Annual Progression Review

The APR requires you to complete a form in the PGR CoP system which prompts you to reflect on the progress made in relation to various areas of your research.  This includes commenting on whether or not ethical approval has been obtained, the frequency of supervisory meetings, whether training needs have been identified and addressed, and the progress made in relation to the project plan.  You are also asked to upload documents to provide evidence of your progress.  These documents can include the submission of a piece of work or evidence of the research training undertaken.

If you have a Data Management Plan (DMP) you will be asked if you have reviewed this. The DMP is intended to be a living document in which a project’s approach to the management and sharing of data becomes more detailed over time and significant changes are included. This is especially relevant for PGRs whose skills and understanding of the research process will develop rapidly over the course of the project. Further information on DMPs and guidance.

If your progress has been impacted in any way by the Covid-19 pandemic, you should provide details of this impact in your APR report. Please also be aware of the PGR Covid-19 mitigations that the University has in place to support students. 

You can choose to make your form visible to your supervisor(s), but if you prefer not to do this, the form will be visible only to the APR Panel, the Head of School and the Dean of Postgraduate Studies (or their nominees).

Supervisors are required to complete a form in the PGR CoP system to provide their view of your progress.  Supervisors are asked to identify any risks that may affect your progress and to confirm that the required number of supervisory meetings have taken place.  They are also asked to comment on training needs and, for non-native speakers, English Language competency. 

Forms completed by the supervisors cannot be hidden from their students.

The forms submitted by you and your supervisors are considered by an independent review panel, the membership of which should be the same (or equivalent) to the panel that reviewed and approved the research project as part of the Project Approval process.  The Panel reviews the completed forms and documents, but may also ask you to attend a meeting to deliver a presentation on your research or undergo a viva or interview. 

After considering the evidence, the Panel prepares a written report and determines whether the research project will meet the standards for the award.  The following recomendations are available to the Panel:

1. Performance is satisfactory and the student can proceed to the next stage;
2. Overall performance is satisfactory and the student can proceed to the next stage, despite some concerns;
3. Performance is unsatisfactory and a further assessment should be held within two months to determine whether progress on the programme will be recommended;
4. Performance is unsatisfactory and that the student should be transferred from a PhD to an MPhil;
5. Performance is unsatisfactory and the student’s candidature should be terminated.

The exact wording of the outcomes of the progression panel, can be found in the Doctor of Philosophy Degree Progress Regulations (Section J, sub-section 21).

If the Panel chooses the third option, it must also set out what you and your supervisory team must do to put the research project back on track prior to a reassessment

The Head of School (or nominee) is invited to review and comment on the reports submitted by you, your supervisor and the APR panel before submitting the form for approval by the Dean of Postgraduate Studies.

After reviewing the forms, the Dean of Postgraduate Studies (or nominee) can choose to endorse the recommendation made by the Panel or refer it back if they feel insufficient information has been provided to assist you.  The Dean must approve the Panel’s recommendation before the forms can be viewed by you and your supervisor(s).