This is an unofficial translation of the Norwegian version of the Act and is provided for information purposes only. Legal authenticity remains with the Norwegian version as published in Norsk Lovtidend - Lovdata. In the event of any inconsistency, the Norwegian version shall prevail.

Part 1 INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS

Section 1-1 The scope of the regulations

These regulations apply to the doctoral degree programme that leads to a Philosophiae Doctor (PhD) degree at the NHH Norwegian School of Economics.

The regulations provide rules on admission to, studies on and completion of the PhD programme at NHH, including joint degrees and cotutelle agreements.

Section 1-2. Scope, objectives and content of the PhD education

The PhD education is intended to qualify candidates for research of international standard and for other roles in society that require a high level of scientific insight, methodologies and analytical thinking, in accordance with sound scientific practice and research ethical standards.

The PhD education shall provide the candidate with knowledge, skills and competence in accordance with the Norwegian qualifications framework. The nominal length of the PhD education is three years of full-time study and includes coursework with a minimum of 45 ECTS. The core component of the PhD education is an independent academic work conducted under supervision.

The PhD degree is awarded on the basis of:

1. approved completion of the coursework
2. an approved PhD thesis
3. approved trial lecture on a prescribed topic
4. approved public defence of the PhD thesis (disputation).

Section 1-3. Responsibility for the PhD education

The Board of NHH holds the overall responsibility for the PhD education and adopts regulations for the degree.

By delegation from the Rector, the Vice Rector for Research has the overall responsibility for the PhD education, ensuring that it is always academically and pedagogically tailored to the competence needs it is assigned to address.

The Vice Rector for Research is responsible for the quality assurance of the PhD programme and may adopt supplementary provisions to the regulations. The Rector must be informed about supplementary provisions that are adopted.

The departments have the academic responsibility for the teaching and academic supervision.

Part 2 Admission

Section 2-1 Formal qualification requirements

For admission to the PhD programme, the applicant must normally have completed a five-year master's degree or have other equivalent qualifications, in accordance with the Norwegian qualifications framework level 7 and the Universities and University College Act (“universitets- og høyskoleloven”) Section 9-3. The education must be academically relevant to the applicant's PhD specialisation.

In the assessment of the application for admission to the PhD programme, the applicant’s average grade is calculated based on their five-year master’s degree. The average grade must normally correspond to a minimum of B (4.0) in the Norwegian grade system. The requirement of a minimum of B (4.0) also applies to the independent work completed in the master's degree programme.

The Vice Rector for Research may set additional qualification requirements in accordance with NHH’s recruitment policy and academic profile.

Section 2-2 Applications for admission

The application for admission should provide a solid basis for assessing the applicant's qualifications and ability to complete the PhD education.

The application should normally include:

1. documentation of the applicant’s educational background
2. a tentative research proposal which includes details of the research topic and research questions
3. a funding plan
4. information about any intellectual property right restrictions
5. documentation of special academic and material resource requirements
6. an account of any legal or ethical issues that the project raises and how they can be clarified. The application must state whether the project requires approval from research ethics committees or other authorities or private parties
7. if relevant, an application for permission to use a language other than English in the PhD thesis, trial lecture and public defence.

The Vice Rector for Research decides the application form and can set requirements for further documentation to be provided in the application.

Section 2-3 Admission decisions

The Vice Rector for Research makes the admission decision based on a comprehensive assessment of the application, including funding, admission capacity, supervisory capacity, additional education, and intellectual property rights agreements.

The admission decision must include the following:

1. definition of the agreement period, cf. Section 2-4
2. any conditions the admission is subject to
3. department affiliation
4. requirement for a contract of employment / funding agreement to be signed prior to the start date
5. requirement for a PhD agreement to be signed within three months after the start date.

For candidates with funding from, employment with or other contributions from an external party, a separate agreement shall be made between the candidate, NHH and the external party, in accordance with established guidelines.

Admission must be denied if:

1. agreements with an external third party prevent the publication and public defence of the PhD thesis
2. the intellectual property rights agreements entered into are so unreasonable that NHH should not participate in the project.

Section 2-4 The agreement period

The agreement period is set with a start date that matches the start date of the funding, and the length of the agreement period corresponds to the length of the funding period. The agreement period is normally three years of full-time studies or four years including an additional year of career promoting work.

In the event of legally justified interruptions, the agreement period shall be extended correspondingly.

The Vice Rector for Research may further extend the agreement period based on an application providing grounds for the extension. The application must include a plan for progression, a funding plan and a recommendation from the department. The Vice Rector for Research can impose additional conditions when granting an extension.

The agreement period is specified and regulated in the PhD agreement, cf. Section 3-1. Upon expiration of the agreement period, the parties’ rights and obligations under the PhD agreement cease, and the candidate may lose their right to academic supervision, teaching and access to NHH's infrastructure.

Section 2-5 The study period

The study period is six years from the start date to submission of the PhD thesis for evaluation, excluding legally justified and planned interruptions. If the study period is exceeded, the candidate loses the right to submit the PhD thesis.

The candidate may apply for an extension of the study period. After the study period has expired, the Vice Rector for Research may, in special cases and based on input from the department, grant an extension of the study period. The Vice Rector for Research can impose additional conditions when granting such an extension.

In special cases, the candidate may apply for permission to submit the PhD thesis for evaluation for the PhD degree after the study period has expired. The application shall be submitted to the Vice Rector for Research, who then decides whether the candidate will be allowed to submit the PhD thesis for evaluation.

Part 3 The PhD agreement and progress

Section 3-1 The PhD agreement

Admission to the PhD programme is formalised through a written agreement which is signed by the candidate, the supervisor(s), the Vice Rector for Research and any external parties. Changes to the PhD agreement must be approved by the Vice Rector for Research.

The PhD agreement regulates the parties’ rights and obligations during the agreement period and is intended to ensure that the candidate regularly participates in an active research community and facilitates completion of the PhD education within the agreed timeframe.

The PhD agreement shall regulate:

1. the agreement period, cf. Section 2-4
2. the topic of the PhD thesis
3. coursework, including grade requirements
4. appointment of supervisor(s) and supervisory relationships
5. progress and reporting requirements, cf. Section 3-2 and 3-3
6. workplace and residency requirements
7. if relevant, planned affiliation to foreign institutions in accordance with NHH’s guidelines for such collaboration, and a separate agreement concerning this collaboration
8. circumstances related to cooperation with any external parties.

The Vice Rector for Research may add additional requirements to the PhD agreement.

Section 3-2 Reporting requirements

The Vice Rector for Research establishes reporting requirements, including reporting by the candidate and the supervisor. If necessary, the Vice Rector for Research may require additional reporting.

The candidate and the supervisor equally have a responsibility for reporting. Failure to provide sufficient or timely progress reporting by the candidate may lead to enforced termination of the PhD education before the agreement period expires, cf. Chapter 4. Supervisors who fail to fulfil their reporting requirements may be relieved of their supervisory duties.

Section 3-3 Progress requirements

Progress requirements in the PhD education are specified in the candidate’s PhD agreement. At a minimum, the requirements shall include that

1. the coursework must normally be completed by the fourth semester, and
2. a midway evaluation (‘proposal defence’) of the PhD work should normally take place no later than in the fourth semester.

The Vice Rector for Research may add additional progression requirements.

Material breaches of the progress requirements may result in enforced termination of the PhD education before the agreement period expires, cf. Chapter 4.

Section 3-4 Follow-up, measures and breaches to the PhD agreement

The department is responsible for ensuring that the agreed progress requirements are fulfilled. If the agreed-upon progress requirements are not fulfilled, the department shall present the matter to the Vice Rector for Research. Together with the Vice Rector for Research, the department will implement measures to correct the situation.

Material breaches of the PhD agreement may result in enforced termination of the PhD education before the agreement period expires, cf. Chapter 4.

Part 4 Termination before the end of the agreement period

Section 4-1 Voluntary termination before the end of the agreement period

The candidate and the Vice Rector for Research may agree to terminate the PhD education prior to the end of the agreement period, cf. Section 2-4.  In the event of such voluntary termination, a written agreement must be established detailing how matters related to any contractual employment relationships, funding, rights to results, etc. will be handled.

Section 4-2 Enforced termination due to delays and omissions

When one or more of the following conditions are met, the Vice Rector for Research may decide to enforce termination of the PhD education, cf. the Act relating to Universities and Colleges (“universitets- og høyskoleloven”) Section 13-2, second paragraph:

1. material breach of progress requirements, cf. Section 3-3
2. repeated or material breaches of the candidate’s duty to provide information, follow-up obligations, or reporting obligations, cf. Section 3-1 and Section 3-2
3. a delay in the progress of the PhD thesis work that creates justified doubt about whether the candidate will be able to complete the project within the agreed timeframe, cf. Section 3-1 and Section 3-3
4. other breaches of obligations in the PhD agreement.

A decision on enforced termination under this provision may only be made if it is due to circumstances within the candidate's control.

Section 4-3. Annulment and/or expulsion due to cheating in exams or tests in the PhD education

In cases of cheating on exams or tests in the PhD education, the Appeals Committee at NHH may conclude on annulment and/or expulsion, cf. the Universities and University Colleges Act (“universitets- og høyskoleloven”) Section 12-4 and the regulations for full-time studies at the NHH Norwegian School of Economics. A decision on general expulsion from NHH cannot be made for candidates that are employed by NHH, cf. the Universities and University Colleges Act (“universitets- og høyskoleloven”) Section 13-1, second paragraph.

In cases of cheating on exams or tests in the PhD education where the situation is so severe that it is considered scientific misconduct, cf. the Universities and University Colleges Act (“universitets- og høyskoleloven”) Section 13-2, first paragraph, and the Act concerning the Organisation of Work on Ethics and Integrity in Research (“forskningsetikkloven”), second paragraph, the matter shall be handled according to Section 4-4.

Section 4-4 Enforced termination due to scientific misconduct

The Vice Rector for Research may decide to terminate the PhD education if a candidate is found guilty of scientific misconduct, cf. the Universities and University Colleges Act (“universitets- og høyskoleloven”) Section 13-2, first paragraph, and the Act concerning the Organisation of Work on Ethics and Integrity in Research (“forskningsetikkloven”), Section 8, second paragraph.

A decision on enforced termination due to misconduct is made following a statement from the Research Ethics Committee.

§ 4-5. Termination of employment

Upon voluntary or enforced termination of the PhD education, as outlined in Part 4, the contractual employment relationship will also be terminated in accordance with the applicable rules for state employees, cf. the Civil Servants Act (“statsansatteloven”) If the contractual employment relationship is terminated through resignation under Sections 19-21 of the Civil Servants Act (“statsansatteloven”), the study period will also be terminated.

Section 4-6 – Termination of the study period prior to the end of the agreement period

Voluntary and enforced termination of the PhD education pursuant to Part 4 will also entail termination of the study period, cf. Section 2-5.

Part 5 Supervision

Section 5-1 The right to academic supervision

The candidate is entitled to supervision during the agreement period.

No supervision can be expected after the agreement period has expired, cf. Section 2-4.

Based on a recommendation from the department, the Vice Rector for Research may decide to extend the supervision period.

Section 5-2 Appointment of academic supervisors

Based on recommendations from the department, the Vice Rector for Research appoints a supervisory committee that consists of at least two members, where one of the members is to be the candidate’s principal supervisor. The principal supervisor shall normally be employed by NHH in a full-time position and is to chair the committee.

The supervisory committee shall normally be composed such that

1. at least one member of the supervisory committee has their full-time position at NHH
2. all the supervisors must hold a doctoral degree or have equivalent qualifications in the relevant field and be active researchers
3. at least one member of the appointed supervisors should have previous experience and/or training as a supervisor of PhD candidates.

The rules on impartiality in the Act relating to procedure in cases concerning the public administration (“forvaltningsloven”) Section 6 apply to supervisors.

Both the candidate and the principal supervisor may request the appointment of a new principal supervisor for the candidate. The principal supervisor may normally not step down before a new principal supervisor has been appointed.

Requests or needs for changing the principal supervisor or supervisory committee shall, following recommendations from the department, be submitted to the Vice Rector for Research who will make a decision in the matter.

Section 5-3 The content of the supervision

The candidate and the supervisors shall maintain regular contact. Work on the PhD thesis shall be carried out under individual supervision. The department and the supervisors shall jointly ensure that the candidate participates in an active research environment.

The supervisors shall discuss and advise on:

1. the formulation and delimitation of the topic and research questions
2. academic literature and data
3. hypotheses and methodologies
4. results and their interpretation
5. structure and execution of the presentation, including the outline, linguistic form, documentation, etc.
6. research ethical issues related to the PhD thesis.

The supervisors are responsible for contributing to and following up on the candidate’s academic progression.

The supervisors shall keep themselves informed on the progress of the candidate's work and assess it in relation to the progress requirements in the PhD agreement. The supervisors shall follow up on academic matters that may cause delays in the completion of the PhD education, to ensure that it can be completed within the nominal length of the PhD education.

Part 6 The coursework

Section 6-1 The purpose and content of the coursework

The coursework, together with the work on the PhD thesis, shall contribute to achieving the expected learning outcomes in accordance with the Norwegian qualifications framework.

The coursework shall consist of courses equivalent to a minimum of 45 ECTS, of which 20 ECTS has to be obtained after admission. Additional ECTS requirements may apply depending on further requirements in the individual specialisations, which are decided by the Vice Rector for Research based on suggestions from the PhD coordinator.

The Vice Rector for Research may approve previously completed PhD courses as part of the coursework. Elements to be included in the coursework should normally not have been completed more than two years prior to the date of admission.

The coursework shall be carried out in accordance with the candidate’s PhD agreement.

Section 6-2 Implementation of the coursework

The coursework is provided as courses approved by the Vice Rector for Research.

If NHH does not provide all the elements of the coursework, arrangements must be made so that the candidate will receive corresponding training at other institutions that offer accredited PhD education. PhD-level courses taken at another institution must be approved by the Vice Rector for Research, cf. the Act Relating to Universities and University Colleges (“universitets- og høyskoleloven”) Section 9-1.

Section 6-3 Requirements of the coursework

The candidate must document that they have acquired sufficient academic knowledge through the coursework. For assessments conducted in courses, the Regulations for full-time study programmes at the Norwegian School of Economics (NHH) apply to the extent it is relevant.

There may be imposed grade requirements in the coursework. The grade requirements are specified in the PhD agreement.

Normally, candidates are allowed two exam attempts in each course. Applications for additional attempts are decided by the Vice Rector for Research.

Part 7 The PhD thesis

Section 7-1 Requirements for the PhD thesis

The PhD thesis must be an independent academic work, meeting both international and high academic standards regarding the formulation of research questions, conceptual definitions, the documentation and form of presentation, use of methodologies and adherence to research ethics. The PhD thesis must contribute to new knowledge and maintain an academic standard that may justify the research being published as part of the field’s research-based knowledge development.

The PhD thesis may either be a compilation of several articles (article-based) or a monograph. If a PhD thesis consists of several articles, it must include an introductory chapter that presents an overview explaining the overall structure and interrelation of the articles.

Collaborative work can be accepted for evaluation if the candidate’s contribution represents an independent effort that can be identified. Collaborative work refers to written work produced jointly with other authors. Collaborative work must follow the norms for co-authorship generally accepted within the academic community. In such cases where the candidate is not the sole author, declarations of co-authorship must be obtained from the co-authors for the purpose of identifying and documenting the candidate’s contribution. The candidate is responsible for obtaining these declarations of co-authorship. If a PhD thesis consists entirely of joint work, the candidate should be the main contributor in at least half of the articles.

The PhD thesis must be written in English unless special permission has been granted to write it in another language, cf. Section 2-2.

Section 7-2 Work that cannot be accepted

Articles or parts of articles that have been accepted as the basis for previous exams or degrees cannot be accepted for evaluation. However, data, analyses, methods and similar materials from previous degrees may be used as a basis for the PhD thesis work, provided that they form the basis for new knowledge presented in the PhD thesis.

Published articles cannot be accepted as part of the PhD thesis if, on the date of admission, they are older than five years counted from the date of publication. The Vice Rector for Research may grant exceptions to this requirement in special circumstances.

A PhD thesis submitted for evaluation at other institutions cannot be submitted for evaluation at NHH, cf. Section 8-1.

Section 7-3 Duty to report work results with commercial potential

Candidates employed by NHH have a duty to report work results covered by the Act respecting the right to employees’ inventions (“arbeidstakeroppfinnelsesloven”), cf. Section 5, and this reporting obligation shall be regulated in the PhD agreement between NHH and the candidate.

For candidates with an external employer, a similar reporting obligation shall be regulated in a written agreement between NHH, the candidate and the external employer.

Part 8 Submission and appointment of the evaluation committee

Section 8-1 Submission and application for evaluation

It is the responsibility of the principal supervisor to notify the department and the Vice Rector for Research that submission is imminent so that necessary preparations can be initiated.

The application for evaluation of the PhD thesis cannot be submitted before the coursework has been approved and progress requirements have been fulfilled.

The following must be enclosed with the application:

1. the PhD thesis in an approved format in accordance with NHH’s requirements, and in the form decided by NHH
2. documentation of required permits where required, cf. Section 2-2
3. declarations of co-authorship where required, cf. Section 7-1
4. a declaration stating whether the PhD thesis is being submitted for evaluation for the first or second time
5. a declaration stating that the PhD thesis has not been submitted for evaluation at other institutions.

Section 8-2 Processing of the application for evaluation

The Vice Rector for Research processes applications for evaluation of the PhD thesis. Applications that do not meet the requirements in Section 8-1 must be rejected.

The Vice Rector for Research may, on their own initiative, reject an application for the evaluation of a PhD thesis, if it is obvious that the PhD thesis does not meet the required scientific standards and will be rejected by an evaluation committee.

If the PhD thesis meets the requirements for evaluation, it will be sent to the evaluation committee, which will make a recommendation, cf. Part 9.

NHH must endeavour to keep the period from submission until the public defence as short as possible. Normally, no more than five months should elapse from the submission to the public defence of a PhD thesis.

Section 8-3 Withdrawal and correction of formal errors

Once submitted, a PhD thesis cannot be withdrawn.

After the submission, the candidate may apply for permission to correct formal errors in the PhD thesis. Such corrections may only be done once. The application must include a complete list of the errors (errata) to be corrected. The application must be submitted no later than four weeks before the committee’s deadline for submitting its recommendation. The errata list will be included at the end of the PhD thesis.

Section 8-4 Composition of the evaluation committee

The evaluation committee shall normally be composed as follows:

1. the committee shall consist of at least three members
2. both genders shall be represented
3. at least one of the members has a principal position at a foreign institution
4. all members of the committee shall hold doctoral degrees or have equivalent qualifications
5. the majority of the evaluation committee members are external with no affiliation to NHH
6. supervisors and others who have substantially contributed to the PhD thesis shall not be appointed as a member of the evaluation committee or manage it.

Special grounds must be given if the above criteria are to be departed from.

The rules of impartiality in the Act relating to procedure in cases concerning the public administration (“forvaltningsloven”) Section 6 apply to the committee members.

Section 8-5 Appointment of the evaluation committee

The department submits a proposal for the composition of the committee, including who will serve as the committee chair. This proposal should normally be ready by the time the PhD thesis is submitted.

If necessary, the Vice Rector for Research may appoint one or more substitute members to the evaluation committee.

The candidate shall be informed of the proposed composition of the evaluation committee and is entitled to submit written comments as soon as possible and within five working days after being notified of the proposed composition.

Once the Vice Rector for Research has approved the PhD thesis for evaluation, the Vice Rector for Research appoints the evaluation committee and the chair of the committee based on recommendations from the department.

Part 9 Evaluation of the PhD thesis

Section 9-1 Basis for evaluation and obtaining supplementary information

The evaluation committee submits its recommendation based on the submitted PhD thesis, including any errata list, cf. Section 8-3.

The evaluation committee may request that the candidate's source material be submitted, as well as supplementary or clarifying information.

The evaluation committee may ask the supervisor(s) to provide an account of the supervision and work on the PhD thesis.

Section 9-2 Minor revisions

Based on the submitted PhD thesis and any supplementary material, the evaluation committee may recommend that permission is granted for minor revisions before issuing its recommendation. The evaluation committee must provide a written overview stating what the candidate needs to revise. The evaluation committee shall not recommend minor revisions if the minor revision only refers to small ambiguities in the PhD thesis that can be clarified within the scope of the public defence.

If the Vice Rector for Research permits minor revisions to the PhD thesis, the deadline for such revisions must not exceed three months. A new deadline must also be set for the submission of the evaluation committee’s final recommendation, and this deadline shall not be longer than three months after the evaluation committee has received a revised version of the PhD thesis.

If the candidate does not submit a revised PhD thesis within the deadline set by the Vice Rector for Research, the Vice Rector for Research must reject the PhD thesis. The Vice Rector for Research may, under certain circumstances and upon application, approve an extended deadline.

Section 9-3 The evaluation committee’s recommendation

The evaluation committee submits a recommendation on whether the PhD thesis is worthy of a public defence for the PhD degree. Grounds must be provided for the recommendation and any dissenting opinions.

The evaluation committee’s recommendation shall normally be ready no later than three months after the committee receives the PhD thesis, unless the Vice Rector for Research has decided otherwise.

If the evaluation committee has requested minor revisions pursuant to Section 9-2, the recommendation should normally be submitted within three months after the committee receives the revised PhD thesis, unless the Vice Rector for Research has decided otherwise.

The evaluation committee can recommend one of the following alternatives:

1. the committee finds the PhD thesis worthy of a public defence
2. the committee does not find the PhD thesis worthy of a public defence.

If the evaluation committee determines that fundamental changes are necessary regarding the research questions, conceptual clarity, documentation and presentation, or methodological and research ethical foundations, for the work to be deemed worthy of defence, the committee must recommend that the PhD thesis is not worthy of public defence.

Section 9-4 The processing of the evaluation committee’s recommendation

The evaluation committee’s recommendation is submitted to the Vice Rector for Research, who then presents it to the candidate. The candidate will be given a deadline of ten working days to submit written comments on the recommendation. The candidate’s comments must be sent to the Vice Rector for Research. If the candidate’s comments may be relevant to the question of whether the PhD thesis can be approved, the comments should be submitted to the evaluation committee before the Vice Rector for Research makes a decision on the matter. If the candidate does not wish to submit comments, the candidate must notify the Vice Rector for Research in writing as soon as possible.

If the Vice Rector for Research finds that there is reasonable doubt with respect to the committee’s recommendation, or if the committee’s recommendation is not unanimous, the Vice Rector for Research can request further clarification from the evaluation committee and/or appoint at least two new experts to submit individual statements about the PhD thesis.

The candidate shall have the opportunity to comment on any clarifications from the evaluation committee and/or statements from the new experts. The candidate will be given a deadline of ten working days to submit written comments on the clarifications and/or statements.

Based on the evaluation committee’s recommendation and any comments from the candidate, the Vice Rector for Research makes a decision on whether the PhD thesis is worthy of defence for the PhD degree.

Section 9-5 Application for resubmission

A PhD thesis that has been found not worthy of public defence, can be re-evaluated in a revised version provided that at least six months have elapsed since the Vice Rector for Research’s decision. A PhD thesis can only be re-evaluated once.

Upon resubmission, the candidate must disclose that the work has been previously assessed and found not worthy of a public defence.

In such case, the Vice Rector for Research will appoint a new evaluation committee where at least one member from the original committee should be re-appointed.

The new evaluation committee shall make an independent evaluation, but shall nonetheless be allowed to view the evaluation by the previous committee.

The final deadline for resubmission is two years from the date of the decision that the PhD thesis was found not worthy of public defence. The Vice Rector for Research may grant exemptions from this deadline.

Part 10 Doctoral Examination

Section 10-1 Publication of the PhD thesis

Restrictions cannot be placed on the publication of a PhD thesis, except in cases in which the Vice Rector for Research has approved a pre-agreed postponement of the publication date. Such deferrals may, among other reasons, be granted to allow other involved parties to consider potential patenting. An external party may not claim that parts of, or all of the PhD thesis shall not be publicly available cf. Section 2-3.

The PhD thesis, and a summary of the PhD thesis in Norwegian and English, must be publicly available no later than ten working days before the date of the public defence. The PhD thesis must be published in the form it was originally submitted in, or if minor revisions were granted, in its revised form based on the preliminary comments by the evaluation committee, cf. Section 9-2.

When a PhD thesis is published, the candidate must comply with current guidelines for crediting institutions. As a rule, an institution shall be listed as an affiliation in a publication if the institution has provided a necessary and substantial contribution or laid a foundation so that the author could produce the published manuscript.

Section 10-2 Trial lecture

If the PhD thesis is found worthy of a public defence for the PhD degree, cf. Sections 9-3, the candidate must give a trial lecture.

The trial lecture is an independent part of the doctoral examination. The purpose of the trial lecture is to test the candidate’s ability to acquire knowledge beyond the topic of the PhD thesis and to communicate this knowledge in the setting of a lecture. The trial lecture should normally last 45 minutes.

The title of the trial lecture is proposed by the evaluation committee and approved by the Vice Rector for Research. The title of the trial lecture will be announced to the candidate ten working days before the trial lecture. The topic of the trial lecture shall not have a direct connection to the specific topic of the PhD thesis.

The trial lecture is normally held at NHH and in connection with the public defence. If the trial lecture is not held in connection with the public defence, the Vice Rector for Research may appoint a separate committee to evaluate the trial lecture, which must include at least one member of the evaluation committee.

The trial lecture must be held in the language in which the PhD thesis is written, unless permission to use another language has been granted by the Vice Rector for Research. The trail lecture will be chaired by the Vice Rector for Research or a person authorised by the Vice Rector.

Section 10-3 Approval of the trial lecture

The Vice Rector for Research, or a person authorised by the Vice Rector, decides whether the trial lecture is assessed as passed or not passed, based on the recommendation from the evaluation committee.

If the Vice Rector for Research has appointed a separate committee to evaluate the trial lecture, the Vice Rector for Research, or a person authorised by the Vice Rector, decides whether the trial lecture is assessed as passed or not passed, based on the recommendation from that committee.

Grounds must be given if the trial lecture is evaluated as not passed.

If the trial lecture is assessed as not passed, a new trial lecture must be held. The new trial lecture must be given on a new topic as soon as possible, and no later than six months after the first attempt. A new trial lecture can only be held once, and if possible, the trial lecture should be assessed by the same committee that assessed the original trial lecture, unless otherwise decided by the Vice Rector for Research.

The trial lecture must be approved before the public defence can take place.

Section 10-4 Public defence of the PhD thesis (disputation)

The public defence (disputation) of the PhD thesis shall take place after the trial lecture has been held and assessed as passed, and normally within two months after the Vice Rector for Research has found the PhD thesis to be worthy of a public defence.

The time and place of the public defence must be announced at least ten working days in advance. The defence must be public and normally be held at NHH.

The public defence of the PhD thesis shall take place in the language in which the PhD thesis is written, unless the Vice Rector for Research approves another language.

The public defence is chaired by the Vice Rector for Research, or a person authorised by the Vice Rector. The chair of the defence gives a brief account of the submission, the evaluation of the PhD thesis and the assessment of the trial lecture. Thereafter, the candidate explains the purpose and results of the PhD thesis work. The public defence takes the form of a discussion of the PhD thesis between the members of the evaluation committee and the candidate. During the public defence, members of the public who wish to oppose ex auditorio must notify the chair of the defence within the time set by the chair. They will be given the opportunity to comment ex auditorio after the evaluation committee has concluded its discussion. The chair of the defence then concludes the public defence.

Section 10-5 Approval of the public defence of the PhD thesis (disputation)

After the public defence, the evaluation committee submits a recommendation to the Vice Rector for Research as soon as possible and within ten working days, in which they recommend whether the public defence should be approved or not. Grounds must be given if it is recommended that the public defence is not to be approved.

The Vice Rector for Research makes decisions concerning the approval of the public defence based on the evaluation committee’s recommendation.

If the Vice Rector for Research does not approve the public defence, the candidate may have one more attempt to defend the PhD thesis. Another public defence cannot take place until six months have elapsed since the first one, and if possible, it should be assessed by the same committee that assessed the original public defence.

Section 10-6 Conferral of the degree and diploma

Based on the Vice Rector for Research’s decision that the coursework, the PhD thesis, the trial lecture and the public defence are approved, the degree of Philosophiae Doctor will be conferred to the candidate, cf. Section 1-2.

A diploma is issued by NHH. The diploma must include information about the title of the PhD thesis, the title of the trial lecture, the name of the supervisors, the members of the evaluation committee and information about the academic training that the candidate has completed.

NHH shall issue a Diploma Supplement to the doctoral degree diploma in accordance with the applicable guidelines.

Part 11 Appeal procedures

Section 11-1 Appeal against rejection of the application for admission, decisions on enforced termination due to delays and omissions, rejection of an application for approval of elements in the coursework.

Rejection of an application for admission, the decision on enforced termination due to delays and/or omissions, and rejection of an application for approval of elements in the coursework can be appealed pursuant to the provisions of the Act relating to Procedure in cases concerning the Public Administration (“forvaltningsloven”) Section 28 and following.

Appeals must provide grounds and be addressed to the Vice Rector for Research who may annul or amend the decision if the appeal is found to be justified. If the rejection is upheld, the appeal will be forwarded to the Appeals Committee at NHH for a final decision.

Section 11-2 Appeal against examinations in the coursework

Examinations taken as part of the coursework can be appealed pursuant to the Universities and University College Act (“universitets- og høyskoleloven”) Section 11-10 and Section 11-9. Decisions on the annulment of exams and/or exclusion can be appealed pursuant to the provisions of the Act relating to Procedure in cases concerning the Public Administration (“forvaltningsloven”) Section 28 and following.

In the case of an appeal regarding formal errors, a justified complaint is sent to the Vice Rector for Education, who can annul or amend the decision if they find the appeal to be justified. If the rejection is upheld, the appeal is forwarded to the Appeals Committee at NHH for a final decision.

In the case of an appeal against the annulment of an examination and/or exclusion, a well-grounded complaint is submitted to the Appeals Committee at NHH who can amend the decision if the committee finds the appeal to be justified. If the rejection is upheld, the appeal is sent to the Joint Appeals Committee for a final decision, pursuant to the Universities and University College Act (“universitets- og høyskoleloven”) Section 14-1 and the Regulations for Full-Time Study Programmes at the Norwegian School of Economics (NHH).

Section 11-3 Appeal in case of enforced termination of the PhD education due to scientific misconduct

Decision on enforced termination of the PhD education due to scientific misconduct can be appealed pursuant to the provisions of the Act relating to Procedure in cases concerning the Public Administration (“forvaltningsloven”) Section 28 and following.

Appeals must provide grounds and be addressed to the Vice Rector for Research who may annul or amend the decision if the appeal is determined to be justified. If the rejection is upheld pursuant to the Universities and University College Act (“universitets- og høyskoleloven”) Section 13-2, the appeal is sent without undue delay to the ministry or a special appeals body appointed by the ministry.

Section 11-4 Appeals against rejection of an application for evaluation and rejection of a PhD thesis, trial lecture or public defence

Rejection of an application for evaluation and decisions on a rejected PhD thesis, a trial lecture, or a public defence can be appealed pursuant to the provisions of the Act relating to Procedure in cases concerning the Public Administration (“forvaltningsloven”) Section 28 and following.

Appeals must provide grounds and be addressed to the Vice Rector for Research who may annul or amend the decision if the appeal is determined to be justified. If the rejection is upheld, the appeal will be forwarded to the Appeals Committee at NHH for a final decision.

Section 11-5. Appeals against other breaches

Decisions relating to other breaches can be appealed pursuant to the provisions of the Act relating to Procedure in cases concerning the Public Administration (“forvaltningsloven”) Section 28 and following.

Appeals must provide grounds and be addressed to the Vice Rector for Research who may annul or amend the decision if the appeal is determined to be justified. If the rejection is upheld, the appeal will be forwarded to the Appeals Committee at NHH for a final decision.

Part 12 Joint degrees and cotutelle agreements

Section 12-1 Joint degrees

NHH can enter into partnerships with one or more Norwegian or foreign institutions for the purpose of collaboration in the form of joint degrees.

Joint degrees refer to a collaboration between multiple institutions, where the partners collectively share the responsibility for admission, supervision, awarding degrees and other tasks outlined in these regulations. The collaboration is normally organised as a consortium and regulated in an agreement between the partners. Once a candidate has completed a joint degree, a joint diploma will be issued in the form of: a) a diploma issued by all members of the consortium, b) one diploma from each member of the consortium, or a combination of the two.

Joint degrees should normally only be entered into if an established and stable academic cooperation relationship already exists between NHH and at least one of the other members in the consortium. The Vice Rector for Research will adopt more detailed guidelines for joint degrees, including a collaboration agreement template.

Collaboration agreements for joint degrees may make exemptions from other provisions of these regulations if required by the regulations of the partner institutions. Such exemptions must be deemed fully justifiable, both individually and as a whole.

NHH’s qualification requirements for admission, the requirement that the PhD thesis must be publicly available, and the requirement for a public defence of the PhD thesis with an impartial evaluation committee cannot be waived.

Section 12-2 Cotutelle agreements

NHH can enter into partnerships with one or more Norwegian or foreign institutions for the purpose of collaboration in the form of cotutelle agreements.

Cotutelle agreements refer to joint academic supervision of candidates and collaboration in the education of PhD candidates. Cotutelle agreements are entered into for each individual candidate and should be based on stable academic cooperation between the institutions.

Cotutelle agreements may make exemptions from other provisions of these regulations if required by the regulations of the partner institutions. Such exemptions must be deemed fully justifiable, both individually and as a whole.

NHH’s qualification requirements for admission, the requirement that the PhD thesis must be publicly available, and the requirement for public defence of the PhD thesis with an impartial evaluation committee cannot be waived.

Part 13 Entry into force

Section 13-1 Entry into force

These regulations enter into force from 29 January 2025.

From the same date, the regulations of 7 December 2017, No. 2438 for the degree of Philosophiae Doctor (Ph.D.) at NHH Norwegian School of Economics are revoked.

Section 13-2 Transitional provisions

Candidates who, when these regulations entered into force, have been admitted to the PhD programme under the regulations of 7 December 2017, No. 2438 for the degree of philosophiae doctor (Ph.D.) at NHH Norwegian School of Economics, will retain the rights under the previous regulations that are beneficial to the candidate.