The criteria for success and failure in the PhD cannot be reduced to a set of written rules, however explicit.
(Delamont et al. 2000: 40) Knowledge of regulations, codes and guides does not guarantee success, but it does begin to demystify the thesis writing process. Students are often unaware of how codes of practice can affect their writing process. Supervisors are some- times unaware of the content, or even existence, of such codes. Students and supervisors alike have been known to assume that these are ‘not relevant in our discipline’. It is worth checking that.
For the purposes of this book, I assume that students will not be interested in the competing policies and politics of all the organizations that shape the current state of postgraduate study in the UK and beyond. However, selected codes and guides are useful in that they define the research process and requirements for the thesis. They define modes of monitoring and/or criteria for assessment. Taken together, they are part of the demystification process.
In any system of higher education, in addition to regulations for the degree, there are bound to be codes of practice and guidelines. These are issued by a number of different bodies with different interests in research and educational outputs: government offices, the universities’ associations, employers, profes- sional groups, students’ associations (national and local) and quality assurance groups who may represent, and may or may not be staffed by, any of these other groups, playing a particular role.
These provide the ground rules. They also direct you to writing that you can do in the early stages. You can translate questions they raise and criteria they recommend into prompts for writing.
Any code or guide produced by your university must be central to your research and your writing:
Relative importance of codes and guides
DEMYSTIFICATION: CODES AND GUIDES 47
What follows in this section is an overview of some of these groups in the UK context. There will be other such groups in other national contexts. Each of these codes and guides is examined for their potential influence on thesis writing.
A number of different agencies and groups issue codes and guides that may or may not be relevant or useful for your study or writing. Some are more official than others. Some prioritize students’ interests; others are concerned with quality assurance, also of importance to students, but whose importance is not always obvious to students. A key question, for all students, would be which one(s) are operating in your institution, if any. A likely priority would be to get hold of your institution’s Code of Practice.
The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) produces a Code of Practice for the Assurance of Academic Quality and Standards in Higher Education (QAA 1999):
With effect from the year 2000, QAA will expect that individual institu- tions will be in a position to demonstrate how they are meeting the expectations contained in the precepts of this Code (p. 4).
The ‘precepts’ are a set of statements, given a little further definition in a few
‘guidelines’. Twelve topics are covered:
1 General principles 2 The research environment 3 Promotional information
4 The selection and admission of students 5 Enrolment and registration of research students 6 Student information and induction
7 The approval of research projects 8 Skills training
9 Supervision 10 Assessment 11 Feedback
12 Evaluation complaints and appeals.
Some of these may seem of more interest to students than others, but it can be interesting to see what it is that your institution is supposed to be doing in all the administrative stages of your degree.
The most interesting topics are skills training, supervision and assessment:
8 Skills training
. . . institutions will wish to consider the development of: . . .
• language support and academic writing skills . . .
The words ‘should consider’ clearly indicate that this is not about enforce- ment, but it is becoming more and more common for universities to require some form of training of new supervisors. Continuing staff development for supervisors would, I expect, be more rare. The second section indicates that monitoring, a critical process, should follow some kind of ‘framework’.
9 Supervision
Supervisors should possess recognised subject expertise . . . Institutions should consider:
• the provision of training for supervisors and continuing staff development . . .
Research students should receive support and direction sufficient to enable them to succeed in their studies.
Institutions will wish to consider how to ensure that: . . .
• there is a framework for regular supervisor/research student interaction, with a minimum frequency of (and responsibility for initiating) scheduled review meetings between the student, supervisor(s) and, if appropriate, other individuals;
• students are introduced to other researchers (and appropriate academic bodies and societies) in their field;
• participation in institutional and external discussion forums is encouraged, with the presentation of research outcomes where relevant; . . . (pp. 10–11).
10 Assessment
Postgraduate research assessment processes should be communicated clearly and fully to research students and supervisors.
Institutions will wish to consider: . . .
• the mechanisms used for communicating procedures relating to the nom- ination of examiners, the examination process (including any oral examin- ation), the process and time taken to reach a decision and the potential outcomes of the assessment.
Postgraduate research assessment processes should be clear and operated rigorously, fairly, reliably and consistently.
Institutions will wish to consider:
• the mechanisms used for the identification and maintenance of standards of research student achievement (p. 12).
DEMYSTIFICATION: CODES AND GUIDES 49
These may seem too general to be helpful. In some ways that has been seen as an advantage, allowing institutions and departments – and students? – to be flexible and autonomous. However, if these terms are taken to refer to your doctorate, you can immediately see the need for further definition of each of the precepts in practice.
The National Postgraduate Committee (NPC) aims to represent and improve the conditions of postgraduates in the UK. You can read their constitution at http://www.npc.org.uk/committee.constitution.html. They provide an update on ‘Recent policy developments and issues’ and have several useful publications:
• Guidelines for the Conduct of Research Degree Appeals (NPC 1995)
• Guidelines on Codes of Practice for Postgraduate Research (NPC 1992).
The latter provides more specific guidance than the QAA code, again revealing for students how the institution/department works:
The NPC is usefully attempting to bring further definition to the doctoral process. An even more interesting publication, Questions for Prospective Post- graduates (Gillon and Hoad 2000), is designed for those who are thinking about doing a doctorate and have still to decide where, although some of the
Ask your department what they will provide
• What skills training, supervision and assessment will be provided by your department?
• How will you be able to feed your experience of them back into the system?
The Department will keep a portfolio containing a comprehensive record of the student’s progress. This would include notes on discussions between supervisor and student on instructions, level of performance, etc. . . . A programme of work is essential. The research topic should be agreed as soon as possible and a programme drawn up and approved by the supervisor during the first semester. The supervisor should ensure that the student is aware of the basis of the supervisor’s assessment of progress and understands the amount of work involved. The programme must include:
a provisional outline of the thesis . . .
a statement of the research and sources to be examined a provisional timetable . . . (p. 9).
questions could usefully be asked by enrolled students. The NPC have drawn up a list of questions to help people choose the place that is best for them and to avoid ‘common problems’. The questions about the (prospective) supervisor are particularly thought-provoking:
While these are not explicitly about ‘writing’, they have obvious implications for your writing, given that the supervisor is, or will be, the immediate audi- ence for your writing. There are other questions you can ask, before or after you start your programme of study, about the programme, about the institu- tion and the department, about resources, and so on.
The NPC Guidelines on Accommodation and Facilities for Postgraduate Research (1995) provide an interesting set of issues that will also have potential to affect writing (see http://www.npc.ord.uk/page/1003802081). You can use these to make comparisons between different institutions in terms of facilities provided to support your research and your writing.
Looking to the bigger picture, the NPC site also includes essays on ‘Devel- opments in higher education’. For example, Martin Gough’s paper on ‘The future wellbeing of postgraduate communities’ has some interesting thoughts on three models of higher education (drawing on Southwell and Howe):
1 ivory tower, which is knowledge-based, aiming for intellectual development;
2 market driven, which is vocational, skills-based, aiming for employability;
3 mature HEI [higher education institution], which is about flexibility, pleasure, is learner-centred and aims for ‘true understanding’.
These are interesting theoretical standpoints; they may have shaped the rationale of the doctoral and masters programmes at a particular institution.
However, it would not be surprising to find a university that claimed to be The supervisor is the most important person in the academic life of a
research student
You should find out:
• What are his/her research interests?
• What has he/she published recently?
• What is his/her experience of supervising research students? If this is their first time acting as supervisor, what are the back-up provisions?
• How much time will your supervisor have for you? . . .
• Will you be able to get on with this supervisor? . . .
• What kind of role does the supervisor expect to take and does that fit with your pattern of working?
DEMYSTIFICATION: CODES AND GUIDES 51
aiming for all three. Again, there is the question of how this will affect the thesis writer: is the university looking for all three dimensions in your forthcoming education – and in your thesis? – or will one of these dimensions do?
The UK Council for Graduate Education also sets out to promote graduate education in all disciplines, but while the NPC comes from the student’s per- spective, this body is a collection of academics, supervisors and various work- ing groups (http://www.ukcge/). Like the NPC, they produce interesting and useful publications, for example, Graduate Schools (UKCGE 1995) and The Award of the Degree of PhD on the Basis of Published Work in the UK (UKCGE 1996).
The thesis-by-publication mode interests many postgraduates – particularly if it means not writing a thesis – although you should note that a survey revealed that in countries where this route to the doctorate is well established, published papers are frequently not the sole requirement; there is often a requirement for a critical report on the work (5000–10,000 words). Here it refers to gathering papers that have already been published. Some of the administrative procedures are outlined. They also found that this option is mainly taken up by academic staff, registered at the institution where they work. There can be problems with this mode: the publications may not be detailed enough for an assessment to be made; there may be little or no raw data. The future of this mode, the authors conclude, lies in some kind of fusion, involving some published work and a kind of mini-thesis to pull the publications together so that they form, to some extent, a body of work.
The British Standards Institution has produced a standard format for the thesis, which some universities endorse: Recommendations for the Presentation of Theses, British Standard 4821 (BSI 1990). Although it is registered on the web- site as ‘withdrawn’, it is still circulating in some universities. Some students still ask for it, but as a guide to written presentation perhaps it should now be regarded as out of date.
For international students there is also a Code of Recommended Practice on The Management of Higher Degrees Undertaken by Overseas Students (CVCP/CVP 1992). Though not brand new, and perhaps not in wide circulation currently, it is worth noting – by students and supervisors – for at least one of its recom- mendations about cultural differences in perception of supervision: ‘It should be borne in mind that some overseas students may need more supervision time than others, at least in the early stages of their course’ (p. 4). Whether or not this is an accurate statement about ‘some’ of this group – and whether or not such ‘time’ is provided – will be the subject of some debate. I can imagine that many supervisors would reply that this statement could apply to any student, wherever they come from: some will need more supervision than others. However, the fact remains that many, if not all, international students will need time to adjust. This is not just a matter of tuning their written and spoken English. American students, for example, can find the UK system very foreign, just as UK graduate students can find the US system alien, at least initially.
Other groups, such as professional bodies or associations, Royal Societies, Research Councils and others, produce their own codes and guides. Some are more specific than others, but if you are studying psychology, for example, you would be well advised to read the British Psychological Society’s Guidelines for Assessment of the PhD in Psychology and Related Disciplines (BPS 2000). Even if you are in a ‘related discipline’ you will find these guidelines helpful, as they do define many aspects of the doctoral experience. They cover the PhD by publications.
The code may represent a tacit or real contract between you and the institution, but to what extent can it be legally binding on you or your super- visor? A code of practice is a starting point for discussions at the start of the doctorate. In that sense, it offers students and supervisors an agenda for their discussions.