In conclusion, the programme is assessed as maintaining high quality.

Each doctoral student is allocated at least a principal and secondary supervisor, with up to 340 hours over four years of supervision. This amount is generous. The assessment panel acknowledges an active research environment at the higher education institution with high ambitions to actively participate and influence the field of artistic research. To improve the visibility of the doctoral students’ work, the assessment panel suggests the institution to allocate funding for doctoral students to attend international conferences.

The assessment panel notes that the Interference Laboratories is a good platform for developing knowledge and understanding within the artistic practice while providing a forum for discussion of artistic research. The programme is structured into eight well-articulated components. Overall the assessment panel notes that the programme is well connected to other similar programmes in Europe. Skills and competencies are further enhanced through opportunities where doctoral candidates are invited to the annual ARTikulationen event in Graz, Austria, among other events. The assessment panel found that there was little evidence in the self-evaluation, the interviews and the individual study plans on how the doctoral students, through their artistic and academic practice, contribute to the development of society particularly at a national level. The assessment panel notes that there is little mention of any outreach activities and recommends a much more focused effort on social engagement to be pursued by the higher education institution. It was noted in the interviews, that the students are able and willing to contribute to the development of society. Intellectual autonomy and artistic integrity are needed to define and execute research projects through artistic practice. Through the Interference Laboratories, the programme ensures that students can demonstrate and defend their intellectual and artistic choices. Special courses are offered (e.g. in gender analysis, ecology, or music psychology) to ensure the students develop an articulated understanding of their own practice as a prerequisite to make assessments of research ethics and understand the implications of artistic and scientific practice for society. The assessment panel found that there is a developed awareness about questions of gender and diversity as several projects and courses closely examine gender issues. During the interviews, senior staff commented on this issue and the assessment panel was pleased to hear that a special committee and a gender equality expert will be appointed. The assessment panel notes that there are several formats for evaluating the programme, ranging from group discussions to written responses, or a combination of both. Courses are redesigned based on student feedback, which is very positive.

Doctoral students have good opportunities to influence content and implementation of the programme. The IAC provides the necessary infrastructure for the doctoral students to carry out their artistic research projects. The availability of competent technical support in the IAC and more individual workspace for the doctoral students are potential areas of improvement. Although the current student group is very small, it is active and coherent. The creation of further doctoral student positions and institutional funding for doctoral students to attend international conferences are potential areas of improvement.

The programme offers enough breadth to allow doctoral students to prepare themselves for both an academic career and a career outside academia. It became evident from the self-evaluation that the higher education institution sees several options for the working life of the doctoral students after they have graduated. The fact that the doctoral students are most often experienced professionals is seen by the assessment panel both as an asset and as a prerequisite for a successful doctoral education.