Report 2008: 5 R

The faculty boards´ supervision of third cycle (doctoral) programmes from the perspective of legal rights

The investigation has been carried out by asking HEIs with at least one disciplinary domain and the central organisation for doctoral students to answer several questions. There is also an account of the current regulations and how these should be interpreted.

It is important that the legal rights of doctoral students are safeguarded by having the correct procedures in place about places on doctoral programmes prior to admission, well thought out specific entry requirements and clarification of the selection criteria.

The matter of student funding is also important. Several faculties demand that, on admission, there is a funding plan as part of the individual study plan. This provides the doctoral students with security and makes the supervisory role more effective.

The introduction of a probationary period for doctoral students has been considered but discarded. It is better to use the opportunities that already exist to secure a fair admissions procedure and a careful follow-up of the performance of doctoral students. The Swedish National Agency for Higher Education (Agency) has also highlighted the importance of applying the regulations regarding withdrawing the right to supervision as well as a process enabling the HEIs to terminate a doctoral student´s studies in a correct legal manner.
 
The Agency has emphasised the importance of individual study plans specifying the obligations of doctoral students and faculty boards to one another. They have also emphasised that an annual appraisal is a minimum requirement and more frequent follow-ups are recommended. The faculty boards are obliged to devise a study plan even if an understanding has not been reached with a doctoral student. It is also recommended that doctoral students are informed that they may lose their right to funding if they deviate too much from their study plan.
 
It is the view of the faculty boards that too great a dependence on external funding makes it difficult to have full control over who is appointed as a supervisor and when. The Agency´s view is that the supervisors should be appointed when the doctoral students begin their studies, at the latest, and that they should have a high level of teaching and research competence and are able to complement one another.

If doctoral students and HEIs have different views about how a doctoral studies programme should be run, there is a possibility, in accordance with chapter 6 paragraph 37 of the Higher Education Ordinance, to reach a solution in a legal manner. To expect doctoral students to terminate their studies against their will is not correct legal procedure. The Agency´s view is that the faculty boards should encourage the bodies that, in practice, deal with the individual study plans and supervision of doctoral students to approach the faculty boards in cases where doctoral students and supervisors are not in agreement. Doctoral students should also be informed that they may take their cases directly to the faculty boards.
 
With regard to doctoral students at HEIs without disciplinary domains, the Agency and the doctoral studies organisation are in agreement that the regulations of all HEIs involved should be coordinated.

The Agency has questioned the delegation of the supervisory responsibility by the faculty boards to other bodies unless the activities of these bodies are carefully followed up.