The doctorate forms the basis for academic careers and the regeneration of academia, and has increasingly become important for other sectors of society. The latter is reflected in efforts on institutional, national as well as supranational levels to change and adapt the doctoral degree to new expectations. As doctoral education is embedded in research, changes in governance and funding of research further affect the doctorate. The evaluation of the doctoral thesis appears, however, to have remained true to the academic tradition: an examination committee exercising their gatekeeping in a ceremonial setting. This study sets out to explore doctoral examination committees’ evaluation practices. Insights were gained through six focus group interviews with experienced examination committee members at three large research-intensive universities in Sweden. Of particular interest is how the object of evaluation is formed, the nature of the boundary-work conducted, and variations in examination practices related to different and changing conditions for research and doctoral education. Our results show how the object of evaluation emerges through a gradual interpretation of the thesis and defence, becoming more complex and nuanced as the process of evaluation progresses from its initial stages to the final closed discussions of the committee. The finalised object of evaluation, only fully present at the conclusion of the closed meeting and hence transient in nature, encompasses the research contribution, educational achievement, and academic competence of the candidate. Furthermore, the boundary-work conducted in this process often transcends the object of evaluation to include also supervision and the local context for doctoral education and research, and hence contributes to upholding, and potential changing, norms in research fields, educational contexts, and academia at large. This extended boundary-work intensified as problems and inconsistencies were discovered during the evaluation process. The ceremonial staging underscored the gravity of the decision and the extended boundary-work. Despite changing conditions for the doctorate, our findings highlight the importance of the practice of evaluation committees, and the disciplinary communities to which they belong, for upholding and negotiating norms in academia.

博士学位是学术生涯和学术界复兴的基础，对社会其他部门也越来越重要。后者体现在机构、国家以及超国家层面为改变和适应博士学位以适应新期望而做出的努力。由于博士教育融入研究，研究治理和资助的变化进一步影响博士学位。然而，博士论文的评估​​似乎仍然忠于学术传统：考试委员会在仪式性的环境中行使他们的把关权。本研究旨在探讨博士考试委员会的评估实践。通过对瑞典三所大型研究密集型大学经验丰富的考试委员会成员进行六次焦点小组访谈，获得了见解。特别令人感兴趣的是评估对象是如何形成的、所进行的边界工作的性质以及与研究和博士教育的不同和不断变化的条件相关的考试实践的变化。我们的结果表明，评估对象是如何通过对论文和答辩的逐步解释而出现的，随着评估过程从最初阶段进展到委员会最终的闭门讨论，评估对象变得更加复杂和细致。最终确定的评估目标仅在闭门会议结束时全面呈现，因此本质上是短暂的，包括候选人的研究贡献、教育成就和学术能力。此外，在此过程中进行的边界工作往往超越了评估的对象，还包括博士教育和研究的监督和当地环境，因此有助于维护和潜在改变研究领域、教育环境和学术界的规范在逃。随着评估过程中发现问题和不一致，这种扩展的边界工作变得更加激烈。仪式的举行强调了这一决定的严重性和扩大的边界工作。尽管博士学位的条件发生了变化，但我们的研究结果强调了评估委员会及其所属学科界的实践对于维护和谈判学术界规范的重要性。