These supplementary guidelines are equivalent to what was previously called the Supplementary Regulations. These guidelines are a supplement to the Regulations governing the degree of Philosophiae doctor (PhD) at INN (adopted by the university Board on 19.12. 2017). These guidelines are based on the Supplementary Regulations for the PhD in Teaching and Teacher Education at Hedmark University College, adopted on 16.12.2009, with amendments adopted respectively on 1.12.2010 and 14.3.2011. The abovementioned regulations form the basis of NOKUT’s accreditation of the PhD of 14.2.2012.
These guidelines were approved by the Dean of the Faculty of Education on 20.11.2018 with subsequent alterations on 09.12.2020, 16.06.2023 and 02.10.2025.
Part I. Preliminary Provisions
The following supplementary rules and clarifications apply.
Regarding Section 1: Scope
The programme was established in 2012 as the PhD in Teaching and Teacher Education (PROFF) and accredited by NOKUT. A revised programme description was approved in February 2025. At the same time, the name was changed to PhD in Educational Sciences (UTVIT). The changes entered into force on 1 August 2025, and candidates admitted from this date follow the revised programme description. In the supplementary guidelines the programme is referred to as PhD in Educational Sciences, but the guidelines apply to all PhD candidates admitted to the programme.
Regarding Section 3: Responsibility for the PhD Education
The guidelines are developed and administered by the faculty’s PhD Committee.
The Head of the PhD Programme has authority delegated by the Dean to:
- approve courses and units completed at other institutions
- approve applications concerning academic dissemination
- approve the coursework component
- approve correction of formal errors in the thesis (errata list)
- process the PhD candidate’s application to have the thesis evaluated.
Part II. Admission
The following supplementary rules and clarifications apply for the processing of applications for admission:
Regarding Section 5.2: Application
- The applicant’s proposed supervisors should be discussed with the PhD Committee, preferably with the Head of PhD Studies.
- When considering applications, the following is assessed:
- Applicant’s suitability: (academic background and grades, progress in previous studies, relevant academic experience).
- Quality of project description: scientific quality, academic relevance to the PhD programme, research-related relevance and innovation, connection to academic network and feasibility within the framework of the PhD programme.
- When the number of qualified applicants with an approved funding plan exceeds the number of available places on the PhD programme, applicants are ranked in accordance with the following criteria:
- Employment as PhD research fellow at INN, Faculty of Education
- Project’s quality and relevance in terms of the profile of the PhD programme
- INN’s capacity to offer supervision.
Regulation’s Part III. Implementation
The following comments and clarifications apply:
Section 8.1: Purpose, Content, and Scope (individual reading course)
The individual reading course is described in accordance with the template for elective courses in the programme description. It may be based on a specific course in the programme. Learning outcomes, forms of assessment, organisation, scope and syllabus must be included in the description. The reading course is developed by the main supervisor in consultation with the PhD candidate and is approved by the PhD Committee. Normally, the main supervisor serves as course coordinator.
To have a reading course approved, the following criteria must be met:
- Syllabus: The syllabus should normally be increased by 35–40% compared to a regular elective course (e.g. from 400 to 550 pages).
- Written assignment: For a reading course equivalent to 2 ECTS, the candidate must write a short paper on an assigned topic (approx. 1,500 words). For a reading course equivalent to 4 ECTS, the length of the essay must be increased by approx. 30% (e.g. from 2,500–3,000 to 3,500 words).
- Oral presentation: May be given in the research group or another relevant academic forum.
- Assessment: Coursework requirements must be approved and the written assignment assessed as Passed for the reading course to be approved.
Regarding Section 9. Reporting and midterm evaluation
Section 9-1: Reporting
Half-year reports shall be submitted by both PhD candidate and the main supervisor to the PhD Committee.
Section 9-2: Midterm evaluation (and 90% evaluation)
Midterm evaluation: In consultation with the PhD candidate, the main supervisor proposes an opponent for the evaluation, and a date and time. The opponent in a midterm evaluation is normally someone from within the internal academic community at the Faculty of Education. The Head of PhD Studies approves the opponent on behalf of the PhD Committee.
Two weeks prior to the date of the evaluation, the opponent receives a draft of the dissertation text. In an accompanying cover letter, the PhD candidate states which 30-60 pages of text he/she would like the opponent to pay special attention to and also states whether there any special questions he/she wants to shed light on. The midterm evaluation is conducted as an oral dialogue between the opponent and the PhD candidate. It is open for attendance by all and has a timeframe of up to two hours. The dialogue starts with the PhD candidate presenting his/her work (approx. 15 minutes). The opponent follows with a critical but constructive opposition. This part should start with a general assessment of the received text, followed by a dialogue between the opponent and the PhD candidate, where the opponent asks the candidate a series of questions. The dialogue should end with an assessment of the project’s positive sides, and areas for development in the project. In closing off, the evaluation should open for general discussion with the audience.
The evaluation is chaired by the Head of PhD studies, or another member of the PhD Committee. Directly afterwards, a meeting is held between the PhD candidate, supervisors and representative of the PhD Committee, usually the Head of PhD Studies. INN’s form for midterm evaluations must be completed in this meeting.
90% evaluation: Around 2-3 months prior to the expected date for submission of the dissertation, a 90% evaluation is arranged. The candidate must normally have completed and passed the coursework component before the 90% evaluation can take place. The opponent should normally be external, meaning someone from outside INN. The main supervisor after consultation with the PhD candidate, proposes an opponent and time for the evaluation. The Head of PhD Studies approves the opponent on behalf of the PhD Committee.
At least two weeks prior to the date of the evaluation, the opponent receives a draft of the dissertation text PhD. In an accompanying cover letter, the PhD candidate states which 100 pages of text he/she would like the opponent to pay special attention to and whether there are any special questions he/she wants to shed light on. The 90% evaluation is conducted as an oral dialogue between the opponent and the PhD candidate. It is open for attendance and has a timeframe of up to two hours. The dialogue starts with the PhD candidate presenting his/her work (approx. 15 minutes). This is followed by the opponent’s critical but constructive opposition. This part should start with a general assessment of the received dissertation text, followed by a dialogue between the opponent and the PhD candidate, where the opponent asks the candidate a series of questions. This part should close with an assessment advising the PhD candidate on what to work on with the dissertation in the final phase before submission. Afterwards, it is open for general discussion with the audience.
The evaluation is chaired by the Head of PhD studies, or another member of the PhD Committee. Directly following the evaluation, the supervisors have a follow-up meeting with the PhD candidate.
Regarding Section 10. The doctoral thesis
Section 10. 1: Thesis requirements
All theses submitted on the programme must have a summary in Norwegian (alternatively Danish or Swedish) and in English.
Work on the thesis must be in accordance with the Norwegian National Guidelines for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences, Humanities, Law and Theology. Norwegian and international rules for processing of personal data must be followed.
When the thesis is submitted as a monograph, it should normally have a length of 200- 250 pages, not including the bibliography and appendices.
An article-based thesis should normally
- Comprise three articles and a summary article (the "kappe"). The summary article should have a length of around 70 pages, not including the bibliography and appendices. The PhD candidate must be the sole author of the summary article.
- Comprise articles of the quality and standard required for publishing in recognised and approved scientific publishing channels. At least one of the articles must be published or accepted for publishing at the time of submitting the thesis.
- Include a summary article that clarifies how the various articles in the thesis are interrelated and ensure that the thesis is presented as a whole. Therefore, the different questions and results must be presented and compared so that their interrelatedness is apparent, and so that the thesis’ contribution to the research field is clear.
Part IV. Completion
The following comments and clarifications apply:
Regarding Section 12-2. Time from submission to public defence
The regulations state that the time from thesis submission to public defence should be as short as possible and not exceed five months. In the PhD in Educational Sciences, the aim is that the time from submission to public defence will normally be three months.
Regarding Section 14: Appointment of the evaluation committee
The main supervisor proposes an assessment committee for the PhD committee. The head of the PhD programme assists in the process, including the relevant involvement of department heads for internal members. The main supervisor's proposal must be justified. The justification must show how the formal requirements for a standard composition of the committee (cf. the bullet points in section 14 of the regulations) have been resolved. If the proposal implies deviations from the criteria, they must be explicitly addressed. The proposal must also be briefly justify how relevant expertise is represented by the individual members, and how the committee collectively covers the dissertation's subject area. The main supervisor must also, together with the rest of the supervisory team, assess the competence of the proposed members. This must be done in line with section 6 of the Public Administration Act. In addition, the following clarifications apply:
A committee member cannot normally have:
- have been the 90% evaluation reader for the candidate
- have joint publications with the candidate
- have joint publications with one of the supervisors in the last four years
- have had a supervisory function without being formally appointed
- have an ongoing close professional collaboration with the candidate or supervisor
- have a close personal connection to the candidate or supervisor beyond what is explicitly mentioned in section 6 of the Public Administration Act
Before the matter is presented to the PhD committee, the main supervisor must ask potential members of they are interested in serving on the assessment committee, and the potential members must agree to the request. Before the proposal is presented to the PhD committee, the PhD supervisor must also make the proposal known to the PhD candidate in line with the provisions of the regulations.
Regarding Section 15.2: Revision of the Submitted Thesis
The evaluation committee may recommend minor revisions before submitting its final report, both at the first and second submission of the thesis, cf. case 5/20 of the FoU Committee dated 05.06.2020.
The PhD Committee considers the case and sets a deadline for submission of the revised thesis, normally three months from the PhD Committee’s decision. The date for the committee’s final report and for the public defence is agreed with the committee as soon as possible.
When submitting the revised thesis, the candidate must provide a brief account of how they have addressed the committee’s comments.
The committee is normally given 4–5 weeks to assess the revised version.
Regarding Section 15.3: Report by the evaluation committee
The chair of the evaluation committee is responsible for organizing the committee’s work, ensuring that it starts promptly and that the timeline is adhered to. One week after the committee has received the appointment letter and the thesis, the committee must propose a preliminary defense date to the PhD administration. The committee’s recommendation should normally be submitted 25 working days before this preliminary defense date. After consulting with the committee, the PhD administration sets the deadline for the committee’s recommendation and the preliminary defense date.
The chair should help coordinate the committee’s recommendation on the thesis and clarify the division of labor among committee members during the defense. The committee itself decides which of the two other members will serve as the first and second opponents. The chair must ensure that the committee’s work complies with the Regulations for the Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) Degree at University of Inland Norway, the UTVIT programme description, and UTVIT’s supplementary guidelines. Additionally, Veiledning om bedømmelse av norske doktorgrader recommended by Universities Norway on May 13, 2022, should be followed where relevant.
Regarding Section 15.4: Correction of Formal Errors in the Doctoral Thesis
The corrections listed in the approved errata must be incorporated into the version of the thesis submitted for printing and publication. Any additional proofreading is normally limited to technical errors that may occur in the printing process.
Regarding Section 19.1: Trial Lecture
The trial lecture must last 40 minutes.
The lecture should be given in such a way that it can be followed with benefit by students at Master's level.
Regarding Section 19.2: Public Defence of the Dissertation
Before the defense, the candidate must present their thesis before the first opponent begins their questioning. The duration of the presentation should not extend 20 minutes.
The defence must be an academic discussion between opponents and candidate regarding the research questions, methodological, empirical and theoretical sources, documentation and form of presentation. Particular emphasis should be placed on testing the validity of the central conclusions that the candidate has drawn in their work. The issues that the opponents choose to pursue need not be limited to those mentioned in the committee recommendation.
The first opponent should also place the thesis in a larger academic context.
Opponents ex auditorium may ask their questions between the first and second opponent.
Addendum
Guidelines for the presentation of research design and research ethics reflections in the research groups
Before data collection can start, PhD candidates must have familiarized themselves with INN's guidelines for research data and, based on these and other considerations, submit for discussion in their research groups: the study's research design, a draft data management plan and a reflection on research ethics .
When the submission has been completed, the main supervisor informs the PhD administration about this.
Cf. decision of the PhD committee in case 2022/79.