Mid-term Evaluation

The mid-term evaluation aims to clarify how far each individual candidate has progressed in their work process and to identify what remains to be done. With an external perspective, the evaluation should provide concrete academic and practical input to the project and guidance for the further work. All PhD candidates admitted to the PhD programme in social sciences are subject to these guidelines. A mid-term evaluation of the doctoral work should normally take place in the third or fourth semester.

The text presented and assessed at this seminar should be relatively comprehensive and must at minimum include a draft of the thesis structure along with an initial analysis or article draft. The text should be submitted no later than two weeks before the seminar. The candidate begins the seminar by providing a brief summary and situational description of the thesis project. The commentator assesses and discusses the strengths of the project as well as any unclear or weaker aspects, and gives constructive input on how the quality of the project can be improved. Particular emphasis is placed on:

• Clarifying the PhD project's place within the relevant research field and its contribution to that field, as well as the project's practical value/consequences
• Clarifying any research ethics challenges, considerations, and choices
• Progress in the project

In the candidate's work process, it is of great importance to discuss the project while there is still an opportunity to adjust and further develop all elements of the research design and its internal coherence. Suggestions for how the work can be developed and strengthened are followed up in a subsequent guidance meeting between the candidate, supervisor(s), and commentator(s).

The seminar concludes with a review of the progress plan with all participants present (excluding others who are not part of the evaluation group or supervisory team).

The practical organization of the seminar, including payment of honoraria and reimbursement of travel expenses, is handled by the unit, institute, or department where the main supervisor is employed. The main supervisor is responsible for contacting the institute/department administration to arrange payment of honoraria and reimbursement of any travel expenses for the commentator(s).

• For PhD candidates with external funding who are not employed by UiS, honoraria and travel expenses are handled by the administrative consultant/apprentice responsible for payments related to the PhD programme.

1. The texts forming the basis for the seminar must be made available to the commentator no later than 2 (two) weeks before the seminar and must be approved by the supervisor.
2. The texts should include a draft of the thesis’s initial structure (introduction, theoretical/analytical framework, methodological/methodical approach), as well as a preliminary analysis (for example, a draft analysis chapter or article).
3. The candidate gives a presentation of their work lasting no more than 25 minutes.
4. The candidate reports the completion of the 50% seminar in the annual progress report.

1. The main supervisor is responsible for organizing the seminar, including booking a room and announcing the event within the institute and the research school to which the candidate belongs.
2. The main supervisor is responsible for making arrangements with the seminar commentator and for sending the contact information of any external commentators to the institute's administration for the purpose of honorarium payment. Note that the commentator(s) cannot be part of the committee that evaluates the thesis upon final submission.
3. The main supervisor leads the seminar. Immediately after the seminar, the commentator writes a brief report, or a supervision meeting is held between the candidate, supervisor, and commentator shortly after the seminar.
4. The main supervisor is responsible for ensuring that the commentator’s input is followed up in the ongoing supervision process.
5. The main supervisor reports the completion of the 50% seminar in the annual progress report.

1. There should primarily be one commentator, usually from the candidate’s own department.
2. The purpose of the 50% seminar is for the candidate to receive constructive feedback that can support the continued development of the project.
3. The main part of the seminar should be dedicated to this evaluation, but some time should also be reserved for general discussion with the audience.
4. After the seminar, the candidate, supervisor, and commentator(s) meet for a summary guidance session. Following the presentation and discussion, some time is set aside for the candidate to speak with the evaluation group without the supervisors present, and for the supervisors to speak with the evaluation group without the candidate present.
5. An important part of the commentator’s role is to assess the project's progress.

If the mid-term evaluation reveals that the candidate is not meeting the expected progress, a more detailed follow-up plan must be developed. This plan should include a follow-up meeting to be held within six months. At the follow-up meeting, the mid-term evaluation committee will assess whether the follow-up plan is being adhered to. If the commentator(s) conclude that there is little likelihood the project will be completed, the head of the research school will contact the chair of the PhD Programme Committee. Information that arises may be included in a discussion about the possible termination of the candidate’s study program.

The follow-up plan should include the following points:

• Who has evaluated the candidate
• PhD courses and dissemination activities completed to date
• Manuscripts in progress or submitted
• Challenges
• Follow-up measures/actions
• Additional comments