Policies and Regulations

This procedure should be read in conjunction with DCU’s Academic Integrity Policy and be used as a resource to academic staff dealing with cases of potential breaches of academic integrity. In line with the National Academic Integrity Network (NAIN) Framework for Academic Misconduct Investigation and Case Management (NAIN Framework), it is recognised that there are six stages aligned to the Lifecycle of Academic Misconduct, this procedure adopts these stages and the supporting guidance contained within.

The process for dealing with alleged academic misconduct is outlined in the flowchart in Appendix I. 

Breaches of examination regulations are outside the scope of this procedure. If required, please refer to DCU Examination Regulations. 

The NAIN Framework outlines nine guiding principles for substantiating suspected cases of academic misconduct:

1. Educate

Ensure all staff and students are aware of the signals that can indicate learner academic misconduct.

2. Investigate

One or two signals do not provide enough evidence to substantiate cheating but can provide cause for further investigation. All suspected cases of academic misconduct should be investigated.     

3. Use policy

Cases of academic misconduct should be dealt with in accordance with the DCU Academic Integrity Policy and Academic Misconduct Procedures.

4. Balance of probabilities     

Decisions as to the commission of academic misconduct should be based on “balance of probability”, not ‘beyond doubt’. 

The balance of probabilities principle is based on ‘clear and convincing evidence’ that it is more likely than not that the allegation is true. This is less demanding than the legal test of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

5. Examine

Look carefully at each aspect of the document and other relevant sources of evidence.

6. Collect evidence   

Accumulate a range of evidence that clearly and convincingly establishes the firm belief that academic misconduct is not only probable, but highly probable. The level of evidence must support the assessed severity of the case.

7. Use experience   

Decide how much weight to give to each piece of evidence, based on common sense, everyday experience, and experience of previous instances of academic misconduct.

8. Ensure natural justice     

Allow the learner to have an opportunity to explain and demonstrate how they developed their assignment.

9. Evaluate
Weigh up all the evidence to form an overall picture that provides clear and convincing evidence on the ‘balance of probability’ that cheating has or has not occurred.

Academic  Regulations  for  Postgraduate  Degrees  by  Research  and  Thesis  relate  to  the research degree offerings of Dublin City University (DCU). They are designed to safeguard both the academic standards of the University and the interests of individual students. 

These regulations apply to two types of doctoral awards offered by the University – Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) and Professional Doctorate. Issues relating to Higher Doctorates (DSc, DEng, DLitt, LLD) are dealt with in a separate document, Provisions and Regulations: Higher Doctorates.  In addition to making doctoral awards, the University makes awards at Master’s level on the basis of research, and these are also subject to these regulations. 

These regulations are guided by the University’s Marks and Standards; the Quality and Qualifications Ireland ‘Ireland’s Framework of Good Practice for Research Degree Programmes’ (2019);  and the National Framework for Doctoral Education (2023). 

The regulations apply to all research students registered in DCU, irrespective of the institution in which they commenced their studies. Reference is made in the document where an exception applies for students first registered with St Patrick’s College, Drumcondra (SPD) or Mater Dei Institute of Education (MDI). 

These regulations are subject to change.  In any given academic session, a student is subject to the regulations that are in place at the beginning of that academic session.   

1.1 Doctoral Awards 

The doctoral degree is one of the highest academic qualifications awarded by the University and is at Level 10 on the National Framework of Qualifications. It is awarded, without classification,  to  successful  candidates  on  the  strength  of  a  body  of  original  work  of scholarship prepared and presented in accordance with internationally-accepted academic standards. All candidates for doctoral degrees will be examined in the same manner through external  and  internal  examination  of  the  submitted  thesis,  followed  by  a  viva  voce examination.    

1.1.1 Doctor of Philosophy  

The PhD may vary in format of submission, as outlined in Section 9.1 below. However, the same academic standards apply in all cases. The degree of PhD is awarded in recognition of research which has made a significant and coherent contribution to knowledge.  The degree of PhD is awarded, without classification, on the basis of successful completion and examination of the research thesis. The thesis has a nominal value of 270 ECTS credits.   

The core component of a PhD programme is the advancement of knowledge through original research. At the same time, the PhD is designed to meet the needs of an employment market that is wider than academia. In that context, the PhD involves a high-quality research experience, training and output consistent with international norms and best practice. 

To support the original research activity, the following elements are advised: 

• a formalised integrated programme of education, training, and personal and professional development activities which is planned and often thematically focused;
• the development of discipline-specific knowledge, research skills and generic/ transferable skills; and
• declared outcomes and graduate attributes in line with national and international best practice.  

The University is committed to providing its research students with the best possible research experience. In that context, it is very supportive of research students engaged in PhD research who wish to take additional courses to enhance their generic and disciplinary research skills. Students can take ECTS credits by means of discipline specific modules, generic research and transferable skills, as agreed in their Personal Development Plan (PDP). Students who opt to take such modules must have the permission of their supervisors. The successful completion of such modules will be recorded on the student’s transcript. All module descriptors relating to modules not already accredited as part of an award programme are subject to prior approval by the Graduate Research Studies Board. Results of modules will be approved by the GTE (Graduate Training Elements) Award Board. 

Candidates who wish to pursue a structured PhD programme will undertake disciplinespecific modules, research skills courses, and generic and transferable skills courses, as agreed in their Personal Development Plan (PDP) and/or partnership agreement, to the value of at least 20 ECTS credits, no more than 90 ECTS credits, but typically in the range 30-60 ECTS credits. Normally, 10 ECTS credits will relate to research skills, transferable and generic skills modules.    

Model based on Collaboration with Enterprise 

The University recognises the value of PhD-level research which emerges from or is conducted within the context of a company, healthcare setting, voluntary sector organisation, public body or other such organisation. Such collaborative research facilitates the professional development of the PhD student through the integration of academia with other sectors and contributes to the creation of new knowledge relevant to the needs of society, the economy and policy-forming bodies, through original research. The educational outcomes must, in all cases, correspond to the intellectual challenge of a PhD, so the project must be carefully planned and negotiated to ensure that this potential exists.  

The degree of PhD is awarded, without classification, on the basis of a thesis submitted for examination. The thesis has a nominal value of 270 ECTS credits.

At the time of initial registration, it is  the  supervisor’s  responsibility  to  ensure  that  an agreement between the external organisation and University is put in place which covers such issues as: funding, intellectual property ownership, time which the research student will spend on campus or in the external organisation and the role of the external organisation in the supervision of the student. It is also important that DCU’s expectations regarding research awards are made clear to the collaborating enterprise. 

Students registered under this model can only take a maximum of 30 additional ECTS credits by means of discipline-specific modules, generic research and transferable skills, and active contribution to the University. Students who opt to take such modules must have the permission of their supervisors. The successful completion of such modules will be recorded on the student’s transcript. All module descriptors are subject to approval by the Graduate Research Studies Board. Results of modules will be approved by the GTE Award Board. 

1.1.2 Formats of PhD Submission: Monograph, Publication, Artefact and Creative/ Performance Practice  

As well  as  the monograph format,  the  University  offers  the  opportunity  for candidates to submit their research for the award of PhD in the format of published work, of artefacts such as music compositions, and through creative  or performance practice.   In the case of formats other than a monograph, the submission of an accompanying set of chapters which must satisfy the appointed examiners is also required. Requirements for each format are given in section 9 of these regulations.  

1.1.3 Professional Doctorate  

The Professional Doctorate is awarded in a number of disciplines, without classification, on the basis of a research thesis and other work. The Professional Doctoral Programme is usually a part-time research-based programme. The core aim of the Professional Doctorate is to make significant contributions to knowledge of professional practice through research. In that context, the Professional Doctorate aims to foster professional development through research as well as meeting the requirements of rigour and originality expected of a doctorate. 

A Professional Doctorate normally involves the production of a number of significant pieces of written work followed by a thesis. The total ECTS credits will be in the range 240-270. The thesis should constitute no fewer than half the total credits. 

For components other than the thesis, the regulations relating to assessment and progression are as outlined in Marks and Standards.  The University currently awards the following Professional Doctorates:

• EdD - Doctor of Education
• DBA - Doctor of Business Administration 
• DPsych - Doctor of Psychotherapy 
• DMusPerf - Doctor of Music in Performance
• DProfElite - Doctor of Elite Performance Sport)  

​​​​​​​1.2 Master’s Degree by Research 

The Master’s degree by Research, (Level 9 on the National Framework of Qualifications) is awarded, without classification, on the basis of a thesis submitted for examination. It nominally has a value of 180 ECTS credits. Master’s students may register for a maximum of 20 ECTS credits of discipline-specific modules, research skills courses or generic skills courses. The Master’s degree can be undertaken in the context of collaboration with enterprise. In these cases, it is the supervisor’s responsibility at the time of initial registration to ensure that an agreement between the external organisation and the University is put in place which covers such issues such as: funding, intellectual property ownership, time which the research student will spend on campus or in the organisation and the role of the organisation in the supervision of the student. 

Examination will take place through internal and external examination of the submitted thesis. A viva voce examination is not mandatory but can be requested by the examiners. 

​​​​​​​The following awards may be made:  

• LLM  Master of Laws
• MA  Master of Arts
• MBS  Master of Business Studies
• MEng  Master of Engineering
• MEd  Master of Education 
• MPhil  Master of Philosophy
• MSc  Master of Science  

1.2.1 Formats of Submission for Master’s Degree by Research: Monograph, Artefact and Creative/ Performance Practice   ​​​​​​​

As well as the monograph format, the University offers the opportunity for candidates to submit their research for the award of MA by Research in the format of artefacts such as music compositions, and through creative or performance practice. In the case of formats other than a single thesis, the submission of accompanying documents which must satisfy the appointed examiners is also required. Requirements for each format are given in Section 9 of these regulations.

2.1 Academic  Council  has  overall  responsibility  in  all  matters  related  to  graduate research degrees. The University’s Graduate Research Studies Board is responsible for all policies and procedures relating to graduate research and reports to Academic Council on these. 

2.2 The University is prepared to consider proposals for programmes of graduate research work concerned with fundamental research or other areas of scholarship or with any aspects of industrial, commercial, enterprise, clinical, artistic or professional activity. 

2.3 Students registered for graduate research degree programmes are entitled to the same rights and privileges as all other registered students and are subject to the same Student Code of Conduct and Discipline. Students must comply with the University's regulations governing graduate research degrees and are obliged to adhere to the University’s Code of Good Research Practice, Export Control Policy, research ethics guidelines, Code of Practice on Authorship and Academic Integrity and Plagiarism Policy. Students registered for graduate research degree programmes must also adhere to the National Policy Statement on Ensuring Research Integrity in Ireland, adopted by the Irish Universities Association and aligned with the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity.   

2.4 A student may normally be registered at any time for one degree only, and work to be submitted for an award cannot be submitted elsewhere for a degree or other similar award. Any  exceptional  application  for  dual  registration  must  be  made  to  the Graduate Research Studies Board. 

2.5 Students on the Doctor of Education are registered with the Faculty. All other research students must register with a single School, notwithstanding the fact that they may conduct the research across a number of Schools or in one or more University Research Centre.  

2.6 In the case of interdisciplinary research projects, the School assuming responsibility for the project must be the School with which the student is registered. 

2.7 The University encourages collaboration in programmes of research between the University and other educational, industrial, commercial, professional or research institutions. Such arrangements are governed by the University Policy on Research Supervision and Awards in Collaboration with Other Institutions. 

2.8 All official communications and administrative procedures relating to graduate research applications, offers of places, registration, continued registration, annual progress reports, examination procedures and results shall be conducted through and by the Registry.

3.1 Prior to submitting an application, a candidate must consult with the appropriate School on the proposed programme of study and must ascertain whether or not the School would be prepared to recommend their application to the University 

3.2 To  register  for  a  graduate  research  programme,   a  candidate  must  normally have obtained a primary degree classification (Level 8) equivalent to a second class honours degree, grade two, in an appropriate discipline, from an approved university or an approved equivalent degree-awarding body, or have an approved equivalent professional qualification in an area cognate to the proposed research topic. These candidates will only be considered for enrolment on the Master’s Degree by Research initially. 

3.3 Candidates with a taught Master’s degree (Level 9) in an appropriate discipline with first- or second-class honours, and candidates with a primary degree in an appropriate discipline  with  first-  or  second-class  honours,  grade  one,  may  apply  and  be considered for entry to the PhD-track register with a view to proceeding towards a PhD. Such candidates will undergo a confirmation procedure, as outlined in section 8, before being admitted to the PhD register. Candidates with a taught Master’s degree (Level 9) in an appropriate discipline with first- or second-class honours, and candidates with a primary degree in an appropriate discipline  with  first-  or  second-class  honours,  grade  one,  may  apply  and  be considered for entry to the Professional Doctorate register.  

3.4 Students on the Master’s register may apply for transfer to the PhD register under the same conditions, and using the same procedure, as PhD-track candidates requesting confirmation on the PhD register. 

3.5 Candidates holding an appropriate Master's degree obtained by research may apply for direct entry to the PhD register to conduct research in a cognate area. 

3.6 In exceptional circumstances only, candidates for a Master’s or Professional Doctorate degree who do not meet the stipulated entry requirements based on their cognate degree but who can demonstrate exceptional ability or aptitude for academic research may apply to pursue studies for a research degree. They may base their application on recognition of their accredited or experiential prior learning, in line with University policies in this regard. 

The admission of candidates not holding a prior degree qualification cognate to the area of research being undertaken shall be strictly limited and applicable in exceptional cases only. Such applications must be fully supported and endorsed by the School in which the research will be carried out and supervised. The onus will be on the School and the supervisor to give clear reasons for their recommendation in such a case, and the Graduate Research Studies Board will make the final decision on admission.   

3.7  Students holding academic qualifications from outside the State will be assessed using the NARIC guidelines and the European Framework of Qualifications.

4.1 Candidates must apply through the Student Application Portal.  Only candidates who have contacted the School with which they wish to be registered, and have got a recommendation from the School to apply, will be able to proceed to the completion of the Student Application Portal application. All such candidates need to have the support of a potential supervisor.

4.2 Successful candidates will be required to register with the University and pay the appropriate fees and seek their Scholarship Contract Letter where applicable from their School.  

4.3 The registration date for Autumn registration is published in the Academic Calendar. The Spring registration date is 2nd March, for Year 1 students only. Students who register on or after this date must re-register for Year 1 in the following September. Students should check these dates regularly in case of changes. 

4.4 All students are required to re-register on an annual basis. Such registration is subject to payment of the appropriate fees and satisfactory progress certified by the supervisory panel (described in 7.1) and endorsed by the Head of School or nominee. 

4.5 In normal circumstances, research students registered at DCU will reside within Ireland. 

4.6 Supervisors, on behalf of registered students, or new applicants not covered by a joint supervision or award agreement but wishing to reside and undertake research outside Ireland for a period of six months or more (based on the Residing Abroad Principles), must inform the Graduate Research Studies Board, and for those wishing to reside and undertake research outside Ireland for the full period of registration, must be approved by the Graduate Research Studies Board, where in either case details are provided as to the rationale for registration abroad rather than locally to DCU, and arrangements for supervisor oversight of the field, experimental or other work. Such arrangements are also subject to the requirements and principles detailed in section 7.15. 

4.7 Where doctoral or Master’s research is to be conducted in formal collaboration with another higher education institution, or undertaken in the context of the enterprise model, the DCU Policy on Research Supervision and Awards in Collaboration with Other  Institutions  applies.  The  context  should  be  made  clear  at  the  time  of  the student's application to DCU so that an agreement on joint supervision or joint award can be drawn up with the partner institution or company prior to registration. Significant advance planning is usually required.

4.8 Advanced entry is permitted into the University, but subject to specific entry requirements being met by the prospective student and subject to the approval of the application by Graduate Research Studies Board. Credits earned and learning outcomes achieved as part of a graduate taught programme cannot be used to gain advanced entry to a graduate research programme, with exception to those seeking advanced entry to Professional Doctorate programmes. A student who is admitted via advanced entry to a programme is governed by the Academic Regulations in place at the time of their admission, including research integrity requirements as per Academic Regulation 2.3.   

5.1 Students register on either a full-time or a part-time basis. Any changes to this will only be reflected in the next academic year.  

5.2 The  minimum  typical  and  maximum  registration  periods  for  Doctoral and  Research Master’s degrees are as follows:

5.3 If a student wishes to submit a thesis before the minimum period stipulated, they must seek  permission  from  the  Graduate  Research  Studies  Board  to  be allowed to do so. Such permission will be granted in exceptional cases only. 

5.4 If a student does not submit a hardbound thesis to Registry within the maximum period stipulated, they must  seek  permission  from  the  Graduate  Research  Studies  Board  to  be allowed to continue their studies. Such extensions will be granted in exceptional cases only.

6.1 It is preferable for students to conduct their research without interruption in so far as possible. Occasionally, a student may have reason to be absent from the University. If this is for a period of less than three months, no change to registration is required, and regular fee liability applies.  

6.2 When a student is externally funded, they should discuss the situation with the Supervisor(s) in the first instance, and the sponsoring agency should be consulted if a temporary cessation of study is necessary. Students and supervisors should be aware of any possible implications which this temporary cessation may have on the funding and of any additional requirements stipulated by the funding body. The Graduate Studies Office should be notified prior to the student seeking a deferral or suspension of study from the University. Students who defer do not receive a stipend during this period, as stipends are paid only during active registration. Students who suspend their study may continue to receive their stipend if such is available, dependent on the circumstances.  

6.3 Deferral

• 6.3.1 There may be situations where a Student is required to defer their studies. Deferrals are granted in keeping with DCU's  Marks and Standards. Deferrals must be approved by the Supervisor and the relevant Head of School and will usually be for a half, or full academic year.
  
   
• 6.3.2 Students wishing to defer must notify the Registry, in advance of the deferral, in writing submitting an Application for Deferral. Retrospective deferrals are not allowed, except in exceptional cases where a student was adversely affected by illness or other factors, which they were unable or, for
  
  valid reasons, unwilling to divulge, and is limited to half year.
  
   
• 6.3.3 During any temporary cessation of registration, the student’s participation in the research programme is suspended and the student will not be entitled to supervision or to use the University facilities, including the Library.
  
   
• 6.3.4 Consistent with DCU's Marks and Standards, the maximum period of registration is not exceeded.
  
   
• 6.3.5 Tuition fees are adjusted to account for the deferred period.

6.4 Suspension of Study

• 6.4.1 There may be situations where a Student is required to suspend their studies. Suspension of studies are granted in keeping with DCU's Marks & Standards, and only in such exceptional circumstances. Suspension of study must be approved by the Supervisor and the relevant Head of School and will usually be for a half, or full academic year.  
  
   
• 6.4.2 Students wishing to suspend their study must notify the Registry, in advance, in writing by submitting an Application for Suspension of Study. Retrospective suspensions are not allowed, except in exceptional cases where a student was adversely affected by illness or other factors, which they
  
  were unable or, for valid reasons, unwilling to divulge, and is limited to half year.
  
   
• 6.4.3 During any temporary cessation of registration, the student’s participation in the research programme is suspended and the student will not be entitled to supervision or to use the University facilities, including the Library.
  
   
• 6.4.4 Consistent with DCU's Marks and Standards, the maximum period of registration is extended.
  
   
• 6.4.5 Tuition fees are adjusted to account for the suspended period.
  
   

6.5 Withdrawal

• 6.5.1 Research students withdrawing from the University must notify the Registry, either through the Student Apps Page or via the relevant link on the Registry webpage.
  
   

6.6 Readmission

• 6.6.1 Where a student does not register or has no current registration, or a student who has withdrawn from the University, they may apply to the Graduate Research Studies Board for re-admission to the programme, subject to the existence of appropriate supervision experience within the University. Readmissions should normally be granted in keeping with DCU's  Marks and Standards, and only in exceptional circumstances. A student who is readmitted to a programme is governed by the Academic Regulations in place at the time of their re-admission.  

7.1 Each graduate research student will have a supervisory panel. The principal aim of the supervisory panel is to participate in formal decision-making with respect to the student’s progress, and provide advice, additional support and pastoral care, and escalate, as appropriate, should problems arise.  

• 7.1.1 The panel will comprise all of the Supervisor(s) plus one additional independent member of academic staff.

• 7.1.2 The panel must include at least one academic supervisor from the academic School in which the student is registered.

• 7.1.3 While a Supervisor will be an expert in the field of study, there is no requirement that all members of the supervisory panel have this expertise, but they should have some experience of research degree supervision in a similar or related discipline.

• 7.1.4 For DCU academics new to being a principal supervisor (not having supervised postgraduate research students to completion), the supervisory panel for their first two research students must include a member experienced in supervision who will be in a position to take an advisory role. Inclusion of such a panel member can be deemed necessary by the Head of School for reasons other than a principal supervisor’s relative inexperience. The panel member may be a member of academic staff in another School, if there are not enough panel members qualified to be advisors available in a School.

• 7.1.5 Heads of School should endeavour to ensure that a supervisory panel has no more than four members in total.

• 7.1.6 The Independent Panel Member should be appointed by the Head of School and notified to Registry within three months of the student’s initial registration. The principal supervisor should notify the student of the appointment and outline the functions of the role. Reference to the Guidelines on the Appointment and Remit of an Independent Panel Member.

7.2 Supervision remains the sole prerogative of the Supervisor(s) who has/have full responsibility for the overall management and supervision of the student’s work and progress. 

7.3 Appointment of too many supervisors for one candidate is to be avoided, and each supervisor should have a defined and clear role in the work. Assisting students in a laboratory for instance does not, of itself, constitute supervising.

7.4 Each graduate research student will have a suitably qualified principal supervisor whose responsibility will be to supervise the student on a regular and frequent basis. 

• 7.4.1 In certain cases, where there is a significant requirement that more than one area of expertise be covered, there may be more than one principal supervisor. The supervisors in this instance are referred to as joint principal supervisors and have equal rights and undertake equal responsibilities. 

• 7.4.2 A principal supervisor is normally employed on a permanent contract with the university or one which extends beyond the normal expected registration period of the candidate. If these conditions are not met, then a supervisory plan must be put in place which satisfies the Head of School.  
   

7.5 In  certain  cases,  there  may  be  secondary  supervisor(s)  as  well  as  principal supervisor(s). A secondary supervisor is appointed when specific expert academic input is required on aspects of the project, or when supervision is being provided by a person who is not a member of DCU staff. 

• 7.5.1 Unless  subject  to  a  joint  award  agreement,  where  a  supervisor  is  not  a member of University staff, such a person or persons will be deemed to be secondary supervisors and a University staff member will be the principal supervisor. This includes adjunct faculty. All relevant forms must incorporate the names of all supervisors. The University will, however, accept the signature of the DCU supervisor(s) as signalling assent on the part of both or all supervisors. 

7.6  For students undertaking Professional Doctorates, appointment of supervisors and the establishment of the supervisory panel may be postponed until the student embarks on the substantive research work. 

7.7  It  is  the  responsibility  of  the  relevant  Head  of  School  to  ensure that appropriate supervision remains in place in situations where a supervisor or independent panel member leaves the University. 

• 7.7.1 Where a principal supervisor retires or resigns from the University during the programme of study of one or more students, then the supervisor is encouraged to continue supervising the students in their new capacity, but as a secondary supervisor. It is the responsibility of the Head of School to appoint a new principal supervisor in cases where it is necessary under the requirements in 7.1 and to notify Registry using the appropriate form. 

• 7.7.2 Where a supervisor is absent (e.g. on sabbatical leave) for part of the duration of the student’s research, it will be the School’s responsibility to determine whether or not a replacement supervisor is needed for the period in question. 

• 7.7.3 It is the responsibility of the supervisor(s) to ensure a smooth and timely transition where a change of supervisor takes place. 

• 7.7.4 Changes in supervisory and/or panel member arrangements must normally be made on the basis of agreement between the supervisor(s), the student, the proposed supervisor(s) and the Head of School or nominee and must be submitted to the Faculty Research Committee for approval and, once approved there, notified to Registry.   

7.8 Supervisors will be appropriately qualified. 

• 7.8.1 Academic staff who undertake the supervision of PhD students or Professional Doctorate students are themselves required to hold a doctoral qualification or a full professorship or professorship and have relevant experience in an area cognate to the proposed area of research, usually reflected by publications relating to the general area of research being undertaken by the candidate. 

• 7.8.2 A person who does not hold a doctoral qualification or a full professorship or professorship may, however, act as joint principal supervisor or secondary supervisor to a doctoral candidate provided that the other supervisor holds such an award or title. Such supervisors 12  should have research experience consistent with the level of study. 

• 7.8.3 Academic staff undertaking the supervision of research Master’s students are themselves required to hold at least a Master’s qualification in an area cognate to the proposed area of research. A person who does not hold a Master’s qualification may, however, act as joint principal supervisor or secondary supervisor provided that the other supervisor holds such an award or title. Such supervisors should have research experience consistent with the level of study. 

7.9 A member of academic staff must decline appointment as a supervisor if they expect not to be able to discharge the responsibilities of supervision in full, or withdraw (ref 7.7.4) if circumstances change and they are no longer able to so. 

7.10 Members  of  academic  staff  should  normally  act  as  supervisor  (principal  or secondary) to a maximum of ten research students at any one time. All cases in which the figure exceeds ten should be referred to the Head of School (or the Executive Dean of Faculty where the Head of School is the supervisor) for a decision as  to  whether  or  not  it  is  appropriate  that  the  proposed  supervisor  accept  an applicant. Where more than one School is involved in the process, the relevant Head of School is the Head of the School of which the proposed supervisor is a member.

7.11  All first-time supervisors must attend training on supervision during, or prior to, the first year of supervising, and all research supervisors are encouraged to attend supervisory training as part of their professional development. 

7.12 Schools are required to have guidelines on the ranges of frequency and durations of contact between research supervisors and students that are regarded as reasonable in the relevant discipline.  

7.13 The responsibilities of the supervisor(s) include the following:

• to advise the student on the selection of the research topic and the nature and quality of the programme of research to be undertaken;
• to ensure that the student acquires training in the methodology of research and scholarship and in the skills necessary  for  sustained  independent  effort  by advising on their training needs analysis and their Personal Development Plan (PDP), and by giving permission for registration for graduate training elements where appropriate;
• to provide contact and guidance through regular and systematic meetings; to request regular written submissions as appropriate and to provide constructive evaluation and criticism in reasonable time;
• to ensure that the student is made aware of any inadequacies of progress or standard relative to that expected and, where necessary, to advise on withdrawal from the programme;
• to liaise with the external supervisor of the co-operating establishment, where relevant;
• to meet with the student and other supervisory panel members formally at least once a year to discuss progress; - to advise on the methodology and form of presentation of the thesis and its 13  subsequent examination, and advise on correction and revisions following examination;
• to complete an annual progress report with the student and advise the Registry if the student is eligible to progress. These reports should include details of the frequency of contact maintained with the candidate and an appraisal of the progress of the work to date; and
• to acknowledge a student's contribution in any presentation, publication or meeting which involves the student's research work. 

7.14 The responsibilities of the student include the following: 

• to comply with relevant DCU regulations;
• to conduct the research within the ethical standards of the discipline(s) and in accordance with the standards detailed by the University and any appropriate external agencies;
• to undertake a periodic training needs analysis and maintain a Personal Development Plan (PDP);
• to engage positively with opportunities for professional development; and
• to acknowledge the supervisor’s role in their research including in any presentation, publication or meeting to which the supervisor has made a contribution. 

7.15 Where a research candidate is resident outside Ireland for 6 months or more over the period of registration, and the registration is not subject to a co-supervision or joint award agreement with an external institution, the Graduate Research Studies Board must be informed as per Academic Regulation 4.6.  Where a research candidate is resident outside Ireland for the full period of registration, and the registration is not subject to a co-supervision or joint award agreement with an external institution, approval from the Graduate Research Studies Board is required, as per Academic Regulation 4.6.   The  following  principles  for  remote  supervision with respect to residing abroad should  be adhered to:  

• 7.15.1 An agreement which incorporates the relevant DCU regulations is written and signed by the DCU supervisor(s), the student and the Head of School, or Executive Dean of Faculty (in cases where the Head of School is a supervisor). 

• 7.15.2 The  DCU  supervisor(s)  must  have  access  to  any  relevant  data  and/or detailed information on facilities/field sites being used in the candidate’s research in order to facilitate evaluation of the methodologies being used and the rigour and integrity of analysis. 

• 7.15.3 The DCU supervisor and student need to maintain regular contact to ensure the successful supervision of the student and either the DCU supervisor or the student may request a face-to-face meeting if they deem it necessary. As per 7.13 the DCU supervisor must meet with the student and other supervisory panel members formally at least once a year to discuss progress. 

• 7.15.4 A mechanism for communication needs to be established and monitored carefully by the Head of School in which the student is  registered. It should be ensured that all appropriate technological means are employed to facilitate the supervision process.  

7.16 Research students and supervisors have access to procedures of the University such as those under the Policy to Promote Respect and Dignity by Preventing Harassment or Bullying in DCU, the DCU Code of Conduct and Discipline, the Policy on Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct and the Student Grievance Procedure and are subject to DCU’s Guidelines on Best Practice in Research Ethics and the DCU Academic Integrity and Plagiarism Policy. This list is not exhaustive and may change. All relevant University policies, in force at any given time, apply. Significant difficulties which arise within a supervisor/student relationship are dealt with in this context. 

In the first instance, a student, supervisor(s) or other panel member should seek a resolution to the issues at School level. This process will normally involve the student, supervisor(s), panel members and Head of School. The Head of School may wish to seek advice on policy or procedure (without prejudicing any possible subsequent formal procedures) and/or consult with other colleagues on context and background. The resolution to the issues will be captured in writing and circulated to the student and panel members by the Head of School, to ensure clarity for both student and supervisor(s). 

If any party does not accept the resolution, or a resolution is not possible within a reasonable timeframe (3-6 weeks), consideration should be given by all parties as to how the issues fall under specific University Policies.

8.1 Annual Progression 

8.1.1 Continued registration for a higher degree is dependent on the submission of a satisfactory annual progress report.  A student’s progress is formally evaluated on an annual basis through the completion of an Annual Progress Report as made available by Registry. 

8.1.2 Annual Progress Review will be carried out at School level, with the relevant report completed by the principal supervisor(s), approved by the supervisory panel and endorsed by the Head of School or nominee. A copy of the report should be submitted to the Registry each year on or before the date published in the Academic Calendar. The student should retain a copy of the final electronic form. 

8.1.3 In the case of a negative recommendation, the University will take the view that the student is unlikely to achieve the degree for which they are registered and they will not be permitted to continue as a registered graduate research student. 

8.1.4 A student has the right to appeal a negative recommendation made by the supervisory panel. The process for appealing is detailed in section 13.   

8.1.5 For students undertaking Professional Doctorates, an Annual Progress Report will not be required until the student embarks on the substantive research work. Decisions on annual progression in the interim are managed in a way which is appropriate to the specific programme structure. The basis of progression decisions, when they relate to module completion, will be made known to candidates and, as a general principle, students should get useful feedback on progress every year.   

8.2 Assessment for confirmation on, or transfer to, the PhD Register 

8.2.1 Students initially admitted on a PhD-track registration will have to undergo a confirmation procedure generally no earlier than 12 months and no later than 21 months research after initial registration for full-time students and at an appropriate corresponding time for part-time students. This is a distinct and separate exercise to Annual Progress Review. 

Applications from such candidates for confirmation on the PhD register must be supported by the Principal Supervisor and will be subject to both an evaluation of a written submission and  a satisfactory  performance  in  an  oral  examination  conducted  by the Principal Supervisor and an Internal Examiner (selection based on 10.1), approved by the Head of School. It is not allowable that the independent panel member or a colleague who does not themselves have a doctorate act as the internal examiner for confirmation or transfer. 

8.2.2 The application form requesting confirmation on the PhD register should be signed by the examiner(s) and Head of School or appropriate nominee (such as the Director of Research or Research Convenor within the School). It should include both a  report on  the  oral examination  and  a  general progress report on  the  student’s research  performance  (as  evidenced  by  a  substantial  body  of  work  such  as  a significant written report). In determining whether or not such confirmation should take place, the Graduate Research Studies Board will require evidence that the student’s progress to date has been satisfactory and that the programme of research envisaged provides a satisfactory basis for work at PhD standard. If the outcome of the confirmation procedure is unsuccessful the student may, if appropriate, be invited to complete such research as will allow him/her to graduate with a Master’s degree. In   exceptional   circumstances,   students   may   also   be   advised   to   re-apply   for confirmation on the PhD register within a period of six months; this may be the case if the examiners believe that there is real potential but that it is not possible to make a positive recommendation at the time when confirmation is originally requested. 

8.2.3 Procedures for applying to transfer to the PhD register from the Master’s register mirror those of the confirmation process. Applications to transfer from PhD or 16  PhD- track to the Master’s register should be made directly to Registry, supported by the student, supervisory panel and Head of School.

8.2.4 Transfer between professional doctorate and PhD registration is not permitted.  

8.2.5 A student has the right to appeal an unsuccessful confirmation or transfer result. The process for appealing is detailed in section 13.    

8.3 Notice of Intention to Submit for Examination 

Through the principal supervisor(s), a student must provide three months’ notice to the Registry of their intention to submit for examination and provide a typed 300-word abstract of their work. The supervisor and Head of School must recommend (on the appropriate form) the name of appropriate External and Internal Examiners, for appointment by the Graduate Research Studies Board. The Head of School must appoint (on the appropriate form) the Independent Chairperson, for noting by the Graduate Research Studies Board. Candidates should confirm the format of their submission at this stage, and indicate whether a specific non-disclosure agreement is required.  

In cases of disagreement between a student and a supervisor as to the appropriateness of submitting the thesis for examination, the matter is to be referred to the Head of School for resolution. In exceptional circumstances, such as an allegation of research misconduct, or alleged breach of a legally binding contract, the university may decide to postpone or deny the facility of an examination. 

The completed thesis must be submitted to the Registry, which will send it to the approved examiners. In no circumstances should it be sent to the examiners by either the supervisor or the student.  

8.4 Assessment Processes for Candidates for a Research Degree 

8.4.1 Candidates for a doctoral degree will be assessed on the basis of a written thesis and a viva voce examination. In the case of Master's candidates, the usual expectation is that there will be no viva voce examination. However, an examiner may recommend that a viva voce examination be held. 

8.4.2 Each candidate for a higher degree by research will be examined by at least one Internal Examiner and at least one External Examiner. 

8.4.3 The viva voce examination conducted in private, shall be held at Dublin City University unless prior approval has been obtained from the Graduate Research Studies Board to hold it elsewhere. The viva voce examination may not proceed without all the examiners being present. In the event of an examiner’s or the candidate’s unexpected absence, the examination must be postponed to another date. Where absolutely necessary, consideration may be given to using the University's videoconferencing facilities for the viva voce examination. The standard procedures for conducting a viva voce using videoconferencing must be followed. 

8.4.4 The proceedings of the viva voce examination shall be supervised by an Independent Chairperson appointed by the Head of School or nominee in consultation with the supervisor.  

8.4.5 A candidate for a doctoral degree will be required to show ability to engage in original investigation or scholarship, to test ideas whether their own or those of others, and to understand the background and fundamental basis of the work undertaken. 

8.4.6 A candidate for a Master's degree will be required to demonstrate competence in the investigation or critical study of the chosen topic and lucidity in the presentation of the results. 

8.4.7 In cases where a viva voce is being held, both External and Internal Examiners should send preliminary written reports to the Independent Chairperson of the examination committee prior to the viva voce examination. Once these are all available, the Chairperson shall arrange for copies of preliminary reports from each examiner to be exchanged among all examiners in advance of the viva voce examination, so that they are aware of one another’s views. 

8.4.8 In cases where no viva voce is being held, the examination report forms are completed by both examiners and the Internal Examiner submits them to Registry. The internal examiner is responsible for communicating the outcome to the appropriate parties. 

8.4.9 Following  the  viva  voce  the  Internal  and  External  Examiners  shall  furnish  the Independent Chairperson with a  joint written report (on the appropriate form) on the outcome of the candidate's examination for the higher degree for which they are registered. This form should be completed on the day of the viva voce and be submitted to Registry by the Independent Chairperson. The Chairperson should also make a formal report to the Head of School on the quality of the examination process and on any recommendations made by the examiners in order to allow the School to get appropriate feedback on the process with a view to maintaining the overall quality of future activities.  

8.5 Faculty Awards Boards for Research Degrees 

8.5.1 The Registry will make the necessary arrangements to convene a meeting of the relevant Faculty Awards Board for Research degrees to consider the examination reports of students who have been examined. 

8.5.2 Following  the  meetings  of  Faculty  Awards  Boards for Research Degrees,  the  Registry  will  submit  to Academic Council, for its approval, a composite listing of candidates recommended for awards. A reference will also be included summarising all other outcomes and the number of candidates involved.  

8.6 Approval of awards by Academic Council 

8.6.1 All  examination  results  and  recommendations  are  subject  to  final  approval  and confirmation by Academic Council. However, communication will be issued by Registry to any unsuccessful candidates for higher degrees in advance of Academic Council following the meeting of Faculty Awards Boards for Research Degrees. 

8.6.2 Following the meeting of Academic Council, successful candidates for higher degrees shall be issued with a postgraduate research transcript by Registry. This will include details of their research thesis, supervisors and any graduate training elements completed in DCU.  

8.6.3 Re-submission by an unsuccessful candidate may take place only with the approval of Academic Council on the recommendation of, and under the conditions proposed by, the Examiners and with the concurrence of the Faculty Awards Board for Research Degrees (FABRD). As noted in Section 8.6.1, communication will be issued by Registry to any unsuccessful candidates for higher degrees following the meeting of FABRD. This will provide the student with the required time to consider the appeals process, if they feel it is applicable to them (Section 13). 

All theses submitted must conform strictly to the regulations and requirements detailed below. All formats of doctoral theses are examined under the same conditions and through the same processes of independent examiners and a viva voce examination.   

9.1 Formats of Research Thesis 

Irrespective of the format chosen for the submission of research leading to a doctoral (or masters by research) award, the standard by which the work is evaluated remains the same.  A thesis must: 

• consist of the candidate’s own account of their research; 
• demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the field of study;
• include critical analysis of related work;
• in the case of a PhD thesis, constitute a significant contribution to existing academic knowledge;
• in the case of a professional doctoral thesis, constitute a significant contribution to existing professional knowledge and practice; 
• be based on work which has been conducted while the candidate has been registered as a research student at DCU; and
• where ethical approval was required, either the University Research Ethics Committee or Faculty Research Ethics Committee approval letter must be included in the thesis appendices.   

9.1.1 PhD Thesis (Monograph): 

The PhD thesis presents the research undertaken by the candidate as an integrated whole. It should include: 

1. an introduction;
2. critical analysis of existing research;
3. in-depth discussions of the methodological approach taken by the candidate;
4. presentation and critical analysis, of the findings of the research undertaken by the candidate; and
5. a substantive conclusion which indicates scope for further research arising out of the candidate’s research. 

The maximum word length, including bibliography and notes, is 90,000. Any appendices remain outside the word limit. 

A variety of media may be used to support/inform research work – e.g. digital/electronic format, websites, photographs and emerging technologies. 

The order in which components b. to d. are presented, and the nature of any additional written work, will vary from discipline to discipline. 

Candidates who have pursued a PhD integrated with GTEs also follow this format in relation to their thesis. All candidates are encouraged to publish material in advance of presentation of the thesis, and reference should be made to any such publication in the thesis.  

9.1.2 PhD by Publication: 

Students should, ideally, indicate their intention to submit using publications at the time of application for transfer/confirmation on the PhD register but, at the latest, at the time of indicating their intention to submit for examination.  The PhD thesis by publication should consist of:    

1. a set of published papers and/or papers accepted for publication; and
2. an accompanying set of chapters, which sets the papers in the context of existing literature, gives a detailed overview of the theme(s) common to all papers included in the thesis, argues the coherence of these publications, and justifies the methodology adopted. This overarching critical document should evaluate the contribution that the research in the submitted publications makes to the advancement of knowledge in the research area. Candidates should consult the specific guidelines on PhD Thesis by Publication for more information.

The maximum word length of the thesis, including the accompanying set of chapters, selected papers, references and notes is 90,000. Any appendices remain outside the word limit. 

Only peer-reviewed book chapters or papers (published journal papers, or papers accepted for publication) in reputable peer-reviewed outputs for the discipline(s) in question can be considered for inclusion when a thesis is submitted for examination. A minimum of three papers is required, however the number of papers may be higher and vary across disciplines, vary in length of individual papers and vary in terms of the extent of the candidate’s contribution thereto. 

Where jointly-authored publications are included in the submission, the candidate is required to submit a Declaration of Authorship form for each co-authored paper, submitted as part of the thesis for examination. The candidate should declare the extent to which the publication is their work and what their specific contributions were,  and  this  should  normally  be  certified  by  the  supervisory  panel  and  all  authors concerned, but at least independently verified in all cases. This Declaration of Authorship should preface each co-authored chapter of the thesis at the examination submission stage. 

Novel contribution should normally be apparent in at least three of the papers in which the candidate is main or key contributor. Other papers with smaller or more specific contributions can also be included in the thesis, where this makes sense in terms of its overall coherence. All papers and the accompanying chapters should be presented and bound (together) in accordance with the regulations in section 9.4 and the guidelines provided.   

9.1.3 PhD by Artefact 

This format is restricted to candidates undertaking research in disciplines where output in forms other than a monograph (such as a music composition, critical edition, film, multimedia production, arts based works etc.) are accepted internationally as evidence of scholarly achievement at the level of the research award.  Specific discipline-based additional admission requirements, linked to skills-based competency, may apply to candidates for research projects intended to be presented in this format.  

The format requires:  

• A substantial artefact, or portfolio of artefacts.

 and 

• An accompanying overarching critical commentary, which should detail the research questions addressed through the medium of the artefact(s), sets the artefact(s) in the context of existing literature, give a detailed overview of the theme(s) common to all elements included, argue the coherence of the submission and justify the methodology adopted. It should evaluate the contribution that the research presented in the submitted artefact makes to the advancement of knowledge in the research area. Candidates should consult the specific guidelines on PhD Thesis by Artefact for more information.   

9.1.4 PhD through Creative and/or Performance Practice 

This format is restricted to candidates submitting research in disciplines where it is a recognised norm internationally. Specific additional admission requirements, linked to skills-based competency, will apply to candidates for research projects intended to be presented in this format.  

The format requires:  

• A portfolio of creative or performance-based elements of substantial nature. 

and 

• An accompanying overarching critical commentary, which should detail the research questions addressed through the medium of the creative work / performance in the context of existing practice, give a detailed overview of the theme(s) common to all elements included, argue the coherence of the submission, and justify the methodology adopted. It should evaluate the contribution that the research presented in the creative work/performance makes to the advancement of knowledge in the field. Candidates should consult the specific guidelines on PhD Thesis by Creative and/or Performance Practice for more information. 

9.1.5 Professional Doctoral Thesis: 

The professional doctoral thesis may follow either of the structures described in 9.1.1 and 9.1.2.  Alternatively, the Professional Doctoral thesis may take the following format: 

• a. a research report; and 
• b. a clinical portfolio or a reflective practice portfolio.

In this case, the research report should constitute no less than 50% of the contribution of the final thesis. 

The maximum word length of the thesis, including the accompanying set of chapters, selected papers, references and notes is 90,000. Any appendices remain outside the word limit.   

9.1.6 Research Master’s Thesis: 

The research Master’s thesis in a monograph format should include: 

1. an introduction; 
2. critical analysis of existing research; 
3. in-depth discussions of the methodological approach taken by the candidate; 
4. presentation, and critical analysis, of the findings of the research undertaken by the candidate; and 
5. a substantive conclusion which indicates scope for further research arising out of the candidate’s research. 

The maximum word length, including bibliography and notes, is 45,000. Any appendices remain outside the word limit. 

A variety of media may be used to support/inform research work – e.g. digital/electronic format, websites, photographs and emerging technologies. 

The order in which components b. to d. are presented, and the nature of any additional written work, will vary from discipline to discipline.  

9.1.7 Master of Arts by Artefact 

This format is restricted to candidates undertaking research in disciplines where output in forms other than a monograph (such as a music composition, critical edition, film, multimedia production, arts based works etc.) are accepted internationally as evidence of scholarly achievement at the level of the research award. Specific discipline-based additional admission requirements, linked to skills-based competency, may apply to candidates for research projects intended to be presented in this format.  

The format requires:  

• An appropriately substantive artefact or portfolio of artefacts  

and 

• An accompanying commentary, which should detail the research questions addressed through the medium of the artefact(s), sets the artefact(s) in the context of existing literature, give a detailed overview of the theme(s) common to all elements included, argue the coherence of the submission and justify the methodology adopted. It should evaluate the contribution that the research presented in the submitted artefact makes to the advancement of knowledge in the research area. Candidates should consult the specific guidelines on Master of Arts by Artefact for more information.  

9.1.8 Master of Arts through Creative and/or Performance Practice 

This format is restricted to candidates submitting research in disciplines where it is a recognised norm internationally. Specific additional admission requirements, linked to skills-based competency,  

The format requires:        

• One substantial or a number of less substantial creative or performance-based elements  

and 

• An accompanying commentary, which should detail the research questions addressed through the medium of the creative work / performance in the context of existing practice, give a detailed overview of the theme(s) common to all elements included, argue the coherence of the submission, and justify the methodology adopted. It should evaluate the contribution that the research presented in the creative work/performance makes to the advancement of knowledge in the field. Candidates should consult the specific guidelines on Master of Arts through Creative and/or Performance Practice for more information. 

9.2 Thesis Submission Procedure 

9.2.1 The student must provide one electronic PDF copy of the thesis for examination. The student may be required to provide the Registry with one soft-bound printed copy of the thesis for each examiner. The binding is deemed to be temporary, pending completion of the examination process.  This should be submitted to Registry in a single PDF file entitled 'pre-examination copy', along with the student number and date of submission e.g. pre-examination copy_12345678_010123. The PDF should also include a footer on each page of the document, with the words 'pre-examination copy' and the submission date. A supervisor or students should not in any instance, send the thesis directly to an examiner, either in soft-bound printed or electronic format. 

9.2.2 On  completion  of  the  examination  process,  two  hard-bound  copies  of  the  thesis should be submitted to the Registry. 

9.2.3 Also, on completion of the examination process, one additional copy of the thesis shall be submitted in electronic format. It shall be subject to the regulations as to format, except where those apply specifically to physical properties of the print copies, for example, regulations under 9.4 covering binding. In all other respects, the electronic copy shall contain exactly the same content as, and be an exact surrogate of, the print copy.  The electronic copy shall be uploaded to a secure web space by a principal supervisor. All accompanying material, e.g. appendices or files in digital/electronic format, that is submitted with the bound copy of the thesis must also be uploaded to the secure web space. The candidate will be required to sign a declaration form confirming  that  an  e-version  of  the approved  thesis  has  been  submitted  to  the Library. The completed form must be submitted to Registry with the two hard-bound print copies of the thesis. 

9.3 Thesis Ownership and Access 

9.3.1 Copies  of  the  thesis  submitted  for  examination  will  remain  the  property  of  the University. The University will place one print copy and one electronic copy of the thesis in the Library for free consultation. The Library retains the right, subject to paragraph 9.3.2 below, to include the summary or abstract in any list of theses published by the University or any publication to which the University may decide to contribute a list of theses. 

9.3.2 Candidates are required to sign a declaration form (Thesis Access Consent Form) at the time of submission of the thesis for examination, permitting access to their thesis. When, following completion of the examination process, the student is ready to submit the final hard-bound copy of the thesis and questions of the confidentiality of the contents arise, candidates may request and  obtain  temporary  restriction  of  access  up  to  a  maximum  of  four  years  for sufficient  cogent  reasons,  using  the  appropriate  form.  An application for the restriction of access must be approved and countersigned by a research student's supervisor. The time period of restriction will commence based on the time of publication by the library. This time normally commences following the conferral of the candidates award. A retrospective application for restriction may not be requested once the thesis has been published. 

9.3.3 Copyright in the thesis is a matter for agreement between the candidate and the University. All issues relating to intellectual property will be subject to the University’s Intellectual Property Policy and related procedures and contractual obligations. 

9.3.4 Subject to the provisions of the University's Intellectual Property Policy with respect to Copyright every candidate irrevocably grants to DCU and its respective successors and assigns, a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty free, perpetual licence to reproduce, distribute, modify, store, copy, publicly perform and publicly display, with the right to sub- licence through multiple tiers of sublicences, and the right to assign such rights in and to the thesis including, without limitation the right to use in any way whatsoever the thesis.  DCU may copy, publish, make available, distribute, license, or otherwise use the thesis in any manner worldwide via any medium including without limitation the internet, intranets, extranets, mobile phones, GSM/3G phones, WAP phones, databases, print, interactive television, digital media services, electronic media services, platforms, or any networks (including without limitation telecommunications, wireless, radio, television, cable, satellite, terrestrial networks) currently in existence or which may be developed in the future.    

9.3.5 In exceptional circumstances, following, for example, legislative changes affecting data protection and personal data rights, it may be necessary to restrict access to a thesis or redact parts of it. If such cases arise, the Dean of Graduate Studies will be the first point of contact for initiating discussions with the relevant university parties. 

9.4 Thesis Design and Layout 

9.4.1 The language of the thesis shall normally be either English or Irish. Where it is proposed that the thesis will be in another language, the Principal Supervisor must seek the approval of the Graduate Research Studies Board - providing details of the rationale – ideally at initial registration or prior to the student’s first annual progress review.  

9.4.2 A thesis should not be excessively long. The maximum limit for a doctoral thesis is 90,000 words of text, including bibliography and notes and, for a Master's thesis, is 45,000 words of text, including bibliography and notes. In the case of scientific and technological theses, the amount of text may be less. Because of this variation from subject to subject, the advice of the supervisor should be sought at an early stage in the preparation of the thesis. For professional doctorates, the acceptable word length should fall between the parameters of a Master’s thesis and a doctoral thesis, and is a matter for discussion between the supervisor and the student. 

9.4.3 The use of external professional individuals or organisations for proof-reading or copy-editing of theses on a paid basis is not permitted. 

9.4.4 The thesis shall: 

• (a) Be bound within boards of sufficient rigidity to support the work when it is standing upon a shelf. The colour of the boards shall be University blue (Pantone Ref: 289); 
• (b) Have the following information on the front (board) cover:
  • (i) the title of the thesis in at least 24pt (8 mm) type;
  • (ii) the name of the candidate;
  • (iii) the award for which the thesis is submitted e.g. MA, MBS, LLM, MSc, MEng, MPhil, EdD, DProfElite, DPsych, DBA, DMusPerf, PhD; and
  • (iv) the year of submission, i.e. the calendar year in which the Faculty Awards Board approves the award.
  • (v) Where the format of the thesis includes a creative or performance piece, the assessed practice must be recorded in an appropriate digital format as a permanent record and be appended to the thesis. 

The subject area must not be stated; the reference should be to, for example, ‘PhD’, not ‘PhD in xxxx’. 

• (c) Have the following information on the spine (board) cover:

The same information (excluding the title of the thesis) shall be printed in the same order in at least 24 pt (8 mm) type along the spine of the cover in such a way as to be easily legible when the thesis is lying flat with its front cover uppermost. All lettering on the cover and the spine shall be gold in colour and clear of any graphic design.

• (d) The thesis must contain a title page with the following information:
  • (i) the full title of the thesis, and subtitle, if any, the name of the candidate and their qualifications;
  • (ii) the award for which the work is submitted;
  • (iii) the name of the University, the supervisor(s) and of the School with which the candidate is registered;
  • (iv)  the name and affiliation of external supervisors (if any);
  • (v) the month and year of submission (relevant to softbound thesis submission at examination stage and then updated for final hardbound thesis submission); and
  • (vi)  the total number of volumes and the number of the particular volume, if there is more than one volume. 
• (e) Declaration Page:

The thesis must have a page, bound into the thesis immediately following the title page, containing the following declaration, signed by the candidate: 

I hereby certify that this material, which I now submit for assessment on the programme of study leading to the award of ........................... (insert title of degree for which registered) is entirely my own work, and that I have exercised reasonable care to ensure that the work is original, and does not to the best of my knowledge breach any law of copyright, and has not been taken from the work of others save and to the extent that such work has been cited and acknowledged within the text of my work. 

Signed:                          (Candidate) ID No.:                        Date:                 

OR 

Dearbhaím leis seo gurb é mo shaothar féin amháin an t-ábhar seo atá á leagan isteach agam i gcomhair measúnaithe ar an gclár staidéir le haghaidh na dámhachtana .............. (cuir isteach teideal na céime ar a bhfuil tú cláraithe), agus go bhfuil gach cúram réasúnach glactha agam a dheimhniú, ar feadh m’eolais, gur saothar bunaidh é seo nach sáraíonn aon dlí cóipchirt, agus nár baineadh as saothar aon duine eile é ach amháin agus a mhéid go luaitear agus go n-aithnítear an saothar sin laistigh de théacs mo shaothairse. 

Sínithe:                     (Iarrthóir) Uimhir Aitheantais:              Dáta:              _                

• (f) Thesis Formatting 
  • (i) The content must be printed, typewritten or otherwise reproduced on good-quality (100gsm minimum) white A4-sized paper (210mm x 297mm), with a minimum font size of 11, doubly or one-and-a-half spaced, with a binding edge margin of not less than 35mm and all other margins not less than 20mm.
  • (ii) Double-sided printing is recommended for the body of the thesis, but the title page, abstract, declaration and pages including any figures likely to show through the paper should be single-sided.
  • (iii) Pages must be numbered consecutively throughout the text, including those pages incorporating photographs or diagrams which are included as whole pages, and papers submitted in the PhD by Publication format.
  • (iv) Where the thesis consists of more than one volume, the pagination should indicate the Arabic number of the volume as well as the page number referring to the volume. Both volumes should include the title page, declaration and table of contents. Table of contents should reference the complete work in both volumes. 
  • (v) Page numbers should be located centrally at the bottom of the page and about 10 mm above the edge of the page.  
• (g) Thesis Layout including Table of Contents, Lists, Abstract, Photos/Diagrams, Footnotes
  • (i) It should include a table of contents listing chapters, sections, and appendices. This should be printed or typed in single spacing and include right-justified page numbers. Lists of abbreviations, tables, and figures should immediately follow the table of contents, prior to the abstract. Any abbreviations, other than those in normal use must be included in this explanatory list.
  • (ii) Appendices should be named alphabetically, and each appendix paginated consecutively but separately from the main text and from the others.
  • (iii)The thesis should include an abstract of not more than 300 words. The abstract should be printed or typed in single spacing and should indicate the author and the title of the thesis in the form of a heading.
  • (iv) Photographs and/or diagrams must be of high quality and appropriately indexed, each accompanied by an explanatory legend. They should also be centrally justified as much as possible and only positioned otherwise if essential to the work. 
  • (v) Where footnotes and indented quotations are used, these may be in single spacing.

The purpose of this section is not only to enunciate procedures for the appointment of examiners but also to set out what students can reasonably expect from the University regarding the examination of their work. The Graduate Research Studies Board is responsible for approving the appointment of both Internal and External Examiners. 

Each candidate for a higher degree by research will be examined by at least one Internal Examiner and at least one External Examiner. 

In line with the University’s policy and stated commitment to best practice in equality issues, Heads of School must ensure, in so far as possible, a gender mix in the appointment of examiners to the examining team for research awards. Where necessary, gender mix may be attained for the viva voce examination in the appointment of the Independent Chairperson.  

10.1 Selection and Nomination of Internal Examiners 

The regulations and guidelines informing the appointment of Internal Examiners shall be, to all intents and purposes and, in as far as is possible, the same as the regulations and guidelines for appointment of External Examiners as set out below. However, unlike the External Examiner, it will be sufficient for the Internal Examiner to have a broad rather than specific familiarity with the area of research.  

The Internal Examiner should normally be a member of academic staff, emeritus professor, retired DCU academic, senior researcher, or adjunct faculty member of the University and either hold a doctoral qualification or be of the grade of Professor or Full Professor. The Internal Examiner must be independent  of  the  research,  the  student  and  the  other  examiner(s)  and  not  be conflicted in any way in terms of their relationship to the supervisor. While it is not expected that the Internal Examiner will necessarily be completely professionally independent of the supervisor, e.g. in terms of other current or former collaborations unrelated to the work under examination, it is expected that the Internal Examiner's relationship to the supervisor will be such that no conflicts due to personal relationships or constraints due to professional or other dependencies which could be deemed to impair the examiner's independence in reaching a decision on the examined work. Cases where the supervisor is line manager of a staff member on short term contract, or within their probationary period, would, for example, preclude their appointment as an examiner for a given student.

The Internal Examiner may not be a member of the candidate’s supervisory panel, but should be experienced in supervising research students (such as having supervised 3 candidates from early stage through the confirmation/transfer stage and/or has completed all elements of professional development for examiners (course and where applicable exam shadowing with reflection). Newly appointed staff who are being nominated as Internal Examiners will normally be expected to complete all elements of professional development for examiners (course and where applicable exam shadowing) as set out above. All nominations of Internal Examiners are submitted for approval to the Graduate Research Studies Board.  

In the case of nominees for the role of Internal Examiner who are retired, evidence of relevant research activity within the previous four years will normally be expected. 

10.2 Selection and Nomination of External Examiners 

10.2.1 For research awards, External Examiners are appointed for specific candidates. External Examiners for research students should not be appointed more than twice in a four-year period. Appointments may be made irrespective of External Examiners’ duties with regard to taught programmes. No distinction should be made, for the purposes of appointing External Examiners, between Master’s and doctoral students. 

10.2.2 In no circumstances should the student be involved in any aspect of the selection of the External Examiner.

10.2.3 If the candidate is a current member of staff of the University or was a member of staff of the University within a period of five years prior to the notification of intention to submit, two External Examiners are appointed to add an additional layer of independent assurance to the process. Where the candidate within a period of five years prior to the notification of intention to submit has held, a part-time or short-term contract with the University, the Head of School (or Executive Dean of Faculty where the Head of School is the supervisor) will be requested to determine whether or not the student falls into the category of candidate for whom two External Examiners are required. 

10.2.4 In no circumstances may a staff member from DCU act as an External Examiner to a linked college, or vice versa, nor may a staff member of a linked college act as an External Examiner in another linked college. A staff member from Dundalk Institute of Technology may not be appointed as an external examiner for a DCU registered research student nor vice versa. 

10.2.5 No individual external to the university who has acted as supervisor to a student, or has been involved with the progress of the candidate's research, may act as External Examiner for the student following the submission of the thesis. 

10.2.6 Reciprocal examining arrangements between the University and other colleges/institutions in the same subject area should be avoided, as should disproportionate dependence on any specific School or Department in a given institution. Typically, a year should elapse between appointments involving the same Schools/Departments. 

10.2.7 The External Examiner(s) should be contacted informally by the supervisor to ascertain availability and willingness to undertake the role within the timescale envisaged. 

10.2.8 All nominations of External Examiners are submitted for approval to the Graduate Research Studies Board by means of the notification of intention to submit thesis for examination form, which includes an outline curriculum vitae for completion. Approved appointments are valid for a period of 12 months. 

10.2.9 External Examiners are expected to have the following qualities and competencies:

• recognised expertise in the area which is the subject matter of the thesis being examined;
• experience in supervising research students to completion at the level of the award being sought
• experience in the examination process of such students at the level of the award being sought; and
• formal academic qualification and/or professional qualification which is recognised within the particular discipline as forming a suitable background to allow the individual to act in the role of External Examiner. 

In the case of nominees for the role of External Examiner who are retired, evidence of relevant research activity within the previous four years will normally be expected. 

10.2.10 It is imperative, for quality assurance purposes, that the External Examiner is independent of the University, of the supervisor, of its Internal Examiners and of the candidate presenting him/herself for examination. Therefore the DCU Conflict of Interest Policy and Guidelines should be adhered to in relation to any appointment.

In particular, it must be ensured that all External Examiners should: 

• not have been in the employ of the University (in any capacity) in the five years prior to appointment;
• not  have  been  a  student  of  the  University  in  the  five  years  prior  to appointment;
• not be a beneficiary of any bursary or remuneration from the University (other than from the post of External Examiner, membership of an Accreditation Board, quality review panel or recruitment/promotions panel;
• not have advised the student on the work underpinning the preparation of their thesis;
• not have published with any of the supervisors in the previous five years;
• have no close personal relationship with the candidate, supervisor(s) or other examiner(s) such that, in the opinion of the Head of School, there is a risk that the Conflict of Interest Policy and Guidelines might be breached; and
• have no professional relationship with the candidate, supervisor(s) or other examiner(s) such that, in the opinion of the Head of School, there is a risk that the Conflict of Interest Policy and Guidelines might be breached.   

10.3 Appointment and Examination Procedures 

10.3.1 Candidates for research degrees are required to notify their supervisor initially of their intention to submit a thesis for examination, or, where relevant in the case of a creative or performance practice piece, of their intention to deliver a live performance for examination, using the appropriate form. Notice of intention to submit a thesis must be given to the Registry at least three months in advance of submission as outlines in Academic Regulation 8.3.  

10.3.2 On receipt of this notice of intention to submit a thesis, the supervisor is required to consult with the relevant Head(s) of School on the selection and nomination of appropriate Internal and External Examiners. The Head of School is responsible for ensuring the nomination is in line with the regulations, and appoints an Independent Chairperson. The supervisor is responsible for making initial contact with the proposed External Examiner. 

10.3.3 Following completion of the process of consultation referred to above, the supervisor is required to submit the completed form to the Registry. Completed forms will be submitted to the next scheduled meeting of the Graduate Research Studies Board. 

10.3.4 Following approval by the Graduate Research Studies Board of the appointment of the Examiners nominated and noting the Independent Chairperson, the Registry will issue a formal written invitation to the person(s) nominated to act as External Examiner(s) and, in addition, will provide a copy of the abstract of the work to be examined. 

10.3.5 Candidates may be required to submit soft-bound copies of the thesis to the Registry as outlined in 9.2.1 above. The agreement of their principal or joint principal supervisors, or Head of School, to submit the thesis should be obtained prior to such submission (see 8.3 above). 

10.3.6 Following receipt of these copies, the Registry will immediately forward a copy to each Examiner together with the web link to the relevant Examiners’ Report Form and the Academic Regulations. Examiners are normally expected to carry out their duties within two months of receipt of the thesis to avoid hardship to the candidate. The Registry and the candidate's supervisor(s) should be notified immediately if there is any difficulty in adhering to this time requirement. 

10.3.7 In the case of a thesis submitted for the award of a PhD or Professional Doctorate, the viva voce examination will be supervised by an Independent Chairperson appointed by the Head of School in consultation with the candidate’s supervisor. It will be the duty of the supervisor to liaise with the Examiners and Independent Chairperson regarding arrangements for the viva voce examination. Such arrangements should be finalised as soon as possible after receipt of the thesis by the Examiners and notified in writing to the candidate. The supervisor will also notify the examiners of the contact details of the Independent Chairperson and advise them that all further communication about the examination should go directly, and only, to the Chairperson. The candidate will be advised of the composition of the Board for the viva voce examination. However, the candidate is precluded from making any contact with the External Examiner prior to the viva voce examination. 

10.3.8 In the case of a thesis submitted for the award of a Master’s degree, a viva voce is not normally required but may be requested by the examiners, 

10.3.9 Examiners' Reports and Recommendations will be referred to the next meeting of the relevant Faculty Awards Board for Research degrees (see Section 12 for details).

11.1 Internal and External Examiners 

11.1.1 Each candidate for a higher degree by research will be examined by at least one Internal Examiner and at least one External Examiner (see Section 10 regarding appointment regulations and procedures). 

11.1.2 The thesis will be referred by the Registry to the Examiners, who cannot accept it directly from the candidate or the supervisor. 

11.1.3 Examiners are normally expected to carry out their duties within two months of receipt of the thesis. Examiners’ draft written reports on the thesis should be made available to the Independent Chairperson of the viva at least one week prior to the viva voce examination. Such draft reports can be modified by the examiners on the day of the examination in light of insight afforded by the examination.  

11.2 Examination of the Thesis 

11.2.1 Examiners should assess a Master's thesis in the light of the following criteria: 

• the thesis should show evidence of independent thought and work by the candidate;
• the investigation or critical study should be scholarly;
• the candidate should understand the significance of the work; and
• the thesis and abstract should be presented in grammatically-correct English or Irish or, exceptionally, in another language, and should be readable and succinct. 

11.2.2 Examiners should assess a doctoral thesis in the light of the following criteria:

• the thesis should contain original, independent work that is rigorous, weighty and significant;
• the thesis should represent a significant contribution to knowledge of the subject through the discovery of new facts and/or the exercise of independent critical powers;
• the thesis should demonstrate the candidate's ability to undertake further research;
• the thesis and abstract should be presented in grammatically correct English or Irish or, exceptionally, in another language, and should be readable and succinct;
• if the candidate's research is part of a collaborative group project, the thesis should  indicate  clearly  the  candidate's  contribution  and  the  extent  of  the collaboration; and
• in the viva voce examination, the candidate should demonstrate that the thesis presented is their own work, and that they have an adequate understanding of the research topic and of the broader field of knowledge to which the research belongs. 

11.3 Viva Voce Examination 

11.3.1 The viva voce proceedings shall be managed by an Independent Chairperson who is appointed by the relevant Head of School in consultation with the candidate's supervisor. A Chairperson should be experienced in doctoral supervision and/or have attended formal training provided by the University. The Chairperson is expected to steer the examination process through to a conclusion. In very exceptional cases where the examination outcome is not straightforward, the Chairperson’s involvement may extend to engagement with the Head of School, Associate Dean for Research, Faculty Award Board for Research Degrees, Graduate Research Studies Board or the Dean of Graduate Studies. The Chairperson does not have to be from the School in which the student is registered. 

11.3.2 Candidates must not contact their examiners and vice versa, while in examination; any communication should be through the supervisor(s) to the Independent Chairperson. 

11.3.3 The viva voce examination conducted in private, should be held at Dublin City University (any academic campus) unless prior approval has been obtained from the Graduate Research Studies Board to hold it elsewhere. 

11.3.4 External and Internal Examiners may meet in advance of a viva voce examination, if any of the examiners desires, without a candidate's academic supervisor and/or the Independent Chairperson of the examination being present. 

11.3.5 The viva voce examination shall be carried out jointly by the External and Internal Examiners in a private session. Audio/video recording of the viva voce examination will not be permitted. The candidate's supervisor may be present at the viva voce examination. However, the candidate must be given the option of stating to the Independent Chairperson, not later than ten days prior to the examination, that the candidate would prefer the supervisor not to be present. If this is indicated, then the supervisor should not be present. The supervisor, where present, is not permitted to participate in the examination. The cnadidate should provide clarification of any matters only if and when requested by the examiners or the Independent Chairperson. The supervisor does not participate in the final decision and should leave the meeting while the deliberations leading to this decision are taking place, unless asked by the Chairperson to remain.   

11.4 Examiners’ Reports and Recommendations 

11.4.1 Following the viva voce examination, the examiners should complete the form relating to the examination of the thesis. Reports should incorporate a commentary on the work presented for examination as well as detailing any  corrections to be made. Where the Examiners recommend a revision and resubmission of the thesis, they should provide the candidate with a clear written statement of the changes required, and should also include this with their reports. 

11.4.2 If an examiner wishes to change the written report on the thesis after the viva voce, then this should be done at the end of the examination or, at the latest, within one week of the examination (in the latter case, the report should be sent to the Independent Chairperson). 

11.4.3 The Chairperson is responsible for sending the examination report to the Registry (as outlined in 11.5.11), and for sending the final examination report to the Student and the Principal Supervisor. 

11.4.4 In the case of a Master's candidate where, normally, no viva voce examination is required, the Internal Examiner is responsible for providing details of any corrections to the Student and Principal Supervisor and for sending the completed reports to the Registry, and informing the student and Principal Supervisor of the recommendation. The Internal Examiner is responsible for sending the final examination report to the Student and the Principal Supervisor. 

11.4.5 Examiners should give clear grounds for their recommendation, particularly if it is not clear-cut and favourable, and indicate a timeframe for corrections or revisions. The final outcome of the examination process should be reported as one of the following recommendations: 

1. that the degree sought be awarded;
2. that the degree sought be conditionally awarded subject to clearly specified textual emendations;
3. that the degree sought be conditionally awarded subject to clearly specified revisions to content;
4. that no degree be awarded, but that the candidate be allowed to submit a revised thesis, normally within a year;
5. that, where a doctoral award is sought, a Master's degree be awarded instead
6. that no degree be awarded as the candidate is unlikely to reach the standard for a research award; or
7. that, where a Master's  degree  was  sought,  the  candidate  be  advised  and permitted to withdraw the thesis for revision and resubmission at a later date for the award of a doctorate, subject to the following conditions: The candidate, prior to such resubmission for the doctoral award, must have been a registered full-time graduate research student for at least thirty-one months (or pro rata for a part-time registered postgraduate student). The re-submitted thesis shall be examined in accordance with the regulations for examination of theses presented for a doctoral award and, in an exception to regulation 11.4.7, by a different 35  External Examiner, to be appointed by Graduate Research Studies Board. 

11.4.6 Where a thesis has to be corrected or revised, the revisions should be carried out to the satisfaction of the Internal Examiner and/or the External Examiner(s), as agreed by the examiners. If multiple revisions are required and these revisions are not deemed to have met the recommendations outlined during the examination, then, the Internal Examiner and External Examiner(s) can submit alternative recommendations (as per 11.4.5 (iv-vi)). As the supervisor does not participate in the examination process, they should not sign off on revised theses. Such signing off is the sole responsibility of the examiners. 

11.4.7 Where no award but a resubmission is recommended, normally the same examiners assess the new thesis and a full examination (including viva voce for doctoral candidates) is undertaken again. In such cases, the period for revision of the thesis and/or presentation for re-examination shall normally be not more than one year from the date when the student is informed of the recommendation. This is the date of the viva voce or, where no viva voce is held (such as in the case of a research master’s), the date when the Internal Examiner communicates the recommendation to the student. 

11.4.8 Where a Master’s degree is to be awarded instead of the doctorate sought, a reformatted thesis must be provided, revised to the satisfaction of the Internal Examiner and/or the External Examiner(s) as may be determined by the examiners.  

11.4.9 Following incorporation of revisions, the thesis should be reviewed only to establish the extent to which the Examiners’ recommendations have been met. There should be no further review of the thesis on other grounds. Examiners should approve corrections within six weeks of getting the revised thesis.   

11.5 Remit of the Independent Chairperson 

11.5.1 The Chairperson’s role is to manage the viva voce examination, ensuring that the candidate is treated fairly, to provide guidance on the University’s academic regulations and practices and to communicate the outcome of the examination to the student following the viva voce examination. Where applicable, details of any corrections provided by the examiners, will be communicated by the Chairperson to the Student and Principal Supervisor following the viva voce examination. The Chairperson will make sure that all the required documentation  is  completed  and  will communicate  the  outcome  to  the  appropriate parties. 

11.5.2 The  Chairperson  should  be  drawn  from  a  pool  of  academic  staff  with experience   of   doctoral   supervision and/or have attended formal training provided by the University.   The Chairperson   shall   be   unconnected   with   the programme of research carried out by the candidate under examination. It is not allowable that the independent panel member act as the Chairperson. 

11.5.3 The Chairperson shall not have any input into, or participate in any way in, the assessment of the candidate; the assessment of the candidate remains the sole responsibility of the examiners. 

11.5.4 The Chairperson, prior to the viva voce examination and in consultation with the examiners, will determine the order of questions and the overall format of the examination. 

11.5.5 A candidate may be asked by the Chairperson to introduce their research briefly and summarise the main findings. 

11.5.6 The length of the viva voce examination may vary in accordance with different disciplinary practices, and it will also depend on the examiners’ requirements. As a guideline, it should normally be in the range one-and-a-half hours to three hours. 

11.5.7 At the end of the viva voce examination, the candidate and the supervisor, if present, will be asked to leave the room while the examiners deliberate on the outcome (unless the supervisor is asked by the Chairperson to remain). They will normally be requested to return after the decision has been made in order to be informed of it by the examiners. 

11.5.8 With reference to these regulations, and in consultation with the examiners, the Chairperson will clarify the timeframes for submission of corrections, if any, and sign-off by the relevant examiner(s). 

11.5.9 The  Independent  Chairperson  ensures  that  a  corrected  or  revised  thesis  is  sent  to  the appropriate examiner(s) for review and final sign-off. 

11.5.10 In cases where no award but a resubmission is recommended, the Chairperson informs the examiners, supervisor(s) and candidate of Academic Regulations 11.4.5 and 11.4.7 regarding examination of a resubmitted thesis. 

11.5.11 The Chairperson is responsible for ensuring that the examination form, which includes the examiners’ reports on the thesis and on the viva voce examination, is correctly filled out. Following the Viva Voce a copy of the examination report must be forwarded to Registry for the purpose of updating records and safekeeping. Following validation of corrections by the relevant Examiners, the corresponding section of the examination report must be forwarded to Registry by the Independent Chairperson. If a resubmission, or no award, is being recommended, then a revised thesis is not expected at this time, and the forms are to be returned to Registry without delay, following the viva voce. The Chairperson is responsible for sending the final complete examination report to the Registry, the Student and the Principal Supervisor.     

11.6 Procedure after Examination 

11.6.1 The Registry will refer the examiners' reports to the appropriate Faculty Awards Board for Research Degrees for consideration at its next meeting. Thereafter, a consolidated  report  listing  the  names  of  candidates  recommended  for  a  higher degree is presented to Academic Council for approval. A reference will also be included summarising all other outcomes and the number of candidates involved. 

11.6.2 All examination results and recommendations are subject to final approval and confirmation by Academic Council. Following the meeting of Academic Council, successful candidates for higher degrees shall be issued with a postgraduate research transcript by the Registry.  This will include details of their research thesis, supervisors and any graduate training elements completed in DCU. As noted in Section 8.6.1, communication will be issued by Registry to any unsuccessful candidates for higher degrees following the meeting of FABRD. This will provide the student with the required time to consider the appeals process, if they feel it is applicable to them (Section 13).  

11.6.3 A candidate cannot appeal the outcome of the examination on the basis of the examiners’ judgment. A candidate does, however, have the right to appeal the outcome on the grounds of process and procedure, as detailed in section 13. 

11.6.4 In the event that, subsequent to an award being made, plagiarism or academic fraud related to a research award thesis is proven, Academic Council may rescind the approval of a research award.

12.1 Establishment of Faculty Awards Boards for Research Degrees 

12.1.1 In each Faculty, there shall be constituted a Board for Research degrees chaired by the Dean of the Faculty or their nominee (who will normally be the Associate Dean for Research). 

12.1.2 The membership of each Board shall be drawn from the academic staff of the Faculty together with relevant academic staff of other Faculties who have been involved in cross-disciplinary research projects. Supervisors of candidates who have been examined, and Internal Examiners of same, must attend. In exceptional cases, where a supervisor or Internal Examiner cannot attend, a suitable nominee who has been briefed on the examination must attend. 

12.2 Scheduling of Faculty Awards Boards for Research Degrees 

12.2.1 There will be two officially-scheduled meetings per calendar year of each of the Faculty Awards Boards for Research Degrees, one in Spring and one in Autumn. The exact dates will be indicated in the Academic Calendar.  

12.2.2 The convening of a meeting of the Faculty Awards Board for Research Degrees shall be notified to academic staff by the Registry following consultation with the relevant Dean/Associate Dean. 

12.3 Remit of Faculty Awards Board for Research Degrees 

12.3.1 The remit of the FABRD is to:

          Consider and approve (or otherwise where necessary) examiners'                  reports and their recommendations in respect of candidates 

          presenting for Research Master's and Doctoral Degrees. 

12.3.2 Processing of examiners’ reports and their recommendations: 

• The Board will be required to ensure that the examination process for each candidate has been carried out in accordance with these Academic Regulations.
• The Board will be required to draw the attention of the Graduate Research Studies Board to individual comments by examiners if such comments are deemed to provide useful feedback to the University.
• The Board will be required to specifically consider issues arising from a negative recommendation by an examiner, and recommend an appropriate course of action to the Graduate Research Studies Board and Academic Council for their consideration. The subsequent decision of Academic Council in respect of a recommendation submitted by the relevant Faculty Awards Board for Research Degrees will be communicated in writing by the Registry to the research student concerned. 

12.4 Documentation for Meetings 

12.4.1 Examiners’  reports  on  candidates  for  research  degrees  will  be  provided  by  the Registry and will be available to the Chair for consultation before the meeting. A copy of each thesis examined will be available at the Board.    

A student has the right to appeal the decision not to confirm/transfer them to the PhD register, the decision not to allow progression or the outcome of an examination. 

13.1 Grounds for Appeal  

13.1.1 A student must make explicit the grounds upon which they are appealing the decision of the supervisory panel or the outcome of an examination.

13.1.2 An appeal will only be considered on the following grounds:

1. There was a failure to adhere to, or an insufficiency in the regulations contained in, Academic Regulations for Postgraduate Degrees by Research and Thesis. 
2. There is evidence of extenuating circumstances that was not available to the supervisory panel or the examiners for justifiable reason and, therefore, was not considered when a decision was made relating to confirmation/transfer to the PhD register, progression or the outcome of an examination.
3. There is a case that sufficient weight was not given to documented extenuating circumstances notified prior to the decision being reached.
4. There was a material administrative error or a material irregularity in assessment
   procedures which have made a real and substantial difference to his/her result.
    

13.1.3 An appeal cannot be made on the basis of a disagreement with the academic judgement of the supervisory panel or examiners. Academic judgement refers to a judgement that is made about a matter where the opinion of an academic expert is essential.

13.1.4 An appeal cannot be made on the basis of an allegation of inadequacy in the supervision provided to the student. Complaints of this nature must be resolved according to the policies and procedures outlined in Academic Regulation 7.16.

13.2 Submission of an Appeal  

13.2.1 A student has the opportunity to appeal a decision of the supervisory panel or the outcome of an examination as follows. 

13.2.2 Appeals must be submitted to the Secretary of the Graduate Research Studies Board using the Research Appeals Form by the deadlines as published on the University’s Academic Calendar. All relevant supporting documentation must be included in the submission.

13.2.3 Membership of the Standing Committee is no fewer than 4, but can be up to 8, and includes a mix of genders and Faculties and a student representative. Up to 3 members of the Standing Committee may be drawn from outside GRSB, from a pool of Emeritus professors, and other colleagues very experienced in research student supervision and examination. 

13.3 The GRSB Appeals Standing Committee  

13.3.1 The Graduate Research Studies Board will convene the GRSB Appeals Standing Committee once an appeal is submitted as per Academic Regulation 13.2.2.

13.3.2 The GRSB Appeals Standing Committee is chaired by the Dean of Graduate Studies in their capacity as the Chair of the Graduate Research Studies Board. The Secretary of the Graduate Research Studies Board is the Secretary to the GRSB Appeals Standing Committee.

13.3.3 The GRSB Appeals Standing Committee will comprise of a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 8 members. Membership of the GRSB Appeals Standing Committee will normally primarily be drawn from the membership of GRSB and will include a student representative and a mix of representation from across the University’s faculties through the Associate Deans for Research. A maximum of 3 members of the GRSB Appeals
Standing Committee may be drawn from outside the membership of GRSB, e.g. from Emeritus professors and other colleagues with relevant experience in the supervision and examination of postgraduate research students.

13.3.4 The GRSB Appeals Standing Committee will determine whether or not there is a justified case for appealing a decision of the supervisory panel or the outcome of an examination. If there is a justified case for an appeal, the GRSB Appeals Standing Committee will adjudicate on the appeal.

13.3.5 The GRSB Appeals Standing Committee shall confine its consideration of an appeal to matters related to procedural fairness, due process and the grounds for appeal indicated by the student, taking into account relevant documentation provided by the student, and relevant information available in the student’s record and provided by the Head of School and other academic staff as appropriate.

13.3.6 The GRSB Appeals Standing Committee will make a decision to either uphold an appeal or to reject an appeal. The decision of the GRSB Appeals Standing Committee is subject to approval by the Graduate Research Studies Board. Once approved by the Graduate Research Studies Board, the decision of the GRSB Appeals Standing Committee is final and binding. The decision of the GRSB Appeals Standing Committee is submitted to Academic Council for noting.

13.4 Outcome of an Appeal  

13.4.1 The student will be notified of the outcome of their appeal once the decision of the GRSB Appeals Standing Committee is approved by the Graduate Research Studies Board.

13.4.2 Successful appeals will not result in a new academic decision as the GRSB Appeals Standing Committee does not re-examine a student’s work. In the case of an appeal being upheld, the student will be given the opportunity to resubmit their work or will have an alternative remedy applied as appropriate.

13.5 Graduate Training Elements Appeals 

13.5.1 A student has the right to appeal a decision of the Graduate Training Elements (GTE) Awards Board. Such an appeal will only be considered on the following grounds:

1. The examinations were not conducted in accordance with the current regulations as approved by Academic Council. 
2. There was a material administrative error or a material irregularity in assessment procedures which have made a real and substantial difference to his/her result.

13.5.2 An appeal of a decision of the GTE Awards Board should be made according to the University’s Examination Appeals Procedure.

Definition and Purpose: 

Feedback is defined as a critical and core teaching activity undertaken to aid learning and provide information to students that can enable them to identify what knowledge, skills and competencies they can and need to demonstrate, and to identify directions and pathways for improvement. Opportunities for feedback arise within organised module activities as well as informally during non-assessed activities. Feedback may occur before, during and/or after a learning activity. 

The purpose of feedback is to: 

• support teaching and learning;

• provide structures for both students and academics within which, meaningful communication on teaching and learning can take place

• assist students so that they know what performance standards are expected and what opportunities exist to improve performance in the future;

• assist staff so that their teaching can be tailored to student needs 

Principles: 

• Module and assessment information must inform students when, where and how feedback is offered on the module/assessment concerned.

• Feedback must make reference to transparent marking criteria.

• Feedback must be provided in a timely manner so that it can be used and reflected upon by the student. Feedback on assessment should be provided no later than fifteen working days after the deadline for submission of each piece of assessed work, excepting work submitted late or submitted as part of the final assessment component of the module. Where feedback cannot be provided within this time frame, the module coordinator must contact students directly, in writing, to inform them when the late feedback will be provided, ensuring that it is in time for students to make use of it prior to summative assessment. This timeframe applies to assessments submitted during the semester; feedback on assessments submitted at the very end of semester or during the examination period come under the arrangements in place for consultation days.

• Feedback must be informative, helpful and relevant.

• Feedback must be clear and accessible.

• Feedback must be honest and realistic but must offer constructive advice to the student.

• Feedback must facilitate the development of the transferable skill of self reflection in learning.

• Feedback must be effective and efficient and must take into account the resources available to staff and students.

• Feedback must be appropriate to the level of the student, to the learning outcomes and to the nature the learning activity. The principle of constructive alignment between learning outcome/s and assessment/s will inform and aid this, helping to ensure relevance and appropriateness of feedback.

• Feedback is a joint and shared responsibility; staff have a role to play in supporting students to learn how to receive and apply feedback, while students are expected to engage with the supports provided to them.

  • Students have the responsibility to:

    • make themselves aware of when, where and how feedback is provided;

    • develop their understanding and appreciation of assessment criteria and performance expectations;

    • use the provided feedback to reflect on their learning and to avail of opportunities afforded to them to improve their performance.

   

• Staff have the responsibility to:
  • ensure feedback is a design component of modules and programmes inform students when, where and how feedback is provided;
  • provide feedback that is prompt, informative and helpful within the resources available to them.

Note: Feedback to Support Student Learning Policy approved by Academic Council: June 2012 Assessment Policy approved by Academic Council: June 2013

Combined Assessment and Feedback in Teaching and Learning Policy approved by Academic Council: December 2013

1.1 To address national¹ and international² guidelines, and in order to be effective, all quality assurance and enhancement processes in DCU should be embedded, integrated and on- going, and involve a combination of regular monitoring and periodic review. 

1.2 At DCU, regular monitoring of programmes is undertaken in the form of an Annual Programme Review (APR). The APR process provides an opportunity for self-evaluation, self- reflection, review and identification of issues, both positive and negative, at programme level. 

1.3 APR is carried out for all DCU taught programmes.  

1.4 The purposes of DCU’s APR monitoring process are to: 

• Ensure appropriate articulation between the initial validation and accreditation of programmes and their development over time. 
• Ensure that issues highlighted in previous annual and periodic reviews have been/are being appropriately addressed.
• Ensure that curriculum, programme design, content and assessment are regularly reviewed.
• Ensure that issues highlighted by external examiners have been/are being addressed appropriately.
• Report on student recruitment and numbers registering, and marketing initiatives.
• Report on student progression and performance.
• Ensure that issues highlighted by students have been/are being addressed appropriately, and that feedback is provided to students on these issues.
• Report on proposed changes to academic structures for the following year, and provide a rationale for proposed changes.       

1.5 The main steps, and associated timings, involved in APR are as follows:

1. Good Practice for the Approval, Monitoring and Periodic Review of Programmes and Awards in Irish Universities (Irish Universities Quality Board - IUQB, 2012)

2. Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area(European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education – ENQA, 2009

The purpose of DCU’s PPR process is to fulfil DCU’s commitment to consistent, transparent quality assurance, by means of a rigorous and effective quality monitoring process.  It provides evidence that DCU’s internal quality assurance and enhancement processes are reliable and effective. It enables DCU to meet both internal and external requirements in an embedded and on-going periodic review procedure which is sufficiently robust to withstand external review.  It therefore articulates with, and builds on, the initial processes of validation and accreditation of new programmes. 

Programmes offered must continue to meet the academic standards set both by DCU and relevant external bodies. In the case of DCU this includes assuring itself that its internal quality assurance and enhancement processes are fit for purpose, satisfy the requirements of national and professional/statutory bodies, and conform to the European Standards and Guidelines. 

2.1 The PPR process achieves its purpose by:  facilitating programme teams to review and monitor the impact on taught programmes of cumulative, incremental change over a longer review period;

• allowing academic staff to support curriculum and programme development in light of the programme review process;
• identifying further opportunities for enhancement of the student learning experience;
• enabling DCU to undertake a broader review of the continuing validity and relevance of programmes offered, and, where appropriate, evaluate these against the case made at validation for the creation of a new programme. 

2.2 The PPR process will be conducted in a consistent, systematic and comparable way   across DCU by means of a clear, published, PPR procedure that includes:

• the use of a template for the Programme Team PPR report and the external reviewer’s PPR report.
• the central provision of statistical data by the business intelligence system (OBIEE) to inform the process.
• articulation within the DCU internal quality review process by ensuring, to the extent possible, that the PPR reports of all programmes within a School or Faculty are completed in the preceding five years before a School or Faculty’s internal quality review. 

2.3 In the Periodic Programme Review (PPR) process, the Programme Teams produce a report analysing developments in the programme(s) over the review period by drawing on the evidence provided in the previous cycle.   The PPR:

• follows an agreed five year cycle within each Faculty
• involves an External Reviewer. An External Reviewer may be a current, external examiner.  
• informs DCU’s internal quality review process which addresses larger-scale issues regarding the quality, structures and processes of Faculties in a developmental and strategic manner.

3.1 Introduction 

• 3.1.1 Periodic Programme Review (PPR) at DCU involves, in an agreed cycle (every five years), an extended annual review, which enables Programme Teams to evaluate, comment upon and monitor the impact on their taught programmes of cumulative, incremental change over a longer review period than is involved with APR and to identify further opportunities for enhancement of the student learning experience. 

• 3.1.2 PPR uses the same statistical dataset as APR. The Programme Team’s PPR report will reflect on the data for the 5-year cycle. Data provision will be facilitated as automatically as possible by OBIEE reports and related ITS information. 

3.2 Main Steps of Periodic Programme Review 

• 3.2.1 The PPR procedure is conducted every fifth year for each taught programme. Programme Teams produce a report summarising developments in the programme over the review period by drawing on the evidence provided by the four previous APR reports as well as the APR report in the year of the PPR. Where relevant and appropriate, reference will also be made to the accreditation report to Academic Council and the finalised accreditation documentation which is drawn up following this report.  
• In the year of the PPR for a particular programme or set of programmes, the APR report will comprise the latest available data; any response or commentary on this data will be included as part of the PPR.

• 3.2.2 The PPR procedure also involves a person external to DCU - a programme-level External Reviewer - who is asked to comment on the Programme Team’s summary report and accompanying documentation by means of an External Reviewer report. 

• 3.2.3 The main steps of the PPR procedure are similar to those of the APR procedure. These steps, with associated timings, are as follows:

3.4  Periodic Programme Review Reports  The focus for PPR is on critical evaluation of the impact of incremental change. The PPR report should therefore draw on, and cross-refer to, the cycle of Annual Programme Review (APR) reports and include a critical evaluation of the programme of study since initial approval, or the previous PPR review, as appropriate. The PPR report should cover the following points as indicated in the template provided: 

• Any amendments which have been made to the programme (and the Programme Descriptor) since the previous PPR, including the reasons for those amendments.
• The extent to which the programme has met its stated learning outcomes, and met its student number targets.
• Responses to recommendations made by the external reviewer to a previous PPR report.
• Responses over the cycle to issues raised in External Examiners' reports.
• Envisaged future developments and prognosis.
• Outcomes of and responses to any professional accreditation exercises by professional or other external bodies applicable. 

3.5 External Reviewer’s Periodic Programme Review Report 

The following documentation and information should be provided for the External Reviewer by the Programme Team in order that the external reviewer report can be comprehensively completed. 

• PPR report developed by Programme Boards
• APR reports for the cycle
• Programme descriptors
• Faculty and DCU Teaching & Learning Strategies, as appropriate
• Stakeholder input 

The role of the External Reviewer is to provide feedback on the academic elements of the PPR. Decisions about the viability and other aspects of the programme remain within the remit of the Faculty and University, which can be informed by the External Reviewer’s feedback. 

4.1 The PPR External Reviewer will consider the supplied information and will complete a template which invites comment on the programme(s) as a whole in the light of this information. The template also invites the Reviewer to make any necessary recommendations for enhancement, and to comment on good practice currently taking place in the programme(s). 

4.2 The External Reviewer will typically be a current or recent external examiner; External Reviewer nominations are made by Heads of School in consultation with Programme Teams. It is open to Programme Teams to avail of the services of more than one external reviewer, particularly in the case of programmes with a wide range of specialisms. 

• 4.2.1  Where the proposed External Reviewer is a current External Examiner, there is no need for additional approval in order for the External Examiner to act as a PPR External Reviewer but this appointment will be sent to University Standards Committee (USC) for noting.     

• 4.2.2 In all other cases, the appointment process is as follows:
  • a nomination is made by the Programme Team to the Head of School;
  • the nomination is then endorsed by the Head of School;
  • the nomination is reviewed by the Faculty Teaching & Learning Committee (or its Chair by Chair’s action) and is recommended to USC for approval;
  • USC make a decision on the appointment. 

4.3 Where there are a number of similar or related programmes, these should be reviewed using a single PPR report; the External Reviewer should complete a single report which covers them all. 

4.4 Where the PPR External Reviewer is a current external examiner they should be paid an additional honorarium for reviewing the PPR documentation and submitting an external reviewer report by the middle of December. If they are not a current external examiner an agreed honorarium will be provided.

The PPR process is articulated with the internal Quality Review process as follows: 

• by requiring Faculties to ensure that the PPRs of all relevant programmes are completed in the five years preceding the Faculty’s internal quality review;
• by ensuring that selected information from each programme chair’s PPR report, and the external examiner’s comments and recommendations, are provided for internal review by including appropriate headings in School or Faculty templates for the Self Assessment Report (SAR).
• by the submission in full of programme chair PPR reports and external reviewer PPR reports as part of the SAR appendix documentation.
• by reducing the amount of programme related information required to be generated for the SAR as a result of the PPR reports developed along with External Reviewer input.   

6.1 DCU operates an integrated structure and review process at Faculties/Open Education level, and institutional level to assure programme quality and standards. This reflects DCU’s academic- led and devolved approach to quality assurance and enhancement. The procedure at institutional level for the reporting of issues arising from programme review reports, including the identification of any action needed, is provided in the steps outlined above for both APR and PPR. 

6.2 Details of PPR activities and outcomes in the previous academic year will be provided internally in the annual reports from the Director of Quality Promotion to Academic Council and Governing Authority. Education Committee and University Standards Committee will also be provided annually with information on PPR activities and outcomes. 

All students must have an academic supervisor.  The academic supervisor is a staff member (lecturer) of the School(s) responsible for the programme.  If the project is industry-related, the student might have a second supervisor at the company. However, an academic supervisor is always required. 

The success or failure of the dissertation project is the responsibility of each student.  The supervisor is there to guide and assist the student in reaching their goal. While decisions regarding the activities to be undertaken for the dissertation/project will be made in conjunction with the supervisor, it is not the supervisor’s role to ensure that these tasks are completed. A careful record, of all meetings, including dates, action agreed and deadlines set, is to be agreed between supervisor and student. 

Students are expected to attend dissertation workshops/seminars as agreed with their supervisor. Students must ensure that their dissertation/project is their own work and must identify any material which is not their own work by referencing and acknowledgement. The dissertation must not incorporate dissertation material which has been used for another degree or plagiarise the work of others.  

The supervisor facilitates the development, by the student, of attainable goals and guides the student towards completion of the dissertation/project within a disciplinary or interdisciplinary area. If a student is not progressing according to the agreed dissertation/project schedule, the supervisor should discuss it with the student. The project supervisor will:

• Discuss the work schedule of the dissertation/project, plan progress and identify potential problem areas if possible 
• Advise the student on general aspects of the dissertation/project
• Discuss with students any ethical issues associated with their dissertation/project and advise accordingly
• Attend interim presentations and/or oral examinations as necessary
• Assess and give feedback on the student’s performance throughout the term of the dissertation/project
• Read drafts of elements of the dissertation/project, for example chapters, as agreed in the schedule and give feedback in a timely manner

The supervisor is not responsible for the following:

• Proof reading drafts for grammatical and spelling mistakes or proving feedback on full drafts of any dissertation/project work 
• Arranging supervision sessions. This should be agreed and arranged as per the schedule.

A careful record to be kept, agreed between supervisor and student, of all meetings, including dates, action agreed and deadlines set.     

Once a supervisor has been assigned there will be an introductory/first meeting called by the supervisor.  This should occur by ….. (insert appropriate  week or specific date) of the academic session.   At this meeting the topic of the proposed dissertation/project is discussed and a schedule of meetings is agreed between the student and supervisor.  There are many different types of dissertations/projects. A Gantt chart (Appendix A) showing planned tasks and milestone timing, is a useful tool to use to facilitate the planning process. 

Note: significant deviation by the student from the agreed schedule may lead to the termination of project.

A preliminary work schedule will be discussed including:

• when and how often student/supervisor meeting should occur
• what are the milestones (deliveries and timing) for the dissertation/project, including submission of draft elements as appropriate
• what resources, if any, are needed
• are there any ethical issues

It can be useful to have a ‘checklist’ or agenda for all meetings student/supervisor meetings to ensure that all relevant topics are covered. This can also be used to record notes about the discussion and any decisions reached. Table 1 provides an example of a ‘checklist’ that might be useful for such meetings.

Table 1 Checklist student/supervisor meetings

Records of discussion and agreed actions of the supervision should then be kept.  These records can be housed with the supervisor and may be recorded electronically or on paper.  Records should be retained until completion of the project and the graduation of the student. A possible template for recording the meeting this can be seen in Appendix B in the .pdf above. 

It is important for the student to develop a sense of ownership and responsibility for their dissertation/project.  In supervisor-student relationships, responsibility is two-way. A student will have expectations in terms of support and advice from the supervisor and a supervisor will have expectations regarding independent research by the student, time-keeping, regularity of work and reporting etc. Ultimately it is the student’s dissertation/project. If the student or supervisor feels the relationship is becoming difficult it should be discussed at a meeting to determine a solution. However, if a solution is not found the matter should be brought to the attention of the Module Coordinator/Project Leader/Programme Chair, this may be done by the supervisor or student as soon as possible.  The relationship should not be allowed to deteriorate to the point where it impacts on the possibility of the dissertation/project not being completed.

All students must comply with DCU Academic Integrity and Plagiarism policy which can be found on OVPAA's Policies and Regulations webpage.

All students must comply with Ethical norms and DCU Ethics policies. In the event that ethical issues arise within the study, these must be brought to the attention of the supervisor immediately. Guidance must be sought with the appropriate stakeholders in Schools, Faculty and at university level under the auspices of the Research Ethics Committee. 

Citing and referencing norms can be programme and/or discipline specific. Students should ensure that they implement the appropriate academic citing and referencing norms associated with their area of study. A general guide for citing and referencing can be found in DCU Library resources.

Research

DCU Code of Good Research Practice is available here. 

1.1. An appeal is the procedure whereby a student may request a review of a decision by a Progression and Award Board relating to their academic progress or award, in accordance with specified grounds.    

1.2. A student may appeal against a decision of a Progression & Award Board on the following grounds only:  

• (a) Their performance in the assessment was adversely affected by illness or other factors, which they were unable or, for valid reasons, unwilling to divulge before the Progression & Award Board reached its decision.  
• (b) The Progression & Award Board did not give sufficient weight to any extenuating circumstances[1] previously notified to the Registry prior to the holding of the meeting of the Progression & Award Board. 
• (c) The examinations were not conducted in accordance with the current regulations as approved by Academic Council. 
• d) There was a material administrative error or a material irregularity in assessment procedures which have made a real and substantial difference to their result. 

1.3. There is no right of appeal against decisions of a Progression & Award Board which are matters of academic judgement. Disagreement with the academic judgement of a Progression & Award Board in assessing any information relating to a candidate’s performance does not in itself constitute grounds for an appeal. 

1.4. In exceptional circumstances, students may appeal a provisional^[2] examination result that has not been formally approved by the relevant Progression and Award Board, namely, where students have failed the module concerned and the resit opportunity takes place before the examination result is formally approved by a Progression and Award Board.

• 1.4.1. Where a student appeals a provisional result under such circumstances, the same ground(s) for appeal may not be used if a subsequent appeal is made in respect of the same module(s) following the Progression and Award Board.         

[1]Extenuating circumstances are interpreted as unforeseen circumstances, outside the control of the student, that are accepted by the Progression and Award Board as having temporarily prevented the student from submitting their work for assessment, undertaking an assessment, or from performing in an assessment at the level that might reasonably have been expected of them.            

[2]Where examination results have been approved by a Programme Board Examination Review Committee or equivalent but have not been formally approved by a Progression and Award Board.   

2.1. A student who opts to exercise their right to appeal the decision of a Progression and Award Board must present such an appeal on the Examinations Appeal Form (R-31) online at https://www.dcu.ie/ovpaa/Appeals.shtml with supporting documentation  within a specified number of days[1].

2.2. Appeals submitted after the closing date for lodging appeals (as published on the University’s Academic Calendar) will not be considered.  

2.3. A student lodging an appeal is required to submit the requisite fee[2] online with the application[3] at This fee is non-refundable except in the case of a student whose appeal is deemed by the Examination Appeals Board to be successful. 

2.4. In the case of an appeal made on the basis of extenuating circumstances, the student is required to provide relevant information, as would have been included in an R30 Extenuating Circumstances submission as outlined below 

• 2.4.1. Details of appropriate types of documentation are outlined on the website here.

• 2.4.2. Students must ensure that such documentation provides sufficient detail/information for the Examinations Appeals Board to assess the impact of the condition(s) cited.

• 2.4.3. It is not sufficient to provide contact details for professionals who may provide such information/details on request.  Students can have one absence from academic activities of up to five days that does not require supporting documentation.  Two or more absences or longer periods of absences require supporting documentation.  Two or more periods of absences require supporting documentation when a student submits extenuating circumstances.  These measures include teaching weeks, study weeks and exam weeks

2.5. A full set of examination results for the current academic year should accompany your appeal submission. You may also provide examination results/transcripts for any other academic years that you consider relevant and to which you might want the Examination Appeals Board’s attention to be drawn. 

2.6. Where an appeal is made on the grounds of extenuating circumstances which were not brought to the attention of the Progression and Award Board, the student is required to demonstrate the circumstances that prevented the relevant factors being disclosed at the appropriate time.

2.7. The appeal form should be completed as follows:

• 2.7.1. All sections of the form should be completed

• 2.7.2. Personal details should be provided in Section 1.

• 2.7.3. Details of the degree programme and the modules being appealed should be included in Section 2.                                                      

• 2.7.4. The grounds on which the student is appealing should be identified in Section 3. There are no grounds for appeal other than those listed in Section 1.2 of this document.

• 2.7.5. Section 4 indicates the information which should be provided in the Personal Statement in Support of Appeal. Further details of this are listed in Section 2.8 below.

•  2.7.6. Any documentary evidence included with the appeal should be listed in Section 5

• 2.7.7. You should provide your examination results for semester 1 and semester 2 in Section 6 in a legible format by screenshot, or scan and upload your results page.

• 2.7.8. Section 7 contains a checklist to assist in ensuring the appeal is complete. Incomplete appeals are invalid and will be rejected.

• 2.7.9.  The appeal form should be submitted using a student DCU e-mail account only.  Submissions which are made from other accounts will be considered invalid.

2.8. The Personal Statement in Support of Appeal should be concise. 

• 2.8.1. It may include the action which the student would like the Examination Appeals Board to take. 

• 2.8.2. If a student is appealing on the grounds of previously undisclosed extenuating circumstances, [ground (a)], it should include a valid reason why the student was unable or unwilling to notify the Progression and Award Board at the appropriate time.

•  2.8.3. If a student is appealing on the grounds that the examinations were not conducted in accordance with current regulations or that there was a material administrative error or irregularity in assessment procedures [grounds (c) or (d),] the error or irregularity should be stated in the personal statement. 

• 2.8.4.  A personal statement must not name staff specifically.  If a narrative is being provided then job titles are to be used, e.g. Programme Chair, Module Co-ordinator, Lecturer, Fellow student etc.

2.9. The Examination Appeals Board does not make an independent academic judgement of the quality of a student’s work. Students are therefore requested not to include any assessment materials (such as dissertations, essays, computer codes or reports) with their appeal submissions as they will not be considered.

2.10. Progression to the next year of study for the purposes of attending academic exercises is permitted in respect of a student who has lodged an appeal against the decisions of the Progression and Award Board in the resit examinations held in autumn of each academic year. However, such attendance must cease immediately upon notification of an unsuccessful outcome of the appeal or an upheld decision which does not permit progression by the following year.  There may be circumstances where such attendance is not possible e.g. placements 

2.11.  Appellants are advised to postpone registering until completion of the Examination Appeals Board process.  Upon receipt of the decision, students should visit the Registry Office immediately to complete registration.  The late registration fee will be waived upon presentation of the letter/decision of the Examination Appeals Board.

[1]Currently 10 days from the promulgation of examination results online

[2]Currently €100. This is a flat fee and it covers multiple modules.

[3]Fee to be submitted online at https://dcu.sybernetsps.ie/dcupayments/dcu  

3.1. The procedures relating to preparation for and conduct of the Examination Appeals Board meetings and notification of the decisions of the Board are outlined in the Terms of Reference, Composition and Standing Orders of the Examination Appeals Board.

3.2. The Examination Appeals Board shall in all cases consider the reasons for any failure by students to have brought extenuating circumstances to the attention of the Progression and Award Board prior to that Board reaching its decision. Where the Appeals Board considers that the extenuating circumstances should have been so notified, such a failure shall be a relevant consideration justifying the rejection of the appeal. 

3.3. If the appeal is judged to be successful, the Examination Appeals Board will determine an appropriate course of action.  

3.4. The decision of the Examination Appeals Board is communicated in writing. 

3.5. In the case of a successful appeal, the appeal fee shall be fully refunded and an amended statement of results will be issued shortly afterwards.

3.6. As outlined in the Terms of Reference, Composition and Standing Orders of the Examination Appeals Board, decisions of the Examination Appeals Board are final and binding. Further representations made to any member of staff of the University will not be entertained. 

The Academic Regulations for Postgraduate Degrees by Research and Thesis stipulate that a research student has the right to appeal the decision not to confirm/transfer them to the PhD register, the decision not to allow progression, or the outcome of an examination. Such appeals are made directly to the Graduate Research Studies Board (GRSB), which is chaired by the Dean of Graduate Studies. The GRSB Appeals Standing Committee will be convened to consider appeals made to GRSB on the grounds detailed below.

Please refer to Appendix 1 for the terms of reference of the GRSB Standing Committee.

A student must make explicit the grounds upon which they are appealing the decision of the supervisory panel or examiners. Academic Regulations for Postgraduate Degrees by Research and Thesis indicate that the grounds for appeal do not include simply disagreeing with the academic judgment of the supervisory panel or examiners. Academic judgement refers to a judgement that is made about a matter where the opinion of an academic expert is essential.

As per the regulations, an appeal will only be considered on the basis of one of the following grounds:

• I. There was a failure to adhere to Academic Regulations for Postgraduate Degrees by Research and Thesis

• II. There is an insufficiency in the regulations contained in Academic Regulations for Postgraduate Degrees by Research and Thesis.

• III. There is evidence of extenuating circumstances that was not available to the supervisory panel or the examiners for justifiable reason and, therefore, was not considered when a decision was made relating to confirmation/transfer to the PhD register, progression or the outcome of an examination. Extenuating circumstances are unforeseen circumstances, outside the control of the student, that temporarily prevented the student from pursuing their research or from performing at the level that might reasonably have been expected of them. Extenuating circumstances include illness and bereavement and suitable documentary evidence must be provided if they are to be considered as part of the student’s appeal (see the Appeal Documentation section).

• IV. There is a case that sufficient weight was not given to documented extenuating circumstances notified prior to the decision being reached.

• V. There was a material administrative error or a material irregularity in assessment procedures which have made a real and substantial difference to the decision of the supervisory panel or the outcome of an examination.

Cases judged by the GRSB Appeals Standing Committee to fall outside the above grounds will not be considered and the appeal will be rejected.

Appeals are processed in accordance with Section 13 of Academic Regulations for Postgraduate Degrees by Research and Thesis. A student should carefully read this section of the regulations before submitting an appeal.

3.1 The GRSB Appeals Standing Committee will be convened to consider appeals submitted to GRSB. This Committee is chaired by the Dean of Graduate Studies in their capacity as Chair of the Graduate Research Studies Board.

3.2 To appeal a decision of the examiners or supervisory panel, the student should complete the Research Appeal Form and submit it to the Secretary of GRSB by the specified deadline. The Research Appeal Form for the 2023/24 academic year can be accessed via the appeals section of the OVPAA website and includes the submission deadlines for this period. The Secretary of GRSB for the 2023/24 academic year is Dr David Mc Carthy (david.mccarthy@dcu.ie). 

Appeal documentation submitted to the Secretary by the relevant deadline 

Secretary and/or Chair seeks any further information required

Meeting of GRSB Standing Committee convened

Report of appeal decision communicated to the GRSB for consideration

Final decision of GRSB communicated to the student, Head of School and other relevant parties

Final decision of GRSB reported to Academic Council

The deadline by which a student must submit their Research Appeal Form is determined by the date that the formal decision of the supervisory panel or examiners is either approved by GRSB or made known to the student as per the table below.

3.3 Progression to the next year of study for the purposes of continuing academic activity is permitted in respect of a student who has lodged an appeal that, for reasons outside their control, could not be considered by the committee prior to the beginning of the next academic year. However, engagement with the next year of study must cease immediately upon notification of an unsuccessful outcome of the appeal.

In the interests of students, appeals are considered as promptly as possible following the notification to the student of the decision by the supervisory panel or examiners. It is usually not appropriate, however, that an appeal be considered while related parallel processes, such as the student grievance process, are also in progress.

3.4 The appeal documentation is reviewed by the Chair and the Secretary of the GRSB Appeals Standing Committee. Any additional documentation or further clarification that is required in order for the GRSB Appeals Standing Committee to make a fully informed decision will be sought by the Chair or the Secretary. This may include written comments from the Head of School and/or elements of the student’s record where relevant, (e.g., annual review reports, examination reports, etc.

3.5 The decisions of the GRSB Appeals Standing Committee are subject to approval by the GRSB and are then submitted to Academic Council for noting. Once approved by GRSB, the decision of the GRSB Appeals Standing Committee is final and binding.

3.6 The proceedings of the GRSB Appeals Standing Committee, and any subsequent discussion at GRSB, shall be confidential to the parties involved. The Dean of Graduate Studies, acting as Chair of the GRSB, will notify all parties concerned of the decision of the GRSB Appeals Standing Committee.

As part of the appeal process, the student is invited to specify their desired outcome using the Research Appeal Form. In doing so, the student should be cognisant of the possible outcome(s) for the different types of appeal.

The possible outcomes of the different types of appeal are provided below:

Please Note: The GRSB Appeals Standing Committee does not re-examine work or make an academic judgement and, therefore, will not overturn an academic decision.

5.1 A student who decides to exercise their right to appeal a decision of the supervisory panel or examiners must complete the Research Appeal Form and submit it to the Secretary of the GRSB, along with all necessary supporting documentation, by the submission deadline for the next meeting of the committee.

5.2 The GRSB Appeals Standing Committee does not make an independent academic judgement of the quality of a student’s work. Students should not, therefore, include any extraneous materials (such as reports, papers or other student work) with their appeal submissions, as these will not be considered as part of the appeal.

5.3 In cases where the student considers that extenuating circumstances should have been given more weight or were unknown to the supervisory panel or examiners but are alleged to be relevant, the student’s appeal should be supported by a formal letter from a relevant professional on headed paper or other suitable documentary evidence outlining the circumstances and the timing of the illness/condition which gave rise to the appeal.

In the case of an appeal made on the grounds of extenuating circumstances relating to other factors, such as the death of a relative, written evidence must be attached in the form of a letter from a member of the clergy, a death notification or a Garda report.

The student must ensure that the documentation provided as evidence of extenuating circumstances provides sufficient detail/information to allow the GRSB Appeals Standing Committee to assess the impact of the condition(s) in the context cited.

5.4 An appeal shall be heard on the basis of extenuating circumstances that are submitted after the meeting of the supervisory panel or examiners. Where such an appeal is submitted, the student shall be required to demonstrate circumstances outside of their control that prevented the relevant factors being disclosed at the appropriate time. In all cases, the GRSB Appeals Standing Committee will consider the reasons why the student failed to bring these extenuating circumstances to the attention of the supervisory panel or examiners prior to the decision being reached. Where the GRSB Standing Committee considers that the extenuating circumstances should have been so notified, the failure to do so by the student will be a relevant factor in determining the extent to which the appeal is justified.

5.5 Students should only include supporting documentation that provides evidence directly related to the grounds upon which they are appealing a decision. No other documentation will be considered. At the start of its scheduled meeting, the documentation provided will be examined by the GRSB Appeals Standing Committee for its relevance to the cited grounds of appeal. Any documentation deemed irrelevant to the appeal will be removed from the application at this stage and will not be considered further as part of the appeal.

The GRSB will maintain a Set of Precedents, which consists of a collection of statements, not linked to specific cases, that capture how the GRSB Appeals Standing Committee responded to arguments or evidence provided in an instance that might have more general relevance to future deliberations of the committee. These precedents shall be used as an aid to achieving consistency in decision-making by ensuring that members of the GRSB Appeals Standing Committee are made aware of similar circumstances that arose in the past and of the decision made in these instances.

A precedent shall be added where the GRSB members agree that the circumstances that constitute the context and the outcomes of a particular appeal represent an instance that is likely to occur again. The Set of Precedents shall be reviewed periodically in order to remove precedents that no longer apply or to take account of instances where the University’s regulations have changed.

The GRSB Appeals Standing Committee will consider all eligible appeals based on their individual merits in an objective and impartial manner and will determine the most appropriate course of action pursuant to the information provided.

The function of the GRSB Appeals Standing Committee is to establish whether or not there is a justified case for an appeal against a decision. If there is a justified case for an appeal, the GRSB Appeals Standing Committee will adjudicate on the appeal.

The role of the GRSB Appeals Standing Committee is to:

• a) consider written appeals and submissions;
• b) examine the relevant academic record of the student involved;
• c) seek the views/comments of the Head of School and relevant academic staff where the standing committee considers that it is appropriate to do so;
• d) consider and determine whether or not there is a justified case for an appeal against a decision of the supervisory panel or examiners; and
• e) in the situation of a justified case for appeal, take all information into account and decide to:
  • i. uphold the appeal and determine the most appropriate course of action in the appellant’s case; or
  • ii. reject the appeal.

The GRSB Appeals Standing Committee shall confine its consideration of each appeal to matters related to procedural fairness, due process and the grounds for appeal indicated by the student, taking into account relevant information available in the student’s record and provided by the Head of School and other academic staff as appropriate.

The GRSB Appeals Standing Committee will comprise of a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 8 members. The Chair of GRSB will be the Chair of the GRSB Appeals Standing Committee, while the Secretary of GRSB will be the Secretary of the committee and will attend in a non-voting capacity. Membership of the GRSB Appeals Standing Committee will normally primarily be drawn from the membership of GRSB and will include a student representative and a mix of representation from across the University’s faculties through the Associate Deans for Research. A maximum of 3 members of the GRSB Appeals Standing Committee may be drawn from outside the membership of GRSB, e.g.., from Emeritus professors and other colleagues with relevant experience in the supervision and examination of postgraduate research students.

No member of the GRSB Appeals Standing Committee who has a conflict of interest or a significant prior involvement in a specific case will be involved in considering that case, and the chair or membership of the committee will be adjusted, if necessary, to accommodate this principle.

The Chairperson may invite a legal professional to attend in an advisory and non-voting capacity. The Chairperson may also request a non-voting representative from the Registry to attend to advise on matters that are regulatory in nature and/or relate to the student record and the impact of decisions on a student’s registration status or record. The appellant does not attend the meeting.

No member of the GRSB Appeals Standing Committee shall take any representations prior to the sitting of the committee from students who intend to make an appeal. Representations made to any member of staff in the University concerning the decision of the standing committee shall not be entertained.

The GRSB Appeals Standing Committee shall make its decision by a simple majority of those present and voting. In the case of an equality of votes, the Chairperson shall have a second or casting vote.

All decisions made by the GRSB Appeals Standing Committee shall be consistent with University regulations and standards, and are subject to approval by GRSB. Once approved by GRSB, the Chair will inform the student and the relevant staff of the decision of the GRSB Appeals Standing Committee. At the end of each calendar year, the Chairperson shall, on behalf of the GRSB, notify Academic Council of the number and outcomes of any appeals considered.

The GRSB Appeals Standing Committee shall have the right to make recommendations and observations to GRSB concerning any matters of detail or principle arising from a case.

A)  The University may award the following Higher Doctorates in accordance with the regulations:  

• (i) Doctor of Letters (DLitt)
• (ii) Doctor of Laws (LLD)                         
• (iii) Doctor of Science (DSc) 
• (iv) Doctor of Engineering (DEng)   

B)   Higher doctorates – the highest qualification awarded by the University – are awarded by the University in recognition of published work and/or other material of high distinction resulting from research, which makes a substantial, sustained and original contribution to investigation, knowledge and/or scholarship, and has established the candidate’s authoritative standing in his or her subject. They are awarded to scholars who have, over a sustained period, published a substantial body of ground-breaking and influential work in a field of specialisation and who have achieved outstanding distinction internationally in that field. The work published will usually consist of articles in leading international peer reviewed scholarly journals and/or books published by leading academic publishers and distributed internationally.   

1 Eligibility

Candidates for Higher Doctorates must be:

• graduates of the University, of at least twelve years standing from award of the degree of Master, or ten years from the award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy;   

or 

• if not graduates of the University, have been a member of the academic, research or academic related staff of the University for a period of at least eight years.  

2 Criteria

Each of the following should be satisfied: 

2.1 That the candidate must have published a substantial body of work, of the highest order of scholarship in the field in question, over a sustained period of time. 

2.2 That the published work must have added new knowledge of significance to the field in question. 

2.3 That the work is of international importance and that based on the published work, the scholar can be considered to have gained, or to merit, international distinction as an authority in the field. 

3 Application and Evaluation Process 

3.1 Applicants may wish to informally discuss their possible candidacy with the Executive Dean of the relevant Faculty (or nominee), the Dean of Graduate Studies or Head of School in their field of study. Any advice given at this stage will be given in good faith, but represents no commitment on behalf of the university as to the possible outcome of a prima facie application. 

3.2 Applicants are required to submit to the Executive Dean of the relevant Faculty via the Registry an application to obtain preliminary approval from the University to apply for a Higher Doctorate and to pay the appropriate fee. The purpose of this phase is to evaluate the prima facie case for the award.  

The submission shall be introduced by a statement which shall be in the region of 3,000 words and should detail the candidate’s research record, outlining clearly the research interests and achievements through reference to selected publications. There should be clear evidence that the selected publications are of international quality and have made an original, substantial and authoritative contribution to knowledge in the candidate’s field of study (e.g., discipline appropriate, authoritative impact metrics may be cited).  

A current Curriculum Vitae, including a full publication list must be submitted.  

A list of the candidate’s five most important publications and an explanation of why they represent the candidate’s most significant contribution to the field must also be submitted.  

Where the published work appears under the name of more than one author, the candidate must indicate as precisely as possible the extent of his/her contribution. As far as is reasonable and feasible, a candidate is required to obtain from co-authors confirmation in relation to the extent of his/her contribution to specific publications. The Lead Author of the paper should be clearly identified. The University reserves the right to consult any of the co-authors or collaborators concerning the statement.  

Candidates may submit additional material to support the case for prima facie eligibility.  

3.3 Each application for a higher doctorate shall be considered by a Review Group: a sub-committee of the relevant Faculty Research Award Board (FRAB). Chaired by the Dean, the other Review Group members shall be at professorial grade or Emeritus Professors, and number at least two. The members of the FRAB shall be appointed by the Dean in consultation with the Head of School in which the candidate’s field of study lies and the Chair of the FRAB.    

3.4 Guidelines for the Prima Facie Stage 

The reviewers for the prima facie stage will be charged to consider the list of published work presented by the applicant and to form a judgment as to whether prima facie the candidate should be considered eligible to enter for examination for the award of Higher Doctorate on published work. In forming a judgment, the reviewers will take account of the general criteria for the award of the degrees on published work. In addition, examiners will take account of the following: 

• (i) the period of time over which the candidate has published;
• (ii) the volume and quality of work published over the period;
• (iii) the academic standing of the applicant as evidenced by the curriculum vitae.  In the case of applications where the preponderance of the work consists of articles in scholarly journals, reviewers will consider: 
• (iv) the international standing and quality of the journals in which the articles have appeared;
• (v) the proportion of sole author and principal author articles the coherence of the body of research;
• (vi) the impact of the research as evidenced by the number of citations. (Applicants are encouraged to include evidence of this where appropriate). 

In evaluating book publications, the reviewers will be principally concerned with the nature and content of the book and its intrinsic quality in terms of academic scholarship. Other relevant considerations are the quality of the publication, in terms of academic publishing and the critical reception of the work. Applicants are therefore encouraged to include reviews of their book publications.  

3.5 The Review Group shall submit a report to Registry within three months of the application being received within the Faculty, stating whether there is a prima facie case for the Higher Doctorate being awarded. 

3.6 Should an application not be approved, the candidate will be notified, and may not apply for a Higher Doctorate at Dublin City University for a further three years. 

3.7 If the application is approved by the Review Group, the candidate will be advised that he/she may proceed to phase 2 of the process and will be invited to submit his/her work together with the prescribed fee. Candidates must submit their published work for examination within 12 months of notification of approval 

3.8 Candidates should confirm to Registry that they are going to pursue phase 2 of an application at least three months in advance of submitting for examination.        

4. Nomination of Assessors 

4.1 Once an application has been approved by the Review Group, the Dean of Faculty, in consultation with relevant colleagues, should nominate internal and external assessors. 

4.2 Normally one internal and two external assessors shall be nominated by the Dean of Faculty. In exceptional cases, where difficulty in securing agreement from assessors to act in this capacity is anticipated, up to two alternate assessors can be nominated. Gender balance should be taken into account in the appointment of assessors. The identity of the assessors shall not be revealed to the candidate. 

4.3 The nominated assessors must be approved by Graduate Research Studies Board in consultation with the Vice-President for Academic Affairs/Registrar. Should the minimum requirement of assessors not be approved, the Dean of Faculty must nominate a further assessor. 

5. Submission of Thesis 

5.1 The candidate shall submit three soft bound copies of their thesis for examination, as per thesis format guidelines. 

5.2 If approved, the candidate will submit one full hard bound thesis for the library archive, and one e-thesis as describes in the thesis format guidelines.

6. Assessment

6.1 The Higher Doctorate shall be awarded only to candidates who, in the opinion of the assessors, have demonstrated:

• (i) a contribution of originality and merit to their field of study; and 
• (ii) a sustained, consistent and substantial contribution to the advancement of knowledge over a number of years; and 
• (iii) authoritative standing in their field of study; 

6.2 Having considered the work, the assessors shall submit individual reports to the Dean of Faculty, copied to the Dean of Graduate Studies, with a recommendation that either:   

• (i) the appropriate Higher Doctorate be awarded

or  

• (ii) that a Higher Doctorate not be awarded 

6.3 Where the assessors’ recommendations are in agreement, the Dean shall forward the report to the Registry to present the recommendation for approval at the next Faculty Awards Board for Research Degrees.  The recommendation will then be formally approved by Academic Council along with other research awards. 

6.4 Where the assessors’ recommendations differ, and only in cases where at least two of the assessors are in favour of awarding the Higher Doctorate, an appropriately qualified adjudicator, who may not be a member of staff of the University, shall be appointed by the Vice President for Academic Affairs/Registrar to review the submission. The identity of the adjudicator shall not be revealed to the candidate. The adjudicator shall be given access to the submission and the assessors’ reports and shall make a final recommendation. 

6.5 Where the assessors or adjudicator recommend that the Higher Doctorate not be awarded, the candidate shall be sent the assessors’ reports and those of the adjudicator (if applicable). 

6.6 Where assessors or adjudicator recommend that the Higher Doctorate not be awarded candidates may reapply after three years.

 7. Appeal 

7.1 Where assessors or adjudicators recommend that the Higher Doctorate not be awarded, a candidate shall have the normal right of appeal as set out in the University’s Regulations for Research Degrees wherein the candidate shall have the rights and responsibilities of a registered student on a research programme in making an appeal. Such appeals can relate only to grounds of process or procedure. 

8. Archive 

8.1 The University shall retain in the Library one hard bound copy of the full work submitted in support of a successful application.  A version (as outlined in 9.2, Thesis Format) will be made available as an e-thesis.  

9. Thesis Format 

9.1 Full Soft/Hard Bound Copy 

The submission shall be either soft or hard bound as outlined in the regulations depending on the phase of the process. The number of copies required is outlined in the regulations also depending on the phase of the process. 

The submission shall comprise the following items presented in the order given:

1.  Title page 
2. Contents list 
3. Synopsis 
4. Declaration 
5. Copyright statement 
6. Statement 
7. Copies of each of the publications in its published form.  

The hard bound copy should be bound within boards of sufficient rigidity to support the work when it is standing upon a shelf. The colour of the boards shall be University blue (Pantone Ref: 289). 

Have the following information on the front cover:

• the title of the thesis in at least 24pt (8 mm) type 
• the initials and name of the candidate  - the award for which the thesis is submitted e.g. DLitt, DSc etc.   
• the year of award, i.e. the calendar year in which the Faculty Awards Board approves the award.

The same information (excluding the title of the thesis) shall be printed in the same order in at least 24 pt (8 mm) type along the spine of the cover in such a way as to be easily legible when the thesis is lying flat with its front cover uppermost. 

All lettering on the cover and the spine shall be gold in colour and clear of any graphic design. 

Be printed, typewritten or otherwise reproduced on one side only of good-quality white A4-sized paper (210mm x 297mm). 

Contain a title page with the following information: 

• the full title of thesis, and subtitle, if any, and name and qualifications, if any, of the candidate
• the award for which the work is submitted 
• the name of the University and of the Faculty with which the candidate is registered
• the year of award, i.e. the calendar year in which the Faculty Awards Board approves the award.
• the total number of volumes and the number of the particular volume, if there is more than one volume. 

For all sections, with the exception of the publications, a minimum font size of 11 should be used, doubly or one-and-a-half spaced, with a left hand margin at the binding edge of not less than 40mm and all other margins not less than 20mm

Where footnotes and indented quotations are used, these may be in single  spacing. 

Have any abbreviations, other than those in normal use, accompanied by an  explanatory guide.

The contents list should list and reference all publications in numerical order.

Each publication should be separated by a coloured (blue) page.  The reference number and publication details should be printed on the separation page. 

Where the thesis consists of more than one volume, volume numbers should be indicated with Arabic numbers (e.g. (i), (ii) etc.)

Have a page, bound into the thesis immediately following the title page, containing the following declaration, signed by the candidate:  

I hereby certify that this material, which I now submit for assessment on the programme of study leading to the award of ........................... (insert title of degree for which registered) is my own work, and that I have exercised reasonable care to ensure that the work is original, and does not to the best of my knowledge breach any law of copyright, and has not been taken from the work of others save and to the extent that such work has been cited and acknowledged within the text of my work. I confirm that none of the published works contained within have previously been submitted for any other award.

Signed: ____________ (Candidate) ID No.: ___________ Date: _______        

9.2 E Copy 

The e copy of the thesis shall be a copy of the full version, excluding copies of the published works, but including a full list citing these, incorporating the digital object identifier (DOI) where possible.

Changes in programme delivery, made necessary by the COVID 19 pandemic, have accelerated the acquisition of staff and students’ skills and experience related to digital learning across the university. This presents an opportunity to enhance learning, and we undoubtedly will not return to the same model of delivery and student experience we had previously. However, it is also clear that provision undertaken in an emergency context should not define our approach in the future. Developments in this regard will form part of our next teaching and learning strategy, in the context of operating principles for the university, and it will take time to reach a final position.  

Education Committee has discussed the future impact of the switch from traditional face-to-face delivery to online and blended learning during the pandemic over recent months. DCU is predominantly a campus-based institution with a commitment to leverage the affordances of technology to enhance the education of all our students, and we are evolving our strategy in this regard. 

• In the first instance, changes to online or strongly blended modes of delivery for some parttime postgraduate programmes will be considered by Education Committee, with an emphasis on enhancing flexibility of offerings. Education Committee approved the Principles for Quality Assurance of DCU E-learning and Blended Provision at its meeting of 8 December 2021, and a process to seek approval for a change in delivery mode has been put in place. 
  • DCU adopts European definitions. ENQA defines online delivery as a study mode where students can predominately complete an individual course or their programme of study without the need for any on-campus instruction.  The course is usually delivered through a combination of synchronous and asynchronous instruction with all learning conducted at a distance. Blended delivery refers to a study mode where courses are intentionally designed to combine both online and face-to-face teaching in any combination.  While sometimes known as hybrid learning, the common intention is to provide students with greater flexibility through some provision of online learning but where teaching also takes place on a physical campus.

• We continue to develop new online offerings under our strategic partnership with Futurelearn and/or as part of building up our micro credential portfolio. 

• It is recognised that the context is very different at undergraduate level, where our commitment to students is to a campus based programme (other than for DCU Connected programmes), and our primary focus is on enhancing campus based learning through appropriate use of blended learning. This paper clarifies an interim position for ‘22/23 in respect to undergraduate programmes. The baseline when considering changes is the delivery model of undergraduate programmes prior to the pandemic.

In-person (also known as face-to-face) is the traditional view of how undergraduate modules are typically delivered in DCU (with the exception of DCU Connected undergraduate programmes). However, it is important to also acknowledge that even this traditional mode typically involves student self-directed learning using Loop as the online engagement default.  In this sense, well before the COVID-19 pandemic, DCU was known as a leader and early adopter of  blended learning and this was acknowledged in the findings of the Expert Panel in the University’s 2020 Thematic Quality Review of Digital Learning. While the concept of blended learning is not new at DCU the quality review also established that a stronger programmatic approach is required to better harness the active, engaging and more flexible affordances of blended delivery.

Blended delivery falls along a continuum, and the descriptors in Table 1 capture levels along this continuum. Before the pandemic, the level of blending at DCU fell into the categories of relatively weak or moderate in terms of fundamental enhancements to the student learning experience. While Loop is a well-established feature of DCU’s teaching and learning environment, there are few examples of stronger level of blending, where technology is redefining or transforming the nature of teaching, learning and assessment. 

The roll-out of DCU Futures is laying the groundwork for a stronger model of blended delivery of undergraduate programmes in DCU. Ongoing review of the pilot and emerging lessons will be a key factor in decisions to be made regarding future changes to undergraduate delivery. The DCU Futures model is piloting some blending of campus and online elements by design. In the initial stages of the roll-out of DCU Futures, a number of observations have been made, outlined below.

The DCU Futures experience of blended learning

The selected mode of delivery in DCU Futures is an extrapolation of the current default where specific modules have a significantly greater fraction of online learning elements, and are designed as such, so that they move to Strong (deep) blending. In DCU Futures, these modules are defined by two characteristics - that their traditional on campus footprint is reduced by at least 50%, and that they are redesigned to ensure an active and engaging online learning experience that includes peer-to-peer interaction, staff to student interaction, and student support. It is important to note that such activities are limited to ⅙ of the overall programme, i.e. 10 credits worth of learning online within a 60 credit academic sitting. 

Eight DCU Futures programmes were rolled out in the 2021-2022 academic year, all incorporating elements of strongly blended delivery. Based on feedback from Futures programme chairs, student representatives, DCU Studio and the TEU for this first iteration across first year of all programmes and second year of one programme, four aspects have emerged to date:

• It is critical that modules with a significantly greater fraction of online learning elements are considered within the programme as a whole from the perspective of the student learning experience. Experience shows that patterns of delivery (and assessment) for modules impact on each other in terms of student engagement and effort, and mapping of the students’ experience in totality is important.

• Active learning in an online environment, that is enabled by an interactive and engaging course design, is crucial for modules that incorporate a significant online learning component. This has been best served by a model where a maximum of 50% of the traditional campus attendance is retained for a given module that is redesigned for stronger blending. At lower percentages of online activity, modules tended to retain the traditional face-to-face module design, with online components skewed towards extra reading/passive transmission elements, rather than redesigned, learning enhancing approaches.

• For modules with a strongly blended learning component, a strong teacher presence is crucial. Effective learning requires scheduled, regular and meaningful communication with academic staff. 

• Effective module design should be informed by sound pedagogy and assessment, that is, modules should be (re)designed using a pedagogy-led approach. Good online learning cannot simply be substituted for a campus model and must be redesigned to ensure peer-to-peer interaction, staff to student interaction, and student support. 

As we move to year two of DCU Futures implementation, experience and evidence will grow and it is expected that the position regarding undergraduate delivery will evolve. Internationally, institutions are grappling with the best model and we will also leverage insight gained elsewhere as we develop the next strategy for Teaching and Learning.

In the context described above, it is also recognised that colleagues across DCU are reflecting on experience with different modes of delivery over the last two years and planning teaching of campus-based undergraduate modules and programmes for 22/23. It is understood that, as a baseline, DCU student learning is supported via the use of Loop as a repository of notes/ assessment exemplars/ links to supporting resources/ to facilitate submission of assignments etc. The following relates to enhancing the level of blended learning in new ways by replacing some traditional campus delivery (lectures/workshops/labs etc) in redesigned modules leveraging affordances of technology. There is no expectation that every programme introduces stronger level blending, and the default is campus delivery of undergraduate programmes supported by Loop. Where there is an ambition to change, the following applies: 

The rationale for change in an undergraduate module delivery to strongly blended or fully online must first have the support of the module co-ordinator’s line manager/Head of School and the Programme Chair (where programmes are owned across schools). The Head of School has a specific role in relation to workload or working arrangements implications.   

A change is also subject to the following guidance regarding blending which applies to programme and module levels:

• Programme Chairs are responsible for maintaining an overview of the student learning experience 
  • online delivery should account for no more than ⅙ of any academic structure. The undergraduate experience should remain a campus based one, enhanced by blending.
  • a greater level of blending than existed pre-pandemic could be achieved by one module in 6 being fully online, or via two modules, where the traditional on-campus footprint is reduced by 50% in each and learning enhanced by online elements.
  • to maintain the intended balance in learning experience, substitution of campus activities such as lectures by online alternatives is not permitted in other modules in a programme.  
  • modules to be (re)designed for online or blended delivery should be agreed with the programme chair and, where possible with the programme board.

• Module (re)designs should align with the recently approved quality standards for online and blended delivery, and incorporate the following aspects in the design process, with details captured in the module change documents:
  • pedagogy-led design,
  • active learning components,
  • scheduled and regular teacher presence.

• The usual process with regard to approving changes to modules at faculty level should be followed for modules (re)designed for blended delivery; 

Consultation with the Teaching Enhancement Unit in the first instance can assist colleagues embarking on module redesign. 

Faculties will report to Education Committee on the degree to which it is proposed to make changes for 22/23 and student and staff experience, together with the strategic position of the university will feed into further discussion and developments.

1.1. An Assessment Review is a reconsideration of an element of assessment by an independent assessor in instances where a student makes a coherent academic argument that the grade awarded is incorrect.

1.2. Due to their nature, there may be modules or part of modules where an assessment review is not possible.  The assessment review process relies on there being an existent piece of work originally completed by the student for marking, which can be assessed by an independent reviewer.  This would not normally be the case for presentations, practice placements, supervisor’s mark for the conduct of a project etc. 

1.3. Students must have reviewed their examination script or assessment and/or discussed their performance with the relevant examiner/module coordinator prior to submitting an assessment review application. This includes students who submit an assessment as part of a group. 

1.4. An assessment review application must be specific as to the parts of the assessment which the student claims was marked incorrectly and include a coherent academic argument as to why the student believes the grade awarded is incorrect. Drafting this will take time and effort. 

1.5. The review is limited to this part of the assessment which the student claims has been marked incorrectly. 

1.6. The following review applications will not be processed 

• Applications where the student has not viewed their assessment/script or 
• Applications which do not outline the exact points with which the student disagrees or 
• Applications where there has been a failure to identify the specific part of the assessment which is believed to have been marked incorrectly 
• Applications where a coherent academic argument as to why the grade awarded is incorrect is not provided.  

1.7. A review will not be undertaken for reasons such as the following

• Disappointment with the grade awarded
• Assertions that the grade does not reflect the work effort
• Results are borderline for a higher degree classification 

1.8. An application for an assessment review can only be made against a grade which has been approved by a Progression and Award Board. An application for review cannot be made against a provisional result.                                                     

2.1. Completed Assessment Review Forms must be submitted online at https://www.dcu.ie/ovpaa/Appeals.shtml within a specified number of days[1].

2.2. Review requests submitted after the closing date for lodging requests will not be considered. 

2.3. A student requesting an assessment review will be required to submit the requested fee[2] with the application[3]. This fee is non-refundable except in the case of a student where the process results in a change to the previously published module result and can be submitted at https://dcu.sybernetsps.ie/dcupayments/dcu.

2.4. In instances where the student claims significant errors have been made in the grading of more than one module, a separate application must be completed for each module[4].

2.5. Due to the nature of the process, it is highly unlikely that a final decision will be received within the examination appeals process timeframe. Hence, students are advised to prepare for and avail of any resit opportunities pending the outcome of the review. 

2.6. Decisions from the assessment review process are final and binding. 

[1] This period is the same as that applicable for the submission of an appeal, currently 10 days from the date of promulgation of the results online for which the recheck is requested.

[2] The requisite fee is the same as that for an appeal, currently €100.

[3]The fee should be submitted online at the web-link provided above and on the submission form.

[4] The requisite fee is payable per application

3.1. Completed applications are reviewed by a subcommittee of the Examination Appeals Board to adjudicate as to whether it is a valid request e.g.  whether the student has provided a coherent academic argument as to why the mark awarded is incorrect. 

3.2. Applications which are found to be invalid are returned to the student with a confirmation that the grade as awarded stands. 

3.3. Valid applications for review of assessments, excluding dissertations, are forwarded to the school responsible for the module for review. 

• 3.3.1. Head of School or nominee is asked to confirm if the assessment has already been subjected to double marking by either  
  • Another internal examiner or 
  • The module external examiner. The external examiner must have reviewed that applicant’s particular assessment. It is not sufficient that they reviewed a sample of assessments which may or may not have contained the applicant’s assessment.                                                             

• 3.3.2. Where the assessment has already been double marked, the school confirms this to the Secretary of the Examination Appeals Board who notifies the student that the grade as awarded stands. 

• 3.3.3. Where the assessment has not already been subject to double marking, the Head of School or nominee arranges for the relevant portion of the assessment to be reviewed by an independent person. 
  • Where possible this review will be conducted by a member of staff.
  • Where there is no member of staff with the expertise in the relevant area, the opinion of the external examiner must be sought.

• 3.3.4. The result of the review is notified to the Recording Secretary of the Examination Appeals Board and the students and relevant staff are advised, in writing, of the decision.    

3.4. Valid applications for review of dissertations are forwarded to the school responsible for the programme for review. 

• 3.4.1. Head of School or nominee is asked to confirm if the applicant’s dissertation has already been reviewed by the external examiner. 

• 3.4.2. Where the dissertation has been reviewed by the external examiner, school confirms this to the Recording Secretary of the Examinations Appeal Board and the applicant is notified that the grade as awarded stands. 

• 3.4.3. Where the dissertation has not been reviewed by the external examiner, the Head of School or nominee arranges for the relevant portion to be reviewed by an independent person. 
  • Where possible this review will be conducted by a member of staff.
  • Where there is no member of staff with the expertise in the relevant area, the opinion of an external examiner must be sought.

• 3.4.4. The result of the review is notified to the Recording Secretary of the Examinations Appeal Board and 
  • Notifies the applicant of the outcome
  • Notifies Registry as to any change to the grade awarded.  

3.5. The outcome of the review process can result in no change, an increase or a decrease to the grade already notified to the student. In situations where students have availed of a resit opportunity pending receipt of the outcome of their review request for a failed module, section 7.1.4 of Marks and Standards will apply i.e. the revised first attempt mark will be included in calculating the precision mark.

3.6. The relevant Head of School or nominee should ensure that the review takes place in as timely a manner as possible. It is recognised that the appropriate persons may not be available to conduct the review within the timeframes which apply to the university’s examinations appeals process. Hence, students are advised to prepare for and avail of any resit opportunities pending the outcome of the review. 

A summary of the outcomes of review applications is included in the annual report of the Examination Appeals Board to Academic Council

1.1 The following procedures arise from the decision of Academic Council on 7 December 2016 to implement a module recheck facility, on a pilot basis for 2 years commencing with the academic year 2017/18. It will be available for academic sessions commencing September 2017.

1.2. A recheck is the administrative process whereby it is confirmed that:

• All elements submitted for assessment were considered and assessed
• The calculation of the marks awarded was correct
• No errors or omissions occurred in the recording, collating or combining of marks
• The correct summary mark was presented to the Progression and Award Board. 

1.3. A recheck does not involve the regrading of exam scripts or continuous assessment. 

1.4. A recheck of a module is only open to students who were unable to avail of the relevant consultation days, following the promulgation of results, for the following reasons:

• Certified Illness 
• Being abroad during the examination consultation period (either semester) 

1.5. A recheck can generally only be requested following confirmation of marks by a Progression and Award Board. This will usually be after the summer and autumn diets of examinations.  

1.6. In exceptional circumstances, students may request a recheck of a provisional2 examination result that has not been formally approved by the relevant Progression and Award Board (where examination results have been approved by a Programme Board Examination Review Committee or equivalent but have not been formally approved by a Progression and Award Board).  Namely, where students have failed the module concerned and the resit opportunity takes place before the examination result is formally approved by a Progression and Award Board.   Where students request a recheck under such circumstances, a further recheck cannot be requested following the Progression and Awards Board 

2.1. Two collated and stapled copies of all recheck documentation (completed form and supporting documentation i.e., medical certificate or evidence of travel) for each recheck requested should be submitted to Academic Affairs, Room D106, Bea Orpen Building, DCU Glasnevin Campus. 

2.2. Completed Module Recheck Forms must be submitted within a specified number of days. This period is the same as that applicable for the submission of appeals, currently 10 days from the date of promulgation of the results on-line for which the recheck is requested.

2.3. Recheck requests submitted after the closing date for lodging requests will not be considered. 

2.4. Module Recheck Request Forms must be accompanied by evidence of the basis upon which a request is being requested.  

2.5. An administration fee, currently €20 per module, will be payable in respect of each module for which a recheck is sought. This administration fee is non-refundable except in the case of a student where an error is discovered when conducting the recheck.   

3.1. Completed forms will be distributed by Academic Affairs to the relevant schools.  

3.2. It is recognised that examination script and continuous assessment storage arrangements vary across schools and faculties. Similarly, the arrangements in place to facilitate the recheck process may vary across schools.  

3.3. The Head of School, reflecting “ownership” of modules which resides with the schools responsible for their delivery, or nominee will ensure that 

• 3.3.1. The recheck is undertaken  

• 3.3.2. The outcome is submitted to Academic Affairs as per the date specified in the email from the OVPAA Administrator.  This deadline is necessary to ensure that the Examination Appeals Board members get the information in time for the meeting. The candidate may have simultaneously submitted an appeal request and hence it is essential that the outcome of the recheck process is known to the Examination Appeals Board.

• 3.3.3. Where the recheck gives rise to a change in grade, the post PAB amendment procedure must be followed. Direct contact must be made with the Student Awards Manager to initiate this procedure

• 3.3.4. As assessment storage arrangements vary across schools and faculties, each school should make their own arrangements as to who will conduct the recheck.

3.4. The administrator in Academic Affairs will 

• 3.4.1. Notify students where a recheck will not be undertaken as the request was not accompanied by relevant documentation

• 3.4.2. Notify the Examination Appeals Board of any changes affecting students who have also submitted an appeal.

• 3.4.3. Notify the student of the outcome of the recheck within one week of the date of the Appeals Board meeting.

DCU’s quality assurance framework and processes for academic offerings are anchored in European Standards and Guidelines (ESG 2015)¹ which state:

“The ESG apply to all higher education offered in the EHEA regardless of the mode of study or place of delivery…”                  (ESG, 2015, p.9).

DCU, in common with higher education institutions across the globe, saw a rapid pivot to online and blended learning delivery due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  This pivot has created new challenges, and new opportunities, while also foregrounding the critical importance of maintaining, ensuring and enhancing QA standards:

“...the role of quality assurance in ensuring that quality standards are maintained and supporting the university community in their work, while providing assurance to the public of the status of quality in higher education, has become paramount².” - Cirlan and Loukkola (2021: 4).

DCU is committed to ensuring a student and learning-centred approach in all aspects of educational provision, and the fundamental premise underpinning the principles outlined below is that the student learning experience in online and blended modalities should be of the same high quality as those in face-to-face teaching contexts. The ESG are intended to form a broad basis for conceptualising quality, with the following four anchors (ESG, 2015: 7):

• Establishment of a common framework,
• Enable assurance and improvement of quality,
• Support mutual trust,
• Provide information on quality assurance in the EHEA.

Each of these principles has implications for blended and online learning QA approaches at DCU.  The European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) publication, Considerations for Quality Assurance of E-learning Provision³, provides guidance on how ESG 2015 can be made applicable to e-learning, providing varying indicators regarding internal quality assurance frameworks, with the following as examples (summarised, p.7):

• That e-learning is part of the overall strategy, and policy for QA,
• There is a clearly articulated policy framework and governance structure,
• Policies, structures, processes and resources are in place,
• Codes and policies of practice ensuring integrity and ethical behaviour, 
• Security measures,
• Written agreements with external parties,
• Stakeholders are involved in internal QA processes (students, in particular).   

¹ Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). (2015). Brussels, Belgium.

 ² Cirlan, E., and Loukkola, T. (2021). Internal quality assurance in times of COVID-19. Research Report, European University Association (EUA).

³ Heurtas, E., Biscan, I., Ejsing, C., Kerber, L., Kozlowska, L., Ortega, S., Lauri, L., Risse, M., Schorg, K, and Seppman, G (on behalf on ENQA). (2018). Considerations for Quality Assurance of E Learning Provision. Occasional Papers, No. 26.

Drawing on this ENQA guidance, the following principles relating to internal quality assurance for blended and online delivery are adopted, collated under the thematic categories (drawn from ESG 2015) of learning design, scaffolded interaction, and evidence-based continuous improvement. 

ESG 2015 make a distinction between Internal QA (which is the responsibility of the provider) and External QA (which is the responsibility of an outside agency, in this case, QQI).  External QA processes form the basis upon which these internal guidelines and criteria are written. These proposed principles are devised as a starting point for course designers, academic/teaching staff, professional support staff, and administrators, to comprehend the ground rules that underpin a DCU internal QA approach to blended and online learning.  The adoption of these internal QA criteria for blended and online learning at DCU is intended to ensure:

“...a learning environment in which the content of programmes, learning opportunities and facilities are fit for purpose” (ESG, 2015, p.9).

This document sets out the criteria, approval mechanisms and processes that govern the approval of:

• (i) new programmes of study (including those involving collaborative partnerships),
• (ii)the re-approval of existing programmes of study and
• (iii)approval of substantial revisions to an existing programme of study.

These processes are part of the broader academic quality assurance and enhancement structure of the University. The document focuses, in the main, on the process of preparing and submitting proposals for new programmes of study that must undergo University approval (validation and accreditation). This document should be read in conjunction with the following:

• Such Faculty-specific regulations and/or regulations in partner institutions, as may pertain with respect to programme approval. This is to ensure that all Faculty and partner institutions’ regulations and procedures are followed.

• The University schedule of meetings on the OVPAA website as well as schedules of relevant Faculty meetings.

2.1 New Programme Approval

As a University and Designated Awarding Body, DCU is responsible for the accreditation of its own programmes and awards, which are, in turn, fully aligned with the National Framework for Qualifications.  When the University wishes to facilitate the establishment of new programmes, it uses procedures referred to as validation and accreditation.

Validation and accreditation are important aspects of DCU’s quality assurance. The University is committed to ensuring, on the one hand, that all new programme proposals have a clear strategic focus and are fully aligned to the University’s strategic plan and component strategic plans and, on the other, that programme proposers have at their disposal a set of procedures designed to maintain the highest possible quality in terms of the preparation of proposals. The processes of validation and accreditation ensure, inter alia, that:

• each proposal meets the requirements of Academic Council for the relevant award, and the standards and learning outcomes set are appropriate to that award,

• individuals and groups are facilitated in creating new programmes of study within the University and/or in partnership with other institutions or organisations as appropriate,

• necessary human, financial and physical resources are available.

2.2 Revision of Existing Programmes 

Where changes to programmes are made which do not require validation and accreditation, different procedures are followed. These are outlined on OVPAA's Programme Approval page under the ‘Revised Academic Offerings’ section. Please refer to the schedule of types of changes in the ‘Revised Academic Offerings’ form, and the associated required actions. 

2.3 Re-accreditation

In some cases, the outcome of the review of a programme within the University may involve a recommendation that it be re-accredited. Where such a need arises, standard accreditation procedures are normally followed. In certain circumstances, the procedures may be carried out electronically. A recommendation on the desirability, or otherwise, of electronic accreditation may be made by the Faculty Teaching and Learning Committee or Education Committee to the Office of the Vice-President Academic Affairs (Registrar). The final decision rests with the Vice President Academic Affairs (Registrar).

A need for re-accreditation may also arise on the basis of recommendations from an external professional accrediting organisation (often following a review visit) and/or significant changes which such an organisation may make to its requirements in terms of recognising the programme. 

It should be noted, however, that re-accreditations, especially electronic reaccreditations, are relatively rare.

3.1 Academic Secretariat, OVPAA

The Academic Secretariat is responsible for the coordination of the University approval processes with respect to new and existing programmes of study.

It is advisable that the Academic Secretariat is contacted at an early stage in programme design/re-design so to ensure the appropriate approval mechanisms are being applied and to discuss likely timelines involved in the following process:   

• approval within Faculty/Faculties

• due diligence and the establishment of an MOU/MOA, where appropriate, in consultation with the Office of the Executive Director of Engagement

• validation and approval of validation

• recommendations by Academic Council

• accreditation and approval of accreditation by Academic Council

• finalisation of accreditation documentation to take account of the recommendations of the Accreditation Board-preparation for launch

3.2 Importance of timing

It is essential that documentation be submitted in a timely manner; failure to take into account the need for this may result in a programme not gaining approval, and therefore not being offered, within the schedule originally envisaged by the proposers. It is necessary, therefore, to take cognisance of the University’s schedule of meetings and the schedules of relevant Faculty meetings. Early planning is of particular importance for programmes which are intended for offer through the CAO, those which involve partner institutions (collaborative programmes) and those which may require a foreshortened approval process due to the requirements of a particular funding call.

It is very important to be aware that engagement in due diligence with respect to a proposed external partner organisation must be undertaken before, rather than at the same time as, the validation process. Consideration may also need to be given to the possibility that a derogation from Marks and Standards (where required to meet the requirements of external bodies) may be needed and, if so, that a request will have to be submitted, in due course, to the University Standards Committee. 

3.3 Consultation within the School and Faculty

A validation proposal may be submitted to the Education Committee (EC) only after it has gone through the appropriate discussion and consultation in the relevant School(s) and the appropriate approval procedures in the relevant Faculty or Faculties. The Head(s) of School must be satisfied that all relevant consultation takes place at School level. Advice on approval procedures within a Faculty should be sought from the Faculty Office and the Associate Dean for Teaching and Learning.

3.4 Collaboration with an external organisation (collaborative programmes) 

Where it is proposed to offer a programme in partnership with an external organisation, reference must be made, as appropriate, to the University’s policy on due diligence and the procedures for drawing up Memoranda of Understanding and related documentation. It is vital that engagement in due diligence be undertaken before, rather than at same time as, the validation process. For further information on the development of collaborative programmes see OVPAA’s Collaborative Provision webpage.

3.5 Consultation with other relevant offices

Timely consultation must also take place, as appropriate, with relevant offices, which may include those listed below (the list is not exhaustive):

• Registry, with particular reference to application and admissions processes and timelines, the submission deadlines for academic structure information and liaison between the Registry and school guidance counsellors, where relevant.

• Finance and Fees Office

• DCU Studio and the Teaching Enhancement Unit

• Office of the Chief Operating Officer, in relation to space requirements.

• Communications and Marketing and in particular, Student Recruitment

• International Office

• Student Support and Development (including the Careers Service)

• INTRA Office

• Heads of Schools from which service teaching will be requested

• Partner organisations in which it is proposed that students will spend time (e.g. on study abroad or clinical placements)

• ISS

• Library

4.1 Validation Criteria

Validation is the process that involves the EC in assessing new programme proposals with a view to ascertaining both their relationship to strategy and their likely viability.  EC will assess a proposal on a number of criteria including:

• evidence of alignment with the University strategic plan and its component strategies

• evidence of alignment with the strategic plans of the relevant Faculty/Faculties and School(s), as outlined in the validation proposal-evidence of a place for the proposed programme within higher education in Ireland generally, taking into account programmes offered in other institutions

• evidence of the likely demand for the proposed programme, and the likelihood of achieving the appropriate student intake

• coherence of the statement of programme purpose and underpinning educational philosophy

• appropriateness of the programme learning outcomes, and coherence of their relationship to the purpose and educational philosophy-reasonableness of the estimate of the resources needed to offer the programme

• reasonableness of the proposed launch date

• appropriateness of the proposed development team

• appropriateness of the proposed members of the Accreditation Board in light of the regulations for the appointment of such members

4.2 Validation Approval Mechanism and Process: Overview

Figure 4.1 below provides an overview of the validation process and approval mechanism. Further detail on each stage is included in subsequent sections.

It is important to note that, where a proposal involves a partner institution (i.e. a collaborative proposal), there are additional procedures and approval mechanisms to be followed. Therefore, it is vital that the programme proposer liaises with the OVPAA, External Affairs, and relevant Faculty colleagues before progressing to validation. Further information on collaborative proposals can be viewed at the Collaborative Provision webpage.

Faculty approval of validation proposal

Submission of proposal to Education Committee

Decision by Education Committee or referral to Education Committee Standing Committee for decision 

Outcome, including any matters to be addressed, communicated to Programme Proposer and other involved colleagues 

Validation report submitted to Academic Council for consideration

If approved, proceed to accreditation (see figure 5.1) 

Figure 4.1: Overview of validation approval mechanism

4.3 Faculty approval of proposal

Validation proposals may be submitted for approval to EC once they have completed the approval process (including approval in relation to financial matters) within the relevant Faculty/Faculties. Information on Faculty approval processes is available from Faculty Offices. The programme proposers are welcome to submit a draft of the programme proposal to the Secretary of EC in advance with a request for advice on issues such as whether or not all of the necessary areas have been adequately covered in the document.

4.4 Submission of proposal to Education Committee 

Once approved, the proposal is submitted to the Secretary of EC in electronic format (see section 4.7 for further information on completing the validation paperwork). There are ten EC meetings in each academic year and validation proposals may be considered at any of these (see section 3 for further information on timing). The submission dates of EC meetings can be viewed online on the Academic Council and Subcommittees webpage. 

Programme proposers are not required to be in attendance at the meeting of EC. However, if the EC decides that a proposal needs to be discussed with the proposers, such discussion will take place some days after the EC meeting at a meeting of the Education Committee Standing Committee (ECSC). In these instances, the ECSC’s recommendations must be endorsed by the EC.

4.5 Education Committee Standing Committee

The Secretary of EC notifies the proposers of the exact time at which the proposal will be discussed and at which they should therefore make themselves available. The principal programme proposer should be accompanied to the ECSC meeting by one or two colleagues (the group may include, for example, the Head of School, the Associate Dean for Teaching and Learning or another staff member closely associated with the programme). If a programme is proposed in partnership with an external organisation, a representative of this organisation may also attend.  The exact times and dates for the ECSC meetings are indicated in the University schedule of meetings, which can be viewed online on the Academic Council webpage.

4.6 Decision by Education Committee/Education Committee Standing Committee

The Secretary of EC/ECSC advises the principal programme proposer of the outcome of the meeting. This outcome will normally be a recommendation either to approve (with or without a number of matters to be addressed) or not to approve the programme for development towards accreditation.

If the EC/ECSC decides not to recommend approval, the Secretary of EC will let the programme proposers know this by e-mail following the meeting. Further action to be taken by the proposers will depend on the circumstances. For example, in certain cases, they may be advised that the EC considers the programme as proposed not to be likely to be viable while, in others, they may be invited to submit a revised proposal to a future meeting of the EC.

In the event of a recommendation to approve a proposal, the Secretary of EC drafts a validation report to be approved by the members of the EC/ECSC and then forwarded for approval to the next available meeting of Academic Council.  This report includes a statement of the recommendation to approve and a list of sub-recommendations, if any.  The Secretary of EC forwards this report to the principal programme proposer and other colleagues involved with the proposal.  

Normally, the sub-recommendations relate to matters that need to be addressed in the accreditation proposal. However, on some occasions, EC may request that sub-recommendations are implemented in advance of accreditation. If that is the case, the Secretary of EC arranges with the programme proposer for confirmation to be submitted to the EC, at an appropriate date.

4.7 Decision by Academic Council

Validation reports are normally for formal approval only and will be discussed only if a member of Council requests that this be done. If there is a request for a discussion, the Secretary of Academic Council will notify the principal programme proposer of this.  In such instances, it should be ensured that there is someone present at Academic Council who can address any issues raised. If there is no discussion about the proposal, it will be formally approved by Academic Council. 

If there is a discussion, various outcomes are possible: Council may approve, reject or amend the validation recommendations. In all cases, the decision (and recommendations, if any) of Council will be communicated to stakeholders by the Secretary of EC.

In the event of rejection, Academic Council will advise on the appropriate next steps for the proposal. If approval is indicated by Academic Council, the programme proposers are in a position to prepare for accreditation.  It is understood that, for practical reasons, they may already have begun the preparations, following EC approval.

Before a programme can proceed to accreditation, the Executive Dean of Faculty must confirm that all recommendations of the EC/ECSC, and any recommendations from AC have been implemented/addressed.  The form for signature can be found at: https://www.dcu.ie/ovpaa/Zof-Forms.shtml.

4.8 Validation Proposal Documentation

A standard validation is one in which the proposed taught award does not involve working with a proposed external partner or institution.  The AA1 validation form is used in such instances. The form is available at the Validation and Accreditation webpage (in the important documents section).

Where a proposed programme of study involves single or multiple partner institutions (i.e. a collaborative proposal) an alternative validation (AA) form is required. These alternative forms contain much of the same information as the AA1 form, while also requiring additional information in regards to the proposed partner, the partnership context and the justification for partner involvement in the programme.  

Further information on collaborative provision, and the relevant AA forms, are available at the Collaborative Provision webpage.

The AA1 validation form should contain the following information.  Please note, the alternative AA forms will also require this information but also contain further sections relating specifically to the proposed collaborative arrangements.

Table 4.1: Validation form template

4.9 Accreditation Board Members

At the point of validation, programme proposers are required to nominate the members of the Accreditation Board.  Accreditation Board meetings typically take place on Zoom and so experts may be identified from outside of Ireland. Those nominated must be approved by the EC as part of the validation process, using the form provided in Appendix C.  Where a subsequent change has to be made (e.g. where an approved individual becomes unavailable), the CV of the substitute (on the standard form) should be forwarded to the Secretary of EC, who will submit it electronically to the EC for consideration.

In the selection of nominees to the Accreditation Board, account must be taken of the following:

• The principal programme proposer should ensure that there is appropriate professional distance between all nominated Board members and the University. No individual employed by the University, or a student of the University, in the previous five years may be considered. Nomination of individuals with a personal connection with the University should also be avoided, as appropriate. Reference should be made to the University’s Conflict of Interest Policy and Guidelines.

• It should be ensured that the Board includes senior academic and professional experts as appropriate.  There should normally be a minimum of one individual of professorial rank.

• It can be desirable, even necessary, for an individual to be appointed to a Board because they represents a professional accrediting body. In no circumstances, however, should an individual be appointed who is a member of an organisation which has commissioned a programme.

• Every effort should be made to ensure an appropriate gender balance and an appropriate balance between national and international expertise.

• An Accreditation Board should include no more than one representative from any one institution.

• Reciprocal arrangements between the University and other institutions should be avoided.

• In no circumstances may a staff member from DCU act as a member of an Accreditation Board in a linked college, or vice versa. Nor may a staff member of a linked college act as a member of an Accreditation Board in another linked college.

The number of external experts who sit on an Accreditation Board should never be less than three and should normally not be more than five.  To allow for unforeseen events which might prevent an individual from attending a Board meeting as scheduled, it is recommended that a minimum of four be identified and invited.  This ensures that, if one individual is prevented at short notice from attending, there will still be a minimum of three in attendance.

If an expert indicates, within a reasonable time period before the Board meeting that they cannot now attend, there may be time for the approval of a substitute. In certain cases, an individual may indicate that they cannot attend the Board meeting but would be willing to read the documentation and submit comments in advance. This can be accommodated on occasion, though it is not recommended because it does not allow the individual to interact with the other members of the Board or the programme proposers.

5.1 Accreditation Criteria

Accreditation involves the submission of a detailed programme proposal to an Accreditation Board. The Accreditation Board includes a group of academic and, as appropriate, other professional experts from outside the University. The role of the Accreditation Board is to consider whether the programme meets the nationally and internationally accepted requirements for the award(s) to which it is designed to lead.  

Each accreditation proposal is assessed on a number of criteria, which include:

• the likelihood that the proposed programme will meet the needs which the proposal indicates it is intended to meet

• the appropriateness of the entry requirements and exit routes

• the validity of the purpose and underpinning educational philosophy of the proposed programme

• the linkage of the programme learning outcomes with the purpose and the underpinning educational philosophy

• the consistency and coherence of the proposed modules in the context of the underpinning educational philosophy and the programme learning outcomes

• the reasonableness of achieving the programme learning outcomes, in the time specified, by the majority of students-the appropriateness and mix of learning and assessment methodologies

• the coherence between assessment methodologies, per module, and the module learning outcomes

• the coherence of the group of skills and competencies that the student would be expected to have at the end of the programme

• the appropriateness of the quality assurance procedures to be used in relation to the programme

• the qualifications and experience of the programme team and the module coordinators.

5.2 Accreditation Approval Mechanism and Process

Accreditation is carried out by an Accreditation Board, composed of a number of external experts, a senior member of the University who acts as Chair, and a member of the Academic Secretariat who acts as Rapporteur.  Figure 5.1 below provides an overview of the accreditation process and approval mechanism.  Further details on each stage is included in subsequent sections.

Agreement of Accreditation Board meeting date in consultation with Academic Secretariat

Submission of accreditation proposal to Academic Secretariat 

Meeting of the Accreditation Board and decision including recommendations if relevant 

Production of Accreditation Report for submission to Academic Council for decision 

Finalised accreditation documentation submitted to Academic Secretariat

Final report to Academic Council confirming all recommendations have been addressed

Figure 5.1: Overview of accreditation approval mechanism 

5.3 Arrangements for Accreditation Board Meeting

In enabling programme proposers to access the widest pool of external experts, and in keeping with the University’s commitment to sustainability, Accreditation Board meetings are typically held remotely, using Zoom.

To arrange a date for the meeting, the principal programme proposer must first contact the Academic Secretariat (margaret.irwanbannon@dcu.ie, ext 7754, David.McCarthy@dcu.ie). In no circumstances should dates be arranged with the external experts, even tentatively, without prior consultation. The approximate time period in which the meeting will take place depends on a number of factors, including the likely amount of time required by the programme proposers to prepare the accreditation proposal and the availability of those who must be present for the meeting.  These include:

• Accreditation Board members including the Chair and Rapporteur

• the principal programme proposer and others closely associated with the proposal, including the Dean/s of Faculty and Head/s of School

• the module coordinators

The Academic Secretariat agrees with the principal programme proposer a list of possible dates. The principal programme proposer consults with all relevant parties, included the external experts, on the most suitable date. The slot will then be entered into the accreditation diary and all others will be erased.

The principal programme proposer advised the Academic Secretariat on who will be in attendance at each session.  If it appears likely that it will be impossible for an individual to attend, a substitute should be identified who will be able to speak on the individual’s behalf.

The Academic Secretariat identifies a senior member of the academic staff of the University to chair the meeting. This person will usually be a Dean. In no instance will a meeting be chaired by the Dean of Faculty from which the programme proposal has come.

5.4 Completion and Submission of the Accreditation Proposal

The accreditation proposal is a detailed document aimed at describing the proposed programme. It is much longer than the validation document, however, certain sections of the two documents can be the same or similar.

A template for the accreditation proposal can be found on the OVPAA website on the Programme Approval page.

Where recommendations have been made at validation stage, these must incorporated into the accreditation proposal.  In addition, the information in the accreditation proposal may sometimes need to be more details than in the validation documentation.

The accreditation proposal consists of three main sections:

• Section A: The description of the proposed programme (sections 1 to 9 below).  This section might run to 15-20 pages or approximately 6,000 to 8,000 words.

• Section B: The module descriptors (using the approved template in Course Builder)

• Section C: The curricula vitae of the members of the programme team (using the template provided in Appendix C.

In every instance where reference is made to a document which is available on line, the appropriate web link should be included.  A table of contents should be provided, including a list of all the modules and a list of all the members of the programme team, for whom curricula vitae are provided.

An accreditation proposal should contain the following information: Resources at the following link may be of assistance to programme proposers.

Table 5.1: Accreditation Report Template

The final accreditation proposal must be submitted to the Academic Secretariat at least two weeks in advance of the date of the meeting.  The documentation is only required in electronic format.  Programme proposers are welcome to submit a draft of the accreditation proposal to the Academic Secretariat in advance with a request for advice on issues such as whether or not all of the necessary areas have been adequately covered in the document.

Two weeks before the date of the meeting the Academic Secretariat sends an electronic copy of the accreditation proposal to each member of the Accreditation Board along with:

• a covering letter
• a guide to the accreditation process
• a list of the members of the Accreditation Board
• a timetable and details of the Zoom details
• information regarding fee payment
• the validation recommendations approved by Academic Council, where relevant

The timetable, zoom details and list of accreditation board members will be emailed to the programme proposers and other relevant colleagues.  

5.5 Meeting of the Accreditation Board

Accreditation Board meetings are typically conducted via Zoom over a half day, usually with a 9:30 am or 13:30 pm start.  However, time zone considerations may necessitate a later or earlier start time.  The indicative timetable for both a morning and afternoon accreditation board meeting is as follows:

Table 5.2: Indicative Accreditation Board Meeting Timetable

During the first private meeting of the Accreditation Board (session 1) the Accreditation Board members agree on the issues to be raised with the Senior Team during session 2. The accreditation criteria (see 5.1) may be used to direct discussions.

Session 3 is intended to allow detailed discussion of individual modules with the module coordinators. If possible, the Dean(s) and Head(s) should be present at this point. The principal programme proposer should in all cases be present at this point.

During the second private meeting of the Accreditation Board (Session 4) the members agree if the programme has met the criteria (as per 5.1). There are a number of options open to the Accreditation Board:

• To recommend for accreditation
• To recommendation for accreditation with recommendations
• To recommend for accreditation with conditions
• To recommend that the programme not be accredited

It is important to note that in a small number of instances conditions may be included in the recommendation.  These are included where there are fundamental issues that need to be addressed before the accreditation report can be approved by Academic Council.  In such instances, confirmation that such issues have been addressed must be submitted to EC for approval.

During the final meeting with the Senior Team (session 5) the Chair or Rapporteur of the Accreditation Board summarises the decision of the Accreditation Board and any recommendations made.  

5.6 Accreditation Report Approval

Following the meeting, the Rapporteur will draft an accreditation report to be approved by the Accreditation Board and then forwarded for approval to the next available meeting of AC.  This report will include a summary of the programme proposal together with a statement of the recommendation and a list of any sub-recommendations.  Once the members of the Board have approved the report, the Rapporteur forwards it to the principal programme proposer and other relevant colleagues.

Accreditation reports are placed in Section C of the agenda for AC, which means that they are normally for formal approval only and will be discussed only if a member of AC requests it.  If there is a request for a discussion, the Secretary will notify the principal programme proposer of this. If there is to be a discussion about the proposal, it should be ensured that there is a person present at AC who can address any issues raised. 

If there is a discussion, various outcomes are possible: AC may approve, reject or amend the accreditation recommendations.  In all cases, the decision (and recommendations, if any) will be communicated to stakeholders by the Secretary.

If there is no discussion about the proposal, it will be formally approved by Academic Council.  

5.7 Finalisation of Accreditation Documentation

In the event of a positive recommendation, the principal programme proposer must ensure that finalised documentation is lodged with the Academic Secretariat before the beginning of the next academic year (by a date agreed with the Academic Secretariat).  A copy should also be held by the relevant Faculty/Faculties. This finalised documentation consists of the following:

• 1.      The accreditation proposal, incorporating the accreditation recommendations, with all changes tracked.

• 2.      Confirmation that the module specifications have been updated in Course Builder as per the recommendations.

• 3.      The accreditation proposal with all changes accepted (clean copy). This document becomes the definitive accreditation document that describes the programme as it was accredited and should be used as the basis for future revisions. 

• 4.      A copy of the accreditation report, as approved by Academic Council, with an indication under each recommendation of where and how it has been addressed.

5.8 Advertising a Programme

A programme should not be advertised before the EC has approved the validation proposal. After this, and before the meeting of the Accreditation Board, the programme may be advertised as ‘subject to accreditation’. Between the meeting of the Accreditation Board and approval of its recommendations by Academic Council, and if the recommendation of the Board is positive, the programme may be advertised as ‘subject to final approval’.

5.9 Electronic re-Accreditation

In certain exceptional circumstances, accreditation may be carried out electronically, i.e. by e-mail, without the necessity for the Board members to meet. These circumstances may include the re-accreditation of a programme, after it has been running for some years, where the changes are relatively straightforward.

Procedures for identifying the members of the Board are as 4.8 above except that, normally, (re)validation will be deemed not to be necessary so there will be no validation document.

The principal programme proposer should discuss with the Academic Secretariat an approximate time period during which the accreditation takes place. The principal programme proposer and the Academic Secretariat agree a number of key dates:

• the date on which the accreditation proposal is to be submitted to the Academic Secretariat

• the date by which responses are to be requested from the Board members (normally about three weeks from the date on which they get the proposal, though this can be extended to four if required)

• the date by which the Secretary the Accreditation Board completes the accreditation report and agrees it with the Board members (normally about one week from receipt of responses from the members of the Board).

1.1       Each Programme Board is responsible to a Faculty Teaching and Learning Committee and, ultimately, to the Academic Council of the University for the development, regulation and the use of available resources to maintain the quality of the programme within the context of relevant University regulations and guidelines.

1.2       The Programme Board is the forum for formal discussion of programme design, content, and delivery.

1.3       The Programme Board is responsible for overseeing the delivery of the programme and for monitoring the performance of students on the programme.

1.4       The Programme Board will make recommendations regarding the admission of students to the programme and, within the context of the University’s Marks and Standards, regulations that govern the determination of students' results and their progression in the programme.

2.1       Each Programme Board, subject to review by the relevant Faculty Teaching & Learning Committee and, ultimately, the Academic Council of the University, shall:

• (a)       Make recommendations, as appropriate, to the relevant Faculty Teaching & Learning Committee regarding the structure and content of the programme and any regulations that should pertain to that programme or elements within the programme.

• (b)       Ensure that the programme learning outcomes are fully supported by the modules on the academic structure of the programme and the modes of assessment in each module.

• (c)       On an annual basis, review the academic structure, content, entry requirements and assessment methodologies of the programme, in line with University procedures on Annual Programme Review, to ensure its academic coherence and its maintenance of academic standards nationally and internationally.

• (d)       On a cyclical basis, usually every five years, undertake an in-depth review of the Programme in line with University procedures on Periodic Programme Review and/or procedures for professional accreditation, to ensure its academic coherence and its maintenance of academic standards nationally and internationally.

• (e)       Develop, as necessary, programme-wide guidelines regarding approaches to teaching and learning, assessment and grading practices, aligned, as appropriate, to Faculty and University norms and guidelines.

• (f)       Make recommendations regarding the admission of students in accordance with approved regulations and policies.

• (g)       Approve student applications for transfer, deferral, and leave of absence in accordance with approved regulations and policies.

• (h)       Support the implementation of University strategy in relation to teaching and learning.

• (i)        Drawing on relevant data and systems, monitor the performance of students on the programme and, in particular, progression and completion rates.

• (j)       Oversee the academic quality of the programme and, as appropriate and within available resources, develop mechanisms to assure and enhance the quality of all academic activities.

• (k)       Act with the School, the Faculty, and the University in promoting the programme and in enhancing its relationship with all its stakeholders, including relevant professional bodies.

2.2       The Programme Board may form sub-committees with defined aims as it deems necessary and may delegate relevant functions to such sub-committees.

2.3       The Programme Board and any of its sub-committees may, where necessary and/or in exceptional circumstances, delegate authority to the chair of the Programme Board to facilitate decision-making outside the normal schedule of meetings of the Programme Board or its sub-committees.

3.1       The Head of School having responsibility for the programme at that time shall appoint a member of academic staff to be Chairperson of the Programme Board.  Where a programme is managed at Faculty level, the Executive Dean of the Faculty shall appoint the Chairperson.

3.2       The term of office of the Chairperson will normally be for a period of three years but may be terminated before that by the Head of School (or Executive Dean of Faculty where the programme is managed at Faculty level).  The term of office may be renewed for a further three years.  

3.3       The Chair of the Programme Board shall:

• (a)       Convene and chair meetings of the Programme Board, ensuring its proper and effective operation.

• (b)       Lead periodic quality assurance and quality enhancement processes such as Annual and Periodic Programme Review.

• (c)       Lead the implementation of School, Faculty and University strategies as they affect the programme.

• (d)       Build effective relationships with all stakeholders, including external and professional bodies.

• (e)       Perform ceremonial and representative roles in respect of the programme where appropriate, e.g., representing the programme at graduate ceremonies.

3.4       The Chair may make decisions in regard to the programme or to students applying to or registered to the programme on the delegated authority of the Programme Board (Section 2.3 applies).

4.1       The Programme Board is normally comprised of the following voting members:

• (a)       The Chair of the Programme Board

• (b)        All module coordinators and teaching staff for modules currently taught on the programme 

• (c)        Student representatives, comprising all elected class representatives for the programme

• (d)       The Associate Dean for Teaching and Learning for the Faculty having responsibility for the programme

• (e)       The Head of School having responsibility for the programme (or Executive Dean or nominee in the case of a Faculty-managed programme)

4.2       A member of the School or Faculty administration team shall be a non-voting member of the Programme Board and act as Secretary to the board.

4.3       Where a programme has been developed in association with an external partner organisation, the terms of such a partnership may provide for nominees of such organisations to be voting members of the Programme Board.   

5.1       The Programme Board shall meet at least once per semester in line with Faculty calendars.

5.2       A quorum shall be one third of the membership of the Programme Board.

5.3       The meeting of the board shall be convened by the Chair with a minimum of five working days’ notice of a meeting.

5.4.       Where the Chair is unable to attend a meeting of the board, he or she may nominate a member of the board to act as chairperson for that meeting.

1.1     The objectives of the external examiner system are to ensure:

• (i)     that examinations leading to degree and other awards of Dublin City University are comparable in standard to similar examinations and awards obtained nationally and internationally

• (ii)     that the assessment methodology is fair and is applied equitably in the classification of candidates for such awards.

To achieve these objectives, external examiners need to be able to:

• (i)     review the assessment processes for the award of degrees and other qualifications

• (ii)     advise on problem cases

• (iii)     comment and give advice on the assessment methodology in use

• (iv)     comment and make suggestions, as requested, on any other features of the programme in relation to their role as an external examiner (this includes engagement with the APR (Annual Programme Review) process and may include engagement with the PPR (Periodic Programme Review) process

• (v)     participate, where feasible and appropriate, as requested by the University, in the (re)accreditation of programmes with a view to professional recognition.

1.2     The appointment of external examiners is an important part of the University’s quality assurance system. The University ensures that, in approving all external examiner appointments (through the University Standards Committee), there is consistency of standards across the University and adherence to all relevant University policies.

2.1 General 

2.1.1     Recommendations for appointment of external examiners should be made available for consideration by the University Standards Committee before the end of the academic year prior to the academic year in which the period of service is intended to begin. The Head of School or Department (or Group, in the case of Dublin City University Business School) is normally responsible for ensuring that this is done. All references to ‘School’ in this document should be understood as including other appropriate nomenclature, e.g., ‘Department’, ‘Group’.

2.1.2     An external examiner may be appointed to a programme, two or more related programmes, or a range of modules.

2.1.3     The number of external examiners for a particular programme or related programmes should be sufficient to cover the full range of studies within the programme(s). It may be necessary to appoint more than one external examiner where there is a large number of students and/or where two distinct areas of expertise are involved.

​​​​​​​2.1.4     To the extent possible, appointments within a School and/or across a subject area should be staggered to avoid a sudden significant loss of expertise.

​​​​​​​2.1.5     More broadly, every effort should be made to ensure that an appropriate depth and breadth of experience and expertise exist across every School and suite of programmes at all times, as far as external examining is concerned.

​​​​​​​2.1 6     Consideration can be given to nominating the same external examiner to serve in two different areas of the University (including any linked college) at the same time, on the basis that this may afford an opportunity for the individual to gain oversight of subject provision and identify possible gaps and opportunities for synergy.

​​​​​​​2.1.7     Nominations should be submitted to the University Standards Committee, via the Office of the Vice- President Academic Affairs (Registrar), through Guru.

2.2 Qualities 

​​​​​​​2.2.1     External examiners should normally have the following qualities and competencies:

• Experience at an appropriate level of examining in the general subject area(s) to be externed. This is important to ensure that external examiners are technically competent and have an understanding of the principles of assessment and formal examination and the constraints and limitations of the system and flexibilities that may need to be applied. Such experience will give the externs a familiarity with the processes of the Progression and Awards Board, viva voce examinations and appeals mechanisms on which they may be asked to comment.

• Previous experience as an external examiner. This is desirable, though not essential. 

• Relevant lecturing and examination-setting experience. This will give the external examiner an understanding of the need for balance and equity in setting examination papers.

• Formal academic qualification and/or professional qualification and experience at the level of the programme(s) being externed.

• Ability to command the respect of colleagues.

• A willingness to respond to requests for comments on papers and scripts within tight time deadlines and to be available to attend at least one Progression and Awards Board meeting per year.

​​​​​​​2.2.2     Programme design experience is useful (although not essential). External examiners are often asked to express an opinion about structural changes that are proposed.

​​​​​​​2.2.3     For competency-based or practical modules, it is desirable to appoint an external examiner with extensive work-based experience in addition to academic qualification. If such a suitable person is not available, an extern with substantial relevant work experience may be more appropriate than one with formal academic qualifications. In all cases in which a professional external examiner is appointed for a module or modules, it must be ensured that there is also an academic external examiner for the programme as a whole.

​​​​​​​2.2.4     In line with the University’s policy and stated commitment to best practice in equality issues, Heads of School must ensure, as far as possible, a balanced gender representation in the appointment of external examiners to the examining team for taught programmes.

2.3 Independence 

​​​​​​​2.3.1     It is imperative, for quality assurance purposes, that the external examiner be independent of the University, of its internal examiners and of the candidates presenting themselves for examination. To this end, an individual to be considered for appointment should:

• ​​​​​​​2.3.1.1     Have no close personal relationship with examiners or candidates such that, in the opinion of the Head of School, there is a risk that the Conflict of Interest Policy and Guidelines might be breached.

• ​​​​​​​2.3.1.2     Have no professional relationship with examiners or candidates such that, in the opinion of the Head of School, there is a risk that the Conflict of Interest Policy and Guidelines might be breached.

• ​​​​​​​2.3.1.3     Not have been in the employ of the University, or of any linked college of the University, in the five years prior to appointment. All references to linked colleges are to any current linked colleges and any institutions which may obtain this designation in future. 

• ​​​​​​​2.3.1.4     Not have been a student of the University, or of any linked college of the University, in the five years prior to appointment. All references to linked colleges are to any current linked colleges and any institutions which may obtain this designation in future. 

• ​​​​​​​2.3.1.5     Not be a beneficiary of any bursary or remuneration from the University, or from any linked college of the University other than from the post of external examiner, member of accreditation board, member of quality peer review group, or member of recruitment/promotions panel. All references to linked colleges are to any current linked colleges and any institutions which may obtain this designation in future. 

• ​​​​​​​2.3.1.6     Not have taught within the last five years on any of the programmes being externed.

​​​​​​​2.3.2     In no circumstances may a staff member from DCU act as an external examiner to a linked college or vice versa. A staff member of a linked college may not act as external examiner in another linked college. All references to linked colleges are to any current linked colleges and any institutions which may obtain this designation in future. 

2.4 Reciprocity 

Reciprocal examining arrangements between the University and other institutions in the same subject area should be avoided. Specifically:

• An external examiner should not be succeeded, in the same role and with the same duties, by another external examiner from the same institution

• No School should have more than one external examiner from the same School or Department in the same institution at the same time

• The Head of School should satisfy him/herself, as far as possible, that the acceptance of the invitation to act as external examiner (following University approval) would not put the University in a situation where there was reciprocity between departments (i.e., where an individual from a DCU School was an external in a School in another institution and there was a similar arrangement in the other direction).

The Head of School should satisfy him/herself, as far as possible, that by accepting the invitation to act as external examiner (following University approval) an individual would not be in the position of holding more than two concurrent external examining posts.

When nominations are being made, deviations from the above should occur rarely, if at all. Any request to the USC to consider a nomination that deviates from the above must take the form of a detailed rationale as well as evidence that all reasonable efforts have been made to adhere to the above. The USC will consider the rationale and evidence before deciding whether to consider the nomination.

2.5 Terms of appointment  ​​​​​​​

2.5.1     Period of appointment/conditions of re-appointment

The period of appointment for External Examiners is normally four years from 1 October in the year of engagement to 30 September in the year of expiry. An external examiner cannot be re-appointed at the end of this period, however if a School wishes to reappoint an external examiner, then a period of four years from the initial service must elapse before a reappointment can be considered.

The reappointment can be for a maximum period of four years. Following such a period of reappointment, an external examiner cannot be considered for any further service, for taught programmes, to the University or to any linked college.​​​​​​​

2.5.2     Retirement during period of appointment

If an external examiner retires from employment during the period of engagement as external examiner, he/she may continue to act as external examiner until the period has been completed.

​​​​​​​2.5.3     Retired nominees

An individual who has already retired from employment may be nominated as external examiner provided the retirement has taken place in the recent past (normally within the previous four years) and the individual remains professionally active and continues to contribute to his/her discipline.​​​​​​​

2.5.4     Maternity/parental leave/adoptive leave/leave of absence/change of institution during period of appointment

If external examiners are on maternity /parental leave/adoptive leave/leave of absence from their own institution during the four-year engagement period, they will remain engaged as an external examiner and resume duties by agreement with their host school. Maternity/parental related leave/adoptive leave/leave of absence will not be counted in the duration of service.​​​​​​​

If an external examiner's institution changes during their four-year engagement period they should notify the University of their new appointment.

2.5.5     Illness during period of appointment

In the event of illness which would impact on external examiner duties the examiner is asked to, contact the host School as soon as is feasible.​​​​​​​

2.5.6     Appointment of a replacement external examiner in the event of illness or maternity /paternity/ adoptive leave/leave of absence of external examiners during their 4-year appointment period

A replacement external examiner can be appointed to temporarily replace the incumbent external examiner, during their 4-year appointment period due to the following reasons:

1. extended sick leave of 3 months or more up to a maximum of 12 months​​​​​​​
2. maternity/adoptive/extended paternity leave/leave of absence (up to a maximum of 12 months)

If a School/Faculty is formally notified of an expected absence of an appointed external examiner for reasons of long-term illness or maternity/paternity/adoptive leave/leave of absence, the Head of School may nominate a replacement external examiner for the duration of the planned leave.

The replacement appointment should be for a maximum of one year’s duration only. Thereafter, if necessary, the situation should be reviewed by the School/Faculty with the original external examiner. This one year of sick-leave or maternity/paternity/adoptive leave/leave of absence will not be counted as part of duration of service.

It is only in this particular set of circumstances that an external examiner may be appointed for up to one year. University Standards Committee expect that the nomination would normally be in line with the regulations for appointment of an external examiner, however it may give consideration to an exemption from section 2.5.1 of the regulations, when considering the nomination in these particular circumstances.​​​​​​​

2.5.7     Resignation from and termination of appointment

External Examiners who wish to resign before the end of their normal period of appointment should write to the Head of School or nominee, giving at least four months’ notice to allow for a replacement to be identified.

External examiners must notify the School immediately of any changes in their circumstances that could lead to a conflict of interest that cannot be resolved satisfactorily and that may, therefore, require an engagement to be terminated. This is particularly important in cases where an External Examiner changes his/her home institution since this may result in more than one External Examiner in an area being based there.

An external examiner’s appointment may be terminated by the University if, without reasonable cause, an examiner fails to engage with the duties as outlined at the outset of appointment or breaks the confidentiality with regard to personal information on students or otherwise acts counter to the University’s Regulations.

3.1. Duties of External Examiner 

3.1.1     External examiners are normally appointed with responsibility for a specific programme or specific programmes or a range of modules. They should deal primarily with the final year(s) of the programmes or study periods that contribute to the award and should approach the task with a view to ensuring that each candidate's performance is properly assessed, subject to the regulations and standards applicable generally for the award of a degree or other award of the University.

3.1.2     The external examiners should review the relevant module descriptors and the drafts of all examination question papers, marking schemes and worked solutions before the exam papers are finalised. External examiners have the right to make such suggestions regarding deletions, additions and amendments as appropriate. A response should be made by the School to suggestions made by the external examiner indicating whether the advice has resulted in the modification of the paper or continuous assessment.

​​​​​​​3.1.3     External examiners should see a representative sample of material presented for assessment, e.g., projects or practical work, particularly for those years of a programme that contribute directly to the final degree award and classification. The sample, which should be drawn on a basis agreed between the internal and external examiner(s), should include sufficient material to enable the external examiner(s) to form a judgement on the reliability and consistency of marking and on the levels of classification including borderline cases and proposed cases of failure.

​​​​​​​3.1.4     External examiners are encouraged to attend, if possible, in the first year of their four-year term and at least once during the four-year term, at a minimum.

​​​​​​​3.1.5     The external examiner should submit an annual report using the pro-forma online form

​​​​​​​3.1.6     Where appropriate, provide evidence to demonstrate that the requirements and standards of professional bodies are being met, including practice.

​​​​​​​3.1.7     External examiners may be consulted about relevant matters in respect of examination appeals submitted to the Examination Appeals Board or be asked to participate in the review of an assessment, formally requested by a student through the Appeals process.

​​​​​​​3.1.8     Where oral examinations constitute a substantial part of the assessment procedures, then the procedures to be used for oral assessments should be determined following consultation between the internal and external examiners.

3.2 Assessment of postgraduate taught dissertations and the External Examiner 

​​​​​​​3.2.1     The assessment of dissertations for postgraduate taught programmes is carried out by two internal examiners and reviewed by a Programme External Examiner.

​​​​​​​3.2.2     The role of the External Examiner is to comment on the overall standards of the assessment of dissertations by reviewing a sample of at least two.

3.3 Review of examination papers  

Examination papers are reviewed once per semester through the Guru system. Generally, the review of examination papers takes place in November and March of each academic year. External Examiners are provided with the examination paper and solutions to those papers through the secure Guru system and can provide comments and updates through it. External Examiners should expect to have a dialogue with the module co-ordinator in response to the suggestions made.

External Examiners are requested to review the appropriateness of the exam paper.

3.4 Review of continuous assessment assignments   

Some Faculties/School request that the External Examiner review continuous assessment assignments set at the beginning of each semester (September and January), however in the majority of cases, the external examiner will be asked to review student submitted continuous assessment at the time of the annual visit to the university. This information is made available on the Guru system.

3.5 The role of the External Examiner at Progression and Award Boards (PABs) 

The External examiner should discuss with their appropriate School or Faculty contact whether they attend the Progression and Award Board (PAB) (either in person or online).  In advance of the Progression and Award Board, the Programme Chair/Faculty contact will be in touch to discuss a pro-forma summary report of the outcomes of the internal Examination Review Committee(s) (ERC) and to seek the external examiner’s views on the completed report and on their review of an indicative sample of assessments. 

The basis for discussion at this stage of the process should be the report(s) generated by the Examination Review Committee(s) plus the review of an indicative sample of assessments by the external examiner(s).

• Discussions should include, as appropriate, Programme Chair, Teaching Convenor, Head of School, and some module coordinators; Faculties will need to determine (as needed in discussion with the external examiner(s)) the composition, recognising that a large group would be unwieldy.

• The outcomes should be:
  • (i) feedback and observations on DCU processes – assessment, review of results, etc.
  • (ii) recommendations to the Progression and Award Board.

• It is important to note that the role of the External Examiner is to review standards in general; it is not to make recommendations solely in respect of individual cases in the sample of assessments reviewed.

• A note of this discussion will be kept using the template provided (please see appendix for relevant form)

External examiners who attend PABs will be briefed on relevant rules and programme regulations prior to the PAB. The PAB Chair may invite external examiner(s) in attendance to comment briefly following the deliberation of the results; to make recommendations on the distribution of results or trends within modules/programmes during the PAB. Detailed feedback from external examiners on modules or programme is reserved for the formal written report submitted by the external examiner to the University. External examiners act as an important element of the quality assurance process and in some instances only wish to comment on the execution of the process as per regulations and standards.

3.6 Periodic Programme Review 

Periodic Programme Review (PPR) at DCU involves, in an agreed cycle (every five years), an extended annual review, which enables Programme Teams to evaluate, comment upon and monitor the impact on their taught programmes of cumulative, incremental change over a longer review period than is involved with APR and to identify further opportunities for enhancement of the student learning experience

The PPR procedure also involves a person external to DCU, normally a programme external examiner, who is asked to comment on the Programme Team’s summary report and accompanying documentation by means of an External Reviewer report.

Formal feedback from an external examiner following a diet of examinations should be reserved for the written report submitted by the external examiner to the University (though feedback is normally also made available in the course of the academic year). Reports are submitted online through the Guru System, in accordance with the University’s online reportage system. Reports that relate to semester 1 and summer examinations only are submitted by a specified date in summer; all other reports are submitted following the autumn examinations.

Heads of School review the reports and may discuss them with the Programme Chairs, Module Co-ordinators or Teaching Convenors. If necessary, Heads of School will also formulate responses to reports. Deans of Faculty also have access to reports.

External Examiner Reports are reviewed on an annual basis at institutional level and items of note are discussed with the relevant Faculty colleagues and/or in relevant institutional fora.

An annual fee will be paid on receipt of the external examiner’s report. External examiners will also be reimbursed for travel and related expenses in accordance with regulations.

Template for review with Programme External Examiners

Template for review with Subject/Disciplinary External Examiners

Template for note of discussion with External Examiners(s)

Legacy re-admission       is the procedure whereby a former student may seek re-admission to a programme of study where they have fallen outside the maximum registration period as defined by Marks & Standards or have been withdrawn from registration by decision of a Progression and Award Board.

Programme of study       is the programme on which the former student was last registered or a successor programme in cases where the original programme title has been change and/or the programme content has been subject to minor amendments.  

2.1       These regulations only apply to students previously registered on a taught programme.

Former students of Dublin City University (or its incorporated Colleges where DCU accredited awards were granted) whose registrations have lapsed and have exceeded the maximum registration period allowed can be considered for re-admission if the period of time since the last year of registration does not exceed eight years. 

Such former students (i) may not have completed their programme of study, or (ii) they may have exited a programme with a lesser award and wish to return to complete a related higher award, or (iii) they may have completed the credits required for a lesser award but have not been considered or approved for this award. 

2.2       In exceptional circumstances, former students who have exhausted all permitted attempts at some or all of the modules on a programme without successful completion and have been withdrawn from registration on the programme by the Progression and Award Board may be considered for re-admission.  In order to be considered for readmission, a period of at least three years must have elapsed since the last year of registration on the programme.  The former student must be able to demonstrate changed circumstances and relevant and additional learning (formal or experiential) in the intervening period that could support a decision by the Programme Board that s/he is now likely to be successful in her/his studies.  

2.3       A legacy re-admission will not be considered in cases where  

(i) the period of time since the last year of registration exceeds eight years

OR 

(ii) a former student has not completed the required credits for an award and the programme is no longer offered. An exception to this condition may be made where only the dissertation element of a taught Master’s programme is to be completed provided a period of more than eight years has not elapsed since the last year of registration

OR

(iii) a former student has been permanently excluded from the University. 

3.1       Former students where the period since their prior registration exceeds eight years and who have not been permanently excluded from the University are required to apply for entry to the programme ab initio.  In these circumstances the former student must make a direct application to the University.  Exemptions for modules may be considered provided the Programme Board can establish the currency of the learning as being relevant to the current academic year.  Any such exemptions must be approved by University Standards Committee following initial approval at Programme Board/Faculty level. 

3.2       Where a programme is no longer offered and a student has completed the required credits for an exit award, the Programme Board must establish the currency of the learning and the programme learning outcomes of the award as being relevant to the current academic year.  Candidates may be required to undertake additional work to assure the currency of the learning prior to obtaining the award. 

3.3       Where a programme is no longer offered and a student has not completed the required credits for an award, the credits obtained may be considered as credits applicable to an alternative programme; that Programme Board must establish the currency of the learning as being relevant to the current academic year.       

4.1       Any issues in relation to Fitness to Study and/or Fitness to Practice must be resolved before any application process can be initiated. 

4.2       Eligible candidates as described above should write to the Programme Board seeking readmission to the programme.  Only if supported by the Programme Board, the application proceeds to Faculty Teaching and Learning/Education Committee.  The readmission request form should then be completed by the Programme Chairperson and submitted to USC for consideration.  Retrospective re-admission will not be considered by USC. 

4.3       The candidate should be made aware by the Programme Chair that the approved Marks and Standards for the academic year in which legacy re-admission is applied for will apply to any module or overall result calculations.  Similarly, the relevant fees are those for the re-admission academic year.  In the case of Joint Awards any Programme Regulations that apply will be those provided for under the terms of the current Memorandum of Understanding/Agreement that relates to that award.  The candidate should also be made aware that they may be required to undertake additional credits beyond the minimum credit requirements of the programme in order to meet current programme learning outcomes (reference M&S: 5.2.2).  

4.4       A candidate may not present the same ECTS credits as qualification for more the one DCU award (reference M&S: 2.4.4).  If a candidate has received a related award, the readmission is conditional on the surrender of the parchment and award prior to registration. 

4.5       Approval, if granted, is valid for a maximum of 11 months from the date of the relevant USC meeting.  Following this a new application must be commenced ab initio. 

5.1      The re-admission request form should be completed by the Programme Chairperson.  It should never be completed by the candidate. 

5.2       The form should be accompanied by a full transcript of results.  If the candidate has not already supplied a copy, the transcript of results can be obtained directly from the Registry by the Programme Chair and/or Faculty Administrator.  In no circumstances should medical or other extraneous documentation (e.g. endorsements from employers) be submitted to the USC.  However, where medical or personal difficulties exist, it must be confirmed on the form (see question 2. under ‘Details of Request’) that relevant documentation has been submitted to the Programme Chair and a copy sent to Registry.

Registry by the Programme Chair and/or Faculty Administrator. In no circumstances should medical or other extraneous documentation (e.g. endorsements from employers) be submitted to the USC. However, where medical or personal difficulties exist, it must be confirmed on the form (see question 2. under ‘Details of Request’) that relevant documentation has been submitted to the Programme Chair and a copy sent to Registry.

Threshold Expectations - Roles and Responsibilities for Staff

Threshold Expectations - Information for Students

The principles underlying Marks and Standards were approved by Academic Council on 10 December 2008:

• (i)      Marks and Standards shall be consistent with the National Framework of Qualifications 

• (ii)      The Registrar of the University has ultimate responsibility for the integrity and implementation of Marks and Standards.

• (iii)      The responsibility for the updating, maintenance and publication of the Marks and Standards document rests with the Office of the Vice President Academic Affairs.

• (iv)      All amendments and/or additions to Marks and Standards are subject to Academic Council approval regarding both underlying principles and the detailed wording.

• (v)      Following approval of the revised (2009) Marks and Standards by Academic Council, any future amendments shall be dated, creating a new edition(s). Previous editions of Marks and Standards shall be archived and accessible via the DCU website. A version control document detailing amendments from 2012/13 shall be maintained and accessible via the DCU website.

The following are the approved Marks and Standards which must be always applied consistently and to all taught programmes and modules, including taught modules on research programmes; only derogations required by professional bodies will be considered for approval.

This Marks and Standards document is subject to change.  In any given academic session, a student is subject to the Marks and Standards that are approved by Academic Council for that academic session.

Programme Specific Regulations

Programme-specific regulations, which must be compliant with Marks and Standards, are approved by Faculties each spring, formally approved by the University Standards Committee at its summer meeting each year and made available on the Office of the Vice-President for Academic Affairs website and on Loop.

Provision for a Force Majeure Event

In the case of a force majeure event, for a defined period of time, the Vice President for Academic Affairs/ Registrar) may replace aspects of Marks and Standards and associated programme regulations with alternative arrangements. The Vice President for Academic Affairs/Registrar will then inform Academic Council at the earliest opportunity.

1.1      Awards

AWARD: An award is that which is conferred or granted by DCU and which records that a student has acquired a specified standard of knowledge, skill, and competence. The award is made when the required number of credits has successfully been accumulated, at appropriate levels, from approved modules, and over an appropriate period of time.

MAJOR AWARD: A major award is the principal class of award made at a level.

MINOR AWARD: A minor award recognises attainment of some of the learning outcomes of a (corresponding) major award.

SPECIAL PURPOSE AWARD:  A special purpose award is designed to meet specific, relatively narrow focused legislative, regulatory, economic, social, or personal learning requirements.

SUPPLEMENTAL AWARD: Supplemental awards are for learning which is additional to a previous award. It is designed for education and training with respect to an occupation or profession and may be for updating of education and/or professional development.

• 1.1.1      All DCU awards are placed on the National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ).

• 1.1.2      DCU primarily confers or grants Major Awards at Level 8, Level 9, and Level 10.

• 1.1.3      DCU may also confer Minor, Special Purpose and Supplemental Awards at Level 7, Level 8, Level 9 and Level 10.   ‘Non-major awards’ is the collective term for an award in the Framework with a smaller volume and more narrow outcomes than major awards.  There are three classes of non-major award: minor, special purpose and supplemental.

Table 1: Awards offered by DCU on the NFQ and Award Credit Accumulation Structure

• 1.1.4      For professional recognition, some awards may require completion of credits in excess of the credit requirements listed in Table 1.

1.2      Award Titles

The following is the list of agreed award titles for undergraduate and taught postgraduate programmes:

• 1.2.1      Undergraduate Programmes
• • BA: Bachelor of Arts
  • BSc: Bachelor of Science
  • BBS: Bachelor of Business Studies
  • BEng: Bachelor of Engineering
  • BCL: Bachelor of Civil Law
  • BEd: Bachelor of Education

• • Certificate in…
  • Diploma in….
  • Higher Diploma in….
  • Professional Diploma in…

• 1.2.2       Taught Postgraduate Programmes
•  
  • LLM
  • MA: Master of Arts
  • MBA: Master of Business Administration
  • MEd: Master of Education
  • MEng: Master of Engineering
  • MSc: Master of Science
  • PME: Professional Master of Education

• • Graduate Certificate in..
  • Graduate Diploma in..
  • Professional Diploma in (e.g. Professional Diploma in Accounting)
  • Professional Certificate in..

• 1.2.3      Erasmus Mundus Joint Taught programmes
•  
  • ​​​​​​​IM: International Master
  • EM: European Master
  • Erasmus Mundus Master

2.1      ECTS definition and workload

ECTS: ECTS is a learner-centred system for credit accumulation and transfer based on the transparency of learning outcomes and learning processes.

ECTS CREDITS: ECTS credits are based on the workload a typical student needs to complete in order to achieve expected learning outcomes.

ECTS GRADES: The ECTS grading system translates a grade from one institution to another across Europe.

WORKLOAD: Workload indicates the time students typically need to complete all learning activities (such as lectures, seminars, projects, practical work, self-study, and examinations) required to achieve the expected learning outcomes.

LEARNING OUTCOMES: Learning outcomes describe the knowledge, skills, and competencies that a typical student is expected to demonstrate upon successful completion of a process of learning.

• 2.1.1      Regulations pertaining to ECTS and ECTS Credits
  • 60 ECTS credits are typically attached to the workload of two full-time semester periods of formal learning and the associated learning outcomes. One ECTS credit corresponds to 25 hours of work; therefore, a student workload equals 1,500 hours per 60 ECTS credits.

2.2      Regulations pertaining to academic session and ECTS credits

• 2.2.1      ACADEMIC SESSION  An academic session is the enrolment period covered by the enrolment fee; the maximum duration of an academic session is 12 months.

• 2.2.2       A 12-month academic session is normally divided into two semesters during which the teaching and assessment take place. The taught programmes of the university will normally be based within the two teaching semesters (Semester 1 and Semester 2) per academic session. The teaching, learning and assessment activities associated with a module will normally be completed during one formal semester, or if a year-long module, two formal semesters.  Field work and other learning activities that take place outside of the formal semesters are subject to approval by the Registrar. However, it is recognised that clinical, teaching, professional placement or work experience may take place outside, or be spread across, the formal semesters.

• 2.2.3      For programmes operating within the semester-based system, the formal teaching semesters (Semester 1 and Semester 2) will comprise a minimum of 15 weeks of student activity: normally 12 weeks of teaching and learning, 1 study week and 2 weeks of assessment.

• 2.2.4      Postgraduate student research activity and dissertation work need not be constrained by the dates of the formal teaching semesters; this applies to activities for awards by research and to the research elements for taught postgraduate awards.

• 2.2.5      For undergraduate students, the maximum allowable number of ECTS credits in an academic session is 75, and the minimum allowable is 5.

• 2.2.6      To permit flexibility and facilitate student choice, students may pursue a greater or lesser number of credits in a single academic session, subject to both feasibility and the approval of the Programme Board.

• 2.2.7      The normal workload for a full-time undergraduate student will be 60 ECTS credits in a standard 2-semester academic session. The workload may be greater than this where learning activities continue outside the standard academic semesters, for example, in international programmes and programmes involving placement.

• 2.2.8      For taught postgraduate students, the normal workload for full-time students is 30 ECTS credits per semester. The workload may be greater than this where learning activities continue outside the standard academic semesters, for example, in dissertation or practicum activities.

• 2.2.9      For taught postgraduate students, the maximum allowable number of ECTS credits in any academic session is 90, and the minimum allowable is 5.

• 2.2.10     ECTS credits achieved are normally held in perpetuity.

2.3      Credits for joint or multiple Awards

• 2.3.1      For JOINT or MULTIPLE awards approved under a duly constituted and processed agreement with one or more approved partner institutions, credit transfer recognition and regulatory matters will be in accordance with Memoranda of Understanding agreed between the institutions.

2.4       Credits for DCU major, minor, special purposes, supplemental awards

• 2.4.1      For DCU MAJOR awards generally (provided the award is worth a minimum of 60 credits), prior learning in the form of ECTS credits achieved, where such learning supports the desired learning outcomes of the award concerned, and where a major award at the same level has not been conferred on the applicant by another institution on foot of those credits, will be recognised subject to a MINIMUM of 60 ECTS CREDITS AT THE LEVEL OF THE AWARD, excluding exempted modules, being taken at DCU. (Such DCU credits may be taken at DCU, at its linked colleges, or at an approved partner institution).

• 2.4.2      For MINOR, SPECIAL PURPOSE OR SUPPLEMENTAL DCU awards, prior learning in the form of ECTS credits achieved, where such learning supports the desired learning outcomes of the DCU award concerned, and where an award at the same level has not been conferred on the applicant by another institution on foot of those credits, will be recognised subject to a MINIMUM OF 50% of the CREDITS, excluding exempted modules, being taken at DCU. (Such DCU credits may be taken at DCU, at its linked colleges, or at an approved partner institution).

• 2.4.3      For any major award, a minimum of 60 ECTS credits must be at the NFQ level of the award. If an award has 60 credits or fewer, all ECTS credits must be at the NFQ level of the award.

• 2.4.4      A student may not present the same ECTS credits as qualification for more than one DCU award. Similarly, a student may not claim exemption in respect of ECTS credits towards one award that have already been presented as qualification for another award.

2.5      Module exemptions and evaluation of prior learning

• 2.5.1      Module EXEMPTIONS may be awarded for prior learning; applications for exemptions will be considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with approved university procedures and subject to the minimums indicated at 2.4 above.

• 2.5.2      The evaluation of prior learning, whether in the form of experiential learning or of ECTS credits awarded, will be carried out in accordance with approved university entry mechanisms for the awards concerned.

3.1      Module definition, module level, module strength

MODULE: A module is defined as a self-contained unit of teaching, learning and assessment activities, the outcomes of which are assessed during the academic session and which carry a specified number of ECTS credits, at a specific NFQ level, i.e. 7, 8, 9 or 10.

MODULE LEVELS: The following level indicators describe typical modules offered in DCU:

• 3.1.1      Table 2: DCU Awards and Module Level Indicators

MODULE STRENGTH: module strength indicates the contribution of a module to a specific award. The following strength indicators describe a module’s strength contribution to an award: light contribution (LC), moderate contribution (MC), or full contribution (FC). A module may make contributions of different strengths to different awards.

• 3.1.2      Table 3: Awards and Module Strength Indicators

3.2      Regulations pertaining to modules

• 3.2.1      MODULE SIZE: A module will carry a minimum of 5 ECTS credits. Modules can carry 5 ECTS credits, 7.5 ECTS credits and integer multiples of 5 ECTS credits.
•  
• Where dissertations or research projects form part of an undergraduate programme, these modules can carry 5 ECTS credits, 7.5 ECTS credits and integer multiples of 5 ECTS credits, up to a maximum of 30 ECTS.

• 3.2.2      WEIGHTED AVERAGE MODULE: Where a number of modules in a single cognate discipline are combined to produce an overall weighted average result across those modules, the averaging module should carry no less than 10 ECTS credits and each component module should carry no less than 5 ECTS credits.

• 3.2.3      Students should participate in all activities associated with all of the modules they register for, including attendance at lectures, laboratories and other teaching and learning activities, in accordance with any approved programme requirements. Any programme-specific attendance requirements are indicated to students in the programme-specific regulations.

3.3      Regulations pertaining to Micro-credential Modules (MCM)

• 3.3.1      MICRO-CREDENTIAL MODULE (MCM): A micro-credential is the record of the learning outcomes that a learner has acquired following a small volume of learning. These learning outcomes have been assessed against transparent and clearly defined standards. Courses leading to micro-credentials are designed to provide the learner with specific knowledge, skills and competences that respond to societal, personal, cultural or labour market needs. Micro-credentials are owned by the learner, can be shared and are portable. They may be standalone or combined into larger credentials. They are underpinned by quality assurance following agreed standards in the relevant sector or area of activity. [From A EUROPEAN APPROACH TO MICRO-CREDENTIALS, European Commission, December 2021]. 
•  
• DCU micro-credential module offerings must comply with the DCU micro-credential characteristics as approved by Education Committee (October 2021).

• 3.3.2      A micro-credential module (MCM) is a module that can be registered for without reference to any award.

• 3.3.3      A MCM will carry a minimum of 1 ECTS credits and a maximum of 30 ECTS. [As per adopted DCU definition and characteristics (Micro-credentialing in DCU, endorsed by Education Committee, 13 October 2021]

• 3.3.4      Micro-credential modules hold industry, societal and professional stakeholder relevance. MCM credits and learning outcomes may entitle the holder to a non-major award or be recognised and counted towards a major award. [Should a learner accumulate sufficient and appropriate credits for a major or non-major award, the award will be approved by the relevant Progression and Award Board (see paragraph 4.3.2)]

• 3.3.5      An MCM approval board will consider and approve individual module results.

• 3.3.6      The ECTS credits for micro-credential modules contributing to a final award retain currency for no longer than 8 years.

• 3.3.7      A repeat opportunity is not provided where a student has failed or deferred an MCM.  If the MCM is provided at a future date, the student may re-register for that MCM as a repeat registration.

• 3.3.8      Micro-credential module activities may take place outside of, or be spread across the University formal semesters.

• 3.3.9.    With the exception of the paragraphs above, micro-credential modules, and awards, which comprise micro-credential modules, are subject to Marks and Standards.

3.4      Regulations pertaining to Stand-Alone Modules (SAM)

• 3.4.1      STAND-ALONE MODULE: A Stand-Alone Module (SAM) is a module that can be registered for without reference to any award. They may be articulated as Continuous Professional Development (CPD) modules, which support individuals in employment in their profession.

• 3.4.2      An accumulation of SAM credits does not automatically entitle the holder to an award.  SAM credits may be recognised and counted towards an existing award.

• 3.4.3      A stand-alone module approval board will consider and approve individual module results, as required.

• 3.4.4      Compensation is not permitted between SAMs.

• 3.4.5      With the exception of the paragraphs above, stand-alone modules and awards, which comprise stand-alone modules, are subject to Marks and Standards.

4.1      Programmes of study definition

PROGRAMMES OF STUDY: programmes of study are approved, academically coherent sets of modules leading to awards of the University and such professional body recognition as may be established from time to time.

UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMMES: programmes of study leading to awards at Level 8 or below are defined as undergraduate.

POSTGRADUATE PROGRAMMES: programmes of study leading to awards at Level 9 or above are defined as postgraduate.

Programme academic structures and programme-specific regulations specify module dependencies, for example pre-requisites and co-requisites, if applicable.

A programme of study may lead to different awards.

4.2      Pathway definition

PATHWAYS: An award may be achieved by following different pathways through a programme of study and are supported by temporal, modal and curricular flexibility.

4.3      Regulations pertaining to programmes of study

• 4.3.1      Normally, undergraduate and taught postgraduate students may not be registered on more than one programme of study within DCU.  Exceptions to this regulation must be approved by the University Standards Committee.

• 4.3.2      Each programme of study will have a PROGRESSION and AWARD BOARD (PAB) to determine the progression or award outcomes of the students registered for that programme. The Progression and Award Board will meet after the appropriate assessment process for the programme has taken place. The membership of the Progression and Award Board can be found at this link. (Review and approval of Results for Taught Programmes).

• 4.3.3      The Progression and Award Board will recommend, for the approval of Academic Council, an overall result in respect of each student's performance.

• 4.3.4      A programme of study may have alternative exit routes, named exit awards, whereby a student may receive an award for a lesser number of credits than the programme on which he/she is registered.  Exit awards must be approved either at the time of accreditation or subsequently by Education Committee.  Exit awards are outlined in programme regulations along with any specific core module requirements.

5.1      Registration period definition 

REGISTRATION PERIOD: A registration period is the total time that a student is enrolled on a programme of study; this includes any transfers from a related programme taken at the same level in DCU. All academic sessions from the date of first registration contribute to the overall registration period irrespective of whether the student is registered for such sessions (excluding approved leave of absence).

A student undertaking a taught award of 180 credits or more is subject to a maximum registration period of 8 years.

A student undertaking a taught award of less than 180 credits is subject to a maximum registration period of 4 years.

Maximum and minimum registration periods for research degrees are as provided for in the Academic Regulations for Postgraduate Degrees by Research and Thesis.

5.2      Regulations pertaining to registration period and legacy re-admission

• 5.2.1      The currency of ECTS credits towards a final award will be evaluated by the Progression and Award Board when considering the possibility of an extension to the maximum registration period and/or alternative exit awards.

• 5.2.2      Where a student without a current registration has not received an award for credits completed and is beyond the maximum registration period of a programme he/she may apply for legacy readmission to the programme if the period of time since the last year of registration does not exceed eight years.  The application is made to the Programme Board which makes a recommendation to the Faculty Teaching and Learning Committee. If recommended by the Faculty Teaching and Learning Committee, the application is then submitted to University Standards Committee for approval.  Students may have completed all programme requirements or may have requirements outstanding.  Where requirements are outstanding, these must be completed in order to receive the award. 
•  
• Either of the following circumstances may additionally apply
•  
  • (i)            Where the required number of credits has been completed but where the time elapsed between the last registration and the application for the award is eight years or less the student may be required to undertake additional credits as directed by the Programme Board to ensure currency of the award
  •  
  • (ii)          Where the required number of credits has not been completed and the time elapsed between the last registration and the application for readmission is eight years or less, the student must complete all outstanding requirements which may include additional credits as directed by the Programme Board to ensure currency of the award.

• 5.2.3      Former students, where the period since their prior registration exceeds eight years and who have not been permanently excluded from the University are required to apply for entry to the programme ab initio, irrespective of clause 2.2.10.

• 5.2.4      In exceptional circumstances, former students who have exhausted all permitted attempts at some or all of the modules on a programme without successful completion and have been withdrawn from registration on the programme by the Progression and Award Board may be considered for re-admission.  In order to be considered for re-admission, a period of at least three years must have elapsed since the last year of registration on the programme.

• 5.2.5      Where a suspension of one's study has been granted, it will extend the maximum registration period by one year.

• 5.2.6      Where a deferral of an academic session or examinations/assessment has been granted, it will not extend the maximum registration period.

6.1      Module assessment definition

• 6.1.1      MODULE ASSESSMENT: Module assessment may comprise both continuous assessment and final examination components

6.2      Regulations pertaining to assessment

• 6.2.1      The weighting of each assessment component for the overall module assessment can range from 0% to 100% as specified in the module descriptor.

• 6.2.2      The continuous assessment component may contain multiple elements.

• 6.2.3      For specific modules approved by University Standards Committee, the continuous assessment may include a sequence of core elements with a defined and required pass threshold and may involve sequential progression between elements.  Such core elements will be marked on a pass/fail basis only.

• 6.2.4      For all assessment components and component elements, the assessment methodology, set of assessment criteria and weightings are provided in advance to students.

• 6.2.5      The workload associated with the assessment components of a module will reflect the number of ECTS credits carried by the module.

• 6.2.6      The maximum duration of a final examination component for a module of 5 ECTS credits is 2 hours. The maximum duration of a final examination component for a module of more than 5 ECTS credits is 3 hours.

• 6.2.7      Students are expected to attempt all elements of a module assessment within the academic session and in accordance with the assessment schedule as outlined in the module descriptor. Failure to attempt an element or component of assessment will result in a value of zero for that element or component.

• 6.2.8      MODULE MARKS: Student performance in a module may be marked on a scale 0 - 100 or allocated a Pass / Fail grade as described in the approved module descriptor.

6.3      Regulations pertaining to module marks

• 6.3.1      In a marked module, the final mark will be calculated in accordance with the assessment breakdown outlined in the approved module descriptor. The required pass mark in such a module is 40% of the maximum marks available.

• 6.3.2      In modules which meet the following conditions:
  • (i)      where all the learning outcomes can be assessed by a terminal examination,
  • (ii)      the continuous assessment elements of the module address a subset of the module learning outcomes assessed in the terminal examination,
  • (iii)      the continuous assessment element has a weighting of 20% or less and is formative in nature,
  • (iv)      the module has been designated and approved by Faculty Teaching and Learning Committee and listed in the programme regulations
  •  
  • then
  •  
  • No resit of the continuous assessment is made available, and the module mark will be calculated as the greater of (a) the weighted average of the continuous assessment percentage mark and the terminal examination percentage mark or (b) the terminal examination mark.

• 6.3.3      Where different components of assessment within a module (continuous assessment and final examination assessment) contribute to the final mark, there will be no requirement that a minimum mark be obtained in any one component.

• 6.3.4      Within the maximum registration period, a module, once passed, cannot be retaken, irrespective of whether or not all elements have been attempted or passed.

• 6.3.5     In the case of students re-admitted to a programme on an ab initio basis because their prior registration exceeds eight years, if modules on that programme taken previously are no longer deemed current by the Programme Board, there may be a requirement to complete those modules ab initio, irrespective of clause 2.2.10.

• 6.3.6      Deferral of an overall module mark will be considered where extenuating circumstances are presented. A module is then deferred to the next available opportunity; this is determined by the academic structure of the programme.

7.1      Progression and related definitions

• 7.1.1      Progression: Progression is defined as the permission granted to a student to register in the subsequent academic session for the next diet of modules within his/her programme of study.

• Progression from Semester 1 to Semester 2 is automatic for students in good standing with the University.    

• 7.1.2      Compensation: Compensation is defined as the process by which a student, who fails to satisfy some of the regulations for credit in a specific module, is nevertheless recommended for credit award on the grounds that the failure is offset by his/her performance in other modules of his/her programme of study. 

• 7.1.3      Previous Element Contribution: A previous element contribution is defined as an element which contributes towards the final award.  This is usually a previous study period weighted average mark but may in some cases be a module mark. Where the first attempt at a previous element contribution (precision or module mark), is less than 40 then the value used in the calculation of the overall precision mark is 40.

• Where a student transfers to another programme of study or progresses from a foundation programme to a new programme of study any previous failed attempts at modules that are offered on the new programme of study are not used in the calculation of the precision mark for the new programme of study.  Previous year contributions are not applicable to programmes with continuous mode of study.

• 7.1.4      Precision Mark: the precision mark is normally defined as the overall weighted average for the first full presentation of marks for an academic session. Modules are normally weighted proportionately according to their credit value. For continuous programmes, the precision mark is defined as the overall average weighted mark for the first full presentation of marks for an award.

• Where all modules for an academic session are marked as Pass/Fail only (e.g. year- long INTRA), then no precision mark will be calculated. The overall classification for the academic session in such cases will be recorded as ‘Pass with Honours’ or ‘Fail’.

• Where an individual module is marked as Pass/Fail only, it will have no impact on the precision mark.

• Where an alternative module has been taken by a student it is excluded from the precision mark calculation.

• Where a student requests to exit a programme with a lesser award the following precision rules apply.  Core modules, must be included in the calculation of the precision mark.  When a student has completed more ECTS credits than needed for the award, any remaining credits required for the calculation of the precision mark will be selected from the remaining modules taken, using the best marks obtained.  All marks used in the calculation of the precision mark will be the marks obtained at first attempt.

• 7.1.5      Preponderance Rule: When calculating the precision mark for the purposes of determining classification, the following rules apply:

• A precision mark with a decimal place value of 0.5 or more will automatically be rounded up to next integer value, or where a precision mark is no more than 1% below a classification threshold and the unrounded precision mark has a decimal place value of less than 0.5, this precision mark will automatically be rounded up to the threshold value if one half or more credits are made up of modules with marks, at first attempt, at or above the threshold value. Previous year contributions are excluded when rounding the precision mark for classification purposes. 

• 7.1.6      Resit: A resit assessment offers students another opportunity within an academic session to demonstrate that they have achieved the learning outcomes associated with a module. A resit is normally triggered by a deferral or a module mark of less than 40% (any exceptions are noted in approved programme-specific regulations) 

• It does not require that a student resits all the assessment components of the module; the overall resit module mark is determined according to the approved programme-specific regulations. The maximum number of resit opportunities in any one academic session is one.

• The resit assessment does not have to be identical to the original assessment.

• 7.1.7      Repeat: An opportunity to repeat a failed or a deferred module requires that a student register for that module (or its equivalent) in the next or subsequent academic session. 

7.2      Regulations pertaining to progression, compensation, resits and repeats for taught programmes

• 7.2.1      Progression Regulations
  • 7.2.1.1      Progression is determined according to the approved academic requirements of the programme of study.
  • 7.2.1.2      In certain limited circumstances, progression may be defined as provisional in programme regulations.  Where provisional progression is applied, this may be reversed when final results are confirmed by a Progression and Award Board.

  • 7.2.1.3      A Progression and Award Board may, in exceptional circumstances, which are explicitly recorded, recommend that a decision on a student's progression be postponed to enable the student to complete specific outstanding credit requirements of the programme.

  • 7.2.1.4     Students registered for a Qualifier Programme to a Master's Programme who have successfully obtained the Qualifier Programme credits with a minimum mark of 50% in every level 8 module and/or a minimum pass mark in every level 9 module will be allowed to transfer to the associated Master’s award.

  • 7.2.1.5      Marks for all attempts by a student at a module, including resit assessments and repeat attempts, in the course of a programme of study must be recorded in the transcript.

  • 7.2.1.6      Where programme regulations for a programme permit, failed or deferred module(s) may be carried forward to the following year, subject to the criteria detailed in the programme regulations, and aligned with regulations pertaining to academic session and ECTS credits (M&S: paragraph 2.2.5).

  • 7.2.1.7      Where a Progression and Award Board has permitted a student to progress into the next academic session carrying a failed module(s) (as detailed in the Programme Regulations), the failed module (s) can only be carried for one academic year.

• 7.2.2      Compensation Regulations

  • 7.2.2.1      A programme of study may contain specified, approved modules to which compensation cannot be applied. Details of non-compensatable modules are outlined in the programme-specific regulations.

  • 7.2.2.2      A programme of study may contain specified, approved modules, the credits for which may not be counted for the application of compensation; in such cases, compensation is applied on a pro-rata basis

  • 7.2.2.3      Compensation is not permitted for taught postgraduate programmes.

  • 7.2.2.4      Compensation is permitted for taught undergraduate programmes

    • Compensation is applied only when all of the following conditions are met:

      • (i)      the modules are being attempted for the first time, i.e., a full set of module marks is presented for the first time; compensation is not applied in relation to modules ebing attempted at a second or subsequent sitting

      • (ii)      a minimum precision mark of 45% has been obtained 

      • (iii)      a maximum of 1/6 of the available ECTS credits have been failed in the academic session (regardless of the semester in which the failure(s) occur or of how these ECTS credits are made up in terms of modules e.g., exempted and pass/fail modules

      • (iv)      the marks obtained in the individual failed module(s) is/are 35% or greater.

• 7.2.3      Regulations for resits and resit categories

  • 7.2.3.1      Where a student has failed or deferred a module, he/she must, in order to acquire the credits for the module, resit the assessment for that module in the current academic session (if a resit is offered) or repeat the module (or its equivalent) in the next academic session. The following conditions apply. 

    • (i)      only one repeat academic session is allowed and only one repeat opportunity per module is allowed.  

    • (ii)      a student may be required to register for an alternative module to a failed or deferred module in the next or subsequent academic session if the original module is not available provided the alternative can meet the required award learning outcomes.

    • (iii)      if the original module is not available to repeat in subsequent academic sessions and the required learning outcomes cannot be achieved by taking an alternative module the student will be required to wait until an appropriate module is next available.

  • An alternative module cannot be taken as a resit.

  • 7.2.3.2      Any resit must take place within the academic session, and the results are recorded as an additional opportunity.

  • 7.2.3.3      Where a fail is recorded against the original overall module mark, a mark of less than 40% in a component requires that that component be taken as a resit, where a resit is available.

  • 7.2.3.4      Where a module has a final examination assessment component, a resit of the examination assessment component must be offered within the academic session (Category 1 modules).

  • 7.2.3.5      Where a module has a continuous assessment component, a resit of the continuous assessment may not be feasible within the academic session in all cases (Category 2 and Category 3 modules).

  • 7.2.3.6      Resit arrangements are defined according to the Resit Category of the module which is published in the module descriptor.  Resit Categories are as follows:

    • Category 1:      A resit is available for both components of the module. Both’ is used in the context of the module having a Continuous Assessment/Examination split; where the module is 100% continuous assessment, there will also be a resit of the assessment

    • Category 2:      No resit is available for a 100% continuous assessment module

    • Category 3:      No resit is available for the continuous assessment component where there is a continuous assessment and examination element

  • Where a module is classified as a category 1 module, as outlined above and the student has failed both the continuous assessment and examination elements then both elements must be retaken.   The resit module mark is calculated using the original module weighting.  Marks for any components graded at 40% or more at the original sitting are carried forward and used in the calculation of the overall resit module mark.  Where components are originally graded at less than 40% at the original sitting, it is the resit marks that are used in the calculation of the overall resit module mark even if they are lower than the marks obtained at the original sitting.  Where there is an absence from a resit opportunity, a mark of zero will apply.

  • Where a module is classified as a category 3 module, as outlined above, the resit module mark is calculated used the original module weighting.  The original continuous assessment mark is carried forward and used in the overall resit module mark calculation.  The student is given the opportunity to resit the examination component in order to compensate for a failed continuous assessment component, regardless of the original examination mark.

  • Where a module is classified as category 3, then the percentage of marks overall assigned to the continuous assessment element can be no more than 25%.

• 7.2.4      Repeat regulations
  • 7.2.4.1      Only one repeat opportunity per module is allowed.
  • 7.2.4.2      A repeat attempt requires that a student retakes all the assessment components of the module; component marks from previous attempts are not carried forward.
  • 7.2.4.3      Where exceptional circumstances are made known to a Progression and Award Board, the Board has discretion to approve one further repeat academic session.
  • 7.2.4.4      An alternative module taken in the repeat year is considered a repeat attempt at the module.

8.1      Consideration of award

Progression and Award Boards may consider candidates eligible for an award when they have met all the requirements of the programme of study leading to that award.

An award will not be granted to any student who is disqualified in any way by the University.

8.2      Regulations pertaining to classification of a Level 8 Bachelor degree award by the University

• 8.2.1      Level 8 Bachelor Degree: To be eligible for consideration for the award of a Level 8 Bachelor Degree, a student must accumulate the requisite credits as specified in the Award Descriptor. The mark to be used to determine the grade of classification is the precision mark based on the first attempt at the relevant, approved modules. Where the original precision mark is less than 40%, and the student subsequently successfully completes the requisite credits, the student will be awarded a Third Class Honours degree irrespective of the final marks achieved.

   

  The overall precision marks achieved across some or all years of the programme of study may contribute to the classification of the award.

   

  Where a precision mark is calculated, the student’s results will be classified in accordance with the standards set out below.

• 8.2.2      Table 4: Level 8 Honours Bachelor Degree Award Classification

8.3      Regulations pertaining to the classification of a Level 7 and 8 Certificate, Diploma or Higher Diploma Award by the University

• 8.3.1      Level 7 and level 8 Certificate, Diploma or Higher Diploma: To be eligible for consideration for the award of Level 7 or level 8 Certificate, Diploma or Higher Diploma, a student must accumulate the requisite credits as specified in the Award Descriptor. The mark to be used to determine the grade of classification is the precision mark based on the first attempt at the relevant approved modules. Where the original precision mark is less than 40%, and the student subsequently successfully completes the requisite credits, the student will be awarded a Third Class Honours classification, irrespective of the final mark achieved.

  Where a precision mark is calculated, the students' results will be classified in accordance with the standards set out below.

• 8.3.2      Table 5: Level 7 and 8 Certificate and Diploma or Higher Diploma Award Classification*

*The change in classification of level 7 and 8 certificate, diplomas and higher diplomas will apply from 2021-2022.  No retrospection can apply.

8.4      Regulations pertaining to the classification of a Level 9 Master's Award by the University

• 8.4.1      Level 9 Taught Master's Degree: To be eligible for consideration for the award of a Level 9 Master’s Degree, a student must accumulate the requisite credits as specified in the Award Descriptor. A taught Master’s award consists of a minimum of 60 ECTS credits of taught modules and a maximum of 30 ECTS credits for the dissertation/practicum.  The mark to be used to determine the grade of classification is the precision mark based on the first attempt at the relevant, approved modules. Where the original precision mark is less than 40%, and the student subsequently successfully completes the requisite credits, the student will be awarded a Third Class Honours classification, irrespective of the final marks achieved.

• 8.4.2      Table 6: Level 9 Taught Master's Degree Classification**

**The change in classification of taught Master’s programmes will apply from 2017-2018.  No retrospection can apply.

• 8.4.3      Level 9 Master's Degree (Research): The degree of Master’s (Research) is a Major Level 9 award and is awarded without classification. Further details on Academic Regulations for Postgraduate Degrees by Research and Thesis are available on the OVPAA Policies and Regulations webpage.

8.5      Regulations pertaining to the classification of a Level 9 Certificate or Diploma Award by the University

• 8.5.1      Level 9 Certificate or Diploma: To be eligible for consideration for the award of Level 9 Certificate or Diploma, a student must accumulate the requisite credits as specified in the Award Descriptor. The mark to be used to determine the grade of classification is the precision mark based on the first attempt at the relevant, approved modules. Where the original precision mark is less than 40%, and the student subsequently successfully completes the requisite credits, the student will be awarded a Third Class Honours classification, irrespective of the final marks achieved.

• 8.5.2      Table 7: Level 9 Certificate and Diploma Classification ***

***The change in classification of level 9 certificate and diplomas will apply from 2021-2022.  No retrospection can apply.

8.6 Regulations pertaining to the classification of a level 10 Award by the University

• 8.6.1      To be eligible for consideration for the award of a Level 10 (Doctoral) degree, a student must accumulate the requisite credits as specified in the Academic Regulations for Postgraduate Degrees by Research and Thesis.

• 8.6.2      A level 10 (Doctoral) degree is awarded without classification.

• 9.1 APPEAL: Students have the right to appeal the decisions of a Progression and Award Board. Such appeals will be processed in accordance with the procedures detailed by Academic Council. 

• 10.1      In the event that, after an award being made or credits being approved, plagiarism or academic fraud related to the award or credits, is proven, Academic Council may revoke the approval of the award or credits.

1.        ACADEMIC SESSION: An academic session is the enrolment period covered by the fee; the maximum duration of an academic session is 12 months.

2.         AWARD: An award is that which is conferred or granted by Dublin City University and which records that a student has acquired a specified standard of knowledge, skill and competence.  The award is made when the required number of credits has been successfully accumulated, at appropriate levels, from approved modules, and over an appropriate period of time

3.         COMPENSATION: Compensation is defined as the process by which a student, who fails to satisfy some of the regulations for credit in a specific module, is nevertheless recommended for credit award on the grounds that the failure is offset by his/her performance in other modules of his/her programme of study.

4.         Deferral of Academic Session:  A student can defer their return to a programme of study for a full academic session (i.e. October to September).  An approved deferral of an academic session counts as part of the overall registration period.  Where an academic session has been deferred, a student is not registered as a repeat student on return (except where the deferred academic session is already a repeat academic session).  Forms can be found at the Registry's Application Forms webpage. 

5.         ECTS: ECTS is a learner-centred system for credit accumulation and transfer based on the transparency of learning outcomes and learning processes.

6.         ECTS CREDITS: ECTS credits are based on the workload a typical student needs to complete in order to achieve expected learning outcomes.

7.         ECTS GRADES: The ECTS grading system translates a grade from one institution to another across Europe.

8.         EXIT AWARD:  An exit award is an award for a lesser number of credits than the original registered award.

9.         FACULTY TEACHING AND LEARNING COMMITTEE: A Faculty Teaching and Learning Committee or equivalent has responsibility for the management of the Faculty's taught programmes and related issues of quality and for overseeing teaching and learning policy developments in the Faculty.

10.       LEARNING OUTCOMES: Learning outcomes describe the knowledge, skills and competencies that a typical student is expected to demonstrate upon successful completion of a process of learning.

11.       MAJOR AWARD: A major award is the principal class of award made at a level. 

12.       MICRO-CREDENTIAL: A micro-credential is the record of the learning outcomes that a learner has acquired following a small volume of learning. These learning outcomes have been assessed against transparent and clearly defined standards. Courses leading to micro-credentials are designed to provide the learner with specific knowledge, skills and competences that respond to societal, personal, cultural or labour market needs. Micro-credentials are owned by the learner, can be shared and are portable. They may be standalone or combined into larger credentials. They are underpinned by quality assurance following agreed standards in the relevant sector or area of activity. [From A EUROPEAN APPROACH TO MICRO-CREDENTIALS, European Commission, December 2021]

13.       MINOR AWARD: A minor award is for the partial completion of the outcomes of a major award. 

14.       MODULE: A module is defined as a self-contained unit of teaching, learning and assessment, activities the outcomes of which are assessed during the academic session, and which carry a specified number of ECTS credits, at a specific NFQ level, i.e. 7, 8, 9 or 10.

15.       MODULE ASSESSMENT: Module assessment may comprise both continuous assessment and final examination components. 

16.       MODULE SIZE:  Modules can carry 5 ECTS credits, 7.5 ECTS credits and integer multiples of 5 ECTS credits (please see section 3.3 for Micro-credential Module exception).

17.       SUSPENSION OF STUDY (LEAVE OF ABSENCE): A Suspension of Study (Leave of Absence) is applicable only to students who have ongoing serious or medium-term circumstances and have documentation to support their request. An approved suspension of study (leave of absence) does not count as part of the overall registration period and will extend the maximum registration period by one year.

18.       WEIGHTED AVERAGE MODULE: This a module which is designated as a calculated weighted average of several component modules in a single cognate discipline.  A weighted average module cannot carry less than 10 ECTS credits and a component module can carry no less than 5 ECTS credits.

19.       PATHWAYS: An award may be achieved by following different pathways through a programme of study and are supported by temporal, modal and curricular flexibility.

20.       POSTGRADUATE PROGRAMMES: programmes of study leading to awards at level 9 or above are defined as postgraduate.

21.       POSTPONEMENT OF ASSESSMENT/EXAMINATION: Where valid circumstances exist to prevent a registered student from completing examinations or assessments, the student can submit an application to defer the examinations and/or assessments associated with a module(s) to the next available opportunity.  An approved postponement (deferral) of an examination or assessment counts as part of the overall registration period.  Where examinations or assessments are postponed to the next academic session, a students is registered as a repeat student in the next academic session. Registry forms can be accessed here.  

22.       PRECISION MARK: the precision mark is normally defined as the overall weighted average for the first full presentation of marks for an academic session. Modules are normally weighted proportionately according to their credit value. For continuous programmes, the precision mark is defined as the overall average weighted mark for the first full presentation of marks for an award.

23.       PREVIOUS YEAR CONTRIBUTION: A previous year contribution is defined as an element which contributes towards the final award.  This is usually a previous study period weighted average mark but may in some cases be a module mark.  Previous year contributions are not applicable to programmes with continuous mode of study.

24.       PROGRAMMES OF STUDY: Programmes of study are approved, academically coherent sets of modules leading to awards of the University and such professional body recognition as may be established from time to time.

25.       PROGRESSION: Progression is defined as the permission granted by a Progression and Award Board to a student to register in the subsequent academic session for the next diet of modules within his/her programme of study.

26.       REGISTRATION PERIOD: A registration period is the total time that a student is enrolled on a programme of study; this includes any transfers from a related programme taken at the same level in DCU.

27.       REPEAT: An opportunity to repeat a failed or deferred module requires a student register for that module (or its equivalent) in the next academic session. It also requires that a student retake all the assessment components of the module; component marks from previous attempts are not carried forward. Only one repeat opportunity per module is allowed.

28.       RESIT: A resit assessment offers students another opportunity within an academic session to demonstrate that they have achieved the learning outcomes associated with a module. A resit is normally triggered by a deferral or a module mark of less than 40% (any exceptions are noted in approved programme- specific regulations It does not require that a student resit all the assessment components of the module; passed assessment component marks are carried forward. The resit assessment does not have to be identical to the original assessment.

29.       SPECIAL PURPOSE AWARD: A Special Purpose award is made for specific, relatively narrow purposes. 

30.       STAND-ALONE MODULE: A Stand-Alone Module (SAM) is a module that can be registered for without reference to any award. They may be articulated as Continuous Professional Development (CPD) modules which support individuals in employment in their profession.

31.       SUPPLEMENTAL AWARD: Supplemental awards are for learning which is additional to a previous award.  

32.       UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMMES: programmes of study leading to awards at Level 8 or below are defined as undergraduate.

33.       WORKLOAD: Workload indicates the time students typically need to complete all learning activities (such as lectures, seminars, projects, practical work, self-study, and examinations) required to achieve the expected learning outcomes.

All forms referred to are available on the Registry website.