Join Now

Emerging Demographer Award

Submission Form Here

1. Purpose

The Emerging Demographer Award recognises outstanding early-career researchers in the field of population studies. It aims to support visibility and credibility during the critical early-career phase. This Award is open in the conference year only.

2. Eligibility Criteria

2.1 Career stage

  • Nominee is within 10 years of PhD completion (full-time equivalent), calculated from the date of thesis conferral/award.
  • The 10-year eligibility window may be extended in cases of documented career interruption(s). Examples include relocation from overseas, caring responsibilities, disability, disaster management and recovery, restricted access to facilities and resources, medical conditions, time in a non-research role, parental leave, unemployment, being the primary carer of a dependent child, or other significant circumstances. Extensions should be commensurate with the length of the interruption, such that the nominee's effective PhD conferral date falls within the Emerging Demographer Award eligibility period shown above.

2.2 Membership

  • It is preferred that both the nominee and nominator (if applicable) be current financial members of the APA at the time of submission; however, nominations will still be accepted regardless of the membership status of either party.

2.3 Field of research

  • Nominee's work must fall within population studies broadly defined, including but not limited to demography, population health, migration studies, spatial demography, fertility/mortality research, family planning, population and environment, population and development, Indigenous demography, historical demography, economic demography, population ageing, and population policy.

2.4 Geographic scope

  • Nominee should have a substantive connection to Australian and global population studies e.g., be based at an Australian institution, be an Australian citizen or permanent resident and be conducting research with clear relevance to the Australian and global population context.

  • Current members of the APA Awards sub-committee are not eligible to be nominated for this award. APA Council members are eligible to be nominated for this award, however will recuse themselves from ratification.

2.5 Nomination type

  • Self-nomination or nomination by a colleague, mentor, or collaborator is accepted, but not both.
  • Third-party nominations are made with the nominee's consent and involvement (i.e., providing a CV).

3. Selection Process

  • Nominations open and close on the same timeline as the Mid-Career Award, the Research Excellence Award and the Service to Population Studies Award.
  • Submissions are accepted electronically, via the Microsoft Teams/SharePoint form on the APA website.
  • Nominations consist of written responses on the Emerging Demographer Award Online Nomination Form plus a PDF of the nominee’s CV (up to 6 pages, minimum font 11).
  • There is no prescribed CV format or content beyond this page and font limit. The nomination is considered on the basis of the nominator's submission (or self-nomination); referee letters are therefore not needed and do not need to be sought.
  • Only one nomination may be submitted per nominee, per Award, per cycle. Where the Sub-Committee becomes aware of multiple nominations for the same nominee (for example, a self-nomination and a nomination by a colleague), it will contact all nominators and ask them to agree on a single nomination to proceed with for consideration.

4. Unsuccessful nominees

  • Unsuccessful nominees may re-nominate or be re-nominated in future years submitting up-to-date applications. The Career Awards Sub-Committee will provide short feedback to unsuccessful nominees by email.

The Australian Population Association reserves the right to not make an Award in this category in a given cycle if no nomination meets the required standard.

5. The Career Awards Sub-Committee: Role and Process

5.1 Composition

  • The Sub-Committee comprises at least four members, all serving in a volunteer capacity.
  • At least three members are appointed from within, and by the APA Council.
  • The Sub-Committee is chaired by an APA Council member appointed by the Council.
  • One member is appointed from the current financial membership, outside the APA Council, bringing an independent, external perspective to Sub-Committee.

5.2 Process

  • Each member independently reviews and scores every eligible nomination against the assessment rubric (below).
  • The Sub-Committee then meets to compare scores, discuss each nomination's strengths against the rubric, and rank nominees accordingly. Where a clear highest-ranked nomination emerges, this becomes the recommended recipient; where rankings are close or contested, the Sub-Committee discusses further and reaches a decision by consensus.
  • The Sub-Committee puts forward a recommended recipient and a short reasoning summary to the APA Council.

5.3 Conflict of interest

  • Before reviewing nominations, all Sub-Committee members declare any conflicts of interest with nominees (e.g., current or recent supervisory relationship, close collaborator, direct line manager, etc.).
  • A member with a declared conflict recuses themselves from scoring and discussion of that specific nomination. The remaining members assess it.
  • Sub-Committee members may nominate candidates they have supervised, provided they recuse themselves from scoring that nomination.

5.4 Confidentiality

  • Nomination materials and Sub-Committee deliberations are treated as confidential internal documents and are not shared outside in any manner.

5.5 Ratification and finality

  • The Sub-Committee's recommendation is put to the APA Council for ratification prior to public announcement.
  • Once ratified, the decision is final.

6. Assessment rubric overview for the APA website

These criteria cover the nominee's contributions since PhD conferral, within the first 10 years of their career. For use as an overview on the APA website; detailed questions on the online nomination form are set out in Section 7.

Criterion

Relative weighting

What the Sub-Committee looks for

Linked question(s)

Recommended length

Research quality and originality

30%

Methodological soundness; novel questions, data, or methods; quality over quantity of outputs

Q1 + Q2

Up to 300 words (Q1 and Q2 combined)

Impact on the field

25%

Academic impact (citations, uptake by other researchers); policy or applied impact; contribution to public understanding of population issues

Q3

Up to 300 words

Independent contribution

15%

Evidence the nominee is driving their own research agenda and not solely relying on a team's program

Q4

Up to 150 words

Future potential

20%

Trajectory and coherence of research direction; capacity to become a future leader in the field

Q5

Up to 150 words

Engagement and service

10%

Mentoring, teaching, data/code sharing, other service to the discipline

Q6

Up to 100 words

Total

100%

—

Q1–Q6

Up to 1,000 words

Career interruptions

Not scored

Contextual information only. Taken into account in applying the eligibility window

 

Up to 200 words (optional, excluded from the 1,000-word cap)

 

 

7. Questions

All responses below should address the nominee's contributions since PhD conferral and within the first 10 years of their career.

Q1. Research quality and originality. Describe the nominee's research contributions since the PhD degree conferral and why it is outstanding in terms of quality and originality. Recommended up to 300 words (with Q2)

Q2. Originality of approach and methods. Explain what is original or innovative about the nominee's approach, methods, or research questions. Recommended up to 300 words (with Q1)

Q3. Impact on the field. Describe the impact of the nominee's work: academic (e.g., citations, uptake by other researchers), policy/applied (e.g., use by government, media coverage), or methodological. Recommended up to 300 words

Q4. Independence and leadership. Explain how has the nominee demonstrated independent research leadership such as securing their own funding, building teams, leading projects, or producing sole/first-authored work. Recommended up to 150 words

Q5. Future potential. Outline what is the nominee's future research trajectory and coherence of research direction as well as the potential to become a leader in population studies. Recommended up to 150 words

Q6. Engagement and service. Describe the nominee's contribution to the discipline (e.g., mentoring, teaching, open data/code practices, public engagement). Recommended up to 100 words

Q7. Career interruptions. If relevant, describe any career interruptions or non-linear pathways that should be considered in assessing the nominee's track record relative to opportunity. This is optional.  This response is not scored like Q1 to Q6. Recommended up to 200 words

 

8. Recognition

The Award recipient receives:

  • Formal acknowledgement at the Awards session at the APA Biennial Conference.
  • A certificate
  • A mention on the APA website and LinkedIn and in the APA newsletter.
  • An invitation to co-guest edit an issue of Australian Population Studies, jointly with the Mid-Career Award winner - providing an editorial and mentoring experience, as well as leadership in the discipline.