Rules and regulations

The training component at the Research School in Law                                                                  

Regulations for the degree of philosophiae doctor (PhD) at the University of Bergen

 Rules supplementing section 4.2 – The training component at the Research School in Law at the Faculty of Law

 

Adopted by the Board of the Faculty of Law on 20 June 2006, and amended on 18 December 2007, 16 December 2008, 14 December2009 and 4 May 2010.

 

1. General

Researcher training at the Faculty of Law takes the form of admission to the PhD programme and participation in the faculty’s Research School. The Research School is regulated by UiB’s PhD regulations and these regulations.

 

1. Scope and structure

The Research School provides training worth a total of 30 credits, corresponding to one semester’s full-time study, cf. the Regulations for the degree of philosophiae doctor at the University of Bergen sections 4.1 and 4.2. This training is mandatory for all candidates who wish to take a PhD degree at the faculty. The training consists of five modules and participation in a midway evaluation of the candidate’s own thesis project:

 

The five modules comprise:

 

-         Legal theory and methodology

-         Research ethics

-         Planning the thesis and practical problems relating to methodology

-         Selected legal topics and issues

-         Presentation of the candidate’s own project

 

1. More detailed information about the individual modules

 

 

3.1 Legal theory and methodology (13 credits)

(responsibility for the module: Professor Bjarte Askeland)

 

Objective: To ensure that the doctoral candidate is able to place his/her research project in a philosophy of science perspective, which includes relating his/her own methodological approach to recognised methodological approaches.

 

This module consists of

-    participation in tuition in the form of an introductory lecture, a lecture on the     philosophy of science and a reading seminar

-    participation in one Nordic seminar on legal theory

-    participation in four other research seminars on legal theory

-    work on the syllabus, the scope of which is estimated to be approximately 250            pages

-    writing an essay

 

The essay must deal with theoretical or methodological issues relating to the topic of the thesis or the legal area of which it forms part, based on or seen from the perspective of theoretical issues in the syllabus. The essay must be of a satisfactory academic level in relation to the content and scope of the study programme, and it must be suitable for discussion.

 

Assessment form: Approval of participation. Approval of essay.

 

The person responsible for the module approves the doctoral candidate’s essay topic in advance. The completed essay and its presentation must be approved by two persons, one of whom must be the person responsible for the module. Participation in seminars and at other people’s presentations of essays is approved by the person responsible for the module. This person is also responsible for providing the doctoral candidate with satisfactory feedback on the submitted essay.

 

3.2  Research ethics (one credit)

(responsibility for the module: Associate Professor Thomas Eeg)

 

Objective: To ensure that the doctoral candidate is familiar with and has reflected sufficiently on written and unwritten ethical research norms.

 

The module consists of a course comprising a seminar at which the participants are given a text/outline to prepare in advance.

 

Assessment form: Approval of participation. Approval is granted by the person           responsible for the module.

 

 

3.3  Planning the thesis and practical problems relating to methodology (five credits)

(formal responsibility: the Vice Dean of Research)

 

Objective: To train the doctoral candidate in planning his/her thesis and in recognised techniques used for the written presentation of legal work, including pedagogical methods and conventions regarding the form of the presentation.

 

This module consists of:

 

-         training in writing technique

-     presentation of the candidate’s own project at two David Doublet seminars

-         discussion of other people’s projects at two David Doublet seminars

-         participation in eight project presentations at the faculty.

 

Assessment form: Approval of participation. Approval of presentations of own project. Approval is granted by the person responsible for the module.

 

3.4  Selected legal topics and issues (seven credits)

(responsibility for the module: Associate Professor Karl Harald Søvig)

 

Objective: To improve the doctoral candidate’s general knowledge of and interest in legal topics and to provide training in oral debating in academic forums.

 

This module includes participation in

 

-         twelve research seminars at the faculty (in addition to those mentioned under 3.1-3.3 and 3.5)

-     two national researcher training seminars

 

Assessment form: Approval of participation. Approval is granted by the person           responsible for the module.

 

3.5  Presentation of own project (four credits)

(responsibility for the module: Associate Professor Hans Fredrik Marthinussen)

 

Objective: To contribute to the candidate’s work on the thesis by requiring that he/she present an outline, a description of the research question and, if relevant, text excerpts for discussion.

 

In this module, the participant is required to give one project presentation at an early stage of the project.

 

Assessment form: Approval of the presentations. Approval is granted by the person    responsible for the module.

 

 

4 Organisation of and responsibility for the Research School

4.1 The Research Committee has overall responsibility for researcher training.

 

4.2 The Chair of the Research Committee has overall responsibility for the day-to-day running of the researcher training and can decide matters that concern the researcher training on behalf of the committee in accordance with the requirements of the Regulations for the Faculty of Law section 7 no 3.

 

4.3 The head of the Research School has overall responsibility for practical implementation of the academic programme at the Research School, and for ensuring that the training offered is in accordance with the learning goals for the Research School in Law.

 

4.4 The Research Committee appoints a teacher to be responsible for each module. The person responsible for the module is responsible for the detailed organisation of the course and for planning tuition in the individual modules, in addition to such responsibility as follows from other provisions in these regulations. The Research Committee approves the structure of each module and decides any appeals against decisions by the person responsible for the module concerning approval.

 

5 The duties of the head of the Research School

5.1. The head of the Research School is responsible for carrying out a performance evaluation and planning discussion with all newly-appointed research fellows during the first six months after their appointment. The purpose of the discussion is to prepare an overriding plan and recommendation for completion of the researcher training and any teaching duties pertaining to the position. The discussion must be carried out together with a person from the research administration, and the research fellow’s supervisor should also be present, if possible. The main topics for the discussion must be approved by the Chair of the Research Committee.

 

5.2 The head of the Research School approves participation in various seminars that the doctoral candidates wish to participate in as an alternative to the seminars offered in connection with the various modules. The decision can be appealed to the Chair of the Research Committee.

 

5.3. The head of the Research School has administrative responsibility for implementing the academic programme at the Research School. The head of the Research School also has overall responsibility for ensuring that the courses offered are of satisfactory quality, and that they are appropriate in relation to the learning goals that the Research School and the individual modules are intended to achieve. If there is doubt about whether a particular course is of adequate quality, the question must be decided in consultation with the Chair of the Research Committee. All decisions that involve special expenditure are subject to approval by the Chair of the Research Committee.

 

5.4 The head of the Research School should be the faculty’s permanent representative in important university forums for heads of the university’s research schools. The head of the Research School must also participate in the organisation of international institutional collaboration on researcher training, if this is expedient and desirable.

 

5.5 The head of the Research School can introduce any practical measures that are necessary in order to ensure that the educational programme at the Research School in Law is run cost-efficiently and with reasonable use of personnel resources. This also applies to decisions not to offer courses in a module every year, and to decisions that participants in the Research School can be required to complete a course in a particular semester based on how far their education has progressed. The doctoral candidate can apply for exemption if there are special reasons for this. Decisions pursuant to this section can be reversed by the Vice Dean of Research on appeal.

 

 

6 Crediting of training taken outside the Research School

On application, the head of the Research School can, following consultation with the Chair of the Research Committee and the person responsible for the individual modules, credit training that the doctoral candidate has taken outside the Research School. Decisions regarding such crediting must state which module or part-module the crediting applies to, and the scope of the crediting.

 

7 Midway evaluation of the doctoral training

 

7.1 Purpose: A midway evaluation is a seminar at which the doctoral candidate presents his/her thesis work for discussion. The main purpose of the midway evaluation is to improve the quality of the doctoral project and ensure that the candidate makes adequate progress in relation to the time at his/her disposal in the research fellowship period. The discussion at the seminar shall form the basis for assessing the progress of the research project. The candidate shall also provide information about his/her progress in the Research School’s training component. The quality of the discussion and the assessment shall be assured by appointing a commentator with doctoral competence who is assigned chief responsibility for reviewing and assessing the submitted material. The preparations for the seminar and the discussion shall result in a realistic schedule for completion of the researcher training for the candidate in question.

 

 

7.2 Practical implementation: A midway evaluation shall be carried out as soon as possible after the candidate has reached the midway point in his/her doctoral degree.

 

- In consultation with the head of the Research School, the administrative head of the staff entity/ the research administration shall prepare a plan and overview of the doctoral candidate’s education and take the initiative for a midway evaluation at least three months before the candidate reaches the midway point in his/her doctoral training. The Vice Dean appoints the main commentator for the project. The doctoral candidate’s supervisor can be given an opportunity to comment on the choice of commentator.

 

- No later than two months before the date of the midway evaluation, the candidate shall submit a manuscript of between 70 and 100 pages, including a table of contents, or an outline, to the main commentator, the Vice Dean of Research or his/her stand-in for the midway evaluation. An overview must also be enclosed showing which parts of the Research School the candidate has completed and which parts remain. The research fellow can also invite two to three other expert commentators. If they are recruited internally, their participation shall be seen as part of the fulfilment of their research duties. If special reasons so indicate, the research fellow can apply for coverage of travel expenses and ordinary fees for an external expert in addition to the main commentator. This expert will participate in the seminar in the same way as the others invited.

 

- The midway evaluation shall last for about three to four hours.

 

- The Vice Dean of Research chairs the seminar; however, the Dean can arrange with the supervisor that the latter shall act as chair.

 

- At the start of the seminar, the doctoral candidate is given maximum 20 minutes to provide an overview of the main research questions of the thesis, the main strategy for dealing with these issues and, preferably, a brief description of the academic or independent contribution to law that he/she believes the approach chosen in the project will make.

 

- The main commentator is given 30 to 45 minutes to review the doctoral candidate’s thesis work as it has been presented.

 

7.3 Written evaluation and progress plan: Immediately after the discussion, the supervisor, the main commentator and the Vice Dean of Research or his/her stand-in shall hold a meeting at which the project’s status and progress are discussed. The head of the research administration shall participate as secretary. The meeting shall conclude with an evaluation of the status of the project and some specific recommendations on important strategic decisions and the further progress of the project. Some general comments should also be made about the doctoral candidate’s completed education. The assessment is sent to the research administration with a copy to the doctoral candidate. Follow-up of these recommendations will be commented on in the doctoral candidate’s and supervisor’s progress report to the faculty.

 

7.4 Compensation: The external main commentator is compensated for 25 hours for participation in the midway evaluation. The supervisor’s work shall be covered by the ordinary supervisor compensation. If the doctoral candidate has two supervisors, the supervisor who participated in the midway evaluation shall be credited 20 hours more than the other supervisor within the limits of overall supervision resources available in the year in question.

 

 

7.5 Transitional arrangement and entry into force: The midway evaluation replaces the previous requirement for the presentation of doctoral work during the final phase of the project. Doctoral candidates who have reached the midway point in autumn 2010 can be offered a midway evaluation if they so wish. All doctoral candidates who have been accepted for the doctoral degree programme as of 1 January 2010 shall be subject to a midway evaluation when they have reached the midway point of their degree.

 

The midway evaluation cannot be replaced by other project presentations. The possibility of crediting described in section 6 above does not, therefore, apply to this seminar.

 

 

8 Individual education plans

In consultation with the head of the Research School, the Chair of the Research Committee may approve individual education plans for researcher training that deviate from one or more aspects of the arrangement in section 3 above provided that the individual arrangement is deemed to meet the objective set out in section 3 above in terms of quality and quantity.

 

 

9 Entry into force and transitional rules

The Research School enters into force on 1 August 2006. The system with a head of the Research School will be introduced once the Faculty of Law has reached a decision on the scheme, and it will apply for such period as the Board decides.

 

 

PhD Handbook and regulations 

PhD Handbook and Regulations  - For The University of Bergen and national guidelines.

The Level for Doctoral Degrees in Law 

The level for doctoral degrees in Law - Guidelines for the Faculties of Law at the University of Bergen and the University of
Oslo