Quality report reveals strengths and areas for development

This is the fifth round of programme reviews at Uppsala University. Do you produce these reports every year?

“Yes, these reports are annual and this particular University-wide report is based on reviews during the period 2022–2023,” explains Wolters.

In total, 44 review units/programmes have been evaluated by 34 review panels. The review panels have included external and internal teachers as well as students and doctoral students.

Wasn't that a challenge in itself with so many people and such a long time?

“Each disciplinary domain/faculty carries out the reviews by themselves,” replies Wolters. “All programmes are reviewed every six years. It is a major undertaking and is perceived as a driver of quality.”

As I understand it, undergraduate, Master’s level and doctoral programmes have been reviewed. Which areas were examined?

“There are guidelines specifying what the teams should assess,” explains Magnusson. “These include goal attainment, teacher expertise, internationalisation, social benefit, social relevance and working life, research basis, and so on.”

Are there any clear trends?

“Something that always comes back as a strength is the expertise of the teachers, and this applies to all programmes – undergraduate, Master’s level and doctoral programmes,” says Wolters. “Teacher committment and strong collaboration between teachers and students are also areas highlighted.”

Other strengths in this year's report are a high level of goal fulfilment, that the programmes fulfil a social need and that they are linked to working life.

“The review of the doctoral programmes has shown that a good research environment is a strength,” continues Magnusson.

But are there no deficiencies, and if there are, how should they be addressed?

“Most of the programmes have received some suggestions for improvement under the theme of examination goals, such as reviewing goals and alignment,” says Wolters.

“For doctoral programmes, it appears that preparation for future working life could be developed, as well as putting more effort into supporting doctoral students by showing them a labour market outside academia,” adds Magnusson.

All programmes draw up action plans after the review. In this round, admission to two programmes has been suspended by the faculty board, which assessed that there were quality deficiencies to be addressed before admitting new students.

Will this report be filed now?

“Programme directors can look at regular feedback and relate it to their own programme. The report is used as a basis of the Vice-Chancellor’s summary to the University Board, but also as a means to identify themes for our annual conference on programme reviews, which this year will be held on 17 April,” concludes Wolters.

Ulrika Hurtig