- Academic Secretary
- Academic Policy and Document Portal
- External Examiners - Taught Programmes
- Academic Agreements
- Accreditation
- UCC Student Surveys
- People and Projects
- Policies under the remit of Academic Affairs and Governance
UCC Policy on Progress Reviews for Research Students
UCC Policy on Progress Reviews for Research Students (implementation from 1st February 2024)
Version number: 4.0
Review Date: 24 November 2023
Policy Owner: Academic Council Graduate Studies Committee
Approval Body: Academic Council
Next Review: 1 year from implementation (Feb 2025).
Contents
Purpose
All doctoral Students at UCC must engage with a formal research progress review, on an annual basis at a minimum. This formal research progress review is in addition to any regular meetings the Student has with their Supervisory Team.
Scope
This policy applies to all full-time and part-time Students registered on a postgraduate research programme (Research Master[1], Doctorate[2]) in UCC (the “Student”).
Definitions
Student means a postgraduate research student who is registered on a Doctoral or Master by Research programme.
A Unit is normally a School, Department or RICU as appropriately defined by College Rules and University Governance.
Policy Statement
Introduction
The following policy applies to all full-time and part-time Students registered on a postgraduate research programme (Research Master[1], Doctorate[2]) in UCC (the “Student”).
Guiding Principles
1. All Students at UCC must engage with a formal research progress review, on an annual basis at a minimum. This formal research progress review is in addition to any regular meetings the Student has with their Supervisory Team[3].
The following are recommended as a minimum:
Doctoral Students
Doctoral Students must complete a Research Learning Plan by month 3 of year 1, which outlines the plan for their training and research that year, as agreed with their Supervisory Team. Doctoral Students must submit a progress report by the end of month 9 of year 1, and every year thereafter until submission of their thesis (including beyond their approved period of study). The progress review must be completed by the Unit[4] by the end of each of the Student’s academic years, however it is recommended that the review is completed within 6 weeks of the end of month 9 of the student’s academic year.
Research Masters & PhD/MD by Prior Published Work
Research Masters & PhD/MD by Prior Published Work Students do not have to complete a formal progress review in year 1. They must complete a Research Learning Plan by month 3 of year 1, which outlines the plan for their training and research that year, as agreed with their Supervisory Team. If these Students go into year 2 or beyond, they will have to complete a progress review at month 6 of the second year, and every year thereafter until submission (including beyond their approved period of study). It is strongly recommended that the Student and Supervisory Team revise the research objectives by month 9 in year 1, reassess the timelines for completion of the Masters between months 9 and 12 in year 1, and revise them if required.
2. Annual registration is dependent on submission by the Student of a progress report no later than the end of month 9 of the Student’s academic year. A Student is not entitled to register in the absence of same. If a Student has an unsatisfactory review, they must engage in a re-review in accordance with this Policy.
3. The Unit of the Lead Supervisor will be deemed, for administrative purposes, to be the Unit of the Research Student. The Student will be assigned to the Graduate Studies Committee of this Unit (GSC of Unit) or its local equivalent.[5]
4. As stipulated in the Guidelines on the Roles and Responsibilities of Unit Graduate Studies Committees, it is the responsibility of the Chair of the Unit’s GSC to ensure that each doctoral Student, completes a progress review in accordance with this Policy at least once a year.
Policy Criteria
1. The purpose of the annual (at a minimum) research progress review is:
a. To underpin the National Framework for Doctoral Education. The purpose of the Framework is to: “Facilitate consistent excellence in the quality of postgraduate education and training, including research undertaken at masters and doctoral levels;” UCC has endorsed the principles of the framework including “formal monitoring of progress to completion against published criteria, supported by institutional arrangements.”
b. To recognise and acknowledge good progress.
c. To provide an opportunity for the Student to present aspects of their work and achievements to date.
d. For the Student to receive feedback on their research progress, postgraduate research skills development, personal development, and performance to date.
e. To provide the Student with the opportunity to highlight any matters about their research, training and supervision experience independently of supervisors.
f. To provide the Supervisory Team with the opportunity to highlight any matters about their supervisory experience independently of the Student.
g. To gauge the feasibility of completion within the approved period of study, and hence to collectively draft mitigation strategies, if required.
h. To ensure that the Student has set goals for the coming year’s study and training.
i. To ensure that the Student is making sufficient progress with their studies, taking into account the considerations above to progress.
j. To prepare, or revise, the Research Learning Plan for the coming year.
k. To provide guidance by way of re-review where concerns are expressed by the Progress Review Panel (PRP) following review under the criteria above.
2. In the event that a Student fails to submit a progress report by end of month 9, the progress review will be deemed as unsatisfactory, and the student will not be eligible to register for the next academic year.
3. In the event that a Student fails to present for a scheduled progress review meeting, in accordance with this policy, this will be deemed as an unsatisfactory review.
4. Additional circumstances requiring a research progress review are the following:
a. When an extension is required, for example when a Student does not complete the degree within the required timeframe (e.g., a Student is allowed a maximum of six years from their approved start date in which to complete a PhD).
b. When a change from Research Masters to a Doctorate is requested.
c. When returning from a Leave of Absence (LOA)[6], a review should take place within a 12-month registration period irrespective of the duration of the LOA.
In respect of each of (a) to (c) above, the Progress Review Panel (PRP) report will outline the decision of the PRP and must accompany the relevant change request.[7]
Progress Review Process
1. It is the responsibility of the chair of GSC of the Unit to ensure that a Progress Review Panel (PRP) is appointed for each Student.
2. For each Student, the PRP should comprise, at a minimum, two independent members of staff, one of whom will normally be a member of the GSC of Unit (or their nominee). These members of staff are independent from the research of the Student under review. If required, a member from another unit may be requested to be part of a PRP to ensure independence. One of these members of staff is assigned to be the Lead Reviewer. The Lead Reviewer is normally responsible for leading the review process, organising the review date and all administrative matters as detailed below. These staff members should normally hold a Doctorate degree and have already supervised at least one doctorate degree Student to completion.
3. The role of the PRP is to:
a. Assess if a Student is progressing in line with disciplinary requirements in research and training.
b. Encourage Student self-assessment in advance of the review.
c. Provide the Supervisory Team with the opportunity to reflect on Student progress.
d. Be evidence-based, such that the PRP has sufficient information to advise the Student and Supervisory Team on their progress.
4. It is the responsibility of the Student to submit the following documents online to the Unit via UCC’s research student admin system by the end of month 9 of each of the Student’s academic years:
a. A progress report: a written self-assessment submission, including research progress for the period, details on training modules completed (as per UCC’s Policy on Modules for Research Students), and a revised Research Learning Plan.
b. Students should also raise any issues that may have slowed or impeded research progression.
c. Where relevant, evidence of the Student’s having undertaken English language supports.
d. Where relevant, evidence that the Student has sought, and received confirmation of, ethical approval.
5. It is the responsibility of the Lead Supervisor to submit to the Unit online via UCC’s research student admin system no later than seven days after the student submission of their progress report
a. A written Supervisory Team report, including its views on Student progression, on agreed goals achieved, on agreed potential goals for the next period, and on any issues that may have slowed or impeded research progression. It should also include any ethical considerations.
6. The Progress Review format should include, at a minimum, one-to-one meetings between
a. The PRP and the Student; and
b. The PRP and the Supervisory Team independently.
7. It is the responsibility of the PRP to review all submitted documents.
8. The PRP will, following its review under this Policy, make one of the following recommendations regarding progression:
i. That the Student’s performance is satisfactory, and that the Student may progress to the next stage.
ii. That there were some concerns/shortcomings. In this instance, mitigation strategies should be proposed and agreed. The Student is required to undertake a re-review within 3 months (FTE) from the date of recommendation.
iii. If this is the 1st re-review, the PRP will consider the re-review and may make the following recommendations:
a. satisfactory as in (I) above or
b.recommend that shortcomings remain (although they will still need to be addressed). Where (b) arises, the Student must undertake a subsequent final review which is to be completed by a specified timeframe and where possible within 3 months (FTE) of the re-review; the outcome of which will result in either a conclusion that the progress is either satisfactory or unsatisfactory. The PRP Report must detail in writing the rationale for its conclusion.
iv. In the event that the final review is unsatisfactory, the GSC of Unit will then consider all PRP related documentation (including, but not limited to, student’s independent reports, supervisor’s independent reports, PRP reports) and then decide that either:
a. submission for a lower degree examination e.g. Master’s; or
b. that no submission for a Doctorate degree or Master’s degree examination be
completed by the Student, and that registration of the Student be terminated. If the Student is recipient of a scholarship, any subsequent fees and stipend will also be terminated.
9. The GSC of Unit decision must detail in writing the rationale for its decision.
10. The GSC of Unit is responsible for formal notification of the decision to the Student and to the Supervisory Team.
Request for Independent Review of the PRP recommendation[8]
A Request for Independent Review on the outcome the final PRP Report (hereafter “Request for Review”), as outlined in section 8.IV, can be lodged in writing with the Dean of Doctoral Studies within 21 days of the PRP recommendation being notified to the Student by the GSC of Unit, based on the grounds below listed.
(“Request for Review”). A Request for Review may be lodged on one or both of the following grounds:
- Procedural Irregularity: There has been a substantive procedural irregularity that has demonstrably affected the outcome of the recommendation.
- Extenuating Circumstances: At the time of the PRP consideration and for reasons outside of the Student’s control, extenuating circumstances were not presented to, known by, or considered by the PRP at the time of the review. This information may have given rise to an alternative recommendation.
Upon receipt of the Request for Review, the Dean of Doctoral Studies will write to the Student to advise the Student of the review grounds available (if not already outlined or claimed by the Student in the Request for Review received)
The Dean of Doctoral Studies will convene an Independent Review Panel (IRP) within 21 days of receipt of the Request for Review.
Independent Review Panel (“IRP”)
The Independent Review Panel (“IRP”) will include the Dean of Doctoral Studies (or a nominee), the Chair of the University Examination Appeals Committee (or a nominee), and at least one member from a panel of four representing each of the four Colleges, who are nominated by the Academic Council These four members will be appointed and approved by AC normally for a period of 3 years. The IRP membership will have no more than a 1/3 of the panel rotation on the same year. Members of the IRP must have acted as lead supervisor of two PhD students to completion, as a minimum. Normally, the Dean of Doctoral Studies will act as Chair of the IRP.
Process
The review will be determined by the IRP based on written Request for Review submission and documentary evidence. A copy of the Request for Review and any other relevant supporting evidence submitted by the Student will be sent to the GSC of Unit for a written response. The Chair of the IRP will arrange to provide the IRP with the following, in advance of its meeting:
1. The PRP recommendation and any prior PRP reports and/or recommendations, and any documentation regarding re-review under this Policy.
2. The application for Request for Review.
3. The written response to the Request for Review (detailing grounds of review) of the student, by the GSC of Unit.
4. Any additional information that may be requested from time to time by the IRP following review of (1) and (2) above.
Based on its review of the above documentation, the IRP will decide to either;
a. Uphold the Review, in full or in part or;
b. Not uphold the Review
In cases where an IRP upholds the review, or either or both grounds stated in section 11, the IRP will revoke the original decision of the GSC of Unit, and as appropriate, require the relevant GSC of Unit to allow the Student one further opportunity to satisfy the requirements of a satisfactory progress review, as per section 8.IV with a new independent PRP, under the Policy.
The decision of the IRP will be communicated to the Student, the Supervisory Team and the GSC of Unit, in writing by the Chair of the IRP, normally within 6 weeks of date of receipt of the Request for Review. The decision of the IRP is final.
Annual Report
Each year, the Dean of Doctoral Studies will prepare a report for Academic Council on the number and nature of Request for Reviews, identifying their outcomes and any issues that may have arisen.
Timelines
Re-review (and IRP review, if applicable) must be completed within 12 months of the current registration period.
[1] Masters Students must have a progress review if registered for more than one year.
[2] PhD, Thematic PhD, Practitioner Doctorate, MD
[3] UCC Policy on the Supervision of Research Students states: minimum of 10 recorded meetings per annum for full-time Students and 5 for part-time.
[4] UCC Policy on the Supervision of Research Students, page 1, point 10.
[5]UCC Policy on the Supervision of Research Students, page 4, point 21, b
[6] UCC Policy on Leave of Absence for Research Students
[7] “Change request” is the collective administrative term used in relation to changes to the research Student record, e.g. change from Master to PhD, change from full-time to part-time, requests for Leave of Absence, Extension, etc.
[8] This “appeals” section of the policy is under further review.
Approved by Academic Council 24 November 2023 on the recommendation of Academic Council Graduate Studies Committee.
The policy supersedes:
Progress Review Policy for Research Students, (Amended), Academic Council, June 2014
Progress Review Policy for Research Students, Academic Council, November 2010
Related Documents
UCC Policy on the Supervision of Research Students
Guidelines on the Roles and Responsibilities of Unit Graduate Studies Committees
UCC Policy on Leave of Absence for Research Students
UCC’s Policy on Modules for Research Students
National Framework for Doctoral Education
Contact for Further Information
Dean of Doctoral Studies dds@ucc.ie