Postgraduate Education Practitioners Network Clinic — April 2026
On April 15th 2026, the Co-Chairs of our Postgraduate Education Practitioners’ (PEP) Network, Susanna Broom and Kerri Gardiner, held a Network Clinic looking at the specific issues and unique challenges which face those working within postgraduate research. Their report on the event is below.
The next in our (roughly) quarterly series of PEP Network clinics – which aim to provide a safe and supportive environment for members to connect with one another and to share questions, concerns, and insights – saw c. 25 colleagues from across the sector come together to discuss supporting international postgraduate researchers (PGRs). A topic originally requested by the PEP community, the session touched on four broad areas, posed as questions for breakout discussions:
How have recent UKVI rule changes impacted your institution? (e.g. visa brakes; students with dependents)
Those in attendance reported limited impact of the recent visa brake announcement, although concern was noted both about the limited notice and whether the action would expand to affect more countries. Regarding the changes around students with dependents, there was a mixed response, with some institutions noting changes in applicant trends, and others not. The group reflected on variation in the sector with respect to how an ‘MRes’ is defined.
What support does your institution have specifically for international students (a) at the start and (b) on an ongoing basis?
A range of support was reported by attendees, from written welcome packs and websites giving information about the transition to the UK HE system, to study skills support and supervisor training. Colleagues noted that international PGRs are often eligible for support from a range of student services, but that this can sometimes be overwhelming, so the visibility of and sign-posting to these services is key to supporting the international PGR experience.
How do you manage engagement monitoring in your institution?
Colleagues generally reported utilising supervision meeting records as the primary means for tracking engagement, although there was some variation in where responsibility lay for logging the meetings in institutional systems (i.e. with the PGR or their supervisor). Some also noted the logging of other activities, such as training attendance. The group went on to reflect on the perennial challenges around PGR systems and data.
How does your institution manage the fees shortfall in UKRI funding?
Practice varied across the institutions represented, with the majority indicating that they continue to absorb the shortfall in UKRI funding for international PGR fees, and a smaller number indicating a move to passing the shortfall onto PGRs. A straw poll taken during discussions indicated that – of the 14 who responded – 10 institutions absorb the shortfall, while four pass it on to the PGR.
Thank you to everyone who attended. We want these sessions to be driven by your needs, so please feel free to suggest topics for future clinics using the form linked below.