Guidelines for the General Examination

Qualifying Scholarly Paper: Written and Presented as Fulfillment of the General Examination

Purpose

The General Examination is composed of the Qualifying Scholarly Paper and oral defense. Together these evaluate the student's ability to grasp and think creatively about critical issues and questions confronting the field of social welfare and the profession of social work (which may include mastery of theory and research in selected substantive and or interventive areas), and assess his/her capacity for conducting rigorous empirical research.

Each student works closely with his/her advisor and subsequently with his/her Supervisory Committee to identify and define the questions and issues to be pursued in the student's program of study (POS) as outlined in the Individual Learning Plan (ILP). The Qualifying Scholarly Paper builds from the POS and comprises the written component of the General Examination. Presentation of the completed paper serves as the official Graduate School Oral General Examination. At some point during or after the examination process, the paper must be submitted for publication.

Through writing and presenting the Qualifying Scholarly Paper, the student demonstrates the capacity to integrate theory and research relevant to the social welfare field specified in the student’s POS. This competence is shown by articulating a significant social welfare question framed and elucidated by the most relevant social science theory and empirical research. The paper may either present a comprehensive and advanced literature review or implement an appropriate analytic procedure to extend knowledge and present and discuss the results of that inquiry. The Qualifying Scholarly Paper may build from prior learning, yet must be distinct from work that the student may have done in Research Practicum quarters or work during a research assistantship, traineeship, fellowship, or class.

The preparation and defense of the Qualifying Scholarly Paper involves four steps:

1. Submission of an outline for the paper to the Supervisory Committee (no later than spring quarter of year 2). The outline is open to revision based on negotiation with the Committee: early submission is strongly encouraged to support timely progress.
2. After Committee approval of the initial outline, work on the research and writing of the paper proceeds.
3. The finished paper is approved by all members of the Supervisory Committee and submitted to the PhD Program office with the Committee Approval form and the Qualifying Scholarly Paper evaluation form. The Program Director appoints two faculty reviewers external to the committee to review the paper and provide feedback to the student and Committee. (See next section on “Setting up and Completing the Oral Examination.”)
   On receipt of the reviewers’ feedback, the Supervisory Committee determines whether further revisions are needed or whether the student may proceed to the Oral Examination and respond to feedback in this venue. (The final version of the paper must s be printed out for the student's MRB and uploaded to the student's Share Space.)
4. The Oral General Examination is scheduled as soon as possible after the Supervisory Committee approves the final paper. (See section below on “Setting up and Completing the Oral Examination.”) [Note: Four weeks is necessary between submission of the Qualifying Paper and date of the presentation, to allow for time for review and feedback.] The Oral Exam may include a response to comments from the faculty reviewers and if appropriate, a plan on how revisions to the paper will be made based on the reviewer feedback.

If the Qualifying Scholarly Paper and Oral General Examination are not completed by the end of the summer term of the third year in the program, the student and his/her chair must submit a petition to the PhD Director providing an explanation of the circumstances of the delay and a plan for the timely completion of the paper. If this memo is not provided, or if the plan for timely completion is inadequate, the PhD Director will recommend to the PhD Steering Committee that the student be placed on academic probation. Being on probation prevents a student from holding TA/RA appointments.

1. Paper Outline

Students work closely with their Supervisory Committee in preparing the scholarly paper. The student first prepares a detailed outline of the proposed paper (3-5 pages) that must be approved by the Committee and submitted to the Program Director for inclusion in the student's official file. The outline contains the following components:

(a) brief statement of paper topic
(b) brief articulation of how the paper fits with the student’s ILP
(c) brief description of each proposed section of the paper
(d) description of the analytic approach if appropriate
(e) representative bibliography
(f) sources of data that will be used if appropriate
(g) specific journal (or journals listed in order of preference) for which the paper will be written.

Trainees in the Prevention Research Training Program must specify how their POS and paper will relate to the prevention of mental health problems or to the promotion of mental health.

If a student fails to submit an outline by the end of autumn quarter of year two, the student and his/her committee chair must submit a petition to the PhD Program Director providing an explanation for the delay and a plan of action.

2. Research and Writing of Paper

Format

The paper may be written for a social science, behavioral science, or social welfare-related journal. Early in the process (in the paper outline), the student and committee identify potential target journals (just one if appropriate) for the paper. There are different methods of structuring scholarly papers. Whatever the type of scholarly paper, it is imperative that the approach selected allow the student to display a mastery of the subject, its theoretical base and empirical foundations, and its applicability to a social welfare problem or issue.

The standard format for the type of scholarly article that the paper represents must be used. The paper is expected to be 25-40 pages in length unless the Supervisory Committee approves a shorter length in order to conform to the particular journal’s requirements noted in the submitted paper outline.

Content

The student selects the paper topic in consultation with the Supervisory Committee. The topic selected must clearly link to the POS content as presented in the ILP and demonstrate the student’s knowledge of relevant substantive, interventive, and analytic capabilities specified in the plan. [For those students supported by the NIMH funded Prevention Research Training Program, the outline and paper must relate to some aspect of health promotion, prevention of a mental health concern, or conditions that influence mental health outcomes.]

The specific topic should be significant to social welfare and may involve either a comprehensive and advanced literature review that is of publishable quality, e.g., one written for Social Service Review or Psychological Bulletin, or an empirical analysis. If the latter option is chosen, the type of analysis undertaken must be appropriate for the research topic. Whether the paper is based on original or secondary data, qualitative or quantitative methods of inquiry, or involves an experiment, survey, or case study, it must conform to accepted, rigorous methods of inquiry and analysis.

Procedures

The paper will be sole-authored by the student.
The student works with the Supervisory Committee or others who may have expertise in the subject matter in drafting the paper. A publishable paper should reflect a distillation and synthesis of knowledge; thus students will likely revise the paper many times as they gain mastery of the subject matter and work to convey that mastery succinctly.

3. Process and Evaluation Standards

All members of the Supervisory Committee approve the Qualifying Paper before the student presents it in fulfillment of the Oral General Examination and submits it for publication.

The content, quality, and format of the paper must be comparable to scholarly articles in major professional journals, as judged by student's Supervisory Committee members. The paper need not be actually accepted by a journal for satisfaction of this requirement, and acceptance by a journal is not considered sufficient evidence of meeting the standards. Not all articles published in professional journals meet the standards of a “scholarly” article, and some excellent scholarly manuscripts fail to be accepted for publication.

Evaluation and Approval

a. When the paper has been approved by the Supervisory Committee, the student submits four copies to the PhD Program Office along with the Qualifying Scholarly Paper Approval Form and Evaluation forms completed by all members of the student's Committee. (This must be submitted at least 4 weeks before the Oral Examination.)

b. The PhD Program Director, in consultation with the student and Supervisory Committee Chair, recruits two faculty reviewers who review the paper, and complete a reviewer evaluation form (sent by the PhD Program Office). [For Prevention Research Training Program trainees, at least one of these reviewers must be a Training Program faculty member.] Reviewers are instructed to evaluate the paper, making comments about it either on the manuscript or separately, complete the review form, and forward the form, comments, and manuscript to the PhD Program Director. The rating form will ask the reviewer to determine whether the paper (a) meets the requirement of a scholarly publication, (b) needs minor revisions to meet the requirement, or (c) needs major revisions to meet the requirement. The reviews are to be completed and submitted to the Committee Chair and the PhD Program Director at least 1 week before the scheduled paper presentation (Oral Exam). If the two reviewers disagree substantially on the rating, the PhD Program Director or a member of the PhD Steering Committee will serve as a third reviewer. Reviewers’ comments about the paper will be forwarded to the student and Supervisory Committee Chair. Based on the extent of the revisions recommended by reviewers, the Supervisory Committee will determine whether the student may proceed to the Oral Examination.

c. Supervisory Committee process for incorporation of reviews in decision-making:
1) Feedback re minor revisions: If the reviewers’ feedback indicates only minor revisions, the student will proceed to the Oral Examination. The oral presentation should include a response to comments from the faculty reviewers and if appropriate, development of a plan for how revisions to the paper will be made based on the reviewer feedback. Following the Oral Examination, a revised version of the paper addressing the concerns of the reviewers must be resubmitted to the PhD Director within 3 months.

2) Feedback re major revisions: If the recommendations from reviewers point to major revisions, the Committee will decide whether revisions to the paper are required before the student may proceed to the Oral Exam. If the Committee decides to require such revisions, the student must address the concerns of the reviewers and resubmit the paper to the Committee within six months. (The student will be given an automatic six-month extension in the General Exam timeline.) The student is encouraged to meet with the reviewers to discuss the revisions. Upon receiving the revised manuscript, the Committee will submit the revision to the original reviewers to reassess the paper. If the second round of reviews are generally positive, the student will proceed to the Oral Examination. If the revised submission is judged to still be inadequate , the Committee Chair will meet with the PhD Program Director to discuss the student’s progress and status in the program. If there are major concerns, the PhD Director will ask for a review of the student by the PhD Steering Committee.

4. The Oral General Examination: Defense of Qualifying Scholarly Paper

Following the successful completion of the Qualifying Scholarly Paper, an oral exam is held in which the student presents the paper to the Supervisory Committee and broader social welfare community. The oral exam has two parts:

1) An open session to which the public may be invited. Consistent with the program’s emphasis on providing opportunities for students to strengthen their skills in presenting their work, students are strongly encouraged (although not required) to invite social work faculty and students and any other relevant university colleagues to attend the presentation of the paper portion of the exam. [Note: Graduate School guidelines mandate that at least a portion of the Oral General Examination be open to the public, and the Graduate School announces it in University Week.]

2) A closed session during which there is further discussion between the Supervisory Committee and the student.

Ratings of a student's performance on both written and oral examinations shall be recorded by the Supervisory Committee chair on a School of Social Work Evaluation of General Examination form provided for this purpose. This form is retained in the student's file.

A student is permitted one retake of the oral examination. One additional retake can be scheduled with the approval of the Social Welfare Faculty (or of the Steering Committee acting on behalf of the faculty).

Scheduling and Completing the Oral Examination

The student must go online at the Graduate School website to submit the request for General Examination: http://www.grad.washington.edu/mygrad/student.htm

Before the "Request for Examination" is submitted online, the student consults all members of the Supervisory Committee, including the GSR to set the exam date and time, normally scheduled.

At least four members of the committee, including the Chair and GSR must be present. (With the exception of the GSR, any member or the student can be present by phone or video. Next, the student schedules a room for the Oral examination, usually the Dean's large conference room.

Then the Request for Examination is completed online at least 2 weeks prior to the examination date:

The PhD Program Office must be informed as soon as the request is submitted. This time period is necessary for the Program Office to check that all requirements have been met and to authorize the request online. All program requirements must be met and all incompletes in required courses resolved in the quarter in which the orals are taken. If requirements are not met, contingencies will be set that prevent awarding of PhC status until the contingencies are cleared.

The PhD Program Office prints out the warrant for the Examination and forwards it to the Supervisory Committee Chair, along with the SSW Evaluation Form. The GSR will have a form to use in monitoring the exam and must ensure that all required persons are present and that the General Examination warrant showing Graduate School approval is present at the examination.

During the public portion of the oral examination, Committee members and other members of the audience may ask the student to respond or elaborate on the paper or provide clarification of content, to respond to feedback given by the external reviewers, and to think ahead to the implications for future research and career activities. The student may be asked to elaborate on their planned dissertation research and future scholarship direction. At the end of the presentation and follow-up question and answer session, the student and audience will be excused and the Supervisory Committee will meet in a closed session to discuss judgments of the student's performance.

If the committee feels that more time is essential to render an evaluation, this time should be scheduled as soon as possible after the first session, and any second session requires the same attendance rules as the first.

After the Committee discussion, the student rejoins the committee. The Committee may then consult further privately with the student, and the Chair shares the committee's evaluation with the student.

Evaluation of the Oral Examination

The committee rates the student's overall performance as (1) pass with distinction, (2) pass, (3) marginal pass, or (4) fail. In the event a student fails the oral exam, or any part thereof, the committee will reschedule another oral exam at an appropriate time. (A pass with distinction is only noted on the SSW evaluation form and can only be given after the first taking of examinations. If there are sections to be repeated, the performance can be rated no higher than pass).

Ratings of the student's performance on both the Qualifying Scholarly Paper and oral examination shall be recorded by the chairperson on the School of Social Work's evaluation form provided for this purpose. The Graduate School warrant is also completed and signed by all members of the committee.

The completed "Warrant" and the "Social Welfare Doctoral Program Evaluation of General Examinations" are returned to the Program Office by the Supervisory Committee Chair. The Office notifies the Graduate School of the decision by recording it into MyGrad. The Warrant and evaluation form are retained in the student's School of Social Work file and unloaded to the student's Share Space.

Upon Graduate School approval, the student is advanced to candidacy. Students who have passed the Graduate School General Examination and who have completed all requirements for the degree except the dissertation and the Final Examination are awarded the appropriate Candidate's certificate. For further information, see The Graduate School: Graduate Study and Research section entitled "Admission to Candidacy for the Doctoral Degree."

| Back to top |