PhD Candidacy Examination
The PhD Candidacy Examination is a critical milestone in a students’ doctoral journey, designed to assess their readiness to undertake advanced research. This examination must be held within three years of commencement of the program in accordance with the Degree of PhD of the University Calendar. This examination consists of three components: the Candidacy Research Proposal, the Oral Presentation, and the Oral Defense.
Purpose of the examination:
The Candidacy Examination serves as an important learning opportunity, helping students to consolidate their understanding and advance their thinking in the subject area related to their research. The examination is intended to establish that the student has:
- Proficient knowledge of their research subject area.
- The ability to develop, pursue, and complete original scientific research at an advanced level, which requires a strong understanding of experimental design, critical thinking abilities, and communication skills.
Topic:
The Candidacy Research Proposal should be related to the student’s field of study and PhD Thesis Proposal. The Candidacy Research Proposal can be developed around the focus of the Thesis Proposal, or the Candidacy Research Proposal can be developed entirely de novo (i.e., in the student’s field of study but different from the PhD Thesis Proposal) with the approval of the Supervisory Committee. The key point is that the Candidacy research proposal must include substantial new work. A significant proportion of the proposal should be novel, not part of their own PhD Thesis Proposal or any work ongoing in the lab of their Supervisor or described in grant proposals of the Supervisor.
Expectations for Time of Completion
Direct PhD Entry or Early MSc to PhD Transfer: Students who enter the PhD program directly, or transfer from an MSc to a PhD within the first 18 months of their graduate program, are required to complete the Candidacy Examination within 30 months of their program start date.
Later MSc to PhD Transfer: Students who transfer to the PhD program between 18 and 24 months from the start of their graduate program must complete the Candidacy Examination within 36 months of their program start date.
Preparation for the Candidacy Examination
8 - 10 weeks prior to exam
The Student:
- seeks advice on the content of their proposed Project and Summary.
The Supervisor:
- determines tentative availability of the committee members and potential University examiners.
- submits the name of the University examiner to the Director of Graduate Studies for approval.
7 weeks prior to exam
The Student:
- submits a one page outline of the research topic to the supervisory committee members for approval.
The Graduate Program Administrator (GPA):
- facilitates completion of forms to specify the date of the exam, the composition of the Candidacy Examination committee and completion of the candidacy examination timeline form.
6 weeks prior to exam
The Student:
- the student is given the green light to proceed to the full proposal.
- has four weeks from this date to prepare the full proposal.
The Supervisor:
- informs the student, Director of Graduate Studies, and Graduate Program Administrator, that the Proposal Summary has been approved.
3 weeks prior to exam
The GPA: submits the 'Notice Of Examining Committee & Examination' form to GPS.2 weeks prior to exam
The Student: submits a completed proposal to the committee and the Graduate Program Administrator four weeks after the start of the proposal preparation.
Exam Day
The Student:
- gives a 20 minute presentation outlining their proposal.
- answers the questions from each committee member in turn.
The Supervisory Committee:
- discusses the outcome in the absence of the student.
- appropriate forms are signed.
Steps in the Candidacy Research Proposal Process
There are five distinct steps in the process and each of these involves the student, and Supervisor, with additional support from the Supervisory Committee, the Director of Graduate Studies, the Graduate Program Administrator, and finally the Candidacy Examination Committee. If everything proceeds according to schedule, the entire process should take 7 weeks to complete, and every effort should be made to ensure that the process does not extend beyond 9 weeks. It is the Supervisor’s responsibility – not the student’s – to ensure adequate time for scheduling examinations.
1. Pre-approval Stage: 1-Page Proposal Summary
- Initiation: The process begins with the student preparing a 1-page Proposal Summary, which outlines the key aspects of their proposed research. The summary must include: title, hypothesis(es), background, research goals, methods, and expected outcomes (details in the Calendar).
- Iterative Feedback: The student submits the 1-page Proposal Summary to their Supervisory Committee. The committee has 1 week to review the Proposal Summary. This is an iterative stage, where the student will receive feedback and be asked to revise the summary until the committee agrees that it represents a project of appropriate scope and significance.
- Approval: Once the Supervisory Committee approves the Proposal Summary, the student is given the green light to proceed to the full proposal. This approval is communicated to the Director of Graduate Studies and Graduate Program Administrator who will facilitate completion of forms to specify the date of the exam, the composition of the Candidacy Examination Committee (See GPS Size and Composition of Examining Committees), and completion of the Candidacy Examination Timeline
2. Development of the Full Candidacy Research Proposal
- Timeline: The student has 4-weeks from the approval of the 1-page Proposal Summary to write and submit the full Candidacy Research Proposal. This document should expand on the approved summary and must include a detailed description of the research problem, relevant background information, experimental design, and methods.
- Format: Detailed formatting guidelines are available in the University Calendar. In summary, the proposal should not exceed 10 pages, with and additional allowance of up to 5 pages for tables and figures. A complete list of references must be included; there is no page limit for the references section.
3. Review by the Candidacy Examination Committee
- Evaluation: Upon submission, the Candidacy Examination Committee will have 2 weeks to review the full proposal. During this period, the committee will assess the candidate’s creativity, critical thinking, experimental design, and the potential impact of the proposed research.
- Preparation for the Examination: The Graduate Program Administrator will arrange the oral examination, ensuring that all required forms are submitted at least 3 weeks prior to the exam date.
4. Oral Presentation and Defense
This part of the process is chaired by a member of the Neuroscience Graduate Program Committee, selected in collaboration with the Graduate Program Administrator. The examination will begin with a review of the student's progress, including coursework, awards, publications, and presentations. The student's supervisor is responsible for providing this review, ensuring that the student's achievements and progress are clearly communicated to the examination committee.
- Presentation: The student will deliver a 20-minute oral presentation summarizing their Candidacy Research Proposal.
- Defense: Following the presentation, the student will undergo an oral defense, where they will respond to questions from the Candidacy Examination Committee. The questions will focus on the proposal’s content, the rationale behind the experimental design, and the student’s broader understanding of the research field.
5. Outcomes and Designation as a PhD Candidate
The details for outcomes of a Doctoral Candidacy Examination are set by GPS and are available in the University Calendar.
- Pass: Upon passing the Candidacy Examination, the student is formally designated as a “PhD Candidate”, signifying their readiness to pursue and complete their doctoral research.
- Conditional Pass
- Adjourned
- Fail and repeat the candidacy
- Fail with a recommendation to terminate the doctoral program or for a change of category to a master’s program.
Further Details
The examining committee consists of the ex-officio examiners and either one university examiner or one specialized knowledge examiner.
The ex officio members of the committee are the supervisor(s) and the supervisory committee members.
A university examiner is a member of the University of Alberta community who is knowledgeable in the field and comes fresh to the examination. They must not be (or have been) a member of the supervisory committee, or have been connected with the thesis research in a significant way. The examiner should not have been associated with the student, outside of usual contact in courses or other non-thesis activities within the University, nor be related to the student or supervisor(s). Eligible University of Alberta community members include current or retired Academic Staff members, Academic Colleagues, Postdoctoral Fellows, or Executive Members/Academic Administrators who will be appointed or re-appointed as Academic Faculty members on the conclusion of their term (current or retired categories A, B, C, D, and E, as defined in the University of Alberta’s Recruitment Policy (Appendix A) Definition and Categories of Academic Staff and Colleagues).A university examiner should not be a former supervisor or student of the supervisor(s). Except in special circumstances (fully justified in writing to the Dean of the department’s Faculty), a university examiner should not be an active collaborator of the supervisor(s) (see Conflict of Interest Guidelines).University examiners who have served on a student’s candidacy examination committee are eligible to serve on the student’s doctoral final examination committee if the other conditions of being a university examiner remain unchanged.
A specialized knowledge examiner is a person who has knowledge or professional expertise that is relevant to the thesis research (such as a health practitioner or an Indigenous community member) and does not have a full-time academic appointment at a university that confers graduate degrees. A specialized knowledge examiner comes fresh to the examination. They must not be (or have been) a member of the supervisory committee, or have been connected with the thesis research in any way. The examiner should not have a close personal association with the student or the supervisor. Except in special circumstances (fully justified in writing to the Dean of the department’s Faculty), a specialized knowledge examiner should not be an active collaborator of the supervisor(s) (see Conflict of Interest Guidelines).
At least half of the examiners must hold a doctoral degree or higher.
The chair is not an examiner. The chair is a member of the NGPC who is not the supervisor and is appointed by the GPA.
The exam chair will be appointed by the NMHI office from among the members of the NMHI graduate committee.
- A cover page with the title of the proposal, the student's name, date time and location of the exam.
- a 1-page research summary (updated from the original 1-page proposal Summary submitted for pre-approval).
- The research proposal can be no longer than 10 pages. Up to 5 additional pages can be included for Tables and Figures.
- A complete list of citations with titles (this is not included within the 10-page limit).
Formatting Guidelines:
- Use 8.5" x 11" page format.
- All margins should be set ar 2 cm (top, bottom, left and right).
- Text should be single-spaced 12-point Times New Roman font, allowing for 48 lines per page.
- Condensed fonts or line spacing are not permitted.
- Page numbers must be clearly displayed at the bottom of each page.
- Any text exceeding the specified limits will be ignored, except for references.
- Tables and Figures should be legible when viewed at 100%.
If the Examining Committee fails to reach a decision, the department will refer the matter to the Dean, GPS, who will determine an appropriate course of action.
When the decision is Conditional Pass or Fail, chairs may refer to the decision process flowchart found on the GPS website.
Adjourned: A majority of examiners must agree to an outcome of Adjourned. The candidacy examination should be adjourned in the event of compelling, extraordinary circumstances such as a sudden medical emergency taking place during the examination or possible offences under the Code of Student Behaviour after the examination has started.
Pass: All or all but one of the examiners must agree to an outcome of Pass. If the student passes the candidacy examination, the department should complete the Report of Completion of Candidacy Examination form and submit it to the GPS.
Conditional Pass: A Conditional Pass is appropriate when the student has satisfied the committee in all but a very discrete area of deficiency that can be addressed through a reasonable requirement (e.g., coursework, literature review, upgrading of writing skills). Reworking of the entire candidacy proposal is not an acceptable condition and the examiners should consider the options available for a student that has failed the examination.
A majority of examiners must agree to an outcome of Conditional Pass. If the candidacy examining committee agrees to a conditional pass for the student, the chair of the examining committee will provide in writing within five working days to the Dean, GPS, the graduate coordinator and the student:
- the reasons for this recommendation,
- the details of the conditions,
- the timeframe for the student to meet the conditions, but which should be no less than six weeks and no more than six months.
- the approval mechanism for meeting the conditions (e.g., approval of the committee chair or supervisor, or approval of the entire committee, or select members of the committee), and
- the supervision and assistance the student can expect to receive from committee members
Conditions are subject to final approval by the Dean, GPS. At the deadline specified for meeting the conditions, two outcomes are possible:
- All the conditions have been met. In this case, the department will complete the Report of Completion of Candidacy Examination form and submit it to the GPS; or
- If the conditions are not met by the deadline, the outcome of the examination is a fail and the committee must be reconvened to make the recommendation as described in the following section.
Fail: All or all but one of the examiners must agree to an outcome of Fail.
The options available to the examining committee when the outcome of a student’s candidacy exam is “Fail” are
Repeat the Candidacy: Repeating the Candidacy is not an option after a second failed examination. A majority of examiners must agree to an outcome of Fail and Repeat the Candidacy. If the student’s first candidacy exam performance was inadequate but the student’s performance and work completed to date indicate that the student has the potential to perform at the doctoral level, the examining committee should consider the possibility of recommending that the student be given an opportunity to repeat the candidacy exam. Normally, the composition of the examining committee does not change for the repeat candidacy exam.
If the recommendation of a repeat candidacy is formulated by the examining committee and approved by the GPS, the student and graduate coordinator are to be notified in writing of the student’s exam deficiencies by the chair of the examining committee. The second candidacy exam is to be scheduled no later than six months from the date of the first candidacy. In the event that the student fails the second candidacy, the examining committee shall recommend one of the following two options to the department:
Change of Category to a Master’s Program: All or all but one of the examiners must agree to an outcome of Fail and Change of Category to a Master’s Program. This outcome should be considered if the student’s candidacy examination performance was inadequate and the student’s performance and work completed to date indicates that the student has the potential to complete a master’s, but not a doctoral, program; or
Termination of the Doctoral Program: All or all but one of the examiners must agree to an outcome of Fail and Terminate the Doctoral Program. If the student’s performance was inadequate, and the work completed during the program is considered inadequate, then the examining committee should recommend termination of the student’s program.
If the candidacy examining committee agrees that the student has failed, the committee chair will provide the reasons and the recommendation for the student’s program to the department. The Graduate Program Director will then provide this report, together with the NMHI’s recommendation for the student’s program, to the Dean, GPS, and to the student.
For failed candidacy examinations, an Associate Dean, GPS, normally arranges to meet with the student (and others as required) before acting upon any department recommendation.