Grievance that took over a life

Lucy Hodges tells the story of a Bath University postgrad who wanted to switch from a masters to a PhD course.

Neil McDougall was a postgraduate student studying for a masters degree in the school of architecture at Bath University. He hoped to switch to a PhD and to produce a thesis on his unusual topic - the design of "therapeutic environments" for the mentally ill.

But since 1992 McDougall has been locked in conflict with the university over grievance procedures, following what he claims has been poor supervision of his research and an inadequate examination procedure. The university will not comment on the case.

He appealed twice to the Lord Chancellor, who acts on behalf of the Queen as Visitor adjudicating on Bath University affairs. His complaints were partly upheld and put the onus on the university to address his concerns. But Mr McDougall, now aged 41, has not completed his degree. Today he lives in a little house in Bradford upon Avon. His time is taken up with fighting his case. "My experience has made it more difficult for me to pursue my career," he says.

His story illustrates the difficulties students can face in questioning the quality of education they receive or the accuracy of examinations - and the difficulties universities can run into without reasonably fast and visibly independent procedures for dealing with complaints.

Mr McDougall was a mature student of 34 when he arrived at Bath. Through his job he had experienced the controversy surrounding the design of buildings for psychiatric patients. His project was unconventional for an architecture student.

In his final year he attended a viva to decide whether he could transfer from a masters to a PhD. Although he thought the viva had gone all right, the school of architecture appears to have thought otherwise - and letters sent to him by his tutor before and after the viva express serious concern with his progress.

Mr McDougall says he sought discussion with his tutor, to be told his tutor was withdrawing. The reasons for his withdrawal are not known. In some distress, Mr McDougall wrote to his tutor saying he had no option but to complete his research elsewhere. That letter proved to be damaging. It was taken as a sign that he had effectively resigned.

Immediately, the procedures for discontinuing Mr McDougall's registration were activated, despite the fact that he said he had been misunderstood. He appealed against termination of registration only to be told that, irrespective of the confusion over his intentions, he would have had his registration terminated anyway on academic grounds - that his progress was unsatisfactory.

The university refused Mr McDougall leave to appeal against the charge that his research was inadequate. The grounds were that he was no longer a student.

He complained to the university vice chancellor alleging maladministration. As a result he was reinstated but the school of architecture refused to allow an external assessment of his completed research.

The weeks turned into months. Mr McDougall obtained a barrister's opinion and a formal grievance was made. Two years had elapsed since his studentship was ended. The grievance machinery creaked into action, but it took 30 months for the grievance to be considered informally. Initially it was turned down.

In the meantime Mr McDougall wrote to the Queen as Visitor about the delay. Then vice chancellor David VandeLinde produced an offer: Mr McDougall could make a new start with his degree. He would have to go back to the beginning of the course, but he could have the three years again with tuition and maintenance paid for by the university.

But the dispute was not over: Mr McDougall decided not to accept the offer. He said he did not want to spend another three years on the work. He complained to the Queen again, saying that the vice chancellor had imposed a solution rather than negotiated one. The Lord Chancellor ruled that the grievance should be heard quickly, first through informal negotiation, and then through the formal grievance committee.

Lord McKay said: "It is unfortunate that Mr McDougall's formal grievance was not handled expeditiously by the university after receipt in March 1993, so that he felt it necessary to petition the Visitor, in September 1993, to restore a due and timely process to ensure that the matters contained in his formal grievance were addressed."

Finally, Mr McDougall's case ended up at a formal grievance committee last year. His complaints were rejected. But the matter is still not at an end. By the time the formal grievance committee had met, Mr McDougall's tutor had moved on, his head of department had died, and the original university registrar was no longer in his post.

Mr McDougall thinks that these changes mean that the university was not able to examine the substance of his complaint about poor supervision and inadequate examination procedures. He plans to return to the Visitor.

The University of Bath refused to comment on the case. It said: "This case, like all others in which personal grievances are involved, is confidential, and has not yet reached a formal conclusion."