• Section 1 - Purpose
• Section 2 - Application and Scope
• Section 3 - Principles 
• Section 4 - Process for HDR Academic Complaints
• Section 5 - Informal Process
• Section 6 - Stage 1 - Formal Complaint to Faculty
• Section 7 - Stage 2 – Referral of Complaint to Student Ombudsman
• Section 8 - Stage 3 – Appeal to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President (Research and Sustainable Futures)
• Section 9 - External Review
• Section 10 - Roles and Responsibilities
• Section 11 - Definitions

Section 1 - Purpose

(1) This Procedure outlines the approach that UOW adopts to resolve academic complaints raised by HDR candidates.

Section 2 - Application and Scope

(2) This Procedure does not apply to managing either:

1. complaints from students who are not HDR candidates, including Honours students and coursework Masters students;
2. or complaints from HDR candidates that relate to coursework subjects.

(3)  The Complaints Management Policy governs complaints from students who are not HDR candidates or complaints from HDR candidates that relate to coursework subjects.

(4) This Procedure does not apply to complaints that are governed by separate University rules,codes, policies, procedures or guidelines such as:

1. the Campus Access and Order Rules which are relevant to concerns about disorderly conduct,
2. the Student Conduct Rules which clarify disciplinary actions in response to student misconduct; and
3. other University policy documents.

Section 3 - Principles 

(5) All parties involved in an academic complaint shall be treated impartially and respectfully, with due regard to procedural fairness. 

(6) Academic complaints shall be managed sensitively in an appropriate timeframe.

(7) The complaints of candidates will be acknowledged, and a response will be initiated, as soon as practicable. Assessment of these matters will commence within 10 working days after the complaint is received.

(8) Candidates will be granted the opportunity to present their case at no cost and to be assisted by a support person if requested.

(9) Staff members who experience an actual, perceived, or potential conflict of interest about a decision that is relevant to a complaint shall disqualify themselves from the process.

(10)  To facilitate resolution and to prevent distress, all parties will:

1. approach proceedings with a genuine desire to resolve the academic complaint in good faith;
2. maintain confidentiality during all stages of the academic complaints process; except when all these parties agree otherwise, and
3. never victimise or harass other parties involved in the matter.

(11) All matters that are relevant to the complaint, such as a medical condition or disability, shall be considered and accommodated.

(12) Subject to the obligations of UOW under privacy legislation, involved parties must be informed, in writing:

1. whenever a complaint has progressed to another phase;
2. whenever an outcome has been reached, including the reasons that justify these decisions; and
3. the details of any completed or proposed remedial actions, if applicable.

(13) The University will retain a written record of complaints, including details of the outcome and reasons to justify these outcomes.

(14) Candidates may appeal the outcomes of reviews. The outcome of these appeals and reasons to justify these outcomes will be communicated to candidates in writing.

(15) If the complaint of a candidate is upheld, the University will implement the outcome of the review immediately. 

(16) Candidates will not be treated differently or less favourably after raising complaints.

(17) Any time limit set in these Procedures may be extended at the discretion of the Investigating Officer if communicated to the candidate this may include time to gather more evidence or accommodate special circumstances.

(18) The University is committed to the principles of continuous improvement and monitors academic complaints to identify trends that may warrant proactive measures to minimise or eradicate subsequent academic complaints.

(19) To facilitate this continuous improvement, HDR candidates shall be granted the opportunity to lodge their concerns anonymously to relevant staff.

(20) Academic complaints from anonymous sources must be considered but the anonymity of the complainant should be recognised as a potential hindrance to the effective examination of a complaint.

Section 4 - Process for HDR Academic Complaints

(21) The academic complaints raised by HDR students may include a range of matters such as breaches of rules, policies, procedures, guidelines, or local rules that culminated in the perception of:

1. an unfair assessment of a milestone;
2. an unfair examination of the thesis; and
3. other costs or adversities that impaired the well-being, progress, or future career prospects of candidates.

(22) The process to resolve HDR academic complaints comprises four stages:

1. Stage 1: Informal discussions;
2. Stage 2: Formal complaint to faculty;
3. Stage 3: Referral of Complaint to Student Ombudsman; and
4. Stage 4: Appeal to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President (Research and Sustainable Futures).

(23) Academic complaints about choices or actions that were not initiated by a faculty can bypass Stage 1 and Stage 2.

(24) Candidates may proceed to the next stage if:

1. the outcome from one stage was not resolved satisfactorily; or
2. no outcome has been reached within six weeks.

(25) At each stage, the staff member to whom the matter has been referred:

1. may extend the specific time limit, if needed, in consultation with the candidate; and
2. and shall respond to the candidate, and resolve the matter, as soon as practicable.

(26) HDR candidates who want to lodge an appeal about their examination outcome may bypass the informal stage and proceed to Stage 2: Formal complaint to faculty.

(27) Appeals around HDR examination outcomes may include disputes of:

1. a decision to not to award a postgraduate research degree or higher doctoral degree;
2. a decision to not to allow submission or resubmission of a thesis for examination; and
3. a mark that patently deviates from the comments.

(28) The only grounds permitted to appeal against a HDR thesis examination outcome are:

1. procedural irregularities in or deviations from due process in the assessment or examination process; or
2. evidence of bias in the examination process.

Section 5 - Informal Process

(29) Before lodging a formal complaint, HDR candidates should raise concerns about a decision, act, or omission that may significantly affect their wellbeing, academic progress or future career by:

1. approaching one or more Supervisors to discuss the matter;
2. seeking advice from other relevant staff typically, the Head of Postgraduate Studies, Associate Dean, Higher Degree Research, and Dean of Graduate Research in that order; and
3. considering other avenues to resolve any these concerns informally.

(30) If any of these approached staff believe the complaint may also demonstrate research misconduct, defined by a breach the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, this individual shall consult a Research Integrity Advisor about this matter. 

(31) If the concerns the HDR candidates raise are not addressed satisfactorily within ten (10) working days of the issue arising, HDR candidates may instigate the formal Faculty resolution processes.

Section 6 - Stage 1 - Formal Complaint to Faculty

(32) To initiate the formal complaint to the Faculty after a concern has not been addressed satisfactorily, HDR candidates shall lodge a written complaint with the relevant Faculty Designate for action. Candidates may seek advice from:

1. a student advocate;
2. the Graduate Research School;
3. anyone they feel could assist.

(33) The complaint must include the contact details of the HDR candidate and state the nature of the complaint, the issues to be addressed, supporting documentation and the form of resolution sought.

(34) To prevent conflicts of interest, if the Faculty Designate had previously been involved in the complaint process, the faculty Executive Dean must refer the matter to an alternative Faculty Designate at the level of Associate Dean or above.

(35) Formal complaints must comply with the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice, as stipulated in Section 3 of this Procedure.

(36) After assessing the complaint, analysing the supporting documentation and, if helpful, consulting the candidate and other relevant parties, the Faculty Designate may:

1. uphold the complaint and direct actions be taken to resolve the matter; or
2. dismiss the complaint because of insufficient grounds.

(37) During the Faculty complaint process, the Faculty Designates:

1. must respond to the student’s complaint of candidates in writing within ten (10) working days of receipt; and
2. may exercise their discretion to extend the specified time limit but must inform the candidate in writing of that decision as soon as practicable. Otherwise, the candidate is entitled to proceed to the next stage and refer to the Student Ombudsman.

(38) Faculty Designates must notify the HDR candidate, in writing, of the outcome and the right of candidates to refer this matter, if unresolved, to the Student Ombudsman.

(39) If Faculty Designates believe the complaint may also demonstrate research misconduct, they shall consult a Research Integrity Advisor about this matter.  

(40) Complaints, regardless of the outcome, are often distressing to both parties. Therefore, faculties should offer support to both parties and enable these parties to explore other avenues and opportunities that could help address unresolved concerns.

(41) Once a formal complaint is lodged, all relevant documentation must be retained in accordance with the Records Management Policy.

Section 7 - Stage 2 – Referral of Complaint to Student Ombudsman

(42) HDR candidates may refer the matter, in writing, to the Student Ombudsman within 20 working days of receiving a formal decision from the Faculty Designate if they believe:

1. the available evidence does not support this decision of the Faculty Designate;
2. the Faculty had not followed due process;
3. relevant additional information has surfaced.

(43) If the Student Ombudsman, after an initial review of the matter, decides the matter warrants further consideration, they should receive all relevant documentation in relation to the matter. 

(44) To determine the appeal fairly, the Student Ombudsman will, whenever feasible:

1. grant the HDR candidate an opportunity to present and to clarify the concerns;
2. advise the HDR candidate of the procedures and time limits;
3. contact other informed staff such as Supervisors, the Head of Postgraduate Studies, the Associate Dean, Higher Degree Research, Dean of Graduate Research, or other students, to gather relevant information and evidence;
4. permit the HDR candidates to nominate staff or students who could meet the Student Ombudsman to present evidence or inform the case;
5. grant parties access to the information the Student Ombudsman considered in determining the matter, redacting information that may breach confidentiality; and
6. permit the HDR candidate to be accompanied by a person who may lend support but who shall not be permitted to address the Student Ombudsman directly.

(45) After assessing the matter the Student Ombudsman may:

1. refuse to pursue the matter further if the grounds for the complaint are insufficient;
2. uphold the original decision of the Faculty;
3. conciliate the matter;
4. request, in writing, that the Thesis Examination Committee reconsider the matter;
5. uphold the complaint because either the evidence does not support the decision the Faculty reached or the Faculty did not follow due process; or
6. reach other decisions as deemed appropriate under the circumstances.

(46) The Student Ombudsman will:

1. maintain an adequate record of the evidence;
2. if the HDR candidate consents, permit a member of the University with sufficient justification to access the record;
3. disseminate the findings to the candidate.

(47) If the Student Ombudsman decides to uphold the complaint, they may:

1. conciliate the matter;
2. request in writing, the faculty reconsider the matter in accordance with due process;
3. request in writing, Thesis Examination Committee to reconsider the matter;
4. reach a determination about the matter.

(48)  To conciliate the matter, the Student Ombudsman may, with consent from the HDR candidate:

1. refer the candidate to another person, or student representative body, who can offer relevant advice or assistance to resolve the complaint; and
2. facilitate a discussion between the parties to resolve the complaint.

(49) Once the matter is finalised, the Student Ombudsman must as soon as practicable, notify the candidate, principal Supervisor, Head of Postgraduate Studies, Associate Dean, Higher Degree Research, Dean of Graduate Research, and Graduate Research School of the outcome, including justifications of this determination, as well as acknowledge the right of candidates to appeal to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President (Research and Sustainable Futures).

Section 8 - Stage 3 – Appeal to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President (Research and Sustainable Futures)

(50) HDR candidates may refer the matter, in writing, to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President (Research and Sustainable Futures) within 20 working days of receiving a formal decision from the Student Ombudsman.

(51) HDR candidates may appeal only if they believe:

1. the Student Ombudsman had not followed due process, or
2. relevant and substantial information is available that has not been considered before.

(52) The written statement must state the reasons for the appeal and include any supporting evidence.

(53) If the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President (Research and Sustainable Futures) has previously been involved in the matter or could experience a conflict of interest, the Vice-Chancellor and President will nominate an alternative officer to determine the appeal.

(54) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President (Research and Sustainable Futures) will conduct a preliminary assessment of the appeal, to determine whether candidates fulfil the criteria to appeal.

(55) After the preliminary assessment, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President (Research and Sustainable Futures) may decide to review the matter and, whenever feasible:

1. grant the HDR candidate an opportunity to be present and to clarify the concerns;
2. advise the HDR candidate of the procedures and time limits;
3. contact other informed staff such as Supervisors, the Head of Postgraduate Studies, the Associate Dean, Higher Degree Research, the Dean of Graduate Research, or other students, to gather relevant information and evidence;
4. grant the candidate and Student Ombudsman access to the information the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President (Research and Sustainable Futures) considered in determining the appeal, redacting information that may breach confidentiality; or
5. permit the HDR candidate to be accompanied by a person who may lend support but who shall not be permitted to address the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President (Research and Sustainable Futures)directly.

(56) Alternatively, after the preliminary assessment, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President (Research and Sustainable Futures) may decide that another appropriate member of staff, who has not been involved in the matter, should review the complaint instead.

(57) The individual who determines the matter shall retain an adequate record of the evidence and justification of the decision.

(58) If the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President (Research and Sustainable Futures) referred the matter to another member of staff, this member of staff will recommend an outcome to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President (Research and Sustainable Futures).

(59) After reviewing the evidence and information, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President (Research and Sustainable Futures) may decide:

1. the grounds to appeal are insufficient and the decision of the Student Ombudsman shall be upheld; or
2. the grounds to appeal are sufficient and will thus refer the matter back to the party that had departed from due process, such as the Faculty, Thesis Examination Committee, or Student Ombudsman, for reconsideration. 

(60) This party must, within a designated time limit, report their final determination on the matter, including justifications, to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President (Research and Sustainable Futures).

(61) After reaching a determination, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President (Research and Sustainable Futures) must notify the candidate, HPS, Associate Dean, Higher Degree Research, the Executive Dean of the faculty, the Dean of Graduate Research, and the Student Ombudsman of the outcome of the appeal within ten (10) working days of this determination.

Section 9 - External Review

(62) During the HDR academic complaint process, candidates who are dissatisfied with the outcome or process in response to a complaint may lodge a complaint with an external agency.

(63) HDR candidates may complain to the National Student Ombudsman in response to evidence of maladministration or misconduct by the University. The National Student Ombudsman may choose not to investigate a matter until the University has been granted sufficient opportunity to redress the complaint internally.

(64) The University must inform candidates of their right to lodge a complaint to an external agency and provide the candidate with the contact details of the National Student Ombudsman or another appropriate external agency.

Section 10 - Roles and Responsibilities

(65) Are as defined in this Procedure

Section 11 - Definitions

(66) Are consistent with the HDR Award Rules.