Aspect: Achievement of qualitative targets for 'knowledge and understanding'

The programme does not yet ensure, 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 higher education institution is currently re-designing its doctoral programme in architecture. To ensure broad knowledge and understanding the programme description outlines, as well as the daily supervision of doctoral students, a series of compulsory and optional courses in combination with the ResArc seminars. The courses address architectural theory, communication, intervention, and sustainable production. The generic compulsory courses will include science theory, ethics and conduct, and oral and written presentation. In addition, the programme will offer knowledge exchanges and meetings with prominent architects and guest professors, as well as a future international network where students can present ongoing work and publish articles.

Although the proposed programme looks sound, it is unclear what is meant by ‘artistic/creative foundations of architectonics’ and how the programme will address these ‘foundations’. In addition, the self-evaluation indicates that, for example, social, political, psychological, gender, and philosophical theories and methods will gain an increasingly prominent role. It remains unclear how the higher education institution understands the disciplinary character of architecture and how it relates to these ‘other’ theories and methods. According to the interviews, the programme intends to draw doctoral students from the Master’s programme, so it is assumed that these students will come into the doctoral programme with some knowledge about methods. According to the interviews, the Master’s and doctoral programmes are closely related and use a holistic approach that considers design and scientific research as the same activity. To guarantee scientific quality and how the qualitative targets and progression are to be achieved, the assessment panel recommends the higher education institution to provide a written description of the overlap and divergence of the Bachelor’s, Master’s and doctoral programmes. In addition, research in architecture at different levels need to be defined. This will involve properly articulating the difference between a Master's thesis based on studio work and a doctoral thesis.

Moreover, following the interviews the panel had concerns regarding an apparent lack of communication between operational and strategic staff. The panel believes enhanced communication will help improve the programme.

The programme's design and teaching/learning activities are systematically followed up to ensure achievement of qualitative targets. However, it is not possible to verify that the results of the follow-up are translated, when necessary, in actions for quality improvement, and feedback is given to relevant stakeholders.

In line with the regulations at the higher education institution, the follow-up of the students' progress takes place through the individual study plan, which is considered an important tool. In addition, annual seminars and talks with students will be organised at different stages to receive feedback on issues that need improvement. In the interviews, it was argued that the higher education institution has a clear syllabus for third-cycle education. The follow-up of students' progress is guaranteed by ensuring that they take part in mandatory seminars, where students present their thesis work after one year, two years, and shortly before finishing (25%, 50%, and 90%). In addition, the individual study plan is part of the follow-up and ensures that qualitative targets are met. The panel cannot verify these statements because there are no individual study plans to assess.

Generally, the strategic staff believes the programme has an integrated learning environment. The strategic staff indicates that as a small school the faculty does not limit its environment to local institutions and strives for international collaborations. Different methods are used to ensure feedback.

When it comes to systematic follow-up of the programme and taking action for quality improvement and giving feedback, the panel is concerned that there is no mention in the self-evaluation of the difficulties experienced by previous doctoral students in the programme. In interviews with strategic staff, it became evident that changes had been implemented in the programme in response to the student complaints, but it remains unclear exactly what these changes are and what effect they will have.

Aspect: Achievement of qualitative targets for 'competence and skills'

Through its design, teaching/learning activities and examination, it is not yet clear that 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. It is also not yet clear that doctoral students will be 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 individual study plan is considered to act as the most important tool to guarantee the achievement of ‘competence and skills’ regarding planning and time frame of the thesis work. Departmental Research Meetings and publications are intended to train oral and written communication within the national and international academic community. How exactly to ensure competence and skills, including communicative skills with society in general, remains open at the moment, and the panel cannot verify the statement in the self-evaluation because there are no individual study plans to assess.

According to the interviews, collaboration with local industries and municipalities is intended to train doctoral students to operate and present their findings outside academia. The higher education institution pleads explicitly for a 'transgressive' agenda, and it became clear from the interviews that this is understood to enhance a multi- and inter-disciplinary approach. However, what this is and how it can be realised in daily practice remains vague. The panel questions whether this is a version of the by-now familiar and quite normative rhetoric of inter-, cross-, or trans-disciplinarity.

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. However, it is not possible to verify that the results of the follow-up are translated, when necessary, into actions for quality improvement, and feedback is given to relevant stakeholders.

Regarding the follow-up of the doctoral students' progress, the individual study plan and research seminars and presentations after one year, after two years, and six months before the final defence are considered crucial, as are on-going conversations with supervisors. The assessment panel notes that the follow-up system depends on the quality and good intentions of the individual student and supervisors. There are no individual study plans available for the panel to assess whether these are or will be used in a systematic way. More generally, the panel recommends that the institution consider a broader follow-up system to monitor students' progress.

Aspect: Achievement of qualitative targets for 'judgement and approach'

Through its design, teaching/learning activities and examination, the programme does not yet ensure that doctoral students who have been awarded degrees show intellectual independence, scientific probity and the ability to make research ethics assessments. The doctoral student does not yet command a broader understanding of science's capabilities and limitations, its role in society and human responsibility for how it is used.

The self-evaluation is not very explicit regarding the way in which the qualitative targets for ‘judgement and approach’ are achieved. The main instruments presented are: the dialogue with the supervisor; presentations at international conferences; mandatory courses that specifically help to frame topics; and discussions of conduct and ethics and the possibilities, limitations and role of science.

In the interview, the operational staff noted the supervisor's role in monitoring the doctoral student's intellectual independence through, for example, conversations and constant feedback. There is also a reference person who specifically secures the international context for the doctoral students. According to the strategic staff, Master’s seminars and workshops already address ethics issues associated with student projects. Moreover, there are intentions to develop critical courses dealing with research ethics and the limits of science. A vertical workshop, which includes Bachelor’s, Master’s and doctoral students, already exists where external experts are invited to work with ethical issues. Although potentially very effective, the assessment panel advises the coordination of all these actions into a single, clearly coherent strategy.

The assessment panel advises that the higher education institution provide a more detailed document that precisely indicates how these qualitative targets can be achieved within the specific setting and the aims of the institution.

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. However, it is not possible to verify that the results of the follow-up are translated, when necessary, into actions for quality improvement, and feedback is given to relevant stakeholders.

The individual study plan ensures the development of the doctoral student’s capacities vis-à-vis intellectual independence, scientific probity, and the ability to assess research ethics, as well as the broader understanding of science’s capabilities and limitations, its role in society, and human responsibility. In addition, according to the self-evaluation, the individual study plan includes seminars, yearly talks with the doctoral students, study camps, and planning workshops. However, again the panel cannot verify these statements because there are no individual study plans to assess.

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 not satisfactory.

The assessment panel sees a need for improvement in 'knowledge and understanding', ‘competence and skills’ and 'judgement and approach'. A step-by-step plan elaborating how the programme will ensure that the doctoral students achieve the qualitative targets is needed.

The panel is concerned that there is no mention in the self-evaluation of the difficulties experienced by previous doctoral students. In the interview with strategic staff, it became clear that changes had been implemented in the programme in response to student feedback, but it remains unclear to the panel what actions were taken to address the students’ concerns and how these actions affect the concerns of the aspect area 'design, teaching/learning and outcomes'. Since there are no doctoral students in the programme, the panel suggests that a specific account of the changes implemented be provided, together with a description of the issues they address.

Moreover, following the interviews the assessment panel had concerns regarding an apparent lack of communication between operational and strategic staff. It believes this communication needs to be improved to ensure the satisfactory development of the programme.