Doctoral Examination Procedures

Application

Doctoral examinations for candidates governed by programme regulations that came into effect in or after 2020, other than examinations of coursework components of named doctorates.

Note: DocFA candidates are subject to clauses 9-55 of these Doctoral Examination Procedures only and to the DocFA Submission and Examination Procedures.

Purpose

To specify the procedures that apply to doctoral examinations  other than examinations of coursework components of named doctorates.

Procedures

Appointment of examiners and Academic Head (AH) Nominee

1. Two examiners will be appointed by the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) in accordance with the Doctoral - Appointment of Examiners Policy and Procedures.

2. The Academic Head will appoint a nominee (hereafter the ‘AH Nominee’), who will serve on the Examination Committee (where convened) and on the Oral Examination Committee.

  • The AH Nominee will have knowledge of the general field of the work submitted for examination, but not necessarily of the specific topic, and will normally be a staff member of the University
  • The Academic Head and the AH Nominee must not have been involved in the supervision or preparation of the work submitted for examination
  • The Academic Head and the AH Nominee must not have a personal or business relationship with the candidate or a close personal relationship with an examiner or member of the candidate’s supervisory team

Examiner reports

3. Each examiner will be provided with an electronic copy of the work submitted for examination in fulfilment of the thesis requirement, including access to (a recording of) any creative work submitted for examination as part of the thesis requirement.

4. Each examiner must examine, and provide a written report on, the submitted work in relation to criteria outlined in Regulation 6 of the PhD Statute and the corresponding regulation (as to criteria for the award of the degree) in the applicable named doctorate regulations.

5. Examiners must contact the School of Graduate Studies immediately if they consider they may have a conflict of interest.

6. Examiners are not permitted to communicate with each other about the examination before they have submitted their reports.

7. Neither the supervisors nor the candidate may communicate with the examiners regarding the examination at any stage of the examination process except as specified in these procedures and in the Doctoral Oral Examination Procedures.

  • If an examiner is contacted by someone other than a member of the School of Graduate Studies in relation to the examination, the examiner must refer the matter to the School of Graduate Studies

8. Examiners must report on the work submitted or resubmitted for examination in its entirety, including material which may have been previously refereed for publication.

  • Examiners are at liberty to disagree with the conclusions of peer review processes

Replacement of examiners

9.
a) The Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) reserves the right to replace an examiner:

i) where an examiner fails, or is unable, to deliver a report
or
ii) where an examiner provides a report that the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) (acting independently at any stage of Board of Graduate Studies [or delegate] involvement under these procedures, or on the recommendation of the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) under clause 14 or clause 20) considers unfit for purpose
or
iii) where an examiner declares a conflict of interest under clause 5
or
iv) where an examiner is unavailable to examine work resubmitted for examination or to assess revisions to (re)submitted work,
or
v) where a breach of clause 28 occurs
or
vi) pursuant to clause 25b or clause 29.


b) Where the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) is satisfied that a replacement examiner is warranted, the Board (or delegate) will, subject to clause 23:

i) appoint a replacement examiner, in accordance with the Doctoral - Appointment of Examiners Policy and Procedures, to examine the submitted work as per clauses 3-10 of these examination procedures
and
ii) determine any reset of the examination in relation to these examination procedures.

c)

i) Any examiner may be replaced subject to the provisions of this clause 9; this includes examiners appointed as “further” or “replacement” examiners.

ii) A replaced examination report is irrelevant to the remaining and/or reset examination process.

Examiner recommendations

10. The examiners must include with their reports one of the following recommendations:

(a) That the candidate proceed to oral examination, and that the degree be awarded subject to satisfactory performance at that oral examination.

  • This recommendation is made where the examiner does not regard any amendment to the submitted work as required in order for the degree to be awarded

or

(b) That the candidate proceed to oral examination, and that the degree be awarded subject to satisfactory performance at that oral examination and the satisfactory completion of revisions to the submitted work post oral examination.

  • Revisions may be minor (e.g. typographical errors or minor clarifications or elaborations) or major (e.g. re-analysis of data, or rewriting of chapters to address significant omissions or lapses in logic or coherence)
  • Revisions must be made within a 6 month period
  • Minor revisions will normally be made within a 3 month period

or

(c) That the candidate does not proceed to oral examination but that the candidate be permitted to re-enrol for a period of up to 12 months (full-time equivalent) to revise the work and resubmit it for examination.

  • This recommendation is made when an examiner concludes that further supervised research (which may include additional experimentation and/or the need for ethics approval) is warranted, and/or that the type and/or scale of revisions warranted is such that the candidate should not proceed to oral examination at this juncture
  • This recommendation is not available where work has already been revised and resubmitted for examination

or

(d) That the candidate does not proceed to oral examination, and that the submitted work be referred for consideration of the award of a masters degree.

  • This recommendation is made when an examiner is of the opinion that the submitted work does not meet the requirements for the award of a doctorate and that the flaws are either irreparable by the candidate or incompatible with the provisions for re-enrolment and revision and resubmission of the work (where available), but where the submitted work is appropriate to the award of a masters degree

or

(e) That the candidate does not proceed to oral examination, and that no degree be awarded.

Consideration of examiners’ reports and recommendations

11. Where both examiners independently recommend that the candidate should proceed to oral examination, the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) will, subject to clause 9, either approve the candidate’s advancement to oral examination or require the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) to convene an Examination Committee to consider the reports and make a recommendation as per clauses 18-21.Where an Examination Committee is required to convene, at least one supervisor will be invited to provide comment within 7 days on the examination reports for consideration by the Examination Committee.

12. Before making a decision under clause 11, the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) may (directly or by proxy) seek fuller commentary or clarification from the examiner(s), and/or clarification from supervisor(s), and/or advice from the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) with regard to any aspect of the examination reports and/or recommendations (see also clause 26).

13. Where at least one examiner recommends that the candidate should not proceed to oral examination, at least one supervisor will be invited to comment on the examination reports within 7 days, and the reports (and any supervisory comment) will be considered by the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) who will follow the process at clauses 14-21 below.

  • The Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) will normally be from the same faculty/Large Scale Research Institute (LSRI) as the candidate, but if that person is in the same academic unit as the candidate, or considers that they have a conflict of interest or are otherwise unavailable, then an Associate Dean/Director from another faculty/LSRI, or another Associate Dean/Director from their faculty/LSRI who is not in the same academic unit, must fulfil the role of the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) under these procedures

14. The Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research), acting independently, or as Chair of an Examination Committee convened under clause 18, may seek fuller commentary and/or clarification from the examiner(s) and/or supervisor(s) with regard to any aspect of the examiners’ reports or recommendations, and/or (where there are unresolved concerns about the integrity of an examination report) recommend to the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) that a replacement examiner be appointed.

15. Where examiners:

either

a) disagree as to whether or not the candidate should proceed to oral examination

or

b) agree that the candidate should not proceed to oral examination but disagree as to whether or not the candidate should be permitted to re-enrol to revise and resubmit the work for examination

or

c) agree that the candidate should not proceed to oral examination but disagree as to whether or not a degree should be awarded

and the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) considers that the conflict may be resolved, the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) will invite the examiners to consult and to report to the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) either jointly or separately as to the outcome of their consultation, and as to the rationale for their position(s) on the examination.

16. Where the examiners agree (in their initial recommendations [not applicable to (a) below] or as the outcome of examiner consultation):

either

a) that the candidate should proceed to oral examination

or

b) that the candidate should re-enrol for a period of up to 12 months (full-time equivalent) to revise and resubmit the work for examination

or

c) that a masters degree should be awarded

or

d) that no degree should be awarded

and where the Associate Dean (Postgraduate Research) is satisfied as to the integrity of the examination reports and any consultation process facilitated under clause 15 (including any subsequent clarification or elaboration requested by the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research)), the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) will provide the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) with copies of any communications with the examiners and/or supervisor(s) made under clause(s) 14 and/or 15 and/or 16 and make a recommendation to the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) as per the recommendation agreed by the examiners.

17. Where the recommendation of the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) under clause 16 is that the candidate should proceed to oral examination, the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) will also recommend which examiner should serve as Oral Examiner, and whether the Oral Examiner should attend the oral examination in-person or by video-conference.

18. The Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) will convene and chair an Examination Committee comprised of the Academic Head and the AH Nominee to consider the examination reports and any supervisor commentary in cases where:

a) the examiners disagree as detailed in clause 15(a-c), and the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) does not consider that the conflict may be resolved through consultation between the examiners, or considers that such consultation is unwarranted or inappropriate

or

b) the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) has invited the examiners to consult under clause 15 and is not satisfied with the integrity of the examiners’ consultation and/or with the rationale(s) provided (including any subsequent clarification or elaboration requested by the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research))

or

c) the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) is satisfied with the integrity of the examiners’ consultation under clause 15 and with the rationale(s) provided but the examiners do not reach agreement as specified in clause 16

or

d) the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) has referred the examination reports for consideration by the Examination Committee under clause 11

19. Where examiner consultation has not taken place under clause 15, the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research), as Chair of the Examination Committee, may still invite the examiners to consult and report as per the provisions of clause 15.

20. The Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research), as Chair of the Examination Committee, will then provide the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) with copies of any communications with the examiners and/or supervisor(s) made under clauses 14, 15 and/or 19, and (if applicable) report on why examiner consultation was considered unwarranted or inappropriate under clause 18(a), and on the rationale for the Examination Committee’s recommendation of one of the following:

(a) That one or more further examiners be appointed to report on any areas of conflict, or that one or more examiners be replaced

or

(b) That the candidate proceed to oral examination

or

(c) That the candidate not proceed to oral examination but that the candidate be permitted to re-enrol for a period of up to 12 months (full-time equivalent) to revise the work and resubmit it for examination by a specified date.

  • This recommendation is not available where the work has already been revised and resubmitted for examination

or

(d) That the doctorate not be awarded but that the candidate be invited to fulfil the requirements for the award of the MPhil degree

or

(e) That no degree be awarded.

21. Where the recommendation of the Examination Committee under clause 20 is that the candidate proceed to oral examination, the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) will also report the Examination Committee’s recommendation as to which examiner should serve as Oral Examiner, and whether the Oral Examiner should attend the oral examination in-person or by video-conference.

22. Upon consideration of the report and recommendation made under clause 20, the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) may appoint one or more further or replacement examiners in accordance with the Doctoral - Appointment of Examiners Policy and Procedures to examine the submitted work as per clauses 3-10 of these examination procedures and to report on any matters which the Board (or delegate) may specify. The Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) will determine whether or not existing examination material is shared with any further (as opposed to replacement) examiner(s).

23. In the event that one or more further or replacement examiner(s) are appointed under clause 22:

a) the supervisor(s) may be invited to comment on the further or replacement examination report(s)

b) the Examination Committee will consider the further or replacement examination report(s) alongside the original examination reports (where not replaced) and any comment provided by the supervisor(s) in accordance with these procedures, and make a further report and recommendation to the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) via the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) under clause 20

c) the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) may exercise clause 14 for the purposes of clause 23b.

24. Upon consideration of the reports and recommendations of all examiners appointed in accordance with these procedures and not replaced, and any and all reports and recommendations received from the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) under clauses 16, 17, 20, 21 and 23, the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) will decide:

either

a) That the candidate will proceed to oral examination

or

b) That the candidate must re-enrol for a period of up to 12 months (full-time equivalent) to revise and resubmit the work for examination by a specified date.

  • This outcome is only available where the candidate has not previously revised and resubmitted the work for examination

or

c) That the doctoral degree not be awarded but that the candidate be invited to fulfil the requirements for the award of the MPhil degree

or

d) That no degree be awarded.

25.

a) Before making a decision under clauses 22 and/or 24, the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) may require clarification from the Examination Committee, and/or require the Chair of the Examination Committee to seek clarification from the examiner(s) and/or supervisor(s) with regard to any aspect of the examination material, and/or require the Chair of the Examination Committee to invite the examiners to consult where examiner consultation has not already occurred under clauses 15 or 19.

b) Where the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) regards it as warranted for the integrity of the examination, the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) may, at the time of decision under clause 24, convert a further examiner appointed under clause 22 to a replacement examiner for a previously appointed examiner.

26. Where the decision of the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) under clauses 11 or 24 is that the candidate should proceed to oral examination, the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) will appoint one of the examiners as Oral Examiner and specify if the Oral Examiner should attend the oral examination in person or if they may attend via video-conference.

a) Where the decision to proceed to oral examination was made under clause 11, the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) may seek the advice of the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) before making a decision under this clause 26

b) Prior to the oral examination, the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) will appoint an independent party to chair the oral examination. The independent chair must be a member of the academic staff of the University, but will not be a member of the faculty/LSRI in which the candidate was enrolled. The independent chair must not have a personal or business relationship with the candidate or a close personal relationship with an examiner or member of the candidate’s supervisory team

27. The examination reports, excluding formal recommendations as to the examination outcome and any confidential sections and any material withheld under clause 28, will be released to the candidate when they receive notification of the decision of the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) pursuant to clauses 11 or 24.

28. The candidate is not to be informed of the names of, or other identifying information relating to, their examiners unless this is specifically agreed to by the individual examiner at the time of, or after, submission of their examination report.

Where a candidate proceeds to oral examination

29. Where the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) is not satisfied as to the integrity of any aspect of the examination process, the Board (or delegate) may reset the examination process accordingly.

For the avoidance of doubt, the provisions of this clause may be exercised at any stage of the examination process detailed in these procedures.

30. All candidates are expected to attend the oral examination in-person, unless permission for attendance via video-conference is granted by the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate).

31. The oral examination will be conducted by an Oral Examination Committee consisting of the Chair of the Oral Examination Committee, the Oral Examiner and the AH Nominee, and in accordance with the Doctoral Oral Examination Procedures.

32. On completion of the oral examination, the Oral Examination Committee will provide a written report to the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate). The report will include one of the following recommendations:

(a) That the degree be awarded.

or

(b) That the degree be awarded after specified revisions have been made to the satisfaction of the Oral Examiner or nominee, or to the satisfaction of one or more of the examiners, by a specified date appropriate to the work required and within a period of up to 6 months.

  • For minor revisions (see clause 10(b)), which will normally be made within a 3 month period, the Oral Examiner’s nominee may be one of the candidate’s supervisors or the AH Nominee
  • For major revisions (see clause 10(b)), the Oral Examiner’s nominee must be the AH Nominee or an examiner who was appointed in accordance with these procedures
  • For the AH Nominee to act as the Oral Examiner’s nominee, the nature of the revisions must be such that the AH Nominee can certify that compliance has been achieved. The AH Nominee may discuss the revisions with the supervisor(s). If the AH Nominee is unable to assess whether the revisions have been made to the required standard, the revisions must be assessed by one of the examiners

or

(c) where the candidate has not already been permitted to re-enrol to revise and resubmit the work for examination, that the candidate be permitted to re-enrol for a period of up to 12 months (full-time equivalent) to revise the work and resubmit it for examination by a specified date

This recommendation is made where the Oral Examination Committee concludes that further supervised research (which may include additional experimentation and/or the need for ethics approval) is warranted, and/or that the scale of revision warranted exceeds the provisions for major revisions at 10(b)

or

(d) That the doctoral degree not be awarded but that the candidate be invited to fulfil the requirements for the award of the MPhil degree

or

(e) That no degree be awarded.

33. The Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) may seek clarification from any member of the Oral Examination Committee of any matters represented in the report provided under clause 32.

34. The Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) will consider all reports, recommendations and material supplied in accordance with these procedures and determine the outcome of the examination.

When re-enrolment to revise and resubmit the work is permitted

35. Where the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) determines that the candidate must re-enrol for a period of up to 12 months (full-time equivalent) to revise and resubmit the work for examination by a specified date under clauses 24 or 34, clauses 35-39 apply.

  • The Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) may set conditions on the re-enrolment

36. Where an oral examination has occurred, the AH Nominee will provide the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) with a written report, endorsed by the Oral Examiner, detailing the work the candidate is required to undertake.

37.

a) The Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) will, where warranted, seek clarification from and/or agreement between examiners regarding the work the candidate is required to undertake.

b) Where the requirement to revise and resubmit the thesis is determined by the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) under clause 24, the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) may exercise clause 37(a) prior to and/or post the determination by the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate).

38. The Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) will (re)convene the Examination Committee (as per the committee composition at clause 18) to meet with the candidate and supervisor(s) to discuss the required work as soon as is practicable upon written notification of the examination outcome to the candidate.

  • Where an oral examination has occurred, the Examination Committee will be provided with a copy of the oral examination report
  • The Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research), as Chair of the Examination Committee, will provide the candidate with a written record of the required work

39. The Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) will provide a written report to the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) on the meeting with the candidate and supervisor(s), including the schedule of work the candidate is required to undertake.

40. The Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) may require additional clarification of requirements to be provided to the candidate through further exercise of clause 37(a).

41. Candidates may submit, for examiner consideration, a response to the original examination reports alongside their revised and resubmitted work.

42. The resubmitted work is to be examined in accordance with these procedures, except that:

a) where an oral examination has previously been held, the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate), acting on the recommendation of examiners and/or the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) (acting independently or as Chair of the Examination Committee), may determine that a second oral examination is not required.

b) where one or more further examiners were appointed under clause 22, the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) may, subject to clause 25b and examiner availability, permit more than two examiners to examine the revised thesis upon submission.  

Where revisions are required without re-enrolment

43. The AH Nominee will ensure that the candidate is provided with a copy of the required revisions endorsed by the Oral Examiner.

44. The revisions that the candidate undertakes must be limited to those specified under clause 43.

45. The person tasked by the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) with approving the revisions will notify the School of Graduate Studies as to whether or not the revisions have been satisfactorily completed.

46. Where revisions are not completed within the required time, or not completed to the satisfaction of the approving person, the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) will (re)convene the Examination Committee (as per the committee composition at clause 18) to consider the evidence and make a report and recommendation to the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) in accordance with clause 47.

47. The Examination Committee, acting under clause 46, may recommend additional time for the completion of revisions to a satisfactory standard or the further involvement of existing or new examiners, or that the degree be awarded, or that the submitted work be awarded the MPhil rather than the doctoral degree, or that no degree be awarded.

48. Upon consideration of the evidence and the report and recommendation from the Examination Committee, the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) will determine the matter in accordance with the recommendations available to the Examination Committee at clause 47.

49. Before making the recommendation under clause 47, or the decision at clause 48, the Examination Committee and the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) may, respectively, seek further information from the person responsible for approving the revisions, and/or from the candidate and/or supervisor(s).

Confidentiality of examination material

50. The examination material is to remain confidential to the processes detailed in these procedures, except that the material released to the candidate at clause 27 may also be released for the purpose of judging the Vice-Chancellor’s Prize for Best Doctoral Thesis, and that relevant material, which is not withheld for reasons consistent with the Privacy Act, may be released to the candidate for the purposes of the preparation of an appeal consistent with the doctoral examination appeal procedures.

51. A candidate may request a statement of reasons for the decision to award or not to award the degree in accordance with section 23 of the Official Information Act (1982).

Where suspicions of academic misconduct arise

52. Where suspicions of academic misconduct arise in the course of a doctoral examination, the examination will be suspended while the process stipulated under the Student Academic Conduct Statute is followed.

53. Where academic misconduct is confirmed during a doctoral examination, the Academic Head will provide the Associate Dean (Postgraduate Research) and the AH Nominee with the details of any material contained within the work submitted for examination that constitutes a breach of academic integrity. To avoid doubt: this information is provided for the purposes of facilitating assessments pursuant to these procedures in relation to the statutory criteria for the award of the degree and not for any punitive or disciplinary purpose.

54. Where an oral examination is involved, the AH Nominee will convey any information provided under clause 53 to the Oral Examination Committee for the purposes identified at clause 53.

55. Where academic misconduct is not confirmed pursuant to clause 52, the Academic Head may advise the Associate Dean (Postgraduate Research) and the AH Nominee, and the AH Nominee may advise any Oral Examination Committee, of this information.

Definitions

The following definitions apply to this document:

Academic Head refers to the Head of the relevant academic unit or their nominee for the purposes of doctoral matters.

Academic Head (AH) Nominee is a member of the (oral) Examination Committee nominated by the Academic Head on the basis that they have knowledge of the general field of the thesis, but not necessarily of the thesis topic, and will normally be a staff member of the University.

Academic integrity means the ethical practices of the academic community, including honest execution of research and study and the acknowledgement of sources.

Academic unit may refer to a faculty, Large Scale Research Institute (LSRI), school or department.

Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) normally refers to the person holding that role (or equivalent) in the faculty or Large Scale Research Institute (LSRI) in which the candidate is enrolled, but if that person is in the same academic unit as the candidate, or considers that they have a conflict of interest or are otherwise unavailable, then an Associate Dean/Director from another faculty/LSRI, or another Associate Dean/Director from their faculty/LSRI who is not in the same academic unit, will fulfil the role of the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research).

Chair of the oral examination committee is the person appointed by the Board of Graduate Studies to act as an independent chair of a doctoral oral examination. The chair must be a member of the academic staff of the University, but will not be a member of a faculty or large scale research institute in which the candidate is enrolled.

Doctoral candidates are candidates for a doctoral degree at the University; candidature commences upon enrolment in the doctoral programme and concludes when the requirements for the degree are met or confirmed as not having been met, except where candidature is terminated or expires or a candidate withdraws prior to completion of the degree.

Examination Committee is the committee, distinct from the oral examination committee, that may be formed for the purpose of considering the examiners’ reports. It comprises the Academic Head, an associate dean or director, and the Academic Head (AH) Nominee.

Higher doctorates include the Doctor of Engineering (DEng), Doctor of Laws (LLD), Doctor of Literature (LittD) and Doctor of Science (DSc).

Independent chair (chair) is the person appointed by the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) to act as an independent chair of a doctoral oral examination. The chair must be a member of the academic staff of the University, but will not be a member of a faculty or large scale research institute in which the candidate is enrolled.

Oral Examination Committee is the committee, distinct from the Examination Committee, formed for the purpose of the oral examination. It comprises the independent chair, oral examiner and the Academic Head (AH) Nominee.

Oral examiner refers to the doctoral thesis examiner who attends the doctoral candidate’s oral examination, either in person or by video conference.

Staff member refers to an individual employed by the University on a full or part time basis.

Submitted work refers to the work submitted for examination in fulfilment of the thesis requirement in the case of all doctoral programmes other than the DocFA. In the case of the DocFA, “submitted work” refers to the creative work and supporting thesis submitted for examination in accordance with the programme regulations. “Submitted work”, in the case of all doctoral programmes, includes recordings made of live performances and/or exhibitions where such recordings are utilised within the examination process.

Supervisor refers to main supervisor, joint supervisor, or co-supervisor.

Thesis is a substantial presentation of the outcome of an original and coherent doctoral research project. It situates the research in the broader framework of the disciplinary field(s), and entails a cohesive written document.

Key relevant documents

Document management and control

Content manager: School of Graduate Studies
Owner:
Dean of Graduate Studies
Approved by:
Board of Graduate Studies, Senate and Council
Date approved:
March 2022
Review date: 
March 2025