research handbook

Researcher Handbook

Researcher handbook - table of contents.

The Researcher Handbook serves as a roadmap for researchers as they navigate the complex research environment at the University of Iowa. This guide provides instructions for getting started, applying for the appropriate approvals, and conducting research that is compliant with relevant government laws and regulations and UI policies and procedures.

1.   What should I do before I start?

          a.  Getting started with the Research Navigation Tool           b.   Identifying research space           c.   Obtaining regulatory approvals and requirements           d.   Transferring animals           e.   Transferring funding           f.    Identifying contacts           g.   Core facilities and resources           h.   Obtaining licenses for controlled substances           i.   Transferring human subjects research data or specimens

2.   Regulatory Requirements

         a.   Disclosing financial interests related to research          b.   Working with animals          c.   Working with human subjects in research          d.   Complying with research and export control regulations          e.   Working with biological materials / organisms          f.   Working with chemicals          g. Working with radioactive materials / radiation producing machines          h. Disposing of chemical, radioactive & biohazardous waste          i.   Serving on committees          j.   Working with Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) materials

3.   Applying for Grants and Contracts

         a.   Finding and asking for funds          b.   Staff resources for grant development support          c.   Proposal preparation and routing          d.   Budget considerations          e.   Working with industry

4.   Managing Awards

         a.   Fiscal responsibility          b.   Spending / Apply costs          c.   Outgoing Subawards          d.   Equipment and other capital assets          e.   Reporting          f.   Changes to the project          g.   Public access          h.  Close-out

5.   Conducting Research Responsibly

         a.   Training in the responsible conduct of research          b.   Research misconduct          c.   Authorship and publication          d.   Shared credit          e.   Whistleblower Protection (41 U.S.C. §4712)            f.   Confidentiality and privacy            g. Intellectual property          h. Data management: research records

6.   Staff Hiring and Supervision

         a.   Getting started          b.   Orienting you and your staff          c.   Performance management          d.   Professional growth and career development

7.   Leaving or Transferring Funds / Specimens out of the UI

         a.   Closing the laboratory space          b.   Closing animal research studies          c.   Closing human research studies          d.   Transfer of grants to another institution            e.   Transfer of biological specimens and protocols to another institution          f.   Data ownership and transfer

If you have suggestions for new content or comments about existing content, please email  [email protected](link sends e-mail) .

• Academic Advising & Accessibility
• Academic and Cultural Enrichment
• Alumni & Friends
• Anthropology Department
• Arts Administration
• Biological Sciences Department
• Business, Nicolais School
• Business Office
• Campus Life
• Campus Safety
• Campus Services
• Career Planning & Development
• Center for Intercultural Advancement
• Center for Leadership & Community Engagement
• Center for Spirituality
• Children & Teens Programs
• Commencement
• Communications & Marketing
• Conference Services
• Continuing Education
• Dance Program
• Dining Services
• Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
• Early Childhood Center
• Education Department
• English Department
• Expanding Your Horizons
• Film & Media
• Film & Photo Shoots
• Financial Aid
• Gender Studies
• Government & Politics Department
• Give to Wagner
• HawkTalk Blog
• Health & Wellness
• History Department
• Holocaust Center
• Honors Program
• Human Resources
• Information Technology
• Institutional Advancement
• Lifelong Learning Department
• Math & Computer Science
• Modern Languages, Literatures & Cultures
• Music Department
• New Students Hub
• Nursing, Evelyn L. Spiro School
• Occupational Therapy
• Performing Arts
• Philosophy & Religious Studies Department
• Physical Sciences Department
• Physician Assistant
• Planetarium
• Pre-Health Science Program
• Pre-Law Program
• President’s Office
• Provost’s Office
• Psychology Department
• Residential Education
• Sociology Department
• Student Engagement and Activities
• Student Government Association
• Study Abroad
• Theatre Season
• Veteran’s Resources
• Visual Arts Department
• Wagner Fund
• Wagner Magazine
• WCBG Student Radio
• Writing Center
• Follett Discover Access
• Events Calendar
• Job Opportunities
• Registrar’s Office
• For Employees
• For Faculty
• For Current Students
• For New Students
• For Community
• For Parents

• Newsroom MENU

The Research Handbook on Feminist Political Thought offers a broad spectrum of feminist analyses on topics including racial and sexual violence, climate change, and reproductive rights. Featuring lived experiences from women across various cultural and geographic contexts, this text is essential reading for students and scholars in feminist, political, and postcolonial theory, as well as policymakers, activists, and academics in philosophy, political science, sociology, and gender studies.

“This Research Handbook on Feminist Political Thought addresses multiple issues in multiple regions from multiple disciplinary perspectives. What the authors of this anthology share is a deep engagement with feminist political thought and feminist activism,” wrote Amrita Basu, a professor at Amherst College. In an interview with John Cabot University , co-editors Moynagh and Caputi reflected on the collaborative nature of the project, stating, "Once the sparks (for this book) started, they never stopped. They are still igniting. And we hope our readers will have new sparks of their own. This is a collective effort to achieve greater freedom and a better life for all of us."

Moynagh is the director of gender studies and a professor in the department of government and politics at Wagner College where she specializes in political theory. Caputi is a professor of political theory at Cal State Long Beach.

12 - Handbook for Examination of Postgraduate Research programmes

• 13 - Research Misconduct
• 15 - Student Pregnancy, Maternity, Paternity and Adoption Policy
• 16 - Visiting Postgraduate Research Students
• 17 - Inclusive Practice within Learning and Teaching
• 18 - Postgraduate Student Absence Policy
• 19 - Employment of postgraduate students: code of good practice
• 20 - Faculty Management of Postgraduate Research: Code of Good Practice
• 21 – PGR Aegrotat and Posthumous Awards
• Quality Review & Enhancement Framework
• Student Cases Handbook
• Special Provisions for Online Programmes (including those offered in partnership with Keypath Education)
• Special Provisions for Healthcare Programmes
• Special Provisions for Degree Apprenticeships
• Special Provisions for Programmes with Accreditation Licenced by the Engineering Council

Chapter 12 - Handbook for Examination of Postgraduate Research programmes

1 - Introduction 2 - Award Specific Information 3 - Assessing Candidates with Disabilities 4 - Nomination of the Board of Examiners and the Non-Examining Independent Chair 5 - Non-Examining Independent Chair 6 - Before the Examination 7 - The Examination 8 - After the Examination 9 - Confidential Feedback

• The Handbook for Examination of Postgraduate Research Programmes replaces the ‘Code of Good Practice: Boards of Examiners for Degrees by Research’.
• It aligns with the QAA guidance on assessment as laid out in 'UK Quality Code, Advice and Guidance: Research Degrees' .
• Statement of Procedures: Presentation of theses/dissertations for degrees in the Faculty of Graduate Research.
• The Credit and Qualifications Framework .
• Academic Regulations and Ordinances within the University Calendar .
• The equitable treatment of students.
• Transparency.
• Consistency.
• Maintenance of the academic standards and integrity of University of Exeter awards.
• Must : to indicate a regulation that will be adhered to in all circumstances. Exceptions to such regulations would only be granted by the Deans in exceptional circumstances. For example “The examiners  must  be agreed that the candidate will be able to complete the amendments necessary for the thesis to meet the assessment criteria for the award in question within no more than 6 months from notification”.
• Should : to indicate a regulation that should be adhered to unless sound pedagogical reasons prevent this. For example “Examiner(s)  should  be nominated three months before the expected submission date”.
• May : to indicate a regulation where action is discretionary but Faculties are expected to demonstrate that taking the action has been considered. For example “The viva  may  be conducted in accordance with this agenda.” May is used both as an indication of good practice and also in the permissive sense.
• References to ‘thesis’ throughout this handbook refers to requirements for both dissertations and theses submitted as part of a postgraduate research programme.
• Responsibilities: As specified in the introduction to the TQA Manual, where reference is made to the Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor in this document, unless otherwise specified, they may delegate their authority to the Associate Dean (Education), the Associate Dean (Research and Knowledge Transfer), Faculty or Department Director of PGR students as relevant. No further delegation of authority may occur unless explicitly specified within this document.

• It is the responsibility of students to inform the University if they have a disability, either during application, registration or following the subsequent onset of a disabling condition.
• Students experiencing physical or mental impairment need to be assessed by Disability Advice and Support  (Exeter or Cornwall campuses). At this assessment the student’s needs will be considered in relation to their programme of study. Individual Learning Plans (ILPs) will be put in place, which may include specific assessment arrangements. Where a student has had a Disabled Students’ Allowance (DSA) following a study needs assessment, the ILP will also detail the recommendations for reasonable adjustments arising from that assessment.
• Faculties , in consultation with Disability Advice and Support ( Exeter or Cornwall campuses) where necessary, should comply with the ILP put in place for each individual student by the Disability Advice and Support services. ILPs may  indicate that adjustments should be made either to the requirements specified in the ‘ Statement of Procedures: Presentation of theses/dissertations for degrees in the Faculty of Postgraduate Research ’ or to the arrangements for the viva.  
• Requests for adjustments to the requirements for the presentation of the thesis should be made as early as possible in a student’s programme of study or following the subsequent onset of a disabling condition.
• A viva is normally required for doctoral degree examinations but may , on exceptional medical or personal grounds, be waived with the express approval of the Dean of Postgraduate Research. Alternative options for holding the viva or deferral of the viva should be considered first. No exceptions to the procedures set out in the ‘Handbook for Examination of Postgraduate Research’ programmes may be made without the express approval of the Dean of Postgraduate Research , unless it is a reasonable adjustment that has been listed on the approved matrix of common adjustments that may be offered (see 4.2.3 of the ‘Inclusive Practice within Academic Study’ Policy).
• Requests for specific arrangements pertaining to the viva should be made via an ILP, prior to submission of the thesis to the Postgraduate Administration Office . Requests received after submission cannot be guaranteed to be met.  Where adjustments to the examination process are required: a) An NEIC should be appointed ( see 4.4 below ).  b) The Postgraduate Administration Office will inform the Board of Examiners (including the NEIC, where appointed) of the adjustments required for the examination as indicated in the ILP.
• The NEIC is responsible for taking the ILP into account when making arrangements for the examination.
• Candidates with short-term injuries/health issues, which are supported by medical evidence, may be able to have specific arrangements made for their viva if their injury or health issues have occurred for the first time since submission. They would need to be assessed by or be in contact with Disability Advice and Support and make a request to the Postgraduate Administration Office . However, these candidate s may need to have the date of their viva deferred if it is not possible for alternative arrangements to be put in place .
• The process for determining what adjustments may be made to the viva or the presentation of the thesis are set out in the ‘Inclusive Practice within Academic Study’ Policy. Where adjustments are needed the first point of reference should be the matrix of common adjustments to viva arrangements.
• A disability that has not been declared prior to an assessment cannot be taken into account retrospectively, unless the candidate can provide a reasonable explanation and properly documented evidence for not having declared it (see also the University’s procedures for Student Academic Appeals ).
• For requirements for Aegrotat Awards see Ordinance 16: Aegrotat Awards .
• For requirements for Post Obitum Awards see Ordinance 15: Post Obitum Awards .
• The Dean of Postgraduate Research appoints all members of the Board of Examiners on behalf of the Board of Postgraduate Research and Senate.
• In accordance with the Ordinances, this must comprise at least two examiners of whom at least one shall be external to the University. Further specific appointment requirements are set out in 4.4 below .
• The Dean of Postgraduate Research is responsible for determining and resolving any conflicts of interest that might arise in the appointment of examiners. Faculties  should ensure that there are no conflicts of interest in the nomination of examiners, and should notify the Dean of Postgraduate Research in any situation where a potential conflict of interest is not otherwise resolvable.
• It is advisable to give early consideration to the nomination of examiners.

• For candidates for whom submission in an alternative format has been approved it is important to ensure that examiners are appointed as early as possible, to ensure that an appropriate Board of Examiners may be nominated.
• The responsibilities of those nominating examiners are: a) To give early consideration to the appointment of the Board of Examiners giving consideration to the criteria for nomination ( 4.5 outlined below ). b) To discuss with their Faculty DPGR (or nominee) any nominations where the eligibility of the nominees in question is not clear. c) To informally approach all nominees prior to their formal appointment to elicit informal agreement to take up the appointment should their nomination be confirmed. d) To maintain contact with the Board of Examiners prior to submission of the thesis, to ensure that the examiners are aware of any potential delays in the date of submission. e) To ensure that they have sufficient information about the nominees to allow them to complete the nomination process, including a copy of the proposed External Examiner’s CV, which should be uploaded to MyPGR as part of the nomination, unless the examiner has previously been approved for a prior examination at the University.

• Examiners must be sufficiently expert to enable them to make an assessment of the thesis against the assessment outcomes for that programme. The external examiners should be sufficient experts in the field of study, whilst an internal examiner need only be expert in the broader disciplinary field.

• Non-Examining Independent Chairs (NEIC) should : a) Have a contract of employment 2 with the University; b) Either be able to take lead supervisor responsibilities as specified in the Code of Good Practice - Arrangement for the Supervision of Research Degree Students , or be able to demonstrate successful supervision (as lead supervisor) of a student through to completion within the last 5 years, as a member of any of the following groups:       i) Education and Scholarship job family;       ii) Research job family, including on a fixed term contract;       iii) Education and Research job family on a fixed term contract. c) Have previously supervised to completion at the level of the award in question or at a higher level; d) Have previously examined at the University of Exeter at the level of the award in question or at a higher level.
• Where the following circumstances apply the person in question should not be appointed as an examiner or NEIC, unless exceptional circumstances can be proven:       a) Former or current supervisors or mentors of the candidate       b) PGR Pastoral Tutors of the candidate*       c) Former members of staff of the University who left the University within three years of the date of their proposed nomination       d) A sponsor, relative or friend of the candidate       e) A partner or relative of the supervisor       f) Someone who was examined themselves by the supervisor       g) Close professional colleague (e.g. someone who has collaborated with the candidate by co-authoring a paper) of the candidate       h) A person whose own work is the focus of the research project       i) External Examiners only : A member of staff, from a department or research organisation, where they are involved with the University in a collaborative provision arrangement under which the candidate in question is studying. *To avoid potential for bias, prejudice or conflict of interest (or any perception of such), PGR Pastoral Tutors should not be appointed to the Board of Examiners for students for whom they are (or have been) the designated Pastoral Tutor. Where a case can be made for their appointment, the Faculty Director of Postgraduate Research (or nominee) must submit a rationale for the appointment to the Dean of Postgraduate Research providing information to explain why the appointment would not lead to the perception of a conflict of interest. The written consent of the PGR student and Pastoral Tutor to the arrangement would need to be given prior to confirmation of any appointment.
• It is the responsibility of the candidate, supervisory team, proposed examiners and NEIC (where nominated) to declare any circumstance which might lead to a conflict of interest or the perception of such. For example:       a) If an examiner or NEIC has or has had a personal or professional relationship with the candidate as a sponsor, relative, partner, friend, supervisor, mentor, Pastoral Tutor or close professional colleague       b) If a supervisor has or has had a personal relationship with an examiner or NEIC, e.g. as a relative or partner. See also the University’s 'Code of Professional Conduct: Relations between Staff and Students and between Staff’.
• Academics involved with the pre-thesis or taught phase of a Professional Doctorate will not normally be considered a Conflict of Interest.
• Faculty and Department DPGRs are not automatically precluded from examining students within their Faculty/Department, but should consider in all instances whether the nature of the contact that they have had with the student in question could lead to a conflict of interest or the perception of such, and seek advice accordingly.
• In any case where a person is unsure about whether a circumstance might constitute a conflict of interest the onus is on that person to declare it or in the first instance seek advice from the College’s Director of PGR. Should it be determined that there is a conflict of interest or the perception of such it would only be under exceptional circumstances that the examination would continue without change.
• The Non-Examining Independent Chair (NEIC) should :      a) ensure that the University’s procedures with regard to the examination of degrees by research are followed      b) ensure consistency and fairness throughout the examination      c) provide additional information if, following a viva, an appeal is lodged by the candidate;      d) preside over the Board of Examiners      e) provide support and mentorship to inexperienced examiners; proactively acting as a source of advice with regard to any queries the examiners may have about the examination process itself throughout the process, whether or not a viva takes place      f) provide a report on the conduct of the examination if required.      g) In the case of a viva by video-link, additional duties of the NEIC are set out in section 7.5 , below. This role is distinct to that of the Board of Examiners in that:      h) The NEIC does not take any part in the assessment of the quality of the thesis, and should not therefore have read the thesis      i) The NEIC need not be a subject expert, nor even a member of the discipline      j) The NEIC does not normally take responsibility for organising the viva (this is normally the responsibility of the internal examiner).
• Because of the responsibilities that they can undertake and because of the quality assurance that they can provide, it is advisable to nominate an NEIC in addition to the examiners where circumstances allow.
• See 4.5  ‘criteria for nomination’. The Dean of Postgraduate Research  may also require that an NEIC be appointed.
• See 4.6 ‘Non-Examining Independent Chair appointment requirements’.
• See 4.7 ‘Declarations of interest’.
• The examiners will receive electronic copies of the thesis from the Postgraduate Administration Office , (and other formats as appropriate or upon request).
• Examiners should retain their copies of the thesis until the examination is complete.
• When a candidate has submitted in an alternative format, upon receipt of the thesis the internal examiner may liaise with the supervisor to ensure that the Board of Examiners fully understand the agreed submission guidelines (attached to the submitted thesis) prior to completion of the preliminary reports.
• The lead Internal Examiner should liaise with all those attending the viva to ensure the viva is scheduled to take place within 3 months of the candidate’s submission. See 6.3.4 below for further information, where a viva is not an automatic requirement.
• All members of the Board of Examiners and the NEIC (where appointed) should respond to communications from the lead internal to facilitate arrangement of the viva, where held.
• The lead Internal Examiner should ensure that they are aware of, and take into account, any adjustments to the examination process that might need to be made resulting from a student’s ILP, prior to scheduling the viva.
• All members of the Board of Examiners  should complete and independent preliminary report. Each examiner, whether internal or external, is required to prepare in writinga preliminary report on the thesis to inform the conduct of the examination. Each report, to be submitted on a pro forma provided by the University, should reflect the examiner's preliminary view of the thesis, relating that opinion to the candidate's success or failure in meeting the criteria for the award in question.
• All completed preliminary reports  should be completed separately and independently, and returned to the PGR Administration Office in the timeframes stipulated in 6.3.5a and 6.3.5bi below.  
• Examiners should not share their preliminary reports with each other, instead they will receive the reports from the PGR Administration Team within the timeframes stipulated in 6.3.5a and 6.3.5b.i below. 
• The Board of Examiners  should consider the preliminary reports of all members of the Board.
• The examiners are responsible for completing their preliminary reports and returning to the PGR Administration Team within a maximum of 10 weeks of submission.
• The PGR Administration Team will circulate the reports to the Board of Examiners at least a week in advance of the viva.
• The NEIC (where appointed) should provide support to the lead internal examiner and liaise with the PGR Administration Team to ensure that the process is running smoothly, and that any questions they may have with regard to the reports or implications for the viva are addressed.
• Students do not receive a copy of the preliminary report, and therefore examiners should be aware that any amendments identified as recommendations at the prelinary report stage that are pertinent to the final amendments specified by the examiners for completion will need to be clearly included within the final Board of Examiners' report (see section 8.9 , below).

• Is the work of the candidate, by assessing the thoroughness of the candidate’s understanding of the thesis (as submitted in written form) and the candidate’s ability to justify the thesis.
• Meets the assessment criteria for the award in question, by assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the thesis and its justification, as well as the candidate’s knowledge of the relevant academic discipline, field of study or area of professional practice, and understanding of relevant theories, concepts and research techniques.
• Thereby, the viva examination provides candidates with an opportunity to talk about their thesis with experts in the field and to receive feedback from them.
• All vivas are different, but they normally follow a question and answer format. The questions can address any aspect of the submission, and there is no minimum or maximum number of questions that might be asked. The nature and quantity of questions should be sufficient to enable the viva to fulfil the two purposes outlined in 7.2.1 above. By the end of the viva, the Board of Examiners should be able to determine whether the thesis is the work of the candidate, and whether it is of the standard to merit the award of the degree for which it has been submitted. If there are concerns as to whether or not the thesis is the work of the candidate, the examiners should refer to the ‘ Procedure for Graduate Research Students suspected of Research Misconduct ’.
• If the thesis is not of the standard to merit the relevant award, formative feedback must be provided in the Examiners’ Report, specifying why the written submission does not meet the relevant assessment criteria and detailing how it should be revised so that it does meet the criteria ( see section 8.9 , below). The dialogue between the Board of Examiners and the candidate during the viva can inform the preparation of the Examiners’ Report to ensure good quality formative feedback is provided.
• Only the following people should normally be in attendance      a) The candidate      b) The Board of Examiners      c) The NEIC, where appointed      d) A member of the supervisory team (normally the lead supervisor) as a non-participant observer where they have been invited to do so by the candidate      e)    The Dean of Postgraduate Research may give permission for additional people, in a non-examining role, to be present at the examination to ensure fairness and consistency.  
• A viva may not proceed without all the examiners and Non-Examining Independent Chair (when appointed) being present 5 .
• The lead (first-named) internal examiner or the NEIC (where appointed)  should chair the viva.
• Candidates should not take an audio, audio-visual or transcript record of the viva.
• Attendance of a member of the supervisory team: a) Candidates may invite one member of their supervisory team to be in attendance at their viva. The supervisor would be there in support of the candidate as a non-participant observer, and to enable them to better provide supervision of that candidate should the candidate be required to complete amendments or resubmit their thesis. However, the following requirements apply: b)    Whilst supervisors should make every effort to attend the viva should they be invited to do so, candidates must be minded that it may be difficult for their supervisor to do so unless they are invited to attend the viva prior to the organisation of the viva by the internal examiner. Confirmation that a supervisor has been invited to attend the viva should normally be included on the student’s thesis submission form. Where a decision to invite the supervisor to attend the viva is made after submission the Postgraduate Administration Office should be informed by the student. The Postgraduate Administration Office will inform the examiners of the request.  c) No more than one member of the supervisory team may attend the viva, in order not to unbalance the viva. This should normally be the lead supervisor, as they will take key responsibility for supporting the candidates with any amendments required. d) The supervisor should only be present at the viva in the presence of the candidate. They must retire with the candidate for any private deliberations of the Board of Examiners. e) A supervisor should be present as an observer only. They should not take any active part in the proceedings the only exception being after the Board of Examiners has announced their recommendations and the viva has formally ended (see ‘Following the return of the candidate in section 7.7 'Agenda’ below), at which point they may , in consultation with the candidate, ensure that they both have a clear understanding of any amendments outlined by the Board of Examiners at this stage. f) A supervisor who is attending a viva must attend for the duration of the viva (with the exception of d), above, see section 7.7 'Agenda’ , below. g) A candidate should not invite anybody other than their supervisor to attend their viva.
• The viva should be conducted in an appropriate, comfortable location where the probability of interruptions occurring is minimal.
• The candidate should confirm their identity at the start of the viva (by producing their Unicard, or other photo ID, such as a passport). The viva must not proceed without this confirmation.

• Vivas must not extend beyond the maximum time-frames indicated. The Chair of the viva should offer participants a 15 minute break after the end of 2 hours.
• This section applies to all vivas where one or more participant joins the viva via a video-link.
• The University has adopted a permissive approach to the use of vivas by video-link, recognising that vivas may be held as successfully by video-link as a viva where all participants are physically in the same room. When making decisions about whether attendance by one or more participant at the viva should take place via video-link, rather than travelling to attend in person, the University’s ‘ Environment & Climate Emergency Business Travel Policy ’ should be adhered to with regard to prioritising low carbon solutions such as video-link attendance. Holding a viva by video-link might present opportunities to nominate external examiners whose attendance, by dint of their location, might otherwise by unviable. It may also be a preferable option for students, e.g. on financial grounds, or to satisfy the reasonable adjustments of an ILP .

a) The Examiners will be able to assure themselves that the thesis is the candidate’s own work.

b) The technology is sufficient to enable a viva to take place without limiting communications and that arrangements will be made to postpone the viva if this is not the case.

c) All participants are able to access an appropriate, comfortable location for the viva, whether on or off-campus, where the probability of interruptions occurring is minimal. To facilitate this participants based off-campus should be reminded of the need to ensure that they have refreshments and have made appropriate arrangements for their comfort. Where multiple participants are in one location the internal examiner remains responsible for ensuring that the location is appropriate, but may seek guidance from the PGR Support Team in so doing;

d) Where an ILP is in place, any reasonable adjustments can be complied with (see also section 3, above). 

The PGR Support Team may consider that the Faculty has provided de facto confirmation that it is has confidence in points a)-c) by virtue of the fact that no participant has raised concerns in advance about any of these points. Specific approval from the Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor is required where:

 i) An ILP is in place, to ensure that appropriate adjustments can be made;

 ii) Or any concerns have been raised about proceeding with the viva by those attending the viva with regard to points a)-c) 

• All viva participants (all members of the Board of Examiners, the NEIC (where appointed) and the candidate) must confirm in writing if it is not feasible for the viva to proceed in this way and confirm at the conclusion of the viva that the holding of the examination by video-link has had no substantive bearing on the examination process.
• Internal Examiners should contact their  PGR Support team  regarding the organisation of vivas by video-link.
• Participants may join the viva from multiple locations but the platform should be tested with all participants ahead of the viva, and approval should always be subject to confirmation of a successful test.
• Where a member of the Board of Examiners will be at a separate site, consideration should be given to their need to consult privately with the other members of the Board of Examiners (and the NEIC, where appointed) on the conduct of the examination. The arrangements for managing the candidate (and supervisor, where relevant) joining/leaving/re-joining the meeting should be set out in advance of the viva.
• Where a candidate is joining a viva by video-link from an off-campus location, costs incurred for the use of resources elsewhere should be met by the candidate provided these costs are made explicit at the point at which the decision is made to hold the viva by video-conference.
• The Board of Examiners should be mindful of the risk that the viva may need to be halted and should ensure that it agrees an approach to record-keeping during the viva discussions to ensure that the viva could be recommenced successfully at a later date.
• Halting the viva in the event that the technology fails or is significantly interrupted or is of a poor quality such that participants are not able to fully engage in the viva. This may include halting the viva at the request of the candidate, if there are any indications of problems with the technology being used.
• If the viva is halted, confirming in writing to all participants that the viva has been postponed as soon as possible, and thereafter confirming whether the viva should be restarted at a later date or recommenced from the point at which it was halted. If the viva is halted at the beginning it should be re-started. If a viva is halted once the viva is underway, arrangements will normally need to be made to allow the viva to recommence from roughly the point at which it halted at a later date, however, the NEIC or lead internal examiner will be responsible for making a judgement on whether the viva should recommence later or would need to be restarted completely.
• Verifying the candidate’s identity by checking ID that the candidate presents on camera to the Examination Board (see 7.4.2, above).
• Keeping a record and reporting to their Faculty DPGR in the first instance should anyone present be unable to confirm that the holding of the examination via video-link had no substantive bearing on the examination process.
• Ensuring that all participants confirm that they have not kept a recording of the viva.
• In cases where unexpected technological problems halts the viva: informing the Postgraduate Administration Office .
• The PGR Support Team must keep records of the decision to hold a viva by video-link, including the approval of the Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor where required, and should lodge a copy of the approval with the Postgraduate Administration Office who will keep a central record of all instances where approval has been given for an examination to be conducted by video-conference to ensure consistency of approach.
• All vivas must be held in English unless the candidate has been given permission to submit their thesis in an alternate language (see ‘language of thesis’ in Presentation of Theses/Dissertations for Degrees in the Faculty of Graduate Research: Statement of Procedures ). If they have been given such permission the viva may be conducted in English and/or the language of submission as appropriate, and as agreed in advance by the examiners in consultation with the candidate (see nomination requirements).
• The following sets out a basic agenda for the viva. The viva may be conducted in accordance with this agenda.
• Prior to the arrival of the candidate and their supervisor (where attending):      a) Introductions      b) Confirmation that all examiners (and the NEIC, where present) have received and understand the regulations for the award in question along with the ‘ Handbook for Examination of Postgraduate Research Programmes ’      c) Confirmation that all examiners have copies of the examiners’ preliminary reports      d) Outline by the first internal examiner (or NEIC, where present) of the viva schedule and process, such as the expectations regarding viva length and the process for informing the candidate of the outcome of the examination      e) Confirmation by the examiners of priority areas about which the examiners wish to ask questions and discussion of the order of questions.
• Following the arrival of the candidate:      a) Introductions (led by the first internal examiner, or the NEIC, where present)      b) Confirmation of the candidate’s identity (led by the first internal examiner, or the NEIC, where present)      c) Housekeeping (led by the first internal examiner, or the NEIC, where present)      d) Explaining the process of the viva to the candidate, and what happens at the end of it (led by the first internal examiners, or the NEIC, where present)      e) Questions (led by the examiners)      f) Conclusions – providing information to the candidate on what will happen next; confirming that the candidate is satisfied that they were given a fair chance to defend their thesis (led by the first internal examiner, or the NEIC, where present), offer the candidate an opportunity to return to the viva location after the Board’s private discussion to receive preliminary feedback (if the Board feels it is appropriate).
• Following the departure of the candidate: a) Initial consideration of whether or not the thesis is the work of the candidate and whether it meets the assessment criteria for the award in question (see 7.2 ‘Purpose of the Viva’ above).

a) Disclaimer (led by the first internal examiner, or the NEIC, where present) to explain that these are only preliminary recommendations, in accordance with the following principle: The Board of Examiners may if they choose, inform the candidate of their preliminary recommendations. However, in doing so it must be made absolutely clear to all concerned that this may not be the final recommendation that the Board of Examiners makes in its written report. Furthermore, this will be a recommendation only, which the Board of Examiners may be asked to amend by either the Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor or the Dean of Postgraduate Research. Candidates should be aware that until they receive formal confirmation of the outcome from the  Postgraduate Administration Office any information received is only provisional;

b) Preliminary notification and explanation of recommendations (if this is felt to be appropriate) and of the nature of the amendments likely to be required in order for the thesis to meet the criteria for the award in question.

• Ending the viva: (led by the first internal examiner, or the NEIC, where present) – providing confirmation that the viva is formally complete. This may either be confirmed as part of step 7.7.3b) above when the candidate is not returning or should take place at the end of step 7.7.5 above, where the candidate has returned.
• Students who are unwell leading up to, or during the examination and are therefore unable to continue with the examination should refer to the  PGR Student Absence Policy .  
• Recommendations of the Board of Examiners Explanation of the different possible outcomes of the examination process (not all outcomes are available at all stages of examination or for all awards, see section 2, ‘ Regulations’ for programme-specific information ).
• The examiners must be agreed that the thesis fully meets the assessment criteria for the award in question without requiring any additional work.
• Minor amendments should be recommended for: a) the correction of typographical, spelling and grammatical errors and b) limited revisions of material in the thesis. This may include limited revisions not central to the thesis, omissions, and improvements to the argument which do not materially alter the conclusions.
• The examiners must be agreed that the candidate will be able to complete the amendments necessary for the thesis to meet the assessment criteria for the award in question within twelve weeks of notification and without the need of a further viva examination.
• Major amendments should be recommended for: a) more extensive revisions than that implied by a decision of minor amendments b) revisions that will not normally require any significant extension of the original research to be undertaken (In such instances, resubmission would normally be necessary).
• The examiners must be agreed that the candidate will be able to complete the amendments necessary for the thesis to meet the assessment criteria for the award in question within no more than six months from notification, and may be able to set an earlier date if they are agreed that the revisions they are requesting make this feasible.
• Resubmission should be recommended when a thesis has failed the first examination for the award for which it was submitted.
• In requiring the resubmission of a thesis for re-examination examiners must indicate the maximum period in which this work should be undertaken. The maximum period must not be more than eighteen months for all Doctoral awards other than the DClinPsy and twelve months for Masters awards and the DClinPsy.
• Following submission of minor, major, outstanding amendments or resubmission, the Examiners may recommend the award of a lower qualification than that for which the candidate submitted (where available). In so doing the examiners must provide positive evidence that the thesis meets the assessment criteria for the award in question.
• This recommendation is only available following minor/major amendments, where all of the required amendments have not been completed satisfactorily.
• The examiners must be agreed that the candidate will be able to complete any amendments outstanding within four weeks of notification.
• This recommendation should be made where the thesis does not reach the standard required for the award of the degree in question, or a lower award, where eligible.
• The Board of Examiners should complete a Board of Examiners’ report form after every examination, whether following the initial submission or resubmission of a thesis. This report form should confirm whether the thesis is the work of the candidate and indicate how the thesis meets the assessment criteria for the award in question (see ‘ the Purpose of the Viva ’). Where further work is recommended, whether minor or major amendments or a resubmission, the report form also provides a record of the additional work required.
• Where amendments are required (whether minor, major or outstanding amendments or revisions prior to re-submission) the Board of Examiners report must indicate those aspects or parts of the thesis which they regard as unsatisfactory and the nature and extent of the re-working required.
• The Board of Examiners’ report form must be suitably detailed and of sufficient quality to allow the candidate, with the support of their supervisory team, to have a clear understanding of the reworking required. The Board of Examiners should note that a member of the supervisory team may approach the lead internal examiner for clarification of the amendments required on one occasion only.
• The Board of Examiners’ report form must always take primacy: including notes on the thesis itself is not a substitute for providing clear and explicit guidance on the report form (see also 8.9.7, below), and should only be used to provide supplementary notes.
• There is no obligation on the part of the examiners to annotate the thesis, and in particular, to proof-read the thesis. Where there are concerns about the standard of literary presentation, it is not necessary for the examiners to identify every failing of presentation in the thesis, e.g. every typo, beyond indicating the nature and type of remedial action required, which may include examples of errors that require amendment.
• The annotations should be clear, reasonable, and unambiguous, and written for the benefit of the student. They will not be reviewed as part of confirming approval of the Board of Examiners’ report, and as such the examiners take sole responsibility for the nature of the annotations provided.
• Where annotations relate to the potential for future development of the candidate’s thesis these should be distinguished from points related to amendments required to reach the standard for award.
• The Board of Examiners’ report form should state the format that the thesis should be submitted in.
• Those amendments requested must be limited to those amendments necessary to satisfy the examiners that the thesis meets the assessment criteria detailed in the Regulations for the award in question.
• The Board of Examiners’ report form must form the basis of the examiners’ subsequent decision as to whether the amendments required have been made satisfactorily.
• The report form must be completed and signed by all examiners, and the NEIC (where appointed), it should then be counter-signed by the Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor (or nominee) and then submitted to the Postgraduate Administration Office  as soon as possible and no later than 15 working days after the viva has taken place.
• Where no viva has been held, the report should be completed within three months of the receipt of the thesis by the examiners.
• The Examiners should not provide a written report to the candidate or their supervisory team directly to notify them of their preliminary recommendations.
• The Examiners should not directly contact the candidate with regard to their examination and must inform the Postgraduate Administration Office  should the candidate attempt to contact them about their examination.
• Examiners should note that under the Data Protection Act 2018 all candidates may request access in full to all reports including the preliminary report. Furthermore, if there is any dispute over the outcomes of the examination their reports may be viewed more widely, including by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator.
• The Postgraduate Administration Office will ensure that the report is submitted to the Dean of Postgraduate Research for approval, with final approval of award by Senate.
• In countersigning and approving the report   the Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor (or nominee)  must confirm that they have read all preliminary reports, the comments in Part II, the report in Part III, and agree that the decision is in line with the examiners’ comments and the outcomes as set out in this Code. They must  also confirm that the report in Part III gives sufficient information and guidance to enable the candidate to undertake the amendments required.
• Either the Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor (or nominee) or the Dean of Postgraduate Research  may  refer back the report of the Board of Examiners, if they are not satisfied that the recommendation is in line with the examiners’ comments and the outcomes as set out in this Code or if they are not satisfied that the report in Part III gives sufficient information and guidance to enable the candidate to undertake the additional work required.
• Under the exceptional circumstance that the appointed examiners are unable to reach agreement, the examiners must submit independent reports to the Dean of Postgraduate Research. The Dean of Postgraduate Research must then recommend to the Vice Chancellor, acting on behalf of Senate, the appointment of an additional external examiner. The additional examiner should be provided by the  Postgraduate Administration Office with a copy of the thesis and the separate reports of the original examiners, and should be permitted to interview the candidate before submitting a final report and recommendation to the Dean of Postgraduate Research. 
• The Postgraduate Administration Office  will send the Board of Examiners’ report to the candidate, copying in the lead supervisor.
• Where further work is required the  Postgraduate Administration Office  will specify the deadline for submission of the thesis.
• Candidates will receive written confirmation from the  Postgraduate Administration Office   of the outcome of the assessment of their thesis.
• Candidates  should  carefully read the report sent to them by the  Postgraduate Administration Office  and where candidates are required to complete amendments to their thesis or to resubmit their thesis: a) Candidates  should  make any amendments required in the format specified by their Board of Examiners b) Candidates  should  liaise with their supervisory team to discuss the additional work ensure that they understand the nature of the revision(s) required c) Candidates  must not  contact any member of their Board of Examiners with regard to their examination. To do so will be treated as research misconduct under the ‘ Procedure for Graduate Research Students suspected of Research Misconduct ’ d) Candidates  must  submit their amended thesis to the  Postgraduate Administration Office  by the date specified in their letter or contact the office as soon as they can if there are any mitigating circumstances that will prevent them from submitting their thesis by the date specified. Failure to submit by the deadline specified will result in withdrawal from the University (see "students deemed withdrawn" ).
• Where candidates are required to submit minor/major amendments or resubmit their thesis the  Postgraduate Administration Office  will inform them of the outcome of the assessment of their thesis (see 8.14 assessing amendments below for more information).
• The following text distinguishes between the date on which the candidate submits their amendments and the deadline date by which the examiner(s) are required to confirm the examination outcome.

• Where unforeseen circumstances cause delay the examiner in question  should  inform the  Postgraduate Administration Office  of this, who will inform the candidate of the delay.
• Minor Amendments: The internal examiner must review the amendments and determine if they have been completed satisfactorily. (Exceptionally the External Examiner may ask to review specific changes of a technical nature, required as a minor amendment to the thesis.)
• Major Amendments: The Board of Examiners must review the amendments and determine if they have been completed satisfactorily.
• Outstanding Amendments: The Internal Examiner/Board of Examiners (as specified in their report) must review the amendments and determine if they have been completed satisfactorily. Where the internal examiner is not able to confirm that the amendments have been completed satisfactorily this should be referred back to the full Board for consideration.
• Section 8.16 (below) lists the outcomes available to the Board of Examiners.

   Satisfactory completion of the amendments must be reported to the Dean of Postgraduate Research.

Where a review indicates that the amendments have not been completed satisfactorily the Board of Examiners should recommend one of the following options to the Dean of Postgraduate Research:

• Both external and internal examiners  may  provide the Dean of Postgraduate Research with confidential feedback about the examination process which will be considered in confidence.
• Forms are sent directly to the examiners by the  Postgraduate Administration Office and may be returned to the Postgraduate Administration Office in the first instance.
• The Dean of Postgraduate Research should act on the issues raised in the report via an annual report to Board of Postgraduate Research. The identity of individuals should be kept confidential.

Last updated August 2023

Last reviewed August 2023

1 No single listing of ‘research-led’ Universities would be useful globally: external examiner nominations are welcome from research-led Universities wherever they are based, however for institutions within the UK, membership of the sector group representing research-led Universities is a useful check to the status of an institution: the  Russell Group .

2 For the avoidance of doubt, individuals engaged on a self-employed/consultancy basis and individuals engaged on a claims basis are not eligible to act as Internal Examiners.  3   Students are however, entitled to request a copy of the report via a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act 2018.

4   See 8.5 for the definition of a ‘resubmission’.

5  If an examiner is unable to attend the viva should be postponed, or where necessary consideration given to revising the membership of the Board of Examiners (for example where an examiner will be unavailable for an extended period of time). If the appointed NEIC is unable to attend, the Faculty should arrange for a substitute NEIC to take their place. If there is not time for the appointment to be approved, the Faculty should ensure that the substitute NEIC is someone who has previously undertaken the NEIC role: as they are not an examiner they need not be a subject expert.

The Dean of Postgraduate Research may give permission for additional people, in a non-examining role, to be present at the examination to ensure fairness and consistency.

Back to top

Using our site  |  Freedom of Information  |  Data Protection  |  Copyright & disclaimer  |  Privacy & Cookies  |