1. Application timeline
Date | Action |
---|---|
Feb/March 2024 | Applications open |
30 April 2024 | Applications close |
May 2024 | Shortlisted applicants are notified of the interview process |
June 2024 | Interviews to take place |
TBS at the time of offer | Deadline for applicants to accept the offer |
September 2024 | The new academic year starts |
2. Eligibility criteria
The SCIMITAR-SA programme aims to address tobacco use among people with SMI (primarily schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, psychosis, bipolar illness, and severe depression with psychosis) living in three South Asian countries – Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. Research teams will use the full range of research methods including evidence synthesis, qualitative research, clinical trials, economic evaluations and implementation science.
Your research proposal should complement SCIMITAR-SA aims, and align with your interests, academic strengths and career aspirations.
4. Identify a potential supervisor
All prospective applicants to the SCIMITAR-SA scholarship scheme are expected to have made contact with a potential supervisor, to help them guide the choice of research topic and support proposal development for the application.
A list of potential academic supervisors who have indicated an interest in supporting students can be accessed here and their profiles and academic interests can be found on their respective university webpages. Once you have identified a suitable and willing supervisor, then you can work to refine your proposal. (Please note that if a supervisor agrees to support your application, it does not automatically identify them as your PhD supervisor, this will be finalised once successful candidates have been identified)
You can also make an informal enquiry, either directly to the academic you are interested in working with from the list above, or with one of the PhD programme leads: Professor Simon Gilbody (simon.gilbody@york.ac.uk) or Dr. Faraz Siddiqui (faraz.siddiqui@york.ac.uk) Please include information about your strengths and areas of research interest.
5. Prepare your application
Guidance on what to include in the research proposal, personal statement and CV can be found below.
6. Prepare for your interview
If you have been shortlisted for an interview, we will notify you by the end of May 2024. Interviews will take place in June 2024. Given the short gap between shortlisting and interviews, you might want to start preparing in advance.
7. The last steps
We will contact successful candidates with award offers within a week of the last interview. If successful, you will be asked to formally accept the offer within two weeks.
Please submit your Research Project Proposal, structured by the following subheadings:
(Note that the proposal should be no more than 2000 words, excluding a bibliography, and include an approx 250-word abstract).
The personal statement should be a maximum of no more than 600 words outlining the following:
3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
The applicant is from an ODA-eligible country (for distance-learning PhD, the candidate should additionally be able to live and study in South Asia | Yes | Yes | ||
Academic record (assessed via CV) | Outstanding academic record, exceeding the minimum criteria and/or demonstrating significant other relevant experience. | Good academic record, exceeding the minimum criteria and/or demonstrating other relevant experience. | Meets minimum admissions criteria, but no more. | Information missing and/or does not meet minimum admissions criteria. |
Personal statement | Excellent statement, addressing all the requirements outlined in the call, and demonstrating resilience, drive, enthusiasm. It clearly articulates how the project aligns with the applicant’s previous experience and career ambitions. | Good statement, addressing all the requirements outlined in the call. It may fall short of full marks on the basis of a lack of clarity in some areas. | Statement to some extent addresses the requirements laid out in the call document. Where there is a lack of clarity, the meaning/intention can be divined from the information provided. | Information missing and/or the statement is inadequate. It lacks information, contains contradictory statements, and/or is poorly expressed to the extent that the meaning is unclear. |
Research proposal | Excellent proposal, addressing all the requirements outlined in the call, demonstrating clarity of understanding of the research area, and outlining an informed and realistic proposal. | Good proposal, addressing all the requirements outlined in the call. It may fall short of full marks on the basis of the clarity of understanding, and/or how informed or realistic the proposal is. | Proposal to some extent addresses the requirements laid out in the call document. Where there is a lack of clarity, the meaning/intention can be divined from the information provided. | Information missing and/or the statement is inadequate. It lacks information, contains contradictory statements, and/or is poorly expressed to the extent that the meaning is unclear. |
2. Presentation and Interview Criteria
3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Presentation score | Excellent presentation which demonstrates clear understanding of the research area and clearly articulated the applicant's proposal, while keeping to time. | Good presentation which, on the whole, demonstrates understanding of the research area and/or articulated the applicant’s proposal. Time-keeping may have been an issue. | Satisfactory presentation which demonstrates some understanding of the research area. It may have lacked clarity in some areas and/or suffered from significant time-keeping issues. | Unsatisfactory presentation indicating the application does not understand the research area and/or needs of the project and/or was so poorly expressed to the extent that the meaning /intentions were unclear. |
3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Q1. What interests you most about the SCIMITAR-SA research programme? | Excellent answer: convincing and well-structured. | Good answer: generally convincing and coherent. | Satisfactory answer: answers the question, but with some lack of clarity and/or incoherence. | Unsatisfactory answer: failed to answer the question and/or was so poorly expressed to the extent that the meaning/intentions were unclear. |
Q2. If you were awarded this scholarship, what specific research question would you address and why? | Excellent answer: convincing and well-structured. | Good answer: generally convincing and coherent. | Satisfactory answer: answers the question, but with some lack of clarity and/or incoherence. | Unsatisfactory answer: failed to answer the question and/or was so poorly expressed to the extent that the meaning/intentions were unclear. |
Q3. What skills and experience do you have that would be useful for your proposed research? | Skills and experience provide an excellent foundation for this PhD. | Skills and experience provide a good foundation for this PhD. | Skills and experience provide a satisfactory foundation for this PhD. | Skills and experience provide an unsatisfactory foundation for this PhD and/or was so poorly expressed to the extent that the meaning/intentions were unclear. |
Q4. Are there any training needs you can identify ahead of your PhD? | Has an excellent understanding of the requirements of the project and gaps in their skills. | Has a good understanding of the requirements of the project and gaps in their skills. | Has a satisfactory understanding of the requirements of the project and gaps in their skills | Has an unsatisfactory understanding of the requirements of the project and gaps in their skills and/or was so poorly expressed to the extent that the meaning/intentions were unclear. |
Q5. Why do you want to study for a PhD at the University of York? | Excellent answer: convincing and well-structured. | Good answer: generally convincing and coherent. | Satisfactory answer: answers the question, but with some lack of clarity and/or incoherence . | Unsatisfactory answer: failed to answer the question and/or was so poorly expressed to the extent that the meaning/intentions were unclear. |
Q6. Do you have any questions for us? | No score. |
3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Referee #1 | Reference confirms information submitted by the applicant and demonstrates clear support of the applicant’s potential and fit with the project. | Reference confirms information submitted by the applicant and demonstrates some support of the applicant’s potential and/or fit with the project. | Reference demonstrates some ambivalence about the applicant’s potential and/or fit with the project, and/or contradicts some minor aspects of the information submitted by the applicant. | Reference expresses a clear lack of support for the applicant’s potential and/or fit with the project and/or contradicts information submitted by the applicant. |
Referee #2 | Reference confirms information submitted by the applicant and demonstrates clear support of the applicant’s potential and fit with the project. | Reference confirms information submitted by the applicant and demonstrates some support of the applicant’s potential and/or fit with the project. | Reference demonstrates some ambivalence about the applicant’s potential and/or fit with the project, and/or contradicts some minor aspects of the information submitted by the applicant. | Reference expresses a clear lack of support for the applicant’s potential and/or fit with the project and/or contradicts information submitted by the applicant. |