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 self-evaluation by the higher education institution is clear and well-structured regarding the third-cycle subject area. As stated in the general study plan, the subject of architecture at postgraduate level manages, develops, and communicates knowledge of architecture. The subject deals with the concepts and theories of architecture and their relationship to the planning and design of the built environment. While the higher education institution's self-definition of the third-cycle subject area is somewhat tautological, the statement gives a good description of the arrangement through which areas of research specialisation are organised and co-ordinated. The areas of specialisation are Architectural Design, Architectural Technology, History and Theory of Architecture, Critical Studies in Architecture, and Urban Design.

The assessment panel notes some concerns raised in the self-evaluation about the number and effectiveness of the areas of specialisation with regard to quantity of students and staff and to cross-specialisation. From the interviews, the panel understands that there is presently an ongoing discussion regarding how these may be reformatted in a way that is more relevant and productive for ongoing research.

The panel commends the higher education institution's understanding of the role of postgraduate student research in exploring and transforming the definition of the subject area, as well as the higher education institution's stated commitment to its demarcation as a matter of ongoing discussion and debate.

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.

This is generally satisfactory, although there are currently pressures caused by departures of staff and partial leave. As reported in the self-evaluation, in autumn 2016 there were 14 supervisors and 25 doctoral students, with an additional 10 doctoral students listed as 'inactive'. The higher education institution's self-evaluation makes clear that there is gap in supervision in Architectural Technology, although it mentions that this will be addressed by the appointment of an Associate Professor, which the panel understands from the interviews will be made in spring 2018. As there are currently seven doctoral students listed in Architectural Technology (the highest of any group), it is clearly important that this appointment is made. Other new appointments at this level are mentioned, although the timing of these – with the exception of positions in Urban Design – is not entirely clear.

Regarding the combined expertise of the supervisory resources, this is met with the requirements that main supervisors have docent competence, except two supervisors who have special permission to be main supervisors. In addition, main supervisors are also required to complete a course in PhD supervision.

The assessment panel notes that, according to the self-evaluation, pressure on supervisory resources has been eased by the designation of low-activity doctoral students as 'resting'. The panel understands that this is a pragmatic approach given that the programme registration of the doctoral students cannot be terminated. But the understanding that there is no institutional responsibility to these doctoral students until they themselves become active again raises questions that should be discussed.

The combined expertise of supervisors and teachers and skill development are followed up to promote high quality in the programme, although there is not evidence that this is completely systematic. The outcomes of the follow-up are translated, when necessary, into actions for quality improvement, and feedback is given to relevant stakeholders.

This is generally satisfactory, although the panel had some concerns from the self-evaluation that the follow-up tends to be informal and unsystematic. The interviews, however, gave more confidence that the system is robust. In particular, the presence of a twice-yearly supervisors' collegium is commended. The self-evaluation notes that the personal development dialogue between the doctoral student and the programme director, which is offered at least annually, provides support in situations in which a change of supervisor is required. The interviews confirmed that the structure is in place and that it is effective.

There is not a clear description in the self-evaluation of a system of assessing the effectiveness and expertise of supervisory staff or what the institution puts in place to facilitate and encourage the ongoing development of its research staff's knowledge and capabilities. In the interviews, however, it was clarified that, while there is not a sabbatical system, there is faculty money made available for staff research via competitive bidding.

The connections that specific staff have with non-university bodies is noted and commended, but it is unclear what mechanisms facilitate and encourage these at the level of the higher education institution. To demonstrate actions taken as a result of follow-up, the self-evaluation cites the example of responses to a dissertation that was below quality due to supervision. However, this action appears to address only the needs of the doctoral student (new supervision team, extra funding) and not the original supervisory issue (i.e., why was the supervision defective in the first place, and how is this problem addressed?).

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 assessment panel commends this strong and well-evidenced statement in the self-evaluation that indicates a high level of both quality and intensity of activity, and a range of connections and collaborations with external bodies. The publications listing provided is strong but limited as it conveys only staff and not student publications, and so the assessment panel are unable to form a view regarding the latter. Moreover, it is not entirely clear from the self-evaluation exactly what role doctoral students play in the various collaborations mentioned and how the activities feed directly into their environment. Overall, there are perhaps not as many international collaborations noted as one might expect.

The assessment panel emphasises the good examples of the Swedish Research School in Architecture (ResArc) consortium and associated activities, such as the student-led Lo-Res journal. The panel notes that funding for key parts of the research environment is coming to an end (i.e., the two Strong Research Environments (SREs) and ResArc, funded by Formas), which is a concern. The commitment of the collaborating institutions to the maintenance of the ResArc activities is noted, but it is unclear how their viability will be affected with the loss of funding. Evidence received by the panel indicates how important the ResArc initiative is to the research environment and student experience.

The introduction of Higher Seminars, a weekly or bi-weekly forum for exchange between researchers of all levels, appears an important part of the research environment, which the assessment panel commends. Concerns regarding critical mass and the potential for the development of cross-departmental engagement within the institution are noted. The latter appears at present somewhat under-explored, although the panel notes that in interviews staff confirmed that the move to the main campus has improved cross-departmental engagement.

There is no statement of physical infrastructure and resources and how these affect programme environment and educational framework (office space for the doctoral students, library and IT resources for research, etc.) in the self-evaluation. Evidence received by the panel indicates there is a need for quieter and more protected working spaces for doctoral students.

The challenges posed by the integration of 'industrial doctoral students' into the research environment are noted in the self-evaluation, but no response to them is given.

The third-cycle education environment is followed up to ensure high quality, although there is a lack of evidence that this is entirely systematic. The result of the follow-up is translated, when necessary, into quality improvement actions and feedback is given to relevant stakeholders.

From the description given in the self-evaluation and the interviews, the panel is confident that this criterion is satisfactorily met. However, while there are a number of forums listed concerning monitoring and follow-up (e.g., Programme Council), individual discussions with doctoral students, the Research Education Council, as well as annual assessment at the higher education institution, their relations with one another are not clearly delineated in the self-evaluation. It is not explicit what the committee structure is, how lines of reporting work, and at what level responsibility for particular actions lies. The frequency of meetings is generally unstated in the self-evaluation. The assessment panel were reassured by the interviews about the follow-up system, but clarification of the systematic follow-up of the third-cycle education environment would further enhance and ensure quality.

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.

While the staffing of the programme is generally satisfactory, the assessment panel sees potential areas of improvement regarding the number of supervisors, especially in relation to Architectural Technology. The higher education institution's intention to appoint staff in this area is noted.

The third-cycle environment is assessed as an environment of high quality and intensity of activity with a range of connections and collaborations with external bodies. The assessment panel emphasises the good examples of the ResArc consortium and associated activities (such as the student-led Lo-Res journal), the introduction of the Higher Seminar for doctoral students and researchers at all levels, the intensity and range of high-quality research activities (including organised conferences), and collaborations both with other higher education institutions and non-academic institutions. However, the panel feels that potential cross-departmental engagements for architecture within the higher education institution seem at present under-explored.

There is a lack of clarity in the self-evaluation regarding lines of reporting and where responsibility for specific actions lies. Improving this would help ensure systematic follow-up and the quality of the programme with regard to the 'environment, resources and area' aspect area.