Accessibility statement

Guidance to Departmental Postgraduate Research studentships for applicants 2023-4

If you hold an offer from the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of York, you are automatically considered for a studentship and you must hold an offer from us to be considered for a studentship. You are eligible if you have an offer for the PhD in Politics and International Relations (full-time or part-time). 

These studentships are separate from other funding which you may be seeking (e.g. through the White Rose Doctoral Training Partnership or the White Rose College for Arts and Humanities). Please make sure you look at the separate guidance for those schemes if you are interested in them.

If you have already submitted an application but would like to make some changes in the light of this guidance, you are welcome to submit updated material via the submission portal. Please ensure that you date it and label it clearly as updated. You are strongly advised to take advice from potential supervisors if that is available.

Your application should include a research proposal (up to 2000 words) and a supporting statement (up to 1000 words). 

If you wish to apply for ESRC White Rose Doctoral Training Partnership or the AHRC White Rose College for Arts and Humanities, the latest date by which the Politics and International Relations Department will accept your applications is 15 December 2023 at 12:00 noon (GMT). We will consider all eligible applications for the Departmental studentships that we have received by Monday 4 March AT 12:00 noon (GMT). 
Applicants who are interested in applying to the ESRC WRDTP for funding should complete the relevant application form on our guidance page. You should only complete this once you hold an offer of a PhD place at the University of York and prior to the deadline of 24th January. 
Applicants interested in WRoCAH studentships should complete the WRoCAH application form prior to 24th January. 

 

If you have already submitted for the 15 December deadline you do not need to resubmit anything: we will automatically consider your application for the Departmental studentships in March.

For any queries, please contact poli-graduate-office@york.ac.uk

For the Departmental studentships, we assess applications in relation to three areas:

  • Project excellence: significance, research design, contribution to knowledge

This draws on your research proposal (2000 words maximum), which should include:

  • the questions or hypotheses to be addressed; 
  • the research methods to be used; 
  • the sources or data sets to be consulted; 
  • how your research relates to existing research within your discipline;
  • the contribution you anticipate that the research will make to your discipline.

In evaluating the research project, we will be looking for a clear explanation of the significance of the project and the contribution it will make to academic and empirical knowledge. This should include, as appropriate for your project, consideration of wider societal benefits of the project and how this will be achieved, e.g., through public or policy engagement.  We are also looking for a clear account of your research design, reflectively drawing on an appropriate range of methods and data sources, and which is feasible within the funded period.  You should also include consideration of any likely ethical issues, as appropriate to the nature of the research, and consideration of the likely contingency plans required in the event that the research cannot proceed as planned, and to ensure submission within the funded period.

  • Experience and research background

In the supporting statement (1000 words maximum), applicants are invited to explain what motivates them to undertake the research project outlined in their application.  They are advised to be as specific as possible, focusing on why they are motivated to undertake the proposed research, rather than providing broad statements about general motivations or aspirations.  They are welcome to highlight a variety of factors, e.g. intellectual, personal, professional.

Applicants are asked to evidence their potential to undertake doctoral-level research.  We recognise that applicants have a diverse range of experiences and skills, and that evidence of potential can take many forms.  Such evidence may include academic achievements, but can also include a much wider range of professional, voluntary or personal achievements. We also recognise the vital importance of transferable skills, such as resilience, adaptability, project management and the ability to deliver to deadlines.

  • Project complementarity

Looking at the supporting statement and research proposal, we will also consider whether PIR at York is a good fit for this project, including whether there is a good match between proposed supervisors and the project, and a good fit with PIR’s research clusters and centres and this project.

Project excellence: significance, research design, contribution to knowledge
5 marks (double weighted)
Evidence: Research proposal
5: Excellent

The application will demonstrate all of the following, i.e. all of the areas are ‘excellent’: 

  • Excellent explanation of the significance of the project and the contribution it will make to academic and empirical knowledge, and, as appropriate, societal contribution.
  • Excellent research design, which draws on an appropriate range of methods and data sources, and which is feasible within the funded period.  
  • Excellent consideration of the likely ethical issues, as appropriate to the nature of the research.
  • Excellent consideration of the likely contingency plans required in the event that the research cannot proceed as planned, and to and to ensure submission within the funded period.
4: Very good

The application will demonstrate all of the following as a minimum, i.e. all areas are at least ‘very good’.  If a proposal is excellent in some areas, but remains very good in others, a score of 4 should be given:

  • Very good explanation of the significance of the project and the contribution it will make to academic and empirical knowledge, and, as appropriate, societal contribution.
  • Very good research design, which draws on an appropriate range of methods and data sources, and which is feasible within the funded period.
  • Very good consideration of the likely ethical issues, as appropriate to the nature of the research.
  • Very good consideration of the likely contingency plans required in the event that the research cannot proceed as planned, and to and to ensure submission within the funded period.
3: Good

The application will demonstrate all of the following as a minimum - i.e. all areas are at least ‘good’.  If a proposal is very good or excellent in some areas, but remains good in others, a score of 3 should be given:

  • Good explanation of the significance of the project and the contribution it will make to academic and empirical knowledge, and, as appropriate, societal contribution.
  • Good research design, which draws on an appropriate range of methods and data sources, and which is feasible within the funded period.
  • Good consideration of the likely ethical issues, as appropriate to the nature of the research.
  • Good consideration of the likely contingency plans required in the event that the research cannot proceed as planned, and to and to ensure submission within the funded period.
2: Weak

The application will demonstrate all of the following as a minimum - i.e. all areas are at least ‘weak’.  If a proposal is better than weak in some areas, but remains weak in others, a score of 2 should be given:

  • Weak explanation of the significance of the project and the contribution it will make to academic and empirical knowledge, and, as appropriate, societal contribution.
  • Weak research design, which draws on an appropriate range of methods and data sources, and which is feasible within the funded period.
  • Weak consideration of the likely ethical issues, as appropriate to the nature of the research.
  • Weak consideration of the likely contingency plans required in the event that the research cannot proceed as planned, and to and to ensure submission within the funded period.
1: Very weak

The application will demonstrate all of the following as a minimum - i.e. all areas are at least ‘very weak’.  If a proposal is better than very weak in some areas, but remains very weak in others, a score of 1 should be given:

  • Very weak explanation of the significance of the project and the contribution it will make to academic and empirical knowledge, and, as appropriate, societal contribution.
  • Very weak research design, which draws on an appropriate range of methods and data sources, and which is feasible within the funded period.
  • Very weak consideration of the likely ethical issues, as appropriate to the nature of the research.
  • Very weak consideration of the likely contingency plans required in the event that the research cannot proceed as planned, and to and to ensure submission within the funded period.
Applicant motivation and potential
5 marks (double weighted)
Evidence: supporting statement, cv, and written work
5: Excellent

The application will demonstrate all of the following, i.e. all of the areas are ‘excellent’:

  • Excellent explanation of the applicant’s motivation to undertake the specific programme of research outlined in the application.
  • Excellent explanation and evidence of the applicant’s potential to undertake doctoral level research.
4: Very good

The application will demonstrate all of the following as a minimum, i.e. all areas are at least ‘very good’.  If a proposal is excellent in some areas, but remains very good in others, a score of 4 should be given:

  • Very good explanation of the applicant’s motivation to undertake the specific programme of research outlined in the application.
  • Very good explanation and evidence of the applicant’s potential to undertake doctoral level research.
3: Good

The application will demonstrate all of the following as a minimum - i.e. all areas are at least ‘good’.  If a proposal is very good or excellent in some areas, but remains good in others, a score of 3 should be given: 

  • Good explanation of the applicant’s motivation to undertake the specific programme of research outlined in the application.
  • Good explanation and evidence of the applicant’s potential to undertake doctoral level research.
2: Weak

The application will demonstrate all of the following as a minimum - i.e. all areas are at least ‘weak’.  If a proposal is better than weak in some areas, but remains weak in others, a score of 2 should be given:

  • Weak explanation of the applicant’s motivation to undertake the specific programme of research outlined in the application.
  • Weak explanation and evidence of the applicant’s potential to undertake doctoral level research.
1: Very weak

The application will demonstrate all of the following as a minimum - i.e. all areas are at least ‘very weak’.  If a proposal is better than very weak in some areas, but remains very weak in others, a score of 1 should be given:

  • Very weak explanation of the applicant’s motivation to undertake the specific programme of research outlined in the application.
  • Very weak explanation and evidence of the applicant’s potential to undertake doctoral level research.
 
Project complementarity with the PIR Department
5 marks
Evidence: supporting statement, research proposal
5: Excellent

The application will demonstrate all of the following, i.e. all of the areas are ‘excellent’:

  • Excellent explanation of alignment with supervisory expertise in the Department of PIR
  • Excellent explanation of how the project fits with the Department of PIR’s research clusters and centres and supervisory team
4: Very good

The application will demonstrate all of the following as a minimum, i.e. all areas are at least ‘very good’.  If a proposal is excellent in some areas, but remains very good in others, a score of 4 should be given:

  • Very good explanation of alignment with supervisory expertise in the Department of PIR
  • Very good explanation of how the project fits with the Department of PIR’s research clusters and centres 
3: Good

The application will demonstrate all of the following as a minimum - i.e. all areas are at least ‘good’.  If a proposal is very good or excellent in some areas, but remains good in others, a score of 3 should be given: 

  • Good explanation of alignment with supervisory expertise in the Department of PIR
  • Good explanation of how the project fits with the Department of PIR’s research clusters and centres 
2: Weak

The application will demonstrate all of the following as a minimum - i.e. all areas are at least ‘weak’.  If a proposal is better than weak in some areas, but remains weak in others, a score of 2 should be given:

  • Weak explanation of alignment with supervisory expertise in the Department of PIR
  • Weak explanation of how the project fits Department of PIR’s research clusters and centres 
1: Very weak

The application will demonstrate all of the following as a minimum - i.e. all areas are at least ‘very weak’.  If a proposal is better than very weak in some areas, but remains very weak in others, a score of 1 should be given:

  • Very weak explanation of alignment with supervisory expertise in the Department of PIR
  • Very weak explanation of how the project fits the Department of PIR’s research clusters and centres