Aspect: Third-cycle subject area

The demarcation of the third-cycle subject area and its connection to scholarship and proven experience are adequate and appropriate.

The demarcation of the subject area given by the higher education institution is convincing and reasonable. The specialised areas of research described in the general study plan include architectural form and technique, building design and urban design, development of the built environment, architectural theory and history, design theory and design methodology. The field as described in the general study plan is quite wide-ranging and it is unclear whether all the areas listed have equal emphasis or representation in the institution's third-cycle programme.

As of 1 May, 2017, the Department of Architecture merged with the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, and consequently the Graduate School is now situated within the new Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering. The assessment panel noted during the interviews that staff opinions on the consequences of the merger varied dramatically. It recommends that, going forward, care is taken to ensure the programme supports the full range of areas of scholarship listed in the demarcation statement.

Aspect: Staff

The number of supervisors and teachers and their combined expertise are sufficient and proportional to the content of the programme and its teaching/learning activities.

The higher education institution has good depth in terms of supervisory resources, with a high number of staff available to serve as supervisors. In Autumn 2016, there were 17 staff members available to act as main supervisors (with another two external main supervisors from outside the subject area of architecture) as well as an additional 24 staff available to serve as co-supervisors. In total, there were 26 doctoral students enrolled in the programme. If anything, the number of doctoral students might be thought small in relation to the supervisory capacity. As required by the higher education institution, all main supervisors have at least associate professor (docent) qualifications. In the self-evaluation, the higher education institution indicates a willingness and capacity to establish conditions of joint supervision with staff from other universities, companies and institutions when appropriate for doctoral students' research projects. The assessment panel commends this.

The combined expertise of supervisors and teachers and skill development are followed up systematically to promote high quality in the programme. The outcomes of the follow-up are translated, when necessary, into actions for quality improvement, and feedback is given to relevant stakeholders.

There are clear initiatives for quality assurance in terms of supervisory competency that are set out in the statement. These include courses that are required in order to become a supervisor and also related workshops, of which supervisory staff are required to take one every three years. Procedures that enable the continuing development of staff members' own subject-specific expertise (as opposed to general supervisory competency) are not described in the self-evaluation. At interviews it was confirmed that this is entirely dependent on securing external funding.

There is evidence in the self-evaluation of both a system of feedback from doctoral students and action taken in response to the feedback. Specific cases are described in which, in response to monitoring – through for example the annual study plan meetings called by the Director of PhD studies – special arrangements were put in place to provide extended supervisory support for particular research, or to change the supervisory team. Although 72% of doctoral students in a recent survey rated their experience as good or very good, the self-evaluation refers to recent student feedback that suggests supervisors need to improve their pedagogic skills and that supervisors do not attend the pedagogic courses available to them. It is however not clear from the self-evaluation or the interviews how widespread this issue is. At the interviews, staff confirmed that there is no platform available where departmental supervisors can share their experiences and knowledge. The panel recommends establishing one.

Due to the end of funding for the Swedish Research School in Architecture (ResArc) initiative, and also the merger of Architecture and Engineering at the higher education institution, the panel urges that care is taken to support the interests and work of staff whose area of research is based in the humanities.

Aspect: Third-cycle programme environment

Research at the higher education institution has sufficient quality and scale for third-cycle education to be carried out at a high scientific level and within a good educational framework. Relevant collaboration occurs with the surrounding society, both nationally and internationally.

The publication listings submitted with the self-evaluation indicate a vibrant and productive research environment. The track record of publications by doctoral students is impressive, and includes a number of monographs as well as significant journal publications. There is strong evidence of scale and depth of collaboration by the department with national and international networks and with business, interactions that enhance the critical mass of the third-cycle programme environment. There are very clear and extensive connections with other universities and national agencies and institutions. While the ResArc consortium is important, this is balanced with participation in other partnerships such as the international IDEA League, a network of leading European universities in science and technology.

Doctoral students take courses via the Generic and Transferrable Skills programme, the ResArc consortium, and through available courses in the Master's programmes in Architecture at the higher education institution. However, the self-evaluation indicates only two such programmes. It is unclear how easy it is to access university courses in other departments. Interviews suggested that there is a lack of course offerings related to methodology, philosophy and history. The assessment panel recognises and commends that the higher education institution is very clear at a strategic level on the importance of maintaining ResArc activities after the withdrawal of funding.

The panel notes that in 2014, the previous informal arrangement of research groups was reorganised – on the basis of interviews – into three divisions, namely Building Design, Urban Design and Planning, and Architectural Theory and Methods. The self-evaluation and interviews indicate that the effectiveness and intensity of activity of the research groups seems variable. It is not clear to the assessment panel how the merging of the Department of Architecture with the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering will affect or give opportunities to doctoral studies in architecture and if this has any structural implications. The panel sees the ongoing development of research groups as an issue that needs to be addressed for the benefit of both doctoral students and staff.

The self-evaluation does not provide information about the physical research environment or infrastructure (offices, library resources, IT infrastructure, etc.) although the interviews confirm that these are of good quality. Similarly, although the importance of doctoral students' participation in conferences is noted in the self-evaluation, there is no detailed description of in-house research seminar series or other forums for presentation and discussion, or a visiting speaker programme, etc. Although some research groups hold seminars, it is also stated that some groups do not have meetings. Some individual study plans note participation in conferences. The overall picture seems patchy.

The third-cycle education environment is systematically followed up to ensure high quality. The result of the follow-up is translated, when necessary, into quality improvement actions and feedback is given to relevant stakeholders.

The self-evaluation gives the assessment panel confidence that a robust system of feedback exists. Reviews occur in four-year and one-year cycles – the former are internal audits of the graduate schools of the higher education institution, and the latter are employee surveys. There is a useful overlap in the areas covered by this reporting.

Although the self-evaluation does not describe the specific processes through which follow-up occurs in relation to the third-cycle education environment, examples are given of action taken as a result of this monitoring. This involved the development of action plans leading, for example, to a more rigorous organisation of progress seminars.

Feedback given through the 2016 staff survey suggested that 40% of doctoral students employed by the higher education institution do not collaborate well with other researchers. The interviews clarified that this was a university-wide and not just departmental survey. It is not obvious from the self-evaluation or interviews how this will be addressed in the programme of architecture.

Overall assessment of the aspect area 'environment, resources and area'

In the overall assessment, the aspect area 'environment, resources and area' is deemed to be satisfactory.

Although the merger with the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering gives additional scale, the merger may pose challenges to some areas of research listed in the demarcation of the subject area. The vitality and effectiveness of the organisation of research groups seems uneven and the overall picture needs to be addressed for the benefit of both doctoral students and staff.

Although the supervisory capacity and collaborative supervision between higher education institutions is a strength, the assessment panel sees potential areas of improvement regarding the engagement of staff in pedagogical development initiatives and a more systematic and coherent approach to the research groups.

Regarding the third-cycle programme environment, there are particular strengths in the extent of doctoral student publications and the scope of research collaborations and environment. The assessment panel emphasises the good example of breadth and depth of cross-institutional collaborations at both national and international levels.