Revised version

Guidelines for Assessment of the PhDin Psychology and Related Disciplines

October 2008

October 2008

ISBN: 1-85433-470-1ISBN 13: 978-1-85433-470-1

Any part of this document may be reproduced without permission but withacknowledgement.

First version published April 1995 by UCoSDA, which was produced withFinancial Assistance from the Economic and Social Research Council andAssociation of Heads of Psychology Departments.

Second version published January 2000 by the British Psychological Society.

Preface 3

Introduction to the Guidelines 5

Section 1: The purpose of assessment of the PhD 6

Section 2: The selection of examiners 8

Section 3: Preparation for the examination 12

Section 4: Assessing the written submission of the candidate 14

Section 5: The oral examination 17

Section 6: External factors for consideration 24

Section 7: Pay and terms of service of examiners 27

Section 8: Appeals by the candidate against the outcome of the examination 28

Section 9: Assessment of other components of research training 29

Appendix 1: British Psychological Society’sCode of Ethics and Conduct for Psychologists 31

Appendix 2: Criteria for assessing PhD theses in psychology 51

Contents

1

2

3

Preface

There are a number of reasons why publication of these revised guidelines forthe assessment of PhDs is both necessary and timely:

(a) Compared with the undergraduate degree there is a general lack ofguidance and nationally agreed standards for the examining of PhDs.Although both the CVCP and CNAA have issued various discussiondocuments and policy statements at various times in the past, thereexists no set of comprehensive guidelines covering every aspect of theexamining process within the unified higher education system.

(b) At a time when several forces are provoking a fundamental re-appraisalof the nature and function of the PhD, formal consideration of howthe PhD is assessed is inescapable, particularly in light of some of therecommendations of the Harris Report on the Review of PostgraduateEducation (May, 1996).

(c) In addition, the development of PhDs by publication poses newparadoxes. Guidance for examiners on how to undertake suchappraisals was, therefore, required.

(d) Mechanisms of quality assurance are coming under increasing scrutinyby bodies such as The Funding Councils and the QAAHE, and externalexaminers at all levels are seen as playing a crucial role in this. It isimportant to ensure that the assessment procedures in place for PhDsare defensible and will bear external scrutiny. Departments are,therefore, encouraged to refer to the QAAHE Code of Practice inaddition to these guidelines.

(e) The ESRC guidelines on research training specify recommended levelsof training provision within a training outlet. Although outlets canprovide documentary evidence in support of their claims to beproviding certain levels of training, PhD examiners are the only oneswho can offer a regular independent check on the final effectiveness oftraining within an outlet, through their involvement with the specificproducts of this training (i.e. the theses and other outputs ofcandidates).

4

(f) Although our primary remit is the Psychology PhD, we believe thatguidelines produced for Psychology examiners would have widerelevance for a range of disciplines in the natural and social sciences.Psychology spans a uniquely wide range of approaches from thephysiological through the computational to the social and qualitative.Guidelines for psychology examiners will, therefore, have to be of verybroad generality to cope with this range.

Psychologists have a professional interest in many aspects of the assessmentprocess. This is the third version of the guidelines, the original document beingpublished by UCoSDA in 1995 and the second by the British PsychologicalSociety (BPS) in 2000.

These revised guidelines have received the formal endorsement of the BPS andthe Association of Heads of Psychology Departments (AHPD) and is the resultof a review of the original document by Professor Martin Conway (Chair of theSociety’s Research Board); Professor Dominic Upton (Chair of the Society’sDivision for Teachers and Researchers in Psychology); Dr Peter Banister (Chair,Association of Heads of Psychology Departments); David Moore (Chair,Psychology Postgraduate Affairs Group); and Dr Anna Madill (QuantitativeMethods in Psychology Section).

5

Introduction to the Guidelines

These guidelines are recommendations for good practice within UKUniversities. Although they include items contained in existing Codes ofPractice drawn up by QAAHE, CVCP and the former CNAA, the guidelines as awhole are in no way binding on institutions or individuals. Where the guidelinesconflict directly with institutional regulations, then such regulations mustprevail. Examiners using these guidelines are, however, encouraged to drawinstitutions’ attention to points at which institutional regulations appear to be atvariance with good practice.

6

Section 1: The purpose of assessment of the PhD

1.1 The primary purpose of PhD assessment is to determine whether thecandidate is competent as an independent researcher in the discipline.

1.2 The principal evidence of such competence is a written report of theresearch undertaken. Some elements of the research should be ofpublishable quality. The volume of work presented should represent atleast two years of full-time study, or its longer equivalent in part-timestudy.

1.3 The research report is normally in the form of a thesis, but may alsotake other forms, such as a collection of research articles. (In theseguidelines we shall use the term ‘written submission’ to include thesesand all alternative forms of written materials.)

1.4 An important characteristic of a written submission at the doctoral (asopposed to the Masters) level is that it demonstrates the researcher’sability to advance progressively a research programme as new questionsemerge by, for instance, modifications of the methods being used, or bythe appropriate application of a variety of ideas, methodologies, orresearch traditions.It should show evidence of being a significant contribution toknowledge and the capacity of the candidate to pursue further researchwithout supervision. The thesis should, therefore, contain materialworthy of publication.

1.5 Nonetheless, in the light of 1.1 above, other forms of evidence areappropriate. These will almost always include the ability of thecandidate to defend his or her research in an oral examination (seealso Section 5).

1.6 Extenuating circumstances of whatever sort should never cause anexamining board to award a PhD in a case where the evidencesubmitted is not of an adequate standard.

7

1.7 The examination board does, however, have a serious responsibility tosuggest ways in which a candidate might be assisted to address thedeficiencies of the research, taking into account all relevantcircumstances, for re-submission at a later date (see also Section 6).

1.8 The above implies that an important subsidiary role of the examinationboard is to comment in its formal report on the adequacy of thetraining provision in the institution, as it impinges on the candidatebeing examined.

1.9 In cases where the candidate’s institution is implicated in the creationor maintenance of any adverse circumstances which impinge upon thecandidate, the examiners have a duty to mention this in their formalreport, and have the right to question the institution concerning anyaction it proposes to take to address the issues raised.

1.10 Where an examination board has reason to believe that a member ofthe British Psychological Society may have broken the Society’s Code ofEthics and Conduct for Psychologists (see Appendix 1), any Societymember serving on the board has a duty to report on this matterdirectly to the British Psychological Society.

8

Section 2:The selection of examiners

2.1 Number of examiners2.1.1 It has been normal practice within the UK to appoint two examiners,

one internal and one external to the institution in which the candidateis registered.

2.1.2 The practice in most countries other than the UK is to have at leastthree examiners, at least two of whom will be external to thecandidate’s institution. Whilst recognising that custom and financialconstraints will incline most institutions to favour the existing UKpractice, there are clear advantages in appointing more than twoexaminers where feasible, at least one of whom must be external.

2.2 Constitution of the examination board2.2.1 The examination board should be considered as a team, the members

of which should possess skills and backgrounds which complement oneanother. Consequently, the lead examiner who is always an externalexaminer, should normally be offered an opportunity to comment onthe constitution of the remainder of the examination board.

2.2.2 The examination board must possess among its members the expertisenecessary to assess adequately all aspects of the candidate’s research.Where the research crosses boundaries between normally separateresearch areas, it may be necessary to appoint more than one externalexaminer.

2.2.3 The examination board must have sufficient experience of examiningat the PhD level. Normally the members of the board should havepreviously examined at least three PhDs between them.

2.2.4 All members of the examination board should normally be willing toread the candidate’s written submission and convene the oralexamination within three months of receipt.

2.2.5 Sensitivity to the candidate’s background should inform the composition ofthe examination board where possible. For instance, consideration could begiven to the gender balance of the examination board. Considerationsof relevant expertise, however, should always remain paramount.

9

2.2.6 Prior relationships between the examiners and the candidate, and alsobetween the examiners and the supervisor, should be carefullyconsidered in order to ensure that the examination board possesses anadequate degree of autonomy and detachment.

For instance:● an external examiner should not normally be a current or recent

collaborator with the supervisor in the area of the candidate’sresearch;

● an external examiner should not have had any contact with thecandidate which might be considered prejudicial, such as anyexplicit or implicit advisory role with respect to the candidate’sresearch.

2.2.7 Where the candidate is a member of the academic staff, there shouldalways be a minimum of two external examiners. This may also apply topart-time members of staff who are in the fourth year of their PhDstudies, when considered appropriate.

2.2.8 There are advantages in the appointment of an additional independentinternal chair of the examining board, who would be an experiencedexaminer with no direct involvement or necessary expertise in theresearch area of the candidate, but whose main concern would be thegood conduct of the examination process and the dissemination ofgood practice.

2.3 Internal examiners2.3.1 There should normally be one internal examiner, who is a member of

the candidate’s institution, but who may be drawn from anotherdepartment if appropriate.

2.3.2 The internal examiner should possess a PhD or other evidence of asimilar level of scholarship, and should normally have recentsupervisory experience of PhD candidates.

2.3.3 No member of the candidate’s supervisory team should be an examiner.

2.3.4 A member of the candidate’s supervisory team other than the principalsupervisor may act as internal examiner where no suitable alternativecan be found, provided that an appropriate level of autonomy anddetachment can be maintained.

10

2.4 External examiners2.4.1 An external examiner should possess a PhD or other evidence of a

similar level of scholarship, and should normally have been principalsupervisor of at least one successful PhD student.

2.4.2 Ideally, an external examiner should have had prior experience as aninternal examiner (but see 2.4.3).

2.4.3 An external examiner may be drawn from any country, and need notbe an employee of an HE institution provided that he or she is active inthe discipline and is engaged in relevant scholarship. All examinersshould, however, be fluent speakers and readers of English.

2.4.4 An external examiner should have expertise of direct relevance to thecandidate’s research. One external examiner should have sufficientrelevant knowledge and experience to take the lead role in theexamining team.

2.4.5 An external examiner should not frequently examine in the samedepartment, where this is likely to impinge on his or her autonomy.

2.4.6 In cases where there is no appropriate internal examiner, at least twoexternal examiners must be appointed.

2.5 Mechanism for constituting the examination board2.5.1 In order to facilitate their involvement in the examination process, the

candidate should normally be invited to discuss with the supervisorpossible members of the examination board, and should normally beoffered the chance to give his or her comments on individualssuggested. The candidate’s comments should be given seriousconsideration. The candidate should not, however, be offered right ofveto over any proposed examiner. The discussion between thecandidate and the supervisor should result in the drawing up of ashortlist, after which the candidate should have no further input to thedecision-making.

2.5.2 The supervisor should review the shortlist with an appropriate seniorcolleague, e.g. Head of Department, Chair of Research DegreesCommittee, before an informal approach is made to the proposed leadexternal examiner. There needs to be a clearly agreed procedurewithin the institution concerning the way in which potential externalexaminers are contacted.

11

2.5.3 Other potential examiners should be approached only when the leadexternal examiner has expressed a willingness to serve and has beenoffered the opportunity to comment on the constitution of theexamination board.

2.5.4 Before formal appointment, all proposed examiners should receive abrief abstract of the research, prepared by the candidate, to assist theirjudgement of whether they possess the relevant expertise. This shouldoutline the topic, the contents, and the theoretical and methodologicalapproaches adopted.

2.5.5 It is the formal responsibility of the candidate’s institution to assureitself, through its official mechanisms, that the examination board isproperly constituted in accordance with these guidelines.

2.5.6 When the examination board is constituted, the members of the boardshould appoint a chair from their number, who should normally beeither an external examiner or an independent internal chair who isnot the internal examiner. The candidate should be informed of thenames of the examination board’s members.

2.5.7 Examiners should, where possible, avoid contact with the candidatebetween the appointment of the examination board and the oralexamination. In no circumstances should there be discussions betweenthe candidate and the external examiner(s) regarding the research orthe examination. Any canvassing of an examiner by the candidateshould immediately be reported by that examiner to the relevantinstitutional authority.

12

Section 3:Preparation for the examination

3.1 Training of examiners3.1.1 Prior examining experience is normally deemed to constitute

appropriate training, especially where the conduct of the examinationis the subject of an explicit de-briefing discussion between theexaminers (see 5.5.6 below).

3.1.2 Examiners should normally receive a copy of these guidelines onappointment, and be expected to conduct themselves in accordancewith them.

3.1.3 An examiner undertaking a role for the first time (whether as internalor external examiner) is strongly recommended to undertakeappropriate preparation for this role. This may be accomplished in avariety of ways, such as:● discussing this role with a more experienced colleague before

embarking on the examination process;● participating in ‘mock’ vivas which are organised for

postgraduate students;● sitting in on a real oral examination as observer;● reading relevant publications, e.g. Handbook for External Examiners

(UCoSDA, 1993);● attending training events for examiners organised at local or

national level.

3.2 Training of the candidate3.2.1 Candidates should be made aware of the existence of these guidelines

and provided with an opportunity to consult them at an early stage intheir PhD training.

3.2.2 Supervisors should have responsibility for ensuring that candidates areaware of the general preoccupations of examiners, and, as the writing-up process progresses, point out particular areas where examiners maywish to focus their attention. Supervisors should explicitly explain theexamination arrangements and structures to each candidate withinformal supervision time.

13

3.2.3 Candidates should be given every encouragement to write and speakabout their research at regular intervals during the PhD training. Atthe very least, every candidate should give a formal researchpresentation to the home department towards the end of the writing-up period.

3.2.4 It is good practice to give candidates some experience of observing orparticipating in ‘mock’ oral examinations during the programme ofPhD training.

3.2.5 Candidates should clearly understand that a supervisor’s agreementthat a written submission may be made is not to be taken to mean that,in his or her view, the submission is of PhD standard. They should alsounderstand that examiners may come to a different view from that ofthe supervisor about the merit of the work. The decision to submitmust ultimately remain the candidate’s alone.

3.2.6 In the case of the PhD by publication, it is recommended that theinstitution appoints a supervisor to advise the candidate concerning thesubmission and the preparation of the supporting review. In theseguidelines, it is assumed that such an individual exists. If not, then theinstitution should appoint an individual who will undertake thefunctions suggested for the supervisor in these guidelines.

3.3 Administration of the examination process3.3.1 The department should appoint a single individual to oversee the

examination arrangements. This may be the supervisor, a departmentalpostgraduate tutor, or the independent internal chair of theexamination board. It should not normally be an internal examiner.

This individual should:● ensure that a timetable, including a date for the oral

examination, is agreed between all parties;● ensure that the examiners receive all the information they need

prior to the oral examination;● oversee the detailed arrangements for the oral examination itself;● ensure that any actions or recommendations arising from the

oral examination are implemented.

14

Section 4:Assessing the written submission of the candidate

4.1 The purpose of assessmentThe essential task of all examiners is the same: to make an independentcritical study of the work submitted. Examiners should be capable ofseparating issues of ideology and value, on which they may takeopposing positions to one another and to the candidate, from issues ofresearch competence within a recognised tradition. Differences inideology or value between examiners and candidates should not beallowed to influence judgements about the competence of the research.

Whilst the following guidance notes apply to the assessment of both thePhD by thesis and the PhD by publication, specific guidance on theassessment of the PhD by Publication is detailed in Appendix 2.

4.2 Initial evaluation of the thesis.4.2.1 Where the written submission is marred by typographic or other

presentational problems to the extent that the examiner’s ability toread and understand it is seriously impaired, the examiner has theright to return the submission and ask for these errors to be correctedbefore reading it in detail.

4.2.2 If, on initial inspection, an external examiner judges that he or she isnot competent to pass judgement on the written submission, he or sheshould return it to the University and resign the appointment. The likelihood of this occurring should be reduced, if the abstractrecommended in 2.5.4 above is accurate.

4.3 Reading and preparation of the report4.3.1 An examiner should normally set aside a minimum of two complete

working days to read the candidate’s submission and prepare anindependent report.

4.3.2 Examiners should prepare (and submit where regulations require this)independent reports on the written submission before discussing it with eachother or any member of the candidate’s department. This is to ensure that aformal record exists of each examiner’s independent views on the work.

15

4.4 Criteria to be used in assessing the written submission4.4.1 In arriving at a judgement on the research competence of the

candidate, examiners may find it useful to consider nine majorattributes of a submission which may be independently assessed. Four of these attributes relate to the overall characteristics of the work,and five relate to specific sections of it.

4.4.2 The four overall attributes are:● presentation and clarity,● integration and coherence,● contribution to knowledge,● originality and creativity.

4.4.3 The five sectional attributes are:● review of relevant literature,● statement of the research problem,● methods of enquiry adopted,● analysis of data,● discussion of outcomes.

4.4.4 Appendix 2 contains brief notes of guidance for examiners concerningcriteria to be applied when assessing each of the nine attributes above.These notes should be considered as indicative rather than definitive.

4.5 Agreeing and weighting the criteria4.5.1 Members of examination boards are encouraged to discuss the criteria

suggested in Appendix 3, refining or amending them as appropriate tothe situation.

4.5.2 Differential weighting of the attributes listed in section 4.4.3 isappropriate in many situations. A submission may be adequate even though it displays weaknesses insome areas. Examiners should exercise their judgement, allowingstrengths in some areas to compensate for weaknesses in others. The oral examination can provide a good opportunity for candidates toenlarge on strengths of the submission, if compensation is beingconsidered.

4.5.3 Although differential weighting of attributes is appropriate, someattributes are clearly more important than others. A submission couldnot easily be judged adequate if the method or data-analysis sectionswere seriously deficient. On the other hand, a submission which lackedhigh levels of creative originality should not, on that basis alone, be deemed inadequate.

16

4.5.4 In cases where discussions between examiners reveal major andirreconcilable differences of opinion concerning criteria to be applied,or concerning the relative weighting of attributes, such differencesshould be explicitly noted in the final joint report of the examiningboard.

17

Section 5:The oral examination

5.1 Necessity of oral examination5.1.1 In the vast majority of cases, an oral examination should be held as a

matter of course. There are three principal grounds for exemption:

(a) A candidate may be exempted from oral examination in caseswhere he or she is a well-established researcher submitting, forinstance, a PhD by published work. Such exemption should onlybe granted if the institutional regulations explicitly permit it, andon condition that the members of the examination board areunanimously agreed that the published work merits the award ofPhD without oral examination.

(b) Where for reasons of sickness, invalidity, or comparable validcause, the examination board is satisfied that the candidatewould be under serious disadvantage if required to undergo anoral examination, an alternative form of examination may beapproved. Such approval shall not be given on the grounds thatthe candidate’s knowledge of the language in which the writtensubmission is presented is inadequate.

(c) Where the examiners are of the unanimous opinion that thethesis is so unsatisfactory that no useful purpose would be servedby conducting an oral examination, they may recommend thatthe oral examination be dispensed with and further workundertaken. In such cases, the examiners must provide written guidanceconcerning the deficiencies of the submission for the candidate.The examiners may not recommend that a candidate be failedoutright unless an oral examination has been held.

5.2 Functions of the oral examination5.2.1 The oral examination is important, and it serves different functions for

candidates of differing qualities.

5.2.2 If the written submission is judged to be adequate, the oralexamination primarily serves an educational function in providing thecandidate with the opportunity to defend the thesis by means of high-level debate with expert examiners, and in such cases a poorperformance in the oral examination (for instance, through extremenervousness) will not normally lead to the degree being withheld.

18

In such cases, the oral examination may, therefore, serve as a ‘rite ofpassage’, and as a demonstration of the candidate’s ability to presentthe contents of the research programme in an alternative format suchas a short formal oral presentation.

5.2.3 If the written submission is judged not to be adequate in one or morerespects, the oral examination gives an essential opportunity forexaminers to explore in detail general points of uncertainty, such asthe autonomy of the candidate, the way in which the research relates tothe research activities of the supervisor, issues related to the candidate’stechnical and reporting competence, and mastery of the theoreticalcontext. It also provides an essential means of exploring points ofdifficulty in the research programme or its reporting.

5.2.4 Even where the written submission is good there may, however, be casesin which the oral examination brings to light information which mightincline the examiners to refer or fail the thesis. For instance, acandidate may display such lack of detailed knowledge of the materialin the oral examination as to cast doubts on the degree to which theresearch is the candidate’s independent work. For this reason, and topreserve the ‘rite of passage’ aspect, the candidate should in nocircumstances be informed of the result of the examination before theoral examination is completed. To pre-judge the outcome in this way isto negate the whole purpose of the examination. Because the historicpractice in many institutions has been at variance with this guideline,candidates in such institutions may need to be forewarned at an earlystage that this guideline is to be followed (see also 5.4.3).

5.3. Preparation for the oral examination5.3.1 Candidates should be encouraged to remain engaged with their

research material during the months prior to the oral examination by,for instance, re-reading their written submission, giving talks on theirresearch, or preparing material for publication, as appropriate. Theyshould also be encouraged to continue reading new relevant materialas it is published.

5.3.2 Prior to the day of the oral examination, members of the examinationboard should confer with each other (e.g. by telephone) to determinewhether or not any problems are anticipated which would necessitatethe candidate submitting additional material (e.g. raw data). Any suchrequest should be communicated to the responsible person within thedepartment as soon as is practicable (see 3.3.1).

19

5.3.3 Oral examinations are part of the institution’s function and, therefore,it is necessary for the relevant manager (e.g. Head of Department) to be apprised of the arrangements.

5.3.4 A well-appointed room in a quiet location with comfortable chairs andsome table space should be made available for the examination. It is important to ensure as neutral an ambience as possible. An individual academic’s private office may, in some circumstances, be less than ideal in this respect.

5.3.5 The candidate, who in many circumstances may have no official accessto accommodation within the building where the examination takesplace, should be treated with the courtesy and consideration accordedto any invited visitor to the building. An individual (maybe a seniorsecretary) should be deputed to ensure that the candidate’s needs (for privacy, refreshments, etc.) are met in a pro-active fashion.

5.3.6 The examiners should arrange to confer with one another before thestart of the oral examination in order to:● exchange their independent reports, if this has not been done

before;● generate a list of about 3-4 issues which will be raised in the

examination. The examiners may consider it appropriate to makethis list available to the candidate before the oral examination, so that he or she may have a short period of time to reflect aloneon these issues, without access to materials other than his/herown written submission;

● agree the broad strategy of the oral examination, including whowill ask which questions in what order.

It would normally be an advantage if this were done prior to the day ofthe oral examination itself.

5.4. Conduct of the oral examinationAn oral examination is normally held on the premises of the institutionwhich is awarding the degree. It may only be held elsewhere by priorformal institutional approval.

5.4.1 The oral examination must be seen to be fair and, therefore, care mustbe taken that ‘due process’ is followed. The element of `ritual’ shouldbe acknowledged, but the candidate’s understandable anxietiesreduced to a reasonable level.

20

5.4.2 The examination should assess both the person and the product. The product is most important, but the oral examination must be usedto explore beyond the product and determine that the candidate isindeed the author of the written materials submitted, and has athorough understanding of the theoretical framework, issues, methods,and statistical analysis.

5.4.3 At the outset of the examination the candidate may be provided withinitial feedback from the examiners, where this is felt appropriate, and is in accordance with the institutional regulations.

5.4.4 It is the responsibility of the examination board to attempt to put thecandidate at ease, by, for example, starting with general comments orquestions, and/or by making positive points about the submission.

5.4.5 The candidate must bring his or her personal copy of the writtensubmission to the oral examination. Written submissions should, where permissible, be in loose-bound form to facilitate subsequentcorrections.

5.4.6 It is good practice for candidates to come to the oral examination, if it is necessary, with their own list of typographical and other errors,and to state near the start of the examination that they have done so.

5.4.7 The lead external examiner should normally ask the first substantivequestion.

5.4.8 An independent internal Chair should not normally initiate substantivelines of questioning concerning the research of the candidate. He orshe may, however, raise supplementary or clarificatory questions,particularly where they relate to the non-academic context of theresearch (i.e. supervision, resources, personal problems). He or sheshould intervene in favour of the candidate in cases where, forinstance, the questioning of an examiner appears to be undulyaggressive or confrontational, or otherwise inappropriate. The Chairmay also wish to re-phrase a question where it appears that thecandidate has not properly understood it. Extra care may need to betaken that a fair hearing is given to a candidate whose entire academiccareer has not been within the UK system.

5.4.9 The presence of the supervisor at the oral examination is a matter forthe institution to decide. One advantage of the supervisor’s presence is

21

that the supervisor is in a better position to amplify and interpretfeedback to the student provided through verbal comments at the oralexamination, the written examiners’ report, and their list ofrecommendations. A disadvantage is that it may be more difficult forexaminers to probe the amount and quality of the supervision. If the supervisor is present it should be understood that:● the supervisor may speak only with the Chair’s agreement;● the principal role of the supervisor is to comment on any

practical or administrative difficulties in the pursuit of theresearch which the candidate may raise;

● the supervisor should be asked to withdraw before the candidate,so that the candidate is given an opportunity to say anything heor she would prefer to say without the presence of the supervisor;

● the supervisor may play no role in the deliberations of theexaminers, although s/he may be called back for subsequentquestioning by the examiners if deemed appropriate.

5.4.10 An oral examination should normally last for no less than one hourand will typically be of between two and three hours’ duration. Whereit is apparent that the examination will extend considerably beyond twohours, the candidate should be offered a rest pause after two hourshave elapsed.

5.4.11 At the end of the examination the candidate should always be asked toleave the room while the examiners confer.

5.4.12 Where the examination board comprises three or more members, andwhen disagreement between examiners cannot be resolved bydiscussion, a vote should be held, with the majority view prevailing,provided that at least one external examiner takes the view of themajority.

5.4.13 Where there is only one external examiner, or where the examinationboard comprises only two members, then in cases of irresolvabledisagreement between examiners, a further external examiner shouldbe appointed. This examiner, who should possess the qualifications laiddown in Section 2.4, shall have the right to request a second oralexamination. This examiner should have no formal contact with eitherthe candidate or the other examiners before submitting his or herindependent report, and should likewise be given no indication of theviews of other members of the examination board.

22

5.4.14 After the necessary discussions, which should not be unduly protracted,the candidate (and supervisor if involved) should be recalled and toldin clear terms what the examiners will recommend to the University.The candidate should also be told that he or she will receive a writtenlist of any revisions to be undertaken.

5.4.15 The candidate should be reminded by the Chair that therecommendation of the examiners is exactly that – a recommendation.Such recommendations can be, and on rare occasions have been,rejected by the relevant University Committee. The candidate shouldbe advised to await formal written communication from the Universitybefore taking any major steps.

5.5 After the oral examination5.5.1 The examiners should write the joint report together or, after detailed

discussion and by agreement, one examiner should write the reportand send it on to the other(s) for amendment and signature.

5.5.2 The joint report should reflect the examiners’ assessment of both thewritten submission and the candidate’s performance at the oralexamination.

5.5.3 In line with current practice, recommendations should take one of thefollowing forms:● Immediate award of the degree.● Award after minor amendments have been made to the

satisfaction of the internal examiner. This would be appropriatewhere the corrections requested are mainly of a presentationaltype, or where a very small amount of material is involved.

● Re-submission to all examiners after revision (with detailed adviceabout requirements). This would be appropriate where theexaminers judge that a modest amount of rewriting or new workwould yield a satisfactory outcome. In some circumstances, asecond oral examination may be considered appropriate.

● Formal submission for a lower degree (with or withoutamendments). This would be appropriate where the examinersjudge that, although the research had some merit, substantiallymore or different work would be required to meet the standardsof a PhD.

23

● Rejection with no right of re-submission. This would beappropriate where the research had such fundamental flaws as tobe incapable of improvement to a level commensurate with apostgraduate qualification.

5.5.4 In the case that revisions are required, the examiners should agree andgenerate a precisely specified list of revisions required, which should besent directly to the student, with a copy to the supervisor. It is theresponsibility of the examining board to ensure that the candidate hasbeen informed of and has understood the nature of the revisionsrequired.

5.5.5 In the case of major, unresolvable disagreements between theexaminers about the basis for their judgement (see 4.5.4), the qualityof the written submission itself, or the quality of the performance ofthe candidate in the oral examination, a clear and concise account ofthese disagreements should be given in the report, even in cases wherea firm joint recommendation is eventually made.

5.5.6 Before the examiners disperse, there should be a de-briefing discussionon the examination process. The Chair should take the lead, andencourage mutual assessment of roles.

5.5.7 The internal examiner is the link back to the supervisor and shouldprovide the supervisor with detailed information about the outcome ofthe examination.

5.5.8 If a second oral examination is requested by an examination board,then it is desirable to retain the same examiners, unless there are clearand explicitly stated reasons for not so doing.

5.5.9 Although no system for grading of PhDs exists in the UK, anexamination board may wish to consider possible ways of commendinga particularly outstanding candidate. This could take the form of aletter of commendation from the examination board which could beforwarded to the candidate after approval of the recommendation bythe University.

24

Section 6:External factors for consideration

6.1 Extenuating circumstances, of whatever sort, should never cause anexamining board to award a PhD in a case where the evidencesubmitted is not of an adequate standard. There are, however, a number of factors which may have operated during the course of research training to limit the candidate’s performance. The examination board should investigate these to the extent that it isable, and take them into account in making recommendations forfurther work.

6.2 The objective of this section is to describe procedures for retaining thehigh standard required of the PhD while taking into accountextenuating circumstances which may affect the quality of thecandidate’s work. The goal of the recommendations is to establishprocedures whereby such factors may be detected and assessed. Planscan then be made for circumventing adverse circumstances with a viewtoward re-submission of an acceptable thesis.

6.3 Significant external factorsThe following categories are illustrative and should not be taken as comprisingan exhaustive list of factors which may be considered.

6.3.1 Factors related to supervision:● poor or negligent supervision,● disagreement between co-supervisors,● interpersonal problems between student and supervisor,● disrupted supervision, e.g. supervisor moved away,● over- or under-direction on part of supervisor,● harassment.

6.3.2 Factors related to research facilities (which could not have beenforeseen at outset):● inadequate space or lab facilities;● poor or out-of-date equipment;● inadequate resourcing, e.g. ran out of funds for equipment repair;● delays in obtaining software or equipment;● problems with support staff, e.g. appropriate technical support

not available;

25

● library facilities are poor, e.g. inadequate facilities for literaturesearches.

6.3.3 Factors related to research procedures (which could not have beenforeseen at the outset):● access to participants/clients/patients is withdrawn by agency;● change of direction of the sponsoring agency, withdrawal of

promised equipment;● critical aspect of material conditions is changed, e.g. routine

drugs administered to patient are changed;● delays in gaining ethical approval from relevant institutions.

6.3.4 Factors related to personal circumstances of student:● ill health;● pregnancy;● stressful personal circumstances such as bereavement, divorce,

illness of family member;● harassment of some kind, e.g. in laboratory or community;● inadequate command of English or cultural difficulties in

carrying out research/writing-up.

6.4 Nature and timing of the evidence to be collected6.4.1 The examiners should take an investigative stance towards factors

affecting performance.

6.4.2 It is best for all parties concerned to be open about extenuating factors(when they have affected the quality of the work), rather than trying tohide the deficiencies to which the circumstances have given rise.

6.4.3 Some evidence will normally be contained in the written submissionitself, e.g. footnotes explaining why a procedure/measure had to bechanged half-way through the study. This is particularly appropriate forthe factors relating to research facilities and procedures listed above in6.3.2. and 6.3.3.

6.4.4 Other evidence should be drawn to the attention of the examiners bythe supervisor (where formal procedures allow this), and someevidence may be drawn to the attention of the examiners by thecandidate him/herself during the viva. In particular, the candidateshould ensure that the oral examination is not concluded before theexamination board has been made aware of all extenuatingcircumstances that he or she believes should be taken into account.

26

New, previously unmentioned extenuating circumstances should not beraised at a later stage by the candidate as a basis for appeal against thedecision of an examination board.

6.4.5 At any time during the examination period, examiners may call forfurther information about circumstances of the work/supervision andthis should be supplied by the institution, e.g. internal report form onstudent progress. However, some candidates may wish that personalcircumstances are not known to the examiners before the oralexamination, and this wish should be respected where practicable.

6.4.6 At the end of the oral examination, the board should formally ask thecandidate if there is any further information the candidate wishes theboard to take into account in reaching its decision.

6.5 Steps the examining board may take6.5.1 When extenuating circumstances have been judged by the board to

have adversely affected the thesis, the candidate may be given a chanceto retrieve the written submission, by a recommendation which allowsre-submission after revision.

6.5.2 In such cases, the joint report should detail the kind of support thecandidate requires, e.g. up-grade of equipment, buying in additionalsupervision.

6.5.3 When deficiencies in facilities, training, or supervision have beendetected in the examination, explicit mention of this should be madein the joint report.

27

Section 7:Pay and terms of service of examiners

7.1 Serving as an external examiner is currently badly paid and the post isoften accepted only reluctantly as a favour. If examinations are to beconducted properly and in a timely manner, then examiners should bepaid adequately for the time spent, which is never likely to be less thanthree working days in total, even in the most straightforward of cases.

7.2 Prior to accepting appointments, external examiners should draw theattention of employing institutions to any comparative informationabout rates of pay which may be appropriate, since there isconsiderable variation in these rates between institutions.

7.3 External examiners should not agree to re-examine a thesis unless anadequate re-examination fee is offered.

7.4 As a rule, internal examiners should not receive extra payment fortheir work, which should be considered as a normal part of theirinstitutional duties. Institutions should, however, compensatecolleagues who are frequently called on to act as internal examiners by relieving them of other duties.

Section 8:Appeals by the candidate against theoutcome of the examination

8.1 Examiners, both individually and collectively, should take pains toensure that at no stage of the process does their conduct offer anygrounds for appeal by a candidate. Scrupulous adherence to theseguidelines will considerably reduce the risk of creating grounds forappeal.

8.2 A candidate may appeal on two principal grounds:

(a) that he or she believes there was procedural irregularity in theconduct of the examination of such a nature as to cause doubt asto whether the result might have been different had there notbeen any such irregularity;

(b) that he or she believes there was unfair or improper assessmenton the part of one or more of the examiners. Candidates may nototherwise challenge the academic judgement of the examiners.

8.3 Where appeal proceedings are instigated by a candidate, examinersshould follow whatever directives are laid down by the investigatingbody. This will normally include responding promptly, fully, andtruthfully to any questions asked of them by the investigating body.Unless explicitly directed to do so by the investigating body, examinersshould not engage in contact or dialogue with one another nor withthe candidate until the proceedings are completed.

28

29

Section 9:Assessment of other components ofresearch training

9.1 There are several possible models for the relations between preliminaryresearch training and PhD research, but these guidelines address onlyformal ‘Masters level’ training in research methods running before orin parallel with PhD research (as recommended by the GovernmentWhite Paper, Realising Our Potential, HMSO, May, 1993). Such aformal arrangement would include examination of the Masterstraining, which would cover a range of research methods.

9.2 When the initial research training and the major research project areseparated in this way, it is recommended that PhD candidates shouldnot be evaluated on general research methods, but only those used inthe PhD research project.

9.3 Broader knowledge of research techniques should be assessed in theMasters phase, leaving the PhD assessment to be based directly on theresearch done. For the PhD, only questions of methodology directlyrelated to the research project would normally be raised.

9.4 Two models outlined in the White Paper:9.4.1 1 + 3 model (1 year of Masters’ training followed by 3 years of

PhD training).

It is recommended that, on this model, the examining arrangementsfor the two phases should be entirely separate, with these guidelinesapplying to the second phase only.

9.4.2 1 + 2 model (1 year of Masters’ training followed by 2 years of PhD training).

It is recommended that, on this model:(a) there be related but non-identical research studies for the

research training and the PhD; and that the candidate’s Masters’research project be made available to the PhD examining board;

(b) there be a single external examiner for the entire cohort ofstudents in the preliminary research training phase, who isdifferent from the external examiners for the PhD component;

(c) programme organisers establish clear guidelines on the natureand extent of the work to be accomplished in the two phases,which can enable PhD examining boards to make appropriatejudgements of a candidate’s quality, taking into account the aimsand scope of the whole three-year programme, and amending theattributes and criteria outlined in Section 4.4. accordingly;

(d) in all other respects, these guidelines should apply.

30

(a) The British Psychological Society (the Society) recognises its obligation toset and uphold the highest standards of professionalism, and to promoteethical behaviour, attitudes and judgements on the part of psychologists by:● being mindful of the need for protection of the public;● expressing clear ethical principles, values and standards;● promoting such standards by education and consultation;● developing and implementing methods to help psychologists

monitor their professional behaviour and attitudes;● investigating complaints of unethical behaviour, taking corrective

action when appropriate, and learning from experience;● assisting psychologists with ethical decision making;● providing opportunities for discourse on these issues.

(b) Under the terms of its Royal Charter, the Society is required to ‘maintain aCode of Conduct’. In 1985 the Society adopted a Code of Conduct whichhas been regularly updated. From monitoring complaints and ethicalenquiries, the Society’s Ethics Committee identified a need for a Codewhich gave more emphasis and support to the process of ethical decisionmaking.

(c) This Code of Ethics and Conduct should guide all members of the BritishPsychological Society. It should be read in conjunction with the Society’sRoyal Charter, Statutes and Rules. It comes into effect on 31st March 2006.

(d) In formulating this Code, a wide range of existing codes, as listed in theAppendix, were considered.

(e) The Society has also considered the wide range of contexts in whichpsychologists work. The aim of the Code is that it should apply to allpsychologists, with the focus on the quality of decision making allowingsufficient flexibility for a variety of approaches and methods, butproviding ethical standards which apply to all. Psychologists will also needto familiarise themselves with the legal framework, regulatory

Appendix 1

The British Psychological Society Code of Ethics and Conduct

31

requirements and other guidance relevant to the particular context inwhich they work.

(f) In this Code the term ‘psychologist’ refers to any member of the BritishPsychological Society including student members. Examples of the rolesundertaken by psychologists include those of colleague, consultant,counsellor, educator, employer, expert witness, evaluator, lecturer,manager, practitioner, researcher, supervisor or therapist.

(g) In this Code the term ‘client’ refers to any person or persons with whom apsychologist interacts on a professional basis. For example, a client may bean individual (such as a patient, a student, or a research participant), a couple, a family group, an educational institution, or a private or publicorganisation, including the Court. A psychologist may have several clientsat a time including, for example, those receiving, commissioning andevaluating the professional activity.

(h) Psychologists are likely to need to make decisions in difficult, changingand unclear situations. The Society expects that the Code will be used toform a basis for consideration of ethical questions, with the Principles inthis Code being taken into account in the process of making decisions,together with the needs of the client and the individual circumstances ofthe case. However, no Code can replace the need for psychologists to usetheir professional and ethical judgement. If a complaint is made, theSociety will consider the individual circumstances, and the explanationgiven by the psychologist of how the decision was reached, as well as theforeseeable consequences of that decision, in judging whether there hasbeen any professional misconduct.

(i) In making decisions on what constitutes ethical practice, psychologists willneed to consider the application of technical competence and the use oftheir professional skill and judgement. They should also be mindful of theimportance of fostering and maintaining good professional relationshipswith clients and others as a primary element of good practice.

(j) The consultation on this Code produced many helpful comments forconsideration and most were incorporated into the final draft. Severalthemes emerged from the comments including: requests for informationabout the underlying philosophical approach being taken, queries aboutthe use of the word ‘should’ in the Code and more detail about theethical decision making process.

32

(k) The underlying philosophical approach in this Code is best described asthe ‘British Eclectic Tradition’. Moral principles and the codes which spellout their applications can only be guidelines for thinking about thedecisions individuals need to make in specific cases. Variable factors areinvolved such as the particular circumstances, the prevailing law, thecultural context, the likely consequences and the feelings colouring thejudgement. However, if moral judgments are to retain some objectivity,that is if they can be judged to be right or wrong, they must be based onrational principles which serve as criteria.

Abstracted from the factors listed above, reason by itself cannot givepositive guidance but only command consistency in action which alsomeans impartiality. Reason functions like the rules of logic, which do nottell us what to think but help our thinking to conform to rationalprinciples. One example of a rational principle would be ‘Do unto othersas you would be done by’. Immanuel Kant gave expression to this in hisCategorical Imperative: ‘Act on such maxims as you could will to becomeuniversal law’. Our capacity to act on rational moral principles bestows onus the dignity of free moral agents and this leads to a further formulationof the Categorical Imperative: ‘Treat humanity in your own person andthat of others always as an end and never only as a means’. This positionforms the basis of the Code.

(l) This Code uses the word ‘should’ rather than the more coercive ‘must’ orthe permissive ‘asks’ to reinforce the advisory nature of the Code as aframework in support of professional judgement. Any scrutiny of thisprocess will consider situations in terms of the decisions made, theoutcomes and the processes involved. Thinking is not optional. The Code has been written primarily to guide not to punish.

(m) Finally, ethics is related to the control of power. Clearly, not all clients arepowerless but many are disadvantaged by lack of knowledge and certaintycompared to the psychologist whose judgement they require. This Codeattempts to encapsulate the wisdom and experience of the Society tosupport its members in their professional activities, reassure the publicthat it is worthy of their trust and to clarify the expectations of all.

33

(a) Thinking about ethics should pervade all professional activity. The definition of ethics as the science of morals or rules of behaviouroverlaps with the definition of psychology as the scientific study ofbehaviour both internal (for example, cognition and feelings) andexternal (for example, language and actions). Before embarking onprofessional work the ethical implications should be considered as part ofthe work context together with legal, professional and other frameworks.

(b) Information from surveys of psychologists, data on queries received by theSociety and information from formal complaints indicates that certainareas of work produce the majority of concerns about ethical matters.

(c) These areas of concern include:● multiple relationships – where the psychologist owes an allegiance to

several different stakeholders;● personal relationships – where the psychologist infringes or violates

the trust of a client or clients;● unclear or inadequate standards of practice – where the psychologist

is unaware of or disregards the current systems in use by peers orothers in similar work;

● breaches of confidentiality – where rules and constraints are brokenor not clarified in advance with stakeholders;

● competence – where excessive or misleading claims are made or whereinadequate safeguards and monitoring exist for new areas of work;

● research issues including falsifying data, failing to obtain consent,plagiarism or failing to acknowledge another’s work or contribution;

● health problems affecting performance or conduct;● bringing the profession or the Society into disrepute.

(d) Many of the above concerns involve unethical behaviour but othersinvolve lack of information, poor planning or carelessness. Reflectivepractice, peer support and transparency of professional activity wouldprevent problems occurring or developing into serious concerns.

(e) Despite every care being taken, ethical difficulties will occur. Severalsystems of ethical decision making exist and the following is an adaptationof the core themes.

Decision Making

34

(f) Identify the relevant issues:● What are the parameters of the situation? ● Is there research evidence that might be relevant?● What legal guidance exists?● What do peers advise?

(g) Identify the clients and other stakeholders and consider or obtain theirviews.

(h) Use the Code of Ethics and Conduct to identify the principles involved.

(i) Evaluate the rights, responsibilities and welfare of all clients andstakeholders.

(j) Generate the alternative decisions preferably with others to act as asounding board.

(k) Establish a cost/risk-benefit analysis to include both short- and long-termconsequences.

(l) Make the decision after checking that the reasoning behind it is logical,lucid and consistent. Document the process of decision making.

(m) Assume responsibility and monitor any outcomes.

(n) Apologise for any negative outcomes that result. Many formal complaintsare often a client’s only way of obtaining an acknowledgement of distress.Saying ‘sorry’ does not automatically admit liability.

(o) Make every effort to correct any negative outcomes and remain engagedin the process.

(p) Learn from the process for yourself, for others and for the Society.

(q) While the process set out in this section may appear to be a counsel ofperfection, the thinking behind ethical decisions needs to be clear,especially where time is short and/or where high levels of emotion andrisk are involved.

(r) For further reading please see the References after the Conclusion sectionof this Code.

35

(a) This code is based on four Ethical Principles, which constitute the maindomains of responsibility within which ethical issues are considered. These are:● Respect● Competence● Responsibility● Integrity

(b) Each Ethical Principle is described in a Statement of Values, reflecting thefundamental beliefs that guide ethical reasoning, decision making, and behaviour.

(c) Each Ethical Principle described is further defined by a set of Standards,setting out the ethical conduct that the Society expects of its members.

Structure of the Code

36

1. Ethical Principle: RespectStatement of Values – Psychologists value the dignity and worth of allpersons, with sensitivity to the dynamics of perceived authority orinfluence over clients, and with particular regard to people’s rightsincluding those of privacy and self-determination.

1.1 Standard of General Respect.Psychologists should:(i) Respect individual, cultural and role differences, including (but

not exclusively) those involving age, disability, education,ethnicity, gender, language, national origin, race, religion, sexualorientation, marital or family status and socio-economic status.

(ii) Respect the knowledge, insight, experience and expertise ofclients, relevant third parties, and members of the general public.

(iii) Avoid practices that are unfair or prejudiced.and

(iv) Be willing to explain the bases for their ethical decision making.

1.2 Standard of Privacy and Confidentiality.Psychologists should:

(i) Keep appropriate records.(ii) Normally obtain the consent of clients who are considered legally

competent or their duly authorised representatives, for disclosureof confidential information.

(iii) Restrict the scope of disclosure to that which is consistent withprofessional purposes, the specifics of the initiating request orevent, and (so far as required by the law) the specifics of theclient’s authorisation.

(iv) Record, process, and store confidential information in a fashiondesigned to avoid inadvertent disclosure.

(v) Ensure from the first contact that clients are aware of thelimitations of maintaining confidentiality, with specific reference to: (a) potentially conflicting or supervening legal and ethicalobligations; (b) the likelihood that consultation with colleaguesmay occur in order to enhance the effectiveness of serviceprovision; and (c) the possibility that third parties, such astranslators or family members, may assist in ensuring that theactivity concerned is not compromised by a lack ofcommunication.

Ethical Principles

37

(vi) Restrict breaches of confidentiality to those exceptionalcircumstances under which there appears sufficient evidence toraise serious concern about: (a) the safety of clients; (b) thesafety of other persons who may be endangered by the client’sbehaviour; or (c) the health, welfare or safety of children orvulnerable adults.

(vii) Consult a professional colleague when contemplating a breach ofconfidentiality, unless the delay occasioned by seeking suchconsultation is rendered impractical by the immediacy of theneed for disclosure.

(viii) Document any breach of confidentiality and the reasonscompelling disclosure without consent in a contemporaneousnote.

(ix) When disclosing confidential information directly to clients,safeguard the confidentiality of information relating to others, and provide adequate assistance in understanding the nature andcontents of the information being disclosed.

(x) Make audio, video or photographic recordings of clients onlywith the explicit permission of clients who are considered legallycompetent, or their duly authorised representatives.and

(xi) Endeavour to ensure that colleagues, staff, trainees, andsupervisees with whom psychologists work, understand andrespect the provisions of this Code concerning the handling ofconfidential information.

1.3 Standard of Informed ConsentPsychologists should:(i) Ensure that clients, particularly children and vulnerable adults,

are given ample opportunity to understand the nature, purpose,and anticipated consequences of any professional services orresearch participation, so that they may give informed consent tothe extent that their capabilities allow.

(ii) Seek to obtain the informed consent of all clients to whomprofessional services or research participation are offered.

(iii) Keep adequate records of when, how and from whom consentwas obtained.

(iv) Remain alert to the possibility that those people for whomprofessional services or research participation are contemplatedmay lack legal capacity for informed consent.

(v) When informed consent cannot be obtained from clients, no duly

38

authorised representative can be identified and a pressing needfor the provision of professional services is indicated, consultwhen feasible a person well-placed to appreciate the potentialreactions of clients (such as a family member, or current orrecent provider of care or services) for assistance in determiningwhat may be in their best interests.

(vi) When the specific nature of contemplated professional servicesprecludes obtaining informed consent from clients or their dulyauthorised representatives, obtain specific approval fromappropriate institutional ethics authorities before proceeding.Where no institutional ethics authority exists, peers andcolleagues should be consulted.

(vii) When the specific nature of research precludes obtaininginformed consent from clients or their duly authorisedrepresentatives, obtain specific approval from appropriateinstitutional ethics authorities before proceeding. Where noinstitutional ethics authority exists, peers and colleagues shouldbe consulted.

(viii) Take particular care when seeking the informed consent ofdetained persons, in the light of the degree to whichcircumstances of detention may affect the ability of such clientsto consent freely.

(ix) Unless informed consent has been obtained, restrict researchbased upon observations of public behaviour to those situationsin which persons being studied would reasonably expect to beobserved by strangers, with reference to local cultural values andto the privacy of persons who, even while in a public space, maybelieve they are unobserved.

(x) Obtain supplemental informed consent as circumstancesindicate, when professional services or research occur over anextended period of time, or when there is significant change inthe nature or focus of such activities.

(xi) Withhold information from clients only in exceptionalcircumstances when necessary to preserve the integrity ofresearch or the efficacy of professional services, or in the publicinterest and specifically consider any additional safeguardsrequired for the preservation of client welfare.and

(xii) Avoid intentional deception of clients unless: (a) deception isnecessary in exceptional circumstances to preserve the integrity ofresearch or the efficacy of professional services; (b) any additional

39

safeguards required for the preservation of client welfare arespecifically considered; and (c) the nature of the deception isdisclosed to clients at the earliest feasible opportunity.

1.4 Standards of Self-DeterminationPsychologists should:(i) Endeavour to support the self-determination of clients, while at

the same time remaining alert to potential limits placed upon self-determination by personal characteristics or by externallyimposed circumstances.

(ii) Ensure from the first contact that clients are aware of their rightto withdraw at any time from the receipt of professional servicesor from research participation.and

(iii) Comply with requests by clients who are withdrawing fromresearch participation that any data by which they might bepersonally identified, including recordings, be destroyed.

2 Ethical Principle: CompetenceStatement of Values – Psychologists value the continuing developmentand maintenance of high standards of competence in their professionalwork, and the importance of preserving their ability to functionoptimally within the recognised limits of their knowledge, skill,training, education, and experience.

2.1 Standard of Awareness of Professional EthicsPsychologists should:(i) Develop and maintain a comprehensive awareness of professional

ethics, including familiarity with this Code.and

(ii) Integrate ethical considerations into their professional practicesas an element of continuing professional development.

2.2 Standard of Ethical Decision MakingPsychologists should:(i) Recognise that ethical dilemmas will inevitably arise in the course

of professional practice.(ii) Accept their responsibility to attempt to resolve such dilemmas

with the appropriate combination of reflection, supervision, andconsultation.

(iii) Be committed to the requirements of this Code.

40

(iv) Engage in a process of ethical decision making that includes:● identifying relevant issues;● reflecting upon established principles, values, and

standards;● seeking supervision or peer review;● developing alternative courses of action in the light of

contextual factors;● analysing the advantages and disadvantages of various

courses of action for those likely to be affected, allowing for different perspectives and cultures;

● choosing a course of action; and● evaluating the outcomes to inform future ethical

decision making.(v) Be able to justify their actions on ethical grounds.(vi) Remain aware that the process of ethical decision making must

be undertaken with sensitivity to any time constraints that mayexist.and

(vii) Given the existence of legal obligations that may occasionallyappear to contradict certain provisions of this Code, analyse suchcontradictions with particular care, and adhere to the extentpossible to these Ethical Principles while meeting the legalrequirements of their professional roles.

2.3 Standard of Recognising Limits of CompetencePsychologists should:(i) Practice within the boundaries of their competence.(ii) Adhere to the Society’s policies regarding Continued Professional

Development.(iii) Remain abreast of scientific, ethical, and legal innovations

germane to their professional activities, with further sensitivity toongoing developments in the broader social, political andorganisational contexts in which they work.

(iv) Seek consultation and supervision when indicated, particularly ascircumstances begin to challenge their scientific or professionalexpertise;

(v) Engage in additional areas of professional activity only afterobtaining the knowledge, skill, training, education, andexperience necessary for competent functioning.

(vi) Remain aware of and acknowledge the limits of their methods, as well as the limits of the conclusions that may be derived from

41

such methods under different circumstances and for differentpurposes.and

(vii) Strive to ensure that those working under their direct supervisionalso comply with each of the requirements of this Standard andthat they are not required to work beyond the limits of theircompetence.

2.4 Standard of Recognising ImpairmentPsychologists should:(i) Monitor their own personal and professional lifestyle in order to

remain alert to signs of impairment. (ii) Seek professional consultation or assistance when they become

aware of health-related or other personal problems that mayimpair their own professional competence.

(iii) Refrain from practice when their professional competence isseriously impaired.and

(iv) Encourage colleagues whose health-related or other personalproblems may reflect impairment to seek professionalconsultation or assistance, and consider informing otherpotential sources of intervention, including the Society, whensuch colleagues appear unable to recognise that a problem exists.Psychologists must inform potential sources of intervention wherenecessary for the protection of the public.

3 Ethical Principle: ResponsibilityStatement of Values – Psychologists value their responsibilities toclients, to the general public, and to the profession and science ofPsychology, including the avoidance of harm and the prevention ofmisuse or abuse of their contributions to society.

3.1 Standard of General ResponsibilityPsychologists should:(i) Avoid harming clients, but take into account that the interests of

different clients may conflict. The psychologist will need to weighthese interests and the potential harm caused by alternativecourses of action or inaction.

(ii) Avoid personal and professional misconduct that might bring theSociety or the reputation of the profession into disrepute,recognising that, in particular, convictions for criminal offences

42

that reflect on suitability for practice may be regarded asmisconduct by the Society.and

(iii) Seek to remain aware of the scientific and professional activitiesof others with whom they work, with particular attention to theethical behaviour of employees, assistants, supervisees andstudents.

3.2 Standard of Termination and Continuity of CarePsychologists should:(i) Make clear at the first contact, or at the earliest opportunity, the

conditions under which the professional services may beterminated.

(ii) Take advice where there appears to be ambiguity aboutcontinuing with professional services.

(iii) Terminate professional services when clients do not appear to bederiving benefit and are unlikely to do soand

(iv) Refer clients to alternative sources of assistance as appropriate,facilitating the transfer and continuity of care through reasonablecollaboration with other professionals.

3.3 Standard of Protection of Research ParticipantsPsychologists should:(i) Consider all research from the standpoint of research

participants, for the purpose of eliminating potential risks topsychological well-being, physical health, personal values, or dignity.

(ii) Undertake such consideration with due concern for the potentialeffects of, for example, age, disability, education, ethnicity,gender, language, national origin, race, religion, marital or familystatus, or sexual orientation, seeking consultation as needed fromthose knowledgeable about such effects.

(iii) Ask research participants from the first contact about individualfactors that might reasonably lead to risk of harm, and informresearch participants of any action they should take to minimisesuch risks.

(iv) Refrain from using financial compensation or other inducementsfor research participants to risk harm beyond that which theyface in their normal lifestyles.

(v) Obtain the considered and non-subjective approval ofindependent advisors whenever concluding that harm, unusual

43

discomfort, or other negative consequences may follow fromresearch, and obtain supplemental informed consent fromresearch participants specific to such issues.

(vi) Inform research participants from the first contact that theirright to withdraw at any time is not affected by the receipt oroffer of any financial compensation or other inducements forparticipation.

(vii) Inform research participants from the first contact that they maydecline to answer any questions put to them, while conveying aswell that this may lead to termination of their participation,particularly when safety issues are implicated.

(viii) Inform research participants when evidence is obtained of apsychological or physical problem of which they are apparentlyunaware, if it appears that failure to do so may endanger theirpresent or future well-being.

(ix) Exercise particular caution when responding to requests foradvice from research participants concerning psychological orother issues, and offer to make a referral for assistance if theinquiry appears to involve issues sufficiently serious to warrantprofessional services.and

(x) When conducting research involving animals: (a) observe thehighest standards of animal welfare, including reduction to theminimum of any pain, suffering, fear, distress, frustration,boredom, or lasting harm; and (b) avoid the infliction of any ofthese conditions which cannot be strictly justified, in adherenceto the Society’s published Guidelines for Psychologists Working withAnimals.

3.4 Standard of Debriefing of Research ParticipantsPsychologists should: (i) Debrief research participants at the conclusion of their

participation, in order to inform them of the outcomes andnature of the research, to identify any unforeseen harm,discomfort , or misconceptions, and in order to arrange forassistance as needed.and

(ii) Take particular care when discussing outcomes with researchparticipants, as seemingly evaluative statements may carryunintended weight.

44

4 Ethical Principle: IntegrityStatement of Values – Psychologists value honesty, accuracy, clarity, andfairness in their interactions with all persons, and seek to promoteintegrity in all facets of their scientific and professional endeavours.

4.1 Standard of Honesty and AccuracyPsychologists should:(i) Be honest and accurate in representing their professional

affiliations and qualifications, including such matters asknowledge, skill, training, education, and experience.

(ii) Take reasonable steps to ensure that their qualifications andcompetences are not misrepresented by others, and to correctany misrepresentations identified.

(iii) Be honest and accurate in conveying professional conclusions,opinions, and research findings, and in acknowledging thepotential limitations.

(iv) Be honest and accurate in representing the financial and otherparameters and obligations of supervisory, training, employment,and other contractual relationships.

(v) Ensure that clients are aware from the first contact of costs andmethods of payment for the provision of professional services.

(vi) Claim only appropriate ownership or credit for their research,published writings, or other scientific and professionalcontributions, and provide due acknowledgement of thecontributions of others to a collaborative work.and

(vii) Be honest and accurate in advertising their professional servicesand products, in order to avoid encouraging unrealisticexpectations or otherwise misleading the public.

4.2 Standard of Avoiding Exploitation and Conflicts of InterestPsychologists should:(i) Remain aware of the problems that may result from dual or

multiple relationships, for example, supervising trainees to whomthey are married, teaching students with whom they already have afamilial relationship, or providing psychological therapy to a friend.

(ii) Avoid forming relationships that may impair professionalobjectivity or otherwise lead to exploitation of, or conflicts ofinterest with, a client.

(iii) Clarify for clients and other relevant parties the professional rolescurrently assumed and conflicts of interest that might potentiallyarise.

45

(iv) Refrain from abusing professional relationships in order toadvance their sexual, personal, financial, or other interests.and

(v) Recognise that conflicts of interests and inequity of power maystill reside after professional relationships are formallyterminated, such that professional responsibilities may still apply.

4.3 Standard of Maintaining Personal BoundariesPsychologists should:(i) Refrain from engaging in any form of sexual or romantic

relationship with persons to whom they are providingprofessional services, or to whom they owe a continuing duty ofcare, or with whom they have a relationship of trust. This mightinclude a former patient, a student or trainee, or a junior staffmember.

(ii) Refrain from engaging in harassment and strive to maintain theirworkplaces free from sexual harassment.

(iii) Recognise as harassment any unwelcome verbal or physicalbehaviour, including sexual advances, when: (a) such conductinterferes with another person’s work or creates an intimidating,hostile or offensive working environment; (b) submission to thisconduct is made implicitly or explicitly a term or condition of aperson’s education, employment or access to resources; or (c)submission or rejection of such conduct is used as a basis fordecisions affecting a person’s education or employmentprospects.

(iv) Recognise that harassment may consist of a single serious act ormultiple persistent or pervasive acts, and that it further includesbehaviour that ridicules, disparages, or abuses a person.

(v) Make clear to students, supervisees, trainees and employees, aspart of their induction, that agreed procedures addressingharassment exist within both the workplace and the Society.and

(vi) Cultivate an awareness of power structures and tensions withingroups or teams.

46

47

4.4 Standard of Addressing Ethical MisconductPsychologists should:(i) Challenge colleagues who appear to have engaged in ethical

misconduct, and/or consider bringing allegations of suchmisconduct to the attention of those charged with theresponsibility to investigate them, particularly when members ofthe public appear to have been, or may be, affected by thebehaviour in question.

(ii) When bringing allegations of misconduct by a colleague, do sowithout malice and with no breaches of confidentiality other thanthose necessary to the proper investigatory processes.and

(iii) When the subject of allegations of misconduct themselves, takeall reasonable steps to assist those charged with the responsibilityto investigate them.

48

This Code provides the parameters within which professional judgementsshould be made. However, it cannot, and does not aim to, provide the answer toevery ethical dilemma a psychologist may face. It is important to remember toreflect and apply a process to resolve ethical dilemmas as set out in this Code.

If you have a question about the Code or about professional ethics, there areseveral potential sources of advice. The Ethics Committee has an area on theSociety’s website (www.bps.org.uk). The Regulatory Affairs team can give advice tomembers about ethical issues and can be contacted on 0116 254 9568 orconduct@bps.org.uk. The Scientific Officer and Research Board also give adviceabout issues arising in research situations and can be contacted on the sametelephone number or at researchethics@bps.org.uk.

However, the Society cannot give legal advice, or provide practical support tomembers who have been complained about. For that reason, the Societystrongly recommends that members consider taking out professional indemnityinsurance. The Society has approved an insurance scheme, and details areavailable from the Society’s helpline, on the same number as above, but thereare other insurance policies that members could consider.

If a complaint is made about a member’s professional conduct, this would bedealt with by the Regulatory Affairs team. The Society’s complaint handlingprocess is set out in the Statutes. The first step in any complaint is usually to askthe member to provide a response. Members should consider this Code and theadvice on ethical decision making in deciding what information to include intheir response.

Information about the complaint handling process is available on the Society’swebsite and also from the Regulatory Affairs team. The Society has a procedurefor considering allegations that a member’s health may be affecting their abilityto practise, and information about that procedure is available from Regulatory Affairs.

This Code was written by the Ethics Committee of the British Psychological Society. Thanks are due to all the current and former members of the Committee and all those whoassisted in the drafting of the Code, with particular thanks to representatives of Witness(formerly POPAN: the Prevention of Professional Abuse Network), the philosophersBaroness Mary Warnock and Professor Peter Rickman and last but not least to Dr Eric Drogin and Professor John Williams for assistance in the final drafting.

Conclusion

49

Bersoff, D. (1997). Ethical Conflicts in Psychology. American PsychologicalAssociation.

Thompson, A. (1999).Critical Reasoning in Ethics. Routledge.Koocher, G. & Keith-Spiegel, P. (1998). Ethics in Psychology (2nd ed.).

Oxford University Press.Francis, R.D. (1999). Ethics for Psychologists. British Psychological Society. Friedman, A., Daly, S. & Andrzejewska, R. (2005). Analysing Ethical Codes of UK

Professional Bodies. Professional Associations Research Network (PARN).O’Neill, O. (2002). Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics. Cambridge University Press. Canadian Psychological Association (1997). Companion Manual to the Canadian

Code of Ethics for Psychologists 1991.Bowell, T. & Kemp, G. (2002). Critical Thinking: A Concise Guide. RoutledgeCanter, M., Bennett, B. , Jones, S. & Nagy, T. (1996). Ethics for Psychologists:

A commentary on the APA Ethics Code. American Psychological Association.Warbuton, N. (2004). Philosophy: Basic Readings. Routledge.

References

50

Key documents consulted in preparing the British Psychological Society’s Code of Ethics and Conduct

United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).

World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki (1964, last amended 2000).

European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1963, last amended 1985).

Meta-Code of Ethics and Carte Ethica – European Federation of PsychologistsAssociations (1995).

Code of Conduct – The British Psychological Society (1993).

Code of Professional Ethics – The Psychological Society of Ireland (1999).

Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists – Canadian Psychological Association(2000).

Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct – American Psychological Association (2002).

Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy –British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (2002).

Ethical Requirements for Member Organisations – United Kingdom Council forPsychotherapy (2003).

Standards in Applied Psychology – National Occupational Standards Board.

Confidentiality – General Medical Council (2004).

Whistleblowers Policy Pack – Public Concern at Work (2003).

The Local Authorities (Model Code of Conduct) (England) Order (2001).

General attributes

1. Presentation and clarity● The reader should be able to read the text without difficulty.● The text should be clear and ‘tell a story’.● The submission should be ‘user friendly’. The reader should be

able to find his or her way around the submission, locating tablesand figures, and being able to cross-reference with ease. Anumbering system for chapters, sections, and, sometimes,paragraphs can be very helpful.

● The style should be economic without unnecessary duplication orrepetition.

● The bibliography and/or reference list should be complete andaccurate.

● It should be possible to gain easy access to tables and figuresrelating to particular passages in the text, and to examine bothdata and commentary without effort.

● The submission should be no longer than necessary. It is usuallybest practice to set a limit of approximately 80,000 words,depending on the institutional regulations.

2. Integration and coherenceThere should be logical and rational links between the componentparts of the thesis. In some cases coherence will be achieved by a seriesof empirical studies or analyses which build one upon the other in anelegant and compelling fashion. Such a submission will have a trueintellectual coherence – a ‘golden thread’ – in which all parts seemnecessary and all parts are inter-related. In other words, there will bean intellectual wholeness to the submission. Such a submission will beoutstanding, but this will not be an attribute of every adequatesubmission.

Appendix 2:Criteria for assessing PhD theses inpsychology

51

52

3. Contribution to knowledgeA submission should contain research of sufficient scientific rigour,approximately equivalent in quantity and quality to at least two articlesof a standard acceptable to a fully refereed journal scanned byPsychological Abstracts. Where candidates have already had portions oftheir PhD work accepted for publication in such journals, this is primafacie evidence of an adequate standard. Alternatively, the submissionshould be substantial enough to be able to form the basis of a book orresearch monograph which could meet the standards of an establishedacademic publisher operating a system of critical peer review for bookproposals and drafts.

4. Originality and creativityThe research and the written submission should be the candidate’s ownwork. However, the degree of independence shown may vary accordingto the research topic, since in some instances students will be workingas part of a larger team, while in other instances they will be completelyon their own. A candidate should show an appropriate level ofindependent working. Provided that evidence of independent workingis available, research assistants working on sponsored projects shouldbe able to obtain PhDs by presenting appropriate portions of suchprojects.

Sectional attributes5. Review of relevant literature

Candidates should demonstrate that they have detailed knowledge oforiginal sources, have a thorough knowledge of the field, andunderstand the main theoretical and methodological issues. Thereshould not be undue dependence on secondary sources.

The literature review should be more than a catalogue of the literature.It should contain a critical, analytic approach, with an understanding ofsources of error and differences of opinion. The literature reviewshould not be over-inclusive. It should not cover non-essential literaturenor contain irrelevant digressions. Studies recognised as key or seminalin the field of enquiry should not be ignored. However, a studentshould not be penalised for omitting to review research publishedimmediately before the thesis was submitted.

A good literature review will be succinct, penetrating, and challengingto read.

53

6. Statement of the research problemThe literature review should have revealed some questions or issueswhich call for further investigation. Ideally, the problem to be tackledin the research should emerge naturally and inexorably from theliterature review.

The research problem may arise as a result of past work which needs tobe improved upon. It may be that there is a crucial test which will helpto decide between competing theories. The candidate may:

● be proposing a novel theoretical or methodological slant on atopic;

● have created an interesting intellectual friction by bringingtogether hitherto unrelated fields or topics;

● or have developed a new area of application for a method ortheory.

A clear and succinct statement of the research problem should bemade, together with a set of specific hypotheses, predictions, orquestions which the research is designed to address.

There should be some sense that the problem which has beenidentified is worthwhile.

7. Methods of enquiry adoptedSince determination of the most appropriate methodology is not alwaysa straightforward matter, candidates should justify the methods chosen,with an appropriate rationale in each case.

A project may have a mixture of methodologies, suited to the changingneeds of the project as it develops. There may, for instance, be initialsemi-structured interviews yielding qualitative data, which can beanalysed in a sensitive fashion to yield the building blocks for a morequantitative approach. Or, alternatively, the student may start out withan established quantitative methodology, decide it is inappropriate, andthen move to qualitative methods to elicit new questions or issues.There are many variants. Potential alternative methods should berejected on the basis of a reasoned case.

Candidates should be able to demonstrate that the methods used havebeen chosen through a conscious process of deliberation; and that thecriteria for, and advantages and disadvantages of, particular choices ofmethod are well specified.

54

There should be a sense of planning. This should include a reasonedconsideration of the analytic techniques that the methods chosen willrequire.

8. Analysis of data● The analytic methods used (quantitative or qualitative) need to

be justified and need to be shown to be sufficient for the task.● Any problems arising in the analysis should be recognised and

tackled appropriately.● Candidates should show sensitivity to problems of reliability,

measurement error, and sources of bias.● Candidates should understand the assumptions behind the

methods of analysis used.● Where appropriate, candidates should demonstrate imagination

and creativity in identifying and analysing emergent properties ofthe data which may not have been foreseen.

● The analyses should be clearly linked to the explicit hypotheses,predictions, or questions which formed part of the statedresearch problem.

● Candidates should be able to demonstrate judgement in thepresentation of key summary data within the body of the text,assigning primary data and data of secondary importance toappendices.

● The data should be presented in a well-structured way, so that aclear presentational sequence unfolds.

● In sum, candidates should be able to demonstrate WHY eachparticular analysis was conducted, HOW the analysis was done,and WHAT the analysis tells us about the data.

9. Discussion of outcomes● The discussion should summarise, without undue repetition, what

has been achieved in the research project.● It should evaluate the project’s contribution to the research area.● Links should be drawn between the candidate’s own work and

the work reviewed in the literature review.● The main findings should be interpreted and related to theory

(and practice where appropriate).● The candidate should be able to demonstrate an understanding

of the research process as a whole. This reveals what thecandidate has learned during the course of the work.

55

● In many cases it will be appropriate to include a section in whichthe candidate discusses the limitations of the research design andmethodology in the light of knowledge acquired whilstundertaking the research, and outlines alternative or additionalapproaches which might be pursued.

● There should be some pointers to future work, either by thecandidate or by others.

● An attempt should be made to identify issues which requirefurther clarification.

10. PhD by publicationIn cases where the submission is a collection of publications, all theabove criteria apply, but the following additional ones should beincluded:a. Normally, a minimum of three separate publications will be

required. The publications should constitute a coherentprogramme of research and make a significant contribution toknowledge.

b. The publications should contain sufficient details so that theexaminers can evaluate the research, particularly the underlyingmethodology.

c. All publications should be published (or in exceptionalcircumstances accepted for publication) in recognised peer-refereed journals as defined by some appropriate bibliometricsource (e.g. Psychological Abstracts).

d. The candidate should normally be first or sole author on allsubmitted publications. Where the candidate is not sole author,evidence should be provided to enable examiners to judge theextent of the candidate’s independent contribution to theresearch.

e. The publications must be prefaced by a critical review, notpreviously published elsewhere, which summarises and places incontext the individual published studies, showing how theyconstitute a coherent research programme, and drawingattention to theoretical and methodological implications of theprogramme taken as a whole. This review should normally be ofsubstantial length, in the region of 10,000 words.

The British Psychological Society was founded in 1901 and incorporated by Royal Charterin 1965. Our principle object is to promote the advancement and diffusion of a knowledge of psychology pure and applied and especially to promote the efficiency and usefulness of Members of the Society by setting up a high standard of professionaleducation and knowledge.

The Society has more than 46,000members and:■ has offices in England, Northern

Ireland, Scotland and Wales;■ accredits undergraduate programmes

at 117 university departments;■ accredits 143 postgraduate

programmes at 84 universitydepartments;

■ confers Fellowships for distinguishedachievements;

■ confers Chartered Status onprofessionally qualified psychologists;

■ awards grants to support research andscholarship;

■ publishes 11 scientific journals, andalso jointly publishes Evidence BasedMental Health with the British MedicalAssociation and the Royal College ofPsychiatrists;

■ publishes books in partnership withBlackwells;

■ publishes The Psychologist each month;■ supports the recruitment of

psychologists through thePsychologist Appointments section ofThe Psychologist, andwww.psychapp.co.uk;

■ provides a free ‘Research Digest’ by e-mail and at www.bps-research-digest.blogspot.com, primarily aimedat school and university students;

■ publishes newsletters for itsconstituent groups;

■ maintains a website (www.bps.org.uk);■ has international links with

psychological societies andassociations throughout the world;

■ provides a service for the news mediaand the public;

■ has an Ethics Committee andprovides service to the ProfessionalConduct Board;

■ maintains a Register of nearly 15,000Chartered Psychologists;

■ prepares policy statements andresponses to governmentconsultations;

■ holds conferences, workshops,continuing professional developmentand training events;

■ recognises distinguishedcontributions to psychological scienceand practice through individualawards and honours.

The Society continues to work toenhance:■ recruitment – the target is 50,000

members;■ services to members – by responding

to needs;■ public understanding of psychology –

addressed by regular media activityand outreach events;

■ influence on public policy – throughthe work of its Policy Support Unit,Boards and Parliamentary Officer;

■ membership activities – to fully utilisethe strengths and diversity of theSociety membership;

■ operates a Psychological TestingCentre which sets, promotes andmaintains standards in testing.

The British Psychological SocietySt. Andrews House, 48 Princess Road East, Leicester LE1 7DR, UKTelephone 0116 254 9568 Facsimile 0116 247 0787 E-mail mail@bps.org.uk Website www.bps.org.uk

Incorporated by Royal Charter Registered Charity No 229642 INF12/10.08