Investigation Report 200801939

Overview
The complainant, Mr C, was a PhD student at Queen Margaret University (the University). He raised concerns that his Director of Studies (the Director of Studies) had claimed that his supervisors had doubts as to the quality of his work, following a meeting on 5 May 2005. Mr C complained that his supervisors had not expressed to him any doubts as to the quality of his work. He was also unhappy that the Director of Studies alleged that there had been research misconduct by him. Mr C said that he only became aware of these issues when he had sight of a letter written by the Director of Studies to a third party in April 2008. Mr C also had concerns about the way the University handled the subsequent investigation into his complaint.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that: (a) the Director of Studies claimed wrongly that Mr C was aware of his supervisors' doubts as to the quality of his work, following a meeting on 5 May 2005 (upheld); (b) the Director of Studies alleged inappropriately that there had been research misconduct by Mr C (not upheld); and (c) the University failed to take into account the evidence available to them when investigating Mr C's complaint (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the University:

• (i) apologise to Mr C for the failure to ensure that he was made aware of his supervisory team’s concerns adequately, in line with the Research Degree Regulations in force at the time (RDR) (2002) and the Research Degrees Code of Practice (CoP);
• (ii) reinforce with all staff involved with research degree supervision the importance of dealing with any concerns which might arise during the course of a student's research, in line with the current RDR;
• (iii) ensure that all staff involved with research degree supervision are fully aware of the provisions of the new CoP when it is published; and
• (iv) reinforce with all staff involved in responding to student complaints the importance of providing a full response to complaints; in particular, that the response includes details of any evidence considered during their investigation.

The University have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.