Higher degrees by research policy
To define the rules for the management of HDR candidature and supervision at RMIT.
All RMIT staff responsible for HDR management and supervision and all HDR candidates including RMIT Vietnam and RMIT Europe.
1. The enrolment date is the same as the research commencement date unless a special case is made for use of a later date.
Duration of candidature
2. For candidates enrolling in an HDR program at RMIT duration of candidature shall be:
2.1. PhD – minimum 2 EFTSL and maximum 4 EFTSL
2.2. Masters by research – minimum 1 EFTSL and maximum 2 EFTSL
3. EFTSL consumed by candidates is calculated from their research commencement date.
4. The academic year for HDR candidates is 48 weeks with 4 weeks annual leave.
5. Candidate enrolment each year shall be either full-time – 96 credit points, or part-time – 48 credit points.
6. Full-time commitment will average at least 4 days per week over the course of the year. Part-time commitment will average at least 2 days per week over the course of the year.
7. Current HDR candidates from RMIT or another university are eligible to apply for transfer to an alternate RMIT HDR program provided that the candidate:
7.1. meets the entry requirements and
7.2. has consumed less than 3 EFTSL in a PhD, or less than 1 EFTSL in a Masters by research
8. The duration of candidature in the new program will be reduced by any EFTSL consumed in the previous HDR program.
Leave of absence
9. Candidates can access up to a total of twelve months leave of absence (LOA) during the entire program due to compassionate or compelling circumstances which prevent the candidate carrying out research, as detailed in the HDR LOA process.
10. LOA is not included in EFTSL calculations of duration of candidature and candidates must cease working on their research during this period.
Subject to provision of appropriate documentation and any terms and conditions of their scholarship/sponsorship, candidates may be permitted:
11.1 6 months maternity leave or partner leave or
11.2 6 months adoption leave for each child born or adopted during candidature.
11.3 Requests for parental leave are considered in addition to the standard LOA provisions.
Supporting and monitoring academic progress
12. SGR will publish guidelines for the provision of research training support, facilities and funding.
13. Progress must be monitored and documented at regular meetings between supervisors and candidates, in accordance with the Supporting HDR progress process.
Candidature Milestone Reviews
14. Progress is formally measured by monitoring of the candidate’s research through the three compulsory candidature milestone reviews:
14.1 Confirmation of Candidature
14.2 Second milestone review, and the
14.3 Third milestone review.
15. All candidature milestone reviews must be scheduled in accordance with this timeline:
Timing of Confirmation of candidature
Timing of Second milestone review
Timing of Third milestone review
Between 0.5 and 1 EFTSL after candidate’s research commencement date
Between 1.5 and 2 EFTSL after candidate’s research commencement date
Between 2.5 and 3 EFTSL after candidate’s research commencement date
Between 0.25 and 0.5 EFTSL after candidate’s research commencement date
Between 0.75 and 1 EFTSL after candidate’s research commencement
Between 1.5 and 1.75 EFTSL after candidate’s research commencement date
The panel will determine one of the following outcomes: Milestone achieved or Milestone not achieved.
17. Candidates who achieve their milestone will be regarded as having satisfactory progress; those who do not achieve the milestone will be classified as at risk of unsatisfactory progress.
18. A candidate who has transferred from another program and provides evidence of previous confirmation of candidature is exempted from this Milestone review.
19. No exemptions will be granted for the requirement for the Second milestone review.
20. Candidates who are re-admitted for the purpose of examination are not required to complete the Third milestone review.
21.Candidates are permitted two attempts to achieve a milestone. A third attempt may be permitted only if a Research Candidate Progress Committee (RCPC) or the Associate Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Research Training and Development (ADVC RT&D) determines that the candidate’s progress has been impeded by a lack of necessary support from the University.
Unsatisfactory Academic Progress
22. Candidates will be placed at risk of unsatisfactory academic progress (hereafter referred to as at risk) if:
22.1 they do not achieve a milestone;
22.2 they apply for an extension beyond maximum duration of candidature;
22.3 there is documented evidence of failure to:
22.3.1 produce work requested for review by their supervisor; or
22.3.2 attend two or more regular supervision meetings without providing evidence of exceptional/compassionate circumstances;
22.4 they have failed one or more coursework courses of enrolled load;
22.5 they elect to place their own candidature at risk in consultation with their Senior
22.6 in exceptional circumstances, it is requested by the ADVC RT&D
23. In cases where the candidate is placed atrisk they will be notified of the classification in writing and invited to attend an atrisk meeting within 15 working days of the date of the notification letter.
Research Candidate Progress Committee (RCPC)
25. An RCPC will be convened if an at risk candidate has not met the requirements set out in their CASP.
26. The outcomes of an RCPC are provided as recommendations to the ADVC RT&D. They are:
26.1. Established unsatisfactory academic progress not confirmed – candidate remains at risk and another CASP is to be developed; or
26.2. Established unsatisfactory academic progress confirmed – candidate recommended for termination of candidature and cancellation of enrolment.
Appeal against termination
27. Candidates with a current enrolment (including those on an approved period of leave of absence) are entitled to appeal the decision to terminate their candidature on the basis of unsatisfactory performance where they provide evidence that they meet the following grounds:
27.1. there is evidence of a breach of University legislation, policy or process in the handling of the at risk process which has had a meaningful impact on the determination to terminate the candidature, and/or
27.2 there is significant new, relevant evidence that was not available at the time of the
Research Candidate Progress Committee (RCPC) meeting.
28. Appeals must be made in accordance with the Assessment, Academic Progress and Appeals Regulations and this policy.
29. RMIT recognises two modes of submission for HDR examination:
29.1. Thesis, and
31. A thesis must be unified and coherent in content and address a significant research question/theme. Theses contain the process, results and analysis of original research and may include publications by candidates based on research undertaken during the course of candidature.
32. Projects must include:
32.1. the artefact/s; body of work; or a record thereof, and,
32.2. a dissertation which defines the purpose and theoretical basis of the work, and
32.3. an oral presentation made by the candidate where required.
33. Candidates will be required to declare that any research outputs included in a thesis or project:
33.1. are by the candidate,
33.2. have appropriate attribution recorded, and
33.3. are based on research undertaken during the course of candidature.
34. Where two (or more) candidates collaborate on a thesis/project:
34.1. the individual contributions of each candidate must have the equivalent volume of a project/thesis in the discipline, and
34.2. the collaborator’s contributions to the overall research outcomes must be declared in each of the uniquely titled research topics and resultant theses or projects.
35. In order to submit all candidates must:
35.1. complete the minimum period of enrolment in the degree or have the approval of the ADVC RT&D for early submission;
35.2. provide an electronic version of the thesis/project;
35.3. have met all the prescribed coursework components of the program;
35.4. not submit research previously submitted for examination in respect of a prior degree;
35.5. have the approval of their senior supervisor for the submission or have chosen to submit without school approval.
36. The Senior supervisor in consultation with the Dean/HoS or nominee shall determine if the candidate’s work is suitable in format and content to be submitted for examination.
37. Requests for Posthumous submission and examination are approved by the Graduate Research Committee as detailed in the Posthumous submission and examination process.
Appointment of examiners
38. Examinations must be conducted by two appropriately qualified experts of international standing in the discipline/field who are external to RMIT, independent of the conduct of the research and without any real, perceived, or undeclared, conflict of interest.
39. All examiners must hold a doctoral degree or equivalent.
40. The appointment of examiners is approved by the ADVC RT&D.
41. The candidates and supervisors must not contact or communicate with the examiners from the date of approval of the examiners to the finalisation of the examination result except where an oral presentation is involved.
42. The ADVC RT&D will use the examiners’ recommendations and Schedule One: Recommendations and classifications of HDR examinationsin order to determine the final examination classification.
43. In order to pass, a thesis/project must receive two pass recommendations on the same version of the thesis/project. See Schedule One: Recommendations and classifications of HDR.
44. If a thesis/project is classified as a C3 – Revise and re-submit the re-examination is carried out on a pass/fail basis either with the original examiners, if they are willing to re-examine the revised thesis/project, or with one or two newly nominated examiners. In order to pass a thesis/project must receive two independent, external passing recommendations on the same version of the thesis/project.
45. Candidates may appeal against the classification outcome of a thesis/project examination on procedural grounds as detailed in the Assessment, Academic Progress and Appeals Regulations.
College HDR Advisory Committees and Adjudicators
46. A College HDR Examination Advisory Committee (CHEAC) may be convened in cases where at least one of the examiners recommendations is R3 or R4 and there is divergence of opinion between the examiners, as detailed in Schedule One: Recommendations and classifications of HDR
47. A CHEAC will recommend to the ADVC RT&D:
47.1. the thesis/project receive a classification according to Schedule Two: Classification options available to a College HDR Examination Advisory Committee (CHEAC); or
47.2. the recommendations of the examiners are unable to be reconciled internally and an adjudicator must be appointed.
48. Where an examination classification cannot be determined by the ADVC RT&D or a CHEAC, and an adjudicator is appointed they must make a recommendation to the ADVC RT&D in accordance with Schedule Three - Classification options available to an adjudicator
Open access and embargo
49. RMIT shall provide open access to the final thesis/project except in cases where an application for an embargo is successful.
50. Candidates are entitled to apply for an embargo on publication of their research in the RMIT Research Repository if they can meet the grounds for embargo as detailed below:
Level of approval
There is an existing formal commitment that commercially or otherwise sensitive material will not be publicly disclosed (includes patents and research produced under a funded contract with a Student Participation Agreement in place, or a confidentiality agreement).
Up to two years from the initial submission for examination
Option for extension of embargo for one year
The candidate has signed a publishing agreement that explicitly requires some restriction on the availability of the thesis/project.
One year initially
Option for extension of embargo for one year
The candidate provides evidence that they have permanently re-assigned copyright of their thesis/project to a third party and this assignment explicitly disallows the publication of the thesis/project in the research repository.
Completion of the program
51. In order to satisfactorily complete all requirements of the degree candidates must have:
51.1. lodged the final archival version of the thesis/project, and
51.2. met all prescribed coursework components of the program.
52. RMIT will provide all HDR candidates with a suitably qualified senior supervisor and at least one other supervisor who have expertise in the discipline area of the candidate.
55. The Dean/Head of School/Centre (or delegate) is accountable for the allocation of supervisors to candidates throughout the period of candidature and the oversight of supervision performance.
56. The Senior Supervisor or at least one of the Joint Senior Supervisors must be an RMIT staff member.
57. Candidates or HDR Coordinators may request a change to supervisory arrangements at any time as detailed in the HDR supervision arrangement process.
58. All supervisors are required to be accredited and listed on the RMIT supervisor register before they can be allocated to candidates.
59. Categories of supervisor registration are determined by a combination of supervisory experience and research activity.
60. In order to maintain their level of registration supervisors must:
60.1. meet ongoing eligibility requirements, and,
60.2. demonstrate they are effectively supporting candidates to achieve their expected milestones and research outcomes.
61. The requirements for supervisor registration are detailed in Schedule Four: HDR Supervisor Registration requirements.
62. The ADVC RT&D is responsible for the establishment and review of HDR processes and associated supporting documents.[Next: Definitions]