Conflict of Interest Guidelines for the Nomination of Higher Degree by Research Thesis Examiners

In developing these guidelines we acknowledge, with thanks, the Australian Council of Graduate Research (ACGR) Conflict of Interest Guidelines.

The use of independent thesis examiners is an important indicator of the quality of an institution's examination process, requiring examination and classification to be undertaken independently and free of bias. To ensure independence of the examination process, an examiner should not be nominated if there is the potential for a conflict of interest with the student, supervisor, university, subject matter or with another examiner. There are a range of circumstances which have the potential to introduce bias and compromise the independence of the examination. It is important to note the conflict of interest can exist in fact or in perception.

In dealing with potential conflicts of interest it is important to:

• Distinguish between major conflicts which generally result in non-appointment of the examiner and minor conflicts which should be declared and explained, but don’t necessarily inhibit the examiner's independence; and
• Consider mitigating factors associated with conflicts of interest arising from collaboration on publications and/or research grants, or board memberships. The size of the team or the relative independence of some members have the potential to shift a major (potential) conflict of interest to a minor one

Conflicts of interest

Listed below are examples of different types of conflict 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 examiner. The list is indicative and is not to be considered exhaustive.

A. Conflict with the Candidate Working Relationships

B: Conflict with the supervisor/advisor working relationships

1. Mitigating circumstances may exist, for example where the grant in question is held by a large consortium of relatively independent researchers.
2. Mitigating circumstances may exist, for example where the paper in question has a large author list and where the examiner and supervisor have not collaborated directly

C. Conflict with the University

 3.  Mitigating circumstances may exist, for example where an examiner has examined candidates across different Schools of the University

D. Conflict with subject matter

E. Conflict with other examiners

Additional notes on management of the guidelines

In managing the Conflict of Interest guidelines it is useful to remind those who are nominating examiners that 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, examiner 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 examiners 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 examiners’ reporting forms. The nomination of examiners is best made by the supervisory team and/or enrolling school and subsequently formally approved by a third party, normally the Head of School or Postgraduate Coordinator.

The most frequent concerns raised by supervisors relate to conflicts of interest between an examiner and a supervisor/advisor, especially with respect to co-authorship (B6). There is occasionally a tension between the need to find an independent examiner and the need to find an examiner with expertise in the field of the thesis, especially where that field is considered to be particularly narrow. It may be useful here to keep in mind that specific expertise in 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 of HDR candidates and examiner of HDR theses, plus their broad familiarity with the expectations of Australian HDR courses are all considerations in the selection of appropriate examiners.

The most frequent concern raised by candidates is in relation to formal and informal contact between the candidate and potential examiners (A2). Candidates often ask if they should avoid attending conferences organised by a potential examiner or at which they may have contact with a potential examiner, avoid presenting papers in a department at which a potential examiner works, or avoid submitting papers to a journal edited by a potential examiner. No conflict of interest exists in these cases and it would defy common sense to consider proscribing such valuable activities. As a general rule of thumb, a conflict of interest exists where a potential examiner 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.

For inquires, please contact:

1. Your Supervisor/Postgraduate Coordinator (where appropriate)
2. The Adelaide Graduate Research School via email to: graduate.research@adelaide.edu.au