Confirmation of Candidature

The confirmation process provides research higher degree candidates with formative advice about the direction, scope, planning, and feasibility of their project. It provides an opportunity for the School to review the resources that are needed to sustain their candidature (the advisory team, technical support, physical and financial resources, etc.), and to determine compliance with relevant University, disciplinary, and external regulatory protocols. The confirmation process also assures the University, through the Dean of Postgraduate Studies, that the candidate's progress is satisfactory, that a viable program of research, at MPhil or PhD standard, can be completed within the funded time (eighteen months to two years (FTE), or three to four years (FTE), respectively), that the candidate is capable of researching and writing at the level required, and that the candidate's project is practicable given their abilities the availability of resources.

1. that candidature be confirmed;
2. that provisional candidature be extended (the usual period being three months FTE);
3. that candidature be terminated.

Irrespective of the recommendation, the Confirmation Committee will provide written feedback and notification of its recommendation to the candidate and the advisory team before the recommendation is forwarded to the Dean, UQ Graduate School.

Where problems are still identified following a resubmission, the Committee can recommend a further extension if it determines that the candidate still shows the potential to complete the degree.

Where a second resubmission for confirmation fails to meet the expectations of the Committee, the mandated recommendation is that the candidature be terminated. In such cases, a very clear and comprehensive justification for the recommendation will be supplied by the Committee.

• a complete record of attendance at the School's Higher Degree Seminars;
• an oral presentation;
• a written submission.

After considering these components, the Committee may conduct interviews between the candidate and his or her advisory team. The final stage of the school-based part of the process is the Confirmation Committee's report and recommendation to the Dean, UQ Graduate School.

• A critical review of recent, relevant literature;
• An updated research proposal;
• An updated plan of research and timetable for completion.

This part of the submission may also include, where applicable, the following:

• A sample chapter/article draft (PhD thesis only)
• An application for Ethical Clearance (for projects involving research on human subjects only). See Ethics under Research Higher Degrees.

The purpose of this part of the written submission is for the Committee to ascertain the quality of the candidate's work to date in terms of aspects such as intellectual rigour (according to the level of the degree), knowledge of the field, coherence and feasibility of the research plan, and written expression.

The literature review needs to show an intellectual engagement with recent, relevant published work in the field. It should show how well the candidate is versed in the current knowledge around his or her topic, and should show a logical progression from fairly broad to more focussed reading.

The updated research proposal will show how the topic is being refined from its early form. It should show that a coherent structure for the finished work is clearly emerging, as well as showing the development of a more specific methodological framework. (It may be useful, particularly at MPhil level and for those candidates writing a critical commentary, to think of this updated proposal as starting to take the form of an introduction to the final work.) For candidates in composition, evidence of progress on the portfolio of creative works is expected.

The updated plan of research and timetable for completion need to relate to tasks specific to the research (reading and basic research, data gathering, archival work, creative work, research-related travel, recitals, analysis, writing up, etc.). They need to show, firstly, what has already been achieved. And where there has been some deviation from the original plan, they should also show the nature and extent of this deviation, and provide a justification. Secondly, they need to set out the tasks that remain. The planning should not, by this stage, be aspirational; it should be based on a realistic prognosis developed by the candidate and his or her advisory team.

A sample chapter/article draft, where required, will be a later submission. It will provide further information on the development of the candidate's research focus and their academic writing. The School encourages students to try to have work published during their candidature (especially at PhD level) and this is an excellent opportunity for students to get additional feedback on a proposed submission to a peer-reviewed journal.

For projects requiring ethical clearance, in cases where the risk is deemed minimal and School-based review is possible, the expectation would be that clearance had been granted by the time of confirmation. (Please refer to the section on Ethics under Research Higher Degrees) Where an application at MPhil level requires review by The University of Queensland's Behavioural & Social Sciences Ethical Review Committee (BSSERC) it might, in certain circumstances, be deemed sufficient (for confirmation) for the candidate to have simply lodged the application (a copy of which would need to be attached with the other confirmation documents). In such cases, however, the School's Confirmation Committee reserves the right to require formal granting of ethical clearance (i.e. by BSSERC) to be demonstrated before making its recommendation.

The preparation of the written submission should be undertaken progressively throughout the early stages of candidature in consultation with the advisory team. Advisors are expected to give feedback on draft submissions and candidates should under no circumstances turn in written submissions for consideration by the Committee that have not been reviewed at least once by their Principal and Academic Advisors.

There is no set length for the written submission, but it should be sufficiently substantial for a judgement to be made by the Committee, without being longwinded. For MPhil critical commentaries, a typical submission might involve c. 1,000 words for the updated proposal and c. 1,500 for the literature review (i.e. two documents, or one combined, totalling around 2,500 words). For MPhil or PhD theses, the literature review would need to be more extensive, being of at least modest chapter length. Similarly, the updated research proposal would require a fuller consideration of all the issues relating to rationale, methodology, and so on, and should take the form of something like a well-rounded introductory chapter. (Depending on the nature of the project, in some cases the literature review and updated research proposal could be combined as part of the one document.)

The content of the seminar presentation will relate to the material in the first part of the written submission. The presentation is, effectively, an opportunity for students to give a concise report on work in progress. Candidates need to outline their project, provide a brief research context, show how they are developing a focus within this context, outline their methodology or approach to creative tasks, and so on. Feedback given after the oral presentation is expected to be incorporated into the student's written submission.

Timing of the presentation will vary between those preparing a critical commentary and those undertaking thesis work, and according to the degree being undertaken. For MPhil critical commentaries, twenty minutes including time for comments and questions is typical. For critical commentaries at PhD level and theses, a typical thirty-minute conference paper, comprising twenty-minute presentation with ten-minute question time, is the norm.

As with the written submission, candidates should prepare their oral presentation in consultation with their advisory team.

For MPhil candidates:

• Oral presentation-four months (minimum)
• Full written submission-five months (minimum)
• Maximum time for submission for review by the Confirmation Committee-six months

For PhD candidates:

• Oral presentation-five to seven months
• Literature review, updated research proposal, and updated plan/timetable-six to eight months
• Remaining written elements-ten to twelve months

See also: Confirmation of Candidature (UQ Graduate School Guidelines)

 

On this site