- As administrative supervisor responsible, you are responsible for the support, follow-up and appraisal of the doctoral student throughout the entire study and research period. Possible agreements for a good collaboration can be found in the charter for doctoral students and supervisors.
- You are part of the doctoral advisory committee (DBC). Together with the doctoral student, the doctoral advisory committee (DBC) is responsible for the individual curriculum of the doctoral training programme. You take into account any stipulations pertaining to the compulsory doctoral training programme. As a doctoral advisory committee (DBC) member, you are also part of the assessment committee that formulates a recommendation on whether or not the curriculum of the doctoral training programme is complete and whether or not the doctoral student in question has acquired everything in it, with the exception of the defence of the dissertation.
- Based on the doctoral student’s self-reflection report, the doctoral advisory committee (DBC) formulates an annual report on the progress of the research and the doctoral training programme. As the administrative supervisor responsible, you collect the comments and suggestions from the other members of the doctoral advisory committee (DBC), and you incorporate them into a global report that you deliver via Oasis to the Doctoral School. This report should explicitly state whether the research offers sufficient doctoral opportunities within a reasonable time span. The doctoral advisory committee (DBC) makes sure that the contents of the report are the subject of a conversation with the doctoral student, in which any additional arguments of the doctoral student are heard. The Doctoral School delivers the recommendation of the doctoral advisory committee (DBC) to the doctoral student.
- If the doctoral advisory committee (DBC) judges that the research offers sufficient doctoral opportunities, you, as administrative supervisor responsible,draw up a favourable (i.e. positive) report in writing on the self-reflection report. The favourable report is accompanied by permission to re-enrol for the following academic year and may also include recommendations or requirements.
- If the doctoral advisory committee (DBC) judges that the research does not offer sufficient doctoral opportunities, you, as administrative supervisor responsible, draw up an unfavourable (i.e. negative) report in writing on the self-reflection report. You justify this in a report demonstrating that the doctoral student was heard and given sufficient opportunities to make sufficient research progress. It is then the dean who - after consulting the Special Doctoral Committee - decides whether or not the doctoral student can re-enrol.
- If, when assessing the self-reflection report, a supervisor declares that s/he no longer wishes to supervise the doctoratewhile the other members of the doctoral advisory committee (DBC) believe that the research offers sufficient doctoral opportunities within a reasonable time span, the administrative supervisor responsible draws up an unfavourable report in writing on the self-reflection report. This report needs to demonstrate that the research offers sufficient doctoral opportunities. On the recommendation of the Special Doctoral Committee, the Faculty Council then appoints a new supervisor.
- The doctoral advisory committee (DBC) formulates a recommendation on submitting the dissertation to the Faculty Council. As administrative supervisor responsible, you request the approval of the various members of the doctoral advisory committee (DBC) for this. You submit this recommendation in Plato.
- The entire submission process is done through Plato. Through Plato, you can download the uploaded dissertation and consult the reports. All further communication also takes place through Plato.
- When the dissertation is ready for submission, the doctoral student starts the procedure in Plato.
- You complete data where necessary in Plato > My students > PhDs.
- Follow the timetable for submission of preparatory documents to the Faculty Council. In Plato, all details need to be completed, the dissertation has to be uploaded digitally, and all internal supervisors and the doctoral student must have signed the details for approval. Without this, the application cannot be processed. If requested, paper copies of the dissertation can be submitted to the Faculty Student Administration (FSA) until 16:00 the day before the meeting of the Faculty Council.
- For further explanation on the template to be completed in Plato, see the step-by-step for submitting the dissertation.
- Together with your doctoral student and in consultation with the chair and members of the Examination Board, you propose the date for the first deliberation. You take into account the availability of all those involved and the requirement that the experts of the Examination Board (the ‘reading committee’) need to upload their written report to Plato at least seven working days prior to the first part of the doctoral exam.
- The language(s) used during the first deliberation and public defence must be at least passively known by all members of the Examination Board.
- The faculty works with a list of permanent chairs of the doctoral Examination Board. If the permanent chair(s) of the relevant discipline is/are not available, you should appoint a permanent chair from another discipline.
- Together with the doctoral student, you are responsible for the practical aspects of organising the first deliberation of the Examination Board and the public defence.
- You are not a voting member of the Examination Board. However, the Faculty Council may give you permission to act as a non-voting member of the Examination Board. In this case, you can also attend the deliberations following the first deliberation of the Examination Board and the public defence as an observer.
- If the Examination Board takes a positive decision after the public defence, you or one of the supervisors will hold a laudatio for the doctoral student and the dissertation.
