Norwegian version of this page

Supplementary guidelines for the Health and Welfare PhD programme

These guidelines are based on and supplement the general regulations and guidelines at Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences (INN University)

The supplementary guidelines complement: 

The supplementary guidelines for the Health and Welfare PhD programme were adopted by the Dean at the Faculty of Health and Social Services on 22/10/2020


The guidelines follow the layout and numbering of the PhD Regulations and only the items in the PhD Regulations and PhD Manual for which supplementation is required have been included.


These guidelines may be revised based on changes to the central regulations referenced above, including guidelines issued by a superior authority. Changes to the guidelines must be considered by the PhD committee and adopted by the Dean.

1. Scope

1-1 These guidelines cover PhD candidates who have been admitted to the programme.

 

3. Responsibility for the PhD programme

The guidelines are developed and managed by the Faculty’s PhD committee. The PhD Manager has been authorised by the Dean to:
  • Appoint co-supervisors
  • Approve modules and courses taken at other institutions
  • Approve the training element
  • Process applications for extension of the PhD program agreement period.
  • Make decisions in accordance with the regulations through unanimous recommendation that the PhD thesis is worthy of public defence.
  • Approve the correction of formal errors in the thesis (errata)
  • Consider applications for the assessment of PhD theses from PhD candidates.
  • Make decisions on public defences based on unanimous committee recommendation
  • Make decisions on reworking based on unanimous assessment committee recommendation. In the event that more than three months are recommended for reworking, this must be discussed by the PhD committee before a final decision is made. In the event that the recommendation is not unanimous, see Section 16 of the PhD Regulations.
  • Approve reports from the assessment committee and make decisions on the approval of the doctoral examination (trial lecture and public defence) on the basis of such reports.
  • Consider applications for the extension of appointment periods or reductions in required duties on the basis of short, valid, documented absence to the extent necessary in order to complete the doctoral thesis and make recommendations for consideration by the appointment body.

5. Admission

5-1 Admission criteria

5-1(1) Applicants with a master’s degree totalling of 90 credits may qualify for admission, provided that the applicant has relevant additional qualifications at PhD or master’s degree level totalling a minimum of 30 credits, or scientific publications after completing the master's degree, or participation in research projects.
 
The applicant must also submit a recommendation from the he main supervisor for the master's thesis and/or in the PhD-project, or , if relevant, from their research group or other academic professionals to whom the applicant is connected. Such a recommendation will not constitute an admission criterion on its own.
 
In cases where applicants do not meet the criteria for a weighted average of grade B or higher in the calculation of the qualifications included in the master’s degree, the following criteria will qualify for admission:
  • Grade B or higher in the master’s thesis.
  • Scientific publications after completion of the master’s degree.
  • Participation in research projects.

The applicant must also submit a recommendation from the he main supervisor for the master's thesis and/or in the PhD-project, or , if relevant, from their research group or other academic professionals to whom the applicant is connected. Such a recommendation will not constitute an admission criterion on its own.

5-2 PhD programme applications

5-2(1) If the number of qualified applicants with an approved funding plan exceeds the number of available places of study on the PhD programme, applicants will be ranked in accordance with the following criteria:

  • Appointment to candidate positions at INN University
  • Project quality and relevance to the PhD programme
  • INN University’s capabilities for providing academic supervision

Use of co-reseacher:

It is required that co-resarchers sign a non-disclosure agreement. A co-researcher must be described in the application for admission to the programme, and in the PhD candidate's project description. The division of tasks and the cooperation between the PhD candidate and the co-researcher must be described in the project description. Funding for co-researchers must be clarified in each individual case. 

5-3 Infrastructure

5-3(1) PhD candidates appointed at INN University/to the programme have access to up to NOK 120,000 in operational project funding during the PhD period. For PhD candidates who do not complete the entire PhD programme at INN University/the programme, the operational project funding will be proportionally limited to the percentage of the programme completed at the institution. PhD candidates have a personal responsibility to maintain an overview of the use of operational project funding. Operational project funding can be used for expenses associated with doctoral work and all purchases of products and services must be made in accordance with INN University’s finance regulations and the Norwegian Government’s procurement regulations.

5-3(2) PhD candidates may use operational project funding to print extra copies of the PhD thesis in addition to the copies covered by the Faculty. The operational project funding may not be used to cover costs related to the doctoral dinner.

5-3(4) PhD candidates on the programme actively and regularly participate in the research community. All candidates must be linked to a research group of relevance to their own project.

5-5 The appointment period

5-5(1) In addition to a strong justification, applications for extensions to the admission period must include estimates of the number of working hours and number of academic supervision hours required to complete the PhD programme. The application must include a detailed progress plan for the period for which the extension is being sought.

5-5(2) PhD candidates whose admission periods are extended must report on their progress six (6) months after receiving the decision on the extension.

7. Academic supervision

7-1(1) The main supervisor should have previous experience as a supervisor of PhD candidates. If this is not the case, at least one of the appointed co-supervisors must have previous experience as a supervisor of PhD candidates.
 
PhD candidates can only have one main supervisor, preferably employed by Innland Norway University of Applied Sciences, but the supervision hours may be distributed as the team of supervisors deems most appropriate.
 
PhD candidates with external funding may have an external main academic supervisor if this supervisor is affiliated with the institution/company funding the PhD candidate’s organised research training.
 
7-1(2) If a PhD candidate has an external main academic supervisor, an internal cosupervisor must be appointed. In these cases, the internal co-supervisor will be assigned the reporting and follow-up responsibilities that are normally assigned to the main academic supervisor.
 
7-1(3) The PhD Manager has the authority to appoint co-supervisor(s) (cf. Item 3. Responsibility for the PhD programme)
 
7-1(4) When a PhD candidate is admitted to the PhD programme, the PhD candidate must enter into an agreement with academic supervisors concerning the allocation of supervision time between the main academic supervisor and any co-supervisors. In the PhD programme for Health and Welfare, the rule is that there are 240 supervision hours to allocate across the entire doctoral programme, including any supplementary work. Supervision time covers meetings with the candidate, reading, administration, meeting activities, etc. Normally, co-supervisors will be allocated around 1/3 of the time. and the main academic supervisor will be allocated 2/3. In consultation with the main academic supervisor and PhD Manager, candidates may agree upon a different allocation of supervision time.
 
7-1(6) Start-up meeting After the candidate has been admitted to the programme and academic supervisors have been appointed, the PhD Manager will convene a start-up meeting. The following topics should be discussed during the meeting:
  • The use of academic supervision time during the PhD period
  • Expectations relating to the role of academic supervisors
  • Expectations relating to the role of the candidates
  • Expectations relating to the PhD candidate’s preparation of drafts
  • Expectations relating to how many times an academic supervisor should read through the text from the initial draft to the finished text.
  • The timing of evaluations throughout the academic supervision relationship
  • The timing of follow-up on and any revisions to the training and progress schedule that the PhD candidate submitted as part of the application for admission to the programme.

7-3 (1) Costs related to travel and meetings in connection with academic supervision are paid for by the PhD candidate. The programme only covers travel expenses for external supervisors in connection with the mid-way evaluation and the public defence.

7-3(2) PhD candidates may use their own operational project funding to cover travel and accommodation for external co-supervisors in connection with other compulsory seminars, the start-up seminar and/or final seminar/final reading

8. Training element

8-1 Purpose, content and scope

8-1(1) The compulsory training element should be completed during the first academic year.

 
The PhD candidate must complete three mandatory milestones throughout the course of the programme: i) Start-up seminar, ii) Mid-way seminar and iii) Final seminar. The seminars will provide training in dissemination and all include an evaluation of the PhD candidate’s progress and work quality.
 
The purpose of the seminars is:
  • to stimulate good progress in writing on the part of candidates by establishing milestones and thereby strengthening their ability to complete.
  • to provide candidates with closer follow-up throughout the course of the programme by providing extensive and systematic feedback on the thesis work at times when important choices are made, but while there is still time to incorporate comments and criticisms.
  • to contribute to the candidates receiving training on the presentation of the material to a broader audience.
  • to contribute to ensuring that questions relating to quality and progress are collective responsibilities that are embedded in the research community associated with the programme.

Ranking regulations for admission to PhD courses

If the number of applicants to a PhD course exceeds the number of spaces available, applicants will be ranked based on the following criteria:

  1. PhD candidates on the Health and Welfare PhD programme
  2. PhD candidates on other PhD programmes at INN University
  3. PhD candidates on other PhD programmes, nationally or internationally
  4. INN University employees seeking qualifications for senior positions
  5. Others with a relevant master’s degree

Guidelines for the start-up seminar

  • Start-up seminars are usually held within three months of admission to the programme.
  • The PhD Manager will suggest a time and opponent. The opponent for the start-up seminar will usually be a PhD candidate on the same programme who has completed their mid-way evaluation.
  • The basis for the start-up seminar will be the project description and any other presentation materials. The texts must be submitted to the opponent and PhD Manager no later than one week before the seminar is due to take place.
  • The start-up seminar will take 60 minutes. The PhD candidate will present for 20 minutes and the opponent will present for 15-20 minutes. The floor will subsequently be opened for questions and debate between the PhD candidate, opponent and audience.

Guidelines for mid-way seminars and evaluations (50%)

Mid-way seminars

  • The mid-way seminar is usually held during the third or fourth seminar for three-year PhD periods or the fourth or fifth semester for four-year PhD periods. The PhD Manager will schedule the date.
  • The mid-way seminar will take two hours (120 minutes) and comprises the candidate’s presentation (45 minutes), the opponent’s comments (45 minutes) and comments and questions from the audience (final 30 minutes).
  • The basis for the mid-way seminar will be the work completed by the PhD candidate so far. The candidate will present the PhD project in full, as well as its development, including an overview of what has been done and a schedule for the remaining work. The candidate will also describe the courses they have completed and any outstanding parts of the training element. Mid-way through the programme, 20 credits of the training element should normally have been accrued and any data collection should have been completed. For candidates writing an article-based thesis, the draft for at least one article must have been completed. For candidates writing monographs, a draft of a minimum of 50 pages must have been completed. The text must be submitted to the opponent and the PhD Manager and programme coordinator no later than two weeks before the mid-way seminar.
  • The opponent in the mid-way seminar may be an internal or external specialist with a PhD. The opponent will be appointed by the PhD committee in line with Section 9-2 of the PhD Regulations. The task of the opponent is to consider the academic status and progress of the doctoral work.
  • A mid-way evaluation must be performed half-way through the PhD period, cf. Section 9-2 of the PhD Regulations. This evaluation will take place in the form of a meeting after the mid-way seminar, at which the candidate, PhD Manager or their representative, main academic supervisor and any co-supervisors will evaluate the academic status and progress of the doctoral work based on the materials submitted by the candidate and the mid-way seminar. The purpose of this meeting is to identify any challenges that could prevent the PhD candidate from completing the project by the end of the PhD period. The meeting will also help identify measures that could contribute towards the candidate completing on schedule. If the candidate has an external main academic supervisor, the internal co-supervisor may participate in the meeting in their place.
  • If the mid-way evaluation leads to grounds for doubt regarding the PhD candidate’s ability to complete the project by the end of the PhD period, this could form the basis for enforced termination (cf. Section 5-6 of the PhD Regulations). If the mid-way seminar and evaluation do not take place within the timeframes described in a), this could also form the basis for enforced termination.

Guidelines for the final seminar (80%)

  • Will be arranged 3-5 months before the end of the PhD period. The PhD Manager will schedule a time in consultation with the PhD candidate and main academic supervisor.
  • Feedback to the candidate will take place in the form of a final seminar at which the candidate will present their work.
  • The opponent will be appointed by the PhD Manager.
  • The final seminar takes 150 minutes (2.5 hours). The candidate’s presentation should take 45 minutes, 60 minutes will be set aside for the opponent’s comments and discussion with the candidate. The remaining time will be set aside for comments and questions from the audience.
  • The opponent may be an internal or external specialist with a PhD. The task of the opponent is to provide the PhD candidate with a critical and constructive evaluation of the draft thesis, as well as suggestions for anything the PhD candidate needs to do before submitting.
  • The basis for the final seminar should be an overview of the project as a whole, as well as finished and unfinished chapters/articles. In total, this should amount to a minimum of 80% of the thesis. All materials must be submitted to the opponent and PhD Manager and coordinator no later than four weeks before the agreed feedback date.

8-1(3) Paper and paper presentations

Candidates are expected to speak/give a presentation at a minimum of one international conference during the PhD period and up to three credits may be granted as part of the training element for the presentation of papers or posters at research conferences (One credit for the presentation of papers at national conferences or posters at international conferences and two credits for the presentation of papers at international conferences).

Approval will follow the same procedures as for external courses (see Item 3 and 8-1(4)). Elective modules and courses must be recommended by the academic supervisor. The application and course documentation must be submitted to the PhD Manager authorised in accordance with Item 3 to authorise the recognition of external modules and courses and approve the training element.

PhD forum

Candidates are expected to participate regularly at PhD forums. Up to two credits may be granted for participation in five meetings during two following semesters. As part of this participation, the candidate must present a text and be opponent at least once. Approval follows the same procedure as for external courses. 

9. Evaluation and reporting

9-1 Reporting

9-1(1) The main academic supervisor is responsible for completing and submitting the academic supervisor’s annual progress report to the PhD Manager and coordinator. If the candidate has an external main academic supervisor, the internal co-supervisor will be assigned the reporting and follow-up responsibilities that are normally assigned to the main academic supervisor (cf. 7-1(3)). In these cases, the internal co-supervisor will be responsible for obtaining the necessary information from external academic supervisor(s) in connection with follow-up and reporting. In the event of major deviations in relation to progress, potential measures will be addressed by the PhD Committee.
 
9-1(2) The purpose of the progress reports is to identify any matters that may prevent the PhD candidate from completing their projects by the end of the period. Together with the PhD candidate and main academic supervisor, the PhD Manager will attempt to identify measures that may help the candidate to complete on schedule.
 
9-1(3) PhD candidates should normally have an annual individual meeting with the PhD Manager. Topic: review of results from progress reporting.

9-2 Mid-way evaluation

9-2(1) The mid-way evaluation in the Health & Welfare PhD programme is included as part of the PhD candidate’s compulsory mid-way seminar, cf. 8-1(1).

10. The PhD thesis

10-1(1) Criteria for theses with minor works

In addition to the provisions that arise from legislation and national and local regulations, the following will apply:
  • The main rule is that the thesis must include a minimum of three minor works
  • The minor works must be of the level required for scientific publication with peer review. At least one of the minor works must be published or approved for publication at the time of submitting the thesis.
  • In the event that the thesis consists of articles, the PhD candidate must be the main author of a minimum of two articles.
  • In addition to minor works, the thesis must also include an additional part/synopsis explaining the correlation between the minor works.

Any deviations from these guidelines must be academically justified and approved by the main academic supervisor and PhD Manager.

Criteria for the additional part/synopsis

  • The candidate must be the sole author of the synopsis.
  • The synopsis must clarify the correlations in the thesis and ensure that it appears as a comprehensive report on the completed project. The various research questions and conclusions presented in the articles must therefore not only be summarised, but also compiled so that the mutual correlations are clear and the thesis’s contribution to the field of research becomes evident.
  • If the thesis includes published articles with a need for academic updates, these must also be included in the synopsis so that the thesis appears academically upto- date as a whole.
  • Key concepts should be presented in the synopsis, while elaborations and discussions can be found in articles.
  • The synopsis should include the necessary theoretical and methodological assessments associated with the doctoral work, since there is often not adequate space to include this in articles.
  • The complexity of and nuances in the findings must be discussed in the light of methodological, scientific and theoretical research questions.
  • The synopsis should highlight and discuss ethical aspects associated with the research work.
  • The scope of the synopsis should not normally exceed 100 pages. References, tables and figures are counted in addition to this. The introductory summary section should contain the following components:
    • Introduction
    • Previous research
    • Theoretica framework
    • Methodology
    • Brief summary of each article
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion viii. References. 
    • Any appendices, such as interview guides and questionnaires. The appendices must be added to the end of the thesis, after the full-text articles.

10-1(2) Criteria for monographs

A thesis that has been written as a monograph must normally have a scope of a minimum of 200 pages, excluding references.

13. Submission

13-1 Submitting the thesis

PhD theses will normally be checked in INN University’s plagiarism checker (Ephorus and/or Urkund) before submission. This primarily applies to monographs and unpublished parts of article-based theses.

15. Duties of the evaluation committee

15-2 Reworking of a submitted doctoral thesis

15-2(2) The deadline for minor revisions of the thesis should normally not exceed 3 working months. No extension beyond a maximum of 5 working months for thesis revisions is permitted.

16. Consideration of the recommendation from the assessment committee

Cf. Item 3 above. In the event of unanimous recommendation, the PhD Manager has been delegated the authority to make decisions on whether or not the PhD thesis is worthy of public defence.

20. Approving the doctoral examination

Cf. Item 3 above. In the event of unanimous recommendation, the PhD Manager has been delegated the authority to approve the doctoral examination on the basis of the recommendation from the assessment committee.

Published Mar. 21, 2023 3:07 PM - Last modified June 6, 2024 3:27 PM