Regulations Governing Appeals by Postgraduate Research Students 2005/06

1. General Principles

1.1 The University of Southampton is committed to ensuring that we provide a high quality educational experience for all our students, and that our assessment procedures and processes are explicit, valid and reliable. We recognise, however, that there may be occasions when students feel that they have cause to question the recommendation of examiners, as endorsed by the School Board, and have evidence to support their claims. Such cases will be considered under the Regulations Governing Appeals by Postgraduate Research Students as set out below.
1.2 The University will seek to ensure that all appeals which are supported by appropriate evidence are treated seriously, constructively and sensitively. It will also seek to ensure that such matters are dealt with promptly, with fairness and consistency. All cases will be handled with due regard to the University's Equal Opportunities Policy. Reviews and appeals will be monitored over time to ensure these principles are upheld.
1.3 Students submitting an appeal will not suffer any disadvantage or recrimination as the result of making such a request in good faith.
1.4 All students considering submitting an appeal are strongly encouraged to seek the advice of colleagues in the Students' Union Advice and Information Centre (SUAIC).
1.5 If a student has a disability or special needs that would prevent them from using the procedures as set out below, the process can be adjusted to accommodate their needs. Schools seeking advice about making such adjustments should seek advice from the Education Quality Coordinator: Student Complaints, Appeals and Feedback in the Educational Development Service in the first instance.
1.6 These procedures can be made available in alternative formats. Please contact the Education Quality Coordinator: Student Complaints, Appeals and Feedback in the Educational Development Service in the first instance, indicating the format required.
1.7 These regulations describe in detail the procedures to be followed in the event of an appeal being lodged by a postgraduate research student at the University of Southampton. Procedures in the Accredited Institutions will follow the spirit of these regulations but may differ in their detailed application as a consequence of the different academic structures of these instructions.

2. Grounds on which Appeals may be Submitted

2.1 A candidate shall have a right of appeal against a recommendation, made by formally appointed examiners and endorsed by the School Board, not to award a postgraduate research degree and not to allow re-submission for a doctorate or a master's degree. This includes provision for appeal against a recommendation that a doctorate be not awarded but that the candidate be permitted to apply for a master's degree. In addition, a candidate may appeal against a decision not to upgrade their candidacy from a master's to a doctoral programme. An appeal may be based upon one or more of the following grounds:
2.1.1 that there existed circumstances affecting the candidate's performance of which the examiners (or the assessors in the case of an upgrade) had not been made aware when their decision was taken;
2.1.2 that there were procedural irregularities in the conduct of the examination or the upgrading meeting (including administrative error) of such a nature as to cause reasonable doubt whether the result might have been different had they not occurred;
2.1.3 that there was evidence of prejudice or of bias or of inadequate assessment on the part of one or more of the examiners (or the assessors in the case of an upgrade);
2.1.4 that the supervision of the candidate was unsatisfactory to the point that his/her performance was seriously affected;
2.1.5 that, in reaching their decision, the examiners (or the assessors in the case of an upgrade) had erroneously concluded that the candidate had cheated or plagiarised or attempted to gain an unfair advantage in the thesis or in any element of work submitted for the degree.
2.2 A candidate who wishes to appeal against the termination of course on the grounds of unsatisfactory progress, prior to the meeting of the examiners, shall be treated under the terms of the Regulations Governing Reviews and Appeals by Students on Taught Courses.
2.3 A candidate registered on a postgraduate research course who wishes to appeal against any decision of a Board of Examiners that relates to any circumstances other than the thesis (for example, the outcome of a taught course, practical examination or clinical placement) shall be treated under the terms of the Regulations Governing Reviews and Appeals by Students on Taught Courses.
2.4 An appeal may only be lodged by a student; it may not be lodged by a representative or by a parent.
2.5 Under no circumstances may students question the academic judgement of the examiners and any request based on such grounds will be dismissed.

3. The Appeal Process: Submission of Requests

3.1 A student wishing to exercise their right of appeal shall give written notice to the Director of Student Services, normally within 21 days from the date when the examiners' or assessors' decision was formally communicated to them. For appeals against a decision not to permit upgrade to PhD candidature, the written request should be submitted to the School Manager of the School in which the student is enrolled. In both cases, students should also complete an appeal request form available from School Offices (Request for Review Under the Regulations Governing Appeals for Postgraduate Research Students). The Education Quality Coordinator: Student Complaints, Appeals and Feedback , based in the Educational Development Service, will normally act on behalf of the Director of Student Services in taking forward the request.
3.2 The written notice should include the grounds on which an appeal is being made, the desired outcome of the appeal, and a summary of evidence in support of the appeal. Any appeal citing medical factors must be supported by appropriate certificates. If known, the identity of any person who would accompany the student to the Committee meeting (see 4.3 below) should also be notified. This does not prohibit any person accompanying the student if they have not been named at this time, except that a student may not bring a legally-qualified person without previously notifying the University.

4. The Appeals Process: Appeals against Decision not to Permit Upgrade from MPhil to PhD Candidature

4.1 As soon as the request has been received, the School Manager will, normally within 14 working days of receiving the student's request, begin procedures to convene a meeting of an Appeals Panel and will notify the student of the following points in writing:
4.1.1 the date, time and place of the meeting;
4.1.2 the members constituting the Panel on this occasion;
4.1.3 that the student is entitled either to attend in person, alone or accompanied by any other member of the University willing to assist in this way; or to be represented in his/her absence by such a person or to have the case heard unrepresented; and that it is in the student's own interests to be so accompanied or represented.
4.2 The student will also be sent a copy of these Regulations if these have not already been supplied.
4.3 As early as possible before the meeting of the Appeal Panel, the School Manager will forward to members of the Panel a copy of the appeal request form and supporting documentation together with a record of the student's marks and any other documentation that is relevant to the appeal, including a statement from the Upgrade Panel of its reason(s) for the decision not to permit upgrade of candidature, drawing particular attention to advice which had previously been given to the student as to how performance could be improved. One copy of these documents will be sent to the student. A copy of these Regulations will be sent to the Panel members if they have not already received these.
4.4 The Review Panel will normally comprise the Dean of the Faculty or his/her nominee who will Chair the Panel, the Head of School or his/her nominee, and the Head or other senior member of another School. (None of the Panel shall have been involved in supervising the student or, as a member of the Upgrade Panel, in previous discussions with the student about their case.) The School Manager will act as Secretary to the Appeal Panel. So far as is practicable, the Panel should include at least one member of the same gender as the student. If it appears that the case may raise particular cultural or other sensitivities, the Chair may co-opt an additional member able to advise on these issues, or otherwise seek advice as s/he sees fit.
4.5 This panel will review the matter in the presence of an appropriate senior colleague designated to speak on behalf of the School; and of the student, if the latter has chosen to attend the meeting.
4.6 The meeting of the Panel will normally follow this format:
4.6.1 The Chair will welcome the student, introduce those present and explain their roles and the procedure to be adopted, and indicate the various options that are open to the Panel.
4.6.2 The Chair will then invite the School to set out the facts and chronology of the matter, outlining its case.
4.6.3 The Panel will then question the School's representative.
4.6.4 The Chair will then invite the student to present their case and to make any comment upon the School's introduction. Should the student wish, the member of the University accompanying them may present the case on their behalf.
4.6.5 The Chair will then invite the senior colleague designated to speak on behalf of the School, who is in attendance, to add any further comment.
4.6.6 The panel will then question the student.
4.6.7 Finally, the Chair will give the student the opportunity to raise any further points.
4.7 All those present, other than members of the Panel and the Secretary, shall then withdraw and the Panel will consider its decision. The decision shall be arrived at solely on the basis of the information presented: if any new considerations emerge during the Panel's deliberations which the Panel consider to be relevant, those who have withdrawn shall be recalled, told what these considerations are, and given an opportunity of commenting on or refuting them.
4.8 When considering issues raised under paragraph 2.1.1, the Panel should be aware of particular cultural sensitivities and differences which may affect domestic and personal circumstances and definitions of 'family', and bear in mind that cultural differences may sometimes inhibit students from raising personal issues at the most appropriate time.
4.9 The Panel may:
  1. either request the School to amend its decision and to permit the student to upgrade to PhD status;

  2. or request that the School inform the student what additional work is necessary for an upgrade to PhD status and by what date this material should be submitted to the original assessment panel;

  3. or request that the School reassesses the student within six weeks of the meeting of the Appeals Panel and that the Head of School, or his/her nominee, and one other member of academic staff in the School, or an external examiner be added to the original assessment panel. (In these circumstances, it is recommended that the Head of School should discuss the composition of the new panel with the Dean of the Faculty.)
4.10 The Panel may either invite the student to come into the hearing immediately afterwards and announce its decision, to be confirmed in writing, at that time; or it may instruct the School Manager to convey its decision in writing to the student within seven working days of the conclusion of the hearing. In either event, the letter to the student shall include details of the procedures of the Research Degree Appeals Committee (section 5 below), if the Panel's decision is not to accept the student's application.
4.11 All those present shall, at all times, treat any evidence given at the hearing as confidential.
4.12 Schools are asked to monitor the number of Appeals Panels held annually by gender, ethnicity and disability of the student making the request, and to report on this as an appendix to their Annual Operating Statement. The relevant Faculty will then make a composite report to AQSC based on School data.
4.13 Students have the right of appeal to the Research Degree Appeals Committee against a decision of the Appeal Panel but such an appeal may only be lodged on the following grounds:
4.13.1 that they possess fresh evidence not available at the time of the Appeal Panel, or that they possess evidence that, for reasons that must be explained, they were unwilling to divulge at the time of the Appeal;
4.13.2 that there had been a material administrative or procedural error in the conduct of the Appeal Panel.

5. The Appeals Process: Appeals against Recommendation not to award a Postgraduate Research Degree and not to allow Re-submission for a Doctorate or a Master's Degree, or not to award a Doctorate but to permit the Student to apply for a Master's Degree

NB: Appeal to the Research Degree Committee is also open to students who have submitted a case to an Appeals Panel relating to a decision not to permit upgrade from MPhil to PhD candidature (see paragraph 4.13 above).

5.1 After the appeal has been lodged the Chair of the Committee may, following discussion with at least one other member of the Committee, rule that the appeal is groundless and should be dismissed. The rationale for this decision should be recorded. In this case, the Secretary of the Committee will send a full written explanation to the student, normally within 21 working days of the appeal having been lodged. Students would, in this instance, retain the right to submit a grievance to Council (see section 6 below).
5.2 If the Chair of the Committee judges that the student has provided sufficient grounds for the appeal to be entertained, the Secretary will send a copy of the student's statement to the Head(s) of School(s) and the supervisor(s) asking if it contains information not known to the School Board. In the light of the information in the student's statement, the Head of School, acting on behalf of the School Board, may agree to change the Board's decision, in which case the appeal succeeds without a hearing. If the School's decision is not to change the outcome, the case will be referred to the Research Degree Appeals Committee.
5.3 When considering issues raised under 2.1.1, Schools should be aware of particular cultural sensitivities and differences which may affect domestic and personal circumstances and definitions of 'family', and bear in mind that cultural differences may sometimes inhibit students from raising personal issues at the most appropriate time and from making such circumstances known to all relevant people.
5.4 The Research Degree Appeals Committee shall consist of:

The Vice-Chancellor or a Deputy Vice-Chancellor in the Chair
A Head of School other than that concerned
A member of the academic staff who is from a School other than that concerned
A postgraduate student who is from a School other than that concerned appointed by the Students' Union President
An external member, nominated by the Vice-Chancellor, who shall normally be a member of the academic staff of another institution with substantial experience of supervising candidates for higher degrees in the relevant subject area.

The Director of Student Services or representative (normally the Education Quality Coordinator: Student Complaints, Appeals and Feedback) shall act as Secretary to the Committee.
5.5 So far as is practicable, the Committee should include at least one member of the same gender as the student. If it appears that the case may raise particular cultural or other sensitivities, the Chair may co-opt an additional member able to advise on these issues, or otherwise seek advice as s/he sees fit.
5.6 None of themembers of the Committee may have had any previous connection with the candidate, or other involvement which may be felt to prejudice their fair opinion. In the event of any disagreement about the suitability of any member of the Committee, the decision of the Chair shall be final.
5.7 The Secretary shall convene a meeting of the Committee normally within two months of receipt of the written notice of appeal, enclosing a copy of the student's letter and any supporting evidence. The Secretary shall notify the student in writing:
5.7.1 of the date, time and place of the meeting;
5.7.2 the names of those constituting the Committee;
5.7.3 that the student is entitled either to attend in person, alone or accompanied by his/her supervisor(s) or by any other member of the University willing to assist in this way, or by a legally qualified person; or to be represented in his/her absence by such a person; and that it is in the student's own interests to be accompanied or so represented;
5.7.4 that the Committee reserves the right to take legal advice on its own behalf and, if the student elects to be accompanied or represented by a legally qualified person, it may also invite its legal adviser to be present at the hearing.
5.8 Not less than seven working days before the committee meeting, the Head of School shall supply the Secretary with copies of the examiners' (or assessors' in the case of an upgrade) reports and a written statement of any other facts which, in the School's view, should be taken into account. The Secretary shall send, under confidential cover, copies of the examiners' (or assessors' ) reports and of the School's statement to the Committee, to the Head(s) of School(s) and to the student's supervisor(s). Two copies of each shall be sent to the student.
5.9 The Dean of the Faculty (or the Dean's representative) shall attend the committee meeting. Head(s) of School(s) concerned, or their representatives, shall be entitled to attend. The committee meeting shall be in private and any other people presenting evidence shal be present only when making their submissions.
5.10 The student's supervisor(s) shall be notified by the Secretary of the time and place of the hearing. If not accompanying or representing the student, the supervisor(s) should be available and may be called as a witness by the student or by the School.
5.11 At the hearing the Committee shall first hear the case made by or on behalf of the student and then any submissions made on behalf of the School. The Head of School shall be entitled to question any person speaking on behalf of the student, and the student or student's representative shall be entitled to question any person speaking on behalf of the School. The Committee may also question any of the parties.
5.12 The Head of School or his/her representative, followed by the student or his/her representative, will be given the opportunity, if they wish, to make a short final speech summarising their submission.
5.13 All those present, other than the members of the Committee, its legal adviser (where appointed and where continuing legal advice is required) and its Secretary, shall then withdraw and the Committee shall consider its decision. This decision shall be arrived at on the basis of the evidence presented to the Committee; if any new considerations emerge during the Committee's discussions which the Committee considers to be relevant, those who have withdrawn shall be recalled, told what these considerations are, and given an opportunity of commenting upon or refuting them.
5.14 The Committee may invite the parties to return to the hearing and shall then announce its decision, to be confirmed in writing immediately afterwards, or shall announce its decision in writing as soon as possible after the hearing. The Secretary shall notify all concerned of the result of the appeal, shall prepare a full record of the hearing, and shall prepare a report for Senate which shall include the reason for the Committee's decision.
5.15 The Commitee may either invite the parties to return to the hearing and announce its decision to be confirmed in writing immediately afterwards, or shall announce its decision in writing as soon as possible after the hearing.
5.16
 All those present at the hearing shall, at all times, treat any evidence given at the hearing as confidential.

6. Possible Outcomes of the Appeal Process

6.1 The Research Degree Appeals Committee acts on behalf of Senate and may take one of the following courses of action:
6.1.1 The Committee may dismiss the appeal.
6.1.2 When the appeal is on either of the grounds stated in 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 above, the Committee may:
  1. either request the original Board of Examiners, via the Faculty Board concerned, to amend its recommendation;

  2. or give the candidate permission to revise the thesis and re-submit it for re-examination within a specified time;

  3. or declare the examination null and void and direct that a fresh examination be conducted.
6.1.3 Where the appeal is on the grounds stated in 2.1.3 or 2.1.5 above, the Committee may direct that the thesis shall be re-examined.
6.1.4 Where the appeal is on the grounds stated at 2.1.4 above, the Committee may give the candidate permission to revise the thesis and re-submit it for re-examination within a specified time. In this case, the Committee will state whether or not a further period of full-time or part-time supervised study is required, and will instruct the School or Faculty to ensure that satisfactory supervisory arrangements are made for the period until re-submission.
6.1.5 Where the appeal is against a decision not to upgrade from MPhil to PhD status, the Committee may:
  1. either request the School to amend its decision and to permit the student to upgrade to PhD status

  2. or request that he School inform the student what additional work is necessary for an upgrade to PhD status, and by what date this material should be submitted to the original assessment panel;

  3. or request that the School re-assesses the student within six weeks of the meeting of the Appeals Committee, and that the Head of School or his/her nominee and one other member of academic staff in the School or an external examiner be added to the original assessment panel. (In these circumstances, it is recommended that the Head of School should discuss the composition of the new panel with the Dean of the Faculty.)
6.1.6 Where the decision of the Committee is for re-examination, the following procedure shall apply:
  1. The School Board shall appoint new examiners no fewer in number than on the original board and normally including at least two external examiners. Where, for good reasons, at least two external examiners cannot be appointed the composition of the Panel shall be discussed with the Chair of the Research Degree Appeals Committee.

  2. The external examiners shall be given no information about the previous examination other than that they are conducting a re-examination on appeal and are required to hold an oral examination. (In conducting the oral examination, arrangements will be made where necessary to accommodate the requirements of students with special communication needs).

  3. The examiners shall report on the thesis independently before they examine the candidate orally, and shall make a joint report after the oral examination.

  4. The reports of the members of the original Board of Examiners and of the new board shall be sent to the School Board. Where the recommendations of the two Boards do not agree, any agreed recommendation of the new board will normally be expected to prevail.

  5. The Committee will normally make a recommendation to the School about whether or not the candidate shall be liable for any fees in respect of any further period of registration required before re-examination. The outcome of the re-examination shall be published in the normal way.
6.2 The Secretary shall notify all concerned of the result of the appeal, shall prepare a full record of the hearing, and shall prepare a report for Senate which shall include the reason for the Committee's decision.
6.3 In its report to Senate of the outcome of the Appeal, the Committee may, if it sees fit, also make recommendations of a more general nature on issues that arrise from the hearing. The School(s) concerned shall be given the opportunity to comment upon any recommendations that concern them.
6.4 One copy of all the papers presented to the Committee will be retained by the Secretary for a period of twenty-four months following the date of the hearing.

7. Submission of Grievance to Council

7.1 The decision of the Appeals Committee is final, subject only to the provisions of Section 18.20 of the Statutes of the University. If the mechanisms described above do not produce a solution which the student finds acceptable, it is possible under the University's Statutes (number 18.20) to ask the Council "to entertain, adjudicate upon and, if thought fit, redress any grievance". In such instances, a special committee is set up to reach a view whether there is a prima facie case for consideration and, if so, to consider the matter in detail and to reach an adjudication on behalf of Council. Students wishing to initiate a grievance to Council should write to the Secretary and Registrar setting out the grounds on which they feel aggrieved, and documenting the action they have taken to attempt to resolve the problem.
7.2 At the point at which these internal mechanisms are exhausted the University, through the Vice-Chancellor, will issue a Completion of Procedures letter.

8. Complaint to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator

8.1 Should a student feel that his/her complaint has not been satisfactorily resolved through internal mechanisms, there is an external mechanism for review of the University's actions; this is through the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA). Information about the OIA's procedures may be found from www.oiahe.org.uk/summary.asp or in the OIA's leaflet, An Introduction to the Student Complaints Scheme, available from the Students' Union, the Head of the Educational Development Service or the Head of Legal Services (and, from October 2005, from the Student Services Centre). The paragraphs that follow (8.2 - 8.14) are based on this information.
8.2 For the OIA to consider a student's case, the student must have exhausted the University's internal complaints procedures and have received a 'Completion of Procedures' letter. The OIA will consider complaints from students or former students about:
  • a programme of study or research for which he or she is or was registered;
  • a service provided to him or her by a higher education institution;
  • a final decision by a higher education institution's disciplinary or appeal body;
  • a designated higher education institution programme validated or franchised by a higher education institution.
It does not consider complaints which:
  • relate to a matter of academic judgement;
  • are or have been the subject of court proceedings;
  • concern student employment matters;
  • relate to an institution which is not a higher education institution;
  • are about admission to a higher education institution.
8.3 Students wishing to make a case to the OIA must normally do so within three months of the date of the Completion of Procedures letter. A complaint must be made in writing, normally using a Scheme Application Form. These forms are available from the Students' Union, the Head of the Educational Development Service or the Head of Legal Services. From October 2005 they will also be available from the Student Services Centre. Forms may also be downloaded from the OIA website www.oiahe.org.uk/literature.asp, or requested from the OIA by telephone or letter (see address in paragraph 8.4 below).
8.4 Completed forms should be returned to OIA, Fifth Floor, Thames Tower, Station Road, Reading RG1 1LXAM. The following documentation must also be enclosed: copy of the Completion of Procedures letter from the University/College; copies of the relevant letters, notes and other supporting documents; copy of the relevant rules and regulations of the University/College; copy of relevant third party statements; Monitoring Questionnaire (optional).
8.5 It is preferable for the student/former student to handle the complaint himself/herself. However, a friend, family member or Students' Union representative, for example, may represent the student provided the complainant gives the OIA written authority to this effect, for example in the Scheme Application Form. In such cases, the student making the complaint will need to ensure that the representative is thoroughly briefed and readily accessible, as the OIA will not correspond with both the student and the representative.
8.6 The University is required to appoint an internal representative to manage any complaints taken to OIA. The name of the University's representative is included in the Completion of Procedures letter.
8.7 The OIA's procedures are informal. The OIA will generally review a complaint based on information provided to them by the parties. The OIA is not a court and expects to decide most complaints without the need for face to face meetings or hearings.
8.8 The student/former student will normally be advised within 21 days whether or not the complaint, or part of it, can be considered within the OIA's remit. If the complaint can be so considered, a copy will be sent to the University for comment. In some cases, the OIA may require the University to respond to specific questions or a request for information. This will normally be completed within a 3 - 4 week period.
8.9 The University's response will normally be sent to the student for comment. The student's response, and any further information requested by OIA, would normally be required within a 3 - 4 week period. The OIA Reviewer may need to ask the student or the University for some further information before issuing a decision.
8.10 The Reviewer will normally issue a draft decision so that both the student/former student and the University can comment on any material inaccuracies. Both parties will normally be asked to respond within 14 days. The Reviewer will then issue a formal decision to both parties and, if the complaint is justified, it will usually be accompanied by the Reviewer's recommendations. This will normally be within 21 days of receipt of comments.
8.11 In deciding whether a complaint is justified, the OIA will consider whether the University properly applied its regulations and followed its procedures, and whether or not a decision made by the University was reasonable in all the circumstances.
8.12 Where a complaint is wholly or partly justified, the Reviewer may recommend that the University does something or refrains from doing something. Recommendations may include (but are not limited to) the following:
  • that the complaint should be referred back to the University for fresh determination because its internal procedures have not been properly followed in a material way;
  • that the University should take a course of action that the OIA considers to be fair in the circumstances;
  • that the University should change the way it handles complaints, or change its internal procedures or regulations;
  • that compensation should be paid to the complainant.
8.13 HEIs are expected to comply with the OIA's formal decision and any recommendations in full and in a prompt manner. Recommendations may require the University to make an offer to the student. If the student accepts the offer then he or she will not be able to take the complaint further. The student is not bound by recommendations and may reject them (if they have not accepted an offer) and pursue any other remedies available.
8.14 Students considering pursuing a complaint through the OIA are strongly advised to make early contact with the Students' Union Advice and Information Centre (SUAIC).