The Review of Progress is a comprehensive and constructive process that gives participants the opportunity to:
The Review of Progress also provides an opportunity to set realistic milestones for the remainder of candidature, to ensure completion within the permitted timeframe.
All higher degree by research (HDR) candidates and their supervisors are required to complete an online Review of Progress each year. A Review of Progress is mandatory in accordance with Rule 4 Rules of Graduate Research.
Candidates access iGRad through the eStudentCentre. Access to iGRad for supervisors and GRCs is via inSite, a secure portal that utilises their UTAS username and password. The Review of Progress reports that need to be completed can be accessed through the 'Review of Progress' tab.
The Review of Progress due date is based on the candidate's commencement date, current status and the degree in which they are enrolled. Candidates and supervisors can check the iGrad Action Date Schedule for the required due date.
Requests to alter the Review of Progress due date will not be considered.
The Action Date Schedule is, however, programmed to take into account periods of suspension and/or part-time candidature so due date will automatically be adjusted in accordanc e with variations to candidature. Any candidate who has not completed their Review of Progress by the nominated date will have failed to comply with a candidature requirement and may have their candidature terminated.
The candidate and the supervisory team are each required to complete a report on candidature progress. These reports are completed separately, however, candidates and supervisors may elect to share the information contained in their reports. A reminder will be sent to the candidate, their primary supervisor and GRC approximately 2 months before the expected Review of Progress due date. Candidates and supervisors will then be able to log into iGrad to complete and submit their individual reports.
The Primary Supervisor is required to complete the "supervisor" report on behalf of the entire supervisory team. As a general rule, the supervisor listed first in the supervisory team will be considered to be the Primary Supervisor. Once a report is submitted, the GRC will be able to view the information provided and, where necessary, send the report back to the candidate and/or the supervisory team for more information.
Once both reports are submitted and the GRC is satisfied that all required information has been provided, the GRC should organise a Review of Progress meeting. The GRC will then be able to complete the Review of Progress Outcome form via iGrad.at the meeting. Note: Where the GRC is also listed on the supervisory team they will not be able to complete the Review of Progress Outcome as this would constitute a conflict of interest.
If a GRC is also supervisor, the nominated Alternate GRC will need to complete this documentation as (stand-in) GRC. (Note: The alternate GRC may need to contact the Graduate Research Office on extension 8559 for GRC iGrad access).
A meeting needs to be scheduled for each candidate, their supervisory team and GRC to complete the Review of Progress Outcome. The meeting can occur in any format that is agreeable to the participants. While it is encouraged that all members of the supervisory team be physically present at the meeting; it is acknowledged that in some circumstances this may not be possible or practicable. In such circumstances, the GRC is to ensure that all members of the supervisory team have the opportunity to relay information/opinions and so all views are represented at the meeting.
The GRC has the authority to complete the Review of Progress Outcome, however, the Head of School may also be present at the meeting. Where appropriate, additional people may be invited to the Review of Progress meeting (e.g. experts in the research area). The candidate should be advised of any additional invitees as early as possible and have the opportunity to provide a reason why that person should not attend. The GRC must record the names of all participants involved in the meeting.
The candidate may request permission to have an additional person, who is not an immediate family member or a legal representative, attend the meeting. This person is an observer only and is not permitted to take an active part in the meeting.
The candidate is able to advise the details of this person in their report, however, the request must be received by the GRC at least 7 days prior to the meeting. If the GRC does not approve the request, the candidate may appeal this decision to the Dean of Graduate Research.
The Review of Progress can result in one of the following outcomes:
a. The candidate is making good progress and no significant problems have arisen. The candidate is expected to complete within the maximum permitted candidature time. Candidature to continue.
b. The candidate is making satisfactory progress, however, issues have been identified that may delay submission of the thesis. The candidate and supervisory team have discussed these issues and strategies are in place to enable completion within the maximum permitted candidature time. Candidature to continue.
c. The candidate's progress has been unsatisfactory.
OR
The candidate's expected thesis submission date exceeds the maximum permitted candidature expiry date. Candidature to continue subject to conditions.
d. The performance and/or conduct of the candidate have been unsatisfactory. Termination of candidature is recommended.
Where the outcome of the Review of Progress is a "C" the candidate must be placed on a Candidature Management Plan (CMP). The CMP may be submitted as an attachment with the Review of Progress outcome or may be submitted separately to the Graduate Research Office. If the CMP is not included with the outcome then the finalised CMP must be submitted to the GRO no later than 14 days after the Review of Progress meeting.
Under clause 13.1 of Rule 4, Rules of Graduate Research, candidature may be terminated where the candidate has previously been advised that they are not making satisfactory academic performance and has been given a reasonable opportunity to rectify this situation.
If termination of candidature is recommended the School/Institute/Centre must provide details of this advice and clearly outline the reason/s for this recommendation. The Dean of Graduate Research will undertake a preliminary investigation to determine whether the recommendation is justified. If this investigation determines that there are sufficient grounds to warrant the recommendation, the Dean will begin termination proceedings under clause 13.1 of Rule 4, Rules of Graduate Research. If the candidate is in receipt of a scholarship, the recommendation provided above will have a corresponding effect on scholarship continuation.