Aspect: Third-cycle subject area

The demarcation of the third-cycle subject area and its connection to scholarship and proven experience are not explicitly stated and therefore not adequate and not appropriate.

The panel found this statement very difficult to assess, as the demarcation of the third-cycle subject area is not explicitly stated in the self-evaluation and must be inferred by the panel members. The insistence on transdisciplinarity is noted, together with a rather open field of knowledge areas (e.g., neuroscience), but it is unclear how this scope would be practically achieved or what its relation is to the listed emerging research areas. The emerging research areas mentioned in the self-evaluation are Emergent Technologies, Social Architecture, and Urban and Rural Development.

It was not clear from the interviews that the majority of operational staff in attendance knew the contents of the programme as it is described in the self-evaluation, and the panel's questions tended not to be directly addressed. Rather than referring to the doctoral programme itself, the answers usually referred to the existing Master’s programme from which the doctoral programme hopes to recruit students. While there were interesting things said about the refraction of global issues through local conditions, the panel remains unconvinced that the consequences of the subject area demarcation for the doctoral programme has rigorously been thought through.

The descriptions of current collaborations and projects are interesting, but their meaning for third-cycle education only exists by implication.

Aspect: Staff

The number of supervisors and teachers and their combined expertise needed in order to be sufficient and proportional to the content of the programme and its teaching/learning activities cannot be assessed positively due to the lack of clarity in the plans for the intended development of the programme.

The panel is not in a position to give a definitive answer on this, not only because there are no doctoral students at present and some staff positions still await appointment, but also because there is a lack of clarity in the presented plans for the development of the programme in the self-evaluation. The panel attempted to explore this in the interviews, but without success.

In the self-evaluation, an open-ended plan is given for the years 2017–2020, which shows each of the three research areas becoming active over three academic years. Initial staff appointments are shown together with a recruitment ratio of two doctoral students in each group every year (or every other year). There is no larger statement about limits of doctoral student recruitment or staffing in relation to this. If two doctoral students are recruited per year in the pattern given, this would lead to twelve doctoral students being in programme by the end of the 2019/2020 academic year (assuming no completions). This claim is contradicted in a later statement in the self-evaluation under the aspect 'third-cycle programme environment' where it says that three to five new doctoral students will be engaged within a three-year period. Even if Research Area A (one of the three research areas shown on the table under the aspect 'staff') recruited one doctoral student per year, it alone would each three doctoral students within the specified time.

Given this, it is hard for the panel to be convinced that adequate planning for resourcing has been undertaken. The fact that there is no discussion of the optimum size of the programme and research areas reinforces these concerns. It remains unclear whether doctoral student recruitment into the research areas will necessarily be balanced, or whether some areas will grow much larger than other areas. If balance is desired, then more attention needs to be paid to how this would be achieved.

The panel strongly recommends that a fully worked out five-year plan for the development of the programme be undertaken and a coherent vision be developed about its long-term shape and size. The panel recognises that such planning is always contingent, but without plans the panel cannot confidently respond to whether staffing is sufficient.

However, the plan to incorporate doctoral students in research groups with staff is highly commended by the panel as is the proposal that an independent reference person be assigned to each doctoral student.

The combined expertise of supervisors and teachers and skill development are followed up systematically to promote high quality in the programme, although at a minimal level. The outcomes of the follow-up are translated, when necessary, into actions for quality improvement, and feedback is given to relevant stakeholders.

The statement in the self-evaluation is minimal regarding a systematic follow-up of the programme. There is a brief discussion on training, a yearly planning workshop, and the encouragement of comparison and discussion of supervisory techniques through the independent reference person position. However, there is no explicit proposal about how the programme facilitates the development of staff expertise through its structures or the opportunities it offers.

Given the current situation at the higher education institution, the panel understands that no specific examples of follow-up action and feedback to stakeholders can be given. The panel must assume this can be satisfactorily handled through the planning workshops, independent reference positions, etc. The panel considers this description to reach the minimum acceptable level.

Aspect: Third-cycle programme environment

Research at the higher education institution needed in order to provide sufficient quality and scale for third-cycle education to be carried out at a high scientific level and within a good educational framework cannot be assessed positively due to the lack of clarity in the plans for the intended development of the programme. Relevant collaboration occurs with the surrounding society, both nationally and internationally.

The same problem exists here as noted above in relation to understanding the scale of the proposed doctoral programme. Otherwise, the self-evaluation gives quite a clear and satisfactory account, although it would have been helpful to have more specific details of the synergies with Umeå University Artistic Campus (UAC) and a more detailed account of what will be available to doctoral students. The overall aim as stated is ambitious, but also rather generic and vague at the same time. The list of staff publications provided with the self-evaluation is substantial.

The panel notes and commends the UAC Research Days and Research Seminars, although, the frequency at which these occur is not noted. Various international links and collaborations are listed, many of which are noted as ongoing. However, it is difficult for the panel to assess exactly what the consequence of these may be for the third-cycle programme because the collaborations are presently ongoing in the absence of doctoral students.

It is notable that the importance of Swedish Research School in Architecture (ResArc) is not referred to in the self-evaluation. This notwithstanding, the assessment panel has some concerns that the higher education institution may be significantly disadvantaged in relation to other schools following the end of ResArc's funding. The relative geographic isolation of the school will cause a significant financial burden if students are no longer funded to attend ResArc courses. This was not brought up in the self-evaluation or interviews, but it deserves reflection and strategic action.

The panel notes and commends that each doctoral student will be offered a workplace and related resources.

The panel's assessment is that the plan minimally meets the acceptable standard to ensure high quality of the third-cycle education environment. The result of the follow-up is translated, when necessary, into quality improvement actions and feedback is given to relevant stakeholders.

The self-evaluation is minimally adequate on this aspect and most of the points listed in the self-evaluation do not address the education environment. With the possible exception of individual conversations and tutorials, it is unclear what the forums for discussion and lines of communication regarding this will be and how follow-up will be enacted. When discussed during interviews, the panel was told that university regulations on committees and their structure would be followed. This gave some confidence that arrangements are in place, but it did not clarify the situation in any detail for the panel.

Overall assessment of the aspect area 'environment, resources and area'

In the overall assessment, the aspect area 'environment, resources and area' cannot be assessed positively because of the lack of information describing the intended development of the programme.

In order for a positive assessment to be made, the panel recommends constructing a fully worked out five-year plan for the development of the programme and related resourcing.

Although the value of ResArc is not emphasised in the self-evaluation, the panel has some concerns that the higher education institution may be significantly disadvantaged in relation to other schools when ResArc's funding ends. The relative geographic isolation of the school will cause a significant financial burden if students are no longer funded to attend ResArc courses. This concern was not brought up in the self-evaluation or interviews, but it deserves reflection and strategic action.

The assessment panel emphasises the good example of the appointment of independent reference persons for individual doctoral students, and the proposal to incorporate doctoral students in research groups with staff.