1. The University undertakes to make satisfactory arrangement for the admission, candidature, supervision and examination of candidates. This code of practice sets out guidelines for candidature for MPhil/PhD and other doctoral degrees (including the Integrated PhD and taught 'professional' doctorate) in either the University or the Accredited Colleges. It is intended to amplify and complement the Regulations ¹ and provide a framework for all supervisory relationships. It is supplemented by School ² or College guidelines which are consistent with this code of practice but specify more detailed procedures operating at local level.
   
   
2. The code is intended to promote good practice in research candidature and supervision and ensure a degree of comparability in the student experience. It is essential that a good working relationship is established between the supervisor and the student and that responsibilities on both sides are clearly defined and understood.

3. The MPhil and PhD are higher degrees involving a programme of research training and supervision, and leading either to the production of a thesis or, in the case of candidates in Music or in Art and Design³, the production of an original work or recital together with additional material (as specified in Regulation 22, see University Regulations for the Degrees of Master of Philosophy and Doctor of Philosophy).

4. The thesis, or equivalent submission for Music and Art and Design, which is the outcome of the research project and the training programme, must be composed clearly and presented in the required format. The subject should be dealt with in an orderly manner, using appropriate research methods and techniques and displaying critical discrimination in evaluating evidence.

5. For the award of PhD, candidates must have demonstrated:⁴
   
   
   1. the creation and interpretation of new knowledge, through original research or other advanced scholarship, or of a quality to satisfy peer review, extend the forefront of the discipline, and merit publication;
      
      
   2. a systematic acquisition and understanding of a substantial body of knowledge which is at the forefront of an academic discipline or an area of professional practice;
      
      
   3. the general ability to conceptualise, design and implement a project for the generation of new knowledge, applications or understanding at the forefront of the discipline, and to adjust the project design in the light of unforeseen problems; and
      
      
   4. a detailed understanding of applicable techniques for research and advanced academic enquiry.
      

6. The MPhil is an award of considerable distinction in its own right, and is awarded for the successful completion of a substantial element of research or equivalent enquiry. The MPhil differs from the PhD only in terms of the scope of study required and the extent of the original personal contribution to knowledge.
   
   
7. More specifically, for the award of MPhil, candidates must have demonstrated:
   
   
   1. a systematic understanding of knowledge, and a critical awareness of current problems and/or new insights, much of which is at, or informed by, the forefront of their academic discipline, field of study, or area of professional practice;
      
      
   2. originality in the application of knowledge, together with a practical understanding of how established techniques of reseach and enquiry are used to create and interpret knowledge in the discipline;
      
      
   3. conceptual understanding that enables the student:
      
      
      • to evaluate critically current research and advanced scholarship in the discipline;
        
        
      • to evaluate methodologies and develop critiques of them and, where appropriate, to propose new hypotheses;
        
        
   4. A comprehensive understanding of techniques applicable to their own research or advanced scholarship.

8. The University offers a number of doctoral degrees with a taught element, for example, taught doctoral programmes or 'professional doctorates' (e.g. Doctor of Education, EdD; Doctor of Engineering, EngD). It also offers the Integrated PhD programme (e.g. Integrated PhD in Economics) in certain disciplines. Both types of programmes are covered by this Code of Practice but have separate Regulations.
   
   
9. In terms of comparability with the PhD, it is appropriate to regard the taught element of the professional doctorate (usually no more than one third of the programme) as being at master's level and the subsequent research and thesis preparation at doctoral level. According to the Credit and HE Qualifications Guidelines jointly prepared by credit accumulation and transfer agencies (November 2001, p.14), this is the rationale behind the guidance that up to 180 credit points (one third) may be achieved at Level 7 of the Higher Education Qualification Framework for England, Wales and Northern Ireland (with a small allowance at Level 6) and the remaining 360 credit points (two thirds) should be achieved at Level 8.

10. Applicants must demonstrate that they are capable of undertaking a sustained piece of research and producing a thesis. They should normally hold a good honours degree from a recognised UK or overseas University or the Council for National Academic Awards (CNAA), but in exceptional circumstances applicants with other non-standard qualifications and appropriate experience may be accepted. Some candidates may be required to undertake a taught masters degree first.

11. Students whose first language is not English will also be required to demonstrate an adequate knowledge of English as defined by University Senate ⁵.

12. Two independent academic references must be received for all applicants.

13. Where possible, admissions decisions should involve the judgement of more than one member of staff with relevant expertise, and should always take into account the University's Equal Opportunities Policy.

14. Before recommending the acceptance of an applicant the School must satisfy itself that the proposed research programme:
    
    
    • is within the applicant's capabilities;
      
    • is capable of sustaining research at this level and being completed within the required length of candidature;
      
    • can be supported by a suitable supervisor and adequate facilities within an appropriate research environment and that the requirements of the University statement on the Research Environment are met.
      
      
15. Applicants who meet the University's standard entry requirements may be approved at School level. Applications from candidates with non-standard entry qualifications should be forwarded for approval by the appropriate Faculty. The Admissions Office will issue and maintain a list of qualifications currently regarded as 'standard'.

16. Applications for advanced standing relating to candidates transferring to the University of Southampton with their supervisor from another institution are subject to the satisfactory provision of the following from their previous institution:
    
    
    1. an official release, together with details of the duration of the candidate's previous research study;
       
    2. a brief progress report approved by an appropriate officer or committee at the previous institution;
       
    3. confirmation as to whether the candidate has upgraded from MPhil to PhD or not, and
       
    4. details of that process if it has taken place.
       
       
17. Applications relating to candidates wishing to transfer to Southampton independently of their previous supervisor and institution are subject to the satisfactory provision of the information described above, but also:
    
    
    1. two academic references relating to recent previous study (required of all postgraduate applicants);
       
    2. copies of regular progress reports (preferably annual reports) from the previous institution, as far as possible;
       
    3. a clear recommendation from the selector, following an interview of the candidate, explaining why the candidate wants to transfer institution, and why it is felt that prospects for successful completion will be better at the University of Southampton.
       
       
18. All such applications are subject to confirmation by the School concerned that satisfactory arrangements for supervision have been approved, and that the School is satisfied as to the arrangements for financial support for the candidate and control of and facilities for the project.
    
    
19. Decisions on applications for transfer are made by the Dean or nominee of the Faculty or College Research Degrees Committee

20. The entitlements and responsibilities of research students must be defined and communicated clearly to them in the formal offer letter, or in any other communication medium used by the School or Faculty.
    
    

21. Candidates should be provided with opportunities to enable them to commence their studies with an understanding of the academic and social environment within which they will be working.

22. Candidates must have access to a suitable programme of research training which supports their research, complies with any Research Council requirements and which helps them to prepare themselves for their subsequent career. There should also be access to relevant seminar programmes and learned conferences within and - where resources and opportunities permit - beyond the institution.
    
    
23. Candidates' development of generic/transferable skills (such as oral and written communication skills, team work, career management) should be assessed on entry to a research degree programme and should be monitored on an annual basis. The Joint Statement of the Research Councils and Arts and Humanities Research Board (September 2001) provides a useful tool for needs' analysis. A copy may be found at Appendix A.
    
    
24. Schools and Colleges should ensure that candidates have access to suitable in-house or external training in generic/transferable skills as appropriate.
    
    

25. Both supervisors and students should observe due ethical standards in the design, conduct and reporting of the research. Ethical considerations must be addressed in experiments involving either human subjects or animals. Schools/Colleges should establish a formal channel to consider and determine any such ethical issues.

26. All candidates on MPhil/PhD and Integrated PhD programmes should be registered for an MPhil in the first instance with the possibility of transfer to PhD (see below). Transfer to PhD candidature can occur only where the student has made satisfactory progress and successfully completed the upgrading process described in paragraphs 49-53.

27. Candidature may be full or part-time. Part-time candidates will normally be expected to demonstrate that full-time study is not possible because of employment or other commitments. They should also satisfy the academic School/College that they can commit sufficient time to the project to sustain satisfactory progress.

28. The minimum periods of candidature, from the date of registration, are as follows:
    
    

    MPhil:	not less than twelve months full-time;
    	not less than twenty four months part-time;
    PhD:	not less than twenty four months full-time;
    	not less than thirty six months part-time;

    
    

29. In practice the period of candidature will usually be longer. The maximum duration of candidature is four years full-time and seven years part-time.

30. The minimum and maximum periods of candidature should be strictly adhered to. Extensions of candidature beyond the maximum period of time will be granted only where there is good cause, and on specific application by the candidate, supported by the supervisor, before the candidature is due to expire.
    
    
31. Extensions may be approved at School level by the appropriate committee Chair (see Section 2-7-3-2 of the QA Handbook and application form for extensions). Applications for extension must be submitted with the supervisor's approval through the School Office for approval by the Chair of the appropriate School Committee.

32. A School or College Board may allow suspension of candidature, having considered a request from the student accompanied by a written justification and supported by the supervisor. In general, suspensions are allowed in extenuating circumstances (e.g. illness, family crisis) but should not be granted as a matter of course. The maximum period of suspension should be stipulated. In the case of Research Council-funded candidates, due regard should be given to Research Council rules governing suspension.
    
    
33. Suspended students should not receive supervision nor have access to facilities.

34. A research assistant may also be registered, normally part-time, as a candidate for a research degree. Performance as an employee and progress as a student should be assessed and treated separately. The candidate's research project would normally be independent of work undertaken for employment.

35. Research students are allocated a main supervisor or Director of Studies with a supervisory team. Where candidates are allocated only one supervisor, a postgraduate advisor or postgraduate tutor should also be appointed to provide additional support as necessary.
    
    
36. Where a candidate's project extends beyond the supervisor's expertise an additional supervisor should be appointed to provide the required specialist advice.

37. The supervisor, Director of Studies in a supervisory team, should normally be a full-time member of academic staff, or a member of academically-related or research staff approved for this purpose. Other members of academically related staff or an academic member of staff on probation (or senior member of honorary clinical staff in the Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences) may be appointed to supervise in conjunction with a member of full-time academic staff who has appropriate experience of supervision. At least one member of any supervisory team must have prior experience of supervision which has led to successful PhD completion. Supervisors must be active researchers in the appropriate discipline; and should normally themselves have a PhD or equivalent substantial research experience, experience of publication, and expertise in the area of the student's research. Junior staff in formal candidature for a higher degree should not be appointed as supervisors.

38. The responsibilities of the supervisor, or supervisory team, are as follows;

1. to give guidance about the nature of research and the standard expected, the planning of the research programme; literature and sources; requisite techniques; avoidance of plagiarism and the respect of copyright and intellectual property rights and on maintaining appropriate ethical standards;
2. to identify a student's research and generic/transferable skills training needs, advising on attendance at seminars, taught courses and instruction in appropriate research methods and techniques as required;
3. to set the necessary completion dates for successive stages of the work so that the thesis is submitted within the scheduled period;
4. to require written work as appropriate and to return such work in reasonable time with constructive criticism;
5. to maintain contact with the student through regular tutorial and seminar meetings, in accordance with local policy and in the light of discussion of arrangements with the candidate;
6. to be accessible to the candidate at other reasonable times when advice is needed and provide pastoral support as appropriate;
7. to monitor the candidate's work, submit the required progress reports; discuss these with the candidates; and to give advice on progress, upgrading to PhD and submission;
8. to ensure that the candidate is made aware if progress is inadequate or the standard of work is below that generally expected and to develop a constructive plan for its improvement;
9. to arrange as appropriate for the candidate to talk about his/her work to staff or graduate seminars or conferences, or to have practice in oral examinations;
10. to liaise with external bodies as appropriate and to make arrangements with any external supervisors;
11. to encourage publication of work as appropriate;
12. to advise the student on the required safety procedures if appropriate;
13. to ensure that the University's Equal Opportunities Policy is taken into accont in all aspects of the candidate's experience as a research student.

39. If the supervisor is absent for a substantial period, normally one month or more, the School/College should designate a temporary or permanent replacement and make appropriate handover arrangements.

40. The supervisor and candidate should maintain regular tutorial contact. The frequency of tutorials will depend upon the stage and nature of the research project but should, in the case of full-time students, take place at least once per month. Both student and supervisor should have a clear, agreed understanding of the frequency and nature of contact required at any particular stage. In the first year, especially the first term, meetings should be more frequent. Overseas students may need more frequent meetings during the first year.

41. The School/College should establish a procedure whereby a change in supervisor may be made should circumstances warrant it.

42. The ultimate responsibility for the thesis lies with the student and it is therefore essential that s/he participates fully in planning the research project, considering advice and discussing the work with the supervisor or supervisory team. In particular the responsibilities of the student include:
    
    
    1. showing commitment to the research project and programme of studies;
       
    2. discussing with the supervisor the type of guidance and commitment found to be most helpful, and agreeing and adhering to a schedule of meetings;
       
    3. taking the initiative in raising problems or difficulties, however trivial they may seem, and indicating to the advisor or Head of School/College graduate committee at an early stage any perception that supervision is inadequate;
       
    4. maintaining the progress of the work in accordance with the research plan agreed with the supervisor, including in particular the presentation of written material as required in sufficient time to allow for comment and discussion before proceeding to the next stage;
       
    5. agreeing with the supervisor the amount of time to be devoted to the research and the timing and duration of any holiday periods;
       
    6. providing an regular statement on progress to the School/College as part of the annual monitoring and review of candidature;
       
    7. deciding when the thesis is to be submitted, after taking due account of the supervisor's advice;
    8. participating in research and generic/transferable skills training sessions and attending conferences likely to further training in research;
       
    9. participating in staff and student research seminars, presenting occasional seminars;
       
    10. preparing papers for publication or presentation at appropriate conferences.
        
        

43. Although much of the responsibility for ensuring that a student's research reaches a successful completion is shared between the student and the supervisor, the School/College has overall responsibility for the process. TheSchool/College should satisfy itself that the appropriate requirements of the Regulations and of this Code of Practice are met.

44. Research students may be asked to undertake teaching or demonstrating duties, after appropriate training. Schools/Colleges should ensure that such activities, including preparation and marking, do not make excessive demands on the student's time and so detract from the research. As far as possible, Schools/Colleges should comply with guidelines laid down by the relevant Research Council on working hours and with the University's Notes of Guidance on Support for Part-time Staff at Section 2-5- of the QA Handbook

45. It may be appropriate for students to produce articles and papers for publication during candidature. This work should not take precedence over the writing of the thesis and supervisors should give advice about an appropriate balance.

46. It is the supervisor's responsibility to advise the student on the correct safety procedures, especially if the research project entails working with dangerous equipment and materials or is being carried out in a laboratory environment. It is the student's responsibility to abide by the institutional Safety Policy, to observe safe working practices at all times and to follow those procedures prescribed by the supervisor.

47. It is the supervisior's responsibility to ensure that the University's Equal Opportunities Policy is taken into account in all aspects of the candidate's experience as a research student.

48. Each student and supervisor must submit a written report on progress. The report should be used to monitor the candidate's progress and address any general issues arising. There should be formal monitoring and consideration of progress reports at key points during candidature by an appropriate committee (as specified by the School or College). The report by the student should summarise progress made in that year and should be submitted with an assessment by the supervisor. The supervisor should include a statement on the likelihood of the student completing the thesis within the required time limit. Any particular problems encountered by the student eg access to resources or facilities, should be indicated in this report and appropriate action taken.
    

49. It is the responsibility of the supervisor to inform the student of unsatisfactory progress as soon as this becomes apparent. If discussion between the student and the supervisor fail to resolve the issue the School or College may issue a warning to the student, and recommend termination of course if no improvement is forthcoming.

50. All students are registered initially for the degree of MPhil and must apply to upgrade their candidature if they wish to submit for a PhD. This must occur at least six months before submission; in practice it often takes place during the second year of full-time candidature. Upgrade from MPhil to PhD should be recommended only after a formal review of the research topic, of its suitability for development into a PhD thesis and of the candidate's ability and progress. The procedure will vary according to the discipline but should involve the following practice and criteria.

51. In order to be upgraded the following criteria must be met:
    
    
    1. that the student has demonstrated the ability to manage the research project, to become proficient in the special field of research involved, and to achieve success at PhD level given adequate motivation and perseverance.
       
       
    2. that the project being undertaken is of sufficient scope, originality and theoretical interest to constitute a genuine contribution to the subject in the form of the understanding of a problem, the advancement of knowledge or the generation of new ideas.

52. The upgrade panel or committee making the recommendation must have reviewed a sufficient body of written work in order to make a judgement on the criteria noted in paragraph 50. This body of work could include:
    
    
    1. overview of the research problem and rationale for the project;
       
    2. substantial literature review;
       
    3. well-developed plans for fieldwork and data analysis
       
       
53. In addition there should also be some form of viva voce examination, based on the written submission for transfer. Any evidence of capability in some public arena eg through a seminar presentation or published work, may also be considered.

54. A recommendation must be made to the appropriate School or College committee which is charged with responsibility for approving transfers of candidature from MPhil to PhD. The recommendation should be supported by the supervisor(s), advisor(s) and at least one other member of academic staff who has had no direct involvement in the research. If the recommendation is not to allow transfer, the candidate must be given a clear written statement of the reasons, guidance regarding any ways in which s/he might reach the required standard, and a date when the recommendation might be reviewed.

55. Transfer from PhD to MPhil may be permitted at any time prior to the submission of the thesis.

56. Candidates may be allowed to transfer to nominal registration when the supervisor can confirm that the minimum period of candidature has been completed, upgrade has taken place (in the case of a PhD candidate), supervision has ceased and the thesis is being written up. Normally the supervisor will have seen a significant proportion of the thesis in draft form at this stage and will be able to predict the likely completion date before agreeing to transfer of the candidate to nominal registration.
    
    
57. A candidate may remain in nominal registration for up to one year initially at which point the position should be reviewed by the School or College. Time spent in nominal registration will count towards the total period of candidature.
    
    
58. A fee is payable six months after transfer to nominal registration. Candidates retain access to library and computing facilities until their thesis is examined. Access to other facilities (e.g. office space) may be extended at the discretion of the candidate's School.

59. The requirements for the production of the thesis for submission laid down in the booklet Completion of Research Degree of Candidature should be followed. Attention is drawn to the following:

60. The decision to submit the thesis must be the candidate's own. The candidate should take note of the supervisor's advice but this advice should not be taken as an indication that the final thesis will fulfil the requirements of the examiners. The supervisor may inform the School/College office in writing if the candidate submits without his/her agreement; this information will not be made known to the examiners, but may be referred to in any subsequent discussions about the outcome of the examination, particularly where failure leads to an appeal.

61. Candidates must inform the appropriate School/College Office of the intention to submit no later than two months prior to the date of submission in order to allow adequate time for examination arrangements to be made.

62. The maximum length of a thesis for PhD is normally 75,000 words, excluding references and bibliography, or equivalent in the case of non-text based submissions. Supporting factual information may be submitted in an appended volume to the examiners for reference in addition to the thesis and will form part of the record. Candidates who exceed the stipulated length will normally be required by the examiners to resubmit in a form which does not exceed the maximum length. A student may present a statement to the supervisor indicating that the thesis cannot be contained within the stipulated length for reasons relating to the subject material. The supervisor may then recommend, before notice of submission, to the School or College graduate committee that a longer thesis be permitted.

63. A thesis may be written in a language other than English with the approval of the School Board. When considering such a recommendation the School or College graduate committee will take into account the nature of the research and discipline; and will require assurances that there will be no problems in examining the thesis and that the subsequent published work will be accessible to subject specialists.

64. Theses at the time of submission should be accompanied by a signed delaration from the student that the material presented for examination is his/her own work and has not been submitted for any other award (and, where relevant, how it relates to a group project).

65. Plagiarism is defined in the University's General Regulations as 'the reproduction or paraphrasing, without acknowledgement, from public or private (ie unpublished) material attributable to, or which is the intellectual property of another, including the work of other students'.
    
    
66. Where plagiarism in a submitted thesis is alleged or suspected, the internal examiner will prepare and submit a report on this to the Head of School, after consultation with the supervisor and/or internal and external examiners (in the case of a submitted thesis). To determine whether further action is needed, the Head of School will institute an enquiry, which may involve further consultation with the examiners and supervisor, and the Faculty, as seems necessary.
    
    
67. If on the basis of this enquiry, the Head of School concludes that further action is required, (s)he will appoint a formal panel to investigate the allegation fully. This panel will be drawn from members of the School not directly involved with the case.
    
    
68. The panel will give the student notice of the allegations and of the meeting that will be held to investigate the case. The student will be allowed to attend the meeting, accompanied by a member of the University if (s)he chooses. The panel will ask the internal examiner to detail the allegations, and the student will then be given a chance to rebut them. After the hearing, and any other consultations which it wishes to hold, the panel will then meet in private to reach its conclusions.
    
    
69. The student will be informed in writing of the panel's decision. Where in the panel's view the allegations are wholly or partly substantiated, the Head of School will prescribe a penalty, which may include failure in the thesis and either termination of course or a requirement to resubmit a revised thesis within a specified timescale. The student may also be subject to disciplinary proceedings.
    
    
70. When allegations of plagiarism arise at earlier stages, for example in the progress reports or in relation to work submitted for an upgrade from MPhil to PhD, the procedures detailed in paragraphs 65-68 above will apply, except that the role ascribed to the examiners will be performed by members of the School/College graduate committee and/or upgrade panel.

71. Once a candidate has given notice of intention to submit, appropriate examiners must be appointed and arrangements made for the examination. The examination, including the oral, should be completed normally within three months of submission. See Section 2-7-4-4 of the QA Handbook and the accompanying examiners' nomination form.
    
    
72. In order to ensure some externality and quality assurance of choices made and justifications provided, examiners' nomination forms should be approved at faculty level by the Associate Dean or nominee.
    

73. The candidate will be examined normally by an external and an internal examiner; in exceptional circumstances, one additional internal or external examiner may be appointed. Examiners, both internal and external, should have sufficient experience and appropriate subject expertise to be able to examine effectively. The supervisor may not be appointed an examiner.

74. External examiners should normally hold academic posts in another higher education institution. Recommendations for examiners who do not hold such positions should be accompanied by a statement outlining their suitability and ability to examine and there should be sufficient evidence of their research experience and expertise in the subject. External examiners should be independent and the criteria for appointing external examiners for taught courses should be followed.
    
    
75. Former employees and graduates of the University are not eligible to be external examiners until an interval of at least three years has elapsed. The external should have had no formal academic contact with the candidate during the period of research candidature and, although reciprocity may be more difficult to avoid than for taught courses, examiners should not normally be appointed from Schools where University members of staff have recently examined for the same subject if at all possible. Staff in the University or the accredited colleges are ineligible to act as external examiners for University of Southampton awards. College/University staff with appropriate expertise may however be appointed as internal examiners for University candidates provided they have not been involved in the supervision of the candidate, and vice-versa.

76. It is the supervisor's responsibility to make the arrangements for the examination. The supervisor will attend the oral examination - unless the candidate has requested this not to happen - and will be expected to give advice and elucidation to the examiners at their request. The supervisor will not however be appointed an examiner nor take part in the judgement of the thesis under consideration.

77. The viva voce (oral) examination will be chaired by either the internal or external examiner, by agreement between them taking account of College or School custom and practice. In response to a request from either examiner, however, the College/School must appoint an independent chair who is a member of the College/School Board but not an examiner.

78. The external and internal examiners will prepare independent written reports on the thesis prior to the oral examination. After any oral examination a joint report will be prepared, including, where appropriate, an agreed recommendation. In cases where the examiners are unable to reach agreement, a further external examiner should be appointed to assess the thesis and the other examiners' reports. The examiners' recommendations must take one of the following forms:
    
    
    1. that the degree for which the candidate has submitted a thesis be awarded;
       
       
    2. that the degree for which the candidate has submitted a thesis be awarded subject to minor amendments to the thesis being made by a date specified (minor amendments include: minor omissions of substance, typographical errors, occasional stylistic or grammatical flaws, corrections to references, addition/modification of one or to figures, and minor changes to layout, and require no new research. These changes need only be certified by the internal examiner). The date specified for the submission of such minor amendments should normally be no later than a month after the formal notification to the candidate;
       
       
    3. that the degree for which the candidate has submitted a thesis be awarded subject to the correction of modest errors/omissions of substance being made, by a date specified (the procedure for re-examination of the thesis should be clearly specified in the report). Such amendments may require limited further analysis but will not affect the originality of the central thesis. They will be of a scale to require certification by both the internal and external examiners, though normally not so extensive that an oral is required. The date specified for the submission of such intermediate amendments should normally be no later than six months after the formal notification to the candidate.
       
       
    4. that the candidate be required to attend for a further oral examination;
       
       
    5. that the candidate be permitted to submit by a date specified a revised thesis for the same degree for re-examination on one subsequent occasion. The date specified for submission of the revised thesis should normally be no later than twelve months after the formal notification to the candidate;
       
       
    6. that, in the case only of a PhD candiate who has failed to satisfy the examiners, permission be given to the candidate to apply within a specified time for the award of the degree of MPhil. This may be allowed without re-examination, subject to any minor amendment of the thesis which may be required by the examiners, or may be subject to re-examination of a revised thesis;
       
       
    7. that the degree be not awarded and that resubmission of the thesis be not permitted.
       
       
79. A candidate must satisfy the examiners in both the thesis and the oral examination. A candidate may fail either the thesis or the oral or both and the examiners may recommend re-examination only in that part in which the candidate failed. This may not apply if additional work required substantially modifies the submission; on the other hand, where a thesis has demonstrated adequate practical work but insufficient theoretical knowledge, then oral re-examination only may be required.
    
    
80. Candidates required to make minor corrections or resubmit should be given a clear and prompt statement by the examiners of what is required, and by what date.
    
    

81. The reports of the examiners and their recommendations should be scrutinised and approved within the School/College. The outcome of each examination should be formally reported to the School Board or School Committee with delegated authority in this respect, and for College candidates, the resulting recommendations should be submitted to the Colleges Research Degrees Committee (CRDC). Under the exceptional circumstances that the appointed examiners are unable to reach agreement, the examiners shall submit independent reports, and the appropriate School/College Board shall recommend to the Faculty the appointment of an additional external examiner. The additional examiner shall be provided by the School Office with a copy of the thesis/dissertation and the separate reports of the two original examiners, and shall be permitted to interview the candidate before submitting a final report and recommendation to the Chair of the CRDC/Head of School. The Chair/Head of School shall consider all three reports before reporting to School/College Board.

Access to the Thesis

82. The results of research should be freely available. Theses are accessible in the University library, and through the British Library doctoral thesis scheme on a microfiche system. Research which is subject to security classification is not therefore appropriate for a higher degree, and theses may be subject to restriction only in exceptional circumstances when the relevant School Board, on behalf of Senate, agrees to restricted access for a period not exceeding three years from the date of examination. Although this decision may be taken by the relevant School Board on behalf of Senate, each instance of School Board approval of restriction of access should be reported to the next meeting of Senate.

83. If, during the period of study, the student feels that the research project is not proceeding satisfactorily for reasons outside his/her control or that an effective working relationship with the supervisor is not being established or maintained, s/he should first consult the second supervisor, if one has been appointed, or advisor about the situation. If necessary a change of supervisor or recommendations to improve supervisory arrangements may be necessary. If discussions with supervisors or advisors do not improve matters candidates should take up the issue with the Head of the School or Dean of Faculty.

84. Following any recommendation by the Board of Examiners not to award a degree, the student may appeal against this decision, using the agreed procedures for research degree appeals, see Section 2.7.3.3. of the QA Handbook).