Doctoral student perspective

The programme allows the doctoral students to play an active part in the work of improving the programme and learning processes.

According to the self-evaluation and the interviews, the assessment panel notes that there are sufficient and appropriate opportunities for doctoral students to improve their study situation. The self-evaluation clearly indicates that the doctoral students' needs and rights in this regard are taken care of and that there are opportunities for them to make their voices heard on issues relating to their studies and work environment. The self-evaluation stresses that the doctoral students are viewed and treated as part of the faculty, equal to any other employee. This gives them access to, for instance, staff meetings and other opportunities to voice their opinions. If a serious issue with a doctoral student occurs that would demand e.g. a change of supervisors, the processes implemented to handle this are clearly stated in the self-evaluation with a detailed description of the processes. The panel notes that the transparency and structure of this process seems excellent and can serve as a good example.

The self-evaluation points to the fact that the function of the doctoral student ombudsman at the higher education institution seems to be less known in research environments that lack a local PhD council, but this does not apply to architectural students where 95% are aware of and have confidence in the doctoral student ombudsman.

The self-evaluation addresses the issue that doctoral students seem to be in need of a forum for discussing common research problems (i.e., methodological or similar issues). The doctoral students previously had such a forum that the students themselves initiated, but these meetings have stopped. The self-evaluation and the interviews confirm, that there is a need for the higher education institution to further support such initiatives. The assessment panel notes that the doctoral students are confident enough to influence their study situation and come with initiatives such as creating a forum. However, the panel also notes this as an area of improvement since it is also the higher education institution’s responsibility to promote initiatives as well as support the ones already in place. The self-evaluation acknowledges this need, and there is an awareness that more work needs to be done in this regard, which was confirmed in the interviews. It also became clear in the interviews that the staff needs 'working time' to carry out such initiatives. Whether the merger between the Department of Architecture and the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering will provide opportunities for such initiatives is still to be seen.

A cause for concern is the potential future defunding of the ResArc collaboration. The interviews highlighted the importance of continuing the activities in some form.

During the interviews, it was stated that some research groups are less active than others. Because research is largely organised in research groups at the higher education institution, there is a risk that students in some study areas might become isolated. The panel encourages the higher education institution to look into this and make sure all doctoral students have access to active research groups. The interviews made clear that the self-evaluation was a valuable document for doctoral students to understand the overall structure of the doctoral programme; it was suggested that the higher education institution could provide such an overview in a brochure.

The programme is systematically followed up to ensure that doctoral student input is used in quality assurance and improvement of the programme. The results of the follow-up are translated, when necessary, into actions for quality improvement, and feedback is given to relevant stakeholders.

The doctoral student ombudsman, as well as the local PhD Council, provides systematic follow-up from the doctoral perspective. The assessment panel acknowledges that the higher education institution provides tools that encourage doctoral students to express their opinions in various ways and handle issues directly connected with their own education. The initiative by the central university board of doctoral students to employ a doctoral student ombudsman also provides a neutral position, less connected to individual programmes, where doctoral students can acquire help with issues that might arise. The self-evaluation notes that the doctoral student ombudsman sometimes has a heavy workload, which points to the importance of the position. It is important that the higher education institution continues to support and publicise the position of the doctoral student ombudsman.

In the overall assessment, the doctoral student perspective is deemed to be satisfactory.