PhD Education

About the project

• Research

PhD Education

• Overview
• Degree details
• Our students
• Research
• Entry and fees
• Careers
• Facilities
• Supervisors
• Recently viewed
• Related courses

Overview

Our PhD in Education offers an opportunity for you to address complex educational challenges and develop innovative, evidence-based solutions, both locally and globally.

We encourage doctoral proposals that intersect education with other disciplines, including but not limited to sociology, psychology, politics, international relations, criminology and technology.

Your proposals can range from:

See details of specific PhD opportunities listed below .

Throughout your research, you will be supervised by our experienced teaching and research staff who are well-connected to local and global research networks.

We are proud of the student and supervisory support that we provide to our doctoral candidates. We will support you to undertake a substantial piece of original research and its write-up (of about 80,000 words).

This PhD is available for you to study:

As part of your application, please state whether you are applying for an online PhD.

See a list of potential PhD supervisors and read about their expertise in the " supervisors " section below.

Please include a 1,500-word research proposal with your application, which includes:

If you have a supervisor in mind, please mention their name in your proposal.

Select your desired study option, then pick a start date to see relevant course information:

Start date:

If your desired start date is not available, try selecting a different study option.

• social justice
• inclusivity and mobility
• psychology and human development
• globalisation and international development
• education policies, leadership and management
• arts, digital media and technologies
• second language education
• nutritional and community studies
• power, politics and peace.
• full-time or part-time
• on-campus or online
• starting in September or February.
• a clear title and motivation for your study
• a clearly articulated proposed research question(s)
• justification of your topic and research questions with reference to academic or other relevant literature
• your proposed methodology for research and timeline.

About your degree

During your PhD in Education, you will have a supervisory team made up of a Director of Studies with expertise in your chosen field, a further supervisor and, where appropriate, an additional adviser. Your research will be judged through the presentation of a thesis or artefact and a viva voce for academic assessment. We provide a stimulating and supportive environment where you will benefit from:

Our online PhD allows you to undertake a postgraduate research degree from a location that fits with your lifestyle and commitments. As part of your application, please state that you are applying for an online PhD. As an online PhD student, you will not be required to visit the campus: all supervision, training, reviews, and the viva voce examination are provided online.

An online PhD may not be suitable for all projects, and consideration will be given to the suitability of the research project and whether it can be completed successfully without regular access to campus facilities.

This PhD in Education is available for you to study full-time or part-time, online or campus-based.

All PhD students will have access to the University’s student support services , the Library’s e-resources collection and IT support services . You are also welcome to attend the annual doctoral students’ conference on campus.

A PhD is founded on independent research. You will undertake a systematic and in-depth exploration of your chosen topic to produce a substantial body of knowledge and make an original and important contribution to the subject area.

The support provided by your supervisory team will be vital to your student experience and scholarly advancement. You and your supervisors will have regular one-to-one meetings which will provide you with opportunities to develop your research topic and discuss your progress.

Please view individual staff profiles below to get a glimpse of the impact they are making, both locally and globally through their research. Also, check UWL’s academic journal 'New Vistas' to see the work of students and academics.

Based in the heart of Ealing, West London, you can make use of the excellent transport links to travel to the heart of London or further afield – ideal for attending research meetings, conferences and networking events.

If you would like guidance or more information about studying for a PhD in Education, please contact Dr Manzoorul Abedin . For general enquiries on research degrees at School of Social and Human Sciences (SHSS), please contact Professor Tom Dickins .

• peer feedback and discussion
• a series of masterclasses and lectures from industry figures
• support by a supervisor and a second supervisor suited to your project.
• PhD opportunities
• Support
• Networking

Research areas

• Power, Inequalities and Resistance: Intersectional Experiences of Higher Education Academics/Professionals Principal supervisor: Dr Manzoorul Abedin Second supervisor: Professor Karim Murji Third supervisor: Dr Alice Mukaka Higher education (HE) institutions are by default meritocratic and inclusive, yet persistent evidence demonstrates that academics and professionals with intersectional identities remain structurally marginalised. Large-scale systematic reviews confirm that academics and staff positioned at the intersection of multiple categories of difference — including gender, race, class, and disability — experience compounded barriers to career progression, institutional belonging, and wellbeing (Nichols and Stahl, 2019; Lukkien, Chauhan and Otaye-Ebede, 2024). Despite a growing body of policy commitments to equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI), the translation of intersectionality from theoretical framework to institutional practice remains limited and uneven (Burke and Lumb, 2024). Current EDI monitoring frameworks, which typically track protected characteristics in isolation, are structurally incapable of capturing such compounded disadvantage (Ahmed, 2012). This proposal seeks to address that gap. This proposal argues that a sustained, rigorous research is needed to interrogate these dynamics, generate new knowledge about the mechanisms of exclusion and resistance, and produce actionable recommendations for systemic change. This project aims to: Examine how intersecting identities shape the professional experiences, career trajectories, and workplace cultures of academics and HE professionals within UK and/or global higher education contexts. Analyse institutional policies, cultures, and politics, including REF, TEF, and EDI frameworks, to identify how they enable or constrain equitable participation Document forms of resistance and resilience among marginalised academics and identify conditions under which agency can be exercised effectively Generate evidence-led recommendations for inclusive, sustainable institutional change These aims are guided by the following core research question: How do intersecting dimensions, including but not limited to gender, race, class, ethnicity and disability, shape the experiences, barriers, and forms of resistance of academics and HE professionals, and what institutional conditions enable or impede equitable participation? The project is grounded in the critical sociology of education, drawing on Bourdieu's (1984, 1988) concepts of field, habitus and cultural capital to illuminate how HE institutions reproduce social hierarchies through the tacit privileging of dominant cultural norms. Academics from working-class or minority ethnic backgrounds frequently lack the inherited capital that institutions reward, regardless of intellectual merit (Reay, 2004). Ball's (2003) analysis of performativity shows how audit cultures, manifested in the REF and TEF, impose particular pressures on those already operating at the margins. The project will also draw on the work of hooks (1994) and Leathwood and Read (2009) to interrogate the masculine norms of productivity, visibility, and emotional detachment that structure academic institutions, disadvantaging women, carers, and disabled academics. The project will also exploit Critical Race Theory (CRT), as applied to education by Gillborn (2008) and Bhopal (2016), to situate racism not as individual prejudice but as embedded in institutional policies and cultural assumptions and also to explain why well-intentioned EDI initiatives so often fail to produce structural change (Ahmed, 2012). The project will adopt a mixed-methods design, combining the depth of qualitative inquiry with the scope of quantitative analysis. Qualitative methods, including semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and narrative inquiry, will capture the lived experiences of marginalised academics: the texture of micro-aggressions, the strategies of resistance, and the emotional labour of navigating hostile environments (Clandinin and Connelly, 2000). Critical ethnographic observation of institutional spaces may further illuminate everyday practices that structural analyses miss (Thomas, 1993). Quantitative analysis of HR datasets, survey data, and publicly available institutional statistics will identify systemic patterns in recruitment, promotion, pay gaps, and attrition across intersectional categories (Lukkien, Chauhan and Otaye-Ebede, 2024). Integrating both strands will allow the project to move between structural patterns and individual meaning-making, producing a richer and more actionable evidence base. Ethical protocols will ensure informed consent, participant confidentiality, and reflexive attention to the power dynamics inherent in researching marginalised communities. Note for Prospective Doctoral Proposals: Prospective doctoral students can use this proposal as a springboard by adapting its core intersectional framework to different contexts, themes, or populations. Contextually, the UK higher education focus could shift to postcolonial, Global South, or comparative international settings where marginalisation operates under distinct historical and policy conditions. Thematically, the intersectional lens could be redirected toward students rather than staff, or applied to specific identity categories such as religion, age, or sexuality. Methodologically, students might opt for purely qualitative or quantitative approaches, or introduce participatory action research, to generate fresh and complementary forms of evidence. All fieldwork-related expenses are the responsibility of the candidate or shall be met through external funding sources, subject to successful application, with no financial obligation falling upon the University of West London (UWL).

Power, Inequalities and Resistance: Intersectional Experiences of Higher Education Academics/Professionals

• Principal supervisor: Dr Manzoorul Abedin
• Second supervisor: Professor Karim Murji
• Third supervisor: Dr Alice Mukaka
• Examine how intersecting identities shape the professional experiences, career trajectories, and workplace cultures of academics and HE professionals within UK and/or global higher education contexts.
• Analyse institutional policies, cultures, and politics, including REF, TEF, and EDI frameworks, to identify how they enable or constrain equitable participation
• Document forms of resistance and resilience among marginalised academics and identify conditions under which agency can be exercised effectively
• Generate evidence-led recommendations for inclusive, sustainable institutional change
• Green Educational Initiatives and the Uptake of UN Sustainable Development Goals in Younger Populations: Evidence from School and University Settings Principal supervisor: Dr Manzoorul Abedin Second supervisor: Professor Tom Dickins Third supervisor: Dr Bamo Nouri Among the seventeen United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted in 2015 as part of the 2030 Agenda, Goal 4.7 highlights the pivotal role of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) in equipping learners with the knowledge, skills, and values necessary to promote sustainable lifestyles and responsible global citizenship (UNESCO, 2020; 2015). Across schools, colleges, and universities, a diverse range of green initiatives has emerged to translate sustainability principles into practice. These initiatives take multiple forms, including the integration of sustainability into curricula (Sterling, 2010; Barth et al., 2016), greening of campus operations through energy efficiency and waste reduction programmes (Cebrián, Grace, & Humphris, 2015), student-led environmental campaigns (Siperstein, Hall, & LeMenager, 2016), and place-based, experiential approaches that connect learning with direct engagement in local ecosystems (Gruenewald & Smith, 2014). Many universities have adopted the whole-institution model of sustainability, embedding environmental performance, governance, teaching, research, and community outreach in a coherent strategic framework (Tilbury, 2011). Despite these efforts, substantial challenges remain in realising the transformative potential of ESD. Institutional barriers such as fragmented governance, insufficient staff training, limited funding, and superficial alignment between policy rhetoric and practice continue to constrain progress (Wiek, Rieckmann, 2018). Moreover, there is limited longitudinal evidence demonstrating how exposure to green initiatives alters learners’ long-term behaviours, worldviews, or civic engagement with sustainability (Barth & Rieckmann, 2012). As such, the implementation of green education often risks becoming performative rather than transformative, focusing on symbolic activities over substantive cultural and structural change (Holdsworth & Thomas, 2021). This project seeks to address these issues by investigating how green educational initiatives, such as curriculum reform, campus sustainability practices, student activism, and whole-institution governance, shape young people’s understanding of, engagement with, and commitment to the SDGs. It aims to evaluate both enabling conditions and persistent constraints that influence the success of sustainability initiatives within formal education systems. This project aims to: (i) Identify and evaluate green educational initiatives currently operating in school and university settings that seek to increase young people's engagement with the UN SDGs. (ii) Examine how institutional, cultural and policy contexts shape the design, delivery and effectiveness of these initiatives. (iii) Investigate how green educational experiences influence the values, knowledge, identities and pro-environmental behaviours of young people aged 11–25. (iv) Where a comparative design is adopted, analyse the similarities and differences across national contexts in approaches to ESD and SDG uptake. (v) Generate practical recommendations for educators, institutional leaders and policymakers seeking to strengthen and scale green educational initiatives. The project draws on the transformative learning model developed by Mezirow (1991) and applied to sustainability by Sterling (2001) for effective environmental education that moves beyond information transmission to cultivate critical reflection, systems thinking, and action competence (Wiek et al., 2011). UNESCO's (2020) ESD for 2030 framework identifies key competencies, including anticipatory thinking, collaborative problem-solving, and self-awareness, which can be developed alongside place-based and experiential learning theory (Gruenewald, 2003; Kolb, 1984) to explore how direct engagement with local environments and communities can deepen learners' ecological literacy and sense of agency more effectively than classroom-only instruction. The youth civic engagement theory (Youniss et al., 1997) and, more recently, climate activism and student-led sustainability movements (Pickard, 2019; Boulianne, Lalancette and Ilkiw, 2020) offer frameworks for understanding how educational environments either nurture or constrain young people's sense of agency, political efficacy and collective identity as environmental actors. The project particularly encourages comparative research for exploring the interplay of cultural, policy, and institutional factors. Prospective Doctoral Proposals Prospective doctoral students can adapt this proposal by shifting its contextual focus to different national or regional settings, such as Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, or Latin America, where ESD implementation and SDG uptake face distinct policy and cultural conditions. Thematically, students might narrow the lens to specific SDGs, age groups, or informal education settings. Methodologically, the project can be pluralist. Qualitative approaches, e.g. including semi-structured interviews, focus groups, narrative inquiry and critical ethnography, will capture the lived experiences of students and educators engaged with green initiatives. Quantitative methods, including survey instruments and analysis of institutional sustainability data, will identify systemic patterns in SDG awareness and behavioural change at scale. For comparative studies involving Japan and the UK, a structured comparative case study design (Yin, 2018) can enable systematic cross-national analysis. All fieldwork-related expenses are the responsibility of the candidate or shall be met through external funding sources, subject to successful application, with no financial obligation falling upon the University of West London (UWL). UK-Japan Comparison Please note that the project may be eligible for funding from the GB Sasakawa Foundation, subject to a comparative focus on Japan and the UK. Japan and the United Kingdom present a productive contrast: Japan’s tradition of ESD is grounded in post-war environmental consciousness, the Satoyama landscape stewardship model, and leadership during the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005–2014) (Nomura & Abe, 2010; Mochizuki & Fadeeva, 2010). The UK, by contrast, demonstrates a more decentralised and policy-fragmented landscape, with post-Brexit divergence across its four nations and a growing youth-led climate activism movement advocating systemic institutional change (Cotton et al., 2020). By analysing and comparing national contexts, the study will contribute to an evidence-based understanding of how educational institutions can effectively advance the global transition towards sustainability.

Green Educational Initiatives and the Uptake of UN Sustainable Development Goals in Younger Populations: Evidence from School and University Settings

• Principal supervisor: Dr Manzoorul Abedin
• Second supervisor: Professor Tom Dickins
• Third supervisor: Dr Bamo Nouri
• (i) Identify and evaluate green educational initiatives currently operating in school and university settings that seek to increase young people's engagement with the UN SDGs.
• (ii) Examine how institutional, cultural and policy contexts shape the design, delivery and effectiveness of these initiatives.
• (iii) Investigate how green educational experiences influence the values, knowledge, identities and pro-environmental behaviours of young people aged 11–25.
• (iv) Where a comparative design is adopted, analyse the similarities and differences across national contexts in approaches to ESD and SDG uptake.
• (v) Generate practical recommendations for educators, institutional leaders and policymakers seeking to strengthen and scale green educational initiatives.
• Socio Economic Barriers to Educational Capital: Impacts on Children’s Self Esteem and Attainment, and the Role of Schools, Families and Communities in Closing the Gap Principal supervisor: Dr Manzoorul Abedin Second supervisor: Dr Michael Broll Educational inequality remains one of the most stubborn challenges facing affluent societies. Across the United Kingdom and internationally, a child’s socio-economic background is still one of the strongest predictors of academic attainment, progression to higher education and longer-term life chances (Cattan et al., 2022; Social Mobility Commission, 2023; OECD, 2023). The Education Endowment Foundation (EEF, 2023) estimates that disadvantaged pupils in England – those eligible for Free School Meals (FSM) – are, on average, eighteen months behind their peers by the end of secondary school. Recent PISA 2022 data confirm that this socio-economic attainment gradient is a structural feature of education systems across the OECD, with the UK performing poorly compared with high equity systems such as Estonia, Canada and Finland (OECD, 2023). This project proposes that three interconnected and mutually reinforcing mechanisms are driving and entrenching this gap in new and insufficiently understood ways: unequal access to private tuition, unequal access to digital technologies (including artificial intelligence tools), and unequal access to wider educational resources. It further contends that these material inequalities have profound psychological consequences – including damage to self-esteem, academic self-efficacy and educational identity – which compound resource disadvantage and therefore demand equal analytical attention. Private tutoring has grown rapidly in the UK and globally. The Sutton Trust (2021) reports that 27 per cent of UK pupils have received private tuition, rising to 41 per cent in London, with pupils from the wealthiest households around three times more likely to be tutored than those from the poorest backgrounds. In England, hourly tutoring rates commonly range from around £25 to more than £80, putting sustained, high-quality tuition beyond the reach of most low-income families (Tutor Hunt, 2023). International evidence reveals similar patterns: in South Korea, Japan and Hong Kong, juku and cram school cultures have generated highly stratified shadow education systems in which parental income is the principal determinant of supplementary provision (Bray, 2011; Byun & Kim, 2010). In the United States, research associated with the NBER indicates that household spending on tutoring has tripled since 2000, with elite colleges increasingly populated by students whose families have invested heavily in such services (Reeves, 2017). Across these contexts, shadow education functions as a powerful mechanism of social reproduction operating largely outside public accountability and systematically rewarding those who are already advantaged (Ireson & Rushforth, 2011). The rapid spread of AI-enabled educational tools adds a critical new layer to this landscape of inequality. Platforms such as Khanmigo, Google Gemini for Education and a growing ecosystem of AI tutoring applications offer personalised, on-demand support that can approximate or augment human tutoring (Luckin et al., 2022). However, effective use of these tools depends on reliable internet access, appropriate devices and sufficient digital literacy – resources that are unequally distributed by socioeconomic status. Ofcom (2023) estimates that 1.6 million UK households lack home broadband, with low-income families disproportionately represented. The Children’s Commissioner (2023) similarly identifies more than 900,000 children in England without adequate devices for home learning. Internationally, the OECD’s 21st Century Children report concludes that, while device access has improved, a persistent “third order” digital divide – concerning the quality and educational value of digital engagement – remains strongly associated with parental education and income (OECD, 2021; van Dijk, 2020; Livingstone & Helsper, 2007). Evidence from Australia, the United States and Germany suggests that simply providing hardware to disadvantaged pupils is insufficient if it is not accompanied by sustained digital literacy support and pedagogically robust tools and practices (Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010; Eickelmann & Gerick, 2017). Beyond tuition and technology, socioeconomic background also shapes access to physical and cultural educational resources – including books, revision guides, extracurricular activities, museum visits and the less tangible but equally important resource of parental cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1986; Reay, 2017). The National Literacy Trust (2022), for example, reports that one in four children in the UK does not own a single book. Comparative international work by UNESCO (2022) shows that home learning environments in low-income families across Europe, sub-Saharan Africa and South East Asia share common characteristics: overcrowded housing, a lack of quiet study space and very limited book ownership, all of which independently predict lower attainment irrespective of school quality. This proposal is centrally concerned with how such cumulative resource deficits intersect with the psychological dimensions of learning – shaping how children see themselves as learners, how confident they feel in academic spaces and how they imagine their educational futures. The project aims to look at a combination of the following research questions: How does socio-economic background affect UK pupils’ access to private tuition, digital technologies (including AI) and other educational resources, in the UK and compared with other countries? How do differences in access to these resources influence pupils’ self-esteem, self-belief, identity, motivation and, ultimately, their academic results? How do pupils, parents, teachers and tutors experience and understand these resource inequalities and their academic and psychological effects? How well do current UK policies and programmes (such as the Pupil Premium, the National Tutoring Programme and EdTech initiatives) tackle both the material and psychological sides of the resource gap? What practical lessons and recommendations for policy, school practice and EdTech design can be drawn from this evidence and from high equity education systems internationally? The study can utilise a three-phase, mixed-methods design or a combination as appropriate: Phase 1: Analyse existing UK datasets (EEF Attainment Gap Index, PISA England, for instance) to quantify links between socio-economic background, resource access, psychological measures (self-esteem, self-efficacy) and attainment. Phase 2: Conduct qualitative fieldwork in diverse English primary/secondary schools (high deprivation and affluent areas), using interviews, focus groups and standardised scales (Rosenberg Self Esteem, Bandura Children’s Self Efficacy, Academic Self Regulation, for instance) to examine resource access, experiences of exclusion/inclusion, and pupils’ academic self-concept, confidence and identity. Phase 3: Run a UK-wide survey of primary/secondary teachers and pastoral leaders to gather views on resource inequality, use of EdTech and AI, adequacy of the Pupil Premium, and awareness of psychological disadvantage, then analyse the data using multilevel modelling. Ethical procedures throughout include informed consent, confidentiality and trauma-sensitive work with pupils from low-income backgrounds. Bourdieu’s framework of economic, cultural, social and symbolic capital provides the core sociological lens, highlighting how middle-class cultural capital – such as linguistic confidence, familiarity with academic norms and ease in navigating institutions – magnifies the benefits of private tuition and AI tools while remaining largely out of reach for many working-class pupils (Bourdieu, 1986; Reay, 2017). Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory locates pupils within nested contexts of family, school, peers, community and wider structures, focusing attention on how home resource environments interact with school experiences to shape attainment (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Van Dijk’s multi-level digital divide model is used to analyse AI access, emphasising that inequalities in skills, motivation and quality of use – not just in devices or connectivity – structure who can turn digital tools into genuine learning gains (van Dijk, 2020). The project’s distinctive contribution is to integrate these sociological accounts with psychological theories of self and motivation. Rosenberg’s work on global self-esteem and Hattie’s synthesis of achievement research show that self-concept is a powerful predictor of academic performance, and that resource deprivation can erode this self-concept by continually signalling inferiority and exclusion (Rosenberg, 1965; Hattie, 2009). When pupils see peers accessing private tutoring, AI tools or books that they cannot afford, the repeated message is one of not being “good enough”, producing what Reay terms the psychic harms of inequality (Reay, 2017). Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy further explains how beliefs about one’s capability are built through mastery experiences, modelling and encouragement, all of which are disproportionately available to students who can access one-to-one or technology-enhanced support (Bandura, 1997; Schunk & Pajares, 2009). Excluding disadvantaged pupils from these experiences is therefore both a material and a psychological denial of opportunity. Dweck’s growth mindset theory and subsequent meta-analyses suggest that beliefs about the malleability of ability particularly benefit lower SES pupils, but only when accompanied by genuine improvements in learning conditions (Dweck, 2006; Sisk et al., 2018). Finally, social identity theory shows how pupils may disidentify with academic success when the resources required for achievement are systematically withheld from “people like them”, leading some to construct identities that resist rather than embrace schooling (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Oyserman et al., 2006). Note for Prospective Doctoral Proposals: Prospective doctoral students can adapt this proposal by relocating its focus to different national contexts — such as high-equity systems like Finland or Estonia, or low-income settings in Sub-Saharan Africa or South Asia — where socio-economic barriers to educational resources operate differently. Thematically, students might concentrate on a single mechanism, such as AI access, private tutoring or parental involvement alone. As for methods, purely qualitative, longitudinal, or community-based participatory approaches could offer fresh and complementary perspectives on the material and psychological dimensions of educational inequality. Fieldwork Expenses: Fieldwork expenses will be borne by the candidate or sourced from external funding bodies, subject to successful application, and will not be drawn from the University of West London (UWL) resources.

Socio Economic Barriers to Educational Capital: Impacts on Children’s Self Esteem and Attainment, and the Role of Schools, Families and Communities in Closing the Gap

• Principal supervisor: Dr Manzoorul Abedin
• Second supervisor: Dr Michael Broll
• How does socio-economic background affect UK pupils’ access to private tuition, digital technologies (including AI) and other educational resources, in the UK and compared with other countries?
• How do differences in access to these resources influence pupils’ self-esteem, self-belief, identity, motivation and, ultimately, their academic results?
• How do pupils, parents, teachers and tutors experience and understand these resource inequalities and their academic and psychological effects?
• How well do current UK policies and programmes (such as the Pupil Premium, the National Tutoring Programme and EdTech initiatives) tackle both the material and psychological sides of the resource gap?
• What practical lessons and recommendations for policy, school practice and EdTech design can be drawn from this evidence and from high equity education systems internationally?
• Phase 1: Analyse existing UK datasets (EEF Attainment Gap Index, PISA England, for instance) to quantify links between socio-economic background, resource access, psychological measures (self-esteem, self-efficacy) and attainment.
• Phase 2: Conduct qualitative fieldwork in diverse English primary/secondary schools (high deprivation and affluent areas), using interviews, focus groups and standardised scales (Rosenberg Self Esteem, Bandura Children’s Self Efficacy, Academic Self Regulation, for instance) to examine resource access, experiences of exclusion/inclusion, and pupils’ academic self-concept, confidence and identity.
• Phase 3: Run a UK-wide survey of primary/secondary teachers and pastoral leaders to gather views on resource inequality, use of EdTech and AI, adequacy of the Pupil Premium, and awareness of psychological disadvantage, then analyse the data using multilevel modelling.
• Ethical procedures throughout include informed consent, confidentiality and trauma-sensitive work with pupils from low-income backgrounds.
• How Socio-Economic Status Shapes the Understanding, Identification and Arrangement of Special Educational Needs Support in UK Schools, and How to Design Equitable Solutions Principal supervisor: Dr Manzoorul Abedin Second supervisor: Dr Roisin Perry Third supervisor: Dr Emily Rushton Children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) are among the most educationally vulnerable groups in the UK, yet their chances of timely identification and adequate support are strongly patterned by socio-economic status (SES). Despite the statutory protections embedded in the Children and Families Act 2014 and the SEND Code of Practice (DfE & DoH, 2015), evidence suggests that the SEND system reproduces, rather than mitigates, social inequalities. The Education Policy Institute (2020) shows that pupils eligible for Free School Meals (FSM) who have SEND are significantly less likely to hold an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) than more affluent peers with comparable levels of need. Similar patterns emerge in local and regional analyses, where waiting times for statutory assessment and access to specialist provision are longest in areas with the highest deprivation (Council for Disabled Children, 2022; House of Commons Education Committee, 2019). Families from low-income backgrounds face multiple barriers when attempting to secure support: reduced access to advocacy and legal advice; limited familiarity with diagnostic labels and bureaucratic language; restricted time and financial capacity to attend meetings; and difficulties engaging with increasingly digital EHCP and Local Offer systems (Lamb, 2019; Tissot, 2011; Boesley & Crane, 2018). These obstacles can produce what Reay (2017) calls the “hidden injuries of class” – feelings of intimidation, self-doubt and resignation that make it harder for working-class parents to challenge professional decisions, even when those decisions delay or deny support. At the school level, institutions serving disadvantaged communities typically carry higher proportions of pupils with identified SEND but operate under tighter budgets, greater staff turnover and higher recruitment challenges, especially for experienced special educational needs coordinators (SENCOs) and specialist support staff (Hallett & Hallett, 2010; Ofsted, 2021; Curran et al., 2018). These pressures reduce capacity to carry out high-quality assessments, coordinate multi-agency input and sustain inclusive classroom practice. The digital dimension further widens gaps: assistive technologies and AI-supported tools for pupils with dyslexia, autism spectrum conditions (ASC), ADHD, and speech, language and communication needs (SLCN) depend on reliable broadband, appropriate devices and digital literacy in both homes and schools (Luckin et al., 2022; Kershner et al., 2020). Families with low incomes or insecure housing are far less likely to enjoy such access (Ofcom, 2023; Children’s Commissioner, 2023). International research shows that these patterns are not unique to the UK. In the United States, for example, Black and Hispanic students from low-income communities are simultaneously overrepresented in certain high-incidence categories and underrepresented in categories that attract more support, and they frequently receive lower quality provision (Skiba et al., 2008; Sullivan, 2011; Morgan et al., 2015). Australian studies likewise highlight socio-economic and geographic disparities in access to inclusive education and specialist services (Llewellyn et al., 2010; Graham & Sweller, 2011). This body of work underscores the need for a systemic, rather than purely individual, analysis of SEND inequalities. The project uses a three-phase, sequential mixed methods and participatory design to examine how socio-economic status shapes SEND processes and to co-create more equitable solutions. Phase one consists of national-level quantitative analysis. Drawing on sources such as the Department for Education School Census, DfE statistical releases on EHCP assessments and timeliness, the Education Endowment Foundation Attainment Gap Index and selected international datasets such as PISA, the study will map patterns of SEND identification, assessment and outcomes across the UK. Socio-economic indicators, including Free School Meal eligibility, the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index and area-level deprivation measures, will be linked to data on SEND categories, age at first identification, type of provision (school support or EHCP), and placement in mainstream or specialist settings. Regression and multilevel modelling will estimate the independent contribution of socio-economic background to the likelihood of receiving an EHCP, the length of assessment waiting times and subsequent attainment and exclusion outcomes, controlling for type and severity of need. Comparative profiling of local authorities that demonstrate more equitable outcomes will be used to identify structural features and policies that appear to buffer against SES-related inequalities. Phase two focuses on in-depth qualitative fieldwork in schools. Eight secondary schools in England will be purposively selected to represent a range of socio-economic and geographical contexts, including high deprivation urban neighbourhoods, coastal or post-industrial towns, and more affluent suburban or semi-rural communities, as well as a mix of academy and maintained schools. Within these sites, pupils in Years 8–13 with a range of SEND categories, both with and without EHCPs, will be invited to participate alongside their parents or carers, SENCOs, classroom teachers, teaching assistants, school leaders and relevant local authority SEND officers. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups will explore pathways to identification and assessment, experiences of meetings, paperwork and digital systems, and perceptions of fairness, stigma, inclusion and voice. A “family navigation audit”, co-developed with parent carer forums and SENCOs, will be used as a structured conversational tool to map the concrete steps that families take through the SEND system and the barriers encountered at each stage. Participating pupils will also complete short, validated psychological scales, such as measures of self-esteem, self-efficacy, anxiety, and self-efficacy, so that indicators of wellbeing can be analysed alongside narrative accounts. The qualitative data will be examined using thematic analysis informed by Bourdieu’s theory of capital and Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems model, allowing comparison across schools, socioeconomic groups and local authorities and clarifying how procedural features such as delay or exclusion from decision-making relate to pupils’ self-concept, sense of belonging and educational trajectories. Phase three turns explicitly to co-design and solution development. In three of the case study areas, multi-stakeholder workshops will bring together pupils with SEND, parents and carers, SENCOs, teachers, school leaders and local authority representatives as co-researchers. Key findings from phases one and two will be presented in accessible formats and used as prompts for participatory activities such as journey mapping, prototyping and role play. Through these processes, participants will co-create and refine a set of practical tools aimed at making SEND processes more equitable. Anticipated outputs include a plain language SEND navigation guide for families in low income and linguistically diverse communities; a digital equity and assistive technology checklist to help schools audit access to devices, software, connectivity and staff training; a socio economically aware SEND practice framework for SENCO professional development, with a focus on communication, bias awareness and inclusive use of technology; and a model protocol for EHCP meetings designed to amplify pupil and parent voice while reducing bureaucratic and psychological barriers. These tools will then be piloted in two partner schools, one serving a high-deprivation community and one in a more affluent area, over the course of an academic year. Baseline and follow-up data will be gathered on process indicators such as parent satisfaction, attendance at meetings, timeliness of reviews and perceived clarity of communication, as well as on pupils’ self-reported self-efficacy and sense of school belonging. The findings from this pilot will be used to refine the tools and generate recommendations for wider adoption through local authority networks, professional bodies and parent carer forums. Throughout all phases, the research will adhere to rigorous ethical protocols, including informed consent, accessible information materials, clear procedures for withdrawal and strong guarantees of confidentiality. Particular care will be taken to minimise burden and distress for pupils and families who are already navigating complex systems, to offer debriefing and signposting where participation raises anxiety or frustration, and to ensure that the participatory elements of the project genuinely shift power towards pupils and parents rather than treating them as passive data sources. Note for Prospective Doctoral Proposals: Prospective doctoral students can adapt this proposal by shifting its geographical scope to international systems where SEND frameworks and socio-economic dynamics differ markedly. Students might narrow the focus to a specific condition, such as autism or ADHD or concentrate on a particular demographic, e.g. looked-after children. Students can choose a purely qualitative or participatory action research design to yield rich, community-rooted insights into SEND inequalities. Fieldwork Expenses: Fieldwork expenses will be borne by the candidate or sourced from external funding bodies, subject to successful application, and will not be drawn from the University of West London (UWL) resources.

How Socio-Economic Status Shapes the Understanding, Identification and Arrangement of Special Educational Needs Support in UK Schools, and How to Design Equitable Solutions

• Principal supervisor: Dr Manzoorul Abedin
• Second supervisor: Dr Roisin Perry
• Third supervisor: Dr Emily Rushton
• Intersecting Worlds of Harm: Offline Violence, Online Crime and the Education of Teenagers in the UK Principal supervisor: Dr Manzoorul Abedin Second supervisor: Professor Alison Wakefield Third supervisor: Dr Greg Los The United Kingdom is confronting an escalating crisis of teenage violence. Recorded crime offences involving young people under 18 reached their highest levels in over a decade in 2023, and homicide data consistently reveal that teenagers are disproportionately represented both as perpetrators and as victims (Office for National Statistics, 2023). Online violence, side by side, among teenagers has also grown substantially in scale and severity as digital platforms have become central to young people's social lives (Navarro, Yubero and Larranaga, 2016). Research consistently demonstrates that online and offline violence are not separate phenomena but are deeply entangled. Another key issue is that teen violence is deeply unequal in its distribution: young people from deprived urban communities, those who are Black or from other minoritised ethnic backgrounds, children in or leaving care, and those with special educational needs are systematically over-represented in violence statistics, reflecting entrenched structural inequalities (Harding, 2020; Williams and Clarke, 2018). Online violence compounds these inequalities as marginalised young people face heightened exposure to digital abuse (Firmin, 2020; Barnardo’s, 2019), while girls and young women face specific forms of online violence enacted through digital platforms (Henry and Powell, 2018). Schools and colleges find themselves on the front line of this crisis as they are frequently ill-equipped to manage violent incidents in physical and digital spaces, identify vulnerable young people, and deliver coherent violence prevention education, all within constrained budgets and under intense accountability pressures (Muir, 2018; UK Safer Internet Centre, 2022). Despite growing policy interventions, such as the Violence Reduction Units (VRUs) established from 2019, the Serious Violence Strategy (Home Office, 2018), the Online Safety Act 2023, and the introduction of Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) in the national curriculum, critical gaps persist. The evidence base for UK school-based violence prevention programmes remains thin, community-level interventions are poorly evaluated, and online violence is insufficiently integrated into existing safeguarding, curriculum and community response frameworks (Humphreys et al., 2022; Livingstone and Stoilova, 2021). The overarching aim of the proposed study is to examine the relationship between rising teenage violence—both offline and online—in the UK and the capacity of educational institutions and communities to provide effective education, prevention, and support. The study will address the following research questions: How is teenage violence currently manifesting in selected UK communities, and what patterns do educators and community practitioners perceive in terms of type, severity, and context? What strategies are schools, colleges, and community organisations using to prevent and respond to teenage violence, and how are these linked to wider public health and multi-agency approaches? What challenges and barriers do educational institutions and communities face in delivering effective violence prevention and online safety education, including resource constraints, policy pressures, staff capacity, and the technical complexity of digital platforms? How do young people themselves experience and understand violence, both offline and online, and how do they view the role of education and community support in promoting safety and resilience? The project is grounded in several theoretical frameworks, including Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) Ecological Systems Perspective, trauma-informed approaches (Felitti et al., 1998; Wearmouth and Connors, 2022) and Firmin’s (2020) contextual safeguarding framework and critical digital literacy theory (Buckingham, 2019; Livingstone and Haddon, 2012). The study will adopt a qualitative, multi-site cross-case study design, focusing on two to three contrasting local authority areas in the UK that have notable levels of youth violence and significant concerns about online harms affecting children and young people. This approach will allow in-depth exploration of context, institutional practice, and lived experience, and will enable comparison across socio-economic and geographic settings. Within each selected area, the research will involve: one secondary school and one further education (FE) college, identified in collaboration with local authorities and, where applicable, violence reduction units or safeguarding partnerships. Two community-based organisations working with young people affected by violence and online harms (for example, youth charities, mentoring projects, digital safety initiatives, or specialist services for victims of exploitation or image-based abuse). All phases will comply with rigorous safeguarding, GDPR, and ethical requirements. Note for Prospective Doctoral Proposals: Prospective doctoral students can build on this proposal by transposing its focus to different national or urban contexts, e.g. cities in the US, Europe, or the Global South, where teenage violence manifests under distinct social and policy conditions. Students might concentrate exclusively on gender-based online violence, offline harm or the experiences of specific vulnerable groups. Methodologically, quantitative, longitudinal, or policy-evaluation designs could complement and extend the original qualitative cross-case approach. Fieldwork Expenses: Fieldwork expenses will be borne by the candidate or sourced from external funding bodies, subject to successful application, and will not be drawn from the University of West London (UWL) resources.

Intersecting Worlds of Harm: Offline Violence, Online Crime and the Education of Teenagers in the UK

• Principal supervisor: Dr Manzoorul Abedin
• Second supervisor: Professor Alison Wakefield
• Third supervisor: Dr Greg Los
• How is teenage violence currently manifesting in selected UK communities, and what patterns do educators and community practitioners perceive in terms of type, severity, and context?
• What strategies are schools, colleges, and community organisations using to prevent and respond to teenage violence, and how are these linked to wider public health and multi-agency approaches?
• What challenges and barriers do educational institutions and communities face in delivering effective violence prevention and online safety education, including resource constraints, policy pressures, staff capacity, and the technical complexity of digital platforms?
• How do young people themselves experience and understand violence, both offline and online, and how do they view the role of education and community support in promoting safety and resilience?
• Multilingual Pedagogy and Children's Picture Books Principal supervisor: Dr Alexandra Georgiou Second supervisor: Dr Sharon Vince With more than one in five pupils in England speaking a language other than English at home, schools are increasingly diverse linguistic and cultural spaces. This PhD topic explores how multilingual pedagogies and multilingual picture books can support children's language development, literacy, identity, and sense of belonging, while promoting more inclusive educational practices. Research has consistently shown that valuing and drawing on children's home languages can strengthen additional language learning and literacy development. Multilingual picture books, which present stories in two or more languages, offer powerful opportunities for children to engage with language diversity, develop metalinguistic awareness, and see their linguistic and cultural identities reflected in the classroom. Despite growing recognition of the importance of multilingual resources, many UK schools continue to operate within largely monolingual frameworks. Important questions remain about how teachers select and use multilingual texts, how children experience and engage with them, and how schools can build more inclusive approaches to literacy and language learning. Potential areas of investigation include: Children's engagement with multilingual picture books in mainstream and alternative educational settings. The impact of multilingual texts on language, literacy, identity, and belonging. Teachers' experiences of selecting and integrating multilingual resources into classroom practice. Collaborative development of multilingual picture books with children, families, schools, and communities. The role of digital technologies and AI in supporting multilingual literacy and teaching. How multilingual resources can challenge monolingual and colonial approaches to language education. Projects may employ qualitative, ethnographic, participatory, or collaborative methodologies and have the potential to influence classroom practice, strengthen school-community partnerships, and inform policy on English as an Additional Language (EAL) provision and multilingual education. Fieldwork Expenses: Fieldwork expenses will be borne by the candidate or sourced from external funding bodies, subject to successful application, and will not be drawn from the University of West London (UWL) resources.

Multilingual Pedagogy and Children's Picture Books

To enable you to enhance your professional profile, we support you throughout your research degree by:

We provide structured research training, expert supervision and an environment where you can discuss your research with other PhD students and researchers.

We run seminars in research methods from the Graduate Centre, as well as an ongoing series of events and activities organised by Schools and Colleges. Specialist help with academic English for students for whom English is not their first language is available.

We contribute to national and international initiatives and promote collaboration and networking opportunities. We also encourage and support you to publish and disseminate your research in academic journals and via presenting papers at conferences.

We run an annual conference for doctoral students, where you are encouraged to present a paper about your research. As well as being an opportunity to discuss your work with other students, the conference is a chance to gain valuable experience in presenting your research and participating in open discussions with academic peers.

You will also find other opportunities such as postgraduate student seminars and forums within your specific subject area.

Once you start a PhD course at UWL, you become part of our research community. You will have access to a postgraduate common room, located at our Ealing campus on St Mary’s Road, where you will meet fellow researchers from other subject disciplines offering scope for collaborations or simply to discuss ideas, allowing you to be part of a vibrant research environment.

• Principal supervisor: Dr Alexandra Georgiou
• Second supervisor: Dr Sharon Vince
• Children's engagement with multilingual picture books in mainstream and alternative educational settings.
• The impact of multilingual texts on language, literacy, identity, and belonging.
• Teachers' experiences of selecting and integrating multilingual resources into classroom practice.
• Collaborative development of multilingual picture books with children, families, schools, and communities.
• The role of digital technologies and AI in supporting multilingual literacy and teaching.
• How multilingual resources can challenge monolingual and colonial approaches to language education.
• providing research seminars
• organising doctoral events and activities
• facilitating networking and collaboration opportunities
• encouraging and supporting publication and dissemination of your research
• offering opportunities to gain teaching expertise and experience.

What our students say

The staff members that I encountered were warm, welcoming and supportive of my studies. The relatively small size of the University’s postgraduate school created a close family/communal environment for both staff and students. This provided a good support system as I could quickly grow acquainted with the postgraduate team and other doctoral research candidates.

Abdulazeez Rotimi - PhD

The staff members that I encountered were warm, welcoming and supportive of my studies. The relatively small size of the University’s postgraduate school created a close family/communal environment for both staff and students. This provided a good support system as I could quickly grow acquainted with the postgraduate team and other doctoral research candidates.

Abdulazeez Rotimi - PhD

Research Repository - Education

The Repository is a digital archive of research output by our academics and research students.

Research at the School of Human and Social Sciences

Learn more about our research specialisms and available PhDs within the School of Human and Social Sciences.

Research impact

Learn how our research has helped communities locally, nationally and internationally.

Entry requirements

The minimum entry requirements for a research degree are:

We look for individuals with:

Applicants should also submit a well-considered and persuasive research proposal, clearly outlining their aims, context and potential contribution to the field.

The minimum entry requirements for a research degree are:

We look for individuals with:

Applicants should also submit a well-considered and persuasive research proposal, clearly outlining their aims, context and potential contribution to the field.

• Requirements: UK
• Requirements: International
• a good first degree (First Class or Upper Second Class), or equivalent qualification in a relevant field
• a Masters degree (MA, MSc, MBA or MRes) with Merit, or equivalent postgraduate or research experience.
• dedication to undertaking rigorous and meaningful research
• enthusiasm for contributing to academic and creative practice
• a genuine passion for their chosen subject area.
• a good first degree (First Class or Upper Second Class), or equivalent qualification in a relevant field
• a Masters Degree (MA, MSc, MBA or MRes) with Merit, or equivalent postgraduate or research experience.
• Competence in written and spoken English is a pre-requisite for entrance to this programme.
• An IELTS (International English Language Testing System) score of 6.5 (with no element under 6.0).
• dedication to undertaking rigorous and meaningful research
• enthusiasm for contributing to academic and creative practice
• a genuine passion for their chosen subject area.

Fees & funding

Please note that the following writing-up fees apply for the final year of full-time PhD study , a reduced amount from the standard fee per year:

Writing-up fees do not apply for the final year of part-time PhD study. The standard fee applies.

• Funding: UK
• Funding: International
• On campus PhD (Year 4): UK £1,900. International: £6,000
• Online PhD (Year 4): UK £1,000. International: £3,000.
• Fees for the 2027/28 academic year and onwards may be subject to change.
• Tuition fees are charged for each year of your course and you will need to pay the fee for each academic year at the start of that year, except if otherwise stated.
• If no fee is shown above then the fees for this course are not available yet. Please check again later for updates.

Funding your studies

Funding for postgraduate students usually comes from one or more of a range of key sources:

Find out more about funding opportunities .

Examples of most of these types of funding are included on the postgraduate studentships website (except for funding you may be able to obtain from your employer and self-funding).

The PhD Bursary is available to home and international students enrolling on a full-time PhD course in 2026/27. The Bursary consists of a £500 fee reduction in your first year of study and for each subsequent year of study, subject to successful progression, up to a maximum of 4 years.

We offer other generous bursaries and scholarships to make sure your aspirations are your only limit. See our PhD scholarships and bursaries .

Please note that the following writing-up fees apply for the final year of full-time PhD study , a reduced amount from the standard fee per year:

Writing-up fees do not apply for the final year of part-time PhD study. The standard fee applies.

• research councils
• charities and trust funds, including those funded by the UK government
• higher education institutions
• overseas governments (international students only)
• employers
• professional and career development loans
• self-funding (including family funds).
• On campus PhD (Year 4): UK £1,900. International: £6,000
• Online PhD (Year 4): UK £1,000. International: £3,000.
• Fees for the 2027/28 academic year and onwards may be subject to change.
• Tuition fees are charged for each year of your course and you will need to pay the fee for each academic year at the start of that year, except if otherwise stated.
• If no fee is shown above then the fees for this course are not available yet. Please check again later for updates.

Funding your studies

For any overseas students, your first port of call should be grant-awarding bodies in your own country (e.g. The Ministry/Department of Education) and your local (or nearest) office of the British Council.

The British Council manage a small number of international studentship grants in some countries and should be able to tell you what other awards may be available to you - they also produce the sources of funding for international students guide.

The PhD Bursary is available to home and international students enrolling on a full-time PhD course in 2026/27. The Bursary consists of a £500 fee reduction in your first year of study and for each subsequent year of study, subject to successful progression, up to a maximum of 4 years.

Your future career

Studying for a PhD in Education enables you to develop an area of specialism that will give you an edge whether you are planning to work in the education sector or to develop expertise to teach in academia.

Many of our research graduates go on to take up roles within academia whilst others pursue professional careers within education.

Job roles

• teaching
• higher or further education
• educational management and leadership
• education consultancy
• education publishing
• educational research.

Graduate employers

• schools/universities
• charities or voluntary organisations
• social mobility and social justice organisations
• local or national government planning and policy
• education consultants
• education publishers
• think tanks.

Our West London Campus

Explore our fantastic facilities at our West London campus.

The Paul Hamlyn Library

The Paul Hamlyn Library provides and extensive range of books, journals and digital resources, PC and Mac workstations and a variety of study spaces.

The Graduate School

If you are interested in studying for a PhD or Professional Doctorate, the Graduate School is here to support your research.

Rami Ranger House (Postgraduate Student Centre)

Rami Ranger House is a focal point for the University’s postgraduate and international students, providing dedicated space for social and learning interaction.

This building, which is three storeys high, offers spaces for collaborative working, socialising, supervision and mentoring on the ground floor. The first floor has work spaces for the postgraduate support teams to use, while the second floor provides guest accommodation for visiting scholars.

Find out more

Discover seven reasons to study with us and how studying at UWL will support your future career.

Find out about student accommodation and the support for students.

Explore our campus and sites and book onto a campus tour or open day .

Important notes for applicants

Disclaimer

Rankings

• † Fees - the published fee is an annual fee, payable each year, for the duration of the course. Fees are subject to change. Home tuition fees may be subject to annual increases but will not increase by more than the fee caps as prescribed by the Office for Students or such other replacing body. Full-time taught international fees are subject to an annual increase.
• Teaching - your course will primarily be delivered in-person, however it may include delivery of some activities online, either in real-time or recorded.
• Testimonials - quotes are provided by current or former UWL students. These are mostly from the course but quotes from a UWL student on another course may be used if, for example, the course is new.
• Optional modules - where optional modules are offered they will run subject to staff availability and viable student numbers opting to take the module.
• Videos - all videos on our course pages were accurate at the time of filming, however staff and course content may have since changed.
• Availability of placements - if you choose a course with placement/internship route and a placement/internship opportunity does not arise when you are expected to undertake the placement then the University will automatically transfer you to the non-internship route, to ensure you are still successful in being awarded a degree.
• The National Student Survey 2026 result is based on the average of all answers by the taught student populations.
• Modern universities - defined as higher education institutions that were granted university status in, and after, 1992.
• PRES - rank out of 53 institutions.

Research areas