Hundreds of scholars urge reversal of AHRC PhD studentship cuts

Hundreds of researchers have signed a petition opposing a UK research funder’s plan to cut PhD studentships by more than a quarter.

Last month the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) announced it would reduce the number of funded doctoral places from 425 to 300 a year, a 29 per cent drop, as part of an overhaul of how it supports graduate students, with cuts falling largely at university-based doctoral training partnerships.

The reforms would allow several “strategic investments” in PhDs exploring, from 2026, how arts and humanities support the creative economy and “healthy planet” concerns, but also reflect how “the costs of PhDs are going up and our funding does not stretch as far as it used to”, explained the AHRC’s executive chair, Christopher Smith, as he outlined the plans on 22 September.

The move has, however, been condemned by hundreds of scholars, many of whom credit AHRC bursaries and scholarships for enabling them to take PhDs and establish themselves in academia, with more than 1,000 people signing a petition against the plan in less than a week.

Calling for a reversal of the proposed cuts, the petition calls on the council to investigate how the cuts will “impact students from lower-income backgrounds, or to release evidence if such an assessment has already taken place”.

“For some of us signing this letter, study at PhD level was possible only with AHRC support,” it explains. “For working class students with no access to family wealth, the scholarship scheme represented the only means by which some people could continue their education.

“Many of us have since received AHRC and other fellowships and awards, and have become researchers, teachers and professional services staff. Our careers benefited from the opportunities afforded us by AHRC PhD funding,” it continues.

Highlighting how “fewer students from lower-income backgrounds will gain PhDs”, the petition claims the “AHRC’s decision will contribute to narrowing postgraduate demographics and will undermine efforts to encourage greater diversity of perspective and experience in our universities”.

It also raises concerns over the AHRC’s desire for future doctoral funding schemes to “enable a focus on skills that is responsive to high-growth sectors and the demands of the workforce of the future”. The petition adds: “The wording suggests that students with projects related to industry demands will be prioritised over those who do not, which will be detrimental to the intellectual scope and creativity of our disciplines in years to come."

The petition’s organiser, Rebecca Harrison, senior lecturer in film and media at the Open University, who received an AHRC PhD scholarship in 2010, said this financial support had been invaluable.

“Even while working multiple teaching and service-industry jobs, there was no way I could have completed a PhD without AHRC funding,” Dr Harrison told Times Higher Education.

“So many people from lower-income, working-class and other marginalised households – whose perspectives enrich all of our cultural lives – would have been shut out of higher education without a scholarship, and as far as we know the AHRC has not carried out an equalities assessment to consider the impact of cutting the funds.

“During a period of sustained attacks on the arts and humanities by successive governments, news media and university department closures, it’s therefore imperative that those of us who care about the future and accessibility of arts education do all we can to defend it.”

A UK Research and Innovation spokesman said: “AHRC’s ambition is for a more diverse student population across protected characteristics, as well as in terms of diversity of previous work experience and socioeconomic background; we believe this will contribute to excellence of research and innovation, which remains the benchmark of our overall funding.

“We will be introducing a specific focus on equality, diversion and inclusion through our Centres for Doctoral Training and Collaborative Doctoral Partnerships, both of which submit action plans as part of the assessment process. For Doctoral Training Partnerships we will actively encourage higher education institutions to allocate students in line with their individual strategies for widening participation and equality, diversity and inclusion.”

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com