Mitigation and Reasonable Adjustment in Doctoral Education

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
Funded by: Warwick Research England Enhancing Research Culture Fund

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

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.

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.

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

Project objectives
1) 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.
2) To explore how PGR graduates who have had RAs navigated
participation in their doctoral studies and assessment.
3) 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.
4) To identify changes at the institutional level to ensure that
RA/MC for PGRs are embedded in transparent processes.

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 staff 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.

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!

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

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

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

Education (MADE)
Vignettes exercises

Vignettes in our research
Our staff and student focus
groups were provided with two
hypothetical scenarios about
PGR students:
o Ravi & MC
o 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

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

Vignette 2
Alicia: Viva (Reasonable Adjustments)
Third 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

Task today
To do:
1. Small group(20 mins): choose one vignette to
focus on and discuss in pairs/threes. Note
your responses or questions on post-
its/flipchart
2. Whole table (15 mins) When prompted,
share your discussions with the whole table:
o What did you find 'tricky' or difficult to talk
about? Why?
o Did you view this primarily through a
student, staff, or institutional lens? Why?
o 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

Using 'scenarios' in research &
training?
Our reflections so far
Advantages
• 'Eases people in' to emotive
topics
• Elicits reflections on actual
policies & process (not just
'abstract')
• Discussions surface 'hidden'
norms and nuances
around decision-making,
assumptions, values,
meanings, and stereotypes.
Limitations/cautions
• Wording and framing of
scenario needs time and care:
can reveal our own biases, or
re-circulate existing discourses
• A default to text-based
information provision (and
oral discussion) raises some
difficulties for inclusion/good
practice.
• MC examples often inherently
emotive, can be distressing for
some.

Education (MADE)
Preliminary project insights
Sourced from our participants (so far)...

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)

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

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)

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

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

Our questions so far....
Mapping policies & processes
•How/where are PGRs in MC/RA policies and processes (& vice versa?)
•How does disclosed information flow through the system/s?
•Does the language and terminology used make the information accessible?
Knowledge(s) and competencies
•How are all PGR-related staff learning about these issues?
•How & when do PGRs learn about RA/MC policies, processes, support and rights?
•How is student expertise (re: disability, neurodiversity, caring, etc.) informing practice?
‘Inclusive assessment' conversations for PGR
• How can PGR/Vivas benefit from UG/PGT developments for inclusive assessment design? (and
vice versa)
Conversations about accountability and responsibility
•Who does everyone *think* is responsible for ensuring PGR student RAs or MCs?
•How 'burdensome' are 'evidence' requirements for already-marginalised or vulnerable students?
•How might your PGR students hold the institution to account for its future work?

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

Education (MADE)
Plenary & reflections

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

Mitigation and Reasonable Adjustment in Doctoral Education