The need for quality control

One of the priority focuses for FODOS (the Forum for Doctoral Students at NLH) is
the study conditions and professional interests of its members. On that regard, the
board of FODOS discussed during 2003 the increasing need for quality assurance for
PhDs at NLH. Lack of progress resulting in failure to complete a PhD is the most
serious situation affecting not only a single student, but also an institution as a
whole. Fortunately this extreme case is not as widespread as the delay in completing
the PhD. National numbers from SiN (Stipendiatorganisasjonen i Norge/Norwegian
Organisation for Doctoral Students) show that of the PhD students accepted for a
PhD program, only 31% finish within 4,5 years, 52% within 5,5 years, and after 7,5
years 38% has still not finished or have left (www.stipendiat.no). We lack numbers
to describe the exact situation at NLH, but have little reason to believe that it is
significantly better than the average dr. scient situation.

The discussion on quality assurance was brought up to the annual general meeting
of FODOS held on the 18th of February 2004. During that meeting PhD students
expressed that they feel a need both for control and support in order of ensuring a
timely completing of their PhD projects. Supporting the students during their PhD will
warrant not only an efficient development of their research training but could also
enhance the outcomes of the research project, in the form of ensuring publication,
widening the network of the students, and providing for the adequate measures for
tackling problems at the right moment and by the right people. PhD students also
discussed the need for a control system where responsibility is taken out of the
everyday working environment, to assess the totality of the PhD project process
including supervision

The Academic Committee was commissioned for starting a dialogue with the central
administration at NLH, for the evaluation of alternatives for enhancing the follow up
of PhD students throughout all their study time at NLH.

The Academic Committee suggests an interactive progress control such as in the

form already applied in the Swedish Agricultural University (SLU). The objectives and
form of the system are presented below, and we would like to suggest that our
proposed scheme become an integrated part of the Quality Assurance System at
NLH.

Start-Mid-End seminars
The FODOS objective being that all PhD students finish, and on time, we would like
to present a scheme of Start-Mid-End seminars as a way to reach our common goal.
Similar schemes are already functioning in NLH departments such as IØR and ILP,
and experience in the Swedish Agricultural University is good in terms of enhanced
progress/completion and positive student evaluation.

We suggest that it becomes every institute’s responsibility to arrange start-mid and

end seminars for every PhD student. Opening up for institute adjustments we
suggest the scheme and distribution of responsibility to be the same for all. Institute
Research Committees (or Research Education Committees where existing) should be
given overall responsibility to initiate the seminars.

Objectives of seminars
• Control that everything is working in the PhD project
• Push the PhD student forward
enhance progress
• Provide qualified feedback at critical points in the process (start-mid-end).
• Assessment of the process, including supervision (supervision role to become
object of public assessment).
• Widen student network (present student to key researchers and key
researchers to student)
• Present publishing plan
• Assess research quality

Setting
In order to ensure thorough and qualified feedback at least one person will be
nominated/appointed to read the PhD student’s material in advance and give
feedback in the seminars. At least one of the persons to give feedback should be
external to the department, to ensure objectivity and wider networking opportunities.

The responsibility of setting up the seminars and nominate persons to be

“opponents” in the series of start-mid-end seminars, will be given to a person
appointed by the institute leader in each separate case. The person is not to be the
supervisor, and should preferably be external.

The PhD student’s responsibility should be limited to presenting/defending his/her

project/material/results in the seminars.

START SEMINAR After 6 months

Objectives
Clear and realistic PhD topic and project
Approve planning, design and
management
Ensure availability of technical, academic
and practical resources
Course list
Content
Presentation of PhD topic and project
An overview of the subject area and
study plan
Outline of necessary resources
Planned course participation

MID SEMINAR After approximately 1 ½ years

Objectives Content
Measure progress – Review of progress
Ensure that project is going according to
plan
Identify needs for change
Identify supervision needs
Identify barriers to completion
Approve theoretical base Presentation of the study’s theoretical
base
Establish future plan for the study Publication plan
International research exchange
Progress plan
Identify course requirements Review of courses /information

END SEMINAR 3 months before scheduled completion

Objectives Content
Check progress and problems - Move Review of progress
towards completion
A the quality and quantity of the study Presentation of approach and results

Approval of the study/trial defence Presentation of project status

- Identify needs for change