Regulations for the degree Philosophiae Doctor (PhD) at the Oslo School of Architecture and Design (AHO)
This is a translation of the Norwegian regulation. If there is uncertainty about the interpretation of the various paragraphs, it is always the Norwegian regulation that is valid. Errors or deficiencies in the English translation may exist.
Part I. Introductory Provisions
Section 1 Applicability of these regulations
These regulations apply to doctoral education culminating in the degree of Philosophiae Doctor (PhD). The regulations pertain to admission to, participation in and completion of the doctoral education, including joint degrees and cotutelle agreements.
Section 2 Scope, content and objectives of the doctoral education
The objective of doctoral education is to qualify candidates to conduct research of international
quality and to perform other types of work requiring a high level of scientific expertise and analytical
thinking in accordance with sound scientific practice and established standards on research ethics.
Doctoral education is to provide the candidate with knowledge, skills and expertise in keeping with the national qualifications framework.
Doctoral education normally consists of three years of full-time study, and includes a training component comprising a minimum of 30 credits.
The most important component of doctoral education is an independent research project or a combined research and development project carried out under close academic supervision.
The PhD degree is conferred on the basis of:
- approved completion of the training component
-an approved doctoral thesis
- an approved trial lecture on an assigned topic
- an approved public defence of the doctoral thesis
Section 3 Responsibility for doctoral education
The board of AHO has the overall responsibility for the doctoral education offered at AHO.
Section 4 Quality assurance
Doctoral education is included under AHO’s quality assurance system.
PART II ADMISSION
Section 5 Admission
Section 5.1 Conditions of admission
To be eligible for admission to doctoral education, applicants must normally have a five-year master’s
degree in design, architecture, landscape architecture or other comparable qualifications that AHO has approved as the basis for admission.
Admission should normally not be granted if:
- The funding plan has not been clarified
- Copyright agreements with an external third party is an obstacle to the public defence and to making the thesis public
- agreements on intellectual property rights are so unreasonable that AHO should not participate in the project
- Less than one year of full-time work remains on the PhD project. An exemption is made for PhD candidates applying to submit a finished, or nearly finished, thesis after the admission period has expired, cf. Section 5.3 last paragraph.
AHO may require applicants to undergo special courses and/or pass special tests before admission.
If the applicant plans to use a different language for the doctoral thesis than that approved in accordance with Section 10 of the Regulations, an application for approval of this must be submitted together with the application.
Applicants from countries outside the Nordic countries must be able to document English proficiency as follows:
- TOEFL - Test of English as a Foreign Language, with a score of at least 550 on the paper-based test, 213 on the computer-based test (TOEFL CBT) or 80 on the internet-based test (TOEFL IBT), or
- IELTS - International English Language Testing Service, British Council, with at least 6.0 points (overall score), or
- Certificate in Advanced English or Certificate of Proficiency in English from the University of Cambridge
Applicants with the following documentation are excluded from the English language requirement:
- Citizens of Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States
- One year of university studies in one of the above-mentioned countries, where the language of instruction has been English
- Completed university education where the subject English is the main part of the study programme
- Bachelor's degree where the language of instruction has been English throughout the study programme
- A-level in English with minimum C or better
Section 5.2 Infrastructure
The candidate must have at his/her disposal the infrastructure necessary for completion of the PhD project. AHO has the decision-making authority in questions of what constitutes infrastructure ‘necessary for completion’. For candidates with external funding or candidates whose workplace is outside the university, AHO and the external party must enter into an agreement concerning the research project. As a rule, such agreements must be signed prior to the formal admission of the candidate or immediately thereafter.
Section 5.3 Admission period
The PhD period has a nominal duration of three (3) years of full-time study. Where work on the project is interrupted by statutory leaves of absence, the admission period will be extended accordingly. It is not normally possible to plan a doctoral education with a progress that entails a study period of more than six (6) years.
Candidates are normally required to apply for admission to the programme within three (3) months of the start of the research project that will lead to the PhD degree. If less than one year of full-time work remains on the PhD project, the applicant shall be rejected, cf. Section 5.1.
The maximum admission period for a PhD programme is eight (8) years from the original start date.
Following expiry of the admission period, the parties’ rights and duties under the doctoral contract lapse, such that the PhD candidate loses entitlement to supervision, course participation and access to university infrastructure. The candidate may, however, apply for permission to submit his/her thesis for evaluation for the PhD degree.
Section 5.4 Voluntary termination before the agreed completion date
The PhD candidate and AHO may agree to terminate the doctoral education before the agreed completion date. In the event of such termination, the parties shall enter into a written agreement regulating issues such as employment, funding and the rights to research results.
In the case of voluntary termination due to the candidate’s desire to change project or transfer to another PhD programme or specialisation, the candidate must reapply for admission based on the new project.
Section 5.5 Involuntary termination
AHO may decide to terminate a candidate’s doctoral education before the agreed completion date in cases of academic misconduct or when a candidate to a significant degree fails to fulfil his/her obligations. Examples of significant breaches of contract are:
- Considerable delay in completion of the course and training component due to circumstances over which the candidate has control
- Repeated or significant failure on the part of the candidate to provide information, meet commitments or report on progress, including a failure to submit progress reports, cf. Section 9
- Delay in the progress of a research project of a kind that gives rise to reasonable doubt about the candidate’s ability to complete the project within the agreed timeframe. To be considered grounds for involuntary termination, the delay must be attributable to circumstances over which the candidate has control
- Decisions pursuant to this section are taken by the agency determined by the board of AHO. Appeals are handled by AHO's appeals committee
Section 5.6 Involuntary termination in the event of cheating on examinations or tests during the PhD programme
In the event of cheating on examinations or tests during the PhD programme, AHO may decide to annul such examinations and tests, cf. Section 4.7 of the Act relating to universities and university colleges. If the circumstance(s) are so serious as to constitute scientific misconduct, cf. Section 4.13 (1) of the same Act, cf. Section 5, second paragraph, of the Research Ethics Act, AHO may decide to impose involuntary termination, cf. Section 5.7 below. Decisions pursuant to this paragraph are taken by the Board itself or by the AHO Appeals Committee. Appeals are considered by the Joint Appeals Committee, cf. Section 5.1 of the Act relating to universities and university colleges with pertaining regulations.
Section 5.7 Involuntary termination in the event of scientific misconduct
If a PhD candidate is guilty of scientific misconduct, cf. Section 4.13 (1) of the Act relating to universities and university colleges, cf. Section 5, second paragraph of the Research Ethics Act, AHO may decide to impose involuntary termination. Decisions on involuntary termination on grounds of scientific misconduct are taken by the body determined by the board of AHO. Appeals against such decisions are dealt with by the ministry or by a special appeals committee appointed by the ministry.
Section 5.8 Termination and dismissal
A PhD candidate may be dismissed from his or her position when there are sufficient grounds related to the circumstances of AHO or the PhD candidate, cf. Section 9 and Section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, or Section 15 of the Act regarding summary discharge.
Section 6 The PhD contract
Admission to AHO’s PhD programme will be formalised in a written contract signed by the PhD candidate, the supervisor(s) and AHO. The agreement governs the parties’ rights and duties during the admission period, and is intended to ensure that the candidate participates on a regular basis in an active research environment and that he/she is able to complete the education within the agreed timeframe.
When a PhD candidate is funded by, employed by or receives other contributions from an external party, a separate agreement must be entered into between the candidate, AHO and the external party.
If the PhD candidate will be affiliated to an institution abroad, the university’s guidelines for such cooperation must be adhered to and separate agreements must be entered into using the appropriate forms. As a rule, the signed agreement must be enclosed with the admission contract.
Research fellows employed at AHO are generally required to have AHO as their place of work for the duration of the contract period. Other workplaces may be agreed for shorter or longer periods.
As a rule, other PhD students must spend at least one year at AHO.
Part III. Implementation
Section 7 supervision
Work on the doctoral thesis must be carried out under individualised academic supervision. AHO and the supervisors must together ensure that the PhD candidate participates in an active research environment.
Section 7.1 Appointment of supervisors
As a general rule, the PhD candidate is to have two academic supervisors, of which one will be designated as the main supervisor. The main supervisor should be appointed by the time the candidate is admitted.
The main supervisor has the primary academic responsibility for the candidate and should be employed at AHO if the necessary expertise is found within the institution. If AHO appoints an external main supervisor, a co-supervisor who is an academic staff member at AHO must also be appointed.
Co-supervisors are scholars who provide supervision and who share the academic responsibility for the candidate with the main supervisor.
The rules on eligibility in Chapter 2 of the Administration Act (Sections 6 to 10) apply to the academic supervisors.
All academic supervisors must hold a doctoral degree or equivalent qualification in the relevant research field and must be working actively as researchers. At least one of the appointed supervisors must have previous experience or training in academic supervision of PhD candidates.
Both the PhD candidate and the academic supervisor may ask AHO to appoint another supervisor for the candidate. The supervisor may not withdraw before a new supervisor has been appointed.
Disputes regarding the academic rights and obligations of the supervisor and the candidate can be brought by the parties for review and decision at AHO.
Section 7.2 Content of the academic supervision
The candidate must have regular contact with his/her supervisors. The supervisor is responsible for following up the candidate’s academic development. The frequency of contact between the parties must be stated in the annual progress report, cf. Section 9. The supervisors have a duty to stay informed about the progress of the candidate’s work and to assess such progress in relation to the timeframe set out in the project description, cf. Section 5.1. The supervisors are required to follow up academic issues that may cause a delay to the candidate’s progress in his/her doctoral education so that it can be completed within the stipulated time period.
The supervisors are to give advice on the formulation and definition of the topic and research questions; discuss and assess hypotheses and research methods; discuss results and their interpretation, discuss the structure and work on the thesis, including the outline, choice of language and documentation; and provide guidance on the academic literature and data available in libraries, archives etc. The supervisors must also advise the candidate on issues of research ethics in connection with the thesis.
Section 7.3 Connection to research environment
The main supervisor is responsible for ensuring that the PhD candidate participates regularly in an active research environment with senior researchers and other PhD candidates.
For PhD candidates whose principal affiliation is to another institution, an agreement must be entered into between the degree-conferring and cooperating institution that regulates the working relationship, including ensuring that the PhD candidate participates in an active research environment.
Section 8 Training component
Section 8.1 Objective, content and scope
The total workload of the doctoral education must not exceed the equivalent of three (3) years of full-time study. AHO is responsible for ensuring that the training component, along with the doctoral thesis, provides education at a high academic level and in accordance with international standards. The education must include research work, training in academic dissemination and an introduction to research ethics, theory of science and scientific method. Together with the research work, the training must contribute to the candidate achieving the expected learning outcomes in accordance with the national qualifications framework.
As part of their doctoral education, PhD candidates should receive advice on future professional and occupational possibilities within and outside of academia. This is also to increase their awareness of the expertise they have acquired through their research activities.
Together with the thesis, the training component shall provide research education at a high academic level. The training component and other required coursework must be equivalent to at least 30 ECTS.
The curriculum for the training component must be specified in a separate study plan.
Courses at doctoral level at another institution must be approved in accordance with the provisions of the Act relating to universities and university colleges Section 3.5, first paragraph.
Section 8.2 The candidate’s rights concerning leave of absence
PhD candidates on parental leave may continue to attend classes and sit examinations that are a mandatory part of their training component, cf. the National Insurance Act, Section 14.10.
Section 9 Reporting, mid-term evaluation and reader
Section 9.1 Reporting
AHO’s system for assuring the quality of the doctoral education shall include procedures for uncovering insufficient progress in the candidate’s work on the thesis and the training component. In addition, the system includes procedures for detecting inadequacies in the quality of supervision and follow-up procedures for handling any such deficiencies. The system must normally include the submission of annual, individual reports by the candidate and the supervisor, and be designed to avoid dual reporting. The candidate and the supervisor have equal responsibility for submitting the required reports. All PhD candidates are to be invited to progress seminars if needed. A lack of, or inadequate, progress reports from the candidate may result in involuntary termination of the candidate’s participation in the doctoral education prior to the expiry of the admission period, cf. Section 5.5. Supervisors who fail to comply with the reporting requirements may be relieved of their supervisory duties. AHO may establish special reporting requirements, if needed.
Section 9.2 Mid-term evaluation
A mid-term evaluation of the research project should normally take place in the third or fourth semester. AHO may draw up supplementary guidelines for the mid-term evaluation as needed.
Section 9.3 Reader or final seminar
A ‘reader’ will normally be appointed or a final seminar arranged as a quality assurance measure before the thesis can be submitted for final assessment. The reader’s report or the final seminar should normally be approved by AHO before the doctoral thesis can be submitted for final assessment.
Section 10 The doctoral thesis
Section 10.1 Thesis requirements
The doctoral thesis must be an independent research project or research and development project that meets international standards with regard to ethical requirements, academic standards, methods and practice in the subject area. The thesis must contribute to the development of new scholarly knowledge and must achieve a level meriting publication in a suitable format as part of the field’s research-based knowledge development. The thesis may consist of a monograph or a compendium of several shorter papers/works. If the thesis consists of several shorter papers/works, clarification about how these are interrelated must be included.
The main component of the thesis may consist of a body of work, a systematised collection of data or another form of presentation (e.g. drawings, images, videos, sound or other electronic form of presentation) in which the theoretical and methodological basis is not apparent from the work itself. In such cases, the thesis must include, in addition to the work itself, a written description of the research problem and intention, choice of theory, and the method and assessment of the results in keeping with academic international standards and the academic level within the field.
If the thesis or parts of the thesis have been produced in cooperation with other authors or cooperating partners, the PhD candidate must follow the norms for co-authorship that are generally accepted within the academic community and in accordance with international standards. If the thesis consists mainly of articles, the candidate must normally be listed as the lead author on at least half of the articles. A thesis containing articles/works by more than one author or cooperating partner must include a signed declaration that describes the candidate’s contribution to each of the articles/works.
Section 10.2 Works that may not be submitted
Works or parts of works that have been approved as the basis for previous examinations or degrees may not be submitted for evaluation as part of the doctoral thesis unless they comprise a minor part of a thesis consisting of several related works. However, data, analyses and methodologies from previous degrees may be used as the basis for the doctoral research project. Published papers cannot be approved as part of the doctoral thesis if more than five (5) years has passed from the date of publication to the date of the candidate’s admission. AHO may grant exemptions from this requirement if warranted by special circumstances. The thesis may be submitted for assessment to only one educational institution, cf. Section 13.1.
Section 10.3 Rights relating to the use of results
The PhD candidate's right to use his/her own results, exploitation of patentable inventions, copyright etc. are governed by AHO's general rules that apply to this area as well as the rules laid down in the Act respecting the Right to Employees' Inventions.
Section 10.4 Language
The thesis must be written in a Scandinavian language (Norwegian, Swedish or Danish) or English. If the candidate wishes to use another language, he/she must apply for special permission to do so no later than the date of admission.
Section 11 Obligation to report on research results with commercial potential
The rights between cooperating institutions must be regulated in a written agreement. When a PhD candidate is employed at AHO, the institution’s regulations relevant at the time must form the basis for the PhD candidate’s obligation to report on the research results with commercial potential that he/she produced during the employment relationship.
When a PhD candidate has an external employer, the corresponding obligation to report must be stipulated in a written agreement between AHO, the PhD candidate and the external employer. For PhD candidates without an employer, the corresponding obligation to report must be stipulated in the admission agreement between AHO and the PhD candidate.
Part IV Completion
Section 12 Assessment
Section 12.1 Basis for assessment
The PhD degree is conferred on the basis of:
- An approved doctoral thesis
- Approved completion of the training component and any required coursework
- An approved trial lecture on an assigned topic
- An approved public defence of the doctoral thesis (disputation)
Section 12.2 Time between submission and public defence of the thesis
AHO must strive to ensure that the time between submission of the thesis and the public defence is as short as possible. Normally, the period from submission to defence of the thesis should not exceed five (5) months. It is the responsibility of the main supervisor to notify AHO that the doctoral thesis will be submitted soon so that the necessary preparations can begin.
Section 13 Submission
Section 13.1 Submission of the doctoral thesis
The application for assessment of the thesis may only be submitted after the training component and any required coursework has been approved.
The following documents must be enclosed with the application:
- The doctoral thesis in an approved format, and in accordance with AHO’s regulations and in the form and number of copies stipulated by AHO
- Documentation of required permission, cf. Section 5.1
- Declarations from co-authors where required pursuant to Section 10.1
- A statement specifying whether the doctoral thesis is being submitted for assessment for the first or second time
- A statement that the doctoral work has not been submitted for assessment at another institution
Section 13.2 Processing the application
AHO considers applications for the assessment of a doctoral thesis. Applications that do not fulfil the requirements set out in Section 13.1 will be rejected.
Section 14 Appointment of an assessment committee
When AHO has approved an application for the assessment of a doctoral thesis, the institution itself must appoint an expert committee comprising at least three members who are to assess the thesis, the trial lecture and the public defence. AHO will stipulate appointment procedures and select a chairman from among the committee’s members and, if needed, also a coordinator in addition to the members of the committee.
The provisions applicable to partiality in Section 6 of the Norwegian Public Administration Act apply to the members of the committee and to the coordinator, if any. The issue of partiality should be examined both in relation to the PhD candidate and the supervisors.
The composition of the assessment committee is normally to be such that:
- Both genders are represented
- At least one of the members should be from outside AHO
- The main position of at least one member is at an institution outside Norway
- All members hold doctoral degrees or equivalent qualifications
Formal supervisors and others who have contributed to the thesis may not be appointed as members of the assessment committee or have an administrative function in relation to the committee. AHO may appoint a replacement member to the committee where required.
The PhD candidate must be notified of the proposal for the composition of the committee prior to any decision by AHO, and he or she may submit written comments no later than one (1) week after the proposal has been made known.
The period between approval of the application and appointment of the assessment committee should normally not exceed four (4) weeks.
Section 15 Activities of the assessment committee
Section 15.1 Gathering of supplementary information
The assessment committee may require presentation of the PhD candidate’s source material and additional clarifying or supplementary information.
The assessment committee may ask the academic supervisors to provide information about the supervision carried out and the work involved in the thesis.
Section 15.2 Revision of a submitted thesis
On the basis of the submitted thesis and any additional material, cf. Section 15.1, the assessment committee may recommend that AHO permits the candidate to make minor revisions to the thesis before the committee submits its final report. The committee must provide a written list of specific items that the candidate must revise.
The revised thesis shall, if possible, be assessed by the original assessment committee.
If AHO allows minor revisions to the thesis, a deadline normally not exceeding three (3) months must be set for completing such revisions. A new deadline for submission of the committee’s final report must also be set. AHO’s decision pursuant to this section may not be appealed by the PhD candidate.
If the assessment committee finds that extensive changes related to the theory, hypothesis, data or methods used in the thesis are needed in order to deem the thesis worthy of a public defence, the committee must recommend that the thesis be rejected.
Section 15.3 Report of the assessment committee
The assessment committee determines whether the thesis is worthy of being defended for the PhD degree. The decision presented in the report and any dissenting views must be explained.
The assessment committee’s report should be submitted no later than three (3) months from the date on which the committee received the thesis. If AHO allows the candidate to submit a revised thesis, a new time limit runs from the date on which the thesis was resubmitted.
The assessment committee’s report is submitted to AHO, which forwards the report to the PhD candidate. The candidate is then given ten (10) working days in which to submit written comments to the report. If the candidate does not wish to submit comments, he/she must notify AHO of this in writing as soon as possible.
Any comments from the PhD candidate must be sent to AHO. AHO itself is responsible for taking the final decision on the matter in accordance with Section 16.
Section 15.4 Correction of formal errors in the thesis
Once submitted, a thesis cannot be withdrawn until a final decision has been reached as to whether or not it can be approved for the defence of the PhD degree. After the thesis has been submitted, the candidate will only be allowed to correct formal errors. A list of the errors that the candidate wishes to correct (an errata list) must be submitted no later than four (4) weeks before the public defence. The errata list must accompany the printed thesis.
Section 16 AHO’s procedures related to the assessment committee’s report
On the basis of the assessment committee’s final report, AHO itself decides whether or not the doctoral thesis is worthy of a public defence.
Unanimous committee decision
If the committee’s report is unanimous and AHO finds that the report should be used as the basis for its final decision, AHO will take the final decision in accordance with the committee’s recommendations.
If AHO finds that there are grounds to doubt whether the committee’s unanimous report should be used as the basis for its final decision, AHO must request further clarification from the assessment committee and/or appoint two new experts to make individual statements about the thesis. Such additional clarification or individual statements must be presented to the PhD candidate, who will be given the opportunity to make comments. AHO will take the final decision on the matter on the basis of the committee’s report and the statements obtained.
Non-unanimous committee decision
If the committee’s recommendation is not unanimous and AHO decides to use the majority’s recommendation as the basis for its final decision, AHO is to take the final decision in accordance with the majority’s recommendation. If the committee’s recommendation is not unanimous and AHO considers using the statements of the minority as the basis for its final decision, AHO may seek further clarification from the assessment committee and/or appoint two new experts to give individual statements about the thesis. Such additional clarification or individual statements must be presented to the PhD candidate, who will be given the opportunity to make comments. If both the new experts agree with the recommendation of the majority in the committee’s original recommendation, this recommendation must be followed. The candidate must be informed of the outcome after procedures related to the statements from the new experts have been completed.
Section 17 Resubmission
A doctoral thesis that has not been found worthy of a public defence may be resubmitted for assessment in a revised version no earlier than six (6) months after AHO has made its rejection decision. A doctoral thesis may only be reassessed once. In the event of resubmission, the PhD candidate must clearly state that the thesis was assessed previously and not found worthy of a public defence.
For assessment of the thesis after resubmission, a new assessment committee comprising three (3) members must be appointed in accordance with the provisions in Section 14. At least one of the members of the original assessment committee should be appointed as a member of the new committee.
Section 18 Public availability of the thesis
Section 18.1 Requirements related to the printed thesis
When the thesis has been found worthy of a public defence, the PhD candidate must submit the thesis to AHO in the approved format and in accordance with AHO’s regulations, cf. Section 13.1.
The PhD candidate must submit a brief summary of the thesis in English or Norwegian. If the thesis is not written in English or Norwegian, the candidate must also submit a summary in the language in which the thesis is written. Both the thesis and the summary must be made available to the public.
Section 18.2 Public availability
The thesis must be made available to the public no later than two (2) weeks prior to the date of the public defence. The thesis should be made available in the form in which it was submitted for assessment, or following revisions made on the basis of the committee’s preliminary comments, cf. Section 15.2.
No restrictions may be placed on a doctoral thesis being made publicly available, with the exception of a previously agreed delay to the date of public access. Such a delay may be permitted in order to allow AHO and any external parties that have provided full or partial funding for the doctoral education to consider potential patents. An external party may not require that all or part of a thesis be withheld from the public domain, cf. Section 5.3.
The PhD candidate is obliged to publish a summary of the thesis in AHO's open access solution and sign AHO's agreement on electronic archiving of doctoral theses.
When publishing the thesis or other written work that is related to the doctoral education, including scientific articles, anthology articles and monographs, the PhD candidate must follow the applicable guidelines on the crediting of institutions.
Section 19 The doctoral examination
Section 19.1 Trial lecture
Subsequent to AHO’s decision to approve the thesis for a public defence, cf. Section 16, the candidate must give a trial lecture. The trial lecture is an independent part of the doctoral examination and is held on an assigned topic. The purpose is to test the candidate’s ability to acquire knowledge beyond the topic of the thesis as well as the ability to impart this knowledge in a lecture setting.
The title of the trial lecture is decided by the assessment committee and announced to the PhD candidate ten (10) working days before the date of the lecture. The topic of the lecture should have no direct connection with the topic of the candidate’s thesis. The trial lecture must be held in the language in which the thesis is written unless AHO approves the use of another language.
The assessment committee will notify AHO of whether the trial lecture has been approved. If the trial lecture is not approved, the reason for this must be explained.
Section 19.2 Public defence of the thesis
The public defence of the doctoral thesis must take place after the trial lecture has been approved and normally no later than two (2) months after AHO has found the thesis worthy of a public defence. The time and location of the public defence must be announced at least ten (10) working days in advance. The committee that originally assessed the doctoral thesis must also assess the public defence. The public defence must be held in the language used in the thesis, unless AHO itself, on the recommendation of the assessment committee, approves the use of a different language.
There are normally two opponents. The two opponents must be members of the assessment committee and are appointed by AHO. The public defence will be chaired by a person appointed by AHO. The chair will provide a brief account of the submission and the assessment of the thesis and the trial lecture. The PhD candidate will then explain the purpose and the results of the scientific investigation. The first opponent will open the discussion and the second opponent will close the opposition. AHO may, if necessary, determine a different task distribution between the opponents, and between the PhD candidate and the first opponent.
Once the first opponent has concluded the arguments, members of the audience are given the opportunity to comment ex auditorio. The other attendees who wish to oppose ex auditorio must, during the defense, notify the chair of the defense within the deadline set by them. One of the opponents will then conclude the opposition before the chair concludes the disputation.
The assessment committee submits its report to AHO in which it explains how it has assessed the public defence of the thesis. The report must conclude whether or not the defence is approved. If the defence of the thesis is not approved, the assessment committee must give reasons for this.
Section 20 Approval of the doctoral examination
AHO takes the decision on approval of the doctoral examination on the basis of the assessment committee’s report.
If AHO does not approve the trial lecture, a new trial lecture must be held. The new trial lecture must be held on a new topic and no later than six (6) months after the first attempt. A new trial lecture may only be held once. As far as possible, the lecture should be assessed by the same committee that assessed the original lecture, unless AHO decides otherwise. If AHO does not approve the public defence, the candidate may defend the thesis once more only. A new defence is normally held after six (6) months and should as far as possible be assessed by the original assessment committee.
Section 21 Conferral of the degree and diploma
On the basis of AHO’s statement that the training component, thesis and doctoral examination have been approved, the AHO Board will confer the title of Philosophiae Doctor on the candidate.
The diploma is issued by AHO and provides information about the content of the training component. AHO determines which additional information is to be included on the diploma.
Section 22 Diploma supplement
AHO will issue a PhD diploma supplement in accordance with the applicable guidelines.
Part V Appeals, entry into force and supplementary provisions
Section 23 Appeals
Section 23.1 Appeal of a rejection of an application for admission, appeal of a decision to terminate a candidate’s admission rights, and appeal of a rejection of an application for approval of part of the training component or required coursework
Rejection of an application for admission, a decision to terminate a candidate’s admission rights, or an application for approval of part of the training component or required coursework may be appealed pursuant to the provisions of the Public Administration Act, Sections 28 et seq. A substantiated appeal of a rejection must be submitted to the AHO Research Committee. If the rejection is upheld, the appeal is to be forwarded to the AHO board for final approval
Section 23.2 Appeals concerning assessment of the training component
In the event of an appeal concerning rejection of an application for approval of courses or other parts of the training component, Section 12 (1) of the Public Administration Act applies correspondingly. In the event of an appeal concerning the grading of an individual examination or test, the Act relating to universities and university colleges applies. The research committee will appoint the appellate examiner for appeals regarding the assessment of grades (pass/fail).
Section 23.3 Appeals concerning rejection of an application for assessment, and non-approval of a doctoral thesis, trial lecture or public defence
Rejection of an application for assessment of a doctoral thesis, and a decision not to approve a doctoral thesis, trial lecture or public defence may be appealed pursuant to the provisions of the Public Administration Act sections 28 et seq.
A substantiated appeal must be submitted to the AHO research committee, which may overturn or amend the decision. If the AHO rejects the appeal, it must be forwarded to the AHO board for a final decision. The board may review all aspects of the appealed decision. Should AHO find grounds to do so, it may appoint individuals or a committee to undertake an evaluation of the assessment and the underlying criteria or to undertake a new or supplementary expert assessment.
Section 24 Joint degrees and cotutelle (joint supervision) agreements
Section 24.1 Joint degrees and cotutelle agreements
AHO may enter into agreements with one or more institutions in Norway or abroad regarding cooperation in the form of joint degrees or cotutelle agreements. In agreements regarding joint degrees or cotutelle, AHO may grant exemptions from AHO’s PhD regulations if this is necessary due to regulations at cooperating institutions. Such exceptions must, both individually and collectively, be clearly justifiable.
Section 24.2 Joint degrees
The term ‘joint degree’ is defined as a collaboration between two or more institutions that are jointly responsible for admission, academic supervision, conferral of the degree and other elements described in these regulations. The cooperation is normally organised in the form of a consortium and is regulated by an agreement between the consortium members. For a completed joint degree, a joint diploma is issued in the form of: a) a diploma issued by the consortium members as a group, b) a diploma issued by each of the consortium members, or a combination of a) and b).
An agreement to issue a joint degree is normally entered into only if established and stable academic cooperation already exists between AHO and one of the other consortium members. The board is responsible for stipulating additional regulations for joint degree cooperation, including a template for consortium agreements, cf. first paragraph above.
Section 24.3 Cotutelle agreements
The term ‘cotutelle agreement’ is defined as the joint academic supervision of PhD candidates and cooperation on doctoral education for PhD candidates. A separate cotutelle agreement is entered into for each candidate and must be based on stable academic cooperation between the institutions.
Section 24.4 Requirements relating to joint degrees and cotutelle
The admission requirements, the requirement that the thesis must be made available to the public and the requirement for a public defence assessed by an impartial assessment committee cannot be waived.
Section 25 Supplementary provisions
AHO's board may authorise the research committee (FU) to prepare guidelines, instructions and procedures relating to these regulations. The research committee's supplementary guidelines and procedures must be submitted to AHO's management for approval.
Section 26 Entry into force
These regulations shall enter into force immediately and will replace regulation no. 1741 of 21 June 2006 relating to the degree philosophiae doctor (PhD) at AHO.