Examination of Sub-Doctoral Postgraduate Research Components of 30 Points and Above Procedures

These procedures apply to all staff members and students of the University and to the examination of sub-doctoral postgraduate research components of 30 points and above.

To outline the procedures for the appointment of examination roles and the examination of sub-doctoral postgraduate research components of 30 points and above.

These procedures have replaced  the material on examining theses, research portfolios, dissertations, research essays, and research projects that was, until 2020, contained in the Instructions to Examiners and Assessors.

1. The academic head is responsible for approving the appointment of:

• examiners for theses and research portfolios in accordance with the Masters Thesis/Research Portfolio Examiner Appointment Procedures
• examiners and assessors for dissertations, research essays, and research projects; and
• graduate advisors(or nominees).

2. The academic head endorses recommendations on final grades for referral to the ADPGR in cases where there has not been an initial agreed result and is responsible for referring possible disputed results cases to the ADPGR.

3. If the academic head was involved in the supervision of a thesis, research portfolio, dissertation, research essay or research project, or intends to act as the examiner of a thesis or research portfolio, or as the examiner or assessor of a dissertation, research essay or research project, then another member of the academic unit must take on the role of acting academic head with regard to that piece of work. Such a nomination should be made at the time the examiner(s), assessor (where applicable) and graduate advisor are nominated. The academic head and the graduate advisor (or nominee) must not be the same individual.

4. The examiner is responsible for making an initial independent examination of the piece of work and providing a written report substantiating their recommended grade and/or mark. Where two examiners are required, reports are produced independently, and the examiners must not confer as to their initial recommendations.

5. The assessor is responsible for maintaining appropriate and adequate academic standards for all aspects of the assessment process. The assessor assesses the piece of work in light of the examiner’s report and provides a written commentary on the validity of the recommended result.

6. The graduate advisor (or nominee) is responsible for considering examination and assessment reports in accordance with these procedures and making a recommendation to the academic head where there has not been an initial agreed result or to the ADPGR where there has been an agreed result.

7. The Associate Dean Postgraduate Research (ADPGR) is responsible for affirming the integrity of the examination process and approving the appropriateness of the final result; for reviewing potential disputed results cases referred by the academic head; for reviewing other cases referred by Assessment Services; and for making a report and recommendation to the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Education) where a student has applied for an appeal of the outcome of the examination process.

8. Another nominated associate dean/director in the faculty or Large-Scale Research Institute or another faculty may undertake the role of the ADPGR with respect to some or all of these procedures.

9. If the ADPGR was involved in the supervision of a thesis, research portfolio, dissertation, research essay or research project, or was the examiner of a thesis or research portfolio, or the examiner or assessor of a dissertation, research essay or research project, then another associate dean must take on the ADPGR role with regard to that piece of work. Where cases referred by Assessment Services involve reviewing decisions made by an ADPGR or other nominated associate dean, another independent associate dean must take the ADPGR role for purposes of such review.

10. The Pro Vice-Chancellor Education is responsible for making a decision on applications for an appeal of the outcome of a thesis, research portfolio, dissertation, research essay or research project examination.

Examinable material

11. All aspects of the thesis, research portfolio, dissertation, research project or research essay are examinable as part of the examination process. Other material referred to in the thesis, research portfolio, dissertation, research project or research essay but not captured in full is not considered examinable material.

Appointment of examiners, assessors and graduate advisors (or nominees)

Dissertations, research essays, or research projects with a value of between 30 and 80 points inclusive

12. The following examination roles are appointed by the academic head:

• One examiner (who may be the supervisor or a member of the supervisory team).
• One assessor (who must not be the supervisor or a member of the supervisory team).
• One graduate advisor (who must not have been involved in the supervision or been the examiner or assessor of the work).

90- and 120-point research components of Bachelors Honours degrees, postgraduate diplomas, and first 120 points of 240-point masters degrees

13. The following examination roles are appointed by the academic head:

• One examiner (who must not be the supervisor or a member of the supervisory team).
• One assessor (who must not be the supervisor or a member of the supervisory team).
• One graduate advisor (who must not have been involved in the supervision or been the examiner or assessor of the work).

14. Either the examiner or assessor must be appointed from outside the University of Auckland.

Theses or research portfolios with a value of 90 points or more (except 90- and 120-point research components of Bachelor Honours degrees, postgraduate diplomas and first 120 points of 240-point masters degrees)

15. The following examination roles are appointed by the academic head:

• Two examiners. Neither examiner may have supervised the work nor been part of the supervisory team. At least one of the examiners must be from outside the University of Auckland. The examiners must not be from the same institution. Examiners must be appointed according to the Masters Thesis/Research Portfolio Examiner Appointment Procedures
• One graduate advisor (who must not have been involved in the supervision of the student or been an examiner of the thesis.)

Nomination of examiners, assessors and graduate advisors

16. Appointment recommendations for examiners, assessors and graduate advisors (or nominees) must be approved by the academic head before the work is examined. Nominations are submitted to the academic head on an AS-512 form (Part A) by faculty Group Services staff.

17. Changes in the nominations of examiners or assessors must be approved by the academic head and submitted to Assessment Services on an AS-44 form.

Note: for the examination timeline for research components in masters degrees see Appendix IV of the Guidelines for the Administration of Research in Masters Degrees [staff only]

Fee for examiners/assessors

18. Examiners or assessors for theses, research portfolios, dissertations, research essay or research projects appointed from within the New Zealand university system are not paid a fee. The fee paid to appointees from outside the New Zealand university system is currently set at $125 per assignment.

Academic misconduct

19. If suspicions of plagiarism, or other forms of academic misconduct, are identified in one or more examination reports during the course of the examination of the thesis, dissertation, research portfolio or research essay or project, the examination process must be suspended and the procedures as set out in the Student Academic Conduct Statute must be followed.

20. The examiner will examine the work and provide a recommended grade and mark accompanied by a full report that includes the reasons for the recommended grade. The examiner must not consult with any other party during this stage of the examination process.

21. The examiner’s report and a copy of the work under examination will be sent to the assessor. The assessor will assess the work in light of the examiner’s report and provide a written commentary on the appropriateness of the recommended result. The assessor may recommend, with substantiation, an alternative grade for the work.

Actions of the graduate advisor

22. The graduate advisor for the academic unit considers the examiner’s and assessor’s reports, and based on these reports makes a recommendation to either the ADPGR or academic head in accordance with these procedures.

Note: If upon receipt of the examination reports the graduate advisor considers that an examiner or assessor should be replaced, they may make a recommendation to the academic head in writing, outlining the basis of their claim. Disqualification of an examiner or assessor may be warranted in cases where an examiner or assessor does not include justification for the recommended grade or claims insufficient level of expertise, or where an assessor has not assessed the work in light of the examination report. In such cases, the academic head may request a revised report or appoint a replacement examiner or assessor.

23. The graduate advisor may, entirely at their discretion, convene and chair a subcommittee of the Departmental Postgraduate Committee in order to consider the examiner and assessor reports and/or examiner and assessor consultation material and act in accordance with these procedures.

24. Where a subcommittee is convened, the subcommittee is subject to the procedural requirements and restrictions prescribed for the graduate advisor at each stage of the process.

Note: there are no circumstances in which a graduate advisor is either required or expected to convene a subcommittee. The academic head may not be a member of a subcommittee. No member of a subcommittee may have been involved in the supervision or examination of the work.

25. Where the examiner and assessor reports agree on a recommended result, the graduate advisor must recommend that result to the ADPGR as the final grade.

26. Where the recommendations of the examiner and the assessor agree to within ten percentage points (10 points or less) and do not cross a class or division of honours, or a pass/fail border, the graduate advisor will either recommend an average of the marks without justification, or recommend, with written justification, a final grade within the margin of the examiner’s and assessor’s recommended grades. The graduate advisor must not examine or assess the student’s work.

27. Where the recommendations of the examiner and the assessor do not agree to within ten percentage points or where the recommendations cross a class or division of honours or a pass/fail border, the graduate advisor will invite the examiner and assessor to review the reports and to consult and report in writing to the graduate advisor on the outcome of that consultation (unless the graduate advisor regards examiner and assessor consultation as inappropriate and/or unnecessary).

28. If the graduate advisor regards examiner and assessor consultation as inappropriate and/or unnecessary, the graduate advisor may recommend a final grade to the ADPGR only where the graduate advisor also provides a detailed written rationale for that grade in relation to the content of the examiner’s and assessor’s reports. The graduate advisor must not examine or assess the student’s work. The written rationale for the recommended grade must also address why examiner and assessor consultation was regarded as inappropriate or unnecessary.

29. In cases where the graduate advisor is unable to confidently recommend a valid final grade to the ADPGR due to differences between the examiner and assessor reports and considers that consultation between examiner and assessor is not appropriate, the graduate advisor must recommend to the academic head that the disputed results procedure be followed. The academic head may endorse this recommendation or may require the graduate advisor to invite the examiner and assessor to consult.

Consultation between examiner and assessor

30. Where the graduate advisor invites the examiner and assessor to review the examiner’s and assessor’s reports and consult and report to the graduate advisor on the outcome, the graduate advisor may also invite the examiner and assessor to consider a grade and rationale proposed by the graduate advisor, based on the two reports.

31. Where the examiner and assessor agree upon a grade, and the graduate advisor is satisfied regarding the integrity of the process and with the rationale provided by the examiner and assessor for agreement on a grade, the graduate advisor must recommend that grade to the ADPGR as the final result. The graduate advisor must report in writing to the ADPGR on the exchange with the examiner and assessor and the integrity of the outcome.

32. Where the examiner and assessor revise their recommendations to within ten percentage points and the recommendations do not cross a class or division of honours or a pass/fail border, and the graduate advisor is satisfied regarding the integrity of the process, the graduate advisor will either:

• average the marks without justification; or
• recommend, with written justification in relation to the examiner and assessor reports and consultation, a final result within the margin of the examiner’s and assessor’s revised
• recommended grades. The graduate advisor must not examine or assess the student’s work. A report on the exchange with the examiner and assessor must accompany any recommendation to the ADPGR.

33. Where neither the examiner nor the assessor alters their original recommendation, or where revised recommendations do not agree within ten percentage points without crossing a class or division of honours or a pass/fail border, or where the revised grades cross a class or division of honours or pass/fail border, rather than recommending a grade on the AS- 512T form (available in the Forms Library under Academic Services forms), the graduate advisor must refer all material relating to the examination, including a report on the exchange with the examiner and assessor, to the academic head. This report may include the views of the graduate advisor on the examiner’s and assessor’s reports and on the exchange between the examiner and assessor; it must not include examination or assessment of the student’s work by the graduate advisor.

34. The academic head will conclude either that the disputed results procedure should be followed or that a valid result is determinable by the academic head.

35. Where the graduate advisor is not satisfied regarding the integrity of the consultation process, the graduate advisor must detail this concern to the academic head in writing and recommend that the disputed results procedure be followed. The academic head may or may not endorse this recommendation.

36. Supervisors and academic heads must not participate in the graduate advisor’s deliberations.

37. The academic head and the graduate advisor must not be the same individual. Neither party may have been involved in the supervision of the student nor have examined the thesis.
38. Both examiners will provide a recommended grade and mark accompanied by a full report that includes justification for the recommended grade in relation to the grade descriptors on the Examiner’s report form.

39. Examiners’ reports must be written independently and there must be no contact between the examiners (or between examiners and supervisors) on the work under examination, including any discussion intended to produce agreement on a final grade. The only exception is in cases where the examiners have been invited by the graduate advisor to consult with each other as part of the process detailed below.

40. Examiners’ reports will be provided in confidence to the supervisor, who may provide confidential comment on them in writing (within one week) to the graduate advisor. Where provided, the supervisor’s commentary must be restricted to the identification of any factual errors in examination reports and to the clarification of any resource issues raised in the examination reports.

Note: supervisors may not make recourse to other matters, including but not limited to research delays beyond the student’s control, supervisory input, the student’s academic profile, personal life, or performance under supervision. Supervisors may not include an opinion on an appropriate grade for the work.

Actions of the graduate advisor

41. The graduate advisor will consider the examination reports and the examiners’ recommended grades in relation to the grade descriptors provided to the examiners, and based on these reports will make a recommendation to the academic head or ADPGR in accordance with these procedures.

Note: if, upon receipt of the examination reports, the graduate advisor considers that an examiner should be replaced, they may make a recommendation to the academic head in writing, outlining the basis of their claim. Disqualification of an examiner may be warranted in cases where an examiner does not include justification for the recommended grade or claims an insufficient level of expertise. In such cases, the academic head may request a revised report or appoint a replacement examiner.

42. The graduate advisor may, entirely at their discretion, convene and chair an Examination Committee in order to consider the examiners’ reports and/or consultation material and act in accordance with these procedures. Where a committee is convened, the committee is subject to the procedural requirements and restrictions prescribed for the graduate advisor at each stage of the process.

Note: there are no circumstances in which a graduate advisor is either required or expected to convene an Examination Committee. The academic head may not be a member of an Examination Committee. No member of an Examination Committee may have been involved in the supervision or supervisory team of the student or have been an examiner on the thesis.

43. Where the examination reports agree on a recommended result the graduate advisor must recommend that result to the ADPGR as the final grade.

44. Where the recommendations of the examiners agree within ten percentage points (10 points or less) and do not cross a class or division of honours or a pass/fail border, the graduate advisor must either recommend an average of the marks without justification or recommend, with written justification, a final grade within the margin of the examiners’ recommended grades. The recommended result must be based on the examiners’ reports in relation to the grade descriptors. The graduate advisor must not examine or assess the student’s work.

45. Where their recommendations do not agree to within ten percentage points or cross a class or division of honours or a pass/fail border, the graduate advisor will invite the examiners to review both reports, consult and report in writing to the graduate advisor on the outcome of that consultation (unless the graduate advisor regards examiner consultation as inappropriate and/or unnecessary).

46. If the graduate advisor regards consultation between examiners as inappropriate and/or unnecessary, the graduate advisor may recommend a final grade to the ADPGR only where the graduate advisor also provides a detailed written rationale for that grade in relation to the content of the examination reports and grade descriptors. The graduate advisor must not examine or assess the student’s work. The written rationale for the recommended grade must also address why examiner consultation was regarded as inappropriate or unnecessary.

47. In cases where the graduate advisor is unable to confidently recommend a valid final grade to the ADPGR due to differences between the examiners’ reports, and considers that consultation between examiners is not appropriate, the graduate advisor must report this conclusion to the academic head in writing and recommend that the disputed results procedure be followed. The academic head may endorse this recommendation or may require the graduate advisor to invite the examiners to consult.

Consultation between examiners

48. Where the graduate advisor invites the examiners to review both reports, consult and report to the graduate advisor on the outcome, the graduate advisor may also invite the examiners to consider, as part of their consultation, quoted or paraphrased content from the supervisor’s statement, and/or a grade and rationale proposed by the graduate advisor in relation to the examination reports and grade descriptors.

49. Where the examiners agree upon a grade, and the graduate advisor is satisfied regarding the integrity of the consultation process and with the rationale provided by the examiners for agreement on a grade, the graduate advisor is to recommend that grade to the ADPGR as the final result. The graduate advisor must report in writing to the ADPGR on the exchange with the examiners and the integrity of the outcome.

50. Where the examiners revise their recommendations to within ten percentage points and the recommendations do not cross a class or division of honours or a pass/fail border, and the graduate advisor is satisfied regarding the integrity of the process, the graduate advisor will either average the marks without justification, or recommend, with justification in relation to the grade descriptors, the examination reports and the examiner consultation, a final result within the margin of the examiners’ revised recommendations. The graduate advisor must not examine or assess the student’s work. A report on the exchange with the examiners must accompany any recommendation to the APPGR.

51. Where neither examiner alters their original recommendation, or where revised recommendations do not agree to within ten percentage points without crossing a class or division of honours or a pass/fail border, or where the revised grades cross a class or division of honours or a pass/fail border, rather than recommending a grade on the AS-512R, the graduate advisor must refer all material relating to the examination, including a report on the exchange with the examiners, to the academic head. This report may include the views of the graduate advisor on the examination reports and the exchange between the examiners in relation to the grade descriptors. The graduate advisor must not examine or assess the student’s work.

52. The academic head may conclude that the disputed results procedure should be followed or that a valid result is determinable.
53. Where the graduate advisor is not satisfied regarding the integrity of the consultation process, the graduate advisor must detail this concern to the academic head in writing and recommend that the disputed results procedure be followed. The academic head may or may not endorse this recommendation.
54. Neither the academic head nor any person involved in the supervision of the work under examination may participate in the graduate advisor’s deliberations.

55. In cases where the Graduate Adviser is unable to submit a final result to the ADPGR, and where there has not been consultation between examiner(s)/assessor, the graduate advisor can approach the academic head who may:

• discuss the recommended final grade with the graduate advisor; if further information is provided or if an alternative final grade is endorsed as a result of that discussion, the additional information and a written report by the academic head on that discussion must accompany the endorsed grade; and/or
• require the graduate advisor to invite the examiner(s)/assessor to consult, with or without reference to the graduate advisor’s recommended final grade; or
• refer the case to the ADPGR for review as a disputed result. All material relating to the examination must be forwarded to the ADPGR and must be accompanied by a report written by the academic head outlining the reasons why it has not proved possible to endorse a final recommended grade.

56. If the recommended final grade involved consultation between examiner(s)/assessor, but the academic head has concerns about the validity of the recommended result, the case must be referred to the ADPGR for review as a disputed result. All material relating to the examination must be forwarded to the associate dean and must be accompanied by a report written by the academic head outlining the reasons why it has not proved possible to endorse a final recommended grade and the substance of the exchange with the examiner(s)/assessor.

57. Where a graduate advisor has recommended that the disputed results procedure be followed, or referred an examination to the academic head either with concerns about the integrity of the consultation process or where examiner(s)/assessor recommended grades remain, post consultation, more than ten percentage points apart and/or crossing a class or division of honours or a pass/fail border, the academic head may:

• conclude that the disputed results procedure is to be followed, in which case all material relating to the examination must be referred to the ADPGR; the material must be accompanied by a report written by the academic head outlining the reasons why it has not proved possible to recommend and endorse a final grade and the substance of any exchange with the examiner(s)/assessor; or
• require that the graduate advisor invite the examiner(s)/assessor to consult in cases where the graduate advisor has concluded that consultation between examiner(s)/assessor is not appropriate; or
• identify a final grade where the recommendations of the examiner(s)/assessor are more than ten percentage points apart and/or cross a class or division of honours or a pass/fail border, but the academic head considers that a valid result is determinable; or where concerns raised by the graduate advisor about the integrity of the consultation process have been considered and dismissed. In both cases the academic head must provide the ADPGR with written justification regarding the validity of the final grade and its relation to the examination reports, applicable grade descriptors and the consultation process. The academic head must not examine or assess the student’s work.
  

58.     Marks awarded must align with the University grade descriptors as outlined in Appendix 1.

Final grades

59. There is a consistent standard for the award of Honours in Bachelors Honours and Masters degrees, and Distinction and Merit in Postgraduate Diplomas, and in Masters degrees that do not have a research component of 30 points or more.

• First Class Honours: GPA of 7.0 or above

• Second Class Honours (first division): GPA of 5.5 – 6.9

• Second Class Honours (second division): GPA of 4.0 – 5.4

• Third Class Honours: 3.9 or below (Bachelors Honours degrees only)

• Distinction: GPA of 7.0 or above

• Merit: GPA of 5.5 – 6.9

Note: a GPA includes a decimal place only when more than one course is involved. A 120-point programme comprised of a 120 point thesis or research portfolio only ever carries a whole GPA numerical. A ‘B+’ result (GPA of 6) in a 120-point thesis or research portfolio is, therefore, required for the award of Second Class Honours (first division) in a 120 point degree. Second Class Honours (first division) cannot be awarded for a ‘B’ result (GPA of 5).
Rounding is permitted to one decimal place in determining the overall GPA of a qualification (e.g., 5.46 may be rounded to 5.5; 5.75 may not be rounded to 6.0).

Approval of the final result

60. Approval of the final result is the responsibility of the ADPGR except in cases where a student has lodged an appeal.

61. The ADPGR may request further information from the graduate advisor or academic head or request that the graduate advisor invites the examiner(s)/assessor to consult where such consultation has not already occurred. The ADPGR may determine that individual cases should be reviewed under the disputed results procedure.

Disputed results procedure – theses, research portfolios, dissertations, research essays, and research projects

62. Where it has not been possible to determine a valid final result, the academic head must refer the case to the ADPGR for review as a disputed result. All material relating to the examination must be forwarded to the ADPGR. The material must be accompanied by a report written by the forwarding body, outlining the reasons why it has not proved possible to recommend and endorse or approve a final grade and the substance of any exchange with the examiner(s)/assessor.

63. The ADPGR has the power to appoint an external referee, in consultation with the academic head where appropriate, who will consider the work under examination and the previous examination/assessment reports and any other information deemed necessary by the ADPGR (this may include the supervisor’s written comments on the examination reports). The external referee will provide a confidential report on the work under examination and the examination process and will recommend a grade for the work.

Note - referral of a case to the ADPGR does not necessarily mean that an external referee will be appointed.

64. This grade will be the final result unless the ADPGR is not satisfied with the integrity of the report, in which case the ADPGR may appoint a replacement external referee. The original examiner(s)/assessor, academic head and graduate advisor will be notified of the outcome.

65. The ADPGR may also reset an examination process from any given point or require expanded written rationales from graduate advisors (or nominees) or academic heads or (additional) consultation between examiner(s)/assessor.

66. The powers of the ADPGR detailed under the disputed results procedure also apply to cases (other than theses, research portfolios, dissertations, research essays and research projects) referred by Assessment Services to the ADPGR as part of routine checks.

67. Masters thesis and research portfolio candidates will receive the examiners’ evaluations of their work (Part 2 of the Examiners’ reports) when the examination is complete. The candidate will not be informed of the names, or other identifying information, of their examiners. The ADPGR reserves the right to remove from an examiner’s report made available to the candidate any material that they consider should not be released.

68. Results for theses and research portfolios are to be submitted on an AS-512R or on an AS-512T form for dissertation and research projects. These forms consist of two parts:

• Part A: appointment of examiners etc.
• Part B: recording of recommended grades and final grade for the thesis, dissertation etc.

69. The completed form must be emailed to: results@auckland.ac.nz together with all associated reports (e.g. signed and graded examiners’ reports, supervisor’s commentary where provided).

70. All sections of the form must be completed.

71. A student may appeal the outcome of a thesis, research portfolio, dissertation, research essay or research project examination only on the grounds that the result was materially impacted by a procedural flaw in the examination process.

72. Any application for appeal must be lodged with the Associate Dean Postgraduate Research within three months of the result of the examination being officially communicated to the student.

73. The appeal must state clearly the procedural grounds relied on by the student, and all relevant and supporting documentation must be attached.

74. No person with a procedural role in the examination process under appeal may be involved in the consideration and determination of the appeal.

75.  The ADPGR will consider the appeal and may seek further information and/or evidence relating to the student’s appeal and/or examination. The ADPGR, or their nominee, will then make a report and recommendation to the Pro ViceChancellor (Education).

76. Where the process outlined in clause 75 results in the identification of a procedural flaw that is different to the procedural flaw identified in the student’s appeal, and the subsequent procedural flaw identified materially impacted the examination result, the details will be included in the report and inform the recommendation made under clause 75.

77. Material from the student’s appeal may be shared with third parties for the purposes of clause 75.

78. Subject to clause 79, the student will be provided with a copy of the report and recommendation prior to its dispatch to the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Education).

79.   Material relevant to the consideration of the appeal may be withheld from the student on grounds consistent with the Privacy Act. 

80.    Where the student wishes to supply a comment on the report and recommendation for consideration by the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Education), the student must supply such comment to the ADPGR or their nominee within seven calendar days of the electronic dispatch of the report and recommendation to the student.

81.  The student is prohibited from introducing any further grounds or material for consideration in any comment supplied under clause 80.

82. The ADPGR, or their nominee, will collate, and dispatch to the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Education), the student’s appeal, the report and recommendation on the appeal, including any material withheld from the student under clause 79, and any comment supplied by the student in accordance with clause 80. This material must be provided to the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Education) within three weeks of the appeal being received.

83. The Pro Vice-Chancellor (Education) may seek clarification of, and/or further evidence relating to, the material dispatched under clause 82. 

84.   Where the process outlined in clause 83 results in the identification of a procedural flaw that was not identified in the material dispatched under clause 82, and the subsequent procedural flaw identified materially impacted the examination result, the student will be advised in accordance with clause 85 and the details will inform the consideration and determination of the appeal under clause 87.

85. Where the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Education) obtains clarification and/or further evidence from a person other than the student, the student will be advised in accordance with the provisions of clause 79 and may comment within a period of time determined by the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Education). 

86. The Pro Vice-Chancellor (Education) will consider all material supplied pursuant to clauses 82-85 and determine the appeal. This may include any of the following possible outcomes:

• Confirmation that the original result will stand
• Substitution of the original result with a revised result (voiding the original result)
• A determination that some or all of the examination process will be undertaken again in accordance with these procedures. The Pro Vice-Chancellor (Education) will determine at which point the examination process will be re-set. The final result of the reset examination process will be the final result of the examination.
• Where a decision is made to substitute a result or to re-set the examination process, the outcome may be that the final result is the same as, or higher or lower than the original result.

87.  The Pro Vice-Chancellor (Education) will convey the outcome of the appeal, and the reasons for the outcome, in writing to the student.

88. The determination of the appeal by the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Education) under clause 86 is the final decision on the appeal.

89. Where the decision under clause 86 is to re-set the examination process, the re-set examination process will be undertaken in accordance with these procedures.

90. The student may withdraw their appeal within seven calendar days of the electronic dispatch of the report and recommendation to the student under clause 80.

91. The supervisor, academic head and ADPGR will be notified of the outcome of the appeal.

92. See the University’s Disposal of University Records Guidelines for records retention periods.

The following definitions apply to this document:

Academic unit may refer to a faculty, school, department or Large Scale Research Institute.

Academic head refers to the Head of the relevant academic unit or their nominee for the purposes of sub-doctoral postgraduate research examinations.

Associate Dean Postgraduate Research (ADPGR) means the person holding the role of Associate Dean Postgraduate (ADPGR) or associate director Postgraduate Research (ADPGR) in the faculty or Large Scale Research Institute (RSI) in which the student is enrolled. Another associate dean/associate director may be nominated to carry out some or all responsibilities with respect to these procedures. For management of conflict of interest concerns, this may include someone holding the ADPGR role in another faculty or LSRI.

Bachelors Honours degrees for the purposes of these procedures include 120-point Bachelors Honours Postgraduate Degrees as defined by the General Regulations – Bachelors Honours Postgraduate Degrees and other programmes with Honours in their title that include a research component of at least 30 points.  

Graduate adviser refers to a member of the academic staff who has been appointed to a specific advisory role with that title in an academic unit by an academic head.  This role may also be known as a postgraduate advisor or department graduate advisor.

Materially impacted means a significant or large effect, for example a change to the grade that would be awarded, whether  honours are awarded or a change to the class or division of honours awarded. 

Staff member refers to an individual employed by the University on a full or part-time basis.

Student refers to a student enrolled in a sub-doctoral programme who is completing or has completed a thesis, research portfolio, dissertation, research essay or research project.

Outside the University of Auckland - people holding honorary positions at the University of Auckland are not considered to be outside the University.

University means Waipapa Taumata Rau | University of Auckland and includes all subsidiaries.

Include the following:

• Student Academic Conduct Statute
• General Regulations – Masters Degrees
• General Regulations – Bachelors Honours Postgraduate Degrees
• General Regulations – Postgraduate Diplomas
• Masters Thesis/Research Portfolio Examiner Appointment Procedures
• Postgraduate Examiner Conflict of Interest Guidelines
• AS-44 Request for Changes to Nominations (under Academic Services Forms)
• AS-73 Application for Late Results Submission (under Academic Services Forms)
• AS-512T Research in Postgraduate Programmes (except masters thesis and research portfolio)
• AS-512R R Masters Thesis or Research Portfolio worth 90 points or above

Owner: Pro Vice-Chancellor Education
Content manager: Associate Director - Academic Services; Manager, Academic Quality
Approved by: Provost under delegation from Council
Date approved: 16 October 2023
Review date: Annual review by Education Committee