The bulk of the accomplishments that will be reported in the thesis to be examined by the external and independent examiners will occur in the phase following the confirmation of candidature.
Depending on the domain and goals the work may take many alternate paths. The variations may exist in paths among you and your peers. Each candidate should strive to progress along their agreed plans as outlined in their individual research plan.
Research plans are working documents and should be adjusted according to the candidate’s progress. Consult your supervisory team to seek help and advice but to seek help you must ensure that your team is progressing with you on your research. If your supervisory team falls too far behind you they will become ineffective. At the same time, remember people may lose interest in your work if they do not see you progressing in a timely manner.
While the supervisors are experienced and are readily available resources, your research can benefit from input from the wider community. School seminars are structured to provide you with an opportunity to explain what you are doing and, in turn, for the audience to benefit from your work. The audiences comments, appreciations, questions and concerns will help you better understand issues in your research.
Feedback from the seminars should be taken as constructive. Some feedback may be a signal to you to re-organise your thoughts and presentation differently. Remember, if your colleagues have difficulty understanding and appreciating your work this may be a sign that you need more clarification to convince the examiners of the value of your accomplishments. Do not be reluctant in presenting your work to the school - it is an opportunity to gain constructive feedback.
While the school encourages candidates and supervisors to meet on a regular basis, weekly or fortnightly, the primary supervisor is required to report the bi-monthly meetings on iGrad. The school has provided checklists to be used by both the candidate and the supervisory team for the major milestones such as submission of research plan, confirmation of candidature and annual reviews. The school would strongly suggest that the timelines and gant chart from the working research plan be used as the basis to evaluate progress for these bi-monthly reviews.
It should be noted that it is the responsibility of the candidate to schedule meetings in time to complete the requirements of the Annual Review and other timelines associated with your candidature. The dates provided in iGrad are dates by which the task MUST be completed by NOT commenced. Your supervisor is ultimately responsible for the finalisation of all tasks associated with your candidature, however, the process is expected to be driven by the candidate.
To ensure that you and supervisory team are on-time to successfully complete, each year your work is reviewed by the independent GRC. The review provides you with understanding relating to the rate of progress against your agreed schedule (research plan) as well as against the expectations of the school (checklists).
The GRC review is not an adversary task - it is a frank, honest and in-depth probe into the achievements and progress.
The annual review process begins with the candidate and primary supervisor (in consultation with other supervisors) completing Part A and Part B of the annual review form. The two sections are completed independently but provided to all later by the school GRC. The GRC will also have a private confidential meeting with the candidate prior to the 3-party meeting. The GRC will arrange a 3-party meeting (a supervisor/s, the candidate and the School GRC or substitute) to fill Part C of the annual review.
Also please note - Confirmation of Candidature and Review of Progress are now online.Both Confirmation of Candidature and Review of Progress are available on iGRad via the eStudent Centre for students and inSite for Supervisors and GRCs. Once logged in it can be accessed through the 'Review of Progress' or 'Confirmation of Candidature' Tab.Please see the links below to the eStudent Centre and inSite:
inSite - https://www.studentcentre.utas.edu.au/authentication/logon.aspx?URL=https://staff.studentcentre.utas.edu.au/inSite/login.aspx?ReturnUrl=/insite/Default.aspx
eStudent - https://www.studentcentre.utas.edu.au/authentication/logon.aspx?URL=http://www.studentcentre.utas.edu.au/estudentcentre/login.aspx?ReturnUrl=/estudentcentre/Default.aspx
The school had developed annual review checklists to assist with the process of annual reviews. The 2nd year checklist or the 3rd year checklist must be completed by the supervisor and candidate one month prior to the annual review.
The role of part C in the annual review form is as follows:
There are no guidelines on how to resolve conflicting issues during annual review process. Also there is no school policy how to resolve them if the GRC is not provided with evidence to align with the Part A and Part B.
The current procedure is as follows: The GRC is responsible to make recommendations for any identified issues. If each party, student and supervisory team members, do not agree with the recommendations by the GRC, the issue should be dealt by the Head of School.
It is recommended that candidates present at the school seminars before their annual review. If they are unable to do so the student and supervisor will be required to provide justification to the GRC.
A typical research candidate progresses through the following four stages of interaction with the School of Computing and Information Systems.
This document describes the School of Computing and Information Systems procedures related to the first stage. Procedures for other stages are listed in separate documents as they involve specific provisions that requires more intimate knowledge of the school and its environ.
Authorised by the Head of School, Computing & Information Systems
19 April, 2012