Policy for Reviewing the Progress of Postgraduate Research Students

It is essential that all PGRs are formally assessed in line with the expectations set out in the Research Degrees Regulations. This document sets out the policy and procedures for the clear and transparent monitoring and review of Postgraduate Research Students’ (PGR) performance and progression.  This is in addition regular supervisory meetings. 

Principles of Progression Monitoring

This guidance on progression monitoring is based on the following principles:

• It must be evidence based
• It must take place at regular intervals
• It is supplemented by specific guidance on disciplinary norms and expectations in subject areas by faculty level handbooks overseen by Faculty Research Degrees Committees
• It must be evidenced via eDoc
• PGRs and supervisory teams have a collective responsibility to meet the expectations and deadlines for progression monitoring milestones
• The content of progress reviews will be evidence in cases where there is an appeal/complaint

When a PGR’s academic progress is unsatisfactory, or there are concerns about their performance, the procedures laid out in this document must be followed.

Overview and timescales for completion of formal milestones

The requirements for formal progress review, to be completed in e-Doc, are:

Programme Approval - Full Time at 3 months / Part Time at 6 months

Confirmation of Registration (PhD only) - Full Time at 12 months / Part Time at 24 months

Annual Progress Review - Full time annually following Confirmation of Registration / Part time at 12 months and then annually following Confirmation of Registration.  PGRs are not expected to undertake Confirmation of Registration and Annual Progress Review in the same year.  

Submission Planning - Full time and Part Time at 3 months before the planned submission of the thesis.

The Lead Supervisor should ensure that appropriate review arrangements for PGRs studying by distance learning, on field visits or on split-site arrangements, are in place.

Formal Supervision Meetings

There should be a minimum of ten formal supervision meetings per year for full time PGRs (the equivalent for part-time PGRs is five meetings) recorded on eDoc. 

Faculty Research Degree Committees (FRDC) are responsible for ensuring the minimum number of meetings are met and recorded on eDoc.

At the outset there should be an introductory meeting with the full supervisory team and this must be logged on eDoc. See section below 'First meeting with supervisory team guidance' tab for suggestions about areas to be explored and discussed as part of this meeting.

Meetings can take place in person, virtually or a mixture of both.  The logistics of how meetings will operate should be discussed at the outset and it should be a joint decision between the PGR and the supervisory team as to how meetings will work

Following admission to a research degree, a PGR will apply for Programme Approval for their project within the first three months of full time study (or six months for part time). 

The following are mandatory requirements for programme approval and PGRS will not be able to proceed with the submission without providing evidence of the following:

• Attendance at a faculty induction. Note that this is separate to the welcome event hosted by the Doctoral Academy.PGRs will need to sign up for an induction event on eDoc.
• Completion of the Research Ethics online training module on Canvas.A certificate to evidence completion of the module will need to be uploaded to eDoc.
• That a training plan has been made and updated

The FRDC is responsible for the approval process. Approval is a discipline-informed and critical review of the proposed project.

It should consider:

• The viability of the research
• The composition of the supervisory team
• Ensure that School Directors have approved resources to support the research.
• That applicants for approval have completed appropriate inductions, including any relevant health and safety training and have addressed all of the mandatory requirements listed above.

All PhD researchers are subject to a formal review of progress 12- months after their start date (24 months for part-time PGRs) to confirm that they are demonstrating the potential to complete their PhD programme of study. Confirmation of Registration is a formal assessment of progress towards the target award and outcomes are approved by Research Degrees Board. 

PhD Candidates must submit their documentation no later than 11 months (23 months part time), to allow time for the review and oral assessment to take place within the maximum required period. Faculties will specify the precise format and content of a typical submission, for example: a methodology, literature review, sample chapter(s), data sets, etc.

At this stage, the PhD candidate may request to transfer their registration to MPhil only via eDoc. The transfer must be supported by the supervisory team (and comply with UKVI requirements where relevant) and approval rests with Faculty Research Degrees Committee.  Candidates who transfer to MPhil prior to completing Confirmation of Registration must undertake Annual Progress Review. PGRs opting for this should note there would be no further opportunity to transfer their registration back to PhD.

Appointment of the Review Panel

FRDCs are responsible for the confirmation and appointment of the Review Panel.  Panels must comprise representatives from the supervisory team (the Lead Supervisor and at least one of the co-supervisors) and an Independent Assessor.

The Independent Assessor must:

• Be a member of the academic staff of LJMU
• Have expertise in the general area of the PGR’s research topic
• Undertaken Doctoral Academy supervisor training
• Prior experience of successful supervision to completion at doctoral level
• In exceptional cases FRDC may appoint:
  • Retired academic members of staff fulfilling all the other criteria as long as they are still research active and continue to have a significant involvement with the university
  • Honorary members of academic staff where they fulfil all of the other criteria for appointment

Duties of the Independent Assessor

The duties of the Independent Assessor are:

• To read the Confirmation submission and submit a preliminary report to eDoc before discussing with the rest of the panel;
• To make the practical arrangements for the Confirmation of Registration review, recording them through theeDoc within the required timeframes;
• Act as Chair for the Confirmation of Registration review and ensure the quality assurance of procedures;
• To complete the joint Confirmation of Registration report on behalf of the Review Panel within 5 working days of the oral assessment;
• To review any remedial work submitted by the PGR as required;
• To attend any Research Degrees Board meeting when required.

Duties of the supervisory team members

The duties of supervisory team members are:

• To read the Confirmation submission and submit a preliminary report to eDoc before discussing with the rest of the panel;
• The Lead Supervisor must communicate to the PGR any specific requirements for their review, in line with their School/Faculty PGR Handbook;
• To review any remedial work submitted by the PGR as required;
• To attend any Research Degrees Board meeting when required;
• After the oral assessment, confirm their agreement with the joint Confirmation report via eDoc.

The Submission

The submission should evidence work PGRs have undertaken, and demonstrate that they have the potential to complete their research project at doctoral level within the required timescales for a timely completion.

The Confirmation of Registration submission comprises the following:

• Submission Document, which will normally comprise a draft of work which will ultimately contribute to the final thesis. The content and length of the submission should reflect the normal expectations for the candidate’s area of research, as detailed in the School/Faculty PGR Handbook.
• Summary Report (typically no more than 1 side of A4) critically reflecting the candidate’s progress to date, and plans from now to completion.
• Research Training Report (typically no more than 1 side of A4) critically reflecting on research training undertaken and an updated Training Needs Analysis from now to completion.

Arrangements for the Confirmation of Registration review

The Independent Assessor is normally responsible for making the practical arrangements for the Confirmation of Registration review and for completing the appropriate documentation in eDoc to confirm the date, time and location of the oral assessment. The Review must take place normally within 4 working weeks from the date the submission is uploaded to eDoc The candidate and the Review Panel must be informed of the time and location of the Confirmation not less than 10 working days before the examination.

The university has responsibilities under the Disability Discrimination Act to make reasonable adjustments to its assessment arrangements to ensure that candidates with additional support needs are not disadvantaged for reasons relating to a long-term medical condition, sensory impairment, specific learning difficulty and/or disability.

Candidates are required to inform the Doctoral Academy if there are any particular arrangements or adjustments that need to be made to enable their full participation in the Confirmation of Registration review. This should be normally done at the same time the Confirmation of Registration submission is uploaded to eDoc.

Candidates must be available to attend the Confirmation of Registration review meeting from the time that the Confirmation of Registration submission is uploaded to eDoc. Candidates may only delay their assessment in very exceptional circumstances and must apply to Research Degrees Board for permission.

The Confirmation of Registration Review

A Confirmation of Registration review may not proceed without all members of the Review Panel being present. In the event of an assessor’s or the candidate’s unexpected illness or other unforeseen event, the oral assessment must be postponed to another date and the Doctoral Academy informed.

The PGR should inform the Lead Supervisor of any exceptional circumstance, which in their view might affect their performance adversely prior to the oral assessment starting.

The Conduct of the Review

The conduct of the Review must adhere to the following:

• Candidates may take a copy of their written submission to the review, as well as a reasonable number of supplementary notes.
• Faculties/schools shall provide specific guidance within their PGR Handbook regarding the nature of the Review within their discipline, which may include for example, an oral presentation, poster presentation or conference presentation.
• The Review Panel shall agree the format; the Lead Supervisor is responsible for communicating this to the candidate.
• The Independent Assessor is responsible for the conduct of the event. It is their responsibility to see that the oral assessment is fairly and properly conducted.
• The oral assessment should typically take no longer than 2 hours to complete with a suggested structure:
  • 30-minute pre meeting
  • 30 – 60 minute oral defence by the candidate
  • 30 minute debrief to agree the outcome and complete the eDoc Final Joint Report
• The oral assessment should normally be conducted in English.
• The candidate will be asked to withdraw before the Review Panel begin their final deliberations.
• When the Panel has made their decision, they may communicate it to the candidate, making it clear that their recommendation is provisional, until approved by the Research Degrees Board.

The Joint Confirmation Report

After the confirmation review, the Panel members must agree upon a final joint report to be completed on eDoc giving their recommendation on the outcome of the event and their comments on the Confirmation submission and candidate’s oral defence. PGRs should receive a copy of the joint Assessors’ report. The report should provide important feedback to the candidate on their work to date and their performance at the viva voce examination and it is essential that responses are detailed, clear and legible.

The Confirmation report must be completed on eDoc by the Independent Assessor and endorsed by the Panel within five working days of the Review. If the panel require more than five working days to complete the form, they must inform the Doctoral Academy after the review.

In the event of a disagreement on the appropriate outcome of the Confirmation Review between the Assessors, the same process as outlined in the Policy for the Examination of Research Degrees will be followed.

Outcomes of the Confirmation of Registration Review

Recommendations for Confirmation of Registration should be made on the basis of the following criteria:

• Is the work presented by the PGR such as might reasonably be expected as a result of their having studied for the equivalent of around 12 months full-time/24-months part time for a PhD?
• Is the PGR able to exercise independent critical judgement?
• Does the PGR understand how their research topic is related to a wider field of knowledge?
• Has the PGR demonstrated the ability to produce an original contribution to knowledge?
• Is the amount and nature of the subject-specific and generic research skills training that has been undertaken by the student appropriate to his / her needs, as identified through a Training Needs Analysis or similar process?
• Is the PGR’s work, and their understanding of it, of a standard that indicates that it will lead to the successful submission of a PhD thesis within the permitted registration period?

The Review Panel may recommend to Research Degrees Board the following outcomes of Confirmation:

• PhD Registration Confirmed

  Candidate remains registered for the award of PhD

• PhD Registration Deferred; Further assessment required within three months

  Candidate will be entitled to revise and resubmit their Confirmation submission for a further assessment 

• PhD Registration Not Confirmed; Transfer to award of MPhil

  Candidate does not meet the required standards for PhD at this stage, but has demonstrated the potential to complete the award of MPhil. 

• Progress Unsatisfactory; Termination of Registration

  In extreme circumstances the assessment panel may consider that the weaknesses were so serious that the candidate would not be able to achieve a postgraduate research award.

  Where the candidate has resubmitted for Confirmation, the panel may recommend to the Research Degrees Board the following outcomes

• PhD Registration Confirmed

  Candidate remains registered for the award of PhD

• PhD Registration Not Confirmed; Transfer to award of MPhil

  Candidate does not meet the required standards for PhD at this stage, but has demonstrated the potential to complete the award of MPhil.

• Progress Unsatisfactory; Termination of Registration. In extreme circumstances the assessment panel may consider that the weaknesses were so serious that the candidate would not be able to achieve a postgraduate research award.

Annual Progress Review (APR) must be completed one month prior to a PGRs next re-enrolment date (unless they are completing Confirmation of Registration that year).

Faculty Research Degrees Committees are responsible for monitoring APR and approving the recommendations from supervisory teams.

The annual progress review should comprise a meeting with the PGR conducted by at least two members of the supervisory team.

Each PGR should produce evidence of their progress during the preceding year. Faculties will specify the precise format and content of a typical submission, for example:

• a summary of work completed, including examples of written work

• a plan for the following year, including plans for publications or other outputs
• what subject-specific and generic research skills training have been undertaken
• what teaching, demonstrating or other University-related work has been carried out
• reflection on progress to date (with the opportunity to highlight issues which have had a negative impact on progress)
• timetable for completion (eg Gantt chart)

The supervisory team should also produce a written report for each PGR, commenting on the following areas;

• whether progress is deemed to be satisfactory and, if not, what actions could be taken to ensure that progress becomes satisfactory
• the standard of any written work submitted
• whether the student has given an oral presentation of his / her work to an appropriate audience within the school / department since the last progress review
• the appropriateness of the training activities undertaken by the student with reference, where appropriate, to the initial Training Needs Analysis
• an anticipated completion date

Supervisory teams may recommend to Faculty Research Degrees Committee the following outcomes of Annual Progress Review:

• Annual Progress is satisfactory
• Annual Progress is not yet satisfactory; Further work required within one month

  The PGR will be entitled to revise and resubmit their APR submission for a further assessment

• Annual Progress is not satisfactory; begin unsatisfactory academic progress procedure

Where further work has been requested, supervisors may recommend to the Faculty Research Degrees Committee the following outcomes:

• Annual Progress is satisfactory
• Annual Progress is not satisfactory; begin unsatisfactory academic progress procedure

Reports must be sufficiently detailed in order to be used as evidence in cases where the procedure for dealing with Unsatisfactory Academic Progress is later invoked, or where students appeal against decisions resulting from the Confirmation of Registration or Annual Progress Review process. PGRs should receive for information a copy of the supervisors’ reports.

Schools/faculties are encouraged, where possible, to align review with in-house conferences or events (taking advantage of opportunities for PGRs to present their work in poster or verbal formats).

If a PGR fails to submit their evidence of progression within two weeks of the due date (and no extension has been approved), they should be sent a warning letter from their FRDC to inform them that they will be subject to the University’s Unsatisfactory Academic Progress procedure.

The Completion year is the period of time when a PGR has completed their primary research, submits the thesis for examination and completes the award. Subject to satisfactory progress, under normal circumstances, a PGR should move into the Completion Year for the final 12 months of their research degree. 

During the Completion year the PGR will be entitled to the use of university library and computing facilities but not to facilities for research. The PGR will also be entitled to a minimum of six meetings (either face-to-face or electronically) with their supervisor and for the supervisor to read and comment on one draft of their thesis prior to submission. It is important that regular contact is maintained during this phase, although the onus is on the PGR to initiate meetings.

Submission Planning

Prior to formal submission of a thesis, PGRs must submit a draft of their thesis for review by the supervisory team. This is a formal requirement and a candidate cannot proceed to submission until this has taken place.

The supervisory team should have at least one month to read the final draft thesis, before holding a full supervisory meeting to provide the candidate with feedback on the overall readiness of the work for submission.

The opinion of the supervisory team is advisory and cannot be a guarantee of the final decision of the examiners. Irrespective of the supervisor’s opinion, the decision to submit rests with the candidate.

Once the candidate has decided to proceed to submission, they must complete the Notification of Intention to Submit on eDoc.

Details of the processes and procedures for the examination of research degrees are available here.

The unsatisfactory academic progress procedure can be initiated at any stage in a PGR’s candidature, and outside the formal progression review points, although it is recommended that formal progression monitoring points are used to identify and address unsatisfactory progress wherever possible.

The procedure should only be used when local level attempts by the supervisory team to manage performance that is below expectations have not been successful.  The process has two stages and is intended to provide PGRs a short, formal period of remediation to get their studies back on track.

 Examples of unsatisfactory academic progress include continued:

• failure to provide evidence of satisfactory progress
• failure to present written work to an adequate standard (including plagiarism in draft or non-assessed work)
• failure to present work to an agreed timescale
• failure to  maintain regular contact with the supervisor and to attend formal supervision meetings

Determining Unsatisfactory Academic Progress

Where there are continued concerns about a PGR’s academic performance, the Lead Supervisor should make the PGR aware at the earliest opportunity that the matter is being referred to the Faculty Research Degrees Committee and the Doctoral Academy.  The Lead Supervisor must make a  record of this on the PGRs supervisory meetings or project history eDoc record  

A notification email should be sent to the Research Degrees Manager (via DoctoralAcademy@ljmu.ac.uk) from the Lead Supervisor, outlining the details of the case, what support has been provided to date to address the issues and concerns and confirmation that the PGR has been notified about the concerns with their progress.

The Research Degrees Manager will convene an initial meeting with the supervisory team and the relevant chair of FRDC to discuss the case and determine if there are grounds for initiating the remediation process or agree an alternative course of action.  This will normally be within 14 days of receipt of the email notification,

If the outcome of the initial meeting is to proceed to the remediation period (Stage 1), Faculty Research Degrees Committee will write a formal communication to the PGR to advise them of this.  The communication should:

• Outline the concerns about academic progress
• Invite the PGR to formally meet with their supervisors to agree a plan of action to be completed against agreed timescales (normally one month)
• Outline the potential outcomes of the unsatisfactory academic progress process.
• Clarify that failure to engage with any part of the process will lead to a recommendation for a termination to the registration.

Stage 1
The remediation period

Once the Stage 1 notification of unsatisfactory progress has been issued by FRDC the Lead Supervisor should arrange a meeting between the PGR, the other supervisors and the relevant School PGR Coordinator. This should take place within 14 days of the FRDC notification being issued  The meeting should consider the causes of the unsatisfactory progress and any mitigating circumstances. The outcome of the meeting should be an action plan, specifying by whom the actions are to be taken, the deadline for their completion (normally not exceeding 1 month), and information about relevant support and training. The Lead Supervisor will be responsible for communicating the outcome of the meeting to the chair of FRDC and the Research Degrees Manager.

FRDC will inform the PGR in writing of the outcome of the meeting, the actions that were agreed and the deadline for their completion. The communication should again outline the possible outcomes of the unsatisfactory academic progress process and remind the PGR that failure to engage with the process will lead to a termination to their registration.

Following the period of remediation the supervisors will provide a written report to FRDC on the progress against the action plan and confirm if the actions are satisfactory or if consideration of progress against the action plan should be referred to a Remediation Review Panel (Stage 2). If progress is deemed to be satisfactory at this stage, FRDC will formally communicate this to the PGR and no further action will be taken under this instance of unsatisfactory academic progress. If the supervisors request that progress should be reviewed by a Remediation Review Panel, the process outlined below must be followed

Stage 2
Remediation Review Panel

The assessment of progress by the remediation review panel will be via the review of documentation regarding the case followed by a review meeting with the Lead Supervisor (or nominee) and the PGR.   The Review Panel will be convened by FRDC and will consist of a PGR Coordinator from a different school and two academic members of staff (normally including at least one from the same school as the PGR) who must have had no previous involvement in the matter and who are independent of the student and the supervisor.

The Doctoral Academy will coordinate the arrangements for the  remediation review and will be responsible for communicating these to the remediation review panel, supervisors and the PGR.

The Lead Supervisor should provide the following documentation for the Panel to review:

• A covering paper which provides basic information on the case (name of school, PGR’s name, supervisor’s names, start date and expected end date, project title and details of any suspensions of study etc.)
• All minutes of meetings and letters associated with the PGR’s progress, including annual progress report forms.
• A summary of the lead points of the case, to include lead concerns, events and actions taken in the light of meetings held and evidence of any mitigating circumstances.

This documentation should be sent to the PGR and to the members of the Remediation Review Panel at least 14 days before the hearing.

The PGR should be invited to respond in writing and to submit any supporting documentation at least 7 days before the remediation review, for circulation to the Panel.

All members of the remediation review panel and at least one member of the supervisory team must be present for the review to proceed.  The Research Degrees Manager (or nominee) must also be in attendance to provide procedural and regulatory advice.

PGRs may present their response to the Remediation Review Panel in writing or in person. PGRs who attend a review in person may choose a supporter to accompany them. If the PGR chooses not to attend the review, it will proceed in their absence and the panel may draw adverse inferences from the failure of a PGR to use the opportunity to defend their work.

Failure of the PGR to engage with Stage 2 of the unsatisfactory academic progress process will lead to a termination to their registration,

Outcomes of the review

Remediation Review Panels may recommend one of the following outcomes:

• The actions are satisfactorily completed within the agreed timescale and no further action will be taken under this instance of unsatisfactory progress procedure
• Where the PGR has not completed the action plan, but where there are mitigating circumstances, the decision will be deferred (for a maximum of 1 month for full-time PGRs)
• that the PGR’s registration be changed to that for an alternative degree
• The PGR has not made satisfactory progress and a termination of study is recommended to the FRDC

FRDC will be responsible for formally communicating the outcome of the review to the PGR and supervisors.

Appeals against a decision to terminate or change the registration of a PGR may be made in line with the Academic Regulations for Research Degrees.

Ideally, you should have a meeting with the whole supervisory team soon after starting. This may not always be possible (e.g. with external supervisors), in which case the meeting should be with as many team members as possible. This should be logged on eDoc as soon as possible and ahead of the Programme Approval stage.

This first meeting is a chance to set reasonable expectations on the part of both the supervisory team and the PGR. Please to refer to the following resources to inform these discussions:

PGR Journey explained | Liverpool John Moores University (ljmu.ac.uk)

You should log the meeting in eDoc, and in the meeting notes, make specific mention of:

• What role is expected from each supervisor – how involved will each co-supervisor be, or in what areas will they provide specific assistance, for instance?
• What are the workload expectations and responsibilities for the PGR? Hours per week, milestones (eDoc and other), work patterns etc should be discussed. These should be continuously reviewed in future meetings, and if for instance the supervisory team feel the PGR is not working suitable hours, or if the PGR feels too much is being demanded of them, these issues should be raised early.
• What are contact and communication expectations? This may be an open-door (or open-email) policy, or it may be regular meetings, or it may be both. Whatever the means of regular communication, set mutually agreed expectations
• Note that a minimum of 10 meetings should be logged in eDoc each year.
• Discuss what level of help and assistance is expected by both the PGR and supervisory team. There is always a balance to helping PGRs, and PGRs having the opportunity to solve problems on their own.
• Discuss training needs - both broad training offered by the doctoral academy and specific skills taught by the supervisory team. The PGR should discuss with their supervisors what skills they would like to learn through the course of their project, and can use the Training Needs Analysis on eDoc to help identify these. This may include skills the PGR would like training in that are not directly related to the project, but may enhance job/career prospects. Skills objectives should be recorded in an annual Training Plan on eDoc.

All of the above should be revisited regularly and those discussions, along with any changes in expectations logged in eDoc meeting notes. If expectations diverge, or disagreements happen, PGRs and supervisors should discuss this with the PGR School Coordinators/Faculty Mediators and/or FRDC chair.