Rules for establishing a subject for programmes at the 3rd-cycle level
Adopted by the Research and Education Board on 25 May 2023
In effect from 1 June 2023
Case number HV 2023/42
1 Introduction
The purpose of these rules is to facilitate and support those actors whose job it is to write applications for establishing a subject area at the 3rd-cycle level. These rules contribute to ensuring that we maintain the high quality of programmes at the 3rd-cycle level.
These rules deal with subjects within the framework of the authorisation University West (HV) has from the Swedish Higher Education Authority to issue general qualifications at the 3rd-cycle level. University West is authorised to issue two degrees at the 3rd-cycle level: one is in the field of Work-Integrated Learning and the other is in the field of Production Technology.
This authorisation means that the university has the right to develop and phase out 3rd-cycle programmes, accept students who apply to 3rd-cycle programmes, establish general and individual study plans, confer general qualifications for doctoral and licentiate degrees, etc. An institution of higher education does not need to submit a new application to the Swedish Higher Education Authority if the structure or content of the 3rd-cycle programme is changed (see www.uka.se).
Our current policy document does not deal with applications for authorisation to confer degrees in new research fields at the 3rd-cycle level. That is a separate process, and the application is made directly to the Swedish Higher Education Authority by the university administration.
2 Establishing a subject area
New 3rd-cycle-level subject areas can be established within the framework of the field for which University West has authorisation to confer degrees in Work-Integrated Learning and Production Technology.
2.1 Dividing up responsibilities
It is the Vice Chancellor who, after receiving an opinion from the Research and Education Board (FUN), takes the decision to establish a subject area at the 3rd-cycle level.
- The person responsible for creating a new 3rd-cycle subject area submits an application, together with relevant documentation to the Research and Education Board after securing approval from the relevant departmental leadership and those in charge of the relevant Complete Academic Environment.
- After any necessary processing, and in consultation with the head of the subject area, the Research and Education Board (FUN) provide the Vice Chancellor with their opinion.
- The case is then processed and presented to the Vice Chancellor by the responsible administrator.
2.2 Basis for decisions
The application must contain the following:
Title of subject offered on a 3rd-cycle programme
- Indicate in both Swedish and English the title of the subject offered on the 3rd-cycle programme.
- Indicate the title of the field of research that the subject belongs under (Work-Integrated Learning or Production Technology).
Description of the 3rd-cycle subject
- Describe the 3rd-cycle subject’s depth, breadth, delimitations, possible specialisations, and how it relates to the research field.
- Describe the need for establishing a new 3rd-cycle subject and how this subject relates to relevant 3rd-cycle subjects offered nationally and internationally.
- Account for whether and how the 3rd-cycle subject relates to research and programmes at the 1st and 2nd cycles offered in UW’s complete academic environments.
- Describe and analyse the 3rd-cycle subject’s longevity.
- Describe and argue for the 3rd-cycle subject’s relevance in relation to UW’s visions, goals, and profile.
Collaboration, resources, and other requirements
- Describe the 3rd-cycle subject’s national and international networks and collaborations within and outside the academy.
- Describe planned research environments and the student welfare situation for 3rd-cycle students studying the 3rd-cycle subject.
- Describe what is necessary for the recruiting of 3rd-cycle students nationally and internationally.
- Describe the human resources available, including their titles, availability, and competence (scientific, professional, and pedagogical) in relation to what is planned for the 3rd-cycle subject as part of a programme. Account for any need to hire more personnel.
- Estimate what will be needed for the programme in terms of funding and the number of 3rd-cycle students planned for each year.
- Describe access to adequate resources at or outside UW and infrastructure that is needed for the programme. Account for any investments that will be necessary.
- Describe possible forms of collaboration with several actors, within and/or outside UW, whose intention it is to collaborate on the programme being planned.
- Describe any other possible needs.
Attach a proposal for a General Study Plan to the application.
When the Vice Chancellor has taken a decision to establish the subject area, the Research and Education Board approves the General Study Plan and appoints members of a new or existing subject board.
Rules for the phasing out of a programme at the 3rd-cycle level
Adopted by the Research and Education Board on 25 May 2023
In effect from 1 June 2023
Case number HV 2023/42
1 Introduction
The purpose of these rules is to facilitate and support those actors whose task it is to write applications for the phasing out of a subject area at the 3rd-cycle level. These rules contribute to ensuring that we maintain high quality programmes at the 3rd-cycle level.
These rules deal with subjects within the framework of University West’s authorisation from the Swedish Higher Education Authority to issue general qualifications at the 3rd-cycle level. University West is authorised to issue two degrees at the 3rd-cycle level: one is in the field of Work-Integrated Learning and the other is in the field of Production Technology.
This authorisation means that the university has the right to develop and phase out 3rd-cycle programmes, accept students who apply to 3rd-cycle programmes, establish general and individual study plans, confer general qualifications for doctoral and licentiate degrees, etc. An institution of higher education does not need to submit a new application to the Swedish Higher Education Authority if the structure or content of the 3rd-cycle programme is changed (see www.uka.se).
2 Phasing out a subject area
Existing subject areas on 3rd-cycle programmes within the framework of the fields of research that University West has the authorisation to confer degrees in: Work-Integrated Learning and Production Technology.
2.1 Dividing up responsibilities
It is the Vice Chancellor who, after receiving an opinion from the Research and Education Board (FUN), takes the decision to phase out a subject area that is part of a programme at the 3rd-cycle level.
- An application to phase out a subject area is submitted to the Research and Education Board by the relevant departmental leadership and those in charge of the relevant Complete Academic Environment.
- After any necessary processing, and in consultation with the head of the subject area, the Research and Education Board (FUN) provide the Vice Chancellor with their opinion.
- The case involving phasing out a subject is processed and presented to the Vice Chancellor by the responsible administrator.
2.2 Basis for decisions
The application must contain the following:
- The reason for phasing out the subject. This can be, for example, changes to the university’s strategic focus, substantial shortcomings in educational quality, or that the subject has been replaced by a new subject.
- An inquiry regarding the consequences for 3rd-cycle students who have been accepted and for the entire academic environment.
- Suggestions for transitional rules regarding accepted 3rd-cycle students to whom the possibility of completing the programme should be provided if at all possible.
When the Vice Chancellor has taken the decision to phase out the subject, the Research and Education Board approves suspending the General Study Plan. The relevant CAE leadership and department heads are responsible for providing written information to the 3rd-cycle students covering the transitional rules and from what date they no longer will be able to continue their studies in the subject or receive a degree in that subject.
Rules för the general syllabus at the 3rd-cycle programme
Adopted by the Research and Education Board on 14 December 2023
In effect from 1 January 2024
Case number HV 2023/774
Generally
Every student who has been admitted to a third-cycle programme at UW must have an individual study plan approved. This will be followed up continuously and updated in the template established by the Research and Education Board.
Content
The individual study plan must contain information about
- timeframe
- supervisors
- employment
- degree of activity
- the focus of the thesis, planned and carried out scientific elements,
- planned and completed courses
- documentation and fulfilment of the national learning outcomes.
Approval
In consultation with the assistant supervisor, the third-cycle student and the head of department, the principal supervisor is responsible for ensuring that the individual study plan is drawn up and submitted for approval.
The individual study plan is approved by the respective subject council for doctoral education no later than 60 days after the third-cycle student has begun his/her studies.
Follow-up
In consultation with the assistant supervisor, the third-cycle student and the head of department, the principal supervisor is responsible for ensuring that the individual study plan is continuously followed up and that updated versions of the individual study plan are submitted for approval at least once a year and when significant changes have occurred.
If the principal supervisor has not yet been appointed or is about to be replaced, the head of department, in consultation with the scientific council, must appoint another suitable person (e.g. assistant supervisor or intended principal supervisor) to prepare the individual study plan together with the third-cycle student.
Documentation of departmental duties
In consultation with the relevant manager, the principal supervisor and doctoral students must annually document the planning and follow-up of any departmental duties in the individual study plan. For third-party doctoral students, the same is done in consultation with the relevant manager at an external employer. Supervisors must always be informed about additional teaching or other duties.
Rules för the individual study plan at the 3rd-cycle programme
Adopted by the Research and Education Board on 14 December 2023
In effect from 1 January 2024
Case number HV 2023/774
Every student who has been admitted to a third-cycle programme at UW has an approved individual study plan (ISP) within 60 days of starting the programme. This will be followed up continuously and revised during the planning dialogue between the principal supervisor and the third-cycle student. It is submitted for renewed approval at least once a year.
If the third-cycle student’s post includes working in the department, that part of the ISP is also planned and followed up annually with the appropriate head of division. If the student has secured financing through employment by a third party or is a doctoral/licentiate candidate with work obligations parallel to their studies, this should be planned and followed up with the student’s immediate superior at their place of employment (so-called ‘third party’). and has work obligations at this third party parallel to their research education at UW, this should be planned and followed up with the student’s immediate superior at their place of employment (so-called ‘third party’).
When more substantial changes are made to the plan of study, such as a change of supervisor, or if the student requests it, a revised individual study plan is submitted for approval. Approval of the ISP is obtained from the subject council.2
The individual study plan should contain information about a timeframe, the supervisors, employment, degree of activity, the focus of the thesis, progress made, and whether it meets the national learning outcomes and other concerns in accordance with the established template for ISPs. The principal supervisor together with the third-cycle student are responsible for planning the student’s studies so that these learning outcomes are reached. It should be clear from the matrix for goal achievement (attached to the ISP) how and through which parts of the education the national learning outcomes will be reached for the licentiate degree / PhD degree.
The principal supervisor, in consultation with the assistant supervisor, the third-cycle student, and the head of department or equivalent per delegation, is responsible for process planning and making suggestions for the updated ISP and its attached matrix for goal achievement. The principal supervisor is responsible for seeing to it that this is done in good time so that a correct, updated ISP is submitted for approval by the subject council and the director of research education at least one month before the previous ISP expires. The proposal is approved by the head of department or equivalent per delegation at the department responsible.
If the principal supervisor has not yet been appointed or is in the process of being changed, the department head in consultation with the subject council will appoint an appropriate person (for ex., assistant supervisor or intended principal supervisor) to process plan the individual study plan together with the third-cycle student.
Rules for departmental positions within the framework of doctoral studentship at University West
Adopted by the Research and Education Board on 12 March 2024
Case number HV 2023/775
Background
Normally, a doctoral studentship is a departmental position that comprises no more than 20 percent of a full-time post spread out over the entire studentship. (See also the local collective bargaining agreement for doctoral students.) The position is extended according to this same percentage.
The following rules aim to clarify the terms and conditions for a departmental position, based upon maintaining the quality of the 3rd-cycle programme.
Contents
The departmental position must have relevance for the doctoral student’s education and can include teaching, administration, or research.
To strengthen doctoral students’ teaching qualifications for a future academic career, it may be pertinent to offer them the opportunity to do teaching within the framework of their departmental position.
Classroom experience must be adjusted to the doctoral student’s abilities and experience. According to the local collective bargaining agreement, responsibility for an entire course, course development, and examination are, as a rule, not included in the student’s job description. Teaching tasks can otherwise include the planning and teaching of various parts of a course, such as lectures, seminars, and labs. The doctoral student can participate in the examination of a course but should not alone be responsible for and can never be the examiner of a course.
Planning
The extent and content of a departmental position is planned and followed up on in consultation with the student’s principal supervisor and their immediate superior. This is documented in the individual study plan and must take place before the annual revision and approval of the student’s study plan.
Higher Education Pedagogy
Before teaching on a course, a doctoral student must have completed or at least begun a course in higher education pedagogy.
Since 1 January 2021, higher education pedagogy has been a required course for doctoral students on 3rd-cycle programmes. Further studies can, after approval from the department head, be completed within the framework of their departmental position.
Doctoral students who began their studies before 2021 can transfer up to five HE credits in higher education pedagogy as part of their elective courses at the 3rd-cycle level. Otherwise, if approved, this can be accomplished within the framework of their departmental position.
Rules for courses on programmes at the 3rd-cycle level
Adopted by the Research and Education Board on 7 May 2024
In effect from 1 June 2024
Case number HV 2023/776
Courses on the programme
A 3rd-cycle programme includes elective and optional courses. The exact composition of courses is established by the Individual Study Plan, based on requirements in the General Study Plan and relevance, specialization, as well as the progression of work on the dissertation. The general rule for 3rd-cycle programmes is that courses taken should be at the 3rd-cycle level and that the obligatory courses that are included in the General Study Plan should be taken at University West.
Transferring course credits
The transfer of credits in previously completed courses is allowed only if:
- the course can be seen to correspond completely or partially to one of UW’s obligatory courses at the 3rd-cycle level
- the course can be seen to be relevant in relation to the General Study Plan for programmes at the 3rd-cycle level and the doctoral student’s dissertation.
The subject board has developed a written practice with criteria as support for transferring credits in courses at the 3rd-cycle level.
For a doctoral student who has been accepted to begin studies on or before 31 December 2020, a qualifying course in higher education pedagogy can be transferred as an elective course worth at the most five HE credits at the 2nd-cycle level.
Establishing individual courses
It is possible under the scheme of elective courses to develop an individual course as part of one’s 3rd-cycle programme. Before an individual course is begun, the syllabus must be submitted for approval by the subject board.
Examination of courses at the 3rd-cycle level
The university’s rules for examination apply to courses examined at the 3rd-cycle level (HV 2023/302).
The examiner on a 3rd-cycle course must be a professor or a reader who has been appointed by the head of the department after review of the suggestions and recommendation of the subject board.
Rules for supervision in courses at the 3rd-cycle level
Adopted by the Research and Education Board on 7 May 2024
In effect from 1 June 2024
Case number HV 2023/780
The right to supervision
Every doctoral student should have two to three supervisors, of whom one is the student’s principal supervisor. Decisions regarding supervisors are taken by the subject board when the Individual Study Plan is being established. The doctoral student has the right to change supervisors without giving a reason. A new supervisor is appointed within 60 days of the request to change supervisors.
When a change in supervisors occurs, the Individual Study Plan is updated in such a way as to ensure that the doctoral student has in no way been hindered from continuing their studies.
Resources for the scope of supervision are calculated to encompass no less than ten percent of a post for advising a doctoral student doing full-time studies, divided among the supervisors. If the student is not engaged in full-time studies, the scope of supervision is normally reduced.
The suspension of entitlement to supervision
If the doctoral student neglects their commitments to the extent that they are not following their Individual Study Plan, the Vice Chancellor can, after termination of their employment as a doctoral student, suspend their right to supervision and to other resources that are part of the 3rd-cycle programme (The Higher Education Ordinance, Chapter 6, Sections 30-31). The doctoral student can make an application to the Vice Chancellor if wishing to reinstate their right to supervision and other resources.
The student can appeal the decision to suspend their right to resources. This is done through the Higher Education Appeals Board (ÖHN).
The composition of the supervisory group
The principal supervisor must be a reader or a professor, and the assistant supervisor must at minimum have a PhD degree (or the equivalent foreign degree) in the relevant subject area for that specific doctoral or licentiate thesis project. It is the supervisors’ collective scholarly competence that determines the composition of the supervisory group. The doctoral student’s views should also be weighed into the decision to appoint a supervisor, and an even gender distribution should be sought after in the supervisory group.
Supervisors must have completed a course in supervision or attained equivalent knowledge and skills in some other way. An assistant supervisor without this training can be appointed under the condition that they have completed a supervision course within two years of beginning to supervise the student.
A supervisor can come from another university or organisation if they are connected to University West through an ad hoc employment or contract. The principal supervisor is normally an employee of UW.
The supervisor’s responsibilities
The principal supervisor is responsible for the scholarly content in the dissertation. In addition, they are responsible for the following:
- Together with the assistant supervisor and the doctoral student, planning the student’s doctoral studies in such a way as to ensure that the national qualitative targets are attained.
- Ensuring that the assistant supervisor and the doctoral student are well informed of the national and local rules for pursuing 3rd-cycle studies.
- Continuously discussing and revising the Individual Study Plan in consultation with the doctoral student.
- Seeing to it that a planning seminar, a midway review and a final review are prepared and carried out according to current rules.
- Guiding and supporting the doctoral student with network-building and conversations about their career.
- Seeing to it that the public defence and the licentiate seminar are prepared and carried out according to current laws.
Follow-up conversation
To ensure that the national qualitative targets are attained, the principal supervisor must follow up continuously through conversations with the doctoral student. If there are large deviations from the norm in a student’s argumentation, analysis of the reasons behind these discrepancies must be carried out and a plan for measures to be taken drawn up. Discussions of the progress being made should always be carried out in conjunction with the annual revision of the individual study plan.
Rules for the planning seminar, mid-way review, and the final review in programmes at the 3rd-cycle level
Adopted by the Research and Education Board on 2 September 2024
In effect from 2 September 2024
Case number HV 2023/777
Announcing a planning seminar, a mid-way review and a final review
No more than twenty working days before the planning seminar, the mid-way review, and the final review, which precede the licentiate seminar and the public defence, relevant information must be given to the subject board. Thereafter the seminar is announced at least fifteen working days before it takes place.
The planning seminar
The planning seminar is held within the first year of the doctoral student’s studies. At this seminar, the structure, research questions, methodology, and execution of the thesis/dissertation are ventilated. The presentation and material are reviewed by a discussant who has been appointed by the principal supervisor. The discussant must be a reader (or the equivalent) or a professor in the relevant subject area who is an employee of the university. The 3rd-cycle student is responsible for providing a summary when the seminar is announced.
Once a planning seminar has taken place, the date is recorded in the student’s Individual Study Plan.
The mid-way review
The mid-way review takes place halfway through work on the dissertation in cases where the licentiate degree is not taken. At this point, all the student’s work on the dissertation thus far is ventilated. Material for the seminar includes what has been published, the planned manuscript, ongoing research, and a continuation of the planning for the public defence. The presentation and material are reviewed by a discussant who is appointed by the principal supervisor. The discussant must be a reader (or the equivalent) or a professor in the relevant subject area. Upon announcement of the seminar, the doctoral student is responsible for providing a summary.
After the seminar, the discussant provides a written assessment that contains recommendations for the student’s continued dissertation work in a template drawn up by the subject board.
If the doctoral student is going to be awarded a licentiate degree, the mid-way seminar is replaced by a final review.
The final review before a licentiate seminar
The final review is held before the licentiate seminar, when the thesis is ventilated in the form it will have when published (monograph or compilation thesis, including articles and an introductory chapter). This should be held at least two months before requesting to schedule a licentiate seminar.
The seminar is run by the principal supervisor. The presentation and material are reviewed by a discussant who has been appointed by the principal supervisor. The discussant must be a reader (or the equivalent) or a professor in the relevant subject area. The doctoral student is responsible for providing a summary when the seminar is announced.
After the seminar, the discussant provides a written assessment, in which they recommend appropriate measures to be taken before the licentiate seminar. This is done in a template that has been created by the subject board.
The final review before the public defence
The final review is held before the public defence. At this review, the dissertation is ventilated in the form in which it is intended to be published (monograph or compilation thesis, including articles and an introductory chapter). This review should be held at least three months before requesting to schedule a public defence.
The seminar is led by the principal supervisor. Presentation and material are reviewed by a discussant who had been appointed by the principal supervisor. Normally the discussant should be a reader or a professor in the relevant subject area and employed by another institution of higher learning. The doctoral student is responsible for providing a summary when the seminar is announced.
After the seminar the discussant provides a written assessment containing recommendations for the doctoral student’s continuing work on the dissertation. This is done in a template that has been created by the subject board. The assessment contains recommendations for appropriate measures to be taken before the public defense.
Rules for the licentiate essay and the licentiate seminar
Adopted by the Research and Education Board on 6 November 2025
In effect from 1 December 2025
Case number STYR 2025/41
The licentiate thesis
The licentiate thesis is defended orally at a public licentiate seminar. The scope of and the language for the thesis is indicated in the Individual Study Plan.
If there is a co-author, the 3rd-cycle student’s independently composed contribution should be clarified in the various parts of the thesis.
Requesting to schedule a licentiate seminar
The licentiate thesis is reviewed and defended at a public seminar during the academic year. In extenuating circumstances, the licentiate seminar can be scheduled no more than three weeks outside of the academic calendar.
The request to schedule a licentiate seminar is submitted to the subject board by the principal supervisor at least two months before the planned date for the seminar and in accordance with the subject board’s established routines. It is up to the subject board whether to recommend a licentiate seminar be scheduled and, if so, after consulting with the principal supervisor, they appoint a discussant and an examiner.
In the event that a 3rd-cycle student wishes to attend a licentiate seminar against the supervisor's advice, the supervisor is responsible for informing the discussant and examiners about this matter.
Distribution and publication
The thesis is sent to the discussant and examiner within 25 working days of the scheduled licentiate seminar. The discussant or examiner must immediately contact the doctoral student and the principal supervisor if they discover any anomaly in the text or have any doubts about it.
Information about time and place, the abstract, a popular science summary and other relevant information must be published at least fifteen working days before the licentiate seminar.
No changes can be made to the thesis once it has been made public.
The discussant and the examiner at a licentiate seminar
The discussant must be a reader (or the equivalent) or a professor in the relevant subject area and must be an employee of an institution of higher learning other than University West. The examiner must be a professor or a reader and cannot have been the supervisor for the author of the licentiate thesis.
The licentiate seminar and grading
The appointed examiner is the chairperson for the seminar. After the chair has opened the seminar, the discussant, the 3rd-cycle student, and the supervisor are introduced, followed by an outline of the way the public seminar is structured. The 3rd-cycle student then has the opportunity to mention any printing errors/corrections, or other details that need to be explained.
After an introductory presentation of the licentiate thesis, the defence begins, and the discussant has the task of posing questions to the 3rd-cycle student about the content and the conclusions drawn in the thesis. Thereafter, the examiner has the opportunity to pose questions about the dissertation to the author, and finally, the audience also has the opportunity to pose questions before the chairperson brings the defence to a close.
The examiner awards the thesis one of two grades: pass or fail.
Rules for dissertations and the public defence
Adopted by the Research and Education Board on 14 November 2024
In effect from 18 November 2024
Case number HV 2023/779
The dissertation
A dissertation is defended orally at a public defence. The scope and language of the dissertation is specified in the individual study plan.
A previously examined licentiate essay may make up part of the dissertation and is defended at the public defence. It should be made clear which parts of the dissertation were written independently by the student if there is more than one author.
Requesting to schedule a public defence
The dissertation is reviewed and defended at a public defence which is scheduled during the academic year. In extenuating circumstances, the defence may be scheduled no more than three weeks outside of the academic calendar.
The request to schedule a public defence is submitted to the subject board by the principal supervisor at least two months before the planned defence date and in accordance with the subject board’s established routines. It is up to the subject board to decide whether a public defence should be scheduled and if so, in consultation with the principal supervisor, they appoint someone to chair the defence, a discussant, and an examining committee.
Distributing and publishing
The dissertation text must be sent to the discussant and the examining committee no more than 35 working days before the scheduled defence. The discussant and each member of the examining committee must immediately contact the doctoral student and the principal supervisor if they discover any anomaly in the text or have any doubts about it.
A dissertation is made public when it is ‘nailed’ to the ‘nailing post’ at least fifteen days before the scheduled defence. At the same time a digital version of the nailed page is sent to university library for a digital ‘nailing’.
Information regarding the time and place for the public defence is posted together with the abstract, a popular science summary with an accompanying press release. Any other relevant information is also made public at this time.
No changes can be made to the dissertation after the publication/‘nailing’.
The examining committee, the discussant, and the chairperson for the public defence
The public defence is chaired by the chairperson. There must be a discussant at the defence. The discussant must be a professor or a reader. The grade awarded for a dissertation is decided by the examining committee, who are appointed specifically for each public defence.
The examining committee is composed of three members and a substitute. The members of the examining committee decide which of them will be the chairperson. Members of the examining committee and the substitute must be either professors or readers. If there are special competence reasons, in exceptional cases, one member with at least a doctorate degree and well-documented knowledge in the field may be appointed. If so, these reasons must be documented in an appendix to the decision. No more than two members of the examining committee (one ordinary member and a substitute) may be employees of University West. Women and men must be equally represented, unless there are extenuating circumstances, and if so, these reasons must be documented in an appendix to the decision.
Anyone whose relationship to the doctoral student or to the supervisor poses a conflict of interest may not be appointed to serve as the discussant or as a member of the examining committee. Having participated in a scholarly collaboration or co-authored an article or a chapter in an anthology during the past five years is considered a conflict of interest. Collaboration and co-production that took place more than five years ago are considered a conflict of interest if the collaboration has been close and that person is not considered appropriate as a reviewer (discussant or examining committee member).
The public defence, the examining committee’s meeting and grading
The chairperson opens the public defence, which begins with a presentation of the discussant, the doctoral student, the members of the examining committee, and the supervisor, followed by an outline of the way the public defence is structured. The author of the thesis then has the opportunity to mention any printing errors/corrections or other details that need to be explained.
After an introductory presentation of the dissertation, the defence of the text goes forward, and the discussant poses questions to the author about the content and conclusions drawn in the dissertation. Thereafter, the examining committee have the opportunity to pose questions about the dissertation to the author, and finally, the audience also has the opportunity to pose questions before the chairperson brings the defence to a close.
After the public defence, the examining committee meet to assess the dissertation and award it a grade of either pass or fail. The examining committee have a quorum when three members are present, and the decision is taken by the majority. When deciding upon a grade, the committee should consider content as well as the defence of the dissertation, and whether these meet the demands of the scientific community. If any parts of the dissertation are the result of collaboration between the doctoral student and other persons, only the parts of the dissertation that were written by the doctoral student are assessed and only the doctoral student’s contributions are graded.
The discussant and the supervisor have the right to be present at the examining committee’s meeting, and they can participate in the discussion unless the examining committee decides otherwise. The discussant and the supervisor do not, however, have the right to participate in the decision itself.
After the public defence, the examining committee reveal their assessment. The examining committee determines whether any reservations will be made known.
The examining committee’s chairperson announces the results of the examination to the doctoral student and the audience.
