91ÇÑ×Ó

For many years I have argued that we need a proper debate about the funding and the purpose of doctoral education, so I welcome the recent coverage of changes to the Arts and Humanities Research Council¡¯s doctoral funding, and I am grateful for the opportunity to address some of the issues raised.

We at the AHRC believe that arts and humanities research at all levels and in all subjects delivers significant benefits to all of society. These subjects frame the debates that others develop. They are often first movers in arguments of national and global significance. And postgraduate researchers are part of the active ground of intellectual innovation.

At the same time, the increasing fusion of technology with arts and humanities disciplines necessitates a reshaping of how we do what we do, ensuring that we capitalise on the latest developments and are not left behind.

We have therefore made some necessary decisions, against a backdrop of significant financial pressure.

The AHRC¡¯s approach to doctoral training rests in a determination to balance our budget across training, investigator-led research, strategic direction and building the infrastructure necessary for people and ideas. As underlined by the on doctoral training that we commissioned in 2022, it is vital that we adapt to ensure we respond to the opportunities and challenges we face as a funder.

We are the smallest of UKRI¡¯s research councils in terms of funding allocation, yet we spend a greater proportion of our budget on PhDs than any other council. We will still be the largest proportional spender on doctoral training after the cuts have run their course.

In considering these adaptations, we set out from the outset to ensure there was an even spread of funding provision across all areas of the UK. We are also prioritising access and, above all, transparency.

It is clear that our collaborative PhD scheme is a success in terms of diversity of candidates, their job prospects and the impact of their work. We have protected that scheme and with it we are supporting a good deal of the historical activity which some commentators think is at risk.

Doctoral Training Partnerships (DTPs) have been a success since they were introduced in 2014 and our delivery partners have worked hard to make that happen. But they have not been static. The change from ?to in 2019 already reshaped partnerships and it was likely that a time-consuming competition would have led to reductions and regional gaps if the model had been retained.

Instead, our approach has been to use a transparent and reproducible formula to produce a flexible, scalable model covering universities in every region in the UK. As far as possible, some of the best research universities in every region will have funding equivalent to three PhD studentships funded by AHRC each year.??

We have also placed fewer requirements on universities, to reduce administrative burdens. I have expressed the hope that universities will prioritise widening access.?

A major concern that arises is around disciplinary strength. This is why we deliberately consulted on and then reintroduced the concept of a (renamed as ). This allows us to work with the community to create proper cohorts of students in strategically valuable areas, such as health and the creative economy. But the scope for individual projects remains wide; autonomy for researchers remains an important feature by design. Recipient organisations will also be required to address access for under-represented populations.

In short, we have taken a long-overdue decision to balance our portfolio while retaining a commitment to PhD funding as a high proportion of our budget. In doing so, we have also removed the need for an expensive competition to allocate a reducing number of awards and avoided creating cold spots in the UK.

We have also maintained , allowing research organisations outside the HE sector greater autonomy in selecting and supervising doctoral projects. We have initiated a rolling scheme of centres for postgraduate excellence, which can respond equally to emerging needs to develop new skills and to preserve endangered ones. And we remain fully committed to the principle that every postgraduate should be funded properly and fairly for the work they do.

Of course, this is challenging, and change is painful. And I deeply regret every lost opportunity. I would not have been able to study for a PhD without public funding, and I agree with those who are worried about the fact that, right across UKRI, we do not fund the taught master¡¯s that are often the prerequisite for a PhD. But there is a wider context. What should postgraduate research degrees deliver, given that most will not lead to academic jobs? How should they be funded?

I believe we have made the right and necessary changes to balance our portfolio for everyone in arts and humanities. But those decisions shine an unforgiving light on our need to look hard at how we fund the transformation of our disciplines for our time, and how we fund postgraduate research to support the future of science.

is executive chair of the Arts and Humanities Research Council.

?