General Rules and Regulations

(1)

General Rules and

Regulations

2015-2016

Valid from October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016. Distributed to all active PhD students and supervisors

PhD in Business Administration

(PhD) Program

(2)

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 OBJECTIVES OF THE GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS

This document provides general guidelines designed to ensure the highest quality and consistency of ethical behavior within the collaborations among the stakeholders in the Grenoble Ecole de Management PhD program, specifically including the PhD program director, PhD supervisors, and students. It therefore defines the general rules and regulations that underlie the PhD program.

These rules ensure the program’s continuing conformance with the quality assurance standards, as defined by Grenoble Ecole de Management, and in accordance with the following international accrediting organizations: AACSB, EQUIS, and AMBA. These rules are valid for the academic year 2013-2014 and may be subject to changes. They are distributed to all active PhD students and supervisors.

SIGNATURE

After carefully reading these general rules and regulations, the PhD student has to sign below:

Name of the student: Date:

(5)

1.2 PHD PROGRAM GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE

The doctoral programs of Grenoble Ecole de Management are the responsibility of the Doctoral School. The Director of the Doctoral School delegates the responsibility of the PhD program to the PhD Program Director, who is named by the School Direction. Further, some of these responsibilities are delegated to the following governance bodies.

1.2.1 The Admission Board

The Admission Board meets as needed to examine applications for entry into the program and make final decisions regarding candidate selection. The Admission Board consists in the PhD Program Director (Chair), and at least one (ideally two or more) academically qualified faculty members from the field corresponding to the concentration selected by the applicant. Decisions taken by the Admission Board must be recorded in specific minutes.

1.2.2 The PhD Management Board

The PhD Management Board is responsible for the strategic and operational management of the PhD program. It convenes at least once a year. This board consists of a representative of the Doctoral School Director, the PhD Program Director, the Dean of the Faculty, the Associate Dean for Research, the Scientific Advisors of Grenoble Ecole de Management and the program administrator.

Among others, curriculum changes, institutional partnership agreements, as well as changes in the rules and regulations of the PhD program have to be approved by the PhD Management Board.

Decisions taken by the Management Board must be recorded in specific minutes.

1.2.3 The Review Committee

The Review Committee meets at least once a year and when considered necessary by the PhD Program Director, to review (1) student progress and (2) student administrative and pedagogical situation in the program.

More specifically, the Review Committee has the responsibility:

- to evaluate student progress, based on coursework, assistantship feedback, supervisor and reviewer feedback from the first- and second-year papers, and annual student reports;

- to take appropriate actions (deregistration, warning, discontinuation of financial support, etc.) when problems occur with a student (unsatisfactory research advancement, plagiarism, insufficient grades, unsatisfactory assistantship, etc.);

- to determine upon suggestions made by the PhD student the composition of the Dissertation Committee.;

- to accept or refuse registration and financing of students for additional years after Year 4;

(6)

- to evaluate reinscription in the PhD Program. If a student has withdrawn from the program (for example, for personal reasons) and would like to be reintegrated, the student should write a detailed letter to the Review Committee explaining the reason for the reapplication. The Review Committee will decide whether to reintegrate the student on a case-by-case basis. If students have been deregistered by the Review Committee, they cannot be reintegrated in the program.

The members of this committee include a representative of the Director of the Doctoral School, the PhD program director, one faculty member, and the PhD program administrator.

Decisions taken by the Review Committee must be recorded in specific minutes. Written feedback is to be communicated to the PhD students.

Students have the right to appeal the decisions of the Review Committee. In this case, they must appeal in writing within 10 working days from publication of the Review Committee’s decision. For the case to be considered, they must provide any evidence or documents that support their case and were not available at the time of the original Review Committee. An extraordinary Review Committee may meet to review the contentious cases, if necessary. The decision of the second Review Committee is final and cannot be appealed.

In compliance with provisions of French legislation (article L771-1 du code de justice administrative), students are informed that they may be liable for fees engaged by GEM to address legal actions undertaken by students in an effort to contest or reverse Review Board decisions when such action is revealed to be unjustified or in favor of GEM.

1.2.4 PhD Student Representation

At any time, there are always two elected PhD student representatives (one for Stage 1 and one for Stage 2 students) who are charged with the task of keeping channels of communication open and flowing in both directions between the faculty and PhD students. Among other things, they are responsible, at a number of junctures in the academic year, for polling their cohort on a variety of matters pertaining to the administration of the PhD program and the coursework and for keeping the faculty fully up to date on PhD students' interests and concerns with regard to these matters. The elected PhD student representatives are invited to attend and participate in the official meetings of the PhD Management Board, but may not attend parts of the meetings concerning personal issues. The student representatives are responsible for polling their cohort on the issues discussed and for keeping the faculty abreast of the graduate students assessments and preferences with regard to the various issues. These assessments and preferences are taken into account in the Management Board’s decisions.

When required, PhD students may also elect additional representatives in connection with faculty hiring. An elected student serves as a member of the search committee, along with several faculty members, and, along with those faculty members, reads the files, participates in faculty-level hiring discussions for that area, attends the

(7)

relevant portions of faculty meetings, and is invited to take part in the interviews of candidates. That student representative is also responsible for polling his cohort at each stage in the hiring process and for keeping the faculty abreast of the graduate students assessments and preferences with regard to the various job candidates. These assessments and preferences are taken into account at each stage of the faculty's hiring deliberations. Needless to say, serving as a graduate student representative to a hiring committee is excellent preparation for going on the academic job market oneself.

1.3 DURATION OF THE PROGRAM

The PhD program is a four-year program with a minimum duration of three years. Within this time limit, students are expected to complete their thesis, including its defense. A delay in the delivery of the thesis or in its defense must be requested by the student. An extension request form should be submitted at least three months before the end of the fourth year and be justified by personal/professional reasons or by objective difficulties in the research work. The request must be approved by the Review Committee. If research progress is not satisfactory, the Review Committee may refuse the reregistration of a PhD candidate and can proceed to deregistration of the student. In case of abeyance, the abeyance period is not considered as part of the four years of part-time study.

1.4 ETHICAL POLICY AND PLAGIARISM

1.4.1 Principles

Grenoble Ecole de Management has a very strict policy that prohibits all plagiarism and enforces the attendant procedures and measures of control.

Since 2009, the Grenoble Ecole de Management Doctoral School (DBA and PhD programs) has followed the ethical policy developed by the Academy of Management in 2005. The various stakeholders in the doctoral programs, including program directors, research supervisors, and students, are required to adopt the recommendations of this guide fully.

In particular, plagiarism—defined as “the wrongful appropriation or purloining and publication as one’s own, of the ideas, or the expression of the ideas … of another” (Oxford English Dictionary, 1999)—is a major violation. Grenoble Ecole de Management relies on the knowledge and skills of its research supervisors in their respective fields to detect fraud. The school also uses TURNITIN (or equivalent) software as a supplement to fight against plagiarism. Evidence of plagiarism invokes the following responses:

- Evidence of intentional plagiarism in any document produced by a PhD student (e.g., class paper, research proposal, preliminary thesis, dissertation, papers submitted to a journal or conference, without any restriction) will lead to the violator’s final and nonnegotiable deregistration from the program. Any other evidence of cheating (e.g., falsified diploma, falsified data

(8)

collection or analysis, without any restriction) will produce the same and immediate effects.

1.4.2 Procedures

Any detection of plagiarism or cheating is subject to a written inquiry (by mail or email) from the program director. The program director will receive the student’s justification, if any (face to face, by telephone, or by email), and will appoint the Review Committee. The Review Committee will examine the circumstances and decide whether to confirm the plagiarism/cheating incident and the appropriate measures to be taken. The Review Committee will determine if plagiarism was intentional or represented an unintentional error. The candidate will be informed by the Program Director by mail about any sanctions. The committee’s decision will be immediate and irrevocable.

2. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PhD PROGRAM AND

CONDITIONS FOR GRANTING DEGREES

2.1 GRENOBLE ECOLE DE MANAGEMENT PHD DEFINITION

The PhD program at Grenoble Ecole de Management aims at educating scholars who will become faculty members in leading international business schools or universities. During the 4-year full-time program, PhD students conduct multiple research projects leading to international academic publications, and gather experience teaching in higher education institutions.

Incoming PhD candidates will:

Possess a higher education degree with excellent scholarly achievements, Have previous exposure to and interest in academic research and business Possess motivation to become (business) research faculty in higher education. Research exposure can be achieved through a research master or research

assistantship or work experience in a research institute or an end-of-study research thesis. A business background can be obtained either through a business-related degree or through professional experience.

2.2 PROGRAM OVERVIEW

The four-year PhD program consists of two main stages:

Stage 1. 18–24 months: Training in Doctoral Research in Management Sciences: Philosophy, Methods and Tools. During this part of the PhD program, students attend workshops on research methodologies and theories (about 300 hours of face-to-face lectures). In parallel and with the support of their research supervisor, they must start developing research projects that will form the core of their doctoral dissertation.

Stage 2. 18–24 months: Writing, Submitting, and Defending the PhD Thesis. For this stage of the PhD program, students must finalize their data collection

(9)

and data analysis, complete their writing of the dissertation, and submit and defend their work.

Detailed regulations related to each of these two stages appear in subsequent sections.

The academic year officially starts on October 1.

2.3 CONDITIONS FOR GRANTING THE DEGREE

Grenoble Ecole de Management has defined learning objectives for PhD students. Students’ achievement of these objectives are measured at different points in the program as part of a formal “Assurance of Learning” policy. The six learning goals are detailed below.

Upon their completion of the program, PhD students should have:

1. acquired the expertise in research design and methods necessary to undertake independent scholarly research, which means that they will be

a. knowledgeable about the main research designs available in business administration

b. able to adequately undertake the main data collection and data management techniques used in their concentration (Marketing, Finance…)

c. able to adequately perform the main data analyses techniques used in their concentration (Marketing, Finance…)

d. able to demonstrate the ability to write pieces of research

according to academic standards (clarity, coherence, conciseness) 2. acquired a ‘state of the art’ understanding of theories and practices in

his/her area of research, which means they are:

a. knowledgeable about the main theories in the main research domains of their concentration

b. capable of doing a critical analysis of the literature in his/her area of expertise leading to the identification of research gaps and research questions

3. acquired an understanding of the main theories and practices in business administration, which means they are:

a. knowledgeable about the main theories in the overall business administration domain

b. able to differentiate the epistemological positioning and consequences of different research streams in business administration

4. able to produce and publish research that will contribute to the development and creation of new knowledge in the academic environment and/or in business, which means they are:

a. capable of writing an original, rigorous and relevant piece of research in collaboration with faculty

b. capable of writing an original, rigorous and relevant piece of research on his/her own (research paper, doctoral thesis…)

(10)

c. capable of communicating his/her research findings in appropriate communication channels (peer-reviewed journal, peer-reviewed conference, professional conference, book…)

d. able to discuss academic and managerial implications and limitations of their research

5. able to take teaching responsibilities in higher education (for those students who expect to have a career in higher education), which means they are:

a. able to teach a complete course effectively

b. a skilled communicator with the ability to share knowledge and expertise effectively with a variety of audiences

6. able to evaluate the issue associated with ethical practices in research and higher education, which means they are:

a. able to evaluate the issues associated with ethical practices in research (collaboration with other researchers, plagiarism…) b. able to evaluate the issues associated with ethical practices in

teaching

To obtain the PhD degree, students also must write and submit, to the thesis committee, a paper-based thesis that meets doctoral-level standards, including:

 3 separate academic papers. Detailed expectations are provided in section 7.2.

 A clear exhibition and substantial evidence of original scholarship.

 A clear exhibition and substantial evidence of scientific rigor and managerial relevance.

The determination of whether the PhD student and his or her thesis meet these criteria is the responsibility of the reviewers appointed by the Review Committee at the end of Stage 2.

3. SELECTION AND ADMISSION PROCEDURES

3.1 RECEPTION OF APPLICATION

The application package for the PhD program is available on the Grenoble website. Online registration is mandatory. The application deadline is as noted on the

website. Incomplete applications will not be considered.

3.2 APPLICATION PROCEDURE

The application must be fully completed prior to submission, including - A standard application form completed by the applicant.

- Proof of previous degrees and qualifications, issued by internationally recognized universities or business schools, including transcripts. The school

(11)

may use a transcript service to ensure that issued diplomas are equivalent to required degrees.

- Two letters of reference.

- A statement of purpose that explains the candidate’s motivations for pursuing the PhD program at Grenoble Ecole de Management.

- GMAT or GRE scores and, if necessary, proof of English language proficiency (TOEFL)

Documents provided by the applicants and which are not in English or French, must be translated, and submitted together with the documents in original language. Translation must be officially certified.

Applicants should have a Bachelor degree or higher qualification (a Master degree is a plus). European students can apply after their first year of Master. Applicants holding a Master in Research are welcomed to apply and, depending on their past training, may gain exemption from certain courses.

It is not necessary for applicants to have had much coursework in business administration prior to entering the program. Courses in related disciplines such as economics, mathematics, engineering, statistics or psychology provide the student with the background necessary for integrating and understanding the concepts and the methods taught in the PhD program.

Admission depends on the student's GMAT, GRE or TAGE MAGE scores, TOEFL or TOEIC scores, recommendations from faculty, grades and other factors such as work and research experience. If pre-selected, the student will be invited for an interview either by phone or on site when possible.

3.3 SELECTION

All application files submitted to the online application system will first be reviewed to ensure that they are complete. An incomplete application file will not be

considered.

3.4 ELIGIBILITY FOR THE PROGRAM

Eligibility for the program is decided by the PhD Program Director and/or the Director of the Doctoral School. Eligibility depends upon compliance with the aforementioned criteria.

3.5 ADMISSION IN THE PHD PROGRAM

The Admission Board consists in the PhD Program Director (Chair), and at least one (ideally two or more) academically qualified faculty members from the field corresponding to the concentration selected by the applicant.

The Admissions Board will examine all applications received which meet the entry requirements for the program. The Admissions Board will decide on the student's eligibility to register for a PhD program. Normally decisions should be unanimous but in case of disagreement, decisions will be taken by simple majority vote.

(12)

Students who hold a Research Master may, on very rare instances, be directly accepted in Phase 2 of the PhD program. Such decision supposes that the Research Master followed by the student is equivalent to the Stage 1 of the PhD program and depends upon the final decision of the Management Board. On a case-by-case basis, students holding a Research Master may receive a course waiver for courses they have already followed.

4. REGISTRATION, FEES, AND STUDENT STATUS

4.1 ACCEPTANCE INTO THE PROGRAM

When a candidate is accepted into the program, he or she will receive the following documents:

- Letter of acceptance

- Confirmation of acceptance certificate (which the student must complete and return to the school)

- If necessary, papers necessary to obtain a visa

Upon return of their confirmation of acceptance, accepted candidates will be registered as PhD students and expected to start their program on October 1 of the same year.

4.2 REGISTRATION

All students once registered and once they have supplied all the required documents, will be issued with a student card. The formalities for obtaining the student card must be completed within 6 weeks of the start of the program. Students who do not have a student card within 6 weeks after the start of the program will be subject to exclusion from the program.

If the student does not beneficiate from tuition waiver, all due fees must be paid within 6 weeks of the start of the program unless an alternative payment schedule has been agreed in writing by the PhD Program Director. After this deadline, students who have not paid will be excluded from the program and from the school.

4.3 STUDENT STATUS

A PhD student enjoys the full status of a registered student and therefore has access to all student facilities. During the first week of the program, students will receive a student identification card, access to the school’s email system, and access to research databases through the school’s online library.

Students of Grenoble Ecole de Management authorize the school to use any photographs or videos in which they may appear that present learning activities or promote Grenoble Ecole de Management. If a student does not wish to grant this authorization to Grenoble Ecole de Management, the student must inform the administrator of the program in writing.

(13)

During Stage 1 of the program, students are considered PhD students. After completion of Stage 1, students are considered PhD candidates.

“ABD” status

Students may also earn ABD (all but dissertation) status, at the discretion of the Program Director or the Director of the Doctoral School. This status will be allowed by Grenoble Ecole de Management under two conditions:

- The student has reached Stage 2 of the PhD program.

- The student has finalized the data collection for her or his empirical studies in support of the thesis. The supervisor will be required to certify this achievement with a written statement.

“Scholarly Academics” status

As specified under Standard 15 proposed by the Blue Ribbon Committee on Accreditation Quality of the AACSB, the categories of academically qualified and professionally qualified faculty have been replaced with four categories: scholarly academic (SA), practice academic (PA), scholarly practitioner (SP), and

instructional practitioner (IP). Doctoral students having successfully defended the Stage 1 can be considered as Scholarly Academics (SA), defined as “a faculty member with a research doctorate degree who is engaged in discipline-based research” depending on the level and quality of contributions in research. To maintain this status, PhD students must prove a continuing enrolment in a doctoral program, active research activity and they must finish their doctorate within 3 years after completing Phase 1.

4.4 ABEYANCE

For personal or professional reasons, students may request an abeyance period (6 months renewable or 1 year). A request for abeyance form must be completed by the student, supervisor and program director. This period cannot be refused by the school but should not exceed one year, unless exceptional circumstances demand a longer period. In this case, a formal request must be made to the Review Committee which may accept or not the additional abeyance year. Abeyance officially starts at the beginning of the new PhD academic semester, regardless of the date of the request for this abeyance.

During the abeyance period, PhD funding and requirements for PhD studies (including assistantship) are suspended; PhD students in abeyance do not have access to school resources (including the online library and supervision).

4.5 WITHDRAWAL FROM THE PROGRAM

For personal or professional reasons, students may choose to withdraw from the program. A request for withdrawal form must be completed by the student, supervisor and program director. This request cannot be refused by the school. Payment of assistantship duties will be interrupted as soon as this withdrawal is accepted. In the case where the PhD student has not satisfied his/her assistantship

(14)

fulfill these obligations before leaving. The final decision on requests for assistantship dues will be made by the PhD Program Director or the Director of the Doctoral School.

4.6 FINANCIAL AID (RESEARCH ASSISTANTSHIP)

This section concerns only students who were granted a research assistantship of 15h per week from Grenoble Ecole de Management. On a normal one-year contract, this amounts to 780 hours of work. These hours are to be split as follows (when a contract is for less than a year, a prorata of these numbers has to be applied): 390 hours are reserved for the student’s own research; this can be work on first- or second-year papers, or on other research projects with a goal of co-publication; 250 hours are to be devoted to research support for the faculty, with a priority to be given to the research team to which the student is attached (these hours are under the responsibility of the student’s advisor); 120 hours are to be dedicated to pedagogical support (these hours are under the responsibility of the school’s Director of pedagogy), and 20 hours as support of the Doctoral School (hours managed by the Director of the Doctoral School). For pedagogical hours, the following conditions are applied: if a PhD student is fully responsible for teaching a course (including preparation, grading), each contact hour will be counted 4 hours towards the assistantship hours; for intervention in a class (e.g., 3 or 6 hours teaching within a faculty member’s course, each contact hour will be counted 2 hours towards the assistantship hours to account for preparation time; all other teaching assignments will be counted for the true number of hours spent; supervision of student projects or Grand Mémoires will count 20 hours (per project). Research support hours may include help with data collection, literature search and review, editing of research articles, help with organization of events…), that is, research support with no goal of co-publication). At the beginning of each year, PhD students will be asked to provide a plan for their assistantship hours.

While it is possible to do extra assistantship hours, any additional contract signed with the school (for instance for teaching assignments) or with an external entity has to first be approved by the PhD Program Director. Any breach of this rule will be considered a breach of ethics and may lead to dismissal from the program.

Each month, PhD students have to fill in a time sheet (see Appendix D) describing the type of tasks performed and the number of hours spent on each task. The time sheet should be signed by the student advisor and signed by each of the faculty or administrators for whom the PhD student has worked during that month. These time sheets have to be handed in to the Program Administrator by the 10th of each month for the previous month’s report. Missing reports will be considered as the equivalent of reporting no hours worked for the previous month. PhD students are encouraged to have relevant faculty members or administrators sign their report sheets as soon as they have finished a task.

To account for periods of intensive data collection or other constraints, a rolling time credit of two months will be granted for the assistantship hours. That is, after three months, a PhD student will have to have at least done the equivalent of one month of assistantship work (about 31 hours of co-authored work and 31 hours of general

(15)

interest tasks), after 4 months s/he should have done at least the equivalent of 2 months of assistantship work, etc… Should a PhD student fail to fulfill this requirement without justification, payment of the assistantship will be stopped automatically. At the end of the academic school year (September 30), each PhD student must have fulfilled his/her contract.

Provision of financial aid (tuition waiver, research assistantship) is dependent on academic performance and class attendance and on the student’s involvement as a research and teaching assistant. Student involvement is judged in part on the average number of hours per week a student worked as research and teaching assistant. Student’s performance and involvement is reviewed on a yearly basis as presented above. Poor performance or involvement may result in a loss of financing. In case of poor class attendance and no acceptable reasons for non attendance and/or in case of clear absence of involvement as a research assistant, a Review Committee consisting of, at least the Program Director (Chair) and the advisor may decide a loss of financing before the end of the academic year. Such decision is clearly exceptional and should be taken unanimously.

Grades are reviewed by the program director at the end of the academic year (July) and poor academic performance (i.e., GPA < 13/20 and/or one or several modules not validated) may result in a loss of financing effective end of September of the current year and may also result in a dismissal of the program.

If student receive financial assistance from another source, the financial support of Grenoble Ecole de Management will be adjusted. Since PhD sources of financial support are limited, we require all recipients to apply for outside awards for which they are eligible. The PhD program office will inform students of such competitions as they come up.

During Stage 2, students are encouraged to do visiting stay(s) in foreign universities and/or research laboratories. The doctoral school will sponsor these stays by reimbursing travel expenses and/or accommodation expenses and/or tuition fees up to 2500 euros. 2500 euros is the maximum amount each PhD student may receive from the doctoral school whatever the number of visiting stays and whatever the length of each stay. In exchange, the student will have 1) to use Grenoble Ecole de Management as his/her main affiliation university when signing research articles produced while abroad, 2) validate the PhD research seminars followed abroad and 3) make a presentation on his/her achievements while abroad. Ideally, students should take advantage of these stays to work on a research paper.

(16)

4.7 STUDENT BUDGET

Each PhD student will be entitled to a 8,000 € research expense budget for the entire duration of their studies. It is expected that this budget will be spent about equally (roughly 2,000 euros a year) during a student doctoral studies; however, it is likely that students will spend less during their first year of study and more during their third year of study when conference attendance is particularly important for their job search. The amount is subject to change depending on available funding, students will be informed at the beginning of the year in case of change. This budget includes travel to external courses (fees for such courses are normally covered by the doctoral school, of course this has to be approved ahead of time), conferences,

registration/travel to TEM doctoral program, etc. This budget is managed through the student’s research team, expenses should therefore be approved in advance through team leaders. Note that conference attendance will normally only be supported financially if the student presents the paper him/herself. The same paper should normally not be presented at multiple conferences.

Note also that students involved in externally funded projects may get access to other resources as part of these projects. Further, students are encouraged to apply to travel grants, fee waivers and such that are typically available from many

conferences or external courses.

5. SUPERVISION

During their PhD studies, students will be successively supervised by 3 supervisors (in a normal case, this would be one and the same person, but not necessarily depending upon evolving research interests): Year 1 Advisor, Year 2 Advisor, and Thesis Chair. While the Year 1 Advisor will typically be assigned through the PhD Program Director at the beginning of Year 1, the Year 2 Advisor and Dissertation Chair are chosen freely by the student, with the agreement of the chosen faculty member. A PhD student who finds no faculty member willing to supervise him/her in Year 2 and Phase 2 will have to leave the program.

5.1 APPOINTMENT OF THE SUPERVISORS

To serve as a supervisor in the PhD program, the individual must (1) be a member of Grenoble Ecole de management faculty, (2) hold a doctoral degree (PhD/DBA) and/or HDR (French post-doctoral degree that supports supervision of research projects), (3) have published in CNRS Rank 1 or 2 journal(s) in the past five years, and (4) have had supervisory experience at the post-graduate level in the past three years.

By accepting the role of supervisor, all supervisors must adhere to the Academy of Management code of ethics, the rules and regulations of the program, and the Doctoral School’s Thesis Charter.

(17)

5.2 RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SUPERVISOR

The supervisor monitors the ongoing progress of students, including whether their work complies with the doctoral standards and follows ethical guidelines. Therefore, supervisors are required to make working contact at least once per month with each student under their supervision. Supervisors will keep records of these meetings that are held with the students.

The responsibilities of the Year 1 Advisor are as follows:

- Advise the student with regard to the choice of courses, especially courses outside of Grenoble Ecole de Management as well as to the choice of assistantship tasks;

- Integrate the student in existing research projects or start new research projects with them;

- Support the student in the development of their first-year paper, with a close following of this project in all its facets (problem definition, design, data collection and analysis). Given the time frame for these projects (due in June of the first year), it is recommended that supervisors facilitate data access. - Review written materials received from the student and provide written

feedback;

- Assess the student’s first-year paper during July of the student’s first year and send a copy of this assessment to the PhD Program Director;

- Complete the annual progress evaluation of the student.

The key responsibilities of the Year 2 Advisor are as follows:

- Advise the student with regard to the choice of courses, especially courses outside of Grenoble Ecole de Management as well as to the choice of assistantship tasks;

- Integrate the student in existing research projects or start new research projects with them;

- Help the student choose the area of research for his/her second-year paper and provide regular feedback about progress on this paper; unlike the first-year paper however, this paper should be followed from a distance, as it represents the comprehensive exam in the program and should therefore clearly be more independent work;

- Review written materials received from the student and provide written feedback;

- Assess the student’s second-year paper during July of the student’s second year and send a copy of this assessment to the PhD Program Director;

- Complete the annual progress evaluation of the student; - Attend the student’s Proposal Defense;

- Help introduce the student in relevant academic networks and support them in publishing and presenting their work in academic journals and conferences.

The Dissertation Chair’s key responsibilities are as follows (the Chair will be

(18)

will fulfill the same responsibilities but to a lesser degree – in case of conflict within this Committee, the Dissertation Chair will have a greater weight):

- Advise the student with regard to the choice of assistantship tasks;

- Advise the student in the choice of research projects and co-authors;

- Obtain and provide regular feedback on the student’s progress towards their

dissertation; this might include advice on research methodology, data collection, data analysis, and publication strategy;

- Review written materials received from the student and provide written feedback;

- Complete the annual progress evaluation of the student;

- Help introduce the student in relevant academic networks and support them in publishing and presenting their work in academic journals and conferences;

- Support the student in his/her search of a research position through recommendation letters, mock interviews, etc…

- Determine whether the student is ready to submit a thesis and complete the intention to submit form and officially ask the program director to initiate the review process.

- If necessary, suggest potential reviewers according to their academic qualifications and their interest in the PhD research topic.

The participation of the Dissertation Chair in the dissertation defense is compulsory. Since the dissertation may consist of co-authored papers, it is important to remember that the PhD student has to be the driving force of at least two of the three papers, as reflected by the fact that s/he should be first author of these papers. The Dissertation Chair should therefore ensure that the student does carry the main responsibilities for at least two of the projects in the thesis.

5.3 SUPERVISOR-STUDENT RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT

A minimum of one monthly contact is required to ensure a sufficient level of support and collaboration between student and supervisor.

As a prerequisite for any discussion, the supervisor may require written

documentation from the student. The student has a right to regular written feedback from his/her advisor.

Disagreements between the supervisor and the student may arise. If those disagreements cannot be resolved by the two parties, either the student or the supervisor may inform the program director, who will serve as a mediator by meeting with both parties, determining a solution, and making necessary decisions. If the issue cannot be resolved, the program director may recommend to look for a new supervisor ; in exceptional circumstances, the program director may ask for the Review Committee to make recommendations.

All students are free and encouraged to obtain diverse support from both their official supervisor and other academics that might provide relevant advice. In particular, students are encouraged to participate in events such as research

(19)

conferences, discussions with workshop leaders, GEM advanced methods workshops, discussions with other GEM faculty members, and interactions with academics worldwide.

(20)

6. RULES AND REGULATIONS RELATED TO

PHASE 1

Phase 1 of the PhD consists in two major training activities: 1) Theoretical training in the chosen concentration and in research methodology and 2) Practical training in research.

Official duration of this phase is of two academic years, from October N to September N + 2.

6.1 THEORETICAL TRAINING IN THE CHOSEN CONCENTRATION AND IN

RESEARCH

During Phase 1 of the PhD, the student has to attend a series of advanced research seminars and has the possibility to attend courses from the MSc corresponding to the chosen concentration and also EDEN doctoral seminars. Appendix C provides a list of the courses currently offered. The EDEN doctoral seminars are accessible via a fee (see www.eiasm.org) that the doctoral school may sponsor depending on topic relevance. While some workshops may be evaluated on a pass/fail basis, most courses are evaluated according to the rules mentioned below.

6.1.1 Advice and guidance

Advice and guidance regarding course selection (e.g., MSc courses) is provided by an advisor system. Each student is assigned a Year 1 Advisor at the beginning of the first year. The Year 1 Advisor will interact with the student regarding questions and information concerning course selection but also involvement in research and teaching assistantship and other matters concerning Year 1. The Year 1 Advisor will also provide a source of information for feedback to the student. The Year 1 Advisor may not necessarily be the same individual the student is working with as a research assistant.

The Year 1 Advisor is responsible for guiding the student through the completion of the first-year paper. At the end of Year 1, depending on the student’s research interests and progress, a Year 2 Advisor may be chosen (who is expected to be but may not always be the same person as the Year 1 advisor), so that the student is receiving appropriate support for the completion of the second-year paper.

By beginning of October of the second year, the student will have to form an examination committee made up of (at least) two faculty members, with one faculty member designated as the Chair. The student must notify the PhD program director in writing regarding the membership of this committee. This committee should reflect the student’s best estimate of his or her interests and will likely overlap with the dissertation committee. The examination committee is responsible for approving the topic and scope of the second year paper that constitutes the comprehensive exam. Similar to a reviewing process, the examination committee will also grade the paper on a pass/fail basis and may ask for corrections.

(21)

6.1.2 Attendance to the courses

During Phase 1 of the PhD, course attendance is compulsory. Students who are absent for no valid or authorised reason for more than 10% of a module or submodule may at the discretion of the teacher receive a grade of 0/20 in the continuous assessment part of the module; or when the module/submodule is entirely assessed by an examination, they may at the discretion of the teacher be excluded from the examination.

The only acceptable reason for non-attendance is on health or compassionate grounds. The Program Administrator or the PhD Program Director must be informed of any absence within 48 hours. Injury or illness must normally be confirmed by a medical note from a doctor within a further 48 hours.

The student must inform the Program Administrator of any event likely to lead to absence from classes for any appreciable time.

6.1.3 Assessments and submission of assessments

In each module, students will be assessed in accordance with the evaluation procedures defined in the syllabus and detailed at the beginning of the seminar. All work will be assessed according to the PhD marking scheme.

Assignments must be submitted no later than one month after the end of the module. When students submit late without good cause, their work will be subject to penalty at the discretion of the teacher in terms of marks obtainable. The penalty will reflect the length and nature of the work submitted late; but in general any piece of coursework which is submitted 14 or more days late without good cause will be recorded as having a mark of 0/20. Faculty will be expected to provide written feedback on these assignments one month after the due date.

If the assignment represents the entire grade for the module, the student will be obliged to resubmit an assignment for which the maximum mark obtainable will be 13/20. Students are responsible for keeping a copy both in electronic and in paper format of any written work which is handed in for correction until after they graduate.

Any absence in any assessment of a module must be justified to the program administration in writing. If you feel that your performance has been or will be affected by medical, family or other personal problems you must inform the Program Administrator in writing. Medical problems must be certified by a doctor’s note.

6.1.4 Deadlines and dates

Students are responsible for adhering to all deadlines concerning their studies and it is the students’ responsibility to make sure that they are aware of these deadlines. In particular students are responsible for finding out the timing of examinations.

(22)

6.1.5 Examination

Students must attend all examinations for each module as required by the syllabus at the dates and times specified in the examination timetable.

Examination times will be communicated in advance. Students are responsible for reading the examination timetable correctly. Failure to read the timetable correctly is not an acceptable reason for absence. Students who arrive more than 15 minutes late for an examination will not be allowed to enter the examination room; in any event students who arrive late will not be given any extra time at the end of the

examination.

Students who are unable to sit an examination due to illness must provide a medical note and inform the Program Administrator and PhD Program Director in writing. In such cases the student will be eligible to take the examination as a first attempt at the next available examination session or resit examination session. Injury or illness must normally be confirmed by a medical note from a doctor within a further 48 hours

Students who due to medical reasons need to take their examinations in a separate room from other students or who request extra time in examinations must make a formal written request supported by appropriate medical evidence certifying the alleged medical condition to the program director at least 6 weeks prior to the examinations in question. Such permission will only be given in very serious

circumstances and for reasons which clearly warrant either a separate room or longer exam duration.

Marked exam papers may be consulted by students but only in the presence of the teacher or of the Program Director. Examination papers remain the property of the school and may not be taken away by the students under any circumstances. No photocopies will be made and students may not consult other students’ copies.

6.1.6 Calculation of grades, resit

PhD students are expected to validate all modules attended and are expected to meet a cumulative average of 13/20. Students who do not achieve this cumulative average will not be admitted into Phase 2 of the PhD program.

To validate a module or submodule the student must achieve a grade of at least 10/20. Where a final examination represents the entire grade for the module (or submodule), the student must achieve a grade of at least 10/20 in the final exam to validate the module or sub-module. Where one assignment represents the entire grade for the module (or submodule) the student must achieve a grade of at least 10/20 in the assignment to validate the module (or submodule). Where there are several elements of assessment, but no final exam, the student must achieve a grade of at least 10/20 overall, on the totality of the assessment. Where there are several elements of assessment and a final exam, the student must achieve an overall average of 10/20 on the totality of the assessment including the examination and other components.

In the event of a student failing to achieve an overall module grade of at least 10/20, the following conditions apply:

(23)

In the event that an overall failure of the module is due to a failure in the examination component the student will resit the examination. Upon resit the maximum mark attainable for the module/submodule as a whole will be capped at 13/20. In the event that the failure overall is due to a failure in one or more pieces of assessed work, the student will be required to resubmit the failed pieces. Upon resubmission, the maximum mark attainable for the module/submodule as a whole will be capped at 13/20. In the event that the failure is due to a failure in both the assessed work and the examination the student will be required to resit only the examination. The maximum mark attainable in the resit examination and so for the module/submodule as a whole will be capped at 13/20. The maximum module or submodule mark which can be awarded in cases where any resit or resubmission occurs is 13/20. (This restriction does not apply to cases where a resit or resubmission is a first attempt).

If the student has an original grade between 10 and 12.5/20, the student will be invited to take a resit to improve this grade (given the fact that the minimum acceptable cumulative average is 13/20). In this specific case, the student may decide not to take a resit. It is the students' responsibility to verify whether they need to do resit examinations or make resubmissions and to ensure that they are present at Grenoble Ecole de Management for the period of the resit examinations as stated in the schedule for the year. Under no circumstances may a student actually take an examination/submit an assessment on more than 2 occasions. That is to say that a student has a maximum of 2 attempts: the first attempt plus 1 resit/resubmission.

6.1.7 Grades and examination results

Students who feel that they have received an unfair grade in any of their work may appeal in writing to the PhD Program Director within five working days of the publication of the grade. A second grading may be granted if the Program Director considers the request to be justified. In the event of a second grading, it is the second grade which will be taken into consideration even if this grade is inferior to the first one.

Grades and examination results will be published at least 5 working days before the date set aside for examination resit. It is the students' responsibility to find out their examination results.

(24)

6.2 PRACTICAL TRAINING IN RESEARCH

Throughout the PhD program, students are expected to take full advantage of faculty expertise and the intellectual environment at Grenoble Ecole de Management. During the first year students should meet with faculty members one-on-one to learn about different faculty members’ research projects. Students are also expected to attend all the seminars in their field (workshop, visiting scholar presentations…). Attendance to these workshops will be controlled and part of students’ evaluation on a pass/fail basis. The student should inform his/her advisor if a class conflicts with a seminar.

A very important part of the doctoral program consists in forming relationships with faculty members and learning about teaching and research process. Each student has to engage in an average of at least 15 hours per week of research and teaching assistantship activities every year. The student’s advisor can help the student becoming engaged in activities that match their needs and interests. Each student should be engaged in at least one research project. During this research project they will have to perform several tasks such as literature review, data collection supervision, settings of the experimental procedure, writing of a specific part of an article…

6.2.1 First year paper

A critical part of the practical training is covered through the first and second year papers. The first year paper is due June 25 of Year 1. This paper should represent the student’s best work at the current stage of the doctoral program. The paper may be a reworked paper handed in for a seminar or a new paper. It may be empirical, theoretical or a review (see Appendix B for details). Collaboration with faculty is allowed with the following stipulation: The student should have done all the writing. The student should provide a statement listing faculty help on the paper.

The first-year paper should be submitted by email to the PhD Program Director before June 25 of the first year of study. This paper shall then be sent for review to two faculty members: the student’s Year 1 Advisor, and another academically qualified professor with expertise in the paper’s area. These reviewers will have 4 weeks to provide written feedback about the paper.

3 outcomes can follow the submission of the first-year paper: pass, fail, or revise. In case of a “fail”, the student will be given until September 30 to submit a new paper. Should this paper also be judged to fail program requirements, the student will be dismissed from the program. Following a “revise”, students will be given until September 30 to revise their paper according to the reviewers’ comments, and to prepare a written response to the reviewers that details point by point how comments were addressed in this revised version.

After successfully passing the written component of the first-year paper requirement, PhD students will have to present this project orally within one of their department’s research seminars. This presentation should be scheduled before December of the second year of study.

(25)

Note that depending on the concentration, the requirements for the first-year paper may be slightly different. Students in the marketing concentration are required to write an empirical paper. For behavioral students, an experiment or sets of experiments are typically expected. In other concentrations, first year papers can either be empirical or conceptual. The structure and form of the paper should closely parallel that of a manuscript submitted for possible publication to one of the field's academic journals. It is entirely acceptable that this paper results from a research project that has been initiated by faculty member(s). The main requirement for this paper is that the writing has to be done by the student independently. In case of a co-authored project, it is important to clearly identify which contributions are from the student (data analysis, data collection, conceptualization). A statement from all co-authors should be added to this effect.

6.2.2 Second year paper

The second year paper is due June 25 of the second year of study. This paper represents the comprehensive exam and success is a requirement to continue in the program. The topic of the second year paper is based on the dissertation topic and has to be approved by the examination committee. The student is expected to work on this paper during the second year of study. The paper is to be an integrative review of an important area of research in the concentration of the student. In addition, if the first year paper was purely conceptual and did not include any empirical component, then the second year paper must include an empirical component that is consistent with the type of methodology that the student intends to specialize in (qualitative or quantitative). In the case of deductive research, the paper should, at a minimum, include theoretical propositions that are testable in principle, as well as implications and priorities for future research in the area. In the case of inductive research, the paper should, at a minimum, identify knowledge research gaps and propose a research design that could be used to further explore the domain. The paper should be capable of forming the basis for the student's dissertation research, though it will typically be broader than the dissertation itself. It is hoped that the review paper may be publishable in one of the major journals in the field. The paper is to be an independent effort by the student. Faculty members are available as resource people and may provide broad, informal guidance. The intent of the paper is to develop the student's capacity for independent, creative research, so the role of the faculty is necessarily more informal and non-directive than is the case for the first year paper.

The examination committee is in charge of evaluating the second year paper. This paper represents the comprehensive exam and is graded on a pass/fail basis.

4 outcomes can follow the submission of the second-year paper: pass with no revisions, pass with minor revisions (typically 2-3 weeks), pass with major revisions (typically 2-3 months), or fail. In case of a “fail”, the student will be given until September 30 to submit a new paper. Should this paper also be judged to fail program requirements, the student will be dismissed from the program. In case a revision is asked, students should also prepare a response to reviewer comments.

(26)

6.2.3 Progress Guidelines (Annual report, first and second year papers, research project presentation)

In addition to the feedback that students will receive through course grades and informal conversations with faculty members, formal feedback procedures are also implemented.

The Review Committee will gather information about each student’s yearly performance. Sources of information include the student’s advisor, instructors and faculty for whom he/she has been research or teaching assistant. The student should keep in mind that they are expected to validate all modules attended and are expected to meet a cumulative average of 13/20. Any student who fails to meet these criteria will be subject to dismissal. In addition, the student has to provide an annual report discussing each year accomplishments, shortcomings, areas of interest and how the student would like to be positioned. Appendix A provides the format of the annual report. The annual report should be submitted to the PhD director by September 1st.

Both first year and second year papers are due June 25 of their respective years. Failure to submit the papers to the PhD director on the due date will result in an immediate recommendation for dismissal of the student.

The different elements (paper, grades, report, and feedback from faculty) will be examined by the Review Committee during the fall semester of each year. Feedback will be provided to the student. If progress is not satisfactory, performance may be assessed again at a time determined by the area faculty. Poor performance may result in a loss of financing by Grenoble Ecole de Management and/or a dismissal from the program.

6.2.4 Proposal Defense

In order to move on to Phase 2, the student will have to maintain satisfactory progress as detailed above, will have to pass the comprehensive exam, will have to have at least one article accepted in an international academic conference (e.g. AMA, ACR, EGOS…) by September of the third year and will have to successfully present a detailed research project for his/her dissertation (proposal defense). This presentation should normally take place during September of the third year.

The proposal defense will be held in front of at least two (ideally all) members of the student’s Dissertation Committee (among which the Chair), and, when deemed necessary, by the PhD Program Director or a representative. The Dissertation Committee is expected (but not compelled) to be the same as the examination committee evaluating the second year paper.

The objective of this defense is for students to present in a succinct and clear manner what they intend to do in their dissertation, that is, the three projects that they intend to do for each of the three papers constituting the dissertation. These defenses are scheduled to last 2 hours, with 1 ½ hours presentation through the student, and ½ hour feedback from the Dissertation Committee.

(27)

Students should provide a quick overview of the general topic of interest (in case an overarching theory or framework is used across the 3 papers, this can also be presented briefly) and how the 3 papers will have a clearly separate yet complementary contribution. Then, for each of the 3 papers successively, the presentation should focus on the paper’s objectives, justify the relevance of the research topic and its contribution to the literature, specify the theory (precisely which constructs and their hypothesized relationships) will be used, and detail the research design. Since the feasibility of the research projects will be an important evaluation criterion, the presentation should provide details about methodology, data access and planned timing (including targeted journal and conference submission timing). If the second-year paper is one of the 3 dissertation papers, then students should explain how they have improved this paper and the next steps necessary to publish it; if this paper will not be part of the dissertation, then it does not have to be included in the presentation.

Each of the three projects will be evaluated on the following criteria: choice of topic (originality/relevance), theoretical framework, methodological approach, feasibility, potential/strategy for publication. Students will receive written feedback and suggestions from the Dissertation Committee. If the projects are judged to be insufficient for a doctoral dissertation, students may be given a second chance to revise their project and present it again a month after the first defense. If that second defense is also a failure, the student will not move to Phase 2 of the program.

6.3 MPHIL

Following the Proposal Defense, students will receive a letter from the Program Director indicating whether they are allowed to move to Phase 2 of the PhD

program. Moving to Phase 2 will require fulfilling the following criteria: minimum of 13/20 grade point average, no courses failed, successful completion of first- and second-year papers, at least one academic conference presentation, and successful oral proposal defense.

The end of Phase 1 will be marked by the receipt of a formal degree, a Master of Philosophy in Business Administration (MPhil).

The MPhil may also be granted to students who have not met the requirements to move to Phase 2 and will therefore not be invited to continue the doctoral program but have fulfilled the following requirements: obtained a minimum of 90 ECTS credits, successful completion of first year paper, and completion of the second-year paper or another research project. A Review Committee must meet to decide on such attribution.

(28)

7. RULES AND REGULATIONS RELATED TO PHASE 2

At the beginning of Phase 2 (September of the third year), students form a dissertation committee. The committee should have at least three members. The student will choose a chair for the dissertation from this committee. The dissertation chair must be a faculty from Grenoble Ecole de Management, but the other

committee members may be external to Grenoble Ecole de Management.

During Phase 2, the dissertation committee monitors progress and provides feedback.

During Phase 2, the student should continue to be involved in research and teaching assistantships at a recommended level of at least 15 hours per week, on average. All students are also expected to attend all the workshops and seminars, attendance will be monitored as in the first two years. Each year, students will submit an annual report (in the format described in Appendix A) by September 1 to the PhD program director. Student’s performance and involvement is reviewed on a yearly basis. Poor performance or involvement may result in a loss of financing.

The doctoral dissertation is designed to demonstrate that the candidate is capable of conducting significant independent scholarly research. The dissertation is expected to be of such scope, magnitude, and originality as to indicate that the student has acquired a command of the area being investigated and that s/he has the ability to contribute new knowledge or outlook to the field.

7.1 FINANCING BEYOND THE 4

TH

_YEAR

Student financing is guaranteed for 4 years subject to satisfactory progression (note that different rules may apply for students who were hired on an externally funded project; these rules would then be detailed in a specific addendum to this document). Financing for the 5th year may be granted in exceptional cases, if the following conditions are respected.

Both PhD student and advisor should submit a written request to the Program Director justifying the need for a financed 5th year of study. This request has to be submitted with the third year annual report.

To qualify for 5th year funding, a candidate must have demonstrated excellence in either teaching or research. Excellence in teaching will be indicated by average teaching ratings of 4.0 or above obtained in the third year of studies for classes for which the PhD student had full responsibility. Excellence in research will be demonstrated through accepted publications of Rank 1 or 2 in the CNRS ranking. Depending upon available funding, candidates who have achieved either of these criteria and are judged to need a fifth year of study may be offered 5th year funding for either teaching tasks or research tasks.

It is expected that all doctoral students will be finished with their studies and have defended their PhD by the end of the 5th year of study. In exceptional cases, a 6th

(29)

year of study may be granted. This will require a formal request by the student and his/her advisor to the Program Director; this request will have to be submitted in writing by January of the 5th year of study. In no case will a 7th year of study be granted.

Note that students who are not receiving any funding (either through personal choice or because 5th year funding was not granted) will still be able to access the school facilities; however, they cannot be guaranteed an office space.

7.2 DISSERTATION AND FINAL DEFENSE

7.2.1 Paper-based dissertations

PhD dissertations at Grenoble Ecole de Management are paper-based, that is, they integrate articles that are either published or of publishable level. Generally, the thesis should include three separate papers. Papers co-authored between GEM PhD students will only count proportionally to the number of doctoral students towards the 3-paper requirement. In addition to the papers, the thesis should include a short (maximum 20 pages) introduction chapter explaining the subject and the research question, presenting the state-of-the-art or every part of the literature that would not be included in the articles but necessary to the comprehension of the whole thesis, linking the articles together and presenting the global coherence of the document.. The papers may be co-authored but the PhD student should be first author on at least two of the three papers. To fulfill the requirements of a PhD thesis at Grenoble Ecole de Management, two of the three papers should be judged to have the potential to be published in a peer-reviewed journal ranked at least 2 in the CNRS ranking.

The level of the submitted papers will be proofed as follows. In the case where one (or more) papers have received positive feedback from a (CNRS Rank 1 or 2) peer-reviewed journal, this feedback will be used as indicator that the paper has the required level. Paper acceptance or an invitation from the journal to revise the paper for resubmission will be considered positive feedback (even if the paper finally does not get accepted for publication). In the case where papers have not received such feedback, each paper will be sent to two external reviewers, who will be asked to evaluate the paper’s potential to be publishable in a given outlet (the journal name should be specified) of the appropriate level. External reviewers will be given 6 weeks for this review. If necessary, the papers should be revised to achieve the required level.

Submission of the thesis can only occur after it has been established that two of the three papers have achieved the required level. Once the required level of the submitted papers has been established, the student should first present the Dissertation Committee with a final draft of the dissertation and the Dissertation Committee has up to 4 weeks to read, review, and comment the dissertation. The student should then revise his/her dissertation along the guidelines recommended by the Dissertation Committee. Afterwards, the PhD student should begin preparation for the Final Dissertation Defense. A detailed description of the procedure is provided in Appendix

General Rules and Regulations