A second-year doctoral student submitted a confirmation document of more than eighty pages: a thorough literature review, three theory chapters, and half a page of timeline. The panel asked for a resubmission. The main comment was not about knowledge but this: “It is not clear how the project will be completed in the time remaining.” A peer submitted thirty pages with a small pilot study and a clear plan, and passed straight away.
The mid-candidature milestone goes by many names: confirmation of candidature, upgrade or transfer, qualifying exam, advancement to candidacy. Its form varies between countries and institutions, but the core question is the same: can this project reach the finish line, and can this person get it there?
This is not a mini viva
The most common mistake is to prepare for confirmation like a final defence, trying to prove how much you know and how much you have done. A confirmation panel is not marking a finished product. It is assessing a plan backed by evidence: clear questions, tested methods, realistic timing.
Feasibility beats coverage. A narrow project that will clearly be finished is rated higher than a broad, ambitious one with no visible route to completion.
What panels usually assess
| Criterion | Question they ask | Evidence to provide |
|---|---|---|
| Research questions | Clear, answerable and original? | One to three concise questions; a paragraph on the gap in the literature |
| Grasp of the literature | Does the candidate know the key work and where they fit? | An argued review, not a list of summaries |
| Methods | Will the approach answer the questions, and is it feasible? | A specific design, accessible data, pilot results if any |
| Progress so far | How has the time been used? | Completed work and outputs such as drafts, data, conference papers |
| Remaining plan | Can it be done in the time left? | A quarterly timeline, clear milestones, risks and contingencies |
| Candidate skills | Does the person have the skills or a plan to acquire them? | Training completed, existing skills, development plan |
A suggested document structure
- One-page summary: the problem, questions, approach and expected contribution. Many panel members read this page most closely.
- Background and literature: enough to establish the gap; it does not need to be the thesis’s finished review chapter.
- Research questions and conceptual framework.
- Methods: design, data, analysis, ethical issues and approval status.
- Progress to date: including preliminary results or pilot work.
- Plan and risks: a quarterly timeline to submission, a provisional chapter structure, main risks and fallback options.
- Appendices: data collection instruments, draft chapters if regulations require them.
Common reasons for resubmission
- Questions that are too broad: “Explore the factors influencing…” with no limits on population, context or type of factor.
- Methods not linked to questions: analytic techniques described in detail without saying which question each answers.
- Uncertain data access: relying on an organisation that has not yet agreed to data collection.
- A plan with no risks: everything on time, no fallback if recruitment is slow or equipment fails.
- A review that is a list: studies summarised one by one without showing the gap.
The presentation and questions
Many programmes include a short presentation and questions from the panel. A few principles:
- Spend most of your time on questions, methods and plan, not the literature.
- Prepare answers to three near-certain questions: what is the original contribution; what will you do if the main approach fails; why this method rather than an alternative.
- Treat feedback as a resource: take full notes and ask for written comments if regulations allow. Confirmation feedback is often the most valuable input you receive before writing the thesis.
In practice: an eight-week preparation plan
| Week | Tasks |
|---|---|
| 8 | Read the regulations and template; ask your supervisor who will sit on the panel |
| 7 to 6 | Rewrite your research questions concisely; complete the methods section |
| 5 | Write progress and preliminary results; build the quarterly timeline and risk table |
| 4 | Write the one-page summary; send a full draft to your supervisor |
| 3 | Revise; ask a more senior doctoral student to read it as a panel member would |
| 2 | Submit the document; prepare slides |
| 1 | Rehearse the talk and a mock question session with two or three people |
After the review
Outcomes usually fall into three types: pass, pass with conditions, or re-review after a set period. Conditions are normal, not a sign of failure. Turn each requirement into a specific task with a deadline, and send it back to your supervisor and, if required, the panel with a table matching each requirement to the change you made.
If your review is a few months away, do one thing this week: write your research question as a single sentence under twenty-five words and send it to your supervisor. If the two of you do not immediately agree on that sentence, that is the first thing to resolve.
Câu hỏi thường gặp
When does the PhD confirmation review usually happen?
It depends on the programme, commonly within the first or second year for full-time students and later for part-time students. University regulations set the deadline, and many have firm cut-offs.
What happens if you fail your PhD confirmation?
In most cases you are asked to revise and be reviewed again within a set period, rather than being stopped immediately. A second unsuccessful review may lead to transfer to a research master’s or withdrawal, depending on regulations.
What goes into a confirmation document?
Typically a project summary, an argued literature review, methods, some results or a pilot study, a timeline with risks and sometimes a sample chapter. Check your department’s template.
What does a confirmation panel care about most?
Whether the project is feasible in the remaining time, whether the research questions are clear and original enough, and whether you have the skills to do it. They do not expect finished results.
Should I mention problems with my project at the review?
Yes, together with how you plan to deal with them. Panels trust a plan that identifies risks more than one that looks perfectly smooth, because every real project has risks.
