PhD Candidacy Examination

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).

When deemed necessary by the supervisor, one additional university examiner or specialized knowledge examiner may be appointed to the examining committee. In such cases, the examining committee consists of the ex-officio examiners and either two university examiners or one university examiner and one specialized knowledge examiner.

The examining committee does not normally include an external examiner. However, when deemed necessary by the supervisor, an external examiner may be appointed to the committee. In this case, the external examiner replaces a university examiner or a specialized knowledge examiner.

At least half of the examiners must hold a doctoral degree.

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.

During the examination the role of each examiner is to test the student's knowledge in specific topic areas previously outlined (see below) and related areas.

The student does not present the committee with a written report. The examination will begin with a review of the student's progress including course work, awards, publications and presentations. The student will then provide a 15 to 20-minute oral presentation outlining their thesis. Emphasis should be given to describing the overall goals and hypotheses being tested. Key data can be presented to emphasize progress of the thesis work and the presentation should conclude with an outline of future plans for completion of the thesis. It should be noted that during the candidacy examination only minor attention should be given to the thesis work.

The candidacy examination may result in one of the following outcomes:

• Adjourned
• Pass
• Conditional pass
• 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.

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 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.