phd assessment criteria

• Graduate Research School
• Assessment criteria

Further information

• Classification of theses

Examiners are asked to comment on the following when examining thesis.

• The thesis as a whole is a substantial and original contribution to knowledge of the subject with which it deals.
• The student shows familiarity with, and understanding of, the relevant literature.
• The thesis provides a sufficiently comprehensive study of the topic.
• The techniques adopted are appropriate to the subject matter and are properly applied.
• The results are suitably set out, and accompanied by adequate exposition.
• The quality of the English and general presentation are of a standard for publication.

Master's

• The thesis is a substantial work generally based on independent research which shows a sound knowledge of the subject of the research, evidence of the exercise of some independence of thought and the ability of expression in clear and concise language.
• Any other examinable component submitted in partial fulfilment for the award of master which you are examining demonstrates technical accomplishment and imaginative resource and/or advanced technical and interpretative accomplishment, as appropriate (if applicable),
• The thesis provides a sufficiently comprehensive study of the topic. Any other examinable work shows sufficient master of technique and/or style (if applicable).
• The quality of English and general presentation are of a standard for publication.

• Current Students
• Examination process
• News and events
• Research proposal
• Your candidature
• Confidentiality and IP
• Editorial Assistance
• Style and format
• Thesis as a series of papers
• Graduate research coordinators
• Resources and training
• Funding, grants & prizes
• Policies and rules
• Postgraduate forms
• Researcher Training Framework

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• 12 March 2024

Bring PhD assessment into the twenty-first century

You have full access to this article via your institution.

Innovation in PhD education has not reached how doctoral degrees are assessed. Credit: Dan Dunkley/Science Photo Library

Research and teaching in today’s universities are unrecognizable compared with what they were in the early nineteenth century, when Germany and later France gave the world the modern research doctorate. And yet significant aspects of the process of acquiring and assessing a doctorate have remained remarkably constant. A minimum of three years of independent study mentored by a single individual culminates in the production of the doctoral thesis — often a magisterial, book-length piece of work that is assessed in an oral examination by a few senior academic researchers. In an age in which there is much research-informed innovation in teaching and learning, the assessment of the doctoral thesis represents a curious throwback that is seemingly impervious to meaningful reform.

But reform is needed. Some doctoral candidates perceive the current assessment system to lack transparency, and examiners report concerns of falling standards ( G. Houston A Study of the PhD Examination: Process, Attributes and Outcomes . PhD thesis, Oxford Univ.; 2018 ). Making the qualification more structured would help — and, equally importantly, would bring the assessment of PhD education in line with education across the board. PhD candidates with experience of modern assessment methods will become better researchers, wherever they work. Indeed, most will not be working in universities: the majority of PhD holders find employment outside academia.

Collection: Career resources for PhD students

It’s not that PhD training is completely stuck in the nineteenth century. Today’s doctoral candidates can choose from a range of pathways. Professional doctorates, often used in engineering, are jointly supervised by an employer and an academic, and are aimed at solving industry-based problems. Another innovation is PhD by publication, in which, instead of a final thesis on one or more research questions, the criterion for an award is a minimum number of papers published or accepted for publication. In some countries, doctoral students are increasingly being trained in cohorts, with the aim of providing a less isolating experience than that offered by the conventional supervisor–student relationship. PhD candidates are also encouraged to acquire transferable skills — for example, in data analysis, public engagement, project management or business, economics and finance. The value of such training would be even greater if these skills were to be formally assessed alongside a dissertation rather than seen as optional.

And yet, most PhDs are still assessed after the production of a final dissertation, according to a format that, at its core, has not changed for at least half a century, as speakers and delegates noted at an event in London last month on PhD assessment, organized by the Society for Research in Higher Educatio n. Innovations in assessment that are common at other levels of education are struggling to find their way into the conventional doctoral programme.

Take the concept of learning objectives. Intended to aid consistency, fairness and transparency, learning objectives are a summary of what a student is expected to know and how they will be assessed, and are given at the start of a course of study. Part of the ambition is also to help tutors to keep track of their students’ learning and take remedial action before it is too late.

PhD training is no longer fit for purpose — it needs reform now

Formative assessment is another practice that has yet to find its way into PhD assessment consistently. Here, a tutor evaluates a student’s progress at the mid-point of a course and gives feedback or guidance on what students need to do to improve ahead of their final, or summative, assessment. It is not that these methods are absent from modern PhDs; a conscientious supervisor will not leave candidates to sink or swim until the last day. But at many institutions, such approaches are not required of PhD supervisors.

Part of the difficulty is that PhD training is carried out in research departments by people who do not need to have teaching qualifications or awareness of innovations based on education research. Supervisors shouldn’t just be experts in their field, they should also know how best to convey that subject knowledge — along with knowledge of research methods — to their students.

It is probably not possible for universities to require all doctoral supervisors to have teaching qualifications. But there are smaller changes that can be made. At a minimum, doctoral supervisors should take the time to engage with the research that exists in the field of PhD education, and how it can apply to their interactions with students.

There can be no one-size-fits-all solution to improving how a PhD is assessed, because different subjects often have bespoke needs and practices ( P. Denicolo Qual. Assur. Educ. 11 , 84–91; 2003 ). But supervisors and representatives of individual subject communities must continue to discuss what is most appropriate for their disciplines.

All things considered, there is benefit to adopting a more structured approach to PhD assessment. It is high time that PhD education caught up with changes that are now mainstream at most other levels of education. That must start with a closer partnership between education researchers, PhD supervisors and organizers of doctoral-training programmes in universities. This partnership will benefit everyone — PhD supervisors and doctoral students coming into the research workforce, whether in universities or elsewhere.

Education and training in research has entered many secondary schools, along with undergraduate teaching, which is a good thing. In the spirit of mutual learning, research doctoral supervisors, too, will benefit by going back to school.

Nature 627 , 244 (2024)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00718-0

Reprints and permissions

Related Articles

• Scientific community

My pivot from grain scientist to slave-trade historian

Career Q&A 14 JUN 24

Securing your science: the researcher’s guide to financial management

Career Feature 14 JUN 24

It’s time to talk about menstruation and fieldwork

Unease as US drug agency weighs its use of independent scientists

News 14 JUN 24

To save the high seas, plan for climate change

Comment 12 JUN 24

Hybrid working has benefits over fully in-person working — the evidence mounts

Editorial 12 JUN 24

Tenure-Track Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor

Westlake Center for Genome Editing seeks exceptional scholars in the many areas.

Westlake Center for Genome Editing, Westlake University

Subeditor, Nature Magazine

About the Brand Nature Portfolio is a flagship portfolio of journals, products and services including Nature and the Nature-branded journals, dedic...

New York City, New York (US)

Springer Nature Ltd

Faculty Positions in Bioscience and Biomedical Engineering (BSBE) Thrust, Systems Hub, HKUST (GZ)

Tenure-track and tenured faculty positions at all ranks (Assistant Professor/Associate Professor/Professor)

Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou)

Faculty Positions at the Center for Machine Learning Research (CMLR), Peking University

CMLR's goal is to advance machine learning-related research across a wide range of disciplines.

Beijing, China

Center for Machine Learning Research (CMLR), Peking University

Postdoctoral Research Fellows at Suzhou Institute of Systems Medicine (ISM)

ISM, based on this program, is implementing the reserve talent strategy with postdoctoral researchers.

Suzhou, Jiangsu, China

Suzhou Institute of Systems Medicine (ISM)

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Examination

What do examiners look for in a PhD thesis? Explicit and implicit criteria used by examiners across disciplines

• Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 47(2):1-16

• University of Malta
• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

No full-text available

To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

• Alex Barwick

• Claus Emmeche

• STUD HIGH EDUC

• Assess Educ Princ Pol Pract

• Diana Leonard

• Qual Res Psychol

• Gerry Mullins

• Carmel Borg
• Barbara E. Lovitts

• Barbara M. Kehm

• Active Learn High Educ

• Bianca Bernstein
• Barbara Evans
• Jeannette Fyffe
• Suzanne Ortega
• Svein Kyvik

• Keith Morrison
• Louis Cohen
• Lawrence Manion
• Sharon Sharmini

• Clinton Golding

• Gillian Clarke
• Ingrid Lunt
• Ayelet Lazarovitch

• Sue Johnston

• Suellen Shay
• High Educ Q
• Lewis Elton
• Int J Educ Res
• Assess Eval High Educ
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, assessing the phd: a constructive view of criteria.

Quality Assurance in Education

ISSN : 0968-4883

Article publication date: 1 June 2003

Research and informed debate reveals that institutional practices in relation to research degree examining vary considerably across the sector. Within a context of accountability and quality assurance/total quality management, the range and specificity of criteria that are used to judge doctoral work is of particular relevance. First, a review of the literature indicates that, although interest in and concern about the process is burgeoning, there is little empirical research published from which practitioners can draw guidance. The second part of the paper reviews that available research, drawing conclusions about issues that seem to pertain at a general level across disciplines and institutions. Lest the variation is an artefact of discipline difference, the third part of the paper focuses on a within discipline study. Criteria expected/predicted by supervisors are compared and contrasted with those anticipated and experienced by candidates and with those implemented and considered important by examiners. The results are disturbing.

• Qualifications
• Quality culture
• Academic staff

Denicolo, P. (2003), "Assessing the PhD: a constructive view of criteria", Quality Assurance in Education , Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 84-91. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880310471506

Copyright © 2003, MCB UP Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

Aarhus University logo

Graduate School of Health

Guidelines for assessment of phd dissertation and phd defence.

The assessment committee assesses the academic quality of the PhD dissertation in question. Prior to the submission of a dissertation, the main supervisor and the management of the Graduate School of Health have ensured that the PhD process has been satisfactory and that all formal requirements have been met. It is the responsibility of the chairman of the committee to keep the other members informed about procedures, deadlines and practical matters, including travel arrangements and accommodation in connection with the publicdefence.  

General requirements regarding the content of the PhD dissertation

As stated in the Executive Order of 25 March 2013 regarding PhD programmes at universities, the PhD degree programme trains PhD students to undertake research, development and teaching assignments at an international level. The PhD degree programme concludes with a submission of a PhD dissertation which must document the PhD student’s/author’s ability to apply relevant research methods and to conduct research work meeting the international standards for PhD degrees within the field in question.

The Graduate School of Health recommends that the PhD dissertation consists of a review and a number of papers, based on original data from the PhD project, equal to 3 years of scientific work. The papers should either be published in international journals, accepted for publication in international journals, submitted for publication in international journals or available in manuscript form ready for submission to international journals or in preparation. This corresponds to the international level required in the field of health sciences. The PhD student must usually be first author of the papers.

Co-author declarations must be included for each contribution where the submitted PhD dissertation includes work by several authors. First- and last author, main supervisor and the PhD student must sign the declaration, in which is should be indicated whether the paper in question has previously been included in a thesis or a PhD dissertation.

The review (30-50 pages) should normally contain the following:

• Table of contents and introduction
• Problem definition and hypotheses, including a summary of relevant literature supporting the issue and the hypotheses
• Clarification of considerations in regard to choice of method(s), including a presentation of the methodology used, which should reflect a good understanding of the applied methodology and a critical evaluation of the choice of method(s)
• Brief presentation of the most important results
• In-depth discussion of the results in the light of a critical evaluation of the basic theories and the methodologies used
• Section discussing future aspects, if applicable
• Summary in Danish and English.

The review can also be a review article in which the student’s own findings are incorporated on a par with present literature in the field. The review article should be supplemented by a chapter on the methodologies used (approx. 10 pages). The review article must be published or submitted for publication in an international journal, and the PhD student must be the sole author.

If the PhD student would like additional material to be assessed, such material can be incorporated as a separate chapter in the review or attached as an appendix.

The assessment committee must assess whether the dissertation complies with the abovementioned international standards in the field of health sciences, and the number of papers required will therefore depend on the quality of the papers, the author’s share in the individual works and the scope of the review.  

Very occasionally the research carried out has not resulted in manuscripts or published papers. In such cases the PhD dissertation should be submitted in the form of a monograph. The monograph should be approx. 100 pages with the following format:

• Introduction
• A presentation of the research carried out and the results
• A comprehensive discussion of the results in the light of a critical evaluation of basic theories and the methodologies used
• Discussion of future aspects, if relevant
• Summary in Danish and English
• A statement - prepared in collaboration with the main supervisor - of the PhD student’s share of the work, mentioning any contributions by others. This statement must be signed by both the PhD student and the main supervisor.

In the PhD dissertation it must be indicated how the monograph will be published as a scientific work in the usual international tradition within the specific discipline.

The dissertation must be written in English. In exceptional cases, the dissertation can be in Danish if the student has applied for and been granted exemption.

Final version

The dissertation is screened for duplicate text. After submission it is therefore not possible to make any changes to the wording, correction of spelling mistakes or replace papers in manuscript form with published articles etc. The submitted dissertation is the final version.  

Assessment of the PhD dissertation

The standard scope of an assessment is about 6-8 pages and a specific form is used ( the form can be found on this page ). The assessment should reach the Graduate School of Health no later than six weeks before the public defence in order for the public defence to take place at the agreed upon date.

It is the responsibility of the chairman of the committee to divide the work among the members of the assessment committee and to integrate the individual contributions so that the assessment forms a whole without inconsistencies in style or opinions (e.g. use 'we' instead of 'I'). For this reason appendices to the assessment will not be accepted.

The assessment must be approved by the Head of the Graduate School of Health before the public defence can take place. The chairman of the committee is contacted in case the assessment is found to need elaboration or clarification. The form used for the assessment follows the following format:

The assessment begins with a description of certain formal requirements:

• Name of the PhD student
• Title of the dissertation
• Date of the appointment of the assessment committee
• Composition of the assessment committee

The content of the dissertation – number of pages, tables, papers etc. – is described by completing the pre-printed paragraph.

The scope of the dissertation should be briefly outlined; what is the purpose, why, who is it aimed at, what are the boundaries of the study, what is included and what is not?

It should not be a summary, but a short description of the range or span of the dissertation.

Evaluation of co-author statements

The co-author declarations must be described, and the assessment must evaluate whether the work involved in the dissertation was carried out by the PhD student. If co-author declarations are missing or inadequate, the Graduate School of Health must immediately be contacted, as these declarations must be available before the dissertation can be assessed.

In assessing the review the following questions should be addressed:

• Is the discussion of the literature satisfactory?
• Does the dissertation include a clearly formulated hypothesis, which was relevant at the time the PhD project commenced in the light of the available knowledge in the research field in question?
• Have the considerations in regard to choice of method(s) been clarified, including a presentation of the methodology used, which should reflect a good understanding of the applied methodology, and a critical evaluation of the choice of method?
• Have the results been critically interpreted and has relevant knowledge in the field been included to a sufficient extent in the interpretation?
• Does the student master relevant terminology and is the wording unambiguous?
• Is the summary comprehensible?
• Is the review satisfactory overall?

Consideration must be taken as to whether the review forms a logical part of the dissertation as a whole. Finally, language and presentation skills can be commented on, if necessary.

The individual papers

The assessment of each paper should begin with a full title, list of authors and status of the paper ("published” (journal, year, volume and page numbers), "accepted", "submitted" or "in preparation"). The following questions should then be addressed:

• Is the aim clear?
• Have the methodologies been described in detail?
• Have the results been clearly described?
• Is the discussion exhaustive?
• Is the paper satisfactory overall?

A mere summary of the paper is not sufficient, as the aim is to achieve a critical assessment on a par with an assessment of a manuscript by international referees.

On the basis of the above-mentioned criteria, the assessment should reach a conclusion that states whether or not the dissertation complies with the international standard for PhD dissertations in the field of health sciences. The assessment committee can recommend that the dissertation should:

• Be accepted for public defence
• Be returned for revision. The PhD student is entitled to a resubmission deadline of at least 3 months (with the possibility of an earlier resubmission to maintain the original date for public defence). The deadline must be stated in the conclusion.
• Be rejected

It is important that the conclusion is in line with the rest of the assessment regarding both criticism and praise. In case of disagreement, the recommendation is based on the majority opinion.

The assessment must be signed by all members of the committee.

The outcome of the assessment

There are three possible outcomes of the assessment of a dissertation:

• The dissertation is recommended for defence
• The dissertation is returned for revision
• The dissertation is rejected

If the recommendation is positive, the PhD student will receive an e-mail with the assessment attached and the defence of the dissertation can take place.

Returned for revision

If the assessment committee recommends revision of the dissertation, the PhD student needs to submit a new, revised dissertation together with a point-by point reply where he/she comments on the assessment committee's remarks. 

The author will get at least 3 months to submit a revised dissertation (with the possibility of an earlier resubmission to maintain the original date for public defence) The deadline must be stated in the conclusion of the assessment.

The graduate school needs to receive any comments to the assessment committee’s decision no later than two weeks after the date where the PhD student received the assessment.

Unless special conditions apply, the same assessment committee will reassess the dissertation. The new assessment consists of a free text assessment of the revised dissertation stating the background, a listing of the changes made as well as an assessment of these changes and a recommendation as to whether the dissertation can now be accepted for public defence. 

The new assessment must be signed by all members of the committee and should reach the Graduate School of Health no later than six weeks after the resubmission.

If the committee finds that the academic level in the revised dissertation complies with the international standard for PhD dissertations in the field of health sciences, the defence can take place, and the PhD student and the assessment committee need to agree on a new date for the defence.     The public defence is based on the revised dissertation, and the printed version must also be based on the revised dissertation.

Recommended revision of revised dissertation (second revision)

If the assessment committee finds that the academic level in the revised dissertation does not comply with the international standard for PhD dissertations in the field of health sciences, but can be accepted with minor adjustments, the committee can recommend the dissertation for a second revision.  

If the assessment committee finds that the academic level in the original dissertation does not comply with the international standard for PhD dissertations in the field of health sciences, and that the quality of the dissertation is below an adequate level for acceptance, the assessment committee should recommend the dissertation for rejection.

If the assessment committee recommends rejecting the dissertation, the graduate school needs to receive any comments on the assessment committee’s decision no later than two weeks after the date where the PhD student received the assessment.

The graduate school management will review the assessment committee’s recommendation, including any comments from the main supervisor and PhD student.    The management then makes the final decision on whether the PhD student is asked to resubmit the PhD dissertation to the assessment committee, resubmit to a new assessment committee or whether the dissertation is rejected completely. 

If the dissertation is in fact rejected, the PhD student will be disenrolled from the PhD programme without obtaining a degree. 

The public defence

The public defence should take place within three months of submission of the dissertation . It consists of a lecture by the PhD student followed by an examination by the assessment committee. The lecture normally takes 45 minutes and should cover subjects dealt with in the dissertation. If the assessment committee recommends a title for the lecture other than the title of the dissertation, the PhD student and the Graduate School of Health are informed. The subsequent examination must comprise an in-depth discussion and critical analysis of selected parts of the dissertation and the lecture. The examination is expected to take at least 1 hour, but is often longer. The audience subsequently has an opportunity to ask the PhD student questions.

Following the examination the assessment committee convenes in a separate room in order to discuss and evaluate the defence and sign the recommendation that the PhD degree should be awarded.Within a week of the defence the chairman of the committee sends a signed assessment of the public defence to the Graduate School of Health based on the discussion with the other members of the committee and using a specific form . 

If the recommendation is that the PhD degree should not be awarded, a letter stating the reasons and signed by all members of the assessment committee should be sent to the Graduate School of Health as soon as possible.  

Home | Contact us | Staff | Students | iExeter (Staff and Students) | Site map | 中文网

• Alumni and supporters
• Our departments
• Visiting us
• Academic Partnerships Handbook
• Approval and Revision of Taught Modules and Programmes Handbook
• Assessment, Progression and Awarding: Taught Programmes Handbook
• Credit and Qualifications Framework
• Exceptional Circumstances Handbook
• External Examining Handbook
• Learning and Teaching Support Handbook
• 1 - Provision of information by Faculties to students
• 2 - Admission of students to a Postgraduate Research degree programme under off-campus arrangements
• 3 - Arrangements for the supervision of Postgraduate Research students
• 4 - Supervision of Postgraduate Research students
• 5 - Periods of registration and changes to registration status for Postgraduate Research students
• 6 - PGR Liaison Forums
• 7 - Annual monitoring review
• 8 - Unsatisfactory Student Progress, Engagement and Attendance (USPEA)
• 9 - Upgrade from MPhil or MByRes to Doctoral Study
• 10 - Professional Doctorate Postgraduate Research Programmes: Code of Good Practice
• 11 - Presentation of theses/dissertations for Postgraduate Research degrees: statement of procedures

12 - Handbook for Examination of Postgraduate Research programmes

• 13 - Research Misconduct
• 15 - Student Pregnancy, Maternity, Paternity and Adoption Policy
• 16 - Visiting Postgraduate Research Students
• 17 - Inclusive Practice within Learning and Teaching
• 18 - Postgraduate Student Absence Policy
• 19 - Employment of postgraduate students: code of good practice
• 20 - Faculty Management of Postgraduate Research: Code of Good Practice
• 21 – PGR Aegrotat and Posthumous Awards
• Quality Review & Enhancement Framework
• Student Cases Handbook
• Special Provisions for Online Programmes (including those offered in partnership with Keypath Education)
• Special Provisions for Healthcare Programmes
• Special Provisions for Degree Apprenticeships
• Special Provisions for Programmes with Accreditation Licenced by the Engineering Council

Chapter 12 - Handbook for Examination of Postgraduate Research programmes

1 - Introduction 2 - Award Specific Information 3 - Assessing Candidates with Disabilities 4 - Nomination of the Board of Examiners and the Non-Examining Independent Chair 5 - Non-Examining Independent Chair 6 - Before the Examination 7 - The Examination 8 - After the Examination 9 - Confidential Feedback

• The Handbook for Examination of Postgraduate Research Programmes replaces the ‘Code of Good Practice: Boards of Examiners for Degrees by Research’.
• It aligns with the QAA guidance on assessment as laid out in 'UK Quality Code, Advice and Guidance: Research Degrees' .
• Statement of Procedures: Presentation of theses/dissertations for degrees in the Faculty of Graduate Research.
• The Credit and Qualifications Framework .
• Academic Regulations and Ordinances within the University Calendar .
• The equitable treatment of students.
• Transparency.
• Consistency.
• Maintenance of the academic standards and integrity of University of Exeter awards.
• Must : to indicate a regulation that will be adhered to in all circumstances. Exceptions to such regulations would only be granted by the Deans in exceptional circumstances. For example “The examiners  must  be agreed that the candidate will be able to complete the amendments necessary for the thesis to meet the assessment criteria for the award in question within no more than 6 months from notification”.
• Should : to indicate a regulation that should be adhered to unless sound pedagogical reasons prevent this. For example “Examiner(s)  should  be nominated three months before the expected submission date”.
• May : to indicate a regulation where action is discretionary but Faculties are expected to demonstrate that taking the action has been considered. For example “The viva  may  be conducted in accordance with this agenda.” May is used both as an indication of good practice and also in the permissive sense.
• References to ‘thesis’ throughout this handbook refers to requirements for both dissertations and theses submitted as part of a postgraduate research programme.
• Responsibilities: As specified in the introduction to the TQA Manual, where reference is made to the Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor in this document, unless otherwise specified, they may delegate their authority to the Associate Dean (Education), the Associate Dean (Research and Knowledge Transfer), Faculty or Department Director of PGR students as relevant. No further delegation of authority may occur unless explicitly specified within this document.

• It is the responsibility of students to inform the University if they have a disability, either during application, registration or following the subsequent onset of a disabling condition.
• Students experiencing physical or mental impairment need to be assessed by Disability Advice and Support  (Exeter or Cornwall campuses). At this assessment the student’s needs will be considered in relation to their programme of study. Individual Learning Plans (ILPs) will be put in place, which may include specific assessment arrangements. Where a student has had a Disabled Students’ Allowance (DSA) following a study needs assessment, the ILP will also detail the recommendations for reasonable adjustments arising from that assessment.
• Faculties , in consultation with Disability Advice and Support ( Exeter or Cornwall campuses) where necessary, should comply with the ILP put in place for each individual student by the Disability Advice and Support services. ILPs may  indicate that adjustments should be made either to the requirements specified in the ‘ Statement of Procedures: Presentation of theses/dissertations for degrees in the Faculty of Postgraduate Research ’ or to the arrangements for the viva.  
• Requests for adjustments to the requirements for the presentation of the thesis should be made as early as possible in a student’s programme of study or following the subsequent onset of a disabling condition.
• A viva is normally required for doctoral degree examinations but may , on exceptional medical or personal grounds, be waived with the express approval of the Dean of Postgraduate Research. Alternative options for holding the viva or deferral of the viva should be considered first. No exceptions to the procedures set out in the ‘Handbook for Examination of Postgraduate Research’ programmes may be made without the express approval of the Dean of Postgraduate Research , unless it is a reasonable adjustment that has been listed on the approved matrix of common adjustments that may be offered (see 4.2.3 of the ‘Inclusive Practice within Academic Study’ Policy).
• Requests for specific arrangements pertaining to the viva should be made via an ILP, prior to submission of the thesis to the Postgraduate Administration Office . Requests received after submission cannot be guaranteed to be met.  Where adjustments to the examination process are required: a) An NEIC should be appointed ( see 4.4 below ).  b) The Postgraduate Administration Office will inform the Board of Examiners (including the NEIC, where appointed) of the adjustments required for the examination as indicated in the ILP.
• The NEIC is responsible for taking the ILP into account when making arrangements for the examination.
• Candidates with short-term injuries/health issues, which are supported by medical evidence, may be able to have specific arrangements made for their viva if their injury or health issues have occurred for the first time since submission. They would need to be assessed by or be in contact with Disability Advice and Support and make a request to the Postgraduate Administration Office . However, these candidate s may need to have the date of their viva deferred if it is not possible for alternative arrangements to be put in place .
• The process for determining what adjustments may be made to the viva or the presentation of the thesis are set out in the ‘Inclusive Practice within Academic Study’ Policy. Where adjustments are needed the first point of reference should be the matrix of common adjustments to viva arrangements.
• A disability that has not been declared prior to an assessment cannot be taken into account retrospectively, unless the candidate can provide a reasonable explanation and properly documented evidence for not having declared it (see also the University’s procedures for Student Academic Appeals ).
• For requirements for Aegrotat Awards see Ordinance 16: Aegrotat Awards .
• For requirements for Post Obitum Awards see Ordinance 15: Post Obitum Awards .
• The Dean of Postgraduate Research appoints all members of the Board of Examiners on behalf of the Board of Postgraduate Research and Senate.
• In accordance with the Ordinances, this must comprise at least two examiners of whom at least one shall be external to the University. Further specific appointment requirements are set out in 4.4 below .
• The Dean of Postgraduate Research is responsible for determining and resolving any conflicts of interest that might arise in the appointment of examiners. Faculties  should ensure that there are no conflicts of interest in the nomination of examiners, and should notify the Dean of Postgraduate Research in any situation where a potential conflict of interest is not otherwise resolvable.
• It is advisable to give early consideration to the nomination of examiners.

• For candidates for whom submission in an alternative format has been approved it is important to ensure that examiners are appointed as early as possible, to ensure that an appropriate Board of Examiners may be nominated.
• The responsibilities of those nominating examiners are: a) To give early consideration to the appointment of the Board of Examiners giving consideration to the criteria for nomination ( 4.5 outlined below ). b) To discuss with their Faculty DPGR (or nominee) any nominations where the eligibility of the nominees in question is not clear. c) To informally approach all nominees prior to their formal appointment to elicit informal agreement to take up the appointment should their nomination be confirmed. d) To maintain contact with the Board of Examiners prior to submission of the thesis, to ensure that the examiners are aware of any potential delays in the date of submission. e) To ensure that they have sufficient information about the nominees to allow them to complete the nomination process, including a copy of the proposed External Examiner’s CV, which should be uploaded to MyPGR as part of the nomination, unless the examiner has previously been approved for a prior examination at the University.

• Examiners must be sufficiently expert to enable them to make an assessment of the thesis against the assessment outcomes for that programme. The external examiners should be sufficient experts in the field of study, whilst an internal examiner need only be expert in the broader disciplinary field.

• Non-Examining Independent Chairs (NEIC) should : a) Have a contract of employment 2 with the University; b) Either be able to take lead supervisor responsibilities as specified in the Code of Good Practice - Arrangement for the Supervision of Research Degree Students , or be able to demonstrate successful supervision (as lead supervisor) of a student through to completion within the last 5 years, as a member of any of the following groups:       i) Education and Scholarship job family;       ii) Research job family, including on a fixed term contract;       iii) Education and Research job family on a fixed term contract. c) Have previously supervised to completion at the level of the award in question or at a higher level; d) Have previously examined at the University of Exeter at the level of the award in question or at a higher level.
• Where the following circumstances apply the person in question should not be appointed as an examiner or NEIC, unless exceptional circumstances can be proven:       a) Former or current supervisors or mentors of the candidate       b) PGR Pastoral Tutors of the candidate*       c) Former members of staff of the University who left the University within three years of the date of their proposed nomination       d) A sponsor, relative or friend of the candidate       e) A partner or relative of the supervisor       f) Someone who was examined themselves by the supervisor       g) Close professional colleague (e.g. someone who has collaborated with the candidate by co-authoring a paper) of the candidate       h) A person whose own work is the focus of the research project       i) External Examiners only : A member of staff, from a department or research organisation, where they are involved with the University in a collaborative provision arrangement under which the candidate in question is studying. *To avoid potential for bias, prejudice or conflict of interest (or any perception of such), PGR Pastoral Tutors should not be appointed to the Board of Examiners for students for whom they are (or have been) the designated Pastoral Tutor. Where a case can be made for their appointment, the Faculty Director of Postgraduate Research (or nominee) must submit a rationale for the appointment to the Dean of Postgraduate Research providing information to explain why the appointment would not lead to the perception of a conflict of interest. The written consent of the PGR student and Pastoral Tutor to the arrangement would need to be given prior to confirmation of any appointment.
• It is the responsibility of the candidate, supervisory team, proposed examiners and NEIC (where nominated) to declare any circumstance which might lead to a conflict of interest or the perception of such. For example:       a) If an examiner or NEIC has or has had a personal or professional relationship with the candidate as a sponsor, relative, partner, friend, supervisor, mentor, Pastoral Tutor or close professional colleague       b) If a supervisor has or has had a personal relationship with an examiner or NEIC, e.g. as a relative or partner. See also the University’s 'Code of Professional Conduct: Relations between Staff and Students and between Staff ’.
• Academics involved with the pre-thesis or taught phase of a Professional Doctorate will not normally be considered a Conflict of Interest.
• Faculty and Department DPGRs are not automatically precluded from examining students within their Faculty/Department, but should consider in all instances whether the nature of the contact that they have had with the student in question could lead to a conflict of interest or the perception of such, and seek advice accordingly.
• In any case where a person is unsure about whether a circumstance might constitute a conflict of interest the onus is on that person to declare it or in the first instance seek advice from the College’s Director of PGR. Should it be determined that there is a conflict of interest or the perception of such it would only be under exceptional circumstances that the examination would continue without change.
• The Non-Examining Independent Chair (NEIC) should :      a) ensure that the University’s procedures with regard to the examination of degrees by research are followed      b) ensure consistency and fairness throughout the examination      c) provide additional information if, following a viva, an appeal is lodged by the candidate;      d) preside over the Board of Examiners      e) provide support and mentorship to inexperienced examiners; proactively acting as a source of advice with regard to any queries the examiners may have about the examination process itself throughout the process, whether or not a viva takes place      f) provide a report on the conduct of the examination if required.      g) In the case of a viva by video-link, additional duties of the NEIC are set out in section 7.5 , below. This role is distinct to that of the Board of Examiners in that:      h) The NEIC does not take any part in the assessment of the quality of the thesis, and should not therefore have read the thesis      i) The NEIC need not be a subject expert, nor even a member of the discipline      j) The NEIC does not normally take responsibility for organising the viva (this is normally the responsibility of the internal examiner).
• Because of the responsibilities that they can undertake and because of the quality assurance that they can provide, it is advisable to nominate an NEIC in addition to the examiners where circumstances allow.
• See 4.5  ‘criteria for nomination’. The Dean of Postgraduate Research  may also require that an NEIC be appointed.
• See 4.6 ‘Non-Examining Independent Chair appointment requirements’.
• See 4.7 ‘Declarations of interest’.
• The examiners will receive electronic copies of the thesis from the Postgraduate Administration Office , (and other formats as appropriate or upon request).
• Examiners should retain their copies of the thesis until the examination is complete.
• When a candidate has submitted in an alternative format, upon receipt of the thesis the internal examiner may liaise with the supervisor to ensure that the Board of Examiners fully understand the agreed submission guidelines (attached to the submitted thesis) prior to completion of the preliminary reports.
• The lead Internal Examiner should liaise with all those attending the viva to ensure the viva is scheduled to take place within 3 months of the candidate’s submission. See 6.3.4 below for further information, where a viva is not an automatic requirement.
• All members of the Board of Examiners and the NEIC (where appointed) should respond to communications from the lead internal to facilitate arrangement of the viva, where held.
• The lead Internal Examiner should ensure that they are aware of, and take into account, any adjustments to the examination process that might need to be made resulting from a student’s ILP, prior to scheduling the viva.
• All members of the Board of Examiners  should complete and independent preliminary report. Each examiner, whether internal or external, is required to prepare in writinga preliminary report on the thesis to inform the conduct of the examination. Each report, to be submitted on a pro forma provided by the University, should reflect the examiner's preliminary view of the thesis, relating that opinion to the candidate's success or failure in meeting the criteria for the award in question.
• All completed preliminary reports  should be completed separately and independently, and returned to the PGR Administration Office in the timeframes stipulated in 6.3.5a and 6.3.5bi below.  
• Examiners should not share their preliminary reports with each other, instead they will receive the reports from the PGR Administration Team within the timeframes stipulated in 6.3.5a and 6.3.5b.i below. 
• The Board of Examiners  should consider the preliminary reports of all members of the Board.
• The examiners are responsible for completing their preliminary reports and returning to the PGR Administration Team within a maximum of 10 weeks of submission.
• The PGR Administration Team will circulate the reports to the Board of Examiners at least a week in advance of the viva.
• The NEIC (where appointed) should provide support to the lead internal examiner and liaise with the PGR Administration Team to ensure that the process is running smoothly, and that any questions they may have with regard to the reports or implications for the viva are addressed.
• Students do not receive a copy of the preliminary report, and therefore examiners should be aware that any amendments identified as recommendations at the prelinary report stage that are pertinent to the final amendments specified by the examiners for completion will need to be clearly included within the final Board of Examiners' report (see section 8.9 , below).

• Is the work of the candidate, by assessing the thoroughness of the candidate’s understanding of the thesis (as submitted in written form) and the candidate’s ability to justify the thesis.
• Meets the assessment criteria for the award in question, by assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the thesis and its justification, as well as the candidate’s knowledge of the relevant academic discipline, field of study or area of professional practice, and understanding of relevant theories, concepts and research techniques.
• Thereby, the viva examination provides candidates with an opportunity to talk about their thesis with experts in the field and to receive feedback from them.
• All vivas are different, but they normally follow a question and answer format. The questions can address any aspect of the submission, and there is no minimum or maximum number of questions that might be asked. The nature and quantity of questions should be sufficient to enable the viva to fulfil the two purposes outlined in 7.2.1 above. By the end of the viva, the Board of Examiners should be able to determine whether the thesis is the work of the candidate, and whether it is of the standard to merit the award of the degree for which it has been submitted. If there are concerns as to whether or not the thesis is the work of the candidate, the examiners should refer to the ‘ Procedure for Graduate Research Students suspected of Research Misconduct ’.
• If the thesis is not of the standard to merit the relevant award, formative feedback must be provided in the Examiners’ Report, specifying why the written submission does not meet the relevant assessment criteria and detailing how it should be revised so that it does meet the criteria ( see section 8.9 , below). The dialogue between the Board of Examiners and the candidate during the viva can inform the preparation of the Examiners’ Report to ensure good quality formative feedback is provided.
• Only the following people should normally be in attendance      a) The candidate      b) The Board of Examiners      c) The NEIC, where appointed      d) A member of the supervisory team (normally the lead supervisor) as a non-participant observer where they have been invited to do so by the candidate      e)    The Dean of Postgraduate Research may give permission for additional people, in a non-examining role, to be present at the examination to ensure fairness and consistency.  
• A viva may not proceed without all the examiners and Non-Examining Independent Chair (when appointed) being present 5 .
• The lead (first-named) internal examiner or the NEIC (where appointed)  should chair the viva.
• Candidates should not take an audio, audio-visual or transcript record of the viva.
• Attendance of a member of the supervisory team: a) Candidates may invite one member of their supervisory team to be in attendance at their viva. The supervisor would be there in support of the candidate as a non-participant observer, and to enable them to better provide supervision of that candidate should the candidate be required to complete amendments or resubmit their thesis. However, the following requirements apply: b)    Whilst supervisors should make every effort to attend the viva should they be invited to do so, candidates must be minded that it may be difficult for their supervisor to do so unless they are invited to attend the viva prior to the organisation of the viva by the internal examiner. Confirmation that a supervisor has been invited to attend the viva should normally be included on the student’s thesis submission form. Where a decision to invite the supervisor to attend the viva is made after submission the Postgraduate Administration Office should be informed by the student. The Postgraduate Administration Office will inform the examiners of the request.  c) No more than one member of the supervisory team may attend the viva, in order not to unbalance the viva. This should normally be the lead supervisor, as they will take key responsibility for supporting the candidates with any amendments required. d) The supervisor should only be present at the viva in the presence of the candidate. They must retire with the candidate for any private deliberations of the Board of Examiners. e) A supervisor should be present as an observer only. They should not take any active part in the proceedings the only exception being after the Board of Examiners has announced their recommendations and the viva has formally ended (see ‘Following the return of the candidate in section 7.7 'Agenda’ below), at which point they may , in consultation with the candidate, ensure that they both have a clear understanding of any amendments outlined by the Board of Examiners at this stage. f) A supervisor who is attending a viva must attend for the duration of the viva (with the exception of d), above, see section 7.7 'Agenda’ , below. g) A candidate should not invite anybody other than their supervisor to attend their viva.
• The viva should be conducted in an appropriate, comfortable location where the probability of interruptions occurring is minimal.
• The candidate should confirm their identity at the start of the viva (by producing their Unicard, or other photo ID, such as a passport). The viva must not proceed without this confirmation.

• Vivas must not extend beyond the maximum time-frames indicated. The Chair of the viva should offer participants a 15 minute break after the end of 2 hours.
• This section applies to all vivas where one or more participant joins the viva via a video-link.
• The University has adopted a permissive approach to the use of vivas by video-link, recognising that vivas may be held as successfully by video-link as a viva where all participants are physically in the same room. When making decisions about whether attendance by one or more participant at the viva should take place via video-link, rather than travelling to attend in person, the University’s ‘ Environment & Climate Emergency Business Travel Policy ’ should be adhered to with regard to prioritising low carbon solutions such as video-link attendance. Holding a viva by video-link might present opportunities to nominate external examiners whose attendance, by dint of their location, might otherwise by unviable. It may also be a preferable option for students, e.g. on financial grounds, or to satisfy the reasonable adjustments of an ILP .

a) The Examiners will be able to assure themselves that the thesis is the candidate’s own work.

b) The technology is sufficient to enable a viva to take place without limiting communications and that arrangements will be made to postpone the viva if this is not the case.

c) All participants are able to access an appropriate, comfortable location for the viva, whether on or off-campus, where the probability of interruptions occurring is minimal. To facilitate this participants based off-campus should be reminded of the need to ensure that they have refreshments and have made appropriate arrangements for their comfort. Where multiple participants are in one location the internal examiner remains responsible for ensuring that the location is appropriate, but may seek guidance from the PGR Support Team in so doing;

d) Where an ILP is in place, any reasonable adjustments can be complied with (see also section 3, above). 

The PGR Support Team may consider that the Faculty has provided de facto confirmation that it is has confidence in points a)-c) by virtue of the fact that no participant has raised concerns in advance about any of these points. Specific approval from the Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor is required where:

 i) An ILP is in place, to ensure that appropriate adjustments can be made;

 ii) Or any concerns have been raised about proceeding with the viva by those attending the viva with regard to points a)-c) 

• All viva participants (all members of the Board of Examiners, the NEIC (where appointed) and the candidate) must confirm in writing if it is not feasible for the viva to proceed in this way and confirm at the conclusion of the viva that the holding of the examination by video-link has had no substantive bearing on the examination process.
• Internal Examiners should contact their  PGR Support team  regarding the organisation of vivas by video-link.
• Participants may join the viva from multiple locations but the platform should be tested with all participants ahead of the viva, and approval should always be subject to confirmation of a successful test.
• Where a member of the Board of Examiners will be at a separate site, consideration should be given to their need to consult privately with the other members of the Board of Examiners (and the NEIC, where appointed) on the conduct of the examination. The arrangements for managing the candidate (and supervisor, where relevant) joining/leaving/re-joining the meeting should be set out in advance of the viva.
• Where a candidate is joining a viva by video-link from an off-campus location, costs incurred for the use of resources elsewhere should be met by the candidate provided these costs are made explicit at the point at which the decision is made to hold the viva by video-conference.
• The Board of Examiners should be mindful of the risk that the viva may need to be halted and should ensure that it agrees an approach to record-keeping during the viva discussions to ensure that the viva could be recommenced successfully at a later date.
• Halting the viva in the event that the technology fails or is significantly interrupted or is of a poor quality such that participants are not able to fully engage in the viva. This may include halting the viva at the request of the candidate, if there are any indications of problems with the technology being used.
• If the viva is halted, confirming in writing to all participants that the viva has been postponed as soon as possible, and thereafter confirming whether the viva should be restarted at a later date or recommenced from the point at which it was halted. If the viva is halted at the beginning it should be re-started. If a viva is halted once the viva is underway, arrangements will normally need to be made to allow the viva to recommence from roughly the point at which it halted at a later date, however, the NEIC or lead internal examiner will be responsible for making a judgement on whether the viva should recommence later or would need to be restarted completely.
• Verifying the candidate’s identity by checking ID that the candidate presents on camera to the Examination Board (see 7.4.2, above).
• Keeping a record and reporting to their Faculty DPGR in the first instance should anyone present be unable to confirm that the holding of the examination via video-link had no substantive bearing on the examination process.
• Ensuring that all participants confirm that they have not kept a recording of the viva.
• In cases where unexpected technological problems halts the viva: informing the Postgraduate Administration Office .
• The PGR Support Team must keep records of the decision to hold a viva by video-link, including the approval of the Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor where required, and should lodge a copy of the approval with the Postgraduate Administration Office who will keep a central record of all instances where approval has been given for an examination to be conducted by video-conference to ensure consistency of approach.
• All vivas must be held in English unless the candidate has been given permission to submit their thesis in an alternate language (see ‘language of thesis’ in Presentation of Theses/Dissertations for Degrees in the Faculty of Graduate Research: Statement of Procedures ). If they have been given such permission the viva may be conducted in English and/or the language of submission as appropriate, and as agreed in advance by the examiners in consultation with the candidate (see nomination requirements).
• The following sets out a basic agenda for the viva. The viva may be conducted in accordance with this agenda.
• Prior to the arrival of the candidate and their supervisor (where attending):      a) Introductions      b) Confirmation that all examiners (and the NEIC, where present) have received and understand the regulations for the award in question along with the ‘ Handbook for Examination of Postgraduate Research Programmes ’      c) Confirmation that all examiners have copies of the examiners’ preliminary reports      d) Outline by the first internal examiner (or NEIC, where present) of the viva schedule and process, such as the expectations regarding viva length and the process for informing the candidate of the outcome of the examination      e) Confirmation by the examiners of priority areas about which the examiners wish to ask questions and discussion of the order of questions.
• Following the arrival of the candidate:      a) Introductions (led by the first internal examiner, or the NEIC, where present)      b) Confirmation of the candidate’s identity (led by the first internal examiner, or the NEIC, where present)      c) Housekeeping (led by the first internal examiner, or the NEIC, where present)      d) Explaining the process of the viva to the candidate, and what happens at the end of it (led by the first internal examiners, or the NEIC, where present)      e) Questions (led by the examiners)      f) Conclusions – providing information to the candidate on what will happen next; confirming that the candidate is satisfied that they were given a fair chance to defend their thesis (led by the first internal examiner, or the NEIC, where present), offer the candidate an opportunity to return to the viva location after the Board’s private discussion to receive preliminary feedback (if the Board feels it is appropriate).
• Following the departure of the candidate: a) Initial consideration of whether or not the thesis is the work of the candidate and whether it meets the assessment criteria for the award in question (see 7.2 ‘Purpose of the Viva’ above).

a) Disclaimer (led by the first internal examiner, or the NEIC, where present) to explain that these are only preliminary recommendations, in accordance with the following principle: The Board of Examiners may if they choose, inform the candidate of their preliminary recommendations. However, in doing so it must be made absolutely clear to all concerned that this may not be the final recommendation that the Board of Examiners makes in its written report. Furthermore, this will be a recommendation only, which the Board of Examiners may be asked to amend by either the Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor or the Dean of Postgraduate Research. Candidates should be aware that until they receive formal confirmation of the outcome from the  Postgraduate Administration Office any information received is only provisional;

b) Preliminary notification and explanation of recommendations (if this is felt to be appropriate) and of the nature of the amendments likely to be required in order for the thesis to meet the criteria for the award in question.

• Ending the viva: (led by the first internal examiner, or the NEIC, where present) – providing confirmation that the viva is formally complete. This may either be confirmed as part of step 7.7.3b) above when the candidate is not returning or should take place at the end of step 7.7.5 above, where the candidate has returned.
• Students who are unwell leading up to, or during the examination and are therefore unable to continue with the examination should refer to the  PGR Student Absence Policy .  
• Recommendations of the Board of Examiners Explanation of the different possible outcomes of the examination process (not all outcomes are available at all stages of examination or for all awards, see section 2, ‘ Regulations’ for programme-specific information ).
• The examiners must be agreed that the thesis fully meets the assessment criteria for the award in question without requiring any additional work.
• Minor amendments should be recommended for: a) the correction of typographical, spelling and grammatical errors and b) limited revisions of material in the thesis. This may include limited revisions not central to the thesis, omissions, and improvements to the argument which do not materially alter the conclusions.
• The examiners must be agreed that the candidate will be able to complete the amendments necessary for the thesis to meet the assessment criteria for the award in question within twelve weeks of notification and without the need of a further viva examination.
• Major amendments should be recommended for: a) more extensive revisions than that implied by a decision of minor amendments b) revisions that will not normally require any significant extension of the original research to be undertaken (In such instances, resubmission would normally be necessary).
• The examiners must be agreed that the candidate will be able to complete the amendments necessary for the thesis to meet the assessment criteria for the award in question within no more than six months from notification, and may be able to set an earlier date if they are agreed that the revisions they are requesting make this feasible.
• Resubmission should be recommended when a thesis has failed the first examination for the award for which it was submitted.
• In requiring the resubmission of a thesis for re-examination examiners must indicate the maximum period in which this work should be undertaken. The maximum period must not be more than eighteen months for all Doctoral awards other than the DClinPsy and twelve months for Masters awards and the DClinPsy.
• Following submission of minor, major, outstanding amendments or resubmission, the Examiners may recommend the award of a lower qualification than that for which the candidate submitted (where available). In so doing the examiners must provide positive evidence that the thesis meets the assessment criteria for the award in question.
• This recommendation is only available following minor/major amendments, where all of the required amendments have not been completed satisfactorily.
• The examiners must be agreed that the candidate will be able to complete any amendments outstanding within four weeks of notification.
• This recommendation should be made where the thesis does not reach the standard required for the award of the degree in question, or a lower award, where eligible.
• The Board of Examiners should complete a Board of Examiners’ report form after every examination, whether following the initial submission or resubmission of a thesis. This report form should confirm whether the thesis is the work of the candidate and indicate how the thesis meets the assessment criteria for the award in question (see ‘ the Purpose of the Viva ’). Where further work is recommended, whether minor or major amendments or a resubmission, the report form also provides a record of the additional work required.
• Where amendments are required (whether minor, major or outstanding amendments or revisions prior to re-submission) the Board of Examiners report must indicate those aspects or parts of the thesis which they regard as unsatisfactory and the nature and extent of the re-working required.
• The Board of Examiners’ report form must be suitably detailed and of sufficient quality to allow the candidate, with the support of their supervisory team, to have a clear understanding of the reworking required. The Board of Examiners should note that a member of the supervisory team may approach the lead internal examiner for clarification of the amendments required on one occasion only.
• The Board of Examiners’ report form must always take primacy: including notes on the thesis itself is not a substitute for providing clear and explicit guidance on the report form (see also 8.9.7, below), and should only be used to provide supplementary notes.
• There is no obligation on the part of the examiners to annotate the thesis, and in particular, to proof-read the thesis. Where there are concerns about the standard of literary presentation, it is not necessary for the examiners to identify every failing of presentation in the thesis, e.g. every typo, beyond indicating the nature and type of remedial action required, which may include examples of errors that require amendment.
• The annotations should be clear, reasonable, and unambiguous, and written for the benefit of the student. They will not be reviewed as part of confirming approval of the Board of Examiners’ report, and as such the examiners take sole responsibility for the nature of the annotations provided.
• Where annotations relate to the potential for future development of the candidate’s thesis these should be distinguished from points related to amendments required to reach the standard for award.
• The Board of Examiners’ report form should state the format that the thesis should be submitted in.
• Those amendments requested must be limited to those amendments necessary to satisfy the examiners that the thesis meets the assessment criteria detailed in the Regulations for the award in question.
• The Board of Examiners’ report form must form the basis of the examiners’ subsequent decision as to whether the amendments required have been made satisfactorily.
• The report form must be completed and signed by all examiners, and the NEIC (where appointed), it should then be counter-signed by the Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor (or nominee) and then submitted to the Postgraduate Administration Office  as soon as possible and no later than 15 working days after the viva has taken place.
• Where no viva has been held, the report should be completed within three months of the receipt of the thesis by the examiners.
• The Examiners should not provide a written report to the candidate or their supervisory team directly to notify them of their preliminary recommendations.
• The Examiners should not directly contact the candidate with regard to their examination and must inform the Postgraduate Administration Office  should the candidate attempt to contact them about their examination.
• Examiners should note that under the Data Protection Act 2018 all candidates may request access in full to all reports including the preliminary report. Furthermore, if there is any dispute over the outcomes of the examination their reports may be viewed more widely, including by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator.
• The Postgraduate Administration Office will ensure that the report is submitted to the Dean of Postgraduate Research for approval, with final approval of award by Senate.
• In countersigning and approving the report   the Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor (or nominee)  must confirm that they have read all preliminary reports, the comments in Part II, the report in Part III, and agree that the decision is in line with the examiners’ comments and the outcomes as set out in this Code. They must  also confirm that the report in Part III gives sufficient information and guidance to enable the candidate to undertake the amendments required.
• Either the Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor (or nominee) or the Dean of Postgraduate Research  may  refer back the report of the Board of Examiners, if they are not satisfied that the recommendation is in line with the examiners’ comments and the outcomes as set out in this Code or if they are not satisfied that the report in Part III gives sufficient information and guidance to enable the candidate to undertake the additional work required.
• Under the exceptional circumstance that the appointed examiners are unable to reach agreement, the examiners must submit independent reports to the Dean of Postgraduate Research. The Dean of Postgraduate Research must then recommend to the Vice Chancellor, acting on behalf of Senate, the appointment of an additional external examiner. The additional examiner should be provided by the  Postgraduate Administration Office with a copy of the thesis and the separate reports of the original examiners, and should be permitted to interview the candidate before submitting a final report and recommendation to the Dean of Postgraduate Research. 
• The Postgraduate Administration Office  will send the Board of Examiners’ report to the candidate, copying in the lead supervisor.
• Where further work is required the  Postgraduate Administration Office  will specify the deadline for submission of the thesis.
• Candidates will receive written confirmation from the  Postgraduate Administration Office   of the outcome of the assessment of their thesis.
• Candidates  should  carefully read the report sent to them by the  Postgraduate Administration Office  and where candidates are required to complete amendments to their thesis or to resubmit their thesis: a) Candidates  should  make any amendments required in the format specified by their Board of Examiners b) Candidates  should  liaise with their supervisory team to discuss the additional work ensure that they understand the nature of the revision(s) required c) Candidates  must not  contact any member of their Board of Examiners with regard to their examination. To do so will be treated as research misconduct under the ‘ Procedure for Graduate Research Students suspected of Research Misconduct ’ d) Candidates  must  submit their amended thesis to the  Postgraduate Administration Office  by the date specified in their letter or contact the office as soon as they can if there are any mitigating circumstances that will prevent them from submitting their thesis by the date specified. Failure to submit by the deadline specified will result in withdrawal from the University (see "students deemed withdrawn" ).
• Where candidates are required to submit minor/major amendments or resubmit their thesis the  Postgraduate Administration Office  will inform them of the outcome of the assessment of their thesis (see 8.14 assessing amendments below for more information).
• The following text distinguishes between the date on which the candidate submits their amendments and the deadline date by which the examiner(s) are required to confirm the examination outcome.

• Where unforeseen circumstances cause delay the examiner in question  should  inform the  Postgraduate Administration Office  of this, who will inform the candidate of the delay.
• Minor Amendments: The internal examiner must review the amendments and determine if they have been completed satisfactorily. (Exceptionally the External Examiner may ask to review specific changes of a technical nature, required as a minor amendment to the thesis.)
• Major Amendments: The Board of Examiners must review the amendments and determine if they have been completed satisfactorily.
• Outstanding Amendments: The Internal Examiner/Board of Examiners (as specified in their report) must review the amendments and determine if they have been completed satisfactorily. Where the internal examiner is not able to confirm that the amendments have been completed satisfactorily this should be referred back to the full Board for consideration.
• Section 8.16 (below) lists the outcomes available to the Board of Examiners.

   Satisfactory completion of the amendments must be reported to the Dean of Postgraduate Research.

Where a review indicates that the amendments have not been completed satisfactorily the Board of Examiners should recommend one of the following options to the Dean of Postgraduate Research:

• Both external and internal examiners  may  provide the Dean of Postgraduate Research with confidential feedback about the examination process which will be considered in confidence.
• Forms are sent directly to the examiners by the  Postgraduate Administration Office and may be returned to the Postgraduate Administration Office in the first instance.
• The Dean of Postgraduate Research should act on the issues raised in the report via an annual report to Board of Postgraduate Research. The identity of individuals should be kept confidential.

Last updated August 2023

Last reviewed August 2023

1 No single listing of ‘research-led’ Universities would be useful globally: external examiner nominations are welcome from research-led Universities wherever they are based, however for institutions within the UK, membership of the sector group representing research-led Universities is a useful check to the status of an institution: the  Russell Group .

2 For the avoidance of doubt, individuals engaged on a self-employed/consultancy basis and individuals engaged on a claims basis are not eligible to act as Internal Examiners.  3   Students are however, entitled to request a copy of the report via a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act 2018.

4   See 8.5 for the definition of a ‘resubmission’.

5  If an examiner is unable to attend the viva should be postponed, or where necessary consideration given to revising the membership of the Board of Examiners (for example where an examiner will be unavailable for an extended period of time). If the appointed NEIC is unable to attend, the Faculty should arrange for a substitute NEIC to take their place. If there is not time for the appointment to be approved, the Faculty should ensure that the substitute NEIC is someone who has previously undertaken the NEIC role: as they are not an examiner they need not be a subject expert.

The Dean of Postgraduate Research may give permission for additional people, in a non-examining role, to be present at the examination to ensure fairness and consistency.

Back to top

Using our site  |  Freedom of Information  |  Data Protection  |  Copyright & disclaimer  |  Privacy & Cookies  | 

• Svensk webbplats
• Student Portal
• Staff Portal

Search results

Search tips

• Make sure there are no spelling errors
• Try different search terms or synonyms
• Narrow your search for more hits

Courses for Exchange Students

Job Opportunities

How can we help?

Find Employees

Assessment of a PhD thesis and defense

The Examining Committee shall assess the scope and quality of the doctoral thesis as well as the performance of the doctoral student at the public defense in relation to the qualitative targets set out in the Higher Education Ordinance. To facilitate the assessment, assessment criteria are available for both the doctoral thesis and the verbal defense.

Assessment criteria for the doctoral thesis

The scope and quality of the doctoral thesis shall correspond to at least four years’ full-time third-cycle studies. The contribution of the doctoral student shall be clear and sufficient. Note that it is not the number of articles that is decisive but rather the overall quantity and quality of the work.

The background information

The background information shall:

• firmly anchor the specific research field in a wider context
• include a relevant, selective and current literature review
• establish the knowledge gaps in the specific research field
• explain the motives for the studies
• define the relevant problems that form the basis to the posed questions

The hypotheses and questions

The hypotheses and questions shall:

• be precisely worded
• well-defined
• be clearly established in the specific research field within Informatics.

The methods

The methods shall be:

• described at a sufficient level of detail.

They shall also be justified, and their advantages and disadvantages shall be discussed.

The results

The results shall be:

• processed using adequate methods
• described and presented clearly
• interpreted in a well-balanced way
• if applicable, be repeatable and permit transferability

The discussions and conclusions

The discussions and conclusions shall:

• give a summary of the findings and show a perspective on the interpretation
• link the various parts of the studies together
• critically review the achieved results
• discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the studies
• set the findings in relation to literature of the research field
• discuss the studies’ implications for the research field and how the findings may be applied
• identify new or remaining gaps in the research field

Furthermore, the doctoral thesis shall include an ethical discussion where applicable.

Assessment criteria for the verbal defense

The author of the thesis shall demonstrate:

• broad knowledge within their research field
• deep and current knowledge within their specific research field
• familiarity with research methodology and an ability to assess strengths and weaknesses in methods used
• ability to formulate, plan and address a research question using adequate methods
• familiarity with the compiled scientific literature of the specific research field
• capacity to perform scientific analysis and synthesis during an academic discussion
• ability to present their research results with authority and respond to questions and criticism in an objective and adequate way
• knowledge of good research practice and ability to make assessments of research ethics
• ability to incorporate their own results into a wider context and reflect on the implications of the research for society
• ability to express themselves regarding how their own research contributes to the development of knowledge

Faculty of Social Sciences | Lund University

The browser you are using is not supported by this website. All versions of Internet Explorer are no longer supported, either by us or Microsoft (read more here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/windows/end-of-ie-support ).

Please use a modern browser to fully experience our website, such as the newest versions of Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari etc.

Assessment criteria

Assessment criteria when accepting new PhD students

Applications will be assessed by at least two senior faculty members, who have no conflict of interest.

Applications are assessed with regard to:

• The quality of earlier scientific papers and reports (e.g. Master's theses, published scientific papers).
• The feasibility, theoretical foundation, and innovative value of the research plan.
• Earlier experience of particular relevance to the research plan (research, clinical work, or similar experience).

These assessments are used to rank applicants. If necessary, top-ranking applications are submitted to a second evaluation round.

Åse Innes-Ker Director of Doctoral Studies Ase [dot] Innes-Ker [at] psy [dot] lu [dot] se (Ase[dot]Innes-Ker[at]psy[dot]lu[dot]se)

Anita Lennerstedt Administrator +46 46 222 91 21 anita [dot] lennerstedt [at] psy [dot] lu [dot] se (anita[dot]lennerstedt[at]psy[dot]lu[dot]se)

Looking for a project?

Project suggestions for aspiring PhD-students.

Lund university

PhD studies at Lund university

• Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2021

Written by Mark Bennett

The Research Excellence Framework, or ‘REF’, is the most detailed and extensive assessment of university research in the UK. First carried out in 2014 (and replacing the previous Research Assessment Exercise), it evaluates research performance across 34 different subject areas at each UK university. The results of the REF are used to determine the proportion of public funding allocated to individual universities for research.

For prospective PhD students, the REF 2021 can be a very useful resource… provided you know what to look for.

That’s why we’ve created a convenient and accessible breakdown of the REF 2021 results .

What is the Research Excellence Framework?

The REF is used to determine how much public money is allocated to each UK university in order to fund their research. This funding accounts for the largest proportion of research support received by UK universities.

In addition to determining funding allocations, the REF process ensures universities are accountable for the public investment that supports their research. It also provides a means of benchmarking university research performance for other users… like prospective research students!

Is the REF like a university rankings table?

Not as such. The REF does ‘rank’ university research according to its ability to meet given quality levels, but these are standards specified by the REF, not a direct comparison between different universities and their departments. This means the REF itself isn't a PhD ranking .

How can postgraduates use the REF?

In some ways, the REF result is more useful than a simple university league table. It assesses the specific departments that conduct research and allows you to ‘zoom in’ on the criteria that’s most important to you as a prospective research student: research .

What’s more, the REF provides a detailed breakdown of different aspects of university research, including the quality of academic publications, the positive effect of research in wider society and – most importantly for PhD students – the standard of the departmental units and structures in which research is actually produced, including systems for enabling and supporting successful PhD projects!

What research areas and academic subjects does the REF cover?

All of them! Whatever research topic you’re interested in studying for your PhD and whichever university department you’re looking to do your research in, you’ll be able to access an appropriate REF result. This is because the REF organises university research into 34 different broad subject areas, referred to as ‘units of assessment’.

What is a unit of assessment?

A unit of assessment is really just a category of related subject areas. This allows universities to organise their research units and courses as they see fit, whilst still making sense in the REF system. In practice university researchers submit work to the REF using the most relevant unit of assessment.

How is the REF actually undertaken?

There are three main stages to the REF process: the submission of research, its assessment by expert panels and the publication of results.

Submission stage

This is when universities select the best examples of their research and submit them under the units of assessment that are most appropriate to their work.

Assessment stage

Assessment of research for the REF is undertaken by expert panels. There are two types of expert panel. Most are ‘sub-panels’ assigned to each of the 34 units of assessment. In addition, there are also four main panels, responsible for overseeing the broader implementation of specific REF assessment criteria.

Publication stage

The results of the REF 2021 were published on 12 May 2022. There was a four-month hiatus in the exercise in 2020 because of the coronavirus pandemic, hence the slightly delayed publication of the results.

Who organises the REF?

The REF is administered by different bodies responsible for regulating higher education across the UK:

• Research England
• Scottish Funding Council (SFC)
• Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (HEFCW)
• The Department for the Economy, Northern Ireland

These are the groups that oversee the distribution of public research funding across the UK.

Is REF funding the same thing as Research Council funding?

No – the four UK higher education Funding Councils are different entities to the seven UK Research Councils and REF funding is different to Research Council funding .

Research Councils fund specific projects (including postgraduate research projects) based on their individual merits. Funding Councils provide ‘block grants’ to support departments within institutions based on their REF performance. This combination of Funding Council and Research Council funding is known as the ‘dual support system’.

What are the REF assessment criteria?

Assessment criteria are one of the most important features of the REF. Research submissions are evaluated according to three specific criteria: Outputs, Impact and Environment. These are then combined to provide an Overall result for each department’s REF score.

Output is the simplest of the three assessment criteria. It measures the quality of academic work produced by a university’s researchers. Up to four research Outputs can be nominated for each academic whose research a university submits to the REF.

Examples of Output include publications like journal articles and book-length studies, as well as other fruits of academic research such as important data sets, new technologies and intellectual property.

Why does Output matter to PhD students?

A university’s Output score for a specific subject area can tell you how successful its academics are at generating high-quality publications. This might offer an indicator of the potential for you to take part in cutting-edge research projects (and the publications they can generate). A high Output score may also mean that your PhD will be supervised by academics who are recognised leaders in their fields.

Impact assesses the positive effects of a university’s research beyond the academy. Impact is assessed using submitted case studies that demonstrate the past effects of a university’s research as well as strategies for ensuring present and future impact.

The REF defines impact as consisting of ‘any effect on, change or benefit to the economy, society, culture, public policy or services, health, the environment, or quality of life, beyond academia’. It’s worth noting that Impact applies to all academic disciplines and subject areas.

For example, medical science research might generate important changes to public health policy, whilst research in an arts and humanities subject area might have an impact on educational outreach and or underpin important exhibitions in public libraries and galleries.

Why does Impact matter to PhD students?

A university’s past success in demonstrating the impact of its research can indicate the opportunity for PhD students to take part in high profile projects and activities outside the university and to do work that is of an immediate and appreciable benefit to society as a whole. As well as being immensely rewarding, this will look excellent on your CV, whatever career path you pursue with your PhD.

Environment

Environment is arguably the most important REF assessment criteria from the point of view of prospective research students. It measures the quality of the departments, academic units and research groups in which a university’s research is produced – the ‘environment’ in which you will work as a PhD student.

The quality of a university’s research Environment is assessed based on a range of factors. Of particular importance is evidence demonstrating the ‘sustainability’ and ‘vitality’ of research environments. This can take account of the continuity of research funding as well as the structures in place for the effective support, supervision and training of PhD students.

Why does Environment matter to PhD students?

Of all the REF assessment criteria, Environment is the most directly relevant to prospective PhD students. A university department with a high Environment score will be effectively-organised and sustainably-funded. It is also likely to have a proven track record of supporting postgraduate research projects and good strategies in place to ensure a positive and successful experience for future PhD students… like you!

How are the different assessment criteria used to produce an overall REF result?

The three individual assessment criteria are individually weighted and combined to produce an overall REF result for each subject area:

• Output is worth 60% of the overall score
• Impact is worth 25%
• Environment is worth 15%

Members of the expert panels that assess REF submissions are recruited and appointed at an early stage of the REF process. There are a lot of them, but they fall into two general types:

• Practising Researchers
• Research Users

Practising Researchers are usually other academics working in a field appropriate to their assigned subject area. They provide a form of peer-review similar to that used for academic publications.

Research Users are selected from the audience research in a particular subject area is deemed to be of value to. They may also be academics using research data, or they may be representatives of industry, business or policy groups whose work draws on university research.

Quality profiles

A quality profile is the term the REF uses to describe its presentation of the combined result for REF submissions in each subject area. Each item in a submission is ranked according to its quality.

The quality profile for each set of submissions then gives the proportion of its research that meets each ranking level.

The submissions for each subject area are actually given four quality profiles: one for Output , one for Impact , one for Environment and one for an Overall result.

The exact descriptions of standards are tailored to different assessment criteria, but all are ranked from one star to four star:

• Four star - World-leading
• Three star - Internationally excellent
• Two star - Internationally recognised
• One star - Nationally recognised
• Unclassified

Ready to delve into the data? You can view REF 2021 results by university here on FindAPhD.com.

Ready to do a PhD?

Search our project listings to find out what you could be studying.

Want More Updates & Advice?

You may also like....

Looking for the best universities for PhDs in Physics in Australia? Compare ranking tables from top sources here, along with their methodologies.

Looking for the best universities for PhDs in Environmental Sciences in Canada? Compare ranking tables from top sources here, along with their methodologies.

Looking for the best universities to study PhDs in Environmental Sciences in Germany? Compare ranking tables from top sources here, along with their methodologies.

Looking for the best universities for PhDs in Environmental Sciences in the USA? Compare ranking tables from top sources here, along with their methodologies.

Looking for the best universities for PhDs in Chemistry in Ireland? Compare ranking tables from top sources here, along with their methodologies.

Looking for the best universities for PhDs in Agriculture in the UK? Compare ranking tables from top sources here, along with their methodologies.

FindAPhD. Copyright 2005-2024 All rights reserved.

Unknown    ( change )

Have you got time to answer some quick questions about PhD study?

Select your nearest city

You haven’t completed your profile yet. To get the most out of FindAPhD, finish your profile and receive these benefits:

• Monthly chance to win one of ten £10 Amazon vouchers ; winners will be notified every month.*
• The latest PhD projects delivered straight to your inbox
• Access to our £6,000 scholarship competition
• Weekly newsletter with funding opportunities, research proposal tips and much more
• Early access to our physical and virtual postgraduate study fairs

Or begin browsing FindAPhD.com

or begin browsing FindAPhD.com

*Offer only available for the duration of your active subscription, and subject to change. You MUST claim your prize within 72 hours, if not we will redraw.

Do you want hassle-free information and advice?

Create your FindAPhD account and sign up to our newsletter:

• Find out about funding opportunities and application tips
• Receive weekly advice, student stories and the latest PhD news
• Hear about our upcoming study fairs
• Save your favourite projects, track enquiries and get personalised subject updates

Create your account

Looking to list your PhD opportunities? Log in here .

• Professional Work Based Learning
• Contingency classification and progression regulations
• Coming soon
• Exceptional classification and progression regulations
• Exceptional regulations: Covid-19
• Academic regulations
• Personal tutoring, student support and development
• Assessment, awards and degree classification
• Programme and module design and approval
• Concerns, complaints and appeals
• Registration and attendance
• Research degree policies and guidance
• Progression
• Supervision
• Research programme regulations
• Regulations for programmes which are not currently running
• Student engagement and representation
• Studies away from the University
• Recent changes

Progression review of research students

This page sets out the progression review process which applies to research degree students in all years of their programme, including basic elements, possible outcomes and appeals. Its content is relevant to staff and postgraduate researchers registered for level 7 (masters) and level 8 (doctoral) degrees across all of the UK, China and Malaysia campuses.

Search the manual

1. introduction.

Includes:  basic principles; progression review activities throughout the year; progression monitoring; internal assessors; maximum time for completion of thesis examination

All postgraduate researchers (PGRs) registered on research degrees lasting more than one year full-time or two years part-time (eg MPhil or Professional Doctorates but not MRes etc) are subject to progression monitoring and formal review.

The basic principles of Progression Review are common to all postgraduate researchers  (PGRs) and all years of programmes who go through such a review. 

In all cases, the purpose of progress monitoring and formal review is to ensure that the progress towards meeting the required outcomes at each Stage is sufficient to ensure achievement of the doctoral (level 8) or masters (level 7) outcomes to the required standard, and completion of the thesis examination (including any viva voce examination) within the period of registered study.

For more information about the UNQF, please consult the following:

University of Nottingham Qualifications Framework

Relevant adjustments may need to be made for PGRs studying away from the University or following programmes that involve a significant taught element.

Part-time students

For part-time PGRs, all the processes for the progress review will happen every other year rather than yearly and periods of time quoted should be doubled. 

Basic principles of PGR progression monitoring and review

Progress monitoring begins through regular supervisory meetings when the PGR first registers on the programme. These recorded meetings continue throughout the period of registered study and thesis completion period, until thesis submission. Formal records of these meetings should be made, agreed and held securely in the PGR’s supervision records. Progression review information should be given to the PGR at Induction and then reinforced throughout their registered study.

For more information about responsibilities of the supervisor, please consult the following:

Responsibilities of the Supervisor

In-year progress meetings with supervisory teams can be formal, or informal, one-to-one or in a group, as is appropriate for the timing and progress of the PGR. A minimum of 10 documented meetings must be held per year (6 per year for part-time PGRs). 

For the recommended steps and process in planning for PGR Progression Review, please consult the following:

PGR Progression Review consists formal assessment of progress against the doctoral (or other relevant published outcomes) through several components.

• Records of progress recorded in the required minimum number of regular supervisory meetings conducted regularly throughout the period of registered study, including information on: agreed research plans and milestones; progress made; any problems encountered and solutions proposed, and any other pertinent information. As these records form part of the formal assessment of PGR progression at Progression Review, they should contain a record of, for example, any extenuating circumstances, or any concerns about progress, or reasons for congratulation on success. Records of progress meetings should be available to all the team members, including PGR and all supervisors. 
• Formal Progression Review is assessed against progress towards meeting the required outcomes at each stage of study in the programme, usually through a written report; 
• Completion of mandatory elements such as training and development, taught modules, laboratory rotations, career planning, engagement with professional development opportunities and career planning are also reviewed.  

The published criteria for Stage1, Stage 2 and Stage 3 progression are badged against the outcomes in the University of Nottingham Qualification Framework and the QAA doctoral outcomes. They are designed to enable assessors to take a consistent and transparent approach in determining the progress of PGRs. 

For more information about Assessment criteria for Progression Reviews, please consult the following:

Formal assessment of Progression at Stages 1 and 2 requires a meeting involving an Internal Assessor and should be held as an in-person event (or virtual). The School may appoint more than one Internal Assessor if appropriate, for example if the research is inter/transdisciplinary in nature. In such instances all Internal Assessors should be actively engaged in all aspects of the formal Progression Review. 

The appointment of the Internal Assessor(s) should be initiated within 3 months of registration and the PGR made aware of this, and the appointment should be confirmed at least 3 months before the formal Progression Review begins. It is strongly recommended that where possible the Internal Assessor(s) are involved in the Stage 3 Progression Review for continuity and quality assurance purposes. The Stage 3 Progression Review can be conducted by the supervisory team but should not be conducted by a single supervisor.

For more information on role, responsibilities and appointment of the Internal Assessor, please consult the following:

Role and responsibilities of the Internal Assessor

Progression Reviews at Stages 1 and 2 should use the core Review elements below, and may include additional methods of assessment deemed necessary by Schools, to assess progress to date against the Stage appropriate published criteria . When including additional elements Schools must pay due regard to PGR and Assessor assessment load.  

If progress is not sufficient to meet the necessary outcomes within the period of registered study, the aim must be to meet these, and complete the research and thesis examination within a maximum of three years (for MPhil) or four years from first registration (for PhD, MVM,MD,MVS, professional doctorate) irrespective of programme duration. This maximum duration can only be changed in individual cases if the PGR holds an award with terms and conditions that vary this maximum period and the School approves the arrangement. Note that some awards may have a maximum duration of less than four years. 

2.  Timing of formal Progression Review and stages of PGR study

Includes:  for all PGRs; different stages of study; purpose and timing of formal progression reviews; four year PhD programmes with a substantial taught, training and development or laboratory rotation element in Stage 1; recommended latest timings for stage 3 progression review. 

The latest time at which Stage 3 progression review (confirmation that doctoral outcomes can be achieved within 6 months) are in the table below.

3.  Minimum elements of Stage 1 & 2 Progression Review

Includes:  for all PGRs; for doctoral PGRs undergoing confirmation of registration; four year PhD programmes with a substantial taught, training and development or laboratory rotation element in Stage 1

Progression Reviews at Stages 1 and 2 should use the core Review elements below to assess progress to date against the Stage appropriate published criteria, to enable the PGR to demonstrate that they have achieved the required outcomes at each Stage.  

When including any additional assessment methods, Schools must pay due consideration to assessment load and the balance of PGR workload for Progression Review against their ongoing research progress. It should not be expected that PGRs stop research / thesis writing in order to devote time to the Progression Review. 

Schools must ensure that the following elements are included in their formal Progression Review process:

For PGRs undergoing Stage 1 and Stage 2 Progression Review:

• A formal summative assessment of PGR progress to date. This is assessed against published criteria/outcomes by:

a) a written report by the PGR on their progress to date and 

b) through questioning at a meeting between the PGR and the Internal Assessor and (if the School wishes, other staff who have not previously been closely associated with the PGR's work). 

The meeting should have a clear agenda. It should begin with a reinforcement of what the meeting will cover and include opportunities to discuss progress to date, the PGR’s future research plans, and the extent of progress towards the doctoral outcomes, the wider research environment and its suitability to support the planned research, and the supervision the PGR receives. 

• Plans for completion and submission of the thesis within the period of registered study, and completion of thesis examination in a maximum of 4 years, bearing in mind that PGRs do not have a dedicated ‘writing up’ period, and thesis writing should be integrated alongside the research. 
• Independent written assessments from the Internal Assessor and supervisory team* on the PGR’s performance to date. The Internal Assessor’s report should include information on PGR performance, progress, attendance and engagement throughout the period of study. Any problems encountered or required support identified by the PGR in discussion or in their written report should be noted in the Internal Assessor’s report, where appropriate. The report from the supervisory team should include any concerns with PGR progress to date, successes or problems encountered or necessary mitigations required to maintain progress. 
• Formative feedback on how improvements might be made on both written report and the meeting from the Internal Assessor. This can be verbal feedback at the end of the meeting. 
• Confirmation that the required minimum number of supervision sessions has taken place, that the records of supervision meetings are available, and that these record the progress made to date and highlight any problems encountered.
• The Internal Assessor should be able to access evidence that the PGR has attended any modules and passed any assessments that form a compulsory part of their research programme.
• The content of any report submitted to a PGR’s sponsor, if they have one, should also be considered as part of the review. 

Note that the Progression Reviews should also consider and take into account any significant research and/or personal impacts that have /may have significant disruptive impacts on research progress. Consideration of this should include information about how the PGR has managed to progress their research in light of any impacts, the extent to which they have mitigated these impacts and how they have had to change their research plans and activities, and goals/milestones accordingly.

After the meeting with the PGR, the Internal assessor and supervisors should share their independent reports with the PGR for their comment and response. If the likely recommendation is for reassessment, or if there is disagreement in outcome, the reports should be shared in a meeting with the independent assessor and/or the supervisors so the PGR has support when this is communicated. This can be during the verbal feedback after the meeting. 

In light of the meeting, and discussion of the independent reports and the PGR response, the Internal Assessor and the principal supervisor should agree a joint recommendation on the outcome to the Head of School. The agreed joint recommendation will be recorded in the PGR’s record. 

4. Elements of Stage 3 Progression Review

Includes:  consideration of progress to thesis submission; minimum elements

The Stage 3 Progression Review should determine whether the PGR is likely to meet the doctoral outcomes within the next six months. It should include a detailed consideration of progress, including the progress made with writing the thesis, and a plan to ensure that the thesis is submitted within the period of registered study. If this is thought to be unachievable at Stage 3 Progression Review (for PGRs on 36 or 42 month programmes), plans must be made for degree completion, including thesis examination, within a maximum of four years from initial registration.

It is strongly recommended that the Internal Assessor is also involved in the Stage 3 Progression Review for continuity and quality assurance purposes.

In addition to the minimum elements of Stages 1 & 2 Progression Review, Stage 3 Progression Review should include the following elements:

• a detailed evaluation of how the work to date shows that the PGR has already or will meet /achieve the doctoral outcomes. 
• plans for the PGR will meet achieve any doctoral outcomes that are not yet met, showing how the these will be met within six months; 
• detailed information on the progress made on writing the thesis, and plans for its completion (noting that the thesis is expected to be completed within the period of registered study, and a detailed plan for thesis completion and submission). 
• discussion of any exceptional circumstances, unforeseen problems and mitigations that have been necessary to ensure progression and timely completion

Note that if the required outcomes relating to the generation of empirical novel research contributions are unlikely to be met within six months, the PGR is unlikely to be able to progress to thesis submission and examination within 6 months.  In this case, the internal assessor and supervisors should consider the recommendation that the PGR does not progress and whether an exceptional extension to the period of registered study is required. 

5. The possible outcomes of formal Progression Review

Includes:  outcomes where assessors agree; recommendations on progression; circumstances and outcomes when progression is not recommended

Outcomes where the internal assessor and supervisory teams agree:

1. Progression to the next stage of study is recommended. 

In order to make this recommendation there should be records that the PGR has been progressing according to plans throughout the year. Progress must be confirmed as satisfactory in the meeting through assessment against the stage-specific criteria, taking into account discipline / field specific differences in doctoral study and structure. The supervisors and assessors should agree that the PGR will be able to meet the doctoral outcomes in the required time. 

Outcomes of approved progression to the next stage of study are:

a) For stage 1 PhD PGRs, confirmation of their status as PhD candidates.

b) For stage 1 and 2 progression, re-registration on the same degree in the following academic session.

c) For all stages, provided the PGR agrees, the assessors can recommend a transfer of registration to another, usually higher, degree (e.g. from MPhil to PhD). In this instance, a transfer form must be completed. If a transfer is recommended at stage 3, and the review did not involve an internal assessor, then an interview with the internal assessor is required to confirm the transfer to the new degree. 

d) For stage 3 PGRs whose progress is satisfactory but who are likely to submit the thesis after the end of their period of registered study, the recommendation will be that on completion of the period of registered study they enter Thesis Pending. 

e) For PGRs in Stage 3 who are achieving the necessary progress to meet the doctoral outcomes by the planned date, the recommendation will be maintenance of current status up to the end of their period of registered study. 

For recommendations d) and e), the PGR must have met the requirements for the minimum period of registered study, completed the empirical research and have not exceeded four years of study. 

2. Progression is not recommended and progress is required to be reassessed. 

For this recommendation there will be information in the supervision records that the PGR and supervisory teams have discussed the reasons for unsatisfactory progress, and that attempts have been made to support the PGR to improve. The progress to date should have been assessed in the meeting with the internal assessor against the stage-specific criteria and found to be insufficient, taking into account discipline / field specific differences in doctoral study structure. The internal assessor and supervisory teams’ independent reports should agree that the PGR requires additional time and support to be able to demonstrate their ability to progress to the next stage at reassessment. In these cases, supervisory records must be kept, and should be available for the re-assessment. 

a) Stage 1 PGRs on a supportive or corrective plan of action remain on probationary status until confirmation of Stage 1 progression. 

b) At all Stages PGRs are registered/re-registered for PhD in the following academic session with an agreed plan of supportive or corrective action in place for a limited time. 

c) For Stage 3 PGRs who have made insufficient progress in research and writing to allow them to meet the doctoral outcomes within the following 6 months, the assessors may recommend a reassessment after a period of up to 3 months. There should be a plan for supportive corrective action during this time to support the PGR to meet the doctoral outcomes by the end of the period of registered study. 

d) For Stage 3 PGRs who have made insufficient progress in the research to allow them  to meet the doctoral outcomes and submit the thesis for examination within the following 6 months, the assessors may recommend an exceptional extension to the PGR’s period of registration for up to one further year. Reassessment for ability to progress to thesis  should be done after no more than 6 months. Thesis completion and examination are still expected within the four year maximum period.

e) The maximum number of Progression Reviews for a PGR at any stage is limited to two. If an Exceptional Circumstances claim is submitted and upheld, the Progression Review may be repeated as a First Sit.

3. Progression is not recommended  - suggested change to registration status.

All Stages: With the agreement of the PGR and on recommendation in the joint report, transfer of registration to another degree (e.g. from PhD to MPhil, or MPhil to MRes). In this instance, re-assessment of progress is not required and a transfer form must be completed. 

The reasons for a recommendation for reassessment or registration on another degree must be explained to the PGR as soon as possible. 

In cases of referral for re-assessment, the PGR must have the opportunity to discuss the decision with the Internal Assessor and the supervisory team. If necessary, the PGR should be referred to the SPSA, Senior Tutor or other appropriate welfare support officer. The supervisory team should offer the PGR support in addressing the outcome of the review, and if necessary, in producing their response to the assessment in the reports.

6. Resolution of disagreement on Progression Review recommendations

Includes:  process to be followed to reach resolution on the recommendation for progression; timeline for resolution. 

If the independent reports from the supervisory team and the Independent Assessor(s) disagree on the recommended outcome of the Progression Review, the following process should be followed.

 The PGR should be referred to the supervisors, SPSA, Senior Tutor or other appropriate welfare support officer for support in addressing the outcome of the review, depending on where disagreement lies, and the required support. They should have the opportunity to discuss the Review with the supervisory team and / or Internal Assessor(s). They should have support in producing their response to the assessment either from the supervisors or other member of the PGR support team. The PGR should receive the feedback from the review and be given an appropriate time to produce their response.

1. If the Internal Assessor recommends progression but the supervisory team does not. 

The independent and joint reports, and the PGR’s response, should be shared with the Head of School or delegate. The Head of School may call a meeting of the internal assessor, supervisors and PGR to discuss the case. The Head of School will then make a decision based on the information in the reports and from the discussion as to whether the PGR should progress, or be referred for reassessment. 

2. If the supervisory team recommends progression but the Internal Assessor does not. 

The supervisory team should set up a meeting for discussion of the proposed outcome to which the internal assessor; the PGR should also be invited and have made their response to the independent reports. The group should attempt to resolve the outcome by discussion. If there is information that is relevant to the discussion that was not available to the Internal Assessor in the Progression Review documentation and/or meeting and that might affect the judgement of progress, such as extenuating circumstances, this should be made available in the discussions. If agreement can be reached, then the recommendation will follow the process in Section 5.

If agreement on the outcome cannot be resolved through discussion, the case should be referred to the Head of School as in 1 above.

Such discussions should be held in a timely manner, aiming to reach a resolution and recommended outcome within 1 month of the Progression review meeting. 

7. Requirements for Progression Review re-assessment and outcomes

Includes:  reassessment of progress; support for PGRs

If progress needs to be reassessed at any stage, the PGRs must be given detailed information on the goals and requirements for improved performance, an appropriate and defined timeframe in which to meet these, and support in achieving the required improvement. They should also be made aware of the possible outcomes of the reassessment process.  

The format for re-assessment will be the same as for the initial Progression Review. The PGR should update their written report, focussing specifically on how they have met the agreed objectives. A plan for maintained progress should also be produced and considered at the re-assessment meeting. 

Stage 1 PGRs are re-registered on a continued probationary basis until re-assessment. PGRs at stages 2 and 3 are re-registered/continue to be registered for the PhD until re-assessment. 

When a PGR is referred for reassessment, the following information must be provided to the PGR as soon as possible:

• Feedback on the performance in all aspects of the Progression Review, including clear detailed guidance on the requirements for improvement, with SMART objectives/goals and/or milestones;
• Explicit information on the potential outcomes of re-assessment;
• An explicit time/date for the re-assessment of progress, which should give sufficient time for the required progress to be made. Normally this would not be more than three months after the original progression review. In exceptional circumstances and with the approval of QSC, the time given for improvement for PGRs at stages 1 and 2 may be up to six months; 
• The PGR must receive appropriate academic support and guidance to support them to achieve the required improvements. Academic support is particularly important for PGRs in progressing to stage 3, to ensure that PGRs get on track to meet the required outcomes, and are prepared for the completion and examination of the thesis; 
• If necessary and appropriate, the PGR should be referred for support outside the supervisory team, e.g welfare or disability support teams.  

8. Outcomes of Progression Review re-assessment

Includes:  the possible outcomes from re-assessment following satisfactory progress; outcomes on unsatisfactory progress; required evidence of progress. 

If the internal assessor and the supervisors disagree on the recommendation after  reassessment, they should follow the process for resolution. This should include the Head of School irrespective of where the disagreement in recommendation lies. 

a) For stage 1 doctoral PGRs, confirmation of their status as doctoral candidates. 

b) For stages 1 and 2 progression, re-registration on the same degree in the following academic session.

c) For stage 3 PGRs whose progress is satisfactory but who are likely to submit the thesis after the end of their period of registered study, the recommendation will be that on completion of the period of registered study they enter Thesis Pending. 

d) For stage 3 PGRs who are on track to achieve the necessary progress to meet the doctoral outcomes by the planned date, and move to thesis submission, the recommendation would be maintenance of current status up to the end of their period of registered study at which point they would, if necessary, enter Thesis Pending until thesis submission. 

For recommendations c) and d), the PGR must have met the requirements for the minimum period of registered study, completed the research and have not exceeded four years of study. A recommendation for registration for a higher degree cannot be made as a result of progression re-assessment.

If performance in the re-assessment does not meet the criteria and the required progress / improvement has not been achieved as agreed by the supervisory team and internal assessor, the recommendation by the School to the University should be that, for all PGRs at all stages

Either 

a) the PGR is required to re-register on another, usually lower degree (e.g PhD to MPhil, MPhil to MRes). 

b) the PGR’s registration is terminated. 

Termination of registration can only be recommended when supported by evidence that the PGR has received written warnings on lack of progress during the period of study, and the period of supported improvement. 

In these cases, all Supervisory records and Progression Review paper work must be submitted to QSC for approval.

9. Considerations of Covid-19 or other major impacts 

Where the recommendations to extend the PGR's registration status relate to research or personal impacts resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic, the PGR can confirm the need for an extension to the four year maximum period, by either following the extension to the registered period of study, or the extension to Thesis Pending procedure, depending on whether further research is deemed necessary or not.

Other significant impacts on PGR progression, either personal or on the research, such as major disruption in access to facilities, should also be taken into account in Progression Review. When circumstances are out of the PGRs control, these should be considered fairly, with respect and consideration for the impact on the PGR. 

Forms and documentation

Includes: flowchart for progression review and submission; progression review forms; request to register for an additional period of study; request to transfer student

UK campus only  

• Registration during thesis pending period form

* this includes a section for Visa and Immigration team approval

UNM campus only    

Unnc campus only .

• School PGR Progression Review Form (Probationary PhD students)
• School PGR Progression Review Form (excluding Probationary PhD students)

UNUK students   

Student services, unnc students .

UNM students 

Staff       , related content.

Portland Building, University of Nottingham University Park Nottingham, NG7 2RD

Legal information

• Terms and conditions
• Posting rules
• Accessibility
• Freedom of information
• Charity gateway
• Cookie policy

Connect with the University of Nottingham through social media and our blogs .

Browser does not support script.

How to Get a PhD or EdD in Assessment & Evaluation

Are our nation’s schools up to the task of training tomorrow’s leaders? How can policy reform impact educational quality? What research tools provide the most reliable picture of pedagogical quality and student achievement? These are some of the questions that educational assessment and evaluation experts confront.

The discipline of educational assessment and evaluation has expanded in the past decades, driven by advances in research methods and new emphasis on education policy reform. PhD in Education with a specialization in Assessment and Evaluation programs train education professionals and scholars in data-driven decision making, program evaluation, student assessment and testing, and pedagogical reform. Graduates apply these skills in a range of leadership roles, from academic teaching to education administration to public policy.

A Guide to the PhD in Assessment and Evaluation

The PhD and EdD in Assessment and Evaluation represent the highest qualifications in the discipline. Build a foundation for your success in the doctoral program by focusing your academic interests and career ambitions from the start. The following overview of the PhD and EdD in Assessment and Evaluation helps you identify the academic and professional opportunities available today.

PhD or EdD in Assessment and Evaluation?

The PhD in Assessment and Evaluation is the most common doctorate, but a growing number of schools are offering an alternate terminal degree option: the Doctor of Education (EdD). The Doctor of Philosophy and the EdD are equal in rigor and status, but different in purpose.

• The PhD in Assessment and Evaluation emphasizes an original contribution to education scholarship. The PhD program trains students in theoretical research and teaching, in preparation for academic careers.
• The EdD in Assessment and Evaluation is a professional practice doctorate. As such, the research project focuses on the application of existing theory to the practice of educational assessment and evaluation. The EdD leads to careers in the private sector and education administration.

WorldWideLearn.com offers information about the distinctions among online PhD degrees and doctoral programs, with descriptions of the EdD and PhD in Education.

Doctoral Specializations

Doctoral programs in education assessment and evaluation offer the opportunity to focus on a particular area of inquiry related to your interests and career ambitions. Each school slices the discipline in a slightly different way, but generally speaking, you’ll find options focusing on a particular educational program, a particular population, or a particular issue or approach to educational evaluation.

You may choose to focus on a particular educational program . Specializations include:

• Language Assessment (literacy, ESL, etc.)
• Mathematics and Science Assessment
• Institutional and Program Evaluation
• Home Schooling

Some specializations focus on a particular educational constituency , such as:

• Exceptional Students (including Gifted Students and Students with Disabilities)
• Early Childhood
• Elementary Secondary Education
• Higher Education
• Personnel Evaluation (Teacher Evaluation, Accountability Standards)

Or you may specialize in an evaluation tool, theory, or issue :

• Psychoeducational Assessment
• Rasch Measurement
• Qualitative Research
• Statistics and Quantitative Methods
• Education Policy Analysis
• Instructional Resource Management
• Social-Emotional Development and Intervention

As the highest qualification in the field, the PhD in assessment and evaluation permits a great deal of latitude in designing your field of study. You can shape your specialization based on your interests and the expertise of available faculty mentors in your field.

Career Track

A PhD or EdD in Assessment and Evaluation opens doors to careers in academia, education administration, public policy, and the private sector.

• The PhD ‘s emphasis on original research and teaching puts graduates on track for an academic or private research institute career. Many PhD graduates become professors in the field, conducting academic research and training the next generation of educational evaluators.
• The EdD ‘s applied research tracks graduates into professional practice roles in educational assessment and evaluation.

Both PhD and EdD graduates are eligible for careers as researchers, policy analysts, and assessment and evaluation specialists in the following private and public-sector contexts:

• Private and nonprofit educational foundations
• Private research and development companies (‘think tanks’) such as the Rand Corporation
• Public school districts and private schools
• Higher education institutions: colleges, universities, and vocational institutes
• Federal and state education agencies (U.S. Department of Education, California State Board of Education, etc.)
• Public and private education research laboratories
• Testing development companies
• Testing agencies for professional societies

These are just some of the options you’ll encounter with a PhD or EdD in assessment and evaluation. You’ll find that each doctoral program emphasizes a different range of career opportunities, based on faculty and departmental relationships with employers and the professional community.

• Academic Interests : You’ll find more information about education assessment and evaluation as an academic discipline at WorldWideLearn.com’s Guide to Majors.
• ERIC-AE , a national information clearinghouse on assessment and evaluation, offers an invaluable resource for researching the academic discipline. This online database is part of ERIC, the U.S. Department of Education’s Educational Resources Information Center System.

How to Apply for the PhD or EdD in Education Assessment and Evaluation

A clear vision of your academic interests and career objectives will help you navigate the application process from start (choosing a program) to finish (completing the application).

Choosing a Graduate Assessment and Evaluation Program

PhD or EdD? Online or campus education? With a growing number of doctorates to choose from, finding the right program ‘fit’ can be a challenge. This step-by-step guide takes you through the process of researching terminal degrees in assessment and evaluation. You’ll find links to online research resources for each step.

Step One: Develop a List of Accredited Programs

Begin your research by compiling a comprehensive list of accredited doctoral programs in education assessment and evaluation. Online directories and academic association Web sites offer good preliminary sources of information.

Criteria: Baseline criteria at this early stage include the degree you’re seeking–PhD or EdD–and accreditation status. Accreditation status indicates that a program meets basic quality standards set by an independent accrediting agency. Without accreditation, you can’t count on the quality of education or the value of your degree–or your eligibility for federal financial aid. The U.S. Department of Education maintains a database of approved national and regional accrediting agencies .

• The American Evaluation Association features a list of about fifty university graduate programs in educational assessment and evaluation. The list includes doctoral programs worldwide, with information about each program’s focus, specializations, and names of evaluation faculty members.
• WorldWideLearn.com maintains a searchable database of accredited doctoral programs. Search degrees by subject to find an online or campus program in assessment and evaluation. You can also learn more about the accreditation process or browse a list of accredited university partners.
• U.S. News and World Report is best known as a ranking publication, but the site also includes an A-Z Directory of nearly 250 graduate programs in education.

Step Two: Online or Campus? Identify Your Preferred Program Format

Digital communications technology is revolutionizing graduate education by making the college classroom accessible to mid-career adults. Today, you can choose from online doctoral degrees, traditional campus programs, and hybrid programs that combine features of both. The right format for you will depend on your personal circumstances, learning style, and career goals.

• The online PhD and EdD in assessment and evaluation works well for independent scholars and professionals already working in the field. The degree relies on the student’s access to an institutional setting for research, either through their work or an internship.
• The campus PhD in assessment and evaluation is the preferred format for aspiring academics. Academic PhD programs feature access to faculty mentors and graduate student teaching roles, both of which are crucial to landing an academic job. In addition, campus programs offer access to research facilities and library collections, as well as membership in a close-knit academic community.

Many online PhD programs in assessment and evaluation require periods of temporary campus residency to allow students access to local research facilities and networking resources.

• Explore your degree format options at WorldWideLearn.com’s Online Degree Programs and Campus Education sections. You can also search for programs that support your preferred format. For example, you can search campus degrees by location to find a program near you.

Step Three: Explore Academic Programs

Once you’ve narrowed down your list by degree type and format, you can dig deeper into the unique focus of each candidate on your list. Your goal is to find the right ‘fit’ between your academic interests and the school’s approach to the assessment discipline.

The following factors will give you a sense of a program’s academic focus and resources:

• Faculty research and areas of expertise
• Areas of specializations
• Curriculum and course requirements
• Special programs

Professor research interests offer the best indication of a department’s emphases. Also look for special program resources that support scholarship in your field. Examples include research institutes, public and private sponsors (such as the National Science Foundation), internships, academic association memberships, publications, events, and special library collections.

• WorldWideLearn.com facilitates the program research process by matching you with schools that meet your specifications. Fill out an online form indicating your academic program criteria, and the system automatically puts you in touch with school representatives who can answer your questions about the program.
• School Websites feature extensive information on program requirements, faculty expertise, and campus facilities. You’ll find faculty bios and links to publications, course reading lists, links to special programs, and more.
• Academic Publications can help you identify programs and scholars associated with your particular field of interest. For journals and mailing lists in particular academic specialties, consult the ERIC-AE database of journals, newsletters, and reports . Some major academic journals in assessment and evaluation include:
• Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics (JEBS)
• Journal of Statistics in Education (JSE)
• CRESST Resource Papers
• CRESST Reports
• Education Policy Analysis Archives (online searchable archive of journal articles)
• National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST)

Step Four: Evaluate Program Quality

Once you’ve identified programs that match your interests, you’re ready to zero in on the five to ten programs to which you’ll apply. This final evaluation weighs program selectivity against your own competitiveness as an applicant, in an effort to find the education accessible to you.

The following criteria will factor into your quality evaluation:

• Selectivity
• Graduation Rate
• Job Placement Statistics
• Career Support Resources
• Student Body Profile

You can gauge your own strength as an applicant by taking into account your academic GPA, the strength of your professional and academic references, and your standardized test scores.

• U.S. News and World Report ranks the Best Graduate Schools in Education , with breakdowns by specialty
• The Center for Measuring University Performance publishes an annual ranking of major research universities
• School data provides the most reliable picture of a program, with information on selectivity, graduate student demographics, and job placement.
• Campus visits give you an opportunity to meet with potential faculty mentors and graduate students and tour campus facilities.

Preparing for an Online or Campus PhD in Assessment and Evaluation

Once you’ve identified doctoral programs that meet your needs, you’re ready to complete the application process. The following steps will lead you to the (virtual or campus) classroom door. For more information, check out WorldWideLearn.com’s Education Resources Guide, which provides information on test preparation, online learning, financial aid, and more.

1. Complete Prerequisites

• Bachelor’s or master’s degree in education or a related field. If your background is in another discipline, you may have to take some basic courses in education before beginning the PhD in assessment and evaluation
• Graduate Record Examination (GRE) and Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) for non-native speakers of English

2. Submit Application Materials

• Faculty or professional letters of recommendation
• Academic transcripts
• GRE and TOEFL test scores
• Written statement of your research interests
• Resume and list of publications, if applicable

3. Line Up Financial Aid

The following sources of educational funding can help you pay for your graduate education:

• Private and school-sponsored scholarships and fellowships
• Teaching and research assistantships
• Research grants
• Tuition waivers
• Loans (federal and private)

For more information, visit the WorldWideLearn.com resource page on graduate education funding.

Joining the Academic Community

Admission to a campus or online PhD program in assessment and evaluation involves you in a vibrant academic community of scholars. Make the most of the opportunity by networking with your peers and mentors. Subscribe to academic and professional publications, attend conferences, and become a member of professional assessment and evaluation associations. The American Educational Research Association (AERA) and the American Evaluation Association are the two major associations representing assessment professionals and educators.

A PhD or EdD in assessment and evaluation represents the pinnacle of educational achievement in the field. By taking the time to research and plan your education journey now, you’re building a foundation for academic and professional success down the road.

• American Educational Research Association (AERA)
• American Evaluation Association
• Assessment, and Program Evaluation, Seton Hall University, Ph.D. in Education Research
• Brigham Young University, Educational Inquiry, Measurement, and Evaluation Ph.D Program
• The Center for Measuring University Performance
• ERIC-AE, Assessment and Evaluation Resources on the Internet , by Liselle Drake and Lawrence Rudner
• InsideHigherEd.com, Envisioning a New Ed.D.
• Northern Illinois University (NIU), Ed.D. Versus Ph.D.: What’s the Difference?
• UCLA, Doctoral Training Program in Advanced Quantitative Methods in Education Research
•   U.S. News & World Report, Best Education Schools
• U.S. Department of Education, Database of Accredited Postsecondary Institutions and Programs
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Disclosure: “What Determines Top/Best?”
• Do Not Sell My Personal Information (CA and NV)

Copyright © 2024 Worldwidelearn.com. All Rights Reserved.

The sources for school statistics and data is the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics and the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System unless otherwise noted.

Disclosure: EducationDynamics receives compensation for many of the featured schools on our websites (see “Sponsored School(s)” or “Sponsored Listings” or “Sponsored Results” or “Featured Graduate School(s)”. So what does this mean for you? Compensation may impact where the Sponsored Schools appear on our websites, including whether they appear as a match through our education matching services tool, the order in which they appear in a listing, and/or their ranking. Our websites do not provide, nor are they intended to provide, a comprehensive list of all schools (a) in the United States (b) located in a specific geographic area or (c) that offer a particular program of study. By providing information or agreeing to be contacted by a Sponsored School, you are in no way obligated to apply to or enroll with the school.

This site does not provide a comprehensive list of all schools that offer a particular program of study.

This is an offer for educational opportunities that may lead to employment and not an offer for nor a guarantee of employment. Students should consult with a representative from the school they select to learn more about career opportunities in that field. Program outcomes vary according to each institution’s specific program curriculum. Financial aid may be available to those who qualify. The information on this page is for informational and research purposes only and is not an assurance of financial aid.