Guidance for Pathway Representatives regarding the ESRC Studentship Process 2017

Please note that this guidance note should not be read in isolation. It is being issued by the SGSSS-DTP in parallel to guidance on the content of Supervisor’s Statements of Support, References, and a guidance note for students applying for an ESRC studentship. We also ask that you share this guidance with all prospective supervisors, in particular stressing that their role should be as support not lead in the development of an applicant's research proposal. A number of aspects have changed from last year so please read this guidance carefully.

1. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this guidance document is to explain, as clearly as possible, the process through which ESRC studentships will be awarded in 2017. This guidance document pertains to three studentship competitions:

1. The Open Competition2. The Advanced Quantitative Methods (AQM) Competition3. The use of ESRC data-set (ESRC-DS) Competition

Please note that the Collaborative Competition and the Skills Development Scotland Competition have separate guidance, contained in separate documents.

Please also note that the process detailed below is entirely separate from the admissions process at your University. The SGSSS-DTP has no role in that process . Applicants do not need to have been formally admitted in order to be considered for an ESRC studentship. However, should an applicant be successful in securing an ESRC studentship, the funding is, of course, subject to the applicant obtaining an unconditional offer for entry to the university.

This guidance document should be read alongside the SGSSS-DTP guidance for students applying for an ESRC studentship .

2. THE PROCESS

This section details the process for Pathways. The Guidance for Students details specifically what materials and documents are required to apply for a studentship. Pathway Representatives should familiarise themselves will this guidance and direct students to it.

1

1. SGSSS-DTP recognises that the internal process of selecting applicants to put forward for ESRC studentships will vary across Universities. Please note that each pathway

representative can put forward up to 6 candidates1 unless otherwise agreed within the pathway. SGSSS-DTP recognises that some smaller pathways have set smaller numbers: in such cases this should be determined by the pathway before each competition.

2. Once you have decided which applicants to put forward for ESRC awards, you, as pathway representative, are required to email a list of those students and their email addresses to the SGSSS no later than 9 February. Representatives may then release the portal link to their students to begin registration. Pathway Representatives to inform students no later than Friday 10 February that they are being put forward.

Students must complete their registration between Friday 10 and Monday 13 February. The final deadline by which applicants must have completed their registration is 23:59 Monday 13 February.

3. Students will be required to enter the name of their prospective supervisor during registration. Please ensure applicants have identified and contacted a prospective supervisor BEFORE they register to apply.

4. All student registrations will be approved or rejected by the SGSSS office based on the list provided by each Representative. The names of all student registrants with an unconfirmed application status will be forwarded by the SGSSS to their prospective pathway representatives for confirmation prior to their applications acceptance or rejection.

2

5. At this point two processes will proceed in parallel as per below.1

Please note this is a maximum number and the SGSSS-DTP would urge pathway representatives to put forward only the best applicants. We also encourage you to make it explicit to EU-resident candidates that they are eligible to receive their fees only, as we have found that many had not realized this until they were offered the studentship: a number subsequently withdrew. (This does not apply to Economics students.)2 The SGSSS-DTP recognises that pathways will vary in their practices at this stage. However, Annex A contains best practice guidance and this should be consulted before Pathway Convenors establish the process by which the pathway itself will assess and rank applications.

3

Applicants PathwaysRegistered applicants will upload their application documents to the SGSSS-DTP Studentship Application Portal. These documents are: Curriculum Vitae, Research Proposal, Degree transcripts, and Supervisor’s Supporting Statement. Applicants wishing to be considered for

Pathway Conveners should organise the process by which the pathway will rank

applicants.2 This should be done according to the criteria of 25 points (see Annex B).To confirm the AQM a n d E S R C - D S process for this year:

an AQM additional stipend should also complete the relevant form detailing the nature of their proposed AQM work.

Fuller details on this process are given in the SGSSS-DTP Guidance for Students Applying for an ESRC Studentship.

Complete applications and references must be submitted by 23:59 Friday 17 February 2017.

Candidates who have indicated an AQM or ESRC-DS component in their application can be included by pathways among the applicants assessed for Open Studentships. There is no limit on the number of AQM or ESRC-DS applications that a pathway can put forward for consideration by the dedicated committee. Should any AQM or ESRC-DS applicant be successful, they will be withdrawn from further consideration in the Open Competition. Please note that applications in Economics are not eligible for AQM awards but they are eligible for ESRC-DS awards.

By 23:59 Friday 1 7 February 2017 all applicants put forward by Pathway Representatives should have submitted full applications to the SGSSS-DTP Studentship Application Portal. Applicants will submit referee contact details at the registration stage. The SGSSS-DTP will be responsible for ensuring references are received and attached to the relevant applications by 17 February.

Pathway Representatives will be issued, by 24 February, with login details for the Studentship Application Portal so that they can access applicant documents ahead of the assessment and ranking process. Please note: Applications are available to download as zip files from the portal, this may not be compatible with tablets or phones.

1. Pathways will meet to assess and rank applications.3 We expect pathways to be clear on ranking of candidates with a maximum of 10 applications per pathway forwarded to SGSSS- DTP Open Competition reviewers for cross-pathway review and subsequent allocation of the Open Studentships. A list of candidates will be available on the portal for the Pathway Convenor to enter in their ranking information, scores, and comments. Rankings need to be uploaded into the portal no later than 9 March 2017. Please note, Pathways will be required to allocate a unique rank to each application.

2. Each Pathway Convenor must input the following information to the portal by 9 March 2017:

Ranks, scores, award details, and comments for all applications for their pathway. Where two or more applicants have been ranked equally, pathway convenors, in consultation with pathway reps must decide on a merit-based ordering of applicants.

Please specify in the comments section for each student whether their application is to be put forward for the Open Competition, the AQM Competition, the ESRC - DS competition, or unsuccessful).

3 SGSSS-DTP has issued a marking framework in which three criteria are assessed on a 1-10 or a 1-5 scale. Thus all applicants should receive a score out of 25. The marking framework is attached in Annex B.

4

Pathways are requested to provide a brief (<100 words) summary in support of each application shortlisted for consideration in t h e Open Competition. The summaries will be used to guide the cross-pathway reviewers and panel members on the significance of the application from a subject specific point of view. These write ups can also be entered into the comments section for each student.

Pathway Convenors are also asked to email a detailed outline of the process that was followed by the pathway to assess and rank applications to studentships@socsciscotland.ac.uk.4 This should identify any applicants who, for whatever reason, were deemed inappropriate by the pathway to hold an ESRC studentship.

8. The SGSSS-DTP Portal will keep applicants informed about their position i.e. ranking. PLEASE NOTE: if an applicant has been deemed unsuccessful for the Open Competitions at this stage (i.e., is not in the top ranked list in the Pathway), they will be directed to contact their pathway representative should they wish to request feedback.

9. The SGSSS-DTP will run the Open Competition. This will include obtaining further cross-pathway referees’ assessments, ranking and scores for consideration by the Open Competition boards5

10. On or before the 25th April 2017 the SGSSS-DTP will give the Supervisory Board details of all proposed studentships to be awarded through the Open Competition.

11. The Supervisory Board will meet and ratify these studentships in late April. The SGSSS-DTP will inform all successful applicants that they are being offered ESRC studentships and also unsuccessful applicants (including those who will be on a small reserve list) by 15

May 2017.6

4 Please refer to Annex A for best practice guidance.5 Depending on the total number of applicants submitted by pathways the SGSSS-DTP may apply a quality threshold to reduce the number of considered applications to a manageable size.6 The entire process is laid out in Annex C in table form.

5

ELIGIBILITY AND ENHANCED STIPENDS

SGSSS reminds pathways that the residency criteria must be met in order for a student to receive the full studentship including stipend.7

The only exception to this is in the Economics pathway. If uncertain as to whether a student meets the criteria, please contact SGSSS before proceeding.

Enhanced stipends will be paid to students successful in the AQM Competition and u p t o 3 Economics students successful in the Open Competition. Due to the additional financial commitment that this would require, Economics students funded through competitions (i.e., Collaborative, ESRC DS etc.) will not receive this additional funding.

Students applying for a +3 studentship must meet the minimum ESRC training requirements. If a student does not meet these requirements but the pathway still wishes to consider him/her they may choose to appoint on a 1+3 basis.Students eligible for a 1+3 award, wishing to study in institutions without an ESRC accredited Master’s program, may choose to complete their Masters in another accredited institution (within SGSSS-DTC) before completing their PhD program at their chosen institution.

3. CROSS-INSTITUTIONAL SUPERVISION

The SGSSS-DTP wishes to encourage pathways, supervisors and applicants to consider supervisory arrangements across the 16 institutions of the SGSSS, if appropriate to the particular student project and with the support of both proposed supervisors. This will usually be within pathways but across institutions, but we do not wish to rule out cross- pathway supervision if this is clearly in the interests of the student project. We therefore ask Pathway Representatives to let students know that while their main supervisor must be at a recognised SGSSS-DTP pathway institution a second supervisor may be attached to the project from a second institution either with or without pathway recognition. In such cases we ask the Pathway Representative to inform the SGSSS-Admin Team before 17 February 2017 so that the Directorate can follow up with the applicant, proposed supervisors and HEI institutional representatives on the Supervisory Board to ensure that a cross-institutional arrangement is supported and able to be well-managed by all involved. These applicants must gain a supervisor letter of support from both supervisors which should refer to the explicit benefit of the proposed cross-institutional arrangements.

We are aware that some research proposals will be situated on the edge of social science and other disciplines and are thus planning to liaise with other Doctoral Training Units. While we welcome such applications they should be appropriately tailored for each Graduate School with the linkages between disciplines made clear. Students should indicate if they are applying to other Doctoral Training Units when registering their application.

7 These criteria are available here: http://www.esrc.ac.uk/files/skills-and-careers/studentships/postgraduate-funding-guide/

6

Annex A:Best Practice for Assessment and Selection and New Marking Scheme

Applicants for ESRC studentships with the SGSSS-DTP are required to submit a standard set of application materials as follows:

Abstract of proposed research project; Curriculum Vitae; Research Proposal (applicants must download the template from the SGSSS- DTP

website, complete their proposal and save/upload it as PDF); Degree transcripts (and translated, if not originally in English) – provisional

transcripts are sufficient if the applicant has yet to complete his/her degree; Supporting statement from the prospective supervisor – please note that it is

possible for the proposed supervisor to also be one of the referees. However the supervisor statement must be a separate document from the reference letter. If a cross-institutional supervision arrangement is being proposed then a letter from EACH proposed supervisor is required.

Details of two academic referees; Details of any overseas fieldwork and difficult language training the applicant

proposes to undertake during his/her research; and Details of any collaboration the applicant proposes to undertake during his/her

research.

When pathways assess and rank applicants for nomination for ESRC Open Competition the SGSSS-DTP asks that at least one of the following three mechanisms be used:

1. Pathway representatives rank candidates from other Universities – for example in Politics & IR, St Andrews and Glasgow assess and rank Edinburgh candidates, Edinburgh and St Andrews assess and rank Glasgow, and Glasgow and Edinburgh assess and rank St Andrews, as a basic minimum standard. Where possible , each applicant should be assessed by at least 2 pathway representatives from 2 different Universities.

2. An external assessor ranks applicants – pathways secure an external assessor who will manage the assessment and ranking process.

3. Pathways conduct interviews with applicants – there is a strong expectation that interviews would be conducted via Skype or other means of video-conferencing as SGSSS-DTP does not have the funds to reimburse applicants travelling for interview.

7

The following are not permitted:

1. Assessment of incomplete applications – all applications will run through the online SGSSS-DTP Studentship Application Portal, which does not allow for incomplete applications to be submitted. This is to ensure that all pathways are looking at a uniform set of documents.

2. Academics assessing/ranking applicants and/or voting on applicants from their

home institution.8 Please note this rule applies after pathway representatives have put forward applicants from their University.

8 SGSSS-DTP appreciates that this will cause a particular issue for single-institution pathways. However, the rule will be applied consistently and it is suggested that single-institution pathways use an alternative method of assessment, such as an external assessor or interviews in which external

8

academics sit on the panel.

9

Annex B:

SGSSS-DTP Open Award Marking Framework (2017-18)Assessment for +3 Awards (note: pathways must be convinced that the candidate has met the training requirements for their pathway)

Candidate Record (OUT OF 10) Research Proposal (OUT OF 10) Supervision & Training (OUT OF 5)

10 The equivalent of a first class degree AND/OR an already achieved distinction at Masters level OR strong and relevant professional experience.(All of the above must meet the ESRC training requirements.)

Two exceptional references in which student is identified as amongst very best ever taught.

An excellent proposal scoring well in terms of both cogency and originality. All components – overview, context, methodology, and impact – will be well thought out and clearly expressed.

As (9) but proposal is exceptionally good in all of its components.

9 As (8), but with one clearly exceptional reference in which student is identified as amongst best ever taught.

As (8) and proposal is highly original and innovative, at the cutting edge of developments substantively and methodologically.

8 Two very strong references in which student is singled out as amongst the best of a peer group or equivalent.

As (7) and proposal contains clear awareness of the potential impact of the research.

7 Two strong references in which student potential is communicated with clear examples.

A well-defined proposal with researchable questions, appropriately identified sources, an awareness of the theoretical and empirical background to the research and an appropriate methodology.

6 The equivalent of a 2:1 degree AND/OR an already achieved 60+ average at Masters level OR relevant professional experience.(All of the above must meet the ESRC training requirements.)

Both references offer glimpses of strong potential but with little substance and few examples.

A good and promising proposal but with identifiable weaknesses. Some, but not all, components of the proposal will be problematic, ill- expressed, or show a lack of knowledge.

A good proposal with only minor but still identifiable weaknesses. The research question will be clear, the methodology appropriate and clearly presented, and most of the appropriate literature identified.

5 Two minimally satisfactory references which make it clear student is capable of conducting research but little more.

A promising proposal that suffers from several weaknesses. The methodology is appropriate but ill-expressed. The proposal is only weakly grounded in relevant literature.

Supervision arrangements represent a near-perfect fit with the proposed research. The supervisory team includes an experienced supervisor with internationally-recognised expertise in the field.The supervision combination meets directly the student’s training needs. The destination HEI offers high-quality specialist training. The research fits well with the wider department/school/faculty.

8

4 A mixture of weak and satisfactory references which leave questions to student’s suitability to conduct research.

A proposal with one serious weakness or several minor ones, which suggests gaps in knowledge and a weak grasp of the proposed methodology and its suitability.

Supervision arrangements represent a very good fit with the proposed research. The lead supervisor is an experienced supervisor with a strong reputation for research in this field, and the combination of supervisors offers the student good training in the field. There is provision of advanced and specialist training and a broadly supportive research environment at the destination HEI.

3 Two weak references in which student potential is not communicated.

A proposal with significant weaknesses in multiple components, little appreciation of possible methodologies, and/or awareness of relevant literature.

Supervision arrangements represent a good fit with the proposed research. The lead supervisor will be an expert in the field and the combination of supervisors will offer good support to the student. The HEI offers good general support and advanced training for the student.

2 The equivalent of EITHER a 2:2 degree AND an already A problematic proposal that would need considerable additional Supervision arrangements are appropriate and theachieved pass at Masters level (average mark of 50) which work before being fundable. All components of the proposal will supervisor has experience in the precise area of thedoes not necessarily meet the ESRC training requirements require further work and/or demonstrate little or no background or proposed research. The supervisory team offers

1AND clear evidence of additional experience or trainingthat would bring the candidate up to the required level

interest in their subject. good general support and the HEI offers someadvanced training for the student.

DTP would be unlikely to consider applicants withacademic scores below these levels.

1 Supervision arrangements and support offered by the HEI meet the threshold for ESRC recognised training on this pathway. Note: supervision arrangements below this threshold do not meet the ESRC training requirements and students should not be offered DTP funding on this basis.

9

SGSSS-DTP Open Award Marking Framework (2017-18) Assessment for 1+3 AwardsCandidate Record (OUT OF 10) Research Proposal (OUT OF 10) Supervision & Training (OUT OF 5)

10 The achievement or expectation of a first class degree or equivalent AND/OR a master’s degree which does not meet the ESRC training requirements

Two exceptional references in which student is identified as amongst very best ever taught.

An excellent proposal scoring well in terms of both cogency and originality. All components – overview, context, methodology, and impact – will be well thought out and clearly expressed.

As (9) but proposal is exceptionally good in all of its components.

9 As (8), but with one clearly exceptional reference in which student is identified as amongst best ever taught.

As (8) and proposal is highly original and innovative, at the cutting edge of developments substantively and methodologically.

8 Two very strong references in which student is singled out as amongst the best of a peer group or equivalent.

As (7) and proposal contains clear awareness of the potential impact of the research.

7 Two strong references in which student potential is communicated with clear examples.

Taking into account the stage of career of the applicant, a well-defined proposal with researchable questions, appropriately identified sources, awareness of the theoretical and empirical background to the research and an appropriate methodology.

6 The equivalent of a 2:1 degree AND/OR an already achieved Masters which does not meet the ESRC training requirements

Both references offer glimpses of strong potential but with little substance and few examples.

A good and promising proposal but with identifiable weaknesses. Some, but not all, components of the proposal will be problematic, ill- expressed, or show a lack of knowledge.

Taking into account the career stage of the applicant, a good proposal with only minor but still identifiable weaknesses. The research question will be clear, the methodology appropriate and clearly presented, and most of the appropriate literature identified.

5 Two minimally satisfactory references which make it clear student is capable of conducting research but little more.

Taking into account the career stage of the applicant, a promising proposal that suffers from several weaknesses. The methodology is appropriate but ill- expressed. The proposal is only weakly grounded in relevant literature, or shows little or no awareness of the empirical and theoretical background to the project.

Supervision arrangements represent a near-perfect fit with the proposed research. The supervisory team includes an experienced supervisor with internationally-recognised expertise in the field.The supervision combination meets directly the student’s training needs. The destination HEI offers high-quality specialist training. The research fits well with the wider department/school/faculty.

10

4 A mixture of weak and satisfactory references which leave questions to student’s suitability to conduct research.

Taking into account the career stage of the applicant, a proposal with one serious weakness or several minor ones, which suggests gaps in knowledge and a weak grasp of the proposed methodology and its suitability.

Supervision arrangements represent a very good fit with the proposed research. The lead supervisor is an experienced supervisor with a strong reputation for research in this field, and the combination of supervisors offers the student good training in the field. There is provision of advanced and specialist training and a broadly supportive research environment at the destination HEI.

3 Two weak references in which student potential is not communicated.

A proposal with significant weaknesses in multiple components, little appreciation of possible methodologies, and/or awareness of relevant literature.

Supervision arrangements represent a good fit with the proposed research. The lead supervisor will be an expert in the field and the combination of supervisors will offer good support to the student. The HEI offers good general support and advanced training for the student.

2 The equivalent of EITHER a 2:2 degree AND an already A problematic proposal that would need considerable additional Supervision arrangements are appropriate and theachieved pass at Masters level (average mark of 50) which work before being fundable. All components of the proposal will supervisor has experience in the precise area of thedoes not necessarily meet the ESRC training requirements require further work and/or demonstrate little or no background or proposed research. The supervisory team offers

1 AND clear evidence of additional experience or training interest in their subject. good general support and the HEI offers somethat would bring the candidate up to the required level advanced training for the student.DTP would be unlikely to consider applicants withacademic scores below these levels.

1 Supervision arrangements and support offered by the HEI meet the threshold for ESRC recognised training on this pathway. Note: supervision arrangements below this threshold do not meet the ESRC training requirements and students should not be offered DTP funding on this basis.

11

Timeline for the 2017 Studentship CompetitionsDATE OPEN COMPETITION AQM AND ESRC-DS COMPETITIONS COLLABORATIVE &

Skills Development Scotland

COMPETITIONS

Dec 2016 Announce competitions Announce competitions

Mon 6 Feb Completed applications from academics submitted to SGSSS-DTP

by email.

Thursday 9 Feb List of students considered for the Awards emailed to SGSSS

Fri 10 Feb Pathway Representatives to inform students if they are put forward for Open Competition

Mon 13 Feb All students to be considered by Pathways must have registered for the Online Portal

by this date.

All students to be considered by Pathways must have registered for the Online Portal by

this date.

Friday 17 Feb All students being considered must have uploaded their documents to the online

portal by this date.

All students being considered must have uploaded their documents to the online

portal by this date. Students wishing to be considered for AQM or ESRC-DC should

complete the requisite form for submission along with their application.

12

Mon 20 Feb SGSSS Admin ‘clean up portal’; IT give access to pathways by 24 Feb

SGSSS Admin ‘clean up portal’; IT give access to pathways by 24 Feb

SGSSS-DTP announces results of competition.

Fri 24 Feb – Thurs 9 Mar

Pathways meet to assess and rank applications for Pathway Awards (those

with steer allocation only) and nomination to Open Competition, keeping a record of

procedures followed.

Pathways meet to assess and rank applications for nomination to Open

Competition, keeping a record of procedures followed.

SGSSS-DTP will place advertisement for Collaborative

Competition awards. SDS to liaisewith academics on recruitment

Thu 9 Mar Pathway decisions on ranking to be uploaded to SGSSS-DTP Portal by Pathway Convenor by this date together with the

record of procedures followed.

SGSSS-DTP Portal will communicate to students that did not meet the quality

threshold that they have been unsuccessful.

Successful AQM/ESRC-DS-focused students in the Pathway Competition are entered

into AQM and ESRC-DS Competitions.

The top ranked candidates as per pathway allocation together with their scores and

ranking are entered into Open Competition.

Mon 13 Mar Open Competition cross-pathway reviewersreceive applications. Reviewing of

AQM/ESRC-DS also considered this time.

Friday 24 Mar Open Competition cross-pathway assessors upload all graded applications to SGSSS-

DTP Portal by this date together with AQM/ESRC-DS allocations.

Tues 11 April AQM and ESRC-DS Panels meet

13

Wed 12 Apr Papers for Open Panel meetings out to Panel member

20 April and 21 April

Pathway Panel meetings to rank applications Open Studentships Allocation Board

Week of 24 April

Communication to students in Open, and AQM and ESRC-DS Competitions.

Supervisory Board receives for their formal approval details of all proposed studentships to be awarded across all competitions.

Week of 8 May

SGSSS-DTP will communicate with all candidates on the outcome of the competitions by Friday 12 May

14