iPhD - year 1 assessment
The First Year of the iPhD
During the first year of the iPhD, you will register for the equivalent of 120 credits in taught modules that lead to a Postgraduate Diploma in one of the areas in which the Department offers a Masters Programme. The distribution of modules must include Research Methods training (RTS) and subject specific training.
The selection of modules is up to the student in consultation with their supervisor(s), but must generally follow the modules available within a particular masters programme. It is not necessary that you follow all the modules of a specific programme, as long as you and your supervisor agree and the number of credits is correct, deviations from the pattern are permitted. You must pass all modules taken.
For information about the assessment of Masters modules, please see the LLS PGT Department Handbook.
Assessment of Part 1
In addition to the chosen masters modules, in order to pass the first year, you must also produce the following two pieces of work:
A detailed research proposal or literature review, which will be guided and supported primarily by the supervisor but also the memebrs of staff teaching the option modules that you will have chosen under the guidance of their supervisor. The final research proposal will be due at the same time as the progression documents are submitted (date tbc - summer 2023). Resubmission, in the case a mark is received below the "pass" level, will be at an appropriate later time that the panel will communicate to you. The word count of the research proposal/literature review is 3000 words.
A small scale research project. The nature of the project will depend on the area of study. It will range from the analysis of a small dataset to the design of an experiment, conducting a small pilot project, a critical analysis of some theoretical proposals etc. The project will be due at the same time as the research proposal/literature review, and will be examined by the supervisor and Chair of GSB (or their nominee). Potential resubmission will be allowed by the end of August. The word count for the research project will be 2000 words.
The pass level for both pieces of assessment will be set at the "Merit" level of a masters programme (60-69).
Research Proposal criteria
Pass
The research question and derived objectives are clear and appropriate in the context of the initiation of the PhD research
Expected research outcomes are clearly articulated and should be achievable within the PhD timeframe and resource availability
In approaching the research question, there is some evidence of the potential for original thought or creativity
Key risks associated with the research have been identified and, ideally, some suggestions made as to how these might be mitigated
A range of appropriate literature/sources are correctly identified and cited
Awareness of applicable research ethics
Fail
The research question and derived objectives are not clear or are inappropriate
Expected research outcomes are not clearly articulated and/or not achievable within the PhD timeframe and resource availability
In approaching the research question, there is no evidence of the potential for original thought or creativity
Key risks associated with the research proposal have not been identified
Limited or inappropriate sources and/or incorrectly cited
Insufficient awareness of applicable research ethics.
Literature review criteria
The aim of the literature review is to enable a student to demonstrate their understanding of key literature/sources relevant to the PhD project. The literature review should normally serve as the starting point for a student’s introductory chapter within their PhD thesis.
Pass
To pass, the literature review should demonstrate all of the following criteria:
Provides a comprehensive, critical analysis of relevant literature/sources
Demonstrates an ability to successfully synthesise disparate literature/sources
Draws on a wide range of appropriate literature/sources, many which have been identified by the student without input from the supervisor
Features correctly cited literature/sources and considers the quality of the literature/sources.
Fail
An under-developed or uncritical analysis of the literature/sources, some of which may be of limited relevance to the PhD topic
Demonstrates a limited ability to synthesize disparate literature/sources
Draws on a limited range or inappropriate literature/sources, or chiefly literature/sources recommended by the supervisor
Literature/sources are incorrectly cited and/or the quality of literature/sources is not considered.
Small scale research project criteria
The aim of the small scale research project is to ensure that students have direct experience of some aspect of primary research relevant to their PhD project, and that the department can ascertain the student's aptitude in this area.
Pass
To pass, a student’s project submission should meet all of the following criteria:
Clear justification for the choice of research method(s)/approach to research and awareness of the limitations of the method(s)/approach (where applicable)
Competent application of their chosen research method(s)/approach to research and/or a critical analysis of why problems have arisen and how they might be addressed in future
Clearly presented results/outcomes
Discussion of the results/outcomes that demonstrates a good level of critical analysis, including an ability to put the results/outcomes in the context of existing knowledge, and some evidence of the potential for original thought or creativity
Practical and convincing recommendations for how the work might be taken forward
A range of appropriate literature/sources, correctly cited
Awareness of applicable research ethics.
Fail
Choice of research method(s)/approach to research is not well-explained and limited awareness of the limitations (where applicable)
Poor application of chosen research method(s)/approach to research and/or limited analysis of why problems have arisen and how they might be addressed in future
Results/outcomes are presented poorly
Discussion of results/outcomes demonstrates limited critical analysis, including an inability to put the results in the context of the existing knowledge, and no evidence of the potential for original thought or creativity
Impractical or unconvincing recommendations for how the work might be taken forward
Limited or inappropriate literature/sources and/or incorrectly cited
Insufficient awareness of applicable research ethics.