university of exeter phd thesis guidelines

Intranet Home
About the Faculty
Information about staff
Information for staff only
The College Taught Handbook
Undergraduates
Postgraduate taught
1. PGR Support Team
2. Registration, attendance, off campus learning and Change of Status
3. Research Supervision
5.Progress monitoring and completion
6. Transfer from MPhil to PhD
7. Transfer of registration from MA by Research to PhD
8. Research Training
9. Ethics Approval
10. Insurance for Research Undertaken Outside the UK
11. Research, Writing and Thesis Requirements
12. Submission and Examination Process
13. Student Participation, seminars, conferences and teaching opportunities
14. Student support and facilities (Including personal allowances and study space)
PGR Liaison Forums
Year Abroad

Submission and Examination Process

Submitting your thesis is the final stage before examination. Research students must follow the University guidelines on the submission of MA by Research/MPhil/PhD theses . These guidelines also provide guidance on the presentation of your thesis, as well as how and where it should be submitted. Students studying on a ‘by Practice’ basis should also follow the guidelines on format of submission provided below.

Variations to Submission Requirements

This document specifies requirements for the form and size of dissertations/theses for programmes in Creative Writing/Film by Practice/Performance Practice. It is recognised however, that there are likely to be candidates putting forward proposals for the production of an artefact outside of the parameters specified. Where this is the case proposals should be put forward as early as possible, preferably prior to application. The College of Humanities welcomes such proposals and will give due consideration to the viability of accepting a submission in an alternative format. You will not be able to submit a thesis or dissertation in a format other than those specified without approval – this should not be viewed as a formality, and approval must be sought in all cases of submission in an alternative format.

The College Director of Postgraduate Research will consider such requests in accordance with the relevant procedures. This will mean that they take account of:

the scope and content of the proposal;
the ability of the candidate to complete the proposed work within the period of registration for the programme in question;
whether the College is able to appoint an appropriate supervisory team to support the proposal;
consideration of the appointment of a Board of Examiners;
in what format the submission to the examiners will take place, and in what format a final submission to ORE will be made.

Dissertations or theses will not be accepted for examination outside of the submission requirements specified, except where specific approval has been given for a variation to submission and this approval has also been appended to the submission.

Research Council Funded Students

Please be aware that if you have been in receipt of a Research Council studentship to fund your PhD you must ensure that you have acknowledged the support you have received in your thesis.

Nomination of Examiners

In the UK system there are normally two examiners – one from within your own University (the ‘internal’ examiner) and one from outside (the ‘external’ examiner), although in some instances three examiners will be appointed, two of which will be ‘external’. It is up to your supervisor to nominate suitable examiners for approval by the College Director of Postgraduate Research. Your supervisors will discuss possible examiners with you, and should then complete the appropriate nomination form on MyPGR. Examiners must be nominated at least three months before your expected submission date.

Your supervisors cannot act as internal examiners, but one supervisor may be present at your viva as an observer only; if you wish to invite a supervisor to attend this should be indicated on the submission form. The internal examiner should be someone in or close to your field of study; however they do not necessarily have to be in the same subject area or College of the University. The external examiner should be from a reputable research-led University and should normally hold the academic rank of Senior Lecturer (UK) or above.

The College of Humanities promotes the appointing of a Non-Examining Independent Chair (NEIC) as good practice for all viva examinations. NEICs are normally appointed when any member of the examination team is examining a PGR thesis for the first time, or for the first time at the University of Exeter, or if the thesis being examined has been submitted in an alternative format.

The NEIC’s role is, however, distinct to that of the Board of Examiners and they are not a member of the Board. The NEIC does not take any part in the assessment of the quality of the thesis, and therefore should not therefore have read the thesis. The NEIC does not need to be a subject expert, nor even a member of the discipline of the student.

Appointment of examiners - By Practice

For further information on the nomination of Boards of Examiners please see Submission and Examination Process in the College of Humanities’ PGR Student Handbook.

As with other PGR programmes, a Board of Examiners will be appointed to undertake the examination of your thesis/dissertation. For ‘by practice’ programmes, your supervisory team will need to be mindful that:

A Non-Examining Independent Chair (NEIC) must always be appointed.
Due to the specialist nature of much practice-led research, additional consideration should be given to the identification of examiners at an early stage to ensure that appropriate examiners can be identified.
Examiners may need to be appointed at an earlier stage than normal, if they will need to be present for live events prior to the final submission of the thesis/dissertation.
Consideration should be given to the information that examiners need about the way in which submission will take place.
For Performance Practice work the Board of Examiners is usually appointed when the first performance is going to be shown.
For a PhD the Board of Examiners usually witnesses two out of three performances. The Board of Examiners do not have any direct contact with the student prior to the viva.
The Board of Examiners do not begin the process of formal examination until the final submission of the dissertation/thesis, with the inclusion of documentary (filmed) evidence of the performances.

Performance Practice

Examination - the viva

Once examiners have been appointed and the thesis submitted neither you nor your supervisors should have direct contact with the examiners, except to arrange the formalities of examination. It is the responsibility of the internal examiner to liaise with the external examiner and with you, the student, when arranging the date and time of the examination of the thesis.

Your examiners will read the thesis, provide preliminary reports on it and then meet with you for an oral examination – this is known as a ‘viva voce’ or, more commonly, a ’viva’.

In the College of Humanities a viva examination for MPhil and MA by Research degrees is not always necessary, and may be waived if the examiners agree that the result is either a straight pass or pass with minor corrections.

A viva must be held, however, if it is judged to be necessary by one or more of the examiners; or if there is substantial disagreement between the examiners; or if the examiners are not inclined to recommend the award of the degree for which the work was submitted (aside, if necessary, from minor corrections); or if the student wishes a viva examination to be held.

The University has a Handbook for Examination of Postgraduate Research programmes which should be consulted for full details. It is important that you prepare for the viva and your supervisors will be able to help you with this preparation. The University’s Researcher Development Team run an excellent session ‘Preparing for Your Viva’ which is available as both a face-to-face session and as an online module which can be accessed on the Exeter Learning Environment ( ELE ), and we strongly recommend that you attend this session ahead of your viva. A good guide is also provided by Rowena Murray, called ‘ How to Survive Your Viva’ (OUP-Magraw Hill, 2003).

Outcomes of the viva

On the basis of reading your thesis and the oral examination, the examiners will produce a joint report with a recommended outcome.

At the first examination of a PhD this can be:

the award of the degree,
the award of the degree subject to minor or major amendments being made to the thesis,
a requirement to revise and resubmit the thesis within a stated period.

Upon resubmission, the possible outcomes are the award of the PhD (possibly subject to minor or major amendments), the award of an MPhil (possibly subject to minor amendments), or outright failure.

In the case of an MPhil , the examiners may recommend to:

award the degree,
award the degree subject to minor or major amendments
require revision and resubmission within a stated period.

Upon resubmission, the possible outcomes are the award of the MPhil (possibly subject to minor or major amendments) or outright failure.

In the case of an MA by Research , the examiners may recommend to:

award the degree subject to minor or major amendments;

On resubmission, the possible outcomes are award of the MA by Research (possibly subject to minor or major amendments) or outright failure.

For students

Current Students website
Email web access
Make a payment
iExeter (students)
Programme and module information
Current staff website
Room Bookings
iExeter (staff)
Finance Helpdesk
IT Service Desk

Research proposal

After you apply
Admission terms, conditions and policies
Immigration and visas

What is a research proposal?

For comprehensive advice please download our How to write a research proposal guide.

What is a research proposal

Your research proposal needs to outline the nature of your proposed research project and give some indication of how you will conduct your research. It is an integral part of the postgraduate research application process, so it is certainly worth investing time and energy into it.

Your research proposal should leave a positive first impression upon the reader about your ‘fitness’ to study a PhD. It is your project, so it is important to demonstrate leadership in this first stage of the application process. An ideal proposal should leave the reader feeling in no doubt that you have done some preliminary research about your subject and that you are knowledgeable and ready to tackle the challenges of a PhD. Give your proposal your utmost attention and time, but also be realistic ‐ you are not expected to know everything at this stage. Your proposal can also be flexible. It is not a contract. Always ask someone else to read your proposal before you submit it, and to offer you some critical but supportive feedback. Remember that a research proposal is about what you want to study; it immediately reflects your initial understanding of, and commitment to, PhD study. A research proposal can and should make a positive and powerful first impression about your potential to become a good researcher. Importantly, the main purpose is to enable the university to assess whether you are a good ‘match’ for our supervisors and our areas of research expertise. Therefore, in a good research proposal you will need to demonstrate two main things:

that you are capable of independent critical thinking and analysis
that you are capable of communicating your ideas clearly

Applying for a PhD is like applying for a job, you are not applying for a taught programme. When you start a PhD you will become a valued researcher in an academic department. Through your research proposal your colleagues want to know whether they can work with you, and whether your ideas are focussed, interesting and realistic. Try and impress them! Your proposal should be indicative and it should outline your areas of interest and your general insight into the research topic. You are not expected to be an expert and to be familiar with all the specific details of your subject. However, you are expected to have a good level of knowledge about the subject and where you might make a valuable contribution to research. The perfect research proposal should leave the reader interested, excited and wanting to find out more about your ideas, and about you!

Preparing a research proposal

Before you write a research proposal, the first step should be to provide a 500-word outline of your proposed research project. You should then forward this to any academic you feel would best suit your proposed project – you can find contact details for staff on the individual subject websites. If you receive a positive response, you can then plan to submit a formal application in the form of a research proposal.

Your proposal must specify the area of your proposed research and should cover relevance, theoretical perspectives, research methodology, and sources of data. Your proposal is your calling card. It is your chance to sell yourself and your research to prospective supervisors. Competition for places is fierce, and many students apply to us with excellent Bachelors and Masters degrees from around the world. Your proposal is your way of setting yourself apart from the crowd. So, you should work hard to submit the best possible application.

Putting together your document

There is no set formula for your research proposal in terms of length or what you include in it. It is quality, not quantity, that counts to demonstrate that you have a clear and concise way of thinking. Your proposal should explain your project, establish its importance, and set out how you are going to complete it in the time allowed.

PhD-level study, quite literally, encompasses an almost infinite variety of topics and projects. It is for this reason that prescribing a ‘one-size-fits-all’ method for research proposal writing is a difficult task, but the strongest proposals are likely to contain many of the following:

Background – You should establish the context to, and rationale for, your research based on a reading of the relevant academic and/or practitioner literature. Where possible, cite relevant authors and studies, and explain how this research builds on your previous academic work or professional experience. You should discuss the intellectual importance of your work, its contribution to your subject area, and its originality, which, in time, form three of the four main criteria for assessing your PhD.

Aims and objectives – Set out the central aims and research questions that guide your research. What hypothesis or argument are you trying to explore and what questions are you trying to answer? Set out your terms of reference clearly and precisely. These may cover what you intend to achieve by the research in general and, more specifically, how the research fits the background and the outcomes from the project.

Methods and techniques – Explain how your approach to collecting and analysing information will help you satisfy your aims and objectives. Potential data collection methods and possible analytical techniques give a sense of the direction of the research. Explain the choices behind case study organisations or locations, as well as sampling strategies or particular computer-based techniques.

Rationale - contextualise your questions/aims in a broader field of study, identifying the main literature that you are addressing. You need to explain why your research questions/hypotheses are important and topical.

Project management – You don’t need to produce a detailed time plan because research projects evolve. However, it is extremely useful to explain in general terms what you are proposing to do, and when, in order to get a sense of the scale of the task. This is especially important if you are proposing to undertake case study work or fieldwork.

Ethics – Almost inevitably your research will raise some ethical issues and you should aspire to conduct your research with the highest ethical standards.

Health and safety – All types of research have implications for health and safety, albeit some types of work are more risky than others. Where appropriate your proposal should seek to identify any issues and explain how you may address them.

References – Please enter a reference list using Harvard Notation. It is useful for potential supervisors to better understand the breadth and depth of your reading to date.

Appendices – These are a useful way of including additional supporting material while keeping the main body of the proposal succinct.

Timeline – You don’t need to produce a detailed time plan, but it is helpful to provide a summary of what you are planning to do and when. You will be expected to submit your thesis within three years (six years for part-time students) so it is important you have a feasible timeline. This section is especially important if you are proposing to undertake case study work or fieldwork. Bibliography – a short bibliography of relevant works in your research area.

Guidelines and advice

How long should a good research proposal be?

A good research proposal is as long as it takes, but a guide would be 1,500-2,500 words. Remember that it is meant to be an accurate overview, not a thesis, so you need to provide enough detail for the reader to understand it. A paragraph would not be enough and 5,000 words likely too much.

The '3Cs' rule

When you have written your research proposal, ask a friend to read it critically and provide you with feedback. Also, ask yourself whether it follows the '3Cs' rule:

Clear - is what you have written intelligible and clearly articulated? Does it make sense, or is it vague and confusing? Does your proposal leave the reader with a clear sense of the purpose and direction of your research project?
Concise - have you written your proposal in a succinct and focused way?
Coherent - does your proposal link together well so that it tells the reader a short story about what you want to do, why you want to do it and how you will do it?

If you can answer all of these questions with confidence, you have probably put together a good proposal.

Dissemination

Depending on your project and the wider field it is a part of, you may want to include a paragraph on how you would go about spreading the ideas discussed in your research to the academic community, and in some cases the organisation arranging your funding. This could be anything, from traditional sources such as publications and seminars, to more contemporary methods such as blogs, vlogs and exhibitions.

To protect yourself from accusations of plagiarism please make sure that all your references are present, correct and up-to-date at the time of submission. In order to ensure you have correctly referenced, it is sensible to include publications in your bibliography that influenced your thoughts and arguments in any way, even if they are not quoted from directly. If you have used quotations from other academics, please check you have used quotation marks and a citation.

6 steps to a successful research proposal

A good research proposal should not be complicated. However, it can be challenging to write and it is important to get right. A PhD is challenging, so it is good training working on your research proposal. Although there is no exact prescribed format for a general research proposal (across all subjects), a research proposal should generally include six main sections, as detailed below:

1: A clear working title for your research project

What will you call your project?
What key words would describe your proposal?

2: A clear statement about what you want to work on and why it is important, interesting, relevant and realistic

What are your main research objectives? These could be articulated as hypotheses, propositions, research questions, or problems to solve
What difference do you think your research will make?
Why does this research excite you?
What research ‘gaps’ will you be filling by undertaking your project?
How might your research ‘add value’ to the subject?
Is your research achievable in the time allocated? (e.g. 3 years full‐time)

3: Some background knowledge and context of the area in which you wish to work, including key literature, key people, key research findings

How does your work link to the work of others in the same field or related fields?
Would your work support or contest the work of others?
How does your work relate to the expertise within the department you are applying to?

4: Some consideration of the methods/approach you might use

How will you conduct your research?
Will you use existing theories, new methods/approaches or develop new methods/approaches?
How might you design your project to get the best results/findings?

5: Some indication of the strategy and timetable for your research project and any research challenges you may face

What would be the main stages of your project?
What would you be expecting to do in each year of your PhD?
What challenges might you encounter and how might your overcome these?

6: A list of the key references which support your research proposal

References should be listed in the appropriate convention for your subject area (e.g. Harvard). Such references should be used throughout your research proposal to demonstrate that you have read and understood the work of others
Other relevant material that you are aware of, but not actually used in writing your proposal, can also be added as a bibliography

All of the above six sections are important but section 2 is particularly important because in any research project, establishing your main purpose represents the whole basis for completing the research programme. Therefore, the value of your proposed research is assessed in relation to your research aims and objectives.

Connect with us

Information for:

Current students
New students
Alumni and supporters

Quick links

Streatham Campus

St Luke's Campus

Penryn Campus

Truro Campus

Using our site
Accessibility
Freedom of Information
Modern Slavery Act Statement
Data Protection
Copyright & disclaimer
Privacy & cookies

Referencing

Faculty of Environment, Science and Economy
Faculty of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences
Faculty of Health and Life Sciences
Referencing Styles
Using generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT in academic work
Checking the accuracy of your references
Referencing Software
Further support
Frequently asked questions

University of Exeter Students' Guild Reference Right Campaign

ASK: Academic Skills @ Cornwall

Explore each tab to learn the basics of referencing

Using Cite them Right
Referencing tutorial
Selecting and evaluating your sources
Referencing a source found in another author’s work (Secondary referencing)

This guide brings together all the key information on referencing and has links to information about all the referencing styles used at the University.

You’ll need to know what referencing style your department is using. Your lecturer may have already told you this or it may be in your course handbook. If you’re not sure you can check your Faculty and Programme information from the menu to the left of this page.

If you are already familiar with how to reference and how to incorporate references into your writing through paraphrasing and quoting, you might want to go straight to the Referencing Styles page. Here you can find your specific referencing style.

*The University has produced its own guidance for styles not covered by Cite them right. Visit the Referencing styles page for more information.

Watch the video below for an introduction to making the most of university referencing guidance

Complete the Cite Them Right Tutorial to learn the principles of referencing.

Once you launch the tutorial you can choose your referencing style in order to tailor the tutorial guidance and questions.

After you have finished exploring the various topics, you can choose to take an assessment to test and document your knowledge.

university of exeter phd thesis guidelines

When writing at university you will use information from a range of different sources. Your tutors will direct you to some but others you will have to find for yourself. You need to select these sources carefully and acknowledge them in your work by providing in-text citations and a reference list, or in some disciplines, footnotes and a bibliography.

You need to evaluate your sources to assess their reliability, authority and validity before you decide to use them. As a general rule, you should not refer to sources such as book reviews, Wikipedia or lecture notes in your work. Do not use or refer to essays that you have found online as these may come from ‘essay mills’ and are therefore not reliable sources. For further guidance on evaluating sources, take a look at the Evaluating Sources LibGuide Tutorial .

It is good practice to avoid secondary referencing

Watch a video on secondary referencing

Imagine you are reading a blog post from 2021 called ‘Creating a Forest Food Garden: Higher Education that is disruptive by Design’, written by Perpetua Kirby, John Parry and Daphne Lambert.

It is located on the British Educational Research Association (BERA) website. You want to include the following information from the blog in your assignment. How would you reference this?

Paradoxically, this requires a slowing down to attend to feelings and perspectives as a means to identify what to transform together in response to the urgency of the environmental crisis (Kirby & Webb, 2021). 

It is good practice in this situation to find the article written by Kirby and Webb (the primary source).

You can then read it directly and paraphrase the point they are making. This means you can also include their article as an in-text citation and in your reference list in the normal way.

It is not accurate to paraphrase or quote the highlighted sentence and cite it as being the words of Kirby and Webb when you haven’t read their article.

The highlighted sentence is actually an interpretation of their words by the authors of the blog (which we would refer to as the secondary source).

How to include a secondary reference if you need to

If you are unable to find a primary source to check the information yourself, you can include what is called a secondary reference, which is fully transparent about where the information came from.

Secondary references should be kept to a minimum in your assignment.

Check your specific referencing style for how to format a secondary reference, the example below uses APA referencing style:

In-text citation for the above example

Kirby and Webb (2021, as cited in Kirby et al., 2021) suggest that …

… (Kirby & Webb, 2021, as cited in Kirby et al., 2021)

Your reference list would just include the Kirby et al. blog, as this is the source you have actually read.

You can learn more about plagarism and how to avoid it here.

Next: Faculty of Environment, Science and Economy >>
Last Updated: May 13, 2024 4:17 PM
URL: https://libguides.exeter.ac.uk/referencing

For students

Current Students website
Email web access
Make a payment
iExeter (students)
Programme and module information
Current staff website
Room Bookings
iExeter (staff)
Finance Helpdesk
IT Service Desk

Submission and Examination Processes

Submitting your thesis is the final stage before examination. Research students must follow the University guidelines on the submission of MPhil/PhD theses . These guidelines also provide guidance on the presentation of your thesis and how it should be submitted. You may also wish to refer to the TQA Manual, Chapter 12, Handbook for Examination of Postgraduate Research programmes for more information and to understand the examination process.

Research Council funded students

Please be aware that if you have been in receipt of a Research Council studentship to fund your PhD you must ensure that you have acknowledged the support you have received in your thesis.

Nomination of examiners

For further information on the nomination of Boards of Examiners please see Submission and Examination Process in the College of Humanities’ PGR Student Handbook.

In the UK system there are normally two examiners, one from within your own University (the ‘internal’) and one from outside (the ‘external’), although in some instances three examiners will be appointed, two of which will be ‘external’. It is up to your supervisor to nominate suitable examiners for approval by the College Director of Postgraduate Research. Your supervisors will discuss possible examiners with you, and should then complete the appropriate nomination form on MyPGR. Examiners must be nominated at least three months before your expected submission date.

Your supervisors cannot act as internal examiners, but one supervisor may be present at your viva as an observer only; if you wish to invite a supervisor to attend this should be indicated on the submission form. Previous supervisors or pastoral tutors cannot be examiners. The internal examiner should be someone in or close to your field of study; however they do not necessarily have to be in the same subject area or college of the University. The external examiner should be from a reputable research-led University and normally hold the academic rank of Senior Lecturer (UK) or above.

Once examiners have been appointed and the thesis submitted neither you nor your supervisors should have direct contact with the examiners, except to arrange the formalities of examination. It is the responsibility of the internal examiner to arrange the examination of the thesis within 3 months of submission.

The Business School promote the appointing of a Non-Examining Independent Chair (NEIC) as good practice for all viva examinations. NEICs are normally appointed when any member of the examination team is examining a PGR thesis for the first time, or for the first time at Exeter, or if the thesis being examined has been submitted in an alternative format.

The NEIC’s role is however distinct to that of the Board of Examiners and is not a member of the Board. It is the NEIC’s role to ensure that the University’s procedures with regard to the examination of degrees by research are followed and ensure consistency and fairness throughout the examination amongst other responsibilities. The NEIC does not take any part in the assessment of the quality of the thesis, and should not therefore have read the thesis. The NEIC need not be a subject expert, nor even a member of the discipline of the student.

Examination - the viva

The University has a Code of Conduct for the examination of research degrees which you are recommended to read prior to examination.

The examination of research degrees focuses on the candidate’s thesis, which the student discusses, advances and justifies through an oral examination (‘viva voce’ or ‘viva’). The viva fulfils two key purposes in the examination process in that it provides an opportunity for the Board of Examiners to determine whether the thesis:

is the work of the candidate, by assessing the thoroughness of the candidate’s understanding of the thesis (as submitted in written form) and the candidate’s ability to justify the thesis
meets the assessment criteria for the award in question, by assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the thesis and its justification, as well as the candidate’s knowledge of the relevant academic discipline, field of study or area of professional practice, and understanding of relevant theories, concepts and research techniques.

The viva examination provides students with an opportunity to talk about their thesis with experts in the field and to receive feedback from them. Vivas normally follow a question and answer format. The questions can address any aspect of the submission, and there is no minimum or maximum number of questions that might be asked. The questions should allow the examiners to determine whether the thesis meets the assessment criteria.

Further details about the viva format and process are available on the Doctoral College viva pages . We also recommend that you refer to the Handbook for examination of postgraduate research programmes

It is important that you prepare for the ‘viva’ - you are recommended to visit the University’s Researcher Development Online service , which has an e-learning course on ‘Preparing for your Viva’.

Your viva should be held no more than three months after the submission of your thesis.

Outcomes of the viva

PhD examination

On the basis of reading your thesis and the oral examination, the examiners will produce a joint report with a recommended outcome.

At the first examination of an MPhil or PhD this can be:

the award of the degree,
the award of the degree subject to minor amendments being made to the thesis (to be completed within a stated period, not longer than 3 months)
the award of the degree subject to major amendments being made to the thesis (to be completed within a stated period, not longer than 6 months)
a requirement to revise and resubmit the thesis (to be completed within a stated period, not longer than 18 months).

On resubmission, the possible outcomes are award of the PhD (straight award or subject to minor or major amendments), award of an MPhil (straight award or subject to minor amendments) or no degree awarded.

MPhil examination

In the case of an MPhil , the examiners may recommend to:

On resubmission,the possible outcomes are award of the MPhil (straight award or subject to minor or major amendments) or no degree awarded.

After the viva examination and any required amendments have been approved, the examiners will recommend that the doctoral degree should be awarded. This is the point at which the doctorate can be said to be completed.

Students should aim to submit their thesis prior to viva examination at around one year before their programme end date, or in line with their funding end date to allow time for the examination process and any necessary amendments to be completed before the maximum period of study expires

Please bear in mind that there will be a period of time between submission of your thesis and the viva (the examiners need to read it and write their preliminary reports). The examiners also need to write their recommendations after your viva regarding amendments. In addition, you may need to spend some time making these amendments, which will have to be approved by the examiner(s). All this takes time, which is why it is very important to try to submit your thesis prior to your viva as soon as possible, provided that this is academically appropriate. It is worth bearing in mind that it may be better to delay submission of the thesis slightly in order to improve its quality and to minimise the danger of the thesis needing major amendments, rather than submit too early. This should be the subject of conversations between you and your supervisor(s) towards the end of your final year.

Useful University documents relating to the examination process:

Calendar: Regulations governing academic programmes

TQA: Chapter 12 - Handbook for Examination of Postgraduate Research programmes

Back to PGR Student Handbook index

Connect with us

Information for:

Current students
New students
Alumni and supporters

Quick links

Streatham Campus

St Luke's Campus

Penryn Campus

Truro Campus

Using our site
Accessibility
Freedom of Information
Modern Slavery Act Statement
Data Protection
Copyright & disclaimer
Privacy & cookies

Alumni and supporters
Our departments
Visiting us
Academic Partnerships Handbook
Approval and Revision of Taught Modules and Programmes Handbook
Assessment, Progression and Awarding: Taught Programmes Handbook
Credit and Qualifications Framework
Exceptional Circumstances Handbook
External Examining Handbook
Learning and Teaching Support Handbook
1 - Provision of information by Faculties to students
2 - Admission of students to a Postgraduate Research degree programme under off-campus arrangements
3 - Arrangements for the supervision of Postgraduate Research students
4 - Supervision of Postgraduate Research students
5 - Periods of registration and changes to registration status for Postgraduate Research students
6 - PGR Liaison Forums
7 - Annual monitoring review
8 - Unsatisfactory Student Progress, Engagement and Attendance (USPEA)
9 - Upgrade from MPhil or MByRes to Doctoral Study
10 - Professional Doctorate Postgraduate Research Programmes: Code of Good Practice
11 - Presentation of theses/dissertations for Postgraduate Research degrees: statement of procedures

12 - Handbook for Examination of Postgraduate Research programmes

13 - Research Misconduct
15 - Student Pregnancy, Maternity, Paternity and Adoption Policy
16 - Visiting Postgraduate Research Students
17 - Inclusive Practice within Learning and Teaching
18 - Postgraduate Student Absence Policy
19 - Employment of postgraduate students: code of good practice
20 - Faculty Management of Postgraduate Research: Code of Good Practice
21 – PGR Aegrotat and Posthumous Awards
Quality Review & Enhancement Framework
Student Cases Handbook
Special Provisions for Online Programmes (including those offered in partnership with Keypath Education)
Special Provisions for Healthcare Programmes
Special Provisions for Degree Apprenticeships
Special Provisions for Programmes with Accreditation Licenced by the Engineering Council

Chapter 12 - Handbook for Examination of Postgraduate Research programmes

1 - Introduction 2 - Award Specific Information 3 - Assessing Candidates with Disabilities 4 - Nomination of the Board of Examiners and the Non-Examining Independent Chair 5 - Non-Examining Independent Chair 6 - Before the Examination 7 - The Examination 8 - After the Examination 9 - Confidential Feedback

The Handbook for Examination of Postgraduate Research Programmes replaces the ‘Code of Good Practice: Boards of Examiners for Degrees by Research’.
It aligns with the QAA guidance on assessment as laid out in 'UK Quality Code, Advice and Guidance: Research Degrees' .
Statement of Procedures: Presentation of theses/dissertations for degrees in the Faculty of Graduate Research.
The Credit and Qualifications Framework .
Academic Regulations and Ordinances within the University Calendar .
The equitable treatment of students.
Transparency.
Consistency.
Maintenance of the academic standards and integrity of University of Exeter awards.
Must : to indicate a regulation that will be adhered to in all circumstances. Exceptions to such regulations would only be granted by the Deans in exceptional circumstances. For example “The examiners must be agreed that the candidate will be able to complete the amendments necessary for the thesis to meet the assessment criteria for the award in question within no more than 6 months from notification”.
Should : to indicate a regulation that should be adhered to unless sound pedagogical reasons prevent this. For example “Examiner(s) should be nominated three months before the expected submission date”.
May : to indicate a regulation where action is discretionary but Faculties are expected to demonstrate that taking the action has been considered. For example “The viva may be conducted in accordance with this agenda.” May is used both as an indication of good practice and also in the permissive sense.
References to ‘thesis’ throughout this handbook refers to requirements for both dissertations and theses submitted as part of a postgraduate research programme.
Responsibilities: As specified in the introduction to the TQA Manual, where reference is made to the Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor in this document, unless otherwise specified, they may delegate their authority to the Associate Dean (Education), the Associate Dean (Research and Knowledge Transfer), Faculty or Department Director of PGR students as relevant. No further delegation of authority may occur unless explicitly specified within this document.
It is the responsibility of students to inform the University if they have a disability, either during application, registration or following the subsequent onset of a disabling condition.
Students experiencing physical or mental impairment need to be assessed by Disability Advice and Support (Exeter or Cornwall campuses). At this assessment the student’s needs will be considered in relation to their programme of study. Individual Learning Plans (ILPs) will be put in place, which may include specific assessment arrangements. Where a student has had a Disabled Students’ Allowance (DSA) following a study needs assessment, the ILP will also detail the recommendations for reasonable adjustments arising from that assessment.
Faculties , in consultation with Disability Advice and Support ( Exeter or Cornwall campuses) where necessary, should comply with the ILP put in place for each individual student by the Disability Advice and Support services. ILPs may indicate that adjustments should be made either to the requirements specified in the ‘ Statement of Procedures: Presentation of theses/dissertations for degrees in the Faculty of Postgraduate Research ’ or to the arrangements for the viva.
Requests for adjustments to the requirements for the presentation of the thesis should be made as early as possible in a student’s programme of study or following the subsequent onset of a disabling condition.
A viva is normally required for doctoral degree examinations but may , on exceptional medical or personal grounds, be waived with the express approval of the Dean of Postgraduate Research. Alternative options for holding the viva or deferral of the viva should be considered first. No exceptions to the procedures set out in the ‘Handbook for Examination of Postgraduate Research’ programmes may be made without the express approval of the Dean of Postgraduate Research , unless it is a reasonable adjustment that has been listed on the approved matrix of common adjustments that may be offered (see 4.2.3 of the ‘Inclusive Practice within Academic Study’ Policy).
Requests for specific arrangements pertaining to the viva should be made via an ILP, prior to submission of the thesis to the Postgraduate Administration Office . Requests received after submission cannot be guaranteed to be met. Where adjustments to the examination process are required: a) An NEIC should be appointed ( see 4.4 below ). b) The Postgraduate Administration Office will inform the Board of Examiners (including the NEIC, where appointed) of the adjustments required for the examination as indicated in the ILP.
The NEIC is responsible for taking the ILP into account when making arrangements for the examination.
Candidates with short-term injuries/health issues, which are supported by medical evidence, may be able to have specific arrangements made for their viva if their injury or health issues have occurred for the first time since submission. They would need to be assessed by or be in contact with Disability Advice and Support and make a request to the Postgraduate Administration Office . However, these candidate s may need to have the date of their viva deferred if it is not possible for alternative arrangements to be put in place .
The process for determining what adjustments may be made to the viva or the presentation of the thesis are set out in the ‘Inclusive Practice within Academic Study’ Policy. Where adjustments are needed the first point of reference should be the matrix of common adjustments to viva arrangements.
A disability that has not been declared prior to an assessment cannot be taken into account retrospectively, unless the candidate can provide a reasonable explanation and properly documented evidence for not having declared it (see also the University’s procedures for Student Academic Appeals ).
For requirements for Aegrotat Awards see Ordinance 16: Aegrotat Awards .
For requirements for Post Obitum Awards see Ordinance 15: Post Obitum Awards .
The Dean of Postgraduate Research appoints all members of the Board of Examiners on behalf of the Board of Postgraduate Research and Senate.
In accordance with the Ordinances, this must comprise at least two examiners of whom at least one shall be external to the University. Further specific appointment requirements are set out in 4.4 below .
The Dean of Postgraduate Research is responsible for determining and resolving any conflicts of interest that might arise in the appointment of examiners. Faculties should ensure that there are no conflicts of interest in the nomination of examiners, and should notify the Dean of Postgraduate Research in any situation where a potential conflict of interest is not otherwise resolvable.
It is advisable to give early consideration to the nomination of examiners.
For candidates for whom submission in an alternative format has been approved it is important to ensure that examiners are appointed as early as possible, to ensure that an appropriate Board of Examiners may be nominated.
The responsibilities of those nominating examiners are: a) To give early consideration to the appointment of the Board of Examiners giving consideration to the criteria for nomination ( 4.5 outlined below ). b) To discuss with their Faculty DPGR (or nominee) any nominations where the eligibility of the nominees in question is not clear. c) To informally approach all nominees prior to their formal appointment to elicit informal agreement to take up the appointment should their nomination be confirmed. d) To maintain contact with the Board of Examiners prior to submission of the thesis, to ensure that the examiners are aware of any potential delays in the date of submission. e) To ensure that they have sufficient information about the nominees to allow them to complete the nomination process, including a copy of the proposed External Examiner’s CV, which should be uploaded to MyPGR as part of the nomination, unless the examiner has previously been approved for a prior examination at the University.
Examiners must be sufficiently expert to enable them to make an assessment of the thesis against the assessment outcomes for that programme. The external examiners should be sufficient experts in the field of study, whilst an internal examiner need only be expert in the broader disciplinary field.
Non-Examining Independent Chairs (NEIC) should : a) Have a contract of employment 2 with the University; b) Either be able to take lead supervisor responsibilities as specified in the Code of Good Practice - Arrangement for the Supervision of Research Degree Students , or be able to demonstrate successful supervision (as lead supervisor) of a student through to completion within the last 5 years, as a member of any of the following groups: i) Education and Scholarship job family; ii) Research job family, including on a fixed term contract; iii) Education and Research job family on a fixed term contract. c) Have previously supervised to completion at the level of the award in question or at a higher level; d) Have previously examined at the University of Exeter at the level of the award in question or at a higher level.
Where the following circumstances apply the person in question should not be appointed as an examiner or NEIC, unless exceptional circumstances can be proven: a) Former or current supervisors or mentors of the candidate b) PGR Pastoral Tutors of the candidate* c) Former members of staff of the University who left the University within three years of the date of their proposed nomination d) A sponsor, relative or friend of the candidate e) A partner or relative of the supervisor f) Someone who was examined themselves by the supervisor g) Close professional colleague (e.g. someone who has collaborated with the candidate by co-authoring a paper) of the candidate h) A person whose own work is the focus of the research project i) External Examiners only : A member of staff, from a department or research organisation, where they are involved with the University in a collaborative provision arrangement under which the candidate in question is studying. *To avoid potential for bias, prejudice or conflict of interest (or any perception of such), PGR Pastoral Tutors should not be appointed to the Board of Examiners for students for whom they are (or have been) the designated Pastoral Tutor. Where a case can be made for their appointment, the Faculty Director of Postgraduate Research (or nominee) must submit a rationale for the appointment to the Dean of Postgraduate Research providing information to explain why the appointment would not lead to the perception of a conflict of interest. The written consent of the PGR student and Pastoral Tutor to the arrangement would need to be given prior to confirmation of any appointment.
It is the responsibility of the candidate, supervisory team, proposed examiners and NEIC (where nominated) to declare any circumstance which might lead to a conflict of interest or the perception of such. For example: a) If an examiner or NEIC has or has had a personal or professional relationship with the candidate as a sponsor, relative, partner, friend, supervisor, mentor, Pastoral Tutor or close professional colleague b) If a supervisor has or has had a personal relationship with an examiner or NEIC, e.g. as a relative or partner. See also the University’s 'Code of Professional Conduct: Relations between Staff and Students and between Staff ’.
Academics involved with the pre-thesis or taught phase of a Professional Doctorate will not normally be considered a Conflict of Interest.
Faculty and Department DPGRs are not automatically precluded from examining students within their Faculty/Department, but should consider in all instances whether the nature of the contact that they have had with the student in question could lead to a conflict of interest or the perception of such, and seek advice accordingly.
In any case where a person is unsure about whether a circumstance might constitute a conflict of interest the onus is on that person to declare it or in the first instance seek advice from the College’s Director of PGR. Should it be determined that there is a conflict of interest or the perception of such it would only be under exceptional circumstances that the examination would continue without change.
The Non-Examining Independent Chair (NEIC) should : a) ensure that the University’s procedures with regard to the examination of degrees by research are followed b) ensure consistency and fairness throughout the examination c) provide additional information if, following a viva, an appeal is lodged by the candidate; d) preside over the Board of Examiners e) provide support and mentorship to inexperienced examiners; proactively acting as a source of advice with regard to any queries the examiners may have about the examination process itself throughout the process, whether or not a viva takes place f) provide a report on the conduct of the examination if required. g) In the case of a viva by video-link, additional duties of the NEIC are set out in section 7.5 , below. This role is distinct to that of the Board of Examiners in that: h) The NEIC does not take any part in the assessment of the quality of the thesis, and should not therefore have read the thesis i) The NEIC need not be a subject expert, nor even a member of the discipline j) The NEIC does not normally take responsibility for organising the viva (this is normally the responsibility of the internal examiner).
Because of the responsibilities that they can undertake and because of the quality assurance that they can provide, it is advisable to nominate an NEIC in addition to the examiners where circumstances allow.
See 4.5 ‘criteria for nomination’. The Dean of Postgraduate Research may also require that an NEIC be appointed.
See 4.6 ‘Non-Examining Independent Chair appointment requirements’.
See 4.7 ‘Declarations of interest’.
The examiners will receive electronic copies of the thesis from the Postgraduate Administration Office , (and other formats as appropriate or upon request).
Examiners should retain their copies of the thesis until the examination is complete.
When a candidate has submitted in an alternative format, upon receipt of the thesis the internal examiner may liaise with the supervisor to ensure that the Board of Examiners fully understand the agreed submission guidelines (attached to the submitted thesis) prior to completion of the preliminary reports.
The lead Internal Examiner should liaise with all those attending the viva to ensure the viva is scheduled to take place within 3 months of the candidate’s submission. See 6.3.4 below for further information, where a viva is not an automatic requirement.
All members of the Board of Examiners and the NEIC (where appointed) should respond to communications from the lead internal to facilitate arrangement of the viva, where held.
The lead Internal Examiner should ensure that they are aware of, and take into account, any adjustments to the examination process that might need to be made resulting from a student’s ILP, prior to scheduling the viva.
All members of the Board of Examiners should complete and independent preliminary report. Each examiner, whether internal or external, is required to prepare in writinga preliminary report on the thesis to inform the conduct of the examination. Each report, to be submitted on a pro forma provided by the University, should reflect the examiner's preliminary view of the thesis, relating that opinion to the candidate's success or failure in meeting the criteria for the award in question.
All completed preliminary reports should be completed separately and independently, and returned to the PGR Administration Office in the timeframes stipulated in 6.3.5a and 6.3.5bi below.
Examiners should not share their preliminary reports with each other, instead they will receive the reports from the PGR Administration Team within the timeframes stipulated in 6.3.5a and 6.3.5b.i below.
The Board of Examiners should consider the preliminary reports of all members of the Board.
The examiners are responsible for completing their preliminary reports and returning to the PGR Administration Team within a maximum of 10 weeks of submission.
The PGR Administration Team will circulate the reports to the Board of Examiners at least a week in advance of the viva.
The NEIC (where appointed) should provide support to the lead internal examiner and liaise with the PGR Administration Team to ensure that the process is running smoothly, and that any questions they may have with regard to the reports or implications for the viva are addressed.
Students do not receive a copy of the preliminary report, and therefore examiners should be aware that any amendments identified as recommendations at the prelinary report stage that are pertinent to the final amendments specified by the examiners for completion will need to be clearly included within the final Board of Examiners' report (see section 8.9 , below).
Is the work of the candidate, by assessing the thoroughness of the candidate’s understanding of the thesis (as submitted in written form) and the candidate’s ability to justify the thesis.
Meets the assessment criteria for the award in question, by assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the thesis and its justification, as well as the candidate’s knowledge of the relevant academic discipline, field of study or area of professional practice, and understanding of relevant theories, concepts and research techniques.
Thereby, the viva examination provides candidates with an opportunity to talk about their thesis with experts in the field and to receive feedback from them.
All vivas are different, but they normally follow a question and answer format. The questions can address any aspect of the submission, and there is no minimum or maximum number of questions that might be asked. The nature and quantity of questions should be sufficient to enable the viva to fulfil the two purposes outlined in 7.2.1 above. By the end of the viva, the Board of Examiners should be able to determine whether the thesis is the work of the candidate, and whether it is of the standard to merit the award of the degree for which it has been submitted. If there are concerns as to whether or not the thesis is the work of the candidate, the examiners should refer to the ‘ Procedure for Graduate Research Students suspected of Research Misconduct ’.
If the thesis is not of the standard to merit the relevant award, formative feedback must be provided in the Examiners’ Report, specifying why the written submission does not meet the relevant assessment criteria and detailing how it should be revised so that it does meet the criteria ( see section 8.9 , below). The dialogue between the Board of Examiners and the candidate during the viva can inform the preparation of the Examiners’ Report to ensure good quality formative feedback is provided.
Only the following people should normally be in attendance a) The candidate b) The Board of Examiners c) The NEIC, where appointed d) A member of the supervisory team (normally the lead supervisor) as a non-participant observer where they have been invited to do so by the candidate e) The Dean of Postgraduate Research may give permission for additional people, in a non-examining role, to be present at the examination to ensure fairness and consistency.
A viva may not proceed without all the examiners and Non-Examining Independent Chair (when appointed) being present 5 .
The lead (first-named) internal examiner or the NEIC (where appointed) should chair the viva.
Candidates should not take an audio, audio-visual or transcript record of the viva.
Attendance of a member of the supervisory team: a) Candidates may invite one member of their supervisory team to be in attendance at their viva. The supervisor would be there in support of the candidate as a non-participant observer, and to enable them to better provide supervision of that candidate should the candidate be required to complete amendments or resubmit their thesis. However, the following requirements apply: b) Whilst supervisors should make every effort to attend the viva should they be invited to do so, candidates must be minded that it may be difficult for their supervisor to do so unless they are invited to attend the viva prior to the organisation of the viva by the internal examiner. Confirmation that a supervisor has been invited to attend the viva should normally be included on the student’s thesis submission form. Where a decision to invite the supervisor to attend the viva is made after submission the Postgraduate Administration Office should be informed by the student. The Postgraduate Administration Office will inform the examiners of the request. c) No more than one member of the supervisory team may attend the viva, in order not to unbalance the viva. This should normally be the lead supervisor, as they will take key responsibility for supporting the candidates with any amendments required. d) The supervisor should only be present at the viva in the presence of the candidate. They must retire with the candidate for any private deliberations of the Board of Examiners. e) A supervisor should be present as an observer only. They should not take any active part in the proceedings the only exception being after the Board of Examiners has announced their recommendations and the viva has formally ended (see ‘Following the return of the candidate in section 7.7 'Agenda’ below), at which point they may , in consultation with the candidate, ensure that they both have a clear understanding of any amendments outlined by the Board of Examiners at this stage. f) A supervisor who is attending a viva must attend for the duration of the viva (with the exception of d), above, see section 7.7 'Agenda’ , below. g) A candidate should not invite anybody other than their supervisor to attend their viva.
The viva should be conducted in an appropriate, comfortable location where the probability of interruptions occurring is minimal.
The candidate should confirm their identity at the start of the viva (by producing their Unicard, or other photo ID, such as a passport). The viva must not proceed without this confirmation.
Vivas must not extend beyond the maximum time-frames indicated. The Chair of the viva should offer participants a 15 minute break after the end of 2 hours.
This section applies to all vivas where one or more participant joins the viva via a video-link.
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. Holding a viva by video-link might present opportunities to nominate external examiners whose attendance, by dint of their location, might otherwise by unviable. It may also be a preferable option for students, e.g. on financial grounds, or to satisfy the reasonable adjustments of an ILP .

a) The Examiners 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 internal examiner remains 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 (see also section 3, above).

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 the Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor is required where:

i) An ILP is in place, to ensure that appropriate adjustments can be made;

ii) Or any concerns have been raised about proceeding with the viva by those attending the viva with regard to points a)-c)

All viva participants (all members of the Board of Examiners, the NEIC (where appointed) and the candidate) 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 examination by video-link has had no substantive bearing on the examination process.
Internal Examiners should contact their PGR Support team regarding the organisation of vivas by video-link.
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.
Where a member of the Board of Examiners will be at a separate site, consideration should be given to their need to consult privately with the other members of the Board of Examiners (and the NEIC, where appointed) on the conduct of the examination. The arrangements for managing the candidate (and supervisor, where relevant) joining/leaving/re-joining the meeting should be set out in advance of the viva.
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-conference.
The Board of Examiners 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.
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.
If the viva is halted, confirming in writing to all participants that the viva has been postponed as soon as possible, and thereafter confirming whether the viva should be restarted at a later date or recommenced from the point at which it was halted. If the viva is halted at the beginning it should be re-started. If a viva is halted once the viva is underway, arrangements will normally need to be made to allow the viva to recommence from roughly the point at which it halted at a later date, however, the NEIC or lead internal examiner will be responsible for making a judgement on whether the viva should recommence later or would need to be restarted completely.
Verifying the candidate’s identity by checking ID that the candidate presents on camera to the Examination Board (see 7.4.2, above).
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 examination via video-link had no substantive bearing on the examination process.
Ensuring that all participants confirm that they have not kept a recording of the viva.
In cases where unexpected technological problems halts the viva: informing the Postgraduate Administration Office .
The PGR Support Team must keep records of the decision to hold a viva by video-link, including the approval of the Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor where required, and should lodge a copy of the approval with the Postgraduate Administration Office who will keep a central record of all instances where approval has been given for an examination to be conducted by video-conference to ensure consistency of approach.
All vivas must be held in English unless the candidate has been given permission to submit their thesis in an alternate language (see ‘language of thesis’ in Presentation of Theses/Dissertations for Degrees in the Faculty of Graduate Research: Statement of Procedures ). If they have been given such permission the viva may be conducted in English and/or the language of submission as appropriate, and as agreed in advance by the examiners in consultation with the candidate (see nomination requirements).
The following sets out a basic agenda for the viva. The viva may be conducted in accordance with this agenda.
Prior to the arrival of the candidate and their supervisor (where attending): a) Introductions b) Confirmation that all examiners (and the NEIC, where present) have received and understand the regulations for the award in question along with the ‘ Handbook for Examination of Postgraduate Research Programmes ’ c) Confirmation that all examiners have copies of the examiners’ preliminary reports d) Outline by the first internal examiner (or NEIC, where present) of the viva schedule and process, such as the expectations regarding viva length and the process for informing the candidate of the outcome of the examination e) Confirmation by the examiners of priority areas about which the examiners wish to ask questions and discussion of the order of questions.
Following the arrival of the candidate: a) Introductions (led by the first internal examiner, or the NEIC, where present) b) Confirmation of the candidate’s identity (led by the first internal examiner, or the NEIC, where present) c) Housekeeping (led by the first internal examiner, or the NEIC, where present) d) Explaining the process of the viva to the candidate, and what happens at the end of it (led by the first internal examiners, or the NEIC, where present) e) Questions (led by the examiners) f) Conclusions – providing information to the candidate on what will happen next; confirming that the candidate is satisfied that they were given a fair chance to defend their thesis (led by the first internal examiner, or the NEIC, where present), offer the candidate an opportunity to return to the viva location after the Board’s private discussion to receive preliminary feedback (if the Board feels it is appropriate).
Following the departure of the candidate: a) Initial consideration of whether or not the thesis is the work of the candidate and whether it meets the assessment criteria for the award in question (see 7.2 ‘Purpose of the Viva’ above).

a) Disclaimer (led by the first internal examiner, or the NEIC, where present) to explain that these are only preliminary recommendations, in accordance with the following principle: The Board of Examiners may if they choose, inform the candidate of their preliminary recommendations. However, in doing so it must be made absolutely clear to all concerned that this may not be the final recommendation that the Board of Examiners makes in its written report. Furthermore, this will be a recommendation only, which the Board of Examiners may be asked to amend by either the Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor or the Dean of Postgraduate Research. Candidates should be aware that until they receive formal confirmation of the outcome from the Postgraduate Administration Office any information received is only provisional;

b) Preliminary notification and explanation of recommendations (if this is felt to be appropriate) and of the nature of the amendments likely to be required in order for the thesis to meet the criteria for the award in question.

Ending the viva: (led by the first internal examiner, or the NEIC, where present) – providing confirmation that the viva is formally complete. This may either be confirmed as part of step 7.7.3b) above when the candidate is not returning or should take place at the end of step 7.7.5 above, where the candidate has returned.
Students who are unwell leading up to, or during the examination and are therefore unable to continue with the examination should refer to the PGR Student Absence Policy .
Recommendations of the Board of Examiners Explanation of the different possible outcomes of the examination process (not all outcomes are available at all stages of examination or for all awards, see section 2, ‘ Regulations’ for programme-specific information ).
The examiners must be agreed that the thesis fully meets the assessment criteria for the award in question without requiring any additional work.
Minor amendments should be recommended for: a) the correction of typographical, spelling and grammatical errors and b) limited revisions of material in the thesis. This may include limited revisions not central to the thesis, omissions, and improvements to the argument which do not materially alter the conclusions.
The examiners must be agreed that the candidate will be able to complete the amendments necessary for the thesis to meet the assessment criteria for the award in question within twelve weeks of notification and without the need of a further viva examination.
Major amendments should be recommended for: a) more extensive revisions than that implied by a decision of minor amendments b) revisions that will not normally require any significant extension of the original research to be undertaken (In such instances, resubmission would normally be necessary).
The examiners must be agreed that the candidate will be able to complete the amendments necessary for the thesis to meet the assessment criteria for the award in question within no more than six months from notification, and may be able to set an earlier date if they are agreed that the revisions they are requesting make this feasible.
Resubmission should be recommended when a thesis has failed the first examination for the award for which it was submitted.
In requiring the resubmission of a thesis for re-examination examiners must indicate the maximum period in which this work should be undertaken. The maximum period must not be more than eighteen months for all Doctoral awards other than the DClinPsy and twelve months for Masters awards and the DClinPsy.
Following submission of minor, major, outstanding amendments or resubmission, the Examiners may recommend the award of a lower qualification than that for which the candidate submitted (where available). In so doing the examiners must provide positive evidence that the thesis meets the assessment criteria for the award in question.
This recommendation is only available following minor/major amendments, where all of the required amendments have not been completed satisfactorily.
The examiners must be agreed that the candidate will be able to complete any amendments outstanding within four weeks of notification.
This recommendation should be made where the thesis does not reach the standard required for the award of the degree in question, or a lower award, where eligible.
The Board of Examiners should complete a Board of Examiners’ report form after every examination, whether following the initial submission or resubmission of a thesis. This report form should confirm whether the thesis is the work of the candidate and indicate how the thesis meets the assessment criteria for the award in question (see ‘ the Purpose of the Viva ’). Where further work is recommended, whether minor or major amendments or a resubmission, the report form also provides a record of the additional work required.
Where amendments are required (whether minor, major or outstanding amendments or revisions prior to re-submission) the Board of Examiners report must indicate those aspects or parts of the thesis which they regard as unsatisfactory and the nature and extent of the re-working required.
The Board of Examiners’ report form must be suitably detailed and of sufficient quality to allow the candidate, with the support of their supervisory team, to have a clear understanding of the reworking required. The Board of Examiners should note that a member of the supervisory team may approach the lead internal examiner for clarification of the amendments required on one occasion only.
The Board of Examiners’ report form must always take primacy: including notes on the thesis itself is not a substitute for providing clear and explicit guidance on the report form (see also 8.9.7, below), and should only be used to provide supplementary notes.
There is no obligation on the part of the examiners to annotate the thesis, and in particular, to proof-read the thesis. Where there are concerns about the standard of literary presentation, it is not necessary for the examiners to identify every failing of presentation in the thesis, e.g. every typo, beyond indicating the nature and type of remedial action required, which may include examples of errors that require amendment.
The annotations should be clear, reasonable, and unambiguous, and written for the benefit of the student. They will not be reviewed as part of confirming approval of the Board of Examiners’ report, and as such the examiners take sole responsibility for the nature of the annotations provided.
Where annotations relate to the potential for future development of the candidate’s thesis these should be distinguished from points related to amendments required to reach the standard for award.
The Board of Examiners’ report form should state the format that the thesis should be submitted in.
Those amendments requested must be limited to those amendments necessary to satisfy the examiners that the thesis meets the assessment criteria detailed in the Regulations for the award in question.
The Board of Examiners’ report form must form the basis of the examiners’ subsequent decision as to whether the amendments required have been made satisfactorily.
The report form must be completed and signed by all examiners, and the NEIC (where appointed), it should then be counter-signed by the Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor (or nominee) and then submitted to the Postgraduate Administration Office as soon as possible and no later than 15 working days after the viva has taken place.
Where no viva has been held, the report should be completed within three months of the receipt of the thesis by the examiners.
The Examiners should not provide a written report to the candidate or their supervisory team directly to notify them of their preliminary recommendations.
The Examiners should not directly contact the candidate with regard to their examination and must inform the Postgraduate Administration Office should the candidate attempt to contact them about their examination.
Examiners should note that under the Data Protection Act 2018 all candidates may request access in full to all reports including the preliminary report. Furthermore, if there is any dispute over the outcomes of the examination their reports may be viewed more widely, including by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator.
The Postgraduate Administration Office will ensure that the report is submitted to the Dean of Postgraduate Research for approval, with final approval of award by Senate.
In countersigning and approving the report the Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor (or nominee) must confirm that they have read all preliminary reports, the comments in Part II, the report in Part III, and agree that the decision is in line with the examiners’ comments and the outcomes as set out in this Code. They must also confirm that the report in Part III gives sufficient information and guidance to enable the candidate to undertake the amendments required.
Either the Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor (or nominee) or the Dean of Postgraduate Research may refer back the report of the Board of Examiners, if they are not satisfied that the recommendation is in line with the examiners’ comments and the outcomes as set out in this Code or if they are not satisfied that the report in Part III gives sufficient information and guidance to enable the candidate to undertake the additional work required.
Under the exceptional circumstance that the appointed examiners are unable to reach agreement, the examiners must submit independent reports to the Dean of Postgraduate Research. The Dean of Postgraduate Research must then recommend to the Vice Chancellor, acting on behalf of Senate, the appointment of an additional external examiner. The additional examiner should be provided by the Postgraduate Administration Office with a copy of the thesis and the separate reports of the original examiners, and should be permitted to interview the candidate before submitting a final report and recommendation to the Dean of Postgraduate Research.
The Postgraduate Administration Office will send the Board of Examiners’ report to the candidate, copying in the lead supervisor.
Where further work is required the Postgraduate Administration Office will specify the deadline for submission of the thesis.
Candidates will receive written confirmation from the Postgraduate Administration Office of the outcome of the assessment of their thesis.
Candidates should carefully read the report sent to them by the Postgraduate Administration Office and where candidates are required to complete amendments to their thesis or to resubmit their thesis: a) Candidates should make any amendments required in the format specified by their Board of Examiners b) Candidates should liaise with their supervisory team to discuss the additional work ensure that they understand the nature of the revision(s) required c) Candidates must not contact any member of their Board of Examiners with regard to their examination. To do so will be treated as research misconduct under the ‘ Procedure for Graduate Research Students suspected of Research Misconduct ’ d) Candidates must submit their amended thesis to the Postgraduate Administration Office by the date specified in their letter or contact the office as soon as they can if there are any mitigating circumstances that will prevent them from submitting their thesis by the date specified. Failure to submit by the deadline specified will result in withdrawal from the University (see "students deemed withdrawn" ).
Where candidates are required to submit minor/major amendments or resubmit their thesis the Postgraduate Administration Office will inform them of the outcome of the assessment of their thesis (see 8.14 assessing amendments below for more information).
The following text distinguishes between the date on which the candidate submits their amendments and the deadline date by which the examiner(s) are required to confirm the examination outcome.
Where unforeseen circumstances cause delay the examiner in question should inform the Postgraduate Administration Office of this, who will inform the candidate of the delay.
Minor Amendments: The internal examiner must review the amendments and determine if they have been completed satisfactorily. (Exceptionally the External Examiner may ask to review specific changes of a technical nature, required as a minor amendment to the thesis.)
Major Amendments: The Board of Examiners must review the amendments and determine if they have been completed satisfactorily.
Outstanding Amendments: The Internal Examiner/Board of Examiners (as specified in their report) must review the amendments and determine if they have been completed satisfactorily. Where the internal examiner is not able to confirm that the amendments have been completed satisfactorily this should be referred back to the full Board for consideration.
Section 8.16 (below) lists the outcomes available to the Board of Examiners.

Satisfactory completion of the amendments must be reported to the Dean of Postgraduate Research.

Where a review indicates that the amendments have not been completed satisfactorily the Board of Examiners should recommend one of the following options to the Dean of Postgraduate Research:

Both external and internal examiners may provide the Dean of Postgraduate Research with confidential feedback about the examination process which will be considered in confidence.
Forms are sent directly to the examiners by the Postgraduate Administration Office and may be returned to the Postgraduate Administration Office in the first instance.
The Dean of Postgraduate Research should act on the issues raised in the report via an annual report to Board of Postgraduate Research. The identity of individuals should be kept confidential.

Last updated August 2023

Last reviewed August 2023

1 No single listing of ‘research-led’ Universities would be useful globally: external examiner nominations are welcome from research-led Universities wherever they are based, however for institutions within the UK, membership of the sector group representing research-led Universities is a useful check to the status of an institution: the Russell Group .

2 For the avoidance of doubt, individuals engaged on a self-employed/consultancy basis and individuals engaged on a claims basis are not eligible to act as Internal Examiners. 3 Students are however, entitled to request a copy of the report via a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act 2018.

4 See 8.5 for the definition of a ‘resubmission’.

5 If an examiner is unable to attend the viva should be postponed, or where necessary consideration given to revising the membership of the Board of Examiners (for example where an examiner will be unavailable for an extended period of time). If the appointed NEIC is unable to attend, the Faculty should arrange for a substitute NEIC to take their place. If there is not time for the appointment to be approved, the Faculty should ensure that the substitute NEIC is someone who has previously undertaken the NEIC role: as they are not an examiner they need not be a subject expert.

The Dean of Postgraduate Research may give permission for additional people, in a non-examining role, to be present at the examination to ensure fairness and consistency.

University home
For business
Alumni and supporters
Our departments
Visiting us

Staff intranet | Student intranet

Undergraduate
Masters programmes
Current students
Widening participation

Find an academic Search our academic expertise database

Research repository Search for open access papers, data, theses

PhD student, Ana Almuedo-Castillo, tells us about her research and why she loves her PhD. View full size .

I appreciated having had the opportunity to be in close contact with my supervisor. I enjoyed the unique and rewarding research experience, which has allowed me to strengthen my conceptual understanding of the area of my study and provided me with the skills and competencies I needed for conducting research, in general. I also enjoyed life in the beautiful city of Exeter.

Shireen Abu-Eid Abdellatif, Palestine Studies, PhD

Postgraduate research

Excellent library facilities

The Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies is the largest centre for Middle East Studies in a UK university with excellent research links in the Islamic world. We enjoy an international profile for our pioneering regional focus on the Gulf and Arabian Peninsula and expertise in Islamic studies.

Students are supported by the Doctoral College which offers institution-wide support, training, and administration for all of our postgraduate and early career researchers.

Arab and Islamic Studies MPhil/PhD
MPhil/PhD Ethno-Political Studies
Kurdish Studies MPhil/PhD
Middle East Politics MPhil/PhD
Palestine Studies MPhil/PhD
Search our funding database
ESRC SW Doctoral Training Partnership
AHRC SWW Doctoral Training Partnership
Research centres
Our researchers
Research events
Research news

The Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies has been the ideal home from which to develop as a researcher, an academic and an activist. My supervisors are a constant source of support and encouragement, and every conversation we have, whether “real-life” or “virtual”, is galvanizing. The sense of community at the Institute is the backbone of my work; even informal chats over lunch in the common room leave me with fresh perspectives, new sites of enquiry and sources of inspiration for my research.

Charlotte Sefton, PhD Arab and Islamic Studies.

University home
Working here
Alumni and supporters
Our departments
Visiting us

University of Exeter Repository Upload Now

Show Statistical Information

UT Electronic Theses and Dissertations

Permanent URI for this community https://hdl.handle.net/2152/4

This collection contains University of Texas at Austin electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs). The collection includes ETDs primarily from 2001 to the present. Some pre-2001 theses and dissertations have been digitized and added to this collection, but those are uncommon. The library catalog is the most comprehensive list of UT Austin theses and dissertations.

Since 2010, the Office of Graduate Studies at UT Austin has required all theses and dissertations to be made publicly available in Texas ScholarWorks; however, authors are able to request an embargo of up to seven years. Embargoed ETDs will not show up in this collection. Most of the ETDs in this collection are freely accessible to all users, but some pre-2010 works require a current UT EID at point of use. Please see the FAQs for more information. If you have a question about the availability of a specific ETD, please contact [email protected].

Some items in this collection may contain offensive images or text. The University of Texas Libraries is committed to maintaining an accurate and authentic scholarly and historic record. An authentic record is essential for understanding our past and informing the present. In order to preserve the authenticity of the historical record we will not honor requests to redact content, correct errors, or otherwise remove content, except in cases where there are legal concerns (e.g. potential copyright infringement, inclusion of HIPAA/FERPA protected information or Social Security Numbers) or evidence of a clear and imminent threat to personal safety or well-being.

This policy is in keeping with the American Library Association code of ethics to resist efforts to censor library resources, and the Society of American Archivists code of ethics that states "archivists may not willfully alter, manipulate, or destroy data or records to conceal facts or distort evidence." Please see UT Libraries' Statement on Harmful Language and Content for more information.

Authors of these ETDs have retained their copyright while granting the University of Texas Libraries the non-exclusive right to reproduce and distribute their works.

Collections in this Community

UT Electronic Theses and Dissertations 30995

IMAGES

thesis guidelines format
(PDF) PhD thesis
GitHub
heriot watt phd thesis guidelines
PhD Thesis Sample by PhD Thesis Online
PhD Thesis

VIDEO

How to write thesis chapter 1
Semi-Toned of Exeter at Miller Symphony Hall Allentown PA 4 15 2016
PhD student Daisy talks about her research into microplastics in wastewater treatment works
Studying MEd TESOL at the University of Exeter
Ask the Expert: Kaiyven Afi Leslie, PhD, Exeter Medical School
How to Write Thesis or Dissertation? ll Complete TU Thesis, Dissertation Formatting Guidelines

COMMENTS

Presentation of Thesis/Dissertation
When you submit your thesis/dissertation for examination please remember to include a correctly worded title page as the first page of your thesis and sign each copy before submission. Alternative Form of Submission. Changes to the guidance on the presentation of theses have been made resulting in a re-definition of what we mean by the term ...
Submission and Examination Process
Submitting your thesis is the final stage before examination. Research students must follow the University guidelines on the submission of MA by Research/MPhil/PhD theses. These guidelines also provide guidance on the presentation of your thesis, as well as how and where it should be submitted. Students studying on a 'by Practice' basis ...
Research Writing and Thesis Requirements
The TQA Manual, Chapter 11 - Presentation of theses/dissertations for degrees in the Faculty of Graduate Research: statement of procedures details the format and presentation of the thesis must be closely followed. These provide information on all aspects of the overall layout of a thesis, including word length (up to 100,000 for a PhD and 60,000 for an MPhil), division into chapters, the ...
Doctoral Theses
Kalcheva, Y (University of Exeter English and Film, 2 April 2024) The thesis will research girlhood and lostness in the young main characters of ten fantasy films directed by Del Toro, Jackson, Gilliam, Henson, McKean, Singh, Jordan, Selick, and Miyazaki in the period 1984-2009.
Postgraduate Research
The University of Exeter and Tsinghua University have launched a jointly-awarded PhD degree programme in climate and environmental sciences which supports six students to be co-supervised between Tsinghua's Department of Earth System Science and Colleges at Exeter that conduct research on earth systems and environmental sciences. Read more.
Postgraduate Study
A good research proposal is as long as it takes, but a guide would be 1,500-2,500 words. Remember that it is meant to be an accurate overview, not a thesis, so you need to provide enough detail for the reader to understand it. A paragraph would not be enough and 5,000 words likely too much.
E-theses
E-theses. If you have been recommended for award by your Board of Examiners you must submit a copy of your thesis/dissertation to Open Research Exeter (ORE) before your degree can be formally approved. ORE is the University's repository of all research carried out at Exeter. Depositing your thesis in the collection will ensure it is made ...
An introduction to referencing
When writing at university you will use information from a range of different sources. Your tutors will direct you to some but others you will have to find for yourself. You need to select these sources carefully and acknowledge them in your work by providing in-text citations and a reference list, or in some disciplines, footnotes and a ...
Submission and Examination Processes
Submitting your thesis is the final stage before examination. Research students must follow the University guidelines on the submission of MPhil/PhD theses. These guidelines also provide guidance on the presentation of your thesis and how it should be submitted. You may also wish to refer to the TQA Manual, Chapter 12, Handbook for Examination ...
Teaching Quality Assurance Manual
Criteria for Nomination. Examiners must be sufficiently expert to enable them to make an assessment of the thesis against the assessment outcomes for that programme. The external examiners should be sufficient experts in the field of study, whilst an internal examiner need only be expert in the broader disciplinary field.; Where the suitability of a nomination is not immediately apparent, the ...
Doctoral College
The University of Exeter Doctoral College brings together institution-wide support, training, and administration for all of our postgraduate and early career researchers. ... The thesis will research girlhood and lostness in the young main characters of ten fantasy films directed by Del Toro, Jackson, Gilliam, Henson, McKean, Singh, Jordan ...
PhDs
The Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies is the largest centre for Middle East Studies in a UK university with excellent research links in the Islamic world. We enjoy an international profile for our pioneering regional focus on the Gulf and Arabian Peninsula and expertise in Islamic studies. Students are supported by the Doctoral College ...
University of Exeter Repository
University of Exeter Repository Upload Now. University of Exeter Repository. Faculty of Environment, Science and Economy. Faculty of Health and Life Sciences. Faculty of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences. Doctoral College. Other Collections.
UT Electronic Theses and Dissertations
The library catalog is the most comprehensive list of UT Austin theses and dissertations. Since 2010, the Office of Graduate Studies at UT Austin has required all theses and dissertations to be made publicly available in Texas ScholarWorks; however, authors are able to request an embargo of up to seven years. Embargoed ETDs will not show up in ...