Academic Quality Framework Chapter 17, Part J

Introduction

1. The PhD Programme Management Board, University of Kent and Northeastern University London (‘PhD PMB’) is responsible for the strategic oversight of doctoral programmes at Northeastern University London (‘the University’) delivered through the validation agreement with the University of Kent.

Student Progress Reports

2. Records of formal supervision meetings should be maintained (see AQF17: Research Programmes of Study, Part H: Supervision for details).
3. The Doctoral School (‘the DS’) is responsible for ensuring that there is a record of the student’s candidature, including the supervisory record, progress review reports and any other information related to the candidature of the student including formal communications to and from the student.

Student Progress Reviews

4. There will be the following progression monitoring stages for students, set out in the paragraphs below.

Initial Meeting

5. Primary Supervisors should hold an initial meeting with their students within the first two weeks of registration to set out what they will be required to have completed by the end of the induction period.

Induction Review

6. Progression Stage: Induction Review – PhD Students: This should be completed within six weeks of registration.
7. Description of review: The induction review should involve the student and Primary Supervisors. The induction review should focus on the following:
   1. Consideration of the student’s research topic as set out in the project proposal;
   2. Drafting of a work plan and targets to meet ahead of the next review (probation);
   3. Identification of key publications and/or sources relevant to the research topic;
   4. Identification of skills training opportunities (supervisors should ensure that their students are aware of: (i) any obligatory training which must be undertaken within the University and (ii) the University of Kent’s Graduate and Researcher College’s Researcher Development Programme and the requirement for all new PhD students to complete a Researcher Development Assessment, which they are introduced to at a Researcher Development Assessment Workshop (Please note that this is not a requirement for MA, MSc or MPhil students). This must be completed by the end of the probation period;
   5. Discussion of any initial concerns;
   6. Discussion of any work the student is undertaking in addition to their research which may impact on progress;
   7. Identification and discussion of potential resources and facilities available to the student both internally (within the Northeastern network), through the University of Kent, and externally during their research;
   8. Consideration of any additional support which the student may require (e.g. English language support). Where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the student has mental health problems, the appropriate advice and support should be sought from Student Support and Development;
   9. Discussion and identification of the ways in which the supervisory team-student relationship will work (e.g. preferred means of contact (email, phone etc), feedback mechanisms and turnaround times);
   10. The Main Supervisor should complete the induction review form and return it to the DS within a week of the meeting. The form should then be reviewed and approved by the Director of the Doctoral School or their nominee (except where they are a member of the student’s supervisory team, where another member of the PhD PMB should be co-opted to act on behalf of the PhD PMB).
8. The DS will report on the completion of the induction review process as part of the annual monitoring process (see AQF17: Research Programmes of Study, Part E: Annual Monitoring and Reporting).

Probation Review

9. Progression Stage: Probation Review – PhD Students
10. Full-time students: This should be completed within ten months of registration.
11. The probation review will involve a meeting between the student, Main Supervisor and Supervisory Chair (in cases where the Main Supervisor is not the Supervisory Chair) and the Director of the Doctoral School h or their nominee (who will act as Chair) (The Panel). Where the Director of the Doctoral School is a member of the student’s supervisory team, another member of the PhD PMB should be co-opted to act on behalf of the PhD PMB.
12. The principal function of the probation review is to ensure that the student has embarked on the main body of their research and to address any issues of concern to students or supervisors. The probation review should focus on the following:
13. Consideration of a portfolio of work (prepared by the student) which includes:
    1. Summary of work carried out to date;
    2. Planned schedule of future work;
    3. A sample of written work: The DS will need to specify what is required for the subject area in question;
    4. Completed review forms;
    5. Record of supervisory meetings;
    6. Completed Researcher Development Assessment (for PhD students only).
14. Formal review of targets and work plan set at the induction review.
15. Identification of future targets and work plan. This should include a description of research milestones required for the completion of a project in the particular discipline concerned. The supervisor should ensure that the student is aware of what the next scheduled review will entail and what needs to be prepared by the student in anticipation of this.
16. Skills training:
    1. Record of skills training undertaken since the induction review (including a check to ensure that PhD students have attended a workshop on the Researcher Development Assessment and completed a Researcher Development Assessment; Please note that this is not a requirement for MA, MSc or MPhil students; please note that this is not a requirement for MA, MSc or MPhil students);
    2. Review of the student’s completed Researcher Development Assessment and identification of future skills training opportunities.
17. Note: Completion of a ‘Researcher Development Assessment’ is compulsory for all PhD students prior to the probation review. Students are introduced to the Researcher Development Assessment through attendance at a Researcher Development Assessment (part of the University of Kent’s Graduate & Research College Researcher Development Programme).
    1. Identification of key publications and/or sources relevant to the research topic;
    2. Ethical consideration of the project;
    3. Consideration of any work being undertaken in addition to the research degree to ensure that this is not adversely affecting progression of the research;
    4. Review and discussion of the efficacy of the current working relationship between the supervisory team and the student (e.g. means of contact (email, phone etc), meeting format/frequency, feedback mechanisms and turnaround times);
    5. Where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the student has mental health problems, the appropriate advice and support should be sought from Student Support and Development;
    6. Review of publishing opportunities (if considered appropriate).
18. The probation review may end with the Panel recommending one of the following:
    1. The student is making good progress for the award for which they are registered and should proceed with their registration;
    2. There are concerns about the student’s progress but they may proceed with their registration subject to review during the next academic year (the Panel should set a date for a mid-year review. The date of the mid-year review should be set at the Panel’s discretion but should normally take place within six months of the next end of year review).
19. If the Panel determines that the student has not made adequate progress and/or has not produced work of a sufficient quality to enable them to complete their current research degree, it may make one of the following recommendations:
    1. That the student transfers their registration to the award of MPhil and submit a thesis for the degree of MPhil (this is applicable for PhD students);
    2. That the student transfers their registration to the award of MA/MSc/LLM and submit a thesis for the degree of MA/MSc/LLM (this is applicable for PhD and MPhil students);
    3. That the student should withdraw from the University;
    4. The student will have the opportunity to appeal against decisions iv-vi under the Standing Orders Governing Research Appeals.
20. The outcome of the review should be agreed by the Panel and the recommendation communicated to the student on the day of the review itself or, exceptionally, within a couple of days of the review if there is a need for further discussion by the Panel. The review form should be completed by a representative of the Panel and submitted to the Doctoral School (DS)within a week of the meeting itself and be approved by the Director of the Doctoral School or their nominee. The representative must inform Registry of the outcome of the review simultaneously.
21. The DS will report on the completion of the probation review process to the PhD PMB as part of the annual monitoring process (see AQF17: Research Programmes of Study, Part E: Annual Monitoring and Reporting).

Mid-year Review

22. Progression Stage: Mid-year Review: The mid-year review will be conducted in cases where there were concerns about a student’s progress at the end of year review and the Panel selected recommendation 18.2 “that there are concerns about the student’s progress but they may proceed with their registration subject to review…”. The mid-year review will be scheduled to take place on a date agreed by the Panel at the previous end of year review.
23. The mid-year review will involve a meeting between the student, Main Supervisor, Supervisory Chair (where they are not the Main Supervisor) and Director of the School or their nominee (who will act as Chair). Where the Director of the Doctoral School is a member of the student’s supervisory team, another member of the PhD PMB should be co-opted to act on behalf of the PhD PMB. The Panel will need to make one of the recommendations below from the end-of-year-review recommendation options #34 – 35.
24. The mid-year review will focus on the following:
    1. Formal review of targets and work plan set at the end of year review;
    2. Skills training undertaken since the end of year review;
    3. Identification of any further areas of concern;
    4. Identification of targets and work plan for review at the end of the current year. Review and discussion of the efficacy of the current working relationship between supervisory team and student (e.g. means of contact (email, phone etc), meeting format/frequency, feedback mechanisms and turnaround times);
    5. Where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the student has mental health problems, the appropriate advice and support should be sought from Student Support and Development.
25. At the mid-year review the Panel may recommend one of the following:
    1. The student is making exemplary progress for the award for which they are registered and should proceed with registration;
    2. The student is making satisfactory progress for the award for which they are registered and should proceed with registration;
    3. There are concerns about the student’s progress but they may proceed with registration subject to review during the same academic year (the Panel should set a date for a further mid-year review).
26. If the Panel determines that the student has not made adequate progress and/or has not produced work of a sufficient quality to enable them to complete their current research degree, it may make one of the following recommendations:
    1. That the student transfer their registration to the award of MPhil and submit a thesis for the degree of MPhil (this is applicable for PhD students);
    2. That the student transfer their registration to the award of MA/MSc/LLM and submit a thesis for the degree of MA/MSc/LLM (this is applicable for PhD and MPhil students);
    3. That the student should withdraw from the University.
27. The outcome of the review should be agreed by the Panel and the recommendation communicated to the student on the day of the review itself or exceptionally within a couple of days of the review if there is a need for further discussion by the Panel. The review form should be completed by a representative of the Panel and submitted to the DS within a week of the meeting itself and be approved by the Director of the Doctoral School, or their nominee. Where the Director of the Doctoral School is a member of the student’s supervisory team, another member of the PhD PMB should be co-opted to act on behalf of the PhD PMB. The representative must inform Registry of the outcome of the review simultaneously.
28. The student will have the opportunity to appeal against decisions iv-vi under the Standing Orders Governing Research Appeals.
29. The DS will report on the completion of the mid-year review process to the PhD PMB as part of the annual monitoring process (see AQF17: Research Programmes of Study, Part E: Annual Monitoring and Reporting).

End of Year Review

30. Progression Stage: End of Year Review: The Probation Review fulfils the purpose of an end of year review) during the first year of research.
31. Thereafter students are subject to end of year reviews (see schedule of reviews in the appendix).
32. The end of year review will involve a meeting between the student, Main Supervisor, Supervisory Chair (where they are not the Main Supervisor), and the Director of the Doctoral School or their nominee (who will act as Chair). Where the Director of the Doctoral School is a member of the student’s supervisory team, another member of the PhD PMB should be co-opted to act on behalf of the PhD PMB. The DS may require other members of the supervisory team (e.g. second supervisor) to be present at the end of year review. The end of year review should be used to ensure that the quality of research undertaken to date is of sufficient quality for the research degree for which the student is registered and that the plan for completion of the research project is on target.
33. The end of year review will focus on the following:
    1. Consideration of a portfolio of work (prepared by the student) which includes:
       1. Summary of work carried out to date;
       2. Planned schedule of future work (including a timetable);
       3. A sample of written work (The DS will need to specify what is required for the subject area in question);
       4. Review forms;
       5. Record of supervisory meetings;
       6. Completed skills audit.
    2. Any other subject-specific requirements set by the individual Discipline (this should be outlined in the relevant research programme specification);
    3. Formal review of targets and work plan set at the previous review;
    4. Setting a future work plan and targets;
    5. Review of work being undertaken in addition to the research degree to ensure that this is not adversely affecting the progression of the research;
    6. Review of publishing opportunities (if considered appropriate);
    7. Review and discussion of the efficacy of the current working relationship between supervisory team and student (e.g. means of contact (email, phone etc), meeting format/frequency, feedback mechanisms and turnaround times);
    8. Where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the student has mental health problems, the appropriate advice and support should be sought from Student Support and Development;
    9. Completion of the end of year review form.
34. An end of year review at which the Panel will recommend one of the following:
    1. The student is making exemplary progress for the award for which they are registered and should proceed with registration;
    2. The student is making satisfactory progress for the award for which they are registered and should proceed with registration;
    3. There are concerns about the student’s progress, but they may proceed with registration subject to review during the next academic year (the Panel should set a date for a mid-year review. The date of the mid-year review should be set at the Panel’s discretion, but this should normally take place within six months of the end of year review.
35. If the Panel determines that the student has not made adequate progress and/or has not produced work of a sufficient quality to enable them to complete their current research degree, it may make one of the following recommendations:
    1. That the student transfer their registration to the award of MPhil and submit a thesis for the degree of MPhil (this is applicable for PhD students);
    2. That the student transfer their registration to the award of MA/MSc/LLM and submit a thesis for the degree of MA/MSc/LLM (this is applicable for PhD and MPhil students);
    3. That the student should withdraw from the University.
36. The outcome of the review should be agreed by the Panel and the recommendation communicated to the student on the day of the review itself or exceptionally within a couple of days of the review if there is a need for further discussion by the Panel. The review form should be completed by a representative of the Panel and submitted to the DS within a week of the meeting itself and be approved by the Director of the Doctoral School or their nominee. Where the Director of the Doctoral School is a member of the student’s supervisory team, another member of the PhD PMB should be co-opted to act on behalf of the PhD PMB.
37. The student will have the opportunity to appeal against the outcome under the Standing Orders Governing Research Appeals.
38. The DS will report on the completion of the end-of-year review process to the PhD PMB as part of the annual monitoring process (see AQF17: Research Programmes of Study, Part E: Annual Monitoring and Reporting).
39. Note 2: The outcome and recommendation of a review Panel should be communicated to the student formally in writing. In cases where concerns have been noted at the end of year review, this communication should include a record of actions which the student is required to take in order to improve their performance.

Submission Review

40. Progression Stage: Submission Review – PhD Students (full-time): Normally three months prior to the end of the minimum period of PhD registration.
41. It is the expectation of the University that the student will undertake a programme of supervised research and training during the minimum period of registration (e.g. first three years for full-time PhD students and for the first five years for part-time PhD students). The principal function of the Submission Review is to ensure that the student is in a position to complete and submit their research in the allotted time.
42. The review will be undertaken by the Main Supervisor, another member of the supervisory team and the Director of the Doctoral School or their nominee (who will act as chair). Where the Director of the Doctoral School is a member of the student’s supervisory team, another member of the PhD PMB should be co-opted to act on behalf of the PhD PMB. The Panel may make one of the following recommendations:
    1. The student has made good progress and will be in a position to submit at the end of the minimum period of registration (e.g. three years for full-time PhD students);
    2. The student has made sufficient progress to proceed to a continuation category of registration. This recommendation should only be made when a student: (a) is only making use of the University’s general facilities, (b) will no longer be using laboratories or other specialist facilities and (c) will only be receiving advice related to the finalisation of their research and thesis.
43. If the Panel determines that the student has not made adequate progress and/or has not produced work of a sufficient quality to enable them to complete their research degree, it may make one of the following recommendations:
    1. The student has made insufficient progress to proceed to the continuation category of registration and should have their period of supervised research and training extended for a set period (during which time the student should be charged full fees. This period should be between one and 12 months only). In cases where the period of supervised research and training is extended, the Panel should schedule a second submission review to review progress. If it is determined that the candidate can proceed to the continuation category of registration at the second submission review, they may be transferred to this status for the remainder of their fourth year (for FT PhD students). In cases where the period of supervised research and training is extended for a period of 12 months, it is recommended that there should be both a mid-year review and second submission review scheduled;
    2. The student transfers registration to the award of MPhil and submit a thesis for the degree of MPhil;
    3. The student transfers registration to the award of MA/MSc/LLM and submit a thesis for the degree of MA/MSc/LLM;
    4. The student should withdraw from the University.
44. The student will have the opportunity to appeal against the outcome under the Standing Orders Governing Research Appeals.
45. The outcome of the review should be agreed by the Panel and the recommendation communicated to the student on the day of the review itself or exceptionally within a couple of days of the review if there is a need for further discussion by the Panel. The review form should be completed by a representative of the Panel and submitted to the Doctoral School within a week of the meeting itself and be approved by the Director of the Doctoral School. Where the Director of the Doctoral School is a member of the student’s supervisory team, another member of the PhD PMB should be co-opted to act on behalf of the PhD PMB.
46. The Submission Review Panel will use this review as an opportunity to explain the different options available for final deposit of the thesis into the open access repository R (i.e. (a) open access; (b) temporary embargo for one year or three years or (c) permanent restriction to electronic public access) following successful completion of the research degree, and the student will be referred to appropriate guidance.
47. Once the recommendations have been approved by the Director of the Doctoral School the DS should be informed. The DS will be responsible for: (a) checking that the status of full-time PhD students (entering the 4th year of registration) are correct and (b) informing Registry of the changing category of the students so it can be entered onto the student records system when they are approved to transfer to the continuation category of registration (recommendation ii).
48. Where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the student has mental health problems, the appropriate advice and support should be sought from Student Support and Development.
49. The DS will report on the completion of submission review to the PhD PMB as part of the annual monitoring process (see AQF17: Research Programmes of Study, Part E: Annual Monitoring and Reporting).

Completion Phase Reviews for PhD Students

50. It is the expectation of the University that the supervisor should be in contact with their PhD students on a monthly basis during the continuation year, however, there will be two more formal opportunities to review progress during the continuation year.
51. Progression Stage: Continuation Year Review 1 for PhD Students (if required) (full-time): Five months into the Completion Phase.
52. If the student has not submitted their thesis by the fifth month of the continuation year there should be a formal review with the supervisor and Director of the Doctoral School or their nominee to consider the student’s progress towards submission. The outcome of the review should be agreed by the Panel and the recommendation communicated to the student on the day of the review itself or exceptionally within a couple of days of the review if there is a need for further discussion by the Panel. The review form should be completed by a representative of the Panel and submitted to the DS within a week of the meeting itself and be approved by the Director of the Doctoral School (except where the Director of the Doctoral School Research is a member of the student’s supervisory team, where another member of the PhD PMB should be co-opted to act on behalf of the PhD PMB).
53. Progression Stage: Completion Phase Review 2 for PhD Students (if required) (full-time): 10 months into the Completion Phase.
54. If the student has not submitted their thesis by the tenth month of the continuation year there should be a formal review with the supervisor and Director of Doctoral School or their nominee to consider the student’s progress towards submission. The review should be used to determine if the student will be in a position to submit their thesis by the end of the continuation year. In extraordinary circumstances the Panel may recommend to the DS that the student proceed to a final writing-up period for a set period. This period should not extend beyond 12 months. The outcome of the review should be agreed by the Panel and the recommendation communicated to the student on the day of the review itself or exceptionally within a couple of days of the review if there is a need for further discussion by the Panel. The review form should be completed by a representative of the Panel and submitted to the DS within a week of the meeting itself and be approved by the Director of the Doctoral School or their nominee (except where the Director of the Doctoral School is a member of the student’s supervisory team, where another member of the PhD PMB should be co-opted to act on behalf of the PhD PMB). The DS will report statistics which relate to these students to the PhD PMB as part of the annual monitoring process.

Upgrading Review

55. In cases where students originally registered for one type of research degree may be eligible to upgrade to a higher level research degree, Panels may use an end of year review or a specially convened review to determine this. The principal function of this review is to make judgements on the capabilities of the student and the viability of the project for an award at a higher level. The review should involve the student, Main Supervisor (as an observer), an academic staff member independent from the supervisory team and the Director of the Doctoral School (who will normally act as Chair). Where the Director of the Doctoral School is a member of the student’s supervisory team, another member of the PhD PMB should be co-opted to act on behalf of the PhD PMB. The principal function of this review is to make judgements on the capabilities of the student and the viability of the project for an award at a higher level. If appropriate, the Panel for this meeting may also include an external member. This review must be completed at least six months prior to the end of the student’s current period of registration.
56. The decision to upgrade should be based on a portfolio which should include:
    1. A summary of the work carried out;
    2. A planned schedule of work, a substantial piece of written work;
    3. Progress report forms;
    4. A statement from the supervisor indicating whether or not they support the upgrade.
57. The student should be interviewed by the Panel and this should take the form of a viva voce examination. The recommendation of the Panel may be one of the following:
    1. The student may transfer to the PhD or MPhil;
    2. The student may not transfer but may proceed with their registration, with one further option to upgrade being allowed within a specified period of time;
    3. The student may not transfer but may continue their registration and submit a thesis for the degree for which they are registered;
    4. The student should withdraw from the University.

Concerns about Progress

58. This Part identifies set points at which the progress of students will be reviewed by the DS. Students should also be meeting regularly with their supervisors as per the requirements of AQF17: Research Programmes of Study, Part H: Supervision.
59. From time to time, the DS may identify a case where a student is failing to perform satisfactorily. If a formal review is imminent, concerns about poor progress should be raised formally at this time. If a review is not imminent and less formal attempts to resolve issues relating to unsatisfactory progress have not been successful (e.g. meetings with supervisors), the DS is advised to send a warning letter to the student (i) outlining the issues, (ii) inviting them to a meeting to discuss them and (iii) advising them of the possible outcomes should their progress fail to improve. The letter should be sent from the Director of the Doctoral School with responsibility for research programmes of study.
60. The Regulations for Research Courses of Study provide for the termination of a student’s registration in the event of unsatisfactory progress. However, in cases where termination of registration is recommended to the University by the DS either at a formal review stage or during the course of the academic year, it is essential for the DS to be able to show that it has a clear record of all communications with the student. The University will normally wish to see that the student has received two formal warnings about their progress prior to making a recommendation for termination of registration. The PhD PMB will wish to see evidence that the student has had the issues explained to them on two occasions and been advised of the consequences should the DS fail to see an improvement in their progress or attendance in the future. The two formal warnings could include a letter about unsatisfactory progress sent to the student during the course of the year or a letter sent to the student following a formal end of year review in which the review Panel has identified concerns about the student’s progress. Example templates for first and second warning letters can be found in the Forms Library.
61. If a student fails to improve following two warnings from the DS, the DS may recommend to the University that their registration be terminated (this recommendation may be made as part of an end of year review or during the course of an academic year). The case will be considered by the Director of the Doctoral School or their nominee who will provide the student with an opportunity to appeal the recommendation. An example template for the letter which would be sent out is provided in the Forms Library. If withdrawal is recommended, the two formal warning letters and any other relevant information should be sent.

Examination

62. It is the responsibility of the PhD PMB to ensure that all students are examined in accordance with the appropriate University Regulations.
63. The University will publish detailed criteria for the assessment of each of its research awards.

Progression Review Stages

Full time PhD Students

Review Stages:

1. Induction Review (6 weeks)
2. Probation Review (10 months)
3. End of Year 2 Review (24 months)
4. Submission Review (33 months)
5. Continuation Year Review 1 (41 months)
6. Continuation Year Review 2 (46 months)

Note: In cases where a research student intermits from their period of research for a set period, the timings above would need to be adjusted accordingly.

Version History