# HDR Progress Management and Support Schedule 1

**Source**: https://policies.rmit.edu.au/document/view.php?id=237
**Parent**: https://policies.rmit.edu.au/browse.php

View Document

- [Current Version](https://policies.rmit.edu.au/document/view.php?id=237)
- [Status and Details](https://policies.rmit.edu.au/document/status-and-details.php?id=237)
- [Associated Information](https://policies.rmit.edu.au/document/associated-information.php?id=237)
- [Historic Versions](https://policies.rmit.edu.au/document/view-historic.php?id=237)
- [Future Versions](https://policies.rmit.edu.au/document/view-future.php?id=237)
- [Print](https://policies.rmit.edu.au/document/print.php?id=237)
- [Feedback](https://policies.rmit.edu.au/document/feedback.php?id=237)

# HDR Progress Management and Support Schedule 1 - Milestone Submission Requirements, Assessment Criteria and Outcomes

- [HDR Progress Management and Support Schedule 1 – Milestone Submission Requirements, Assessment Criteria and Outcomes](#major1)

This is the current version of this document. You can provide feedback on this policy document by navigating to the Feedback tab.

### HDR Progress Management and Support Schedule 1 – Milestone Submission Requirements, Assessment Criteria and Outcomes

Authority for this document is established by the [HDR Progress Management and Support Procedure](https://policies.rmit.edu.au/document/view.php?id=15).

| Milestone requirements | Confirmation of candidature | Second milestone review | Third milestone review |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| A research proposal (confirmation of candidature) or summary document (subsequent milestones) | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Details on how the proposed project will be undertaken  (methodology) and an initial review of literature and references | Yes |  |  |
| Evidence of being enrolled in, having successfully completed, or been exempted from, the relevant research methods course | Yes |  |  |
| Evidence of completion of all compulsory training as listed on the student’s Canvas Dashboard | Yes |  |  |
| Evidence of completion of optional training including Intellectual Property – An Introduction, Intellectual Property Commercialisation, Human Ethics, Animal Ethics, Institutional Biosafety. | Yes – if optional training is to be completed on the recommendation of the supervisory team |  |  |
| A research data management plan | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| At confirmation of candidature, candidates must provide a statement of ethics and/or biosafety approval status in their research:  - Evidence of required ethics and institutional biosafety approvals; OR  - Explanation and timeline for approval (if not yet obtained) OR;  - Approved exemption, where applicable; OR  - Confirmation that no approval/exemption is required, with rationale  At subsequent milestones, candidates must provide evidence that required ethics and/or biosafety approvals have been obtained and maintained in time to support planned research activities. | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Evidence of consideration of the likely and actual impact, positive and negative, of the proposed research engagement of stakeholders, where appropriate | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| A publication plan including evidence of any pending or completed research outputs and timelines | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| An updated review of literature and references, and any changes to candidature since the last milestone review |  | Yes – include in summary document | Yes – include in summary document |
| Draft chapters of the thesis, or equivalent in draft or published papers, as deemed appropriate for the discipline  OR   A portfolio of work, as appropriate to the discipline, which includes a draft of the dissertation |  | Yes – at least  two chapters   OR  Yes – draft  dissertation  required | Yes – at least  two chapters   OR  Yes – draft  dissertation  required |
| Any other requirements the school deems necessary. | Yes | Yes | Yes |

The following criteria must be assessed during each milestone review:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| Confirmation of Candidature | 1. A clear summary of the candidate’s aims, methods, theoretical/conceptual framework, as well     as the significance, and potential impact of the research. 2. Evidence that the candidate has begun to adequately reflect on their research framework, and     its relationship to the existing body of knowledge. 3. Evidence that the candidate understands the proposed methodology and has the skills and     knowledge needed to undertake the research. 4. Evidence that the candidate has addressed research integrity requirements, including consideration of the appropriate use of artificial intelligence (AI), and submission of a statement of ethics and/or biosafety approval status. This must specify required approvals or confirmation of exemption where applicable. 5. Evidence that the candidate has begun to consider the likely and actual impact, positive and negative, of the proposed research and has engaged with stakeholders, where appropriate. 6. An indication that the research is original and will produce new knowledge (PhD candidates) OR appropriate to the level of a Master by Research degree in accordance with the Australian Qualifications Framework, including in-candidature research outputs. 7. A clear and viable schema for completing the degree, including a research plan with a specific     timeline for the research program from confirmation to completion. |
| Second milestone review | 1. Presentation of research outcomes of sufficient quality and quantity to support a coherent and     critical account of that work. 2. Evidence that the candidate has been developing the research and testing their methodology     as they progressed. 3. Evidence that the candidate has addressed research integrity requirements, such as a data     storage plan, and has maintained ethics and institutional biosafety approvals, if required; or approved exemption, where applicable. 4. Evidence that the candidate has a strong understanding of how their research is situated in the     existing knowledge of their discipline and/or community of practice, and its relationship to work     by the other researchers. 5. Evidence of the research outputs planned or submitted for the public domain. 6. A clear and viable schema for completing the degree, including a detailed timeline of the     research program from the mid-point to completion. |
| Third milestone review | 1. Evidence of a coherent account of the candidate’s research and the submission of research     outcomes which support their aims and answer their research question/s including potential or     likely beneficial impacts arising from the research, such as for stakeholders and/or end-users. 2. Evidence that the candidate has successfully situated their research within the discipline and/or     community of practice and has taken account of other research related to their topic. 3. Evidence that the candidate has addressed research integrity requirements, such as a data     storage plan, and has maintained ethics and institutional biosafety approvals, if required; or approved exemption, where applicable. 4. Evidence that the research is original and has produced new knowledge (PhD candidates) OR     appropriate to the level of a Master by Research degree in accordance with the Australian     Qualifications Framework. 5. Evidence of research outputs planned or submitted for the public domain including     communication of results with key stakeholders and end-users. 6. A clear path and detailed timeline showing how the thesis/project will be completed in the time     between the third milestone review and the submission date. |

The following table provides information on the outcomes of the milestone reviews:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| Milestone achieved | No amendments required or minor amendment required to a candidate’s milestone  documentation, made to the satisfaction of the senior supervisor. |
| Major amendments required | This outcome leads to the nomination of the candidate for a period of action and support. The  candidate must re-present their milestone within the timeframe of the CASP.  This outcome can include major changes to the milestone presentation and/or documentation.  Where a candidate successfully presents their milestone for a second time, the milestone outcome  will be changed to achieved.    Where a candidate presents their milestone for a second time and the milestone is not achieved,  the outcome ‘major amendments, not achieved’ is selected. |
| Major amendments not achieved | This outcome is for candidates presenting their milestone for a second time where the  amendments are not to the satisfaction of the milestone panel. The candidate will be referred to  the college review for academic progress in accordance with the [HDR Unsatisfactory Progress Process](https://policies.rmit.edu.au/document/view.php?id=174). |
| Transfer to PhD | Recommends the candidate to transfer to a PhD (Master by Research candidates) in accordance  with the [HDR Admissions and Enrolment Procedure](https://policies.rmit.edu.au/document/view.php?id=16). Where a candidate fails an attempt at a  program transfer and the milestone is not achieved, SGR or the HDR DA may nominate the  candidate for a period of action and support if the application for transfer has caused the  candidate to be significantly delayed in their current program.    The candidate needs to have requested to upgrade before attempting the milestone. |
| Achieved, transfer to Masters by Research | Recommends the candidate to transfer to a Master by Research program (PhD candidates) in  accordance with the [HDR Admissions and Enrolment Procedure](https://policies.rmit.edu.au/document/view.php?id=16). The candidate needs to have  requested the downgrade before attempting the milestone. |
| Not achieved, transfer to Masters by Research | This outcome means the candidate has not achieved their PhD milestone and the panel feels the  candidate does not meet the requirements of a PhD. They recommend that the candidate  considers a transfer to a Master by Research program (PhD candidates) in accordance with the  [HDR Admissions and Enrolment Procedure](https://policies.rmit.edu.au/document/view.php?id=16). If the candidate does not want to downgrade, the  outcome should be changed to ‘Major Amendments Required’ and the candidate nominated for a  period of action and support. |