Quality system for the PhD programme at UiB

The University Board holds the overall responsibility for the PhD programme at UiB. The Board considers the annual PhD education report. Based on this, it may consider whether measures should be adopted for individual faculties or for UiB's PhD programme as a whole. The university management holds separate dialogue meetings on the PhD programme with each faculty every second year.

The university's Research Committee is an advisory body for the university management. The committee discusses the annual PhD education report and advises the University Board on any measures. The committee also discusses the candidate and alumni surveys and advises the faculties on any quality assurance measures. The Research Committee advises the university management and the Division for Research and Innovation on minor changes to the quality system and on guidelines for carrying out quality assurance elements.

The board of each faculty's PhD programme reviews course evaluations and evaluations of the course portfolio and the framework for the training component. Based on course evaluations, the PhD programme committee assesses the quality of the course and adopts changes where necessary. Based on the evaluation of the course portfolio and the framework for the training component, the PhD programme committee assesses the need to change the framework for the training component and to create or discontinue courses. Where necessary, the PhD programme committee advises the faculty on creating or discontinuing courses. The board also reviews the faculty's PhD education report, and assesses and, where necessary, adopts measures to address any challenges identified. Based on the candidate and alumni surveys, the programme committees assess the need for, and where necessary adopt, structural measures to address challenges identified. The same applies to the more extensive evaluation of the faculty's PhD programme as a whole. The PhD programme committee advises the faculty board on reaccreditation of the PhD programme. The faculty board is responsible for reaccreditation of the faculty's PhD programme.

The basic units (departments and other units) are responsible for carrying out and adopting any measures at the individual level, such as through progress reporting, mid-term evaluation and follow-up or staff appraisal interviews.

The course coordinator is responsible for running courses, for ongoing assessment of the course and contributing to its academic development, and for evaluating the course at least every three years, or after every third time it is run, if the course is not run annually. The course coordinator is further responsible for following up input and feedback from candidates and for communicating back to them.

The Division for Research and Innovation holds the coordinating responsibility for the quality work in the PhD programme at UiB. The division prepares the central PhD education report, and facilitates and carries out quality assurance measures such as progress reporting and surveys, and facilitates dialogue meetings between UiB's management and the faculties.

The PhD education report is written every year, both by the faculties and centrally, and gives an overview of the state of the PhD programme at UiB. The report serves as a tool for highlighting activities in the PhD field. Each faculty is responsible for writing a PhD education report for its PhD programme. The Division for Research and Innovation writes a PhD education report for the whole of the university's PhD programme, based on the faculties' reports. The PhD education report is to cover current topics.

The PhD education reports provide a basis for assessing whether measures should be introduced for individual faculties or for UiB's PhD programme as a whole. The University Board and the PhD programme committees are responsible for following up the central and the faculty-level PhD education reports respectively. As part of following up the faculties' PhD education reports, dialogue meetings are held between central and local management responsible for the PhD programme.

See the PhD education report for the last three years:

PhD education report 2024 (in Norwegian)
PhD education report 2023 (in Norwegian)
PhD education report 2022 (in Norwegian)

Dialogue meetings are a good forum for going through key elements of the faculties' PhD programmes, and a meeting place for dialogue between the university management and the faculties. The meetings also give the faculties an opportunity to give feedback on the work being done centrally at UiB. The meetings are held every second year between central level and the faculty management responsible for the PhD programme, and the last two PhD education reports form the basis for the meetings.

The Division for Research and Innovation is responsible for organising the meetings and writing the minutes. After the dialogue meetings, the Division for Research and Innovation writes a joint summary that aims to highlight common issues so that these can feed into quality development. The minutes and the joint summary are to be made available.

Progress reporting is an annual report from the candidate and supervisor that gives an overview of progress in the candidate's PhD, and is intended to reveal any delays relative to the planned progress. If the report shows that the candidate is experiencing problems in the course of their PhD, measures must be put in place.

The Division for Research and Innovation facilitates the survey, in cooperation with the IT Division. The candidates' and supervisors' responses are collected in a database and made available to management and administration at faculty and department level, and at some research schools.

The body responsible for follow-up is decided by the faculty.

Progress reporting has its own page (in Norwegian) with detailed procedure descriptions and PDF documents showing the questionnaires that are sent out.

All PhD candidates must carry out a mid-term evaluation halfway through their PhD. The mid-term evaluation is to summarise progress so far, and is intended to reveal any delays relative to planned progress. As a general rule, the evaluation should include academic staff who are not supervisors, and feedback and input should be given to the candidate that can raise the quality of the work. If the mid-term evaluation reveals problems in the course of the PhD, measures must be put in place.

The body responsible for follow-up is decided by the faculty.

Staff appraisal interview

All PhD candidates employed by UiB must have an annual staff appraisal interview.

The staff appraisal interview is described in UiB's Staff Handbook. A separate template has been prepared for conducting a staff appraisal interview for research fellows (in Norwegian).

The head of unit, in cooperation with the safety representative, must report annually through the line on the number of staff appraisal interviews held at the unit. This forms part of UiB's annual HSE report (internal control), which is in turn presented to the Working Environment Committee and the University Board (ref. UiB's Management Handbook).

Follow-up interview

All PhD candidates who do not have an employment relationship with UiB must be offered an annual follow-up interview. The follow-up interview is to be a forum for discussing the candidate's academic working situation in the period ahead.

Responsibility for conducting the follow-up interview lies with the academic management at the candidate's department or centre. Guidelines and a form for conducting follow-up interviews (in Norwegian) have been prepared and can be used as a starting point for the interview.

The follow-up interview is an offer, and it is not mandatory for PhD candidates to take part. It would be natural to use the progress report as the main basis for these interviews. Follow-up interviews, and the extent to which they have been offered to PhD candidates, should be covered in the annual PhD education report.

The candidate survey is sent to all candidates shortly after they complete their degree, and is sent out three times a year following the graduation ceremonies. A summary report is prepared at the end of the year. The candidate survey gives candidates the opportunity to assess the PhD programme and its various elements. The survey is anonymous and provides useful statistics and information on how recent graduates experienced the PhD programme they went through. The results of the survey can be used to raise the quality of the programme. A summary report is prepared every three years. For faculties that have too few defences for annual statistics to be produced from the responses, useful statistics are provided in these three-yearly reports.

The Division for Research and Innovation is responsible for carrying out the survey, analysing it and distributing it to the faculties. The PhD programme committees at the faculties are responsible for deciding on follow-up if issues emerge that require measures to be put in place. The survey is to be covered in the central PhD education report.

See the report from the candidate survey for 2024 (in Norwegian) and the summary report for 2023-25 (in Norwegian).

The purpose of the alumni survey is to assess how the PhD programme provides competence and skills for candidates' later careers. The survey is used to gather information from UiB's PhD alumni about their careers after completing their degree. The survey responses can give indications of what can be improved in the PhD programmes, in view of candidates' careers after completing their degree. The survey is to be carried out every three years.

The Division for Research and Innovation is responsible for carrying out the survey, analysing it and distributing it to the faculties. The PhD programme committees at the faculties are responsible for deciding on follow-up if issues emerge that require measures to be put in place. The survey is to be covered in the central PhD education report.

See the report from the alumni survey (in Norwegian) carried out in 2023.

All courses must be evaluated at least every three years, or every third time the course is run (for courses run less often than annually). For courses that are, in principle, only to be held once, the faculty decides whether the course is to be evaluated.

The course evaluation must cover:

• information on follow-up and any adjustments since the last course evaluation.
• an assessment of academic content, links to current research in the field, and whether the course's progress and structure are consistent with the set objectives for the course and the PhD programme.
• an assessment of pedagogical choices, consistency between the course's learning outcomes description and its teaching, learning and assessment methods, and reflection on the candidates' learning and performance as a result of these choices.
• results from candidate evaluations and any other feedback relevant to the course (for example from others who contribute to teaching on the course).
• an assessment of the consistency between candidates' workload and the credits awarded.
• a description of the proportion of candidates who complete the course.

Where the course involves work placements or other arrangements for contact with the labour market, it must be evaluated whether the arrangement is working satisfactorily.

The PhD programme committee may request an evaluation of other matters.

The course coordinator holds the academic responsibility for carrying out the course evaluation. The course coordinator submits a report from the course evaluation summarising the results and proposing improvement measures where relevant. The report is published together with the main results from the candidate evaluations, and a plan for how the report is to be followed up. The head of the basic unit holds the overall responsibility for following up the evaluation report.

The report is sent to the PhD programme committee and the responsible basic unit for review, with a copy to the basic unit and research school where relevant. The PhD programme committee gives feedback if the course is not working optimally.

The PhD programme committee draws up an overview for course evaluation, so that a thorough evaluation, including a candidate evaluation, is carried out for every course that is a permanent part of the PhD programme within a three-year period, or after every third time the course is run, if the course is not held annually.

The course coordinator is responsible for regularly carrying out assessments of the courses they are responsible for, and for ensuring that these are recorded and followed up. Such an assessment should be carried out at least after each time the course is run. There is no reporting requirement for these assessments, but notes and documentation from the work should be stored and made available internally at the basic unit, for the further development of quality in the courses.

An evaluation of the faculty's portfolio of PhD courses and the framework for the training component must be carried out at least every three years. The evaluation is carried out to ensure that the faculty's PhD courses meet the training needs of the academic fields the candidates belong to, and that the framework for the training component is adapted to the PhD programme's learning outcomes description and to the rules stating that “the training component must provide training in academic communication and an introduction to research ethics, philosophy of science and scientific method” in the PhD Regulations, and “the training component must give the research fellow knowledge, skills and competence in line with the Qualifications Framework, and in particular focus on documenting reflection and results in artistic development work, methodology, project development and ethics, as well as training in communication” in the PhD Regulations for artistic development work. If the faculty itself cannot offer PhD courses in some of the academic fields the candidate belongs to, it must be assessed whether equivalent training is available at other institutions, and whether arrangements are in place for taking such courses.

The programme committee is responsible for ensuring that an evaluation of the course portfolio and the framework for the training component is carried out. If deviations emerge, or if the training component is not adapted to the PhD programme's learning outcomes description, a follow-up plan should be prepared. The programme committee must assess whether the faculty should create new courses or discontinue existing ones, based on the evaluation.

PhD programmes at UiB must be evaluated at least every six years. Through the programme evaluation, an external and overall view of the PhD programme is obtained, and the committee considers the faculty's PhD programme as a whole: information for prospective applicants, admission, measures along the way, and the quality of the completed research, exemplified by an assessment of the thesis work and its examination. The evaluation is to provide advice on potential improvements, both in terms of throughput and quality. The evaluation must be carried out by a committee that is mainly external, and input is required from representatives of the labour market (business and industry, public administration, the cultural sector, etc.).

The faculties mainly decide for themselves which elements of the PhD programme are to be evaluated, but the evaluation must at a minimum include an assessment of whether the PhD programme meets the requirements set out in sections 1-11, 1-12 and 1-15 of the Regulations to the Act relating to Universities and University Colleges. Guidelines have been prepared for carrying out evaluations of the PhD programmes.

The PhD programme committee is responsible for deciding on follow-up. The faculty's PhD programme committee gives the faculty board a recommendation on whether the programme should be reaccredited, or what is required for the programme to be reaccredited. The PhD programme evaluation is to be made public.

Guidelines for evaluating the PhD programmes at UiB (in Norwegian) have been prepared.

Reaccreditation of PhD programmes

Once the programme evaluation has been carried out, the faculty's PhD programme committee assesses whether the evaluated programme can be reaccredited, meaning that the PhD programme complies with the statutory and regulatory requirements for degree programmes. The PhD programme committee gives the faculty board a recommendation on whether the programme can be reaccredited, or on the improvements considered necessary for the programme to be reaccredited. To be reaccredited, the PhD programme must at a minimum satisfy the quality requirements in sections 1-11, 1-12 and 1-15 of the Regulations to the Act relating to Universities and University Colleges.

It is the faculty board that decides on reaccreditation. If the faculty board does not find that it can decide in favour of reaccreditation, the PhD programme committee must be instructed to make and carry out the necessary changes and improvements to the programme, so that the quality of the programme is ensured. A time frame for completion must be given.

UiB may enter into formalised PhD partnerships with other Norwegian or foreign institutions in the form of joint or double degrees. Joint degrees involve establishing a joint PhD programme, and apply to long-term PhD partnerships with a relatively large group of PhD candidates from the institutions involved. The requirements for accreditation and reaccreditation of joint degrees are equivalent to those that apply to the other PhD programmes. In a double-degree partnership, the candidate is admitted to an existing PhD programme, first at the home institution and then at the partner institution. A double-degree partnership can involve as few as one PhD candidate. The degree is awarded by both institutions.

Agreements on joint or double-degree partnerships may include exceptions to provisions in the PhD Regulations, if necessary in view of the regulatory framework at the partner institution. Such exceptions, both individually and taken together, must be fully justifiable. If the partnership agreement states that a candidate is not required to complete elements of UiB's quality system for the PhD programme, it must be agreed that the candidate is to complete an equivalent element at the partner institution. The part of the PhD programme that the candidate takes at UiB is subject to UiB's quality system for the PhD programme.

• February 2022 – Staff appraisal and follow-up interviews were added to the quality system (Marie Eide)
• 5 Jan 2023 – Correction of errors in annual and cyclical processes (Marie Eide)
• 24 Apr 2023 – Update to the guidelines for programme evaluation (Marie Eide)
• 24 Apr 2023 – Updated information on the alumni survey (Marie Eide)
• 14 May 2024 – Revised quality system, adopted 2 May 2024 (Marie Eide)
• 8 May 2025 – Removed reference to section 4-1 of the Regulations concerning Quality Assurance and Quality Development in Higher Education and added a reference to the Regulations to the Act relating to Universities and University Colleges (Yngve Brynjulfsen)
• 23 Oct 2025 – Changed references to the Regulations to the Act relating to Universities and University Colleges, which replace the Study Supervision and Quality Regulations (Marie Eide)