Information for panel members and advisory team

How to assess Progress Reviews

You should familiarise yourself with the Higher Degree by Research Candidature Progression Policy. When providing comments, you should consider the expectations outlined for each review and the guidelines for your local area. 

Understanding outcomes

The Chair should submit a report summarising the feedback of the Review Panel by completing a my.UQ request within five working days of the review meeting (please refer to the systems training hub for details). Further details on the outcomes and how they are judged can be found in the Higher Degree by Research Candidature Progression Procedure. 

Progress Reviews allow AOUs to provide constructive feedback and address concerns with candidates’ progression. It is very important not to wave candidates through if they are not meeting expectations. This creates downstream problems with added time pressures.

The PhD and the MPhil progression planners at the end of this guide are tools to guide your decision around progress review outcomes and support candidates with feedback on their timelines. 

The Chair can recommend one of the following outcomes based on the advice of panel members. 

Review Successful

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

This outcome should only be selected when you are satisfied with the candidate’s progress. After reviewing the candidate’s progress, you should have a reasonable expectation that they will not struggle to complete the program. 

This does not preclude you from asking for additional minor changes/answers to questions as a follow-up before providing the final report. Such adjustments would not require another meeting and should take at most a month for the candidate and advisory team to take action. Minor changes and recommendations should be noted in your chair’s report, and you can use your discretion to instruct the candidate to make changes to the satisfaction of the advisory team if you or the panel feel that no further review of the work is required. 

Be particularly mindful at the third review that the student needs to be on track to submit their thesis between 21 months and 24 months for the MPhil or 42 months and 48 months for the PhD.

The timing is particularly tight for MPhil students who complete Progress Review 3 close to the end of the research quarter (i.e. at 21 months). For this reason, we encourage MPhil students to complete Progress Review 3 as close as possible to the start of the research quarter to allow more time to prepare their thesis for submission. 

PhD candidates have a bit more flexibility and may be able to apply for an extension to their thesis submission date after Progress Review 3, provided they have a clear completion plan with key tasks and milestones and can demonstrate that they can submit before 48 months at the latest. 

Repeat Review

This outcome should be recommended when you have significant concerns about the candidate’s ability to complete the project within the required time frame and want to see them implement major changes or respond to feedback. This would require another meeting to be held with the review panel. 

The Review Panel will advise the candidate and advisory team verbally and in writing that the candidate and/or project requires further development and that the progress review needs to be repeated.

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.

This outcome is intended to be helpful, not punitive, and to support a candidate to get back on track. A repeat review aims to allow a candidate to take on feedback, demonstrate that they can make adjustments, and undertake the work requested during the allotted time. While it is chiefly used as a support tool for the candidate, it can be an important first step before proceeding to a request for a Review of Candidature in cases where candidates cannot demonstrate satisfactory progress (see below Review of Candidature). 

When selecting a repeat review, it is important to note:

1. The candidate will have a maximum of 3 months FTE (PhD) or 1.5 months FTE (MPhil) to address the feedback. It will be necessary to convene another meeting to review.
2. Ensure that any requested changes are itemised and that you have set clear and realistic goals and deadlines for delivery within the repeat review timeline. For example:

• The candidate should add at least 10 citations to their literature review.
• The fieldwork plan needs to be scoped more appropriately and include contingencies should travel or illness prevent the activity.
• The candidate needs to collect another 20 samples.

3. Guide the student to consult their advisory team to prepare for the repeat review.
4. Be aware that subsequent Progress Review dates are not extended if a repeat review is requested (i.e. subsequent reviews will occur at 12 and 18 months FTE for the MPhil and 24 and 36 months FTE for the PhD, regardless of the timing of repeat reviews). 

Review of Candidature

Candidates are permitted to attempt each review twice. If the repeat attempt is unsatisfactory, 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. Reviews that are being submitted due to the candidate not demonstrating satisfactory progress must include:

• a clear explanation of the progression issues and the reason for the recommendation; and
• evidence to support the allegations of unsatisfactory progress, such as meeting notes, email exchanges, or academic work undertaken in the HDR program; and
• evidence to demonstrate how the enrolling AOU has attempted to assist the candidate in improving their progress and address identified deficiencies.

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. Reviews that are being submitted due to the candidate no longer having a suitable advisor must include:

• a clear explanation of the circumstances that led to the candidate not having an advisor; and
• evidence to demonstrate how the enrolling AOU has attempted to appoint an alternative advisor or assisted the candidate with locating an alternative advisor.

The Chair and advisory team should seek advice on these options from the Director of Higher Degree by Research in the school/institute. 

A candidature review is an important tool that should not be shied away from. Where a student has clearly demonstrated that they are not taking on feedback, conducting the work, or being able to make progress in their HDR program, it may be the best option. If a candidate is not progressing due to poor supervision, a Review of Candidature may not be the best solution. However, if you see a student struggling early in their candidature, it is better to recommend this outcome to save them from the cost and time of continuing, only to receive a similar outcome later in their candidature. With this option, you must clearly articulate concerns about the candidate’s progression and why you recommend it (3.5.3).

If a review of the candidature outcome is recorded, the Graduate School will initiate the process by asking the Principal Advisor to complete a Review of Candidature Request. See the Higher Degree by Research Candidature Policy and the Higher Degree by Research Candidature Procedure for more information about this process. Once submitted by the Principal Advisor, this will be sent to the student for review, and they will be provided with the opportunity to address the concerns raised. This will then be reviewed by the Dean of the Graduate School. Possible outcomes include additional requirements placed on the student and/or advisory team, a transfer from the PhD program to the MPhil, or withdrawal of the student from the HDR Program and possible re-enrolment later. 

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
• 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.

When making this recommendation, it is important to consider the project's scope and timelines. 

If a PhD candidate is recommended for an MPhil and they have already consumed 12 months of their PhD, they will only have a maximum of 12 months left to complete the MPhil. When making this recommendation, it is important to be confident that the student’s progress is satisfactory for an MPhil and that their current research progress translates to the equivalent timeline in the MPhil (e.g. half the work is completed). If you are considering recommending an MPhil at review 2 or review 3, you should first discuss this option with the Director of Higher Degree by Research for your school/institute. If the amount of work does not translate to the equivalent amount expected for an MPhil, then a repeat review or review of candidature may be a more appropriate outcome. 

When recommending a transfer from the MPhil to the PhD at an MPhil confirmation, please remember that the candidate must complete a confirmation progress review for the PhD program at 12 months FTE.

For reference, we have created a PhD Planner (PDF, 159KB) and an MPhil Planner (PDF, 147KB) to illustrate the candidature progression timeline.