PhD.I Interim Course Guidelines

PhD.I Course Guidelines

These PhD.I Course Guidelines should be read in addition to the Doctor of Philosophy Course Rules.  These guidelines highlight that admission to and performance of candidature are industry/profession based and that the examinable output of the Doctor of Philosophy (Innovation) is an Innovation project Portfolio as opposed to a thesis.

The new rules for the Doctor of Philosophy (Innovation) as a subset of the Doctor of Philosophy will be available in January 2018.

1. Admission to Candidature

1.1. Admission to candidature in the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Innovation) Phd.I may be approved by the Committee only when the Head of School has:

(a) confirmed that the candidate has fulfilled both the (i) academic and (ii) industry/profession requirements:
(ia) hold the degree of Master (AQF level 9), provided that the applicant has shown potential for research demonstrated by a research project or resulting dissertation/thesis comprising typically 25% or more of the Master’s program; or
(ib) hold the degree of Bachelor (AQF Level 8) with First Class Honours or Second Class Honours in the First Division; or equivalent; or
(ic) hold another degree at AQF Level 8 or AQF Level 9 plus subsequent qualifications and/or relevant research experience that are deemed by the PhD.I Coordinator to satisfy the academic requirements for candidature; or
(id) hold similar qualification(s) acceptable to the University from other institution(s). Such qualifications must be of the standard of Australian or British universities in the University’s judgement and equivalent to AQF Level 8 or above.
(iia) have a minimum of five (5) years of relevant experience in an industry or profession; and
(iib) wherever possible, but mandatory in cases where criteria 1.1.(a)(ia) has not been met, demonstrate he/she has successfully undertaken prior contextualised research activity in a relevant profession/industry at the equivalent of Masters level. Such demonstrated prior contextualised research could include previous:

  • research surrounding the development and implementation of new knowledge;
  • policy research;
  • market research;
  • research association with commercialisation activities;
  • action research;
  • workplace evaluations;
  • evaluation of new knowledge and/or innovation adoption;
  • change management, monitoring and evaluation; and/or
  • any other evidence of research and development capacity deemed sufficient and relevant by the PhD.I Coordinator.

(b) certified that the necessary facilities and appropriate support for the applicant undertaking the proposed PhD.I program are available;
(c) certified that the candidate has, prior to admission, identified a relevant industry/profession supervisor who is willing and able to commit to advising the candidate, in conjunction with the candidate’s UNE supervisors, on their PhD.I research;
(d) certified that the candidate has, prior to admission, sought a formal letter of support from their organisation or workplace supporting their candidature in the PhD.I;
(e) certified that the candidate has submitted to the PhD.I Coordinator, as an inclusion to the application for candidature, an Innovation project Prospectus which will be used to judge the suitability of the proposed  Innovation project and to help identify possible UNE supervisors; and
(f) nominated an appropriate Principal Supervisor and Co-supervisor(s) in accordance with Rule 4.

1.2. All applicants must meet the University’s English Language Requirements for Admission Rule.

2. Period of Candidature

2.1. The minimum period of candidature for domestic students is three years full-time (six years for part-time candidature), unless otherwise approved by the Committee. The minimum period of candidature for international students is four years full-time, unless otherwise approved by the Committee.

2.2. The maximum period of candidature for domestic full-time students is normally three years and for domestic part-time is normally six years. The maximum period of candidature for international students is normally four years. Extensions may be granted by the Committee in recognition of exceptional circumstances.

2.3. International applicants with four-year funding may be permitted by the Committee to take a maximum period of four years, only as a full-time candidate.

2.4. For applicants upgrading from another course the maximum time limit is reduced by the period of enrolment in the course from which the student has changed.

2.5. For applicants transferring from an equivalent course in another institution the maximum period of candidature permitted to be completed at that institution is half of the maximum period specified in Rule 2.2.

3. Conditions of Candidature

3.1. The commencement dates for the PhD.I intakes will usually coincide with UNE Trimester 1,2, or 3 commencement dates occurring in February, June or October each year. See the UNE Principal Dates calendar for the relevant commencement date in the year of application.  In some cases special cohort intakes will commence at an alternative date.

3.2. Once candidates have formally accepted the offer of candidature and enrolled, they must contact their nominated Principal Supervisor to discuss arrangements for working with the supervisory team and to ensure that the candidate completes the formal induction process for candidates. The Principal Supervisor will be required to sign off when the candidate has completed the PhD.I induction process.

3.3. Each candidate is required to agree on contact arrangements and maintain regular communication and consultation with their supervisory team for the duration of candidature. This may be either in person or using ICT, including video. The supervisors and the Head of School will determine the nature and extent of such consultation after consultation with the candidate and completion of the Supervision Agreement.

3.4. International candidates will need to reside in Australia during the first 12 months of candidature while they complete the PhD.I – Research Learning Program. The following 3 years of candidature they will return to and reside in the country where their Innovation project and Innovation project Portfolio research is located.

3.5. After completion of the PhD.I Research Learning Program the candidate and all supervisors will meet to discuss the contribution of the Research Learning Program to research and to Innovation project Portfolio planning and the finalisation of the Innovation project Portfolio Proposal.

3.6. All candidates are required to undergo a Confirmation of Candidature process that is undertaken after the completion of the PhD,I Research Learning Program. For full-time domestic candidates student progress will be assessed at 6 months. For full-time international candidates and part-time domestic candidates student progress will be assessed at 12 months as detailed in the Confirmation of Candidature Policy and Guidelines for UNE Doctoral Candidates and the Doctor of Philosophy (Innovation) PhD.I Confirmation of Candidature Guidelines.

3.7. The candidate will study for the PhD.I in two phases. First the candidate will undertake Phase 1: the PhD.I Research Learning Program. Once the Research Learning Program is completed the candidate will commence Phase 2: the Innovation project Portfolio. Progression to the next phase is contingent on upon successful completion of the previous phase through Confirmation of Candidature.

3.8. Candidates must ensure that all administrative requirements of the University, such as providing progress reports, completing the confirmation process and conforming to procedures for variations of conditions of candidature, are met.

3.9. The candidate is required to participate in the UNE HDR Progress Reporting rounds when requested by the University.

3.10. Following an unsatisfactory progress report, the Committee may continue the candidature or consider termination of the candidature under the conditions of Guideline 10.3. The Committee may seek clarification or advice from the candidate, the Principal Supervisor, PhD.I Coordinator, or the relevant Head of School prior to deciding whether to continue candidature or consider termination of candidature.

3.11. A candidate may be required to show cause in relation to their performance in the program, consistent with the Higher Degree Research Show Cause Policy.

3.12. The Committee, on the advice of the Head of School, may grant leave of absence from the course of study and research in special cases. The period of such leave shall not be counted as part of the prescribed term of candidature.

3.13. No candidate may enrol in, or remain enrolled in, any other course or unit either at the University or at any other institution without the consent of the Principal Supervisor and the approval of the PhD.I Coordinator. The Committee, on the recommendation and rationale from the Head of School, may approve enrolment in another course concurrently with enrolment in the PhD.I.

3.14. A candidate shall give at least three month notice to the supervisory team, the PhD.I Coordinator and Research Services of the anticipated date of their Portfolio submission.

4. Progression Pathway

A candidate exiting the PhD.I before completion may be eligible to transfer from the PhD.I to a relevant Masters by research qualification (AQF Level 9).

5. Supervisor Nomination, Appointment and Responsibilities

5.1. The PhD.I is a supervised research degree and the UNE Principal Supervisor shall have a guiding and primary supervisory role during the candidate’s undertaking of Phase 1: the PhD.I Research Learning Program. The candidate's research and preparation of Phase 2: the Innovation project Portfolio must be carried out under the guidance of a supervisory team. For domestic candidates this will normally comprise two members of the UNE university staff and the candidate’s nominated industry/profession supervisor. For international candidates this will normally comprise two members of the UNE staff one as the Principal Supervisor and one as co-supervisor. In addition an internationally located university academic would normally be appointed as a co-supervisor with candidate’s nominated industry/profession supervisor. UNE supervisors will be appointed by the relevant Head of School on the recommendation of the PhD.I Coordinator. At least one such supervisor shall have a proven and current record of research and experience in the supervision of postgraduate research candidates.

5.2. One supervisor will be nominated as the Principal Supervisor who shall be responsible for coordinating the supervision in accordance with such procedures and guidelines as the Committee shall determine from time to time. The remaining supervisor will be nominated as Co-Supervisor.

5.3. The industry/profession supervisor shall be considered to be an advisor to the candidate and his/her supervisors and will therefore not be subject to the requirement for Adjunct status and listing on the supervisory register. However, the industry/profession supervisor may, where appropriate, seek an Adjunct appointment at UNE, in which case they would be able to take on a formal co-supervisory role.

5.4. In exceptional circumstances, and for domestic students only, where multiple UNE supervisors are thought to be impractical, the Head of School, after consulting the PhD.I Coordinator, will forward a report to the Committee detailing the reasons why UNE co-supervision is not practical and indicating what procedures will be put in place to handle Principal Supervisory duties where the nominated Principal Supervisor becomes unavailable for any reason. However, in cases where exceptional circumstances have arisen due to lack of sufficient University expertise, serious consideration must be given to appointing a co-supervisor from outside the University with expertise in the candidate’s proposed research area.

5.5. The relevant Head of School, on the recommendation of the PhD.I Coordinator, may appoint an additional supervisor or supervisors; such a supervisor may be an emeritus professor or an adjunct appointment of the University.

5.6. The relevant Head of School, on the recommendation of the PhD.I Coordinator, may replace a supervisor at any time.

5.7. Principal and co-supervisors must comply with the Registration of Research Higher Degree Supervisors Policy and Procedures.

5.8. UNE, other academic supervisors and industry/profession supervisors, who have not previously supervised a UNE PhD.I candidate, will be contacted by the PhD.I Coordinator to discuss the PhD.I and expectations surrounding its supervision and research outcomes. They will also be required to complete the online PhD.I induction process for supervisors and industry/profession mentors. The PhD.I Coordinator will be required to sign off when a supervisor or industry/profession mentor has completed the induction process.

5.9. The nomination of supervisor will include an estimate of the expected percentage input from each supervisor.

5.10. The Principal Supervisor is in large measure responsible for ensuring that the high standard of the degree is maintained. The Principal Supervisor shall carry out the responsibilities in accordance with the following rules:

(a) the Principal Supervisor leads the candidate’s supervisory team;

(b) the Principal Supervisor, in consultation with the supervisory team, the PhD.I Coordinator and relevant Head of School, shall ensure that the innovation and research trajectory undertaken by the candidate in the Innovation project Portfolio is at an appropriate academic level and has an appropriate degree of industry/profession and other contextual relevance and is likely, if successfully completed, to generate further research outcomes such as publication, commercialisation and/or wider implementation;

(c) the Principal Supervisor, in conjunction with the rest of the supervisory team, shall advise the candidate on the quality of drafts of their Portfolio, but the Portfolio finally presented shall be substantially the independent work of the candidate;

(d) the Principal Supervisor shall receive from the candidate progress reports required in terms of Rule 3.9 and shall forward these, together with comment from the PhD.I Coordinator and the relevant Head of School, to Research Services with his or her assessment of the candidate's progress;

(e) if the Principal Supervisor, PhD.I Coordinator or the relevant Head of School is of the opinion that the candidate is not making satisfactory progress, they shall recommend to the Committee that the candidate be invited to 'show cause' why the candidature should not be terminated as per the Higher Degree Research Show Cause Policy.

5.11. The Committee, on the joint recommendation of the Head of School and the PVC Research, may recommend termination of candidature, if it is satisfied that the University can no longer provide appropriate supervision. In such circumstance, the University will provide any necessary administrative assistance to the student to facilitate the transfer to another institution.

5.12. The candidate has the right to request a change of supervisor. Such a request must be submitted to the Head of School, who after consultation will provide the Committee with a recommendation and nomination of alternative supervisor for approval.

6. Examination

6.1. Submission Requirements

6.1.1. On completion of the PhD. I Research Learning Program, and subsequent innovation and research, a candidate shall present for examination an Innovation project Portfolio embodying the results of the candidate's innovation and research which shall be substantially an original contribution. All Portfolio components will center on the candidate’s Innovation, its development, implementation, developmental evaluation and, where appropriate, evaluation of impact, and critical reflection and anticipations.

6.1.2. The Portfolio, exclusive of any appendices or supplemental materials, will normally have a minimum of 75,000 words and a maximum of 90,000 including linkage texts between the various Portfolio components, but excluding any appendix materials. There may be special instances where, with the permission of the Committee on recommendation of the Principal Supervisor, the Portfolio may exceed these limits.

6.1.3. The Portfolio shall be written in English unless, to accommodate the requirements of a particular discipline, the Committee has given prior permission for it to be written in another language. Applications for such permission must be lodged with the secretary of the Committee not less than six months before the Portfolio is submitted.

6.1.4. A candidate shall state generally in the preface of the Portfolio and specifically in notes: the sources from which the information is derived, the extent to which he or she has made use of the work of others, and the portion of work which is claimed as original.

6.1.5. A candidate may not present as the Portfolio any work which has been submitted for examination for any award at this University or another institution, but will not be precluded from incorporating such work in the Portfolio, provided that, in presenting the Portfolio for examination, the candidate indicates the part(s) of the work which has been so incorporated.

6.1.6. On recommendation of the Principal Supervisor, the PhD.I Coordinator may allow a candidate to submit with the Portfolio supporting material such as: CD/DVDs, audio tapes, video tapes and computer discs. Part of the Portfolio may also include reference to online materials or other multimedia formats. An application for permission to submit supporting material shall be made not less than three months before the proposed date of submission of the Portfolio unless, in special circumstances, the PhD.I Coordinator allows a later application.

6.1.7. The candidate shall submit to the secretary of the Committee a copy of the Portfolio in a format approved by the Committee and as outlined in (a) to (c) below. All online, multi-media or creative practice components must be accessible by examiners. The submitted Portfolio shall incorporate:

(a) an abstract of or prologue to the Portfolio;

(b) a statement summarising the intellectual property arrangements associated with the Portfolio; and

(c) a statement, electronically signed by the candidate, certifying that the substance of the Portfolio has not been, nor is currently being submitted, for any other degree or award and that, to the best of his/her knowledge, all help received in preparing the Portfolio and all sources used have been acknowledged in the Portfolio.

6.1.8. The candidate shall, upon submission of the Portfolio, make arrangements for all original data to be retained in an area of safe storage for a period of not less than five years from the date of the submission. The data must be stored in a form that would, at a minimum, permit replication of all analyses reported in the Portfolio.

6.1.9. At the time the Portfolio is submitted, the Principal Supervisor shall provide a certificate stating:

(i) that the Principal Supervisor, in conjunction with the supervisory team, has discussed with the candidate the academic and industry/profession content of the Portfolio in its final form and that, while neither expressing nor implying a judgement about the merit of the work, in the Principal Supervisor's opinion it is ready for submission for examination for the degree;

(ii) that all requirements of the relevant school, in regard to the deposition of museum material or any other supporting material have been met;

(iii) that all intellectual property requirements and obligations have been met; and

(iv) that the physical form and presentation of the Portfolio are appropriate to the PhD.I.

6.1.10. Should the Principal Supervisor be unwilling to provide a certificate in these terms, the Principal Supervisor shall so advise the candidate and shall send to the Committee a written statement setting out the grounds on which the certificate is withheld.

6.1.11. The candidate shall receive the certificate referred to in Rule 8.9 before an Innovation project Portfolio is accepted for examination. When, for any reasons, the certificate is withheld, the Committee may decline to accept the Innovation project Portfolio for examination or may accept it following such consultation or under such additional conditions as the Committee may deem to be appropriate for specific cases.

6.2. Innovation project Portfolio Examination Process

6.2.1. (a) On receiving notice of intention to submit the Innovation project Portfolio, the Committee, on recommendation of the PhD.I Coordinator, Head of the School and Principal Supervisor, shall appoint three examiners, at least two of whom shall be external to the University of New England and to any collaborating institution involved in the work and be experts of international standing in the relevant area, plus one reserve examiner. The Committee must be advised on both potential conflicts of interest (Conflict of Interest Policy), provide evidence of international standing and indicate whether each examiner has experience examining higher-degree research theses. A pool of at least six potential examiners (two from each category listed under 6.2.1 (b)) from which the three plus reserve are selected must have been assembled through consultation between the Principal Supervisor, the supervisory team, the PhD.I Coordinator and the candidate. The candidate will not be given any indication of the final set of examiners that have been appointed. The Head of School, or Principal Supervisor as appropriate, will be expected to obtain written or emailed consent, from each examiner, except the reserve, to examine the Portfolio within 6 weeks of its receipt. The Committee is to be advised as to whether each examiner has had experience supervising and examining higher degree research candidates. In cases where a Portfolio has been permitted to exceed the normal 90, 000 word limit, examiners shall be informed of this fact so they may consider it when making their decision to examine.

6.2.1. (b) One examiner must be appointed from each of the following categories:

(i) an academic with a doctorate or professional doctorate who examines primarily from the university/academic perspective;

(ii) an acknowledged professional leader, practitioner or policy expert, where a doctorate is not a necessary prerequisite, who examines primarily from relevant industry/profession/workplace/policy contextual perspectives;

(iii) a 'boundary spanner' with a doctorate and with expertise/experience in academic as well as relevant industry/profession/workplace/policy contexts (eg. professional/industry leader with doctorate; academic who is now a professional professional/industry practitioner/leader; former professional/industry practitioner who is now an academic or profession/industry-based researcher).

The fourth reserve examiner may be drawn from any of the three categories listed above.

6.2.2. No person who has been a Principal Supervisor or Co-Supervisor of the student shall be appointed as an examiner. No person with a real or substantial possibility of conflict of interest that is, in a reasonable person’s opinion, likely to influence the examination process will be approved as an examiner.

6.2.3. Each examiner shall make a separate written report on the merits of the Portfolio and shall submit a summary recommendation form prescribed by the Committee. Before submitting the report an examiner may consult the other examiner or examiners. The examiners shall inform the Committee whether consultation has taken place.

6.2.4. The identity of examiners shall not be revealed to a candidate until the conclusion of the examination process at which time the Committee shall either reveal or withhold their names in accordance with their instructions.

6.3. Innovation project Portfolio Examination Outcomes

6.3.1. Taking in to account the recommendation of the examiner, the Committee may:

(a) that the degree be awarded; or

(b) that the degree be awarded subject to the candidate making such amendments to the Portfolio as specified by the examiners and to the satisfaction of the supervisory team and, if appropriate, the PhD.I Coordinator and/or relevant Head of School; or

(c) request that the examiners consult and report to the Committee;

(d) appoint an additional examiner or examiners;

(e) appoint an external adjudicator who shall consider and report to the Committee upon the Portfolio and any supporting papers and the reports of the examiners;

(f) require the candidate to sit for such examinations as the Committee may prescribe;

(g) permit the candidate to revise the Portfolio for re-examination if, in the opinion of the Committee, the work is of sufficient merit to warrant this concession; and

(h) consult with the candidate's supervisor or supervisors, with the PhD.I Coordinator, with the relevant Head or Heads of School or with such other persons as the Committee deems appropriate.

(i) recommend that the degree not be awarded.

6.3.2. In cases where an examiner or examiners report unfavourably upon a Portfolio the Committee may invite the candidate to respond to the examiners' comments. In such cases the candidate shall be allowed a maximum of eight weeks from the date of the letter of notification by which to submit a response. The Committee may refer any such response to any of the examiners for comment.

6.3.3. (a) A candidate permitted to revise a Portfolio in terms of Rule 11.6(e) shall complete the revision within a period of time and under such conditions as the Committee shall prescribe.

6.3.4. (b) A candidate who has revised a Portfolio in terms of Rule 11.6(e) and who fails the re-examination shall not be eligible for further examination.

6.3.5. Except as provided in Rule 11.10, a Portfolio which has been revised in terms of Rule 11.6. (e) shall be examined by the examiners of the original version of the Portfolio if they are available. If an examiner of the original version is unavailable, the Committee shall appoint a replacement examiner on the recommendation of the Head of School concerned, after consultation with the PhD.I Coordinator and the Principal Supervisor. Each examiner of a revised Portfolio shall be provided with copies of the reports of all examiners of the original version of the Portfolio.

6.3.6. An external adjudicator will only be appointed by the Committee if the three examiners are unable to come to a consensus recommendation. If the adjudicator recommends that the candidate’s Portfolio be revised and resubmitted, then the adjudicator will serve as the sole examiner for the resubmitted Portfolio.

6.3.7. In cases where the Committee invokes the provision of Rule 11.5(c) the recommendation and the examiners' reports and any other relevant material shall be referred to the Standing Committee of the Academic Board for review and final decision. There shall be no appeal against the final decision.

6.3.8. An examiner or adjudicator shall be asked to submit his or her report on the Innovation project Portfolio within 6 weeks of receipt of a copy of it. An examiner or adjudicator who does not report within a reasonable time may be replaced by the Committee. Any report subsequently received from a replaced examiner or adjudicator shall not be considered by the Committee.

6.3.9. Where any examination, adjudication or consultation report is received by the Committee, on which basis the Committee is considering recommending that the candidate not be awarded the degree the candidate and his/her supervisory team shall be notified in writing of the content of that report and may within eight weeks lodge a response limited to the academic/industry/profession and substantive matters raised in the report. The Committee shall take into account the submissions from the supervisory team and/or candidate in determining whether the degree be awarded.

6.4. Process Upon Recommendation of ‘Degree Not Be Awarded’

6.4.1. Where any examination, adjudication or consultation report is received by the Committee, on which basis the Committee is considering recommending that the candidate not be awarded the degree pursuant to 6.3.1.(i), the Candidate and their Principal Supervisor shall be notified in writing of the content of that report and may within eight weeks lodge a response limited to the academic and substantive matters raised therein.
6.4.2. The Principal Supervisor and student’s responses may then be sent to the examiners who shall be invited to provide a comment on the impact of those responses on their original recommendations.
6.4.3. The Committee shall take into account the submissions of the Principal Supervisor and/or student, and any comments on these from the examiners, in determining whether the degree be awarded.

6.5. Appeals against decisions of the Committee concerning academic assessment of PhD.I  candidates

6.5.1. Candidates have the right of appeal against any unfavourable examination outcome described in Rule 6.3.1 (i) and may appeal the outcome to the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research.