AHRC DTP/CDT Launch Conference on the 29th January 2014 Ian Lyne AHRC Associate Directorof Programmes, discusses common issues and reflections

1. AHRC Doctoral Training Partnerships &
Centres for Doctoral Training
Launch Conference
East Midlands Conference Centre
29 January 2014

2. Programme for the Day
 AHRC’s Strategic Direction
Professor Rick Rylance
 Common Issues and Reflections from the Initial Meetings
Dr Ian Lyne (Associate Director)
 Communications
Dr Philip Pothen (Head of Communications, AHRC) and Danielle
Moore-Chick (Communications Manager, AHRC)
 Looking Ahead
Professor Mark Llewellyn (Director of Research, AHRC)
 Interspersed with brief pitches by DTPs and CDTs

3. Common Issues and Reflections from the
Initial Meetings
Dr Ian Lyne
Associate Director, AHRC
29 January 2014

4. Overview
 A reminder of the context
 Some common issues and queries from the initial
meetings
 Reporting and Monitoring

5. Context - BGP1 and BGP:CB
• BGP1 awards made in 2009 covering 5 PG cohorts
• BGP: CB awards made in 2011 covering 3 PG cohorts
BGP1
BGP:CB
Total number of
BGP type
48
35
Number of
consortia
1
10
Total number of
ROs involved
49
49

6. Delivery Plan 2011-15
• AHRC will further develop its BGP
funding model to support postgraduate
research and training. We will make
fewer awards and focus on centres of
excellence where training and facilities
are of the highest quality.
• We will increase our expectation that
PG training stimulates knowledge
exchange and the interaction between
postgraduate research and nonacademic agencies for all students.

7. AHRC Budget Context 2011-15
2011-12
2014-15
PG
£44.1 million £42.6 million
Total
£99.9 million £98.4 million
% of total AHRC
44%
43%

8. Doctoral Training Partnerships &
Centres for Doctoral Training
 11 DTPs and 7 CDTs awarded
 A total investment of £163m; equating to 495 studentships at
average of 3.5 years each, over five years.
 A total of 75 HEIs involved, and 155 non-HEI partners
 Diversified training and skills development…
with ‘Student Development Funding’ and ‘Cohort Development
Funding’

9. Doctoral Training Partnerships &
Centres for Doctoral Training
• Coherence of vision and strategy for A+H research training within
different contexts
• Increased flexibility of funding profile
• Enhancement of ‘partnership’ ….
 within, between and across ROs;
 with cultural, creative and civic partners;
 and with the AHRC as funder

10. Common Issues and Queries

11. Governance
• A variety of governance models were being used – and it is
natural for these to vary according to nature and size of the DTP
or CDT.
• But typically an Academic Director, a lead Administrator
• A management team – for more day-to-day running, chaired by
the Director.
• A steering group to provide strategic oversight, not chaired by the
Director.
• Reporting into existing University or Faculty PGR committees

12. Recruitment
• At many of the initial meetings people raised concerns about
students applying to multiple DTPs/CDTs, and declining an offer
late in the day.
• Some suggested that all DTPs/CDTs move to a common
recruitment timetable. We would leave this for Directors to
discuss amongst themselves.
• If a student does decline late in the day, you do not lose the
funding by not recruiting – ie you can simply carry the funding
forward as part of the training grant flexibility.

13. Student Development Fund
• A rich variety of ideas and plans for what this might be used for.
• Most DTPs / CDTs are looking to enable a student-driven and
responsive approach with at least part of the funding.
• Activities funded from the SDF will often extend the period of a
student’s funding award beyond 3 years.
• Though some training costs drawn from SDF (e.g. for a short
course) may not.
• SDF funding must be linked to opportunities taken up by a
individual AHRC funded student.

14. Student Development Fund
• Use of SDF for Masters – we did see proposals for this, linked to
assisting recruitment in specific areas.
• Also examples of institutional funding being used to create a
feeder route into PhD programmes.
• Issues around the lack of public loan provision for Masters are
very concerning, and together we need to think about how PhD
programmes should evolve to take account of this.
• Our current position is that there should be no automatic
progression from Masters to PhD (ie no 1+3); PhD funding must
be awarded competitively.

15. Cohort Development Fund
• Plenty of exciting ideas for bringing students together from
across a DTP/CDT.
• For example, student conferences, student-led subject
workshops, etc.
• Activities that you fund from the CDF should be related to cohort
activities, rather than costs relating to individual student training
(eg travel to a partner organisation, or co-supervisor)

16. Supervisors
• At a lot of the meetings, it became clear what a key role
supervisors would need to play in helping students navigate the
opportunities available.
• And therefore DTP/CDTs need to have clear plans as to how
they are going to engage and inform student supervisors.

17. Institutional Commitment
• Some very generous statements of institutional co-funding
• Often in the form of studentship 50:50 funding arrangements, but
also sometimes in relation to explicit funding of the Director’s
post, or other support posts.
• We will seek to capture information on institutional funding
committed to studentships or incurred on support each year.
• The form of institutional commitment can change, provided there
is no sense of an institution not standing by the commitments
made in the application.

18. Monitoring and Reporting

19. Monitoring and Reporting
• Reporting to AHRC should build on a DTP/CDT’s own internal
reporting and monitoring plans.
• We will draw student data from JeS, and analyse:
• Subject spread
• Diversity patterns
• Funding of Masters
• DTPs and CDTs should also establish their own monitoring
arrangements, including equal opportunities monitoring for
applicants, recruitment and student opportunities.

20. Monitoring and Reporting (Yr 1)
• Annual report to AHRC in January each year.
• First report in January 2015 will ask you to report on progress,
and experiences from the first recruitment round (i.e. for October
2014 starters).
• We will ask you to collate information on university and partner
co-funding commitments made as part of the October 14 cohort.
• We will ask you to reflect on any immediate patterns you
perceive in recruitment (by HEI, discipline), and if these vary
from expectations.

21. Monitoring and Reporting (Yr 1)
• Provide a brief overview of your own review processes (eg
feedback from partners or students), and any changes that you
have made to your plans or operations.
• If you are considering significant change to what you set out in
your application, though, please contact AHRC at an early stage.
• Also an opportunity for you to provide any evidence of the wider
impact or influence your DTP / CDT is having.
• And also a brief outline of the major events or plans for the year.

22. Monitoring and Reporting (Yrs 2- )
• In the second and subsequent years (e.g. January 2016
onwards) the report will follow the same format:
 ie we will ask you to report on progress, and experiences
from the previous recruitment round (e.g. for Oct 15 starts).
 Information on university and partner co-funding
commitments made as part of that cohort.
 Any immediate patterns you perceive in recruitment (by HEI,
discipline), and if these vary from expectations.
 Etc
• We will also ask you to report on SDF- and CDF-funded student
activities over the previous academic year (e.g. 14-15, ie building
on your own monitoring of the programme across that year).

23. Monitoring and Reporting (Yrs 2- )
• We would also like you to highlight some interesting examples of
SDF and CDF over the previous year.
• Short case studies (max 1 or 2 of each for every five students)…
so that we have a good stock of examples to illustrate and
promote the richer postgraduate training we are funding.
•
Again, we assume that DTP/CDTs will wish to compile these for
their own reporting and promotional purposes anyway.

24. Monitoring and Reporting
• You need to ensure that JeS data on students is returned to us
by November after each intake.
• We will collate the student data nationally and provide an
overview analysis to you in the early new year.
• We will together reflect on any emerging patterns or issues at the
annual Directors conference – partnership with AHRC means
that we take joint responsibility for health of disciplines.

25. Communications
• There was frequent mention of the value of Directors and lead
Administrators being able to share ideas or issues, seek advice,
etc.
• We would like to propose that Directors and Administrators selforganise this, without AHRC involvement.
• At any time, of course, you can contact us for advice, and we will
email all Directors / Administrators if we think an issue is likely to
be of wider interest.

26. Communications
• Please let us have dates of senior steering group / management
group meetings, so that we can schedule potential dates to visit.
• Equally, let us have dates of any major student events, where we
might be able to come along.
• Annual Directors Conference: would April / May be a good time?
• Reflecting on any issues that have come up for current
students / activities, etc
• Reflecting on national recruitment patterns, and drawing on
any further experience from the current recruitment process.

27. Thank you Comments or Questions?