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.

The programme puts the principal supervisor, assistant supervisors and doctoral students at its heart through regular meetings between the supervisors and the doctoral student. The use of the individual study plans, which is updated every semester, is coherent and effective and an important tool to ensure that the doctoral student gets broad knowledge and understanding of the subject area and methodology. In addition, there are seminars where the thesis work is presented (i.e., the first-year seminar, midway review, and final seminar). Courses, primarily through ResArc, also ensure that the achievement of the qualitative targets for ‘knowledge and understanding’ are met. In these courses, doctoral students from other fields – such as political science, human geography, planning and industrial design – also take part. This adds to the value of the programme.

The dialogue between the two supervisors and doctoral students opens-up a variety of perspectives, for example, by jointly working on journal articles and conference contributions. In addition, guest professors are involved in giving feedback to doctoral students and the panel believes this enhances the knowledge and application of scientific methodology in general.

The higher education institution relies very strongly on the ResArc initiative and this high dependence on ResArc courses makes the programme vulnerable to changes. However, the panel notes that in addition to the ResArc courses, the higher education institution offers a series of generic Graduate School Courses such as Project Management in Research & Development Projects in which the skills needed for thesis work are covered. The panel recommends that other networks be cultivated so that an over-reliance on ResArc is avoided. According to the interview with operational staff, cross-supervision could increase, for example, in collaboration with the Kungl. Tekniska högskolan.

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 were not called for, except for the more general question on 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. 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.

An example mentioned in the self-evaluation regarding systematic follow-up are the surveys that have been conducted during the last years to find out what doctoral students actually lack in their studies. The result formed feedback for all the Swedish architecture schools that provide courses within the ResArc consortium. Three comments stand out according to the self-evaluation: the wish for trans-disciplinary approaches; how to disseminate findings; and how to collaborate with professional practice, primarily in urbanism. When it comes to translating the results into action, the self-evaluation does not specify how this could be achieved or what actions have been taken, but affirms that the results have been fed back and have been discussed by the faculty.

The assessment panel especially notes that the qualitative targets of the Higher Education Ordinance requirement are used as a template in the individual study plans, which gives a clear view of how the doctoral students are progressing through their educational programme and therefore is a useful tool for follow-up.

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 programme ensures that the doctoral students achieve the qualitative targets of ’competence and skills’ through meetings with supervisors in relation to the individual study plans, ResArc meetings and courses, other seminars, conferences, as well as the actual thesis work. In addition to ResArc courses there are also faculty courses, e.g. Theory of Science and Research Methodology, but it should be noted that skills in using methodology, keeping timeframes etc. are primarily acquired through the development of the thesis. The effectiveness of the system by which doctoral students’ progress is followed depends very much on the good intentions of the supervisor and the individual doctoral students’ capacity to consistently progress their thesis work. From assessing the individual study plans, the panel notes that usually the work on the individual study plan is very coherent and, as such, it serves as a sound basis for discussing doctoral students' progress. The interviews confirmed that the individual study plan plays a crucial role: it is the main legal security for the doctoral students and allows the higher education institution to track the doctoral students' trajectory. The official individual study plan review takes place at least once a year with an external person in addition to the supervisor.

Doctoral students are encouraged to go to conferences on their own, publish articles, and initiate or even write applications for new research projects. In addition, skills such as project management, communication with peers, and pedagogy are developed both within the thesis work but also through two faculty-wide courses titled Project Management in Research & Development Projects.

The higher education institution prepares the doctoral students to contribute to the development of society by, for example, inviting guest speakers who hold positions outside of the academy. Representatives from professional practice are also included in the ResArc consortium. The self-evaluation also shows that there is an understanding of the importance of increasing the integration of research and practice.

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.

As the panel has already commented above, recent surveys have been conducted to follow-up earlier doctoral students' experiences of their studies. Considering the small number of doctoral students, the panel commends the quality and use of the individual study plan as a tool for systematic follow-up.

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 science's capabilities and limitations, its role in society and human responsibility for how it is used.

According to the self-evaluation, intellectual independence, the ability to demonstrate scientific probity/disciplinary rectitude, and the ability to assess research ethics are promoted, encouraged and ensured throughout the whole doctoral trajectory. The discussions at the seminars, meetings with the supervisors, and the actual thesis work are considered important instruments to develop an independent position and the capabilities of scientific probity and ethical responsibility.

Ethics as well as the capabilities and limitations of scientific research, are explicitly discussed in a series of generic doctoral courses such as the courses Research Ethics and Technology, Risk and Research Ethics. In addition, doctoral students can take courses from other departments, which deal with, for example, interview techniques. In difficult cases, an ethical committee can be involved or take advice from other authorities.

The programme is followed up 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.

A whole range of activities is offered to doctoral students. Still, perhaps due to the small number of doctoral students, the way in which follow-up is carried out regarding the skills needed for ‘judgement and approach' remains somewhat vague. The self-evaluation indicates, for example, a reliance on supervisors to transmit the department’s research policies to the individual doctoral student.

The role of potential stakeholders in this process of follow-up and the way in which they are involved is not necessarily structural but happens when the doctoral students present their work outside the higher education institution, for example, to municipalities. The assessment panel considers it very valuable that the programme provides opportunities for performance and feedback outside academia.

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 has a robust system to develop, support and assess the research of its doctoral students. Across this aspect area, the assessment panel sees strengths in the use of the individual study plans, which are coherent and effective, as well as in the resources available to students, including the range of courses made available.

The panel has some concerns regarding the higher education institution's dependence on the ResArc consortium and recommends that other networks be cultivated in order to insure against over-reliance on this initiative.

While the panel believes that the higher education institution performs well in this aspect area, it recommends that reflection be given to the category of 'relevant stakeholders' in relation to research follow-up and feedback procedures.

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.