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 offers excellent physical resources to its doctoral students, which encourages their presence and integration in the life of the department. Although the number of doctoral students is limited, it achieves a critical mass through the ResArc consortium and through collaborations within the higher education institution, which opens additional course opportunities for doctoral students. Initiatives such as the ABES seminar programme are commended by the panel, as is the valuable recognition of staff contribution via the 'excellent teaching practitioner award'. The panel recommends that follow-up, feedback and action procedures are clarified and made more visible and that the opportunities to intensify relevant collaborations with non-academic bodies and surrounding society should be taken up.

Aspect area 'design, teaching/learning and outcomes': The higher education institution has a robust system to develop, support and assess the research of its doctoral students. Doctoral students have good access to courses, and the individual study plan is a well-utilised. While the panel believes that the higher education institution performs well in this area, it recommends that reflection be given to the category of 'relevant stakeholders' in relation to research follow-up and feedback procedures, and that potential challenges arising from the end of funding of ResArc need to be addressed.

Working life perspective: The higher education institution shows a good connection with professional life, with strong staff and doctoral student ties and some clear initiatives to facilitate this link. However, there is something of a blind spot with regard to alumni and the way in which their knowledge and expertise might feed back into the school and enrich and inform doctoral student experience with regard to working life.

Doctoral student perspective: There is good evidence that doctoral students are well-integrated within the department and that there are channels through which their voices and opinions can be heard. At present, the higher education institution hosts a number of doctoral students from a Jordanian university and care has to be taken that as far as possible there are equal working conditions, opportunities, and access to resources.

Gender equality perspective: While there is an admitted gender imbalance among available supervisory staff, it is noted that this will shift in the coming years. The higher education institution shows awareness of the issues and there are evident steps that have been taken to address the gender imbalance, e.g., by installing an advisory board to promote equal opportunities.

Aspect area 'follow-up, actions and feedback': This aspect is strong and convincing in relation to academic support, monitoring and feedback on the progress of doctoral students, but the systems are less obvious elsewhere. The panel has no doubt that this is a research environment that works, but the case would have been clarified if some examples of follow-up actions and processes had been given in the self-evaluation report. As noted, the definition of 'relevant stakeholders' is important in order to understand the context, extent and targets of feedback and follow-up.