Module 5, Session 3: When Things Go Wrong

[Jane]

#3248

without repeating much of what has been said, it was very wrong for the examiner to sit on the document. The examiner should have contacted the institution and returned the document for further action.

[Lilian Omondi]

#3249

Things are bound to go wrong every once in a while where human beings are concerned. However, what is critical is to have systems in place to ensure that if things don’t go according to plan, there are quick remedial measures.
That said, the examiner should have had the courtesy to return the thesis as soon as they realised they were not capable of examining it

@Rox, just wondering about the additional payments bit. I don’t think that is possible in my university.

[Damiannah Kieti]

#3253

This story brings out a very unfortunate scenario which could have been avoided.
What went wrong? Several things went wrong as evident in this story. First, delays in communication, particularly, in responding to supervisor’s emails. One wonders why an email communication would take several days or even weeks to be responded to? Second, sending thesis to the wrong examiner, occasioned by mix-up in addresses captured in senate minutes. Third, the examiner did not alert the relevant University authority of her inability/lack of expertise to examine the thesis.

This situation could have been avoided by correct record keeping, as well as, thorough scrutiny of documents before dispatching.
The Dean, could have been more pro-active given that he was privy to all communications between Kay Worthy (supervisor) and Ms. Ruby Rule (Registrar.

Again, although, errors do happen, such errors can be detected and corrected early enough if proper communication and feedback systems are enforced. For instance, I serve as an external examiner in one of the University, where regular polite messages are sent to examiners, which not only remind them of deadlines for submitting their reports, but also, give them an opportunity to voice out any concerns or challenges, if any, which may cause delays in submitting their reports.

[Nwabisa]

#3276

Very interesting story but I was becoming more worried as I continued reading.
What went wrong in the processes?
Poor recording of senate minutes and not cross-checking the details of the appointed examiners. RR delayed responses.
How could this situation have been avoided?
1. The examiner who received the wrong thesis also acted irresponsibly by keeping quiet knowing that someone somewhere is waiting for the examiner’s report. She was supposed to return the thesis and report that there is a mistake as early as possible.
2. RR could have called or emailed the examiner immediately the supervisor was raising concerns.
Was the supervisor correct in copying the Dean of the Faculty?
Yes, only if it was the HOD’s suggestion.
Was the Dean correct in intervening on behalf of the supervisor?
Yes, but again the HOD should be aware.
What is the best course of action to follow now?
I agree with ROX, extraordinary measures like allowing the thesis to be finalised one week later. This thesis should be given special attention by all involved parties.
Has protocol been adhered to?
No, it has not. (This story is depressing me!)

[Esther Kiaritha]

#3278

WHEN THINGS GO WRONG
In this scenario, it appears that there was a mishap at senate examiner’s approval level, where the examiner was given a wrong address. The thesis therefore was sent to the wrong examiner. However, the “wrong” examiner was not courteous enough to return the thesis on time/immediately when she realised it was not meant for her and that it was not in her field of expertise.

This situation could have been avoided by being careful when handling the documents to avoid copy and pasting wrong addresses. Additionally, there should have been confirmation from the graduate committee/ dean’s/registrar’s office before posting the thesis to the examiner.

The supervisor was right in copying the Dean of the Faculty because he is the overall manager of the post graduate studies at the faculty level, and therefore has a right to know what was going on. In essence, had he acted on the issue a little earlier on the reception of the first email, probably the registrar would have taken the matter more seriously and detected the problem earlier.

The Dean was right to have intervened on behalf of the supervisor, as the registrar took the matter seriously, and was able to identify where the problem was.

Having known the problem, the “wrong” examiner should send back the thesis which should be sent to the intended examiner. At the same time, the registrar, through the dean should send an apology to the supervisor, the dean and the student. This way, the student and the supervisor will not be so anxious to wait for the intended examiner read. The intended examiner should be explained of the situation, and asked to examine the work in the shortest time possible without compromising the quality.

The protocol was adhered to in addressing the situation, to the concerned parties (the dean and the registrar), in a formal way (email), and even quoting the institutional regulations within which a thesis should have been marked by the examiner. The supervisor becomes an advocate for the the students rather than the student following the matter himself.
On the flip side, the supervisor should have presented the issue to the post graduate committee in his department, which will then pick up the matter to the dean and the registrar, so that it does not seem like a personal “war”.

[Joyce]

#3290

1) What went wrong in the processes?
Poor communication and slow response by the registrar. Registrar should have verified that the correct examiner was assigned the thesis initially. The examiner who got the thesis should have returned it back immediately they realized they were not going to examine it.
2) How could this situation have been avoided?
The situation could have been avoided by strictly sticking to the 6 weeks’ deadline. Ideally, the registrar should remind the examiner in the third week that the deadline is fast approaching. He would then have realized the correct examiner did not have the thesis.
3) Was the supervisor correct in copying the Dean of the Faculty?
The supervisor was correct in copying in the Dean because he is in charge of the administration of academic affairs in the School
4) Was the Dean correct in intervening on behalf of the supervisor?
Yes, the Dean was correct to intervene but did so when it was too late.
5) What is the best course of action to follow now?
Send the Thesis to the correct examiner and remind them they have six weeks to mark and send back the Thesis. Meanwhile it is courteous to inform the student that there will be a delay in his thesis assessment.
6) Has protocol been adhered to?
Yes, but there were errors in the process

[Peter]

#3294

This is an interesting case of how lack of proper communication between concerned offices involved in examination can lead to serious and detrimental delays, negatively affecting the student welfare. The disaster could have been avoided if the registrar could have copied the dean communication with the examiner, who could have immediately noted the error. The supervisor was definitely correct in copying the Dean communication with the Registrar. However if proper protocol was followed communication should have been to the Dean, who could have followed up with the Registrar. It is important to note that it only after the Dean wrote to the Registrar that the error was unearthed, which brings to doubt if the Registrar was taking the supervisor seriously. The best course of action is to correct the omission error and ensure that in future communication with examiners, the deans office is copied. In the current situation, the thesis should be sent to the correct examiner in order to enable the student finish despite possibility of missing graduation.

[Peter]

#3295

This is an interesting case of how lack of proper communication between concerned offices involved in examination can lead to serious and detrimental delays, negatively affecting the student welfare. The disaster could have been avoided if the registrar could have copied the dean communication with the examiner, who could have immediately noted the error. The supervisor was definitely correct in copying the Dean communication with the Registrar. However if proper protocol was followed communication should have been to the Dean, who could have followed up with the Registrar. It is important to note that it only after the Dean wrote to the Registrar that the error was unearthed, which brings to doubt if the Registrar was taking the supervisor seriously. The best course of action is to correct the omission error and ensure that in future communication with examiners, the deans office is copied. In the current situation, the thesis should be sent to the correct examiner in order to enable the student finish despite possibility of missing graduation.

[Rendani Mercy Makhwathana]

#3306

After the decision was made for appointing external examiners, minutes of the meeting should have been circulated to verify if they were correct ly captured. If the rearrangement was done in the process of sending the thesis out to the examiner, the office which communicates with the external examiner should communicate with the external examiner within a week to verify receipt and confirmation that the thesis falls within her discipline. I appreciate what the supervisor did in communicating with his immediate office timeously, however, the other offices took time to respond and to make necessary follow ups.
It is now an emergency situation, the thesis should be sent to the relevant external examiner for a quick examination so that the student does not miss graduation.

[Sine]

#3320

@Christopher-I concur with you. It’s easy to blame administrations. However, as academics, we are also examiners and we always need to consider work ethics. I believe that external examiner could have done justice by notifying the sending institution about receiving a thesis out of her expertise earlier

[Thando]

#3323

This is a terrible human error which will unfortunately prolong the examination process, because the thesis will now have to be sent to the correct person.

I also think that someone needs to take responsibility for the error, even though this is no time to be pointing fingers. With this in mind, I would say that the supervisor should double check upon submission that all of the external examiners have received the documents. One can’t solely rely on fallible admin processes.

I recall that this was not allowed at RU until very recently. A delay in getting students’ results has devastating real life consequences for them, so we have a responsibility to ensure that examination happens as cleanly as possible and in a reasonable time frame.

[Dzivhonele]

#3325

What went wrong in the processes?
the cv of the examiner should have been crosschecked before the thesis is sent out. the senate should have ensured that the a well experienced examiner is appointed. the postgraduate office should have some checkpoints. the stages through which a thesis moves are many and critical. one office may not handle all. the supervisor was correct copying the dean, the office of the dean is also accountable when the student’s work is not given the attention it deserves. absolutely, the dean has to intervene. it is unfortunate to the student, the delay cannot be avoided. when external examiner are nominated, alternative examiner should also be nominated. the thesis can be sent to the alternative examiner. the student the get the feedback.

[Amos]

#3335

1). To some extent human error is to blame. However, examination is a serious issue which requires checks and balances. The Registrar to me seems to have been somehow reckless in his/her duty. Cross-checking of details of the examiner should have been done in consultation with the dean and the supervisor to avoid the mix up.
2). To me it seems like the minutes were not circulated for confirmation before sending the thesis for examination. If this was done, then the mix up of examiners names would have been identified and promptly corrected.
3) It was procedural for the supervisor to copy to the Dean. This made the whole process transparent.
4) Dean intervention on behalf of the Supervisor was absolutely procedural. PG students and Examinations are managed from Schools and Departments in consultation with Graduate Schools or BPS.
5) Inform the student about the mix up which caused the delay and counsel appropriately. Investigate the source and cause of the examiners mix up. Ensure there are checks and balances of examiners before the theses are posted. Fast track the whole examination process to avoid disadvantaging the student. The institution should put itself in the students shoes and act appropriately.
6) To some extent, Protocol was observed. The supervisor always consults with the Dean and registrar on Matters PG studies. However, the student should have been informed of the mix up before the sixth week to avoid build up of anxiety.

[Irene]

#3338

The most significant problem in this saga is that of communication breakdown and I would say carelessness on the part of the registrar and the external examiner. Responding to emails late contributed to further delays in identifying the problem of sending the thesis to the wrong examiner. Also not reaching out to the examiner earlier to confirm that the thesis had been received. On the part of the examiner, as soon as she realised she probably had the wrong thesis she should have gotten back to the registrar to clarify the matter and get things straight from the onset. In this case the student suffers for no mistake on his/her part.

I believe it is in order that the supervisor put pressure on the registrar (by mailing the dean directly) and it is this action that revealed that there was a mistake and no results were forthcoming in time to meet the deadlines.

Way forward is to recall that thesis and send it to the right examiner. Worst case scenario is that the student will definitely miss graduation if the thesis cannot be examined as quickly as possible to meet the deadline (which may compromise the quality of examination). There may be legal consequences for the university if this student decided to sue the university

[Francis Koga]

#3347

This is a problem of a communication trail. Universities have well-documented procedures on examination of theses. A copy of a letter appointing examiners should be sent to the department for records. If there are such mix-up, the department should alert the relevant office accordingly.
May be to avoid such mix-up, The examiners should receive the appointment letters prior to sending the thesis. The letter should be detailed providing the title, name of the respective student, etc. This will help to judge whether one is competent to examine. In addition, the examiner should acknowledge receipt of the thesis within one week.

[Author]

Posts