adjudication report of phd thesis

Procedures for the evaluation of doctoral dissertations

The following three main components are included in the doctoral degrees in the Faculty, a dissertation, a trial lecture (two for the Degree of Dr. Philos.) and a public disputation. For a candidate to be able to be awarded the doctoral degree the committee must find all the components satisfactory.

Dissertation

Trial lecture(s), disputation.

The committee that evaluates the dissertation shall produce a report on the dissertation.

It is desirable that the committee should reach a unanimous conclusion, but in the event of dissenting opinions separate reports may be necessary. The committee should as far as possible give the report a general and concise form. Positive reports should be 1-2 pages in length, negative reports 2-3 pages.

Even if the committee concludes that the work should not be approved, the committee may recommend a reworking of the dissertation. In such cases information to this effect shall be given explicitly. However, where the committee is of the opinion that fundamental changes are necessary with respect to theory, hypothesis, material and/or method for the work to be worthy of approval, the committee should not recommend submission of the same dissertation in a reworked version for new evaluation.

The report should make clear how the committee has evaluated the following questions:

• Are the research questions and the hypotheses clear and have they been formulated precisely enough?
• Are the research questions and the hypotheses fruitful in terms of the research situation?
• To what extent are the materials referred to and the methods used suited to the purpose?
• Have the conclusions that the material allows been drawn, and are they tenable?
• Is the handling of relevant literature satisfactory?
• Are the form of presentation, the layout and the scientific apparatus satisfactory?

The statement should give an overall impression of the work. In the presentation the positive aspects of the dissertation should also be mentioned so that one also gains an impression of them. The conclusion, either positive og negative, should be formulated clearly and placed in the end of the document. The conclusion must be in compliance with the prior premises in the report.

All candidates shall give a trial lecture on a topic laid down by the committee. The topic is announced to the doctoral candidate 10 working days before the lecture. The theme should be taken from the subject area from which the candidate's doctoral degree work originates, but not from the most central problematic issues. Candidates for the Degree of Dr. Philos. shall in addition give a lecture on a topic they have chosen themselves.

The purpose of the trial lecture(s) is that the candidate shall provide evidence of an ability to convey research-based knowledge. In the evaluation of the trial lecture both the academic content and the ability to communicate shall be emphasised. The level of this lecture shall be such that it is suited to the students at the Faculty.

The trial lecture must be passed before the public defence may take place (see  Regulations for the degree of Philosophiae Doctor §18.1 ).

The disputation is presided over by the Head of department or by any such person as is appointed by the Head of department. Who are to be the first and second opponents is decided in the committee. The first opponent introduces the discussion and the second concludes the disputation. The opponents should have agreed in advance which problem areas each of them is to take up.

The disputation shall be an academic discussion between opponents and doctoral candidate concerning formulations of problems, methodological and theoretical basis, documentation and form of presentation. Special weight should be attached to testing to what extent important conclusions that the doctoral candidate has drawn in his or her work are in fact tenable. The problematic issues that the opponents choose to pursue need not be limited to those that are mentioned in the committee report. It is important that the opponents should also bring out the positive aspects of the dissertation in their opposition. The form of the discussion should, in so far as this is possible, be of such a nature that those who have not read the dissertation and do not know the subject field intimately are able to follow the discussion.

The candidate must pass both the trial lecture and the public defence before the degree and diploma can be conferred. 

Guidelines and regulations

Guidelines for the evaluation of Norwegian doctoral degrees

Regulations for the degree of PhD

Regulations for the degree of Dr. Philos.

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter

• English Norsk

Adjudication of the thesis (PhD Programme in Social Sciences)

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 doctoral degree at the University of Stavanger.

Adjudication of the thesis

If the thesis is worthy of being defended in a public defence, the committee must evaluate and approve the trial lecture and the public defence before the doctoral candidate is awarded the PhD degree.

• The unit confirms that the thesis has been received
• Proposals regarding the adjudication committee will be sent to you when available
• You have a deadline of one week to put forward any comments on the composition of the committee

The proposal shall be approved by the faculty before the appointment letter is sent to the committee members and copied to you. This process normally takes approximately one week. If it takes longer, you will be notified accordingly.

• The committee's report shall be available within  3 months  from receipt of the thesis by the committee.
• The committee must never be contacted directly by the candidate

When the committee’s report is available it will be sent to you. You have the opportunity to put forward comments before the report is sent to the faculty. The deadline for comments is 10 working days.

If the committee finds that the thesis is worthy of public defence in a disputation, they will submit a positive report. The faculty will approve the report before it is finally decided that a trial lecture and thesis defence will be held. As soon as you receive confirmation that a trial lecture and thesis defence will be held, you must start your preparations, including printing of the thesis and submission of a list of errata, if relevant.

The adjudication committee may recommend that the thesis be revised before it can be defended in a disputation. The committee will only put forward this recommendation if they believe it is realistic that a revision within a maximum period of six months will be sufficient for the thesis to be approved. It is the faculty which approves the committee’s recommendation and sets the final deadline for the resubmission. A recommendation to revise may only be given on the first submission of the doctoral thesis. If after the revision the committee finds that the thesis fails to satisfy the quality requirements, the thesis will not be approved. If the deadline for submission of a revised thesis is not met, the committee’s recommendation will function as a report to the faculty. In practice this means that the thesis is rejected, and you will not be able to submit the thesis for the second and final time until after a period of six months.

If the committee finds that the thesis should be rejected, or is divided in its opinion of whether the thesis is worthy of public defence in a disputation, you have a two-week time limit to put forward comments from the time you receive the report.

If the adjudication committee’s report is split or negative, it should first be sent to you and you will be given a time limit of 10 working days to put forward any comments on the report. No formal decision has been made, therefore any comments should not be formulated as an appeal.

The report and any comments are sent to the faculty.

If the faculty aligns itself with the report that the thesis is not worthy of defence in a disputation (rejected), you will receive a letter notifying you of the decision. In the letter you will be given a time limit of three weeks to appeal the decision.

A thesis that is rejected may be resubmitted in revised form no earlier than six months following the decision to reject. You may only resubmit your thesis once.

• Digital copy of the thesis (PDF)
• Application for assessment of the doctoral dissertation
• Co-author statement(s)
• Confirmation of the completed 90% ‐ seminar

Thesis submission and associated documents is done electronically to the PhD administration at the Faculty of Social Sciences. The candidate submits the thesis as one pdf file. Contact PhD administration for more information and for thesis support documentation.

IIf you have received a recommendation to submit a revised version of the thesis within a specific deadline, you must submit it to the PhD administration in the same way as described above. Submission of a revised thesis will be considered to be part of the first submission. Include a cover letter to the adjudication committee marked ‘Submission of revised thesis’, giving a brief account of the changes.

Information for the adjudication committee

The PhD examination consists of an assessment of the doctoral thesis, an assessment of the trial lecture and an assessment of the public defence. For a doctoral candidate to be awarded a doctorate, the committee must find all of the components satisfactory.

Here you will find information concerning adjudication of theses at the Faculty, including regulations for the PhD degree, guidelines and helpful advice otherwise. We will also inform you about the coordinator’s role, trial lecture and public defence and about payment of fees and travel expenses.

1. Adjudication and recommendation

1.1 The committee's evaluation and conclusion of the adjudication

1.2 The Faculty's consideration of the committee's conclusion

1.3 The Faculty's adjudication decision procedure

2. worthy of defence.

2.1 Trial lecture

2.2 Public defence

3. PhD dinner

4. Practical information

Guidelines for adjudication at the Faculty

Communication with the adjudication committee - deadlines.

The Faculty appoints the adjudication committee and sends information to the committee about deadlines and possible outcomes of the adjudication. Important deadlines to remember are as follows:

• The recommendation must be submitted within three months of the committee receiving the thesis.
• The recommendation must be ready at least five weeks before the public defence. The public defence will be delayed if the deadline is not met.
• The date of the trial lecture and public defence will be agreed as soon as the committee is appointed. The committee must inform the faculty of any delays in the recommendation process. The committee must not contact the candidate directly. All contact must be through the faculty’s administration.

The Faculty will provide the adjudication committee with information about its work, including a cover letter, UiO’s Guidelines for the evaluation of Norwegian doctoral degrees , along with the candidate's thesis, the adjudication contract, Regulations for the degree of Philosophiae Doctor (PhD) at the University of Oslo ,UiO’s information on the coordinator's role and a form for travel expenses etc.

The guidelines and regulations specify what aspects should be emphasized in the adjudication of the thesis. The guidelines also give details of the requirements for theses made up of a number of shorter works (articles) as follows:

…assess and document whether the content of these articles forms a whole. In such cases, the candidate must in a separate part of the thesis not only summarize but also compare the research questions and conclusions presented in the individual works in an overarching perspective, thereby documenting the coherence of the thesis. This part of the thesis (extended abstract) is therefore crucial to the committee’s assessment. The Faculty has developed its own guidelines for the extended abstract.

If the individual works do not contain a discussion of key concepts or methods in the thesis as a whole, the comparison must also include such elements.

The faculty will pay travel expenses as they arise if the committee deems it necessary to meet in order to discuss the recommendation.

1.1 The Committee's evaluation and conclusion

Adjudication procedures at the faculty differ for the PhD and Dr. Philos. degrees. The different procedures are set out below.

1.1.1  The committee’s assessment and conclusion of the PhD degree

The following applies to the PhD degree:

After submission of the thesis, the adjudication committee may, as part of its assessment, provide the faculty with a written recommendation for specific points in the thesis to be revised, ref. section 14.2 of the regulations - Revision of a submitted thesis. If the adjudication committee recommends a revision, the recommendation must propose a time frame (up to 6 months) for revisions, and specify in a separate document what elements of the thesis have to be/should be improved or corrected (e.g. use of methods, the relationship between the material and the conclusion, use of concepts, clarity of research questions, table adjustments etc.) in order to bring it up to the required standard.

The Dean at the faculty approves or rejects the committee’s recommendation. This approval or rejection is then forwarded to the committee and candidate, and a copy is sent to the supervisors. If the Dean does not approve the recommended revision, the matter is returned to the committee, which must then make its recommendation. The candidate has no right of appeal against the Dean's decision to allow or disallow a revision in accordance with section 14.2.

If the Dean approves a revision before a recommendation is presented, the candidate is given a deadline to incorporate these changes into the final thesis based on the adjudication committee's revision proposals. The deadline can be up to 6 months, ref. section 14.2. The faculty does not normally permit any extension to this deadline. In the event of illness, see the faculty’s Supplementary Regulations in UiO’s regulations for organized research training and the faculty’s programme plan.

The committee then makes a new assessment of whether the revised thesis is worthy of defence for the PhD degree. Responding to the committee's proposed changes and submitting a revised thesis by the deadline does not give automatic approval of the thesis. The committee assesses the revised version of the thesis on an independent basis. After submitting the revised version, the adjudication committee will be given a new deadline for its recommendation. This deadline will not normally exceed three months after the committee members have received the revised thesis. Section 14.2 of the regulations only applies to the first submission of a doctoral thesis. When the committee has given its recommendation, the faculty will either uphold or reject this. The committee then has two options:

• To recommend as worthy of public defence (accept)
• To recommend as not worthy of public defence (reject)

1.1.2 – The committee’s assessment and conclusion for the Dr. Philos. degree

The following applies to the Dr. Philos. degree:

The committee will explicitly give one of three conclusions, ref. Guidelines for the Evaluation of Norwegian Doctoral Degrees.

• Worthy of public defence (accept)
• Not worthy of public defence in its present form
• Not worthy of public defence (reject)

The Faculty will also inform the candidate that consideration is being given to changing the form of assessment for the Dr. Philos. degree.

For both degrees

When the adjudication Committee has finished its assessment of the thesis, the recommendation is signed by all of the committee members and sent directly to the faculty. The faculty starts finalizing the thesis adjudication process by obtaining the coordinator's signature, and the final recommendation is then signed by the entire committee.

The faculty sends a copy of the recommendation to the candidate and the supervisor, if applicable. In the cover letter the candidate is given a deadline of approximately two weeks from receipt of the recommendation to submit comments.

Bedømmelsesprosedyrer er ved fakultetet ulik for gradene ph.d. og dr.philos. Nedenfor følger nærmere informasjon om de ulike prosedyrene.

1.2 The Faculty's review of the committee's conclusion

In accordance with the regulations, the procedures differ for the various possible conclusions, as explained below.

Procedure for unanimously positive recommendation

See the regulations for current doctoral degrees and paragraph 3 of Guidelines for the Evaluation of Norwegian Doctoral Degrees. If the adjudication committee’s recommendation is unanimously positive, the Dean has the authority to approve this decision. The Dean may, however, in special circumstances, opt to forward the recommendation to the Faculty Board. The procedure is described in the regulations for the relevant degree.

When the Dean has endorsed the recommendation, the faculty notifies the candidate, department and members of the committee.

Procedure for split recommendation

A split recommendation can have two possible outcomes; a) split but positive majority recommendation, and b) split but negative majority recommendation. If the recommendation is split, the matter is forwarded to the Faculty Board for final review. The procedure is described in the regulations and in the said guidelines, part 3. In general, if there is dissent in the committee, an executive committee or the Faculty Board may make a majority decision to endorse the committee's majority recommendation. If the candidate has made comments on the recommendation and these may affect whether the thesis is approved, these will be submitted to the adjudication committee before the faculty reaches a formal decision on the matter. The committee’s response to the candidate's comments is taken into consideration by the Board. The candidate's comments at this stage of the process do not take the form of a formal appeal. An appeal can only be lodged after a final decision has been reached.

Rejected theses may be appealed through the standard appeals procedure, and pursuant to the Public Administration Act.

Procedure for unanimously negative recommendation (note that the procedure differs for PhD and Dr. Philos. degrees)

For the PhD degree

If the adjudication committee recommends rejection of the thesis, this must be expressed explicitly. The committee must also in this case recommend that the thesis is not worthy of public defence (reject). For resubmission of a thesis that is rejected as described, a new committee is normally appointed.

For the Dr. Philos. degree

If the adjudication committee recommends rejection, it must explicitly state which of the two forms of rejection it recommends: a) whether the thesis is deemed not worthy of defence in its present form, or b) if the thesis is not deemed worthy of defence.

In cases where a thesis that is rejected ‘in its present form’ is submitted a second time for assessment, the original adjudication committee is normally appointed unless special circumstances dictate otherwise. Upon resubmission of a thesis under b) above, a new committee is normally appointed.

Review of the candidate’s comments

If the expert committee's conclusion is negative or split, the candidate may provide comments on the recommendation before review by the faculty. These comments do not constitute a formal appeal. An appeal can only be lodged after a final decision has been reached. The comments will nevertheless be forwarded to the committee. The faculty normally asks that the committee responds to the comments in order to provide a complete basis for a decision. The committee should respond as quickly as possible.

A rejected thesis cannot be submitted for a new assessment more than once. Candidates must also wait six months to resubmit from the date of the final decision.

The faculty’s decision on the recommendation is forwarded to the candidate, department and adjudication committee together with the necessary information relating to the decision.

Public defence of the thesis normally takes place within two months of the faculty finding the thesis worthy of defence. Because the trial lecture and public defence are part of the doctoral examination, the entire committee is expected to remain present throughout the entire process.

Adjudication committee’s duties up to the trial lecture and public defence

The adjudication committee chooses the topic of the trial lecture. This topic should not be derived from the central research questions in the candidate's doctoral work; the lecture should not be a summary of parts of the thesis.

The committee notifies the faculty of the topic of the trial lecture at least three weeks in advance. The faculty notifies the candidate of the chosen topic within the relevant timeframe. The purpose of the trial lecture is for the candidate to demonstrate his/her ability to disseminate research-based knowledge.

The adjudication committee allocates the opponent roles; the first and second opponent during the public defence. Internal members of the adjudication committee are not normally opponents. The committee’s coordinator, in consultation with the other committee members, clarifies who will be the first and second opponent.

The first opponent briefly introduces the candidate's work, the purpose and results of the scientific investigation, and explains the broader scholarly context of the thesis before speaking about the specific points of discussion and argument in the thesis to be defended by the candidate.

In the event that an opponent is unable to attend the public defence (due to acute serious illness or similar), the committee coordinator must contact the department and step in as a deputy opponent at short notice. The second opponent is then promoted to first opponent, and the committee coordinator takes the role of second opponent.

The regulations briefly describe the duties of the first and second opponent (ref. section 18.2 of the revised regulations of 2010). See also the Procedure for trial lecture and public defence .

Interaction between chair of public defence and coordinator before the public defence

Since the coordinator is normally the committee member with the greatest local knowledge, he or she is responsible for informing the two opponents of customary practice at the faculty’s public defences. This includes everything from the form of the defence to what a Norwegian PhD dinner entails. The committee coordinator also ensures that the opponents divide the tasks related to the public defence between themselves. The chair of the public defence must in turn ensure that the coordinator has knowledge of all these factors, and the chair should therefore initiate a meeting with the coordinator to review such details (attire, order of procession, distribution of work, allocation of time, practical details concerning seating arrangements in the room, use of audio-visual equipment etc.). Much of this information can be found in the relevant handout, but it is nevertheless important that this communication guards against any misunderstandings. The chair also initiates a meeting between himself/herself, the committee and the candidate before the trial lecture and public defence begin. The committee coordinator can assist in communicating this to the other members of the committee. The faculty’s administration can assist in informing the candidate of this meeting if required.

More on the role of the coordinator

More on the role of the chair of the public defence

2.1 The trial lecture(s)

The entire adjudication committee is required to be present during the trial lecture(s) and public defence. The trial lecture(s) is a form of oral examination. The committee should also give the candidate feedback on the success of the trial lecture in terms of content and presentation/method. Around half an hour should therefore be set aside for a brief conversation after the trial lecture.

2.2 The public defence

During the public defence, the chair wears the Dean’s gown and the dress code for members of the adjudication committee is dark suit. The order of procession into the auditorium is: chair of the public defence (master of ceremonies), the candidate, followed by the first to the third opponents. The audience rises and stands during the procession.

The candidate and committee stand at their designated places at the front of the auditorium, while the chair of the public defence proceeds to the rostrum/lectern. Everyone remains standing until the chair has taken his/her place and gives the signal to be seated.

The public defence starts with the chair reading from the template for such occasions. The template serves as a guide and may be adapted by the chair if deemed appropriate, but consideration should be given to the fact that this is a rhetorical situation that requires a certain level of dignity. Since this will be the first public defence that many of the audience members have attended, the chair may want to give a brief account of the schedule for the day.

Sections 5.2 and 5.3 of the Guidelines for the Evaluation of Norwegian Doctoral Degrees  provide a description of the public defence and the assessment thereof.

The chair of the defence should, in consultation with the opponents, ensure that the public defence lasts no more than about three hours net.

When the chair has finished reading from the template for such occasions, the first opponent presents the dissertation and gives an account of the purpose and results of the scientific investigation (approx. 15 to 20 min.). The Faculty has decided that for the PhD degree it is the first opponent that will present the dissertation during the public defence as a basis for the opposition. The first opponent will after presenting the dissertation, then present his or her opposition (this usually takes the course of a discussion between the opponent and the doctoral candidate (approx. 60 min.)

After an interval the second ordinary opponent presents his or her opposition (this usually takes the course of a discussion between the opponent and the doctoral candidate (approx. 60 min.).

When the last opponent is finished and has been thanked, the chair will ask whether the candidate wants to say a few words to close. This is where the candidate normally extends his/her thanks.

After the public defence, both signed records, i.e. from the trial lecture and public defence are forwarded to the faculty.

After the chair has given a brief account of the submission and assessment of the thesis, and of the trial lecture and the assessment thereof, Dr. Philos. degree candidates will explain the purpose and results of the scientific investigation before the first opponent takes the floor.

The department

After completing the public defence, the relevant department at the Faculty, UiO, may extend an invitation to a small celebration. The departments are requested to organize such celebrations, and perhaps especially for foreign candidates whose family are not present to attend any organized lunch/dinner following the public defence. The flowers decorating the auditorium are given to the candidate after the public defence. Flowers and small gifts can also be given to the candidate in connection with the department's celebration.

An optional PhD dinner can be held on the same day as the public defence. The candidate is free to choose how he/she organizes the event, from formal to informal, or he/she can opt not to hold a dinner.

The chair of the public defence, the committee members and supervisor(s) are invited to the dinner. The chair and the third opponent, representing UiO and the committee respectively, should be prepared to say a few words.

4. Practical information on travel, accommodation and fees for external committee members

The Faculty’s administration can assist with booking hotels. The adjudication committee members should book their own travel, but the faculty will cover travel expenses.

The designated time for the adjudication of the thesis is 30 hours, plus a potential 15 hours to adjudicate revised theses. The first opponent is paid 20 hours for the public defence, and the second opponent is paid for 15 hours. External members of the committee are paid at fixed rates. Committee members receive contracts, which they should sign and return immediately.

After leaving Oslo, travel expense claim forms should be sent to the contact person at the faculty. The following should be enclosed with the form:

• receipts (e.g. electronic tickets) for flight tickets
• receipts/original tickets for travel by bus, train, taxi etc. in connection with participation in the doctoral examination
• completed bank account details form, for payments outside Norway (only for committee members not living in Norway)

All receipts/tickets must clearly show the price and date of travel. See more detailed information on this  (with relevant forms etc.).

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter

Do you have questions, please contact the Faculty Secretariate by

Gørill Arnesen

Regulations for the degree of Philosophiae Doctor (PhD)

Guidelines for the evaluation of Norwegian doctoral degrees at UiO

Recommended guidelines for doctoral dissertations consisting of several lesser works

Recommended guidelines for the extended abstract

Coordinators role

Adjudication

The academic environment will propose an adjudication committee, which will be appointed by the faculty.

Who performs the adjudication?

The composition of the adjudication committee must normally take the following factors into consideration:

both genders are represented

at least one of the members is not affiliated with the University of Oslo

at least one of the members is not affiliated with a Norwegian university

• all members hold a doctoral degree or equivalent academic qualifications

The committee members must sign a declaration of impartiality. You will be notified of the composition of the committee, and be able to submit written remarks within one week of the department sending the proposal to the faculty. The committee will have about 3 months to present its adjudication of the thesis. The faculty will contact you with the committee's recommendation.

After a positive recommendation

When the adjudication committee has presented a positive recommendation for your thesis, you must submit:

a personal details form and a popularized summary   of the thesis (one A4 page maximum)

a press photo that we can use for publication on the website, etc. – remember to enclose a waiver from the photographer, so that the faculty can publish the photo

• an English abstract and an English translation of the title of your thesis

The administration will send the forms to the University’s central administration, which prints diplomas, etc. The faculty will publish the abstract online when announcing the public defence. See the faculty list of disputations .

You will be informed of the topic for the trial lecture 10 working days in advance. The public defence will take place about 5 months after the adjudication committee has received the thesis.

What is the procedure if the recommendation is not positive?

If the committee does not find the thesis worthy of public defence, there are two options.

1) The committee recommends revision of the thesis

This "interim solution" means that the adjudication committee can recommend that the faculty grants permission for a minor revision of the thesis. The committee must provide a detailed overview of the specific material that the candidate has to rework. If the faculty grants permission for revision of the thesis, it may also set a new deadline for presentation of the committee's final recommendation. This deadline cannot normally be longer than 6 months.

2) The committee finds that the thesis is not worthy of public defence (rejection)

When the faculty finds a doctoral thesis unworthy of public defence, it has been rejected. The earliest point at which it can be resubmitted in revised form is six months after the faculty's decision. There can only be one new adjudication. You follow the same submission procedure as the first time, but specify in your application that this is the second time you are applying for adjudication.

Appeals against the rejection of an application for adjudication or rejection of a doctoral thesis, trial lecture or public defence

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter

Regulations

Regulations for the Degree of Philosophiae Doctor (PhD) at the University of Oslo – The work of the adjudication committee (in Norwegian).

Writing an abstract

You can receive supervision and help with how to write a popularized summary for the announcement of the public defence.

Information for the adjudication committee

As a member of the adjudication committee, you will determine whether the PhD thesis is worthy of public defence. This section provides information on the work entailed in being a member of an adjudication committee.

Administrator of the committee

The third member of the adjudication committee represents the unit and serves as administrator of the committee. This member ensures that deadlines are met, that the adjudication meets the requirements for academic standards and that the external committee members are familiar with the entire adjudication process. The administrator of the committee actively participates in the assessment of the thesis and is responsible for initiating the opponents’ adjudication work. The administrator collates and submits the final recommendation to the unit on the form for the adjudication committee’s assessment of the thesis . 

Assessment of the thesis

The recommendation is the written assessment of the thesis. The adjudication committee has six weeks to submit its recommendation. The adjudication committee may request the PhD candidate to submit source material and supplementary or explanatory information. Supervisors may be called to adjudication committee meetings in order to explain the supervision and thesis work. The committee will determine whether:

• The thesis is worthy of defence without changes.
• The thesis is worthy of defence, but minor changes need to be made before the public defence. The PhD candidate must normally be able to do this within two months. In this case, no new adjudication is necessary.
• The thesis has a significant number of shortcomings that need to be corrected/revised before the public defence can be held. The PhD candidate must normally be able to do this within six months. The revised thesis must be re-assessed by the original adjudication committee
• If the adjudication committee finds that a thesis cannot be revised within six months, it must be rejected. The PhD candidate is entitled to, and must receive, a detailed written account/justification of the rejection.

If the thesis requires a revision that requires the adjudication committee to assess the revised thesis in order to determine whether it is worthy of defence, the adjudication committee will have a new deadline of six weeks to submit its final recommendation from the date it receives the revised thesis.

Public defence and trial lecture

When the thesis has been approved by the Dean of Studies, the trial lecture and public defence can be held. The committee will be in attendance and serve as adjudicators in the trial lecture and public defence.

Trial lecture

The adjudication committee sets the topic for the trial lecture, and the administrator announces the topic to the candidate ten days prior to the lecture.

The trial lecture aims to test the candidate's academic maturity. The assigned topic must therefore be outside the specialist field of the thesis. The lecture will further test the candidate's ability to organize material and time, and should last for 45 minutes. The title of the trial lecture and information about where and when the trial lecture and public defence will take place are sent to the PhD contact at the department . The adjudication committee will tell the faculty whether the candidate has failed or passed the trial lecture. The recommendation must be substantiated in the event of a fail. The trial lecture must be passed before the public defence can be held.

Public defence

The Head of Department is authorised by the Dean to chair the public defence. If the Head of Department is unavailable, the vice head or a senior researcher at the department can chair the public defence. The defence cannot be chaired by the candidate’s supervisor or the administrator of the adjudication committee. The committee will decide the order of the opponents and the committee’s administrator will inform the chair of the public defence about this.

The chair of the public defence will briefly explain the submission and assessment of the thesis, and give a brief introduction of the candidate. The candidate will then spend a maximum of 30 minutes explaining the purpose and findings of the scientific investigation.

Two of the committee members serve as opponents. The first opponent will put the candidate's work into an international academic context, for a maximum of ten minutes. When both opponents have concluded their arguments, the chair of the public defence will invite others present to participate in the discussions.

Finally, the candidate will take the floor to extend his/her thanks, before the chair of the public defence declares the public defence concluded.

Following a brief meeting of the adjudication committee after the conclusion of the public defence, the chair will announce the committee’s decision on the candidate’s public defence.

After the public defence, the adjudication committee will submit a report to the faculty on special forms ( public defence  and trial lecture ) explaining how it has assessed the thesis and its defence. The conclusion of the report must specify whether the candidate has passed or failed the public defence. Using the form provided, the committee member without an affiliation with a Norwegian university will submit a separate statement comparing the standard of the thesis in question with the general level of PhD theses in similar subject areas at his/her own institution.

In the event that any ex auditorio opponents present significant objections, this must be mentioned in the assessment.

Rules and regulations

• Regulations for the degree of Philosophiae Doctor (PhD)
• Supplementary Regulations at the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences to the Regulations for the degree of Philosophiae Doctor (PhD) at the University of Oslo
• Guidelines for the evaluation of Norwegian doctoral degrees
• Supplement at the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences to Guidelines for the evaluation of Norwegian doctoral degrees
• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

DETAILED Ph D REPORT

Related Papers

nqobile buthelezi

Mamta Mohapatra

David Ravid

Sathish kumar

International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)

IJRASET Publication

All industrial civilizations share the fundamental trait of widespread wage employment. Workers/employees and employers/management are two separate categories of people who are looking for wage employment, respectively. Known variously as labour-management relations, labour relations, industrial relations, or employer-employee relations, these two groups' relationships are structured. With the exception of the first, these definitions indicate that the relations are at minimum inclusive on the part of the employees. In regards to all problems that concern its members, the labour union negotiates with employers and management. Consequently, the two groups' relationships are structured.

wftucentral.org

Femi Aborisade

jose vattakuzhy

Of late, ‘Draft Labour Code on Industrial Relation Bill 2015’ received from Ministry of Labour to be placed before monsoon session of the parliament, after tripartite discussions with stake holders and approval from the cabinet. For creating a new industrial relation’s law the proposed Code on industrial relation is one of the initiatives of the government to subsume 44 labour laws into five broad codes, dealing with industrial relation, wages, social security, industrial safety and welfare. Simultaneously recent developments in the labour movements across the country , like strikes of workers which occurs without support of political based unions, the participation of large number of workers, including unorganised workers in the last national wide strike on 2nd September and the transformation of labour landscape in India due to the globlisation , all these factors along with Government’s moves are seem to be indicators for the backdrop to intensify the deliberations on labour activism in India.

Journal of Industrial Relations

Howard Guille

RELATED PAPERS

mariela manjarres

John Bintliff

Harrison Idimogu

Lars Marcus

Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology

Audrey Haschemeyer

Sarira Sahu

Victoria Rozés Salvador

Reproduction in Domestic Animals

Maria Cecilia Stornelli

Applied and Computational Mechanics

Harry Ngwangwa

Margarida Pinheiro

Raymundo Lozoya

ANGLO-SAXON: Jurnal Ilmiah Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris

21025010070 AULIA AZZAHRAH AKHYAK PUTRI

Physical Review Letters

John Calsamiglia

Dumitru I Acu

Luitpold Distel

International Journal of Middle East Studies

Ayman Helmy

Revista Portuguesa de Cardiologia (English Edition)

mov. Manuel Oller Varela

Journal of Biological Chemistry

Bhisma Narayan Ratha

RSC Advances

Stephen Steiner

European Journal of Pediatrics

Helena Santa-clara

JPC – Journal of Planar Chromatography – Modern TLC

Gertrud Morlock

Brain Research

mjnvffd nnjgffd

john Grumley

John Grumley

johannes Idso

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Thesis, adjudication and public defence - PhD

Thesis: rules and regulations.

• Form, length, language, introductory part
• Co-authorship
• Information on resources and library services

Submission of the thesis

• What should I consider before submitting the thesis?
• How do I submit the thesis?
• What happens after the thesis is submitted?
• Forms and templates for submission
• Rejected thesis - new submission

Adjudication of the thesis

• Who adjudicates?
• How long does it takes?
• When and where does the adjudication take place?
• How to appeal

Trial lecture, public defence, and printing

• Preparations ahead of the trial lecture and public defence
• Trial lecture
• Public defence

Doctoral dinner and conferral of the PhD degree

• Tips for eventual doctoral dinner
• Conferral and doctoral diploma

Information for the chair of the defence and for the evaluation committee

• Information for the chair of the defence
• Information for the adjudication committee

Do you have questions?

• Skip to main content
• Accessibility information

• Enlighten Enlighten

Enlighten Theses

• Latest Additions
• Browse by Year
• Browse by Subject
• Browse by College/School
• Browse by Author
• Browse by Funder
• Login (Library staff only)

In this section

Adjudication in judicial review: an inferential approach

Szczaranski, Federico (2020) Adjudication in judicial review: an inferential approach. PhD thesis, University of Glasgow.

The thesis focuses on Judicial Review of Legislation, exploring—with the aid of Robert Brandom’s inferential semantics—the possibility of engaging in a properly judicial assessment of the constitutionality of a law. In order to do this, and after criticizing the proportionality approach to the subject, it addresses both the nature of the question that is put forward in cases of review of legislation and the essential features of adjudicative decisions, claiming that the conjunction of these two aspects leads to the configuration of a dilemma: the question asked in judicial review of legislation cases does not seem to be judicially answered. Resorting to inferential semantics, the thesis aims to provide a solution to the dilemma and to make explicit the costs of staying within judicial boundaries.

Actions (login required)

Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics

The University of Glasgow is a registered Scottish charity: Registration Number SC004401