PGR Progression

It is the supervisor(s)' responsibility to arrange the upgrade panel within the time set out by the funding body or University RegulationsLink opens in a new window (normally within the first 9-12 months for full-time students, and 18-24 months for part-time students).

By Term 2 of the first year (second year for part-time), students must begin the preparation of the written work that is required for the Upgrade Interview. Upgrade interviews will normally take place during the Summer Term. If you started your research in January rather than October, your upgrade review will normally take place in September/October.

For the Upgrade, you should submit the following:

• Draft chapter of 5,000 – 6,000 words in length which might either offer a literature review, or a piece of research, or a combination of the two
• 2,500-word Research Proposal - please see "What to include in your Research Proposal" below
• A chapter plan and timetable for completion of your thesis (max 1500 words)
• History PGR Ethical Review formLink opens in a new window (which includes completion of the required University online Research Integrity Training ProgrammeLink opens in a new window)

A formal Research Proposal, with a working dissertation title, will be approximately 2,500 words long. It will help you to clarify a number of considerations crucial to the design of a successful research project (it is essentially the first draft of your dissertation introduction). You will need to show:

• what your project is about and the central research questions you plan to address and what kinds of answers you are looking for;
• the ability to situate your work within the existing scholarship and to show how your research engages with this body of research, methodologies or ideas;
• what methods you plan to use;
• what your source-base will be (printed primary sources, major secondary works, manuscripts, etc) and where you will be consulting these materials (this may involve letters or reconnaissance trips to relevant archives in advance);

Try to cover as many of these areas as possible in your proposal. You may find it useful to use these bold topics as section headings in your writing. When your supervisor has read through the Research Proposal, you should go through it together.

In addition, the research proposal should contain, as an appendix, a bibliography (not restricted by a word count) of works and research materials to be consulted.

The upgrade interview serves several purposes:

• it gives you the opportunity, at an early stage of your research, to present your proposal for your PhD to independent academics
• it provides you with formative feedback alerting you to your strengths and areas for development in your research
• it introduces your research to other members of academic staff who may be able to provide help and support as your project progresses
• it gives you an experience of the viva style of examination
• it provides summative feedback on your progress i.e. an examination of your ability to produce work that merits transfer from MPhil to doctorate level and to complete your studies within the 3.5 years (6-7 years part-time) expected by the Doctoral College.

The panel is made up of two members from the academic staff from the Department of History or in certain cases from outside the Department. Your supervisor will also attend the interview and therefore will be able to debrief you about the upgrade. Your supervisor has no formal role in the upgrade and will not ask questions or help you with replies.

The two members of staff who have read the work you have submitted will conduct the interview. They will question you about what they have read, and may also ask you about the general framing of the project, your sources, and the prospects for satisfactory completion. As part of the interview process, they will speak with you alone regarding the conduct of your supervisions, and they will meet with your supervisor(s) alone to discuss any matters that they may wish to raise.

The panel members may not be experts in your field but will be able to give you advice from the point of view of an 'interested outsider'. They will approach the upgrade interview in a friendly, supportive fashion but be prepared for a serious exploration of your work: this is a formal examination.

The panel members will have read your upgrade materials and have some questions to ask you. The upgrade usually takes about an hour though it can run for longer, and will cover areas such as the structure and content of your research, your timetable and chapter outlines.

Questions from the panel will depend of course on your topic area and the approach you have taken but these are questions that are often asked in upgrade interviews:

• What exactly is your research question?
• What is your theoretical approach?
• How will your work challenge or support the existing scholarly literature?
• Why have you decided on this particular chronology or case study?
• Which sources are you using for your research and what challenges do they present?
• Which skills (language, palaeography, computer etc) do you need for your research and are you confident you have (or can acquire) these?
• How are you defining your terms or research areas and why?
• Do you think your research is too narrow? Or too broad?
• How will you achieve your objectives in the timescale allowed?
• Is your timetable too challenging?
• Will you be able to provide the in-depth analysis required in the word length allowed?
• What are the ethical issues in your research?

At the conclusion of the Upgrade Interview, your Assessors will draft a formal Upgrade Interview reportLink opens in a new window making a recommendation. They may make one of four recommendations:

1. that you be upgraded to PhD registration
2. that you resubmit your work, or additional information, at a future date, having made any changes required in consultation with your supervisor. A second upgrade interview may be required.
3. that you continue with your project to completion as an MPhil. Note that your expected end date would be reduced to the standard Period of Study for the MPhil course.
4. that your registration as a research student should be discontinued, on the grounds that the planned project will not lead to a research degree. This option will, however, normally only be used after a resubmission and after consultation with the Director of PG Research or Head of Department.

It is our expectation that most students will be successful in their Upgrade interview on the first attempt.

Being asked to resubmit may feel disappointing, but it is important that any weaknesses, or barriers to completing your project are resolved in order to allow you to move forward to the completion of the doctorate. Many excellent theses have been successfully completed after a second Upgrade Interview. If asked to resubmit, the points to address will be clearly set out by the Assessors in their report. A second opportunity to upgrade should be held within six months of the initial upgrade meeting (or within one year for part-time students).

Failure to upgrade at the second attempt may lead to either: (i) proceeding to the degree of MPhil; or (ii) the student being required to withdraw their registration under University Regulations 36.4. Students have the right to appeal against either of these decisions under University Regulation 36.5.

Further regulations regarding the upgrade process can be found on the Doctoral College webpagesLink opens in a new window.

Each upgrade presents unique strengths and weaknesses but occasionally there are some difficulties:

• Unclear or too wide a set of research questions

To address this make sure you can provide a succinct statement of your research question and make sure it is tightly focused and manageable. History PhDs are often very narrowly focused but you must ensure that you are addressing the bigger picture as well.

• Formulaic presentation of the literature review

You should demonstrate how your project will engage with the current scholarly literature on your subject and give an analysis of the relevant historiography. You should avoid simply presenting a list of who said what and when.

• A vague understanding of sources

You will not be expected to provide a full analysis of the sources you will be using for your research - you will probably be only in the preliminary stages of gathering material. However, you should have a clear idea of the type and scope of sources you will be using, where these are located, and any challenges or problems you foresee. In addition, you may be asked why you are selecting certain sources and not using others so be sure that you have a clear idea of why you have chosen your source material.

• Unclear research methodology

Make sure you are clear about your approach to your research and have addressed any methodological issues.

• Unrealistic scope or timetable

Are you sure that the outline you have presented is attainable? How might you scale down your project if it became necessary? Have you left sufficient time for writing up your research - this often takes longer than expected!

Full-time students in intermediate years will be assessed by the departmental Annual Review Panel. Annual reviews normally take place during term 3.

All part-time students who have been upgraded to full doctoral status will typically be reviewed in Year 4.

The Annual Progress Review Panel takes place on dates that will be fixed in the calendar, normally across 2 or 3 days in May, and notified to you well in advance. It is very important that you ensure you are available to attend the Panel meeting when requested. The PG Coordinator will circulate booking information on confirmation of the panel dates.

The department expects reviews to take place in-person, but some online meetings may also be available.

In preparation for their interview, students are required to send the following materials to their supervisor(s) no later than 4 weeks in advance of the meeting:

• A chapter draft, or another piece of writing related to the thesis research, of between 5000 and 10000 words in length (excluding bibliography).
• A PGR Annual Review Student Progress Report form
• A work plan and timetable to completion

Note that in order to allow time for supervisors to read chapter drafts and write their progress reviews, and for the review panel to have adequate time to read the reports and review materials, students will usually be expected to submit their materials at least 4 weeks ahead of the review panel meeting dates. It is therefore important that students begin preparing for the reviews well ahead of the submission dates.

These submissions are to be read by the supervisor(s), who will then provide a short report (no more than 1 page) to the Panel prior to the Review meeting, covering the progress made by the student during the year and highlighting any causes or concerns. This supervisor's report will be submitted to the review panel at least 10 working days prior to the review meeting. This means that students should normally aim to submit the required paperwork to their supervisors during mid-April.

Please note that both supervisor and panel reports will be made available to students after the meeting. Any confidential matters may be communicated to the Director of PG Research separately.

The Departmental Graduate Progress Review Panel will include two reviewers, the Director of PG Research and another member of academic staff. For students supervised by the Director of PG Research, an alternative independent panel member will be assigned.

Your supervisor(s) will read your materials and submit a report, but will not attend the annual review meeting itself.

The Review Panel will question the student about their progress, paying particular attention to planning the work ahead and to developing a clear strategy toward completion of the thesis.

Following the Panel interview, the Director of PG Research will prepare a short report on each student, to be sent to the supervisor and the student following the reviews. It is expected that student progress will be deemed satisfactory in the vast majority of cases.

Should the Panel consider full-time student progress to be “unsatisfactoryLink opens in a new window” at a Review in Years 2 or 3 (year 4 part-time), then the Director of PG Research will meet subsequently with the supervisor and/or the student to devise a programme of ameliorative measures that can be put in place to assist the student in reaching an acceptable level of progress. These supportive measures will be documented, and the student’s progress will be reviewed again after six months. If progress remains unsatisfactory after this second meeting, then the Director of PG Research will discuss further options with the student and supervisor and may consider proposing that the student be permanently withdrawn via a Continuation of Registration Committee

It is important to note that, although all full-time MPhil/PhD students are now registered for four years, the University still expects all to submit within 3.5 years. Any additional time required should be devoted solely to the process of ‘writing up’ their research. (Part-time students are normally expected to complete the thesis within six years, but may extend their writing up into the seventh year).

Unless the Director of PG Research receives written advice from supervisors that completion is imminent and/or entirely unproblematic, the progress of all students in Year 4 (or year 6 if part-time), must be reviewed in the Summer Term, requiring an interview with the Departmental Graduate Progress Review Panel during May. The materials to be submitted are the same as in earlier years (see above), but particular attention should be given to a detailed work plan to completion of the thesis.

Supervisors are requested to comment on the completion plan, and to give a clear indication of the likelihood of successful completion of the thesis by the students end date, and to highlight any potential difficulties that might delay submission. The supervisors report will be submitted to the Director of PG Research by the supervisor(s) at least 10 working days prior to the meeting of the Progress Review Panel.

The Review Panel will question the student about their progress, paying particular attention to planning the work ahead and to developing a clear strategy toward completion of the thesis.

Should the Panel consider student progress to be “unsatisfactory” at a Review in Year 4, then the Director of PG Research will meet subsequently with the supervisor and the student to devise a programme of ameliorative measures that can be put in place to assist the student in reaching an acceptable level of progress. These supportive measures will be documented, and the student’s progress will be reviewed.

If progress remains unsatisfactory after a second meeting, the Director of PGR Studies will discuss the options with the student and supervisor. Possible outcomes include examining the thesis for an MPhil award or permanent withdrawal via a Continuation of Registration Committee (in some cases with the possibility to apply for ‘Leave to Submit’ at a later point).

The progress of all MAR students in should be assessed with a progress report from the supervisor in January. Students will then be reviewed in the Summer Term, requiring an interview with the Departmental Annual Progress Review Panel during May.

The documentation for this should normally follow the requirements laid out for a PGR year 4 annual review (see above) rather than a PhD upgrade.