Regulations to support progress within the Research Degree Programme are outlined in regulation 5 of the Study Regulations for Research Degree Programmes.  These include regulations for:

1. Effective supervision.
2. The development and updating of the research plan.
3. An initial review of the feasibility of the project and the research plan, taking account of the required timeframe for the Research Degree Programme.
4. Regular progress monitoring by the supervisory team, including the requirement for a minimum of ten (six for part-time and writing-up students) formal, recorded meetings per year between the supervisor(s) and student to monitor progress against the research plan; and mechanisms to identify and deal with progress issues at an early stage.
5. Annual Progress Review (including differentiation, see below).

Introduction

Student progress is reviewed annually, by an independent progress review panel, until the student has completed the Research Degree Programme.  Schools should ensure that students know what is expected of them for Annual Progress Review (APR). School should provide details of the type of student submission that is required for students completing each year of study, including any other information/requirements that the School deems appropriate for the discipline.

Panel members should be provided with previous APR reports, or the differentiation report if applicable, prior to holding the APR meeting, to enable members to consider the student’s progress. No member of the APR Panel should receive documentation directly from the student.

Students registered for the PhD by Published Works normally complete the programme within one year of registration, and therefore are not expected to engage in Annual Progress Review.

The Thomas J. Moran Graduate School provides training and support for preparing for Differentiation, APR and oral examination (viva voce or ‘viva’).

Regulatory Requirements

The Study Regulations for Research Degree Programmes, regulation 5.5 outlines the requirements for APR.  While the exact format of the Annual Progress Review is determined, at School level, by discipline, year of study and full-time/part-time status, it must contain the following three elements:

1. A written submission from the student.
2. A meeting with the student, whereby the student can be questioned about their work by the progress review panel.
3. A documented outcome of the review and the progression decision.

All returning students registered for Research Degree Programmes (including those engaged in the research elements of a Professional Doctorate) must have their progress reviewed annually by independent progress review panel members, in a meeting at which they are present to discuss their work, prior to registration for the next academic year. 

The following subsections should provide guidance on good practice to support APR.

Panel Membership

The School shall appoint a progress review panel for each student.  This should comprise two independent members of staff.  One of the independent members should be an experienced member of staff within the School. The other member may be a lecturer on probation who has significant knowledge of the research area.  Both are full members of the review panel, expected to read the student’s submission, engage in the progress review meeting and reach a progress recommendation. Where possible, individual Panel members should remain the same for every APR across the student’s research lifecycle, to provide consistency.

As it is expected that panel members will not have had substantial co-authoring or collaborative involvement in the student’s work as a result of APR, panel members would be eligible to act as internal examiners at the final oral examination. Individuals eligible for appointment as an internal examiner under regulation 6.7.5 may also act as a member of a differentiation or APR panel.

One member of the supervisory team, preferably the principal supervisor, may be present to provide input, but may not take part in making the final recommendation concerning the student’s progress.  If a supervisor is in attendance at a panel meeting, the supervisor should be asked to leave the meeting for a few minutes so the student can openly discuss the supervisory process.  Schools may wish to consider how they will receive feedback from supervisors, regarding the supervisory process, particularly if the supervisor does not attend the meeting.

Timing of Progress Review Panel Meetings

As stated in the Study Regulations for Research Degree Programmes, regulation 5.5.1, registration at the beginning of an academic year shall be dependent on the completion of a satisfactory progress report by the end of the previous academic year, for returning students.  Schools can determine when in the second semester that APR shall take place for their students.  Timing may vary depending on the student’s year of study/progress, but appropriate information should be disseminated to all students in advance, to allow for the required preparations.

Differentiation is an important milestone for new PhD students. This is where the University determines if, and how a student will continue on their programme of research. For students who are required to differentiate to Doctoral status (e.g. PhD students), it is recommended that reviews are held within nine months to allow for any remedial actions arising from the review to be completed within the year.

Schools may wish to hold APR meetings for students on each year of study at different times within the second semester.  This may enable the School to effectively schedule and administer APR, and to ensure that students receive feedback at a time that would benefit their future research.  It is recommended that APR meetings are held early enough to allow students to complete any remedial actions required for progression before they need to register for the next academic year.

APR Examples Based on Student Status

For year one full-time students on the PhD programme, the APR meeting should comprise the differentiation interview and take place approximately nine months after the student first enrols on the programme.  (For late enrollers, who would not be expected to differentiate until the next academic year, a light touch APR meeting should be held, such as that arranged for year one part-time students, see below.  Once differentiation has been completed at the appropriate time, these students should fit in with the normal cycle of APR meetings in subsequent years.)  Students being considered for differentiation should normally submit a differentiation report, a research plan, and a training record for consideration by the progress review panel.

Full-Time Students

For full-time students in year two and beyond, APR meetings may comprise a student presentation on their research, followed by a question and answer session.  Students should normally submit a training record, an updated research plan/completion timetable, and one or more of the following: a progress report, PowerPoint presentation, chapter outline, research degree submission overview, and chapter(s).  Schools may also consider a report from the supervisors.  These types of meetings could also be used with the majority of students on Professional Doctorate programmes.

Part-Time Students

For part-time students, Schools may wish to implement the approach outlined above at the end of the second, fourth and sixth years.  A lighter touch approach (e.g. reduced student submissions regarding progress, and brief progress review meetings) could be implemented at the end of the first, third, and fifth years.

External Students

For external students, and those who are studying away from the University, in accordance with Study Regulations for Research Degree Programmes, regulation 3.5, students are normally required to visit the University to take part in APR (including differentiation).  However, in exceptional cases where this is not possible, it would be acceptable to host the meeting between the progress review panel and student via Skype or alternative videoconferencing or teleconferencing approaches.

Students on Leave of Absence

For students who are on an approved leave of absence, a light touch approach could be implemented when the student has returned to studies, where this is out of sync with the usual APR cycle. The student should be afforded sufficient time to prepare the written submission, with advice from the supervisory team.  It would be good practice for the student to submit a brief research progress report to date, and a research plan for the next period, which is discussed during a brief meeting with the progress review panel.

Students Nearing Submission

All students who may need to register in the next academic year in order to have a final version of their submission approved prior to graduation must complete the APR process.  For students who are very near submission (as acknowledged by the principal supervisor), or who have submitted but are awaiting a viva, a light touch approach would be appropriate.  This is to act as a formal way of ‘keeping in touch’ in case there may be progress issues, whilst recognising that a full APR at this stage would not be appropriate.  These students may benefit from submitting the outline of their submission and one or more chapters for consideration by the panel.

Students Completing Corrections

For students who are completing corrections within a deadline, which occurs in the next academic year, a very light touch approach would be appropriate.  Students who have been asked to revise and resubmit their research degree submission for re-examination may benefit from submitting draft revised work to the progress review panel, and experiencing a mock oral examination (‘mock viva’) regarding the corrections.  For students who are completing corrections, the student submission may simply be a brief report on progress with the corrections, and the expected date of completion and submission of the corrections, and the APR panel meeting could be a very brief meeting to ensure that the student is on track and that there are no issues that would delay the completion.

Any students who are completing corrections within a deadline, which occurs in the current academic year, will not have to complete the APR process.  These students would be expected to register in the next academic year in order to graduate only.

These examples are not prescriptive but should be seen as guiding Schools in determining the most appropriate way of reviewing, documenting and verifying the progress of their research students.

Feedback after the APR Meeting

Students should receive written feedback from the progress review panel once the progress recommendation has been approved by the School Postgraduate Research Committee (SPRC).  It would be good practice for the supervisory team to receive a copy of this feedback to support the future progression of the student.

Referral to School Postgraduate Research Committee

Where a student has received a recommendation under Study Regulation for Research Degree Programmes, regulation 5.5.4 iv or v, or where a supervisor has serious concerns regarding a student’s progress outside of the APR cycle and submitted a report to the SPRC (Study Regulation for Research Degree Programmes, regulation 5.4.2), the student should be invited to appear before the SPRC before the decision is confirmed.

Where a student has been referred to the SPRC following the outcome of their APR, the purpose of the meeting is to provide the student with an opportunity to highlight any personal, medical, or other circumstances that may have affected their academic progress, which were not previously known to the School. This meeting is not intended to reconsider the academic judgement of the APR panel, nor to reassess the student’s academic progress independently of the APR process.

Where a student has been referred to the SPRC by their supervisor, the meeting will take the format of an exceptional APR. In such cases, the SPRC will consider the student’s academic progress in detail and determine whether the student is in a position to continue on the programme and complete it to the required standard.

In conducting meetings, the School must take appropriate steps to safeguard the student’s wellbeing. Students should be informed in advance of the purpose, format, and potential outcomes of the meeting to reduce unnecessary stress or uncertainty.

Where a student is registered with Accessible Learning, the School must ensure that any agreed reasonable adjustments are put in place for the meeting. The SPRC should be mindful of the sensitive nature of these meetings, ensuring that they are conducted in a professional, respectful, and supportive manner.

It is advised that the following steps are taken: 

1. The SPRC should inform the student in writing of the referral, the purpose of the meeting, and the possible outcomes. A copy of the report should be provided to the student.  The student should be given sufficient time to submit a report in response. 
2. The student should also be invited to attend the SPRC meeting to discuss their case. The student should be advised that they may be accompanied (Study Regulation for Research Degree Programmes, regulation 5.6.2).  Students should also be reminded that they may access support services and where applicable, reasonable adjustments must be made for students registered with Accessible Learning.
3. If the student attends the meeting, the Chair of the APR Panel or the supervisor should also attend. If the student does not attend the meeting without good cause, the SPRC can meet and reach a decision in their absence.
4. The SPRC should meet to review the case (quorum outlined in Study Regulation for Research Degree Programmes, regulation 5.6.1) and agree an outcome (powers of SPRC listed under Study Regulation for Research Degree Programmes, regulation 5.6.3).
5. The SPRC should inform the student in writing of the outcome within 5 working days.  They should also be informed of their right to appeal.

Additional Information

Registration at the beginning of an academic year is dependent on the completion of a satisfactory progress report by the end of the previous academic year.  Students who are dissatisfied with the outcome of the progress review may submit an academic appeal (Research Degree Programmes) if an appropriate ground for appeal can be evidenced.

It is considered good practice for draft differentiation reports, papers or submission chapters/sections, as appropriate, to be submitted by the School to the University’s similarity checking service (Turnitin) for feedback purposes, prior to Annual Progress Review.  The supervisory team should provide support to the student to help interpret the Turnitin report and, where required, offer advice on correct writing and citing of sources in line with the conventions of the discipline in which they are studying.  Further information is available at TurnitinUK | Academic & Student Affairs | Queen's University Belfast (qub.ac.uk).