Notes of Guidance for Examiners of Postgraduate Research Degree Examinations Eleventh Edition November 2010

Transcription

1 Cambridge & Chelmsford Notes of Guidance for Examiners of Postgraduate Research Degree Examinations Eleventh Edition November November 2010

2 List of Contents Introduction 3 Welcome to Anglia Ruskin University 3 Before the Viva Voce Examination 4 Whom to contact 4 Research Degrees Unit 4 Roles of the Participants 4 General Procedure and Timetable for the Examination 5 Confidential Theses 6 Examiners Reports 6 Preliminary Reports 6 Final Report 6 The Viva Voce Examination 7 Conduct of the Viva Voce Examination 7 Assessment Criteria for Research Degrees and Professional Doctorates 8 After the Viva Voce Examination 8 Announcement of the Decision 8 Fees and Travel Expenses 10 Feedback on the Examination Process 10 November

3 Abbreviations: The following abbreviations are used throughout these notes of guidance: MPhil MProf PhD PrD RDSC Master of Philosophy Professional Masters Doctor of Philosophy Professional Doctorate Research Degrees Sub Committee Appendix A Form RD6 Preliminary report and Recommendation of an Examiner on a Candidate for MPhil or MProf.11 Appendix B Form RD7 Preliminary Report and Recommendation of an Examiner on a Candidate for a PhD...13 Appendix C Form RD7(a) Preliminary Report and Recommendation of an Examiner on a candidate for a PrD.15 Appendix D Form RD7(b) Preliminary Report and Recommendation of an Examiner on a candidate for a PhD by Published Work..17 Appendix E Appendix F Form RD8 for MPhil Recommendation of the Examiners on a candidate for MPhil or MProf..19 Form RD8 for PhD Recommendation of the Examiners on a candidate for PhD 23 Appendix G Form RD8(a) for PrD Recommendation of the Examiners on a candidate for PrD.27 Appendix H Form RD8(b) for PhD by Published Work Recommendation of the Examiners on a candidate for PhD by Published Work 31 Appendix I Appendix J Examiner s Evaluation Form...35 Further Information on Assessment Criteria for a Doctoral Thesis..37 November

4 Introduction. Welcome to Anglia Ruskin University Many thanks for accepting the invitation to examine at Anglia Ruskin University. Notes of Guidance for Examiners is an in-house publication designed for external examiners and relates to examining of Anglia Ruskin University s portfolio of research degrees and professional doctorates. Anglia Ruskin University hopes you will find the publication helpful in explaining its procedures and in assisting you in your role as an examiner. Anglia Ruskin University values the contribution you will be making to the maintenance of the quality of its Research Degrees and Professional Doctorates and the development of its postgraduate work. Examiners are also provided with a copy of Anglia Ruskin University's Research Degrees Regulations. If you require any further information or assistance, please do not hesitate to contact the Research Degrees Unit before the examination. Anglia Ruskin University hopes you will enjoy your time here and that will find the duties of an examiner stimulating. Good examining! Prof Alan Sibbald Chair, Research Degrees Sub Committee November

5 Before the Viva Voce Examination Whom to Contact Research Degrees Unit The Research Degrees Unit is responsible for the examination arrangements for Research Degrees and Professional Doctorates and is responsible for contacting examiners, candidates and supervisors (and interpreters where appropriate) direct in organising each examination. Roles of the Participants The Examiners The examining team shall normally comprise an internal examiner and one or two external examiners. Examiners must be experienced in research in the general area of the candidate s thesis, and where practicable, have experience as a specialist in the topic(s) to be examined. The provisions regarding the appointment of examiners are contained within Anglia Ruskin University Research Degrees Regulations (Section 10), a copy of which is sent to all examiners when they are appointed. The Chair Each examination will be chaired by a member (or nominee) of Anglia Ruskin University s Research Degrees Sub Committee (RDSC). The role of the Chair is to ensure that the assessment processes are operated rigorously, fairly, reliably and consistently and to offer advice (if needed) on the examination process. The Chair has a neutral role in the assessment process and takes no part in the actual assessment of the research. He/she should not be called upon for specialist discipline knowledge, but for knowledge and interpretation of regulations, procedures, policy and practice. The Chair will be responsible for hosting the examination on behalf of Anglia Ruskin University. The Supervisor(s) Each candidate is permitted to have his/her supervisor(s) in attendance during the examination (at the discretion of the candidate). Some candidates may choose not to have a supervisor present. Supervisors, where present, act only as observers, unless invited to comment by the examiners and will normally withdraw before the examiners agree their recommendation. November

6 The Interpreter (in respect of candidates on the International PhD Programme) Examiners of candidates on the International PhD Programme will be sent a document giving background information on the Programme by the Research Degrees Unit. The academic arrangements for the International PhD Programme require the examination to be conducted in English and candidates are permitted to use an interpreter who shall be appointed by Anglia Ruskin University. The role of the interpreter is to assist the candidate and the examiners, as necessary, in interpreting from Hebrew to English or English to Hebrew. Most candidates have a good command of English and verbatim translation is not usually required. The candidate will be introduced to the interpreter briefly before the start of the examination. Interpreters are sent a copy of the Abstract and Contents Pages from the candidate s thesis before the examination to assist them in preparing for the examination. Other Participants Anglia Ruskin University s Regulations provide that up to two supervisors and the Chair of the RDSC, may at the discretion of the candidate, be present in the examination room for the examination. Anyone attending in this role is an observer and will withdraw before the examiners agree their recommendation. It is not permissible for any other persons to be present in the examination room. General Procedure and Timetable for the Examination The Research Degrees Unit will agree a mutually convenient date for the examination with the candidate, the examiners, the candidate s Supervisor and the Chair. The candidate is responsible for submitting three copies of the thesis in a semipermanent binding 1 to the Research Degrees Unit. It is not possible to finalise the examination arrangements, including the date of the examination, until the thesis has been submitted to Anglia Ruskin University. Copies of the thesis will be dispatched to the examiners with Anglia Ruskin University s Research Degree Regulations. Examiners will be contacted by the Research Degrees Unit to arrange a date for the examination which will normally be within 3 months of the date of receipt of the thesis by the examiners. On the examination day the examiners are normally invited to lunch at Anglia Ruskin University. The Chair and Examiners will then have a pre-examination meeting before the formal examination starts. A candidate s Supervisor (usually the First Supervisor) may also attend the lunch but not the pre-examination meeting. When it is more convenient for the examination to be held in the morning a lunch is normally provided at the conclusion of the examination. Confidential Theses 1 For example, comb-binding or glue-binding November

7 Where Anglia Ruskin University s RDSC has approved a candidate s request for confidentiality of the thesis, the examiners and the chair will be required to sign a Confidentiality Agreement and to return copies of the thesis to the candidate at the conclusion of the examination. These obligations do not apply to any information which is public knowledge at the time of its disclosure. Examiners' Reports Preliminary Reports The preliminary reports of the examiners must be written without consultation between the examiners and should provide sufficiently detailed comment on the scope and quality of the work for Anglia Ruskin University to satisfy itself that its criteria for the award have been met. Form RD6, RD7, RD7(a) or RD7(b) are provided for this purpose and should be completed and returned to the Research Degrees Unit ten working days prior to the date of the examination. Forms RD6, RD7, RD7(a) and RD7(b) are included in this booklet as Appendices A, B, C and D for information. The Research Degrees Unit will send each examiner a copy of the preliminary reports before the examination date. Examiners are required to keep the preliminary reports confidential and any breach of confidentiality will invalidate the examination. If, having read the thesis, the examiners are independently of the opinion that it is so unsatisfactory that no useful purpose would be served by conducting an oral examination, they may recommend in their preliminary reports that the RDSC dispense with the oral examination and refer the thesis for further work. This will count as the candidate s first submission and usually the RDSC will wish to encourage examiners to proceed with the oral examination to give the candidate the opportunity to defend their thesis and to avoid a subsequent appeal/complaint that the candidate was denied this opportunity. In cases where the oral examination does not take place, the examiners shall provide the RDSC with written guidance for the candidate concerning the deficiencies of the thesis. The examiners shall not recommend that a candidate fail outright without holding an oral examination or other alternative examination. Final Report After examination, the examiners should, where they are in agreement, complete a joint report and recommendation for the award of the degree on form RD8. The report, together with written details of amendments, should be returned to the Research Degrees Unit as soon as possible and within 10 working days of the oral examination. The examiners joint recommendation must provide sufficiently detailed comments on the scope and quality of the work to justify the chosen recommendation. If the examiners are not in agreement, separate reports and recommendations must be submitted using form RD8. Forms RD8 for MPhil/MProf, PhD, PrD and PhD by Published Work are included in this booklet as Appendices E, F, G and H for information. If the examiners wish to refer the candidate and require a re-examination, they must make clear on the day of the examination and in the final examiners report, what is November

8 needed to correct the deficiencies and the timescale for completion of the necessary work. Examiners cannot later require candidates to undertake any additional work which was not specified in their written guidance following the examination. Where the examiners decide that the degree be not awarded and that no re-examination be permitted, the examiners shall prepare an agreed statement of the deficiencies of the thesis and the reason for their recommendation, which shall be forwarded to the candidate by the Secretary to the RDSC. The Examiners' Preliminary and Final Recommendations will be considered by the RDSC (or the Chair acting on behalf of the Sub Committee) once the examination (including any re-submission) has been completed. The Research Degrees Unit is responsible for writing to the candidate after the examination to confirm the outcome of the examination and for sending details of amendments which the examiners require to be made to the thesis. Examiners should not enter into direct communication with a candidate either before or after the examination. The Viva Voce Examination.. Conduct of the Viva Voce Examination The conduct of the viva voce examination is entirely a matter for the academic judgement of the examiners, though the following University guidance may be helpful. The pre-examination meeting provides the examiners with a valuable opportunity to discuss the preliminary reports, identify the strengths and weaknesses of the thesis and agree with the Chair the structure and process of the viva. The first stage of the viva is normally used to establish rapport and dispel any natural nervousness. The candidate should feel relaxed and able to defend the thesis in a rational and logical manner. Examiners are expected to behave towards the candidate in a courteous and non-aggressive manner and to give credit to the candidate s work where this is appropriate. During the oral examination, the examiners of MPhil and PhD theses will wish to identify successful aspects of the research, discuss with the candidate major questions and interpretations raised in the work, as well as the possibilities for scholarly publication. Examiners of MProf and PrD theses will wish to identify the nature of engagement by candidates with the re-defining and development of professional practice in their respective contexts. The thesis must have the equivalence to the MPhil/PhD in terms of scholarship, specificity, critical comment, intellectual argument and presentation. In addition, the examiners can use the viva to examine and, if possible, resolve any problems or weaknesses in the candidate's research. If the standard of presentation is poor in terms of proof reading, or basic grammar, spelling, punctuation and the use of statistics, the candidate may be given a list of indicative corrections to be carried out November

9 after the viva. In extreme cases, the candidate may be required to re-submit a corrected and re-typed thesis. At the conclusion of the viva the candidate (and supervisor if present) shall leave the room. The Chair will remain to advise the examiners, if necessary, on the options available to them in accordance with the Regulations. Examiners should note that Anglia Ruskin University strongly encourages postgraduate research students to participate actively in conferences and seminars and publish their research during and after their candidature. Assessment Criteria for Research Degrees and Professional Doctorates Examiners should refer to the assessment criteria which can be found in the Research Degrees Regulations, pages 41, 42 and on pages 66 to 69 for MProfs and PrDs. Further information on assessment criteria is included in Appendix J to these Notes of Guidance. After the Viva Voce Examination. Announcement of the decision The examiners may indicate to the candidate their decision to recommend the award at any stage in the proceedings or wait to the end of the viva. Once the examiners have agreed their recommendation on the candidate s viva the Chair will invite the candidate, supervisor and, in the case of a candidate on the International PhD programme, the interpreter to return to discuss the outcome of the examination. The following options are available:- Award of MPhil, PhD, MProf or PrD That the award of MPhil, PhD, MProf or PrD be made without the need for any amendments. Minor Amendments The award of MPhil, PhD, MProf or PrD be made subject to minor amendments being made to the thesis. This would normally include editorial corrections, or providing additional explanatory information which the candidate could normally be expected to complete within three months of the date of the oral examination. Examiners are asked to ensure that their recommendation (either for Minor Amendments or for a Resubmission) is commensurate with the amount of work required. Re-submission of Thesis November

10 The candidate be permitted to resubmit for the degree and be re-examined, with or without an oral examination. Normally, one re-submission, with or without a second viva voce examination, is allowed by Anglia Ruskin University. A candidate required to resubmit his/her thesis would normally be expected to have to carry out substantial corrections and/or additional or new work, re-order chapters etc. In this case the candidate may be given up to 12 months to revise and resubmit his/her thesis. Examiners should be aware that when a candidate resubmits their thesis for the award of PhD, the examiners may still recommend the award of MPhil if the thesis does not meet the criteria for the award of PhD, but would with minor amendment, meet the criteria for the award of MPhil. In these circumstances, it is important that the examiners report clearly includes:- the deficiencies in the thesis the remedial action required (including any additional research or experimental work) the agreed time-scale to carry out this additional work. Examiners cannot later require candidates to undertake any additional work which was not specified in their written guidance following the examination. Award of MPhil to PhD Candidate or Award of MProf to a PrD Candidate The PhD candidate be awarded the degree of MPhil subject to the presentation of the thesis amended to the satisfaction of the examiners. The thesis must meet the criteria for the award of MPhil as set out in the Research Degrees Regulations, pages 41 and 42. The PrD candidate be awarded the degree of MProf subject to the presentation of the thesis amended to the satisfaction of the examiners. The thesis must meet the criteria for the award of MProf as set out in the Research Degrees Regulations, pages 66 to 69. The Degree be Not Awarded That the candidate be not awarded the degree of MPhil, MProf, PhD or PrD and be not permitted to be re-examined. Award of PhD to MPhil Candidate or Award of PrD to MProf Candidate In exceptional circumstances, where a student has submitted for an MPhil but the examiners all agree that the submission and the viva clearly evidence work of a doctoral standard, the candidate may be recommended for the award of a PhD. Comprehensive evidence to support the award must be provided by the examiners. The thesis will need to be amended to the satisfaction of the examiners Fees and Travel Expenses. Anglia Ruskin University pays a fee to each external examiner and interpreter, plus reasonable travelling expenses (normally second class rail fare or car mileage of 25 November

11 pence per mile). Full details, including claim forms are sent to the examiners by the Research Degrees Unit. If an external examiner or interpreter requires overnight accommodation this can be booked by the Research Degrees Unit, provided sufficient advance notice is given. Completed claim forms (which require a National Insurance Number and date of birth) may be given to the Chair attending the examination or sent direct to the Research Degrees Unit. A self-employed examiner or interpreter may submit an invoice for fees and expenses instead of completing a claim form. Invoices should be sent to the Research Degrees Unit. Feedback on Examination Process In order to assist Anglia Ruskin University in monitoring and enhancing its research examination processes, it would be much appreciated if examiners could complete the short feedback form (Appendix I) and return it to the Chair or to the Research Degrees Unit. November

12 Appendix A Form RD6 [MPhil/MProf] 1. The candidate SID Number: Name of candidate Thesis title: ANGLIA RUSKIN UNIVERSITY Research Degrees Sub Committee Preliminary Report and Recommendation on a Candidate for the degree of Master of Philosophy or Professional Masters Each Examiner is required to make an independent preliminary report and provisional recommendati on the thesis and to forward it before the oral or alternative examination is held by Anglia Ruskin University. This form should be completed at least 10 days before the examination and returned to Louisa Latham in the Research Degrees Unit, Academic Office 2. The examiners 3. Report of the examiner on the thesis 3.1 Does the thesis show evidence of sustained independent effort by the candidate? 3.2 Does the thesis demonstrate competence in: (i) the investigation of the chosen topic(s) or (ii) undertaking a critical study of the chosen topic(s)? 3.3 Is the thesis satisfactory as regards presentation and succinctness? 3.4 Is the abstract of the thesis submitted appropriate? Examiner s report November

13 Form RD6 [MPhil/MProf] Note: a report of about 300 words should suffice (please attach a separate report if necessary) 5. Provisional recommendation Note: If the examiner wishes to suspend judgement until after the oral examination this should be stated below Signed... Date... November

14 Appendix B Form RD7 [PhD] ANGLIA RUSKIN UNIVERSITY Research Degrees Sub Committee Preliminary Report and Recommendation on a Candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Each Examiner is required to make an independent preliminary report and provisional recommendati on the thesis and to forward it before the oral or alternative examination is held by Anglia Ruskin University. This form should be completed at least 10 days before the examination and returned to Louisa Latham in the Research Degrees Unit, Academic Office 1. The candidate SID Number: Name of candidate Thesis title: 2. The examiners 3. Report of the examiner on the thesis and any published work submitted 3.1 Does the thesis represent a significant contribution to knowledge of the subject by: (i) the discovery of new facts and/or (ii) the exercise of independent critical powers? 3.2 Does the thesis provide evidence of originality? 3.3 Is the thesis satisfactory as regards presentation and succinctness? 3.4 Is the abstract of the thesis submitted appropriate? 4. Examiner s report November

15 Form RD7 [PhD] Note: a report of about 300 words should suffice (please attach a separate report if necessary) 5. Provisional recommendation Note: If the examiner wishes to suspend judgement until after the oral examination this should be stated below Signed... Date... November

16 Appendix C RD7(a) [Prof Doc] 1. The candidate SID Number: Name of candidate Thesis title: Research Degrees Sub Committee Preliminary Report and Recommendation on a Candidate for the degree of Professional Doctorate Each Examiner is required to make an independent preliminary report and provisional recommendati on the thesis and to forward it before the oral or alternative examination is held by Anglia Ruskin University. This form should be completed at least 10 days before the examination and returned to Louisa Latham in the Research Degrees Unit, Academic Office 2. The examiners 3. Report of the Examiner on the Thesis 3.1 Does the thesis represent a significant contribution to professional practice: (i) by extending management or education propositions in a practitioner context? and (ii) the exercise of independent critical powers? 3.2 Does the thesis provide evidence of originality? 3.3 Is the thesis satisfactory as regards presentation and succinctness? Is the abstract of the thesis submitted appropriate? 3.5 In the case of a candidate whose investigation is part of a collaborative group project, does the thesis indicate clearly the individual contribution and the extent of the collaboration? 3.6 Is it manifest that the candidate has made progress in their personal transferable competences and thereby their effectiveness as a business or education professional? November

17 RD7(a) [Prof Doc] 4. Examiner s report Note: a report of about 300 words should suffice (please attach a separate report if necessary) 5. Provisional recommendation Note: If the examiner wishes to suspend judgement until after the oral examination this should be stated below Signed... Date... November

18 Appendix D Form RD7b [PhD by Published Work] ANGLIA RUSKIN UNIVERSITY Research Degrees Sub Committee Preliminary Report and Recommendation on a Candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Published Work Each Examiner is required to make an independent preliminary report and provisional recommendati on the thesis and to forward it before the oral or alternative examination is held by Anglia Ruskin University. This form should be completed at least 10 days before the examination and returned to Louisa Latham in the Research Degrees Unit, Academic Office 1. The candidate SID Number: Name of candidate Thesis title: 2. The examiners 3. Report of the examiner on the thesis and published work submitted 3.1 Does the thesis represent a significant contribution to knowledge of the subject by: (i) the discovery of new facts and/or (ii) the exercise of independent critical powers? 3.2 Does the thesis provide evidence of originality? 3.3 Is the thesis satisfactory as regards presentation and succinctness? 3.4 Is the abstract of the thesis submitted appropriate? November

19 Form RD7b [PhD by Published Work] PTO 4. Examiner s report Please refer to Part B of the Research Degrees Regulations for the assessment criteria for PhD by Published Work 5. Provisional recommendation Note: If the examiner wishes to suspend judgement until after the oral examination this should be stated below Signed... Date... November

20 Appendix E RD8 [MPhil/MProf] ANGLIA RUSKIN UNIVERSITY RESEARCH DEGREES SUB COMMITTEE Recommendation of the Examiners on a Candidate for the degree of Master of Philosophy or Professional Masters The Examiners are required where possible to complete a joint report on this form including the result of the examination as a whole and the recommendation to Anglia Ruskin University. This form should be completed at the conclusion of the examination (or within 10 working days) and returned to Louisa Latham in the Research Degrees Unit, Academic Office. Note: If an agreed report cannot be submitted, each Examiner should report separately 1. The candidate SID Number: Name of candidate Thesis title: 2. The Examination Board External Examiner: Internal Examiner: Name of Supervisor(s) present, if any: (Regulation refers) Name of Chair: Prof University of Dr Anglia Ruskin University Prof Anglia Ruskin University Dr PTO November

21 RD8 [MPhil/MProf] 3. Examiners Final Report Please refer to Regulation 11.7 of the Research Degrees Regulations for the assessment criteria for MPhil and art C section 6 for the assessment criteria for MProf The Examiners are requested to write a brief overview of the candidate s performance in the examination and in particular to give a reasoned assessment of: 3.1 The candidate s intellectual grasp of the topic 3.2 The coherence of the thesis, its organisation and structure 3.3 The candidate s engagement with the literature 3.4 The candidate s grasp of methodology 3.5 The thesis (including grammar, spelling, expression, use of statistics etc.) 3.6 The candidate s performance in the viva voce examination 3.7 Any other factors November

22 RD8 [MPhil/MProf] In addition Examiners of MProf candidates are also asked to confirm that the thesis:- (*please delete as appropriate) displays appropriate evidence of originality and independent critical judgement Yes/No* demonstrates an understanding of techniques and/or methodologies applicable to the candidate s own research Yes/No* 4. Examiners are also asked to provide a brief statement confirming that they are satisfied that all the issues identified in the preliminary reports have been addressed during the viva voce examination to their satisfaction. November

23 RD8 [MPhil/MProf] 5. Recommendation The Examiners are requested to indicate their recommendation (Please tick as appropriate) 5.1 That the candidate be awarded the degree of Master of Philosophy / Professional Masters 5.2 That the candidate be awarded the degree of Master of Philosophy / Professional Masters subject to minor amendments and corrections being made to the thesis to the satisfaction of the: Internal Examiner* and/or External Examiner* or the candidate s First Supervisor* *Please delete as appropriate The amendments/corrections are required to be completed within three months of the examination. 5.3 That the candidate be permitted to resubmit for the degree of Master of Philosophy / Professional Masters and be re-examined by both examiners, with/without* an oral examination *Please delete as appropriate The revised thesis is required to be resubmitted within... months of the examination. (Please insert number of months Research Degrees Regulations permit a maximum of 12 months for a resubmission) (The examiners shall provide written guidance for the candidate which explicitly identifies the deficiencies of the thesis and the remedial action required, including any additional research or experimental work) 5.4 That the candidate be not awarded the degree of Master of Philosophy / Professional Masters and be not permitted to be re-examined (A statement explaining this recommendation and signed and dated by the Examiners must be appended to this form) Date:... Signed (Examiners): November

24 Appendix F RD8 [PhD] ANGLIA RUSKIN UNIVERSITY RESEARCH DEGREES SUB COMMITTEE Recommendation of the Examiners on a Candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The Examiners are required where possible to complete a joint report on this form including the result of the examination as a whole and the recommendation to Anglia Ruskin University. This form should be completed at the conclusion of the examination (or within 10 working days) and returned to the Research Degrees Unit. Note: If an agreed report cannot be submitted, each Examiner should report separately 1. The candidate SID Number: Name of candidate Thesis title: 2. The Examination Board External Examiner: Internal Examiner: Name of Supervisor(s) present, if any: (Regulation refers) Name of Chair: Prof University of Dr Anglia Ruskin University Prof Anglia Ruskin University Dr Interpreter: November

25 RD8 [PhD] 3. Examiners Final Report Please refer to Regulation 11.7of the Research Degrees Regulations for the assessment criteria for research degrees The Examiners are requested to write a brief overview of the candidate s performance in the examination and in particular to give a reasoned assessment of: 3.1 The candidate s intellectual grasp of the topic 3.2 The coherence of the thesis, its organisation and structure 3.3 The candidate s engagement with the literature 3.4 The candidate s grasp of methodology 3.5 The thesis (including grammar, spelling, expression, use of statistics etc.) 3.6 The candidate s performance in the viva voce examination 3.7 Any other factors November

26 RD8 [PhD] 4. Examiners are also asked to provide a brief statement confirming that they are satisfied that all the issues identified in the preliminary reports have been addressed during the viva voce examination to their satisfaction. 5. Recommendation The Examiners are requested to indicate their recommendation (Please tick as appropriate) 5.1 That the candidate be awarded the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 5.2 That the candidate be awarded the degree of Doctor of Philosophy subject to minor amendments and corrections being made to the thesis to the satisfaction of the: Internal Examiner* and/or External Examiner* or the candidate s First Supervisor* *Please delete as appropriate The amendments/corrections are required to be completed within three months of the examination. 5.3 That the candidate be permitted to resubmit for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy and be re-examined by both examiners, with/without an oral examination The revised thesis is required to be resubmitted within... months of the examination. (Please insert number of months Research Degrees Regulations permit a maximum of 12 months for a resubmission) (The examiners shall provide written guidance for the candidate which explicitly identifies the deficiencies of the thesis and the remedial action required, including any additional research or experimental work) November

27 RD8 [PhD] 5.4 That the PhD candidate be awarded the degree of MPhil subject to the presentation of the thesis amended to the satisfaction of the Examiners (If the candidate s thesis and performance in the oral examination was NOT of a satisfactory standard to merit the award of the degree of MPhil, then a statement signed and dated by the Examiners must be appended to this form) 5.5 That the PhD candidate be permitted to resubmit for the award of Master of Philosophy and re re-examined by both examiners, with/without an oral examination The revised thesis is required to be resubmitted within... months of the examination. (Please insert number of months Research Degrees Regulations permit a maximum of 12 months for a resubmission) (The examiners shall provide written guidance for the candidate which explicitly identifies the deficiencies of the thesis and the remedial action required, including any additional research or experimental work) 5.6 That the candidate be not awarded the degree of Doctor of Philosophy and be not permitted to be re-examined (A statement explaining this recommendation and signed and dated by the Examiners must be appended to this form) Date:... Signed (Examiners): November

28 Appendix G Form RD8a [Prof Doc] ANGLIA RUSKIN UNIVERSITY RESEARCH DEGREES SUB COMMITTEE Recommendation of the Examiners on a Candidate for the degree of Professional Doctorate/Doctorate in Education/ Doctorate in Business Administration The Examiners are required where possible to complete a joint report on this form including the result of the examination as a whole and the recommendation to Anglia Ruskin University. This form should be completed at the conclusion of the examination (or within 10 working days) and returned to Louisa Latham in the Research Degrees Unit, Academic Office. Note: If an agreed report cannot be submitted, each Examiner should report separately 1. The candidate SID Number: Name of candidate Thesis title: 2. The Examination Board External Examiner: Internal Examiner: Name of Supervisor(s) present, if any: (Regulation refers) Name of Chair: Prof University of Dr Anglia Ruskin University Prof Anglia Ruskin University Dr PTO November

29 Form RD8a [Prof Doc] 3. Examiners Final Report Please refer to part C of the Research Degrees Regulations for the assessment criteria for professional doctorates The Examiners are requested to write a brief overview of the candidate s performance in the examination and in particular to give a reasoned assessment of: 3.1 The candidate s intellectual grasp of the topic 3.2 The coherence of the thesis, its organisation and structure 3.3 The candidate s engagement with the literature 3.4 The candidate s grasp of methodology 3.5 The thesis (including grammar, spelling, expression, use of statistics etc.) 3.6 The candidate s performance in the viva voce examination 3.7 Any other factors November

30 Form RD8a [Prof Doc] In addition Examiners are also asked to confirm that the thesis:- (*please delete as appropriate) displays appropriate evidence of originality and independent Yes/No* critical judgement constitutes a contribution to professional practice Yes/No* exhibits development of professional competencies Yes/No* 4. Examiners are also asked to provide a brief statement confirming that they are satisfied that all the issues identified in the preliminary reports have been addressed during the viva voce examination to their satisfaction. 5. Recommendation The Examiners are requested to indicate their recommendation (Please tick as appropriate) 5.1 That the candidate be awarded the degree of Professional Doctorate/Doctorate in Education/Doctorate in Business Administration 5.2 That the candidate be awarded the degree of Professional Doctorate/Doctorate in Education/Doctorate in Business Administration subject to minor amendments and corrections being made to the thesis to the satisfaction of the: Internal Examiner* and/or External Examiner* or the candidate s First Supervisor* The amendments/corrections are required to be completed within three months of the examination. November

31 Form RD8a [Prof Doc] 5.3 That the candidate be permitted to resubmit for the degree of Professional Doctorate/Doctorate in Education/Doctorate in Business Administration and be reexamined by both examiners, with/without an oral examination The revised thesis is required to be resubmitted within... months of the examination. (Please insert number of months Research Degrees Regulations permit a maximum of 12 months for a resubmission) (The examiners shall provide written guidance for the candidate which explicitly identifies the deficiencies of the thesis and the remedial action required, including any additional research or experimental work) 5.4 That the PrD/EdD/DBA candidate be awarded the degree of MProf subject to the presentation of the thesis amended to the satisfaction of the Examiners (If the candidate s thesis and performance in the oral examination was NOT of a satisfactory standard to merit the award of the degree of MPhil, then a statement signed and dated by the Examiners must be appended to this form) 5.5 That the PrD/EdD/DBA candidate be permitted to resubmit for the award of MProf and re re-examined by both examiners, with/without an oral examination The revised thesis is required to be resubmitted within... months of the examination. (Please insert number of months Research Degrees Regulations permit a maximum of 12 months for a resubmission) (The examiners shall provide written guidance for the candidate which explicitly identifies the deficiencies of the thesis and the remedial action required, including any additional research or experimental work) 5.6 That the candidate be not awarded the degree of Professional Doctorate/Doctorate in Education/Doctorate in Business Administration and be not permitted to be re-examined (A statement explaining this recommendation and signed and dated by the Examiners must be appended to this form) Date:... Signed (Examiners): November

32 Appendix H Form RD8b [PhD by Published Work] ANGLIA RUSKIN UNIVERSITY RESEARCH DEGREES SUB COMMITTEE Recommendation of the Examiners on a Candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Published Work The Examiners are required where possible to complete a joint report on this form including the result of the examination as a whole and the recommendation to Anglia Ruskin University. This form should be completed at the conclusion of the examination (or within 10 working days) and returned to Louisa Latham the Research Degrees Unit, Academic Office. Note: If an agreed report cannot be submitted, each Examiner should report separately 1. The candidate SID Number: Name of candidate Thesis title: 2. The Examination Board External Examiner: Internal Examiner: Name of Supervisor(s) present, if any: (Regulation refers) Name of Chair: Prof University of Dr Anglia Ruskin University Prof Anglia Ruskin University Dr Interpreter: November

33 Form RD8b [PhD by Published Work] 3. Examiners Final Report Please refer to Part B of the Research Degrees Regulations for the assessment criteria for PhD by Published Work The Examiners are requested to write a brief overview of the candidate s performance in the examination and in particular to give a reasoned assessment of: 3.1 The candidate s intellectual grasp of the topic 3.2 The coherence of the thesis, its organisation and structure 3.3 The candidate s engagement with the literature 3.4 The candidate s grasp of methodology 3.5 The thesis (including grammar, spelling, expression, use of statistics etc.) 3.6 The candidate s performance in the viva voce examination 3.7 Any other factors November

34 Form RD8b [PhD by Published Work] 4. Examiners are also asked to provide a brief statement confirming that they are satisfied that all the issues identified in the preliminary reports have been addressed during the viva voce examination to their satisfaction. 5. Recommendation The Examiners are requested to indicate their recommendation (Please tick as appropriate) 5.1 That the candidate be awarded the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Published Work 5.2 That the candidate be awarded the degree of Doctor of Philosophy subject to minor amendments and corrections being made to the critical appraisal to the satisfaction of the: Internal Examiner* and/or External Examiner* or the candidate s First Supervisor* (* delete as appropriate) The amendments/corrections are required to be completed within three months of the examination. 5.3 That the PhD candidate be awarded the degree of MPhil by Published Work subject to the presentation of the critical appraisal amended to the satisfaction of the Examiners (If the candidate s thesis and performance in the oral examination was NOT of a satisfactory standard to merit the award of the degree of MPhil, then a statement signed and dated by the Examiners must be appended to this form) November

35 Form RD8b [PhD by Published Work] 5.4 That the candidate be not awarded the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Published Work and be not permitted to be re-examined (A statement explaining this recommendation and signed and dated by the Examiners must be appended to this form) Date:... Signed (Examiners): November

36 Appendix I RESEARCH DEGREE EXAMINATION EXAMINER S EVALUATION OF EXAMINATION PROCEDURES In order that the Research Degrees Sub Committee can monitor the examination process, I should be grateful if you would take a few minutes to complete this evaluation form. Examination details: Name of Candidate: Name of Chair: Names of Examiners: Date of Examination: Please tick the appropriate box: Was the viva conducted in an appropriate manner? Yes No If your answer is no please state your reasons. Please tick the appropriate box Were the Notes of Guidance for Examiners helpful? Yes No November

37 Appendix I Was there any information which you did not receive which you would have found helpful in carrying out your role as an Examiner? Please give below any comments on the examination procedures which you consider will assist the University in enhancing its processes. Signed... Date... Please return this evaluation form either to the Chair of the viva or to: Louisa Latham Research Degrees Unit, Anglia Ruskin University, Bishop Hall Lane, Chelmsford, CM1 1SQ November

38 Appendix J Appendix H: Further Information on Assessment Criteria for a Doctoral Thesis This appendix indicates those features that, when present, enable readers to recognise the doctoral worthiness of a submitted doctoral thesis. Intellectual Grasp grasps the scope, wider significance and possibilities of the topic; shows readiness to examine apparently tangential areas for possible relevance; contains a broad theoretical base that is treated critically; demonstrates a coherent and explicit theoretical approach fully thought through and critically applied - i.e. noting its limitations; provides rigorous analyses that are related to their respective methodological and epistemological contexts; shows iterative development, allowing exploration and rejection of alternatives; possesses an internal dialogue - plurality of approach / method, to validate the one chosen; gives a systematic account of the topic, including a review of all plausible possible interpretations, maintains clear and continuous links between theory, method and interpretation; presents a reflexive, self-critical account of relationships involved in the inquiry and the methodology; connects theory and practice; articulates clearly the relationship between research and practitioner roles ~ in, for example, professional doctorates such as the DBA and the EdD.; indicates the future development of the work with a possible research agenda; demonstrates full mastery of the topic ~ that the candidate is now an expert in the field. Coherence displays coherence of structure ( e.g. the conclusions follow clearly from the data); skillfully organises a number of different angles and perspectives on a given issue; is cogently organised and expressed with a definite agenda and an explicit structure; presents a sense of the researcher's learning as a journey, as a structured, incremental progress through a process of both argument and discovery. Engagement with the Literature displays comprehensive coverage of the field / secure command of the literature in the field; shows breadth of contextual knowledge in the discipline; successfully critiques established positions; engages critically with other significant work in the field; draws on literature with a focus different from the viewpoint pursued in the thesis; maintains a balance between delineating an area of debate and advocating a particular approach. Grasp of Methodology the methodology is clearly established and applied; the methodological analysis indicates the advantages AND the disadvantages of the approach adopted; uses several methods for triangulation where appropriate. Presentation The thesis is written in a clear style that is easy to read and appropriately presented. 37

39 Cambridge & Chelmsford Additional copies of the Notes of Guidance for Examiners of Postgraduate Research Examinations are available from: Deputy Director of the Academic Office Anglia Ruskin University Bishop Hall Lane Chelmsford CM1 1SQ Tel: