Report 2009: 9 R

Review of study programmes in archaeology

An assessment panel comprising two Swedish external experts, one fromFinlandand one from Great Britain, assisted Högskoleverket (Swedish National Agency for Higher Education) with its expertise. The assessment of these experts can be found in their report comprising two sections: a national overview that presents a background to the subject and a collective picture of the quality of the reviewed study programmes, and a section where each study programme at a HEI is detailed separately. A project group at the Agency helped the assessment panel to ensure that the quality aspects and criteria were reported in a consistent manner. They also analysed the statistics submitted by the HEIs.
 
Study programmes in archaeology at Swedish HEIs maintain a high standard in general. The requirements for teaching competence and links to research are fulfilled on all levels. The teachers are often well-qualified and active researchers.

Since the most recent evaluation in 2000, the subject of archaeology has become more multifaceted and complex. This means that the study programmes must provide the students with knowledge and understanding of the discipline´s development and main methodology. However, the study programmes are often based on the specialist competence of the teaching staff.

It is important to note that the HEIs have increasingly different views about what the students need to learn. Some HEIs have introductory courses that provide a basic understanding of Swedish prehistory. Others start the study programme by focusing on socio-political questions and ethical problems.

Each HEI has an individual character and feel in terms of academic environment. Contacts with regional archaeology should be viewed as a strength and a necessity, as local empirical evidence provide a direct and virgin source of data.  However, a regional focus must be placed in the context of a wider international understanding of the past. This balance between different levels of knowledge is a considerable challenge for study programmes in archaeology. The assessment panel particularly highlights that the combination of basic knowledge and different locality-specific subject choices are of central importance to the discipline´s study programmes and future development.

All the HEIs offer study programmes within the second cycle, either by offering one-year and two-year Masters degrees or having agreements with other HEIs with these degree-awarding powers. It is clear that the HEIs are ambitious about their second-cycle programmes. There is often a clear progression between first and second cycle in terms of subject breadth and depth. However, adaptation to the new Qualifications Ordinance is not fully complete. This is particularly true with regard to the range of courses offered, which are not always clearly described. This means the structure of second-cycle study programmes can be difficult for students to understand.

Of the HEIs offering third-cycle study programmes, LundUniversity has the most doctoral students enrolled. Accessibility to supervisors is generally good although it varies from HEI to HEI. However, both doctoral students and supervisors are of the view that the time allocated for supervision is limited.
 
The NordicGraduateSchool in Archaeology is highly reputable and fills a need with regard to extending and improving the range of doctoral courses. However, there are concerns about its survival and how the threat of staff reductions may affect third-cycle programmes in the future. Increased cooperation between HEIs and the different archaeology disciplines would prevent a possible fall in standards and contribute to strengthening the subject-content of the programmes. Cooperation with other stakeholders is also recommended by the assessment panel. This would counteract the tendency that third-cycle programmes do not prepare doctoral students for a professional life outside academia.