Guidelines for evaluation for the Dr.Philos. degree at the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Bergen

The evaluation committee’s mandate is to assess the thesis and issue a written reasoned recommendation to the Faculty whether they find the thesis worthy of being defended for the Dr.Philos degree at the University of Bergen. If the thesis is worthy of being defended in a public defence, the committee must evaluate and approve the trial lectures and the public defence before the doctoral candidate is awarded the Dr.Philos. degree.

Part 1 of the guidelines deals with the committee's assessment of the thesis.

Part 2 deals with the committee's assessment of the trial lectures and public defence.

Legislation and rules the guidance is authorized in, is at the end of the guidelines.

Note that there should be no contact between the committee members and the candidate/supervisors during the assessment of the thesis. All queries should be directed to the faculty's contact.

The duties of the chairperson

The chairperson of the committee:

• serves as a full member of the committee
• coordinates the committee evaluation process and ensures that progress is made and deadlines met
• coordinates the compilation of the committee's report on the thesis and distributes tasks among the committee members in connection with the public defence.
• serves as a link between the committee and the faculty
• clarifies a tentative date for public defence as early as possible and communicates this to the faculty officer
• sends the title of the trial lecture on the assigned topic and a brief written reason for the choice of topic to the faculty contact person no later than 3 weeks before the date of the public defence.
• is the department’s link with the external members

Level requirements for the thesis

A Norwegian doctoral degree is awarded as proof that the candidate's research qualifications are of a certain standard. The thesis must be of high academic standard with regard to the formulation of the research topic, conceptual clarity, formal presentation, ethical considerations, and the use of methods, theories and empirical material. It is particularly important to consider whether the material and methods applied are relevant to the questions raised in the thesis, and whether the arguments and conclusions posited are tenable. The thesis must contribute to new knowledge in the discipline and hold an academic standard appropriate for publication in the scientific literature of the field. It can be submitted as one large coherent work (monograph) or as a collection of several smaller academic works (article-based thesis).

The committee should give special consideration to whether the thesis represent an independent and comprehensive piece of scientific work of high academic standard, and if the candidate satisfies the minimum requirements to qualify as a researcher. The level of competence in degrees with time norms and organised research training (the PhD degree) is assumed to be equivalent to that of the Dr. Philos. degree, which has no time norms or organised research training. The principle of equivalence refers to the academic standard and quality of the doctoral work, not merely its volume. In the organised research training, competence can also be documented through practical tests and participation in various activities within the training component. 

Content and scope -thesis requirements

Work that has been approved as the basis for previously completed examinations or degrees may not be accepted for assessment, unless the work is included as a minor part of a thesis consisting of multiple interrelated works. Data, analyses or methods used in earlier degrees may nevertheless be used as a basis for work on the doctoral project.

Sub-works that are components of the thesis cannot normally be more than ten (10) years old at the time application to submit is made. If older components are included, a rationale must be given in the application to submit, explaining how this work nevertheless satisfies the criterion of developing new knowledge.

The lack of completion of the training component is to be compensated for by the thesis work being of a somewhat more comprehensive scope than what is required in the organised doctoral programmes.

Article-based theses

For article-based thesis, assessed for the Dr.Philos. degree, more comprehensive means that the thesis must consist of at least four standard-length scholarly articles or article manuscipts where the candidate is the sole or first author (for the PhD degree at the Faculty of Social Sciences the requirement is at least three standard-length scholarly articles or article manuscipts where the candidate is the sole or first author).

The first author is normally regarded as an author who contributed at least 50% of an article. To be counted as the first author, the candidate must have contributed substantially to the development of the idea and research design, data collection, and the analysis and interpretation of the data. Exceptions from this norm can be made, in line with traditions in the disciplines to which the thesis belongs. If this condition is not met, the number of articles must be increased.

Several shorter works may be approved as parts of the doctoral thesis if their contents form a whole. In such cases, the doctoral candidate must write a framing introduction that explains in detail the coherency of the thesis. The framing introduction should demonstrate how the thesis relates to the existing research in the field, indicate its contribution to the field, outline the broader theoretical framework of the study, and provide an in-depth methodological discussion. For the Dr.Philos. degree it is an additional requirement to include relevant scientific theoretical, epistemic and research ethical reflections in the framing introduction. The framing introduction thus goes beyond being a summary, as it also presents the problems and conclusions in the articles as a whole to document the coherency of the thesis. This part of the thesis is therefore very important for both the doctoral candidate and the committee in its assessment. The candidate must be the sole author of the framing introduction.

The evaluation committee makes the final assessment as to whether the doctoral candidate meets the required standard of independence and quality for the thesis to be publicly defended.

Monographs

For the monograph, more comprehensive may mean that the candidate did a greater personal effort with regard to data collection. Or the candidate did in general more extensive work than is expected for the PhD degree. In addition, all monographs, assessed for the Dr.Philos degree, must contain relevant scientific theoretical , epistemic and research ethical reflections.

Requirements concerning joint publications

When the thesis includes joint publications, the doctoral candidate must obtain declarations from his/her co-author(s). The committee must consider to what extent the candidate's contribution to the joint publication can be identified and whether the candidate is responsible for a sufficient portion of the thesis.

Additional information

If the documentation submitted by the candidate is insufficient, the committee may ask for further information by contacting the faculty officer. In special cases, the committee may require the submission of supplementary or clarifying information.

Description of the work – The committee’s report and title of the trial lecture

The committee must issue a joint report, with any individual statements enclosed. Grounds for dissent among the members of the committee must always be stated. Individual statements may be enclosed with the report even if the committee's conclusion is unanimous.

Deadline and address for the evaluation report

The committee’s evaluation report shall be submitted no later than three months after the committee has received the thesis, but no later than five weeks before a planned public defence. The committee submits the signed evaluation report as a pdf-file by e-mail to post@svfa.uib.no with copy to phd@svfa.uib.no. If the thesis is approved for public defence, the committee may sign the evaluation report at the public defence.

The committee’s evaluation report must address the following:

• Headline: Evaluation report from the evaluation committee regarding [NN’s] thesis [title] for the Dr.Philos. degree at the University of Bergen
• Names, titles and institutional affiliation of the committee members
• A brief description of the format of the thesis (monograph or collection of articles)
• Nature of the thesis (for instance theoretical or empirical) as well as size (number of pages)
• If the thesis is based on a series of articles, the evaluation report should clarify whether the candidate has lone or shared authorship of these, and in the latter case whether the candidate is the main author. The report should also mention if the articles have been published or not, and when and where, if applicable.
• A description of the thesis’s academic significance and its key components in terms of theories, hypotheses, empirical material, methodologies and findings
• Evaluation of the thesis’s strengths and weaknesses
• Conclusion, i.e. whether the committee deems the thesis worthy of public defence.
• Date and signatures.

If the thesis has been submitted for the second time, or it has been submitted on the recommendation of smaller revisions from the committee, it should be mentioned initially. The committee should briefly state whether the candidate has taken note of the recommendations and then point out the changes that have been made in the thesis.

The Committee's recommendation

In the committee’s recommendation, an evaluation and weighing of the strengths and weaknesses of the thesis is made. This leads to a conclusion as to whether the committee finds the thesis worthy of public defence, or whether the committee recommends that the thesis cannot be approved for public defence. Dissent must be justified in the report.

The Committee's assessment can lead to three possible recommendations: thesis approved for public defence, smaller revisions and rejection.

Thesis approved for public defence

The thesis is considered approved for public defence if it is considered as an independent and comprehensive scientific work of international standard, where the doctoral candidate satisfies the minimum requirements for research competence (ref. Level requirements). Thesis recommended for public defence can nevertheless have weaknesses, but these weaknesses are of such a nature that they can be defended in an oral defence, without being corrected in the evaluated thesis. The recommended length of the report is three to six pages.

Smaller revisions

The thesis is not considered approved for public defence in its present form, but a satisfactory standard may be reached if the candidate revises it in accordance with the committee’s specific proposals for amendments. The committee shall not make a recommendation for minor reworking if it only concerns minor ambiguities in the thesis that can be clarified within the framework of the defence.

The Dean will have powers to decide whether to permit the revision.

The candidate is requested in writing to rework the thesis before the committee takes a final decision on whether it is worthy of being defended in a public defence. A recommendation of smaller revisions does not count as an assessment of the thesis.   A recommendation on smaller amendments does not count as an assessment of the thesis.The committee should only recommend such smaller amendments of the thesis if it is likely that the candidate can revise the thesis to a satisfactory level within a three-month period (note that the candidate is no longer a research fellow and often engaged in other fulltime work).

In such cases, The committee must provide a written list of the specific items that the candidate must rework and, which parts of the thesis are in need of revision (for example, methodology, relationship between material and conclusion, use of concepts, clarity of questions raised, data processing and serious reference errors / deficiencies). However, this type of indication should not give the impression that a new evaluation will necessarily lead to approval of the thesis.

The deadline for the candidate is up to 3 months. A new deadline for sending the committee's final recommendation must also be set, which must not be longer than two (2) months after the committee has received a revised version of the thesis. If the candidate does not deliver the revised thesis within the deadline set by the faculty, the committee must recommend that the faculty itself reject the thesis.

Rejection

The thesis is not considered worthy of a public defence. If the committee concludes that fundamental changes to theory, hypotheses, empirical material, methods and/or analysis are necessary before a thesis can be recommended for public defence, the committee shall recommend rejection of the thesis. In cases where the committee recommends rejection, it will be expected a somewhat more detailed evaluation. The committee may recommend submission of the thesis for re-evaluation, or they may choose not to recommend a new submission. The Committee only exceptionally recommends that the thesis should not be delivered in a new version.

A rejected thesis may be submitted in a revised version only once.  

Title and reasons for the trial lecture on the assigned topic

If the thesis is approved for public defence, the committee must decide the title of the candidate's trial lecture on the assigned topic and serve a written argumentation for the choice. The purpose of the lecture is to test the candidate's ability to acquire knowledge beyond the central topic of the thesis, and the ability to communicate it in a lecture setting. The theme of the topic should not normally be selected from key issues in the doctoral candidate's degree work, or be closely related to the candidates self-selected topic, but can normally be a related topic to the thesis. It could be at topic relevant for the thesis that the committee want the candidate to elaborate. The faculty announces the assigned topic for the trial lecture, including the written argumentation for the doctoral candidate 10 working days before the lecture.

The trial lectures

Objective and level requirements

The candidate must hold two trial lectures: one on an assigned topic and one on a self-selected topic. 

The objective of the trial lectures is to document the doctoral candidate's ability to impart to others the knowledge gained through research. Each trial lecture should last for 45 minutes and should be structured so as to be accessible to an audience with knowledge of the subject equivalent to one year of study in the academic field.

Title and written argumentation

The candidate must submit the title of the trial lecture on a subject of their choice, including a short justificartion on the chosen topic, at least one (1) month before the trial lecture. The proposed topic for the trial lecture is subject to approval by the dean.

The faculty announces the assigned topic for the trial lecture, including the written argumentation for the doctoral candidate 10 working days before the lecture. The lecture must not be a summary of the thesis and findings therein, but must represent an independent academic contribution to the field. The title of the trial lecture on the assigned topic and the brief written reason for the choice of topic is made known to the public by the Dean or his or her appointee shortly prior to the lecture is held.

Evaluation of the trial lecture

In the evaluation of the trial lectures, emphasis should be placed on both the academic content and the candidate's ability to impart knowledge. The trial lectures is part of the doctoral degree examination and must be approved prior to the public defence. If the trial lectures is not satisfactory, a second attempt may be made once, and no later than three (3) months after the faculty decision.

The public defence

Objective

The Dr.Philos. candidate must give a public defence of the scientific work in the thesis. The public defence must be an academic discussion between opponents and the candidate regarding the formulation of the research topic, methodical, empirical and theoretical decisions and rationale, use of concepts, as well as the documentation of sources and formal presentation. A primary objective is to test the validity of the central conclusions drawn by the candidate in his/her work. The questions that the opponents choose to pursue need not be limited to those mentioned in the committee’s report. The opponents should seek to give the discussion a form which allows those unfamiliar with the contents of the thesis or the subject area to follow the discussion.

Procedures for the public defence

The public defence will be presided over by the Dean or his or her appointee and will commence by an academic procession. The procession will be headed by the leader of the public defence, followed by the doctoral candidate, the first opponent, the second opponent and finally the third member of the committee. The leader of the public defence will enter the rostrum, while the rest take up their assigned seats.

The leader of the defence will open the proceeding. The doctoral candidate will be kindly requested to enter one platform to give his or her presentation. The leader of the defence takes his or her assigned seat and gives the floor to the candidate.

The candidate must provide an account of the purpose of his/her scientific research, explain the reason for the choice of research questions, and present an overview of the most important results/main findings in the thesis with a duration of 15 minutes.

After the doctoral candidate's introduction, the leader of the defence asks the first opponent to take his or her place at the second platform.

The first opponent positions the thesis in the field of research and gives a presentation and evaluation of the most important elements of the thesis. It is common practice to ask the doctoral candidate whether he or she would like to comment upon the presentation and evaluation as presented. The first opponent then enters into a discussion with the doctoral candidate on more specific themes and questions, in a conversation between the opponent and the candidate. The opponent will conclude the first session by thanking the candidate for the discussion. Both will remain standing until the leader of the defence has adjourned this session of the public defence, announced a break and the time for reconvening.

There will be no procession after the break, but the candidate will return to his or her place, while the committee members take their assigned seats. The leader of the defence will take his or her place at the podium table and announce the commencement of the second part of the defence proceedings. Any ex auditorio opponents will be given the floor ahead of the second opponent, to enable the second opponent to conclude the public defence.

The second opponent may directly enter into a discussion and conversation with the doctoral candidate on particular themes and questions in the content and form of the thesis. The two opponents should be in agreement with one another regarding the distribution of issues to discuss.

The second opponent will conclude the opposition by thanking the doctoral candidate for the discussion. Both will remain standing until the defence has finished.

There are no formal rules for how long time the opponents may spend on their opposition. In actual practice, this may vary considerably. As a general rule, however, the first opponent will use one to two hours, while the second opponent will take somewhat less time, approximately one to one and a half hour. It is up to the opponents’ discretion to decide the length of the opposition.

Evaluation of the public defence

If a thesis is found to be worthy of public defence, this will normally lead to approval of the thesis and its defence for the doctoral degree. Should the main conclusions of the thesis prove to be untenable through factors which come to light during the course of the public defence, the committee must evaluate the public defence as unsatisfactory. This is also the case if blameworthy factors come to light during the public defence which may be crucial in the evaluation of the work, such as a breach of ethical norms in research or sound academic practice.

If the public defence is not approved, a new defence may be held once. A new defence should as far as possible be evaluated by the original committee.

It is the responsibility of the committee to decide whether or not to recommend the public defence for approval. Should new factors come to light during the course of the public defence which create uncertainty among the committee members and which cannot be resolved during the public defence, the committee should assess the possible consequences of these factors before signing the documents for approval of the public defence.

The evaluation of scientific Dr.Philos. theses at the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Bergen is regulated by the Regulations for the degree of Doctor Philosophiae (Dr.Philos.) at the University of Bergen

These guidelines are derived from and formulated within the parameters of the Dr.Philos. regulations, with particular focus on the process of evaluation. The guidelines provide supplementary information of the norms and procedures which are assumed to be common to all Dr.Philos. degrees at the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Bergen.

The provisions of the Public Administration Act will ensure that decisions are based on objective criterias. Please make a personal assessment of your impartiality, and in due time let the Faculty know about relations that may lead to disqualification. If you are in doubt, please contact the Faculty as soon as possible to discuss the matter.

1. According to section 6 of the Public Administration Act you are automatically disqualified if you are related by blood or by marriage. At the Faculty of Social Sciences, you are also automatically disqualified if you are, or have been within the last three years, academic adviser to the candidate working towards a doctorate.
2. Disqualification may also be based on a discretionary assessment. You will have to decide if there are any other special circumstances which are apt to impair confidence in your impartiality (see section 6 of the Public Administration Act, second paragraph).

Special circuminstances may be:

• Close professional collaboration, including co-publication and supervisory activities. Scope and proximity is important, especially within the last three years. Generally, it would take a lot for collaboration in the line of work duties to warrant disqualification; the nature of the collaboration must be exceptionally close and extensive before it alone can give rise to the question of disqualification. Normal collaboration in the line of work duties or contact based on work in the same field will normally not lead to disqualification. 
• Co-authorship. We will look at the number of contributors to a publication, the role you played, the number of co-publications and publication frequency. Collaboration conducted within the past three years normally warrants disqualification. It will seem reasonable to consider you, as a co-author, to be disqualified if assessment of the applicant's portion also essentially entails a review of your own participation. Editorial responsibility will normally not warrant disqualification.
• Close personal friendship/unfriendship.

When assessing disqualification, due regard shall be paid to whether the decision in the matter may entail any special advantage, loss or inconvenience for you personally or for anyone you have a close personal association to. Due regard shall also be paid to whether any objection to your impartiality has been raised by one of the parties. Could several of the abovementioned factors be called into question? It is vital that all pertinent factors are assessed. If more than one factor emerges simultaneously, this may increase the likelihood of disqualification.