For Supervisors and opponents

Introduction

This section provides guidance for PhD supervisors, outlining best practices for fostering a productive and positive relationship with PhD candidates. The supervisor-candidate relationship is crucial to the success of a PhD journey, requiring commitment, understanding, and support from both parties. These guidelines aim to enhance the supervisory experience, promote effective communication, and ensure the candidate's academic and personal development.

Roles and Responsibilities

The main PhD supervisor takes the primary role in guiding the student through their doctoral journey, setting the research agenda, providing expertise in the field, and ensuring the student remains on track to meet academic milestones. This main supervisor is usually the primary contact for administrative matters, as well as the main mentor responsible for shaping the intellectual direction of the thesis. On the other hand, a co-supervisor offers additional support, often bringing complementary expertise or a different perspective to enhance the research project. Their involvement can vary but generally includes providing supplementary guidance, assisting with specific aspects of the research, and contributing to problem-solving when challenges arise. While the main supervisor has overarching responsibility for the student's academic progress, the co-supervisor plays a crucial supportive role. Below are examples of the expected supervisor and candidate roles during the PhD journey.

Supervisor’s Main Role:

1. Guidance and expertise: Offer expert academic guidance, including feedback on research proposals, research problem, methodologies, and written work.
2. Support and encouragement: Provide support, encouragement, and constructive criticism to foster the candidate’s confidence and independence.
3. Professional development: Advise on career opportunities, networking, and skills development relevant to the candidate's future career path. Include your candidates in your labs or research groups.
4. Availability: Ensure regular and scheduled meetings with the candidate to discuss progress, setbacks, and future plans.
5. Ethical standards: Promote and adhere to ethical standards in research and professional conduct.
   
   

Candidate’s Main Role:

1. Initiative and independence: Take ownership of the research project, including planning, execution, and problem-solving.
2. Feedback reception: Actively seek, accept, and constructively respond to feedback from the supervisor.
3. Professional conduct: Maintain professionalism in all aspects of work, including timeliness, communication, and adherence to ethical guidelines.
4. Progress monitoring: Regularly report progress, challenges, and changes in research direction to the supervisor.
5. Skill development: Proactively seek opportunities for professional and academic development.
   
   

Communication

1. Establish expectations: Early in the relationship, openly discuss and agree on expectations for communication, meeting frequency, feedback turnaround times, and research milestones.
2. Clear and open communication: Encourage honesty and transparency in discussing research progress, challenges, and personal issues that may impact the PhD journey.
3. Responsive feedback: Provide timely and constructive feedback on candidates’ work to facilitate their academic growth and development.
   
   

Conflict Resolution

1. Identify issues early: Encourage candidates to voice concerns early to prevent escalation.
2. Mediation and support: Seek mediation or support from the department or university services if conflicts cannot be resolved directly.
3. Flexibility: Be open to adjusting supervisory approaches based on the evolving needs of the candidate.
   
   

Monitoring Progress

1. Set milestones: Establish clear, achievable milestones for each stage of the PhD process.
2. Regular reviews: Conduct regular progress reviews against set milestones and adjust plans accordingly.
3. Encourage reflection: Promote self-reflection on both successes and areas for improvement.
   
   

Professional Development

1. Encourage networking: Advise candidates to engage with the wider academic community through conferences, seminars, and professional associations.
2. Publishing: Guide candidates on the authorship regulations, the process of publishing articles and presenting and communicating their research to build their academic and professional profile.
3. Career planning: Discuss career aspirations early and provide guidance on skills and experiences required to achieve these career goals.
   
   

Conclusion

The supervisor-PhD candidate relationship is pivotal to the success of the PhD journey. By adhering to these guidelines, supervisors can support their candidates’ academic achievements and personal development, preparing them for successful careers within or outside academia. This document is intended to serve as a foundation for building a respectful, productive, and mutually beneficial supervisory relationship.

The purpose of the procedure is to follow up Regulations § 4-9. Compulsory seminars. 

As part of the quality assurance of the doctoral studies, the candidate must conduct two seminars during their course of study. The work-in-progress (WiP) seminar is held about 12 months after the candidate started in the position (for internal fellows) or was admitted to the programme (for external candidates).

The intention of this seminar is to make the candidate reflect on their progress in the first year of their work, to make sure that the project is on track and has not deviated too far from the original plan, and for the candidate to receive feedback from an opponent other than their supervisors.

In the WiP, the candidate is expected to present their work, to be evaluated by one internal opponent. The opponent shall assess the academic status and progress, and provide feedback.

The candidate must submit the documentation required for the WiP seminar at the latest 3 weeks before the Work-in-Progress seminar takes place.

The documentation should be sent to the PhD coordinator, who will distribute them to the opponent and your supervisors.

The documents the candidate must submit for the WiP seminar are as follows:

The initial project proposal & feedback on that proposal that was accepted by Kristiania for admission.

Provide a maximum 1-2-page cover brief that:  

• Reflects on how the project has evolved since admission.
• The degree to which feedback has been incorporated into project revision.
• Provides an updated project plan based on feedback and project evolution.
  
  

Copies of completed coursework and feedback from instructors (if available). 

Provide a 1-page cover brief that:

• Reflects on how the coursework has informed the development of the PhD project.
• Identifies plans for future coursework (if relevant).
• How the coursework fulfills the program requirements.
• Identifies if there are needs for coursework that is difficult to find/ get support for.
  
  

No more than 2-3 pages summarizing other activities including:

• Other projects/publications the PhD candidate is collaborating on (not related directly to the PhD).
• Conferences attended/ presentations given.
• Networking events.
• Professional presentations, guest lectures, etc.
• Briefly explain how these activities provide value-added to the PhD process.
• Presentation of data collection activities; planned and completed.
  
  

PhD-related work produced by the PhD candidate leading up to the WIP – this should include completed paper(s) and any paper(s) that are in the write-up stage of the research. 

Provide a 1-page cover brief that: 

• Maps the paper(s) against the project plan.
• On co-authored paper(s) certifies the PhD candidate’s contribution to the collaboration.
• Reflects on the piece’s contribution to the PhD project.

Any completed research work produced up to this point, including any articles and cover article-drafts written.

On the day of the seminar, the candidate is expected to give a presentation (approx. 30 min.) of their project followed by an open discussion with the opponent and the seminar participants (approx. 60 min). The main supervisor leads the seminar which should be held in English.  

No later than one week after the work in progress seminar has been completed the internal opponent will submit a report from the WIP seminar.  As soon as this report has been approved by the Head of Programme, the PhD coordinator will send it to the candidate and supervisors.

Background and responsibility

According to the PhD Regulations for Kristiania University of Applied Sciences § 4-9, the Midterm Evaluation Seminar is one of two mandatory seminars the PhD candidates must complete during their admission period.

The Midterm evaluation seminar takes place when there is approximately one year left of the candidate’s PhD. The purpose of this seminar is to provide an assessment of the progress they have made in the first two years of their PhD work, and to ensure that they are on track to complete their PhD thesis on time.

When the time approaches for your PhD candidate to have their Midterm evaluation, the PhD coordinator for the relevant programme will contact you and the candidate to start planning the seminar.

As supervisor, it is your responsibility to suggest one internal opponent and one external opponent for the seminar. You are also responsible for carrying out the seminar on the day. The seminar can be held physically or digitally. The School of Doctoral Studies does not cover expenses for travel and accommodation for opponents at the midterm evaluation.

You must send your suggestions to the PhD coordinator for your candidate’s programme, minimum three months prior to the planned midterm seminar. The suggestions will be reviewed and approved by the Head of Programme, and the Dean of the School of Doctoral Studies.

The seminar is conducted on Kristania’s premises.

At the latest one month prior to the Midterm seminar, the PhD candidate must submit the following:

• Feedback report from the Work in Progress seminar.
  • A 2-page cover letter that:
    • Reflects on how the project has evolved since the WiP.
    • The degree to which feedback has been incorporated into project revision.
  • A brief report detailing the candidate’s plans for completion of the thesis.
  • The articles that are to form the basis for the thesis, whether they have been submitted at this stage or not.
  • A preliminary draft or a plan for the cover article “Kappe”.
    OR
  • Preliminary draft of the monograph.
    
    

These documents must be sent to the PhD coordinator, and will form the basis for the opponents’ work.

Seminar content

This seminar is structured as a presentation and discussions that last approximately 2 hours in total.

• The first part of the seminar is open to the public, and consists of a presentation from the candidate, and questions and discussion with the opponents.
• The second part of the seminar consists of two rounds of closed discussion:
  • First, the opponents have a discussion with the supervisors.
  • Then the candidate has a discussion with the opponents alone.

In these two settings, the outcome of the seminar, plans for the PhD project, challenges and strengths etc. should be addressed.
 

Approximately one week after the seminar, the PhD coordinator will send out the report from the opponents.

It is the candidate’s responsibility, together with you as supervisors, to follow up any suggestions and points of improvement addressed by the opponents in the report.

The appointment of an assessment committee must follow the Regulations for the Degree of Philosophiae Doctor (PhD) at Kristiania University of Applied Sciences, as well as the Public Administration Act -Chapter II, §§6-10. Kristiania is considered equal to a Public Administration Organization after the Public Administration Act- Chapter I, §1.

These guidelines are in place to ensure that the laws and regulations are followed, and that the administrative procedures in connection with submission, assessment and public defence of the thesis are carried out in due course.

The PhD Thesis will be assessed by an assessment committee who consists of three members appointed by the Programme Committee, or the Head of Programme by delegation.

The requirements for composition of the assessment committee are described as follows:

•  Both genders are represented
• There is no conflict of interest, and declaration of impartiality is provided
• At least one of its members is not affiliated with Kristiania University College
• At least one of the members does not have their main position at a Norwegian institution
• All members have a PhD or equivalent qualifications in the discipline
• The majority of the evaluation committee are external members
• If possible, one of the members is from a relevant institution outside of Norway
  
  

If exceptions are made from these criteria, an explanation must be provided stating the grounds for this.

The main supervisor will be asked to suggest members of the assessment committee. A short, well-founded reasoning should be written for each suggested member, describing why they are suggested and what their scientific background is. The template for suggestion can be found here.

The supervisor is encouraged to contact individuals they wish to propose for the committee, in advance of submitting the document. It should be clarified that the intention is to suggest the person as one of several members of an assessment committee, and to inquire about their possible availability for this role if selected.

The suggested internal member of the committee will hold the role of committee leader. The supervisor must indicate which of the external members are suggested as first opponent and which is suggested as second opponent at the public defense.

The Programme Committee, or the Head of Programme together with the Dean by delegation, approves appointment of the proposed members of the assessment committee. 

The leader of the assessment committee is responsible for organizing the committee’s work. This includes ensuring that the work is started in a timely manner, and that the committee adheres to the given timeframe. The following contains information about the role and tasks of the committee leader. We ask that you read this thoroughly.

 

The committee leader must:

• Ensure that a tentative date for the trial lecture and public defence is quickly set. Three possible dates should be suggested to the PhD administration as soon as possible. The trial lecture and public defence are normally held on the same day. When the tentative date has been set, the PhD administration will invite all relevant parties with a request to save the date.
  
  
• As soon as possible, present a plan of progress with deadlines for the assessment committee, and share this with the PhD administration. The progress plan must reflect that the final recommendation should be ready within three (3) months after the committee has received the dissertation, followed by the public defence no more than 8 weeks after his, provided the recommendation is positive. The School of Doctoral Studies must be notified of any possible delays as soon as possible. If the final recommendation has not been submitted one (1) month prior to the set tentative date for the public defence, the defence must be postponed.
  
  
• Early on in the assessment process, inform the other members of the committee thoroughly of the current decision procedures in connection with assessment of doctoral dissertations at Kristiania. This includes procedures for those cases where the assessment results in a recommendation for minor changes, in accordance with the Regulations § 5-6(4). Furthermore, the committee leader is responsible for co-authoring the recommendation, and submitting this, with the signatures of all committee members, to the PhD administration.
  
  
• Cooperate with the rest of the committee on preparing the theme for the subject of the trial lecture and ensure that the subject is sent to the School of Doctoral Studies at the latest 15 days before the day of the public defence.
  
  
• Inform the other committee members of the role of the respective opponents at Norwegian public defences, what is expected of the doctoral candidate’s presentation of their own thesis during the defence, signing of protocol, as well as customs and traditions connected to the trial lecture, public defence and, if relevant, the doctoral dinner.
   
• Clarify the division of labour between the committee members during the public defence, and inform the PhD administration of the division of opponent roles at the latest four (4) weeks prior to the public defence.
  
  
• Take the other committee members out to dinner the day before the defence. The School of Doctoral Studies makes the reservation and reimburses the committee leader for the bill, according to fixed rates.
  
  
• Generally assist the external members of the assessment committee on the day of the public defence.

Guidelines for the Evaluation of PhD dissertations at Kristiania

1 Appointment and basis for the evaluation committee's work

The procedure for appointment, as well as requirements for individual members and the composition of the committee, are described in § 5-4 of the regulations. Committee members shall receive the doctoral thesis, along with an overview of where the work was conducted, and the supervisors involved. Additionally, article-based theses must include the following appendices:

The status of the articles (e.g., submitted, accepted, published) and where applicable.

The principles underlying the order of any co-authors.

Confirmation from the co-author(s) (via a specific co-authorship form) regarding the candidate's contributions to individual articles/publications, and their consent for the work to be included in the doctoral thesis. 

 

2 Responsibilities of the committee chair – progress plan

To ensure swift progress, one committee member is appointed as the chair, typically a representative of the institution. The chair is responsible for organizing the committee's work, ensuring a timely start, and adhering to the established timeline.

The chair should promptly set a tentative date for the defense, preferably on working days. The chair must notify the PhD coordinator as soon as possible regarding who will act as the first and second opponents. The progress plan should aim to ensure that the recommendation is ready within three months after the thesis has been received by the committee. Any extensions must be justified in writing.

The plan should also ensure that the recommendation is available 5–6 weeks before the defense. If the recommendation has not been submitted to Kristiania University of Applied Sciences’ School of Doctoral Studies (hereafter SDS) at least one month prior to the planned defense date, the defense must be postponed. If the committee faces time constraints in meeting these deadlines, a signed copy of the recommendation by the committee chair may be sent to the faculty/center, while the original circulates for signatures among the other two members. The chair should also coordinate the committee's recommendation and clarify the division of tasks among members during the defense.

 

 3 Correction of formal errors (errata)

The PhD candidate may apply to correct formal errors in the version of the thesis intended for public distribution. The deadline for such an application, along with the attached errata list, is no later than four weeks before the evaluation committee's deadline for the recommendation. Corrections of formal errors can only occur once. The committee must be informed about the approval and content of the errata list before the defense.

 

 4 Contract for the evaluation assignment

The contract for the evaluation assignment – including the doctoral thesis and defense – is sent to committee members as soon as the division of tasks among them is clarified. The evaluation work is compensated based on fixed rates as follows:

Evaluation of the thesis: 30 hours.

The first opponent receives an additional 20 hours for their opposition.

The second opponent receives an additional 15 hours for their opposition.

In cases where the thesis is returned with a request for revisions within three months, committee members are compensated with 20 hours for the re-evaluation.

The committee will decide how to communicate about the recommendation. If the committee wishes to have a physical meeting at Kristiania, this should be arranged with SDS. The recommendation, signed by all committee members, should be sent to SDS. SDS will forward a copy of the recommendation to the PhD candidate and the doctoral committee. It is not the responsibility of the evaluation committee to inform the candidate (or supervisor(s)) about the outcome of the evaluation.

 

 5 The evaluation 

The evaluation of the thesis may initially have three different conclusions:

Approval: The thesis is deemed worthy of being defended in a public defense.

Revision of the thesis: The PhD candidate is asked to revise the thesis within 3 months.

Rejection: The thesis is not deemed worthy of being defended in a public defense.

The outcome/decision of the evaluation committee can be:

Unanimous

Divided

According to § 5-7(4) of the regulations, the evaluation committee's recommendation must be presented to the doctoral candidate, who is given 10 working days to submit written comments on the recommendation. If the PhD candidate chooses not to submit comments, SDS must be informed of this in writing as soon as possible. SDS will notify the evaluation committee.

The doctoral committee makes the decision on whether the thesis is deemed worthy of being defended, based on the committee's recommendation. This decision-making authority is delegated to the dean of SDS, in collaboration with program directors. If the thesis is approved, the evaluation committee will, through a letter from SDS, be authorized to conduct the trial lecture and defense. The defense will be held at the university and will be chaired by the Dean of SDS or the person authorized by the Dean.

 

 5.1 Procedures when the candidate is asked to revise the thesis

The committee will request the revision of a thesis only when the revisions are expected to yield satisfactory results within three months, in line with § 5-6(4) of the regulations. When requesting revisions, the committee must provide a written preliminary assessment and specify what needs to be addressed for the thesis to be approved. The decision to return the thesis for revision is processed through SDS. It is customary for the same committee to be invited to provide a final recommendation. The committee must conduct a new and comprehensive assessment of the thesis. The new deadline for the committee's recommendation begins on the date the revised thesis is resubmitted. For the re-evaluation of a revised thesis, the committee is given a deadline of one (1) month from the submission date.

5.2 Procedures when the thesis is deemed unworthy of being defended in a public defense

If the committee finds that significant changes regarding theory, hypothesis, material, or method are necessary for the work to be recommended for defense, the thesis must be rejected, in accordance with § 5-6(5) of the regulations. Rejection of the thesis, trial lecture, or defense may be appealed under Section 28 of the Public Administration Act. A substantiated appeal should be submitted to the Doctoral Committee via SDS. The university college may review all aspects of the appealed decision, cf. § 8-3 of the regulations.

If the thesis is not approved, resubmission may take place no sooner than six months later, cf. § 5-10(1) of the regulations. The institution will appoint a new evaluation committee, in accordance with § 5-10(1) of the regulations. The new evaluation committee must conduct its evaluation independently. Re-evaluation may only take place once.

 

 5.3 Procedures for unanimous or divided decisions by the evaluation committee

Unanimous Recommendation
 A unanimous recommendation should be followed as long as the majority in the doctoral committee supports it. If the majority believes that, despite the unanimous recommendation, there is justified doubt about whether the thesis should be approved, the doctoral committee must seek further clarification from the evaluation committee, cf. § 5-9 (3) of the regulations. The doctoral committee may also appoint two new experts to provide individual statements about the thesis. The PhD candidate should be given the opportunity to provide comments. Based on this, the doctoral committee makes its decision in the case based on the recommendation and the obtained statements.

Divided Recommendation
The institution may base its decision on either the majority or the minority recommendation, in line with § 5-9(5) of the regulations. If the minority's recommendation is followed, the institution must, according to § 5-9 (5) of the regulations: "seek further clarification from the evaluation committee and/or appoint two new experts. The experts must provide individual statements about the thesis". If the new experts support the majority's recommendation, it will form the basis for the institution's decision.

The PhD candidate has the right provide comments on the recommendation, regardless of the outcome. These comments will be sent to the committee. The university college usually prefers the committee to respond to the comments, ensuring the best possible basis for decision-making. The committee's response should be provided as soon as possible. Comments from the PhD candidate are not a formal appeal – such an appeal can only be submitted after a formal decision has been made in the case.

 

 6 About the recommendation

The committee must ultimately make a recommendation as to whether the thesis is worthy of being defended in a public defense or not. The recommendation and any dissenting opinions must be justified, cf. § 5-7(1) of the regulations.

 

 6.1 Target audience of the recommendation

Kristiania University of Applied Sciences is the primary target audience for the recommendation. It must therefore serve as a sound basis for deciding whether the thesis is worthy of being defended in a public defense.

 

 6.2 Formalities

The recommendation must be addressed to Kristiania University of Applied Sciences at the School of Doctoral Studies. It should have a heading/introduction that specifies the degree in question, the title of the thesis, and any individual works it comprises. The recommendation must be justified, dated, and signed by the members of the evaluation committee.

If the thesis has been resubmitted following a recommendation for revisions by the committee, this must be mentioned at the beginning of the recommendation.

 

 6.3 Description of the thesis

The recommendation must first briefly provide factual information about the thesis, particularly:

Format and length, and which articles, if any, it comprises.

The type of thesis (e.g., theoretical/empirical work).

Its subject and aims; the scientific significance of the thesis.

The most central aspects regarding theory, hypotheses, materials, and methods.

The findings and main conclusions of the thesis.

This descriptive section should not exceed one page, should not constitute the majority of the recommendation, and should generally be a summary by the evaluation committee (not the candidate).

In the evaluative section of the recommendation, the strengths and weaknesses of the thesis are assessed and balanced. This leads to a conclusion on whether the committee finds the thesis worthy of being defended publicly in a defense or whether it recommends that the thesis not be approved for defense. Although the committee should provide constructive criticism, it must ensure that there is consistency between the premises and the conclusion, so the recommendation provides a satisfactory basis for the university college's decision. A recommendation to approve a thesis should not include too many critical comments.

 

 6.4 Differences Between positive, divided, and negative recommendations

In cases where the committee concludes that the thesis should be approved for defense, the justification should be concise. If the committee believes there are details that should be corrected in the thesis before it is printed, a brief list of typographical errors and recommendations for minor corrections (errata list) should be included as an appendix to the recommendation.

If the committee is divided, it is normally desirable for it to draft a joint statement, possibly with individual statements attached. Dissenting opinions within evaluation committees must always be justified. Even in cases where the committee agrees on the conclusion but disagrees on the premises, it may be desirable to include individual statements.

If the committee concludes that the thesis is not worthy of being defended in a public defense, the justification for this conclusion must be more detailed. Major weaknesses of the thesis should be the focus, rather than minor issues that do not affect the committee's conclusion.

 

 7 Evaluation criteria and academic standards

If the candidate's documentation is insufficient, the committee may request additional information. In special cases, the committee may require the submission of foundational materials and supplementary or clarifying information, cf. § 5-6(1) of the regulations.

 

 7.1 Academic standards and aspects to be emphasized by the evaluation committee

A Norwegian doctoral degree certifies research competence at a specific level. The thesis must meet standards that indicate it could be published as part of the scientific literature in its research field. The thesis must satisfy minimum requirements for research competence, expressed through problem formulation, precision, logical rigor, originality, mastery of relevant analytical methods and reflection on their possibilities and limitations, as well as an overview of, understanding of, and a reflective relationship to other research in the field.

The evaluation should emphasize whether the thesis represents an independent and cohesive scientific work of high academic quality. It is particularly important to assess whether the materials and methods are suitable for the questions posed in the thesis and whether the arguments and conclusions presented are sound.

 

 7.2 Evaluation of theses comprising individual or collaborative works

If the thesis consists of several individual works, the PhD candidate must compile and document the coherence of the thesis in a separate section (the "kappe"). If the individual works lack discussions of key concepts, data, or methods, the compilation must elaborate on these aspects.

In the case of collaborative works, the committee must have received a statement from the co-author(s). Based on this, the committee must evaluate whether the candidate's contributions to the relevant work(s) can be satisfactorily identified and whether the candidate is solely responsible for a sufficiently large portion of the thesis. The summary section of the thesis must be authored solely by the PhD candidate.

 

 8 Trial lecture and defense

The full evaluation committee is expected to attend both the trial lecture and the defense, as these constitute the oral component of the evaluation. If circumstances prevent an in-person defense within a reasonable time, a hybrid or fully digital solution may be approved following an assessment by the program director and dean.

The trial lecture and defense should typically take place on the same day. The evaluation committee members will assess the trial lecture and act as opponents during the public defense (disputation).

 

 8.1 Trial lecture

The evaluation committee determines the topic of the trial lecture. The PhD candidate must be informed of the title for the trial lecture typically 10 working days before it is held. The committee must submit the topic for the trial lecture to the university via SDS 14 days in advance. SDS will ensure that the trial lecture topic is communicated to the candidate.

The trial lecture is an independent part of the doctoral examination and should cover a specified topic not directly related to the thesis theme.

The defense chair also chairs the trial lecture, providing a structure for it. The chair welcomes attendees, introduces the candidate, and may facilitate questions and discussions afterward. The full evaluation committee is expected to attend the trial lecture, cf. §§ 6-1 and 6-2 of the regulations.

The trial lecture should last 45 minutes, including a few minutes for questions and/or discussions. The aim of the trial lecture is for the candidate to demonstrate the ability to communicate research-based knowledge. It should typically be organized so that it is accessible to an audience with advanced-level knowledge in the subject. The evaluation of the trial lecture emphasizes both academic content and communication skills. The trial lecture must be "original".

The committee's evaluation of the trial lecture will be announced before the defense.

A trial lecture must have significant weaknesses to be rejected. If the trial lecture is not approved, the defense may proceed, but a new trial lecture on a different topic must be held within six months. The candidate will not be awarded the degree or receive the diploma until the trial lecture is approved.

 

8.2 The defense chair's responsibility for structuring the defense

The defense is chaired by the dean of SDS or the dean's authorized representative. The chair is responsible for organizing the time effectively to ensure all parts of the defense are conducted within the allocated time.

 8.3 Practical execution of the defense

The defense chair gives a brief overview of the submission and evaluation of the thesis and the trial lecture. The candidate then presents the purpose and results of the scientific investigation. The first opponent begins the opposition, contextualizing the thesis within its broader academic framework. The first opponent then raises specific points of discussion and criticism from the thesis, which the candidate addresses. The opponents allocate tasks among themselves.

The defense is designed to last a maximum of three hours, including a 15-minute break between the two opponents. The second opponent should take slightly less time than the first opponent.

The School of Doctoral Studies may determine a different allocation of tasks if necessary. The defense chair may invite the audience to participate in the discussion (ex auditorio) after the opponents have concluded their opposition. The defense chair will conclude the defense.

If the thesis is entirely a collaborative work, the committee, in consultation with the defense chair, decides how the defense should be conducted.

 

 8.4 Academic execution and evaluation of the defense

The defense must be an academic discussion between the opponents and the candidate concerning problem formulations, methodological, empirical, and theoretical foundations, documentation, and presentation style. Emphasis should be placed on verifying the validity of key conclusions drawn by the candidate. The issues pursued by the opponents need not be limited to those mentioned in the committee's recommendation.

The opponents should aim, as far as possible, to present the discussion in a format that allows even those who have not read the thesis or are not deeply familiar with the field to follow along.


8.5 Conclusion of the defense, committee report, and final proceedings

The defense chair declares the defense concluded. The chair does not provide an assessment of the defense but states that the committee's evaluation will be recorded in a report to the institution, cf. § 6-2(7) of the regulations.