Melbourne School of Graduate Research

Appendix A: Guidelines on PhD candidature for departments, supervisors and candidates

Introduction

In many countries, universities have recognised that progress and completion rates of their research students are less than desirable and that the issues need to be addressed in the interests of the institutions, their academic staff and the research students themselves. A similar pattern is evident in Australian universities, and research conducted by the Centre for the Study of Higher Education has shown that the University of Melbourne is no exception. This research has demonstrated on the one hand that many of the factors affecting lengthy completions and attrition from higher degrees are beyond the institution's control. On the other hand, problems have been identified that the institution can clearly address.

The following are problems which may impede progress of research students:

(a) lack of understanding by the student of what is expected in a research degree and from the supervisor;

(b) inappropriate choice of a research topic;

(c) inappropriate matching of supervisor and the student's research project;

(d) insufficient contact with, and feedback from, the supervisor, particularly in the critical early stages of the project;

(e) absence of clear guidelines within departments regarding access to research facilities and authorship of publications;

(f) a sense of intellectual and social isolation from the academic life of the department;

(g) differential treatment of men and women research students within the department.

The following guidelines have been formulated on the basis of the RHD Committee's considerations of these findings and the Faculties' responses to a draft document. The guidelines should be read within the context of an agreement between the student and the supervising department to accept their responsibilities for the duration of the student's candidature. It is recognised that there is a wide disciplinary diversity of topics, approaches and practices in higher degree research. The guidelines are not therefore intended as an indictment of, or a prescription for, departmental or individual practices; they are a guide to ways in which identified problems might be alleviated, thereby improving higher degree completion rates and times. These issues have become more pressing in the context of recent national inquiries and government reports on postgraduate education in Australia.

The guidelines are drawn up in three sections: responsibilities of academic departments, principles for PhD supervision and responsibilities of candidates. The Statement on Infrastructure Support for Postgraduate Research Students: The Responsibilities of Academic Departments as approved by the Academic Board, should also be referred to and is available in full from the web at: http://www.research.unimelb.edu.au/postgraduate/infrastructure.html.

A. Responsibilities of academic departments to PhD students

  1. The head of department is responsible for matters concerning PhD students and for any communications with the RHD Committee. However, a head of department may choose to set up a postgraduate committee to assist and advise on such matters as supervision and progress.
  2. The head of department should not only advise the prospective student on the range of research expertise of academic staff, but should clearly articulate departmental expectations, practices and standards with respect to supervised research. While it should be recognised that unforeseen eventualities beyond the student's or the department's control sometimes intervene to delay completion, the department should nevertheless emphasise the student's commitment to intensive work and to the time-frame in which the degree should be completed. Conditions of postgraduate scholarships and awards should be emphasised.
  3. The head of department should ensure that an induction session for new and prospective students is provided, including a guide to the nature of doctoral research in the particular field, to facilities available for postgraduates within the department (including library services), and to the departmental programme of graduate seminars. There should be discussion of the characteristic stages towards completion of theses in the field, and typical examples of time-frames. It is advisable that material on these subjects also be made available in written form. Emphasis should be given to the qualities and skills the University expects its doctoral graduates to have, the 'Attributes of Melbourne Doctoral Graduates' and, through the supervisor, support candidates in further skill development as they proceed through their candidature.
  4. When considering applications for admission to probationary candidature, the head of department should ensure that the research area is of interest to the supervisor(s), is within the range of the supervisor(s)' methodological and theoretical expertise, and can be adequately supervised when the supervisor(s)' other academic commitments are taken into account.
  5. The head of department should ensure that appropriate staff member(s) are available to supervise the student until the end of candidature. If a supervisor takes study leave or is absent from the department for more than 2 months, arrangements for alternative supervision must be resolved to the satisfaction of the student, the department and the RHD Committee. Joint supervision may be an effective way of meeting these contingencies.
  6. Members of staff would ordinarily be expected to undertake no more than 7 full-time equivalent supervisions (including honours and masters projects). Academic staff with heavy administrative burdens should consider carefully the number of supervisions undertaken.
  7. Through consultation with supervisors, the head of department should monitor progress of PhD candidates and ensure that they report regularly throughout the candidature. Between 6 and 8 months full-time (12 to 16 months part-time) after admission to probationary candidature, the student should prepare a research proposal for the department. This would then form the basis of the report to be submitted to the RHD Committee with the application for confirmed candidature (due after 9 months full-time, or 21 months part-time probationary candidature). Thereafter, departments should ensure that each candidate prepares at least one substantial piece of work (in the form of a report, draft chapter or work-in-progress seminar) annually.
  8. In the case of students converting from Masters to PhDs, the head of department is expected to provide the RHD Committee with evidence of satisfactory progress in the Masters research and a justification of the conversion including the PhD research outline.
  9. The head of department should formulate and make available to prospective and new students general guidelines regarding authorship of publications within the discipline.
  10. The department should provide an appropriate physical and intellectual environment for all students. Students should be encouraged to participate in research seminars and be given every opportunity to become an integral part of the research milieu of the department and the discipline. In the case of small departments, involvement in interdepartmental activities may also be advisable. The department's activities in these respects should include strategies consistent with the University's Affirmative Action programme for women.
  11. In the event of the supervisor/student relationship breaking down, it is the responsibility of the head of department to resolve the problem, if necessary in consultation with the RHD Committee, and to seek alternative arrangements.

B. Principles for PhD supervision

These principles should be read in the context of Section A. Responsibilities of academic departments to PhD students. As previously stated, they are intended as a guide to overcoming problems which are known to impede progress.

  1. Except in rare circumstances, staff new to postgraduate supervision may not be principal supervisors.
  2. All supervisors of research higher degrees students are required to undertake an approved supervisor training course or refresher course at least every 5 years.
  3. Supervisors are expected to provide continuing guidance to PhD candidates on the research being undertaken and on meeting time-lines.
  4. Supervision of research students is not only a complex teaching task, it should be regarded as a shared enterprise in which both supervisor and student have an intellectual investment. Proposed research projects should therefore be of mutual interest. Prospective supervisors should have a sufficient range of theoretical and methodical expertise to offer the student proper supervision. There should be adequate time to supervise when other academic commitments are taken into account.
  5. The supervisor needs to be well acquainted with the candidate's academic background so that if the proposed project needs additional skills and knowledge, the candidate can be informed how these might be acquired. Supervisors should ensure that they and the candidates under their supervision are familiar with the 'Attributes of Melbourne Doctoral Graduates' and that they support candidates in further skill development as they proceed through their candidature.
  6. The supervisor should alert the commencing candidate to commonly encountered tasks, processes and standards expected of doctoral programmes in the particular field. This is a useful framework for helping the student to develop and refine a topic which can be researched and written up within the required time-frame.
  7. Once the topic is refined to the satisfaction of the student and the supervisor, the supervisor should assist the student to formulate a framework for the research and time estimates for the completion of various phases. Having such a framework, which may be modified as the research proceeds, gives a sense of focus, helps student and supervisor to check progress, and is often a useful early orientation to writing the thesis. The framework should be used to guide the student, but should not constrict the development of the research.
  8. From the outset of candidature, supervisors and students should ensure that they confer at what are agreed by them to be appropriate and regular intervals. This is particularly vital in the first year and for part-time students. Such agreements may be re-negotiated from time to time as the candidature proceeds. Meetings may be minor and frequent and/or more formal and less frequent. In this context, it is helpful for the supervisor to make explicit the purpose of the meeting. It is a useful practice to keep a diary of supervisions with dates and details of discussions. In addition to informal meetings, it is important that major reviews take place at least six monthly in order that the student's achieved work can be assessed within the overall shape of the study and the time-frame for completion. Both supervisor and student should then be in a position to be able to report when required on progress and to judge when some intervention may be desirable.
  9. Early in the student's candidature, the supervisor must make an assessment of a student's written work. If the supervisor considers that further work is required in areas such as composition and grammar for the student to be successful in completing the PhD, the supervisor should then provide advice and assistance as to how an appropriate standard can be achieved. Such advice may include referral to units such as the Learning Skills Unit and the Academic Support Team at the School of Graduate Research. The supervisor should continue to monitor the student's progress in order to resolve any on-going difficulties.
  10. The supervisor is expected to read any written work thoroughly, in advance of meetings, and to provide regular feedback on the student's work, although a supervisor should not be obliged to read an excessive number of drafts of the same section or chapter. It is vital that criticism is given in a constructive, supportive and sensitive fashion. The supervisor needs to recognise that doing a research degree is an emotional as well as an intellectual commitment; students will be discouraged by continual harsh criticism. Supervision sessions should be structured so that it is relatively easy to exchange ideas.
  11. The supervisor has a responsibility to ensure that both full-time and part-time candidates are included in the academic life of the department. Candidates should be required to present work-in-progress papers to their peers and academic staff. Candidates should be strongly encouraged to take part in departmental and/or inter-departmental seminars, conferences, informal functions and the like. Reports from conferences etc., should be conveyed to departments and research students. Postgraduates should be encouraged to publish their work, jointly with supervisors when appropriate. A supportive environment and a sense of collegiality are important influences, particularly for women, in timely completion of research projects.
  12. At the beginning of the candidature the supervisor has the responsibility for initiating discussions with a view to making mutually satisfactory arrangements regarding intellectual property, including patents and authorship of any publications arising from the candidate's work. The head of department should be notified that these discussions have taken place. Arrangements that are made should reflect codes of practice with respect to authorship in the discipline and accord with the University Code of Conduct for Research. Arrangements should also reflect the responsibility of the supervisor in fostering the student's career.
    Any restrictions on publication rights due to confidentiality or other intellectual property protection requirements need to be clearly outlined at the outset, and reviewed during the project as appropriate. This particularly involves restrictions arising from the registration of patents. Advice should be sought from the Research Innovation and Development Group, Melbourne Research and Innovation Office http://www.research.unimelb.edu.au/ridg/. The Guidelines Relating to Student Intellectual Property, approved by Academic Board, make it clear that a limited embargo on publication may be acceptable, and then only so as to allow consideration of commercial potential and/or the pursuit of statutory protection such as a patent. (Guidelines - see http://www.research.unimelb.edu.au/ridg/ip/.)
  13. Supervisors should ensure that they and the candidates under their supervision are familiar with the University's Code of Conduct for Research (reprinted below as Section E of the Guidelines).
  14. It is important not to lose sight of the personal dimension of the supervisory relationship. A candidate's progress may be impeded by personal crises to which the supervisor should be responsive. The supervisor should know where help might be sought within the University and what to do if there is a need to suspend candidature or negotiate an extension.
  15. There are some instances when the supervisory relationship breaks down. In such cases, the supervisor should see to it through the head of department, or the RHD Committee if necessary, that other arrangements are made to the satisfaction of the student.
  16. In view of the fact that women postgraduates sometimes encounter particular problems in relation to the research environment and the supervisory relationship, supervisors should actively support the University's policies and strategies on affirmative action and avoidance of sexual harassment.

C. Responsibilities of candidates

PhD candidature may be considered as a threeway interaction between the academic department, supervisor(s) and student. While departments and supervisors are expected to provide many forms of support and guidance, the ultimate responsibility for managing the project and obtaining the degree rests with the candidate.

  1. All candidates should observe the University's rules, regulations and requirements (both specifically relating to the degree and other requirements), and consult the PhD handbook for guidance especially when making applications for variations of candidature.
  2. Through the orientation session held by their department or by consulting with their supervisors, commencing candidates should become quickly familiar with:
    1. the nature and limitations of PhD research in their field;
    2. the facilities (including support for field work if necessary) available for postgraduates in their department and the University;
    3. the dimensions of the project, the time frame for completion, and the normal stages encountered along the way;
    4. the qualities and skills the University expects its doctoral graduates to have, as outlined in the 'Attributes of Melbourne Doctoral Graduates', and with the assistance of their supervisor, prepare a plan for further skill acquisition as they proceed through their candidature.
  3. From the outset of candidature, students should ensure that they confer with their supervisors at what are agreed mutually to be appropriate and regular intervals. Candidates should keep supervisors informed of their research activities, progress and problems.
  4. Around 9 months full-time (21 months part-time) after admission to probationary candidature, the candidate should submit an application for confirmed candidature and a report on the research (based on a format set out in an application form sent out by the School of Graduate Research) so that confirmation may be finalised by the end of the probationary period. Individual departments may have additional requirements.
  5. If a Department recommends against granting confirmed candidature or recommends that candidature should be terminated on the grounds of unsatisfactory progress, the candidate may make a submission to the RHD Committee, and may subsequently appeal to the Academic Board against any decision of the Committee.
  6. After proceeding to confirmed candidature, candidates should present to their supervisor at least one significant piece of written work (in the form of a report, draft chapter or work-in-progress paper) annually. Student and supervisor should also undertake a major review of work completed at least six-monthly so it can be assessed within the overall shape of the study and the time-frame for completion.
  7. If a candidate is unable to resolve serious problems with the supervisor(s), he or she should first ask the head of department to help. If the head of department is unable to resolve the problem, the Secretary of the RHD Committee should then be approached. It is important that these steps be taken without delay so that progress is not unduly impeded.
    In cases where the supervisor and the head of the department are one and the same person, the Secretary of the RHD Committee should be approached directly. Help is also available from the University of Melbourne Postgraduate Association and the University Counselling Service.
  8. A PhD program at the University of Melbourne is a demanding undertaking requiring performance to the full extent of the candidate's ability. It is therefore expected to be a full-time commitment unless enrolment is part-time. Part-time students should ensure that they continue to have sufficient time available each week as agreed with their departments, to work on their projects. In some instances, the candidate, in consultation with their supervisor and head of department might determine that additional coursework subjects will assist in their PhD research program. Application should be made on the Application for Adding and Deleting Additional Subjects form in these cases.
    Professional development is considered an integral part of the PhD training program, and might include tutoring or demonstrating. The University of Melbourne does not stipulate the maximum hours to be worked, but recommends as a guide, that more than 6 hours per week across the year, during normal working hours would be undesirable. Where sessional teaching is undertaken, it should be understood that the initial tutorial will include two hours of preparation and marking. Repeat tutorials involve one additional hour.
    No other commitments should impact on the time commitment to the PhD program. It is the responsibility of the supervisor, head of department and student to ensure that paid work will not jeopardise the completion of the course of study in the time allowed.
  9. While it is recognised that teaching experience may be beneficial if candidates wish to pursue an academic career, they should not be required to undertake demonstrating or tutoring if this will hold back their PhD studies.
  10. Candidates have a responsibility (shared with the University) to ensure that they re-enrol each year. It is important to notify the School of Graduate Studies of any change of address so that enrolment papers are received.
  11. Candidates should apply to the RHD Committee through their departments in good time before any planned leave of absence, period of study away, change of status, change of title, change of supervisor. Candidates should notify the School of Graduate Research when they return from leave of absence or leave to study away from the University.
  12. In preparing the thesis, candidates should bear in mind the following:
    1. they are expected to be familiar with the literature in the particular field and assess it critically;
    2. they should formulate a clear hypothesis or overall question, and should support their conclusions with adequate data or evidence and analysis;
    3. the evidence presented should be relevant to the main hypothesis being investigated;
    4. candidates should pay particular attention to the final presentation of the thesis. Not only should the final version be carefully checked for errors, but it should be clearly structured and easy to follow, and should form an integrated whole (examiners can ask for theses to be revised if presentation is below the required standard). A high standard of written English should be attained. Candidates should refer to the specifications in the chapter "PhD Thesis".
  13. In writing up their research, candidates must avoid the following:
    1. the fabrication of data - claiming results where none have been obtained;
    2. the falsification of data - altering results to confirm the hypothesis;
    3. plagiarism, including the direct copying of textual material, the use of data or ideas
      from other people without adequate attribution;
    4. attribution to others who have not in fact contributed to the research.
      Candidates should observe the University's Code of Conduct for Research (see Section E below).
  14. At the outset of their candidature, candidates should clarify with their supervisors University & departmental practice regarding intellectual property, including patents and authorship of any publications arising from their work. They should be informed by the supervisor in writing of any limitations on publication or communication of their work consequent upon commercial agreements at the outset of the candidature or as soon as such commercial agreements have been reached. In such cases a written agreement should be concluded over the signatures of the candidate, principal supervisor(s) and Head of the unit(s) and department(s) concerned.
  15. Candidates collecting data from human subjects (including surveys) should ensure that approval from the relevant ethics committee is obtained. Candidates undertaking any experiment involving animals should also ensure that ethics approval and a licence is obtained. Applications for ethics approval and licences should be made before data collection commences.
  16. Candidates should be aware that the University provides insurance coverage for post-graduate students. The University of Melbourne has in force Personal Accident insurance coverage for postgraduate students for up to $100K. The Personal Accident Insurance provides students with various levels of benefits under the policy, including Accidental Death, Permanent Disability and non recoverable medical expenses incurred through accident whilst engaged in activities relating to studies or research including field trips. However, in some cases, especially travel, this cover may not be sufficient and it is therefore advisable that students arrange separate travel insurance.

D. Applicants for admission to PhD candidature

Before recommending a student for admission to PhD candidature, a head of department and proposed supervisor must be well satisfied that the following questions can be answered in the affirmative:

  1. Does the student have the necessary prerequisites for admission to candidature?
  2. Does the student appear to have the capacity required to undertake the PhD course successfully?
  3. Is the research project proposed appropriate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy?
  4. Is your department the most appropriate one in which the research should be undertaken?
  5. Is the project feasible in terms of time, facilities, equipment and source material?
  6. Is the research project of direct interest to both the student and the supervisor?
  7. Is the proposed supervisor sufficiently expert in the proposed area of research to offer the student proper supervision?
  8. Is the workload of the supervisor such as to allow sufficient time to give proper supervision to the student?
  9. If it is expected that the proposed supervisor will be absent on study leave, will alternative supervision be available?

A prospective candidate should consider the following questions:

  1. Have you discussed the research project thoroughly with the proposed supervisor and do you know in what other academic activities you will be involved?
  2. Have you discussed with your proposed supervisor your respective roles in the work?
  3. Are you satisfied that your supervisor will devote adequate time to you?
  4. Have you looked sufficiently deeply into the research background and active research interests of the proposed supervisor?
  5. Do you know enough about the research environment of the department in which you wish to work?
  6. Do you know what departmental facilities will be available to you throughout your candidature?

E. Code of Conduct for Research

The following Code of Conduct for Research has been approved by Council (Regulation 17.1.R8) and should be observed by all persons engaged in the University. For an updated version of the Code of Conduct for Research refer to the web address: http://www.unimelb.edu.au/ExecServ/Statutes/r171r8.html.

1. Principles

(1) Statement of Guiding Principles

This Code of Conduct ('the code') prescribes standards of responsible and ethical conduct expected of all persons (academic staff, students, technical and other support staff) engaged in research ('research workers') in The University of Melbourne ('the University') based upon the following guiding principles

  1. Research is original investigation undertaken in order to gain knowledge and understanding and make this widely available
  2. Research workers should, in all aspects of their research -
    1. demonstrate integrity and professionalism;
    2. observe fairness and equity;
    3. demonstrate intellectual honesty;
    4. effectively and transparently manage conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest; and
    5. ensure the safety and well being of those associated with the research.
  3. Research methods and results should be open to scrutiny and debate.

(2) Observance of the code

Research workers must familiarise themselves with the code and ensure that its provisions are observed.

(3) Breach of the code

Failure to comply with the provisions of the code may be a ground for disciplinary action.

(4) Advice

Where a research worker or any other member of the University is in doubt about the applicability of provisions of the code, or about the appropriate course of action to be adopted in relation to it, advice should be sought from a faculty associate dean (research and research training) or a member of the Research Integrity Committee. . Such advice should provide on a confidential basis.

2. Specific Requirements

(1) Research Data and Records

  1. Research workers must comply with the University's 'Policy on the Management of Research Data and Records' and related policies that may be promulgated from time to time. This policy includes, but it is not limited to, the following requirements -
    1. data and records should be accurate, complete and in sufficient detail to enable verification of research results and to reflect what was communicated, decided or done;
    2. data (including electronic data) must be recorded in a durable and retrievable form, be appropriately indexed and comply with relevant protocols;
    3. data must be retained intact for a period of at least five years from the date of any publication which is based upon or longer than this if discussion of results continues, if there are regulatory or sponsor requirements, or if the data has historical or archival value;
    4. a research unit or department must establish procedures for retention of data and maintain a register of the data and records and their location; data and records will normally be kept in the department or unit where the research was conducted;
    5. data forming the basis of publications must be available for discussion with other research workers; where confidentiality provisions apply, the data should be kept in a way that allows reference by third parties without breaching confidentiality; and
    6. when data are obtained from limited access data bases, or via a contractual arrangement, written indication of the location of the original data, or key information regarding the database from which it was obtained, must be retained by the research worker or research unit.

(2) Authorship

(a) For a person to be recorded as an author of a publication requires that he or she is directly involved in the creation of the publication by -

  1. conceiving it, analysing and interpreting the data on which it is based;
  2. writing or revising the intellectual content; and
  3. giving final approval of the version to be published.

(b) The right to authorship is not tied to position or profession; ghost, gift, or honorary authorship is unacceptable. Authorship should honestly reflect the contribution to the work being published. Participation solely in the acquisition of funding or the collection of data is not sufficient for a person to be attributed as an author of a publication.

(c) Any part of an article critical to its main conclusion must be the responsibility of at least one author.

(d) An author's role in a research output must be sufficient for that person to take public responsibility for at least that part of the output in that person's area of expertise.

(e) No person who is an author, consistent with this definition, may be excluded as an author without their permission in writing.

(f) When there is more than one co-author of a research output, one co-author (by agreement amongst the authors) should be nominated as executive author for the purposes of administration and correspondence and when there is more than one co-author of a research output, the authors should discuss and reach agreement on the order in which authors shall be listed.

(g) Other persons who contributed to the work who are not authors should be named in Acknowledgements (where the publisher provides for this, and in a manner consistent with the norms of the research field or discipline). An author must ensure that the work of research students, research assistants and technical officers is recognised in a publication derived from research to which they have made a contribution.

(h) Research workers must comply with authorship criteria appropriate to their discipline, and/or according to the requirements of the journal their work is to be published in.

(3) Publications

(a) Publication of more than one paper based on the same set(s) or subset(s) of data is not acceptable, except where each subsequent paper fully cross-references and acknowledges the earlier paper or papers as the case may be (for example, in a series of closely related work, or where a complete work grew out of a preliminary publication and this is fully acknowledged).

(b) An author who submits substantially similar work to more than one publisher must disclose this to the publishers at the time of submission.

(c) Publications must include information on the sources of financial support for the research and must include a disclosure of any potential conflicts of interest. Financial sponsorship that carries an embargo on such naming of a sponsor should be avoided.

(d) Confidentiality provisions to protect intellectual property rights may be agreed between the University, the research worker and a sponsor of the research. Where such agreements limit free publication and discussion, limitations and restrictions must be explicitly agreed.

(4) Supervision of Students Undertaking Research

(a) Supervision of doctor of Philosophy students should be carried out in accordance with the 'Guidelines on PhD candidature for departments, supervisors' set out in the PhD Handbook.

(b) Supervision of all other students undertaking research should be carried out in accordance with the requirements set down by the relevant faculty, school or department.

(5) Conflict of Interest

(a) A research worker has a conflict of interest in any circumstances where that person has a real, perceived or potential opportunity to prefer their own interests, or those of any other person or organisation, to the interests of the University. Examples of conflicts of interest in research include but are not limited to situations -

  1. where the research is sponsored by a related body;
  2. where the researcher or a related body may benefit, directly or indirectly, from any inappropriate dissemination of research results (including any delay in or restriction upon publication of such results);
  3. where the researcher or a related body may benefit, directly or indirectly, from the use of University resources;
  4. where the researcher conducts a clinical trial which is sponsored by any person or organisation with a significant interest in the results of the trial.
  5. where private benefits or significant personal or professional advantage are dependent on research outcomes.

A related body is any person or body with which the researcher has an affiliation or a financial involvement.

A financial involvement includes a direct or indirect financial interest, provision of benefits (such as travel and accommodation) and provision of materials or facilities.

An indirect financial interest is a financial interest or benefit derived by the researcher's relatives, personal or business associates, or research students.
It is important to recognise that real or perceived opportunities to give preference to personal interests arise from competing obligations and can be other than financial.

(b) The responsibility for managing a conflict of interest rests, in the first instance, with the individual.

(i) A research worker must make a full disclosure of a conflict of interest or of circumstances that might give rise to a perceived or potential conflict of interest as soon as reasonably practicable as follows -

  1. where the research worker is a head of department, to the dean of the relevant faculty;
  2. where the research worker is a dean of a faculty, to the deputy vice-chancellor (research);
    in all other cases, to the research worker's head of department.

For the conduct of clinical trials, full disclosure must include the nature of the sponsorship and the relationships between the sponsor, trial subjects and the clinical investigator.

(c) Disclosures shall be handled as follows -

  1. the officer in receipt of the disclosure referred in paragraph (i) above must discuss the matter with the staff member concerned determine a procedure for the management or elimination of the conflict of interest. The procedure must be documented and the research worker advised in writing and a copy of the agreement held in the department's records.
  2. a research worker must comply with the direction of the officer referred to in section 5 (e)(i) above in relation to the management of the conflict of interest.
  3. unless involved directly, it is the responsibility of heads of departments to ensure that conflicts of interest in research involving their staff members are managed appropriately.
  4. when a head of department has a conflict of interest in research, the dean of the faculty will be responsible for recommending to the deputy vice-chancellor (Research) appropriate management arrangements.

(v) when a dean of faculty has a conflict of interest in research, the deputy vice-chancellor (Research) will be responsible for recommending to the vice-chancellor appropriate management arrangements.

(d) a head of department must not be a director of any organisation sponsoring research in that department or have a direct or indirect financial interest in excess of 5% equity in such an organisation unless full disclosure has been made and the vice-chancellor has approved an exception to this policy.

(e) the deputy vice-chancellor (Research), when deciding whether to accept sponsored research or contract research funding on behalf of the University, may seek information regarding disclosure and management of any conflict of interest that may result.

3. Additional Requirements

(1) Any special standards of work performance and ethical conduct imposed by law or by the University in relation to particular categories of research are deemed to be included in this code in its application to persons engaged in that kind of research in the University. These include that where research procedures are of a kind requiring approval by a human or animal ethics committee, gene technology and biosafetyCommittee or by a safety or other validly constituted regulatory committees, research must not proceed without such prior approval.

(2) Research workers should endeavour to safeguard the interests of all parties in relation to intellectual property in accordance with the Intellectual Property Statute of the University and other guidelines as may be promulgated from time to time.

(3) Every research worker should be provided with access to material on applicable institutional guidelines for the conduct of research, including those covering ethical requirements for studies on humans or animals, requirements for confidentiality, and occupational health and safety matters.

(4) Academic staff must make a declaration as part of their annual reporting requirements that they have complied with the provisions of the code.

4. Research Misconduct

(1) Research misconduct is constituted by a failure to comply with the principles or specific provisions of the code and includes but is not limited to conduct in, or in connection with, research that is (a) dishonest, reckless or negligent and (b) seriously deviates from accepted standards within the scientific and scholarly community for proposing, conducting or reporting research, such as following, includes -

  1. the fabrication or falsification of data or results,
  2. the use of another person's ideas, work or data without appropriate acknowledgement,
  3. misleading ascription of authorship to a publication including the listing of authors without their permission, attributing work to people who have not in fact contributed to the publication, the lack of appropriate acknowledgement of work primarily produced by a research student/trainee or associate, and
  4. failure to disclose conflicts of interest or cases where a conflict of interest might reasonably be perceived to exist.

(2) Procedures for dealing with allegations of misconduct in research are set out in the Personnel Policy and Procedures Manual.

(3) Procedures for dealing with allegations of misconduct in research by students are set out in Statute 13.1 - Student Discipline.

 

[s. 4(2) made, s. 5 revoked 4/12/00,
s. 2(2)-(4) renumbered s. 2(3)-(5), s. 2(2) made, s. 2(3) subst.,
s. 2(4)(b) am., s. 2(4)(d) made, s. 3(1) am., s. 3(3) made 5/11/01, s. 2(5) subst. 1/7/02, am. 6/3/06.]

 

F. Candidates based at outside institutions

Approved institutions

The RHD Committee is concerned to ensure that institutions on this list remain suitable locations for the training of PhD candidates. It will seek the advice of nominating departments from time to time. In addition, it is the responsibility of nominating departments to advise the RHD Committee if conditions become unsuitable. Staff of the Outside Institutions list are not permitted to examine theses.

Procedure to base an individual candidate at an institution not on the approved list
Departments may apply to the RHD Committee, with the endorsement of the dean of the faculty, for special permission to base an individual candidate at an institution not on the list, or propose that a particular institution be added to the list. In all cases, candidates may only be based at an outside institution (with the consent of the institution) where the following criteria apply:

The procedure to add an institution to the approved list:

Please note that where an outside institution or sponsor asks a candidate or applicant for candidature to sign a contract or agreement relating to the research, the contract or agreement should be submitted to the School of Graduate Research for prior approval.

Guidelines for supervision of PhD candidates based at outside institutions

  1. Agreements have been made with the Approved Institutions listed above which permit postgraduate students of the University to study there for the purposes of their degrees without special permission.
  2. In addition, applications can be made to the RHD Committee for individual students to base their research at other outside institutions. The head of the department in which the student is to be enrolled should provide an assurance that the academic environment and standard of research activity within the institution is equivalent to those found in a comparable department of the University, and must take responsibility for ensuring that they remain so for the duration of the candidature.
  3. Individuals of institutions may be appointed supervisors of PhD candidates where all of the following conditions apply:
    1. they have a PhD or equivalent qualification;
    2. they hold a current appointment as academic associate of a department of the University;
    3. the nominating department submits to the RHD Committee a full C.V. of the proposed supervisor, who should have proven research capacity, as evidenced in, for example, a significant list of publications, participation in international research activities and/or previous experience of supervising research students.
  4. Supervisors undertaking PhD supervision for the first time will not usually be appointed sole supervisor.
  5. External supervisors must accept the same responsibilities as internal supervisors refer to "Principles for PhD Supervision" and "Code of Conduct for Research".
  6. Candidates must report on their progress to the RHD Committee through the department in which they are enrolled annually. They must provide additional reports to the Department as required.
  7. Candidates should take part in departmental graduate activities (including attendance at graduate seminars and delivery of work-in-progress papers) as required by the department.
  8. Any contractual arrangements that candidates are required to enter into by an outside institution or commercial sponsor must be submitted for approval to the School of Graduate Research. They will be reviewed by the Research Contracts Unit.
  9. The right of candidates to submit their theses in accordance with University procedures and requirements and to publish their research must not be compromised in any way by agreements entered into with outside institutions or sponsors.
  10. The consent of the candidate and the head of department must be obtained whenever an application to place a thesis on restricted access is made.
top of page