School of Law 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 Law. 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

	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	Updated thesis outline, structure, research questions and timeline for completion (2-3 pages) Evidence of substantial initial progress (e.g. a draft chapter) Draft ethics application (if applicable) iThenticate report	Updated thesis outline, structure, research questions and timeline for completion (2-3 pages) A draft of one-third of the thesis iThenticate report	Updated timeline for completion and submission Final draft of substantive chapters of thesis iThenticate report
Review Meeting	30-60 minutes	30-60 minutes	30-60 minutes
Oral Presentation	n/a	20 minute public presentation with presentation 20 minutes question time OR conference or seminar presentation	n/a

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

Panel Composition

Your Progress Review Panel (PRP) in the School of Law will consist of a Chair who will also act as a reviewer.

Where possible, the same person will be Chair for all a candidate’s Progress Reviews and their Chair of Examiners when they proceed to Oral Examination.
For R1, the Chair will generally be assisted by a second reviewer from within the Law School or wider university where appropriate. A written report from an external reader may also be sought at R1.
For R2 and R3 the Chair will be the sole reviewer. In the event that the Chair is unavailable for R2 or R3, the second reviewer from R1 will be invited to act as Chair.

Confirmation of Candidature Review (R1)

Confirmation of candidature review will include the submission of candidature and project documents and a 30-60 minute meeting with the candidate and the review panel. The meeting will be scheduled in consultation with the School’s HDR Director.

Documents:

Documents must be submitted by the census date of the research quarter in which the progress review is due.
A candidate must submit a brief updated thesis proposal, including research questions, proposed draft chapters, and a timeline for competition of the thesis. This should be approximately 2-3 pages.
A candidate must also show evidence of substantial initial progress towards their thesis. This may consist of a draft chapter or a literature review. The precise content will be agreed upon by the advisors and candidate, but the written work should be at least 10,000 words for PhD confirmation and 7,500 words for an MPhil confirmation.

External reader:

The DHDR may, at their discretion, seek a written report on the candidate’s written materials from a subject matter expert from outside of the School/University
The expert reader will be chosen in consultation with the candidate’s advisors

Review meeting:

The Candidate’s documents will be distributed to the Chair and reviewer and the external reader.
The review meeting will be held no sooner than 4 weeks after distribution of documents.
The interview will be an opportunity for the Chair and reviewer to ask questions regarding the project in order to assess whether the candidate has a viable research project that is achievable and appropriate for the program in which they are enrolled.
The interview will also provide an opportunity for the Chair and reviewer to identify additional professional development that may be required to ensure timely completion and demonstrate the HDR graduate attributes (Higher Degree by Research Graduate Attributes Policy); and confirm that the candidate feels supported and equipped to complete the program within the required timeframes.
Both the candidate and the advisory team will be given the opportunity to meet separately with the Chair and reviewer.
The DHDR will attend the review meeting at the request of the advisors, candidate or Chair.

Feedback:

Written feedback will be provided by the Chair and reviewer 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. This written feedback will be provided with 5 business days.

Progress Review 2 (R2)

The second progress review will include the submission of candidature and project documents, a 30-60 minute meeting with the review panel, and an oral presentation. The meeting and oral presentation (if held internally) will be scheduled by the School’s HDR Director.

Documents:

Documents must be submitted by the census date of the research quarter in which the progress review is due.
A candidate must submit a brief updated thesis proposal, including research questions, proposed draft chapters, and a timeline for completion of the thesis. This should be approximately 2-3 pages.
A candidate is also required to submit a draft of one-third of their thesis at this time, as discussed with the advisory team.

Oral presentation:

A candidate is expected to show evidence of oral communication skills at this stage in their candidature. This may be satisfied by an oral presentation in the Law School of 20 minutes with 20 minutes for questions.
Alternatively, they may present their work at an academic conference. The conference must be national or international and the candidate must submit feedback from an academic attending the presentation.
The oral presentation must occur prior to the review meeting.

Review meeting:

The Candidate’s documents will be distributed to the Chair.
The review meeting will be held no sooner than 4 weeks after distribution of documents.
Note that the Chair is not required to read the entirety of the work in detail, but they are expected to peruse it and have some familiarity with the content.
The interview will be an opportunity for the Chair to ask questions regarding the project in order to assess whether progress is satisfactory, and the project is on track for completion within the required timeframe.
Both the candidate and the advisory team will be given the opportunity to meet separately with the Chair.
The DHDR will attend the review meeting at the request of the advisors, candidate or Chair.

Feedback:

Written feedback will be provided by the reviewer 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. This written feedback will be provided with 5 business days.

Progress Review 3 (R3)

Your third progress review will include the submission of candidature and project documents, and a 30-60 minute meeting with the review panel. The meeting will be scheduled in consultation with the School’s HDR Director.

Documents:

Documents must be submitted by the census date of the research quarter in which the progress review is due.
A candidate must submit an updated timeline for completion and submission of their thesis.
A candidate is required to submit a draft of the substantive chapters of their thesis at this time, as discussed with the advisory team.

Review meeting:

The Candidate’s documents will be distributed to the Chair.
The review meeting will be held no sooner than 4 weeks after distribution of documents.
Note that the Chair is not required to read the entirety of the work in detail, but they are expected to peruse it and have some familiarity with the content.
The interview will be an opportunity for the Chair to ask questions regarding the project in order to:
- assess whether progress is satisfactory, and the project is on track for completion within the required timeframe
- ensure that the scope, originality and quality of the thesis will be of an appropriate standard for external examination by the expected submission date
- assess whether the thesis engages with the relevant literature and shows an advanced knowledge of research principles and methods relevant to the discipline
- ensure the thesis makes a significant and original contribution to knowledge (PhD) or shows originality in the application of knowledge (MPhil/Professional Doctorates)
- evaluate whether the quality of writing meets the standard expected of a higher degree.
Both the candidate and the advisory team will be given the opportunity to meet separately with the Chair and reviewer.
The DHDR will attend the review meeting at the request of the advisors, candidate or Chair.

Feedback:

Written feedback will be provided by the reviewer 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. This written feedback will be provided with 5 business days.

School of Law Progress Review Guidelines

Progress Reviews Snapshot

Panel Composition

Confirmation of Candidature Review (R1)

Progress Review 2 (R2)

Progress Review 3 (R3)

Information for Panel Members and Advisory Team