A word from the Dean, December 2025

Quality assurance systems for research – dialogues as a quality improvement method

The Faculty of Science is known to be very research intensive and is the largest science faculty in the country in terms of a number of factors, such as percent of Sweden's operating costs and number of employed researchers. Our faculty is very successful with regard to research, both in terms of volume and quality. But what do we mean by the word “quality”? How do we assure the quality of research?

Stockholm University has a quality assurance system based on three pillars: indicator reports, which contain indicators of quality in research and collaboration; focus evaluations; and quality dialogues between faculty management and departments. Research indicators in our field are strongly linked to bibliometrics, economics and the recruitment of skilled teachers/researchers. Data on these parameters are relatively easy to obtain and is compiled annually for each individual department and independent research centre. The same cannot be done as easily for evaluating cooperation with external partners, which is why it is important that the departments and centres themselves contribute to highlighting aspects that are central to interaction with society.

Data and indicators are all well and good, but perhaps the most important part of the quality assurance is our ongoing dialogue about research indicators and research quality. The main purpose of this dialogue is to highlight strengths and weaknesses and to maintain a continuous discussion about what constitutes quality in research. I am convinced that dialogue drives quality and that a more complete picture of a research environment emerges when we do not focus too much on measurable indicators. This year, we have held a total of eight dialogues with departments and centres, and it is striking how much there is to discuss. A recurring topic is cooperation with external parties. It often becomes very clear that dialogue is needed to really highlight quality in such collaboration. Something that has also emerged in many discussions is how we can develop better measurable indicators of quality in collaboration.

In the interest of providing a complete picture, I would also like to say a few words about focus evaluations. These allow us to take a closer look at different subjects or research envionments, but also to evaluate different organisational forms. For example, focus evaluations are currently being conducted at two centres – the Bolin Centre for Climate Research and Stockholm University Baltic Sea Centre. Both of these centres coordinate and facilitate research in their respective fields, but they operate in different ways. It is therefore interesting to review how different organisations contribute to strengthening research and the quality of research. The evaluations have just begun and we eagerly await the results, which are expected to be ready around the summer of 2026. The results of all parts of the quality assurance system taken together give the research environment an opportunity to make small or larger changes, as is indeed happening!

As I wrote in my last column, it has been an unusually intense autumn, and most people I meet attest to this. I therefore sincerely hope that everyone will get some much-needed rest and a break from their daily routines over the coming holidays. Thank you for all your hard work in 2025!

Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Lena