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

Part I. Introductory provisions 

Section 1. Scope of the regulations 

The regulations apply to the Doctor Philosophiae (dr. philos.) degree at NHH Norwegian School of Economics and provide rules on the right to eligibility for candidacy, submission and evaluation of a thesis and completion of the doctoral examination (public defence and trial lectures). 

In accordance with the Regulations relating to degrees and vocational training, protected titles and nominal length of study at universities and university colleges Section 14 paragraph 7, NHH may award the dr. philos. degree.

Section 2. Description and objectives of the dr. philos. degree

The degree Doctor Philosophiae (dr. philos.) is an independent doctoral degree that can be awarded to people who have completed a master's degree or equivalent.

The research work and thesis must be undertaken independently without formal supervision or affiliation to an organised doctoral programme. 

A dr. philos. degree provides qualifications for research activities and other types of work in society that requires a high level of scientific insight, methodologies and analytical thinking in accordance with sound scientific practice and research ethics standards. 

A dr. philos. degree is awarded on the basis of: 

1. approved academic thesis 
2. approved trial lecture on a prescribed topic 
3. approved trial lecture on a self-selected topic 
4. approved public defence of the thesis. 

Section 3. Responsibility for the dr. philos. degree

The Board of NHH holds the overall responsibility for the dr. philos. degree and adopts regulations for the degree.

Under the authority of the Rector, the Vice Rector for Research makes decisions regarding the applicant’s eligibility to present him/herself for the dr. philos. degree, the appointment of an evaluation committee, the suitability of the thesis for defence for the dr. philos. degree, and the approval of trial lectures and defence.

Part II. Application for thesis evaluation

Section 4. Application 

Section 4-1. Formal qualification requirements 

The applicant must hold a five-year master's degree in economics and business administration. NHH may allow applicants who have otherwise demonstrated equivalent education or qualifications to present themselves for the doctoral examination. It is the applicant's responsibility to document these qualifications. The Vice Rector for Research may require the applicant to complete specific courses and/or pass specific test(s) before being granted permission to have his/her doctoral thesis evaluated. 

The applicant must be a Norwegian citizen or have a registered residential address in Norway. Other applicants may, upon justified application, be given the opportunity to undergo evaluation if their thesis meets one or more of the following conditions

1. the thesis concerns a topic or is based on material directly related to Norway
2. the topic of the thesis has a strong connection to Norwegian research within the relevant discipline

Section 4-2. Requirements for the thesis 

The thesis must be an independent academic work that meets international standards and is of a high academic standard regarding the formulation of research questions, conceptual precision, documentation and form of presentation, as well as methodological rigor and adherence to research ethics. The thesis must contribute to new knowledge and maintain an academic standard that would justify the research being published as part of the research-based knowledge development in the field. 

The topic of the thesis must fall within NHH's academic research areas.

The thesis must either be a monograph or a compilation of several works (article-based). If a thesis consists of several works, it must contain an introductory chapter that explains the connection between them.

The thesis can be an independent piece of work or the continuation of previous work. If published works are included in the thesis, these must normally have been published within five years of the submission of the thesis.

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 that has been created jointly with other authors. Collaborative work must follow the norms for co-authorship generally accepted within the academic community. The application must include a declaration of co-authorship describing the applicant's and the other authors' contributions to each individual work. 

The thesis must be written in English unless special permission has been granted to write it in another language. 

The thesis must be publicly available before the public defence takes place. 

Section 4-3. Requirements for application and documentation 

The application for evaluation of a thesis is to be submitted to the Vice Rector for Research.

The following documentation must be enclosed with the application 

1. the thesis in digital format, as well as an abstract of the thesis in Norwegian and English
2. diploma and a transcript from a master's degree or documentation of equivalent qualifications
3. documentation of Norwegian citizenship or registered address in Norway, or an explanation of the thesis's connection to Norway, cf. Section 4-1
4. documentation that necessary ethical and other permissions have been obtained where required
5. a brief explanation and justification of how the thesis topic falls under NHH's academic portfolio
6. a declaration that the thesis is an independent work without formal supervision or affiliation to an organised doctoral programme
7. a declaration of co-authorship if required pursuant to Section 4-2 
8. a declaration that the application to evaluate the thesis or parts thereof, has only been submitted to one institution
9. a declaration that the thesis or parts thereof have not been evaluated by another Norwegian or foreign institution, cf. Section 5. 

Section 5. Works not accepted for submission

Work that has been accepted as a basis for previous exams, evaluations or degrees cannot be accepted for submission. However, data, analyses or methods from previous degrees may be used as a basis for the doctoral degree work. 

 

A work or parts of a work that have previously been evaluated and found worthy or unworthy of defence for the doctoral degree at another educational institution will not normally be accepted for submission, even if the work is submitted in a revised form. 

If an application to have a thesis evaluated is directed to one or more other institutions, it cannot be accepted for submission. 

A thesis that has been prepared in whole or in part while the candidate was enrolled in an organised doctoral programme cannot be accepted for submission for the dr. philos. degree. 

Section 6. Consideration of applications 

The Vice Rector for Research shall, on the basis of the submitted application and the enclosed documentation, decide whether the work is accepted for submission and evaluation for a dr. philos. degree.

The Vice Rector for Research can reject an application on an independent basis if it is obvious that the thesis is not of sufficient academic quality and will not be approved by an evaluation committee. 

If the Vice Rector for Research rejects an application, the applicant must wait at least six months before reapplying.

PART III. Evaluation of thesis and appointment of an evaluation committee

Section 7. Thesis submitted for evaluation 

Once the Vice Rector for Research has decided that a thesis can be accepted for evaluation, the thesis is submitted. Once the thesis has been submitted, it can no longer be withdrawn.

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

Section 8. Correction of formal errors

The candidate may apply for permission to correct formal errors in the thesis after submission. Such correction 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 their recommendation. The errata list is placed at the back of the thesis.

Section 9. Appointment of an evaluation committee

Once the Vice Rector for Research has made a decision to accept the thesis for evaluation, the Vice Rector for Research appoints an evaluation committee and a committee chair. It should normally not take more than six weeks from the decision to accept the thesis for evaluation to the appointment of the committee.

The composition of the evaluation committee shall normally be as follows:

1. the committee shall consist of at least three members
2. both genders shall be represented
3. at least one of the committee members shall not be formally affiliated to NHH
4. at least one of the members has a principal position at a foreign institution and is internationally recognised in the relevant discipline
5. all members of the committee shall hold doctoral degrees or an equivalent qualification
6. the majority of the evaluation committee shall consist of external members
7. the rules of impartiality in the Act relating to procedure in cases concerning the public administration (the Public Administration Act) Section 6 apply to the committee members

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

The candidate shall be informed of the composition of the evaluation committee and has the opportunity to appeal within five working days of being informed of its composition.

If necessary, the Vice Rector for Research may appoint a replacement member to the evaluation committee.

PART IV. Evaluation committee’s recommendation and its consideration

Section 10. Work of the evaluation committee 

Section 10-1. Obtaining supplementary information

The evaluation committee may require the candidate to present his or her source material as well as supplementary or clarifying additional information.

Section 10-2. Minor revisions

Based on the submitted thesis and any additional material, the evaluation committee can recommend that permission be given for minor revisions before the final recommendation is made. The committee must provide a written overview stating what the candidate needs to revise. The committee shall not recommend minor revisions if there are only small ambiguities in the thesis that can be clarified within the scope of the public defence.

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

If a candidate does not submit a revised thesis within the deadline set by the Vice Rector for Research, the Vice Rector for Research must reject the thesis. If there are extenuating circumstances, the candidate may apply for an extension of the deadline.

Section 10-3. Evaluation committee's recommendation

The evaluation committee submits a recommendation on whether the thesis is worthy of a public defence for a dr. philos. degree. Grounds shall be given for the recommendation and any dissenting opinions.

The evaluation committee’s recommendation shall be ready no later than three months after the committee received the thesis, unless the Vice Rector for Research decides otherwise. If the committee has requested a minor revision, the recommendation must be provided within three months of the committee receiving the revised 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 thesis worthy of a public defence
2. the committee does not find the thesis worthy of a public defence

If the committee determines that fundamental changes regarding theory, hypothesis, material or methods are required in order for the thesis to be found worthy of a public defence, the committee must reject the thesis.

The evaluation committee's recommendation is forwarded to the Vice Rector for Research who 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 can have a bearing on the question of whether the 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.

Section 11. Consideration of the evaluation committee’s recommendation

On the basis of the evaluation committee's recommendation, the Vice Rector for Research makes a decision on whether the thesis is worthy of defence for the dr. philos. degree.

If the Vice Rector for Research finds that there is reason to doubt 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 two new experts to submit individual statements about the 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.

Section 12. Resubmission

A rejected thesis cannot be re-evaluated in a revised version until six months have elapsed since the Vice Rector for Research's decision. A thesis can only be re-evaluated once.

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

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

The new evaluation committee shall make its evaluation on an independent basis but shall nonetheless be allowed to see the evaluation of the previous committee.

The final deadline for resubmission is two years from the date of the decision not to approve the thesis. The Vice Rector for Research may grant dispensations from this deadline.

Section 13. Termination of evaluation due to research misconduct

Decisions to terminate evaluation due to research misconduct are made by the Vice Rector for Research based on the opinion of the Research Ethics Committee.

PART V. Thesis is found worthy of a public defence for the dr. philos. degree

Section 14. Publication of the thesis 

The thesis and a summary of the thesis in Norwegian and English must be published no later than ten working days before the date of the public defence. The thesis must be published in the form in which it was submitted for evaluation, with any corrections of formal errors made pursuant to Section 8.

No restrictions may be imposed on the publication of a dr. philos. thesis, with the exception of cases where the Vice Rector for Research has approved a postponement of the publication date in advance. Such deferrals may occur, for example, to allow other involved parties to make decisions relating to any patents.

Section 15. Doctoral examination

Section 15-1. Trial lectures 

If the thesis is found worthy of defence for a dr. philos. degree, the candidate must hold two public trial lectures, one on a self-selected topic and one on a prescribed topic.

The trial lectures are independent parts of the doctoral examination. The purpose of the trial lectures is to test the candidate's ability to acquire knowledge beyond the thesis topic and their ability to communicate this knowledge in a lecture setting. The duration of each trial lecture shall be 45 minutes.

The candidate shall disclose the title of the trial lecture on a self-selected topic to the Vice Rector for Research one month before the public defence. The topic of the self-selected lecture must have relevance to the thesis but should not be directly connected to the topic of the thesis. The Vice Rector for Research approves the proposal for a self-selected topic for the trial lecture.

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

The trial lectures are normally held at NHH and in the language in which the thesis is written, unless permission for another language being used has been granted by the Vice Rector for Research.   The trial lectures will be chaired by the Vice Rector for Research, or a person authorised by the Vice Rector.

Section 15-2. Approval of trial lectures

The evaluation committee assesses whether or not the candidate has passed the trial lecture. Grounds must be given if it is recommended that the candidate fails one of both trial lectures.

The Vice Rector for Research makes decisions concerning approval of trial lectures based on the committee's assessment.

If one or both trial lectures are assessed as failed, the trial lecture(s) must be held again. A new trial lecture(s) must be held 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 for each category of trial lecture.

The lecture(s) shall, where possible, be assessed by the same committee as the original lecture(s) unless the Vice Rector for Research decides otherwise.

Candidates must have passed both trial lectures before the public defence of the thesis can take place.

Section 15-3. Public defence of the thesis 

The public defence will normally take place within two months after the Vice Rector for Research has found the thesis worthy of 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 must normally be held at NHH.

The public defence of the thesis shall take place in the language in which the thesis is written, unless the Vice Rector for Research consents to another language being used.

The public defence will be chaired by the Vice Rector for Research, or a person authorised by the Vice Rector. The defence chair will give a brief account of the submission and assessment of the thesis and of the trial lectures. Thereafter, the candidate explains the purpose and results of the doctoral work. The public defence takes the form of a discussion of the thesis between the members of the evaluation committee and the candidate. Members of the public who wish to oppose ex auditorio must notify the defence chair at the public defence by 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 defence chair then concludes the public defence.

Section 15-4. Approval of the public defence of the thesis

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 or not the public defence should be approved. Grounds must be given if it is recommended that the public defence is not approved.

The Vice Rector for Research makes decisions concerning approval of doctoral examinations based on the evaluation committee's recommendation.

If the evaluation committee does not approve the public defence of the thesis, the candidate may have one more attempt. 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 16. Conferral of the degree and diploma

Based on the Vice Rector for Research’s decision that the thesis, trial lectures and the doctoral examination are approved, the degree of Doctor Philosophiae will be conferred on the candidate.

A diploma is issued by NHH. The diploma must include information about the title of the thesis and the topics of the trial lectures.

Part VI Appeals procedure

Section 17. Appeals 

Section 17-1. Appeals against rejection of an application for evaluation and rejection of a thesis, trial lectures or public defence

Rejection of an application for evaluation of a thesis, a trial lecture or a public defence can be appealed pursuant to the provisions of the Public Administration Act Section 28 and following.

Appeals must give grounds for the appeal and are to be addressed to the Vice Rector for Research. The Vice Rector for Research can overturn or change the decision if he/she finds the appeal to be justified. Otherwise, the appeal will be forwarded to the Appeals Committee at NHH for a final decision.

If the Vice Rector for Research or the Appeals Committee finds reason to do so, a committee or individuals can be appointed to evaluate the assessment and the criteria on which it was based, or to carry out a new or supplementary expert assessment.

Section 17-2. Appeals against termination of evaluation due to misconduct

Decisions to terminate the evaluation on the basis of research misconduct may be appealed pursuant to the provisions of the Public Administration Act Section 28 and following:

Appeals must give grounds for the appeal and are to be addressed to the Vice Rector for Research. The Vice Rector for Research can overturn or change the decision if he/she finds the appeal to be justified. Otherwise, the appeal will be forwarded to the Appeals Committee at NHH for a final decision.

Section 17-3. Appeals against other breaches

Decisions relating to other breaches can be appealed pursuant to the provisions of the Public Administration Act Section 28 and following:

Appeals must give grounds for the appeal and are to be addressed to the Vice Rector for Research. The Vice Rector for Research can overturn or change the decision if he/she finds the appeal to be justified. Otherwise, the appeal will be forwarded to the Appeals Committee at NHH for a final decision.

Part VII Entry into force

Section 18. Entry into force 

These regulations enter into force from 5 March 2024.

From the same date, the regulations of 16 October 2003 No. 4890 for the Doctor Philosophiae (dr. philos.) degree at the Norwegian School of Economics are repealed.