I had my third year review in August this year, and if things go as planned, it would have been my last PhD progression review. I think now will be a good time to take stock of my experiences with progression reviews and reflect on what went well and what could have been avoided.
What is a PhD progression review?
It is a formal annual review of your PhD progress so that you and your supervisory team can get input from an external expert panel on whether your PhD studies are going where they should go and whether there is any accommodation or training that you need to move forward.
What does it entail?
In these reviews, your write-ups are going to be the main artifact on which the panel bases their assessments: Have you read enough literature? Do you know your theories and methods? How far along are you in data collection and analysis? Will you be able to finish your PhD in time? Other documents are also required to show what kind of training you have taken to prepare you for your studies as well as to support your professional development. You will also be asked to produce a reflection of what you have done in the past year, what you have learned along the way, what hinders your progress, and your plans for completion.
These documents will vary in name and form across universities. Even how the progression reviews are organised can differ remarkably from one institution to another. In Brunel University London where I study, they are called 10-month, 20-month, and 30-month reviews, indicating the month of study that the reviews are supposed to take place. There is another review at the beginning of a PhD, called the 4-week review, which essentially is a formal welcome into the programme as well as to see how the new PhD student is adjusting to the new environment and set them up to the right rhythm. This 4-week review is usually quite chill and friendly—not that the others are hostile, but they can be more serious and consequential.
What are the potential results from these reviews?
I would often refer to these reviews as mini vivas, not least because saying x-month reviews makes very little sense to others outside of my own university, but also because in many ways they give you a glimpse of how a real viva will be like. As with a viva, there are some possible outcomes from a review: you can progress on current intended award (pass without correction), provisionally progress (pass with correction), re-grade to another intended award, or withdraw from your studies altogether (fail). I often see people struggle to pass the first year review (10-month review in my case) because let’s be real, the learning curve in a PhD is anything but steep. I have also seen a few people fail in their subsequent reviews, or they pass with some correction, reevaluate their situation, decide it is not worth it and quit. But generally if you really study hard and want to do it, you can pass these progression reviews without any problem.
What were my experiences?
I have, to my relief, passed all the standard reviews in my three years of study without major correction. Whether I will need a 40-month review or not really depends on how early I can submit my thesis, so this review is additional and generally avoidable. I said “avoidable” because really, you want to avoid it. Not because it is challenging and can influence your PhD outcome – but because it is extremely time-consuming to prepare for a review and you want to spend this precious time doing something else more productive in your final months.
When preparing for my first review after 10 months of studies, I was in a really bad place personally. I remember the constant thought I had was whether I should quit, whether I could do it, and whether all the sufferings were worth it. I submitted a 6,000-word systematic literature review (all the word counts are excluded of references and appendices) and passed without any problem.
When preparing for my second review, I felt adamantly confident: I had worked so hard and read so much after the first review. I knew my theories inside out, got ethical approval, did my pilot study. It looked like I could even manage to complete early with such momentum. I submitted a 20,000-word writeup and spent minimum time working on the review because, well, I arrogantly thought the work would speak for itself. BAM!! My work was flagged up by the panel for not having a thorough enough evaluation of the theoretical concepts. They passed me but suggested I go back to rework the theoretical framework. This could set me back several months. I got discouraged so badly that the thought of quitting crept up once again. It took me a whole month to mentally recover and 5 months in total to do the corrections and get back on track.
I was somewhat traumatised by the experience of the second year review that I spent almost a month preparing for my supposedly last review this year. I was exhausted with data collection and analysis and writeup it felt like a nightmare. In the end, I managed to submit a 33,000-word writeup including initial findings for the first research question (I’ve got 4 research questions). The work received good reviews, and I was given the green light to go ahead with the rest of the thesis and toward submission.
What could be learned?
There are always lessons to be learned from everything, but the best way to learn is to experience it yourself because everyone’s journey is different. Nonetheless, these are a few key takeaways:
Do not be scared off by the word count requirements. I was horrified when I heard for the 10-month review I was supposed to have 8,000-10,000 words, but both my supervisors and research development advisor reassured me that really my 6,000-word writeup was okay as long as the panel could see how much I have read and learned. (To do this systematic literature review, I had to manually screen 3,500 articles and read in-depth more than 300 articles — not an easy feat for a first year student.)
If things do not go as planned, keep calm and adapt. Even when I had to spend 5 months extra on the theoretical framework, it was all worth it because it made my work stronger. Cry all you want and take the time you need to recover, as long as you don’t give up, it will all pass.
As you move on to the second and third review, it is a good idea to start developing a conversation with the review panel. Take the time to address their prior comments. You don’t need to do everything that they suggest, but you’d better have an explanation as to why you do something and don’t do something else. Treat it like you would with the publication process. The way that I did it was with the presentation. At the beginning of the review, you will be given 10 minutes or so to present your work. Talk about your research briefly because they have already read the whole writeup. Then spend some time discussing the reviewers’ comments during this presentation. It is going to help you gain more confidence and kick-start the review in the direction that you want.
And of course, take the time you need to prepare for these reviews. It is a good learning opportunity and can provide vital feedback to your work at the time you need it the most. Break a leg and let’s crush it!!
tracemyPhD 
Leave a comment