Code of Practice for Postgraduate Training and Research for Research Degrees

1. Introduction

1.1 The Mission Statement of Birkbeck, University of London (hereafter referred to as ‘the University’ or ‘Birkbeck’) states that the principal aims of the University are to:

• 1.1.1 provide higher education courses which meet the changing educational, cultural, personal and career needs of adults; in particular, those who live or work in the London region
• 1.1.2 enable adult students from diverse social and educational backgrounds to participate in our courses
• 1.1.3 maintain and develop excellence in research and provide the highest quality research training in all our subject areas
• 1.1.4 make available the results of research and the expertise acquired, through teaching, publication, partnerships with other organisations and the promotion of civic and public debate.

1.2 The key supporting objectives are to:

• 1.2.1 offer our students an integrated range of flexible, research-led courses across all levels of provision
• 1.2.2 achieve and maintain strong research cultures in support of interdisciplinary work in each School and Faculty
• 1.2.3 ensure the University provides an inclusive working and learning environment for its students and staff, so that all may develop to their full potential
• 1.2.4 develop the University’s capacity to respond rapidly to new and changing opportunities in higher and further education
• 1.2.5 develop sustainable partnerships within the London region and beyond.

1.3. The University undertakes to provide the following for all research students, sometimes in conjunction with neighbouring or collaborating university and college institutions:

• 1.3.1 appropriate environments in which to work, which are conducive to interaction with fellow researchers and academic staff
• 1.3.2 appropriate library and laboratory facilities
• 1.3.3 access to appropriate computing facilities and accompanying technical support.

1.4 The purpose of this Code of Practice is to establish clear and explicit mutual expectations between the University and its research students and to minimise the risks and problems of personal difficulties, inadequate supervision or unsatisfactory student performance.

1.5 This Code of Practice is informed by the QAA Quality Code advice and guidance for research degrees, the Office for Students’ Sector Recognised Standards, as well as the expectations of UKRI in relation to induction, training, monitoring, supervision, examination and award of research degrees.

1.6 In addition to this Code of Practice, Schools and/or Faculties may publish as necessary, more specific statements of School/Faculty requirements and arrangements and/or additional guidance for specialist doctorates, including Professional Doctorates.

2. Institutional arrangements

2.1 All research students at the University are registered and enrolled within the School that is the primary focus of their research.

2.2 Birkbeck awards research degrees of the University of London. Birkbeck’s research degree regulations define the conditions that each student must satisfy to qualify for the award of this research degree.

2.3 The University has established a Research Strategy Group (RSG), reporting via the Research Committee, to Academic Board, which is responsible for overseeing the development and implementation of research student policy and regulation. RSG will monitor postgraduate research programmes through annual monitoring processes, including use of submission rate data, student feedback and key performance indicators.

2.4 The University has established the Birkbeck Graduate Research School (BGRS), whose key aim is to enhance the student experience of the University’s research students. The BGRS provides training and other resources open to all research students at the College. The BGRS is led by its academic director (Deputy Vice-Chancellor for Research Innovation and Knowledge Exchange) and managed from Registry Services, reporting regularly to RSG.

2.5 The BGRS is responsible for maintaining a list of PGR Reps and for arranging meetings with them on a termly basis, or more frequently by mutual agreement.

2.6 In the case of funded research students, the University will refer to Terms and Conditions of the funding body and support arrangements for payment of stipends, tuition fees or other costs as appropriate.

2.7 The University operates attendance monitoring processes for students in line with UK Government requirements.

3. Research environment

3.1 Schools should outline to their research students the resources available to them and the opportunities to take part in seminar and other programmes, both to present their own research and participate in the research of academic colleagues and other students.

3.2 Postgraduate research students are expected to participate in and benefit from the postgraduate life of the University. It is the responsibility of the student’s School to create and sustain the sense of intellectual and academic community among its research students. Schools should encourage students to participate in University, School and Faculty workshops, research seminars and reading groups, especially those which provide an opportunity for students to present and discuss their own work. Schools should also encourage students to participate in academic conferences, to extend their understanding of the subject and its context, to present their work to specialists in their area of research, to make contact with researchers from other institutions and countries, and to provide opportunities for relevant collaboration.

3.3 The BGRS facilitates and advises Schools in the provision of generic research training appropriate to their disciplinary research area and in other matters relating to postgraduate training and research. It delivers training for staff and students in a range of generic skills, as well as facilitating the delivery of skills training within Schools and Faculties.

3.4 Schools should maintain and make available as required, information on welfare and support systems for research students, as well as information regarding sources of professional and medical help and advice. Students should be made aware of specialised support available to them beyond the School, particularly provided by Student Services; including support for disability, counselling and careers. Wellbeing Support Services specifically for research students are highlighted in the BGRS induction sessions and there is further information highlighted on the BGRS SharePoint site.

3.5 The University provides guidance about inclusive practice and reasonable adjustments specifically for research students.

3.6 Schools should ensure that students and their supervisors, are made aware of the procedures by which absences should be logged and the procedures which allow suspension of registration in the case of illness or special personal problems. Please refer to the absence log information on BGRS SharePoint and the Interruptions Policy.

4. Selection, admission and induction

4.1 The University's policy on admission of research students will be defined by its Admissions Policy.

4.2 This Code of Practice should be highlighted by Schools and Faculties as essential to research students.

4.3 Schools must ensure that all newly registered research students, following their admission, receive advice, information and guidance on:

• 4.3.1 the key aspects of the research degree programme
• 4.3.2 the student’s workplace environment
• 4.3.3 the School’s research environment and culture
• 4.3.4 the wider Faculty and University environment and access to library, computing and laboratory facilities.
• 4.3.5 induction events offered by the BGRS and informed that they are required to attend
• 4.3.6 opportunities to provide feedback via PGR Reps or other feedback mechanisms.

4.4 Schools must explain the key responsibilities expected of research students including University-wide requirements for PGR milestones and upgrade requirements, and any specific additional requirements set by the programme/School/Faculty.

5. Student responsibilities

5.1 Students are active participants in the University learning community, it is therefore important that they take responsibility for achieving their academic and research potential through attending and participating at research events, engaging with learning materials and seeking further help, support and advice when they require it. Learning is a shared experience, and attendance is critical so that students can:

• 5.1.1 learn from the expertise of academic staff and contributions from other students
• 5.1.2 contribute to the collective research environment by actively participating
• 5.1.3 benefit from the support of the research community
• 5.1.4 ensure they have all the programme information and are well prepared for assessments.
• 5.1.5 gain and develop further skills for employment or career progression.

5.2 The University expects students to:

• 5.2.1 enrol for their programme of study as directed by the University, within the agreed period
• 5.2.2 attend all orientation and induction activity organised by the University, faculties or schools
• 5.2.3 engage with their programme of study by attending all mandatory activities. It is also recommended that students attend all optional sessions where possible
• 5.2.4 declare any absences to their academic school and when they expect to return to their studies, should an unforeseeable event occur
• 5.2.5 adhere to any additional attendance requirements associated with their funding or visa sponsorship
• 5.2.6 attend and participate on campus. Birkbeck is a campus-based university and students must make arrangements to access activities and resources that are available. This includes participation in: community related activities; assessment related activities; and access to on campus resources.
• 5.2.7 ensure your interactions with supervisor(s) are professional, respectful and recognise boundaries throughout doctoral studies. Students share responsibility for developing a healthy supervisory relationship. Supervisory responsibilities, including frequency of formal supervisory meetings and supervisory roles, are detailed in this code of practice but students must note that all staff will have other work and external commitments or circumstances which they will be required to accommodate alongside their role as a doctoral supervisor.
• 5.2.8 ensure that you familiarise yourselves with University Support available to you outside of your supervisory arrangements including Mental Health, Disability and other support available at Birkbeck.
• 5.2.9 note University expectations for behaviour of students including the University’s Dignity at Work and Study principles.

5.3 The student should select their research topic in consultation and agreement with their supervisor. In some cases, the choice may be determined by research projects in progress in the School or by an external funding body.

5.4. Students must attend the University’s research integrity training.

5.5. Students are responsible for ensuring that the relevant Birkbeck staff are made aware of periods when they are not able to engage with their studies, and that their enrolment status is up to date.

• 5.5.1 Any changes to mode of study must be made within the current academic year.
• 5.5.2 Students are responsible for logging all their absences as described on the BGRS SharePoint site – this is essential to ensure: the basis for the final thesis submission deadline is correct; and that any payments due from a sponsor (including entitlements to medical or other paid leave) are paid correctly and can be evidenced in line with funder terms and conditions.
• 5.5.3 In the event fees and/or stipend are overpaid in error as a result of a student not following absence reporting requirements, Birkbeck will seek to recover the overpayment.
• 5.5.4 Contemporaneous absence records are a requirement for any subsequent entitlement to claim an extension.

5.6 Funded students must familiarise themselves with and abide by the terms and conditions and guidelines of their funding body and respond to requests for information by the funder, or on behalf of the funder as required.

• 5.6.1 Students should familiarise themselves with any requirements for paid extensions to the funding period and seek advice where needed in a timely manner.
• 5.6.2 If funder rules and University regulations/policies appear to be in conflict, the student should seek advice from BGRS at the earliest opportunity.

Managing research

5.7 A detailed research plan must be formulated in consultation between the student and the supervisor as soon as possible and no later than the end of the first term of study for full-time students, or the first two terms of study for part-time students, in the context of what is appropriate for the discipline. The student and supervisor will complete an agreed outline of the research plan, to include the scope and timescale of the programme of study, which will be submitted for approval via the appropriate process as stipulated by the School. The proposed research plan must include assessment of potential risk to disruption of research and potential mitigation.

5.8 Students must accept a commitment to regularly discuss and maintain their research plan to ensure the completion of their thesis is within the timescales specified in the University regulations, and is in line with the University expectations around annual milestones and upgrade processes. Any research plan that is structured to use the full registration period must be closely monitored to ensure that where necessary adjustments can be made in a timely manner, to reconcile any delay in progress with the thesis submission deadline. Any subsequent request to exceed the maximum registration period will rely on reference to a history of progress in relation to the original research plan and any subsequent events and mitigations. For further information refer to the University’s On Time Thesis Submissions: Responsibilities and Guidance.

5.9 Students should monitor their progress against their research plan and keep their progress under regular review, by maintaining a written research log or other appropriate form of periodic written self-evaluation, which is made available to the supervisor. All students must be able to demonstrate that they have achieved the milestones expected for their phase of study. This includes a formal progress report which must be submitted annually to the School for consideration, in accordance with School procedures. These reports will normally be made on a template provided by the School and should include the following and will be considered by the PGR School Lead alongside milestone and assessment requirements:

• 5.9.1 The student’s self-assessment of academic progress, including participation in the activities described within this code of practice in relation to supervision, provision of resources, administrative and any other relevant matters.
• 5.9.2 A supervisory statement
• 5.9.3 Updated Training Needs Analysis should be completed as part of the annual review.

5.10 Students are responsible for maintaining written records which record their progress and forward plans and the need for future supervisory meetings.

5.11 Students are responsible for recording a summary of agreed outcomes after each formal supervisory meeting using the Research Track system.

5.12 At least once a year, and normally in the first term of the year, a supervisory meeting should be held where students discuss how they will/are working with their supervisors. This discussion should include:

• 5.12.1 whether the supervisory team is still appropriate or if any new expertise needs to be brought in,
• 5.12.2 the working pattern the student will follow (e.g. Monday-Friday, in person or from home etc) and whether the current mode of study is appropriate alongside any employment or other commitments the student may have
• 5.12.3 the type of guidance and comment the student finds to be most helpful including shared expectations for e.g. reading and responding to emails and more substantive written work
• 5.12.4 agree a schedule of meetings for reporting to their supervisor on the progress of their work
• 5.12.5 how absences will be recorded and communicated
• 5.12.6 training needs and personal/professional development needs
• 5.12.7 and (when appropriate) thesis planning processes.

5.13 In addition, students should take the initiative in notifying their supervisors of any additional training needs they have identified, or any difficulties that have arisen with the progress of their work, however elementary these problems may seem.

5.14 Students should take full account of the scholarly guidance offered by their supervisors and attend the required and recommended training programmes and research seminars and should prioritise in person attendance where possible. Students should accept a commitment to developing their presentational skills, by making oral presentations of their research in their School, Faculty or University and attending relevant conferences and workshops.

5.15 Students must manage research data and personal data securely and lawfully, in accordance with Birkbeck’s Data protection policy and related guidance on research integrity and ethics. Where appropriate, students should use Birkbeck-supported platforms for long-term storage and/or sharing of research data outputs, and discuss data management expectations (including anonymisation, retention and access) with supervisors at an early stage.

5.16 All doctoral researchers are expected to read and abide by Birkbeck’s Research Integrity Code of Practice and the University’s procedures for ethical review. Suspected research misconduct (for example fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or serious breaches of ethical/legal obligations) will be handled under the University’s Procedure for reporting and investigating research misconduct, alongside any other relevant University process where applicable.

5.17 Students must be transparent about any use of generative AI when they discuss their research with supervisor(s).

5.18 Students must refer to current University guidance and or restrictions on the use of generative AI. Students must acknowledge any use of generative AI and correctly cite it in any work they submit.

5.19 Students must always evaluate generative AI outputs, including the reliability, accuracy, currency and impartiality of any generative AI output. Students must check for any infringement of intellectual property rights (including copyright).

5.20 The student should decide when to submit their thesis, in consultation with the supervisor and in accordance with limits on the minimum or maximum registration period required in the University’s Research Degree Regulations. The supervisor's guidance will be of crucial importance in assisting the student to make this decision. If School procedures require, the student must also consult with the relevant PGR School Lead before reaching a decision.

5.21 Students and supervisors should discuss authorship and publication plans early and keep these under review, including any requirements arising from collaborators or funders. Intellectual Property arising from doctoral research is governed by Birkbeck’s IP Policy; where IP may be generated, students must follow the University process for disclosure and advice via the Research Office.

5.22 Research students are recommended to take annual leave from doctoral studies in line with the University staff holiday entitlements: full time students are recommended to take up to 25 days annual leave. In addition, there are public holidays plus additional days when the University is customarily closed. Research students should discuss proposed annual leave dates with their supervisor and agree them in advance. Considerations should be made around assessment deadlines and the needs of the research. If you are in receipt of an externally funded studentship, their terms and conditions for leave take precedence.

5.23 It may sometimes be necessary for Students to adopt particular hours to complete an experiment or study (with adjustments made for disabled Students where reasonable), but on the whole Students who wish to adopt a “normal” week should not be disadvantaged and they are not required to work excessive hours. However, students are responsible for considering whether their mode of study is appropriate and for requesting any enrolment change between full time and part time study as required.

5.24 Students are responsible for requesting any breaks in studies in accordance with the University’ Interruptions Policy and the University’s Student Pregnancy and Parental Leave.

5.25 Students should familiarise themselves with the University’s policy on Tackling Harassment and Sexual Misconduct for the Student Community.

6. Supervision

6.1 Schools should ensure that the appointed supervisors have appropriate research expertise for the student’s research project and can provide appropriate guidance on research techniques and methodologies. Supervisors who have not themselves successfully completed a doctoral award will be expected to have equivalent research and publications experience.

6.2 All academic staff undertaking the supervision of postgraduate research students should have received training in respect of postgraduate supervision as part of their staff development. The training of supervisors and updating of supervisory skills, for example, in the light of new research sources, methods and technologies, should be a normal part of continuing staff development and should apply not just to new or inexperienced supervisors.

6.3 Supervisors are required to actively engage with the University’s supervision training opportunities and should attend standard training sessions every three years or more frequently in order to ensure compliance with any updated University policies or processes. Attendance of mental health briefing sessions which are offered specifically for supervisors is particularly important.

6.4 Supervisors should refer to sector-wide expectations e.g. UKCGE Good Supervisory Practice Framework and UKRI’s Statement of expectations for doctoral training.

6.5 In addition to one Principal Supervisor, at least one additional Supervisor should normally be appointed for every research student. This may be a Second Supervisor or a Joint Supervisor:

• 6.5.1 Principal/Joint Supervisors- the duties of Principal Supervisors are set out in subsequent paragraphs of this document. There may be occasions on which it is advantageous to have two or more joint Principal Supervisors, particularly in inter or multi-disciplinary research projects. In cases of more than one Principal Supervisor, care must be taken to ensure that irresolvable conflicts between the Principal Supervisors are not likely to occur, by clarifying at the outset the role of each supervisor and reviewing this regularly. There will be occasions where it is appropriate to appoint as a principal, joint principal or second supervisor, a person who is an externally funded member of staff and/or a person who is a member of another academic institution or a collaborating body. In these cases, the University’s Guidance on the Appointment of External Supervisors must be followed.
• 6.5.2 Second Supervisor- a Second Supervisor must be familiar with the student's work throughout the programme of study and be available to the student for consultation about the student’s research. A Second Supervisor should be able to take on the role of Principal Supervisor during any periods of leave of absence of the Principal Supervisor e.g. absence due to illness, unless the School is able to make alternative arrangements in such cases. It may also be appropriate for the Second Supervisor to have a role in the pastoral care of a research student.
• 6.5.3 In addition to the supervisory roles described above it may sometimes be appropriate to appoint a Thesis Committee Chair. This role provides co-ordinational support for example: helping to ensure awareness of relevant milestones; confirming agreed outcomes reached during formal supervisory meetings; ensuring that formal supervisory meetings take place; ensuring that the supervisory team is able to fulfil the responsibilities outlined above. The Thesis Committee Chair will be a Birkbeck academic member of staff who has established supervisory experience and must report any concerns about supervision to the relevant PGR School Lead. Thesis Committee Chairs may be appointed in situations that include:
  • provision of support to supervisors who have not yet supported a student to completion
  • cases where there is more than one Principal Supervisor (to mitigate and manage any potential differences in recommendations made; or where a student has one or more supervisors who are external to Birkbeck.

6.6 Individual members of staff with a normal teaching load should not normally act as Principal Supervisor for more than eight students; any proposal to exceed this limit should be considered by the RSG or its Chair, acting on behalf of the RSG.

6.7 The supervisory team should provide the student with advice on the nature of research and the standards expected; about the planning and due scope of the student’s research programme; the primary sources and secondary literature required to support the project; the availability of and requirements for attendance at relevant seminars and taught classes; the research techniques (including arrangements for instruction where necessary) and questions of originality, plagiarism and publication of research results.

6.8 The supervisory team must ensure that students are made aware of University information and processes for research ethics approval, research integrity and data management to ensure that University and regulatory/legal requirements are met before commencing any research activity that requires ethical review (including recruitment, data collection, fieldwork or access to sensitive data). Where required students must obtain the appropriate ethics approval in line with Birkbeck’s Responsibilities and procedures for ethical review and the University’s Ethics Framework.

6.9 The following section outlines requirements for the frequency of supervisory meetings.

6.10 The following minimum number of formal supervisory meetings must be arranged throughout the year.

6.11 Both students and supervisors should prepare an agenda ahead of formal supervisory meetings in order to ensure that they are productive and meetings need to be of sufficient length to discuss issues in full. Supervisors are responsible for structuring at least the minimum number of formal supervisory meetings. The number of formal consultations may be varied by mutual agreement as circumstances may require and may include ‘virtual’ supervision (for instance using Microsoft Teams), with the agreement of all parties as long as the minimum number of supervisory meetings is met; and that these arrangements do not conflict with the requirements for regular (monthly) monitoring for students who hold visas.

6.12 Doctoral students and University staff appointed as supervisors must maintain a shared central record of formal supervisory meetings in the Research Track system. Further information about this system is available on the BGRS SharePoint site.

6.13 Faculties are responsible for monitoring the frequency of supervisory meetings in order to ensure that the minimum number of formal supervisory meetings are being arranged.

6.14 Supervisors should ensure that students are aware of their responsibilities, as set out in this code of practice.

6.15 Supervisors hold an essential responsibility for actively monitoring the engagement of their research students. Supervisors should be accessible to students at other appropriate times when advice may be needed. Supervisors are responsible for alerting colleagues in a timely manner if a student disengages with their doctoral studies in order to ensure that the appropriate support services can be offered, including highlighting the University’s Student Support and Wellbeing Services, which includes support specific to doctoral researchers. Supervisors are responsible for escalating concerns about student welfare as necessary, and for seeking guidance if there are any concerns that funding or visa related requirements are at risk so this can be evaluated.

6.16 Over the course of supervision it is likely that issues may arise which cannot be resolved by the supervisor alone, or which fall outside of the role of a doctoral supervisor. The supervisory role is primarily to provide relevant support and advice about the student’s doctoral research; where needed supervisors must be prepared to make contact with other Birkbeck colleagues in order to identify the appropriate means of support via Student Services, the PGR School Lead, the PGR Support Manager, or the BGRS.

6.17 A clear understanding between the supervisor and student should be established at an early stage regarding the supervisor’s responsibilities in relation to the student's written submissions. Supervisors must provide clear guidance about the expected type of thesis including the expected length of the thesis specified in the programme specification or appropriate for the discipline; and/or about creative and critical requirements for practice-based research. The understanding must accord with University of London or Birkbeck regulations, of which the student should be made aware and must cover the nature and frequency of guidance or comment that the supervisor will offer.

6.18 Supervisors should give detailed advice on the importance of planning and the necessary completion dates of successive stages of the work, so that the thesis may be submitted within the required time. For the avoidance of doubt any time spent in writing up mode is included within the maximum registration period.

6.19 Supervisors must ensure that any research activity including laboratory work, fieldwork or overseas work are carried out in accordance with University procedures for approval, health and safety requirements, risk assessment, ethical approval (if necessary) and insurance requirements. Supervisors must remain in contact with students during fieldwork and must alert the University if they have any concerns about the student. Supervisors must seek guidance about whether there are any funder restrictions on fieldwork e.g. restrictions on solo-fieldwork.

6.20 Supervisors should advise on matters relating to the presentation of work in the form of conference and journal papers, including the avoidance of plagiarism and the process of due acknowledgement.

6.21 Supervisors should, when appropriate, facilitate contacts with specialists in other institutions and, where possible, access to necessary materials and facilities in other institutions and research sources.

6.22 Written work should be requested as appropriate and returned with constructive criticism in reasonable time. The amount of time required to provide written feedback will usually be no longer than four weeks for substantial pieces of work.

6.23 Arrangements should be made as appropriate for the student to talk about their work to staff or research seminars and to have practice in oral examinations or poster presentations as appropriate.

6.24 Guidance should be given to award-holders regarding the submission of periodic reports on their progress and other regulations and procedures stipulated by their funding bodies.

6.25 Supervisors should ensure that students are made aware of any inadequacy of progress or standard of work which is below that generally expected.

6.26 Where appropriate, supervisors should be prepared to refer students for professional guidance, in respect of personal or other problems not necessarily directly related to the research. Find out more on the guidance about the range of reasonable adjustment provisions available to PGR students.

6.27 Students should be provided with appropriate support to prepare them for the oral examination.

6.28 Supervisors should arrange to attend one of the routine BGRS Essentials training sessions covering Research Degree Examination in advance of a student entering for examination. Supervisors must inform students at the appropriate stage about procedures for the submission of the thesis, arrangements for the oral examination, what will be expected of them in defending their thesis, the range of possible outcomes of the examination and sources of support in preparing for the viva (see the BGRS SharePoint site).

6.29 Students should feel well prepared for their viva through having presented their research in their School, Faculty or University and attended relevant conferences and workshops (see section 5.14) and the upgrade process but Schools should consider preparing students for the oral examination with a mock examination in the School.

6.30 Supervisors must discuss potential research degree examiners with the student before submitting a nomination form. Conversations about potential research degree examiners should begin at an early stage in order to consider how the choice of examiners may relate to the eventual completed thesis.

6.31 Supervisors should discuss the format of the viva in advance, including whether an online or in person viva is proposed and whether any specific aspects of inclusive practice or reasonable adjustments are required.

6.32 Particular care should be taken with overseas students, who may need greater support in the early stages of their research. The assistance needed may include help with language issues and advice about language training. The supervisor should be aware that the period available for the completion of the thesis, will normally be determined by the funding available and in many instances, will be less than the maximum four-year period prescribed above.

6.33 Occasionally, cases can arise in which difficulties in the relationship between the supervisor and student begin to jeopardise the successful completion of the thesis. Schools should ensure that procedures for requesting consideration of a change of supervisor in such cases exist and are clearly communicated to research students during their induction period.

• 6.33. 1 Such procedures should state that any request for a change in supervisor must be made in writing to the PGR School Lead in the first instance or to the Head of RIKE if there is a conflict of interest. It is important that Schools make clear that if a student feels that an effective working relationship is not being established with the supervisor, these procedures provide a means of discussing the possibility of changing supervisors.
• 6.33.2 It is necessary that these procedures should operate expeditiously to avoid loss of time regarding the research or its funding. However, it should be noted that it is the School that is responsible for the allocation of supervisors and that a School may refuse a request to change the supervisory arrangements where it considers it appropriate to do so.
• 6.33.3 Any allegations of misconduct by supervisors should be dealt with via the student Complaints Policy and Procedure.

Schools should provide and communicate to research students the procedures by which students can make representations to the PGR School Lead, or other designated person, if they feel that their work is not proceeding satisfactorily for reasons outside their control.

7. Progression and review arrangements and milestones

7.1 It is the responsibility of Schools and Faculties to monitor the progress of their research students against the University milestones for PGR students, and to ensure that they are progressing satisfactorily towards completion, normally within four years (full-time) or seven years (part-time), including any time spent in Writing Up Mode.

7.2 Extensions beyond the maximum registration period are only permitted in exceptional circumstances and requests are considered on a case-by-case basis by RSG- see Regulations for Research Degrees. Where a request to extend the maximum registration period is thought to be necessary supervisors must be prepared to engage and respond to questions from RSG and to give a reasoned and evidence based rationale for: why an exceptional extension is needed; what mitigation and support was provided in response to the issues identified; and why this was not sufficient to result in an on time submission.

7.3 The student and their Principal Supervisor(s) will report annually to the School on the student’s progress and any problems encountered during the year. The Principal Supervisor will also comment as appropriate on the student's annual report and progress against the milestones. The annual report must include a complete schedule of work covering the period up to the deadline for submission of the thesis. This schedule must include the following information for each chapter that will be included in the thesis:

7.4 The School will decide annually whether re-admission should be offered to a student, dependent on the evidence of them making satisfactory progress in line with academic requirements.

• 7.4.1 Progression decisions will consider the view of the supervisor(s) but it is the School’s responsibility to assess progression decisions.
• 7.4.2 The School will review / agree the targets proposed by the supervisor and student to be met in the following academic year.
• 7.4.3 The School will communicate these targets to the student.
• 7.4.4 Schools must report progression decisions for each research student to the BGRS in the Registry by the deadline set by the BGRS each year in the summer term.
• 7.4.5 Any decision not to progress a student must be made in accordance with the University’s Policy on the Discontinuation of a Student’s Registration.

7.5 Before starting on Writing Up Mode status, or at the appropriate point in their third year, students will be expected to produce a full thesis plan and a timescale for completion against which their progress will be monitored.

7.6 In the case of funded students, supervisors are responsible for submitting formal reports on progress, as required by the funding bodies.

7.7 The regular consultation between supervisor and student should be used to establish and maintain an agreed view of the direction and progress of the research and to identify in a timely fashion, any remedial action necessary to redirect the student's work or to revise the agreed schedule for completion within the specified period.

7.8 If at any time the supervisor forms the view, on the available evidence, that the student's rate of progress is such that the student is unlikely to achieve within the specified period, the degree for which they are registered, the supervisor should notify the student in writing without delay and discuss with the student ways of achieving the objectives of the student's research plan. If progress remains unsatisfactory, the School should proceed in accordance with the University’s Policy on the Discontinuation of a Student’s Registration.

7.9 Schools should give students the opportunity to comment on all supervisory and other arrangements which impact on their work at regular intervals. Research students should be consulted where appropriate on matters of policy relating to their supervision. Students should be made aware that they can also raise issues for discussion at meetings of the School Student/Staff Exchange Committee or for forwarding to RSG, via the student representative on that committee.

8. Transfer from MPhil to PhD ‘Upgrade’

8.1 The University has an agreed ‘Expectations for upgrade from MPhil to PhD status’ policy which defines what it considers to be a reasonable set of expectations for what students can expect. All staff concerned with the supervision of research students should be familiar with the relevant upgrade procedure and should comply with it in all respects. The University’s research degree regulations state that students have a maximum of two attempts to pass the MPhil/PhD upgrade.

8.2 For students who are registered initially for the MPhil, the procedures and timescales for upgrading to PhD registration should be clearly set out in School documentation and communicated individually to research students in advance of their upgrade attempt. Schools and Faculties must have a formal procedure for considering the transfer of student registration from MPhil to PhD and procedures for upgrade must align with University expectations for upgrade from MPhil to PhD. Any local variations that are not in alignment with University Expectations for upgrade from MPhil to PhD status must be agreed by RSG.

8.3 The first MPhil/PhD transfer attempt is usually considered between 9-18 months for full-time research students or between 15-30 months for part-time students.

8.4 The School (and/or where appropriate the Faculty) should provide local and contextualized information about deadlines and any documentary requirements. If award-holders have received funding from external sources, their transfer from MPhil to PhD registration should occur in accordance with the funding body’s guidelines and requirements.

8.5 Applications to transfer should be agreed by the student’s Principal Supervisor and considered by an upgrade panel. Panel members considering the student’s MPhil/PhD transfer may not subsequently take part in the final PhD examination and viva. Transfer procedures should specify the constitution of panels that will consider applications to transfer and the appeal process.

8.6 If the application to upgrade is unsuccessful, the student should be informed within 10 working days of the outcome being confirmed and given the reasons for its rejection. In appropriate cases, the student should be given detailed guidance on the measures to be taken before any further application for transfer would be considered.

8.7 A student whose application for transfer is unsuccessful and who disputes the decision on grounds other than the academic judgement of the panel making the decision, should have the right of appeal. Appeals should be made in accordance with the University’s appeals process for research students. Attempts at early resolution should be considered by the PGR School Lead (or appropriate replacement, to be appointed by the Head of School with responsibility for the school concerned, if the PGR School Lead was a member of the original panel). The PGR School Lead or appropriate replacement may choose to reject the appeal or to convene a new panel to hear the application (e.g. if the upgrade attempt had gone ahead without following school/ faculty upgrade procedure) and should seek advice from Academic Standards and Quality or BGRS if needed. An outcome of early resolution of the appeal should be conveyed to the student in writing.

8.8 If early resolution is not sufficient to resolve the issue, the student may submit a formal appeal by following the University’s formal appeal process.

9. Development of research and other skills

9.1 Schools should ensure that training in research methods appropriate to the discipline is made available at the appropriate time (this is an Office for Students requirement) and for training opportunities to be adequately publicised to students. Training needs should be considered using Training Needs Analysis and with reference to sector-wide expectations including the Vitae Researcher Development Framework and the Concordat to Support the Development of Researchers which expects a minimum of 10 working days per annum (pro rata for part time students) to be allocated to training activities. In the case of some Schools, it may be appropriate to arrange training in collaboration with other Schools or external bodies.

9.2 Schools should ensure that training is available to their students in generic research skills, as identified through Training Needs Analysis. Such training may be provided in collaboration with other Schools and institutions or with the BGRS.

9.3. The University will develop and facilitate training for teaching duties undertaken by research students. Schools should monitor the amount of teaching/demonstrating offered to and undertaken by research students, to ensure that these do not adversely affect the timescale for submission of the thesis or the terms and conditions of the funder.

9.4 Throughout their studies, students should be encouraged to develop their knowledge of their research field and their presentational skills by such activities as participating in seminars, making oral presentations of their research in the School, Faculty or University, or attending relevant conferences or colloquia.

9.5 Students should be supported by their School, supervisors, by Student Services and by the BGRS to engage with training available for careers within and beyond academia.

10. Feedback mechanisms

10.1 Schools should provide mechanisms that enable students to comment on all aspects of their studies and to receive responses from the School, Faculty and/or University, on at least an annual basis. This may be by survey, student representatives, establishment of a student/staff liaison committee, representation on existing committee or other consultative method and may be conducted at School level where appropriate. These mechanisms will be published in school documentation.

10.2 The University will participate in the annual Postgraduate Research Experience Survey, with results analysed and disseminated to RSG and the appropriate School body for information. RSG will invite a student representative to its membership and the BGRS will facilitate meetings for Research Student Representatives through student voice meetings.

11. Research degree examination

11.1 Examiners will be appointed by the University’s research degree examiner panels and will normally be nominated by supervisors. The detailed procedures on the appointment of these examiners are defined within the University’s Procedures for the Appointment of Research Degree Examiners. Examinations are conducted in accordance with the Birkbeck and University of London research degree regulations.

12. After the viva

12.1 When submitting a thesis for examination the student is stating that the work is their own and that it is ready to be formally assessed by their examiners. As a result, there is a change in the nature of the student-supervisory relationship: from the point of examination, the student becomes a candidate for the award and it is their research degree examiners who will determine whether the award can be made.

12.2 Once a research degree viva has taken place the candidate is responsible for addressing any amendments or changes set by the examiners as well as any administrative requirements of the examination process communicated by the BGRS. While no longer engaging in formative development of the thesis, the supervisor will have an in depth understanding of the candidate’s work and should continue to be available to respond and guide them during any period allowed for amendments or during resubmission. Supervisors are expected to take part in the following ways over this period:

• 12.2.1 Interpreting examiner feedback provided in the examiner reports after the viva, in order for the candidate to determine their approach to addressing any changes that are necessary. Supervisors should contact the BGRS at their earliest opportunity and ask for clarification about how to proceed if they think any of the requirements set by the examiners are unclear.
• 12.2.2 Checking in with the candidate over the period allowed for corrections or resubmission at regular intervals (for example once per month), to monitor how the candidate is progressing, and to ensure that the candidate is aware of ongoing access to institutional support including Wellbeing support. If a candidate becomes concerned about the level of quality of responsiveness from the supervisor, the candidate should contact the PGR School Lead to seek advice about how to proceed.
• 12.2.3 Providing advice about how the candidate may be able to convert aspects of their thesis into articles or publications.

12.3 Any work on a revised thesis for the purpose of satisfying a conditional pass or for resubmission, is the responsibility of the candidate.

• 12.3.1 Supervisors may be asked for feedback on the overall approach or on specific aspects of the revised thesis, but they would not be expected to provide feedback at the same frequency as during formal supervision prior to submission.
• 12.3.2 In the case of a conditional pass corrections should not require candidates to conduct further research or undertake substantial further theoretical work. For minor corrections these can include typographical errors, clarifying points, rephrasing, editing/adding paragraphs, correcting references, etc. whereas for major corrections there may be more work to do in terms of restructuring chapters and some re-drafting may be required. In the case of a conditional pass with minor amendments the examiners sometimes nominate the supervisor to confirm whether their requirements have been met.
• 12.3.3 In the case of a resubmission the examiners will have determined that the thesis is not yet of the required standard, but that the candidate is capable of bringing it to that standard through their own additional work. The scale of the work may be greater, but the principle remains that the work to revise and resubmit the thesis is the candidate’s responsibility. The supervisor should be available to read drafts at agreed points over the resubmission period, at least every four months.

12.4. Supervisors are not required to act as copy editors, proofreaders or reference-checkers during the post viva period.

13. Student representations and appeal

13.1 Any appeal against the decision of the examiners for a research degree will be considered in accordance with the University’s Appeals Policy and Procedure (Research).

14. Related policies/guidelines

14.1 The following policies and guidelines are relevant to or referred to in this code of practice:

Within Birkbeck

• 14.1.1 BGRS SharePoint site
• 14.1.2 Research Degree Regulations
• 14.1.3 Research integrity
• 14.1.4 Research ethics policy
• 14.1.5 University expectations for upgrade from MPhil to PhD
• 14.1.6 Interruptions Policy
• 14.1.7 Maternity, Paternity, Shared Parental and Adoption Leave for Research Students
• 14.1.8 Writing Up policy
• 14.1.9 Policy and Proceure for the Discontinuation of a Student’s Registration on a Programme of Study
• 14.1.10 Appeals Policy
• 14.1.11 Birkbeck Careers and Enterprise
• 14.1.12 Birkbeck Wellbeing Services
• 14.1.13 Dignity at work and study

External to Birkbeck

• 14.1.14 UKCGE | Good Supervisory Practice Framework
• 14.1.15 The Concordat to Support Research Integrity
• 14.1.16 Ensuring open research – UKRI
• 14.1.17 Statement of expectations for doctoral training – UKRI
• 14.1.18 The Vitae Researcher Development Framework - Vitae
• 14.1.19 The Concordat
• 14.1.20 Tackling Harassment and Sexual Misconduct for the Student Community

Policy review

• Created: June 2017
• Latest update: June 2026
• Date of next review: 2028-29 academic year
• Owner: Graduate Research School Manager
• SLT owner: DVC Research, Knowledge Exchange and Innovation
• Committee oversight: Research Committee for Academic Board