Dalla Lana School of Public Health - Doctor of Philosophy Epidemiology (PhD)

Doctor of Philosophy Epidemiology (PhD)

Dissertation

A dissertation in epidemiology must have relevance to the health of human populations. Within that broad framework, the dissertation may deal with any topic in the areas of medicine, public health and, health care services; and the research designs and statistical methods used in these fields. A doctoral dissertation in epidemiology may involve new data, collected for the purpose of the study, or the use of data previously collected. In the latter case, the analysis must be suitably complex, and must be driven by theoretical considerations and a specific research or methodological question. The dissertation result should be new knowledge and should include findings suitable for publication in a peer-reviewed epidemiology journal. It also may include methodological and substantive advances in knowledge.

The dissertation topic must include clearly posed research questions amenable to study by appropriate epidemiologic methods. The Student must have contributed substantially to the identification of the research question and must have played an integral part in the planning of the investigation. Wherever appropriate, the Student will also be expected to participate directly in the collection of the data. Students will be expected to analyze their own data using appropriate analytic approaches.

Development and Approval of Proposal

As part of the Doctoral Seminar in Epidemiology, first-year students will be required to present their dissertation’s literature review and research questions; and draft methods: the former by December of the 1^st year, the latter by April of the first year. In subsequent years, students will present dissertation research as work-in-progress. Supervisors and other members of the Student’s Advisory Committee, and all PhD Students (regardless of “year” in the degree), are expected to participate in the Doctoral seminar. The entire Division of Epidemiology (including master’s students and other faculty) will be encouraged to attend.

Early in the second year, the Student will finalize the dissertation research proposal and present it to a wide audience in the Division of Epidemiology. The proposal must be approved by two reviewers external to the Student’s Advisory Committee and by the Program Leader, such approval to occur no later than the end of October of the second year.

Research Ethics Board Approval

The dissertation protocol, as approved by the Epidemiology Program, must have U of T Research Ethics Board approval as a supervised research study. An application for initial REB approval (or amendment to approval for an ongoing study), will therefore follow the approval of the dissertation protocol.

All research projects in which University of Toronto students are involved at any stage must have approval from the University of Toronto Research Ethics Board (REB). This includes ongoing research projects of the supervisor which has previously received REB approval and where REB approval is already held from a University affiliated hospital or research institute. Preliminary work necessary to prepare the proposal may also require an original REB application or amendment to the original study.
See details of the REB application and review process at Office of Research Ethics (www.research.utoronto.ca/for-researchers-administrators/ethics/).

Format of the Proposal

The proposal will include a brief and cogent review of the literature, justification of the research question, the objectives and hypotheses, design, data collection or data sources, proposed analysis strategies, timetable, ethics, and potential problems or issues. The proposal will conclude with references in proper bibliographic format. The proposal also will include a concise statement of the Student’s role in the development and conduct of the research. A title page, with word count, will include the names and signatures of the Supervisor and other Advisory Committee members. The proposal will be printed using a 12-point font, and limited to 20 double-spaced pages. The bibliography and title page are not included in the page or word counts. Appendices should be kept to a minimum.

Presentation of the Proposal

The proposal presentation consists of a written outline of the dissertation proposal and an oral presentation. The purpose of the presentation is for the Student and Advisory Committee to receive constructive feedback and to ensure that:

The project is adequate and appropriate for a PhD dissertation;
The Student has an opportunity to discuss dissertation work with, and receive input from, a broad audience;
The project is manageable within the time-frame and expectations of the PhD program; and,
The student has the opportunity to hone skills in presentation.

The proposal presentation is attended by the Student, the Advisory Committee, and two reviewers. At least one reviewer (full or associate SGS) should have research supervisory experience at the doctoral level in epidemiology. The second reviewer should have an SGS appointment and may be a substantive expert from another discipline. Reviewers should have had no previous involvement with the development of the proposal under review, except possibly to provide reference or other background materials. The presentation will be advertised within the Division, and other students and faculty are encouraged to attend.

Procedures for Approval of the Proposal

The Student’s Advisory Committee approves the proposal, at least four (4) weeks before the anticipated date of presentation.
The Advisory Committee identifies at least two potential reviewers.
The Student contacts the Program Leader (copy to the administrative assistant) to give notice that the proposal is ready for presentation, together with the names and email addresses of potential reviewers.
The Program Leader must approve the reviewers, may suggest other reviewers, and will nominate one of the reviewers to be the Program Leader’s representative.
The Supervisor contacts reviewers and arranges the date/time of the presentation, and informs the program administrative assistant of the arrangements.
The administrative assistant reserves a room and any required audiovisual equipment specified by the student, and posts notices on bulletin boards and e-mail, including a confirmatory e-mail to the reviewers and Advisory Committee.
The Student distributes the proposal to reviewers, Advisory Committee members, and administrative assistant, three (3) weeks before the date of the presentation.

8. The administrative assistant will make copies available on request to other members of the Division and to students.

9. The presentation will begin with a 20-minute presentation by the Student of the research proposal, followed by a period of questions and discussion among those present, with the two reviewers taking the lead in the questions. The Supervisor will chair the proceedings and act as timekeeper. The question period will typically be expected to last 60 to 80 minutes. The Supervisor will take notes of all issues raised.

At the end of formal questioning, the Student and other attendees will generally be asked to leave the room and the reviewers and Advisory Committee will have a general discussion of the proposal, the purpose being to provide focused, constructive, and detailed feedback to the Student, Supervisors, and Advisory Committee on the proposal and its oral presentation. The Supervisor will take note of the feedback and prepare a summary of the recommendations. The Student may be invited to be present at these discussions at the discretion of the reviewers and the supervisor.
After the presentation, the Supervisor will e-mail a written summary of the recommendations to the reviewer nominated as the Divisional representative.
The Divisional representative must review and approve the recommendations:

If these convey the recommendations of the meeting, will forward these to the student by e-mail, copies to the Supervisor, Program Leader and administrative assistant.

If these do not convey the recommendations of the meeting, the supervisor should be contacted with a request for modifications, copy the Program Leader and the other reviewer(s).

In the unlikely event that agreement cannot be reached, the Program Leader will meet with the Supervisor, reviewers and Division Head to decide on next steps.

It is incumbent on the Student to makes changes to the proposal which address any concerns/issues raised during the presentation and discussion within 60 days of the presentation. A revised proposal must be submitted to the departmental representative for approval, and thence to the Program Leader and Division Head.

Format Options for Dissertation

Students may choose one of two options for preparation of the dissertation: a monograph or a series of journal articles. The monograph is the default option. It is a single report, divided into chapters: introduction, literature review, methods, results, and discussion. A reference list would be followed by various appended material, which might include data collection instruments, additional related findings, and the like.

The journal article option varies from the monograph in that the main body of the dissertation comprises approximately three (3) complete, stand-alone manuscripts; these may already have been published, or may be ready to submit for peer-review. The manuscripts should be preceded and followed by material that unites them. So, for instance, an introduction and literature review, and possibly methods, more global in scope than those included in the manuscripts themselves, would precede the manuscripts; likewise, a discussion would follow, and would tie the manuscripts together, describing how they – as a group – make a contribution to the literature. Appended material might include the methodological details that would not be present in the methods sections of the manuscripts.

Regardless of format, the student should identify and follow appropriate style guides for the preparation of the dissertation.

Dissertation Defense

The Student should aim to defend the dissertation within four years of entry into the PhD program. The defense of the dissertation will take place in two stages: first, a Divisional defense, second, a formal defense before a University committee, according to procedures established by the School of Graduate Studies . The two defenses generally are separated by at least eight weeks.

Divisional Defense

The Divisional defense will be held after the completed dissertation has been approved by all members of the Student’s Advisory Committee, and the completion of the final Advisory Committee meeting report. The purpose of this defense is to rehearse the oral presentation for the SGS defense and to determine whether the Student is ready for the SGS defense.

The Student should expect constructive criticism about the clarity and length of the presentation and the quality of visual materials, as well as about the dissertation itself. In particular, the Divisional defense will confirm that:

The Student has adequately met the requirements for a dissertation; and,
The Student has the required level of understanding of the scientific issues involved in the dissertation work.

The Divisional defense is attended by the Student, the Supervisor and other members of the Advisory Committee, and two Divisional reviewers. At least one reviewer (full or associate SGS) should have research supervisory experience at the doctoral level in epidemiology. The second reviewer should have an SGS appointment and may be a substantive expert from another discipline. Eligible reviewers will have had no prior involvement with the design or conduct of the research, with the exception of providing references or other background material. The Advisory Committee and Divisional reviewers will constitute the defense committee. The presentation will be advertised within the Division, and other students and faculty are encouraged to attend.

Procedures

The Advisory Committee approves the dissertation, at least four (4) weeks before the anticipated date of the defense.
The Advisory Committee identifies at least two potential reviewers.
The Student contacts the Program Leader (copy to the administrative assistant) to give notice that the dissertation is ready for defense, together with the names and email addresses of potential reviewers. If necessary, the Program Leader suggests alternative reviewers. The Program Leader approves the reviewers, and nominates one of them to be the Program Leader’s representative.
The Supervisor contacts reviewers and arranges the date/time of the defense, and informs the administrative assistant of the arrangements.
The administrative assistant reserves a room and any required audiovisual equipment, as specified by the Student, and posts notices on bulletin boards and e-mail, including a confirmatory e-mail to the Advisory Committee and reviewers.
The Student distributes a copy of the dissertation to reviewers and to Advisory Committee members four (4) weeks before the date of the defense, with an extra copy to the Supervisor (or designate) which may be made available to other faculty or students who may wish to read it.
The Defense Committee comprises the external reviewers, the Supervisor and the other Advisory Committee members.
Before the Defense Committee convenes, the Student and non-committee attendees may be asked to leave the room to permit discussion of the defense process among the Defense Committee members.
The defense will begin with a 20-minute presentation by the Student of the research findings, followed by a period of questions and discussion among those present, with the two reviewers taking the lead in the questions. The Supervisor will chair the proceedings and act as timekeeper. The question period will typically be expected to last 60 to 80 minutes. The Supervisor will take notes of all issues raised.
At the end of formal questioning, the Student and other attendees will generally be asked to leave the room, and the Defense Committee will discuss any issues of concern, to provide focused, constructive, and detailed feedback to the Student, Supervisor, and other members of the Advisory Committee on the dissertation and its oral defense. The Supervisor will take note of the feedback with respect to whether the dissertation work is generally adequate for the Senate defense; changes that should be made to the dissertation prior to arranging for Senate defense, and improvements that could be made to the oral presentation and defense; and will prepare a summary of the recommendations. If revisions to the text of the dissertation are recommended, there will also be discussion of the timing of the Senate defense. The Student may be invited to be present at these discussions at the discretion of the reviewers and the Supervisor.
After the presentation, the Supervisor will e-mail a written summary to the Divisional representative, outlining any major issues that need to be addressed before the Senate Defense.
The Divisional representative must review and approve the recommendations:

If these convey the recommendations of the meeting, the Divisional Representative will forward these to the student by e-mail, copies to the Supervisor, Advisory Committee, Program Leader, Graduate Coordinator and administrative assistant.

If these do not convey the recommendations of the meeting, the Supervisor will be asked to make modifications; the Program Leader and other reviewer(s) must be copied on this correspondence.

In the unlikely event that agreement cannot be reached, the Program Leader will meet with the Supervisor, reviewers and Division Head to decide on next steps.

The Program Leader and Division Head must approve the dissertation before the Student can schedule the School of Graduate Studies defense.

School of Graduate Studies Oral Defence

Epidemiology Main Page

PhD

Last Update 1/26/2012