1 Visiting the IVT PhD candidates Oct-Nov 2012 From faculty adm: Vice Dean Research, Section head Research, Senior officer PhD. From the departments: totaly 83 candidates from 9 departments (excl. IMT)

2 Purpose of meeting  Inform about relevant aspects connected to the PhD study  Obtain feedback on current practice  Obtain advice on quality improvement

3 Agenda 1.Faculty organization 2.Faculty research strategy 3.National qualifications framework 4.Revised PhD regulations 5.PhD handbook 6.Guidelines for paper based dissertations 7.Progress reports 8.PhD survey 9.Discussion and feedback

4 The National Qualification Framework (KRV)  New candidates appreciate this good description of expectations.  Experienced candidates recognize the description of their training.  How can we document that the candidate is trained to participate in debates in international arenas?  Discussions at conferences  Participate in workshops  Courses in presentation techniques Knowledge Skills General competence

5 New course requirements  Both positive and negative experience with IFEL8000  Some candidates asked for Scientific writing training  More specially designed methodology courses  More systematic information about courses, sometimes they get to learn about an interesting course by coincidence.  Most candidates were concerned about the change in required examination results for passing a PhD course.  No explisit Career guidance.

6 Supervisors  Many candidates feel they have easy access to their supervisor  Some do not wish to disturb and are reluctant to contact their professor  Clear description of what they can expect from their supervisor  Suggest that training is also mandatory for supervisors  For discussion: how should we define an «active researcher».  H-index, general recognition, key note invitations, editor of recognized journals, evaluation from previous candidates,

7 The PhD handbook, standard  Most candidates could not remember being offered an introduction seminar, uncertain what it is.  They like the idea of having assigned to them a mentor, a more experienced PhD candidate  Suggest a «welcome package» or collection of where to find important information, how to get started, access to buildings, it’s learning, important and useful webpages, relevant support staff etc.  Performance assessment interview with department head (medarbeidersamtale)

8 Trial defence  Candidates want to rehearse before their defence, but they do not want a formal presentation where they risk to fail.  Candidates were advised to invite fellow PhDs and researcher colleagues to a rehearsal.

9 Midterm assessment  In general the candidates were positive to a midterm assessment  A few candidates want it to be compulsory  Must be a supplement to supervision, must not replace supervision  External evaluation panel members was recommended  They do not want the risk of failing  When is «midterm». Must be flexible with respect to time. Rather a little before than a little after midway through the process.  Must clarify what is the input to the assessment.  Project description and progress, choice of methodology, scientific basis etc.  Alternative to midterm assessment is regular group presentations, group supervision, workshops  Call it a Midterm Encouragement!

10 Monograph og Paper based thesis  Both formats are used  Submitted in 2013:  ART: 64  MON: 13  We often see the same format used within a department  Some candidates didn’t know there were two options.

11 Progress report  Very few candidates remembered this report and they didn’t know what it was for.  Happy to complete the form in an electronic system

12 Research stay abroad  Few PhDs are planning a stay with another university abroad.  At some departments they encourage the candidates to go abroad  Hard work, much planning, need to apply for funding etc.  Those who had been aborad recommended it for their colleagues.  Some claimed that they were warned about it in the IFEL8000 course. NTNU policy: 25% IVT: 10%

13 Duty work  Everybody seem to have relevant tasks  Get to know the colleagues in another way, more involved and becomes a part of the working environment.  Most candidates wish to distribute the duty over the full 4 years, but some recommend and prefer finishing the duty early.  Not much complaints on how duty work is accounted for, but the different departments seem to have organized it in their own way.  Some asked for some kind of description of what was expected from them with regard to duty work.  Some suggested they should have a contract specifying what and how much to do

14 Other observations  Candidates want to view or control their own budgets.  All candidates participate in International scientific conferences but huge difference in how many they attend, (related to the financial situation)  The project plan should also include a list of relevant conferences and journals. (Publications plan)  Candidates sometimes miss someone other than the supervisor to discuss important and relevant non- scientific questions, some kind of mentor, trusted person etc.  More info in English