|
These guidelines outline the procedure involved in reviewing postgraduate research
students. Students requiring information about conducting a review should consult the "
Guidelines for Conducting a Review". The University's policy
guidelines with respect to reviews can be found in section 3.4 in the document "Guidelines for the
Supervision of Postgraduate Research".
Reviews are documented on the individualised review forms that are emailed to each
student (if you have not received yours, please contact the
Research Team)
. The review is overseen
by a review panel comprising 3 academics, headed by a chair person. The review committee must not
include the supervisor or co-supervisor of the student being reviewed. Normal practice at
interviews would be separate interviews with student and supervisor at the completion of the review
talk.
An initial review is conducted within the first 12 months of a research student's
enrolment. Subsequent review/s are conducted every twelve months after the initial review. An
important aspect of the review process is for the student to obtain feedback and constructive
suggestions on the research. It is also a way for the school (University) to monitor progress.
Attendance at the review is open to students and all staff members in the School and other invited
persons.
Initial Review
A focus of the initial review is a presentation of the thesis proposal. The
candidate should submit a written program proposal to the committee for review before the review
talk is scheduled. The program proposal should address the following:
- The research proposed - a defined thesis topic - how will this meet the aims of the PhD/ME/MSc
program?
- The plan of research - how the research will be conducted - the methods of investigation to be
used - the resources required and how these are to be obtained.
- A survey of related work - a preliminary literature survey.
- Constraints on progress - financial, physical, necessary skills (need to acquire necessary
skills, etc.).
- Intellectual property issues, where relevant.
After the review talk a discussion on the research proposal will take place at a
meeting of the review committee, the student, and the supervisor/s.
Subsequent Reviews
For the subsequent reviews, the talk should describe work in progress and give an
overview of work required to complete the research and final thesis.
Following the talk, the student and supervisor/s should meet with the review
committee to:
- Critically review the project and future research plans.
- Discuss any problems.
- Renegotiate any understandings between the student and the School, if necessary.
- Request from the candidate the names of any persons about whose potential role as examiner s/he
may have concern.
- Agree on a target date for submission.
After the review, the panel will decide on a recommendation with respect to
confirmation of PhD/ME/MSc enrolment. This recommendation can be 'satisfactory', 'marginal' or
'unsatisfactory'.
If the review was assessed to be 'good' or 'satisfactory", your next review should
be held within 12 months, unless stated otherwise.
In the case of a 'marginal' review outcome, a follow-up review should be undertaken
within 3 months. If the follow-up review outcome is 'unsatisfactory', then the matter will be
referred to the Higher Degree Committee (as above).
In the case of an 'unsatisfactory' review outcome, the matter will immediately be
referred to the Higher Degree Committee, who will ask the student to show cause why they should be
allowed to continue enrolment.
All signed review forms are to be sent to the CSE Student Office. Note that the
chair of the panel, the supervisor/s and the student must sign the form. If the student does not
agree with the contents of the report, this should be noted.
|
