Universitetskanslersämbetet instämmer i bedömargruppens ställningstagande.

In conclusion, the programme is assessed as maintaining high quality.

Aspect area 'environment, resources and area': The higher education institution has a good depth of supervisory resources, an impressive track record of publications, and a strong collaborative ethos with other higher education institutions, both at the national and international level. This enhances critical mass and ensures that the higher education institution has developed a significant network. The merger with the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering gives additional scale, but may pose challenges to some areas of research listed in the demarcation of the subject area of the programme. The vitality and effectiveness of research groups seems uneven and the overall picture needs to be addressed, for the benefit of both doctoral students and staff.

Aspect area 'design, teaching/learning and outcomes': The higher education institution demonstrates a robust system for tracking doctoral student progress, involving individual study plans and progress seminars. However, the depth and rigour of the study plans appear quite variable and the panel recommends that a more systematic approach be taken. The emergence of thematic 'centres' can be powerful tools, extending the academy's interaction with professional and non-academic partners and deepening the relation with various stakeholders. While the panel feels that generic and transferrable skill acquisition is well covered, there appears to be issues with methodological courses for some areas of study. There are interesting and innovative initiatives that the panel commends, such as the 'popular science presentation', where doctoral students are required to publically present their work to non-specialist audiences.

Working life perspective: The doctoral programme is well-integrated with working life, with the profiles of staff and doctoral students showing strong links with industry and extra-academic institutions. Likewise, there is a track record of publication in professional journals, etc. The panel emphasises the good example of the Generic and Transferrable Skills courses. Linking up with alumni, however, is a potential area of improvement both in terms of (1) knowing what doctoral students do after taking their degree and how successful they are (an indicator of the quality of the programme in relation to working life) and (2) feeding their knowledge and experience back into the programme.

Doctoral student perspective: The systems for the integration of doctoral students within the department are robust and convincing, and the panel commends this. There are indications, however, of a shortfall of practical and material support for student-led initiatives for seminars, etc.

Gender equality perspective: The panel acknowledges the higher education institution's recognition and concern with gender equality but recommends that a more coherent policy is put in place that takes account of diversity more generally. This is not only a matter of recruitment and equality of numbers, promotional possibilities, etc., but also a matter of the content of courses, directions of scholarship, and everyday practice.

Aspect area 'follow-up, actions and feedback': The systems in place are generally good, and clear examples are given of actions taken when issues have arisen with doctoral students' supervision. More widely, the panel recommends that further thought is given to who constitutes 'stakeholders' with regard to specific research projects for the purposes of feedback. For example, it is not very clear from the higher education institution's reporting how feedback operates in relation to non-academic stakeholders. Follow-up of alumni seems largely a blind spot.