Universitetskanslersämbetet instämmer i bedömargruppens ställningstagande.

In conclusion, the programme's quality is being questioned.

Aspect area 'environment, resources and area': This aspect area is impossible to judge positively because of a lack of clarity and information regarding the plan for the development of the doctoral programme in coming years. Although the panel found the demarcation statement interesting and provocative, it raised questions that were not addressed in the self-evaluation or the interviews. Despite these issues, good initiatives and ideas are presented, including the provision of an independent reference person for each doctoral student and the incorporation of doctoral students within research groups that involve staff. The panel is concerned that the higher education institution's relative geographic isolation might pose problems when ResArc funding ends (loss of funding will make it difficult for doctoral students to travel to courses, etc.), and that a way should be found to address this. The panel strongly recommends that the programme develop a thorough five-year plan that includes related resourcing.

Aspect area 'design, teaching/learning and outcomes': The assessment panel views the response to this aspect area as not satisfactory. The panel is concerned that there is no clear account of what changes have been implemented in the interim since the previous cohort of doctoral students and how this will affect this aspect area. The panel found good suggestions and approaches in the self-evaluation, but also at times a lack of coherent strategy coordinating the actions that ensure the doctoral students achieve the qualitative targets.

Working life perspective: The panel commends the ‘Project Office’ idea and the general aspirations of the self-evaluation in this perspective. However, details regarding the ‘Project Office’ are vague and there is no mention of the working life perspective in the quality management system of the higher education institution. There is also no identifiable strategy that addresses alumni.

Doctoral student perspective: The panel commends initiatives such as common planning days, an annual research studies seminar, and yearly survey of doctoral students’ experiences. The panel is, however, concerned that there is no mention of the issues raised by the previous doctoral students in the self-evaluation and how these issues have been addressed.

Gender equality perspective: The panel considers this a relatively strong section in the self-evaluation report, with clear attention to this issue and processes. From the interviews, the panel noticed a tendency for the strategic and operational staff to be split along gender lines, and that this was also reflected in the responses given to questions.

Aspect area 'follow-up, actions and feedback': Overall this is not a strong area as it meets only the minimal level for being assessed as satisfactory. It is clearly deficient in the aspect area of 'environment, resources and area'' and in 'working life perspective'.

Overall, the panel has no option but to judge the quality of the programme as questioned and assess it as 'under review'. In resubmitting for approval, the panel advises that the higher education institution provides the following information:

1. A clear strategic plan for the development of the programme over five years, describing prospective doctoral student numbers and resourcing requirements. This should also address related issues connected to the doctoral student, working life, and gender perspectives, as well as articulating an approach for how to deal with foreseeable problems such as the ending of ResArc funding.

2. An explicit statement of the institutional response to the complaints of the previous doctoral students, showing what changes have been implemented, and describing how they address the issues raised.

In conclusion, the panel stresses the importance of the full integration of the views of both operational and strategic staff (and eventually doctoral students) in planning the future of the third-cycle programme.