ALPHA

Aim of the Research Programme

§1. The research programme is oriented to assist students to make personal contribution to scientific and theological research through the writing of a dissertation, which is to be accomplished under the guidance of a competent professorial staff, within a reasonable time-limit.

§2. The candidates study in depth and specialize in one specific theme, without neglecting the over- all comprehension and mastery of the vast field of theology.

§3. The research programme will be especially geared toward preparing a research dissertation, within a reasonable timeframe. The dissertation should constitute an innovative contribution to the area of theological research.

Modus Operandi

§1. The Research Programme in Theology consists of an interrelated and coherent combination of educational and other study activities. 

§2. The Research Programme consists of obligatory and optional elements which aim at broadening knowledge and experience by way of methodological reflection, systematic guidance, discussion with other doctoral students, contact with professors from one's own area of research, the presentation of research results, international contacts, preparation of publications, supplementary formation through the study of languages and other specialised courses, and team work.

§3. Participation in the Research Programme is a compulsory condition for obtaining the research degree. As a rule, this implies a residency requirement of two years of full time study. In very exceptional cases candidates may be exempted from the requirement to participate in the Research Programme. In such cases an alternative assignment will be imposed.

Eligibility

In principle, admission to the Research in Religious Science demands a valid Master's Degree in Theology (MTh) with at least a high second class, the validity of which will be adjudged by the competent authorities of the Institute. In case of necessity, the student should pass a qualifying examination conducted by the Institute.

§1. Candidates, who meet the following conditions for admission, may be admitted to the research programme in Theology conducted by the Alpha Institute:

1. The candidate has obtained the degree of Research Master of Advanced Studies in Theology and Religion awarded by the Alpha Institute of Theology and science. A candidate who has obtained an equivalent Masters degree in Theology from another Indian or a foreign university may also be admitted to the research programme in theology. Such applications are assessed by the research committee. The committee evaluates the content of the various course components of the second-cycle degree that the applicant followed. Should it become evident that the said programme is not equivalent to that required for the Research Master of Advanced Studies in Theology offered by the Institute, no direct admission to the research programme in theology will be granted.
2. The candidate can present adequate study results and has obtained at least 50% for the whole of the master programme(s) and a level of 70% for the Research Paper.
3. During the assessment of the application for admission, the total period of time the student needed to obtain the study points for the master programme(s) is also taken into account.
4. The candidate submits a research project in the field of theology which (a) fits into the research profile of the Faculty ofTheology and Religious Studies, (b) is accepted by a supervisor (and/or co-supervisor) belonging to the Faculty of Alpha Institute, (c) and is approved by the concerned research unit of the Faculty of Alpha Institute.

§2. Besides English, the Research Candidates should have an advanced knowledge of the classical languages, such as Hebrew, Greek and Latin as may be required by the nature of the research and also a working knowledge of at least one of the modern languages, such as, German, Spanish, Italian or French.

§3. Candidates are required to submit a detailed research project- on the form provided for this purpose and signed by the supervisor - to the research secretariat before the dates indicated on the faculty calendar of the year in which they wish to be admitted to the Research programme.

1. During the first two weeks of June/September, the members of the tenured academic personnel of the research units will evaluate whether the proposed projects fit into the research profile of the research unit. Particular attention should be paid to methodological skills, including the research student's capacity to read the primary literature necessary for his/her research in its original language.
2. The coordinator of the research unit sends the results of the assessment to the research committee. The research committee considers these findings and decides whether the submitted research projects meetthe requirements.
3. The Secretary of the Research Committee stores a copy of the proposed project, signed by the Research Unit's coordinator, the promoter (and, if necessary, co-promoter) and the candidate, in the candidate's file.

§4. Those who have obtained a Masters Degree in Theology from another Indian or a foreign university may also be admitted to the Research Programme in Theology provided they meet the conditions for admission outlined above. Applications are assessed by the Research Committee, whose composition is constituted according to the regulations of the Faculty. The Committee evaluates the content of the various course components of the second-cycle degree that the applicants followed. Should it become evident that the said programme is not equivalent to that required for the Master of Advanced Studies in Theology and Religion offered by Alpha Institute, no direct admission to the Research Programme in Theology will be granted. The Committee then passes the file on to the Faculty Admissions Committee.

Duration

Research Students require spending at least four semesters (two years) in research work, in regular contact with the Institute. The duration of the research programme may be extended up to seven years, in which case starting from the fourth year, registration should be renewed. At the end of this period of seven years, the student loses his/her registration. He/ She cannot re-register for another term with the same topic of dissertation.

Promoters

Depending on the nature of the research, the Board, if it deems it necessary, can suggest the second promoter already at the time of the registration of the topic. The first promoter should be a qualified member of the faculty of the Institute or any eligible professor approved by the Institute.

§1. The promoter forms the pivot of the research training, in which the research student's research project occupies a central position. As such, he or she is responsible for the material and intellectual climate in which the research student develops and carries out his or her research. The role of the supervisor is therefore not limited to the initiation of the research. He or she also plays a stimulating, coordinating and evaluating role throughout the research process. The supervisor must also ensure that the research student can acquire other skills in the context of his or her training that are essential to enabling him or her to switch smoothly to another position after the research training,
inside or outside the academic world.

§2. A good supervisor possesses the necessary qualities to ensure the correct guidance and support of each of his or her research students:

1. The supervisor is an active researcher and has acquired a sound reputation. This can be deduced, for example, depending upon his or her length of academic service and the research domain, from academic publications, citations, invitations to contribute to conferences and the acquisition of significant research financing.
2. The supervisor has built up his or her reputation in a research domain that is sufficiently related to the field in which the research student is carrying out his or her research to enable him or her to give the requisite supervision.
3. The supervisor is responsible for the quality of the research plan of the research student.

§3. The supervisor provides intensive supervision. The supervision ensures that there is adequate provision for the research studentto consult with qualified researchers about the planning, execution and results of the research. Research units and supervisors consult on how the research student can receive effective and high quality supervision. Regular formal and informal contacts between the research student, the supervisor and the supervisory team form the basis of good supervision. The contacts between the research student and the supervisor are set out in the work arrangements that are made fol lowing the annual appraisal interviews.

§4. The specific tasks of the supervisor and the supervisory team are:

1. to help the research student in the planning, execution and, if necessary, the adaptation of the research.
2. to help the research student to place the research in a broader context,
3. to assist the research student in the interpretation and analysis of the results obtained from his or her research.
4. to encourage the research student in presenting his or her work by regularly attending presentations and giving the research student feedback on his or her performance.
5. to introduce the research student into the research world
                    (i) by involving him or her in the research of the research group
                    (ii) by bringing him or her into contact with other researchers within the research domain,
                         e.g. by encouraging active participation in conferences or by a stay in another research institution.
6. to encourage the research student to publish his or her work, point out publication opportunities and assist in preparing publications. The supervisor and the supervisory team bear an important joint responsibility for the research process and also for the publications arising from the research. They give the research student the maximum opportunity to valorize the work performed as the first author listed on publications.

§5. The supervisor creates a research environment in which the integrity of academic practice (e.g. good data management, responsible authorship, ... ) is the norm. In addition, the supervisor clarifies what is to be regarded as lack of the integrity of academic conduct within the context of the research domain

1. The supervisor draws up jointly with the research student a schedule for the research training. The supervisor informs the research student about the training on offer at the Alpha Institute and discusses with the research student the content of the research training. The supervisor further draws the research student's attention to interesting possibilities for taking up additional training or education both within and outside the ALPHA INSTITUTE. The supervisor ensures (together with the dean or head of department) that the research student's teaching commitments and other tasks are so organised that the completion of the research within the anticipated time limit is not put at risk.
2. The supervisor is jointly responsible for the efficient progress of the research process. The supervisor encourages the research student to finalise his or her research within a reasonable term.
3. The supervisor is jointly responsible for creating a pleasant professional work environment. This means, inter alia, that account is taken of personal factors that can have an impact on the research.

§6. A proactive attitude is expected of the research student. It is the research student him or herself in the first instance who develops his or her research and it is the research student who is expected to contribute increasingly actively to the planning of the research and the interpretation and analysis of the results as the research progresses. He or she also ensures that any problems are communicated as quickly as possible (to the supervisor and the supervisory team in the first instance) so that an appropriate solution can be sought. The development of a proactive work attitude and of the necessary skills to think and communicate about problems with a view to solving them is essential to enabling the student to develop into an independent researcher. The supervisor therefore encourages the research student to develop these skills.


§7. The (faculty) research committees vouch, in collaboration with the supervisors and the supervisory committees, for the admission and/or follow-up of research students. The quality of the supervisor must therefore be a point of special interest for these committees. Supervisors can be helped to adjust how they carry out their supervision with the advice of the committee and in consultation with all concerned.
Participation In the first year of the research the student is to attend the Methodology Seminar and the Inter-Disciplinary seminar organized by the Institute and validate the specialized courses prescribed by his/her promoter in consultation with the concerned Head of the Department. Research Students have to participate in all the research program organized by Alpha Institute. These program are aimed at extending the candidate's knowledge and experience through-in -depth and scientific methodological training, systematic guidance, discussion with fellow researchers, consultation with professors in their areas of specialization, presentation of the results of research, publications and the development of further progressive skills through workshops, learning of source languages and hermeneutic and analytic intellectual pursuits. Participation in the research progrm is a sine qua non for obtaining the Research in theology. The work can be done in the form of courses, seminars or paper of specialization determined by the concerned departments.

Progress Reports

§1. The first progress report takes place at the latest one year after the start of the research period and consists of an oral or written presentation on the research undertaken or still to be done. The results determine whether the research programme and the preparation for the thesis can be continued or not. The evaluation takes place on the basis of two criteria: (1) the progress made in the research, and (2) the advances made in academic ability and research maturity by the researcher.

§2. Subsequently, the researcher reports on an annual basis on the progress of the research.

§3. Every progress report is validated by the supervisor and any co-supervisors, and assessed by the other members of the supervisory committee. The result is substantiated and recorded in writing and sent to the researcher and the research committee.

§4. Each year, before the date indicated on the calendar of the Institute, the researchers submit to the supervisory committee a progress report (on the standard form) signed by the researcher and the supervisor. The progress report of the first, the third, and subsequent years will be sent to the supervisory committee for evaluation and approval. On the dates indicated on the faculty calendar, the members of the supervisory committee discuss the progress of each researcher and report their recommendations to the chair oft he research committee.

1. If the supervisor, the supervisory committee, or the research committee find that the research work has made insufficient progress, the research committee holds an evaluation of the relevant research project. The chair of the committee invites the supervisor(s) (and, if necessary, co-supervisor(s) and the members of the supervisory committee to take part in the discussion. The research committee can decide not to renew the permission to register for the research programme.
2. The research committee can also conclude that the progress report is missing. In that case, the researcher is given two weeks to remedy the situation. After two weeks the chair of the research committee verifies if the researcher concerned has rectified the situation. If this is not the case, permission to re-register cannot be given.

§5. Two years after starting a research an officially organized evaluation of the progress of the research must take place. This evaluation is undertaken by the members of the supervisory committee. As a rule, for the second year evaluation, the researchers must also submit a chapter of their research dissertation for assessment by the supervisory committee. A meeting takes place with the researchers and their
supervisory committees on the date indicated in the faculty calendar. During this meeting the researchers give a short explanation regarding their research and the members of the supervisory committee have the opportunity to ask the researchers questions about the chapters submitted and the general progress of their work. After having heard the researchers, the committee members deliberate and
come to one of the following evaluations: good, sufficient with certain recommendations, or inadequate. In the case of "inadequate", the research committee is to hold an interim evaluation of the relevant research project. The chair of the research committee invites the supervisor(s) (and, if necessary, co-supervisor(s)) and the other members of the supervisory committee to take part in the discussion. The research committee can decide not to renew the permission to register for the research program.

Research Program

§1. The research programme is obligatory and must be successfully completed before the researcher is permitted to submit the thesis and defend it publicly.
§2. The research programme consists of a truncus communis (see art. 15) and a supplementary part (see art. 16). The researcher can only complete the research programme if all the elements of the Common Mandatories (truncus communis) are completed. The research committee can on an individual basis grant a (partial) exemption of the research programme or set a substitute assignment, on the basis of a
motivated application by the researcher and in consultation with the supervisor. If the research is multi- and/or interdisciplinary, the research committee can give permission for elements of the truncus communis (see ARTICLE 9) to be replaced by course components from another research programme, on the basis of a motivated application by the researcher in consultation with the supervisor.
§3. The researcher reports to the research committee on the progress made within his/her research programme. On the basis of this report, the research committee will decide whether the researcher has completed the research programme.



§1. The truncus communis consists of at least the following elements:

1. The writing of at least one scientific publication at an international level or a similar achievement at an international level. By a publication at international level is meant: a peer-reviewed contribution (journal article, contribution to a book, conference proceedings, patent, design) about his/her own research and written in the language of the discipline. The contribution is aimed at an international audience. In order to be able to successfully complete the research programme, the contribution must be published or be accepted for publication,
2. Giving at least two seminars, either about his/her own research, or on a more general theme,
3. Giving at least one oral or poster presentation at an international scientific conference,
4. following at least one seminar series or course component specifically organised for researchers,
5. Following the course component 'Scientific integrity for starting research' during the first year of the research programme. Following the course component 'Scientific Integrity for starting research' is mandatory for researchers.
6. Reporting on the progress of the research as specified in ARTICLE

§2. The executive committees can add more specific provisions or additional components to the truncus communis in their Particulars:

1.  Researchers attend, during their programme, the compulsory info and formation sessions organized by the research committee for all students. Those unable to attend are expected to inform the chair oft he research committee.
2. Research courses, courses and seminars on the research level with evaluation (max. four)

§3.Research in Religious Science: each year each specialization/major organizes one research course for the research programme. In the first and second year of his/her research programme, the researcher is obliged to successfully follow the research course organized for his/her specialization/major. If he/she has already followed this course, he/she can propose to the secretary of the research committee to replace that course by a research course taken from the Research Master of Advanced Studies in Theology and Religion* to meet this obligation. A researcher who is immediately admitted to the research programme must follow, in addition to the two research courses organised by
his/her specialization/major, two supplementary courses from the Research Master of Advanced Studies in Theology and Religion (proposal to be submitted to the secretary of the research committee). All (research) courses have to be successfully followed (including examinations) before they can be counted towards the completion of the research programme. Exceptions to this rule can only be granted by the research
committee. Requests for any exception(s) must be submitted to the secretary of the research committee before October 5.


§4. The researcher can, in connection with his/her own research project, include a maximum of two other research courses or advanced language courses from the Research Master in Advanced Studies in Theology and Religion in his/her programme. The research committee decides if the aforementioned courses/seminars meet the required research level and must give permission for inclusion of these into the research programme.


§5. Researchers admitted to the research programme become full members of the research unit that has accepted their research project (Judeo-Christian Scripture Studies, Systematic Theology and Study of Religions, Theological and Comparative Ethics, History of Church and Theology, or Pastoral and Empirical Theology). As members of a research unit, candidates participate in the meetings to which they are invited. Those unable to attend are expected to inform the coordinator of the research unit. They are also expected to participate in the conferences and lectures organized by their own research unit and to report on their participations in the yearly progress report.

Thesis

The thesis is an exam piece that must allow the examination committee to assess the quality of the research.

§1 The regulations with regard to thesis copyright must be respected. The regulations on intellectual property rights on research results including copyright applies, and non-salaried researchers must sign a written agreement at the beginning of their research as specified in this regulation if the results of the research have to be protected.

§2 Language and form of the dissertation
Researchers enrolled for the research programme can write their dissertation in English, Malayalam or other Indian Languages. The research committee can give permission for the dissertation to be written in other foreign languages. The length of the dissertation must be appropriate to the topic that it treats. As a rule, topics must be selected in such a way that they can be treated in a scholarly way in no more than 175,000 words (including footnotes). Well-motivated exceptions, when supported by the research unit, can be approved by the research committee.

§3. It is also permitted to defend a research on the basis of a series of articles accepted and/or published in International journals. In this case, one must however make sure that there is a thematic unity, made explicit in an extensive introduction and/or conclusion, and that the length complies with the general expectations for a research dissertation.

§4. The Dissertation should be typed in white paper of good quality and sufficient opacity. All sheets of paper used should be of the same quality. Manifold paper should not be used. An "A4" size paper should be used for dissertation. The text of the dissertation should be typed with 1.5" line spacing, except in the case where quotations are given in indent. A space of 1.5" on the left margin and a space of 1" on the right margin should be kept. A space of 1" should be kept on the top and the bottom of the page. Dissertation should be typed only on one side of the paper. The cover page shall have the format approved by the Institute. The detailed description of the methodology to be used in research dissertation is available in the handbook Methodological Guidelines for Research Dissertations published by the Alpha lnsitute and made available on our website (alphathalassery.org). A dissertation, which is submitted without following the prescribed requirements, will not be accepted.

Submission of the research dissertation

§1. Researchers who fulfil the following requirements may submit the manuscript of their research dissertation:

1.  A. Research in Reliogious Science: They have been holders of the academic degree of Research Master of Advanced Studies in Theology and Religion for at least two years, or were granted direct admission by the faculty to the research programme.
2. Those who have successfully completed the prescribed research programme of the faculty.
3. Those who have submitted their publications by means of verifying the copy rights ..

§2. A hard copy of the unbound manuscript of the dissertation is to be submitted to the research secretariat; moreover, an electronic copy is submitted to the research secretariat for the systematic monitoring of plagiarism. Every dissertation is screened for plagiarism with the help of a plagiarism control system.

§3. Within two weeks after the submission of the dissertation, the researcher submits, with the approval of his/her supervisor, a summary of (maximum) 500 words at the research secretariat. The summary will present the research in a clear and easily accessible manner. In addition to the summary the researcher will submit a maximum of three main theses in which the main results of the research research are summarized. In addition, one or (maximum) two theses are to be added that demonstrate the significance of the dissertation for theology/religious studies as a whole, for domains outside of the area of specialization of the dissertation, for other
sciences, or for the church and/or society. All theses together are not to exceed 200 words. The administrative secretary will, after verification of the make-up and the size of these texts, immediately distribute these to the members of the examination committee.

§4. Report of the Reading Committee: A copy of the unbound manuscript of the dissertation accompanied by a letter from the Dean and/or Vice-Dean for Research with the submission date for the reading report is sent to the members of the examination committee.

1. The administrative secretary sends a message to the members of the examination committee with a series of proposed dates for the meeting of the examination committee and-on the condition of'placet' -possible dates for the defence.
2. Within six weeks after the constitution of the examination committee, vacation periods excluded, the members of the examination committee submit a written evaluation of the dissertation and the theses to the research secretariat for the attention of the chair of the examination committee. For this they use the guidelines provided to them by the research secretariat. Vacation times include Christmas vacation and the period from the conclusion of the second ordinary examination period to the beginning of the third ordinary examination period. If due to exceptional circumstances, the need arises to deviate from this procedure, a request for an exception to the rule has to be submitted to the research committee, which will reach a decision on the matter.
3. The members of the examination committee each, independently of one another, write a report according to the faculty guidelines and explicitly mention a motivated final assessment (placet, placet iuxta modum or non placet nisi corrigatur). All members of the examination committee are expected to electronically submit their evaluation report on the dissertation, before the stated deadline, to the research secretariat for the attention of the chair of the examination committee. After all reports have been received, these are sent electronically by the research secretariat to all members of the examination committee including the chair.

Evaluation by the examination committee

§1. The members of the committee first briefly discuss their evaluation reports. Then the researcher is invited to join the committee. The committee members present their questions and objections to him/her, and the candidate is given the opportunity to respond. After this, the committee deliberates, without the presence of the researcher, on the evaluation. Placet means that the dissertation is accepted for defence. Placet iuxta modum means that the dissertation is, in principle, accepted for the defence, but a number of corrections must first be made. Non placet nisi corrigatur means that the dissertation will only be accepted for defence on the condition that the researcher thoroughly revises the dissertation according to the requirements set out in writing by the examination committee.

§2. Whenever it is deemed appropriate, the chair will consult the members of the committee on the desirability of the (form of the) manuscript's publication. Then the chair will examine whether or not the results of the research can be made available for research-PR and scientific communication. When the latter is the case, the research secretariat will take all steps deemed appropriate, in consultation with the student and the supervisor.

§3. The examination committee's evaluation of the dissertation is communicated in the following way:

1. Placet: In the case of a placet, the chair of the committee receives the researcher, together with the supervisor (s) at the end of the predefense, and reports on the decision of the examination committee. The supervisor(s) provide(s) the candidate, within three days, with a summary report explaining the committee's decision. The candidate is free to follow suggestions made by the examination committee before submitting the bound copies of the dissertation.
2. Placet iuxta mod um: In case of placet iuxta mod um, the supervisor(s) provide(s) the candidate, within three days, with a written summary report explaining the decision and summarizing the required modifications. When the candidate is of the opinion that the revised dissertation meets the stated requirements, he/she resubmits, with the written agreement of the supervisor(s) (and, if necessary, the co-supervisor(s)), within a maximum period of three weeks, the revised part/parts of the dissertation to the chair of the examination committee, who then presents it to the examination committee. A new meeting of the examination committee is only required if one or more members reports a (new) problem regarding the revised text. As a rule, the members of the examination committee may express their opinion on the acceptability of the revised part/parts of the dissertation via e-mail. They must do so before the deadline determined during the initial meeting of the examination committee.
3. Non placet nisi corrigatur: In the event of an evaluation of non placet nisi corrigatur, the following procedure is to be followed. Immediately after the examination committee has concluded its deliberations, the chair of the examination committee informs the researcher of this decision. Within a week, the supervisor and correctors provide the researcher with a joint written report in which the readers' evaluation is thoroughly explained and which presents the requirements for the revision of the dissertation. On the basis of this report, the researcher reworks the dissertation during a period of maximum six months.
4. When the researcher is of the opinion that the revised dissertation meets the stated requirements, he/she may, with the written agreement ofthe supervisor(s) (and, if necessary, the co-supervisor(s)), resubmit the dissertation and the revised summary and list of annexed theses to the chair of the examination committee, who then presents it to the members of the examination committee. As a rule, the committee meets again after a maximum of six weeks to deliver a definitive evaluation on the acceptability of the work. All members are expected to electronically submit, within the predetermined time, a supplementary report with a motivated final evaluation to the research secretariat for the attention of the chair of the examination committee. The final evaluation can only be placet (accepted) or non placet (not accepted).

§4. In the case of a placet, the chair of the examination committee will immediately inform the researcher of this decision. In the case of a non placet, the non-acceptance of the dissertation is explained to the researcher by the chair and the members of the examination committee.

Public Defence

§1. Between the examination committee and the public defence, there is a period of maximum six weeks. The researcher finalises the text of the dissertation, has it bound, and delivers six bound (book format, recto verso) copies (in case of a co- supervisor, seven copies) of the dissertation at the research secretariat. Each of the bound copies contains at the front a signed original Declaration of Originality/Plagiarism Declaration. At the same time he/she electronically submits a summary and his/her list of theses to the research secretariat. He/she uploads a PDF-file of the final version (via ALPHA INSTITUTE), after he/she has enrolled for the research defence at the ALPHA INSTITUTE student administration. The proof of submission of the dissertation, both printed and electronic, serves as the official admission to the public defence.


§2. As a rule, the supervisor(s) (and, if applicable, the co-supervisor(s)) and the correctors receive a definitive bound copy of the dissertation ten days before the defence. Before this date, the dissertation must also be electronically archived via ALPHA INSTITUTE. The candidate discusses the mode of accessibility of the research dissertation in Urias with his/her supervisor.

§3. The supervisor(s) (and, if applicable, the co-supervisor(s)) and the correctors are to submit their individual evaluation of the submitted dissertation in writing to the research secretariat for the attention of the chair of the examination committee, at the latest two working days before the defence. This evaluation applies to the work in its definitive form and is expressed in the form of a mark out of a total of twenty points.

§4. As a rule, the public defence of the dissertation and the annexed theses takes place in the Promotion Hall or the faculty's conference room within six weeks after the placet has been granted by the examination committee. Defences can take place from the beginning of the third examination period upto and including the day oft he proclamation oft he second ordinary examination period.


§5. The public defence proceeds as follows:

1. First, the candidate gives, in a fifteen minute presentation, the main research results. The supervisor then presents a fifteen minute evaluation and laudatio. In the event that there is a co-supervisor, he/she may arrange with the supervisor to offer an evaluation of the dissertation within the time allotted to the supervisor(s). The three correctors are each allotted about fifteen minutes for discussion with the candidate.
2. A brief summary of the dissertation together with the theses is made available to the public.
3. After the defence, the examination committee adjourns for deliberation. The examination Ccommittee determines a mutually-agreed-upon mark. This mark is given based on the dissertation in its definitive form and the defence. The sum of this mutually-agreed-upon mark and the individual evaluations of the supervisor(s) (and, if necessary, the co-supervisor(s)) and the correctors expresses the final result. This result is expressed as a percentage. No grade is awarded.
4. Research in Religious Science: The chair of the examination committee announces the promotion to Research in Religious Science.
5. Within one month after the promotion, the newly promoted Researcher receives a letter with the percentage obtained, pending the finalisation of the official documents associated with the official degree.

§6. The examination committee deliberates immediately after the public session and decides whether or not the Candidate can be awarded the degree of Doctor in Religious Science (DRS). 

A report is drafted and signed by all members of the examination committee present. The result is announced in public immediately after the deliberation.

Appeal procedure

§1. According to the procedure below an appeal is possible against the following decisions of the valuation committee and the examination committee (Higher Education CodexArt.1.3 69°):

1. the discontinuation of the reseach programme,
2. the discontinuation of the preparation oft he thesis,
3. the final result of the public defence.

§2. A  researcher who judges that a decision as mentioned above has breached his/her rights, can launch an internal appeal with the Vice Rector for Student Affairs. The  researcher is informed of this possibility. If the Vice Rector for Student Affairs is an interested party, he/she is replaced by the Vice Rector for Research Policy.

§3. The  researcher must submit the appeal by e-mail within five calendar days from the day after which the decision of the valuationcommittee or the examination committee was made known. In his/her complaint the  researcher includes at least a factual description of the invoked objections.

§4. The Executive Director for Student Affairs hears all parties in question and in each case the  researcher. The internal appeal procedure results in:

1. The motivated rejection of the appeal on grounds of unacceptability or unsubstantiated claims. This decision is brought to the attention of the  researcher by e-mail within fifteen calendar days from the day after which the internal appeal was launched.
2. A new decision by the Vice Rector for Student Affairs. The Vice Rector together with the Research coordinator of the group in question or the ZAP member appointed by him/her tries to find a solution. If no consensus can be reached, the Vice Rector takes an autonomous decision. The new decision must be taken within fifteen calendar days, starting from the day after the internal appeal was launched with the Vice Rector for Student Affairs and is also made known to the  researcher within this period. The e-mail address which the  researcher used to submit his/her appeal is used forth is purpose.
3.  

Marks and Grading System

§1. The grade is determined taking into consideration the aggregate of the marks obtained from the Seminars, Courses, and the Dissertation in the following proportions:

Research Papers, Seminars and other courses     :     20%
Written Dissertation                                          :     60%
Public Defense                                                  :     20%


§2.Grading of the Research Programme will be as follows:

40%	Pass Mark
41%-59%	Third Class
60%-69%	Second Class
70%-74%	First Class
75% and above	Distinction