Guide to the Examination of Research Students

 1.1  All Examining Boards for candidates shall consist of the following individuals:

An experienced and 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 viva voce examination and any meeting of the examiners.

An External Examiner

An internal examiner or, in specific cases, a second external examiner (see ‘Conflicts of Interest’ section below).

The internal and external examiner should have experience supervising and examining at the level of the thesis to be examined at postgraduate research degree level.

Where any proposed members of the Board are relatively inexperienced, the other members should be sufficiently experienced in order to compensate. In particular, if the Internal or External Examiner is inexperienced, the Chair should have significant examination and chairing experience.

All new Chairs or Internal Examiners must shadow at least one viva voce at the appropriate level and award before examining students and have completed any relevant training.

1.2  Chair of Examining Board

The Chair of the Board shall be independent in the examining process and shall be responsible to the Regulations, Quality and Standards Board and/or Progression and Awards Board for the conduct of the examination. The Chair of the Examining Board is required to chair the examination and any meetings of the examiners including where a student is required to have a second viva.

1.2.1 The Chair will normally:

• Be a member of staff employed at Swansea University with sufficient seniority and experience to be able to command authority;
• Hold an academic award at, or beyond the level of the thesis to be examined or have equivalent professional experience;
• Have acted as an Internal and/or External Examiner at, or beyond the level of the thesis to be examined to provide sufficient experience to understand the process in full;
• Have a clear understanding of the University’s regulations and procedures for the relevant award(s);
• Have undertaken relevant training around the role and relevant institution-specific policies and supervision procedures.
  

  Any member of staff involved in the supervision of the candidate in any capacity may not act as a Chair of Examining Board.

1.3   External Examiner

External Examiners are nominated by the  Executive Dean or nominee, in consultation with the student’s Supervisory Team. Faculties/Schools should take due care during the nomination process to avoid establishing reciprocal arrangements which could give rise to a potential lack of objectivity.

 1.3.1

Right to Work

Following the introduction of new UK Visas and Immigration controls and requirements, the University must be able to demonstrate that all External Examiners based in the UK 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). External Examiners engaging remotely from overseas, providing they do not enter the UK, are exempt from the process.

1.3.2

An 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 candidate 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 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 candidate
  • Former member of staff of the University, who has left the University during the candidature period;
  • A sponsor, relative or friend of the candidate;
  • A partner or relative of the supervisor;
  • Had substantial co-authoring or collaborative involvement with the candidate'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 candidate in question is studying;
  • Involved in direct substantive collaboration with the candidate'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 seniority and experience, along with 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.

An External Examiner should not normally:

• Be a former member of staff of Swansea University within the last five years, and must be able to demonstrate there are no remaining Conflicts of Interest.
• Be a former student of Swansea University within the same discipline in which they studied.
• Have any clear and substantive professional or personal relationships with anyone involved in the examination process, supervision or discipline (See ‘Conflicts of Interest’
• Be from a University which may create any Reciprocal Arrangements.

A Reciprocal Arrangement in external examining is an agreement (either formal or informal) between two institutions, departments, or academic units whereby staff from one institution are appointed as external examiners for the other, and vice versa, and can create potential bias through existing relationships, thus reducing independence in assessment and decision making.

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.

1.3.5

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 masters theses. In exceptional circumstances the approval of the University’s Chair of Regulations, Quality and Standards Board is required.

1.4   Internal Examiner

1.4.1

An Internal Examiner should normally:

• Be a member of staff employed by Swansea University or an approve partner (academic or industry) with a relevant Swansea University contract;
• Hold an academic award at the same level or higher than the level they are examining or, have equivalent professional experience;
• Have a working knowledge of the subject of research;
  Have relevant experience in the examination of students at the level and type of award, or have shadowed appropriate viva voce examinations at the same level
• Have completed relevant training relevant for the role, including supervision and institution-specific policies and procedures.

Any member of staff involved in the supervision of the candidate may not act as an internal examiner.

If it proves impossible to appoint an appropriate Internal Examiner the Executive Dean (or nominee) may approve the appointment of a second External Examiner in lieu of an internal examiner.

A second External Examiner will not be considered unless all appropriate steps have been taken to appoint an appropriate internal examiner have been taken.

An Internal Examiner should not normally:

• Be a candidate for a research degree either at Swansea University or any other institution;
• Have been a student at Swansea University concurrently with the student to be examined.

2.1 

Regulatory Compliance

• Examiners must be selected based on their academic qualifications, research expertise, and experience in examining research degrees, ensuring independence, fairness and impartiality.
• Examiners must not have any personal or professional relationship that could compromise their objectivity or be perceived as bias.
• Examiners which may have a conflict of interest should not be nominated.

2.2

Identifying Potential Conflicts of Interest

All Examiners must declare if they have had:

• Research Collaborations: Any joint research projects or publications with the candidate or supervisory team in particular, or related projects/publications with members of the School or Research Groups linked to the candidate or supervisory team.
• Professional Relationships: Substantive and/or ongoing professional relationships, employment or consultancy ties with the candidate or supervisory team, School or University.
• Personal Relationships: Family or close personal connections to the candidate or supervisory team.
• Prior Engagement: Been closely involved with the candidate's previous qualifications or examinations (notably as an examiner).

2.3

Examples of Potential Conflicts of Interest (including but not limited to):

• An examiner has a substantive professional or personal relationship with the candidate and/or any member of the supervisory team and/or related members of the Department/School which may impact on their impartiality.
• An examiner co-authored a paper with the candidate or members of the Supervisory Team.
• An examiner served as a mentor or advisor to the candidate or members of the supervisory team during an earlier stage of their academic career.
• An examiner is currently working on a research project with the candidate’s supervisor(s).
• An examiner has a family relationship with the candidate or a member of the supervisory team.
• Reciprocal Arrangements for External Examining, including where the candidate’s supervisor has previously served as an External Examiner in the proposed external examiner’s department/ faculty/school.
• There has been substantive academic communication/collaboration with the candidate (including as a current or former supervisor of the candidate) or the candidate’s supervisors 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.
• They are pastoral tutor, a sponsor, a close professional colleague, relative or friend either at this institution or a previous institution of the candidate.
• They are someone who was examined themselves by the supervisor(s) or a partner or relative of the supervisors
• They are person whose own work is the focus of the research project.
• If they are from an organisation that is involved in a formal collaborative partnership arrangement with Swansea University, in particular where there is a clear Department/School relationship.
• They are a former student or supervisor of any member of the supervisory team and/or examination board
• The student under examination is a member of staff of Swansea University

2.3

Examination of Members of Staff of Swansea University

Specific care must be taken when examining students who are members of staff of Swansea University, including honorary members of staff and members of staff working at partners (industrial and academic), to ensure there are no conflicts of interest within the Board or bias (for or against) the candidate. Whilst it can be challenging to identify a subject expect whom is not closely linked to the candidate, this should be the first approach taken, using the Conflict of Interest guidance above.

Only where no suitably independent Internal Examiners can be identified, a case may be made for a second External Examiner to be appointed.

If a candidate takes employment with the University between the date of submission and the date of examination, the Examination Board should be reviewed for Conflicts of Interest and reconstituted if required, paying due regard to ensuring consistency of decision making to ensure the student experience.

Candidates undertaking up to the normal maximum of 6 hours in the working week of casual subject-related employment within the University will not normally be considered a Conflict of Interest, unless other issues are identified (see "Guide to the Employment of Research Students").

Ensuring Compliance

• Disclosure: Examiners must disclose any relationships or past interactions with the candidate or supervisory team.
• Review: Professional Services staff will identify and advise on any potential conflicts of interest.
• Assessment: The Faculty’s Postgraduate Research Committee must assess the disclosed information to ensure that there is no potential for bias.
• Approval: Only examiners where no substantive conflicts of interest can be evidenced will be approved for the examination board.

2.4

Professional Development: Training and Guidance for Staff

A member of staff who has not acted in the role of internal examiner before shall be required to observe at least one examination prior to being appointed as an internal examiner and undertake any relevant University training.

Any viva voce 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 examination. The Chair should explain the presence of any observers prior to the viva, including why they will be in attendance and what the reason for their presence, usually for the purposes of training (please note that for some students with specific support requirements, observation should be communicated effectively to the student and Chair and not continued if the student or Chair feels they would be disadvantaged).

3.1

The Executive Dean or nominee should provide full contact details for all nominated Examiners. Full details of supervision and examination experience and other relevant information must be provided for all proposed examiners). 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;
• Any known potential conflicts of interest.

3.2

All nominations approved by the Faculty Executive Dean (or nominee) are reviewed by the Deputy Pro-Vice Chancellor Regulations, Quality and Standards (or nominee). 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 or their representative has the authority to executively approve or refuse the appointment of any nominated member of the Examining Board on the basis of the information included in this guidance.

3.3

The Faculty/School should secure informal confirmation that as the proposed External Examiner is willing and available to undertake the role, without any guarantees, before the Nomination of Examining Board form is submitted for review. 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 nominee).

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 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.

4.1  External Examiner

Education Services will notify the external examiner confirming the appointment and terms and conditions, which is copied to the Executive Dean or nominee concerned.

4.2 Internal Examiner and Chair of Examining Board

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

4.3 Fees and Expenses

External Examiners will receive a modest fee from the University for their services.

As External Examiners are normally expected to engage with the examination online, the University will not normally pay expenses. Where a student has specific learning requirements which require the External Examiner to engage in person, limited expenses will be covered for travel and accommodation. All expense claims must be in line with the University staff travel and expenses policy.

Under no circumstances will the University pay expenses incurred by individuals who are not the approved External Examiner (for example a meal including any other individual(s)).

5.1

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 electronic copies of:

• The relevant regulations;
• The candidate’s thesis;
• The Guide to the Examination of Research Students;
• The Guide to the Submission and Presentation of a Thesis for 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 candidate 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 Research/Postgraduate Research Board.

7.1 Examination Date

A date that is mutually acceptable to all parties should be set for the viva voce examination. All parties should be given at least two weeks’ notice of the date of the examination. If any party becomes unavailable due to exceptional circumstances, the examination should be postponed. If a student fails to attend the examination without prior notification, the student 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 will not be processed until a completed report and result form has been received.

8.1

All examinations must take place within six months of the date of submission of the thesis. The Progression and Awards Board monitors submission dates and 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 a viva voce examination for all candidates who have submitted a thesis for a research degree. As a rule, a resubmitted thesis must be examined by a second examination. In exceptional cases, the requirement for a second examination may be waived at the examiners discretion if a pass is agreed by them on resubmission of the Thesis. In this scenario, the Chair of the Examining Board will inform the student that the requirement for a second examination has been waived.

During the examination process, the examiners shall:

• Consider the thesis and abstract submitted by the candidate. 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 candidate possesses a good general knowledge of the particular field of learning within which the thesis falls.

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

The external examiner must decide whether the student's research work and knowledge are of a standard which are comparable to those of 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.

Members of the Examining Board should bear in mind the content of the Guide to Submission and Presentation of a Thesis for 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

Examiners are advised that under the terms of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 2018, students have the right to request access to any comments made about them in these reports.

Viva Voce examinations are an essential part of the examination process of candidates for research degrees. To this end, the regulations of the University require such an examination to be held, and this guidance is intended to lay the foundations for the Viva Voce examination itself.

Before the Viva Voce Examination

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 examination. The Internal Examiner should then complete Section 2 (Internal Examiner’s Report).

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.

The Chair of the Examination Board must ensure that they meet with the Examining Board members before the Viva Voce examination to compare notes on their reports on the thesis, and agree the strategy for the viva.

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

The Viva Voce Examination

A viva voce examination may take a hybrid format or take place entirely online. In either case, the External Examiner will engage remotely unless the student has specifical learning requirements and adjustments which means they would be disadvantaged in some way.

The preferred hybrid/online method will be via the University supported platforms (Zoom/Teams), but other platforms may be used in agreement with all participants and in line with General Data Protection Regulations and with cybersecurity precautions.

In such cases where a viva voce takes place in-person and the External Examiner needs to attend physically, consideration must be given to travel or UKVI restrictions relating to the External Examiner and relevant processes must be followed.

The Chair of the Examining Board must ensure that the  examination is conducted in an open and fair manner in accordance with the University’s regulations. The Chair should make sure that the student is treated inclusively, 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 student is given a fair opportunity to defend their work and that the examiners are aware of any extenuating circumstances which have a bearing on the student's case.

The Chair should meet the student in private prior to the viva voce examination to discuss with the student whether there are any extenuating circumstances (including personal and health), not previously notified via the supervisor, that might impact on the student’s performance in the examination.

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

The Chair should explain the purpose of the viva voce examination to the examiners and the student. The purpose of the examination is to:

• Enable the examiners to assure themselves that the thesis is the student’s own work;
• Give the student the opportunity to defend the thesis and to clarify any arguments within it;
• Enable the examiners to assess the student’s contextual knowledge in their particular field of learning.

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

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

In some cases specific programmes may require that the examination is held a public forum. In such cases permission need not be sought for the presence of members of the audience. During the examination, the Chair should only interject to provide advice on the University regulations or where there is evidence of any activity that is not in line with the regulations.

For examination of the Professional Doctorate (or some Collaborative/ Joint Degrees) the student is required to give a presentation of their work to an audience which may include a member, or members, of the thesis Examining Board and representatives of the associated professional/industrial organisation prior to the start of the formal examination.

Students pursuing the EdD are not required to deliver a presentation.

Students will be assessed in accordance with the agreements in place for jointly delivered and jointly awarded research degrees. In such cases, the composition of the Examining Board is likely to be adjusted to incorporate examiners from the partner institution. In addition, the assessment procedures might be based on the procedures of the partner institution, possibly involving a public defence of the thesis. Supervisory Teams must ensure that students are aware of the specific requirements for their degree programme.

At the examination, the student should be encouraged to display their knowledge and abilities to 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 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 candidate’s aims and the content of the actual thesis, the reasons for this should be explored.

The 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 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.

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 student’s attention and time for explanation and defence allowed for in the viva voce examination.

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

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

16.1

The examiners should discuss the student’s performance in the viva voce 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.

16.2

The external 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 candidate's principal strengths and weaknesses, the approach to the topic, and on the performance at the viva voce examination might also be expressed.

16.3

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 examination, a clear justification for this decision should be presented in the Chair’s report and should be counter-signed by both examiners.

16.4

For examination of the Professional Doctorate and the PhD Extended Period of Study, the Chair of the Examining Board or the Degree Programme Director should complete Section 5 (Confirmation of Satisfactory Completion by the Candidate of the Training and Practical Elements of the Professional Doctorate Programme and PhD Extended Period of Study), confirming that the candidate has completed the training and practical element of the degree. A separate report detailing the training modules undertaken for the degree and the outcomes achieved should be attached to the Report and Result Forms. The examiners should also complete Section 6 (Report of the Verbal Presentation by the Candidate), confirming that the candidate has completed the verbal presentation element to the satisfaction of the examiners.  

16.5

For examination of the Master of Research (MRes), the Chair of the Examining Board should complete Section 5 (Confirmation of Satisfactory Completion by the Candidate of the Taught and Practical Elements of the MRes Programme), confirming that the candidate has completed the taught and practical element of the degree. A separate report detailing the taught modules undertaken for the degree and the outcomes achieved should be attached to the Report and Result Forms.

16.6

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. 

16.7

The student should be invited to re-enter the room and the Chair should inform the student of the recommendations 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). The student must be asked to confirm that they understand the outcome and have to opportunity to seek clarification from the Chair on any feedback.

*This section allows External Examiners to report any issues of concern or effective 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 effective practice.

After the 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 Academic Services immediately. The viva outcome should also be recorded on the Research Management System. 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 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 (or between External Examiners), 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 an appropriately qualified and experienced third party 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 third party, 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 (where an appropriate internal third party cannot be identified). A decision on whether or not to reconvene the Examining Board would fall within the discretion of this third party, whose decision on all matters is final.

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

The student must be informed of the outcome and have implications of the recommendations explained clearly at the end of the examination. The student must be asked to confirm that they understand the outcome and have to opportunity to seek clarification from the Chair on any feedback.

1.    Pass - no corrections

1 month to submit a final version of the thesis.

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

2.    Minor corrections being submitted within 3 months; Pass

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. No further research or any other substantial work needs to be conducted. Minor corrections typically include typos, clarifying points, rephrasing, editing, adding paragraphs and correcting references.

3.    Substantial corrections and/or amendments to be submitted within 6 months; Pass

This is not an option for re-submitted theses

Normally to be approved by internal and external examiner, or at the discretion of the examining board by internal examiner only.

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 6‑month period.

4.    Decision suspended pending re-examination following resubmission within 12 months

This is not an option for re-submitted theses

Normally to be re-examined by the same team of internal and external examiners. As a rule, there will be a second viva; however, upon inspection of the resubmitted thesis, examiners may use their discretion to waive the second viva.

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 12 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)

1 month to submit a final version of the thesis.

Definition: The thesis is deemed to be of MPhil standard in terms of substance and structure. Changes to the title of the thesis are permitted and any reference to PhD must be amended to MPhil.

6.     Not approved for PhD. Minor Corrections to be submitted within 3 months; Pass as MPhil

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. No further research or any other substantial work needs to be conducted.  Minor corrections typically include typos, clarifying points, rephrasing, editing, adding paragraphs and correcting references.

7.     Not approved for PhD. Decision suspended pending re-examination following resubmission as MPhil within 12 months.

This is not an option for re-submitted theses.

Normally to be re-examined by the same team of internal and external examiners; As a rule, there will be a second viva; however, upon inspection of the resubmitted thesis, examiners may use their discretion to waive the second viva.

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 12 months, present a thesis of MPhil standard; amendments/alterations/additions required will normally concern both substance and presentation.

8.     Fail - 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.     Pass-no corrections

1 month to submit a final version of the thesis.

Definition: The thesis is deemed to be of PhD (Period of Extended Study) standard in terms of substance and structure.

2.     Minor corrections being submitted within 3 months; Pass

Normally to be approved by internal examiner.

Definition: The thesis is deemed to be of PhD (Period of Extended Study) standard in terms of substance and structure; corrections concern matters of detail. No further research or any other substantial work needs to be conducted.  Minor corrections typically include typos, clarifying points, rephrasing, editing, adding paragraphs and correcting references.

3.     Substantial corrections and/or amendments to be submitted within 6 months; Pass

This is not an option for re-submitted theses.

Normally to be approved by internal and external examiner, or at the discretion of the examining board by internal examiner only.

Definition: The thesis is deemed to be of PhD (Period of Extended Study) 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 6‑month period.

4.     Decision suspended pending re-examination following resubmission within 12 months

This is not an option for re-submitted theses.

Normally to be re-examined by the same team of internal and external examiners. As a rule, there will be a second viva; however, upon inspection of the resubmitted thesis, examiners may use their discretion to waive the second viva.

Definition: The thesis is not deemed to be of PhD (Period of Extended Study) 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 12 months, present a thesis of appropriate standard; amendments/alterations/additions required may concern both substance and presentation.

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

1 month to submit a final version of the thesis.

Definition: The thesis is deemed to be of MPhil standard in terms of substance and structure. Changes to the title of the thesis are permitted and any reference to PhD must be amended to MPhil.

6.     Not approved for PhD (Period of Extended Study). Minor Corrections to be submitted within 3 months; Pass as MPhil

 Normally to be approved by internal examiner.

Definition: The thesis as presented and defended is not deemed to be of PhD (Period of Extended Study) standard actually or potentially; however, the thesis is deemed to be of MPhil standard in terms of substance and structure. No further research or any other substantial work needs to be conducted. Minor corrections typically include typos, clarifying points, rephrasing, editing, adding paragraphs and correcting references.

7.     Not approved for PhD (Period of Extended Study). Decision suspended pending re-examination following resubmission as MPhil within 12 months

This is not an option for re-submitted theses.

Normally to be re-examined by the same team of internal and external examiners. As a rule, there will be a second viva; however, upon inspection of the resubmitted thesis, examiners may use their discretion to waive the second viva.

Definition: The thesis as presented and defended is not deemed to be of PhD (Period of Extended Study) 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 12 months, present a thesis of MPhil standard; amendments/ alterations/ additions required will normally concern both substance and presentation.

8.     Fail - 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 (Period of Extended Study) or MPhil standard actually or potentially.

1.    Pass - no corrections

1 month to submit a final version of the thesis.

Definition: The thesis is deemed to be of Professional Doctorate (EngD/DNursSci/EdD) standard in terms of substance and structure.

2.    Minor corrections being submitted within 3 months; Pass

Normally to be approved by internal examiner.

Definition: The thesis is deemed to be of Professional Doctorate (EngD/DNursSci/EdD) standard in terms of substance and structure; corrections concern matters of detail. No further research or any other substantial work needs to be conducted. Minor corrections typically include typos, clarifying points, rephrasing, editing, adding paragraphs and correcting references.

3.    Substantial corrections and/or amendments to be submitted within 6 months; Pass

This is not an option for re-submitted theses.

Normally to be approved by internal and external examiner, or at the discretion of the examining board by internal examiner only.

Definition: The thesis is deemed to be of Professional Doctorate (EngD/DNursSci/EdD) 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 6‑month period.

4.    Decision suspended pending re-examination following resubmission within 12 months

This is not an option for re-submitted theses.

Normally to be re-examined by the same team of internal and external examiners. As a rule, there will be a second Viva; However, upon inspection of the resubmitted thesis, examiners may use their discretion to waive the second Viva.

Definition: The thesis is not deemed to be of Professional Doctorate (EngD/DNursSci/EdD) 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 12 months, present a thesis of appropriate standard; amendments/alterations/additions required may concern both substance and presentation.

5.     Not approved for Professional Doctorate (EngD/DNursSci/EdD) but appropriate for a pass as MPhil (in its present form)

1 month to submit a final version of the thesis.

Definition: The thesis is deemed to be of MPhil standard in terms of substance and structure. Changes to the title of the thesis are permitted and any reference to EngD/DNursSci/EdD must be amended to MPhil.

6.     Not approved for Professional Doctorate (EngD/DNursSci/EdD). Minor Corrections to be submitted within 3 months; Pass as MPhil 

Normally to be approved by internal examiner.

Definition: The thesis as presented and defended is not deemed to be of Professional Doctorate (EngD/DNursSci/EdD) standard actually or potentially; however, the thesis is deemed to be of MPhil standard in terms of substance and structure. No further research or any other substantial work needs to be conducted. Minor corrections typically include typos, clarifying points, rephrasing, editing, adding paragraphs and correcting references.

7.     Not approved for Professional Doctorate (EngD/DNursSci/EdD). Decision suspended pending re-examination following resubmission as MPhil within 12 months.

This is not an option for re-submitted theses.

Normally to be re-examined by the same team of internal and external examiners; As a rule, there will be a second Viva; however, upon inspection of the resubmitted thesis, examiners may use their discretion to waive the second Viva.

Definition: The thesis as presented and defended is not deemed to be of Professional Doctorate (EngD/DNursSci/EdD) 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 12 months, present a thesis of MPhil standard; amendments/alterations/additions required will normally concern both substance and presentation.

8.     Not approved for Professional Doctorate (EngD/DNursSci) but appropriate for a pass as MRes/MSc (in its present form)

1 month to submit a final version of the thesis.

Definition: The thesis is deemed to be of MRes/MSc standard in terms of substance and structure. Changes to the title of the thesis are permitted and any reference to EngD/DNursSci must be amended to MRes/MSc.

9.     Not approved for Professional Doctorate (EngD/DNursSci). Minor Corrections to be submitted within 3 months; Pass as MRes/MSc (normally to be approved by internal examiner)

Definition: The thesis as presented and defended is not deemed to be of Professional Doctorate (EngD/DNursSci) standard actually or potentially; however, the thesis is deemed to be of MRes/MSc standard in terms of substance and structure. No further research or any other substantial work needs to be conducted. Minor corrections typically include typos, clarifying points, rephrasing, editing, adding paragraphs and correcting references.

10.   Not approved for Professional Doctorate (EngD/DNursSci). Decision suspended pending re-examination following resubmission as MRes/MSc within 12 months.

This is not an option for re-submitted theses.

Normally to be re-examined by the same team of internal and external examiners. As a rule, there will be a second viva; however, upon inspection of the resubmitted thesis, examiners may use their discretion to waive the second viva.

Definition: The thesis as presented and defended is not deemed to be of Professional Doctorate (EngD/DNursSci) standard actually or potentially, or of MRes/MSc 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 12 months, present a thesis of MRes/MSc standard; amendments/alterations/additions required will normally concern both substance and presentation.

11.   Not approved for Professional Doctorate (EdD) but appropriate for a pass as MA In Education/MA by Research (in its present form)

1 month to submit hard-bound copies.

Definition: The thesis is deemed to be of MA in Education/MA by Research standard in terms of substance and structure. Changes to the title of the thesis are permitted and any reference to Ed D must be amended to MA in Education/MA by Research.

12.   Not approved for Professional Doctorate (EdD). Minor Corrections to be submitted within 3 months; Pass as MA In Education/MA by Research (normally to be approved by internal examiner)

Definition: The thesis as presented and defended is not deemed to be of Professional Doctorate (EdD) standard actually or potentially; however, the thesis is deemed to be of MA in Education/MA by Research standard in terms of substance and structure. No further research or any other substantial work needs to be conducted. Minor corrections typically include typos, clarifying points, rephrasing, editing, adding paragraphs and correcting references.

13.   Not approved for Professional Doctorate (EdD). Decision suspended pending re-examination following resubmission as MA In Education/MA by Research within 12 months

This is not an option for re-submitted theses.

Normally to be re-examined by the same team of internal and external examiners. As a rule, there will be a second viva; however, upon inspection of the resubmitted thesis, examiners may use their discretion to waive the second viva.

Definition: The thesis as presented and defended is not deemed to be of Professional Doctorate (EdD) standard actually or potentially, or of MA In Education/MA by Research 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 12 months, present a thesis of MA In Education/MA by Research standard; amendments/alterations/additions required will normally concern both substance and presentation.

14.   Fail - 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 Professional Doctorate (EngD/DNursSci/EdD), MPhil or MRes/MSc (for (EngD/DNursSci) or MA In Education/ MA by Research (for EdD) standard actually or potentially.

15.   Fail; EdD

Definition: The thesis as presented and defended is not deemed to be of EdD standard.

1.     Pass-no corrections

1 month to submit a final version of the thesis.

Definition: The thesis is deemed to be of Doctor of Medicine (MD) standard in terms of substance and structure.

2.     Minor corrections to be submitted within 3 months; Pass

Normally to be approved by internal examiner.

Definition: The thesis is deemed to be of MD standard in terms of substance and structure; corrections concern matters of detail. No further research or any other substantial work needs to be conducted. Minor corrections typically include typos, clarifying points, rephrasing, editing, adding paragraphs and correcting references.

3.     Substantial corrections and/or amendments to be submitted within 6 months; Pass

This is not an option for re-submitted theses.

Normally to be approved by internal and external examiner, or at the discretion of the examining board by internal examiner only.

Definition: The thesis is deemed to be of MD 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 6‑month period.

4.     Decision suspended pending re-examination following resubmission within 12 months

This is not an option for re-submitted theses.

Normally to be re-examined by the same team of internal and external examiners. As a rule, there will be a second Viva; However, upon inspection of the resubmitted thesis, examiners may use their discretion to waive the second Viva.

Definition: The thesis is not deemed to be of MD 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 12 months, present a thesis of appropriate standard; amendments/alterations/additions required may concern both substance and presentation.

5.    Not approved for Doctor of Medicine (MD) but appropriate for a MSc by Research (in its present form)

1 month to submit a final version of the thesis.

Definition: The thesis is deemed to be of MA/MSc by Research standard in terms of substance and structure. Changes to the title of the thesis are permitted and any reference to MD must be amended to MSc by Research.

 6.   Not approved for Doctor of Medicine (MD). Minor Corrections to be submitted within 3 months; Pass (normally to be approved by internal examiner)

Definition: The thesis as presented and defended is not deemed to be of Doctor of Medicine (MD) standard actually or potentially; however, the thesis is deemed to be of MSc by Research standard in terms of substance and structure; corrections required concern matters of detail. No further research or any other substantial work needs to be conducted. Minor corrections typically include typos, clarifying points, rephrasing, editing, adding paragraphs and correcting references.

7.     Not approved for Doctor of Medicine (MD). Decision suspended pending re-examination following resubmission as MSc by Research within 12 months.

This is not an option for re-submitted theses.

Normally to be re-examined by the same team of internal and external examiners. As a rule, there will be a second viva; however, upon inspection of the resubmitted thesis, examiners may use their discretion to waive the second viva.

Definition: The thesis as presented and defended is not deemed to be of Doctor of Medicine (MD) standard actually or potentially, or of MA/MSc by Research 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 12 months, present a thesis of MA/MSc by Research; amendments/alterations/additions required will normally concern both substance and presentation.

8.     Fail - 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 MD standard actually or potentially.

1.     Pass -No corrections

1 month to submit a final version of the thesis.

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

2.     Minor corrections to the critical review being submitted within 3 months; Pass

Normally to be approved by internal examiner.

Definition: The thesis is deemed to be of PhD by Published Work standard in terms of substance and structure; corrections concern matters of detail. No further research or any other substantial work needs to be conducted. Minor corrections typically include typos, clarifying points, rephrasing, editing, adding paragraphs and correcting references.

3.     Substantial corrections and/or amendments to the critical review being submitted within 6 months; Pass

This is not an option for re-submitted theses.

Normally to be approved by internal and external examiner, or at the discretion of the examining board by internal examiner only.

Definition: The thesis is deemed to be of PhD by Published Work 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 6‑month period.

4.     Decision suspended pending re-examination following resubmission within 6 months (modification of the critical review and re-submit supported by the same publications)

This is not an option for re-submitted theses.

Normally to be re-examined by the same team of internal and external examiners. As a rule, there will be a second viva; however, upon inspection of the resubmitted thesis, examiners may use their discretion to waive the second viva.

Definition: The thesis is not deemed to be of PhD by Published Work 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 6 months, present a thesis of appropriate standard; amendments/alterations/additions required may concern both substance and presentation.

5.     Decision suspended pending re-examination following resubmission within a maximum of 3 years – timescale to be determined by the Examining Board (modification of the critical review and re-submit with different or additional publications)

This is not an option for re-submitted theses.

Normally to be re-examined by the same team of internal and external examiners. As a rule, there will be a second viva; however, upon inspection of the resubmitted thesis, examiners may use their discretion to waive the second viva.

Definition: The thesis is not deemed to be of PhD by Published Work 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 maximum of 3 years (timescale to be determined by the Examining Board, present a thesis of appropriate standard; amendments/alterations/additions required may concern both substance and presentation.

6.     Fail - 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 PhD by Published Work standard actually or potentially.

1.     Pass - No corrections

1 month to submit a final version of the thesis.

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

2.     Minor corrections to be submitted within 3 months; Pass

Normally to be approved by internal examiner.

Definition: The thesis is deemed to be of MPhil standard in terms of substance and structure; corrections concern matters of detail. No further research or any other substantial work needs to be conducted. Minor corrections typically include typos, clarifying points, rephrasing, editing, adding paragraphs and correcting references.

3.     Substantial corrections and/or amendments to be submitted within 6 months; Pass

This is not an option for re-submitted theses.

Normally to be approved by internal and external examiner, or at the discretion of the examining board by internal examiner only.

Definition: The thesis is deemed to be of MPhil 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 6‑month period.

4.     Decision suspended pending re-examination following resubmission within 12 months

This is not an option for re-submitted theses.

Normally to be re-examined by the same team of internal and external examiners; as a rule, there will be a second viva; however, upon inspection of the resubmitted thesis, examiners may use their discretion to waive the second viva.

Definition: The thesis is not deemed to be 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 12 months, present a thesis of appropriate standard; amendments/alterations/additions required may concern both substance and presentation.

5.     Not approved for MPhil but appropriate for a MA/MSc by Research (in its present form)

1 month to submit a final version of the thesis.

Definition: The thesis is deemed to be of MA/MSc by Research standard in terms of substance and structure. Changes to the title of the thesis are permitted and any reference to MPhil must be amended to MA/MSc by Research.

6.    Not approved for MPhil. Minor Corrections to be submitted within 3 months; Pass as MA/MSc by Research (normally to be approved by internal examiner)

Definition: The thesis as presented and defended is not deemed to be of MPhil standard actually or potentially; however, the thesis is deemed to be of MA/MSc by Research standard in terms of substance and structure. No further research or any other substantial work needs to be conducted. Minor corrections typically include typos, clarifying points, rephrasing, editing, adding paragraphs and correcting references.

7.     Not approved for MPhil. Decision suspended pending re-examination following resubmission as MA/MSc by Research within 12 months.

This is not an option for re-submitted theses.

Normally to be re-examined by the same team of internal and external examiners. As a rule, there will be a second viva; however, upon inspection of the resubmitted thesis, examiners may use their discretion to waive the second viva.

Definition: The thesis as presented and defended is not deemed to be of MPhil standard actually or potentially, or of MA/MSc by Research 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 6 months, present a thesis of MA/MSc by Research; amendments/alterations/additions required will normally concern both substance and presentation.

8.     Fail - 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 MPhil standard actually or potentially.

1.     Pass - No corrections

1 month to submit a final version of the thesis.

Definition: The thesis is deemed to be of Master of Arts by Research (MA by Research) and Master of Science by Research (MSc by Research) standard in terms of substance and structure.

2.     Minor corrections being submitted within 1 month; Pass 

Normally to be approved by internal examiner.

Definition: The thesis is deemed to be of MA by Research/MSc by Research standard in terms of substance and structure; corrections concern matters of detail. No further research or any other substantial work needs to be conducted. Minor corrections typically include typos, clarifying points, rephrasing, editing, adding paragraphs and correcting references.

3.     Substantial corrections and/or amendments to be submitted within 3 months; Pass

This is not an option for re-submitted theses.

Normally to be approved by internal and external examiner or, at the discretion of the examining board, by internal examiner only.

Definition: The thesis is deemed to be of MA by Research/MSc by Research 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 3-‑month period.

4.     Decision suspended pending re-examination following resubmission within 6 months

This is not an option for re-submitted theses.

Normally to be re-examined by the same team of internal and external examiners. As a rule, there will be a second viva; however, upon inspection of the resubmitted thesis, examiners may use their discretion to waive the second viva.

Definition: The thesis is not deemed to be of MA by Research/MSc by Research 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 6 months, present a thesis of appropriate standard; amendments/alterations/additions required may concern both substance and presentation.

5.     Fail - 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 MA by Research/MSc by Research standard actually or potentially.

1.     Pass - No corrections

1 month to submit a final version of the thesis.

Definition: The thesis is deemed to be of Master of Research (MRes) standard in terms of substance and structure.

2.     Minor corrections being submitted within 1 month; Pass

Normally to be approved by internal examiner.

Definition: The thesis is deemed to be of MRes standard in terms of substance and structure; corrections concern matters of detail. No further research or any other substantial work needs to be conducted. Minor corrections typically include typos, clarifying points, rephrasing, editing, adding paragraphs and correcting references.

3.     Substantial corrections and/or amendments to be submitted within 3 months; Pass

This is not an option for re-submitted theses.

Normally to be approved by internal and external examiner, or at the discretion of the examining board by internal examiner only.

Definition: The thesis is deemed to be of MRes 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 3-‑month period.

4.     Decision suspended pending re-examination following resubmission within 6 months

This is not an option for re-submitted theses.

Normally to be re-examined by the same team of internal and external examiners; as a rule, there will be a second viva; however, upon inspection of the resubmitted thesis, examiners may use their discretion to waive the second viva.

Definition: The thesis is not deemed to be of MRes 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 6 months, present a thesis of appropriate standard; amendments/alterations/additions required may concern both substance and presentation.

5.     Fail - 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 MRes standard actually or potentially.

1.     Pass - No corrections

1 month to submit a final version of the thesis.

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

2.     Minor corrections being submitted within 3 months; Pass 

Normally to be approved by internal examiner.

Definition: The thesis is deemed to be of Doctor of Business Administration Professional standard in terms of substance and structure; corrections concern matters of detail. No further research or any other substantial work needs to be conducted. Minor corrections typically include typos, clarifying points, rephrasing, editing, adding paragraphs and correcting references.

3.     Substantial corrections and/or amendments to be submitted within 6 months; Pass

This is not an option for re-submitted theses.Normally to be approved by internal and external examiner, or at the discretion of the examining board by internal examiner only.

Definition: The thesis is deemed to be of Doctor of Business Administration 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 6‑month period.

4.     Decision suspended pending re-examination following resubmission within 12 months

This is not an option for re-submitted theses.

Normally to be re-examined by the same team of internal and external examiners. As a rule, there will be a second viva; however, upon inspection of the resubmitted thesis, examiners may use their discretion to waive the second viva.

Definition: The thesis is not deemed to be of Doctor of Business Administration 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 12 months, present a thesis of appropriate standard; amendments/ alterations/ additions required may concern both substance and presentation.

5.     Not approved for Doctor of Business Administration but appropriate for a pass as Masters (MSc) by Research (in its present form)

1 month to submit a final version of the thesis.

Definition: The thesis is deemed to be of Masters (MSc) by Research standard in terms of substance and structure. Changes to the title of the thesis are permitted and any reference to Doctor of Business Administration must be amended to Masters (MSc) by Research.

6.     Not a pproved for Doctor of Business Administration. Minor Corrections to be submitted within 3 months; Pass as Masters (MSc) by Research (normally to be approved by internal examiner)

Definition: The thesis as presented and defended is not deemed to be of Doctor of Business Administration standard actually or potentially; however, the thesis is deemed to be of Masters (MSc) by Research standard in terms of substance and structure. No further research or any other substantial work needs to be conducted.  Minor corrections typically include typos, clarifying points, rephrasing, editing, adding paragraphs and correcting references.

7.     Not approved for Doctor of Business Administration. Decision suspended pending re-examination following resubmission as Masters (MSc) by Research within 12 months.

This is not an option for re-submitted theses.

Normally to be re-examined by the same team of internal and external examiners. As a rule, there will be a second viva; however, upon inspection of the resubmitted thesis, examiners may use their discretion to waive the second viva.

Definition: The thesis as presented and defended is not deemed to be of Doctor of Business Administration standard actually or potentially, or of Masters (MSc) by Research 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 12 months, present a thesis of Masters (MSc) by Research standard; amendments/alterations/additions required will normally concern both substance and presentation.

8.    Fail; 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 Doctor of Business Administration or Masters (MSc) by Research standard actually or potentially.

1. Pass - No corrections

1 month to submit a final version of the thesis.

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

2.     Pass (subject to corrections) - Corrections to be submitted within 3 months;

This is not an option for re-submitted theses.

Normally to be submitted by internal and external examiner or at the discretion of the examining board by internal examiner only.

Definition: The thesis is deemed to be of PhD standard in terms of substance and structure 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, eg 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 3-month period.

3.     Resubmission - decision suspended pending re-examination following re-submission within 12 months;

This is not an option for re-submitted theses.

Normally to be re-examined by the same team of internal and external examiners. As a rule, there will be a second viva; however, upon inspection of the resubmitted thesis, examiners may use their discretion to waive the second viva.

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 12 months, present a thesis of appropriate standard; amendments/alterations/additions required may concern both substance and presentation.

4.     Not approved for PhD but appropriate for a pass as a Swansea University MPhil (in its present form);

1 month to submit a final version of the thesis.

Definition: The thesis is deemed to be of a Swansea University MPhil standard in terms of substance and structure. Changes to the title of the thesis are permitted and reference to PhD must be amended to Swansea University MPhil (this is a Swansea University award and not a joint award). Please note, this outcome may not be possible for some joint programmes.

5.     Not approved for PhD. Minor corrections to be submitted within 3 months; Pass as a Swansea University MPhil

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 a Swansea University MPhil standard in terms of substance and structure. No further research or any other substantial work needs to be conducted. Minor corrections typically include typos, clarifying points, rephrasing, editing, adding paragraphs and correcting references. The Swansea University MPhil award is not a joint award. Please note, this outcome may not be possible for some joint programmes.

6.     Not approved for PhD. Decision suspended pending re-examination following resubmission as a Swansea University MPhil within 12 months.

This is not an option for resubmitted thesis.

Normally to be re-examined by the same team of internal and external examiners; As a rule, there will be a second viva; however, upon inspection of the submitted thesis, examiners may use their discretion to waive the second viva.

Definition: The thesis as presented and defended is not deemed to be of PhD standard actually or potentially, or of Swansea University 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 12 months, present a thesis of a Swansea University MPhil standard; amendments/alterations/additions required will normally concern both substance and presentation. The Swansea University MPhil award is not a joint award. Please note, this outcome may not be possible for some joint programmes.

7.     Fail; not approved for the award of 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 a Swansea University MPhil standard actually or potentially.

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 candidate will not be approved for the award or lower degree. Not all doctorates have the possibility of receiving a lower degree and therefore the exit award arrangement applies.

1. Where a re-submission is stipulated, Candidates must pay the relevant re-submission fee.
2. A candidate may be allowed a single opportunity to re-submit the work.

22.1

The 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.

22.2

The 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 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.

22.3

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

22.4

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

22.5

Not all doctorates have the possibility of receiving a lower degree and therefore the exit award arrangement applies.

23.1

The 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 (for PhD by Published Work, six months or period specified by the Examining Board) 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 student that the requirement for a second oral examination has been waived.

23.2

The 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 student will be given access to the Library and computing facilities and should establish regular contact with their supervisors during the resubmission period.

23.3

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

23.4

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

23.5

Not all doctorates have the possibility of receiving a lower degree and therefore the exit award arrangement applies.

After the recommendation has been ratified by the Progression and Awards Board, the student will be informed by Education Services that they have not been approved for the award or lower degree. If the student is eligible for an exit award, they will have to submit a request to the Progression and Awards Board for the award to be made. Not all doctorates have the possibility of receiving a lower degree and therefore the exit award arrangement applies.