1. Admission to Candidature

1.1. Admission to candidature in the degree of Doctor of Education (EdD) may be approved by the Committee only when the Head of School has:

(a) certified that the necessary facilities and appropriate support for the applicant undertaking the proposed EdD program are available; and
(b) nominated an appropriate Principal Supervisor and Co-supervisor(s) in accordance with Rule 8.

1.2. The Committee may, on the recommendation of the relevant Head of School, admit to candidature into the course for the degree of Doctor of Education (EdD) an applicant who:

(a) satisfies the HDR Coordinator that they have relevant experience in an education institution or in education services delivery; and
(b) has a degree of Master (AQF Level 9) or equivalent with at least a 25% research component; or
(c) has a degree of Bachelor Honours (AQF Level 8) with at least upper second class honours or equivalent; or
(d) has a degree at AQF Level 8 or AQF Level 9 or equivalent and has adequate research preparation since graduation. Adequate research preparation may be gained by an approved academic course, professional training, during an occupation or through peer reviewed publications; or
(e) has previously undertaken work of sufficiently high standard towards a higher degree by research (AQF Level 9 or 10) in the University but not have submitted it for any degree; and
(f) has produced documented evidence of capacity to undertake work at the EdD level; and
(g) meets the University's English Language for Admission Requirements for Higher Degrees by Research; or
(h) in instances where other types of relevant evidence for English language competency in a research context are offered by the applicant (eg the applicant has within the past five years authored or co-authored research publications in the English language), the HDR Coordinator may present a case to the Committee arguing for the validity and acceptability of this evidence; and
(i) has completed and had approved by the Committee an EdD research proposal.

2. Advanced Standing

2.1. Advanced standing may be granted by the HDR Coordinator on the recommendation of the supervisor, for units passed at a university, provided that those units are:

(a) of equivalent standard to units available in the EdD; and
(b) appropriate to the candidate’s program of research in the EdD.

2.2. Where advanced standing is granted, the candidate’s period of candidature shall be reduced proportionately.

3. Course Requirements

A candidate for the degree shall pursue a course consisting of advanced coursework and the thesis or portfolio approved by the Committee.

3.1. Coursework Program

3.1.1. On the approval of the HDR Coordinator, a candidate must complete units to the value of at least 144 credit points comprising:

(a) course work to the value of 24 credit points, and
(b) thesis or portfolio to the value of 120 credit points.

3.1.2. Except with the permission of the supervisor and HDR Coordinator, a candidate must complete the units: EDCX682, EDUC697 and EDUC699D.
3.1.3. In special circumstances and with the approval of the supervisor and HDR Coordinator, a candidate may substitute another unit for a prescribed unit, where it has been deemed that the candidate has completed an equivalent unit in a previous award.
3.1.4. To proceed to the research component of the degree a candidate must achieve a Grade Point Average (GPA) of 5.0 (Credit average) in EDCX682 and EDUC697.
3.1.5. The examination grade of each course work unit shall be recorded on the candidate’s official transcript.

3.2. Thesis or Portfolio

On completion of the course of advanced study, the candidate shall present for examination a thesis or portfolio in a form approved by the Committee embodying the results of the candidate’s work, which shall be substantially an original contribution to the study of Education.
The portfolio will include an exegesis linking the individual items thematically or in terms of intellectual development. Where a candidate proceeds on the basis of a portfolio the length of the items and of the exegesis will be stipulated on admission to candidature by the HDR Coordinator.

3.2.1. The thesis or portfolio, exclusive of any appendices, shall not normally exceed 75,000 words.
3.2.2. There may be special instances where, with the permission of the Committee, on the recommendation of the Principal Supervisor and HDR Coordinator, the thesis or portfolio may exceed these limits.
3.2.3. In special cases, with the permission of the Committee, on the recommendation of the Principal Supervisor, the thesis or portfolio may be written in a language other than English or presented, at least in part, in a multimedia format.

4. Probationary Period

The Committee will normally require a candidate to complete a probationary period not exceeding 12 months for full-time candidates and 24 months for part-time candidates. Before completion of the probationary period, a Confirmation of Candidature report will be provided in accordance with the Confirmation of Candidature Policy.

5. Transfer from another Institution

An applicant who has been a candidate in a related research degree in another institution may be admitted to the Doctor of Education program in this University. The HDR Coordinator shall decide what period of the candidature completed in the other institution shall be counted as part of the period of candidature in the University, provided that not more than half of the maximum period of candidature shall be allowed.

6. Period of Candidature

6.1. The period of candidature shall be three years for a full-time candidate and six years for a part-time candidate.
6.2. Where the HDR Coordinator permits a candidate to transfer from full-time to part-time status, or vice versa, the minimum and maximum periods of candidature shall be adjusted pro rata.
6.3. In special circumstances the Committee may approve variation of the minimum period of candidature. In such cases it shall be no less than two years full-time equivalent candidature.

7. Conditions of Candidature

7.1. Every six calendar months, full-time equivalent, from the date of admission the candidate and principal supervisor shall submit a report setting out details of the course of study and research and the candidate's progress over the previous six month period. The report will elaborate upon the broad outline of the proposal submitted prior to admission as required under Rule 1.2(i) and shall give reasons for any departures from the original proposal.
7.2. The candidate will be required by the Principal Supervisor and the HDR Coordinator to formally undergo a Confirmation of Candidature process. This process is outlined under Rule 9.2.
7.3. In special cases, the HDR Coordinator, on the advice of the principal supervisor, may grant leave of absence from the course of study and research and the period of leave shall not be counted as part of the period of candidature.
7.4. The candidate shall pursue the course wholly under the control of the University.
7.5. The HDR Coordinator may permit a candidate to pursue the course away from the University if s/he is satisfied that:

(a) the candidate will have access to the required facilities; and
(b) adequate supervision arrangements for the duration of the candidate's absence are agreed in writing.

7.6. Each candidate is required to consult regularly with his/her supervisor. This may be either in person or using ICT, including video. The supervisors and the HDR Coordinator will determine the nature and extent of such consultation.
7.7. After consultation with the candidate prior to the commencement of each teaching period, a candidate may be required to attend lectures and seminars and perform practical work to a satisfactory standard in subjects prescribed by the HDR Coordinator in consultation with the Principal Supervisor. No candidate may enrol in any unit or units without the consent of the Principal Supervisor and the approval of the HDR Coordinator.
7.8. The candidate shall be given an official notification of any examination result obtained for a unit in which that candidate is permitted to enrol.
7.9. Any request, from either the supervisor or the candidate, that the candidate be permitted to enrol in another course concurrently with enrolment in the degree of Doctor of Education, shall be referred to the HDR Coordinator for consideration. This request must be accompanied by a strong rationale and must first have the approval of the Principal Supervisor.
7.10. If a candidate's Principal Supervisor submits a report of unsatisfactory progress, or if the candidate fails to satisfactorily complete prescribed coursework, the Committee shall invite the candidate to 'show cause' why their candidature should not be terminated. If the candidate does not respond to the invitation by the stated date or the Committee deems the candidate's response unsatisfactory, the Committee shall terminate the candidature.
7.11. If a candidate receives a fail (N) or fail incomplete (NI) grade on any course work unit more than once or fails to achieve the GPA of 5 (Credit average) across EDCX682 and EDUC697 required in Rule 3.2.3., they will be asked to show cause.

8. Supervision

8.1. The degree of Doctor of Education (EdD) is a supervised degree and the research and preparation of the thesis or portfolio must be carried out under the guidance of at least two supervisors appointed by the appropriate Head of School. Supervisors must be listed on the Register of Research Higher Degree Supervisors. The supervisors shall be provisionally appointed at the time that the applicant is admitted to candidature. Within 12 months the appointment may be reviewed by the Head of School in the light of the detailed research proposal.
8.2. Except under exceptional circumstances, the Head of School shall nominate a minimum of two supervisors for each applicant. One supervisor shall be nominated as Principal Supervisor and the remaining as co-supervisor(s).
8.3. Principal supervisors must normally be members of the University's academic staff and would normally possess a PhD or doctoral degree.
8.4. For off-campus candidates, a suitable on-site supervisor, who has agreed to act as such, should be nominated as the co-supervisor.
8.5. The nomination of supervisors will include an estimate of the expected percentage input from each supervisor.
8.6. In exceptional circumstances where multiple supervisors are thought to be impractical, the Head of School will forward a report to the Committee detailing the reasons why co-supervision is not practical and indicating what procedures will be put in place to handle supervisory duties where the nominated supervisor becomes unavailable for any reason. However, in cases where the exceptional circumstances have arisen due to lack of sufficient University expertise, serious consideration must be given to appointing a co-supervisor from outside the University with expertise in the candidate's proposed research area.
8.7. Where a UNE supervisor is not available to undertake the principal supervisor's role, the Head of School may appoint an appropriately qualified emeritus professor, or an adjunct appointment as principal supervisor. A principal supervisor so appointed will be required to satisfy the requirements of the Registration of Higher Degree Supervisors Policy.
8.8. In cases where an applicant's Principal Supervisor departs the University for reasons other than Special Studies Program, and no other staff member is suitably qualified or possesses the appropriate expertise to take on the role of Principal Supervisor, the Head of School will immediately appoint a suitably qualified individual from another institution to fulfil the role of principal supervisor, in accordance with the Registration of Higher Degree Supervisors Policy.
8.9. The Committee, on the joint recommendation of the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) or Head of School, may recommend termination of candidature if it is satisfied that the University can no longer provide appropriate supervision for the candidate. In such circumstances, the University will provide any necessary administrative assistance to the candidate to facilitate his or her transfer to another institution. This action shall not be used as a disciplinary measure in cases of lack of candidate progress or as a solution for problems arising from unsatisfactory relationships between supervisor(s) and the candidate.
8.10. The Principal Supervisor shall present the required progress reports on the candidate's work. If a report is received that the candidate's work is unsatisfactory the Committee may resolve that the candidate be invited to 'show cause' why the candidature should not be terminated. In cases of dispute between any supervisor and a candidate, due consideration will be given to the views of both parties. The following specific instances must be noted:

(a) where a supervisor has made every effort to get a candidate's work up to expected standards and these efforts have not yielded the desired effect due to insufficient candidate commitment and/or effort, the supervisor has the right to withdraw from the supervisory role. A report detailing the grounds for this decision, signed by the Head of School, must be sent to the candidate. The candidate shall also have the right to submit a report, detailing his or her perspective, to the Head of School. The Head of School would then be expected to make a recommendation as to how to proceed from this point. If the supervisor involved is also the Head of School, then the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) shall sign the report to the candidate and to the Committee or its delegated authority and shall make the recommendation regarding how to proceed from this point;
(b) where a candidate has made every effort to reconcile his/her work to meet expectations of his/her principal supervisor or co-supervisor but this effort has not yielded the desired effect because of an unsatisfactory supervisor-candidate relationship, the candidate has the right to request a change of Principal Supervisor (or any co-supervisor if required). The candidate should submit a request, detailing the grounds for making it, to the Head of School who will consult on the request nominate an alternative supervisor. The affected supervisor shall also have the right to submit a report, detailing his or her perspective, to the Head of School.

9. Role of the Candidate

9.1. Induction and Contact with Supervisor/s

9.1.1. Once candidates have formally accepted the offer of candidature and enrolled, they must contact their nominated Principal Supervisor and arrange a suitable time to discuss the formal induction process.
9.1.2. Supervisors will be required to sign off when the candidate has undergone the induction process.
9.1.3. Candidates need to agree on contact arrangements and maintain regular communication with their supervisor for the duration of course work and thesis or portfolio component of candidature.

9.2. Confirmation of Candidature

9.2.1. The University requires all EdD candidates to undertake a formal Confirmation of Candidature process in accordance with the Confirmation of Candidature Policy (hyperlink).
9.2.2. EdD candidates will normally be expected to undertake Confirmation of Candidature at or around the completion of coursework requirements. Confirmation of Candidature cannot be conferred until the candidate has satisfactorily completed the requirements for the coursework components.

9.3. Progress Reports and Re-enrolment

9.3.1. Candidate progress will be assessed at the completion of course work component; normally 12 months for full-time candidates and 24 months for part-time candidates.
9.3.2. Candidates must ensure that all administrative requirements of the University, such as re-enrolling each year, providing progress reports, and conforming to procedures for variations of conditions of candidature, are met.
9.3.3. Candidates are required to report on their progress every six months of candidature after enrolment in EDUC699D. This provides an opportunity to formally record progress.
9.3.4. Where inadequate progress has occurred or where there has been a failure to report, the supervisor and Head of School may recommend to the Committee that a candidate be requested to 'show cause' as to why their candidature should not be terminated.

9.4. Fieldwork and Research Overseas

9.4.1. There are certain requirements that must be met for a candidate to be able to study overseas or engage in off-campus fieldwork.
9.4.2. Appropriate forms must be filled in and submitted, which enable all candidates to be insured while on University work.
9.4.3. Arrangements for travel are dealt with through Schools and candidates should seek assistance from their Principal Supervisor in ensuring the correct procedures are followed.

10. Role of the Principal Supervisor

The Principal Supervisor is in large measure responsible for ensuring that the high standard of the degree is maintained. It is expected that the Principal Supervisor will maintain close consultation with all co-supervisors and with the candidate throughout the period of candidature. The Principal Supervisor shall carry out the responsibilities in accordance with the following rules.

10.1. The Principal Supervisor shall ensure that the research topic chosen by the candidate is at an appropriate academic level and is likely, if successfully completed, to be worthy of publication.
10.2. The Principal Supervisor shall make recommendations to the Head of School for any additional course work that may be required.
10.3. The Principal Supervisor shall advise the candidate on the quality of early drafts of the thesis or portfolio, but the thesis or portfolio finally presented shall be substantially the independent work of the candidate.
10.4. The Principal Supervisor in consultation with any co-supervisors must complete the required report forms for each candidate in each year of candidature and discuss these reports with the candidate and Head of School.
10.5. The periodic reports submitted in terms of Rule 9.3 shall provide enough detail to enable the assessment of the progress of the candidate and the likelihood of completion of candidature within the prescribed time.

11. Quality in Research Higher Degrees

All candidates as well as all individuals undertaking a supervisory role for research candidates will be familiar with the responsibilities associated with research supervisors and candidates, the research examination procedures and procedures for handling any difficulties that might arise during supervision, and the consequences of failing in their obligations. These responsibilities are outlined in documents available on the Research Services website.

12. Thesis or Portfolio

12.1. On completion of the course of advanced study and research, the candidate shall present for examination a thesis or portfolio in a form approved by the Committee embodying the results of the candidate’s work, which shall be substantially an original contribution to the subject concerned.
12.2. The thesis or portfolio, exclusive of any appendices, shall not exceed 75,000 words.
12.3. There may be special instances where, with the permission of the Committee on the recommendation of the Principal Supervisor, the thesis or portfolio may exceed these limits. In special cases, with the permission of the Committee, on the recommendation of the Principal Supervisor, the thesis or portfolio may be written in a language other than English or presented, at least in part, in a multi-media format.
12.4. The candidate shall state generally in the preface of the thesis or portfolio and specifically in footnotes where appropriate, the sources from which the information is derived, the extent to which the candidate has made use of the work of others and the portion of the work which is claimed as original.
12.5. The candidate may not present as the thesis or portfolio any work that has been the basis of the award of a degree at this or another university, but will not be precluded from incorporating such in the thesis or portfolio provided that, in presenting the thesis or portfolio, the candidate clearly indicates the part of the work which has been so incorporated.
12.6. The candidate shall upon submission of the thesis or portfolio, make arrangements for all original data to be retained in an area of safe storage for a period of not less than five years from the date of submission. The data stored must be in a form that would, at a minimum, permit replication of all analyses reported in the thesis or portfolio.
12.7. At the time the thesis or portfolio is submitted, the Principal Supervisor shall provide a certificate stating that:

(a) the Principal Supervisor and co-supervisor(s) have discussed with the candidate and amongst themselves the academic content of the thesis or portfolio in the form submitted and that, while neither expressing nor implying a judgement about the merit of the work, in the Principal Supervisor’s opinion all are agreed that it is ready for submission for examination for the degree;
(b) all requirements of the School, in regard to any other supporting material have been met; and
(c) the physical form and presentation of the thesis or portfolio are appropriate to the discipline.

12.8. Should the Principal Supervisor be unwilling to provide a certificate in these terms, the Principal Supervisor shall provide to the Committee a written statement setting out the grounds on which the certificate is withheld. This statement will not be forwarded to any examiners.
12.9. The Principal Supervisor shall forward the certificate acknowledging that the thesis or portfolio is acceptable for examination. When, for any reason, the certificate is withheld, the Committee may decline to accept the thesis or portfolio for examination or may accept it following such consultation or under such additional conditions as the Committee may deem to be appropriate for specific cases.

13. Thesis or Portfolio Examination Process

13.1.1. Prior to the submission of a thesis the Head of School and Principal Supervisor must recommend to the Committee the names of three examiners and a reserve fourth examiner, selected from a pool of at least five potential examiners, assembled through consultation between the Principal Supervisor, the candidate and all current supervisors. The Committee makes the final appointment. The candidate will not be given any indication of the final set of examiners that have been recommended and appointed.
13.1.2. At least two of the actual examiners must be independent experts with international standing who are external to the University and to any collaborating institution involved in the work. The Committee must be advised on both potential conflicts of interest (Conflict of Interest Policy), provide evidence of international standing and indicate whether each examiner has experience examining higher-degree research theses. The Head of School or Principal Supervisor, as appropriate, will obtain written or email consent from each examiner, excepting the reserve, to examine the thesis within 6 weeks of receipt. In cases where a thesis or portfolio has been permitted to exceed the normal 75,000 word limit, examiners shall be informed of this fact so they may consider it when making their decision to examine.
13.1.3. No person who has been a Principal Supervisor or co-supervisor of the candidate shall be appointed as an examiner. No person with a real or substantial possibility of conflict of interest that is, in a reasonable person’s opinion, likely to influence the examination process will be approved as an examiner.
13.1.4. Additional examiners, if required during the examination process will be made from the original pool of examiners, unless otherwise instructed by the Committee.
13.1.5. Each examiner shall make a separate written report on the merits of the thesis or the exegesis and creative work if for a EdD in creative practice, but thereafter may be required to consult with the other examiners and report to the Committee. Each examiner will be requested to provide his or her report within six weeks of receipt of the thesis. If an examiner fails to provide his or her report, after appropriate reminders, within a maximum of two months, the Committee, after consultation with the relevant Head of School, may notify the examiner that his or her services are no longer required and the reserve examiner may then be activated as a replacement.

14. Thesis or Portfolio Examination Outcomes

14.1. Taking into account the recommendations of the examiners, the Committee may:

(a) recommend that the degree be awarded;
(b) recommend that the degree be awarded conditional upon the making of such amendments as the Committee deems appropriate;
(c) request the examiners to consult and report to the Committee;
(d) appoint an additional examiner or examiners;
(e) appoint an external adjudicator who shall consider and report to the Committee upon the thesis or portfolio and any supporting papers invited or requested by the Committee and the reports of the examiners;
(f) require the candidate to sit for such written, oral or practical examinations as the Committee may prescribe;
(g) permit a candidate to revise the thesis or portfolio for re-examination if, in the opinion of the Committee or delegated authority the work is of sufficient merit to warrant this concession; or
(h) recommend that the degree be not awarded.

14.2. A candidate awarded the degree in terms of Rule 14.1(b) shall complete the amendments within three months for minor amendments and six months for major amendments. These will be made to the satisfaction of the Principal Supervisor, the relevant Head of School, or both.
14.3. A candidate permitted to revise a thesis or portfolio for re-examination in terms of Rule 14.1(g) shall complete the revision within nine months under the supervision of a Principal Supervisor or supervisors endorsed by the Committee on the recommendation of the Head of School.
14.4. A candidate who has revised a thesis or portfolio in terms of Rule 14.1(g) and who fails the re-examination shall not be eligible for any further examination.
14.5. An external adjudicator will only be appointed by the Committee if the three examiners are unable to come to a consensus recommendation. If the adjudicator recommends that the candidate’s thesis or portfolio be revised and resubmitted, then the adjudicator will serve as the sole examiner for the resubmitted thesis or portfolio.

15. Process Upon Recommendation of 'Degree Not Be Awarded'

Where any examination, adjudication or consultation report is received by the Committee, on which basis the Committee is considering recommending that the candidate not be awarded the degree pursuant to 14.1(h), the Candidate and his/her Principal Supervisor shall be notified in writing of the content of that report and may within eight weeks lodge a response limited to the academic and substantive matters raised in the report. The Committee shall take into account the submissions of the Principal Supervisor and/or candidate in determining whether the degree be awarded.

16. Access to Theses or Portfolios

Refer to the General Rules (Rule 5 Access to Theses).

17. Appeals Against a Recommendation of 'Degree Not Be Awarded'

17.1. Candidates have the right of appeal against an unfavourable examination outcome described in Rule 14.1(h) and will be invited to submit a report to the Standing Committee of Academic Board (the Standing Committee) detailing any concerns they may have about the examination process. The formal appeal must be made in writing to the Chair of the Academic Board within four weeks of receiving the advice of the unfavourable outcome. The formal appeal, recommendation, all examiners’ reports, candidate responses and any other relevant material shall then be referred to the Standing Committee for review and final decision.
17.2. Appeals will be permitted on procedural grounds only. Procedural grounds for appeal may include:

(a) procedural irregularities in the conduct of the examination, and/or
(b) documentary evidence of prejudice or bias by one or more examiners.

17.3. The Standing Committee will not consider any appeal where the candidate simply rejects the academic assessments of his/her work or where the candidate complains about inadequacy of supervision or other problems arising during the course of the candidate’s research program (problems encountered during candidature should be handled by grievance procedures at the appropriate time).
17.4. Any member of the Standing Committee involved in making the recommendations in Rule 14.1(h) from the Higher Degree Research Committee will absent him/herself from all discussions of the appeal. If the Standing Committee sends a formal recommendation of fail, thereby upholding the procedural fairness of the Higher Degree Research Committee’s recommendation to the Academic Board, these same individuals shall absent themselves from the Board meeting during discussion of the recommendation. There shall be no appeal against the final decision of the Standing Committee.
17.5. The final appeal to the Standing Committee does not affect the right of a candidate to seek a review (but not a further appeal) of the examination process by the University Ombudsman or the NSW Ombudsman.