School of Economics 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 Economics. 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 of development activities (DOCX, 23.6 KB)	Candidate statement Individual Development Plan (IDP) Portfolio of development activities (DOCX, 23.6 KB)	Candidate statement Individual Development Plan (IDP) Portfolio of development activities (DOCX, 23.6 KB)
Project Documents	Proposal (PhD: max 40 pages; MPhil: max 25 pages) Ethics application if required iThenticate report	Portfolio (draft chapters, submitted papers, etc.) + overview statement (max 10 pages) Ethics application if required iThenticate report	Draft of the thesis (PhD: max 80,000 words; MPhil: max 40,000) Ethics application if required iThenticate report
Review Meeting	70 minutes	80 minutes	80 minutes
Oral Presentation	40 minutes open presentation (including questions)	50 minutes open presentation (including questions)	50 minutes open presentation (including questions)

Note on timing: The HDR Progress Review Request must be submitted by the census date of the relevant research quarter. For details regarding the timeline please refer to the School of Economics HDR Community Blackboard site.

Panel Composition

Your Progress Review Panel (PRP) in the School of Economics will consist of a chair (an HDR Panel Member) and an assessor who will review and evaluate your work.

Candidature Documents

These documents are required for each review. Most of these are standard documents and can be found detailed in the review documentation section of the progress review page.

The Candidate Statement is submitted as an online form by the candidate and will only be shared with the chair.
Candidates should also submit an Individual Development Plan and a summary of the development activities undertaken since commencement/last review using the School of Economics Portfolio of Development Activities template (DOCX, 23.6 KB). This portfolio is an annual reporting tool used by the School of Economics to support HDR students to develop a range of skills, knowledge and abilities to enhance their employability. This includes Research Activities, Skill Development and Engagement Activities, and Teaching Activities.
IThenticate Report

Details on project documents can be found listed below under each review.

Confirmation of Candidature Review (R1)

The candidate is required to submit a formal Confirmation Document (max length: 40 pages PhD / 25 pages MPhil) that includes:

a statement of the Research Problem the project is addressing and/or the research aims
a statement of the overall Research Question(s)
an explanation of the method(s) that will be employed to answer the research question
a discussion of the theoretical framework, the theoretical approaches or theoretical ‘tools’ being utilised in the dissertation
a discussion (where applicable) of data sources that the candidate proposes to use
a draft literature review – encompassing a brief description of existing research in the field (key authors, debates, etc.)
a statement of the likely ‘contribution to knowledge’ that the thesis will make
a list of proposed chapters
a timetable for completion of the thesis as a whole
a consideration of any ethical or safety issues in the execution of the thesis

The Confirmation Document may also include as appendices any conference papers or publications based on work completed prior to confirmation. The document should stand on its own as a Confirmation Document rather than being a collection of documents produced for some other purpose.

Progress Review 2 (R2)

The candidate must submit a portfolio of documents demonstrating that the literature review has been completed and that at least half of the major components of the thesis have been completed or are well advanced. The portfolio may include draft thesis chapters, conference papers, papers submitted to journals, referee reports on submitted papers, field reports, and documentary evidence of data collection.

The portfolio must be accompanied by an overview statement (max 10 pages) addressing:

a statement of the Research Question(s) the thesis is addressing, as well as a statement of the contribution to knowledge
the chapters that have been completed to date
outline of the remaining chapters to be completed including progress with data collection, ethical clearance, and methodology as relevant.
a timetable for completion of the thesis as a whole

Progress Review 3 (R3)

Review Meeting and Oral Presentation

The same process will be used for all three reviews. The review process starts with an open oral presentation of 40-50 minutes length (including general audience questions) depending on the stage of the candidature. Candidates need to provide an overview of their project.

Next there is a closed 30–45-minute meeting involving only the candidate, the advisory team, the assessor(s), and the chair in the following stages.

Members of the review panel will ask questions to be answered by the candidate (without help from the advisory team). The candidate will be expected to answer questions themselves rather than relying on members of the advisory team to do so on their behalf. Answers should show an ability to address problems raised by the assessors.
The candidate is asked to leave the session, and the panel and advisors meet without the candidate. This is where the panel can receive feedback from the advisory team on the candidate’s progress. In particular, the advisors will be expected to give their views on the candidate’s independence, willingness to take advice, creativity, and potential for a career in research. The discussion should also include some consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate’s written work and oral presentation. The advisors will then leave the meeting.
The candidate has an opportunity to meet separately with the panel to discuss the composition of the advisory team, whether the candidate has access to necessary resources, and any other matters the candidate wants to raise.
The Chair will then speak with the panel (in the absence of the advisory team and the candidate) to consider an outcome. The Chair will summarise these views when completing the Chair’s Report. Taken together, these factors and considerations regarding the progress of the candidate will then be used as a basis for making a recommendation concerning achievement of the progress review.
The candidate and advisors will be invited to attend the meeting and receive a verbal summary of the Review Panel’s decision.

The chair will prepare an online written report detailing the recommendations of the Progress Review Panel to the Dean, UQ Graduate School.

Written feedback will be provided by your reviewer after the meeting.