concerns to their manager, or other appropriate person as identified by their organisation, and, where required, to the appropriate regulatory authority. Similarly, concerns relating to the improper and/or unlicensed use or storage of human material, or the improper use or storage of personal data, should be reported.

14


3.8

Research involving animals

3.8.1

Organisations and researchers should make sure that research involving animals adheres to all legal and ethical requirements and other applicable guidelines. They should consider the opportunities for reduction, replacement and refinement of involving animals in research projects and should refer to the relevant guidance.

3.8.2

When conducting, or collaborating in, research in other countries, organisations and researchers based in the UK should comply with the legal and ethical requirements existing in the UK and in the countries where the research is conducted. Similarly, organisations and researchers based abroad who participate in UK-hosted research projects should comply with the legal and ethical requirements existing in the UK as well as those of their own country.

3.8.3

Organisations should set up systems to ensure the ethical, regulatory and peer review of research projects involving animals. The systems should include mechanisms to make sure that such research projects have been approved by all applicable bodies, ethical, regulatory or otherwise.

3.8.4

Organisations should make sure that their researchers are aware of the above systems and have access to all relevant guidance and legal and ethical frameworks.

3.8.5

Researchers should submit research projects involving animals for review by all relevant ethics committees and abide by the outcome of that review. They should also ensure that such research projects have been approved by all applicable bodies, ethical, regulatory or otherwise.

3.8.6

If researchers consider that animals involved in research are subject to unreasonable risk or harm, they must report their concerns to their manager or other appropriate person as identified by their organisation, and, where required, to the appropriate regulatory authority.

3.9

Health and safety

3.9.1

Organisations and researchers should ensure that all research carried out under their auspices, or for which they are responsible, fulfils all requirements of health and safety legislation and good practice. They should bear in mind that certain types of research, for example social research in a conflict zone, can present particular issues of health and safety. They should ensure that all research which involves potentially hazardous or harmful material or which might cause harm to the environment complies with all legal requirements and other applicable guidelines.

3.9.2

Organisations should set up systems to ensure that such research undergoes all forms of appropriate review in accordance with the organisation’s policy on health and safety.

3.9.3

Researchers should submit such research for all forms of appropriate review and abide by the outcome of that review.

15


3.10

Intellectual property

3.10.1 Organisations and researchers should ensure that any contracts or agreements relating to research include provision for ownership and use of intellectual property. Intellectual property includes, but is not limited to: research data and other findings of research; ideas, processes, software, hardware, apparatus and equipment; substances and materials; and artistic and literary works, including academic and scientific publications. 3.10.2 Organisations and researchers should not give prior disclosure of research or the findings of research when this might invalidate any commercial property rights that could result. Organisations and researchers should recognise, however, that the presumption should be that any intellectual property discovered or developed using public or charitable funds should be disseminated in order to have a beneficial effect on society at large. That presumption may be rebutted where there is an express restriction placed on any such dissemination. Any delay in publication and dissemination pending protection of intellectual property should be kept to a minimum. 3.10.3 Organisations and researchers should comply with any additional conditions relating to intellectual property required by funding bodies. 3.10.4 Organisations should clearly state when their standard guidance might not apply; for example, a university would normally waive copyright of articles prepared for publication in journals or books. 3.10.5 Researchers should try to anticipate any issues that might arise relating to intellectual property at the earliest opportunity and agree jointly in advance how they might be addressed, communicating any decisions to all members of the research team. 3.11

Finance

3.11.1 Organisations and researchers should ensure that the terms and conditions of any grant or contract related to the research are adhered to. 3.11.2 Organisations should issue guidelines regarding the purchasing or procurement of materials, equipment or other resources for research and the hiring of staff for research projects. These guidelines should include statements on the ownership of resources and the rights of researchers to use them. Organisations should also set up procedures for the monitoring and audit of finances relating to research projects. 3.11.3 Researchers should comply with organisational guidelines regarding the use and management of finances relating to research projects. They should co-operate with any monitoring and audit of finances relating to research projects and report any concerns or irregularities to the appropriate person(s) as soon as they become aware of them. 3.12

Collection and retention of data

3.12.1 Organisations and researchers should comply with all legal, ethical, funding body and organisational requirements for the collection, use and storage of data, especially personal data, where particular attention should be paid to the requirements of data protection

16


legislation. They should also maintain confidentiality where undertakings have been made to third parties or to protect intellectual property rights. Organisations and researchers should ensure that research data relating to publications is available for discussion with other researchers, subject to any existing agreements on confidentiality. 3.12.2 Data should be kept intact for any legally specified period and otherwise for three years at least, subject to any legal, ethical or other requirements, from the end of the project. It should be kept in a form that would enable retrieval by a third party, subject to limitations imposed by legislation and general principles of confidentiality. 3.12.3 Organisations and researchers should comply with any subject-specific requirements for the retention of data; for example, certain disciplines, such as health and biomedicine, may require research data to be retained for a considerably longer period. 3.12.4 If research data is to be deleted or destroyed, either because its agreed period of retention has expired or for legal or ethical reasons, it should be done so in accordance with all legal, ethical, research funder and organisational requirements and with particular concern for confidentiality and security. 3.12.5 Organisations should have in place procedures, resources (including physical space) and administrative support to assist researchers in the accurate and efficient collection of data and its storage in a secure and accessible form. 3.12.6 Researchers should consider how data will be gathered, analysed and managed, and how and in what form relevant data will eventually be made available to others, at an early stage of the design of the project. 3.12.7 Researchers should collect data accurately, efficiently and according to the agreed design of the research project, and ensure that it is stored in a secure and accessible form. 3.13

Monitoring and audit

3.13.1 Organisations and researchers should ensure that research projects comply with any monitoring and audit requirements. They should make sure that researchers charged with carrying out such monitoring and audits have sufficient training, resources and support to fulfil the requirements of the role. 3.13.2 Organisations should monitor and audit research projects to ensure that they are being carried out in accordance with good practice, legal and ethical requirements, and any other guidelines, adopting a risk-based and proportional approach. 3.13.3 Researchers should consider any requirements for monitoring and audit at an early stage in the design of a project. 3.13.4 Researchers should co-operate with the monitoring and audit of their research projects by applicable bodies and undertake such when required. They should co-operate with any outcomes of the monitoring and audit of their research projects. If they become aware of a need for monitoring and audit where it is not already scheduled, they should report that need to the appropriate person(s).

17


3.14

Peer review

3.14.1 Organisations and researchers should be aware that peer review is an important part of good practice in: the publication and dissemination of research and research findings; the assessment of applications for research grants; and in the ethics review of research projects. 3.14.2 Organisations should encourage researchers to act as peer reviewers for meetings, journals and other publications, grant applications and ethics review of research proposals, and support those who do so. They should recognise the obligations of peer reviewers to be thorough and objective in their work and to maintain confidentiality, and should not put pressure, directly or indirectly, on peer reviewers to breach these obligations. 3.14.3 Researchers who carry out peer review should do so to the highest standards of thoroughness and objectivity. They should follow the guidelines for peer review of any organisation for which they carry out such work. 3.14.4 Researchers should maintain confidentiality and not retain or copy any material under review without the express written permission of the organisation which requested the review. They should not make use of research designs or research findings from a paper under review without the express permission of the author(s) and should not allow others to do so. Researchers acting as peer reviewers must declare any relevant conflicts of interest. 3.14.5 While carrying out peer review, researchers may become aware of possible misconduct, such as plagiarism, fabrication or falsification, or have ethical concerns about the design or conduct of the research. In such cases they should inform, in confidence, an appropriate representative of the organisation which requested the review, such as the editor of the relevant journal or chair of the relevant grants or ethics committee. 3.15

Publication and authorship

3.15.1 Organisations and researchers should accept their duty to publish and disseminate research in a manner that reports the research and all the findings of the research accurately and without selection that could be misleading. 3.15.2 Organisations should ensure that sponsors and funders of research: respect the duty of researchers to publish their research and the findings of their research; do not discourage or suppress appropriate publication or dissemination; and do not attempt to influence the presentation or interpretation of findings inappropriately. 3.15.3 Organisations should provide training and support to guide researchers in the publication and dissemination of research and the findings of research that involves: confidential or proprietary information; issues relating to patents or intellectual property; findings with serious implications for public health; contractual or other legal obligations; and/or interest from the media or the general public. 3.15.4 Researchers should address issues relating to publication and authorship, especially the roles of all collaborators and contributors, at an early stage of the design of a project, recognising that, subject to legal and ethical requirements, roles and contributions may change during the time span of the research. Decisions on publication and authorship should be agreed jointly and communicated to all members of the research team.

18


3.15.5 Authorship should be restricted to those contributors and collaborators who have made a significant intellectual or practical contribution to the work. No person who fulfils the criteria for authorship should be excluded from the submitted work. Authorship should not be allocated to honorary or “guest” authors (i.e. those that do not fulfil criteria of authorship). Researchers should be aware that anyone listed as an author of any work should be prepared to take public responsibility for that work and ensure its accuracy, and be able to identify their contribution to it. 3.15.6 Researchers should list the work of all contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship in an acknowledgements section. All funders and sponsors of research should be clearly acknowledged and any competing interests listed. 3.15.7 Researchers must clearly acknowledge all sources used in their research and seek permission from any individuals if a significant amount of their work has been used in the publication. 3.15.8 Researchers must adhere to any conditions set by funding or other bodies regarding the publication of their research and its findings in open access repositories within a set period. 3.15.9 Researchers should declare any potential or actual conflicts of interest in relation to their research when reporting their findings at meetings or in publications. 3.15.10 Researchers should be aware that submitting research reports to more than one potential publisher at any given time (i.e. duplicate submission) or publishing findings in more than one publication without disclosure and appropriate acknowledgement of any previous publications (i.e. duplicate publication) is unacceptable. 3.15.11 Researchers who are discouraged from publishing and disseminating their research or its findings, or subjected to attempts to influence the presentation or interpretation of findings inappropriately, should discuss this with the appropriate person(s) in their organisation so that the matter can be resolved. 3.16

Misconduct in research

3.16.1 Organisations should define what they consider to be misconduct in research and make it known to researchers. UKRIO defines misconduct in research as including, but not limited to: a) Fabrication; b) Falsification; c) Misrepresentation of data and/or interests and/or involvement; d) Plagiarism; and e) Failures to follow accepted procedures or to exercise due care in carrying out responsibilities for: i) avoiding unreasonable risk or harm to: • humans; • animals used in research; and • the environment; and

19


ii) the proper handling of privileged or private information on individuals collected during the research. 3.16.2 Organisations should establish and publicise a procedure to investigate allegations of misconduct in research (as in section 3.1.4) and ensure that any such allegations are investigated thoroughly and fairly and in a timely manner. The UKRIO Procedure for the Investigation of Misconduct in Research outlines a standard process for investigating alleged misconduct that is thorough and fair to all parties. 3.16.3 Organisations should identify and make known one or more members of staff who have responsibility for investigating allegations of misconduct in research and whom researchers and external organisations, such as journals, can contact with any concerns about the conduct of research. They should make sure that staff who investigate allegations have the necessary training, resources and support to fulfil the requirements of the role. 3.16.4 Organisations should make it clear to researchers that any misconduct in research is unacceptable and should be reported; that researchers who are found to have committed misconduct in research will be subject to disciplinary proceedings; and that where researchers are members of a regulated profession, cases of serious misconduct in research will be referred to the body regulating their profession. They should also make it clear that researchers who are found not to have committed misconduct will be supported and appropriate steps taken to restore their reputation and that of any relevant research project(s). 3.16.5 Organisations should support those who raise concerns about the conduct of research in good faith and not penalise them. This support should be in accordance with the organisation’s policy on raising concerns or “whistle blowing�. 3.16.6 Researchers should know what constitutes misconduct in research and report any suspected misconduct through the relevant procedure of the organisation as soon as they become aware of it. They should recognise that good practice in research includes reporting concerns about the conduct of research and should co-operate with any investigation of misconduct in research when requested. Researchers should work with their institution to support those who raise concerns in good faith about the conduct of research and those who have been exonerated of suspected misconduct.

20


APPENDIX Acknowledgements and bibliography UKRIO wishes to acknowledge the use of the following documents in the development of the Code of Practice for Research. UKRIO would also like to thank the individuals and institutions who responded to the public consultation on a draft version of the Code in 2009 for their contributions to this publication. Addenbrooke’s NHS Trust, 2008. Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) - General [online]. Available from: http://www.cuh.org.uk/resources/pdf/research/researchers/ sops/research_governance_SOP_general_oct08.pdf [Accessed 8th June 2009] Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 [online]. Available from: http://www.archive.officialdocuments.co.uk/document/hoc/321/321-xa.htm [Accessed 8th June 2009] Arts and Humanities Research Council, 2009. Research Funding Guide [online]. Available from: http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/FundingOpportunities/Documents/ Research%20Funding%20Guide.pdf [Accessed 20th July 2009] Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, 2006. Code of Practice for the Pharmaceutical Industry [ online]. Available from: http://www.abpi.org.uk/links/assoc/PMCPA/pmpca_code20 06.pdf [Accessed 8th June 2009] Association of Medical Research Charities, 2002. Guidelines on Good Research Practice [online]. Available from: http://www.amrc.org.uk/HOMEPAGE/?Nav=484,990 [Accessed 8th June 2009] Bateson, P., Campbell, P., Cummings, L., Enderby, J., Harvey, P., Lewis, J., McNaught, A., Owen, M., Partridge, N., Sugden, A., von Radowitz, J. & Williamson, A., 2006. Science and the Public Interest: Communicating the results of new scientific research to the public [online]. London: Royal Society. Available from: http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=5559 [Accessed 8th June 2009]. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, 2006. Statement on Safeguarding Good Scientific Practice [online]. Available from: http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/publications/policy/good_scientific _practice.pdf [Accessed 8th June 2009] Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, 2007. Data Sharing Policy [online]. Available from: http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/publications/policy/data_sharing_p olicy.pdf [Accessed 8th June 2009] British Academy, 2007. Peer Review: The Challenges for the

Humanities and Social Sciences [online]. Available from: http://www.britac.ac.uk/reports/peer-review/index.cfm [Accessed 8th June 2009] British Academy, 2009. Code of Practice for Consideration of Research Proposals [online]. Available from: http://www.britac.ac.uk/funding/guide/codepractice.cfm [Accessed 8th June 2009] British Psychological Society, 2006. Code of Ethics and Conduct [online]. Available from: http://www.bps.org.uk/the-society/code-of-conduct/codeof-conduct_home.cfm [Accessed 8th June 2009] British Sociological Association, 2002. Statement of Ethical Practice for the British Sociological Association [online]. Available from: http://www.britsoc.co.uk/equality/Statement+Ethical+Pra ctice.htm [Accessed 8th June 2009] Cardiff University, 2007. Research Governance Framework for Cardiff University [online]. Available from: http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/racdv/resgov/forms/formsprocedures-sops-and-guidelines.html [Accessed 8th June 2009]. Children Act 1989 [online]. Available from: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1989/Ukpga_19890041_ en_1.htm [Accessed 8th June 2009] Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), 1999. Guidelines on Good Publication Practice [online]. Available from: http://publicationethics.org/code-conduct [accessed 8th June 2009] Committee on Standards in Public Life (originally the Nolan Committee), 1995. First Report on Standards in Public Life [online]. Available from: http://www.archive.officialdocuments.co.uk/document/parlment/nolan/nolan.htm [Accessed 8th June 2009] Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers, 2008. Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers [online]. Available from: http://www.researchconcordat.ac.uk/documents/concordat .pdf [Accessed 8th June 2009] Council for Science and Technology, 2006. Rigour, respect and responsibility: a universal ethical code for scientists [online]. Available from: http://www.cst.gov.uk/cst/reports/#Ethics [Accessed 8th June 2009] Council of Science Editors, 2009. White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications, 2009 update [online]. Available from: http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/editorial_policies/wh ite_paper.cfm [Accessed 8th June 2009] Data Protection Act 1998 [online]. Available from:

21


http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/Acts1998/ukpga_19980029_e n_1 [Accessed 8th June 2009] Department of Health, 2005. Research governance framework for health and social care: second edition [online]. Available from: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/ Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4108962 [Accessed 8th June 2009] Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use (“Clinical Trials Directive”), 2001 [online]. Available from: http://www.eortc.be/Services/Doc/clinical-EU-directive04-April-01.pdf [Accessed 8th June 2009] Directive 2005/28/EC laying down principles and detailed guidelines for good clinical practice as regards investigational medicinal products for human use, as well as the requirements for authorisation of the manufacturing or importation of such products (“Good Clinical Practice Directive”), 2005 [online]. Available from: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2005:091 :0013:0019:EN:PDF [Accessed 8th June 2009] Eckstein, S., ed., 2003. Manual for Research Ethics Committees. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Economic & Social Research Council, 2005. Research Ethics Framework [online]. Available from: http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images /ESRC_Re_Ethics_Frame_tcm6-11291.pdf [Accessed 8th June 2009] Economic & Social Research Council, 2009. Research Funding Guide [online]. Available from: http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images /ESRC%20Research%20Funding%20Guide%20July%2009 _tcm6-9734.pdf [Accessed 20th July 2009] Employment Act 2002 [online]. Available from: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2002/ukpga_20020022_e n_1 [Accessed 8th June 2009] Engineering & Physical Sciences Research Council, 2006. Guide to Good Practice in Science and Engineering Research [online]. Available from: http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/CMSWeb/Downloads/Other/Good PracticeGuideSciEngRes.pdf [Accessed 8th June 2009] European Science Foundation, 2000. ESF Science Policy Briefing 10: Good Scientific Practice in Research and Scholarship [online]. Available from: http://www.esf.org/publications/policy-briefings.html [Accessed 8th June 2009] European Science Foundation, 2008. Stewards of Integrity. Institutional Approaches to Promote and Safeguard Good Research Practice in Europe [online]. Available from: http://www.esf.org/nc/publications/corporatepublications.html?tx_ccdamdl_cart%5Badd%5D=17719 [Accessed 8th June 2009] Evans, I., Thornton, H., and Chalmers, I., 2006. Testing Treatments: Better Research for Better Healthcare [online].

22

London: The British Library. Available from: www.jameslindlibrary.org/pdf/testing-treatments.pdf [Accessed 8th June 2009] Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, 2006. Shared Responsibility, Individual Integrity: scientists addressing conflicts of interest in biomedical research [online]. Available from: http://opa.faseb.org/pdf/FASEB_COI_paper.pdf [Accessed 8th June 2009] General Medical Council (2002). Research: The Role and Responsibilities of Doctors [online]. Available from: http://www.gmcuk.org/guidance/current/library/research.asp [Accessed 8th June 2009] General Medical Council (2006). Good Medical Practice [online]. Available from: http://www.gmcuk.org/guidance/good_medical_practice/index.asp [Accessed 8th June 2009] General Medical Council (2008). Consent: patients and doctors making decisions together [online]. Available from: http://www.gmcuk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/consent_guidance/index .asp [Accessed 8th June 2009] General Social Care Council, 2002. Code of Practice for Social Care Workers [online]. Available from: http://www.gscc.org.uk/codes/Get+copies+of+our+codes/ [Accessed 8th June 2009] Goldsmiths, University of London, 2003. Policy on Safeguarding Good Academic and Scientific Practice and Dealing with Allegations of Misconduct in Research [online]. Available from: http://www.gold.ac.uk/media/safeguarding-researchpractice.pdf [Accessed 8th June 2009] Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 [online]. Available from: http://www.archive.officialdocuments.co.uk/document/hoc/321/321-00.htm [Accessed 8th June 2009] Home Office, 2005. Code of Practice Part 1 - for the housing and care of animals used in scientific procedures [online]. Available from: http://scienceandresearch.homeoffice.gov.uk/animalresearch/publications-and-reference/publications/code-ofpractice/code-of-practice-housing care/?view=Standard &pubID=428573 [Accessed 8th June 2009] Human Rights Act 1998 [online]. Available from: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980042_e n_1 [Accessed 8th June 2009] Human Tissue Act 2004 [online]. Available from: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/20040030.htm [Accessed 8th June 2009] Imperial College London, 2006. Guidelines for Proper Scientific Conduct in Research [online]. Available from: http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/secretariat/policiesandpublicat ions/otherpolicies/properscientificconduct [Accessed 8th June 2009]


Information Commissioner’s Office, 2001. Data Protection Audit Manual [online]. Available from: http://www.ico.gov.uk/what_we_cover/data_protection/yo ur_legal_obligations.aspx [Accessed 8th June 2009] International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 2008. Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication [online]. Available from: http://www.icmje.org/ [Accessed 8th June 2009] Joint Consensus Conference on Misconduct in Biomedical Research, 1999. Consensus Statement [online]. Available from: http://www.rcpe.ac.uk/clinicalstandards/standards/misconduct_99.php [Accessed 8th June 2009] Keele University, 2007. Code of Good Research Practice [online]. Available from: http://www.keele.ac.uk/research/researchsupport/downloa ds/Code%20of%20Good%20Research%20Practice.doc [Accessed 8th June 2009] King’s College London, 2008. Guidelines on Good Practice in Academic Research [online]. Available from: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/college/policyzone/attachments/goo d_practice_May_08_FINAL.pdf [Accessed 8th June 2009] Lock, S., Wells, F. and Farthing, M. (eds.), 2008. Fraud and Misconduct in Biomedical Research Fourth Edition. London: RSM Press. Macrina, F., 2005. Scientific Integrity Third Edition. Washington DC: American Society for Microbiology Press. McFarlane, B., 2009. Researching with Integrity. New York: Routledge. Medical Research Council, 1998. Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice in Clinical Trials [online]. Available from: http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Utilities/Documentrecord/index.htm ?d=MRC002416 [Accessed 8th June 2009] Medical Research Council, 2000. Personal Information in Medical Research [online]. Available from: http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Utilities/Documentrecord/index.htm ?d=MRC002452 [Accessed 8th June 2009] Medical Research Council, 2004. Medical Research Involving Children [online]. Available from: http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Utilities/Documentrecord/index.htm ?d=MRC002430 [Accessed 8th June 2009] Medical Research Council, 2004. Research Involving Human Participants in Developing Societies [online]. Available from: http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Utilities/Documentrecord/index.htm ?d=MRC002461 [Accessed 8th June 2009] Medical Research Council, 2005. Good Research Practice [online]. Available from: http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Utilities/Documentrecord/index.htm ?d=MRC002415 [Accessed 8th June 2009] Medical Research Council, 2007. Principles for Access to, and Use of, MRC Funded Research Data [online. Available from: http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Utilities/Documentrecord/index.htm ?d=MRC003759 [Accessed 8th June 2009] Medical Research Council, 2008. Responsibility in the Use of Animals in Medical Research [online]. Available from:

http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Utilities/Documentrecord/index.htm ?d=MRC001897 [Accessed 8th June 2009] The Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004 [online]. Available from: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/20041031.htm [Accessed 8th June 2009] Mental Capacity Act 2005 [online]. Available from: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2005/20050009.htm [Accessed 8th June 2009] Missenden Centre for the Development of Higher Education, 2002. The Missenden Code of Practice for Ethics and Accountability [online]. Available from: www.missendencentre.co.uk/docs/MissCode.pdf [Accessed 8th June 2009] National Health and Medical Research Council, 2007. National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research [online]. Available from: http://nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/e72syn.htm [Accessed 8th June 2009] National Health Service Research and Development Forum, 2008. Research Governance Documentation and Information Guide [online]. Available from: http://www.rdforum.nhs.uk/workgroups/primary/pcinfogui de/introduction.htm [Accessed 8th June 2009] National Research Ethics Service, 2007. Guidance for Applicants to the National Research Ethics Service [online]. Available from: http://www.nres.npsa.nhs.uk/applications/guidance/#gcpdir [Accessed 8th June 2009] Natural Environment Research Council, 2005. Ethics Policy [online]. Available from: http://www.nerc.ac.uk/publications/corporate/documents/ ethics_policy_leaflet.pdf [Accessed 8th June 2009] Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2007. OECD Global Science Forum: Best Practices for Ensuring Scientific Integrity and Preventing Misconduct [online]. Available from: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/37/17/40188303.pdf [Accessed 8th June 2009] Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 [online]. Available from: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1998/19980023.htm [Accessed 8th June 2009] Queen Mary, University of London, 2003. Guidelines on Good Practice in Research [online]. Available from: http://www.qmul.ac.uk/corp_docs/research/researchGoodP ractice.html [Accessed 8th June 2009] Queen’s University Belfast, 2003. Code of Good Conduct in Research [online]. Available from: http://www.qub.ac.uk/rrs/webpages/researchgovernance.htm [Accessed 8th June 2009] Research Assessment Exercise, 2005. RAE 2008 Guidance on Submissions [online]. Available from: http://www.rae.ac.uk/pubs/2005/03/ [Accessed 8th June 2009] Research Councils UK, 1998. Safeguarding good scientific practice: A joint statement by the Director General of the

23


Research Councils and the Chief Executives of the UK Research Councils [online]. Available from: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/projects/ebank-uk/docs/scientificpractice.doc [Accessed 8th June 2009] Research Councils UK, 2008.Terms and Conditions of Research Council fEC Grants [online]. Available from: http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/aboutrcuk/efficiency/tcfec [Accessed 8th June 2009] Research Councils UK, 2009. RCUK Policy and Code of Conduct on the Governance of Good Research Conduct (post-consultation draft) [online]. Available from: http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/review/grc/default.htm [Accessed 20th July 2009] Research Information Network, 2008. Stewardship of digital research data: a framework of principles and guidelines [online]. Available from: http://www.rin.ac.uk/dataprinciples [Accessed 8th June 2009] RESPECT Project, 2004. RESPECT Code of Practice for SocioEconomic Research [online]. Available from: http://www.respectproject.org/code/respect_code.pdf [Accessed 8th June 2009] Science and Technology Facilities Council, 2009. fEC Research Grants Handbook [online]. Available from: http://www.stfc.ac.uk/rgh/PDFs/rghAll.pdf [Accessed 7th July 2009] Sheffield Hallam University, 2004. Research ethics 2: Safeguarding good specific practice and dealing with allegations of misconduct in research [online]. Available from: http://students.shu.ac.uk/rightsrules/resethics2.html [Accessed 8th June 2009] Smith R., 2000. What is research misconduct? In: C. White, ed., The COPE Report 2000 [online]. London: BMJ Books. Available from: http://publicationethics.org/static/2000/2000pdf6.pdf [Accessed 8th June 2009] Social Research Association, 2003. Ethical Guidelines [online]. Available from: http://www.thesra.org.uk/documents/pdfs/ethics03.pdf [Accessed 8th June 2009] Steneck, N. H., 2007. Office of Research Integrity Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research Revised Edition [online]. Washington DC: United States Department of Health and Human Services. Available from: http://ori.dhhs.gov/documents/rcrintro.pdf [Accessed 8th June 2009] UK Research Integrity Office, 2008. Procedure for the Investigation of Misconduct in Research [online]. Available from: http://www.ukrio.org/resources/UKRIO%20Procedure%20f or%20the%20Investigation%20of%20Misconduct%20in %20Research.pdf [Accessed 8th June 2009] University College London, 2008. Guidelines for Responsible Practice in Research [online]. Available from: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/academic-manual/part-e/e20 [Accessed 8th June 2009] University of Cambridge, 2008. Good Research Practice

24

[online]. Available from: http://www.rsd.cam.ac.uk/documents/research/ Good_Research_Practice.pdf [Accessed 8th June 2009] University of Edinburgh, 2002. Code of Good Practice in Research [online]. Available from: http://www.researchinnovation.ed.ac.uk/information/goodresearchpractice.pdf [Accessed 8th June 2009] University of Glasgow, 2007. Code of Good Practice in Research [online]. Available from: http://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_46633_en.pdf [Accessed 8th June 2009] University of Manchester, 2006. Code of Good Research Conduct [online]. Available from: http://www.researchsupport.manchester.ac.uk/Governance /J1276_Good_Research.pdf [Accessed 8th June 2009] University of Oxford, 2007. Academic Integrity in Research: Code of Practice and Procedure [online]. Available from: http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/ps/staff/codes/air.shtml [Accessed 8th June 2009] University of Sheffield, 2003. Good Research Practice Standards [online]. Available from: http://www.shef.ac.uk/content/1/c6/07/20/99/GRPcollate d.pdf [Accessed 8th June 2009] University of Sussex, 2000. Code of Practice for Research [online]. Available from: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/res/documents/code.pdf [Accessed 8th June 2009] Wellcome Trust, 2005. Guidelines on Good Research Practice, Including the Statement on the Handling of Allegations of Research Misconduct [online]. Available from: http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/ @policy_communications/documents/web_document/wtd 002754.pdf [Accessed 8th June 2009] World Medical Association, 2000. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects [online]. Available from: http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm [Accessed 8th June 2009]


CODE OF PRACTICE FOR RESEARCH: Promoting good practice and preventing misconduct The Code of Practice for Research has been designed to encourage good conduct in research and help prevent misconduct, in order to assist organisations and researchers to conduct research of the highest quality. It provides general principles and core standards for good practice in research, applicable to both researchers and research organisations. It also includes a Recommended Checklist for Researchers: a one-page, non-technical checklist for the key points of good practice in research, based upon the more detailed standards provided by the Code. The Code is a reference tool for research organisations to use when drafting or revising their codes of practice for research and complements existing guidance on research conduct, such as that provided by Research Councils UK, the Wellcome Trust and the Council for Science and Technology. Use of the benchmarks in this Code can assist research organisations in fulfilling the requirements of regulatory, funding and other bodies, and ensure that important issues have not been overlooked. The Code is applicable to all subject areas and does not attempt to micro-manage research. It draws upon existing good practice and the experiences of the UK Research Integrity Office in addressing good conduct and misconduct in research. Detailed guidance is given on standards for good practice in research but particular attention has been paid to the areas where we have most often been approached for guidance, in the hope of passing on lessons learned to the research community. This publication is also available on the UK Research Integrity Office website www.ukrio.org

EX CE LL A SK C IN EN IL CO TE C LS U G E S N I R S AC NT AF TA ITY AFE ND C EG ET BI C TY O R Y LI O GR SKI UN ITY EX TY -O HO TA S C T P N L I L T RA Y S B A EL RA ER ES F

ABOUT US The UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO) is an independent body which offers advice and guidance to universities, other research organisations and individual researchers about the conduct of research.

Hosted by Universities UK and supported by government and by the major regulators and funders of health and biomedical research, our aims are to: • promote the good governance, management and conduct of research; • share good practice on how to address misconduct in research; and • give confidential, expert advice and guidance on specific cases and issues. Although our formal remit is to provide support to the health and biomedical sciences research community, since our inception we have given advice and guidance to universities, NHS institutions, other research organisations and individual researchers across all subject areas.

UKRIO is not a regulatory body and has no formal legal powers. It was set up to provide independent support to employers, research organisations and researchers where there was none. The advice and guidance it offers is not mandatory but reflects best practice in the conduct of research and addressing misconduct. For further information contact: UK Research Integrity Office Woburn House, 20 Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9HQ Tel: +44 (0)20 7419 5499 Fax: +44 (0)20 7383 4573 Email: RIO@universitiesuk.ac.uk Web: www.ukrio.org

UK Research Integrity Office

ISBN 978-1-84036-158-2

9 781840 361582


RCUK Policy and Code of Conduct on the Governance of Good Research Conduct

INTEGRITY, CLARITY AND GOOD MANAGEMENT

July 2009


Integrity, Clarity and Good Management

Contents Section 1: Guidelines for the Management of Good Research Conduct Section 2: Good Research Conduct Code Section 3: Guidelines for the Repor ting and Investigation of Unacceptable Research Conduct Annex: Letter sent to all heads of universities, colleges, Research Council institutes and RCUK recognised research organisations

RCUK Policy and Code of Conduct on the Governance of Good Research Conduct July 2009

2


Integrity, Clarity and Good Management

Section 1

Guidelines for the Management of Good Research Conduct All research should be conducted to the highest levels of integrity, including appropriate research design and frameworks, to ensure that findings are robust and defensible. Researchers should also adhere to the highest level of research ethics, in line with requirements set out by national and international regulatory bodies, professional and regulatory research guidance and research ethics frameworks issued in appropriate areas. The onus should lie with the researcher to establish that s/he has always met the highest standards that could reasonably be expected of them and with the employing institution to ensure that systems are in place to suppor t and reinforce this. Research organisations (ROs) which employ or train researchers should also ensure that sound systems are in place to promote best practice.This should apply to all research within the organisation, irrespective of whether it is funded through the UK Research Councils, other public monies, or any other sources. These systems should include: • training and development modules to ensure that all researchers are aware of best practice requirements; • training needs analysis for all new employees, especially but not exclusively for those who have not received formal training (at for example PhD level) and those from non-research organisations or institutions outside the UK; • mentoring and promotion of good research conduct roles for key research managers within the organisation; • clear requirements for preservation of relevant primary data, laboratory notebooks and other relevant materials; • stewardship responsibilities for heads of laboratories and depar tments, so that they actively promote and repor t on activities which ensure best research practice within their domain; 3


Section 1

Integrity, Clarity and Good Management

• the observation of guidance from publishers and funders on the standards which they expect to be applied. Such systems will help to minimise poor or unacceptable research conduct. Key elements of such procedures should include the following: Clear policy statements These should: • include clear guidance on what is acceptable and not acceptable in line with the RCUK Code of Conduct and those of other relevant professional bodies; • be drawn to the attention of all staff on appointment; • be easily available at all times in guidance manuals and on websites. Clear managerial arrangements • ROs should have published procedures which are readily accessible, both within the organisation and externally, for the normal supervision and management of research conduct, integrity and ethical issues, and for the repor ting by individuals of any concerns about poor practice in these areas. • The procedures should clearly identify the senior person in the RO (and where appropriate in depar tments, schools or faculties) responsible for ensuring good research conduct, who should receive regular repor ts on these matters, and to whom any genuine concerns or allegations (suppor ted with appropriate evidence) may be taken. • Systems should include training and development modules to ensure that managers are aware of their responsibilities. • There should be clear mentoring and promotional roles for key research managers within the organisation and these should be communicated to all junior staff. • Heads of laboratories and depar tments should have clearly defined stewardship responsibilities, so that they actively promote and repor t on activities which ensure best research practice. 4


Integrity, Clarity and Good Management

Section 1

Training and mentoring policies • All ROs should have in place systematic procedures for training and mentoring. • They should ensure that all relevant staff are aware of the procedures and how any cases should be repor ted. • These should also cover standards to be applied not only in the conduct of research but in publication of materials, preparation of conference papers, etc. and the conduct of peer review. Ethical approval procedures • ROs should have clear and full policies on ethical standards. • ROs should have clear procedures for obtaining ethical approval for research, which are communicated effectively to all relevant staff. • Where ethical approval is delegated to schools and depar tments, procedures should be in place to ensure equity of ethical approach across the whole of the research organisation. • Appropriate procedures to obtain clearly informed consent from research par ticipants should be in place. • There should be clear supervisory arrangements for delegated procedures.

5


Section 2

Integrity, Clarity and Good Management

Good Research Conduct Code CONTEXT This code is relevant to all individuals involved in research, irrespective of the subject of research, entry route into research or any other consideration, and including: • • • •

researchers; research suppor t staff; students; research managers and administrators.

All are expected to observe the highest standards of research integrity and to embed good practice in all aspects of their work, including the training of new researchers.They must operate honestly and openly in respect of their own actions and in response to the actions of others involved in research.1 The spectrum of inappropriate behaviour is wide, ranging from minor misdemeanours which may happen occasionally and inadver tently, to significant acts of misappropriation or fabrication. Poor practices, such as weak procedures or inadequate record-keeping which may jeopardise the integrity of the research but might only require fur ther training or development rather than formal disciplinary action, are normally a matter solely for the employer. This code therefore concentrates on entirely unacceptable types of research conduct. Individuals involved in research must not commit any of the acts of research misconduct specified in this code. UNACCEPTABLE RESEARCH CONDUCT Allegations should be investigated by the individual’s employer and proven cases must be notified to the research funder.

1

6

See Council for Science and Technology, Universal Ethical Code for Scientists (2006)


Integrity, Clarity and Good Management

Section 2

Unacceptable conduct includes each of the following: Fabrication This includes the creation of false data or other aspects of research, including documentation and par ticipant consent. Falsification This includes the inappropriate manipulation and/or selection of data, imagery and/or consents. Plagiarism This includes the general misappropriation or use of others’ ideas, intellectual proper ty or work (written or otherwise), without acknowledgement or permission. Misrepresentation, including: • misrepresentation of data, for example suppression of relevant findings and/or data, or knowingly, recklessly or by gross negligence, presenting a flawed interpretation of data; • undisclosed duplication of publication, including undisclosed duplicate submission of manuscripts for publication; • misrepresentation of interests, including failure to declare material interests either of the researcher or of the funders of the research; • misrepresentation of qualifications and/or experience, including claiming or implying qualifications or experience which are not held; • misrepresentation of involvement, such as inappropriate claims to authorship and/or attribution of work where there has been no significant contribution, or the denial of authorship where an author has made a significant contribution. Mismanagement or inadequate preservation of data and/or primary materials, including failure to: • keep clear and accurate records of the research procedures followed and the results obtained, including interim results; 7


Section 2

Integrity, Clarity and Good Management

• hold records securely in paper or electronic form; • make relevant primary data and research evidence accessible to others for reasonable periods after the completion of the research: data should normally be preserved and accessible for ten years, but for projects of clinical or major social, environmental or heritage impor tance, for 20 years or longer ; • manage data according to the research funder’s data policy and all relevant legislation; • wherever possible, deposit data permanently within a national collection. Responsibility for proper management and preservation of data and primary materials is shared between the researcher and the research organisation. Breach of duty of care, which involves deliberately, recklessly or by gross negligence: • disclosing improperly the identity of individuals or groups involved in research without their consent, or other breach of confidentiality; • placing any of those involved in research in danger, whether as subjects, par ticipants or associated individuals, without their prior consent, and without appropriate safeguards even with consent; this includes reputational danger where that can be anticipated; • not taking all reasonable care to ensure that the risks and dangers, the broad objectives and the sponsors of the research are known to par ticipants or their legal representatives, to ensure appropriate informed consent is obtained properly, explicitly and transparently; • not observing legal and reasonable ethical requirements or obligations of care for animal subjects, human organs or tissue used in research, or for the protection of the environment; • improper conduct in peer review of research proposals or results (including manuscripts submitted for publication); this includes failure to disclose conflicts of interest; inadequate disclosure of clearly limited competence; misappropriation of the content of material; and breach of confidentiality or abuse of material provided in confidence for peer review purposes. 8


Integrity, Clarity and Good Management

Section 3

Guidelines for the Reporting and Investigation of Unacceptable Research Conduct Research Councils UK (RCUK) accepts that each research organisation’s (RO) procedures for ensuring repor ting on and investigation into allegations of unacceptable research conduct must be aligned to their own internal requirements. In many cases ROs will need to align these with other human resource and disciplinary/conduct procedures. In the absence of existing procedures or where ROs are upgrading these, RCUK also notes the published guidance by the UK Research Integrity Office (August 2008) on “Procedure for the Investigation of Misconduct in Research”. While RCUK requirements are not as detailed as the model procedure set out by UK RIO, there is no inconsistency between the two approaches and RCUK recommends consideration and application of the detailed procedures set out by RIO where these are appropriate. In addition, where international collaborative research is involved, the guidance provided by the OECD Global Science Forum on “Investigating Research Misconduct Allegations in International Collaborative Projects” (A Practical Guide, April 2009) should be followed. Procedures should be in place to cover the main requirements set out below. Informal enquiries Procedures for preliminary informal investigation, before it is concluded that serious evidence exists to require a formal investigation, should not be onerous and should be set within the normal organisational/institutional procedures. • They should help ensure that a relatively quick decision should be made on the first stage of whether a concern or allegation contains such sufficient evidence to be taken forward to a full formal investigation – this should wherever possible be within ten working days. • This should be the responsibility of a senior member of the RO, advised where necessary by one or two other colleagues who can be seen as clearly independent of the complainant and of the subject of any complaint.

9


Section 3

Integrity, Clarity and Good Management

• Discreet investigations may be desirable at this stage until clear evidence of individual behaviour has been established. • There should always be an oppor tunity for response by a complainant if the allegation is not accepted and if they believe that they have been misunderstood or key evidence overlooked. • Where evidence from the preliminary investigation indicates that unacceptable conduct may have occurred, procedures should then provide for a more detailed formal investigation. Formal Investigations At this stage the senior responsible officer may wish to appoint an independent investigator to examine the allegations and make fur ther enquiries. • The investigator should be someone with sufficient knowledge and experience of research and with relevant experience of investigating procedures. • In very serious cases this may be a role for a small panel, but that would be exceptional at this stage. • Where an investigation is instituted any individuals who may face allegations of misconduct should be informed. • Where an investigation is about someone funded by or engaged with RCUK (including acting as a supervisor for an RCUK postgraduate student or engaged with peer review activities), even if it is about work not connected with a grant from a UK Research Council, the case must be repor ted to the relevant Council at this stage, and the Councils reserve the right to take appropriate action, after consultation with the research organisation, about any duties being performed for RCUK. • In serious cases the question of suspension may need to be addressed, but this should only arise where the presence of an individual is likely to hinder an investigation or where it would be difficult for an individual to perform their duties while this stage of an investigation is being conducted. • If a person is suspended then the funding body which sponsors any research with which they are involved or provides postgraduate suppor t which is affected must be advised.

10


Integrity, Clarity and Good Management

Section 3

• The formal investigation should be completed as quickly as possible and normally should not exceed four to six working weeks. • If the allegations are dismissed at this stage, a clear statement should be made both to the complainant and to the person complained against, as well as to any other individuals who will have been aware of the allegations and need to know the outcome. If the allegations are not dismissed in whole or in par t then formal disciplinary charges may be brought. Procedures for formal disciplinary procedures • This is a stage where formal charges are laid against an individual: normally a formal panel of at least three members should be established to hear the case. • A separate person within the institution should have responsibility for presenting the charges: the role of the panel should be to decide whether the charges are proven and, if so, what sanction might be appropriate. • The person against whom allegations are made should be given details of the allegations in writing, the nature of the evidence against them, and be given reasonable time and oppor tunity to respond to these. • Where serious consequences might result from any proven charge (including for example the possibilities of dismissal, demotion, removal of rights as a researcher or public pronouncement on their professional failings) the individual should have the right to professional representation and/or assistance, including legal representation in appropriate cases: it should be for the employing organisation to decide what representational rights are appropriate. • Where a charge is brought against someone funded by RCUK (including acting as a supervisor for an RCUK postgraduate student or engaged with peer review activities), even if it is about work not connected with a grant from a UK Research Council, then this must be reported to the relevant Council at this stage.The Councils reserve the right to take appropriate action, after consultation with the research organisation, about any duties being performed for RCUK.

11


Section 3

Integrity, Clarity and Good Management

• Where there is an allegation of serious misconduct which could lead to suspension or termination of a researcher’s career, there should be consideration of whether the panel should have external representation in the interests of transparency. • Formal guidance is available from various sources on how to conduct formal investigations, including for example the UK RIO repor t (August 2008). Abortive termination of procedures at the informal enquiry, formal investigation or disciplinary stages • If procedures are terminated at any stage (for example by the resignation of an individual) without conclusion that the complaints should be dismissed, the RO should consider the seriousness of allegations outstanding, the strength of evidence suppor ting the allegations, and the implications for the future research career of the individual. • Where serious concerns remain that misconduct may have occurred which have not been resolved, the individual complained against should be advised of this and be asked to see the investigation or hearing through to conclusion. • Where they do not agree to this, they should be advised that the details of the outstanding case may (without prejudice) be passed to any future employer or “bona fide” enquirer about their career at the research organisation, and may also be passed to any appropriate regulatory or professional supervisory body. Imposition of sanctions and penalties • Guidance on possible appropriate sanctions for various levels of unacceptable conduct is under fur ther consideration: this will be made available to ROs in due course.

12


Integrity, Clarity and Good Management

Section 3

Reporting of sanctions or penalties which have been completed • Where serious misconduct has occurred, especially where this would appear to be pre-meditated, then a repor t to relevant statutory or regulatory bodies may be required. • Repor ts to relevant professional supervisory bodies and to any national advisory body on research integrity established in the UK should also be considered, and made, where appropriate in the public interest; fur ther guidance in this area may be developed in due course.

13


Annex

Integrity, Clarity and Good Management

This letter was sent to all heads of universities, colleges, Research Council institutes and RCUK recognised research organisations. I am writing to advise you that RCUK’s Policy Statement and Code of Conduct for the management of research conduct in RCUK recognised research organisations has now been finalised and I enclose two copies for your institution. The document will also be posted on the RCUK website in August 2009. From 1 October 2009, the guidelines and the associated Code will be a requirement of all grants and awards from the Research Councils. We would be grateful if you would communicate this throughout your institution, and also ensure that the appropriate senior officer is given responsibility for ensuring the policy is implemented. I would also par ticularly draw your attention to the reference on page 9 to arrangements for the supervision of research integrity in international collaborative projects, and the recent guidance published by the OECD Global Science Forum in this area. If you have any general queries about the policy statement or Code, or their implementation, please contact any of the colleagues below: Glyn Davies glyn.davies@esrc.ac.uk

Ros Rouse ros.rouse@rcuk.ac.uk

RCUK Enquiries info@rcuk.ac.uk

If you have any queries relating to specific Councils, the relevant contact officers are listed below. You will recall that the development of the policy and Code of Conduct followed from the RCUK surveys of research organisation practice in 2006 and 2007; the major conference at the University of Keele organised with Universities UK, the Funding Councils, and other major stakeholders in April 2008; and the RCUK consultation on good research conduct practice, the outcome of which I advised you in April this year. I believe that this close interaction with universities and research organisations has been very impor tant. Putting the policy and Code of Conduct in place is an impor tant step forward in the approach to these matters in the UK.

14


Annex

Integrity, Clarity and Good Management

As noted in the guidelines, there are a number of areas where further work may be needed, and guidance is being reviewed and considered in consultation with other stakeholders. RCUK has therefore established a scoping review to consider further needs in this area jointly with Universities UK, the UK Department of Health, the UK Funding Councils, and other associated major funders. The review group is chaired by Professor Dame Janet Finch,Vice Chancellor of the University of Keele, and we hope this will report by the year end. May we thank you once again for your co-operation and assistance during our consultation on this matter. We will seek to keep you fully informed of any further developments. Yours sincerely,

Professor Ian Diamond FBA FRSE AcSS Chair, Research Councils UK Executive Group

RESEARCH COUNCIL OFFICERS WITH LEAD RESPONSIBILITY FOR GOOD RESEARCH CONDUCT AND RESEARCH INTEGRITY ISSUES AHRC: BBSRC: EPSRC: ESRC: MRC: NERC: STFC:

Mr Gary Grubb Dr Mari Williams Mr Stuar t Ward Mr Phil Sooben Dr Tony Peatfield Dr Helen Butler Dr Andrew le Masurier

g.grubb@ahrc.ac.uk mari.williams@bbsrc.ac.uk stuar t.ward@epsrc.ac.uk phil.sooben@esrc.ac.uk tony.peatfield@headoffice.mrc.ac.uk hb@nerc.ac.uk andrew.lemasurier@stfc.ac.uk

15


Research Councils UK Polaris House, Nor th Star Avenue Swindon,Wiltshire SN2 1ET United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) 1793 444420 Fax: +44 (0) 1793 444009 www.rcuk.ac.uk info@rcuk.ac.uk


Research and Enterprise

Committees and Groups


University Research Committee The University Research Committee (URC) is responsible to the Senate for progress towards the strategic objectives and targets set by the University in research and enterprise. URC meets four times a year.

Terms 1. To determine the University vision and strategy for research, research degree education and business enterprise engagement; along with appropriate targets and performance indicators. 2. To oversee the development and management of research activity, research degree education, the development and implementation of mechanisms and initiatives to improve the research and enterprise performance of the University and its participation in external reviews. 3. To maintain oversight of performance in research and research degree education; responding appropriately as necessary. 4. To interact closely with the University Teaching & Learning Committee and with the major administrative directorates including Human Resources, Student Services, Marketing, Communications and Student Recruitment, International, Computing and Library Services, Finance and Estates. 5. To provide informal and flexible fora for the active management and co-ordination of research, research degree education and business development in liaison with the University Research Group (URG), the Graduate Education Group (GEG), the Business Development and Commercial Group and the Research Support Group.

Members Ex officio Vice-Chancellor Deputy Vice-Chancellor Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research and Enterprise, Chair Pro Vice-Chancellor for Teaching and Learning School Directors of Research School Directors of Graduate Education Director of Research and Enterprise Head of Research and Graduate Education Deans’ Group Representatives (2) Sabbatical Officer Students’ Union In attendance Head of Research Administration, Secretary Director of Computing and Library Services (or nominee) Director of Estates Services (or nominee) Director of Human Resources (or nominee) Director of Student Services (or nominee) Director of Financial Services (or nominee) Director of International (or nominee) Director of Marketing, Communications and Student Recruitment (or nominee) Senior Executive Officer, Planning and Information Services (or nominee)


Schedule of Meetings 2009/10 15 September 2009, 9.30am

Large Conference Room, CSB Level 7

8 December 2009, 9.30am

Large Conference Room, CSB Level 7

27 January 2010, 2.00pm

Large Conference Room, CSB Level 7

23 February 2010, 9.30am

Castle Hill Suite Break Out Room, CSB Level 4

22 June 2010, 9.30am

Large Conference Room, CSB Level 7

Schedule of Meetings 2010/2011 14 September 2010, 9.30am

Large Conference Room, CSB Level 7

7 December 2010, 9.30am

Large Conference Room, CSB Level 7

8 March 2011, 9.30am

Large Conference Room, CSB Level 7

14 June 2011, 9.30am

Large Conference Room, CSB Level 7

Minutes of Meetings Minutes of meetings are available in WISDOM. A link can be found at http://intra2.hud.ac.uk/research/urc.php


University Research Group The University Research Group (URG) is responsible for strategic and policy matters in relation to all aspects of research. The Group is also responsible for the ongoing development and management of research. The Group meets 4 times a year and reports to the University Research Committee. Terms 1. To co-ordinate the ongoing development and management graduate of research. 2. To discuss emerging issues, policy matters and initiatives and to co-ordinate action to respond to them. 3. To provide an active forum for continual interaction in research between the Schools and the University Executive. 4. To advise the Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research and Enterprise. 5. To guide the work of the University’s administrative and support services in ensuring that agreed priorities in research are properly reflected and supported.

Members Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research and Enterprise (Chair) Director of Research (School of Applied Sciences) Director of Research (School of Art, Design & Architecture) Director of Research (Business School) Director of Research (School of Computing and Engineering) Director of Research (School of Education and Professional Development) Director of Graduate Education (School of Human and Health Sciences) Director of Graduate Education (School of Music, Humanities and Media) Director of Research and Enterprise Head of Research and Graduate Education Head of Research Administration (Secretary)

Schedule of Meetings 2009/10 4 November 2009, 10.00 - 12.00Castle Hill Suite Meeting Room 3 February 2010, 10.00 - 12.00 Castle Hill Suite Breakout Room 12 May 2010, 10.00 - 12.00

Castle Hill Suite Breakout Room


Minutes of Meetings Minutes of meetings are available in WISDOM. A link can be found at http://intra2.hud.ac.uk/research/urg.php


Graduate Education Group The Graduate Education Group (GEG) is responsible for strategic and policy matters in relation to all aspects of graduate education. The Group is also responsible for identifying and sharing good practice across Schools in graduate education work.GEG meets four times a year and reports to the University Research Committee.

Terms 1. To co-ordinate the ongoing development and management graduate education. 2. To discuss emerging issues, policy matters and initiatives and to co-ordinate action to respond to them. 3. To provide an active forum for continual interaction in graduate education between the Schools and the University Executive. 4. To advise the Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research and Enterprise. 5. To guide the work of the University’s administrative and support services in ensuring that agreed priorities in graduate education are properly reflected and supported.

Members Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research and Enterprise (Chair) Director of Graduate Education (School of Applied Sciences) Director of Graduate Education (School of Art, Design & Architecture) Director of Graduate Education (Business School) Director of Graduate Education (School of Computing and Engineering) Director of Graduate Education (School of Education and Professional Development) Director of Graduate Education (School of Human and Health Sciences) Director of Graduate Education (School of Music, Humanities and Media) Director of Research and Enterprise Director of International Strategy Director of Student Services Head of Research and Graduate Education Head of Research Administration (Secretary)


Schedule of Meetings 2009/10 13 October 2009, 10.00 - 12.00 CS11 Boardroom 19 January 2010, 10.00 - 12.00 Castle Hill Suite Meeting Room 13 April 2010, 10.00 - 12.00

Castle Hill Suite Meeting Room

6 July 2010, 10.00 - 12.00

Castle Hill Suite Breakout Room

Minutes of Meetings Minutes of meetings are available in WISDOM. A link can be found at http://intra2.hud.ac.uk/research/geg.php


Research and Enterprise

Supervisor Development


University of Huddersfield Research and Enterprise

Suggested Fields and Content for a Full Academic Curriculum Vitae A cv should be tailored according to use including the appropriate level of detail and of the requisite length. Having a full cv available and using only relevant material ensures it is always fit for purpose. Below are a large number of suggested fields which cover a wide variety of activities undertaken by academics. These should also map onto the electronic staff profile maintained by all academic staff at the University of Huddersfield Personal Details Full name Date of birth Present appointment (School, position, dates) Contact details Education and Qualifications HE(degree to higher doctorate), titles of theses should be given Professional qualifications and training Experience Previous appointments (employer, position, dates) Teaching Teaching duties past and present CPD Innovation in teaching Widening participation Reach out Staff development External teaching Curriculum development Generic skills training Research Research interests Collaboration Research outputs (see list for examples) Journal publications refereed, internet publication, books authored/edited Conference contributions refereed/non-refereed Works of art, performances, exhibitions, artefacts, compositions, film, media Software Patent, published patent application Clinical activity Postgraduate Research Student supervision Research grants, awards and funding Knowledge transfer Industrial links Overseas links Professional Standing Journal editorial board Journal refereeing Consultancy


Book reviews Grant reviewer Expert witness Invited speaker/lectures Awards and prizes Visiting appointments Honorary positions External examining UG, PGT, PGR Validations or review panels Advisory panels Peer review panels/colleges Membership of professional organisations e.g. professional bodies, subject associations, learned societies, working parties, national boards or committees, academic lobby Entrepreneurship/Enterprise Spin-out activity Commercial exploitation of research Consultancy Company board membership Leadership Module Course Research group Administration Open days Research festival Membership of University committees or groups Administrative roles Promotional activities Cultural activities Other Conference organisation Student support activities eg personal tutor or advisor Media activities

Examples of Research Outputs 1. Authored books: author(s); year of publication; title of book; publisher; place of publication. 2. Books edited by the candidate: editor(s); year of publication; title of book; publisher; place of publication. 3. Articles and chapters in edited books: author(s) (of article); year of publication; title of article; (in) title of book; (edited by) editor(s); publisher; place of publication. 4. Refereed articles in Academic Journals: author(s); year of publication; title of article; journal; volume (and number if appropriate). 5. Other refereed articles: (for example, articles in professional journals and popular but serious journals where refereed): author(s); year of publication; title of article; title of publication; volume or equivalent. 6. Non-refereed articles: author(s); year of publication; title of article; title of publication; volume or equivalent. 7. Refereed and published conference proceedings* (that is, published papers arising from conferences which have been refereed): author(s); year of publication; title of article; title of conference proceedings; volume (if appropriate); conference organisers and/or publishers; place of publication; venue of conference.


8. Other refereed and/or non-published conference contributions*: author(s); year of publication; title of presentation or abstract; conference organisers; venue of conference. 9. Exhibitions: exhibitor(s) (that is, sole or group); title of exhibition; venue; dates; title(s) and/or number of exhibited works; details of any published critique of the exhibition. 10. Review articles (excluding book reviews): author(s); year of publication; title of review; (published in) title of publication; edited by (if appropriate); refereed or not; publisher; place of publication. 11. Book reviews: author of book review; title of book reviewed; author of book; review published in (name of publication); year, volume and number (or exact date) of publication. 12. Official reports (for example, consultancy reports; report of chaired external committees); author(s); year of publication; title of report; report commissioned by whom. 13. Departmental working papers and University series: author(s); year of publication; title of article; working paper/series title (if any); publisher. 14. Other forms of research output: (for example, production; direction; choreography) musical works; works of art; computer programmes): provide details including details of any published critique of the work. 15. Editorships (that is, journal editor or series editor not edited books): details of journal or series edited; year(s) of editorship; publisher; place of publication. * conferences include learned societies; professional bodies; seminars; symposia; and similar activities.


The Supervisor Networking and Best Practice Forum The Supervisor Networking and Best Practice Forum is for academic staff who are supervising research students.and meets to provide and develop an appropriate framework of support and activity to underpin best practice. The forum provides the opportunity to address concerns arising out of supervisory practice whilst simultaneously encouraging beneficial networking opportunities across all University disciplines. The forum addresses the needs of supervisors at all levels of experience, offering confidence-building and support for new supervisors and drawing on the expertise of experienced supervisors. The forum is facilitated by Jean York, Graduate Skills Co-ordinator in the Research & Enterprise Office and administered by the Staff Development Office. The following dates and topics have been identified for the current academic year (2009/2010): Date 23.11.09

Time 12.30-2pm

Topic Speakers Open Forum: Professor Alex Hirschfield, School of Human & Health Questions & Answers Sciences Professor Keith Laybourn, School of Music, Humanities & Media Professor Andrew Ball, Pro Vice-Chancellor, Research & Enterprise 8.12.09 Working with 11-1pm Dionne Coburn, Head of International Study Centre Research Students who are Using English as a Second Language 10.2.10 10-12 noon Managing Groups of Dr Karl Hemming, School of Applied Sciences Research Students Professor Andrew Ball, Pro Vice Chancellor Research & Enterprise Professor Nigel King, School of Human & Health Sciences 11.3.10 10-12 noon Dealing with Problems Associated Professor Gary Lucas, School of Computing & Engineering with Part-time Researchers Professor Lesley Jeffries, School of Music, Humanities & 9.6.10 10-12 noon Do’s and Don’ts of Research Supervision Media Dr Steve Swindells, School of Art, Design and Architecture Professor Andrew Ball, Pro Vice Chancellor Research & Enterprise Further sessions will be added where necessary and all events are publicised via Blackboard (in the Postgraduate Researchers resource), and the Staff Development website www.hud.ac.uk/hr/courses/res/?courseId=6061 In addition, all sessions are advertised through the weekly staff bulletin in Staff Development Opportunities and also via email from the Research and Enterprise Office. If you wish to attend one of these sessions please download a Staff Development booking form from: www.hud.ac.uk/hr/downloads/bkngform.doc and return it to the Staff Development Office in the usual way. If you have any questions about this forum, or if you would like to suggest a topic for discussion and/or lead on a session, please contact Jean York at j.e.york@hud.ac.uk or on ext. 1844.


Professional Development (HEP: Research Supervision) Postgraduate Certificate

Course Length: 1 year part-time Number of Places: 30 Contact Course Enquiries Telephone: 01484 478249 Fax: 01484 478120 E-mail: sepd@hud.ac.uk Entry Requirements • •

Member of academic staff eligible to undertake postgraduate research student supervision You will normally have post graduate research experience as a student

To download an application form and apply visit http://www2.hud.ac.uk/edu/courses/applications.php. Introduction Good supervision is central to successful postgraduate research. Traditionally in the higher education sector there has been an assumption that supervision skills are developed through the experience of undertaking a doctorate. Indeed on completing a doctorate, becoming a supervisor is the normal next step in the academic community. Increasingly the complexity and challenges inherent in the teaching-learning process of the postgraduate research journey have been recognised. Indeed nationally, and internationally, the contribution that effective skilled supervisors can have on student recruitment, performance and attrition is now well established. This course offers an accredited framework for members of academic staff seeking to develop their understanding of the research supervisory process and the skills required to effectively support and monitor postgraduate students. Successful completion will be deemed equivalent to one successful doctoral student completion. Course Aims •

To enable you understand the institutional, political, economic and technological context of postgraduate research education.


• •

• •

To critically evaluate and develop skills required to underpin research student learning and development of research capability To have comprehensive understanding of the quality support and monitoring processes required to facilitate progression of research students through their programme of studies to develop insights and realistic retrieval strategies for dealing with problems that may be encountered in student-supervisor relationship and/or the postgraduate journey To examine the assumptions relating to the doctoral achievement and strategies to foster student performance To faciltate a forum for cross disciplinary pedagogic debate and discussion and peer support for new supervisors

Course Structure There are two modules: • •

Developing postgraduate research supervision skills (30 credits: Level M) Supervision of postgraduate research (30 credits: Level M)

The modules are delivered through a variety of learning and teaching strategies: in Semester 1 via a series of case study based workshops (Fridays); and in Semester 2 portfolio development and through (negotiated) attendance at a range of study days. All learning will be supported through on line and face tutorial support and reflective practice. A total of 60 credits at master's level is required for the award. The programme is delivered by the School of Education and Professional Development but will draw on the expertise of colleagues from across the University. This programme forms part of the quality infrastructure to achieve the University’s mission to expand its research and enterprise activity. Career Opportunities The programme is especially relevant for staff beginning their postgraduate research supervisory careers or those wishing to critically examine and advance their existing expertise. Special Features All modules are assessed by assignment work, which will include completion of a portfolio of evidence. There are no written examinations.


Skills Development for Academic Staff/Research Supervisors Full details of the revised programme will be published in April in the 10/11 Staff Development Programme Handbook and website http://www.hud.ac.uk/hr/courses/res/ Project Management Managing Research Projects Related e-resources • Project Management in the Research Context (Epigeum) • Surveys, Interviews and Questionnaires (UoH module) Dissemination Getting Published –Sciences Getting Published – Human & Health Sciences Getting Published – Humanities Presenting your Research Networking Skills Becoming an Author Who’s quoting your work? Giving your publications more impact Related e-resources • Getting Published in the Arts (Epigeum) • Getting Published in the Sciences (Epigeum) • The Literature Review (Epigeum) Information Management Organising your references with Endnote Library Support for Research Staff Search Smarter, Search Faster Research Development & Governance Knowledge Exchange and Commercial Awareness Applying for External Research Funding Intellectual Property & Copyright Research Governance and Ethics Research Excellence framework and Impact Forum Academic Bid Support Forum Developing a Research Environment: The role of Research oriented MSC Courses Related e-resources • Legal and Ethical Issues (research leader) • Intellectual Property in the Research Context (Epigeum) • Research Ethics 1. Governance (Epigeum) • Research Ethics 2. Working with Human Subjects (Epigeum) Enterprise Enterprise Educators’ Forum The Enterprising Researcher Technical & Research Skills An introduction to SPSS - Quantitative Analysis Qualitative Analysis – NVIVO Related e-resources • Research Methods in the Arts (Epigeum) • Research Methods in the Social Sciences (Epigeum)


• • • • •

Research Methods in the Sciences (Epigeum) Research Methods and techniques (UoH module) Tools for Innovation and Creativity (UoH module) Introduction to Qualitative Methods (UoH Module) Introduction to Quantitative Methods and Analysis (UoH Module)

Related Teaching, Learning and Leadership Skills Online Resource to Support the Leadership Development of Principal Investigators Effective Research Supervision Internal and External Viva Examiner Training Supervisor Networking and Best Practice Forum PGR Personal Tutor Briefing Leading a Research Team Related e-resources • Leading a Research Team (research leader) • Developing your Researchers (research leader) • Managing Research Finances (research leader) Career Management Career Planning Mentor Scheme Staff Research Degree Forum Personal & Professional Development Planning Related e-resources • Managing your Research Career (research leader) Equality & Diversity Introduction to Equality & Diversity Research Skills Development for Postgraduate Researchers Effective Researcher Workshop PGR Induction Introduction to Career Planning Career Preparation: Self Assessment Career Preparation: Effective Applications Career Preparation: Interview Techniques Using the Thesis Framework for Researchers Presentation & Communication Skills Networking Skills Research Project Planning Writing Workshop Viva Preparation SPSS-Managing Quantitative Data NVIVO-Managing Qualitative Data Support for Researchers Critical Thinking Skills See also (Teaching & Learning Section) Teaching Assistant Preparation Programme (TAPP) • Introduction to Teaching and Learning • Introduction to Small Group Teaching • Designing Learning Activities • Introduction to Lecturing and Teaching Large Groups • Student Assessment and Feedback


• • •

Developing Effective Presentation Skills Introduction to Supporting Disabled Students Evaluating Learning and Teaching

Additional e-learning support for researchers UK Grad Programme Other courses Dependent on your role you may also be interested in the following courses (details within this booklet): • Business and Enterprise Development Forum • Developing Your Coaching Skills • Health and Safety in Research • Memory Training • Mentor Development Workshop • Mentor Forum • Project Management • Speed Reading


The Library and Computing Centre

5 steps to adding your research to the University Repository Step 1 - How do I access the Repository? All you need is your network login to gain access to the repository at http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/. Once you have logged in you will be taken to your User Area where you can begin to add your research. Click on

to create a new repository record.

Step 2 - What can I add? You can add a range of research outputs, from journal articles to compositions. The item type you choose determines how the rest of the record will display and what information you will need to provide.

For more information on how to add different research outputs please refer our

Step 3 - What can I upload? Most publishers allow the ‘Accepted Version’ of a journal article to be used in the Repository, that is the author-created version that incorporates referee comments and is the accepted for publication version, usually a Word document. For further details Sherpa (http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo) provides reliable information on publishers’ copyright policies, but if you are unsure, contact the Repository team. E.mailbox@hud.ac.uk

Step 4 - What details do I need? Try to provide as much bibliographic information as possible when filling in your record. For example:

The information you will need to provide will differ depending on what you are depositing, but the record will clearly tell you what information is required. You also need to choose subject headings, a maximum of 3 is recommended.


Step 5 – When do my items appear in the Repository? When you deposit an item the record is checked by the Repository Team before it is placed in public view. This is where we will check any copyright implications on your behalf.

Once this has happened, the record will be appear on the Repository, it will also be searchable via Summon (the new service to replace MetaLib inn summer 2010) and Google (Scholar) and feed into your staff profile page, for example:

For further help and advice about the Repository, please contact the Repository Team at E.mailbox@hud.ac.uk

March 2010 Contact: E.mailbox@hud.ac.uk URL: http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/


An Agreement between the Funders and Employers of Researchers in the UK


The 7 Principles of the Concordat Principle 1 Recognition of the importance of recruiting, selecting and retaining researchers with the highest potential to achieve excellence in research.

Principle 2 Researchers are recognised and valued by their employing organisation as an essential part of their organisation’s human resources and a key component of their overall strategy to develop and deliver world-class research.

Principle 3 Researchers are equipped and supported to be adaptable and exible in an increasingly diverse, mobile, global research environment.

Principle 4 The importance of researchers’ personal and career development, and lifelong learning, is clearly recognised and promoted at all stages of their career.

Principle 5 Individual researchers share the responsibility for and need to pro-actively engage in their own personal and career development, and lifelong learning.

Principle 6 Diversity and equality must be promoted in all aspects of the recruitment and career management of researchers.

Principle 7 The sector and all stakeholders will undertake regular and collective review of their progress in strengthening the attractiveness and sustainability of research careers in the UK.


The Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers

Contents Definitions

5

Sections: A. Recruitment and Selection – Principle 1 B. Recognition and Value – Principle 2 C. Support and Career Development – Principles 3 & 4 D. Researchers’ Responsibilities – Principle 5 E. Diversity and Equality – Principle 6 F. Implementation and Review – Principle 7 Annex 1

6 8 10 12 14 16

Membership of the working group for the revision of the Concordat

18

Annex 2

Relevant legislation and guidance

19

Annex 3

European Guidance and Codes of Practice

20


Foreword

I am delighted to introduce this Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers. Supporting world-class research is central to the remit of the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills. This Department was created in June 2007 almost a year ago by the Prime Minister to make this country one of the best places in the world for science, research and innovation. It goes without saying that high quality, well-motivated research staff are critical to maintaining and developing that world-class research base. Equally, high quality training, support and management processes have the potential to maximise the output and impact of research and contribute to the attractiveness of UK research careers. It is right that continuing investment in research should be accompanied by an increased focus on the careers of those who will be conducting that research, and enabling us to move forward. I am, therefore, particularly pleased that Research Councils UK (RCUK), Universities UK and their partners have embraced this important agenda. The agreement of the research careers Concordat in 1996 was a breakthrough and a landmark for the Higher Education sector. After the Concordat was established, university employers and funding agencies agreed standards, expectations, and responsibilities for the proper management and development of the many researchers in universities. Since then a number of relevant developments have occurred in the higher education sector, including new legislation affecting staff on fixed term contracts, amendments to UK Research Councils’ grant terms and conditions, and the introduction of a European Charter for Researchers and Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers. In response to these, and to improving practice in research career management, researchers’ expectations of their career development and working conditions have grown. To reflect this progress and the growing awareness of the benefits which the effective management of research careers can bring, a new Concordat has been agreed by the sector which builds on the 1996 version and takes a broad approach to enhancing the attractiveness and sustainability of research careers.

2

The new Concordat consists of: A set of principles for the future support and management of research careers and, under each principle, an explanation of how it may best be embedded into institutional practice; A clear statement of the signatories’ collective expectations for the support and management of researchers; A section emphasising the responsibility of researchers to take control of their career and to further it through informed decisions. One of the main benefits of this Concordat will be to provide a single, unambiguous statement of the expectations and responsibilities of researchers, their managers, employers and funders. It will also demonstrate internationally – including to researchers considering coming to work in the UK – the high standards of management and support that can be expected by UK researchers. Finally I would like to thank all the signatories and supporters who will be implementing and reviewing the Concordat, which will benefit the sector and UK society and the economy.

Ian Pearson Minister of State for Science and Innovation 25 June 2008


Introduction

In 1996, with the aim of providing a general reference point for good practice across the UK higher education sector, the UK Research Councils, the Committee of ViceChancellors and Principals (now Universities UK), the Standing Committee of Principals (now GuildHE) and others signed a ‘Concordat on Contract Research Staff Career Management’. The 1996 Concordat set standards for the career management and conditions of employment of researchers in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) on fixed-term or similar contracts who were funded through research grants or similar schemes. It provided a general reference point for good practice for higher education in the UK. The Research Careers Initiative monitored the Concordat’s progress, encouraged dissemination of good practice and stimulated and encouraged initiatives throughout the UK. Sir Gareth Roberts championed the issue of research careers and as chair of the Research Careers Initiative Strategy Group (1997-2002), he recognised “...the need to develop policy and practice in relation to the growing number of staff employed exclusively or predominantly to carry out research”. The publication of his report SET for Success in 2002 provided a blueprint for a set of measures for addressing critical issues affecting the supply of scientists and engineers. The Government has encouraged this, in the 2000 White Paper: “Excellence and Opportunity”, in its response to the “Roberts’ Review: SET for Success” and in its science strategy report, “Investing in Innovation”.

A wide range of issues still need to be addressed, in particular that researchers should have greater security of employment. Researchers are also a distinctive group of staff and as such their management and development should be addressed within institutional HR strategies. These should also ensure that women and minority groups are not disadvantaged. The Concordat provides a framework for implementation – reflecting the sector’s strong recommendation – including a steering group with an independent chair, a benchmarking study and a major review after three years. The signatories and supporters have expressed their collective commitment to the Concordat’s implementation and expect that significant emphasis will be placed on the sharing of good practice between institutions and on the use of existing data and information sources to provide evidence of its impact. The signatories and supporters of the Concordat look forward to continuing to work together to make the implementation of this Concordat a success.

Iain Cameron On Behalf of the Sector Working Group

To reflect progress, Research Councils UK (RCUK) and Universities UK (UUK) convened a UK higher education sector working group to draft a new Concordat. Development of the Concordat has included wide consultation and engagement with the sector - a process which has been invaluable in ensuring the Concordat is feasible and fit for purpose. This development has been endorsed by the UK Research Base Funders’ Forum - representing the major public and private funders of public research in the UK.

The Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers

3


Principles, Signatories and Supporters In endorsing the principles, we, the signatories, hereby adopt the principles of the ‘European Charter for Researchers and Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers’

The UK research community is proud of our country’s long tradition of research excellence, both for its own sake and for the wider benefit it brings to the health, economy and well being of our nation. This Concordat sets out a vision of working practices, roles and responsibilities that we believe will further the attractiveness and sustainability of research careers in the UK, and thus ensure the continued provision of well-trained, talented and motivated researchers that is essential to the continuation of our research excellence. We are committed to the realisation of this vision in the UK. The UK has a high standing in Europe for its attention to the management of its researchers. It was therefore important that the UK demonstrate its alignment with the European Charter and Code and this was done through a ‘Gap Analysis’ conducted by a previous working group, also led by UUK and RCUK. We are pleased that this Concordat unambiguously states that the higher education sector adopts the principles of the European Charter and Code. We recognise that researchers in Higher Education and research institutions constitute a diverse group, including postgraduate students, research-only employees on short-term projects, part-time staff, lecturers and professors with a range of duties including research. The principles set out here apply equally to any member of staff engaged in research, and provide a framework of good practice for the management of all researchers and their careers. Nevertheless, the focus of this document is on employees engaged principally to undertake research, the majority of whom are necessarily supported by fixed-term project funding. Despite progress made since the Concordat of 1996, this group is still rendered vulnerable by the uncertainty of research funding. The aim of this Concordat is to ensure maximum benefit to the researcher, their employing organisations and the research base during their period of employment as researchers in higher education and research institutions, recognising that this may be only part of a much longer career track.

4

We hereby undertake to adopt the following principles: 1.

Recognition of the importance of recruiting, selecting and retaining researchers with the highest potential to achieve excellence in research.

2.

Researchers are recognised and valued by their employing organisation as an essential part of their organisation’s human resources and a key component of their overall strategy to develop and deliver world-class research.

3.

Researchers are equipped and supported to be adaptable and flexible in an increasingly diverse, mobile, global research environment.

4.

The importance of researchers’ personal and career development, and lifelong learning, is clearly recognised and promoted at all stages of their career.

5.

Individual researchers share the responsibility for and need to pro-actively engage in their own personal and career development, and lifelong learning.

6.

Diversity and equality must be promoted in all aspects of the recruitment and career management of researchers.

7.

The sector and all stakeholders will undertake regular and collective review of their progress in strengthening the attractiveness and sustainability of research careers in the UK.


Signatories

Definitions

The signatories1 of this Concordat are: Universities UK GuildHE Research Councils UK2 The Royal Society The British Academy The Royal Academy of Engineering The Wellcome Trust Higher Education Funding Council for England Higher Education Funding Council for Wales The Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council Department for Employment and Learning Northern Ireland The National Institute for Health Research The Department of Health Scottish Government Health Directorates British Heart Foundation Technology Strategy Board

Researchers Researchers are broadly defined as individuals whose primary responsibility is to conduct research and who are employed for this purpose. It is recognised that this broad category of staffing covers a wide range of staff with different disciplinary backgrounds, levels of training, experience and responsibility, types of contract (fixed or open ended, full or part time), and different career expectations and intentions. Recognising the diversity of research staff experience and expertise, it is impossible to address researchers as a homogeneous group.

Employers of researchers Those public or private institutions or organisations that employ individuals to conduct research.

Supporters Academy of Medical Sciences Academy of Social Sciences Association of Graduate Careers Advisory Services Association of Medical Research Charities Association of Research Managers and Administrators British Educational Research Association CRAC: The Career Development Organisation Council for Science and Technology Equality Challenge Unit Institute of Biology Institute of Physics Modern Universities Research Group National Research Staff Association The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education Royal Society of Chemistry The 1994 Group University Alliance UK Higher Education Europe Unit Universities Personnel Association UK Resource Centre for Women in SET Vitae, incorporating the UK GRAD Programme and UKHERD

Research managers Those responsible for managing and supporting researchers, including: Supervisors, Principal and Co-Investigators (The Principal Investigator takes responsibility for the intellectual leadership of the research project, for the overall management of the research and for the management and development of researchers), Research Team Leaders, Directors of Research and Heads of Schools or Departments.

Supporters of researchers Those responsible for supporting researchers in their career development as well as the administrative and other processes related to research, including: Research Administrators, Finance Officers, HR staff, Staff Developers, Careers Advisors and Mentors.

Funders of researchers

1

An up to date list of signatories and supporters is maintained on the Concordat website The Arts and Humanities Research Council The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council The Economic and Social Research Council The Medical Research Council The Natural Environment Research Council The Science and Technology Facilities Council

2

Those institutions and organisations which fund public and private research. It is recognised that funders may also be employers of researchers.

A Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers

5


A. Recruitment and Selection PRINCIPLE 1 Recognition of the importance of recruiting, selecting and retaining researchers with the highest potential to achieve excellence in research.

6

1.

All members of the UK research community should understand that researchers are chosen primarily for their ability to advance research at an institution.

2.

Employers should strive to attract excellence and respect diversity (see Principle 6). Recruitment and selection procedures should be informative, transparent and open to all qualified applicants regardless of background. Person and vacancy specifications must clearly identify the skills required for the post and these requirements should be relevant to the role.

3.

Research posts should only be advertised as a fixed-term post where there is a recorded and justifiable reason.

4.

To assure fairness, consistency and the best assessment of the candidates’ potential, recruitment and progression panels should reflect diversity as well as a range of experience and expertise. In order to promote these values, individuals who are members of recruitment and promotion panels should have received relevant recent training. Unsuccessful applicants should be given appropriate feedback if requested as this may be of assistance to the researcher in considering their further career development.

5.

The level of pay or grade for researchers should be determined according to the requirements of the post, consistent with the pay and grading arrangements of the research organisation.


The Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations came into force in October 2002. The purpose of the legislation was to 1. limit the use of successive fixed term contracts (this aspect of the legislation came into full effect in July 2006). 2. prevent fixed term employees being treated less favourably than similar permanent employees. “The University has welcomed these changes as an opportunity to move towards an employment environment where our reliance on fixed term contracts is greatly reduced. This is because we believe this will provide: greater security of employment and a more positive working experience for all staff. enhanced ability to recruit and retain top quality people. an opportunity for staff to develop a broader skill base, leading to a more highly skilled, flexible and effectively managed workforce”. University of Bristol

The Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers

7


B. Recognition and Value PRINCIPLE 2 Researchers are recognised and valued by their employing organisation as an essential part of their organisation’s human resources and a key component of their overall strategy to develop and deliver world-class research.

1.

2.

3.

Employers are encouraged to value and afford equal treatment to all researchers, regardless of whether they are employed on a fixed term or similar contract. In particular, employers should ensure that the development of researchers is not undermined by instability of employment contracts. This approach should be embedded throughout all departmental structures and systems. Commitment by everyone involved to improving the stability of employment conditions for researchers and implementing and abiding by the principles and terms laid down in the Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (2002) and Joint Negotiating Committee for Higher Education Staff (JNCHES) guidance on the use of fixed-term contracts will provide benefits for researchers, research managers, and their organisations. Research managers should be required to participate in active performance management, including career development guidance, and supervision of those who work in their teams. Employers should ensure that research managers are made aware of, and understand their responsibilities for the management of researchers and should provide training opportunities, including equality and diversity training, to support research managers in doing this. Institutions will wish to consider

how research managers’ performance in these areas is developed, assessed and rewarded, and how effectively this supports good research management. 4.

Organisational systems must be capable of supporting continuity of employment for researchers, such as funding between grants, other schemes for supporting time between grant funding, or systems for redeploying researchers within organisations where resources allow. Funders are expected to make it a priority to consider how their policies, guidance and funding can be enhanced to help employers to achieve this objective.

5.

Pay progression for researchers should be transparent and in accordance with procedures agreed between the relevant trade unions and the employers nationally and locally. In HEIs, pay progression will be in accordance with the Framework Agreement, though recognising the flexibility that institutions have in implementing the Framework.

6.

Researchers need to be offered opportunities to develop their own careers as well as having access to additional pay progression. Promotion opportunities should be transparent, effectively communicated and open to all staff. It is helpful if clear career frameworks for early stage researchers are outlined in organisational HR strategies.

Leadership Development for Principal Investigators “The Principal Investigators’ resource helps them to navigate the bewildering array of leadership and management responsibilities they face. It provides support in five key areas: Leading a Research Team Legal and Ethical Issues Developing Your Researchers Managing Your Research Career Managing Research Finances For further information about the resources see http://www.le.ac.uk/researchleader ”

8


Appraisal “Like other staff members, researchers should have regular formal progress and review meetings, often referred to as appraisal. Appraisal arrangements for researchers must cover two distinct sets of goals and, given the particular needs of research staff, this Code of Practice recommends two distinct types of formal review meeting to discuss the research project and personal development. Two distinct meetings are recommended since: a. compared with the enormous short-term pressures of the project, development and career plans for life beyond the research project can seem of low priority and become neglected, and

b. development needs for future career plans (such as teaching experience) may be seen as conflicting with project needs (e.g. more time in the lab/library). The two meetings recommended are: A Project Review Meeting that concentrates on progress towards the goals of the specific research project, and A Development Review Meeting which focuses on the wider career and personal development of the researcher beyond the current project”. University of Edinburgh

The Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers

9


C. Support and Career Development PRINCIPLE 3 Researchers are equipped and supported to be adaptable and flexible in an increasingly diverse, mobile, global research environment.

10

1.

It is recognised that positions of permanent employment are limited in the UK research and academic communities and that not all researchers will be able to obtain such a position. It is, therefore, imperative that researcher positions in the UK are attractive in themselves (and not, for example, solely as potential stepping stones to permanent academic positions). This requires that they provide career development which is comparable to, and competitive with, other employment sectors.

2.

A wide variety of career paths is open to researchers, and the ability to move between different paths is key to a successful career. It is recognised that this mobility brings great benefit to the UK economy and organisations will, therefore, wish to be confident that their culture supports a broad-minded approach to researcher careers and that all career paths are valued equally.

3.

Employers, funders and researchers recognise that researchers need to develop transferable skills, delivered through embedded training, in order to stay competitive in both internal and external job markets. Therefore, as well as the necessary training and appropriate skills, competencies and understanding to carry out a funded project, researchers also need support to develop the communication and other professional skills that they will need to be both effective researchers and highly-skilled professionals in whatever field they choose to enter.

4.

All employers will wish to review how their staff can access professional, independent advice on career management in general, particularly the prospect of employment beyond their immediate discipline base, or offering training and placements to broaden awareness of other fields and sectors.

5.

Researchers benefit from clear systems that help them to plan their career development. Employers and funding bodies should assist researchers to make informed choices about their career progression by ensuring that their own policies and processes for promotion and reward are transparent and clearly stated and that all researchers are aware of local and national career development strategies.

6.

Employers should provide a planned induction programme for researchers, on appointment to a research post, to ensure early effectiveness through the understanding of the organisation and its policies and procedures. They should also ensure that research managers provide effective research environments for the training and development of researchers and encourage them to maintain or start their continuous professional development.

7.

Employers and funders will wish to consider articulating the skills that should be developed at each stage of their staff development frameworks and should encourage researchers to acquire and practise those skills. For example, researchers may be given the opportunity to manage part of the budget for a project, or to act as a mentor or advisor to other researchers and students.

8.

Employers also should provide a specific career development strategy for researchers at all stages of their career, regardless of their contractual situation, which should include the availability of mentors involved in providing support and guidance for the personal and professional development of researchers. All researchers should be familiar with such provisions and arrangements.

9.

Research managers should actively encourage researchers to undertake Continuing Professional Development (CPD) activity, so far as is possible within the project. It should be stressed that developmental activity can often have a direct impact on the success of the project, by distributing work, taking advantage of individual strengths and talents, and increasing the skill and effectiveness of researchers in key areas such as writing for publication or communicating with a wider audience. Funding bodies acknowledge that the training of researchers is a significant contribution to research output and they encourage employers and mentors to adopt these practices.


PRINCIPLE 4 The importance of researchers’ personal and career development, and lifelong learning, is clearly recognised and promoted at all stages of their career.

10. Researchers should be empowered by having a realistic understanding of, and information about, their own career development and career direction options as well as taking personal responsibility for their choices at the appropriate times. Employers should introduce appraisal systems for all researchers for assessing their professional performance on a regular basis and in a transparent manner. It is important that researchers have access to honest and transparent advice on their prospects for success in their preferred career. 11. Employers will wi