Conflict of Interest Guidelines for the Nomination of Thesis Examiners for Graduate Research Degrees

Purpose

To ensure the integrity and transparency of the examination process, and to protect the candidate, the examiners, and the University against potential negative perceptions during and beyond the examination process for graduate research degrees.

Organisational scope

These guidelines apply to all graduate research candidates, supervisors, examiners and academic staff across the University.

Content

1. Introduction

1. The appointment of suitably qualified, experienced, and independent thesis examiners is a critical element of the examination processes for graduate research degrees at any University. Independence of examiners is an important quality indicator of an institution’s examination process, ensuring that examination is undertaken independently and is free of bias.
2. A conflict of interest exists where a potential examiner has worked with the candidate on matters directly related to the thesis research. To ensure independence of the examination process, an examiner should not be nominated if there is the potential for actual or perceived conflict of interest with:
   1. the student;
   2. the supervisory team;
   3. the University;
   4. subject matter; or
   5. with other members of the Examination panel, including the Convener.

2. Nomination of Examiners

1. The nomination of examiners is made by the supervisory team and subsequently formally approved by the Head of School or Department. Management of conflicts of interest is primarily the responsibility of the supervisory team, using these guidelines as an initial reference. Any questions or issues related to actual or potential conflicts of interest should be raised with the relevant Dean of Head of Department in the first instance, and discussed with the Dean of the Graduate Research School as appropriate.
2. While there is no presumption that any individual will behave inappropriately, it is not reasonable for potential examiners to make decisions about their suitability to examine (with reference to these or other guidelines). However, it is reasonable to expect examiners to declare conflicts of interest and to note these as appropriate.
3. No conflict of interest exists in situations where a candidate attends a conference organised by a potential examiner, has informal contact with a potential examiner at conferences or workshops etc., or presents papers in a department at which a potential examiner works, or submits papers to a journal edited by a potential examiner.
4. There is a range of circumstances which have the potential to introduce bias and compromise the independence of the examination. In dealing with potential conflicts of interest it is important to:
   • Distinguish between major conflicts (as outlined below) which generally preclude appointment of the examiner, and minor conflicts (as outlined below) which should be declared and explained, but do not necessarily inhibit the examiner’s independence; and
   • Consider disciplinary and/or cultural factors which may arise from smaller departments or small fields/communities of study that might alleviate perceived conflicts of interest (as outlined below)
5. In situations where there is a relatively small community of researchers (e.g., Māori or Pacifica, or area of expertise), there is a higher likelihood of a personal or professional relationship such as through network associations, research grants or publication outputs. In some instances, there may be a previous supervisory and/or examination relationship between the examiner and candidate or supervisor. In each case there may be mitigating circumstances, and it is the supervisor's responsibility to ensure there is full disclosure of the nature of the relationship to the Dean of the Graduate Research School to consider exceptional cases for approval. This process is essential to ensure the integrity and transparency of the nomination process.
6. There may be challenges in balancing the need to find an independent examiner and the need to find an examiner with focal expertise in the field of the thesis. However, it should be noted that specific expertise within the narrow field of the thesis is not the only (nor necessarily the primary) consideration in selecting a potential examiner. An examiner’s broad knowledge of the particular field of research, experience as a supervisor and as an examiner of research degree candidates, plus their broad familiarity with the expectations of the research degree (and the thesis) are all equally important considerations in the selection and nomination of examiners.

3. Major Conflicts of Interest

1. Listed below are examples of different types of major conflicts of interest that may arise between the examiner and various parties including the candidate, the supervisor/advisor, the University, the subject matter itself, and another member of the examination panel (including the Convener).

   It should be noted that the following list is only indicative of major conflicts of interest and should not be considered exhaustive.

1. Conflicts with the Candidate

   Working relationships

   • Examiner has co-authored a paper with the candidate within the last five years
   • Examiner has worked with the candidate on matters regarding the thesis (e.g., as an advisory team)
   • Examiner has employed the candidate or been employed by the candidate within the last five years
   • Examiner is in negotiation to directly employ or be employed by the candidate
   • Examiner has acted as a referee for the candidate for employment
   • Examiner has held a grant with the candidate within the last five years

   Personal and whānau relationships

   • Examiner is or was married to the candidate
   • Examiner is a known relative of the candidate (e.g., member of their immediate whānau)
   • Examiner is legally family to the candidate (e.g., stepfather, sister-in-law)
   • Examiner and the candidate have an existing or a previous emotional relationship, are co-residents, or are members of a common household
   • Examiner is a friend, associate or mentor of the candidate
   • Examiner is either a legal guardian or dependent of the candidate or has power of attorney for the candidate
   • Examiner is in a social relationship with the candidate, such as co-Trustees of a Will or godparent

   Business, professional and/or social relationships

   • Examiner is currently in or has had a business relationship with the candidate in the last five years (e.g., partner in a small business).
2. Conflicts with the Supervisor/Advisor

   Working relationships

   • Examiner was a candidate of the supervisor within the past five years
   • Examiner has co-supervised with the supervisor in the past five years
   • Examiner holds a patent with the supervisor which is still in force
   • Examiner had directly employed or was employed by the supervisor in the past five years
   • Examiner is in negotiation to directly employ or be employed by the supervisor
   • Examiner has co-authored a publication with the supervisor in the past five years
   • Examiner has held a grant with the supervisor within the last five years.

   Personal and whānau relationships

   • Examiner is or was married to the supervisor
   • Examiner is a known relative of the supervisor (e.g., member of their immediate whānau)
   • Examiner is legally family to the supervisor (e.g., stepfather, sister-in-law)
   • Examiner and the supervisor have an existing or a previous emotional relationship are co-residents, or are members of a common household
   • Examiner is a friend, associate, or mentor of the supervisor
   • Examiner is either a legal guardian or dependent of the supervisor or has power of attorney for the supervisor
   • Examiner is in a social relationship with the supervisor, such as co-Trustees of a Will or godparent

   Business, professional and/or social relationships

   • Examiner is currently in or has had a business relationship with the supervisor in the last five years (e.g., partner in a small business)
3. Conflicts with the University

   Working relationships

   • Examiner is currently in negotiation with the University for a work contract (other than examining theses)
   • Examiner has/had a formal grievance with the University
4. Conflicts with the Subject Matter
   • Examiner has a direct commercial interest in the outcomes of the research
5. Conflicts with Other Examiners

   Working relationships

   • Examiner works in the same department/school as another examiner

   Personal relationships

   • Examiner is married to, closely related to, or has a close personal relationship with another examiner

4. Minor Conflicts of Interest

1. Listed below are examples of different types of minor conflicts of interest that may arise between the examiner and various parties including the candidate, the supervisor/advisor, the University, the subject matter itself, and another member of the examination panel (including the Convener).

It should be noted that the following list is only indicative of minor conflicts of interest and should not
be considered exhaustive.

• Examiner 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
• Examiner has a current professional relationship, such as shared membership of a Board or Committee (including editorial and grant decision boards), with the supervisor
• Examiner has examined for the University three or more times in the past 12 months and/or five or more times in the past five years
• Examiner has received an Honorary Doctorate from the University within the past five years
• Examiner graduated from the University within the past five years
• Examiner is currently working for the University pro bono (for example, on a review)
• Examiner has a current professional relationship with the University (for example, membership of a Board or Committee)
• Examiner has a currently Visiting position with the University or has had such a position during the candidature of the candidate or in the past five years
• Examiner has a professional relationship with another examiner

Related Policies, Procedures and Forms

• Conflicts of Interest Policy
• Ethical Behaviour Policy
• Guidelines for Graduate Research Supervisors
• PhD Examination Process Guidelines

Contact for further information

If you have any queries regarding the content of this policy or need further clarification, contact the:

Dean, Graduate Research School
Email: dean.grs@otago.ac.nz