✒︎

General Principles and Criteria for the Mid-Term Evaluation Conducted at the Doctoral School of Languages and Literatures

Applicable disciplines: Linguistics, Literary Studies, Polish Studies

Mid-term evaluation committees at the Doctoral School of Languages and Literatures are appointed in accordance with the Act on Higher Education and Science.

Article 202(3)

“Mid-term evaluation is conducted by a committee composed of three members, including at least one person holding the degree of doktor habilitowany or the title of professor in the discipline in which the doctoral dissertation is being prepared, employed outside the entity running the doctoral school, or a person referred to in Article 190(5). The supervisor and the auxiliary supervisor may not be members of the committee.”

The committee therefore consists of three experts. A representative of the Adam Mickiewicz University Doctoral Students’ Self-Government may participate in the committee meetings as an observer. This rule is specified in the Regulations of the Doctoral Schools of Adam Mickiewicz University, as are the remaining principles and criteria listed below (§21 of the Regulations).

What does the mid-term evaluation cover?

With reference to the submitted Individual Research Plan, the evaluation covers in particular:

  1. progress in the preparation of the doctoral dissertation;
  2. research activity, including scientific publications, conference presentations, and grant applications.

What do the mid-term evaluation criteria concern?

The criteria for the mid-term evaluation concern the following aspects of the doctoral candidate’s academic achievements:

  1. the stage of advancement of work on the research material forming the basis of the doctoral dissertation (completed archival or literature searches, empirical research conducted, compiled primary and secondary bibliography, completed case studies, etc.);
  2. measurable outcomes of work on the doctoral dissertation, such as a dissertation outline, completed chapters or coherent sections of the dissertation, as well as articles published or prepared for publication that will constitute the doctoral dissertation in the form of a series of articles or remain closely related to its topic;
  3. the theoretical foundations of the research problem, methodological awareness, and familiarity with relevant scholarly traditions and contemporary research contexts;
  4. skills related to the analysis of research material, the construction of academic argumentation, and academic writing and editing;
  5. the doctoral candidate’s scholarly achievements accumulated during the evaluation period, including publications, research projects and submitted grant applications, and participation in research teams;
  6. experience resulting from the doctoral candidate’s individual educational pathway, including teaching experience;
  7. other achievements, where applicable (e.g. participation in the organisation of academic conferences and cultural events, science communication and outreach activities, involvement in doctoral student self-government, or initiating doctoral research initiatives).

What constitutes the basis for the evaluation?

The basis for the committee’s mid-term evaluation consists of:

  1. the Individual Research Plan;
  2. a self-report prepared by the doctoral candidate;
  3. documentation confirming the progress of work on the doctoral dissertation;
  4. documentation (portfolio) of academic achievements;
  5. the supervisor’s opinion;
  6. an interview with the doctoral candidate.

Result of the mid-term evaluation

A record of the mid-term evaluation proceedings is prepared by the committee and signed by all its members. The result of the mid-term evaluation is determined during a closed session, without the presence of the doctoral candidate. Committee decisions are made by a simple majority vote.

The mid-term evaluation results in either a positive or negative outcome. The result of the evaluation, together with its justification, is public. A member of the committee has the right to submit a written dissenting opinion together with its justification.