Graduate Research Students

The Graduate Research Training Policy sets out the responsibilities of staff supervising HDR students, and your responsibility as a student.

If you are concerned that your supervisor is in breach of their responsibilities, you can contact us for advice.

The Appropriate Workplace Behaviour Policy sets out the standards, values and expectations for appropriate behaviour in the workplace.

If you have experienced behaviour that makes you feel unsafe, you can contact the Safer Community Program for assistance, or get in touch with us.

Yes! The Graduate Research Hub has a wealth of information and resources for HDR students.

In the first instance you can contact the Graduate Research Administrator in your department for most queries relating to your candidature. If you’re not sure who that is, the University has a list of Graduate Research contacts in each faculty.

There are quite a few policies on this. As a researcher, you will be expected to maintain the highest levels of integrity when collecting your data, conducting your research and publishing your work.

We encourage all graduate researchers to begin their self-education of the requirements by reviewing the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research 2018, published by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), on which many of the University’s policies on research integrity are based on.

The NHMRC also publishes guides on:

• Managing and investigating potential breaches of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research
• Authorship
• Management of data and information in research
• Peer review
• Disclosure of interests and management of conflicts of interest
• Supervision
• Collaborative research
• Publication and dissemination of research
• Research Integrity Advisors Guide

The relevant University policies include:

• Research Integrity and Misconduct Policy
• Research Ethics and Biorisk Management Policy
• Research Data Management Policy
• Authorship Policy
• Intellectual Property Policy

More information on how to respond to alleged breaches of research integrity, and/or any issues that arise from authorship or intellectual property disputes can be found below.

Supervisors are the most significant resource the University provides to support HDR students. Your relationship with your supervisor is unique and can be negotiated and developed in different ways to suit each of your styles of research and may change over time.

Negotiating your relationship with a supervisor, along with any other relationship, can sometimes be difficult. Due to the intense nature of this relationship, if any issues arise, you may feel that they are impossible or difficult to resolve. Ideally you are surrounded by supportive colleagues and University staff who can help you address any concerns, but sometimes this is not the case.

Trying to resolve issues earlier rather than later ensures minimal disruption to your work and getting advice even if you are unsure if you need help may give you the confidence to solve the issue yourself.

Below are some common questions research students have about the relationship with their supervisor.

This is a great question. Reviewing the Graduate Research Training Policy is a good start as it not only covers the responsibilities your supervisor has, but also the rules regarding their appointment to your panel.

For example, section 4.12 of the Graduate Research Training Policy states that supervisors are responsible for:

• Guiding and supporting candidates through all stages of candidature,
• Complying with the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research and University policies governing the conduct of research, and
• Fulfilling their obligations in accordance with the roles and responsibilities of supervisors.

This seems vague so let’s drill down further into the information available.

Supervisors are trained to guide and mentor the next generation of researchers (That's you! Yay!). They are meant to help you develop professionally as a researcher, guide you in project managing your own progress like a boss, and hone your critical thinking skills. On this journey, the University expects supervisors to provide candidates with:

• Emotional and professional support
• Research and academic development
• Support with administrative and compliance responsibilities

They must also treat you with respect.

In turn, you also have responsibilities as a graduate researcher. These are summarised on the University's meeting expectations web page, but generally you're expected to act ethically in your research and be engaged and proactive in your candidature. This means that if you have any issues, you should bring this up early with your supervisor!

The University’s information on how to resolve issues with your supervisor recommends that at first, you speak with your supervisor and bring these matters up in a professional and cordial manner.

Generally, this is good advice. Although it may be a little daunting to disagree with your supervisor – after all, this relationship is extraordinarily impactful on your research degree and career progression – part of being able to disagree respectfully and provide reasons why you do is part of your professional development.

It also allows your supervisor to become aware of any obstacles you may be experiencing, or points of contention between you. Many a time, supervisors may not even be aware of your thought regarding a matter and it's important to discuss it and create a space to problem solve the issue.

However, there are times when research graduates do not feel comfortable speaking with their supervisors because they do not feel safe in the relationship.

If this is the case, we recommend following the steps outlined by the University:

There’s nothing worse than feeling unsafe in a working, professional relationship that may have a significant impact on your degree progression and potential working career.

If you are feeling unsafe, we recommend that you contact the Safer Community Program. If you need support doing this, you can either contact the UMSU Advocacy Service who have trauma-informed, independent and professional advocates with backgrounds in social work and law or the UMSU SHRC (Sexual Harm Response Coordinators) who provide independent, confidential and trauma-informed support and advice for people affected by sexual violence.

Yes, you can change your supervisors. However, it is an involved process with its own challenges.

The process itself requires:

• That changes to be made in consultation with you and your supervisory team,
• An endorsed by the chair of your advisory committee, and
• That it be approved by the Head of Department.

In addition, consideration needs to be made to your area of research and how many appropriate experts in the field are available to supervise you.

In some instances, external supervisors can be brought into your supervisory panel to provide expertise. However, they do need to meet eligibility requirements for the appointment as co-supervisor and be granted honorary fellowships if they are to be a primary supervisor.

Yes, you can. Complaints can be made via the Safer Community Program or the Academic Registrar directly.

We recommend making an appointment directly with us to discuss how best to frame your complaint.

Your advisory committee plays an important part in your candidature progression. Your advisory committee must be established within three months of your enrolment and should consist of a minimum of three members - this must include your supervisors and a designated chair. The committee’s primary responsibility is to formally review and track the development of your research project.

Additionally, it serves as an informal support network, offering advice and guidance as needed. If you face challenges or have concerns you’re not comfortable bringing to your supervisor, your first point of contact should be a member of the advisory committee.

Schedule 1 on the Graduate Research Training Policy provides more information on the role of an advisory committee.

The Head of Department of your faculty will appoint an advisory committee at the time of your enrolment. This must consist of a minimum of three members, which include your supervisors and a chair. Following your enrolment it will be communicated to you who is on your advisory committee and how to contact them.

Similar to how you would approach the relationship with your supervisor, you should have open communication with your advisory committee and raise any concerns early on.

While your advisory committee has a formal role in monitoring your progress, they’re also there to lend support and advice. So if you are experiencing any difficulties, you should let your advisory committee know so they can help where possible. This will help to build trust in your relationship with them – the only way to know if there is a problem is if you tell them!

There are a few things you can do in this instance. First, you should ensure you have clearly communicated the issue you’re experiencing. If you feel nothing has changed, it could be that the Chair hasn’t fully understood the extent of the issue, or what exactly has taken place, and what your expectations are for a resolution. Remember, you need to be clear in your communication and if there is an issue, you should raise this early on. If you have written correspondence between you and your supervisor that outlines the issue, this would be helpful information to provide to the Chair to give them a more well-rounded understanding of what has happened.

It may be that the Chair doesn’t feel that any action needs to be taken right now and instead provides you with tools and resources to help you to manage the issue yourself.

Alternatively, the Chair can facilitate mediation between you and your supervisor, so if this hasn’t been presented as an option yet you could suggest this.

If you believe you have clearly raised the issue and your Chair has failed to act, then you can contact us for advice.

In the first instance, you should attempt to resolve any issues you have directly with the Chair of your advisory panel. But if you are unable to do so, and you wish to escalate the matter further, this will need to be raised with the Head of Department. However, in the first instance, contact us for advice.

There are a range of different types of support that SEDS offer to help reduce barriers for students needing adjustments to ensure they can participate fully in their study and university life. These include:

• Providing an academic support worker
• Providing course materials in an accessible format
• Facilitating access to assistive technology
• Arranging equipment or furniture to support your studies such as ergonomic furniture or the hire of mobility scooters
• Flexible class timetabling, placement arrangements, attendance, extensions or special arrangements for assessments

More information can be found here.

There are a few steps to register for support with the University. The University's information on step 1 of the process (preparing to register) can be found here. Step 2 of the process (registering for ongoing support) can be found here.

Generally, we find this is a smooth process for most students, especially graduate researchers. However, if you find that either:

• SEDS has denied your registration for ongoing support, or
• That it is becoming difficult to get your AAP (Academic Adjustment Plan) off the ground, or
• That it's becoming difficult to communicate your AAP with the faculty, or
• That your AAP is not being honored by SEDS or the faculty

then contact us and we will be able to provide you with advice on what options are available to you and how you might approach resolving the matter.

The is the period before confirmation where graduate researchers are required to complete the confirmation process. More information on this process can be found here.

The Graduate Research Training Policy also sets out the allowable timeline for the probationary candidature period:

The Graduate Research Training Policy sets out the standard progress milestones that graduate researchers should meet along the way:

If the advisory committee decides that you have not met your milestone targets, they will consider you ‘at risk’ of not meeting your candidature progress requirements and begin an intervention process to assist you. More information on this can be found here.

At this stage, we urge you to contact us to discuss your situation. More information on how we support graduate researchers in this space can be found on our Graduate Research CAPC page.

The University has extensive information on how you can apply for a leave of absence here.

From time to time, we have assisted graduate researchers to understand the leave of absence rules as they appear in the Enrolment and Timetabling Policy.

If your leave of absence request is denied, this matter can be escalated to the Associate Dean (Graduate Research) in your faculty. You can contact us for further information on this process.

Generally, the following instances are considered a breach in research integrity:

• Any fabrication of data, findings, and graphs or images
• Any falsification of data, findings, source material, and methodologies that distort or lead to inaccurate conclusions
• The destruction of research records
• Plagiarism
• Republishing one's own work without acknowledging the source or justification
• Invalid authorship representations
• Inadequate acknowledgement
• Mismanagement of conflict of interest
• Misrepresentation in a research proposal
• Mismanagement of research funds

For a more detailed list, visit the University's page on what may raise a concern in this area.

It's important that you contact us as soon as you can. In the contact form, please include any correspondence you have received from the faculty, or your supervisory panel or OREI so we are able to understand the matter fully.

Individuals qualify as authors if they made a significant or scholarly contribution to research and its output in two or more of the following categories, which include:

• The conception and design of the research described in the research output,
• The acquisition and/or processing of research data where it has required significant intellectual judgement or input,
• A substantial contribution of knowledge that influences the research and its output;
• Analysis or interpretation of research data, and
• The drafting of significant parts of the research output or redrafting the research output so as to critically change or substantively advance the interpretation.

More information can be found on the University’s page on authorship.

In the first instance, you should endeavour to resolve the matter locally with the researcher in question. A good place to start is to review the Authorship Policy and review each person’s contribution to the work.

If you’re unable to reach an agreement, then the matter should be referred to the Dean of the faculty. If agreement cannot be reached at this point, then the research cannot be published.

If there is a suspected breach of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, then the matter is referred to the Office of Research Ethics and Integrity.

This flowchart has been taken from the University's website and can be viewed here.

Yes! Follow the link to our contact form and make sure to summarise the situation and upload any correspondence you have had with the faculty, OREI, your supervisory panel and/or the researcher in question about the authorship dispute.

This is new territory. The University has introduced examination by oral examination (viva) for graduate researchers beginning their candidature in 2025.

If you have any questions about this process or are having difficulty in getting the right adjustments in place with SEDS for your viva, you can contact us for assistance with this process.

There are standards examiners should meet, such as:

• Returning the completed examination report by the due date,
• Not making unauthorised contact with the candidate or the supervisors, and
• Managing any conflicts of interest appropriately.

If any of these issues arise, the chair of examiners can recommend to the PVC for graduate research to replace the examiner in question.

The PVC for graduate research is also authorised to redact sections of the examiner’s report in exceptional circumstances, such as the report containing inappropriate commentary.

If you have received unauthorised contact by an examiner, you should raise this matter with your advisory chair immediately. You can also contact us for policy advice in this area.

The UMSU Advocacy Service can help with policy advice in this area as it relates to the Graduate Research Training Policy. If you have any questions about the policy and how it relates to the examination process, contact us here.