The individual monitoring committee (CSI)

Pour tout savoir sur les comités de suivi individuel des doctorants

Introduction

The Individual Monitoring Committee (CSI) is a compulsory annual monitoring scheme introduced by (Opens a new window) the decree of 25 May 2016 on doctoral training. In 2022, its remit, as well as its arrangements for organisation and operation, were clarified. It applies to all doctoral candidates registered in France, whatever their status (public-law or private-law doctoral contract, continuing education with an employment contract dedicated to an activity other than preparing the doctorate, scholarship, etc.).

Aims and responsibilities

Throughout the doctorate

- Ensure the smooth running of the doctoral training of the doctoral candidate, drawing on the doctoral charter and the individual training agreement,

- Provide support to the doctoral candidate

During the annual interview

- Assess the conditions of their training and the progress of their research,

- Make recommendations, send a report of the interview to the head of the doctoral school, the doctoral candidate and the thesis supervisor, and provide the doctoral school with input that complements that of the thesis supervisor, before each re-enrolment,

- Be particularly vigilant in identifying any form of conflict, discrimination, moral or sexual harassment, or sexist behaviour, and alert the doctoral school in the event of any difficulty.

Composition of the individual monitoring committee

The doctoral candidate's individual monitoring committee comprises a minimum of 2 members:

At least one member who specializes in the discipline or is connected with the field of the thesis

A non-specialist member from outside the thesis research field

A member from outside the institution, where possible

  • Members of this committee do not take part in supervising the doctoral candidate's work.
  • The doctoral school ensures that, as far as possible, the composition of the doctoral candidate's individual monitoring committee remains the same throughout their doctorate.
  • The doctoral school ensures that the doctoral candidate is consulted on the composition of their individual monitoring committee before it meets.
  • Other arrangements for the composition, organisation and operation of this committee are proposed by the doctoral school's board.

How the interviews are conducted

Presentation of progress on the research work, Step 1 of 4

followed by discussion with the committee
If the work is not confidential, this presentation may be given in public.

Interview between the committee and the doctoral candidate, Step 2 of 4

without the thesis supervisor.
The private exchanges during the interview make it possible to formulate certain recommendations and to remain alert to any form of conflict, discrimination, moral or sexual harassment, or sexist behaviour.

Interview with the thesis supervisor, Step 3 of 4

without the doctoral candidate.
The private exchanges during the interview make it possible to formulate certain recommendations and to remain alert to any form of conflict, discrimination, moral or sexual harassment, or sexist behaviour.

Drafting of the interview report Step 4 of 4

and submission to the head of the doctoral school, the doctoral candidate and the thesis supervisor.

And outside the annual interviews?

The decree of 25 May 2016 states that "The doctoral candidate's individual monitoring committee shall provide support to them throughout the doctorate. It shall meet without exception before enrolment for the second year, and thereafter before each new enrolment until the doctorate is completed.".

This means that the doctoral candidate may contact one or more members of their monitoring committee outside the annual meeting scheduled before each re-enrolment.

Find out more about the CSI framework and its context

The doctoral candidate's individual monitoring committee (CSI) is governed by:

To properly understand the scheme and the consistency of these measures, they need to be considered within the broader context of the provisions applicable to all civil servants. In particular, the annual professional appraisal interview, governed by (Opens a new window) Article 1.4 of the decree relating to such staff.

Indeed, the vast majority of doctoral candidates hold a public-law doctoral contract and therefore have the status of State contract staff. An annual professional appraisal interview is provided for such staff (see (Opens a new window) Article 1.4). However, several adjustments to this status have been made in the (Opens a new window) decree on the public-law doctoral contract (Article D412-1), in particular an exception to the annual professional appraisal interview as set out (Opens a new window) for all other staff, which has been replaced by the CSI as provided for in (Opens a new window) the decree of 25 May 2016 on doctoral training.

This adjustment for doctoral candidates on public-law contracts, in relation to the standard framework for annual interviews, makes it possible to:

  • Ensure collegial monitoring of doctoral candidates: monitoring is carried out by a committee rather than by a single person,
  • Provide an independent, external and complementary perspective to that of the thesis supervisor: CSI members do not take part in supervising the doctoral candidate's work, and the doctoral school bases its decision on re-enrolment on the complementary opinions of the CSI, on the one hand, and of the thesis supervisor, on the other,
  • Harmonise the monitoring arrangements for all doctoral candidates, irrespective of their status,
  • Avoid imposing, through regulation, duplication between the training monitoring carried out by the doctoral school with a view to re-enrolment (the doctoral school being a training structure within a State public institution) and the monitoring carried out by the employer (which may be a different State public institution from the former – a situation that frequently arises in joint research units).

The annual CSI therefore brings together the assessment of progress in training, in research work and in working conditions.

The collegial nature of the monitoring committee, and the fact that it draws on external perspectives, in no way lifts the obligations, particularly those of discretion and confidentiality, that are essential to carrying out this role.

Where they are civil servants or public officials, members of an individual monitoring committee are bound by all the obligations set out in the (Opens a new window) General Civil Service Code, in particular:

  • professional discretion regarding all facts, information or documents of which they become aware in the course of, or in connection with, the exercise of their duties,
  • professional confidentiality regarding information of a private nature or covered by secrecy (for example, unpublished research work or work that may lead to a patent application), subject to the obligation to report crimes and offences to the public prosecutor without delay,
  • the prevention of conflicts of interest, and of probity, dignity, impartiality and integrity in the exercise of their duties,
  • neutrality, secularism, equal treatment of all individuals and respect for their freedom of conscience and dignity,

If it is envisaged that an individual monitoring committee will call upon individuals who are not bound by these obligations by virtue of their status (for example, a researcher from a private R&D centre), it is recommended that they be asked to sign an undertaking to comply with these obligations.

References and useful links

CSI Individual monitoring committee Monitoring committee

Share this page