Search
Search type

School of Law

Postgraduate research funding

The School of Law receives money from a range of sources to help our postgraduate researchers fund their studies.

We currently have the following PhD studentships available for degrees beginning in January 2017:

The interdependence of international tribunals

Overview

  • Project start date: 1 January 2017.
  • Tuition fees paid plus annual stipend of approximately £14,057.
  • Applicants must have been resident in the UK for the last three years (depending on the candidates’ residential eligibility, awards can be made as a full studentship or tuition fees only studentship).
  • Applicants must hold an Upper Second Class Honours degree with minimum grade averages of 65% (or overseas equivalent) in Law or a relevant discipline, and a Masters degree at Merit level with overall average marks of 65% in taught modules and a minimum mark of 65% in the dissertation/research element (or overseas equivalent).  
  • Deadline for applications: 30 September 2016. Applications received after this date will not be considered.

Project outline

As a result of the proliferation of international courts and tribunals in recent years in particular, international tribunals and their judges have come to depend on one another in a variety of ways, but the precise contours of their inter-relationship have never been fully explored. This interdependence may be institutional, personal, material (eg, fact-finding), or argumentative (whether in terms of forms of valid or persuasive argument, or doctrines such as jurisprudence constante and precedent). In this regard tribunals and their judges regularly point to the work of other tribunals and judges. Although the notions of precedent and judicial comity are not alien to contemporary academic scholarship, the mutual interdependence of tribunals and judges has not been sufficiently researched from either an empirical or conceptual perspective and still is in need of being mapped out, evaluated, and theorised. Such a study is not only very relevant to academics and legal practitioners, but it will undoubtedly provide policy makers with practical and pertinent information on the creation, functioning, and reform of dispute settlement mechanisms.

Objectives of the project

The Manchester International Law Centre (MILC) welcomes applications for doctoral research (PhD) from qualified and talented individuals who can demonstrate past research experience and a strong grounding in general international law. A good knowledge of the rules and practices of international dispute settlement systems as well as an understanding of the politics behind the decision-making of international courts and tribunals will be an asset. A knowledge of the law of international organisations, international economic law or human rights may be an advantage. The successful applicant will be expected to engage in research towards a PhD dissertation that covers international tribunals and dispute settlement generally, or which focuses on specific substantive areas such as international economic law, international investment law, or international human rights law.

Research methodology

The precise methodology of the project will be determined in the first phase of the research after consultation with the supervisors. The research will entail a doctrinal part in that it will engage with the applicable rules and procedures pertaining to the courts and tribunals under examination. Multi-disciplinary inquiries which examine the interdependence of courts from several external perspectives as well as empirical methods will be encouraged. The possibility to collect empirical materials by virtue of structured interviews with relevant stakeholders will be considered.

Possible supervisors

  • Professor Iain Scobbie
  • Professor Jean d’Aspremont
  • Professor Yenkong Hodu

How to apply

Before applying for this studentship, potential candidates must have an offer from the School of Law, the University of Manchester, to begin a PhD course in January 2017. See our application pages for further details of our application process. 

To apply for the studentship applicants must then submit:  

  • A funding application form
  • A personal statement outlining how your skills, knowledge and experience make you an exceptional candidate for this opportunity.
  • A curriculum vitae.
  • Two academic references.
  • Copies of undergraduate and postgraduate degree transcripts, and any other relevant academic qualifications.

Please send completed applications to law.scholarship@manchester.ac.uk.

Neoliberalism and the trajectory of financial regulation

Overview

  • Project start date: 1 January 2017.
  • Tuition fees paid plus annual stipend of approximately £14,057.
  • Applicants must have been resident in the UK for the last 3 years (depending on the candidates’ residential eligibility, awards can be made as a full studentship or tuition fees only studentship).
  • Applicants must hold an Upper Second Class Honours degree with minimum grade averages of 65% (or overseas equivalent) in Law or a relevant discipline, and a Masters degree at Merit level with overall average marks of 65% in taught modules and a minimum mark of 65% in the dissertation/research element (or overseas equivalent).   
  • Deadline for applications: September 2016. Applications received after this date will not be considered.

Project outline

The ideas theorised by Friedrich Von Hayek in the 1930s and 1940s (“The Road to Serfdom”, 1944) have become in the course of the 20th century the accepted paradigm not only in the field of economic thinking, but more broadly in the way in which business relationships and dynamics are regulated. The influence of what we now refer to as Neoliberal theories, or neoclassical economics, became ever more prominent in the 1970s, with the work of Milton Friedman in the US (“Capitalism and Freedom”, 1962), and later reflected into much of the scholarship flowing from the Chicago School of Economics (see for instance Eugene Fama “Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work”, The Journal of Finance Vol.25 N.2, 1970). The consensus that this ideology received at that time triggered in particular a shift in policy-making. Initially this occurred in the US and the UK, due to favourable political synergies, but soon policies inspired by the tenets of neoclassical economics extended globally. As a consequence, the regulation of business activities was shaped dramatically, most prominently in areas of corporate governance, securities regulation, and beyond. Social and political dynamics too have come to be affected by the ubiquitous application of Neoliberal theories widely regarded as modern orthodoxy.

The aim of this research project is to investigate the extent of dominant academic discourse trends’ influence on policy in the area of financial regulation, e.g. via providing insight or legitimacy to regulatory, organisational and structural developments from the 1970s onwards. In particular, this project is primarily focused on the regulatory approach adopted by the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) which sets out under its objectives the protection of consumers, the enhancement of integrity in the financial sector, and the promotion of competition in the interest of consumers (FCA “The FCA’s Approach to Advancing its Objectives”, December 2015). In light of the regulatory principles adopted by the FCA, the project should investigate and evaluate the role (if any) of ideological/theoretical orthodoxy adopting assumptions in relation to efficiency, competitive markets, informational asymmetries etc in the development of the FCA’s regulatory objectives which rely on concepts such as integrity, fairness and trust.

At a higher level, this research project should explore whether and how the failure of regulation that has been experienced over the last fifteen/twenty years (and that culminated with the Global Financial Crisis) can be explained with the pervasive use of orthodox ideologies in the formulation of the regulatory framework. Should this hypothesis be confirmed, the research may also explore the processes (social, economic, political) through which these influences may determine regulatory policy, as well as the resilience of this model. Research on this project is conceived as inherently multidisciplinary and should incorporate legal, economic, political or sociological analysis. 

How to apply

Before applying for this studentship, potential candidates must have an offer from the School of Law, the University of Manchester, to begin a PhD course in January 2017. See our application pages for further details of our application process.

To apply for the studentship applicants must then submit: 

  • A funding application form
  • A personal statement outlining how your skills, knowledge and experience make you an exceptional candidate for this opportunity.
  • A curriculum vitae.
  • Two academic references.
  • Copies of undergraduate and postgraduate degree transcripts, and any other relevant academic qualifications.

Please send completed applications to: law.scholarship@manchester.ac.uk.

Organising illicit trading in licit markets: Actors, networks and enterprise

Overview

  • Project start date: 1 January 2017.
  • Tuition fees paid plus annual stipend of approximately £14,057.
  • Applicants must have been resident in the UK for the last 3 years (depending on the candidates’ residential eligibility, awards can be made as a full studentship or tuition fees only studentship).
  • Applicants must hold an Upper Second Class Honours degree with minimum grade averages of 65% (or overseas equivalent) in Law or a relevant discipline, and a Masters degree at Merit level with overall average marks of 65% in taught modules and a minimum mark of 65% in the dissertation/research element (or overseas equivalent).
  • Deadline for applications: 30 September 2016. Applications received after this date will not be considered.

Project outline

The aim of this project is to gain insight into the illicit trading activities of entrepreneurial actors operating in licit markets. The research will, through a criminological/sociological lens, empirically investigate the practices and relations of networks of cooperating actors variously embedded within otherwise licit markets and engaged in ‘criminal enterprise’ for financial gain or market advantage. The project supervisors will be: Nicholas Lord (Senior Lecturer, CCCJ) – 40%, Elisa Bellotti (Lecturer, SoSS) – 40%, Jon Spencer (Reader, CCCJ) – 20%.

The research will be guided by the following three research questions:

  1. How can we better understand the organisation of illicit trading and enterprise within licit markets?
  2. How are networks of cooperating and colluding (legitimate and illegitimate) actors established and maintained in the commissioning of illicit trading?
  3. What are the conditions that are conducive or facilitative of such illicit trading? 

Trading refers to the buying, selling and/or exchanging of commodities (e.g. goods and services in wholesale or retail) or stocks, shares and other securities (e.g. within financial markets). Such trading transactions inherently involve the voluntary transfer of wealth and/or income from one party to another for mutual benefit. This project will compare and contrast the nature and organisation of illicit trading in two theoretically comparable contexts: A. the financial markets; and, B. the alcohol market. Using these discrete markets as comparators the research will inform an understanding of commonalities and differences between a. the nature and organisation of illicit trading, and b. the functioning of criminal networks that are to some extent embedded within in licit markets, businesses and practices. 

A. Illicit trading in financial markets

Recent scandals in the financial markets have brought attention to the illicit enterprise and illicit trading relations of key economic players. For instance, the Libor and Forex scandals illuminated the collusion of bank traders within and between financial institutions to fix and rig inter-bank lending and currency exchange rates. The Economist referred to such behaviours as being ‘The Rotten Heart of Finance’ [1] given the harms against the public in addition to the destabilising of the financial markets. Elsewhere, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is currently prosecuting the UK’s largest and most complex insider-trading case [2]. In all such cases, there is collusion and conspiracy between otherwise legitimate market actors that have an appearance of respectability and legitimacy but who conceal and hide their illicit enterprise behind their daily, routine legitimate business practices and relations. This project seeks to understand how such networks are created and flourish. 

B. Illicit trading in alcohol markets

The importance of this current project is that the market in alcohol for human consumption is highly regulated with high levels of enforcement. Current research (Spencer, Lord, Bellotti and Benson – UMRI funded) indicates that there are developed networks of distribution of ‘imported’ counterfeit alcohol from Ireland entering the UK with what can be described as a national penetration. The network analysis that has been developed, incorporating a crime script analysis, has not been able to make links between all points of distribution, so it is unclear whether there is one large distribution network or a number of inter-related networks. Current research has not explored the relationship between counterfeit alcohol distribution and the distribution of smuggled alcohol, however, it is feasible to assume some connectivity between the two activities. In such cases, those involved within the enterprise may operate outside of licit markets, though usually also have legitimate business operations to conceal the behaviours, but in all cases there is a necessary dependence at some stage on licit markets. This differs from the financial market example where actors are fully immersed within the legitimate marketplace.

Theoretical background: enterprise, networks and brokerage

This project frames illicit trading as above as a form of market-based, commercial ‘enterprise crime’ whereby multi-lateral relations of exchange facilitate the (re-)distribution of wealth and/or income as part of trading networks (see Naylor, 2003). On the one hand, the illicit trading may involve the transfer of otherwise legal goods and services (e.g. recognised alcohol products or company shares) but use illegal means (e.g. deception, complicity, fraud, corruption) to undertake this. On the other hand, the illicit trading may involve the transfer of illegal goods and services (e.g. counterfeited or smuggled alcohol) but use legal means to undertake this (e.g. voluntary exchanges in ‘grey’ marketplaces). There can of course also be clear overlap and intersections of such trading, such as when networks operating in illicit marketplaces utilise legitimate business structures and practices to conceal their behaviours. The key analytical point is that it is of more use to research the organisation of such behaviours, rather than attempting to attribute the characteristics of concepts such as ‘organised crime’ or ‘white collar crime’ to these illicit relations. Such relations require behaviours that organise around (commercial) opportunities to manage supply, demand, competitors and regulators to maintain their ‘enterprise’ (Albanese, 2012). Foregrounding the relationships of exchange between “traders” in “dirty” or “grey” markets and seeking to understand different market structures is a necessary precursor to explaining how different traders apprehend the constraints and opportunities provided in these markets and thus why certain markets contract whilst others expand (Edwards and Gill, 2002: 219). 

Key nodes in such transactional networks are ‘brokers’ who act as interlocutors between producers and distributors, or between traders, and these actors are central to maintaining illicit enterprise. Such brokers can act as ‘coordinators’, ‘representatives’, ‘gatekeepers’, ‘consultants’ and/or ‘liaisons’ between actors who otherwise not connected within the network (Gould and Fernandez, 1989: 101). Such networks can be central to illicit trading and need some level of ‘secrecy’ in order to keep elements of actions and behaviours hidden from specific type of audiences (e.g. regulators, managers).  Secrecy facilitates network resilience which is determined by the level of vulnerability (e.g. reliance on one main actor), elasticity (e.g. ability to replace actors or reestablish the network after disruption) and adaptivity (e.g. modify to changing circumstances) (Bouchard, 2007). Networks are also more effective if they have access not only to actors and ties, but also to resources, and if these actors, ties and resources are multiple (Krebs, 2002); and, if they are embedded in overt and legitimate networks (Gimenez-Salinas Framis, 2013). Understanding the organisation and structure of such networks in the context of illicit trading in licit markets is a main focus of this research. 

Methodology – actors, scripts, networks and scenarios

This research will undertake an intensive research strategy (i.e. analysing the qualitative nature of how illicit trading is organised amongst cooperating actors and the nature of their behaviours), with cross-sectional research, comparative research design (i.e. comparing insights across different markets). The research will incorporate mixed-methods (i.e. critical review of evidence base in addition to ‘script’, ‘social network’ and ‘scenario’ analysis of the actors and their behaviours informed by semi-structured interviews, document analysis, and case-file analysis) to develop empirical, conceptual and theoretical insights. This methodological approach will inform an empirical understanding of the interplay between (i) remote distal causes (e.g. the conditions that provide conducive settings for illicit trading), (ii) situational opportunities (e.g. the immediate environments where illicit trading takes place, and routine activities of those involved) and (iii) pre-existing networks of relationships (e.g. the cooperation of (il)legitimate actors).

Impact

The anticipated impact from this research is to provide regulators with greater insights into how regulation affects the actions of actors in defined environments, how actors in these environments weigh risk of regulatory activity against illicit/illegitimate action and thirdly to inform policy makers of the key themes to be considered in the policy making process and how to incorporate these thematics in policy decisions.

How to apply

Before applying for this studentship, potential candidates must have an offer from the School of Law, the University of Manchester, to begin a PhD course in January 2017. See our application pages for further details of our application process.

To apply for the studentship applicants must then submit:

  • A funding application form
  • A personal statement outlining how your skills, knowledge and experience make you an exceptional candidate for this opportunity.
  • A curriculum vitae.
  • Two academic references.
  • Copies of undergraduate and postgraduate degree transcripts, and any other relevant academic qualifications.

Please send completed applications to law.scholarship@manchester.ac.uk


[1] http://www.economist.com/node/21558281

[2] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d00a4ea8-b613-11e5-b147-e5e5bba42e51.html#axzz4D3IxGMt0

Rethinking law as a 'social' determinant of health

Overview

  • Project start date: 1 January 2017.
  • Tuition fees paid plus annual stipend of approximately £14,057.
  • Applicants must have been resident in the UK for the last three years (depending on the candidates’ residential eligibility, awards can be made as a full studentship or tuition fees only studentship).
  • Applicants must hold an Upper Second Class Honours degree with minimum grade averages of 65% (or overseas equivalent) in Law or a relevant discipline, and a Masters degree at Merit level with overall average marks of 65% in taught modules and a minimum mark of 65% in the dissertation/research element (or overseas equivalent). 
  • Deadline for applications: 30 September 2016. Applications received after this date will not be considered.

Project outline

In recent years, the view that urgent action is required to address the ‘social’ as well as ‘individual’ determinants of health has gained increasing international interest, traction and political support across a range of global, regional and national fora. Social determinants include a wide range of underlying structural forces - political, social and economic - that are said to influence unequal health outcomes across human populations. This concern with social determinants has been especially evident in the contemporary United Nations system. In 2005, the World Health Organization’s Director-General, Dr. Lee Jong-Wook, convened the Commission on the Social Determinants of Health. Three years later, the Commission published its ground-breaking report, Closing the Gap in a Generation: Health Equity through Action on the Social Determinants of Health (2008).

The report setsout a renewed commitment by WHO to action against the problem of social drivers of disease and ill-health. In doing so it draws particular attention to the close connection between social determinants of health and the health inequalities created by these social dynamics; social determinants, in short, are seen to be intimately bound up with broader normative questions of social ethics and justice (Venkatapurum 2012, p.65). As the Executive Summary declares:

“Social injustice is killing people on a grand scale … [I]nequities in health, avoidable health inequalities, arise because of the circumstances in which people grow, live, work, and age, and the systems put in place to deal with illness. The conditions in which people live and die, are, in turn, shaped by political, social and economic forces.”

The report concludes that diverse areas of social life from poverty, to gender inequality, and from employment opportunities to housing standards are each significant causes of negative health outcomes, creating inequalities both between regions and within states. In response, the body proposes three “principles of action” to guide the WHO’s future action on reducing these social determinants – improving the conditions of daily life, tackling the unequal distribution of power, money and resources, and – finally - expanding the evidence-base needed to demonstrate the impact of social forces on global health (WHO and CSDH 2008, p.2).

It is clear that the Commission on Social Determinants of Health’s report has brought the question of social determinants of health and their impact on inequalities firmly into the domain of global institutional policymaking. In doing so, it has also helped challenge the traditionally individualised ‘biomedical’ account of health that, historically at least, has guided the WHO’s global health interventions, to include a broader, more complex, more radical and ostensibly more progressive structural understandings of the causes of illness and disease.

However, the Commission’s work is certainly not the first time that action has been demanded to address the social dimensions of health and well-being. Underlying the Commission’s analysis of these social drivers and underlying structural inequalities is a long but neglected history of concerted efforts to mobilize against the structural disadvantages that have been understood to create particular health vulnerabilities among the most marginalized in society. Historically, these concerns have been tied predominantly to long-standing Marxist and socialist critiques of poverty and political economy. From the social medicine of German physician Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902) to Friedrich Engels’ (1820-1895) influential concern with the impact of rapid and untrammelled industrialization on mortality and morbidity in Victorian England, to 20th century socialist president Salvador Allende’s (1908-1973) radical healthcare reforms in Chile, structural accounts of political economy have ensured that the idea of “social” determinants of health outcomes have already exercised significant historical influence on accounts of the causes of ill-health and disease (Waitzkin 2008).

Nevertheless it is only since the late 20th century that the idea of political and policy action on the social determinants of health has emerged as a matter of ‘high politics’ within global health policymaking and, in particular, it is only in this period that it has led to a co-ordinated response before the specialized agencies, programmes and funds of the United Nations, as reflected in the work of the Commission on the Social Determinants of Health. Indeed, the Commission’s report demonstrates that analysis of the social determinants of health – and especially the complex connections between social structures and inequality - has become increasingly central to what scholars of international relations, law and politics in the sphere of health increasingly describe as the regimes of “global health governance”, a developing governance apparatus bringing together intergovernmental organizations, governments, non-state actors, and activists in a shared humanitarian and development-driven concern with addressing the problem of “global health” (Dodgson 2002; Gostin 2014, Lee 2014).

This emergence of action on social determinants of health as a priority within the modern apparatus of global health governance has been especially indebted to the “health and human rights” movement (Mann et al 1999; Lazzarini et al 1999; Correa et al 2008; Murphy 2013). Since the 1990s, health and human rights advocates have asserted that human rights violations have a direct impact on equitable health outcomes. At the heart of this movement has been growing efforts to embed in the international law of human rights a developing right to health (Hunt & Backman 2008). However, the movement has also worked to establish the health implications resulting from violations of other universally recognized human rights. These range from the civil and political right to equality and non-discrimination, the social and economic rights to housing and living standards, and the ‘third generation’ right to development, each now reconceived in terms of their effects on population health.

Even more importantly however, the idea of social determinants of health continues to rely for its credibility on the generation of new forms of empirical evidence-base that claim to demonstrate the causality and causal intensity of social forces in determining unequal health outcomes. In particular, advocacy for action on social determinants has been reliant in large part for its legitimacy on a distinctive source of technical and scientific data generated within the emerging disciplines of ‘social’ epidemiology and related fields of scientific and social scientific research concerned with societal health determinants. This technical and scientific evidence-base draws from many traditional methodologies and models to establish the causal effects of health of societal forces, from RCT and the use of observational (‘case control’ and ‘cohort’) studies in quantitative analysis, to techniques of epidemiological modelling. However, the problems faced by researchers in trying to infer causality and causal intensity of often complex social forces using traditional scientific methods has also led to challenges to the ‘evidence hierarchies’ of traditional scientific inquiry, as advocates for action on social determinants – including the Commission on the Social Determinants of Health – have called for greater acceptance of non-traditional forms of epidemiological research, such as anthropological ethnographies and consultation with affected populations (WHO & CSDH 2008; Krieger 1994, 2011).

At present, perhaps the most successful integration of action on social determinants of health into contemporary global health governance is evident in the institutional response to HIV/AIDS. Since the late 1980s, the UN – and especially the co-ordinating Joint Programme on HIV and AIDS (UNAIDS) – has articulated a ‘human rights-based approach’ to effective and equitable public health programming and prevention interventions, ground in principles of ‘voluntarism’, ‘empowerment’ and ‘participation’. Again, this reflects an ‘evidence-based’ model of prevention that has focused increasingly on the need for action to address the social determinants of stigma and discrimination – against people living with AIDS and populations ‘most at risk’ of infection – which are understood to have significant effects on vulnerability and resilience to HIV and AIDS.

What is particularly striking about the human rights-based approach to HIV prevention, however, is the attention given in more recent years to the role of law and legal systems in determining new HIV infections. In particular, a range of experts and organizations have increasingly politicized the determining role of domestic criminal laws, such as prohibitions against homosexuality, sex work and HIV transmission, on the global epidemiology of HIV infection and transmission (UNAIDS/Lancet 2013; Global Commission on HIV and the Law 2012).

This concern with the specific role of law and legal systems in determining global health outcomes in the specific context of HIV/AIDS has been paralleled in the investigations of the Commission on the Social Determinants of Health. In the Commission’s 2008 report, law reform is again seen as central to effecting change to health outcomes and challenging global health inequalities, from anti-discrimination protections to address gender discrimination, to fair housing laws, to progressive employment legislation. Moreover, concern at the global level with the specifically “legal” determinants of health has mapped onto and interweaves with a new wave of legal conceptual research that has helped reinforce the connections between law and unequal health outcomes. These range from Scott Burris’ efforts to draw together law and social epidemiology using a new conceptual framework of “legal epidemiology”, to Wendy Parmet’s public health-driven “population-based legal analysis”, which demands a new model of legal analysis that is better able to advance public health by integrating technical and scientific evidence of legal determinants of population health into legal decision-making (Burris et al 2002, Burris et al 2016; Parmet 2009; see also Amin 2014).

In short, there exists today an increasingly influential transnational network, consisting of UN bodies, governments, academics, public health professionals, scientific experts, activists, NGOs and lawyers, all asking the same question: to what extent is law a social determinant of health?

Research questions

The aim of this research project is to explore the implications of this growing concern with law’s consequences for health outcomes. However, unlike the extant scholarly literature in this area, the project seeks to move beyond the work already done in making and restating the political, ethical and empirical case for action on social and legal determinants of health (c.f. Burris et al 2002; Krieger 2011; Parmet 2009). Instead, the project will take a more critical approach to this problematization of law as a ‘matter of health’, by stepping back to establish the complex historical, political and ethical dynamics that have helped to bring about this understanding of law and legal regimes as drivers of ill-health and disease in contemporary global health governance.

Put another way, the project will explore in more detail how and why this rapid set of policy, technical and scientific developments has occurred. The project will consider in particular the important linkages between global, regional and national policymaking in this area and the emergence of a new domain of professional ‘experts’, forms of technical ‘know-how’ and ‘scientific’ data that have helped constitute the idea of the legal determinants of health and illness as a set of ‘facts’ about the world.

Methodology

This research project will draw from extensive expertise within the Manchester Centre for Regulation and Public Law (ManReg) and the Centre for Ethics and Social Policy (CSEP) to explore the complex interaction of the scientific and technical, activist, legal, political, and policymaking constituencies that together are reconstructing transnational and municipal understandings of the consequences of law and legal environments on global health inequalities. Consequently, the project will feed into and reinforce ManReg’s core thematic commitments to research on ‘vulnerability’.

The successful candidate for the studentship will work with a supervisory team drawn from both CSEP and ManReg to trace and analysis the ways in which the domain of law has emerged as a focus for a new global health politics, as it traces the combined efforts of the work of health and human rights advocacy, a developing scientific evidence-base and rapidly emerging global institutional change before organizations like the UN. The expectation is that a student trained in legal studies, political science, international relations or sociology will be especially suited to the project, although guidance in critical perspectives and methodologies will be provided by the supervisory team.

The candidate will be expected to make use of a mixed methodology of critical and theoretical tools to explore these research questions. These may include traditional forms of legal inquiry, theories of international relations and global governance, institutional analysis, and perspectives on regulation, as well as the insights of critical and social theory. However, the candidate will be largely free to develop their own particular thesis questions and theoretical and critical approach.

Given the clear links between global policymaking about legal determinants of health and the role of a developing technical and scientific evidence-base in shoring up the credibility of these claims, the candidate may usefully draw from the rapidly expanding literature from the field of science and technology studies or STS. A useful starting-point for exploration here would be Sheila Jasanoff’s (2004) elaboration on the “idiom of co-production”, or the simple but now influential idea that the emergence of new technical and scientific and social scientific knowledge and the social and political order are mutually imbricated and influence each other in complex ways. 

Further important theoretical tools might also be found in the work of actor-network theorists such as Bruno Latour and his concern with how the domain of technical and scientific knowledge constitutes a “network effect”, together with his exhortation to “follow the actors” – global, national, local – that work to stabilize and render durable new knowledge forms (Latour 1987, 1989, 2005). This might be described too in terms of ‘global assemblages’, drawn together through the efforts of an array of transnational actors, institutions and networks, which crystallize new ways of understanding the world (Deleuze & Guattari 1987; Reubi & Mold 2013).  We also anticipate the project could draw from the insights of legal and critical anthropology on the role of technical expertise and scientific information in contemporary global politics and international relations, such as the phenomenon legal anthropologist Annalise Riles (2001) describes as “global governance through ‘facts’’.

In addition, further critical perspectives that seem to offer important insights into the dynamics behind the conception of legal determinants of health can also be found in recent neo-Foucauldian work on the rise in late modernity of new claims to ‘bio-citizenship’. This work focuses on how political demands are made increasingly in the language of health, well-being, life and death, and how this bio-political knowledge has helped reconfigure the claims for social justice and rights, which are now regularly translated and reconstituted through the lens of health and vulnerability (Rose & Novas 2005; Petryna 2004). We assume that much of value might also be drawn from feminist epistemologies and philosophies of law’s influence in shaping conceptions of the embodiment of women and other marginalized people (see e.g. Grosz 1994), which pushes us to consider the ways in which the idea of legal determinants of health may be radically reorganizing our understanding of the interface between social forces, legal regimes, somatic bodies, human behaviours, and health outcomes.

Training and timescales

The successful candidate for this studentship would be expected to deliver their thesis over three years, with support from an experienced interdisciplinary supervisory team. 

The candidate will also be expected to engage closely with the broader research cultures of ManReg and CSEP as well as contributing to the development of other projects and funding applications.

  • The first year will involve the guided production by the candidate of a comprehensive literature review. This will focus on the range of historical, political and social dynamics that have led to the constitution of social forces – and, in particular, law and legal rules - as determinants of health and well-being, from 19th and early 20th century socialist concerns with poverty, industrialization and health to the more recent human rights-driven understanding of social and inequality-based vulnerabilities to HIV/AIDS, and the health consequences of laws directed to addressing gender inequality, poverty and discrimination. The year will also involve the successful candidate integrating into the research cultures of ManReg.
  • The second year will centre on training for the candidate in a variety of critical methods to provide the basis for an analysis of the ways in which these political, legal, technical and scientific dynamics have informed global policymaking about social and legal determinants of health, nationally, regionally and at the global level. The candidate will work with the supervisory team to finalise the focus of their own thesis.
  • In the third year, the successful student will draw together the thesis, while working together with the supervisors to plan and prepare future related research projects.

Bibliography

  • Amon, Joseph J. (2014) ‘The political epidemiology of HIV’, J of the Int AIDS Society, vol 17, pp.19327
  • Burris, Scott, Ichiro Kawachi and Austin Sarat (2002) ‘Integrating law and social epidemiology’, Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp.510-521.
  • Burris, Scott, Marice Ashe, Donna Levin, Matthew Penn, Michelle Larkin (2016) ‘A Transdisciplinary Approach to Public Health Law: The Emerging Practice of Legal Epidemiology’, Annual Review of Public Health, Online Volume 37, forthcoming.
  • Correa, Sonia, Richard Parker and Rosalind Petchesky (2008) Sexuality, Health and Human Rights. London: Routledge.
  • Dodgson, Richard, Kelley Lee & Nick Drager (2002) Global Health Governance: A Conceptual Review. Geneva: World Health Organization.
  • Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari (1987) A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis, MA: University of Minnesota.
  • Global Commission on HIV and the Law (2009) Rights Risk and Health. Geneva, Switzerland: UN Development Programme.
  • Gostin, Lawrence O. (2014) Global Health Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Grosz, Elizabeth (1994) Volatile Bodies: Towards a Corporeal Feminism, London: Routledge.
  • Hunt, Paul and Gunilla Backman (2008) ‘Health systems and the right to the highest attainable standard of health’ Health and Human Rights Journal, Vol 10, Issue 1, pp.81-92.
  • Jasanoff, Sheila (2004) ‘The Idiom of Co-production’ in Sheila Jasanoff, States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and the Social Order. London: Routledge.
  • Krieger, Nancy (1994) ‘Epidemiology and the Web of Causation: Has Anyone Seen the Spider?’ Social Sciences & Medicine, Vol 39, pp. 887-903.
  • Krieger, Nancy (2011) Epidemiology and the People’s Health: Theory and Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Latour, Bruno (1986) ‘Drawing things together’ In Henrika Kuklick (ed) Knowledge and Society Studies in the Sociology of Culture Past and Present Volume 6, Stanford, CA: Jai Press, pp. 1-40.
  • Latour, Bruno (1979) Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Latour, Bruno (2005) An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  • Lee, Kelley and Adam Kamradt-Scott (2014) ‘The multiple meanings of global health governance: a call for conceptual clarity’, Global Health, Vol 10, pp. 28
  • Mann, Jonathan M., Lawrence Goston, Sofia Gruskin, Troyen Brennan, Zita Lazzarini and Harvey Fineberg (1999) ‘Health and human rights’ in Jonathan Mann, Sofia Gruskin, Michael A Grodin, George J Annas, Health and Human Rights: A Reader. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Murphy, Therese (2013). Health and Human Rights, London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing.
  • Parmet, Wendy (2009) Populations, Public Health and the Law. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
  • Petryna, Adriana (2002) Life Exposed: Biological Citizens after Chernobyl. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Reubi, David & Alex Mold (2013) ‘Introduction’ in Reubi, David & Alex Mold (eds) Assembling Health Rights in Global Context: Genealogies and Anthropologies. London: Routledge.
  • Rose, Nikolas and Carlos Novas (2005) ‘Biological Citizenship’ in Aihwa Ong and Stephen J Collier, Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics, and Ethics as Anthropological Problems. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
  • Riles, Annalise (2001) The Network Inside Out. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan University Press.
  • Venkatapurum, Sridhar (2012) ‘Health Inequalities, Capabilities and Social Justice’ in Patti Leonard and Christine Straehle (eds), Health Inequalities and Global Justice. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  • Waitzin, Howard (2005) ‘The Social Origins of Disease: A Neglected History’ in Nancy Krieger, Embodying Inequality: Epidemiologic Perspectives. Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing.
  • WHO and Commission for the Social Determinants of Health (2008) Closing the Gap in a Generation: Health Equity through Action on the Social Determinants of Health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. 

How to apply

Before applying for this studentship, potential candidates must have an offer from the School of Law, the University of Manchester, to begin a PhD course in January 2017. See our application pages for further details of our application process.

To apply for the studentship applicants must then submit:

  • A funding application form
  • A personal statement outlining how your skills, knowledge and experience make you an exceptional candidate for this opportunity.
  • A curriculum vitae.
  • Two academic references.
  • Copies of undergraduate and postgraduate degree transcripts, and any other relevant academic qualifications.

Please send completed applications to: law.scholarship@manchester.ac.uk

Responsibility or rhetoric? The consideration of human rights as an aspect of corporate social responsibility

Overview

  • Project start date: 1 January 2017.
  • Tuition fees paid plus annual stipend of approximately £14,057.
  • Applicants must have been resident in the UK for the last three years (depending on the candidates’ residential eligibility, awards can be made as a full studentship or tuition fees only studentship).
  • Applicants must hold an Upper Second Class Honours degree with minimum grade averages of 65% (or overseas equivalent) in Law or a relevant discipline, and a Masters degree at Merit level with overall average marks of 65% in taught modules and a minimum mark of 65% in the dissertation/research element (or overseas equivalent). 
  • Deadline for applications: 30 September 2016. Applications received after this date will not be considered.

Project outline

Research questions

  • Whether in the unconventional hydrocarbon extraction industry human rights law forms part of firms’ perceptions of their corporate social responsibility. 
  • How, if at all, the consideration of human rights in perceptions of corporate social responsibility in this industry might be established/increased. 

Unconventional hydrocarbons represent arguably the most controversial sources of energy in a world identified as having ever decreasing resources. Presented as both the most harmful form of carbon intensive fuel use on the one hand and as a bridge source of energy to be used whilst the viability of renewable energy sources increases, public, commercial and political opinion of them is bifurcated. The project will aim to assess the extent to which firms active in their extraction, or engaging with regulatory authorities in regions where their use is being considered, take into account basic human rights standards in their perceptions of their corporate social responsibilities.  Given that human rights have increasingly been applied to the protection of basic environmental standards in recent decades at national, regional and international levels, it is suggested that firms ought to be aware of the implications, though indirect, for them and their operations.   As such the project is aimed at assessing the extent to which this is a reality and how to improve upon the current position.

Within the United Kingdom and firms based herein, this will be based on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to environmental issues. The expansive interpretation of the rights contained within the European Convention on Human Rights by the Court dictates that this will be drawn from case law focused predominantly on breaches of the right to life (Article 2), the right to a fair trial (Article 6), the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8) and the right to freedom of expression (Article 10). The research would however not be restricted to these two rights should the research dictate a broader scope during its course. Beyond the United Kingdom, the respective national and regional human rights mechanisms covering the jurisdictions in which firms are operating will be considered. The American Convention on Human Rights, and/or the African Charter of Human and Peoples Rights would therefore be considered should the firms interviewed dictate it as would the national human rights mechanisms of any State which had them and in which unconventional hydrocarbon extraction is being undertaken such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The project will focus on two types of unconventional hydrocarbon extraction, firstly the use of hydraulic fracturing to obtain gas and oil from deposits of shale, and secondly the extraction of so called heavy oil. Whilst the student would be able to select projects (and thus firms) domestically and globally on which to base their thesis, it would be advised that the UK and US hydraulic fracturing industry and Canadian oil sands would at least form a starting point for the work.

Methodology

The project will be centred upon qualitative research comprising of interviews enquiring as to the extent to which firms in this sector consider human rights as an aspect of their corporate social responsibility with regards to extraction projects. The interviews will be based on the established model for the interaction of business and human rights, the ‘Ruggie Principles’ on Corporate Responsibility to Protect Human Rights and would consider the influence of national and regional human rights texts and structures on the operations of each firm interviewed.  The project is not intended to consider theoretical debates as to the validity of giving rights to businesses and would instead be realist in its consideration of the conflagration of human rights and corporate interests.

To support this it is envisaged that the introductory text of the thesis would provide an outline of the rights relevant to the industry in question and their practices, as well as tracing the justifications for the application of human rights law in this regard from academic literature. This will place the work within the bounds of existing literature in this are of academic discourse.

Originality and contribution to the field

The project would by virtue of its collection of unique qualitative data surpass the basic threshold for originality. However, the analysis conducted following the collection of said data would entail an analysis of human rights as an aspect of corporate social responsibility within emergent industries which are surrounded by considerable scientific, social and political debate. The nature of the debates surrounding them has to date rarely, if at all, utilised human rights law as a measure of the legitimacy of the practices. As such the project would utilise a new lens through which to consider unconventional hydrocarbon extraction practices, the performance of firms in the industry in this regard and how it might be improved upon via its application.   

Timeframe 

The proposed research would be undertaken with a view to completion within a period of 36 months, with the final 6 months being spent focused upon formatting and finalising the concluded piece to be assessed.

Within this the bulk of the interviews are to be undertaken over second half of the first, and first half of the second year of the project dependent upon the existing experience of qualitative research of the student. This will allow for any training required to be undertaken and for the drafting of a questionnaire to facilitate the interviews being approved by the supervisors. These timelines would of course be subject to ethical approval for the project though it’s nature suggests this would be forthcoming based on the experience of the supervisors.

Care would be taken in this regard also to the breadth of firms interviewed and the range of human rights mechanisms which this would involve discussion of. This, it is envisaged, would form part of the early stages of the project in order to facilitate the construction of interviews appropriate to the firms questioned and avoid delays in completion.

Employability

The project would entail, it is hoped the publication of some of the data collected during the interviews envisaged. This would present the opportunity for the student to produce, during the course of the thesis, a peer reviewed piece (in conjunction with the supervisors if appropriate). The supervisors feel this is a considerable step in the progression of any PhD student towards and academic career and would as such be an aim of the project, though not to the detriment of the thesis itself.

The student would also be actively encouraged to disseminate the work through conference papers and other presentations commensurate to their level both within the University and beyond it.

Further to this, if necessary training to complete and present the research undertaken would be sought and provided utilising existing programmes for PGR students within the Faculty and wider University.

Envisaged commencement 

Subject to interviews and application numbers, the project could begin as soon as a student was able to be selected via the admissions processes with the department. September 2016 and January 2017 would therefore be viable if established processes allow for this.

Supervisors

  • Mr Gary Lynch-Wood
  • Dr John Pearson

Research hub assignment

The theme of the research proposed is envisaged as sitting within the ManReg Research Centre and aligned hub and as such is seen as providing additional support and outlets for dissemination and discussion of the project beyond the supervisors.

How to apply

Before applying for this studentship, potential candidates must have an offer from the School of Law, the University of Manchester, to begin a PhD course in January 2017. See our application pages for further details of our application process.

To apply for the studentship applicants must then submit:

  • A funding application form
  • A personal statement outlining how your skills, knowledge and experience make you an exceptional candidate for this opportunity.
  • A curriculum vitae.
  • Two academic references.
  • Copies of undergraduate and postgraduate degree transcripts, and any other relevant academic qualifications.

Please send completed applications to law.scholarship@manchester.ac.uk

Analysing regulatory responses to safeguarding law, policy and practice

Overview

  • Project start date: 1 January 2017.
  • Tuition fees paid plus annual stipend of approximately £14,057.
  • Applicants must have been resident in the UK for the last three years (depending on the candidates’ residential eligibility, awards can be made as a full studentship or tuition fees only studentship).
  • Applicants must hold an Upper Second Class Honours degree with minimum grade averages of 65% (or overseas equivalent) in Law or a relevant discipline, and a Masters degree at Merit level with overall average marks of 65% in taught modules and a minimum mark of 65% in the dissertation/research element (or overseas equivalent).  
  • Deadline for applications: 30 September 2016. Applications received after this date will not be considered.

Project outline

This proposal seeks to enhance work already underway in two major research projects in the Centre for Social Ethics and Policy and to forge links between the two. The Effectiveness of Offences of Ill Treatment and Wilful Neglect in Contributing to Improved Safety and Care Quality of Adult Service Users within ‘Learning’ Care Cultures focuses on the intersection of care and the criminal legal process through an examination of the law on ill-treatment and wilful neglect of adults in receipt of health care.  A bid for external funding from the AHRC is almost complete and we expect it to be submitted during the summer 2016.    (2) Tackling Child Neglect  embarks on a conceptual appraisal of neglect and explores appropriate ethico-legal responses to it.   A proposal is due to be submitted to Leverhulme/British Academy small grant scheme.   This studentship will cut across the research issues on both projects and will offer a valuable source of knowledge that will assist in the development of future grant applications and publications. 

Research question and rationale

The neglect of adults and children service users in hospitals, care homes and in the community has generated considerable anxiety in legal, policy and professional contexts. [1]  The abuse and neglect uncovered in institutions [2] and also in family settings [3] brought such failures in care and regulation into public view. Notwithstanding the establishment of  national adult and child safeguarding policies [4] and the development of guidance to assist relevant stakeholders perform their safeguarding functions, [5] there is a growing sense that the current regulatory strategies are failing.  There is concern, for example, that a dominant role for the criminal law – a critical element of safeguarding policy - may not fit neatly within responsive approaches to compliance, enforcement and sanctions approaches considered in the wider literature. [6] Moreover, post-hoc inquiries into allegations of serious abuse and neglect have been accused of failing to ensure that lessons are learnt from adverse events, [7] whilst the inspection regime operated by the CQC and Ofsted have failed to uncover significant instances of ill-treatment. [8]  

This research seeks to examine law, policy and practice of adult and child safeguarding.  Using regulatory theories of compliance and enforcement as an analytical tool, it will evaluate the extent to which the strategies adopted by the two frameworks (adult safeguarding and child protection) have proved effective in achieving policy goals of improving care quality and protecting people from harm on the one hand, whilst ensuring individual and collective accountability of those whose actions contribute to neglect and/or abuse on the other. [9] 

Adding to existing knowledge

Analyses of adult and child protection have focussed on the conceptual and legal framing of abuse, [10] comparative evaluations of responses to allegations of abuse and neglect, [11] and the role of stakeholders in the enforcement of safeguarding policy, [12] Whilst regulatory theories on enforcement and compliance has been developed and applied across a range of contexts, its presence in health care legal analysis is rather slight.  There has been some work to date evaluating enforcement responses to emerging technologies, [13] and proposing that regulation can act as a tool for improving healthcare standards, [14] but incentivising compliance through a combination of criminal sanctions and responsive regulatory approaches has not been tackled.  This project therefore fills an important gap in the literature and will offer some important insights into the application of regulatory enforcement and compliance to a new domain as much as it will offer new knowledge about the effectiveness of safeguarding policy in meeting its policy goals.

Research methodology

The operation of adult and child safeguarding will be evaluated using regulatory theory to identify the extent to which current practice is able to meet the stated policy goals.  Utilising models of responsive regulation [15], the thesis will evaluate the various elements of regulatory oversight and intervention. These are identified as:

  • Service commissioning
  • Inspection and Monitoring
  • Vetting and Barring
  • Reporting
  • Enforcement notices
  • Prosecution 

The first stage in this project is to undertake a literature review of regulatory theories of enforcement and compliance in order to determine which approach is best suited to assessing delivering the outcomes of this research (viz. An evaluation of current mechanisms to achieve the goals of improving care standards, safeguarding from abuse; and ensuring accountability).  The literature on this is substantial and we are keen to provide considerable space in year one to map this diverse regulatory landscape and identify a suitable  model of compliance and enforcement that will enable an evaluation of policy effectiveness.

From there, the student will utilise a series of case studies drawn in order to achieve a level of theoretical saturation and to capture the dynamic nature of regulation, the research will profile the interplay of different enforcement and compliance techniques.  Case studies will be drawn up in consultation with supervisors but it is anticipated that these will approaches will be selected from serious case review data in the public domain.  Case studies will be drafted to capture an array of actors, institutional settings and regulatory enforcement responses.   Case study approaches, because they are purposively selected, will not meet the demands of statistically generalisable data.  However, we consider such a method important and valuable in this field in order to capture and assess how enforcement approaches are able to respond to individuals (e.g. family members) and organisations (e.g. third sector) whose activities are not wholly captured by the regulatory framework.  Much activity which results in abusive or neglectful conduct takes place in domains which make it difficult for regulation to have impact in the absence of allegations or evidence of neglect or abuse (e.g. domestic abuse). It may also arise in contexts where regulation has only limited application (e.g. social clubs and independent living arrangements, whereby workers will have been subject to vetting processes but whose operation does not trigger any further enforcement action to ensure compliance with safeguarding law).  Randomised sampling of source data such as case reviews would make it difficult to capture this very specific set of challenges to the regulation of health and social care.  The goal of the case studies, then, is to expose the strengths and weaknesses of existing regulatory responses rather than to contemplate in depth how alternative regulatory approaches might prove more effective in responding to identified deficiencies.  The latter is an interesting question but one which would require more time than a Phd studentship would allow.

Timetable

TimeActivityRelevance to thesis
Month 1-9 FT (1-18 PT) Scoping the literature on regulatory theory on enforcement Chapter 1 thesis
Month 9-15 FT (18-30 PT)  mapping enforcement strategies adopted by adult and child protection policy by reference to the literature on regulatory enforcement.  Identifying model of regulatory enforcement against which the policy frameworks will be evaluated. Chapter 2
Month 16 – 18 FT (32-36 PT) Devising case studies Chapter 3
Month 19-28 FT (Month 18-56 PT) Case study analysis Chapters 4-6
Months 28-29 FT (Month 56-58 PT) Conclusion Chapters 4-6
Month 29-36 FT (Month 58-72 PT)   Writing up 1-7

How to apply

Before applying for this studentship, potential candidates must have an offer from the School of Law, the University of Manchester, to begin a PhD course in January 2017. See our application pages for further details of our application process.

To apply for the studentship applicants must then submit:

  • A funding application form
  • A personal statement outlining how your skills, knowledge and experience make you an exceptional candidate for this opportunity.
  • A curriculum vitae.
  • Two academic references.
  • Copies of undergraduate and postgraduate degree transcripts, and any other relevant academic qualifications.

Please send completed applications to law.scholarship@manchester.ac.uk


[1] E.g. C Goodwin and K Mackay, “Neglecting justice? Exploring Scottish convictions for ill-treatment and wilful neglect” (2015) 17(4) J Adult Prot 234 – 244; S Biggs, J Manthorpe et al, “Mistreatment of older people in the United Kingdom: findings from the first National Prevalence Study”   J Elder Abuse Negl (2009) 21: 1. 1-14; Mencap, Out of Sight: Stopping the Abuse and Neglect of People with a Learning Disability, 2012.

[2] See M Flynn, Winterbourne View: A Serious Case Review (2012); Department of Health, Winterbourne View:

Transforming Care Two Years On (Department of Health, 2015); House of Commons Library, The Francis Report (Report of the Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry) and the Government’s Response (2013).

[3] Munro Review of Child Protection: Final Report A child-centred system, 2011  (Cm 8062).

[4] Children Act 1989; Children Act 2004; Care Act 2014.

[5]Department for Education, Working together to safeguard children (2015); Department of Health, Care and Support Statutory Guidance: Issued under the Care Act 2014 (Department of Health, 2014). Local Government Association, Adult Safeguarding Improvement Tool (2015).

[6] Ayres I and Braithwaite J, Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992); Baldwin R and Black J, ‘Really Responsive Regulation’ The Modern Law Review 71(1) (2008) 59–94; Baldwin R and Cave M, Understanding Regulation – Theory, Strategy and Practice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999);  Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Transforming Regulatory Enforcement, (December 2011); Hampton P, Reducing Administrative Burdens: Effective Inspection and Enforcement (HM Treasury: March 2005); Healy J and Braithwaite J, ‘Designing Safer Health Care through Responsive Regulation’ Medical Journal of Australia Supplement 184(10) (2006) S56–S59; 

[7] Elliott, “The Failure of Organizational Learning from Crisis – A Matter of Life and Death?” (2009) 17(3)  Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, p-157-168.

[8]Dale and Ryan, “An Ever Watchful Eye” (2011) 14(8) L earning Disability Practice, p 9.

[9] National Advisory Group on the Safety of Patients in England, A Promise to Learn, A Commitment to Act: Improving the Safety of Patients in England, (August 2013) 

[10] See, e.g. Loyano and Keenan, Child Abuse Law and Policy Across Boundaries  (OUP, 2010); Kopelman, “The forced marriage of minors: a neglected form of child abuse” (2016) 44(1) J LM&E, p  173-181;  Spencer-Lane, “To Empower or to Protect? Does the Law Assist in Cases of Self-Neglect” in Katz et al, Adult Lives: A Life Course Perspective  (OU, 2012) , ch 20.

[11] MacLean et al, “Family justice in hard times: can we learn from other jurisdictions?” (2011) 33(4), p 319-341; Sherwood-Johnson,   “Constructions of ‘vulnerability’ in comparative perspective: Scottish protection policies and the trouble with ‘adults at risk’” (2012) 28(7) Disability & Society, p 908-921.

[12] See, e.g. Littlechild, “Children's rights to be heard in child protection processes—law, policy and practice in England and Wales” (2000)  9(3) Child Abuse Review, 403-415; Manthorpe et al, "Managing Relations In Adult Protection: A Qualitative Study Of  The Views Of Social Services Managers In England And Wales” (2010) 24(4)  Journal of Social Work Practice, p 363–376

[13] Brownsword, Rights, Regulation and the Technological Revolution (OUP, 2008),  Brownsord and Young (eds), Regulating Technologies (Hart, 2008) ;  Fovargue, Xenotransplantation and risk: regulating a developing biotechnology (CUP, 2011);  Devaney, Stem Cell Research and the Collaborative Regulation of Innovation (Routledge, 2014).

[14] Walshe, Regulating healthcare: A prescription for improvement? (Open University Press, 2003)

[15] See, e.g. Baldwin and Black, Really Responsive Regulation, LSE Working Papers 2007.

Evaluation of place based integrated services

Overview

  • Project start date: 1 January 2017.
  • Tuition fees paid plus annual stipend of approximately £14,057.
  • Applicants must have been resident in the UK for the last 3 years (depending on the candidates’ residential eligibility, awards can be made as a full studentship or tuition fees only studentship).
  • Applicants must hold an Upper Second Class Honours degree with minimum grade averages of 65% (or overseas equivalent) in Law or a relevant discipline, and a Masters degree at Merit level with overall average marks of 65% in taught modules and a minimum mark of 65% in the dissertation/research element (or overseas equivalent).   
  • Deadline for applications: September 2016. Applications received after this date will not be considered.

Project outline

It is commonly accepted among public services that a service user in need may present at more than one front door. It is also recognised that the front doors at which a service user presents may not necessarily be the right ones. Service users with  both  simple  and  complex  reliance  upon  services  often  have  hidden  needs  underlying their initial or ongoing presentations, and much of the time these needs will go unaddressed. In fact, it is the failure of services to address the underlying need of the service user which has,  in many  cases,  perpetuated  repeat  demand  and  even  the  escalation  of  need.  A new relationship is therefore needed between public services and the communities they serve.

Historically,  neighbourhood  management  approaches  across  Greater Manchester  have  achieved  great success in joining up the way agencies work together: co-location, better information sharing and  cross-agency  casework  have  all  been  important  elements  of  a  drive  towards  well targeted and coherent public services. However, the Greater Manchester focus on complex dependency, and early help models more broadly, continues to highlight that a more systematic approach to service redesign is now required at the locality and neighbourhood levels, at pace and scale. This element of public reform has particular salience within the devolution agreement and the agenda about Devo-Manc.

Neighbourhood place-based integration can be defined as truly integrated service delivery that focuses on people in the context of the community in which they live, and the issues they are facing in their life. This means that services would aim to tailor provision to the specific needs of the neighbourhood within which they operate, taking account of the spatial context both in terms of understanding the problem and in terms of developing a solution.  For example, understanding need in a place-based way may mean recognising the informal barriers to engagement which hinder service users, such as inherent blockages within the public services system.  A place-based resolution, meanwhile, may be leveraging assets within the community to address need rather than foster dependency on services.

The introduction of this approach to public sector reform is in an early stage within the Greater Manchester region. An early proof of concept evaluation in two pilot sites conducted by New Economy, which did not assess reduction of complex demand through lifestyle change, suggests the potential for this new model of working and has also highlighted some of the challenges and barriers for successful implementation. The report also concluded that there is an outstanding need to further test the practicality of place-based integration in a range of contexts. Over the next months and year new sites will come into operation and the emerging model will continue to evolve and adapt. New Economy is indeed developing an evaluation framework which hinges upon a range of evaluation priorities which have been extrapolated from the original evaluation.

Aims and methodology

There is considerable scope for an in-depth analysis of any of the sites through a constructive process evaluation tailored for initial piloting. The site selection, scope and specific aims of the evaluation will have to be co-produced and negotiated with relevant stakeholders, both at the local level but also with the political coordinators of the initiative. We envision this project to be a collaborative project with researchers at New Economy that have been driving the evaluative work so far and the successful applicant will be expected to regularly report to them.

The proposed plan would be to identify one or two such pilot areas, in collaboration with New Economy and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, and then use an ethnographic evaluation approach capable of providing direct feedback to program developers about lessons learned. Most likely a case study approach suitable for early stages of program development will have to be adopted as the main methodology. We expect this to involve direct observation, as well as qualitative interviews of practitioners and other stakeholders.

Candidate’s criteria

The candidate would require an UG degree on a relevant discipline (social sciences) and PG training covering in sufficient detail evaluation and qualitative research methods. Domain knowledge on police and public service reform would be desirable, as well as knowledge of specific approaches to qualitative evaluation (e.g., process tracing, case study design), and other relevant practical experience.

Main supervisor

Juanjo Medina

How to apply

Before applying for this studentship, potential candidates must have an offer from the School of Law, the University of Manchester, to begin a PhD course in January 2017. See our application pages for further details of our application process.

To apply for the studentship applicants must then submit: 

  • A funding application form
  • A personal statement outlining how your skills, knowledge and experience make you an exceptional candidate for this opportunity.
  • A curriculum vitae.
  • Two academic references.
  • Copies of undergraduate and postgraduate degree transcripts, and any other relevant academic qualifications.

Please send completed applications to law.scholarship@manchester.ac.uk

The following awards are all closed for research degrees beginning in 2016, but can be used as a reference for the types of funding that will be available for degrees beginning in September 2017.

This page will be updated with the 2017 entry awards towards the end of the year.

Faculty of Humanities School of Law PGR Studentships

Overview

  • The award will cover tuition fees plus annual maintenance grant of £14,296 (2016/2017)
  • Available to UK, EU and international students who have made application for one of our PhD programmes by 29th April 2016 (current students are not eligible for this funding)
  • You must hold a First Class Honours/ High 2.1 or equivalent in your undergraduate degree and a distinction/high merit or equivalent in your postgraduate degree
  • You must be a self-funding student, e.g. you are not sponsored
  • Deadline for applications: Friday 29 April 2016      

Further information 

Successful candidates who have a suitable postgraduate qualification will register onto the PhD Law/Criminology programme and the Scholarship will continue for three years, on condition that they continue to reach the milestones required for progression to the following year.

Successful candidates who do not possess a suitable postgraduate qualification but wish to undertake postgraduate research in law/criminology/bioethics will register in the first instance for the MPhil and are expected to upgrade to PhD for two further years. 

Deadlines

An application for the research degree programme with all supporting documentation must be received in the School by 5pm on Friday 29 April 2016 at the very latest if you do not already hold an offer for a study place with us. Please note that this is a strict deadline and applications received after 5pm on Friday 29 April will not be included in the competition. Incomplete applications will also not be considered.

How to apply 

Minimum entry requirements

  1. For PhD programmes the minimum entry requirements are an Upper Second Class Honours degree with minimum grade averages of 65% (or overseas equivalent) in Law or a relevant discipline, and a Masters degree at Merit level with overall average marks of 65% in taught modules and a minimum mark of 65% in the dissertation/research element (or overseas equivalent) in Law or a relevant discipline, plus prior research training at postgraduate level. 
  2. Students whose first language is not English are required to hold a minimum overall score of 7 in the IELTS test with 7 in writing and no subsection below 6.5. 

Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Studentships

Overview

  • Tuition fees paid plus approximately £14,057 per annum as paid in 2015/16
  • Available to UK and EU applicants who fulfil residency requirements, have a first class or upper second class degree or equivalent and who have applied for a place on one of our PhD programmes
  • Deadline for applications: Monday, 1 February 2016

Further information

As part of the ESRC's North West Doctoral Training Centre (NWDTC) established in 2011, The University of Manchester (along with the Universities of Liverpool and Lancaster) is pleased to be able to forward for the consideration of the NWDTC applications for ESRC 1+3 (1 year MRes + 3 years PhD study) or +3 (3 years PhD study only) Studentships to commence in 2016-2017.

The awards cover the costs of University tuition fees, along with a full annual stipend (approximately £14,057 for 2016-2017), which is not subject to income tax or National Insurance deductions. Students wishing to undertake research involving advanced quantitative methods may be eligible for a higher stipend (an additional £3,000).

These studentships are for UK and EU applicants who fulfil residency requirements and who have a first class or upper second class degree or equivalent, as a minimum academic requirement. If your research involves advanced quantitative methods then there are no residency requirements to receive a full award and an additional award of £3,000. Please consult the ESRC's AQM guidelines to determine whether or not you think you would be eligible for this enhanced stipend. The guidelines indicate how to apply for the AQM stipend (by simply ticking a box on the ESRC Studentship application form).

Research council funding

Students wishing to be considered for Research Council funding should apply for either an ESRC Studentship or an AHRC Studentship. Candidates wishing to conduct criminological or socio-legal research should apply for an ESRC Studentship, whereas those candidates wanting to conduct doctrinal or desk-based research should apply for an AHRC Studentship.

The two Research Councils offer the following statement for further clarification:

AHRC supports research into the content, procedures, theory, philosophy and history of the law. This includes studies of legal systems and legislation in all periods of history and in all parts of the world. ESRC supports socio-legal studies, which are concerned with the social, political and economic influences on and impact of the law and the legal system.

The ESRC-funded NWDTC provides funding to enable students to study at the University of Manchester at both Master’s and doctoral level. These postgraduate awards programmes are administered the following different ways: 

  • 1+3 Scheme (One Year Master’s+ Three Years Doctoral Study)
    This scheme will provide support for students undertaking an eligible Master’s programme which focuses on advanced study and research training explicitly intended to provide a foundation for further research at doctoral level, who will then progress to a doctoral programme. 
  • 2+2 Scheme (Two Years Master’s+ Two Years Doctoral Study)
    This scheme is only available for students in Economics. It will provide support for students undertaking a two year MRes programme followed by a doctoral programme. 
  • +3 Scheme (Three Years Doctoral Study)
    This scheme will provide support for up to three years of full-time study, or six years of part-time study, on a programme leading to the award of a doctoral degree. 
  • +2 Scheme (Two Years Doctoral Study)
    This scheme is as the +3 scheme, but for students who are already in the first year of their doctoral study at one of the three eligible universities. Such students may apply for support for two years of full-time study, or four years of part-time study, on a programme leading to the award of a doctoral degree. Students who have completed more than one year full-time study (or two years part-time) are not eligible to apply for funding.

All applications for an ESRC studentship to commence in academic year 2016-2017 must be received in the School by Monday 1 February 2016. It is a condition of our funding awards that candidates have been offered a place to study on the PhD programme (or 1+3 programme). In order to ensure that you hold an offer for a place on the programme by the funding deadline, you must submit your PhD application before Friday 8 January 2016.

Please refer to the guidelines produced by the ESRC as you complete the application form. Be aware especially that for this application, you need to include a research proposal of 1,500 words (you should already have submitted a proposal of 2,000 words for your PhD application, so what you include in the application for the ESRC Studentship will need to be a truncated version of this). The ESRC guidelines include a section to indicate what your research proposal of 1,500 words should include.

Studentships will be awarded under the ESRC North West Doctoral Training Centre (NWDTC) pathway of "Security, Conflict and Justice". Further details of this can be found on the NWDTC website.

How to apply

The application form and accompanying guidelines are available to download from the link below. The completed form should be submitted by Monday, 1 February 2016.

Deadlines

You must complete the ESRC application form and submit this, together with your transcripts and references, to Ms Helen Davenport at the following address: law.scholarship@manchester.ac.uk by 5pm on Monday, 1 February 2016.

Please note that this is a strict deadline and applications received after 5pm will not be included in the competition. Incomplete applications will also not be considered.

Candidates whose applications have been forwarded to the final stage of consideration will be informed of the outcome of their application by 25 March 2016.

Please note that you are advised to submit your complete online application for a place on your chosen PhD programme by Friday, 8 January 2016. This is to try and ensure you are in receipt of an offer of a place by when the NWDTC committee make their selection. If you do not have an offer in place by the time the NWDTC committee meet, you will not be included in the competition.

Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) Studentships

Overview

  • Tuition fees paid plus approximately £14,057 per annum as paid in 2015/16
  • Available to UK and EU applicants who fulfil residency requirements, have a first class or upper second class degree or equivalent and who have applied for a place on one of our PhD programmes
  • Deadline for applications: Friday, 12 February 2016

Further information

The School of Law is able to nominate applications for Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) Doctoral Studentships from prospective PhD students.

These studentships are for UK and EU applicants who fulfil residency requirements and who have a first class or upper second class degree or equivalent, as a minimum academic requirement.

For UK students (or students who fulfil UK residency criteria), the studentship covers the costs of University tuition fees, along with a full annual stipend (approximately £14,057 for academic year 2016-2017) which is not subject to income tax or National Insurance deductions. EU students who do not fulfil UK residency criteria will be eligible for fees-only awards.

Research council funding

Students wishing to be considered for Research Council funding should apply for either an AHRC Studentship or an ESRC Studentship (see below).

Candidates wanting to conduct research in traditional legal subject areas or in healthcare ethics/bioethics should apply for an AHRC Studentship, whereas those candidates wishing to conduct criminological or socio-legal research should apply for an ESRC Studentship.

The two Research Councils offer the following statement for further clarification:

AHRC supports research into the content, procedures, theory, philosophy and history of the law. This includes studies of legal systems and legislation in all periods of history and in all parts of the world. ESRC supports socio-legal studies, which are concerned with the social, political and economic influences on and impact of the law and the legal system.

The AHRC provides funding to enable students to study at Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in the UK at doctoral level and their postgraduate awards programme is administered as follows: 

  • 1+3 Scheme (One Year Master’s + Three Years Doctoral Study) This scheme will provide support for students undertaking an eligible Master’s programme which focuses on advanced study and research training explicitly intended to provide a foundation for further research at doctoral level, who will then progress to a doctoral programme. Please refer to Application Guidance, sub-section 9. 
  • +2 Scheme (Two years Doctoral Study – For current first year students only)
    This scheme will provide support for up to two years of full time study, or four years of part-time study for students who are currently registered onto the first year of a programme leading to the award of a doctoral degree. Students in their second or third year will not be eligible for funding. 
  • +3 Scheme (Three years Doctoral Study)
    This scheme will provide support for up to three years of full-time study, or six years of part-time study, on a programme leading to the award of a doctoral degree.

To apply for an AHRC award, candidates must have applied for a place on a programme at one of the seven NWCDTP institutions by Friday, 22 January 2016.

Be aware especially that for this application, you need to include a research proposal of 1,500 words (you should already have submitted a proposal of 2,000 words for your PhD application, so what you include in the application for the AHRC Studentship will need to be a truncated version of this).

North West Consortium Doctoral Training Partnership

The University of Manchester is one of seven institutions - the others being the Royal Northern College of Music, the Universities of Keele, Liverpool, Lancaster, Salford, and Manchester Metropolitan University - to form the AHRC North West Consortium Doctoral Training Partnership (AHRC NWC DTP).  It is this Consortium that ultimately will be awarding the funding.

How to apply

The application form, accompanying guidelines and list of contacts for each institution are available to download from the links below.

Funding applications must be received by the School of Law by 5pm on Friday, 12 February 2016 in order to be considered. Funding applications along with references and transcripts should be emailed to law.scholarship@manchester.ac.uk by the deadline.

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) DTP Studentships

EPSRC DTP studentships 2016-17 

The Faculty of Humanities is offering 3 full-time PhD studentships under the EPSRC Doctoral Training Partnership (DTP) for candidates commencing PhD studies in September 2016. Each studentship comprises full-time tuition fees at RCUK approved rate, an annual stipend starting at approx. £14,300 (subject to confirmation) and £1,000/year research training support grant (RTSG) for the student. Projects aligned to EPSRC’s shortage areas (Engineering, ICT, Materials, Mathematics - particularly statistics and operational research) can be considered for an enhanced stipend of up to £17,000 per year. 

Eligibility criteria

  1. The awards are open to UK and EU candidates.
  2. Candidates must meet the specific requirements of the intended PhD programme and should have applied for the PhD course at the School of Law by 1 of April 2016.
  3. Depending on the candidate’s residential eligibility, the award can be made as full studentship or tuition fees only studentship. See eligibility guidance on the EPSRC website.
  4. The proposed research project must be within the remit of EPSRC’s research themes as follows:
    • Digital economy
    • Energy
    • Engineering
    • Global uncertainties
    • Healthcare technologies
    • Information and communication technologies (ICT)
    • Living with environmental change
    • Manufacturing the future
    • Mathematical sciences
    • Physical sciences
    • Quantum technologies
    • Research infrastructure 

Candidates and supervisors should consult the EPSRC website for further details of the eligible research themes and sub-themes

  1. Awards can be converted to CASE where the projects have non-HEI collaboration, although the collaborating partner is required to provide significant cash contribution.
  2. January starters are eligible but they must meet the applications deadline below.
  3. Students who have started the PhD are not eligible.

Expression of interest in EPSRC funding and all supporting documentation must be received in the School by 1 April 2016.  Please note that this is a strict deadline and applications received after 5pm on Friday 1 April will not be included in the competition. Incomplete applications will also not be considered. 

To apply, e-mail the following documentation to law.scholarship@manchester.ac.uk:

  1. Degree certificate and transcripts.
  2. Research proposal maximum of 1,500 words excluding reference. Over-length proposals will be automatically excluded from the Faculty consideration.
  3. A separate statement of fit to EPSRC research themes (maximum 250 words).
  4. Two academic references.

President's Doctoral Scholar (PDS) Awards 2016

Overview

  • Approximately  £15,057 per annum plus cost of tuition fees
  • Available to UK, EU and international students who have a first class honours and/or distinction at Masters level, and who have applied for a place on one of our PhD programmes. Current students are not eligible to apply
  • Candidates in receipt of AHRC/ESRC fees only studentship are not eligible unless they are also in receipt of maintenance grant from the School or other source at RCUK minimum stipend rate (for 2015-16, the RCUK minimum stipend rate was £14,057 per year).
  • Candidates in receipt of ESRC 1+3 studentship can be considered for PDS award during their registration on the doctoral programme only.
  • Deadline for applications: Friday 18 March 2016

Further information

The University of Manchester launched a further £2.5 million investment in 2012 for PhD training with the creation of the President's Doctoral Scholar (PDS) Awards. These prestigious awards are open to all nationalities and research areas.

Approximately £15,057 per annum plus cost of tuition fees is available to UK, EU and international students who have a first class honours and/or distinction at Masters level or outstanding equivalent professional experience, and who have accepted a place on one of our PhD programmes.

PDS award-holders will also have the opportunity to:

  • Be invited to attend a series of exclusive events, meet The University of Manchester President and Vice Chancellor, interact closely with our academic community and network with other PDS award-holding students;
  • Benefit from international research leadership under distinguished scholars;
  • Become a PDS ambassador for the University;
  • Receive a President's Doctoral Scholar medal at graduation;
  • Benefit from the University's extensive transferable skills training for PhD researchers.

Applications for PDS funding and all supporting documentation must be received in the School by Friday 18 March 2016.  Please note that this is a strict deadline and applications received after 5pm on Friday 18 March will not be included in the competition. Incomplete applications will also not be considered.

In order to ensure that you are ready to apply for the funding, please submit your PhD application by Friday 19 February 2016 at the very latest. If you are not in receipt of an offer you will not be included in the competition.

How to apply

The application form is available for download via the link below:

E-mail your completed funding application form to:

N8 Policing Research Partnership Collaborative Studentship

Overview

  • One studentship is available for this unique opportunity
  • Tuition fees paid plus annual stipend of approximately £14,057
  • Applicants must have been resident in the UK for the last 3 years, have a first class or upper second class honours degree and a Master’s degree at Merit level or higher
  • Experience and/or interest in conducting ethnographic research is advantageous

Further information

The N8 Research Partnership has established the N8 Policing Research Partnership (N8 PRP), an exciting new five-year programme of research and knowledge exchange that will pioneer an innovative collaboration between police forces and universities in the North of England. This will foster and enable research collaborations that will help address the problems of policing in the 21st century and achieve international excellence in policing research and impact. Further details of the N8 PRP can be found on the N8 research website.

The University of Manchester is pleased to be the awarding body for an exciting new N8 PRP PhD studentship project entitled ‘Developing a Human Rights Based Approach to Football Policing in England and Wales.’ Working in close partnership with Greater Manchester Police (GMP), the successful applicant will conduct desk based research and extensive field work into the policing of football in England and Wales, and how this intersects with the Rights of Assembly and Freedom of Expression of non-violent fans, within the broader context of the UK’s Human Rights legal framework.

Project summary

Football crowds pose a regular public order challenge to police forces in England and Wales, with a number of incidents of serious violence and disorder occurring each season. Football policing must have the capacity to respond to, and prevent, such incidents. However, there have been a number of instances where policing has been criticised as disproportionately restricting the rights of non-violent fans.

The Human Rights framework places positive obligations upon police forces to protect rights of Freedom of Expression and Assembly/Association, as well as an obligation not to disproportionately infringe the Rights of Liberty, Privacy and the Right to a Fair Trial. This is recognised in HMIC’s 2009 Report Adapting to Protest and the College of Policing’s Authorised Professional Practice guidelines. Furthermore, the European Court of Human Rights case of Friend v UK expands these rights to groups expressing socio-cultural identity, probably including football fans.

This project has been developed in partnership with Greater Manchester Police who have the responsibility for regularly managing numerous large football events.

The research will entail:

Desk-based analysis focussing on:

  • The UK’s Human Rights framework, including European treaties and conventions, domestic legislation, case law, and legal and academic commentary.
  • Academic and policing literature, including Home Office and College of Policing guidelines, relating to POPS policing and the management of football crowds.
  • Academic literature on football crowd behaviour and disorder.

Fieldwork based in Manchester with possible visits to other UK cities focussed on:

  1. Interviewing GMP officers responsible for football policing about their role and views on the most effective POPS strategies and tactics for football crowd management.
  2. Carrying out ethnographic observations of football policing operations conducted by, or engaged in by, GMP.
  3. Questionnaires, surveys, or interviews with football fans about their experience of policing.
  4. Interviews with other relevant stakeholders (e.g. clubs, security personnel, fan organisations, civil liberties organisations).
  5. Court observations where relevant and appropriate.
  6. Completion of the University of Manchester’s doctoral training programme.
  7. Participation in the Law School’s bi-annual internal review procedure.
  8. Meetings with internal supervisors at least once a month.
  9. Completion of a PhD thesis that satisfies University of Manchester regulations for full-time PhDs.

The successful applicant will demonstrate an ability to:

1. Develop an excellent understanding of the human rights and civil liberties framework in the United Kingdom.

2. Develop an excellent understanding of the development of policing of football crowds in the UK and the current public order functioning of the police.

3. Use ethnographic methods including observations and interviews to gain an understanding of how GMP police football events in order to identify:

  • Areas where GMP may be falling short of their legal obligations.
  • Good practice in terms of human rights-compliant football policing strategies, tactics and operational decisions.
  • Ways in which GMP can develop their strategies and tactics in order to police football more effectively, efficiently, and compliant with their obligations under human rights law.

These can be supported by quantitative methods as appropriate.

How to apply

Before applying for this studentship, potential candidates must first secure a place on a PhD programme in the School of Law. See our application pages for further details of our application process.

To apply for the studentship applicants must then submit:

  • A personal statement outlining how your skills, knowledge and experience make you an exceptional candidate for this opportunity (maximum 600 words).
  • A curriculum vitae.
  • Two academic references.
  • Copies of undergraduate and postgraduate degree transcripts, and any other relevant academic qualifications.

Send completed applications to law.scholarship@manchester.ac.uk.

Deadline to apply

Friday, 1 April 2016 by 5pm.

Research Impact PhD Scholarship 2016/17

Overview

Two PhD scholarships are available in the Faculty of Humanities for candidates who are currently pursuing a masters degree at or a recent graduate of The University of Manchester for doctoral studies commencing in 2016/17. The funds are made available through the Division of Development and Alumni Relations (DDAR) from donation to the University of Manchester (please see your.manchester.ac.uk for more information).

The scholarship value is £18,000 per year for three years to cover tuition fees and maintenance allowance.

Eligibility criteria

  • Applicants must be currently pursuing a masters degree at or have graduated from The University of Manchester within the last 4 years
  • Applicants may be of any nationality and residency status
  • Students who have already started their doctoral degree are not eligible
  • Their proposed research project must be related to one of the following of the University’s philanthropic research themes:
    • Energy and sustainability   
    • Enterprise and innovation
    • Prevention and screening for a healthy future
    • Global poverty and humanitarian assistance

Further information on these can be found on www.manchester.ac.uk/collaborate/support/priorities.

Deadlines

Applications and all supporting documentation must be received in the School by Friday 1 April 2016.  Please note that this is a strict deadline and applications received after 5pm on Friday 1 April will not be included in the competition. Incomplete applications will also not be considered.

How to apply

As part of your funding application, please include the following documents:

  1. Research Impact application form (MS Word, 131KB)
  2. Degree certificate and transcripts
  3. Research proposal
  4. References

E-mail your completed funding application form with supporting documentation to:

In order to ensure that you hold an offer for a place on the programme by the funding deadline, you must submit your PhD application by Friday 4 March 2016. If you are not in receipt of an offer you will not be included in the competition.

School of Law scholarships

Overview

  • Tuition fees at Home/EU student rate, plus a maintenance stipend of that of the RCUK studentship £14,057 as paid in 2015/16
  • Available to UK, EU and international students who have accepted a place on one of our PhD programmes
  • Deadline for applications: Friday 18 March 2016

Further information

The School of Law offers a number of Graduate Scholarships for research degrees beginning in 2016/17. These awards cover tuition fees at EU/Home student rate and provide a maintenance stipend equivalent to that of the RCUK studentships £14,057 for 2016/17. They are open to all new students both overseas and home/EU students in all research areas within the School.

Competition is intense, but we welcome applications from well-qualified graduates.

  • You must hold an offer for one of our PhD/MPhil programmes
  • You should have accepted your offer by 18 March 2016
  • You must hold a First Class Honours/ High 2.1 or equivalent in your undergraduate degree/ and a distinction/ high merit or equivalent in your postgraduate degree
  • You must be a self-funding student, e.g. you are not sponsored

Successful candidates who have a suitable postgraduate qualification will register onto the PhD Law/Criminology programme and the Scholarship will continue for three years, on condition that they continue to reach the milestones required for progression to the following year.

Successful candidates who do not possess a suitable postgraduate qualification but wish to undertake postgraduate research in law/criminology/bioethics will register in the first instance for the MPhil and are expected to upgrade to PhD for two further years.

Deadlines

Applications and all supporting documentation must be received in the School by Friday 18 March 2016.  Please note that this is a strict deadline and applications received after 5pm on Friday 18 March will not be included in the competition. Incomplete applications will also not be considered.

How to apply

The application form is available for download via the link below:

E-mail your completed funding application form to:

In order to ensure that you hold an offer for a place on the programme by the funding deadline, you must submit your PhD application by Friday 19 February 2016. If you are not in receipt of an offer you will not be included in the competition.

School of Law bursary scheme

In this scheme, graduates of The University of Manchester's School of Law who will be self-funding their postgraduate study will be eligible to receive a 20% Loyalty discount towards their annual tuition fees for postgraduate research study.

Separate applications do not need to be made for these Alumni Bursaries – the information concerning previous study will be picked up from the application form for study received by the School, and the discount applied accordingly to tuition fees upon registration. Please note that this discount is only available to the graduates of the School of Law.

How to apply for funding

In order to apply for funding you must first have applied for a place on one of our PhD degree programmes. We recommend that an application for PhD study is made at least two weeks before the funding deadline.

After applying for a place, please email your completed funding application form to: law.scholarship@manchester.ac.uk.

Further funding opportunities