ReseaRch Quality assuRance foR the futuRe a ... - Lund University

Panel 5 – BEHAVIOURAL SCIENCE
report, of the Department’s achievements and its plans for the future,
taking additional information into account.
The Department’s report transparently identifies a number of weaknesses
which in its view have affected its standing in research and scholarship.
These include: a low ‘rate of flow’ in the doctoral programme; previous
(undescribed) ‘research profiles’ which the report admits did not prove
to be as successful as was hoped; a lack of collaborative effort with other
institutions in Sweden; and an imbalance between teaching demands
and research opportunity. In addition, the report makes the seemingly
anomalous point that the Department’s international standing is stronger
than its national reputation.
Data provided point to a one-third reduction in the number of academic
staff over the period 2003–2007 and show a decline in the number of
publications (whether strictly scientific or other) from 2006 to 2007 and
only three books published over a six-year period. The report concedes
that the research culture of the Department has been underdeveloped
and that research and publication rates have been low, while asserting
that the situation is changing.
We concur with the main conclusions of this honestly stated selfcriticism.
While there is evidence of published research over the period
in question that is both respectable and relevant to the kind of academic
activity expected in a university department of education, what we
find lacking is evidence of any coherent overall research strategy with a
clear focus that has made collaborative use of the individual talents and
expertise of departmental members.
On the RQ08 grading scale it is clear to us that while some of the
Department’s research can be deemed to be ‘good’, including that of
the unit ‘Learning Lund’, the overall impression is that the outcomes as
described show a tendency from ‘good’ towards ‘insufficient’ in terms of
what might be expected in a leading university.
The age profile of both academics and doctoral students, as elsewhere in the
University, is high. The Department makes the point that new personnel
will be necessary to ensure research development on the lines proposed. If
the new leadership group (as intimated in the report) has a clear research
development function it should be able to initiate and encourage a new
146