Module 5, Session 3: When Things Go Wrong

[Nelson]

#3363

The problem lies squarely with the registrar who is poor and very slow in communication. He/She lack adherence to timelines and follow up mechanisms, noticeably the registrar who is the secretary of the senate minuted errors in the details of the examiner.

the supervisor is in order to copy his communications to the Dean, who in our university is the custodian of all students preparing for graduation.

There is need to strengthen the office of the registrar.

[Mary Masehela]

#3376

everything went wrong from Senate minutes in August to the time it was discovered that the thesis went to a wrong examiner! colleagues have rightfully pointed out the mistakes that led to the mess. i think in order to avoid mistakes of this sort in the future, the office of the Registrar should have a designated person in the Exams office responsible for receiving thesis and dissertations from supervisors. practical procedures need to be put in place. here is the proposed procedure:
-The designated person receive and record the submitted document and supervisor signs. where the supervisor signs, there has to be names and addresses of external examiners responsible for examining the document.this has to be so to ensure that the document will be sent to the right person.
-the designated person further sends email to the external examiner and CCs the registrar and dean of school/faculty within a specified time period from the time they receive the document from supervisor,
– there should be a rule of thumb that encourages the responsible exams person to update supervisor and dean of School/faculty every fortnight about every progress made in the examination process of every dissertation or thesis. this means that the exams personnel has a responsibility to keep in constant contact with the external examiners. in every communication, the dean and registrar should be copied.
the supervisor should be excluded in this process. should the supervisor needs to make follow ups, they can contact he exams personnel.

[Joram]

#3408

This is a classic case of an examination process gone horribly wrong. To begin with the wrong capture in the senate minutes of the examiner. This up to the senate secretariat. Then the ‘wrong’ examiner recipient keeping the thesis when she should have returned immediately she realised a mismatch with her expertise.Such can be avoided by counter checking and copying the examiners appointment letter to the head of department for information

[Pauline]

#3423

The examination process differs in institutions and roles of the actors may differ, for example in my institution the Dean of graduate studies is responsible for sending out theses for examination and making any necessary follow-up. However, in the case presented, three issues arise: First, the recording errors in the Senate minutes (which is in the jurisdiction of the Academic Registrar, in my institution) and no evidence of confirmation of their veracity. Second the delay in response to the matter, mostly on the part of the registrar, but also by the Dean. This error could have been realised sooner had the registrar contacted the examiner immediately the examination time lapsed. Finally, the examiner should have raised her concern immediately on realising the thesis was not in her area of expertise and shouldn’t have waited for the Registrar to contact her for this to be apparent. The latter two issues exacerbated the initial problem.

The thesis should be sent to the rightful examiner after confirming his availability to examine it given the lateness of its submission. It may not be possible to request for an expedited examination given that he would have at most just under two weeks to do so before the deadline of March 14. An apology should also be issued to the student. Is there room for consideration to accommodate an expedited review of the thesis in the context of this case?

[Scholastica]

#3463

There was lack of coordination on the examination process. The follow up was lacklustre and the consequence is a student missing the graduation. It was right for supervisor to be concerned and escalate the matter.

[Alando]

#3472

What went wrong in the processes?
Two things that center on laxity on the part of Ms. RR and breakdown in communication went wrong in this process: i) There was an error in recording the minutes of the senate, which resulted in the thesis being addressed to the wrong examiner even though the correct one was approved; ii) The examiner to whom the thesis was submitted also did not communicate back to the University on time. It is rather strange that she waited until the 12th week to mention that she did not have the competence to examine the thesis when she could have communicated that immediately she received it. Probably Ms. RR should also have made a follow-up after the 6th week to find out about the progress. Even though Prof. KW asked Ms. RR to follow up on the issue, it doesn’t seem this request was acted upon as Ms. RR only asked that they allow more time to the examiner. In fact, Prof. KW had to seek the intervention of Prof. CH for Ms. RR to act on the issue – by which time it was already too late in the day.

How could this situation have been avoided?
Due diligence would probably have helped avoid the situation from the onset. We are not told whether the minutes were approved for use. The error in the names should have been corrected during the approval of the minutes. Again, the examiner should have helped the situation by communicating back to the University that she did not have the competence to examine the thesis immediately she received it instead of waiting for so long. Also, M. RR should have followed up with the examiner immediately Prof. KW raised concerns about the timelines in his/ her communication with Ms. RR. Evidence of communication between Ms. RR and the examiner is only given on the 12th week when Ms. RR reports that she personally called the examiner to find out about the progress. Ms. RR comes out in this case to be rather cold in her the manner she treats the concerns raised by Prof. KW – something that she needs to change in order to avoid being in such situations.

Was the supervisor correct in copying the Dean of the Faculty?
I think it was okay to copy the Dean of the Faculty. I believe doing this improves transparency in the undertakings and also makes it easier for the Dean to intervene in case there is a need to do so.

Was the Dean correct in intervening on behalf of the supervisor?
To me it was correct for the Dean to intervene. We see that action is only taken after the intervention of the Dean.

What is the best course of action to follow now?
I think the next course of action is to manage a crisis that has been created. Most importantly, there is a need to help the student to understand what has happened and to prepare him/ her psychologically for an extended examination period as the whole process begins again.

Has protocol been adhered to?
The answer to this question would depend on the laid down protocol. I think these vary from one institution/ country to the next.

[Joseph]

#3473

1. there was silence on the part of the registrar. Error in the senates minutes leading to mix up
– the supervisor did not mention the name of the examiner in the communication. Possibly it might have alerted the registrar
2. the registrar should have crosschecked the details of the examiner before posting the thesis
– the registrar should have called the examiner before posting thesis to avoid the mix-up
–
3. Though in my university all the communication is done from the Deans office, in this case it was in order to copy the Dean since he is the chief officer in the faculty and needs to know what is going and possibly intervene when need arises.
4. It was in order for the Dean to intervene at this point because it was already late and the registrar seemed reluctant to respond to the supervisors communication
5. best course of action: recall the thesis and post to the right examiner.
– call the right examiner and request him to expedite considering the urgency.
– apologize to the candidate for delay
6. Protocol followed? yes, though in my context, it is the deans office that deals with posting thesis to examiners

[Tom]

#3513

How could this situation have been avoided?
It was ‘an honest mistake.’ These things happen.

[Jamin]

#3517

What happened in this case was a circus that could have been avoided. First what is the procedure followed in appointing an external examiner and ultimately constitution of the Examiners board? What is the role of the dean of the school and graduate school (or whatever organ is available). I my university, a clear protocol of examination exists and that would not happen. Second there seems to be evident incompetence of the Registrar’s office regarding communication to the examiner. That communication should have been copied to the dean of the school and that mishap should have been correct early. The examiner should also have returned the thesis immediately she realized she was not competent to examine it instead of keeping it. The remedy is retrieving the thesis, send it to the right examiner as per the regulations and explain to the student. Lastly reprimand the registrar.

[Uchechukwu]

#3532

Response: Firstly, there was a data capture error while recording the senate minutes in regards to the address and names of the approved external examiners required for this thesis. There is a non-existent communication and feedback between the registrar’s office, the school and the examiners. Lastly, there is no verification process embedded in the appointment of examiners
There should have been a proper verification and acknowledgement process. The committee /HOD/Dean that recommended the external examiner, should have acknowledged the receipt of the appointment from the senate minutes and verified that the appointment is the correct one. In this case, the HOD via the Dean should have done that and if there is any discrepancy, he/she should have raised it with the register’s office for correction before the thesis is sent to the examiner.
The registers office should have communicated with the examiner and followed up with the examiner, within the first few days for acknowledgement of receipt and confirmation that the thesis is the relevant and correct.
The feedback process for the entire evaluation process should be strictly implemented from the recommendation process of appointing the external examiner, to the return of examined thesis.
The dean is the head of the faculty. Therefore, any issues arising within his/her faculty should addressed by his/her office or relevant office. In this case, The supervisor correct in copying the dean. More also, it makes it easier for the dean to well informed on the issue and intervene when necessary so as to get the issue resolved
After such crises and delay has been directly escalated to the dean, the dean is more than obliged to intervene and make sure that the student from the faculty get required help and graduate
The crises should first and fore most be solved as quickly as possible and make sure the student graduate at the earliest possible time. This can only happen if the right examiner gets the thesis, evaluates it and return to the school. In terms of any extra payment incurred, the school should bear the cost as the error is from the school
At this stage, I might not be able to determine if the protocol was adhered to as the story didn’t elaborate on the university protocol regarding submission of evaluation of thesis by an external examiner. It is only logical to thinking that there should be a form of protocol in place at the university for this type of process.

[Jacqueline]

#3535

What went wrong in the processes?
Details of external examiner were erroneously captured during the senate meeting and this resulted into the thesis being sent to the wrong examiner.

How could this situation have been avoided?
The registrar should have contacted the examiner, just before sending the thesis for examination, to confirm the address. Also, when the examiner received the thesis and saw that she was not able to examine it, she should have informed the registrar immediately.

Was the supervisor correct in copying the Dean of the Faculty?
It was proper for the Dean to be aware of the communication between the registrar and supervisor.

Was the Dean correct in intervening on behalf of the supervisor?
Sure. He was already aware of the delay in returning the marked thesis.

What is the best course of action to follow now?
The thesis should be sent to the correct examiner. With or without the error, it still must be examined before the student progresses to the next step.

Has protocol been adhered to?
I think that protocol was followed. However, the registrar should have done a follow-up with the examiner at the lapse of the six week period allowed for thesis examination.

[LINDIWE]

#3551

The delayed verification precipitated everything. Even though the details were incorrectly captured, if immediate followup was made, it would have been sported sooner. in future, it would be best to seek confirmation of receipt as soon as possible.

[Jan]

#3588

1 What went wrong in the processes? The minutes of senate were incorrect. The examiner should have returned the thesis immediately when she realized that she received the wrong thesis.
2 How could this situation have been avoided? The minutes should have been checked in the following Senate meeting.
3 Was the supervisor correct in copying the Dean of the Faculty? Yes, the supervisor was correct. The Dean is the head of the faculty.
4 Was the Dean correct in intervening on behalf of the supervisor? Yes, if the Dean saw some problems he/she has to act on behalf of the Faculty.
5 What is the best course of action to follow now? The thesis should be retrieved and send to the correct examiner. The situation should be explained to the correct examiner and he should be asked to speed up his report although the regulations allow him six weeks.
6 Has protocol been adhered to? No. But the situation required the necessary actions.

[Lynette Louw]

#3660

The process outlined in this example is not usual to my University as we have a slightly different process.
What went wrong in the processes?
a) Erroneous Senate Minutes
b) Registrar (RR) communique to the external examiner (SS) should have requested SS to confirm receipt and willingness to complete the examination within the 6 week period.
c) RR should have followed up after 6 weeks
d) Dean took too long to follow up since the challenge was evident to the Dean (CH) since 9 November. Dean only emailed RR on 8 January and followed up with RR on 30 January.
e) Not usual for the Dean to phone an external examiner. Normally this is the responsibility of the RR.
f) Supervisor KW did not receive the support from Registrar and untimely intervention (too late) by the Dean.
How could this situation have been avoided?
g) It was irresponsible of the SS not to notify the RR about having received a thesis that she did not have expert knowledge of and furthermore, she would have been approached by the supervisor (KW) prior to the external examination process to ascertain her willingness to be an external examiner. SS should have realised something is not right when she received a thesis from another discipline for examination from the same university where KW is employed.
h) Had the RR been notified the situation could have been corrected.
i) Open communication and proper administration from the Registrar (RR) in following the correct procedures with external examiners.
Was the supervisor correct in copying the Dean of the Faculty?
In this instance yes. The registrar was not very helpful in following the usual procedure.

Was the Dean correct in intervening on behalf of the supervisor?
In this instance yes, but not usual. It would have been better for the Dean to intervene sooner around 3 December and not to ask the Registrar to follow up with the external examiner rather than phoning her.
What is the best course of action to follow now?
At this point there is no other option but to retrieve the thesis and send to the correct examiner and explain what happened and ask the examiner to expedite the process though the regulations allows him six weeks. The candidate should also be informed about the delay by the Registrar’s office together with an apology. The image of the University needs to be shielded.
Has protocol been adhered to?
Initially yest – allowing 6 weeks for external examination (not usual not to follow up) but thereafter my response is no. If the Registrar was to follow up with the external examiner after dispatching the thesis, then my response is NO – protocol was not adhered to. The supervisor followed protocol.

[Author]

Posts