The Northern Bridge Consortium Doctoral Training Programme (NBCDTP) runs an annual studentship competition to select postgraduate doctoral students of the very highest calibre to study at one of our partner institutions: Durham University, Newcastle University, Northumbria University, Queen’s University Belfast, University of Sunderland, Teesside University and Ulster University.[1] The competition is open to all applicants who meet the AHRC’s eligibility criteria:

TGC 5.2 Student Eligibility: https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/UKRI-170821-TrainingGrantTermsConditionsGuidance-Aug2021.pdf

This site provides guidance to members of staff (including subject area leads and review panel members) at NBCDTP partner institutions and to applicants on the selection process and administrative arrangements for the NBCDTP studentship competition.

The aim of the site is to make the competition’s process clear to all. To this end, this guidance takes account of frequently asked questions from previous years.[2]

Applicants are expected to read the information here for detailed guidance on their obligations as a potential studentship award-holder, and on the NBCDTP’s obligations as a UKRI AHRC grant holder:

• UKRI Terms and Conditions of Training Grants  
• UKRI Training Grant Guide
• AHRC's Training Grant Funding Guide 

All at: https://ahrc.ukri.org/skills/phdstudents/award-holders-terms-and-conditions/

AHRC: Arts and Humanities Research Council and NBCDTP funder.

Host Institution: The university where the student applicant wishes to be registered and to which they will therefore apply.

NBCDTP: Northern Bridge Consortium Doctoral Training Partnership.

NBCDTP Director: Each partner institution (please see below) nominates its own NBCDTP director.  Directors deal with issues at the local, host institution level but also work collectively to shape and oversee the competition.

Partner Institution: A member of the NBCDTP: Newcastle, Durham, Northumbria, Queen’s Belfast, Sunderland, Teesside and Ulster universities.

UKRI: UK Research and Innovation (oversees all 9 research councils, including AHRC)

NBCDTP is an inclusive community in which everybody – staff and students alike – are treated with dignity and respect. This is part of our vision of how research excellence comes about. We value individual differences and the diversity that this brings, and we to ensure that no-one is at a disadvantage – whether at the application stage or as part of our successful cohort – because of who they are.  We undertake Positive Action to support this aim (https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/guidance/equality-diversity-and-inclusion/equality-legislation/positive-action).

As part of our annual competition, we include a critical friend in the form of an EDI champion, who reviews our competition process, paperwork and outcomes to help us be as inclusive as we can be. We welcome all applicants irrespective of their gender, socio-economic background or ethnicity. We seek to include diverse life experiences and recognise the value of this diversity in developing excellent research. We explicitly encourage assessment panels to recognise this in their assessment of a candidate’s preparedness for doctoral study.

We are committed to WP in our DTP (and beyond) through positive action and support.  We welcome applicants of all ages and from all backgrounds.  We are particularly keen to encourage applications from under-represented groups, including (though not limited to) people with disabilities, members of ethnic minorities, lower income families and mature students.

In keeping with our commitment to WP, awards can be either full-time or part-time.

Nominees are asked to complete an Equal Opportunities Monitoring Form. This will be separated from the nomination form before the nomination is circulated for review[1].   Subject area panel reviewers will not see the Equal Opportunities Monitoring Form.  The NBCDTP is required to submit anonymised statistics to the AHRC on EDI characteristics for all nominees and those who are successful. The NBCDTP administrator at Newcastle University will be able to identify who the Equal Opportunities Monitoring Form belongs to, solely for the purposes of being able to make this distinction. All information reported to the AHRC and to the Studentships Committee will be anonymised.

Subject area review panels will assess nominations with due regard to non-conventional trajectories—e.g., where relevant experience is deemed to compensate for a lower degree classification.

Subject Area Review Panels should be aware of, and sympathetic to, the fact that applicants will come from a diverse range of backgrounds, including those with experience in practice or industry. NBCDTP is fully committed to WP and EDI, and is actively supporting, though its positive action initiatives, the diversification of its staff and student cohort. We ask panels to be mindful of issues surrounding WP and EDI when Part 1 of the Nomination Form.

Subject Area Review Panel members are asked to bear in mind that while formal academic qualifications are important indicators of academic achievement and potential, comparable consideration should be made to nominees with less conventional academic profiles, for example, mature nominees with significant and distinguished careers in creative arts or other professional practices.

We make up to 67 awards per year.  There are three different types of award – staff-led collaborative doctoral awards, student-led collaborative doctoral awards, and standard doctoral awards.  Staff and students should judge carefully which route is best for them.

Of the 67 awards that we make, a number are reserved for the staff-led competition which runs earlier in the year.  There is no separate competition for student-led collaborative nominations; they are entered into the open competition and compete against standard nominations.  We do not reserve awards for student-led collaborative nominations.[1]

1. Staff-led Collaborative Doctoral Awards

• Members of academic staff at NBCDTP partner institutions submit a doctoral research proposal in partnership with a non-HE organisation to NBCDTP. Normally, this competition runs from August to October each year. 

• Successful projects are normally advertised and recruited to from November to March. Interested applicants will usually have to submit an application, CV and Expression of Interest. If selected, they will then be interviewed. 

• Further information can be found at: http://www.northernbridge.ac.uk/studentships/cda/

2. Student-led Collaborative Doctoral Awards

• Student applicants approach potential supervisors at their preferred host institution and a non-HE organisation(s) to develop a collaborative project originating from the applicant’s research proposal.                                                                                                                 

• It is expected that the applicant initiates the project and partnership. 

• These nominations are assessed in the open competition.

• This route is not open to PhD students who have already commenced their studies unless the student is already engaged in a CDA-type project.

3. Standard PhD Awards

• The most common option (around 85% of applicants take this route).

• Applicants with a research proposal in mind approach potential supervisors at their preferred host institution to develop their proposal.

• It is expected that the applicant initiates the project.

• These nominations are assessed in the open competition.

• Students currently registered on a doctoral programme at an NBCDTP institution are also eligible to apply.

In All Cases:

• Research proposals can be interdisciplinary and/or creative practice-based.

• Research proposals are welcome from recent graduates (or from those about to graduate) or from those who have not attended a university for some time.  In any of these cases applicants may point to relevant professional or practitioner experience in order to substantiate their case for funding.

• We are committed to widening participation in our DTP (and beyond) through positive action and support.  We welcome applicants of all ages and from all backgrounds.  We are particularly keen to encourage applications from under-represented groups, including (though not limited to) people with disabilities, members of ethnic minorities, lower income families and mature students.

In keeping with our commitment to widening participation, awards can be either full-time or part-time.

Number of Awards Available

• Up to 67 doctoral awards across all partner institutions.

• Up to 20% (c.13) of these will be allocated to Collaborative Doctoral Awards under the separate Staff-led Collaborative Doctoral Awards competition.

• As stipulated by the AHRC, no more than 30% of the total number of awards available can be allocated to international candidates.[1]

Duration of an Award

• The normal duration of an award is 42 months full-time (3.5 years) or 84 months part-time (7 years).

• Awards to students who have already commenced their PhD will be reduced by the length of time the student has already been registered on the PhD programme.

• Part-time students who have already commenced their PhD may apply to transfer to full-time for the remainder of their studies should they be successful in the competition, and vice versa.[2]

• A part-time award must not be less than 50% of the full-time equivalent.[3] 

Who is Eligible to be Considered for an Award

• All UK and international applicants with a research proposal falling within the AHRC’s subject domain: (https://ahrc.ukri.org/funding/research/subjectcoverage/ahrc-disciplines/)

• All UK and international applicants meeting the entry requirements of their preferred PhD programme at their host institution.

• All UK and International applicants who have secured the support of a school or departmental-level supervisory team with expertise in the subject area(s) at their preferred host institution.

The Value of the Award

• Tuition fees paid at a rate equivalent to the Home UK fee.

• A minimum stipend per year for living costs, which is paid in regular instalments. Awards increase every year, typically with inflation. As an indicator, the level for 2021/2022 was £15,609.

• Award-holders are eligible to apply to a fund reserved for supporting primary research costs to include, for example, conference attendance, fieldwork, language training, overseas research visits and placements with a non-academic partner.

• Award-holders will not have a personal research account on which to draw.

• NBCDTP will not under any circumstances fund the (monetary) difference between home and international tuition fees. However, an international applicant’s host institution may offer an additional scholarship to the value of this difference. Applicants should check with their host institution for further guidance.  In some cases, successful international applicants may need to be prepared to fund the difference between the home and international tuition fee rate by alternative means.

Employment

• It is a condition of an award that at the time of commencing the award (1 October 2022) the applicant is not in full-time employment. Applicants in full-time employment are not eligible for an award.

• An applicant in part-time employment may be eligible for a part-time award providing the hours of employment plus the hours of part-time study do not normally exceed the equivalent of 1.0 full-time equivalent (FTE). Exceeding this limit is prohibited in some institutions and may result in all or part of the studentship award being reclaimed by the NBCDTP. Applicants first should check with their host institution if intending to continue part-time working hours.

• During the studentship, award-holders can undertake teaching and demonstrating duties (or relevant alternative employment) provided that their supervisor(s) agree that the total demand made on a student’s time is compatible with their studies. Employment for full-time award-holders is not expected to exceed six hours in any one week, including preparation time.  Students cannot accept employment that involves substantial calls on their time (which may put their wellbeing and timeline for completion at risk) without the written consent of the Dean of Postgraduate Studies or equivalent at their host institution.

Study Location

• The UKRI and AHRC advise that studentship award-holders are required to be resident in the UK for the majority of their studies, and “A student must live within a reasonable travel time of their host institution to ensure that they are able to maintain regular contact with their department and their supervisor. This is to ensure that the student is not isolated and receives the full support, mentoring, training and access to facilities required to complete their research successfully and to a high standard. The only exceptions to these requirements are to cover periods of absence that are an essential part of their study e.g. fieldwork, study visits or conference attendance.”

Source:

https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/UKRI-170821-TrainingGrantTermsConditionsGuidance-Aug2021.pdf

Open Competition Workflow

Step One:

Applicants contact the relevant Subject Area Lead and/or potential supervisor(s) at their preferred host institution[1] at the earliest opportunity to ensure that:

• the expertise and capacity to supervise the proposed research is actually present;
• the viability of the proposed research can be assessed;
• the applicant will be fully supported throughout the competition process.

Applicants who delay approaching the Subject Area Lead and potential supervisors until close to the postgraduate application deadline are unlikely to be considered for nomination. 

Step Two:

Applicants identify the member Professional Services staff, or member of staff (which may be their supervisor, Subject Area Lead or local Northern Bridge Administrator), who has responsibility for the administration of the NBCDTP applicant selection and nomination process within their school or department at their host institution.

Step Three:

Applicants submit a Postgraduate Application Form and other supporting documentation to their host institution by the Wednesday 12 January 2022.  Please note that, while the process will vary from institution to institution, all applicants must indicate that they wish to be considered for the NBCDTP studentship competition:

• Durham University:

Under ‘How do you propose to fund your studies?’ please select “Northern Bridge AHRC studentship” from the drop-down menu.

• Newcastle University:

Quote NBC22 under ‘Studentship/Partnership Reference’ and ‘Who is your sponsor/funding body?’

• Northumbria University:

Quote NBC22 under the ‘Project/Studentship Reference Number’ field.

• Queen’s University Belfast:

Tick ‘I will apply separately to an external body’ then enter NBC22 under ‘To which body do you intend to apply?’

• University of Sunderland:

State the supervisor and NBC22 in Section 6 ‘Who is expected to pay your fees.’

• Teesside University:

Answer the question ‘Who will pay your fees’ by selecting ‘other’ and then quoting NBC22.

• Ulster University

Insert NBC22 in response to the question ‘If you will be self-funded or are in receipt of a private scholarship then please provide further information here’ in the Funding Details section. 

• If an applicant has already applied to their host institution, or omits the indication that they wish to be considered for a Northern Bridge studentship from their postgraduate application, they should contact the Subject Area Lead and Professional Services contact in the relevant school/department as soon as possible, and before Wednesday 12 January 2022.

• Applicants can apply to only one of the seven institutions in the NBCDTP. Applicants who apply to more than one NBCDTP partner institution will be disqualified without consideration.

• However, applicants may apply to more than one Doctoral Training Partnership, including the ESRC Northern Ireland North East (NINE) DTP. For example, an applicant in Linguistics may apply to the NINE DTP and the NBCDTP at Newcastle; but may not apply to the NBCDTP via Newcastle and QUB.

ESSENTIAL NOTE FOR APPLICANTS

Applicants must be selected for nomination by their school/department.

Applicants who submit incomplete and unsolicited Nomination Forms, direct to schools or departments, or direct to the NBCDTP will not be considered.

Applicants who approach schools and departments after the published deadlines will not be considered.

General Note

• It is important that nominees write in clear, precise English, and that they express their ideas in a way that is accessible to non-specialists. The members of a subject Area Review Panel will be experts, but not necessarily in specific sub-fields.  It is advisable, therefore, to avoid or to explain discipline-specific jargon or terminology.

Section 1: Nominee Details and Eligibility

• Please provide full and accurate information. The NBCDTP will base its decision on the nominee’s eligibility for a particular level of funding (home or international) on the details provided at the time of nomination to the NBCDTP.[1]

• To self-assess eligibility for a particular level of funding (home or international), nominees should consult “Changes to EU and International Eligibility for UKRI funded studentships from Academic Year 2021/22 onwards - Implementation Guidance for Training Grant Holders” on the NBCDTP website: http://www.northernbridge.ac.uk/studentships/theopenstudentshipcompetition/

Section 2: Award, University and Subject Area Details

• All nominees must select a Primary AHRC Subject Area from the drop-down list to ensure that the nomination is evaluated by reviewers with the requisite subject expertise. Do not overwrite the existing list or add a new subject area.

• Interdisciplinary proposals may still fall within the purview of a single subject area or discipline. If, however, the proposed project is interdisciplinary in a way described in the definition of interdisciplinarity above, the nominee should select one Secondary AHRC Subject Area.

• If a nominee indicates that, Yes, they wish their nomination to be considered by the Interdisciplinary Panel, a reason must be provided in the space below. If no reason is provided, the nomination will be treated as a single-subject proposal and not interdisciplinary.

• Additional guidance for Interdisciplinary nominees can be found below.

Section 3: Higher Education to Date

• Nominees are reminded that for taught postgraduate and undergraduate awards they must provide a full transcript, translated into English where necessary.

• Nominees currently completing a taught postgraduate programme must provide a provisional transcript listing their modules and marks received to-date.

• Current PhD nominees should use this section to provide details of their programme.

• Should a nominee hold more than one undergraduate and/or postgraduate degree, they should list the most relevant to the nomination and subject of the research proposal.

Section 4: Professional Employment Experience and Publications, Exhibitions, Commissions, etc.

• Subject Area Review Panels will assess nominations with due regard to non-conventional trajectories—e.g., where relevant experience is deemed to compensate for a lower degree classification.

• Relevant examples include exhibitions, shows, work in galleries, awards, commissions, residencies, publications, conference papers. These should be relevant to the research proposal and not otherwise mentioned on the nomination.

Section 5: Research Proposal and Case for Support

• The 100-word summary of the proposal should be written in such a way as to be accessible to a reader who may not be a subject specialist. This summary will be provided to the AHRC should the nomination be successful.

• To be eligible for funding, all research proposals must explicitly address each of the following considerations:

1. It must define a series of research questions, issues or problems that will be addressed in the course of the research. It must also define its aims and objectives in terms of seeking to enhance knowledge and understanding relating to the questions, issues or problems to be addressed.

2. It must specify a research context for the questions, issues or problems to be addressed. You must specify why it is important that these particular questions, issues or problems should be addressed; what other research is being or has been conducted in this area; and what particular contribution this project will make to the advancement of creativity, insights, knowledge and understanding in this area.

3. It must specify the research methods for addressing and answering the research questions, issues or problems. You must state how, in the course of the research project, you will seek to answer the questions, address the issues or solve the problems. You should also explain the rationale for your chosen research methods and why you think they provide the most appropriate means by which to address the research questions, issues or problems.

Our primary concern is to ensure that the research we fund addresses clearly-articulated research questions, issues or problems, set in a clear context of other research in that area, and using appropriate research methods and/or approaches.

Source: https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/AHRC-230821-ResearchFundingGuideV5.5-2021.pdf

4. In addition applicants are required to demonstrate that the project is feasible or viable with the allotted timeframe (up to three and a half years of full-time funded study or up to seven years of part-time funded study).  You should highlight any potential difficulties that might potentially arise and explain how they will be met, and you must also show that you have seriously considered costs and resource implications of undertaking the proposed research.

• The proposal is strictly limited to 750 words. Do not include a bibliography or footnotes. A brief note of the reference (e.g. Smith, 1990) is sufficient as the proposal will be considered by experts familiar with the literature.

• Additional guidance for Creative Practice nominees can be found below.

• Additional guidance for Student-Led Collaborative Project nominees can be found below.

Resources and Facilities

• Nominees should consult prospective supervisors about the availability of key resources and the likely costs of research and training activities in order to ensure the viability of the proposed research project, and provide an estimate where possible. Highlight the resources and facilities that will be required. Note, for example, anticipated fieldwork, special training (e.g. immersive difficult language training) or specialist equipment requirements that will be necessary for the successful completion of the PhD.[2]

• Successful nominees/award-holders will have the opportunity to bid for additional funding to support their research costs as they progress through their PhD. Such funding is not guaranteed and award-holders do not have a personal allowance to draw on. Significant costs stated as necessary to the research may influence the assessors’ view of the feasibility of the project.

• If a student is successful in getting a studentship, and applies to the NBCDTP’s grant scheme during the course of their studentship, any high-cost bids are checked against this section of the Nomination Form. A failure to mention high-cost requirements at the nomination stage will mean the funding application is likely to be rejected.

The Project’s Suitability to the NBCDTP

• Nominees should consider the expertise of the proposed supervisors, the resources available within the NBCDTP universities, specific training provision, and the potential relevance of external strategic partners.

• Nominees are encouraged to consider any potential placement opportunities available through non-HE organisations. They should use this section to indicate if they have already established whether their studentship will include a placement. However, nominees who have not secured a placement will not be penalised.

Project Feasibility and the Pandemic

• At present, there is still uncertainty surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. Nominees are asked to confirm that they have discussed with their proposed supervisors if they would be able to adjust and revise their project plans if current restrictions are maintained/future restrictions are imposed. These might include issues such as: travel restrictions, closure of institutions such as libraries, museums, laboratories, other research facilities, and extensive periods of working from home. Reviewers do not expect nominees to have developed a full ‘Plan B’ but would like to see evidence that the project can be adjusted if necessary and would remain feasible.

We understand interdisciplinary research as being the integration of methodological approaches from two or more distinct subject areas, generating outcomes that could not be achieved from within a single subject area.

So defined, the NBCDTP welcomes applications for interdisciplinary research projects.  These may be of two kinds:

• (i) Applicants engage with two or more arts and humanities disciplines (or subject areas).[1]  In this case, applicants must make it clear how their project will integrate approaches from the two subject areas (e.g., film and philosophy) they have identified. Eligible nominations will be assessed by a specially convened Interdisciplinary Panel with the relevant expertise (in subject area, interdisciplinary studies, and creative practice and collaborative projects where appropriate). The interdisciplinary panel may determine that a nomination is most appropriately reviewed as a single-area nomination rather than an interdisciplinary nomination, and routed to that panel for assessment.

• (ii) Applicants engage both with arts and humanities disciplines and with a STEM or social sciences discipline. In this case, applicants must still make it clear that their project falls predominantly within the arts and humanities (that is, at least 50%). Nominees should identify the project as interdisciplinary.  In particular, they should identify the non-AHRC subject area and provide an explanation for its rationale on the Nomination Form. Again, eligible nominations will be assessed by the Interdisciplinary Panel.

For Instance:

• Under (i) above, a project that uses linguistic analysis of language attitudes to explore and develop the design of language-learning apps for refugees would be interdisciplinary. It integrates methodologies from two arts and humanities subject areas (Linguistics and Interaction Design) and would be assessed for its success in addressing those disciplines by the Interdisciplinary Panel. It generates outcomes that could not be achieved within a single discipline or subject area.

• Under (ii) above, a project that makes significant use of research methods associated with economics as part of a broader study of popular music would be interdisciplinary . It integrates methodologies from an arts and humanities discipline (music) and a social sciences discipline (economics) and would be assessed by Interdisciplinary Panel.

• However, projects where the researcher reviews economic literature on popular music, but does not use methods of economic analysis as part of their original contribution, would not meet this definition. A project that explores Ghanaian literary culture of the 1990s, and in doing so draws on historical political material such as newspapers, is not interdisciplinary for the purposes of NBCDTP assessment. The data are often considered by different subjects, but the methods belong to a single discipline. The project outcomes could be achieved within a single subject area.

In All Cases:

• If a nominee indicates that, Yes, they wish their nomination to be considered by the interdisciplinary panel, a reason must be provided in the space provided on the Nomination Form. If no reason is provided, the nomination will be treated as a single-subject proposal and not as interdisciplinary.

• Creative output can be produced, or practice undertaken, as an integral part of a research process as defined above [under Section 5: Research Proposal and Case for Support]. The Council would expect, however, this practice to be accompanied by some form of documentation of the research process, as well as some form of textual analysis or explanation to support its position and as a record of your critical reflection. Equally, creativity or practice may involve no such process at all, in which case it would be ineligible for funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council.

Source:

https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/AHRC-230821-ResearchFundingGuideV5.5-2021.pdf

• Section 6: Sample of Practice-based Outputs

Applicants nominated in Creative Practice-based areas only are required to supply a URL to a portfolio of outputs which may be accessed by assessors for contextual information only; this will not form part of the formal assessment documentation. The portfolio is not an extra quality check but rather allows nominees to demonstrate how their creative work represents an appropriate methodology for addressing their research questions and their preparedness for doctoral study.

• It is vital that nominees articulate the methodological value of creative practice.

It is expected that:

• The nominee identifies and approaches a suitable non-HE partner organisation as well as a potential supervisor at the host institution in order to develop their own proposed project;

• Responsibility for supervision and training is shared between the non-HE partner organisation and the host institution;

• The project is set up so that it generates benefits for the non-HE partner organisation as well as producing the outputs required for the award of a PhD;

• The student normally spends a substantial portion of the period of doctoral study at the non-HE partner organisation.

It is essential that conversations between prospective nominees, the partner organisation and the university supervisors begin at the earliest opportunity.

In developing their application, the nominee should consider the following:

• Intrinsic Benefits: how will the research field produce insights and knowledge that will help the partner organisation achieve its objectives?

• Process Benefits: how will the partner organisation benefit from the process of the nominee’s undertaking of the research project, informally or through the completion of specific tasks (e.g. cataloguing of collections, knowledge exchange with staff)?

• Public Engagement Benefits: what kind of research outcomes will generate ‘content’ for the partner organisation to use in their public engagement work (e.g. material for an exhibition)?

Completed by the Nominee’s School or Department

Section 8: Supervision (and Cross-institutional Supervision)

• Please include:

1. Details of the supervisors’ track record of postgraduate (PhD) student supervision;
2. Relevant publications;
3. Any involvement in postgraduate training;
4. Relevant web-links to staff profiles and publications.  

• Cross-institutional supervision is permitted but is not a requirement and does not affect eligibility. Nominees whose supervision is based at solely at their host institution will not be penalised for that reason.

• The composition of the proposed supervisory team must comply with the host institution’s Code of Practice for Postgraduate Research Students (or equivalent). Where a successful candidate is supported by a supervisory team that crosses institutional boundaries, the main and second supervisors must be at the host institution, with the third advisor from another institution. In certain, exceptional, cases it may be appropriate for there to be a fourth advisor from another institution as well.

• Additional supervisors may be appointed from an NBCDTP partner institution, or any other HE or non-HE organisation, if appropriate to the research proposal and if permitted by the host institution.

• There is no financial remuneration for external supervisors and advisors via the NBCDTP. A financial arrangement, if any, will be at discretion of the host institution, and cannot by any means be funded by the NBCDTP.

Section 9: Training and Development

• Funding for research and training activities from the NBCDTP is limited. Supervisors must confirm that any supplementary costs involved in undertaking fundamental research or in meeting the nominee’s training needs are realistic and justified, and explain how these costs will be met in full, if not by the NBCDTP. No funding (additional to fees and stipend) is guaranteed and award-holders do not have a personal allowance to draw on for primary research costs. Significant costs stated as necessary to the research, for which funding is not guaranteed, may influence the assessors’ view of the feasibility of the project.

Section 10: Research Environment

• Explain how the nominee will be integrated into the research environment in their subject area. Include details of how the research strengths of the subject in the school/department, interdisciplinary research groups, clusters, Centres, and Institutes, specialised facilities/resources, and external  partnerships, are relevant to or will contribute to the completion of the nominee’s research project.

• For Student-led Collaborative Doctoral Award nominees also outline the contribution of the collaboration and the value added to the nominee’s research project, including the arrangements for support of the nominee by the partner and any previous experience of collaboration with the partner. Include details of how the nominee will be integrated into the culture of the partner organisation, and the specialised facilities/resources they will benefit from.

• Applicants are responsible for contacting their referees at the earliest opportunity.

• Two references are required. Additional references will not be accepted and will be removed from the nomination.

• Applicants must ensure their referees are available to provide references during the application and selection period, and particularly from Wednesday 12 January 2022 to Tuesday 15 February 2022 when schools and departments will be collating nominations.

• Referees should be encouraged to address the following:

1. Details about how long they have known the applicant and in what capacity
2. Comments on the applicant’s academic performance to date or on their performance in any post or position of responsibility;
3. Comments on the applicant’s predicted Master’s result (if appropriate), including information on individual modules where relevant to the subject of the research proposal;
4. The applicant’s preparedness for doctoral research, in terms research skills and experience, and the likelihood of timely completion of the project.
5. Any special circumstances and contextual factors should also be highlighted.

• If an applicant is returning to Higher Education after a period of professional practice or similar and is not able to draw on academic referees, please ensure that the chosen referees are able to comment on their preparedness for doctoral study.

• Applicants are strongly urged to identify referees who are independent of their proposed supervisory team, unless the applicant is already registered on the PhD programme. Prospective supervisors may provide a reference, but risk disadvantaging a candidate as this may be perceived by assessors as a conflict of interest.

• Applicants are responsible for identifying the member of Professional Services Staff or member of staff (which may be their supervisor, Subject Area Lead or local Northern Bridge Administrator) who has responsibility for the administration of the NBCDTP competition at their host institution, and to make themselves aware of the deadline for the receipt of references.

• Referees should be directed to send their references to the member(s) of staff identified above. References should not be sent to the applicant.

• Schools and departments can set their own internal deadlines for the completion of the Nomination Form and the receipt of references, (and other required documentation such as transcripts). This deadline is likely to be earlier than Tuesday 15 February 2022 and applicants must make themselves aware of it and allow referees plenty of advanced notice.

• Referees may also be contacted by the host institution’s Postgraduate Admissions Service and asked to provide separate references. At some partner institutions, this is a required part of the postgraduate admissions process, necessary to be considered for a place on the PhD programme, and independent of the NBCDTP Studentship Competition.

Lost/Unavailable Transcripts

• Each year we receive queries from applicants returning to Higher Education after a lengthy period of time, and concerned about the following:

1. They have proof of their qualifications but no transcripts.
2. They no longer have proof of their qualifications or transcripts.
3. The degree-awarding institution has since closed or has stated a substantial period of time before proof of qualifications or transcripts can be produced.

• In such instances, for the purposes of the Nomination Form, the NBCDTP will accept evidence of the award of the degree only, and/or an appended explanation as to why transcripts or evidence of qualifications is not available.

• In such instances, the choice of referee and the content of the reference is vital. Either a referee should be able to speak to the applicant’s past academic performance, or be clear on the applicant’s preparedness for doctoral research in terms their research skills and experience.

• Please note, however, that local Postgraduate Admissions Services may have different requirements and applicants without the necessary evidence must contact the Service at their local institution for further guidance.

Students Currently Taking a Master’s Degree

• A provisional transcript is required that indicates marks attained to-date.

• Again, if this is not available, consider carefully the choice of referee and the content of the reference, which should address the applicant’s past academic performance, or be clear on the applicant’s preparedness for doctoral research.

Where the Transcripts are in a Language other than English

• English translations of the transcripts and evidence of previous qualifications must be provided.

• Schools or departments are responsible for submitting the complete Nomination Form to: northernbridge.admin@newcastle.ac.uk by 16:00 on Tuesday 15 February 2022.

• The local NBCDTP administrator (listed below) should be copied into the submission.

• Please attach a completed Equal Opportunities Monitoring Form. This will be separated from the Nomination Form before the nomination is circulated for review. Subject area panel reviewers will not view the Equal Opportunities Monitoring Form.

• The NBCDTP is required to submit anonymised statistics to the AHRC on EDI characteristics for all nominees and those who are successful. The NBCDTP administrator at Newcastle University will be able to identify who the Equal Opportunities Monitoring Form belongs to, solely for the purposes of being able to make this distinction. All information reported to the AHRC and to the Studentships Committee will be anonymised.

• Incomplete nominations will not be considered under any circumstances.

• Amended or missing attachments (e.g., ‘updated’ proposals or references) received after the deadline will not be accepted.

• Full nominations received after the deadline will not be considered under any circumstances.

• The full nomination should be submitted as one complete PDF in the order below and named according to the following convention:

NomineeSurname+Initial_SubjectArea_Institution, e.g. SmithJ_Linguistics_QUB.

And in the following order:

Local NBCDTP Administrator Contact Details

• Schools and departments select their strongest applicants to proceed to the nomination stage of the Open Competition.[1] Those nominees will then complete and collate the Nomination Form with the support of their supervisory and professional services team.

• Schools and departments convee their own internal subject-area Scrutiny or Selection Panels. NBCDTP encourage schools and departments to do so in line with EDI best practice.

• Schools and departments are encouraged to use the NBCDTP Marking Scheme and Assessment Criteria when selecting their nominees.

• Schools and departments are asked to maintain a record of decisions, including reasons for the selection or rejection of applicants. This information is not required by the NBCDTP but recommended in the event of a Freedom of Information request.

• Schools and departments are responsible for notifying all applicants who have indicated a wish to be considered for nomination whether they have been successful or not.

• NBCDTP academic directors and administrators are not responsible for the selection of nominees at school or department-level and take no part in this process. They cannot advise applicants whether they have been selected to go through to the nomination stage.

• Schools and departments can set their own internal deadlines for the completion of all parts of the Nomination Form and the receipt of references and other required documentation such as transcripts. This deadline is likely to be earlier than Tuesday 15 February 2022 and applicants must make themselves aware of it.

Composition of the Subject Area Review Panel

• Subject Area Review Panels should normally be comprised of three subject area specialists from the Subject Area Lead’s own institution, including the Subject Area Lead. The NBCDTP understands that local institutional and disciplinary contexts may necessitate some variation.

We ask that Subject Area Review Panels consider the following:

• Panels should take into account EDI in their composition;
• Panels should include a mixture of early and later career stage academics;
• Individual assessors must ensure they have no conflict of interest with individual applications; if they have, they must refrain from being part of the assessment of those applications;
• If assessing a Creative Practice application, the panel must contain at least one Creative Practitioner.

• Subject Area Leads are asked to notify northernbridge.admin@newcastle.ac.uk of their panel members by 31 January 2022.

The Responsibilities of the Panel

• In agreeing to participate as a Subject Area Review Panel member, academic colleagues are confirming that they will be available to review nominations over the period Thursday 17 February to Monday 14 March 2022, and committed to submitting a complete set of marks and comments no later than 16:00 on Monday 14 March 2022.

• Full nominations (minus the Equal Opportunities Monitoring Form) will be made available to every member of the relevant Subject Area Panel on Thursday 17 February 2022.

• Each subject area panel will also receive an Excel spreadsheet listing all nominees they are required to assess against a grid for recording marks and comments.

• We request that panels use the Excel spreadsheet provided to aid the accurate transfer of marks and comments to the NBCDTP record of overall results.

• Subject area panels are expected to assess and provide marks and comments for all nominees in their subject area at every partner institution ( i.e. all of those listed on the Excel spreadsheet) and not just those nominees at the Panel’s home institution.[2]

• Marks and comments should be jointly agreed by all members of the panel before the completed Excel spreadsheet is returned to the NBCDTP.

• That is, the NBCDTP should receive an agreed set of marks per nominee, per Subject Area Panel, per institution. NBCDTP will calculate a final mark for each nominee based on an average of all marks received.

• Subject Area Review Panels in one institution are not required to liaise with their counterparts in our partner institutions. However, in the 2021/2022 we will be piloting cross-institutional assessment in one subject area and in our Interdisciplinary Panel.

Access to Nominations for Subject Area Panel Reviewers

• Access will be via OneDrive (SharePoint).

• All Subject Area Leads and Panel members will be invited to a shared space on Microsoft OneDrive, in advance of nominations being made in available.

The Assessment of Interdisciplinary Nominations (see also ‘Information for Interdisciplinary Applicants’ guidance notes above)

• Eligible nominations will be assessed by a specially convened Interdisciplinary Panel with the relevant expertise (subject area, interdisciplinary studies, creative practice and collaborative projects). The interdisciplinary panel may determine that a nomination is most appropriately reviewed as a single-area nomination rather than an interdisciplinary nomination, and routed to that panel for assessment.

The Assessment of Creative Practice Nominations (see also ‘Information for Creative Practice Applicants’ guidance notes above)

• Subject area review panels considering nominations in Creative Practice should consult the portfolios for information. However, assessment must be based on and justified with reference to the case presented in the Nomination Form, transcripts and references.

Subject Area Coverage

• Each nomination must be evaluated by a minimum of four subject area panels across the NBCDTP. It may therefore be necessary for the academic directors and NBCDTP administrators to approach members of staff in their institution to ask them to convene a panel in a subject area not normally represented by that institution. 

• Particular consideration will be given to the above nominations – those assessed by a panel in a subject area not normally represented by that institution – at the Moderation Sub-committee.

What Happens When Marks and Comments are Returned to the NBCDTP

• Subject Area Review Panel marks are aggregated and used to produce an initial ranked list of nominations.

• The ranking, scores and comments are considered by the Moderation Sub-Committee to ensure consistency, and to confirm a final ranked list of all nominations for consideration by the Studentships Committee. In exceptional circumstances, the Moderation Sub-committee may seek external advice if they judge it appropriate to do so. 

• The Studentships Committee comprises the NBCDTP academic directors, interdisciplinary, collaborative, and creative practice representatives, and an external academic representative from each of the AHRC’s three disciplinary clusters. The Studentship Committee will confirm the final rankings from which the awards will be made and identify a list of candidates to be placed on a reserve list.

• The outcome of the Studentship Competition will be communicated to nominees from Monday 4 April 2022 (subject to individual institutional processes)by the relevant school or department in the nominee’s host institution. 

Should a successful nominees decline an award, the next highest-ranked nominee on the reserve list will be made an offer of an award, regardless of the host institution of the original recipient.

Please note: Subject Area Review Panels should be aware of, and sympathetic to, the fact that applicants will come from a diverse range of backgrounds, including those with experience in practice or industry. NBCDTP is fully committed to Widening Participation (WP) and Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI), and is actively supporting, though its positive action initiatives, the diversification of its staff and student cohort. It asks Panels to be mindful of issues surrounding WP and EDI when Part 1 of the Nomination Form. We also ask panels to be open-minded about different research approaches and perspectives within a given subject areas and that each nomination is assessed on its own academic merits. Finally, we would also ask individual assessors to ensure they have no conflict of interest with nominations and, if they do have such conflicts, to refrain from being part of the assessment of those individual nominations.

General Guidance on the Evaluation of Nominations

• Consider the full Nomination Form and the supporting documentation.

• Scores should be explained in (and be consistent with) your comments, which should be sufficiently extensive for the Moderation and Studentships committees to understand how the score was arrived at.

• A common issue that might disadvantage a nominee is a Subject Area Review Panel’s failing to justify a set of particularly high (or low) marks in their comments.

• Comments must address all four areas of the Nomination Form: Applicant, Research Proposal, Supervision, and Training and Development. Please ensure that your comments match the grade descriptors for the mark you award, and that you make reference to each of these four areas in your comments.

• Please bear in mind that while formal academic qualifications are important indicators of academic achievement and potential, comparable consideration should be made to nominees with less conventional academic profiles, for example, mature nominees with significant and distinguished careers in creative arts or other professional practice.

References Provided by Prospective Supervisors

• The guidance above states:

“Applicants are strongly urged to identify referees who are independent of their proposed supervisory team, unless the applicant is already registered on the PhD programme. Prospective supervisors may provide a reference, but risk disadvantaging a candidate as this may be perceived by assessors as a conflict of interest.”

Please be aware that for some students, the potential supervisor is the best or only viable referee, and in such cases the judgement of the referee should be respected in line with the assumption of academic integrity underpinning the NBCDTP evaluation process.                                                                       

Nominations to the NBCDTP Studentship Competition will be assessed strictly according to the following criteria:

• The quality of the nominee, including their past academic and/or professional performance and experience, likely future performance, and their preparedness for doctoral study in terms of relevant research skills and experience.

• The quality of the research proposal, including the clarity and cogency of the research questions, awareness of relevant research in the field, the sources to be used, and the appropriateness of the proposed approach/methodology.

• The coherence, importance and viability of the proposed research, and in particular the feasibility of completion within 42 months (or 84 months part-time).

• The fit of the supervisory team, including supervisors’ subject expertise in relation to the proposed research; ability to develop nominee’s skills and professional competence; past success in supervising doctoral students; and any involvement in postgraduate training. In identifying supervisory teams, nominees and supervisors should consider the full spectrum of expertise available across the NBCDTP.[1]

• The degree to which the Nomination Form provides a detailed account of how the specific training and development needs of the nominee will be met.

• The quality of the research environment across the NBCDTP, in terms of school/ departmental research strengths, interdisciplinary research groups, clusters, centres, institutes, and external partnerships, as well as the ways in which the nominee will be integrated into this environment.

In addition to the above, Collaborative Doctoral Award nominations will be assessed according to the following criteria:

• The contribution the project will make to the operations of the partner organisation.

• The fit of the supervisors from the partner organisation.

• The account of the quality of skills development opportunities offered by the partner organisation, and how they will meet the specific training and development needs of the nominee.

• The quality of the research environment, in terms of research priorities, facilities and resources at the partner organisation.

The criteria to be used to evaluate nominations are indicated below.

Subject Area Review Panels are kindly asked to grade and comment on four aspects of the nomination:      

• Applicant (16);
• Research Proposal (32);
• Supervision (12);
• Training and Development and Research Environment (12);

Giving an aggregate score out of 72.

Nominations that score below 50% of the mark in any area will automatically be considered ineligible for funding.

Applicant

In assessing the suitability of the applicant for an NBCDTP doctoral award, assessors should consider the following:  

• Do the applicant’s skills and qualifications or work experience (particularly for applicants with non-standard academic trajectories) demonstrate their outstanding potential and preparedness for the proposed doctoral research?

• Do referees focus on the particular abilities of the applicant that make them suitable for postgraduate research, and do they support the applicant unreservedly? Do referees describe any special circumstances or contextual factors of the applicant that should be taken into account? A weak reference is one that indicates significant problems, omits to address key issues, or offers ‘stock’ or general replies with little detail, for example, on previous marks.

Research Proposal

In assessing the quality of the research proposal, assessors should consider the following:

• Research question: Are the research question(s) or problem(s) clearly defined? How important is it that these questions should be addressed? How timely are they?

• Research context: What other research is being, or has been, conducted in this area? What particular contribution will this project make to the advancement of knowledge and understanding in the field? Has the applicant placed their proposal in an appropriate context, giving due consideration to other work in the field?

• Research methods: How, during the PhD, will the applicant seek to answer the questions or address the problems?  Is there an adequate rationale for their chosen research methods? Do the research methods provide an appropriate means by which to answer the research question(s)? Is the research likely to raise ethical or safety issues and, if so, are these addressed in the proposal?

• Practical viability: Does the applicant provide evidence that the project can be feasibly completed within up to three and a half years of full-time funded study or up to seven years of part-time funded study? Have the costs and resource implications of undertaking the fundamental research been adequately considered?

Supervision

This section of the Nomination Form should comment on the suitability of the supervisory team, noting the supervisors’ previous track record of successful supervision and any involvement in postgraduate training. Research expertise and publications that are relevant to the applicant’s project can be included, however it is not advisable to concentrate on the supervisors’ research excellence to the detriment of demonstrating the excellence of the fit between supervisor and research project. When considering the supervisory team, and training and development requirements, schools/departments may look beyond their own institution in order to identify possibilities for cross-consortium supervision. There is no requirement to do so, however, and nominees will not be penalised either way.

A strong application will be one in which the supervisors have expertise in an area closely related to the applicant’s proposal and where, in the case of Collaborative Doctoral Awards, there is clear evidence that the student will be strongly supported by the partner organisation. A strong application will also have considered the opportunities available across the NBCDTP, and built these into the nomination where they add value. In a weak application, the supervisor will not be expert in the area.

Wherever possible, Subject Area Review Panels are asked to take into consideration that the NBCDTP seeks to support research at all partner institutions. As part of that aim, it actively values the distinct research environments of each partner institution and, moreover, seeks to support the building of capacity across the partner institutions, including supporting the development of early career supervisors and others who have not had the opportunity to supervise large numbers of PhD students.

The Descriptors below also include criteria pertinent to Student-led Collaborative Doctoral Awards (in italics).

Training and Research Environment

The nomination should address the ways in which the research strengths of the school/department, as well as any interdisciplinary research groups, clusters, centres, and institutes, specialised facilities/resources, and external partnerships are relevant to the applicant's research project. It should also specify how the applicant will be integrated into this environment.  This section of the Nomination Form should also identify any skills training and professional development needed for the successful completion of the research project. This should be specific to the applicant and their project; please do not include general statements about the generic skills training available within the NBCDTP. When considering training and development requirements, schools/departments are advised to look beyond their own institution in order to identify possibilities for research group participation and training opportunities, including those provided by external organisations.

A strong application will be where: the applicant will be well integrated into the school/department and/or appropriate interdisciplinary structures, and, in the case of collaborative doctoral awards, into the research culture of the partner organisation; facilities or resources are available to support the applicant’s research; and the applicant’s training needs have been fully considered, along with a clear sense of how these will be met. A strong application will also have considered the opportunities available across the NBCDTP and built these into the nomination where appropriate. In a weak application, the school/department or partner organisation will not be a suitable host for the proposed research and/or there will be no interdisciplinary structures to provide a supportive research environment. A weaker application may be characterised by limited consideration of the training needs of the applicant, which may constrain their ability to conduct the research. A weaker application may also lack awareness of the relevant research environment, resources, and training opportunities elsewhere in the NBCDTP.

Once again, Subject Area Review Panels are asked to take into consideration that the NBCDTP seeks to support research at all partner institutions. As part of that aim, it actively values the distinct research environments of each partner institution. Research environments vary for many reasons (including their capacity to attract self-funded PhD students). We ask reviewers to recognise that size alone is not necessarily a good indicator of quality. A relatively small department with a cluster of researchers highly appropriate to the project may be a better environment than a much larger department that lacks a close connection to the applicant’s work.

The Descriptors below also includes criteria pertinent to Collaborative Doctoral Awards (Student-led) in italics:

Guidance for Subject Area Review Panel Comments

Subject Area Review Panels are reminded that comments must address all four areas of the Nomination Form: Applicant, Research Proposal, Supervision, and Training and Development. Please ensure that your comments match the grade descriptors for the mark you award, and that you make reference to each of these four areas in your comments.

We provide here examples of good practice of Subject Area Review Panel comments. These have been anonymised, but are otherwise taken verbatim from Subject Panel review comments. Please note that different scoring systems were used in previous years of the competition (12 for applicant and proposal, 6 for supervisor and environment; we have since shifted to a 16, 32, 12, 12 format).

Sample Comments

Applicant 12: Outstanding achievement with 82 average in final year UG at University of xxx (79% overall) and current average of 77% in MA; second BA graduate in literary studies at University of xxx 2013 and currently top-performing in MA literary studies cohort at xxx University. Proposal 11: Outstanding: proposal identifies a new and potentially very valuable direction in 20thc xxx studies. The combination of formal literary and historico-political approaches is challenging and ambitious, but the outline shows a clear grasp of what’s at stake based on project’s strong foundations. Supervisory Fit 6: Cross-School supervision for this project with experienced and research active supervisors. Training & Environment 6: Outstanding environment and training needs excellently addressed.

Applicant 11: An outstanding candidate with a 2:1 (Hons) in XX as well as a truly unique skillset. The extensive and highly relevant work and research experience go well above and beyond what is required to make up for the lack of a Masters degree. In particular, the candidate has 26 years’ experience in XX Museum, supported by a solid reference, as well as high level commissions and academic research-related contributions, including a ‘Critically Endangered’ award. Overall the candidate demonstrates an excellent capacity and access to the resources to provide lasting impact from this research. Proposal 12: The proposal is unique, specific, and based on outstanding practical experience. The candidate's passion for this research area is made clear throughout the proposal as well as in the provided reference. The research questions are clear and an important part of XX’s heritage, being all the more important as this is currently critically endangered and may be lost if this work is not carried out. Supervisory Fit 6: The supervisory team is a fantastic fit and includes a mix of career stages and experiences in supervision. Training & Environment 6: The chosen university is a perfect fit to this project, as regionally this topic has a particular relevance and the research expertise resides in X university.

Applicant 10: A strong candidate with some very high marks, but really let down by one exceptionally short reference (4 lines!). Proposal 9: Archival research is not a methodology. An interesting idea for a proposal but not as well organised or conveyed as some others; there's limited sense of the broader significance of the topic, and the comparative aspect could have been explained more. Supervisory Fit 4: Supervisory statement is quite broad and the supervisors' expertise has not been related particularly closely to the specific topics to be explored in the proposal. Training & Environment 4: Limited analysis of training needs though good to see that there is consideration of museum and curatorial skills. Good research environment statement.