UK universities ring-fence PhD posts for ethnic minority students

UK universities are increasingly reserving PhD opportunities for ethnic minority students in a move seen as a way of widening the talent pipeline, but some fear that those chosen via such a route will face stigma.

Several studentships have been advertised recently that are ring-fenced for or offer favourable conditions to those from under-represented backgrounds.

Supporters see it as a way of redressing deep-rooted inequalities in the doctoral system but critics say a departure from awarding posts purely on merit poses risks.

In an advert for its Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) doctoral landscape awards, Birmingham City University states: “At least one of six studentships each year will be awarded to a home fee status candidate from a Global Majority background”.

The university said the scholarship reflected “clear evidence of under-representation in postgraduate research – a reality recognised by UKRI [UK Research and Innovation], the Office for Students and the AHRC”.

Science minister Patrick Vallance echoed such comments when asked about the practice recently in the House of Lords. Pointing to “stark” figures that show only 160 of the UK’s 22,885 professors are black, he said “we need to do things to make sure that we get opportunity right”. Just 1 per cent of all UKRI studentships are ring-fenced by research organisations for widening participation, Vallance added. 

The University of Birmingham’s AHRC doctoral landscape award states that “applications are invited from home students from minoritised ethnic backgrounds” with its awards “specifically targeted at groups currently underrepresented in the College of Arts and Law Postgraduate Research community”.

At the University of Sussex, two of its five AHRC doctoral landscape awards are offered in partnership with the Stuart Hall Foundation, named after the Jamaica-born cultural theorist, and are only “open to applicants who identify as: Black British…[or] British People from Ethnic Minority Backgrounds”.

A University of East Anglia advert states that one studentship “will be reserved for a candidate who meets the award criteria and has declared relevant WP [widening participation] considerations [which] may include…ethnic minority background”.

The University of Stirling also offers a “ring-fenced shortlist interviews” to candidates for its AHRC doctoral landscape awards if they are a “home student from a BAME background, have refugee status or are care-experienced”.  At the interview stage, candidates’ proposals may be “overweighted” based on “‘widening participation ‘flags’” that reflect “unfair structural barriers”.

Contacted by Times Higher Education, the institutions stressed that their efforts were guided by the Equality Act 2010, which “permits proportionate measures where participation by a protected group or groups is disproportionately low” and aims to “ensure fair access to doctoral study”.

But some people have questioned the legal basis of positive discrimination, and interpretations of the Equality Act can vary.

Even if racial quotas are permissible in law they are “blunt tools” that remain problematic for other reasons, said Abhishek Saha, professor of mathematics at Queen Mary University of London.

“In addition to fundamental issues of fairness, I’m not even convinced that this is necessarily beneficial for the demographic group it is supposedly meant to benefit. Such practices send the message to selected students that they are being chosen for reasons other than merit,” he said.

Quotas are likely to be unpopular with ethnic minority staff and even the PhD students who win them, continued Saha. “They cast doubt on under-represented students and scholars who have earned their place on merit. Thus, such policies reinforce the very prejudices that they ostensibly oppose,” he argued.

But Ifedapo Francis Awolowo, senior lecturer in financial and management accounting at Sheffield Hallam University, said quotas were a “necessary, time-limited response to a doctoral system that continues to reproduce inequality at the point of entry”.

Awolowo explained that “decades of evidence show that structural factors such as awarding gaps, unequal access to research opportunities, informal networks, and narrow definitions of merit systematically restrict access for black and other minoritised students”.

Universities running PhDs in other disciplines have introduced similar approaches, with an Economic and Social Research Council call for a doctoral training partnership involving the University of Oxford stating that “two awards are ring-fenced for British students of Black or mixed Black ethnicity”, while the Birkbeck Diversity 100 scheme awards “up to five” studentships for non-white students.

The Royal Society, Wellcome and the Medical Research Council’s Laboratory of Molecular Biology also offer awards limited to early career researchers from black or ethnic minority backgrounds.

Awolowo, who also leads the ASPIRE Project for supporting BME doctoral students, said any claims that “ring-fencing judges candidates to ‘different standards’ rests on a flawed assumption: that existing admissions and funding processes are neutral and meritocratic”.

“In practice, conventional indicators of excellence often reward accumulated advantage rather than doctoral potential. Ring-fenced studentships do not require lowering academic thresholds; they redirect funding to those who meet doctoral readiness criteria but have historically been filtered out by structural bias,” he explained.

Awolowo conceded that there was a real risk students could face “stigma” but “the solution is not to abandon targeted funding; it is to run it transparently, with clear criteria, unchanged progression requirements and strong developmental support so excellence is both protected and made visible”.

A UKRI spokesperson said it required universities “to undertake open, merit-based and transparent recruitment of students, while ensuring their recruitment processes are inclusive and seeking to attract students from under-represented groups”.

“Encouraging recruitment initiatives where there is evidence of under-representation or disadvantage is an important part of ensuring our higher education institutions (HEIs) provide a fair pathway to success for everyone in the country. HEIs are responsible for ensuring their recruitment processes comply with all relevant legislation.”

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com