Code of Practice for Research Degree Candidature and Supervision 2024-25

4.1 For the award of Doctor of Philosophy, research students must have demonstrated²: 

• the creation and interpretation of new knowledge through original research or other advanced scholarship of a quality to satisfy peer review, extend the forefront of the discipline and merit publication;
• a systematic acquisition and understanding of a substantial body of knowledge, which is at the forefront of an academic discipline or an area of professional practice;
• the general ability to conceptualize, design and implement a project for the generation of new knowledge, applications or understanding at the forefront of the discipline, and to adjust the project design in the light of unforeseen problems;
• a detailed understanding of applicable techniques for research and advanced academic enquiry.

• the qualities and transferable skills necessary for employment requiring the exercise of personal responsibility and largely autonomous initiative in complex and unpredictable situations, in professional or equivalent environments.

6.1 Only suitably qualified and prepared applicants will be admitted to degree programmes leading to the award of a University of Southampton research degree. Applicants must demonstrate that they have the motivation and potential to undertake and complete a sustained piece of research and to produce a thesis for examination. Applicants will normally be expected to possess one or more of the following: 

• an undergraduate degree, normally with at least upper second (2i) honours classification (or equivalent) in a relevant subject;
• a master's-level qualification (or equivalent) in a relevant subject;
• evidence of prior professional practice or learning that meets the University's criteria and good practice guidelines for accreditation of prior experiential and/or certificated learning. Guidance is available in the University’s Recognition of Prior Learning Policy.  

6.2 Advice and guidance on qualifications and equivalencies can be obtained from the Global Recruitment and Admissions Team (email admissionspolicy@soton.ac.uk) and the Admissions Policy sets out some general principles for selectors.  

6.3 Applicants may, depending on their intended area of research, be required to meet other conditions (e.g. a Disclosure and Barring Service (enhanced) check, or an occupational health assessment). 

6.5 Two references setting out the applicant’s suitability and academic potential to undertake research at doctoral level must be received from individuals independent of the selectors for all applicants. Referees should not normally be the applicant’s potential supervisor.

6.6 Selection procedures should be clear and consistently applied and always demonstrate equality of opportunity.  Procedures should take into account any additional requirements imposed by funders, subject to these not conflicting with the University’s expectations. Reference should be made to the Equality and Diversity Statement, to paragraphs 1 and 2 of the University’s Regulations for Admission to Degree Programmes, and to the Admissions Policy in considering the impact of equality and diversity.  The Faculty Graduate School Subcommittee is responsible for ensuring the effective monitoring of the admissions process to demonstrate compliance with legal requirements and, in particular, with regard to equality of opportunity. 

6.7 Faculties should provide clear, accessible, jargon-free information for applicants and for staff involved in the admissions process, recognising diversity and different needs.   

6.8 All staff involved in the selection and admission of applicants must be familiar with: 

• the Regulations for Admission to Degree Programmes;
• the Admissions Policies;
• the Academic Regulations applicable to the degree;
• section 6 (Selection and Admission of Research Students) of this Code;
• the admissions and recruitment guidance in the CHEP Resources for Doctoral Supervisors webpages.  

6.9 The Faculty Director of the Graduate School is responsible for ensuring that such staff have received sufficient instruction, guidance and advice in selection and interviewing processes and techniques to enable them to effectively conduct their duties and to maintain the quality and standards of the admissions process.  Selectors can also obtain specialist advice and guidance from the Global Recruitment and Admissions Team (email admissionspolicy@soton.ac.uk).  

6.10 The selection of applicants should involve at least two members of suitably trained academic staff and each application must be assessed against the required criteria for admission. 

6.11 Interviews by at least two suitably trained members of academic staff must be used as part of the selection process to assess applicants’ suitability, and reasonable adjustments should be made, where feasible, to ensure similarity of opportunity for applicants who are unable to attend for interview in person (e.g. by the use of videoconference). Staff responsible for interviewing applicants must have received sufficient training in inclusion, diversity and equality and in interviewing techniques, and should be familiar with the support available for applicants with a disability and/or additional support need. Faculties should also ensure that due attention is given to ensuring that there is diversity in the membership of interview panels. 

6.12 Partnership agreements for research projects that involve commercial partners or other third-party collaborations may include clauses that set out potential restrictions and embargoes on the publication or other use of data from the project, during and after it has been completed. This information should be discussed at interview and clearly set out in the formal offer of a place to study to enable applicants to make an informed choice regarding their acceptance of the offer. The same disclosures should be made to applicants when it is expected that a commercial agreement is expected to be in place after the project has commenced.

6.13 Before making a recommendation that a formal offer of a place to study is made, Faculties must make applicants aware of the costs of the planned research and of any available financial support, Applicants should also be made aware of opportunities to apply for special funding, and how to apply for such funding. Information should also be provided to applicants regarding the support that may be available for research students with disabilities, how to access it within the University, and how to fund it.   

6.14 Should applicants feel they have cause for complaint, they should, where possible, first raise their concerns informally with the relevant Faculty staff.  If matters cannot be resolved, applicants should refer to the University's Regulations Governing Complaints from Applicants.

6.16 All applicants with non-standard entry qualifications must be recommended for approval by the Faculty Director of the Graduate School to the Associate Dean (Education) on a case-by-case basis.

• two references relating to recent previous study and which are in accordance with the requirements set out in section 6 of this Code (Selection and Admission of Research Students: References);
• copies of regular progress reports (preferably annual reports) from the previous institution where these exist;
• a clear recommendation from the selectors, following an interview with the research student, explaining why the research student wants to transfer institution, and why it is felt that prospects for successful completion will be better at the University of Southampton. 

6.20 All such applications are subject to confirmation by the Faculty concerned; that satisfactory arrangements for supervision have been approved; and that the Faculty is satisfied as to the arrangements for financial support for the research student and facilities for the project (including the provision of any additional support strategies, specialist equipment or assistive technology required by applicants with a disability or additional need). 

6.21 International applicants holding a Student visa sponsored by another institution should refer to the Visa and Immigration Student Advice Service for guidance. 

6.22 Any applicant accepted for transfer will be required to be in candidature at the University of Southampton for a minimum of 12 months between the date of transfer and the submission of their thesis for examination, irrespective of whether the applicant has previously upgraded from MPhil to PhD or had their doctoral candidature confirmed in a formal progression review at their previous institution. 

6.23 The Faculty Director of the Graduate School is responsible for approving recommendations to accept an applicant for transfer from another higher education institution to the University of Southampton.  Section 6 of this Code (Selection and Admission of Research Students: Selection procedures and Accepting an applicant) also applies to applicants transferring from another institution, unless agreed otherwise by the Dean of the relevant Faculty.

7.3 Research students are required to maintain a record of personal achievement in their acquisition of knowledge and of subject-specific, personal, professional and research skills.  Research students should submit an updated Academic Needs Analysis at each Progression Review.  The Assessment Panel should evaluate the training needs at each viva voce and provide feedback on the updated Academic Needs Analysis.

7.6 Faculties should ensure that procedures are in place to collate, on an annual basis, the needs that have been identified in the Academic Needs Analysis. This should be reflected in their annual monitoring reports. Faculties are responsible for ensuring that suitable training is made available to meet the needs of individual research students, either in-house or externally.

10.6 See also section 7 of the Regulations for Research Degrees (Supervision). 

10.7 At least one member of the supervisory team must have prior experience of supervision which has resulted in a successful doctorate. For members of staff new to supervision, experience should be gained through working closely with an experienced supervisor and attending the specified training and may include a recognised mentorship arrangement.  Supervisors must be active researchers in the appropriate discipline and should normally themselves have a PhD or equivalent substantial research experience, experience of publication, and expertise in the area of the student's research. Members of staff in formal candidature for a higher degree should not be appointed as a main supervisor. 

10.8 The main supervisor has responsibility for the supervision of the design and progress of the student’s research project and for providing academic advice to the research student. The main supervisor should be available to provide guidance and direction on a regular basis. Section 7 of the Regulations for Research Degrees (Supervision) sets out the criteria for the appointment of the main supervisor. 

10.9 The co-ordinating supervisor has responsibility for ensuring that the administrative processes for the research student (e.g. Progression Reviews, arrangements for examination) are completed in a timely manner throughout a research student's candidature. The role of the co-ordinating supervisor is typically undertaken by the main supervisor. Section 7 of the Regulations for Research Degrees (Supervision) sets out the criteria for the appointment of the co-ordinating supervisor. 

10.10 All supervisors (irrespective of their role or appointment, including external supervisors) must undertake training  as determined by the Doctoral College Committee and the Faculty Director of the Graduate School. This must include training to ensure awareness of diversity issues which may impact on the supervision process, e.g. research students wishing to participate in their religious festivals). New supervisors must be members of a team that includes at least one member that has had experience of supervising research students at the University of Southampton. 

10.11 The contact details and responsibilities of all members of the supervisory team should be readily available to research students throughout their programme (see section 10 of this Code (Supervision: Responsibilities of the supervisory team)).

10.14 The supervisory team is collectively responsible for ensuring that the Doctoral College (Faculty) Team is immediately notified if one of the supervisors is likely to be unavailable to supervise for a substantial period (normally one month or more). The supervisory team, in consultation with the research student, should then collectively assist the Faculty Director of the Graduate School to designate a temporary or permanent replacement, and in making handover arrangements.

12.3 The research environment plays a key role in ensuring that research students have the best possible opportunities to develop and bring their research projects to fruition.  Section 2 of this Code (Introduction to the Research Environment) sets out in full the factors involved in creating a robust environment, and the Faculty should pay careful attention to these; these factors set the context for all areas covered by this Code.  The Faculty should strive to create an infrastructure that is capable of supporting the range of research students recruited.  This may be located for some periods of the degree in or among other educational institutions, or in a work setting (for example, in industry).

12.4 Facilities and equipment to support students' research should be made available and explained in a clear statement to research students. These facilities should meet in full the expectations of the relevant Research Council(s), and will include as a minimum: 

• access to appropriate space to work, as indicated by the research student’s Academic Needs Analysis and by Faculty policy;
• the provision of laboratory and technical support where appropriate;
• access to computing facilities in accordance with iSolutions’ policy. Faculties should have a mechanism by which research students may submit a request for a computer with a more powerful specification;
• access to appropriate electronic resources of the University.  Faculties should have a mechanism by which research students may submit a request for access to specialist electronic resources;
• appropriate access to email, telephone, and photocopying facilities;
• opportunities to meet and network with other research students and researchers;
• appropriate library and other academic support services;
• the opportunity to apply for funds to support training and for attendance at conferences and other relevant events. 

12.5 Advice should be sought from Student Disability & Wellbeing with regard to accessing any specialist equipment or assistive technology for research students who may need such support. 

12.6 Part-time research students are normally allocated space to work on a shared basis only.

18.1 Faculties will have in place, and bring to the attention of research students and relevant staff, clearly defined mechanisms for monitoring and supporting students’ progress. 

18.2 Faculties should have clear mechanisms for feeding back information on progress to research students, and on actions that are taken in response to any issues encountered. 

18.3 It is good practice to keep records of meetings between research students and supervisors.  Faculties will provide guidance on keeping appropriate records of meetings and related activities to research students, the supervisory team and others involved in progression monitoring and review processes.  Normally, the appropriate mechanism to record the outcome of meetings will be Quarterly Activity reports in PGR Manager (or equivalent system).  Quarterly Activity reports should be submitted by research students and reviewed by supervisors. 

18.4 Supervisory teams and research students should establish a mutually agreed series of meetings, both formal and informal, to discuss progress and any problems arising. 

18.5 When reviewing progress, the supervisory team should routinely assess whether the support needs of their research students are being effectively met.  

18.6 It is the responsibility of the main/co-ordinating supervisor to inform the research student of unsatisfactory progress as soon as this becomes apparent. Significant academic concerns about a student’s progress may result in the scheduling of an Exceptional Progression Review.

18.7 The Regulations Governing Academic Responsibility and Conduct apply to all Progression Reviews and the Assessment Panel is responsible for referring any suspected breach to the relevant School’s Academic Conduct Officer for their investigation.

18.8 Progression reviews must be sufficiently rigorous to provide an adequate test of the research student’s knowledge and understanding of the subject material, of progress to date, and of plans for the remainder of their candidature. Faculties will bring to the attention of research students, and relevant staff, clearly defined formats for the written report submission which will inform each Progression Review, and the criteria to be used for defining outcomes from Progression Reviews (according to the requirements specified in the paragraphs below). Any additional assessment criteria specific to the student’s programme of study will be published in the Academic Regulations.

18.9 Students should highlight any particular problems they have encountered (e.g. access to resources, facilities or other additional disability-related or language support requirements) together with details of the action taken. The student’s written report should also indicate whether any additional support requirements or facilities already being provided are continuing to meet their needs, or if any different or additional adjustments are required. 

18.10 Each Progression Review must include a review of the student’s Academic Needs Analysis and the Data Management Plan. 

18.11 Each Progression Review must include a viva voce, which should take place in a supportive way. In conducting the assessment, arrangements will be made, where necessary, to accommodate any additional needs of the research student. Following each Progression Review, the research student will be given constructive written feedback by the Assessment Panel and, if necessary, guidance on actions to be taken to support progress in their candidature.  

18.12 The Assessment Panel for each Progression Review will be constituted according to the requirements specified in the paragraphs below.  A second attempt at a Progression Review must include the addition of an Independent Chair (see section 22 of this Code (Examination: The independent chair). Requests for an independent notetaker to attend the Progression Review and to record a summary of the discussion may be made to the Faculty Director of the Graduate School. 

18.13 The Faculty Director of the Graduate School is responsible for reviewing the Panel’s recommendation and for confirming the outcome.  In circumstances where they deem this appropriate, the Faculty Director of the Graduate School may choose to delegate this to a nominee; any such nominee must be a member of the Faculty Graduate School directorate.  Where this is done, the Faculty Director of the Graduate School is responsible for ensuring that appropriate training and support is in place for the nominee and that there is a clear and transparent process within the Faculty to ensure that decisions are applied consistently across all programmes within the Faculty. 

18.14 Should there be any concerns regarding the Assessment Panel’s recommendation, the Faculty Director of the Graduate School (or their nominee) should take steps to engage the Assessment Panel in discussions with a view to satisfactorily resolving the matter. Where amendments are considered necessary, a record of all discussions should be retained and the assessment documentation revised and resubmitted prior to the approval decision being made.    

18.15 Decisions will be made in accordance with the timings as set out in the tables in section 18 of this Code (Progression Monitoring and Reviews: Progression reviews – timings).  Two attempts at each Progression Review are permitted: 

• A research student who fails to meet the criteria required for a successful Progression Review at their second attempt and where the Assessment Panel does not (or, as in the case of MPhil candidates, may not) recommend transfer to MPhil candidature will be withdrawn from the degree and their candidature will be terminated in accordance with the Procedures for circumstances that may lead to termination of postgraduate research degree candidature.
• A research student who does not submit material by the specified deadline for their first attempt at a Progression Review, and where no request has been submitted and approved under the Regulations Governing Special Considerations and Pause in Study for Postgraduate Research Students, will be deemed to have failed that attempt.
• A research student who does not submit material by the specified deadline for their second attempt at a Progression Review, and where no request has been submitted and approved under the Regulations Governing Special Considerations and Pause in Study for Postgraduate Research Students, will be deemed to have failed their second attempt and candidature will be terminated in accordance with the Procedures for circumstances that may lead to termination of postgraduate research degree candidature.  

18.16 Termination of candidature has additional significance in the case of research students with Student visas and they should contact the Visa and Immigration Student Advice Service for guidance.

18.17 Research students who enrolled on their studies after 1 August 2016 are required to undertake Progression Reviews as outlined in the Summary of timings of progression reviews for research students who enrolled on their studies on or after 1 August 2016 tables below. The Second Progression Review is known as confirmation of doctoral candidature and must be successfully completed before a research student may submit a thesis for examination.

18.18 Should a student’s candidature extend more than twelve months after their Third Progression Review (excepting when that student has already transferred to a period of nominal registration not exceeding six months), the supervisory team should ensure that the student is provided with additional review(s) so as to ensure that there is ongoing supervision and assessment of their progress in the latter stages of their candidature. Such additional reviews should follow the format and process of the Interim Progression Review. 

18.19 Research students will be required to submit the material for a Progression Review normally not later than four working weeks in advance of the decision deadline.  These timings are defined to enable the Assessment Panel to consider the submitted material, hold the Review, and make a recommendation within the specified timeframe. Timings refer to the full month, i.e. the decision from the first attempt at the First Progression Review should be made before the end of month 10. 

18.26 The Second Progression Review consists of the confirmation process and all research students will follow the policy and procedure outlined in the following paragraphs.  The process for students who enrolled on their doctoral studies before 1 August 2016 is known as Upgrade/Transfer from MPhil to PhD and will follow the timings as specified in the Summary of timings of confirmation of doctoral candidature/upgrade from MPhil to PhD table above.  However, it should be noted that all upgrade/transfer and confirmation panels must consist of at least two Independent Assessors regardless of year of admission (see The confirmation panel)).  The exception to this is for those research students who are in candidature for an MPhil degree.  Such candidates will be required to undertake the Second Progression Review in accordance with the timings set down for doctoral candidates but the criteria for confirmation will not apply. 

18.27 All research students who are registered at doctoral level must successfully meet the requirements of a confirmation panel. The precise format of the assessment will vary according to the discipline and should involve the practice and criteria set out in this Code (Criteria for confirmation of doctoral candidature). 

18.28 A member of the supervisory team will normally be invited to attend the viva voce as an observer, however, the research student can ask to meet the confirmation panel without a supervisor being present. Such requests should be submitted by the student to the Doctoral College (Faculty) Team for approval by the Faculty Director of the Graduate School.

21.4 The maximum length of a thesis is normally 75,000 words for a PhD or 50,000 words for an MPhil, excluding references and bibliography, or equivalent in the case of alternative formats of thesis (also see section 21 of this Code (Production and Submission of the Thesis: Alternative formats of thesis submission)). Where appropriate, the Faculty Director of the Graduate School, in their capacity as Chair of Faculty Graduate School Subcommittee, may determine a higher word limit for a specific discipline.  All such decisions must be reported to the Faculty Education and Student Experience Subcommittee. A thesis submitted for an MPhil after a PhD examination is not subject to a maximum length of 50,000 words. The maximum length of the thesis does not include supporting material or evidence which may be bound in as appendices.  Appendices should be clearly marked as such and listed on the contents page.  If appendices are submitted in separate volumes, they must be prepared and bound in the same style as the thesis.  All supporting material or evidence will be available to the examiners and will form part of the record. 

21.5 In deciding whether to include an appendix, the research student should consider the requirements of the research funder as well as the University’s policy on Research Data Management. 

21.6 It is important to remember that the stated maximum word limit is not a target figure; an important aspect of scholarship that must be demonstrated in a thesis is the ability to convey information concisely.  Research students who exceed the stipulated length for the thesis may be required by the examiners to re-submit their thesis in a format which does not exceed the maximum length. 

21.7 Prior to notifying their intention to submit, a research student may present a statement to their supervisory team indicating that the thesis cannot be contained within the stipulated length for reasons relating to the subject material. Should the supervisory team consider a longer thesis is appropriate, its recommendation must be submitted to the Faculty Director of the Graduate School for a decision in advance of the student submitting their thesis for examination.

21.9 An alternative format of thesis submission is permitted in the following disciplines and details will be advised by the Faculty: 

• Art and Design
• Dance
• Drama
• English
• Film
• Music
• Performing Arts  

21.10 The submission must consist of two parts: a body of work as appropriate to the discipline (for example substantial original practical work) completed in conjunction with a critical written component with a maximum length of 40,000 words and an indicative minimum of 20,000 words (30,000 and 15,000 words respectively for MPhil). The nature and extent of each component must be proposed by the research student in consultation with the supervisor, for consideration and approval by the Faculty Graduate School Subcommittee by the time of the first Progression Review. The relationship of the components must be such as to form a holistic original research project, demonstrating the criteria as described in section 4 of this Code (The Difference between Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) and Master of Philosophy (MPhil). 

21.11 The submission must consist of two parts: a body of work as appropriate to the discipline (for example substantial original practical work) completed in conjunction with a critical written component with a maximum length of 40,000 words and an indicative minimum of 20,000 words (30,000 and 15,000 words respectively for MPhil). The nature and extent of each component must be proposed by the research student in consultation with the supervisor, for consideration and approval by the Faculty Graduate School Subcommittee by the time of the first Progression Review. The relationship of the components must be such as to form a holistic original research project, demonstrating the criteria as described in section 4 of this Code (The Difference between Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) and Master of Philosophy (MPhil).

22.5 The examiners are responsible for conducting the assessment of the student’s submission in accordance with the Regulations for Research Degrees and with this Code.  The examiners’ responsibilities do not end with the submission of their joint report and recommendation. Responsibilities also include the subsequent assessment and certification of further work required of the student and/or attendance at any additional viva voce and, unless otherwise permitted, the same examiners should be retained throughout the examination process.   

22.6 The research student will normally be examined by one external examiner and one internal examiner. In exceptional circumstances, one additional external examiner may be appointed. Two external examiners and one internal examiner must be appointed for research students who are members of staff of the University of Southampton. For this purpose, a member of staff is defined as stated in the Regulations for Members of Staff in Candidature for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 

22.7 One examiner, either the internal or the external, may be drawn from the confirmation panel (e.g. an internal member of staff who acted in the role of Independent Assessor or an external Assessor if used) provided that they have had no further material contact with the research project since the confirmation, and that the other examiner is entirely new to the project. 

22.8 Examiners, both internal and external, should have sufficient experience and appropriate subject expertise to be able to examine effectively. They should also be sensitive to, and take into account in the examining process, reasonable adjustments, equality and diversity. Collectively, the examiners should have acted as examiner for at least three doctoral examinations, and be familiar with examination practice and standards in the UK. As an example, if the external examiner possesses subject expertise but limited UK examining experience, this may be compensated for by a suitably UK-experienced internal examiner. 

22.9 Additional and specific criteria for the appointment of the internal and external examiners is set out in the following paragraphs of this Code.

22.12 External examiners should be independent of the University of Southampton and have the ability to offer impartial scrutiny of the thesis submitted for examination.  The criteria for appointing external examiners for research degrees should be followed. 

22.13 External examiners should normally hold an academic post in another higher education institution. Nominations for external examiners who do not hold such positions should be accompanied by a statement outlining their suitability and ability to examine, and there should be sufficient evidence of their research experience and expertise in the subject. 

22.14 Former employees and graduates of the University are not eligible to be external examiners until an interval of at least three years has elapsed. 

22.15 External examiners should have had no formal academic contact with the research student during the period of research candidature and, although reciprocity may be more difficult to avoid than for taught programmes, examiners should not be appointed from within a Faculty where University of Southampton members of staff have recently examined for the same subject if at all possible. Similarly, external examiners would not normally be expected to be reappointed if they have examined a research student at the University of Southampton within the last two years. In exceptional circumstances, the Faculty Director of the Graduate School, in consultation with the Director of the Doctoral College, may appoint an external examiner who has examined a doctoral degree at the University of Southampton within the last two years.  Members of University of Southampton staff are ineligible to act as external examiners for University of Southampton awards.

22.16 An Independent Chair must be appointed by the Faculty Director of the Graduate School (in their capacity as Chair of Faculty Graduate School Subcommittee) in the following circumstances: 

• where the student is undertaking a second attempt at a Progression Review;
• in response to any request from the Faculty Graduate School Subcommittee, an examiner, a member of the supervisory team or the research student;
• where the examination team is inexperienced at examining under the UK system (when one examiner has never conducted a viva voce before);
• where the internal examiner holds a substantive post within University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust or associated NHS organisation, or is a member of staff employed at the National Oceanography Centre, or has a similar joint employment status between the University of Southampton and its partners;
• where there have been substantial difficulties with research student progress;
• where the research student is undertaking an additional viva voce either with or without a resubmission of the thesis. 

22.23 The document Guidance for Examiners of Postgraduate Research Awards provides additional information for staff and examiners in preparing for a viva voce. 

• The viva voce will be chaired by the internal examiner or by an Independent Chair appointed by the Faculty Director of the Graduate School for this purpose. The criteria for appointment, the role, responsibilities and reporting arrangements are detailed in section 22 of this Code (Examination: The independent chair). 

22.24 Videoconference (or other suitable technologically-based communication) arrangements can be made for the conduct of the viva voce, provided all parties agree to these arrangements and all necessary safeguards are in place to facilitate the smooth running of the examination. The Faculty should seek specialist advice from iSolutions as to the best method of facilitating a viva voce via videoconference and should consult the guidance document Conducting a viva voce as a videoconference, available on the Quality Handbook. 

22.25 In preparing for and conducting the viva voce, reasonable adjustments will be made, where necessary, to accommodate any additional needs of the research student. In particular, examiners should be informed of any measures or adjustments needed in conducting the examination. For example, it is important that the room in which the viva voce is to be held is appropriately arranged to ensure physical accessibility and clear communication.

22.26 Each examiner will prepare an independent written report on the thesis which should be submitted to the Doctoral College (Faculty) Team not less than five working days before the date of the viva voce.  The Team will share the reports with all members of the examining team prior to the viva voce to aid the examiners’ preliminary discussion. 

22.27 Following the viva voce, the Examiners' Joint Report and Recommendation Form which sets out the criteria for assessing the research student as defined in section 4 of this Code (The Difference between Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) and Master of Philosophy (MPhil)) should be completed and signed by all members of the examining team.  The examiners' recommendation must take one of the forms as specified in section 15 of the Regulations for Research Degrees (Outcomes of the Examination).  The Joint Report and Recommendation Form (and a copy of any additional instructions that have been provided direct to the student (e.g. annotated copies of the thesis; lists of required corrections)) should be submitted by the chair to the Doctoral College (Faculty) Team within one working week of the date of the viva voce. 

22.28 In the exceptional situation that the appointed examiners are unable to reach agreement, each examiner shall submit an additional independent report of the viva voce and recommendation to the Faculty Director of the Graduate School who will recommend to the Faculty Education and Student Experience Subcommittee the appointment of an additional external examiner to assess the thesis and the original examiners' reports.  The Doctoral College (Faculty) Team will provide the additional external examiner with a copy of the thesis and the independent reports of the original examiners.  The additional external examiner will be permitted to interview the student in the presence of an Independent Chair before submitting a final report and recommendation to the Faculty Director of the Graduate School.

22.29 The examiners’ independent reports and their joint recommendation should be scrutinised and approved by the Faculty Director of the Graduate School, in their capacity as Chair of the Faculty Graduate School Subcommittee.  The Faculty Director of the Graduate School may, if they consider it appropriate, authorise a single, named, deputy to undertake this task. In such instances, the deputy must be an academic member of University of Southampton staff and a member of the Faculty Graduate School directorate. 

22.30 Should the Faculty Director of the Graduate School have concerns about the content of the examiners’ joint report and/or their recommendation, they (or their nominee) should take steps to engage the examiners in discussion with a view to satisfactorily resolving the matter.  Where amendments are considered necessary, a record of all discussions should be retained and the examination documentation revised and resubmitted prior to the approval decision being made.  

22.31 In the exceptional situation of examiners failing to agree (as described in paragraph 22.28 of this Code), the Faculty Director of the Graduate School (or their nominee) shall consider the independent reports of the original examiners and the final report and recommendation of the additional external examiner, before making a recommendation to the Faculty Education and Student Experience Subcommittee.

22.32 Following approval of the examiners’ recommendations, the approved outcome should be communicated to the research student by the Doctoral College (Faculty) Team within one month of the date of the viva voce.  A copy of the completed examiners’ Joint Report and Recommendation Form and, if amendments are required, written guidance on revisions to the thesis should be provided. The timing for amendments begins at the point the research student receives the written report from the Doctoral College (Faculty) Team. 

22.33 A research student required to make minor or modest amendments, or to submit a revised thesis for re-examination, should be given a clear and prompt statement by the examiners of what is required.  When minor amendments have been submitted, the research student should normally be informed whether the amendments have been certified within three weeks of their submission. In the case of modest amendments, the research student should normally be informed whether the amendments have been certified within six weeks of their submission, or sooner if possible. It is the responsibility of the co-ordinating supervisor to ensure that the amendments are approved by the examiner(s) promptly so that the research student's degree can be awarded as soon as possible. 

22.34 Should a member of the original examining team be unable or unwilling (e.g. failure to respond within expected timescales) to complete the assessment of further work required of a student following the examination outcome (e.g. minor or modest amendments and/or attendance at any additional viva voce), the Faculty Director of the Graduate School should submit a proposal to the Postgraduate Research Quality Monitoring and Enhancement (PGR QME) Subcommittee for a new examiner to be appointed.  

22.35 As specified in section 15 of the Regulations for Research Degrees (Outcomes of the Examination), a research student who fails to submit an amended or revised thesis by the date set by the examiners shall normally be regarded as having failed the examination, the recommendations of the examiners shall lapse and the candidate shall be deemed to have withdrawn from the degree. In exceptional circumstances a revised date for submitting corrections may be approved in accordance with the Regulations Governing Special Considerations and Pause in Study for Postgraduate Research Students. 

22.36 The award will be made by Senate on the recommendation of the Faculty Education and Student Experience Subcommittee.