faculty of humanities standard operating procedure for ... · faculty of humanities standing...

Faculty of Humanities Standing Operating Procedure on Higher Degrees 1

FACULTY OF HUMANITIES STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE FOR HIGHER DEGREES

Custodian Dean: Faculty of Humanities

Responsibility All Staff involved in Higher Degrees

Status Draft

Approved by Board of Faculty (Humanities)

Date of approval 14 April 2014

Amendments

Dates of amendments

Review date 2017

Related documents

UJ documents

• UJ Higher Degrees and Postgraduate Studies Policy;

• Faculty Regulations; • UJ Programme Review Manual; • UJ Code of Academic and

Research Ethics; • UJ Guidelines Authorship; • UJ Policy on Intellectual Property; • UJ Health and Safety Policy.

Other

• HEQC Institutional Audit Criteria; • HEQC Guidelines for Best Practice

in Research Management; • Higher Education Qualifications

Framework.

Website address of this document: Faculty of Humanities


Table of Contents

1 Preamble .................................................................................................................................. 3 2 Purpose .................................................................................................................................... 3 3 Scope ....................................................................................................................................... 3 4 Definitions ................................................................................................................................. 3 5 Principles .................................................................................................................................. 4 6 Scope of Master’s Dissertations and Doctoral Theses ............................................................. 5 7 Application, Selection & Registration ........................................................................................ 6 8 Appointment of Supervisor(s) ................................................................................................... 7 9 The Research Proposal ............................................................................................................ 7 10 The Study Phase ...................................................................................................................... 9 11 Assessment of the Thesis or (Minor) Dissertation .................................................................. 11

Appointment of Non-Assessing Chairs and Assessors .......................................................... 12 Submission for Assessment ................................................................................................... 13 Integration of Assessment Results ......................................................................................... 15 Preparation for Graduation ..................................................................................................... 18

12 Higher Degree Structures in the Faculty of Humanities ......................................................... 20 13 List of Forms ........................................................................................................................... 22


1 PREAMBLE

1.1 The Humanities Standard Operating Procedure for Higher Degrees (HSOP-HD) sets out the standard working procedures for the Faculty of Humanities with regard to higher degrees and postgraduate studies, in line with the minimum requirements of the Higher Degrees and Postgraduate Studies Policy as approved by the University’s Senate on the recommendation of its Higher Degrees Committee on 12 September 2013.1

1.2 For the purposes of this Standard Operating Procedure, the terms higher degrees and postgraduate signal studies, research or programmes at the Master’s and/or Doctoral level, equivalent to levels 9 and 10 of the Higher Education Qualifications Framework (HEQF) (UJ Policy: Foreword).

1.3 This document is read in conjunction with the Higher Degrees and Postgraduate Studies Policy and the University’s Academic Regulations, specifically those sections of the Regulations dealing with Master’s and Doctoral degrees (UJ Policy: Foreword).

1.4 The Board of Faculty (Humanities), the principal custodian of academic quality in regard to postgraduate programmes in the faculty, has approved the Humanities Standard Operating Procedure for Higher Degrees and formally delegates authority to the various structures mentioned herein to implement their functions within the parameters of the HSOP-HD and the related university policies (UJ Policy: 14.4).

2 PURPOSE

2.1 The purpose of the Humanities Standard Operating Procedure for Higher Degrees is to provide a set of standard working procedures for the administration, governance and quality management of postgraduate studies and programmes in the Faculty of Humanities (UJ Policy: 2.1).

3 SCOPE

3.1 The Humanities Standard Operating Procedure for Higher Degrees addresses Master’s (both research and coursework Master’s programmes or degrees) and Doctoral degrees offered by all departments in the Faculty of Humanities (UJ Policy: 3.1).

4 DEFINITIONS

4.1 For the purpose of this Policy, unless otherwise stated or the context otherwise indicates, the following definitions apply (UJ Policy: Annexure C):

(a) Senate Higher Degrees Committee (SHDC)

Senate subcommittee for higher degree and postgraduate matters. SHDC notes the approval of (minor) dissertation proposals and assessment results by the Faculty of Humanities Higher Degrees Committee (HHDC) and Faculty of Humanities Postgraduate Assessment Committee (HPAC) respectively, and approves thesis proposals, the appointment of external assessors and assessment results recommended by the HHDC and HPAC.

1 Cross references to the UJ Higher Degrees and Postgraduate Studies Policy (dd. 12 September 2013) are made at the end of each paragraph, where appropriate. Direct quotations from the UJ Policy are not indicated in quotation marks.


(b) Faculty of Humanities Higher Degrees Committee (HHDC)

Permanent faculty committee, constituted by the Board of Faculty, to academically regulate and administer postgraduate research for degree purposes on behalf of the Board of Faculty. The HHDC is mandated to approve all matters pertaining to (minor) dissertations and recommend all matters pertaining to doctoral theses to SHDC.

(c) Faculty of Humanities Postgraduate Assessment Committee (HPAC)

Permanent subcommittee of the HHDC, constituted to consider the appointment of assessors and non-assessing chairs and to finalise assessment results. The HPAC is mandated to approve non-conflicting assessment outcomes of (minor) dissertations and recommend non-conflicting assessment outcomes of theses, and to investigate and recommend to the HHDC exceptional handling of assessment outcomes.

(d) Departmental Higher Degrees Committee (DHDC)

Departmental committee dealing with higher degree and postgraduate matters at departmental level. Does not have to be a formal or standing committee – it can be a function that is implemented within an existing departmental structure. The DHDC includes, at least, the HOD and the HHDC representative.

(e) Executive Dean’s Office

Complete administrative structure supporting operations and functions of an Executive Dean, including the Head: Faculty Administration (HFA), the Faculty Administrator for Postgraduate Studies (FA-PG), faculty officer/administrator and his/her staff.

(f) Faculty Administrator for Postgraduate Studies (FA-PG)

The individual delegated the responsibility, by the Executive Dean’s Office, for the Faculty administration of higher degrees and postgraduate studies.

(g) Non-Assessing Chair (NAC)

An individual, appointed by the HOD for a specific thesis or (minor) dissertation, to serve as the interface between the supervisor(s), assessors and Faculty. The NAC, as a subject expert, is responsible to scrutinise the assessment reports and results and recommend study outcomes to the HPAC.

(h) Recommend Implies no final decision-making authority, but is a necessary step to approval (at a higher level). Always requires substantive consideration informed by insight into a full set of documentation.

(i) Approve Implies full and final decision-making authority (necessary and sufficient), always requires substantive consideration informed by insight into full set of documentation.

(j) Ratify Implies full and final decision-making authority (necessary and sufficient). Differs from ‘approval’ in that it is usually exercised on the basis of insight into only a summary of the relevant documentation while retaining the right to consider all relevant documentation (and the duty to do so where necessary). Because it is in practice more cursory than ‘approval’, ratification requires at least one earlier recommendation made on the basis of a substantive consideration informed by insight into a full set of documentation.

(k) Note Except in extraordinary circumstances, no decision-making authority associated with this step, but may refer matters back for further consideration.

5 PRINCIPLES

5.1 Maintenance of the highest levels of quality care in regard to postgraduate studies;

5.2 Fair and transparent treatment of all postgraduate students and their concerns;

5.3 Clarity on the respective roles and responsibilities of students and their supervisors;


5.4 Rational and transparent decision-making processes around the governance and administration of postgraduate student matters;

5.5 Adequate capacity development support for postgraduate students;

5.6 Generation and capturing of relevant institutional management information relating to postgraduate students and programmes;

5.7 Clear roles and functions within the Faculty’s research and academic system (UJ Policy: 2.1).

6 SCOPE OF MASTER’S DISSERTATIONS AND DOCTORAL THESES

6.1 Master’s (Minor) Dissertations. “The primary purpose of a Master’s Degree is to educate and train researchers who can contribute to the development of knowledge at an advanced level, or prepare graduates for advanced and specialised professional development… Master’s graduates must be able to deal with complex issues both systematically and creatively, make sound judgements using data and information at their disposal and communicate their conclusions clearly to specialist and non-specialist audiences, demonstrate self-direction and originality in tackling and solving problems, act autonomously in planning and implementing tasks at a professional or equivalent level, and continue to advance their knowledge, understanding and skills” (HEQF qualification descriptors. Government Gazette 5 October 2007) (UJ Policy: 4.2.1).

6.2 One core intention of a Master's programme is therefore to equip students with specialised knowledge through research training and to provide a sound training in research methodologies. Candidates are not generally expected to make an original theoretical or fundamental contribution to their field of knowledge, but through the provision of new data or information they should demonstrate proficiency in research methods and the ability to work independently. Master’s graduates are expected to exhibit mastery of research methodology and evidence of understanding scholarly processes at work, as evident through a novel project (UJ Policy: 4.2.2).

6.3 The dissertations of Master’s by research constitute 100% of the mark for the degree. The dissertations of Master’s by coursework students are shorter in length and narrower in scope than the dissertations of Master’s by research students. In addition, they contribute only 50% of the mark for the qualification (UJ Policy: 4.1.1 & 4.3.1).

6.4 Master’s candidates undertaking a Master’s by Research are encouraged, but not required, to prepare at least one manuscript of a paper/article in the format required by an accredited journal for that specific discipline. Students receive appropriate guidance from their supervisor(s) in preparing the manuscript of the paper. Authorship of such a paper is guided by UJ Guidelines on Authorship. Coursework Master’s students are not required to prepare a paper based on their minor dissertation, but are encouraged to do so, where appropriate, under their supervisor’s guidance (UJ Policy: 4.2.5 & 4.3.2).

6.5 Doctoral Theses. “A Doctoral Degree requires a candidate to undertake research at the most advanced academic levels culminating in the submission, assessment and acceptance of a thesis… The defining characteristic of this qualification is that the candidate is required to demonstrate high-level research capability and make a significant and original academic contribution at the frontiers of a discipline or field. The work must be of a quality to satisfy peer review and merit publication… A graduate must be able to supervise and evaluate the work of others in the area of specialisation concerned” (HEQF qualification descriptors. Government Gazette 5 October 2007) (UJ Policy: 5.1).

6.6 The necessary and defining requirement for the award of a Doctoral degree is an original contribution to a field of study, the originality needing to lie more at a theoretical, conceptual or analytic level than at the level of producing new data. In addition, proficiency in research methods and the ability to think and work independently is demonstrated (UJ Policy: 5.2).


6.7 Doctoral candidates submit to their supervisor at least one publishable manuscript, in the format required by an accredited journal, for that specific discipline. Authorship of such a paper/article is guided by UJ Guidelines on Authorship (UJ Policy: 5.5).

7 APPLICATION, SELECTION & REGISTRATION

7.1 Prospective students may approach departments or individual staff members with an idea for postgraduate study; or departments or staff members may recruit prospective students and invite them to work on a particular area of research; or students may apply for a coursework master’s without a research topic in mind.

7.2 Early in this process, prospective students formally apply to the University of Johannesburg. This application is routed through ImageNow to the Department.

7.3 Students applying for admission to a Master’s degree (HEQF level 9) are normally required to hold a qualification at the HEQF level 8, such as an Honours degree, a four-year 480 credit Bachelor’s degree (with a minimum of 96 credits at level 8), or a Postgraduate Diploma, in the relevant discipline. Enrolment for a Doctoral degree (HEQF level 10) normally requires a Master’s degree (HEQF level 9) in the relevant discipline. Additional admission requirements, including those of professional bodies, are stipulated in the Faculty of Humanities Regulations for Postgraduate Degrees (Year Book) (UJ Policy: 7.1, 20.1 & 20.2).

7.4 Departments stipulate clear application and selection criteria and procedures for prospective postgraduate students and make these available to prospective students in writing. Where appropriate, departments may request the Library to provide temporary library access for prospective students to assist them in preparing their application during the application and selection period (UJ Policy: 5.4 & 20.3).

7.5 The applications of students who do not satisfy the formal entrance requirements for a specific higher degree programme may be considered for admission by the Faculty of Humanities RPL Committee (HRPL), in terms the UJ’s RPL Policy, which is binding on this matter. Students wishing to undertake a degree in a department based on cognate formal learning, also submit an application to the HRPL Committee. Each case is considered and a recommendation made by the HRPL, for recommendation by the Dean, noting by the BOF, consideration by the SHDC and approval by Senate (UJ Policy: 7.2 & 20.4).

7.6 In the case of international students, consideration of their application for admission is subject to the rules stipulated in the University’s Academic Regulations. International students are referred to the International Office who will see to it that such students are, where applicable, referred to SAQA for validation of qualifications, and sit the English exam, etc. Afterwards, such students are referred back to the relevant academic department for the above selection process to be completed (UJ Policy: 7.2 & 20.9).

7.7 Even if a prospective student meets the minimum entry requirements, the HOD may refuse to admit the applicant if, in her/his assessment, the applicant is unlikely to succeed in the chosen research project or if an appropriate supervisor cannot be identified within the University. If refused admission, the applicant has the right to request written reasons from the HOD, and may appeal those to the Executive Dean in writing. If the Executive Dean upholds the refusal, the applicant may appeal to the DVC Research, Postgraduate Studies, Library & Information Centre in writing, whose decision is final (UJ Policy: 20.5 & 20.6).

7.8 Once a prospective student is accepted into the postgraduate programme, the Department provides the prospective student with written confirmation of acceptance so that s/he can register. On ImageNow, the Department records the student as having been accepted into the programme and routes the decision to Faculty. Alternatively, if the student’s application is not successful, this is indicated on ImageNow and routed to Faculty.


7.9 Upon written acceptance into the programme, the prospective student registers online, or in the case of late registrations with the FA-PG, provided it is not too late in the semester, according to Academic Regulations.

7.10 All post-graduate students (and their supervisors) are expected to familiarise themselves with and adhere to the University’s Code of Academic and Research Ethics. For this purpose all Master’s and Doctoral research proposals must receive ethics clearance before a project can commence either from the HHDC or the Humanities Academic Ethics Committee (see paragraph 9.8 below) (UJ Policy: 9.1).

7.11 All postgraduate research projects are subject to the University’s Policy on Intellectual Property, and students are required to signal their adherence to this policy as part of the annual registration process. The University is entitled to any copyright from a thesis or (minor) dissertation that may arise as a result of studies at this University, regardless of whether it is accepted or not, and the student gives his/her irrevocable consent when signing the registration form of the University to the formal cession of any applicable rights to the University (UJ Policy: 11.1, 24.21 & 30).

8 APPOINTMENT OF SUPERVISOR(S)

8.1 The Head of Department proposes the appointment of one or more supervisors to each student who is accepted into a postgraduate programme. The supervisor provides professional and ethical academic supervision of the postgraduate research project and student, and is responsible for University academic administrative and managerial matters attendant to the project. The supervisor puts in place strategies to mitigate the risk of failure of students (UJ Policy: 14.7 & 14.8).

8.2 Supervisors have a qualification in the specific or cognate discipline that is at least on the same level as the student they are supervising. A staff member with a Master’s qualification may be appointed as supervisor for a (minor) dissertation in the specific or cognate discipline, provided that s/he has a record of successful sole supervision at this level or has had experience as co-supervisor with a colleague with a Doctoral qualification (UJ Policy: 16.1.1, 16.1.2 & 16.1.3).

8.3 If the supervisor is not a UJ staff member, a co-supervisor who is a UJ staff member is appointed (UJ Policy: 16.1.4).

8.4 The supervisor does not have to come from the same Department, Faculty or disciplinary field in which the student is registered, provided the supervisor has the disciplinary knowledge and expertise to supervise the research topic within the discipline for which the student is registered.

8.5 HODs ensure that all appropriately qualified staff members have the opportunity to supervise postgraduate students and that the supervision workload is equitably distributed. Wherever possible, staff supervise topics within their research niche (UJ Policy 14.9).

8.6 The appointment of supervisors is approved by the HHDC (embedded in the approval of the proposal), noted by BOF and noted by SHDC in the case of (minor) dissertations, and recommended by the HHDC, noted by BOF and approved by SHDC in the case of doctoral theses (UJ Policy: 16.5).

9 THE RESEARCH PROPOSAL

9.1 Delegation of Decision Making. The table below outlines the decision making roles delegated by the BOF to the various structures involved in the approval of the title, proposal and supervisors of a thesis or (minor) dissertation (UJ Policy: 16.5).

Theses (Minor) Dissertations


DHDC Recommend Recommend HHDCs Recommend Approve BOF Note Note SHDC Approve Note

9.2 Registered students work, under supervision, to translate their concept proposal into a

formal Faculty of Humanities proposal, using the prescribed template (Faculty of Humanities Higher Degrees Committee Master’s or Doctoral Proposal), which includes specifications concerning content, format and length (UJ Policy: 16.2).

9.3 Departments may require students to present or defend their proposals as part of the preparation of the proposal, prior to submission to the FHDCs (UJ Policy: 16.4).

9.4 Departments establish a DHDC function, which may be a separate committee or a function embedded within an existing committee, to review proposals.

9.5 Proposals are submitted for review to the HHDCs, via the FA-PG, when the supervisor(s), DHDC and HOD recommend it (UJ Policy: 16.4).

9.6 The HHDCs review proposals to ensure the appropriateness of the proposed study for the given qualification and to assess the students’ capacity to successfully and ethically complete the research, against the following guidelines:

(a) Conceptual clarity of the research questions (aim, objectives, etc) in light of the research problem.

(b) Clarity and feasibility of the methodology to answer the research questions. (c) Adequacy of a theoretical framework within which to conduct the study. (d) Overall demonstrated competence to undertake postgraduate research at the required

level, including writing skills, technical care and appropriate use of literature. (e) Sufficient efforts to minimise the ethical risks of the study. (f) Defensible original scientific contribution (in the case of doctoral proposals).

9.7 The HHDCs and their members may screen proposals for plagiarism. Proposals that appear to contain plagiarism are referred back to the supervisor for action (as a ‘major revision’) and are resubmitted to the HHDC for review. Departments decide whether or not to refer the matter to the Humanities Plagiarism Committee.

9.8 All proposals undergo scrutiny and clearance in regard to considerations of research ethics. The HHDCs routinely assess whether proposals have complex ethical implications. The HHDCs provide ethical approval to studies that do not have complex ethical implications. Proposals that do have complex ethical implications are referred to the Humanities Academic Ethics Committee for a full ethical review. In such cases, HHDC acceptance of a proposal is dependent on ethics approval (UJ Policy: 9.2 & 28).

9.9 Proposals that involve the following are routinely referred to the Humanities Academic Ethics Committee:

(a) Children (people under the age of 18 years). (b) Other vulnerable groups (e.g. prisoners, sex workers). (c) An intervention (e.g. a therapeutic procedure). (d) UJ students or staff.

9.10 Proposals may be referred to the Humanities Academic Ethics Committee prior to or after HHDC review. Proposals may be referred to the Humanities Academic Ethics Committee by the student, supervisor, DHDC or HHDCs.

9.11 The HHDCs meet at least six times per year to review proposals, approve (minor) dissertation titles and supervisors and recommend thesis titles and supervisors. There are four possible outcomes of their review:

(a) Accepted. Once accepted, the student proceeds with research and writing, under supervision.


(b) Accepted, pending minor revisions. Minor revisions are effected within one month. Once such revisions have been carried out to the satisfaction of the supervisor and HOD, the proposal is resubmitted to the HHDC Chair with a covering note detailing the revisions made in response to the HHDC’s feedback. If satisfied with the revision, the Chair of the HHDC accepts the proposal and notifies the HHDC at the next meeting. Proposals that are otherwise accepted, but require ethical approval, are also indicated under this category.

(c) Major Revision. Major revisions are effected within three months. Once such revisions have been carried out to the satisfaction of the supervisor and HOD, and possibly also of the DHDC, the proposal is resubmitted to the HHDC with a covering note detailing the revisions made in response to the HHDC’s feedback. The proposal is reviewed again by the HHDC.

(d) Rejected. If a proposal, sent back for major revision, is still not acceptable when reviewed again by the HHDC, it can be rejected. The student’s registration is terminated, unless permission to continue is granted by the HOD or Executive Dean (UJ Policy: 16.6).

9.12 (Minor) dissertation titles and supervisors are approved by the HHDCs, noted by the BOF and noted by the SHDC. Doctoral dissertation titles and supervisors are recommended by the HHDCs, noted by the BOF and approved by the SHDC. The HHDCs notify the BOF of the proposals that have been reviewed since the previous BOF meeting, providing the names of students, their departments and the dates of the outcomes of their review (UJ Policy: 16.5).

9.13 Master’s students have six months and Doctoral students nine months after registration to complete their proposals to the standards required by the HHDCs (UJ Policy: 16.3).

9.14 Students may not undertake data collection or any activities related to data collection prior to acceptance of the proposal by the HHDC.

10 THE STUDY PHASE

10.1 Master’s students must be registered for at least one year and doctoral students for at least two years before a qualification can be conferred. Full-time and part-time Master’s students, respectively, have a maximum of 24 and 36 months to complete and submit their dissertations. Doctoral students (both part-time and full-time) have up to 48 months (UJ Policy: 17.1 & 21.1).

10.2 The supervisor enters into a formal Agreement with the student (Supervisor and Postgraduate Student Agreement Form). A copy of the signed Agreement is lodged with the FA-PG (UJ Policy: 17.2).

10.3 Students are encouraged to make use of the following support structures (UJ Policy: 17.3):

(a) The supervisor, who has established responsibilities to the postgraduate student including the timeous return of comments;

(b) The Postgraduate Centre which provides a range of short term training activities in all aspects of research;

(c) The postgraduate writing fellows located in the Writing Centres and across campuses who provide support in academic writing;

(d) Doctoral retreats hosted by Faculties with Post Graduate Centre (PGC) support; (e) Statkon, which supports students in their quantitative analysis (UJ Policy: 12.1).

10.4 Supervisors keep record of their meetings and discussions with students and report every six months on the progress of each student to their HOD. The student receives the report as well and signs to this effect (UJ Policy: 17.4).

10.5 During their studies, students may be nominated by their supervisor(s) for Supervisor-Linked Bursaries. Master’s students qualify for a maximum of two years funding support


and Doctoral students for a maximum of three years of funding support. The supervisor confirms the progress made by the student to qualify for the funding. Notice of the application process for the Supervisor-Linked Bursaries is given at the start of each semester by the Vice-Dean Research (UJ Policy: 17.5).

10.6 Students who obtained a mark of 70% or above for their previous degree are advised by their supervisors to apply for the UJ Merit Bursary, through student finances. The supervisor confirms the progress made by the student to quality for a second and (in the case of Doctoral candidates) third year of the Merit Bursary.

10.7 Renewal of registration for a Master’s or Doctoral programme is subject to satisfactory progress by the student (UJ Policy: 20.10).

10.8 Disputes Between Student and Supervisor. Disputes between a student and supervisor are handled directly between the parties concerned. Where this fails, either or both student and supervisor approach the HOD for assistance in resolving the dispute. Where this fails, or where the supervisor is the HOD, any of the parties involved approaches the Executive Dean for assistance in resolving the dispute. When this too fails, the Dean refers the matter to the Chair SHDC (UJ Policy: 27.1).

10.9 Health & Safety. Supervisors are responsible for assessing whether or not a research project has health and safety implications in accordance with the UJ’s Health and Safety Policy. Supervisors should alert postgraduate students to these matters, and should advise students on an on-going basis, particularly where laboratory work or fieldwork (involving perhaps contract fieldworkers or data gatherers) is involved. If a project has significant health and safety implications, the supervisor should provide more formalised training or orientation to the student(s) to ensure compliance with UJ regulations and the conditions of any relevant insurance cover (UJ Policy: 10 & 29).

10.10 Putting Studies in Abeyance. If medical or other acceptable reasons exist for interrupting or suspending a student’s registration with the University, the HHDCs may grant permission to put the student’s studies into abeyance for a stipulated period of time, provided that the request by the student is supported by a medical certificate to this effect, as issued by a registered physician, or other applicable documentary proof to substantiate the request. The student and supervisor, supported by the HOD, complete the Application for Putting PG studies in Abeyance Form and submit this to the FA-PG. HHDCs may delegate authority to review and approve such applications to their Chair or the HPAC, for noting by the HHDC (UJ Policy: 21.5).

10.11 Applications to Extend Studies. Extensions to the maximum study periods (indicated above) will only be entertained in exceptional circumstances, through written application by the student, with recommendation by supervisor and HOD, for approval by the HHDC. In general, extensions of 12 months may be granted to master’s students (both part time and full time), and 24 and 36 months for part time and full time doctoral students respectively (UJ Policy: 21.2 & 21.3).

10.12 Change of Title. In cases where the scope of a project changes during the course of research activities and the original title for the project is no longer apt, the HHDCs may permit a change in the project title. In addition, a change of title may also be recommended by the assessors. The supervisor, HOD and student complete the Application for Change of Title Form and submit this to the FA-PG (UJ Policy: 25.1 & 25.4).

10.13 Changes in titles for (minor) dissertations are approved by HHDCs and noted by BOF and SHDC. Changes in titles for theses are recommended by HHDCs, noted by BOF and approved by SHDC. HHDCs may delegate authority to review and approve such applications to their Chair or the HPAC, for noting by the HHDC (UJ Policy: 25.2 & 25.3).

10.14 A change in project title at any stage does not constitute valid grounds for the extension of registration or residency periods (UJ Policy: 25.5).


10.15 Change of Supervisor. In the event of a change of supervisor, the HOD recommends such a change in writing using the Application for Change of Supervisor Form and submits this to the FA-PG. HHDCs approve the changes of supervisor for dissertations, noted by BOF and noted by SHDC. HHDCs recommend the changes of supervisors for theses, noted by BOF and approved by SHDC. HHDCs may delegate authority to review and approve such applications to their Chair or the HPAC, for noting by the HHDC. The HOD ensures that the outgoing supervisor hands a formal report to the incoming supervisor (UJ Policy: 18.2).

10.16 Conversion/Transfer in Registration from a Master’s to a Doctorate Degree. In exceptional cases, where the scope and impact of a project originally registered for a Master’s programme prove to expand considerably beyond the initial expectation, the candidate – with the supervisor’s and all co-supervisors’ concurrence – may apply to have his/her registration converted/transferred to a Doctoral programme.

10.17 The decision to request a transfer may originate from discussions between the candidate and the supervisor, or from recommendations made by external assessors of the dissertation. A transfer may only be requested on condition that at least one year of study has been completed after the first registration for the (minor) dissertation.

10.18 In order to motivate for such a transfer, the candidate and supervisor(s) each draft a substantive report setting out the background to the study, the results achieved thus far, their status in the context of the existing literature, and put forward an argument for the transfer of registration to a Doctoral degree. In addition, the candidate presents this report at a departmental seminar. The criteria for a Master’s qualification as set out in Faculty of Humanity guidelines is fulfilled in both the written reports and the oral presentation.

10.19 The argument for upgrade, as presented in the candidate’s written report and the oral presentation, and the supervisor’s motivation, are considered by the HHDCs and two external expert assessors (appointed by consensus between the supervisor, the NAC (if appointed), the HOD and the HPAC). This panel decides the merits of the application and presents a recommendation to the Faculty Board, which makes a recommendation to the SHDC for consideration, before final consideration and approval by Senate.

10.20 If the above change of registration is approved, a candidate will subsequently register for at least one year for the Doctoral degree, in addition to the minimum of one year Master’s registration required above, before the Doctoral degree may be awarded.

10.21 A candidate who changes registration from a Master’s degree to a Doctoral degree will not be entitled to receive a Master’s degree for the project under consideration, irrespective of whether the thesis is completed or failed; this transfer is an extraordinary, one-off and irreversible intervention (UJ Policy: 26).

11 ASSESSMENT OF THE THESIS OR (MINOR) DISSERTATION

11.1 Delegation of Decision Making. The table below outlines the decision making roles delegated by the BOF to the various structures involved in the assessment of a thesis or (minor) dissertation (UJ Policy: 18.8 & 18.9).

Theses (Minor) Dissertations Assessors Recommend Recommend NAC Recommend Recommend HPAC Recommend Approve non-conflicting outcomes

Recommend exceptional outcomes HHDC Note non-conflicting outcomes

Recommend exceptional outcomes Note non-conflicting outcomes Approve exceptional outcomes

BOF Note Note SHDC Approve Note


11.2 Finalisation of the Thesis or (Minor) Dissertation. Students consult the Guidelines for Formatting a Thesis or (Minor) Dissertation in compiling their thesis or (minor) dissertation. The student is responsible for the technical and linguistic finishing, and the editing of a thesis or (minor) dissertation to the satisfaction of the supervisor(s) (UJ Policy: 24.1, 24.7 & 24.8).

APPOINTMENT OF NON-ASSESSING CHAIRS AND ASSESSORS 11.3 Preparation for Assessment. The supervisor(s) informs the HOD at least four months

before the candidate completes his/her study that the particular study is nearing completion. The HOD, in consultation with the supervisor(s), appoints a non-assessing chair and proposes assessors for the candidate’s study (UJ Policy: 17.6).

11.4 Appointment of Non-Assessing Chair (NAC). The HOD, in consultation with the supervisor(s), appoints a NAC for each thesis or (minor) dissertation. The NAC is a staff member in the department concerned (or a cognate department) who is uninvolved in the particular study. The NAC serves as the interface between the supervisor(s), assessors and Faculty. The NAC, as a subject expert, is responsible to scrutinise the assessment reports and results and recommend study outcomes to the HPAC. The NAC signs acceptance of the role of NAC and declares that s/he is familiar with the contents of this Standard Operating Procedure (UJ Policy: 18.5).

11.5 Once the assessment of the thesis or (minor) dissertation is complete, the NAC compiles a composite and comprehensive report which contains:

(a) A summary of the most positive and negative comments of the examiners, thereby indicating the strengths and weaknesses of the thesis;

(b) Information on the completion of an article of publishable standard ready for submission to an accredited journal (this is a requirement for doctorates, encouraged for Master’s by research and permitted for coursework Master’s);

(c) Information on the completion of the written and/or oral doctoral examination (if applicable in the department);

(d) A recommendation, indicating if: § the degree should be awarded without corrections (in the case of (minor)

dissertations, a mark is recommended); § the degree should be awarded subject to final revisions of a minor nature (in the

case of (minor) dissertations, a mark is recommended); § the thesis or (minor) dissertation should be failed.

11.6 The further functions of the NAC are to:

(a) Act as chair of the oral doctoral examination (if such is applicable in the department, though this component does not count formally towards the assessment of a Doctoral degree) (UJ Policy: 23.6);

(b) Ensure that minor corrections or major revisions, as specified by the assessors, are carried out satisfactorily.

11.7 Identification of Assessors. HODs, in consultation with the supervisor(s), recommend assessors, three for theses and two for (minor) dissertations, within the following constraints (UJ Policy: 22.1 – 22.8):

(a) Supervisors and co-supervisors may not be appointed as assessors of their own student’s work.

(b) People who lack sufficient objectivity in the assessment of a thesis or (minor) dissertation are excluded from acting as an assessor; this includes, for example, relatives or dependants of degree candidates, persons over whom any of the supervisors could possibly exert undue influence, etc.

(c) Assessors have had no prior involvement with the project that might compromise their objectivity when assessing the thesis or (minor) dissertation.

(d) Assessors have at least the same level of qualification that they are assessing.


(e) The appointment of assessors who are not employed within the academy are motivated by the HOD.

(f) For minor dissertations, no more than one assessor is internal to the University or department.

(g) For research master’s dissertations, at least one assessor has a Doctorate and both are external to UJ. In exceptional circumstances only, a Faculty may motivate to the SHDC that consideration be given to the appointment of an assessor from within UJ.

(h) For doctoral theses, at least three assessors, all external to UJ, are appointed. Efforts are made to identify at least one assessor from outside South Africa.

11.8 When assessors from other countries are appointed for (minor) dissertations, the NAC provides them with the document Guidelines for International Assessors, so that the international assessor can allocate a mark that is comparable with South African marks.

11.9 Recommendation and Approval of Assessors. The HOD, in consultation with the supervisor(s), completes the Nomination of Assessors and Non-Assessing Chair Form and submits this, together with the CVs of all assessors and, in exceptional cases, a motivation for the use of internal assessors or assessors outside of the academy, to the FA-PG.

11.10 The HPAC, through round-robin email, reviews and approves the appointment of all assessors at Master’s level, noted by HHDC, BOF and SHDC. The HPAC recommends assessors at Doctoral level, for noting by HHDC and BOF and approval by SHDC (UJ Policy: 22.9).

11.11 Where the HPAC has concerns about a proposed assessor, it raises these concerns with the HOD, who may further motivate the utilisation of the assessor or replace the assessor with a new assessor. Where the HPAC and HOD cannot reach agreement on the appointment of assessors, the Chair of the HPAC escalates the matter to the relevant HHDC.

11.12 Appointment of Assessors. After approval by the HPAC or SHDC, the FA-PG sends the following documents to the assessors to finalize their appointment, copying the Non-Assessing Chair to keep her/him informed:

(a) Faculty Covering Letter for the Appointment of an Assessor (b) Acceptance of Appointment as Assessor Form (c) Appointment of Temporary Employees Form (d) Employee Banking Details Form (e) UJ Tariff List for External Assessors/Moderators/Supervisors

11.13 Upon receiving the completed forms back from the assessors, the FA-PG ensures that the Appointment of Temporary Employees Form and the Employee Banking Details Form have been completed correctly and forwards these to Human Resources, who enter the assessors’ details onto the system for payment purposes. The Acceptance of Appointment as Assessor Form is kept in the candidate’s file. The Executive Dean budgets for any expenditure related to assessment costs (UJ Policy: 22.10).

SUBMISSION FOR ASSESSMENT 11.14 Submission for Assessment. When the supervisor(s) and student are satisfied that the

thesis or (minor) dissertation is complete, the supervisor(s) and NAC sign the Permission to Submit for Assessment Form to formally release the report for final assessment (UJ Policy: 18.1).

11.15 The student submits the Permission to Submit for Assessment Form, the required number of ring bound copies (sufficient for the examiners and supervisors), printed in high quality on A4 paper, and an electronic copy of the thesis or (minor) dissertation to the FA-PG (UJ Policy: 24.3 & 24.9).

11.16 No thesis or (minor) dissertation may be submitted for final assessment without the express permission of the supervisor. However, no supervisor shall unreasonably withhold


permission for the submission of the minor dissertation, dissertation or thesis for assessment. Where a supervisor withholds this permission and a candidate believes the thesis or (minor) dissertation to be ready for submission, the candidate may appeal the supervisor’s reluctance to the HOD, then the Executive Dean. The Executive Dean, in consultation with the HPAC, makes a decision on whether the student may submit and informs the student, supervisor(s), HOD and Chair SHDC accordingly. If permission is granted to the student to submit without supervisor approval, the supervisor’s role in the study is terminated and the HPAC, in consultation with the HOD, identifies and appoints the assessors (UJ Policy: 23.2 & 27.2).

11.17 The final submission of the thesis or (minor) dissertation is in accordance with the final submission dates per semester as contained in the University’s Year Programme to ensure timely completion of the assessment process. Late submission could imply the renewal of a registration and/or not graduating on time. However, irrespective of the timely submission of a thesis or (minor) dissertation, the University can offer no guarantee that all external assessors will complete their assessment in time for the next graduation ceremony (UJ Policy: 24.2).

11.18 Plagiarism. In accordance with the UJ Policy on Student Plagiarism (point 9.3), all master’s and doctoral students shall submit their thesis or (minor) dissertation to an electronic plagiarism detection system prior to submission for assessment, and present the report so generated together with their thesis or dissertation. Students complete the Affidavit declaring that this is their original work and that ideas imported from elsewhere are appropriately acknowledged and referenced. Copies of the Affidavit are bound into each copy of the thesis or (minor) dissertation (UJ Policy: 23.9, 24.4, 24.5 & Annexure A).

11.19 Supervisor Report. Upon receipt of the thesis or (minor) dissertation, the FA-PG requests a report on the thesis or (minor) dissertation from the supervisor(s). This report comprises a résumé of the study, highlighting its merits and/or shortcomings. The supervisor suggests a mark for the (minor) dissertation, even though such a mark is not taken into account when the candidate’s final mark is determined. (The supervisor’s report plays an important role when assessors recommend discrepant results.) (UJ Policy: 23.10)

11.20 Assessor Results. After completing the assessment, the assessors return the following documents to the FA-PG:

(a) Assessor’s Report Form (b) Narrative report (c) Remuneration Claim: Temporary Employees Form (d) Copy of the thesis or (minor) dissertation (if notes or corrections have been made in the

manuscript)

11.21 Assessors may award one of the following results for a (minor) dissertation (UJ Policy: 18.4 & 23.4):

(a) Acceptance and awarding of a pass mark of 50% to 74%, with or without minor corrections being made to the satisfaction of the supervisor(s) and NAC;

(b) Acceptance and awarding of a cum laude mark of 75% or above, with or without minor corrections being made to the satisfaction of the supervisor(s) and NAC;

(c) Recommendation of substantial amendments, without the awarding of a mark, and with a recommendation by the assessor(s) for resubmission and reassessment within a period of six months, with the assessor’s mark capped at 50%;

(d) Rejection and awarding of a mark reflecting a fail (less than 50%), in which case no reassessment is recommended or considered.

11.22 Assessors may award one of the following results for a thesis (UJ Policy: 23.5):

(a) That the thesis be approved and the Doctoral degree be awarded. This recommendation may be conditional upon minor corrections being made to the satisfaction of the supervisor(s);


(b) That the thesis be accepted provisionally, conditional on non-substantial corrections and improvements to the thesis as indicated by the assessor(s) within a period of three months. Such corrections are to the satisfaction of the supervisor(s) and the NAC, with certification to HPAC that the corrections and improvements have been made, at which stage the thesis is finally accepted and a recommendation made that the Doctoral degree be awarded;

(c) That the thesis not be accepted, but that the student be given the opportunity to substantially revise the thesis in the light of deficiencies identified by the assessors and to re-submit the thesis within a period of six months to the assessor(s) that requested the substantial amendments, to satisfy themselves that the improvements have been made. If the assessor(s) conducting the re-examination recommend that the thesis be approved, the HPAC recommends that the Doctoral degree be awarded;

(d) That the thesis be rejected and no re-assessment be considered. A candidate who has failed a Doctoral assessment may not again be assessed on the same subject matter (UJ Policy: 23.8).

INTEGRATION OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS 11.23 Integration of Assessment Results. Upon receipt of all the assessor reports, the FA-PG

completes the first part of the Non-Assessing Chair’s Report and submits this with the assessors’ reports to the NAC, copying the supervisor(s) for information.

11.24 The NAC studies the assessors’ reports and results, makes a recommendation on the integration of assessment results using the standard guidelines below, and provides feedback to the FA-PG within seven working days (UJ Policy: 18.4).

11.25 There are three categories of NAC responses to assessment results, each of which is detailed in the following sections:

a. Standard integration of non-conflicting assessment results. b. Standard handling of assessment results where further evidence is required. c. Exceptional handling of assessment results.

11.26 A series of guidelines for standard integration of non-conflicting results and results where further evidence is required are provided in the following sections. These are recommended for general use to provide consistency of decision making across NACs and departments. There are times, however, when the NAC may decide that exceptional circumstances warrant an alternative approach. In such cases, the NAC motivates this to the HPAC. If agreement between the NAC and HPAC cannot be reached on the integration of results, mechanisms are provided for escalating such deadlocks to a higher level of decision making (UJ Policy: 23.3).

11.27 Standard Integration of Non-Conflicting Assessment Results. When all assessors are in agreement on the assessment result, the standard response is for the NAC to integrate their recommendations and to immediately finalise and action the result. The NAC indicates this in the Non-Assessing Chair’s Report and submits this to the FA-PG for review and finalisation by the HPAC.

11.28 For (minor) dissertations, standard integration of non-conflicting results includes the following: (Minor) Dissertation Results NAC Response Both assessors recommend a mark between 50% and 74%, not exceeding a difference of 15%, with or without minor corrections.

Average the two marks.

Both assessors recommend a mark below 50% (i.e. a fail). The consensus carries and the student fails.

Both assessors recommend a distinction mark of 75% or higher. Average the marks. One assessor recommends a distinction mark while the other assessor recommends a mark between 50% and 74%, but does not oppose the awarding of a distinction, the marks do not differ by more than 15%, and the average of the two marks is a distinction mark.

Average the marks.


(Minor) Dissertation Results NAC Response One assessor recommends a distinction mark while the other assessor recommends a mark between 50% and 74%, the marks do not differ by more than 15%, and the average of the two marks is not a distinction mark.

Average the marks

The final mark for the (minor) dissertation is 73% or 74% and neither assessor objects to a distinction mark.

Adjust the final mark to a distinction mark of 75%.

The final mark for the (minor) dissertation is 73% or 74% and one or both assessors object to a distinction.

The final mark is not adjusted.

11.29 For theses, standard integration of non-conflicting results includes the following:

Thesis Results NAC Response All three assessors recommend awarding the qualification, with or without minor corrections.

Recommend the awarding of the qualification.

Two or all three assessors recommend the failure of the thesis.

Recommend that the majority result carries and the student fails.

11.30 All assessments in the category of ‘standard integration of non-conflicting assessment

results’ are reviewed and finalised by the HPAC. In the case of (minor) dissertations, the HPAC approves the results, for noting by the HHDC and SHDC. For theses, the HPAC recommends the results, for noting by the HHDC and approval by SHDC.

11.31 Standard Handling of Assessment Results Where Further Evidence is Required. When there are significant discrepancies between the results of the assessors or where one or more assessors requires revision and reassessment, results cannot be immediately finalised and a more complex decision making process may be required. Here too, however, guidelines for standard decisions apply, which the NAC follows and notifies the FA-PG.

11.32 For (minor) dissertations, standard handling of results where further evidence is required includes the following: (Minor) Dissertation Results NAC Response Both assessors recommend a mark between 50% and 74%, but the mark allocation differs by 15% or more.

Appoint an expert advisor. • Consider the expert advisor’s recommendation and

recommend an appropriate mark. Or appoint an additional assessor. • Average the third assessor’s mark with the mark of the

original assessor that is closest to that of the third assessor to determine the final mark.

One assessor recommends the failure of the (minor) dissertation, while the other recommends a distinction, pass mark or revision and reassessment.

Appoint a third assessor: • If the third assessor recommends a fail, the (minor)

dissertation fails. • If the third assessor recommends a pass, the two pass

marks are averaged. • If the third assessor recommends a major revision and

reassessment, the student revises and resubmits for reassessment. If a pass mark, capped at 50%, is then awarded, the student passes with the average of the two pass marks.

• If the third assessor recommends a fail for the resubmitted (minor) dissertation, the student fails.

Either or both assessors recommend revision and resubmission for reassessment and neither recommends a fail.

Student revises and resubmits for reassessment. • If both assessors recommend a pass mark, with the

mark for the revision capped at 50%, average the two marks.

• If one assessor recommends a fail, appoint a third assessor (as above).

• If both assessors recommend a fail, the student fails. One assessor recommends a distinction, while the second assessor recommends a pass mark between 50% and 74% and opposes a distinction, but the average mark is a distinction.

Appoint a third assessor: • If the third assessor recommends a distinction, the

average of the two higher marks carries. • If the third assessor does not recommend a distinction,

the average of the two lower marks carries.


(Minor) Dissertation Results NAC Response One assessor recommends a distinction, while the second assessor recommends a pass mark between 50% and 74% and the mark allocation differs by 15% or more.

Appoint an expert advisor. • Consider the expert advisor’s recommendation and

recommend an appropriate mark. Or appoint an additional assessor. • Average the third assessor’s mark with the mark of the

original assessor that is closest to that of the third assessor to determine the final mark.

11.33 For theses, standard handling of results where further evidence is required includes the

following: Thesis Results NAC Response One assessor recommends the failure of the thesis, while the other two recommend a pass or revision and reassessment.

Appoint an additional (4th) assessor: • If the assessor recommends a pass, the thesis passes. • If the assessor recommends a fail, an arbiter is

appointed to finalise the result. (The arbiter’s decision is binding on all parties.)

One or more assessors recommend revision and resubmission for reassessment and no assessor fails the thesis.

Student revises and resubmits for reassessment. • If the assessor (or assessors) who recommended a

resubmission recommends a pass, the student passes.

11.34 Exceptional Handling of Assessment Results. From time to time, a NAC may be of the

view that none of the above standard responses is appropriate due to exceptional circumstances that warrant an alternative approach. In such instances, the NAC prepares a written motivation for the alternative approach and submits this to the FA-PG for review by the HPAC. If the HPAC is in support of the alternative approach, the HPAC recommends the alternative approach to the relevant HHDC, either at a full meeting of the HHDC or by round-robin email. If the HHDC agrees, the NAC implements this decision.

11.35 If, however, the HPAC disagrees with the NAC, the NAC and HOD (provided the HOD is not the supervisor) are invited to a meeting of the HPAC to debate the merits of an alternative approach. If through this discussion agreement is reached, the HPAC recommends the alternative approach to the relevant HHDC, either at a full meeting of the HHDC or by round-robin email. If the HHDC agrees, the NAC implements this decision.

11.36 If agreement between the NAC, HOD and HPAC cannot be reached on the integration of results, the HPAC escalates the matter to the relevant HHDC. The HHDC invites the NAC and HOD (provided the HOD is not the supervisor) to a meeting of the HHDC to discuss the matter further. If agreement is reached, the NAC implements this decision. If agreement cannot be reached, mechanisms are provided below for handling such deadlocks.

11.37 The UJ Policy on Higher Degrees provides four options for the resolution of discrepancies in assessment results. The primary option selected from the UJ Policy is to “appoint an additional assessor to assess the thesis or (minor) dissertation independently, his/her report hopefully allowing the resolution of the impasse” (UJ Policy: 27.3.1)

11.38 However, the policy also makes available the following alternative approaches which may be followed in exceptional circumstances (UJ Policy: 27.3.1):

(a) To request additional information from the supervisors and/or assessors – this may be useful when an assessor’s narrative report does not adequately match the recommended mark/result;

(b) To invite a knowledgeable external person to participate in the HPAC deliberations – this may be useful when there are doubts about the validity of an aspect of an assessor’s report; or

(c) To identify an independent arbiter to consider the individual assessor’s reports and make a recommendation, with reasons, or present a decision to the HPAC. While submission to a further external assessor still permits the SHDC to make a final decision about the end result, submission to an arbiter mobilises all the understandings and conventions surrounding arbitrage and obliges the SHDC to accept the


recommendation of the arbiter – thus the use of an arbiter is not encouraged (UJ Policy: 27.3.2).

11.39 Handling Deadlocks between NAC, HPAC and/or HHDC. When agreement between the NAC, HPAC and/or HHDC cannot be reached, despite following the measures set out in the previous paragraphs, the Vice-Dean Research, in consultation with the Executive Dean, escalates the matter to the Chair SHDC.

11.40 Handling Instances of Failure. When a thesis or (minor) dissertation is failed, the NAC requests the supervisor(s) to provide a written explanation of why the thesis or (minor) dissertation was allowed to be sent for examination, and forwards this to the FA-PG with the Non-assessing Chair’s Report Form (UJ Policy: 23.11).

11.41 Handling Allegations of Plagiarism. If an assessor alleges that a student has plagiarised parts of her/his thesis or (minor) dissertation, the NAC refers the matter to the Faculty Plagiarism Committee for further investigation and possible action prior to the finalisation or recommendation of the assessment results.

11.42 Finalisation of Assessment Results. Once the results of additional assessors are in and/or any reassessments have been completed, the NAC completes the Non-assessing Chair’s Report Form and submits this to the FA-PG.

11.43 The HPAC reviews the supervisor’s, assessors’ and NAC’s report for each student, either through round-robin email or a face-to-face meeting:

(a) If the HPAC is satisfied with the NAC’s standard integration of non-conflicting assessment results, it finalises the result. In the case of doctoral theses, the HPAC recommends a final result, for noting by HHDC and BOF and approval by SHDC. In the case of (minor) dissertations, the HPAC approves the final result, for noting by HHDC, BOF and SHDC.

(b) Where the NAC recommends exceptional handling of assessment results or where the HPAC does not agree with the recommendation of the NAC, the HPAC engages with the NAC (and HOD) in a face-to-face meeting or via email, in an attempt to reach consensus on the finalisation of the assessment, and then refers the assessment to the relevant HHDC for finalisation. In the case of doctoral theses, the HHDC recommends a final result, for noting by BOF and approval by SHDC. In the case of (minor) dissertations, the HHDC approves the final result, for noting by BOF and noting by SHDC.

(c) Should consensus between the NAC, HPAC and HHDC not be possible, the Vice-Dean Research will refer the matter to the Chair SHDC.

PREPARATION FOR GRADUATION 11.44 Completing all Qualification Requirements. Any Master’s or Doctoral degree can only be

awarded after the successful completion of every requirement of each component of the respective degree programme, including the successful submission of a research-based dissertation or thesis, or by the successful assessment of the candidate’s achievements in each relevant coursework module together with a successfully completed minor dissertation, as determined by the relevant faculty regulations in the faculty calendar or academic information brochure (UJ Policy: 23.7).

11.45 Effecting Corrections. When major revisions or minor corrections are required, the supervisor and NAC remove the assessors’ names and marks from their reports. The supervisor supplies anonymous feedback to the candidate on the content of the assessors’ reports and supervises the student’s corrections to the thesis or (minor) dissertation.

11.46 In the case of minor corrections, the student makes the recommended changes under the guidance of the supervisor. The student prepares a covering letter specifying in detail her/his responses to the various recommendations of the assessors. Once the supervisor and NAC are satisfied with the corrections, the supervisor completes the Confirmation of


Corrections Made to Thesis or (Minor) Dissertation Form, signed by the student, supervisor and NAC. These are submitted to the FA-PG and noted by the HPAC (UJ Policy: 18.7).

11.47 In the case of a major revision requiring re-assessment, the student makes the recommended changes under the guidance of the supervisor. The student prepares a covering letter specifying in detail her/his responses to the various recommendations of the assessor(s). Once the supervisor and NAC are satisfied with the corrections, the supervisor completes the Confirmation of Corrections Made to Thesis or (Minor) Dissertation Form and the Permission to Submit for Assessment Form, signed by the student, supervisor and NAC. These are submitted to the FA-PG for re-assessment by the assessor(s) who required the re-assessment. Should the effected amendments change the nature of the study drastically it may be necessary to resubmit the thesis to the other assessors as well (UJ Policy: 18.7). The mark of the assessor who required the revision and re-assessment is capped at 50%.

11.48 Preparation for Graduation. When all corrections have been completed, the student submits the following items to the FA-PG:

(a) A number of artificial leather-bound copies equal to the number of assessors and supervisors in A4 format with the title and the candidate’s initials and surname printed in either gold or silver lettering on the cover and spine (UJ Policy: 24.13);

(b) One quarter-bound copy of the document; (c) The final corrected and approved version of the thesis or (minor) dissertation (single

PDF-file format) saved on a CD or DVD, together with supplementary files (images, sound, etc.) that are an integral part of the thesis or (minor) dissertation, but not part of the full text (UJ Policy: 24.10);

(d) Certification of Finally Submitted Copies Form which is a declaration by the candidate that the content of the electronic copy, the loose-page copy and the finally bound copies is the finally approved version of the thesis or (minor) dissertation (UJ Policy: 24.11).

(e) UJLIC Thesis or (Minor) Dissertation Final Submission Form signed by both the candidate and the supervisor (UJ Policy: 24.15).

11.49 The Executive Dean may recommend that the SHDC grant a confidentiality classification of two years to the completed thesis or (minor) dissertation, as stipulated in the University’s Policy on Intellectual Property, meaning a delay in the public display of the thesis or (minor) dissertation. This is clearly stated on the UJLIC submission form (UJ Policy: 24.17).

11.50 In the case of final submission of a thesis the following additional documents also accompany the submission (UJ Policy: 24.6):

(a) The candidate’s CV (no more than 100 words) (b) A laudation.

11.51 Only once the FA-PG has received the following documents may the student’s name be included in the programme of the applicable graduation ceremony (UJ Policy: 24.10 & 24.16):

(a) Confirmation of corrections being made to the satisfaction of the supervisor and NAC. (b) Receipt of the required printed and electronic copies of the thesis or (minor)

dissertation, and other supporting documents, as stipulated above. (c) Confirmation by the supervisor that a doctoral candidate has drafted at least one

publishable manuscript emanating from the study (UJ Policy: 24.18 & 24.19).

11.52 Certification of compliance with the requirements of the qualification is in accordance with the Certification Policy of the University, with due regard to the responsibility of the candidate, supervisors, relevant faculty administration officer, the Executive Dean of the Faculty and the DVC Research, Postgraduate Studies, Library & Information Centre (UJ Policy: 13.1).


11.53 The candidate, the supervisor and NAC are informed by the Executive Dean’s Office of the final mark after the assessment results have been approved or noted by the SHDC. This notification also specifies the graduation date for the particular candidate.

11.54 Disclosure of Assessor Names and Marks. Assessors’ details may be revealed to students only after a final outcome has been approved for the thesis or (minor) dissertation, and then only subject to the assessor(s) having given consent for their names to be disclosed. Under no circumstances may supervisors or students contact assessors before finalisation of the assessment outcome (UJ Policy: 22.11).

11.55 Neither the supervisor nor the NAC may divulge marks allocated by the individual assessors to the candidate (in the case of a (minor) dissertation). The overall assessment outcome may be revealed to the candidate only once the final outcome has been approved by the FPAC or FHDC (for Master’s degrees) and SHDC/Senate (for Doctoral degrees) (UJ Policy: 23.13).

11.56 Dispatching the Final Copies. The FA-PG sends a finally bound copy of the thesis or (minor) dissertation to each of the assessors and the supervisor(s) with a covering letter thanking them for their contribution to the assessment and supervision respectively of the study (UJ Policy: 23.12).

11.57 The loose-page copy and the electronic copy of the study are sent to the library.

11.58 Adding the Candidate’s Name to the Graduation List. The FA-PG ensures that the candidate’s particulars are added to the graduation list and that s/he is kept informed about the graduation arrangements.

11.59 Updating the Nexus Database and UJ Records. Central Administration informs the NRF of the completion of a particular study so that the Nexus database can be updated.

11.60 For record-keeping purposes, the FA-PG also submits a name list to the Registrar of candidates whose results have been finally approved by the SHDC.

11.61 Notification of HHDC and BOF. The HPAC notifies the HHDC of the assessments that have been completed since the last HHDC meeting, providing the students’ names, departments and outcomes (fail, pass or distinction), together with supporting documentation. The HHDCs notify the BOF of the assessments that have been completed by both the HPAC and the HHDC since the last BOF meeting, providing the students’ names, departments and outcomes (fail, pass or distinction).

12 HIGHER DEGREE STRUCTURES IN THE FACULTY OF HUMANITIES

12.1 Humanities Higher Degrees Committees. There are two HDCs in the Faculty of Humanities, one comprising the departments in the languages cluster, and the other comprising the departments in the humanities and social sciences cluster. The two-HDC structure is based on the differences in approaches to research between languages and humanities/social sciences, allowing more focused and specialised attention to proposals.

12.2 The Humanities HDC (Languages) comprises members from the following departments:

(a) African Languages (b) Afrikaans (c) English (d) French (e) Greek and Latin Studies (f) Linguistics and Literary Theory (g) Semitic Languages

12.3 The Humanities HDC (Humanities) comprises members from the following departments:

(a) Anthropology and Development Studies


(b) Communication Studies (c) Historical Studies (d) Journalism, Film and Television (e) Philosophy (f) Politics (g) Psychology (h) Religion Studies (i) Social Work (j) Sociology (k) Strategic Communication

12.4 Each academic department selects one member of staff to serve on the relevant HHDC. The process of selection is broadly consultative. The representative has a doctorate and, where feasible, substantial experience of supervision at Master’s and Doctoral levels. Departmental representatives serve for a period of three years to facilitate continuity and are eligible for re-election by their departments. The HHDC elects a chairperson from among the HHDC members or another person the HHDC deems suitable. The chairperson may not serve as departmental representative.

12.5 The HHDCs have the following functions (UJ Policy: 14.5):

(a) Review and approve (minor) dissertation proposals, research titles and supervisors. (b) Review and recommend thesis proposals, titles and supervisors. (c) Assess whether proposals have complex ethical implications – provide ethical approval

to studies that do not have complex ethical implications, and refer the rest to the Humanities Academic Ethics Committee for a full ethical review.

(d) Review and approve applications for putting postgraduate studies in abeyance. (e) Review requests for changes to titles or supervisors, approving those of (minor)

dissertations and recommending those of theses. (f) Review and finalise the exceptional handling of assessment results. (g) Note standard and non-conflicting assessment results.

12.6 The functioning of the HHDCs is detailed in an HHDC Charter.

12.7 The HHDC reports to the BOF, submitting copies of its minutes (incorporating the HPAC minutes) for noting by the BOF.

12.8 Humanities Postgraduate Assessment Committee. The HPAC is a subcommittee of the HHDCs, tasked with handling the assessment results of theses and (minor) dissertations. A small committee, comprising ex officio members, the HPAC is designed to rapidly finalise non-conflicting assessments, and to investigate exceptional handling of assessment results in greater depth and make recommendations to the HHDC, according to the procedures laid out in this Standard Operating Procedure (UJ Policy: 14.6).

12.9 The HPAC comprises the following members (UJ Policy: 18.6):

(a) The Vice-Dean Research, as chairperson. (b) The Dean. (c) The chairpersons of the HHDCs. (d) Any co-opted members, particularly for exceptional handling of assessment results. (e) The FA-PG, as secretary.

12.10 The HPAC has the following functions:

(a) Review and approve the appointment of non-assessing chairs. (b) Review and approve the appointment of assessors for (minor) dissertations. (c) Review and recommend the appointment of assessors for theses. (d) Review and approve the results of (minor) dissertations, referring exceptional cases to

the HHDC for finalisation. (e) Review and recommend the results of theses, referring exceptional cases to the HHDC

for recommendation to SHDC.


12.11 The HPAC reports to the HHDC, submitting copies of its minutes for noting by the HHDC and tabling exceptional cases for discussion and finalisation by the HHDC.

12.12 The functioning of the HPAC is detailed in an HPAC Charter.

13 LIST OF FORMS

1. Faculty of Humanities Higher Degrees Committee Master’s or Doctoral Proposal 2. Supervisor and Postgraduate Student Agreement Form 3. Application for Putting PG studies in Abeyance Form 4. Application for Change of Title Form 5. Application for Change of Supervisor Form 6. Guidelines for Formatting a Thesis or (Minor) Dissertation 7. Guidelines for International Assessors 8. Nomination of Assessors and Non-Assessing Chair Form 9. Faculty Covering Letter for the Appointment of an Assessor 10. Acceptance of Appointment as Assessor Form 11. Appointment of Temporary Employees Form 12. Employee Banking Details Form 13. Tariff List for External Assessors/Moderators/Supervisors 14. Permission to Submit for Assessment Form 15. Affidavit 16. Assessor’s Report Form 17. Remuneration Claim: Temporary Employees Form 18. Non-Assessing Chair’s Report 19. Confirmation of Corrections Made to Thesis or (Minor) Dissertation Form 20. Certification of Finally Submitted Copies Form 21. UJLIC Thesis or (Minor) Dissertation Final Submission Form

faculty of humanities standard operating procedure for ... · faculty of humanities standing...

Documents