Aspect: Achievement of qualitative targets for 'knowledge and understanding'

The programme ensures, through its design, teaching/learning activities and examination, that doctoral students who have been awarded their degrees show broad knowledge and understanding both within their third-cycle subject area and for scientific methodology in the third-cycle subject area.

In the self-evaluation, the constructive alignment framework illustrates that the higher education institution ensures doctoral students' broad knowledge and understanding through supervision, courses on subjects and research methods and, depending on the research project, through collaboration or coproduction with supervisors or other stakeholders. In addition, the higher education institution ensures broad knowledge and understanding of the doctoral students through formative assessment of individual study plans, presentations at 10%, 25%, 75%, and 90% seminars, and assessments by supervisors and the Scientific Committee given at the half-way point (50% seminars) and at the defence (100%). However, the assessment panel notes – and this is also mentioned in the self-evaluation – that currently there are no methodological courses in social science such as interview techniques.

The ResArc courses put national discussions on the agenda and open international perspectives by inviting guests from abroad and giving doctoral students opportunities to make presentations. Furthermore, additional courses and workshops are offered in collaboration with other universities and focus on specialised issues. Regarding the relationship between research groups and doctoral students, the term 'research group' is not clearly defined and the self-evaluation stated that the building of effective research groups is still underway. The assessment panel notes that the size of the group is crucial.

The tools that guarantee progression are supervision, paper writing, and Graduate School courses. In the follow-up of the progress of doctoral students, the individual study plan is considered to play an important role. However, the assessment panel considers that more attention to the individual study plan could enhance the programme further. The submitted study plans differ from each other, ranging from very cursory to considerably detailed. Course and teaching activities are clearly documented and usually the study plans contain the abstract of the thesis and an indication of the method(s) to apply, although an overall timetable and the methodological approach are not necessarily documented. As a consequence, the potential of the individual study plan is not fully explored. The panel notes that the individual study plans could be a more effective tool in preparing and developing the licentiate and doctoral dissertation if more attention were paid to research question/hypothesis, outcomes, and methods and if the individual study plans were used in a more systematic way.

When it comes to completion rates, the key figures of doctoral student completion rates are in line with figures for the third-cycle subject area of architecture in Sweden. Therefore, specific questions do not arise, except for the more general one of how the higher education institution ensures that doctoral students can complete their programmes within the scheduled time.

The programme's design and teaching/learning activities are systematically followed up to ensure achievement of qualitative targets. The results of the follow-up are translated, when necessary, in actions for quality improvement, and feedback is given to relevant stakeholders.

The main instruments for follow-up are the individual study plan and the meetings with the supervisors. These meetings guarantee direct feedback to the doctoral student. Another formalised follow-up is the annual study plan meetings called for by the Director of PhD Studies. According to both the self-evaluation and interviews, the ResArc courses, the checkpoints of presentations, and the individual study plan are crucial for ensuring that the qualitative targets relating to knowledge and understanding are achieved.

In addition, presentations at seminars, which doctoral students, supervisors, research groups and invited consultants attend, are organised to evaluate the student's progress and to provide feedback. At 50% and 90%, the Director of Graduate Studies organises a preview by the Scientific Committee. The preview can be in the form of a summative or formative assessment. The assessment panel considers that there is a valuable structure for evaluation and feedback provided by the higher education institution.

The panel notes that besides the research groups there are knowledge or research centres and institutes established in relation to certain themes, such as research centres for healthcare architecture, for urban futures, and for housing. The assessment panel recommends that these should be developed further. They could enhance the organisation of presentations of research work, the exchange of common knowledge, the impact of the research beyond the academy, and the involvement of professors from practice. All of this diversifies the range of stakeholders and the feedback to the higher education institution.

Aspect: Achievement of qualitative targets for 'competence and skills'

Through its design, teaching/learning activities and examination, the programme ensures that doctoral students whose degrees have been awarded can plan and use appropriate methods to conduct research and other qualified tasks within predetermined time frames, and in both the national and the international context, in speech and in writing authoritatively, can present and discuss research and research findings in dialogue with the academic community and society in general. Doctoral students are able to contribute to the development of society and support the learning of others within both research and education and in other qualified professional contexts.

The main instruments to guarantee that the doctoral students achieve good planning skills and can choose appropriate methods are discussions with the supervisors, the follow-up committee (consisting of the doctoral student, supervisors and programme director), and the research group in which the doctoral student takes part. Moreover, both their skills and methodological knowledge are developed via the ResArc courses.

In addition, the doctoral student prepares publications (e.g., conference contributions or scientific articles) that are intended to improve the doctoral student’s public speaking and writing skills. The programme invites doctoral students to present their work during seminars and conferences, opportunities that help improve their research planning and their ability to meet deadlines. Seminars further support doctoral students in the choice of appropriate methods. All seminars are open to all students and staff encourage doctoral students to partake in the seminars where others present their work. However, at the moment, not all research groups function properly regarding regular meetings, presentations of research results and progress, and mutual knowledge exchange. The assessment panel understands that efforts are being made to improve this.

This tripartite structure (i.e., discussions with supervisors, follow-up committee and research groups, and seminars including the ResArc courses that focus on the choice of appropriate research methods) is fruitful and is assessed by the panel to function well. However, the organisation of regular research group meetings needs attention.

When it comes to training the doctoral students to contribute to the development of society and support the learning of others, the panel notes that courses are offered in communication, teaching, project planning, leadership and entrepreneurship. Articles are published in different types of non-academic publications such as daily newspapers and industry specific magazines. The panel notes and commends the initiative of the 'popular science presentation', which obliges doctoral students to present their work at least once to a public non-specialist audience.

The programme is followed up systematically to ensure that the design and teaching/learning activities are high quality and that the doctoral students achieve the qualitative targets. The results of the follow-up are translated, when necessary, into actions for quality improvement, and feedback is given to relevant stakeholders.

The above described system of individual study plans, supervisory meetings, annual study plan meetings and presentations to the Scientific Committee guarantees systematic follow-up and feedback to the doctoral students.

Aspect: Achievement of qualitative targets for 'judgement and approach'

Through its design, teaching/learning activities and examination, the programme ensures that doctoral students who have been awarded degrees show intellectual independence, scientific probity and the ability to make research ethics assessments. The doctoral student also has a broader understanding of the science's capabilities and limitations, its role in society and human responsibility for how it is used.

According to the self-evaluation, scientific independence is the most important goal of third-cycle education and is promoted, encouraged and evaluated throughout the doctoral trajectory through individual study plans, supervisory meetings, etc. The licentiate degree that most doctoral students take after two years is considered an important instrument to develop an independent position and enhance the capabilities of scientific probity and ethical responsibility. Ethical issues are addressed in the daily work and in the Generic and Transferrable Skills courses that address sustainability in general while specifically taking social, ecological and economic aspects into account.

It is important to publish and take part in conferences to develop an independent position, scientific probity and an understanding of ethical responsibility. Difficult issues, so-called wicked problems, are raised during progress seminars, according to the self-evaluation. However, the development of thematic research groups is uneven and much depends on the size of these groups.

The programme is followed up systematically to ensure that the design and teaching/learning activities are high quality and that the doctoral students achieve the qualitative targets. The results of the follow-up are translated, when necessary, into actions for quality improvement, and feedback is given to relevant stakeholders.

The licentiate degree, halfway through the doctoral trajectory, is a good instrument for follow-up and feedback to doctoral students. Seminars also help build common knowledge and serve as platforms for presenting research. Here artistic professors are also stakeholders who are involved when needed. However, the self-evaluation does not explicitly describe the role of potential stakeholders in this process and the way in which they are involved. According to the strategic staff interview, involving stakeholders in the designated research centres (centre for housing, centre for urban futures, etc.) could enhance the rapport among stakeholders. In this sense, a centre – even if it is a virtual centre – is a way of bringing together people from industry, researchers and staff. These centres could also provide help and ways to finance doctoral students.

Overall assessment of the aspect area 'design, teaching/learning and outcomes'

In the overall assessment, the aspect area 'design, teaching/learning and outcomes' is deemed to be satisfactory.

The higher education institution demonstrates a robust system for tracking doctoral student progress and thereby ensuring that the doctoral students achieve the qualitative targets of knowledge and understanding, competence and skills, and as judgment and approach. The tools that are used for ensuring progress involve individual study plans and progress seminars. However, the depth and rigour of the individual study plans appear quite variable, and the assessment panel sees potential areas of improvement and recommends that a more systematic approach be taken.

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. Another area needing attention is improving the functioning of research groups through the whole programme with regular meetings and presentations of research results.

Thematic research centres (e.g., collaborations with industry such as housing corporations) can be powerful tools that extend the academy's interaction with professional and non-academic partners and that deepen the relation with various stakeholders.

There are interesting and innovative initiatives that the panel commends, such as the 'popular science presentation' where doctoral students are required to publicly present their work to non-specialist audiences.

The key figures for doctoral student completion rates are in line with figures for the third-cycle subject area of architecture in Sweden. Therefore specific questions do not arise, except for the more general one of how the higher education institution ensures that doctoral students can complete their programmes within the scheduled time.