Appendix D:

Confirmation of doctoral candidature and upgrade from masters to doctoral candidature

1. Code of practice

A code of minimum practice has been developed to assist faculties with clear and consistent guidelines for the confirmation of doctoral and MPhil candidature and upgrade from masters to doctoral candidature.

These are minimum requirements; some faculties have additional requirements.

1.1 Minimum period of candidature

A candidate should normally be enrolled for a minimum period of nine months of full-time candidature (or equivalent) before the confirmation/upgrade process may be commenced.

2. Evidence of sufficient progress

Please note that this is a code of minimum practice. Departments and faculties may have additional requirements (eg submission of one or more thesis chapters as part of the upgrade or confirmation process).

2.1 Oral presentation

An oral presentation on the research project should be given either at a departmental seminar and/or viva voce. Members of the review panel* should be in attendance.

The oral presentation should explore the research undertaken to date and the anticipated future directions of the research program.

2.2 Written submission

A progress report and publication list (if applicable) should be submitted by the student. A suggested format for the report is as follows:

• Title of research report/thesis
• Statement of the research problem(s)

(i) introduction
(ii) research question or hypothesis
(iii) subsidiary questions
(iv) review of relevant research and theory

• The Procedure

(i) theoretical and conceptual framework (ii) analytical techniques and research design

• Timetable for completing research report/thesis and a detailed statement of progress to date
• Brief bibliography
• List of publications produced during probationary candidature (if applicable).

The progress report should be a minimum of 1,000 words but many faculties have additional requirements:

• Faculty of Arts requires a 7,000 to 10,000 word report. Students upgrading to PhD must also provide a chapter of the thesis
• Faculty of Business and Economics requires DBA students to address each research phase separately by submitting a report of 3,000 to 5,000 words which provides a statement of the research problem and procedure for each research phase (if applicable).
• Faculty of Education requires a 5,000 to 7,000 word report.
• Faculty of Engineering requires a 5,000 to 7,500 word progress report
• Faculty of Law requires a 1,000 word progress report and an example of the candidate’s written work, negotiated with the supervisor, of up to 7,000 words: for example, a draft chapter from the thesis, a literature review, or a book chapter, article for publication, or conference paper arising from the thesis. For SJD candidates, a thesis outline (minimum 1000 words) should be submitted as well as an example of written work up to 7000 words. The example of written work can include research assignments completed in the coursework component.

Candidates should discuss the departmental and faculty requirements for confirmation/upgrade with their supervisor and/or Graduate Co-ordinator before commencing the written report.

2.3 The review panel and review panel report

A review panel should be convened to discuss with the candidate the written submission and oral presentation, to consider the evidence presented and to make a recommendation in relation to the confirmation of doctoral candidature or upgrading to PhD.

The panel should comprise at least three members:

• the School Graduate Coordinator or nominee (convenor)
• the candidate's supervisor(s), and
• another member conversant with the general area of research but not directly involved with the candidate's specific project.

This third member may be drawn either from within the department/faculty or from outside it. Where more than one supervisor is present on the review panel, the second supervisor cannot replace the third panel member, who must be independent from the candidate's research. In these circumstances, a fourth panel member is required. Where more than one supervisor is on the review panel, the decision to confirm candidature should rest with the convenor and the independent panel member. Should the convenor and independent panel member disagree with regard to confirmation/upgrade, the supervisor/s should have the casting vote. Where the decision is not unanimous, this should be detailed in the review panel report. Please note that the oral presentation as viva voce can be incorporated in the review panel meeting. It is expected that members of the review panel will be senior academic staff members with extensive experience in supervising doctoral students.

The convenor of the review panel, who cannot be the candidate's supervisor, should provide a signed report which details the following:

• an assessment of the candidate’s achievements during the period of probationary candidature or masters candidature (in the case of upgrade)
• the panel’s feedback and directions to the candidate
• any changes to the research proposal which are required and if these have been completed
• the panel’s recommendation with regard to confirmation/upgrade.

3. Procedures for confirmation of candidature

3.1 Mandatory probationary candidature

All doctoral candidates now undertake a period of 12 months (full-time equivalent) probationary candidature, with the exception of DPsych (Clinical and Neuropsychology), DPsych (Clinical) and SJD candidates who have an 18 month (full-time equivalent) probationary candidature.

MPhil candidates have a period of six months (full-time equivalent) of probationary candidature. In the case of MPhil, confirmation should normally occur at the six-month mark, or where there is a coursework component, at nine months. However, confirmation for MPhil can be deferred if an upgrade to PhD is imminent at 12 months.

3.2 Notification of confirmation process

Notification of commencement of the confirmation process will be as follows:

• all doctoral candidates admitted to probationary candidature, with the exception of DPsych (Clinical and Neuropsychology), DPsych (Clinical) and SJD candidates will be notified in writing of the confirmation process after 10 months of full-time equivalent candidature
• DPsych (Clinical and Neuropsychology), DPsych (Clinical) and SJD candidates will be notified after 16 months of full-time candidature
• Master of Philosophy candidates undertaking 100% research will be notified after four months of full-time equivalent candidature. Master of Philosophy candidates undertaking a coursework component will be notified after seven months of full-time equivalent candidature
• all students will be given 10 weeks to complete the requirements for confirmation of candidature.

3.3 Extension of the period of probationary candidature

The need for an extension to the probationary period may result for two reasons:

• the student may not have been able to complete the confirmation process in the given timeframe, or
• the student may have completed the tasks required for confirmation, but not to the level required by the review panel and revision of the written proposal may be required.

Where a student’s candidature cannot be confirmed at this time, an extension of up to 10 weeks may be granted. During this extension period, a list of achievable targets, relevant to the particular student’s confirmation of candidature, must be set for the student. These targets must be met in order that candidature may be confirmed.

3.4 Failure to meet confirmation requirements

Where a probationary candidate does not meet the requirements for confirmation of candidature, the relevant faculty should make a recommendation for non-confirmation of candidature to the Research Graduate School Committee. This recommendation should be accompanied by the review panel report, which identifies the tasks or targets that were set for the student for confirmation of candidature and the outcomes of the student’s attempts to meet them.

After reviewing the faculty’s recommendation and the review panel report provided, the Research Graduate School Committee will decide whether or not confirmation of candidature should be denied. The student will be notified accordingly. Where a candidate is not successful in confirming his/her candidature, the candidate will normally not be readmitted within four years of the non-confirmation date. The Research Graduate School Committee will only approve readmission following this exclusion period where suitable facilities and effective supervision are available to support the candidature and where the committee is satisfied that the candidate is now in a position to undertake research towards a successful thesis completion. The Committee may request certification by a registered medical practitioner that a former candidate is now in a position to resume candidature.

Once the student has been notified that he/she has been excluded under regulation 7.2.2 (non-confirmation of candidature), he/she ceases to be an enrolled student and the academic department can withdraw supervision and other support. Short-term provision of a range of university facilities, for example email access may be considered on a case-by-case basis should a student lodge an appeal.

The student must be notified of his/her right to appeal and of the appeal process, including his/her right to be heard personally, or by way of a written submission, or by both oral and written submission. The student should also be advised that they can be accompanied to the appeal hearing by an adviser, not being a legally qualified person, and that support services are available through the Monash Postgraduate Association.

The student must notify the Monash Research Graduate School in writing, within 14 days of notification of non confirmation, of his/her intention to lodge an appeal and whether the student wishes to be accompanied by a non legally qualified person, and if so, by whom. The grounds for appeal must be stipulated at this stage and the student will be required to specify any members of staff that he/she does not want included on the RGSC Non Confirmation Appeal Sub Committee. The Director, Monash Research Graduate School/Chairman of the Research Graduate School Committee, may dismiss an appeal if he/she considers the grounds of appeal to be frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance.

3.5 RGSC Non confirmation Appeal Sub Committee

Should an appeal be lodged, the RGSC Non Confirmation Appeal Sub Committee will consider the case at its next scheduled meeting. The RGSC Non Confirmation Appeal Sub Committee is a standing committee of the Research Graduate School Committee. It shall be a Sub Committee convened to hear all appeals against a recommendation not to confirm candidature. A meeting will be scheduled once a month, normally two weeks before the meeting of the full committee in the following month. Members of the Research Graduate School Committee will be nominated as permanent members of this standing committee and shall be drawn from the faculty and student membership of the RGSC. A Sub Committee of a minimum of three members shall be drawn from this membership, to consider any one case.  

Any perceived conflicts of interest related to the membership of the particular RGSC Non Confirmation Appeal Sub Committee should be reported to the Convenor of the Sub Committee, who shall make a final determination in this matter. For example, a member of the student's faculty/department or other person involved in the candidature to date, would not be selected to hear the particular case. In determining the membership of any particular RGSC Non Confirmation Appeal Sub Committee, gender balance will be taken into account. A student will not have a right to veto membership of the committee. However, when the student advises of an intention to appeal, he/she will be asked to name any person whom he/she does not want to hear the case. (see section 3.4 above). The Sub Committee has the authority to take written submissions from, or hear from other persons, as appropriate. The appeal process should be finalised within 30 days of notification of appeal against non confirmation of candidature.

3.6 Recommendation of RGSC Non Confirmation Appeal Sub Committee

After hearing the candidate’s appeal, the Sub Committee must advise the Research Graduate School Committee at its next monthly meeting of its recommendation to either:

• uphold the original decision not to confirm candidature
• grant the student a further extension of probation of up to three months, or
• confirm candidature.

After considering the advice of the Sub Committee, the Research Graduate School Committee will make a final determination.

Should the appeal be upheld, or the student granted a further period of probationary candidature, the student’s candidature would be reinstated and the relevant academic department and faculty would have to make suitable arrangements to support the student’s candidature. At the end of any further period of probationary candidature granted, the Sub Committee, augmented by representation from the Faculty Review Panel, will make a final decision as to whether candidature may proceed.

3.7 Relationship between appeal and grievance and non confirmation of candidature

It is noted that university guidelines require that hearings should occur in the order in which they are raised. The commencement of non confirmation procedures can now be said to commence from the notification in writing from the faculty/academic unit to the RGSC of the recommendation not to confirm.   This protocol is designed to prevent a student who is scheduled for non confirmation from making a complaint of academic grievance in order to delay the non confirmation.  

Should the student lodge an academic grievance while the non confirmation of candidature process is underway, it is likely that the issues raised in relation to the grievance will also be presented as part of the student appeal. If the two overlap, the convenor of the Non Confirmation Appeal Sub Committee will determine if it is appropriate for the sub committee to consider the grievance issues concerned as part of the student appeal against non confirmation of candidature.   In such cases, a grievance would not be subsequently considered, unless it was based on issues that could not have been covered by the RGSC Non Confirmation Appeal Sub Committee. For example, should the candidate lodge a grievance on procedural grounds, relating to the appeal process, the RGSC would have to consider whether this grievance should proceed when considering the recommendations of the Non Confirmation Appeal Sub Committee.