School of Civil Engineering Progress Review Guidelines

Before reading the guidelines outlined on this page, ensure you have reviewed all the information about Progress Reviews, including the criteria for each review, and the Higher Degree by Research Candidature Progression Procedure.

How to organise a Progress Review

The following guidelines outline the management and conduct of HDR Progress Reviews in the School of Civil Engineering. These guidelines should be used in combination with the Higher Degree by Research Candidature Policy and the Higher Degree by Research Candidature Procedure. Further instructions to help you to arrange your upcoming review are available here.

Progress Reviews Snapshot

Progress review requirements
	Confirmation of Candidature (R1)	Review 2 (R2)	Review 3 (R3)
Candidature Documents	Candidate statement Individual Development Plan (IDP) Portfolio/summary of development activities/Academic CV	Candidate statement Individual Development Plan (IDP) Portfolio/summary of development activities/Academic CV	Candidate statement Individual Development Plan (IDP) Portfolio/summary of development activities/Academic CV
Project Documents	Confirmation of candidature report, typically no more than 8000 words iThenticate report	Short statement, typically between 2 – 4 pages iThenticate report	Short statement, typically no more than 5 pages iThenticate report
Review Meeting	60 minutes	60 minutes	60 minutes
Oral Presentation	Open 25 minutes with additional time as needed for Q&A and discussion	Upon request from the Progress Review Panel	Upon request from the Progress Review Panel

Note: Documents should be submitted by the census date of the research quarter in which your review is due.

Panel Composition

Your Progress Review Panel (PRP) in the School of Civil Engineering will consist of at least three members and no more than four members, all external to the advisory team. Essential members are:

The Chair: a School academic who has suitable seniority and discipline insight to be able to act with integrity in formulating the panel’s recommendations.
At least two members of staff who have expertise in the general area of the thesis project.
A discipline expert external to the School is optional and may replace one of the school staff members.

It is expected that the Progress Review Panel will remain the same throughout your candidature.

Confirmation of Candidature Review (R1)

Your confirmation of candidature review will include the submission of your candidature and project documents, as well as a meeting of total duration approximately 60 minutes.

Your confirmation report should comprise a critical literature review of the relevant background, a field report (if applicable) and summary of work completed to date. The report must contain a declaration of the intended scope of the thesis work, and a plan for the work, which needs to be done to complete the thesis. The confirmation report is expected to demonstrate a comprehensive grasp of the state of the art related to the project. Equally, the planned contribution to the research field internationally and/or professional practice must be clearly conveyed.

The report should be no more than 8000 words in length, plus references and appendices. The inclusion of illustrations, diagrams and tables is strongly recommended. There is no word limitation of additional information in the form of appendices.

The document should be of professional quality, with the expectation of not having technical or grammatical errors. Writing quality and report presentation is expected to be similar to final dissertation or publication.

The meeting with the review panel will include:

an oral presentation with additional time for open Q&A and discussions. An invitation is to be emailed to the entire School at least one week before the confirmation session. The presentation is usually 25 minutes with open questions following the presentation.
individual interviews with the supervisory team and the candidate.

The principal quality expectation for the oral presentation and subsequent discussion is that candidates convey the objectives and study methodology for their research clearly and concisely and show how it relates to existing knowledge. The presentation format should be similar to a conference presentation but pitched to the School-wide audience.

Written feedback will be provided by your reviewer(s) after the review meeting. Your chair will also prepare a written report detailing the recommendations of the Progress Review Panel to the Dean, UQ Graduate School.

Progress Review 2 (R2)

Your second progress review will include the submission of your candidature and project documents, a meeting with the review panel and advisory team, and a short oral presentation if requested.

The project document should comprise a short statement (between 2-4 pages) addressing the expected achievements by Progress Review 2 and an updated work-plan towards completion of the thesis. In addition, the candidate must address any tasks set out on the School Evaluation form at Progress Review 1.

Your review panel may request further written documents to support their evaluation at this review, including examples of completed chapters or published papers.

The meeting with the review panel is expected to take no longer than 60 minutes and will include:

a short oral presentation if requested by the Progress Review Panel.
individual interviews with the supervisory team and the candidate.

Progress Review 3 (R3)

Your third progress review will include the submission of your candidature and project documents, a meeting with the review panel and advisory team, and a short oral presentation if requested.

The project document should comprise a short statement (no more than 5 pages):

describing the progress since Progress Review 2,
addressing any tasks as set out on the School Evaluation form at the time of Progress Review 2,
a detailed thesis table of contents,
a draft thesis abstract the proposed submission date,
and any comments on potential thesis examiners.