Developing a Good Practice Guide for Student Complaints - John Dickinson
Download as PPTX, PDF0 likes360 views
This document discusses issues related to handling complaints from research students. It outlines some key characteristics of research students, including power imbalances with supervisors and less structured programs. The document then presents five case studies involving research students to illustrate different types of complaints that may arise. These include issues related to employment after failing an academic program, mental health issues, pressure to submit a thesis by a deadline, harassment at a partner institution, and relationship problems affecting the work environment. The document concludes by providing contact information for the complaints coordinator to discuss these matters further.
Developing a Good Practice Guide for Student Complaints - John Dickinson
- 1. Dealing with Complaints from Research Students John Dickinson Complaints Co-ordinator, Lancaster University
- 2. • Imbalance of power • Lone Scholar • Less structure • External pressure • Externality • Blurring of complaints and appeals • Employment • Intellectual Property Rights Characteristics of PGR
- 3. • Bespoke or common? • Addressing the power imbalance • Extenuating circumstances • Supervision • Mediation • Collaborative awards Processes for PGR complaints
- 4. • Contracts • Employment • Progress review • Record keeping • Ethics • Intellectual Property • Examination process Risk management
- 5. Student A is on a DClin Psychology, as part of the application process students get a job with the NHS. The student fails an academic element of taught programme including on reassessment. Student is failed from programme and then dismissed by NHS. Student seeks employment tribunal and is refused on grounds that decision was taken by the university and not the employer. Case study 1
- 6. Student B is an overseas students studying with financial support from their home state. Student, while studying, becomes clinically depressed and seeks a suspension of studies. Home state refuses to recognise suspension as legitimate and insists the student continue. Case Study 2
- 7. Student C is in the 4th year of an RCUK sponsored PhD. They have the doctoral defence and fail. Student accuses supervisors of pressuring submission in order to meet completion date as they are seeking additional funding from the Research Council. Supervisors deny this and counterclaim that student is simply weak. Case study 3
- 8. Student D is enrolled in a Doctoral Training Centre through University X. As part of the programme they take a course through DTC partner University Y. During that course the student is subject to harassing behaviour from a University Y member of staff. Student launches complaint against University X as their registering university. Case study 4
- 9. Student E is a doctoral candidate who early after registering enters into a relationship with a popular member of the department not involved in supervision. Two years later they split acrimoniously. Prior to submission Student E launches a complaint based on claim that work in the department has become untenable as everyone has sided with the member of staff. Supervisors accept that the student is not liked, but deny that this has resulted in academic disadvantage. Case study 5