OU blog

Personal Blogs

Christopher Douce

Applying for a Computing and Communications doctoral scholarship

Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Christopher Douce, Tuesday, 7 Jan 2025, 21:27

Towards the end of last year, I shared a link that advertised PhD Studentships in Computer Science, Information Technology and Software Engineering with the OU school of Computing and Communications. This short blog posts shares some pointers to anyone who is considering applying.

The advert directs you to a summary of Current PhD topics and studentships.

The page is split into a couple of sections. The section at the top summarises funded PhD projects and scholarships and the second bit summarises a loose set of topics that can be supported by potential supervisors. A topic that is featured on this second part of the page isn’t the same as a PhD project. To be considered for a scholarship, and to apply to be a PhD student within the school, applicants need to develop a topic into a proposal, and one of the aims of the project is to identify (and articulate) a set of clear research questions.

Another important part of the advert is the sentence: “You are strongly advised to identify a potential project and supervisor before submitting a formal application.”

There are a few reasons for this:

  • Applying for a scholarship is competitive. At the time of writing, there is only one funded vacancy within the school a year. Not only do you have to pass an interview where your suitability for postgraduate study is considered by a panel, your potential supervisor needs to advocate for both you and your project. In other words, you need to find an academic to make the case, to other academics, why your project idea is the best and why you deserve the funding. Having taken the time to speak with an academic about your subject will help them to understand more about you and your project.
  • To find out whether we share research interests. Computing is a broad subject, since it touches on so many different aspects of human activity. As well as being a technical subject, it can sometimes be thought of as a humanities subject (depending on who you speak to, of course). Subsequently, it’s really important to find out whether you and your potential lead supervisor share a passion about a topic. If there are common interests, and you pass your interview, your potential supervisor will advocate for you as best as they can.
  • A doctoral research project takes a long time. Let’s say you’ve made contact with a potential supervisor (whose name is mentioned on the topics page), an important question is: do you seem to get on with each other? The reason why this is important is that a doctorate takes a lot of time; it is likely to be a significant part of your early career. Whilst sharing of academic interests is really important, so is personal chemistry. Do you feel you’re able to ask questions of them easily? Has your potential supervisor answered all your questions clearly and carefully?

Also, do take the time to look at the MPhil and PhD application process page. Pay particular attention to the proposal section of the page. If you have identified a potential supervisor, there may well be a bit of time to work with an academic to help to refine and develop and application before it is submitted. At the time of writing, the deadline for this year’s scholarship is 24th January 2025.

The following page shares more about the writing of a doctoral Research project proposal.

Before going further, I do recommend that you look at some of the following blog articles that offer some helpful guidance:

Do feel free to reach out to any of the friendly academics who work within the school. I’m sure they will reply as soon as they’re able to do so.

When you are ready, send them a draft of your doctoral proposal. They should be able to offer you some helpful guidance about how it may be improved or developed further; a clear project proposal is really important. The clearer your questions are, the stronger your proposal.

Good luck with your application!

Permalink Add your comment
Share post
Christopher Douce

Doctoral study: Third Party Monitoring and mentoring

Visible to anyone in the world

This post shares some notes that I made during a continuing professional development (CPD) event organised by the Research Career Development Team (RCD) that took place on 6 November 2024. The event was all about how a third party monitor supports doctoral students and doctoral level study. 

The event was pitched as being useful for “those who are new to third party monitoring”. It’s key objective and learning outcome were to help participants understand what the OU expects of third party monitors, whilst also sharing practices and experiences between participants.

Before moving sharing the key points that I took away, I would just like to share that I’m mostly writing this piece from the perspective of a third party monitor, sharing points with other potential fellow third party monitors. Although I’ve made this post widely available, some of the links that I’ve shared are very OU specific, and will not be available outside the OU.

Third party monitoring: the role

The aim of the third party monitor (TPM) is to provide pastoral support for research students outside the supervision team. A TPM is an academic member of staff who has had research degree supervision experience. They are there to provide confidential, independent, and dispassionate support. They are able to offer advice about how to deal with the challenges of doctoral research, how to deal with and handle conflict within (and possibly outside) the supervision team, and can offer perspectives about research process. A TPM can provide practical opinions about the supervision process. They may, for example, help to identify resource management difficulties; a student might meet with supervisors too frequently, or not frequently enough. A TPM may be able to offer practical advice on how to broach this with supervisors. The key point is that a TPM must always act in the best interest of the student.

In terms of meetings, there is an obligation for a TPM to meet with a student at least once a year, but a student might email the monitor at any point throughout the year. Meetings do not need to be in person; they can take place online. The first meeting should take place by the fifth month following registration. In my own practice, I tend to meet with students every quarter, but I would be happy to meet more regularly if there are any emerging or ongoing issues that need to be addressed or resolved. Meetings can be documented through a form (which is used within the WELS faculty) but this is not compulsory. All that needs to be recorded is a date of a meeting.

The TPM is described in the section 6 of the university research degree regulations. There are also third party monitoring guidelines from the graduate school network. Any member of staff who is carrying out third party monitoring should record it within their academic workload management (AWM) tool. At the time of writing I don’t have an official figure, but a guideline to work to is: one day per year, for each student you are monitoring.

What happens if things are not going well?

During the session, there was a useful discussion about what to do if things are not going very well. I noted down some important points.

The first point is: if possible, have discussions with everyone. Before even picking up the phone, gain permission from the student you are supporting; confidentiality, trust, and transparency in terms of actions are paramount.

It isn’t easy doing research. Depending on the topic, it can be sometimes lonely. It can sometimes place significant demands on reserves of intrinsic motivation. When looking at a subject in a new way, this can have a potentially destabilising way of seeing the world. All this means is that there are times when doing research can negatively affect our mental health. A TPM might be able to help just by having a chat about how everything is going. You can also signpost some resources that relate to staying mentally healthy.

Sometimes, you may well need to seek advice to answer some questions which may come up when meeting a student. Two key points of help were mentioned: the graduate school, or a group of staff within your academic school that supports postgraduate students. If something is serious, you might wish to contact your head of school, or their delegate.

Resources

A number of useful resources were shared during this session. The OU national support network that follows isn’t specific to the TPM role, but offers pointers to a whole host of different resources.

There is also something called the STEM Mentoring Scheme: Framework, which dates back to 2021.

Reflections

At the time of writing, I’m a third party monitor for two doctoral students.

When I started as a third party monitor, I have to confess that I didn’t really know what I was doing. My interaction with students began with an email introduction from a graduate student supervisor (or lead). The was the followed with organising an informal meeting between myself and the student, where we introduced each other.

My big take away from this session was the importance of active listening and relationship building. Empathy also plays an important role. As third party supervisors we all have our prior doctoral experience we can draw upon. In some cases, it can be about being practical; sometimes third party monitors need to find things out for our students. In turn, we may need be their advocate, but always with their permission.

I found the discussion about the formality of a form, and its usefulness interesting. During my own meetings, I do sometimes make notes, but it does always depend on what is being said and what needs to be done.

Given the title of the session, I was expecting to learn more about mentoring, perhaps even something about models of mentoring. At various points in my OU career, I’ve been both a mentor and a mentee. Sometimes these relationships have gone well, other times less so. To help others more effectively, I feel as if I need to know more about how to ‘mentor’ well.

Acknowledgements

The event was facilitated by Dr Liz FitzGerald, a Senior Lecturer in the OU’s Institute of Educational Technology.

Permalink Add your comment
Share post

This blog might contain posts that are only visible to logged-in users, or where only logged-in users can comment. If you have an account on the system, please log in for full access.

Total visits to this blog: 2444371