���˴�Ƭ

Students should consult with their supervisor(s) about course selection. All doctoral students are expected to take CUST 902 (Cultural Studies Colloquium) and 4 one-term (3.0 unit) graduate courses in Year 1, including CUST 803 and at least one other CUST course. Other courses may be within CUST or selected from graduate courses taught in various units across the university. It is our hope that some courses and assignments will serve to broaden students’ knowledge, while others will lead in a more focused way towards the Qualifying Exam and thesis/project work.

*Doctoral students with a Queen's MA in Cultural Studies need only take two one-term courses, plus CUST 902.

In April, Year 1 students gather at the Thesis Springboard event and present to each other a reflection on what they initially proposed to do for the PhD and how coursework or other factors may have shifted or deepened those plans; shortly following this they meet with their supervisor to update/discuss the PhD project and process. 

Following this event, they use  (Thesis Map) to sketch their current understanding of their PhD project, via no more than a 150 words each on Research Questions, Methodology, Theory, Materials, Format (including provisional list of proposed elements or chapters), and Initial Ideas for QE Priorities. The goal is to update the nature of the project, and to identify and distinguish between areas of strength and areas needing attention via the QE. Insofar as you are not able to fill out all text boxes fully, this is useful information for designing the QE exam and should not constitute a reason for delay. Similarly, if you do not have a complete committee, this form is a tool rather than a problem as it will help your supervisor identify suitable colleagues to support the work. 

These two components, the Thesis Springboard and Form X, constitute the hinge between coursework and the Qualifying Exam.

Committee Basics
30 April Year 1: Confirm supervisor(s)
30 July Year 1: Confirm committee via PhD Form A
If changes desired later, resubmit PhD Form A

In April of Year 1, through the "Thesis Springboard" process, all students revisit the PhD thesis or project they proposed upon application, confirming or altering it as appropriate. This is also a time to confirm whether their initial supervisor is still the best choice. If a shift in topic or other circumstances warrant and a new supervisor is needed, the student works together with their initial supervisor and/or the Cultural Studies Director to identify a suitable replacement. A student may, with the agreement of the supervisor, seek a co-supervisor.° In consultation with their supervisor(s), and as their work comes into focus through their preparation for the Qualifying Exam, the student then invites two other faculty members to serve on their committee.* Where it is desired for a community advisor to be added to the committee, the student or supervisor should consult with the Director.‡

The Supervisory Committee should be confirmed no later than 30 August of the first year of study by submission of PhD Form A: Constitution of Supervisory Committee. This committee, barring necessary changes, will be in place for the duration of the development of the PhD thesis or project.

°Co-supervisors may be appropriate in situations where faculty members wish to work closely together in a non-hierarchical way, and/or where their roles are clearly defined and complementary. However, degree progress is often smoother with a single supervisor who is responsible for overall direction and timelines, and two committee members who take a secondary role, advising as necessary. 

*One member of the supervisory committee can be unaffiliated with Cultural Studies. That said, if a prospective member wishes to be affiliated, the process is quite straightforward: contact cs.admin@queensu.ca. 

‡ “Additional examiners” can participate during the development of the work, or join at the time of the PhD Oral Examination. It should be noted that at present only limited funding is available to support such participation, but Cultural Studies is advocating for more support.

The Qualifying Examination (QE) is designed to ground the thesis/project in relevant communities of theory and practice, and to help the student develop critical perspectives from which to make original contributions. Its focus and scope is individually tailored to the needs of the student in relation to their background and their proposed PhD research.

The QE is not a rough draft of the Thesis/Project Proposal, but rather preparation for it. It is also not a "Comprehensive" exam that asks the student to read a predetermined list or prescribed canon. It is conceived of as an opportunity to fill in gaps or to target areas where deeper knowledge is required.

The flow from courses to the QE and Thesis Proposal defense (which, formally, together comprise the “Comprehensive/Qualifying Exam” as per SGSPA regulations) takes place over a 14-month period, described in the following timeline, with more detail provided through links. This leaves 26 months for researching and writing the thesis within the funding window.

Note that SGSPA guidelines require that “the comprehensive/qualifying examination is to be held within the first two years of registration in the PhD program” and that “students must follow the timeline established by their department/program for this degree requirement” unless a formal accommodation arrangement is in place.

Timeline

**students may accelerate this process if supervisor agrees or proposes so. 

**part-time students or students who start out of phase, and their supervisors, should consult the Program Assistant or a Director to confirm adjustments to this timeline.

Students whose work will involve community collaborators must show that they have identified and communicated with appropriate participants, and they must justify their choice of participants given the theoretical, political, methodological, and practical contexts of their thesis or project. Research Creation students will describe how they conceive the relationship between the project and the written component. In consultation with the supervisory committee, a Research Creation dissertation proposal may integrate artistic production. If it does, the ratio between production and the written component will be discussed and determined by the committee and the length of the written component will be adjusted accordingly: that is, the production component is not to be considered over and above the written component. Students planning a Portfolio PhD will explain the rationale for this format.

*Please note that GREB (Ethics) approval can take months. Well before the proposal defense, students who are planning to conduct interviews or work in any way with individuals or communities should do the initial and consult with their supervisor and possibly the Unit REB about the appropriate timing for full GREB application.

*Students whose work includes community-based activity, performance art, etc., must indicate in their proposal how this work will be documented.

As the thesis or project proposal is approaching completion, the Supervisor schedules the proposal defense and finds a Chair for it by filling out PhD Form D. At least ten working days prior to the scheduled proposal defense, the student distributes the proposal to all committee members and the Chair. The proposal defense focuses on the relevant theoretical, methodological and substantive areas germane to the student's program. The committee assesses the student's understanding of the discipline, the viability, scope and coherence of the proposal, and the preparedness of the candidate to undertake the proposed thesis or project, and offers suggestions for refinements or changes as appropriate.

Also at the proposal defense, committee members assess the timeline and (if applicable) budget, and each committee member clarifies what they understand their consultative role to be going forward. Some discussion of plans for the student to share their work in progress (at conferences, exhibitions, etc.) is also appropriate at this time. The examination outcome is determined by majority vote, reported by the Chair via PhD Form E. In cases where the committee wishes to pass the proposal but requires a few clearly-defined changes (“Pass with Committee Directives”), the changes are documented by the Chair and effectively become part of the proposal; no re-examination is required. In cases where the committee wishes to evaluate a new version of the proposal (“Revise and Resubmit”), the basic components of the expected revision are summarized by the supervisor and emailed to the student and the Cultural Studies office within three working days. The student has one opportunity to re-write the proposal and defend the revision within two months of the first proposal examination meeting. The defense of a revised proposal can only result in a “Pass” or a “Fail.” If the student does not defend the revision within that time period, or if the outcome of the revised proposal defense is “Fail,” the committee initiates the process of recommending withdrawal on academic grounds. Such a recommendation may be appealed by the student (see SGSPA General Regulations).

Upon successful completion of the Qualifying Exam and Proposal Defense, the program administrator prepares and submits a request to the School of Graduate Studies to add the “Comprehensive Examination Completed” notation as an Academic Milestone on the student’s transcript. 

Timeline

The supervisor and committee are responsible for guiding the student on matters of scope, methodology, originality, and structure. Students are encouraged to look at other PhD dissertations and projects done in the program for an general sense of the scale, organization, and ambition expected. The evaluation and format of the final product of the PhD are governed by the School of Graduate Studies. More details on doctoral degree completion on SGSPA website.

It is up to each committee member to decide the nature of their involvement with the thesis/project. Roles of committee members are generally discussed and clarified at the proposal defense. A committee member might, for example, offer guidance on drafts of components of the project related to their expertise, and leave feedback on other components to others. It is general practice for the entire supervisory committee to be given an opportunity to read/view and “sign off on” the entire penultimate draft of the thesis/project a minimum of twelve weeks before the anticipated defense date (this timing should allow for feedback and resulting revisions before the work is submitted – as required – 25 working days before the defense date: View details on SGSPA doctoral oral thesis examinations.

As PhD work nears completion, the supervisor should (in consultation with the student) identify and invite two examiners to join the Oral Examination who have not been involved in the work’s development: one from within Queen’s (they may be CUST-affiliated or not) and one from outside Queen’s (the “external examiner,” an expert in the area from another institution). All examiners other than the Supervisor must be “arms’ length”; for definition of that see oral thesis exam form. If you are not sure how to complete this form, please refer to our Guide or contact custgrad@queensu.ca with questions. The examination is typically three hours long, and may result in

• pass (which may include minor revisions to be made following the defense),
• referral (major revisions required, possibly followed by a second examination), or
• failure (only possible if the thesis was already referred) (View SGSPA academic calendar general regulations page).

Following a successful examination, students must continue to pay tuition until an electronic copy of the thesis, in PDF format revised as requested by the Thesis Examining Committee and finally approved by the supervisor, is submitted to the School of Graduate Studies through the E-Thesis Submission process in QSpace, Queen's Research Repository.

We urge all students to return for Convocation to be congratulated by the Admin Team and your colleagues and committee. Intellectually and emotionally, the PhD is an enormous challenge; it is therefore a tremendous achievement. We are proud of each and every one of our graduates.