2014-7 1

Til akademisk råd

Det Sundhedsvidenskabelige

Fakultet

Niels Jernes Vej 10

9220 Aalborg Øst

Dekansekretær

Ann Karina Schelde

Telefon: 9940 7990

E-mail: aks@adm.aau.dk

Dato: 13-01-2015

Sagsnr.: 2014-014-00200

Indkaldelse til møde 2014-7 i akademisk råd, Det Sundhedsvidenskabelige Fakultet, onsdag den 21. januar 2015, kl. 12.30 – ca. 14.00, mødelokale 1, NOVI, Niels Jernes Vej 10 Forskerskoleleder Thomas Graven-Nielsen og Lone Sarauw, Fakultetskontoret deltager under punkt 4 Dini Boer, Fakultetskontorets HR-center deltager under punkterne 5 og 6a Dagsorden: Åbent møde: (kl. 12.30 – 12.35)

1. Godkendelse af dagsorden for akademisk råds møde 2014-7, den 21. januar 2015

2. Godkendelse af referat fra akademisk råds møde 2014-6, den 3. december 2014 Bilag 2014-7-2: Referat fra akademisk råds møde 2016-6, den 3. december 2014

(kl. 12.35 – 13.00) 3. Orientering om status for proces vedr. AAU strategi 2015 - 2020, herunder delprojektgrupper-

nes arbejde (hjemmeside Ny AAU Strategi 2015 - 2020) a. Delprojektgruppen Uddannelse med Forskel v. Steffen Groth b. Delprojektgruppen PBL næste generation v. Diana Stentoft

(kl. 13.00 – 13.30)

4. Orientering og drøftelse af International Review SUND Forskerskolen, herunder drøftelse af kva-litetssikring af ph.d.-uddannelsen Bilag 2014-7-4a: International evalueringsrapport Bilag 2014-7-4b: Selvevalueringsrapport

(kl. 13.30 – 13.45)

5. Evaluering af proces for nedsættelse af bedømmelsesudvalg og evt. tildeling af ph.d.-grader via skriftlige høringer, Det Sundhedsvidenskabelige Fakultet Bilag 2014-7-5a: Sagsfremstilling Bilag 2014-7-5b: Procesplan for nedsættelse af bedømmelsesudvalg og evt. tildeling af ph.d.-grader i akademisk råd 2015

2014-7 2

(kl. 13.45 – 14.00) 6. Meddelelser

a. Sager godkendt af dekanen Bilag 2014-7-6a: Fortegnelse over sager godkendt af dekanen i perioden den 20. november 2014 – den 12. januar 2015

b. Godkendt referat fra ph.d.-udvalgsmøde den 10. september 2014 Bilag 2014-7-6b: Godkendt referat fra ph.d.-udvalgsmøde den 10. september 2014

c. Godkendt budget 2015, Aalborg Universitet Bilag 2014-7-6c: http://www.e-pages.dk/aalborguniversitet/248/

d. Status for rekruttering af ny dekan, Det Sundhedsvidenskabelige Fakultet

e. Udviklingskontrakt for AAU 2015 – 2017, underskrevet af bestyrelsesformand og Minister den 8/1-2015 Bilag 2014-7-6e: Udviklingskontrakt for AAU 2015 – 2017

7. Eventuelt

2014-6 1

Til akademisk råd

Det Sundhedsvidenskabelige

Fakultet

Niels Jernes Vej 10

9220 Aalborg Øst

Dekansekretær

Ann Karina Schelde

Telefon: 9940 7990

E-mail: aks@adm.aau.dk

Dato: 08-01-2015

Sagsnr.: 2014-014-00199

Foreløbigt referat fra møde 2014-6 i akademisk råd, Det Sundhedsvidenskabelige Fakultet, onsdag den 3. december 2014, kl. 13.00 – 14.00, NOVI 6, Alfred Nobelsvej 21, mødelokale A Medlemmer: Til stede Med afbud Uden afbud Steffen Groth (konstitueret dekan, formand) x VIP-repræsentanter: Pascal Madeleine x Lasse Riis Østergaard x Diana Stentoft x Carsten Dahl Mørch x Torben Moos x Jan Jesper Andreasen x Søren Risom Kristensen x Bodil Steen Rasmussen x Ulrik Baandrup x Rasmus W. Licht x Studenter repræsentanter: Anders Boutrup Pedersen x Michael Sloth Trabjerg x Simona Læsø Christensen x Nanna Kastrup Hermansen x Observatører: Susanne Nielsen Lundis (TAP) x Christina Øllegaard Elmer (TAP) x Frederik Heinen (ph.d.-studerende) x

Øvrige deltagere: Henrik Blach Poulsen og Troels Hedegaard deltog under punkt 3. Dini Boer, Fakultetskontorets HR-center deltog under punkterne 6 – 10. Ann Karina Schelde (referent), Fakultetskontoret deltog under hele mødet. Mødet begyndte kl.13.00 og sluttede kl.14.00.

2014-6 2

Dagsorden: Åbent møde: (kl. 13.00 – 13.05)

1. Godkendelse af dagsorden for akademisk råds møde 2014-6, den 3. december 2014

2. Godkendelse af referat fra akademisk råds møde 2014-5, den 29. oktober 2014 Bilag 2014-6-2: Referat fra akademisk råds møde 2014-5, den 29. oktober 2014

(kl. 13.05 – 13.20) 3. Evaluering af årets gang i akademisk råd samt godkendelse af mødeplan og årshjul for aka-

demisk råds møder i 2015 Bilag 2014-6-3a: Udkast til mødeplan 2015 Bilag 2014-6-3b: SUND Årshjul 2015

(kl. 13.20 – 13.40)

4. Meddelelser a. Sager godkendt af dekanen

Bilag 2014-6-4a: Fortegnelse over sager godkendt af dekanen i perioden den 10. oktober – 20. november 2014

b. Orientering om status for AAU´s strategiarbejde

c. Orientering om status for Institutionsakkreditering

5. Eventuelt Lukket møde: (kl. 13.40 – 14.00)

6. Orientering og drøftelse af principper for kaldelse Bilag 2014-6-6a: Mail fra Morten Sand Henriksen, HR-afdelingen Bilag 2014-6-6b: Bekendtgørelse om ansættelse af videnskabeligt personale ved universite-ter §7, søgekomité/kaldelse

7. Fortroligt - Indstilling vedr. sammensætning af sagkyndigt udvalg vedr. lektorstilling (kaldel-se) ved Institut for Medicin og Sundhedsteknologi Bilag 2014-6-7: Oversigt over medlemmer af bedømmelsesudvalget, CV for eksterne med-lemmer af bedømmelsesudvalget samt kandidatens CV

8. Fortroligt - Indstilling vedr. sammensætning af sagkyndigt udvalg vedr. professorat indenfor RNA Medicine ved Klinisk Institut (stillings nr. 60094) Bilag 2014-6-8: Oversigt over medlemmer af bedømmelsesudvalget, stillingsopslag samt CV for eksterne medlemmer af bedømmelsesudvalget

9. Fortroligt - Indstilling vedr. sammensætning af sagkyndigt udvalg vedr. klinisk professorat in-

denfor ernæring ved Klinisk Institut og Medicinsk Gastroenterologisk Afdeling (stillings nr. KP018) Bilag 2014-6-9: Oversigt over medlemmer af bedømmelsesudvalget, stillingsopslag samt CV for eksterne medlemmer af bedømmelsesudvalget

2014-6 3

10. Fortroligt – Udtalelse vedr. indstilling fra bedømmelsesudvalg vedr. tildeling af æresdoktor-

graden i forbindelse med AAU´s årsfest april 2015 Bilag 2014-6-10: Indstilling fra bedømmelsesudvalg

11. Fortroligt - Tildeling af ph.d.-graden til cand.polyt. Kristian Kjær Petersen, Institut for Medicin

og Sundhedsteknologi. Afhandlingens titel ”Chronic pain after total knee replacement”. Bilag 2014-6-11: Indstilling fra bedømmelsesudvalget

12. Fortroligt - Tildeling af ph.d.-graden til cand.polyt. Djordje Adnadjevic, Institut for Medicin og Sundhedsteknologi. Afhandlingens titel ”Novel Mechanical Stimulation of Deep and Superfi-cial Musculoskeletal Tissue for Enhanced Understanding of Pressure-Pain Sensitivity Mecha-nisms” Bilag 2014-6-12: Indstilling fra bedømmelsesudvalget

13. Fortroligt - Tildeling af ph.d.-graden til cand.polyt. Steffen Vangsgaard, Institut for Medicin og Sundhedsteknologi. Afhandlingens titel “Modulations of the human trapezius muscle H-reflex following eccentric exercise. Bilag 2014-6-13: Indstilling fra bedømmelsesudvalget

Referat:

Åbent møde: 1. Godkendelse af dagsorden for akademisk råds møde 2014-6, den 3. december 2014

Steffen Groth indledte mødet med at konstatere: at mødet er indkaldt med lovlig varsel. Dagsorden og bilag er udsendt onsdag den 25.

november 2014 (6 hverdage før mødet) at akademisk råd er beslutningsdygtigt idet 13 ud af 15 medlemmer er til stede.

Der blev herefter budt velkommen til ph.d.-koordinator, Christina Øllegaard Elmer fra Klinisk Institut, der indtræder som ny TAP observatør i akademisk råd. Velkommen! Revideret dagsorden med tilføjelse af nyt punkt 3 ” Høring vedr. udkast til AAU´s budget 2015 inkl. budgetoverslagsårene 2016 – 2017” blev godkendt. Bilagsmateriale vedr. nyt punkt 3 er udsendt i mail til akademisk råd i går.

2. Godkendelse af referat fra akademisk råds møde 2014-5, den 29. oktober 2014 Bilag 2014-6-2: Referat fra akademisk råds møde 2014-5, den 29. oktober 2014 Der indkom ingen bemærkninger til referat fra akademisk råds møde 2014-5, den 29. oktober 2014, der blev godkendt.

3. Høring vedr. udkast til AAU´s budget 2015 inkl. budgetoverslagsårene 2016 - 2017 Bilag 2014-6-3: Brev fra Økonomiafdelingen vedr. høring om forslag til Universitets budget 2015 inkl. budgetoverslagsårene 2016 – 2017 Bilag 2016-6-3: Forslag til budget 2015, Aalborg Universitet

2014-6 4

Henrik Blach Poulsen orienterede kort om høring vedr. udkast til AAU´s budget 2015 inkl. bud-getoverslagsårene 2016 – 2017. For SUND´s vedkommende er der ikke de store ændringer ift. seneste behandling af budgettal-lene for 2015, der blev gennemgået og drøftet på akademisk råds møde den 29. oktober 2014. SUND´s Budget 2015 i nærværende bilagsmateriale er stort set identisk med tallene tilbage fra oktober måned 2014. SUND forventer i 2015 et merforbrug/underskud på -8,7 mio.kr. heraf ca. -3 mio. kr. fra den or-dinære aktivitet og den resterende del fra Forretningsplanen (investeringer). Steffen Groth oplyste, at der i direktionsregi pt. pågår drøftelser vedr. forskningsfordelingsmo-dellen. Som det ser ud på nuværende tidspunkt fastholdes principperne omkring STÅ, BFI, ph.d. og ekstern omsætning – kombineret med par principper yderligere. Pascal Madeleine efterlyste gevinsten ved at BFI-point fra Klinisk Institut tæller med i SUND´s samlede BFI optælling. Troels Hedegaard oplyste, at BFI-point fra Klinisk Institut fuldt ud tæller med i 2014 og ca. ud-gør 6,8 mio. kr. Diana Stentoft rejste spørgsmål til hvad man har tænkt sig at gøre med investeringsbehov, der ikke fremgår af Forretningsplanen, herunder bl.a. idræt, der oplever et stort investeringsbehov? Steffen Groth annerkendte, at der er behov for at gøre plads til andre prioriteringer og investe-ringer ud over de områder, der er beskrevet i Forretningsplanen. I forbindelse med at SUND´s strategiarbejde genoptages (forventelig i efteråret 2015), vil det som et led heri være naturligt at drøfte SUND´s investerings- og udviklingsbehov. Diana Stentoft opfordrede til at ovennævnte bliver informeret ud til relevante medarbejdere i organisationen og dermed bliver en kendt procedure/fremgangsmåde på SUND. Steffen Groth takkede for Dianas opfordring og oplyste, at sagen vil blive drøftet på et kom-mende ledelsesmøde. Akademisk råd tog orienteringen til efterretning og havde ingen kommentarer til Høring til AAU´s budget 2015, herunder den interne fordeling af bevillinger, der er taget til efterretning.

4. Evaluering af årets gang i akademisk råd samt godkendelse af mødeplan og årshjul for akademisk råds møder i 2015 Bilag 2014-6-3a: Udkast til mødeplan 2015 Bilag 2014-6-3b: SUND Årshjul 2015 Akademisk råd godkendte SUND Årshjul 2015 og mødeplan for akademisk råds møder i 2015. Der indkaldeles til møder i akademisk råd via Outlook kalenderen. Evaluering af årets gang i akademisk råd, herunder forslag til kommende emner til behandling i akademisk råd 2015 blev drøftet. Der indkom følgende synspunkter/input:

Afholdelse af Akademisk Årsmøde med ny rektor blev efterlyst

Introduktionsmøde for nye studerende, der indtræder i akademisk råd, blev efterlyst

2014-6 5

Orientering og drøftelse af nyt SUND byggeri i løbet af foråret 2015 (Lasse Riis Øster-gaard og Pascal Madeleine ansvarshavende for punktet, herunder udarbejdelse af bi-lagsmateriale)

Ny akkrediteringsreform – hvilken betydning har det for undervisningen og for forsker-

ne? Og for opretholdelse af undervisernes uddannelsesportefølje? Som supplement hertil en drøftelse af hvilke ønsker SUND har til opkvalificering af underviserne, herun-der hvilke områder. Og endeligt dokumentation af undervisningsmeritter

Høring ift. AAU´s strategiarbejde og SUND´s strategiarbejde opfordres tænkt ind på et

tidligt tidspunkt i forhold til inddragelse af akademisk råd. Steffen Groth orienterede herefter om status for AAU´s strategiarbejde, herunder nedsættelse af delprojektgrupper og involveringsplan mv. Der er nedsat fem tværfaglige delprojektgrupper, som skal belyse fire overordnede indsatsområder:

Forskning med forskel (opdelt i: Temaer og fyrtårne samt Innovation og videndeling) Ansvarlig: TEKNAT-dekan Eskild Holm Nielsen PBL – næste generation Ansvarlig: HUM-dekan Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeld Uddannelse med forskel Ansvarlig: Konstitueret SUND-dekan Steffen Groth Ét AAU – AAU-DNA Ansvarlig: SBI-direktør Thorkild Ærø Delprojektgrupperne skal med input fra medarbejdere, studerende og eksterne interessenter give deres bud på visioner og idékataloger til udvikling af netop deres strategiske indsatsom-råde. Yderligere information om AAU´s strategiarbejde kan findes via hjemmesiden http://www.strategi.aau.dk/. Det fremgår også af hjemmesiden hvordan man kan komme med idéer og input til strategiarbejdet. Akademisk råd udtrykte stor interesse for at blive inddraget i delprojektgruppernes arbejde. Steffen Groth vil foranledige, at akademisk råds interesse viderebringes til formændene for delprojektgrupperne. Steffen Groth takkede for de indkomne input, der vil blive indarbejdet i akademisk råds Årshjul for 2015.

5. Meddelelser a. Sager godkendt af dekanen

Bilag 2014-6-4a: Fortegnelse over sager godkendt af dekanen i perioden den 10. oktober – 20. november 2014 Medtaget til orientering – der indkom ingen bemærkninger.

2014-6 6

b. Orientering om status for AAU´s strategiarbejde Punktet blev drøftet under punkt 4 i nærværende referat.

c. Orientering om status for Institutionsakkreditering Steffen Groth orienterede kort om status for institutionsakkreditering, herunder om status for dimensioneringssagen. Akkrediteringsrådets afslag på akkreditering af bacheloruddannelsen i Humanistisk Infor-matik blev også drøftet.

6. Eventuelt I tilfælde hvor proces omkring rekruttering af VIP-medarbejdere af én eller anden årsag bliver forsinket, opfordrerede Pascal Madeleine til, at der rettes henvendelse til ansøgerne i den på-gældende stilling herom. Opfordringen blev taget til efterretning.

Lukket møde:

7. Orientering og drøftelse af principper for kaldelse Bilag 2014-6-6a: Mail fra Morten Sand Henriksen, HR-afdelingen Bilag 2014-6-6b: Bekendtgørelse om ansættelse af videnskabeligt personale ved universite-ter §7, søgekomité/kaldelse Steffen Groth orienterede kort om principper for kaldelse jf. §7 i Bekendtgørelse om ansættel-se af videnskabeligt personale ved universiteter: ”Rektor kan beslutte at tilbyde en kandidat til en stilling på professor- eller lektorniveau ansæt-telse uden opslag, hvis der er en særligt kvalificeret kandidat til stillingen, som ved en faglig bedømmelse vurderes klart bedre kvalificeret end andre, der kunne komme i betragtning ved et normalt opslag. Der kan nedsættes en komité, som har til opgave at afsøge markedet for kandidater til en stilling på professor- eller lektorniveau”. Dini Boer supplerede, at en kaldt kandidat skal gennemgå en faglig bedømmelse på linje med kandidater, der søger på et opslag, og derfor skal der nedsættes et bedømmelsesudvalg, som alene skal kigge på, om vedkommende har de fornødne kvalifikationer til at kunne be-stride den stilling, som rektor/dekan ønsker at tilbyde den pågældende kandidat. Akademisk råd tog orienteringen til efterretning med bemærkning om, at man ikke håber, at frem-tidige kaldelser kan danne præcedens i forhold til en hurtigt gennemført rekrutteringsproces.

8. Fortroligt - Indstilling vedr. sammensætning af sagkyndigt udvalg vedr. lektorstilling (kaldelse) ved Institut for Medicin og Sundhedsteknologi Bilag 2014-6-7: Oversigt over medlemmer af bedømmelsesudvalget, CV for eksterne med-lemmer af bedømmelsesudvalget samt kandidatens CV Bedømmelsesudvalget blev nedsat med følgende sammensætning: Lektor Henrik Bøggild (formand), Institut for Medicin og Sundhedsteknologi, Aalborg Universitet Professor Tina Kold Jensen, Miljømedicin, Syddansk Universitet Professor Kim Overvad, Institut for Folkesundhed – Epidemiologi, Aarhus Universitet.

2014-6 7

9. Fortroligt - Indstilling vedr. sammensætning af sagkyndigt udvalg vedr. professorat in-denfor RNA Medicine ved Klinisk Institut (stillings nr. 60094) Bilag 2014-6-8: Oversigt over medlemmer af bedømmelsesudvalget, stillingsopslag samt CV for eksterne medlemmer af bedømmelsesudvalget På baggrund af bedømmelsesudvalgets kønssammensætning (ingen kvindelig bedømmer) samt manglende udførlig redegørelse for årsagen hertil (jf. beslutning herom på seneste akademisk råds møde), kunne akademisk råd ikke godkende bedømmelsesudvalgets sam-mensætning. Steffen Groth erkendte den manglende udførlige skriftlige redegørelse, hvilket ikke er accep-tabelt. Der blev herefter orienteret om, at der er fundet en kvindelig kandidat, der kan ind-træde som et fjerde medlem i bedømmelsesudvalget under forudsætning af, at der ikke fo-rekommer publikationssammenfald (indenfor de senest 5 år) mellem ansøger og pågælden-de kvindelige kandidat. Med baggrund i ovennævnte og under forudsætning af, at der ikke forekommer publikati-onssammenfald (indenfor de seneste 5 år) mellem ansøger og kvindelig kandidat til be-dømmelsesudvalget – og at akademisk råd kan godkende CV for den pågældende kvindeli-ge bedømmer, blev bedømmelsesudvalget nedsat med følgende sammensætning: Professor Hans Erik Johnsen (formand), Klinisk Institut, Aalborg Universitet Professor Pier Paolo Pandolfi de Rinaldis, Harvard Medical School Professor Peter Sarnow, Stanford University School of Medicine Professor Stefanie Dimmeler, Institute of Cardiovascular Regeneration, Centre for Molecular Medicine, Goethe-University Frankfurt am Main.

10. Fortroligt - Indstilling vedr. sammensætning af sagkyndigt udvalg vedr. klinisk profes-

sorat indenfor ernæring ved Klinisk Institut og Medicinsk Gastroenterologisk Afdeling (stillings nr. KP018) Bilag 2014-6-9: Oversigt over medlemmer af bedømmelsesudvalget, stillingsopslag samt CV for eksterne medlemmer af bedømmelsesudvalget Ulrik Baandrup forlod mødelokalet af hensyn til inhabilitetsreglerne. Bedømmelsesudvalget blev herefter nedsat med følgende sammensætning: Professor Ulrik Baandrup (formand), Klinisk Institut, Aalborg Universitet Professor Else Tønnesen, Anæstesiologisk-intensiv Afdeling, Aarhus Universitet Professor (II) Jon Florholmen, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Group of Gastroenterology and Nutrition, Tromsø University.

11. Fortroligt – Udtalelse vedr. indstilling fra bedømmelsesudvalg vedr. tildeling af æres-doktorgraden i forbindelse med AAU´s årsfest april 2015 Bilag 2014-6-10: Indstilling fra bedømmelsesudvalg Akademisk råd tiltrådte, at professor Metin Akay indstilles til æresdoktorgraden ved Det Sundhedsvidenskabelige Fakultet, Aalborg Universitet i forbindelse med AAU´s årsfest i april 2015.

2014-6 8

12. Fortroligt - Tildeling af ph.d.-graden til cand.polyt. Kristian Kjær Petersen, Institut for Medicin og Sundhedsteknologi. Afhandlingens titel ”Chronic pain after total knee re-placement”. Bilag 2014-6-11: Indstilling fra bedømmelsesudvalget Carsten Dahl Mørch forlod mødelokalet af hensyn til inhabilitetsreglerne. Akademisk råd tildelte herefter ph.d.-graden til Kristian Kjær Petersen.

13. Fortroligt - Tildeling af ph.d.-graden til cand.polyt. Djordje Adnadjevic, Institut for Me-dicin og Sundhedsteknologi. Afhandlingens titel ”Novel Mechanical Stimulation of Deep and Superficial Musculoskeletal Tissue for Enhanced Understanding of Pressure-Pain Sensitivity Mechanisms” Bilag 2014-6-12: Indstilling fra bedømmelsesudvalget Carsten Dahl Mørch forlod mødelokalet af hensyn til inhabilitetsreglerne. Akademisk råd tildelte herefter ph.d.-graden til Djordje Adnadjevic.

14. Fortroligt - Tildeling af ph.d.-graden til cand.polyt. Steffen Vangsgaard, Institut for Me-dicin og Sundhedsteknologi. Afhandlingens titel “Modulations of the human trapezius muscle H-reflex following eccentric exercise. Bilag 2014-6-13: Indstilling fra bedømmelsesudvalget Pascal Madeleine forlod mødelokalet af hensyn til inhabilitetsreglerne. Akademisk råd tildelte herefter ph.d.-graden til Steffen Vangsgaard.

International Evaluation of the Doctoral School of Engineering and Science and the

Doctoral School in Medicine, Biomedical Science and Technology, Aalborg University

2008 – 2012

Site visit May 12th-13th 2014. Report August 20th 2014.

Evaluation committee

Professor Rasmus Larsen (Chairman of the Committee). Chairman of the Faculty Board for the Ph.D. Programme for Mathematics, Physics, Informatics; Ph.D. school leader, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Technical University of Denmark.

Professor dr.ir. Peter H. Veltink. Chairman for the Department of Biomedical Signals and Systems, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science/MIRA Institute for Biomedical Technology and Technical Medicine, University of Twente.

Professor Anders Axelsson. Dean, Faculty of Engineering, LTH, Lund University Professor Tore Marvin Undeland. The Department of Electric Power Engineering, Norwegian

University of Science and Technology.

Materials

Self-evaluation of the Doctoral School of Engineering and Science & the Doctoral School in Medicine,

Biomedical Science and Technology, 01.01.2008 – 31.12.2012. Dated May 9th 2014, 68p.

Ph.D. Handbook – The Doctoral School of Engineering and Science - A Sequential Description of the

Ph.D. Processes within the Doctoral School of Engineering and Science. 51p.

Presentations and interviews with managers, administrative officers, and Ph.D. students from the

doctoral programs during a site visit May 12-13th 2014.

Executive summary The assessment committee was very impressed by the excellent quality of the visited Ph.D. programs.

Moreover, we were very satisfied with the provided materials and the presentation and interviews with

managers, administrative officers, and Ph.D. students. The requests we had with respect to extra interviews

and statistics were immediately met.

The Doctoral Schools have an international mix of Ph.D. students especially the Engineering and Science

programs. This provides a very stimulating international setting for the doctoral programmes.

The Doctoral Schools are well organized to support the procedures and ensure quality control.

The administration supports the Ph.D. procedures well in a very efficient manner. Especially, the new web-

based tool is expected to be important in improving the efficiency of the procedures.

The self-evaluation report mainly provides an administrative overview and describes the structures and

procedures of the Doctoral Schools. The site visits were essential to judge the quality of the Ph.D. work,

supervision and outcome.

Organisation The two faculties – the Faculty of Engineering and Science and the Faculty of Medicine – each has a

doctoral school organized as an independent unit. The doctoral schools each have a Ph.D. study director

and a Ph.D. Board. The study directors are appointed by the deans and the boards are elected among the

academic staff and Ph.D. students. The directors and boards are serviced by a joint secretariat for the two

schools. Each doctoral school is organized in a series of topical doctoral programmes. The organizational

structure is well-defined with well-defined division of tasks

There are eleven doctoral programmes in the Faculty of Science and Engineering and three doctoral

programmes in the Faculty of Medicine. Although the number of doctoral programmes is almost equal to

the number of departments in the two faculties doctoral programmes and departments do not coincide.

Some doctoral programmes span more than one department and others cover a part of a department. This

structure is attractive in the sense that it allows for prioritizing areas of interdisciplinary research. Also it

opens for a high degree of flexibility in deciding new research priorities.

The two schools aim at enrolling 180 and 50 students annually, respectively. This roughly corresponds to an

average annual enrolment per programme of 15 and a population of 50. However, the doctoral

programmes vary in size. Some are very small comprising as few as 10 students others include 80-120

students. The committee reviewed the doctoral programme in Energy Technology and the doctoral

programme in Biomedical Science and Engineering. Both these programmes appear to have well

functioning sizes. The head of doctroral programme for energy technology spends abour 1/3 of his time on

the doctoral programme which is deemed a reasonable load. Much smaller programmes will be in-efficient,

e.g. in providing Ph.D. course programmes and securing a uniform quality of administration.

In interviews with Ph.D. students it was evident that student had a low awareness of the organizational

structure and roles of the different entities. The Ph.D. secretariat supports the Ph.D. procedures well in a

very efficient manner. Especially, a new web-based tool – Ph.D. manager - is expected to be important in

improving the efficiency of the procedures such as submission, editing, and approval of Ph.D. study plans

and progress reports

We recommend

• that the division into doctoral programmes in the Faculty of Engineering and Science to be

reconsidered with respect to logical lines - for example major societal challenges and size of

programmes potentially reducing the number of programmes.

• That the input from Ph.D. students and advisors via the Ph.D. board is strengthened in order to

have an effective feedback mechanism for quality control of the schools, involving the actors at the

work floor level. This will also provide an adequate level of involvement in and awareness of their

Doctoral School.

• That the consistency across doctoral programmes is secured by regular discussions between

doctoral programme heads and Ph.D. boards and study directors.

• The organisation should be able to guarantee that strategic goals and vision for research education

for Aalborg University in general is achieved

Recruitment and Enrolment A careful recruitment process is of utmost importance in securing a successful Ph.D. programme. It will

ensure recruitment of highly qualified candidates with an aptitude for research and avoid recruitment of

candidates that will fail due to lack of performance or collaborative issues.

Presently well-functioning procedures are in place by which Ph.D. positions are announced publicly on the

AAU website and an assessment committee consisting of the designated supervisor and the head of

doctoral programme as a minimum selects the candidate. When a candidate is selected the department

requests enrolment and the school director decides about the approval of candidate and supervisor. No

formalized requirements other than the qualifying exam being equivalent to a Danish master’s degree are

applied. The Ministry of Higher Education and Science is consulted for candidates not known to be at level

with Danish master’s degrees.

After enrolment a mandatory introductory 1 ECTS Ph.D. course “Introduction to the Ph.D. Study” is offered.

The course runs seven times per year and is attended by approximately 90 % of the newly enrolled Ph.D.

students in the Faculty of Engineering and Science. We find that this is recommendable and that such

welcoming programmes are very important is securing an aligning of expectations and securing a good start

for all Ph.D. students.

We recommend

• That – not the least in the view of the increasing numbers of international applicants - the doctoral

schools enhances their already well functioning recruitment procedures, e.g. with the help of the

AAU HR dept., provides procedures, courses in interviewing techniques, tests and other means of

selecting best candidates.

• That it is secured that all Ph.D. student attend the introductory course.

Supervisors and Supervision The doctoral schools presently have 299 active main supervisors for 741 students, i.e. 2,5 per supervisor on

average. It is to be commended that supervision is shared by so many faculty members. Moreover, there

are good elements in place for securing qualified supervision. Main supervisors are appointed by the school

director based on their past performance. The doctoral schools offer supervisor courses and workshops and

it is expected that new supervisors attend such a course/workshop. Furthermore, the doctoral schools

encourage experience as a co-supervisor before appointment as a main supervisor.

From the self evaluation report as well as from the interviews with supervisors it was evident that a

common culture between faculty members is not shared on all points, e.g. in terms of completion of

studies on-time, in terms of providing unconditional acceptance of theses.

We recommend

• That it is ensured that new supervisors/co-supervisors attend the introductory supervisor course on

legal issues, procedures, the supervision process etc. Moreover, procedures should be put into

place that secures that all supervisors passes this course

• That “inspiration workshops” are organised to improve the intervision between supervisors,

sharing best practices and discussing encountered situations and problems.

• A policy for always using co-supervisors should be considered

• The procedure in the doctoral programme for Energy Technology for allowing main supervisors to

supervise more than five Ph.D. students requiring a special plan must be approved by the head of

doctoral programme should be extended to the schools

Progress Monitoring of Ph.D. projects

The doctoral schools have implemented a series of good procedures for progress monitoring of Ph.D.

projects. These are very important functions in order to bring failing projects back on track and to detect

and stop under-performing Ph.D. students as early as possible.

The implemented procedures include study plans due at 2M, and a revised plan at 11M. The school of

medicine have implemented a 11M pre-defense with a non-involved peer professor.

Semiannual progress reporting is implemented conveniently through the Ph.D. manager system.

De-registration rate is approximately 10 % corresponding to the national average

We recommend

• That the doctoral schools keep track of de-registrations, including time of deregistration, and

number of theses with negative preliminary evaluation; If necessary and possible, implement

measures to detect under-performing Ph.D. students at an early stage (preferably before end of

first year). If intensive support and advice do not result in acceptable performance, active

termination of the Ph.D. enrolment by the program should be considered in this early stage.

• That the 6 month review should be more informative than currently required: the supervisor and

Ph.D. student should assess with arguments whether he/she expects the Ph.D. student to be able

to realize the Ph.D. within the setout period. The report should include a statement concerning

progress relative to the Ph.D. plan and if adjustments of the plan are required.

• To consider internal review with non-involved peer professor at 11 months to be a general format

perhaps including a formal evaluation

• To support the career planning of the Ph.D. students throughout the Ph.D. period in order to create

awareness and optimize the preparation for the individual career paths chosen. Possible initiate a

mentor programme - providing an individual mentor (former Ph.D. graduate from industry or

academia) to all students

• To reduce the average study time and time between thesis hand-in and defense from 3.8 years to

the allocated 3 years study time as well as to reduce the time form thesis hand-in to defense form 4

months.

Ph.D. courses

The doctoral schools have implemented requirements for the composition of the individual Ph.D. student

curricula, e.g. in terms of general and specific Ph.D. courses. It is a requirement that all courses are so-

called Ph.D. level courses. Each student is allowed a six ECTS credit for conference participation.

The electronic course handbook contains many courses, and a yearly procedure for offering new courses is

in place. There are a high proportion of very short courses. The courses are typically lecture type courses

Student evaluations show a high degree of student satisfaction with courses – both general and specific

courses.

We recommend

• That the doctoral schools to a higher degree consider reading groups/study circles type courses.

Such courses enhances interaction among student and allow for learning of the newest topics.

• That the doctoral schools allow one or a few MSc courses as part of curriculum where relevant.

• That the doctoral schools to a higher degree use/allow international summer schools as part of the

individual student curricula.

• That the doctoral programmes to a higher degree use high quality international summer schools

and joint programmes with other universities to brand their programmes.

Monitoring Quality and Outcome

The doctoral schools have very well functioning quality assurance in place for the procedures for

enrolment, supervision, courses, administration and assessment of theses.

A central quality statistic on the research performed is publication in internationally peer reviewed

journals..Statistics on scientific publications in Ph.D. theses in 2013 & 2014 were provided by the doctoral

schools on our request. It appears that on average 3.3 articles per thesis were published in the school of

Medicine and 5.8 in Engineering and Science in 2013. These are quite satisfactory numbers.

A plagiarism check on submitted reports is implemented

We recommend

• That key performance indices are formulated for the Ph.D. education (number of theses, courses,

course participants, economy, publications, etc) and that these are monitored and reported by the

doctoral programmes. In particular, that the quality of Ph.D. theses is monitored. The criteria for

quality should be discussed, and may vary between disciplines. Some suggestions: number of

journal and conference papers (only include adequate impact scientific journals and conferences) ;

transfer of knowledge to society

• That the employment of alumni is monitored; also: monitor whether foreign Ph.D. students stay in

Denmark or leave; assess societal benefit in and outside Denmark of graduated Ph.D. students.

• We advise to involve the Ph.D. students and professors in the Ph.D. programs in preparing the next

self evaluation report. The process is as important as the result.

Self-evaluation of the Doctoral School of Engineering and

Science & the Doctoral School in Medicine, Biomedical Science

and Technology

01.01.2008 – 31.12.2012

09.05.2014

1

Table of contents

Preface ___________________________________________________________________________ 3 1

Introduction _______________________________________________________________________ 4 2

Responsibilities of the Personnel in the Doctoral Schools ____________________________________ 5 3

PhD Study Director ______________________________________________________________ 5 3.1

PhD Board _____________________________________________________________________ 6 3.2

Organization _______________________________________________________________________ 8 4

The Doctoral School of Engineering and Science _______________________________________ 8 4.1

The Doctoral School in Medicine, Biomedical Science and Technology ____________________ 12 4.2

Student Population _________________________________________________________________ 14 5

Assessment of Applications ______________________________________________________ 15 5.1

Enrollment ___________________________________________________________________ 16 5.2

Stipends – Employed PhD Students ____________________________________________________ 18 6

Supervisors _______________________________________________________________________ 19 7

Student Distribution ________________________________________________________________ 20 8

Gender Distribution – Student Population ___________________________________________ 22 8.1

International Students __________________________________________________________ 23 8.2

Deregistered Students ______________________________________________________________ 28 9

Minimizing Deregistration _______________________________________________________ 29 9.1

Awarded Degrees ________________________________________________________________ 31 10

Awarded Degrees in Relation to Gender ____________________________________________ 31 10.1

Awarded Degrees - International Students __________________________________________ 32 10.2

Time of Completion ______________________________________________________________ 33 11

Completion time for International Students _________________________________________ 34 11.1

Average Time of Completion – National Average _____________________________________ 35 11.2

Part time studies _______________________________________________________________ 36 11.3

Student Satisfaction with the PhD Study – Allocated Time ________________________________ 37 12

Student Satisfaction – Research Time ______________________________________________ 38 12.1

Courses ________________________________________________________________________ 40 13

ECTS ________________________________________________________________________ 40 13.1

Post Graduate Student Satisfaction with Courses _____________________________________ 45 13.2

2

Course Evaluations _____________________________________________________________ 50 13.3

13.3.1 General Courses ___________________________________________________________ 50

13.3.2 Specific Courses ___________________________________________________________ 52

External Research Stays ___________________________________________________________ 55 14

Quality Assurance ________________________________________________________________ 56 15

The PhD Study ________________________________________________________________ 56 15.1

15.1.1 Employment and Enrollment _________________________________________________ 56

15.1.2 Introductory Course ________________________________________________________ 58

15.1.3 PhD Plans ________________________________________________________________ 58

15.1.4 Progress Monitoring ________________________________________________________ 59

15.1.5 Assessment Committee _____________________________________________________ 60

15.1.6 Thesis Submission __________________________________________________________ 60

15.1.7 Preliminary and Final Assessment Reports ______________________________________ 61

Supervision ___________________________________________________________________ 61 15.2

Courses ______________________________________________________________________ 62 15.3

Administration ________________________________________________________________ 63 15.4

15.4.1 Task Organized Workflow ____________________________________________________ 63

15.4.2 Casework ________________________________________________________________ 63

Focus Areas _____________________________________________________________________ 65 16

The PhD Study ________________________________________________________________ 65 16.1

16.1.1 Candidate Assessment ______________________________________________________ 65

16.1.2 One Year Assessment _______________________________________________________ 65

16.1.3 Extension Beyond the Nominated 3 Years _______________________________________ 66

Supervision ___________________________________________________________________ 66 16.2

16.2.1 Student Feedback __________________________________________________________ 66

16.2.2 Workshops _______________________________________________________________ 67

Courses ______________________________________________________________________ 67 16.3

Administration ________________________________________________________________ 67 16.4

16.4.1 Homepage _______________________________________________________________ 68

16.4.2 Course Administration ______________________________________________________ 68

3

Preface 1The purpose of this document is to present key facts concerning the Doctoral School of Engineering and

Science and the Doctoral School in Medicine, Biomedical Science and Technology. The content is divided

into three main sections:

1. Statistical overview of the relevant figures presented in a development perspective ranging from

01.01.2008 – 31.12.2012.

2. Short overview of the responsibilities of the personnel in the doctoral schools. A further description

of this can be found the PhD Handbook.

3. Information regarding quality assurance and development projects. This accounts for the initiatives

implemented in relation to promoting quality within all aspects of the doctoral schools.

As of 01.01.2011 the Doctoral School in Medicine, Biomedical Science and Technology was established as a

new doctoral school under Aalborg University. The basis for the establishment of the doctoral school was

the accreditation of new bachelor and master’s programs in medicine. Prior to 01.01.2011, the Doctoral

School in Medicine, Biomedical Science and Technology was embedded in the Doctoral School of

Engineering and Science. The next step in this process was to create a doctoral school that was able to

incorporate the graduates of the master’s program wanting to do research. Subsequently, the Department

of Clinical Medicine was established as of 01.01.2013 in conjunction with the forming of Aalborg University

Hospital. This department is located at the hospital where research, education and clinical work are

combined. It is important to note that these dates have some impact on the figures presented throughout

the document.

4

Introduction 2

This document is primarily focused on presenting and evaluating data concerning the two doctoral schools

within the time frame: 01.01.2008 – 31.12.2012. The time frame is implemented in relation to the demand

in the Danish University Act, stating that any doctoral school is obligated to conduct a self-evaluation every

five years. As part of the self-evaluation, the document presents a short outline of the responsibilities of

the key personnel in the doctoral school. This provides the reader with clarification in relation to the

responsibilities of the different parties involved with the PhD study. Finally, a section dealing with quality

assurance and development is included.

The content of this self-evaluation is primarily focused on the development that has occurred within the

given time frame in relation to specific parameters. The content is focused on all aspects that are related to

the PhD study, which includes the following elements:

Number of students.

Number of deregistered students.

Number of awarded degrees.

Time of completion.

Courses.

The different sections contain information regarding national/international students and male/female

students. In relation to courses, the content is focused on student satisfaction. This includes general

courses and program specific courses. In particular, student attitudes towards the relevance, number and

quality of the courses are included in this text.

In all aspects, both doctoral schools have undergone significant growth within the period. This

development has occurred in all aspects included in this material.1 Although the increase has varied within

the period, the final result shows an increase in the included sections.

The self-evaluation also indicates that the doctoral schools are facing challenges in certain areas. These are

commented on in the corresponding sections.

1 The exception is the number of deregistered students.

5

Responsibilities of the Personnel in the Doctoral Schools 3This section briefly outlines the responsibilities of the different personnel in the doctoral schools. This

includes everyone involved with the PhD study within the doctoral schools. A more detailed description of

this is found in the PhD Handbook which is available on the website of the doctoral schools.2

The increase of enrolled students from 450 in 2008 to 741 at the outcome of 2013 (active students),

created a need for additional quality assurance and effective administration. Figure 1 illustrates this

development. It has therefore been of outmost importance to establish an understanding of this for the

PhD students and in particular the supervisors at the doctoral schools. In order to do so, the doctoral

schools have for example created guidelines and paradigms for all standardized processes.

PhD Study Director 3.1

There are several aspects of the PhD study needing assessment and approval from the PhD study director.

This is a substantial workload with many students enrolled. Fixed paradigms and regulations for the

different processes have helped on this situation. Due to the number of PhD students and the

administrative workload it is important that guidelines provided are followed. If this is not the case the

material submitted by the student may be administratively rejected. This applies to all elements that

require assessment by the PhD study director.

In conjunction with the PhD board, the PhD study director is responsible for the overall quality of the PhD

education. They evaluate all aspects of the training and ensure that it complies with the requirements of

the Ministerial Order. Furthermore, the PhD study director is responsible for the overall daily management

of the doctoral school. The tasks of the PhD study director include the following:

Appointing and approving supervisors – replacing supervisors if necessary.

Assessing and approving critical 6-month declarations.

Approving leaves of absence – excluding parental/sick leave.

Assessing and approving preliminary and final assessment for quality and legality.

Approving co-author statements.

Approving applications for enrollment.

Approving applications for financial support for studies abroad.

Exemptions.

Mediate in case of supervisor-student conflicts.

2 Initially the handbook is only provided for the Doctoral School of Engineering and Science.

6

Professor Thomas Graven Nielsen is PhD study director for the Doctoral School in Medicine, Biomedical

Science and Technology, and Professor Torben Larsen is PhD study director for the Doctoral School of

Engineering and Science.

Additional information is found in the PhD handbook.

PhD Board 3.2

The PhD board is involved in a set of specific tasks related to the general status of the doctoral school. An

outline of these tasks is as follows:

Development of internal guidelines.

Evaluation of the programs and supervision, in conjunction with the PhD study director.

Appointing assessment committees for approval by the Dean.

Reviewing applications for credit transfer.

Approving and assessing PhD courses.

Strategy development for the doctoral school in collaboration with the PhD study director.

The PhD board for the Doctoral School of Engineering and Science consists of six members – four members

of the academic staff and two PhD students. The academic staff is elected for a four-year period and the

students for a one-year period.

The current members (academic staff only) for the Doctoral School of Engineering and Science are:

Jes Vollertsen, Professor (chair).

John Rasmussen, Professor.

Rasmus Waagepetersen, Professor.

Paola Valero, Professor.

The PhD study director, Professor Torben Larsen, participates in the meetings.

The current members (academic staff only) for the Doctoral School in Medicine, Biomedical Science and

Technology are:

Ole K. Andersen, Professor (chair).

Ulrik Baandrup, Clinical Professor.

7

Trine Fink, Associate Professor.

Stephen Rees, Associate Professor.

Søren Risom Kristensen, Clinical Professor.

Erik Berg Schmidt, Clinical Professor.

The PhD study director, Professor Thomas Graven-Nielsen, participates in the meetings.

The PhD boards are involved when relevant in the general quality assurance activities related to the

doctoral schools. The scope of this is explained in the corresponding section.

Additional information regarding the PhD board is found in the PhD Handbook.

8

Organization 4The doctoral schools are organized as independent units under the Faculty of Engineering and Science and

the Faculty of Medicine. The doctoral schools are responsible for creating and developing doctoral

programs within the affiliated research areas. A head of program, which must ensure quality and

development on a daily basis, leads each program.

The Doctoral School of Engineering and Science 4.1

The Doctoral School of Engineering and Science is composed of 10 doctoral programs:

Mathematics and Physics – Head of Program: Jesper Møller.

Computer Science and Engineering – Head of Program: Peter Axel Nielsen.

Planning and Development – Head of Program: Lars Bo Henriksen.

Biotechnology, Chemistry and Environmental Engineering – Head of Program: Yuanzheng Yue.

Electrical and Electronic Engineering – Head of Program: Rafael Wisniewski.

Civil Engineering – Head of Program: Torben Larsen (Not the PhD Study Director).

Mechanical Engineering – Head of Program: Jesper de Claville Christiansen.

Technology and Science – Head of program: Paola Valero.

Wireless Communications – Head of Program: Gert Frølund Pedersen.

Energy Technology – Head of Program: Claus Leth Bak.

Students are enrolled in a program that fit the scientific profile of the given PhD study. The daily life of a

student happens in a department where also the main supervisor works. In the departments, the PhD

students are typically placed in research groups that are highly specialized within the research areas in

question. This places the student in a facilitating environment with academic personnel that are engaged in

related research areas.

The heads of the doctoral programs refer to the PhD study director and they are appointed by the dean

based on recommendation from the PhD study directors, upon approval of the department. They are

responsible for their program according to the tasks defined by the PhD study director and PhD board. This

includes all program specific course-planning in co-operation with the PhD board and the different

departments. Each program is awarded with a number ECTS for program specific courses. The number of

ECTS awarded is based on the number of students enrolled under the program – but with a guaranteed

minimum of 5 ECTS. The heads of the doctoral programs function as a direct quality control unit via their

role in assessment committees in connection with stipend awarding and standard enrollment.

9

The section briefly introduces the ten different programs of the Doctoral School of Engineering and Science,

their main content and main focus areas.

Mathematics and Physics: This program is mainly intended to host students from the Department of

Mathematical Science and the Department of Physics & Nanotechnology. The mathematical part mainly

covers topics in the fields such as:

Applied mathematical analysis.

Discrete mathematics and applied algebraic topology.

Probability and statistics.

Correspondingly in physics:

Nano optics.

Theoretical studies of nanostructures.

Experimental studies of nanostructures.

Surface and interface physics.

Computer Science and Engineering: PhD students from this program are affiliated with the Department of

Computer Science, the Department of Electronic Systems and from the Department of Architecture and

Design. A common denominator for these students is that their PhD studies are all related to computer

science in a wide sense.

Planning and Development: The doctoral program for planning and development mainly incorporates

research activities from the Department of Development and Planning, the Department of Architecture,

Design and Media Technology and the Department of Electronic Systems. Furthermore, the PhD program is

supported by cooperation with the Danish Building Research Institute. The research conducted within

Planning and Development is wide-ranging and inter-disciplinary. It is focused on planning and

management issues and often applies Danish experiences in a comparative perspective with an

international reach. The PhD research in Planning and Development is carried out in partnerships with a

variety of public and private bodies.

Biotechnology, Chemistry and Environmental Engineering: This doctoral program is mainly covering the

scientific areas related to the Department of Biotechnology, Chemistry and Environmental Engineering and

10

the department of Physics and Nanotechnology. There are three main research areas within this particular

program:

Biotechnology.

Chemical Engineering.

Environmental Engineering.

Electrical and Electronic Engineering: The program for Electrical and Electronic Engineering covers almost

all aspects of electrical and electronic engineering (excluding wireless communication). Examples of themes

covered by the program are:

Mathematical and Computational Techniques for Automation and Control.

Control, Cognition, Computing and Systems within Robotics.

Signals and systems.

Acoustic and Sound.

Medialogy – New Media Technologies for the Coming Generations.

Computer Vision, Graphics and Virtual Reality.

Civil Engineering: The program for Civil Engineering covers scientific and technological aspects of manmade

changes to the physical environment. Examples of fields within this program are as follows:

Structural Analysis and Design

Materials science.

Indoor environmental technology.

Marine Civil Engineering.

Soil Mechanics.

Structural Dynamics and Mechanics.

Geographical information system.

Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering: The content of this doctoral program mainly spans across the

research areas from the Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering and the Center for

Industrial Production. PhD studies conducted in this doctoral program cover a wide range of industrial

service related areas. This involves design, development, processes and management systems. Some of the

areas covered are:

Materials Technology, Process Development and Optimization.

11

Automatic Control of Production Processes.

Industrial Management of Operation, Supply, Globalization, Strategy.

Innovation Management and Continuous Innovation.

Industrial Production.

CAD, Analysis and Optimization of Mechanical, Fluid and Process Systems.

Technology and Science: This is a relatively small program mainly covers areas such as pedagogy and

didactics, organizational learning and learning in the work place, educational research, philosophy of

science, engineering education and organizational learning. The program mainly has students enrolled from

the Department of Education, Learning and Philosophy and the Department of Development and Planning.

The overall purpose of this doctoral program is to provide a framework for doctoral students who carry out

research on current issues within the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

Wireless Communications: The doctoral program Wireless Communications mainly has students enrolled

from the department of Electronic Systems as well as the Department of Development and Planning. Some

of the research areas are:

Antennas and Propagation.

Systems and Circuits.

Information and Signal Processing in Communications.

Speech and Multimedia Communications.

Satellite-based and Terrestrial Positioning.

Centralized and Decentralized Wireless Networks.

Energy Technology: The doctoral program for Energy Technology is constructed as a cross-disciplinary

program, which incorporates several basic engineering and science areas. Furthermore it is characterized

by an experimental orientation. Among others, it includes the following research areas:

Energy Efficiency.

Fuel Cell.

Systems analysis: Design and optimization of a wide range of energy process machines and system.

Renewable energy technologies incl. wind turbines, photovoltaic, wave energy and alike.

12

The Doctoral School in Medicine, Biomedical Science and Technology 4.2

Before 2011 the Biomedical Science and Engineering program was affiliated with the Doctoral School of

Engineering and Science. After that it was transferred to the newly established Doctoral School in Medicine,

Biomedical Science and Technology, which then consisted of the programs:

Biomedical Science and Engineering – Head of Program: Ole K. Andersen.

Clinical Science and Biomedicine – Head of Program: Søren Risom Kristensen.

Health Education, Organization and Ethics – Head of Program: Paola Valero.

Biomedical Science and Engineering: The program focuses on basic science and engineering problems

related to human health. To achieve this, combined knowledge from a large number of complementary

disciplines is needed, such as electrical engineering, physics, mathematics, computer science, anatomy and

physiology. The doctoral program is mainly affiliated with the Department of Health Science and

Technology. Research areas:

Integrative Neuroscience

Neural Engineering and Neurophysiology of Movement.

Neuro-rehabilitation Technology.

Pain and Motor Systems.

Physical Activity and Human Performance.

Model-based decision support.

Medical-Informatics.

Clinical Science and Biomedicine: This program focuses on medical basic and clinical science. It opens for

independent research projects in clinical settings (e.g. hospital) or basic environments such as biomedical

laboratories. The scope is broadly defined within the medical field and related areas. Currently, PhD

projects are focusing on e.g. orthopedic surgery, cardiology, pharmacological screening studies, pain

mechanisms, stem cells, and neuro-biology. The projects typically involve patient studies but also basic

animal studies are often included. The doctoral program is mainly affiliated with the Department of Clinical

Medicine.

Health Education, Organizations and Ethics: This doctoral program provides a frame for doctoral students

within the Faculty of Medicine to carry out research on current key issues in three main thematic areas:

Education and learning.

Knowledge production, management and innovation processes in health organizations.

13

Ethics and philosophy in health sciences.

The program is offered by the Department of Learning and Philosophy with the following thematic areas:

Educational issues in health sciences.

Knowledge production, management and innovation in health organizations.

Ethics and philosophy of the health sciences.

14

Student Population 5Figure 1 shows the total number of enrolled students versus time within the self-evaluation period. The

development of the number of enrolled students over time is quite revealing in relation to the overall

development of the parameters included in the self-evaluation. Prior to 2008 the student population

steadily increased from approx. 200 in the late 1990ies to the levels seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1 – Number of enrolled PhD students as of the 31st

of December in the respective years.

As the following section illustrates, the total number of students has increased significantly within the given

time frame. The increase in number of students has had an effect on several other factors related to the

PhD study at the two doctoral schools.

The following section focuses on:

Gender distribution – parity.

Nationality.

The total number of PhD students enrolled under the doctoral schools (May 2014) is 788 (including

students on leave of absence and part-time students). The Doctoral School of Engineering and Science have

614 students enrolled. Of these, 585 are currently active and 29 have taken some form of leave of absence.

The number of students enrolled at the Doctoral School in Medicine, Biomedical Science and Technology is

174. Of these, 170 are active and 4 are on some form of leave of absence. From 01.01.2008 to 31.12.2012,

the total number of enrolled PhD students has increased from 450 in 2008 to 741 at the end of 2012.3 The

data illustrated in Figure 1 includes all active students and students that are on any form of leave of

absence, part-time students and the like. The development in the total number of active students for both

3 Please note that students that have handed in their thesis are not counted as active students in line with the Danish

PhD Order.

0

200

400

600

800

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Total Number of Students

Engineering and Science

Medicine, BiomedicalScience and Tech.

15

doctoral schools corresponds to an increase of 65% from 2008 to the end of 2012. In comparison, earlier

years such as 2005 show a total population of 306 enrolled PhD students. The Doctoral School in Medicine,

Biomedical Science and Technology has increased the total number of students from 86 in 2011 to 128 at

the end of 2012. This increase corresponds to 49%.

With an ongoing increase in the number of students, there are a number of elements that required

adjustment and improvement. Initiatives in relation to this have been introduced in the last few years:

The administration/assessment of PhD plans and 6-month declarations.

Assessment of applications for enrollment/employment.

Administration of assessment committees for PhD defenses (an increasing number of committees.

are needed in order to assess the increasing number of PhD projects).

Extension of the number of offered courses.

Co-supervisors appointed in numerous cases.

Increased focus on the scientific quality of the two PhD plans.

Formal methods and procedures established to handle studies not going as planned.

The doctoral schools are continuously implementing new systems and updating current ones to meet the

challenges related to the elements listed above. In relation to PhD plans and 6-month status declarations,

the electronic registration system is now able to handle the approval process (administration and

automatic reminders). For the scientific and administrative personnel, this significantly reduces the

workload related to these mandatory milestones. Previously, the secretariat was responsible for notifying

students and supervisors of the various time frames; declarations were sent out and manually sorted

according to their content.

Assessment of Applications 5.1

All applicants for a scientific position are entitled to an assessment by a qualified committee. Optimizing

the assessment process to keep pace with the increase in the number of applications is challenging. An

electronic application form was implemented in 2009 allowing the members of the committee to access

the different applications. This implementation to some degree reduced the workload for the committees

and eased the entire process related to applications for employment. In order to simplify the process of

creating an assessment committee, the doctoral school has specific requirements for the departments

responsible for creating these committees. The two members of such a committee are typically the

supervisor for the project and the head of the assigned doctoral program (mandatory). However, the

electronic system is far from perfect and some challenges still exist that have not been handled by the

16

software developer. In particular the handling of numerous applications is cumbersome and there are

challenges for the assessment committees in relation to focusing on the most qualified applicants. These

procedures are continuously monitored and some initiatives are currently being taken to ease some of the

formally required but time demanding procedures.

Enrollment 5.2

Figure 2 illustrates the development over time in relation to the number of new enrolled students for both

doctoral schools. The numbers presented in Figure 2 include national and international students. Within

the period, there has been an increase from 150 in 2008 to 226 in 2012. This corresponds to an increase of

51%. Only 2011 showed a small decrease compared to the previous year - from 214 in 2010 to 199 in 2011.

The number of new students for the Doctoral School in Medicine, Biomedical Science and Technology

increased from 26 in 2010 to 52 in 2012.Students enrolled in the latter half of 2010 were enrolled under

the new doctoral school that was set to start as of 01.01.2011. The increase corresponds to 96%. The

noticeable increase is explained by the fact that the Doctoral School in Medicine, Biomedical Science and

Technology is a new initiative, as well as the creation of the program Clinical Science and Biomedicine,

which has grown substantially within the period.

Figure 2 - Development of the number of new students enrolled in a given year distributed on doctoral schools.

For the Doctoral School of Engineering and Science, 2009 showed the largest number of new students with

212 new students. The lowest number was 150 new students in 2008. The number changed to 188 in 2010

and on to 165 in 2011. In 2012, the number increased again to 178. The national end result for the period

2008-20114 shows that the sector experienced a decrease in relation to new students. The Doctoral School

in Medicine, Biomedical Science and Technology increased the number of new students from 34 in 2011 to

4 No figures exist at this time for 2012.

0

50

100

150

200

250

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

New enrolled students

Medicine,Biomedical Scienceand Tech.

Engineering andScience

17

52 in 2012. This increase counters the national tendency – a decrease – for the same period. The noticeable

increase in relation to the total number of students is primarily due to a government-implemented stake

that sought to increase the number of PhD students educated in Denmark. This strategy forced all

universities in Denmark to increase the number of new enrollments. For 2013, the Doctoral School of

Engineering and Science sought to enroll 180 PhD students while the Doctoral School in Medicine,

Biomedical Science and Technology aimed to enroll 50 new PhD students.

For 2013 the Doctoral School of Engineering and Science enrolled 146 students and the Doctoral School in

Medicine, Biomedical Science and Technology enrolled 56. The deviance from the target numbers for the

Doctoral School of Engineering and Science was due to a difficult economic situation for the faculty. The

Doctoral School in Medicine, Biomedical Science and Technology surpassed their own expectations. This

was also facilitated by a total of 22 students being transferred from Århus University.

18

Stipends – Employed PhD Students 6Throughout the year, the doctoral schools announce PhD positions within different research areas – these

are called stipends. The applicants selected for these positions are then employed at the university for a

three-year period. Figure 3 shows the development in relation to the number of announced stipends. These

stipends are mainly financed via external research grants from open competition calls, via direct

collaborations with industry, via EU projects and to some degree from the university (normally only co-

funding is provided). Some stipends from e.g. research councils may not be announced if a potential PhD

student was included in the application and approved by the funding entity.

Figure 3 - Development in the number of announced stipends over time (employed PhD students).

The number of new students cannot be viewed in isolation from the number of stipends announced by the

doctoral schools. The following section therefore presents information on the development in the number

of announced stipends.

As shown in Figure 3 the development in the number of stipends varied within the period. The number of

published stipends ranged from a high of 149 in 2010 to a low of 103 in 2008. At the end of the self-

evaluation period the number of stipends again increased following the decrease from 2010 to 2011.

0

100

200

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Total Number of Stipends

Number ofstipends

19

Supervisors 7As the number of students has continued to grow so has the need for qualified supervision. This section

clarifies the development in relation to the number of supervisors. It only includes active supervisors (those

with one or more active PhD students) for the individual years and does not include all personnel eligible to

act as supervisors. Figure 4 illustrates the development over time in the self-evaluation period for the

number supervisors that have been involved in PhD supervision.

Figure 4 – Active supervisors (only personnel that are supervising one or more students).

In Figure 4 the Doctoral School in Medicine is included only in its independent years; the program

Biomedical Science and Engineering is embedded in the data for the Doctoral School of Engineering and

Science in the remaining years.

For the Doctoral School in Medicine, Biomedical Science and Technology, the number of active supervisors

has increased from 35 in its initial year 2011 to 55 at the end of 2012. The increase corresponds to 57%. At

the end of the period, each active supervisor was responsible for 2.2 students. Students included here are

active students and those on sick/maternity leave.

For the Doctoral School of Engineering and Science, the number of active supervisors has increased from

203 in 2008 to 244 at the end of 2012. The increase is seen throughout the period with an exception from

2010 to 2011. The development is shown in Figure 4 and corresponds to an increase of 20%. Within the

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Active Supervisors

Engineering andScience

Medicine, BiomedicalScience and Tech.

20

same period, the number of students enrolled under this doctoral school increased by 63%. At the end of

the period, each supervisor is responsible for an average of 2.5 students.

Student Distribution 8As the doctoral schools have developed significantly in relation to the number of enrolled students it is

relevant to illustrate how the different doctoral programs have been affected by this increase. Despite the

fact that the Doctoral School in Medicine, Biomedical Science and Technology was not established until

01.01.2011, the program Biomedical Science and Engineering existed prior to this date and is included in

the data for the Doctoral School of Engineering and Science for 2008, 2009 and 2010. The data presented in

the following section only includes active students. Students on any form of leave are not included.

In connection with the establishment of the Doctoral School in Medicine, Biomedical Science and

Technology, the program in Clinical Science and Biomedicine was also established. A portion of students

from Biomedical Science and Engineering was moved to this program, which explains the noticeable

decrease for the program from 2010 to 2011. This reorganization is illustrated in Figure 5 and Figure 6.

Figure 5 – Number of students enrolled at the different programs at the Doctoral School in Medicine, Biomedical Science and Technology.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Program Development The Doctoral School in Medicine,

Biomedical Science and Technology

Health Education,Organisations and Ethics

Biomedical Science andEngineering

Clinical Sciences

21

Biomedical Science and Engineering ended with a situation similar to what was found at the start of the

self-evaluation period. Following its launch, Clinical Science and Biomedicine experienced a significant

increase of 103% (28 students) from 01.01.2011 to 31.12.2012.

Figure 6 - Number of students at the different programs at The Doctoral School of Engineering and Science.

The program Health Education, Organizations and Ethics was established in 2012 and is therefore only

included in this year. The program targets students from the doctoral school whose projects examine issues

that revolve around traditional health areas as well as areas from the humanities and social sciences. It

ensures that the interdisciplinary work with the humanities and social sciences is maintained at the level of

PhD studies. In 2012, the doctoral program Health Education, Organizations and Ethics had 4 PhD students

enrolled.

On a general level the Doctoral School in Medicine, Biomedical Science and Technology is satisfied with the

distribution among the different programs and does not plan to establish additional programs. The coming

period is expected to produce additional growth for all programs. It is expected that Clinical Science and

Biomedicine will maintain the highest rate of growth.

For the Doctoral School of Engineering and Science, Planning and Development is among the largest

programs in terms of the number of students enrolled. The growth of Planning and Development is

particularly noticeable from 2009 to 2010 where the increase from 68 students to 113 corresponds to 30%.

020406080

100120140

Program Development The Doctoral School of Engineering and Science

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

22

The program Wireless Communications is the second largest program with a total of 88 students enrolled

at the end of the period.5 Late 2013 it was decided to split the Planning and Development program such

that the area of Media, Architecture and Design was made an independent program. This reduced the

number of students in the Planning and Development program and gave a clearly defined scientific profile.

In addition to this, Civil Engineering (CE) and Energy Technology (ET) experienced growth throughout the

period. CE grew from 24 students in 2008 to 54 students in 2012, corresponding to 125%. The number of

students enrolled under ET increased from 14 in 2008 to 77 in 2012, a noticeable growth corresponding to

450%.6 The growth related to ET can at least partially be explained by the massively increasing public focus

on renewable energy sources and technology, which are key research areas in this program.

Electrical and Electronic Engineering (EE) and Computer Science and Engineering (CS) experienced a

decrease within the period. For EE the decrease from 68 students in 2008 to 48 in 2012 corresponds to

41%. CS experienced a decrease of 18% with 43 students in 2008 down to 35 in 2012. For the EE program it

should be noted that some students from the Wireless program could also have been enrolled topic wise in

EE.

The Doctoral School of Engineering and Science is continuously assessing and developing the composition

of programs. As already mentioned a new program named Media, Architecture and Design (MAD) has been

formed. The first students enrolled in the program were selected students moved from the Planning and

Development. The MAD program was created to provide a more focused environment for the students

engaged in this research area. During 2014, a committee consisting of the PhD Study Director and other

members related to the PhD study will assess the current composition of programs. For example, the

Technology and Science program is very small and the mentioned committee is expected consider some

different structure for this. Also the program in Mathematics and Physics is also considered for the

upcoming revision. Any recommendations from the present self-evaluation will be considered in this

process.

Gender Distribution – Student Population 8.1

The proportion of women enrolled at the two doctoral schools ranges between 24% (2008 & 2009) and

28% (2010, 2011 and 2012) of the total population. Figure 7 illustrates the full development for both

genders. The doctoral schools promote increased enrollment of women in order to increase diversity

5 The development in relation to the size of the individual programs is continuously monitored.

6 This growth is partially explained by a new structure where students with a relevant topic were moved from

Mechanical Engineering and Electrical and Electronic Engineering to Energy Technology, which was officially created in 2011. This also explains why the program is not present in all figures dealing with the distribution of students.

23

amongst the PhD students. It must, however, be noted that it is, by ministerial order, a demand to accept

the most qualified students. It is therefore not possible for the doctoral schools to administratively increase

the number of enrolled women.

Figure 7 – Gender distribution of the PhD students.

Within the period the number of female PhD students enrolled increased by 109%. The reasons for this

increase are difficult to identify. It can be argued that it reflects the general tendency within the Danish

educational system.

For some programs, the distribution of gender is significantly different from the overall average. The newly

formed Architecture and Media Technology program consists of 49 students, 20 of whom are women. This

amounts to 41% of the students. The opposite is, however, also the case where male students are highly

overrepresented. This is the case for Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering where men constitute

87% of the students. Generally speaking, the Doctoral School in Medicine, Biomedical Science and

Technology currently has a greater percentage of women (35%) than the Doctoral School of Engineering

and Science (19%).

International Students 8.2

As with the development related to the total number of students, the number of international students has

increased significantly within the period from 163 in 2008 to 364 in 2012. This corresponds to an increase

of 98.9%. Figure 8 illustrates this development. The number of international students has increased in all

years included in the time frame.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Gender Distribution

Total Number of Studentsmen

Total Number of StudentsWomen

24

Figure 8 – Total number of international students for both doctoral schools.

Figure 9 illustrates the development in relation to new enrolled international students. In comparison,

Figure 2 shows the total number of new enrolled students. Within the period it has increased from 78 in

2008 to 155 in 2012. This corresponds to an increase of 98.7%. The years 2010 and 2011 showed a small

decrease compared to their preceding years. The development slightly surpasses the national average and

it is particularly affected by the increase in the number of students from China and other parts of Asia.

Figure 9 – The number of new enrolled international for both doctoral schools.

The number of new students from China has stabilized but remains high. For a full overview see Figure 10 –

Figure 14. The number of international students from China is among the highest of all the nations in the

entire time frame. Due to various collaborations and projects there has been an increase in the number of

students from different countries in different periods. This accounts for the high number of students from

Ghana in 2010 and the noticeable increase in students from Iran in 2011.

The increased usage of the final evaluations and a planned evaluation of de-registered students is expected

to have a positive effect on this development. The evaluations should provide the doctoral schools with

0

100

200

300

400

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of Int. Students

Number of Int.Students

0

50

100

150

200

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

New Int. Students

New Int. Students

25

new information, particularly regarding deregistered students, which may assist in identifying issues leading

to de-registration.

The Doctoral School of Engineering and Science represent the largest percentage of international students.

This applies to all years within the time frame. The national development in Denmark in relation to the

enrollment of international PhD students shows an increase of 81%. The Doctoral School of Engineering and

Science showed an increase of 86% between 2008-2011.

Figure 10 - Figure 14 illustrate the national distribution of new international students from 2008-2012. Only

countries with 3+ students enrolled are included in the figures.

Figure 10 – International students enrolled at the end of 2008. 24 countries with 3 or fewer students enrolled.

0

5

10

15

20

India Iran China Poland Spain

International Students 2008

Number of students

26

Figure 11 – International students at the end of 2009. 22 countries with 3 or fewer students enrolled.

Figure 12 – International students at the end of 2010. 24 countries with 3 or fewer students enrolled.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

International students 2009

Number of students

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

International students 2010

Number of students

27

Figure 13 – International students at the end of 2011. 31 countries with 3 or fewer students enrolled.

Figure 14 – International students at the end of 2012. 21 countries with 3 or fewer students enrolled.

Key Figures:

Within the period the total student population has increased by 64%.

Within the period the number of new students per year increased by 51%.

Within the period the number of new international students increased by 98.7%.

Within the period the total number of international students increased by 98.9%.

For all years the Chinese students are the most strongly represented group of the international

students. Other nationalities increased in different years due to projects and collaborations.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

International Students 2011

Number of Students

0

5

10

15

20

25

International Students 2012

Number of students

28

Deregistered Students 9Figure 15 shows the number of deregistered students versus year. It could be expected that with an

increase in the number of new enrolled students the number of deregistered students would increase

accordingly. Indeed, this was the case from 2007 until 2009 where the number did increase from 14 in 2007

to 55 in 2009. The noticeable increase that occurred in 2009 was due to an alteration in the internal

financial incentive system. It was argued that the population was artificially high (515 PhD enrolled

students where many were expected to be inactive) and it was decided to reduce the number of students

by removing a “bonus-system” for the individual departments. The bonus for completion was removed if

the student took more than 4 years to complete his/her study. This resulted in inactive students being

deregistered and thus providing a noticeable increase in the number of deregistered students that year. In

2010 this new structure also influenced the number, which resulted in a total of 41 deregistered students

that year.

Figure 15 – Total number of deregistered students.

The unusually high numbers of deregistered students in 2009 and 2010 are unique due to the alterations

described above. The remaining years shows significantly lower numbers. The average number of

deregistered students is 33 per year. Compared to the average, only the years affected by the described

alterations show a number higher than the average.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Deregistered Students

DeregisteredStudents

29

The most recent deregistration data for 2012 reveals the following:

1 (woman) from the Doctoral School of Medicine Biotechnology and Science.

23 (3 women and 20 men) from the Doctoral School of Engineering and Science.

Women accounted for 16% of the deregistered students.

14 of the deregistered students in 2012 are international students – corresponding to 58%.

In the context of deregistration, the international students are overrepresented compared to their size in

the overall population and the doctoral schools seek to address this fact. It can be argued that some

deregistration should happen as some enrolled students are likely not really suited for PhD studies. It is,

however, for everyone involved and not least the student the best if this can be acknowledged at an early

time in the studies and thus terminating the enrollment. The doctoral schools aims at continuously

improving this situation and some proposals are put forward later in the present document in relation to

quality assurance. One challenge is that the supervisors often loose part of their funding in case an

enrollment is terminated before the three-years for the studies.

Minimizing Deregistration 9.1

As mentioned already it is not an objective itself to eliminate all deregistration. However, it is the objective

to reduce the number of late or unnecessary deregistration as much as possible. Different initiatives

currently used are:

Supervisor courses along with a mandatory course for all new PhD students.

Continuous monitoring of student progress and in this context reestablishment periods when

necessary. The number of reestablishment periods has developed from 6 in 2010 to 9 in 2013.

Tuition waivers7 are overrepresented in the area of reestablishment. A more careful selection

procedure is currently being adopted by the Doctoral School of Engineering and Science to help on

this challenge.

Quality assurance of courses and the PhD study process.

Strengthened focus on enrollment and education level of the potential PhD student. This area is

currently being revised by the PhD Study Directors.

7 A Tuition waiver is a student that typically brings own funding and where the normal fees to the doctoral school may

be waived. The departments hosting the student may decide to demand some payment for supervision, office etc.

30

Coaching possibility for students – the doctoral schools provide a coaching possibility for students

encountering different kind of challenges not easily covered by the supervisor.

The supervisor course is beneficial for all PhD supervisors and introduces them to the legal framework,

requirements and the nature of the supervision process. The main purpose of this course is to enable the

supervisor to detect and act on students that are in risk of not being able to complete their study in due

time. In relation to this, the supervisor is closely committed to the continuous monitoring of the student

and the progress and quality of the study and the importance of the supervisor’s vigilance cannot be

underestimated. The supervisor course is evaluated by the participants and as such undergoes continuous

development based on the input from the participants. This approach ensures that the capabilities of the

supervisors are developed in accordance with the feedback provided by the students to the supervisors.8

The course catalogue is an essential part of most PhD studies and it is therefore of the utmost importance

that it is aligned with the expectations of the students. If this is not the case the students may experience

frustration in relation to obtaining the required ECTS credits. In order to avoid such a situation, the courses

are evaluated by the participants, which can lead to the discovery of issues the doctoral school is otherwise

unaware of. These assessments are also used in the planning of courses for the following year to ensure

that the student feedback is taken seriously.

As a future project, the doctoral schools are implementing an individual evaluation form for students that

are deregistered. The form is focused around possible reasons for deregistration and it provides students

with an opportunity to comment on the specific areas that may have led to their deregistration. It is the

belief of the doctoral schools that this form may provide valuable information in relation to further

reduction in the amount of deregistered students or as a minimum to terminate the studies in a way that is

understood and accepted by the student.

8 Elements related to the supervisor course are presented in a following section.

31

Awarded Degrees 10

When analyzing the number of awarded degrees it is important to remember the average time of

completion in relation to when the degree is awarded. The degrees awarded in one year do not necessarily

reflect the number of new students three years earlier due to the average time of completion being close

to four years. Figure 16 illustrates the development of the number of awarded degrees over time.

Figure 16 – Development in the number of awarded degrees for both doctoral schools.

For the Doctoral School of Engineering and Science the total number of awarded degrees was stable during

2008 and 2009 but showed a significant drop in 2010 to 84, corresponding to 22.9%. This was related to the

relatively low number of new enrolled students in 2006 (96 compared to 127 in 2007, a decrease of 32%).

The number of degrees awarded continues to be affected by the increased national focus on PhD training.

It is expected that the full impact of this focus is seen in 2014.9

Awarded Degrees in Relation to Gender 10.1

The number of degrees awarded to women has also been subject to significant variation within the period.

The amount dropped to 18 in 2010 from 31 in 2009. This development is not confined to women since the

overall number also decreased within this period. Figure 17 illustrates this. The figures are combined for

both doctoral schools and separated on gender.

9 http://fivu.dk/publikationer/2012/analyse-af-eftersporgslen-efter-ph-d-uddannede-i-de-kommende-ar (in Danish).

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Awarded Degrees

Medicine,Biomedical Scienceand Technology

Engineering andScience

32

Figure 17 – Distribution of the awarded degrees on gender for both doctoral schools.

Most recent national figures reveal that the national increase in relation to the number of degrees awarded

corresponds to 11%.10 The two doctoral schools included in this self-evaluation have increased the number

of awarded degrees by 26% within the period.

Awarded Degrees - International Students 10.2

In line with the number of degrees awarded to national students, the degrees awarded to international

students are also subject to variation within the period. This is again related to a noticeable deviation in the

number of students enrolled in the preceding 3-4 years. The year 2010 is again exceptional in relation to

the low number of degrees awarded. This development is illustrated in Figure 18.

Figure 18 – Development in relation to the number of awarded degrees to international students.

10

The year 2012 is not included in this period, as no official numbers exists.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Awarded Degrees Distributed on Gender

Awarded DegreesMen

Awarded DegreesWomen

0

20

40

60

80

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Awarded Degrees Int. Students

33

Key figures:

Within the period the doctoral schools have awarded a total of 532 degrees.

The annual number of awarded degrees decreased in 2009 and 2010.

The number of degrees awarded decreased for all groups in 2009 and 2010.

Within the period the total number of awarded degrees increased by 27%.

The number of degrees awarded to women increased by 47%.

The number of degrees awarded to men increased by 22%.

The number of degrees awarded to international students increased by 52%.

Time of Completion 11

The following section describes the development in relation to the average time of completion for a PhD

student at the doctoral schools. In additions to this the section incorporates student attitudes in relation to

the timeframe allocated for the PhD study.

The time frame of three years for the PhD study is stated in the PhD order and covers from the time of

enrollment to the time when the thesis is handed in. Following the submission of the thesis, there is still a

substantial amount of time before the actual degree is awarded. This time covers the entire assessment

process and the time between the preliminary assessment report and the time prior to the defense. The

data presented in the following section in relation to the full time of completion refers to when the degree

is conferred. This way of measuring is in line with Danish statistics on average completion times. Based on

experience and data from former students, the average time from thesis submission to receiving the

degree is approximately four months.

The data in relation to the time of completion excludes students enrolled on a part-time basis and authors

presenting a thesis without prior studies (PhD Order §15.2). Part-time students have, as expected, a

significantly longer time of completion which would increase the average time of completion. This would

offset the numbers as the part time students are planned to take longer to complete. Authors presenting a

thesis for assessment without prior studies have no time registered in the internal system and would

therefore decrease the average time. Therefore, the exclusion of these two groups presents a far more

accurate picture of the actual time of completion.

34

In addition to the above, this section presents information regarding student attitudes towards the time

frame provided for the PhD study. This is divided into the time provided for actual research and the overall

time frame11. The information provided here is based on questionnaire responses provided by students

who have completed their PhD study within the time frame of this evaluation. The purpose of this is to

reveal potential discontent related to the internal structure of PhD education at the two doctoral schools.

In relation to quality assurance, this additional initiative is valuable for ensuring that student opinions are

considered in continuously improving the PhD study.

Completion time for International Students 11.1

In relation to the international students seen in Figure 19 it is relevant to consider whether the time of

completion is notably different from that of the national students. Figure 19 illustrates the development in

relation to the average time of completion and Figure 20 illustrates the similar numbers for international

students. The data for the period reveals a positive development for the international students, which is

now in line with the national average found for these types of doctoral schools.

Figure 19 – Average time of completion for international students enrolled at the doctoral schools.

11

In addition to research the PhD study requires additional elements.

0

1

2

3

4

5

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Average time of completion in years - int. students

Engineering andScience

Medicine,Biomedical Scienceand Tech.

35

Figure 20 - This illustrates the average national time of completion compared to AAU average.12

The overall development in relation to the international students, within the full scope of the time frame,

showed the average time of completion has decreased from 4.9 years in 2008 to 3.7 years in 2012. This

corresponds to a reduction of 24.4%. Despite a small increase in 2011, the development is overall positive.

When separating the data for the doctoral schools, the development shows that the average time of

completion is reduced for both schools. The Doctoral School in Medicine, Biomedical Science and

Technology shows a reduction of 13% and the Doctoral School of Engineering and Science shows a

reduction of 12%.

Average Time of Completion – National Average 11.2

A combined result of students from the two doctoral schools (2011 and 2012) reveals that the average

time has decreased from 4 years in 2011 to 3.7 in 2012. The most recent national survey reveals that the

national average for doctoral schools within the science and engineering sector is 3.8 years.13 For doctoral

schools within medicine and health technology the national average is 3.9 years. Comparing the numbers

from the two doctoral schools to numbers from this period, the Doctoral School of Engineering and Science

was 0.2 years below the national average and the Doctoral School in Medicine, Biomedical Science and

Technology was 0.6 years above in 2011. The data for 2012 reveals that the completion time for the two

doctoral schools is well in line with the national average. Medicine is 0.2 years below the national average

and Engineering and Science is similar to the national average.

12

http://ufm.dk/publikationer/2014/tilsynsrapport-om-aalborg-universitet. 13

http://fivu.dk/publikationer/2013/filer-2013/1-tilsynsrapport-om-aalborg-universitet.pdf.

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Average time of completion (years)

Engineering and ScienceAAU

Engineering and ScienceDK

Medicine, BiomedicalScience and Tech. AAU

Medicine, BiomedicalScience and Tec.DK

36

It is believed that the increased emphasis on quality assurance plays an important role in this positive

development. Within the period, the number of elements checked for quality has increased and the

progress of the individual student is subject to additional supervision and assurance. Although the numbers

presented here are close to the national average, the doctoral schools are seeking to reduce completion

time in the coming period.

Part time studies 11.3

Fewer than 10 part-time students were awarded the PhD degree throughout the period. It is therefore not

meaningful to illustrate a development in relation to this group of students. The part time students that

were found had a completion time of approximately 6.1 years, minus the 4 months allocated to the

evaluation process.

37

Student Satisfaction with the PhD Study – Allocated Time 12

Collecting data in relation to student attitudes towards the allocated time frame is an important aspect to

consider for numerous reasons. An increased negative attitude towards this could indicate potential

problems within the doctoral schools since the time frame has not been altered. Students that have

finished their PhD study base all data provided in the sections dealing with student satisfaction. The

number of questionnaires submitted varies between the individual years. It ranges between 39 in 2010 to

84 in 2012. In some cases relatively low number of students answering the question influences the results.

This is commented on where relevant. The term “allocated time” refers to the entire time frame provided

for the PhD study, which incorporates the different elements required in relation to the PhD degree.

Figure 21 – Development in relation to student opinions towards the timeframe for the PhD study. Both doctoral schools are included.

The development seen in Figure 21 shows that within the entire period, students are happy overall with the

allocated time for the PhD study. The years 2008 and 2010 have the largest group of satisfied students with

a total of 99% and 98%, respectively.

The reason for this minor increase of unsatisfied students in 2011 is difficult to identify. Comments in the

questionnaires do, however, reveal that students are often unaware of certain elements when commencing

their study.14 There are variations related to this response. They range from students being unaware of

their dissemination responsibilities arguing that the provided time frame does not allow room for the

required performance. The doctoral schools publish all relevant information related to PhD study on their

14

This is particularly the case for international students.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Student satisfaction with allocated time

Very Satisfied

Satisfactory

Not Satisfied

38

website and students are made aware of this information when applying for enrollment. Furthermore the

obligatory introduction course is an initiative that should mitigate this problem

The significant increase in the total number of students is a factor that is likely to have had an effect on the

increase in the number of unsatisfied students. As the student population increased so did the

requirements related to administration, research facilities and all other elements related to PhD study.

Further, some researchers reported that it was increasingly difficult to attract students of very high quality.

The controllable aspects are continuously being improved and the doctoral schools aim to ensure that all

students are satisfied with their PhD study and the aspects related to it. It is important that the students

know the expectations they meet and this is also a key focus point for all heads of programs to emphasize

in the PhD plans.

As the doctoral schools are not able to alter the framework for the PhD study, more efficient

communication/information towards the students is suggested as a specific initiative. As part of this

process, a thorough revision of the online material and the structure of the doctoral schools’ websites is

planned for 2014-2015. Furthermore, the materials used in the introduction course for new PhD students

undergo continuous revision.

Student Satisfaction – Research Time 12.1

In addition to satisfaction with the overall time frame for PhD study, students are encouraged to comment

on the time provided for research. This aspect is vital for the doctoral schools to monitor given its direct

impact on the quality of the individual studies.

The data from the questionnaires, applied in Figure 22, shows little increase/decrease in relation to the

different groups included in this survey. Generally speaking, the students are increasingly satisfied with the

time allocated for research during PhD study.

The doctoral schools are satisfied with the current development. However, there is an obvious

contradiction in the feedback by the students and the (too) long study times. This part is not obvious to

explain and further information could be interesting to have.

39

Figure 22 – Student attitudes towards the time of the PhD study allocated to research.

Key Figures:

The number of unsatisfied students is acceptable throughout the period. The year 2012 shows that

the number is currently decreasing.

The average time of completion is decreasing for all groups (national & international).

The average time of completion is in line with the national average for these types of doctoral

schools.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Student satisfaction with research time

Very satisfied

Satisfactory

Not satisfied

40

Courses 13

This section presents data related to courses based on questionnaires answered by students after

completing a course. The data included reflects only program specific courses. The section includes

information regarding the number of ECTS credits related to the specific courses. In order to ensure proper

illustration in the figures, the planned general courses are excluded due to their relatively high number of

ECTS. The general courses are handled separately.

In line with the PhD Order, the doctoral schools believe that courses are an essential part of any PhD

education and are very focused on providing a substantial and relevant course catalogue. The heads of the

different programs, informed on trends in their field, are responsible for suggesting program specific

courses. These are then discussed and approved by the PhD board. In addition to this, the PhD students are

always encouraged to suggest courses. For all programs, courses and course content is decided individually.

It is argued that the courses offered in individual years are fully representative of the needs of the affiliated

personnel and PhD students. The program specific courses may change over time with the scientific areas

being most prominent and some courses are also offered every second year to offer some variation while

still being open to all students during their three-year time span.

The section describes development in relation to the following aspects:

The number of courses offered.

ECTS credits.

Student satisfaction.

ECTS 13.1

Figure 23 - Figure 27 illustrates the development for the individual doctoral programs in terms of ECTS

credits offered and held in the years 2008-2012. This reveals how many ECTS credits were cancelled during

the period. The cancelled courses were all due to a too low number of participants and not due to poor

planning or similar by the lecturer.

41

Figure 23 – ECTS development for the programs under the Doctoral School of Engineering and Science 2012. Courses offered – 321.5 ECTS; Courses held – 264.5 ECTS.

Figure 24 – ECTS development for the programs under the Doctoral School of Engineering and Science 2011. Courses offered – 293.50; Courses held – 255.50.

0,00

20,00

40,00

60,00

80,00

100,00

120,00

ECTS program specific courses 2012

Offered ECTS in 2012

Course Held ECTS pr. 28.11.12

0,0010,0020,0030,0040,0050,0060,0070,0080,0090,00

ECTS program specific courses 2011

Offered ECTS 2011

Held ECTS 2011

42

Figure 25 - ECTS development for the programs under the Doctoral School of Engineering and Science 2010. Courses offered – 130.75; Courses Held – 122.25.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

ECTS program specific courses 2010

Offered ECTS

Held ECTS

43

Figure 26 - ECTS development for the programs under the Doctoral School of Engineering and Science 2009. Courses offered – 114.75; Courses held – 105.25.

Figure 27 - ECTS development for the programs under the Doctoral School of Engineering and Science 2008. Courses offered – 144.95; Courses held – 114.65.

02468

1012141618

ECTS program specific courses 2009

Offered ECTS

Held ECTS

0

5

10

15

20

25

ECTS program specific courses 2008

Offered ECTS

Held ECTS

44

The total number of actual lectured ECTS credits for the individual programs has increased from 115 ECTS

credits in 2008 to 265 in 2012. This increase corresponds to 172%. The ECTS credits offered increased from

145 in 2008 to 322 in 2012. This increase corresponds to 121%. In addition to the ECTS credits allocated to

the individual programs, the doctoral schools offer general courses of interest to many students across

multiple programs. The ECTS development for this is seen in Figure 28. These courses have a wider appeal

and can as such be useful to all PhD students.

Figure 28 – ECTS development for the general PhD courses, combined for both doctoral schools.

The development in Figure 28 for the general courses shows an increase from 41 ECTS credits held in 2008

to 93.5 ECTS credits held in 2012. The increase corresponds to 22%. The number of general courses

cancelled is in line with what was expected for the different years. The low number of cancellations is quite

as expected as these courses are specifically chosen such that they must have a broader interest than for

program specific courses. Thereby it is also more likely that the minimum number of attendees can be met

and thereby ensures that the course is held. It is also seen that the lecturers did not have to cancel courses

(which is also not acceptable unless very strong arguments are put forward).

The Doctoral School in Medicine, Biomedical Science and Technology was established as an independent

unit as of 01.01.2011; therefore the program Biomedical Science and Engineering is excluded from the data

for the Doctoral School of Engineering and Science in 2011 and 2012.

In 2011, the Doctoral School in Medicine, Biomedical Science and Technology offered courses

corresponding to 22 ECTS credits for their two individual programs and 63 ECTS credits in collaboration

0

20

40

60

80

100

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

ECTS general courses

Offered ECTS

Held ECTS

45

with the Doctoral School of Engineering and Science. For the planned 22 program specific courses only 2.5

ECTS credits were cancelled.

In 2012, the Doctoral School in Medicine, Biomedical Science and Technology offered 3 separate programs

with 25.5 program specific ECTS credits. A total of 86 ECTS credits were offered in conjunction with the

Doctoral School of Engineering and Science. Of the 25.5 program specific ECTS credits, 4 were cancelled.

The cancelled courses in 2011 and 2012 are all affiliated with the program Biomedical Science and

Engineering. The development for the courses affiliated with the Doctoral School in Medicine, Biomedical

Science and Technology is satisfactory for the period and is expected to increase in the coming period.

The development seen in relation to the different course forms corresponds to the increase in the student

population. The proportion of ECTS credits cancelled was 17% at the end of the self-evaluation period

which is an increase of 1% compared to the start of the self-evaluation period. The lowest proportion of

ECTS credits cancelled was found in 2010 where only 4% of the ECTS credits planned were cancelled. In this

context it must be remembered that the courses were cancelled due to not having enough participants.

The doctoral schools have implemented a minimum number of participants in order to control the overall

expenses to courses.

The Doctoral Schools are seeking to reduce the number of cancelled courses. The majority of courses are

cancelled due to lack of participants.

Post Graduate Student Satisfaction with Courses 13.2

In order to maintain an innovative and relevant course catalogue, it is important for the doctoral schools to

involve the students’ opinions on courses. This is done via the form provided to the students following the

end of their study.

With a significantly increasing number of ECTS credits offered per year combined with an increasing

number of students, it is important for the doctoral schools to monitor student satisfaction with the

courses offered in order to advance positive development.

This section is based on data from the forms submitted by students following the completion of their

study. Students from the two doctoral schools are combined in this data since there is not enough student

data available from the Doctoral School in Medicine, Biomedical Science and Technology to provide a

satisfactory data foundation.

The section presents data on the development of the following elements:

46

The number of courses.

The quality of the courses.

The relevance of the courses offered.

The information in Figure 29 provides a substantial overview of how the courses have developed. It is

particularly relevant to consider their performance in relation to the increased number of students. The

number of responses varies between the years; the results are presented as percents.

Figure 29 – Development of the student satisfaction with number of PhD courses.

The increase in relation to new students produces an increased need for several elements related to PhD

education, including the number of courses. Student satisfaction with the number of courses is satisfactory

throughout the period as the proportion of ‘not satisfactory’ responses is only 5% in 2012. This is a

reduction from the 10% seen in 2008 and despite the minor increase at the end of the period, the result is

believed to be satisfactory.

0

20

40

60

80

100

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Student satisfaction with the number of courses (%)

Very satisfied

Satisfied

Unsatisfied

47

Figure 30 – Students satisfaction with the quality of the PhD courses offered.

The quality of the courses refers to the course content, the performance of the course holder and the

learning outcome. The data provided in relation to this reveals that the proportion of unsatisfied responses

peaked in 2009 with 17% of the students being dissatisfied with the overall quality. Towards the end of the

period this decreased to 9%. The combined development is seen in Figure 31.

However, as this data includes all forms of courses, it is an area that the PhD boards has as high priority to

improve. Some new measures were taken in 2013 which demanded the lecturers to me specific about the

learning objectives, pedagogical methods, chosen topics, exercises etc. It is expected that this may improve

the student satisfaction and the outcome of the increased focus on course quality is closely monitered.

Another initiative in relation to this is a better adaptation of the data gathered from students questionaires.

It may also be necessary to avoid some lecturers in case a course has generally negative impact on the

students.

0

20

40

60

80

100

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Student satisfaction with the quality of the courses (%)

Very satisfied

Satisfied

Unsatisfied

48

Figure 31 – Development of student’s satisfaction with the relevance of the PhD courses.

The data provided in relation to the relevance of the PhD courses shows that the majority of students are

satisfied. The highest proportion of very satisfied students is found in 2012. The satisfied responses

increased from 2008 to 2010 where 71% of the students were satisfied with the relevance of the courses.

From 2010, the combined group of satisfied students continued to decrease and at the end of 2012 this

group comprised 84%. The remaining 16% are dissatisfied with the relevance of the courses. This is a

substantial amount and it poses a serious challenge for the doctoral schools. As this data incorporates the

specific courses, all students should be able to find relevant courses to cover their entire course program.

From discussion with several students as well as supervisors and heads of program it seems as if students

to a high degree want courses that are extremely specific for the given PhD study. This would also explain

the dissatisfaction of the relevance by several students. It has never been the intention of the PhD board to

have such specific courses as it makes it financially impossible to lift such a task with courses for extremely

few students. However, there is a task for the board to explain the possibilities to for example introduce

study circles, which can be accepted as a course activity. Also the new ministerial order from 2013 allows a

broader interpretation of a course indicating more flexibility although this has already been exploited to a

significant degree in the doctoral schools. The course relevance is an area that the PhD boards wish to

improve but it must be done with care.

Creating a course catalogue that covers 10 doctoral programs for engineering and science & three for

medicine poses a significant challenge. The content of the programs differs significantly from one another

and creating a catalogue that fulfills the needs and desires of each individual student is a substantial task.

0

20

40

60

80

100

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Student satisfaction with the relevance of the courses (%)

Very satisfied

Satisfied

Unsatisfied

49

The different doctoral programs are awarded ECTS credits for courses based on the number of students

enrolled under that program. This approach causes some of the lesser program to receive less ECTS credits

to distribute and thereby less program specific courses. All programs are awarded 5 ECTS credits as a

minimum. The data obtained from the questionnaires reveals that the majority of students that are

unhappy with the courses in this context are enrolled under a relatively small program.

Key figures:

Within the period, satisfaction with the number of courses developed as such:

o The very satisfied category decreased from 36% in 2008 to 33% in 2012.

o The satisfied group increased from 53% in 2008 to 61% in 2012.

o The unsatisfied group decreased from 10% in 2008 to 5% in 2012

The development in relation to the quality of the courses are as follows:

o The very satisfied group increased from 39% in 2008 to 59% in 2012.

o The satisfied group remained essentially stable at 58% in 2008 and 59% in 2012.

o The unsatisfied group increased from 2.4% in 2008 to 8% in 2012.

The development in relation to the relevance of the courses is as follows:

o The very satisfied group remained essentially stable at 24% in 2008 and 23% in 2012.

o The satisfied group remained essentially stable at 56% in 2008 and 57% in 2012.

o The unsatisfied group was at its lowest point, at 16%, when the evaluation period ended.

The highest number was seen in 2009 with 30%.

Within the period, the ECTS credits offered increased by 133%.

The ECTS credits held increased by 130%.

For 2013 the Doctoral School in Medicine, Biomedical Science and Technology offered 40 course

specific ECTS credits – excluding planned joint courses.

The Doctoral School of Engineering and Science offered 317.5 ECTS credits – excluding planned

joint courses.

A total of 90 ECTS credits is planned for general courses.

50

Course Evaluations 13.3

The questionnaires that students are provided with following the completion of a course offer more

detailed insight into additional elements related to courses. The following section describes the

development in relation to these aspects. It is divided into two segments:

General courses 2008-2012.

Program specific courses 2008-2012.

Within the two groups (general and specific courses) the emphasis is on development in relation to the

relevance of the course and satisfaction with the courses in their entirety (overall performance). This

description adds to the data presented above whilst separating the two course forms. This provides a

precision of the development and reveals where the un-satisfaction in relation to the courses is located.

13.3.1 General Courses

The overall performance15 of the general courses seen in Figure 32 has not undergone significant changes

within the period with the majority of students being very satisfied or satisfied.

Figure 32 – Development of student satisfaction with the performance of the general PhD courses.

Throughout the period, the combination of the very satisfied groups is settled around 70% ranging from

68% in 2008 to 72% in 2009. The group of students finding the general courses adequate is also stable

15

Overall performance refers to learning outcome, content and extent of the course.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Overall performance of the general courses

Very Satisfied

Satisfied

Adequate

Less Satisfied

Unsatisfied

51

throughout the period at around 14%. The students unsatisfied with the general courses constitute a very

small group within the entire period peaking in 2009 & 2010 with 3% of the students. It has not changed

within the period and is apparently stable around 2%. For the coming period the doctoral schools expects

to continue the current approach to the creation of general courses.

By definition, the nature of the general courses is very wide and the content is not aimed at any particular

doctoral school, although some courses are biased towards engineering and science. It is therefore argued

that all students are able to find relevant courses among the general ones.

The majority of the students are very satisfied or satisfied with the relevance of the content in the general

courses as seen in Figure 33. This group revolves around 60% with the highest proportion found in 2008

(61%) and the lowest in 2009/2010 (58%). Although these groups account for more than 50% of the

students in all years included in the period, the doctoral schools seek to increase these groups in the

coming period in that all students should find the general courses relevant in relation to their PhD study.

Figure 33 – Development of student satisfaction with the relevance of the general PhD courses.

The group of students finding the relevance of the general courses adequate is around 20% throughout the

period. A minor deviation is evident only in 2011 with a total of 17%, a decrease of 4% compared to 2010.

This group is difficult to address since no arguments are presented in relation to why the relevance is only

adequate and not satisfactory.

At the end of 2012 the proportion of unsatisfied students reached 8%, an increase of 2% from 2011. Within

the entire period, the amount decreased by 2%. The group of less satisfied and unsatisfied answers

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Relevance of the general courses

Very satisfied

Satisfied

Adequate

Less satisfied

Unsatisfied

52

decreased by 2% within the period, from 20% in 2008 to 18% in 2012. The combined amount is around 20%

throughout the period.

The doctoral schools are facing a substantial challenge in that the proportion of students that are

unsatisfied, to various degrees, is considerably higher than what is acceptable. For the coming period, the

doctoral schools are seeking to further reduce this group of students. As part of this initiative, an improved

application of the evaluation forms provided by the students is planned for implementation in 2014.

13.3.2 Specific Courses

The specific courses that are related to the different doctoral programs are very specialized in their content

and focused on somewhat narrow areas. Students are able to attend courses outside their program; it is a

universal requirement that the course is relevant for the PhD study. Since the students should acquire their

specialized knowledge in this type of course, it is imperative that the students are satisfied with all aspects

related to the specific courses. The following section presents data on this and the prerequisites are similar

to those found in the section above.

The development in relation to the overall performance of the specific courses is illustrated in Figure 34.

Figure 34 – Student attitudes towards the performance of the specific PhD courses at AAU.

The group of students finding the overall performance of the specific courses to be satisfying satisfactory

has undergone positive development. The proportion has increased from 70% in 2008 to 75% in 2012,

which additionally had the highest number of very satisfied students with 41%. Throughout the period, this

group is stable ranging from 70 to 75%. In relation to the development it is argued that the overall positive

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Overall performance of the specific courses

Very Satisfied

Satisfied

Adequate

Less Satisfied

Unsatisfied

53

development in this section is due to the process related to creating the course catalogue. The different

parties involved in the creation of the specific courses are all highly qualified in their fields and informed

about latest developments and trends within the different fields. The doctoral schools are committed to

maintaining the positive development in the coming period.

The group of students finding the overall performance of the specific courses to be adequate has decreased

by 7% within the period, from 20% in 2008 to 13% in 2012. Based on the development in all the groups, it is

argued that the majority of the students that have disappeared from this group are found in the satisfied

group of students.

The less satisfied group rose from 6 to 8% within the period but a decline is noted at the end of the period.

In combination with the unsatisfied group, the total number is 12% at the end of the period. This is an

increase of 3% for the entire period where the amount peaked in 2009 with 14% of the students being less

satisfied or dissatisfied. Despite the positive tendency at the end of the period, the proportion of students

that are not satisfied with the specific courses is still considered too high. In order to improve this situation,

there are several initiatives that are scheduled for implementation in the coming period. Among these is a

greater utilization of various aspects related to the PhD students. They are currently being prompted in

relation to the creation of the course catalogue, which should ensure that the composition is in line with

the desires of the students. It is reasonable to promote this initiative further since this is where the

students are able to make the biggest impact on the composition on the course catalogue.

In relation to the relevance of the specific courses, there are two noteworthy developments found within

the period. First, the proportion of satisfying answers increased from 58% in 2008 to 62% in 2012. In

addition to this, 2012 had the highest proportion of very satisfied answers. As the development shows, the

approach that the doctoral schools have taken in relation to this has increased the proportion of students

that are satisfied with the relevance of the specific courses.

The second noteworthy development relates to the proportion of students less satisfied/dissatisfied with

the relevance of the specific courses. Figure 35 illustrates this development. This combined group increased

from 9% in 2008 to 18% in 2012, an increase of 100%. The unsatisfied group has increased by 4% and the

less satisfied group by 5%. The negative development of the less satisfied and dissatisfied groups is ongoing

throughout the period. This development confirms the development seen in the data found in the forms

submitted by the students at the completion of their PhD study. It is a cause for concern that the specific

courses are irrelevant to a substantial and growing population among the students. The specific courses are

54

an essential part of the PhD process and it is of utmost importance for the doctoral schools to present a

successful course catalogue.

Figure 35 – Development of student attitudes towards the relevance of the specific PhD courses.

For the coming period the doctoral schools are focused on identifying possible reasons for this

misalignment and on creating a solution.

Key points:

The students’ attitudes towards the general courses are predominantly positive; satisfaction with

the relevance of the general courses is subject to improvement. The group of unsatisfied students

is considered too large and is planned to be addressed in the coming period.

The performance of the specific courses is acceptable with positive development throughout the

period. The group of not satisfied students is too high in this relation.

The relevance of the specific courses faces a substantial challenge as the proportion of not satisfied

students increased throughout the period.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Relevance of the specific courses

Very satisfied

Satisfied

Adequate

Less Satisfied

Unsatisfied

55

External Research Stays 14

As part of PhD training, all students are obligated to participate in external research collaboration. The

doctoral schools promote a stay at an external research environment in order to fulfill this criterion. The

following section presents the development in the number of students that have stayed at external

research institutions.

The percentage of students doing a research stay at an institution outside of Denmark has declined

throughout the period, which is shown in Figure 36.

The actual numbers are somewhat stable ranging from 113 to 147 students for the Doctoral School of

Engineering and Science and 86-128 for the Doctoral School in Medicine, Biomedical Science and

Technology.

Figure 36 – Number of students taking a supported (financial support from the doctoral schools) external stay.

Both doctoral schools strongly promote a stay at an external research institution as this can contribute to

the PhD study on several levels. This refers to the scientific outcome, possible new angles on the project as

well as networking possibilities. During the coming period the doctoral schools work on promoting this and

again increase the number of students staying at external research institutions.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Supported External Research Stays

Engineering andScience

Medicine,Biomedical Scienceand Tech.

56

Quality Assurance 15

The doctoral schools are continuously seeking to improve all aspects of PhD study. This applies to elements

related to the overall performance of the doctoral schools as well as for the individual PhD projects.

This section contains information regarding development projects and quality assurance of the following

areas:

Quality assurance related to the PhD study (applications, study plans etc.).

Quality assurance of the supervision.

Quality assurance of courses.

Quality assurance of administration.

The measures taken with respect to quality assurance have mainly happened over the last few years, which

is time wise aligned with the significant increase in intake of students. This dramatic change in the number

of enrolled students demanded some stronger focus on quality assurance and this area has also been

important for the ministry for further education.

The PhD Study 15.1

15.1.1 Employment and Enrollment

Some PhD students are employed via a stipend, which they have applied for in open competition (unless

the financing entity has decided in advance whom to employ). Other students bring their own funding and

thus do not depend on a stipend. For both types of students, enrollment is necessary before they are

formally PhD students. No matter financing source the same requirements must be met for enrollment.

All applicants for PhD vacancies are provided with an assessment of their application for

enrollment/employment. The recruitment of candidates is essential for the quality of the PhD study and

care must be taken in the assessment of potential candidates for enrollment. In terms of responsibility it is

important to understand that the employment is under the department whereas enrollment as PhD

student in the doctoral school is under the PhD Study Director.

For both employed students via stipends and self-financed students an application must include a cover

letter, copy of all educations documents including grades, CV and a project proposal. Applications that do

not comply with the registration requirements are subject to administrative rejection. Similarly,

applications that are submitted after the deadline are not considered.

57

The assessment committee is composed of the 1) potential supervisor for the project (associate professor

or professor), and 2) the head of the assigned doctoral program (who is also an associate professor or

professor). These make an assessment of the qualifications of the candidate. When assessing the

applications the following elements are addressed:

Relevance of master’s program and grades.

Previous accomplishments, publications etc.

Project description.

Also the head of department must recommend enrollment before final assessment by the PhD Study

Director. In case the student has an education that is not certain to comply with formal rules for

enrollment, the PhD Study Director requests an assessment by the Ministry of Higher Education and

Science. Furthermore, the PhD Study Director reviews all candidates for enrollment. The procedures for this

has been strengthened recently due to some of the statistics presented earlier which indicated that the

selection procedure with advantage could be strengthened. Furthermore, good English skills are a

mandatory requirement for any enrolled student.

Should an assessment committee reach the conclusion that none of the submitted applications comply

with the requirements set forth, it is recommended to the Dean that the position is not awarded to any of

the current applicants. All applicants are provided with a rejection letter and an assessment as required in

the ministerial order.

The combination of the steps described above provides a relatively thorough assessment process, which

ensures that candidates that are not eligible or unfit to engage in a PhD study are rejected. Within the two

doctoral schools there are several initiatives aimed at maintaining a high level of quality in relation to

employment and enrollment. The process related to the selection of candidates for a stipend is, as

described above, relatively extensive and fully aligned with what is stated in the ministerial order. Some

further actions are proposed later though.

The number of deregistered students is stable at the end of the period and it is fair to assume that the

initiatives implemented in relation to quality assurance of the individual studies are having an effect. For

the coming period, the additional initiatives implemented, such as the electronic registration process

related to PhD plans, are expected to improve the development. Generally, in relation to deregistered

students, it is important to remember that a substantial number of them are deregistered due to events

that the doctoral schools are not able to affect. Also some are bound to start a “job” which may turn out

58

not to be the right one for the individual. Therefore a total elimination of deregistered students is not

considered possible nor is it desirable.

15.1.2 Introductory Course

As a mandatory step at the early stages of PhD study, all PhD students are informed of the introductory

course in their enrollment/employment letter. It is emphasized to the student that the course is strongly

recommended and it is expected that the course be attended as soon as possible. The course is seen as a

key element in relation to ensuring a good PhD study and is especially aimed at ensuring that all students

get off to a good start. The course covers all aspects of the life as a PhD student and prepares the student

for the study. The course has special emphasis on the formal rules of Danish PhD studies, the rights and

duties as a PhD student and not least information on how to compose the 2-months study plan demanded

by the PhD Order. In addition, also focusing on code of research conduct is essential for the introductory

courses The PhD Board with participation from selected supervisors, the PhD secretariat and other relevant

lecturers organize the course.

15.1.3 PhD Plans

All PhD students are obligated to present the initial PhD plan within two months of their enrollment. In

addition to this, the doctoral schools have implemented the updated PhD plan, which is due after 11

months of study. The 11-month plan was introduced as recognition of the fact that it is very difficult to

provide a detailed study plan so early in the study, which is likely to work for the entire three years of

study.

In connection with the 11-month updated plan, all students enrolled under the Doctoral School in

Medicine, Biomedical Science and Engineering are obligated to conduct a pre-defense, which is intended to

improve the outcome of the final PhD plan and possibly the final achievement of the PhD degree. An

internal opponent is assigned to the pre-defense and a statement from the opponent and the main

supervisor following the event indicates whether or not the student is eligible to continue with the study. In

case of requested revisions the student presents a cover letter stating the revisions done based on the

recommendations from the opponent. Experiences so far have shown that this initiative is highly

supportive for both PhD-students and supervisors.

Certain programs under the Doctoral School of Engineering and Science have also adapted the idea of a

pre-defense. This includes one of the largest programs, Planning and Development. The pre-defense is

considered as optional for the departments and whether or not to implement it is continuously assessed in

59

the individual programs. This area is also part of the plans for future changes in the quality assurance as

described in the following section.

15.1.4 Progress Monitoring

For each individual PhD study there is an ongoing process related to quality assurance. Every six months,

the supervisor must forward a 6-month declaration stating the progress of the student. Recently, in 2014,

we have started using an electronic web-based system, which supports this process and ensures that

automatic reminders are issued, that the PhD Study Director is informed in case of problems etc. Via this

system it is also possible for the supervisor and/or student to request a meeting with the PhD Study

Director and/or the head of the assigned doctoral program. Students that are dissatisfied with their

supervision or other aspects of their study are able to complain outside the context of the 6-month

declaration.

In addition to the options presented above, the supervisor and the student are obligated to create a

student/supervisor agreement as part of the 2-month PhD plan. The scope of this agreement is to ensure

that the expectations of the two parties towards each other are aligned, which internationally studies have

shown to be very important for the success of a PhD study. When approving the PhD plans the heads of

programs are instructed to pay particular notice to the student/supervisor agreement. All approved study

plans are obviously made to comply with finalization in three years as expected from the PhD Order. Since

this does not always happen it must mean that many study plans are not followed. It is not surprising that

research cannot be anticipated in all cases but it does indicate that the study plans are not sufficiently

updated. The PhD Study Directors have increased the focus on the continuous quality assurance and have

for example made clear procedures for handling of reestablishment requests from the supervisor. A

supervisor can request a reestablishment of a PhD study in case the student does not follow the plan

and/or the quality of the work is not at the required level at the given time in the study. Providing clear

guidelines and fair handling of such situations have also led to an increase in the number of

reestablishment initiatives from 6 in 2010 (554 enrolled students) to 9 at the end of 2013 (633) enrolled

students. Some supervisors believe that three years for a PhD study is insufficient and this demands a

change of traditions that is time consuming. The doctoral schools therefore argue that the current

processes are working as intended but it is an area of utmost importance to monitor and address such that

it is clear to both supervisors and students that time is a scarce resource.

In the evaluation period (prior to the new electronic administrative system) the doctoral schools were

facing some challenges in relation to the approach used for the 6-month declaration. The PhD secretariat

submitted all declarations directly by internal mail to the supervisors that were required to produce a 6-

60

month declaration. This distribution format did not work well. It demanded lots of manual work and many

errors happened along the way – statements got lost, some were never completed etc. Furthermore,

feedback from some departments showed that the paper form was unsatisfactory for many supervisors

and students.16 In the last quarter of 2013, the doctoral schools began testing a new approach to solve

these issues with the 6-month declaration. The registration system PhD Manager is set to administer the

process of sending and approving all 6-month declarations. This eliminates the chances of material getting

lost and ensures that all parties are notified on time. The system automatically generates a mail and

notifies the supervisor when a declaration is due – furthermore, this is time-wise aligned with the given

starting date of the PhD project. The supervisor must sign in and approve that everything is proceeding in

accordance with the PhD plan and if this is not the case the supervisor must comment on potential issues.

The student is then notified and asked to assess the declaration and approve/reject it. The entire process is

set to be fully automatic and is expected to greatly improve the application and outcome of the 6-month

declaration to make it an efficient tool for the PhD Study Directors to intervene at an early time in case of

problems.

For the Doctoral School in Medicine, Biomedical Science and Technology, a status-portfolio has been

included in the 6-month declarations in which the PhD student adds progress since the last status

declaration. This portfolio is uploaded to the PhD manager system in relation to the 6-month status so a

direct evaluation of the progress in accordance with the study plan is possible. The Doctoral School of

Engineering and Science is considering adopting this procedure.

15.1.5 Assessment Committee

The department hosting the PhD student proposes the assessment committee for the thesis evaluation.

Guidelines and formal rules exist for how assessment committees should be formed to ensure a competent

committee while also ensuring that conflict of interest situations do not occur. A checklist must be provided

by the department, which would catch some of the potential conflict of interest. This checklist as well as

updated CVs for all three committee members is submitted to the PhD board for processing. The PhD board

recommends approval to the Dean who formally is responsible for the selection of assessment committees.

15.1.6 Thesis Submission

The submission of the PhD thesis has been formalized to ensure that all necessary documents are always

present before an assessment committee starts the assessment. The documents include printed versions of

the thesis, a searchable PDF of the thesis, co-author statements and supervisor statement. A checklist must

16

The students also having to sign the declaration, which added to the process of sending it back and forth, which, further increased the chances of the declaration getting lost.

61

be supplied for each thesis. This means that assessment is first commenced when all required documents

are present and approved.

We routinely scan all PhD theses for potential plagiarism and formal procedures exist in case of problems.

At the moment a new automated procedure is close to implementation, which handles all the collection of

material and ensures preservation policies for delivered and assessed theses. Also a plagiarism check is

then automatically handled. In case of potential problems the Academic Council has decided formal rules

and procedures to apply to ensure a proper and fair handling of the thesis.

15.1.7 Preliminary and Final Assessment Reports

The preliminary and final assessments reports are always read at the doctoral school. For the preliminary

statements the secretariat members read the statements and reports to the PhD Study Director if there

appears to be an obvious conflict between the assessment and the conclusion and it is also assured that the

statement does not include any conditional recommendations. Conditional recommendations are not

allowed according to the PhD Order. These measures have proven to be important for proper handling of

the assessment process. Information on the formal rules is provided to everyone involved but it apparently

takes time before the correct procedures are common knowledge, although improvements have been

seen. In terms of final assessments, the PhD Study Director reads all of these to ensure that they comply

with formal requirements, to ensure consistency between assessment and conclusion and to ensure that

the recommendation of the committee is not conditional.

Supervision 15.2

As the supervisor is a crucial part of any PhD study (excluding theses delivered for assessment without prior

studies) it is important that the individual selected is qualified for the task. Therefore, the following

prerequisites are the minimum set of requirements for eligibility as a supervisor:

Must be at the minimum level of associate professor.

Must be employed by the university and affiliated with the doctoral schools.

Must be well accredited within the field of study in question.

Further to this, the PhD Study Director also observes past performance of a supervisor – including possible

conflicts with students, if students finalize the studies successfully and generally if a supervisor

demonstrates initiative and care in the supervision of students. When a PhD project is initiated the

supervisor(s) and student always receives a document clarifying the expectations of the Doctoral School to

the supervisor and supervision. This combined with the PhD introductory course ensures that the PhD

62

students know what they are entitled to in terms of supervision. It has been necessary in a number of cases

for the PhD Study Directors to change a supervisor against the wish of the supervisor. Typically this has

happened if a conflict has been allowed to grown beyond what mediation can help. Demanding a change of

supervisor is obviously a quite severe step to take but in some cases it has been the only possible solution

given the situation. This competence is given to the PhD Study Director from the PhD Order.

When initially being appointed as a supervisor, the doctoral schools expect that the supervisor follow the

offered workshop/course for supervisors. The course/workshop covers much of the legal framework that is

relevant for any PhD supervisor, the important tasks for the supervisor and the workshop provides a forum

for supervisors to discuss the challenges they meet in the daily supervision. Furthermore, the different

supervisor tasks related to a PhD study is clarified during the workshop to ensure that the supervisors are

able to react in due time for the different aspects in the study. This is to ensure that new supervisors are

aware of the demands and expectations of their role in PhD study. The doctoral schools consider this

course essential in relation to ensuring that the students receive qualified and motivated supervision.

Within the coming period, the doctoral schools are considering a different approach to supervisor courses.

One pilot project already planned for this is to provide a workshop in the departments, which is tailored to

the challenges, met in that specific scientific area and tradition.

The doctoral schools strongly encourage a certain amount of experience as a co-supervisor before being

appointed as a main supervisor. The doctoral schools therefore also strongly recommend that a co-

supervisor be appointed for all PhD projects. This co-supervisor is typically a younger researcher (assistant

professor or postdoc) who then starts to get some supervision experience. Also it is known from the PhD

student that having a co-supervisor is a big help during the study to get a different perspective and there is

always a supervisor to contact should one of them be travelling or similar.

Courses 15.3

As some of the earlier presented data show, the doctoral schools have some challenges related to courses

to ensure quality and relevance. The PhD Boards have clear ambitions to focus on courses some challenges

for the doctoral schools, improving aspects related to the PhD courses is a key element in the coming

period. This applies to both general and specific courses.

The doctoral schools are very focused on providing a substantial and relevant course catalogue. In order to

support this development the course catalogue is created by the following:

Heads of the different programs and the PhD students.

63

Academic staff.

PhD board.

This composition ensures that the course program is relevant within the different fields and that current

trend and developments are reflected in the catalogue. Furthermore the PhD students can always propose

subjects for courses to the program heads. As mentioned, this possibility is a chance for PhD students to

influence the course catalogue for the coming year and they are encouraged to do this. As the courses are

planned on an annual basis, it is important that all PhD students are made aware of this possibility in due

time as their PhD plans often are quite stringent.

The course evaluation forms are the strongest tools of the doctoral school in relation to improving the

aspects that the students are dissatisfied with in relation to the courses. For the coming period, the

implementation of the forms is subject to a substantial revision. A screening process of all evaluations with

an increased focus on the comments provided by the students is one option that is under consideration.

The information that is obtained via these forms is distributed to the personnel affiliated with the course

catalogue. These are reviewed prior to deciding on the final composition of the course catalogue. However,

this is a very time consuming tasks, as the information must be manually processed which need to be

improved by some computer system tools.

Administration 15.4

15.4.1 Task Organized Workflow

Until 2013 the secretariat was organized according to tasks such that one staff member had all enrollments,

another handled all courses, one handled 6-months plans etc. This organization was changed to better

adapt to the secretariat being a service provider for departments, students and supervisors. An internal poll

on user satisfaction has clearly shown that the users of the secretariat appreciate this change. After some

initial challenges the new organization is working well and is acknowledged to be an advantage for both the

secretariat staff and the users. There are still areas, which need to be fine-tuned but overall this has been a

significant improvement in the quality of the secretariat. This has also been acknowledged in user surveys

on the quality and service provided by the secretariat.

15.4.2 Casework

To ensure an efficient administration with a low number of errors in the processing we have developed

clear procedures for all standard tasks. This ensures a low error rate and also means that all students are

64

treated the same way. In case of non-trivial tasks the PhD Study Directors are involved to find a solution to

the challenges.

65

Focus Areas 16

The doctoral schools aim to continuously improve all aspects of the PhD study. Over the last two years a

substantial number of new initiatives have started and therefore the coming period is mainly a follow-up

and adjustment to many of these initiatives. This section provides some information on this.

The PhD Study 16.1

As indicated in the statistical part of the present self-evaluation both the dropout rate and time to

complete the studies can be improved. Different measures can be considered for this and the following

subsections propose some possible initiatives that are being considered.

16.1.1 Candidate Assessment

Already new measures have been taken to improve the screening of candidates for PhD positions.

Routinely the PhD Study Director requests statements from the Ministry of Higher Education and Science

for candidates with educations that are not known to be at level with Danish 2-year master programs,

which is necessary according to the PhD Order. Formally, the departments have the employment

responsibility while the PhD Study Director handles the enrollment.

Some differences among the departments do exist and it is the plan to introduce some minimum

requirements for any assessment, which could include things like:

- Mandatory English language test (oral and written test).

- Documents from universities that are unknown to the doctoral schools are routinely checked for

legality.

- That marks if necessary, must be translated to Danish standards. The PhD secretariat is responsible

for this procedure

It is very important to find a balance between obeying the law for handling applications while ensuring that

the assessment committee uses the majority of their time on the selected few best applicants. This area is

continuously considered and a revision of the area is currently taking place.

16.1.2 One Year Assessment

One thing being discussed at the moment at the Doctoral School for Engineering and Science is to introduce

a mandatory 1-year assessment where the student must present the work done so far and have clear plans

for the final two years of the study (as already implemented in one version at the Doctoral School in

Medicine, Biomedical Science and Technology). The original study plan, a revised study plan, a first paper

draft and other relevant material must be present in due time for the assessment. Participants in the

66

assessment are the student, the main supervisor, the co-supervisor, the head of program (or a

representative for that person) as well as a scientific staff member, which is not from the same research

group. As assessment is made for the study so far and comments on the scientific progress and quality level

must be described. Recommendations should be made ranging from e.g. 1) progress and scientific level as

planned, 2) scientific level is adequate but the plan must be revised, 3) the study is not yet in a serious state

but the progress should be closely monitored, and 4) recommendation to the supervisor to file a request

for reestablishment of the study. The plan for how to precisely introduce such a 1-year assessment is being

considered by the Doctoral School of Engineering and Science by the PhD Board and the PhD Study

Director.

16.1.3 Extension Beyond the Nominated 3 Years

At the moment no particular measures are taken if a study extends beyond the planned three years. Given

the statistics in terms of completion time being at national average level of about 3.8 years indicates that

progress should be possible. One possibility that has been considered by the PhD Study Directors is to

reverse the situation we have today where continued enrollment is expected by default. We could reverse

the situation to only continue enrollment after application. This application should clearly state why the

study is delayed despite a study plan indicating the work should be finalized already, and it should include a

plan for finalization. Should this be taken seriously it could also be considered if several delays or dropouts

of a given supervisor without good reasons should have some consequences for future supervision

possibilities.

Supervision 16.2

All international studies on the subject of supervision clarifies that this area is of very high importance for

the success/failure of a PhD study. Improving the quality of supervision is an immense task but one that

cannot be underestimated in terms of importance. Different options are considered including setting

different bounds on the maximum number of students a given supervisor may have mandatory use of co-

supervisors etc.

16.2.1 Student Feedback

By previous experience it is generally difficult to get useful information from the students as to the quality

of the supervision they receive. With the new web-based administration system that was recently launched

we may have the possibility to acquire information of more general skills that the PhD student would like to

see in the supervision. This information can be acquired without blaming one specific supervisor, but

general trends in some departments of research groups can be better supported once the information is

67

available. It is the plan to involve the students more in how and what areas they would like to see the

supervision strengthened.

16.2.2 Workshops

As indicated already, an initiative has been taken to make supervisor workshops in the departments, as this

may be better in terms of outcome for the participants and more efficient in terms of invested resources.

The idea is that the challenges seen from the supervisor side are often similar in the same

environment/department but not necessarily across departments. Bringing together both experienced and

less experienced supervisors may provide a forum for exchange of ideas and challenges. We aim to bring

PhD supervision into the mindset of the supervisor to keep focus on that very important aspect of a PhD

study. After a number of these pilot trials, the PhD Boards and PhD Study Directors evaluate the outcome,

seeking to find a model for near future use to support PhD supervision skills. It is likely that different offers

for the supervisors must be available and in the next year or so there are two possibilities: 1) is the pilot

type of workshop, and 2) is the more traditional type of workshop already mentioned which is open to

everyone interested.

Courses 16.3

At the moment the doctoral schools have a rich and varied course program. However, with the latest

revision of the PhD Order it has become possible to be even more flexible with respect to courses than

earlier. It is the plan to inform students and supervisors of other possibilities of courses and describe how

these can be formally approved as courses. This could include small study circles, course like stays in a

company etc. as long as specific learning objectives can be described. Based on feedback from the students

it is continuously important to ensure that learning objectives are clear for the courses as well as the

expectations of the students.

Furthermore it is necessary to find an efficient way to assess the quality, which at the moment is based on

time consuming manual handling of individual course reports. One obvious path is to consider expanding

the PhD Manager system to being able to handle such evaluation to ensure a rapid feedback, which can

also be useful for the PhD Study Directors.

Administration 16.4

The administration has undergone significant changes in 2013 and each department now has a fixed

contact person at the PhD secretariat. This has demanded many changes and has also proven to raise the

quality as experienced by the users of the secretariat. The most critical parts at this time are to

continuously make the procedures more efficient and to keep information for users up to date.

68

16.4.1 Homepage

The homepage of the doctoral schools is in need of a significant update. The general appearance is not

quite up to date with present day’s expectations and it does also not conform to the new university style

for homepages. Further to this an update on structure and content is needed and planned

16.4.2 Course Administration

The doctoral schools use the same Moodle system for course administration as the regular studies at

Aalborg University. The use of Moodle has brought many challenges and many of these still remain to be

solved. A continuous effort is needed to simplify the use of Moodle for the students and lecturers, and the

secretariat plays a key role in this.

Den 13. januar 2015

Møde i akademisk råd, Det Sundhedsvidenskabelige Fakultet. Møde nr.: 2014-7 den 21. januar 2015

Dagsordens punkt nr. 5: Drøftelse/evaluering af proces for nedsættelse af bedømmelsesudvalg og evt. tildeling af ph.d.-grader via skriftlige høringer, Det Sundhedsvidenskabelige Fakultet

Sagsbehandler: Ann Karina Schelde

______________________________ Sagsfremstilling: Efter aftale i akademisk råd skal proces for skriftlige høringer evalueres på akademisk råds møde i januar 2015 mhp. at drøfte den fremadrettede proces for nedsættelse af bedømmelsesudvalg og evt. tildeling af ph.d.-grader. Processen for skriftlige høringer i 2014 har både ført til positive tilkendegivelser samt givet bevidsthed om udfordringer/forbedringer, som fakultetsadministrationen fremadrettet vil være opmærksomme på. Forslag til procesplan for skriftlige høringer i akademisk råd 2015 er vedlagt i særskilt bilag. Der lægges op til skriftlige høringer i de måneder, hvor der ikke afholdes akademisk råds møder (dog med undtagelse af juni måned). Vedlagte bilag: Procesplan for nedsættelse af bedømmelsesudvalg og evt. tildeling af ph.d.-grader i akademisk råd, SUND. Indstilling: Det indstilles, at der gennemføres skriftlige høringer i akademisk råd i 2015 jf. forslag til procesplan – og at processen evalueres på akademisk råds møde i januar 2016.

Side 1 af 2

Fakultetskontoret for Det Sundhedsvidenskabelige Fakultet og Det Teknisk-Naturvidenskabelige Fakultet Niels Jernes Vej 10 9220 Aalborg Øst HR-centeret

Dato: 13-1-2015

Procesplan for nedsættelse af bedømmelsesudvalg og for tildeling af ph.d.-grader i

akademisk råd, SUND

Nedsættelse af bedømmelsesudvalg og evt. tildeling af ph.d.-grader i akademisk råd, SUND i 2015

sker ved skriftlig høring jf. følgende plan:

Skriftlige høringer vedr. indstillinger om sammensætning af bedømmelsesudvalg til videnskabelige stillinger (og evt. tildeling af ph.d.-grader) vil blive udsendt via e-mail med en frist på 7 dage. Dokumentation der ligger til grund for nedsættelse af bedømmelsesudvalg vil være en oversigt over bedømmelsesudvalgets medlemmer med angivelse af, hvem der er formand samt CV’er for de eks-terne bedømmere og stillingsopslaget. Dokumentation der ligger til grund for tildeling af ph.d.-grader vil være indstilling fra instituttet, hvor den pågældende ph.d.-studerende er tilknyttet samt bedømmelsesudvalgets endelige indstilling. Tilbagemelding fra akademisk råds medlemmer Der skal aktivt meldes tilbage fra akademisk råds medlemmer. Ingen indsigelser Såfremt der ikke er indsigelser sendes der udelukkende svar/tilkendegivelse til sekretæren for aka-demisk råd. Indsigelser Såfremt der er bemærkninger og/eller indsigelser sendes der svar/tilkendegivelse til alle på akade-misk råds mailliste.

Punkter sendes i høring Frist for tilbagemelding fra AR

Mandag den 2. februar Mandag den 9. februar

Tirsdag den 7. april Mandag den 13. april

Mandag den 1. juni Mandag den 8. juni

Mandag den 10. august Mandag den 17. august

Mandag den 2. november Mandag den 9. november

Side 2 af 2

Alle bemærkninger/kommentarer der måtte indkomme under en skriftlig høring, vil blive forelagt og drøftet med dekanen/formanden - hvorefter der vil ske tilbagemelding til akademisk råd via mail. Et medlem kan ligeledes begære en sag behandlet på det førstkommende møde i akademisk råd. Ved tvivlsspørgsmål vil sagen altid blive behandlet på det førstkommende møde. Inhabilitet Såfremt et medlem erklærer sig inhabil i relation til behandling af en konkret sag informeres sekretæ-ren herom. Sekretæren informerer de øvrige af rådets medlemmer med information om, at den efter-følgende korrespondance ikke sendes til pågældende medlem. Vedkommende er ikke stemmeberettiget i den aktuelle sag. Medlemmet skal selv oplyse ved tilba-gemeldingen, at sag nr. XX ikke er behandlet grundet inhabilitet. Kontaktpersoner Der skal sendes mail til sekretær for akademisk råd og HR-medarbejder Dini Boer dbo@adm.aau.dk. Evaluering Proces for skriftlig høring evalueres på akademisk råds møde i januar 2016 mhp. at drøfte den frem-adrettede proces for nedsættelse af bedømmelsesudvalg og for evt. tildeling af ph.d.-grader.

Det Sundhedsvidenskabelige Fakultet - Fortegnelse over sager godkendt af Dekanen i perioden 20.11.2014 - 12.1.2015

Periode

Institut Kode

Ansættelse/genansættelse af videnskabelige assistenter Fra Til Michael Brun Jensen 01.12.2014 28.02.2015 HST A2

Kenneth Kastaniegaard 01.12.2014 31.12.2014 HST 1F

Steffan Wittrup Christensen 15.12.2014 31.01.2015 HST A2

Aziza Azimi 01.11.2014 30.04.2015 DCM A2

Alex Skovsbo Jørgensen 15.12.2014 14.03.2015 HST A2/1F

Clara Schaarup 01.01.2015 31.12.2015 HST A2

Steen Møller Hansen 01.01.2015 31.12.2015 HST 1F

Christine Benn Christiansen 01.01.2015 31.03.2015 DCM 2F

Tanja Kim Jensen 01.01.2015 31.12.2015 HST 1F

Federico Arguissain 01.01.2015 30.04.2015 HST 1F

Ansættelse/genansættelse af Klinisk Assistent Joanna Eliza Szpejewska 01.01.2015 31.12.2015 DCM 1F

Thure Overvad 01.02.2015 31.01.2016 DCM 1F

Christian Kruse 01.01.2015 31.12.2015 DCM A2 (u)

Ansættelse/genansættelse af Klinisk Lærer Sigve Wilhelm Christensen 01.12.2014 30.11.2017 DCM A1 (u)

Jeanette Hauge Kristensen 01.12.2014 30.11.2017 DCM A1 (u)

Chris Bath Søndergaard 01.01.2015 31.12.2017 DCM A1 (u)

Sazan Al Kole 01.01.2015 31.12.2015 DCM A2

Chris Andersen 01.01.2015 31.12.2015 DCM A2

Ansættelse/genansættelse af adjunkter (tidsbegrænset) Andrew Stevenson 01.12.2014 30.11.2017 HST A1

Thorvaldur Palsson 01.01.2015 31.12.2017 HST A1

Anne Randorff Højen 01.01.2015 31.12.207 HST A1

Sabata Gervasio 01.01.2015 31.12.2017 HST A1

Ken Steffen Frahm 01.01.2015 31.12.2017 HST A1

Jakob Dideriksen 01.02.2015 31.01.2018 HST A1

Andreas Petri 01.01.2015 31.12.2015 DCM A2

Ansættelse/genansættelse af PostDoc Michael Rützler 01.01.2015

HST A2 (i)

Kristian Kjær Petersen 01.01.2015 31.12.2016 HST (1) bev.

Ansættelse af klinisk lektorer

Søren Hagstrøm 01.01.2015

DCM A1 (u)

Helle Damgaard Zacho 01.01.2015 31.12.2019 DCM A1 (u)

Ansættelse af studielektorer Karsten Ulrik Niss 01.01.2015 31.12.2017 HST 1F

Pia Britt Elberg 01.01.2015 31.12.2017 HST 1F

Ansættelse/genansættelse af Klinisk professorer Niels Bentzen 01.01.2015 31.12.2015 DCM 1F

Opsigelser Charlotte Sørensen 31.01.2015

HST

Steffan W. Christensen 31.12.2015

HST Christine Benn Christiansen 15.01.2015

DCM

Ulrik Baandrup 31.10.2015

DCM

Ansættelse/genansættelse af undervisningsassistenter Søren Valgreen Knudsen 01.11.2014 30.06.2015 HST

Sabrina Just Kousgaard 01.11.2014 30.06.2015 HST Kasper Sørensen 01.11.2014 31.01.2015 HST Hiva Alipour 01.12.2014 30.11.2015 HST Gustav Valentin B. Sørensen 01.12.2014 30.06.2015 HST

Opslag af stillinger Klinisk lektor ved ACT (KL201431) Klinisk lektor i kirurgi (KL201430)

Kodeforklaring A1: Ansættelse med opslag; A1 (u) kommer udefraM; A1 (i) intern ans.

A2: Ansættelse uden opslag (tidsbegrænset); A2 (u) kommer udefra; A2 (i) intern ans. 1F: 1. forlængelse

2F: 2. forlængelse

G: Genansættelse O: Oprykning Å: Overtaget fra Århus iflg. Aftale mel. Region Nordjylland og Aalborg Sygehus

Det Sundhedsvidenskabelige Fakultet Forskerskolen

Forskerskolen ved Det Sundhedsvidenskabelige Fakultet Telefon: 9940 9638 Fax: 9815 9757

Aalborg Universitet E-mail:mab@adm.aau.dk

Niels Jernes Vej 10 9220 Aalborg Øst http://phd.medicine.aau.dk/

25.11.2014 MAB 561/06-0001

Referat af ph.d.-udvalgsmøde 3-2014 den 10.09.2014 med indstillinger til Akademisk

Råd.

Tilstede: Ole K. Andersen (OKA)

Thomas Graven-Nielsen (TGN)

Ulrik Baandrup (UB)

Trine Fink (TF)

Erik Berg Schmidt (EBS)

Michael Kruse Olesen (MIKO)

Kirstine Sneider (KS)

Lone Sarauw (LSAR)

Helen K. Kristensen (HEK)

Afbud: Steve Rees (SR)

Søren Risum Kristensen (SRK)

Referent: Maria Bredvig (MAB)

1. Godkendelse af referat fra møde 2-2014 den 18.06.2014

Referatet blev godkendt. MAB vil fremover arbejde på at få referaterne udsendt

kort tid efter mødet.

2. a. Nedsættelse af bedømmelsesudvalg for cand.med. Søren Ballegaards

ph.d.-afhandling: “Pressure pain sensitivity of the chest bone as a new

biological measure of physiolology”, Institut for Medicin og

Sundhedsteknologi

Ph.d.-udvalget godkendte bedømmelsesudvalget.

b. Nedsættelse af bedømmelsesudvalg for cand.polyt. Kresten Kjær

Petersens ph.d.-afhandling: ”Chronic pain after total knee replacement”,

Institut for Medicin og Sundhedsteknologi

Ph.d.-udvalget kunne ikke godkende bedømmelsesudvalget. Ph.d.-udvalget

vurderer ikke det ene af de foreslåede eksterne medlemmer af

bedømmelsesudvalget som ekstern, da han ser ud til at være klinisk lektor på

AAU. Der bedes derfor fremsendt forslag til et nyt eksternt medlem. Såfremt

instituttet er uenig i dette, bedes der venligst fremsendt en redegørelse herfor.

c. Nedsættelse af bedømmelsesudvalg for cand.med. Jacob Moesgaard

Larsens ph.d.-afhandling: ”The St. Jude Medical Riata defibrillator lead

Det Sundhedsvidenskabelige Fakultet Forskerskolen

Forskerskolen ved Det Sundhedsvidenskabelige Fakultet Telefon: 9940 9638 Fax: 9815 9757

Aalborg Universitet E-mail:mab@adm.aau.dk

Niels Jernes Vej 10 9220 Aalborg Øst http://phd.medicine.aau.dk/

advisory – Experience from a Danish nationwide cohort”, Institut for

Medicin og Sundhedsteknologi

Ph.d.-udvalget godkendte bedømmelsesudvalget.

d. Nedsættelse af bedømmelsesudvalg for cand.polyt Sofyan Hammads

ph.d.-afhandling: ”Intra-cortical Brain Computer interface

systems based on advanced digital signal processing techniques”, Institut

for Medicin og Sundhedsteknologi

Ph.d.-udvalget godkendte bedømmelsesudvalget.

e. Nedsættelse af bedømmelsesudvalg for cand.polyt. Steffen Vangsgaards

ph.d.-afhandling: ”Modulations of the human trapezius muscle H-reflex

following eccentric exercise", Institut for Medicin og Sundhedsteknolog

Ph.d.-udvalget godkendte bedømmelsesudvalget.

3. Krav om erfaring med vejledning/bedømmelse i bedømmelsesudvalg for

alle medlemmer?

Sekretariatet fremsender link til notat om bedømmelsesudvalgets sammensæt-

ning. Mindst et eksternt medlem skal have erfaring med ph.d.-bedømmelse. Det

vil sige, det er ikke det samlede udvalg – altså kan det ikke være den interne

bedømmer, som har erfaringen.

4. International evaluering af forskerskolen – endelig rapport og diskussion af

initiativer

o Introduktionskurset. Kan vi kombinere vores nye introkursus omkring

videnskabelig redelighed/etik med praktiske forhold omkring ph.d. -planen

(svarende til Tek-Nats introkursus) og gøre dette obligatorisk?

o Kan internationale summer-schools være mulige ph.d.- kurser?

o Forbedring af 6-mdr evalueringen

o Vejlederkorpset: hvorledes sikres løbende, at alle vejledere har de fornødne

kompetencer?

OKA gennemgik baggrunden for den internationale evaluering. Det har været

en lang proces. Herefter gennemgik OKA hovedpunkterne i rapporten.

Processen med at implementere punkterne fra evalueringen skal finde sted hen

over efteråret. Det vil sige, at der f.eks. skal ligge en færdig plan for et

introkursus til næste møde i ph.d.-udvalget.

På næste møde i ph.d.-udvalget skal det diskuteres, hvad der kan medregnes

i de 30 ECTS kurser. F.eks. sommerskoler, studiekredse mv.

Evalueringen anbefaler, at der følges op på, at alle vejledere deltager i et

vejlederkursus – inkl. erfarne vejledere.

TGN: Ønsker ikke at tvinge folk til at deltage i kurser, som de ikke ønsker at

deltage i. I stedet kunne man bede hver vejleder indlevere et dokument/notat,

Det Sundhedsvidenskabelige Fakultet Forskerskolen

Forskerskolen ved Det Sundhedsvidenskabelige Fakultet Telefon: 9940 9638 Fax: 9815 9757

Aalborg Universitet E-mail:mab@adm.aau.dk

Niels Jernes Vej 10 9220 Aalborg Øst http://phd.medicine.aau.dk/

som beskriver deres syn på vejledning, og hvorledes de vil gribe vejledning an,

og hvordan de vil udvikle sig. Vejlederne skal reflektere over det at være

vejleder. Men Forskerskolen skal selvfølgelig også kunne tilbyde noget til nye

vejledere.

OKA: Det eksisterende vejlederkursus skal stadig køre, men man kunne

overveje at hente kursusholdere ind fra kurset for erfarne vejledere, som snart

afholdes i Vejle og høre, om de ville køre et kursus i Aalborg.

Oplæg på næste møde vedr. kvalitetssikring af vejledning.

EBS: Man kunne rundsende en anbefaling til alle vejledere, når vejlederkurset

nærmer sig og give de bedste anbefalinger med. Således at folk bliver

opmærksomme på kurset.

MAB: Oplyser at der pt. er to tilmeldte til vejlederkurset i november, heraf én

fra SUND.

Vedr. forbedring af halvårsevalueringen fik evalueringspanelet den gamle

version af evalueringen uden portfolio-dokumentet. Det vil sige, at punktet

faktisk allerede er imødekommet.

5. Generelle ph.d.-kurser 2015

TGN: På TEKNAT har man besluttet, at man kører de samme generelle kurser i

2015 som i 2014 minus de kurser, som er blevet aflyst. SUND har fået

mulighed for at byde ind med forslag til nye kurser.

OKA: Umiddelbart er der formentlig ikke nogle SUND generelle kurser, som

vil have interesse over en bred kam inden for både TEKNAT og SUND.

Økonomirammen skal fastlægges, inden den konkrete planlægning kan finde

sted. Opfordrer til at programmerne allerede nu går i gang med at indkalde kur-

susforslag inden for de enkelte programmer.

6. Meddelelser

TGN: Da Institut for Læring og Filosofi ikke længere er en del af Det

Sundhedsvidenskabelige Fakultet, er man ved at kigge på en ny mulig

programansvarlig for Health Education, Organisations and Ethics.

7. Eventuelt

Intet.