Assessment panel’s task

The Swedish Higher Education Authority (UKÄ) tasked us with reviewing programmes leading to degree of licentiate and degree of doctor in music. Annex 1 presents our assessments with the related justifications and a proposed overall assessment for each programme reviewed.

We hereby submit our report to UKÄ.

Assessment panel’s composition

The assessment panel included the following members:

• Professor Gerhard Eckel, University of Music and Performing Arts Graz and KTH Royal Institute of Technology (chairperson and subject expert)
• Docent Franziska Schröder, Queen’s University Belfast (subject expert)
• Anne Piirainen, Sibelius Academy, University of the Arts, Helsinki(doctoral student representative)
• Anders Engström, Business Manager at Playground Music Scandinavia AB and Svenska Oberoende Musikproducenter (employer and working life representative)

See annex 2 for circumstances regarding conflicts of interest.

Assessment panel’s work

The evaluation is based on the requirements laid out in the Higher Education Act

(1992:1434) and the Higher Education Ordinance (1993:100). In cases in which the higher education institution offers both licentiate and doctoral degrees in music, they were evaluated as one unit. Assessment material consists of the higher education institutions’ self-evaluation, including annexes formulated based on Guidelines for the evaluation of third-cycle programmes, Swedish Higher Education Authority 2016, revised 2018, general and individual study plans, interviews with representatives of the reviewed programme and doctoral students, and other material provided by UKÄ. This material is presented in annex 3.

Assessment process

From the material, we have assessed the quality of the programmes based on the following assessment areas and assessment criteria.

• preconditions
• design, implementation and outcomes (including gender equality and followup, measures and feedback)
• doctoral student perspective
• working life and collaboration

The assessment panel’s preliminary report per programme was sent to the relevant higher education institution for review, so the higher education institution was able to point out any factual errors. The review period was three weeks. The responses from the higher education institutions are presented in annex 4. We have reviewed the higher education institutions’ responses, and in cases in which we assessed them to be relevant, changes were made in the reports.

The assessment panel’s reflections

Generally the assessment panel was impressed with the quality of the third-cycle programmes in music in Sweden. Despite their small number and scale, they offer well-structured research education and compelling contexts to conduct artistic and scholarly research in music. The interviews with students and staff confirmed that there is a high degree of satisfaction and commitment, as well as an awareness of the necessities and opportunities to further develop the programmes.

The assessment panel was impressed by the generous allocation of supervision time and the high level of qualification of the supervisory staff in both programmes. Nevertheless, with respect to supervisor training, the assessment panel suggests that all supervisors should receive specific supervisor training, which currently is not the case. The assessment panel notes that efforts are being made to maintain and further develop the productive and inspiring research environments and suggests increasing the numbers of doctoral students and post-doctoral researchers for further enhancement of the research environments.

Despite many efforts in creating international collaboration, the assessment panel has found little evidence of research communication at international conferences and symposia. The assessment panel suggests obliging the doctoral students to present their work to the international research community in talks and publications and to provide the necessary funding where it is not yet available.

With respect to the design and implementation of the programmes the assessment panel noted that course plans were very well-structured with a wide spectrum of courses and seminars that the doctoral students can chose from. Some of the established structures may need to be adapted though, should the number of doctoral students increase, which would be highly desirable. In order to increase the coherence among the doctoral students, the assessment panel suggests making a number of courses compulsory.

The assessment panel notes that one of the reviewed programmes is formally a scholarly programme, although it is run as an artistic research programme. The assessment panel is concerned about this ambiguity and suggests that the discrepancy, with respect to the general orientation of the programme, should be addressed in order to establish more coherency among the third-cycle programmes in music on a national level.

With respect to the outcome of the programs the assessment panel notes that the intellectual autonomy and artistic integrity of the doctoral students are well trained in the regular research seminars. The tool of the individual study plan is applied with varying rigor and the assessment panel suggests using it to better monitor the progress of the research project and the intellectual development of the student. The assessment panel has found little evidence of how the doctoral students contribute to the development of society, particularly at a national level.

With the exception of the staff in one programme, the gender balance in the research environments is good in the long run and the assessment panel notes a generally good awareness of gender issues.

The assessment panel notes the good opportunities the doctoral students have to influence the content and implementation of their programmes and their opportunities to supervise Bachelor’s and Master’s student project. Doctoral students have a wide choice of courses and seminars that address their individual needs, both within and outside the institution. The interviews showed that –with a few exceptions– the general work conditions for doctoral students are good. The assessment panel noted that in one programme the doctoral students spend very little time on campus, which has a negative influence on the research environment.

The assessment panel noted that most doctoral students in the reviewed programmes are experienced professionals who are well integrated into work life and can be expected to continue their careers after their studies. Their third-cycle studies provide them with additional academic training, preparing them well to work as post-docs as well as senior research and teaching staff.

In conclusion, the assessment panel is grateful to the staff and doctoral students of the evaluated programs for their enthusiastic engagement in the assessment process. The assessment panel members wish the higher education institutions well for the continuing the successful development of their third-cycle programmes in music.

On behalf of the assessment panel

Gerhard Eckel

Chairperson