Milestones

Milestone Due Dates Information

There are 3 main milestones to achieve during candidature involving written and oral components explained in detail:

Milestone 1: Confirmation of Candidature

Confirmation is a critically import ant moment t for every research higher degree candidate. At this milestone:

• the candidate receives formative adv ice about the direction, scope, planning, and feasibility of the project; and about the acquisition or further development of appropriate research and professional skills;
• the school/institute reviews the human, physical , financial resources needed to sustain the candidature, in compliance with relevant university, disciplinary and external regulatory protocols; and
• the University is assured by the school/institute' s review that continuation of the candidature is likely to lead to an assessable thesis in about the period for which the candidate, school/institute, and University are funded to support the candidate's enrolment.

Written Work

Accepted formats:

One month prior to the date of confirmation of candidature, the PhD/MPhil student shall provide to the Chair of Research and Postgraduate Committee a substantial written submission (40-50 pages for PhD students; 30-40 pages for MPhil students) that outlines:

a. a critical review of the recent, relevant literature;
b. updated thesis proposal;
c. updated plan of research methodology and data analysis;
d. an ethics component;
e. updated timetable for completion of the thesis;
f. a review of all resources and skills required to complete the project within the funded period (i.e., relevant skills and techniques already gained; skills and techniques needed to solve the research problems raised by the project; professional development skills needed; technical assistance; financial assistance; travel, equipment or facilities) and where these resources will come from; and,
g. an abstract of no more than 300 words.

PhD/MPhil students will not be allowed to undergo confirmation of candidature until they can demonstrate to the Principal Advisor and the Chair of Research and Postgraduate Committee that they have completed a written submission

Word Limit : 40-50 pages

Quality expectations: Comparable to advanced draft thesis chapters.

Timing: One month prior to the confirmation of candidature seminar.

Assessment process: Assessed by two readers from internal academic staff

Oral Work

Accepted formats: The Chair of Research and Postgraduate Committee shall constitute a Confirmation of Candidature Panel comprising:

a. a committee Chair or the Research Coordinator (or his/her representative);
b. the Head of School (or her/his representative);
c . the Principal and Associate Advisors of the PhD/MPhil student;
d. the RHO Coordinator
e. two academic staff members of the School nominated by the Chair of Research and
Postgraduate Committee who will act as readers. These staff member s must be familiar with the PhD/MPhil student' s general research area; and,
f. an optional PhD/MPhil student representative.

The Principal Advisor, the Associate Ad visor and the non-advisory staff member will provide the Chair of the Confirmation of Candidature Panel with a written evaluation of the provisional candidate's submission.
Once the confirmation document has been assessed as satisfactory, the candidate can proceed to the oral seminar stage. Confirmation of candidature for research higher degree students (PhD/MPhil) enrolled in the School of Journalism and Communication will involve an oral seminar presentation, scheduled to occur approximately one month after the written submission has been lodged with the Research and Postgraduate Committee. T here will be a 30-minute (maximum) presentation by the PhD/MPhil student on the progress of her/his thesis. The Confirmation of Candidature Panel will have 30 45 minute s to ask questions and make suggestions based on the PhD/MPhil student's presentation. Other members of the audience will also be allowed time to make suggestions or ask questions. Following the seminar, the Confirmation of Candidature Panel will interview the Principal advisor and PhD/MPhil student (either separately or together)

Duration: 30 minutes presentation by candidate, 30 minutes question time following.

Quality expectations: The proposal must be coherent. The presentation must be clear with appropriate evidence of knowledge related to theory and methodology.

The candidate must have the ability to engage the panel in a considered discussion about their research project.

Timing: One month after submission of written work

Assessment Process: Confirmation panel assess based on written submission and oral presentation and discussion.

Interview/Dialogue

Participants: Confirmation panel and candidate.

Expected duration: 30 minutes

Timing: After the oral presentation.

Assessment process: The committee deliberates directly after the presentation. The candidate is then invited back forfurther discussion and given a verbal decision.

Written Feedback

Format: The chair of the confirmation panel submits written feedback to the Head of Research who communicates that to the candidate

Timing: Within one week of the confirmation.

Milestone 2: Mid-Candidature Review

The mid-candidature review represents a mid-point between confirmation of candidature and thesis review milestones. Achievement of this milestone reassures the candidate, advisory team and school/institute that:

• the project is on track for completion within candidature duration, and
• the candidate' s research and other professional skills are developing appropriately .

Accepted formats:

The written work presented by the candidate should not involve them preparing additional material especially for mid-candidature review. Appropriate examples of written work include:
a. A journal article or conference paper (accepted, submitted or a significant final draft).
b. A draft chapter (or chapters) of the thesis. Most candidates would have presented literature review and theoretical framework at confirmation, so in most cases the most appropriate chapters would be related to method or fieldwork.
c. A detailed report or notes from the candidate's fieldwork. The format of the written submission will be negotiated between the candidate and the Advisors and should be appropriate to the candidate's current research activity. The written submission will be reviewed at first by the candidate's Advisors, who will provide feedback to both the student and the Postgraduate Coordinator.

Approx volume of work expected to be completed: Work equivalent to a conference paper, journal article or thesis chapter.

Quality expectations: Evidence of progress beyond the candidature document. The document will display appropriate knowledge of theory and methodology, and a reflective understanding of the research project.

Timing: Mid-candidature review will be undertaken approximately one year after confirmation. In most instances, candidates will present written work to their Advisors and the Postgraduate Coordinator, and present at one of the school's work-in-progress seminars. Mid-candidature review should support, rather than disrupt, the candidates program of research, together with the Postgraduate Coordinator, Advisors and candidates should establish appropriate forms of review on a case by case basis. The two objectives of this review are that:

a. The candidate be provided with substantial feedback on their progress
b. The Advisors and Research Coordinator be satisfied that the candidate has made reasonable progress and is on track to complete in the next 12 months.

Assessment Procedure: The written presentation is reviewed by the advisory teach and the Research and RHD coordinators to ensure adequate progress since candidature.

Oral Work

Accepted Formats: The candidate should present significant aspects of their work to date to peers in a public forum. Most candidates will do this at the School of Journalism and Communication's regular work-in-progress seminars. Candidates may also present work at a recognized academic conference or public seminar (or comparable professional context). In the event that candidates present work outside of the University they will need to provide adequate documentation to their Advisors and the Research Coordinator outlining the content and scope of the presentation. Where possible a member of the school should be present at the presentation and should provide the candidate with written feedback.

Quality expectations: Of a comparable standard to a conference presentation.

Timing: Within their second year of candidature.

Assessment Procedure: The oral presentation is reviewed by the advisory team, Research and RHD coordinators. The assessment will consider the clarity of ideas, knowledge of the field, explanation of method, and ability to engage peers in a discussion about the research project.

Interview/Dialogue

Participants: Any of the candidate, Research Coordinator or Advisors may request an interview to discuss issues arising from either the written submission or the oral presentation. Such an interview may address any issues arising in the candidacy.

Expected duration: Relative to circumstances

Quality Expectations: Not applicable

Timing: At the time of written submission and oral presentation.

Assessment process: Mutual dialogue between Advisors, candidate and Postgraduate Coordinator.

Written Work:

Formats: Feedback on both the candidate's written submission and oral presentation will respond to:

a. The conceptualisation of the research problem.
b. The development of sound theoretical framework and methodology.
c. The coherence of communication of the research.
d. Identify significant strengths and weaknesses in the work.

In the event that the Advisors or Research Coordinator decide that the work presented in written or oral form indicates issues in the candidacy, and the ability of the candidate to complete the project on time then the candidate, Advisors and Research Coordinator must develop a written action plan, setting out clear goals for the candidate in the next twelve months.

Timing: Within a week of the candidate presenting their oral and written submission.

Milestone 3: Thesis Review

The thesis review:

• enables the school/institute to determine collectively that the thesis should be ready for assessment by the expected date or determine a new submission date,
• allows any differences of opinion among the candidate and the advisory team about the readiness of the thesis for assessment to be aired and settled collegially,
• assures the candidate and advisory team of the scope, originality and quality of the thesis,
• identifies any major concerns that need attention before submission,
• provides a forum for discussing the mix of disciplinary knowledge required among the thesis assessors to review the breadth of work contained within the thesis, and
• enables the candidate and the advisors to express any reservations or concerns about having any particular individual act as an assessor.

In addition to matters normally covered by feedback and recommendation documents, the thesis review feedback attests to the quality and scope of the research, details decisions reached about the mix of thesis assessors, records reservations about particular individuals, and states the expected thesis submission date.

Written Work:

Accepted Formats: The candidate must provide their Advisors with key chapters from the thesis for review. These chapters should highlight the analysis and findings. The candidate should also provide a detailed table of contents, or notes on the structure of the thesis. The Advisors will provide feedback to the candidate on these elements of the thesis, and forward this feedback to the Postgraduate Coordinator. The candidate, Advisors or Research Coordinator can raise any significant issues.

Quality Expectations: Comprehensive knowledge of the thesis subject. Evidence from written and oral presentation that the work presented is near ready for examination.

Timing: The ideal timing for thesis review is 3-6 months prior to submission. Any review falling outside of this timeframe would be by negotiation with Advisors and Postgraduate Coordinator.

Assessment Procedure: The advisory team, Research and RHD coordinators, discuss with the candidate any issues arising from the Thesis Review that need to be considered prior to submission.

Oral Work:

Accepted Formats: The candidate will present the key theories, methods and findings from their thesis to a public audience in a 30 minute presentation. Other members of staff and if required, experts from other schools within the UQ or from outside will be invited to the oral presentation and may be asked to give feedback to the candidate. The presentation will be followed by a 15 minute public question and answer session and a 15 minute closed session that will recommend submission to external examiners or otherwise. If otherwise, the committee will recommend a time-frame for corrections, and recommendations will be provided to the candidate in writing. Candidates required to make corrections will not be required to go through a subsequent thesis review. The candidate will be required to submit the corrected version of the thesis to his/her Advisors.

Duration: 30 minutes presentation; 30 minutes questions and feedback.

Quality Expectations: The presentation will be of a comparable quality to a presentation at an academic conference in the field.

Timing: By negotiation with Advisors, Research Coordinator and RHD Coordinator.

Assessment Procedure: Mutual dialogue between Advisors, Research Coordinator, RHD Coordinator and candidate.

Interview/Dialogue

Participants: Any of the candidate, Research Coordinator or Advisors may request an interview to discuss issues arising from either the written submission or the oral presentation. Such an interview may address any issues arising in the candidacy.

Expected duration: Relative to circumstances

Timing: At the time of written submission and oral presentation.

Assessment Process: Mutual dialogue between Advisors, candidate and Postgraduate Coordination A plan of action may arise from the interview.

Written Feedback

Format: The purpose of the feedback to is to determine the eligibility of the work for external examination. Any significant issues should be raised with the candidate and communicated in writing. The candidate, Advisors or Research Coordinator can request an interview to discuss issues arising from the review.

Timing: Within one week of the thesis review seminar. 

On this site