Comprehensive Exam, Research Prospectus and Candidacy

Comprehensive Examination / Completion of PLAN 602

All doctoral students formally qualify to proceed with their thesis research on successful completion of (a) one comprehensive examination (substantive knowledge), and (b) completion of PLAN 602 (Advanced Planning Theory) with a minimum grade of A-. The purpose of these two exercises is to provide an opportunity for the student to demonstrate his/her mastery of: (a) substantive knowledge (including theory, cases, policy) and research methods in his/her chosen research field, and (b) planning theory relevant to his/her research interests. In effect, PLAN 602 and the comprehensive exam provide Ph.D. candidates with the knowledge necessary to define and "locate" their own research foci relative to the rest of the discipline.

Comprehensive Exam: The comprehensive exam takes the form of a bibliographic and discursive essay and oral. The essay should contain a comprehensive critique of the essential literature. That is, it should identify, discuss, and evaluate key issues, ideas, and paradigms relevant to the subject of the examination. The essay should also include an annotated bibliography covering those readings from the literature that the student found most stimulating in formulating his/her ideas. The examiners may require that specific titles be included.

The examiners are all the members of the Supervisory Committee. In consultation with the student, the examiners will agree on the breadth and depth of the essay taking into account the candidate's specific research interests. At least four (4) months before the essay is due, the examiners will approve terms of reference for the essay and a copy, signed by the student and approved by the Ph.D. Program Chair, will be placed in the student's file. Draft terms of reference will be developed by the student in consultation with the examiners and the final agreement will include: (a) a goal statement or research question; (b) a definition of the breadth and depth of the literatures to be included; (c) a reading list including any required items; (d) a preliminary table of contents for the essay; and (e) a schedule for completion of the essay.

A typical candidate can reasonably expect to submit the completed essay toward the end of his/her second academic year (that is, approximately 18 months after first registration in the program). Thus, all course work, directed studies, etc., should be regarded as part of the preparation process and, whenever practical, should be used with this explicit purpose in mind. Students are encouraged to design the content of the essay so that it contributes toward the development of the Research Prospectus and ultimately the thesis document. In drafting the essay, candidates are advised to consult with their examiners.

When a complete draft is submitted, it will be read by the examiners in preparation for an oral at which the essay will be discussed with the candidate. To pass the comprehensive examination the content of the essay is expected to meet the standards of research publishable in refereed articles or book chapters. While the essay need not be in any specific publication format and cannot meet tight length constraints, candidates are strongly encouraged to develop the essay with early publication in mind.

In the event that a comprehensive essay is found to be unsatisfactory, a supplementary closed-book, written examination may be permitted or required at the discretion of the examiners. In this examination, the student may be asked to expand on points omitted from, or inadequately addressed in, the essay and to apply these to some specific problem context. Up to four hours will be permitted for such supplementary examinations.

The designated examiners determine the result of each comprehensive examination (essay, oral and any supplementary examination). The possibilities are: pass, pass subject to specified conditions, fail. Decisions are made by consensus or, if necessary, by voting with at least 60% of the examiners needing to vote in favour for a pass. At the discretion of the Director (on the advice of the Research Supervisor and Ph.D. Program Chair), a student may be permitted to rewrite a failed essay or supplementary examination.

Except in extraordinary circumstances, students who perform unsatisfactorily in a comprehensive examination a second time will be required to withdraw from the program. This decision will be made by the Director, in consultation with the Research Supervisor and Ph.D. Program Chair.

PLAN 602 (Advanced Planning Theory): The requirement for passing the Planning Theory component of the PhD program is completion of PLAN 602 with a minimum grade of A-. If a student fails to achieve A- in PLAN 602, a make-up exam will be arranged. Should a student fail to achieve A- in the make-up exam, she/he will be asked to withdraw from the PhD program.

Students who do not have a Masters in Planning and/or have not taken an Intro to Planning Theory will be required to audit Plan 502 in their first semester of the doctoral program.

Research Prospectus and Oral Defense

SCARP assumes that all PhD students are engaged in developing their research ideas from the time of first registration in the program. [As of academic year 2002-2003, the PhD Colloquium will also be primarily devoted to developing research ideas] As part of this preparation, each student is required to prepare a formal thesis research prospectus in consultation with his/her Committee. This proposal must be approved by an examining committee in an oral defense before the student can proceed to the full-time research phase of the program.

The Prospectus Document

This will typically be between 10,000-15,000 words and will address the theoretical framework, key research questions, and methodologies that will be used, as well as a brief literature review that positions the candidate in her/his chosen field. The document should also explain what contribution to knowledge is expected to come from this study; and have a time-line for completion of the proposed research and writing. It is the responsibility of the Supervisory Committee to ensure that the Prospectus Document reflects PhD level work.

The Prospectus Oral Defense

The Supervisory Committee and the candidate must reach an explicit consensus that this Prospectus document and the candidate are ready to proceed to the defense. It is the responsibility of the Chair of the PhD Program to check with the candidate and the Senior Supervisor that this consensus has been reached. [The candidate should be aware, however, that the Committee’s support for proceeding to the Defense should not be taken as prejudging the outcome of the exam.]

It is the responsibility of the Supervisor to ensure that there has been adequate communication among all members of the Supervisory Committee concerning the Prospectus Document, before the Defense is scheduled.

The Oral Defense is a public exam. There must be a notice period of at least ten working days in advance, and the Prospectus should be available to members of the Examining Committee at least ten working days in advance of the exam. It is the joint responsibility of the Supervisor and the PhD Chair to schedule the date and place for the Defense. Details of the defense should be forwarded to the PhD Secretary.

The Examining Committee consists of all members of the Supervisory Committee, plus one external examiner, who may be from SCARP, or from any other School or Department at UBC, and who should be chosen for their knowledge of the proposed research field. It is the responsibility of the Supervisor, in consultation with the candidate and the PhD Chair, to choose the external examiner.

The external examiner should be provided with the Comprehensive Exam Paper as well as the Prospectus, at least ten working days before the exam, so that they are properly informed of the degree to which this paper supports the Prospectus. This is the candidate’s responsibility.

No Oral Defense should be scheduled unless all members of the Supervisory Committee can be present. In exceptional circumstances, (for example, illness, or when a Committee member is out of the country for an extended period on sabbatical), the exam may proceed with one absent member, but that person should provide written comments and questions on the Prospectus to the Supervisor and the PhD Chair.

Conduct of the Oral Defense

The Defense is chaired by the PhD Program Chair, except when the Chair is also a member of the Supervisory Committee, in which case another member of the SCARP faculty will be asked to chair the exam.

The Exam begins with a 20-minute presentation by the candidate, and is followed by questions from, in order, the External Examiner, the Committee members, then the Senior Supervisor. After they have finished their questioning, and if there is still time remaining, members of the audience may ask questions. The duration of the Defense is a maximum of 2 hours, after which the Examining Committee deliberates in camera.

When a decision is reached, the Supervisor will verbally inform the candidate immediately. The Chair of the exam will prepare a written report of the Exam and its outcome no more than one week after the Exam, which will be sent to the Director of SCARP and to the candidate, and will be placed in the student’s file.

It is the responsibility of the Supervisory Committee and the external examiner to determine the result of the exam, under the guidance of the PhD or Exam Chair. The possibilities are Pass, Pass subject to specified revisions, and Fail.

The Examining Committee can arrive at a consensus decision, or, if necessary, by voting, in which case all except one must approve the Prospectus in order for a pass to be granted.

The option of ‘Pass subject to specified revisions’ is intended to apply only to situations where the revisions are relatively minor and can be readily specified at the time of the Exam deliberation. If the Exam Committee considers that there are serious conceptual or methodological weaknesses, the only option is Fail.

In the event that there is an absent member of the Supervisory Committee, their view should be brought forward in the form of questions to the candidate by the Supervisor. The absent member’s views will not, however, be taken into account in the event of a formal vote to reach a decision.

At the discretion of the Director (on the advice of the Supervisor and PhD Chair), a student may be permitted to re-take an Oral Defense that has received a Fail grade.

Except in extraordinary circumstances, students who fail an Oral Defense a second time will be required to withdraw from the Program. This decision will be made by the Director, in consultation with the Supervisor and PhD Chair.

The Director should not serve as External Examiner for any Prospectus Defense (to avoid compromising the role of the Director as final SCARP arbiter in any appeal).

The Chair of the Exam does not have a vote in the outcome. The Chair’s role is to conduct the proceedings smoothly, but not to comment or take part in discussions, except where matters of procedure are raised.

It is the responsibility of the Chair to ensure that all members of the Examining Committee are familiar with the above regulations and procedures.

It is the responsibility of the Chair to make sure that any examiner who is not one of the SCARP faculty receives a copy of our PhD policies and procedures, including the procedure for this Exam.

To be awarded a Pass for the Oral Defense, a student must satisfy the Exam Committee that they are adequately prepared to begin their Thesis research. This means demonstrating a grasp of the relevant literatures, theoretical and empirical, pertaining to their field, as well as the relevant research methodologies. This preparedness will be demonstrated in both the Prospectus Document and in the student’s answers to reasonable questions raised in the Oral Defense.

Candidacy

The basic requirements for the status of "Admitted to Candidacy" are:

All required course work successfully completed.

Two comprehensive examinations (theory and substantive) successfully completed.

Completion of a thesis research prospectus that has been successfully defended and accepted.

Completion of a two-year residency as a full-time student in the Ph.D. program.

Candidacy requirements should normally be completed within the first twenty-four months in the program and, in any case, within the 36-month limit established by the Faculty of Graduate Studies.

The student's Research Supervisor is required to confirm in writing when each requirement is met. When all requirements are complete, the Chair of the Ph.D. Program will recommend that the Director recommend to the Faculty of Graduate Studies that the student be Admitted to Candidacy. Upon acceptance, Candidacy status is then entered on the student's Program Record Form and on the Student Information System.