The assessment is based solely on the pilot study, the table of contents and the progress report. Any other activities – including those undertaken in the context of a larger project of which the PhD candidate forms part – are not (decisive) parts of the assessment.

The main supervisor (promotor) is responsible for ensuring the PhD candidate has enough time to complete the pilot study. The PhD candidate should not teach in the period in which the pilot study has to be written and other activities should be kept to a minimum or should be directly related to the pilot study. The PhD candidate and the supervisors should make a plan for the completion of the pilot study – including deadlines and feedback moments – at the beginning of the contract. The completion of the pilot study is the absolute priority in the first year.

In terms of content, the pilot study should be designed to form an integral part of the dissertation. How the pilot is fitted in the dissertation will vary per project and academic field, but the work done during the pilot must be relevant to the PhD project and the thesis. The pilot study should not take the form of a research proposal; it needs to be a coherent, independently readable, non-fragmentary text.

The supervision team and the PhD candidate have total control on the content of the pilot, its aim, and the way in which it directly feeds into the PhD project and the thesis itself. The supervision team and the PhD candidate are strongly encouraged to discuss this already while preparing for the intake meeting. Specific agreements must be recorded in the intake meeting report.

Below are a few examples which can be considered. The pilot study could be conceived of as:

• An introduction to the dissertation,
• A chapter of the dissertation,
• A journal article (e.g., a literature review, a piece on the state of the art, a meta-analysis, a theoretical piece, representing (part of) a chapter of the thesis,
• A squib (discussing aspects of a chapter of the thesis),
• A proof of concept (e.g., focusing on an experimental study of the thesis),
• A report of an experimental pilot study planned for the thesis,
• A book review that directly feeds into a chapter of the thesis,
• A case study,
• A protocol
• Etc.,

These examples are not exhaustive and the supervision team may also decide on other types of academic piece. Whatever choice is made must be completed within the first year. In case of doubt about the form of the pilot, the supervision team should contact the ACLC management team and/or the director for further details and approval.

In the case of an introduction, the pilot study should outline the main problem and research questions of the dissertation, as well as the theoretical framework, methods and objects used to address this problem and research questions in an innovative manner. It should also demonstrate the PhD candidate’s ability to engage critically with existing scholarship.

In the cases listed here, the pilot study should demonstrate the PhD candidate’s ability to clearly present and analyse empirical phemomena or relevant data, engage critically with the relevant literature, and evaluate how this relates to the central research question(s) of the dissertation project. The pilot should articulate where the innovation of the proposed analysis or perspective of the thesis lies. These guidelines may vary to some extent depending on the PhD candidate’s subfield, but it is crucial that the pilot meets the relevant academic standards.

In formal terms, the pilot study should be:

• between 5,000 and 10,000 words in length (but contact the ACLC management in case your subfield has different standards);
• a coherent, independently readable text with a beginning/introduction, middle/body and end/conclusion and a clearly developed argument;
• professionally presented (spell-checked, with a consistently used reference system and a full bibliography).

Any questions about the pilot study and the evaluation on the part of the PhD candidate, the supervisors or the external reader should be addressed – as soon as they arise – to the ACLC Office (aclc-fgw@uva.nl).

When the ACLC office contacts the supervisors about the date and time of the evaluation meeting, it also asks the supervisors to suggest an external reader. Once the external reader has been approved by the ACLC Director, the ACLC Office approaches the external reader and secures their cooperation. The external reader is asked to read the pilot study and to send an assessment report (max. 2 A4) to the ACLC office at least one week before the evaluation meeting.

The assessment report provides constructive comments. In so doing, the external reviewer considers the coherence of the pilot study, what are the strong points to pursue, and what are the weak or less strong points that need be attended to, the adequacy of the methodology or analysis, and writing style of the PhD.

The ACLC Office sends the external reader’s assessment to the PhD candidate, supervisors and Director before the evaluation meeting. The external reader attends the first half hour of the evaluation meeting.

The pilot study is evaluated by the supervisors, an external reader and the Director of the ACLC. The evaluations are discussed during the pilot meeting, where the following parties are present: the PhD candidate, the moderator (chair), the supervisors, the ACLC Director, the external reviewer, and the ACLC coordinator. On the basis of the evaluations and the discussions during the pilot meeting, the Director decides whether or not the pilot study is of the required quality. This will be announced during the pilot meeting.

In case of a positive evaluation, the PhD candidate receives an assessment report in which the pilot study is deemed satisfactory on the basis of which (a) the employment contract is extended for the full contract period (funded PhD candidates), or (b) the registration is extended (externally or self-funded PhD candidates).

If the Director decides that the pilot study is not up to standard, the PhD candidate is given 4 weeks to revise the pilot study. After the revised pilot is submitted, it is evaluated again by the supervisors, external reader and Director. Subsequently, the PhD candidate receives an assessment report in which the pilot study is either deemed satisfactory (in this case, the employment contract/registration will be extended for the rest of the PhD track period) or unsatisfactory (in this case, the candidate’s contract/registration will not be extended). A second evaluation meeting will take place in which the PhD candidate can respond to the assessment report. If the meeting does not change the Director’s decision, the procedure to not extend the PhD candidate’s contract/registration is started. The PhD candidate is informed at least 1 month before the end of the contract/registration, that it will not be extended.