Guidance for the completion of the “Progression Stage” form
Students admitted under the 2014 Research Degree Regulations will submit a ‘Progression’ form after 18
months (full-time students) or 36 months (part-time students). This is a key assessment point in the
student life-cycle when progress is formally reviewed by the Faculty.
An overview of the process:
1)
You should complete the ‘Progression’ form and give an oral presentation on the achievements
on your research programme and future research plans. The supervisory team and an
independent internal assessor appointed by the Faculty Research Committee (FRC) should be
present during the presentation, which may be arranged as part of an ongoing seminar series.
2)
The supervisors undertake an initial assessment, based on the written evidence and the oral
presentation.
3)
The independent assessor reviews all aspects of the application and makes a recommendation
to the FRC.
4)
The FRC considers the outcome
SECTION ONE: To be completed by the candidate
Expected Date of Submission of the thesis
The 2014 regulations stipulate the maximum registration periods for PhD students. These are 4 years for
full-time students and 8 years for part-time students. This includes the period of examination and
conferment – the normal duration for a programme leading to PhD should be regarded as 3 years full-time
(6 years part-time). Submission of the thesis for examination should take place at least six months before
the maximum registration deadline. Candidates should be confident that their programme is achievable
within this specified time scale.
Award Sought
Students registered under the 2014 regulations will normally enrol for a PhD in the first instance. After 18
months of study (36 months for part-time students), it should be possible to make a reasonable assessment
of whether the programme will make an original contribution to knowledge and may therefore be
confirmed at PhD, or whether the research degree programme should be confirmed at MPhil.
Rationale for seeking confirmation of programme at this level
The supervisors, an independent assessor and the members of the FRC will review the evidence presented,
as indicated below. Detailed statements should be included against each of the headings on the form,
making reference to as much evidence in support of these statements as possible.
The updated research proposal
This will build upon the initial research proposal used to gain admission to the research degree programme,
and will identify the progress made against the initial objectives. Each section should be completed as
clearly and as fully as possible, mindful of the relatively non-specialist members of the FRC, and taking
account of the overall maximum word limit.
Statement of the hypothesis and/or research question(s):
An indicative statement would already have been included in the original "Research Proposal". However,
this should be re-iterated here, suitably modified to reflect the direction and focus the research programme
has developed since initial registration.
Outline of the academic and intellectual context in which the hypothesis is located:
This takes the form of a mini-literature review, setting the research in the context of work already
undertaken within the research group and elsewhere in the wider field of research. This section should
include a summary of achievements against the initial research objectives and an assessment of future
challenges posed by the research.
Description of the methodology employed
A brief statement of the methodological approaches (to be) employed and a summary of any specific
techniques that have been or will be developed. If further training in any specific technique is required, this
should be noted here, with a statement of how this is to be achieved.
Statement of ethical concerns presented by the proposed research and how these are being addressed:
Any ethical questions raised by the research, particularly research involving human subjects, must be
clearly articulated along with an indication of how these are being addressed. If the proposal has been
considered by a Faculty Ethics Committee, or by an external agency (such as a Local or Regional NHS
Research Ethics Committee) details must be included.
If ethical concerns identified at the outset of a project have not yet been addressed the research degree
programme must be considered “At Risk”.
Statement outlining how the confirmed programme will meet the learning outcomes for the award
sought:
Refer here to the learning outcomes for MPhil and PhD in section 10 of the research student handbook
Review of skills development and other achievements since registration
This section should include evidence of a range of achievement, including completion of appropriate skills
development through attendance at workshops, conferences and other events, and delivery of
presentations to specialist and non-specialist audiences. Confirmation that the student is compiling a
professional/personal development portfolio (either electronic or paper-based) should be provided.
Summary of the evidence presented in support of the application
Here you should list the evidence provided, stating whether each piece of evidence cited is attached to the
form or, if not attached, where it is located. This should include a range of evidence (e.g., attendance at
workshops, achievement of targets set by the supervisory team, written work produced, etc.). Please note
here the date of the oral presentation that has been (or will be) assessed as part of this application.
Bibliography
A comprehensive bibliography and/or reference list should be appended. This may already have been
produced at the "Research Proposal" stage, but this is likely to need updating. It must use a recognised
referencing format such as the Harvard system.
Research objectives and timetable of work
A detailed timetable of work, approved by the supervisory team, should be included for the next twelve
months. An indicative timetable for any periods beyond the next twelve months should also be included,
against which an assessment will be made of the feasibility of completing within the time period specified
in the regulations (i.e. 4 years full-time and 8 years part-time).
Please note that the Faculty Research Committee will not normally return applications for modification and
re-submission. The evidence provided should therefore be sufficient to address all the relevant points – and
where PhD is sought any deficiencies identified may lead to confirmation of the research degree
programme as MPhil rather than PhD.
SECTION TWO: To be completed by the Supervisory Team
Details of the supervisory team
The names of the approved supervisory team should be entered here, along with the number of
successfully completed supervisions. This will enable the Faculty Research Committee to ensure that the
supervisory team remains appropriate and is qualified to supervise at the level of the programme.
Assessment
An assessment of the progress to date and the student's ability to complete the research within the
specified time frame should be detailed against the headings on the form. This should relate to the
information provided by the student in section one of the form and should include a realistic assessment of
the level of the work done, the rate of progress, the likelihood of timely completion and the student's
commitment and ability to undertake the remaining work to achieve a positive outcome.
Specifically, supervisors are required to comment on the student’s:
1)
ability to express themselves in writing at an appropriate level
2)
knowledge of the field in which the research is located
3)
ability to evaluate the theoretical framework and/or methodologies relevant to their field of
investigation
4)
mastery of related skills and their skills development since beginning their programme of study
5)
ability to meet deadlines with work that is of an acceptable quality
Supervisors are also asked to comment on their assessment of the student’s commitment to the project.
If the student has not made satisfactory progress or there is a distinct possibility that completion within the
specified time frame is unlikely, then an indication should be made here of what steps need to be taken to
address this issue. This may include suggesting modifications to the programme to make completion more
realistic, a recommendation that the level of the project be confirmed at MPhil, or placing the student "at
risk".
Recommendation
Based on the outcome of your regular meetings and the evidence provided by the student, please specify
here the recommendation of the supervisors on the level of the programme - either recommend PhD or
recommend transfer to MPhil. If you cannot confirm the potential for either PhD or MPhil you must initiate
the “At Risk” procedure.
SECTION THREE: To be completed by the Independent Assessor
Independent Assessment
The Faculty Research Committee will determine the nature of the evidence-base normally required for
confirmation of a research degree programme. In all cases this will include:
1)
2)
3)
examples of written work such as draft chapters, essays, literature reviews or conference
papers to demonstrate their ability to work at the appropriate level
evidence of successful delivery of presentations, externally or internally, for example to
specialist and non-specialist audiences
demonstrable engagement with the University’s skills development programme and the
opportunities provided through personal development planning.
The Faculty Research Committee will appoint an independent assessor to review the application and the
accompanying evidence, to attend a presentation by the student and then to make a recommendation. The
FRC will need to be satisfied that any recommendations have been discussed with the student and his/her
supervisors and acted upon where appropriate.
SECTION FOUR: To be completed by the Faculty Research Committee
The ‘Progression’ form and supporting documentation must be considered by the Faculty Research
Committee. The committee should take into account the evidence supplied by the student, the
recommendation of the supervisors and the recommendation of the independent assessor. Based on this,
the student’s programme will either be confirmed at the level specified, or the student deemed to be "at
risk" and appropriate steps taken to remedy the situation.
The STaR Office and therefore the Research Awards Sub-Committee (RASC) must be notified of all
progression stage outcomes as they are completed. The decisions should also be recorded in the Faculty
Research Committee minutes.