Class of 2025

For students beginning the Master of Digital Product Management program in September 2024. 

1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of the Academic Calendar is to acquaint students with the academic requirements, regulations, policies, procedures and expectations of the Master of Digital Product Management (MDPM) program.  It is the responsibility of the student to read and understand the entire Academic Calendar.  Questions about any of its contents should be directed to the Program Director.

---

1.2 Acknowledgement of Territory

Queen’s University in Kingston is situated on traditional Anishinaabe and Haudenosaunee Territory. To acknowledge this traditional territory is to recognize its longer history, one predating the establishment of the earliest European colonies.  It is also to acknowledge this territory’s significance for the Indigenous peoples who lived, and continue to live, upon it – people whose practices and spiritualties were tied to the land and continue to develop in relationship to the territory and its other inhabitants today.  The Kingston Indigenous community continues to reflect the area’s Anishinaabek and Haudenosaunee roots.  There is also a significant Métis community and there are First Peoples from other Nations across Turtle Island present today.

Smith School of Business and the School of Computing in the Faculty of Arts and Science operates on sacred land that has been a site of human activity for 15,000 years. This land is the territory of the Huron-Wendat and Petun First Nations, the Seneca, and most recently, the Mississaugas of the Credit River. The territory was the subject of the Dish with One Spoon Wampum Belt Covenant, an agreement between the Iroquois Confederacy and Confederacy of the Ojibwe and allied nations to peaceably share and care for the resources around the Great Lakes. Today, the meeting place of Kingston is still the home to many Indigenous people from across Turtle Island and we are grateful to have the opportunity to work in the community on this territory.

2: PROGRAM CURRICULUM AND GRADING

2.1 Jurisdiction

Students of Smith School of Business and the School of Computing in the Faculty of Arts and Science at Queen’s University are governed by the regulations, policies and practices of this institution. 

It is the responsibility of every student in the program to read and understand these policies, regulations, and requirements as well as those of their home, exchange and double degree universities. 

---

2.2 Program Format

The Senate and Board of Trustees of the University, and the Ontario Council approve the Queen’s Master of Digital Product Management Program for Graduate Studies.  Upon graduation, students receive a Masters of Management (MOM) Degree in Digital Product Management.

The Master of Digital Product Management (MDPM) will be offered by Smith School of Business in partnership with Queen’s School of Computing as a specialized inter- disciplinary program at the intersection of digital business, product management, and computing. It is unique as it creates a novel set of knowledge and skills related to digitalization that when applied effectively, can deeply disrupt existing business models and produce fundamentally new value opportunities. This term also encapsulates the growing popularity of digital services and platforms that span across traditional organizational boundaries through open technologies (e.g., open APIs) transforming user experiences and enabling business ecosystems.

The program’s curriculum was designed to achieve six (6) educational goals and related learning outcomes that align to the school-level academic goals as well as the Queen’s Academic Framework and Strategic Plan. The first goal is to offer an innovative, academically rigorous program that synthesizes theoretical concepts and practices in topics related to design and systems thinking. Second, inspire innovation, promote student engagement, and enhance financial sustainability through an inter-disciplinary offering that is dedicated to experiential learning. Third, supply industry with skills that help accelerate the digitalization of traditional organizational practices. Although this is a practice- oriented program, students will identify, explore and evaluate digital product opportunities using appropriate methods of qualitative and quantitative inquiry. Lastly, multiple learning outcomes are defined to help students develop highly effective communication skills as well as personal responsibility, effective problem solving, and ethical behavior and practice. The objective of the MDPM program is to address this skills gap by offering an inter- disciplinary academic program that fuses together critical skills in business and computing.

The MDPM is a practice-oriented program where graduates will develop the ability to apply qualitative and quantitative research methods to identify user needs, create discovery hypotheses, analyze data to generate insights, apply design principles, and create a prototype solution. Research will also be conducted to evaluate the impact (e.g., through analytics and experimentation) of the digital product on anticipated outcomes. Students will also be introduced to thought leadership in digital product management as many faculty teaching in the program do both research and work with industry.

A unique graduate degree-level expectation (GDLE) for this program is the cross-disciplinary integrated learning.  Adding this GDLE is imperative to develop graduates capable of developing work-ready skills that merge technical and business domains.  Essential to enabling cross-disciplinary integrated learning is the experiential learning stream and the removal of coding as a degree level expectation for this program. The MDPM program will adopt no-code development (NCD) by providing students with drag-and-drop development tools and pre-built templates to apply specialized knowledge across phases of the digital product management lifecycle. Tools involving coding will be used only when faculty are confident the students have sufficient understanding of programming to effectively use the tool. 

2.2.1 Program Delivery

The Smith MDPM program is an online program structured to allow students to work while studying. The program delivers an average of two classes each week (Tuesday and/or Wednesday evenings, Saturday morning), supplemented by one on campus residential session. During the first residential period, students are introduced to their Team Coach, network support staff, instructors, and program staff. Students will be introduced to virtual team training as part of the transition to online workshop. Teams (6-8 inter-disciplinary students) will be formed during the in-residence session and will work together throughout the entire program.

Team Coaches will have regular check points with teams at critical times during the program to make sure they are working together effectively, and no student is left behind. In addition to a team coach, each team will also be assigned a practicum advisor to support the 9-month practicum. If the team faces a technical challenge that goes beyond their depth and breadth of knowledge or applied understanding, the practicum faculty member from the School of Computing will assig a teaching assistant from the School of Computing to help the team.

The courses require individual and team preparation and are delivered primarily through a virtual communication platform (Zoom).  The online learning environment will be fostered by using the Queen’s Learning Management System (LMS) – D2L Brightspace as well as a standardized set of virtual learning tools managed by the School of Computing. Online materials (written, audio and video) and assignments will be posted and completed work submitted through this system.

Students will 1) complete a 9-month practicum that requires a deliverable at each stage of the product management lifecycle and 2) demonstrate an understanding of relevant faculty research and explain how it can be mobilized to influence digital product management practice. The program will consider the implications of students developing products for businesses and agencies who are not their employers. Confidentiality and intellectual property will be examined. 

---

2.3 Timeframe

The Smith MDPM program is normally completed in 12 consecutive months, beginning mid-September and ending in early September the following year. Once registered in the program, the student is expected to complete all degree requirements without interruption. 

---

2.4 Degree Requirements and Courses

The Smith Master of Digital Product Management program is a 12-month program in which students complete 19 courses (3 term-length (full) courses, 16 half courses) including one residential session in Kingston. The program is structured into two learning streams (knowledge foundation & application learning) and a practicum. The knowledge foundation stream includes 10 courses that introduce concepts in digital business, product management, and computing. The application learning stream includes 7 courses that apply knowledge to the core activities in the digital product lifecycle. The practicum (2 courses) begins in October and requires student teams to discover, design, and build a digital product for a real client. Teams have nine months to complete five project milestones that will be carefully managed by faculty and a dedicated practicum advisor. Each full course is 3.0 credit units and half-course is 1.5 credit units for a total of 33 credit units for the program.

Applicants will hold a bachelor’s degree from a recognized university or equivalent, with an average minimum B+ (77%) on the last two years of university study. Successful applicants must also have a minimum of two years’ work experience in a business-technology-related role. Applicants must also have English language communication skills as demonstrated by standardized language tests and in an admissions interview. The previous degree can be in any area of study, but students must have completed an entry level course (or equivalent) in introduction to digital business, introduction to marketing, introduction to data analysis, and introduction to computation thinking.

Students must uphold and/or meet each of the Academic Regulations (Section 3 of this document). Admission standards will follow Queen’s School of Graduate Studies equity admission regulation: https://www.queensu.ca/grad-postdoc/wellness/building-inclusive-community.  

2.4.1 Required and Elective Courses

All required courses for the Program must be completed at Queen’s in the year that the student is registered in the Program. There are no elective courses in the MDPM program.

2.4.1.1 Required Courses

All students must complete the following required courses in accordance with the Academic Regulations and Standing set out in Section 3 of this document. 

Courses

MDPM 800 Introduction to Digital Product Management

MDPM 880 Navigating the Problem Space

MDPM 881 Systems Thinking and Digitalization

MDPM 822 Emerging Computing Technologies

MDPM 883 Prototyping and Evaluation

MDPM 884 Product Analytics

MDPM 850 Digital Transformation and Ethical Product Leadership

MDPM 830 Data-Driven Decision Making

MDPM 802 Organizational Experimentation

MDPM 824 Software Systems Security

MDPM 826 Gamification and Usability

MDPM 887 Architecture Integration & Technical Operations

MDPM 888 Scaling the Digital Product for Growth

MDPM 885 Optimizing the User Experience

MDPM 860 Digital Product Management

Projects

MDPM 900 DPM Practicum - Discovery, Design & Build

MDPM 910 DPM Practicum - Build, Scale & Operate

2.4.2 Course Substitutions

Students must complete all required courses at Smith within the required timeframe to graduate from the program.

If extenuating circumstances prevent a student from completing the program in the required timeframe, the student will be required to complete outstanding courses as directed by the Program Director or Academic Progress Committee.  Normally, if one or more of the missed courses is not offered again in the year the student is registered in the program, the student will be permitted to take the course in the subsequent year when the course is offered again.

2.4.3 Auditing Courses

A student may request to audit a course.  A formal written request to audit must be made to the Program Director at least seven days before the first session of the course to be audited.  Requests to audit courses will be considered depending on space, professor approval and other relevant course-specific factors.  As there are no elective courses in the MDPM program, auditing a course is not an option.

---

2.5 Learning Teams

Learning Teams are a foundation of Smith MDPM Program.  The Learning Team is critical to a student’s success in the Program as well as being a means of managing the demanding workload of the Program. It also provides an opportunity to draw on the varied backgrounds and expertise of other team members and enriches the student’s learning experience as a whole.   Most courses allocate approximately 50% of the course weight to teamwork.

Students are assigned to a Learning Team at the beginning of the Program. It is a Program requirement that students function effectively and supportively within their Learning Teams and make effective and ethical use of team resources in satisfying course requirements.  Learning Teams remain intact for the duration of the Program; however, additional “working groups” are formed for some courses in the Program.

2.5.1 Performance in the Learning Team

Performance in the Learning Team is an academic requirement for successful completion of the Program (see Section 3.1).  Students must perform effectively and supportively on the Team according to the standards and norms of the Team.  Failure to do so can result in a requirement to withdraw from the Program. 

2.5.2 Team Coaches

In order to get the best experience on the Learning Team, each team is assigned a professionally trained Team Coach. The Team Coach works regularly with the team and its individual members throughout the Program delivering best practices, instruction, advice, and coaching on team processes, development, and performance. Team coaches may also work with a team on interpersonal issues or concerns with regard to the performance (effectiveness) or behaviour (supportiveness) of individual team members.

2.5.3 Request to Change Learning Team

Students are not permitted to change Learning Teams.

---

2.6 Grading

Course-level evaluation will consist of a mix of team and individual assignments, hands-on technical activities, case studies, presentations and exams. Students will receive regular feedback from course instructors throughout the program via assessment feedback and individual meetings. The 9-month practicum requires the completion of five group-level integrated project milestones and will be evaluated as requirements for completing the practicum (MDPM 900 & 910). Feedback for each milestone will be provided by the course instructors, practicum support team (team coach and practicum advisor), as well as the client.

The Program Director will also provide students with a progress report at the end of each 4-month period that includes a peer evaluation from their teammates (in collaboration with the team coach). There will be no formal grade assigned to the progress report, but peer evaluation grades will be a component of MDPM 900 and 910. One-on-one meetings will be conducted with students that are struggling to meet course and degree-level expectations.

2.6.1 Queen's University Grading

The grading system for courses in the Queen's Program is: 

Grading (Business)

Letter Grade	Grade Point	Percentage
A+	4.3	90-100
A	4.0	85-89.9
A-	3.7	80-84.9
B+	3.3	77-79.9
B	3.0	73-76.9
B-	2.7	70-72.9
C+	2.3	67-69.9
C	2.0	63-66.9
C-	1.7	60-62.9
D+	1.3	57-59.9
D	1.0	53-56.9
D-	0.7	50-52.9
F	0.0	0-49.9

Other academic entries which may be assigned are: 

System of Grading

Letter Grade	Description
P	Pass; no grade assigned
FR	Failure with review, grade will be revised
CR	Credit
IN	Incomplete
GD	Grade deferred
AG	Aegrotat*
RTW	Required to withdraw
NG	Not graded; first term course of a multi-term course
AU	Audit
TR	Transfer credit, no grade assigned
DR	Course dropped
NEP	Not eligible to proceed
IP	In progress

*Aegrotat: An academic entry which provides an estimated final grade or, if that is not possible, credit for a course without a grade because of extenuating circumstances beyond the student’s control that prevented the student from completing all work of the course, particularly the final examination. Normally at least 60 per cent of the work to be evaluated in the course (assignments, midterms, final examination, as specified in the course). 

Requests for AG or CR standing should be made to the Program Director.

2.6.2 Grading Specifications

All final marks, including those assigned after special examinations, may be based on the results of formal examinations and on grades obtained from other work throughout the course, which may include essays, exercises, reports, presentations, class tests/quizzes, and class participation or other work.

At the beginning of each course, the professor will provide a clear statement of the basis on which the final mark will be assessed. All work assigned and the weight that it will contribute to the final mark will be specified.  Normally there is both individual and teamwork included in course assessments.

2.6.3 Class Participation

Class participation grades are allocated in some courses. Professors will specify the specific form and opportunities for participation marks at the start of the course.  Some examples include contributions to class discussions or discussion boards, attendance, timely completion of assigned work, or other relevant behaviours determined by the professor.

3: ACADEMIC REGULATIONS AND STANDING

Academic Regulations exist to maintain the standards of the MDPM Program, and to ensure the candidates of the Program have the mandatory knowledge and experience to merit receiving the Degree.  Degrees are awarded according to the requirements and processes set out in the Academic Regulations.

Every student is responsible for knowing and meeting or upholding the Academic Regulations of the Program in order to progress through the Program and ultimately be eligible for the Degree.  The Academic Regulations below are currently in effect.  Regulations are consistently reviewed and may change from time to time.  Any changes that take place during the academic year will be communicated to students; it remains the student’s responsibility to be aware of any such changes. 

3.1 Academic Regulations

Each candidate for the Degree must successfully meet or achieve the Regulations below in order to be in Good Academic Standing, to progress through the Program, and to be eligible for graduation from the Program.  In a case where a student violates any one of the Regulations, that student is normally required to withdraw from the Program (see section 3.2 for further information). 

Every student must achieve the following:

3.1.1 Complete Program Curriculum

The student must complete all components of the curriculum as outlined in Section 2.

3.1.2 Overall Minimum GPA

The student must achieve a cumulative GPA of at least 2.7 (B-) including all courses taken in the Program.

3.1.3 Minimum Course Grades

The student may obtain final grades of less than 2.0 (C) in no more than the equivalent of 2 half credit courses (3 credits total) throughout the program.

3.1.4 No Failures

The student must obtain a final grade of at least 0.7 (D-) in each course.

3.1.5 Attendance

The student may not miss more than 25% of class sessions of any course (I.e: 1 session of a 4 session course would be 25%).

Class attendance is monitored and tracked in each course in the LMS (D2L) and concerns related to attendance will be addressed with the student.

3.1.6 Pass Individual Performance

The student must obtain a grade of at least 0.7 (D-) in the assessment of individual performance of any course.  Course professors will determine how individual performance is assessed in their course.

3.1.7 Pass Team Performance

The student must obtain a grade of at least 0.7 (D-) on the assessment of team performance of any course.  Course professors will determine how team performance is assessed in their course.

3.1.8 Function in Learning Team

The student must function effectively and supportively in the Learning Team throughout the duration of the Program.  The Program Director will determine whether the student is functioning effectively and supportively as per Section 3.2.2.1.

---

3.2 Academic Standing

Faculty boards or delegated bodies have jurisdiction to deal with issues of Academic Standing. Subject to a student’s right of appeal, if a student is not meeting the requirements of their program, a faculty board has the authority to issue a Requirement to Withdraw for Academic Performance, indicating the required transcript notation in accordance with the Policy on Transcript Terminology for Students Withdrawing from Queen’s University.

Academic standing means the standard used to determine or measure a student’s eligibility to remain and/or progress in a program, as determined by the academic regulations of the student’s Faculty, School or program. The following Academic Standings may apply, depending on individual circumstances:

3.2.1 Good Academic Standing

In order to progress through the Program and to be eligible for the Degree, a student must be in Good Academic Standing.  A student is considered to be in Good Academic Standing when they uphold the Academic Regulations set out in Section 3.1 above.

A student who fails to uphold any one of the Academic Regulations is no longer in Good Academic Standing and is normally required to withdraw from the Program.

3.2.2 Academic Jeopardy

A student who fails to meet one or more of the Academic Regulations is deemed to be in Academic Jeopardy until a decision is made about their situation by the appropriate body. 

Students in this situation will first be reviewed by the Program Director.  In some cases, an informal resolution may be possible (for example, an opportunity to re-take an exam if the student has official evidence of being gravely ill on the day of the exam) and, if successful, the student may return to Good Academic Standing.

In cases where an informal resolution is not possible, the Program Director will inform the student in writing of the requirement to withdraw from the Program, subject to the student’s right of appeal to the Academic Progress Committee (section 5, Academic Decisions and Appeals).

3.2.2.1 Academic Jeopardy Resulting from Failure to Function in the Learning Team

As established in the Academic Regulations, section 3.1.8 Function in Learning Team, a student must function effectively and supportively in the Learning Team (section 2.5) throughout the duration of the Program. Effective and supportive behaviour as a team member includes meeting the standards of performance and behaviour determined by the Team in conjunction with the Team Coach, as well as full cooperation and responsive communication with the Team Coach.

When significant concerns regarding a student’s Learning Team performance is brought to a Team Coach, the Team Coach will investigate the situation fully and fairly.  The Team Coach will:

1. Discuss the situation with each student on the Learning Team, including the student whose performance or behaviour is in question.
2. Identify the Learning Team’s established performance, operational and behavioural norms and expectations.
3. Discuss with the student in question any failure to meet the team norms or expectations, and, if necessary:
4. Establish a set of formal expectations (in the form of a Performance Improvement Plan) that must be achieved by the student within a specified period in order to fulfill the obligation to perform as an effective and supportive team member.

A student operating under a formal set of performance expectations outlined in a PIP is in Academic Jeopardy.  If the student successfully completes the PIP, the student is once again considered to be in Good Academic Standing.

If, after a thorough investigation, the Director of Team Coaching determines that the student has not successfully completed the PIP, the Director of Team Coaching will refer the matter to the Program Director for review.  If the student is deemed to have violated Regulation 3.1.8, the student will be required to withdraw from the Program, subject to their right of appeal to the Academic Progress Committee (section 5).

3.2.3 Academic Probation

A student who has failed to meet one or more of the Academic Regulations and who has successfully appealed to the Academic Progress Committee (section 5) may be permitted to continue in the Program, on Academic Probation, subject to specific terms, conditions, standards and timeframes tailored to the situation by the Academic Progress Committee. 

A student who successfully completes the conditions of their Academic Probation will be released from Academic Probation and return to Good Academic Standing.  A student who fails to meet the conditions of their Academic Probation will normally be required to withdraw from the Program, subject to their right of appeal (section 5).

3.2.4 Requirement to Withdraw

A student who has failed to meet any one or more of the Academic Regulations is normally required to withdraw from the Program, subject to their right of appeal (section 5).  Further, a student who fails to meet the conditions of their Academic Probation will normally be required to withdraw from the Program.

3.2.5 Effective Date of Sanctions, Penalty or Requirement to Withdraw

Sanctions or adverse academic decisions, such as Academic Probation (and its terms and conditions), penalties or a requirement to withdraw, shall take effect in accordance with Sections 33 and 34 of the Queens University Senate Student Academic Appeals Policy (“SAAP”):

33. Ordinarily, no sanction, penalty or requirement to withdraw shall be put into effect until the student affected has either exhausted all channels of appeal or the time for filing an appeal has expired and no appeal has been filed. For the purpose of this provision, the University will normally consider an adverse academic decision to be a sanction.

34. Notwithstanding paragraph 33, if an academic unit determines that the interests of third parties may be prejudiced by the continued enrolment of a student in a course or program, the unit may decide that, pending an appeal from an adverse academic decision, the student should not be permitted to continue in their course or program or should be precluded from progressing to the next academic stage. A student who is subject to an immediate sanction under this paragraph may request that the Chair of the appellate body with jurisdiction over the matter expedite the appeal. This request may result in a direct abridging the time for filing of documents, or other interim or preliminary directions.

The Commentary to s.34 reads:

Some academic experiences involve student interaction with third parties or may be subject to laws and regulations such as those governing professions (such as those subject to the Regulated Health Professions Act and the Medicine Act). For example, and without limiting other possible circumstances, there are placement requirements in Education and mandated clinical placements in the Schools of Medicine, Nursing, and Rehabilitative Therapy, where the interests of third parties would justify immediate suspension of a student from a course or portion of a program pending the outcome of an appeal process. In programs involving intensive group work, the interests of other students might also justify such a suspension pending the outcome of an appeal process.    

3.2.5.1 Effective Date of Sanctions for Failure to Function in the Learning Team

The Program Director may determine that an adverse academic decision (e.g., requirement to withdraw) as a result of the violation of Regulation 4.1.8 (Function in the Learning Team) requires that a student’s participation in the team be halted during the appeal process to ensure that the interests of third parties (e.g., the learning experience and academic evaluation of the other members of the Learning Team) are not adversely affected.  The student may be permitted to continue in the Program to the extent feasible until all levels of appeal are exhausted. However, in certain circumstances, the student may not be permitted to continue in the Program in accordance with SAAP s.34.

4: ACADEMIC STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS

4.1 Academic Integrity

Queen’s University is dedicated to creating a scholarly community free to explore a range of ideas, to build and advance knowledge, and to share the ideas and knowledge that emerge from a range of intellectual pursuits.

Queen’s students, faculty, administrators and staff therefore all have responsibilities for supporting and upholding the fundamental values of academic integrity. Academic integrity is a commitment to the fundamental values of honesty, trust, fairness, respect and responsibility. Academic integrity concerns refer to issues that arise which deserve attention, and which may or may not, in the end, involve a departure from academic integrity, that is, a departure from these fundamental values. This involves what has traditionally been referred to as academic dishonesty but encompasses a much broader context to include educational measures associated with academic integrity. Academic integrity is constituted by the five core fundamental values of honesty, trust, fairness, respect and responsibility (see International Centre for Academic Integrity ) and by the quality of courage. These values and qualities are central to the building, nurturing and sustaining of an academic community in which all members of the community will thrive. Adherence to the values expressed through academic integrity forms a foundation for the "freedom of inquiry and exchange of ideas" essential to the intellectual life of the University.

During the virtual program launch, students will be introduced to the Queen’s academic integrity policy as part of program orientation. A member of the Queen’s community with expertise in academic integrity will facilitate a session where expectations will be discussed (recognizing that some students have different ideas of what academic integrity means because of possible cultural and pedagogical differences), the process for dealing with issues will be described, and tools used to govern academic integrity (e.g., Turnitin) will be introduced. The Program Director will ensure all students and faculty teaching in the program are aware of the AI policy and process; faculty will provide a statement and link on course syllabi.

Students will also learn about Intellectual Property (IP) in MDPM 900. There will be a program- specific IP agreement consistent with the policies outlined in the Senate document on intellectual property that will be signed by all stakeholders involved in the practicum. The agreement will describe how existing IP will be utilized both within and outside the program and how IP generated will be handled. Other courses (MDPM 880, MDPM 883) will speak to this agreement and emphasize its importance.

These topics are also addressed at the beginning of the program (MDPM 800) where a program code of conduct will be developed. In addition, an entire course on digitization and ethics in practice will be delivered (MDPM 850) to reinforce the importance of ethics, academic integrity and IP in digital product management practice. Other courses throughout the program will showcase the importance of ethics and integrity as essential leadership skills for the discipline and instructors will share related stories based on lived experiences. Understanding and application of related knowledge will be demonstrated through case studies, personal journal reflections, and completion of the 9-month practicum.

The following statements from “The Fundamental Values of Academic Integrity” (2nd edition), developed by the International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI), contextualize these values and qualities:

1. Honesty: Academic communities of integrity advance the quest for truth and knowledge through intellectual and personal honesty in learning, teaching, research, and service.
2. Trust: Academic communities of integrity both foster and rely upon climates of mutual trust. Climates of trust encourage and support the free exchange of ideas which in turn allows scholarly inquiry to reach its fullest potential.
3. Fairness: Academic communities of integrity establish clear and transparent expectations, standards, and practices to support fairness in the interactions of students, faculty, and administrators.
4. Respect: Academic communities of integrity value the interactive, cooperative, participatory nature of learning. They honor, value, and consider diverse opinions and ideas.
5. Responsibility: Academic communities of integrity rest upon foundations of personal accountability coupled with the willingness of individuals and groups to lead by example, uphold mutually agreed-upon standards, and take action when they encounter wrongdoing.
6. Courage: To develop and sustain communities of integrity, it takes more than simply believing in the fundamental values. Translating the values from talking points into action -- standing up for them in the face of pressure and adversity — requires determination, commitment, and courage.

Students are responsible for familiarizing themselves with and adhering to the regulations concerning academic integrity. More information can be found in the Queens University Senate Academic Integrity Procedures – Requirements of Faculties & Schools. General information on academic integrity is available at Queens University Academic Integrity along with School specific information in the Smith School of Business Academic Integrity Policy.

4.1.1 Departures from Academic Integrity

All forms of departure from academic integrity are considered serious offences within the University community.  Faculty boards or their delegated bodies have jurisdiction to deal with issues of academic integrity concerns and to impose sanctions when they find a departure from academic integrity has occurred.  Any student found to have committed a departure from academic integrity may face a range of sanctions, from receiving a grade of zero on the assignment to a recommendation to Queen’s Senate that the student be required to withdraw from the University for a period, or even that a degree be rescinded. Departures from academic integrity other than a course-related issue (e.g., falsifying a transcript) are dealt with by the Faculty/School in which the student is registered. The Smith School of Business Academic Integrity Policy governs academic integrity processes at the Smith School of Business. Students are encouraged to consult instructors if they are unsure of the standards of academic integrity appropriate to an academic program, course or activity. The following defines the domain of relevant acts without providing an exhaustive list:

4.1.1.1 Plagiarism

Allowing it to be thought that another's ideas or phrasings are one's own by failing to provide proper acknowledgement. Some examples are:

• Copying and pasting from the internet
• Copying a printed source or other resource without proper acknowledgement
• Copying from another student in the same or different year of the Program or another Program
• Copying from another’s test paper.
• Using direct quotations or large sections of paraphrased material in an assignment without appropriate acknowledgement
• Buying term papers or other assignments and submitting them as one's own
• Submitting the same piece of work in more than one course without the permission of the instructors
• Obtaining a copy of, or information about, a test or exam from an earlier section of the course and writing the test or exam later in the day or subsequent days.

4.1.1.2 Use of Unauthorized Materials

• Possessing or using unauthorized study materials or aids during a test
• Copying from another's test paper.
• Using an unauthorized calculator or other aids during a test
• Unauthorized removal of materials from the library, or deliberate concealment of library materials

4.1.1.3 Facilitation

• Enabling another's breach of academic integrity.
• Making information available to another student, such as knowingly allowing one's essay or assignment to be copied by someone else, giving a copy of a test or exam to a student writing the same test or exam later in the day or subsequent days.
• Selling or distributing term papers or other assignments
• Knowingly assisting another person to conceal their departure from academic integrity.

4.1.1.4 Unauthorized Collaboration

• Working with others, without the specific permission of the instructor, on assignments that will be submitted for a grade.
• This applies to in-class or take-home tests, papers, or homework assignments. Students may not collaborate without the instructor’s authorization.

4.1.1.5 Forgery

• Utilizing counterfeit documents or statements (e.g., creating or altering a transcript, medical note or other official documents).

4.1.1.6 Falsification

• Misrepresentation of oneself, one's work or one's relation to the University.
• Altering transcripts or other official documents relating to student records
• Impersonating someone in an examination or test
• Submitting a take-home examination written, in whole or in part, by someone else
• Fabricating or falsifying research data or source material (whether by commission or by omission)
• Allowing someone else to do research work without the knowledge and approval of the instructor.
• Failing to appropriately recognize contributions of others.
• Attributing authorship of work to persons other than those who have contributed to the work in a meaningful way.

4.1.2 Process for Investigating Suspected Departures from Academic Integrity

The Smith School of Business Academic Integrity Policy sets out complete procedures and processes for handling suspected departures from academic integrity. Students are responsible for familiarizing themselves with the policy. Normally, where a course professor has a concern about a possible departure from academic integrity, the professor will notify the student and investigate in accordance with Smith policy. The student will have an opportunity to respond, and their response will be considered part of the evidence in the case.

In complex cases the professor may refer the case to the Smith School of Business Academic Integrity Panel for investigation. In this situation, the Academic Integrity Panel will notify the student of the potential departure and investigate in accordance with Smith policy.

In cases of a subsequent departure from academic integrity (that is, where there is a previous departure on record for the student), the professor will make a finding but refer the case to the Academic Integrity Panel for the determination of a sanction.

4.1.3 Assessment of Sanction

Where there is a finding of departure from academic integrity, the instructor consults with the Dean’s Office. If the Dean’s Office reports a previous finding exists, the instructor refers the matter to the Smith Academic Integrity Panel for the assignment of an appropriate sanction. If there is no academic integrity record on file in the Smith Dean’s Office, the instructor may assign a remedy or sanction appropriate to the extent or severity of the offense. When considering the remedy or sanction, the instructor considers several factors in assessing the gravity of the remedial measure or sanction to be imposed. Additional information can be found on the Smith School of Business Academic Integrity website.

Following the investigation of the suspected departure from Academic Integrity, the professor will either: i) make a finding of a departure from academic integrity and impose a sanction (or consult with the Smith Academic Integrity Panel for sanction); or ii) determine there was no departure from Academic Integrity, notify the student the investigation has been dropped and destroy all documents related to the case.

After making the finding and setting a sanction within the scope of those available to the instructor, the instructor must inform the student in writing of the decision. If the finding appears to warrant a sanction more serious than the instructor may impose, or if there is a previous finding of a departure from academic integrity on file in the Smith Dean’s Office, the case shall be referred to the Smith Academic Integrity Panel.

Any student who is found to have committed a violation of academic integrity may face a range of sanctions, including but not limited to:

• An oral or written warning that such infractions constitute unacceptable behaviour (Note that an oral warning must still be documented on the Finding of a Departure from Academic Integrity form)
• A learning experience involving a rewriting or revision of the original piece of work
• The submission of a new piece of work
• The completion of other work
• The deduction of partial or total marks for the assignment/exam
• A failing grade (down to a grade of zero) in the course.

If the penalty amounts to a failure in the course, the student may not drop the course, regardless of the drop deadlines.

In the case of a referral to the Smith Academic Integrity Panel, the Panel may impose sanctions ranging from those noted above to a recommendation to Senate that the student be required to withdraw from the University.    

Records of findings of departures from Academic Integrity are kept in the Dean’s Office and in the Program Office. 

---

4.2 Extenuating Circumstances Policies

4.2.1 Illness

A student who claims illness as a reason for missing academic obligations is responsible for informing the professor, Program Manager and the Program Director and may be required to provide evidence of illness.  In keeping with University Academic Consideration for Students in Extenuating Circumstances Policy, a student suffering from a short-term illness should submit the appropriate Extenuating Circumstances form outlining their needs. 

A notification of absence from an examination must be accompanied by documentation as follows:

• in cases of illness when a student is under the care of a physician, the student should provide a note from the physician. Retroactive doctors’ notes (i.e. notes dated from physicians after the illness) are not acceptable.
• If a student is ill, but not under the care of a physician prior to and during an exam, they can provide the appropriate Extenuating Circumstances form(s) outlining their situation.

4.2.2 Extenuating Circumstances

The Program adheres to Queen’s Academic Consideration for Students in Extenuating Circumstances Policy and the principle of a good faith response to requests for consideration. The policy enables students with extenuating circumstances to request academic consideration in a fair, reasonable and consistent manner.

Extenuating circumstances means a personal circumstance beyond the student’s control that has a direct and substantial impact on the student’s ability to meet essential academic requirements or expectations.  Extenuating circumstances include but are not limited to a sudden or acute physical or mental illness, serious injury to self or significant others, bereavement, a traumatic event, or other serious personal/family crisis.  Extenuating circumstances may also include officially representing the university at a sanctioned event or through an invitation to participate in an event as a distinguished guest (e.g., national tournament, Olympics). Extenuating circumstances do not include personal or family events (e.g., holidays, weddings), academic or exam stress, or transportation or technological difficulties.

There are three extenuating circumstances levels, a student who is unable to satisfy the requirements of a course or the Program due to extenuating circumstances must notify the Program Director in writing as soon as possible. 

Level 1: Brief Absence Students who require an unplanned brief absence from academic obligations for a period of up to 48 hours. Instructors and Faculty/School Offices have discretion to extend academic considerations for an unplanned Brief Absence beyond 48 hours if they deem it appropriate in situations where recovery requires additional days. In cases where a student who submitted a Self-Declaration of Brief Absence is not able to return to full academic functioning within a few days, the student should submit a Request for Academic Consideration for Extenuating Circumstances.

Level 2: Short Term Extenuating Circumstances Students who require academic consideration for a short-term period defined as more than 48 hours (with discretion for an additional one or two days) but less than 3 months. This applies to extenuating circumstances where the student anticipates a full recovery and return to previous levels of academic functioning within the next 3 months. This applies to extenuating circumstances that lead to a reduced ability to meet academic requirements due to physical or mental impairment. This includes an extended unanticipated illness (e.g., mononucleosis, pneumonia), a serious injury (e.g., concussion, broken bones), a required treatment (surgical procedure, significant side effects from new medication), serious injury or illness to a significant other, bereavement (e.g., loss of family member), traumatic event, or another significant personal crisis.

Students who are unable to meet academic obligations due to functional impairments and limitations related to a known underlying disability or diagnosed health condition should register with Queen’s Student Accessibility Services to receive ongoing academic accommodations tailored to their individual needs. Academic considerations should be individualized to the student’s circumstances and in proportion to the student’s ability to complete academic requirements. Depending on the ability of the student to engage in academic tasks and the nature of the program the student is in and related academic requirements, short term extenuating circumstances may require withdrawing from a course (or courses) or may require a medical leave of absence.

Level 3: Long-term Extenuating circumstances. Students who do not anticipate a full recovery or return to academic functioning within 3 months should speak with their Faculty / School Offices immediately to discuss academic implications and possible academic considerations (e.g., reduced course load, medical leave of absence). Students should take reasonable measures to promote academic success and their personal well-being by accessing available supports, including Queen’s Student Accessibility Services, Health and/or Counselling Services, and other campus supports or personal /professional supports as appropriate.

Students who anticipate a return to academic functioning but with ongoing need for academic accommodation should contact Queen’s Student Accessibility Services (QSAS) to register for ongoing academic accommodations. Students will need to provide documentation to QSAS related to their functional impairments.

Students seeking academic accommodations related to a chronic or ongoing physical or mental health condition or an existing disability should refer to the existing policy on Academic Accommodations for Students with Disabilities. Students with long term health conditions or disability should seek academic accommodation from Queen’s Student Accessibility Services in Student Wellness Services.

Privacy and confidentiality will be protected and maintained throughout this process to the extent possible. Information may be shared among university personal (e.g., faculty offices, instructors, exams office) on a need-to-know basis for the purpose of arranging academic considerations. Confidentiality cannot be maintained where there is reason to believe that an individual may be at risk of harming themselves or others.

In cases where a student is unable to act, a delegate may act on behalf of the student, with the student’s written consent.

Students are expected to request academic considerations as soon as extenuating circumstances are apparent. Requests for retroactive consideration should be directed to the Faculty/School Office and will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

For extenuating circumstances relating to sexual violence or harassment and discrimination, students can contact the Sexual Violence Prevention and Response Co-ordinator, the Human Rights Office, or Student Wellness Services, for support and for the facilitation of appropriate arrangements. The Policy on Sexual Violence Involving Queen’s University Students supersedes these procedures.

If the student is requesting an alternate means of satisfying the Program requirements, a formal written request should be submitted to the Program Director.  The request should include an explanation of the connection between the effects of the extenuating circumstances and the student’s academic performance, as well as the remedy being proposed.

The Program Director will respond to the student’s request for consideration promptly.  The Program is committed to responding to students in a fair and consistent manner, considering the specific individual circumstances.  The Program is also committed to upholding academic standards and ensuring that essential academic requirements are met.

If an instructor or supervisor does not assent to the request for academic consideration in extenuating circumstances made by a graduate student, academic consideration may nonetheless be granted, unless the instructor or supervisor provides justifiable reasons for withholding his or her assent. The decision to grant or deny the academic consideration shall be made by the Associate Dean of the School of Graduate Studies.

4.2.3 Official Documentation

Level 1 documentation: The university does not require verification documentation from a health care professional (on-campus or hospital or community-based) in these circumstances. 

Level 2 documentation: Students may be required to provide verification documentation. This may include the Verification of Personal Health Condition form, a Verification of Confidential Extenuating Circumstances form, or other documentation (e.g., death certification, police report of an accident). Students are not required to disclose specific details of their personal circumstances to their instructors or supervisors, but the Faculty/School Office may require documentation that verifies the extenuating circumstance and the inability or reduced capacity to complete academic work. In cases where a Verification of Confidential Extenuating Circumstances form has been submitted, additional documentation or detail is not required. Official documentation, including notes from health care professionals, need not outline the specific details of the student’s condition, but must clearly indicate ways in which the circumstances directly affect the student’s performance, and verify that these effects were substantial enough to cause the academic disruption.  Information about the start, duration and present state of the condition or circumstances, as well as a clear statement on whether the condition or circumstances have either improved or are being managed so that they will not have a significant detrimental effect on future academic performance, are essential.

Level 3 documentation:  Documentation may include Self-declaration forms, requests for academic consideration forms, verification of Confidential Extenuating Circumstances form or other documentation (determined on a case-by-case basis).

A student’s privacy and confidentiality are maintained throughout this process to the extent possible. Information may be shared among university personal (e.g., instructors or supervisors, exams office) on a need-to-know basis for the purpose of arranging academic considerations. Documentation collected as part of this policy will not be part of a student’s permanent academic record.

Documents submitted may be verified by the Program administration.  False statements or documents may be investigated in accordance with the Smith Policy on Academic Integrity.

4.2.4 Unresolved Circumstances

The appeals and consideration processes do not compensate for circumstances that the student is unable to resolve, or for which the student is unwilling to actively seek accommodation. In addition, the appeals process does not compensate for circumstances that are actively being accommodated, for example where a student’s permanent disabilities are being accommodated through Queen’s Student Accessibility Services Office.

Multiple appeals citing the same circumstances will be reviewed very closely. This review may include, with the permission of the student, consultation with the appropriate professionals involved to obtain more detailed information. In order for such an appeal to succeed, there must be convincing evidence that the circumstances that affected the student’s academic performance will be resolved within a reasonable timeline or will be appropriately managed on an ongoing basis.

---

4.3 Language

Students should be proficient in the English language. There are no language requirements for this program that exceed those set by the School of Graduate Studies.

In accordance with Queen’s University Language Policy, examinations and assignments are to be submitted in English, except where a Faculty Board has approved an alternative practice or where a special agreement has been entered into between the Program and a student.

---

4.4 Acceptable Use of Information Technology Resources Policy

All members of the Queen’s community are bound by the Queen’s policy on the Acceptable Use of Information Technology (IT) Resources.  The policy states:

The use of Queen's University information technology (IT) resources must be consistent with the academic mission of the University. These IT resources are provided to support the teaching, learning, research and administrative activities of the Queen's community. As a member or guest of the Queen's community, you may have access to valuable internal and external networks and resources, and Sensitive Information, and you are expected to use these resources in a responsible, ethical, and legal manner. Your actions should not adversely affect the ability of others to use these resources or compromise the security and privacy of sensitive information.

4.4.1 Submission of Electronic Assignments

Students are required to submit all assignments electronically.  It is the responsibility of the student to ensure that all electronic submissions have been submitted properly and are corruption-free.

Any assignment that is detected to be carrying a corrupt file will be immediately destroyed, and the student must re-submit the assignment corruption-free. If the assignment is not re-submitted before the assignment deadline it will be marked “late.”

---

4.5 Examinations

4.5.1 Access to Examinations

The term final examination refers to the final examination in a course together with the graded answer paper written by the student. These documents, in accordance with the Senate Policy on Student Access to Final Examination Papers, must be retained by the professor or the School for a period of 12 months.

4.5.1.1 Informal Access

Professors may informally review the final examination with a student who requests it and are encouraged to do so. However, access may not be granted before the final marks are released.

4.5.1.2 Formal Access

A student may obtain access to their final exam as part of an appeal process. This may be supervised access to, or a copy of, the final examination paper.  The student should contact the Program administration to arrange for formal access to their final exam.

4.5.2 Changes to Examination Times

Requests for changes to an individual examination time must be made to the Program Director as soon as the student is aware of a conflict. Normally, such requests will only be granted if extenuating circumstances (beyond the student’s control) will prevent the student from writing the exam at the scheduled time. 

The exam dates for courses with exams (online or in person) will be posted well in advance of the date of the exam. The policies regarding change of dates are set out below.

1.  All requests for changes to exam dates must meet the following criteria:

1. A written request for the change of date must be received by the Program Manager at Queen’s at least two weeks in advance of the exam; the request must clearly state the reason for the change.
2. All requests must be approved by the program administration in consultation with the course professor; this process may require supporting documentation.
3. In extenuating circumstances, changes to exam dates may be considered if the criteria set out in 1 and 2 above are not met.

---

4.6 Queen's University Student Code of Conduct

Queen’s University is dedicated to learning, intellectual inquiry, the dissemination and advancement of knowledge, personal and professional development, and good citizenship. All students are required to read and adhere to Queen’s University Student Code of Conduct and Procedures Under the Queen's University Student Code of Conduct (2021) Students should refer to the Student Policy Index for more information on all student policies.

Students are expected to adhere to and promote the University’s core values of honesty, trust, fairness, respect and personal responsibility in all aspects of university life, academic and non-academic. These core values are intended to inform and guide student conduct as they foster mutual respect for the dignity, property, rights and well-being of others.

As a member of the Queen’s community, every student accepts the University’s policies, rules and procedures and acknowledges the right of the University to set standards of conduct, as well as the right of the University and/or its Authorized Agent(s) to impose sanctions for conduct found to have violated those standards.  

4.6.1 Professionalism and Facilities Etiquette

All study and workspaces provided by Smith School of Business and the Queen’s School of Computing should be treated with respect and care.  All students are expected to properly reserve space, use the facilities for the purposes for which they are intended, and to leave spaces clean, tidy, in the proper furniture configuration and with the room supplies. 

5: ACADEMIC DECISIONS AND APPEALS

Academic Regulations at Queen’s University were designed to ensure that students are being treated fairly and equitably while upholding the academic standards of the institution. On occasion, there are extenuating circumstances that are usually beyond a student’s control that may have impacted their performance at Queen’s. Appeal processes were developed to reconsider the appropriateness of any sanctions or penalties that may have been imposed upon a student who may have extenuating circumstances.  Various types of academic decisions may be made by a course professor, Program Director, Academic Progress Committee, Academic Integrity Panel, Academic Appeals Committee and/or the University Student Appeal Board.  Admissions decisions are not subject to appeal.

The appeals process at Queen’s University is comprised of several levels of appeal by different appeal bodies.  In accordance with the Senate Student Academic Appeals Policy, the decision system is based on the principle that "decisions should generally be made by those who are most familiar with the context”^[1] .  The Senate Student Academic Appeals Policy reflects the intent of the Senate regarding Student Academic Appeals, which is twofold: To ensure that students receive fair treatment and are aware of their rights and responsibilities and to establish a fair, efficient process for addressing student appeals from academic decisions.

Appeals of academic decisions fall into four possible categories: appeals of grades (Section 5.1), appeals of other academic decisions (Section 5.2), appeals of academic standing and progression decisions (Section 5.3), and appeals of academic integrity decisions (Section 5.4).

Note that it is the student’s responsibility to clearly establish that grounds for an appeal exist as the basis for an appeal.  Below the various decision-making bodies and their mandates are explained.

Appeals of decisions rendered under the Students at Risk Policy and Students at Risk Procedure. 

[1] Senate Student Academic Appeals Policy, Introduction (p. 4).

5.1 Appeals of Grades

Grades are determined by course professors.  Appeals of grades in courses (including assignments, examination papers, and final grades) are first handled at the course professor level.

Examination papers and course marks of students whose final grade in a course is marginally below a letter grade, and especially below a failing grade, are reviewed with special care by faculty members before such grades are assigned. Therefore, it is unlikely that such a grade is incorrect or unfair to the student.  However, if a student feels that a course grade or a portion of it has been unfairly assessed, they should first make an attempt to resolve the issue informally with the professor.

If the student feels that the issue remains unresolved, they should contact the Program Director who will initiate a formal grade review.  A review of the assignment or examination shall be conducted by two examiners appointed by the Program Director or designate; one examiner shall be the original professor or grader, if available. The review shall involve a re‐reading of the final examination or deliverable(s) in the course and a review of the student’s course record.

Students are not charged a fee for filing an appeal.

Note that it is the responsibility of the student to preserve all exercises, papers, reports, and other graded material for the course and to submit a copy of these documents with the request for review. The scanned copy of any graded assignment or material returned to a student shall be deemed to be the original document for the purposes of this section.

Note that an appeal may result in no change to the grade, an increase in the grade, or a decrease in the grade. The decision of the examiner(s) is final, and there is no further appeal available.

---

5.2 Appeals of Other Academic Decisions

The Program Director makes some decisions for students facing special circumstances in the Program.  The student should request consideration as appropriate to the Program Director as soon as they are aware of a situation requiring such consideration.  Examples of such decisions could include changing a course registration from one elective to another or deferring an exam.

Appeals of decisions by the Program Director are made to the Academic Progress Committee. 

---

5.3 Appeals of Academic Standing and Progression Decisions

Students are considered to be in Good Academic Standing unless they have violated one or more of the Academic Regulations of the Program.  As noted, students who violate one or more of the Academic Regulations of the Program are normally required to withdraw from the Program.  In such a case, the Program Director will normally inform the student in writing that, because of their violation of one or more of the Regulations, they are required to withdraw from the Program.

Appeals of these decisions are made to the Academic Progress Committee.

See Appendix A/B for the Academic Progress Committee’s Terms of Reference and Rules of Procedure.

---

5.4 Appeals of Academic Integrity Decisions

Course professors will normally investigate and make decisions regarding possible violations of academic integrity in their courses in accordance with the Smith School of Business Academic Integrity Policy and as set out in Section 4.1.

Appeals of professors’ decisions regarding academic integrity are made to the Academic Integrity Panel.

In cases where the Academic Integrity Panel is the initial decision maker, appeals are made to the Smith School of Business Academic Appeals Committee.

---

5.5 The Smith School of Business Academic Appeals Committee

The Smith School of Business Academic Appeals Committee (AAC) has jurisdiction over all matters related to academic appeals involving students registered in the School of Business (with the exception of the PhD and Master of Science programs). The AAC hears appeals of decisions made by Academic Progress Committee and the Academic Integrity Panel.

Normally, the AAC serves as a true appeal board, which is not empowered to substitute its own decision for that of the Academic Progress Committee or the Academic Integrity Panel, but rather reviews the decision of the previous decision-making body based on the same information[1] available to the previous body at the time the decision was made.[2] 

The AAC reviews the circumstances of the decision of the previous decision-maker to: ensure that the Academic Progress Committee or the Academic Integrity Panel did not exceed its jurisdiction; ensure that there was procedural fairness; ensure that there was appropriate consideration of extenuating circumstances; uphold the academic policies and principles reflected in the School’s and University’s regulations; and determine if the decision was reasonable.

In rendering a decision, the AAC may uphold the decision of the previous body, grant the student's appeal, or modify the original decision/sanction.  Any decision made by the AAC must be within the scope of the school’s regulations.

Appeals of decisions made by the AAC are made to the University Student Appeal Board.

---

[1] In situations where new evidence becomes available which may have, or is likely to have, affected the original decision of the previous decision-maker (i.e. the APC or the AIP), the AAC may refer those cases back to the previous decision-maker.

[2] Where the Academic Integrity Panel (AIP) was the initial decision-maker, the AAC will investigate an Academic Integrity case de novo. 

---

5.6 The University Student Appeal Board

Where an appeal to the University Student Appeal Board (“USAB”) is permitted, after exhausting all internal appeals within their faculty or School, a student may appeal to USAB within two weeks after the date of the Faculty’s or School’s last decision. See the Student Academic Appeals Policy (“SAAP”) for the full mandate and processes of USAB. Faculties and Schools are bound by and must implement all decisions of USAB. The University Student Appeal Board is the final internal appeal body at Queen’s University.

The University Student Appeal Board (USAB) has jurisdiction to hear the following types of appeals by students from the final academic decision-making body within their Faculty or School:

USAB has the jurisdiction to review a decision if it results in the application of an academic regulation that impedes a student’s academic standing in a program, but USAB does not have the jurisdiction to review the academic regulation itself; a decision concerning a departure from academic integrity and step-two decisions made by a Unit Head concerning an employment-related issue between an undergraduate teaching assistant and their course supervisor.

The Provost and Vice-Principal (Academic) (“Provost”) or their designate may, refer any decision involving a departure from academic integrity directly to a proceeding before USAB if they are satisfied that an internal appeal of the decision cannot be made in accordance with the rules of procedural fairness; and the matter has not been appealed to another body.

USAB will have full jurisdiction to impose any sanction that could have been made by a body with original jurisdiction over the matter, including requiring the student to withdraw. The provost (or their designate) will be present at the USAB proceeding and will determine what sanction to seek from USAB. USAB have no jurisdiction to consider the academic substance of decisions and assessments.

The grounds for an appeal to USAB are limited to cases in which a student can establish that:

1. The decision-making body whose decision is being appealed failed to act in accordance with the rules of procedural fairness. A breach of procedural fairness includes such things as failing to:
2. Permit a student to be heard by an unbiased decision-maker.
3. Follow applicable rules, regulations, or university policy, in a way that adversely affected a student’s right to a fair process.
4. Make a reasonable decision. A “reasonable” decision is one that is rational in that its findings are based on evidence, thought out and supported by facts and logical inferences from findings of fact. To be reasonable, the decision must contain adequate reasons for the conclusions. A decision should be upheld if it falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes, in which case USAB is not permitted to substitute its opinion for that of the decision-maker whose decision is under appeal.
   • The decision-maker whose decision is being appealed to USAB acted without, or exceeded its, jurisdiction.

No Costs Reimbursement

Neither USAB nor any other decision-maker in the University has the power to direct that a student receive compensation for any costs or expenses incurred during any University-based proceeding. Notwithstanding this, USAB may order that a student receive reimbursement for loss of a Queen’s University bursary, scholarship, or similar funds because of a decision that was reversed on appeal. This remedy is available only if the student remains a student following the issuance of USAB’s decision, or, if the student graduated while their appeal was pending.

Decisions of USAB

In deciding an appeal, USAB may do one of the following:

i. Remit a matter for reconsideration by the decision-maker whose decision has been appealed to USAB, with directions or recommendations; a reconsideration decision may be appealed to USAB based on one of the Grounds for Appeal stated above.

ii. Modify the original decision, including making any decision that the original decision-maker could have made, but only where:

a. Proceeding in accordance with section 48(i) of the Rules of Procedures for USAB would cause delay that prejudices the student’s rights; or,

b. USAB has made a finding of bias in the decision-making process below.

The decision of the USAB is final, and there is no further level of appeal.

---

5.7 Queen's University Senate Policy - Student Academic Appeals Policy

All students should be familiar with their rights as established in the Student Academic Appeals Policy. 

Class of 2024

For students beginning the Master of Digital Product Management program in September 2023. 

1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of the Academic Calendar is to acquaint students with the academic requirements, regulations, policies, procedures and expectations of the Master of Digital Product Management (MDPM) program.  It is the responsibility of the student to read and understand the entire Academic Calendar.  Questions about any of its contents should be directed to the Program Director.

---

1.2 Acknowledgement of Territory

Queen’s University in Kingston is situated on traditional Anishinaabe and Haudenosaunee Territory. To acknowledge this traditional territory is to recognize its longer history, one predating the establishment of the earliest European colonies.  It is also to acknowledge this territory’s significance for the Indigenous peoples who lived, and continue to live, upon it – people whose practices and spiritualties were tied to the land and continue to develop in relationship to the territory and its other inhabitants today.  The Kingston Indigenous community continues to reflect the area’s Anishinaabek and Haudenosaunee roots.  There is also a significant Métis community and there are First Peoples from other Nations across Turtle Island present today.

Smith School of Business and the School of Computing in the Faculty of Arts and Science operates on sacred land that has been a site of human activity for 15,000 years. This land is the territory of the Huron-Wendat and Petun First Nations, the Seneca, and most recently, the Mississaugas of the Credit River. The territory was the subject of the Dish with One Spoon Wampum Belt Covenant, an agreement between the Iroquois Confederacy and Confederacy of the Ojibwe and allied nations to peaceably share and care for the resources around the Great Lakes. Today, the meeting place of Kingston is still the home to many Indigenous people from across Turtle Island and we are grateful to have the opportunity to work in the community on this territory.

2: PROGRAM CURRICULUM AND GRADING

2.1 Jurisdiction

Students of Smith School of Business and the School of Computing in the Faculty of Arts and Science at Queen’s University are governed by the regulations, policies and practices of this institution. 

It is the responsibility of every student in the program to read and understand these policies, regulations, and requirements as well as those of their home, exchange and double degree universities. 

---

2.2 Program Format

The Senate and Board of Trustees of the University, and the Ontario Council approve the Queen’s Master of Digital Product Management Program for Graduate Studies.  Upon graduation, students receive a Masters of Management (MOM) Degree in Digital Product Management.

The Master of Digital Product Management (MDPM) will be offered by Smith School of Business in partnership with Queen’s School of Computing as a specialized inter- disciplinary program at the intersection of digital business, product management, and computing. It is unique as it creates a novel set of knowledge and skills related to digitalization that when applied effectively, can deeply disrupt existing business models and produce fundamentally new value opportunities. This term also encapsulates the growing popularity of digital services and platforms that span across traditional organizational boundaries through open technologies (e.g., open APIs) transforming user experiences and enabling business ecosystems.

The program’s curriculum was designed to achieve six (6) educational goals and related learning outcomes that align to the school-level academic goals as well as the Queen’s Academic Framework and Strategic Plan. The first goal is to offer an innovative, academically rigorous program that synthesizes theoretical concepts and practices in topics related to design and systems thinking. Second, inspire innovation, promote student engagement, and enhance financial sustainability through an inter-disciplinary offering that is dedicated to experiential learning. Third, supply industry with skills that help accelerate the digitalization of traditional organizational practices. Although this is a practice- oriented program, students will identify, explore and evaluate digital product opportunities using appropriate methods of qualitative and quantitative inquiry. Lastly, multiple learning outcomes are defined to help students develop highly effective communication skills as well as personal responsibility, effective problem solving, and ethical behavior and practice. The objective of the MDPM program is to address this skills gap by offering an inter- disciplinary academic program that fuses together critical skills in business and computing.

The MDPM is a practice-oriented program where graduates will develop the ability to apply qualitative and quantitative research methods to identify user needs, create discovery hypotheses, analyze data to generate insights, apply design principles, and create a prototype solution. Research will also be conducted to evaluate the impact (e.g., through analytics and experimentation) of the digital product on anticipated outcomes. Students will also be introduced to thought leadership in digital product management as many faculty teaching in the program do both research and work with industry.

A unique graduate degree-level expectation (GDLE) for this program is the cross-disciplinary integrated learning.  Adding this GDLE is imperative to develop graduates capable of developing work-ready skills that merge technical and business domains.  Essential to enabling cross-disciplinary integrated learning is the experiential learning stream and the removal of coding as a degree level expectation for this program. The MDPM program will adopt no-code development (NCD) by providing students with drag-and-drop development tools and pre-built templates to apply specialized knowledge across phases of the digital product management lifecycle. Tools involving coding will be used only when faculty are confident the students have sufficient understanding of programming to effectively use the tool. 

2.2.1 Program Delivery

The Smith MDPM program is an online program structured to allow students to work while studying. The program delivers an average of two classes each week (Tuesday and/or Wednesday evenings, Saturday morning), supplemented by one on campus residential session. During the first residential period, students are introduced to their Team Coach, network support staff, instructors, and program staff. Students will be introduced to virtual team training as part of the transition to online workshop. Teams (6-8 inter-disciplinary students) will be formed during the in-residence session and will work together throughout the entire program.

Team Coaches will have regular check points with teams at critical times during the program to make sure they are working together effectively, and no student is left behind. In addition to a team coach, each team will also be assigned a practicum advisor to support the 9-month practicum. If the team faces a technical challenge that goes beyond their depth and breadth of knowledge or applied understanding, the practicum faculty member from the School of Computing will assig a teaching assistant from the School of Computing to help the team.

The courses require individual and team preparation and are delivered primarily through a virtual communication platform (Zoom).  The online learning environment will be fostered by using the Queen’s Learning Management System (LMS) – D2L Brightspace as well as a standardized set of virtual learning tools managed by the School of Computing. Online materials (written, audio and video) and assignments will be posted and completed work submitted through this system.

Students will 1) complete a 9-month practicum that requires a deliverable at each stage of the product management lifecycle and 2) demonstrate an understanding of relevant faculty research and explain how it can be mobilized to influence digital product management practice. The program will consider the implications of students developing products for businesses and agencies who are not their employers. Confidentiality and intellectual property will be examined. 

---

2.3 Timeframe

The Smith MDPM program is normally completed in 12 consecutive months, beginning mid-September and ending in early September the following year. Once registered in the program, the student is expected to complete all degree requirements without interruption. 

---

2.4 Degree Requirements and Courses

The Smith Master of Digital Product Management program is a 12-month program in which students complete 19 courses (3 term-length (full) courses, 16 half courses) including one residential session in Kingston. The program is structured into two learning streams (knowledge foundation & application learning) and a practicum. The knowledge foundation stream includes 10 courses that introduce concepts in digital business, product management, and computing. The application learning stream includes 7 courses that apply knowledge to the core activities in the digital product lifecycle. The practicum (2 courses) begins in October and requires student teams to discover, design, and build a digital product for a real client. Teams have nine months to complete five project milestones that will be carefully managed by faculty and a dedicated practicum advisor. Each full course is 3.0 credit units and half-course is 1.5 credit units for a total of 33 credit units for the program.

Applicants will hold a bachelor’s degree from a recognized university or equivalent, with an average minimum B+ (77%) on the last two years of university study. Successful applicants must also have a minimum of two years’ work experience in a business-technology-related role. Applicants must also have English language communication skills as demonstrated by standardized language tests and in an admissions interview. The previous degree can be in any area of study, but students must have completed an entry level course (or equivalent) in introduction to digital business, introduction to marketing, introduction to data analysis, and introduction to computation thinking.

Students must uphold and/or meet each of the Academic Regulations (Section 3 of this document). Admission standards will follow Queen’s School of Graduate Studies equity admission regulation: https://www.queensu.ca/grad-postdoc/wellness/building-inclusive-community.  

2.4.1 Required and Elective Courses

All required courses for the Program must be completed at Queen’s in the year that the student is registered in the Program. There are no elective courses in the MDPM program.

2.4.1.1 Required Courses

All students must complete the following required courses in accordance with the Academic Regulations and Standing set out in Section 3 of this document. 

Courses

MDPM 800 Introduction to Digital Product Management

MDPM 880 Navigating the Problem Space

MDPM 881 Systems Thinking and Digitalization

MDPM 822 Emerging Computing Technologies

MDPM 883 Prototyping and Evaluation

MDPM 884 Product Analytics

MDPM 850 Digital Transformation and Ethical Product Leadership

MDPM 830 Data-Driven Decision Making

MDPM 802 Organizational Experimentation

MDPM 824 Software Systems Security

MDPM 826 Gamification and Usability

MDPM 887 Architecture Integration & Technical Operations

MDPM 888 Scaling the Digital Product for Growth

MDPM 885 Optimizing the User Experience

MDPM 860 Digital Product Management

Projects

MDPM 900 DPM Practicum - Discovery, Design & Build

MDPM 910 DPM Practicum - Build, Scale & Operate

2.4.2 Course Substitutions

Students must complete all required courses at Smith within the required timeframe to graduate from the program.

If extenuating circumstances prevent a student from completing the program in the required timeframe, the student will be required to complete outstanding courses as directed by the Program Director or Academic Progress Committee.  Normally, if one or more of the missed courses is not offered again in the year the student is registered in the program, the student will be permitted to take the course in the subsequent year when the course is offered again.

2.4.3 Auditing Courses

A student may request to audit a course.  A formal written request to audit must be made to the Program Director at least seven days before the first session of the course to be audited.  Requests to audit courses will be considered depending on space, professor approval and other relevant course-specific factors.  As there are no elective courses in the MDPM program, auditing a course is not an option.

---

2.5 Learning Teams

Learning Teams are a foundation of Smith MDPM Program.  The Learning Team is critical to a student’s success in the Program as well as being a means of managing the demanding workload of the Program. It also provides an opportunity to draw on the varied backgrounds and expertise of other team members and enriches the student’s learning experience as a whole.   Most courses allocate approximately 50% of the course weight to teamwork.

Students are assigned to a Learning Team at the beginning of the Program. It is a Program requirement that students function effectively and supportively within their Learning Teams and make effective and ethical use of team resources in satisfying course requirements.  Learning Teams remain intact for the duration of the Program; however, additional “working groups” are formed for some courses in the Program.

2.5.1 Performance in the Learning Team

Performance in the Learning Team is an academic requirement for successful completion of the Program (see Section 3.1).  Students must perform effectively and supportively on the Team according to the standards and norms of the Team.  Failure to do so can result in a requirement to withdraw from the Program. 

2.5.2 Team Coaches

In order to get the best experience on the Learning Team, each team is assigned a professionally trained Team Coach. The Team Coach works regularly with the team and its individual members throughout the Program delivering best practices, instruction, advice, and coaching on team processes, development, and performance. Team coaches may also work with a team on interpersonal issues or concerns with regard to the performance (effectiveness) or behaviour (supportiveness) of individual team members.

2.5.3 Request to Change Learning Team

Students are not permitted to change Learning Teams.

---

2.6 Grading

Course-level evaluation will consist of a mix of team and individual assignments, hands-on technical activities, case studies, presentations and exams. Students will receive regular feedback from course instructors throughout the program via assessment feedback and individual meetings. The 9-month practicum requires the completion of five group-level integrated project milestones and will be evaluated as requirements for completing the practicum (MDPM 900 & 910). Feedback for each milestone will be provided by the course instructors, practicum support team (team coach and practicum advisor), as well as the client.

The Program Director will also provide students with a progress report at the end of each 4-month period that includes a peer evaluation from their teammates (in collaboration with the team coach). There will be no formal grade assigned to the progress report, but peer evaluation grades will be a component of MDPM 900 and 910. One-on-one meetings will be conducted with students that are struggling to meet course and degree-level expectations.

2.6.1 Queen's University Grading

The grading system for courses in the Queen's Program is: 

Grading (Business)

Letter Grade	Grade Point	Percentage
A+	4.3	90-100
A	4.0	85-89.9
A-	3.7	80-84.9
B+	3.3	77-79.9
B	3.0	73-76.9
B-	2.7	70-72.9
C+	2.3	67-69.9
C	2.0	63-66.9
C-	1.7	60-62.9
D+	1.3	57-59.9
D	1.0	53-56.9
D-	0.7	50-52.9
F	0.0	0-49.9

Other academic entries which may be assigned are: 

System of Grading

Letter Grade	Description
P	Pass; no grade assigned
FR	Failure with review, grade will be revised
CR	Credit
IN	Incomplete
GD	Grade deferred
AG	Aegrotat*
RTW	Required to withdraw
NG	Not graded; first term course of a multi-term course
AU	Audit
TR	Transfer credit, no grade assigned
DR	Course dropped
NEP	Not eligible to proceed
IP	In progress

*Aegrotat: An academic entry which provides an estimated final grade or, if that is not possible, credit for a course without a grade because of extenuating circumstances beyond the student’s control that prevented the student from completing all work of the course, particularly the final examination. Normally at least 60 per cent of the work to be evaluated in the course (assignments, midterms, final examination, as specified in the course). 

Requests for AG or CR standing should be made to the Program Director.

2.6.2 Grading Specifications

All final marks, including those assigned after special examinations, may be based on the results of formal examinations and on grades obtained from other work throughout the course, which may include essays, exercises, reports, presentations, class tests/quizzes, and class participation or other work.

At the beginning of each course, the professor will provide a clear statement of the basis on which the final mark will be assessed. All work assigned and the weight that it will contribute to the final mark will be specified.  Normally there is both individual and teamwork included in course assessments.

2.6.3 Class Participation

Class participation grades are allocated in some courses. Professors will specify the specific form and opportunities for participation marks at the start of the course.  Some examples include contributions to class discussions or discussion boards, attendance, timely completion of assigned work, or other relevant behaviours determined by the professor.

3: ACADEMIC REGULATIONS AND STANDING

Academic Regulations exist to maintain the standards of the MDPM Program, and to ensure the candidates of the Program have the mandatory knowledge and experience to merit receiving the Degree.  Degrees are awarded according to the requirements and processes set out in the Academic Regulations.

Every student is responsible for knowing and meeting or upholding the Academic Regulations of the Program in order to progress through the Program and ultimately be eligible for the Degree.  The Academic Regulations below are currently in effect.  Regulations are consistently reviewed and may change from time to time.  Any changes that take place during the academic year will be communicated to students; it remains the student’s responsibility to be aware of any such changes. 

3.1 Academic Regulations

Each candidate for the Degree must successfully meet or achieve the Regulations below in order to be in Good Academic Standing, to progress through the Program, and to be eligible for graduation from the Program.  In a case where a student violates any one of the Regulations, that student is normally required to withdraw from the Program (see section 3.2 for further information). 

Every student must achieve the following:

3.1.1 Complete Program Curriculum

The student must complete all components of the curriculum as outlined in Section 2.

3.1.2 Overall Minimum GPA

The student must achieve a cumulative GPA of at least 2.7 (B-) including all courses taken in the Program.

3.1.3 Minimum Course Grades

The student may obtain final grades of less than 2.0 (C) in no more than the equivalent of 2 half credit courses (3 credits total) throughout the program.

3.1.4 No Failures

The student must obtain a final grade of at least 0.7 (D-) in each course.

3.1.5 Attendance

The student may not miss more than 25% of class sessions of any course (I.e: 1 session of a 4 session course would be 25%).

Class attendance is monitored and tracked in each course in the LMS (D2L) and concerns related to attendance will be addressed with the student.

3.1.6 Pass Individual Performance

The student must obtain a grade of at least 0.7 (D-) in the assessment of individual performance of any course.  Course professors will determine how individual performance is assessed in their course.

3.1.7 Pass Team Performance

The student must obtain a grade of at least 0.7 (D-) on the assessment of team performance of any course.  Course professors will determine how team performance is assessed in their course.

3.1.8 Function in Learning Team

The student must function effectively and supportively in the Learning Team throughout the duration of the Program.  The Program Director will determine whether the student is functioning effectively and supportively as per Section 3.2.2.1.

---

3.2 Academic Standing

Faculty boards or delegated bodies have jurisdiction to deal with issues of Academic Standing. Subject to a student’s right of appeal, if a student is not meeting the requirements of their program, a faculty board has the authority to issue a Requirement to Withdraw for Academic Performance, indicating the required transcript notation in accordance with the Policy on Transcript Terminology for Students Withdrawing from Queen’s University.

Academic standing means the standard used to determine or measure a student’s eligibility to remain and/or progress in a program, as determined by the academic regulations of the student’s Faculty, School or program. The following Academic Standings may apply, depending on individual circumstances:

3.2.1 Good Academic Standing

In order to progress through the Program and to be eligible for the Degree, a student must be in Good Academic Standing.  A student is considered to be in Good Academic Standing when they uphold the Academic Regulations set out in Section 3.1 above.

A student who fails to uphold any one of the Academic Regulations is no longer in Good Academic Standing and is normally required to withdraw from the Program.

3.2.2 Academic Jeopardy

A student who fails to meet one or more of the Academic Regulations is deemed to be in Academic Jeopardy until a decision is made about their situation by the appropriate body. 

Students in this situation will first be reviewed by the Program Director.  In some cases, an informal resolution may be possible (for example, an opportunity to re-take an exam if the student has official evidence of being gravely ill on the day of the exam) and, if successful, the student may return to Good Academic Standing.

In cases where an informal resolution is not possible, the Program Director will inform the student in writing of the requirement to withdraw from the Program, subject to the student’s right of appeal to the Academic Progress Committee (section 5, Academic Decisions and Appeals).

3.2.2.1 Academic Jeopardy Resulting from Failure to Function in the Learning Team

As established in the Academic Regulations, section 3.1.8 Function in Learning Team, a student must function effectively and supportively in the Learning Team (section 2.5) throughout the duration of the Program. Effective and supportive behaviour as a team member includes meeting the standards of performance and behaviour determined by the Team in conjunction with the Team Coach, as well as full cooperation and responsive communication with the Team Coach.

When significant concerns regarding a student’s Learning Team performance is brought to a Team Coach, the Team Coach will investigate the situation fully and fairly.  The Team Coach will:

1. Discuss the situation with each student on the Learning Team, including the student whose performance or behaviour is in question.
2. Identify the Learning Team’s established performance, operational and behavioural norms and expectations.
3. Discuss with the student in question any failure to meet the team norms or expectations, and, if necessary:
4. Establish a set of formal expectations (in the form of a Performance Improvement Plan) that must be achieved by the student within a specified period in order to fulfill the obligation to perform as an effective and supportive team member.

A student operating under a formal set of performance expectations outlined in a PIP is in Academic Jeopardy.  If the student successfully completes the PIP, the student is once again considered to be in Good Academic Standing.

If, after a thorough investigation, the Director of Team Coaching determines that the student has not successfully completed the PIP, the Director of Team Coaching will refer the matter to the Program Director for review.  If the student is deemed to have violated Regulation 3.1.8, the student will be required to withdraw from the Program, subject to their right of appeal to the Academic Progress Committee (section 5).

3.2.3 Academic Probation

A student who has failed to meet one or more of the Academic Regulations and who has successfully appealed to the Academic Progress Committee (section 5) may be permitted to continue in the Program, on Academic Probation, subject to specific terms, conditions, standards and timeframes tailored to the situation by the Academic Progress Committee. 

A student who successfully completes the conditions of their Academic Probation will be released from Academic Probation and return to Good Academic Standing.  A student who fails to meet the conditions of their Academic Probation will normally be required to withdraw from the Program, subject to their right of appeal (section 5).

3.2.4 Requirement to Withdraw

A student who has failed to meet any one or more of the Academic Regulations is normally required to withdraw from the Program, subject to their right of appeal (section 5).  Further, a student who fails to meet the conditions of their Academic Probation will normally be required to withdraw from the Program.

3.2.5 Effective Date of Sanctions, Penalty or Requirement to Withdraw

Sanctions or adverse academic decisions, such as Academic Probation (and its terms and conditions), penalties or a requirement to withdraw, shall take effect in accordance with Sections 33 and 34 of the Queens University Senate Student Academic Appeals Policy (“SAAP”):

33. Ordinarily, no sanction, penalty or requirement to withdraw shall be put into effect until the student affected has either exhausted all channels of appeal or the time for filing an appeal has expired and no appeal has been filed. For the purpose of this provision, the University will normally consider an adverse academic decision to be a sanction.

34. Notwithstanding paragraph 33, if an academic unit determines that the interests of third parties may be prejudiced by the continued enrolment of a student in a course or program, the unit may decide that, pending an appeal from an adverse academic decision, the student should not be permitted to continue in their course or program or should be precluded from progressing to the next academic stage. A student who is subject to an immediate sanction under this paragraph may request that the Chair of the appellate body with jurisdiction over the matter expedite the appeal. This request may result in a direct abridging the time for filing of documents, or other interim or preliminary directions.

The Commentary to s.34 reads:

Some academic experiences involve student interaction with third parties or may be subject to laws and regulations such as those governing professions (such as those subject to the Regulated Health Professions Act and the Medicine Act). For example, and without limiting other possible circumstances, there are placement requirements in Education and mandated clinical placements in the Schools of Medicine, Nursing, and Rehabilitative Therapy, where the interests of third parties would justify immediate suspension of a student from a course or portion of a program pending the outcome of an appeal process. In programs involving intensive group work, the interests of other students might also justify such a suspension pending the outcome of an appeal process.    

3.2.5.1 Effective Date of Sanctions for Failure to Function in the Learning Team

The Program Director may determine that an adverse academic decision (e.g., requirement to withdraw) as a result of the violation of Regulation 4.1.8 (Function in the Learning Team) requires that a student’s participation in the team be halted during the appeal process to ensure that the interests of third parties (e.g., the learning experience and academic evaluation of the other members of the Learning Team) are not adversely affected.  The student may be permitted to continue in the Program to the extent feasible until all levels of appeal are exhausted. However, in certain circumstances, the student may not be permitted to continue in the Program in accordance with SAAP s.34.

4: ACADEMIC STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS

4.1 Academic Integrity

Queen’s University is dedicated to creating a scholarly community free to explore a range of ideas, to build and advance knowledge, and to share the ideas and knowledge that emerge from a range of intellectual pursuits.

Queen’s students, faculty, administrators and staff therefore all have responsibilities for supporting and upholding the fundamental values of academic integrity. Academic integrity is a commitment to the fundamental values of honesty, trust, fairness, respect and responsibility. Academic integrity concerns refer to issues that arise which deserve attention, and which may or may not, in the end, involve a departure from academic integrity, that is, a departure from these fundamental values. This involves what has traditionally been referred to as academic dishonesty but encompasses a much broader context to include educational measures associated with academic integrity. Academic integrity is constituted by the five core fundamental values of honesty, trust, fairness, respect and responsibility (see International Centre for Academic Integrity ) and by the quality of courage. These values and qualities are central to the building, nurturing and sustaining of an academic community in which all members of the community will thrive. Adherence to the values expressed through academic integrity forms a foundation for the "freedom of inquiry and exchange of ideas" essential to the intellectual life of the University.

During the virtual program launch, students will be introduced to the Queen’s academic integrity policy as part of program orientation. A member of the Queen’s community with expertise in academic integrity will facilitate a session where expectations will be discussed (recognizing that some students have different ideas of what academic integrity means because of possible cultural and pedagogical differences), the process for dealing with issues will be described, and tools used to govern academic integrity (e.g., Turnitin) will be introduced. The Program Director will ensure all students and faculty teaching in the program are aware of the AI policy and process; faculty will provide a statement and link on course syllabi.

Students will also learn about Intellectual Property (IP) in MDPM 900. There will be a program- specific IP agreement consistent with the policies outlined in the Senate document on intellectual property that will be signed by all stakeholders involved in the practicum. The agreement will describe how existing IP will be utilized both within and outside the program and how IP generated will be handled. Other courses (MDPM 880, MDPM 883) will speak to this agreement and emphasize its importance.

These topics are also addressed at the beginning of the program (MDPM 800) where a program code of conduct will be developed. In addition, an entire course on digitization and ethics in practice will be delivered (MDPM 850) to reinforce the importance of ethics, academic integrity and IP in digital product management practice. Other courses throughout the program will showcase the importance of ethics and integrity as essential leadership skills for the discipline and instructors will share related stories based on lived experiences. Understanding and application of related knowledge will be demonstrated through case studies, personal journal reflections, and completion of the 9-month practicum.

The following statements from “The Fundamental Values of Academic Integrity” (2nd edition), developed by the International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI), contextualize these values and qualities:

1. Honesty: Academic communities of integrity advance the quest for truth and knowledge through intellectual and personal honesty in learning, teaching, research, and service.
2. Trust: Academic communities of integrity both foster and rely upon climates of mutual trust. Climates of trust encourage and support the free exchange of ideas which in turn allows scholarly inquiry to reach its fullest potential.
3. Fairness: Academic communities of integrity establish clear and transparent expectations, standards, and practices to support fairness in the interactions of students, faculty, and administrators.
4. Respect: Academic communities of integrity value the interactive, cooperative, participatory nature of learning. They honor, value, and consider diverse opinions and ideas.
5. Responsibility: Academic communities of integrity rest upon foundations of personal accountability coupled with the willingness of individuals and groups to lead by example, uphold mutually agreed-upon standards, and take action when they encounter wrongdoing.
6. Courage: To develop and sustain communities of integrity, it takes more than simply believing in the fundamental values. Translating the values from talking points into action -- standing up for them in the face of pressure and adversity — requires determination, commitment, and courage.

Students are responsible for familiarizing themselves with and adhering to the regulations concerning academic integrity. More information can be found in the Queens University Senate Academic Integrity Procedures – Requirements of Faculties & Schools. General information on academic integrity is available at Queens University Academic Integrity along with School specific information in the Smith School of Business Academic Integrity Policy.

4.1.1 Departures from Academic Integrity

All forms of departure from academic integrity are considered serious offences within the University community.  Faculty boards or their delegated bodies have jurisdiction to deal with issues of academic integrity concerns and to impose sanctions when they find a departure from academic integrity has occurred.  Any student found to have committed a departure from academic integrity may face a range of sanctions, from receiving a grade of zero on the assignment to a recommendation to Queen’s Senate that the student be required to withdraw from the University for a period, or even that a degree be rescinded. Departures from academic integrity other than a course-related issue (e.g., falsifying a transcript) are dealt with by the Faculty/School in which the student is registered. The Smith School of Business Academic Integrity Policy governs academic integrity processes at the Smith School of Business. Students are encouraged to consult instructors if they are unsure of the standards of academic integrity appropriate to an academic program, course or activity. The following defines the domain of relevant acts without providing an exhaustive list:

4.1.1.1 Plagiarism

Allowing it to be thought that another's ideas or phrasings are one's own by failing to provide proper acknowledgement. Some examples are:

• Copying and pasting from the internet
• Copying a printed source or other resource without proper acknowledgement
• Copying from another student in the same or different year of the Program or another Program
• Copying from another’s test paper.
• Using direct quotations or large sections of paraphrased material in an assignment without appropriate acknowledgement
• Buying term papers or other assignments and submitting them as one's own
• Submitting the same piece of work in more than one course without the permission of the instructors
• Obtaining a copy of, or information about, a test or exam from an earlier section of the course and writing the test or exam later in the day or subsequent days.

4.1.1.2 Use of Unauthorized Materials

• Possessing or using unauthorized study materials or aids during a test
• Copying from another's test paper.
• Using an unauthorized calculator or other aids during a test
• Unauthorized removal of materials from the library, or deliberate concealment of library materials

4.1.1.3 Facilitation

• Enabling another's breach of academic integrity.
• Making information available to another student, such as knowingly allowing one's essay or assignment to be copied by someone else, giving a copy of a test or exam to a student writing the same test or exam later in the day or subsequent days.
• Selling or distributing term papers or other assignments
• Knowingly assisting another person to conceal their departure from academic integrity.

4.1.1.4 Unauthorized Collaboration

• Working with others, without the specific permission of the instructor, on assignments that will be submitted for a grade.
• This applies to in-class or take-home tests, papers, or homework assignments. Students may not collaborate without the instructor’s authorization.

4.1.1.5 Forgery

• Utilizing counterfeit documents or statements (e.g., creating or altering a transcript, medical note or other official documents).

4.1.1.6 Falsification

• Misrepresentation of oneself, one's work or one's relation to the University.
• Altering transcripts or other official documents relating to student records
• Impersonating someone in an examination or test
• Submitting a take-home examination written, in whole or in part, by someone else
• Fabricating or falsifying research data or source material (whether by commission or by omission)
• Allowing someone else to do research work without the knowledge and approval of the instructor.
• Failing to appropriately recognize contributions of others.
• Attributing authorship of work to persons other than those who have contributed to the work in a meaningful way.

4.1.2 Process for Investigating Suspected Departures from Academic Integrity

The Smith School of Business Academic Integrity Policy sets out complete procedures and processes for handling suspected departures from academic integrity. Students are responsible for familiarizing themselves with the policy. Normally, where a course professor has a concern about a possible departure from academic integrity, the professor will notify the student and investigate in accordance with Smith policy. The student will have an opportunity to respond, and their response will be considered part of the evidence in the case.

In complex cases the professor may refer the case to the Smith School of Business Academic Integrity Panel for investigation. In this situation, the Academic Integrity Panel will notify the student of the potential departure and investigate in accordance with Smith policy.

In cases of a subsequent departure from academic integrity (that is, where there is a previous departure on record for the student), the professor will make a finding but refer the case to the Academic Integrity Panel for the determination of a sanction.

4.1.3 Assessment of Sanction

Where there is a finding of departure from academic integrity, the instructor consults with the Dean’s Office. If the Dean’s Office reports a previous finding exists, the instructor refers the matter to the Smith Academic Integrity Panel for the assignment of an appropriate sanction. If there is no academic integrity record on file in the Smith Dean’s Office, the instructor may assign a remedy or sanction appropriate to the extent or severity of the offense. When considering the remedy or sanction, the instructor considers several factors in assessing the gravity of the remedial measure or sanction to be imposed. Additional information can be found on the Smith School of Business Academic Integrity website.

Following the investigation of the suspected departure from Academic Integrity, the professor will either: i) make a finding of a departure from academic integrity and impose a sanction (or consult with the Smith Academic Integrity Panel for sanction); or ii) determine there was no departure from Academic Integrity, notify the student the investigation has been dropped and destroy all documents related to the case.

After making the finding and setting a sanction within the scope of those available to the instructor, the instructor must inform the student in writing of the decision. If the finding appears to warrant a sanction more serious than the instructor may impose, or if there is a previous finding of a departure from academic integrity on file in the Smith Dean’s Office, the case shall be referred to the Smith Academic Integrity Panel.

Any student who is found to have committed a violation of academic integrity may face a range of sanctions, including but not limited to:

• An oral or written warning that such infractions constitute unacceptable behaviour (Note that an oral warning must still be documented on the Finding of a Departure from Academic Integrity form)
• A learning experience involving a rewriting or revision of the original piece of work
• The submission of a new piece of work
• The completion of other work
• The deduction of partial or total marks for the assignment/exam
• A failing grade (down to a grade of zero) in the course.

If the penalty amounts to a failure in the course, the student may not drop the course, regardless of the drop deadlines.

In the case of a referral to the Smith Academic Integrity Panel, the Panel may impose sanctions ranging from those noted above to a recommendation to Senate that the student be required to withdraw from the University.    

Records of findings of departures from Academic Integrity are kept in the Dean’s Office and in the Program Office. 

---

4.2 Extenuating Circumstances Policies

4.2.1 Illness

A student who claims illness as a reason for missing academic obligations is responsible for informing the professor, Program Manager and the Program Director and may be required to provide evidence of illness.  In keeping with University Academic Consideration for Students in Extenuating Circumstances Policy, a student suffering from a short-term illness should submit the appropriate Extenuating Circumstances form outlining their needs. 

A notification of absence from an examination must be accompanied by documentation as follows:

• in cases of illness when a student is under the care of a physician, the student should provide a note from the physician. Retroactive doctors’ notes (i.e. notes dated from physicians after the illness) are not acceptable.
• If a student is ill, but not under the care of a physician prior to and during an exam, they can provide the appropriate Extenuating Circumstances form(s) outlining their situation.

4.2.2 Extenuating Circumstances

The Program adheres to Queen’s Academic Consideration for Students in Extenuating Circumstances Policy and the principle of a good faith response to requests for consideration. The policy enables students with extenuating circumstances to request academic consideration in a fair, reasonable and consistent manner.

Extenuating circumstances means a personal circumstance beyond the student’s control that has a direct and substantial impact on the student’s ability to meet essential academic requirements or expectations.  Extenuating circumstances include but are not limited to a sudden or acute physical or mental illness, serious injury to self or significant others, bereavement, a traumatic event, or other serious personal/family crisis.  Extenuating circumstances may also include officially representing the university at a sanctioned event or through an invitation to participate in an event as a distinguished guest (e.g., national tournament, Olympics). Extenuating circumstances do not include personal or family events (e.g., holidays, weddings), academic or exam stress, or transportation or technological difficulties.

There are three extenuating circumstances levels, a student who is unable to satisfy the requirements of a course or the Program due to extenuating circumstances must notify the Program Director in writing as soon as possible. 

Level 1: Brief Absence Students who require an unplanned brief absence from academic obligations for a period of up to 48 hours. Instructors and Faculty/School Offices have discretion to extend academic considerations for an unplanned Brief Absence beyond 48 hours if they deem it appropriate in situations where recovery requires additional days. In cases where a student who submitted a Self-Declaration of Brief Absence is not able to return to full academic functioning within a few days, the student should submit a Request for Academic Consideration for Extenuating Circumstances.

Level 2: Short Term Extenuating Circumstances Students who require academic consideration for a short-term period defined as more than 48 hours (with discretion for an additional one or two days) but less than 3 months. This applies to extenuating circumstances where the student anticipates a full recovery and return to previous levels of academic functioning within the next 3 months. This applies to extenuating circumstances that lead to a reduced ability to meet academic requirements due to physical or mental impairment. This includes an extended unanticipated illness (e.g., mononucleosis, pneumonia), a serious injury (e.g., concussion, broken bones), a required treatment (surgical procedure, significant side effects from new medication), serious injury or illness to a significant other, bereavement (e.g., loss of family member), traumatic event, or another significant personal crisis.

Students who are unable to meet academic obligations due to functional impairments and limitations related to a known underlying disability or diagnosed health condition should register with Queen’s Student Accessibility Services to receive ongoing academic accommodations tailored to their individual needs. Academic considerations should be individualized to the student’s circumstances and in proportion to the student’s ability to complete academic requirements. Depending on the ability of the student to engage in academic tasks and the nature of the program the student is in and related academic requirements, short term extenuating circumstances may require withdrawing from a course (or courses) or may require a medical leave of absence.

Level 3: Long-term Extenuating circumstances. Students who do not anticipate a full recovery or return to academic functioning within 3 months should speak with their Faculty / School Offices immediately to discuss academic implications and possible academic considerations (e.g., reduced course load, medical leave of absence). Students should take reasonable measures to promote academic success and their personal well-being by accessing available supports, including Queen’s Student Accessibility Services, Health and/or Counselling Services, and other campus supports or personal /professional supports as appropriate.

Students who anticipate a return to academic functioning but with ongoing need for academic accommodation should contact Queen’s Student Accessibility Services (QSAS) to register for ongoing academic accommodations. Students will need to provide documentation to QSAS related to their functional impairments.

Students seeking academic accommodations related to a chronic or ongoing physical or mental health condition or an existing disability should refer to the existing policy on Academic Accommodations for Students with Disabilities. Students with long term health conditions or disability should seek academic accommodation from Queen’s Student Accessibility Services in Student Wellness Services.

Privacy and confidentiality will be protected and maintained throughout this process to the extent possible. Information may be shared among university personal (e.g., faculty offices, instructors, exams office) on a need-to-know basis for the purpose of arranging academic considerations. Confidentiality cannot be maintained where there is reason to believe that an individual may be at risk of harming themselves or others.

In cases where a student is unable to act, a delegate may act on behalf of the student, with the student’s written consent.

Students are expected to request academic considerations as soon as extenuating circumstances are apparent. Requests for retroactive consideration should be directed to the Faculty/School Office and will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

For extenuating circumstances relating to sexual violence or harassment and discrimination, students can contact the Sexual Violence Prevention and Response Co-ordinator, the Human Rights Office, or Student Wellness Services, for support and for the facilitation of appropriate arrangements. The Policy on Sexual Violence Involving Queen’s University Students supersedes these procedures.

If the student is requesting an alternate means of satisfying the Program requirements, a formal written request should be submitted to the Program Director.  The request should include an explanation of the connection between the effects of the extenuating circumstances and the student’s academic performance, as well as the remedy being proposed.

The Program Director will respond to the student’s request for consideration promptly.  The Program is committed to responding to students in a fair and consistent manner, considering the specific individual circumstances.  The Program is also committed to upholding academic standards and ensuring that essential academic requirements are met.

If an instructor or supervisor does not assent to the request for academic consideration in extenuating circumstances made by a graduate student, academic consideration may nonetheless be granted, unless the instructor or supervisor provides justifiable reasons for withholding his or her assent. The decision to grant or deny the academic consideration shall be made by the Associate Dean of the School of Graduate Studies.

4.2.3 Official Documentation

Level 1 documentation: The university does not require verification documentation from a health care professional (on-campus or hospital or community-based) in these circumstances. 

Level 2 documentation: Students may be required to provide verification documentation. This may include the Verification of Personal Health Condition form, a Verification of Confidential Extenuating Circumstances form, or other documentation (e.g., death certification, police report of an accident). Students are not required to disclose specific details of their personal circumstances to their instructors or supervisors, but the Faculty/School Office may require documentation that verifies the extenuating circumstance and the inability or reduced capacity to complete academic work. In cases where a Verification of Confidential Extenuating Circumstances form has been submitted, additional documentation or detail is not required. Official documentation, including notes from health care professionals, need not outline the specific details of the student’s condition, but must clearly indicate ways in which the circumstances directly affect the student’s performance, and verify that these effects were substantial enough to cause the academic disruption.  Information about the start, duration and present state of the condition or circumstances, as well as a clear statement on whether the condition or circumstances have either improved or are being managed so that they will not have a significant detrimental effect on future academic performance, are essential.

Level 3 documentation:  Documentation may include Self-declaration forms, requests for academic consideration forms, verification of Confidential Extenuating Circumstances form or other documentation (determined on a case-by-case basis).

A student’s privacy and confidentiality are maintained throughout this process to the extent possible. Information may be shared among university personal (e.g., instructors or supervisors, exams office) on a need-to-know basis for the purpose of arranging academic considerations. Documentation collected as part of this policy will not be part of a student’s permanent academic record.

Documents submitted may be verified by the Program administration.  False statements or documents may be investigated in accordance with the Smith Policy on Academic Integrity.

4.2.4 Unresolved Circumstances

The appeals and consideration processes do not compensate for circumstances that the student is unable to resolve, or for which the student is unwilling to actively seek accommodation. In addition, the appeals process does not compensate for circumstances that are actively being accommodated, for example where a student’s permanent disabilities are being accommodated through Queen’s Student Accessibility Services Office.

Multiple appeals citing the same circumstances will be reviewed very closely. This review may include, with the permission of the student, consultation with the appropriate professionals involved to obtain more detailed information. In order for such an appeal to succeed, there must be convincing evidence that the circumstances that affected the student’s academic performance will be resolved within a reasonable timeline or will be appropriately managed on an ongoing basis.

---

4.3 Language

Students should be proficient in the English language. There are no language requirements for this program that exceed those set by the School of Graduate Studies.

In accordance with Queen’s University Language Policy, examinations and assignments are to be submitted in English, except where a Faculty Board has approved an alternative practice or where a special agreement has been entered into between the Program and a student.

---

4.4 Acceptable Use of Information Technology Resources Policy

All members of the Queen’s community are bound by the Queen’s policy on the Acceptable Use of Information Technology (IT) Resources.  The policy states:

The use of Queen's University information technology (IT) resources must be consistent with the academic mission of the University. These IT resources are provided to support the teaching, learning, research and administrative activities of the Queen's community. As a member or guest of the Queen's community, you may have access to valuable internal and external networks and resources, and Sensitive Information, and you are expected to use these resources in a responsible, ethical, and legal manner. Your actions should not adversely affect the ability of others to use these resources or compromise the security and privacy of sensitive information.

4.4.1 Submission of Electronic Assignments

Students are required to submit all assignments electronically.  It is the responsibility of the student to ensure that all electronic submissions have been submitted properly and are corruption-free.

Any assignment that is detected to be carrying a corrupt file will be immediately destroyed, and the student must re-submit the assignment corruption-free. If the assignment is not re-submitted before the assignment deadline it will be marked “late.”

---

4.5 Examinations

4.5.1 Access to Examinations

The term final examination refers to the final examination in a course together with the graded answer paper written by the student. These documents, in accordance with the Senate Policy on Student Access to Final Examination Papers, must be retained by the professor or the School for a period of 12 months.

4.5.1.1 Informal Access

Professors may informally review the final examination with a student who requests it and are encouraged to do so. However, access may not be granted before the final marks are released.

4.5.1.2 Formal Access

A student may obtain access to their final exam as part of an appeal process. This may be supervised access to, or a copy of, the final examination paper.  The student should contact the Program administration to arrange for formal access to their final exam.

4.5.2 Changes to Examination Times

Requests for changes to an individual examination time must be made to the Program Director as soon as the student is aware of a conflict. Normally, such requests will only be granted if extenuating circumstances (beyond the student’s control) will prevent the student from writing the exam at the scheduled time. 

The exam dates for courses with exams (online or in person) will be posted well in advance of the date of the exam. The policies regarding change of dates are set out below.

1.  All requests for changes to exam dates must meet the following criteria:

1. A written request for the change of date must be received by the Program Manager at Queen’s at least two weeks in advance of the exam; the request must clearly state the reason for the change.
2. All requests must be approved by the program administration in consultation with the course professor; this process may require supporting documentation.
3. In extenuating circumstances, changes to exam dates may be considered if the criteria set out in 1 and 2 above are not met.

---

4.6 Queen's University Student Code of Conduct

Queen’s University is dedicated to learning, intellectual inquiry, the dissemination and advancement of knowledge, personal and professional development, and good citizenship. All students are required to read and adhere to Queen’s University Student Code of Conduct and Procedures Under the Queen's University Student Code of Conduct (2021) Students should refer to the Student Policy Index for more information on all student policies.

Students are expected to adhere to and promote the University’s core values of honesty, trust, fairness, respect and personal responsibility in all aspects of university life, academic and non-academic. These core values are intended to inform and guide student conduct as they foster mutual respect for the dignity, property, rights and well-being of others.

As a member of the Queen’s community, every student accepts the University’s policies, rules and procedures and acknowledges the right of the University to set standards of conduct, as well as the right of the University and/or its Authorized Agent(s) to impose sanctions for conduct found to have violated those standards.  

4.6.1 Professionalism and Facilities Etiquette

All study and workspaces provided by Smith School of Business and the Queen’s School of Computing should be treated with respect and care.  All students are expected to properly reserve space, use the facilities for the purposes for which they are intended, and to leave spaces clean, tidy, in the proper furniture configuration and with the room supplies. 

5: ACADEMIC DECISIONS AND APPEALS

Academic Regulations at Queen’s University were designed to ensure that students are being treated fairly and equitably while upholding the academic standards of the institution. On occasion, there are extenuating circumstances that are usually beyond a student’s control that may have impacted their performance at Queen’s. Appeal processes were developed to reconsider the appropriateness of any sanctions or penalties that may have been imposed upon a student who may have extenuating circumstances.  Various types of academic decisions may be made by a course professor, Program Director, Academic Progress Committee, Academic Integrity Panel, Academic Appeals Committee and/or the University Student Appeal Board.  Admissions decisions are not subject to appeal.

The appeals process at Queen’s University is comprised of several levels of appeal by different appeal bodies.  In accordance with the Senate Student Academic Appeals Policy, the decision system is based on the principle that "decisions should generally be made by those who are most familiar with the context”^[1] .  The Senate Student Academic Appeals Policy reflects the intent of the Senate regarding Student Academic Appeals, which is twofold: To ensure that students receive fair treatment and are aware of their rights and responsibilities and to establish a fair, efficient process for addressing student appeals from academic decisions.

Appeals of academic decisions fall into four possible categories: appeals of grades (Section 5.1), appeals of other academic decisions (Section 5.2), appeals of academic standing and progression decisions (Section 5.3), and appeals of academic integrity decisions (Section 5.4).

Note that it is the student’s responsibility to clearly establish that grounds for an appeal exist as the basis for an appeal.  Below the various decision-making bodies and their mandates are explained.

Appeals of decisions rendered under the Students at Risk Policy and Students at Risk Procedure. 

[1] Senate Student Academic Appeals Policy, Introduction (p. 4).

5.1 Appeals of Grades

Grades are determined by course professors.  Appeals of grades in courses (including assignments, examination papers, and final grades) are first handled at the course professor level.

Examination papers and course marks of students whose final grade in a course is marginally below a letter grade, and especially below a failing grade, are reviewed with special care by faculty members before such grades are assigned. Therefore, it is unlikely that such a grade is incorrect or unfair to the student.  However, if a student feels that a course grade or a portion of it has been unfairly assessed, they should first make an attempt to resolve the issue informally with the professor.

If the student feels that the issue remains unresolved, they should contact the Program Director who will initiate a formal grade review.  A review of the assignment or examination shall be conducted by two examiners appointed by the Program Director or designate; one examiner shall be the original professor or grader, if available. The review shall involve a re‐reading of the final examination or deliverable(s) in the course and a review of the student’s course record.

Students are not charged a fee for filing an appeal.

Note that it is the responsibility of the student to preserve all exercises, papers, reports, and other graded material for the course and to submit a copy of these documents with the request for review. The scanned copy of any graded assignment or material returned to a student shall be deemed to be the original document for the purposes of this section.

Note that an appeal may result in no change to the grade, an increase in the grade, or a decrease in the grade. The decision of the examiner(s) is final, and there is no further appeal available.

---

5.2 Appeals of Other Academic Decisions

The Program Director makes some decisions for students facing special circumstances in the Program.  The student should request consideration as appropriate to the Program Director as soon as they are aware of a situation requiring such consideration.  Examples of such decisions could include changing a course registration from one elective to another or deferring an exam.

Appeals of decisions by the Program Director are made to the Academic Progress Committee. 

---

5.3 Appeals of Academic Standing and Progression Decisions

Students are considered to be in Good Academic Standing unless they have violated one or more of the Academic Regulations of the Program.  As noted, students who violate one or more of the Academic Regulations of the Program are normally required to withdraw from the Program.  In such a case, the Program Director will normally inform the student in writing that, because of their violation of one or more of the Regulations, they are required to withdraw from the Program.

Appeals of these decisions are made to the Academic Progress Committee.

See Appendix A/B for the Academic Progress Committee’s Terms of Reference and Rules of Procedure.

---

5.4 Appeals of Academic Integrity Decisions

Course professors will normally investigate and make decisions regarding possible violations of academic integrity in their courses in accordance with the Smith School of Business Academic Integrity Policy and as set out in Section 4.1.

Appeals of professors’ decisions regarding academic integrity are made to the Academic Integrity Panel.

In cases where the Academic Integrity Panel is the initial decision maker, appeals are made to the Smith School of Business Academic Appeals Committee.

---

5.5 The Smith School of Business Academic Appeals Committee

The Smith School of Business Academic Appeals Committee (AAC) has jurisdiction over all matters related to academic appeals involving students registered in the School of Business (with the exception of the PhD and Master of Science programs). The AAC hears appeals of decisions made by Academic Progress Committee and the Academic Integrity Panel.

Normally, the AAC serves as a true appeal board, which is not empowered to substitute its own decision for that of the Academic Progress Committee or the Academic Integrity Panel, but rather reviews the decision of the previous decision-making body based on the same information[1] available to the previous body at the time the decision was made.[2] 

The AAC reviews the circumstances of the decision of the previous decision-maker to: ensure that the Academic Progress Committee or the Academic Integrity Panel did not exceed its jurisdiction; ensure that there was procedural fairness; ensure that there was appropriate consideration of extenuating circumstances; uphold the academic policies and principles reflected in the School’s and University’s regulations; and determine if the decision was reasonable.

In rendering a decision, the AAC may uphold the decision of the previous body, grant the student's appeal, or modify the original decision/sanction.  Any decision made by the AAC must be within the scope of the school’s regulations.

Appeals of decisions made by the AAC are made to the University Student Appeal Board.

---

[1] In situations where new evidence becomes available which may have, or is likely to have, affected the original decision of the previous decision-maker (i.e. the APC or the AIP), the AAC may refer those cases back to the previous decision-maker.

[2] Where the Academic Integrity Panel (AIP) was the initial decision-maker, the AAC will investigate an Academic Integrity case de novo. 

---

5.6 The University Student Appeal Board

Where an appeal to the University Student Appeal Board (“USAB”) is permitted, after exhausting all internal appeals within their faculty or School, a student may appeal to USAB within two weeks after the date of the Faculty’s or School’s last decision. See the Student Academic Appeals Policy (“SAAP”) for the full mandate and processes of USAB. Faculties and Schools are bound by and must implement all decisions of USAB. The University Student Appeal Board is the final internal appeal body at Queen’s University.

The University Student Appeal Board (USAB) has jurisdiction to hear the following types of appeals by students from the final academic decision-making body within their Faculty or School:

USAB has the jurisdiction to review a decision if it results in the application of an academic regulation that impedes a student’s academic standing in a program, but USAB does not have the jurisdiction to review the academic regulation itself; a decision concerning a departure from academic integrity and step-two decisions made by a Unit Head concerning an employment-related issue between an undergraduate teaching assistant and their course supervisor.

The Provost and Vice-Principal (Academic) (“Provost”) or their designate may, refer any decision involving a departure from academic integrity directly to a proceeding before USAB if they are satisfied that an internal appeal of the decision cannot be made in accordance with the rules of procedural fairness; and the matter has not been appealed to another body.

USAB will have full jurisdiction to impose any sanction that could have been made by a body with original jurisdiction over the matter, including requiring the student to withdraw. The provost (or their designate) will be present at the USAB proceeding and will determine what sanction to seek from USAB. USAB have no jurisdiction to consider the academic substance of decisions and assessments.

The grounds for an appeal to USAB are limited to cases in which a student can establish that:

1. The decision-making body whose decision is being appealed failed to act in accordance with the rules of procedural fairness. A breach of procedural fairness includes such things as failing to:
2. Permit a student to be heard by an unbiased decision-maker.
3. Follow applicable rules, regulations, or university policy, in a way that adversely affected a student’s right to a fair process.
4. Make a reasonable decision. A “reasonable” decision is one that is rational in that its findings are based on evidence, thought out and supported by facts and logical inferences from findings of fact. To be reasonable, the decision must contain adequate reasons for the conclusions. A decision should be upheld if it falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes, in which case USAB is not permitted to substitute its opinion for that of the decision-maker whose decision is under appeal.
   • The decision-maker whose decision is being appealed to USAB acted without, or exceeded its, jurisdiction.

No Costs Reimbursement

Neither USAB nor any other decision-maker in the University has the power to direct that a student receive compensation for any costs or expenses incurred during any University-based proceeding. Notwithstanding this, USAB may order that a student receive reimbursement for loss of a Queen’s University bursary, scholarship, or similar funds because of a decision that was reversed on appeal. This remedy is available only if the student remains a student following the issuance of USAB’s decision, or, if the student graduated while their appeal was pending.

Decisions of USAB

In deciding an appeal, USAB may do one of the following:

i. Remit a matter for reconsideration by the decision-maker whose decision has been appealed to USAB, with directions or recommendations; a reconsideration decision may be appealed to USAB based on one of the Grounds for Appeal stated above.

ii. Modify the original decision, including making any decision that the original decision-maker could have made, but only where:

a. Proceeding in accordance with section 48(i) of the Rules of Procedures for USAB would cause delay that prejudices the student’s rights; or,

b. USAB has made a finding of bias in the decision-making process below.

The decision of the USAB is final, and there is no further level of appeal.

---

5.7 Queen's University Senate Policy - Student Academic Appeals Policy

All students should be familiar with their rights as established in the Student Academic Appeals Policy. 

Class of 2023

For students beginning the Master of Digital Product Management program in September 2022. 

1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of the Academic Calendar is to acquaint students with the academic requirements, regulations, policies, procedures and expectations of the Master of Digital Product Management (MDPM) program.  It is the responsibility of the student to read and understand the entire Academic Calendar.  Questions about any of its contents should be directed to the Program Director.

---

1.2 Acknowledgement of Territory

Queen’s University in Kingston is situated on traditional Anishinaabe and Haudenosaunee Territory. To acknowledge this traditional territory is to recognize its longer history, one predating the establishment of the earliest European colonies.  It is also to acknowledge this territory’s significance for the Indigenous peoples who lived, and continue to live, upon it – people whose practices and spiritualties were tied to the land and continue to develop in relationship to the territory and its other inhabitants today.  The Kingston Indigenous community continues to reflect the area’s Anishinaabek and Haudenosaunee roots.  There is also a significant Métis community and there are First Peoples from other Nations across Turtle Island present today.

Smith School of Business and the School of Computing in the Faculty of Arts and Science operates on sacred land that has been a site of human activity for 15,000 years. This land is the territory of the Huron-Wendat and Petun First Nations, the Seneca, and most recently, the Mississaugas of the Credit River. The territory was the subject of the Dish with One Spoon Wampum Belt Covenant, an agreement between the Iroquois Confederacy and Confederacy of the Ojibwe and allied nations to peaceably share and care for the resources around the Great Lakes. Today, the meeting place of Kingston is still the home to many Indigenous people from across Turtle Island and we are grateful to have the opportunity to work in the community on this territory.

2: PROGRAM CURRICULUM AND GRADING

2.1 Jurisdiction

Students of Smith School of Business and the School of Computing in the Faculty of Arts and Science at Queen’s University are governed by the regulations, policies and practices of this institution. 

It is the responsibility of every student in the program to read and understand these policies, regulations, and requirements as well as those of their home, exchange and double degree universities. 

---

2.2 Program Format

The Senate and Board of Trustees of the University, and the Ontario Council approve the Queen’s Master of Digital Product Management Program for Graduate Studies.  Upon graduation, students receive a Masters of Management (MOM) Degree in Digital Product Management.

The Master of Digital Product Management (MDPM) will be offered by Smith School of Business in partnership with Queen’s School of Computing as a specialized inter- disciplinary program at the intersection of digital business, product management, and computing. It is unique as it creates a novel set of knowledge and skills related to digitalization that when applied effectively, can deeply disrupt existing business models and produce fundamentally new value opportunities. This term also encapsulates the growing popularity of digital services and platforms that span across traditional organizational boundaries through open technologies (e.g., open APIs) transforming user experiences and enabling business ecosystems.

The program’s curriculum was designed to achieve six (6) educational goals and related learning outcomes that align to the school-level academic goals as well as the Queen’s Academic Framework and Strategic Plan. The first goal is to offer an innovative, academically rigorous program that synthesizes theoretical concepts and practices in topics related to design and systems thinking. Second, inspire innovation, promote student engagement, and enhance financial sustainability through an inter-disciplinary offering that is dedicated to experiential learning. Third, supply industry with skills that help accelerate the digitalization of traditional organizational practices. Although this is a practice- oriented program, students will identify, explore and evaluate digital product opportunities using appropriate methods of qualitative and quantitative inquiry. Lastly, multiple learning outcomes are defined to help students develop highly effective communication skills as well as personal responsibility, effective problem solving, and ethical behavior and practice. The objective of the MDPM program is to address this skills gap by offering an inter- disciplinary academic program that fuses together critical skills in business and computing.

The MDPM is a practice-oriented program where graduates will develop the ability to apply qualitative and quantitative research methods to identify user needs, create discovery hypotheses, analyze data to generate insights, apply design principles, and create a prototype solution. Research will also be conducted to evaluate the impact (e.g., through analytics and experimentation) of the digital product on anticipated outcomes. Students will also be introduced to thought leadership in digital product management as many faculty teaching in the program do both research and work with industry.

A unique graduate degree-level expectation (GDLE) for this program is the cross-disciplinary integrated learning.  Adding this GDLE is imperative to develop graduates capable of developing work-ready skills that merge technical and business domains.  Essential to enabling cross-disciplinary integrated learning is the experiential learning stream and the removal of coding as a degree level expectation for this program. The MDPM program will adopt no-code development (NCD) by providing students with drag-and-drop development tools and pre-built templates to apply specialized knowledge across phases of the digital product management lifecycle. Tools involving coding will be used only when faculty are confident the students have sufficient understanding of programming to effectively use the tool. 

2.2.1 Program Delivery

The Smith MDPM program is an online program structured to allow students to work while studying. The program delivers an average of two classes each week (Tuesday and/or Wednesday evenings, Saturday morning), supplemented by one on campus residential session. During the first residential period, students are introduced to their Team Coach, network support staff, instructors, and program staff. Students will be introduced to virtual team training as part of the transition to online workshop. Teams (6-8 inter-disciplinary students) will be formed during the in-residence session and will work together throughout the entire program.

Team Coaches will have regular check points with teams at critical times during the program to make sure they are working together effectively, and no student is left behind. In addition to a team coach, each team will also be assigned a practicum advisor to support the 9-month practicum. If the team faces a technical challenge that goes beyond their depth and breadth of knowledge or applied understanding, the practicum faculty member from the School of Computing will assig a teaching assistant from the School of Computing to help the team.

The courses require individual and team preparation and are delivered primarily through a virtual communication platform (Zoom).  The online learning environment will be fostered by using the Queen’s Learning Management System (LMS) – D2L Brightspace as well as a standardized set of virtual learning tools managed by the School of Computing. Online materials (written, audio and video) and assignments will be posted and completed work submitted through this system.

Students will 1) complete a 9-month practicum that requires a deliverable at each stage of the product management lifecycle and 2) demonstrate an understanding of relevant faculty research and explain how it can be mobilized to influence digital product management practice. The program will consider the implications of students developing products for businesses and agencies who are not their employers. Confidentiality and intellectual property will be examined. 

---

2.3 Timeframe

The Smith MDPM program is normally completed in 12 consecutive months, beginning mid-September and ending in early September the following year. Once registered in the program, the student is expected to complete all degree requirements without interruption. 

---

2.4 Degree Requirements and Courses

The Smith Master of Digital Product Management program is a 12-month program in which students complete 19 courses (3 term-length (full) courses, 16 half courses) including one residential session in Kingston. The program is structured into two learning streams (knowledge foundation & application learning) and a practicum. The knowledge foundation stream includes 10 courses that introduce concepts in digital business, product management, and computing. The application learning stream includes 7 courses that apply knowledge to the core activities in the digital product lifecycle. The practicum (2 courses) begins in October and requires student teams to discover, design, and build a digital product for a real client. Teams have nine months to complete five project milestones that will be carefully managed by faculty and a dedicated practicum advisor. Each full course is 3.0 credit units and half-course is 1.5 credit units for a total of 33 credit units for the program.

Applicants will hold a bachelor’s degree from a recognized university or equivalent, with an average minimum B+ (77%) on the last two years of university study. Successful applicants must also have a minimum of two years’ work experience in a business-technology-related role. Applicants must also have English language communication skills as demonstrated by standardized language tests and in an admissions interview. The previous degree can be in any area of study, but students must have completed an entry level course (or equivalent) in introduction to digital business, introduction to marketing, introduction to data analysis, and introduction to computation thinking.

Students must uphold and/or meet each of the Academic Regulations (Section 3 of this document). Admission standards will follow Queen’s School of Graduate Studies equity admission regulation: https://www.queensu.ca/grad-postdoc/wellness/building-inclusive-community.  

2.4.1 Required and Elective Courses

All required courses for the Program must be completed at Queen’s in the year that the student is registered in the Program. There are no elective courses in the MDPM program.

2.4.1.1 Required Courses

All students must complete the following required courses in accordance with the Academic Regulations and Standing set out in Section 3 of this document. 

Courses

MDPM 800 Introduction to Digital Product Management

MDPM 880 Design Thinking and Discovery

MDPM 881 Systems Thinking and Digitalization

MDPM 801 Digital Strategy and Innovation

MDPM 822 Emerging Computing Technologies

MDPM 883 Prototyping and Evaluation

MDPM 884 Product Analytics

MDPM 850 Digitalization and Ethics

MDPM 830 Data-Driven Decision Making

MDPM 802 Organizational Experimentation

MDPM 824 Software Systems Security

MDPM 826 Gamification and Usability

MDPM 887 Architecture Integration & Technical Operations

MDPM 888 Scaling the Digital Product for Growth

MDPM 885 Optimizing the User Experience

MDPM 840 Systems Leadership

MDPM 860 Digital Product Management

Projects

MDPM 900 DPM Practicum - Discovery, Design & Build

MDPM 910 DPM Practicum - Build, Scale & Operate

2.4.2 Course Substitutions

Students must complete all required courses at Smith within the required timeframe to graduate from the program.

If extenuating circumstances prevent a student from completing the program in the required timeframe, the student will be required to complete outstanding courses as directed by the Program Director or Academic Progress Committee.  Normally, if one or more of the missed courses is not offered again in the year the student is registered in the program, the student will be permitted to take the course in the subsequent year when the course is offered again.

2.4.3 Auditing Courses

A student may request to audit a course.  A formal written request to audit must be made to the Program Director at least seven days before the first session of the course to be audited.  Requests to audit courses will be considered depending on space, professor approval and other relevant course-specific factors.  As there are no elective courses in the MDPM program, auditing a course is not an option.

---

2.5 Learning Teams

Learning Teams are a foundation of Smith MDPM Program.  The Learning Team is critical to a student’s success in the Program as well as being a means of managing the demanding workload of the Program. It also provides an opportunity to draw on the varied backgrounds and expertise of other team members and enriches the student’s learning experience as a whole.   Most courses allocate approximately 50% of the course weight to teamwork.

Students are assigned to a Learning Team at the beginning of the Program. It is a Program requirement that students function effectively and supportively within their Learning Teams and make effective and ethical use of team resources in satisfying course requirements.  Learning Teams remain intact for the duration of the Program; however, additional “working groups” are formed for some courses in the Program.

2.5.1 Performance in the Learning Team

Performance in the Learning Team is an academic requirement for successful completion of the Program (see Section 3.1).  Students must perform effectively and supportively on the Team according to the standards and norms of the Team.  Failure to do so can result in a requirement to withdraw from the Program. 

2.5.2 Team Coaches

In order to get the best experience on the Learning Team, each team is assigned a professionally trained Team Coach. The Team Coach works regularly with the team and its individual members throughout the Program delivering best practices, instruction, advice, and coaching on team processes, development, and performance. Team coaches may also work with a team on interpersonal issues or concerns with regard to the performance (effectiveness) or behaviour (supportiveness) of individual team members.

2.5.3 Request to Change Learning Team

Students are not permitted to change Learning Teams.

---

2.6 Grading

Course-level evaluation will consist of a mix of team and individual assignments, hands-on technical activities, case studies, presentations and exams. Students will receive regular feedback from course instructors throughout the program via assessment feedback and individual meetings. The 9-month practicum requires the completion of five group-level integrated project milestones and will be evaluated as requirements for completing the practicum (MDPM 900 & 910). Feedback for each milestone will be provided by the course instructors, practicum support team (team coach and practicum advisor), as well as the client.

The Program Director will also provide students with a progress report at the end of each 4-month period that includes a peer evaluation from their teammates (in collaboration with the team coach). There will be no formal grade assigned to the progress report, but peer evaluation grades will be a component of MDPM 900 and 910. One-on-one meetings will be conducted with students that are struggling to meet course and degree-level expectations.

2.6.1 Queen's University Grading

The grading system for courses in the Queen's Program is: 

Grading (Business)

Letter Grade	Grade Point	Percentage
A+	4.3	90-100
A	4.0	85-89.9
A-	3.7	80-84.9
B+	3.3	77-79.9
B	3.0	73-76.9
B-	2.7	70-72.9
C+	2.3	67-69.9
C	2.0	63-66.9
C-	1.7	60-62.9
D+	1.3	57-59.9
D	1.0	53-56.9
D-	0.7	50-52.9
F	0.0	0-49.9

Other academic entries which may be assigned are: 

System of Grading

Letter Grade	Description
P	Pass; no grade assigned
FR	Failure with review, grade will be revised
CR	Credit
IN	Incomplete
GD	Grade deferred
AG	Aegrotat*
RTW	Required to withdraw
NG	Not graded; first term course of a multi-term course
AU	Audit
TR	Transfer credit, no grade assigned
DR	Course dropped
NEP	Not eligible to proceed
IP	In progress

*Aegrotat: An academic entry which provides an estimated final grade or, if that is not possible, credit for a course without a grade because of extenuating circumstances beyond the student’s control that prevented the student from completing all work of the course, particularly the final examination. Normally at least 60 per cent of the work to be evaluated in the course (assignments, midterms, final examination, as specified in the course). 

Requests for AG or CR standing should be made to the Program Director.

2.6.2 Grading Specifications

All final marks, including those assigned after special examinations, may be based on the results of formal examinations and on grades obtained from other work throughout the course, which may include essays, exercises, reports, presentations, class tests/quizzes, and class participation or other work.

At the beginning of each course, the professor will provide a clear statement of the basis on which the final mark will be assessed. All work assigned and the weight that it will contribute to the final mark will be specified.  Normally there is both individual and teamwork included in course assessments.

2.6.3 Class Participation

Class participation grades are allocated in some courses. Professors will specify the specific form and opportunities for participation marks at the start of the course.  Some examples include contributions to class discussions or discussion boards, attendance, timely completion of assigned work, or other relevant behaviours determined by the professor.

3: ACADEMIC REGULATIONS AND STANDING

Academic Regulations exist to maintain the standards of the MDPM Program, and to ensure the candidates of the Program have the mandatory knowledge and experience to merit receiving the Degree.  Degrees are awarded according to the requirements and processes set out in the Academic Regulations.

Every student is responsible for knowing and meeting or upholding the Academic Regulations of the Program in order to progress through the Program and ultimately be eligible for the Degree.  The Academic Regulations below are currently in effect.  Regulations are consistently reviewed and may change from time to time.  Any changes that take place during the academic year will be communicated to students; it remains the student’s responsibility to be aware of any such changes. 

3.1 Academic Regulations

Each candidate for the Degree must successfully meet or achieve the Regulations below in order to be in Good Academic Standing, to progress through the Program, and to be eligible for graduation from the Program.  In a case where a student violates any one of the Regulations, that student is normally required to withdraw from the Program (see section 3.2 for further information). 

Every student must achieve the following:

3.1.1 Complete Program Curriculum

The student must complete all components of the curriculum as outlined in Section 2.

3.1.2 Overall Minimum GPA

The student must achieve a cumulative GPA of at least 2.7 (B-) including all courses taken in the Program.

3.1.3 Minimum Course Grades

The student may obtain final grades of less than 2.0 (C) in no more than the equivalent of 2 half credit courses (3 credits total) throughout the program.

3.1.4 No Failures

The student must obtain a final grade of at least 0.7 (D-) in each course.

3.1.5 Attendance

The student may not miss more than 25% of class sessions of any course (I.e: 1 session of a 4 session course would be 25%).

Class attendance is monitored and tracked in each course in the LMS (D2L) and concerns related to attendance will be addressed with the student.

3.1.6 Pass Individual Performance

The student must obtain a grade of at least 0.7 (D-) in the assessment of individual performance of any course.  Course professors will determine how individual performance is assessed in their course.

3.1.7 Pass Team Performance

The student must obtain a grade of at least 0.7 (D-) on the assessment of team performance of any course.  Course professors will determine how team performance is assessed in their course.

3.1.8 Function in Learning Team

The student must function effectively and supportively in the Learning Team throughout the duration of the Program.  The Program Director will determine whether the student is functioning effectively and supportively as per Section 3.2.2.1.

---

3.2 Academic Standing

Faculty boards or delegated bodies have jurisdiction to deal with issues of Academic Standing. Subject to a student’s right of appeal, if a student is not meeting the requirements of their program, a faculty board has the authority to issue a Requirement to Withdraw for Academic Performance, indicating the required transcript notation in accordance with the Policy on Transcript Terminology for Students Withdrawing from Queen’s University.

Academic standing means the standard used to determine or measure a student’s eligibility to remain and/or progress in a program, as determined by the academic regulations of the student’s Faculty, School or program. The following Academic Standings may apply, depending on individual circumstances:

3.2.1 Good Academic Standing

In order to progress through the Program and to be eligible for the Degree, a student must be in Good Academic Standing.  A student is considered to be in Good Academic Standing when they uphold the Academic Regulations set out in Section 3.1 above.

A student who fails to uphold any one of the Academic Regulations is no longer in Good Academic Standing and is normally required to withdraw from the Program.

3.2.2 Academic Jeopardy

A student who fails to meet one or more of the Academic Regulations is deemed to be in Academic Jeopardy until a decision is made about their situation by the appropriate body. 

Students in this situation will first be reviewed by the Program Director.  In some cases, an informal resolution may be possible (for example, an opportunity to re-take an exam if the student has official evidence of being gravely ill on the day of the exam) and, if successful, the student may return to Good Academic Standing.

In cases where an informal resolution is not possible, the Program Director will inform the student in writing of the requirement to withdraw from the Program, subject to the student’s right of appeal to the Academic Progress Committee (section 5, Academic Decisions and Appeals).

3.2.2.1 Academic Jeopardy Resulting from Failure to Function in the Learning Team

As established in the Academic Regulations, section 3.1.8 Function in Learning Team, a student must function effectively and supportively in the Learning Team (section 2.5) throughout the duration of the Program. Effective and supportive behaviour as a team member includes meeting the standards of performance and behaviour determined by the Team in conjunction with the Team Coach, as well as full cooperation and responsive communication with the Team Coach.

When significant concerns regarding a student’s Learning Team performance is brought to a Team Coach, the Team Coach will investigate the situation fully and fairly.  The Team Coach will:

1. Discuss the situation with each student on the Learning Team, including the student whose performance or behaviour is in question.
2. Identify the Learning Team’s established performance, operational and behavioural norms and expectations.
3. Discuss with the student in question any failure to meet the team norms or expectations, and, if necessary:
4. Establish a set of formal expectations (in the form of a Performance Improvement Plan) that must be achieved by the student within a specified period in order to fulfill the obligation to perform as an effective and supportive team member.

A student operating under a formal set of performance expectations outlined in a PIP is in Academic Jeopardy.  If the student successfully completes the PIP, the student is once again considered to be in Good Academic Standing.

If, after a thorough investigation, the Director of Team Coaching determines that the student has not successfully completed the PIP, the Director of Team Coaching will refer the matter to the Program Director for review.  If the student is deemed to have violated Regulation 4.1.8, the student will be required to withdraw from the Program, subject to their right of appeal to the Academic Progress Committee (section 5).

3.2.3 Academic Probation

A student who has failed to meet one or more of the Academic Regulations and who has successfully appealed to the Academic Progress Committee (section 5) may be permitted to continue in the Program, on Academic Probation, subject to specific terms, conditions, standards and timeframes tailored to the situation by the Academic Progress Committee. 

A student who successfully completes the conditions of their Academic Probation will be released from Academic Probation and return to Good Academic Standing.  A student who fails to meet the conditions of their Academic Probation will normally be required to withdraw from the Program, subject to their right of appeal (section 5).

3.2.4 Requirement to Withdraw

A student who has failed to meet any one or more of the Academic Regulations is normally required to withdraw from the Program, subject to their right of appeal (section 5).  Further, a student who fails to meet the conditions of their Academic Probation will normally be required to withdraw from the Program.

3.2.5 Effective Date of Sanctions, Penalty or Requirement to Withdraw

Sanctions or adverse academic decisions, such as Academic Probation (and its terms and conditions), penalties or a requirement to withdraw, shall take effect in accordance with Sections 33 and 34 of the Queens University Senate Student Academic Appeals Policy (“SAAP”):

1. Ordinarily, no sanction, penalty or requirement to withdraw shall be put into effect until the student affected has either exhausted all channels of appeal or the time for filing an appeal has expired and no appeal has been filed. For the purpose of this provision, the University will normally consider an adverse academic decision to be a sanction.
2. Notwithstanding paragraph 33, if an academic unit determines that the interests of third parties may be prejudiced by the continued enrolment of a student in a course or program, the unit may decide that, pending an appeal from an adverse academic decision, the student should not be permitted to continue in their course or program or should be precluded from progressing to the next academic stage. A student who is subject to an immediate sanction under this paragraph may request that the Chair of the appellate body with jurisdiction over the matter expedite the appeal. This request may result in a direct abridging the time for filing of documents, or other interim or preliminary directions.

The Commentary to s.34 reads:

Some academic experiences involve student interaction with third parties or may be subject to laws and regulations such as those governing professions (such as those subject to the Regulated Health Professions Act and the Medicine Act). For example, and without limiting other possible circumstances, there are placement requirements in Education and mandated clinical placements in the Schools of Medicine, Nursing, and Rehabilitative Therapy, where the interests of third parties would justify immediate suspension of a student from a course or portion of a program pending the outcome of an appeal process. In programs involving intensive group work, the interests of other students might also justify such a suspension pending the outcome of an appeal process.    

3.2.5.1 Effective Date of Sanctions for Failure to Function in the Learning Team

The Program Director may determine that an adverse academic decision (e.g., requirement to withdraw) as a result of the violation of Regulation 4.1.8 (Function in the Learning Team) requires that a student’s participation in the team be halted during the appeal process to ensure that the interests of third parties (e.g., the learning experience and academic evaluation of the other members of the Learning Team) are not adversely affected.  The student may be permitted to continue in the Program to the extent feasible until all levels of appeal are exhausted. However, in certain circumstances, the student may not be permitted to continue in the Program in accordance with SAAP s.34.

4: ACADEMIC STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS

5.1 Academic Integrity

Queen’s University is dedicated to creating a scholarly community free to explore a range of ideas, to build and advance knowledge, and to share the ideas and knowledge that emerge from a range of intellectual pursuits.

Queen’s students, faculty, administrators and staff therefore all have responsibilities for supporting and upholding the fundamental values of academic integrity. Academic integrity is a commitment to the fundamental values of honesty, trust, fairness, respect and responsibility. Academic integrity concerns refer to issues that arise which deserve attention, and which may or may not, in the end, involve a departure from academic integrity, that is, a departure from these fundamental values. This involves what has traditionally been referred to as academic dishonesty but encompasses a much broader context to include educational measures associated with academic integrity. Academic integrity is constituted by the five core fundamental values of honesty, trust, fairness, respect and responsibility (see International Centre for Academic Integrity ) and by the quality of courage. These values and qualities are central to the building, nurturing and sustaining of an academic community in which all members of the community will thrive. Adherence to the values expressed through academic integrity forms a foundation for the "freedom of inquiry and exchange of ideas" essential to the intellectual life of the University.

During the virtual program launch, students will be introduced to the Queen’s academic integrity policy as part of program orientation. A member of the Queen’s community with expertise in academic integrity will facilitate a session where expectations will be discussed (recognizing that some students have different ideas of what academic integrity means because of possible cultural and pedagogical differences), the process for dealing with issues will be described, and tools used to govern academic integrity (e.g., Turnitin) will be introduced. The Program Director will ensure all students and faculty teaching in the program are aware of the AI policy and process; faculty will provide a statement and link on course syllabi.

Students will also learn about Intellectual Property (IP) in MDPM 900. There will be a program- specific IP agreement consistent with the policies outlined in the Senate document on intellectual property that will be signed by all stakeholders involved in the practicum. The agreement will describe how existing IP will be utilized both within and outside the program and how IP generated will be handled. Other courses (MDPM 880, MDPM 883) will speak to this agreement and emphasize its importance.

These topics are also addressed at the beginning of the program (MDPM 800) where a program code of conduct will be developed. In addition, an entire course on digitization and ethics in practice will be delivered (MDPM 850) to reinforce the importance of ethics, academic integrity and IP in digital product management practice. Other courses throughout the program will showcase the importance of ethics and integrity as essential leadership skills for the discipline and instructors will share related stories based on lived experiences. Understanding and application of related knowledge will be demonstrated through case studies, personal journal reflections, and completion of the 9-month practicum.

The following statements from “The Fundamental Values of Academic Integrity” (2nd edition), developed by the International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI), contextualize these values and qualities:

1. Honesty: Academic communities of integrity advance the quest for truth and knowledge through intellectual and personal honesty in learning, teaching, research, and service.
2. Trust: Academic communities of integrity both foster and rely upon climates of mutual trust. Climates of trust encourage and support the free exchange of ideas which in turn allows scholarly inquiry to reach its fullest potential.
3. Fairness: Academic communities of integrity establish clear and transparent expectations, standards, and practices to support fairness in the interactions of students, faculty, and administrators.
4. Respect: Academic communities of integrity value the interactive, cooperative, participatory nature of learning. They honor, value, and consider diverse opinions and ideas.
5. Responsibility: Academic communities of integrity rest upon foundations of personal accountability coupled with the willingness of individuals and groups to lead by example, uphold mutually agreed-upon standards, and take action when they encounter wrongdoing.
6. Courage: To develop and sustain communities of integrity, it takes more than simply believing in the fundamental values. Translating the values from talking points into action -- standing up for them in the face of pressure and adversity — requires determination, commitment, and courage.

Students are responsible for familiarizing themselves with and adhering to the regulations concerning academic integrity. More information can be found in the Queens University Senate Academic Integrity Procedures – Requirements of Faculties & Schools. General information on academic integrity is available at Queens University Academic Integrity along with School specific information in the Smith School of Business Academic Integrity Policy.

4.1.1 Departures from Academic Integrity

All forms of departure from academic integrity are considered serious offences within the University community.  Faculty boards or their delegated bodies have jurisdiction to deal with issues of academic integrity concerns and to impose sanctions when they find a departure from academic integrity has occurred.  Any student found to have committed a departure from academic integrity may face a range of sanctions, from receiving a grade of zero on the assignment to a recommendation to Queen’s Senate that the student be required to withdraw from the University for a period, or even that a degree be rescinded. Departures from academic integrity other than a course-related issue (e.g., falsifying a transcript) are dealt with by the Faculty/School in which the student is registered. The Smith School of Business Academic Integrity Policy governs academic integrity processes at the Smith School of Business. Students are encouraged to consult instructors if they are unsure of the standards of academic integrity appropriate to an academic program, course or activity. The following defines the domain of relevant acts without providing an exhaustive list:

4.1.1.1 Plagiarism

Allowing it to be thought that another's ideas or phrasings are one's own by failing to provide proper acknowledgement. Some examples are:

• Copying and pasting from the internet
• Copying a printed source or other resource without proper acknowledgement
• Copying from another student in the same or different year of the Program or another Program
• Copying from another’s test paper.
• Using direct quotations or large sections of paraphrased material in an assignment without appropriate acknowledgement
• Buying term papers or other assignments and submitting them as one's own
• Submitting the same piece of work in more than one course without the permission of the instructors
• Obtaining a copy of, or information about, a test or exam from an earlier section of the course and writing the test or exam later in the day or subsequent days.

4.1.1.2 Use of Unauthorized Materials

• Possessing or using unauthorized study materials or aids during a test
• Copying from another's test paper.
• Using an unauthorized calculator or other aids during a test
• Unauthorized removal of materials from the library, or deliberate concealment of library materials

4.1.1.3 Facilitation

• Enabling another's breach of academic integrity.
• Making information available to another student, such as knowingly allowing one's essay or assignment to be copied by someone else, giving a copy of a test or exam to a student writing the same test or exam later in the day or subsequent days.
• Selling or distributing term papers or other assignments
• Knowingly assisting another person to conceal their departure from academic integrity.

4.1.1.4 Unauthorized Collaboration

• Working with others, without the specific permission of the instructor, on assignments that will be submitted for a grade.
• This applies to in-class or take-home tests, papers, or homework assignments. Students may not collaborate without the instructor’s authorization.

4.1.1.5 Forgery

• Utilizing counterfeit documents or statements (e.g., creating or altering a transcript, medical note or other official documents).

4.1.1.6 Falsification

• Misrepresentation of oneself, one's work or one's relation to the University.
• Altering transcripts or other official documents relating to student records
• Impersonating someone in an examination or test
• Submitting a take-home examination written, in whole or in part, by someone else
• Fabricating or falsifying research data or source material (whether by commission or by omission)
• Allowing someone else to do research work without the knowledge and approval of the instructor.
• Failing to appropriately recognize contributions of others.
• Attributing authorship of work to persons other than those who have contributed to the work in a meaningful way.

4.1.2 Process for Investigating Suspected Departures from Academic Integrity

The Smith School of Business Academic Integrity Policy sets out complete procedures and processes for handling suspected departures from academic integrity. Students are responsible for familiarizing themselves with the policy. Normally, where a course professor has a concern about a possible departure from academic integrity, the professor will notify the student and investigate in accordance with Smith policy. The student will have an opportunity to respond, and their response will be considered part of the evidence in the case.

In complex cases the professor may refer the case to the Smith School of Business Academic Integrity Panel for investigation. In this situation, the Academic Integrity Panel will notify the student of the potential departure and investigate in accordance with Smith policy.

In cases of a subsequent departure from academic integrity (that is, where there is a previous departure on record for the student), the professor will make a finding but refer the case to the Academic Integrity Panel for the determination of a sanction.

4.1.3 Assessment of Sanction

Where there is a finding of departure from academic integrity, the instructor consults with the Dean’s Office. If the Dean’s Office reports a previous finding exists, the instructor refers the matter to the Smith Academic Integrity Panel for the assignment of an appropriate sanction. If there is no academic integrity record on file in the Smith Dean’s Office, the instructor may assign a remedy or sanction appropriate to the extent or severity of the offense. When considering the remedy or sanction, the instructor considers several factors in assessing the gravity of the remedial measure or sanction to be imposed. Additional information can be found on the Smith School of Business Academic Integrity website.

Following the investigation of the suspected departure from Academic Integrity, the professor will either: i) make a finding of a departure from academic integrity and impose a sanction (or consult with the Smith Academic Integrity Panel for sanction); or ii) determine there was no departure from Academic Integrity, notify the student the investigation has been dropped and destroy all documents related to the case.

After making the finding and setting a sanction within the scope of those available to the instructor, the instructor must inform the student in writing of the decision. If the finding appears to warrant a sanction more serious than the instructor may impose, or if there is a previous finding of a departure from academic integrity on file in the Smith Dean’s Office, the case shall be referred to the Smith Academic Integrity Panel.

Any student who is found to have committed a violation of academic integrity may face a range of sanctions, including but not limited to:

• An oral or written warning that such infractions constitute unacceptable behaviour (Note that an oral warning must still be documented on the Finding of a Departure from Academic Integrity form)
• A learning experience involving a rewriting or revision of the original piece of work
• The submission of a new piece of work
• The completion of other work
• The deduction of partial or total marks for the assignment/exam
• A failing grade (down to a grade of zero) in the course.

If the penalty amounts to a failure in the course, the student may not drop the course, regardless of the drop deadlines.

In the case of a referral to the Smith Academic Integrity Panel, the Panel may impose sanctions ranging from those noted above to a recommendation to Senate that the student be required to withdraw from the University.    

Records of findings of departures from Academic Integrity are kept in the Dean’s Office and in the Program Office. 

---

4.2 Extenuating Circumstances Policies

4.2.1 Illness

A student who claims illness as a reason for missing academic obligations is responsible for informing the professor, Program Manager and the Program Director and may be required to provide evidence of illness.  In keeping with University Academic Consideration for Students in Extenuating Circumstances Policy, a student suffering from a short-term illness should submit the appropriate Extenuating Circumstances form outlining their needs. 

A notification of absence from an examination must be accompanied by documentation as follows:

• in cases of illness when a student is under the care of a physician, the student should provide a note from the physician. Retroactive doctors’ notes (i.e. notes dated from physicians after the illness) are not acceptable.
• If a student is ill, but not under the care of a physician prior to and during an exam, they can provide the appropriate Extenuating Circumstances form(s) outlining their situation.

4.2.2 Extenuating Circumstances

The Program adheres to Queen’s Academic Consideration for Students in Extenuating Circumstances Policy and the principle of a good faith response to requests for consideration. The policy enables students with extenuating circumstances to request academic consideration in a fair, reasonable and consistent manner.

Extenuating circumstances means a personal circumstance beyond the student’s control that has a direct and substantial impact on the student’s ability to meet essential academic requirements or expectations.  Extenuating circumstances include but are not limited to a sudden or acute physical or mental illness, serious injury to self or significant others, bereavement, a traumatic event, or other serious personal/family crisis.  Extenuating circumstances may also include officially representing the university at a sanctioned event or through an invitation to participate in an event as a distinguished guest (e.g., national tournament, Olympics). Extenuating circumstances do not include personal or family events (e.g., holidays, weddings), academic or exam stress, or transportation or technological difficulties.

There are three extenuating circumstances levels, a student who is unable to satisfy the requirements of a course or the Program due to extenuating circumstances must notify the Program Director in writing as soon as possible. 

Level 1: Brief Absence Students who require an unplanned brief absence from academic obligations for a period of up to 48 hours. Instructors and Faculty/School Offices have discretion to extend academic considerations for an unplanned Brief Absence beyond 48 hours if they deem it appropriate in situations where recovery requires additional days. In cases where a student who submitted a Self-Declaration of Brief Absence is not able to return to full academic functioning within a few days, the student should submit a Request for Academic Consideration for Extenuating Circumstances.

Level 2: Short Term Extenuating Circumstances Students who require academic consideration for a short-term period defined as more than 48 hours (with discretion for an additional one or two days) but less than 3 months. This applies to extenuating circumstances where the student anticipates a full recovery and return to previous levels of academic functioning within the next 3 months. This applies to extenuating circumstances that lead to a reduced ability to meet academic requirements due to physical or mental impairment. This includes an extended unanticipated illness (e.g., mononucleosis, pneumonia), a serious injury (e.g., concussion, broken bones), a required treatment (surgical procedure, significant side effects from new medication), serious injury or illness to a significant other, bereavement (e.g., loss of family member), traumatic event, or another significant personal crisis.

Students who are unable to meet academic obligations due to functional impairments and limitations related to a known underlying disability or diagnosed health condition should register with Queen’s Student Accessibility Services to receive ongoing academic accommodations tailored to their individual needs. Academic considerations should be individualized to the student’s circumstances and in proportion to the student’s ability to complete academic requirements. Depending on the ability of the student to engage in academic tasks and the nature of the program the student is in and related academic requirements, short term extenuating circumstances may require withdrawing from a course (or courses) or may require a medical leave of absence.

Level 3: Long-term Extenuating circumstances. Students who do not anticipate a full recovery or return to academic functioning within 3 months should speak with their Faculty / School Offices immediately to discuss academic implications and possible academic considerations (e.g., reduced course load, medical leave of absence). Students should take reasonable measures to promote academic success and their personal well-being by accessing available supports, including Queen’s Student Accessibility Services, Health and/or Counselling Services, and other campus supports or personal /professional supports as appropriate.

Students who anticipate a return to academic functioning but with ongoing need for academic accommodation should contact Queen’s Student Accessibility Services (QSAS) to register for ongoing academic accommodations. Students will need to provide documentation to QSAS related to their functional impairments.

Students seeking academic accommodations related to a chronic or ongoing physical or mental health condition or an existing disability should refer to the existing policy on Academic Accommodations for Students with Disabilities. Students with long term health conditions or disability should seek academic accommodation from Queen’s Student Accessibility Services in Student Wellness Services.

Privacy and confidentiality will be protected and maintained throughout this process to the extent possible. Information may be shared among university personal (e.g., faculty offices, instructors, exams office) on a need-to-know basis for the purpose of arranging academic considerations. Confidentiality cannot be maintained where there is reason to believe that an individual may be at risk of harming themselves or others.

In cases where a student is unable to act, a delegate may act on behalf of the student, with the student’s written consent.

Students are expected to request academic considerations as soon as extenuating circumstances are apparent. Requests for retroactive consideration should be directed to the Faculty/School Office and will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

For extenuating circumstances relating to sexual violence or harassment and discrimination, students can contact the Sexual Violence Prevention and Response Co-ordinator, the Human Rights Office, or Student Wellness Services, for support and for the facilitation of appropriate arrangements. The Policy on Sexual Violence Involving Queen’s University Students supersedes these procedures.

If the student is requesting an alternate means of satisfying the Program requirements, a formal written request should be submitted to the Program Director.  The request should include an explanation of the connection between the effects of the extenuating circumstances and the student’s academic performance, as well as the remedy being proposed.

The Program Director will respond to the student’s request for consideration promptly.  The Program is committed to responding to students in a fair and consistent manner, considering the specific individual circumstances.  The Program is also committed to upholding academic standards and ensuring that essential academic requirements are met.

If an instructor or supervisor does not assent to the request for academic consideration in extenuating circumstances made by a graduate student, academic consideration may nonetheless be granted, unless the instructor or supervisor provides justifiable reasons for withholding his or her assent. The decision to grant or deny the academic consideration shall be made by the Associate Dean of the School of Graduate Studies.

4.2.3 Official Documentation

Level 1 documentation: The university does not require verification documentation from a health care professional (on-campus or hospital or community-based) in these circumstances. 

Level 2 documentation: Students may be required to provide verification documentation. This may include the Verification of Personal Health Condition form, a Verification of Confidential Extenuating Circumstances form, or other documentation (e.g., death certification, police report of an accident). Students are not required to disclose specific details of their personal circumstances to their instructors or supervisors, but the Faculty/School Office may require documentation that verifies the extenuating circumstance and the inability or reduced capacity to complete academic work. In cases where a Verification of Confidential Extenuating Circumstances form has been submitted, additional documentation or detail is not required. Official documentation, including notes from health care professionals, need not outline the specific details of the student’s condition, but must clearly indicate ways in which the circumstances directly affect the student’s performance, and verify that these effects were substantial enough to cause the academic disruption.  Information about the start, duration and present state of the condition or circumstances, as well as a clear statement on whether the condition or circumstances have either improved or are being managed so that they will not have a significant detrimental effect on future academic performance, are essential.

Level 3 documentation:  Documentation may include Self-declaration forms, requests for academic consideration forms, verification of Confidential Extenuating Circumstances form or other documentation (determined on a case-by-case basis).

A student’s privacy and confidentiality are maintained throughout this process to the extent possible. Information may be shared among university personal (e.g., instructors or supervisors, exams office) on a need-to-know basis for the purpose of arranging academic considerations. Documentation collected as part of this policy will not be part of a student’s permanent academic record.

Documents submitted may be verified by the Program administration.  False statements or documents may be investigated in accordance with the Smith Policy on Academic Integrity.

4.2.4 Unresolved Circumstances

The appeals and consideration processes do not compensate for circumstances that the student is unable to resolve, or for which the student is unwilling to actively seek accommodation. In addition, the appeals process does not compensate for circumstances that are actively being accommodated, for example where a student’s permanent disabilities are being accommodated through Queen’s Student Accessibility Services Office.

Multiple appeals citing the same circumstances will be reviewed very closely. This review may include, with the permission of the student, consultation with the appropriate professionals involved to obtain more detailed information. In order for such an appeal to succeed, there must be convincing evidence that the circumstances that affected the student’s academic performance will be resolved within a reasonable timeline or will be appropriately managed on an ongoing basis.

---

4.3 Language

Students should be proficient in the English language. There are no language requirements for this program that exceed those set by the School of Graduate Studies.

In accordance with Queen’s University Language Policy, examinations and assignments are to be submitted in English, except where a Faculty Board has approved an alternative practice or where a special agreement has been entered into between the Program and a student.

---

4.4 Acceptable Use of Information Technology Resources Policy

All members of the Queen’s community are bound by the Queen’s policy on the Acceptable Use of Information Technology (IT) Resources.  The policy states:

The use of Queen's University information technology (IT) resources must be consistent with the academic mission of the University. These IT resources are provided to support the teaching, learning, research and administrative activities of the Queen's community. As a member or guest of the Queen's community, you may have access to valuable internal and external networks and resources, and Sensitive Information, and you are expected to use these resources in a responsible, ethical, and legal manner. Your actions should not adversely affect the ability of others to use these resources or compromise the security and privacy of sensitive information.

4.4.1 Submission of Electronic Assignments

Students are required to submit all assignments electronically.  It is the responsibility of the student to ensure that all electronic submissions have been submitted properly and are corruption-free.

Any assignment that is detected to be carrying a corrupt file will be immediately destroyed, and the student must re-submit the assignment corruption-free. If the assignment is not re-submitted before the assignment deadline it will be marked “late.”

---

4.5 Examinations

4.5.1 Access to Examinations

The term final examination refers to the final examination in a course together with the graded answer paper written by the student. These documents, in accordance with the Senate Policy on Student Access to Final Examination Papers, must be retained by the professor or the School for a period of 12 months.

4.5.1.1 Informal Access

Professors may informally review the final examination with a student who requests it and are encouraged to do so. However, access may not be granted before the final marks are released.

4.5.1.2 Formal Access

A student may obtain access to their final exam as part of an appeal process. This may be supervised access to, or a copy of, the final examination paper.  The student should contact the Program administration to arrange for formal access to their final exam.

4.5.2 Changes to Examination Times

Requests for changes to an individual examination time must be made to the Program Director as soon as the student is aware of a conflict. Normally, such requests will only be granted if extenuating circumstances (beyond the student’s control) will prevent the student from writing the exam at the scheduled time. 

The exam dates for courses with exams (online or in person) will be posted well in advance of the date of the exam. The policies regarding change of dates are set out below.

1.  All requests for changes to exam dates must meet the following criteria:

1. A written request for the change of date must be received by the Program Manager at Queen’s at least two weeks in advance of the exam; the request must clearly state the reason for the change.
2. All requests must be approved by the program administration in consultation with the course professor; this process may require supporting documentation.
3. In extenuating circumstances, changes to exam dates may be considered if the criteria set out in 1 and 2 above are not met.

---

4.6 Queen's University Student Code of Conduct

Queen’s University is dedicated to learning, intellectual inquiry, the dissemination and advancement of knowledge, personal and professional development, and good citizenship. All students are required to read and adhere to Queen’s University Student Code of Conduct (PDF 1.43 MB) and Procedures Under the Queen's University Student Code of Conduct (PDF 250 KB) (2021) Students should refer to the Student Policy Index for more information on all student policies.

Students are expected to adhere to and promote the University’s core values of honesty, trust, fairness, respect and personal responsibility in all aspects of university life, academic and non-academic. These core values are intended to inform and guide student conduct as they foster mutual respect for the dignity, property, rights and well-being of others.

As a member of the Queen’s community, every student accepts the University’s policies, rules and procedures and acknowledges the right of the University to set standards of conduct, as well as the right of the University and/or its Authorized Agent(s) to impose sanctions for conduct found to have violated those standards.  

4.6.1 Professionalism and Facilities Etiquette

All study and workspaces provided by Smith School of Business and the Queen’s School of Computing should be treated with respect and care.  All students are expected to properly reserve space, use the facilities for the purposes for which they are intended, and to leave spaces clean, tidy, in the proper furniture configuration and with the room supplies. 

5: ACADEMIC DECISIONS AND APPEALS

Academic Regulations at Queen’s University were designed to ensure that students are being treated fairly and equitably while upholding the academic standards of the institution. On occasion, there are extenuating circumstances that are usually beyond a student’s control that may have impacted their performance at Queen’s. Appeal processes were developed to reconsider the appropriateness of any sanctions or penalties that may have been imposed upon a student who may have extenuating circumstances.  Various types of academic decisions may be made by a course professor, Program Director, Academic Progress Committee, Academic Integrity Panel, Academic Appeals Committee and/or the University Student Appeal Board.  Admissions decisions are not subject to appeal.

The appeals process at Queen’s University is comprised of several levels of appeal by different appeal bodies.  In accordance with the Senate Student Academic Appeals Policy, the decision system is based on the principle that "decisions should generally be made by those who are most familiar with the context”^[1] .  The Senate Student Academic Appeals Policy reflects the intent of the Senate regarding Student Academic Appeals, which is twofold: To ensure that students receive fair treatment and are aware of their rights and responsibilities and to establish a fair, efficient process for addressing student appeals from academic decisions.

Appeals of academic decisions fall into four possible categories: appeals of grades (Section 5.1), appeals of other academic decisions (Section 5.2), appeals of academic standing and progression decisions (Section 5.3), and appeals of academic integrity decisions (Section 5.4).

Note that it is the student’s responsibility to clearly establish that grounds for an appeal exist as the basis for an appeal.  Below the various decision-making bodies and their mandates are explained.

Appeals of decisions rendered under the Students at Risk Policy and Students at Risk Procedure. 

[1] Student Academic Appeals Policy, Introduction (p. 4).

5.1 Appeals of Grades

Grades are determined by course professors.  Appeals of grades in courses (including assignments, examination papers, and final grades) are first handled at the course professor level.

Examination papers and course marks of students whose final grade in a course is marginally below a letter grade, and especially below a failing grade, are reviewed with special care by faculty members before such grades are assigned. Therefore, it is unlikely that such a grade is incorrect or unfair to the student.  However, if a student feels that a course grade or a portion of it has been unfairly assessed, they should first make an attempt to resolve the issue informally with the professor.

If the student feels that the issue remains unresolved, they should contact the Program Director who will initiate a formal grade review.  A review of the assignment or examination shall be conducted by two examiners appointed by the Program Director or designate; one examiner shall be the original professor or grader, if available. The review shall involve a re‐reading of the final examination or deliverable(s) in the course and a review of the student’s course record.

Students are not charged a fee for filing an appeal.

Note that it is the responsibility of the student to preserve all exercises, papers, reports, and other graded material for the course and to submit a copy of these documents with the request for review. The scanned copy of any graded assignment or material returned to a student shall be deemed to be the original document for the purposes of this section.

Note that an appeal may result in no change to the grade, an increase in the grade, or a decrease in the grade. The decision of the examiner(s) is final, and there is no further appeal available.

---

5.2 Appeals of Other Academic Decisions

The Program Director makes some decisions for students facing special circumstances in the Program.  The student should request consideration as appropriate to the Program Director as soon as they are aware of a situation requiring such consideration.  Examples of such decisions could include changing a course registration from one elective to another or deferring an exam.

Appeals of decisions by the Program Director are made to the Academic Progress Committee. 

---

5.3 Appeals of Academic Standing and Progression Decisions

Students are considered to be in Good Academic Standing unless they have violated one or more of the Academic Regulations of the Program.  As noted, students who violate one or more of the Academic Regulations of the Program are normally required to withdraw from the Program.  In such a case, the Program Director will normally inform the student in writing that, because of their violation of one or more of the Regulations, they are required to withdraw from the Program.

Appeals of these decisions are made to the Academic Progress Committee.

See Appendix A/B for the Academic Progress Committee’s Terms of Reference and Rules of Procedure.

---

5.4 Appeals of Academic Integrity Decisions

Course professors will normally investigate and make decisions regarding possible violations of academic integrity in their courses in accordance with the Smith School of Business Academic Integrity Policy and as set out in Section 4.1.

Appeals of professors’ decisions regarding academic integrity are made to the Academic Integrity Panel.

In cases where the Academic Integrity Panel is the initial decision maker, appeals are made to the Smith School of Business Academic Appeals Committee.

---

5.5 The Smith School of Business Academic Appeals Committee

The Smith School of Business Academic Appeals Committee (AAC) has jurisdiction over all matters related to academic appeals involving students registered in the School of Business (with the exception of the PhD and Master of Science programs). The AAC hears appeals of decisions made by Academic Progress Committee and the Academic Integrity Panel.

Normally, the AAC serves as a true appeal board, which is not empowered to substitute its own decision for that of the Academic Progress Committee or the Academic Integrity Panel, but rather reviews the decision of the previous decision-making body based on the same information[1] available to the previous body at the time the decision was made.[2] 

The AAC reviews the circumstances of the decision of the previous decision-maker to: ensure that the Academic Progress Committee or the Academic Integrity Panel did not exceed its jurisdiction; ensure that there was procedural fairness; ensure that there was appropriate consideration of extenuating circumstances; uphold the academic policies and principles reflected in the School’s and University’s regulations; and determine if the decision was reasonable.

In rendering a decision, the AAC may uphold the decision of the previous body, grant the student's appeal, or modify the original decision/sanction.  Any decision made by the AAC must be within the scope of the school’s regulations.

Appeals of decisions made by the AAC are made to the University Student Appeal Board.

---

[1] In situations where new evidence becomes available which may have, or is likely to have, affected the original decision of the previous decision-maker (i.e. the APC or the AIP), the AAC may refer those cases back to the previous decision-maker.

[2] Where the Academic Integrity Panel (AIP) was the initial decision-maker, the AAC will investigate an Academic Integrity case de novo. 

---

5.6 The University Student Appeal Board

Where an appeal to the University Student Appeal Board (“USAB”) is permitted, after exhausting all internal appeals within their faculty or School, a student may appeal to USAB within two weeks after the date of the Faculty’s or School’s last decision. See the Student Academic Appeals Policy (“SAAP”) for the full mandate and processes of USAB. Faculties and Schools are bound by and must implement all decisions of USAB. The University Student Appeal Board is the final internal appeal body at Queen’s University.

The University Student Appeal Board (USAB) has jurisdiction to hear the following types of appeals by students from the final academic decision-making body within their Faculty or School:

USAB has the jurisdiction to review a decision if it results in the application of an academic regulation that impedes a student’s academic standing in a program, but USAB does not have the jurisdiction to review the academic regulation itself; a decision concerning a departure from academic integrity and step-two decisions made by a Unit Head concerning an employment-related issue between an undergraduate teaching assistant and their course supervisor.

The Provost and Vice-Principal (Academic) (“Provost”) or their designate may, refer any decision involving a departure from academic integrity directly to a proceeding before USAB if they are satisfied that an internal appeal of the decision cannot be made in accordance with the rules of procedural fairness; and the matter has not been appealed to another body.

USAB will have full jurisdiction to impose any sanction that could have been made by a body with original jurisdiction over the matter, including requiring the student to withdraw. The provost (or their designate) will be present at the USAB proceeding and will determine what sanction to seek from USAB. USAB have no jurisdiction to consider the academic substance of decisions and assessments.

The grounds for an appeal to USAB are limited to cases in which a student can establish that:

1. The decision-making body whose decision is being appealed failed to act in accordance with the rules of procedural fairness. A breach of procedural fairness includes such things as failing to:

• Permit a student to be heard by an unbiased decision-maker.
• Follow applicable rules, regulations, or university policy, in a way that adversely affected a student’s right to a fair process.
• Make a reasonable decision. A “reasonable” decision is one that is rational in that its findings are based on evidence, thought out and supported by facts and logical inferences from findings of fact. To be reasonable, the decision must contain adequate reasons for the conclusions. A decision should be upheld if it falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes, in which case USAB is not permitted to substitute its opinion for that of the decision-maker whose decision is under appeal.
  • The decision-maker whose decision is being appealed to USAB acted without, or exceeded its, jurisdiction.

No Costs Reimbursement

Neither USAB nor any other decision-maker in the University has the power to direct that a student receive compensation for any costs or expenses incurred during any University-based proceeding. Notwithstanding this, USAB may order that a student receive reimbursement for loss of a Queen’s University bursary, scholarship, or similar funds because of a decision that was reversed on appeal. This remedy is available only if the student remains a student following the issuance of USAB’s decision, or, if the student graduated while their appeal was pending.

Decisions of USAB

In deciding an appeal, USAB may do one of the following:

i. Remit a matter for reconsideration by the decision-maker whose decision has been appealed to USAB, with directions or recommendations; a reconsideration decision may be appealed to USAB based on one of the Grounds for Appeal stated above.

ii. Modify the original decision, including making any decision that the original decision-maker could have made, but only where:

a. Proceeding in accordance with section 48(i) of the Rules of Procedures for USAB would cause delay that prejudices the student’s rights; or,

b. USAB has made a finding of bias in the decision-making process below.

The decision of the USAB is final, and there is no further level of appeal.

---

5.7 Queen's University Senate Policy - Student Academic Appeals Policy

All students should be familiar with their rights as established in the Student Academic Appeals Policy.