phd upgrade presentation example

PhDLife Blog

Sharing PhD experiences across the University of Warwick and beyond

PhD upgrade: A survival guide

At this time of academic year, many doctoral researchers in their first year of study are preparing for upgrade review. As a second year PhD student (one that survived the upgrade process!) Sophie has provided some tips to help you best prepare for your upgrade and take the next step in your PhD.

So what exactly is an upgrade? (*Please note that the upgrade process may differ across universities and/or departments*). Typically the upgrade takes place in your first year (usually after a period of 9 months) and it is an assessment to move you from an MPhil to a fully-fledged PhD student in the UK. The upgrade process may involve a written report including a literature review of your given area, details of your project so far, planned methodology and future studies/plans. You may be asked to prepare a presentation to give an overview of your research so far, and you may also be required to attend an oral examination in which you will answer questions about your written report. The upgrade is usually assessed by one or two reviewers (not your supervisors).

As a second year PhD student who has survived an upgrade process, I thought I would share some tips on how best to prepare:

#1 Prepare in advance

The main component of an upgrade assessment may be to prepare a report, typically outlining background literature, your research ideas/questions and progress to date. Alternatively, some departments may ask you to submit a literature review of your given research area. Although it is easy to find this process a little daunting and there is a real temptation to procrastinate, try not to! As a first step, be sure to read the guidance from your department so you are clear on exactly what you need to do. During the first few months of my PhD, I kept a record of thoughts and research ideas. When it came to creating my upgrade report, I utilised the content in the documents and I found this really helped with writing. Remember this is your chance to shine and show how much you know about your given topic (even if you feel like you don’t know anything! you know more than you realise!).

#2 Practise makes perfect

As part of an upgrade process, you may be asked to meet with your assessors and discuss the content of your report. You may also be asked to prepare a presentation. This can be a good opportunity to really understand your research and make sure you can explain it clearly. Try practising with a friend or colleague who knows little about your research. As part of my upgrade, I was asked to prepare a short presentation. I practised this in front of my research team which gave me a chance to practise presenting to an audience but also an opportunity for feedback. My team asked me questions about my research that were similar to the ones I received in my upgrade examination. I found that really beneficial. It may be useful to keep a list of potential questions you may be asked and example answers. Searching the internet for example questions is a good idea too.

#3 Chat to your supervisor/colleagues

Something invaluable to do is to try to gain an understanding of others’ experiences of their upgrade and their tips on how to approach it. I was lucky that I had colleagues who had already been through an upgrade. They kindly informed me about the process and examples of questions they had been asked by their assessors. I found this really helpful and definitely put my mind at ease. Universities may also run workshops to help first-year PhD students prepare for their upgrade.

#4 Upgrade self-care

During the preparation of an upgrade make sure you take regular breaks. Sometimes the best ideas come once you have taken a break! It is also important to follow healthy eating behaviours to ensure you are feeling your best. Check out my previous blog for some useful tips. Before the upgrade assessment itself, it’s really important to get a good night’s sleep. Don’t be tempted to stay up late and revise your documents because it’ll be much more beneficial to wake up a little earlier instead.

Final words: Try to see the upgrade as a positive milestone where you can gauge feedback from people who may offer you a different perspective on your work. Once you’ve completed your upgrade be sure to reward yourself! It’s really important to celebrate the small wins during your studies as the research suggests that doing it regularly can make us feel happier at work in the long term!

Do you have any tips that have helped you prepare for your upgrade that you could share with other students? Or perhaps you are planning to use one of the tips mentioned in this blog? Tweet us at @ResearchEx , email us at [email protected], or leave a comment below.

Sophie Clohessy is a second year PhD student in the Applied Psychology team, WMG. Her research is investigating eating behaviours in the workplace. She has a background in Health Psychology and is passionate about healthy eating and exercise for wellbeing. You can follow her on twitter here: @ClohessyS

Cover image: board-chalk-business-job-work-3695073 / athree23 / CC0 1.0

Image 1: idea-fantasia-thought-written-2924175 / elisariva / CC0 1.0

Image 2: group-team-feedback-confirming-1825503 / geralt / CC0 1.0

Image 3: workplace-team-business-meeting-1245776 / free-photos / CC0 1.0

Image 4: Mount Zirkel Wilderness, Walden, United States / bettenz / CC0 1.0

Have you ever wondered what it's like to be a PhD student in the UCL Knowledge Lab?

Upgrade done.

Since enrolling as an MPhil/PhD full-time, distance learning, research student at University College London (UCL) way back (?) in June 2019, every day has been in service for this moment…the Mini Viva or Upgrade to full PhD status.

I have been brilliantly guided by my tutors, lecturers, administrators, colleagues, lab-mates, family and of course supervisors along this path and I feel well prepared for the moment at hand. Too, I feel relatively calm and eager to share my progress to date; however, I am more interested in learning and receiving guidance from my illustrious panel with regard to modifications, corrective measures and recommendations going forward.

In many respects, my primary supervisor, Prof Kaśka Porayksa-Pomsta, has all but telegraphed the primary concerns related to my proposed research from the very beginning; that is:

My metamorphosis from entrepreneur to academic (researcher) is something that must be contended with, as the two camps are both decidedly different and must be respected.
My desire to develop prototypes in favor of harvesting theoretical and computational underpinnings in support of an assistive technology must be well-tempered.
The scope of my research is enough to fill multiple doctoral thesis and thus must be narrowed, and then narrowed again (and again, and perhaps again a few more times).

As such, both Kaśka and I fully expect the Upgrade Panel to quickly discover these point, hone in on them, and help me “tease out” those important concepts of my last year in hopes to convey my understanding, appreciation and preparation to complete my thesis within these boundaries and within the ascribed timeframe.

Over-engineering my responses

From the onset of my presentation, which Kaśka later reported was the most concise, comfortable and compelling she has heard me convey, I felt a level of authenticity from my panel. They too indicated that the slides well-attended to my rationale, methods and data collection and that my training, preparation and desire to contribute to academic knowledge was noteworthy.

The panels questions and comments were incredibly thought-provoking, so much so, that I had to ask for clarification on two separate occasions due, not to an error in listening-skills, but to a confusion about how to best address the answers to meet the query.

In one particular example, and largely because I had spent so much time preparing my defense relating to ontological, epistemological and theoretical positioning and frameworks, I almost over-engineered my response when a considerably more simple answer would have sufficed. I fear I may have tripped over my delivery in this section only (!), as I could feel my brain shifting from a considerably higher gear at tremendous RPM, into a considerably more comfortable transmission mode that allowed me to relax into the matter at hand.

I told you so…

And as we neared the apex of the defense, both panel members gently guided me to my state my resolve around the scope of the project. From the onset, I stated my appreciation for shifting from entrepreneurial to academic positioning, toward eschewing a randomized control trial of a prototype to a more theoretical/computational approach and to continually narrow the breadth of modalities to half a handful of study.

And this was the primary lesson…my understanding of the narrowing and how I would go about this was still, perhaps, not direct and concise enough (yet)! In addition to several poignant examples of how my design methods could be further simplified (e.g. considerations of Wizard of Oz methodology were brought to light), the permission for me to select one modality (borne perhaps of my currently concluded data gathering/research/PPI) might enable me to effectuate study of one type of stimuli (e.g. sonic, optic or interoceptive GSR)…but only one!

And with that, I nodded again to my supervisor who was (up until this point) silently taking notes, camera and microphone off, and–no doubt–wagging her finger at the camera knowing all the time that she had “told me so”.

Once I had finished acknowledging that I had been advised of this, Kaśka gently (magically!) appeared on camera with the widest of smile and stated the same. It was actually a very lovely and touching moment…one that I shall not forget…as it placed a cherry atop of the whipped cream of my now fully assembled and soon to be complete upgrade.

The next best thing…

And while I had been longing two carry this process out face-to-face in Bloomsbury, this would not be the case owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. In the end, and despite some of the technical glitches I had heard transpired from other friends and colleagues with their upgrades and presentations, I was grateful to have had this unique, online mini-viva. My panel was generous with their time, effort and genuine interest and I was pleased with the outcome.

That is: I passed!

Funny how in the entrepreneurial world, the words “passed” connote a pejorative meaning. I much rather prefer the academic version and am pleased to be jumping into the deep end now of scholarly work.

As Kaśka mentioned whilst we were awaiting the panel’s decision: “We will make a researcher out of you yet. I am quite proud of you!”

And that was, of course, music to my ears.

PhD Dissertation Defense Slides Design: Start

Tips for designing the slides
Presentation checklist
Example slides
Additional Resources

Purpose of the Guide

This guide was created to help ph.d. students in engineering fields to design dissertation defense presentations. the guide provides 1) tips on how to effectively communicate research, and 2) full presentation examples from ph.d. graduates. the tips on designing effective slides are not restricted to dissertation defense presentations; they can be used in designing other types of presentations such as conference talks, qualification and proposal exams, and technical seminars., the tips and examples are used to help students to design effective presentation. the technical contents in all examples are subject to copyright, please do not replicate. , if you need help in designing your presentation, please contact julie chen ([email protected]) for individual consultation. .

Example Slides Repository
Defense slides examples Link to examples dissertation defense slides.

Useful Links

CIT Thesis and dissertation standards
Dissertations and Theses @ Carnegie Mellon This link opens in a new window Covers 1920-present. Full text of some dissertations may be available 1997-present. Citations and abstracts of dissertations and theses CMU graduate students have published through UMI Dissertation Publishing. In addition to citations and abstracts, the service provides free access to 24 page previews and the full text in PDF format, when available. In most cases, this will be works published in 1997 forward.
Communicate your research data Data visualization is very important in communicating your data effectively. Check out these do's and don'ts for designing figures.

Power Point Template and other Resources

CEE Powerpoint Slide Presentation Template 1
CEE Powerpoint Slide Presentation Template 2

Source: CEE Department Resources https://www.cmu.edu/cee/resources/index.html

CMU Powerpoint Slide Template

Source: CMU Marketing and Communications

https://www.cmu.edu/marcom/brand-standards/downloads/index.html

Use of CMU logos, marks, and Unitmarks

Email me for questions and schedule an appointment

2. Emphasize YOUR contribution

Having a ph.d. means that you have made some novel contributions to the grand field. this is about you and your research. you need to keep emphasizing your contributions throughout your presentation. after talking about what needs to be solved, try to focus on emphasizing the novelty of your work. what problems can be solved using your research outcomes what breakthroughs have you made to the field why are your methods and outcomes outstanding you need to incorporate answers to these questions in your presentation. , be clear what your contributions are in the introduction section; separate what was done by others and what was done by you. , 3. connect your projects into a whole piece of work, you might have been doing multiple projects that are not strongly connected. to figure out how to connect them into a whole piece, use visualizations such as flow charts to convince your audience. the two slides below are two examples. in the first slide, which was presented in the introduction section, the presenter used a flow diagram to show the connection between the three projects. in the second slide, the presenter used key figures and a unique color for each project to show the connection..

Xiaoju Chen Defense Slides with Notes

4. Tell a good story

The committee members do not necessarily have the same background knowledge as you. plus, there could be researchers from other fields and even the general public in the room. you want to make sure all of your audience can understand as much as possible. focus on the big picture rather than technical details; make sure you use simple language to explain your methods and results. your committee has read your dissertation before your defense, but others have not. , dr. cook and dr. velibeyoglu did a good job explaining their research to everyone. the introduction sessions in their presentations are well designed for this purpose. .

Laren M. Cook Defense Slides with Notes
Irem Velibeyoglu Defense with Notes

5. Transition, transition, transition

Use transition slides to connect projects , it's a long presentation with different research projects. you want to use some sort of transition to remind your audience what you have been talking about and what is next. you may use a slide that is designed for this purpose throughout your presentation. , below are two examples. these slides were presented after the introduction section. the presenters used the same slides and highlighted the items for project one to indicate that they were moving on to the first project. throughout the presentation, they used these slides and highlighted different sections to indicate how these projects fit into the whole dissertation. .

You can also use some other indications on your slides, but remember not to make your slides too busy. Below are two examples. In the first example, the presenter used chapter numbers to indicate what he was talking about. In the second example, the presenter used a progress bar with keywords for each chapter as the indicator.

Use transition sentences to connect slides

Remember transition sentences are also important; use them to summarize what you have said and tell your audience what they will expect next. if you keep forgetting the transition sentence, write a note on your presentation. you can either write down a full sentence of what you want to say or some keywords., 6. be brief, put details in backup slides , you won't have time to explain all of the details. if your defense presentation is scheduled for 45 minutes, you can only spend around 10 minutes for each project - that's shorter than a normal research conference presentation focus on the big picture and leave details behind. you can put the details in your backup slides, so you might find them useful when your committee (and other members of the audience) ask questions regarding these details., 7. show your presentation to your advisor and colleagues, make sure to ask your advisor(s) for their comments. they might have a different view on what should be emphasized and what should be elaborated. , you also want to practice at least once in front of your colleagues. they can be your lab mates, people who work in your research group, and/or your friends. they do not have to be experts in your field. ask them to give you some feedback - their comments can be extremely helpful to improve your presentation. , below are some other tips and resources to design your defense presentation. .

Tips for designing your defense presentation

How important is your presentation, and cookies?

Next: Tips for designing the slides >>
Last Updated: Jan 9, 2024 11:18 AM
URL: https://guides.library.cmu.edu/c.php?g=883178

How to structure your viva presentation (with examples)

Most PhD vivas and PhD defences start with a short presentation by the candidate. The structure of these presentations is very important! There are several factors and approaches to consider when developing your viva presentation structure.

Factors to consider when developing a viva presentation structure

Structuring your viva presentation traditionally, structuring your viva presentation around key findings, structuring your viva presentation around key arguments, structuring your viva presentation around case studies, final thoughts on viva presentation structures.

A PhD viva or PhD defence is often one of the last steps that PhD students have to pass before receiving a doctorate. The viva or defence usually starts with a short presentation of the PhD candidate on the PhD thesis.

Presenting a whole PhD in a short amount of time is very challenging. After all, a PhD is often the result of several years of work!

It is simply impossible to include everything in a viva presentation.

Therefore, tough choices have to be made in terms of what to include, what to highlight, and what to exclude.

The structure of a viva presentation plays a crucial role in bringing across the key messages of your PhD.

Therefore, there are several factors to consider when developing a viva presentation structure:

Available presentation time : Viva presentations usually last between 10 and 20 minutes, but every university has different regulations. Developing a structure for a viva presentation that lasts 10 minutes is different from developing one for a presentation that lasts 20 minutes or more. Thus, find out how much time you are allowed to present!
The key contribution of your thesis: The structure of a viva presentation should reflect the content and key messages of the PhD thesis. For instance, if you have written a very theoretical PhD thesis, it makes no sense to structure your whole presentation around your data collection and analysis. Make sure that the viva presentation structure is in line with your main messages.
University standards: It is recommended to discuss your ideas and plans for your viva presentation structure with others, as each university may have may be different (and even unspoken) rules and standards. Ask your supervisors about their preferred viva presentation structure. And talk to your peers who defend their theses before you.
Clear storyline : Every presentation should have a logical structure which allows the audience to follow a crystal-clear storyline. This is also true for viva presentations. Thus, clarify your storyline and develop a presentation structure that supports it.

A very traditional viva presentation structure simply follows the structure of the PhD thesis.

This means that the viva presentation covers all parts of the thesis, including an introduction, the literature review, the methodology, results, conclusions, etcetera.

Example of a traditional viva presentation structure

The advantage of this rather traditional format is that it provides information on each thesis chapter. Furthermore, it is relatively easy to prepare.

The disadvantage of this traditional format is that it is very challenging to fit all the information in a – let’s say – 10-minute presentation.

Furthermore, it can result in a presentation that is quite boring for the examiners, who have read the thesis in preparation for the viva.

One interesting way is to structure a viva presentation around the key findings of the PhD research.

For instance, you can select your three main findings which you each connect to the existing literature, your unique research approach and your (new) empirical insights.

Example of a viva presentation structure around key findings

A viva presentation structure around key findings emphasises the unique contribution of a PhD thesis, particularly in empirical terms.

A challenge of this structure, however, is to narrow down the presentation to a handful of key findings.

Furthermore, it might be tricky to find enough time during the presentation to discuss your theoretical framework and embed your discussion in the existing literature when addressing complex issues.

A viva presentation structured around key arguments is very similar to one that is structured around key findings. However, while key findings place more emphasis on the empirical data, key arguments operate at a higher level:

Arguments are sets of reasons supporting an idea, which – in academia – often integrate theoretical and empirical insights.

Example of a viva presentation structure around key arguments

So, for example, your key argument 1 is your stance on an issue, combining your theoretical and empirical understanding of it. You use the existing theory to understand your empirical data, and your empirical data analysis to develop your theoretical understanding.

A viva presentation structure around key arguments is probably the most difficult viva presentation structure to choose.

However, if it is well done, it is probably the most academically strong and advanced way of defending your PhD.

Another common way to structure a viva presentation is around case studies or study contexts.

This structure is only applicable when the PhD thesis includes a comparative (case study) analysis, which is quite common in the social sciences and humanities.

A presentation can, for instance, first discuss the theoretical framework and research approach, then present Case 1, and then Case 2 or more if applicable.

Example of a viva presentation structure around case studies

A viva presentation structure around case studies can be easy to follow for the audience, and shed light on the similarities and differences of cases.

However, as always, you need to reflect on whether the structure supports your key message. If your key message does not centre around similarities and/or differences in cases, this is not the structure for you!

Every PhD thesis is unique, and therefore also every viva presentation structure should be unique.

The key to a good viva presentation is to choose a structure which reflects the key points of your PhD thesis that you want to convey to the examiners.

The example viva presentation structures discussed here intend to showcase variety and possibilities and to provide inspiration.

Never just copy a viva presentation structure that worked for others .

Always think about what fits best to your thesis, asking yourself the following questions:

What is the main message of my PhD that I want to share during my viva?
How do I develop a crystal clear storyline to bring this main message across?
How can I structure my viva presentation to support and facilitate this storyline?

Master Academia

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.

Subscribe and receive Master Academia's quarterly newsletter.

18 common audience questions at academic conferences (+ how to react)

10 reasons to do a master's degree right after graduation, related articles.

Dealing with failure as a PhD student

13 awesome academic phrases to write your methodology (+ real examples)

Major revisions: Sample peer review comments and examples

How to write a convincing research statement

Research Voyage

Research Tips and Infromation

How to Present PhD Progress Report to Doctoral Committee Members in 03 Simple Stages

As I reflect on my journey through the challenges and triumphs of presenting my PhD progress to the doctoral committee, I’m reminded of the invaluable lessons learned and the transformative experiences gained along the way.

1. Diverse Committee Composition: From the outset, the composition of the doctoral committee struck me with its diversity—comprising experts from within and outside my university, each member brought a unique perspective and wealth of knowledge to the table. Their ability to seamlessly map my research problem to their respective domains underscored the richness of their insights and the importance of their feedback in shaping the trajectory of my study.

2. Thorough Preparation: Meticulously crafting my presentation was only the first step. I realized the necessity of thorough preparation, ensuring that each slide effectively communicated my research objectives, methodology, preliminary findings, and future directions. Despite the initial nerves, I remained composed and focused, drawing upon months of dedication and hard work invested in my research.

3. Anticipating Diverse Requests: During one particularly memorable meeting, the committee members had varied requests—one member asked for a demonstration of my work, while another member wanted to delve into the intricacies of my data collection, cleaning, and wrangling process. These diverse requests underscored the importance of being prepared for any eventuality during the presentation, including the need for live demonstrations and detailed explanations of data-related processes.

4. Embracing Constructive Criticism: I welcomed the committee’s feedback with an open mind. Their constructive criticism and encouragement not only bolstered my confidence but also reignited my passion for my work. I learned to recognize the invaluable role of feedback in guiding the next steps of my research journey.

5. Displaying Previous Meeting Observations: One valuable lesson I learned along the way was the importance of displaying and addressing previous committee meeting observations in subsequent presentations. It was during my second presentation that one committee member suggested this approach, highlighting the need to showcase how suggestions were addressed and incorporated into the research progress. From that point onward, I made it a regular practice to include this information in my presentations, ensuring transparency and accountability in my research journey.

In retrospect, each PhD progress presentation was a transformative experience, shaping me into a more resilient, prepared, and adaptable researcher.

As I reflect on the journey of presenting my PhD progress, I invite you to join me in exploring the intricacies of navigating these pivotal meetings. From preparation to presentation, and from feedback to refinement, each step of the journey offers valuable insights into the art and science of doctoral progress presentations.

Introduction

Summary of plan of actions before phd progress presentation meeting, presentation tips, summary of plan of actions during phd progress presentation meeting, summary of plan of actions after phd progress presentation meeting, email template to doctoral committee members for extension or modification for the work proposed, mastering the art of oral and visual presentations for phd presentations, what should be included in the one-page summary for phd doctoral committee members, how can i effectively demonstrate a software-based project during the phd progress presentation, what level of detail should i include in the background section of my presentation, how can i ensure that there are no surprises for my supervisor during the doctoral committee meeting, what types of questions can i expect from the committee members regarding my research plan, how should i respond to suggestions and feedback given by the committee members during the meeting, under which circumstances phd progress presentation can be rejected.

The PhD Doctoral committee is constituted by the university in which the candidate has registered for PhD. The committe is there to support and guide the research scholar till his final thesis is submitted. The committe involves the experts in the domain of the candidate from various universities and research labs. The Committee will evaluate your progress and help to make sure that you are on track to get your dissertation within a reasonable time.

At the beginning of your research, their focus will be on making sure you have defined reasonable and achievable objectives. Later, they will help you decide when it is time to write your thesis. Finally, they will be there at your thesis seminar and defence presentations. Their support as mentors will likely continue as you move on in your career.

Doctoral committee meeting happens usually once in 06 months. Here it is expected that the research scholar has to present his PhD progress work of the past six months. The meeting should not be felt like an exam. The outcome should be productive advice to you for your future research.

The Presentation of PhD Progress Report to Doctoral Committee Members happens in three stages namely: i) Before the meeting: i.e. Once you start preparing the report for the meeting to till the meeting begins. ii) During the meeting: i.e. From entering into the meeting hall to till the meeting gets over and iii) After the meeting: i.e. From the time meeting concludes to till the next six months before you really start preparing for your next meeting report.

Before the PhD Progress Presentation Meeting

Along with your supervisor go through all the comments given in the previous PhD progress doctoral committee meeting. Discuss in detail with your supervisor the work carried out for the past six months. If any issues are still pending have justification for not addressing or partially addressing those issues.

Do not hide details regarding the implementation and pending issues with your supervisor. This actually helps the supervisor to defend you and take inputs from the committee members regarding the future course of directions.

A summary of PhD progress and plans should be prepared and submitted to the Doctoral committee at least one week prior to the meeting. Make sure that you have gone through the report with all grammatical corrections and plagiarism checks.

Send out the agenda to your committee members beforehand, but also remind them of the topics you want to cover before you begin the presentation. If you have any manuscripts published or accepted send your committee a copy of the same.

You should prepare a PhD progress presentation (no more than 20 minutes without interruption) that includes a brief background of your research, objectives and the work carried out from the last presentation to till date. Without fail discuss in detail the presentation slides with your supervisor. In your presentation slides list all the previous comments and your response for each committee in the form of a table.

If you are planning to change the title of your work getting consent from the committee members is essential. Have at least 04-05 titles which you and your supervisor feel appropriate beforehand. This will ease the process of changing the title immediately in the meeting and the committee can recommend the same to the university along with regular suggestions.

The best way to ensure that your PhD progress meeting goes smoothly is to meet individually with each committee member to discuss your results well in advance. If you cannot meet with them in person, share your results ( refer my blog on how to write result section ) over email and ask for their feedback. If there are any disagreements, resolve them before the meeting by speaking with your supervisor to ensure that the meeting goes smoothly.

During the PhD Progress Presentation Meeting

Before the start of the PhD progress presentation give copies of the one-page summary to other faculty members who are attending the session. Submit copies of the complete report to the committee members including your supervisor. No need to present details of any published work. Provide a reprint or preprint, preferably ahead of the meeting. If your work is software based then keep the demo ready. If you do not have a working module then show the video demonstration of the model. This will help the committee members to suggest future directions for your work.

During your PhD progress committee meeting, you should focus on the last six months’ work rather than the background. Only spend as much time on the background as is relevant to what you will be talking about.

There should not be any surprise slides/facts to your supervisor during your committee meeting.

At your first PhD progress Doctoral committee meeting, you will present an outline of your plan for your research. You can build a detailed description of what you plan to do ( literature survey to carry out, algorithms or theorems to study, experiments to carry out, software and hardware components to add, systems integration to perform, tests to accomplish ). The plans can be represented with specific milestones and timelines with a Gantt Chart .

Example: The sample Gantt chart below shows a set of activities planned for the next few months for the Research work. This can be extended to any length. This chart helps the committee members to know how well the researcher has planned the research activities.

Ph.D. Research Proposal with Gnatt Chart

At subsequent PhD progress meetings you should present a brief introduction (one or two slides) to remind the committee of your research area – don’t expect them to recall everything from the last meeting, but no need to go into great detail. Aim to put your work in context.

Show your current working objective in the form of a block diagram. This will set the boundary for the presentation and discussion. This will help the committee members to focus on the specified objective. For example in the figure below the candidate is focusing on the “Wheeled mobile Robot” objective in Robot Path Planning.

Make sure you are comfortable moving back and forth among your slides. Do not cross the time limit. Add photographs of any field visits for data collection , or conference presentations in your presentation slides. If you had any interactions with domain experts in your area then add interaction details with a date. If you have visited any organization as a resource person relating to your Ph.D. work with your supervisor then add that details.

Seek advice from your committee members during the meeting. Note down all the suggestions by yourself or ask one of your research colleagues to note the same. This is highly desirable, almost to the point that you should make it mandatory. Give a timeline of your plans. What will you be doing over the next month, and what do you hope to accomplish before your next meeting in the next six months’ time.

Keep additional slides along with your regular slides. Get into additional slides detail if any clarifications are sought on any equations or algorithms etc.

Additional slides can be presented as follows:

i) The equipment details you are planning to purchase or currently using for implementation.

ii) The Algorithms which you have implemented or planning to implement.

iii) The mathematical model you have developed, or

iv) Any slides that you think are important but do not have time to cover at the end of your presentation.

Here are some tips regarding the presentation, including time management, devices, backup, laptop usage, uploading PowerPoint, video, and audio:

Practice your presentation beforehand to ensure it fits within the allocated time.
Use a timer or stopwatch during practice sessions to gauge your pace.
Be mindful of the time during the actual presentation and make necessary adjustments to stay on track.
Ensure your laptop or presentation device is in good working condition.
Carry a backup copy of your presentation on a USB drive or cloud storage.
Test the compatibility of your presentation files with the equipment at the presentation venue in advance.
Close any unnecessary applications or notifications on your laptop to avoid distractions.
Disable sleep mode or screensavers to prevent interruptions during the presentation.
Familiarize yourself with the laptop’s function keys or shortcuts for adjusting display settings, volume, etc.
Save your PowerPoint presentation in a compatible format (e.g., PPT or PPTX).
Verify that all embedded media (images, videos, audio) are properly linked and functional.
If possible, upload your presentation to the venue’s computer system before the session to avoid last-minute technical issues.
Check the audio and video components of your presentation beforehand to ensure they work properly.
If you plan to play a video, ensure it is in a compatible format and smoothly integrated into your presentation.
Test the sound levels to ensure audibility for everyone in the room.

Additional tips (from personal experience):

Rehearse your presentation multiple times to build confidence and familiarity with the material.
Prepare cue cards or key points to refer to if needed, but avoid excessive reliance on them.
Maintain eye contact with the audience to engage them and convey confidence.
Speak clearly and project your voice to ensure everyone can hear you.
Use visual aids and diagrams to enhance understanding and clarify complex concepts.
Incorporate storytelling or real-life examples to make your presentation more engaging.
Practice smooth transitions between slides and maintain a logical flow throughout.
Be prepared to answer questions and engage in discussions following your presentation.

Remember, the more prepared and confident you are, the better you can deliver your presentation effectively.

After the PhD Progress Presentation Meeting

End your PhD progress committee meeting with a summary of what you have discussed, common points that you have reached and an action plan for the next six months. Your action plan needs to have “actionable” items, specifically what milestones you will work towards after the meeting and approximate timelines.

A written summary of the PhD progress committee meeting will be prepared by the supervisor and the committee, and that will be sent to the University. You will receive a copy of this and a copy will be placed in your research file.

Send an email note to each of your committee members through your supervisor to thank them for their time, and summarize the action items or milestones you agreed to. This will give your committee members another chance to give you feedback or suggestions.

During the meeting, you might have accepted to complete some implementation before the next meeting, but you may run out of time or you may not get any ideas regarding implementation. In such situations, have a discussion with your supervisor and the committee members and discuss the challenges faced by you. They may either extend the implementation time or ask you to change the methodology of implementation.

Simply do not wait for suggestions from committee members till the next PhD progress presentation meeting. In order to build trust between you and your committee members, you need to take committee members and your supervisor into confidence before taking any major decisions.

In the meeting, the committee might have suggested publishing your work in a quality conference or journal for better citations. Selecting a reputable journal and avoiding predatory conferences and journals is crucial for maximizing the visibility and impact of your research article.

By publishing in a respected journal, you increase the likelihood of attracting a broader and more qualified readership, thus increasing the chances of your article being cited by other researchers. Choosing the right journal involves considering factors such as the journal’s scope, target audience, impact factor, indexing in reputable databases, peer-review process, and overall reputation in the field.

Additionally, it is important to stay vigilant and avoid predatory conferences and journals that may engage in unethical practices or lack rigorous peer-review processes. These predatory outlets may hinder the credibility and recognition of your work. By carefully selecting a reputable journal, you position your research for greater exposure, credibility, and citation potential.

Visit my articles on ” How to identify and avoid predatory conferences and journals ” and “ Identifying Reputable journals for your research paper “. These articles will help you in getting your articles cited by many authors.

Here is an email template which you can communicate to your doctoral committee members in case you fail to keep the deadline or are unable to work on the ideas you proposed. Please take consent from your supervisor before sending any communication to Doctoral Committee members.

Improving both oral presentation and visual presentation skills is crucial for effective communication. To enhance your oral presentation skills, focus on aspects such as clarity, organization, and delivery. Practice speaking clearly, using appropriate tone and volume, and engaging with your audience. Additionally, consider refining your body language, utilizing effective gestures, and maintaining eye contact. For further guidance and resources on honing your oral presentation skills, you may explore reputable platforms and online courses available in this domain.

When it comes to visual presentation skills, it is essential to create visually appealing and impactful slides or visuals. Pay attention to design elements, such as color schemes, fonts, and layout, to ensure coherence and readability. Utilize visuals, such as graphs, charts, and images, to convey information effectively. Incorporate appropriate animations or transitions to enhance the flow and engagement of your presentation. To access valuable tips, techniques, and tools for enhancing your visual presentation skills, you can explore recommended platforms and tutorials available online.

If you are interested in further developing your oral presentation skills, I recommend checking out this comprehensive course on oral presentation skills . It covers essential techniques, strategies, and practical exercises to help you deliver impactful presentations confidently. Likewise, if you want to enhance your visual presentation skills, you may find this resource on v isual presentation design highly beneficial. It provides valuable insights, best practices, and examples to create visually stunning and effective presentations. Feel free to explore these resources to elevate your presentation skills and captivate your audience.

Presenting your PhD progress report to the doctoral committee can be a daunting task, but it is an essential part of your PhD journey. The committee is there to provide guidance and support, ensuring that you are on track to complete your dissertation within a reasonable time. It is crucial to approach the committee meeting with a positive attitude and view it as an opportunity to receive productive advice for your future research.

Remember that the presentation of the progress report to the committee happens in three stages: before, during, and after the meeting. The preparation of the report should be meticulous and thoughtful, and during the meeting, you should be open to constructive feedback and suggestions. After the meeting, you should take note of the committee’s recommendations and use them to shape your future research endeavours.

As you move forward in your career, the support and guidance of the doctoral committee will likely continue to be a valuable resource. By effectively presenting your progress report to the committee, you can make the most of this opportunity and receive the guidance you need to succeed in your PhD program.

Frequently Asked Questions

Research Objective: Clearly state the objective of your research and the problem you are addressing. Methodology: Provide a brief description of the methodology or approach you are using to conduct your research. Key Findings: Highlight the major findings or results you have obtained so far in your research. Progress Update: Summarize the progress you have made during the past six months, highlighting significant achievements or milestones reached. Challenges: Briefly mention any challenges or obstacles you have encountered in your research and how you are addressing them. Future Plans: Outline your planned next steps and future goals for your research, including anticipated timelines or milestones. Relevance and Impact: Discuss the relevance and potential impact of your research in your field or discipline. Support Needed: Specify any specific support, resources, or expertise you require to further advance your research.

To effectively demonstrate a software-based project during the presentation: Have the demo prepared and functional Show a video demonstration if the software is not available or requires specific conditions Focus on showcasing key features and functionalities Provide context and explain the purpose of the software

Include only the necessary level of detail in the background section of your presentation, focusing on what is directly relevant to your research and the specific objectives you will be discussing. Keep it concise and provide enough context to help the doctoral committee members to understand the significance and motivation of your work without delving into unnecessary details.

Maintain open and regular communication with your supervisor throughout the research process. Share progress updates, challenges, and findings with your supervisor in a timely manner. Discuss any potential issues or deviations from the original plan as soon as they arise. Seek feedback and guidance from your supervisor at various stages of your research. Keep your supervisor informed about any changes in methodology, data, or results. Address any concerns or questions from your supervisor before the committee meeting to align expectations.

The types of questions you can expect from committee members regarding your research plan may include: Clarification questions seeking a deeper understanding of your research objectives, methodology, or proposed experiments. Questions about the theoretical framework or literature review supporting your research. Inquiries about the feasibility and potential limitations of your proposed research. Questions related to the significance and impact of your research in the field. Suggestions for alternative approaches or methodologies to consider. Questions about the expected timeline and milestones for your research. Inquiries about potential ethical considerations or data management strategies. Questions exploring the potential implications and practical applications of your research. Requests for additional details or explanations on specific aspects of your research plan. Questions about the expected contributions of your research to the existing body of knowledge in your field.

When responding to suggestions and feedback given by the committee members during the meeting: Listen actively and attentively to understand the suggestions and feedback. Thank the committee members for their input and valuable insights. Remain open-minded and receptive to different perspectives and ideas. Clarify any points of confusion or seek further clarification, if needed. Acknowledge the validity of the suggestions and show a willingness to consider them. Provide thoughtful responses that demonstrate your understanding of the suggestions. Clearly articulate your rationale if you choose not to implement a specific suggestion. Engage in constructive discussions and ask follow-up questions, if appropriate. Demonstrate your ability to integrate feedback into your research plan or adjust your approach. Express gratitude for the committee members’ support and guidance throughout the process.

Lack of Clear Objectives: If your progress presentation fails to clearly define and articulate the objectives of your research, it may be rejected. The committee expects a clear understanding of what you aim to achieve and the significance of your research goals. Inadequate Progress: Insufficient progress made during the specified period can lead to rejection. The committee expects tangible advancements in your research within the given timeframe. If there is a lack of substantial work or limited progress, they may question the feasibility or dedication to your research. Methodological Issues: If there are flaws in your research methodology or data collection techniques, the committee may reject your progress presentation. It is essential to demonstrate a robust and well-designed research approach that aligns with the requirements of your field. Poor Presentation Skills: Your presentation skills play a crucial role in conveying your research effectively. If your presentation lacks clarity, coherence, or fails to engage the audience, it may lead to rejection. Effective communication and the ability to present complex ideas in a concise and understandable manner are vital. Inadequate Literature Review: A comprehensive literature review is expected in a progress presentation. If your review of existing literature is incomplete, lacks depth, or fails to address relevant studies, your presentation may be rejected. It is essential to showcase a thorough understanding of the existing research and its relationship to your work. Failure to Address Committee Feedback: If you neglect to incorporate previous feedback and suggestions from the committee, it may result in rejection. The committee expects you to demonstrate the ability to reflect on and address their recommendations, showing your commitment to improving your research. Remember, the specific parameters for rejection may vary depending on your academic institution and the expectations set by your doctoral committee. It is crucial to consult your supervisor and committee members for clear guidelines and expectations for your progress presentation.

Upcoming Events

Visit the Upcoming International Conferences at Exotic Travel Destinations with Travel Plan
Visit for Research Internships Worldwide

PhD Defense Template

You’ve done the hard work to prepare your PhD dissertation, and now there’s only one step left: your defense. And Beautiful.ai has the perfect presentation template to help you along the way.

These customizable template slides have all the basic elements of a PhD defense presentation, including an abstract, methodology, research findings, executive summary, and more. The result? A streamlined presentation that’s as professional as it is impressive. All with just a few clicks of the mouse.

Our PhD defense template can also help you:

Customize your PhD presentation for different audiences
Synthesize months of academic work into a concise presentation
Successfully defend your PhD thesis to your panel

Use our template to create an effective PhD defense presentation

Your PhD defense presentation is a critical step in your academic journey – one that requires a smart and sophisticated format, layout, and story flow. That’s why our template includes everything you need to create an effective presentation. Tailoring this defense template to your unique PhD thesis is simple. Whether you need to create additional data points or showcase more findings, you can quickly bring your visions to life with these customizable templates and our entire library of professionally designed template slides.

Pro Tips for creating your own PhD defense presentation template

When you are thinking of creating your own impactful Phd defense presentation, keep these best practices in mind:

Condensing hours and hours of research can be daunting. Build an outline or table of contents first, then simply stick to that structure as you create your presentation.

It can be easy to get caught up in your research and findings, but don’t forget to answer critical questions like, ‘Why is this important?’ and ‘What results have you achieved?’

Remember: You aren’t recreating your entire thesis into a visual presentation. Limit the amount of content and data you add to each slide.

Your PhD defense presentation is your chance to share all of your hard work. Don’t be afraid to showcase bits of your personality throughout.

More Popular Templates

Dropbox Pitch Deck

You’ve likely used DropBox for saving and sharing files, but 13 years ago MIT students Drew Houston and Arash Ferdowsi were just hoping for a little funding to get their start-up off the ground. The initial pitch deck landed them their $1.2M seed round in 2007, though it left room for improvement. We recreated it in Beautiful.ai.

Weekly Report Presentation

Recap the past week’s accomplishments, share current projects, and plan for the week ahead with a weekly report presentation.

Public Relations Pitch Example

Use this public relations pitch example to create your own PR pitch template for your next meeting with a potential client.

Foursquare Pitch Deck

This Foursquare pitch deck shows how simple presentations can persuade investors into action with simple, clean design.

Mixpanel Pitch Deck

Mixpanel is a business analytics company that helps measure user engagement and retention. We took a look at Mixpanel’s original pitch deck to look for ways to improve the design.

Event Marketing Plan Presentation

Make your next company event a success. Use an event marketing plan template to promote, organize and evaluate your event.

Doctoral College

PhD Chat: My PhD upgrade experience

When you first start your PhD you are not actually technically a PhD student. You start registered as an MPhil student and, after a year or so, you do your upgrade to being a fully-fledged PhD student.

The process of your upgrade is different between different universities and even between different departments at the same university. So it’s worth checking what the requirements are for your department and, crucially, what the deadlines are, as the timing can also differ.

In my department I had to upgrade at about 1 year in. I had to choose two internal examiners, one of which had to be a more senior member of staff. And one month before the agreed date I had to submit:

A brief report on my PhD progress & plans. It had a tight limit of 4-6 pages, but you could also add appendices. I attached a review paper I had just submitted to a journal.
A (very brief) report from my lead supervisor, signed by my whole supervisory team

My actual upgrade involved:

A 30-minute presentation about my PhD, open to all staff & students with a Q&A
A mini-viva with my examiners straight afterwards. Mine only lasted about 45 minutes.

I was really nervous just beforehand, but it was actually completely fine.

The presentation:

I hate presenting – I’m not a ‘performer’ and I always fear I’ll be having a bad brain fog day, which includes word-finding & memory problems – not ideal for presenting! But it went well and quite a few PhD students came in support, so it helped knowing the audience would be a friendly one. (I’ll write a post at some point about preparing for a presentation when you have these kinds of spoonie issues).

Also – my lovely officemate came a bit early and brought me a bottle of water & a chocolate treat. I will definitely be doing that for other people in the future because I really needed them!

Tip #1: None of the questions I had prepared for came up in the Q&A, but a lot of that thinking through helped in the viva. So practice answering questions out loud you think people might ask!

I had great examiners, which helped a lot because I knew they would be constructive and helpful in any criticisms/questions, rather than combative/mean. I found as soon as the viva got going my nerves very quickly disappeared. In part, that was because my examiners made me feel relaxed and comfortable, but also because it was basically a chat through my work, and ideas of things to think about or to include or to be clearer on. The viva went through, in roughly chronological order, from why I chose the specific topic that I did, to each of my studies, to analysis, to my publication/dissemination plan. We also talked about how my work fits in a wider context, which made me realise I could expand my thinking in how it’s situated much more.

It went very quickly, and I found it really helpful and motivating. If I didn’t have to do a presentation I’d even say the whole upgrade is quite enjoyable in a nerd way.

Tip #2: If you do get a say in who your examiners are, think carefully about your choice! What you want is someone who will be helpful to you and your PhD, whatever that means to you.

I did have the option for one of my supervisors sit in on the viva as an observer to take notes. I didn’t. In lots of ways this would have been helpful because so much of what the examiners are saying/suggesting is useful and there are only so many notes you can make yourself whilst also trying to think and answer questions. But, I know that I personally find being ‘observed’ extremely nerve-wracking so I would have found it more pressurising than helpful (even though all my supervisors are great).

Tip #3: I’d probably recommend to most people that having your supervisor there would be helpful, but remember to think about what would work for you.

I was surprisingly exhausted afterwards, even though it wasn’t a very long process, but I’d planned work things in for that afternoon. Don’t do this! I took the next day off and watched Buffy in my pyjamas while eating Lebkuchen, which was the better plan.

Tip #4: Take a bit of time out afterwards! Most of the actual work for the upgrade happens before it – in writing & preparing your submission – but you will definitely need a break. Have a little time out, relax, and come back motivated to get cracking – as an Official PhD Student.

You can do the thing.

This post comes from Debbie Kinsey’s personal blog : https://debbiekinsey.wordpress.com/2018/12/07/phd-chat-my-phd-upgrade-experience/

You can find out more about Debbie and her Research by following her on twitter @debbie_kinsey

Latest Posts
Undergraduate Bloggers
Graduate Bloggers
Study Abroad Bloggers
Guest Bloggers
Browse Posts
Browse Categories

Grant Golub

April 14th, 2021, looking ahead to the phd upgrade viva.

0 comments | 1 shares

Estimated reading time: 7 minutes

With the spring now in full bloom, it’s time to start thinking ahead to the Summer Term. For undergraduates and postgraduate students, that means thinking about final essays, exams, and dissertations. If you’re a first year PhD candidate, it signifies the approaching PhD upgrade viva, the most important milestone in the early part of the PhD process. Now in my second year of the PhD, I’ve had a lot of time and distance to think about my upgrade viva and how one should prepare for it. I want to share some of my thoughts with you if this is an experience on your horizon.

“The PhD upgrade viva is an oral examination at the end of your first year where you must defend your proposed dissertation and the upgrade portfolio you submit in the Summer Term.”

The upgrade viva can definitely be a scary or nerve-racking prospect. I think that started dawning on me several weeks before mine in early June 2020. We had already spent weeks in isolation due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which cast a stressful overhang to everything I was doing last spring. While that hasn’t really changed a year later, the novelty of the coronavirus was still fresh then, and the uncertainty extremely high. The pandemic increased my concerns about the viva, no doubt about it.

Yet, although I thought I was doing a lot to prepare for it, I now realize I could have done a lot more. I think that stems in part from my miscalibrated expectations on what was awaiting me, but I also think I should have been thinking my project through more and making sure I was more than well-prepared to defend it to my examiners, two professors in my department. I think what makes the upgrade viva experience unique to everyone is that they can focus on very different things, depending on the student, which I only realized after talking to other members of my PhD cohort about what they went through. In hindsight, that makes sense, but at the time, I expected some more uniformity in the process. That’s not good or bad one way or the other, it’s just the way it is. I think having that expectation is important heading into that meeting.

I also think it’s vital to spend time thinking through the anticipated critiques of your project and work, and coming up with responses to those assessments. I did this to some degree, but I believe I would have been better prepared if I had spent more time doing this. Your supervisor will be crucial here, and I would devote real time to thinking this through with them. Your supervisor is a valuable resource, and you should use them whenever you can. Their knowledge and experience are only going to help you.

The PhD upgrade viva can be stressful, but it’s also a chance for you to shine, and show what you’ve accomplished during your first year. It’s a chance to talk about your research at length, and you shouldn’t pass up that opportunity to show why your PhD matters and why you’re passionate about it. So spend time preparing for it, but also view it as an opportunity to shine and demonstrate why this project needs to be completed. It’s an invaluable chance, so go and seize the day!

About the author

My name is Grant Golub and I'm a PhD candidate in the Department of International History at LSE. My research focuses on US foreign relations and grand strategy, diplomatic history, and Anglo-American relations.

Accepted to a PhD programme at LSE? You should do it and here’s why

March 30th, 2020.

Advice for Incoming LSE PhD Students

July 14th, 2020.

Starting a PhD during a Pandemic

July 24th, 2020.

Researching and Teaching during the PhD

March 2nd, 2021.

Bad Behavior has blocked 1425 access attempts in the last 7 days.

Welcome to the University of Southampton

Progression milestones.

Progression Milestones are key stages of your candidature. They comprise of One Month Plan, First Review, The Report (interim thesis) and Formal Progress Review.

This page will guide you through each Milestone.

This is a guide and does not link to PGR Tracker.

Academic Needs Analysis

The one-month plan is typically a one-page outline of your research topic, explaining why it is an interesting/challenging problem and the methods and techniques you are planning to use, particularly in your first year of research. A GANTT chart should also be attached outlining the project planning for the first year.

The writing of the research plan should be a joint effort between you and your supervisory team and the focus of early meetings. If the project initially only has one supervisor, a co-supervisor(s) should also be appointed during the writing up of the one month research plan. The research plan (in PDF format) should be submitted via PGR Tracker, accompanied by your Academic Needs Analysis, to the Graduate School Office (within one month of your start date). This will be approved by the supervisory team and the Graduate School.

iPhD students will also be expected to submit a one-month plan by the end of month 13 (i.e. at the start of the research component of their programme).

First Review

First review – milestone 1 (mphil, phd, iphd and engd).

The first major milestone is the First Review. For this review, you will be required to produce a progress report, which will be followed by a short viva examination.

A PDF copy of your report and an updated training record should be submitted via PGR Tracker to the Graduate School Office according to the following timings:

The First Review Report

The First Review report typically consists of a substantive initial literature review, a clear delineation of the research problem, a description of the approaches taken so far, preliminary results, analysis and discussion, together with a clear plan of future work. Around 5000 words is given as a target length, although supervisory discretion may be employed (and often a longer document will be required). You should check whether it is necessary for you to produce hard copies of your report for the panel (usually it is).

The Review Meeting

The review must be organised by the main/coordinating supervisor within one month of the report submission. The panel for the review will consist of at least three academics: the supervisory team, plus at least one independent assessor usually from within the Faculty. During the meeting, the review panel will discuss the report you have produced. Also you may be asked to prepare a 10-15 minute presentation of your work to start the review meeting. The review will provide you with the opportunity to practise answering technical questions on your research and defending your work in readiness for your final viva voce examination.

The assessment questions can be found on the SESG8003: FEE Graduate School site . You will also have the chance to read the examination form and make your own comments via PGR Tracker. If the outcome of the review is unsatisfactory you will normally be given a month to revise your report. The review panel will explain the reasons that the review was unsatisfactory and your supervisory team will give you guidance for the revision required.

Please note that successful and timely completion of your First Review is a condition for progressing to the next year of study. If you choose to withdraw from the programme at this point, having successfully completed the equivalent of 60 credits in a combination of taught courses and the nine-month progress report, you will be eligible for the award of a Postgraduate Certificate.

Upgrade Review

Upgrade review milestone 2 (phd, iphd and engd).

Please note that students registered on the EngD programme are required to follow the requirements for the Upgrade Review.

For this review, you will be required to produce a more substantial report than the first progression review report. You may be asked to prepare a 10-15 minute presentation of your work to start the viva examination, and during the viva the review panel will discuss the report you have produced. You will be provided with a further opportunity to practise answering technical questions on your research and defending your work in readiness for your final viva.

A PDF copy of your report should be submitted, along with a review of your academic needs analysis to the Graduate School via PGR Tracker at least one month before the date of the review meeting. You are encouraged to draft this report with support from your supervisory team. Drafts and thesis outlines should be given to the supervisory team before the submission deadline (~ 2 months) to give time for this process. Please check if the panel requires a hard copy of your report!

Students who commenced their studies prior to 1 August 2015

The report (interim-thesis).

The report should consist of around 10,000 words (40 pages of text plus figures) although in some subjects, longer interim-theses may be appropriate, and this should be discussed with the supervisory team.

Typically the report will include an introduction to the research project (including a description of your research problem and the research objectives), a substantial literature review, a description of the methodology you have employed and your results, critical analysis and discussion of your research findings to date, and a clear, well-developed plan of your future work (including fieldwork and data analysis if applicable). It is recommended that the report includes a detailed contents page where the chapter headings to be used in the final thesis submission are used to structure the document.

You should now be able to show mastery of the general literature in the field, and that a significant body of research work has been completed. Evidence of paper publication/submission will be very clear indicators that this has been achieved. In addition a clear plan (including a GANTT chart) indicating future work to complete the doctoral thesis will be required.

The Viva Voce

The main/co-ordinating supervisor is responsible for arranging the time and location of the viva. The panel for the review will consist of at least two independent assessors usually from within the Faculty, one independent assessor will act as the Chair. Your supervisors can be present at the review meeting but will not play an active role in the examination. However, you can request the opportunity to meet the panel without a supervisor being present; this request should be made through the Faculty Graduate School Office.

As well as the interim thesis and viva, the review will require confirmation that you have attended all the required training (the review of your academic needs analysis will be helpful with this) and your publication strategy (papers in preparation, papers submitted, papers in press or published) will also be discussed.

Once the viva has taken place the examination form is completed by the panel and submitted via PGR Tracker. You will receive written feedback on the process and have the opportunity to write your own comments via PGR Tracker. Timely completion of this form is important to enable you to continue your registration on the degree programme.

The Recommendation of the Panel

The criteria for confirmation and guidance regarding recommendations from the panel can be found in the University’s Code of Practice, paragraph 70 – 79 .

If the outcome is reassess, you will normally be given up to three months from the date of the viva to re-submit your report.

Post Upgrade Review

Post upgrade review – milestone 3 (phd, iphd and engd).

The third milestone is the Post-Upgrade Review. The objectives of this review are to assess the progress towards the final thesis submission and that the candidate has had sufficient practice in defending their work in readiness for their PhD/EngD viva.

Requirements

Typically a successful major presentation of your work (for example at an international conference) and/or submission (or even better, publication) of conference or journal papers will form convincing evidence that you are making suitable progress. Having refereed journal or conference papers accepted prior to the viva is a very strong signal to the external examiner that you have satisfied one of the main requirements for award of a PhD (i.e. making an original contribution in the field). A journal publication is much stronger evidence of this than conference papers, although conference publications are also valuable in gaining recognition for your group in your field. If you already have conference papers published, that is useful, but choosing an area to prepare for journal publication will be very good preparation for a discussion chapter in the thesis, and at this stage in your studies you should be starting the writing up process of both journal paper(s) and your thesis. You should submit a thesis plan, list of publications (and evidence of the aforementioned documents) and an updated post-graduate training record to the Graduate School Office via PGR Tracker. Your supervisory team will then complete the review form on PGR Tracker.

Formal Progress Review Report

If none of the aforementioned events have occurred it may well trigger an additional formal review with your supervisory team and your independent reviewer(s)/assessor(s) where a substantial write-up will need to be assessed at a further formal progress review meeting, to ensure you are on track to complete your degree in time. The additional review will provide a further opportunity to practice defending your work in readiness for your viva. Your supervisory team will provide guidance on the format of the review report that is required. Normally a short report outlining progress since the upgrade review will be required. The report should include a thesis plan including a detailed contents page. This plan should indicate which parts of the research have been completed, and what work remains to be finished. This should enable your review panel to propose a target date for thesis submission and/or a target date to change to nominal registration. Your supervisory team will inform you if they deem it necessary to hold an additional review meeting, at which point you should upload your Post-upgrade Review Progress Report to PGR Tracker.

Normally transfer to nominal registration will not be approved until your Post-Upgrade Review has been completed.

Thesis Submission

Intention to submit.

You must inform your Faculty Graduate School Office of your intention to submit no later than two months before your date of submission. This should be done using the form on PGR Tracker. Information on decision and notification to submit can be found in paragraphs 84-85 in the Code of Practice for Research Candidature and Supervision .

Production and submission of the thesis

The requirements for the production of the thesis, and procedures for submission are set out in the Producing your thesis – a guide for research students and the Submitting your thesis – a guide for research students , both of which are available from the Quality Handbook. You should read this guidance carefully well in advance of preparing the final version of your thesis. Additional guidance for students submitting their thesis in an alternative format can be found in paragraphs 8-10 of the Code of Practice for Research Candidature and Supervision.

Thesis templates are available in Microsoft Word (PC and Mac) and LaTeX that match the required University specifications. Templates are available on the Library website .

Further information on thesis submission including: declaration of authorship; academic integrity; and thesis written in a language other than English, can be found in the Code of Practice for Research Candidature and Supervision , paragraphs 86-89.

You will retain access to library and computing facilities until your thesis has been examined and, where appropriate, any revisions requested by the examiners have been made.

You can find useful information to assist you in preparing your thesis on the Library’s Theses webpages , which should be read in conjunction with the University’s Guidance for Completion of Research Degree available on the Quality Handbook . You are advised to read these well in advance. It covers help on the electronic submission of your thesis and supporting materials, including copyright, intellectual property rights, restrictions, file formats, and research data. Thesis templates using Microsoft Word (PC and Mac) and LaTeX are also accessible here. Support in using the Word PC and Mac templates is provided by iSolutions.

Please note that this page and does not link to PGR Tracker, this is for information only.

Viva Voce Examination

Once you have given notice of intention to submit, at least two examiners (one internal and one external to the University) will be appointed and arrangements made for your examination. The following information on the examination can be found in paragraphs 90–104 of the Code of Practice for Research Candidature and Supervision : nomination of examiners; the role of the main supervisor in the examination process; the viva voce examination itself; the recommendations of the examiners; and consideration of the examiners’ recommendations.

Submission after a successful recommendation of an award

Information on the procedure for submission of your thesis after successful recommendation of an award can be found in the University’s Guidance for Completion of Research Degree .

Congratulations on your successful candidature! We look forward to seeing you at Graduation.

Full information can be found on the Graduation webpage .

Postgraduate research students are provided with Microsoft Office 365 alumni email addresses. Once you are awarded your [email protected] becomes [email protected] and any emails sent to your existing Southampton University email address will appear within your new account. Your alumni email account can be accessed via www.outlook.com/southamptonalumni.ac.uk .

PhD Blog: Surviving your PhD Upgrade

Published 2 June 2020

By Merve Mollaahmetoglu

“The upgrade is not there to catch you out, but to help you stay on course”

First of all, what is an upgrade? An upgrade is an internal examination process that PhD students are required to go through around 9-18 months into their programme to demonstrate that their research to date matches the standards of a PhD programme.

This may sound quite daunting. It can be more helpful to think of the upgrade as an opportunity to get feedback on your project from researchers other than your supervisors, and to check up on your progress. If there are any problems with your research project, for instance the research question, methods or analyses, these can be identified and addressed at the upgrade stage rather than later on.

As one of the first milestones of a PhD, completing the upgrade process can be a real confidence boost against the very common imposter syndrome. I personally felt surer of my research project and plans after my upgrade.

The upgrade process:

Although the procedures vary from university to university and from discipline to discipline, the upgrade usually involves writing up a report on your research to date.

As part of my PhD programme in Psychology, I was required to complete my upgrade within 18 months of starting my PhD and to submit a report containing a brief literature review, one completed research study and a discussion of my plans for future studies. I personally enjoyed seeing all my PhD work to date coming together in the upgrade report, and it really helped me to think about my PhD as a whole by setting out my plans for future studies.

The upgrade process may also involve giving a departmental talk on your research project. This is a great opportunity to showcase your research to fellow students and academics and get ideas from people who may not be in the same research area. Unfortunately, my departmental talk is postponed indefinitely due to COVID-19. This may be the case for most people at the moment, unless they are giving the much-dreaded Zoom talk…

The upgrade viva:

The final part of my upgrade involved a ‘Mini Viva’, where examiners asked me questions about my research in the upgrade report. This involved questions about the rationale for choosing my area of research, clarification of methods and implications of my findings. This was a really useful process as my examiners helped me identify areas to clarify for my thesis write-up.

At the end of your Mini Viva, the examiners might also give you recommendations for the next stages of your PhD, for instance whether your future study plans are feasible and whether you should make any changes to methods of future studies.

I found the Mini Viva a really helpful exercise to talk about my research and answer questions about it on the spot. You can think of this as a preparation for the Viva that you will complete at the end of your PhD.

The outcome of the upgrade:

There are a number of possible outcomes from the upgrade process although this may change according to the institution. These generally include upgrading to PhD with or without minor modifications to the upgrade report; or resubmitting your upgrade report with major changes. Recommending that students continue on the current MPhil programme (without progressing to a PhD) is also an option, although this is usually considered after someone has resubmitted their upgrade report. So even if you need to resubmit, this may not necessarily be a negative outcome.

Asking for support:

Whilst going through the upgrade process, your supervisors’ input will be invaluable. It can be very helpful to practice a mock viva with your supervisors ahead of the upgrade viva. You may also find it helpful to talk to other PhD students in your department who have completed their upgrade to learn about their experiences.

Final thoughts:

Overall, I found the upgrade process to be a really useful mechanism to confirm that my PhD was on the right track. I dedicated a considerable amount of time to writing my upgrade report and this is now a piece of work that I have written towards my PhD, and for a paper, so that is a bonus! All in all, the upgrade can be a positive process; think about it as an opportunity to discuss your research and to improve it. The upgrade process is not there to catch you out, but to help you stay on course and address any issues that may arise early on in your PhD.

For more information about the upgrade process see below:

https://www.findaphd.com/advice/doing/mphil-upgrade.aspx

https://www.thephdbureau.com/phd-upgrade-worry/

Merve Mollaahmetoglu is a PhD student funded by the SSA and the University of Exeter, investigating rumination as a risk factor and treatment target for alcohol use disorders. Other research interests include the use of ketamine for the treatment of substance use disorders. Follow Merve on twitter @mervemolla

The opinions expressed in this blog reflect the views of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the opinions or official positions of the Society for the Study of Addiction.

The SSA does not endorse nor guarantee the accuracy of the information in external sources or links, and accepts no responsibility or liability for any consequences arising from the use of such information.

Share this story

The Society for the Study of Addiction is a registered charity no. 1009826, and a company limited by guarantee registered in England, no. 02691654.

Contact | Join | Policies

University home
For business
Alumni and supporters
Our departments
Visiting us

Pre arrivals
PGR Support and Services
PGR Student Handbook
Information for Staff

2. Upgrade to PhD

Upgrade to phd.

Please find below the specific upgrade portfolio submission requirements for each department in the HASS Faculty. When assessing upgrade submissions, each panel are looking for succinctness and clarity and candidates are advised to adhere to the maximum upgrade word counts listed below.

The regulations governing the presentation of theses/dissertations specify that footnotes are not included in the word count for theses. These regulations also apply for the upgrade word count. However, if the Harvard referencing style is used, in-text citations (as per Harvard) would be included in the upgrade word count.

a. Archaeology and History

Archaeology upgrade submission requirements

In total, 7,500-9,000 words (exclusive of footnotes) should be submitted. This should comprise:

1. A draft abstract of the thesis (up to 300 words). This should describe your research in terms that can be understood by a non-specialist.

2. A further developed proposal (max 1,500 words). You are asked to demonstrate clear awareness of how the proposed research will address a bigger question or problem. This should cover the following areas:

a) Research questions . What are your research aims? What are the main issues that your thesis will address? What are the hypotheses that you wish to test? What is the originality and contribution of your thesis? (NB: At this stage you will not necessarily know the answers to all your research questions. Part of the purpose of this exercise is to identify issues thrown up by your research that will need to be addressed in the completed thesis.)

b) Research context . Which scholars have written on these issues before? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the existing literature? Does it contain errors, omissions, or both? What opportunities are there for your thesis to correct these? How does your research fit into and develop these literatures?

c) Methodology . What sources/evidence are you using in your research? (For example: archival material, web-based material, databases, interviews). How will these materials help you to address your research questions? Are there any novel aspects to your methods, and is there any particular guidance that you require? What methodologies and critical frameworks will you use? Are there any ethical issues arising from your research that need to be addressed?

3. A contents outline of the thesis (1 page). This may be in continuous prose, or bullet-points (or a combination of the two); this document is to show the structure and organisation of the thesis.

4. Draft timetable (1 page) for submission of the thesis within the candidate’s planned submission period (within a maximum of four years for full-time study from the date of initial registration; pro-rata for part-time study). This should show the student’s work plan for the remaining period of study and highlight any areas where problems might arise. It is intended that this draft timetable will be regularly reviewed and updated at the regular progress review meetings which take place each year.

5. One or more substantive pieces of a writing sample at PhD standard in good presentational order (approx. 5,000-6,000 words, which is the length of a short article). This should include original work on the substance and methodology of the thesis such as the collation, analysis or new interpretation of evidence or data; in the writing sample the candidate will have to show their ability to write clear and effective extended prose, to construct an argument, and to analyse source materials.

These pieces could be:

Either a sample chapter, which can include a basic literature review;
Or ethics application and fieldwork plan with literature review.

History upgrade submission requirements

In total, 7,500-9,000 words (exclusive of footnotes) should be submitted. This should comprise:

A draft abstract of the thesis (up to 300 words). This should describe your research in terms that can be understood by a non-specialist.
A further developed proposal (max 1,500 words). You are asked to demonstrate clear awareness of how the proposed research will address a bigger question or problem. This should cover the following areas:

3 . A contents outline of the thesis (1 page). This may be in continuous prose, or bullet-points (or a combination of the two); this document is to show the structure and organisation of the thesis. 4. Draft timetable (1 page) for submission of the thesis within the candidate’s planned submission period (within a maximum of four years for full-time study from the date of initial registration; pro-rata for part-time study). This should show the student’s work plan for the remaining period of study and highlight any areas where problems might arise. It is intended that this draft timetable will be regularly reviewed and updated at the regular progress review meetings which take place each year.

b. Classics, Ancient History, Religion and Theology

Upgrade submission requirements for students who began their studies before August 2019

In total, 15-20,000 words should be submitted. This should comprise:

1. A draft abstract of the thesis (up to 300 words). This should describe your research in terms that can be understood by a non-specialist. 2. An extended proposal (5,000 words or above). This should cover the following areas: a) Research questions What are the main issues that your thesis will address? What are the hypotheses that you wish to test? (NB: At this stage you will not necessarily know the answers to all your research questions. Part of the purpose of this exercise is to identify issues thrown up by your research that will need to be addressed in the completed thesis.) b) Research context Which scholars have written on these issues before? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the existing literature? Does it contain errors or omissions (or both)? What opportunities are there for your thesis to correct these? c) Methodology What resources and/or evidence are you using in your research (eg archival material, web-based material, databases, interviews)? How will these materials help you to address your research questions? Are there any novel aspects to your methods, and is there any particular guidance that you require? Are there any ethical issues arising from your research that still need to be addressed? 3. Chapter-by-chapter outline of the thesis. This may be in continuous prose, bullet-points, or a combination of the two.

4. Timetable for completion of the thesis (including any corrections to be made post-viva) within four years from the date of initial registration (seven years part time).

5. One substantive chapter of Ph.D. standard material (10,000 words or above).

Upgrade submission requirements for students who began their studies after August 2019

a) Research questions What are your research aims? What are the main issues that your thesis will address? What are the hypotheses that you wish to test? What is the originality and contribution of your thesis? (NB: At this stage you will not necessarily know the answers to all your research questions. Part of the purpose of this exercise is to identify issues thrown up by your research that will need to be addressed in the completed thesis.)

b) Research context

Which scholars have written on these issues before? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the existing literature? Does it contain errors, omissions, or both? What opportunities are there for your thesis to correct these? How does your research fit into and develop these literatures?

c) Methodology What sources/evidence are you using in your research? (For example: archival material, web-based material, databases, interviews). How will these materials help you to address your research questions? Are there any novel aspects to your methods, and is there any particular guidance that you require? What methodologies and critical frameworks will you use? Are there any ethical issues arising from your research that need to be addressed?

3. A contents outline of the thesis (1 page). This may be in continuous prose, or bullet-points (or a combination of the two); this document is to show the structure and organisation of the thesis.

c. Communications, Drama and Film

By Practice Upgrade Requirements (Performance Practice and Film by Practice)

Standard upgrade requirements.

A draft abstract of the thesis (up to 300 words). This should describe your research in terms that can be understood by a non-specialist.

b) Research context

3. A contents outline of the thesis (1 page). This may be in continuous prose, or bullet-points (or a combination of the two); this document is to show the structure and organisation of the thesis.

Or ethics application and fieldwork plan with literature review.

By Practice upgrade requirements (Performance Practice and Film by Practice)

1. A draft abstract of the thesis (up to 300 words). This should describe your research and practice in terms that can be understood by a non-specialist.

2. An extended research proposal (maximum 3,000 words). You are asked to demonstrate clear awareness of how the proposed research will address a bigger question or problem. This should cover the following areas:

b) Research context Which scholars have written on these issues before? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the existing literature? Does it contain errors, omissions (or both)? What opportunities are there for your thesis to correct these? How does your research fit into and develop these literatures?

c) Methodology What sources/evidence are you using in your research (e.g. archival material, web-based material, databases, interviews)? How will these materials help you to address your research questions? Are there any novel aspects to your methods, and is there any particular guidance that you require? What methodologies and critical frameworks will you use? Are there any ethical issues arising from your research that need to be addressed?

3. A contents outline of the thesis (one page). This may be in continuous prose, bullet-points, or a combination of the two; this document is to show the structure and organisation of the thesis.

4. Draft timetable (one page) for submission of the thesis within the candidate’s planned submission period (within a maximum of four years for full-time students from the date of initial registration; eight years for those who are part-time students who are studying at 0.5 FTE). This should show the student’s work plan for the remaining period of study and highlight any areas where problems might arise. It is intended that this draft timetable will be regularly reviewed and updated at the regular progress review meetings which take place each year.

d. English and Creative Writing

1. A draft abstract of the thesis (up to 300 words). This should describe your research in terms that can be understood by a non-specialist.

b) Research context Which scholars have written on these issues before? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the existing literature? Does it contain errors, omissions, or both? What opportunities are there for your thesis to correct these? How does your research fit into and develop these literatures?

3. A contents outline of the thesis (1 page). This may be in continuous prose, or bullet-points (or a combination of the two); this document is to show the structure and organisation of the thesis.

These pieces could be:

Creative Writing upgrade requirements for students who commenced their studies before August 2022

Prior to upgrade, and no later than the end of the second term of full-time study (pro-rata for part-time study), Creative Writing students are required to submit to their supervisors the following to fulfil the requirements of study for their first year:

1) A draft abstract of your thesis (up to 300 words). This should describe your research and practice in terms that can be understood by a non-specialist.

2) An extended research proposal (maximum of 3,000 words) clarifying

your research questions;
aims, objectives and research context;
methodology;
chapter-by-chapter outline;
and proposed timetable for completion.

3) A literature review summarising all the current texts (both creative and critical) that represent the field in which you are writing. This must contain full bibliographic details and short annotated paragraphs summarising the main content of each text and how you will be using it in your thesis.

4) Sample Creative Writing , discussed with your supervisors in meetings.

5) Sample Critical Writing , discussed with your supervisors in meetings.

This work will form the basis of your supervisors’ reports to the upgrade panel.

Submission Requirements for the Upgrade Panel:

Students must submit the following to the upgrade panel. In total, 9-10,000 words (exclusive of footnotes) (or equivalent, as below) which will comprise two main elements:

1) Creative Work

Prose Fiction/Life Writing: 7,000 words

Poetry: 24 pages (c. 350 lines)

Screenplay/Script: 20 pages

2) Critical Work

For all disciplines of Creative Writing: 3,000 words of contextual literary-critical commentary.

Creative Writing submission requirements for students who commenced their studies after August 2022

Students must submit the following to the upgrade panel. In total, 9-10,000 words (exclusive of footnotes) (or equivalent, as below):

1) An extended research proposal (maximum of 1,500 words, exclusive of footnotes) clarifying

Your research questions;
aims, objectives and research context (i.e. a brief literature review);
and brief proposed timeline for completion

2) Sample of Creative Writing:

Prose Fiction/Life Writing: up to 6,000 words

Poetry: up to 21 pages (c.300 lines)

Screenplay/Script: up to 17 pages

3) Sample Critical Writing: 2,000 words of contextual literary-critical commentary. This should be written to appropriate academic standards, including full referencing and bibliography (footnotes and bibliography are excluded from the word count).

e. Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies

Upgrade submission requirements for students who began their studies before August 2023

Students must submit a total of 10-12,000 words which should comprise of the following:

Chapter Outline and agreed structure of the thesis.
Draft timeline for completion of the thesis.
One substantive piece of work up to a maximum of 8000 words, i.e. Literature Review / critical engagement with one or more strands of literature in the field.
A Developed Research Proposal (maximum 1500 words) – this should be more detailed than the one supplied at admissions stage and should include a statement about the nature of the research puzzle, the rationale for the dissertation, a statement about the tentative argument being developed, the methodology and the expected contribution to knowledge.

Upgrade submission requirements for students who began their studies after August 2023

Students must submit a total of 7,500-9,000 words which should comprise of the following: .

A draft abstract of the thesis (up to 300 words). This should describe your research in terms that can be understood by a non-specialist.
One substantive piece of work in good presentational order of c.5,000-6,000 words, i.e. Literature Review / critical engagement with one or more strands of literature in the field.
A Developed Research Proposal (maximum 1,500 words) – this should be more detailed than the one supplied at admissions stage and should include a statement about the nature of the research puzzle, the rationale for the dissertation, a statement about the tentative argument being developed, the methodology and the expected contribution to knowledge.

f. Languages, Cultures and Visual Studies

Standard upgrade submission requirements

1. A draft abstract of the thesis (up to 300 words). This should describe your research in terms that can be understood by a non-specialist. 2. A further developed proposal (max 1,500 words). You are asked to demonstrate clear awareness of how the proposed research will address a bigger question or problem. This should cover the following areas:

b) Research context

c) Methodology

What sources/evidence are you using in your research? (For example: archival material, web-based material, databases, interviews). How will these materials help you to address your research questions? Are there any novel aspects to your methods, and is there any particular guidance that you require? What methodologies and critical frameworks will you use? Are there any ethical issues arising from your research that need to be addressed?

These pieces could be:

Art History and Visual Culture by Practice upgrade requirements

Art History and Visual Culture by Practice upgrade submission requirements

Students will submit a portfolio of practice plus a written submission of 4,500-6,000 words (exclusive of footnotes) in total. This should comprise: 1. A draft abstract of the thesis (up to 300 words). This should describe your research in terms that can be understood by a non-specialist. 2. An extended research proposal (max 1,500 words). You are asked to demonstrate clear awareness of how the proposed research will address a bigger question or problem. This should cover the following areas:

a) Research questions .

What are your research aims? What are the main issues that your thesis will address? What are the hypotheses that you wish to test? What is the originality and contribution of your thesis? (NB: At this stage you will not necessarily know the answers to all your research questions. Part of the purpose of this exercise is to identify issues thrown up by your research that will need to be addressed in the completed thesis.)

b) Research context. Which scholars have written on these issues before? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the existing literature? Does it contain errors, omissions, or both? What opportunities are there for your thesis to correct these? How does your research fit into and develop these literatures?

c) Methodology. What sources/evidence are you using in your research? (For example: archival material, web-based material, databases, interviews). How will these materials help you to address your research questions? Are there any novel aspects to your methods, and is there any particular guidance that you require? What methodologies and critical frameworks will you use? Are there any ethical issues arising from your research that need to be addressed?

3. A contents outline of the thesis (1 page) . This may be in continuous prose, or bullet-points (or a combination of the two); this document is to show the structure and organisation of the thesis. 4. Draft timetable (1 page) for submission of the thesis within the candidate’s planned submission period (within a maximum of four years for full-time study from the date of initial registration; pro-rata for part-time study). This should show the student’s work plan for the remaining period of study and highlight any areas where problems might arise. It is intended that this draft timetable will be regularly reviewed and updated at the regular progress review meetings which take place each year.

5. Sample Critical Writing : 2,000 – 2,500 words of contextual literary-critical commentary. This should be written to appropriate academic standards, including full referencing and bibliography (footnotes and bibliography are excluded from the word count).

6. A portfolio of practice , the exact scope of which is to be agreed by the Department DPGR in consultation with the supervision team and which will be appropriate to the stage and format of the project – including photographs of artworks/works in progress, storyboarding for graphic books, documentation of exhibitions, scans of studio sketchbooks, examples of curatorial practice, digital outputs including code and/or visualisation, etc).

g. Law School

Chapter Outline and agreed structure of the thesis.
Maximum 500-word statement outlining the Research Questions of the Issues being addressed, aims, objectives and methodology and including how the final thesis is expected to form a contribution to the knowledge of the subject.
Chapter Outline and agreed structure of the thesis, draft timeline for completion of the thesis and an abstract of the thesis (up to 300 words). The abstract should describe your research in terms that can be understood by a non-specialist. Please note that the chapter outline, draft timeline and abstract should be submitted for assessment as one document.
One substantive piece of work in good presentational order of c.5,000-6,000 words, i.e. a literature review or a piece critically engaging with relevant sources and one or more strands of literature in the field.

Legal Practice upgrade submission requirements for students who began their studies after August 2023

A reflective commentary, in good presentational order, of c.5,000-6,000 words. This may include, if necessary, an introductory summary of the case study/studies that are to be used, of up to 1,000 words.

h. School of Education

Students must submit a total of 10-12,000 words which should comprise of the following:

A Literature Review / critical engagement with one or more strands of literature in the field (maximum 5000 words).
A Developed Research Proposal (maximum 4000 words).
A title for your project
No more than 4,000 words (excl. references and appendix) section of your literature review. This must include: a section detailing the search strategy and outcome; main text; references; IN addition, an appendix showing the outline of the full literature review must be provided, but this element is not included in the word count.
No more than 5,000 word research proposal (excl. references). This must include a section on the philosophical assumptions of the research; research questions; methodology; sample/participant numbers; methods of data collection; methods of data analysis; ethical considerations; a statement on the significance, originality and contribution of the work to educational research.
A draft Contents Page showing the overall outline of the thesis (not included in the word count).
A timetable for the project (not included in the word count).
Reference List (not included in the word count).

i. Social and Political Sciences, Philosophy and Anthropology

Philosophy upgrade submission requirements

Upgrade submission requirements for students who began their studies after Augus t 2019

Chapter Outline/draft structure of the thesis.
One substantive piece of work up to a maximum of 8000 words, i.e. chapter/critical engagement with one or more strands of literature in the field.
A Developed Research Proposal (maximum 1500 words) – this should be more detailed than the one supplied at admissions stage and should include a statement about the nature of the research question, the rationale for the dissertation, a statement about the tentative argument being developed and the expected contribution to knowledge.
A Draft timeline for completion of the thesis.

Politics upgrade submission requirements

Students must submit a total of 15-20,000 words which should comprise of the following:

1. A short statement of the aims of the thesis – 1 paragraph (max 300 words) on a separate page (we ask this because many funding bodies require this in addition to the proposal)

2. A fully developed research proposal which should include:

a) the title of the project;

b) a statement of the research question/ problem that the thesis is seeking to address;

c) a more elaborate re-statement of the aims of the thesis 4

d) the rationale of the thesis – why is your question an important one academically and what contribution to knowledge are you trying to make?

e) your methodology – a discussion of the theoretical and/ or analytical framework (based on relevant literature) and the methods you will use;

f) a chapter breakdown and

g) a bibliography. These requirements should be discussed with your supervisor.

3. Submission of two substantial pieces of written work. The first should locate your research question in a body of literature as well as identify your own position in relevant debates (ie, who you are arguing against/ with/ for?) The second should represent a substantive chapter demonstrating analysis of your subject matter. Each chapter should be at least 7,000 words excluding bibliography.

4. A draft timetable for completion of the thesis.

Sociology and Anthropology / Anthrozoology upgrade submission requirements

Sociology, Philosophy and Anthropology (SPA) – 18 month upgrade model:

1. A statement of aims and objectives and a statement of how the candidate expects the final thesis to "form a distinct contribution to knowledge of the subject"

2. A brief synopsis of, and an outline of work completed, against each chapter heading

3. A work-plan /schedule for completion of the thesis

4. Roughly, (within 10%) 20,000 words of the thesis (one or two chapters, depending on length) in good draft.

Sociology, Philosophy and Anthropology (SPA) – 12 month upgrade model:

Roughly, (within 10%) 10,000 words in the form of a detailed proposal for fieldwork.

This should include the following:

A. Research questions or themes that set out how the thesis will form a distinct contribution to knowledge of the subject

B. A review of relevant literature relating to the research questions or themes

C. A detailed outline of proposed methodology and ethical considerations that might, if appropriate, include pilot work (for which students would need ethics clearance from the College Ethics Committee)

D. A detailed timetable / work-plan for the fieldwork period and writing-up of the thesis

Note, the aim here is to create two options, including one for students doing fieldwork. The choice of which upgrade procedure a student would follow would be decided in consultation with research supervisors.

Chapter Outline /draft structure of the thesis.
A Developed Research Proposal– this should be more detailed than the one supplied at admissions stage and should include:

a) Research questions or themes that set out how the thesis will form a distinct contribution to knowledge of the subject,

b) A review of relevant literature relating to the research questions or themes;

c) A detailed outline of proposed methodology and ethical considerations that might, if appropriate, include pilot work (for which students would need ethics clearance from the College Ethics Committee);

d) A detailed timetable / work-plan for the research period and writing-up of the thesis.

j. HASS Penryn

Please see the upgrade submission requirements for your particular discipline under the relevant department information listed above.

For students

Current Students website
Email web access
Make a payment
iExeter (students)
Programme and module information
Current staff website
Room Bookings
iExeter (staff)
Finance Helpdesk
IT Service Desk

Upgrade from MPhil to PhD

The University’s policy on upgrade / transfer can be found in the TQA Manual .

For upgrade forms and further specific guidance please see the Business School Upgrade resources page .

It is important to pay particular attention to the date that you first registered as there are differences for students who registered prior to or after September 2019.

Please note that upgrade mini vivas primarily take place remotely over Microsoft Teams or 'blended' with some attendees in the same room but others attending via video link. Face-to-face vivas are possible, but are subject to room availability, social distancing guidance at the time of the upgrade viva, and the personal or health circumstances of attendees. If any aspect of the a remote or blended upgrade viva is a problem or a concern, please contact your supervisors and/or the Support Team who will be able to help you.

The TQA defines that the purpose of the upgrade is to:

Confirm that the student is making satisfactory progress;
Confirm that there is evidence that the student is able to produce work of doctoral quality;
Acts as a structural milestone within the student’s research journey;
Provide the student with formal feedback on their work, and a developmental opportunity in the form of a viva;
Provide an opportunity for a detailed review of the research project and plan to take place from experts independent of the supervisory team.

Initial registration status

All new students who register for doctoral study with the University of Exeter Business School are required to register initially as MPhil students, with an expectation that they will be upgraded to PhD registration, subject to meeting certain requirements, completing a formal assessment and making satisfactory academic progress.

Purpose of Upgrade from MPhil to PhD process

The purpose of the upgrade process is to assess your progress and ability to complete your PhD programme in a reasonable time frame. The panel will establish whether you have produced work of sufficient quantity and quality to suggest that you can achieve the standard required for a PhD. In particular they will consider if you:

understand the research question(s);
have an appropriate understanding of the relevant scholarly literature;
have demonstrated capability to conduct the research;
have a realistic research plan and schedule;
and can deliver at PhD level.

The upgrade process is intended to be a ‘formative’ process for you. That is, the upgrade panel should aim to use the process to help you develop and improve your thesis and professional skills, rather than simply to sit in judgment. The viva voce is in particular an opportunity for you to experience presenting, speaking about and defending your work in front of an academic panel, in preparation for your final viva voce.

Timing of upgrades

Applications to transfer registration should take place early enough to allow a decision about changes to registration status to be made within this timeframe.

Entrants registering before the 2019-20 academic year

Requests to transfer from MPhil to PhD are normally considered on the recommendation of your first supervisor, although the PGR Support Team will prompt you and your supervisor at the appropriate time. Normally all requests to upgrade should be made during the first term of the second year (the 4th term) of full-time study or the third year (the 7th term) of part-time study. The upgrade should be completed by 24 months of full-time registration, or 48 months of part-time registration. Those who start at other times of the year will have their upgrades scheduled as appropriate.

Entrants registering from the 2019-20 academic year

Transfer of registration should normally take place not later than 12 months after full-time registration, or the pro-rata equivalent for part-time registration. Normally all requests to upgrade should be made by the end of April in the first year of full-time study or pro-rata equivalent for part-time study. In exceptional circumstances beyond the student's control applications for extension to the deadline for transfer of registration may be made.

For PGR students in UEBS, the upgrade portfolio should be submitted to MyPGR by the end of the 9 th month after the student’s start date, to give enough time for the mini-viva to take place, to return reports and feedback to the student, and allow enough time for an upgrade resubmission, should it be necessary, by the end of the first year. A second attempt at upgrade (resubmission) must take place within 3 months of the student receiving the outcome of their first attempt.

For students starting their studies at other points in the academic year, the submission deadline will be set on a pro-rata basis, in line with the above.

Students are allowed two possible attempts at upgrade to PhD, the period between the first and second attempt should normally be no more than 3 months. A second attempt at the upgrade must have taken place by the end of the second year of full-time study or the fourth year of part-time study.

Deferring your upgrade

In exceptional circumstances beyond the student’s control applications for deferral of the deadline for transfer from MPhil to PhD may be made. Details about the circumstances in which a deferral of the deadline for transfer may be considered can be found online in the Code of Good Practice: Periods of registration and changes to registration status for graduate research students . You should read through this guidance before applying for a deferral.

Time-frames for application

An application for deferral should normally be made 6 weeks before the expected submission deadline for upgrade. In exceptional cases, i.e. when serious and unexpected circumstances occur closer to the deadline, an application can be made later, provided that it is prior to the College Upgrade Committee’s scheduled meeting. If serious and unexpected circumstances arise after the student’s first attempt at upgrade these may also be considered.

Making an application for a deferral

You must download and complete the upgrade deferral form (available at the top of the link page) and must return to the PGR Support Team as soon as possible, and once you have discussed with your supervisors. Your supervisors are expected to sign the form to note their approval.

An application for deferral must be supported by :

verifiable and/or independent evidence
a statement by a supervisor, and, where appropriate, pastoral tutor;
a work-plan with a proposed date by which the work will be submitted;

The evidence provided must give a clear indication of the length of time by which progress was delayed: if deciding to accept the application for deferral this will inform the College’s decision about what period of deferral might be considered reasonable, which shall not exceed a period of three months.

Where an application for deferral is made on the basis of especially sensitive information this should be treated confidentially. If a student prefers the reasons for the application may be considered by their pastoral tutor, with whom the student may have discussed their circumstances, who will report to the College Director of Postgraduate Research, without sharing the detail of the evidence provided to them.

Applications for deferral will be granted by the College Director of Postgraduate Research, in collaboration with the relevant discipline DPGR and the PGR Support team.

Where a period of deferral to the deadline for transfer is approved:

Failure to Apply for or Have a Period of Deferral Approved

If an application for deferral is unsuccessful failure to transfer by the deadline given will normally result in action being initiated or progressed under the relevant procedures for unsatisfactory student progress and unless the College has concerns that a student’s health, wellbeing and/or behaviour is significantly impacting their ability to successfully complete the upgrade process by the deadline, where it should then be determined whether it is appropriate to take alternative action under the ‘ Health Wellbeing and Support for Study Procedures ’.

If a student has not applied for deferral, failure to transfer by the deadline given will normally result in action being initiated or progressed under the ' Unsatisfactory Student Progress and Engagement: Code of Good Practice ’ unless the College has concerns that a student’s health, wellbeing and/or behaviour is significantly impacting their ability to successfully complete the upgrade process by the deadline, where it should then be determined whether it is appropriate to take alternative action under the ‘Health Wellbeing and Support for Study Procedures’.

Upgrade submission requirements

Each student’s MyPGR record will confirm the date that their upgrade documentation submission is due. The submission date is unique to each student, dependent on start date, mode of attendance and any interruptions. Students are required to submit the following for consideration by the upgrade panel:

A completed and signed Training Needs Analysis Form for the current academic year with evidence that you have completed your Research Training Programme as agreed with your supervisor.
A working title of the proposed thesis;
A contents page for the thesis, with a paragraph to outline the contents of each chapter (including number of words submitted already and planned chapter word length);
A statement that explains how your research is expected to be original and to be a distinct contribution to knowledge (either for each chapter or the proposed thesis as a whole);
A draft timetable for completion of the thesis within your period of study.
A completed and written-up substantive piece of original research (i.e. a chapter or briefing paper), or substantial research-based draft chapter (depending on the final structure of the thesis). Very exceptionally a published note or paper which relates to, or forms part of the thesis may be considered, but this must be discussed with the discipline DPGR prior to submission.
Have evidence of an oral presentation at the annual Doctoral Research Students Conference or internal equivalent (i.e. PowerPoint slides).
Have submitted an Ethical Approval Form and received approval from the Ethics Committee for the research, if applicable to your topic.

You will upload these documents to MyPGR , as prompted by the PGR Support Team, at least two weeks before the upgrade mini-viva. These will then be forwarded on to your panel by the PGR Support Team. The PGR Support Team will also request a report on your work from your lead supervisor and they will send this on to your panel in advance of your upgrade mini-viva. The lead panel member will contact you within one week of receipt of your upgrade documents, to agree a date for the review meeting. The panel meeting will normally take place within one month of the panel receiving the documents.

You should submit one or more pieces of written work in good presentational order as detailed in the sections below. The work required to meet this standard varies by discipline and is therefore detailed per discipline below. If you have any questions or concerns about the requirements for your discipline, you are encouraged to discuss with your supervisor and/or your Discipline Director of PGR.

All disciplines

All students, regardless of their discipline, must include the following in their upgrade portfolio submission:

Evidence that you have successfully completed your Research Training Programme and any modules as agreed with your supervisor. This is evidenced by a completed and signed Training Needs Analysis form for the current academic year;
Submit an Ethical Approval Form for your research, if applicable to your topic.

Discipline specific upgrade requirements

IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE , you should submit one or more pieces of written work (as defined by the College) in good presentational order as detailed in the sections below. The work required to meet this standard varies by discipline. If you have any questions or concerns about the requirements for your discipline, you are encouraged to discuss with your supervisor and/or your Discipline Director of PGR.

The submission is expected to include the following sections and should not exceed 7000 words (excluding references, appendices and timeline).

1. Brief introduction identifying the main research questions / objectives as appropriate (please discuss with your supervisory team)

2. A critical literature review discussing prior relevant literature and which will help to identify research gaps. The presentation of the literature review will depend on how the final thesis will be presented;

a) 'Paper-based' thesis; the literature review is completed for at least one of the papers.

b) 'Big Book' thesis: the literature review is related to part of the thesis.

3. Identification of research questions including development of hypotheses (if appropriate – please discuss with your supervisors) and discussion of the expected contribution to prior knowledge.

4. An outline and justification of your planned research design and method(s). Presentation of some empirical analysis is also expected for theses using quantitative research methods.

5. Indication of the research ideas or summary of the work to be developed in the remaining of the thesis and a draft timetable for completion of thesis within your period of study. It is intended that this draft timetable will be regularly reviewed and updated at the regular progress review meetings which take place each year.

Economics and Finance

The submission is expected to include the following sections (indicative 5000 words, excl. refs, appendices and timeline):

SITE and Management

The submission is expected to include the following sections (indicative 5000 word, excl. refs, appendices and timeline):

1. Identification of research aim and questions (or objectives) and discussion of the expected contribution to knowledge.

2. A literature review. The presentation of the literature review will depend on how the final thesis will be presented:

a) A 'big book' thesis: a critical literature review of the main research topic.

b) A 'paper-based' thesis: the literature review is completed for at least one of the papers.

3. An outline and justification of your planned research design and method(s).

4. A 1-page outline and brief description of the chapters in your thesis (use of bullets is acceptable).

5. A timetable for completion of thesis within your period of study. It is intended that this draft timetable will be reviewed and updated at the regular progress review meetings which take place each year.

Outcomes of upgrade mini-viva

Following the upgrade mini-viva, the panel will complete an upgrade report form stating their recommendations and submit this to the PGR Support team. The three possible outcomes at the first attempt are that the candidate be:

Allowed to transfer their registration to PhD
Be allowed to transfer their registration to PhD subject to the completion of the identified corrections and/or amendments by the following date___________* (to be within two months)
Refer for a second attempt within 3 months and normally recommend initiation or progression of a case under the ' Unsatisfactory Student Progress and Engagement: Code of Good Practice ’.

If the outcome is a second attempt (3) the form must indicate the conditions to be assessed by the re-sit transfer process and whether a second viva voce is required. A viva would not normally required for a second attempt at upgrade, however it is at the discretion of the panel should they wish to hold one. A second upgrade viva must be held however if the panel are inclined to recommend that you must remain at MPhil level.

You will be informed via email, by the PGR Support team, of the outcome of your upgrade mini-viva. Your supervisor will be copied in on this correspondence.

The three possible outcomes at a second attempt are that the candidate be:

Be allowed to transfer their registration to PhD subject to the completion of the identified corrections and/or amendments by the following date *(to be within two months)
Required to remain registered as an MPhil student

You will be informed via email, by the PGR Support team, of the outcome of your upgrade interview. Your supervisor will be copied in on this correspondence.

Students are allowed a maximum of two attempts to upgrade.

Students may have a maximum of two attempts at upgrade in their period of study. Students will have a mini viva for the first attempt at upgrade. They may have a viva at the second attempt, at the committee’s distraction.

At the first attempt at upgrade, the following outcomes are available:

Pass – transfer registration to PhD;
Require completion of minor amendments within 2 months;
Refer for a second attempt within 3 months and normally recommend initiation or progression of a case under the Unsatisfactory Student Progress and Engagement: Code of Good Practice ’.

At the second attempt at upgrade, the following outcomes are available:

Pass - transfer registration to PhD;
Remain registered as an MPhil student, where a student has provided satisfactory evidence of their ability to submit work of MPhil quality, within the appropriate time-frame for an MPhil;
Remain registered as an MPhil student and normally recommend initiation or progression of a case under the Unsatisfactory Student Progress and Engagement: Code of Good Practice ’.

Upon review of a second submission by a student, if the Upgrade Panel are satisfied that a recommendation of ‘pass’ can be made to the College DPGR without the necessity for a second viva, they may make this recommendation without delay. If the Upgrade Panel feel that a second viva is needed, arrangements must be made through the PGR Support Team. The second viva shall follow the same guidance as the first viva. The same upgrade panel which reviewed the first submission shall review the second submission.

Back to PGR Student Handbook index

Connect with us

Information for:

Current students
New students
Alumni and supporters

Quick links

Streatham Campus

St Luke's Campus

Penryn Campus

Truro Campus

Using our site
Accessibility
Freedom of Information
Modern Slavery Act Statement
Data Protection
Copyright & disclaimer
Privacy & cookies

COMMENTS

PhD upgrade: A survival guide
PhD upgrade: A survival guide. At this time of academic year, many doctoral researchers in their first year of study are preparing for upgrade review. As a second year PhD student (one that survived the upgrade process!) Sophie has provided some tips to help you best prepare for your upgrade and take the next step in your PhD.
The MPhil to PhD Upgrade
The PhD upgrade viva is an oral presentation, defending your work and research ideas. ... For example, animal testing and psychological experiments involving human participants. Upgrade review outcomes. The assessment criteria are used to decide whether you can upgrade to PhD status or not. The departments Graduate Director will oversee your ...
Upgrade Done!
Background. Since enrolling as an MPhil/PhD full-time, distance learning, research student at University College London (UCL) way back (?) in June 2019, every day has been in service for this moment…the Mini Viva or Upgrade to full PhD status. I have been brilliantly guided by my tutors, lecturers, administrators, colleagues, lab-mates ...
PhD Dissertation Defense Slides Design: Start
This Guide was created to help Ph.D. students in engineering fields to design dissertation defense presentations. The Guide provides 1) tips on how to effectively communicate research, and 2) full presentation examples from Ph.D. graduates. The tips on designing effective slides are not restricted to dissertation defense presentations; they can ...
How to structure your viva presentation (with examples)
A very traditional viva presentation structure simply follows the structure of the PhD thesis. This means that the viva presentation covers all parts of the thesis, including an introduction, the literature review, the methodology, results, conclusions, etcetera. Example of a traditional viva presentation structure.
How to Present PhD Progress Report to Doctoral Committee
The Presentation of PhD Progress Report to Doctoral Committee Members happens in three stages namely: i) Before the meeting: i.e. Once you start preparing the report for the meeting to till the meeting begins. ii) During the meeting: i.e. From entering into the meeting hall to till the meeting gets over and.
Mastering Your Ph.D.: Giving a Great Presentation
Get prepared. The trick to giving a great presentation is to be prepared, know your stuff, and practice your talk until it feels completely natural to stand up in front of an audience. Perhaps your first presentation will be in an informal setting with other members of your lab during a weekly or monthly group meeting.
PhD Defense Template
A streamlined presentation that's as professional as it is impressive. All with just a few clicks of the mouse. Our PhD defense template can also help you: Customize your PhD presentation for different audiences. Synthesize months of academic work into a concise presentation. Successfully defend your PhD thesis to your panel.
PhD Chat: My PhD upgrade experience
I attached a review paper I had just submitted to a journal. A (very brief) report from my lead supervisor, signed by my whole supervisory team. My actual upgrade involved: A 30-minute presentation about my PhD, open to all staff & students with a Q&A. A mini-viva with my examiners straight afterwards. Mine only lasted about 45 minutes.
Looking Ahead to the PhD Upgrade Viva
I want to share some of my thoughts with you if this is an experience on your horizon. "The PhD upgrade viva is an oral examination at the end of your first year where you must defend your proposed dissertation and the upgrade portfolio you submit in the Summer Term.". The upgrade viva can definitely be a scary or nerve-racking prospect.
PDF PhD Upgrade Report
Donald J. Poland - Research Student MPhil/PhD Upgrade Report 6 Zukin ([1982] 1989, 1995, 2010) utilized New York City as their urban laboratory to explain the process and effects of gentrification. ... For example, Kunstler (1993, 1998), Duany (2000), and Zukin (2010) assert that the process of suburbanization has been very similar in all ...
Progression Milestones
Upgrade Review Milestone 2 (PhD, iPhD and EngD) ... Typically a successful major presentation of your work (for example at an international conference) and/or submission (or even better, publication) of conference or journal papers will form convincing evidence that you are making suitable progress. Having refereed journal or conference papers ...
Upgrade to PhD
a. MPhil/PhD Biological Sciences. Guidelines for students registered prior to 1st August 2023 (and after August 2019). The upgrade procedure will take place at 9 months after initial registration, pro rata for part-time students, and will be completed by 12 months. b. MPhil/PhD Complex Living Systems. d. MPhil/PhD Sport & Health Sciences.
PhD Blog: Surviving your PhD Upgrade
The outcome of the upgrade: There are a number of possible outcomes from the upgrade process although this may change according to the institution. These generally include upgrading to PhD with or without minor modifications to the upgrade report; or resubmitting your upgrade report with major changes. Recommending that students continue on the ...
PDF This document is part of an Upgrade Report library stored on the
This document is part of an Upgrade Report library stored on the. This document is part of an Upgrade Report library stored on the Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care (IEHC) Intranet. The library consists of previously submitted Upgrade reports, and serves to provide a guide on formatting and structure for future PhD students preparing ...
Upgrade to PhD
The first stage of the upgrade procedure involves an Upgrade Report, a Presentation, and an Upgrade Viva. Upgrade Report: ... students will compile and submit a PhD upgrade report with a deadline of no later than 9 months (pro rata for part time students) following initial registration. ... A description of the methodology that will be employed ...
Upgrade to PhD
One or more substantive pieces of a writing sample at PhD standard in good presentational order (approx. 5,000-6,000 words, which is the length of a short article). This should include original work on the substance and methodology of the thesis such as the collation, analysis or new interpretation of evidence or data; in the writing sample the ...
Phd Upgrade Presentation by Lakshmi Priya on Prezi
Make your HR training and presentation time count with this colorful, engaging Prezi HR template. For new-hire trainings and onboardings, compliance training, or any other type of HR presentation, this specialized Prezi HR template is the most effective way to go. W W Make your HR training and presentation time c….
Upgrade and Annual Review Procedures
The MPhil to PhD Upgrade Procedure: 1. Criteria for Upgrade. 1.1 A student should be upgraded to PhD status if he or she meets the following criteria: ... It is expected that the student's upgrade report and oral presentation, in conjunction with the upgrade viva (see 2.3.1, 2.3.2 and 2.3.3 below), will demonstrate that these criteria have been ...
PDF GUIDELINES FOR UPGRADE FROM MPHIL TO PHD STATUS 1. Purpose of the ...
GUIDELINES FOR UPGRADE FROM MPHIL TO PHD STATUS 1. Purpose of the Upgrade 1.1. Initially PhD students are registered for the MPhil degree. If they wish to proceed to a PhD, their registration must be changed accordingly. The purpose of the upgrade is to assess the student's progress and ability to complete their PhD programme in a reasonable ...
MPhil to PhD upgrade
The MPhil to PhD upgrade is an important monitoring procedure. It is a university requirement, and all students wishing to take a PhD must successfully complete it. All students admitted to the MPhil/PhD programme are registered initially as MPhil students. To make the transition to full PhD status, students must submit a dossier of work, which ...
Upgrade from MPhil to PhD
Upgrade from MPhil to PhD; Upgrade from MPhil to PhD. The University's policy on upgrade / transfer can be found in the TQA Manual. ... Presentation of some empirical analysis is also expected for theses using quantitative research methods. 5. Indication of the research ideas or summary of the work to be developed in the remaining of the ...
Upgrade from MPhil to PhD
This guidance explains the how to upgrade from an MPhil degree to a PhD. Close. Study; Research; Engage; About; Give; Students. Home. askUCL student enquiries; Fees and funding; Exams and assessments; Certificates & Results; Student status; Support and wellbeing; Library and IT; New students ...

PhD upgrade: A survival guide

#1 Prepare in advance

#2 Practise makes perfect

#3 Chat to your supervisor/colleagues

#4 Upgrade self-care

Share this:

Have you ever wondered what it's like to be a PhD student in the UCL Knowledge Lab?

Over-engineering my responses

I told you so…

The next best thing…

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

PhD Dissertation Defense Slides Design: Start

Purpose of the Guide

Useful Links

Power Point Template and other Resources

Email me for questions and schedule an appointment

Top 7 tips for your defense presentation

2. Emphasize YOUR contribution

4. Tell a good story

5. Transition, transition, transition

Use transition sentences to connect slides

How important is your presentation, and cookies?

How to structure your viva presentation (with examples)

Factors to consider when developing a viva presentation structure

Master Academia

18 common audience questions at academic conferences (+ how to react)

Dealing with failure as a PhD student

13 awesome academic phrases to write your methodology (+ real examples)

Major revisions: Sample peer review comments and examples

How to write a convincing research statement

How to Present PhD Progress Report to Doctoral Committee Members in 03 Simple Stages

Introduction

Before the PhD Progress Presentation Meeting

During the PhD Progress Presentation Meeting

After the PhD Progress Presentation Meeting

Frequently Asked Questions

Upcoming Events

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Recent Posts

PhD Defense Template

Use our template to create an effective PhD defense presentation

Pro Tips for creating your own PhD defense presentation template

More Popular Templates

Dropbox Pitch Deck

Weekly Report Presentation

Public Relations Pitch Example

Foursquare Pitch Deck

Mixpanel Pitch Deck

Event Marketing Plan Presentation

PhD Chat: My PhD upgrade experience

Grant Golub

About the author

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Related Posts

Accepted to a PhD programme at LSE? You should do it and here’s why

Advice for Incoming LSE PhD Students

Starting a PhD during a Pandemic

Researching and Teaching during the PhD

Welcome to the University of Southampton

Academic Needs Analysis

First Review

The First Review Report

The Review Meeting

Upgrade Review

Students who commenced their studies prior to 1 August 2015

The Viva Voce

The Recommendation of the Panel

Post Upgrade Review

Requirements

Formal Progress Review Report

Thesis Submission

Production and submission of the thesis

Viva Voce Examination

Submission after a successful recommendation of an award

PhD Blog: Surviving your PhD Upgrade

Share this story

2. Upgrade to PhD

In total, 7,500-9,000 words (exclusive of footnotes) should be submitted. This should comprise:

History upgrade submission requirements

Upgrade submission requirements for students who began their studies before August 2019