ÐÓ°ÉÂÛ̳

Winner: Lucy Bryant, Department of Social Policy

Lucy's winning poster: 

The judges said: The winner’s poster successfully conveyed the rationale for the research and was easy for the public to understand whilst still being academically credible. The entry was also visually compelling with nice use of colour, images and quotes. 

Judges:  is a political scientist, award-winning educator and Director of ÐÓ°ÉÂÛ̳100. Head of the ÐÓ°ÉÂÛ̳ , Jeni Brown leads a talented team of professional and student staff, delivering innovative and challenging programmes to develop digital literacy, job-specific skills, and technical confidence in users of all levels.

• Organisation: How well is structure employed to organise text and images?
• Presentation: Do the graphics, colour, font, and density of information enhance or detract from the message?
• Clarity: Are the arguments contained in the poster coherent? Are they clear to a general audience?

Winner: Evelina Bondareva, Department of Social Policy

Evelina's winning written pitch: 

The judges said: Our winner provided an original connection to historical and societal context in their research, while also demonstrating the wider relevance of their work. They set out an interesting paradox up front concerning the small total number of refugees but strong anti-refugee sentiment in a different non-Western European non-Anglo Speaking context.

Judges:  is currently the ÐÓ°ÉÂÛ̳ Pro-Director for Research. Simon took his undergraduate and masters degrees at the ÐÓ°ÉÂÛ̳ and his PhD at the European University Institute, in Florence.  is Research Manager for the  at ÐÓ°ÉÂÛ̳ and co-editor of the .

• Does the headline grab attention and capture the important insight from the research?
• Does the pitch make the case for why the audience should be engaged by the research?
• Is the pitch well-written, concise and communicative?

Joint Winners: Shey Forbes-Taylor and Brian Walker, Communications Division, & Olivia G, Jad Baghdadi, and Victoria Shum, Department of International Relations

Shey and Brian's winning short film:

Oliva, Jad, and Victoria's winning short film:

The judges said: ÐÓ°ÉÂÛ̳ culture was very present in this short film. It gave a clear picture of what the culture was in the 1930s in terms of race, and then demonstrated how much has changed and how much has remained the same. The archival material was wide-ranging and compelling, and the juxtaposition of the historical materials - letters, news articles, etc. - and the contemporary students' words was incredibly moving.

For our other winning film, the judges said: This film was brave and expressive, using a variety of voices and locations to successfully communicate the unrest in Hong Kong and the reverberating impact this had around the world. The piece was well-balanced and thought through expressing its ideas with clarity and creativity and a strong use of sound.

Judges:  is Professor of Media and Communications and Head of the Department of Media and Communications at ÐÓ°ÉÂÛ̳.  is the Film and Audio Manager in the Communications Division at ÐÓ°ÉÂÛ̳. 

• To what extent does the film make use of sound, image and editing to convey the research topic?
• Does the film demonstrate a strong link to theoretical, critical and cultural ideas developed in the research?
• Is the research presented with clarity, creativity and depth?

Winner: Constantin Gouvy, Department of International Relations

Constantin's winning photograph: 

The judges said: We found this photograph to be particularly moving. Clearly depicting a powerful story about both the subjects in the photograph, but also those not present. Excellent use of light and colour to show the generational contrast.

Judges: Thomas Smith is an Assistant Professor in Environmental Geography at ÐÓ°ÉÂÛ̳. Mary Rahman studied MSc Media and Communications at ÐÓ°ÉÂÛ̳. She now works in PR focusing on arts and cultural campaigns.

• Imagination: How original and arresting is the story behind the image? Does it challenge the viewer?  
• Research matter and coherence: How well does it relate to your research items and topics as described on the entry form?  
• Visual impact: Where is our eye drawn to in the photograph? Is the viewer's attention captured in an interesting way? 

Winner: Shey Forbes-Taylor and Brian Walker, Communications Division

Shey and Brian's winning short film: 

The judges said: This film stood out by highlighting an individual from ÐÓ°ÉÂÛ̳ who prioritised the goal of reducing poverty through his research in the field of economics. The story of Sir Arthur Lewis is a testament to the history and culture of ÐÓ°ÉÂÛ̳ as he was the first black professor in the UK. I found the final quote particularly moving: ‘the cure for poverty is not money but knowledge’.

Highly Commended: Charlotte Bartels, Department of Accounting

Charlotte's highly commended photography:

Highly Commended: Valentina Iemmi, Department of Social Policy

Valentina's highly commended poster: 

Judge: Minouche Shafik, Director of ÐÓ°ÉÂÛ̳

This prize is awarded to the shortlisted submission that best engages with the ÐÓ°ÉÂÛ̳ Festival theme “Shape the World".

Winner: Arya Gerard, Department of Law

Arya's winning photograph: 

The judges said: We thought this image creatively juxtaposes the old and the new, and invites the viewer to question how conservation and modernisation can both be for the better – particularly in the lived and built environment.  It provokes reflection on “making the world a better place” and highlights debates about what “better” means, and for whom.

Highly Commended: Elise Racine, Department of International Relations

Elise's highly commended written pitch:

Highly Commended: Vathsal Kumar Gupta, Department of Economics

Vathsal's highly commended photograph: 

Judges:  is a Learning Developer at ÐÓ°ÉÂÛ̳ LIFE with a PhD in social psychology and  is Deputy Head of Department for Teaching and has a PhD in cognitive science.

The ÐÓ°ÉÂÛ̳ LIFE prize is selected from shortlisted submissions from undergraduate and Master’s students and students who graduated in July or December 2019. 

• Making the ‘world’ a better place: How well does the submission offer knowledge that could contribute to a change for the better for a community, big or small?
• Communication: How well does the submission use written and/or visual forms of communication to interact with the Festival audience in a way that is clear and coherent?
• Creativity: How well does the submission demonstrate inventive or unique ways of thinking and/or offer alternative perspectives?
• Self-Understanding: How well does the submission demonstrate researcher self-awareness and reflexivity?

Winner: Charlotte Bartels, Department of Accounting

Charlotte's winning photography: 

The judges said: We thought this entry was a particularly striking image. It made us stop and think about accountability, transparency and boundaries. The picture invites conversation and allows the viewer to come to their own reflections about corporate life.

Judges:  is the Director of the PhD Academy and Professor of Anthropology. Since the time of her PhD at the ÐÓ°ÉÂÛ̳, she has been doing ethnographic research among fishing people in Madagascar. , an economist and planner, is Distinguished Policy Fellow at ÐÓ°ÉÂÛ̳ London and has been researching housing and urban policy in the UK and elsewhere for more than 20 years.  

The PhD Academy Prize is selected from shortlisted submissions from PhD students. 

It will be judged on your ability to communicate a concept, research question or finding in a way that stimulates debate and is accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Winners will recieve £250, to be shared if part of a group.