School of Computer Science and Engineering
Guidelines for Research Student Reviews

You might also like to look at a more recent University draft report on Progress Reviews.

It includes information (again note that it is a draft) on the University's perception of the responsibilities of students, supervisors, school postgraduate coordinators, and the School/Faculty/University itself.

Reviews must be documented on the Faculty's Standard Research Student Review Form. The review process includes but is not limited to obtaining the information necessary to complete this form. All reviews must result in a written report signed by the committee. The supervisor and student must also sign that they have sighted the report. A copy of the report must go in the student's school file, and another copy to Postgraduate Section.

Initial Review

• It is desirable that there should be a presentation of the thesis proposal at a seminar. Attendance at the seminar will be open to the School and other invited persons. A particular aim of the seminar is to obtain feedback and constructive suggestions on the proposed research.
  Three weeks prior to the review a written research proposal and description of the student's review of the literature plans should be submitted for distribution to the review group.
• The review will be undertaken by a review group including Departmental Research Student Review Coordinator (unless this person is the supervisor of the student), and least two other members of the School. The candidate will submit a written programme proposal to the committee for review. The programme proposal will address the following:
  
  • the research proposed - a defined thesis topic - how will this meet the aims of the PhD programme?
  • 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.
• The review committee for a particular student must not include the supervisor of the student being reviewed, but may include the co-supervisor. Normal practice at interivews would be separate interviews with student and supervisor separately, and then together, particularly if the committee has any suggestions or comments about how things might be different.
• Formal discussion on the proposal will take place at a meeting of the review group, the student, and the supervisor(s).
• There will be standing opportunities for the student to meet separately with the Head of Department, and/or Head of School, if this is felt to be necessary.
• The review group will agree on a programme for the student which will then be forwarded to Postgraduate Section.
• This initial review should be completed by the end of the candidate's second session of enrolment, in time for a follow-up review (see below) to occur before the next year's enrolment deadline in the case of a candidate who first enrols in session 1.

Second Review

• There should be a presentation of the thesis project at a seminar. This could be on work in progress or a seminar paper on a discrete part of the project. Three weeks prior to the review a written report on all completed work and future research plans should be submitted for distribution to the review group.
• Attendance at the seminar will be open to the School and other invited persons. The review group should be in attendance. The group should include the Departmental Research Student Review Coordinator, and least two other member of the School. In appropriate cases a person external to the School may be invited to serve on the review committee.
• The review committee for a particular student must not include the supervisor of the student being reviewed, but may include the co-supervisor. Normal practice at interivews would be separate interviews with student and supervisor separately, and then together, particularly if the committee has any suggestions or comments about how things might be different.
• Following the seminar (possibly on the same day) the student and supervisor(s) should meet with the review group 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 this meeting, the committee will decide on a recommendation with respect to confirmation of PhD enrolment. Consideration of suspension (in special circumstances) or cancellation for lack of progress should be made at this stage. A report on this review must be forwarded promptly to Postgraduate Section.

  A candidate cannot continue enrolment if this review is unsatisfactory, although the review group may recommend that the student repeat the review process, this follow-up review being undertaken within 3 months. If the review is again unsatisfactory, cancellation of enrolment will be seriously considered. In the case of a first unsatisfactory review of this type, the review outcome will be forwarded to Postgraduate Section, but normally not referred to the Higher Degree Committee for exclusion unless and until the follow-up review had been carried out, with a second "unsatisfactory" outcome.

  The second review will normally take place towards the end of the second year of enrolment.

Subsequent Reviews