Varstvoslovje

The faculty meets the criteria of the 1st standard. The distinctive feature of the programme is a special committee, the 'Doctoral Programme Committee', which meets regularly once a year and carries out ongoing evaluation. The committee consists of the Dean, the Secretary, the Heads of Departments, the Head of the Research Institute, the employers (Director General of Police, Armed Forces, Prisons, Ljubljana Municipality, Chamber of Private Security, Chamber of Private Detectives, Corporate Security, Information Security; Information Commissioner; Civil Defence Commissioner) and 3 graduates. Student participation is even more important as they are an excellent source of feedback. Student participation allows for relevant information and suggestions to improve the study programme and the average implementation of the programme. The interviews with programme stakeholders revealed that the Quality Commission is involved in the preparation of programme changes at the operational level, which is not reflected in SER. The currently defined measures to improve the situation in the SER are repeated from year to year and defined as a "permanent / continuous task", but the effectiveness of the implementation is not evident. In the SER it is necessary to specify individual activities / tasks in order to achieve the goal or effect of the planned measure. The activities or objectives must be defined in such a way that they can be measured and evaluated. SER analyses the activities carried out, evaluates them according to their success and defines the limits and obstacles if the activity has not been realised or has not achieved the expected results. The proposal for improvement opportunities is defined in Standard 2. The action plan does not include activities directly related to improving the 18 quality of doctoral studies. The Expert Group proposes that a specific item/chapter in the Action Plan be dedicated to measures or activities in the field of quality development of the study programme. The 2021 work programme for the implementation of the Faculty Development Strategy 2017-2023 includes a specific activity (1.8) for the involvement of doctoral students in the research process, which is welcomed by an expert group. At the same time, it is suggested to define the activity more clearly and concretely and to make it a measurable goal and outcome. The faculty meets criteria of the 2nd standard. The expert group welcomes the comparison on the basis of the content of the programmes and the competences of 5 foreign renowned international universities in the field of security and criminology. For the future the expert group proposes using benchmarking of the study programme according to content and competences with comparable doctoral programmes of renowned international universities in the field of security and criminology on a regular basis and include findings in SER. However, the expert group proposes to collect student information collected during the year according to a specific procedure in order to triangulate the results of the annual survey, which would ensure consistent feedback and provide a clearer picture of the progress of the programme. The faculty meets the criteria of the 3rd standard. With regard to the 3rd standard, it should be noted that a group of experts found in interviews with students that the fouryear study programme is more structured and formalised than the three-year programme, but students spend more time fulfilling administrative requirements, which limits their time for research. It is suggested that adjustments be prepared in the implementation of the study programme that would relieve students of administrative obligations. It was also noted that the Action plan contains very detailed activities to monitor the implementation of the study programme, but no activities to review and improve the study programme, taking into account the development of study, academic and professional topics and disciplines, and the evaluation of the achievement of competences and learning outcomes. The expert group suggest that this area of evaluation be included in the SER. The Faculty meets the criteria of the 4th Standard. The expert group would like to highlight three important advantages in three areas of the 4th Standard: Availability and accessibility of the providers of the 3rd level doctoral programme; provision of funds and prepared documents for the complete reconstruction and energy and static renovation of the building and annual review of the study conditions of the course participants for the study process in the doctoral programmes. Regular meetings with mentors should be defined as obligatory meetings to review the progress of studies or in the fulfilment of study obligations (obligatory meetings with mentors) are proposed as a way to improve the 4th standard. The Faculty's extensive research activities, with the implementation of basic research projects and target research projects, as well as the annual review of the study conditions for participants in the doctoral programmes, should be highlighted as excellent.