For Supervisors

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.

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.

According to the PhD Regulations for Kristiania University College, 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.

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.

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 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 §15-1(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.