Too Much Appeal
For a PhD student the final submission and examination of the thesis normally represent a pinnacle of achievement. Sadly, this was not my own experience with the Open University. The thesis examination went badly for me, and as a result it was decided that I was not to be awarded a PhD. The university informed me that I had the option of taking the matter to an appeal. This I did, and what follows represents my observations and assessment of the subsequent appeal process. When you embark on an appeal you clearly have little idea what to expect. Failing to get one's PhD is a pretty traumatic experience, so you hope that the university will be sympathetic and will give you appropriate support. Having no experience of appeals procedures, you expect that you will get full information and guidance as you negotiate the appeals process. And since some appeals can involve supervisory malpractice you would naturally hope to be offered the services of an independent "appeal adviser", someone who would be able to assist you with the preparation and presentation of the appeal. This is especially important where, as I was, you are an isolated external student living 300 miles from the university. Above all, throughout the appeal process your natural assumption will be that the university's chief objective is to seek a just outcome, recognising that on occasions universities and external examiners do make mistakes. In view of the fact that you may require your PhD qualification for a forthcoming career move you also hope that matters will be dealt with promptly. Finally, since the appeal could turn out to be a potentially stressful experience for you, you expect the university to exhibit a due awareness of this and to show appropriate consideration. So, in the event how did the university measure up to these expectations? Regrettably, the response was disappointing, and the appeal process proved to be a most prolonged, stressful and dispiriting episode. I have discussed my "case" with other postgraduate students who have submitted appeals, both at the Open University and elsewhere, and it seems that my experience is by no means unique. So what is wrong with the way that some academic institutions handle their postgraduate appeals? Before attempting to answer this question I should, perhaps, provide some additional information about the background to my appeal. I was a part-time, external student with the Open University from 1974, and I submitted my thesis in 1983. Following the examination I was informed that I was to be awarded an MPhil instead of a PhD. I submitted my appeal against this outcome, and after suffering lengthy delays during the appeal process I decided to obtain legal assistance. I finally won my appeal in 1987, but was required to make changes to my thesis before resubmission. After the delay of four years my research findings had become somewhat dated, and clarifying the precise conditions for resubmission incurred a further delay. Finally, in 1989 I was able to resubmit (click for thesis abstract). Happily, the re-examination was successful, and last year I received my degree, seven years after the original submission. Now suitably distanced from the appeal, I still puzzle over this disagreeable period of my life, and try to discern the reasons for such a bizarre train of events. Clearly my geographical distance from the university did nothing to help me get matters resolved properly and promptly. However, more fundamentally, I feel that the customary way in which appeals are handled tends to work decisively against the interests of the student. Crucially, it is quite clear that being "in dispute" with one's university can mean precisely that. It is either "you" or "they" who will be the winner. Unfortunately, it is "they" who enjoy the privilege of inventing the rules and holding all the cards, so it starts off as a very unequal battle. What is more, the institution will have an intimate familiarity with its own appeals procedures and how they operate; for the student the experience of an appeal will be a novel and potentially traumatic one, with everything to be gained or lost. It is clear that if an appeal is to be just and fair then the university must avoid adopting a purely combative stance, and should take steps to ensure that the student is given appropriate guidance and support. In my own case this appears not to have been clearly recognised. For example, at the beginning of the appeal process I was asked to submit a letter of appeal. However, I was given no indication as to what the suitable form or content of such a letter should be, nor was I even told the grounds on which I could make the appeal. My attempts to obtain a copy of the regulations concerning examination procedures, to which I was entitled, were fraught by delays and obfuscatory responses from administrative staff. The relevant particulars were eventually released to me only after I had asked the Senior Assistant Registrar to intervene on my behalf. I had the distinct impression that I was in combat. The further stages of the appeal process were dogged by similar substantial delays and lack of consideration. For example, despite my repeated enquiries, it took the university seven months to respond (negatively) to my letter of appeal and a further two months to provide me with even the most cursory explanation for its lack of success. It was clear that, unless I was given more detailed information, I was going to be in a weak position to embark upon the next stage of the appeal. I was gradually gaining the impression that had I lost interest and given up, the university would have been greatly relieved. Indeed, I feel that it was only after I had communicated my determination to see things through by seeking legal assistance that matters were eventually given proper attention. A somewhat pragmatic weakness of the appeal process is that the student may have little redress when things go wrong. I had acute misgivings about the way that things were being handled at all stages, but was reluctant to communicate them, fearing that I might be branded a trouble-maker and that this would jeopardise the successful outcome of the appeal. Bad practice can therefore persist unchallenged. In my own case I believe that a final post-mortem of the entire saga would have provided valuable feedback and would have allowed the university to gain a deep insight into the student's experience of undergoing an appeal. The chief benefit of this could have been to ensure that a similar episode would never happen again. Sadly, no such post-mortem took place, and the knowledge of my experiences has remained largely uncommunicated. An incidental, but significant, feature of my research was that it was in an interdisciplinary (ID) area. This made it extremely interesting and challenging, but also, as I was to discover, more hazardous in terms of seeking a PhD qualification and subsequently fighting an appeal. It was therefore a major breakthrough in the appeal process when by chance I came across a report which explored the broad range of problems which can be encountered at all stages in completing ID PhD research. (This was the report Interdisciplinary research: selection, supervision and training, published in 1983 by the then SERC/SSRC Joint Committee, Science and Engineering Research Council, Polaris House, North Star Avenue, Swindon, SN2 1ET.) The report, for example, drew attention to the particular problems of examining ID PhD theses and of finding "external examiners who are sympathetic to and understand the ID approach". It was unsatisfactory, therefore, that such a crucial report as this should have fallen into my hands purely by chance. The university, if they knew of the report, patently did not consider it worthwhile to inform me of it. But what is more worrying, they did not even seem to be aware of or alive to the report's perceptions and concerns. Had they been, I believe that they would have exhibited a greater degree of openness and understanding throughout the appeal process. In retrospect, it is clear that had I myself not seen the report, I might well have become discouraged and given up the fight. Such are the vagaries of engaging in an academic appeal. For the future I feel that some universities badly need to come clean on their appeals procedures and practices, and be prepared to establish radical improvements in the way that they relate to students. For example, it should surely not be necessary for a student to have to go to the expense of obtaining legal assistance to ensure justice, and where this happens the institution ought to perceive it as an implicit criticism of its procedures. (But having said this, I should add that my own decision to seek legal assistance was one of the wisest steps taken during the entire appeal process.) A more honourable alternative would be for the institution to appoint from its own staff an "academic advocate", somebody who, fully conversant with the intricacies of the appeals procedures, would actively promote the student's cause. I am by no means suggesting that all students should win their appeals. However, institutions and external examiners do make mistakes, and it is imperative that these should be corrected in an honest and open way and that justice should be done. The kind of expectations portrayed in my opening paragraphs ought then to become a reality for the student, rather than being merely a pipe-dream. Finally, let me address a postscript to students who may be embarking on their own postgraduate appeals. Be prepared for a long haul: the correspondence with the university over my appeal and thesis resubmission ultimately extended to about 150 items. File all such correspondence carefully. Talk to other students who have been through appeals. Make contact with your support services, both within the university and your students' association. Attend an assertiveness training course. If necessary and you can afford the expense, get yourself a good lawyer. Never give up.
Please note: a significantly shorter version of this paper, entitled When a PhD is less than appealing, was published in the Times Higher Education Supplement. < Return to the main PhD Failure and Appeals page
| ||||||||||||||||
