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 stated by the higher education institution is clear and reasonable. Noting that the field can encompass issues in social sciences, science, engineering, humanities, aesthetics, and arts, the self-evaluation gives the following specific examples of research areas: the properties of the built environment and its significance for different forms of societal life, including cultural and social aspects, spatial design techniques and their implications, participatory design, artistic methodology, and distinctive environments with regard to climate, culture, and architecture.

Much of the statement in the self-assessment is given over to a description of the Swedish Research School in Architecture (ResArc) consortium, which is managed by a group located in the higher education institution. The description eloquently presents the significance and centrality of ResArc to the higher education institution's own third-cycle programme. The assessment panel understands that the funding that previously supported ResArc finished in 2017. The assessment panel commends the commitment of the partners to maintaining existing arrangements but, in the context of the end of funding, the assessment panel is concerned about ongoing viability.

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.

Although the pool of available supervisory staff appears rather small, the assessment panel is satisfied that it is adequate for the size of programme at the higher education institution. At the time of the review, architecture had four staff qualified to act as principal supervisors, four active assistant supervisors and eleven doctoral students. In addition, there is extra supervisory capacity via staff in related subject areas, and there are also three active assistant supervisors who do not hold permanent positions in the department. There is, as noted in the self-evaluation, a clear gender imbalance at the moment in available supervisory staff, but the panel notes that this is anticipated to improve in coming years as existing female staff progress to associate professor level.

Regarding the combined expertise of the supervisory resources, this is met by the requirement that staff must be at the level of associate professor (docent) in order to take on the role of principal supervisor.

Much of the discussion in the self-evaluation is given over to the strengths and opportunities of the ResArc consortium. While this is evident in terms of the courses that doctoral students take through ResArc, how ResArc might significantly affect or contribute to the supervision of research degrees has not been explored. For example, during the interviews it was discussed whether doctoral students might be co-supervised by staff from different higher education institutions within the ResArc consortium and it was confirmed that this has not yet been investigated, although it might bring considerable benefits.

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

The panel accepts this is satisfactory. The interviews gave confidence regarding this, but at the same time the panel sees little direct evidence given in the self-evaluation regarding the systematic monitoring, evaluation, and follow-up of staff expertise and development. However, the panel notes the activities of the Academic Development Unit in developing teaching and education at all levels and commends the organisation of special targeted events such as the one-day seminar for doctoral student supervisors led by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Professor Mark Jarzombek. While various activities, memberships, and collaborations of active supervisors are listed in the self-evaluation report, it is not clear in what ways the higher education institution systematically facilitates and supports these. In cases where a change of supervisors is required, the process can be initiated by the doctoral student and/or the supervisor without citing any specific reason. This is in accordance with the ethical guidelines for student-supervisor relationships at the higher education institution.

While there is a robust committee structure, there is no director of research position for architecture. The panel suggests that it would enhance the research environment for doctoral students and staff if this position were filled.

The panel commends that the higher education institution recognises quality in teaching through an 'excellent teaching practitioner award' for staff.

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.

Overall the assessment panel considers that the higher education institution's response in this field is well-described and convincing. The publication listing provided with the self-evaluation report shows a good level of publishing activity among staff and a less impressive, but still reasonable, level among students. Although the number of doctoral students is not large, the architecture school has a good network and clearly sees the ResArc consortium as vital to third-cycle study at the higher education institution. As already noted, the panel has concerns about the end of ResArc's funding arrangements in 2017. ResArc helps the programme achieve a critical mass and an expanded scholarly community. Consequently, because of the small number of doctoral students in architecture, the programme might be seen as particularly vulnerable if the vitality and intensity of ResArc activities drops off. In the interviews, the strategic staff were clear that doctoral student numbers should increase.

There appears to be a good range of courses available to doctoral students via ResArc and within the higher education institution more broadly. The panel commends this availability of academic resources beyond the higher education institution and notes the specialist seminars and workshops run by the faculty in the Academic Development Unit.

The panel commends the fact that each doctoral student has an office and related equipment, and the way this encourages their presence at the department and day-to-day contact with supervisors. The quality of the physical resources was clearly affirmed in the interviews. The self-evaluation is less clear on other physical and infrastructural resources (libraries, workshops, IT infrastructure, etc.), but the interviews confirmed that these are of good quality.

The launch of the monthly research seminar series Architecture and Built Environment Seminar (ABES) is noted and commended.

There is evidence of collaboration with non-higher education institutions, sometimes mediated through the ResArc network. The self-evaluation is not strong on this, and it is difficult to discern the depth, significance or outcomes of the collaborations (with, e.g., the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, the municipality of Lanzhou, China, or the Modern Art Museum in Malmö). This was not fully clarified during the interviews. It is noted that the head of the Malmö city planning office is a visiting professor. As a potential area of improvement, the panel notes that relevant collaboration with non-academic bodies and surrounding society could be extended, strengthened and intensified.

The third-cycle education environment is systematically followed up to ensure high quality. It is unclear, however, how the result of the follow-up is systematically translated into quality improvement actions or how feedback is systematically given to relevant stakeholders.

The self-evaluation mentions a variety of forums in which monitoring and follow-up occurs (supervision meetings, individual study plans, department board meetings, etc.), although the inter-relation and frequency of these is not described. The monitoring of courses via ResArc procedures is clearer in the self-evaluation than is the monitoring of thesis development, supervision, etc.

While the panel sees no evidence of problems related to follow-up and the interviews gave some reassurance, there are no definite examples in the self-evaluation of quality improvement actions undertaken or how feedback to stakeholders occurs. The panel recommends that follow-up, feedback and action procedures are clarified and made more visible.

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.

Staffing, although numbers are fairly small, is adequate for the current size of the programme. The higher education institution offers excellent physical resources to its students, which encourages their presence and integration in the life of the department. Clear strengths are evident in the institutional recognition of supervisory excellence and in the breadth of courses available to doctoral students. Although there are only a few doctoral students, a critical mass is achieved through the ResArc consortium and through collaborations within the higher education institution, which opens additional course opportunities for doctoral students.

The assessment panel sees potential areas of improvement regarding relevant collaboration with non-academic bodies and surrounding society, which could be extended, strengthened and intensified. Moreover, regarding follow-up, the system leading to quality improvement actions and feedback to stakeholders should be clarified. The panel recommends that follow-up, feedback and action procedures are made more visible.

The assessment panel emphasises the good example of the 'excellent teaching practitioner award', the wide availability of courses to doctoral students, not just through ResArc but also within the higher education institution, the ABES research seminar series, the availability of office space for doctoral students, and the everyday contact and integration in the department that this encourages.