A PhD defense is an important step in the career of a young researcher. However, for the defense itself it needs actually three to tango in Norway – the candidate and the two external opponents. This year, I had after some years again the honor to be one of the external opponent to a PhD defense and I would like to provide you with an insight what this entails.
I would like to start by providing the general goal the external opponents have. Their job is to assess if the delivered thesis and the defense of it are to the standard required by the granting university. Then the opponents will make a recommendation to the faculty if the thesis should be accepted or not. In principle, the faculty makes the final decision but to my knowledge it has not happened that the faculty did not follow this recommendation.
What does it mean to the standard required by the granting university? For example, here at UiO we expect the following of a PhD thesis:
“§ 2.Omfang, innhold og målsetting for ph.d.-utdanningen
…
Ph.d.-utdanningen ved Universitetet i Oslo skal utdanne selvstendige forskere på høyt internasjonalt nivå, i samsvar med anerkjente vitenskapelige og etiske prinsipper. Utdanningen skal kvalifisere for forskningsvirksomhet og annet arbeid der det stilles høye krav til vitenskapelig innsikt og analytisk tenkning.” (English translation: “§ 2. Scope, content, and objectives of the PhD program
…
The PhD program at the University of Oslo shall educate independent researchers at a high international level, in accordance with recognized scientific and ethical principles. The program shall qualify students for research activities and other work that places high demands on scientific insight and analytical thinking. “)
Hence, as an opponent one has to assess if the thesis is of high international standard, is a piece of independent research, has followed the required principles and shows scientific insight and analytical thinking. However, it should be mentioned here that the assessment of these different points is essentially a continuous process and should already start during the PhD itself by the supervisors and the hosting institution. For example, that a thesis is up to the recognized scientific and ethical principles should ideally happen before the submission of the thesis and should not be a burden being put solely on the shoulders of the external opponents. The thesis itself does usually not contain all the information needed to be able detect violations of ethical principles. One can also not expect that the opponents know the whole literature ad verbatim to allow detection of plagiarism. Rather the opponents should be able to rely to some degree that these requirements are met on submission of the thesis (see also the first post of this advent calendar concerning this).
How does the opposition work?
After having been invited and all the paperwork been done, the real work beings. The faculty sends the thesis and each opponents has to read and assess the whole thesis very thoroughly and carefully. It is like a peer-review for a scientific journal of very high standard, but not just one paper but 4-5 at the same time. A thesis usually comprises an overarching and summarizing text called a kappa plus 3-4 manuscripts. The function of the kappa is to show that the 3-4 papers together address a general topic from different directions and together provide a deeper insight into the topic than each of it alone would. The whole is more than the sum of its pieces. The opponents now assess if the criteria above are fulfilled, are the conclusions justified given the presented results, are the data sufficient to address the hypotheses to be answered, what are the innovative and novel aspects of the thesis, but also what the weaknesses.
Then the opponents meet and discuss their opinions on the thesis. They have to agree upon if the written thesis can be defended and write a detailed feedback about the thesis to the faculty and candidate. This can be quite some discussions in case the opponents have very different opinions on the thesis. Even without such different opinions, the compilation of the feedback can take some time as very often the opponents highlight different strength and weaknesses in a thesis as they often have different backgrounds.
If they agree that the thesis can be defended, the opponents also often have to suggest a title for a trial lecture. The function of the trial lecture is to show that the candidate has a broader understanding of their field of research and can put together a lecture on relatively short notice (often two weeks). Therefore, the title of the lecture should be not to close to research subject of the candidate but also not something completely different. This might sound trivial but honestly it is not. As the opponents need to be able to assess the trial lecture later, they must feel confident enough to do so. Moreover, oneself also often wishes that it should be an exciting and interesting topic and not a boring one. Hence, it requires some thought as well.
The next stop for the opponents is the actual defense and the trial lecture. These are often at the same day. As such it is also an very interesting and intensive day for the opponents. It usually starts earlier as the opponents are present in person during the day. Hence, one travels to the place of the defense. The opponents are invited to a diner the evening before with the supervisors and the head of the section or department. This is a very nice opportunity to get information about the procedures of the next day but also about the candidate and other aspects of the thesis work, which were not put in writing. Moreover, it is also a nice opportunity for networking and to meet new people. Hence, being an opponent might also offer new options for collaboration or at least new experiences and colleagues.
Then at the actual day, the trial lecture is in the morning and all opponents have to be present in an adequate attire. The PhD defense is regarded with high value in Norway and hence one should dress accordingly. It also follows a very strict procedure with specific announcements to be made. This is quite different to procedures in Germany, where I am originally from. There the procedures are much less formal. After the trial lecture, questions are not allowed and the opponents retreat to discuss if they approve of the lecture or not. Again, here often very different views on the lecture can come forward. As a side note, I would like to mention that the procedures are slightly different at the University of Bergen. There, the opponents are not involved in the trial lecture and it is given usually a week before the defense. This has the disadvantage that the assessment does not happen by external opponents. On the other hand, it has the advantage that the threshold to not approve a trial lecture is lower as there is still time before the defense to improve the lecture and provide it once more. While I have experienced that in Bergen a trial lecture got not approved the first time, I have never seen that happen in Oslo. Given that all opponents have traveled to the defense (and maybe also family and friends of the candidate), the threshold do not approve the lecture becomes very high as this means an immediate stop to the procedures. The date for the actual defense would have to be moved and everybody would have to travel once more. Hence, as an opponent one can feel an intrinsic pressure to not fail the candidate. Luckily for me so far, this has not been an issue yet as an opponent; the trial lectures were all good.
After the trial lecture and its acceptance, the actual defense follows in the afternoon. As consequence, one is invited to lunch in the mean time. At the defense, the candidate first provides a lecture on their thesis and then is examined by the two external opponents. While in essence an examination, the examination should not appear as an examination but rather like a scientific discussion about the thesis. This is not always an easy task, especially if one hopes to get the candidate to look at the own results at slightly different directions than the one shown in the thesis. Hence, one should not ask leading questions, but open ones. However, this entails the risk that the answer by the candidate does not lead towards the direction oneslef wishes the examination to go. Hence, as an opponent one has some times to try to steer the candidate into a certain direction in the discussion without stipulating it flat out. If this works, it can lead to a Heureka moment for the candidate during the opposition. In any case, this part, the examination/discussion of the whole opposition is probably the most interesting and intriguing one for an opponent. I am fully aware that the experience for the candidate might be completely different. However, if it works out that it is a scientific discussion it is very rewarding for the opponent as it allows also the opponent to gain new insights.
When all is successfully done, the party can start and in my experience that also includes the opponents as they are usually invited to it as well. This is now truly the best part as one gets to know the candidate in a more relaxing setting for both and also often their family and friends. In my experience, it is a very nice social meeting. Hence, while meaning substantial work, being an opponent has a lot of positive aspects to it. One gets the chance to read and discuss interesting research; one meets always new people; it is a chance for networking; it can be a lot of fun, especially the successful defense.
