PhD preliminary exam process
Written portion of the exam
PhD students submit a research paper they have prepared since enrolling in the HCDE doctoral program and a one-page, self-reflective analysis of that work to the PhD Program Director and Director of Academic Services, which is then shared with a select group of faculty reviewers prior to the oral exam. Reviewers may read the paper and analysis before or after the presentation, so, for purposes of the presentation, students should not assume that all audience members will have read the paper.
Research Paper Requirements
The submitted paper should be a complete or well-developed version of an academic research paper (suitable for submission to a peer-review journal or conference), featuring research that the student made a significant contribution to during their time in the HCDE program. The paper may be published, submitted, or still under development but at a mature enough state for presentation and feedback. The paper should follow an academic format and include: (1) a motivation (for why the topic matters), (2) a literature review (detailing other work in the area and highlighting open questions), (3) research questions, (4) methods of analysis (including data, instruments, and procedures), (5) findings (at least preliminary findings), and (6) a discussion and/or conclusion. Paper length may vary, but should be approximately 10-20 pages (5000-10000 words) with figures and references included.
Reflection Requirements
Students should submit a 1-2 page reflection reflecting upon the research featured in the paper, describing the state of the research (published, submitted to an external venue, in revision, still in development, etc.), and detailing their specific contributions to the research featured in the paper. This latter element is especially important if the research featured in the submitted paper is collaborative.
Oral presentation
The oral part of the Preliminary Exam will include a public presentation (16-minutes in length) of the research work in the submitted paper and a discussion of the paper during a question-and-answer session with audience members (9-minutes in length). The oral presentation part of the Preliminary Exam is open to the public.
Reviews and advisor/mentor context
At least two faculty who did not collaborate on the research will be assigned as reviewers. Reviews shall be conducted according to the criteria for evaluation and shall individually recommend one of the three outcomes (pass, master’s pass, fail). Reviews recommending a master’s pass or fail should indicate what would be required to pass.
Student peer reviewers provide feedback on the oral presentation, which is shared with the GPC and presenter. Peer reviewers do not recommend an individual rating, but their feedback may be taken into account in the overall evaluation.
As part of the review, the student’s advisor (if named) or other HCDE faculty engaged in the research are encouraged to submit up to a one page contextual statement about the student’s contributions to the research and providing context on the research, presentation, and paper relative to the criteria for evaluating the prelims.
Any other HCDE faculty member with endorsement to chair may also submit written feedback (situated according to the evaluation criteria) as feedback to the student and/or confidential feedback to the committee.
In the event that reviewers do not all agree on a pass outcome, the GPC shall convene a conversation among reviewers to recommend an outcome and any requirements for revision. If reviewers cannot reach consensus, the GPC will refer the matter to the PhD program committee.
The PhD program committee may also solicit peer evaluations. These are meant as feedback for the student and will not be used as part of the formal review process.
Results
Students will be informed of exam results by the end of the academic term the exam took place. Students who do not pass the Preliminary Exam for PhD study may submit revisions as agreed upon by reviewers, mentors, and the PhD program committee or take the exam one more time, within six months of an unsuccessful first exam. If the student does not complete passing revisions or successfully retake the exam within six months, they can either proceed to finish with a terminal Master's degree (in the case of a master’s pass) or exit the program without a degree (in the case of a failed Preliminary Exam).
The criteria for evaluation for the Preliminary Exam are based on the research, the paper/analysis, and the presentation.
Timing
The department will organize prelims twice per year: autumn quarter and spring quarter, and may organize prelims on multiple dates in each of these quarters.
Students should pass their prelims by the end of autumn quarter of their second year in the program or the end of their fourth quarter of enrollment in the HCDE PhD program (whichever is later). By mutual agreement, students, faculty mentors (at least one HCDE faculty member with endorsement to chair), the GPC (or their designate), and GPA may extend this deadline to spring quarter of the student’s second year or sixth quarter in the HCDE PhD program (whichever is later).
For any student who has not earned a pass on the preliminary exam by this deadline (i.e., those who have earned a master's pass, failed the exam, or not taken the exam), the GPC and GPA shall initiate a review process. This review will include the student’s advisor(s) (if named), student’s first-year faculty mentors, and members of the PhD program committee. The student may request additional HCDE faculty with endorsement to chair, be included in this process, e.g., if they have begun working with additional mentors since rotations. Outcomes of this review follow the Annual Review and Continuation Policy progress ratings and will be issued to the student in the following quarter:
- Remaining in good standing and extending the deadline, e.g., if the student and faculty mentors agree that a longer timeline is appropriate for the student and/or scholarship
- Notification/ Interim Check-In: e.g., if there is a mentorship plan in place and a plan for the prelims (or revisions), but concern about the timeline
- Academic Alert, e.g., if there is a mentorship plan in place but not a clear plan for the prelims (or revisions), or vice versa
- Final Academic Alert, e.g., if there is no mentorship plan in place and no credible plan for prelims (or revisions)
Unless the recommendation is good standing and a deadline extension, the student shall be reviewed quarterly until they return to good standing or exit the program.
Any student who has not earned a pass (not a master’s pass) by the end of spring quarter of their second year in the program, or their sixth quarter in the program (whichever is later), will be dropped from the program unless the student, their HCDE faculty mentor(s), and the GPC or their designate has determined that a longer timeline is appropriate for the student and/or scholarship.
For more information about these statuses, please see the HCDE PhD Student Continuation Policy and UW Graduate School Policy 3.7 on Academic Performance and Progress. Please be aware that academic alert and final academic alert statuses have implications for the HCDE funding guarantee.