School regulations establish the overarching framework for progress review and upgrade assessments. Departments then apply these requirements within their own disciplinary context. As a result, the detailed format, assessment methods, expectations and specific names for processes vary across departments.
If you have questions about your department’s approach to managing these processes, you should contact your department.
Please click on the relevant link for information
Progress review and upgrade are not administrative formalities. They are rigorous academic assessments that allow departments to evaluate whether your research project is developing appropriately, and whether you are making satisfactory progress towards a doctoral-level thesis. They are also important opportunities for you to receive detailed feedback from your supervisors and other faculty members, to test your developing ideas, to discuss challenges, and to refine your plans for completion.
Progress review and upgrade assessments centre on assessment of your developing research project. However, they are equally concerned you’re your development as a researcher. Alongside discussions of the thesis itself, you should therefore expect discussions about your development as an independent researcher and your career aspirations, whatever they may be. You should therefore approach these milestones as opportunities to strengthen your research, support your development as a researcher, and improve your prospects for successful submission in time for your submission deadline.
Progress review and upgrade are separate academic assessments, conducted under distinct School regulations. However, in some contexts, the same set of submissions and meetings may satisfy the requirements of both processes. Where this occurs, you can expect you department to explain this to you. Even if this happens, however, these remain separate processes under the School’s regulations, and serve related but different purposes.
- Progress review is the process through which departments assess a student’s ongoing progress throughout their PhD, and focuses on the development of the research and the student’s progress towards completion.
- Upgrade is a specific assessment through which a department determines whether a student should progress from MPhil or MRes to PhD status, and focuses on whether the project has developed sufficiently to justify a change in status, and thereby to confirm that the student is on track to submit a thesis that is likely to meet the School’s requirements for PhD awards.
The School requires departments to review the progress of every research student at the end of every academic session. This includes all students, including those who are due to submit before the end of the academic year. This does not include students who have submitted their thesis and are awaiting examination. However, it does include students who have re-enrolled following submission, either to prepare for their viva, or to complete corrections to their thesis.
Departments are expected to conduct reviews in a manner which reflects the student’s stage in the programme. For example, a student who is due to aunt their thesis in eight weeks should normally experience the review process very differently when compared to a student who is completing their first year of enrolment.
Departments manage their own progress review assessment procedures. However, all progress reviews must include assessment of research progress, training and development needs, ethics requirements and plans for completion. The review process must involve at least one academic member of staff who is not one of the student’s supervisors. Progress reviews may include submission and assessment of written work, presentations, meetings with a review panel, oral discussions, or a combination of these approaches. As progress review is intended to assess a student’s development over time, departments will normally consider a range of evidence when making decisions, including written work, supervisory discussions, completion planning and records of academic engagement.
Progress review is not solely concerned with the research project itself. School regulations also require departments to consider a student’s training and development needs. You should therefore expect discussions not only about the progress of your research and your thesis, but also about the knowledge, skills, experience and support you may need to develop as an independent researcher and prepare for your future career pathway, where that takes you.
Departments are required to ensure that the School’s expectations for PhD Log record-keeping have been met before reporting progress review outcomes to the PhD Academy. The Research Degrees Sub-Committee Chair normally expects supervisory engagement records to be complete and up to date, including confirmation of records by supervisors, before progress review outcomes are processed. Departments are therefore not normally permitted to report progress review and upgrade assessment outcomes for students whose PhD Log records are incomplete. Students will normally only be permitted to re-enrol with insufficient PhD Log records if the Chair is satisfied that there is a good reason why the records cannot currently be completed.
Students should therefore not assume that progression outcomes will be processed while engagement records remain outstanding. In most cases, updating the records and obtaining supervisory approval will be quicker and simpler than seeking an exception to the normal requirements. Guidance on School requirements for record keeping via the PhD Log can be found here.
School regulations require departments to consider:
- progress on the research project;
- written work and assessments required by the department;
- training and development needs;
- research ethics requirements;
- a completion timetable setting out completed and outstanding work; and,
- any exceptional circumstances raised by the student.
Progress review is therefore concerned not only with the quality of the research completed so far, but also with whether there is a realistic and credible plan for completing the remaining work.
Progress review also includes consideration of the student’s development as a researcher. You should therefore expect opportunities to discuss areas where additional training, experience or support may be beneficial to you. This may relate directly to your research project, such as methods training, ethics, fieldwork preparation or academic writing. It may also relate more broadly to your development as a researcher and your future plans beyond your doctorate.
Progress review is not a final examination. However, it is a serious academic assessment.
Your department will require written submissions, presentations, meetings with review panels, oral discussions, or a combination of these approaches. The purpose is not simply to judge performance. It is also to provide you with constructive feedback and to help you to make informed decisions about the next stages of your research and development. You should therefore prepare carefully, and engage fully with the process.
School regulations permit four outcomes.
- Continued registration.
- Continued registration with conditions.
- Continued registration as an MPhil candidate.
NB: This option may only be selected at after a candidate has been upgraded to the PhD.
- Termination of registration.
Where concerns exist, conditions may be imposed to help ensure that your progress improves and you remains on track for successful completion. If your department is not satisfied that you are on track to submit an examinable PhD thesis, they may permit you to remain enrolled only on the condition that you submit for the MPhil examination, rather than for the PhD. If your department determines that there is no prospect that you will submit an examinable thesis, either for the MPhil or the PhD, they may decide to terminate your registration with the School.
Students have the right to appeal decisions 2-4 above. Information on appeals can be found here.
Where a department decides that your registration should be subject to conditions, those conditions should be clearly explained to you.
You should expect the department to specify:
- what you are required to do;
- how the department will support you in fulfilling the requirements it has set;
- the deadlines or timescales that apply;
- any support or training you will be required to engage with; and
- how the department will determine whether the conditions have been met.
Any conditions should relate to the concerns identified through the progress review process, and should be proportionate to those concerns. Where appropriate, conditions may require you to undertake additional training, develop and demonstrate particular academic skills, complete specified work, or take other reasonable steps to support satisfactory academic progress.
Clear conditions help ensure that expectations are transparent, that you understand what is required to remain registered, and that any later progression decision can be assessed against objective and previously communicated criteria. They also support fairness and procedural consistency should the decision later be reviewed or appealed.
All students initially register either as an MRes student, or as an MPhil student. Upgrade is the process through which your department will determine whether your research has developed sufficiently to justify upgrade to PhD status. Successful upgrade is therefore required before a student can submit a thesis for examination for the PhD degree.
Departments determine the detailed requirements for upgrade to the PhD, but all upgrade procedures must meet the minimum requirements established by School regulations. The Research Degrees Sub-Committee Chair also normally requires departments to ensure that PhD Log completion requirements have been fulfilled before reporting upgrade outcomes to the PhD Academy. Where records are incomplete, upgrade outcomes will not normally be processed unless the Chair is satisfied that there is a good reason why the records cannot yet be completed.
You should therefore not assume that your upgrade outcome will be processed if your PhD Log does not include the required number of supervisor-approved records. In most cases, updating the records and obtaining supervisory approval will be quicker and simpler than seeking an exception to the normal requirements.
Upgrade assesses whether the student has demonstrated the potential to complete a doctoral-level thesis.
- For MRes/PhD students: Upgrade assessments are made based on their performance during the MRes phase of their degree. Upgrade requirements for MRes/PhD students set via local programme regulations, and explained in department handbooks. MRes to PhD upgrade decisions are made at the end of students' enrolment as an MRes student.
- For MPhil/PhD students: School regulations require students to submit written work, present a clear framework for the research and provide a timetable for completion, and to defend their work orally before an upgrade panel.
In both cases, the assessment considers both the quality of the work completed so far and the feasibility of completing the project successfully within the available registration period. Upgrade assessments also provide opportunities for departments to consider whether you are developing the knowledge, skills and experience required to complete your doctorate successfully.
Requirements vary between departments. Depending on your discipline, you may be asked to submit draft chapters, a literature review, methodology chapter, research proposal, portfolio of work, or other material relevant to your research. Your department’s regulations and handbooks will explain what must be submitted and when.
MPhil/PhD: Upgrade decisions are made by an upgrade panel appointed by your department. The panel must include at least one academic member of staff who is not directly involved in the student’s supervision. Supervisors may contribute to the process and their views will normally be considered. However, upgrade decisions are made through the department’s formal procedures rather than by any individual member of staff.
MRes/PhD: Upgrade decisions are normally made by the exam board responsible for overseeing MRes-level assessments. Local arrangements may vary. If you are uncertain how local decision-making processes, operate, please contact your department.
MPhil/PhD students who are unsuccessful at their first attempt are normally entitled to resubmit work and undergo a second assessment. A final decision must normally be reached within six months of the first attempt. Where a final attempt is unsuccessful, the department may recommend de-registration or continued registration with the aim of submitting for the degree of MPhil.
MRes to PhD upgrades operate under a different framework. However, where an MRes student does not meet any of the the upgrade criteria for their programme at the first attempt and still has remaining entitlements to sit assessments (e.g. due to deferrals or re-sit entitlements) their department will normally decide whether to:
- permit the student to enrol in the PhD stage on the condition that they successfully complete the outstanding requirements at the second attempt; or
- require the student to remain registered as an MRes student pending completion of any outstanding re-sit entitlements.
Students have the right to appeal upgrade decisions. Appeal processes for research students are set out here.
Completion planning is a central part of both progress review and upgrade. The School therefore expects students, supervisors and departments to engage actively with planning throughout the doctorate rather than waiting until difficulties arise. Effective project management, realistic planning and the ability to adapt to changing circumstances are important professional skills for researchers working both inside and outside academia. Progress review and upgrade provide opportunities to develop and demonstrate these skills.
The School also has a responsibility to ensure that expectations are applied consistently, proportionately and fairly across the doctoral community. Progress review and upgrade should therefore provide regular opportunities to identify emerging risks, consider appropriate support and adjustments, and ensure that realistic plans are in place for completion.
Progress review and upgrade documentation also provides an important and authoritative academic record of your progress, the feedback you have received, and the plans you have agreed with your department. This information may provide useful context if the School later considers a request relating to interruption, an extension to the thesis submission deadline or another change of circumstances. To confirm, however, you are not expected to use these processes to anticipate and document every circumstance that may later affect their studies.
You should therefore approach progress review and upgrade documentation as important academic records. These documents may later form part of the evidence considered when the School reviews requests relating to, for example, interruptions and extensions to thesis submission deadline.
This matters as successful completion involves more than producing a thesis. Doctoral researchers are also expected to develop the knowledge, skills and judgement required to conduct independent research. Progress review and upgrade therefore provide important opportunities you and your supervisors to consider both the development of the project and the development of the researcher.
A PhD is a time-limited degree.
Successful completion depends not only on producing high-quality research but also on managing the scope of the project and planning the remaining work realistically. Progress reviews therefore require students to submit completion timetables. These should identify work already completed, work still to be undertaken, and realistic timescales for completion. Students are therefore expected to discuss workload, project scope and submission planning regularly with their supervisors, throughout their enrolment. Managing a doctoral project involves making decisions about scope, priorities, timelines and risk. These are important professional skills in their own right.
Where challenges emerge, students are expected to work with supervisors and departments to identify realistic responses and adjustments and not to assume that an extension to the submission deadline is the appropriate response. Progress review and upgrade provide opportunities to assess whether these conversations are taking place and whether plans remain achievable.
The School seeks to apply expectations consistently and fairly across all research students. As a result, decisions about extensions and other exceptions are not based solely on whether difficulties have arisen, but also on how those difficulties have been identified, discussed and managed throughout candidature. Evidence that students and supervisors have maintained and regularly reviewed completion plans is one of the strongest indicators of successful and timely submission.
Progress review and upgrade provide opportunities for your department to assess whether your project remains achievable within the available registration period. Your should therefore expect discussions about project scope, research design, fieldwork, analysis, writing plans and submission timelines. Departments may raise concerns if your project appears unlikely to be completed within the available time or where additional planning is required. The completion timetable developed through progress review and upgrade should therefore continue to evolve throughout the remainder of the doctorate.
Progress review and upgrade support timely completion by providing structured opportunities for academic assessment, feedback and planning. However, effective participation in these processes is not a separate eligibility condition for an extension. Where an extension is later requested, the decision will focus on the effect of the exceptional circumstances, whether additional registered time is an appropriate response and whether the proposed completion plan is viable.
Departments are well placed to advise on disciplinary norms, academic practice and academic careers within their field. However, students can also expect to be directed towards specialist sources of support elsewhere in the School, and sometimes externals, where appropriate.
Depending on individual circumstances, this may include support relating to careers, wellbeing, disability support, research methods, academic writing, teaching, entrepreneurship, public engagement, policy engagement, leadership development or other aspects of doctoral study. Students are encouraged to make use of the full range of support available across the School rather than relying exclusively on their department.
The School is committed to ensuring that students can participate fully in progress review and upgrade processes. Where appropriate, reasonable adjustments can help ensure that assessments are conducted fairly while maintaining academic standards. Reasonable adjustments are normally agreed through a My Adjustments plan developed with the Disability and Mental Health Service (DMHS). Departments are informed of these plans and are responsible for implementing the adjustments that have been agreed. Students are therefore encouraged to discuss support needs as early as possible, rather than waiting until assessment deadlines are approaching.
Yes.
Students with approved My Adjustments plans may have adjustments that apply to aspects of progress review, upgrade or related academic activities. My Adjustments plans are agreed through the Disability and Mental Health Service (DMHS). Once agreed, departments are informed of the adjustments that should be implemented. Responsibility for implementing agreed adjustments rests with the department. Students should not be expected to manage implementation themselves or repeatedly remind departments to put agreed arrangements in place. Academic standards and assessment criteria remain unchanged, but reasonable adjustments may help ensure that students can demonstrate their achievement appropriately.
You should seek support promptly if agreed adjustments are not being implemented, particularly where this may affect progress review, upgrade or progression through the programme.
Students should normally raise concerns in the first instance with their supervisors. If concerns are not resolved, students should contact their Doctoral Programme Director and departmental PhD Programme Manager, or equivalent departmental contact. Where necessary, concerns may be escalated to the Head of Department.
Outside the department, students should contact the Disability and Mental Health Service (DMHS), which has lead responsibility for supporting the implementation of My Adjustments plans across the School. The PhD Academy is also available to provide advice on School processes and regulatory matters where appropriate
School regulations require departments to consider information provided by students about exceptional circumstances. You should therefore raise concerns as early as possible, and discuss them with your supervisors and department.
Early discussion allows departments to consider available support, reasonable adjustments and other options before difficulties become more significant. You should not assume that concerns raised for the first time at a review or upgrade meeting can be addressed retrospectively
The School expects potential risks to timely completion to be identified, discussed and addressed as early as reasonably possible. Students, supervisors and departments should engage openly with emerging concerns and consider appropriate academic planning, support or changes to registration. The School also recognises that some circumstances arise, worsen or become fully apparent only at a later stage.
Students who fail to submit required work may not be eligible for assessment. In the case of upgrade, failure to submit required work means that the student is not eligible for consideration for upgrade under School regulations. If this happens, our department will advise you about the implications of missed deadlines and any options that may be available.
Progress review and upgrade records are important mechanisms for monitoring academic progress, recording feedback and maintaining realistic plans for completion. Students and supervisors should therefore ensure that these records provide a reasonably accurate account of progress, emerging concerns and agreed actions.
If you later apply for an extension to your final thesis submission deadline, the decision will normally be based primarily on the following.
- Your account of the exceptional circumstances and their effect on timely completion.
- A realistic, completion-focused plan for the additional period requested.
- Informed academic statements from your supervisory team and Doctoral Programme Director.
You will not routinely be required to attach progress review reports, upgrade records or extracts from the PhD Log to an extension application. However, you may refer to these where you consider that they help explain your circumstances, progress or completion plan.
The Chair of the Research Degrees Sub-Committee may consult relevant School records, including progress review, upgrade or PhD Log records, or request limited additional information where this is reasonably necessary to understand:
- the effect of the circumstances on your progress;
- whether an extension is an appropriate response; or
- whether the proposed completion plan and period requested are realistic.
Any request for further information will identify what is required and why it is relevant. You will not normally be expected to reconstruct an extensive documentary history of their candidature, and missing or incomplete progress review or PhD Log records will not, by themselves, prevent an application from being considered or determine its outcome.
Nonetheless, keeping these records reasonably complete remains important. Effective progress review and upgrade processes help students and departments identify risks, review academic plans, consider appropriate support and maintain a shared understanding of the work required for successful submission. If your records are complete, you are also less likely to need to reconstruct a history of your enrolment and any challenges you face if you subsequently need to submit a change of circumstances application.
Progress review and upgrade are shared responsibilities. Successful outcomes depend on active engagement from students, supervisors, review panels, Doctoral Programme Directors and departments. All parties are expected to engage constructively, communicate openly and take appropriate action when concerns arise.
Students are expected to:
- engage actively with supervision;
- maintain PhD Log records in accordance with School requirements;
- prepare thoroughly for reviews and upgrade assessments;
- maintain realistic completion plans;
- raise concerns at an early stage;
- engage constructively with feedback;
- seek support when difficulties arise; and
- take reasonable steps to support timely completion.
Academic feedback will not always align with a student’s own assessment of their work. You should engage carefully and constructively with feedback, discuss concerns with your supervisors, and seek clarification where necessary.
Disagreement with academic feedback does not in itself indicate that a decision is incorrect. However, if you believe a procedural error has occurred, or that a decision is unreasonable in light of the evidence considered, you should seek advice from the PhD Academy about your options under School procedures.
Students are encouraged to seek advice early, as this is often the most effective way to resolve concerns, identify support and maintain progress towards successful submission.
- For academic questions about your research, you should normally speak with your supervisors.
- For questions about departmental requirements, deadlines, progress review arrangements, upgrade procedures or local assessment expectations, you should contact your Doctoral Programme Director, departmental PhD Programme Manager, or equivalent departmental contact.
- For questions relating to reasonable adjustments and the implementation of a My Adjustments plan, you should normally raise concerns with your supervisors in the first instance. If concerns remain unresolved, you should contact your Doctoral Programme Director and departmental PhD Programme Manager. Outside the department, the Disability and Mental Health Service (DMHS) should normally be your first point of contact, as it has lead responsibility for supporting the implementation of My Adjustments plans across the School.
For questions about School regulations, formal procedures, interruptions, extensions, progression processes or examination requirements, students can contact the PhD Academy.