Chapter 7: Thesis and examination matters

7.13 Advisory panels for doctoral examinations (regulation 27)

Note: Procedures relating to Examination Board for MPhil candidates are outlined in section 7.15.

While the following guidelines were originally devised for the examination of PhD theses, they are also relevant to the review of professional doctorate theses.

7.13.1 The role of an advisory panel

Regulation 23.1 states:

Occasionally it will not be clear to administrative staff of the Monash Research Graduate School whether an advisory panel is required. For example, there may be some variance between the recommendation made by an examiner on the report form and their more detailed written comments. In these cases, advice will be sought from the relevant faculty representative or the Monash Research Graduate School Steering Committee as to whether an advisory panel should be formally convened.

When examiners’ reports requiring the attention of an advisory panel are received, copies are sent to the convenor (ie the faculty representative on the Research Graduate School Committee), head of the academic unit and supervisor. The convenor is asked to arrange the appointment of a fourth member, who is normally from outside the academic unit and not necessarily from the same faculty, and to convene the panel. An appropriate gender balance should be maintained within advisory panels. Copies of the examiners’ reports are sent to each panel member, who may also ask to see a copy of the thesis itself. Copies of the reports are also forwarded to the candidate.

In special circumstances, it may seem appropriate for a panel to contact one or both examiners. If so, it may first seek comment from the candidate for transmission to the examiner by way of clarification. However, panels are reminded that all contact with examiners and the candidate must be through the examinations staff of the Monash Research Graduate School.

Monash University does not reveal the names of examiners to each other at any stage during the examination process; therefore, a panel cannot recommend that examiners be asked to consult each other about a thesis under examination.

The Research Graduate School Committee may accept, vary or reject the report of an advisory panel. In the latter case, the report is normally referred to the advisory panel for further consideration.

7.13.1.1 Initial recommendations of an advisory panel

An advisory panel may normally recommend, depending on the examiners’ recommendations:

• amendments, either to examiner(s) or head’s satisfaction (ie in these cases where the examiner's recommendation has not been clear)
• fail
• revision and resubmission
• appointment of an adjudicator. Advisory panels are reminded that this should be the normal recommendation where there is a substantial disagreement between examiners.

This would normally apply to recommendations other than:

• pass
• pass with corrections, or
• response to questions raised by the examiner on the examination report form
• provision of additional information/clarification by examiners
• other, eg oral examination, response by candidate to questions posed by examiner(s).

Note: An advisory panel does not have the authority to overturn an examiner’s revision and resubmission assessment. Only the adjudicator may recommend this (see the section 'Subsequent recommendations', 7.13.1.5).

Where an advisory panel is asked to advise Research Graduate School Committee on an apparent inconsistency in an examiner’s report (ie where a ticked box indicates a pass but the detailed report suggests more substantial revisions), an advisory panel may recommend a pass result, subject to justification for this recommendation being submitted to Research Graduate School Committee.

7.13.1.2 Fail

A fail recommendation will normally arise only where both initial examiners have recommended fail or where one examiner recommends fail and the other recommends revision and resubmission and the adjudicator subsequently submits a fail report.

There should be no presumption that a fail result is to be avoided at all costs: the thesis must in the opinion of the examiners make a significant contribution to the knowledge and understanding of the relevant field. If the examiners do not think a thesis meets these requirements, it fails.

7.13.1.3 Revision and resubmission

Where a recommendation of revision and resubmission is made by the advisory panel, it is required to specify the date by which the revised thesis is to be submitted, as well as mode of re-enrolment (full-time or part-time) and supervisory arrangements.

When a candidate is advised to revise and resubmit his/her thesis, a copy of the original thesis is retained by MRGS and four revised copies must be resubmitted. The candidate is also required to re-enrol. The Research Graduate School Committee has resolved that theses for revision which are not submitted by the specified date will, in the absence of evidence of extenuating circumstances, be deemed to have failed.

The panel may also recommend examiners for a revised and resubmitted thesis. If it does so it should bear in mind regulation 21, which provides for examiners to be appointed by the Research Graduate School Committee on the recommendation of the head of the academic unit. It should also note the Research Graduate School Committee’s policy on the examination of revised and resubmitted theses:

(a) Where a candidate has been required to revise and resubmit a thesis which has had one dissenting report only, the advisory panel may recommend the appointment of only one examiner, not being the original assenting examiner.

(b) Where a  candidate has been required to revise and resubmit a thesis which has had one dissenting examiner’s report and an adjudicator’s report that also endorses revision and resubmission, the advisory panel may again recommend the appointment of only one examiner (not being the original assenting examiner).

 (c) Where a PhD candidate has been required to revise and resubmit a thesis which has had two dissenting examiners’ reports, the resubmitted thesis shall normally be examined by two examiners who shall be appointed in the usual way on the recommendation of the head of the relevant academic unit

 (d) The examiner(s) recommended for appointment in accordance with (a - c) preceding shall normally include the dissenting examiner(s) or, if appropriate, the adjudicator. Examiners will be given the full range of recommendation options, regardless of whether they are an original or a new examiner. The original assenting examiner will be notified that the candidate has been advised to revise and resubmit the thesis and will be informed of the general nature of the adjudicator’s recommendation, following endorsement of that recommendation by the advisory panel and the Monash Research Graduate School Steering Committee.

Where an advisory panel recommends fail or pass and the Research Graduate School Committee accepts the recommendation, the panel’s task is completed. However, in the case of a verdict of revision and resubmission or other, the advisory panel will normally reconvene to consider the recommendations of the examiner(s) of the revised thesis.

7.13.1.4 Appointment of adjudicator

A panel may resolve to recommend the appointment of an adjudicator.

As many examiners are appointed from overseas or interstate in Australia, the distances involved mean the conduct of oral examinations is generally impracticable. Consequently, it is considered appropriate that where a thesis is to be submitted for adjudication, the candidate is invited to submit a written defence of the thesis in response to the criticisms and comments of the dissenting examiner. The candidate’s defence will then be sent to the adjudicator together with the thesis and the examiners’ reports.

Both the candidate and the examiners are informed that an adjudicator has been appointed and the candidate is informed of the adjudicator’s name under the same conditions of confidentiality as apply to the appointment of examiners. The identity of the original examiners and the adjudicator are not revealed to each other, however.

The Research Graduate School Committee considers an appropriate order in which an adjudicator might proceed with the task is first to read the thesis, then assess the examination reports and finally consider the candidate’s thesis defence.

In summary, the Research Graduate School Committee has defined the adjudicator’s role as follows:

An adjudicator is not an additional examiner but a judge requested to pronounce on the relative soundness, correctness and appropriateness of the initial two examiners’ recommendations. To this end, the adjudicator should offer an opinion on whether the examiners were competent and fair. For example, the adjudicator should assess whether:

• the examiners have fully grasped the substance of the candidate’s thesis
• they have erred in their judgement of the thesis
• the examiners have reviewed the thesis at a level appropriate to that of a doctoral candidate.

An adjudicator is asked to provide reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with examiners. It should be reiterated that in making an assessment on the appropriateness of the two examiners’ reports, the adjudicator is not being asked to set additional requirements for the candidate. In the case where an adjudicator recommends revision and resubmission, he / she is asked to specify to which examiner(s) the thesis should be sent after revision, and whether the adjudicator would be willing to act as an examiner for the revised thesis, should the circumstance arise.

Where an advisory panel recommends the appointment of an adjudicator and the Research Graduate School Committee accepts the recommendation, the adjudicator’s report is referred to the panel for a subsequent recommendation.

7.13.1.5 Subsequent recommendations of an advisory panel

Following the submission and favourable assessment of a revised thesis, or following the receipt of a favourable assessment from an adjudicator, two further options become available to the advisory panel:

• pass
• pass with amendments.

7.13.1.6 Provision of additional information/clarification by an examiner

There are a number of circumstances where this may be the preferred action of the advisory panel. For example:

• the exact nature of the revisions/amendments that the examiner requires may be unclear
• the detailed written comments of an examiner may appear to be at odds with the favourable ‘ticked box’ assessment, in which case the advisory panel will be required to differentiate between revision and resubmission on the one hand and amendments on the other.

7.13.1.7 Other

There are other possible recommendations. For example, one examiner may recommend revision and resubmission, the other an oral examination. In some instances, the panel may believe an oral examination would satisfy the concern of both examiners and recommend accordingly.

An examiner also has the option of requesting that the examinee answer questions raised by the examiner to the his/her satisfaction.

The advisory panel may endorse such a request and, following certification by the supervisor that the responses are appropriate for transmission to the examiner(s), the candidate’s comments are forwarded to the dissenting examiner by the Monash Research Graduate School.