phd guidance committee

Faculty Handbook

V. INSTRUCTION  (Cont.)

Each graduate student admitted to a doctoral program has the responsibility to form a guidance committee with the approval and the assistance of the department or school chairperson or director or designated representative. The guidance committee will consist of at least four Michigan State University regular faculty, 1  at least three of whom, including the committee chairperson, possess an earned doctoral degree, preferably of the same type that the student is seeking (for example, Ph.D.). 2  An exception may be granted by the Dean of The Graduate School to allow a non-tenure stream faculty member or an academic specialist to serve on a doctoral student's guidance committee as one of the four required faculty members or as the chairperson of a doctoral student's guidance committee. With the approval of the chairperson or director of the department or school, an exception may be granted to allow an Emeritus faculty member to serve as one of the four required faculty members on a doctoral student's guidance committee; in addition, an Emeritus faculty member may continue to serve as the chairperson of a guidance committee. More than four persons may be members of the guidance committee. Persons who are not MSU regular faculty who can contribute to the student's program may serve as members of the guidance committee and assist in the work of the committee, providing that the number of such persons does not exceed the number of regular faculty on the committee. In consultation with the student, the guidance committee plans the entire program, including examinations, and thereafter supervises it, making modifications as needed until the degree is completed.

The guidance committee shall be formed within the first two semesters of doctoral study, or within two semesters beyond the master's degree or its equivalent. Within one semester after the committee has met, the chairperson of the guidance committee shall file a guidance committee report with the dean of the college, listing all degree requirements. A copy of this guidance committee report shall also be given to the graduate student. This guidance committee report, as changed or amended in full consultation between the graduate student and the committee and approved by the appropriate department or school chairperson or director and the dean of the college, shall be regarded as the statement of program requirements. The program will not be considered binding unless signed by the student.

The guidance committee report includes a statement of the student's proposed program, with a timetable and tentative dissertation topic. In the report, the committee also recommends whether to accept any graduate credit beyond the master's degree level that was taken at other institutions; whether any study may be done  in absentia,  and under what conditions; what language examinations or alternative program, if any, the student must complete; and which member of the committee should later direct the research that is to form the basis of the student's dissertation.

Once designated, the guidance committee has the responsibility to meet periodically to oversee the graduate student's progress for as long as the graduate student continues in good standing. Any desired or required changes in the membership of the guidance committee may be made by the graduate student with the concurrence of the unit chairperson or director or designated representative, or by the unit with the concurrence of the graduate student in accordance with University, college, and unit policy. The membership of the guidance committee, with the concurrence of the graduate student, may be changed as appropriate to the dissertation topic. Guidance committee chairpersons on leave shall provide for the necessary guidance of their advisees during their absence.

The guidance committee is responsible for insuring the adequacy of the overall program, in keeping with the general policy that three or more academic years of study and research beyond the bachelor's degree are required.

1  The "regular faculty" of Michigan State University shall consist of all persons appointed under the rules of tenure and holding the rank of professor, associate professor, assistant professor, or instructor, and persons appointed as librarians. In addition, the principal administrative officer of each major educational and research unit of the University shall be a member of the "regular faculty."

2  For the DMA degree, the guidance committee will consist of at least four regular MSU faculty, at least two of whom, including the committee chairperson, possess the DMA degree. Back to Faculty Handbook

Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology Program

• Program Overview
• UC San Diego
• JDP Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (JEDI) Committee
• Program Committees
• Student Council
• SDSU Psychology Clinic
• Program Administration
• Program Faculty
• Practicum Supervisors
• Doctoral Students
• Degree Learning Outcomes
• Major Areas of Study
• Clinical Practicum
• Course Catalog
• Facilities & Centers
• Research and Clinical Training
• Student First-Authored Publications
• Selection Process
• What We Consider for a Competitive Application
• How to Apply
• Faculty Mentorship
• Financial Support
• Admission FAQs
• Student Admissions, Outcome, and Other Data
• Basic Needs Resources
• Community/Cultural Centers
• Financial Aid & Scholarships
• Graduate Affairs
• Graduate Housing
• Student Disability Centers
• Student Health & Well-Being
• Student Handbook Table of Contents
• Mentor-Student Guide
• Registration
• Classes / Sample Curriculum
• Cognitive Psychology Requirement
• Statistics and Research Design
• Emphasis in Child and Adolescent Psychopathology
• Emphasis in Quantitative Methods
• Master of Science in Clinical Psychology
• Master of Public Health
• Class Attendance
• Transcripts
• Change in Major Area of Study
• Waiving Courses
• Grounds for Dismissal
• Student Records
• Program Milestone Checklist/Timelines

Guidance Committee

• Second Year Project
• Clinical Comprehensive Exam
• Behavioral Medicine Comprehensive Exam
• Experimental Psychopathology Comprehensive Exam
• Neuropsychology Comprehensive Exam
• Dissertation
• Advancement to Candidacy
• After Graduation
• Student Funding
• Tuition and Fees
• Establishing Residency
• International Students
• Financial Aid
• Incentive Awards & Program Support
• Travel Funds
• Ethical Standards/Professional Behavior
• Where Do You Go When You Have A Problem, Question, Concern, or Complaint?
• Policy on Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
• Representation of Your Affiliation
• Web page and blog policy
• Membership in APA
• Outside Employment
• Requests to Spend Time Off-Site
• Research Experience
• Human Subjects/IRB
• Practicum Placements
• Accruing Clinical Hours in the Context of Research Activities
• Supervision
• Tracking Clinical Hours
• Integrated Reports
• Practicum Grades
• Policy on Working with Diverse Clients/Patients
• Prerequisites
• JDP Student Awards
• Student Portals
• Campus ID Cards
• E-Mail Accounts
• Change of Address
• Leave of Absence
• Second Year Project Cover Sheet
• Dissertation Proposal Defense Announcement
• Final Dissertation Defense Announcement

Spring Student Evaluation

• Individual Development Plan (IDP)
• MPH Interest Form
• JDP SharePoint

Each student must have a Guidance Committee. The purpose of a Guidance Committee is to serve as a personalized mentoring body for a student as they move through the program.  The committee also is responsible for helping the student find solutions when problems occur.  Problematic situations, when they occur, may center around poor grades, difficulties in research or practicum placements, the necessity to remediate comprehensive examinations, or any other aspect of the student’s doctoral work; sometimes these problematic situations include personal or family issues that may necessitate an adjustment or modification in the student’s program.  It is the responsibility of the student to keep the Guidance Committee apprised of any situation that may affect their work, performance, or progress through the program.

All students are required to nominate a three-member faculty guidance committee no later than by March 31st of their first year. 

Specifically, the role of the committee is to:

• Become familiar with the student’s academic goals and needs in order to help the student tailor their Joint Doctoral Program experiences accordingly.
• Monitor and facilitate the student’s progress through the program, including promptly identifying any areas of difficulty the student may be having, and helping the student design a remedy which addresses problematic areas.
• Prepare an annual formal evaluation that is given to both the student and the program directors. Completion and submission of an evaluation form from every student’s Guidance Committee is required each year the student is in the program, excluding the year a student is on internship.  An annual written evaluation of each student is a requirement of the Commission on Accreditation [Office of Program Consultation and Accreditation, American Psychological Association, 750 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242, Telephone (202) 336-5979; Fax: (202) 336-5978; email: [email protected] ] as well.
• Work with the student to ensure timely completion of all necessary steps for proper Advancement to Candidacy prior to the student applying for internship .  The program will not certify that the student is ready for a clinical internship unless they have been Advanced to Candidacy.

Until a Guidance Committee has been formally established, the Program Co-Directors, and the student’s major research supervisor will serve as an ad hoc Guidance Committee should any issues need to be discussed or resolved.

Guidance Committee Requirements & Procedures

Committee membership requirements.

• The major research supervisor serves as Chair
• All Guidance Committee members must be JDP faculty
• Both universities must be represented on the committee
• At least one member of the committee must be a clinically trained psychologist
• *Guidance Committee requires only 3 members; occasionally a student may request a fourth member for a specific reason

Typically, a student’s mentor will serve as both guidance committee and dissertation chair; if for some reason a dissertation chair is selected who is not a member of the guidance committee, they will automatically be added to the guidance committee.  Any other committee changes will be made by the Directors as necessary.

Committee Nomination Procedure

The procedure to appoint a Guidance Committee is as follows:

• Discuss the intended appointment with all parties involved;

Guidance Committee Chair: Guidance Committee Member:

Is this member a Co-Chair (Yes/No)?

Guidance Committee Member: Guidance Committee Extra Member (if applicable):

• The SDSU Program Coordinator will prepare and route the electronic Guidance Committee Membership Nomination form to the student;
• The student will complete the required form fields (student name and signature);
• The form will automatically route to the student committee members;
• Once the form is signed by the student and all committee members, the form will automatically route to the JDP Co-Directors for approval and,
• All parties will receive a final copy once completed.

Committee Change Request Procedure

The procedure to change/replace a Guidance Committee member is as follows:

• Discuss the intended appointment or change with all parties involved; if the desired outcome is to replace a member of the Committee, this must be discussed with the person being replaced before it can be approved;

Reason for Committee Change Request:

• If a student has already advanced to candidacy and then wants to make a change, the student must have the UC San Diego Co-Director’s signature on the Spring Evaluation form prior to submitting it the graduate coordinator in the UC San Diego JDP office.

Annual Progress Review

The Guidance Committee meets with a student a minimum of once a year to evaluate his/her progress. The committee also meets at any time when the student, a committee member, or the Co-Directors or Steering Committee requests a meeting. At the end of each academic year, each guidance committee must have a formal meeting to assess the student’s progress. Students should organize and coordinate these meetings in a timely fashion to meet the UC San Diego deadline, which is generally the Friday before Spring Quarter ends.

Students should refer to the Spring Student Evaluation webpage (under Student Handbook/JDP Forms) for the most up-to-date evaluation procedure and instructions on what to bring to the Guidance Committee Meeting. Students should contact their committees to conduct the meeting sufficiently early to ensure that UC San Diego registration is not blocked because of failure to file the spring evaluation form with the Graduate Division.

In addition to the annual Guidance Committee review of progress, all first and second year students are evaluated by faculty mentors, course instructors, and (where appropriate) clinical supervisors in the late spring of each academic year. All areas of the student’s work are discussed including coursework, research, and practica. The student is informed in writing if everything is proceeding appropriately or if there are areas that need improvement.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Graduate School Updates>

The latest COVID-19 news and information is available at  Penn State's Coronavirus Information website . 

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Update

On March 11 th  the University announced that beginning March 16 th  instruction for all students will be moving to a remote delivery format. Graduate students enrolled in resident courses should plan on participating remotely, and not coming to campus specifically for face-to-face instruction. Learn more at gradschool.psu.edu/covid19 .

Internet Explorer Detected

The Penn State Graduate School website is best experienced in Firefox or Google Chrome. It is highly recommended that you use an alternative browser.

GCAC-603 Ph.D. Committee Responsibilities - Research Doctorate

Ph.d. committee responsibilities - research doctorate.

To identify the duties and responsibilities of the Doctoral Committee – Research Doctorate (hereafter, Ph.D. Committee) in guiding the student in scholarly work and professional development.

Academic Goal

The academic goal of this policy is to ensure that research doctoral students receive timely and comprehensive guidance from members of the Graduate Faculty that facilitates progress toward their degree, including meeting the Graduate Council’s Scholarly and Professional Goals for All Graduate Degree Students .

All students enrolled in programs of study leading to the Ph.D.

Background keyboard_arrow_down

The broad purpose of the Ph.D. Committee is to ensure that each Ph.D. student receives the attention, guidance, and mentoring necessary to successfully earn their degree and meet the Graduate Council’s Scholarly and Professional Goals for Penn State graduates from a representative cross section of the Graduate Faculty. This policy describes the particular responsibilities of the Ph.D. Committee.

Moreover, continuing communication on a regular basis among the student, the committee chair, the dissertation adviser, and the other members of the committee is strongly recommended, in order to preclude misunderstandings and to develop a collegial relationship among the student and all members of the committee.

Definitions keyboard_arrow_down

Policy statement.

• The Ph.D. Committee can require additional education, including course work, depending on the student’s background and research plans.
• Include a review of any prior annual assessments.
• Recommendations, as appropriate, to improve the student’s research;
• Any concerns identified and recommend actions to address the concerns.
• Assess the student’s professional development and provide any recommendations as appropriate and that reflect, to the extent possible, the student’s career goals;
• Accurately reflect the assessment by all members of the committee, including any minority opinions.
• The Ph.D. Committee shall administer the student’s Comprehensive Examination and assess the student’s performance on the examination.
• The Ph.D. Committee shall assess the student’s dissertation and recommend (or not) its approval to the Graduate School.
• The Ph.D. Committee shall conduct the student’s Final Oral Examination and assess the student’s performance on the examination.
• If the student’s program has received approval through the Graduate Council’s curricular review process to establish the Ph.D. Committee later than specified in GCAC-602, then the program head or designated academic adviser assumes Ph.D. Committee responsibilities as outlined in this policy. The first assessment will take place approximately one year after the Qualifying Examination is passed; the program head or designated academic adviser will provide an assessment of the student at least once annually after that until the student’s Ph.D. Committee is formed.
• Assess the quality and progress of the student’s research;
• Assess the student’s professional development;
• Decide whether any interim meetings should take place and, if so, when.
• It is strongly recommended and a best practice for the entire Ph.D. Committee to meet together with the student to conduct the annual assessment. If there is no meeting, it is strongly recommended that the student meet individually with each member, at least annually.
• The student, the student’s Dissertation Adviser, the Ph.D. Committee Chair, or any two members of the Ph.D. Committee may request a meeting of the Ph.D. committee.
• The Ph.D. Committee’s assessment of the student’s research and professional development progress, along with any advice the Ph.D. Committee may have for the student; such advice may include recommendations for supplemental study, an improvement plan (if necessary), and/or any other advice that would support the student’s progress toward their degree.
• Any comments by the student with respect to the report.
• The Ph.D. Committee’s decision on whether any meetings of the full Committee are to be scheduled (remote participation is acceptable).
• The student must acknowledge receipt and understanding of the annual assessment.
• The Ph.D. Committee Chair shall submit the completed annual assessment, with all approvals, to the major (and as appropriate, dual-title and/or minor) Graduate Program Head.

P1 - Distance Participation Request

insert_drive_file Annual Assessment of Ph.D. Student Progress - SAMPLE (PDF)

Further Information

Ph.D. Committee Responsibilities - Research Doctorate - FAQs

Cross-References

INSERT CROSS-REFERENCES HERE (REPEAT BELOW p AS NECCESSARY)

list CROSS_REFERENCE_NAME

Revision History

• Policy revised extensively.
• Adapted from Graduate Bulletin: June 2018.

• Doctoral Program

Individuals admitted into the doctoral program generally have earned an MA degree in anthropology. In the event that the master's degree has been earned in another field, a student is normally admitted on a provisional basis. A faculty provisional committee meets with the student to plan an appropriate initial program of study to bring the student to the same level of preparation as those Ph.D. students who have earned the MA in anthropology. When the MA has been earned in a field outside the social sciences, the committee may recommend that the student complete an MA in anthropology before proceeding in the doctoral program.

PhD guidance committee

On admission to the program, the student sets about without delay to form the PhD guidance committee. Committee members are selected on the basis of their capability to guide the student's development in the "three fields of specialization" described below. The composition of this committee is wholly independent of the composition of the student's MA advisory committee.

As a rule, the student completes the formation of the PhD guidance committee within one semester after being admitted to the doctoral program. The committee consists of at least two departmental graduate faculty members and one UMass graduate faculty member from outside the department who is not an anthropologist. Additional members are often added to the committee to meet the student's need for specialized expertise. The committee designates one of its members from within the department as its chairperson, to serve as the student's advisor of record.

On occasion, students may form an interim PhD guidance committee. This committee shall consist of no fewer than two members of the graduate faculty. It may oversee the preparation of the outline of the PhD program (i.e., the statements of field, the tools of research, and the prospectus). As a rule, however, the full committee shall be formed within one year of a student's entering the doctoral program.

The student is required to consult with the advisor at least once a semester in planning coursework, but more frequent consultation between the student and advisor is strongly encouraged. The student should convene the entire guidance committee at the time of its formation and whenever the formulation or change of substantive matters relating to the student's overall program is under consideration. Students are encouraged to complete graduate coursework in at least three of the four subfields of anthropology. The specific courses should be determined in consultation with the advisor.

Statements of field and tools of research

As soon as possible after entry into the PhD program the student, in consultation with the guidance committee, designates "three fields of specialization" that reflect the individual's career goals and intellectual interests. These fields may be defined very broadly or may be highly specialized, but must be outlined with care. The topics of these field statements will subsequently define and designate general areas of professional competence when the candidate completes the doctorate; accordingly, they ought not to be too general or narrowly constructed. One recent example of this middle road — between specificity and generality — was an essay on the biology of poverty; another was a course syllabus on the political economy of African development.

Preparation for each field selected by the student is under the supervision of a different committee member. Thus, there are at least three field representatives on the student's guidance committee. Students are normally expected to spend two or three semesters taking specialized courses and otherwise achieving mastery of the literature in their designated fields and preparing their statements of field. The three statements of field may take several forms. An essay synthesizing and evaluating trends in the field of inquiry, a bibliographic essay, and a course outline are some of the forms that doctoral students have used in the past to demonstrate their competence in the defined field.

At the same time the fields of specialization are being designated, the guidance committee must consider what tools of research (e.g., mastery of a computer programming language, competence in one or more relevant foreign languages) shall be required of the student. The issue of tools of research is something the guidance committee must weigh at the time the doctoral program is defined. The committee may decide not to require mastery of any tools of research, but in any event, this issue is to be decided at this point. Further, the committee must at this point decide how it will ultimately assess mastery of any research tools it may require.

Once the student and the guidance committee (or the interim guidance committee) have decided on the content, form, and preceptors of the statements of field, and the tools of research, if any, the student prepares an outline summarizing these decisions and obtains the approval of the chair of the guidance committee and the GPD, after which the outline is then placed in the student's file.

The prospectus

As part of the doctoral program, the student prepares a prospectus of the dissertation. The prospectus outlines (1) the intellectual issues that converge in the dissertation topic, (2) the pertinent literature, and (3) the methodological strategy and timetable for accomplishing the research objectives.

The prospectus thus serves a different intellectual purpose from a statement of field. Guidance committees may allow students to combine one of the statements of field and the prospectus in one document, or they may specify that they remain as distinct forms. When combined, both intellectual objectives must be incorporated: a statement delineating a field of inquiry and the research rationale, methodology, timetable, and anticipated results. While each statement of field has a distinct preceptor, the prospectus is assumed to be developed in consultation with all the members of the guidance committee. If the student combines one statement and the prospectus, one member of the guidance committee precepts the field statement portion of the document while all members of the committee guide the creation of the prospectus per se.

Once the prospectus has been prepared, the student is expected to make a public presentation of it in a departmental seminar. The presentation is not an examination. Its purposes are to provide information on a specialized topic to members of the department at large, to stimulate discussion, and to engender useful feedback to the presenter. The student has the responsibility for distributing copies of the prospectus to faculty and interested students at least two weeks before the scheduled presentation, so that others may be well prepared for it. The official announcement, also to be made no less than two weeks before the event, is issued by the GPD. After the presentation of the prospectus, the guidance committee may require the student to make changes to it before accepting it as the definitive outline of the doctoral dissertation.

Oral preliminary comprehensive examination

As each statement and the prospectus are completed and approved, copies are filed with the GPD. When the dissertation prospectus and all statements are completed they must be approved by the committee as a whole. Then, after completing any required research tools and/or languages, the student takes the PhD oral preliminary comprehensive examination. This examination is customarily held at the end of the student's fourth or fifth semester (but generally no later than the end of the sixth semester) of study beyond the MA and should be conducted during the academic year unless prior approval of the GPD has been secured.

The PhD preliminary comprehensive examination is conducted by the student's PhD guidance committee. Together with the GPD, the student selects a faculty member to chair the examination. Any member of the examination committee is eligible except for the guidance committee chairperson. The examination chairperson is responsible for arranging the examination. A notification of the time and place of the examination must reach the GPD (via Form 5) in time for public written notice to all faculty at least two weeks before the event. The examination is open to all members of the departmental faculty.

The preliminary comprehensive examination focuses on, but is not necessarily limited to, the fields of specialization as represented in the statements of field described above and the proposed dissertation research as represented in the prospectus. Prior to the commencement of the examination, the examination committee reviews the student's file. The examination procedure lasts no more than three hours, during which anyone attending has the right to question the student. At the completion of the examination, the student temporarily leaves the examination room while the results are evaluated. Anyone present may comment on the student's performance, but only the members of the examination committee may vote on the outcome. On the basis of performance, the student is granted "pass" or "fail;" in the latter case, there is an automatic option to repeat the examination one time. A unanimous vote is required for a grade of Pass. The student is informed of the outcome immediately after the examination.

A student who fails the oral examination twice is dropped from the program. The student who passes the oral preliminary comprehensive examination begins to devote full attention to dissertation research as outlined in the prospectus.

The dissertation committee

As soon as the student has passed the preliminary comprehensive examination, a dissertation committee is appointed by the graduate school upon the recommendation of the GPD. The dissertation committee consists of a minimum of three members of the graduate faculty, a minimum of two from within the department, plus a minimum of one outside member, who is not an anthropologist. The outside member must be a member of the graduate faculty at UMass. It is customary, although not necessary, for the dissertation committee to carry over members of the student's PhD guidance committee.

It is the responsibility of the chairperson of the dissertation committee to arrange a conference with other members of the committee and with the student for the purpose of discussing the research problem before approving the dissertation outline. This conference should be held as soon as possible after the appointment of the committee.

Each member of the dissertation committee must sign the cover page of the student's dissertation outline (prospectus). The signed copy is then sent to the graduate school by the GPD. The approved outline must be received in the graduate school at least seven months before the dissertation defense may be scheduled.

The committee has direct charge of all matters pertaining to the dissertation, which must have the approval of a majority of this committee before arrangements are made for the final oral examination. As a rule, about one year is devoted to field or laboratory research under the guidance of the student's dissertation committee; after that an additional year is needed to write the dissertation.

Students are required to complete at least ten dissertation credits (Anthropology 899). No more than nine dissertation credits may be registered for in any one semester. There is no upper limit on the cumulative number of dissertation credits that may be earned.

The dissertation and its defense

When the dissertation is complete and approved by all the members of the committee for form and content, and a date is agreed upon, the chairperson of the committee informs the graduate school through the GPD of the date, time, and location of the dissertation defense. The memorandum must reach the graduate school at least three weeks prior to the date of the examination. At the same time, the student places a copy of the defense draft of the dissertation in the care of the graduate secretary, so that interested readers may look at it prior to the defense.

The final oral examination (i.e. dissertation defense) is conducted by an examining committee consisting of the dissertation committee and such other members of the graduate faculty as choose to attend. At the discretion of the candidate and the committee, the examination can be opened to individuals other than those on the graduate faculty. However, such guests are not expected to participate in any appreciable degree in the questioning or discussion. In order to pass this final examination, the degree candidate must receive the unanimous vote of the dissertation committee.

While the student must present to the dissertation committee a draft of the dissertation completed in form and content, the defense itself may open up areas that require the text to be revised after the defense.

Once the committee-mandated changes have been made and approved, the student completes the final copy of the dissertation. The format requirements for the dissertation are spelled out in the Typing Guidelines for Master's Theses and Doctoral Dissertations, available in the Office of Degree Requirements. Normally committees expect the dissertation to follow the reference and citation style of the American Anthropologist, though this is neither a Graduate School nor a departmental rule. Be sure to check with the committee on this point before drafting the dissertation, as the members may recommend a different style.

The department requires that students submit an unbound final copy of the dissertation on acid-free paper to the GPD for the departmental library. It is the student's responsibility to supply this copy to the department prior to the date of the awarding of the degree. The GPD will not sign the Certificate of Degree Eligibility form until this copy of the dissertation has been received.

• Master's Program
• Graduate Student Support
• Department Grants and Awards
• Student Awards

Doctoral program requirements

• Candidates must complete a minimum of 10 credits of Anthropology 899 (dissertation credits).
• There are no specific course or credit requirements beyond what may be mandated by the student's guidance committee.
• There is no maximum on the cumulative number of dissertation credits that may be earned overall, although not more than nine credits may be earned in any one semester.
• Must fulfill the residency requirement, a minimum of two consecutive semesters (fall/spring, spring/fall) in residence at the university. The student must spend some part of each week physically on campus and may not be employed on more than a one-half time basis.

See the Graduate Student Handbook  for further details.

Machmer Hall 240 Hicks Way Amherst, MA 01003-9278 Tel: 413.545.2221 Fax: 413.577.4217

UC Davis Graduate Group in Ecology

Guidance committee form.

Guidance Committee Forms are due at the end of a student's first quarter in the program.  The student should meet with the Guidance Committee to plan coursework.  Courses can be changed, but each committee member will need to approve each change via submission of an updated GC form to the Program Coordinator.  Please list the term and year for each course taken on the form.

Guidance Committee Structure

PhD Guidance Committee: Major Professor, AoE Advisor, and a third GGE faculty member of your choice.

MS Guidance Committee: Major Professor and AoE Advisor

Guidance Committee FAQs

• Your major professor cannot serve on your Ph.D. Qualifying Exam, but is typically Chair of your Masters Comprehensive Final Exam.  Other Guidance Committee members are welcome to serve on either of these exam committees.
• The Guidance Committee is due during the  first week of Winter Quarter . If your committee is unable to meet by then, contact the Program Coordinator ASAP.
• An annual in person meeting is recommended. You should also confer with your guidance committee should you need to take alternative classes to the ones on your original form. Your full committee must approve changes to the form, so you'll want to be sure to keep them up to date. 

GGE_Guidance Committee MS.pdf

GGE_Guidance Committee PhD.pdf

• Campus Life
• ...a student.
• ...a veteran.
• ...an alum.
• ...a parent.
• ...faculty or staff.
• UTC Learn (Canvas)
• Class Schedule
• Crisis Resources
• People Finder
• Change Password

UTC RAVE Alert

Doctoral committee responsibilities, responsibilities of the chair.

The Chair will be selected on the basis of content expertise. This should include topic interest or subject matter expertise, experience in  dissertation direction, or methodology expertise. The Chair is responsible for guiding the candidate to produce doctoral level, original scholarship in the proposed topic area. The Chair must be a member of the LEAD faculty and hold Full graduate faculty status. 

The Chair’s responsibilities include:

Being familiar with current dissertation policies and procedures in the LEAD program

Advising the candidate from the Prospectus stage through the final defense of the Dissertation

Guiding the candidate in the selection of Dissertation committee members

Guiding the candidate to set a realistic timeline for completion of the Dissertation

Responsibly assigning the candidate a grade of  SP  (successful progress) or  NP  (no progress) each semester

Guiding the candidate toward achieving a high level of technical and ethical quality in the Dissertation research

Assisting the candidate in developing a quality Prospectus and in navigating the Prospectus approval process

Providing guidance on the research proposal structure, formatting, content and setting clear expectations for timely completion of the Proposal

Guiding the candidate in the selection of methods/procedures for data collection and analysis*

Assisting the candidate in the Dissertation Proposal defense process

Assisting the candidate in navigating the IRB approval process

Assisting the candidate in data collection and analysis*

Preparing the candidate for the defense process

* If a separate Methodologist is assigned, the Chair may serve in a support role.

In special circumstances, with program approval, a Co-Chair arrangement may be appropriate for a particular subject matter. In the case of a Co-Chair arrangement, one of the two Co-Chairs must be a member of the LEAD faculty and hold Full graduate faculty status.

Responsibilities of the Committee Members    

All members of the candidate’s committee share responsibility in ensuring that the candidate produces high-quality scholarship. Committee members are responsible for reading manuscripts within the agreed-upon minimum 14 day time frame (per committee member), suggesting substantive editorial changes, and providing rationale for their support and critiques. Committee members who perceive major flaws that are likely to result in a candidate’s unsuccessful defense should discuss these concerns with the candidate and Chair immediately.

Committee member’s responsibilities include:

In cooperation with the Chair, advising the candidate from the Prospectus stage through the final defense of the Dissertation

Provide subject matter expertise as requested by Chair or candidate

Reading drafts and providing meaningful feedback at each defense stage of the dissertation process

Guiding the candidate in the selection of methods/procedures for data collection and analysis**

Assisting the candidate in data collection and analysis**

Corresponding with the Chair and candidate as needed for clarification/resolution of methodological issues during the Dissertation process**

** Methodologist only (if the Chair is not performing both roles). A Methodologist should be selected who has particular expertise in the type of study the candidate is pursuing (quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods).    

Responsibilities of the Dissertation Candidate

The candidate is expected to engage in active preparation of the Dissertation process from the onset of the doctoral program. Candidates are responsible for choosing a topic, submitting proofread drafts of materials to the Chair, preparing adequately for meetings, thoroughly reviewing all Dissertation policies and procedures, and communicating on a regular basis with the Chair via the Dissertation course space or other communication modality. The candidate is expected to maintain a respectful and professional attitude at all times. 

Candidates are expected to maintain contact with the Chair and Methodologist throughout the Dissertation process to ensure that the research and writing adhere to the agreed-upon plan. As the project is the candidate’s responsibility, s/he must frequently keep the Chair informed of progress. All communication for the Dissertation process is accomplished (and therefore documented) in the Learning Management System (UTC Learn) and all drafts are submitted and feedback returned through the Learning Management System (UTC Learn). The candidate should contact the Chair in the event of any significant changes in his/her personal or professional life which may interfere with program completion. Occasionally, face-to-face meetings may be scheduled with your Chair, Methodologist, or the whole committee. In order to document this part of the dissertation process, immediately following a face-to-face meeting (within 48 hours), the candidate should post a detailed summary of the meeting in the Dissertation course space.

In addition, candidates are expected to maintain regular contact with the Program Office via email ( [email protected] ).   

Communicating with the Committee

The Chair will determine when a document is ready for electronic review by the committee and will initiate communication amongst committee members. The candidate should avoid consulting the full committee for feedback without prior approval of the Chair. A minimum of four meetings with the committee is required: Prospectus defense, Proposal defense, Pre-defense of the final manuscript, and the final Dissertation defense. The Chair will notify the Program Office via email ( [email protected] ) of the date/time/location of all committee defense meetings. Committee participation from a distance may be facilitated through video conference, phone conference, or other electronic media as approved.

Learning and Leadership Doctorate's Program

Lead programs.

• Hunter Hall #412
• Dept 4141
• 651 McCallie Avenue
•   423-425-5445
• [email protected]

2024-2025 Catalog

Doctoral degrees.

The University of Idaho awards the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in recognition of high achievement in scholarly and research activity. The degree of Doctor of Education is granted for high scholarly attainment and in recognition of the completion of academic preparation for professional practice. See the "Ph.D. and Ed.D. Procedures" tab for more details. The Doctor of Athletic Training is offered through the College of Education and the Department of Movement Sciences (see the "DAT Procedures" tab for more details).

The major professor and program offering a particular doctoral program indicate the general philosophy of the degree program, the objectives of courses and seminars, the research specialties available, and requirements unique to the department. Admission to the doctoral program is granted only to those who have a recognized potential for completing the degree.

Requirements for Doctoral Degrees

Credit requirements.

For the Ph.D. and Ed.D., a minimum of 78 credits beyond the bachelor's degree is required.; At least 52 credits must be at the 500 level or above and at least 33 of the 78 credits must be in courses other than 600 (Doctoral Research and Dissertation). A maximum of 45 research credits in 600 (Doctoral Research and Dissertation) including 6 credits of 599 (Non-thesis Research) or 500 (Master's Research and Thesis) may be in the 45 research credits used toward the degree. For the D.A.T., a minimum of 66 credits is required and follows a prescribed set of courses set by the program.

Courses numbered below 300 may not be used to fulfill the requirements for a doctoral degree; courses numbered 300-399 may be used only in supporting areas and are not to be used to make up deficiencies. Individual programs may require additional course work. Applicants having a doctoral degree may obtain a second doctoral degree subject to the approval of the Graduate Council. The Graduate Council will establish the requirements for the second degree.

Credit Limitations for Transfer, Correspondence Study, and Non-degree

For the Ph.D. and Ed.D. degrees, a student must complete at least 39 of the 78 required credits at the University of Idaho (U of I) while matriculated in the College of Graduate Studies. Credits can be transferred to U of I with the consent of the student's major professor, the committee (if required by the program), the program's administrator, and the dean of the College of Graduate Studies. Credits can be transferred only if the institution from which the credits are being transferred has a graduate program in the course's discipline. All credits used toward graduate degrees must be from regionally accredited American institutions or from non-US institutions recognized by the appropriate authorities in their respective countries. Transfer credits are subject to all other College of Graduate Studies rules and regulations. Correspondence study courses may be applied to the degree only with the prior written approval of the College of Graduate Studies. Courses used toward an undergraduate degree, professional development courses, and courses on a professional development transcript are not available to be used toward a doctoral degree.

Time Limits

Of the credits submitted to satisfy the requirements for a Ph.D. or Ed.D. degree, a maximum of 30 may be more than eight years old when the degree is conferred, provided the student's committee and program administrator determine that the student has kept current in the subjects concerned. Graduation must occur no later than five years after the date on which the candidate passed their preliminary or general examination. These time limitations can be extended only on recommendation of the committee and approval by the Graduate Council.

Awarding Doctoral Degrees to Members of the Faculty

Regulations are outlined in Section 4920 of the Faculty-Staff Handbook.

Particular Requirements for the Ed.D. Degree

A period of professional practice is required for the Doctor of Education degree; the period involved is determined by the student's supervisory committee. While the Ed.D. is a College of Education degree, you should consult with the departments in the College of Education to learn of specific emphasis requirements.

Procedures for Doctor of Philosophy and Doctor of Education Degrees

Appointment of major professor and committee.

Refer to " Appointment of Major Professor and Committee for All Degree Seeking Graduate Students " in the preceding General Graduate Regulations section. In addition, a doctoral supervisory committee consists of at least four people: the major professor as chair and at least one additional UI faculty member from the program, the balance of the committee may be made up of faculty members from a minor or supporting area, and faculty members from a discipline outside the major. If the committee has a co-chair, the minimum number of committee members is five.

Qualifying Examination

The qualifying examination is a program option and serves to assess the background of the student in both the major and supporting fields and to provide partially the basis for preparation of the student's study program. A particular program may or may not require a master's degree as a prerequisite for the qualifying evaluation. As soon as the program's qualifications are met, a supervisory committee is appointed.

Preparation of Study Plan

Refer to " Preparation and Submission of Study Plan " in the preceding General Graduate Regulations section.

Preliminary Examination for Ph.D. Degree

The preliminary examination should be scheduled only after the student has completed the majority of the courses on their study plan. The student is required to be registered during the semester the preliminary examination is taken. The student's committee certifies to the College of Graduate Studies the results of the preliminary examination and if passed, the student is advanced to candidacy. Graduation must occur no later than five years after the date on which the candidate passed their examination. If the preliminary examination is failed, it may be repeated only once; the repeat examination must be taken within a period of not less than three months or more than one year following the first attempt. If a student fails the preliminary examination a second time, or the program does not allow the student to repeat the examination after the first failure or the student does not retake the examination within one year, the student is automatically moved to unclassified enrollment status and is no longer in the degree program.

General Examination for Ed.D . Degree

When the student approaches the end of their course work, has completed the professional experience requirement, and has outlined the dissertation subject in detail, the supervisory committee approves the holding of the general examination. The student is required to be registered during the semester the general examination is taken. The examination is both written and oral and is intended to assess progress toward degree objectives. The student's committee certifies to the College of Graduate Studies the results of the general examination and if passed, the student is advanced to candidacy. Graduation must occur no later than five years after the date on which the candidate passed their examination. If the general examination is failed, it may be repeated only once; the repeat examination must be taken within a period of not less than three months or more than one year following the first attempt. If a student fails the general examination a second time, or the program does not allow the student to repeat the examination after the first failure or the student does not retake the examination within one year, the student is automatically moved to unclassified status and is no longer in the degree program.

See the General Graduate Regulations section regarding application for advanced degree, registration requirements, final defense and dissertation requirements.

Procedures for Doctor of Athletic Training

The culminating clinical project.

Students enrolled in the Doctor of Athletic Training (D.A.T.) will engage in research projects during the curricular phase of the program. These project(s) will lead to at least two publication ready manuscripts, and all students must meet professional authorship requirements (regardless of order). See the  Department of Movement Sciences and Doctor of Athletic Training webpages for more information.

The Team (Committee)

All D.A.T. project team committees will have at least four committee members: two members of the athletic training faculty (all with graduate faculty status), the student's attending clinician (who is the student's on-site mentor during the student's residency), and an expert in the student's chosen area of clinical research. The athletic training faculty members will always chair the CCP, provide research guidance, and serve as the experts in the development of advanced practice in Athletic Training. A situation may arise in which one or both of the members of the committee that are outside of the AT program faculty may have a degree less than that of which the student is seeking; however, the intent of the third and fourth D.A.T. committee membership is to provide outside validation of the student's progress toward advanced practice and clinical utility of action research studies.

Culminating Clinical Project Hours

These dissertation hours may be used in instances when the CCP has not been successfully completed and the curricular phase of program has been completed.

Print Options

Send Page to Printer

Print this page.

Download Page (PDF)

The PDF will include all information unique to this page.

• Hire a PhD Guide
• Guidance Process
• PhD Topic and Proposal Help
• PhD Thesis Chapters Writing
• PhD Literature Review Writing Help
• PhD Research Methodology Chapter Help
• Questionnaire Design for PhD Research
• PhD Statistical Analysis Help
• Qualitative Analysis Help for PhD Research
• Software Implementation Help for PhD Projects
• Journal Paper Publication Assistance

Addressing Comments, Revisions in PhD Thesis

• Enhance the Quality of Your PhD Thesis with Professional Thesis Editing Services
• PhD Thesis Defence Preparation

Ethical research guidance and consulting services for PhD candidates since 2008

Topic selection & proposal development, enquire now, software implementation using matlab, questionnaire designing & data analysis, chapters writing & journal papers.

The submission of your final research thesis is not the end of your project. Your review committee goes through your work thoroughly and offers its feedback. Sometimes, you not just receive their viewpoints, but also receive additional comments to improve your report. However, you do not need to get disheartened, as we are always there to help you incorporate this feedback rightly into your report. We help you address the received comments after you discuss these with your supervisor.

What you need to do?

You only need to share the entire feedback with us so we can review the comments in the light of your submitted thesis. Based on our review, we design an apt strategy to incorporate the required alterations. If your thesis/dissertation chapters need any justified changes, then we make sure to revise these chapters. However, we do not do that without assessing the impact of these changes.

• check Reliability and validity problems with analyzed data
• check Use of improper modules/tools for data analysis
• check Non-usage of academic language, right citation/referencing styles, and correct formats
• check Detection of plagiarism in your work
• check Lack of references/relevant references

Request a Quote

PhD candidates can meet PhD consultant, editors for discussion related to doctoral research and journal paper publications including SCI, UGC approved and IEEE journals.

Frequently Asked Questions

What if the committee doesn’t approve of my work, what procedure will the expert follow to correct the doctoral research as per feedback, what if i can’t understand the comments made by the committee will expert assist me regarding that also, if i want my research to be edited in 2 days according to the comments, is that possible, what are the points i should keep in mind while editing the research according to the comments, request call back, quick links.

• PhD Guidance Maharashtra Trail
• Synopsis and Thesis Assistance
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of use
• Schedule Your Consultation Now
• Grievance Redressal

Information

• Geo Polymer for road construction
• Machine Learning for Image processing applications
• IoT and automation
• Concrete strength with changing flyash percentage
• Purchase regret prediction with Deep Learning
• Low Power VLSI
• Antenna design using HFSS
• PhD Planner

CONTACT DETAILS

• 022 4896 4199 (20 Lines)
• 0091 93102 29971
• [email protected]
• Copyright © 2008-2024 PhD Guidance All Rights Reserved.

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

How do you politely ask someone to be on your committee? [duplicate]

I'm a graduate student finishing up my first year, and I'm currently in the Master's program but am planning on switching to the PhD program at my university (which is located in the U.S.). I've chosen people I'm interested in asking and my adviser's okayed my selection, but I was wondering how to go about asking these individuals.

What format is appropriate to ask people to be on your committee? Should I email each person, or should I set up a physical meeting to discuss my goals and 'pop the question'?

What should I say in the email/meeting? Most of the potential committee members I'm planning on asking don't know me very well, but they at least know my name (I think). Do I need to discuss why I want them on my committee? How much do I tell them about my project (which is still in the beginning stages)?

• graduate-school
• thesis-committee

• 2 I did mine by email. I included enough about my project to give them a sense of it, but not so much that it was overwhelming (about two sentences worked for my project). I didn't include why I wanted them on my committee, since it was pretty obvious from my project - YMMV. I also included a brief (again, about two sentences) summary of who I am. Worked well for everyone. –  Kathy Commented Jul 24, 2015 at 14:48
• 1 It's debatable if asking over email is "polite", but I assume you're more interested in getting them to say "yes" rather than being polite. If you're not sure they even know your name, it shouldn't be done purely over email. Ask to meet with them, letting them know you are selecting your dissertation committee. –  Chan-Ho Suh Commented Jul 24, 2015 at 19:10

I suggest an in-person meeting with each of them, which you can initiate with a brief but explanatory email: "I would like to meet with you for an hour in your office to discuss the possibility of you joining my dissertation committee. Based on your work and experience in X, Y, and Z, I think you might be a valuable committee member. ".

When you meet in person, you can treat it as a two-way interview. They should be interviewing you to determine if this is a good match and if they believe in your research topic and approach. Likewise, you should be interviewing them to determine that they will perform well on your particular committee. Do they have enough time? Do they get along with other committee members? How do they evaluate dissertations and the process of writing dissertations? What sort of feedback or support are they capable of giving you outside of the official meetings? What do they dislike or seek to avoid in the process of evaluating dissertations or being on the dissertation committee? And so on. You should also ask questions regarding their future plans, including sabbaticals, possible changes in job or employer (esp. for non-tenured professors), or possible retirement.

These questions that you ask a prospective committee member can help you avoid many committee problems later on.

• 4 This sounds good, except: there may be faculty who are willing to serve on the OP's committee but not spend an hour discussing the prospect of it. –  Pete L. Clark Commented Jul 24, 2015 at 20:40
• 2 @PeteL.Clark This may be the case sometimes, but I personally would rule out any potential committee member who was not willing to meet with me in person for one hour. This is serious business for me (it's my life, my career) and I want to see some level of commitment and investment on the part of committee members. Again, I think this will head off many problems later. –  MrMeritology Commented Jul 24, 2015 at 21:10
• 1 Maybe the meeting won't last an hour. It may only take 15 or 30 minutes. But scheduling an hour will provide sufficient time for each of you to ask and answer questions at length, when necessary. It also provides more time for gaining some personal familiarity, which frequently helps support productive work relationships. –  MrMeritology Commented Jul 24, 2015 at 21:13
• 1 @MrMeritology Perhaps this could vary depending on the research area? I'm not sure what your research area is, but in mathematics (which happens to be my and Pete L. Clark's) I find the situation he described quite plausible. –  JSquared Commented Sep 8, 2022 at 22:43

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged graduate-school etiquette thesis-committee .

• Featured on Meta
• Upcoming sign-up experiments related to tags

Hot Network Questions

• Do wererats take falling damage?
• Is "parse out" actually a phrasal verb, and in what context do you use "parse"
• A puzzle from YOU to ME ;)
• Binary Slashes Display
• Can a planet have a warm, tropical climate both at the poles and at the equator?
• A chess engine in Java: generating white pawn moves
• Lines of intersections in a parabola
• Is it unethical to have a videogame open on a personal device and interact with it occasionally as part of taking breaks while working from home?
• Short story about a boy living on a fake tropical island / paradise planet, who was actually an adult CEO but didn't remember it
• Proof/Reference to a claim about AC and definable real numbers
• Impact of high-power USB-C chargers on Li-ion battery longevity
• What is the translation of lawfare in French?
• Vespertide affairs
• Who is a "sibling"?
• if people are bred like dogs, what can be achieved?
• Isn't it problematic to look at the data to decide to use a parametric vs. non-parametric test?
• What is the safest way to camp in a zombie apocalypse?
• How do I pour *just* the right amount of plaster into these molds?
• Issues with my D&D group
• How exactly does a seashell make the humming sound?
• Exception handling: 'catch' without explicit 'try'
• Are there substantive differences between the different approaches to "size issues" in category theory?
• Why does c show up in Schwarzschild's equation for the horizon radius?
• Collaborators write their departments for my (undergraduate) affiliation

Official websites use .gov

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS

A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

ACIP Presentation Slides: June 26-28, 2024 Meeting

Note: These files are not yet 508

Slides will be added as they become available.

June 26, 2024

Welcome & introductions.

• Introduction Dr. K Talbot, Dr. M Wharton

Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccines – Adult

• Introduction [10 pages] Dr. C Kotton
• Abrysvo (Pfizer) safety and immunogenicity in non-pregnant adults aged 18-59 years [23 pages] Dr. I Munjal
• Arexvy (GSK) immunogenicity with a 24-month revaccination interval [18 pages] Dr. S Gerber
• mRESVIA (Moderna) season 2 safety and efficacy update [24 pages] Dr. R Das
• Postmarketing safety updates: Vaccine Safety Datalink [28 pages] Dr. J Donahue
• Evaluation of Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) following RSV vaccination among adults 65 years and older [19 pages] Dr. P Lloyd
• Observational RSV vaccine effectiveness [43 pages] Dr. D Surie
• Economic analysis of adult RSV vaccination [40 pages] Dr. D Hutton
• Update to benefits and risks discussion [29 pages] Dr. D Hutton
• Comparison of economic analyses of adult RSV vaccination [20 pages] Dr. I Ortega-Sanchez
• Evidence to Recommendations [102 pages] Dr. M Melgar, L Roper, Dr. A Britton
• Clinical Considerations [13 pages] Dr. M Melgar

Combined Diphtheria and Tetanus Toxoids and Acellular Pertussis, Inactivated Poliovirus, Haemophilus influenzae Type B Conjugate, and Hepatitis B vaccine (Vaxelis®)

• Introduction [6 pages] Dr. J Loehr
• EtR and proposed recommendations: Use of Vaxelis among American Indian and Alaska Native Infants [53 pages] Dr. J Collins
• Updated VFC resolution Dr. J Santoli

Chikungunya Vaccine

• Introduction [7 pages] Dr. W Chen
• Update on chikungunya vaccines [3 pages] Dr. S Hills
• Epidemiology of chikungunya in U.S. territories and states [31 pages] Dr. S Hills
• Cost-effectiveness of use of live attenuated chikungunya vaccine among adults living in U.S. territories [32 pages] Dr. K Kilburn, Dr. E Staples
• Next steps for Work Group [4 pages] Dr. S Hills

Dengue Vaccines

• Dengvaxia discontinuation [4 pages] Dr. N Bergren
• Dengue vaccine updates [22 pages] Dr. J Wong

June 27, 2024

Covid-19 vaccine.

• Introduction Dr. M Daly
• COVID-19-associated hospitalizations Dr. F Havers
• COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness update Dr. R Link-Gelles
• Vaccine safety update for 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccine Dr. J Duffy
• Economic analysis of COVID-19 vaccination Dr. L Prosser
• EtR for use of the 2024-2025 COVID-19 vaccine Dr. L Panagiotakopoulos
• COVID-19 vaccine implementation Dr. S Stokley

Influenza Vaccines

• Introduction Dr. J Loehr
• Influenza A (H5N1) Update Dr. V Dugan
• WG Considerations and Proposed Recommendations Dr. L Grohskopf

Pneumococcal Vaccines

• Economic analysis and public health impact of PCV21 use in adults Mr. C Stoecker
• Comparison of economic analysis on PCV21 use in adults Dr. A Leidner
• Summary of WG Interpretation of EtR and policy options on PCV21 use in adults Dr. M Kobayashi
• Clinical considerations for PCV21 use in adults Dr. M Kobayashi

June 28, 2024

Meningococcal vaccines.

• Epidemiology Updates Ms. A Rubis
• GSK Pentavalent Vaccine Immunogenicity and Safety Dr. W Sohn
• WG Considerations Regarding MenABCWY Vaccine and Discussion of Potential Risk Groups for MenB Vaccination Dr. S Schillie

Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccines – Maternal/Pediatric

• Introduction Dr. S Long
• Implementation and uptake of nirsevimab and maternal RSV vaccine Dr. S Stokley
• Maternal RSV vaccine safety surveillance Dr. P Moro
• Summary of effectiveness of nirsevimab in infants Dr. A Payne
• Work Group considerations Dr. J Jones, Dr. K Fleming-Dutra

Human papillomavirus Vaccines

• Announcement of formation of an ACIP HPV vaccines work group Dr. O Brooks

Exit Notification / Disclaimer Policy

• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
• Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.
• You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link.
• CDC is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on other federal or private website.

PhD Candidate Maggie Ross awarded prize at CHA

Maggie Ross, PhD candidate, is the recipient of the 2024 prize for best article, awarded by the Canadian Committee on the History of Sexuality. Designed to recognize excellence in and encourage the growth of scholarly work in the history of sexuality, the prize was awarded to Maggie for her article, “‘Your Town Is Rotten’: Prostitution, Profit, and the Governing of Vice in Kingston, Ontario, 1860s–1920s,” which appeared in the  Journal of the History of Sexuality  32 (May 2023).

The jury had this to say about Maggie’s contribution: “Ross’s research on sex work in Kingston, Ontario, is a stunning account that includes a cross-section of historical approaches, including social history, legal history, and a history of administrative capitalism. Drawing on a nuanced grasp of Foucauldian theories of regulation, disciplinary power, and governmentality, Ross offers a historical narrative and methodology centering on governance and power, one that destabilizes the historiographical discussion of sex work often framed within moral panic tropes. In this thoroughly researched and robust analysis, Ross uses a wide range of sources, such as newspaper articles, municipal police reports and minute books, census records, legislation and legal policy, cultural theory, and secondary sources on youth, gender, and delinquency. With expertise and skill, Ross weaves a sophisticated history of sex work that highlights a ‘historical shift over this period from legal punishment in the nineteenth century to the more extensive disciplinary web in which women were caught beginning in the early twentieth century.’ This research concludes with a fascinating twist showing how by the 1920s the ‘government of sex work’ shifted toward the ‘medicalization of immorality,’ introducing yet another possible approach away from moral panic tropes and towards a deeper examination of the use of eugenics in the governing and disciplining of sex worker bodies.”

Maggie received the award at the Canadian Historical Association's prize ceremony during its recent annual meeting in Montreal in June. Congratulations Maggie!

Department of History, Queen's University

49 Bader Lane, Watson Hall 212 Kingston ON K7L 3N6 Canada

Undergraduate

Queen's University is situated on traditional Haudenosaunee and Anishinaabe territory .

• Skip to main content
• Skip to FDA Search
• Skip to in this section menu
• Skip to footer links

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

•   Search
•   Menu
• News & Events
• FDA Newsroom
• Press Announcements

FDA Guidance Provides New Details on Diversity Action Plans Required for Certain Clinical Studies

FDA News Release

Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a draft guidance , “ Diversity Action Plans to Improve Enrollment of Participants from Underrepresented Populations in Clinical Studies ,” to assist medical product sponsors in submitting Diversity Action Plans to support certain clinical studies. Diversity Action Plans are intended to increase clinical study enrollment of participants of historically underrepresented populations to help improve the data the agency receives about the patients who may potentially use the medical product. 

Enhancing diversity within clinical studies not only facilitates broader applicability of results across a broad spectrum of patient populations, but also enhances understanding of the disease or medical product under study, thus providing valuable insights to inform the safe and effective use of the medical product among patients. 

“Participants in clinical trials should be representative of the patients who will use the medical products,” said FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, M.D. “The agency’s draft guidance is an important step—and one of many ongoing efforts—to address the participation of underrepresented populations in clinical trials to help improve the data we have about patients who will use the medical products if approved.”  

This draft guidance describes the format and content of Diversity Action Plans, the medical products and clinical studies for which a Diversity Action Plan is required, as well as the timing and process for submitting Diversity Action Plans to the FDA. The draft guidance also outlines the criteria and process the agency will use to evaluate a sponsor’s request not to submit a required Diversity Action Plan, also known as a waiver.

Diversity Action Plans must specify the sponsor’s rationale and goals for clinical study enrollment (separated by the age group, ethnicity, sex and race of clinically relevant study populations) and describe how the sponsor intends to meet those goals. The guidance also urges sponsors and investigators to consider the many dimensions of clinical trial diversity, even those that extend beyond age, ethnicity, sex, and race to enroll populations that represent the patients who will be treated if the product is approved. 

The requirement for sponsors to submit Diversity Action Plans comes from new provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act added by the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act (FDORA). These plans apply to phase 3 clinical studies or, as appropriate, other pivotal clinical studies of a drug or biological product, as well as for certain clinical studies of devices, including those intended to serve as the primary basis for the FDA’s evaluation of the safety and effectiveness and benefit-risk determination of the device. The requirement to submit a Diversity Action Plan applies to clinical studies for which enrollment begins 180 days after publication of the final guidance. 

“Generating data for a broader and more representative population early in the clinical development program is among the FDA’s priorities to bring innovative medical products to the public. With FDORA, there is now a requirement for sponsors to submit diversity action plans. These plans may help ensure that sponsors are thinking critically and intentionally about the many characteristics of the patient population they aim to treat when designing their clinical study,” said Richard Pazdur, M.D., director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.” 

The draft guidance was developed by the Oncology Center of Excellence Project Equity in collaboration with the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, the Office of Women’s Health, and the Office of Minority Health and Health Equity. 

Comments on the draft guidance should be submitted within 90 days after publication in the Federal Register to Regulations.gov . All written comments should be identified with the docket number and with the title of the guidance document.

Related Information

• Diversity Action Plans to Improve Enrollment of Participants from Underrepresented Populations in Clinical Studies

The FDA, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, protects the public health by assuring the safety, effectiveness, and security of human and veterinary drugs, vaccines and other biological products for human use, and medical devices. The agency also is responsible for the safety and security of our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, dietary supplements, radiation-emitting electronic products, and for regulating tobacco products.

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Free Cyber Services #protect2024 Secure Our World Shields Up Report A Cyber Issue

Exploring Memory Safety in Critical Open Source Projects

CISA, in partnership with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Australian Signals Directorate’s Australian Cyber Security Centre, and Canadian Cyber Security Center, crafted this joint guidance to provide organizations with findings on the scale of memory safety risk in selected open source software (OSS). This guide builds on The Case for Memory Safe Roadmaps by providing a starting point for software manufacturers to create memory safe roadmaps, including plans to address memory safety in external dependencies which commonly include OSS. Exploring Memory Safety in Critical Open Source Projects also aligns with the 2023 National Cybersecurity Strategy and corresponding implementation plan, which discusses investing in memory safety and collaborating with the open source community—including the establishment of the interagency Open Source Software Security Initiative (OS3I) and investment in memory-safe programming languages.

CISA encourages all organizations and software manufacturers to review the methodology and results found in the guidance to:

• Reduce memory safety vulnerabilities;
• Make secure and informed choices;
• Understand the memory-unsafety risk in OSS;
• Evaluate approaches to reducing this risk; and
• Continue efforts to drive risk-reducing action by software manufacturers.

To learn more about taking a top-down approach to developing secure products, visit CISA’s Secure by Design webpage.

Resource Materials

Related resources, emergency services sector cybersecurity best practices, cybersecurity advisory committee (csac) reports and recommendations, barriers to single sign-on (sso) adoption for small and medium-sized businesses: identifying challenges and opportunities, modern approaches to network access security.

• Health Tech
• Health Insurance
• Medical Devices
• Gene Therapy
• Neuroscience
• H5N1 Bird Flu
• Health Disparities
• Infectious Disease
• Mental Health
• Cardiovascular Disease
• Chronic Disease
• Alzheimer's
• Coercive Care
• The Obesity Revolution
• The War on Recovery
• Adam Feuerstein
• Matthew Herper
• Jennifer Adaeze Okwerekwu
• Ed Silverman
• CRISPR Tracker
• Breakthrough Device Tracker
• Generative AI Tracker
• Obesity Drug Tracker
• 2024 STAT Summit
• Wunderkinds Nomination
• STAT Madness
• STAT Brand Studio

Don't miss out

Subscribe to STAT+ today, for the best life sciences journalism in the industry

CDC advisory panel opts for a go-slow approach on expanding usage of RSV vaccines

By Helen Branswell June 26, 2024

M akers of RSV vaccines for older adults saw their plans to try to expand usage hit a significant hurdle on Wednesday, when an expert committee that advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on vaccines recommended changes that will likely see fewer older adults qualify for insurance coverage for these products.

In a related move, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices opted not to make a recommendation yet on use of GSK’s Arexvy vaccine in adults 50 to 59, saying the committee didn’t have enough data with which to make such a recommendation. Earlier this month the Food and Drug Administration approved use of the GSK vaccine to include adults in their 50s at high risk of developing severe disease if they contract respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV. When it was initially approved in May 2023, its use was restricted to people 60 and older.

advertisement

The decision is a blow to GSK, which has been racing to secure market share in a field that now includes two competitors, Pfizer and Moderna. To that end, GSK used a priority review voucher to speed its age extension application through the FDA approval process. The agency is currently reviewing an application from Pfizer to extend the license for its RSV vaccine, Abrysvo, to include adults 18 and older who have health conditions that put them at risk of severe illness from RSV infection.

In a statement, GSK said it will continue to generate data on the vaccine to add to what it called “the existing robust clinical data package,” to help guide future policy making decisions.

Without a recommendation for use from the ACIP and the CDC, insurance companies are unlikely to cover the cost of the GSK vaccine for people in their 50s. And at nearly $300 a dose — not including administration fees — those individuals may be reluctant to pay out of pocket.

Sign up for Morning Rounds

Understand how science, health policy, and medicine shape the world every day

The final decision on vaccination use policy rests with the CDC director, Mandy Cohen. Late Wednesday the CDC issued a statement adopting the recommendations the ACIP had approved about an hour before.

“The CDC has updated its RSV vaccination recommendation for older adults to prioritize those at highest risk for serious illness from RSV,” Cohen said in the statement. 

In particular, the work group suggested it needs information on how adults in their 50s who have immunocompromising conditions react to the vaccine — what kind of antibody responses it generates — more data on whether additional shots will boost protection that has waned. Some of the data to date suggest the reaction to booster shots is not as powerful as the response to the initial vaccine. ACIP member Sarah Long, a pediatrics professor at Drexel University College of Medicine in Philadelphia, worried that if boosting isn’t effective, giving the RSV vaccine too soon might squander a tool that could be more needed later in life. Long and others on the committee worried that given the possible link to GBS, the risk-benefit ratio for people in their 50s may not favor vaccination in the way it does in older adults. 

RSV vaccines for older adults are new . The first two, from GSK and Pfizer, were approved last spring and were rolled out for the first time in the autumn. Initially licensed only for adults 60 and older, the ACIP opted last June not to make a universal recommendation for their use, in the way that everyone is urged to get an annual flu shot. Instead, it suggested people who were eligible could get one of the vaccines, but should first talk to a health care provider to weigh the risks and benefits of getting vaccinated.

That approach, called shared decision-making, made sense to a committee that was reluctant to urge everyone 60 and older to get a shot, given that there are concerns that a small number of people who get the Pfizer and GSK vaccines — particularly the former — may develop Guillain-Barré syndrome, a form of progressive paralysis from which people normally recover, but after an extended period of hospitalization. There were no reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome among people in the clinical trials that led to the approval of Moderna’s RSV vaccine, mResvia, which was just approved by the FDA at the end of May.

Doctors and pharmacists complained about the shared decision-making recommendation, indicating they didn’t always know how to advise patients. There are concerns that the recommendation may have depressed uptake of the vaccine.

So the ACIP’s RSV work group proposed changing the recommendation in two ways, both of which were unanimously accepted by the full committee. In a vote of 11 to 0, the committee recommended that people aged 75 and older should get an RSV shot, if they have not yet had one. While it’s known the protection of these vaccines wanes with time, it’s not yet clear what the optimal cadence for revaccination is. So at present there is no recommendation for people who were vaccinated already to get another RSV shot.

In the second vote, the committee recommended that people aged 60 to 74 who have health conditions that put them at high risk of severe illness from RSV should also get the vaccine. People aged 60 to 74 who do not have one of the health conditions named could still get the vaccine, if they wish. But without an ACIP/CDC recommendation, they would have to pay out-of-pocket, committee chair Helen Keipp Talbot noted.

The health conditions listed include lung disease, cardiovascular disease, diabetes with end organ damage, severe obesity, neurological or neuromuscular conditions, advanced chronic kidney disease, liver disorder, or blood disorders. Adults aged 60 to 74 who live in long-term care facilities or who are deemed frail would also qualify, as would people who are moderately or severely immunocompromised.

While a couple of members of the public raised concerns about the effect the new recommendation may have on vaccine uptake in people aged 60 to 74, committee members noted that the science on use of these products is evolving, and policy on their use will as well. ACIP member Matthew Daley noted after the votes that the panel perhaps should have added the words “at this time” to the wording of the votes, to make that point clear.

About the Author Reprints

Helen branswell.

Senior Writer, Infectious Diseases

Helen Branswell covers issues broadly related to infectious diseases, including outbreaks, preparedness, research, and vaccine development. Follow her on Mastodon and Bluesky .

infectious disease

public health

STAT encourages you to share your voice. We welcome your commentary, criticism, and expertise on our subscriber-only platform, STAT+ Connect

To submit a correction request, please visit our Contact Us page .

Recommended

Recommended Stories

STAT Plus: Journal retracts study tied to Micronoma’s effort to create cancer blood test

FDA issues long-awaited draft guidance for enrolling more people of color in clinical trials

STAT Plus: A primer on HELIOS-B, an enormous stock-moving event for Alnylam Pharmaceuticals

STAT Plus: Top FDA official Peter Marks overruled staff, review team to approve Sarepta gene therapy

STAT Plus: What the Sarepta decision means for Duchenne patients, the company, and the FDA

2028 L.A. Olympics unveil venue plan: Swimming in SoFi, softball in Oklahoma City

Organizers for the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics plan to hold swimming in the home of the NFL ’s Rams and Chargers — and softball and canoe slalom in Oklahoma.

That’s according to an amended venue plan unveiled Friday by LA28, the 2028 Games’ organizing committee. The new plan spans 1,500 miles, flips swimming and track and field on the Olympic calendar and, per the committee, uses fewer temporary venues, saving money and aligning with International Olympic Committee guidance to use existing venues as a sustainability measure.

Advertisement

Swimming, originally slated to take place in a temporary stadium to be built at USC’s baseball field, will move to SoFi Stadium, which opened in Inglewood, Calif., in 2020. It will be the largest swimming venue in Games history, per LA28, with 38,000 seats. The news comes on the heels of this week’s U.S. Olympic swim trials setting a world record for attendance, with 22,209 fans attending Wednesday’s session at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis.

Katie Ledecky, the seven-time gold medalist and potential face of the 2028 Games, swam — and easily championed — the 1,500-meter freestyle in front of Wednesday’s record crowd.

Event organizers spent years planning how to put an Olympic-sized pool in the middle of an NFL stadium , and even Ledecky was enraptured with the fan base that followed.

“I was just kind of blown away walking out there,” Ledecky said of Lucas Oil Stadium. “I hope that it moves our sport forward.”

This month’s trials were a test run for what LA28 was planning for the sport, Casey Wasserman, chairman of the organizing committee, told The New York Times .

LA28 organizers faced one complication with the SoFi swimming plan, however: The stadium is also set to be part of the Games’ opening ceremonies. To accommodate both, swimming will move to the second week of the Olympics , switching places with track and field, which traditionally closes the Games. Both World Aquatics and World Athletics, the governing bodies for the two sports, have approved the plan.

Meanwhile, more than 1,500 miles and two time zones away, softball and canoe slalom will take place, moving to “world-class venues” in Oklahoma City with the lack of existing venues in Los Angeles that can host, LA28 said.

Oklahoma City, the home of USA Softball, hosted the NCAA ’s Women’s College World Series every season since 1997, and Devon Park has undergone significant renovations in recent years. The city is already set to host the International Canoe Federation Slalom World Championships in 2026.

David Holt, the mayor of Oklahoma City, said in a statement the city had been working with LA28 organizers for the last six years.

“We are confident we will be an outstanding partner to LA28 in creating a dynamic environment for Olympians and fans,” Holt said.

The moves are subject to approval by the city of Los Angeles, which must approve all venue changes that extend outside the city.

Moving events outside an Olympic host city is not uncommon — and will happen at this summer’s Games in Paris. Portions of the basketball tournaments will be played in Lille, more than 100 miles away, and surfing in 2024 will be held across the globe in Tahiti.

LA28 said the IOC developed a new policy encouraging organizers to use existing venues, even if they are located outside of the host city, as opposed to building new sites.

“LA28’s updated venue plan will provide the ideal Hollywood stage for the world’s top athletes, and choosing from spectacular existing venues, wherever they are, rather than building new permanent or temporary stadiums, achieves more than $150 million in savings and new revenue to help maintain a balanced budget,” Wasserman said in a news release.

Where else will events be held?

Gymnastics competitions will be held at Crypto.com Arena, home of the Lakers, Kings and Sparks, and basketball will be played at the Intuit Dome, the new home of the LA Clippers, currently under construction and set to open later this year.

Track and field will be held at USC’s Memorial Coliseum, making it the first stadium to host track and field in three Olympics, per LA28.

Artistic swimming and para-swimming will share a venue with water polo in Long Beach, Calif., while diving will move to the 1932 Pool in Exposition Park.

Equestrian is set to take place in Temecula, Calif., and archery, BMX racing and skateboarding will be hosted in the Sepulveda Basin in L.A.’s San Fernando Valley.

The venue plan adjustments are in part due to new arenas that have become available for use and a previously assigned venue that became unavailable, LA28 said. The committee also had to budget for the new additions of breaking (new in Paris), skateboarding, surfing and sport climbing (all new in Tokyo), and baseball/softball, flag football, lacrosse, squash and cricket — which debut or return in the 2028 Games.

(Photo: Qian Weizhong / VCG via Getty Images)

Get all-access to exclusive stories.

Subscribe to The Athletic for in-depth coverage of your favorite players, teams, leagues and clubs. Try a week on us.