Alt

Assessment Criteria

Assessment Criteria for our Student-Led Competition

The following criteria will be used to assess applications across all themes and degree formats.

Fit to Themes (20%)

This will be based on how well you can demonstrate that your research project is fit around one or more of the five interdisciplinary SEDarc themes.

Project Quality and Feasibility (40%)

This will be based on your outline of your proposed research project, your reasons for pursuing it, and its wider significance. SEDarc assessors will be looking for evidence of the following: your ability to design and conduct a research project; a coherent and well-thought-out research plan; a strong awareness of the place of the literature in your field; and the potential impact of your research on professional practice. Reference will be made to your personal statement, as contained in your application, as well as your supervisors’ supporting statement.

Student Quality (40%)

This will be based on your description of how your previous experience (this includes life experience as well as academic and/or professional experience) has prepared you for postgraduate study and research. Reference will be made to your personal statement, as contained in your application, as well as your supervisor’s supporting statement.

 

Please note that all 4.5-year award applications (1+3.5) will be assessed in a way that recognises that applicants are likely to have had less training and fewer opportunities to develop a detailed proposed research project than an applicant for a +3.5 studentship.

 

Assessment Criteria for the Postdoctoral Fellowship

Quality of work programme (45%)

 

·     Has the applicant described a clearly defined programme of work?

·     Are the specified objectives achievable and realistic within the period of the fellowship?

·     Is the proposed workplan clear and any planned new research limited to no more than 25% of the total fellowship time?

·     Are the proposed activities clearly justified in terms of supporting the applicant’s longer term career aspirations?

Impact and outputs (45%)

 

·     Are the planned outputs of the fellowship appropriate and attainable?

·     Are there adequate plans to share the results, and to engage with academic and non-academic audiences?

Value for money (10%)

·     Have all costs requested been broken down?

·     Is there are clear and adequate justification of the costs being requested?