Policies and procedures
POLICY NO: RES-15.1
DATE OF APPROVAL: 24 March 2000; 24 September 2004
AMENDMENTS: Academic Board September 2004
REFERENCE AUTHORITY: Deputy Vice Chancellor and Vice President (Research and Innovation)
CROSS REFERENCES:
Animal Experimentation
(RES 3.1)
Authorship Policy
(RES 12.0)
AVCC Code of Practice for Maintaining and Monitoring Academic Quality
and Standards in Higher Degrees
Confidentiality of Students' Personal Information
(A 46.1)
Doctoral Degrees By Research Policy
(RES 10.1) and
Academic Regulations
Equal Opportunity Policy (C 2.4)
Biological Hazards and Genetically Modified Organisms (RES 4.2)
Guidelines for Responsible Practice in Research Policy
(RES 1.0)
Honorary Academic Titles
Policy (C 16.2)
Human Research Ethics Policy (RES 2.1)
Ionising
Radiation Policy (HR 29.1)
Higher Degrees By Research Policy
(RES 10.2) and
Academic Regulations
Occupational Health, Safety, Welfare
and Injury Management Policy (C 6.3)
Program Approval
and Amendment
Quality Assurance and Improvement: Programs, Courses and Teaching
Arrangements (A 35A.9)
Register of Postgraduate Research Degree Supervisors
(RES 8.4)
Research Degree Graduate Qualities
Research Degree Scholarships Policy
(RES 9.0)
Research Funded by Tobacco Companies
(RES 14.0)
Coursework
Scholarships and Prizes (A 50.0)
Sexual Harassment
(C 12.3)
Statement of Resources for Research Candidates studying in Australia
Student fees (A 47.3)
Students with Disabilities
(C 7.3)
University activities (C 20.2) see also
Intellectual Property
Guidelines,
Personal Risk
Guidelines,
Research & Consultancy
Guidelines
Policy and Procedures for the
Resolution of Student Grievances (C 17.3)
University's Equity Strategic Plan, 2005-2007 (Word doc)
University's Indigenous Education Plan, 2006-2008
Acceptable Use of Information Technology (IT) Facilities (C 22.1)
Code of Good Practice: Principles
of Student Assessment
Code of Good Practice: Relationships between Staff and Students
Code of Good Practice: Research Degrees Management and Supervision
Code of Good Practice:
Research in Honours Degrees and Degrees with Honours
Code
of Good Practice:
University Teaching
Quality assurance and the continuous improvement of the University's higher degrees by research are fundamental to the mission of the University of South Australia. In this policy Higher degrees by research refers to research degree programs with at least two-thirds research, as defined by the Commonwealth Government's Department of Education, Science and Training.
The mechanisms for the evaluation of the quality of research education, including the establishment of a continuous improvement process, are linked to the University's annual strategic planning processes.
Quality Assurance and Improvement in Higher Degrees involves:
(a) the systematic consideration of stakeholder views and benchmarking activities about the quality of higher degrees by research and the research education support activities for candidates and supervisors
(b) the aggregation, analysis and interpretation of candidates' feedback about their perceptions of the quality of their research degree experience
(c) examiners' ratings and comments on theses submitted at the culmination of the research degree candidacy
This policy establishes a Quality Assurance Framework (Appendix A), which includes a range of performance indicators against which standards are established and benchmarked.
The framework covers four major areas:
1. the policy environment encompassing research policies, codes of good practice, academic regulations, the program approval process, and the administrative support structures and processes to implement the policies and procedures
2. the supervision process and supervisor professional development activities
3a. the research degree program in which the candidate is enrolled, including the process of independent research which leads to a thesis
3b. the provision of adequate physical and financial resources to enable the research degree candidate to complete the research in a timely way
4. the research culture supporting the research candidate to completion, which includes the full range of research education support activities provided throughout the University
The quality assurance and improvement policy seeks to promote higher degrees by research that
1. The University will evaluate the quality of its higher degrees by research using candidate and stakeholder feedback, with benchmarking against best practice.
2. The University will monitor the quality performance of each program annually. This will include benchmarking against the Postgraduate Research Experience Questionnaire (PREQ), and other agreed research education indicators.
3. The University will develop a schedule for comprehensive review and evaluation of research degree programs.
4. The University will monitor the performance of each candidate annually.
5. The University will monitor and evaluate the resources and support activities for research degree candidates.
6. The University will evaluate the University provided professional development activities for supervisors.
7. The University will monitor the timeliness of completions and evaluate the outcomes of thesis examination performance.
8. The University will monitor the participation rates of candidates in targeted equity groups.
9. The University will monitor the membership of the Register of Postgraduate Research Degree Supervisors.
10. Scheduling of reviews and reporting of outcomes will form part of the University's annual planning and review process, and responsibility for implementing the arrangements outlined in this policy rests primarily with the Divisions and Institutes, including the Whyalla Campus. .
1. Under delegated authority from Academic Board, Research Degrees Committee (RDC) is responsible for establishing the Research Education Quality Assurance Framework (Appendix A) and for specifying quality indicators, in line with the University's strategic direction
2. Research Degrees Committee is responsible for advising the Corporate Planning Group on the strategic priorities in research education
3. Divisions/Institutes and Whyalla will report on the quality indicators as part of their Corporate Review and Planning reports under the corporate planning cycle, including the Research Education Quality Assurance Framework
4. Corporate Planning Group will evaluate the Divisions/Institutes and Whyalla research education planning and reviews and provide feedback on required performance improvements
5. Divisions/Institutes and Whyalla will implement strategies to improve research education performance in subsequent corporate plans
6. Research Degrees Committee will assess on a regular basis the appropriateness and effectiveness of the quality indicators in the Research Education Quality Assurance Framework
| Policies and Codes |
Animal Experimentation RES - 3.1 Codes of Good Practice |
Quality Indicator: Policies, codes and guidelines including all research education contexts and are regularly reviewed through Academic Board
|
|---|---|---|
| Structures | Academic Board Research Degrees Committee Division/Institute Research Management Committees - chaired by Deans, Research Education (or equivalent) Research Degree Coordinators Supervisors |
|
| Program Approval Process | Standards: Documentation and processes are consistent across all contexts and modes of delivery. Approval trail includes: School Board; Division/Institute Research Committee (or equivalent); Division Board; Research Degrees Committee and Academic Board. |
Quality Indicator: Clear and transparent process of the approval trail.
|
| Program Review | Standards: RDC selects aspects of the research degree programs for focus of review in any one year, for example participation rates in targeted equity groups, examination processes, scholarships, admissions criteria, thesis presentation, coursework components of professional doctorates, assessment criteria. Reviews are to include International and Australian benchmarks for good practice.
|
Quality Indicators: Trends in enrolments and by funding source Student Satisfaction as indicated in exit surveys, Graduate Destination, PREQ and SEQ Participation rates of candidates in targeted equity groups, in particular indigenous candidates and the number of women in Engineering and Information Technology |
| Essential Information | Standards: Clear and consistent Letters of Offer provided to research degree candidates Clear and consistent Candidature and Scholarship Information provided to research degree candidates Statement of Resources for Research Degree Candidates studying in Australia publicised and available for research degree candidates and those involved in research degree management Clear and consistent information on the Research Degree Graduate Qualities, including Statement of Agreement available to research degree candidates and those involved in research degree management Responsibilities for Research Degree Candidates under the Code of Good Practice: Supervising Research Candidates made available to research degree candidates Orientation Session arranged and advised to new research degree candidates Division Research Degree Handbook kept up-to-date on the web and a copy provided to new research candidates Up-to-date Research Degrees Web Site |
Quality Indicators: Research Candidates receive essential information early in candidature Evaluation of Orientation session Signed Statement of Agreement recorded on candidate's record First Planning and Review meeting documented in accordance with Research Degree Graduate Qualities |
| Support services | Graduate Studies Office Research and Innovation Services Student and Academic Services Campus Central - ID Cards Information Strategy and Technology Services The Learning Connection The Library USASA |
Quality Indicators: All service providers contributing to the research candidates Orientation and Research Education program Service Agreements with the Dean of Graduate Studies Service Standards published and regularly reviewed |
| Supervision | Standards: Workload allocation to Supervisors in line with University guidelines. Principal Supervisors to be members of the Register of Research Degree Supervisors
|
Quality Indicators: Number of Candidates per Supervisor Benchmarking with other universities, in particular ATN partners Student satisfaction with Supervisors as indicated in PREQ, SEQ and other surveys |
|---|---|---|
| Supervisor Professional Development
|
Standards: Supervisors (including Adjuncts and Offshore Supervisors) are provided with opportunities to develop skills and attributes to support their research candidates Deans Research (or equivalent) to monitor annual participation at supervisor professional development activities every three years Supervisors attend ongoing professional development |
Quality Indicators: Program of development activities available each year Access to On-line resources (eg fIRST) available to support face-to-face program Evaluation of University-run professional development activities Professional development is recorded every three years and monitored by Divisions/ Institutes |
| Research Degree Coordination | Standards: Workload allocation to Research Degree Coordinators in line with approved Position Description (SMG April 2004) Provision of professional development seminars for Research Degree Coordinators |
Quality Indicators: Timely candidates' annual reports Proportion of reports where intervention is required by the RD Coordinator |
| Completions | Standards: Candidates complete within the allocated time for the degree Candidates withdrawing Candidates undertake independent research Candidates demonstrate the development of the Research Degree Graduate Qualities in the final review of progress
|
Quality Indicators: Number of candidates going over their allocated time of funded candidature Quality of the examiners' comments: Number of examinations conducted Number of re-submissions required Number of conflicting reports |
|---|---|---|
| Allocation of resources and facilities | Standards: Resources provided to research candidates are in line with University guidelines |
Quality Indicators: Resources provided to research candidates in each area |
| Planning, Review and Report of Progress | Standards: At least two documented planning and review meetings (minor and major) to be undertaken between the Candidate and Supervisor Annual report of progress to the Graduate Studies Office to enable re-enrolment
|
Quality Indicators: Number of Annual Reports received by Graduate Studies Office Number of continuing candidates whose progress is subject to further monitoring Number of candidates whose progress is considered to be unsatisfactory |
| Research Education Support Activities | Standards: University and Division-specific support programs to be provided for research candidates ATN LEAP (Learning Attributes Employment Program) to be publicized to research candidates Supervisors and Candidates to negotiate a specific activities tailored to the requirements of the candidate and research project Institutes, Schools and/or Research Centres to run their own research seminars for research candidates Candidates publish, as outlined in the Research Degree Graduate Qualities |
Quality Indicators: Number of candidates participating in Research Education Support Activities Programs documented as part of the Research Degree Graduate Qualities Evaluation of each workshop Number of candidates publishing |
|---|---|---|
| Research Proposal confirmed (Provisional candidacy)
|
Standards: Research Proposal submitted within the first six months of full-time equivalent candidacy Candidates transferred from provisional candidacy after approval of the Research Proposal Statement of Agreement documenting Research Degree Graduate Qualities to accompany research proposal |
Quality Indicators: Number of research proposals approved within the first six months of full-time candidature and candidacy confirmed Number of candidates who require extensions to provisional candidacy Number of candidates having candidacy confirmed. Number of candidates suspended. |
