University of Sheffield

Department of Computer Science

4. Thesis Committees and Assessment

Your committee will consist of your supervisor, an advisor and a chair. The advisor will generally be a member of the academic staff from your own research group, and will be someone to whom you can turn for additional research advice. The chair will be a (usually senior) person from a different research group. These people will be chosen for you by your supervisor but you can approach first your committee chair and then the RS Tutor if, for good reason, you want to make changes.

The committee has responsibility for guiding your research and assessing your progress. It will meet with you formally every 6 months. Your supervisor has responsibility for arranging this but you have the right to call additional meetings if you feel they are necessary. For each committee meeting (except the first) you must provide written input, in consultation with your supervisor. What is required in these documents varies from meeting to meeting and is summarised below. After each meeting, your committee will generate a short report (using the form which is appended to this document), which will be lodged in your file (The RS secretary keeps these) and copied to you. In addition, you should keep in informal contact with your advisor and chair.

Upgrading to Ph.D.

Guidelines for Thesis Committee Meetings

Initial Meeting (1 month)

nothing required.

• Has the student settled in properly:
• is academic and financial registration sorted out?
• has the student found suitable living accommodation?
• does the student have appropriate departmental access, lab space and computing resources?
• Has the student found her/his way around the departmental network?
• Is the student's RTP programme decided and underway?
• Has the research topic area been identified and a suitable plan for exploring this area been produced?

Input

• Summary of activities in this period
• Literature review: this need not be complete but should at least contain notes on work already reviewed and a bibliography of work still to be read.
• Plan for the next period.
• Outline longer-term plan.
• Summary of work done for Computer Science RTP modules (see section 5.

• Has the student made a satisfactory start to her/his research?
• Does the literature review demonstrate understanding?
• Is the next period planned out?
• Is the long-term direction of the research firming up?
• What RTP credits should be awarded? What RTP work remains?

Input

• Transferreport:

• A transfer report should be 100 pages long at most, but may be much shorter. Average is about 50 pages.
• The report should include a detailed discussion of research conducted to date with problems encountered, and a critical review and survey of the essential background literature is also required at this stage.
• The report should also explain the particular problems you will address in the thesis, together with comments on their origin, and the theoretical and practical constraints on solutions.
• Your programme of research for the following two years should set out milestones (short-term objectives) and resource requirements.
• You should, if possible, give your supervisor the opportunity to comment on an early draft of the document.
• Good transfer reports are sometimes published as internal departmental research memoranda.
• There is an annual prize for the best report.
• Summary of work done for Computer Science RTP modules (see section 5).

To recommend a transfer to Ph.D. , the thesis committee must be satisfied that you
• understand your chosen research field to the state-of-the-art,
• have identified a suitable topic of research within that field,
• have a sensible plan of work for that topic,
• are able to explain (i)-(iii) verbally and in writing, and
• and hence have demonstrated the potential for making an original contribution to knowledge.
The following notes guide the thesis committee on the transfer report and its examination:

The advisor should read the report and prepare questions. Post-it notes are recommended for typos and comments on points that will not require discussion. Questions should address the following:
• Does the candidate understand the field?
• Is the candidate up to date with references, research surveyed etc.?
• Has the candidate reviewed the field competently, including alternative approaches to those in the research group?
• Is the plan of work capable of being carried out in the time available by this candidate?
• Can the "original contribution to knowledge" required for a Ph.D. be identified (even if not yet produced)?
• Can a method be set out for assessing the success of the work, when it has been done?
The Chair should give the candidate the opportunity to present the report for ten minutes or so before questions begin. The Chair should also inquire whether the candidate is in touch with, or using, other standard scholarly mechanisms: contact with other researchers, membership of news groups, use of bulletin boards, conference or workshop/summer school attendance (past or planned). It is the Chair's responsibility to obtain the consensus of the committee when the student leaves, and to communicate the result to the student.

The committee may decide that amendments are necessary to the transfer report, or that further work needs to be done. In this case, written instructions should be given to the candidate and a schedule and mechanism for assessing the revised report should be agreed.

If the transfer is approved, it is the supervisor's responsibility to ensure that the necessary paperwork is done.

What RTP credits should be awarded? What RTP work remains?

Input

• Summary of activities in this period, and how they relate to the plan produced at the end of the last period.
• Plan for the next period.
• Outline longer-term plan.

• Is the Ph.D. transfer completed?
• Is the RTP wrapped up?
• Is the work progressing satisfactorily beyond the Ph.D. transfer stage?
• Have the goals been modified? Do they still make sense?
• Is the student active in the research community (through conferences, contacts with other groups and so on?
• What plans are there for publication?

Input

• Summary of activities in this period, and how they relate to the plan produced at the end of the last period.
• Plan for the next period.
• Outline longer-term plan.
• Outline thesis structure

• Is the scope of the work to be presented in the thesis now clear?
• How much experimental work has been done? How much remains to be done?
• Are there any critical questions which have not yet been addressed?
• Is the shape of the thesis becoming clear?

Input

• Summary of activities in this period, and how they relate to the plan produced at the end of the last period.
• Plan for the remaining time.
• First thesis draft (this will probably be sketchy but you should have started writing)

• Is there experimental work remaining to be done? If so, is it planned out and is its place in the thesis clear?
• Can the 'punch line' of the thesis be identified and how is it to be substantiated?
• Is thesis writing seriously underway?
• What is the expected submission date?

Input

Second thesis draft (it should be nearly all written by now).

• What is the state of the thesis? Does it need strengthening?
• Is there any remaining experimental work?
• Has an external examiner been appointed?