Policy

Higher Degree by Research Candidature Progression - Policy

Printer-friendly version
Body

 

1.    Purpose and Scope

This policy describes the UQ-wide system of progression for HDR candidates and should be read in conjunction with Higher Degree by Research Candidature Progression Procedures.

This policy applies to all HDR candidates enrolled at The University of Queensland.

2.     Principles and Key Requirements

  1. Policy Statement
    1. Candidature progression is monitored through Progress Reviews. Progress Reviews are important elements of the research training provided to and undertaken by HDR candidates and are mandatory for all HDR candidates.
    2. In some instances, external funding bodies may have additional expectations for reporting progress as a condition of funding or sponsorship. UQ is mindful of the nature and importance of its research training partnerships. Consequently, UQ will work collaboratively with those sponsorship bodies to achieve an outcome acceptable to both parties.
  2. Milestone Structure and Timing
    1. Completing each Progress Review plays an important role in:
      1. the academic development and progress of the candidate;
      2. resources allocation (including advisory commitments) for the AOU; and
      3. quality assurance for UQ.
    2. Further details describing the timing and expectations for successfully completing each Progress Review can be found in the accompanying document Higher Degree by Research Candidature Progression– Procedures.

 

3.    Roles, Responsibilities and Accountabilities

3.1    Dean of the UQ Graduate School

The Dean of the UQ Graduate School (or their delegate) approves specifications for the Progress Review requirements at each AOU and ensures this information is visible to all HDR candidates.

3.2    Director of HDR

The Director of HDR is appointed by the Head of the Academic Organisational Unit and the Dean of the Graduate School to provide academic oversight of HDR candidates within the Unit.

3.3    Principal Advisors

Principal Advisors are approved UQ staff members that take primary academic responsibility for the candidate during their candidature.

The detailed academic role, accountabilities and eligibility for principal advisors are specified in the Eligibility and Role of Higher Degree by Research Advisors Policy.

3.4    Advisors

Advisors are suitably qualified persons who provide expertise related to the candidate’s research and are available to provide advice throughout candidature.

The detailed academic role, accountabilities and eligibility for advisors are specified in the Eligibility and Role of Higher Degree by Research Advisors Policy.

 

4.    Monitoring, Review and Assurance

Review of, and compliance with, this policy is overseen by the Dean of the UQ Graduate School, and the Academic Board's Higher Degree by Research Committee.

5.    Recording and Reporting

  1. All candidature and progression transactions and activities are recorded within UQ’s student system.
  2. All student records including final outcome, applications and University decisions are filed in the candidate’s personal record in UQ’s digital student record system.

 

Appendix

Definitions, Terms, and Acronyms

AQF - Australian Qualifications Framework

Dean - Dean of the UQ Graduate School or delegate

Director of HDR – Director of Higher Degree Research

AOU - an Academic Organisational Unit that directly enrols HDR candidates

FTE - Full-time equivalent enrolment

Head of AOU – means the Head of School, Institute Director, or Executive Dean at a UQ School, Institute or Faculty.

HDR - Higher Degree by Research

MPhil - Master of Philosophy

PhD - Doctor of Philosophy

Professional Doctorate (Research) (PDRes) - a professional doctorate administered by the UQ Graduate School where at least two thirds of the program is research at AQF level 10


Custodians
Dean, Graduate School Professor Helen Klaebe

Procedures

Higher Degree by Research Candidature Progression - Procedures

Printer-friendly version
Body

1.0    Purpose and Scope

These procedures outline the roles and responsibilities, processes, timeframes and outcomes for supporting Higher Degree Research (HDR) candidate progression at UQ, including early candidature checkpoints and progress reviews.

These procedures apply to all HDR candidates enrolled at The University of Queensland.

2.0    Process and Key Controls

All HDR candidate progression must be managed in accordance with the principles and requirements described in the HDR Candidature Progression Policy and those described in this procedure.

3.0    Key Requirements

3.1    Candidate Progression

HDR candidate progression at UQ is supported by a sequence of activities that include an early candidature checkpoint and three progress reviews. These reviews are designed to support progression and candidate development.

Each HDR progress review consists of work submitted by the candidate followed by a meeting with the candidate. Some Academic Organisational Units (AOUs) may also require candidates to deliver a presentation as part of the progress review. Specific AOU guidelines for each review can be found at: [Grad School web page link to come].

The due date for the submission of review documentation is set by the Graduate School based on the date of commencement. PhD candidates are expected to submit review documentation at equal intervals of 12 months full-time equivalent (FTE). MPhil candidates are expected to submit review documentation at equal intervals of 6 months FTE. These timelines will vary for part-time candidates or candidates who have taken an interruption.

Full-time equivalent

MPhil

PhD*

Early Candidature Checkpoint (ECC)

3 months FTE after commencement

3-6 months FTE after commencement

Review 1 - Confirmation of Candidature (R1)

6 months FTE after commencement

12 months FTE after commencement

Review 2 (R2)

12 months FTE after commencement

24 months FTE after commencement

Review 3 (R3)

18 months FTE after commencement

36 months FTE after commencement

Examination

21 months FTE after commencement

42 months FTE after commencement

*Timeline for Progress Reviews for Professional Doctorates specified according to the Professional Doctorates policy

3.2    Early Candidature Checkpoint

The early candidature checkpoint is an online checklist completed by the candidate and their principal advisor in the first three to six months (FTE) of commencement. The purpose of the Early Candidature checkpoint is to ensure that the candidate has completed required induction activities and is on track for their first progress review.

The early candidature checkpoint includes the following items:

  • Individual Development Plan (IDP): An individual development plan provides candidates with a structured process to plan for the attainment of UQ’s HDR graduate attributes and career goals. The individual development plan should be initiated in the first three months of candidature and revised for each review.

  • Portfolio of Activity: HDR candidates will maintain a portfolio or list of professional development activities undertaken during their candidature. The portfolio will be initiated in the first three months of candidature and an updated version submitted at each review.

  • Research Integrity Module (RIM): The Research Integrity Module is a compulsory online training module that provides information on the policies and procedures around research integrity, ethics, research data management, authorship, and other issues candidates need to be aware of when conducting research at UQ. All HDR candidates must pass the RIM (80% pass mark) prior to attempting confirmation of candidature.

  • ORCID: ORCID is the authority source for external identifiers for University of Queensland researchers and Higher Degree by Research (HDR) candidates. HDR candidates need to set up and register an ORCID with UQ and link this ID to their UQ eSpace profile prior to confirmation of candidature.

  • Research Data Manager (RDM): The UQ Research Data Manager has been designed to help researchers manage their project's research data, from project conception to the publication and dissemination of results. A record must be created in RDM for the HDR project prior to confirmation of candidature.

  • Advisor-Candidate expectations: The advisory team and candidate should discuss shared expectations and develop a written summary for reference. This is an opportunity for candidates to discuss and agree on supervision arrangements with the advisory team.

  • Attendance at local inductions: Attendance at local inductions and training activities (i.e. relevant orientation, health and safety inductions, etc.)

The Early Candidature Checkpoint is submitted to the candidate’s Director of HDR. The Director of HDR ensures the ECC is completed and may request a follow up meeting with the candidate and their advisory team to discuss the early candidature checklist.

3.3    Progress Reviews

Progress Reviews are undertaken by a Progress Review Panel (PRP) created to support the candidate. A PRP will consist of a Chair and/or at least one reviewer. The panel may consist of one individual who fulfills the role of both the Chair and reviewer, but a panel of at least two individuals is preferred wherever possible. Advisors are not part of the review panel but will provide feedback on the candidate’s progress to support the evaluation and development of the candidate.

 

3.3.1    Progress Review 1 (R1) – Confirmation of candidature

Confirmation of candidature (review 1) will take place 12 months FTE (PhD) or 6 months FTE (MPhil) after commencement, or 6 months FTE (professional doctorates) after commencement of the research component. The purpose of the confirmation of candidature is to:

  • assess whether the candidate has a viable research project that is achievable and appropriate for the program in which they are enrolled;

  • identify additional professional development that may be required to ensure timely completion and demonstrate the HDR graduate attributes (4.60.03 Higher Degree by Research Graduate Attributes);

  • confirm the candidate feels supported and equipped to complete the program within the required timeframes; and

  • ensure the candidate receives independent written feedback about any issues that need to be addressed.

The status of a candidate will change from provisional to confirmed upon the successful completion of the confirmation of candidature.

 

3.3.2    Progress Review 2 (R2)

Progress review 2 will take place 24 months FTE (PhD) or 12 months FTE (MPhil) after commencement, or 12 months FTE (professional doctorates) after commencement of the research component. The purpose of the second review is to:

  • confirm advisory arrangements and resources are adequately supporting a timely program completion;

  • assess whether the candidate’s progress is satisfactory, and the project is on track for completion within the required timeframe;

  • review candidate skills and develop and HDR graduate attributes are developing appropriately; and

  • ensure the candidate receives independent written feedback and direction on any issues that may need to be addressed.

3.3.3    Progress Review 3 (R3)

Progress review 3 will take place 36 months FTE (PhD) or 18 months FTE (MPhil) after commencement, or 18 months FTE (professional doctorates) after commencement of the research component. The purpose of the third review is to:

  • assess whether the candidate’s progress is satisfactory, and the project is on track for completion within the required timeframe;

  • ensure that the scope, originality and quality of the thesis will be of an appropriate standard for external examination by the expected submission date;

  • assess whether the thesis engages with the relevant literature and shows an advanced knowledge of research principles and methods relevant to the discipline;

  • ensure the thesis makes a significant and original contribution to knowledge (PhD) or shows originality in the application of knowledge (MPhil/Professional Doctorates);

  • evaluate whether the candidate’s quality of writing meets the standard expected of a higher degree;

  • provide independent written feedback about the candidate’s readiness for examination by the expected date of submission (see 4.60.08 Higher Degree by Research Examination); and

  • confirm that the candidate has demonstrated the HDR graduate attributes.

 

3.4    Progress Review Processes

3.4.1    Nominating the Chair and Reviewer(s)

The candidate will receive a request from the Graduate School to nominate a Chair and/or reviewer(s). The Chair and/or reviewer(s) should be identified in consultation with the advisory team, noting that in some AOUs the Chair and/or reviewer(s) will be pre-determined. The Chair/and or reviewer(s) will be reviewed and endorsed by the principal advisor and Director of HDR.

3.4.2    Scheduling the Review Meeting

The candidate will be asked to nominate suitable times and dates for their progress review meeting, noting that dates may be pre-determined in some AOUs. The meeting can take place at any time in the research quarter after review documents have been submitted. The review panel and advisory team will indicate their availability and the candidate will then confirm the date and time of the meeting and presentation (if required). Some AOUs may allow a presentation to be delivered at a public forum such a conference, colloquium, or seminar.

 

3.4.3    Submitting Review Documentation

Candidates will submit review documents by the census date for the research quarter in which the review is due. The review documents will consist of: (a) candidature documents (i.e. candidate statement, Individual Development Plan (IDP) and Portfolio of Activity), and (b) project documents specified by the AOU. Project documents should be submitted to iThenticate prior to submission. The review documents and iThenticate report should be submitted using a my.UQ Progress Review Request at least two weeks prior to the review meeting.

3.4.4    Conducting the Progress Review Meeting

A progress review meeting provides the candidate and their advisory team with an opportunity to discuss the candidate’s professional development, research progress and other issues (if any) that need to be addressed. The review meeting also allows the candidate to address any questions raised by the reviewer(s) and to receive verbal feedback on their progress.

The meeting will provide the candidate with an opportunity to present an overview of their progress and to respond to questions from the review panel. Both the candidate and the advisory team will be given the opportunity to meet separately with the panel if they wish to do so. The candidate and advisors should be provided with a verbal summary of the Review Panel’s decision before concluding the meeting. The Chair will submit a written report summarising the outcomes within five working days of the meeting. The Director HDR is to be consulted if further advice is required.

Some AOUs will require candidates to deliver a presentation as part of one or more progress review meetings. These presentations may be delivered in an open format where other members of the academic community are invited to attend and pose questions; or a closed format consisting only of the review panel and/or the advisory team. Candidates are advised to consult local AOU guidelines to determine when a presentation will be required.

3.5    Outcomes

Following the review meeting, the Chair will submit a report summarising the feedback of the Review Panel by completing a my.UQ request within five working days of the review meeting. In addition to a general review of the candidate’s progress, the Chair may include further feedback and documentation to satisfy local AOU reporting requirements. 

The Chair can recommend one of the following outcomes.

3.5.1    Review Successful

This outcome will be recommended if the panel feels the candidate’s progress is satisfactory for the stage of candidature. However, the panel may request changes and adjustments and the candidate will be expected to liaise with the advisory team to implement any feedback provided by the Chair and reviewer(s).

3.5.2    Repeat Review

This outcome will be recommended if the panel has significant concerns about the candidate’s ability to complete the project within the reuquired time frame.  The Review Panel will advise the candidate and advisory team both verbally and in writing that the candidate and/or project requires further development.

The Chair’s report should clearly outline why progress has not been satisfactory and must outline the tasks, timelines, and deliverables the candidate needs to undertake before re-attempting their review. The report should also include constructive advice on strategies to improve performance and outline the support and resources available to the candidate to help them to progress their candidature.

The candidate will be given a maximum of three months FTE for a PhD, or 1.5 months FTE for an MPhil, to address the feedback provided by the Review Panel.

It may be necessary to convene a follow-up meeting after the candidate has revised and resubmitted additional documentation to the panel. The Chair must ensure adequate feedback is provided to the candidate in a final written report confirming the decision made by the Review Panel following the repeat attempt.

3.5.3    Review of Candidature

Candidates are permitted to attempt each review twice. If the repeat attempt is not satisfactory, the Chair and the advisory team will counsel the candidate about their options, which may include a Review of Candidature if sufficient progress has not been made.

The Chair may also initiate a Review of Candidature Request if suitable advisory arrangements can no longer be provided due to the departure of members of the advisory team.

3.5.4    Change of Program

The review panel can also recommend a change of program. This option would be used in cases where the panel approves a transfer from the MPhil to the PhD, the PhD to the MPhil, or a Professional Doctorate to another HDR program. The candidate will submit a Change of HDR Program request via my.UQ and upload this document to support the request.

3.6    Transfers

A candidate who is transferring from another institution may be deemed to have completed a review if:

  • proof of completion of an equivalent review elsewhere is provided; or

  • the enrolling AOU makes a case to the Dean that, based on the AOU's assessment of the candidate's research work to date, the candidate has demonstrably achieved the standard required for the review(s).

3.7    Withdrawal

Candidates who fail to:

  • attempt a progress review within the required timeframe; or

  • demonstrate satisfactory progress at their second review attempt; or

  • submit the thesis by the expected submission date

may be issued with a notice of intention to withdraw in accordance with PPL 4.60.11 Higher Degree by Research Candidature.

3.8    Candidate Grievances

If a candidate has any concerns in relation to their review or their candidature, a one-on-one meeting should be convened with the Chair and/or the Director of HDR to discuss ways to resolve these concerns.

4.0    Roles and Responsibilities

4.1    Director of HDR

The Director of HDR is responsible for providing guidelines to manage progress reviews at the AOU level. These guidelines specify the:

  1. configuration and membership of the Progress Review Panel (PRP), including appointing the Chair;

  2. format, scope, quality and amount of work submitted for each review;

  3. format, timing and duration of the review meeting and presentation (if required) for each review; and

  4. timing of written feedback provided by reviewer(s).

The guidelines for each AOU will be approved by the Dean, UQ Graduate School and will be made available on the UQ Graduate School website. The guidelines will also be communicated at a formal induction session for all commencing candidates.

4.2    Panel Chair

The Chair provides academic oversight of the review process and provides a recommendation to the Dean, UQ Graduate School about attainment of the review. The Chair can also assume the role of a reviewer. The Chair should be a UQ staff member included on the Principal Advisor Registry and not be a member of the candidate’s advisory team. The Chair must hold a degree of a level equivalent to or greater than the program being undertaken by the candidate. When practical it is encouraged that the Chair would be appointed for the duration of candidature and should serve as the Chair of Examiners for the Oral Examination of the candidate.

The Chair will:

  1. consider the feedback provided by the advisory team, candidate and reviewer(s);
  2. endorse the release of feedback from reviewer(s) to the candidate and advisory team;
  3. Chair the review meeting and presentation (if required); and
  4. provide a Chair's report summarising the outcomes of the review and further work (if any) required by the candidate.

Where practical, it is encouraged that the Chair would be appointed for the duration of candidature and should serve as the Chair of Examiners for the Oral Examination of the candidate.

4.3    Reviewer

One or more reviewers are nominated to provide an independent appraisal of the candidate’s progress. A reviewer can also serve as the Chair of the review panel. A reviewer is not a member of the candidate’s advisory team and where practical, drawn from the UQ community. In cases where this is not feasible (i.e. due to capacity or disciplinary norms) a reviewer may be external. However, external reviewers are generally not remunerated for their time and are not eligible to serve as a Chair.

The reviewer(s) will:

  1. provide independent written feedback on the candidate's progress; and

  2. attend the review meeting and presentation (if required).

Where practical, reviewers should be appointed for the duration of candidature.

4.4    Candidate

The review is a candidate-led process and so the candidate will:

  1. work with their advisory team to nominate a Chair and/or reviewer(s) for endorsement by the Director of HDR after consulting with their advisory team;

  2. submit candidature and project documents using a my.UQ Progress Review Request;

  3. nominate suitable times for an review meeting and presentation (if required) using a my.UQ Progress Review Request;

  4. attend the review meeting and present their research (if required) at the scheduled time and location; and

  5. implement feedback in consultation with their advisory team.

Enrolling AOUs will ensure that candidates receive appropriate support from their advisory team prior to and during each progress review.

The principal advisor will:

  1. assist the candidate to nominate a Chair and/or reviewer(s);

  2. review and endorse the nomination of a Chair and/or reviewer(s);

  3. submit the principal advisor’s statement to the Chair;

  4. review the candidate’s work prior to submission to the Review Panel; and

  5. attend the review meeting and presentation (if required).

 

5.0    Monitoring, Review and Assurance

Review of, and compliance with, this procedure is overseen by the Dean, UQ Graduate School and the Academic Board's Higher Degrees by Research Committee.

6.0    Recording and Reporting

All candidate records including progress review outcomes and University decisions are filed in the candidate’s electronic record.

7.0    Definitions, terms, and acronyms

AQF - Australian Qualifications Framework

Census Date - research quarter census date

Dean - Dean of the UQ Graduate School or delegate

Director of HDR – Director of Higher Degree Research

AOU - an Academic Organisational Unit that directly enrols HDR candidates

ECC – Early candidature checkpoint

FTE - Full-time equivalent enrolment

HLO - Higher Degree Liaison Officer

HDR - Higher Degree by Research

MPhil - Master of Philosophy

ORCID - Open Researcher and Contributor ID

PhD - Doctor of Philosophy

Professional Doctorate (research) (PDRes) - a professional doctorate administered by the UQ Graduate School where at least two thirds of the program is research

PRP - Progress Review Panel

Custodians
Dean, Graduate School Professor Helen Klaebe
Custodians
Dean, Graduate School Professor Helen Klaebe