Mitigation and Reasonable Adjustment in Doctoral Education

Mitigation and Reasonable Adjustment in Doctoral Education, May 10th 2024, Friends House, London. In collaboration with the University of Warwick.

1. Mitigation and Reasonable Adjustment in Doctoral Education (MADE)  Friday 10 May 2024  Department of Education Studies, Doctoral Education and Academia Research Centre (DEAR), & Warwick Doctoral College, University of Warwick.  Presenters: Dr James Burford, Dr Sarah Dahl, Dr Emily Henderson, Rhiannon Martyn, Jess Moody & Dr Meanu Bajwa-Patel  F unded by: Warwick Research England Enhancing Research Culture Fund 

2. Today's agenda   Time Activity  10.00-10.30 Arrival & coffee/refreshments 10.30-11.00 Introduction to the day/team 11.00-11.30 Introductions to each other  11.45-12.15 Settings and issues in practice 12.15-13.00 Lunch 13.00-14.10 Vignettes workshop 14.10-14.15 Coffee/refreshments 14.15-15.00 Preliminary project insights  15.00-15.30 Plenary & reflections

3. Introducing the project team  PI:   James Burford  Co-Is: Emily  Henderson, Sarah Dahl, Daniel Branch, Rhiannon Martyn RF: Meanu Bajwa-Patel RAs:  Felicity McKee & Jess Moody  Project administrator: Matt Phillips External partner: UKCGE. 

4. Introducing the research  project MADE is an institutional-case study that seeks to contribute to debates surrounding reasonable adjustments and mitigating circumstances for PGRs  Due to their ‘in between’ position as learners  and  researchers (who have ensuing entitlements/responsibilities, and may be indeed also be university staff), and specificities of their degree and assessment (e.g. length, funding, viva) PGRs can fall through the cracks of institutional policies and practices drawn up with UG and PGT students in mind. From findings from our previous studies on the pre-application stage of doctoral admissions we observed uncertainty from both applicants and supervisors around discussion of possible adjustments, and assumptions being made. From awareness of discussions across the HE sector – set in the wake of the pandemic where a host of adaptations that were made to doctoral assessment, debates about the integrity of doctoral assessment, concerns about inequalities in doctoral education and lower rates of participation of disabled researchers, thinking about HE institutions' duty of care for their students.  We hope to produce relevant research findings, recommendations for the sector to consider, and also to offer insights to adapt policies, processes and practices at Warwick.

5. Provisional definitions: Mitigating circumstances are defined as significant personal difficulties that have a negative impact on a student’s ability to study for or complete academic assessments including examinations. They are acute, severe, exceptional, and are outside the student’s control. Circumstances eligible for mitigating circumstances will usually be unforeseen and will not be possible to cover via reasonable adjustments. Reasonable adjustments refer to the legal duty of any education provider to ensure that appropriate adjustments for students with disabilities and/or specific learning difficulties are in place, including to ensure that the performance of students during any examination is not disadvantaged.  Copies on table

6. Project objectives To map how PGR students and university staff understand the reasonable adjustment and mitigating circumstances policies, processes and practices for PGRs, particularly around assessment. To identify any current barriers to inclusion and opportunities for improvement.  To explore how PGR graduates who have had RAs navigated participation in their doctoral studies and assessment.  To engage with the sector in order to understand common issues and best practices for reasonable adjustments and mitigating circumstances at the PGR level nationally.  To identify changes at the institutional level to ensure that RA/MC for PGRs are embedded in transparent processes. 

7. Key research activity Literature review existing scholarship on PGR and RAs/MCs Policy review of existing policy documents relevant to PGR and RAs/MCs (beginning institutionally, and then in UK) Data collection   ( i ) Key informant interviews with key Warwick s taff stakeholders at the central level ( c. 10-15 ) (ii) Focus group discussions with three different groups:  a) PGRs (x 3); b) supervisors (x 2) and c) departmental leaders – e.g. directors of PGR and senior tutors (x 2).  ( iii) Narrative interviews with PGR graduates on adjustments in their vivas . (ongoing)   We are supported by an advisory board comprising institutional and sector colleagues, supervisors and recent PGR graduates. Many members have lived experience of navigating MCs and/or RAs.  

8. Setting expectations for today  Our objectives for today: To gather colleagues to provide a space for joint reflection and learning about MCs/RAs and PGRs.   To  test out some of our early thinking. To listen to ensure that any of the outputs we develop have resonance beyond just one institution.  Our objectives for later in the project:  To finish collecting and analysing our data.  To develop a range of outputs (e.g. report, briefings, articles) aimed at our institution, the UK sector, and international scholarly communities interested in doctoral education.  To keep listening. To share all of this as widely as we can! 

9. Table activity  Task Description Timings Introductions Name, role, institution, reasons for attending today's event  10 Initial views Share what you know about today's topic. What do you hope to know more about? 10 Feedback:  who is in the room & initial views  10 

10. Mitigation and Adjustment for Doctoral Education (MADE) Setting & issues in practice  (Rhiannon Martyn)  

11. Setting & issues  The candidate / PGR student The research degree (aka PhD) Type Mode of study Formal assessment Timing Supervision (aka The Supervisor) Systems Stakeholders Services Reasonable adjustments & mitigating circumstances

12. Mitigation and Adjustment for Doctoral Education (MADE) Vignettes exercises

13. Vignettes in our research Our staff and student focus groups were provided with two hypothetical scenarios about PGR students: Ravi & MC  Alicia & RA Aim: to explore understandings around: 'reasonableness', current processes, and similar experiences Advantages and limitations to this approach for both research and training Content advisory: Ravi's scenario contains reference to child illness and hospitalisation

14. Vignette 1 Ravi: upgrade review (mitigating circumstances) PGR student Ravi has their first-year Upgrade review scheduled for Thursday morning at the Warwick campus. This has been scheduled well in advance and Ravi’s upgrade examiners are coming to campus for the event.  On Tuesday morning Ravi finds out that their child, who has been ill for a few weeks, needs surgery on Friday in another city.  On Tuesday afternoon Ravi emails their supervisor, asking them to contact relevant Departmental staff to postpone the scheduled Upgrade review due, to their child’s ill health and upcoming surgery. Copies on table

15. Vignette 2 Alicia: Viva (Reasonable Adjustments) T hird year PGR student Alicia is autistic and has had a formal diagnoses since the end of her first year. Since then, she's accessed reasonable adjustments for some training, meetings, and conferences, and feels supported in her studies.  In the run-up to her Viva, Alicia's supervisors explained the purpose and format of the Viva and invited her to share any concerns she might have.  After reflecting, and taking advice from other neurodiverse peers, Alicia emails the Chair of her Viva panel,  requesting the following reasonable adjustments  for her in-person viva:      A quiet and private space to wait before the viva takes place.       Being provided a written list of which areas will be questioned in advance.       Asking examiners to avoid asking questions with multiple parts.      Pre-agreeing additional breaks that will be scheduled during the viva.      Having an advocate attend with her Copies on table

16. Task today To do:  Small group(20 mins): choose one vignette to focus on and discuss in pairs/threes. Note your responses or questions on post-its/flipchart Whole table (15 mins) When prompted, share your discussions with the whole table: What did you find 'tricky' or difficult to talk about? Why? Did you view this primarily through a student, staff, or institutional lens? Why?  What did you learn from others during discussion? Nominate one person to feed back.  Principled discussion: Listening to understand Respecting diversity of experiences and learning in the room (and that we may use different terminology) Giving space for those speaking from lived experience Engaging in the way that works for you: set and respect boundaries

17. Using 'scenarios' in research & training? Our reflections so far

18. Mitigation and Adjustment for Doctoral Education (MADE) Preliminary project insights Sourced from our participants (so far)...

19. For individual staff members Engage with staff training offered (for supervisors, Chairing Vivas etc) Know and use the systems so a less ad hoc approach adopted Be part of the de-mystification process (try to help reduce social or cultural barriers)

20. For Departments or units Clear and consistent communication channels (between PS and academic units) to facilitate smooth implementation Sharing information about MCs and RAs early and throughout doctoral journey – making clear it is for PGR as well as taught students

21. For the institution Enabling access to funds for adjustments later on ( eg for Viva when DSA finishes at submission) Make clear to students that informal explorations are possible before formal actions happening Clarity of process and requirements ( eg evidence) Provide training specific to these areas (including sensitive handling, ‘translating’ RAs for all stages of doctorate) Creating policy/process that provides enough structure for equity and enough flex for uniqueness (of doctoral journey and individual need)

22. For the Doctoral Education Sector Consideration sector discourse: Ableism Doctorates are ‘just meant to be hard’ Funding implications for mitigations or adjustments ( eg extension of registration) Creating flex so students can transfer between modes of study

23. Ecological approach? To add: Current PGR students Prospective PGR students Others? Individual staff Dept/unit University Sector

24. Our questions so far....

25. What about you? What can we learn from your practices/processes/struggles/successes? Please share with us!

26. Mitigation and Adjustment for Doctoral Education (MADE) Plenary & reflections

27. Any questions Please complete the evaluation sheet. Safe travels.