research project funding

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Funding at NSF

• Getting Started
• Search for Funding
• Search Funded Projects (Awards)
• For Early-Career Researchers
• For Postdoctoral Researchers
• For Graduate Students
• For Undergraduates
• For Entrepreneurs
• For Industry
• NSF Initiatives
• Proposal Budget
• Senior Personnel Documents
• Data Management Plan
• Research Involving Live Vertebrate Animals
• Research Involving Human Subjects
• Submitting Your Proposal
• How We Make Funding Decisions
• Search Award Abstracts
• NSF by the Numbers
• Honorary Awards
• Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG)
• FAQ Related to PAPPG
• NSF Policy Office
• Safe and Inclusive Work Environments
• Research Security
• Research.gov

The U.S. National Science Foundation offers hundreds of funding opportunities — including grants, cooperative agreements and fellowships — that support research and education across science and engineering.

Learn how to apply for NSF funding by visiting the links below.

Finding the right funding opportunity

Learn about NSF's funding priorities and how to find a funding opportunity that's right for you.

Preparing your proposal

Learn about the pieces that make up a proposal and how to prepare a proposal for NSF.

Submitting your proposal

Learn how to submit a proposal to NSF using one of our online systems.

How we make funding decisions

Learn about NSF's merit review process, which ensures the proposals NSF receives are reviewed in a fair, competitive, transparent and in-depth manner.

NSF 101 answers common questions asked by those interested in applying for NSF funding. 

Research approaches we encourage

Learn about interdisciplinary research, convergence research and transdisciplinary research.

Newest funding opportunities

Molecular foundations for sustainability: sustainable polymers enabled by emerging data analytics (mfs-speed), using long-term research associated data (ultra-data), national science foundation research traineeship institutional partnership pilot program, joint national science foundation and united states department of agriculture national institute of food and agriculture funding opportunity: supporting foundational research in robotics (frr).

100 Places to Find Funding For Your Research

• Grants.gov : Though backed by the Department of Health & Human Services, Grants.gov provides a valuable resource for searching for fellowships, grants, and other funding opportunities across multiple disciplines.
• Foundation Center : One of the largest databases of philanthropy in the United States contains information from more than 550 institutions eager to donate their money to creative, technical, medical, scientific, and plenty of other kinds of causes.
• Pivot : Pivot claims it hosts an estimated $44 billion worth of grants, fellowships, awards, and more, accessed by more than three million scholars worldwide.
• The Chronicle of Philanthropy New Grants : Another excellent search engine entirely dedicated to helping the most innovative thinkers obtain the money needed to move forward with their projects.
• Research Professional : Seven thousand opportunities await the driven at the well-loved Research Professional , which serves inclusively as a government-to-nonprofit grant database.
• Council on Foundations : Corporations, nonprofits, and other institutions gather here to talk best practices in philanthropy and where to find what for various projects.
• The Grantsmanship Center : Search for available research funding by state, see what givers prefer, and explore which ones offer up the most moolah.
• GrantSelect : Whether looking for money to advance an educational, nonprofit, artistic, or other worthwhile cause, GrantSelect makes it easy to find that funding.
• The Spencer Foundation : The Spencer Foundation provides research funding to outstanding proposals for intellectually rigorous education research.
• The Fulbright Program : The Fulbright Program offers grants in nearly 140 countries to further areas of education, culture, and science.
• Friends of the Princeton University Library : The Friends of the Princeton University Library offers short-term library research grants to promote scholarly use of the research collections.
• National Endowment for the Arts : The NEA's Office of Research & Analysis will make awards to support research that investigates the value and/or impact of the arts, either as individual components within U.S. arts ecology or as they interact with each other and/or with other domains of American life.
• Amazon Web Services : AWS has two programs to enable customers to move their research or teaching endeavors to the cloud and innovate quickly and at lower cost: The AWS Cloud Credits for Research program (formerly AWS Research Grants) and AWS Educate – a global initiative to provide students and educators with the resources needed to greatly accelerate cloud-related learning endeavors and to help power the entrepreneurs, workforce, and researchers of tomorrow.
• The National Association of State Boards of Accountancy Research Grants : The NASBA will fund and award up to three grants totaling up to $25,000 for one-year research projects, intended for researchers at higher institutions.
• The Tinker Foundation Research Grants : The Tinker Foundation Field Research Grants Program is designed to provide budding scholars with first-hand experience of their region of study, regardless of academic discipline.
• SPIN (Sponsored Programs Information Network) : SPIN is run by InfoEd International and requires an institutional subscription to access its global database for funding opportunities.
• GrantForward : GrantForward is a massive resource, full of grants from more than 9,000 sponsors in the United States. The site leverages data-crawling technology to constantly add new funding opportunities.
• Bush Foundation Fellowship Program : Leadership in its many forms are the main focus of the BFFP, who give money to folks dedicated to improving their communities.

Social and Civil

• National Endowment for Democracy : NGOs dedicated to furthering the cause of peace and democracy are the only ones eligible for grants from this organization.
• William T. Grant Foundation : Research and scholarship funding here goes towards advancing the cause of creating safe, healthy, and character-building environments for young people.
• Russell Sage Foundation : The Russell Sage Foundation focuses on best practices research feeding into equality and social justice initiatives.
• The Pew Charitable Trusts : Public policy is the name of the game here, where funding targets innovators looking to promote environmental, economic, and health programming causes reaching across demographics.
• The John Randolph Haynes Foundation : Based largely in Los Angeles, the John Randolph Haynes Foundation seeks to improve the city through a wide variety of altruistic projects.
• Economic and Social Research Council : This UK-based organization provides grants to researchers concerned with studying the social sciences in a manner that supports humanity's progress.
• The American Political Science Association : Stop here for fellowships, grants, internships, visiting scholars programs, and other chances to pay for political research.
• Social Science Research Council : In the interest of furthering an awareness of integral political issues, the SSRC donates to a wide range of initiatives worldwide.
• Horowitz Foundation for Social Policy : Several grants go out each year through this organization, covering all the social sciences and judged based on how well they fit into policymaking.
• The Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation : The Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation welcomes proposals from any of the natural and social sciences and the humanities that promise to increase understanding of the causes, manifestations, and control of violence and aggression. Highest priority is given to research that can increase understanding and amelioration of urgent problems of violence and aggression in the modern world.
• The National Endowment for the Humanities : Research grants from TNEH support interpretive humanities research undertaken by a team of two or more scholars. Research must use the knowledge and perspectives of the humanities and historical or philosophical methods to enhance understanding of science, technology, medicine, and the social sciences.
• American Historical Association : The American Historical Association awards several research grants to AHA members with the aim of advancing the study and exploration of history in a diverse number of subject areas. All grants are offered annually and are intended to further research in progress. Preference is given to advanced doctoral students, nontenured faculty, and unaffiliated scholars. Grants may be used for travel to a library or archive, as well as microfilming, photography, or photo copying, paying borrowing or access fees, or similar research expenses.
• The Dirksen Congressional Center : The Dirksen Congressional Center offers individual grants of up to $3500 for individuals with a serious interest in studying Congress. The Center encourages graduate students who have successfully defended their dissertation prospectus to apply, and awards a significant portion of the funds toward dissertation research.
• The Independent Social Research Foundation : The ISRF supports independent-minded researchers pursuing original and interdisciplinary studies for solutions to social problems that are unlikely to be funded by existing funding bodies.
• The David & Lucile Packard Foundation : Nonprofit organizations dedicated to growing education, charities, health, and other social justice causes should consider seeing what funding is available to them through this foundation.
• Volkswagen Stiftung : Volkswagen devotes its grants and other funding opportunities to a diverse portfolio of charities and charity-minded individuals.

Science and Engineering

• National Science Foundation : For the love of science! Head here when searching for ways to pay for that gargantuan geology or bigtime biology project. Awards are used for everything from undergraduate research grants to small business programs.
• Alexander von Humboldt Foundation : Humboldt fellows embody the spirit of science and leadership alike, and the organization sponsors thinkers in Germany and abroad alike.
• National Academy of Engineering : All of the awards dished out by the NAE celebrate engineering advances, education, and media promotion.
• National Parks Foundation : Americans who want to preserve their country's gorgeous parks and trails pitch projects to this governing body, concerned largely with ecology and accessibility issues.
• American Physical Society : Future Feynmans in search of the sponsorship necessary to test their theories (and explore possible applications) might want to consider applying for the APS' suite of awards.
• Alfred P. Sloan Foundation : Money is available here throughout the year, covering science and engineering as well as causes that overlap with civics, education, and economics.
• American Society for Engineering Education : The Department of Defense, NASA, The National Science Foundation, and other federal agencies sponsor high school and college students who show promise in the engineering sector.
• CRDF Global : Dedicated to peace and prosperity, recipients of CRDF Global grants apply their know-how to bettering social causes.
• Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council : Students and professionals working in the physical sciences as they relate to engineering might find a few options to their liking here.
• The Whitehall Foundation : The Whitehall Foundation, through its program of grants and grants-in-aid, assists scholarly research in the life sciences. It is the Foundation's policy to assist those dynamic areas of basic biological research that are not heavily supported by federal agencies or other foundations with specialized missions.
• Human Frontier Science Program : Research grants from the Human Frontier Science Program are provided for teams of scientists from different countries who wish to combine their expertise in innovative approaches to questions that could not be answered by individual laboratories.
• The U.S. Small Business Administration : The U.S. Small Business Administration offers research grants to small businesses that are engaged in scientific research and development projects that meet federal R&D objectives and have a high potential for commercialization.
• The Geological Society of America : The primary role of the GSA research grants program is to provide partial support of master's and doctoral thesis research in the geological sciences for graduate students enrolled in universities in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and Central America.
• The Welch Foundation : The Welch Foundation provides grants for a minimum of $60,000 in funding to support research in chemistry by a full-time tenured or tenurehttps://leakeyfoundation.org/grants/research-grants/-track faculty member who serves as principal investigator. Applications are restricted to universities, colleges, and other educational institutions located within the state of Texas.
• The Leakey Foundation : The Leakey Foundation offers research grants of up to $25,000 to doctoral and postdoctoral students, as well as senior scientists, for research related specifically to human origins.
• American College of Sports Medicine: The American College of Sports Medicine offers several possible grants to research students in the areas of general and applied science.
• Association of American Geographers : The AAG provides small grants to support research and fieldwork. Grants can be used only for direct expenses of research; salary and overhead costs are not allowed.
• The Alternatives Research & Development Foundation : The Alternatives Research & Development Foundation is a U.S. leader in the funding and promotion of alternatives to the use of laboratory animals in research, testing, and education.
• BD Biosciences : BD Biosciences Research Grants aim to reward and enable important research by providing vital funding to scientists pursuing innovative experiments that advance the scientific understanding of disease. This ongoing program includes grants for immunology and stem cell research, totaling $240,000 annually in BD Biosciences research reagents.
• Sigma Xi : The Sigma Xi program awards grants for research in the areas of science, engineering, astronomy, and vision.
• The United Engineering Foundation : The United Engineering Foundation advances the engineering arts and sciences for the welfare of humanity. It supports engineering and education by, among other means, developing and offering grants.
• Wilson Ornithological Society Research Grants : The Wilson Ornithological Society Research Grants offer up to four grants of $1,500 dollars each for work in any area of ornithology.

• National Institutes of Health : Foreign and American medical professionals hoping to advance their research might want to consider one of these prestigious (and generous) endowments.
• Whitaker International Program : Biomedical engineering's global reach serves as this organization's focus, so applicants here need to open themselves up to international institutions and applications.
• U.S. National Library of Medicine : From tech to small businesses, the USNLM funding programs cover a diverse range of fields that feed into medicine.
• American Heart Association : Most of the AHA's research involves cardiovascular disease and stroke, with funding in these areas available in both the winter and the summer.
• Society for Women's Health Research : Female engineers and scientists are eligible for these grants, meant to support initiatives that improves women's health and education on a global scale.
• Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation : Every cent donated to the DRCRF directly feeds into fellowships and awards bringing humanity closer to cancer cures and improved prevention regimens.
• Burroughs Wellcome Fund : Emerging scientists working in largely underrecognized and underfunded biomedical fields are the main recipients of this private foundation's awards.
• The Foundation for Alcohol Research : As one can probably assume from the name, The Foundation for Alcohol Research contributes to projects studying how alcohol impacts human physical and mental health.
• Alex's Lemonade Stand : These grants go towards doctors, nurses, and medical researchers concerned with curing childhood cancer.
• National Cancer Institute : Thanks to a little help from their friends in Congress, the National Cancer Institute have $4.9 billion to share with medical science researchers.
• Charles Stewart Mott Foundation : Michigan-based thinkers currently developing ways to improve upon serious local and state issues might want to consider checking out what this organization can offer in the way of funding for their ideas.
• American Federation for Aging Research : AFAR provides up to $100,000 for a one-to-two-year award to junior faculty (MDs and PhDs) to conduct research that will serve as the basis for longer term research efforts in the areas of biomedical and clinical research.
• The Muscular Dystrophy Association : The MDA is pursuing the full spectrum of research approaches that are geared toward combating neuromuscular diseases. MDA also helps spread this scientific knowledge and train the next generation of scientific leaders by funding national and international research conferences and career development grants.
• American Nurses Foundation : The ANF Nursing Research Grants Program provides funds to beginner and experienced nurse researchers to conduct studies that contribute toward the advancement of nursing science and the enhancement of patient care.
• The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation : The CF Foundation offers competitive awards for research related to cystic fibrosis. Studies may be carried out at the subcellular, cellular, animal, or patient levels. Two of these funding mechanisms include pilot and feasibility awards and research grants.
• The National Ataxia Foundation : The National Ataxia Foundation (NAF) is committed to funding the best science relevant to hereditary and sporadic types of ataxia in both basic and translational research. NAF invites research applications from USA. and International non-profit and for-profit institutions.
• The March of Dimes : In keeping with its mission, the March of Dimes research portfolio funds many different areas of research on topics related to preventing birth defects, premature birth, and infant mortality.
• The American Tinnitus Association : The American Tinnitus Association Research Grant Program financially supports scientific studies investigating tinnitus. Studies must be directly concerned with tinnitus and contribute to ATA's goal of finding a cure.
• American Brain Tumor Association : The American Brain Tumor Association provides multiple grants for scientists doing research in or around the field of brain tumor research.
• American Cancer Society : The American Cancer Society also offers grants that support the clinical and/or research training of health professionals. These Health Professional Training Grants promote excellence in cancer prevention and control by providing incentive and support for highly qualified individuals in outstanding training programs.
• Thrasher Research Fund : The Thrasher Research Fund provides grants for pediatric medical research. The Fund seeks to foster an environment of creativity and discovery aimed at finding solutions to children's health problems. The Fund awards grants for research that offer substantial promise for meaningful advances in prevention and treatment of children's diseases, particularly research that offers broad-based applications.
• Foundation for Physical Therapy : The Foundation supports research projects in any patient care specialty.
• International OCD Foundation : The IOCDF awards grants to investigators whose research focuses on the nature, causes, and treatment of OCD and related disorders.
• Susan G. Komen : Susan G. Komen sustains a strong commitment to supporting research that will identify and deliver cures for breast cancer.
• American Association for Cancer Research : The AACR promotes and supports the highest quality cancer research. The AACR has been designated as an organization with an approved NCI peer review and funding system.
• American Thyroid Foundation : The ATA is committed to supporting research into better ways to diagnose and treat thyroid disease.
• The National Patient Safety Foundation : The National Patient Safety Foundation (NPSF) Research Grants Program seeks to stimulate new, innovative projects directed toward enhancing patient safety in the United States. The program's objective is to promote studies leading to the prevention of human errors, system errors, patient injuries, and the consequences of such adverse events in a healthcare setting.
• The Foundation for Anesthesia Education and Research : The FAER provides research grant funding for anesthesiologists and anesthesiology trainees to gain additional training in basic science, clinical and translational, health-services-related, and education research.
• The Alzheimer's Association : The Alzheimer's Association funds a wide variety of investigations by scientists at every stage of their careers. Each grant is designed to meet the needs of the field and to introduce fresh ideas in Alzheimer's research.
• The Arthritis National Research Foundation : The Arthritis National Research Foundation seeks to move arthritis research forward to find new treatments and to cure arthritis.
• Hereditary Disease Foundation : The focus of the Hereditary Disease Foundation is on Huntington's disease. Support will be for research projects that will contribute to identifying and understanding the basic defect in Huntington's disease. Areas of interest include trinucleotide expansions, animal models, gene therapy, neurobiology and development of the basal ganglia, cell survival and death, and intercellular signaling in striatal neurons.
• The Children's Leukemia Research Association : The objective of the CLRA is to direct the funds of the Association into the most promising leukemia research projects, where funding would not duplicate other funding sources.
• The American Parkinson Disease Association : The APDA offers grants of up to $50,000 for Parkinson disease research to scientists affiliated with U.S. research institutions.
• The Mary Kay Foundation : The Mary Kay Foundation offers grants to select doctors and medical scientists for research focusing on curing cancers that affect women. Details for 2017 are forthcoming.
• The Crohn's & Colitis Foundation of America : The CCFA is a leading funder of basic and clinical research in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. CCFA supports research that increases understanding of the etiology, pathogenesis, therapy, and prevention of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis.
• American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons : ASES provides grants of up to $20,000 for promising shoulder and elbow research projects.
• The International Research Grants Program : The IRGP seeks to promote research that will have a major impact in developing knowledge of Parkinson's disease. An effort is made to promote projects that have little hope of securing traditional funding.
• American Gastroenterological Association : The AGA offers multiple grants for research advancing the science and practice of Gastroenterology.
• The Obesity Society : The Obesity Society offers grants of up to $25,000 dollars to members doing research in areas related to obesity.
• The Sjögren's Syndrome Foundation : The SSF Research Grants Program places a high priority on both clinical and basic scientific research into the cause, prevention, detection, treatment, and cure of Sjögren's.
• The Melanoma Research Foundation : The MRF Research Grant Program emphasizes both basic and clinical research projects that explore innovative approaches to understanding melanoma and its treatment.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Indian Dermatol Online J
• v.12(1); Jan-Feb 2021

Research Funding—Why, When, and How?

Shekhar neema.

Department of Dermatology, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, Maharashtra, India

Laxmisha Chandrashekar

1 Department of Dermatology, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Dhanvantari Nagar, Puducherry, India

Research funding is defined as a grant obtained for conducting scientific research generally through a competitive process. To apply for grants and securing research funding is an essential part of conducting research. In this article, we will discuss why should one apply for research grants, what are the avenues for getting research grants, and how to go about it in a step-wise manner. We will also discuss how to write research grants and what to be done after funding is received.

Introduction

The two most important components of any research project is idea and execution. The successful execution of the research project depends not only on the effort of the researcher but also on available infrastructure to conduct the research. The conduct of a research project entails expenses on man and material and funding is essential to meet these requirements. It is possible to conduct many research projects without any external funding if the infrastructure to conduct the research is available with the researcher or institution. It is also unethical to order tests for research purpose when it does not benefit patient directly or is not part of the standard of care. Research funding is required to meet these expenses and smooth execution of research projects. Securing funding for the research project is a topic that is not discussed during postgraduation and afterwards during academic career especially in medical science. Many good ideas do not materialize into a good research project because of lack of funding.[ 1 ] This is an art which can be learnt only by practising and we intend to throw light on major hurdles faced to secure research funding.

Why Do We Need the Funds for Research?

It is possible to publish papers without any external funding; observational research and experimental research with small sample size can be conducted without external funding and can result in meaningful papers like case reports, case series, observational study, or small experimental study. However, when studies like multi-centric studies, randomized controlled trial, experimental study or observational study with large sample size are envisaged, it may not be possible to conduct the study within the resources of department or institution and a source of external funding is required.

Basic Requirements for Research Funding

The most important requirement is having an interest in the particular subject, thorough knowledge of the subject, and finding out the gap in the knowledge. The second requirement is to know whether your research can be completed with internal resources or requires external funding. The next step is finding out the funding agencies which provide funds for your subject, preparing research grant and submitting the research grant on time.

What Are the Sources of Research Funding? – Details of Funding Agencies

Many local, national, and international funding bodies can provide grants necessary for research. However, the priorities for different funding agencies on type of research may vary and this needs to be kept in mind while planning a grant proposal. Apart from this, different funding agencies have different timelines for proposal submission and limitation on funds. Details about funding bodies have been tabulated in Table 1 . These details are only indicative and not comprehensive.

Details of funding agencies

Application for the Research Grant

Applying for a research grant is a time-consuming but rewarding task. It not only provides an opportunity for designing a good study but also allows one to understand the administrative aspect of conducting research. In a publication, the peer review is done after the paper is submitted but in a research grant, peer review is done at the time of proposal, which helps the researcher to improve his study design even if the grant proposal is not successful. Funds which are available for research is generally limited; resulting in reviewing of a research grant on its merit by peer group before the proposal is approved. It is important to be on the lookout for call for proposal and deadlines for various grants. Ideally, the draft research proposal should be ready much before the call for proposal and every step should be meticulously planned to avoid rush just before the deadline. The steps of applying for a research grant are mentioned below and every step is essential but may not be conducted in a particular order.

• Idea: The most important aspect of research is the idea. After having the idea in mind, it is important to refine your idea by going through literature and finding out what has already been done in the subject and what are the gaps in the research. FINER framework should be used while framing research questions. FINER stands for feasibility, interesting, novel, ethical, and relevant
• Designing the study: Well-designed study is the first step of a well-executed research project. It is difficult to correct flawed study design when the project is advanced, hence it should be planned well and discussed with co-workers. The help of an expert epidemiologist can be sought while designing the study
• Collaboration: The facility to conduct the study within the department is often limited. Inter-departmental and inter-institutional collaboration is the key to perform good research. The quality of project improves by having a subject expert onboard and it also makes acceptance of grant easier. The availability of the facility for conduct of research in department and institution should be ascertained before planning the project
• Scientific and ethical committee approval: Most of the research grants require the project to be approved by the institutional ethical committee (IEC) before the project is submitted. IEC meeting usually happens once in a quarter; hence pre-planning the project is essential. Some institutes also conduct scientific committee meeting before the proposal can be submitted for funding. A project/study which is unscientific is not ethical, therefore it is a must that a research proposal should pass both the committees’ scrutiny
• Writing research grant: Writing a good research grant decides whether research funding can be secured or not. So, we will discuss this part in detail.

How to write a research grant proposal [ 13 , 14 , 15 ] The steps in writing a research grant are as follows

• Identifying the idea and designing the study. Study design should include details about type of study, methodology, sampling, blinding, inclusion and exclusion criteria, outcome measurements, and statistical analysis
• Identifying the prospective grants—the timing of application, specific requirements of grant and budget available in the grant
• Discussing with collaborators (co-investigators) about the requirement of consumables and equipment
• Preparing a budget proposal—the two most important part of any research proposal is methodology and budget proposal. It will be discussed separately
• Preparing a specific proposal as outlined in the grant document. This should contain details about the study including brief review of literature, why do you want to conduct this study, and what are the implications of the study, budget requirement, and timeline of the study
• A timeline or Gantt chart should always accompany any research proposal. This gives an idea about the major milestones of the project and how the project will be executed
• The researcher should also be ready for revising the grant proposal. After going through the initial proposal, committee members may suggest some changes in methodology and budgetary outlay
• The committee which scrutinizes grant proposal may be composed of varied specialities. Hence, proposal should be written in a language which even layman can understand. It is also a good idea to get the proposal peer reviewed before submission.

Budgeting for the Research Grant

Budgeting is as important as the methodology for grant proposal. The first step is to find out what is the monetary limit for grant proposal and what are the fund requirements for your project. If these do not match, even a good project may be rejected based on budgetary limitations. The budgetary layout should be prepared with prudence and only the amount necessary for the conduct of research should be asked. Administrative cost to conduct the research project should also be included in the proposal. The administrative cost varies depending on the type of research project.

Research fund can generally be used for the following requirement but not limited to these; it is helpful to know the subheads under which budgetary planning is done. The funds are generally allotted in a graded manner as per projected requirement and to the institution, not to the researcher.

• Purchase of equipment which is not available in an institution (some funding bodies do not allow equipment to be procured out of research funds). The equipment once procured out of any research fund is owned by the institute/department
• Consumables required for the conduct of research (consumables like medicines for the conduct of the investigator-initiated trials and laboratory consumables)
• The hiring of trained personnel—research assistant, data entry operator for smooth conduct of research. The remuneration details of trained personnel can be obtained from the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) website and the same can be used while planning the budget
• Stationary—for the printing of forms and similar expense
• Travel expense—If the researcher has to travel to present his finding or for some other reason necessary for the conduct of research, travel grant can be part of the research grant
• Publication expense: Some research bodies provide publication expense which can help the author make his findings open access which allows wider visibility to research
• Contingency: Miscellaneous expenditure during the conduct of research can be included in this head
• Miscellaneous expenses may include expense toward auditing the fund account, and other essential expenses which may be included in this head.

Once the research funding is granted. The fund allotted has to be expended as planned under budgetary planning. Transparency, integrity, fairness, and competition are the cornerstones of public procurement and should be remembered while spending grant money. The hiring of trained staff on contract is also based on similar principles and details of procurement and hiring can be read at the ICMR website.[ 4 ] During the conduct of the study, many of grant guidelines mandate quarterly or half-yearly progress report of the project. This includes expense on budgetary layout and scientific progress of the project. These reports should be prepared and sent on time.

Completion of a Research Project

Once the research project is completed, the completion report has to be sent to the funding agency. Most funding agencies also require period progress report and project should ideally progress as per Gantt chart. The completion report has two parts. The first part includes a scientific report which is like writing a research paper and should include all subheads (Review of literature, material and methods, results, conclusion including implications of research). The second part is an expense report including how money was spent, was it according to budgetary layout or there was any deviation, and reasons for the deviation. Any unutilized fund has to be returned to the funding agency. Ideally, the allotted fund should be post audited by a professional (chartered accountant) and an audit report along with original bills of expenditure should be preserved for future use in case of any discrepancy. This is an essential part of any funded project that prevents the researcher from getting embroiled in any accusations of impropriety.

Sharing of scientific findings and thus help in scientific advancement is the ultimate goal of any research project. Publication of findings is the part of any research grant and many funding agencies have certain restrictions on publications and presentation of the project completed out of research funds. For example, Indian Association of Dermatologists, Venereologists and Leprologists (IADVL) research projects on completion have to be presented in a national conference and the same is true for most funding agencies. It is imperative that during presentation and publication, researcher mentions the source of funding.

Research funding is an essential part of conducting research. To be able to secure a research grant is a matter of prestige for a researcher and it also helps in the advancement of career.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

• U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

• Virtual Tour
• Staff Directory
• En Español

You are here

Grants & funding.

The National Institutes of Health is the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world. In fiscal year 2022, NIH invested most of its $45 billion appropriations in research seeking to enhance life, and to reduce illness and disability. NIH-funded research has led to breakthroughs and new treatments helping people live longer, healthier lives, and building the research foundation that drives discovery.

three-scientists-goggles-test-tube.jpg

Grants Home Page

NIH’s central resource for grants and funding information.

lab-glassware-with-colorful-liquid-square.jpg

Find Funding

NIH offers funding for many types of grants, contracts, and even programs that help repay loans for researchers.

calendar-page-square.jpg

Grant applications and associated documents (e.g., reference letters) are due by 5:00 PM local time of application organization on the specified due date.

submit-key-red-square.jpg

How to Apply

Instructions for submitting a grant application to NIH and other Public Health Service agencies.

female-researcher-in-lab-square.jpg

About Grants

An orientation to NIH funding, grant programs, how the grants process works, and how to apply.

binder-with-papers-on-office-desk-square.jpg

Policy & Compliance

By accepting a grant award, recipients agree to comply with the requirements in the NIH Grants Policy Statement unless the notice of award states otherwise.

blog-key-blue-square.jpg

Grants News/Blog

News, updates, and blog posts on NIH extramural grant policies, processes, events, and resources.

scientist-flipping-through-report-square.jpg

Explore opportunities at NIH for research and development contract funding.

smiling-female-researcher-square.jpg

Loan Repayment

The NIH Loan Repayment Programs repay up to $50,000 annually of a researcher’s qualified educational debt in return for a commitment to engage in NIH mission-relevant research.

Connect with Us

• More Social Media from NIH

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

Funding for Research: Importance, Types of Funding, and How to Apply

Embarking on a PhD or research journey is akin to embarking on a quest for knowledge, a quest that often hinges on a crucial ally – funding for research. However, in a highly competitive environment, funding is hard to secure as more researchers enter the field every year. According to the UNESCO Science report, global research expenditure increased by 19.2% between 2014 and 2018, with a 3x faster increase in the researcher pool than the global population during the same period. [1] In this article, we unravel the intricacies of funding for research, exploring its paramount importance, the types of research funding available, and how to navigate the funding maze in research.

Table of Contents

Importance of Funding for Research

Not only does research play a significant role in influencing decisions and policies across various sectors, it is essential in expanding our understanding of the world and finding solutions to global issues. And at the heart of groundbreaking discoveries lies funding, the catalyst that fuels innovation. But how does funding work? Funding for research isn’t merely about financial sustenance; it’s about unlocking the doors to securing resources, enabling researchers to traverse the path from ideation to innovation that makes tangible contributions to human knowledge. It enables researchers to push boundaries, facilitating access to cutting-edge technologies, specialized equipment, and expert collaborations. Unfortunately, it is common to see potentially valuable research initiatives languishing due to a lack of adequate resources and insufficient funding. This is why identifying the best types of funding and applying for research grants becomes important for researchers.

Understanding the Types of Research Funding

Let’s take a look at the different types of research funding that is usually available to researchers and how they can benefit from them.

Scholarships and fellowships

Most reputed academic institutions and universities have certain standard mechanisms for research funding through grants, scholarships, and fellowships. Generally, these sources of funding are meant for students and researchers who are affiliated with the institution and can be availed by faculty members too. Apart from space in the university library, they can cover a spectrum of resources, including tuition, travel, and stipends. It’s important to note that some scholarships and fellowships may have specific eligibility criteria, such as academic achievements or research focus, so applicants should carefully review these requirements. So be sure to gather as much information as possible, including what is on offer, details of stipends, and the duration of the scholarships and fellowships that you apply for.

Seed funding

Imagine you have a brilliant idea and all you need is a small amount of funding or capital to get it off the ground. This is where seed funding comes in to provide initial funding (generally small) to researchers to support the early stages of research. These research grants are usually given to cover short periods ranging from a few months to a year. The work is closely evaluated by the funding agency to get a sense of how good or innovative the research idea is. The evaluation process for seed funding often focuses on the potential impact and feasibility of the research idea. Researchers should be prepared to provide a compelling case for how their work aligns with the funding agency’s goals and contributes to the advancement of knowledge. A good example of a seed-funder is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation backed Grand Challenges in Global Health Exploration Grants.

Project funding

This is a type of funding that most academic institutions and universities are geared towards providing. Project funding is given to a team behind a research idea or project for a period ranging from 3 to 5 years. The competitive nature of project funding necessitates a clear and comprehensive research proposal that outlines the objectives, methods, and expected outcomes. To be successful in securing project funding it is essential to emphasize the significance of the research question and the expertise of the team working on stimulating new ideas or projects.

Centre funding

Here, the size of the funds is usually greater compared to project funding, which is granted after a comprehensive assessment of the work program and the team’s capabilities. The objective of center funding is to provide resources for an entire program that can comprise several different research projects. The duration of the funding ranges from 3 to 6 years or even longer depending on various factors. Researchers seeking center funding should showcase a cohesive and impactful research program that aligns with the funder’s strategic priorities.

Prizes and awards

This is usually characterized as recognition and financial support for past contributions in research or a field of study. This type of research funding is to encourage and incentivize project teams and researchers to carry out further innovative work. These types of research funding are very competitive and often require a strong track record of research achievements. They can entail either money or a cash prize or award in the form of a contract with a funding agency.

How to Apply for Research Funding

Strategic Timing: When it comes to securing funding for research, timing is everything. Plan your funding applications strategically, aligning them with critical milestones in your research. Consider the academic calendar, project timelines, and funding cycles to optimize your chances of securing funding for research.

Thorough Preparation: Before diving into the application process, conduct thorough groundwork. Familiarize yourself with the funding organization’s mission, priorities, expectations, and application, requirements. Clarify your research idea and design and then tailor your proposal to align seamlessly with their goals.

Crafting a Compelling Proposal: Your proposal for a research grant is your voice in the funding arena. Clearly articulate the significance of your research, your methodology, the possible outcomes, and the anticipated impact along with timelines. Your proposal will be scrutinized by a seasoned committee so craft it with precision, clarity, and a compelling narrative to ensure it can be easily understood even by non-academics.

Additional Tips to Secure Research Funding

Building Collaborations: Cultivate partnerships within and beyond your institute as collaboration adds weight to your funding application. A multidisciplinary approach not only strengthens your proposal but also enhances the potential impact of your research.

Staying Informed: The world of research funding is dynamic. Stay informed about emerging funding opportunities, policy changes, and shifts in research priorities. Regularly check funding databases, attend workshops, and engage with your academic community to maximize your chance of success.

Embracing Diversity in Funding Sources: Diversify your research funding portfolio as relying solely on one source of funding for research can be precarious. Explore various avenues, balancing government grants, private foundations, and industry collaborations to create a resilient funding strategy.

Being Resilient in the Face of Rejections: Rejections are an inherent part of the funding journey. View them not as setbacks but as opportunities to refine and strengthen your proposals. Seek feedback, learn from the process, and persist in your pursuit.

If you are a serious researcher wondering how to get funding for research then do check out GrantDesk a solution by Researcher.Life . It provides expert support aimed at revolutionizing the funding process and increasing your chances of securing research grants.

References:

• Schneegans, T. Straza and J. Lewis (eds). UNESCO (2021) UNESCO Science Report: the Race Against Time for Smarter Development.

Researcher.Life is a subscription-based platform that unifies top AI tools and services designed to speed up, simplify, and streamline a researcher’s journey, from reading to writing, submission, promotion and more. Based on over 20 years of experience in academia, Researcher.Life empowers researchers to put their best research forward and move closer to success.

Try for free or sign up for the Researcher.Life  All Access Pack , a one-of-a-kind subscription that unlocks full access to an AI academic writing assistant, literature reading app, journal finder, scientific illustration tool, and exclusive discounts on professional services from Editage. Find the best AI tools a researcher needs, all in one place –  Get All Access now for prices starting at just $17 a month !

Related Posts

Levels of Measurement: Nominal, Ordinal, Interval, and Ratio (with Examples)

How to Write a Research Paper Outline (with Examples)

Search for:

Candid Learning

Candid learning offers information and resources that are specifically designed to meet the needs of grantseekers..

Candid Learning > Resources > Knowledge base

How do I find funding for my research?

Because most private foundations make grants only to nonprofit organizations, individuals seeking grants must follow a different funding path than public charities. You need to be both creative and flexible in your approach to seeking funding.

If you are affiliated with a college or university, contact your department office. Some colleges and universities have an office for sponsored programs, which coordinates grant requests and helps researchers with finding grant opportunities.

Also ask your peers and colleagues about funding sources. Please note that many national organizations may have local chapters that may run their own funding programs. National chapters might not know what their local chapters are offering, so it is up to you to check at each level.

Another approach is to find a nonprofit with a similar interest that will act as your fiscal sponsor. In this arrangement, you might qualify for more funding opportunities. Click here to learn learn more about fiscal sponsorship.

Some grantmakers offer support for individual projects. Candid offers the following resources that can help researchers find grants:

Foundation Directory is our searchable database of grantmakers. Perform an advanced search by Transaction Type: Grants to Individuals, in addition to search terms for Subject Area and Geographic Focus. For more detailed search help, please see our article, Find your next scholarship, fellowship, or grant on Foundation Directory Professional. 

Subscribe  to search from your own location, or search for free at our  Candid partner locations .

If you are unfamiliar with the process of grantseeking, you may want to start with these:

• Introduction to Finding Grants , our free tutorial
• Our students and researchers resources

See more Knowledge Base articles related to this topic:

- How do I write a grant proposal for my individual project? Where can I find samples? - Where can I find information about financial aid as a graduate student?

More articles for individual grantseekers

Have a question about this topic? Ask us!

Candid's Online Librarian service will answer your questions within two business days.

Explore resources curated by our staff for this topic:

Staff-recommended websites.

Includes requests for research proposals. Records include funding organization(s), brief description of eligibility and application requirements, deadline, and link to original notice. Searchable by subject or keyword. Subscribe for a free weekly email digest or RSS feed.

Where to Search for Funding

Sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, this page includes links to free and fee-based grant funding resources.

Grants & Funding: NIH Central Resource

The Office of Extramural Research offers grants in the form of fellowships and support for research projects in the field of biomedicine.

One of the largest funders of humanities programs in the United States. Grants typically go to cultural institutions, such as museums, archives, libraries, colleges, universities, public television, and radio stations, and to individual scholars.

Active Funding Opportunities--Recently Announced

Promotes and advances scientific progress in the United States by competitively awarding grants and cooperative agreements for research and education in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering.

The official site for federal award recipients, it ties together all federal award information including federal assistance and contracting opportunities.

The "electronic storefront for federal grants," organized by topic. Selecting a topic provides links to funding pages for the 26 federal grantmaking agencies, some of which support individual research projects. It offers users “full service electronic grant administration” with guidelines and grant applications available online.

On the Art of Writing Proposals

Eight pages of proposal writing advice for scholarly researchers.

Grant Proposals (or Give me the money!)

This handout will help you write and revise grant proposals for research funding in all academic disciplines (sciences, social sciences, humanities, and the arts). Targeted primarily to graduate students and faculty, but also helpful to undergraduates who are seeking funding for research (e.g. for a senior thesis). Includes sample budget and project timeline.

Scholar Rescue Fund

Provides fellowships for established scholars whose lives and work are threatened in their home countries. One-year fellowships support temporary academic positions at universities, colleges and other higher learning institutions in safe locations anywhere in the world, enabling them to pursue their academic work. If safe return is not possible, the scholar may use the fellowship period to identify a longer-term opportunity.

Social Science Research Council

Supports fellowships and grant programs in the social sciences. The Fellowship and Prizes section of the web site provides access to information on current funding opportunities and online applications.

Awards & Grants

Describes more than 450 organizations that grant fellowships, awards, and prizes to historians. Some of this information is available online only to members of AHA.

Staff-recommended books

The Grant Writer's Handbook: How To Write A Research Proposal And Succeed

Find: Amazon | Free eBook

Grant Seeking in Higher Education: Strategies and Tools for College Faculty

Sign up for our newsletter.

What is research funding, how does it influence research, and how is it recorded? Key dimensions of variation

• Open access
• Published: 16 September 2023
• Volume 128 , pages 6085–6106, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Mike Thelwall   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6065-205X 1 , 2 ,
• Subreena Simrick   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0170-6940 3 ,
• Ian Viney   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9943-4989 4 &
• Peter Van den Besselaar   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8304-8565 5 , 6  

4773 Accesses

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Evaluating the effects of some or all academic research funding is difficult because of the many different and overlapping sources, types, and scopes. It is therefore important to identify the key aspects of research funding so that funders and others assessing its value do not overlook them. This article outlines 18 dimensions through which funding varies substantially, as well as three funding records facets. For each dimension, a list of common or possible variations is suggested. The main dimensions include the type of funder of time and equipment, any funding sharing, the proportion of costs funded, the nature of the funding, any collaborative contributions, and the amount and duration of the grant. In addition, funding can influence what is researched, how and by whom. The funding can also be recorded in different places and has different levels of connection to outputs. The many variations and the lack of a clear divide between “unfunded” and funded research, because internal funding can be implicit or unrecorded, greatly complicate assessing the value of funding quantitatively at scale. The dimensions listed here should nevertheless help funding evaluators to consider as many differences as possible and list the remainder as limitations. They also serve as suggested information to collect for those compiling funding datasets.

Similar content being viewed by others

Exploring the effectiveness, efficiency and equity (3e’s) of research and research impact assessment

Obtaining Support and Grants for Research

Myths, Challenges, Risks and Opportunities in Evaluating and Supporting Scientific Research

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Academic research grants account for billions of pounds in many countries and so the funders may naturally want to assess their value for money in the sense of financing desirable outcomes at a reasonable cost (Raftery et al., 2016 ). Since many of the benefits of research are long term and difficult to identify or quantify financially, it is common to benchmark against previous results or other funders to judge progress and efficiency. This is a complex task because academic funding has many small and large variations and is influenced by, and may influence, many aspects of the work and environment of the funded academics (e.g., Reale et al., 2017 ). The goal of this article is to support future analyses of the effectiveness or influence of grant funding by providing a typology of the important dimensions to be considered in evaluations (or otherwise acknowledged as limitations). The focus is on grant funding rather than block funding.

The ideal way to assess the value of a funding scheme would be a counterfactual analyses that showed its contribution by identifying what would have happened without the funding. Unfortunately, counterfactual analyses are usually impossible because of the large number of alternative funding sources. Similarly, comparisons between successful and unsuccessful bidders are faced with major confounding factors that include groups not winning one grant winning another (Neufeld, 2016 ), and complex research projects attracting funding of different kinds from multiple sources (Langfeldt et al., 2015 ; Rigby, 2011 ). Even analyses with effective control groups, such as a study of funded vs. unfunded postdocs (Schneider & van Leeuwen, 2014 ), cannot separate the effect of the funding from the success of the grant selection process: were better projects funded or did the funding or reviewer feedback improve the projects? Although qualitative analyses of individual projects help to explain what happened to the money and what it achieved, large scale analyses are sometimes needed to inform management decision making. For example: would a funder get more value for money from larger or smaller, longer or shorter, more specific or more general grants? For such analyses, many simplifying assumptions need to be made. The same is true for checks of the peer review process of research funders. For example, a funder might compute the average citation impact of publications produced by their grants and compare it to a reference set. This reference set might be as outputs from the rejected set or outputs from a comparable funder. The selection of the reference set is crucial for any attempt to identify the added value of any funding, however defined. For example, comparing the work of grant winners with that of high-quality unsuccessful applicants (e.g., those that just failed to be funded) would be useful to detect the added value of the money rather than the success of the procedure to select winners, assuming that there is little difference in potential between winners and narrow losers (Van den Besselaar & Leydesdorff, 2009 ). Because of the need to make comparisons between groups of outputs based on the nature of their funding, it is important to know the major variations in academic research funding types.

The dimensions of funding analysed in previous evaluations can point to how the above issues have been tackled. Unfortunately, most evaluations of the effectiveness, influence, or products of research funding (however defined) have probably been private reports for or by research funders, but some are in the public domain. Two non-funder studies have analysed whether funding improves research in specific contexts: peer review scores for Scoliosis conference submissions (Roach et al., 2008 ), and the methods of randomised controlled trials in urogynecology (Kim et al., 2018 ). Another compared research funded by China with that funded by the EU (Wang et al., 2020 ). An interesting view on the effect of funding on research output suggests that a grant does not necessarily always result in increased research output compared to participation in a grant competition (Ayoubi et al., 2019 ; Jonkers et al., 2017 ). Finally, a science-wide study of funding for journal articles from the UK suggested that it associated with higher quality research in at least some and possibly all fields (the last figure in: Thelwall et al., 2023 ).

From a different perspective, at least two studies have investigated whether academic funding has commercial value. The UK Medical Research Council (MRC) has analysed whether medical spinouts fared better if they were from teams that received MRC funding rather than from unsuccessful applicants, suggesting that funding helped spin-outs to realise commercial value from their health innovations (Annex A2.7 of: MRC, 2019 ). Also in the UK, firms participating in UK research council funded projects tended to grow faster afterwards compared to comparator firms (ERC, 2017 ).

Discussing the main variations in academic research funding types to inform analyses of the value of research funding is the purpose of the current article. Few prior studies seem to have introduced any systematic attempt to characterise the key dimensions of research funding, although some have listed several different types (e.g., four in: Garrett-Jones, 2000 ; three in: Paulson et al., 2011 ; nine in: Versleijen et al., 2007 ). The focus of the current paper is on grant-funded research conducted at least partly by people employed by an academic institution rather than by people researching as part of their job in a business, government, or other non-academic organisation. The latter are presumably funded usually by their employer, although they may sometimes conduct collaborative projects with academics or win academic research funding. The focus is also on research outputs, such as journal articles, books, patents, performances, or inventions, rather than research impacts or knowledge generation. Nevertheless, many of the options apply to the more general case. The list of dimensions relevant to evaluating the value of research funding has been constructed from a literature review of academic research about funding and insights from discussions with funders and analyses of funding records. The influence of funding on individual research projects is analysed, rather than systematic effects of funding, such as at the national level (e.g., for this, see: Sandström & Van den Besselaar, 2018 ; Van den Besselaar & Sandström, 2015 ). The next sections discuss dimensions in difference in the funding awarded, the influence of the funding on the research, and the way in which the funding is recorded.

Funding sources

There are many types of funders of academic research (Hu, 2009 ). An effort to distinguish between types of funding schemes based on a detailed analysis of the Dutch government budget and the annual reports of the main research funders in the Netherlands found the following nine types of funding instruments (Versleijen et al., 2007 ), but the remainder of this section gives finer-grained breakdown of types. The current paper is primarily concerned with all these except for the basic funding category, which includes the block grants that many universities receive for general research support. Block grants were originally uncompetitive but now may also be fully competitive, as in the UK where they depend on Research Excellence Framework scores, or partly competitive as in the Netherlands, where they partly depend on performance-based parameters like PhD completions (see also: Jonkers & Zacharewicz, 2016 ).

Contract research (project—targeted—small scale)

Open competition (project—free—small scale)

Thematic competition (project—targeted—small scale)

Competition between consortia (project—targeted—large scale)

Mission oriented basic funding (basic—targeted—large scale)

Funding of infrastructure and equipment (basic—targeted—diverse)

Basic funding for universities and public research institutes (basic—free—large scale)

International funding of programs and institutes (basic, both, mainly large scale)

EU funding (which can be subdivided in the previous eight types)

Many studies of the influence of research funding have focused on individual funders (Thelwall et al, 2016 ) and funding agencies’ (frequently unpublished) internal analyses presumably often compare between their own funding schemes, compare overall against a world benchmark, or check whether a funding scheme performance has changed over time (BHF, 2022 ). Public evaluations sometimes analyse individual funding schemes, particularly for large funders (e.g., Defazio et al., 2009 ). The source of funding for a project could be the employing academic institution, academic research funders, or other organisations that sometimes fund research. There are slightly different sets of possibilities for equipment and time funding.

Who funded the research project (type of funder)?

A researcher may be funded by their employer, a specialist research funding organisation (e.g., government-sponsored or non-profit) or an organisation that needs the research. Commercial funding seems likely to have different requirements and goals from academic funding (Kang & Motohashi, 2020 ), such as a closer focus on product or service development, different accounting rules, and confidentiality agreements. The source of funding is an important factor in funding analysis because funders have different selection criteria and methods to allocate and monitor funding. This is a non-exhaustive list.

Self-funded or completely unfunded (individual). Although the focus of this paper is on grant funding, this (and the item below) may be useful to record because it may partly underpin projects with other sources and may form parts of comparator sets (e.g., for the research of unfunded highly qualified applicants) in other contexts.

University employer. This includes funding reallocated from national competitive (e.g., performance-based research funding: Hicks, 2012 ) or non-competitive block research grants, from teaching income, investments and other sources that are allocated for research in general rather than equipment, time, or specific projects.

Other university (e.g., as a visiting researcher on a collaborative project).

National academic research funder (e.g., the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council: ESRC).

International academic research funder (e.g., European Union grants).

Government (contract, generally based on a tender and not from a pot of academic research funding)

Commercial (contract or research funding), sometimes called industry funding.

NGO (contract or research funding, e.g., Cancer Research charity). Philanthropic organisations not responsible to donors may have different motivations to charities, so it may be useful to separate the two sometimes.

Who funded the time needed for the research?

Research typically needs both people and equipment, and these two are sometimes supported separately. The funding for a researcher, if any, might be generic and implicit (it is part of their job to do research) or explicit in terms of a specified project that needs to be completed. Clinicians can have protected research time too: days that are reserved for research activities as part of their employment, including during advanced training (e.g., Elkbuli et al., 2020 ; Voss et al., 2021 ). For academics, research time is sometimes “borrowed” from teaching time (Bernardin, 1996 ; Olive, 2017 ). Time for a project may well be funded differently between members, such as the lead researcher being institutionally supported but using a grant to hire a team of academic and support staff. Inter-institutional research may also have a source for each team. The following list covers a range of different common arrangements.

Independent researcher, own time (e.g., not employed by but emeritus or affiliated with a university).

University researcher, own time (e.g., holidays, evenings, weekends).

University, percentage of the working time of academic staff devoted for research. In some countries this is large related to the amount of block finding versus project funding (Sandström & Van den Besselaar, 2018 ).

University, time borrowed from other activities (e.g., teaching, clinical duties, law practice).

Funder, generic research time funding (e.g., Gates chair of neuropsychology, long term career development funding for a general research programme).

University/Funder, specific time allocated for research programme (e.g., five years to develop cybersecurity research expertise).

University/Funder, employed for specific project (e.g., PhD student, postdoc supervised by member of staff).

University/Funder, specific time allocated for specific study (e.g., sabbatical to write a book).

Who funded the equipment or other non-human resources used in the research?

The resources needed for a research project might be funded as part of the project by the main funder, it may be already available to the researcher (e.g., National Health Service equipment that an NHS researcher could expect to access), or it may be separately funded and made available during the project (e.g., Richards, 2019 ). Here, “equipment” includes data or samples that are access-controlled as well as other resources unrelated to pay, such as travel. These types can be broken down as follows.

Researcher’s own equipment (e.g., a musician’s violin for performance-based research or composition; an archaeologist’s Land Rover to transport equipment to a dig).

University equipment, borrowed/repurposed (e.g., PC for teaching, unused library laptop).

University equipment, dual purpose (e.g., PC for teaching and research, violin for music teaching and research).

University/funder equipment for generic research (e.g., research group’s shared microbiology lab).

University/funder equipment research programme (e.g., GPU cluster to investigate deep learning).

University/funder equipment for specific project (e.g., PCs for researchers recruited for project; travel time).

University/funder equipment for single study (e.g., travel for interviews).

Of course, a funder may only support the loan or purchase of equipment on the understanding that the team will find other funding for research projects using it (e.g., “Funding was provided by the Water Research Commission [WRC]. The Covidence software was purchased by the Water Research fund”: Deglon et al., 2023 ). Getting large equipment working for subsequent research (e.g., a space telescope, a particle accelerator, a digitisation project) might also be the primary goal of a project.

How many funders contributed?

Although many projects are funded by a single source, some have multiple funders sharing the costs by agreement or by chance (Davies, 2016 ), and the following seem to be the logical possibilities for cost sharing.

Partially funded from one source, partly unfunded.

Partially funded from multiple sources, partly unfunded.

Fully funded from multiple sources.

Fully funded from a single source.

As an example of unplanned cost sharing, a researcher might have their post funded by one source and then subsequently bid for funding for equipment and support workers to run a large project. This project would then be part funded by the two sources, but not in a coordinated way. It seems likely that a project with a single adequate source of funding might be more efficient than a project with multiple sources that need to be coordinated. Conversely, a project with multiple funders may have passed through many different quality control steps or shown relevance to a range of different audiences. Those funded by multiple sources may also be less dependent on individual funders and therefore more able to autonomously follow their own research agenda, potentially leading to more innovative research.

How competitive was the funding allocation process?

Whilst government and charitable funding is often awarded on a competitive basis, the degree of competition (e.g., success rate) clearly varies between countries and funding calls and changes over time. In contrast, commercial funding may be gained without transparent competition (Kang & Motohashi, 2020 ), perhaps as part of ongoing work in an established collaboration or even due to a chance encounter. In between these, block research grants and prizes may be awarded for past achievements, so they are competitive, but the recipients are relatively free to spend on any type of research and do not need to write proposals (Franssen et al., 2018 ). Similarly, research centre grants may be won competitively but give the freedom to conduct a wide variety of studies over a long period. This gives the following three basic dimensions.

The success rate from the funding call (i.e., the percentage of initial applicants that were funded) OR

The success rate based on funding awarded for past performance (e.g., prize or competitive block grant, although this may be difficult to estimate) OR

The contract or other funding was allocated non-competitively (e.g., non-competitive block funding).

How was the funding decision made?

Who decides on which researchers receive funding and through which processes is also relevant (Van den Besselaar & Horlings, 2011 ). This is perhaps one of the most important considerations for funders.

The procedure for grant awarding: who decided and how?

There is a lot of research into the relative merits of different selection criteria for grants, such as a recent project to assess whether randomisation could be helpful (Fang & Casadevall, 2016 ; researchonresearch.org/experimental-funder). Peer review, triage, and deliberative committees are common, but not universal, components (Meadmore et al., 2020 ) and sources of variation include whether non-academic stakeholders are included within peer review teams (Luo et al., 2021 ), whether one or two stage submissions are required (Gross & Bergstrom, 2019 ) and whether sandpits are used (Meadmore et al., 2020 ). Although each procedure may be unique in personnel and fine details, broad information about it would be particularly helpful in comparisons between funders or schemes.

What were the characteristics of the research team?

The characteristics of successful proposals or applicants are relevant to analyses of competitive calls (Grimpe, 2012 ), although there are too many to list individually. Some deserve some attention here.

What are the characteristics of the research team behind the project or output (e.g., gender, age, career status, institution)?

What is the track record of the research team (e.g., citations, publications, awards, previous grants, service work).

Gender bias is an important consideration and whether it plays a role is highly disputed in the literature. Recent findings suggest that there is gender bias in reviews, but not success rates (Bol et al., 2022 ; Van den Besselaar & Mom, 2021 ). Some funding schemes have team requirements (e.g., established vs. early career researcher grants) and many evaluate applicants’ track records. Applicants’ previous achievements may be critical to success for some calls, such as those for established researchers or funding for leadership, play a minor role in others, or be completely ignored (e.g., for double blind grant reviewing). In any case, research team characteristics may be important for evaluating the influence of the funding or the fairness of the selection procedure.

What were the funder’s goals?

Funding streams or sources often have goals that influence what type of research can be funded. Moreover, researchers can be expected to modify their aspirations to align with the funding stream. The funder may have different types of goal, from supporting aspects of the research process to supporting relevant projects or completing a specific task (e.g., Woodward & Clifton, 1994 ), to generating societal benefits (Fernández-del-Castillo et al., 2015 ).

A common distinction is between basic and applied research, and the category “strategic research” has also been used to capture basic research aiming at long term societal benefits (Sandström, 2009 ). The Frascati Manual uses Basic Research, Applied Research and Experimental Development instead (OECD, 2015 ), but this is more relevant for analyses that incorporate industrial research and development.

Research funding does not necessarily have the goal to fund research because some streams support network formation in the expectation that the network will access other resources to support studies (Aagaard et al., 2021 ). European Union COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) Actions are an example (cost.eu). Others may have indirect goals, such as capacity building or creating a strong national research base that helps industry or attracts to international business research investment (Cooksey, 2006 ), or promoting a topic (e.g., educational research: El-Sawi et al., 2009 ). As a corollary to the last point, some topics may be of little interest to most funders, for example because they would mainly benefit marginalised communities (Woodson & Williams, 2020 ).

Since the early 2000s, many countries have also issued so-called career grants which have become prestigious. At the European level career grants started in 2009: the European Research Council (ERC) grants. These grants have a career effect (Bloch et al., 2014 ; Danell & Hjerm, 2013 ; Schroder et al., 2021 ; Van den Besselaar & Sandström, 2015 ) but this dimension, and the longer-term effects of funding other than on specific outputs, is not considered here. A funding scheme may also have multiple of the following goals.

Basic research (e.g., the Malaysia Toray Science Foundation supports basic research by young scientists to boost national capacity: www.mtsf.org ).

Strategic research (e.g., the UK Natural Environment Research Council’s strategic research funding targets areas of important environmental concern, targeting long term solutions: www.ukri.org/councils/nerc/ ).

Applied research (e.g., the Dutch NWO [Dutch Research Council] applied research fund to develop innovations supporting food security: www.nwo.nl/en/researchprogrammes/food-business-research ).

Technology transfer (i.e., applying research knowledge or skills to a non-research problem) or translational research.

Researcher development and training (including career grants).

Capacity building (e.g., to support research in resource-poor settings).

Collaboration formation (e.g., industry-academia, international, inter-university).

Research within a particular field.

Research with a particular application area (e.g., any research helping Alzheimer’s patients, including a ring-fenced proportion of funding within a broader call).

Tangible academic outputs (e.g., articles, books).

Tangible non-academic outputs (e.g., policy changes, medicine accreditation, patents, inventions).

Extent of the funding

The extent of funding of a project can vary substantially from a small percentage, such as for a single site visit, to 100%. A project might even make a surplus if it is allowed to keep any money left over, its equipment survives the project, or it generates successful intellectual property. The financial value of funding is clearly an important consideration because a cheaper project delivering similar outcomes to a more expensive one would have performed better. Nevertheless, grant size is often ignored in academic studies of the value of funding (e.g., Thelwall et al., 2023 ) because it is difficult to identify the amount and to divide it amongst grant outputs. This section covers four dimensions of the extent of a grant.

What proportion of the research was funded?

A research project might be fully funded, funded for the extras needed above what is already available, or deliberately partly funded (Comins, 2015 ). This last approach is sometimes called “cost sharing”. A grant applied on the Full Economic Cost (FEC) model would pay for the time and resources used by the researchers as well as the administrative support and accommodation provided by their institution. The following seem to be the main possibilities.

Partly funded.

Fully funded but on a partial FEC or sub-FEC model cost sharing model.

FEC plus surplus.

The Frascatti Manual about collecting research and development statistics distinguishes between funding internally within a unit of analysis or externally (OECD, 2015 ) but here the distinction is between explicit and implicit funding, with the latter being classed as “Unfunded”.

How was the funding delivered?

Whilst a research grant would normally be financial, a project might be supported in kind by the loan or gift of equipment or time. For instance, agricultural research might be supported with access to relevant land or livestock (Tricarico et al., 2022 ). Here are three common approaches for delivering funding.

In kind—lending time or loaning/giving equipment or other resources.

Fixed amount of money.

A maximum amount of money, with actual spending justified by receipts.

How much funding did the project receive?

Project funding can be tiny, such as a few pounds for a trip or travel expenses, or enormous, such as for a particle accelerator. Grants of a few thousand pounds can also be common in some fields and for some funders (e.g., Gallo et al., 2014 ; Lyndon, 2018 ). In competitive processes, the funder normally indicates the grant size range that it is prepared to fund. The amount of funding for research has increased over time (Bloch & Sørensen, 2015 ).

The money awarded and/or claimed by the project.

How long was the funding for?

Funded projects can be short term, such as for a one-day event, or very long term, such as a 50-year nuclear fusion reactor programme. There seems to be a trend for longer term and larger amounts of funding, such as for centres of excellence that can manage multiple different lines of research (Hellström, 2018 ; OECD, 2014 ).

The intended or actual (e.g., due to costed or non-costed extensions) duration of the project.

Influence of the funding on the research project

A variety of aspects of the funding system were discussed in the previous sections, and this section and the next switch to the effects of funding on what research is conducted and how. Whist some grant schemes explicitly try to direct research (e.g., funding calls to build national artificial intelligence research capacity), even open calls may have indirect influences on team formation, goals, and broader research directions. This section discusses three different ways in which funding can influence a research project.

Influence on what the applicant did

Whilst funding presumably has a decisive influence on whether a study occurs most of the time because of the expense of the equipment or effort (e.g., to secure ethical approval for medical studies: Jonker et al., 2011 ), there may be exceptions. For example, an analysis of unfunded medical research found that it was often hospital-based (Álvarez-Bornstein et al., 2019 ), suggesting that it was supported by employers. Presumably the researcher applying for funding would usually have done something else research-related if they did not win the award, such as conducting different studies or applying for other funding. The following seem to be the main dimensions of variation here.

No influence (the study would have gone ahead without the funding).

Improved existing study (e.g., more time to finish, more/better equipment, more collaborators, constructive ideas from the peer review process). An extreme example of the latter is the Medical Research Council’s Developmental Pathway Funding Scheme (DPFS), which has expert input and decision making throughout a project.

Made the study possible, replacing other research-related activities (e.g., a different type of investigation, supporting another project, PhD mentoring).

Made the study possible, replacing non-research activities (e.g., teaching, clinical practice).

Researchers may conduct unfunded studies if financing is not essential and they would like to choose their own goals (Edwards, 2022 ; Kayrooz et al., 2007 ), or if their research time can be subsidised by teaching revenue (Olive, 2017 ). Some types of research are also inherently cheaper than others, such as secondary data analysis (Vaduganathan et al., 2018 ) and reviews in medical fields, so may not need funding. At the other extreme, large funding sources may redirect the long-term goals of an entire research group (Jeon, 2019 ). In between these two, funding may improve the quality of a study that would have gone ahead anyway, such as by improving its methods, including the sample size or the range of analyses used (Froud et al., 2015 ). Alternatively, it may have changed a study without necessarily improving it, such as by incorporating funder-relevant goals, methods, or target groups. Scholars with topics that do not match the major funding sources may struggle to be able to do research (Laudel, 2005 ).

Influence on research goals or methods

In addition to supporting the research, the nature of the influence of the source of funding can be minor or major, from the perspective of the funded researcher. It seems likely most funding requires some changes to what a self-funded researcher might otherwise do, if only to give reassurance that the proposed research will deliver tangible outputs (Serrano Velarde, 2018 ), or to fit specific funder requirements (Luukkonen & Thomas, 2016 ). Funding influence can perhaps be split into the following broad types, although they are necessarily imprecise, with considerable overlaps.

No influence (the applicant did not modify their research goals for the funder, or ‘relabelled’ their research goals to match the funding scheme).

Partial influence (the applicant modified their research goals for the funder)

Strong influence (the applicant developed new research goals for the funder, such as a recent call for non-AI researchers to retrain to adopt AI).

Full determination (the funder specified the project, such as a pharmaceutical industry contract to test a new vaccine).

Focusing on more substantial changes only, the funding has no influence if the academic did not need to consider funder-related factors when proposing their study, or could select a funder that fully aligned with their goals. On the other hand, the influence is substantial if the researcher changed their goals to fit the funder requirements (Currie-Alder, 2015 ; Tellmann, 2022 ). In between, a project goals may be tailored to a funder or funding requirements (Woodward & Clifton, 1994 ). An indirect way in which health-related funders often influence research is by requiring Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) at all levels of a project, including strategy development (e.g., Brett et al., 2014 ). Funding initiatives may aim to change researchers’ goals, such as to encourage the growth of a promising new field (Gläser et al., 2016 ). The wider funding environment may also effectively block some research types or topics if it is not in scope for most grants (Laudel & Gläser, 2014 ).

It seems likely that funding sources have the greatest influence on researchers’ goals in resource intensive areas, presumably including most science and health research, and especially those that routinely issue topic-focused calls (e.g., Laudel, 2006 ; Woelert et al., 2021 ). The perceived likelihood of receiving future funding may also influence research methods, such as by encouraging researchers to hoard resources (e.g., perform fewer laboratory experiments for a funded paper) when future access may be at risk (Laudel, 2023 ).

Influence on research team composition

The funder call may list eligibility requirements of various types. For example, the UK national funders specify that applicants must be predominantly UK academics. One common type of specification seems to be team size and composition since many funders (e.g., EU) specify or encourage collaborative projects. Funding may also encourage commercial participants or end user partnerships, which may affect team composition (e.g., Gaughan & Bozeman, 2002 ). Four different approaches may be delineated as follows.

No influence (the funder allows any team size).

Partial influence (the applicant chooses a team size to enhance their perceived success rate).

Funder parameters (the funder specifies parameters, such as a requirement for collaboration or partners from at least three EU countries, disciplinary composition or interdisciplinarity mandate).

Full determination (the funder specifies the team size, such as individual applicants only for career-related grants).

The influence of funders on research team composition is unlikely to be strict even if they fully determine grant applicant team sizes because the funded researchers may choose to collaborate with others using their own grants or unfunded.

Influence of the funding on the research outputs

The above categories cover how research funding helps or influences research studies. This section focuses on what may change in the outputs of researchers or projects due to the receipt of funding. This is important to consider because research outputs are the most visible and countable outcomes of research projects, but they are not always necessary (e.g., funding for training or equipment) and different types can be encouraged. Four relevant dimensions of influence are discussed below.

Influence of funding on the applicant’s productivity

Funding can normally be expected to support the production of new outputs by an academic or team (Bloch et al., 2014 ; Danell & Hjerm, 2013 ), but this may be field dependent. Studying the factors affecting productivity, DFG grants had a positive effect on the productivity for German political scientists (Habicht et al., 2021 ). However, in some cases funding may produce fewer tangible outputs because of the need to collaborate with end users or conduct activities of value to them (Hottenrott & Thorwarth, 2011 ), or if the funding is for long-term high-risk investigations. In areas where funding is inessential or where or core/block funding provides some baseline capability, academics who choose not to apply for it can devote all their research time to research rather than grant writing, which may increase their productivity (Thyer, 2011 ). Although simplistic, the situation may therefore be characterised into three situations.

Reduction in the number or size of outputs of relevant types by the applicant(s) during and/or after the project.

No change in the number or size of outputs of relevant types by the applicant(s) during and/or after the project.

Increase in the number or size of outputs of relevant types by the applicant(s) during and/or after the project.

Funding can also have the long-term indirect effect of improving productivity, though career benefits for those funded, such as making them more likely to attract collaborators and future funding (Defazio et al., 2009 ; Heyard & Hottenrott, 2021 ; Hussinger & Carvalho, 2022 ; Saygitov, 2018 ; Shimada et al., 2017 ). Writing grant applications may also provide an intensive learning process, which may help careers (Ayoubi et al., 2019 ; Jonkers et al., 2017 ).

Influence of funding on the applicant’s research output types

Funding may change what a researcher or research team produces. For example, a commercial component of grants may reduce the number of journal articles produced (Hottenrott & Lawson, 2017 ). Funder policies may have other influences on what a researcher does, such as conditions to disseminate the results in a certain way. This may include open access, providing accessible research data, or writing briefings for policy makers or the public. Whilst this may be considered good practice, some may be an additional overhead for the researcher. This may be summarised as follows, although the distinctions are qualitative.

No change in the nature of the outputs produced.

Partial change in the nature of the outputs produced.

Complete change in the nature of the outputs produced (e.g., patents instead of articles).

Influence of funding on the impact or quality of the research

Although cause-and-effect may be difficult to prove (e.g., Aagaard & Schneider, 2017 ), funding seems likely to change the citation, scholarly, societal, or other impacts of what a researcher or research team produces. For example, a reduction in citation impact may occur if the research becomes more application-focused and an increase may occur if the funding improves the quality of the research.

Most studies have focused on citation impact, finding that funded research, or research funded by a particular funder, tends to be more cited than other research (Álvarez-Bornstein et al., 2019 ; Gush et al., 2018 ; Heyard & Hottenrott, 2021 ; Rigby, 2011 ; Roshani et al., 2021 ; Thelwall et al., 2016 ; Yan et al., 2018 ), albeit with a few exceptions (Alkhawtani et al., 2020 ; Jowkar et al., 2011 ; Muscio et al., 2017 ). Moreover, unfunded work, or work that does not explicitly declare funding sources, in some fields can occasionally be highly cited (Sinha et al., 2016 ; Zhao, 2010 ). Logically, however, there are three broad types of influence on the overall impacts of the outputs produced, in addition to changes in the nature of the impacts.

Reduction in the citation/scholarly/societal/other impact of the outputs produced.

No change in the citation/scholarly/societal/other impact of the outputs produced.

Increase in the citation/scholarly/societal/other impact of the outputs produced.

The quality of the research produced is also important and could be assessed by a similar list to the one above. Research quality is normally thought to encompass three aspects: methodological rigour, innovativeness, and societal/scientific impact (Langfeldt et al., 2020 ). Considering quality overall therefore entails attempting to also assess the rigour and innovativeness of research. These seem likely to correlate positively with research impact and are difficult to assess on a large scale. Whilst rigour might be equated with passing journal peer review in some cases, innovation has no simple proxy indictor and is a particular concern for funding decisions (Franssen, et al., 2018 ; Whitley et al., 2018 ).

The number and types of outcomes supported by a grant

When evaluating funding, it is important to consider the nature and number of the outputs and other outcomes produced specifically from it. Research projects often deliver multiple products, such as journal articles, scholarly talks, public-facing talks, and informational websites. There may also be more applied outputs, such as health policy changes, spin-out companies, and new drugs (Ismail et al., 2012 ). Since studies evaluating research funding often analyse only the citation impact of the journal articles produced (because of the ease of benchmarking), it is important to at least acknowledge that other outputs are also produced by researchers, even if it is difficult to take them into account in quantitative analyses.

The number and type of outcomes or outputs associated with a grant.

Of course, the non-citation impacts of research, such as policy changes or drug development, are notoriously difficult to track down even for individual projects (Boulding et al., 2020 ; Raftery et al., 2016 ), although there have been systematic attempts to identify policy citations (Szomszor & Adie, 2022 ). Thus, most types of impacts could not be analysed on a large scale and individual qualitative analyses are the only option for detailed impact analyses (Guthrie et al., 2015 ). In parallel with this, studies that compare articles funded by different sources should really consider the number of outputs per grant, since a grant producing more outputs would tend to be more successful. This approach does not seem to be used when average citation impact is compared, which is a limitation.

A pragmatic issue for studies of grants: funding records

Finally, from a pragmatic data collection perspective, the funding for a research output can be recorded in different places, not all of which are public. A logical place to look for this information is within the output, although it may be recorded within databases maintained by the funder or employer. Related to this, it is not always clear how much of an output can be attributed to an acknowledged funding source. Whilst the location of a funding record presumably has no influence on the effectiveness of the funding, so is not relevant to the goals of this article, it is included here an important practical consideration that all studies of grant funding must cope with. Three relevant dimensions of this ostensibly simple issue are discussed below.

Where the funding is recorded inside the output

Funding can be acknowledged explicitly in journal articles (Aagaard et al., 2021 ) and other research outputs, whether to thank the funder or to record possible conflicts of interest. This information may be omitted because the authors forget or do not want to acknowledge some or all funders. Here is a list of common locations.

A Funding section.

An Acknowledgements section.

A Notes section.

A Declaration of Interests section.

The first footnote.

The last footnote.

The last paragraph of the conclusions.

Elsewhere in the output.

Not recorded in the output.

The compulsory funding declaration sections of an increasing minority of journals are the ideal place for funder information. These force corresponding authors to declare funding, although they may not be able to track down all sources for large, multiply-funded teams. This section also is probably the main place where a clear statement that a study was unfunded could be found. A Declaration of Interests section may also announce an absence of funding, although this cannot be inferred from the more usual statement that the authors have no competing interests. Funding statements in other places are unsystematic in the sense that it seems easy for an author to forget them. Nevertheless, field norms may dictate a specific location for funding information (e.g., always a first page footnote), and this seems likely to reduce the chance that this step is overlooked.

Where the funding is recorded outside the output

Large funders are likely to keep track of the outputs from their funded research, and research institutions may also keep systematic records (Clements et al., 2017 ). These may be completed by researchers or administrators and may be mandatory or optional. Funders usually also record descriptive qualitative information about funded projects that is not essential for typical large-scale analyses of funded research but is important to keep track of individual projects. It may also be used large scale descriptive analyses of grant portfolio changes over time. For example, the UKRI Gateway to Research information includes project title, abstract (lay and technical), value (amount awarded by UKRI—so usually 80% FEC), funded period (start and end), project status (whether still active), category (broad research grant type—e.g., Fellowship), grant reference, Principle Investigator (PI) (and all co-Investigators), research classifications (e.g. Health Research Classification System [HRCS] for MRC grants), research organisations involved (whether as proposed collaborators or funding recipients/partners), and, as the project progresses, any outputs reported via Researchfish.

Academic employers may also track the outputs and funding of their staff in a current research information system or within locally designed databases or spreadsheets. Dimensions for Funders (Dimensions, 2022 ), for example, compiles funding information from a wide range of sources. Other public datasets include the UKRI Gateway to Research (extensive linkage to outputs), the Europe PMC grant lookup tool (good linkage to publications) or the UKCDR covid funding tracker (some linkage to publications via Europe PMC), or the occasional UK Health Research Analysis (.net), and the European commission CORDIS dataset. There are also some initiatives to comprehensively catalogue who funds what in particular domains, such as for UK non-commercial health research (UKCRC, 2020 ). Of course, there are ad-hoc funding statements too, such as in narrative claims of research impact in university websites or as part of evaluations (Grant & Hinrichs, 2015 ), but these may be difficult to harvest systematically. The following list includes a range of common locations.

In a university/employer public/private funding record.

In the academic’s public/private CV.

In the funder’s public/private record.

In a shared public/private research funding system used by the funder (e.g., Researchfish).

In publicity for the grant award (if output mentioned specifically enough).

In publicity for the output (e.g., a theatre programme for a performance output).

Elsewhere outside the output.

Not recorded outside the output.

From the perspective of third parties obtaining information about funding for outputs, if the employer and/or funder databases are private or public but difficult to search then online publicity about the outputs or funding may give an alternative record.

What is the connection between outputs and their declared funders?

Some outputs have a clear identifiable funder or set of funders. For example, a grant may be awarded to write a book and the book would therefore clearly be the primary output of the project. Similarly, a grant to conduct a specified randomised controlled trial seems likely to produce an article reporting the results; this, after passing review, would presumably be the primary research output even though an unpublished statistical summary of the results might suffice in some cases, especially when time is a factor. More loosely, a grant may specify a programme of research and promise several unspecified or vaguely specified outputs. In this case there may be outputs related to the project but not essential to it that might be classed as being part of it. It is also possible that outputs with little connection to a project are recorded as part of it for strategic reasons, such as to satisfy a project quota or gain a higher end-of-project grade. For example, Researchfish (Reddick et al., 2022 ) allows grant holders to select which publications on their CVs associate with each grant. There are also genuine mistakes in declaring funding (e.g., Elmunim et al., 2022 ). The situation may be summarised with the following logical categories.

Direct, clear connection (e.g., the study is a named primary output of a project).

Indirect, clear connection (e.g., the study is a writeup of a named project outcome).

Indirect, likely connection (e.g., the study is an output of someone working on the project and the output is on the project topic).

Tenuous connection (e.g., the study was completed before the project started, by personnel not associated with the project, or by project personnel on an unrelated topic).

No connection at all (such as due to a recording error; presumably rare).

Conclusions

This paper has described dimensions along which research funding differs between projects, with a focus on grant funding. This includes dimensions that are important to consider when analysing the value of research funding quantitatively. This list is incomplete, and not all aspects will be relevant to all future analyses of funding. Most qualitative and rarer dimensions of difference associated with funding are omitted, including the exact nature of any societal impact, support for researcher development, and support for wider social, ethical or scientific issues (e.g., promoting open science).

Organisations that compile funding datasets or otherwise record funding information may also consult the lists above when considering the records that are desirable to collect. Of course, the providers of large datasets, such as the Dimensions for Funders system, may often not be able to find this information for inclusion (not provided by funders) or not be able to adequately process it (e.g., simply too many variations in funding types, and no straightforward way to present this data to users).

When comparing funding sources or evaluating the impact of funding, it is important to consider as many dimensions as practically possible to ensure that comparisons are fair as achievable, whilst acknowledging the remaining sources of variation as limitations. Even at the level of funding schemes, all have unique features but since comparisons must be made for management purposes, it is important to consider differences or to at least be aware of them when making comparisons.

Aagaard, K., Mongeon, P., Ramos-Vielba, I., & Thomas, D. A. (2021). Getting to the bottom of research funding: Acknowledging the complexity of funding dynamics. PLoS ONE, 16 (5), e0251488.

Article   Google Scholar  

Aagaard, K., & Schneider, J. W. (2017). Some considerations about causes and effects in studies of performance-based research funding systems. Journal of Informetrics, 11 (3), 923–926.

Alkhawtani, R. H., Kwee, T. C., & Kwee, R. M. (2020). Funding of radiology research: Frequency and association with citation rate. American Journal of Roentgenology, 215 , 1286–1289.

Álvarez-Bornstein, B., Díaz-Faes, A. A., & Bordons, M. (2019). What characterises funded biomedical research? Evidence from a basic and a clinical domain. Scientometrics, 119 (2), 805–825.

Ayoubi, C., Pezzoni, M., & Visentin, F. (2019). The important thing is not to win, it is to take part: What if scientists benefit from participating in research grant competitions? Research Policy, 48 (1), 84–97.

Bernardin, H. J. (1996). Academic research under siege: Toward better operational definitions of scholarship to increase effectiveness, efficiencies and productivity. Human Resource Management Review, 6 (3), 207–229.

BHF. (2022). Research evaluation report—British Heart Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.bhf.org.uk/for-professionals/information-for-researchers/managing-your-grant/research-evaluation

Bloch, C., Graversen, E., & Pedersen, H. (2014). Competitive grants and their impact on career performance. Minerva, 52 , 77–96.

Bloch, C., & Sørensen, M. P. (2015). The size of research funding: Trends and implications. Science and Public Policy, 42 (1), 30–43.

Bol, T., de Vaan, T., & van de Rijt, A. (2022). Gender-equal funding rates conceal unequal evaluations. Research Policy, 51 (2022), 104399.

Boulding, H., Kamenetzky, A., Ghiga, I., Ioppolo, B., Herrera, F., Parks, S., & Hinrichs-Krapels, S. (2020). Mechanisms and pathways to impact in public health research: A preliminary analysis of research funded by the National Institute for health research (NIHR). BMC Medical Research Methodology, 20 (1), 1–20.

Brett, J. O., Staniszewska, S., Mockford, C., Herron-Marx, S., Hughes, J., Tysall, C., & Suleman, R. (2014). Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: A systematic review. Health Expectations, 17 (5), 637–650.

Clements, A., Reddick, G., Viney, I., McCutcheon, V., Toon, J., Macandrew, H., & Wastl, J. (2017). Let’s Talk-Interoperability between university CRIS/IR and Researchfish: A case study from the UK. Procedia Computer Science, 106 , 220–231.

Comins, J. A. (2015). Data-mining the technological importance of government-funded patents in the private sector. Scientometrics, 104 (2), 425–435.

Cooksey, D. (2006). A review of UK health research funding. Retrieved from https://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/news-and-publications/downloads/Annual-Report-2007-08/Annexe-8-2007-2008-CookseyReview.pdf

Currie-Alder, B. (2015). Research for the developing world: Public funding from Australia, Canada, and the UK . Oxford University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Danell, R., & Hjerm, R. (2013). The importance of early academic career opportunities and gender differences in promotion rates. Research Evaluation, 22 , 2010–2214.

Davies, J. (2016). Collaborative funding for NCDs—A model of research funding. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, 4 (9), 725–727.

Defazio, D., Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2009). Funding incentives, collaborative dynamics and scientific productivity: Evidence from the EU framework program. Research Policy, 38 (2), 293–305.

Deglon, M., Dalvie, M. A., & Abrams, A. (2023). The impact of extreme weather events on mental health in Africa: A scoping review of the evidence. Science of the Total Environment, 881 , 163420.

Dimensions. (2022). Dimensions for funders. Retrieved from https://www.dimensions.ai/who/government-and-funders/dimensions-for-funders/

Edwards, R. (2022). Why do academics do unfunded research? Resistance, compliance and identity in the UK neo-liberal university. Studies in Higher Education, 47 (4), 904–914.

Elkbuli, A., Zajd, S., Narvel, R. I., Dowd, B., Hai, S., Mckenney, M., & Boneva, D. (2020). Factors affecting research productivity of trauma surgeons. The American Surgeon, 86 (3), 273–279.

Elmunim, N. A., Abdullah, M., & Bahari, S. A. (2022). Correction: Elnumin et al. Evaluating the Performance of IRI-2016 Using GPS-TEC measurements over the equatorial region: Atmosphere 2021, 12, 1243. Atmosphere, 13 (5), 762.

El-Sawi, N. I., Sharp, G. F., & Gruppen, L. D. (2009). A small grants program improves medical education research productivity. Academic Medicine, 84 (10), S105–S108.

ERC. (2017). Assessing the business performance effects of receiving publicly-funded science, research and innovation grants. Retrieved from https://www.enterpriseresearch.ac.uk/publications/accessing-business-performance-effects-receiving-publicly-funded-science-research-innovation-grants-research-paper-no-61/

Fang, F. C., & Casadevall, A. (2016). Research funding: The case for a modified lottery. Mbio, 7 (2), 10–1128.

Fernández-del-Castillo, E., Scardaci, D., & García, Á. L. (2015). The EGI federated cloud e-infrastructure. Procedia Computer Science, 68 , 196–205.

Franssen, T., Scholten, W., Hessels, L. K., & de Rijcke, S. (2018). The drawbacks of project funding for epistemic innovation: Comparing institutional affordances and constraints of different types of research funding. Minerva, 56 (1), 11–33.

Froud, R., Bjørkli, T., Bright, P., Rajendran, D., Buchbinder, R., Underwood, M., & Eldridge, S. (2015). The effect of journal impact factor, reporting conflicts, and reporting funding sources, on standardized effect sizes in back pain trials: A systematic review and meta-regression. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 16 (1), 1–18.

Gallo, S. A., Carpenter, A. S., Irwin, D., McPartland, C. D., Travis, J., Reynders, S., & Glisson, S. R. (2014). The validation of peer review through research impact measures and the implications for funding strategies. PLoS ONE, 9 (9), e106474.

Garrett-Jones, S. (2000). International trends in evaluating university research outcomes: What lessons for Australia? Research Evaluation, 9 (2), 115–124.

Gaughan, M., & Bozeman, B. (2002). Using curriculum vitae to compare some impacts of NSF research grants with research center funding. Research Evaluation, 11 (1), 17–26.

Gläser, J., Laudel, G., & Lettkemann, E. (2016). Hidden in plain sight: The impact of generic governance on the emergence of research fields. The local configuration of new research fields: On regional and national diversity, 25–43.

Grant, J., & Hinrichs, S. (2015). The nature, scale and beneficiaries of research impact: An initial analysis of the Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014 impact case studies. Retrieved from https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/files/35271762/Analysis_of_REF_impact.pdf

Grimpe, C. (2012). Extramural research grants and scientists’ funding strategies: Beggars cannot be choosers? Research Policy, 41 (8), 1448–1460.

Gross, K., & Bergstrom, C. T. (2019). Contest models highlight inherent inefficiencies of scientific funding competitions. PLoS Biology, 17 (1), e3000065.

Gush, J., Jaffe, A., Larsen, V., & Laws, A. (2018). The effect of public funding on research output: The New Zealand Marsden Fund. New Zealand Economic Papers, 52 (2), 227–248.

Guthrie, S., Bienkowska-Gibbs, T., Manville, C., Pollitt, A., Kirtley, A., & Wooding, S. (2015). The impact of the national institute for health research health technology assessment programme, 2003–13: A multimethod evaluation. Health Technology Assessment, 19 (67), 1–291.

Habicht, I. M., Lutter, M., & Schröder, M. (2021). How human capital, universities of excellence, third party funding, mobility and gender explain productivity in German political science. Scientometrics, 126 , 9649–9675.

Hellström, T. (2018). Centres of excellence and capacity building: From strategy to impact. Science and Public Policy, 45 (4), 543–552.

Heyard, R., & Hottenrott, H. (2021). The value of research funding for knowledge creation and dissemination: A study of SNSF research grants. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8 (1), 1–16.

Hicks, D. (2012). Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy, 41 (2), 251–261.

Hottenrott, H., & Lawson, C. (2017). Fishing for complementarities: Research grants and research productivity. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 51 (1), 1–38.

Hottenrott, H., & Thorwarth, S. (2011). Industry funding of university research and scientific productivity. Kyklos, 64 (4), 534–555.

Hu, M. C. (2009). Developing entrepreneurial universities in Taiwan: The effects of research funding sources. Science, Technology and Society, 14 (1), 35–57.

Hussinger, K., & Carvalho, J. N. (2022). The long-term effect of research grants on the scientific output of university professors. Industry and Innovation, 29 (4), 463–487.

Ismail, S., Tiessen, J., & Wooding, S. (2012). Strengthening research portfolio evaluation at the medical research council: Developing a survey for the collection of information about research outputs. Rand Health Quarterly , 1 (4). Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR743.html

Jeon, J. (2019). Invisibilizing politics: Accepting and legitimating ignorance in environmental sciences. Social Studies of Science, 49 (6), 839–862.

Jonker, L., Cox, D., & Marshall, G. (2011). Considerations, clues and challenges: Gaining ethical and trust research approval when using the NHS as a research setting. Radiography, 17 (3), 260–264.

Jonkers, K., & Zacharewicz, T. (2016). Research performance based funding systems: A comparative assessment. European Commission. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-reports/research-performance-based-funding-systems-comparative-assessment

Jonkers, K., Fako P., Isella, L., Zacharewicz, T., Sandstrom, U., & Van den Besselaar, P. (2017). A comparative analysis of the publication behaviour of MSCA fellows. Proceedings STI conference . Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ulf-Sandstroem-2/publication/319547178_A_comparative_analysis_of_the_publication_behaviour_of_MSCA_fellows/links/59b2ae00458515a5b48d133f/A-comparative-analysis-of-the-publication-behaviour-of-MSCA-fellows.pdf

Jowkar, A., Didegah, F., & Gazni, A. (2011). The effect of funding on academic research impact: A case study of Iranian publications. Aslib Proceedings, 63 (6), 593–602.

Kang, B., & Motohashi, K. (2020). Academic contribution to industrial innovation by funding type. Scientometrics, 124 (1), 169–193.

Kayrooz, C., Åkerlind, G. S., & Tight, M. (Eds.). (2007). Autonomy in social science research, volume 4: The View from United Kingdom and Australian Universities . Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Google Scholar  

Kim, K. S., Chung, J. H., Jo, J. K., Kim, J. H., Kim, S., Cho, J. M., & Lee, S. W. (2018). Quality of randomized controlled trials published in the international urogynecology journal 2007–2016. International Urogynecology Journal, 29 (7), 1011–1017.

Langfeldt, L., Bloch, C. W., & Sivertsen, G. (2015). Options and limitations in measuring the impact of research grants—Evidence from Denmark and Norway. Research Evaluation, 24 (3), 256–270.

Langfeldt, L., Nedeva, M., Sörlin, S., & Thomas, D. A. (2020). Co-existing notions of research quality: A framework to study context-specific understandings of good research. Minerva, 58 (1), 115–137.

Laudel, G. (2005). Is external research funding a valid indicator for research performance? Research Evaluation, 14 (1), 27–34.

Laudel, G. (2006). The art of getting funded: How scientists adapt to their funding conditions. Science and Public Policy, 33 (7), 489–504.

Laudel, G. (2023). Researchers’ responses to their funding situation. In: B. Lepori & B. Jongbloed (Eds.), Handbook of public funding of research (pp. 261–278).

Laudel, G., & Gläser, J. (2014). Beyond breakthrough research: Epistemic properties of research and their consequences for research funding. Research Policy, 43 (7), 1204–1216.

Luo, J., Ma, L., & Shankar, K. (2021). Does the inclusion of non-academic reviewers make any difference for grant impact panels? Science and Public Policy, 48 (6), 763–775.

Lutter, M., Habicht, I. M., & Schröder, M. (2022). Gender differences in the determinants of becoming a professor in Germany: An event history analysis of academic psychologists from 1980 to 2019. Research Policy, 51 , 104506.

Luukkonen, T., & Thomas, D. A. (2016). The ‘negotiated space’ of university researchers’ pursuit of a research agenda. Minerva, 54 (1), 99–127.

Lyndon, A. R. (2018). Influence of the FSBI small research grants scheme: An analysis and appraisal. Journal of Fish Biology, 92 (3), 846–850.

Meadmore, K., Fackrell, K., Recio-Saucedo, A., Bull, A., Fraser, S. D., & Blatch-Jones, A. (2020). Decision-making approaches used by UK and international health funding organisations for allocating research funds: A survey of current practice. PLoS ONE, 15 (11), e0239757.

MRC. (2019). MRC 10 year translational research evaluation report 2008 to 2018. Retrieved from https://www.ukri.org/publications/mrc-translational-research-evaluation-report/

Muscio, A., Ramaciotti, L., & Rizzo, U. (2017). The complex relationship between academic engagement and research output: Evidence from Italy. Science and Public Policy, 44 (2), 235–245.

Neufeld, J. (2016). Determining effects of individual research grants on publication output and impact: The case of the Emmy Noether Programme (German Research Foundation). Research Evaluation, 25 (1), 50–61.

OECD. (2014). Promoting research excellence: new approaches to funding. OECD. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/promoting-research-excellence_9789264207462-en

OECD. (2015). Frascati manual 2015. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/innovation/frascati-manual-2015-9789264239012-en.htm

Olive, V. (2017). How much is too much? Cross-subsidies from teaching to research in British Universities . Higher Education Policy Institute.

Paulson, K., Saeed, M., Mills, J., Cuvelier, G. D., Kumar, R., Raymond, C., & Seftel, M. D. (2011). Publication bias is present in blood and marrow transplantation: An analysis of abstracts at an international meeting. Blood, the Journal of the American Society of Hematology, 118 (25), 6698–6701.

Raftery, J., Hanley, S., Greenhalgh, T., Glover, M., & Blotch-Jones, A. (2016). Models and applications for measuring the impact of health research: Update of a systematic review for the health technology assessment programme. Health Technology Assessment, 20 (76), 1–254. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta20760

Reale, E., Lepori, B., & Scherngell, T. (2017). Analysis of national public research funding-pref. JRC-European Commission. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/93512415.pdf

Reddick, G., Malkov, D., Sherbon, B., & Grant, J. (2022). Understanding the funding characteristics of research impact: A proof-of-concept study linking REF 2014 impact case studies with Researchfish grant agreements. F1000Research, 10 , 1291.

Richards, H. (2019). Equipment grants: It’s all in the details. Journal of Biomolecular Techniques: JBT, 30 (Suppl), S49.

Rigby, J. (2011). Systematic grant and funding body acknowledgement data for publications: New dimensions and new controversies for research policy and evaluation. Research Evaluation, 20 (5), 365–375.

Roach, J. W., Skaggs, D. L., Sponseller, P. D., & MacLeod, L. M. (2008). Is research presented at the scoliosis research society annual meeting influenced by industry funding? Spine, 33 (20), 2208–2212.

Roshani, S., Bagherylooieh, M. R., Mosleh, M., & Coccia, M. (2021). What is the relationship between research funding and citation-based performance? A comparative analysis between critical disciplines. Scientometrics, 126 (9), 7859–7874.

Sandström, U. (2009). Research quality and diversity of funding: A model for relating research money to output of research. Scientometrics, 79 (2), 341–349.

Sandström, U., & Van den Besselaar, P. (2018). Funding, evaluation, and the performance of national research systems. Journal of Informetrics, 12 , 365–384.

Saygitov, R. T. (2018). The impact of grant funding on the publication activity of awarded applicants: A systematic review of comparative studies and meta-analytical estimates. Biorxiv , 354662.

Schneider, J. W., & van Leeuwen, T. N. (2014). Analysing robustness and uncertainty levels of bibliometric performance statistics supporting science policy: A case study evaluating Danish postdoctoral funding. Research Evaluation, 23 (4), 285–297.

Schroder, M., Lutter, M., & Habicht, I. M. (2021). Publishing, signalling, social capital, and gender: Determinants of becoming a tenured professor in German political science. PLoS ONE, 16 (1), e0243514.

Serrano Velarde, K. (2018). The way we ask for money… The emergence and institutionalization of grant writing practices in academia. Minerva, 56 (1), 85–107.

Shimada, Y. A., Tsukada, N., & Suzuki, J. (2017). Promoting diversity in science in Japan through mission-oriented research grants. Scientometrics, 110 (3), 1415–1435.

Sinha, Y., Iqbal, F. M., Spence, J. N., & Richard, B. (2016). A bibliometric analysis of the 100 most-cited articles in rhinoplasty. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open, 4 (7), e820. https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000000834

Szomszor, M., & Adie, E. (2022). Overton: A bibliometric database of policy document citations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.07643 .

Tellmann, S. M. (2022). The societal territory of academic disciplines: How disciplines matter to society. Minerva, 60 (2), 159–179.

Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., Abdoli, M., Stuart, E., Makita, M., Font-Julián, C. I., Wilson, P., & Levitt, J. (2023). Is research funding always beneficial? A cross-disciplinary analysis of UK research 2014–20. Quantitative Science Studies, 4 (2), 501–534. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00254

Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., Dinsmore, A., & Dolby, K. (2016). Alternative metric indicators for funding scheme evaluations. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 68 (1), 2–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-09-2015-0146

Thyer, B. A. (2011). Harmful effects of federal research grants. Social Work Research, 35 (1), 3–7.

Tricarico, J. M., de Haas, Y., Hristov, A. N., Kebreab, E., Kurt, T., Mitloehner, F., & Pitta, D. (2022). Symposium review: Development of a funding program to support research on enteric methane mitigation from ruminants. Journal of Dairy Science, 105 , 8535–8542.

UKCRC. (2020). UK health research analysis 2018. Retrieved from https://hrcsonline.net/reports/analysis-reports/uk-health-research-analysis-2018/

Vaduganathan, M., Nagarur, A., Qamar, A., Patel, R. B., Navar, A. M., Peterson, E. D., & Butler, J. (2018). Availability and use of shared data from cardiometabolic clinical trials. Circulation, 137 (9), 938–947.

Van den Besselaar, P., & Horlings, E. (2011). Focus en massa in het wetenschappelijk onderzoek. de Nederlandse onderzoeksportfolio in internationaal perspectief. (In Dutch : Focus and mass in research: The Dutch research portfolio from an international perspective ). Den Haag, Rathenau Instituut.

Van den Besselaar, P. & Mom, C. (2021). Gender bias in grant allocation, a mixed picture . Preprint.

Van den Besselaar, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2009). Past performance, peer review, and project selection: A case study in the social and behavioral sciences. Research Evaluation, 18 (4), 273–288.

Van den Besselaar, P., & Sandström, U. (2015). Early career grants, performance and careers; a study of predictive validity in grant decisions. Journal of Informetrics, 9 , 826–838.

Versleijen, A., van der Meulen, B., van Steen, J., Kloprogge, P., Braam, R., Mamphuis, R., & van den Besselaar, P. (2007). Dertig jaar onderzoeksfinanciering—rends, beleid en implicaties. (In Dutch: Thirty years research funding in the Netherlands—1975–2005) . Den Haag: Rathenau Instituut 2007.

Voss, A., Andreß, B., Pauzenberger, L., Herbst, E., Pogorzelski, J., & John, D. (2021). Research productivity during orthopedic surgery residency correlates with pre-planned and protected research time: A survey of German-speaking countries. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 29 , 292–299.

Wang, L., Wang, X., Piro, F. N., & Philipsen, N. J. (2020). The effect of competitive public funding on scientific output: A comparison between China and the EU. Research Evaluation, 29 (4), 418–429.

Whitley, R., Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2018). The impact of changing funding and authority relationships on scientific innovations. Minerva, 56 , 109–134.

Woelert, P., Lewis, J. M., & Le, A. T. (2021). Formally alive yet practically complex: An exploration of academics’ perceptions of their autonomy as researchers. Higher Education Policy, 34 , 1049–1068.

Woodson, T. S., & Williams, L. D. (2020). Stronger together: Inclusive innovation and undone science frameworks in the Global South. Third World Quarterly, 41 (11), 1957–1972.

Woodward, D. K., & Clifton, G. D. (1994). Development of a successful research grant application. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 51 (6), 813–822.

Yan, E., Wu, C., & Song, M. (2018). The funding factor: A cross-disciplinary examination of the association between research funding and citation impact. Scientometrics, 115 (1), 369–384.

Zhao, D. (2010). Characteristics and impact of grant-funded research: A case study of the library and information science field. Scientometrics, 84 (2), 293–306.

Download references

No funding was received for conducting this study.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Statistical Cybermetrics and Research Evaluation Group, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, UK

Mike Thelwall

Information School, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

MRC Secondee, Evaluation and Analysis Team, Medical Research Council, London, UK

Subreena Simrick

Evaluation and Analysis Team, Medical Research Council, London, UK

Department of Organization Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Peter Van den Besselaar

German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies (DZHW), Berlin, Germany

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mike Thelwall .

Ethics declarations

Competing interest.

The first and fourth authors are members of the Distinguished Reviewers Board of Scientometrics. The second and third authors work for research funders.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Thelwall, M., Simrick, S., Viney, I. et al. What is research funding, how does it influence research, and how is it recorded? Key dimensions of variation. Scientometrics 128 , 6085–6106 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04836-w

Download citation

Received : 12 February 2023

Accepted : 05 September 2023

Published : 16 September 2023

Issue Date : November 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04836-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Research funding
• Academic research funding
• Research funding typology
• Funding effects
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Sample Grant Applications

On this page:

• Research Project Grants (R01): Sample Applications and Summary Statements 
• Early Career Research (ECR) R21 Awards: Sample Applications and Summary Statements 

Exploratory/Developmental Research Grant (R21) Awards: Sample Applications and Summary Statements

Preparing a stellar grant application is critical to securing research funding from NIDCD. On this page you will find examples of grant applications and summary statements from NIDCD investigators who have graciously shared their successful submissions to benefit the research community.

You can find more details about the NIDCD grants process from application to award on our  How to Apply for a Grant, Research Training, or Career Development Funding page.

For more examples of applications for research grants, small business grants, training and career awards, and cooperative agreements, please visit Sample Applications & More  on the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases website.

Always follow your funding opportunity’s specific instructions for application format. Although these samples demonstrate stellar grantsmanship, time has passed since these applications were submitted and the samples may not reflect changes in format or instructions.

The application text is copyrighted. You may use it only for nonprofit educational purposes provided the document remains unchanged and the researcher, the grantee organization, and NIDCD are all credited.

Section 508 compliance and accessibility: We have reformatted these sample applications to improve accessibility for people with disabilities and users of assistive technology. If you have trouble accessing the content, please contact the NIDCD web team .

Research Project Grants (R01): Sample Applications and Summary Statements

Investigator-initiated  Research Project Grants (R01)  make up the largest single category of support provided by NIDCD and NIH. The R01 is considered the traditional grant mechanism. These grants are awarded to organizations on behalf of an individual (a principal investigator, or PI) to facilitate pursuit of a research objective in the area of the investigator's research interests and competence.

Leora R. Cherney, Ph.D., & Allen Walter Heinemann, Ph.D., Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago

"Defining trajectories of linguistic, cognitive-communicative and quality of life outcomes in aphasia"

• Full Application (5.59MB PDF)
• Summary Statement (336KB PDF)

Robert C. Froemke, Ph.D., New York University Grossman School of Medicine

“Synaptic basis of perceptual learning in primary auditory cortex”

• Full Application (5.3MB PDF)
• Summary Statement (608KB PDF)

Rene H. Gifford, Ph.D., & Stephen Mark Camarata, Ph.D., Vanderbilt University Medical Center

"Image-guided cochlear implant programming: Pediatric speech, language, and literacy"

• Full Application (9.63MB PDF)
• Summary Statement (485KB PDF)

Stavros Lomvardas, Ph.D., Columbia University Health Sciences

"Principles of zonal olfactory receptor gene expression"

• Full Application (6.37MB PDF)
• Summary Statement (183KB PDF)

Christopher Shera, Ph.D., University of Southern California

"Understanding otoacoustic emissions"

• Full Application (6.9MB PDF)
• Summary Statement (447KB PDF)

Early Career Research (ECR) R21 Awards: Sample Applications and Summary Statements

The NIDCD Early Career Research (ECR) R21 Award supports both basic and clinical research from scientists who are beginning to establish an independent research career. The research must be focused on one or more of NIDCD's  scientific mission areas . The NIDCD ECR Award R21 supports projects including secondary analysis of existing data; small, self-contained research projects; development of research methodology; translational research; outcomes research; and development of new research technology. The intent of the NIDCD ECR Award R21 is for the program director(s)/principal investigator(s) to obtain sufficient preliminary data for a subsequent R01 application.

Ho Ming Chow, Ph.D., University of Delaware

“Neural markers of persistence and recovery from childhood stuttering: An fMRI study of continuous speech production”

• Full Application (7.64MB PDF)
• Summary Statement (736KB PDF)

Brian B. Monson, Ph.D., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

"Auditory experience during the prenatal and perinatal period"

• Full Application (3.74MB PDF)
• Summary Statement (525KB PDF)

Elizabeth A. Walker, Ph.D., University of Iowa

“Mechanisms of listening effort in school age children who are hard of hearing”

• Full Application (10.2MB PDF)
• Summary Statement (622KB PDF)

The NIH Exploratory/Developmental Research R21 grant mechanism encourages exploratory and developmental research by providing support for the early and conceptual stages of project development. NIH has standardized the Exploratory/Developmental Grant (R21) application characteristics, requirements, preparation, and review procedures in order to accommodate investigator-initiated (unsolicited) grant applications. Projects should be distinct from those supported through the traditional R01 mechanism. The NIH Grants & Funding website explains the scope of this program .

Taylor Abel, M.D., University of Pittsburgh, & Lori Holt, Ph.D., University of Texas at Austin

“Flexible representation of speech in the supratemporal plane”

• Full Application (11.5MB PDF)
• Summary Statement (1.01MB PDF)

Melissa L. Anderson, Ph.D., MSCI, UMass Chan Medical School

“Deaf ACCESS: Adapting Consent through Community Engagement and State-of-the-art Simulation”

• Full Application (1.34MB PDF)
• Summary Statement (354KB PDF)

Lynnette McCluskey, Ph.D., Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University

“Ace2 in the healthy and inflamed taste system”

• Full Application (6.05MB PDF)

Benjamin R. Munson, Ph.D., University of Minnesota

“Race, ethnicity, and speech intelligibility in normal hearing and hearing impairment”

• Full Application (1.35MB PDF)
• Summary Statement (378KB PDF)

(link is external) .

• 4 . 29 . 20
• Career , Entrepreneur

How to Get Research Funded — 8 Types of Funding You Can Win

• Posted by: Chris

Updated May 27, 2021

I wasn’t expecting that knowing how to get research funded would be my most valuable skill after I left academia. To be honest, I thought that most organizations just had money.

Was I wrong! With each organization I worked for, I realized that everyone needed to win funding. When I worked at a think tank, we would conceptualize projects and then convince organizations to fund them. As a non-profit, it drew a combination of funding from government, corporations, and foundations, usually mixing and matching in order to get to whatever funding target was required.

When I started working for the government, I was working on international refugee projects. To my surprise, even in government, I had to apply for funding. In fact, one of my first tasks was working on an internal funding competition—different parts of the department competed to get their idea funded. Since we were working to develop refugee programs in other countries, funding was a universal language.

Funding is vital to most research organizations. And it’s important almost everywhere you go.

What follows is a condensed post based on a recent webinar I did: How to Get Research Funded Outside of Academia. If you would like, you can click the link at the end of the post and I’ll send you the full, 5,000+ word PDF guide.

Why do I need to know this?

• You’ll be valuable to employers.
• You’ll pay your own salar y
• You can work for yourself, on your own projects.
• You can straddle the academic/non-academic line.

What follows is a non-exhaustive list of funding that you can apply for. It’s based on my experiences of funding things outside of academia, where the funding sources varied. For some of these examples, I’m including a section called What they Want. Knowing what these funders want is important to know when you pitch them. After all, they don’t exist only to make your research happen. If you want to work with them, you’ll need to identify where you bring them value and create work that is mutually beneficial.

1. Academic Grants/Post Docs

I’ll start here, not because it’s the best source, but to get it out of the way. Academia can be a part of this conversation. After all, a lot of research happens there. You can leave academia, get off the tenure track, stop chasing positions, and still take money from the academy. You can find and create your own post doc or get research funds from a professor to do so. You can form a partnership with a professor, even if you’re not in academia.

In Canada we have a program called Mitacs that does fund post docs. if you can raise some of your own funding or get an organization to pay you, they will match it. As far as I know, there’s no U.S. federal equivalent.

2. Think Tanks

What do think tanks do anyway? I don’t know many people who really know. But I’m so glad my first career experience was at a think tank. It allowed me to meet a cross-section of the working world, people from the private sector, government, non-profits, and more. Think tanks do research and share ideas—a perfect match for a lot of academics.

Think tanks are usually non-profit organizations, and are funded in various ways, such as:

• membership funding (ie. institutional members)
• project funding

There are also some think tanks within government that have a mandate to provide policy direction. Examples of this include the International Development Research Centre in Canada or the U.S. Global Change Research Program in the U.S.

What they want . . .

Think tanks want to get their ideas into the public sphere. They want to influence, especially the realm of public policy and the actions of government. In suggesting courses of action and influencing policy directions, they show value to funders. This CAN be the shadowy side of think tanks. It can be a way for corporations to buy access to influence the decision-making process. You’ll need to find a think tank that mostly aligns with your values. If you’re a progressive lefty, don’t try to work for The Heritage Foundation.

Some Examples of Think Tanks Careers

New America

Carnegie Endowment

American Enterprise Institute

Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

Public Policy Forum

Conference Board

Chatham House

3. Private Sector

This is a hard entry to write, because so many companies do research! From pharmaceuticals to banks to geologists to management consultants, sometimes the best way to get paid to do research you love is to get hired by a company that does it. Find a company interested in the same things you are and try to meet with someone. Tell them you have a project to pitch they’ll be interested in. See if they are.

If you don’t want to get hired as an employee, perhaps you want to be a consultant. Lots of companies would consider this. But it’s up to you to do your homework and figure out where you’d fit, as well as to meet people from the company and create your opportunity. Companies don’t often post that they’re looking for consultants. They look in their networks! So, get to know some people at companies that do work you’re interested in. Or, pay attention to events like the Johnson and Johnson Quick Pitch, which gives outsiders a chance to pitch them ideas. Notice—a lot of companies are looking for ideas. Especially if they’re profitable. Finally, companies also give grants to get started sometimes, like this Deloitte incentive program.

If you can find a company who will benefit from your research, there may be a chance they’ll fund your work as one-off. In this case, you would likely be a consultant—you’d probably do the research and invoice them. You’d need to figure out the business ramifications for this.

There are also Corporate Responsibility Foundations, which I’ll discuss below.

The private sector usually wants one of two things.

• Profits : This is most common. They want to advance their profits. This might mean developing technology or products. They might do research on social trends that are relevant to them. So, if you’ve done your work and found out who’s interested in your project, it might be relevant to a company’s bottom line somehow. Make that connection, especially if you can show it will add value, and you’ll get money.
• Brand Awareness: The second way to get funded by the private sector is to have a project that advances their brand or fits within their corporate responsibility platform. Usually this means that private-sector organizations will direct some of their profits into projects that provide some social benefit, likely from a mixture of altruism and brand creation.

4. Public-Sector Funding

You could build an entire career on public-sector funding. Become an expert on this, and you could establish your own multi-million dollar research company and sell to government. It’s that lucrative. Or, you could invent things and make millions selling the government the patents.

There are different ways to get government funding, and it will be impossible to cover them in detail here. So, this should be an introduction to a few options. If it’s interesting to you, you can start researching more. What’s great about the government is that there is lots of funding and diverse ways to get it. On the other hand, it can be frustrating because of excessive red tape. But, if you take the time to learn the system, it will pay off.

Obviously, there are funding opportunities at all levels of government. This includes municipal and provincial/state governments. For the purposes of this brief guide, I’ll stick to federal. Most of the information here comes from the U.S. and Canada, but it is applicable elsewhere. Figure out how it connects in your own context.

In general, federal money is to stimulate the economy, create jobs, or—more frequently—to carry out the business of government. It’s to run the country. This is a big window. On the micro-level, individual parts of any government need to expand research and policy options or create products and services to serve taxpayers. Sometimes they just need to spend their budgeted money by the end of the year, so it doesn’t disappear for next year. Yup, it happens.

A few examples of government funding methods . . .

• Procurement  

Procurement is how the government acquires goods and services it uses to carry out the business of governing the country. This includes things like shipbuilding for the military, installing new printers in a government tower, creating an immigration database, programming an AI interface for passports, or building government housing. Procurement is a big business, and there are companies who have made it their business to sell to government. Sometimes you will see calls for research projects that the government would like done.

In order to get funded through procurement processes, you’ll need to apply for the process with the appropriate “vehicle” (probably a corporation), following the RFT very carefully.

You can see some of the procurement systems below. (Try searching for words like “research,” “policy,” or a keyword from your field.)

Procurement Databases

United States (Awarded Contracts listed here .)

United Kingdom

European Union

I won’t talk about them here, but some governments have Standing Offers for pre-approved suppliers to provide services on an ongoing basis.

• Sole Source/ Single Source/ No-Bid Contract

Because procurement processes can be clunky with lots of paperwork and long waits, governments often have workarounds for people who need to get work done quickly without the process. These projects must fall under a certain value threshold and are called sole-source contracts. In both Canada and the U.S., the limit on a sole-source contract is $25,000. Usually the use of a vendor without the bidding process must be justified, but this is not necessarily difficult to do—especially if you have a certain skill or specialty.

There’s a good guide to these contracts in the U.S. here and more information here .  

Sole source contracts, as I’ve known them in the Canadian government, are given out in two ways. Either the organization pitches the appropriate government division, or the government division identifies a need and searches for someone to provide the missing piece. Either way, networks are important, as is your personal brand as someone with expertise in your field. 

• Startup Grants/ Funding

Governments want businesses to thrive, and so they have a whole bunch of cool initiatives to help it happen. If you are doing research, this can be a great place to get funded (especially for STEM). For example, the Industrial Research Assistance Program   (IRAP) grant gives up to $200,000 for Canadian companies to develop technologies. There’s a list of U.S. grants here and Canadian ones here .

• Granting Agencies

Granting agencies are government too, and you probably know them through universities. But many have programs for things that are not strictly university related. (For example, you could check out the National Science Foundation Seed Fund grants .) Some of them give certain awards to non-profits (remember, you could start one or associate with one), and some give awards to small businesses. Perhaps you’re willing to launch your own research firm. Check the granting agencies associated with your research and see if they have programs that don’t require academic affiliation, or you could find an affiliation.

I won’t list all of them here, but for an example, here are the calls from the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institute of Health Research .

5. Professional Associations, Industry Groups, Labor Organizations

Professional Associations or Industry Groups are a great source of funding, and often underutilized. Generally, these groups are made up of representatives of a collection of businesses, trades, non-profits, any organization really, stretched out across a region or country. They’re usually structured as non-profits that protect and promote the interests of their members. This often includes research and policy work, but the research usually feeds into outputs such as educating their stakeholders or the public or lobbying the government for their interests. (We often think of lobbying as a dirty word, but there may be causes that you would happily lobby for. It usually depends on the issue.)

These bodies want to show members that they’re doing useful work (ie. that the membership dues are worth paying), and that they’re sparking industry change and progress on their behalf. They educate the public and educate and/or advocate with government for the benefit of their stakeholders.

For example: The slogan “Got Milk?” was created by the California Milk Processor Board, funded by California Dairy Processors. It was licensed to the National Milk Processor Education Program (MilkPEP), which used it nationally. If you go to their website, you’ll find that they have a research program on milk trends . . . Yep, a PhD could work here. Similarly, if you go to the Dairy Farmers of Canada Website , you’ll find that they do research on sustainable farming, milk and antibiotics, nutrition, and technology.

Lists of such associations/organizations

Professional Associations , Trade Associations , Labor Organizations

Industry Associations, Professional Associations , Labor Organizations

United States

Industry Trade Groups , Associations , Labor Organizations

International

6. Voluntary Sector/ Charities/ Foundations

The voluntary sector isn’t one we often associate with money, but I’m talking mostly about foundations here (although some non-profits will have small funding grants). There are lots of enormous foundations that are philanthropic or corporate that give out funding. Foundations are big pots of money. They can be established because of a grant from a wealthy or influential person (like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation , the Obama Foundation , or the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation ). Corporations also fund big foundations like the The Mastercard Foundation . You can see the list of the World’s Wealthiest Charitable Foundations here.

Foundations are usually mission driven, and often have a specific ideology or goal. You’ll need to find the one that fits with your research. Whether it’s better community housing, nurturing diverse leaders, or studying renewable energy—they’ve got a purpose. Corporate foundations do a lot of social good, but obviously they’re also a way of polishing a corporate brand. As long as you can get on board with this, take their money and don’t look back.

Examples of Foundations

Royal Bank Foundation (Canada)

McConnell Foundation (Canada)

Wells Fargo Foundation

Open Societies Foundation

7. Funding from International Bodies

There are big international bodies that give out money. Think the United Nations organizations, which have some associated funds. For example, the United Nations Voluntary Fund on Disability supports research and education initiatives aligning with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The European Commission is another such body which gives out billions. For example, the Horizon 2020 granting scheme gives out €80 billion every seven years. Do some research and find one that fits you and apply.

This is hard to generalize, but usually these bodies want to advance their missions, to improve quality of life where they can, to create opportunities for underrepresented groups, and to make a better world.

8. New Funding Methods

This is not an exhaustive list of how to get research funded. You can be creative. Research funding is always changing. Did you know that you can Crowdfund scientific research? (There’s a list of some of the places to do that here .) I recently discovered the site Experiment , which does just this. I also love the Canadian initiative Generation Squeeze, which operates on a individual membership model and does research into the challenges facing young people in Canada, relying on small-scale private donors to fund them.

Whatever your project, think outside the box!

The problem will not be the lack of money and options. It will be focusing. There’s too much money.

So, you’ve got your idea, and some knowledge of how to get research funded. You’ve got some possible deliverables articulated, and you know who’s going to be interested in your research. You’ve now got a superpower. Take that knowledge out into the real world and see what happens.

I want to tell you three more things before I end.

• Believe it or not, the challenge of funding is not that there’s too little. The problem is that there is too much. There are too many opportunities. You’ll need to learn to be strategic, not necessarily chasing everything that you see.
• Build your network. Always. It opens up opportunities that you’ve never imagined. If you have a proposal and you know who’s going to be interested in your project, it’s going to make networking that much easier. When you reach out to people, make sure to explain that you are working on the project, state your credentials, and explain it a bit. People will likely take the time to meet with you if you present as professional and are doing work in their area of interest.
• There are less rules than you think. When I wrote grant applications in university, we could get it thrown out if our margins were the wrong size. There are certainly requirements in some of the granting streams identified above, but some have tremendous flexibility. Be creative in how you approach and acquire funding.

That’s it! I wish you luck as you go out and try to build the world you believe needs to be there. Get your idea funded and change some lives!  And don’t forget to read the related post: 11 Place You Can Get Paid to Research.

The Only (Online) Business That Worked For Me

The one online business that worked for me. Last week, I sent out an email asking people what they need. It was a useful way

Why You NEED to Trust Yourself

It was one of those stupid “get rich quick” ads online. You know the type. The “I made $5 million last year selling my online

What is a PhD? All you need to know for 2024

When I started my PhD, I went in without a lot of thought. I had finished a master’s. It seemed like the logical next step,

SHARE THIS:

EMAIL UPDATES

Weekly articles, tips, and career advice

Roostervane exists to help you launch a career, find your purpose, and grow your influence

• Write for Us

Terms of Use | Privacy |   Affiliate Disclaimer

©2021 All rights reserved​

The Complete Guide to Getting Funding for a Student Research Project: 6 Steps & 39 Resources [2024]

The fact that you are interested in this article tells a lot about you as a person. You are an intelligent student who dreams about pursuing a research career. You love to read and analyze information. Even more than that, you adore debating with your peers about abstract concepts. You would gladly spend a lifetime researching your sphere of interest. However, there’s one big “but” – money . Our world would be a much better place if young scientists did not have to search for a source of income to support themselves. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Let us be frank. You cannot work part-time and be a full-time researcher. Moreover, it is nearly impossible to make enough money to live on while studying for your Ph.D. course. The question is, then, how can you find funding for research projects?

This article will help you become a successful researcher. We have made a comprehensive guide to getting research funding, added 7 useful tips and 5 common mistakes made even by experienced grantees. We have also collected 39 resources for finding grant opportunities and sorted them by research areas.

Thanks to these materials, we are certain that we will hear about your breakthrough discovery in the news one day.

❓ What Is a Research Grant?

• ♻️ The Grant Lifecycle
• 🤩 Preparing a Proposal
• 🏆 7 Grant Application Tips

🙅 5 Common Mistakes

• 🌐 39 Research Grant Sources

Research grants are monetary funds provided by various institutions to support or fund research projects by universities, individuals, or scientific groups. Some of the funders are private companies, and others are large international organizations.

The amounts of money they offer range from small one-time awards to multi-year fellowships covering all the research and living expenses of the people involved.

All funding sources in the US come from two large groups . The first one comprises all governmental and non-profit organizations, and the second includes for-profit businesses.

No matter which grant you apply for, the following criteria define your success:

• Did you meet all the application form requirements?
• Is your research proposal interesting to the funding organization?

♻️ The Grant Lifecycle: 10 Parts

The grant lifecycle consists of ten parts. The first five are your responsibility, and the last five are completed by the awarding entity or at least partly depend on it.

• Will you be doing pilot research, a dissertation, post-doctoral research , or experimental fieldwork?
• What is the planned result of your work (a publication, a book, etc.)?
• How long will your work last?
• How will you distribute the grant money?
• Locate the prospective grantors. Please check the final section of this article for all sorts of information on this point.
• What kind of knowledge do you plan to obtain as a result of your project? (Your goals)
• Why is it worth investigating? (The research significance)
• How will you check the validity of the findings? (Success criteria)
• Prepare a specific proposal for the particular grantor. Personalize what you have written in the previous point according to the requirements in the grant description.
• Submit your application for research funding before the deadline. Even if your proposal is better than those of your competitors, submission after the deadline is sufficient grounds for its rejection.
• The institution evaluates your proposal. Sit back and wait while your fate is determined.
• You receive an award letter. If not, then you should choose another grantor and start back at point 4.
• You accept the award. Don’t delay in answering the letter that informs you about the prize. A late answer can send your grant to a different person.
• You perform the project. Now it’s time to use the grant. Do your best, as there’s still one more step.
• You report to the grantor. Most institutions provide you with detailed instructions on what this report should look like. We recommend that you start to prepare it long before the end of the project, hopefully as soon as you start getting the first results.

We would suggest looking through an essays database for written proposals to see how they’re done and what topics they cover.

The most important part of a successful application is your well-defined, realistic research proposal. The following section dives deeper into this point.

🤩 Preparing an Impressive Proposal: 6 Steps

A grant application is a paper or set of documents submitted to an institution or entity with the intent to obtain funding for research projects. The form of a proposal varies, depending on the discipline. For example, an application to fund a research project in philosophy or the arts presupposes different results than more practical disciplines, like biology or psychology.

Some Masters and Ph.D. students in the humanities or arts lack a more structured and “scholarly” approach to their proposal. The topic may inspire them so much that they forget to speak about questions, hypotheses, and the overall research design. However, that’s exactly what funding organizations expect you to do.

For this reason, the first thing you should do is plan the results of your research . All the remaining items will fall into place if you use the following steps.

Step 1. Narrow Down Your Focus

At this preliminary stage, you should:

• Decide if the subject field is worth the effort.
• Find out if it is sufficiently narrow.
• Ask yourself how you are going to make the research results engaging to your audience.
• Formulate the topic and explain why it is important.
• List the research question you plan to answer.
• Suggest your hypothesis.
• Outline your research methods (quantitative/qualitative).

As soon as you have narrowed down the scope of opportunities, look for suitable grantors.

Step 2. Think of Your Audience

At this stage, it is time to select applicable grants and funding organizations.

For this purpose, we recommend that you consult the final section of this article , where we have prepared the most comprehensive list of funding sources available in 2023.

Try to select several grantors since, in general, the awarding rate is extremely low and the competition is very high. You can submit personalized versions of your research proposal to all of them.

Regardless of your research discipline, all reviewers are humans. Address them as colleagues competent in their domain. However, they might not know every detail of your research. Explain the details you consider complicated.

Note that reviewers never read every word of students’ proposals. As a rule, they look through the abstract, research design sections, methodology, budget, and your resume. Polish these sections to look their best.

Step 3. Think of Your Style

Have you ever considered that your writing style can tell a lot about you as a person, scholar, researcher, and specialist?

The reviewers of your proposal will see how creative, analytical, logical, and competent you are by how your proposal is written and formatted.

The most important thing they will judge is whether you can bring the intended project to its successful completion.

You should follow the conventions of your discipline in terms of style and methodology. Also, within reason, try to show your personality and creativity.

Step 4. Make a Plan

The most significant benefit of writing a preliminary proposal is a better understanding of what to expect from your project.

A general proposal or a “white paper” is a draft version of your research proposal . Most people apply for research grants to several agencies at a time. You cannot submit the same text to all of them since the requirements usually differ. But the general proposal is a great way to visualize the estimated budget and timeline.

At this stage, you need to calculate how much your project will cost. For this purpose, prepare the timeline. It can include the following steps:

• Explanatory research and literature study.
• Fieldwork at a hospital or in the place where the studied social group resides.
• Data transcription and systematization.
• Analysis of the findings.
• Writing the draft paper.
• Approval and completion.

Once you are done with that, answer these questions and sum up the results regarding each timeline point:

• What are the transportation costs?
• What are the accommodation costs?
• Do you need extra money to pay for your living expenses?
• What will these be?
• Why did you opt for them?
• How much do they cost?
• Do they need to be qualified in the sphere of your study?
• Do you need random people to fill in questionnaires?
• Is there a possibility that these groups will help you for free?

Step 5. Organize Your Proposal

All grantors have specific requirements, but here is a sample outline of how to get funding for research projects. These sections are standard, and in most cases, the grantors will ask you to provide some additional information.

The general advice is to format the proposal to make it look professional and easy to read.

If it is long, include a table of contents and add page numbers.

Create a concise and clear title. Include your name and the names of any other co-authors. If you already know the institution and the faculty where you will conduct the research, indicate them. We also recommend that you specify the project’s start and end dates (see your timeline).

You can include the name and address of the grantor who will receive your proposal. Some funding agencies request that applicants provide the authorizing signatures of their university personnel on the title page. In all cases, follow the instructions given by the potential grantor.

An abstract is where you make the first (and last) impression. Before making the final decision on who receives the award, reviewers reread the abstracts of the shortlisted applicants.

Write this section in the future tense , stating the purpose, milestones, goals, methods, research design, and rationale.

Introduction

Here you should state the problem that your research will tackle.

List the goals of the project and highlight its importance for science and the public in general.

Roughly speaking, an introduction is a detailed version of your abstract . It has the same structure but provides deeper insight into what your project is about.

Be sure to describe the background of the problem and establish the research relevance. It is a good idea to specify any unique methodologies you plan to apply to make your proposal stand out among others. However, remember that an introduction is not the project narrative. Leave all the details for the main body.

Literature Review

In this section, you should show the reviewers that you have done your homework. Make your literature review selective and brief : you should not repeat everything you have read on the topic. In addition, be critical and highlight the drawbacks and the strong points of the pertinent works.

Project Description

This section is the central and longest part of your paper.

It comprises the procedures, methodology , objectives, findings, evaluation, and conclusion.

Divide it into subsections, and be sure to list them in the table of contents.

Foresee the reviewers’ questions and answer them here. If you will use a non-typical research method for the discipline, explain your choice. Or, if you plan to visit a foreign library and are requesting funds for your trip, specify which documents you expect to find there.

Budget Justification

Budget justification contains two categories of expenses: personnel-related and performance-related . If you are the only person working on the project, skip the first part. But if you need skilled researchers to assist you, describe the desired qualifications and the skills they should possess. Add the CVs of the people you have already found to the proposal folio.

If there is very little data, the performance-related budget can usually appear in a table, but if the expense items are detailed and numerous, use a spreadsheet.

The general advice here is to be sincere. Always include a total budget and never hide any future costs.

The worst scenario is that you would have to suspend your project due to a lack of funds. The same advice is valid when the proposed grant amount is smaller than you need. The funding agency can provide money for some part of the project, and you might be able to apply for additional funding from the same agency or a different one later on.

Step 6. Revise It

We strongly recommend that you submit your research proposal for revision to your professor or any other person specializing in the topic in question. But before doing that, look over it several times.

• Is it easy to read?
• Are there logical connections between the sections?
• Are the language and style formal and academic?

As with any paper, you should check it for plagiarism, typos, and grammatical errors.

🏆 Applying for a Research Grant: 7 Tips

In this section, you’ll find a list of tips for those who wish to make a winning research proposal. Hope they’ll be useful!

• Be modest but straightforward in your request . Research grants for students, and undergraduates, in particular, rarely offer much financial support. Never overstate the amount you need. Requesting too much money is the most frequent reason for proposal rejection.
• Find a professor whose sphere of interest coincides with the topic of your intended research. Cooperating with peers can be helpful, but they often have conflicts of interest. Working under the supervision of a professor can eliminate that problem. Even more importantly, the advice of a qualified and experienced researcher is priceless. This person has walked in your shoes many times before. Besides, the result of supervised research can be an excellent framework to start a publication process in a reputed edition. It is possible even if you are a student, provided that the professor who helps you is a renowned expert with status and influence.
• Determine what you are asking for in the grant. Do you approach it as a payment for your time or your trip to South Africa? Do you plan to visit the most distinguished libraries in Europe, and if yes, what for? Reviewers are experienced in detecting applicants who have no specific plan. These are always rejected.
• Write only what you are asked to write. You can be tempted to include all the information you have in the final version of the proposal. But grantors usually provide detailed instruction on what proposals should and should not include. Always follow their guidelines.
• Never shy away from asking questions. If something is unclear, you can always request explanations from the granting entity. This will show your interest and initiative.
• Ask non-specialists to read your proposal. The paper should be clear to anyone who reads it. Be sure to ask people outside your field to review your paper as well.
• If you fail, try again. You can apply again to the same grantor you’ve already applied to. You can resend your proposal when the grant is open the following year. Always learn from your mistakes and correct whatever needs improvement.

In this section, we’ve collected the 5 most common mistakes made even by experienced researchers when applying for grants.

• Soaring ambitions. Critically evaluate what you can manage within the stated timeframe and budget. It is almost impossible to suggest an innovation that will impact all of humanity in several months.
• High-browed explanations. Yes, the revision committee consists of professionals in their fields, but they may not specialize in your sphere of interest. Thus, they might misunderstand some of your reasoning. Imagine you are explaining the significance of your project to your grandmother. Make your speech formal, add essential details, and write the same thing in the proposal.
• Inadequacy of the research to your academic level. Are you competent enough?No, we’re not questioning your abilities, but the granting board will. The issues you mention in your proposal should match your academic level. Besides, nobody will prevent you from continuing your research on more complicated issues when you get your Ph.D.
• Lack of experts in your team. Does your team have all the required experts? Quantitative research presupposes that one of the members of your team has sufficient knowledge of statistics. If you plan fieldwork at hospitals, you will need a clinical trialist . If no one on your team has the skills required for the project, it may be necessary to hire such a person. Don’t forget to add their salary to the budget.
• No plan B. A good research proposal shows the reviewers that you have a plan B (and, sometimes, even plan C). Show them that you are aware of probable pitfalls and negative scenarios and that you know how to handle them.

🌐 Where to Search for Funding? A List of 39 Sources

We know it’s quite daunting and stressful to look for ways to resolve financial issues surrounding your research project.

The list below comprises 39 potential grantors, categorized by disciplines. All the grants are current as of 2023.

We hope this list will save you time and effort that you can dedicate to more creative things.

Multidisciplinary

This category lists funding organizations and databases of grants that cover a wide range of disciplines. Note that some of the resources here are available only through a paid subscription.

1. Grants.gov

This free database lists all the currently available or forecasted grants from 26 institutions of the US government. They comprise the Environmental Protection Agency, USAID, National Science Foundation, Department of Health and Human Services, and many other agencies.

In other words, the website provides access to the most prominent public funders of research in all disciplines.

The website has a mobile app , which is very convenient to check for new grant openings.

2. CRDF Global

CDRF Global aims to support global entrepreneurship and civilian-oriented research. The non-profit organization is eager to fund projects to make our world more “healthy, safe, and sustainable.”

In particular, it is interested in the research of nuclear, chemical, and biological security, technological innovations, public health, and adjacent disciplines.

However, they do not fund unsolicited proposals, projects related to children (up to secondary-school age), or fundraising initiatives. No subscription is required.

3. FDO (Foundation Directory Online)

Only 10% of US foundations have websites. Where can you find information about the funding opportunities for the remaining 90%?

The Foundation Directory online hosts data from all 239,000 foundations in the United States.

Access to the database is available by paid subscription . Its search results include the number of grants and the funded amount according to the search criteria.

4. NSF (National Science Foundation)

The NSF database provides free access to current funding opportunities. This independent federal agency funds 20% of all federally supported research conducted in American educational institutions.

Here you can look for grants related to engineering, math, physics, biology, geosciences, economy, sociology, and human resource development.

When this article was created, the NSF contained 609 funding opportunities .

5. GRC (Grant Resource Center)

GRC is a subsection of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities. Access to its database requires a paid institutional membership , meaning that only institutions can apply for grants listed here.

This could work for you if your project involves a group of peers and is supervised by your university staff. Approximately 1,500 private and federal grants are always listed there.

6. GrantForward

This service used to be hosted by the University of Illinois , but now it has moved to an independent website. The access is paid , but you can check out their 30-day trial version.

The resource is more user-friendly than an average funding database. You can create your profile as a researcher, save your previous search results, or listen to webinars and tutorials.

GrantForward has a separate section of grants dedicated to COVID-19 research.

7. Tinker Foundation

The Tinker Foundation supports research of all academic disciplines.

In order to apply, you must be studying for a Master’s or Ph.D. degree at a university in the United States.

In addition, the organization only funds field research in Latin America , specifically Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking countries. You’ll have a chance to use the grant money to cover field-related expenses and travel costs.

8. Fulbright

Fulbright offers four field-specific awards: the arts; business; journalism and communication; and STEM and public health.

Eligible students should study or carry out research projects at foreign universities in the 140 listed countries .

The requirements vary by country. In general, the application process for a Fulbright scholarship is rather complicated. It is better to consult a Fulbright Program Adviser at your university.

9. IFS Program

This non-commercial organization offers funds to scholars from developing countries .

It gives grants to individual researchers who focus on the relevant or innovative spheres of local or national development.

Donors and collaborating organizations finance the program. This means that the eligibility criteria are grant-specific.

10. GrantWatch

GrantWatch is a multidisciplinary search base available by subscription. It features national and international scholarships for college students of the arts, journalism, science, history, and other disciplines.

The resource also has grant openings for senior citizens, refugees, immigrants, veterans, and out-of-school youth. You can check if the website meets your needs through the trial version.

Biology & Medicine

If you study biology or medicine, you will surely find a funding source in one of the ten resources below. Some of the websites listed here provide grants to specific subject areas, while others fund more general research.

11. NIH Grants

NIH is looking for research proposals of high scientific caliber in the sphere of public health . It frequently identifies priority areas and announces funding opportunities and requests for applications.

Note that the organization welcomes unsolicited proposals that fall within its targeted announcements as well. And if another organization funds your project, NIH will support it as well.

12. AACR Research Funding

Since 1993, AACR has funded the research of more than 890 scientists with $480 million .

It cooperates with over 70 partners to fund domestic and foreign researchers at any career stage to detect, prevent, and cure cancer.

Your institution will receive the grant money in installments. AACR can approve significant changes in your project’s budget during the course of its performance.

13. AHA Research Programs

AHA stands for American Heart Association . It is the largest research funder in the sphere of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases after the US government. All academic and health professionals are eligible for AHA awards.

The possible disciplines comprise biology, mathematics, physics, chemistry, technology, engineering, and many others.

The organization offers funds to young and established professionals. They also provide some opportunities to undergraduate students who are considering research careers.

14. NCI Grants

NCI is an NIH subdivision that supports cancer investigation . It also funds research on COVID-19, translations of promising research areas, biostatistics, nanotechnology, and other special initiatives.

There are always open project announcements on cancer-specific research problems.

The eligibility criteria are broad, comprising all underrepresented groups of people, ethnic minorities, and individuals with disabilities.

15. MDA Grants

Muscular Dystrophy Association provides grants to advance science and generate new ideas for potential drug therapy.

Twice a year, its advisory committee looks through the projects initiated by neuromuscular researchers. It selects the best applications and approves their funding.

MDA is dedicated to finding cures for ALS , muscular dystrophy , and other muscle-debilitating diseases.

16. IDSA Foundation

The Infectious Diseases Society of America promotes excellence in education, patient care, public health, and prevention with respect to infectious diseases . It offers many awards to healthcare professionals.

Some of the grants support clinical teachers of medical students. There is also an award given in recognition of an outstanding discovery in the sphere of infectious diseases.

17. ATA Association

American Thyroid Association strives to find more efficient ways to diagnose and treat thyroid diseases . Since its establishment, ATA has funded 105 research grants for $2.8 million .

Both US and international scholars are invited to apply. New calls for applications are opened once a year.

For this reason, if your research is related to thyroid diseases, you should check this website for updates.

18. Alzheimer’s Association

As is clear from its name, this group supports Alzheimer’s research. Since its creation in 1982, it has invested over $250 million in 750 projects in 39 countries.

The grants are given to scholars of all professional levels, including young scientists.

19. Pfizer GMG

Pfizer supports global independent initiatives aiming to improve patient outcomes in areas with unmet medical needs (i.e., insufficient or limited treatment facilities and medication).

There is a grant for continuing medical education at accredited or non-accredited initiatives. It also supports independent efforts in teaching, research, and quality improvement related to COVID-19 prevention measures.

20. HFSP Funding

The Human Frontier Science Program provides funds for innovative and interdisciplinary approaches to fundamental biological problems.

Scientists from disciplines outside the life sciences (chemistry, biophysics, engineering, computer science, physics, etc.) are highly welcome to apply.

To be eligible, you should belong to a team of scholars who want to collaborate in resolving problems that cannot be tackled in individual laboratories. There are no limitations for the country of residence .

21. AAID Foundation

The American Academy of Implant Dentistry offers grant funding for innovative projects in implant dentistry practice.

All post-graduate dental students and investigators can apply for grants up to $2,500.

The awards are given once a year. Besides, the AAID Foundation provides the additional $500 for travel expenses to AAID Annual Conference to all the award winners.

Science & Technology

The six resources below mainly offer grants for innovations and research in the sphere of technology. Still, if you are a scholar of natural sciences, you can also find some funding opportunities here.

22. AWS Grants

Amazon Web Services provide funding for research in the fields of cloud storage and open data. Students, scholars, and other groups of researchers are welcome to apply for their grants. Note that existing and established research projects are of less interest to AWS.

Only scholars from officially accredited institutions can apply.

You will have to explain how your innovation can be combined with the AWS functionality.

23. UKRI Opportunities

To be eligible, you should be a UK citizen or a foreign scholar cooperating with a UK citizen in your research.

The website has convenient search options by the opening and closing date. A separate section is dedicated to COVID-19 research. Most grants and fellowships are designed to support technological innovations, but some are dedicated to languages and humanities.

24. Charles Koch Foundation

In partnership with social entrepreneurs, the foundation supports research initiatives across various disciplines. Their mission is to eliminate the barriers that prevent people from realizing their highest potential.

Charles Koch Foundation funds the projects carried out by students, non-profit leaders, or administrators.

Although they accept proposals for a select number of issues, any researchers aspiring for social change can apply for funding.

25. STMD (Space Tech Research Grants)

This organization supports the development of space technologies for the needs of NASA and other government and commercial agencies. We recommend all interested students explore its graduate research opportunities .

Master’s and doctoral students can apply for the awards, provided that they pursue their degrees at accredited US universities.

Grant winners will be matched with NASA Subject Matter Experts as their research collaborators.

26. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation

The foundation gives grants to education and research in technology , engineering , economics , and mathematics . If you want to apply for a grant as an individual, you should be a member of their Books program .

Awards in creative and performing arts are also possible, but only when they educate the public about technology, science, or economics.

27. The Geological Society of America

This global professional society unites more than 20,000 earth science researchers in over 100 countries. It provides research grants to graduate and undergraduate students.

You can also apply for travel grants to attend national and international geological conferences. There is a broad choice of specialized awards for undergraduate students.

Education research is a multidisciplinary field that requires the involvement of many other specialists (statisticians, psychologists, sociologists, etc.). The four organizations below support such initiatives.

28. IES Funding Opportunities

The Institute of Education Sciences is the research, evaluation, and statistics subdivision of the US Department of Education .

Its principal interest lies in the study of educational technologies.

Note that you should submit all grant applications through the federal grants website . Successful application requires registration in various government systems which may take up to several weeks.

The American Educational Research Association offers research grants of up to $35,000 for up to 2 years. The prize money can be used for research-related expenses, computer equipment, travel expenses for scholarly conferences, etc.

The awards are intended for doctoral-level researchers in STEM, educational development, contextual factors in education, and other specific aspects.

Applicants should be US citizens or permanent residents, but non-US citizens affiliated with a US university may also apply.

30. Spencer Foundation

The philosophy of this organization dictates that researchers know which issues require additional investigation. For this reason, Spencer Foundation never announces specific requests for research proposals.

Its area of interest lies within policy-making and educational discourse . The agency provides funding to scholars who want to organize small research conferences or symposia, among other grants.

31. William T. Grant Foundation

The website contains a small grant database in the field of education research and development of young people. You can browse the award opportunities by keywords.

Currently, they mostly fund programs that reduce inequalities in youth outcomes . The foundation is also interested in projects investigating how practitioners and policymakers acquire and interpret research evidence.

Social Sciences, Arts, Humanities

Below you can find eight funding organizations that specialize in humanities, arts, and social sciences. If these do not suffice, check Fulbright (No. 8), GrantWatch (No. 10), and Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (No. 26), as they also have some options for these disciplines.

32. NEH Funding Opportunities

The National Endowment for the Humanities offers a variety of funding opportunities to individuals and organizations to promote the humanities.

The agency also features many unique grants for book publishing, scholarly translations, academic editions, documenting endangered languages, etc.

Digital humanities are one of their central areas of interest.

33. APSA Grants

The American Political Science Association offers grants, scholarships, and other types of funding to support research in political science. The organization has existed since 1903 and comprises over 11,000 members in 100 countries.

Projects that intend to deepen the scholarly understanding of democracy, politics, and citizenship worldwide are welcome to apply.

APSA also hosts grant openings published by outside organizations.

34. APF Grants

The American Psychological Foundation is a grant-making agency that supports graduate students and young psychology professionals at the beginning of their careers.

The fund offers grants in specific research areas: preventing violence, stigma, and prejudice; child psychology; applied psychology for vulnerable groups of people; mental illnesses; and reproductive behavior.

The grant money ranges from $300 for travel expenses to $25,000 for fellowships.

35. SPSSI Awards

The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues funds graduates and scholars in their research in the social sciences . The grant requirements are rather broad.

If you are a scholar of any social science, you will probably find a couple of calls for applications that should apply to your project. The organization does not offer any scholarships or tuition support.

36. ASH Foundation

The American Speech-Language-Hearing Foundation provides graduate and post-graduate student grants. The amount ranges from $2,000 to $75,000 , depending on the studied issues and program duration. Doctoral students are eligible for most openings.

Scholars and clinicians are expected to transform the field of communication sciences, “spark innovations,” and improve human lives.

37. UFVA Student Grants

The University of Film and Video Association calls for grant applications from graduate and undergraduate students.

It aims to help those who study media, film, and related fields.

Only already-enrolled students are eligible. The participants should demonstrate exceptional creative and technical ability, high academic achievements, and some filmmaking experience. About $11,000 is awarded annually to students of member institutions.

38. RSF Research

The Russel Sage Foundation supports research projects in the theory, methods, and data of social sciences . Before applying, you should send them a letter of inquiry . If you are among the 15% of all participants that are approved, they will evaluate your idea and request your research proposal.

The RSF expects you to describe the pre-tested survey instruments, research design, and preliminary data analyses in the letter of inquiry.

39. E.C. Harwood Research Fellowships

The American Institute for Economic Research offers paid economic fellowship to post-graduate and doctoral students.

The fields of interest comprise economics, political science, law, philosophy, and history, but other disciplines are also considered.

The fellowship covers a $250/week living stipend and travel costs (if the stay lasts over ten weeks). You can apply to stay and conduct research at the campus in Great Barrington, MA , for 2 to 12 weeks.

We hope that you have found the answers to all your questions in this guide about how to get funding for your research projects. The list of the research funding sources is very thorough, and you are sure to find an agency that will be interested in your proposal. You are welcome to share your experiences in applying for grants below. And your know-how on how to win an award will be highly appreciated in the comments.

🔗 References

• Applying for Grants | Community Tool Box
• How to Get Going on a Grant Application – dummies
• Planning and Writing a Grant Proposal: The Basics
• Secrets to writing a winning grant – Nature
• Grant Proposals (or Give me the money!) – UNC Writing Center
• Writing a Research Proposal – Organizing Your Social Sciences
• Share via Facebook
• Share via Twitter
• Share via LinkedIn
• Share via email

how can I get fund for my scholarship?

Thank you for this article. It opens for me many tips for looking for research funding.

Thanks for the feedback, Alain! Your opinion is very important for us!

Fund Your Project

Main navigation.

After you have focused your interests into a feasible project topic and started working with the right faculty mentor, you might identify some key resources that will enable your project to get off the ground.

Not every project requires funding, but nearly every kind of research, arts, and senior synthesis project can take advantage of one or more of the following funding opportunities. Grants are used for travel, supplies, and stipends depending on the project's needs. Department and Faculty Grants are good starting points for students just getting into research or looking to explore a new field. Student Grants are intended to support more independent scholarship designed primarily by the student, with the guidance of a faculty mentor.

Grant Types and Information

Explore student grants.

Grants offered directly to students who have designed an independent arts, research, or senior synthesis project in collaboration with their faculty mentors

Explore Departmental Funding

Funding offered by departments, interdisciplinary programs, and research centers to support introductory project experiences

Learn About Faculty Funding

Funding offered by individual faculty who have designed projects that introduce students to the methods of scholarship in a particular discipline

Other Funding

Grants and opportunities managed by other offices around campus

Need help with your independent project?

All students should  schedule a meeting with their Undergraduate Advising Director (UAD)  as they write their proposal. UADs are well-versed with all VPUE Undergraduate Research grants.

For further assistance, email:  [email protected]

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Our Research

Pursuing Health Breakthroughs

The Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) provides research funding to build high-payoff capabilities or platforms to drive biomedical breakthroughs – ranging from the molecular to societal – that will provide transformative solutions for all individuals. The focus areas below illustrate the types of work and impact that ARPA-H may pursue as it hires its first Program Managers.

Focus Areas

Health science futures, expanding what’s technically possible.

Accelerating advances across research areas and removing limitations that stymie progress towards solutions. The tools and platforms developed apply to a broad range of diseases.

Scalable Solutions

Reaching everyone quickly.

Addressing challenges that include geography, distribution, manufacturing, data and information, and economies of scale to create programs that result in impactful, timely, and equitable solutions.

Proactive Health

Keeping people from being patients.

Reducing the likelihood that people become patients. Preventative programs will create new capabilities to detect and characterize disease risk and promote treatments and behaviors to anticipate threats to Americans’ health, whether those are viral, bacterial, chemical, physical, or psychological.

Resilient Systems

Building integrated health care systems.

Developing capabilities, business models, and integrations to endure crises such as pandemics, social disruption, and economic instability. Resilient systems need to sustain themselves between crises – from the molecular to the societal – to better achieve outcomes that advance American health and wellbeing.

• About Grants
• Grants Basics
• Types of Grant Programs

NIH Research Project Grant Program (R01)

Introduction.

The Research Project Grant (R01) is the original and historically oldest grant mechanism used by NIH. The R01 provides support for health-related research and development based on the mission of the NIH. R01s can be investigator-initiated or can be solicited via a  Request for Applications . This website is devoted to the investigator-initiated R01 application, which means there are no specific program requirements. However, the R01 research plan proposed by the applicant must be related to the stated program interests of one or more of the NIH Institutes and Centers based on their missions.

The Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT) website provides information about research grants including the number of funded new and competing R01s, average award dollars and characteristics of research project grants.

Definition of an R01

The Research Project (R01) grant is an award made to support a discrete, specified, circumscribed project to be performed by the named investigator(s) in an area representing the investigator's specific interest and competencies, based on the mission of the NIH .

The NIH is comprised of Institutes and Centers that support specific areas of health-related research and almost all Institutes and Centers at the NIH fund R01 grants. Research grant applications are assigned to an Institute or Center based on receipt and referral guidelines, and many applications are assigned to multiple Institutes and Centers as interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research is encouraged.

Allowable Costs

• Salary and fringe benefits for Principal Investigator, key personnel, and other essential personnel
• Equipment and supplies
• Consultant costs
• Alterations and renovations
• Publications and miscellaneous costs
• Contract services
• Consortium costs
• Facilities and Administrative costs (indirect costs)
• Travel expenses

Application Characteristics

• As a general rule, R01 application  budgets are not limited  but need to reflect the actual needs of the proposed project. However, R01s can be limited in a specific funding opportunity, so it is important that applicants note any budgetary limits indicated in Part 2. Section 2. Award Budget of the funding opportunity. NIH's Modular Budget Policy applies to R01 applications submitted by domestic institutions. 
• Applications are generally awarded for 1 - 5 budget periods, each normally 12 months in duration.
• Applications can be renewed by competing for an additional project period.

Applicants may find it helpful to seek advice from their grants administrators and experienced investigators. Some IC sites provide annotated sample applications and related documents (see Samples: Applications, Attachments, and other Documents ).

Due Dates The Key Dates section of funding opportunities list specific due dates or refer to our Standard Due Dates schedule.

R01 Standard Due Dates

• New grant applications: February 5, June 5, and October 5
• Renewal, resubmission, and revision grant applications: March 5, July 5, and November 5
• AIDS and AIDS-related grant applications: May 7, September 7, and January 7. 

Standard receipt dates are February 1, June 1, and October 1. Receipt, review and award cycle schedules are posted on: /grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm .

R01 Participating Institutes, Centers and Offices

Most NIH Institutes and Centers support the R01 grant mechanism. In addition, the following NIH Offices of the Director do not accept applications, but do provide funding for investigator-initiated R01 applications:

• Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (OBSSR)
• Office of Disease Prevention (ODP)
• Office of Dietary Supplements (ODS)
• Office of Research on Women's Health (ORWH)

Active Funding Opportunities

• NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts search results for active R01 opportunities

This page last updated on: December 8, 2022

• Bookmark & Share
• E-mail Updates
• Help Downloading Files
• Privacy Notice
• Accessibility
• National Institutes of Health (NIH), 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland 20892
• NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health

Research Funding Principles and Priorities

Research funding principles.

• We prioritize research that advances the Society’s strategic plan, with a focus on stopping the disease in its tracks, restoring what has been lost, and ending MS forever through a cure for all forms of MS.
• We maintain a diverse research portfolio that includes short- and long-term investments, balances risks and rewards, and funds research globally.
• We balance investments in research initiated by individual investigators with investments in Society-directed research, all focused on bridging knowledge gaps, seizing opportunities and addressing research priorities.
• We promote synergies between researchers in diverse disciplines, and develop strategic partnerships to accelerate progress.
• We invest in all types of research including: laboratory models, human studies, population-based approaches, and data-intensive investigations that leverage both researcher and patient reported outcomes.
• We support the full spectrum of basic, translational, and clinical research. We also strive to break down barriers to commercial development to ensure that new treatments and wellness approaches are available as quickly as possible.
• We use independent experts to ensure that each research proposal receives a fair, competent and objective assessment of its scientific merit, relevance to MS, relevance to the MS community, and alignment with the Society’s research priorities.
• We attract and support new investigators to foster a robust future workforce focused on finding solutions for MS.
• We expect Society-funded researchers to adhere to rigorous experimental methods and reporting practices.
• We believe that sharing data and resources enhances research and speeds scientific discovery. Data and resources developed through Society-sponsored research will be made available to other researchers after publication in an expeditious manner.

Research Priorities: Pathways to Multiple Sclerosis Cures

• Biomarkers/Screening tools that identify MS in its earliest stages with enough confidence to initiate interventions
• Biological processes driving early MS compared to later stages of disease
• Understanding the heterogeneity of pre-symptom phases of MS in diverse populations
• Biomarkers of prognosis and therapeutic response in individuals
• Pathways driving non-lesional pathology/neurodegeneration involved in progressive stages of disease
• New molecular targets and therapeutic approaches for neuroprotection
• Interventions that target the earliest disease-causing pathways
• Understanding the roles of aging, sex, ethnicity, race, and genetics in MS pathology and response to therapies
• Physiological mechanisms, molecular targets and therapeutic approaches to promote myelin and neural repair
• Clear understanding of the functional heterogeneity of cells involved in repair
• Better physiologic, fluid biomarkers, imaging, and functional measures for earlier readouts of remyelination, reversal of tissue damage, and functional recovery
• Understanding of the roles of aging, sex, ethnicity, race, and genetics in tissue restoration
• Better animal models to study repair
• Understanding how rehabilitation and exercise impact the central nervous system and the extent that they can facilitate CNS repair processes
• Sensitive, valid, and clinically meaningful measures of disability and tools that establish measurable relationships between physiologic findings and meaningful recovery of function
• Sufficiently powered intervention studies that incorporate endpoints focused on type and dose parameters, targeting (including, but not limited to) cognitive or motor rehabilitation, resilience, diet, exercise, electrical stimulation, pain, fatigue, depression, anxiety, and bladder impairment
• Outcome measures, biologic, behavioral or technology driven that can be used to individually tailor interventions
• Innovative approaches that translate research findings to clinical practice and daily disease management
• Identify all relevant risk factors for MS, windows of risk, and determine whether any risk factor is necessary and sufficient to cause disease
• Understanding the contributions of genetic/epigenetic factors and environmental interactions to MS risk
• Understanding the roles of sex, ethnicity, and race with MS risk
• Understanding the early pathological pathways/events that lead to the initiation of MS
• Screening tools that identify MS in its earliest stages with enough confidence to trigger intervention
• Discovery of biomarkers that detect early MS before symptoms appear
• Interventions that target the earliest disease-causing pathways and the ability to determine which treatment will work for which person

Our websites may use cookies to personalize and enhance your experience. By continuing without changing your cookie settings, you agree to this collection. For more information, please see our University Websites Privacy Notice .

UConn Today

• School and College News
• Arts & Culture
• Community Impact
• Entrepreneurship
• Health & Well-Being
• Research & Discovery
• UConn Health
• University Life
• UConn Voices
• University News

April 25, 2024 | Matt Engelhardt

DOE Grants Fund Collaborative Clean Energy Projects

UConn is one of dozens of beneficiaries in funding program to bolster research into hydrogen energy and related projects

Researchers from the Center for Clean Energy Engineering are conducting collaborative projects funded by the federal Department of Energy.

UConn is a partner in three important projects with industry that have been selected to receive significant federal funding as the Department of Energy (DOE) seeks to advance hydrogen energy technology.

In March, the DOE announced $750 million in funding for 52 projects nationwide, many of them pairing university research with industrial production. The funding is the first phase of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which authorizes $1.5 billion for clean energy projects and aims to create thousands of new jobs. Additionally, the selected projects will provide support to 32 disadvantaged communities across the country.

“Clean energy technology presents so many opportunities for our state and country,” says Pamir Alpay, UConn’s vice president for research, innovation, and entrepreneurship. “Beyond the critical importance of producing clean, renewable energy that mitigates the impact of climate change, the industry’s growth brings with it excellent employment opportunities and the chance to establish Connecticut as a leader in the field.”

UConn faculty are directly involved with three of the funded projects, each relating to electolyzers – devices utilized to split water atoms into hydrogen and oxygen, allowing generation of green hydrogen as a clean energy carrier and a carbon-free feedstock for a number of industrial processes. The work continues a legacy of University researchers collaborating with private and public entities to advance fuel cell technology.

“This is the largest hydrogen program ever to come out of the Department of Energy,” says Jasna Jankovic, an associate professor of Materials Science and Engineering and Center for Clean Energy Engineering (C2E2), and one the primary investigators being funded. “This is really a huge moment in the story of clean energy and we are very happy to be selected with our collaborators to continue our work.”

Jankovic is involved in two of the projects as the UConn PI. She and co-PI Qian Yang, Assistant Professor in the School of Computing, are collaborating with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and Plug Power Inc., the lead of the project, on gigawatt-scale electolyzer component manufacturing and assembly, a project receiving $45.7 million in total funding. UConn will receive approximately $1.9 million of that funding.

Associate research professor for the UConn C2E2 Stoyan Bliznakov is a co-P.I. with Jankovic on a second manufacturing project. They are working with the Farmington-based Mott Corporation on advanced porous transport layer design and manufacturing for electrolyzers. UConn’s portion of the $10 million grant is approximately $2.1 million.

C2E2 and UConn researchers, PI Xiao-Dong Zhou and Co-PIs S. Bliznakov, S. Santos, Y. Wang, and N. Xu, are beneficiaries of the third grant, led by NexTech (d.b.a. Nexceris), funding work on scaleup and demonstration of high temperature electrolysis technology. Collaborators include Georgia Tech, the Idaho National Laboratory, Clark Atlanta University, and Florida A&M. Of the $30 million for the project, UConn will receive close to $1.7 million.

According to C2E2 Director Xiao-Dong Zhou, UConn’s role will continue to build understanding of best techniques to manufacture fuel cells. The industry collaborations allow researchers to understand scaling through the interpretation of system-level data.

“In many ways, producing hydrogen focuses in green energy by using water as the source,” Zhou says. “Dr. Jankovic and her team are focused on the low-temperature side of things. Other members are working on hydrogen sourcing. UConn has expertise and experience in both areas.”

UConn’s research and interest in clean energy technology runs deep. President Radenka Maric – herself a world-renowned researcher and expert in clean energy – has declared climate change as one of the most critical issues facing the world.

“These projects support the initiatives that President Maric lay the foundation for and will contribute to our recognition as leaders,” Jankovic says.

The DOE estimates that the awarded projects will create 1,500 new jobs and reduce the cost of clean energy production. Thousands of additional jobs will support regional economic activity as communities grow the industry.

Stephany Santos, UConn’s executive director of the Vergnano Institute for Inclusion, is pleased with the DOE’s mission to support underserved communities. She says that the process of generation clean energy can sometimes have “dirty” side effects, notably the sources of materials used.

“We are supporting communities that have historically been marginalized,” Santos says. “We are ensuring that those involved are not being exploited and that resources are cleanly sourced.”

At UConn, the projects are creating invaluable opportunities for students to learn from top faculty, as well as contribute to research. Fullbright Scholar Mariah Batool, a Ph.D. candidate in Materials Science, who will work as a postdoctoral fellow on the project with Plug Power, says she has been presented with a huge opportunity.

“It is allowing me to employ all my knowledge and expertise in a more practical approach to bringing forth clean energy advancement, not just only in the academic sense but also in practical and industrial spaces.”

Recent Articles

April 29, 2024

The Brain and Spine Institute Opens at UConn Health

Read the article

School of Pharmacy 2024 Commencement Speakers

The Powers of Positivity for the Best Patient Experience at UConn Health

• NIH Grants & Funding
• Blog Policies

NIH Extramural Nexus

Updated Analyses Suggest Continued Decline in Research Project Grant Funding Inequalities for NIH-Supported Investigators, but Organizational Inequalities Remain: FY 1998 to FY 2023

We previously showed in this January 2022 blog (based on this paper ) that the inequalities in the distribution of Research Project Grant (RPG) funding to principal investigators increased, especially at the top end of funding, during the NIH budget doubling and the first few years after the 2013 budget sequestration. The degree of inequality appeared to fall, however, after NIH implemented the Next Generation Researchers Initiative (NGRI) near the end of  FY2017. Here we present follow-up data that shows that the trends seen in recent years appear to be continuing in fiscal year (FY) 2023.

When reading this post, please keep in mind that, in general, NIH awards grants to institutions , not individual scientists. For simplicity here, we refer to PIs receiving awards, but understand this means the scientists designated by their institutions as Principal Investigators.

Measuring Inequality

Our previous post details how economists describe inequality, which we used for our analyses here. In brief:

• The “Top-proportion” allows us to track the percent of funds awarded to the top XX percent of investigators. For example, what percent of funds go to the top 1% of investigators. Were funds allocated uniformly, the top 1% of investigators would receive 1% of the funds. In an extremely unequal situation, the top 1% of investigators might receive over 50% of the funds.
• The “standard deviation of the log of funding (“SD-log”)”, by contrast, reflects more on the low and middle rungs of funding.
• The “Theil Index” is more sensitive to the higher rungs of funding, like the top-proportion approach. It enables us to explore inequalities between groups as well as those within groups.

Inequality of RPG Funding for Principal Investigators

As we saw previously, the percent of RPG funds going to the top 1% and top 10% of investigators increased during the NIH budget doubling and following the first years after budget increases following the FY2013 budget sequestration (Figure 1, panels A and B). After the announcement of NGRI late in FY2017 , however, the degree of inequality fell. We can see that in FY 2023 the percent of funds going to the top 1% of investigators dropped below FY2013 levels (Figure 1, panel B). The Theil index showed a similar trajectory (Figure 1, panel D). we did not see any clear trends in the SD-log (Figure 1, panel C), suggesting no changes seen for researchers at the lower or middle rungs of funding.

The FY 2023 data also demonstrate similar characteristics for the top 1% of funded investigators as seen before. They are more likely to be in late career stages (Panel A), male (Panel B), white (Panel C), hold an MD degree (Panel D), and supported by multiple RPG awards (see also Table 1).

Table 1: Investigator Characteristics According to Centile of Funding in Fiscal Year 2023. Values shown in parentheses are percentages for categorical variables and IQR for continuous variables. IQR = inter-quartile range. ND = not displayed due to small cell size.

Inequality Between and Within Groups

Next, we sought to understand if the inequalities seen were “within-group” or “between-group.” As a reminder from our prior post, we can consider height inequalities of athletes to conceptualize this concept. For instance, there is a great deal of “between-group” inequalities in the heights of jockeys and professional basketball players. On the other hand, we would primarily observe “within-group” inequalities if we focused on professional basketball players from either the east or west coast.

Focusing our attention back on NIH supported scientists categorized by career stage, we can use Theil index to assess these types of inequalities. A visual look at the distribution of funding for these PIs in FY 2023 shows the inequalities are primarily within- group for gender, race-ethnicity, and degree (Figure 2).

Organizational Inequalities

While investigator inequalities declined since FY2017 (Figure 1, panels A, B, and D), we saw an increase in organizational inequalities over the same time (Figure 3, Panels A, B, and D). The degree of organizational inequality was still lower in FY2023 than when it peaked in the late 2000s.

There were also between-group inequalities, with medical schools receiving substantially more funding than other kinds of institutions (Figure 4).

Our follow-up (FY 2023) analyses continue to show that investigator inequalities substantially declined since NGRI. However, organizational inequalities modestly increased during the same time. We will continue to follow these data to better understand how our programs and policies can help us reduce funding inequalities when possible.

RELATED NEWS

This was an exceptionally informative publication and we thank yo so very much. Our organization, which is quite small and receives a small 1.4 million dollar grant from NIH had to make a series of obscure hurdles in the submission process. With a single grants manager who serves other roles in our organization, the submission was wrought with possible single critical failures, as NASA would say, that would have tanked our months of work before it was able to be reviewed. As an example, after submitting our first proposal years ago, we had not received a confirmation and wondered what was wrong. After over an hour of calls, we were informed we had not had a “signing official signature”. Such things have improved, but there is so much more that could be done to ensure small institutions can compete with universities that had pre-approval grant managers that exceed the total employees of a the small institutions. I will not go into the details, but a very detailed seminar for small org submitters that includes small numbers of attendees to allow for many questions would be wonderful.

On another level, the review process, in which I have participated in multiple times. had a substantial improvement with the bias training recently instituted. My experience is that the readers give famous institutions with massive funding streams and seasoned PI’s, far more latitude and do not question the proposal on the same level they do for smaller institutions.

More access to program, managers/officers in the proposal process would help. They have been very helpful in ensuring we execute the grant to its best level.

How would the numbers change if awards funding clinical trials were excluded?

What is very clear, Hispanics are segregated and not supported by NIH funds, we are 60 million and get nothing from the NIH and elsewhere, no matter how well trained we are. So, latinas are the absolute worse in terms of support and all your talk about equality in ethnicity and female gender is just that bla, bla, bla. Also, worth mentioning MD and worse MD/PhD are not supported, the more training we have, the worse treatment in terms of reviews. I wonder why? So the combination of highly trained Latinas, highly productive, MD PhD is dismal, so stop talking about equal opportunity, there is no such thing. You get treated like trash,

Before submitting your comment, please review our blog comment policies.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

We're still accepting applications for fall 2024!

• Skip to content
• Skip to search
• Accessibility Policy
• Report an Accessibility Issue

Center for Global Health Equity awards funding to four transformative research projects

External article.

LISTING PAGE WILL REDIRECT TO THIS URL: https://globalhealthequity.umich.edu/news-events/news/cghe-announces-funding-awarded-four-transformative-research-projects

Michigan Public Health researchers involved in all four projects

March 4, 2024

• Biostatistics
• Health Behavior and Health Education

Recent Posts

• Distinguished alumnus pays it forward 60 years after Dean's generosity
• Justin Heinze tapped for National Academies committee to study active shooter drills' impact on student well-being
• Extreme risk protection order: What to know if needed
• Historic conversation on health equity, anti-racism highlights DEI symposium

What We’re Talking About

• Adolescent Health
• Air Quality
• Alternative Therapies
• Alumni News and Networking
• Child Health
• Chronic Disease
• Community Partnership
• Computational Epidemiology and Systems Modeling
• Disaster Relief
• Diversity Equity and Inclusion
• Engaged Learning
• Environmental Health
• Epidemiologic Science
• Epidemiology
• Epigenetics
• First Generation Students
• Food Policy
• Food Safety
• General Epidemiology
• Global Health Epidemiology
• Global Public Health
• Health Care
• Health Care Access
• Health Care Management
• Health Care Policy
• Health Communication
• Health Disparities
• Health Informatics
• Health for Men
• Health for Women
• Heart Disease
• Hospital Administration
• Hospital and Molecular Epidemiology
• Immigration
• Industrial Hygiene
• Infectious Disease
• Internships
• LGBT Health
• Maternal Health
• Mental Health
• Mobile Health
• Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology
• Pain Management
• Pharmaceuticals
• Precision Health
• Professional Development
• Reproductive Health
• Scholarships
• Sexual Health
• Social Epidemiology
• Social Media
• Student Organizations
• Urban Health
• Urban Planning
• Value-Based Care
• Water Quality
• What Is Public Health?

Information For

• Prospective Students
• Current Students
• Alumni and Donors
• Community Partners and Employers
• About Public Health
• How Do I Apply?
• Departments
• Findings magazine

Student Resources

• Career Development
• Certificates
• The Heights Intranet
• Update Contact Info
• Report Website Feedback

Welcome, Login to your account.

Recover your password.

A password will be e-mailed to you.

University Grants Commission: Research Funding and Projects

The University Grants Commission (UGC) is a regulatory body in India responsible for the coordination, determination, and maintenance of standards of university education. One significant aspect of its role is to provide financial support for research projects undertaken by universities across the country. This article aims to explore the UGC’s funding mechanisms and highlight some notable research projects that have received grants from this governing body.

For instance, imagine a scenario where a team of researchers at a prestigious Indian university seeks to investigate the impact of climate change on agricultural practices in rural communities. By securing funding from the UGC, these scholars would be able to conduct an extensive study using various methodologies such as data collection through surveys and interviews with farmers, analysis of historical weather patterns, and examination of relevant policy documents. Through the provision of funds, the UGC enables academic institutions and their faculty members to pursue innovative research initiatives that contribute towards knowledge creation and societal development.

Overall, understanding how the UGC allocates research grants and supports impactful projects is essential for comprehending the landscape of higher education in India. By examining specific case studies and analyzing key aspects of this process, readers can gain insights into not only how funding decisions are made but also how these investments contribute to advancing scientific knowledge, fostering interdisciplinary collaborations, and and promoting socio-economic development in the country.

The UGC has various funding mechanisms in place to support research projects. One such mechanism is the UGC Major Research Project (MRP) scheme, which provides financial assistance to universities and colleges for carrying out research in different disciplines. Under this scheme, researchers can submit proposals outlining their research objectives, methodologies, and expected outcomes. The UGC evaluates these proposals based on their academic merit, feasibility, and potential impact before deciding on the allocation of funds.

Additionally, the UGC also offers grants through its Special Assistance Programme (SAP). This program aims to promote excellence in research by providing long-term support to select departments or centers of universities that have demonstrated a high level of expertise and potential for further development. Through SAP grants, these departments can enhance their infrastructure, recruit talented faculty members, organize seminars and conferences, and conduct cutting-edge research in their respective fields.

Notable research projects that have received grants from the UGC encompass diverse areas of study. Some examples include studies on renewable energy technologies, public health interventions, cultural heritage preservation, artificial intelligence applications in education, environmental conservation strategies, and social justice initiatives. These projects not only contribute to expanding knowledge in their respective domains but also address critical societal challenges faced by India and beyond.

In conclusion, the UGC plays a crucial role in supporting research endeavors at Indian universities through its funding mechanisms. By allocating grants to deserving projects across various disciplines, the UGC promotes innovation, collaboration among academics and institutions nationwide while fostering socioeconomic progress. Understanding how this process works helps shed light on the significance of research funding in higher education and its broader impact on society as a whole.

Background of the University Grants Commission

The University Grants Commission (UGC) is a statutory body established in 1956 by an Act of Parliament in India. Its primary objective is to promote and coordinate higher education across the country. The UGC plays a crucial role in facilitating research funding and projects for universities and colleges, ensuring that they receive adequate financial support to advance knowledge through innovative research activities.

To understand the significance of the UGC’s role, let us consider a hypothetical case study. Imagine a university with limited resources aiming to conduct groundbreaking research on renewable energy sources. Without external funding, this university would face significant challenges in carrying out such ambitious projects. However, thanks to organizations like the UGC, institutions can access vital funds needed to pursue scientific advancements that benefit society as a whole.

The UGC provides multiple avenues for institutions to secure research funding. It offers grants specifically designed to encourage interdisciplinary collaborations and partnerships between different universities and institutes within India. These grants foster exchange programs, workshops, and conferences where researchers can share ideas and work together towards common goals.

Through its various funding schemes, including major research projects and minor research projects, the UGC ensures that both well-established universities and smaller institutions have equal opportunities to contribute meaningfully to academic progress. This commitment promotes inclusivity and encourages diversity in research initiatives undertaken nationwide.

In addition to financial assistance, the UGC acts as an intermediary between academic institutions and government bodies or private organizations interested in supporting educational endeavors. By establishing connections between researchers and potential sponsors or donors, the UGC helps bridge gaps in resources while fostering collaboration among stakeholders involved in driving innovation forward.

Moving forward into our discussion about the Role of the University Grants Commission in Higher Education, it becomes evident how this regulatory body serves not only as a source of funding but also as a catalyst for transformative change within India’s academic landscape.

Role of the University Grants Commission in Higher Education

Having understood the background of the University Grants Commission (UGC) and its pivotal role in higher education, it is now essential to delve into the funding mechanisms and projects initiated by this regulatory body. To illustrate how research grants are utilized effectively, let us examine a hypothetical case study involving a university seeking UGC funding for a groundbreaking project.

Case Study: The University of Science and Technology (UST) has proposed a research project focused on developing sustainable energy solutions using renewable resources. Recognizing the potential impact of such an endeavor, UST submitted an application for UGC funding. This serves as an example to highlight the process and implications associated with research funding provided by the UGC.

• Extensive financial support that enables universities to undertake innovative research.
• Encouragement for interdisciplinary collaborations among researchers from diverse fields.
• Promotion of knowledge transfer through partnerships with industries and other academic institutions.
• Facilitation of international networking opportunities for researchers to enhance global collaboration.

Table 1 showcases some key statistics related to UGC-funded research projects over recent years. These numbers provide insight into the tangible outcomes achieved through these initiatives, evoking both admiration and inspiration among stakeholders:

In summary, the UGC plays a crucial role in funding research projects that have far-reaching implications for academia and society. By providing substantial financial support and fostering collaborative endeavors, the UGC empowers universities to address pressing challenges through innovative solutions. As we delve further into this topic, let us now explore the various types of research projects funded by the University Grants Commission.

With an understanding of the funding mechanisms employed by the UGC, it is imperative to analyze the different types of research projects undertaken with their support. This exploration will shed light on how diverse fields and disciplines contribute to knowledge generation under the auspices of the UGC.

Types of Research Projects funded by the University Grants Commission

Role of the University Grants Commission in Higher Education In the previous section, we explored the significant role played by the University Grants Commission (UGC) in higher education. Now, let us delve into the various types of research projects funded by the UGC.

Types of Research Projects Funded by the University Grants Commission To better understand the scope and impact of UGC-funded research projects, consider a hypothetical example involving an interdisciplinary study on climate change. This project brings together researchers from different fields such as environmental science, economics, and sociology to investigate the socio-economic implications of climate change mitigation strategies. By examining factors like policy effectiveness, economic viability, and social acceptability, this study aims to provide valuable insights for policymakers and stakeholders.

The UGC funds a wide range of research projects across diverse disciplines. Here are some key areas where research funding is allocated:

• Scientific Research: The UGC supports cutting-edge scientific studies that contribute to advancements in fields such as physics, chemistry, biology, and engineering.
• Social Sciences: Research initiatives focusing on societal issues like poverty alleviation, gender equality, urban development, and cultural heritage preservation receive substantial funding.
• Humanities: Scholars engaged in linguistics, literature, philosophy, history, archaeology, and other humanities subjects benefit from UGC grants to deepen our understanding of human culture and society.
• Applied Research: The commission actively encourages applied research in areas such as agriculture technology, healthcare innovations, renewable energy solutions, and information technology.

Furthermore,a table depicting statistics related to UGC-funded research can evoke an emotional response:

These numbers highlight the UGC’s commitment to fostering research and development in higher education institutions across the country, providing a significant boost to academic progress.

In light of the diverse range of projects funded by the UGC, it is evident that they play a crucial role in promoting interdisciplinary collaboration and knowledge generation. The commission’s support enables researchers to explore critical societal challenges, advance scientific understanding, and make meaningful contributions to their respective fields. In the subsequent section, we will examine the criteria utilized by the UGC for granting research funding

Criteria for Granting Research Funding

The University Grants Commission (UGC) plays a crucial role in supporting and promoting research activities across universities in our country. In this section, we will explore various types of research projects that receive funding from the UGC.

To illustrate the diverse range of research projects supported by the UGC, let us consider an example: A team of researchers aims to investigate the impact of climate change on agricultural practices in rural areas. This interdisciplinary project involves experts from fields such as environmental science, agriculture, economics, and sociology. By studying different regions and their unique challenges, these researchers aim to propose sustainable solutions for farmers facing adverse effects due to changing climatic conditions.

Research projects funded by the UGC cover a wide spectrum, including but not limited to:

• Fundamental Research: These projects focus on advancing scientific knowledge and understanding in specific disciplines or domains.
• Applied Research: Such projects aim to address practical problems faced by industries or communities through innovative solutions.
• Interdisciplinary Research: Projects integrating multiple disciplines are encouraged to foster collaboration and promote holistic approaches towards complex issues.
• Collaborative Research: The UGC supports initiatives involving collaborations between institutions within the country or with international partners.

In addition to financial aid, the UGC provides guidance and resources for successful completion of research projects. Researchers receiving funding must adhere to ethical guidelines and maintain transparency throughout their work. They are also expected to disseminate their findings through publications and presentations at conferences.

By facilitating diverse types of research projects across academic institutions, the UGC contributes significantly to expanding knowledge frontiers and addressing societal challenges. In the following section, we will delve into the impact generated by such research funding provided by University Grants Commission on academia, industries, and society as a whole – highlighting its vital role in driving progress and development without any pause.

Impact of University Grants Commission’s Research Funding

In order to ensure fair distribution and effective utilization of resources, the University Grants Commission (UGC) has established specific criteria for granting research funding. These criteria serve as a guideline for evaluating project proposals and determining their eligibility for financial support. By adhering to these criteria, the UGC aims to promote high-quality research that contributes significantly to knowledge advancement in various academic disciplines.

To illustrate how these criteria work in practice, let us consider an example. Dr. Smith, a renowned professor of biology at a prestigious university, submitted a proposal to the UGC requesting funding for her groundbreaking study on genetic modification in crops. The evaluation process involved assessing the relevance, novelty, feasibility, and potential impact of her research project. Based on these factors, the UGC determined whether Dr. Smith’s proposal met the necessary requirements for receiving financial assistance.

The primary criteria considered by the UGC when granting research funding are as follows:

• Relevance: The proposed project should align with national priorities and address pressing societal issues.
• Originality: It is essential that the research offers new insights or approaches within its field.
• Feasibility: The project must be realistically achievable within the specified timeframe and available resources.
• Impact: Emphasis is placed on projects that have potential long-term benefits and can contribute significantly to scientific knowledge or social development.

The introduction of such strict criteria helps foster fairness and equality among researchers by providing them with clear guidelines for obtaining funding. Moreover, it ensures that limited funds are allocated towards projects that have maximum potential for making significant contributions to academia and society as a whole. This approach encourages researchers to think critically about their projects’ significance and paves the way for innovative breakthroughs.

Table – Benefits of Implementing Strict Criteria

By implementing these criteria, the UGC is able to prioritize research projects that have a higher likelihood of yielding substantial outcomes. This approach not only enhances the quality and relevance of funded research but also ensures accountability in utilizing public funds effectively. Consequently, it strengthens the overall research ecosystem within universities and promotes collaboration among scholars.

Looking ahead, understanding how the UGC’s funding criteria influence project selection lays a foundation for exploring future initiatives and emerging trends in research projects.

Future Initiatives and Trends in Research Projects

Building upon the impact of University Grants Commission’s research funding, several future initiatives and trends are anticipated to shape the landscape of research projects. One potential scenario is the establishment of collaborative research networks between universities and industry partners. For instance, an ongoing case study involving a renowned university and a leading pharmaceutical company has shown promising results. By combining academic expertise with industry insights and resources, this collaboration aims to accelerate the development of new drugs for rare diseases.

In order to further enhance research outcomes, it is essential to address certain key areas:

• Interdisciplinary Approaches: Encouraging interdisciplinary collaborations can foster innovative solutions by bringing together diverse perspectives from various fields. This approach allows researchers to draw on different methodologies, theories, and practices applicable to their respective domains.
• Ethical Considerations: As scientific advancements continue at a rapid pace, ethical considerations play a crucial role in shaping responsible research practices. Incorporating ethics committees or review boards within academic institutions can ensure that research projects adhere to ethical guidelines while maintaining scientific rigor.
• Open Access Publishing: Promoting open access publishing enables wider dissemination of research findings without barriers such as subscription fees or paywalls. This not only enhances knowledge sharing but also facilitates greater collaboration among researchers globally.
• Funding Diversification: Expanding sources of research funding beyond traditional avenues can provide more opportunities for innovative projects. Exploring partnerships with private foundations, philanthropic organizations, and government agencies can help diversify financial support for cutting-edge research endeavors.

The following table provides an overview of these key areas along with their corresponding benefits:

By embracing these future initiatives, the University Grants Commission can foster an environment conducive to groundbreaking discoveries across disciplines. It is imperative that stakeholders collaborate to address ethical concerns, encourage interdisciplinary approaches, promote open access publishing, and diversify funding sources. These measures will not only drive research excellence but also contribute significantly to societal progress.

(Note: This section does not include the specific transition sentence from the previous section H2 as it was mentioned without using ‘now’)

Related posts:

Competitive Funding: University Grants Commission’s Impact on Research Funding

• Grants Unveiled: University Grants Commission Research Funding Revealed
• Research Funding in Context of University Grants Commission: Opportunities and Challenges

Accredited Institutions: UGC Accreditation for Higher Education

Eligibility Criteria for UGC Scholarships: A Comprehensive Guide

Research Funding in Context of University Grants Commission: Opportunities and…

Comments are closed.

TWAS-Mohammad A. Hamdan Award

Twas-cas young scientists award for frontier science, twas-samira omar innovation for sustainability award, twas-abdool karim award in biological sciences, twas-fayzah m. al-kharafi award, research and project grants.

TWAS research grants are awarded to both individual scientists and research groups

TWAS research grants fund several programmes that support:

• Researchers in developing countries, allowing them to purchase specialized equipment and consumable supplies, and
• Support Master of Science students.

The calls for 2024 TWAS Research Grants in Basic Sciences—one for  individuals  and one for  groups —will open on 1st February 2024.

Under this scheme, grants are awarded to promising high-level research projects in biology, chemistry, mathematics and physics carried out by individual scientists in one of the S&T-lagging countries identified by TWAS.

Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency

The Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency ( Sida ) provides essential support to TWAS, OWSD and GenderInSITE. Sida-supported programmes focus on research grants and PhD fellowships in 66 S&T-lagging countries , and support the TWAS Regional Offices and its science diplomacy programme. Sida is a government agency working under the Swedish Foreign Ministry. It administers approximately half of Sweden's budget for development assistance to developing countries.

Under this scheme, grants are awarded to promising high-level research projects in biology, chemistry, mathematics and physics carried out by research units in the S&T-lagging countries identified by TWAS.

Under this scheme, grants are awarded to high-level scientists for interdisciplinary research projects. Each grant supports a collaborative project jointly carried out by two Principal Investigators (PIs) in the S&T-lagging countries identified by TWAS.

Under this scheme, grants are awarded to past grant recipients of the TWAS Research Grant programme who procured equipment through the grant in one of the S&T-lagging countries identified by TWAS.

With the support of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), UNESCO-TWAS launched a new programme to strengthen the capacity of African countries lagging in science and technology. The programme is aimed at young scientists who are getting established in their country or are about to return home to an academic position. Grants are awarded to promising high-level research projects in Agriculture, Biology, Chemistry, Earth sciences, Engineering, Information Computer Technology, Mathematics, Medical Sciences and Physics carried out in African countries lagging in science and technology identified by TWAS.

German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF)

The German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) promotes education, science and research.

The COVID-19 pandemic is a global crisis, affecting human health as well as economies and societies worldwide. TWAS and the Islamic Development Bank (IsDB) are offering a competitive grant for research collaboration. Technologists and researchers from IsDB Member Countries are invited to submit research and innovation proposals that can help address challenges related to post COVID-19 pandemic.

Islamic Development Bank

The Islamic Development Bank , founded in 1974, works to foster the economic development and social progress of member countries and Muslim communities in accordance with the principles of Islamic Law. It has made significant investments in areas related to science and science capacity, as well as in infrastructure and education. IsDB, based in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, has 57 member countries. It has regional offices in Rabat, Morocco; Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; Almaty, Kazakhstan; and Dakar, Senegal. It also has country gateway offices in Ankara, Turkey, and Jakarta, Indonesia, plus field representatives in 14 member countries.

Under this scheme, grants are awarded to teams of 2-5 women for action-based projects which, although scientific in nature, will take them outside the lab to promote practical and tangible change under the umbrella of the “climate action” SDG in their local context. The principal applicant and project leader is a woman scientist, holding a PhD, living and working in a science and technology lagging country (STLC). Co-applicants are either scientists or technical experts in a field relevant to the project, from any developing country.

The Elsevier Foundation

The Elsevier Foundation provides grants to knowledge centered organizations around the world, with a focus on diversity and inclusion in science, technology and health, research in developing countries and global health. Since 2006, the Foundation has awarded more than 100 grants worth over $6 million to non-profit organizations working in these fields. The Elsevier Foundation is a US based, corporate not-for-profit 501(c)(3), funded by Elsevier , a leading scientific, technical and medical information solutions provider.

The DECIMALS fund has been set up to provide grants to small research teams in developing countries, allowing them to analyze the impacts that Solar Radiation Management might have in their regions. It was launched in response to a common concern voiced at SRMGI’s engagement workshops, where local participants often proposed and widely supported the idea that scientists in developing countries should undertake research on the potential local impacts of SRM, noting that there is typically very little funding available to support research in this area.

Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative

The Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative is an international, NGO-driven project that seeks to expand the global conversation around  SRM geoengineering  research and its governance. The initiative is neutral on whether SRM should ever be used, and seeks to engage new voices in discussions of the underlying societal and scientific issues. A global pioneer in bringing developing country voices into SRM discussions, SRMGI co-organised the first major SRM discussion meetings in China, Ethiopia, India, Jamaica, Senegal, Brazil, and many other countries of the Global South, always in concert with local partners.

The Organization for Women in Science for the Developing World (OWSD) offers fellowships for women who have completed their PhDs in science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects and are employed at an academic or scientific research institute in a science and technology lagging country. Early Career fellows will be supported to establish an environment at their institution where they can maintain an international standard of research and attract scholars from all over the world to collaborate.

International Development Research Centre

IDRC supports research in developing countries to create real and lasting change. This knowledge can be used as a tool for addressing pressing global challenges.

Part of Canada’s foreign affairs and development efforts, IDRC invests in knowledge, innovation, and solutions to improve the lives of people in the developing world.

• The Vice Chancellor and Dean
• Facts and Figures
• Our Departments
• Zachry Engineering Education Complex
• Advising and Support
• Degree Programs
• Engineering Academies
• Online Degrees by Department
• Online Courses
• Engineering Global Programs
• Admissions and Aid
• Undergraduate Admissions
• Graduate Admissions
• Transfer Students
• Entry to a Major
• Explore Engineering Career Paths
• Visit With Us
• Student Life
• Find Your Community
• Get Creative
• Interact with Industry
• Solve Problems
• SuSu and Mark A. Fischer '72 Engineering Design Center
• Meloy Engineering Innovation and Entrepreneurship Program
• Undergraduate Research
• Autonomy and Robotics
• Education and Training Research
• Energy Systems and Services Research
• Health Care Research
• Infrastructure Research
• Materials and Manufacturing Research
• National Security and Safety Research
• Space Engineering
• Partner With Us
• PK-12 and Educators
• Researchers
• Reach Our Divisions

Research on Geological Hydrogen Receives Funding from U.S. Department of Energy

April 27, 2024 By Texas A&M Engineering

• Energy and Power
• Petroleum Engineering
• Sustainability

Dr. Rita Esuru Okoroafor was selected to receive $1.5 million in funding from the U.S. Department of Energy Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E). The funding is part of ARPA-E’s Exploratory Topics related to geologic hydrogen, which aim to explore early-stage research and development to advance low-cost, low-emissions hydrogen. This is the first time the Harold Vance Department of Petroleum Engineering is receiving funding from ARPA-E. 

Okoroafor will lead a multi-institutional team, including the New Jersey Institute of Technology and Louisiana State University, in a two-year investigation. She aims to model the best, most efficient methods for producing hydrogen from subsurface ultramafic rocks.

“Low-cost, low-emission hydrogen production could revolutionize the energy landscape,” Okoroafor said. “This research aims to make that vision a reality.” 

Okoroafor is an assistant professor at Texas A&M University specializing in applying oil and gas skills and techniques to address challenges associated with low-carbon energy technologies. Before joining Texas A&M, she was a principal reservoir engineer at SLB, a global technology company she worked with for 13 years.

Okoroafor’s current research encompasses geothermal reservoir engineering, carbon dioxide storage and utilization, geologic energy storage, and geological hydrogen. Okoroafor is an SPE Distinguished Lecturer for the 2023-2024 academic year. She leads the Texas A&M University Geothermal Consortium.

• Facebook Facebook
• Twitter Twitter
• LinkedIn LinkedIn
• Email Email
• Print Print

Site Search

• About ARPA-E
• Team Directory
• ARPA-E History
• Annual Reports
• Budget Requests
• Apply For Funding
• Authorization
• View Active Programs
• Search Our Programs
• Search Individual Projects
• Interactive Project Map
• Exploratory Topics
• The SCALEUP Program
• OPEN Programs
• Project Guidance
• ARPA-E Technology-to-Market
• Technology Commercialization
• External Engagement Model
• Investor Updates
• ARPA-E News & Media
• Press Releases
• ARPA-E Disruptors
• Publications
• ARPA-E Events
• Energy Innovation Summit
• Careers at ARPA-E
• Job Opportunities
• Life at ARPA-E
• ARPA-E FAQs
• General Questions
• Current Funding Opportunities
• Closed Funding Opportunities

Press Release

U.S. Department of Energy Announces $20 Million to Develop Cost-Effective, Highly Accurate Hydrogen Detection and Quantification Technologies

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today announced up to $20 million in funding to support the development of innovative approaches for hydrogen gas emissions detection and quantification. Managed by the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), this initiative supports President Biden’s whole-of-government approach to accelerating the deployment of clean hydrogen. The focus of this new ARPA-E effort is on detecting emissions throughout the full hydrogen supply chain, from production to end use. Cost-effective, accurate measurements of hydrogen gas will facilitate detection and mitigation of direct emissions. Advancing clean hydrogen is a key component of President Biden’s Investing in America agenda to tackle the climate crisis, create good-paying jobs across the nation, and strengthen America’s competitiveness in the technologies of the future.

“President Biden has made historic investments in hydrogen infrastructure to support the future hydrogen economy, Americans’ health and environmental wellbeing, and create jobs. ARPA-E is focused on doing its part to reinforce America's global leadership in the growing clean hydrogen industry,” said ARPA-E Director Evelyn N. Wang. “Given the projected growth of the hydrogen economy and potential near-term warming effects of atmospheric hydrogen, detection and mitigation of hydrogen emissions is essential and ARPA-E is proud to lead this work.”

Hydrogen does not absorb infrared (IR) light and therefore does not act as a direct greenhouse gas (GHG) in the atmosphere. However, hydrogen is considered an indirect GHG due to its ability to extend the lifetime of other GHGs in the atmosphere. This lack of IR absorption also makes the detection of atmospheric hydrogen extremely challenging. ARPA-E—through the H2SENSE Exploratory Topic—is seeking technologies with a:

• Minimum detection and quantification threshold of 10 kg/hr across a 100 meters (m) x 100 m area; and
• Cost of no more than $10,000 for the detection area.

These performance targets will enable a systems-level approach to large-area monitoring of hydrogen emissions. You can access more information on ARPA-E Exchange.

The H2SENSE Exploratory Topic builds on ARPA-E’s prior work pioneering precise atmospheric gas detection industries. Before ARPA-E’s MONITOR program, low-cost, continuous methane detection and mitigation was not possible. But now, ARPA-E-funded projects born from that initiative—like LongPath, which recently received an LPO loan guarantee —have created a paradigm shift and developed technologies capable of detecting over 90% of methane leaks down to 0.2 kg/hr from nearly a mile away. ARPA-E is building on this history with H2SENSE in pursuit of low-cost, effective hydrogen emissions detection.

ARPA-E advances high-potential, high-impact clean energy technologies across a wide range of technical areas that are strategic to America's energy security. Learn more about these efforts and ARPA-E's commitment to ensuring the United States continues to lead the world in developing and deploying advanced clean energy technologies.

Research Matters

Resources for SMHS Research

Emergency Medicine Funding Primary List: Updated 4.29.2024

DoD Military Burn, Patient-Centered Research Award

U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (USAMRMC)

GOLDen hour extended EVACuation (GOLDEVAC)

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)

AHRQ Understanding and Improving Diagnostic Safety in Ambulatory Care: Incidence and Contributing Factors (R01)

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)

$2,000,000USD

Long-Term Effects of Disasters on Healthcare Systems in Populations with Health Disparities (R01- Clinical Trial Optional)

National Institutes of Health (NIH)

NIH SIREN Neurologic Clinical Trials (UG3/UH3 - Clinical Trial Required)

OTA Member Full Research Grant

Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA)

OTA Young Investigator Research Grant

Advanced Research Methodology Evaluation and Design (ARMED) Pilot Grant | ARMED Pilot Grant

Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Foundation

Research Training Grant

$300,000USD

Research Large Project Grant

$150,000USD

SAEMF/Academy for Diversity and Inclusion in Emergency Medicine (ADIEM) Research Grant

SAEMF/Academy for Women in Academic Emergency Medicine (AWAEM) Research Grant

Medical Toxicology Foundation / SAEMF Toxicology Research Grant

Emerging Infectious Disease and Preparedness Grant

$100,000USD

ARMED MedEd Pilot Training Grant | SAEMF ARMED MedEd Pilot Grant

Simulation Academy Novice Research Grant

Education Project Grant

Education Research Training Grant

SAEMF/ED Benchmarking Alliance Clinical Operations Research Grant

SAEMF/Global Emergency Medicine Academy (GEMA) Research Pilot Grant

AEUS Research Grant

Engaging Survivors of Sexual Violence and Trafficking in HIV and Substance Use Disorder Services (R34 Clinical Trial Optional)

National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)

$450,000USD

LIMITED OREF/OTA Trauma Research Grant with funding support from Arthrex

Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation (OREF)

SAEMF Geriatric Emergency Medicine Research Catalyst Grant

ZOLL Foundation

APA Young Investigator Award Program

Academic Pediatric Association (APA)

APF Division 56 CHANGE Grant

American Psychological Association (APA)

EMF Investigator Initiated Research Grant

Emergency Medicine Foundation (EMF)

$250,000USD

EMF Early Career Research Development Grant

GEAR 2.0 Pilot Project Grant

Pilot Research Grant

APF Trauma Psychology Grant

Faculty Research Award

Shock Society

AAST Research Scholarships

American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST)

Research grants

Osteosynthesis and Trauma Care Foundation (OTC Foundation)

Kathryn Cramer Career Development Award

AO North America (AONA)

AO Foundation, Switzerland - Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen

Research and education grants

MedEvac Foundation International

Emergency Competitive Revision to Existing NIH Awards (Emergency Supplement - Clinical Trial Optional)

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Campus Advisories
• EO/Nondiscrimination Policy (PDF)
• Website Privacy Notice
• Accessibility
• Terms of Use

GW is committed to digital accessibility. If you experience a barrier that affects your ability to access content on this page, let us know via the Accessibility Feedback Form .

This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. Visit GW’s Website Privacy Notice to learn more about how GW uses cookies.