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

10. Discussion
j.dickinson@lancaster.ac.uk