Doctoral Degree Programme of Biochemistry and Molecular Medicine

Quality management related to the planning of educational provision

The BM-DDP programme is relatively new, having been established in 2017 during the restructuring of doctoral education. Because of this, the self-evaluation report primarily described practices from the former Biocenter Oulu Doctoral Programme that preceded the current BM-DDP. Some elements of the reform were explained, such as the introduction of a transversal doctoral training of 20 ECTS or the provisions to follow-up the students. Based on the self-evaluation and on the further information gained through the interviews, the responsibility of programme and quality management in the new structure is not yet clearly established or shared by the different actors within it.

Programme management is split between UniOGS for the initial doctoral training and the Faculty of Biochemistry and Molecular Medicine for further scientific content. The Doctoral Training Committees are in charge of preparation and coordination of the 20 ECTS training.

Whereas this structure is not unusual, it has created a gap in the quality management system whereby the responsibilities of full curriculum design including learning outcomes and regular programme review are not clearly articulated. Following this, the intended learning outcomes for the doctoral degree programme as a whole have not been clearly defined, as illustrated by the fact that the mission statement is the only stated programme level objective and as such, is very generic and could in the audit team’s opinion apply to any doctoral programme. The audit team recommends that the new operational structure is further developed to ensure that the doctoral programme committee is empowered to look into the full development of the curriculum, aims and learning outcomes of the degree as a programme. Nevertheless, the links between research and education in this doctoral programme are very well matched and the quality of research has been highly regarded by past external evaluations. This should serve as a good platform for developing systematic approaches to the programme development.

The planning of education functions and supports studies at the level of the individual doctoral student. UniOGS has made the Personal Development Plan compulsory which, in the audit team’s opinion, is a very good tool, putting doctoral students in charge of their own development, including preparing for life-long career training. The personal development plan combined with a well-functioning tutoring system enhances abilities for lifelong learning, and also often strengthens the motivation to study.

The doctoral programme is relatively well connected to external stakeholders, for example, to the university hospital and medical companies. It is part of a strong biomedical ecosystem in the region. There is a specific course available for students on PhD and Working Life organised by the Business Kitchen. Research has a strong practical context with many students working on real-life projects. Services of the patent office of the university are also available, enhancing possible commercialisation of the research results. The quality of the facilities and equipment together with qualified technicians is highly appreciated both by students and Faculty members.

Quality management related to the implementation of educational provision

The procedures related to the admission, follow-up, supervision and assessment of the students are established and well-functioning. The four-year structure of the doctoral programme as part of UniOGS provides a clear study structure and time-limit for the programme. There are individual follow-up groups for students consisting of the principal tutor and two additional tutors. The group supports and steers students in their research. Based on the interviews, students see the individual follow-up group as a valuable addition to the more formal supervision process. The well-functioning tutoring system is a clear strength of the programme.

The related programme level quality work, including application of the PDCA cycle, however, has not yet been clearly implemented. The data, which is systematically collected, is restricted to the national indicators related to funding. The audit team suggests that the university consider rethinking aspects of the quality management system related to doctoral studies and identifying additional and appropriate performance indicators beyond simply relying on national indicators.

These indicators would enable UniOGS and the doctoral programme committee to regularly assess the doctoral programme, including progression, completion and employability.

The dialogic nature of the working culture in the doctoral programme enables active use of informal feedback in its implementation. In the current situation, the quality management of implementation relies mostly on feedback collected from students during their follow-up meetings and other informal feedback. The audit team found evidence of actions taken based on this feedback.

However, the formal feedback system needs to be improved to address the specific aspects of doctoral level education, taking into account the needs of the different levels of management in the new structure. Overall, a systematic approach to applying the PDCA principle of the university to quality management of the implementation of the degree programme is required.

The strong internationality of the doctoral programme is a strength of the learning environment.

It is one of the few programmes at the university offering the opportunity to complete a joint doctoral degree with Ulm University. However, the quality management procedures related to joint doctoral degrees are still under development. Furthermore, bearing in mind challenges associated with the limited recruitment base in northern Finland, it is important for the programme to identify other recruitment approaches to ensure the programme’s future success.

Participation in quality work

As already stated, there is little evidence of specific programme level quality work. Staff participate actively in the supervision of doctoral students and supporting them in their research.

Students are associated to the governing bodies of UniOGS or within their faculty. They voice their views during follow-up meetings or informally with their supervisor, or with any member of the follow-up committee or any Faculty member. Past experience shows that some students have used these opportunities and improvements have been made on this basis.

Students mentioned the open and communicative culture of the programme as a strength.

However, there is still room for improvement in formalising the quality work with students. As an example, feedback from doctorates graduated from the programme and their employers is not collected systematically.

External stakeholders are informally involved in curriculum development, which is demonstrated, for example, by increased attention dedicated to genetics in the programme. Involvement of external stakeholders in the definition, supervision and assessment of the doctoral theses should be encouraged. Such an approach could make the programme even more attractive and relevant for working life. This could also provide channels to widen and encourage the formal participation of external stakeholders in the planning and reviewing of the degree programme, and prove an attraction for future students.