(1) These Procedures stipulate: (2) These Procedures apply to all HDR candidates, HDR Supervisors, and staff who support HDR at UOW. (3) These Procedures do not apply to offshore campuses if governed by separate procedures. (4) Early in their candidature, candidates shall complete a written research proposal and oral presentation, called a Research Proposal Review, that outlines the research they plan to complete. This review is comparable to the confirmation of candidature at many other universities. (5) If candidates completed a comparable review at another university before transferring to UOW, the Head of Postgraduate Studies may decide these candidates do not need to complete the research proposal review again, especially if the research proposal has not changed substantially since this previous review. (6) The written research proposal should typically comprise between 5000 to 10 000 words for candidates enrolled in a doctoral Degree and 3000 to 7000 words for candidates enrolled in a Masters degree. Faculties and schools can stipulate the duration of oral presentations. (7) Faculties and schools can design the process, format, requirements, and contents of this review; however, the written proposal and oral presentation should usually include: (8) The candidate shall complete the research proposal review within 1.5 EFTSL if enrolled in the PhD (Integrated) and within 1 EFTSL otherwise, but shall attempt to complete this review several months earlier. (9) In exceptional circumstances, the Head of Postgraduate Studies can approve an extension of up to one session if: (10) The Review Committee assess the research proposal review. The Review Committee must include the Supervisors as well as two independent, informed academics. At least one of these informed academics shall have developed: (11) The Review Committee will be granted the opportunity to ask the candidate questions about the research. (12) To encourage independent feedback and to prevent or manage conflicts of interest: (13) The Review Committee shall usually include a HDR student representative and may also include other members, provided these attendees are chosen to benefit the progress and wellbeing of the candidate. (14) The Review Committee shall assess whether: (15) The Review Committee should convene promptly to decide whether: (16) Usually within 10 working days of the oral presentation: (17) If the revised proposal is also deemed as unsatisfactory, but the Review Committee believe, with appropriate support, the research could achieve a doctoral level award, the Review Committee shall recommend that: (18) If the Review Committee believes the research could achieve only a masters level award, this panel may recommend a Master of Philosophy. Otherwise, the Review Committee may recommend the candidate discontinue. (19) If the Review Committee recommends intensive supervision, a transfer to Masters level, or discontinuation, the Associate Dean - Higher Degree Research will consider this recommendation and communicate a decision to the Dean of Graduate Research. The Dean of Graduate Research will be asked to reach a final decision after reviewing all documentation. The Dean of Graduate Research may recommend intensive supervision, a transfer to Masters level, discontinuation, or consider an alternative action. The Dean of Graduate Research or nominee will advise the candidate, Supervisors, and Associate Dean - Higher Degree Research of the final decision. (20) Before the Dean of Graduate Research can recommend discontinuation, candidates shall be advised of this impending discontinuation and granted working days to present other relevant information, such as: (21) Before discontinuing the candidature, the Dean of Graduate Research will first advise the candidate of this impending discontinuation and grant the candidate 20 working days to present other relevant information, such as: (22) Candidates who are discontinued may appeal the decision, in accordance with the HDR Student Academic Complaints Policy. (23) Candidates who are experiencing personal, academic, logistical, or other problems that might impede their progress should inform their Supervisor promptly and document these challenges. (24) In the latter half of each year, the Graduate Research School shall initiate a review of every HDR candidate, called the Annual Progress Report, that seeks to: (25) Although the Graduate Research School and Head of Postgraduate Studies should remind candidates of their obligation to complete the Annual Progress Report on time, candidates assume the responsibility to submit their sections of this report by the due date. (26) Principal Supervisors shall complete their section of the report by the due date. If unable to complete this section on time, in special circumstances, they can delegate this responsibility to another supervisor provided this Supervisor is eligible to be a Principal Supervisor. (27) To promote candid responses, the candidate and Principal Supervisor shall not be granted access to the responses of another, on questions that could be sensitive. However, before they submit their respective reports, the Principal Supervisor and candidate should meet to: (28) The Head of Postgraduate Studies, after receiving and reviewing the Annual Progress Report from both the candidate and Supervisors, shall decide whether the progress was satisfactory. (29) If the progress is deemed as satisfactory, the Head of Postgraduate Studies will submit the report to the Graduate Research School and, therefore, the candidate can be re-enrolled. (30) If the progress report is deemed as unsatisfactory, the Head of Postgraduate Studies will recommend some remedial actions to the Associate Dean - Higher Degree Research who shall then endorse or amend these actions. (31) If the Head of Postgraduate Studies believes these concerns are resolvable within a few months, remedial actions may include: (32) If the Head of Postgraduate Studies and Associate Dean - Higher Degree Research believe these concerns may not be resolvable within a few months, they may recommend the Dean of Graduate Research impose a period of intensive supervision. (33) To decide which actions to recommend, the Head of Postgraduate Studies may consult the candidate and supervisors, either individually or collectively, as well as the Associate Dean - Higher Degree Research. (34) The Graduate Research School will inform the candidates of the actions approved by the Associate Dean - Higher Degree Research. (35) If HDR candidates do not complete their sections of the Annual Progress Report by the due date, they will receive a written warning from the Graduate Research School. (36) If candidates do not submit the Annual Progress Report within one month after this written warning, their candidature may be discontinued, unless another due date was arranged because of exceptional circumstances. To re-enrol, discontinued candidates must submit a new online application and would be treated like any HDR applicant. (37) Doctoral candidates shall complete a mid-candidature presentation or paper, a milestone that is designed to both support these individuals and to maintain accountability. (38) The candidate shall usually complete the mid-candidature review within 2.5 EFTSL if enrolled in the PhD (Integrated) and within the 2.0 EFTSL otherwise. (39) During the review, these candidates should outline the literature and their research questions, methods, and progress to date as well as outline the challenges they experienced and how they have modified their plan to address these challenges or improve their research. (40) To confirm this review has been completed, in the Annual Progress Report, the principal Supervisor shall confirm that at least two informed academics, outside the supervision panel, have evaluated this presentation or paper. (41) Faculties or schools could introduce an alternative to this review that is equivalent in rigour if approved by the Graduate Research Committee. (42) Faculties, schools, or institutes may impose other milestones that candidates need to fulfill before the degree is conferred, such as a short course or an oral examination, but only if: (43) Some candidates may decide to diverge substantially from their research proposal, such as replace the central topic, theme, concept, or key outcome variable with an alternative or change the methodology from entirely qualitative to entirely quantitative or vice versa. In these instances, the Head of Postgraduate Studies may organise an informal review to evaluate the quality of this updated proposal. (44) The offer letter to Candidates shall specify the minimum level of training that candidates must complete, if any. (45) The offer letter should stipulate: (46) This minimum level of training must be organised or endorsed by the Graduate Research Committee and include: (47) Candidates shall maintain evidence they have completed the minimum level of training. This evidence might include certificates of completion or summaries of the skills they acquired. (48) Candidates cannot be awarded the degree until they fulfill this minimum level of training unless approved by the Dean of Graduate Research in exceptional circumstances. (49) Only the Dean of Graduate Research, upon advice from the Associate Dean - Higher Degree Research, may impose a period of intensive supervision, previously called probation, if: (50) The Graduate Research School will notify candidates: (51) The faculty will appoint a senior academic who has not established an ongoing relationship with either the candidate or Supervisors outside work as intensive Supervisor, in accordance with the Conflict of Interest Policy, to oversee the supervision and research progress for 3 to 6 months FTE as well as to guide, to support, and to encourage the candidate. (52) Within two weeks after the period of intensive supervision is imposed, the Intensive Supervisor will complete a Milestones Agreement in consultation with the Supervisors, detailing the goals and milestones the candidate shall attempt to complete. (53) In this Agreement, candidates should also detail how they will manage past or potential impediments to their progress. (54) The candidate will sign to indicate they have read the Intensive Milestones Agreement and were granted an opportunity to amend and to contribute towards these milestones. (55) Candidates who fail to participate in this discussion about milestones and thus do not sign this agreement may be discontinued after 20 working days. (56) After the period of intensive supervision ends, the Intensive Supervisor will submit a Final Intensive Report to the Dean of Graduate Research. (57) The report will outline the milestones achieved during this period, delineate the impediments to progress, and recommend an outcome, such as continuation of enrolment, discontinuation of candidature, course transfer, change of supervision, or another period of intensive supervision if uncertain. (58) The recommended outcome should primarily depend on whether the candidates fulfilled the milestones and has demonstrated significant progress. (59) The Dean of Graduate Research will notify candidates of the outcome as soon as practicable after a decision is reached. (60) Unless the decision is to continue the enrolment, candidates shall be granted 20 business days to supply the Dean of Graduate Research with other evidence or information that invalidates the decision, such as overlooked impediments to progress that have now been resolved or could soon be resolved. If the decision is not reversed, candidates may appeal, in accordance with the HDR Student Academic Complaints Policy. (61) Candidates who experience conflicts or disputes that cannot be readily resolved and do not revolve around research misconduct should respond in accordance with the Higher Degree Research Student Academic Complaints Policy.HDR Progression Procedures
Section 1 - Introduction/Background
Top of PageSection 2 - Scope/Purpose
Section 3 - Research Proposal Reviews
Section 4 - Annual Progress Report
Section 5 - Mid-candidature Review
Section 6 - Other Milestones
Section 7 - Minimum Training
Section 8 - Intensive Supervision or Probation
Section 9 - Complaints Policy and Procedures
Section 10 - Definitions
Graduate Research School (GRS)
Administrative unit responsibility for the administration and management of HDR candidates
Higher Degree by Research (HDR) candidate
A student enrolled in a Doctorate or Research Masters at UOW and whose body of work is incomplete or is under examination
Research Proposal Review (RPR)
A milestone that comprises a written research proposal and oral presentation that candidates shall complete early in their candidature
View Current
This is the current version of this document. To view historic versions, click the link in the document's navigation bar.
Word/Term
Definition (with examples if required)
Academic Unit
Academic units that manage HDR candidates are the UOW Schools and AIIM
Annual Progress Report (APR)
Annual review of candidates, completed by candidates, principal supervisors, and the Head of Postgraduate Studies