Guidelines for Selection of External Examiners for MSc and PhD Theses
The use of independent thesis EE is an important defining feature of SGS graduate degree programs. The independence of EE’s is one indicator of the quality of the examination process and of the program as a whole.
The process of examination and classification of theses assumes that EE undertake the tasks independently and without bias. Professional and personal relationships between EE’s and a candidate and their Supervisory Committee Chair/Supervisory Committee Members, and relationships between EE’s and the University, have the potential to introduce bias and thus compromise the independence of the examination, in fact or in perception.
The independence of EE’s can be ensured by the use of:
- internal guidelines on what might constitute (risk of perception of) conflict of interest,
- a nomination process with a formal review procedure.
There are a range of circumstances that can lead to a conflict of interest. The guidelines below list examples of conflicts of interest that may arise between the EE and various parties, including the candidate, the Supervisory Committee Chair/Supervisory Committee Members, the University, the subject matter itself, and another EE. The list is indicative and not exhaustive.
In managing conflicts of interest, it is useful to:
- Distinguish major (potential) conflicts of interest that would normally result in the non- appointment of the examiner from minor (potential) conflicts that should be declared and explained, but which should not normally, independent of other considerations, inhibit the appointment of the EE.
- Recognize that some conflicts of interest arising through collaboration on publications and/or research grants, or membership of a Supervisory Committee, may be mitigated by the size of the team and the corresponding relative independence of some members of the team. Indeed, in some cases, team members may never have met or corresponded directly.
Conflicts of Interest
Listed below are examples of conflicts of interest that may arise between the EE and various parties, including the candidate, the Supervisory Committee Chair/Supervisory Committee Members, the University, the subject matter itself, and another examiner. The list is indicative and is not to be considered exhaustive.
| A. Conflict with the Candidate | |
| Working Relationship | |
| A1. EE has co-authored a paper with the candidate within the last five years. | Major |
| A2. EE has worked with the candidate on matters regarding the thesis, e.g. previous member of the Supervisory Committee. | Major |
| A3. EE has employed the candidate or been employed by the candidate within the last five years. | Major |
| A4. EE is in negotiation to directly employ or be employed by the candidate. | Major |
| A5. EE has acted as a referee for the candidate for employment. | Major |
| Personal relationship | |
| A6. EE is a known relative of the candidate. | Major |
| A7. EE is a friend, associate, or mentor of the candidate. | Major |
| A8. EE and the candidate have an existing or a previous emotional relationship of de facto, are co-residents, or are members of a common household. | Major |
| Legal Relationship | |
| A9. EE is or was married to the candidate. | Major |
| A10. EE is legally family to the candidate(for example, step-father, sister-in- law). | Major |
| A11.EE is either a legal guardian or dependent of the candidate,or has power of attorney for the candidate. | Major |
| Business, Professional and/or Social Relationships | |
| A12. EE is currently in or has had a business relationship with the candidate in the last five years (for example, partner in a small business). | Major |
| A13. EE is in a social relationship with the candidate, such as co-Trustees of a Will or god-parent. | Major |
| A14. EE has a current professional relationship, such as shared membership of a Board or Committee (including editorial and grant decision boards), with the candidate. | Major |
| A15. EE has had personal contact with the candidate, that may give rise to the perception that the examiner may be dealing with the candidate in a less-than-objective manner. | Major |
B. Conflict with the Chair of the Supervisory Committee/Supervisory Committee Members Working Relationship | |
| B1. EE was a candidate of any member of the Supervisory Committee within the past five years. | Major |
| B2. EE has co-supervised with any member of the Supervisory Committee in the past five years. | Major |
| B3. EE holds a patent with any member of the Supervisory Committee, granted no more than eight years ago, and which is still in force. | Major |
| B4. EE had directly employed or was employed by any member of the Supervisory Committee in the past five years. | Major |
| B5. EE holds a current grant with any member of the Supervisory Committee. | Major |
| B6. EE has co-authored a publication with any member of the Supervisory Committee in the past five years. | Major |
| Personal Relationship | |
| B7. EE is in negotiation to directly employ or be employed by any member of the Supervisory Committee. | Major |
| B8. EE is a known relative of any member of the Supervisory Committee. | Major |
| B9. EE and any member of the Supervisory Committee have an existing or a previous emotional relationship of de facto, are co-residents, or are members of a common household. | Major |
| Legal Relationship | |
| B10. EE is or was married to any member of the Supervisory Committee. | Major |
| B11. EE is legally family (for example, step-father, sister-in-law) to any member of the Supervisory Committee. | Major |
| B12. EE is either a legal guardian or dependent of any member of the Supervisory Committee or has power of attorney for any member of the Supervisory Committee. | Major |
| Business, Professional and/or Social Relationships | |
| B13. Examiner is currently in, or has had, a business relationship with any member of the Supervisory Committee in the last five years (for example, partner in a small business or employment). | Major |
| B14. Examiner is in a social relationship with any member of the Supervisory Committee, such as co-Trustees of a Will or god-parent. | Major |
| B15. EE has a current professional relationship, such as shared membership of a Board or Committee (including editorial and grant decision boards), with any member of the Supervisory Committee. | Minor |
| B16. EE has had personal contact with any member of the Supervisory Committee, that may give rise tohe perception that the EE may be dealing with the candidate in a less-than-objective manner. | Minor |
| C. Conflict with The University | |
| Working Relationship | |
| C1. EE is currently in negotiation with the University for a work contract (other than examining a thesis). | Major |
| C2. EE is currently working for the University pro bono (for example, on a review). | Minor |
| C3. EE has examined thesis for the University two or more times in the past 12 months and/or five or more times in the past five years. | Minor |
| Other Relationship | |
| C4. EE has received an Honorary Doctorate from the University within the past five years. | Major |
| C5. EE graduated from the University within the past five years. | Major |
| C6. EE has/had a formal grievance with the University. | Major |
| Professional Relationship | |
| C7. EE is a current member of staff or has a current Honorary, Adjunct, or Emeritus position with the University, or has had such a position during the candidature of the candidate or in the past five years. | Major |
| C8. EE has a current professional relationship with the University (for example, membership of a Board or Committee). | Minor |
| C9. EE has a current visiting position with the University or has had such a position during the candidature of the candidate or in the past five years. | Minor |
| D. Conflict with the Subject Matter | |
| Research | |
| D1. EE has a direct commercial interest in the outcomes of the research. | Major |
Additional Notes on Management of the Guidelines
The purpose of the guidelines is to ensure the independence of the examination in both fact and perception. The guidelines are designed to protect the candidate, EE, and the University against potential negative perceptions during and beyond the examination process. There is no presumption that any individual will behave inappropriately.
It would be unreasonable to expect potential EE’s to make decisions about their suitability to examine (with reference to these or other guidelines), though it is reasonable to expect them to declare conflicts of interest and to make provision for this in EE’s reporting forms. The nomination of EE’s is best made by the Supervisory Committee and/or enrolling school, and all EE’s will be formally approved by the SGS Curriculum Committee EE Thesis Sub-committee.
As a general rule of thumb, a conflict of interest exists where a potential EE has worked with the candidate on matters of synthesis or analysis or has maintained a correspondence or other contact over an extended period in which the research has been discussed.
I have read the Conflict of Interest Policy above and declare that there is no Conflict of Interest with the EE’s proposed.
_____________________ _____________________
Signature Date
Chair, Supervisory Committee