Confirmation of candidature: A stressful, horrible experience

1. Confirmation of candidature: A stressful, horrible experience Archie Clements Deputy ogre of PhD execution committee

2. Confirmation of candidature: A positive, useful experience Archie Clements Member of SPH Research and RHD Committee, Confirmation Convener

3. Website • http://www.sph.uq.edu.au/confirmation-process • From SPH web page, click “Research Degrees” tab, and then “Confirmation process” link.

4. You and your supervisor need to TALK about: -When to time your confirmation -Who should be on the panel (two people external to the advisory team, but experts in the area) Timing: 9–15 months into candidature (i.e. from enrolment) for full-time PhD -Aim for 12 months -9 months if anticipate early submission -15 months if ethics/data collection have delayed progress (try to avoid) Divide by two for MPhil Multiply by two for part-time PhD Use panel as an opportunity to learn, get ideas, clear up uncertainty, refine research questions and advise direction of the thesis. Panel members are unlikely to be suitable examiners, so you might want to avoid nominating possible examiners at this stage.

5. Setting up the date • Your advisor should contact the confirmation convenor (me) to determine rough dates that are suitable; if we cant find suitable date, RHD co-ordinator (Andrea Whittaker) or other member of Research/RHD committee can chair (ask Mary for list of names). • S/he should contact the panellists to obtain their agreement to participate and to co-ordinate dates. • S/he should also contact associate advisors to co-ordinate dates. • S/he should then inform Mary Roset of agreed date and time so that a room can be booked. • Schedule 3 hours for the session (most take 1.5-2 hrs). • OK for advisors/panellists from outside Brisbane to phone in.

6. Preparing the documents • The school form: • Candidate report (written by you); Before; Be Honest and think about what you want/need from your advisor and SPH • Advisor report (written by your primary advisor); Before • Review panel chair report (written by me/chair); After • RHD coordinator recommendation (written by Andrea); After • Attainment of milestone form • Signed by advisor, you and the RHD co-ordinator; include your details and signatures Before, and give to Mary Roset so that Andrea cans sign After

7. The confirmation document • Title page Title of project, advisors • Introduction (2-4 pages) Aims, objectives, hypotheses, research questions • Literature review (10-15 pages) Critical, concise, identifies gaps • Research plan/methods (6-10 pages) Study design, data collection tools, analytical plan • Progress to date (2 pages) Include ethics; specify papers published, in press, submitted or in preparation • Expected outcomes (2-3 pages) What will the research show/add? • Thesis structure (2 pages) Chapter headings and 2-3 sentences describing each chapter • Timelines (1 page) Gantt chart • Appendices Papers, technical reports • If in doubt, phone a friend, or come see me – I have loads of old confirmation documents you can look at • Send to panel, chair and advisors >2wks prior to confirmation meeting

8. The presentation • 20 minutes (only!) • Powerpoint presentation (any electronic media acceptable) • 15-20 slides • Background (Intro and lit review) • Research questions/hypotheses • Research completed: aims, methods, results, discussion and conclusions • Research plan for studies yet to be completed • General discussion and conclusions • Timelines for completion • Go over it with your supervisor, and do a dry run with your PhD colleagues

9. The meeting • Introductions • Presentation (20 minutes) • Panellists and chair ask questions Literature; Methods and results; Research plan – especially feasibility and cohesion (does it tell a story); Thesis structure (by papers? Traditional format?) YOU should answer and your advisor should only interject if necessary, perhaps to clarify a point, provide some context, or answer concerns about resources, funding, or access to data or target populations. • You leave, we ask advisors about progress, problems, writing, analysis, intellectual contribution, funding, resources, communication, teamwork. • Advisors leave, we ask you about supervision, resources, wants/needs, experience as a student, conferences, workshops or courses you want to attend. Think about what you want to say in this section. We will go in to bat for you if there are things you have identified that you want improved. • Brief discussion just between panellists and chair – decide on outcome and recommendations

10. Possible outcomes • Pass with no conditions Vast majority • Pass with conditions (usually more detailed thesis plan) Rare • Extension (usually 3 months, in which agreed outcomes need to be achieved) Very rare • Conditions not met for confirmation of candidature; goes to Graduate School; Exceedingly rare Possible outcomes • Conversion to MPhil • Student voluntarily withdraws (no academic penalty) • Termination of candidature (academic penalties)

11. Things to do to make unconditional pass very, very likely • Interesting, cohesive story • Evidence of forward thinking with a feasible thesis plan • Coherent literature review, good scientific writing • Ethical clearance obtained • Evidence of good lines of communication with your primary supervisor • Evidence that you are making use of your wider advisory team • Evidence of critical thinking and strong intellectual leadership of your research • Confident presentation; own your topic; know what you are talking about • Home run: paper published/in press; data collection completed for at least one study

12. Alarm bells • Insufficient detail in research plan • Unrealistic timelines (will you master multi-level modelling in six weeks?) • Over-ambitious project plans (insufficient funding, time, expertise, access to participants) • Lack of progress in literature review, ethics, design of protocols/survey tools • Poorly presented scientific writing in your confirmation document • Inability to answer basic questions on the study area and research plan • Inadequate supervisory arrangements (e.g. where the supervisor is leaving their post; or not all key methodological elements are covered in the team)

13. Things to think about • What skills do I want from my PhD? • What do I want to do after my PhD? How will I badge myself? • Should I build a relationship with the panellists? Use this as a networking opportunity • Do I want to do a thesis by publication, or a traditional thesis? Panellists typically ask about this; be prepared if, by papers, to explain contribution to multi-authored work • Is that sixth paper really necessary for my PhD, or can I do it in my post-doc? • My advisory team have made a commitment to me; I am therefore going to get the supervision that I deserve!