42.2 The Sub-Committee felt that greater clarity was needed concerning
the responsibilities relating to EngD awards. Although taught awards on the programme
would become exit awards only, the normal scrutiny by the Sub-Committee would
still be required to ensure the appropriateness of these awards. The research
element of the EngD was clearly the responsibility of Research Committee. It was
AGREED to recommend to Learning and Teaching Committee that the Sub-Committee
should continue to receive proposals on the curriculum element of EngD
proposals, and any like proposals with a research and curriculum element
leading to a taught award, but that it should make its recommendations to
Research Committee in addition to Learning and Teaching Committee, requiring a
response from Research Committee before proposals were ultimately submitted to
Senate.
Accepted
42.3 Whilst understanding that the research element of the EngD was the
remit of Research Committee, the Sub-Committee wished to offer the following
comments to that Committee on some concerns regarding the current and proposed
wording of RHDR which had implications for the proposal under consideration:
42.3.1 Students were currently permitted to submit
technical reports in lieu of published papers where the research programme was
subject to a confidentiality agreement. The Sub-Committee considered that confidentiality
agreements were common and did not preclude publishing the work. The
Sub-Committee would therefore advise revised wording of RHDR para 17.20 that
would allow the submission of technical reports only where the nature of the
work made the possibility of publication unlikely. It was unclear whether
submission of a research thesis in lieu of
published papers would also come into this category.
Accepted. The thesis should not be affected by this.
There is already the possibility of restricting access to a thesis.
42.3.2 If submission by published papers, technical
reports or research thesis were to be options, where would the decision about
the route that students would follow be
taken? It could be argued that on the basis of the likelihood of publication
this decision should be taken within the first year of study rather than at the
outset. It could also be argued that the decision should be taken on a student
by student basis rather than a blanket programme basis and the students themselves
should be involved in making that choice. It could be considered unfair to
preclude a student from submitting by discourse and papers when this was
permitted for EngD students elsewhere in the University.
Rejected. There are already different routes to a PhD
(e.g.
42.3.3 There would need to be a formal mechanism for
determining and recording decisions on the form that the research submission
would take.
Rejected
42.3.4 By changing the taught award to an exit award
the nature of the EngD had changed, and a debate was needed as to whether the
taught element should include more in terms of research capability.
Rejected. However, a review in 1 year’s time
would be useful to see if there is a problem here.
42.4 In regard to the revised proposals submitted, the Sub-Committee expressed
its discontent at the extent of revision that would be required to the
proposals and the issues that needed to be resolved. If a recommendation was to
be submitted to Learning and Teaching Committee on 8 June, which would be
necessary to ensure an October 2006 start for the programme, the revisions
would need to satisfy the AD(T) and the Chair of the Sub-Committee in advance
of that meeting and would need to be received by the AD(T) by 31 May.
On the 'Research' side there was no need for big changes.
The proposal should proceed for an October 2006 start.