Guide for doctoral studies
School of Education
2011
January 2011 (English)
The most recent version of the doctoral handbook is available
in the doctoral programme folder in Ugla
Handbook for doctoral students and supervisors
1
Table of Contents
pg..
BACKGROUND INFORMATION .................................................................................................................................... 4
PRACTICAL INFORMATION ......................................................................................................................................... 5
ACADEMIC CALENDAR .............................................................................................................................................. 6
1. RULES ......................................................................................................................................................... 8
DOCTORAL STUDIES REGULATIONS AT THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION ................................................................................... 9
2. STUDY PROCESS ....................................................................................................................................... 17
STEPS IN THE STUDY PROCESS................................................................................................................................... 18
Study plan .................................................................................................................................................... 18
Courses ......................................................................................................................................................... 18
Research plan ............................................................................................................................................... 19
Seminars....................................................................................................................................................... 20
Study time abroad........................................................................................................................................ 21
Record of progress ....................................................................................................................................... 21
Doctoral dissertation and defence ............................................................................................................... 22
Joint degree with another university............................................................................................................ 22
STUDENT-SUPERVISOR COLLABORATION ..................................................................................................................... 23
Student responsibility ................................................................................................................................... 23
Supervisor responsibility .............................................................................................................................. 23
Collaboration of student and supervisor ...................................................................................................... 23
The first year ................................................................................................................................................ 24
Supervisor meetings ..................................................................................................................................... 24
Doctoral committee ..................................................................................................................................... 24
Expectations of authorship .......................................................................................................................... 24
ASSESSMENT OF PRIOR STUDIES................................................................................................................................ 25
Assessment committee ................................................................................................................................ 25
General stipulations regarding assessment of prior studies ........................................................................ 25
Limitations on the assessment of prior studies ............................................................................................ 26
3. PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES ........................................................................................................................ 27
REGISTRATION OF PARTICIPATION IN INTERNATIONAL COURSES ....................................................................................... 28
EVALUATION OF THE RESEARCH PROPOSAL ................................................................................................................. 29
The structure of the proposal defence ......................................................................................................... 29
Aim and objectives ....................................................................................................................................... 29
Members of the Proposal Defence Committee ............................................................................................ 29
The open presentation ................................................................................................................................. 29
The evaluation meeting ............................................................................................................................... 29
Possible outcomes ........................................................................................................................................ 30
Responsibilities and time schedule .............................................................................................................. 30
The content of the proposal ......................................................................................................................... 31
Time-limit ..................................................................................................................................................... 31
DEFENCE OF THE DOCTORAL THESIS – OVERVIEW OF KEY EVENTS..................................................................................... 32
KEY DOCUMENTS IN PREPARATION OF THE DEFENCE ..................................................................................................... 33
CRITERIA FOR EXAMINATION OF THE FINAL THESIS ........................................................................................................ 34
ORAL DEFENCE OF THE DOCTORAL THESIS ................................................................................................................... 35
ETHICAL GUIDELINES ..................................................................................................................................... 36
4. FORMS ..................................................................................................................................................... 37
STUDENT AND SUPERVISOR MEETINGS ....................................................................................................................... 38
SHORT RECORD OF INDIVIDUAL MEETINGS .................................................................................................................. 39
COURSE PLAN ....................................................................................................................................................... 40
APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER OF CREDITS (COURSES) ..................................................................................................... 41
ASSESSMENT OF EXPERIENCE (PEER-REVIEWED RESEARCH ARTICLES) ................................................................................ 42
REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A ‘READING AND CONFERENCE’ COURSE ..................................................................................... 43
CONTRACT FOR COURSE TAKEN ABROAD - FORM ........................................................................................................ 44
CONTRACT FOR COURSE TAKEN ABROAD - INSTRUCTIONS .......................................................................................... 45
ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT (SUBMIT 1ST OCTOBER) ..................................................................................................... 46
Part I – Scholarly activity during the past academic year or since admission .............................................. 46
Part 2 – Overall status of doctoral studies (updated annually) ................................................................... 47
APPENDICES................................................................................................................................................... 51
APPENDIX A – DOCTORAL BOARD AND ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF....................................................................................... 52
APPENDIX B – DOCTORAL SCHOOL PROGRAMME 2009–2010 ...................................................................................... 53
APPENDIX C – EXAMPLES OF CUSTOM-DESIGNED DOCTORAL COURSES ............................................................................. 55
APPENDIX D – INTERNATIONAL GUESTS TO THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION 2009–2010........................................................ 57
APPENDIX E – GUIDANCE ON CO-AUTHORSHIP OF ARTICLES ........................................................................................... 58
2
3
Background information
The compliation of this handbook reflects the development of the doctoral programme at the
Iceland University of Education and later at the University of Iceland School of Education. Doctoral
studies started at the school in 2002 and dueinf the first few years very few students were
accepted, but since 2008 the number has grown rapidly. This autumn (2010) there are roughly 80
students in the doctoral programme in the school, similar in number to those enrolled at the
other four schools of the University. The dissertations and research being carried out span a wide
diversity of fields, in tandem with the many subjects that the School of Education addresses.
In the School of Education doctoral studies are offered across departments, the Heads of which
have appointed a Doctoral Board to develop and build up of the programme (see appendix A). The
current committee works in accordance with the strategy that was formulated in 2009. A great
emphasis has been placed on building up a community of scholars that supports both students
and supervisors alike. In the autumn of 2008 a special course was held for first-time supervisors in
the field of educational research, with funding from NordForsk. The concept of the ‘doctoral
school’ is used to cover all activities and agendas offered to doctoral students and their
supervisors at the School of Education.
The community of scholars has taken shape as it has grown and strengthened. The doctoral
school offers regular and diverse seminars as one of the foundations of the community that have
been held in collaboration with doctoral students, with research units within the school, and with
guest lecturers (see appendix B). During the spring of 2009 “Doctoral Days” were held at the
school, which involved a two-day conference with students and their supervisors. The Doctoral
Days in 2010 emphasised a so-called ‘summer school’ with three doctoral courses offered in May
and June, thereof one which was supported by Nordforsk and was open to Nordic participants.
Part of the quality assessment of the doctoral programme lies in a rigrous but constructive review
of research proposals where the student presents the topic of his or her research in a public talk
and receives comments and guidance from a 4-5 person evaluation committee in a closed
meeting. Members of the evaluation committee are from other institutions or from overseas.
Students attend formal courses within the School of Education, at other departments across the
university, or they go overseas for course work. The school requires that doctoral students spend
at least 2-6 months during their course of study participating in scholarly activities at a university
or research centre abroad. In addition each year reading and conference study courses are
offered in accordance with the interests, topics, and needs of students (see appendix C).
International scientists participate in evaluation and doctoral committees, in addition to offering
talks, teaching, and discussing matters with the Doctoral Board, and offering select students
individual guidance on their projects (see appendix D).
Many parties from within the School of Education and across the University of Iceland influence
and are involved in the operations and development of the programme. The collaboration of
students and their supervisors is of great importance during the course of doctoral studies, but for
this collaboration to be efficient and innovative it is most important that it be part of a strong
society where everyone participates actively and is mutually responsible for creating a demanding
and desirable educational environment.
Auður Pálsdóttir has put together this comprehensive handbook, but the material has been
sought from many sources.
We look forward to the future and give thanks to all those who have participated in the
development of the doctoral programme with us.
Allyson Macdonald
Doctoral programme coordinator and Chair of the Doctoral Board
Written in September 29th 2010
4
Practical information
University of Iceland Course Catalogue
Doctoral students and supervisors are required to adhere to requirements stated in the
Course Catalogue. See further information here:
https://ugla.hi.is/kennsluskra/index.php?tab=skoli&chapter=content&id=17723&kennsluar=2010
Coordination and project management of the doctoral programme (spring 2011)
Ólöf Garðarsdóttir, coordinator of doctoral studies, 525 5350 olofgard@hi.is
Sólrún B. Kristinsdóttir, project management, 525 5987 solrunb@hi.is
Guðrún Eysteinsdóttir, Head of OASA, 525 5949 gudruney@hi.is
Association of Doctoral Students
Website: http://nemendafelog.hi.is/Fdmhi/
Association Board: Svanhildur Kr. Sverrisdóttir, Kolbrún Pálsdóttir, Sigurborg
Matthíasdóttir and Kristján Þór Magnússon.
School of Education Doctoral School website
http://vefsetur.hi.is/mvsdoktorsnam
Centre for Graduate Studies, University of Iceland
Pétur Ástvaldsson, project manager, Centre for Graduate Studies 525 4380 petura@hi.is
Website: http://vefsetur.hi.is/midstodframhaldsnams/forsida_0
Handbook published by the Centre:
http://vefsetur.hi.is/midstodframhaldsnams/sites/files/midstodframhaldsnams/images/h
andbok_doktorsnema_2010.pdf
Building management
Sigurður Hjörleifsson building manager 525 5977 sgh@hi.is
Steinþór Hlöðversson building manager 525 5976 steintho@hi.is
Funds and Grants from UI
Sverrir Guðmundsson project manager, Division of Science and Research 525 4352
sverrirg@hi.is
http://www.hi.is/skolinn/sjodir_og_styrkir
Funds managed by Rannís, the Icelandic Centre for Research
Research Funds, Technology Funds, Research Studies Fund
See further information: http://rannis.is/forsida/
University International Office
Provides information on:
ERASMUS http://lme.is/id/16
NordPLUS http://ask.hi.is/page/ask_nordplus
See further: http://ask.hi.is
Coordination and project management of the doctoral programme (autumn 2010)
Allyson Macdonald, coordinator of doctoral studies, 525 5323 allyson@hi.is
Sólrún B. Kristinsdóttir, project management, 525 5987 solrunb@hi.is
Auður Pálsdóttir, project management, 525 5332 audurp@hi.is (til des 2010)
Guðrún Eysteinsdóttir, Head of OASA, 525 5949 gudruney@hi.is
5
Academic calendar
Each year the Academic Calendar is published within the Course Catalogue. The Calendar provides
exact dates with information, for instance, regarding course registration, study periods, and adddrop course deadlines. Below is an overview of important dates for each month of the school
year.
July
● The Academic Year begins 1st July each year.
August
● Autumn term teaching begins in August or early September, depending on the department,
programme, and course.
● Course registration review (add-drop) begins late in August.
September
● The deadline to review course and project registration is roughly September 10th (see
Academic Calendar). After that students cannot register for courses or projects for the
autumn term. Review takes place through Ugla and is intended for students to be able to
amend their autumn term registration as needed, if their situation has changed since
annual registration took place.
October
● The deadline to withdraw from a course in the autumn term is October 1 st. After that
students cannot withdraw (drop) a course but will receive a failing grade if they do not
finish it. It is very important that students withdraw from a course before the deadline if
they do not intend to finish it.
● The deadline for the progress report to the Doctoral board is 1st October each year.
November
● Teaching of courses ends in late November or early December.
December
● General examinations for autumn term courses are held in December. When a course is
completed with a final project the deadline for the final project is typically within the
examination period.
● Announcements of illness during examinations must be received by the Registration Office
within three days of the exam and students shall register for the supplementary exam
themselves through Ugla. The registration deadline for supplementary exams is announced
in Ugla.
6
January
● Supplementary examinations for autumn term exams, other than competitive exams, are
held in early January.
● Grades for autumn term exams that are held in December should be published in Ugla no
later than three weeks after the exam dates, or after the deadline of the final project for
the course. Grades for supplementary exams that are held in January shall be published in
Ugla no later than two weeks after the exam date. All grades for the autumn term should
be published by the end of January.
● Teaching of spring term courses begins in January, exact dates vary depending on
departments, programmes, and courses.
● The deadline to review registration for courses and projects in the spring term is January 20 th
(see Academic Calendar). After that students cannot register for courses or projects for
the spring term. Review takes place through Ugla and is intended for students to be able
to amend their spring term registration as needed, if their situation has changed since
annual registration took place.
February
 The deadline to withdraw from courses in the spring term is February 1. After that
students cannot withdraw (drop) a course but will receive a failing grade if they do not
finish it. It is very important that students withdraw from a course before the deadline if
they do not intend to finish it.
March
● ANNUAL REGISTRATION FOR COURSES AND PROJECTS FOR THE COMING ACADEMIC YEAR
TAKES PLACE IN MARCH.
● The registration period is roughly one week, see exact dates in the Academic Calendar.
Students should register for all courses and projects they plan to complete in the coming
academic year, both the autumn and spring terms. By registering for courses and/or
projects the student is confirming their intent to continue their studies in the coming school
year. If a student does not register for courses or projects it is considered confirmation
that the student will not undertake studies in the coming year.
● Bills for registration fees each year are not sent to those students that do not register for
courses, and those who do not pay their registration fees will be listed as no longer
undertaking studies. A student who has been listed as no longer undertaking studies is
required to specifically reapply to the programme of their choice if they intend to continue.
Registration outside of the normal registration period involves a higher cost for the annual
registration fee.
April
● Teaching of courses for the spring term is completed.
● Spring term exams begin.
May
● General exams for spring term courses are held in April and May. When a course is
completed with a final project the deadline for the final project is typically within the
examination period.
● Announcements of illness during examinations must be received by the Registration Office
within three days of the exam and students shall register for the supplementary exam
themselves through Ugla. The registration deadline for supplementary exams is announced
in Ugla.
● Supplementary examinations for spring term exams are held in early May, immediately upon
conclusion of regular exams.
● Doctoral students respond to an electronic survey from the Doctoral Board regarding the
progression of their studies.
June
● Grades for spring term exams shall be published in Ugla no later than two weeks after the
exam date or the deadline for the final project in the course. The last grades for the spring
term shall therefore be published in Ugla in June.
7
1. RULES
8
Doctoral Studies Regulations at the School of Education
Article 1
The objective of doctoral studies and degrees at the University of Iceland School of Education
The objective of doctoral studies at the University of Iceland School of Education is to enhance the
competence of doctoral students to conduct independent research and scholarly activities and
carry out work at national and international levels.
Doctoral studies may be pursued at the University of Iceland School of Education in those fields of
study where the necessary facilities and expertise are at hand in the view of the Doctoral Board
and the Board of the School. Doctoral studies at the School of Education serve the purpose of
fostering research within the School. The Board of the School shall make decisions on matters
pertaining to doctoral studies on behalf of faculties.
Two degrees shall be granted at the University of Iceland School of Education, in accordance with
the graduate study programmes offered. In graduate study towards a Ph.D. degree, emphasis is
placed on academic research. In graduate study towards an Ed.D. degree, primary emphasis is
placed on professional development and research in one’s field of work. There shall furthermore
be a difference in the composition of the study programmes (cf. Article 6). A student in an Ed.D
programme shall, as a rule, have completed a minimum of two years of work experience in the
field. The degree title shall be subject to the consent of the Doctoral Board and the Board of the
School of Education. Doctoral students may be awarded a joint degree from the University of
Iceland School of Education and another university.
The University of Iceland Centre for Graduate Studies shall oversee and implement the quality
criteria and requirements for graduate studies adopted at the University of Iceland, cf. Article 3 of
these Rules and Article 66 of the Rules for the University of Iceland No. 569/2009. Informatio and
data requested by the Centre must be supplied.
Article 2
Management of doctoral studies
The School of Education Doctoral Board shall deal with matters concerning doctoral study on
behalf of the Board of the School. The following six representatives shall sit on the Doctoral
Board: the Chair, who is appointed by the Board of the School, representatives of all faculties, one
representative of the Board of the School and one doctoral student representative. The Doctora
Board is appointed for a two-year term. The Chair of the Board shall at the same time act as
doctoral studies supervisor and
contact person at the School of Education for the Centre for Graduate Studies.
The role of the Doctoral Board is to formulate policy on the organisation of doctoral studies and
take responsibility for its implementation. The Doctoral Board promotes those study programmes
offered, discusses applications and monitors the progress and quality of instruction and study
through, among other things, evaluation of the status of research projects during the study
period. It shall prepare matters to be dealt with by the Board of the School of Education, such as
recommendations concerning the admission of doctoral students and the appointment of
supervisors, doctoral committees, external examiners and opponents.
9
Article 3
Admission to doctoral study
Doctoral study at the School of Education shall be
advertised on the University of Iceland website. The Board of the School of
Education shall determine – upon receiving the recommendation of the Doctoral
Board – the number of students to be given the opportunity to pursue doctoral
studies at any given time.
Article 4
Admission requirements and evaluation of previous study
An individual who has completed a Master’s degree or an equivalent degree from the University
of Iceland, Iceland University of Education or other university may apply for admission to a
doctoral study programme. An individual who has pursued doctoral studies at another university
may also apply for admission to a doctoral study programme at the University of Iceland School of
Education. When admitting students, applicants’ educational performance and work experience
shall be taken into account.
Those applicants who wish to commence doctoral studies immediately after completing a
Master’s degree may apply before completion of this degree, provided that confirmation is on
hand verifying that studies will be completed satisfactorily prior to the commencement of
doctoral studies.
Undergraduate-level courses (Bachelor’s or equivalent level) may not form a part of students’
doctoral studies. Courses at a Master’s level may be approved as part of doctoralstudies, for a
maximum of 20 credit units, provided that these courses have not previously been credited
towards a Master’s degree. A Master’s thesis may not be re-used as the basis for a doctoral thesis.
An academic staff member of a faculty may not be admitted to a doctoral study programme
within that faculty.
Article 5
Processing of applications
Applications for admission to doctoral studies must be submitted to the School of Education’s
Office of Academic and Student Affairs. The application process shall be as follows:
a.
An application for admission to doctoral studies shall be submitted using the
required form, cf. instructions published on the School of Education website.
The application shall be accompanied by copies of diplomas, a draft study plan,
a statement describing the applicant’s professional and academic qualifications
for the study programme in question and a draft research plan or statement
describing the research topic.
b.
An applicant must have two independent referees when applying for doctoral study.
c.
The Office of Academic and Student Affairs reviews and files applications and determines
10
whether necessary materials have been submitted. The Doctoral Board evaluates
applications and seeks expert advice in the field in question where applicable.
Evaluation of applications shall also be based on interviews with applicants.
The doctoral studies supervisor confirms that admission requirements have been
met and organises interviews with applicants.
d.
The Doctoral Board discusses and evaluates applications and the results of interviews. The
Doctoral Board prepares a recommendation for the Board of the School of Education on
admissions, which shall be in conformance with the following criteria:

The applicant meets admission requirements.

The applicant is deemed competent to undertake doctoral studies and carry out
demanding research work.

Experts in the field in which proposed research is to take place are available to supervise
the applicant and evaluate the research project.

There are sufficient financial resources to serve doctoral students and acceptable study
conditions are available.
The Doctoral Board’s recommendation shall be accompanied by the Board’s reasoning on all main
points of the application, reasoned advice on supervisors and advice on additional and/or preparatory
studies that an applicant may require. The recommendation is taken up for discussion by the Board of
the School of Education and presented to the faculty councils of all facultie within the School.
e. After the Board of the School of Education has processed the application, the Office of
Academic and Student Affairs shall send a written response to the applicant on behalf of the Dean
of School. Written responses shall be sent to applicants no later than two months after the
application deadline has passed.
Article 6
Number of credit units and length of study period
A doctoral study programme at the University of Iceland School of Education is conducted on an
individual basis and consists of a minimum of 180 ECTS. A maximum of up to 240 ECTS is
permissible. In a Ph.D. programme, a student must complete a thesis worth 120-180 ECTS and 3060 ECTS in the form of coursework. In an Ed.D. programme, a student must complete a thesis
worth 90-120 ECTS and 60-90 ECTS in the form of coursework.
All study requirements shall, as a rule, have been met within four years of commencing full-time
study or eight years of commencing part-time study. Study shall be considered to commence on
the date of initial enrolment. Doctoral students are presumed to be able to complete 60 ECTS per
year.
If a doctoral student does not manage to complete studies within this frame of time, s/he may
apply for an exception from the Doctoral Board. Should an exception be granted, the condition
11
may be imposed that the student must complete the study programme in conformance with
those rules currently in force, even if other rules were in force when the student commenced
her/his studies.
A student may take a maximum leave of absence of one year.
Doctoral students must be registered and pay registration fees for the entire duration of their
studies.
Article 7
Supervision
Upon commencing study, each and every graduate student shall be assigned a supervisory
teacher, with whom s/he can discuss the arrangement of the study programme, selection of
courses and other matters concerning the study programme. The supervisory
teacher shall, all other things being equal, also be the doctoral student’s
main supervisor. The supervisory teacher must be a tenured member of academic
staff of the University of Iceland. A recommendation concerning the appointment
of supervisors shall be made to the Doctoral Board, and the appointment of supervisors
shall be subject to the approval of the Board of the School of Education.
Supervisors shall, as a rule, hold a doctoral degree, have formal qualifications for academic work
and have been recognised by the University of Iceland Centre for Graduate Studies. Care
shall be taken to ensure that supervisors have demonstrated research activity
and that they have published works in a forum where rigorous academic standards
are enforced. They shall, as a rule, have previous experience of supervision,
international collaboration and applying for research grants. The student’s
project shall fall within supervisors’ field of expertise.
The doctoral student and supervisors shall come to an agreement between themselves regarding
their rights and obligations and the nature of their cooperation.
It is desirable that each student has two supervisors, one of whom is the main supervisor.
Supervisors shall reach an agreement between themselves on division of duties and the
proportion of time each will spend on the project.
The main supervisor presides over the doctoral committee. The role of the supervisors is to
monitor the doctoral student’s work and provide guidance for the doctoral project. Doctoral
students shall consult with their supervisors on the preparation of a study plan, the
structure of their studies, selection of courses, preparation of a research plan, carrying-out of
research and preparation of the doctoral thesis.
The Doctoral Board shall approve co-supervisors and experts for the doctoral committee and send
letters of appointment to the individuals in question. Should a supervisor leave her/his
post at the University, the School of Education shall endeavour to find another
supervisor for the student. Should a major conflict arise between supervisors
or between a student and her/his supervisors, the matter shall be referred to
the Doctoral Board, which will recommend a solution. The Doctoral Board shall set more detailed
rules on the role of the supervisors, doctoral student and doctoral committee
and their cooperation.
Article 8
Progress of study
12
A revised study plan is expected to have been prepared within one year of commencing study (cf.
Article 9). A student and her/his supervisors shall work together to prepare the study plan. The
study plan shall include a list of planned courses and their weight in the study programme.
Changes to the study plan are subject to the approval of the doctoral committee and the
confirmation of the Centre for Graduate Studies.
Doctoral students are expected to attend doctoral seminars regularly and discuss their project at
least twice during the course of study, either in the same forum or a comparable forum.
Students are required to spend a minimum of one semester at a university outside Iceland or
participate in comparable formal collaboration with scientists from abroad. A student’s
supervisors shall approve her/his report on the study period abroad and deliver it to the doctoral
studies supervisor.
Supervisors shall encourage the doctoral student to participate actively in the academic
community of the School and international scholarly activities and monitor that s/he does so.
The School of Education Office of Academic and Student Affairs shall maintain an academic record
for each and every student, in which the date of initial registration shall be specified and
whether s/he is registered in Ed.D. or Ph.D. studies. The size of the doctoral
thesis and the number of credits completed shall likewise be specified. The
academic record shall also contain application materials, study and research
project plans, information on supervisors and experts involved in the study
programme, progress reports and the findings of the study evaluation.
Article 9
Responsibilities of doctoral students
Doctoral students are required to submit the following
reports and to respond to surveys relating to their studies upon being
requested to do so:
1.
In May of each year, doctoral students shall complete an electronic survey on their
position in their studies; this information is used in preparing doctoral study plans.
2.
Doctoral students shall submit an annual progress report by October 1st of
each year. The purpose is to obtain an overview of the position of each and
every student in her/his studies. In this report, the supervisors and student
shall evaluate the progress of study. The student’s supervisors must approve
the report and send it to the Doctoral Board for review. If a student’s
progress is unsatisfactory, the Doctoral Board may place conditions on the
student’s continuing in the study programme.
3.
A student shall submit a revised study plan and research plan to her/his supervisors
within one year of commencing study.
4.
A student shall submit a report to the Doctoral Board on her/his research project for
intermediate evaluation within two years of commencing study (see Article 10).
13
It is incumbent on doctoral students to familiarise themselves with the rules and ethics governing
academic activities and accustom themselves to recognised scholarly methods in their
research and treatment of sources. Among other things, staff and students shall
show each other mutual respect in their conduct, speech and writings,
objectively exchange points of view and work together with integrity. The
provisions of Article 51 of the Rules for the University of Iceland No.
569/2009 [ATH. frumtexti: nr. 569/2009 fyrir háskóla] and the University of
Iceland Code of Ethics shall apply in other respects to the responsibilities of
doctoral students.
Article 10
Interim evaluation of research project
A formal interim evaluation of the research project shall take place no later than two years after
commencement of studies. In a report on the research project being presented by the student for
evaluation, the theoretical premises underpinning the research shall be stated; the report
shall also include a summary of prior research in the field, a description of the acquisition and
processing of data and a timetable for the research project.
A doctoral student shall submit a request to the doctoral studies supervisor that an interime
evaluation of the research project take place, with three months’ notice.
The Doctoral Board shall receive for discussion a reasoned opinion from the supervisors as to
whether s/he shall be given the opportunity to receive such an evaluation.
The interim evaluation of the research project is carried out by an evaluation committee
comprised of the supervisors and two external examiners, who are experts in the research field in
question and shall hold, asa rule, a position outside the School of Education. These external
examiners are expected to meet those requirements made of supervisors (cf. Article 11).
An evaluation of the project and the doctoral student’s performance shall be
made and a report submitted to the Doctoral Committee. This report shall
outline whether the doctoral student’s knowledge and research competence are
deemed satisfactory and what the student must do to respond to the comments of
the evaluation committee (cf. procedure on intermediate evaluation of research
projects).
Article 11
Doctoral committee
The Board of the School of Education appoints the doctoral committee within two years of a
student’s admission, unless the Doctoral Board recommends otherwise. The committee shall
not, however, be appointed before the completion of a intermediate evaluation
of the student’s research project.
The role of the doctoral committee is to monitor that the progress of study is in conformance with
the study plan and that research work meets with academic standards in the field of study in
question.
The doctoral committee shall consist of supervisors (one of whom shall chair the committee) and
one to two experts in the student’s field of study. At least one committee member shall
hold a position outside the School of Education.
14
Should a doctoral student change her/his research topic, the Doctoral Board shall review the
composition of the doctoral committee.
Article 12
Doctoral thesis requirements
A doctoral thesis must meet standards for academic and scientific methodology and represent an
independent contribution to the creation of knowledge within the field of study
in question.
A thesis shall be a comprehensive work, either in the form of a single work or a collection of
scientific articles forming a single whole. A thesis shall, as a rule, be 50,000-100,000
words in length. The Doctoral Board may grant exceptions from these length requirements.
If a doctoral student submits a thesis consisting of scientific articles, s/he must prepare a special
section summarising the contents of individual articles, presenting overall conclusions
and connecting subject matter across these articles in an academic context.
When a Ph.D. thesis is composed of articles, these articles shall number 3-5 in
total. At the time of the doctoral defence, all articles must have been
submitted for publication and a minimum of two must have been accepted for
publication in a recognised, peer-reviewed forum. In general, a minimum of two
articles are to be published in an international forum, and the doctoral
student shall be the primary author of at least three. In the case of a Ed.D. thesis, the thesis
shall consist of 2-3 articles and the doctoral student shall be the primary
author of at least two. At the time of the doctoral defence, a minimum of two
articles must have been accepted for publication in a recognised, peer-reviewed
forum.
A thesis shall, as a rule, be written in Icelandic or English and shall be accompanied by an abstract
and summary in both languages. A doctoral thesis may, however, be written in a different
language with the approval of the Doctoral Board.
Article 13
Submission and format of doctoral thesis
When the doctoral committee deems a doctoral thesis to be ready for defence, the doctoral
student shall submit a final draft to the Doctoral Board, along with the reasoned
opinion of the doctoral committee, cf. Article 11. Upon receiving the approval of the Doctoral
Board, the main supervisor shall send the thesis to opponents.
A transcript of the student’s academic record shall be submitted at the same time as the doctoral
thesis is presented for defence. The Office of Academic and Student Affairs shall prepare
and certify the transcript.
The thesis shall be available athe office of the School of Education, the School of Education Library
and the University Library for three weeks prior to the defence taking place. A
doctoral student shall submit a minimum of 15 copies to the School of
Education. When preparing the doctoral thesis, it shall be clearly indicated in
the introductory section that the project was carried out at the University of
Iceland; a student’s supervisors and school shall be named, as shall the
research institute, where applicable; University research funds or other
parties to have supported the project shall be acknowledged; and institutes or
companies outside the University to which a doctoral student has had ties in
15
the process of completing the project shall be identified. The cover of the
thesis must bear the University of Iceland logo. If a joint doctoral degree is
at issue, awarded jointly with another university or universities in accordance
with an agreement thereon, the cover of the thesis must bear the seal of both
or all universities involved.
Article 14
Opponents
Opponents at a doctoral defence shall be two independent parties who do not sit on the doctoral
committee. They are appointed by the Board of the School of Education upon
receiving the recommendations of the doctoral committee and the approval of the
Centre for Graduate Studies. Opponents shall, as a rule, hold doctoral degrees.
Care shall be taken to ensure that opponents are recognised scholars and have
published works in a forum that makes rigorous academic demands. One or both
opponents shall be selected from outside the School of Education.
Opponents shall receive a doctoral thesis at least four months before the intended defence is to
take place. They shall submit a reasoned opinion on whether they deem the thesis to be
acceptable for defence, along with comments on any essential changes that must be made, within
two months of receiving the
thesis. The doctoral student shall take a position on these comments, along
with her/his supervisors, and explain her/his position within one month’s time.
For the doctoral defence to take place, the doctoral student must have have
made satisfactory improvements to the thesis in the opinion of opponents and
supervisors.
Article 15
Doctoral defence
A student shall defend her/his doctoral thesis at the University of Iceland in a forum open to the
public. The thesis shall be judged and defended in accordance with University
rules on doctoral degrees. A grade is not given for a doctoral thesis. The School of Education shall
set more detailed rules on the holding of doctoral defences.
Article 16
Entry into force
These rules on doctoral studies at the University of Iceland School of Education are adopted in
accordance with Articles 47 and 68-69 of the Rules for the University of
Iceland No. 569/2009 and under the authority of the Act on Public Higher
Education Institutions No. 85/2008. These Rules were approved by the Board of
the School of Education , by the Faculty of TeacherEducation , by the Faculty of Sport, Leisure and
SocialEducation , by the Faculty of Education Studies and confirmed by the University Council
upon receiving the opinion of the University of Iceland Centre for Graduate Studies. These rules
shall enter into force upon publication in Section B of the Law Gazette (Stjórnartíðindi).
Approved 16 June 2011 by
the Board of the School of Education
16
2. STUDY PROCESS
At the University of Iceland, School of Education doctoral studies can be undertaken
in areas in which the necessary resources and specialist knowledge are available as
assessed by the Doctoral Board and the senior management. Doctoral studies at the
School of Education are designed to strengthen Icelandic research in nurture,
physical training and health, pedagogy, and education.
Doctoral studies at the University of Iceland, School of Education are based on
individual studies, a minimum of 180 ECTS, in addition to the required number of
credits for a master’s or candidate’s degree. The total number of credits is
permitted to be up to 240 ECTS. The Ph.D. programme is comprised of a 120-180
ECTS dissertation and 30-60 ECTS of coursework. The Ed.D. programme is comprised
of 90-120 ECTS dissertation and 60-90 ECTS of coursework.
Two degrees are offered by the University of Iceland School of Education, in
accordance with those graduate programmes offered. Example: Ph.D. in sport and
health sciences, social education, teaching studies, or education studies, and Ed.D.
in teaching studies or education studies.
17
Steps in the study process
Acceptance into the programme
Course selection (in consultation with
supervisor)
Submission of study plan (no later
than end of first year)
Presentation and assessment of
research proposal (no later than end
of second year)
Execution of research (data collecting
and processing)
Annually: - Hand
in progress report
October 1. Respond to survey
on status of
studies in the
spring.
Regularly: - No
less than 6-8
meetings with
supervisor/s per
year. - Present at
seminars. - Attend
seminars.
Writing (articles and/or dissertation)
Defence of dissertation
Study plan
At the beginning of studies the supervisor and student are expected to evaluate what skills the
student requires to carry out his or her project, and create a plan for what courses or readings the
student must complete to obtain the required skills. A plan shall also be created for the
development of a research plan, deadlines shall be determined and submission dates agreed
upon.
The study plan shall include a schedule for when the student plans to complete those courses that
he or she is required to take. It shall also include ideas for talks at conferences and writing of
articles.
The study plan shall be prepared no later than the end of the first year if the student is enrolled
part-time, or sooner if the student is enrolled full-time. The study plan shall be in writing and
approved by the supervisor and student. The supervisor submits the study plan to the doctoral
board for formal approval.
Courses
Doctoral students enrol in courses in consultation with their supervisor/s to strengthen their
knowledge and skills, as necessary to carry out the research project. Doctoral students are able to
take a variety of courses at the graduate level at the School of Education, at other schools within
the university, overseas, at other universities, or in the form of specially organized reading and
conference courses.
Course registration takes place twice per year in accordance with dates published in the Course
Catalogue, which are publicly announced to students.
Registration of credits earned outside of UI is done through filling out and submitting a specific
form (see the Forms chapter, below).
18
Reading and conference courses (í. lesnámskeið) are offered to doctoral students based on their
own suggestions. Students can request that such courses be held and can suggest their topic,
scope, and appropriate teachers. Such suggestions should be made to the coordinator of the
doctoral programme. Roughly 6-8 students are required in order for a reading and conference
course to be held. When the course has been approved by a Head of the Faculty it is published in
the Course Catalogue and advertised amongst the doctoral students. The purpose of such reading
and conference courses is first and foremost for a group of students to read and discuss specific
materials under the supervision of a teacher. Formal lectures are not expected. The final
assessment for a course of this nature is based on written assignments where students display
their knowledge of the material and their abilities to apply such knowledge. An example of such
courses offered in 2009-2010 is shown in appendix C.
Research plan
(see Article 10 of the Rules)
Students are expected to submit a fully prepared research plan no later than by the end of the
second academic year.
Once the research plan has been prepared, the student shall make a request to defend the plan. A
special form is attached to this guide. Supervisor/s shall submit a proposal for assessment to the
doctoral board. This plan is intended to be an important milestone regarding the student’s
commitment to his or her studies and his or her ability to tackle them. Special practice guidelines
regarding the defence and assessment of plans are introduced in the chapter Quality guidelines,
below.
A complete research plan is expected to be around 40-60 pages, where a large portion is a draft of
the theoretical backdrop of the research, and the organisation and execution of the research, but
also includes a clear plan for the structure of the thesis.
If a student is accepted to the doctoral studies at the School of Education having already
completed a lot of work they are nonetheless expected to have the doctoral committee confirm
the research plan, even if the research is already underway.
A research plan shall, amongst other things, include:
Introduction
 Introduction and scope of the topic
 General statement of purpose, goals and necessity of the research
 Theoretical justification for the project and how it relates to the past experience or future
plans of the author
State of the art
 Theoretical approach and definition of concepts, as needed
 Status of existing knowledge from related research projects
 Description on the subject in context with the theoretical overview and results on the
status of knowledge
 Research questions to be answered or issues to be discussed
Methods and methodology
 Methodology and research design
 Structure/format of the project
 Preliminary inquiries
 Statement regarding data collection
19



Ethical issues
Planned processing of data
Project limitations
Time and execution plan
Bibliography/List of references
If the student has elected to write articles as opposed to a dissertation then he or she shall
include a description of each planned article, what topic it will address, what data will be used,
and how it will be structured. It is important that the combination of articles relate to the
research question. The plan should preferably include, if at all possible, ideas regarding writing of
articles with or without the supervisor/s.
Seminars
Doctoral seminars at the School of Education will be held on a regular basis. For clarification, see
appendix B for the schedule of the doctoral school 2009-2010, and in appendix D see a list of
foreign scholars who were involved in assessing research plans, holding open talks, or providing
doctoral students with individual guidance.
Firstly the seminars should be an venue for general, communal discussion regarding the doctoral
projects. It is expected that this discussion will often regard technical, in particular
methodological, matters. In general a doctoral student is allocated 30-40 minutes, but students
can wish for a longer time in advance, and often the material does not demand such a long time.
The presentation shall not take up more than half of the allocated time. Great demands will be
made of registered doctoral students to take part in these seminars, and each student shall
present their project at least once per year in such seminars. In this regard a great emphasis will
be placed on the presenter explaining clearly to those attending the seminar what he or she is
trying to accomplish with the project, regardless of what part of the project is being discussed at
the time.
Secondly the seminar will be an arena for discussions and presentations regarding a variety of
topics that affect doctoral students as a group, or some part of a group, such as regarding specific
technical or theoretical issues.
Thirdly the seminars are an arena for the final presentation of doctoral students who will soon be
defending their dissertation.
Supervisors are expected to attend seminars when their students are presenting. The student
shall consult the supervisor in regards to timing. Emphasis will be placed on presentation and
manner. It is for students to develop skill in discussing his or her project and in public
presentation. If a student is going to a conference with a talk it is recommended that he or she
present at a seminar and practice and receive constructive criticism. When presenting a doctoral
student shall submit an abstract of his or her presentation to the project manager one week prior
to the seminar, and later a slide presentation that are stored in the doctoral student’s file in Ugla.
At a student’s first seminar presentation (at the end of the first year) he or she presents the
project and the research questions that he or she has been shaping. During the second year the
student can present a component of the project that he or she is working on.
An attendance roster is held during seminars, and it is important for supervisor/s to review with
their students what seminars they should attend together.
20
Study time abroad
As stated in the regulations, students are required to spend at least one semester at a university
abroad, or engage in a similar formal collaboration with scholars overseas. The purpose of this
requirement is to connect with the international scholarly community in the field of the doctoral
research and to encourage participation in international research collaboration. The selection of
the institution abroad and/or collaborating partners shall be in full consultation with the student’s
supervisor/s. Upon completion of the student’s time abroad the supervisor/s shall approve the
student’s report regarding the time abroad or the collaboration and submit it to the coordinator
of the doctoral programme.
Record of progress
Students are required to submit certain information each academic year, which is important to
maintain organization and oversight in the programme, and to provide students with good
service.
Two types of information are required regarding the progress of studies:
 In the autumn doctoral students are required to submit a progress report in order to
provide an overview of each and every student’s progress in the programme.
 In the spring each doctoral student receives a survey querying their status in the
programme. This information is primarily intended to aid in the preparation of plans, for
instance regarding defences, presentation of research plans, and decisions regarding
admission of new students.
Progress report in the autumn
On 1st October each year doctoral students at the School of Education submit a progress report,
which is in two parts. The first part is a progress report describing the activities of the past
academic year, until 1st October, and include information regarding participation and activity in
the scholarly community. The second part of the report is the completed form Current student
status (see appendix), which the student fills out more of each year.
The process is as follows: the doctoral student writes the progress report, submits it to the lead
supervisor who makes comments and calls for explanations or corrections as appropriate. The
report shall be saved under the student’s name and year. When it is fully prepared the lead
supervisor sends the report to the project manager of the doctoral programme no later than 1st
October each year.
Progress reports are reviewed by members of the doctoral board, after which the student and
supervisor/s receive feedback presented on a special form. Those students who are deemed to
not have shown sufficient progress will be summoned for an interview. Further information
regarding the format and content can be found later in this handbook.
Update of status of doctoral studies in the spring
In the spring each doctoral student receives a survey querying their status in the programme.
Questions include, for example, whether the student’s stay at the School of Education or abroad
is complete, whether methods courses or courses in the student’s specialized field are complete,
what the state of the research plan is, whether data gathering and/or analysis is complete, and
how the writing of results is progressing. The survey also asks about the doctoral committee,
presentations of the doctoral project, award of funds/grants, and the student is asked to roughly
estimate how far along in the programme they believe they are.
21
Doctoral dissertation and defence
Please refer to Articles 12-15 of the Doctoral Studies Regulations at the School of Education (see
above) regarding the presentation and submission of the doctoral dissertation and the
proceedings of the defence.
Joint degree with another university
The possibilty of some doctoral students graduating with a joint degree (i.e. from two universities)
is being looked into. Collaboration between supervisors is necessary for this to become a reality.
The student is then enrolled at both universities and fulfills the academic requirements of both
institutions. The student works on his or her doctoral research under the guidance of both
supervisors and the collaboration is based on a contract that is made between the student and
the two supervisors.
Further information regarding such arrangements can be found here:
http://www.universitas21.com/DDOGS/jointphd.html
http://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_121686_en.doc
22
Student-supervisor collaboration
Each doctoral student shall, from the start of his or her studies, be assigned supervision (see
Article 9 of the Regulations). The selection of a project is primarily the responsibility of the
student in consultation with his or her supervisor/s.
Student responsibility
Emphasis is placed on the student being responsible for his or her studies. The student’s role is to:
 arrange with supervisor/s what sort of supervision is most appropriate.
 arrange meetings and negotiate work between meetings.
 prepare a study plan, research plan, and time plan for project completion.
 work on his or her project in accordance with the approved plan.
 allow supervisor/s to monitor the progress of the project.
 participate in seminars at the Doctoral School.
 seek the permission of the supervisor/s prior to commencing the research.
Supervisor responsibility
The role of the lead and co-supervisors is primarily to:
 provide advice regarding the scope of the topic and the presentation of the research
questions.
 provide guidance on gathering and processing of data.
 provide guidance on how to access specialist references in libraries or other databases.
 discuss presentation of findings.
 supervise the progression of the project and assess it with an eye to the work plan.
 participate in discussions regarding problems that arise.
 participate in the final assessment of the doctoral project in collaboration with the
doctoral committee.
 the lead supervisor chairs the doctoral committee.
Collaboration of student and supervisor





Supervisors and students are expected to meet regularly during the study period. It is
necessary for these meetings to be documented, that is how often they are held, what is
discussed, and what the conclusion is (see an example of a form later in the handbook).
Students can have meetings with their lead supervisor, co-supervisor, or both at once, as
is appropriate.
It is suggested that minutes be written after each meeting. The student shall write the
minutes and send to the supervisor in email. The supervisor reads and signs the minutes
to confirm agreement, or confirms approval through email. The student and supervisor
archive the meeting minutes.
There is no requirement as to how often a supervisor meets with a student. However,
students must be able to expect a certain minimum number of meetings with the
supervisor, and there shall be no less than 6-8 meetings per year, regardless of whether
the student is enrolled part-time or not. It is also necessary for students to report to their
supervisor regarding progress. Meetings are sometimes intended to review materials or
plans, but sometimes only to review progress, have a conversation, such as regarding the
progress of the research.
All materials submitted to the supervisor for review must be submitted with sufficient
advance notice.
The role of the supervisor is first and foremost to provide guidance, support, and
encouragement to the doctoral student. They shall not steer the project other than to
23

ensure that it is in line with those requirements made of doctoral projects. The doctoral
student is not required to wholly adhere to the supervisor’s instructions. The doctoral
project is the student’s project.
At the start of supervision it is normal to discuss the content and structure of the
supervision, how often the student and supervisor should plan to meet, how long each
time, and what demands can be made of the supervisor’s time and work. The supervisor
has a specific amount of time allocated to supervision and his/her/their work must fall
within this frame.
The first year
During the doctoral student’s first year the role of his or her supervisor/s is primarily to support
the student in course selection, preparation of the study plan, selection of reading materials, and
the preparation of putting together the research plan.
Supervisor meetings
It is very important that time spent with the supervisor/s is well used. The doctoral student is
expected to be well prepared for meetings and to show up in a punctual manner. It is
recommended that the student submit an agenda for the meeting to the supervisor/s well in
advance.
The student is expected, from the outset, to keep a journal of the project, and to commence
gathering data and materials in an organized fashion. It is important that the doctoral student
keep a register of meetings with his or her supervisor, and write up minutes after each meeting.
This is useful for the student, as the result of each meeting should be defined, as should the next
steps in his or her work, but it also useful when preparing the annual progress report. It also gives
the supervisor/s a good idea of how the student views the supervision and can do away with
potential misunderstandings.
Supervisor/s are expected to read drafts of individual chapters, and of the project as a whole, and
to make comments and provide feedback. The student must make clear to the supervisor/s each
time what sorts of comments he or she is looking for.
Students should always keep a copy of any materials they submit to their supervisor/s - accidents
do happen!
Doctoral committee
Each doctoral student working on a doctoral project is appointed a doctoral committee. The
doctoral committee is comprised of the supervisor/s as well as a specialist/s in the project’s field.
The role of the doctoral committee is to:
 review the research plan for the doctoral project
 review the dissertation before it is submitted for assessment
 other projects as may arise/be required
The doctoral committee is appointed when the student submits a research plan for his or her
project, and is disbanded when the dissertation has been defended.
Expectations of authorship
Doctoral students are the sole authors of their dissertations.
It is important to discuss and define the right of students and supervisor/s to be co-authors of
doctoral articles, or later writings that are based to some extent on the doctoral project. It is
important to draw up a formal agreement regarding these matters, which shall always be based
on mutual rights and respect. If a doctoral student elects to submit articles as components of a
24
doctoral dissertation the student is required to be the first author of at least two of the articles.
Supervisor/s should not expect to always be co-authors of students’ articles.
Students and supervisors can take into account guidelines on (co-)authorship that are found in
appendix E when preparing a formal agreement on authorship.
Assessment of prior studies
If a student who is commencing studies at the University of School of Education has previously
been enrolled in similar or equal university studies he or she can apply to have those prior studies
credited as part of his or her studies at the School of Education. Doctoral applicants for
assessment of prior studies cannot assume that their application will be approved, and are
therefore advised to proceed with studies as if the assessment has not occurred until a conclusion
is reached.
Assessment committee
An assessment committee, appointed by the Doctoral Board, is responsible for evaluation of prior
studies. The committee is comprised of two Doctoral Board representatives, one of whom is the
chair of the Doctoral Board, and the project manager of the doctoral board, who is the employee
of the committee. The evaluation committee works in accordance with procedural guidelines
which, amongst other things, ensure an overall viewpoint and accordance with criteria for
evaluation, as detailed below.
Preparation of applications (see form later in the handbook)
For the evaluation committee to be able to review an application for assessment of prior
university studies that application must fulfil the following criteria:
 The student shall state which courses at the School of Education he or she believes to
have been fulfilled by previous university studies.
 The student shall state which courses, of those completed in previous studies, he or she
wishes to receive credit for. The name and credits of the course shall be included. The
application shall include a description of the courses and a signed and stamped
photocopy of the academic transcript from the respective institution.
 The application shall include information on if the courses have previously been
submitted for credit assessment at the University of Iceland or another university. The
findings of the assessment must be included in the application.
Applicants are responsible for including all of the above information in their applications so that it
is possible to review and process them. If an application does not fulfil the requirements it will be
not be reviewed.
Processing of applications
The evaluation committee of the Doctoral Board processes applications with the criteria here
below in mind, in consultation with the supervisor/s. The committee is permitted to seek the
guidance of a specialist in the respective field, if necessary.
In general the processing of applications can take 6-8 weeks from the time all materials have been
received. After the application is reviewed the doctoral student and the supervisor/s will receive a
notification of the outcome of the assessment, a copy of which is sent to the OASA at the School
of Education for their records.
General stipulations regarding assessment of prior studies
When assessing prior studies every effort shall be made to assess courses in a particular field as
the equivalent and equal to courses in the proposed study programme at the School of Education,
25
despite the content of the courses not being fully the same. It is not possible to receive credits for
a course that has previously counted towards a completed degree. A student who wishes to
commence studies again, after taking a leave from studies, shall commence studies in accordance
with the structure and organization in place when recommencing, and the evaluation committee
shall recommend in what manner older courses fulfil the requirements of the new structure.
Limitations on the assessment of prior studies
In general no studies other than formal university studies can be assessed for credits. A final
project or thesis cannot be assessed for credits. If 10 or more years have passed since prior
studies were completed such prior studies are not generally credited. The evaluation committee is
only permitted to credit whole courses from prior studies. The evaluation committee is permitted
to take into account grades earned when courses are credited, and for instance to reject the
crediting of a course completed with a grade below 6.
26
3. PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES
Each doctoral student carries responsibility for registrations for
his or her own studies. At the beginning of their studies each
student gets a letter stating dates for registration. If a student
does not register at the right time he/she can expect to pay
higher registration fees.
Each year the student should register for further studies. The
rules on doctoral studies require students to be registered at all
times.
Registration for individual courses is also the responsibility of
the student. He/she should register for courses approved by the
supervisor or compulsory courses.
27
Registration of participation in international courses
The process for transferring credits from international courses attended by School of Education
doctoral students is outlined below. Note: Office of Academic and Student Affairs (OASA)
Prior to the course
Action
Time
Execution
1
Doctoral students select courses
All year
2
Intended course listed on form “Study
contract for international course”
3
Original copy of signed study contract
submitted to OASA, supervisor keeps
photocopy
Submit required attachments to OASA:
course description and reading list
(copy)
Copy sent to finance department if SoE
required to cover cost ahead of time
Min. one month
prior to course start
date
One month prior to
course start date
Student in consultation with
supervisor
Supervisor/course coordinator
with student
4
5
6
7
8
With study contract
Supervisor/course coordinator
Supervisor/course coordinator
As soon as available
OASA
Scanned copy sent to SoE Course
Catalogue representative
Course created in Ugla in accordance
with information in the study contract
As soon as available
OASA
As soon as possible
Course Catalogue representative
or OASA
Course registered on doctoral
student’s transcript, incomplete
As soon as it has
been created
OASA
After course completion
Action
Time
Responsibility/Execution
1-a
Student receives overview/statement
of completed course
Upon course
completion
1-b
When SoE course coordinator
completes course assessment: writes
statement and submits OASA - skip to
part 6
Student submits original overview/statement from international school to
supervisor/stand-in
Course approved, overview/statement
signed, email sent to OASA (or original
of study contract signed on site)
Original of overview/statement for
course submitted to OASA (supervisor
can store copy, if desired)
Student can store original overview,
OASA keeps certified copy
Study contract and
overview/statement scanned and
attached to student in Ugla
Course listed as completed on student
transcript in accordance with
information in study contract or email
from supervisor
Original of study contract and
overview/statement for school saved
in doctoral student’s portfolio at the
OASA
Upon course
completion
International school (e.g. submitted
by mail after the fact), student can
request it
Course coordinator
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
As soon as possible
Doctoral student
At the same time or
as soon as possible
Supervisor/course coordinator
When approval is
granted
Doctoral student
At the same time
OASA
Same day or as soon
as possible
OASA
Same day or as soon
as possible
OASA
Same day or as soon
as possible
OASA
28
Evaluation of the research proposal
The doctoral student should present his/her research proposal for evaluation not later than two
years after commencing doctoral studies. The proposal is evaluated in a meeting of supervisors and
two evaluators external to the School of Education who are specialists in the area under study. They
constitute the evaluation committee as well as the chairperson appointed by the Doctoral board.
The committee evaluates the proposal and the performance of the doctoral student and submits its
results to the doctoral board as well as any steps to be taken. In the evaluation report it should be
stated whether there is any need to change the study outline or the proposal, and whethere the
knowledge and competence of the student to carry out research is considered to be acceptable.
The structure of the proposal defence
The proposal defence is held in two parts:
 A research seminar, open to all faculty members and graduate students of the School. The
seminar will allow for a 40 minute lecture and 20 minutes of discussion.
 This is followed by a meeting attended by the student and a Proposal Defence Committee
(PDC), which will examine the quality of the dissertation proposal and the competence of
the student.
Aim and objectives
The aim of the proposal defence is twofold:
 To assess the knowledge and ability of the student to carry out research in the selected area.
 To allow the doctoral student to receive feedback which might improve the dissertation and
identify potential problems.
The specific objectives of the proposal defence are to:
 Assess the academic relevance of the proposed research.
 Ensure that the proposed research topic is adequately defined and feasible.
 Allow the doctoral student to receive advice on the questions posed in the area of study, on
theories, on current research and on methodological issues.
 Assess the knowledge and capability of the study in the research area.
Members of the Proposal Defence Committee
The Proposal Defence Committee comprises of:
a) a representative of the doctoral board, as chairperson/moderator
b) the student's supervisor(s)
c) two experts from outside the School of Education, one of whom may be/become a member
of the student´s doctoral committee.
A member of staff will attend as rapporteur.
The open presentation
The student will make a 40 minute presentation of his/her research proposal in a lecture open to all
academic members of staff and graduate students in the School of Education. An additional 20
minutes are scheduled for questions and discussion at the end of the student’s presentation.
The evaluation meeting
The doctoral student shall submit a research proposal for assessment no later than two years after
studies commence.
29
The doctoral student is required to give the programme coordinator three months notice requesting
that his or her proposal be assessed.
The Doctoral Board discusses a request from the supervisor/s as to whether the doctoral candidate
should be given the opportunity to submit a research proposal for assessment.
The assessment of the research proposal is two fold: The first is a presentation where the student
presents his or her proposal to the School’s staff and graduate students. Then a meeting is held with
the supervisor/s and two evaluators who are external to the School of Education and are specialists in
the respective research field. The student’s proposal and performance is assessed and the findings are
submitted to the Doctoral Board for next steps. The findings shall comment on whether the student’s
knowledge and research skills are considered sufficient and what the student is required to do to
respond to the evaluation committee’s findings. It shall be noted whether or not the student’s
response is required to be reviewed again by an evaluation committee or if it is sufficient that the
doctoral committee review it.
The chairperson/moderator ensures that the defence is conducted fairly and constructively.
Questions to the student will be put by each member of the committee, and there will be at least
two rounds of questions. The questions will cover, for example, the research topic, related theory,
related research and the proposed design and methodology.
A report from the moderator in consultation with the supervisor(s) and the rapporteur must be sent
to the doctoral board within 10 days of the defence. The report will, if necessary, include the nature
of the changes required to the proposal itself, the date by which the changes should be made, and
which members of the committee should approve the changes. Some changes may only be
necessary for the final dissertation and not for the proposal itself to be approved.
This meeting will take 1 ½ - 2 hours. The student will then leave the room while the PDC discusses
the assessment of the proposal and the student’s knowledge and skills.
The student must be informed of the decision of the committee at the time of the defence.
Possible outcomes
The Proposal Defence Committee will make one of four recommendations:
a) the proposal is acceptable and the student shows the necessary knowledge and skills in the
research area.
b) the proposal is acceptable but the student must strengthen his/her knowledge and skills in the
research area and should demonstrate this to his/her doctoral committee within six months.
c) the proposal itself is not acceptable but a second full defence can be undertaken within four
months, after which the PDC will pass the students, suggest a transfer to an MA programme or
suggest that the student should withdraw from the doctoral programme.
d) The student does not show the necessary skills and knowledge nor is the proposal acceptable
and the student is advised to develop a new proposal and strengthen their knowledge and skills.
The PDC may advise the student to leave the programme.
Responsibilities and time schedule
The board will decide on possible times for the defence of proposals.
The student, with the approval of the supervisor(s), will give the doctoral board three months’ notice
of his/her intention to defend the proposal.
The supervisor(s) will select at least three external experts willing to take part in the defence and
notify the doctoral board accordingly.
30
The choice of experts will be approved by the doctoral board at least two months before the
defence. The board will send the selected experts notice of their decision and name the board
member who will chair the defence.
The board in cooperation with the student and supervisor will select an actual date when all
members of the Proposal Defence Committee can attend.
The proposal will be sent by the student to members of the committee at least one month before
the proposed defence.
The research seminar will be advertised with ten days’ notice by the doctoral board.
The content of the proposal
The proposal should include:
 Background to/origins of the study
 A theoretical rationale for the project
 A general statement of purpose
 A review of the research literature (state of the art knowledge)
 Problem statement, arising from the theoretical rationale and conclusions reached in the
literature review
 Research questions
 The design of the project
 Methodological issues
 Ethical issues
 Time plan
 References
Time-limit
If the student does not submit a research proposal within two years, a request for an extension must
be submitted to the doctoral board by the supervisor and student. The request must include an
explanation of the current status of the student’s research and the reason for extension.
31
Defence of the doctoral thesis – overview of key events
Time plan
Actions
Documents
Five to six months
beforet he defence
The doctoral candidate sends a
full version of the thesis to the
doctoral committee
A request from the student to
present the thesis for defence
(Document 1, next page).
Five months before
the defence
The doctoral committee agrees
that the thesis is ready for
defence
The doctoral committee sends its
agreement to the doctoral board
(Document 2, next page).
The doctoral board discusses the
request for the defence of the
thesis.
Four months before
the defence
Contact made with external
examiners
The lead supervisor sends
information on three possible
examiners to the board (Document
3, next page).
The candidate sends a copy of
the thesis to the examiners not
later than four months before
the defence.
The dean agrees to the defence
and appoints the examiners
(Document 4, next page).
Notice of the proposed defence is
sent to the rector´s office
(Document 5, next page).
Two months before
the defence
The examiners send their
comments on the thesis to the
doctoral board and the
supervisors.
The student responds to the
comments and makes alterations
if necessary, in consultation with
the doctoral committee.
One month before
the defence
The doctoral student sends a
final copy to the committee and
the examiners no later than one
month before the defence.
The essay is submitted for defence.
The student prepares a 20-25
minutes presentation on the
thesis.
The student prepares the essay for
printing.
A printed copy of the thesis
should be available one week
before the defence.
32
Other preparations are made in
response to requests from the
OASA, the dean´s office and the
rector´s office.
Key documents in preparation of the defence
Document 1
Request from the student to present the thesis for defence
A letter from the student is sent to the supervisor(s) and committee with a request to present
his/her thesis for defence and to request permission to register for graduation.
The following documents accompany this request


A certified transcript from the OASAr of the courses taken as part of doctoral studies and the
total number of units completed. Care must be taken to record any courses taken abroad or
with other departments as part of the doctoral studies
Confirmation from the OASA that the student has always paid the required registration fees.
Document 2
Request from the doctoral committee to the doctoral board
The doctoral committee submits a request to the doctoral board for the student to present his/her
thesis for defence. The following information accompanies the request:
 Name and ID number of student, name of supervisor(s) and others in the doctoral
committee.
 Overview of doctoral studies, including the period of study and the courses taken as part
of the doctoral studies.
 Information on the essay, including its title, the table of contents and information on the
research topic, its scientific value and any innovatory aspects.
Any relevant papers on academic progress of the student with regard to examinations, any papers
which have been published or are intended for publication (i.e. submitted, accepted, in press or
published) or other documents which the student wishes to present before defence and graduation.
Document 3
Possible examiners
The supervisor(s) submits to the doctoral board and the dean three possible names of external
examiners The table of contents of the essay and the CV of the possible examiners accompany the
request. The supervisor reminds the coordinator to send it on the dean for the final decision..
Document 4
The appointment of the examiners and permission to defend
The dean appoints two examiners on receipt of a proposal from the doctoral board. The dean grants
the student permission to defend the thesis and sends notice of this to the supervisor(s).
Document 5
Announcement of the defence
The dean informs the dean´s office and the rector´s office of the intended defence, and a copy is
sent to the candidate and the supervisors. In the letter from the dean there is the following
information: the name and ID number of the students, the research area, the title of the essay and a
short description of its contents, as well as the date and place for the defence. The names of the
supervisor, the members of the committee and the examiners are also listed in the announcement.
33
Criteria for examination of the final thesis
The thesis is forwarded to an external examiner in confidence. An examiner is under an obligation to
maintain confidentiality, and in no circumstances should he/she discuss the thesis or any part of the
examination process with a third party without the prior approval of the Doctoral board. Each
examiner is asked to indicate whether the thesis makes a significant contribution to knowledge and
understanding of the field concerned, whether the thesis contains material worthy of publication in
a form appropriate to the discipline, and the format and literary presentation of the thesis are
satisfactory.
Examiners are asked to make general comments on the thesis:
Does the review demonstrate both a thorough knowledge of literature and
Literature review and theories relevant to the topic and general field, and of the candidate's
theoretical background ability to exercise critical and analytical judgement of that literature and
relevant theories?
Topic
Does the thesis deal with a topic of sufficient range and complexity to meet
the requirements of the doctoral degree?
Investigation of topic
Does the thesis comprise a sufficiently coherent investigation of the chosen
topic?
Methodologies
Does the thesis display a mastery of appropriate methodology and/or
theoretical material?
Publication
Are any parts of the thesis, in the opinion of the examiner, worthy of being
the basis of a publication?
Presentation
Is it satisfactory in extent, style and literary presentation?
Original contribution
Does the thesis make an original contribution to knowledge in its relevant
field?
Conduct &
presentation
Does the thesis meet internationally recognized standards for the conduct
and presentation of research in its field?
Summary
Is the thesis a work of substance such as may reasonably be expected of
candidates who have fully applied themselves to research for not less than
two (normally three) calendar years, or for a longer but equivalent period of
part-time study?
Examiners are asked to submit their report in two parts:
a) Information that may be released to the candidate before the oral examination
b) Questions for the oral examination - and whether these may be released to the student
before the oral examination.
The initial reports of the examiners are directed to the doctoral board and are confidential until they
have been approved by the board. Once the thesis has been approved to proceed to oral
examination, or for revisions prior to the oral, the external examiners' reports may be released to
the lead supervisor and the candidate in accordance with the directions of the examiners.
34
Oral defence of the doctoral thesis
The Dean of the School of Education is in charge of the doctoral defence.
Aim
The main aim of the oral defence is to have a professional and academic debate between the Ph.D.
candidate and examiners about the thesis. The candidate has to demonstrate his/her command and
knowledge of the subject and his/her ability as a public speaker/lecturer.
Role of the examiners
The examiners must critically examine the thesis. They should promote discussion about the
methodology, analysis, interpretation, ethics and other issues arising from the thesis.
Examiners may divide their responsibilities before the defence so that they are in charge of different
parts of the thesis. They can also decide in advance who is to ask questions on different issues. Both
examiners must however give an overall written evaluation of the thesis.
Ceremony
The Dean is in charge of the occasion
When entering the room where the defence is to take place, the Dean goes first, then the examiners
and finally the candidate.
The Dean introduces him/herself, the candidate and the examiners briefly and announces the title of
the thesis. He/she then explains how the defence is organised, the presentation by the candidate
and the role of the examiners and the right of the public to raise questions or make comments. The
Dean informs the gathering who the supervisors were and who were on the doctoral committee.
The defence starts with a presentation by the candidate of his/her research project. The allocated
time is 20-30 minutes. It is important that the agreed time frame is adhered to as it is part of the
examination that the candidate should be able to stay within the allotted time. The Dean can
terminate the presentation should the candidate exceed the agreed upon time.
The candidate is permitted to use common teaching aids such as a data projector.
The candidate must start the presentation by thanking the niversity of Iceland for accepting the
thesis for defence.
The external examiners present their evaluation of the thesis according to a prior agreement as to
who should go first. They can organise their review of the research in the field and the work of the
candidate as they choose, including demonstrations or explanations and questions to the candidate.
When the examiners have finished, the Dean will offer those in the audience who have made an
indication prior to the debate to make comments. He/she shall then invite short comments from the
general audience.
The candidate must respond to all comments.
The Dean then announces that the examiners and the doctoral committee will leave the room to
decide whether the thesis should be accepted. They return to the room when a conclusion has been
reached. The Dean and members of the committee return to their seats or onto the stage.
35
Closing of the ceremony
The Dean announces the result. If the defence has been successful, he/she then reads the doctoral
certificate, hands it to the new doctor and congratulates him/her. The examiners may now offer
their congratulations.
The Dean then invites the new doctor to speak.
The new doctor thanks the Dean for being in charge of the ceremony, thanks his/her examiners and
others whom he/she chooses to thank officially. Finally the doctor should thank the University of
Iceland for the honour bestowed upon him/her and express his/her best wishes for the University.
The Dean thanks the new doctor for the presentation and defence. He/she thanks the examiners
especially for their contribution and those others who attended the oral defence. He/she then
presents the new doctor with a flower arrangement.
The Dean closes the ceremony.
The new doctor and his/her closest family (spouse, children and parents), the examiners, Dean and
doctoral committee are then invited for a short celebration in the office of the rector. There they
sign a visitors’ book, in which the rector has ahead of time recorded the occasion for the celebration.
Ethical guidelines
These are currently under translation by the University
36
4. FORMS
All the forms shown in this section can be found as
invididual document in the doctoral file on Ugla.
37
Student and supervisor meetings
Date
Present
Topics for discussion
Signature
of student
38
Short record of individual meetings
A short report of each meeting between a student and a supervisor should be written by the student
and sent to the supervisor who makes comments where necessary.
Supervisor:
Student:
Date and length of meeting:
Main topics discussed:
Main decisions taken:
Short description of anticipated next steps:
Date of next meeting:
Proposed topic:
Other comments:
39
Course plan
Prepared at the beginning of the course of study and revised at the end of the first year
Name of student
ID number
Name(s) of supervisor(s):
Year accepted
Working title of research project
Required ECTS
Here the course which the student intends to take are listed. It is possible that other courses will be
added later. If so then a new plan is prepared.
Name of course
Number
Workplan/timetable
Research plan
Perio
Proposed submission of proposal
40
Year
Application for transfer of credits (courses)
Submit to the OASA, with all accompanying documents
Full name:
ID number: xx
Supervisor(s): Name and e-mail address of supervisor(s)
Enrollment: Year and semester when
Proposed date of completion:
doctoral studies began
Study line: EdD or Ph.D. , essay or
publications
Research area:
 Request for previous research experience to be given credits
Short argument must accompany application
or:
Courses to be transferred to MVS and taken elsewhere:
University: Name, department
Address:
On-line site: web-site of university and department
e-mail:
Phone:
Fax:
Courses to be accredited:
Equivalent course with HÍ
Yes/no
Equivalent to
Number of name of completed course:
Note that in some case two or more courses could be equivalent to one course here. It is also
possible to give credit for specialised courses that are not offered at HÍ but that are related to the
student’s research field.
Documents which must accompany the application:
 Official transcript from the school in question showing all completed courses or
 Original or certified copy of completion of course
 Course description from official Course Catalogue
 Teaching schedule with reading list.
Have you applied before for accreditation of this course? ______________
If yes, where? ____________________________________ (Outcome of application must follow).
Date and signature of student: _________________________________________________________
41
Assessment of experience (peer-reviewed research articles)
Student:
ID:
Supervisor(s):
Enrollment: Year and semester when
Proposed date of completion:
doctoral studies began
Study line: Ed.D. or Ph.D. , essay or
publications
Research area:
Request that the following articles be assessed for credit:
Authors
Name of the article
Journal and year
Volume and page
numbers
It is possible to apply for credit for published research carried out after completion of a master’s
degree and before doctoral studies began. The criteria for publications in peer-reviewed journals are
used to assign 0, 2, 4, 6, 8 or 10 ECTS, according the impact/status of the journal Articles which are
published within the five years previous to doctoral studies will receive a maximum of 10 ECTS in
total.
It is essential that a copy of the article accompanies the application-
Have you previously applied for this work to be accrediated? ______________
If yes, where? ____________________________________
The outcome of the assessment must follow
Date and signatures:
Doctoral student: ___________________________________________________________________
Chairman of the evaluation committee:__________________________________________________
42
Request to establish a ‘reading and conference’ course
All information must be submitted in Icelandic and English according to the rules governing the
production of the HÍ Course catalogue. (Öllum upplýsingum ber að skila bæði á íslensku og ensku
samkvæmt reglum um gerð kennsluskrár Háskóla Íslands).
Course coordinator:
Umsjónarkennari:
Name of course:
Heiti námskeiðs:
Learning outcomes (Bologna(
Markmið (samkvæmt Bologna-viðmiðum):
Subject matter:
Viðfangsefni:
Organisation of course:
Vinnulag:
Reading list:
Lesefni:
Assessment:
Námsmat:
Time schedule (semester)
Tímaáætlun og önn:
Probable participants:
Væntanlegir þátttakendur (doktorsnemar):
______________________________________
Doctoral student
_______________________________________
Course coordinator
_______________________________________
Date
43
Contract for course taken abroad - FORM
Submitted to the teaching centre one month prior to the course start date
Name:
ID number:
Supervisor:
Responsibility for the course (if other than
supervisor):
Name of the course in English and in the original language if it is not in English:
Is the course being offered in cooperation between the University of
Iceland and another institution? ___Yes
___No
No. of ECTS::
If yes, who is the course leader here at the University:
If no, what international organisation is responsible for the course:
Description of course:
Travel and time plan:
Course materials:
Evaluation:
Contract approved – course recorded in student file
Date and signature:
Doctoral students ___________________________________________________________________________
Supervisor _________________________________________________________________________________
Responsible party (if other than supervisor) ______________________________________________________
(this area is filled out at the end of the course)
The course has been satisfactorily completed and should be recorded as such in the student’s file maintained
by the School of Education
 grade? ______________
 completed, no grade assigned
Verified by supervisor
Date and signature __________________________________________________________________
44
Contract for course taken abroad - INSTRUCTIONS
Submitted to the teaching centre one month prior to the course start date
Name: Full name required
ID number: Icelandic ID # required
Supervisor: Name of the student’s lead supervisor,
staffmember of UI
Supervisor’s stand-in: UI Staff Member who enters
into a study contractor with the student in the
absence of the lead supervisor
Responsibility for the course (if other than supervisor): Overseas course lead, head of department, head of
faculty, teaching manager - can be a number of individuals
Name of the course in English and in the original language if it is not in English: self-explanatory
Is the course being offered in cooperation between the University of
Iceland and another institution? ___Yes
___No
No. of ECTS: Note ½ credits if
applicable - student record will
only reflect whole credits
If yes, who is the course leader here at the University: Full name and email address.
If no, what international organisation is responsible for the course: University name, city, country.
Description of course: 2-4 sentences - this text will show on the student’s academic transcript if it is requested
inclusive of course descriptions
Travel and time plan: Exact dates if available, otherwise rough estimate. If more than one trip overseas is
involved this must be noted here.
Course materials:
Evaluation: Appended - course agenda & reading materials
Contract approved – course recorded in student file
(Teaching Centre ensures creation of course in accordance with this contract, and registers it us incomplete on
the students transcript)
Date and signature:
Doctoral students ___________________________________________________________________________
Supervisor _________________________________________________________________________________
Responsible party (if other than supervisor) ______________________________________________________
(Two photocopies are taken of the signed document, one for the supervisor and one for the doctoral student.
The original copy is sent or submitted to the Teaching Centre, where it is archived in the student’s file).
(this area is filled out at the end of the course)
(The Teaching Centre staff fill out the original copy based on an email from the supervisor (Must come from
their UI address) or the supervisor comes to the Teaching Centre to sign).
The course has been satisfactorily completed and should be recorded as such in the student’s file maintained
by the School of Education
 grade? ______________
 completed, no grade assigned
Verified by supervisor
45
Annual progress report (submit 1st October)
All doctoral students submit a two-part progress report for the previous academic year.
Part 1: A report describing the scholarly activity of the student during the past academic year only.
Part 2: Current student status (update annually)
The student prepares the report and submits it to the supervisor. Both the student and the
supervisor make a brief statement on the progress made during the year and the current status. The
report shall be submitted to the project manager by the student no later than 1st October.
All progress reports are assessed by members of the doctoral board, following which the student
and supervisor are provided with feedback. Those students who are not making adequate progress
will be called for an interview with their supervisor(s). The progress report includes the following
information:
Part I – Scholarly activity during the past academic year or since admission
A. Assessment of progress by student (150-200 words)
B. Assessment of progress by supervisor(150-200 words)
C. Doctoral project
 The research project
o State the title of the research project, goals and main research question(s). Primary
methods, data and practical value of the research project. Names of supervisors.
 Data gathering - research work
o Describe what has been done during the past year and give an overview of meetings
with supervisors (date, content, decisions).
 Applications and research plan
o State whether and what applications have been completed and their outcomes.
 Reading of literature and preparation
o State how the reading of theoretical literature has progressed and whether or what
has been written in relation to the reading.
D. Studies and participation in the scientific community
 Courses
o Report on courses that have been completed, both those that have resulted in
formal credits and others completed that have strengthened the student in his/her
studies.
 Participation in research projects
o Include information regarding participation in research collaboration.
 Conferences and seminars
o Include information on conferences and seminars attended and denote what talks
the student has given.
 Writing - books, articles and reports
o Report on what material has been written, whether or not it has been published.
This can include e.g. reports, chapters, articles or course essays.
E. Other
Here information can be added that does not clearly fall under previous sections. This can include
various general study matters or problems related to e.g. workload or supervision.
46
Part 2 – Overall status of doctoral studies (updated annually)
Name of student:
Application accepted:
Anticipated presentation of
thesis
Committee
Lead supervisor:
Institution
Co-supervisor:
Institution
Committee member 1:
Institution
Committee member 2:
Institution
Kt:
Date
Comments:
Presentation of study outline
to committee
Presentation of research
proposal to committee
Progress reports submitted
Year 1
Year 2
47
Courses taken for Ph.D.:
Name of course/no. of ECTS
Date
Presentations at doctoral
seminars within KHÍ/SoE
Title of presentation
Date
Presentations of doctoral
research at seminars in
Iceland and other countries
Title of presentation
Date
Location
Activity within KHÍ/SoE
Title
Term
Project/course
Allocated work space and
facilities
Shared office – use of
computer – access to printer
Institution and country
Location
48
Shared office – use of
computer – access to printer
Study semester abroad
elated professional activity
Title
Term
Activity
Published articles on
doctoral research
Title
Date
Journal – issue - isbn
Professional publications
during period of doctoral
studies
Grants/funding
49
50
APPENDICES
51
Appendix A – Doctoral board and administrative staff
The doctoral board of the the School of Education was appointed by the Dean of the School of Education in
January 2009. The main function of the board was to develop the doctoral programme and ensure that it
meets international standards, for example, to guarantee diverse and active international links. The board
monitors the programme and is responsible for the course of study, running courses and essential
administration, in cooperation with the departments. It maintains close contact with the Centre for graduate
studies at the University of Iceland. Members of the doctoral board have obtained a doctoral degree, are
active researchers and are doctoral supervisors.
The doctoral board is entrusted with the task of submitting proposals on the following issues to the senior
administration of the School of Education:
 Rules regarding doctoral studies, in particular, decision-making processes, rules on the intake of
students, supervisors and examiners and other measures of progress
 The working procedures of committees within the framework mentioned above
 The organisation of studies, including each intake of students
 The relationship of individual students to the departments, for example, with regard to graduation
 The financial framework for the programme
 Any other issues which the board considers important
Members of the board:
Spring and autumn
2009
Allyson Macdonald chair
Veturliði Óskarsson vicechairman
Anna Sigríður Ólafsdóttir
Börkur Hansen
Gunnar Finnbogason
Kristján Þór Magnússon
Alternate members:
Guðrún Kristinsdóttir
Guðrún Valgerður
Stefánsdóttir
Gunnhildur Óskarsdóttir
Sigrún Aðalbjarnardóttir
Svanborg R. Jónsdóttir
Spring 2010
Autumn 2010
Allyson Macdonald chair
Veturliði Óskarsson vicechairman
Amalía Björnsdóttir
Anna Sigríður Ólafsdóttir
Gunnar Finnbogason
Kolbrún Pálsdóttir
Allyson Macdonald chair
Gunnar Finnbogason vicechairman
Gretar L. Marinósson
Guðrún Kristinsdóttir
Guðrún Valgerður
Stefánsdóttir
Kolbrún Pálsdóttir
Alternate members:
Guðrún Kristinsdóttir
Gretar L. Marinósson
Gunnhildur Óskarsdóttir
Guðrún Valgerður
Stefánsdóttir
Svanhildur Kr.
Sverrisdóttir
Alternate members:
Gunnhildur Óskarsdóttir
Svanhildur Kr.
Sverrisdóttir
Spring 2011
Ólöf Garðarsdóttir chair
Anna Sigríður Ólafsdóttir
Gretar L. Marinósson
Guðrún Kristinsdóttir
Gunnhildur Óskarsdóttir
Kolbrún Pálsdóttir
Alternate members:
Amalía Björnsdóttir
Guðrún Valgerður
Stefánsdóttir
Gunnar Finnbogason
Project managers:
 Sólrún B. Kristinsdóttir project manager (since Dec 2009)
 Auður Pálsdóttir, project manager (Aug 2009-Jan 2011)
 Kristján Ketill Stefánsson, project manager (Spring 2009)
 Guðrún Eysteinsdóttir, office manager, Office of Academic and Student Affairs
52
Appendix B – Doctoral school programme 2009–2010
Autumn 2009
Many seminars are organised in collaboration with research institutes/groups and/or have a specific theme.
11. sept kl. 11:00-12:00
Kl. 12:00-13:30
Kynningarfundur fyrir nýja doktorsnema
Fundur með öllum doktorsnemum MVS. Farið yfir dagskrá vetrarins.
Handbók kynnt og helstu dagsetningar í vetur.
28. sept kl. 15:30-16:30
Stofa K208
Forstöðumenn rannsóknarstofa og rannsóknarhópa við MVS hittast og fara yfir hvernig tengja mætti
doktorsnema við starfsemi þeirra.
9. okt kl. 8:30-12:00
Stofa H207
Þema: Menntun ungra barna (Umsjón: Jóhanna Einarsdóttir)
Kynning á nemverkefnum er tengjast RannUng.
29. okt kl. 8:15-8:30
kl. 8:30-13:00
Kl. 14:00-17:00
Stofa E303 Kaffi og spjall
Kynningar nema: 4
Ráðstefna: Föruneyti barnsins – velferð og veruleiki
30. okt kl. 8:15-8:30
kl. 8:30-13:00
kl. 14:00-17:00
Stofa E303 Kaffi og spjall
Kynningar nema: 4
Ráðstefna: Föruneyti barnsins – velferð og veruleiki
4. nóv kl. 15:00-17:00
Stofa E302
Seminar in English: Writing research (Sue Books)
5. nóv kl. 11:00-14:30
Stofa E301
Þema: Menntun og starf kennara (Umsjón: Jón Torfi Jónasson)
Kynningar nema: 2
11. nóv kl. 15:00-17:00
Stofa E301
Málstofa um að skrifa á erlendu tungumáli (Veturliði G. Óskarsson)
27. nóv kl. 8:30-12:30
Stofa E304
Þema: Menntun í fjölmenningarsamfélagi (Umsjón: Hanna Ragnarsdóttir)
Kynning á verkefnum rannsóknarstofu í Fjölmenningarfræðum
Kynningar nem: 5
14. des kl. 10:00-15:30
Stofa E301 – breytt staðsetning
Þema: Náttúrufræðimenntun og stærðfræðimenntun (ESTEEM) (Umsjón: Allyson Macdonald).
Doktorsnemar ræða álitamál um mótun og framkvæmd rannsóknar sinnar og um hlutverk og eðli
þekkingar sem byggt er á og stefnt er að skapa. Málstofan fer fram á ensku.
15:00 Jólaglögg 
53
Vor 2010
29. jan
kl.14:00-17:00
Kl. 17:00
26. feb
kl. 8:15-8:30
Kl. 8:30-12:00
kl. 14:00-15:30
Stofa H207
Breyttar kröfur og reglur í doktorsnámi. Fjallað um framvindu, námsáætlanir, skráningarmál, varnir ofl.
Aðalfundur félags doktorsnema við Menntavísindasvið
Stofa E301 Kaffi og spjall
Þema: Heimspeki og lífsleikni (Umsjón: Kristján Kristjánsson og Baldur Kristjánsson)
Kynningar nem: 4
Fyrirlestur : „Birtingar í erlendum fræðitímaritum: Nokkur góð ráð.“
Kristján Kristjánsson flytur og stýrir umræðum á eftir.
Fyrirlestur: A professional doctorate – what does it involve?
Megan Crawford ræðir um hugmyndafræði að baki Ed.D-prófgráðunni
Umræður
27. feb kl. 9:00-16:00
Ráðstefna FUM (Félag um menntarannsóknir) haldin í húsnæði Menntavísindasviðs.
Dagskrá og skráning á þátttöku er á www.fum.is
26. mars kl. 8:15-8:30
Kl. 8:30-12:00
Stofa H207 Kaffi og spjall
Þema: Lífshættir barna og ungmenna (Umsjón: Sigrún Aðalbjarnardóttir)
Kynning á verkefnum rannsóknarstofu um lífshætti barna og ungmenna.
Kynningar nem: 3-4
16. apríl
Málstofa doktorsnema MVS verður haldin á AKUREYRI
(Umsjón: Rúnar Sigþórsson)
Kynningar nema
17. apríl kl. 8:30-15:30
Ráðstefna skólaþróunarsviðs HA á AKUREYRI
Heiti: Að efla manneðlið í heild sinni – lýðræðislegt samstarf í skólastarfi, sjálfstæð hugsun nemenda og
hæfni til samstarfs við aðra. Dagskrá ráðstefnunnar má sjá á slóðinni
http://www.unak.is/skolathrounarsvid/forsida/
30. apríl kl. 8:15-8:30
kl. 8:30-17:00
Stofa E301 Kaffi og spjall
Þema: Starfshættir í grunnskólum (Umsjón: Anna Kristín Sigurðardóttir)
Kynning á verkefnum rannsóknarstofu um starfshætti í grunnskólum.
Kynningar doktorsnema sem tengjast rannsókninni og annarra er fjalla um mat á skólastarfi.
7. maí kl. 8:15-8:30
Kl. 8:30 -
Stofa E301 Kaffi og spjall
Þema: Various aspects of migration (Umsjón: Hanna Ragnarsdóttir og Unnur Dís Skaptadóttir)
Kynningar nem: 8
14.-19. maí
Sociology of Education: Research Training Course in Iceland (NordForsk)
See course web: http://vefsetur.hi.is/phdsoced/
25. maí kl. 8:30-9:00
Kl. 9:00
Stofa H207 Kaffi og spjall
Lecture: Dianne Ferguson – Qualitative research – possibilities for changing education
The lecture will be based on stundents´ replies to Dianne.
26. maí 9:00-17:00
Meeting room inside the library.
Dianne Ferguson offers advice for PhD-students and/or small groups.
31. maí -3. júní
Stofa H203
Heimspekilegar forsendur uppeldisvísinda (UMD215F)
Námskeið (5 ECTS) í fjóra daga frá klukkan 9:00-12:00 alla dagana.
(Umsjón: Ólafur Páll Jónsson)
54
Appendix C – Examples of custom-designed doctoral courses
Reading and conference courses:
FOM002F Söguleg orðræðugreining (2 ECTS)
STM025F Kennslufræðileg forysta (5 ECTS)
STM026F Leiðsögn og stafsþróun kennara (5 ECTS)
STM201F Þjónustumat (10 ECTS)
UMD037F Educational action for sustainability: a global initiative (6 ECTS)
UMD038F Issues and Themes in Action Research (6 ECTS)
UMD215F Heimspekilegar forsendur uppeldisvísinda (5 ECTS)
UMD214F Sociology of Education: Research Training Course (6 ECTS)
UMD209F Menningar-söguleg starfsemiskenning (6 ECTS)
UMD006F Ráðgjöf og leiðsögn (4 ECTS)
UMD202F Kenningar Bandura um trú á eigin getu (4 ECTS)
UMM040F Kenningar Basils Bernstein (6 ECTS)
UMD039F Qualitative research – possibilities for changing education (2 ECTS)
Mini-courses:
Veggspjaldagerð
Málstofur um að skrifa á erlendu tungumáli
Notkun PowerPoint. Glærugerð
Endnote. Rafræn skráning heimilda
Nvivo. Greiningarforrit
Examples of international courses which students have completed (participants apply themselves
for admission)
Methods and Methodology in International and Cross Cultural Comparative Research. April 2010. Nordic
Centre, Fudan University, Shanghai. http://www.nordiccentre.org/
Writing Educational Research. Summer School on Academic Writing for International/European Journals
Conferences, Edited Books and Thesis. University Gothernburg and Deutsche Gesellschaft für
Erziehungswissenschaft. June 2010. See: www.eera-ecer.eu
The Role of Theory in Educational Research. The British Educational Research Association (BERA), in
association with the ESRC Teaching and Learning Research Programme (TLRP) do a series of one-day
workshops for postgraduate research all year 2010. See: www.bera.ac.uk or
http://uc-media.rhi.hi.is/tmp/nadpg/BERA_TLRPResearchTrainingWorkshops.pdf
New Researchers for the New Europe: Lifelong Learning and Active Citizenship. CiCe Fifth Annual Research
Student Conference, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain. May 2010. http://cice.londonmet.ac.uk/
The anthropological theory of the didactical (ATD). December 1, 2009
A PhD-course in science and mathematics education organised by the Department of Science Education
(IND) and the Graduate School of Education (FUKU), University of Copenhagen.
LinCS (Doctoral School in Educational Sciences) Gothenburg (www.ipd.gu.se/dses)
Learning and transitions between education and working life (2009, October 23)
Analyzing video recordings in the learning sciences (2009, October 23)
Learning, diversity and schooling (2010, January 18)
Theoretical and methodological issues in educational effectiveness research (2010, March 16)
Statistical Modelling of Complex Hierarchical Data Fredericton - October 2009
http://www.unbcrisp.ca/mail/temp/images/1/bg-header3.gif
55
Learning-in-practice: Socio-cultural and political theories in engineering, mathematics, and science
education. Sæby, Denmark – November 2009
http://www.smerg.moodle.ell.aau.dk
Capacity Building for Ph.D. supervisors in Educational and Learning research. NordForsk course, Reykjavik
Iceland. November 2008.
The role of Theory in Science Education. NordForsk doctoral course, Gothenburg, Sweden. November 2008.
The role of Theory in Educational Research. Stirling University, Scotland. June 2010.
The Millennium Children: Their Perspectives and Experiences. NordForsk course for doctoral students in
Reykjavik, February 2011. See: http://vefsetur.hi.is/nordforsk/
More information about NordForsk: http://www.nordforsk.org/
More information about LinCS (Doctoral School in Educational Sciences) Gothenburg www.ipd.gu.se/dses
56
Appendix D – International guests to the School of Education
2009–2010
October 2009
Charles Deforges, emeritus professor, University of Exeter, England
Student seminar
Meeting with the board
November 2009
Sue Books, professor and Fulbright scholar, SUNY New Paltz, USA
Seminar on writing research
February 2010
Megan Crawford, senior lecturer, Institute of Education, University of London, UK
Meeting with the board
Student seminar
Meetings with students (Anna Guðrún Edvardsdóttir, Birna Sigurjónsdóttir, Birna María
Sveinbjarnardóttir, Svanborg Jónsdóttir)
March 2010
Paul Harris, professor, Harvard University, USA
Proposal defence (Hiroe Tehada)
Public lecture
Nigel Dower, Honorary Senior Lecturer, University of Aberdeen
Teaching as part of course on Educational action for sustainability
Meetings with students (Anh-Dao Tran, Malgorzata Ziielinski, Hildur Blöndal)
April 2010
Anna Craft, professor, University of Exeter, England
Proposal defence (Svanborg R Jónsdóttir)
Meetings with students (Aðalbjörg Ólafsdóttir, Ásthildur Jónsdóttir, Gunnhildur Una Jónsdóttir)
May 2010
Dianne Ferguson, professor, Chapman University, USA
Course on qualitative research which included individual meetings with all students on the course
Meetings with students (Svanborg R. Jónsdóttir, Hermína Gunnþórsdóttir, Hrund Logadóttir, Gustavo
Deniz, Jón Ingvar Kjaran, Anh-Dao Tran, Kolbrún Pálsdóttir og Ingibjörg Kaldalóns)
August 2010
Soren Breiting, University of Aarhus, Denmark
Proposal defence (Kristín Norðdahl)
Public lecture for the GETA research group
Meetings with students (Auður Pálsdóttir, Ásthildur Jónsdóttir, Svanborg R Jónsdóttir)
September 2010
David Carr, emeritus professor, University of Edinburgh, UK
Proposal defence (Atli Harðarson)
57
Appendix E – Guidance on co-authorship of articles
Summary: Sólveig Jakobsdóttir
Used as a guide in the work of NámUST research group
In this draft guidelines on who has the right to be an author/co-author on writing up research in larger research
projects are presented. There are also comments on how to approach the problem.
Good use was made of the following guidelines

University of Pennsylvania. 1999. Co-authorship between faculty and graduate students in sociology at the
University of Pennsylvania. http://www.ssc.upenn.edu/soc/Graduate/authorshippolicy.html

BSA. 2001. British Sociological Association: Authorship guidelines for academic papers. http://www.britsoc.org.uk
Criteria
Who has the right to be a (co-)author in writing up research from projects?
Þeir sem hafa lagt til í það verkefni sem er til umfjöllunar umtalsvert hugverk, vinnu og/eða ábyrgð (significant
intellectual contribution, responsibility, substantive work, BSA, 2001) hafa höfundarrétt. En erfitt getur verið að ákveða
hvað telst umtalsvert framlag. Hefðbundnu rannsóknarferli má skipta í nokkra verkhluta og í eftirfarandi töflu eru
hugmyndir um hvort viðkomandi teljist hafa lagt nægilega mikið af mörkum með framlögum í þeim verkhlutum til að
áskilja sér höfundarrétt eða hvort nóg sé að nefna hann í þakkarorðum. Ef um er að ræða umtalsvert framlag í fleiri en
einum verkhluta er samt alltaf spurning hvort viðkomandi eigi ekki rétt á að vera meðhöfundur.
Those who have made a significant conceptual contribution, substantive work and/or responsibility to a particular
project have the right to be an author. It can be difficult however to decide on what is a “substantial” contribution.
Traditionally a research process can be divided into several components and in the following table are suggestions for
assessing whether the person in question has contributed enough to one or more components in order to be an author
or whether it is enough to acknowledge the contribution in “Acknowledgements”. If there is a significant contribution
to more than one component then the question of co-authorship must be considered.
Research components
Rights to co-authorship
Conceptual work, design of the
research
Depends perhaps on how much the conception has changed with time.
Literature review
Generally not enough to be a co-authore unless the review is the main part of
the piece of writing and the persons collecting the references has
participated in synthesising the outcome.
Construction of an instrument
Aacknowledgements
Hardly enough unless otherwise
agreed
Data/data collections
Likely, unless otherwise agreed
(UP, 1999).
Data processing and
interpretation
Individual decision. If the person concerned has taken an active part and
showed initiative in choosing methods to process the data..
Articles/reports
Without a doubt. Note that if the
results from another part of the
project are being published for the first
time then the question of coauthorship must be discussed and an
agreement reached.
Substantial contribution to the
writing of the report or article.
Review/proof-reading
Everyone who will be listed as an
author should take part in this activity.
58
Example: Students on a course run
by SJ collected data on her behalf.
Agreed at the outcome that they
would have access to their own
data but would not be co-authors
Generally not enough to be
considered an author unless
substantial changes are made.
Other comments and issues
Discuss co-authorship at the beginning of the process. This is especially important in cases of supervisorstudent cooperation. Where the writing of articles is concerned, the number of articles and the authors
should be discussed. If a student or several students are to participate, their contribution must be outlines.
Example. Sólveig Jakobsdóttir informed her students that those who collected data for her from their
schools would not be co-authors but would have access to their own data, and Solveig to all the data. One
students worked closely with Torfi and Sólveig on the data processing and writing up. It was agreed that
Sólveig would be the first author (conceptual work, design, management, writing about the method and
results, part of the introduction, background and conclusion, references), the student would be the second
author (data collection and processing under the guidance of Sólveig, report and essay writing, collection of
references, translation of part of her essay for the article, proof-reading and review) and Torfi would be the
third author (revision of the questionnaire, wrote part of the background and conclusion, thorough
proofread of the article and suggestions for improvements, references).
Order of authorship. The persons who has worked the most on the article and who took the initiative at
writing should be the first authoer and the order of other authors should follow the same principles. If the
contribution of authors is considered to be equivalent then alphabetical order and a footnote is useful.
Doctoral and master’s students should be encouraged to be the first author where appropriate. In the first
draft of the article all authors should be named and in the order in which they will appear and/or
acknowledge all contributors so that conflicts can be resolved.
Standard phrase about the project: It is recommended that in all published work from a particular project
that there is a standard sentence that the research is part of a project and a link to the homepage of the
project is provided.
Conflicts/issues: These should be directed to the project steering committee.
59