Guidelines for the committee for the assessment of PhD positions

The following documents form the basis for the work undertaken by the expert committee:

• "Regulations concerning terms and conditions of employment for the posts of post-doctoral research fellow, doctoral research fellow, research assistant and PhD candidate”. (The Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research: 31 January 2006 no. 102) pursuant to the Act of 1 April 2005 no. 15 relating to Universities and University Colleges.

• "Regulations for appointment to academic positions and technical and/or administrative management positions"(adopted by the University Board on 28 May 2014 with subsequent amendments and included in the University's Rules and Regulations).

• Job advertisement including description of the post.

• Description of the PhD programme in law.

• Description of standards for legal doctorates, including guidelines for article-based dissertations.

The chair of the committee is responsible for ensuring that the committee’s recommendations are in accordance with the guidelines.

The assessment committee has two main tasks: firstly, the committee must determine which applicants are to be considered qualified for the post. Provided that there are several qualified applicants for the post, the committee is required to subsequently rank the candidates. Whether or not an individual applicant is regarded as being qualified for the post and how any qualified candidates will be ranked will be determined by undertaking a comprehensive assessment. Generally speaking, when assessing which candidates are best qualified, emphasis is placed on education, experience and personal suitability. As regards positions for doctoral research fellows, applicants are in particular to be assessed  on their ability to complete a doctorate within the framework provided for the position. Consequently applicants willbe assessed to see if they display the potential for producing academic work in accordance with the description of standards which applies to legal doctorates within a timeframe of three years (please see below re. possible extensions of the project period to four years, including teaching duties).

In its recommendations the expert committee must justify its views on the  applicants and their potential for completing a jurisprudence doctoral dissertation.

a) Basic education

The committee must clarify whether or not applicants have had a basic education which qualifies them for appointment as a doctoral research fellow. In this respect the committee must be aware of the wording used in the job announcement (“Master’s degree in law or equivalent legal education” versus “Master’s degree in law or equivalent education”). If the requirement is "Master's degree in law or equivalent legal education", the applicant must have an education that qualifies him/her to work as a lawyer. If the requirement is "Master's degree in law or equivalent education", this means that other education programmes of a duration equivalent to a Master's degree may also qualify the applicant if such a programme can form the basis for a doctoral dissertation in jurisprudence.

Special approaches apply to applicants whose education has wholly or partly been provided by institutions outside Norway. Pursuant to the EEA agreement, Norway has an obligation not to discriminate against applicants from other EU or EEA countries on the basis of nationality. Formally, this obligation is applicable only within the EU/EEA area, but the Faculty sees no reason to choose a minimum variant whereby residents from non-EU/EEA countries are treated differently. The committee must therefore assess whether or not an applicant’s education is equal to a Master's degree in law, and such assessment can be challenging for applicants who have a basic education that is shorter than five years. A clue will be whether or not an applicant’s education qualifies him/her to begin a ph.d. education in the country in which he/she has been educated. The guidelines encourage applicants who have been educated abroad to submit a "Diploma Supplement". This is a covering letter to a Testimony of Higher Education, providing a standardised description of the structure, level, content and status of the applicant's education. A "Diploma Supplement" is a joint project between the European Commission, the Council of Europe and UNESCO/CEPES (please see here for more information). If no “Diploma Supplement” or equivalent documentation is forthcoming, the Faculty will request this.

The description must show the average figures relating to the percentage of applicants receiving various grades over a longer period of time.

b) High academic level

According to the PhD in law programme description, applicants must provide documentary evidence showing that they have a high academic level.

For applicants with numerical grades, a main grade of 2.55 was historically considered to be a good grade, but over time somewhat weaker grades have also been considered to be acceptable if the project specification ispromising. Alphabetical grades have now taken over and one single main grade is no longer awarded. However, generally speaking applicants should have a weighted grade average of B or better (the various grades are weighted in accordance with credits). The average should be adjusted with an assessment of whether or not the grades show a progression towards the end of the study and/or whether or not the best achievements are made in large and difficult subjects. For foreign applicants, a "Diploma Supplement" or equivalent document will provide guidelines about the grading system at the institution(s) concerned.

Exam performance, project descriptions and academic output are all factors which can show high academic levels and the potential for a doctorate in law. It is neither possible nor appropriate to set out criteria for the assessment of academic output as part of these guidelines. Here, the assessment committee must rely upon the practice established among peers. Nevertheless, certain issues have regularly arisen in connection with applications for research fellowship posts at the Faculty and a few items are therefore addressed in detail in this document.

Applicants may submit both academic work and unpublished manuscripts. The Faculty’s assessment practice is for the expert committee to carry out quality assessments of work. Whether or not work has been published is not important, but failure to achieve completion shall nevertheless be marked down.

As regards co-authorship, applicants must submit a co-authorship statement which specifies how the authors have collaborated and if necessary which parts of the work have been written by whom. Sole authorship or first authorship will generally count for more than second authorship. If an applicant co-authors work with a highly experienced researcher, any work in which the parties' individual contributions cannot be identified will be slightly marked lower, if the quality derived from the applicant cannot be identified.

Master's theses carrying 30 credits or other student works are basically part of an exam and they will not be assessed as scientific work unless they are published. Nevertheless, the committee may carry out a more detailed assessment of a Master's thesis, especially if they have any doubts about the applicant's qualifications. If any doubts exist about rankings between several applicants, emphasis may also be placed on whether or not the applicant in question displays academic potential in his/her Master’s thesis. The committee must always assess major Master’s theses which carry 60 or 70 credits, and place emphasis on their quality. This might, for example, be relevant when an applicant has submitted a Master’s thesis marked with a strong A.

Applicants are required to enclose a project description. If no such description is enclosed or if it contains obvious deficiencies, the applicant will be judged as being unqualified. When submitting a project description, applicants must demonstrate that the subject is suitable for a doctoral dissertation and that the applicant's specific project has been thought through, prepared thoroughly and adapted to suit the framework conditions specified by the Faculty for doctoral research fellow positions. When assessing project descriptions, emphasis is to  be placed on the level of knowledge and analysis demonstrated by the applicant concerned, awareness of both the potential and risks involved in the project, and the academic potential generally reflected in the description.

c) Other factors

Other factors are only appropriate for the assessment of the ranking between applicants. The following factors are relevant here. The order of factors is not intended to show ranking.

• Completed researcher option, 70 credits

• Educational qualifications (e.g. work as a working group leader or examiner)

• Communication work (e.g. authoring reports)

• Academic qualification of a different nature (e.g. professional experience as a lawyer)

• Administrative qualifications and other activities

A basic requirement for qualification is that the applicant has a "high academic level." When ranking applicants of a similar standing, their other qualifications will be decisive.

The committee is to provide a guiding assessment and rank the applicants in line with the criteria specified above. If only one post has been advertised, the three most qualified applicants shall be ranked and, in the event of multiple posts, three more applicants than the number of posts advertised shall be ranked. If applicants of both genders have similar expertise, this must be clearly shown in the assessment. The committee is  not to express an opinion on issues of equality, preferential rights, personal suitability or other conditions that do not concern the applicants’ documented academic qualifications, cf. the UiB’s Regulations on Employment in Academic Positions and Academic/Administrative Management Positions, Item 6.2.3.  Nor shall the committee make decisions about whether or not applicants are to be offered a 4-year position, including teaching duties.

The committee’s recommendations must be formulated in accordance with the following points:

• Explain the committee's formal assessment basis: the regulations, the applicable regulations from the UiB’s Rules and Regulations, the job advertisement text, the description of the post concerned and the guidelines, etc. that form the basis for the committee's work.

• A brief overview will be made for each applicant with regard to education, any professional experience and other qualifying merits. The project specification will be addressed separately and the committee will assess the project's potential for a doctorate in law. The committee is  also required to assess any submitted academic work. The assessment of each applicant is to culminate in a conclusion about whether or not the applicant in question is qualified for the position.

• Finally, the committee will provide an overall comparative assessment of the most qualified applicants as a basis for ranking at least three of the most qualified applicants.

Submitted academic work will not be returned unless the applicant asks for his/her work to be returned in his/her application.