Code of Practice for Research Degree Candidature and Supervision 2025-26

3.2 The thesis (or equivalent submission as specified in section 17 of this Code of Practice (Production and Submission of the Thesis: Alternative formats of thesis submission)) which is the outcome of the research project and the training programme, must be composed clearly and presented in the required format. The subject should be dealt with in an orderly manner using appropriate research methods and techniques and displaying critical discrimination in evaluating the evidence.

3.3 For the award of Doctor of Philosophy, the student must have demonstrated²:

• the creation and interpretation of new knowledge through original research or other advanced scholarship of a quality to satisfy peer review, extend the forefront of the discipline and merit publication;
• a systematic acquisition and understanding of a substantial body of knowledge, which is at the forefront of an academic discipline or an area of professional practice;
• the general ability to conceptualize, design and implement a project for the generation of new knowledge, applications or understanding at the forefront of the discipline, and to adjust the project design in the light of unforeseen problems;
• a detailed understanding of applicable techniques for research and advanced academic enquiry.

3.4 Typically, the award holder will be able to:

• make informed judgements on complex issues in specialist fields, often in the absence of complete data, and be able to communicate their ideas and conclusions clearly and effectively to specialist and non-specialist audiences;
• continue to undertake pure and/or applied research and development at an advanced level, contributing substantially to the development of new techniques, ideas or approaches.

3.5 In addition, the award holder will have:

• the qualities and transferable skills necessary for employment requiring the exercise of personal responsibility and largely autonomous initiative in complex and unpredictable situations, in professional or equivalent environments. 
   

3.6 The Master of Philosophy is an award of considerable distinction in its own right and is awarded for the successful completion of a substantial element of research or equivalent enquiry. The MPhil differs from the PhD only in terms of the scope of study required and the extent of the original personal contribution to knowledge.

3.7 More specifically, for the award of Master of Philosophy, the student must have demonstrated²:

• a systematic understanding of knowledge and a critical awareness of current problems and/or new insights much of which is at, or informed by, the forefront of their academic discipline, field of study or area of professional practice;
• originality in the application of knowledge together with a practical understanding of how established techniques of research and enquiry are used to create and interpret knowledge in the discipline;
• conceptual understanding that enables the student to:
  • evaluate critically current research and advanced scholarship in the discipline; and
  • evaluate methodologies and develop critiques of them and, where appropriate, to propose new hypotheses;
• a comprehensive understanding of techniques applicable to their own research or advanced scholarship.

3.8 The University offers a number of doctoral degree programmes which include a substantial taught element (e.g., the Engineering Doctorate, the Doctor of Clinical Psychology, which are awards in their own right). The University also offers an Integrated PhD programme of study in some disciplines, a programme of study which leads to the award of Doctor of Philosophy). Students on these degree programmes are subject to the requirements of the Regulations for Research Degrees and this Code of Practice, with reference to other applicable regulations and additional programme-specific requirements detailed in the Academic Regulations.

3.9 In terms of comparability with the standard-route PhD degree programme, it is appropriate to regard a professional doctorate as having no more than one-third of the degree as being at master's level (FHEQ Level 7) and the subsequent research and thesis preparation at doctoral level (FHEQ Level 8). An Integrated PhD programme will typically have one quarter of the degree at master¡¯s level and the subsequent research and thesis preparation conducted at doctoral level. Further guidance regarding the structure of doctoral degrees with a substantial taught element can be found in the QAA¡¯s underpinning document: The Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications of UK Degree-Awarding Bodies, 2^nd edition, updated February 2024.
 

4.6 Two references setting out the applicant¡¯s suitability and academic potential to undertake research at doctoral level must be received from individuals independent of the selectors. Referees should not normally be the applicant¡¯s potential supervisor.

4.7 Selection procedures should be clear and consistently applied, always demonstrate equality of opportunity, and should take into account any additional requirements imposed by funders, subject to these not conflicting with the University¡¯s expectations. Reference should be made to the Inclusion and Respectful Behaviour Policy, to the Regulations for Admission to Degree Programmes, and to the Admissions Policy in considering the impact of equality and diversity.

4.8 The Faculty Graduate School Subcommittee is responsible for ensuring the effective monitoring of the admissions process to demonstrate compliance with legal requirements and, in particular, with regard to equality of opportunity.

4.9 Faculties should provide clear, accessible, jargon-free information for applicants and for staff involved in the selection and admission of applicants, recognising diversity and different needs.

4.10 All staff involved in the selection and admission of applicants must be familiar with:

• the Regulations for Admission to Degree Programmes;
• the Admissions Policies;
• the Academic Regulations applicable to the degree;
• section 4 (Selection and Admission of Research Students) of this Code of Practice;
• the admissions and recruitment guidance in the CHEP Resources for Doctoral Supervisors webpages.

4.11 The Faculty Director of the Graduate School is responsible for ensuring that all staff involved in the selection of applicants have received sufficient instruction, guidance and advice in selection and interviewing processes and techniques to enable them to effectively conduct their duties and to maintain the quality and standards of the admissions process. Selectors can also obtain specialist advice and guidance from the Global Recruitment and Admissions Team (email admissionspolicy@soton.ac.uk).

4.12 The selection of applicants should involve at least two members of suitably trained academic staff and each application must be assessed against the required criteria for admission.

4.13 Interviews by at least two suitably trained members of academic staff must be used as part of the selection process to assess applicants¡¯ suitability, and reasonable adjustments should be made, where feasible, to ensure similarity of opportunity for applicants who are unable to attend for interview in person (e.g. by the use of videoconference). Staff responsible for interviewing applicants must have received sufficient training in inclusion, diversity and equality and in interviewing techniques, and should be familiar with the support available for applicants with a disability and/or additional support need. Faculties should also ensure that due attention is given to ensuring that there is diversity in the membership of interview panels.

4.14 Partnership agreements for research projects that involve commercial partners or other third-party collaborations may include clauses that set out potential restrictions and embargoes on the publication or other use of data from the project, during and after it has been completed. This information should be discussed at interview and clearly set out in the formal offer of a place to study to enable applicants to make an informed choice regarding their acceptance of the offer. The same disclosures should be made to applicants when it is expected that a commercial agreement is expected to be in place after the project has commenced.

4.15 Before making a recommendation that a formal offer of a place to study is made, selectors must make each applicant aware of the costs of the planned research and of any available financial support. Applicants should also be made aware of opportunities to apply for special funding, and how to apply for such funding. Information should also be provided to applicants regarding the support that may be available for students with disabilities, how to access it within the University, and how to fund it.

4.16 Should applicants feel they have cause for complaint, they should, where possible, first raise their concerns informally with the relevant Faculty staff. If matters cannot be resolved, applicants should refer to the University's Regulations Governing Complaints from Applicants.

4.17 As Chair of the Faculty Graduate School Subcommittee, the Faculty Director of the Graduate School is responsible for reviewing and approving selectors¡¯ recommendations for the admittance of applicants.

4.18 In circumstances where it can be demonstrated that this is prohibitive to the administrative efficiency of the admissions process, the Chair of PGR QME Subcommittee and the Director of the Doctoral College may grant permission for the Faculty Director of the Graduate School to delegate this responsibility to a nominee who must be an academic member of staff who is also a member of the Faculty Graduate School directorate. Where such permission is granted, the Faculty Director of the Graduate School is responsible for ensuring that appropriate training and support is in place for the nominee, and that the Faculty has a clear and transparent process which ensures that the approval of selectors¡¯ recommendations is applied consistently across all of the Faculty¡¯s research degree programmes.

4.19 Prior to approving the selectors¡¯ recommendation to admit an applicant, the Faculty Director of the Graduate School (or their approved nominee) must be satisfied that:

• in assessing the application, the selection procedures have been complied with in full;
• the applicant¡¯s chosen subject for research, their qualifications, experience and English Language proficiency have been adequately assessed by the selectors;
• the selectors have judged the research degree to be within the applicant's capabilities and the applicant is judged to have the motivation and potential to undertake a sustained piece of research and to produce a thesis for examination;
• the selectors have judged the applicant to be capable of sustaining research at doctoral level and to complete their chosen research degree within the maximum length of candidature;
• a suitable supervisory team can be identified for the full period of enrolment (taking account of any study leave or other temporary absence which is already known to the University);
• there is access to adequate resources and facilities within an appropriate research environment as specified in section 2 of this Code of Practice (Introduction to the Research Environment), including any access to additional support strategies, specialist equipment or assistive technology required by the applicant.

4.20 All applicants with non-standard entry qualifications must be recommended for approval by the Faculty Director of the Graduate School to the Associate Dean (Education) on a case-by-case basis. This responsibility cannot be delegated.

4.29 Students are expected to enrol promptly each academic year according to the procedures set out by the University and their Faculty. This will normally be through the University's online enrolment process.

4.30 Faculties will provide students with sufficient, timely information to enable them to commence their studies with an understanding of the academic and social environment within which they will be working. Guidelines on information that may usefully be provided are given in this Code of Practice (Appendix 1: Induction Information). The timing and frequency of inductions should also take account of part-time and international students. Additional information regarding any special arrangements or facilities should be made available to students with a disability. This should have been discussed and agreed individually with the student prior to the commencement of their studies.

5.1 Students will be registered on the degree they intend to submit for and candidature duration will be in accordance with minimum and maximum periods as defined in the Regulations for Research Degrees. In practice, candidature will usually be longer than the minimum period stated.

5.2 Where a student is in receipt of external funding and/or where an external body places an expectation that studies are completed within a defined period of time (e.g., within the funded period), the Faculty will assist the student in meeting the requirement.

5.3 In exceptional circumstances, a student may be permitted to submit their thesis for examination earlier than the specified minimum period of candidature. Where they have satisfactorily completed the Second Progression Review (Confirmation), and where the student is able to submit a thesis of sufficient quality, their main supervisor may make a request to the Faculty Director of the Graduate School for the student to be granted permission to submit their thesis early. Where the request is supported by the Faculty Director of the Graduate School, it will be referred to the Associate Dean (Education) who, in their capacity as Chair of the Faculty Education and Student Experience Subcommittee, may grant approval.
 

5.4 As specified in the Regulations for Research Degrees, candidature may be full-time or part-time and all students are required to commit sufficient time to their research project to sustain satisfactory progress. 

5.5 In cases where a student has completed periods of full-time and part-time candidature, the maximum permitted period of candidature for that student shall be calculated by the Doctoral College (Faculty) Team as according to the formulae set down in the guidance Determining the maximum period of candidature when changing between full-and part-time study. 
 

5.6 As set down in the Regulations for Members of Staff in Candidature for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, an employee of the University of BOBÌåÓýµÇ¼ÍøÖ·_Å·±¦ÌåÓý¹ÙÍøƽ̨-APP|ÏÂÔØ may also be registered as a student for a research degree. Their performance as an employee and their progress as a student should be assessed and treated separately

5.7 In accordance with the Change of Programme, Pause in Study, Withdrawal and Termination of Study Regulations, a student may be permitted to change their programme of study. Following consultation with their supervisory team, a transfer from PhD to MPhil candidature may be requested by the student at any time prior to the submission of their thesis for examination.

5.8 The MPhil degree is an award in its own right (see section 3 of this Code of Practice (The Higher Degrees of Master of Philosophy and Doctor of Philosophy), and submission of a thesis and a viva voce is a requirement of the MPhil examination process. 

5.9 Any student wishing to change their programme of study and who is subject to Student visa conditions must seek advice from the Visa and Immigration Student Advice Service prior to making their transfer request.
 

5.1 An extension of candidature beyond the maximum period will be permitted only in accordance with the Regulations Governing Special Consideration and Pause in Study for Postgraduate Research Students.

5.2 A pause in study will be permitted only in accordance with the Regulations Governing Special Consideration and Pause in Study for Postgraduate Research Students.   

7.5 Mandatory, compulsory or required training will be offered where appropriate at University, Faculty or programme level, and Faculties will work together through the Doctoral College to co-ordinate their training programmes. Descriptors for each category of training are set out below: 

• Mandatory training, which is required for progression through a doctoral research programme and which is monitored and reported upon by the Doctoral College.
• Compulsory training, which are training courses that exist within the doctoral researcher landscape and which a student is required to complete but which do not have an impact upon progression. It is the responsibility of the supervisor to monitor the completion of compulsory training.
• Required training, these courses are not directly related to the doctoral research project but may be required by teams such as HR and Health and Safety whose responsibility it is to monitor completion.

7.6 All students must undertake the mandatory training as detailed by the Doctoral College, or an equivalent as agreed with the Doctoral College Committee. A student who first enrolled on their research degree on or after 1 August 2020 will not be Confirmed in Doctoral Candidature by the Faculty following the Second Progression Review should any mandatory training requirements remain unfulfilled by that point. 

7.7 Research skills training, which should be provided either by single subject groups or on a multidisciplinary basis, forms a substantial and compulsory part of students¡¯ research degree programmes and, where appropriate, should be assessable.

7.8 Any compulsory and/or credit-bearing training/modules will be communicated to the student by the Faculty/discipline and, where required, published in programme-level regulations and/or in the programme specification. Such training will be required of the student except in cases where they have already developed sufficient and appropriate skills through a Master's degree or other postgraduate work or through appropriate work experience. Any exemption from such training should be agreed by the supervisory team and recorded on the student¡¯s Academic Needs Analysis.

7.9 Every funded student should also be provided with any training required by their funder. Any exemption from such training should be agreed by the supervisory team and recorded on the student¡¯s Academic Needs Analysis.

7.10 The student¡¯s personal and professional developmental needs, including transferable skills, should be assessed within three months of entry to their research degree programme (or within three months of the beginning of the research stage of a doctoral degree with a substantial taught element) by means of an initial Academic Needs Analysis. Any specific programme requirements will be communicated by the Faculty/discipline (or in the case of degrees with a substantial taught element, detailed in the programme specification). Consideration should be given to:

• the facilities required to enable the student to undertake their research (e.g., any specialist software packages or a high specification computer; appropriate space to work ¨C see section 12 of this Code of Practice (Responsibilities of the Faculty: Facilities and equipment);
• whether the student has subject-specific gaps in their knowledge base and how these might be filled (e.g., by attending Master¡¯s level taught modules);
• whether the student needs to learn a language and/or require English language support during their candidature and how these could be implemented;
• a self-assessment of the student¡¯s personal, professional and research skills (as set out in the Researcher Development Framework on the Vitae website). The student should be directed to the training on offer through the University, their programme and their Faculty to meet the training needs identified.

7.11    The student should, throughout their candidature, maintain a record of personal achievement in their acquisition of knowledge and of subject-specific, personal, professional and research skills and are required to submit an updated Academic Needs Analysis for each Progression Review. The Assessment Panel should evaluate the student¡¯s training needs at each Review¡¯s viva voce and provide feedback to the student on their updated Academic Needs Analysis.

7.12    Faculties should ensure that procedures are in place to collate, on an annual basis, the needs that have been identified in the Academic Needs Analysis. This should be reflected in their annual monitoring reports.
 

7.13 All students are required to create and maintain a Data Management Plan (as prescribed in the Library¡¯s Research Data Management guide) throughout their candidature. The preliminary Data Management Plan should be assessed within three months of entry to the student¡¯s research degree programme (or within three months of the beginning of the research stage of a doctoral degree with a substantial taught element). Any specific programme requirements will be communicated by the Faculty/discipline (or in the case of degrees with a substantial taught element, as detailed in the programme specification).

7.14 The student¡¯s Data Management Plan may inform their Academic Needs Analysis, e.g., training connected to research data management and they are required to submit an updated Data Management Plan for each Progression Review. The Assessment Panel should evaluate the student¡¯s management of their research data at each Review¡¯s viva voce and provide feedback to the student on their updated Data Management Plan.

9.1 The Supervision section of the Regulations for Research Degrees set down the University¡¯s expectations regarding the supervisory team composition, roles and eligibility criteria.

9.2 The Faculty is responsible for ensuring that an appropriate supervisory team is appointed for each of its students and, subject to approval by the Faculty Director of the Graduate School, students will be allocated to a supervisory team on the recommendation of the Faculty Graduate School directorate. A supervisory team of at least two members is required, one of whom will be the main supervisor. The Faculty should ensure that the contact details and information about the role of each member of the supervisory team is readily available to students throughout their candidature.

9.3 In accordance with the Conflicts of Interest Policy, individuals are required to disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest which could compromise their impartiality, objectivity or professional judgement. Where a conflict of interest in the composition of the supervisory team is identified, this must be communicated immediately to the student and to the Faculty Graduate School directorate, and an additional supervisor or adviser appointed to the team.

9.4 The maximum weighting allocated to any single member of the supervisory team should be no more than 80% and the Faculty Director of the Graduate School should carefully consider proposals for any single member of the supervisory team to have a weighting of less than 10%. Section 10 (Responsibilities of the Supervisory Team) of this Code of Practice sets out in detail the University¡¯s expectations of all individuals appointed to the membership of a supervisory team.

9.5 The Faculty will ensure that the overall workload of supervisory staff is at a level that will allow supervisors to fulfil the responsibilities of the supervisory team as detailed in section 10 of this Code of Practice (Responsibilities of the Supervisory Team). Where applicants receive formal offer letters on or after 1 August 2018, the Faculty will ensure that a full-time member of staff supervises no more than the equivalent of six full-time students at any one time; with the maximum number of students, whether full-or part-time, supervised by an individual supervisor being ten. All students under supervision from the point of enrolment up to, and including those on nominal registration, will be included within this count. The maximum allowable number of students (or full-time equivalent) may need to be reduced where the supervisor is a part-time member of staff. Cases for exemptions will be made by the Faculty Director of the Graduate School to the Dean, or their nominee (normally the Associate Dean (Education)), for approval on the PGR Supervisory Loading: Request for Exemption form. Such exemptions may be granted, e.g., where a supervisor is acting as a stand-in supervisor. Further information can be found in the PGR Supervisory Loading: Guidance for Faculties.

9.6 All supervisors (irrespective of their role or appointment, including those who are not University of BOBÌåÓýµÇ¼ÍøÖ·_Å·±¦ÌåÓý¹ÙÍøƽ̨-APP|ÏÂÔØ employees) must undertake training as determined by the Doctoral College Committee. This must include training to ensure awareness of diversity issues which may impact on the supervision process, e.g., students wishing to participate in their religious festivals.

9.7 New supervisors must be members of a team that includes at least one member that has had experience of supervising research students for the majority of their candidature through to successful completion of a doctorate at the University of BOBÌåÓýµÇ¼ÍøÖ·_Å·±¦ÌåÓý¹ÙÍøƽ̨-APP|ÏÂÔØ. Experience should be gained through attending the required training and by working closely with an experienced supervisor. Required training may include a recognised mentorship arrangement for the new supervisor. Additional guidance to support supervisors is available via the CHEP Resources for Doctoral Supervisors webpages.

9.8 The supervisory team is collectively responsible for ensuring that the Doctoral College (Faculty) Team is immediately notified if one of the supervisors is likely to be unavailable to supervise for a substantial period (normally one month or more). The supervisory team, in consultation with the student, should then collectively assist the Faculty Director of the Graduate School to designate a temporary or permanent replacement, and in making handover arrangements. For international students, Faculties must take into account how the potential replacement of a supervisor may impact the student visa sponsorship conditions and should obtain guidance from the Visa and Immigration Student Advice Service where necessary.

9.9 Should the main supervisor retire during the student¡¯s candidature, the University may confer the title of Emeritus Professor or Fellow to facilitate a continuing relationship on a voluntary basis between the retiree and their Faculty. In accepting the title, the retiree will be required to comply with the relevant policies and procedures which relate to their activities. The Faculty Director of the Graduate School has the discretion to determine whether it would be appropriate or beneficial to the student for the retiree to continue in the role of main supervisor for the student¡¯s remaining candidature. Where it would be considered detrimental to the student, a new main supervisor should be appointed.

• to meet with the student to identify the initial objectives of the research;
• to confirm the requirements of the student¡¯s funder [where applicable];
• to explain the role of each member of the supervisory team and to discuss and agree the pattern and frequency of contact between members of the supervisory team and the student, including what constitutes reasonable access to the supervisory team if the student requires advice outside of scheduled supervisory meetings;
• to agree with the student a regular schedule for formal supervisory meetings to discuss their research and progress, and to provide opportunity to resolve any problems that have arisen. It is expected that meetings should occur more frequently at the start of candidature, but should take place at least once a month for full-time students (with timings adjusted accordingly for part-time students). The requirements for the submission and review of written records of formal meetings should be explained [written records form part of the mechanisms used to monitor student attendance and engagement and, for international students subject to Student visa conditions, are a requirement for the University¡¯s continued sponsorship];
• to provide the student with advice and guidance on relevant literature and sources, research methods and techniques, academic responsibility and conduct (including the avoidance of plagiarism);
• to ensure that the student is guided on matters of research data management, intellectual property, research ethics and governance, and is cognisant of their responsibilities for securing any necessary approvals associated with their research project;
• to ensure that the student is guided on the use of generative artificial intelligence during their studies and in the preparation of their thesis.
• to assist the student in creating their preliminary Data Management Plan, confirming any programme or disciplinary requirements and assessing its suitability [the Data Management Plan may inform the Academic Needs Analysis];
• to assist the student in completing their initial Academic Needs Analysis, giving consideration to research and transferable skills and their personal and professional development needs; identifying sources of training provision and agreeing timescales for the completion of mandatory, compulsory and required training;
• to ensure that the student has access to information about events organised for, or open to, students in the discipline, School, Faculty, and University and externally (including workshops, seminars and conferences);
• [for students whose first language is not English] to advise on the availability of additional language support (e.g., the student may require support with technical language, academic writing skills, presentation skills and everyday English);
• [for students who have disclosed a disability, mental health issue or specific learning difference] to consider the impact, if any, of research activity and to identify ways in which they may be supported in their studies, with help and advice from Student Disability & Wellbeing];
• to be aware of and sensitive to the diverse cultural, social and educational backgrounds and differing needs of students and to the expectations of the Inclusion and Respectful Behaviour Policy to which all members of the University are accountable for their actions, behaviours and decisions;
• to ensure that the student is aware of the various sources of support available to them at discipline/School, Faculty, Doctoral College and University level (e.g.: pastoral support, independent mentors, careers information advice and guidance);
• to ensure that the student is cognisant of health and safety requirements and of other relevant safety legislation, that they are required to observe safe working practices at all times and to follow procedures prescribed by the supervisory team especially if the research project entails working with dangerous equipment and materials or is being carried out in a laboratory environment;
• to clarify the mechanisms for supporting the student¡¯s progress. These mechanisms include informal and formal progression monitoring and review and the provision of regular constructive and timely feedback;
• to ensure that the student is advised of their responsibilities and that, ultimately, they are responsible for their research, for the content, quality and submission of their thesis, and for the completion of their research degree.

• to maintain regular contact with the student in accordance with the arrangements established at the outset of their candidature. The frequency of meetings will depend upon the stage and nature of the student¡¯s research project and their own particular needs. Formal meetings should continue to take place at least once a month for full-time students (with timings adjusted accordingly for part-time students). The submission and review of written records of formal meetings should continue throughout the student¡¯s candidature [written records form part of the mechanisms used to monitor student attendance and, for international students subject to Student visa conditions, are a requirement for the University¡¯s continued sponsorship];
• to provide the student with advice and guidance on the planning and continued development of their research project and on the standard of work expected, recognising that the student may have a particular learning style or require additional support. Advice and guidance will include reference to literature and sources, research methods and techniques, academic responsibility and conduct (including the avoidance of plagiarism);
• [where commercial partnerships, data sharing agreements or other similar arrangements (e.g., those involving defence and security) are put in place during the course of the student¡¯s candidature] to ensure that information regarding restrictions on publication or other use of data from the project during and after its completion (including thesis embargoes) is discussed with the student. Where necessary, mitigation may need to be put in place where there is an unexpected impact on the student¡¯s ability to publish;
• to ensure that the expectations of the Inclusion and Respectful Behaviour Policy is taken into account in all aspects of the student's experience, and to be sensitive to the differing needs of students which may arise from their diverse cultural, social and educational backgrounds;
• to continue to guide the student on matters of research data management, intellectual property, research ethics and governance, and to ensure that the student secures any necessary and ongoing approvals associated with their research project;
• to ensure that the student receives continued guidance on the use of generative artificial intelligence during their studies and in the preparation of their thesis;
• to support the student's progress through the informal and formal progression monitoring and review processes and to ensure that the student continues to be aware of the timing and requirements for each review;
• to provide regular constructive and timely feedback which is accessible and useful to the student;
• to ensure that, where the student¡¯s progress is unsatisfactory or where the standard of work is unacceptable, detailed information is provided to the student which explains the specific matters of concern and that prompt action is taken to develop a constructive and time-targeted plan for improvement;
• to set target dates for successive stages of the research project and student¡¯s work to encourage timely submission of the thesis;
• to check with the student with regard to the effectiveness of any support they are receiving from the University services, and responding to any on-going or acute difficulties;
• to liaise with external bodies and to make arrangements with any external supervisors;
• to be aware of and to comply with internal and external reporting requirements pertaining to the student;
• to keep the student informed of events organised for, or open to, students by the discipline/School, Faculty, University, or externally, and to actively encourage their attendance and participation. To monitor the student¡¯s adherence to the timescales for completion of mandatory, compulsory and required training;
• to arrange for the student to present work to staff or peers at seminars or conferences; to arrange mentoring for publishing and grant writing; to encourage publication of work; and to act as a link between the student and the wider academic community;
• to attend and participate in staff development activities to ensure competence in, and bring enhancement to, all aspects of the supervisory role. 

• to ensure that the student is provided with guidance on the use of generative artificial intelligence during their studies and in the preparation of their thesis;
• to ensure that the student prepares their thesis to be accessible and to conform with PDF-A requirements in a timely manner. Due to the work required, it is recommended that the supervisor encourages the student to familiarise themselves with the guidance available in the Research Degree Candidature: Submission and Completion section of the Quality Handbook in the early stages of thesis preparation;
• to ensure that, where a student is unable to submit a thesis within the required time (or funding period), they make a timely and reasoned request for extension of candidature via the Regulations Governing Special Consideration and Pause in Study for Postgraduate Research Students;
• to ensure that arrangements are made for the examination of the student¡¯s thesis, including the timely and appropriate nomination of examiners; to ensure that any additional examination arrangements are made for students with a disability;
• to ensure that the student is adequately prepared for the viva voce, arranging a practice examination if required.

12.3 The research environment plays a key role in ensuring that students have the best possible opportunities to develop and bring their research projects to fruition. Section 2 of this Code of Practice (Introduction to the Research Environment) sets out in full the factors involved in creating a robust environment, and the Faculty should pay careful attention to these factors which set the context for all areas covered by this Code of Practice. The Faculty should strive to create an infrastructure that is capable of supporting the range of students recruited. This may be located for some periods of the degree in or among other educational institutions, or in a work setting (e.g., in industry).

12.4 Facilities and equipment to support students' research should be made available and explained to students in a clear statement. Facilities and equipment should meet, in full, the expectations of relevant Research Councils, and will include as a minimum:

• access to appropriate space to work, as indicated by the student¡¯s Academic Needs Analysis and by Faculty policy (part-time students are normally allocated space to work on a shared basis only);

• the provision of laboratory and technical support where appropriate;

• access to computing facilities in accordance with iSolutions¡¯ policy. Faculties should have a mechanism by which students may submit a request for a computer with a more powerful specification;

• access to appropriate electronic resources of the University. Faculties should have a mechanism by which a student may submit a request for access to specialist electronic resources;

• appropriate access to email, telephone, and photocopying facilities;

• opportunities to meet and network with other students and researchers;

• appropriate library and other academic support services;

• the opportunity to apply for funds to support training and for attendance at conferences and other relevant events.

12.5Advice should be sought from Student Disability & Wellbeing with regard to accessing any specialist equipment or assistive technology for students who may need such support.

12.6 In accordance with the PhD by Distance Learning Policy, and where a Faculty admits students who are studying off-site, satisfactory arrangements must be put in place to ensure a comparable experience to campus-based students. 

12.7 The arrangements for each student should be recorded in writing through the use of an Individual Doctoral Agreement and agreed by all parties, approved by the Faculty Director of the Graduate School, and reviewed annually. In some cases, it may be appropriate to consider agreeing joint supervision arrangements with another institution (see section 3 of the Regulations for Research Degrees (Candidature)).

12.8 All students working away from campus should have in place: 

• a specified number of meetings with members of the supervisory team which may be supplemented by email, videoconference and other means of communication;

• access to training and personal development activities by means of existing training opportunities or, alternatively, equivalent training which may include web-based training or other distance means;

• opportunities to network and interact with staff and fellow students, either face-to-face or through a virtual environment.

12.9 Faculties should refer to the Postgraduate Research Overview section of the Quality Handbook for further guidance on the modes of PhD that include periods of study away from the University.  See also section 10 of this Code of Practice (Responsibilities of the Supervisory Team).

12.11 Faculties should monitor submission and completion rates for both full-time and part-time students and reflect on these in the annual quality monitoring and assurance cycle. Where necessary, management action should be taken to ensure that submission rates for research students are at least at the minimum thresholds laid down by the University and/or external funders and regulatory bodies.

15.4 The Regulations Governing Academic Responsibility and Conduct apply to all Progression Reviews and Assessment Panels are responsible for referring any suspected breach to the relevant School¡¯s Academic Conduct Officer for their investigation. Students should not, in general, submit any content that has been produced by generative artificial intelligence platforms. This includes production of document text, literature reviews, works of art or artificially manufactured datasets. Information on artificial intelligence tools and academic work, together with guidance for research students is available here.

15.5 Progression Reviews must be sufficiently rigorous to provide an adequate test of the student¡¯s knowledge and understanding of the subject material, of progress to date, and of plans for the remainder of their candidature. 

15.6 Faculties will bring to the attention of students, and relevant staff, clearly defined formats for the written report submission which will inform each Progression Review and, in accordance with the requirements specified in the paragraphs below, the standard criteria to be used for defining outcomes from Progression Reviews, and any additional assessment criteria specific to the student¡¯s programme of study (which must be published in the Academic Regulations).   

15.7The student¡¯s written report should indicate whether any additional support requirements or facilities already being provided are continuing to meet their needs, or if any different or additional adjustments are required. Students are expected to highlight any particular problems they have encountered (e.g., access to resources, facilities or other additional disability-related or language support requirements) together with details of the action taken.  

15.8 The student must submit an updated Academic Needs Analysis, Data Management Plan and confirmation of ethical approval for each Progression Review. The Assessment Panel will evaluate the student¡¯s training needs, their management of their research data, and status of ethical approval at each Review, and provide feedback. 

15.9 Each Progression Review must include a viva voce (unless, and for the second attempt only, where the Assessment Panel deems that the student¡¯s written submission is of sufficient quality to permit programme in which case the repeat viva voce will be cancelled). The viva voce should be conducted in a supportive way and arrangements will be made, where necessary, to accommodate any additional needs of the student. 

15.10 Following each Progression Review, the student will be given constructive written feedback by the Assessment Panel and, if necessary, guidance on actions to be taken to support progress in their candidature.

15.11 Assessors are nominated by the co-ordinating supervisor and the Assessment Panel for each Progression Review will be constituted according to the requirements specified in the paragraphs below. In accordance with the Conflicts of Interest Policy, individuals are required to disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest which could compromise their impartiality, objectivity or professional judgement. 

15.12 To ensure quality assurance of choices made and any justifications provided, nomination of all assessors must be approved by the Faculty Director of the Graduate School in their capacity as Chair of the Faculty Graduate School Subcommittee (or a named deputy who must be a member of the Faculty Graduate School directorate). The Faculty Director of the Graduate School may choose to refer the nomination to the Faculty Graduate School Subcommittee for its consideration. A second attempt at a Progression Review must always include the addition of an Independent Chair (see section 18 of this Code of Practice (Examination: The independent chair: role, responsibilities and criteria for appointment). Requests for an independent notetaker to attend the Progression Review and to record a summary of the discussion may be made to the Faculty Director of the Graduate School.

15.13 The Faculty Director of the Graduate School is responsible for reviewing the Assessment Panel¡¯s recommendation and for confirming the outcome. In circumstances where they deem this appropriate, the Faculty Director of the Graduate School may choose to delegate this task to a nominee; any such nominee must be a member of the Faculty Graduate School directorate. Where this is done, the Faculty Director of the Graduate School is responsible for ensuring that appropriate training and support is in place for the nominee and that there is a clear and transparent process within the Faculty to ensure that decisions are applied consistently across all programmes.

15.14 Should there be any concerns regarding the Assessment Panel¡¯s recommendation, the Faculty Director of the Graduate School (or their nominee) should take steps to engage the Assessment Panel in discussions with a view to satisfactorily resolving the matter. Where amendments are considered necessary, a record of all discussions should be retained and the assessment documentation revised and resubmitted prior to the approval decision being made. 

15.15 Progression Review outcomes will be made in accordance with the timings as set out in the tables in section 15 of this Code of Practice (Progression Monitoring and Reviews: Progression reviews ¨C timings). 

15.16 Two attempts at each Progression Review are permitted:

• A student who fails to meet the criteria required for a successful Progression Review at their second attempt, and where the Assessment Panel does not (or, as in the case of MPhil candidates, may not) recommend transfer to MPhil candidature, will be withdrawn from the degree and their candidature will be terminated in accordance with the Procedures for circumstances that may lead to termination of postgraduate research degree candidature. NB: Failure to successfully complete an Interim Progression Review cannot lead directly to termination of candidature and the procedures for an Exceptional Progressions Review will instead be invoked.
• A student who does not submit material by the specified deadline for their first attempt at a Progression Review (and where no request has been submitted and approved under the Regulations Governing Special Consideration and Pause in Study for Postgraduate Research Students) will be deemed to have failed that attempt and the procedures for a second attempt will be invoked.
• A student who does not submit material by the specified deadline for their second attempt at a Progression Review (and where no request has been submitted and approved under the Regulations Governing Special Consideration and Pause in Study for Postgraduate Research Students) will be deemed to have failed their second attempt and candidature will be terminated in accordance with the Procedures for circumstances that may lead to termination of postgraduate research degree candidature. NB: Failure to submit material by the specified deadline for the second attempt at an Interim Progression Review cannot lead directly to termination of candidature and the procedures for an Exceptional Progression Review will instead be invoked. 

15.17 Termination of candidature has additional significance in the case of international students subject to Student visa conditions, and such students should contact the Visa and Immigration Student Advice Service for guidance.

15.18 Every student who enrolled on their studies after 1 August 2016 is required to undertake Progression Reviews as outlined in the Summary of timings of progression reviews for students who enrolled on their studies on or after 1 August 2016 tables below. The Second Progression Review is known as Confirmation of Doctoral Candidature and must be successfully completed before the student may submit a thesis for examination. 

15.19 Should a student¡¯s candidature extend more than twelve months after their Third Progression Review (excepting when that student has already transferred to a period of nominal registration not exceeding six months), the supervisory team should ensure that the student is provided with additional review(s) so as to ensure that there is ongoing supervision and assessment of their progress in the latter stages of their candidature. Such additional reviews should follow the format and process of the Interim Progression Review.

15.20 Students are required to submit the material for a Progression Review normally not later than four working weeks in advance of the decision deadline. These timings are defined to enable the Assessment Panel to consider the submitted material, hold the Review, and make an outcome recommendation within the specified timeframe. Timings refer to the full month, i.e. the decision from the first attempt at the First Progression Review should be made before the end of month 10.

15.21 In exceptional circumstances, and only where a student can be shown to be making exceptional progress, may they be permitted to undertake a Progression Review earlier than the timeframe specified. In such a case, the request must be made by the main supervisor to the Faculty Director of the Graduate School for recommendation to the Faculty Education and Student Experience Subcommittee for approval.

15.22 Students who first enrolled on their studies before 1 August 2016 are required to follow the progression monitoring timings and procedures that applied at the time of their year of entry and as determined by their Faculty (including those for upgrade/transfer from MPhil to PhD). A summary of the applicable timings, depending on year of entry, is set out in the table below and the student should refer to their Faculty for further information. However, the policy and procedure outlined in section 15 of this Code of Practice (Progression Monitoring and Reviews: The second progression review (confirmation of doctoral candidature)) will apply to every student who first enrolled on their doctoral studies before 1 August 2016 when completing their upgrade/transfer from MPhil to PhD.

15.23 As a minimum, the student should submit a written report, an updated Academic Needs Analysis, an updated Data Management Plan, and confirmation that their research project has been reviewed through ERGO II and that ethical approval is in place where required. The written report should:

• define the aims and objectives of the research project;

• describe how the proposed research relates to other work in the area;

• present the work that has been carried out to date;

• present a plan for progression to the Second Progression Review (Confirmation of Doctoral Candidature.

15.24 The format of assessment informing the First Progression Review will be determined by the Faculty and will be conducted by an Assessment Panel consisting of an Independent Assessor and a member of the supervisory team⁴. During the Review, the Assessment Panel must satisfy itself that the student: 

• is undertaking a viable research project;

• has made satisfactory progress to date;

• has developed an adequately detailed plan of work to enable the research degree to be completed within the allowable period of candidature;

• has defined the preliminary objectives and scope of the research project adequately;

• has made an appropriate survey of the relevant literature and demonstrated an ability to make critical evaluation of published work;

• has acquired an appropriate knowledge and understanding of applicable research methods;

• has begun discussing the ethical implications of their research with their supervisory team and can articulate how these are incorporated into their research plans.

The Assessment Panel will also evaluate the student¡¯s training needs, their management of the research data and ethical approval, and provide feedback to the student.

15.25 Following the Review, the Independent Assessor will recommend either: to progress to the next stage of candidature; or to re-assess. If re-assessment is recommended, the student will be given written guidance on preparation for their second (and final) attempt.

15.26 The second attempt at the First Progression Review will have the same format as the first attempt and will usually be conducted by the same Assessment Panel as for the first attempt but with the addition of an Independent Chair. In exceptional circumstances, the Faculty Director of the Graduate School may wish to appoint a fourth panel member independent of the supervisory team. The second attempt at the First Progression Review will involve a repeat viva voce. However, if the Assessment Panel deems that the student¡¯s written resubmission is of sufficient quality to permit progression, the repeat viva voce will be cancelled. 

15.27 The second attempt at the First Progression Review will lead to one of three recommendations: to progress to the next stage of candidature; to transfer the student to MPhil candidature; or to terminate the student's candidature.

15.28 The Second Progression Review consists of the Confirmation of Doctoral Candidature process and all students will follow the procedure outlined in the following paragraphs. The process for a student who enrolled on their doctoral studies before 1 August 2016 is known as Upgrade/Transfer from MPhil to PhD and will follow the timings as specified in the Summary of timings of confirmation of doctoral candidature/upgrade from MPhil to PhD table above. However, it should be noted that all upgrade/transfer and confirmation panels must consist of at least two Independent Assessors regardless of the student¡¯s year of admission (see The confirmation panel)). The exception to this is for students who are in candidature for an MPhil degree. Such candidates will be required to undertake the Second Progression Review in accordance with the timings set down for doctoral candidates but the criteria for confirmation will not apply.

15.29 All students who are registered at doctoral level must successfully meet the requirements of a confirmation panel. The precise format of the assessment will vary according to the discipline and should involve the practice and criteria set out in this Code of Practice (Criteria for confirmation of doctoral candidature).

15.30 A member of the supervisory team will normally be invited to attend the viva voce to observe, however, the student can ask to meet the confirmation panel without a supervisor being present. Such requests should be submitted by the student to the Doctoral College (Faculty) Team for approval by the Faculty Director of the Graduate School.

The confirmation panel

15.31 The recommendation whether or not to confirm doctoral candidature will be made by a confirmation panel constituted for this purpose. The confirmation panel will consist of at least two Independent Assessors, one of whom will chair the panel and be responsible for leading the viva voce. In exceptional circumstances, the Faculty Director of the Graduate School may approve an Independent Assessor to the confirmation panel who has been appointed as a Visiting Professor, Fellow or Academic (as defined in the Visitors to the University of BOBÌåÓýµÇ¼ÍøÖ·_Å·±¦ÌåÓý¹ÙÍøƽ̨-APP|ÏÂÔØ Policy) to the University.  Any such individual may not take the role of panel chair.

15.32 The confirmation panel for the second attempt at the Second Progression Review will be conducted by the same Assessment Panel as for the first attempt but with the addition of an Independent Chair.

Supporting evidence

15.33 The confirmation panel making the recommendation must have reviewed a sufficient body of written work in order to make a judgement on the criteria noted in this Code of Practice (Criteria for confirmation of doctoral candidature). This body of work should include:

• an overview of the research problem and rationale for the project;
• a substantial literature review;
• well-developed plans for fieldwork and data analysis;
• an updated Academic Needs Analysis;
• an updated Data Management Plan;
• updated confirmation that their research project has been reviewed through ERGO and that ethical approval is in place where required.

Criteria for confirmation of doctoral candidature

15.34 In order for doctoral candidature to be confirmed, the confirmation panel must satisfy itself that the student has demonstrated the ability to:

• manage the research project;
• become proficient in the special field of research involved;
• achieve success at doctoral level given adequate motivation and perseverance.

The confirmation panel must also satisfy itself that the project being undertaken is of sufficient scope, originality and theoretical interest to constitute a genuine contribution to the subject in the form of the understanding of a problem, the advancement of knowledge or the generation of new ideas. 

The Assessment Panel will also evaluate the student¡¯s training needs, completion of mandatory training, and their management of the research data and ethical approval, and provide feedback to the student.

15.35 Students who first enrolled on their research degree on or after 1 August 2020 will not be confirmed in Doctoral Candidature by the Faculty following the Second Progression Review (Confirmation) should any training mandated by the Doctoral College remain unsatisfactorily completed.

The confirmation panel¡¯s recommendation

15.36 Faculties should have a clear policy on the scrutiny of confirmation reports and Confirmation of Doctoral Candidature should be recommended only after the confirmation panel has formally reviewed the research topic, its suitability for development into a doctoral thesis, and the student's ability and progress. The recommendation should be supported by all members of the confirmation panel and paragraph 15.40 in this section of this Code of Practice sets out the process to be followed in circumstances where a unanimous decision cannot be reached.

15.37 Students who have been successful in their confirmation should receive written feedback on the confirmation process highlighting, where appropriate, any potential areas of concern. If the recommendation is not to confirm doctoral candidature, the student must be given a written report giving a statement of the reasons, and guidance regarding any ways in which they might reach the required standard.

15.38 The second attempt at the Second Progression Review will have the same format as the first attempt and will involve a repeat viva voce. However, if the confirmation panel deems that the student¡¯s written resubmission is of sufficient quality to permit progression, the repeat viva voce will be cancelled. 

15.39 The confirmation panel for the second attempt at confirmation of doctoral candidature may make one of three recommendations: to recommend that a student's doctoral candidature is confirmed; to recommend that the student is transferred to MPhil candidature, or to recommend that the student's candidature is terminated.

15.40 If a unanimous recommendation cannot be reached in either the first or second confirmation panel, an additional Independent Assessor shall be appointed by the Faculty Director of the Graduate School. This additional Independent Assessor will be provided with a copy of the confirmation report and the separate reports of the two original Independent Assessors by the Doctoral College (Faculty) Team. The additional Independent Assessor shall be permitted to interview the student before submitting a final report and recommendation to the Faculty Director of the Graduate School who shall consider the independent reports of the original Independent Assessors and the report of the additional Independent Assessor before making a final decision. 

15.41 As a minimum, the student should submit a written report, an updated Academic Needs Analysis, an updated Data Management Plan, and updated confirmation that their research project has been reviewed through ERGO and that ethical approval is in place where required. The written report should:

• outline the thesis structure;

• summarise the work that has been carried out to date;

• summarise work still to be done;

• outline a plan for submission of the thesis.

15.42 The format of assessment informing the Third Progression Review will be determined by the Faculty and, as a minimum will include detailed discussion of the thesis structure and a plan for submission. The Assessment Panel will be comprised of not less than two members of the student¡¯s supervisory team, and they must be satisfied that the student: 

• has made satisfactory progress to date;

• has developed an adequately detailed plan of work and is on track to enable the research degree to be completed within the allowable period of candidature.

The assessors will also evaluate the student¡¯s training needs and their management of the research data and ethical approval, and provide feedback to the student.

15.43 The Review will lead to one of two recommendations: to progress; or to re-assess. If re-assessment is recommended, the student will be given written guidance on preparation for their second (and final) attempt.

15.44 The documentation required for the second attempt at the Third Progression Review will be the same as for the first attempt, and the assessment will be conducted by an Assessment Panel consisting of the same Assessment Panel as for the first attempt but with the addition of an Independent Assessor appointed by the Faculty Director of the Graduate School, plus an Independent Chair⁵. The second attempt at the Third Progression Review will involve a repeat viva voce. However, if the Assessors deem that the student¡¯s written resubmission is of sufficient quality to permit progression, the viva voce will be cancelled. 

15.45 The second attempt at the Third Progression Review will lead to one of three recommendations: to progress to the final stage of candidature; to transfer the student to MPhil candidature; or to terminate the student's candidature. 

15.46 The Interim Progression Review provides assurance that there is ongoing supervision and assessment of the student¡¯s progress between the standard timings of their First, Second and Third Progression Reviews. 

15.47 All students who have not undertaken a Progression Review in the previous twelve months of candidature and who are not due to submit their thesis for examination within the next three months should undergo an Interim Progression Review. If, however, the student is due to submit a Progression Review Report within one month of the next Interim Progression Review, the Faculty Director of the Graduate School may waive the requirement for an Interim Progression Review.

15.48 An Interim Progression Review is considered to be a formal point in a student's candidature, intended to review the student¡¯s progress since their most recent Progression Review and their plans for the remainder of their candidature. The outcomes of the Interim Progression Review do, however, differ from those available to assessors of the First, Second and Third Progression Review as a second attempt at an Interim Progression Review cannot lead directly to termination of candidature. 

15.49 As a minimum, the student should submit a written report, an updated Academic Needs Analysis, an updated Data Management Plan, and updated confirmation that their research project has been reviewed through ERGO and that ethical approval is in place where required. The written report should:

• present the work that has been carried out to date;

• present a plan for the next stage of the degree;

• outline a plan for submission of the thesis.

15.50 The format of the assessment informing the Interim Progression Review will be determined by the Faculty, and will involve all members of the supervisory team. It will usually involve a review of progress since the last Progression Review, a review of the Academic Needs Analysis and the Data Management Plan, and, where relevant, details of the student's plan to submit the thesis. During the Review, the supervisory team must satisfy itself that the student:

• has made satisfactory progress to date;

• has developed an adequately detailed plan of work for the next Progression Review;

• is on track to enable the research degree to be completed within the allowable period of candidature.

The assessors will also evaluate the student¡¯s training needs and their management of the research data and ethical approval, and provide feedback to the student.

15.51 Following the Review, the student will be given written feedback and any necessary guidance on actions to be taken to support progress in their candidature. 

15.52 Following the Review, the Assessment Panel will recommend either: to continue in candidature; or to re-assess. If re-assessment is recommended, the student will be given written guidance on preparation for their second (and final) attempt. The second attempt at the Interim Progression Review will have the same format as the first attempt and will be conducted by the same Assessment Panel as for the first attempt but with the addition of an Independent Chair. 

15.53 The second attempt at the Interim Progression Review will involve a repeat viva voce. However, if the Assessment Panel deems that the student¡¯s written resubmission is of sufficient quality to permit progression, the repeat viva voce will be cancelled. 

15.54 The second attempt at the Interim Progression Review will lead to one of two recommendations: to continue to the next Progression Review; or, if progress is deemed to be unsatisfactory, referral to an Exceptional Progression Review.

15.55 An Exceptional Progression Review may be scheduled on the direction of the Faculty Director of the Graduate School if significant academic concerns about a student¡¯s progress have been raised, either independently or through the Progression Review process.

15.56 The Faculty Director of the Graduate School will provide the student with details of the concerns that have been raised and will ask the student to provide a response in the form of a written report, which should be submitted in accordance with a defined timescale normally be no longer than one month following notification of the issues of concern. The Faculty Director of the Graduate School should advise the student if any other material considered necessary for the Exceptional Progression Review is required. 

15.57 The Exceptional Progression Review will be conducted by two Independent Assessors, one of whom will chair the Assessment Panel and be responsible for leading the viva voce. In exceptional circumstances, the Faculty Director of the Graduate School may approve an Independent Assessor who has been appointed by the University of BOBÌåÓýµÇ¼ÍøÖ·_Å·±¦ÌåÓý¹ÙÍøƽ̨-APP|ÏÂÔØ as a Visiting Professor, Fellow or Academic (as defined in the Visitors to the University of BOBÌåÓýµÇ¼ÍøÖ·_Å·±¦ÌåÓý¹ÙÍøƽ̨-APP|ÏÂÔØ Policy). Any such individual may not take the role of panel chair. 

15.58 At the request of the student, one member of the supervisory team may be invited to attend the viva voce. A supervisor who is in attendance at the viva voce will not play an active role in the Review and may not take part in the judgment of the matters under consideration. Such requests should be made in writing, by the student, to the Doctoral College (Faculty) Team for consideration by the Faculty Director of the Graduate School.

15.59 Following the Review, the Assessment Panel will recommend either: to continue in candidature; or to re-assess. If re-assessment is recommended, the student will be given written guidance on preparation for their second (and final) attempt. The second attempt at the Exceptional Progression Review will have the same format as the first attempt, and will be conducted by the same Assessment Panel as for the first attempt but with the addition of an Independent Chair. 

15.60 The second attempt at the Exceptional Progression Review will involve a repeat viva voce and will lead to one of three recommendations: to continue in candidature; to transfer the student to MPhil candidature, or to terminate the student's candidature.

17.5 The maximum length of a thesis is normally 75,000 words for a PhD or 50,000 words for an MPhil, excluding references and bibliography, or equivalent in the case of alternative formats of thesis (also see section 17 of this Code of Practice (Production and Submission of the Thesis: Alternative formats of thesis submission)). Where appropriate, the Faculty Director of the Graduate School, in their capacity as Chair of Faculty Graduate School Subcommittee, may determine a higher word limit for a specific discipline. All such decisions must be reported to the Faculty Education and Student Experience Subcommittee. A thesis submitted for an MPhil after a PhD examination is not subject to a maximum length of 50,000 words. 

17.6 The maximum length of the thesis does not include supporting material or evidence which may be bound in as appendices. Appendices should be clearly marked as such and listed on the contents page. If appendices are submitted in separate volumes, they must be prepared and bound in the same style as the thesis. All supporting material or evidence will be available to the examiners and will form part of the record.

17.7 In deciding whether to include an appendix, the student should consider the requirements of the research funder as well as the University¡¯s policy on research data management.

17.8 It is important to remember that the stated maximum word limit is not a target figure; an important aspect of scholarship that must be demonstrated in a thesis is the ability to convey information concisely. A student who exceeds the stipulated length for the thesis may be required by the examiners to re-submit their thesis in a format which does not exceed the maximum length.

17.9 Prior to notifying their intention to submit, a student may present a statement to their supervisory team indicating that the thesis cannot be contained within the stipulated length for reasons relating to the subject material. Should the supervisory team consider a longer thesis is appropriate, its recommendation must be submitted to the Faculty Director of the Graduate School for a decision in advance of the student submitting their thesis for examination.

17.11 An alternative format of thesis submission is permitted in the following disciplines and details will be advised by the Faculty:

• Art and Design 

• Dance 

• Drama 

• English 

• Film 

• Music 

• Performing Arts 

17.12 The submission must consist of two parts: a body of work as appropriate to the discipline (e.g., substantial original practical work) completed in conjunction with a critical written component with a maximum length of 40,000 words and an indicative minimum of 20,000 words (30,000 and 15,000 words respectively for MPhil). The nature and extent of each component must be proposed by the student in consultation with the supervisor, for consideration and approval by the Faculty Graduate School Subcommittee by the time of the first Progression Review. The relationship of the components must be such as to form a holistic original research project, demonstrating the criteria as described in section 3 of this Code of Practice (The Higher Degrees of Master of Philosophy and Doctor of Philosophy).

17.14 The Regulations Governing Academic Responsibility and Conduct state that students are required to complete their work, and where relevant their professional practice, in accordance with the principles and practices set out in those Regulations. In particular, students should avoid breaches of academic responsibility and conduct such as plagiarism, cheating, falsification and recycling, breaching ethical standards and misconduct in research. Suspected breaches of academic responsibility and conduct will be investigated via the procedures set down within the Regulations.

17.15 Students should not, in general, submit any content that has been produced by generative artificial intelligence platforms. This includes production of document text, literature reviews, works of art or artificially manufactured datasets. Information on artificial intelligence tools and academic work, together with guidance for research students is available here.

18.5 The examiners are responsible for conducting the assessment of the student¡¯s submission in accordance with the Regulations for Research Degrees and with this Code of Practice.  The examiners¡¯ responsibilities do not end with the submission of their joint report and recommendation. Responsibilities also include the subsequent assessment and certification of further work required of the student and/or attendance at any additional viva voce and, unless otherwise permitted, the same examiners should be retained throughout the examination process. 

18.6 The student will normally be examined by one external examiner and one internal examiner. In exceptional circumstances, one additional external examiner may be appointed. Two external examiners and one internal examiner must be appointed for a student who is a member of staff of the University of BOBÌåÓýµÇ¼ÍøÖ·_Å·±¦ÌåÓý¹ÙÍøƽ̨-APP|ÏÂÔØ. For this purpose, a member of staff is defined as stated in the Regulations for Members of Staff in Candidature for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

18.7 One examiner, either the internal or the external, may be drawn from the confirmation panel (e.g., an internal member of staff who acted in the role of Independent Assessor or an external Assessor if used) provided that they have had no further material contact with the student or their research project since the confirmation, and that the other examiner is entirely new to the project.

18.8 Examiners, both internal and external, should have sufficient experience and appropriate subject expertise to be able to examine effectively. They should also be sensitive to, and take into account in the examining process, reasonable adjustments, equality and diversity. Collectively, the examiners should have acted as examiner for at least three doctoral examinations, and be familiar with examination practice and standards in the UK. As an example, if the external examiner possesses subject expertise but limited UK examining experience, this may be compensated for by a suitably UK-experienced internal examiner.

18.9 Other researchers who have had co-authoring or collaborative involvement in the student's work, or whose own work is the focus of the research project such that there would be a conflict of interest or potential lack of objectivity, may not be appointed as internal or external examiners. 

18.10 Members of staff who have had pastoral involvement with the student such that objectivity would potentially be affected may not be appointed to the examining team.

18.11 Additional and specific criteria for the appointment of the internal and external examiners is set out in the following paragraphs of this Code of Practice.

18.12 Academic members of University of BOBÌåÓýµÇ¼ÍøÖ·_Å·±¦ÌåÓý¹ÙÍøƽ̨-APP|ÏÂÔØ staff with appropriate expertise and the ability to offer impartial scrutiny of the thesis submitted for examination may be appointed as internal examiners. Individuals who are not members of University of BOBÌåÓýµÇ¼ÍøÖ·_Å·±¦ÌåÓý¹ÙÍøƽ̨-APP|ÏÂÔØ staff but who hold Visiting Professor, Fellow or Academic status may not be appointed as internal examiners, with the exception of the following:

• An individual holding a substantive post within University Hospital BOBÌåÓýµÇ¼ÍøÖ·_Å·±¦ÌåÓý¹ÙÍøƽ̨-APP|ÏÂÔØ NHS Foundation Trust or associated NHS organisation, or a member of staff employed at the National Oceanography Centre (NOC). In such cases, an Independent Chair must be appointed in accordance with section 18 of this Code of Practice (Examination: The independent chair: role, responsibilities and criteria for appointment).

18.13 No member of either the current or any previous supervisory team may be appointed as an internal examiner; nor may they take part in the judgement of the thesis under consideration in any other way.

18.14 External examiners should be independent of the University of BOBÌåÓýµÇ¼ÍøÖ·_Å·±¦ÌåÓý¹ÙÍøƽ̨-APP|ÏÂÔØ and have the ability to offer impartial scrutiny of the thesis submitted for examination. The criteria for appointing external examiners for research degrees should be followed.

18.15 External examiners should normally hold an academic post in another higher education institution. Nominations for external examiners who do not hold such positions should be accompanied by a statement outlining their suitability and ability to examine, and there should be sufficient evidence of their research experience and expertise in the subject.

18.16 Former employees and graduates of the University are not eligible to be external examiners until an interval of at least three years has elapsed.

18.17 External examiners should have had no formal academic contact with the student during the period of research candidature and, although reciprocity may be more difficult to avoid than for taught programmes, examiners should not be appointed from within a Faculty where University of BOBÌåÓýµÇ¼ÍøÖ·_Å·±¦ÌåÓý¹ÙÍøƽ̨-APP|ÏÂÔØ members of staff have recently examined for the same subject if at all possible. Similarly, external examiners would not normally be expected to be reappointed if they have examined a student at the University of BOBÌåÓýµÇ¼ÍøÖ·_Å·±¦ÌåÓý¹ÙÍøƽ̨-APP|ÏÂÔØ within the last two years. In exceptional circumstances, the Faculty Director of the Graduate School, in consultation with the Director of the Doctoral College, may appoint an external examiner who has examined a doctoral degree at the University of BOBÌåÓýµÇ¼ÍøÖ·_Å·±¦ÌåÓý¹ÙÍøƽ̨-APP|ÏÂÔØ within the last two years. Members of University of BOBÌåÓýµÇ¼ÍøÖ·_Å·±¦ÌåÓý¹ÙÍøƽ̨-APP|ÏÂÔØ staff are ineligible to act as external examiners for University of BOBÌåÓýµÇ¼ÍøÖ·_Å·±¦ÌåÓý¹ÙÍøƽ̨-APP|ÏÂÔØ awards.

18.18 An Independent Chair must be appointed by the Faculty Director of the Graduate School (in their capacity as Chair of Faculty Graduate School Subcommittee) in the following circumstances:

• where the student is undertaking a second attempt at a Progression Review;
• in response to any request from the Faculty Graduate School Committee, an examiner, a member of the supervisory team or the student;
• where the examination team is inexperienced at examining under the UK system (when one examiner has never conducted a viva voce before);
• where the internal examiner holds a substantive post within University Hospital BOBÌåÓýµÇ¼ÍøÖ·_Å·±¦ÌåÓý¹ÙÍøƽ̨-APP|ÏÂÔØ NHS Foundation Trust or associated NHS organisation, or is a member of staff employed at the National Oceanography Centre, or has a similar joint employment status between the University of BOBÌåÓýµÇ¼ÍøÖ·_Å·±¦ÌåÓý¹ÙÍøƽ̨-APP|ÏÂÔØ and its partners;
• where there have been substantial difficulties with student progress;
• where the student is undertaking an additional viva voce either with or without a resubmission of the thesis.

18.19 The Independent Chair should be an academic member of staff of the University of BOBÌåÓýµÇ¼ÍøÖ·_Å·±¦ÌåÓý¹ÙÍøƽ̨-APP|ÏÂÔØ with substantial experience in supervising and examining research students in the United Kingdom. An individual who is not a member of University of BOBÌåÓýµÇ¼ÍøÖ·_Å·±¦ÌåÓý¹ÙÍøƽ̨-APP|ÏÂÔØ staff but who holds Visiting Professor, Fellow or Academic status may not be appointed as an Independent Chair.

18.20 The Independent Chair is not a member of the Progression Review Assessment Panel or the Examination Team and does not take any part in the judgement of the student. As such, the Independent Chair is not provided with a copy of the student¡¯s submission.

18.21 The role of the Independent Chair is to ensure that the Progression Review or examination is conducted according to the Regulations for Research Degrees and this Code of Practice; that the student is treated fairly and appropriately; and that the outcome represents fairly the views of the assessors and examiners.  The Independent Chair will also identify and commend good practice. More detailed guidance is published in the Postgraduate Research Examining Team: Guidance for Faculties. Students, supervisors, assessors and examiners should not seek to make contact with the Independent Chair as this could compromise their integrity and the process of assessment/examination. 

18.22 The Independent Chair is required to provide a written report which should be submitted to the Faculty Director of the Graduate School immediately following the Progression Review or examination. Should there be any reported concerns, the Faculty Director of the Graduate School (or their nominee) should engage the assessors or examiners in discussion with a view to satisfactorily resolving the matter. A record of all discussions should be made and retained with the Progression Review or examination documentation. 

18.23 A supervisor will not normally attend the viva voce, but should be available to provide clarification to the examiners, if requested. The student may request that one member of their supervisory team is invited to attend the viva voce: any such request must be made by the student, in writing, to the Doctoral College (Faculty) Team, for consideration by the Faculty Director of the Graduate School. A supervisor who is in attendance at the viva voce must not play any role in the examination and may not take part in the judgement of the thesis under consideration.

18.24 The document Guidance for Examiners of Postgraduate Research Awards provides additional information for staff and examiners in preparing for a viva voce.

18.25 The viva voce will be chaired by the internal examiner or by an Independent Chair appointed by the Faculty Director of the Graduate School for this purpose. The criteria for appointment, the role, responsibilities and reporting arrangements are detailed in section 18 of this Code of Practice (Examination: The independent chair: role, responsibilities and criteria for appointment).

18.26 Videoconference (or other suitable technologically-based communication) arrangements can be made for the conduct of the viva voce, provided all parties agree to these arrangements and all necessary safeguards are in place to facilitate the smooth running of the examination. Faculties should seek specialist advice from iSolutions as to the best method of facilitating a viva voce via videoconference and should consult the guidance document Conducting a viva voce as a videoconference, available on the Quality Handbook.

18.27 In preparing for and conducting the viva voce, reasonable adjustments will be made, where necessary, to accommodate any additional needs of the student. In particular, examiners should be informed of any measures or adjustments needed in conducting the examination, e.g., it is important that the room in which the viva voce is to be held is appropriately arranged to ensure physical accessibility and clear communication.

18.28 Each examiner will prepare an independent written report on the thesis which should be submitted to the Doctoral College (Faculty) Team not less than five working days before the date of the viva voce. The Team will share the reports with all members of the examining team prior to the viva voce to aid the examiners¡¯ preliminary discussion.

18.29 Following the viva voce, the Examiners' Joint Report and Recommendation Form which sets out the criteria for assessing the student as defined in section 3 of this Code of Practice (The Higher Degrees of Master of Philosophy and Doctor of Philosophy) should be completed and signed by all members of the examining team. The examiners' recommendation must take one of the forms as specified in section 15 of the Regulations for Research Degrees (Outcomes of the Examination). The Joint Report and Recommendation Form (and a copy of any additional instructions that have been provided direct to the student (e.g., annotated copies of the thesis; lists of required amendments or corrections)) should be submitted by the chair to the Doctoral College (Faculty) Team within one working week of the date of the viva voce.

18.30 In the exceptional situation that the appointed examiners are unable to reach agreement, each examiner shall submit an additional independent report of the viva voce and recommendation to the Faculty Director of the Graduate School who will recommend to the Faculty Education and Student Experience Subcommittee the appointment of an additional external examiner to assess the thesis and the original examiners' reports. The Doctoral College (Faculty) Team will provide the additional external examiner with a copy of the thesis and the independent reports of the original examiners. The additional external examiner will be permitted to interview the student in the presence of an Independent Chair before submitting a final report and recommendation to the Faculty Director of the Graduate School.

18.31 In their capacity as Chair of the Faculty Graduate School Subcommittee, the Faculty Director of the Graduate School is responsible for approving the examiners¡¯ recommendation and determining the outcome. They may, if they consider it appropriate, authorise a single, named deputy to undertake this task who must be an academic member of University of BOBÌåÓýµÇ¼ÍøÖ·_Å·±¦ÌåÓý¹ÙÍøƽ̨-APP|ÏÂÔØ staff and a member of the Faculty Graduate School directorate. 

18.32 The Faculty Director of the Graduate School is required to scrutinise the following: 

• each examiner¡¯s independent report; 

• the examiners¡¯ joint report and recommendation;*

• any additional instructions that the examiners have provided direct to the student (e.g., annotated copies of the thesis; lists of required amendments or corrections);

• the Chair¡¯s [or Independent Chair¡¯s] report;

* Where it is recommended that the student should amend or resubmit their thesis, the examiners must include a clear written statement of what is required with their joint report and recommendation. If necessary, the Faculty Director of the Graduate School may ask the examiners to provide further clarification and/or seek assurance from the student¡¯s co-ordinating supervisor that the examiners¡¯ statement is adequate for the student to complete the task. 

18.33 Should the Faculty Director of the Graduate School have concerns about the content of the examiners¡¯ reports and/or their recommendation, they should take steps to engage the examiners in discussion with a view to satisfactorily resolving the matter. A record of all discussions should be retained and, where necessary, the examination documentation revised and resubmitted to the Faculty Director of the Graduate School.

18.34 In the exceptional situation where the examiners fail to agree (as described in paragraph 18.29 of this Code of Practice), the Faculty Director of the Graduate School shall consider the independent reports of the original examiners and the final report and recommendation of the additional external examiner, before making an outcome recommendation to the Faculty Education and Student Experience Subcommittee.

18.35 The Doctoral College (Faculty) Team should notify the student of the approved outcome within one month of the date of the viva voce. A copy of the examiners¡¯ joint report and recommendation should accompany the notification.

18.36 Where amendment or resubmission is required, the examiners¡¯ written statement of what is required of the student must be provided. The deadline for submission should be aligned to the date when this statement is provided to the student.

18.37 Where the student is required to amend or resubmit their thesis, they may contact the internal examiner once to discuss the required revisions, but must seek any further clarification and guidance from their supervisory team. The supervisory team is expected to provide continued support to the student during the amendment/resubmission period and, accordingly, the student is expected to consult with their supervisory team. 

18.38 Where amendments to the thesis are required, it is expected that the student¡¯s submission will be accompanied by a separate document which lists, for the examiners, the changes that have been made and cross-references to the corresponding page or chapter within the thesis. 

18.39 It is the responsibility of the student¡¯s co-ordinating supervisor to ensure that the examiners complete their assessment of the student¡¯s amended or resubmitted thesis promptly so as not to delay the approval of a recommendation for award.  

• Minor amendments need to be certified by the internal examiner only and approved by the Faculty Director of the Graduate School., The student should normally be informed whether the amendments have been certified within three weeks of their submission. 

• Modest amendments need to be certified by both the internal and external examiners and approved by the Faculty Director of the Graduate School. The student should normally be informed whether the amendments have been certified within six weeks of their submission.

• Where resubmission is required, the re-examination process (including the viva voce) should normally be completed within three months of submission, and the student notified of the outcome within one month of the viva-voce.

18.40 Should a member of the original examining team be unable or unwilling (e.g. failure to respond within expected timescales) to complete the assessment of further work required of a student following the examination outcome (e.g., minor or modest amendments and/or attendance at any additional viva voce), the Faculty Director of the Graduate School should submit a proposal to the Postgraduate Research Quality Monitoring and Enhancement (PGR QME) Subcommittee for a new examiner to be appointed. 

18.41 As specified in section 15 of the Regulations for Research Degrees (Outcomes of the Examination), a student who fails to submit an amended or revised thesis by the date set by the examiners shall normally be regarded as having failed the examination, the recommendations of the examiners shall lapse and the candidate shall be deemed to have withdrawn from the degree. In exceptional circumstances a revised date for submitting corrections may be approved in accordance with the Regulations Governing Special Consideration and Pause in Study for Postgraduate Research Students.

18.42 The award of the degree will be made by Senate on the recommendation of the Faculty Education and Student Experience Subcommittee.

18.43 An awarded student is entitled to attend a graduation ceremony, either during the summer or winter. 

7.5 Mandatory, compulsory or required training will be offered where appropriate at University, Faculty or programme level, and Faculties will work together through the Doctoral College to co-ordinate their training programmes. Descriptors for each category of training are set out below: 

• Mandatory training, which is required for progression through a doctoral research programme and which is monitored and reported upon by the Doctoral College.
• Compulsory training, which are training courses that exist within the doctoral researcher landscape and which a student is required to complete but which do not have an impact upon progression. It is the responsibility of the supervisor to monitor the completion of compulsory training.
• Required training, these courses are not directly related to the doctoral research project but may be required by teams such as HR and Health and Safety whose responsibility it is to monitor completion.

7.6 All students must undertake the mandatory training as detailed by the Doctoral College, or an equivalent as agreed with the Doctoral College Committee. A student who first enrolled on their research degree on or after 1 August 2020 will not be Confirmed in Doctoral Candidature by the Faculty following the Second Progression Review should any mandatory training requirements remain unfulfilled by that point. 

7.7    Research skills training, which should be provided either by single subject groups or on a multidisciplinary basis, forms a substantial and compulsory part of students¡¯ research degree programmes and, where appropriate, should be assessable.

7.8    Any compulsory and/or credit-bearing training/modules will be communicated to the student by the Faculty/discipline and, where required, published in programme-level regulations and/or in the programme specification. Such training will be required of the student except in cases where they have already developed sufficient and appropriate skills through a Master's degree or other postgraduate work or through appropriate work experience. Any exemption from such training should be agreed by the supervisory team and recorded on the student¡¯s Academic Needs Analysis.

7.9    Every funded student should also be provided with any training required by their funder. Any exemption from such training should be agreed by the supervisory team and recorded on the student¡¯s Academic Needs Analysis.