AHRC Doctoral Training
Partnerships (DTP2)
Application Guidance
Contents
1.
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3
2.
Organisational Eligibility ................................................................................................................. 3
3.
Funding Information ....................................................................................................................... 3
3.1
Funding Period ........................................................................................................................ 3
3.2
DTP Funding ............................................................................................................................ 3
3.3
AHRC Funding.......................................................................................................................... 4
3.3.1
AHRC Core Studentship Funding ......................................................................................... 4
Stipend ................................................................................................................................................ 4
Tuition Fees ......................................................................................................................................... 5
Research Training Support Grant (RTSG) ............................................................................................ 5
3.3.2
Cohort Development Fund (CDF) ........................................................................................ 5
3.4
Numbers of Studentships bid for within the AHRC Core Studentship Funding ...................... 6
3.5
Consortium Contribution ........................................................................................................ 6
3.5.1
4.
Consortium Contribution - Minimum and Maximum Limits .......................................... 7
Completing your Application .......................................................................................................... 7
4.1 Statement of Intent....................................................................................................................... 7
4.2 Full Application ............................................................................................................................. 8
5.
a)
Completed Je-S form ................................................................................................................... 9
b)
Case for Support ....................................................................................................................... 10
i)
Strategy and Vision ............................................................................................................... 10
ii)
Proposed approach to training and skills development ....................................................... 11
iii)
Student Supervision .............................................................................................................. 11
iv)
Non-HEI partnership arrangements and Collaborative Doctoral Awards (CDAs) ................ 12
v)
Consortium Management, Recruitment, Governance and Delivery .................................... 12
vi)
Risk Management ................................................................................................................. 14
c)
Letters of support for non-HEI partners ................................................................................... 15
d)
Consortium Commitment Letter ............................................................................................... 15
e)
Financial Table .......................................................................................................................... 16
f)
Indicative Subject Spread .......................................................................................................... 20
g)
CV for DTP Director .................................................................................................................. 20
Assessment Process ...................................................................................................................... 20
5.1
6.
Assessment Criteria............................................................................................................... 21
Terms and Conditions ................................................................................................................... 22
1
7.
Commissioning Timetable ............................................................................................................. 22
8.
Further Enquiries .......................................................................................................................... 22
9.
Annexes ......................................................................................................................................... 24
ANNEX A: AHRC Subject Remit ............................................................................................................. 24
AHRC Subject Classifications ............................................................................................................. 24
Interdisciplinary Projects .................................................................................................................. 30
Subjects where the AHRC and the ESRC share interests and responsibilities .................................. 31
ANNEX B: Indicative Subject Spread for Full Application (TEMPLATE) ................................................. 32
ANNEX C: Statement of Intent (TEMPLATE) ......................................................................................... 36
ANNEX D: Peer Review Grade Descriptors ........................................................................................... 39
ANNEX E: Collaborative Doctoral Awards ............................................................................................. 43
ANNEX F: Financial Table (TEMPLATE) .................................................................................................. 46
ANNEX G: Glossary ................................................................................................................................ 47
ANNEX H: Additional Information ......................................................................................................... 49
2
1. Introduction
The purpose of this guidance document is to assist applicants to this scheme in the completion of
their application. It should be read in conjunction with the following information:
•
•
•
AHRC Doctoral Training Partnerships (DTP2) Call Specification (hereafter known as the Call
Specification): http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/documents/calls/dtp2-call-specification/
AHRC Research Training Framework for Doctoral Students:
http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/documents/projects-programmes-and-initiatives/ahrc-researchtraining-framework-for-doctoral-students/
RCUK Statement of Expectations for Doctoral Training:
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/skills/statementofexpectation-pdf/
2. Organisational Eligibility
The call is open to all UK-based AHRC-eligible Research Organisations (ROs) who are directly funded
by HEFCE, DEL, HEFCW or the SFC. There is no requirement for ROs applying to this DTP call to be
part of an existing Doctoral Training Partnership (DTP).
Proposals must be submitted by a consortium which includes at least two eligible Research
Organisations.
Each DTP2 consortium will need to identify a single academic Director for the DTP, along with a DTP
Lead Research Organisation Contact who will be the AHRC’s main contact during the assessment
process (including the Right of Reply stage) and thereafter, if awarded.
Please note that Research Organisations are only allowed to be part of one DTP application.
3. Funding Information
3.1
Funding Period
This call is for DTPs covering five cohorts of students, with the first cohort starting in October 2019
and the fifth and final commencing study in October 2023.
3.2
DTP Funding
As outlined in the Call Specification, this DTP2 call is based on a partnership funding arrangement,
consisting of AHRC funding for the DTP and a mandatory Consortium Contribution. These different
funding components are explained in detail below. Each studentship within the DTP will be cofunded by the AHRC and the consortium, and all will be badged as AHRC DTP studentships.
Consortia will bid for a specific number of notional studentships from the AHRC (see section 3.3.1
below). Consortia will also need to indicate what percentage of the AHRC Core Studentship Funding
they will ‘match’ with their Consortium Contribution (see section 3.5 below).
3
Applicants should also note the change from current DTP funding (see section 4.4 of the Call
Specification) to base funding on 4 years Full Time Equivalent (FTE) for each notional studentship.
However, this does not mean that each student should receive 4 years of funding - we would expect
consortia to use a flexible approach to the period of funding depending on the needs of the student,
the nature of the proposed PhD and any development opportunities. The maximum funding
duration permitted will be 4 years FTE (or part-time equivalent), but we will expect doctoral projects
to be designed and supervised in such a way that students are able to submit their thesis within the
funded period, as defined at the outset of the project.
Applicants are asked to complete the Financial Table (see section 4.2(e), ‘Financial Table’ and Annex
F: Finance Table Template, p.46) to give the following information:
1) the AHRC Core Studentship Funding being bid for (number of notional studentships);
2) the proposed level of the Consortium Contribution as a percentage of the AHRC Core
Studentship Funding being bid for (and the number of notional studentships this
translates to);
3) an estimate for the percentage of the total studentships in the DTP likely to be ringfenced as Collaborative Doctoral Awards (CDAs).
These different parts of the DTP’s funding are explained in more detail below.
3.3
AHRC Funding
AHRC funding is made up of two elements:
•
•
AHRC Core Studentship Funding
Cohort Development Fund (CDF)
3.3.1 AHRC Core Studentship Funding
There are three core elements which make up the ’AHRC Core Studentship Funding’ as part of the
DTP funding:
a) Stipend;
b) Tuition Fees;
c) Research Training Support Grant (RTSG).
Applicants are asked to bid for a notional number of studentships to be supported by the AHRC Core
Studentship Funding. For successful DTPs, the ‘AHRC Core Studentship Funding’ will be expressed as
a single award whose value will be based on the number of notional studentships awarded. The final
number of notional studentships (and therefore funding) awarded to each DTP will be driven by the
quality of the application as determined through the peer review process.
Stipend
The stipend provides the funds (a minimum stipend based on published RCUK figures) which the DTP
should award to students to cover their maintenance while undertaking postgraduate training
leading to the award of a doctoral degree.
4
Tuition Fees
Tuition fees cover the funds (an indicative fee, based on published RCUK figures) required by a
Research Organisation for a student to register for a higher degree.
Research Training Support Grant (RTSG)
The Research Training Support Grant (RTSG) is intended to cover training support costs for individual
students. There is flexibility for DTPs with the use of RTSG, with examples including (but not limited
to) overseas and UK study visits, conference attendance, specialist training and support costs for
academic and non-HEI placements. DTPs may also use their discretion to use these funds to pay for
student travel and subsistence costs incurred when travelling between consortium partners for joint
supervision and training.
For the DTP2 call, the AHRC has increased the RTSG to £500 per annum (with RTSG being calculated
on a per student, per annum basis).
It is expected that DTP consortia will pool RTSG funds and put in place an application and decisionmaking process that is transparent to all parties wishing to request funds.
Please note that RTSG should not be used for cohort professional training and development costs
(which would normally be covered by the Cohort Development Fund; see next section).
3.3.2 Cohort Development Fund (CDF)
The AHRC will provide additional funding, known as the Cohort Development Fund (CDF), to the DTP
at a rate of 5% of the total AHRC Core Studentship Funding awarded (based on stipend, tuition fees
and RTSG). For example, if the AHRC Core Studentship Funding costs of an application total
£1million, the AHRC would then add £50,000 to the grant awarded.
The CDF should be used to support training and development activities which are made available to
the cohort. In planning CDF activities and support, it is therefore important to remember that these
should be available to the entire body of DTP funded students. Costs that could be considered are
cohort development costs, such as organising student conferences or training activities and
platforms.
The CDF is not intended to support needs-based training for individual students. However, where
several students have an identified training need which makes it more cost effective to meet those
needs as a group, use of the CDF may be justified in those circumstances.
Opportunities funded by the CDF can be offered to the wider community of Arts and Humanities
students within an RO or consortium (for example, spaces could be made available at a CDF-funded
student-led conference for students beyond the DTP who are AHRC-funded as well as students who
are not funded by AHRC). Extending CDF supported activities, events and platforms to non-DTP
funded AHRC students and non-AHRC funded students is welcomed, provided that students
supported through the DTP have priority.
A clear strategy and rationale for the use of CDF must be included within the ‘Case for Support’ in
the DTP application (see section 4 (b), ‘ii) Proposed approach to training and skills development’
below).
5
3.4
Numbers of Studentships bid for within the AHRC Core Studentship
Funding
Applicants are asked to bid for a number of notional studentships (FTE) per cohort within the AHRC
Core Studentship Funding for each of the 5 cohorts being funded under the call.
The AHRC is setting thresholds for the minimum and maximum number of studentships that can be
applied for as the AHRC Core Studentship Funding per cohort, per application. As outlined in the Call
Specification, the thresholds are as follows:
•
•
the minimum number of studentships per cohort that can be applied for within the AHRC
Core Studentship Funding is 30;
the maximum number of studentships per cohort that can be applied for within the AHRC
Core Studentship Funding is 80.
This range of 30-80 studentships per cohort for the AHRC Core Studentship Funding should be used
in conjunction with the requirement outlined below that the Consortium Contribution must be
between 50-100% of the AHRC Core Studentship Funding (see section 3.5, ‘Consortium
Contribution’). When this percentage for the Consortium Contribution is translated into notional
studentship numbers, it means that the minimum total number of studentships which the DTP can
commit to per annual cohort is 45 studentships (i.e., 50% of 30 studentships), and the maximum is
160 studentships (i.e., 100% of 80 studentships).
In the application, consortia are asked to bid for a notional number of studentships to be supported
by the AHRC Core Studentship Funding, breaking this down across the 5 annual cohorts. It is
permissible for the consortium to propose to vary the total number of studentships being bid for in
each cohort (rather than using the same number per cohort), but this will need to be justified clearly
in the application.
3.5
Consortium Contribution
The Consortium Contribution is the mandatory financial contribution that the consortium must
commit to spending on the three core elements which make up the AHRC Core Studentship Funding
(i.e., stipend, tuition fees, and the Research Training Support Grant). The Consortium Contribution
may include leveraged funding obtained from non-HEI partners.
In the application, we are asking applicants to express the Consortium Contribution as a percentage
of the AHRC Core Studentship Funding being bid for (along with the number of notional studentships
this percentage translates to). Each participating RO will be asked to confirm their understanding
and commitment to the level of contribution which is set out in the application in the Consortium
Commitment Letter attachment (see p.15).
We have created a spreadsheet tool (available at
http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/funding/opportunities/current/doctoral-training-partnerships/) to help
applicants to see both how the Consortium Contribution relates to the AHRC funding being applied
for and to understand the potential financial commitments being made in the application, should a
DTP be awarded all the studentships it applies for. The tool also shows how the percentage for the
Consortium Contribution would translate to numbers of notional studentships.
6
3.5.1 Consortium Contribution - Minimum and Maximum Limits
There is both a minimum and a maximum limit for the Consortium Contribution:
The minimum Consortium Contribution is 50% of the AHRC Core Studentship Funding (i.e., for 33%
of the total DTP studentships). As an example using studentship numbers: if the AHRC Core
Studentship Funding applied for is for the cost of 50 studentships per cohort, then the minimum
Consortium Contribution of 50% of the AHRC Core Studentship Funding would be the cost of 25
studentships per cohort (based on stipend, tuition fees and RTSG).
The maximum Consortium Contribution is 100% of the AHRC Core Studentship Funding (i.e., for 50%
of the total studentships). As an example using studentship numbers, if the AHRC Core Studentship
Funding applied for is for the cost of 50 studentships per cohort, then the maximum Consortium
Contribution of 100% of the AHRC Core Studentship Funding would be the cost of 50 studentships
per cohort (based on stipend, tuition fees and RTSG).
All DTP studentships should be treated as a single funded group, with each studentship jointly
supported by a combination of the AHRC funding and the Consortium Contribution. Please note that
all studentships within the DTP must be least 50% funded from the AHRC Core Studentship
Funding (based on stipend, tuition fees and RTSG) to be badged as AHRC-funded students.
Administrative costs and in-kind contributions are not included in the Consortium Contribution: only
the funding of studentships. We are basing the Consortium Contribution on stipend, tuition fees and
RTSG as this is what the AHRC is able to measure and track for award purposes.
Future funding constraints, including any future Spending Review, may mean that the AHRC needs to
adjust its contribution to individual DTPs. If a situation were to occur where the AHRC Core
Studentship Funding needed to be reduced, the Consortium Contribution would be reduced
proportionately.
4. Completing your Application
4.1 Statement of Intent
The lead RO for each DTP must submit a ‘Statement of Intent’ (SoI) on behalf of the consortium by
4pm on 13th April 2017, indicating the intention to submit a full proposal.
Applicants should submit the Statement of Intent through SmartSurvey using this link:
http://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/DoctoralTrainingPartnershipsDTP2/
Please see Annex C: Statement of Intent Template (p.36) for the information that is being requested
in the SoI.
The information provided in the SoI is not binding and we understand that some details might
change. The SoIs are necessary to help the AHRC establish requirements for peer reviewers and
panel members for the assessment process, and will also give a useful early indication of any
potential conflicts of interest.
7
The SoI will not be assessed, but the AHRC may make contact with the DTP applicant if it has
questions about what is being proposed.
4.2 Full Application
Applications should be submitted through the Je-S system by 4pm on 19th October 2017.
Application forms will be available in J-eS in early 2017. All applications will need to go through the
appropriate institutional checking and submission process prior to this deadline. The Lead Research
Organisation should submit the application using the Research Councils’ Joint Electronic Submission
(Je-S) System: https://je-s.rcuk.ac.uk/
To prepare an application form in Je-S:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Log in to your account and choose ‘Documents’ from the menu;
Select ‘New Document’;
Select ‘AHRC’ as the Council,
Select ‘Studentship Proposal’ as the Document Type;
Select ’Doctoral Training Partnerships DTP2’ as the Scheme;
Select ‘Doctoral Training Partnerships DTP2 19 October 2017’ as the Call/Type/Mode
and;
Click ‘Create Document’.
Je-S will then create a proposal form, displaying the relevant section headings. Using the ‘Help’ link
at the top of each section will provide brief guidance relevant to that section of the form.
Please note that selecting 'Submit document' on your proposal form in Je-S initially submits the
proposal to your host organisation's administration, not to the AHRC.
You should allow sufficient time for completion of the Research Organisation submission process
checks/ authorisation.
An application consists of the following mandatory elements:
a) Completed Je-S form
Attachments:
b) Case for Support - covering the following headings:
•
Strategy and Vision
•
Proposed approach to training and skills development
•
Student Supervision
•
Non-HEI Partnership Arrangements and Collaborative Doctoral Awards (CDAs)
•
Consortium Management, Recruitment, Governance and Delivery
•
Risk Management
c) Letters of support from non-HEI partners (up to a maximum of 6)
8
d) Signed Consortium Commitment Letter
e) Financial Table
f)
Indicative Subject Spread
g) CV for DTP Director
a)
Completed Je-S form
The majority of the requested information in the application will be contained in the attachments to
the Je-S form outlined in sections b) to g) below.
The details below are not an exhaustive step-by-step guide, and we recommend that you refer to
the Je-S helptext for additional information.
In the Je-S form itself, you will need to provide the following pieces of information:
• Lead Research Organisation
Enter the name of the Lead Research Organisation responsible for submitting the application on
behalf of the consortium partners.
The Lead RO, in conjunction with all partners within the consortium, will be expected to have the
infrastructure and support in place to provide the administration and management of the DTP
consortium, including delivery of the student selection processes, the research training programmes,
activities and events, DTP doctoral student development, and funding allocation (including the CDF).
Please note that Research Organisations are only allowed to be part of one DTP application.
• Lead Research Organisation Contact
Enter the name of the main contact you would like us to be in touch with throughout the application
and assessment process, who should be based at the Lead Research Organisation.
The Lead RO Contact will be expected to act as the main point of contact for the AHRC during the
assessment and outcome process. It is up to the consortium to decide which member of staff they
wish to fulfil this role, but it is likely that it would need to be a senior academic or a senior officer/
administrator who has the relevant level of authority. The person nominated must be available
throughout the application assessment process, and in particular has responsibility for the
applicants’ response to the reviewers’ comments at the ‘Right of Reply’ stage. If successful, the
AHRC will also use the Lead RO Contact to arrange any engagement activities with the DTP (such as
annual meetings, progress visits, student’s events) as part of the AHRC’s partnership working with
DTPs.
• DTP Title
Please give the name of the Doctoral Training Partnership being proposed.
• Proposed DTP Director
Enter the name of the proposed Doctoral Training Partnership Director (please note that this can be
the same person as the Lead RO Contact). The proposed Director should be a senior member of staff
with appropriate experience and institutional standing to lead the delivery of the DTP against the
9
vision set out in the application, and to promote the interests of the DTP within and across the ROs
and beyond. The proposed Director should be based at the lead Research Organisation.
• Collaborating Research Organisations
Please provide a list of the other Research Organisations who form the proposed DTP consortium.
• Summary of the Proposed Doctoral Training Partnership
Please provide a high-level summary of the proposed DTP, offering a brief overview of its strategy
and vision and description of how this will be managed and delivered across the consortium. This
will be expanded upon in more detail in the ‘Case for Support’.
• Ethical Issues
The AHRC places considerable importance on the maintenance of high ethical standards in the
development, conduct and reporting of the research and training it provides. Please outline the
DTP’s approach to identifying and considering the ethical implications of doctoral research projects.
b)
Case for Support (maximum of 29 pages in Arial font no smaller than size 11)
In composing the Case for Support, applicants should refer to the Call Specification which offers the
rationale and parameters for the DTP2 call. Where possible, applicants should provide demonstrable
evidence to support their narrative.
Please note that the information provided should cover all of the participating consortium partners.
Applicants must use all of the following section headings in their case for support:
i) Strategy and Vision (8 pages maximum)
In this section you should:
•
Explain the rationale for the collaboration of this particular group of Research Organisations for
the DTP, including the choice of the lead RO;
•
Outline the consortium’s collective vision for postgraduate research training in the arts and
humanities, explaining how this will help to deliver the AHRC’s strategy and vision for
postgraduate funding and support and articulating what individual strengths each consortium
member will contribute to delivering this vision;
•
Explain the capability and capacity of the consortium for supporting their vision for the arts and
humanities across the specific subject areas indicated in the application (see Annex B: Indicative
Subject Spread for Application, p.32). It is up to the consortium to make the case for the areas
proposed, including both individually and in combination, but information should include the
numbers of research active staff (FTE) in those subjects, along with HESA numbers from the
previous 3 years of doctoral completions in the subject areas that are indicated in the
application;
•
Outline the consortium’s approach to engaging with non-HEI partners in delivering the strategy
and vision of the DTP;
•
Highlight the key innovations in your application which make it a priority for AHRC funding;
10
•
Explain the benefits of being part of the DTP for all stakeholders (students, consortium
members and non-HEI partners).
ii)
Proposed approach to training and skills development (4 pages maximum)
Applicants will need to outline how the DTP will deliver its training provision and the principles that
will determine the content of the provision. While each application has the flexibility to outline its
own approach and training content, it should do so in conjunction with the guidance and
requirements laid out in the AHRC’s Research Training Framework for Doctoral Students:
http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/documents/projects-programmes-and-initiatives/ahrc-research-trainingframework-for-doctoral-students/
The AHRC expects a needs-based approach to be used in the assessment of each student’s training
requirements, and for this assessment to be an ongoing reflective process that focuses not only the
completion of the student’s thesis but also their career goals beyond the PhD.
Applications will need to detail the resources and opportunities that will be made available to DTPfunded students, as well as the wider cohort where appropriate, and how these will be
communicated.
In this section you should:
•
Describe how individual students’ training needs will be identified, met and monitored
across the consortium, indicating how this draws on best practice of individual members;
•
Describe the generic and employability skills training that will be offered across the
consortium, indicating how resources, innovative approaches and best practice will be
shared across the ROs involved;
•
Outline what you consider to be the key strengths and benefits of your proposed model of
training and skills development;
•
Outline the processes for monitoring and assessing student progress across the consortium,
along with a description of mechanisms to support students whose circumstances change;
•
Offer details on how you anticipate the Cohort Development Funding being used to support
the DTP cohort as a whole.
iii)
Student Supervision (4 pages maximum)
In this section you should:
•
Describe the supervisor training provided across the consortium, focusing on what the ROs
in the consortium have in common rather than what each RO does individually;
•
Outline what the supervisory arrangements will be across the consortium, and how this uses
best practice. (Supervisory arrangements could include: the processes in place for selecting
supervisors; the number of supervisors per project; and any shared supervision
arrangements across the consortium). Joint supervision is not a prerequisite, but we would
encourage consortia to consider this opportunity where appropriate and where it is feasible.
11
The consortium should provide information in their application as to how this will be
managed;
•
Applicants should clearly outline how interdisciplinary projects will be supported as part of
DTP programme, taking into consideration a student’s training and development needs,
supervisory requirements and any additional considerations around cross institutional or
departmental working.
Non-HEI partnership arrangements and Collaborative Doctoral Awards (CDAs) (4 pages
maximum)
Collaboration with non-HEI partners is an important aspect of the AHRC’s DTPs. Partners may range
from small arts charities, performance arts organisations, creative/ design SMEs, local or regional
civic institutions and policy bodies, through to national cultural organisations, government
departments and devolved administrations, charities, and businesses.
iv)
In this section you should:
•
Provide confirmation of the key non-HEI partners involved in the delivery of the DTP,
including details of the nature and the extent of their involvement. This could include detail
of any known or existing partnerships, as well as plans to develop specific partnerships in the
future;
•
Outline any known commitments from non-HEI partners, including staffing and resource
elements in relation to the co-supervision of students, and any contribution to specialist
skills training and development;
•
Outline the consortium’s strategy for engagement with non-HEI partners , describing how
opportunities for students to engage with these partners will be managed and maximised;
•
Explain how Collaborative Doctoral Awards (CDAs) will be run within the DTP, giving details
of how the consortium will establish a pipeline of high-quality genuinely collaborative
projects, and recruit high-quality students to these. Ring-fencing is allowed for CDAs, and
you should indicate what percentage of your total studentships you expect to be formally
collaborative CDA studentships, up to a maximum of 20% of the total number of
studentships supported by the DTP during the lifetime of the award (this number should also
be indicated in the Financial Table). If ring-fencing is anticipated, this section should also
cover how the process for jointly developing projects and managing the recruitment process
will operate. (For details of the criteria which need to be met in order for a studentship to be
classed as a CDA by the AHRC and other information relating to CDAs, please see Annex E:
Collaborative Doctoral Awards, p.43).
v)
Consortium Management, Recruitment, Governance and Delivery (7 pages maximum)
It is for the consortium partners to agree their management and governance structure, bearing in
mind that it should be appropriate to support the RO and subject spread proposed within the
application. The application will need to demonstrate the ways in which the structure will benefit
and enhance student development, training and experience.
12
Please note that while one RO will act as the Lead Research Organisation, the administrative work
involved could be spread between the other ROs involved in the consortium. Regardless of the
approach to the management structure, a rationale should be provided to explain why the
management is being approached in a particular way.
Regarding student recruitment, it is for the consortium to devise the most appropriate methodology
for recruiting students, and to agree the most appropriate management of this process. All consortia
recruiting students to a DTP will be expected to have suitable student recruitment procedure in
place and to follow best practice on recruitment and selection and equal opportunities policy. Such
procedures should ensure that students are recruited to the available studentships in a fair, open
and transparent way and that places are advertised nationally to ensure that the highest quality
students receive AHRC funding.
Consortium partners will be expected to consider all applications for AHRC studentships in
competition. DTPs are not permitted to give each partner in the consortium a yearly allocation of
studentships. Studentships should be offered to the best students across the consortium, regardless
of the RO at which they will be registered, and with no expectation that an individual RO will receive
a pre-determined number of studentships in a particular year. How this is managed will be up to the
consortium to decide and the Lead Research Organisation to manage overall. If your consortium will
support CDAs, please refer to Annex E: Collaborative Doctoral Awards for information on options
for running two competitive recruitment strands. All studentships should be determined through
competition, but the ring-fencing option for CDAs means that there may be more than one
competition.
AHRC expects ROs to comply with the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) ‘Code of
practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education’. For information
on recruitment and selection please refer to ‘Chapter B2: Recruitment, Selection and Admission to
Higher Education’. The document can be found at the following link: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuringstandards-and-quality/the-quality-code/quality-code-part-b
Consortia must ensure that the students they recruit meet AHRC eligibility criteria (please see the
AHRC Training Grant Funding Guide, available on the AHRC website, for more information). Our aim
is to maintain flexibility, within the rules of the DTP and eligibility criteria, regarding length of
studentships and minimum periods of study and whether awards are full-time or part-time.
The AHRC will monitor successful DTPs to ensure that the studentships are awarded in a fair, open
and transparent manner. The AHRC will not, however, intervene in any discussion between ROs on
award allocation, or become involved in discussions with students on individual studentships: that is
for members of the consortium to manage.
In this section you should:
•
Provide a statement articulating the skills and experience of the Director and explaining
his/her appropriateness for the role;
•
Outline the proposed management structure of the DTP, giving details for the institution and
individuals who will be undertaking each role. The statement should make it clear who will
be responsible for delivering the different elements of the DTP’s programme, such as
13
recruitment, training and management. It should also make it clear what the contribution of
each participating Research Organisation is to the management of the DTP;
•
Explain, with reference to the management structure, how the performance of the DTP will
be monitored and reviewed. At a minimum, we would expect to see: a) plans for the
monitoring and evaluation of the DTP’s progress (including the consortium’s success criteria
and milestones); b) plans for the monitoring and evaluation of the success of the
collaborative arrangements and; c) plans for ensuring consistent offering and access for all
students and how this will be monitored;
•
Outline how the management board will ensure that it can respond to any
findings/recommendations that come out of its monitoring, evaluation and review process;
•
Outline the administrative support to help the DTP deliver on its vision for training and
partnership working;
•
Outline the proposed arrangements for managing the complex finances of the DTP grant;
•
Explain how you will put in place mechanisms for providing the AHRC with annual reports on
the running of the DTP ( including, for example, overviews of activities, recruitment
processes, subject intake, Equality and Diversity monitoring covering gender identity, age,
ethnicity and disability categories, training, cohort development activities);
•
Outline the consortium’s approach to recruitment, detailing how recruitment and selection
will be organised to ensure fairness and equality and to support the best future researchers.
It should also demonstrate how this process will be managed across consortium partners.
You should also detail the recruitment strategy that will be used to ensure you are able to
attract excellent students in areas that might prove difficult to recruit to;
•
Give details of any partnership agreement put in place between members of the consortium
(the AHRC encourages such agreements to be used in these multi-institutional
collaborations, dealing with a variety of contingencies including issues such as shared IP).
Regarding funding, as the DTP award will be paid to the Lead Research Organisation for the
life of the DTP grant, each consortium will therefore need to ensure that there is a
collaboration agreement for all the RO partners so that all organisations are clear on how
the mechanisms for managing monies will work.
vi)
Risk Management (2 pages maximum)
In this section you should offer a statement on how the DTP will put in place an appropriate
framework for managing risk for the consortia. The following are some of the issues you may
want to reflect upon in your statement, but should not be seen as a complete list:
•
How the consortium would deal with a member leaving during the lifetime of the DTP;
•
How the consortium would deal with the AHRC’s funding being changed during the lifetime
of the award;
14
•
c)
How the consortium will deal with one or more RO’s financial input to the Consortium
Contribution changing during the lifetime of the award.
Letters of support for non-HEI partners (up to a maximum of 6 letters,
each no longer than 2 pages of A4)
We recognise that consortia will, in some cases, have multiple partners with which they will work.
For the purpose of the application, applicants should provide letters of support for a selection of
strategic non-HEI partners considered to be key to the successful delivery of the DTP vision and/or
contributing substantial co-funding.
d)
Consortium Commitment Letter (6 pages)
The consortium should attach a single letter signed by all Research Organisations collaborating in the
DTP.
This letter should outline the following:
•
Confirmation of the DTP Director, along with the names of the academic leads at each RO
partner;
•
A list of all the Research Organisations which have agreed to be members of the consortium,
and confirmation of which RO will be acting as the Lead Research Organisation;
•
Detail of how the Consortium Contribution confirmed in the Financial Table will be met,
breaking down the commitment of each participating RO and any known financial
commitments leveraged from other sources. The letter should indicate that all participating
ROs understand and are committing to the level of contribution set out in the application.
Whilst we encourage the consortium to have plans to seek leveraged funding from outside
of the consortium’s ROs, we expect the ROs to effectively underwrite the Consortium
Contribution in case such leveraged funding is not forthcoming. The information provided
here should match up with the information provided in the Financial Table attachment;
•
The commitment of each RO to be a member of the consortium and confirmation that their
commitment fits with their own institution’s strategy for arts and humanities research;
•
The Lead Research Organisation’s commitment to supporting the Director of the DTP,
including a clear statement of how it will ensure that the Director will be able to allocate an
appropriate level of time to the role;
•
Outline each Research Organisation’s commitment to administrative costs, resourcing (e.g.,
staff time) as part of any management role within the DTP.
The letter must feature the following phrase: ‘In signing this document on behalf of [name of
institution] I am agreeing to support all the policies, procedures and strategy outlined in this
application’.
The letter needs to be signed by a Vice Chancellor/ Deputy Vice Chancellor at each Research
Organisation in the consortium.
15
e)
Financial Table
Applicants should complete the Financial Table below (see Annex F: Financial Table, p.46 and the
DTP2 funding webpage: http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/funding/opportunities/current/doctoral-trainingpartnerships/ ) with the following information:
1) the AHRC Core Studentship Funding being bid for (number of notional studentships);
2) the proposed level of the Consortium Contribution as a percentage of the AHRC Core
Studentship Funding being bid for (and the number of notional studentships this
translates to);
3) an estimate for the percentage of the total studentships in the DTP likely to be ringfenced as Collaborative Doctoral Awards (CDAs).
Cohort 1
(2019-23)
Cohort 2
(2020-24)
Cohort 3
(2021-25)
Cohort 4
(2022-26)
Cohort 5
(2023-27)
Combined
Total
(across 5
cohorts)
AHRC Core Studentship
Funding being bid for
(number of notional
studentships)
Proposed percentage of
Consortium Contribution
(with notional number of
studentships this represents
in brackets)
Percentage of total notional studentships likely to be ring-fenced as CDAs
(Please note that numbers should be based on FTE notional studentships, although PT studentships
would run for longer than the 4 years indicated per cohort).
Applicants should note that the numbers of notional studentships being bid for may not represent
the final figures which will be awarded.
Awards will be made on the basis of the current RCUK minimum doctoral stipend levels and
indicative fees at time of award. These figures may change between the confirmation of the
indicative award and the start of each cohort.
16
Please note that the requirements for the Consortium Contribution are only based on the elements
which constitute the AHRC Core Studentship Funding (i.e., stipend, tuition fees and RTSG) for the
notional number of studentships.
For successful DTPs, the AHRC will make quarterly payments directly to the Lead RO for the DTP. The
DTP will need to put in place arrangements for transferring funding allocations to partner Research
Organisations. Each RO will be responsible for transferring stipend payments to students at
appropriate points in the year, which the AHRC recommends should be the start of each quarter.
Financial Tool
As mentioned in section 3.5 above, we have created a financial spreadsheet tool to help applicants
get an estimate of the commitments being made in their application (available on the DTP2 funding
webpage: http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/funding/opportunities/current/doctoral-training-partnerships/).
The financial tool also shows how the percentage for the Consortium Contribution would translate
to numbers of notional studentships using current RCUK figures for indicative tuition fees and
minimum stipend.
The spreadsheet features two tabs:
1) ‘Notional Studentship Numbers’ – applicants can fill in the blue cells on rows A, B and E. (A
= AHRC Core Studentship Funding being bid for (notional number of studentships); B =
Proposed Consortium Contribution percentage; E = Indicative percentage of CDA
studentships across the DTP).
As we recognise that some consortia will include ROs within London (with London weighting costs
for stipend), the tool asks applicants to choose from a drop-down box whether the DTP would
feature all London-based ROs, no London-based ROs, or a mixture of the two.
The restrictions on the notional number of students that can be applied for from the AHRC Core
Studentship Funding and the range for the Consortium Contributions, along with the restrictions on
the number of CDA studentships are built into the spreadsheet tool.
2) ‘Indicative Finances’ – this second tab shows applicants the potential costs resulting from
the figures provided on the first tab, and calculates all indicative finances for applicants.
These costs are based on current RCUK figures for doctoral stipend levels and fees, as
outlined below.
•
•
Indicative cost of one studentship (non-London) per year = £18,917 (£14,296 in stipend +
£4,121 in fees + £500 RTSG)
Indicative cost of one studentship (London) per year= £20,917 (£16,296 in stipend + £4,121
in fees + £500 RTSG)
For consortia that feature both London-based and non-London-based ROs, the indicative financial
costs are represented as a range between all London and no-London studentships.
Applicants using the tool only need to fill in the blue cells, to enter the notional number of
studentships to be supported by the AHRC Core Studentship Funding, the percentage level of the
Consortium Contribution, and the notional percentage of CDA studentships across the DTP as a
whole. All other cells are locked and cannot be written into. We have provided you with a worked
example showing the two tabs below.
17
Worked example of a completed financial spreadsheet tool (showing Tab 1: Notional Student Numbers sheet):
18
Worked example of a completed financial spreadsheet tool (showing Tab 2: Indicative Finances sheet):
19
f)
Indicative Subject Spread
In your application, you will need to indicate how it is proposed that the studentships in your DTP
will be distributed across the subject areas covered within the AHRC’s remit. DTP applications will
need to demonstrate subject range and capacity coverage across all three disciplinary clusters that
form the AHRC’s remit: A) Histories, Cultures and Heritage; B) Creative and Performing Arts; and C)
Languages and Literatures.
Using the template provided in Annex B: Indicative Subject Spread for Application (p.32), please
provide:
•
•
a breakdown of the numbers of studentships across the three disciplinary clusters for the
AHRC (A, B and C outlined above);
an indication of the specific subject areas within these three subject clusters that you
envisage your DTP covering, based on your consortium’s vision and strategy.
In addition, you should also indicate any specific areas/subject domains which the consortium has
identified as ‘strategic’ or ‘priority’ areas. This could include the AHRC’s identified priorities (Design,
Heritage and Modern Languages) but could also include priorities that have been identified as
significant to the consortium.
Please note Annex A: AHRC Subject Remit (p.24) for a full list of areas which sit within the AHRC’s
remit.
The AHRC expects that the best students who apply in a given year will receive the studentships on a
competitive assessment basis, and we acknowledge that this may result in divergence from the
profile as set out in the application. Whilst consortia are not permitted to ring-fence studentships for
particular subject areas given the AHRC’s commitment to funding the highest quality students, it is
expected that DTPs will use their recruitment strategies to ensure they attract excellent candidates
across the breadth of subject areas proposed at application stage.
Throughout the lifetime of the successful DTPs, the AHRC will continue to monitor recruitment and
studentship numbers in its subject remit and reserves the right to engage with DTPs during the
award lifetimes to discuss any issues of UK capacity in specific subject areas.
g)
CV for DTP Director (2 pages maximum)
Please include a CV for the proposed DTP Director. This should demonstrate to peer reviewers the
suitability of the proposed candidate, and should give details of any management or other
experience that is relevant to the role, along with contact details, qualifications, academic and
professional posts held, relevant experience in postgraduate matters, and experience in the
management/ delivery of collaborative working.
5. Assessment Process
As outlined in detail in the Call Specification, the assessment process will consist of the following
stages:
20
•
Applications sent to up to 5 peer reviewers (from the AHRC’s Peer Review College), who will
have been trained in the principles and underlying aims of the DTP call;
•
Reviewers will assess each application according to detailed criteria (see section 5.1 below),
and will give applications grades and comments based on both the criteria and the specific
peer review grade descriptors (see Annex D: Peer Review Grade Descriptors, p.39);
•
Reviews (including peer review grades) are sent to the DTP Lead Research Organisation
Contact for the application, and applicants will be given the ‘Right of Reply’ by a specified
deadline. This stage enables the consortium to correct any factual errors or conceptual
misunderstandings, or to respond to any queries highlighted in the comments from the
assessors. It is not intended to be an opportunity to substantively change or re-constitute a
proposal in the light of the reviewers’ comments. DTP applicants are not obliged to submit a
response, but it is recommended that they do so. It is the responsibility of the individual
Lead RO Contact to ensure that they are available during the scheduled response time to
undertake the right of reply process. If the consortium’s response is not received by the
deadline, then the proposal will proceed to the Moderating Panel without it;
•
Applications, reviews and applicant responses are sent a Moderating Panel, made up of
experts with a wide range of expertise from the academic and stakeholder communities. The
Moderating Panel will be responsible for awarding a final grade for each application, and
making recommendations to the AHRC on the ranked order of proposals, including advice on
appropriate funding levels for successful applicants The recommendations will take into
account reviewers’ comments, applicant responses, funding applied for, the spread of
subjects and proposed number of students to be supported ;
•
The Moderating Panel’s recommendations will form the basis for a final decision on awards
to be made by the AHRC. Final decisions will be based on the quality of the applications, and
will take into account the overall balance of breadth and coverage across the DTP
applications.
5.1 Assessment Criteria
As outlined in the Call Specification, peer reviewers will assess the proposal looking for evidence of
the following:
•
A strong and innovative vision and strategy for the delivery of arts and humanities
postgraduate training, including evidence that the application has engaged with AHRC
strategy and core objectives for its DTP investment;
•
A strong and coherent partnership across the consortium with evidence of how each
member adds value to the breadth and provision of high quality training;
•
The quality and diversity of the research environment, resources and expertise which will
inform the research training and career development of students across the three research
area groups that form the AHRC’s remit: A) Histories, Cultures and Heritage; B) Creative and
Performing Arts, and C) Languages and Literatures;
21
•
The quality of the training approach, including supervisory practice, cohort level support,
and processes and monitoring arrangements for the recruitment and ongoing support of
individual students;
•
Ambitious plans for partnership and engagement, including with a range of non-HEI
partners;
•
Strength of the proposed DTP leadership and appropriateness of the intended governance
and management infrastructure for the DTP programme;
•
Evidence that the breadth and spread of studentships supports the consortium vision and
strategy for postgraduate funding, and can be delivered through the planned infrastructure;
•
Clear rationale for the number of studentship proposed/requested under the DTP and
demonstration of that the consortium has the capacity to support that number.
6. Terms and Conditions
DTP2 Terms and Conditions will be published as part of the Training Grant Funding Guide in 2017.
7. Commissioning Timetable
28th November 2016
DTP2 call launched
26th January (London) and 1st February 2017 (Leeds)
Town Hall meetings
1st and 2nd March 2017 (London)
1:1 surgeries across 2 days
13th April 2017
Statement of Intent deadline
19th October 2017
Deadline for Applications
November - December 2017
Peer review
January - February 2018
Applicant Response
April 2018
Moderating Panel Meeting
July 2018
Announcement of Awards
8. Further Enquiries
Enquiries relating to AHRC postgraduate funding rules and application procedures should be
addressed to:
•
Jessica Clark
Email:
Telephone:
[email protected]
01793 416056
22
•
Ian Broadbridge
Email:
[email protected]
Telephone:
01793 416054
Enquiries relating to technical aspects of the Je-S form should be addressed to:
•
Je-S helpdesk
Email: [email protected]
Telephone: 01793 444164
23
9. Annexes
ANNEX A: AHRC Subject Remit
This annex offers a complete listing of the AHRC subject classifications, together with an explanatory
note regarding interdisciplinary projects and a list of key areas which have shared responsibilities
between the AHRC and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).
AHRC Subject Classifications
The tables below represent the RCUK subject classifications (Level 1 categories) which represent the
AHRC’s remit, along with the associated AHRC areas. The research areas are clustered into three
groups: A) Histories, Cultures and Heritage; B) Creative and Performing Arts, and C) Languages and
Literatures.
Level 1 – Archaeology
Level 2
AHRC Area
Prehistoric Archaeology
A
Archaeology of Literate Societies
A
Archaeology of Human Origins
A
Archaeological Theory
A
Maritime Archaeology
A
Landscape and Environmental Archaeology
A
Industrial Archaeology
A
Science-Based Archaeology
A
Level 1 – Classics
Level 2
AHRC Area
Classical Literature
A
Classical Reception
A
Philosophy, Thought and Religion
A
Epigraphy and Papyrology
A
Languages and Linguistics
A
Level 1 – Cultural and Museum Studies
Level 2
AHRC Area
Gender and Sexuality Studies
A
Museum and Gallery Studies
A
24
Cultural Studies & Pop Culture
C
Policy, Arts Management and Creative Industries
B
Cultural Geography
A
Heritage Management
A
Conservation of Art and Textiles
A
Level 1 – Dance
Level 2
AHRC Area
History of Dance
B
Dance Performance
B
Dance Notation
B
Social Dance
B
Choreography
B
Level 1 – Design
Level 2
AHRC Area
Architecture History, Theory and Practice
B
Design History, Theory and Practice
B
Digital Art and Design
B
Product Design
B
Design Processes
B
Level 1 – Development Studies
Level 2
AHRC Area
Area and Development Studies
A
Level 1 – Drama & Theatre Studies
Level 2
AHRC Area
Theatre and Society
B
Dramaturgy
B
Scenography
B
Performance and Live Art
B
Theatre and History
B
Theories of Theatre
B
25
Drama & Theatre – Other
B
Level 1 – History
Level 2
AHRC
Area
Cultural History
A
Political History
A
Imperial/Colonial History
A
History of Science/Medicine/Technology
A
War Studies
A
Religious History
A
Economic and Social History
A
American Studies
A
Post-Colonial Studies
A
Level 1 – Information and Communications Technology
Level 2
AHRC Area
Information and Knowledge Management
A
Level 1 – Languages and Literature
Level 2
AHRC Area
American Studies
C
Interpreting and Translation
C
Lifewriting
C
History and Development of the English Language
C
Literary and Cultural Theory
C
Post-Colonial Studies
C
Scandinavian Studies
C
Asiatic & Oriental Studies
C
Middle Eastern & African
C
Italian Studies
C
Hispanic, Portuguese & Latin Studies
C
26
English Language & Literature
C
Creative Writing
B
Comparative Literature
C
French Studies
C
Celtic Studies
C
Medieval Literature
C
Ethnography and Anthropology
B
Australasian Studies
C
Comparative Studies
C
German, including Dutch and Yiddish
C
Russian, Slavonic and East European Languages and Culture
C
Gender Studies
C
Level 1 – Law and Legal Studies
Level 2
AHRC
Area
Jurisprudence/Philosophy of Law
A
Human Rights
A
Criminal Law and Criminology
A
International Law
A
EU Law
A
Public Law
A
Comparative Law
A
Common Law, including Commercial Law
A
Law Regulated by Statute
A
Law Relating to Property
A
Legal History
A
Level 1 – Library and Information Studies
Level 2
AHRC Area
Archives
A
Records Management
A
Information Science and Retrieval
A
Library Studies
A
27
Information and Knowledge Management
A
Computational Studies
A
Level 1 – Linguistics
Level 2
AHRC Area
Textual Editing and Bibliography
C
Syntax
C
Semantics and Pragmatics
C
Phonetics
C
Language Variation and Change
C
Lexicon
C
Linguistic Theory
C
Morphology and Phonology
C
Applied Linguistics
C
Linguistics (General)
C
Level 1 – Media
Level 2
AHRC Area
Media and Communication Studies
C
Journalism
C
Publishing
C
Television History, Theory and Criticism
B
New Media/Web-Based Studies
B
Film History, Theory and Criticism
B
Level 1 – Music
Level 2
AHRC Area
Traditional Music
B
History of Music
B
Music and Society
B
Popular Music
B
Composition
B
Classical Music
B
28
Musical Performance
B
Musicology
B
Level 1 – Philosophy
Level 2
AHRC Area
Political Philosophy
A
Philosophy of Mind
A
Aesthetics
A
Metaphysics
A
History of Ideas
A
Language and Philosophical Logic
A
Epistemology
A
Ethics
A
History of Philosophy
A
Philosophy of Science and Mathematics and Mathematical Logic
A
Level 1 – Political Science and International Studies
Level 2
AHRC Area
Diplomacy & International Relations
A
Level 1 – Theology, Divinity and Religion
Level 2
AHRC
Area
Old Testament
A
Modern Theology
A
Judaism
A
Islam
A
Liturgy
A
Systematic Theology
A
Church History and History of Theology
A
New Testament
A
East Asian Religions
A
Buddhism
A
Hinduism
A
29
Jainism
A
Sikhism
A
Alternative Spiritualities/New Religious Movements
A
Atheism/Secularism
A
Inter-faith Religions
A
Contemporary Religion
A
Level 1 – Visual Arts
Level 2
AHRC Area
Fine Art History, Theory and Practice
B
Photography History, Theory and Practice
B
Art Theory and Aesthetics
B
Community Art including Art and Health
B
Installation and Sound Art History, Theory and Practice
B
Ethnography and Anthropology
B
Digital Arts History, Theory and Practice
B
Applied Arts History, Theory and Practice
B
Art History
A
Design History, Theory and Practice
B
Film-based Media History, Theory and Practice
B
Time-based Media History, Theory and Practice
B
Interdisciplinary Projects
The AHRC encourages interdisciplinary working both across the Arts and Humanities remit and
within the remit of other Research Councils. The numbers of studentships requested under
individual subjects in the DTP application are indicative and this will allow some scope when
considering how students, who are working on interdisciplinary projects, could fit within the
proposed subject allocations.
In the case of interdisciplinary projects where the disciplines involved fall mainly or wholly within the
AHRC remit, then it will be up to the consortium to manage how the project’s subject classification
will be reported.
With regards to interdisciplinary projects where a proportion of the project falls outside of the
AHRC’s subject remit, then provided that at least 50% of that project is considered to be within the
AHRC remit, then that student could be offered an AHRC studentship.
30
It is not necessary for a consortium to allocate numbers for interdisciplinary projects at the full
application stage as this will be determined by the projects that individual students wish to
undertake
Subjects where the AHRC and the ESRC share interests and responsibilities
Please be aware that there are certain areas where AHRC and ESRC share responsibilities. The main
areas of study where the AHRC and ESRC share interests are listed below for reference:
• Area studies
• Communications, cultural and media studies
• Cultural policy and management
• Education
• Gender studies
• Human geography
• History
• International relations
• Librarianship and information science
• Linguistics
• Law
• Philosophy
• Religious Studies
• Science and technology studies
• Social anthropology
Further information can be found in the ‘Joint subject areas’ section of the Research Funding Guide:
http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/funding/research/researchfundingguide/
31
ANNEX B: Indicative Subject Spread for Full Application (TEMPLATE)
Please provide an indicative distribution of studentships (across the whole of the DTP) of the subject
areas that your consortium’s vision and strategy is aiming to attract. The sections below ask for this
information in the form of the number of studentships by each of the three AHRC disciplinary
clusters, and then to tick the box to demonstrate specific subject areas within these clusters. In
addition, you should also indicate any specific areas/subject domains which the consortium has
identified as ‘strategic’ or ‘priority’ areas (see Q.3 below). This could include the AHRC’s identified
priorities (Design, Heritage and Modern Languages) but could also include priorities that have been
identified as significant to the consortium.
Whilst consortia are not permitted to ring-fence studentships for particular subject areas (see p.20,
‘f) Indicative subject spread’), it is expected that DTPs will use their recruitment strategies to ensure
they attract excellent candidates across their proposed portfolio of awards.
Please see Annex A: AHRC Subject Remit for a full list of areas that sit within the AHRC’s remit.
Q1: Studentships by disciplinary clusters
As outlined in section 4.2 (f) (‘Indicative Subject Spread’), DTP applications will need to demonstrate
subject range and capacity coverage across all three disciplinary clusters that form the AHRC’s remit:
A) Histories, Cultures and Heritage;
B) Creative and Performing Arts;
C) Languages and Literatures.
In completing this section, you should aggregate your indicative total DTP studentship numbers
(including both those covered by the AHRC Core Studentship Funding applied for and the
Consortium Contribution) for all five of the cohorts in the three AHRC disciplinary clusters:
AHRC Disciplinary Clusters
A – Histories, Cultures, and Heritage
Indicative Number of DTP Studentships
B – Creative and Performing Arts
C – Languages and Literatures
Total Number of DTP Studentships across 5 cohorts
As a worked example:
If Consortium X is bidding for 250 notional studentships for the AHRC Core Studentship Funding with
a Consortium Contribution percentage of 50% (or 125 notional studentships), they could indicate the
breakdown by disciplinary clusters as follows:
AHRC Disciplinary Clusters
Indicative Number of DTP Studentships
32
A – Histories, Cultures, and Heritage
140
B – Creative and Performing Arts
120
C – Languages and Literatures
115
Total Number of DTP Studentships across 5 cohorts
375
Q2: Specific subject areas the DTP will cover
In this section, please tick any subject areas from the categories provided below to indicate which
will be covered by your DTP.
A - Histories, Cultures and Heritage
Tick which subject
areas your DTP will
cover
History
Law and Legal Studies
Philosophy
Development Studies
Political Science and International Studies (Diplomacy & International
Relations)
Theology, Divinity and Religion
Visual Arts: Art History
B - Creative and Performing Arts
Tick which subject
areas your DTP will
cover
Design
Visual Arts: Fine Art History, Theory and Practice
Visual Arts: Applied Arts History, Theory and Practice
Visual Arts: Digital Arts & Photography History, Theory and Practice
Visual Arts (covering Art Theory & Aesthetics; Community Art;
Installation and Sound Art History, Theory and Practice; Film-Based and
Time-Based History, Theory and Practice)
Languages and Literature: Creative Writing
Media: New Media/Web-Based Studies
Media: Film History, Theory and Criticism
33
Music
Media: Television History, Theory and Criticism
Languages and Literature: Ethnography and Anthropology
Dance
Drama and Theatre Studies
Cultural Studies (Policy, Arts Management and Creative Industries)
C - Languages and Literature
Languages and Literature (including American Studies, Life-writing,
History and Development of English Language, Literary and Cultural
Theory, Post-Colonial Studies, Comparative Literature, Medieval
Literature, Comparative Studies, Gender and Sexuality)
Languages and Literature: Asiatic & Oriental Studies
Languages and Literature: Celtic Studies
Cultural Studies and Popular Culture
Languages and Literature: English Language and Literature
Languages and Literature: French Studies
Languages and Literature: Scandinavian Studies
Languages and Literature: Hispanic, Portuguese and Latin Studies
Interpreting and Translation
Languages and Literature: Italian Studies
Media: Journalism and Publishing
Linguistics
Languages and Literature: Middle Eastern and African Studies
Languages and Literature: Russian, Slavonic and Eastern European Studies
Languages and Literature: Australasian Studies
Languages and Literature: German Studies (including Dutch and Yiddish)
34
Tick which subject
areas your DTP will
cover
Q3: Strategic/ Priority Areas
Please also indicate in the text box below any specific areas/subject domains which the consortium
has identified as ‘strategic’ or ‘priority’ areas. This could include the AHRC’s identified priorities
(Design, Heritage and Modern Languages), but it could also include priorities that have been
identified as significant to the consortium. You may wish to break down some of the broader
disciplinary areas listed above to indicate any specific areas of focus.
(Maximum 500 words)
35
ANNEX C: Statement of Intent (TEMPLATE)
This annex outlines the information needed for the Statement of Intent (SoI). Each consortium must
submit a SoI by 4pm on 13th April 2017 through SmartSurvey using this link:
http://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/DoctoralTrainingPartnershipsDTP2/
The SoI will ask for the following information – please provide this, where it is known:
1.
Name of the DTP Director and lead Research Organisation:
Name of DTP
Lead Research
Organisation
Proposed DTP
Director
2.
List of the other ROs involved in the DTP:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
(Please add more rows where necessary)
3.
Indication of the number of studentships in the DTP:
Please indicate the likely total number of studentships which you will include in your full application.
You should aggregate your indicative total DTP studentship numbers for all five of the cohorts,
breaking this down as follows:
•
•
the AHRC Core Studentship Funding being bid for (in the form of the notional number of
studentships, within the required range of 30-80 per cohort);
the percentage level for the Consortium Contribution (with the notional number of
studentships this relates to in brackets);
36
•
the total number of DTP studentships (i.e., the notional numbers from the AHRC Core
Studentship Funding added to the Consortium Contribution).
AHRC Core Studentship
Funding – number of notional
studentships
Consortium Contribution –
percentage of AHRC Core
Studentship Funding (with
number of studentships this
equates to in brackets)
Total DTP studentships
4. Indication of the subject spread across the DTP:
Please give a top-level indication of the balance of subject areas likely to be included in your
application across the three disciplinary clusters that make up the AHRC’s remit:
•
•
•
A - Histories, Cultures and Heritage
B - Creative and Performing Arts
C - Languages and Literature
Please see the Annex A: AHRC Subject Remit for a detailed list of areas that sit within the AHRC’s
remit and which disciplinary cluster these sit under.
In completing this section, you should use the number of total DTP studentships from the table
above and break this down by each of the three disciplinary clusters.
AHRC Research Area Groups
Indicative Number of DTP
Studentships
A – Histories, Cultures, and Heritage
B – Creative and Performing Arts
C – Languages and Literature
Total Number of DTP Studentships
In addition to the information above, please indicate in the text box below any specific areas/subject
domains the consortium has identified as ‘strategic’ or ‘priority’ areas. This could include the AHRC’s
identified priorities (Design, Heritage and Modern Languages), but it could also include priorities that
have been identified as significant to the consortium.
37
(Maximum 500 words)
38
ANNEX D: Peer Review Grade Descriptors
This annex explains the grade descriptors that will be used during the peer review process.
6
An outstanding proposal that sets out an innovative and convincing strategy
for achievement of a world-class training environment for postgraduate
research students.
It provides strong evidence across all assessment criteria, and full assurance
on the delivery of all parts of the consortium’s strategy and vision.
The application provides full, clear, and convincing evidence and
justification for all aspects of the proposal:
•
A strong and innovative vision and strategy for the delivery of arts
and humanities postgraduate training, including evidence that the
application has engaged with AHRC strategy and core objectives for its DTP
investment
•
A highly convincing partnership across the consortium with
compelling evidence of how each member adds value to the provision of
high quality training and the DTP as a collective endeavour
•
The quality and diversity of the research environment, resources
and expertise which will inform the research training and career
development of students across the three disciplinary clusters that form
the AHRC’s remit: Creative and Performing Arts; Histories, Cultures and
Heritage; Languages and Literature
•
The quality of the training approach and provision, including
supervisory practice, cohort level support, and processes and monitoring
arrangements for the recruitment and ongoing support of individual
students
•
Ambitious plans for partnership and engagement, including with a
range of non-HEI partners
•
Strength of the proposed DTP leadership and appropriateness of
the intended governance and management infrastructure for the DTP
programme
•
Evidence that the breadth and spread of studentships supports the
consortium vision and strategy for postgraduate funding, and can be
delivered through the planned infrastructure
•
Evidence of innovation in training provision and delivery
39
•
Clear rationale for the number of studentship proposed/requested
under the DTP and demonstration of that the consortium has the capacity
to support that number.
It is strongly recommended for funding as a matter of the very highest
priority.
5
An excellent proposal that offers a consistent and convincing strategy for
the provision of a very high quality training environment for postgraduate
research students.
It provides evidence against all the assessment criteria and gives a very high
level of assurance on the delivery of all key parts of the consortium’s
strategy and vision.
The application provides clear and convincing evidence and justification for
all key aspects of the proposal:
•
A strong vision and strategy for the delivery of arts and humanities
postgraduate training, including some evidence of innovation, and clear
evidence that the application has engaged with AHRC strategy and core
objectives for its DTP investment
•
A strong and coherent partnership across the consortium with
evidence of how each member adds value to the provision of high quality
training and the DTP as a collective endeavour
•
The quality and diversity of the research environment, resources
and expertise which will inform the research training and career
development of students across the three disciplinary clusters that form
the AHRC’s remit: Creative and Performing Arts: Histories, Cultures and
Heritage: Languages and Literature
•
The quality of the training approach, including supervisory practice,
cohort level support, and processes and monitoring arrangements for the
recruitment and ongoing support of individual students
•
Ambitious plans for partnership and engagement, including with a
range of non-HEI partners
•
Strength of the proposed DTP leadership and appropriateness of
the intended governance and management infrastructure for the DTP
programme
•
Evidence that the breadth and spread of studentships supports the
consortium vision and strategy for postgraduate funding, and can be
delivered through the planned infrastructure
40
•
Clear rationale for the number of studentship proposed/requested
under the DTP and demonstration of that the consortium has the capacity
to support that number.
It is recommended for funding as a matter of priority, but does not merit
the very highest priority rating.
4
A very good proposal demonstrating a sound strategy for the provision of
high quality training environment for postgraduate research students.
It broadly meets all the key assessment criteria for the scheme and gives
reasonable assurance on the delivery of most key parts of the consortium’s
strategy and vision, but may be weaker in a small number of areas.
• A strong vision and strategy for the delivery of arts and humanities
postgraduate training, including evidence that the application has
engaged with AHRC strategy and core objectives for its DTP
investment
• A coherent partnership across the consortium with evidence of how
each member adds value to the provision of high quality training
• The quality and diversity of the research environment, resources
and expertise which will inform the research training and career
development of students across the three disciplinary clusters that
form the AHRC’s remit: Creative and Performing Arts: Histories,
Cultures and Heritage: Languages and Literature
• The quality of the training approach, including supervisory practice,
cohort level support, and processes and monitoring arrangements
for the recruitment and ongoing support of individual students
• Clear plans for partnership and engagement, including with a range
of non-HEI partners
• Strength of the proposed DTP leadership and appropriateness of
the intended governance and management infrastructure for the
DTP programme
• Evidence that the breadth and spread of studentships supports the
consortium vision and strategy for postgraduate funding, and can
be delivered through the planned infrastructure
• Clear rationale for the number of studentship proposed/requested
under the DTP and demonstration of that the consortium has the
capacity to support that number.
It is worthy of consideration for funding.
3
A satisfactory proposal in terms of the strategy for provision of a quality
training environment for postgraduate research students.
41
It satisfies the assessment criteria for the scheme and gives reasonable
assurance on the delivery of some parts of the consortium’s strategy and
vision.
The application provides reasonable evidence and justification for some
areas of the proposed training environment. However, there are a number
of areas of weakness or areas where the evidence or case made is
unconvincing.
Overall, it has a number of strengths, and/or good components or
dimensions, but lacks the innovation shown by more highly rated proposals.
In a competitive context, the proposal is not considered of sufficient
priority to recommend for funding.
2
A proposal of inconsistent quality in terms of the strategy for provision of a
quality training environment for postgraduate research students.
The application has some good components or dimensions, but also has
significant weaknesses or flaws in assurance on the delivery of some parts
of the consortium’s strategy and vision, or in its meeting of one or more of
the key assessment criteria.
In addition the application lacks reasonable evidence and justification for
several areas of the proposed training environment.
As a result of the flaws or weaknesses identified, the proposal is not
considered to be of fundable quality.
It is not recommended for funding.
1
A poor quality proposal that fails to set out a convincing case for provision
of a quality training environment for postgraduate research students.
It does not meet many of the assessment criteria for the scheme and fails
on several of the key areas.
The assurance, evidence, and justification provided throughout the
applications is weak and not of a suitable level.
Due to the level of the flaws or weaknesses identified, the proposal is not
considered to be of fundable quality.
It is not suitable for funding.
42
ANNEX E: Collaborative Doctoral Awards
Collaborative Doctoral Awards (CDAs) are doctoral studentship projects which are developed by a
university based academic working in collaboration with an organisation outside of higher
education. They are intended as a way of facilitating collaboration with a diverse range of non-HEI
partners including smaller, regional partners and spreading capacity for non-HEIs to work with HEIs
in focused, mutually beneficial ways. CDAs provide important opportunities for doctoral students to
gain first-hand experience of work outside the university environment and enhance the
employment-related skills and training which a student may gain during the course of their award.
CDA projects also encourage and establish links that can have long-term benefits for both
collaborating partners, providing access to resources and materials, knowledge and expertise that
may not otherwise have been available and also provide social, cultural and economic benefits to
wider society.
Whilst there are many ways in which a DTP might engage with non-HEI organisations, in order to be
classified as a Collaborative Doctoral Award, a studentship must meet the specific CDA criteria
outlined below.
CDA Criteria
1. The project needs to have been jointly developed by the academic and non-University
partner. It’s not sufficient for the student simply to be accessing resources/archives held by
the non-University partner; both partners should be equally invested in the project, and the
student will have a supervisor at both organisations. This doesn’t preclude a prospective
student being engaged in the development of the project, and s/he could be named on the
application. It would be possible to badge a studentship as a CDA once it has commenced, if
the non-University partner comes on board at a later date, is fully engaged and has agreed
to jointly supervise the student.
2. The project proposal would need to meet the expectations of the RCUK Joint Vision for
Collaborative Training, in other words:
•
•
•
•
The research is relevant to the organisation’s priorities and objectives;
The project is based on a truly collaborative approach;
Evidence of a clear commitment from the non-University partner to provide access
to training, facilities and expertise not available in an academic setting alone;
The opportunity provided by the project to enable the student to develop a range of
valuable skills and significantly enhance their future employability.
3. There must be an opportunity for the student to spend time working at the non-University
organisation’s premises. During this time, the student must be engaged in activities which
are an integral component of the research to be presented in the thesis, as well as wider
development activities and opportunities. For a full-time student, the minimum is 3 months
and the maximum 18 months. When and how this time is spent will vary according to the
nature of the project, and is subject to negotiation between the partners and the student.
4. Partner organisation eligibility is as defined for the previous CDAs. The partner organisation
can be from the private, public or voluntary sector (where a private company is defined as
being at least 50% privately owned with a wealth creation base in the UK). The word
43
‘organisation’ is used as a generic term and should be interpreted as widely as possible. The
AHRC wishes to encourage collaborations from any area within its subject remit and with a
full range of organisations, bodies and businesses, including the creative, cultural and
heritage industries, both large and small and to include sole traders and partnerships.
5. In most cases the non-HEI partner must have an operating base in the UK.
6. In exceptional cases, a collaboration with a company or organisation based outside of the UK
can be considered. AHRC recognises that, given the distinctive nature of its subject domain,
there may be potential for reciprocal research collaborations outside the UK. A DTP will
need to be clear what additional benefits are to be gained from the collaboration, that
demonstrable value from the project will be accrued to the UK, and that the collaboration
will deliver long-term, lasting benefits. The overseas partner must specify a minimum
contribution and would be expected to cover additional costs of travel to and from the UK.
The logistics of running such a partnership should be carefully considered in order to
demonstrate that the project is both viable and feasible.
7. University museums and galleries or organisations that are deemed to be a spin-off or are
supported by an HEI are eligible as project partners, providing that the project is not a
collaboration with the parent institution. We are keen to see a wide variety of partners
engaged with collaborative studentships, including local partner organisations
Organisations belonging to Collaborative Doctoral Partnerships (CDPs) can be partners for
Collaborative Doctoral Awards, but we would encourage DTPs to think broadly about the partners
with which they might work. In particular, we would ask you to consider the options for involving
SMEs, local museums and galleries, charities, and local and regional government in collaborative
projects, to encourage a diverse range of non-HEI partner organisations for collaboration. A list of
our Collaborative Doctoral Partnerships can be found here:
http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/funding/opportunities/current/collaborativedoctoralpartnerships/
Whilst not a requirement, experience has demonstrated that the signing of written agreements as
part of these projects can be extremely valuable. Agreements ensure that all parties, including the
student, are aware of, and understand, the requirements and responsibilities underlying the
partnership. DTPs or HEIs may wish to develop a template agreement for setting out the
expectations and responsibilities of CDA partnerships.
CDA Recruitment
Whilst for DTPs the usual principle is that the best students are supported whatever the type of
studentship, we recognise that a separate recruitment route may be helpful for CDAs, given that
these are project-driven, originate in a variety of ways, and that the assessment criteria for the ‘best’
students may be different.
The DTP therefore will be given the flexibility to either use a single recruitment process for all DTP
students or to put in place a separate recruitment process for the limited number of ring-fenced CDA
places. Such a process would enable proposals to be considered in a separate, project-driven
competition with tailored assessment criteria, focusing on the quality of the project and the
collaboration, with an option to include non-University partners on assessment panels. Selected
44
projects, which would need to have a degree of flexibility built in, would then need to be advertised
to students as a second part of the process. If this two-stage, ring-fenced option is chosen then
arrangements would need to be made to ensure consistency of quality in the projects and
studentships across different routes.
Applicants can ring-fence up to a maximum of 20% of their total studentships for CDA studentships,
although please note that this maximum level is not a requirement.
CDA Funding
As CDAs are collaborative, we recognise that there may be additional costs incurred by students,
such as travel and accommodation requirements incurred when working with the partner
organisation.
Applicants should note that additional funding will be made available by the AHRC per CDA
studentship awarded (equivalent to an additional £550 stipend per annum). This is not included in
our definition of the AHRC Core Studentship Funding (which is based on the standard minimum
stipend figures, tuition fees and RTSG), and therefore does not need to be taken into account for the
Consortium Contribution. DTPs may also wish negotiate contributions from partner organisations to
contribute to additional student costs, but this figure should also not be included in your Consortium
Contribution figures. The non-HEI partner, as standard, should be required to provide supervisory
time and desk space for the student as in-kind contributions. It is essential that CDA students are
not financially disadvantaged by participating in this kind of studentship.
45
ANNEX F: Financial Table (TEMPLATE)
As explained on p. 16, please use the template below (available on our DTP2 funding webpage:
http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/funding/opportunities/current/doctoral-training-partnerships/) to indicate
the required studentship information for your application.
Cohort 1
(2019-23)
Cohort 2
(2020-24)
Cohort 3
(2021-25)
Cohort 4
(2022-26)
AHRC Core Studentship
Funding being bid for (notional
number of studentships
Proposed percentage of
Consortium Contribution (with
notional number of
studentships this represents in
brackets)
Percentage of total notional studentships likely to be ring-fenced as CDAs
46
Cohort 5
(2023-27)
Combined
Total
across 5
Cohorts
ANNEX G: Glossary
AHRC – Arts and Humanities Research Council.
AHRC Core Studentship Funding – the funding provided by the AHRC based on stipend, tuition fees
and the Research Training Support Grant (RTSG), expressed as a single award whose value is based
on a number of notional studentships.
Collaborative Doctoral Award (CDA) – doctoral studentship projects which are developed by a
university-based academic working in collaboration with an organisation outside of higher education
and offer students the chance to gain experience of work outside the academic sphere.
Cohort Development Fund (CDF) – additional costs that may include (e.g.,) student travel and
subsistence costs between consortium partners for joint supervision or training; cohort development
costs, such as student conferences or training activities.
Consortium – a group of ROs formed to ensure the necessary critical mass of students in the subject
areas identified and to demonstrate evidence of the excellence and expertise across the disciplines
involved in the consortia.
Consortium Contribution – the mandatory financial contribution that a consortium must commit to
spending on the three core elements of AHRC funding which make up the AHRC Core Studentship
Funding (i.e., stipend, tuition fees, and the Research Training Support Grant ).
DTP Director – the person with responsibility to lead the delivery of the DTP against the vision set
out in the application, and to promote the interests of the DTP within and across the ROs and
beyond.
Fees - the funds required by a University for a Student to register for a higher degree.
Fees Only Award - the term used for a studentship, which excludes funds for a stipend.
Independent Research Organisation – any non-HE organisation that carries out research, e.g.
museums and galleries, heritage organisations.
Je-S Student Details Portal (Je-S SDP) – the Research Councils’ web-based data collection system,
which Research Organisations use to return details of the students and student research projects,
funded from the Training Grant.
Lead Research Organisation – the Research Organisation responsible for submitting the application
on behalf of the consortium and with the infrastructure and support to provide administration and
management of the DTP consortium.
Lead Research Organisation Contact – the person at the Lead RO who is the main point of contact
for the AHRC during the assessment and outcome process, and beyond if awarded.
Moderating Panel - a panel of experts with a range of expertise from the academic and stakeholder
communities convened to moderate the peer reviews of the applications and the applicants’
responses. Responsible for grading and prioritising the proposals, and for recommending to the
47
AHRC which DTP2 proposals should be successful and making suggestions regarding the funding
levels in successful applications.
Research Organisation (RO) - the organisation, or Higher Education Institution (HEI) to which the
Training Grant is awarded and which takes responsibility for the management of the research
training programme and the accountability of funds provided.
Research Training Support Grant (RTSG) – funding intended to support training costs for individual
students.
Right of Reply – the stage in the assessment process that enables the RO to correct any factual
errors or conceptual misunderstandings, or to respond to any queries highlighted in the comments
from the assessors. It is not intended to be an opportunity to change or re-constitute a proposal in
the light of the reviewers’ comments.
Statement of Intent – the mandatory indication by the consortium of the intention to submit a full
application.
Stipend - the funds awarded by the Research Organisation to students to cover their maintenance
while undertaking postgraduate training leading to the award of a postgraduate degree.
Students: the term used to identify postgraduates who are funded through the Training Grant.
Studentship - the term used for the funding award made by a research organisation to a student for
the purpose of undertaking postgraduate training leading to the award of a postgraduate degree.
48
ANNEX H: Additional Information
Research Councils’ Equal Opportunities Statement
The Research Councils aim to develop as organisations that value the diversity of their staff and
stakeholders, enabling all to realise their full potential by valuing the contribution of everyone and
recognising and harnessing the benefits that differences can bring.
The UK Research Councils are committed to eliminating unlawful discrimination and promoting
equality of opportunity and good relations across and between the defined equalities groups in all of
their relevant functions.
Accordingly no eligible job applicant, funding applicant, employee or external stakeholder including
members of the public should receive less favourable treatment on the grounds of: gender, marital
status, sexual orientation, gender re-assignment, race, colour, nationality, ethnicity or national
origins, religion or similar philosophical belief, spent criminal conviction, age or disability.
The AHRC has also published an Equality Scheme which is available to download from our website at
www.ahrc.ac.uk
49