Guide to the Examination of External Research Students

1.1

All Examining Boards for research students shall consist of the following individuals:

• An independent Chair, who will be the Executive Dean or a member of staff with appropriate experience nominated by the Executive Dean. The Chair of the Examining Board is required to chair the oral examination and any meeting of the examiners:
  • An External Examiner;
  • An Internal Examiner or, in the case of Swansea University employees, a second External Examiner (see ‘Examination of Staff and Research Students Employed at Swansea University’ section below).

The Internal and External Examiner should normally between them have experience at the level of the thesis to be examined at postgraduate research degree level. For instance, where a proposed External Examiner has little or no experience of acting as an External Examiner, then the proposed Internal Examiner must have extensive experience of acting as an examiner. Where the proposed Internal Examiner is relatively inexperienced, the proposed External Examiner must have extensive experience of acting as an examiner.

1.2   Chair of Examining Board

The Chair of the Board shall be independent in the examining process and shall be responsible to the Postgraduate Research Committee for the conduct of the examination. The Chair of the Examining Board is required to chair the oral examination and any meeting of the examiners.

1.2.1

A proposed Chair would normally:

• Be a member of staff employed at Swansea University with sufficient seniority and experience to be able to command authority;
• Have acted as an examiner at, or beyond the level of the thesis to be examined;
• Hold an academic award at, or beyond the level of the thesis to be examined or have equivalent professional experience;
• Have a clear understanding of the University’s regulations and procedures;
• Have undertaken relevant training regarding supervision and institution-specific policies and supervision procedures.

Any member of staff involved in the supervision of the research student may not act as a Chair of the Examining Board.

1.3   External Examiner

External Examiners are nominated by the Executive Dean or nominee, in consultation with the research student’s supervisors.

Faculties/Schools should take due care to avoid establishing reciprocal arrangements which could give rise to a potential lack of objectivity.

1.3.1

Following the introduction of new UK Visas and Immigration controls and requirements, the University must be able to demonstrate that all External Examiners are eligible to work in the United Kingdom. At the nomination stage, Faculties/Schools should indicate the basis on which the judgement that the proposed External Examiner is eligible to work in the United Kingdom has been made, e.g. the proposed External Examiner is a British citizen or is employed by another institution within the UK (this could exclude those that have obtained a visa for working exclusively at one institution).

1.3.2

A proposed External Examiner should:

• Be normally research active and sufficiently experienced to command authority;
• Be aware of the nature and purpose of the degree for which the research student is being examined;
• Possess specialist knowledge and expertise in the subject of research;
• Normally have examined a higher degree on at least one previous occasion within their institution as an Internal Examiner at the same level (see footnote to Nomination of Examining Board below);
• Normally have supervised postgraduate research students to, or beyond the level of, the thesis;
• Normally hold the degree for which they are examining or equivalent. If the examiner does not hold a research degree then the examining board must receive sufficient supporting evidence of the individual's suitability for the position.
• Not be appointed where the following circumstances apply, unless exceptional circumstances can be evidenced:
  • Former supervisor or mentor of the research student
  • Former member of staff of the University, who has left the University during the candidature period;
  • A sponsor, relative or friend of the research student;
  • A partner or relative of the supervisor;
  • Had substantial co-authoring or collaborative involvement with the research student’s work or whose own work is the focus of the research project;
  • A member of staff from a department or research organisation where they are involved with Swansea University in a collaborative doctoral provision arrangement under which the research in question is studying;
  • Involved in direct substantive collaboration with the research student’s supervisors (i.e. supervisory team), during the candidature period (e.g. more than three co-authored papers where the supervisors and examiner are major contributors).

1.3.3

An examiner from outside the University system may be appropriate where professional expertise is required, provided that such an appointee has suitable experience of research degree examinations. Such examiners may typically be drawn from organisations engaged in research, including but not limited to: local health boards, national museums and galleries, judicial courts and international business organisations.

1.3.4

If an External Examiner from a non-UK University is proposed and is unable to demonstrate familiarity with the UK research degree system, then the Chair should be experienced and able to brief the External Examiner on the expectations of a research degree submission.

1.3.5

A former member of staff of Swansea may not be invited to act as an External Examiner until at least five years have elapsed since they left the University.

1.3.6

A former student of Swansea may not be invited to act as an External Examiner until at least five years have elapsed since they graduated from the University.

1.3.7

To avoid bias, prejudice or perceived conflict of interest an External Examiner must not be appointed if:

• There has been substantive academic communication/collaboration with the research student (including as their current or former supervisor) or the research student’s supervisors in the previous five years that would call into question their ability to exercise objective, impartial and independent judgements;
• They have examined research degrees frequently in the same Department/Faculty/School;
• The research student’s supervisor has recently served as an External Examiner in the proposed External Examiner’s Department/Faculty/School;
• They are pastoral tutors, a sponsor, a close professional colleague, relative or friend either at this institution or a previous institution of the research student;
• They are someone who was examined themselves by the supervisor or a partner or relative of the supervisor;
• They are person whose own work is the focus of the research project;
• They are from an organisation that is involved in a collaborative provision arrangement under which the research student is studying.

1.3.8

Number of theses which can be examined by one External Examiner:

The number of theses which can be examined by a particular External Examiner in a twelve-month period shall normally not exceed three doctoral theses and ten research master’s theses. In exceptional circumstances the approval of the University’s Deputy Pro-Vice Chancellor for Postgraduate Research (or their representative) is required.

1.4   Internal Examiner

1.4.1

Nominated Internal Examiners would normally:

• Have a working knowledge of the subject of research;
• Have relevant experience;
• Hold an academic award at the same level they are examining or have equivalent professional experience;
• Be a member of staff employed at Swansea University;
• Not be a candidate for a research degree either at Swansea University or any other institution;
• Not normally have been a student at Swansea University concurrently with the research student to be examined;
• Normally, be drawn from the Faculty/School in which the research student is enrolled;
• Have undertaken relevant training regarding supervision and institution-specific policies and supervision procedures.
  Any member of staff involved in the supervision of the research student may not act as an Internal Examiner.

1.4.2

A member of staff who has not acted in the role of Internal Examiner before shall be required to observe at least one oral examination prior to being appointed as an Internal Examiner. Any oral examination in the University may be observed by an independent person without express prior permission for the presence of the observer being sought from all parties involved in the oral examination.

1.4.3

If, in exceptional circumstances, it proves impossible to appoint an appropriate Internal Examiner from within the Faculty/School concerned, the Executive Dean may nominate an Internal Examiner from another Faculty/School of the University.

1.4.4

If it proves impossible to appoint an appropriate Internal Examiner from another Faculty/School of the University, the Deputy Pro-Vice Chancellor for Postgraduate Research or their representative may, on the special recommendation of the Executive Dean concerned, appoint a second External Examiner in lieu of an Internal Examiner. In appointing such an examiner, the Deputy Pro-Vice Chancellor for Postgraduate Research or their representative may take account of, but need not be bound by, the nomination made by the Executive Dean.

1.4.5

The Deputy Pro-Vice Chancellor for Postgraduate Research or their representative shall not consider the appointment of a second External Examiner unless the Executive Dean or nominee has provided written assurance that all appropriate steps have been taken to appoint an Internal Examiner from within the University.

Where a research student has been employed by the University at any time up until the examination, a conflict of interest may be perceived to arise in circumstances where the Internal Examiner may be a colleague of the research student. In such cases, a second External Examiner will be required in place of an Internal Examiner.

2.1

The following exceptions to this regulation apply:

A. Research students undertaking up to the normal maximum of six hours in the working week of casual subject-related employment within the University (see "Guide to the Employment of External Research Students").

B. Research students having less than three months employment within the University up to the date of submission.

C. Research students employed in an area of the University unrelated to the Faculty/School from which the Internal Examiner is selected (examples include employment within the University Administration or by a different Faculty/School). In this case the Nomination of Examiners form must be accompanied by a written statement explaining why there is no conflict of interest.

2.2

In certain cases, it may become necessary to reconstitute an Examining Board if a research student takes employment with the University between the date of submission and the date of examination.

The Executive Dean or nominee should complete a Nomination of Examining Board form, indicating whether the research student is a member of staff or not, giving the names of all individuals who have been involved in their supervision.

3.1

The Executive Dean or nominee should provide full contact details for the nominated External Examiner. Full details of supervision and examination experience and other relevant information must be provided for all proposed examiners (unless the proposed External Examiner has been appointed and acted as a research degree External Examiner at Swansea University in the last three years). The information provided should cover:

• Record of successful supervision at the appropriate level;
• Previous experience of research degree examination*;
• Academic and/or professional qualifications;
• Current and previous academic positions;
• Brief summary of recent publications and research outputs.

3.2

All nominations are scrutinised by the Deputy Pro-Vice Chancellor for Postgraduate Research or their representative. Additional information regarding qualifications and/or expertise of the proposed examiners and the proposed Chair of the Examining Board may be requested should there be any concerns. The Deputy Pro-Vice Chancellor for Postgraduate Research or their representative has the authority to executively approve or refuse the appointment of any proposed examiner or proposed Chair of the Examining Board.

3.3

It is expected that the Faculty/School will secure an informal agreement to act as External Examiner from the proposed External Examiner before the Executive Dean sends the Nomination of Examining Board form to Education Services. The proposed External Examiner should understand that in accepting a nomination as an External Examiner, they are giving a commitment to be available for the duration of the examination process, including a resubmission if appropriate.

3.4

The Nomination of Examining Board form must be signed by the Executive Dean or their nominee). Where the Executive Dean (or their nominee) is involved in the supervision of the research student, then the Deputy Executive Dean (or nominee)’s signature should be obtained.

3.5

If the thesis is to be submitted and examined in a language other than English/Welsh (permission to do so should be obtained at the time of confirmation of candidature, see Guide to Progress Monitoring of External Research Students), the Executive Dean or nominee must ensure that all members of the Examining Board will be able to take a full and active part in the examination. The Faculty/School must submit all requests to be examined in Welsh to Education Services to arrange for translation purposes.

*If the proposed External Examiner has not acted as an External Examiner before, there must be evidence of experience of acting as an Internal Examiner of a higher degree and the proposed Internal Examiner must have experience of acting as both an Internal Examiner and as an External Examiner.

Lack of previous experience of examining a research degree on the part of one of the examiners must be compensated for by extensive experience on the part of the other examiner. For instance, where a proposed External Examiner has little or no experience of acting as an External Examiner, then the proposed Internal Examiner must have extensive experience of acting as an examiner. Where the proposed Internal Examiner is relatively inexperienced, the proposed External Examiner must have extensive experience of acting as an examiner.

4.1

In all cases the Chair of the Examining Board must have sufficient seniority and experience and must be well acquainted with Swansea University Research Degree Regulations and the Swansea University approach to research degrees.

5.1   External Examiner

Education Services send a letter to the External Examiner confirming the appointment which is copied to the Executive Dean or nominee concerned. Education Services also sends expenses claim form on which the Examiner may claim their fees and expenses at the completion of the examination process.

5.1.1

In addition to the External Examiner’s fee the University will cover genuine expenses (travel and subsistence) up to a maximum of £300 (actual receipted expenditure only) incurred by the External Examiner. Faculties/Schools will be asked to cover anything above this amount. The University will normally only cover expenses incurred in the United Kingdom. The University will not cover expenses not incurred directly by the External Examiner (for example a meal for any other individual).

5.2   Internal Examiner and Chair of Examining Board

Education Services will inform the Executive Dean or nominee whether the Examining Board has been approved.

6.1

Faculty/School Responsibilities and Distribution of Examination Documents

On appointment of both examiners, it is the Faculty’s/School’s responsibility is to supply each examiner with:

• Copies of the relevant regulations;
• One copy of the research students thesis;
• One copy of the completed Notice of Candidature Form;
• One copy of the Guide to the Examination of External Research Students;
• One copy of the Guide to the Submission and Presentation of a Thesis for External Research Students;
• The Report and Result Forms necessary for the conduct of the examination.

The Faculty/School also has responsibility to provide the contact details of each member of the Examining Board.

An Examiner, who, either in the course of the examining process or subsequently, considers that a research student has engaged in academic misconduct, shall immediately report the circumstances in writing to the Chair of the Examining Board concerned.

An appointed Convenor and Secretary shall be responsible for ensuring that the correct administrative procedures for the submission and examination of the thesis are carried out. The Executive Dean or nominee concerned shall act as Convenor & Secretary or shall delegate these functions to a senior member of the staff e.g. a member of staff responsible for the management of postgraduate research students or the Chair of the appropriate Faculty Research/Postgraduate Committee.

8.1

A date that is mutually acceptable to all parties should be set for the oral examination. All parties should be given at least two weeks’ notice of the date of the oral examination. If any party becomes unavailable due to exceptional circumstances, the oral examination should be postponed.

The oral examination for Doctor of Philosophy (External) research students will normally be held by electronic means, and the Progression and Awards Board will be notified (see Conduct of Oral Examination by Electronic Means below). If a research student fails to attend the oral examination without prior notification, they will be deemed to have not met the award or lower degree requirements and the Examining Board should return a recommendation of Not Approved (see Outcomes of examination for each degree below).

Both examiners are asked to report upon the work in a timely manner. The normal expectation is that members of the examining board will complete and submit the report and result form on the day of the examination board or no later than one week from the date of the examination board; this would also apply for a resubmitted thesis. Payment of fees and expenses will not be processed until a completed report and result form has been received.

9.1

All oral examinations must take place within six months of the date of submission of the thesis. The Progression and Awards Board monitors submission dates and research students who are not examined within six months of the date of submission will be deemed to have not complied and will not be approved for the award or lower degree.

Examiners are required to conduct an oral examination for all research students who have submitted a thesis for a research degree. As a rule, a resubmitted thesis must be examined by a second oral examination. In exceptional cases, the requirement for a second oral examination may be waived at the examiners' discretion if a pass is agreed by them on resubmission. In this scenario, the Chair of the Examining Board will inform the research student that the requirement for a second oral examination has been waived. It is expected that traditional research degree oral examinations would normally be held on a face-to-face basis, with all concerned present in the same room on the Swansea University campus, at the same time. However, due to the nature of the Doctor of Philosophy (External) research degree, the viva examination will normally be held via electronic means. Care should be taken to ensure the conduct of the viva mirrors where possible the examination processes and procedures that are normally carried out face-to-face.

The Internal Examiner must decide whether the research student's research work and knowledge meet the standard which would normally be expected of a research student in the Faculty/School submitting for that degree.

The External Examiner must decide whether the research student's research work and knowledge are of a standard which are comparable to those of research students being examined at other institutions for the same degree.

It is the responsibility of the Chair to ensure that the process is rigorous, fair, reliable and consistent with University regulations and procedures. In the event of a review of an examination decision or an appeal, the Chair is required to provide a written report on the conduct of the examination as necessary.

13.1

During the examination process, the examiners shall:

• Consider the thesis and abstract submitted by the research student. Any part of the thesis which has already been accepted, or is being concurrently submitted, for any other degree or qualification in the University, or elsewhere shall be excluded from the examination;
• Report on the scope, character and quality of the work submitted;
• Satisfy themselves that the research student possesses a good general knowledge of the particular field of learning within which the thesis falls.

Members of the Examining Board should bear in mind the content of the Guide to Submission and Presentation of a Thesis for External Research Students when assessing a thesis. The Faculty/School will provide access to the Guide during the viva voce as required.

The Examiners’ Report and Result forms are intended as instruments for the reports of the examiners and the Chair of the Examining Board and are used by the Examining Board to make a formal recommendation to Swansea University on the outcome of the examination process. Examiners are advised that under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, students have the right to request access to any comments made about them in these reports.

The External Examiner should complete Section 1.1 of the Report form (External Examiner’s Report on Thesis) and take the whole form to the oral examination. Some Faculties/Schools may permit an electronic copy to be sent ahead of the examination. The Chair of the Examining Board should arrange for the Internal Examiner’s report to be typed in, or otherwise attached to, Section 2 (Internal Examiner’s Report).

16.1

The form and content of the examiners’ reports should be sufficiently detailed to allow the Examination Board to assess the scope and significance of the thesis and to appreciate its strengths and weaknesses. Reports should, as far as possible, be expressed in terms that may be understood by those who are not specialists in the particular field of the thesis. Ideally the report should include, near to its beginning, a statement of what the thesis purports to do, and an account of what it actually covers. Evaluative comments should be as full as possible and should include an indication of strengths as well as weaknesses, limitations and lacunae.

16.2

The Chair of the Examination Board is responsible to ensure that the examiners should meet before the oral examination to compare notes on their reports on the thesis and agree the strategy for the viva. The Chair of the Examining Board must be present at any such meeting. Normally these meetings will take place via electronic means in relation to Doctor of Philosophy (External) research students. If all parties request and agree that the examination be held in person and it is safe to do so, then the Faculty/School is expected to ensure a room and sufficient hospitality is in place for this pre-examiners meeting.

Even where both examiners’ thesis reports indicate that the thesis is of the required standard, the research student must not be told at the beginning of the oral examination that the degree will be awarded. The examiners must satisfy themselves through the oral examination that the research student is the author of the thesis and completely understands its contents.

The Chair of the Examining Board must ensure that the oral examination is conducted in an open and fair manner in accordance with the University’s regulations. The Chair should make sure that the research student is treated courteously and fairly, and with all due consideration and attention to minimising their discomfort, to enable them to give of their best. The Chair should ensure that the research student is given a fair opportunity to defend their work and that the examiners are aware of any extenuating circumstances which may have a bearing on the research student's case.

17.1

The Chair should meet the research student in private prior to the oral examination to ask them whether there are any health or other personal circumstances, not previously notified via the supervisor, that might impact on their performance in the oral examination.

17.2

It is the responsibility of the research student to make the Examining Board aware of extenuating circumstances which could have an effect on their examination. Academic appeals based on extenuating circumstances which could have been brought to the attention of the Examining Board prior to oral examination shall not be considered.

17.3

The Chair should explain the purpose of the oral examination to the examiners and the research student. The purpose of the oral examination is:

• To enable the examiners to assure themselves that the thesis is the research student’s own work;
• To give the research student the opportunity to defend the thesis and to clarify any obscurities in it;
• To enable the examiners to assess the research student’s contextual knowledge in their particular field of learning.

17.4

The examiners are not only assessing the thesis in the oral examination, but the research student’s ability to defend it, and to relate the contents of the thesis to the existing body of knowledge within the particular field.

17.5

The Chair should ensure that the examiners and the research student are aware of the University regulations and guides dealing with the examination of a research thesis. The Chair should explain the structure of the oral examination and clarify the roles of the examiners and any other individuals present. If any other individuals are present, the Chair should confirm that the research student and, if appropriate, the examiners have no objections to the presence of those individuals. In such a case the research student should sign a statement on the Report form indicating that they have given permission for those individuals to be present.

17.6

At the oral examination, the research student should be encouraged to display their knowledge and abilities to the best effect, and the strengths as well as the weaknesses of the thesis should be acknowledged and explored. At an early stage in the proceedings, the research student should be given an opportunity to explain precisely what the thesis is intended to achieve and what they believe to be its significance as a contribution to knowledge. If there appears to be a major discrepancy between the research student’s aims and the content of the actual thesis, the reasons for this should be explored.

17.7

The research student should be asked to explain their choice of title when there appears to be an imperfect correspondence with the contents of the thesis. The research student should also be given the opportunity to explain any apparent failure to use important materials, whether primary or secondary, or neglect of relevant approaches or methodologies.

17.8

It is important that, where a thesis reveals significant deficiencies which might lead to a report which is not unequivocally favourable, a representative sample of these should be drawn to the research student’s attention and time for explanation and defence allowed for in the oral examination.

17.9

When the examiners feel that they have exhausted their lines of questioning, the Chair should ensure that the research student has nothing further to add or ask. The research student (and the supervisor, if present) should then be requested to leave the room to allow the examiners to discuss the oral examination.

The External Examiner should complete Section 1.2 (External Examiner’s Report on the Oral Examination), and, if appropriate, 1.3 (Matters of General Concern and Interest)*.

18.1

The examiners should discuss the research student’s performance in the oral examination and consider which of the available recommendations is most appropriate (see Outcomes of examination for each degree below). The Chair should ensure that the recommendation chosen complies with University regulations.

18.2

The External Examiner should then, together with the Internal Examiner, complete Section 3 (Joint Report by External and Internal Examiners). The report should draw together any disparate views on the thesis which may have been expressed by the examiners in their individual reports. A brief agreed view on the research student’s principal strengths and weaknesses, the approach to the topic, and on the performance at the oral examination might also be expressed.

18.3

The Chair of the Examining Board should complete Section 4 (Report by the Chair of Examining Board), commenting on the conduct of the oral examination and noting any procedural issues. If the examiners have recommended that the thesis should be resubmitted for examination without a second oral examination, a clear justification for this decision should be presented in the Chair’s report and should be counter-signed by both examiners.

18.4

The examiners should then arrange with the Chair of the Examining Board for the completion and signature of the final form (Result Form). The appropriate recommendation option should be indicated be means of ticking the relevant box. If corrections are required, the External Examiner will normally be required to scrutinise the corrections on behalf of the Examining Board unless otherwise indicated. The examiners and the Chair of the Examining Board should sign the Result Form and the Chair should ensure that the form is dated.

18.5

The research student should be invited to re-enter the room and the Chair should inform them of the recommendation of the Examining Board. The Chair should explain the implications of the recommendation and clearly indicate any dates for providing corrections or for re-submitting the thesis as well as identifying which examiner will be responsible for approving corrections (if applicable).

*This section allows External Examiners to report any issues of concern or good practice during the Examination Process. This information is relayed directly to the Chair of the Progression and Awards Board to take any necessary action and/or report to the Progression and Awards Board. The Chair of the Progression and Awards Board will write to the Examiner concerned on the outcome of considering the issue of concern or good practice.

After the oral examination is completed and all sections of the Report and Result Forms have been signed, the Chair should ensure that the original Report and Result Forms are sent to Education Services immediately. The recommendation of the Examining Board must be presented to the Progression and Awards Board for ratification before a result letter can be prepared. Once confirmation that all conditions have been met is received, the research student will be informed by Education Services of the formal outcome of the examination.

When the recommendation of an External Examiner gives rise to a case of dispute between the External Examiner and Internal Examiner, it is within the power of the Chair of the Progression and Awards Board at the request of the Chair of the Examining Board, to resort to another External Examiner who would be asked to arbitrate. The Chair of the Progression and Awards Board may take into account any written reports submitted by members of the Examining Board. In choosing a second External Examiner the Chair of the Progression and Awards Board may also take into account, but need not be bound by, the nomination (if any) of the Examining Board for a second External Examiner. A decision on whether or not to reconvene the Examining Board would fall within the discretion of this second External Examiner whose decision on all matters is final.

In cases of dispute between the External and Internal Examiners, the Report and Result form should not be signed until the dispute has been resolved.

The research student must be informed of the outcome and have implications of the recommendation explained at the end of the oral examination.

22.1 Outcomes for Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)- (External)

1. Pass(One month to submit hard-bound copies)

Definition: The thesis is deemed to be of PhD standard in terms of substance and structure.

2. Pass subject to minor corrections being submitted within three months

Normally to be approved by Internal Examiner.

Definition: The thesis is deemed to be of PhD standard in terms of substance and structure; Corrections concern matters of detail, as for example addition/deletion of individual paragraphs or incorporation of references to a small number of specific additional items.

3. Pass subject to substantial amendments being submitted within six months

Normally to be approved by Internal and External Examiner, or at the discretion of the examining board by Internal Examiner only.

This is not an option for re-submitted theses.

Definition: The thesis is deemed to be of PhD standard in terms of substance, but in order to pass, significant but clearly specifiable and quantifiable amendments are required in terms of:

a) the presentation of research, e.g. concerning introduction/conclusion; or

b) the structure, e.g. concerning the re-arranging of data/sections/chapters; or

c) the addition of new material not exceeding one chapter in length, where such amendments are judged by the examining board to be achievable within a six-month period.

4. Decision suspended pending re-examination following resubmission within twelve months

Normally to be re-examined by the same team of Internal and External Examiners; As a rule, there will be a second viva; the second viva can be waived at examiners’ discretion if a pass is agreed on resubmission.

This is not an option for re-submitted theses.

Definition: The thesis is not deemed to be of PhD standard in its present form; However, in terms of substance, there is real potential, on the basis of what has already been presented, that the candidate could, within a period of twelve months, present a thesis of appropriate standard; amendments/alterations/additions required may concern both substance and presentation.

5. Not approved for PhD but appropriate for a pass as MPhil (in its present form)

One month to submit.

Definition: The thesis is deemed to be of MPhil standard in terms of substance and structure.

6. Not approved for PhD but appropriate for a pass as MPhil subject to minor corrections being submitted within three months

Normally to be approved by Internal Examiner.

Definition: The thesis as presented and defended is not deemed to be of PhD standard actually or potentially; However, the thesis is deemed to be of MPhil standard in terms of substance and structure; corrections required concern matters of detail, as for example addition/deletion of individual paragraphs or incorporation of references to a small number of specific additional items.

7. Not approved for PhD. Decision suspended pending re-examination following resubmission as MPhil within twelve months

Normally to be re-examined by the same team of Internal and External Examiners; second viva can be waived at examiners’ discretion if a pass is agreed on resubmission.

This is not an option for re-submitted theses.

Definition: The thesis as presented and defended is not deemed to be of PhD standard actually or potentially, or of MPhil standard in its present form; However, in terms of substance, there is real potential, on the basis of what has already been presented, that the candidate could, within a period of twelve months, present a thesis of MPhil standard; amendments/alterations/additions required will normally concern both substance and presentation.

8. Not approved for the award or a lower research degree

As immediate option and option after resubmission.

Definition: The thesis as presented and defended is not deemed to be of either PhD or MPhil standard actually or potentially.

1. If the corrections, amendments or re-submission stipulated are not completed to the satisfaction of the examiners or not submitted for scrutiny within the given time period, then the research student will not be approved for the award or lower degree.
2. Where a re-submission is stipulated, research students must pay the relevant re-submission fee.
3. A research student may be allowed a single opportunity to re-submit the work.

24.1

The research student will be provided with a list of corrections/amendments by the examiners and will be informed that corrections/amendments should be completed within the stipulated time period of receiving the list of corrections/amendments. The list of corrections/amendments may take the form of an annotated copy of the thesis from one or both of the examiners and/or a short document detailing corrections prepared by one or both examiners. At the time of the oral examination one or both of the examiners will have been given the responsibility of scrutinising the corrections/amendments.

24.2

The research student should present their corrections/amendments to the nominated examiner(s) for approval. Corrections/amendments may be presented in electronic format by prior agreement of all parties and should be accompanied by a document outlining both the suggested corrections/amendments and the steps taken by the research student to implement those corrections/amendments. The nominated examiner should indicate in writing that corrections/amendments have been received and whether or not the corrections/amendments are acceptable.

24.3

If the corrections/amendments are acceptable, Education Services should be informed that corrections/amendments have been verified. The research student should be invited to submit copies of the thesis (see Guide to the Submission and Presentation of a Thesis for External Research Students for details) as soon as possible. Once copies of the thesis have been received, the research student will be informed by Education Services that they will be admitted in absentia.

24.4

If the corrections/amendments are deemed to be not acceptable, or are not received within the timescale agreed, then the research student will be judged to have not met the conditions set by the Examining Board and an outcome of Not Approved will be recorded.

25.1

The research student will be provided with an indication of the areas of the thesis that will require substantial re-working by the examiners and will be informed that they will be given a period of one year in which to resubmit the thesis. As a rule, a resubmitted thesis must be examined by a second oral examination. In very exceptional cases, the requirement for a second oral examination may be waived at the examiners’ discretion if a pass is agreed by them on resubmission. In this scenario, the Chair of the Examining Board will inform the research student that the requirement for a second oral examination has been waived.

25.2

The research student will be informed by Education Services that they have been given the opportunity to resubmit the thesis between six months and one year of the date of the notification. The research student will be given access to the Library and computing facilities and should establish regular contact with their supervisors during the resubmission period.

25.3

The research student should follow the procedures for submission of a thesis (see Guide to the Submission and Presentation of a Thesis for External Research Students for details) before the end of the resubmission period.

25.4

If the research student fails to resubmit the thesis within the timescale agreed, then they will be judged to have not met the conditions set by the Examining Board and an outcome of Not Approved will be recorded.

After the recommendation has been ratified by the Progression and Awards Board, the research student will be informed by Education Services that they have not been approved for the award or lower degree.  

27.1

Oral examinations are an essential part of the examination process of all research degree students. To this end, the regulations of the University require such an examination to be held, and there is guidance available which is intended to lay the foundations for the oral examination itself.

27.2

It is expected that traditional research degree oral examinations would normally be held on a face-to-face basis, with all concerned present in the same room on the Swansea University campus, at the same time. However, due to the nature of the Doctor of Philosophy (External) research degree the viva examination will normally be held via electronic means. Care should be taken to ensure the conduct of the viva mirrors where possible the examination processes and procedures that are normally carried out face-to-face.

27.3

If a research student fails to attend the oral examination without prior notification, they will be deemed to have not met the award or lower degree requirements and the Examining Board should return a recommendation of Not Approved (see Outcomes of examination for each research degree section).

27.4

Research students undertaking their oral examination by electronic means should provide:

• Written confirmation that they have no objection to the examination being held, at an agreed time, through electronic means (the examiners and Chair should also be in agreement);
• A written statement that they have waived any right to appeal against the outcome of the examination on the grounds of the use of the electronic medium or consequences arising from the use of such medium;
• Confirmation that sufficient time has been allotted for the viva voce itself, and that they have arranged the necessary technical back-up (the Faculty/School should also provide technical support for the examiners and Chair remotely or in person).

Note: Additional time (of approximately ten minutes duration) must be made available before the start of the formal examination to enable the participants to familiarise themselves with the scope and limitations of the electronic medium in use (e.g. Teams, Skype, Zoom etc).

27.5

It is suggested that, provided the research student is in agreement, the supervisor should be invited by the Chair of the Examining Board to be present with the research student during the Viva Voce. This would normally be via electronic means for research students enrolled on the Doctor of Philosophy (External).