Administrator of the committee
The third member of the adjudication committee represents the unit, actively participates in the assessment of the thesis and serves as administrator of the committee.
The third member ensures that:
- the work commences and that deadlines are met.
- the adjudication meets the requirements for academic standards.
- the external committee members are familiar with the entire adjudication process.
- the final recommendation is collated and submitted to the unit on the form for the adjudication committee’s assessment of the thesis.
Assessment of the thesis
You have six weeks to read the thesis and write the recommendation.
If necessary, you may request to see the PhD candidate’s foundational materials or ask for additional or clarifying information. Supervisors may be called to meetings to explain the supervision and thesis work.
In your recommendation, you should conclude on:
- 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 should normally be able to make these corrections within 2 months.
- The thesis has a significant number of shortcomings that need to be corrected/revised before the public defence can be held. The PhD candidate should normally be able to complete the revision within 6 months. The revised thesis must be reassessed by the adjudication committee.
- The thesis is not worthy of defence and cannot be corrected within 6 months (rejected).
Without changes
If the thesis is good enough to be defended without changes, arrangements for the trial lecture and defence will be made as soon as the recommendation is approved. The candidate will not have the opportunity to make changes to the thesis.
The thesis contains minor flaws
If the thesis is good enough to be defended, but you wish to give the candidate the opportunity to correct minor flaws, you may impose this. This may involve anything from minor to larger changes, but the revision should normally not take the candidate more than 2 months to complete.
Once the candidate has made the changes, arrangements for the trial lecture and defence will proceed without a new assessment. The candidate is encouraged to send the updated version of the thesis to the committee well in advance of the defence.
The thesis contains significant shortcomings
If the thesis has significant shortcomings that must be corrected and the candidate is expected to complete this within 6 months, you must require the candidate to revise the thesis.For the candidate to understand the requirements for revision, these must be clearly described in the recommendation.
The candidate will have 6 months to submit a revised version of the thesis. You will receive a new deadline of 6 weeks to assess whether the submitted thesis is worthy of defence for the PhD degree.
Rejection
If the thesis is not worthy of defence and cannot be corrected within 6 months, it should be rejected. It is important that you detail your reasoning for the decision in the recommendation.
This means that the candidate will not be able to defend their thesis, and that the evaluation is complete.
Public defence and trial lecture
When the thesis has been approved, 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 purpose of the trial lecture is to assess the candidate's ability to convey research-based knowledge outside the specific area of their thesis. Therefore, you will determine the topic for the trial lecture. The administration will ensure that the candidate is informed of the topic 10 working days before the scheduled trial lecture.
During the trial lecture, you should evaluate:
- choice of material
- structure/organisation of the lecture
- understanding and maturity
- presentation technique, including the use of visual aids
The lecture should last for 45 minutes and must be conducted in English.
Following the lecture, you will write a recommendation and inform whether the trial lecture has been passed or not.
The trial lecture must be passed before the thesis defence can take place. If the trial lecture is deemed not passed, the evaluation must include a justification.
Public defence
The thesis defence is an open event where the candidate publicly presents and defends their completed thesis before you, the adjudication committee. The defence takes place at the University of Oslo and is led by a representative from the departmental management.
During the defence, the first two committee members act as opponents. 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 defence follows a specified sequence:
- The chair of the defence provides a brief, formal introduction.
- The candidate outlines the purpose and results of their PhD work, for a maximum of 30 minutes.
- The first opponent situates the PhD work within an international scientific context, for a maximum of 10 minutes, and then initiates a discussion with the candidate.
- The second opponent continues the discussion.
- After both opponents have concluded their opposition, the chair of the defence invites other attendees to participate in the discussion.
- In a brief conclusion, the candidate thanks those present for the opportunity to present in the doctoral examination.
- The chair declares the defence concluded.
- The adjudication committee has a brief meeting to assess the defence of the thesis.
- The chair informs the candidate of the committee's assessment.
Submission of the written evaluation
After the public defence, the adjudication committee must submit two reports (one for the public defence and one for the trial lecture) to the faculty 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.
If any ex auditorio opponents present significant objections during the defence, this must be mentioned in the assessment.
Guidelines and regulations
- Regulations for the degree of Philosophiae Doctor (PhD)
- 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
More information
- Learning outcomes for the PhD programme at MN
- Thesis, adjudication and public defence
- The PhD programme structure
- Forms relevant for the PhD programme
- Use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in the PhD thesis