Doctoral student perspective

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

The self-evaluation provides a good understanding of how the doctoral students are included and influence their education. The doctoral students have the opportunity to be represented on boards and decision-making bodies and can also make their voices heard through questionnaires. Based on information from the interviews, the doctoral students are actively working to improve the programme. ResArc is also highlighted as an important platform where students can make their opinions heard and help facilitate changes in the educational structure of the programme, which from a doctoral perspective is highly valuable.

The individual study plans are well documented and clear and concise. The assessment panel especially notes that the qualitative targets of the Higher Education Ordinance are used as a template for the individual study plans, which gives a clear view of how the doctoral students are progressing through their educational programme. This is also a good example of how to incorporate the qualitative targets to be achieved by the doctoral students in practice.

The assessment panel notes the following weaknesses in relation to the doctoral perspective. The interviews revealed that the rules for compensation for participation on boards or other decision-making bodies are vague, and the assessment panel recommends that the higher education institution makes the rules for doctoral student participation on boards or unions transparent and known by all doctoral students.

The self-evaluation mentions that several of the doctoral candidates are covered by Swedish employment law, but it does not mention the employment situation for the doctoral students coming from a Jordanian university. It became apparent from the interviews that it is hard to ensure completely equal working conditions for doctoral students when they have different forms of employment. However, the assessment panel argues that more could be done to ensure equality of conditions for all doctoral students.

The programme is followed up to ensure that doctoral student input is used in quality assurance and improvement of the programme, but there is not evidence that this is entirely systematic. The results of the follow-up are translated, when necessary, into actions for quality improvement, and feedback is given to relevant stakeholders.

Despite there being clear channels through which the students can make their voices and opinions heard, the self-evaluation lacks a description on how the programme is systematically followed-up in relation to the doctoral perspective. While interviews did provide more information, the area remains somewhat unclear and the department is recommended to clarify how systematic follow-up is handled in relation to the doctoral student perspective.

In summary, although there are ample opportunities for doctoral student representation, the systematic follow-up and how related recommendations and actions are implemented are not clear.

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