The reasoning behind the composition should demonstrate how the relevant expertise is represented by each member and how the committee as a whole covers the academic field of the thesis.
The evaluation committee
The committee shall collectively cover the academic field of the thesis, consist of at least three members, and be composed in such a way that:
- Both genders are represented
- Only one of the members is employed by INN
- At least one of the members does not hold a primary position at a Norwegian institution
- All members hold a doctoral degree or equivalent qualifications
The doctoral candidate shall be informed of the proposed composition of the committee. The candidate may provide comments on the proposal no later than one week after the composition is made known. This ensures that the faculty is as well-informed as possible about potential conflicts of interest or other critical matters, based on input from the candidate. Once the faculty has appointed the evaluation committee, the dissertation will be forwarded to the committee.
The committee will then receive a deadline for submitting its recommendation and for setting a tentative date for the defence in collaboration with the faculty.
To ensure efficient progress, the faculty will appoint one of the members as chairperson of the committee. This should preferably be a representative from the institution. In exceptional cases, the faculty may instead appoint an administrative chair from its own academic staff who does not participate in the academic evaluation of the dissertation.
The committee chairperson is responsible for organising the work of the committee, ensuring that work commences promptly, and that the committee adheres to the set timeline. The chairperson shall also coordinate the committee's recommendation on the dissertation and clarify the division of responsibilities among committee members during the defence.
The doctoral thesis is sent to the committee along with information on where the work was conducted, who the supervisor(s) were, and documentation of the research training programme the candidate has completed and had approved. The candidate's completion of the coursework component has already been approved and does not need to be re-approved by the committee but is provided as background information that may be considered when the committee formulates the assigned topic for the trial lecture.
In cases where the committee recommends revision of the thesis, cf. § 15-2 of the PhD Regulations, it also commits to evaluating the revised dissertation.
If a candidate’s thesis has been rejected and they submit a new work for evaluation, the PhD committee may appoint either the same committee, partially the same members, or an entirely new committee. The new committee must be informed that it is the second time the dissertation is being submitted for evaluation.
Impartiality requirements for the committee members
The impartiality rules in the Public Administration Act apply to the committee members.
In INN’s PhD regulations § 14, it is also stipulated that appointed supervisors and others who have contributed to the doctoral work may not be members of the evaluation committee or administer it. Unless there is a clear violation of the impartiality requirement in § 6 of the Public Administration Act, such as familial relationships or financial interests, it is the committee member themselves who determines their impartiality. The following passage in the Public Administration Act is relevant for this assessment:
'Likewise, he is disqualified when other special circumstances exist that are suitable for undermining confidence in their impartiality; particular emphasis shall be placed on whether the decision in the case could involve significant benefit, loss, or disadvantage for the individual or someone to whom they have a close personal connection. Emphasis shall also be placed on whether an objection to impartiality has been raised by a party.'
To ensure trust in the high standard of INN’s doctoral degrees, it is crucial to avoid disputes over impartiality during the evaluation of our doctoral dissertations. Therefore, INN requests that all proposed committee members disclose if they have close collaborative relationships that might hinder an impartial evaluation. The following questions are provided as guidance for committee members during this evaluation:
Do you have:
- joint publications with the candidate?
- joint publications with the PhD candidate’s supervisor(s) from the past four years?
- had a supervisory role without being formally appointed?
- an ongoing close professional collaboration with the candidate or supervisor(s)?
- a close personal connection to the candidate or supervisor beyond what is explicitly mentioned in § 6 of the Public Administration Act?
If the answer to any of these questions is 'yes', the committee member is asked to assess their impartiality and report this to the faculty. It is important to emphasise that one may still be considered impartial despite having publications or academic collaborations with the candidate or supervisor, as such activities typically do not result in personal gain from the approval or rejection of the dissertation. Only in cases where special circumstances significantly undermine confidence in impartial handling, or where an objection is raised by another party, may the institution override the committee member’s self-assessment and decide that the individual should not participate in the evaluation committee.
Appointment of a substitute member
If one of the members of the evaluation committee is unable to attend the trial lecture and/or the defence, the dean may appoint a substitute member (a new member) to the evaluation committee. In such cases, the following applies:
- The appointment of the substitute member is made in consultation with the committee administrator.
- The doctoral candidate shall be informed as soon as the substitute member is appointed.
- The impartiality requirement applies to substitute members and the faculty.
- If one of the external members of the committee is unable to attend, the internal member from INN will step in as a deputy and take on the role of opponent.
- If the internal member from INN cannot attend or must act as a deputy for the opponent, the faculty will appoint a substitute member.