Hi!

This is for current first years as well as those who have been through it. For the end of first year review/upgrade process, those of you who are submitting/have had to submit a near 10,000 word document (in the form of a proposal usually), what sections did you make sure you had?

There are departmentl guidelines, and this greatly varies from individual to individual, but any insights on the structure?

Also when you are asked to provide a work plan, what all do you usually provide in this?

best

Bug

I've been through this interim assessment, and, based on my experience, I think that the document you produce is very individual. If you like, I can send you a good example of an interim assessment for a qualitative research PhD. Just PM me for further details. Thanks.:-)

we were given guidance that it had to be divided under headings like introduction (3000 words) methods, results, plan of investigation, future work... and possibly some other things. For the plan of investigation I cut and pasted my protocol direct from my NRES (ethics) application. For future work I included a 1 page flow chart of what I planned to do over the next few months.

To get an idea of what to put where I looked at someone elses first year report form the year before. Is it possible for you to do this? Despite her being in a very differnt field, it gave me an idea of what to put in each section.

Hi PhDbug,

I had a dreadful time with my upgrade report. It was rejected offically first time round then several times by my supervisors before it eventually was offically passed second time round-with very positive remarks from other academics- who were not my supervisors; 'excellent organisation and quality of content....student has the academic capabilities to complete PhD study' etc etc

Pre submission of my upgrade report, I had no written guidance about what the report consisted of- and I struggled with what they actually wanted! Given my failures, they've now implemented guidance materials! grrrr :(

As I had no guidance, I basically went for it and I was determined to pass- despite the atmosphere from my supervisors that I would never pass. I produced an upgrade report which was way too long (it was over 80,000 words- not including references, appendicies). Although it was far too long, I will use these chapters/parts of my upgrade report for my final thesis- so I hope I've helped myself when it comes to writing the main thesis.

I submitted five chapters and supporting documentation (tables-systematic review of measures used in previous studies and tables to support research questions, ethics proposal, project material)

Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Literature review: General focus
Chapter 3: Literature review: Specific groups in relation to content discussed in chapter 2.
Chapter 4: Research model and research questions (including strengths of my study)
Chapter 5: Methods and Methodology (methods, analysis plan, ethical considerations, anticipated problems and potential solutions to remedy any problems

I also included a lengthly reference section (had to ensure that I referenced every source) and appendicies of various measures.

I didn't include a summary of what data collection I've already collected whilst writing the upgrade report- which was required but at academics preference (both my markers wanted it, but my supervisors did not mention it). Perhaps kind of a work plan!

Since my report, the department have clear guidelines, but it was hell going through it!

I hope this helps!

Pineapple

Whilst I don't know exactly what else I'll need to put in, the focus of mine will be a 'chapter' ie. one area that I'm working on at the moment and will write up as though part of the thesis as a whole. The area I'm addressing (beginnings and endings in the work of the poet I'm currently looking at, the first of two) was suggested by my supervisors following a piece of work I did earlier in the year. I need to have a draft of this done by week two of term... :-(

Here it is slightly different in that you have to submit a longer and more detailed proposal, including the ethics bit (there are some good examples of the kind of thing you need to write here on some university websites ) your chapter outlines and your plan of action (Work plan). This is easily produced using excel, just put all the dates along the top, chapters and sub chapters down the side, fill in the boxes starting at the 'finish' put in blocks for final review, review of chapters, writing up for each chapter, when you will start each one etc. - with overlaps of course, use different colours for researching, draft chapters writing up etc. it looks quite impressive! Here this part has to be done within about 6 months for full time, 8 months for part time, although this can be longer because the boards do not meet regularly. The next hurdle is to have two chapters done, at least in a suitable state, as obviously these will be revised later, plus you have a viva, but both these are with your supervisor and someone else from your department. You also have to produce a document setting out why you think you should be allowed to continue, which is the only thing that goes to the board, the structure is set out in our guidelines, and here the senior admin person in the post grad block is the one to talk to if you are stuck, he knows what is and what isn't expected - maybe you have someone like that?

At the moment myupgade review seems like this terifying thing which is claked in mystery.

Supervisor doesn't want me to do much of a literature review, so I am guessing I need to make an attempt at an analytical chapter. I have producedn a couple of informal reports for him throught the year which will go in. The impression that I get from asking my supervisor is that it will be a big folder of crap collected throughout the year.

This isn't very helpful, sorry!

....Ambiguity with the upgrading process and unclear guidelines is exactly why I struggled with the report and what they wanted!! Working at PhD level is hard enough without having to deal with departments who don't produce concrete guidance as well as different academics requesting different things!! Both of my supervisors differed in how detailed they wanted my literature review to be. In the end I made it far too detailed, but it's just so hard sometimes for them to reach some agreement!

Try and obtain a upgrade report within your department which has passed through the upgrading process. Different unis and different departments within the same uni differ in terms of the upgrade document requirements- which makes it even more complicated!! Make sure you nail down what it is they want from you!

Wish I could find that nail - and of course the hammer to go with it! The process has, I think, been made more complicated by the grading process for post grad work at universities that goes on now, they have to show they are 'helping' you through the process, and have strict signposts along the way, instead of letting you get on with it. I found the first bit here rather a waste of time because they don't seem to really know what they want. They ask for a brief outline, so you give them that, and then they say it isn't detailed enough, so you put more in, but then it goes way over their word count they want, so you have to cut it back and stick in loads of endnotes, plus with them not meeting during the summer, the whole process is delayed... It is really just like a little game, so find out the rules, - as I said the secretary of the post grad school is probably your beat bet - follow them and you should be OK. I like to think of it as getting my money's worth out of them! :-)

This is EXACTLY what happended to me! My first report I submitted was not detailed enough and subsequently was failed by my markers. Second time round I submitted (offically), although it passed (with very positive feedback from academics who were not my supervisors!) they said it was far too detailed!! I kind of knew already that a 80,000 word upgrade report is too much, but they left me in such a state that I was scared of them rejecting it again for failing to be detailed!! I was sooo close to giving up but I got through it in the end. If I can get through the process, I'm sure anyone can! Worked out well though- as I'm using the detail for my final thesis chapters!

Hi, sorry for staying away from my own post for so long. Yes, so there are discrepancies. I think, in my case they call it a 10,000 word proposal and my truly fantastic sup will have aread and then we will have 2 supervisions before its is submitted, and then 2 more before the viva with her and the committee.

I am thinking of it in two ways: A) the structure: this I find it useful to derive from grant proposals that scholars write for funding, these things do need to have a solid coherent and comprehensive structure, which works fine for me in it sinclusion sof rationale, objectives, expected data, project management plan and B) the intellectual content within this structure in which case I am inclined to use the essays I've written for the fortnightly supervisions over the term.

I have a draft which looks ok, and in the appendices I include works cited, an indicative bibliography and the fieldwork instruments (in prep).

Comments welcome!