Regulations for Staff Candidature for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2026-27

1. Introduction 

1.1 These Regulations must be read in conjunction with:

1.2 These Regulations apply to members of staff of the University of Southampton admitted to staff candidature for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Staff candidature requires the member of staff to register for one of two routes: Submission by Published Work or Submission by Thesis. Regulations specific to each of these routes are specified here in sections 2 and 3. 

1.3 A member of staff may only be admitted to staff candidature on a part-time basis.

1.4 For the purpose of these Regulations, a member of staff is defined as an individual who has been employed by the University of Southampton for at least 12 months, and who has at least a further 12 months of unexpired contract of employment. In exceptional cases, the Dean of the Faculty, in consultation with the Director of the Doctoral College and the Faculty Director of the Graduate School, may waive one or more of these requirements, reporting the decision to the Faculty Education and Student Experience Subcommittee under restricted items.

1.5 A member of staff who, at the point of leaving the employment of the University of Southampton, has been a staff candidate for more than half of their maximum period of candidature but who has not yet made their submission, may continue in registration as a staff candidate. However:

  •  A staff candidate on the Submission by Published Work route who, at the point of leaving the employment of the University of Southampton, has been a member of staff for less than half of their maximum period of candidature and who has not yet made their submission, will be withdrawn from candidature as the Submission by Published Work route will no longer be available to them. 
  • A staff candidate on the Submission by Thesis route who, at the point of leaving the employment of the University of Southampton, has been a member of staff for less than half of their maximum period of candidature and who has not yet made their submission, will be transferred to part-time student candidature. The requirements associated with supervision, progression monitoring, and review as specified in the Code of Practice will continue to apply and, from that point on, the candidate will be liable for part-time tuition fees which will be charged at the relevant home or Overseas rate.

1.6 A student on a standard-route PhD degree programme who subsequently enters into employment with the University of Southampton during their candidature, will be transferred to staff candidature for the Submission by Thesis route only if their period of employment, at the point of their thesis submission, exceeds 18 months.

2. Submission by Published Work route

Eligibility

2.1 The Submission by Published Work route recognises the research activities of members of staff who have not previously completed a PhD. The work that is submitted should be broadly comparable to that submitted for other doctoral degrees in the University of Southampton, but will be based upon research with a common theme in the form of a series of publications that also fulfil the criteria set out in paragraph 2.15 of these Regulations .

2.2 The opportunity to submit published work to be examined for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy award is only offered to members of staff as an alternative to the Submission by Thesis route.

Academic Mentor

2.3 As specified in the Definition of Terms, an academic mentor is appointed to provide informal guidance during the preparation of the thesis by published work of a member of staff in candidature for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The Academic Mentor will be an academic member of staff employed by the University of Southampton who is also an experienced supervisor. In accordance with the Conflicts of Interest Policy, individuals are required to disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest which could compromise their impartiality, objectivity, or professional judgement.

2.4 The academic mentor will be appointed during the admissions process following consultation between the Faculty Director of the Graduate School and the Associate Dean (Education).

2.5 The role of the academic mentor is to:

  • ensure that the candidate is aware of the requirements for the submission of the thesis;
  • provide guidance and feedback to the candidate on the content of the thesis;
  • make arrangements for the examination and to nominate the examiners in accordance with the criteria and process specified within the Code of Practice.

2.6 There is no prescribed time commitment associated with the role of academic mentor as each candidate and their submission is unique. However, the frequency and pattern of contact between the academic mentor and the candidate is expected to be at a level sufficient to enable the academic mentor to fully execute the responsibilities described within these Regulations.

Admission

2.7 Prior to making a formal application, the member of staff should, with their Head of School (or Professional Service), discuss their workload, their capacity to undertake doctoral-level study on a part-time basis on the Submission by Published Work route, and the suitability of their proposed publications.

2.8 The formal application should be made using the University of Southampton’s application portal. The application should be accompanied by:

  • a curriculum vitae setting out evidence of suitable expertise;
  • a brief outline of the proposed content of the work and the publications to be included, and a short summary of how they will link together into a coherent thesis ; and
  • a letter of support from the Head of School (or Professional Service) which (i) provides explicit confirmation that the member of staff’s workload has been discussed; (ii) that they have (or will be given) capacity to undertake doctoral-level study on a part-time basis by the Submission by Published Work route and (iii) confirmation of their employment status.

2.9 Interviews by at least two suitably trained members of academic staff must be used as part of the selection process to assess suitability, and reasonable adjustments should be made, where feasible, to ensure similarity of opportunity for those applicants who are unable to attend for interview in person (e.g. by the use of videoconference). Staff responsible for interviewing applicants must have received sufficient training in inclusion, diversity and equality and in interviewing techniques, and should be familiar with the support available for applicants with a disability and/or additional support needs. Faculties should also ensure that due attention is given to ensuring that there is diversity in the membership of interview panels. In accordance with the Conflicts of Interest Policy, interview panel members are required to disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest which could compromise their impartiality, objectivity, or professional judgement.

2.10 The application and the selectors’ recommendation should be reviewed by the Faculty Director of the Graduate School (or, in accordance with the criteria specified in paragraph 4.18 of the Code of Practice, their nominee). Prior to making their recommendation to the Associate Dean (Education), the Faculty Director of the Graduate School must satisfy themselves that the member of staff has sufficient material to warrant admittance to staff candidature on a part-time basis to submit by published work for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

2.11 The Faculty Director of the Graduate School (or, in accordance with the criteria specified in paragraph 4.18 of the Code of Practice, their nominee) should make their recommendation to the Associate Dean (Education) who, in their capacity as Chair of the Faculty Education and Student Experience Subcommittee, may approve the member of staff’s admittance to the Submission by Published Work route as a part-time staff candidate. 

Candidature and fees

2.12 In accordance with the Regulations for Research Degrees (paragraph 9.1), the minimum period of candidature for a member of staff admitted to the Submission by Published Work route shall be 3 months. The maximum period of candidature shall be 12 months. 

2.13 A member of staff admitted to the Submission by Published Work route will not be liable for tuition fees, but will instead pay an examination fee as published in the Fees, Charges and Expenses Regulations at the point of submission.

2.14 A member of staff admitted to the Submission by Published Work route will not be provided with formal supervision, but instead will have access to an Academic Mentor, whose role is to provide informal guidance during the preparation of the thesis in accordance with paragraph 2.5 of these Regulations.

Submission

2.15 Having completed the required notification of intention to submit process as specified in the Code of Practice, the candidate should prepare the following material to accompany their published work submission: 

  • a commentary not exceeding 12,000 words which explains: the aims and nature of the research; the coherence between the materials; how the materials fit within the context of other work in the field; and the nature and extent of their original contribution;
  • a full bibliography of all relevant published work, attached as an appendix;
  • a statement declaring (in the case of collaborative work) the extent of the candidate's own contribution which has been signed by the corresponding author. It is expected that the candidate will normally have been the primary author on their submitted work but, where the candidate is not the primary author and/or it has not been possible to obtain confirmation from the corresponding author, other evidence may be needed to verify the candidate’s own contribution (e.g. early drafts/sections produced by the candidate as they were shared with other authors); 
  • a summary sheet numbering the submitted publications and a copy of each publication;
  • a Declaration of Authorship statement.

2.16 The published work submission:

  • should consist of work that has already been published (or which has been accepted for publication). Evidence of acceptance for publication must be submitted to the Doctoral College (Faculty) Team at the time of submission; 
  • should normally comprise of a research monograph; one or more authored books or papers in refereed journals or conferences; chapters in edited books; technical reports; scholarly editions of text; or creative work in relevant areas;
  • should not have been submitted in support of a successful award or pending application for any award of any higher education institution; 
  • should consist of enough publications to be broadly comparable to a PhD thesis (that is, it is evidently the result of sustained work normally in a single field to which it makes an original contribution), and to meet the criteria for the award of Doctor of Philosophy as specified in the Code of Practice (paragraphs 3.3 to 3.5). The number of publications will vary between disciplines, but it is expected that the submission will typically include between three and seven publications;
  • should consist of publications where a significant proportion of the work has been carried out by the candidate since they entered into employment with the University of Southampton; and where that work has normally been published within the 10 years previous to the date of submission.

The Examiners and the Examination

2.17 A member of staff on the Submission by Published Work route must be examined by a team consisting of two external examiners and one internal examiner. Two external examiners and one internal examiner must also be appointed for any candidate who has left the University of Southampton’s employ during their period of candidature. The nomination and approval process for the appointment of the examiners will be conducted by the academic mentor in accordance with the procedures specified in the Code of Practice (section 18). 

2.18 An Independent Chair must be appointed for all members of staff in candidature for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. An Independent Chair must also be appointed for a candidate who has left the University of Southampton’s employ during their candidature. The Code of Practice (paragraphs 18.23 to 18.31) specifies the criteria for the Independent Chair’s appointment, their role, and responsibilities. The Independent Chair, however, must be appointed from within a different Faculty and discipline from that in which the candidate is (was) employed and/or in candidature for the degree.

2.19 The examination will be conducted in accordance with the procedures specified in the Code of Practice (section 18).

Outcomes of the Examination

2.20 To be successfully awarded the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, the candidate must have demonstrated that they have met the criteria specified in the Code of Practice (paragraphs 3.3 to 3.5).

2.21 The candidate must satisfy the examiners in both the submitted work and the viva voce. The candidate may fail the examination because of the submitted work, the viva voce, or both.

2.22 The examiners shall recommend one of the following courses of action:

a) That the degree of Doctor of Philosophy is awarded.

b) That the degree of Doctor of Philosophy is awarded subject to minor amendments to the accompanying commentary being made by a date specified.

  • Such amendments include: minor errors/omissions of substance, typographical errors, occasional stylistic or grammatical flaws, corrections to references, minor changes to figures, and minor changes to layout, and require no new research. These amendments need only be certified by the internal examiner. 
  • The date specified for the submission of the minor amendments should normally be no later than three months after the formal notification to the candidate.
  • The examiner is permitted, on receipt of the amended commentary, to request that the candidate make one further attempt to complete the required amendments but these should only address points raised in the original examination process (e.g. when the candidate has failed to make all amendments required to the satisfaction of the examiners). This further attempt should be submitted by the candidate within a timescale specified by the examiners, which should be no longer than the timescale given for the first attempt. If, following this further attempt, the examiner’s view is that the amendments have not been completed to the standard required for the award, the matter will be referred to the external examiner, whose view is final. If the external examiner concurs with the internal examiner’s view, a recommendation for a fail should be made. 

c) That the degree of Doctor of Philosophy is awarded subject to the correction of modest amendments to the accompanying commentary being made by a date specified.

  • Such amendments include: modest errors/omissions of substance and may require limited further analysis but only to an extent which will not affect the originality of the work. 
  • The amendments will be of a scale to be certified by the examiners, though will normally not be so extensive that an additional viva voce is required. 
  • The date specified for the submission of the modest amendments should normally be no later than six months after the formal notification to the candidate. Should the examiners wish to request a longer time period (of nine months), an academic rationale should be provided for consideration by the Faculty Director of the Graduate School.
  • The examiners are permitted, on receipt of the amended commentary, to request that the candidate make one further attempt to complete the required amendments but these should only address points raised in the original examination process (e.g. when the candidate has failed to make all amendments required to the satisfaction of the examiners). This further attempt should be completed and submitted within a timescale specified by the examiners, which should be no longer than the timescale given for the first attempt. If, following this further attempt, the view of all examiners is that amendments have not been completed to the standard required for the award, a recommendation for a fail should be made.

d) That the candidate is required to attend an additional viva voce within three months of the date of the original examination.

e) That the candidate is required to make, by a date specified, a revised submission (which may include different publications) for re-examination, including attendance at an additional viva voce, on one subsequent occasion. 

  • The date specified for the revised submission should normally be no later than twelve months after the formal notification to the candidate. The candidate will be liable to pay a re-examination fee at the time of submission as set out in the Fees, Charges and Expenses Regulations.  As a fee is payable, the Fees Office should be informed when a candidate has been asked to make a revised submission.

f) That in the case of a candidate who has failed to satisfy the examiners for the award of Doctor of Philosophy, and where a Master of Philosophy is available as an exit award, they are invited to apply, by a date specified, for that award in accordance with one of the following recommendations:

(i) that the degree of Master of Philosophy is awarded (as per (a) above);

(ii) that the degree of Master of Philosophy is awarded subject to minor amendments to the accompanying commentary being made (as per (b) above);

(iii) that the degree of Master of Philosophy is awarded subject to modest amendments to the accompanying commentary being made (as per c) above);

In such circumstances, the submission must meet the criteria for the award of Master of Philosophy.

g) That the degree for which the candidate has submitted is not awarded and the research degree is terminated. Where permitted within these Regulations, it is normally expected that the candidate should first be given the opportunity to make a revised submission (paragraph 2.22 (e)) unless there is no prospect of the candidate reaching the standard for award.

2.23 It should be noted that where the recommendation of the examiners is for re-examination at a later date as set out in paragraph 2.22 (e) of these Regulations, options (d) and (e) are not available as outcomes at the later re-examination.

2.24 A candidate who fails to submit amendments to the accompanying commentary by the date set by the examiners shall normally be regarded as having failed the examination and the outcome specified in the Regulations for Research Degrees (paragraph 15.5) shall apply.

2.25 The Code of Practice specifies the process for the consideration and approval of the examiners’ recommendations, and for resolving situations where the examiners are unable to reach agreement. 

2.26 The Regulations for Research Degrees (paragraph 1.4) specifies the responsibilities of Senate with regard to the award of the research degree. 

2.27 A candidate who is deemed to have failed the examination may not re-apply for candidature via the Submission by Published Work route.

Access to the thesis

2.28 The Access to the Thesis section of the Code of Practice specifies the expectations for final submission of the work, and for deposit in the Institutional Repository for cataloguing and storage.  Any statement declaring (in the case of collaborative work) the extent of the candidate's own contribution which has been signed by (or is otherwise attributable to) the corresponding author should not be deposited.

3. Submission by Thesis route

Eligibility

3.1 The Submission by Thesis route enables a member of staff, who has not previously completed a PhD, to be admitted to part-time candidature to undertake supervised study in a chosen subject for research and to submit a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Admission

3.2 Prior to making a formal application, the member of staff should, with their Head of School (or Professional Service)  discuss their workload and their capacity to undertake doctoral-level study on a part-time basis by the Submission by Thesis route.

3.3 The formal application should be made using the University of Southampton’s application portal. The application should be accompanied by:

  • a letter of support from the Head of School (or Professional Service) which (i) provides explicit confirmation that the member of staff’s workload has been discussed; (ii) that the staff member has (or will be given) capacity to undertake doctoral-level study on a part-time basis by the Submission by Thesis route; and (iii) confirmation of their employment status.

3.4 The requirements and processes specified in the Regulations for Research Degrees (section 2) and the Code of Practice (section 4) must be adhered to in full when a member of staff makes an application to undertake doctoral-level study on a part-time basis by the Submission by Thesis route.

Candidature and fees

3.5 In accordance with the Regulations for Research Degrees (paragraph 9.1), the minimum period of candidature for a member of staff admitted to the Submission by Thesis route shall be 36 months. The maximum period of candidature shall be 84 months.

3.6 A member of staff admitted to the Submission by Thesis route will be liable for part-time home tuition fees. 

3.7 A member of staff admitted to the Submission by Thesis route shall be allocated a supervisory team in accordance with the requirements of the Regulations for Research Degrees and the Code of Practice. Members of the supervisory team should not have line management responsibilities for the candidate as part of their employment contract. 

3.8 A member of staff admitted to the Submission by Thesis route shall conduct their doctoral-level studies in accordance with the requirements of the Regulations for Research Degrees and the Code of Practice.  These include the requirement to undertake Progression Reviews at fixed points during candidature, and a requirement to satisfactorily complete the Confirmation of Doctoral Candidature process prior to the submission of the thesis.

Submission

3.9 A member of staff admitted to the Submission by Thesis route must submit their thesis in accordance with the requirements and timings specified in the Regulations for Research Degrees and the Code of Practice. The Notification of Intention to Submit process, as specified in the Regulations for Research Degrees (section 16), must also be completed. 

The Examiners and the Examination

3.10 A member of staff on the Submission by Thesis route must be examined by a team consisting of two external examiners and one internal examiner. Two external examiners and one internal examiner must also be appointed for a candidate who has left the University of Southampton’s employ during their candidature. The nomination and approval of the examiners will be conducted in accordance with the procedures specified in the Code of Practice (section 18). 

3.11 An Independent Chair must be appointed for all members of staff in candidature for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. An Independent Chair must also be appointed for a candidate who has left the University of Southampton’s employ during their candidature. The Code of Practice (paragraphs 18.23 to 18.31) specifies the criteria for the Independent Chair’s appointment, their role, and responsibilities. The Independent Chair, however, should be appointed from within a different Faculty and discipline from that in which the candidate is (was) employed and/or in candidature for the degree.

3.12 The examination will be conducted in accordance with the procedures specified in the Code of Practice (section 18).

Outcomes of the Examination

3.14 To be successfully awarded the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, the candidate must have demonstrated that they have met the criteria specified in the Code of Practice (paragraphs 3.3 to 3.5). 

3.14 The candidate must satisfy the examiners in both the thesis and the viva voce. The candidate may fail the examination because of the thesis, the viva voce, or both.

3.15 The recommendations available to the examiners are specified in the Regulations for Research Degrees (section 15).

3.16 A candidate who fails to submit a corrected or revised thesis by the date set by the examiners shall normally be regarded as having failed the examination and paragraph 15.5 of the Regulations for Research Degrees shall apply.

3.17 The Code of Practice specifies the process for the consideration and approval of the examiners’ recommendations, and for resolving situations where the examiners are unable to reach agreement.

3.18 The Regulations for Research Degrees (paragraph 1.4) specifies the responsibilities of Senate with regard to the award of the research degree.

Access to the thesis

3.19 The Access to the Thesis section of the Code of Practice specifies the expectations for submitting the final thesis for award, the submission of research data, and for deposit in the Institutional Repository for cataloguing and storage.  

4. Appeals and Complaints 

4.1 The Regulations Governing Academic Appeals by Students sets out the procedure to be followed should a member of staff in candidature for the award of Doctor of Philosophy consider they have grounds to appeal against any academic decision made by the University. A staff candidate cannot appeal against poor teaching or supervision (see the Regulations Governing Student Complaints). 

 

[1] “University of Southampton” includes any institution accredited by the University of Southampton to supervise the degrees of Master of Philosophy and Doctor of Philosophy as awarded by the University of Southampton. In any instance where a student is in candidature at an accredited institution, the University of Southampton External Research Degrees Committee (ERDC) will undertake the role of “Faculty Education and Student Experience Subcommittee”, “Faculty Graduate School Subcommittee”, and “Faculty” as defined within these Regulations. The principal role of ERDC, which operates as a committee of Senate, is to make decisions on the admission, candidature, progress and examination of all students for research degrees in the Accredited Institution, within the academic areas approved for this purpose by the University of Southampton. ERDC may recommend the award of degrees to Senate. The principal role of ERDC, which operates as a committee of Senate, is to make decisions on the admission, candidature, progress and examination of all students for research degrees in the Accredited Institution, within the academic areas approved for this purpose by the University of Southampton. ERDC may recommend the award of degrees to Senate.

 

Revision History 
No revisions for 2005/06 
Minor revisions for 2006/07 
No revisions for 2007/08 
No revisions for 2008/09 
No revisions for 2009/10 
Revisions approved by UPC in July 2011 
Reviewed in July 2012; no changes made 
Amendments approved by UPC in May 2013 and by Senate in June 2013 
Reviewed and revised in 2013/14 and amendments approved by AQSC 19 February 2014 and Senate 18 June 2014 
Reviewed in July 2015; no changes made 
Amendments approved by AQSC in May 2016 and by Senate in July 2016 
Amendments approved by AQSC in May 2017 and by Senate in June 2017 
Amendments approved by AQSC in May 2018 and by Senate in June 2018 
Amendments approved by AQSC in May 2019 and by Senate in June 2019 
Amendments approved by AQSC in July 2020 and by Senate in July 2020 
Amendments approved by AQSC in May 2021 and by Senate in June 2021 
Amendments approved by AQSC in May 2022 and by Senate in June 2022 
Amendments approved by AQSC in May 2023 and by Senate in June 2023
Amendments approved by AQSS in May 2024 and by Senate in June 2024
Amendments approved by AQSS in May 2025 and by Senate in June 2025
Amendments approved by AQSS in May 2026 and by Senate in June 2026