Graduate School - Research Degrees Code of Practice

Section 4 - Progress

This sections sets out procedures and best practice in relation to matters of student progress, especially in relation to modifications to the period of study, transfer, and concerns over inadequate progress.

The functions of the proposal stage and probationary assessment are discussed as well as other mechanisms for monitoring progress.

1. Abbreviation of study
2. Outline proposals
3. Probation
4. Annual progress reports
5. Expected progress
6. Resolving progress issues

1. Abbreviation of study

1.1 Some students will be in a position to complete in a shorter time than the prescribed period. This may be because they are drawing on previous work in a related field, because they have made faster than expected progress, or because they have transferred from another institution.

1.2 There are two ways to abbreviate the study period: at the beginning, students may apply for credit in order to reduce the prescribed period; while at the end of registration students may apply for permission to submit early.

1.3 Applying for credit : the student should submit their research proposal and project plan with a covering letter clarifying the progress that has been made and stating how much reduction to the prescribed period is requested. Where the previous research was undertaken in collaboration with others, students must demonstrate that there are no objections or concerns in relation to ownership of intellectual property. The Research Degrees Committee will then make a decision based on the evidence presented.

1.4 The effect of being awarded credit is to reduce the prescribed period. A full-time student who is awarded 12 months credit, for instance, would only require to pay fees for two years. If the student did not submit within two years he or she would then be allowed one continuation year. The student’s final deadline for submission would be three years after initial registration.

1.5 Early submission : the student should write to the Secretary of the Research Degrees Committee stating:

• Roughly when he or she intends to submit
• Giving some background as to how it is he or she has managed to complete the thesis so quickly
• Including a statement from the student’s Director of Studies confirming that the quality of the thesis is satisfactory and that the student’s prospects of success will not be adversely affected by the decision to submit early

1.6 Normally these statements will be appended to the Examination Arrangements form which is submitted to the Committee at this time for approval of the examination team.

1.7 Students should not register part-time if they are in fact working full-time on the project. Permission will not be granted to submit early in these circumstances.

1.8 Transfers : students may apply to move their PhD from another institution to QMU. In order to do this the student must complete the standard application form and provide information about their research. This will normally take the form of a research proposal and project plan with an indication of how much progress has been made.

1.9 Applications will be assessed by the Dean of School in the usual way. However, it is important to find out:

• Is the student’s current institution aware of the proposed transfer? Are there any issues over ownership of intellectual property?
• How much has the student done already? Has some form of probationary assessment been passed? If not, why not?
• Is the student transferring because of disagreements with his or her previous supervisors? QMU should not pre-judge the rights and wrongs of any such disagreement but it is reasonable to be wary of taking on a student who may not be prepared to accept criticism.

1.10 Transferring students will need to apply to the Research Degrees Committee for credit (see above). At that time it may be appropriate to apply for exemption from probationary assessment where evidence can be provided that the student has been through a similar process at their own institution. Normally, however, the student will need to go through some form of probation at QMU.

1.11 Even if the student has received ethical approval to conduct the study at his or her previous institution, fresh ethical approval will be required to conduct research on QMU staff or students.

1.12 If a QMU student wishes to transfer to another institution, the University will normally support this, provided the student’s supervisors are appropriately recognised for any intellectual property they have contributed to the project. If it is possible for the QMU supervisor to remain on the team as a second supervisor that may be desirable.

1.13 Credit for other forms of previous study : In cases where a student is seeking credit for relevant research experience in industrial laboratories or other organisations (including those supporting creative practice), the request should be made at the outline proposal stage.

1.14 Maximum credit will normally be as follows: PhD (full-time 12 months; part-time 24 months), MPhil (full-time 6 months; part-time 12 months). However, the Research Degrees Committee will consider each case on its merits.

1.15 The Research Degrees Committee may give more extended credit for previous research to applicants who wish to transfer their postgraduate registration to Queen Margaret University in cases where their Director of Studies is joining the University as a member of academic staff.

1.16 Credit will not be given for research for which the student has already been granted an award, eg research undertaken as part of a Master of Philosophy or Master of Research.

(back to top)

2 Outline proposals

2.1 Three months after matriculation (for full-time students) or six months after matriculation (for part-time students) an outline proposal should be submitted to the Dean of School for approval. The Dean’s role is to confirm that the necessary facilities and resources can be put in place to support the project and to confirm the supervisory team. Outline proposals will normally be considered by the School Academic Board.

2.2 It is recognised that not all students will be in a position to provide much detail on their projects at this stage. However, it is important to establish the supervisory team as early as possible.

2.3 In framing the outline proposal, students should provide enough information to allow the School Academic Board to judge:

• The resource implications of the project (laboratory facilities, consumables, software, travel);
• Any specialist expertise that is required in the supervisory team;
• Any input required from organisations outside QMU and whether permission has been secured from those organisations;
• Any additional training that the student will require.

2.4 Short CVs for each proposed supervisor must be attached to allow the Board to assess whether the team meets the requirements of the project and satisfies the Research Degree regulations.

2.5 Once the School has approved an outline proposal it is committed to supporting the research project as described. Any changes to the project which affect the resource requirements must be discussed with the Dean of School.

(back to top)

3 Probation

3.1 All students must undergo a probationary assessment (except for transferring students in the circumstances outlined above). The probationary assessment will normally take place eight months after initial matriculation for full-time students, or sixteen months for part-time students. Students may apply to the Research Degrees Committee for permission to delay the assessment, but may not delay beyond 14 months full-time or 28 months part-time. Where a student is unable to meet this deadline due to extenuating circumstances, a suspension of studies should be applied for.

3.2 Non-resident students are expected to visit QMU at least once a year. For such students, the probationary assessment should be timed to coincide with a visit to Edinburgh. Similarly, it may be necessary to adjust the timing of the assessment to take account of fieldwork. Any applications to change the timing of assessment should be approved by the Research Degrees Committee.

3.3 The purpose of the probationary assessment is to give the student and supervisor an independent assessment of the student’s progress and to highlight any potential weaknesses at an early stage so they can be rectified. It is essential that any progress issues are addressed promptly and not left unresolved until the student submits the final thesis. The inclusion of a short viva voce examination also provides the student with practice for the final viva.

3.4 Students are advised to take the probationary assessment seriously, in that it provides an opportunity for them to measure themselves against the expected standards and confirm whether they are on track for successful completion. Students should nevertheless be reassured that the assessment will be conducted in a constructive manner with the overarching aim of improving the student’s research. It is not intended to be an impediment to students’ progression.

3.5 The panel should consist of experienced researchers, ideally at professorial level. There should be a chair plus two other assessors. Normally, one assessor would have more subject expertise and would lead the questioning; the other assessor would therefore be responsible for taking notes for the final report.

3.6 A pool of suitable assessors will be established and members selected for each individual student depending on the nature of the project. Panels will be selected by the Convener and Secretary of the Research Degrees Committee. Where possible, members’ research background should match the broad research paradigm of the student (ie qualitative / quantitative). An external panellist may be brought in for research in specialist fields (for instance practice-based research). Panellists may be members of Research Degrees Committee but this is not a necessary condition. Deans of School, however, should not be panellists.

3.7 In the event of a resubmission, the original panel would be retained.

3.8 Supervisory teams should bear in mind that assessors would not normally be able to act as internal examiners for the student when it came to the final oral examination.

3.9 Each assessor should complete a preliminary report prior to the meeting, indicating areas for discussion and a provisional recommendation. The Chair should use these to form the basis of the agenda for the meeting and to assist in drafting the final report.

3.10 Students should not be expected to be at PhD level at this stage, but they should demonstrate that they are working towards the PhD criteria. Assessors should consider:

• Clarity of research aims
• Grasp of research methods
• Understanding of possible limitations of study
• Depth of literature review (if applicable)
• Quality of writing and presentation

3.11 The meeting between the student and panel should take no more than one hour. One or more of the supervisory team may accompany the student (if the student so wishes) but may not speak unless directed to by the Chair. At the end of the meeting the panel will meet privately to agree the outcome. The student and supervisor(s) will then be called back to hear the recommendation and discuss any issues.

3.12 The meeting should be conducted in a polite and supportive atmosphere. It should be recognised that most assessors will not be experts in the topic area and therefore the focus is more on the student explaining the research than defending it.

3.13 A student should not be referred solely on the grounds of a poor performance in the oral element unless there is reason to doubt the student’s ownership of the written work.

3.14 Resubmission by written work only should be allowed in cases where the student has demonstrated good understanding of the project in their oral defence. Weaker students may be asked to retrieve both elements.

3.15 The time-scale for retrieval should be discussed with the student and supervisor, but will normally be 6-8 weeks for a full-time student; 10-12 weeks part-time.

3.16 The panel may make recommendations regarding changes to the project but must recognise that the student may have already started data collection. The panel may also make recommendations regarding the composition of the supervisory team. In both cases, it is up to the School how to respond.

3.17 It is possible that the panel may consider that the scope of the work (in terms of scale of the research and potential contribution to knowledge) is more appropriate for an MPhil even though the student is registered for a PhD. The panel may flag this up in its report. The Dean of School should discuss with the student and Director of Studies whether a change of registration is warranted.

3.18 The actual progress decision is made by the School, on the basis of the Panel’s recommendation. To avoid unnecessary delay the Dean of School will normally take Convener’s Action. The Quality Enhancement Unit will then relay the decision and report to the student.

3.19 It is important that feedback to the student is clear, especially when a resubmission is asked for. Assessors should give as much detail as possible to allow the student to pass at the next attempt. In cases where a student is asked to submit for a third and final time, the chair of the panel must meet with the student after the second submission to ensure the student understands fully what he or she requires to do to improve to the requisite level.

3.20 Only in exceptional circumstances would the Panel recommend deregistration before the student had been offered three attempts.

(back to top)

4 Annual progress reports

4.1 Every year, the student and Director of Studies will be asked to provide a short progress report. Reports are collected by the Quality Enhancement Unit, who then provide a summary of issues for consideration by the School Academic Board.

4.2 Each report should be completed separately. The student’s report will not be shared with the Director of Studies without the student’s consent. The supervisor’s report will not normally be shared with the student unless the student specifically requests it in terms of the Data Protection Act.

4.3 The purpose of the annual progress report system is to alert the School to any problems or issues. This allows action to be taken as appropriate. Students may wish to use the report to highlight any difficulties with supervision or facilities. Equally, it is important that supervisors record any concerns they may have about slow or inadequate progress.

4.4 If more serious difficulties arise, annual reports should form a useful record of how and when issues have arisen and what action was proposed to deal with them. It is worth bearing in mind that annual reports may form part of the evidence in an appeal.

(back to top)

5 Expected progress

5.1 Research degrees present particular challenges when compared to a taught degree. Students may struggle to adjust to the relative lack of deadlines and milestones. Supervisors have an important role to play in promoting time management skills, not only through negotiating and monitoring the overall study programme but also in encouraging students to break this down into a series of small steps with short-term goals and associated deadlines. It should not be assumed that students can immediately take responsibility for this without support.

5.2 Nevertheless, as the student moves into the mid stages of their programme, he or she should assume more control over their studies and act with increasing autonomy. Every student is different, but as an approximation, the following table sets out the broad expectations of progress:

5.3 Well organised students who experience no major obstacles should progress more quickly than this and submit by the end of the prescribed period. However, it is recognised that slightly later submission is not uncommon.

5.4 It is important that supervisors ask to see written work regularly throughout the period of study. This allows any problems with academic writing to be addressed early. It also helps the student to spread out the amount of writing that needs to be done, particularly if drafts can be incorporated into the thesis.

5.5 Where a student is based at a distance or is conducting fieldwork abroad it can be particularly difficult for the supervisory team to monitor progress. This makes regular meetings and the production of written work especially crucial.

5.6 The relationship between the student and supervisor will evolve over time. Initially, students will depend on their supervisors for guidance and direction. By the end of the first year students should have a detailed knowledge of research in their chosen area (which will often be more detailed than that of individual supervisors) and a clear view of the contribution of their own proposed investigation to this field of research. By this stage, therefore, students should be developing confidence and independence, and engaging in discussion with their supervisors rather than merely seeking advice. This gradual shift of control to the student should be encouraged, with the supervisor assuming a counselling rather than an advisory role.

5.7 Supervisors should take action if any of the following concerns arise:

• The student misses meetings or fails to respond regularly to messages
• The student regularly misses targets set at supervisory meetings
• The quality of the student’s writing consistently falls below the level required
• The student appears unable to understand key concepts
• The student is still looking to the supervisors to tell him or her what to do, even in the mid and later stages of the degree
• The supervisor finds evidence of plagiarism, unprofessional conduct or research malpractice

(back to top)

6 Resolving progress issues

6.1 Lack of contact

When a student has not been in contact with the supervisory team for four weeks (full-time) or two months (part- time) the Director of Studies should take steps to investigate the reason for absence. See Section III Supervision, sub-section 5, for full details of the procedure.

6.2 When the student is not completely out of contact but the supervisors are concerned that the frequency of contact is inadequate, a formal meeting should be held with the student and a timetable for more regular communication set. This should be logged in the student’s file.

6.3 It may transpire that the student has health or personal problems which are preventing him or her from dedicating time to the degree. In this case, the student should be encouraged to apply for a suspension of studies. Retrospective suspensions are acceptable as long as the supervisory team are satisfied the student has good reasons for their absence / lack of progress.

6.4 Academic issues

The probationary assessment provides one formal mechanism for dealing with doubts about the student’s academic level. A student who fails to pass after three attempts (or within the defined time limits) will be recommended to the Research Degrees Committee for deregistration.

6.5 The supervisory team should support the student to submit the probationary assessment in the same way that they support a student writing the thesis. In other words, they should provide comments on drafts but not suggest specific revisions.

6.6 Post probation, if a Director of Studies is concerned about a student’s lack of progress, this should be discussed first with the rest of the supervisory team. A formal meeting should be held with the student explaining the consequences of failure to improve. Normally the outcome of the meeting would be an action plan to address the problems, for instance a timetable of more frequent meetings, or assignments the student agrees to do to demonstrate improved understanding of key points.

6.7 It is essential that the outcome of this meeting is documented, in case of future appeals. Students may not realise the seriousness of the problems unless they are given something in writing.

6.8 If the Director of Studies remains concerned or if the student fails to comply with the agreed action plan, he or she should consult with the full supervisory team to agree whether a report should be made to the Dean of School. In any case, problems must be recorded in the annual progress report and this may trigger action from the Dean if the problems are still unresolved.

6.9 If the Dean of School believes the supervisory team have taken all reasonable steps to improve the student’s performance but without success, he or she will normally arrange an immediate meeting with the student. The Dean will discuss with the student whether the project can continue. Where students are based overseas alternative arrangements for this meeting will be applied.

6.10 This meeting may result in one of three outcomes:

• the student continues in registration;
• the student continues in registration conditionally on the attainment of certain agreed targets; or
• a recommendation is made to the Research Degrees Committee that the student’s registration be terminated.

6.11 Deregistration may be recommended providing (a) the full supervisory team have been consulted and (b) the student has had an opportunity to respond to the concerns raised.

6.12 Withdrawal

The decision to withdraw is entirely up to the student. However, students should always discuss the situation first with their Director of Studies. It may be that the difficulties can be resolved in another way. For instance, the student could ask for a suspension of studies to relieve the time pressure; a change might be made to the research protocol; or perhaps additional training could be sourced to help the student with a problem area. In some cases transfer from PhD to MPhil might be appropriate.

6.13 Change of registration

Students register initially for either a PhD or MPhil, depending on their preference. However, it is possible to change from one to the other.

6.14 A student may wish to change from PhD to MPhil for personal reasons. The supervisory team or probationary assessors may also recommend a transfer of registration if they feel the student is unlikely to succeed in a PhD examination but may be in a position to achieve an MPhil. Often it only becomes clear that the student should transfer relatively late in proceedings, but where possible earlier transfer is preferred. This allows the student to complete more quickly.

6.15 Transfer from MPhil to PhD is also allowed. However, the student and supervisory team would need to demonstrate that the project was deep enough in its scope to meet the criteria for the award of PhD.

Resources:

Forms Library: http://www.qmu.ac.uk/quality/fm/researchDegree.htm

Guidelines on probationary assessment (MSWord)

(back to top)

^ to top