Guidelines INSEPP

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

The guidelines complement:

“Regulations for the Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) Degree at Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences”, hereafter the PhD regulations, laid down by INN University Board on 19 December 2017 on the basis of § 3-3 of the Act of 1 April 2005 no. 15 regarding universities and university colleges (Universities and the University Colleges Act)
The Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences PhD - Manual, which is available digitally via the University website

The guidelines for the PhD Programme Innovation in Services in the Public and Private Sectors have been adopted by the dean of Inland School of Business and Social Sciences on 06.12.2018.

The guidelines follow the structure and numbering of the PhD regulations. Only those points in the PhD regulations and the PhD handbook that are insufficient for INSEPP’s use are included in the guidelines.

The 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. Applicability of these guidelines

The guidelines apply to PhD candidates who have been admitted to the PhD programme. The guidelines do not cover matters related to the PhD candidate's employment at INN University.

3. Responsibility for the PhD education

The dean adopts the guidelines and can delegate authority to the head of the PhD programme in individual cases. The guidelines are developed and managed by the faculty's PhD committee.

The dean has delegated authority to the head of the PhD programme to:

Appoint co-supervisors
Appoint an opponent for a midway evaluation
Approve courses taken at another institution
Approve the training/taught component
Process the PhD candidates' application to have the thesis assessed
Approve applications for permission to correct formal errors in the thesis after it has been submitted (errata list)
Make decisions regarding public defence of theses based on unanimous committee recommendations
Approve the doctoral exams based on a positive report from the committee
Process applications for extension of the agreement period

5. Admission

5-1. Conditions for admission

The admission requirement is normally a social science master's degree of 120 credits, which includes a master's thesis of at least 30 credits. The average grade should normally be B or better. The grade for the master's thesis is given great importance because it is an independent work that indicates one’s ability to work within research.

For PhD candidates employed in a research fellowship position at INN, it is a condition that the research fellow applies for admission to the PhD program within three (3) months after date of employment. If an admission agreement is not in place within six months after the date of employment, the employment contract can be terminated by INN.

5-2. Application

In addition to diplomas and certificates, the application must include a completed application form and project description, which is an academic account of the PhD project. Applicants are advised to include the following elements in the project description, which is easiest to think of as a standard presentation – almost as in a research memo – consisting of:

An introductory part that indicates the main research questions and why the planned research is important and relevant. Significance/relevance is usually justified by the fact that the thesis shall address an existing knowledge gap
Literature review. Applicants should show knowledge of some central/relevant literature. This review should be used to clarify research questions, and it can be used to develop the contours of a theoretical framework or conceptual model
Methodological account – about research design, planned data collection, etc.
A rough progress plan. Here it is natural to state whether the thesis is planned to be article-based or a monograph
The project description must be no more than 10 pages

5-3. Infrastructure

5-3 (1) PhD candidates employed at INN University/INSEPP are allocated normally up to NOK 120,000 in operating funds during their PhD period. For PhD candidates who do not complete their entire PhD course at INN University/INSEPP, the operating funds are limited to the percentage of the education taken at the institution. The PhD candidates are themselves responsible for keeping track of the usage of this resource. The operating funds shall only be used for expenses in connection with the doctoral work and all purchases of goods and services shall be carried out in accordance with INN University's financial regulations and the Government Procurement Regulations.

5-3 (2) It is not possible to use operating funds to cover a dinner after the defense.

5-3 (3) It is expected that PhD candidates actively participate in the academic environment at the faculty, for example by attending seminars and lectures. Employees with a workplace at INN University are expected to be present on campus for a minimum of 50% of their working hours. Absences and activities must be registered continuously by the employee in the calendar function that is joint for INN University employees.

In the case of fieldwork and other special cases, the expectations of active participation and presence may be deviated from during certain periods.

5-5. Agreement period

5-5 (1) Application for an extension of the agreement period normally contains: background for the application for extension, an estimate of the number of weeks/months and the number of supervision hours required to complete the PhD project, included the need of infrastructure. Attached to the application must also follow a detailed progress plan for the period, including the date for submission. Application for an extension must be submitted to the PhD programme if the extension is for three months or more. Applications for an extension of the agreement period are normally processed by the head of the PhD programme.

5-5 (2) If the PhD thesis is not submitted by the extension deadline, the PhD candidate must report on the status of the work and further plans for the PhD education. The agreement period can be extended further based on the documentation sent.

5-5 (3) By “extension of the agreement period” in this context is meant a formalized extension of the agreement on admission to the programme, and which provides rights related to infrastructure (office, PC, necessary software), supervision, course participation and other follow-up by the PhD programme. This point does not pertain to an extension of the employment relationship. It is also emphasized that the right to defend a thesis in a PhD programme holds for six (6) years, but beyond the agreement period the rights stated above do not apply.

7. Academic supervision

7-1. Appointment of supervisors

7-1 (1) PhD candidate in a research fellow position at INN University shall be offered academic guidance from the time of appointment until the application for admission. It is desirable that the person who provides the guidance is also the one who is appointed as the main supervisor upon admission, but it can also be another person.

7-1 (2) PhD candidates who are employed in a PhD position at INN University / INSEPP shall normally have a main supervisor who is affiliated with INSEPP and employed at INN University.

7-1 (3) If a PhD candidate has an external main supervisor, an internal co-supervisor must be appointed. The internal supervisor is then given the reporting and follow-up responsibility that is normally associated with the main supervisor.

7-1 (4) The timeframe for supervision at INSEPP is 240 hours in total are distributed between the supervisors and applies to the entire doctoral course, including finishing work. The supervision time covers conversation time with the PhD candidate, reading, administration, meeting activities and more. Normally, the co- supervisor(s) receive approximately 1/3 of the time while the main supervisor gets 2/3 of it. PhD candidates may, in consultation with the main supervisor and the head of the PhD programme, agree on a different distribution of the supervision time between the supervisors.

7-1 (5) Start-up meetings.

1.Start-up meeting with the PhD programme: Shortly after the PhD candidate has started in the position, the PhD programme shall convene the PhD candidate and intended supervisors for a start-up meeting. Normally, the PhD candidate, intended supervisors, head of the PhD programme and PhD coordinator attend the meeting. In the start-up meeting a checklist with academic and practical information related to the different phases in the doctoral education will be reviewed.

2. Start-up meeting with the supervisors: Shortly after the PhD candidate has started in the position, the intended supervisors shall invite the PhD candidate for a start-up meeting.Normally, the PhD candidate and intended supervisors attend the meeting.

The following topics should be discussed at a start-up meeting:

• Mutual clarification of expectations related to the supervisor's role and function

• Mutual clarification of expectations related to the PhD candidate's role

• The use of supervision time during the PhD period, awareness and planning of varying intensity in supervision depending on which phase the PhD candidate relates to

• Raising awareness of how the guidance resources are to be distributed over the period

• Discuss the frequency of guidance meetings

• Reach a common understanding of how often it is natural for PhD candidate and supervisor to have contact beyond formal supervision meetings

• Expectations relating to the role of the supervisor(s) and the candidate

• Develop a mutual understanding of the process for when a PhD candidate submits a text draft until you receive it back

• Expectations regarding the PhD candidate's preparation for supervision

• Expectations related to how many times the supervisor must read through the text from the first draft to the finished text

• Discuss how the supervision relationship should be evaluated and possibly adjusted during the PhD period

Minutes of meetings with supervisors must be written, where it is clearly stated what has been agreed upon. Supervisors and PhD candidate agree on who writes the report.

The supervisors and the PhD candidate hold the duty to familiarize themselves with the Ethical guidelines for supervisors at INN University.

7-3 (1) Travel and meeting activities in connection with supervision are paid for by the PhD candidate. INSEPP only covers travel expenses for external supervisors in connection with midway evaluation and public defence of thesis.

8. Required coursework

8-1. Purpose, content and scope

8-1 (1) The training component at INSEPP must contain courses corresponding to 35 ECTS. Of these, 30 ECTS consist of compulsory courses, and five (5) ECTS of elective courses. The compulsory courses must cover 10 ECTS in Philosophy of Science and Ethics of research, 10 ECTS in Innovation in Services in the Public and Private Sectors, and 10 ECTS in Research Method in Social Science. 20 ECTS of the compulsory courses are covered by courses offered at INN University, while 10 ECTS in Research Method in Social Science must be taken at another institution. The five elective ECTS can be taken at INN University or another institution.

Compulsory courses offered at INN University/INSEPP:

Course in Philosophy of Science and Ethics of research (10 ECTS). An annual course in Philosophy of Science and Ethics of research is offered to all PhD candidates at INN University
Courses in Innovation in Public and Private sector services (10 ECTS). This course is offered every year at INN University

INSEPP offers several supplementary courses, each of 2.5 ECTS:

a supplementary course in qualitative methodology with emphasis on case study, which will be linked to the thesis’ research methodological approach.
a supplementary course in qualitative research methodology with emphasis on interview, and which will contribute to the development of the methodological basis for the thesis
a supplementary course in the philosophy of science within marketing

PhD candidates are encouraged to use the five elective ECTS for courses that support their academic specialization. Several elective courses may be offered to support the PhD candidate’s specialization.

8-1 (2) Up to three (3) ECTS total can be awarded in the training component for presenting papers at research conferences. One (1) ECTS can be awarded for participation with a paper at national conferences and two (2) ECTS for participation with a paper at international conferences. Approval follows the same procedure as for external courses, where the application is sent with the course documentation. Only external courses that are included in the training component are included in the PhD diploma.

8-1 (3) PhD candidates are encouraged to include a period abroad during their doctoral studies in order to acquire knowledge of, and experience with, international research collaboration network- building. Courses can be taken at foreign institutions but must be clarified in advance with the supervisor and head of the PhD programme. Information on stays abroad for PhD candidates can be found in the PhD handbook.

8-1 (4) The project description is the cornerstone of the doctoral thesis. This shall include a plan for progress, including a plan for the implementation of the training/taught component. The progress plan is operationalized through three seminars, distributed over the course of the programme: start- up seminar, midway seminar and concluding seminar. The seminars provide training in dissemination and all the milestones include an evaluation of the PhD candidate’s progression and the quality of the work.

The purpose of the presentations is:

To stimulate the PhD candidates to good progress in writing by establishing milestones, and thereby strengthening performance
To provide the PhD candidates with closer follow-up along the way, through a comprehensive and systematic feedback on thesis work at a time when important choices are made, while there is still time left to incorporate comments and criticism before final submission
To contribute to the PhD candidates receiving training in presenting their material to a wider audience
To contribute to issues of quality and progress becoming a collective responsibility rooted in the programme's research environment

Start-up seminar:

The start-up seminar is normally arranged within six months of appointment. The seminar is intended as an introduction of the PhD candidate and his/her project to the members of the PhD programme and other relevant academic environments at the faculty (the candidate’s associated department).

Invitation to the seminar is usually sent to the PhD programme, the PhD candidate's supervisor(s), the PhD candidate's associated department. The seminar lasts for approximately one (1) hour. The PhD candidate has 20-30 minutes for his/her presentation and the rest of the time is reserved for questions/comments and input from the audience. The candidate must give a short presentation of the doctoral project based on the project description: theme, theoretical and methodological approach and progress plan.

The aim of the presentation is for the PhD candidate to receive constructive input to his/her project and tips on both literatures, progress plan and current research environments and conferences relevant to the project.

In the extension of the start-up seminar, the PhD programme invites to a follow-up meeting with the PhD candidate and supervisors. The purpose is to ensure that the PhD candidate is adequately looked after academically and administratively during the start-up period. In addition, the purpose is to uncover any challenges related to the PhD project or the supervision in an early phase, so that any measures for improvement can be put in place. The checklist used at the start-up meeting can be used as a starting point for the conversation. A short report of the conversation must be written.

Midway seminar and evaluation:

The midway seminar is usually held in the third or fourth semester of a three-year PhD period, or in the fourth or fifth semester of a four-year PhD period. The PhD programme determines the time for the event. Invitation to the seminar is normally sent to the PhD programme, the PhD candidate’s supervisor(s) and the PhD candidate's associated department.

The midway seminar is set for 2 hours (120 min). The PhD candidate's presentation is 45 minutes, and 45-60 minutes are reserved for the opponent's comments and discussion with the PhD candidate. The last 30 minutes are reserved for comments and questions from the audience.

The basis for the midway seminar is the work the PhD candidate has done so far. The PhD candidate must present the PhD project in its entirety and its development, with an overview of what has been done and a timetable for the remaining work. The PhD candidate must also account for which courses have been taken, and what may remain of the research education part. Halfway through the course of the PhD, 2/3 of the training/taught component must normally be completed (20 credits). For those who write article-based theses, it is expected that the draft of at least one article is completed. For those who write monographs, a draft of at least 50 pages is expected. The text must be sent to the opponent and the PhD programme through the head of the programme and the PhD coordinator no later than two weeks before the midway seminar.

The opponent of the midway seminar can be an internal or external person with a doctorate. In line with § 9-2 of the PhD regulations, it is the PhD programme that determines the opponent. The opponent’s task is to take a position on the doctoral work’s professional status and progress.

Opponents in midway seminars are remunerated for 10 hours.

According to § 9-2 of the PhD regulations, an evaluation must be carried out midway through the PhD period. This is carried out in the form of a conversation after the midway seminar where the PhD candidate, head of the PhD programme (or substitute) and main supervisor and possibly co- supervisors assess the doctoral thesis’ academic status and progress based on the candidate's submitted material and midway seminar. The purpose of the interview is to uncover whether there are any challenges that may prevent the PhD candidate from completing the project within the PhD period. The conversation will also help to identify measures that can contribute to implementation. If the PhD candidate has an external main supervisor, an internal co-supervisor can participate in this conversation instead of the main supervisor. Minutes must be written from the evaluation conversation, which is archived in the PhD candidate's progression file.

If the midway evaluation gives rise to a reasonable doubt as to whether the PhD candidate will be able to complete the project by the end of the PhD period, this may form the basis for compulsory termination, cf. § 5-6 of the PhD Regulations. If the midway seminar and evaluation are not carried out within the time frames outlined in the first paragraph, this may also form the basis for compulsory termination.

Concluding seminar (80%):

The concluding seminar is arranged when there are 3-5 months left of the PhD period. The PhD programme determines the time in consultation with the PhD candidate and the main supervisor. Invitation to the seminar is normally sent to the PhD programme, the PhD candidate’s supervisor(s) and the PhD candidate’s associated department.

The opponent can be an internal or external person with a doctorate. The opponent is determined by INNSEPP. The opponent’s task is to provide the candidate with a critical and constructive assessment of the thesis draft, as well as suggestions for what the PhD candidate should do before the work can be submitted for evaluation.

The feedback can take the form of either
1. a written document which is sent to the PhD candidate and the PhD programme, or
2. a concluding seminar / trial public defence. The frame is up to 2 ½ hours. The PhD candidate's presentation is 45 minutes and approximately 60 minutes are reserved for the opponent's comments and discussion with the PhD candidate. The remaining time is used for comments and questions from the audience.
The basis for the concluding seminar should be an overview of the entire project as well as completed and unfinished chapters/articles. In total, this should amount to at least 80% of the thesis’ scope. The training part of 35 credits must normally be completed at the time of the concluding seminar, and the PhD candidate is recommended to apply for final approval of the training part in connection with the concluding seminar.
All material must be sent to the opponent, the head of the PhD programme and the PhD coordiantor no later than four weeks before the agreed feedback.

Opponents in the concluding seminar are remunerated for 20 hours.

9. Reporting and midway evaluation

9-1 (1) The PhD candidate and the main supervisor are responsible for filling in and submitting an annual progress report to the PhD committee at the PhD programme. If the PhD candidate has external supervisors, the internal co-supervisor is responsible for obtaining the necessary information from the external supervisors in connection with follow-up and reporting.

9-1 (2) The progress reports are treated confidential by the PhD committee. The progress report intend to uncover conditions that may prevent the PhD candidates from completing their projects by the end of the PhD period. If the reports reveals significant deviations in progress in any of the PhD projects, the PhD committee must discuss and try to find measures that can contribute to completion of the project.

9-1 (3) PhD candidates should normally have an annual individual talk (appraisal interview) with the personnel manager.

9-2 (1) At INSEPP, the midway evaluation is included in the PhD candidate’s compulsory midway seminar, cf. 8.1 (3).

10. The doctoral thesis

10-1 (1) Requirements for monographs

A monograph contains an in-depth study of a narrowly defined topic. The monograph must contain original empirical, methodical, and theoretical research carried out by the PhD candidate
Monographs should have a format, scope and scientific contribution that is similar to the norm for monographs published by the reputable academic publishers in the field of specialization
If parts (chapters) of the monograph are co-authored, the PhD candidate must be a substantial and significant contributor
A thesis written as a monograph should normally have a scope of 200-250 pages

It is emphasized that the complexity and nuances of findings must be discussed in the light of methodological, philosophy of science, and theoretical issues
Ethical issues in the research work must be accounted for and discussed

10-1 (2) Requirements for article-based thesis

A thesis that consists of several smaller scientific works is called an article-based thesis, although the works do not necessarily take the form of journal articles. In addition to the provisions set out in legislation and national and local regulations, the following applies:

The articles must have a level required for peer-reviewed scientific publication
The main rule is that the thesis must include at least three articles, where at least one of the articles must be published or awaiting publication when the thesis is submitted.
If sole authorship is normally practiced in the relevant academic field, the PhD candidate must normally be the sole author of at least one of the articles

In addition to the articles, the thesis must also contain an additional part / cover chapter where the connection between the articles is explained.

The following requirements are set for the additional part / cover chapter (kappa):

Guiding rules:

The candidate must be the sole author of the cover chapter
The cover must clarify the connection between the parts of the thesis and ensure that the thesis appears as a comprehensive report of the completed project. The various research questions and conclusions presented in the articles must therefore not only be summarized, but also compiled, so that the internal connection between them emerges, and so that the thesis’ contribution to the research field(s) becomes clear
If the thesis contains published articles where there is a need for academic updates, the cover must also contain these so that the thesis appears to be academically updated
Key concepts presented in the articles must be compiled and discussed in the cover chapter in such a way that it contributes to the existing research literature in the field.
The cover chapter should also present the way in which the thesis positions itself as a holistic scientific work within existing research literature
The cover chapter should contain the necessary theoretical and methodological assessments in the thesis work as there is often no room for this in the articles.
Complexity and nuances of findings will be discussed considering methodological, philosophy of science, and theoretical issues
The cover chapter should highlight and discuss ethical issues in the research work
The cover chapter should normally have a scope of 50 to 100 pages
The cover chapter should contain the following components:

a. Introduction

b. Previous research

c. Theoretical framework

d. Methodology

e. Brief summary of each article

f. Discussion

g. Conclusion

h. Reference list (any interview guides and questionnaires must be added as an appendix. The appendices must appear last in the thesis, following the articles in full text).

13. Submission

13-1. Submission of the doctoral thesis

PhD theses must normally be tested in INN University's plagiarism control programme before submission. This primarily applies to monographs and those parts of an article-based thesis that have not already been published.

13-2. Processing of the application

The supervisors’ recommendation regarding submission should be included in the application form to have the thesis assessed. Normally, the head of the PhD programme processes applications to have the thesis assessed. If the supervisor(s) do not give their recommendation for submission, the application must be processed in the PhD committee.

14. Appointment of the evaluation committee

The PhD candidate’s supervisor(s), in collaboration with the head of the PhD programme, submits proposals for relevant members. The head of the PhD programme sends a request to the relevant members and obtains their CV. If the members meet the requirements to sit on the evaluation committee, a preliminary agreement can be made with the members. The head of PhD programme writes proposals for the composition of the evaluation committee, which is considered by the PhD committee at INSEPP. The dean appoints the evaluation committee based on the recommendation of the PhD committee. When a decision has been made, the committee’s composition is sent to the PhD candidate for possible comments. Appointed committee members are asked to assess their impartiality, on a prescribed form, before the evaluation work begins.

18. Public availability of the doctoral thesis

INSEPP covers the cost for 50 printed copies (including three (3) copies for compulsory submission) of the thesis.

19. The doctoral examination

19-2 Public defense of thesis (disputas)

The PhD programme organizes a reception after the public defense of the thesis has ended. Non- alcoholic drinks and snacks are served.

Guidelines for co-authorship

The guidelines for co-authorship have been established by the PhD committee at INSEPP, Inland School of Business and Social Sciences, in a meeting held on 12.11.2018, with immediate effect.

The first three points are mainly based on the Vancouver rules, while the last two are of a more general research ethics nature:

1. In order to be a co-author of a research work, it is required that you have made a “substantial contribution to conception and design, OR acquisition of data, OR analysis and interpretation of data.” It is sufficient that a substantial contribution is made in one of these areas. Only those who have contributed to a scientific work should be listed as co-authors or thanked for their contribution. Other contributors (funding institutions, assistants, translators, etc.) should be thanked under “acknowledgments.”

2. Each of the co-authors must have participated in the formulation of the article OR in a critical revision of important intellectual content. A co-author must be able to vouch for the part that he or she has contributed. All co-authors must also be able to vouch for the totality of the final work. Where there are individual sub-contributions, a clarification should be made (e.g. in an introduction) as to which contribution(s) the various co-authors have made in the relevant scientific work.

3.Co-authors must approve their own contribution to the scientific work and give their consent to be a co-author. The version of the article submitted for publication must be approved by all co-authors.

4. It must be explicitly stated whether one or more of the authors has received financial support from businesses or organizations or has any associations that could be important to make known.

5. It is a breach of good scientific practice to mislead about who has contributed to a research work, whether by omitting researchers who have contributed or by including people who have not contributed. All contributors share the responsibility for ensuring that important findings in research are not withheld and that the research work is carried out in an honest manner.

Published June 27, 2023 10:19 AM - Last modified May 15, 2024 9:11 AM