PhD students will carry out focused research in their area of specialisation, which is of immediate relevance to their research interest. Additionally, they will be exposed to new developments and challenges in their research topic in the international arena through media, seminars, conferences and keynote addresses and also through research attachments and collaborative exchange arrangements with international recognised research centres.
This Ph.D programme is purely based on individual supervised research. Candidates will be exposed to Research Methodology Course to strengthen their research knowledge. At the end of the candidate's study, a thesis must be submitted and upon successful defence, the candidate will be granted Ph.D status. Candidates are required to complete their studies within 12 semesters.
The Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Built Environment is an interdisciplinary program offered by Faculty of Built Environment, University of Malaya (UM). The program provides students with a common core of extensive, integrated knowledge focused upon all the facets of the built environment specialization. The Faculty of Built Environment UM has an internationally renowned reputation. Its international focus and diverse body of students makes it a stimulating environment for ambitious PhD candidates who wish to obtain a doctoral degree from a leading design academy/research institute. PhD candidates benefit from close interaction with world-class researchers and educators and are well supervised throughout their education.
Research is the principal requirement and candidates will produce a thesis, Candidates may be required to attend some pre-requisite courses as prescribed by the University.
The length of time required for the completion of a programme depends on the progress of the individual candidate. In general, the minimum, maximum and average durations are as follows:
Program Duration
Minimum: 4 semesters
Maximum :12 semesters
Average : 6 semesters (Average semester is the length of time when candidates usually complete their programme)
Students who have undertaken the PhD programme may pursue their careers in academia and industry related to the built environment.
Application and admission are open throughout the year. For online application, please visit https://pgadmission.um.edu.my
Click here
Candidates are required to submit four (4) copies of complete research proposal report of 3,000 – 7,000 words the Postgraduate Office not later than two (2) weeks before the date of the presentation, which includes the following:
(for direct admission candidates) Candidates are required to submit four (4) copies of complete research proposal report of 4,000 – 7,000 words the Postgraduate Office not later than two (2) weeks before the date of the presentation, which includes the following:
Candidates are required to submit four (4) copies of complete research proposal report of 5,000 – 10,000 words the Postgraduate Office not later than two (2) weeks before the date of the presentation, which includes the following:
Candidates shall submit presentation notes with abstract to the Postgraduate Office not later than three (3) working days before the date of presentation
The assessment of Proposal Defence (PD) is based on the evaluation criteria below:
| EXCELLENT (acceptable with minor or no revision) |
GOOD (acceptable with minor revision) |
SATISFACTORY (acceptable with major revision) |
UNSATISFACTORY (unacceptable & requires major revision) |
| 6 scale | 5 scale | 4 scale | 3-1 scale |
| Title and Abstract (5%) | |||
The title and abstract clearly and precisely:
|
The title and abstract clearly:
|
The title and abstract attempt to address all or most of the following:
|
The title and abstract fail to address all or most of the following:
|
| Introduction (25%) | |||
The introduction clearly, convincingly and precisely (in relation to or within the research context) provides the following:
|
The introduction clearly provides the following:
|
The introduction attempts to address all or most of the following:
|
The introduction fails to address all or most of the following:
|
| Literature review (25%) | |||
| The review achieves the following: Narrative integrates critical and logical details from the peer-reviewed theoretical and research literature. Attention is given to different perspectives, threats to validity, and opinion vs. evidence. |
The review achieves most of the following: Narrative integrates critical and logical details from the peer-reviewed theoretical and research literature. Attention is given to different perspectives, threats to validity, and opinion vs. evidence. |
The review attempts to address all or most of the following: Narrative integrates critical and logical details from the peer-reviewed theoretical and research literature. Attention is given to different perspectives, threats to validity, and opinion vs. evidence. |
The review fails to address all or most of the following: Narrative integrates critical and logical details from the peer-reviewed theoretical and research literature. Attention is given to different perspectives, threats to validity, and opinion vs. evidence. |
| Conceptual Framework / Methods / Approach (20%) | |||
The description of the conceptual framework and methodology is clear and corresponding justification is convincing and in accordance with acceptable research conventions. This includes:
|
The description of the conceptual framework and methodology is quite clear and corresponding justification is mostly convincing and in accordance with acceptable research conventions. This includes:
|
The description of the conceptual framework and methodology is somewhat clear and corresponding justification is marginally convincing and in accordance with acceptable research conventions. Attempts to address all or most of the following, but could be more convincing:
|
The description of the conceptual framework and methodology is not clear and corresponding justification is unconvincing and not in accordance with acceptable research conventions. Fails to address all or most of the following, but could be more convincing:
|
| Discussion and Conclusion (5%) | |||
The discussion and conclusion clearly, convincingly and precisely:
|
The discussion and conclusion quite clearly, convincingly and precisely:
|
The discussion and conclusion attempts to address all or most of the following, but could be more clear and convincing:
|
The discussion and conclusion fail to address all or most of the following clearly and convincingly:
|
| Academic Style, Language and References (10%) | |||
| Consistently applied standards of language composition, and APA guidelines, especially in regards to citations, references, headings, table of contents, page numbers, and running headers. Limited errors in spelling, grammar, word order, word usage, sentence structure, and/or punctuation. The reference list is complete and accurate. |
Manuscript conformed to most standards of language composition and APA guidelines. Few errors per page that do not impede the meaning in spelling, grammar, word order, word usage, sentence structure, and/or punctuation The reference list is mostly complete and accurate. |
Weak, incomplete, ambiguous, or inconsistent application of APA; manuscript organization, rules of language composition. Noticeable errors that do not impede readability. Moderate editing needed. The reference list is incomplete and / or contains some inaccuracies. |
Failure to apply standard rules for manuscript presentation and language composition Errors begin to impede readability. Significant editing needed. Several errors per paragraph informal language used in multiple instances The reference list is incomplete and inaccuracies. |
| Communication / Presentation (Q&A) (10%) | |||
| The candidate demonstrates the following: Research information is presented in logical, interesting and effective sequence and easy to follow. Very clear voice, fluent, confident, very good body-language. |
The candidate demonstrates the following: Research information is presented in sequence that can be followed. Clear voice, fluent, confident, good body-language. |
The candidate demonstrates the following: Research information is presented in less logical sequence. Clear voice, fluent, confident, good body-language. |
The candidate demonstrates the following: Research information is presented in no logical sequence. Voice not clear, hesitation and no body-language |
| TOTAL MARKS: 100% | |||
The assessment of Candidature Defence (CD) is based on the evaluation criteria below:
| EXCELLENT (acceptable with minor or no revision) |
GOOD (acceptable with minor revision) |
SATISFACTORY (acceptable with major revision) |
UNSATISFACTORY (unacceptable & requires major revision) |
| 6 scale | 5 scale | 4 scale | 3-1 scale |
| Introduction (10%) | |||
The introduction clearly, convincingly and precisely (in relation to or within the research context provides the following:
|
The introduction clearly provides the following:
|
The introduction attempts to address all or most of the following:
|
The introduction fails to address all or most of the following:
|
| Literature review (15%) | |||
| The review achieves the following: Narrative integrates critical and logical details from the peer-reviewed theoretical and research literature. Attention is given to different perspectives, threats to validity, and opinion vs. evidence. |
The review achieves most of the following: Narrative integrates critical and logical details from the peer-reviewed theoretical and research literature. Attention is given to different perspectives, threats to validity, and opinion vs. evidence. |
The review does not achieve most of the following: Narrative integrates critical and logical details from the peer-reviewed theoretical and research literature. Attention is given to different perspectives, threats to validity, and opinion vs. evidence. |
The review fails to achieve the following: Narrative integrates critical and logical details from the peer-reviewed theoretical and research literature. Attention is given to different perspectives, threats to validity, and opinion vs. evidence. |
| Conceptual Framework / Methods / Approach (20%) | |||
The description of the conceptual framework and methodology is clear and corresponding justification is convincing and in accordance with acceptable research conventions. This includes:
|
The description of the conceptual framework and methodology is quite clear and corresponding justification is mostly convincing and in accordance with acceptable research conventions. This includes:
|
The description of the conceptual framework and methodology is somewhat clear and corresponding justification is marginally convincing and in accordance with acceptable research conventions. Attempts to address all or most of the following, but could be more convincing:
|
The description of the conceptual framework and methodology is not clear and corresponding justification is unconvincing and not in accordance with acceptable research conventions. Fails to address all or most of the following, but could be more convincing:
|
| Results / Data Analyses / Findings (20%) | |||
The analyses and results illustrate the following:
In addition, the amount and quality of data or information is
|
The analyses and results illustrate much of the following:
In addition, the amount and quality of data or information is mostly quite:
|
The analyses and results do not illustrate much of the following:
In addition, the amount and quality of data or information is mostly not:
|
The analyses and results fail to illustrate the following:
In addition, the amount and quality of data or information is not:
|
| Discussion and Conclusion (20%) | |||
The discussion and conclusion clearly, convincingly and precisely:
|
The discussion and conclusion quite clearly, convincingly and precisely:
|
The discussion and conclusion attempts to address all or most of the following, but could be more clear and convincing:
|
The discussion and conclusion fails to address all or most of the following clearly and convincingly:
|
| Academic Style, Language and References (10%) | |||
| Consistently applied standards of language composition, and APA guidelines, especially in regards to citations, references, headings, table of contents, page numbers, and running headers. Limited errors in spelling, grammar, word order, word usage, sentence structure, and/or punctuation. The reference list is complete and accurate |
Manuscript conformed to most standards of language composition and APA guidelines. Few errors per page that do not impede the meaning in spelling, grammar, word order, word usage, sentence structure, and/or punctuation The reference list is mostly complete and accurate. |
Weak, incomplete, ambiguous, or inconsistent application of APA; manuscript organization, rules of language composition. Noticeable errors that do not impede readability. Moderate editing needed. The reference list is incomplete and / or contains some inaccuracies. |
Failure to apply standard rules for manuscript presentation and language composition Errors begin to impede readability. Significant editing needed. Several errors per paragraph informal language used in multiple instances The reference list is incomplete and inaccuracies. |
| Communication / Presentation (Q&A) (5%) | |||
| The candidate demonstrates the following: Research information presented in logical, interesting and effective sequence and easy to follow. Very clear voice, fluent, confident, very good body-language. |
The candidate demonstrates the following: Research information presented in sequence that can be followed. clear voice, fluent, confident, good body-language. |
T he candidate demonstrates the following: Research information presented in less logical sequence. clear voice, fluent, confident, good body-language. |
The candidate demonstrates the following: Research information presented in no logical sequence. Voice not clear, hesitation and no body-language |
| TOTAL MARKS: 100% | |||
A candidate is required to submit a research progress report latest between week sixteen and week eighteen of each semester before the registration of the subsequent semester in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The Supervisor, Co-Supervisor and Consultant shall evaluate the candidate’s research progress report in accordance with the prescibed procedures and complete the said evaluation within one (1) week from the date of receipt of progress report for the semester concerned.
A candidate whose progress is satisfactory shall be recommended to continue with his candidature. A candidate whose progress is not satisfactory for two (2) consecutive semesters shall have his candidature terminated by the University. Please make sure the following steps are followed to ensure successful submission of your progress report:
Last Update: 21/07/2024