The reasoning behind the composition should show how relevant competence is represented by the individual members, and how the committee collectively covers the academic field of the thesis.
The committee shall collectively cover the academic field of the thesis, consist of at least three members, and be composed so that:
- Both genders are represented
- Only one of the members is employed by INN University
- A minimum of one of the members is not employed in her/his main position by a Norwegian institution
- All committee members hold a PhD or equivalent expertise
The doctoral candidate must be informed of the proposed committee's composition. The doctoral candidate may comment on the proposal, no later than one week after the proposal for the composition has been made known – so that the faculty in its processing of the case is best informed about possible conflict of interest or other influential factors, through information from the candidate, as well. After the faculty has appointed the evaluation committee, the thesis is sent to the committee.
Following this, the committee receives the deadline for submitting its recommendation and for setting a tentative date for the public defence in collaboration with the faculty.
In order to ensure rapid proceedings, the faculty appoints one of the members as chairperson of the committee. This should be a representative from the institution. When special reasons so dictate, the faculty – utilizing its own academic staff – may instead appoint a managing director who does not participate in the academic assessment of the thesis.
The committee chairperson is responsible for organizing the committee's work, including ensuring that the work is commenced quickly and that the timeframe for committee work is kept. The chairperson shall contribute to coordinating the committee's recommendation on the thesis and clarify the division of work between the committee members during the public defence.
The doctoral thesis is to be submitted to the committee with an overview of where the work has been carried out and who has been the supervisor(s), and a documentation of the research training programme the candidate has followed and has gotten approved. The candidate's implementation of the taught/training component would have already been approved and shall not be approved again by the committee. However, it shall be sent as information that may be considered in relation to the committee's formulation of the assigned topic for the trial lecture.
In cases where the committee recommends revision of the thesis, cf. § 15-2 of the PhD Regulations, it also takes upon itself to assess the revised thesis.
If a candidate’s thesis has been rejected and she/he submits a new work for assessment, the PhD committee may appoint a committee consisting of the same, or partly the same, members as at the previous assessment, or it may appoint a completely new committee. The committee must then be informed that this is the second time the thesis is submitted for evaluation.