Model for educational evaluations at doctoral level - Faculty of Science and Technology

Introduction

The model for educational evaluations at doctoral level at the Faculty of Science and Technology is based on the Guidelines for the Programme Review Model (UFV 2021/2423). According to these guidelines, responsibility for the design, implementation and follow-up of educational evaluations lies with the Faculty Board of the Faculty of Science and Technology. Educational evaluations make it possible to systematically ensure and develop the quality of the Faculty’s doctoral education. The Faculty’s model for educational evaluations comprises two parts: educational evaluations every six years and annual follow-up. These two parts are interconnected as shown in Figure 1. In the context of the annual follow-up, there is follow-up of the measures that have emerged based on the completed six-year educational evaluation or based on data collected in preparation of the six-year educational evaluation.

All doctoral education at the Faculty shall be evaluated once per six-year cycle. All educational evaluations shall result in a brief evaluation report that summarises the most important conclusions drawn from the self-evaluation and assessor statements and presents planned measures/development initiatives. The Faculty Board assesses the report by adding its conclusion and approving it. Doctoral programmes that the Swedish Higher Education Authority (UKÄ) decides to evaluate are exempt from evaluation based on the Faculty model. However, an evaluation report, corresponding to the Faculty’s model, shall be submitted to the Faculty Board after completion of the UKÄ evaluation.

Figure 1.
See link to original document below "PDF", p. 3.

Regulatory framework and responsibilities for doctoral education

Doctoral education is regulated in the Higher Education Act (1992:1434) and the Higher Education Ordinance (1993:100). These are supplemented by the following local regulations: Guidelines for Doctoral Studies at Uppsala University (UFV 2022/728), Admission and Grading Regulations for Doctoral Studies at Uppsala University (UFV 2022/729) and Guidelines for doctoral education – Faculty of Science and Technology (TEKNAT 2021/301). In addition, each subject has a general study plan that specifies the main content of the programme, specific entry requirements and other necessary regulations; see the Faculty’s web pages for doctoral education.

Responsibility for doctoral education ultimately rests with the University Board and the ViceChancellor (Chapter 2, §§ 2–3 of the Higher Education Ordinance). Through delegation, the Faculty Board has overarching responsibility and supervisory responsibility, but the day-to-day responsibility is exercised by the department in which the doctoral student is registered. Key functions in doctoral education are the head of department, professor responsible for doctoral studies in respective subject (FUAP), director of doctoral studies, and the supervisor. For a description of roles and responsibilities, see Rules of Procedure for the Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology (TEKNAT 2019/177).

Educational evaluation every six years

All doctoral programmes shall be evaluated, with each educational evaluation designed to generate the knowledge required to ensure and develop the quality of the programme in question. It shall also include an overall assessment of the quality of the programme – its strengths, weaknesses and areas of development. Doctoral education at the Faculty is evaluated according to a set timetable; see the Timetable for evaluations in the six-year cycle.

Areas and aspects of the educational evaluation

Guidelines for the Programme Review Model at Uppsala University stipulate that the educational evaluation every six years must cover the eleven aspects below and describe the ongoing quality work in each area. The weight given to each aspect may vary depending on development needs and relevance for the programme.

Goal attainment, teaching and assessment

• That the education programmes achieve the goals of the Higher Education Act and the Higher Education Ordinance (System of Qualifications) as well as the programme-specific goals, i.e. that the actual learning outcomes correspond to the intended learning outcomes.
• That the content and teaching methods rest on a scientific foundation and proven experience.
• That the teaching focuses on student-centred^[1]
• That the achievement of intended learning outcomes is assessed using appropriate and fair methods, and that progression is ensured.

Teaching expertise

• That staff involved in teaching and supervision possess adequate expertise in the subject matter, and in teaching and learning in higher education and/or subject didactics, and that there is sufficient teaching capacity.

Student participation and student perspective

• That students have influence on the planning, implementation and follow-up of the programme.
• That an accessible and appropriate study environment is provided for all students.

Working life and societal relevance

• That the programme meets individuals’ and society’s needs for learning and professional knowledge and prepares students for future careers.

Inclusion, international outlook and sustainability

• That equal opportunities and a gender perspective are integrated in the programme.
• That internationalisation and international perspectives are promoted.
• That a sustainability perspective is promoted.

_{[1] The term “student” refers to any person admitted to and performing Bachelor’s, Master’s or doctoral studies.}

Design and implementation of the educational evaluation

Evaluation unit

The doctoral subjects/specialisations that organisationally belong to a department and the doctoral courses given at the department constitute an evaluation unit. Any subjects/specialisations at the department to which no new admissions are made are also included in the evaluation unit and must be evaluated. The head of department has overall responsibility for doctoral education and its quality at the department and thus also for conducting the educational evaluation. The head of department may delegate responsibility for conducting the evaluation, including the site visit, to another teacher at the department. If delegation takes place, the head of department must notify the responsible senior educational officer. If a department finds it necessary to divide the department into two or more evaluation units (e.g. in the case of evaluation with benchmarking, in which comparison is made with the corresponding programme at another higher education institution) this can be requested from the Faculty Board. An assessment panel is appointed for each evaluation unit.

Instructions to the evaluation unit are found in Appendix 1.

Educational evaluation format

Educational evaluations can be in the format of evaluation with an assessor visit or evaluation with benchmarking. As evaluation is normally conducted with an assessor visit, this document describes the site visit for this format.

An evaluation unit can submit a request to the Faculty Board to perform evaluation with benchmarking. The request must state the rationale, added value, forms and who the evaluation unit proposes to participate in the visit.

Evaluation with assessor visit

An assessment panel visits and assesses the evaluation unit during a site visit to Uppsala University.

Evaluation with benchmarking

For evaluation with benchmarking, a visit is made to another higher education institution (HEI) that offers a similar programme. An assessment panel predominantly composed of representatives from the other HEI is appointed (see Assessment panel composition). Representatives from the evaluation unit visit the other HEI together with the internal teacher assessor. The evaluation unit is given access to the other HEI’s programme, and the evaluation is expected to act as an exchange of quality aspects between HEIs.

Assessment panel composition

The assessment panel shall have a composition that ensures that quality can be assessed and needs for action identified within all aspects of doctoral education conducted at the evaluation unit. A large evaluation unit with many subjects/specialisations may therefore need to have more external teachers in the assessment panel compared to a small evaluation unit with a small number of subjects/specialisations. However, an excessively large assessment panel may make the internal work of the panel more difficult.

The assessment panel should have broad representation in terms of subject and legal gender, and include assessors from several HEIs. It shall consist of one internal teacher from another faculty of Uppsala University (in exceptional cases, from another section within the Faculty), two–four external teachers from other HEIs within or outside of Sweden, and one doctoral student from another HEI (in exceptional cases, from another faculty at Uppsala University after approval by the senior educational officer). The internal teacher is appointed as the convening chair of the assessment panel.

For benchmarking, the assessment panel shall consist of an internal teacher from another faculty of Uppsala University (in exceptional cases, from another section within the Faculty), and two–four external teachers from the HEI used in the comparison. It is advisable for the doctoral student assessor to also be appointed from this HEI.

The teacher assessors are appointed by the Faulty Board based on the proposal from the Deputy Dean of Education. The doctoral student assessor is appointed by the relevant student union.

Conflicts of interest must be avoided. The role of assessor requires integrity and impartiality.

Instructions to the assessment panel are found in Appendix 2.

The different parts of the educational evaluation

The educational evaluation consists of a self-evaluation, a site visit (at Uppsala University or another HEI), assessor statements from the assessment panel, and an evaluation report.

Self-evaluation

One self-evaluation is written per evaluation unit.

In the self-evaluation, all aspects set out in Guidelines for the Programme Review Model are to be considered relevant. However, the evaluation unit may give different weight to the aspects based on development needs, provided the rationale for this is given in the self-evaluation. The Doctoral Education Board of the Faculty can decide which aspects are to be given special emphasis at a department based on a previous evaluation report (a decision should be made before the kick-off meeting with the department). The self-evaluation must also describe the ongoing quality work being performed at the evaluation unit in each area (see Areas and aspects of the educational evaluation).

The self-evaluation shall be written in a way that ensures that quality can be assessed and needs for action identified within all aspects of doctoral education conducted at the evaluation unit. How the quality of licentiate and doctoral degrees is ensured shall be stated.

According to the Faculty’s Rules of Procedure, the professor responsible for doctoral studies is responsible for the quality and development of doctoral education within their subject/specialisation and shall thus be responsible for ensuring that the content of the evaluation unit’s consolidated selfevaluation is relevant and representative of the processes that take place within the respective subject/specialisation. What proportion of the self-evaluation is written at the evaluation unit-wide level versus at the subject/specialisation level may vary depending on how education is organised at the evaluation unit. A unit that has several common processes can describe these for the unit as a whole, while a unit with a more decentralised structure may need to write a larger proportion of the self-evaluation at the subject/specialisation level.

It is the responsibility of the person in charge of conducting the evaluation to inform staff at the evaluation unit, especially doctoral students and supervisors, that the evaluation is being initiated. Doctoral students and supervisors shall participate in the preparation of the self-evaluation. The opinions of doctoral students can, for example, be utilised by having a doctoral student representative(s) included in the writing group for the self-evaluation or by discussing the selfevaluation at doctoral student meetings. Another possibility is for doctoral students to write a doctoral student entry in the self-evaluation. The self-evaluation shall include an account of how the opinions of doctoral students have been taken into consideration.

In the self-evaluation, the evaluation unit shall include the results and any measures initiated from the annual follow-up. Certain appendices must be included in the self-evaluation; see Appendix 1.

The self-evaluation is written in English. After coordination with the senior educational officer, the head of the evaluation unit sends the self-evaluation to the assessment panel.

Site visit

The site visit is a central part of the educational evaluation process and is included in both the assessor visit evaluation and the benchmarking evaluation. The forms for site visits are described below for evaluation with assessor visits. For benchmarking, the forms are described by the evaluation unit in connection with the request to choose benchmarking as format.

Prior to the site visit, the respective evaluation unit and the assessment panel should be in contact to put the doctoral programme in its context, ensure that the assessment panel gets the data it needs, and agree on the time point and execution of the site visit.

In connection with the site visit, time should be allotted for the assessment panel to summarise the visit in their own words and begin writing the assessor statement. A two-day site visit is recommended. Those responsible at the evaluation unit decide how much time should be allocated for the site visit.

The assessment panel gives notice of which functions they want to meet for interviews during the site visit. This may include, for example, the Deputy Dean of Education or the chair of the Doctoral Education Board, the head of department, the director of doctoral studies, the professors responsible for doctoral studies, supervisors, doctoral students and alumni. The representation of supervisors and doctoral students participating in interviews should be broad in terms of subject, legal gender and Swedish-speaking or non-Swedish-speaking. Doctoral students participating in the site visit shall be appointed by the doctoral student council at the department or the doctoral student representative on the department board. The assessment panel shall meet the doctoral students separately. The assessment panel is asked to forward questions to the doctoral students before the site visit to make it easier for the doctoral students to collect views from other doctoral students (if desired). However, this does not prevent the assessment panel from asking other questions during the site visit.

A concluding and summarising session in which the assessment panel presents its first impressions of the education and its strengths and weaknesses shall be part of the site visit.

Assessor statements

The task of the assessment panel is to identify strengths and weaknesses/areas for development and make recommendations for further development of the education within the evaluation unit. The assessors are asked to highlight particular strengths in the education to be safeguarded and to state the most important recommendations, clearly indicating which proposals are prioritised. In addition, the assessment panel shall provide an overall assessment of the quality of the education at the evaluation unit and the education in each doctoral subject/specialisation.

The assessment panel bases its assessor statements on the self-evaluation (and its appendices) and on assessor interviews during the site visit. In addition, the assessment panel receives all individual study plans for a random selection of doctoral students (at least two doctoral students per doctoral subject/specialisation).

The assessment panel shall submit two assessor statements:

• one detailed assessor statement and
• one summary assessor statement for publication (approx. 2 pages).

The assessor statements shall be written in English and – in addition to the above-indicated strengths, weaknesses/areas for development, recommendations and overall assessment – include information on who served as assessors, the method and when the evaluation was performed.

The assessors are asked to submit preliminary assessor statements to the evaluation unit to enable correction of any factual errors.

Evaluation report

The educational evaluation (including an evaluation conducted by UKÄ) shall result in a brief evaluation report in which the evaluation unit summarises the most important conclusions drawn from the self-evaluation and assessor statements and presents planned measures/development initiatives. The evaluation unit may prioritise among the recommendations proposed by the assessment panel, and shall state the reasons for the prioritisation if it differs from that of the assessors. Planned measures must be concrete, and the timetable and responsible person/function must be specified for each measure, along with how those responsible for doctoral education (head of department, director of doctoral studies, professor responsible for doctoral studies), the supervisors and doctoral students are to be involved in the implementation. The report shall also state how planned measures have been anchored with those responsible for doctoral education, supervisors and doctoral students. The evaluation report shall also include a description of how the evaluation was structured and include an account of how the doctoral students were involved.

The head of department submits the evaluation report to the Faculty Board. The Faculty Board shall decide whether the doctoral subject/specialisation shall be further developed or discontinued., The Faculty Board’s conclusion, including whether there is a need for special follow-up or discontinuation, adds to the report. The Faculty Board then approves the report. If the Faculty Board decides that a doctoral subject or specialisation should be discontinued, the section dean shall submit to the Doctoral Education Board a plan for how the remaining doctoral students will receive the best possible education.

The measures and development initiatives identified in the evaluation report shall be started by no later than the next year and reported within the context of annual follow-up.

The evaluation report is written in English to include non-Swedish speaking staff and doctoral students. Parts of the report (planned measures and the Faculty Board’s conclusion) are also written in Swedish to fulfil the requirement of Swedish as an official language. A short Swedish summary will also be included.

Publication

The approved evaluation report and the summary assessor's statement are made available to the public (published on Uppsala University’s website). The approved evaluation report is disseminated to the relevant assessors and the relevant student union.

The self-evaluation, the assessor statements and the evaluation report are registered and made available internally.

Annual follow-up

The departments are required to submit an annual activity report for doctoral education, which forms part of the Faculty’s model for educational evaluations. Even if a department has been divided into several evaluation units during the educational evaluation carried out, the department must submit a summary annual report.

The head of department, or another teacher to whom they delegate the task, shall submit an activity report for the previous year to the Doctoral Education Board in early spring. This report shall include an account of the annual audit of individual study plans and answers to questions linked to special focus areas (see below) and other questions that are considered key to the department’s quality work. For programmes that have been evaluated, follow-up of planned measures and development efforts linked to the evaluation must be included. The department is also asked to present a plan for the following year and with a longer time perspective. The instructions for the activity report are prepared by the Doctoral Education Board and adopted annually by its chair. An example of instructions for an annual activity report are found in Appendix 3.

A number of surveys concerning doctoral education are carried out at Uppsala University on a regular basis, both by the Quality and Evaluation Unit and by the Faculty Office for Science and Technology. The respondent groups for these surveys are doctoral students, supervisors and alumni. Research also undergoes regular evaluation at Uppsala University. Follow-up of the survey studies at the department level takes place within the framework of annual follow-up after the survey study results have been provided by the responsible unit. The same applies to the follow-up of the part of the research evaluation that concerns doctoral education.

The departments’ activity reports serve as input to the Doctoral Education Board’s annual report to the Faculty Board. The Doctoral Education Board’s annual report is disseminated to the departments after it has been approved.

Focus areas

The focus areas for the annual follow-up (see Table 1) are based on the areas and aspects set out in Guidelines for the Programme Review Model, i.e. the same as the educational evaluation every six years. The focus areas are also based on planned measures in established evaluation reports from the previous evaluation cycles as well as other processes within doctoral education that are considered key to the quality work.

The purpose of the annual focus areas is both to facilitate the writing of the self-evaluation and to give the departments the opportunity to continuously work with the areas and aspects included in the model. Specification of the focus areas for the current year and proposals for working methods for these are presented at the annual information meeting with professors responsible for doctoral education. In its work with focus areas, the department can choose to supplement with an aspect deemed relevant to the department. Reporting on focus areas takes place within the context of annual follow-up.

Table 1. Focus areas 2023–2028.

Timetable for evaluations in the six-year cycle

A timetable for educational evaluations during the period 2023–2028 has been drawn up based on when the evaluations were completed in the last evaluation cycle; see Table 2. The times indicated are a preliminary start date for educational evaluation within the respective subject and the department responsible for the programme. The evaluation units for a given year are expected to begin writing the self-evaluation at the start date.

Table 2. Timetable for educational evaluations 2023– 2028.

Appendix 1: Instructions to the evaluation unit

Introduction

This is an appendix to Model for educational evaluations at doctoral level which describes the Faculty of Science and Technology’s model for systematic quality management. At the doctoral level, all doctoral subjects/specialisations and courses are evaluated based on department affiliation. The educational evaluation is performed one time per six-year cycle and consists of four parts: selfevaluation, site visit, assessment panel statements, and evaluation report.

For a step-by-step description of the educational evaluation process, see Appendix 3.

Preparations

The preparatory work (Figure 1) is performed by the evaluation unit with support from the Faculty Office before the specified start date for the respective subject and department. The preparations include the following:

• Kick-off meeting where representatives from the department meet with Faculty representatives to review the upcoming educational evaluation at the department. Participation of one or more doctoral students from the department in this meeting is recommended.
• The head of department informs the responsible senior educational officer about any delegation of responsibility for conducting the educational evaluation to another teacher at the department.
• The department discusses whether there is a need to split the evaluation unit (where applicable, submit a request to the Faculty Board).
• The evaluation unit discusses the format of the educational evaluation (where applicable, submit a benchmarking request to the Faculty Board).
• The evaluation unit draws up a proposal of assessors and sends this to the Faculty Office. Proposed assessors then receive a formal request to take on the assignment from the Faculty Office.
• The person responsible for conducting the evaluation informs the staff at the unit that an evaluation is taking place.
• The evaluation unit discusses the forms for producing the self-evaluation and how the opinions of doctoral students can be utilised.
• The evaluation unit formulates the questions that the unit wants answered in the evaluation. Each unit can formulate its most activity-specific questions, i.e. those that are of particular importance for assessing and developing the quality of education provided by the unit. This may be a development area where the unit would like to receive support from the assessors in the form of recommendations (suggestions of suitable measures).
• Collection of documentation (see below regarding which documentation the Faculty Office provides).

Self-evaluation

One part of the evaluation is a self-evaluation written by the evaluation unit.

The Guide for educational evaluations at doctoral level (see appendix 5) and Uppsala University’s Idea bank – review questions based on the aspects (UFV 2021/2434) are available as support in the writing process.

In the self-evaluation, the evaluation unit describes and evaluates the conditions that exist and the processes used in doctoral education within the evaluation unit. It is important to note that the emphasis may vary between aspects based on development needs. Highlight what is considered particularly relevant to the assessment and development of quality in doctoral education: How does it work? What works well? What could be improved? The self-evaluation is intended to provide the opportunity for structured reflection on various aspects and components that can be integrated in the doctoral students’ course component and thesis component. The course component of doctoral education contributes to the attainment of intermediate learning outcomes for licentiate and doctoral degrees according to the Higher Education Ordinance. This applies in particular, but not exclusively, to learning outcomes related to knowledge and understanding. For the attainment of these and other learning outcomes (related to competence and skills as well as judgement and approach), there is training and evaluation mainly in the research conducted by the doctoral student. This usually takes place through interaction between the doctoral student and supervisor, through participation in seminars and conferences and the writing of scientific articles, etc. within the framework of the thesis component of the programme. To support the writing of the self-evaluation:

• The evaluation unit is asked to be as reflective as possible when carrying out the selfevaluation, identifying strengths and weaknesses along with how these are handled to ensure that high quality is achieved in the education. The evaluation unit is asked to illustrate with examples.
• The self-evaluation shall be based on current conditions for the education.
• The self-evaluation shall also account for previous evaluation and quality work based on the latest adopted evaluation report, which is attached as an appendix.
• Tables with information about active doctoral students, former doctoral students, supervisors and other researchers are attached to the self-evaluation (templates are available from the Faculty Office).
• The self-evaluation is 20–30 pages long, excluding appendices.
• The self-evaluation should be able to stand alone and be read without other background material.
• A collection of links to governance documents and documents with raw data can constitute an appendix.
• A self-evaluation template is available from the Faculty Office.
• The Faculty Office provides the evaluation unit with statistical data in the form of student completion rate, average net study time, proportion of revised individual study plans, gender distribution of doctoral students and form of funding for doctoral students.
• The department’s work with annual focus areas, the department’s activity reports and results from surveys (doctoral students, supervisors and alumni) provide additional data for the self-evaluation.

Random sampling of individual study plans

The assessment panel receives all individual study plans for a random sampling of doctoral students (at least two doctoral students per doctoral subject/specialisation). The random sampling is done by the Faculty Office from among the doctoral students that the evaluation unit has reported as active within the current evaluation period. The evaluation unit can make the Faculty Office aware of any sensitive information in individual study plans that should not be further disclosed. The indicated study plans are assessed in terms of confidentiality, and any information deemed confidential shall be masked before being passed on to the relevant assessors.

Site visit

The evaluation unit and assessment panel work together to create a suitable programme for the site visit. The assessment panel gives notice of which functions they want to meet for interviews during the site visit. A draft programme is provided by the Faculty Office.

During the site visit, the evaluation unit serves as host and welcomes everyone, introduces the various parties and makes themselves available for any questions from the assessors for the entirety of the visit. The convener of the assessment panel, or a person delegated by the convener, chairs the site visit interviews.

The evaluation unit is responsible for booking premises and meals. The assessors are not to incur any expenses. The evaluation unit will receive instructions from the Faculty Office on how to handle expenses. The assessors will be in direct contact with the Faculty Office for booking travel and hotels. For longer site visits (three days), a more formal dinner and a light dinner are included.

The site visit ends with a summary session at which the assessment panel gives a short report on its first impressions. This session is attended by those responsible for the evaluation unit and faculty representatives and provides an opportunity for the evaluation unit to correct any misconceptions.

Final elements of the evaluation

The assessment panel submits a preliminary version of the detailed statement to the evaluation unit, which has the opportunity to clarify any factual errors and misunderstandings.

After the assessment panel has submitted its finalised statements, a follow-up meeting between the assessors and the evaluation unit is recommended. A meeting of this type is convened by the evaluation unit.

The evaluation unit writes an evaluation report to the Faculty Board.

Appendix 2: Instructions to the assessment panel

Introduction

This is an appendix to Model for educational evaluations at doctoral level which describes the

Faculty of Science and Technology’s model for systematic quality management. The educational evaluations are intended to be used as a tool to ensure and develop the quality of the Faculty’s doctoral education.

The doctoral subjects/specialisations and courses that organisationally belong to a department constitute an evaluation unit. A department may apply to the Faculty Board for a division of the department into two or more evaluation units.

A reviewing assessment panel is appointed for each evaluation unit. The review shall be conducted according to accepted principles for peer review.

For a step-by-step description of the educational evaluation process, see Appendix 3.

Assignment to the assessment panel

The task of the assessment panel is to identify strengths and weaknesses/areas for development and make recommendations for further development of the education within the evaluation unit. The assessors are asked to highlight particular strengths in the education to be safeguarded and to state the most important recommendations, clearly indicating which proposals are prioritised. In addition, the assessment panel shall provide an overall assessment of the quality of the education at the evaluation unit and the education in each doctoral subject/specialisation.

The assessment panel shall write two statements (see below).

The convener of the assessment panel is invited to a kick-off meeting with faculty representatives to review the upcoming educational evaluation. The convening assessor is expected to be the person in the assessment panel who communicates with the Faculty Office and with the person responsible for conducting the evaluation at the evaluation unit.

Assessment data and assessor interview

For its assignment, the assessment panel is given a self-evaluation written by the evaluation unit and the opportunity to gather information through interviews during a site visit. The Faculty Office provides the Faculty's Rules of Procedure, including the delegation scheme and Guidelines for doctoral education, as well as the faculty-wide template for individual study plans. In addition, the assessment panel receives a random sampling of individual study plans. The assessment panel can request additional documentation as needed and contact the evaluation unit if any uncertainties arise.

The Guide for educational evaluations at doctoral level (see appendix 5) and Uppsala University’s Idea bank – review questions based on the aspects (UFV 2021/2434) are available as support in the review process.

Site visit

A physical site visit of 2 days is recommended.

Prior to the site visit, the evaluation unit and the assessment panel should be in contact to put the programme in its context, ensure that the assessment panel gets the data it needs, and agree on the time point and execution of the site visit.

The assessment panel gives notice of which functions they want to meet during the site visit at the evaluation unit. In connection with the site visit, the assessment panel should be given time to summarise the visit in their own words and begin writing the assessor statement. The person responsible at the evaluation unit decides how much time should be allocated for the site visit. A draft programme is provided by the Faculty Office.

The assessment panel is asked to forward questions to the doctoral students before the site visit to make it easier for the doctoral students to collect views from other doctoral students (if desired). However, this does not prevent the assessment panel from asking other questions during the site visit.

During the site visit, the evaluation unit serves as host and welcomes everyone, introduces the various parties and makes themselves available for any questions from the assessors for the entirety of the visit. The convener of the assessment panel, or a person delegated by the convener, chairs the site visit interviews.

The assessment panel is expected to present its first impressions of the education and its strengths and weaknesses at a closing and summary session during the site visit.

Assessor statements

The assessment panel shall write one detailed assessor statement and one summary assessor statement. The summary assessor statement shall be published on the University’s website with the public and doctoral students as the primary target groups.

The assessor statements shall be written in English and – in addition to the strengths, weaknesses/areas for development, recommendations and overall assessment – include information on who served as assessors, the method and when the evaluation was performed. A statement template is available from the Faculty Office.

The assessors are asked to submit preliminary assessor statements to the evaluation unit to enable correction of any factual errors.

After the statement, it may be suitable for one or more assessors to participate in a follow-up meeting (virtual or physical) with representatives of the evaluation unit in order to give the evaluation unit a chance to ask follow-up questions and thereby gain further insights from the evaluation.

Remuneration and compensation to the assessors are paid after receipt of the final statements.

Compensation

Remuneration

The external teachers in the assessment panel are paid SEK 10,000 each, while the external doctoral student in the assessment panel is paid SEK 7,000. For the internal teacher, compensation is paid to the department that employs the teacher. The compensation level shall correspond to the SEK 10,000 that the external teachers receive as compensation.

Other compensation

For site visits, travel and hotel costs are covered by the Faculty. The trips shall follow the

University’s travel policy. Hotels are booked where government agreements exist, with the specified ranking followed. Travel and hotel bookings are made by agreement with the Faculty Office.

No per diem is paid, but joint meals are included. The Faculty shall pay for all shared meals in connection with the site visit. For longer site visits (three days), a more formal dinner and a light dinner are included. The University’s guidelines for entertainment shall be followed.

The assessors are not reimbursed for their own expenses incurred.

Handling conflict of interest

The role of assessor requires integrity and impartiality. Conflicts of interest that could make the objectivity of the assessors be called into question must be avoided. Conflict of interest is described in Sections 11 and 12 of the Administrative Procedures Act.

Appendix 3: Timetable for an evaluation unit

This is an appendix to Model for educational evaluations at doctoral level which describes the Faculty of Science and Technology’s model for systematic quality management.

The timetable below is a description of the educational evaluation process, and the suggested time for each part of the process is expressed in months. Before the start of the educational evaluation, each evaluation unit will be given deadlines, with public holidays and the summer holiday period taken into account. The evaluation unit can choose to accelerate the process if desired. Figure 2 shows the parts of the process in months.

Figure 2. See link to original document below "PDF", p. 17.

3 months before the start date: Kick-off meeting with those responsible for relevant evaluation units.

2 months before the start date: The responsible individuals at the evaluation unit submit suggestions for external and internal assessors to the senior educational officer. Proposed assessors receive a formal request to take on the assignment from the Faculty Office. The role of assessor requires integrity and impartiality. Conflicts of interest must be avoided. The responsible individual at the department submits a request to divide the department into multiple evaluation units, if necessary.

1 months before the start date: The assessment panel is appointed by the Faulty Board based on the proposal from the Deputy Dean of Education. A preliminary date for the site visit and a timetable shall preferably be provided when assessors are asked. Proposals are submitted by those responsible for the evaluation unit.

Start date: The evaluation unit begins its work to write a self-evaluation. In connection with this, the evaluation unit submits a list of doctoral students who have had an activity during the time period covered by the evaluation using the template provided by the Faculty Office.

1 month after the start date: Kick-off meeting with convening assessor in the assessment panel.

2 months after the start date: Contact between the head of the evaluation unit and the assessment panel to put the programme in its context, ensure that the assessment panel gets the data it needs, and agree on the time point and execution of the site visit.

3 months after the start date: The self-assessment is sent to the assessment panel.

4 months after the start date: The head of the evaluation unit coordinates the site visit programme with the relevant assessment panel, other participants, and the senior educational officers.

6–7 months after the start date: Site visit.

8–9 months after the start date: The assessment panel submits a preliminary version of detailed assessor statement to the evaluation unit to give them an opportunity to sort out any misunderstandings/factual errors.

10 months after the start date: The assessment panel submits the final versions of the detailed assessor statement and the summary statement (for publication on the external web).

10 months after the start date: A follow-up meeting with representatives from the evaluation unit and the assessment panel is recommended to give the evaluation unit the opportunity to ask followup questions and thereby gain further insights from the evaluation. The evaluation unit is responsible for convening any such meeting.

11–12 months after the start date: The evaluation unit submits an evaluation report addressed to the Faculty Board to the senior educational officer. Preparation in the Postgraduate Education Board.

13 months after the start date: The Faculty Board assesses the results of the evaluation and adds its conclusion to the evaluation report. The approved evaluation report, including Faculty Board conclusion, is sent to the evaluation unit, assessment panel, relevant student union and the Quality and Evaluation Unit.

Appendix 4: Example of instructions for an annual activity report

This is an appendix to Model for educational evaluations at doctoral level which describes the Faculty of Science and Technology’s model for systematic quality management.

The Faculty’s model comprises two parts, namely the educational evaluation every six years and the annual follow-up of education. These instructions are part of the annual follow-up.

Each year, the head of department, or another teacher to whom they delegate the task, shall submit an activity report for doctoral education to the Doctoral Education Board. The departments’ activity reports serve as input to the Doctoral Education Board’s annual report to the Faculty Board.

The activity report, including appendices, is sent by email to the senior educational officer NN (email) by XX month 20XX.

1. Revision of individual study plans

Report of all doctoral students (all admitted students who have not yet graduated or who have requested a pause) and their main supervisor at the department plus confirmation of the annual revision of the study plan (state the date of the last revision). If no study plan revision has taken place, the reason must be stated. Also state whether anyone in addition to the doctoral student and supervisor (third party) has been involved in the revision work, e.g. director of doctoral studies (FUS) or professor responsible for doctoral studies (FUAP). If the department has not succeeded in establishing contact with an inactive doctoral student, the head of department can establish a revision of the study plan (state the date of the revision and “established by the head of department without a doctoral student”), or, for doctoral students who have been inactive for more than 2 years and the department has not established contact, state “inactive doctoral student, >x years”. Use the provided template for reporting; see Appendix 1.

2. Focus areas for the year

(Links to the focus areas for the year in the educational evaluation model.)

3. Follow-up of planned measures in approved evaluation report

Report on the implementation of planned measures. State the planned measures, planned timetable, status (completed, started, not started) and comments for each measure.

Use the provided template for reporting; see Appendix 2.

4. Follow-up of additional processes that are considered key in the quality work

(Faculty-wide questions submitted by the chair of the Doctoral Education Board.)

5. Department-specific follow-up

(Department-specific questions submitted by the chair of the Doctoral Education Board.)

6. Activity plan for coming year and with a longer time perspective

What the department intends to do in 20XX, with a link/rationale to identified development areas and/or planned measures.

Appendix 5. Guide for educational evaluations at doctoral level

Introduction

This is an appendix to the Model for educational evaluations at doctoral level, which describes the Faculty of Science and Technology's model for systematic quality work. The guide is primarily aimed at those responsible at the respective evaluation unit to support the writing of self-evaluation. The guide does not contain any additional requirements for the content of the self-evaluation beyond the model and its first four appendices but is intended to provide support to those responsible for education in the form of tips and inspiration. The guide can also serve as a review support for assessors.

The guide is based on Uppsala University's Guidelines for the Programme Review Model (UFV 2021/2434), and has been inspired by UKÄ's previous Guideline for the evaluations of third-cycle programmes (2018)1 and Uppsala University's Idea Bank - review questions based on the aspects (UFV 2021/2434). This guide replaces the previous version of the Guide for educational evaluations at doctoral level (TEKNAT 2017/85).

Areas and aspects included in the educational evaluations

The guidelines of Uppsala University's model of educational evaluations stipulate that the programmes evaluation shall cover the following eleven aspects and describe the ongoing quality work in each area, i.e. each grouping of aspects. Different emphasis can be placed on different aspects depending on development needs and relevance to the programmes. An evaluation unit can thus, with justification in the self-evaluation, place different emphasis on the aspects based on development needs. In addition, the Doctoral Education Board may decide that special emphasis should be placed on one or more aspects in the evaluation of doctoral education at an evaluation unit based on previous evaluation.

The evaluation aspects are grouped into five areas to enable more coherent accounts and thus reduce overlaps. The guide is structured around the areas and aspects but the evaluation unit is free to structure the self-evaluation in a different way, as long as it is clear that the aspects are being evaluated.

Area 1: Goal attainment, teaching and assessment

• That the programme achieves the objectives of the Higher Education Act and Higher Education Ordinance (System of Qualifications) and programme-specific goals, i.e., that actual learning outcomes correspond to intended learning outcomes.

• That the content and teaching methods are founded on a research basis and proven experience.

• That the teaching focuses on student2-centred learning.

• That the achievement of intended learning outcomes is assessed using appropriate and fair methods, and that progression is ensured.

Area 2: Teaching expertise

• That staff involved in teaching and supervision possess adequate expertise in the subject matter, and in teaching and learning in higher education and/or subject didactics, and that there is sufficient teaching capacity.

Area 3: Student participation and student perspective

• That students have influence on the planning, implementation and follow-up of the programme.

• That an accessible and appropriate study environment is provided for all students.

Area 4: Working life and societal relevance

• That the programme meets individuals’ and society’s needs for learning and professional knowledge and prepares students for future careers.

Area 5: Inclusion, international outlook and sustainability

• That equal opportunities and a gender perspective are integrated in the programme.

• That internationalisation and international perspectives are promoted.

• That a sustainability perspective is promoted.

Content and structure of the self-evaluation

This section is intended to support the evaluation unit in developing the self-evaluation in terms of content and structure and may also support the evaluators in carrying out their task.

Describing and evaluating doctoral education as a coherent unit requires both thought and reflection. It is therefore necessary that both the descriptions in the self-evaluation and the assessment of the same take into account the variation that exists within a single programme. One piece of advice for the evaluation unit is to start by freely formulating evaluation questions based on their own knowledge of the programme and its objectives. This can be done in the supervisory college, at teacher days or in other collegial forums. Remember that doctoral students3 can also provide ideas for relevant questions. In the next step, you can check your own questions against the model to ensure that all aspects are covered. Doctoral student means a person admitted to and pursuing studies at doctoral level (including licentiate students).

The self-evaluation should be written in such a way that it is possible to assess the quality of, and identify needs for action in, doctoral education in the evaluation unit. It is a good idea to start by establishing what is common for all doctoral students in the evaluation unit and then go on to describe what is specific to each subject/specialisation, and to maintain this order throughout the self-evaluation.

Appendix 1, Instruction to the Evaluation Unit, contains further information on preparing for educational evaluation and producing the self-evaluation and the basis for the self-evaluation.

Task of the assessment panel

According to the model, the task of the assessment panel is to identify strengths and weaknesses/areas for development and to make recommendations for further development of the programme within the evaluation unit. The assessors are asked to highlight particular strengths in the programme to be safeguarded, and to make recommendations and suggestions for improvements, clearly indicating which suggestions are prioritised. In addition, the assessment panel is to provide an overall assessment of the quality of the programme at the evaluation unit and assess the quality of the programme within each doctoral subject/specialisation. For this assignment, the assessment panel receives the evaluation unit's self-evaluation, as well as the opportunity to obtain information through interviews during a site visit.

Preparation of the self-evaluation

One piece of advice for the evaluation unit is to involve many people in the self-evaluation process. In particular, it is important that doctoral students are given the opportunity to participate actively in the process. If more people are involved (those ultimately responsible, professors responsible for doctoral education, supervisors and doctoral students, as well as others active in doctoral education at the unit), the chances of the evaluation being quality-driving increase, and the follow-up work with possible measures is facilitated.

The professor responsible for doctoral education is responsible for ensuring that the parts of the evaluation unit's overall self-evaluation that apply to the subject/specialisation concerned are relevant and representative.

A description of the process in which the self-evaluation has been produced and how the doctoral students' views have been taken into account must be included in the self-evaluation. If different emphasis has been given to the aspects, a justification of these choises must be included in the self-evaluation.

Description of the evaluation unit and its quality work

The evaluation unit should be described in a systematic way in the self-evaluation, so that the evaluators can easily get an idea of the conditions of the programme and the ongoing quality work.

Conditions for doctoral education

The self-evaluation must begin with descriptive information stating the following:

• Doctoral subjects/specialisations (name and Ladok code)

• Professor responsible for doctoral education/assistant professor responsible for doctoral education for each subject/specialization.

• Number of doctoral students, number of new admissions, any admission stops, number of doctoral graduates in the last 5 years, refer to the table appendix with active doctoral students and previous doctoral students.

• Number of supervisors within each subject/specialisation, refer to the table appendix with supervisors and any other researchers. A template for table appendices is provided by the faculty office.

Ongoing quality assurance work

A description of the ongoing quality assurance work in doctoral education should be included under each area or summarised in a separate section at the beginning of the self-evaluation. In particular, the description should address:

• What formal and informal procedures exist for quality work in the doctoral programme.

• How the evaluation unit ensures that planned measures are taken in accordance with previous evaluations, specified in annual reports to the faculty, established evaluation reports and follow-up of surveys.

• Any ongoing work on or ideas about how the evaluation unit's quality work can be further developed.

• How supervisors and doctoral students interact in the planning, implementation and development of the programme, and what forums exist for discussion and exchange of experience.

• Procedures for auditing general study plans.

• Procedures for auditing and following up individual study plans.

• How long-term reviews are performed for the range of doctoral subjects/specialisations offered.

• How a review of the range of doctoral courses is carried out.

• How the unit monitors various key figures in the education (e.g. throughput, drop-outs, gender distribution, Swedish-speaking and non-Swedish-speaking doctoral students, application pressure, recruitment basis) and how this is used in development work.

Area 1: Goal attainment, teaching and examination

Research basis

Aspect: That the content and teaching methods rest on a scientific foundation and proven experience.

The doctoral education subjects/specialisations at the evaluation unit shall rest on a scientific foundation. The quality and scope of research in all areas of the evaluation unit must be such that doctoral education in each area can be conducted at a high scientific level and with good educational conditions. The range of doctoral programme subjects/specialisations should reflect the research areas within the evaluation unit. In addition to the quality of the research, the doctoral students’ study environment should provide other educational conditions necessary for the breadth of the subject - for example, seminar series and doctoral courses. The doctoral students’ study environment refers to the environment in which doctoral students, supervisors and others involved in the programme operate. A doctoral programme environment is, for example, a department, division or group, but also includes environments outside the evaluation unit. In a good doctoral study environment, attention should be paid to the doctoral student's opportunities for collaboration, both with researchers nationally and internationally, and with the surrounding society.

Within the doctoral programme, supervisors and other persons with the ability to convey the scientific subject basis shall contribute to the doctoral student's learning in the subject area of the doctoral programme. The doctoral programme should provide doctoral students with the opportunity to participate in research-related activities and develop a scientific approach.

Examples of what can be included in the self-evaluation:

• How the doctoral programme subject/specialisation is clearly linked to current research and proven experience.

• A description of how the research conducted by the evaluation unit within the subject ensures that the quality of the doctoral programme is consistent and high. For example, that the research within the subject is of internationally recognised high quality and is conducted to a sufficient extent to form a basis for doctoral education.

• The unit's processes for reviewing the range of doctoral subjects/specialisations.

• What follow-up and procedures are in place to enable a change of professor responsible for doctoral education if necessary (the assignment should rotate within the subject/specialisation).

• In what ways the doctoral students are stimulated to develop a scientific approach during the education.

• How the programme is structured to provide a progression in methodological knowledge relevant to the field.

• The role of the programme in enabling doctoral students to further develop their skills in searching for information and assessing its value and relevance to research.

• How does the unit ensure that doctoral students in the doctoral study environment have access to the necessary infrastructure.

• How does the unit ensure that the conditions and quality of the doctoral study environment are also good for those doctoral students who complete the programme at another location or in another environment.

• A reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of the unit's current approach.

Goal attainment

Aspect: That the education programmes achieve the goals of the Higher Education Act and the Higher Education Ordinance (System of Qualifications) as well as the programme-specific goals, i.e. that the actual learning outcomes correspond to the intended learning outcomes.

For doctoral programmes, there are national learning outcomes in the Higher Education Ordinance's System of Qualifications (Appendix 2, 1993:100), which each programme must ultimately meet. The learning outcomes prescribe what the doctoral student should have achieved by the licentiate degree and the doctoral degree respectively. In addition, there are programme-specific objectives stated in general study plans for each doctoral programme subject/specialisation. Doctoral courses may also have objectives in the syllabuses, which can support the fulfilment of the objectives of the programme as a whole.

An analysis of throughput, and of what the programme does to equip doctoral students to achieve the objectives, can contribute to the picture of the quality of the programme. Throughput is not a quality measure in itself, but a reflection on what measures are taken, and what support is provided to create the conditions for the doctoral students to complete the programme within the time limit, is valuable.

Examples of what can be included in the self-evaluation:

• How the evaluation unit works to ensure that doctoral students achieve the objectives of the programme.

• Methods used by the unit to ensure that the actual results of the doctoral students correspond to the expected educational outcomes.

• How the evaluation unit assesses and ensures that doctoral students with approved results (thesis) also achieve the set learning outcomes and examination objectives.

• The evaluation unit's work on the link between degree learning outcomes, teaching activities and examination.

• An analysis of throughput, and how it is linked to the quality requirements for research and doctoral education.

• How the evaluation unit works to equip doctoral students to achieve the objectives.

• A reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of the unit's current approach.

Progression and examination

Aspect: That the achievement of intended learning outcomes is assessed using appropriate and fair methods, and that progression is ensured.

Individual study plans, and working procedures for their follow-up, are important tools for continuously following up the achievement of learning outcomes and progression during the course of the doctoral programme. Access to high-quality doctoral courses is a prerequisite for enhancement and progression in the programme. The assessment panel will receive all established individual study plans for a random sample of doctoral students within the evaluation unit (at least two doctoral students per doctoral programme subject/direction) . The selection will be made by the faculty office among active doctoral students. The evaluation unit has the opportunity to draw the faculty office’s attention to any sensitive information in individual study plans that should not be passed on.

The thesis itself is not included as a basis for the evaluation, but the evaluation unit should account for the processes leading up to the finished thesis manuscript. This may include, for example, the various peer review processes, including supervision, supervisory colleges, and seminars. The defence of the thesis constitutes the main examination of the doctoral programme.

Examples of what can be included in the self-evaluation:

• The way in which the unit ensures that the doctoral students, through for example seminar activities and other collaboration, gain broad knowledge of the subject, other research perspectives and research specialisations.

• Processes for how progression is achieved and followed up during the programme, and how degree learning outcomes, learning activities and examination are linked.

• Procedures for planning and following up the doctoral student's studies in the individual study plan.

• The evaluation unit's work to offer doctoral students a high-quality range of courses that correspond to the general and individual study plans;

• How the doctoral students' goal attainment and progression are followed up throughout the thesis work. If, for example, a mid-term review or lic. seminar is included as a milestone, and what quality-enhancing measures, if any, are taken in connection with the follow-up, and how feedback on these quality-enhancing measures is provided in order to ensure goal attainment.

• How quality review of theses within the subject/specialisation takes place before they are defended, in addition to the review carried out by the examining committee.

• A reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of the unit's current approach.

Doctoral student learning

Aspect: That the teaching focuses on student-centred learning

Good pedagogy is based on teachers' and students' experiences of what creates good quality in education, including knowledge from educational research on how to create good conditions for learning. By describing how the unit works to promote doctoral students' learning in the subject/specialisation, and by promoting doctoral students' active role in learning, the work becomes accessible for analysis, external review and feedback.

Examples of what can be included in the self-evaluation:

• How the unit works to create conditions for doctoral students to take responsibility for, and reflect on, their own learning and how the doctoral students gradually take greater initiative and responsibility for their learning and dissertation work during the programme.

• The unit's efforts to provide feedback on the doctoral students' performance in the various stages of the research activities, for example through group discussions, seminars and workshops. Also how doctoral students are given the opportunity to work on assessing their own and fellow doctoral students' performance.

• A description of how supervision and doctoral courses put doctoral students' learning at the centre.

• How the unit works to create good collaboration between supervisors and doctoral students.

• A reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of the unit's current approach.

Area 2: Teacher expertise

Aspect: That staff involved in teaching and supervision possess adequate expertise in the subject matter, and in teaching and learning in higher education and/or subject didactics, and that there is sufficient teaching capacity.

To ensure high quality in teaching and supervision, the number of supervisors and teachers and their competence (both subject-specific/scientific and pedagogical) need to be adequate and proportionate to the scope, content and implementation of the programme, both in the short and long term.

For doctoral programmes, it is particularly important that supervisors not only conduct research at a high international level in their respective subject areas, but also take responsibility for and prioritise the educational elements for the doctoral students. The competence and competence development of supervisors and teachers must be systematically monitored in order to promote high quality in the programme. A report of supervisor competence and supervisor capacity in table form must be appended to the self-evaluation. A template for this is provided by the faculty office.

Examples of what can be included in the self-evaluation:

• How the unit ensures that the conducted research is of internationally recognised high quality within the doctoral education subjects/specialisations.

• How the unit ensures that the supervisors have the pedagogical competence required to provide the doctoral students with good quality supervision. Also strategies and continuous work to promote skills development among supervisors.

• How the unit ensures that supervisors take responsibility for and prioritise the doctoral students' education.

• Measures taken to ensure that there are sufficient supervisory resources in relation to the number of doctoral students in the long term, especially in the event of retirement.

• What follow-up and procedures look like to enable changes of supervisors if needed.

• How the unit works systematically to identify and address any shortcomings in supervision.

• A reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of the unit's current approach.

Area 3: Student participation and student perspective

Aspect: That students have influence on the planning, implementation and follow-up of the programme.

Doctoral students play an important role in the further development of the doctoral programme. Reports on both formal and informal doctoral student participation should be included in the self-evaluation. Formal doctoral student participation is, for example, doctoral student representation in relevant bodies, while informal doctoral student participation is about the individual's opportunity to influence their own education and development.

Examples of what can be included in the self-evaluation:

• What work is done to enable doctoral students to participate in the quality work of doctoral education, in general and for the doctoral students themselves.

• The flow of information between doctoral students and other stakeholders in all types of doctoral student participation.

• The ways in which doctoral students are involved in decision-making processes, including the preparation of issues related to doctoral education.

• If relevant, a description of the role of the doctoral student council in the unit.

• How the unit collects doctoral students' and alumni's views on doctoral education, and how these are used in the quality work within the programme.

• Examples of changes that have taken place after doctoral students raised specific issues.

• A reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of the unit's current approach.

Aspect: That an accessible and appropriate study environment is provided for all students.

The doctoral students' study environment, both physical and psychosocial, is important for doctoral students to be able to benefit from their education. In addition to the physical workplace, the physical environment also includes infrastructure such as laboratory facilities, opportunities for fieldwork or access to major research infrastructure, access to relevant literature, workshops and information technology. The psychosocial environment includes demands, resources, responsibilities, social interaction, co-operation, and social support from supervisors and other education managers.

Examples of what can be included in the self-evaluation:

• How the unit evaluates and ensures a good physical and psychosocial study environment for doctoral students.

• How results from employee surveys, doctoral student surveys and other occasions when doctoral students have the opportunity to express their views on the study environment are utilised.

• Reflection on what infrastructure the doctoral students at the evaluation unit need and whether this is available.

• How a good study environment is also ensured for doctoral students who are on site part-time at the evaluation unit, or who are mainly active outside Uppsala University, for example in industry or at another higher education institution.

• A reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of the unit's current approach.

Area 4: Working life and societal relevance

Aspect: That the programme meets individuals’ and society’s needs for learning and professional knowledge and prepares students for future careers.

The doctoral programme should be designed and implemented in such a way that it is useful and develops the doctoral student's readiness to face a diverse working life, both within and outside academia.

After graduation, doctoral students should be able to use the knowledge and skills they have acquired through their training and build on them throughout their professional life. This requires that doctoral students acquire general skills and abilities during the programme, in addition to pure subject knowledge. It is also relevant how collaboration takes place through interactions between the academy and private or public actors.

Examples of what can be included in the self-evaluation:

• How future career paths are discussed and planned for individual doctoral students and jointly for doctoral students within the unit.

• How it is ensured that the content and design of the doctoral education prepares doctoral students for working life after graduation, within and outside the academy.

• How the unit utilises the experiences of alumni in the development of the education.

• How the unit systematically works to develop the generic skills of the doctoral students (e.g. analytical skills, communication skills, collaboration skills).

• How the evaluation unit enables doctoral students to engage in other work such as teaching, collaboration and administration.

• How collaboration takes place between the evaluation unit and potential employers outside academia and what networks for collaboration are established.

• Reflection on how the relevance of doctoral education for society and working life is discussed and communicated within the doctoral education subject/specialisation.

• A reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of the unit's current approach.

Area 5: Inclusion, international outlook and sustainability

Equal opportunities and gender equality perspective

Aspect: equal opportunities and a gender perspective are integrated in the programme.

Equal opportunities means that everyone should have the conditions to perform at their best regardless of gender, gender identity or gender expression, ethnicity, religion or other beliefs, disability, sexual orientation, age or social background. Diversity brings more perspectives and can thus contribute to improving the quality of education, but it requires active efforts to create an inclusive atmosphere. It is also important to consider the study conditions of international doctoral students from an equal opportunity’s perspective.

Gender equality is about equality between the sexes and that everyone, regardless of gender, should have the same opportunities, and this should be integrated into the design and implementation of doctoral education. The Higher Education Act states (Chapter 1, Section 5): " Equality between women and men shall always be taken into account and promoted in the operations of higher education institutions. (…) Higher education institutions shall also actively promote and widen recruitment to higher education." For example, a gender equality perspective should be taken into account in recruitment, course planning, choice of course literature and examination.

Examples of what can be included in the self-evaluation:

• How the evaluation unit ensures that all doctoral students have the same conditions in, for example, recruitment, admission, planning and implementation of the programme.

• How the evaluation unit works to ensure that doctoral students with different conditions, motivations and learning styles are given good conditions for learning.

• Reflection on how the evaluation unit works to create an inclusive atmosphere and study environment, for example, how the unit works to introduce concepts, traditions, requirements and expectations of doctoral students, and uses an inclusive pedagogy;

• The actual gender distribution among doctoral students, supervisors and teachers and any differences in throughput and dropout.

• Reflection from a gender equality perspective on recruitment processes and any goals, follow-up procedures and other efforts to work with this.

• Examples of doctoral student participation in equal opportunities and gender equality issues.

• How the evaluation unit ensures that non-Swedish-speaking doctoral students are given the opportunity to study Swedish.

• A reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of the unit's current approach.

Internationalisation

Aspect: That internationalisation and international perspectives are promoted.

The Mission, Goals and Strategies for Uppsala University states "The University operates in a global context. Internationalisation is not an end in itself; it is a strategy that supports the University’s development and contributes to the quality and relevance of education and research. International recruitment of staff and students enhances our skills base and widens our educational range. International research cooperation improves the quality of our research. "

Doctoral education should be designed and implemented in such a way that internationalisation and international perspectives are promoted in the education, and that global perspectives and international networks are integrated at several levels to enrich the learning environment.

Examples of what can be included in the self-evaluation:

• How international and global perspectives are included and developed in the programme, for example through collaborations-

• How the unit ensures that recruitment of doctoral students is carried out in internationally open calls and that the quality of these processes is developed.

• How doctoral students are encouraged to visit or spend part of their doctoral education at foreign universities or participate in other outgoing mobility.

• Any statistics and examples of doctoral students' international mobility.

• How are encouraged to participate in exchanges and other mobility.

• A reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of the unit's current approach.

Sustainability perspective

Aspect: That a sustainability perspective is promoted.

The 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals cover the three dimensions of sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. Doctoral programmes must be designed and implemented in such a way that sustainability perspectives are promoted in the programme. The Higher Education Act states (Chapter 1, Section 5): "In the course of their operations, higher education institutions shall promote sustainable development to assure for present and future generations a sound and healthy environment, economic and social welfare, and justice".

Different types of elements in doctoral programmes can promote sustainable development, regardless of the specific subject area. In some cases, it may be natural to focus on the dimension of sustainable development directly related to the research topic/specialisation through research, in seminars or in doctoral courses. In all cases, sustainability perspectives can involve reviewing working practices or research methodology at a holistic level, for example by reviewing material choices, data collection or travel habits.

Examples of what can be included in the self-evaluation:

• What sustainability perspectives are applied in the doctoral programme, and how these relate to the UN's global sustainability goals.

• How sustainability perspectives (environmental, economic and social perspectives) are integrated into doctoral education.

• How those responsible for the evaluation unit interact with doctoral students in the unit's general efforts to promote and take responsibility for environmental, economic and social sustainability.

• Any measures planned to strengthen sustainability perspectives, and awareness of the importance of sustainable development, in doctoral education.

• A reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of the unit's current approach.