Chapter 9 - Upgrade from MPhil, MA by Research or MSc by Research to Doctoral Study

9 - Upgrade from MPhil, MA By Research or MSc By Research to Doctoral Study

1 Regulations of the Doctor of Philosophy
2 Application 
3 Purpose of Upgrade
4 Timing of Upgrade
5 Submission Requirements
6 Department Upgrade Committees
7 Upgrade Outcomes 
8 Health and Wellbeing and Upgrade
9 Feedback to Students 
10 Sponsorship Progress Reports 
11 Final Authority
12 Transfer of Registration from PhD/MD/MS/EngD to MPhil/MbyRes

Annex 1. 'Applications for deferral'
Annex 2. 'Upgrade Vivas by Video-link'

Form: MByRes Intention to Upgrade form

Important Notice to all Students
All students in receipt of funding, whether that is through the University of Exeter, a Research Council, a Student Loan or any other financial sponsorship, must check whether upgrade from MPhil to Doctoral Study is allowed under the terms and conditions of their funding. It is the student’s responsibility to check these conditions ahead of requesting to change status.

  1. The Regulations for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy provide that: 

    "Candidates registered for a degree of Master of Philosophy, Master of Arts by Research or Master of Science by Research may be allowed to transfer their registration to the degree of Doctor of Philosophy and to have all or part of the period of study already completed under the original registration counted towards the period under the new registration." (2.2)
  2. Application to upgrade:
    1. A student registered for the degree of Master of Philosophy (MPhil), Master of Arts by Research or Master of Science by Research (hereafter referred to as “Masters by Research”) who wishes to upgrade to an appropriate doctoral programme shall submit a formal application, provided that they have met the entry requirements for the doctoral programme.
    2. It is important to note Masters By Research students wishing to upgrade, who are receipt of a UK student loan must check and understand the terms and conditions of their loan provision with their PGR Support Team, and understand the consequences of changes to their programme on their loan provision before decisions about upgrade are confirmed. Students are responsible for ensuring that they understand the implications of upgrading from MByRes to Doctoral Study on any loans, sponsorship or other funding that they receive.
    3. Masters By Research students wishing to upgrade who have a Tier 4/Student visa must discuss their plans with the International Student Support Office, as upgrading may have serious implications for their visa
  3. Purpose of Upgrade:
    The purpose of the upgrade process is to:
    1. Confirm that the student is making satisfactory progress;
    2. Confirm that there is evidence that the student is able to produce work of doctoral quality;
    3. Act as a structural milestone within the student’s research journey;
    4. Provide the student with formal feedback on their work, and a developmental opportunity in the form of a viva;
    5. Provide an opportunity for a detailed review of the research project and plan to take place from experts independent of the supervisory team.
  4. Timing of upgrade:
    1. Entrants registering before the 2019-20 academic year:
      1. Time-frames for transfer of registration should be specified in Faculty and Department Handbooks and should normally be completed not later than after 18 months of full-time registration, or 36 months of part-time registration. Applications to transfer registration should take place within a timeframe that allows a decision about changes to registration status to be made within this timeframe.
    2. Entrants registering from the 2019-20 academic year:
      1. Transfer of registration should normally be completed not later than after 12 months of full-time registration, or the pro-rata equivalent for part-time registration, and as specified within Faculty and Department Handbooks. Applications to transfer registration should take place early enough to allow a decision about changes to registration status to be made within this timeframe. This means that Departments should specify internal deadlines for initial submission of documentation for consideration by the Department Upgrade Committee.
      2. Students initially registered on a Masters by Research programme should discuss their intention to upgrade with their supervisor at the earliest opportunity.
        1. The student should submit an MByRes Intention to Upgrade form form to their PGR Support Team no less than 4 weeks before the Faculty upgrade deadline (or pro-rata equivalent for part time students).‌
        2. The decision about whether a student shall be permitted to apply to upgrade will be made by the Faculty PGR, or delegated authority. The person considering the intention to apply to upgrade must not be one of the upgrade examiners.
        3. The deadline to upload documents for upgrade will match the Faculty norm. Further details about the intention to upgrade are confirmed in the Faculty and Departmental Handbooks.
    3. All students:
      1. In exceptional circumstances beyond the student's control applications for deferral to the deadline for transfer of registration may be made. These will be considered by the Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor and Executive Dean. Further details on the process to be followed in consideration of deferral of the deadline for the transfer of registration from MPhil or Masters By Research to Doctoral Study, which may involve applying for deferral of the deadline for initial submission of documentation to the Department Upgrade Committee, is appropriate as set out in Annex 1. 'Applications for deferral'.
  5. Submission requirements:
    1. Supervisory Team: The candidate’s supervisors appointed for the initial registration on the MPhil or Masters by Research shall have the opportunity to submit a report commenting on the application and statement.
    2. Student:
      1. Students upgrading from MPhil: The student shall apply to upgrade via MyPGR and shall upload documents as required by their Department (see 5.4 below).
      2. Students upgrading from Masters by Research: The student shall submit their documents via email to their PGR Support Team by the deadline confirmed to them when they return their MByRes Intention to Upgrade form. Students wishing to upgrade from Masters by Research programmes must demonstrate that they have met the entry requirements for the doctoral programme. Exceptions to the entry requirements for upgrade to the doctorate may only be considered as an exception by the Faculty Director of PGR.‌
      3. All students: The required documentation will vary by Department, in order to account for disciplinary variations. Approval of upgrade submission requirements in each Faculty sits with the Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor and Executive Dean. Departments or Faculties may also determine whether any additional mechanisms for considering upgrade applications are necessary; but if any mechanisms are in place they must be operated without exception for all applications within the Department or Faculty.
    3. In all cases the documentation required must be sufficient to allow the Department Upgrade Committee to form a judgement and provide feedback on the candidate’s progress, and determine whether or not to make a recommendation to support the candidate’s request to upgrade.
    4. Faculty and Department Handbooks should provide clear guidance on the documentation required. Indicatively, this might include:
      1. A statement of aims and objectives;
      2. A statement of how the candidate expects the final thesis to demonstrate how the thesis meets the programme requirements for an award at doctoral level, with reference to the qualification descriptor for level 8 in the Credit and Qualifications Framework;
      3. A contents outline for the thesis;
      4. Submission of one or more pieces of written work (as defined by the Department) in good presentational order;
      5. Confirmation that the student has discussed the ethical implications of their research with their supervisor, and where applicable, started to make preparations for ethical approval for their data collection, and/or started the application process for ethical approval.
      6. A draft timetable for submission of the thesis within the candidate’s planned submission period.
      7. Confirmation of completion of all PGR Mandatory Training, as specified by the Training Needs Analysis.
    5. The candidate may also be expected to give a presentation on their work.
    6. All students are required to attend an upgrade viva.
  6. Department Upgrade Committees:
    1. At the end of the upgrade viva, the Upgrade Committee may, if they choose, inform the candidate of their preliminary recommendations; however, in doing so it must make clear that this will be a recommendation only, subject to confirmation at faculty level.
    2. Upgrade requests should be considered by a Department Upgrade Committee. The Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor and Executive Dean must give approval to the arrangements with regard to constituting Upgrade Committees within their Faculty. These arrangements should ensure that:
      1. One member of the Department Upgrade Committee is nominated to act as Chair and;
      2. The Department Upgrade Committee comprises at least two members of academic staff1, none of whom should be (or have been) a supervisor, PGR Pastoral Tutor or mentor of the student;
    3. The Committee shall viva the student; the viva may take place by video-link provided it complies with the procedure set out in Annex 2: Upgrade Vivas by Video-link;
    4. The student’s lead supervisor should attend the Committee’s meeting as an observer. To allow the student to make any comments they wish to the Committee without their supervisor being present, the student shall always be invited to talk with the Committee after the supervisor is asked to leave;
    5. The Committee shall confirm that, bearing in mind the requirements in respect of periods of study (above - entry prior to the 2019/20 academic year & entry from the 2019/20 academic year) the projected programme of research can be completed within the period of study stipulated.
  7. Upgrade Outcomes (applicable for students entering from 2019/20)
    1. At the first attempt at upgrade, the following outcomes are available:
      1. Pass;
      2. Require completion of minor amendments2 within 2 months (or the pro-rata equivalent for part-time registration);
      3. Refer for a second attempt within 3 months (or the pro-rata equivalent for part-time registration)and normally recommend initiation or progression of a case under the 'Unsatisfactory Student Progress, Engagement and Attendance: Code of Good Practice’.
    2. Following a second attempt at upgrade as a consequence of outcomes 7.1.2 or 7.1.3 at the first attempt (see above), the following outcomes are available to the Department Upgrade Committee:
      1. For students initially registered on an MPhil:
        1. Pass;
        2. Remain registered as an MPhil student, where a student has provided satisfactory evidence of their ability to submit work of MPhil quality, within the appropriate time-frame for an MPhil;
        3. Remain registered as an MPhil student and normally recommend initiation or progression of a case under the 'Unsatisfactory Student Progress, Engagement and Attendance: Code of Good Practice’.
      2. For students initially registered on a Masters by Research:
        1. Pass; 
        2. Remain registered as a Masters by Research student, where a student has provided satisfactory evidence of their ability to submit work of Masters by Research quality, within the appropriate time-frame for an Masters by Research;
        3. Remain registered as an Masters by Research student and normally recommend initiation or progression of a case under the 'Unsatisfactory Student Progress, Engagement and Attendance: Code of Good Practice’.
    3. Upon review of a second submission by a student, if the Department Upgrade Committee are satisfied that a recommendation of ‘pass’ can be made to the Faculty Pro-Vice Chancellor and Executive Dean without the necessity for a second viva they may make this recommendation to the Faculty Pro-Vice Chancellor and Executive Dean without delay.
    4. When a student has not met the criteria for upgrade, the Department Upgrade Committees may determine whether or not it is appropriate to recommend initiation or progression of a case under the 'Unsatisfactory Student Progress, Engagement and Attendance: Code of Good Practice’. This should normally be used where there is evidence that:
      1. Performance at upgrade is indicative of wider concerns with performance;
      2. Performance at upgrade indicates a failure to engage responsibly with their studies.
    5. Normally, upgrade will not be the first point at which progression concerns might be noticed, as such, it is important that referrals to the 'Unsatisfactory Student Progress, Engagement and Attendance: Code of Good Practice’are not delayed as a matter to be dealt with through the upgrade process. This means that it is more likely that the Department Upgrade Committee will normally recommend progression rather than initiation of a case under the 'Unsatisfactory Student Progress, Engagement and Attendance: Code of Good Practice’. Warnings issued prior to upgrade can usefully use completion of upgrade requirements and performance in the upgrade as actions that a student needs to successfully undertake to demonstrate satisfactory performance. Staff responsible for monitoring action under the 'Unsatisfactory Student Progress, Engagement and Attendance: Code of Good Practice’ can ask Department Upgrade Committees to report accordingly in their feedback.
  8. Health & Wellbeing and Upgrade
    1. If the Department Upgrade Committee has concerns that a student’s health, wellbeing and/or behaviour is significantly impacting their ability to successfully complete the upgrade process no decision (for 19/20 entrants in line with the above outcomes in 7) should be taken until it is determined whether it is appropriate to take alternative action under the ‘Health Wellbeing and Support for Study Procedures’.
  9. Feedback to Students
    1. As this is a developmental process the Department Upgrade Committee will provide written feedback to the student on their submission and their performance in the viva.
  10. Sponsorship Progress Reports
    1. Where the University is required to provide progress reports to a student’s sponsor, the report of the Department Upgrade Committee should be used as a source of information for that purpose.
  11. Final Authority
    1. The Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor and Executive Dean retains final authority with regard to the decision to approve or reject upgrades of registration.
  12. Transfer of Registration from PhD/MD/MS/EngD to MPhil/MbyRes

    International Students who are Tier 4 visa holders: transferring from a Doctoral programme to a Masters level programme can have serious consequences for your immigration status as the University may be required to report this change to the Home Office. It is important that you receive advice on the implications of your decision, which you can access by contacting International Student Support.

    All students in receipt of funding, whether that is through the University of Exeter, a Research Council, a Student Loan or any other financial sponsorship, must check whether transfer of registration from doctorate level to masters level is allowed under the terms and conditions of their funding. It is the student’s responsibility to check these conditions ahead of requesting to change status.
    1. Faculties (or delegated Schools) should be aware that the transfer of a student to a doctoral research programme, or the acceptance of a candidate onto a doctoral research programme, is a contractual undertaking by the Faculty to provide a student with a programme of supervision in preparation for examination at doctoral level. It is not possible, therefore, for a student’s registration to be ‘down-graded’ from a doctoral research programme to MPhil/MbyRes without the agreement of the student. In cases where a Faculty, after due consideration, has reason to believe that a student is not able to produce work at doctoral level, this must be clearly stated to the student with the recommendation that they transfer their registration to an MPhil or MbyRes Programme.
    2. Following agreement from a student, a Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor and Executive Dean or nominee3 may approve the down-grading of registration.
    3. Confirmation of the change in programme should take place through the completion of a change in programme form.

1  For the avoidance of doubt, individuals engaged on a self-employed/ consultancy basis and individuals engaged on a claims basis or who have an honorary appointment at the University are not eligible for appointment to Department Upgrade Committees with the exception of members of NHS staff who have an honorary appointment with the University, who may be considered for appointment to Department Upgrade Committees.

2  The definition of minor amendments is as set out in 8.3.1 of the 'Handbook for Examination of Postgraduate Research programmes'.

3  It is at the discretion of the Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor and Executive Dean to decide whether or not a nominee may be appointed and Faculties (or delegated Schools) must specify who this nominee is in Faculty PGR handbooks. The following roles may be specified as nominees: Department Director of PGR, relevant PGR Manager, the Head of PGR Support.

 

 

 

Annex 1- Applications for deferral 

For students applying to defer upgrade (see section 4, above), or, for students enrolled in the previous EMPS College only, PGR Progression Portfolio (see EMPS PGR student handbook).  PGR Upgrade Deferral Request Form - For students from 2019-20. Please ensure you read the process before completing.

  1. Introduction

    1. This annex provide further details on the process to be followed where consideration of deferral of the deadline for the transfer of registration from MPhil or Masters by Research programmes to Doctoral Study is appropriate.
    2. An application for a deferral to the deadline for transfer will only be applicable where appropriate mitigating evidence is available to demonstrate the existence of serious and unexpected circumstances that had a disruptive impact on a student’s studies and research and where the circumstances listed under 3, exclusions, are not applicable.
    3. Completion of the upgrade process by the deadline for transfer means that students necessarily have to apply for a deferral to the deadline for submission of documentation for upgrade. Whilst this takes place ahead of the final deadline for transfer, it is necessary in order to allow time for completion of the upgrade process, such as consideration by the Faculty Upgrade Committee and completion of further work, where the outcome is not a pass at the first attempt.

  2. Responsibilities of Faculties

    1. To provide clarity with regard to the initial deadline for submission of documentation for upgrade for its students;
    2. To ensure that Faculty Upgrade Committees are scheduled to take place in a timely manner subsequent to the deadlines for submission;
    3. To provide consistent decision making with regard to requests for deferral, keeping records of the grounds for accepting or declining requests for deferral to demonstrate this;
    4. To provide procedures and clear guidance on how students can apply for deferral. This information should also include details of the implications and likely outcomes of any deferral application, including any local policies with regard to the scheduling of Faculty Upgrade Committee meetings (e.g. to allow for deferred Faculty Upgrade Committee meetings to take place at the same time as Faculty Upgrade Committees are considering upgrade submissions referred for a second attempt). Handbooks should stress that applications for deferral are for extraordinary circumstances only and will be rejected if they are not accompanied by appropriate evidence.

  3. Exclusions

    1. An application for a deferral to the deadline for transfer will not be appropriate if:
      1. An interruption should have been applied for instead. In cases of personal, financial or medical circumstances or other difficult circumstances it is expected that the student and Faculty will follow the advice on Interruption of Studies. As an interruption suspends a student’s registration this will lead to an automatic postponement of the deadline for transfer of registration for the duration of the period of interruption;
      2. Periods of study for research degrees are calculated with an allowance for periods of annual leave during the registration period, as such failure to plan for periods of annual leave would not be a mitigating circumstance;
      3. Reasonable adjustments for disabled students are implemented through an Individual Learning Plan (ILP) in accordance with the Inclusive Practice within Teaching and Learning Policy. Deferral or other forms of adjustment on the grounds of a disability will not be considered if they are not supported by an ILP. A disability that has not been declared in a timely manner cannot be taken into account retrospectively, unless the student can provide a reasonable explanation and properly documented evidence for not having declared it (see also the University’s procedures for Student Academic Appeals);
      4. Where a change to mode of attendance e.g. to part-time study was advised to address concerns with a student’s ability to devote sufficient hours to their studies, and was not applied for, a student’s failure to devote sufficient hours to their studies after that point would not be deemed sufficient to justify a deferral;
      5. In the case of problems with their research, students are expected to manage their time appropriately, which includes setting aside time for preparation of the documents required as part of their upgrade submission, and to have built in a time allowance for addressing problems with their research. As such, unless the problems with their research were of such a scale that this was not feasible, failure to do so would not normally be sufficient grounds to justify a deferral;
      6. Issues related to a student’s research that had not been evidenced through the completion of a MyPGR contact event at the time the issue arose;
  4. Serious and unexpected circumstances
    1. An application for deferral of the deadline for transfer may be considered if the following circumstances apply: 

      Personal circumstances (where interruption is not appropriate) Evidence Required
      a) single occasions of illness Forms of evidence to support such circumstances might include:

      - A Police Crime Report

      - A copy of a prescription notice

      - A letter from a counsellor/Solicitor/Doctor

      - A death certificate
      b) adverse personal circumstances
      c) Relapses/ exacerbations of long term fluctuating conditions/ disabilities
         Unforeseen Impediments  
        Unforeseen impediments constitute circumstances that effect a student’s ability to conduct or pursue their research in the last 4 months (normally during the period of Nov to Feb for full-time September starters) and ongoing, which are corroborated by a member of their supervisory team: 
      d) A radical shift in the political and/or social landscape of the project so that the initial aims of the project are brought into some doubt or are deemed no longer feasible

      Forms of evidence to support such circumstances might include:

      - Corroboration by a member of the supervisory team evidenced through the completion of a MyPGR contact event at the time the issue arose;
      e) Unexpected delays to getting data that is key to formulating the proposal, i.e., research question, or any other documentation required by the upgrade process as established by their department.
      f) A breakdown in technical equipment that is key to formulating the proposal, i.e., research question, or any other documentation required by the upgrade process as established by your department.
      g) Any organisational issues beyond the student’s control, e.g. a strike, closure of the University. 
      Where a student has evidence of having experienced mitigating circumstances of a serious and unexpected nature that do not fit neatly into one of the categories listed in 4.1 a) - g) they may, nevertheless make an application for a period of deferral.
  5. Health Wellbeing and Support for Study Procedures
    1. When considering mitigation for personal circumstances (as listed in 4) it is important to consider whether or not referral to the Health & Wellbeing Support for Study Procedure is applicable. It may also be appropriate to direct the student to other sources of support if circumstances are ongoing.
  6. Time-frames for application
    1. An application for deferral should normally be made 6 weeks before the expected submission deadline for upgrade. In exceptional cases, i.e. when serious and unexpected circumstances occur closer to the deadline, an application can be made later, provided that it is prior to the Faculty Upgrade Committee’s scheduled meeting. If serious and unexpected circumstances arise after the student’s first attempt at upgrade these may also be considered.
  7. Process
    1. An application for deferral must be supported by:
      1. verifiable and/or independent evidence (see 4.1 ‘evidence required’ for details)
      2. a statement by a supervisor, and, where appropriate, pastoral tutor;
      3. a work-plan with a proposed date by which the work will be submitted;
      4. The evidence provided must give a clear indication of the length of time by which progress was delayed: if deciding to accept the application for deferral this will inform the Faculty’s decision about what period of deferral might be considered reasonable, which shall not exceed a period of three months.
    2. Where an application for deferral is made on the basis of especially sensitive information this should be treated confidentially. If a student prefers the reasons for the application may be considered by their pastoral tutor, with whom the student may have discussed their circumstances, who will report to the Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor, without sharing the detail of the evidence provided to them.
    3. Applications for deferral will be granted by the Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor, in collaboration with the relevant discipline DPGR and the PGR Support team.
    4. Where a period of deferral to the deadline for transfer is approved:
      1. this will be added to the student’s record, however, it will not lead to an extension to the thesis submission deadline. It is expected that the time elapsed by the point at which thesis submission would take place would normally mean that a student would have had sufficient opportunity to get back on track with their studies. See also Extensions to Study.
      2. No further deferral of the transfer deadline will be permitted without further agreement. Without agreement any failure to transfer by the deadline given will normally result in action being initiated or progressed under the 'Unsatisfactory Student Progress, Engagement and Attendance: Code of Good Practice’ unless the Faculty has concerns that a student’s health, wellbeing and/or behaviour is significantly impacting their ability to successfully complete the upgrade process by the deadline, where it should then be determined whether it is appropriate to take alternative action under the ‘Health Wellbeing and Support for Study Procedures’.
      3. depending on the nature of a student’s funding, it may be necessary to report any delay in successfully upgrading within the first year (pro-rata) of study to a student’s sponsor.
  8. Failure to apply for or have a period of deferral approved
    1. If an application for deferral is unsuccessful failure to transfer by the deadline given will normally result in action being initiated or progressed under the 'Unsatisfactory Student Progress, Engagement and Attendance: Code of Good Practice’ unless the Faculty has concerns that a student’s health, wellbeing and/or behaviour is significantly impacting their ability to successfully complete the upgrade process by the deadline, where it should then be determined whether it is appropriate to take alternative action under the ‘Health Wellbeing and Support for Study Procedures’.
    2. If a student has not applied for deferral failure to transfer by the deadline given will normally result in action being initiated or progressed under the 'Unsatisfactory Student Progress, Engagement and Attendance: Code of Good Practice’ unless the Faculty has concerns that a student’s health, wellbeing and/or behaviour is significantly impacting their ability to successfully complete the upgrade process by the deadline, where it should then be determined whether it is appropriate to take alternative action under the ‘Health Wellbeing and Support for Study Procedures’.

 

Annex 2 - Upgrade Vivas by Video-link

  1. Upgrade Vivas by Video-link 
    1. This section applies to all upgrade vivas where one or more participant joins the viva via a video-link.
    2. The University has adopted a permissive approach to the use of vivas by video-link, recognising that vivas may be held as successfully by video-link as a viva where all participants are physically in the same room. When making decisions about whether attendance by one or more participant at the viva should take place via video-link, rather than travelling to attend in person, the University’s ‘Environment & Climate Emergency Business Travel Policy’ should be adhered to with regard to prioritising low carbon solutions such as video-link attendance. It may also be a preferable option for students, e.g. on financial grounds, or to satisfy the reasonable adjustments of an ILP .
    3. The Faculty is responsible for taking all reasonable steps to ensure that the upgrade viva process is equitable and should be mindful of the latest advice available from IT Services with regard to holding meetings online. In determining whether or not it is appropriate to conduct an upgrade viva by video-link, the Faculty must be able to have confidence that:

      a) The Faculty Upgrade Committee will be able to assure themselves that the thesis is the candidate’s own work.

      b) The technology is sufficient to enable a viva to take place without limiting communications and that arrangements will be made to postpone the viva if this is not the case.

      c) All participants are able to access an appropriate, comfortable location for the viva, whether on or off-campus, where the probability of interruptions occurring is minimal. To facilitate this participants based off-campus should be reminded of the need to ensure that they have refreshments and have made appropriate arrangements for their comfort. Where multiple participants are in one location the Chair of the Faculty Upgrade Committee is responsible for ensuring that the location is appropriate, but may seek guidance from the PGR Support Team in so doing;

      d) Where an ILP is in place, any reasonable adjustments can be complied with, bearing in mind that the advice set out in an ILP might not have been written for a remote upgrade viva. See also ‘Inclusive Practice within Teaching and Learning’, and in particular, section 7, ‘Postgraduate Research Students.

      The PGR Support Team may consider that the Faculty has provided de facto confirmation that it is has confidence in points a)-c) by virtue of the fact that no participant has raised concerns in advance about any of these points. Specific approval from a Faculty PGR Manager or the Head of PGR Support, if necessary using their judgement to refer any cases to the discipline Director of Postgraduate Research or Faculty Director of Postgraduate Research1 , is required where:

      1. An ILP is in place, to ensure that appropriate adjustments can be made;

      2. Or any concerns have been raised about proceeding with the upgrade viva by those attending the upgrade viva with regard to points a)-c)
    4. Addressing these points means that:

      a) The Faculty Upgrade Committee, the student, and their lead supervisor (as an observer) must confirm in writing if it is not feasible for the viva to proceed in this way and confirm at the conclusion of the viva that the holding of the upgrade viva by video-link has had no substantive bearing on the examination process.

      b) Participants may join the viva from multiple locations but the platform should be tested with all participants ahead of the viva, and approval should always be subject to confirmation of a successful test.

      c) Consideration should be given to the need for members of the Faculty Upgrade Committee to consult privately. The arrangements for managing the candidate and supervisor joining and leaving the meeting should be set out in advance of the remote upgrade viva, noting that the student shall always be invited to talk with the Committee after the supervisor is asked to leave.

      d) Where a candidate is joining a viva by video-link from an off-campus location, costs incurred for the use of resources elsewhere should be met by the candidate provided these costs are made explicit at the point at which the decision is made to hold the viva by video-link.

      e) The Faculty Upgrade Committee should be mindful of the risk that the viva may need to be halted and should ensure that it agrees an approach to record-keeping during the viva discussions to ensure that the viva could be recommenced successfully at a later date.

      f) The Chair of the Faculty Upgrade Committee will be responsible for:
      i. Halting the viva in the event that the technology fails or is significantly interrupted or is of a poor quality such that participants are not able to fully engage in the viva. This may include halting the viva at the request of the candidate, if there are any indications of problems with the technology being used.
      ii. If the viva is halted, confirming in writing to all participants that the viva has been postponed;
      iii. Keeping a record and reporting to their Faculty DPGR in the first instance should anyone present be unable to confirm that the holding of the upgrade viva via video-link had no substantive bearing on the upgrade process;
      iv. Ensuring that all participants confirm that they have not kept a recording of the viva.
      v. In cases where unexpected technological problems halts the viva: informing the relevant PGR Support Team.
    5. The PGR Support Team should keep records of decisions made to hold or not hold a remote upgrade viva, along with records on actions taken with regard to postponed or halted vivas.

      Last updated February 2023


      1 Alternatives to the Faculty DPGR are those set out in the TQA Manual, as able to act on behalf of the Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor and Executive Dean of College.

Back to top