AHRC Focal Awards for Art History and Visual Arts: How UK Institutions Can Fund Up to 30 PhD Studentships

If you work in a UK university or research organisation and care about the future of art history, visual arts or creative practice, this is one of those funding calls you do not ignore.

The AHRC Focal Awards in Art History, Visual Arts and Creative Practice offer a chance to secure funding for up to 30 fully funded PhD studentships across three cohorts, starting from October 2026. That is not just “a bit of support” – that is the spine of an entire doctoral programme, potentially shaping a generation of researchers, artists and practice-based scholars.

This call is not about sprinkling a few scholarships here and there. It is about building a strategic, partnership-based doctoral hub: universities working alongside galleries, museums, archives, creative organisations, studios, and other non-HEI partners to design rigorous, relevant, and inclusive doctoral training.

If your institution has been talking about deepening engagement with the cultural sector, or improving access for underrepresented students, or strengthening practice-based PhDs – this is your moment to stop talking and write something serious.

The deadline is 17 February 2026, 16:00 UK time. That sounds distant, until you realise you’ll need partners, internal approvals, training frameworks, equality plans and a coherent three-cohort vision. This is not a last-minute grant.

Below is a detailed guide to what this funding call offers, who it is really for, and how to put in an application that stands a chance.

Focal Awards at a Glance

What This Opportunity Actually Offers

Think of this focal award as a mini doctoral training centre specifically for art history, visual arts and creative practice – but tailored through your partnerships and expertise.

If your proposal is funded, you will receive support for up to 30 PhD studentships, spread over three intake years (three cohorts). In practical terms, that could look like:

• 10 students starting in 2026
• 10 more in 2027
• 10 more in 2028

Or another distribution that suits your strategy, as long as it fits within the scheme’s terms.

The funding is provided at standard UKRI AHRC rates, which typically cover:

• UK tuition fees at the home rate
• A maintenance stipend for each doctoral student
• Potentially, some associated training, development and partnership costs (depending on the precise scheme rules and your budget design)

This means your institution can recruit and fully fund a coherent cluster of doctoral researchers around shared themes. That cluster is one of your strongest assets: a critical mass of people who talk to each other, share methods, collaborate across art history and practice, and engage deeply with your partners.

Crucially, this call is built around partnership. You are expected to work with non-HEI organisations – think:

• Galleries and museums
• Archives and libraries
• Artist-run spaces, studios, collectives
• Cultural charities, trusts, or creative industry bodies

These partners are not just window dressing. They should be involved in shaping research directions, hosting placements or residencies, co-supervising practice-based work, or contributing to training and professional development. Done well, this can turn a standard PhD into something far more connected to real-world cultural work.

AHRC also expects you to address professional development. That means you cannot simply offer “three years in the library and a conference or two”. You need a structured plan: workshops, mentoring, placements, portfolio development, teaching experience, public engagement – the things that genuinely help graduates move into academic, cultural or creative careers.

Finally, the award expects a clear strategy for increasing representation from underrepresented groups in doctoral education. This is not optional language to gloss over. You’ll need ambitious but realistic measures that shape your recruitment, selection, supervision culture and support mechanisms.

In short: the money pays for doctoral students, but the call is really about building a thoughtful, partnered and inclusive PhD ecosystem.

Who Should Apply

This call is aimed squarely at UK research organisations that are already eligible for AHRC doctoral funding. In practice, that usually means UK universities with recognised research status in the arts and humanities, sometimes in collaboration with other institutions.

You’re a realistic applicant if:

• Your institution has established strength in art history, visual arts, or creative practice. That could be a leading art history department, a school of art and design, or a cross-disciplinary creative practice programme.
• You can show real partnerships with non-HEI cultural or creative organisations – not just a vague “we’ll work with local galleries”. At least some partners should be willing to commit to placements, co-supervision, or co-designed activities.
• You’re in a position to coordinate a multi-cohort doctoral programme: that means capacity for supervision, administration, and training design.

This call is particularly well-suited if:

• Your university has a museum, gallery, or archive on campus and you’ve been wanting to integrate it more deeply into doctoral training.
• You have a thriving practice-based PhD community but patchy, small-scale funding. This could stabilise that pipeline.
• You are part of a regional cluster of institutions and cultural organisations that want to make your area a serious hub for art research and practice.

If you are a potential PhD student, you cannot apply directly to this focal award. Instead, watch which institutions win funding here; they will later advertise funded studentships you can apply for (likely from late 2025 onwards, given the October 2026 start).

What Your Proposal Must Address

The call highlights two things you absolutely must tackle in your proposal:

1. Doctoral training and professional development
   You have to explain how you will recruit, train and support your PhD students across the three cohorts. This includes things like:

   • How supervision will work across HEI and non-HEI partners
   • What formal training will be provided (methods, theory, practice, digital skills, etc.)
   • How you’ll support broader professional skills – public engagement, curation, teaching, project management, grant writing
   • Opportunities for placements, secondments, or residencies with partners

   Reviewers want to see a coherent, structured training environment, not a pick-and-mix of ad hoc seminars.

2. Increasing representation of underrepresented groups
   You’ll need to show a serious, thought-through plan for widening participation. That might include:

   • Outreach to undergraduate and MA students from underrepresented backgrounds
   • Clear, transparent recruitment processes that minimise bias
   • Guaranteed support mechanisms (mentoring, peer networks, financial support where allowed)
   • Partner activities that diversify the pipeline (for example, internships feeding into PhD recruitment)

   The point is not just “we welcome applications from X group” but “here is how our structure changes so that those students can succeed”.

Insider Tips for a Winning Application

This is a competitive UKRI scheme. You will not talk your way through with generic copy about “excellent training” and “strong partners”. Here is how to lift your proposal above the noise.

1. Tell a clear, thematic story

Do not treat this as a pile of 30 unrelated PhD topics. Frame the award around a set of connected themes or questions in art history, visual arts and creative practice.

For example:

• “Visual cultures of climate crisis”
• “Decolonising collections and curatorial practice”
• “Creative AI and visual experimentation”
• “Expanded painting and material practice in the 21st century”

Your students don’t need to work on identical topics, but reviewers should see why it makes sense to fund them as a group.

2. Make your partners real, not decorative

If you list six galleries and three archives as partners, reviewers will look for specific roles. Avoid the “logo zoo” approach. Instead:

• Describe what each partner offers: collections, communities, facilities, audiences, technical expertise.
• Show where they sit in the training programme: placements, co-designed workshops, supervision, real co-research.
• Include evidence of commitment – even if formal letters aren’t required, explain how these relationships already work.

Think of your partners as co-authors of the training environment, not “stakeholders”.

3. Design training from the student perspective

Instead of listing what your institution already does, map out what a student’s three to four years would actually feel like.

For example, outline:

• Year 1: induction, core methods workshops, early partner visits, peer reading groups.
• Year 2: deep project work, placement or residency, public engagement training.
• Year 3: thesis writing, career planning, teaching opportunities, portfolio or exhibition work for practice-based students.

If practice-based students will exhibit or perform, say where and how. If art historians will work with collections, explain what skills they’ll gain.

4. Take equality and inclusion beyond box-ticking

Everyone will mention “widening participation”. The stronger proposals will:

• Provide some data on current representation in your relevant disciplines.
• Identify specific barriers (financial, cultural, informational) for underrepresented groups.
• Propose concrete interventions – for example, targeted pre-PhD schemes, funded pre-application visits, dedicated mentoring by staff with appropriate experience, clear guidance for supervisors.

If your institution has already trialled successful approaches, highlight those and show how you will scale them with this funding.

5. Show you can manage three cohorts without chaos

Thirty students over three cohorts means you’re running a rolling programme, not a one-off intake. Reviewers will want reassurance that:

• There is a clear governance structure (for example, programme director, training committee, partner advisory group).
• You have thought about continuity – how cohort 1 interacts with cohort 2, and so on.
• There are mechanisms for student voice, feedback, and quality assurance.

If your institution has experience with CDTs, DTPs or similar, draw on that – but tailor it to the specificities of art and visual practice.

6. Budget tells your priorities

Even within UKRI rate constraints, you have choices. Use your budget narrative to show that:

• Students can actually afford to do what you promise (fieldwork, exhibitions, residencies, travel to partner sites).
• Partner engagement is properly resourced (for example, small contributions to partner costs where allowed, workshop budgets).
• Training is not an afterthought – fund the events, visiting speakers, or skills courses you’re promising.

Application Timeline: Working Back from February 2026

Assume you want a polished application in by 10 February 2026, not 15:59 on the 17th. Systems crash, people get sick, internal systems seize up.

A realistic working timeline might look like this:

• April–June 2025:

  • Identify your internal leadership team.
  • Map existing strengths in art history, visual arts and creative practice.
  • Shortlist key non-HEI partners and start exploratory meetings about roles and expectations.

• July–September 2025:

  • Co-design the central themes of the focal award.
  • Draft an outline of the training programme and partner contributions.
  • Start sketching your approach to widening participation – get input from EDI specialists and student reps.

• October–November 2025:

  • Develop a full narrative draft of the case for support.
  • Agree governance structures, roles and responsibilities.
  • Shape the studentship distribution across cohorts.

• December 2025:

  • Refine the training plan, including a year-by-year “student journey.”
  • Finalise partner commitments, confirming placements, co-supervision and training roles.
  • Draft your equality and inclusion section with specific measures and targets.

• January 2026:

  • Final internal reviews by research office, finance and senior leadership.
  • Complete budget and justifications in line with UKRI rules.
  • Proofread for consistency and clarity; check that every requirement in the call text is explicitly covered.

• Early February 2026:

  • Submit via the UKRI Funding Service several days early.
  • Confirm submission and keep a copy of all documents.

This is the sort of call that rewards teams that start months earlier than they think they need to.

Required Materials and How to Prepare Them

The exact list of sections and word limits will be set out in the UKRI Funding Service, but you can safely expect to produce:

• Case for Support / Proposal Narrative
  This is your central story: why your focal award is needed, what themes it addresses, how training will work, and how partners are integrated. Write this early, then refine repeatedly.

• Training and Development Plan
  A detailed description of structured training, including both academic and professional development. Make it concrete – name modules, activities, or frameworks where you can.

• Partnership Plan
  Explain who your non-HEI partners are, what they bring, and what they get. Partners should not feel (or appear) exploited; this should look like a mutually beneficial collaboration.

• Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy
  Set out your plans for increasing representation from underrepresented groups, including recruitment outreach, selection processes, support systems and monitoring.

• Management and Governance Structure
  A clear explanation of who is in charge of what: programme directors, committees, partner boards, student representation, and how decisions are made.

• Budget and Justification
  Detailed costings in line with UKRI doctoral rates, with a narrative that connects each cost to the activities you describe.

• Institutional and Partner Statements (if required)
  These might include formal confirmations of support from your institution and from key partners. Start collecting them early; they always take longer than you expect.

Start drafts well before the UKRI system opens for submission – you can copy-paste and reformat later.

What Makes an Application Stand Out

Reviewers will likely be looking at several focal award proposals. They will not remember every detail of each, but they will remember how they felt about them. The ones that rise to the top usually have:

1. A strong, coherent vision
   The application feels like one integrated programme, not a bundle of separate parts. Partners, training, themes and EDI all pull in the same direction.

2. Evidence of genuine collaboration
   Non-HEI partners clearly have a seat at the table. There are signs of existing relationships and mutual benefit, not last-minute emails.

3. Practical, believable training
   The training plan sounds like it could be delivered by real humans in the time available, not a fantasy timetable with 50 workshops and no staff.

4. Credible supervision capacity
   Named academics and practitioners with relevant expertise, plus support for early-career supervisors to participate.

5. Serious engagement with inclusion
   Not just aspirations, but interventions, adjustments and accountability. If your institution has work to do, you can still be compelling if you show an honest diagnosis and a clear plan.

6. Clear articulation of impact
   “Impact” here doesn’t mean press releases. It means: how will this concentration of doctoral students and partnerships change your local art ecosystem, collections, communities or practices? What will exist in 2030 that does not exist now?

Common Mistakes to Avoid

A lot of otherwise decent applications trip over the same avoidable problems.

1. Generic language with no specifics
“We will provide excellent interdisciplinary training” tells reviewers nothing. Replace that with actual examples: modules, placements, mentoring arrangements, events.

2. Tokenistic approach to partners
If partners appear only on one page of the application, they will feel like an afterthought. Integrate them into training, governance and supervision, and show what they gain.

3. Overpromising on training volume
Offering 20 different annual workshops might impress at first glance, but reviewers will quickly ask, “Who is actually going to run all this?” It is better to offer a focused, high-quality programme than an undeliverable smorgasbord.

4. Vague or wishful EDI measures
Saying “we will encourage applications from underrepresented groups” without explaining how is a red flag. Reviewers see this ten times a week. You need structure, not slogans.

5. Weak or invisible management structure
If it is unclear who makes decisions, who liaises with partners, or how issues will be resolved, reviewers will doubt your ability to run a three-cohort programme.

6. Last-minute internal coordination
For larger institutions, this can be fatal. If your art school, history of art department, museum and research office are not talking to each other early, the proposal will show the seams.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can multiple institutions apply together?
Typically, UKRI is open to collaborations or consortia, provided there is a clear lead organisation and robust governance. Check the specific call guidance, but if you do go collaborative, ensure roles are crystal clear and not just “everyone does everything”.

Do we have to support the full 30 studentships?
The call says “up to 30 studentships per award,” which suggests some flexibility. You may propose fewer if that better matches your capacity and vision, but you will need to justify why your model is still strategic and value for money.

Can our focal award focus mainly on practice-based PhDs?
Yes, as long as the focus remains within art history, visual arts and creative practice and you can demonstrate appropriate supervision, facilities and training. A mixed model (some art historians, some practice-based researchers) can also be very strong.

What counts as a non-HEI partner?
Any organisation that is not a higher education institution but has relevant activity and capacity in art, culture, heritage or creative domains. That includes museums, galleries, charities, community arts organisations, archives, festivals, artist-led spaces and certain creative businesses.

How much freedom will we have in choosing actual PhD projects later?
The focal award sets the framework and themes. Individual PhD projects will usually be recruited after you are funded, within that framework. The more coherent and appealing your themes, the easier it will be to advertise and recruit exceptional candidates.

When will the first students actually start?
The first cohort is expected to start in October 2026. Work backwards: you’ll probably want to advertise those studentships sometime in late 2025 or early 2026, depending on your internal procedures.

Can we include international partners?
International cultural or creative partners can usually be involved as collaborators, but the funding must primarily support UK-based studentships and UK-eligible research organisations. Always cross-check the formal guidance and, if in doubt, email the contacts provided.

Can potential applicants ask AHRC questions directly?
Yes. You can and should contact UKRI for clarification if anything in the call text is ambiguous. Use the provided addresses: [email protected] or [email protected].

How to Apply and Next Steps

If this sounds like the opportunity your institution has been waiting for, here is how to move from “interesting” to “submitted”.

1. Read the full call carefully
   Do not rely on summaries alone. The detailed rules, eligibility criteria, assessment criteria and templates are on the official UKRI page:
   Focal awards: art history, visual arts and creative practice – UKRI

2. Talk to your research office now
   Tell them you want to lead an AHRC focal award bid. Ask about internal deadlines, sign-off processes and support for budget design.

3. Assemble your leadership and partner team
   Bring together core academic leads, professional services staff and non-HEI partners who are willing to commit. Set up a regular working group.

4. Draft your core vision statement
   In one or two pages, articulate the themes, training model and partnership approach. Use this as the reference point for all later sections.

5. Plan your writing schedule
   Divide the application into sections with clear owners and internal deadlines. Book in time for at least two full rounds of review and revision.

6. Engage EDI expertise early
   Don’t write the inclusion section in isolation. Involve people who work on widening participation, student support and equality strategy in your institution.

When you are ready to move forward, start at the official opportunity page:

Get Started

Ready to build a serious doctoral hub in art history, visual arts and creative practice?

Visit the official UKRI opportunity page for full guidance, eligibility details and the application portal:
https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/focal-awards-art-history-visual-arts-and-creative-practice/

For queries, you can contact:

• General funding service support: [email protected]
• AHRC design and innovation team: [email protected]

If you start early, think strategically and work closely with your partners, this award can do far more than pay for PhDs. It can reshape how your institution thinks about art research, practice and who gets to participate in them.