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
  • 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

Innovative use of scientific collections (iusc), funding opportunities for science and engineering research with impact on women's health, emerging mathematical tools applied to ecology and evolution of infectious disease, piloting departmental-level systemic change for equity.

  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

National Institutes of Health (NIH) - Turning Discovery into Health

  • 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

Three scientists wearing goggles looking at a test tube.

Grants Home Page

NIH’s central resource for grants and funding information.

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

Laboratory glassware with colorful liquid.

Find Funding

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

calendar-page-square.jpg

Calendar page

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

Close-up of a red submit key on a computer keyboard.

How to Apply

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

female-researcher-in-lab-square.jpg

Female researcher in the laboratory.

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

Binder with papers on office desk.

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

Blue blog key on a computer keyboard.

Grants News/Blog

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

scientist-flipping-through-report-square.jpg

Scientist flipping through a report in the laboratory.

Explore opportunities at NIH for research and development contract funding.

smiling-female-researcher-square.jpg

Smiling female researcher.

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

U.S. flag

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.

The Writing Center • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Grant Proposals (or Give me the money!)

What this handout is about.

This handout will help you write and revise grant proposals for research funding in all academic disciplines (sciences, social sciences, humanities, and the arts). It’s targeted primarily to graduate students and faculty, although it will also be helpful to undergraduate students who are seeking funding for research (e.g. for a senior thesis).

The grant writing process

A grant proposal or application is a document or set of documents that is submitted to an organization with the explicit intent of securing funding for a research project. Grant writing varies widely across the disciplines, and research intended for epistemological purposes (philosophy or the arts) rests on very different assumptions than research intended for practical applications (medicine or social policy research). Nonetheless, this handout attempts to provide a general introduction to grant writing across the disciplines.

Before you begin writing your proposal, you need to know what kind of research you will be doing and why. You may have a topic or experiment in mind, but taking the time to define what your ultimate purpose is can be essential to convincing others to fund that project. Although some scholars in the humanities and arts may not have thought about their projects in terms of research design, hypotheses, research questions, or results, reviewers and funding agencies expect you to frame your project in these terms. You may also find that thinking about your project in these terms reveals new aspects of it to you.

Writing successful grant applications is a long process that begins with an idea. Although many people think of grant writing as a linear process (from idea to proposal to award), it is a circular process. Many people start by defining their research question or questions. What knowledge or information will be gained as a direct result of your project? Why is undertaking your research important in a broader sense? You will need to explicitly communicate this purpose to the committee reviewing your application. This is easier when you know what you plan to achieve before you begin the writing process.

Diagram 1 below provides an overview of the grant writing process and may help you plan your proposal development.

A chart labeled The Grant Writing Process that provides and overview of the steps of grant writing: identifying a need, finding grants, developing a proposal and budget, submitting the proposal, accepting or declining awards, carrying out the project, and filing a report with funding agencies.

Applicants must write grant proposals, submit them, receive notice of acceptance or rejection, and then revise their proposals. Unsuccessful grant applicants must revise and resubmit their proposals during the next funding cycle. Successful grant applications and the resulting research lead to ideas for further research and new grant proposals.

Cultivating an ongoing, positive relationship with funding agencies may lead to additional grants down the road. Thus, make sure you file progress reports and final reports in a timely and professional manner. Although some successful grant applicants may fear that funding agencies will reject future proposals because they’ve already received “enough” funding, the truth is that money follows money. Individuals or projects awarded grants in the past are more competitive and thus more likely to receive funding in the future.

Some general tips

  • Begin early.
  • Apply early and often.
  • Don’t forget to include a cover letter with your application.
  • Answer all questions. (Pre-empt all unstated questions.)
  • If rejected, revise your proposal and apply again.
  • Give them what they want. Follow the application guidelines exactly.
  • Be explicit and specific.
  • Be realistic in designing the project.
  • Make explicit the connections between your research questions and objectives, your objectives and methods, your methods and results, and your results and dissemination plan.
  • Follow the application guidelines exactly. (We have repeated this tip because it is very, very important.)

Before you start writing

Identify your needs and focus.

First, identify your needs. Answering the following questions may help you:

  • Are you undertaking preliminary or pilot research in order to develop a full-blown research agenda?
  • Are you seeking funding for dissertation research? Pre-dissertation research? Postdoctoral research? Archival research? Experimental research? Fieldwork?
  • Are you seeking a stipend so that you can write a dissertation or book? Polish a manuscript?
  • Do you want a fellowship in residence at an institution that will offer some programmatic support or other resources to enhance your project?
  • Do you want funding for a large research project that will last for several years and involve multiple staff members?

Next, think about the focus of your research/project. Answering the following questions may help you narrow it down:

  • What is the topic? Why is this topic important?
  • What are the research questions that you’re trying to answer? What relevance do your research questions have?
  • What are your hypotheses?
  • What are your research methods?
  • Why is your research/project important? What is its significance?
  • Do you plan on using quantitative methods? Qualitative methods? Both?
  • Will you be undertaking experimental research? Clinical research?

Once you have identified your needs and focus, you can begin looking for prospective grants and funding agencies.

Finding prospective grants and funding agencies

Whether your proposal receives funding will rely in large part on whether your purpose and goals closely match the priorities of granting agencies. Locating possible grantors is a time consuming task, but in the long run it will yield the greatest benefits. Even if you have the most appealing research proposal in the world, if you don’t send it to the right institutions, then you’re unlikely to receive funding.

There are many sources of information about granting agencies and grant programs. Most universities and many schools within universities have Offices of Research, whose primary purpose is to support faculty and students in grant-seeking endeavors. These offices usually have libraries or resource centers to help people find prospective grants.

At UNC, the Research at Carolina office coordinates research support.

The Funding Information Portal offers a collection of databases and proposal development guidance.

The UNC School of Medicine and School of Public Health each have their own Office of Research.

Writing your proposal

The majority of grant programs recruit academic reviewers with knowledge of the disciplines and/or program areas of the grant. Thus, when writing your grant proposals, assume that you are addressing a colleague who is knowledgeable in the general area, but who does not necessarily know the details about your research questions.

Remember that most readers are lazy and will not respond well to a poorly organized, poorly written, or confusing proposal. Be sure to give readers what they want. Follow all the guidelines for the particular grant you are applying for. This may require you to reframe your project in a different light or language. Reframing your project to fit a specific grant’s requirements is a legitimate and necessary part of the process unless it will fundamentally change your project’s goals or outcomes.

Final decisions about which proposals are funded often come down to whether the proposal convinces the reviewer that the research project is well planned and feasible and whether the investigators are well qualified to execute it. Throughout the proposal, be as explicit as possible. Predict the questions that the reviewer may have and answer them. Przeworski and Salomon (1995) note that reviewers read with three questions in mind:

  • What are we going to learn as a result of the proposed project that we do not know now? (goals, aims, and outcomes)
  • Why is it worth knowing? (significance)
  • How will we know that the conclusions are valid? (criteria for success) (2)

Be sure to answer these questions in your proposal. Keep in mind that reviewers may not read every word of your proposal. Your reviewer may only read the abstract, the sections on research design and methodology, the vitae, and the budget. Make these sections as clear and straightforward as possible.

The way you write your grant will tell the reviewers a lot about you (Reif-Lehrer 82). From reading your proposal, the reviewers will form an idea of who you are as a scholar, a researcher, and a person. They will decide whether you are creative, logical, analytical, up-to-date in the relevant literature of the field, and, most importantly, capable of executing the proposed project. Allow your discipline and its conventions to determine the general style of your writing, but allow your own voice and personality to come through. Be sure to clarify your project’s theoretical orientation.

Develop a general proposal and budget

Because most proposal writers seek funding from several different agencies or granting programs, it is a good idea to begin by developing a general grant proposal and budget. This general proposal is sometimes called a “white paper.” Your general proposal should explain your project to a general academic audience. Before you submit proposals to different grant programs, you will tailor a specific proposal to their guidelines and priorities.

Organizing your proposal

Although each funding agency will have its own (usually very specific) requirements, there are several elements of a proposal that are fairly standard, and they often come in the following order:

  • Introduction (statement of the problem, purpose of research or goals, and significance of research)

Literature review

  • Project narrative (methods, procedures, objectives, outcomes or deliverables, evaluation, and dissemination)
  • Budget and budget justification

Format the proposal so that it is easy to read. Use headings to break the proposal up into sections. If it is long, include a table of contents with page numbers.

The title page usually includes a brief yet explicit title for the research project, the names of the principal investigator(s), the institutional affiliation of the applicants (the department and university), name and address of the granting agency, project dates, amount of funding requested, and signatures of university personnel authorizing the proposal (when necessary). Most funding agencies have specific requirements for the title page; make sure to follow them.

The abstract provides readers with their first impression of your project. To remind themselves of your proposal, readers may glance at your abstract when making their final recommendations, so it may also serve as their last impression of your project. The abstract should explain the key elements of your research project in the future tense. Most abstracts state: (1) the general purpose, (2) specific goals, (3) research design, (4) methods, and (5) significance (contribution and rationale). Be as explicit as possible in your abstract. Use statements such as, “The objective of this study is to …”

Introduction

The introduction should cover the key elements of your proposal, including a statement of the problem, the purpose of research, research goals or objectives, and significance of the research. The statement of problem should provide a background and rationale for the project and establish the need and relevance of the research. How is your project different from previous research on the same topic? Will you be using new methodologies or covering new theoretical territory? The research goals or objectives should identify the anticipated outcomes of the research and should match up to the needs identified in the statement of problem. List only the principle goal(s) or objective(s) of your research and save sub-objectives for the project narrative.

Many proposals require a literature review. Reviewers want to know whether you’ve done the necessary preliminary research to undertake your project. Literature reviews should be selective and critical, not exhaustive. Reviewers want to see your evaluation of pertinent works. For more information, see our handout on literature reviews .

Project narrative

The project narrative provides the meat of your proposal and may require several subsections. The project narrative should supply all the details of the project, including a detailed statement of problem, research objectives or goals, hypotheses, methods, procedures, outcomes or deliverables, and evaluation and dissemination of the research.

For the project narrative, pre-empt and/or answer all of the reviewers’ questions. Don’t leave them wondering about anything. For example, if you propose to conduct unstructured interviews with open-ended questions, be sure you’ve explained why this methodology is best suited to the specific research questions in your proposal. Or, if you’re using item response theory rather than classical test theory to verify the validity of your survey instrument, explain the advantages of this innovative methodology. Or, if you need to travel to Valdez, Alaska to access historical archives at the Valdez Museum, make it clear what documents you hope to find and why they are relevant to your historical novel on the ’98ers in the Alaskan Gold Rush.

Clearly and explicitly state the connections between your research objectives, research questions, hypotheses, methodologies, and outcomes. As the requirements for a strong project narrative vary widely by discipline, consult a discipline-specific guide to grant writing for some additional advice.

Explain staffing requirements in detail and make sure that staffing makes sense. Be very explicit about the skill sets of the personnel already in place (you will probably include their Curriculum Vitae as part of the proposal). Explain the necessary skill sets and functions of personnel you will recruit. To minimize expenses, phase out personnel who are not relevant to later phases of a project.

The budget spells out project costs and usually consists of a spreadsheet or table with the budget detailed as line items and a budget narrative (also known as a budget justification) that explains the various expenses. Even when proposal guidelines do not specifically mention a narrative, be sure to include a one or two page explanation of the budget. To see a sample budget, turn to Example #1 at the end of this handout.

Consider including an exhaustive budget for your project, even if it exceeds the normal grant size of a particular funding organization. Simply make it clear that you are seeking additional funding from other sources. This technique will make it easier for you to combine awards down the road should you have the good fortune of receiving multiple grants.

Make sure that all budget items meet the funding agency’s requirements. For example, all U.S. government agencies have strict requirements for airline travel. Be sure the cost of the airline travel in your budget meets their requirements. If a line item falls outside an agency’s requirements (e.g. some organizations will not cover equipment purchases or other capital expenses), explain in the budget justification that other grant sources will pay for the item.

Many universities require that indirect costs (overhead) be added to grants that they administer. Check with the appropriate offices to find out what the standard (or required) rates are for overhead. Pass a draft budget by the university officer in charge of grant administration for assistance with indirect costs and costs not directly associated with research (e.g. facilities use charges).

Furthermore, make sure you factor in the estimated taxes applicable for your case. Depending on the categories of expenses and your particular circumstances (whether you are a foreign national, for example), estimated tax rates may differ. You can consult respective departmental staff or university services, as well as professional tax assistants. For information on taxes on scholarships and fellowships, see https://cashier.unc.edu/student-tax-information/scholarships-fellowships/ .

Explain the timeframe for the research project in some detail. When will you begin and complete each step? It may be helpful to reviewers if you present a visual version of your timeline. For less complicated research, a table summarizing the timeline for the project will help reviewers understand and evaluate the planning and feasibility. See Example #2 at the end of this handout.

For multi-year research proposals with numerous procedures and a large staff, a time line diagram can help clarify the feasibility and planning of the study. See Example #3 at the end of this handout.

Revising your proposal

Strong grant proposals take a long time to develop. Start the process early and leave time to get feedback from several readers on different drafts. Seek out a variety of readers, both specialists in your research area and non-specialist colleagues. You may also want to request assistance from knowledgeable readers on specific areas of your proposal. For example, you may want to schedule a meeting with a statistician to help revise your methodology section. Don’t hesitate to seek out specialized assistance from the relevant research offices on your campus. At UNC, the Odum Institute provides a variety of services to graduate students and faculty in the social sciences.

In your revision and editing, ask your readers to give careful consideration to whether you’ve made explicit the connections between your research objectives and methodology. Here are some example questions:

  • Have you presented a compelling case?
  • Have you made your hypotheses explicit?
  • Does your project seem feasible? Is it overly ambitious? Does it have other weaknesses?
  • Have you stated the means that grantors can use to evaluate the success of your project after you’ve executed it?

If a granting agency lists particular criteria used for rating and evaluating proposals, be sure to share these with your own reviewers.

Example #1. Sample Budget

Jet travel $6,100 This estimate is based on the commercial high season rate for jet economy travel on Sabena Belgian Airlines. No U.S. carriers fly to Kigali, Rwanda. Sabena has student fare tickets available which will be significantly less expensive (approximately $2,000).

Maintenance allowance $22,788 Based on the Fulbright-Hays Maintenance Allowances published in the grant application guide.

Research assistant/translator $4,800 The research assistant/translator will be a native (and primary) speaker of Kinya-rwanda with at least a four-year university degree. They will accompany the primary investigator during life history interviews to provide assistance in comprehension. In addition, they will provide commentary, explanations, and observations to facilitate the primary investigator’s participant observation. During the first phase of the project in Kigali, the research assistant will work forty hours a week and occasional overtime as needed. During phases two and three in rural Rwanda, the assistant will stay with the investigator overnight in the field when necessary. The salary of $400 per month is based on the average pay rate for individuals with similar qualifications working for international NGO’s in Rwanda.

Transportation within country, phase one $1,200 The primary investigator and research assistant will need regular transportation within Kigali by bus and taxi. The average taxi fare in Kigali is $6-8 and bus fare is $.15. This figure is based on an average of $10 per day in transportation costs during the first project phase.

Transportation within country, phases two and three $12,000 Project personnel will also require regular transportation between rural field sites. If it is not possible to remain overnight, daily trips will be necessary. The average rental rate for a 4×4 vehicle in Rwanda is $130 per day. This estimate is based on an average of $50 per day in transportation costs for the second and third project phases. These costs could be reduced if an arrangement could be made with either a government ministry or international aid agency for transportation assistance.

Email $720 The rate for email service from RwandaTel (the only service provider in Rwanda) is $60 per month. Email access is vital for receiving news reports on Rwanda and the region as well as for staying in contact with dissertation committee members and advisors in the United States.

Audiocassette tapes $400 Audiocassette tapes will be necessary for recording life history interviews, musical performances, community events, story telling, and other pertinent data.

Photographic & slide film $100 Photographic and slide film will be necessary to document visual data such as landscape, environment, marriages, funerals, community events, etc.

Laptop computer $2,895 A laptop computer will be necessary for recording observations, thoughts, and analysis during research project. Price listed is a special offer to UNC students through the Carolina Computing Initiative.

NUD*IST 4.0 software $373.00 NUD*IST, “Nonnumerical, Unstructured Data, Indexing, Searching, and Theorizing,” is necessary for cataloging, indexing, and managing field notes both during and following the field research phase. The program will assist in cataloging themes that emerge during the life history interviews.

Administrative fee $100 Fee set by Fulbright-Hays for the sponsoring institution.

Example #2: Project Timeline in Table Format

Example #3: project timeline in chart format.

A chart displaying project activities with activities listed in the left column and grant years divided into quarters in the top row with rectangles darkened to indicate in which quarter each activity in the left column occurs.

Some closing advice

Some of us may feel ashamed or embarrassed about asking for money or promoting ourselves. Often, these feelings have more to do with our own insecurities than with problems in the tone or style of our writing. If you’re having trouble because of these types of hang-ups, the most important thing to keep in mind is that it never hurts to ask. If you never ask for the money, they’ll never give you the money. Besides, the worst thing they can do is say no.

UNC resources for proposal writing

Research at Carolina http://research.unc.edu

The Odum Institute for Research in the Social Sciences https://odum.unc.edu/

UNC Medical School Office of Research https://www.med.unc.edu/oor

UNC School of Public Health Office of Research http://www.sph.unc.edu/research/

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Holloway, Brian R. 2003. Proposal Writing Across the Disciplines. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Levine, S. Joseph. “Guide for Writing a Funding Proposal.” http://www.learnerassociates.net/proposal/ .

Locke, Lawrence F., Waneen Wyrick Spirduso, and Stephen J. Silverman. 2014. Proposals That Work . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Przeworski, Adam, and Frank Salomon. 2012. “Some Candid Suggestions on the Art of Writing Proposals.” Social Science Research Council. https://s3.amazonaws.com/ssrc-cdn2/art-of-writing-proposals-dsd-e-56b50ef814f12.pdf .

Reif-Lehrer, Liane. 1989. Writing a Successful Grant Application . Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Wiggins, Beverly. 2002. “Funding and Proposal Writing for Social Science Faculty and Graduate Student Research.” Chapel Hill: Howard W. Odum Institute for Research in Social Science. 2 Feb. 2004. http://www2.irss.unc.edu/irss/shortcourses/wigginshandouts/granthandout.pdf.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

  • Knowledge Base
  • Starting the research process
  • How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

Published on October 12, 2022 by Shona McCombes and Tegan George. Revised on November 21, 2023.

Structure of a research proposal

A research proposal describes what you will investigate, why it’s important, and how you will conduct your research.

The format of a research proposal varies between fields, but most proposals will contain at least these elements:

Introduction

Literature review.

  • Research design

Reference list

While the sections may vary, the overall objective is always the same. A research proposal serves as a blueprint and guide for your research plan, helping you get organized and feel confident in the path forward you choose to take.

Table of contents

Research proposal purpose, research proposal examples, research design and methods, contribution to knowledge, research schedule, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research proposals.

Academics often have to write research proposals to get funding for their projects. As a student, you might have to write a research proposal as part of a grad school application , or prior to starting your thesis or dissertation .

In addition to helping you figure out what your research can look like, a proposal can also serve to demonstrate why your project is worth pursuing to a funder, educational institution, or supervisor.

Research proposal length

The length of a research proposal can vary quite a bit. A bachelor’s or master’s thesis proposal can be just a few pages, while proposals for PhD dissertations or research funding are usually much longer and more detailed. Your supervisor can help you determine the best length for your work.

One trick to get started is to think of your proposal’s structure as a shorter version of your thesis or dissertation , only without the results , conclusion and discussion sections.

Download our research proposal template

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

  • Academic style
  • Vague sentences
  • Style consistency

See an example

research project funding

Writing a research proposal can be quite challenging, but a good starting point could be to look at some examples. We’ve included a few for you below.

  • Example research proposal #1: “A Conceptual Framework for Scheduling Constraint Management”
  • Example research proposal #2: “Medical Students as Mediators of Change in Tobacco Use”

Like your dissertation or thesis, the proposal will usually have a title page that includes:

  • The proposed title of your project
  • Your supervisor’s name
  • Your institution and department

The first part of your proposal is the initial pitch for your project. Make sure it succinctly explains what you want to do and why.

Your introduction should:

  • Introduce your topic
  • Give necessary background and context
  • Outline your  problem statement  and research questions

To guide your introduction , include information about:

  • Who could have an interest in the topic (e.g., scientists, policymakers)
  • How much is already known about the topic
  • What is missing from this current knowledge
  • What new insights your research will contribute
  • Why you believe this research is worth doing

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

As you get started, it’s important to demonstrate that you’re familiar with the most important research on your topic. A strong literature review  shows your reader that your project has a solid foundation in existing knowledge or theory. It also shows that you’re not simply repeating what other people have already done or said, but rather using existing research as a jumping-off point for your own.

In this section, share exactly how your project will contribute to ongoing conversations in the field by:

  • Comparing and contrasting the main theories, methods, and debates
  • Examining the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches
  • Explaining how will you build on, challenge, or synthesize prior scholarship

Following the literature review, restate your main  objectives . This brings the focus back to your own project. Next, your research design or methodology section will describe your overall approach, and the practical steps you will take to answer your research questions.

To finish your proposal on a strong note, explore the potential implications of your research for your field. Emphasize again what you aim to contribute and why it matters.

For example, your results might have implications for:

  • Improving best practices
  • Informing policymaking decisions
  • Strengthening a theory or model
  • Challenging popular or scientific beliefs
  • Creating a basis for future research

Last but not least, your research proposal must include correct citations for every source you have used, compiled in a reference list . To create citations quickly and easily, you can use our free APA citation generator .

Some institutions or funders require a detailed timeline of the project, asking you to forecast what you will do at each stage and how long it may take. While not always required, be sure to check the requirements of your project.

Here’s an example schedule to help you get started. You can also download a template at the button below.

Download our research schedule template

If you are applying for research funding, chances are you will have to include a detailed budget. This shows your estimates of how much each part of your project will cost.

Make sure to check what type of costs the funding body will agree to cover. For each item, include:

  • Cost : exactly how much money do you need?
  • Justification : why is this cost necessary to complete the research?
  • Source : how did you calculate the amount?

To determine your budget, think about:

  • Travel costs : do you need to go somewhere to collect your data? How will you get there, and how much time will you need? What will you do there (e.g., interviews, archival research)?
  • Materials : do you need access to any tools or technologies?
  • Help : do you need to hire any research assistants for the project? What will they do, and how much will you pay them?

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

Methodology

  • Sampling methods
  • Simple random sampling
  • Stratified sampling
  • Cluster sampling
  • Likert scales
  • Reproducibility

 Statistics

  • Null hypothesis
  • Statistical power
  • Probability distribution
  • Effect size
  • Poisson distribution

Research bias

  • Optimism bias
  • Cognitive bias
  • Implicit bias
  • Hawthorne effect
  • Anchoring bias
  • Explicit bias

Once you’ve decided on your research objectives , you need to explain them in your paper, at the end of your problem statement .

Keep your research objectives clear and concise, and use appropriate verbs to accurately convey the work that you will carry out for each one.

I will compare …

A research aim is a broad statement indicating the general purpose of your research project. It should appear in your introduction at the end of your problem statement , before your research objectives.

Research objectives are more specific than your research aim. They indicate the specific ways you’ll address the overarching aim.

A PhD, which is short for philosophiae doctor (doctor of philosophy in Latin), is the highest university degree that can be obtained. In a PhD, students spend 3–5 years writing a dissertation , which aims to make a significant, original contribution to current knowledge.

A PhD is intended to prepare students for a career as a researcher, whether that be in academia, the public sector, or the private sector.

A master’s is a 1- or 2-year graduate degree that can prepare you for a variety of careers.

All master’s involve graduate-level coursework. Some are research-intensive and intend to prepare students for further study in a PhD; these usually require their students to write a master’s thesis . Others focus on professional training for a specific career.

Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.

Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.

The best way to remember the difference between a research plan and a research proposal is that they have fundamentally different audiences. A research plan helps you, the researcher, organize your thoughts. On the other hand, a dissertation proposal or research proposal aims to convince others (e.g., a supervisor, a funding body, or a dissertation committee) that your research topic is relevant and worthy of being conducted.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. & George, T. (2023, November 21). How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved March 20, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/research-proposal/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a problem statement | guide & examples, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

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

research project funding

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.

The picture contains two groups of sourses for research grants.

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.

The picture contains a list of research proposal structural elements.

  • 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.

The picture contains a list of research proposal structural elements.

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.

The picture contains 5 mistakes made by 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

You might also like

How to Write a CV: 11 Useful Tips [Infographic]

How to Write a CV: 11 Useful Tips [Infographic]

How to Improve Your Speaking Skills in 10 Easy Steps

How to Improve Your Speaking Skills in 10 Easy Steps

How to Improve Your Communication Skills to Be Successful in Life

How to Improve Your Communication Skills to Be Successful in Life

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!

how can I get fund for my scholarship?

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  

3671 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

research project funding

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

Saba Hinrichs-Krapels & Jonathan Grant

research project funding

Obtaining Support and Grants for Research

research project funding

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

roostervane academy

  • 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.

research project funding

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?

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,

skills to put on a resume

15 Skills to Put on a Resume in 2023 (Employers LOVE These!)

When I was starting my career, I used to think about degrees a lot. I’d list them on my resume, all proud and shiny. But

SHARE THIS:

Chris

EMAIL UPDATES

Weekly articles, tips, and career advice

research project funding

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​

<a href='https://www.freepik.com/vectors/business'>Business vector created by pikisuperstar - www.freepik.com</a>

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.

How can I get paid to do research?

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]

Important Addresses

Harvard Campus Map

Harvard College

University Hall Cambridge, MA 02138

Harvard College Admissions Office and Griffin Financial Aid Office

86 Brattle Street Cambridge, MA 02138

Social Links

If you are located in the European Union, Iceland, Liechtenstein or Norway (the “European Economic Area”), please click here for additional information about ways that certain Harvard University Schools, Centers, units and controlled entities, including this one, may collect, use, and share information about you.

  • Application Tips
  • Navigating Campus
  • Preparing for College
  • How to Complete the FAFSA
  • What to Expect After You Apply
  • View All Guides
  • Parents & Families
  • School Counselors
  • Información en Español
  • Undergraduate Viewbook
  • View All Resources

Search and Useful Links

Search the site, search suggestions.

A student doing research in a lab

A Guide to Finding Funding

Funding to pursue your passions

We encourage you to explore the many funding resources that are available to you at Harvard in addition to need-based financial aid. The list that follows will give you a sense of the impressive possibilities and point you to resources and next steps. The resources below are grouped into four broad areas: public service, research and learning, international travel, and career opportunities. Dedicated staff members across the College are prepared to help you design your Harvard experience.

Public Service

Over the course of Harvard College’s history, graduates have upheld a commitment to making the world a better place for others. The decision to devote yourself to public interest or government work represents ideals fundamental to Harvard’s mission, and many grants and opportunities for funding can help to make this choice more accessible.

  • Center for Public Interest Careers (CPIC) Internships : CPIC focuses on student development, alumni/ae engagement, and partnerships that serve community needs. 
  • IOP Director Positions : The Institute of Politics (IOP) partners with prominent organizations and elected officials worldwide to provide fully-funded, career-focused summer internships. Internships are available for undergraduate students interested in politics, government, and public service. 
  • IOP Stipend Positions : The Institute of Politics (IOP) offers funding for rising sophomores, juniors, and seniors to pursue non- or low-paying summer internships in government, public interest, non-governmental organizations, and political organizations and campaigns. International internships must have a government affiliation.
  • CPIC: Arthur Liman Public Interest Law Fellowship : This fellowship provides a stipend to selected students working in public interest law positions during the summer.
  • Harvard Club Summer Internships :  Some Harvard Clubs and Shared Interest Groups raise funds to support student public service projects.
  • PBHA Summer Urban Program (SUP) :   PBHA’s SUP is a network of 12 community-based summer camps across Boston and Cambridge.
  • Mignone Center for Career Success (MCS) Public Service Grants : MCS provides grants for students interested in pursuing a domestic public service opportunity.
  • Harvard Public Service Network : The Public Service Network (PSN), affiliated with the Phillips Brooks House, encompasses over 45 programs. These programs offer opportunities for students to work alongside community organizations and schools that provide health, educational and advocacy services.
  • Presidential Public Service Fellowship Program (PPSF) : Harvard’s PPSF program supports a broad range of summer-long opportunities that serve the common good.

Research and Learning

At Harvard, you’ll have opportunities to conduct research alongside world-renowned faculty. Whether you choose to embark on your own research or assist with a faculty project, funding as available.

  • The Undergraduate Research and Fellowships Office  (URAF) is Harvard College’s hub for undergraduate research grants. URAF administers ten research programs of its own and hosts a comprehensive database of opportunities. The office also provides tips for finding opportunities, writing applications, and securing funding. 
  • The Faculty Aide Program  is a good place to start. This program subsidizes up to $1,500 in student wages as a way to encourage professors to hire undergraduate research assistants.

The following list highlights some of the many research grants and opportunities available.

Summer Residential Research Programs

Students who participate in these programs receive room and board to live on campus during the summer as a part of a vibrant research community.

  • PRISE  – Harvard College Program for Research in Science and Engineering
  • BLISS  – Harvard College Building Learning through Inquiry in the Social Sciences
  • PRIMO  – Harvard Business School/Harvard College Program for Research in Markets and Organizations
  • SHARP  – Summer Humanities and Arts Research Program
  • Harvard Amgen Scholars Program
  • PCER  - Program in Community Engaged Research
  • SURGH  - Summer Undergraduate Research in Global Health
  • SPUDS - Summer Program for Undergraduates in Data Science
  • FAS Center for Systems Biology Undergraduate Summer Internship

Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU)

  • FAS Center for Systems Biology
  • Harvard Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory Research Experience for Undergraduates Program
  • SEAS Research Experience for Undergraduates

Domestic Research Funding

  • HCRP - Harvard College Research Program
  • Center for American Political Studies
  • Charles Warren Center for American History
  • Committee on Ethnicity, Migration and Rights
  • Harvard Center for the Environment
  • Harvard Forest Summer Program
  • Harvard Stem Cell Institute
  • Herchel Smith Undergraduate Science Research Program
  • Mind, Brain and Behavior
  • Microbial Sciences Initiative
  • Museum of Comparative Zoology
  • Saloma Fund for Government

International Research Funding

  • Asia Center
  • Center for Hellenic Studies
  • Center for Jewish Studies
  • Davis Center
  • Korea Institute
  • Harvard College Research Program
  • Harvard Global Health Institute: International Internship in Global Health and Summer Undergraduate Research
  • South Asia Institute
  • Ukrainian Research Institute
  • Weatherhead Center for International Affairs

International Travel

International study is an enriching experience, but financing study abroad can seem daunting. Funding is available for many options, including study at a foreign university, participation in humanitarian relief efforts, and internships.

There are different ways to include an international experience into your Harvard career. Students who receive grant assistance from Harvard can transfer their financial aid to an approved term-time study abroad program. You'd prefer to do a summer program? The Harvard Summer School may be able to help. Or you could design your own travel experience during summer or winter break. However you choose to do it, funding can make international study experiences possible.

Start your search at the  Mignone Center for Career Success (MCS)  and the  Office of International Education . Below you'll find a selection of offices and programs that offer grants for international travel, organized by location.

  • Center for African Studies
  • Edwin O Reischauer Institute of Japanese Studies
  • Fairbank Center
  • Harvard China Fund
  • Center for European Studies

Latin America and Caribbean

  • David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies

Middle East and North Africa

  • Center for Middle Eastern Studies

Multiple Locations

  • FXB Field Education Internship Program
  • Romance Languages and Literature – Dressler and Diaco grants
  • Weissman International Internship Program
  • Harvard Alumni Association Spring Break Trips

Career Opportunities

Whether you are looking for a term-time job, trying to secure a summer internship, or are exploring potential career paths, we’re here to help.

  • Student Employment Office (SEO) Jobs Database : On- and off-campus employers list summer and term-time jobs on the SEO Jobs Database. You can use this database to browse opportunities and apply to full-time, part-time, and intermittent jobs.
  • Federal Work-Study Program (FWSP) : If you are eligible for FWSP (check your financial aid letter), this program can subsidize your wages for jobs, making you a better candidate. 
  • Mignone Center for Career Success (MCS) : MCS is your hub for programs and resources to help you explore careers, find jobs, and investigate graduate school options. 
  • Crimson Careers Database : This database is available to current students and alumni who want to find opportunities or post available positions.
  • Harvard Alumni Association (HAA) : The HAA maintains and enhances an engaged, vibrant community of alumni and friends worldwide.
  • Harvard Student Agencies (HSA) : HSA provides Harvard students with meaningful opportunities for employment and hands-on business education.
  • Global Networking Night : This biennial event brings alumni together for a fun networking event.
  • January ‘Winternships' : Many students use Wintersession (the week before spring term begins) to pursue an internship in a field that interests them.

Opportunities After Graduation

Seniors may consider applying for fellowships and scholarships to fund graduate study, travel, public service, research, and other experiences after graduation. The Office of Undergraduate Research and Fellowships (URAF) administers both Harvard-specific and national opportunities and helps advise students exploring the wide of array of possibilities. Learn more about postgraduate funding opportunities on  URAF’s website .

Related Topics

As a college within a research university, Harvard undergraduates have access to unparalleled research opportunities. Learn about research at Harvard.

From physical spaces to funding, Harvard provides the support for students to follow their curiosity as they investigate and explore their world.

Additional Funding & Procedures

Request a reconsideration, a student or parent loan, a refund, emergency expenses, computer loan, and more.

NIAID Funding News

Nih charts trends in research project grant costs over time.

Funding News Edition: July 20, 2022 See more articles in this edition

Last month, we discussed how NIH calculates inflationary pressures in our article “ Reference NIH’s Biomedical Research and Development Price Index .”

Serendipitously, Dr. Michael Lauer, NIH deputy director for extramural research, took up the same topic in his recent blog post “ Inflation and NIH Research Project Grants .” He examines the average total costs of research project grants from 1998 to 2021, and takes care to differentiate mean and median costs to better address distribution of costs. He also identifies a series of key inflection points: 1998 (beginning of budget doubling), 2003 (end of budget doubling), 2013 (sequestration), 2019 (before the pandemic), and 2021 (most recent year).

Dr. Lauer finds that:

  • NIH has increased the number of research project grant awards in recent years, despite increases in nominal costs.
  • Real mean and median research project grant costs stabilized following a significant increase during the NIH-doubling from 1998 to 2003.
  • The distribution of research project grant costs is shifting toward both the high and low ends—NIH is funding a larger proportion of relatively expensive and relatively inexpensive awards.

To explore Dr. Lauer’s graphs, charts, and tables and review his analysis in full, follow the link above to the Open Mike blog. A more detailed report is available at NIH Research Project Grant (RPG) Inflation .

Email us at [email protected] for help navigating NIAID’s grant and contract policies and procedures.

Stay Connected

  • Subscribe to Funding News email updates
  • Twitter: @NIAIDFunding
  • Introduction to Genomics
  • Educational Resources
  • Policy Issues in Genomics
  • The Human Genome Project
  • Funding Opportunities
  • Funded Programs & Projects

Division and Program Directors

Scientific Program Analysts

  • Contact by Research Area
  • News & Events
  • Research Areas
  • Research investigators
  • Research Projects
  • Clinical Research
  • Data Tools & Resources
  • Genomics & Medicine
  • Family Health History
  • For Patients & Families
  • For Health Professionals
  • Jobs at NHGRI
  • Training at NHGRI
  • Funding for Research Training
  • Professional Development Programs
  • NHGRI Culture
  • Social Media
  • Broadcast Media
  • Image Gallery
  • Press Resources
  • Organization
  • NHGRI Director
  • Mission & Vision
  • Policies & Guidance
  • Institute Advisors
  • Strategic Vision
  • Leadership Initiatives
  • Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
  • Partner with NHGRI
  • Staff Search

Research Funding

Hand writing

Empowering Researchers

The National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) funds and collaborates with scientists in government, public and private institutions. We focus on efforts to unravel the complexities of the human genome, identify the genomic underpinnings of human health and disease, and ensure that genomics is applied responsibly to improve patient care and benefit society.

newspaper

Apply for Research Funding

Most grant applications submitted to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for research or research training are investigator-initiated proposals. These proposals are considered unsolicited, and follow the  NIH standard schedule  for submission, review and award.

Staff

NHGRI Extramural Research Program: Funding Divisions

The research funding divisions support research in the medical, scientific, ethical, social and legal areas of genomics research.

Two people point at screen

Funded Programs and Projects

NHGRI's programs and projects support research in one of six domains to advance the field of genomics and improve human health. View the full listing.

Scientists at computer

Additional Resources

(Division Director) Teri Manolio and (Scientific Program Analyst) Katherine Sillari at the NHGRI Symposium poster session

NHGRI Grant Funding, Review and Award: The Path from NHGRI Appropriations to Scientific Discovery

Last updated: September 11, 2023

research project funding

L’Oréal-UNESCO For Women in Science Young Talents, Sub-Saharan Africa program

Twas-fapesp postdoctoral fellowship programme for least developed countries (ldc), twas research grants programme in basic sciences: individuals, twas research grants programme in basic sciences: groups, twas research grants programme for interdisciplinary research: collaborative grants, 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

sida

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

isdb_en_logo_initials_colour_1

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

srmgi_high-res_logo

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

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.

 alt=

Official websites use .gov

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS

Logo for U.S. Department of Defense

Department of Defense Announces Fiscal Year 2024 University Research Funding Awards

The Department of Defense today announced $221 million in awards for basic defense-related research projects as part of the Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative (MURI) program. At an average award amount of $7.5 million over five years, these competitive grants will support 30 teams located at 73 U.S. academic institutions, subject to satisfactory research progress and the availability of funds.

"The science and engineering challenges we face today are highly complex and cross disciplinary," said Dr. Bindu Nair, director of the Basic Research Office in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. "The MURI program acknowledges these complexities by supporting teams whose members have diverse sets of expertise as well as creative scientific approaches to tackling problems. 

"This cross-fertilization of ideas can accelerate research progress to enable more rapid scientific breakthroughs and hasten the transition of basic research funding to practical applications. The program is a cornerstone of DoD's basic research portfolio and a strong contributor to its legacy of scientific impact." 

Since its inception in 1985, the Department's MURI program has allowed teams of investigators from multiple disciplines to generate collective insights, facilitating the growth of cutting-edge technologies to address the Department's unique challenges. 

The highly competitive program, which complements the Department's single-investigator basic research grants, has made immense contributions to current and future military capabilities and produced numerous commercial sector applications. 

Notable MURI achievements include breakthroughs in cold-atom quantum methods with potential applications in quantum sensing and communication, as well as advances in pulsed magnetic field propagation and Doppler radar detection leading to new detection physics for landmines.

The Fiscal Year 2024 competition identified six topics that received an additional $1.5 million each over the five-year award term specifically to support the participation of historically Black colleges and universities and minority-serving institutions (HBCU/MIs). Seven proposals selected across the six topics will receive support for HBCU/MI participation on the MURI projects.

The Army Research Office, Air Force Office of Scientific Research, and Office of Naval Research solicited Fiscal Year 2024 proposals in 25 topic areas of strategic importance to the Department. After a merit-based review of 276 white papers, a panel of experts narrowed the pool to a subset of 102 full proposals, from which the 30 final awards were selected. The list of winning teams can be downloaded here .

About USD(R&E) 

The Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (USD(R&E)) is the Chief Technology Officer of the Department of Defense. The USD(R&E) champions research, science, technology, engineering, and innovation to maintain the U.S. military's technological advantage. Learn more at www.cto.mil, follow us on Twitter @DoDCTO, or visit us on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/company/ousdre .

Subscribe to Defense.gov Products

Choose which Defense.gov products you want delivered to your inbox.

Defense.gov

Helpful links.

  • Live Events
  • Today in DOD
  • For the Media
  • DOD Resources
  • DOD Social Media Policy
  • Help Center
  • DOD / Military Websites
  • Agency Financial Report
  • Value of Service
  • Taking Care of Our People
  • FY 2024 Defense Budget
  • National Defense Strategy

U.S. Department of Defense logo

The Department of Defense provides the military forces needed to deter war and ensure our nation's security.

Welcome, Login to your account.

Recover your password.

A password will be e-mailed to you.

Publisher

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.

Language selection

  • Français fr

Government of Canada invests in 7,700 world-class researchers and projects across the country

From: Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada

News release

unding supports groundbreaking research in key branches of science, engineering and humanities

Funding supports groundbreaking research in key branches of science, engineering and humanities

March 13, 2024 – Montréal, Quebec 

Canada’s world-class researchers and institutions play a critical role in finding solutions to major challenges and advancing a resilient and sustainable future. Investments in talent, trainees, institutions and infrastructure drive innovation and help create a better future for all Canadians and people around the world.

Today, the Honourable Pablo Rodriguez, Minister of Transport and Quebec Lieutenant, on behalf of the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, and the Honourable Mark Holland, Minister of Health, announced support for 7,700 researchers and research projects all across Canada. Over $1.7 billion in funding has been allocated to researchers and students, which reflects the government’s steadfast support for Canada’s research community.

This funding, part of the $16 billion invested in science and research since 2016, is being distributed to recipients through grants, scholarships, fellowships and other programs. It will support the acquisition of the state-of-the-art tools and infrastructure needed by researchers to advance their discoveries and innovations. It will also spur a new generation of researchers in their pursuit of excellence, while building an inclusive research community that reflects Canada’s diversity and promotes an equitable future for all. The investment will also further efforts to attract and retain exceptional talent and promote domestic and international collaboration that strengthens Canada as a global leader in finding solutions to major challenges.

The funding is distributed across the country through:

  • 2022-23 Scholarships and Fellowships – awarding $275 million to 5,762 scholarship and fellowship recipients through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).
  • The Canada Research Chairs (CRC) program – awarding $191 million to 230 new and renewed chairholders at 50 institutions. This includes $8.7 million to CRCs leading 40 research infrastructure projects at 22 institutions, funded by the John R. Evans Leaders Fund through the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI).
  • The CFI Innovation Fund – awarding $515.3 million to 32 institutions and 100 projects.
  • SSHRC Insight Development Grants – awarding $35.3 million to 577 emerging and established scholars.
  • 2023–24 Research Support Fund and Incremental Projects Grants administered by the Tri-agency Institutional Programs Secretariat – awarding $427 million to 148 Canadian postsecondary institutions.
  • NSERC Alliance Grants – awarding $347 million to 882 university researchers who work with partners in the private, public and not-for-profit sectors.
“Congratulations to top-tier researchers who will get a boost through this vital funding to take their projects to the next level. Our Government is proud to support future generations by enabling students and postdoctoral researchers to acquire and hone the skills and knowledge they need to excel in their challenging fields. Their pioneering research will further establish Canada’s position as a global leader in innovation while helping to drive our economy and achieve our shared vision of a brighter, healthier future for all Canadians.” – The Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry
“Congratulations to all the recipients of these grants, awards and scholarships. Our government is pleased to invest in your diverse array of health, natural sciences and engineering, and humanities and social sciences research projects. Your ideas, passion, and hard work, as well as the evidence you uncover, will be instrumental in improving the health and quality of life of people in Canada and around the world.” – The Honourable Mark Holland, Minister of Health
"When we invest in science and innovation, we are investing in our well-being and prosperity. Our researchers continue to distinguish themselves internationally and, by supporting them, we are helping them to continue to improve our quality of life, fight climate change and inspire the next generation of researchers, here in Quebec, across the country and around the world." – The Honourable Pablo Rodriguez, Minister of Transport and Quebec Lieutenant
“The breakthroughs and innovations created by Canada’s diverse and talented research community improve the quality of life for Canadians today and for future generations. I am immensely proud that we are able to continue supporting research excellence at all stages, from students all the way through to established leaders. The investments made through these federally funded research programs are vital for developing solutions to our local, national and global challenges, and they will pay dividends for years to come.” – Engineering Research Council of Canada and Chair of the Canada Research Coordinating Committee

Quick facts

The Scholarships and Fellowships programs are administered by Canada’s three federal research granting agencies: the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). Among these programs are:

  • the Canada Graduate Scholarships–Master's program , which helps develop research skills and assist in the training of highly qualified students who demonstrate a high standard of achievement in undergraduate and early graduate studies.
  • the Canada Graduate Scholarships–Doctoral program , which promotes continued excellence in Canadian research by rewarding and retaining high-calibre doctoral students at Canadian institutions.
  • other agency-specific scholarship and fellowship programs supporting doctoral and postdoctoral research trainees.

The Tri-agency Institutional Programs Secretariat’s (TIPS) Research Support Fund (RSF) assists Canadian postsecondary institutions with indirect costs associated with managing their research enterprise, helping them maintain a world-class research environment. The Incremental Projects Grants (IPG) stream within RSF was launched in 2018 and provides further support to help offset the indirect costs of research for projects across IPG priority areas. 

SSHRC Insight Development Grants build knowledge and understanding about people, societies and the world by supporting research excellence in the social sciences and humanities.

NSERC Alliance Grants encourage university researchers to collaborate with partner organizations from private, public and not-for-profit sectors. The grants support research projects led by strong, complementary, collaborative teams that will generate new knowledge and accelerate the application of research results to benefit Canada.

The Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) invests in research infrastructure at Canadian universities, colleges, research hospitals and non-profit research institutions, equipping researchers with the tools they need to be global leaders. CFI’s John R. Evans Leaders Fund helps institutions attract and retain researchers and provides support for the Canada Research Chairs Program. CFI’s Innovation Fund provides ongoing investments in infrastructure across the full spectrum of research.

Associated links

  • CFI Innovation Fund
  • SSHRC Insight Development Grants
  • NSERC Alliance Grants
  • TIPS Research Support Fund
  • Canadian Research Data Centre Network
  • Scholarships and fellowships recipients
  • Canada Research Chairs results

Audrey Champoux Press Secretary and Senior Communications Advisor Office of the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry [email protected]

Media Relations Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada [email protected]

Stay connected

Find more services and information at Canada.ca/ISED .

Follow @CDNScience on social media for Canadian science news: X (Twitter) , Instagram , Facebook

Page details

U.S. flag

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.

Mission Office Innovative Solutions Openings

Mission Office-specific Innovative Solutions Openings (ISOs) funding opportunity now open

To enhance our ability to support initiatives that align with our mission and Strategic Plan, the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) is now accepting submissions to its Mission Office-specific ISOs. The four Mission Office-specific ISOs include:

  • Health Science Futures - Accelerating advances across research areas and removing limitations that stymie progress towards solutions for broad ranges of disease and conditions. View the Health Science Futures ISO on SAM.gov .
  • View the Proactive Health virtual Proposers' Day Special Notice .
  • Register to attend the Proactive Health virtual Proposers' Day on April 9, 2024, 2:00 - 3:00 PM ET. Registration closes at 5:00 PM ET on April 5, 2024. 
  • Resilient Systems - Developing capabilities, business models, and integrations to endure crisis such as pandemics, social disruption, and economic instability. View the Resilient Systems ISO on SAM.gov .
  • Scalable Solutions - Addressing challenges including geography, distribution, manufacturing, data and information, and economies of scale to develop impactful, timely, and equitable solutions. View the Scalable Solutions ISO on SAM.gov .

Mission Office-specific ISOs allow ARPA-H to fund health-related technology research and development outside of the traditional grant or contract structure by using solicitations designed for cooperative agreements and "other transactions" for flexibilities outside of the Federal Acquisition Regulation.

For all questions, contact us at https://solutions.arpa-h.gov/Ask-A-Question/ .

Applicants are also encouraged to view current opportunities on the ARPA-H program page .

View Open BAA Awardees

research project funding

Project GREEEN

Controlled-environment agriculture research sees innovation through project greeen.

Cameron Rudolph <[email protected]> - March 13, 2024

share this on facebook

MSU researchers have used Project GREEEN funding to optimize greenhouse production for more than 25 years.

EAST LANSING, Mich. — Michigan’s greenhouse industry is one of the largest in the country with an economic impact of more than $740 million annually. According to the Michigan Greenhouse Growers Council, the industry employs more than 9,000 people and ranks third in the U.S. with 47.9 million square feet under cover.

Throughout Project GREEEN ’s 25 years, the program has supported research on controlled-environment agriculture and how to increase its economic viability.

Erik Runkle , a professor and Extension specialist in the Michigan State University Department of Horticulture , joined the faculty in 2001 and has utilized Project GREEEN funding for the entirety of his tenure. His research program focuses on the environmental physiology of herbaceous specialty plants grown in controlled environments.

CELL LAB - Blue Light.jpg

Some of his earliest work was aimed at determining the environmental factors that influence flowering in potted orchid plants. Orchids are some of the most popular floricultural plants in the world, admired for their beautiful appearance, long lifespan and the relative ease of caring for them.

Runkle and his team found that altering environmental aspects such as temperature can cause some types of orchids to flower at different times. For example, exposing plants to specific temperature regimens can delay flowering until demand is highest at times such as Valentine’s Day or Mother’s Day.

“This was really foundational work to understand how these environmental factors influence flowering that would not have been possible without Project GREEEN,” Runkle said. “We’ve been partnering with greenhouse growers and delivering information to them, as well as hobbyists and anyone interested in growing these plants, for many years. My roles in research and outreach through MSU Extension pair well with Project GREEEN’s model, and we’ve been able to leverage that funding to expand our research program.”

In the mid-2000s, Runkle received multiple Project GREEEN grants to explore improving energy efficiency in greenhouse production. Because most floricultural crops are produced in Michigan from January to May, significant energy is required to heat greenhouses. When energy prices are high, it cuts into the grower’s bottom line.

In response to soaring energy prices in 2007 and 2008 prior to the global economic crisis, many growers were lowering the temperature of their greenhouses to save money. While it may seem like a logical step, Runkle said it was apparent there would be unintended consequences.

Erik Runkle.jpg

Runkle’s team conducted a feasibility study to identify strategies that growers could use to decrease energy consumption, in addition to generating species-specific information on the influence of temperature and daily light integral on more than 30 common annual bedding plants.

“Lowering temperatures elongates the growth process, so we hypothesized that energy expenditure may actually increase because plants occupy greenhouse space for a longer time,” Runkle said. “Our research showed that in many circumstances, that indeed occurred. We developed a series of resources for growers on how to save energy while also producing high-quality crops.”

More recently, Runkle has investigated the effects of lighting on the production of premium-quality specialty food products — leafy greens such as kale, lettuce and spinach.

Alongside a team of researchers including Roberto Lopez , an associate professor and Extension specialist in the MSU Department of Horticulture, Runkle used Project GREEEN funding to examine how light color and intensity interact to affect yield and quality. The team also looked at consumer attributes such as taste and texture to monitor the effects of lighting, and worked to create educational materials for distribution to growers.

The project was enhanced by the completion of the Controlled-Environment Lighting Laboratory on campus, which houses research with various types of light-emitting diode (LED) lighting.

Researchers found that far-red light increases leaf size and allows plants to capture more light, which leads to greater yield. It also decreased pigmentation in leaves and could lead to a lower-quality product. Conversely, blue light resulted in smaller, darker leaves with potentially greater quality attributes. Effects of green light were contextual with respect to other types of light that were present.

“We know there are many benefits to indoor controlled-environment agriculture, such as the significant reduction in water use, potential elimination of pesticides, uniform and consistent crops, and year-round production,” Lopez said. “But there are very real challenges, including high energy costs and other economic challenges such as high startup costs. We began to explore some of these with Project GREEEN funding and continue to look at ways to reduce production costs today with federal dollars.”

Preliminary results from this work led to a $2.7 million grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI). Industry partners matched the funding, bringing the total to $5.4 million. The project, known as OptimIA (Optimizing Indoor Agriculture), has three major goals:

  • Define optimal profitability based on yield and other high-value attributes of the plants, such as nutritional content.
  • Optimize indoor environmental conditions, such as humidity, air movement, temperature, light and carbon dioxide concentration, to increase yield and high-value attributes.
  • Encourage indoor farming stakeholders to collaborate with academic and industry groups that are working in controlled-environment agriculture.

Scientists on the project include Runkle, Lopez, Simone Valle de Souza — an assistant professor in the MSU Department of Horticulture — Chieri Kubota at Ohio State University, Cary Mitchell at Purdue University, and Murat Kacira at the University of Arizona.

Several findings have been made thus far, including that using mostly red light from seed to harvest maximized yield. This created some difficulties with seedling handling for transplanting, but that can be mitigated through the controlled use of blue light.

Roberto Lopez.jpg

“What we’re seeing is that to achieve the desired plant characteristics, it takes some fine tuning with light across the spectrum,” Runkle said. “With recent advances in automated robotics for indoor vertical farming, moving plants to different spectrum zones has become feasible to achieve desired crop characteristics during each growth phase.”

Building on Project GREEEN research, SCRI also funded a $3.4 million project led by Lopez to explore the potential of expanding U.S. greenhouse production of fresh culinary herbs for a project called Controlled-Environment Agriculture (CEA) HERB.

Lopez is joined by Runkle, Bridget Behe — a professor emeritus in the MSU Department of Horticulture — Mary Hausbeck — a University Distinguished Professor in the MSU Department of Plant, Soil and Microbial Sciences — and scientists from Iowa State University, North Carolina State University, Texas Tech University, the University of Tennessee, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service.

The team is conducting a survey to determine current production methods, sensory experiences and marketing strategies needed to expand the U.S. controlled-environment culinary herb industry. Researchers are also performing controlled-environment studies to identify practices that increase growth, quality, shelf-life, disease management and food safety. Finally, research outcomes will be used to create outreach materials for growers.

Lopez said that findings thus far include the effects of ultraviolet A (UVA) light on the height of fresh culinary herb plants, particularly basil. Producers have found that basil growing too quickly presents challenges with shipping, offering less room in containers and ultimately reducing revenue.

Chemical growth regulators are not used on plants that will be consumed, so Lopez and his team have shown that providing six hours of UVA light to basil plants at night significantly stunts growth. Lopez said this can result in a lighter-green plant, which may not be ideal, but exposing them to sunlight after UVA light eliminates this problem.

“This project is going to provide a lot of information about both the viability of controlled-environment U.S. fresh culinary herb production and the customers who are willing to pay a premium price for them,” Lopez said. “We must learn all we can about customers, which can then help us identify new markets and understand the demand for U.S.-grown products. It’s important that this project is a holistic research and outreach effort.”

Scott Stiles, general manager of Henry Mast Greenhouses in Byron Center, Michigan, has worked with Runkle and Lopez for nearly two decades. He has written several letters of support on their behalf for funding opportunities, including with Project GREEEN. He believes their efforts are vitally important to Michigan’s greenhouse industry.

“I can’t say enough good things about them, and the information they collect through their research is implemented in our operation regularly,” Stiles said. “Most recently, they’ve helped us with using LED lights to grow and propagate tropical plants such as Dipladenia and indoor houseplants, crops that are not something we’ve typically grown in the north but have gotten into in the last few years. We’re big supporters of MSU research through our business and continue to rely on it to advance our growing strategies.”

Michigan State University AgBioResearch scientists discover dynamic solutions for food systems and the environment. More than 300 MSU faculty conduct leading-edge research on a variety of topics, from health and climate to agriculture and natural resources. Originally formed in 1888 as the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, MSU AgBioResearch oversees numerous on-campus research facilities, as well as 15 outlying centers throughout Michigan. To learn more, visit  agbioresearch.msu.edu .

Did you find this article useful?

Check out the Horticulture B.S. program!

Check out the Crop & Soil Sciences B.S. program!

new - method size: 3 - Random key: 2, method: personalized - key: 2

You Might Also Be Interested In

research project funding

MSU researcher awarded five-year, $2.5 million grant to develop risk assessment training program

Published on October 13, 2020

research project funding

MSU Product Center helps Michigan food entrepreneurs survive and thrive throughout pandemic

Published on August 31, 2021

research project funding

Protecting Michigan’s environment and wildlife through the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

Published on September 1, 2021

research project funding

MSU Extension to undertake three-year, $7 million vaccination education effort

Published on August 17, 2021

research project funding

MSU to study precision livestock farming adoption trends in U.S. swine industry

Published on March 15, 2021

research project funding

MSU research team receives USDA grant to evaluate effectiveness, cost of new blueberry pest management strategies

Published on February 19, 2021

  • abr campaign
  • annual bedding plants
  • controlled environment agriculture
  • department of horticulture
  • department of plant soil and microbial sciences
  • featured news
  • floriculture
  • floriculture & greenhouse crop production
  • horticulture
  • indoor farming
  • plant agriculture
  • project greeen
  • abr campaign,
  • annual bedding plants,
  • controlled environment agriculture,
  • department of horticulture,
  • department of plant soil and microbial sciences,
  • featured news,
  • floriculture,
  • floriculture & greenhouse crop production,
  • horticulture,
  • indoor farming,
  • plant agriculture,

Skip to Content

Other ways to search:

  • Events Calendar

CU Boulder research and innovation leaders visit DC, talk quantum, workforce and more

An important role of the University of Colorado Boulder as a top-tier research university is working closely with state and federal policymakers to advocate for robust funding for university research and education, ensuring effective coordination on ongoing projects, and proactively identifying and exploring opportunities for future collaborations to advance the mission of the university while benefiting the people of Colorado. 

Massimo Ruzzene and Chris Gustavson discussed CU Boulder and State of Colorado priorities with leaders from the Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation.

Massimo Ruzzene and Chris Gustavson discussed CU Boulder and State of Colorado priorities with leaders from the Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation.

This March, CU Boulder vice chancellor for research and innovation and dean of the institutes Massimo Ruzzene spent several days in Washington, D.C. to advance this important agenda. 

During the visit, Ruzzene and colleagues from CU Boulder and the four-campus University of Colorado system met with congressional and federal leaders about university efforts spanning areas such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) Colorado-Wyoming Climate Resilience Engine , workforce development progress across several industries, important quantum science and technology advances—including Colorado’s recent TechHub designation —and more. 

Meetings with Colorado Congressional delegations—including the offices of Senator Michael Bennet, Senator John Hickenlooper, Representative Joe Neguse and Representative Brittany Pettersen—gave special attention to recent workforce development achievements, especially in semiconductor and quantum sectors. Of particular interest to state delegations was the recently announced Quantum-Ready Workforce Vision document, and ongoing progress on a detailed roadmap to create a coordinated Quantum Information Science and Technology (QIST) workforce ecosystem for Colorado.

Ruzzene also advocated for increased commitments and funding from NSF, a key funder of research at CU Boulder and other leading U.S. universities. In addition to expressing gratitude on behalf of the entire university for critical support from agencies such as NSF, the Department of Commerce and the Department of Energy, Ruzzene and agency leaders discussed future partnership opportunities to benefit students and researchers at CU Boulder while addressing challenges facing Colorado and the nation. 

  • Research & Innovation News

Search Faculty Experts

Research and expertise across CU Boulder.

  • Research Institutes

Our 12 research institutes conduct more than half of the sponsored research at CU Boulder.

  • Research Computing

A carefully integrated cyberinfrastructure supports CU Boulder research.

  • Research Centers

More than 75 research centers span the campus, covering a broad range of topics.

Research Development, Institutes & Centers

  • Research Development
  • Shared Instrumentation Network
  • Office of Postdoctoral Affairs
  • Research & Innovation Office Bulletin

Research Administration

  • Office of Contracts and Grants
  • Research Integrity (Compliance)
  • Human Research & IRB
  • Office of Animal Resources
  • Research Tools
  • Research Professor Series

Partnerships & Innovation

  • Innovation & Entrepreneurship
  • Venture Partners (formerly Technology Transfer Office)
  • Industry & Foundation Relations
  • AeroSpace Ventures
  • Grand Challenge
  • Center for National Security Initiatives

usa flag

NIH Simplified Peer Review Framework for Research Project Grants (RPG): Implementation and Impact on Funding Opportunities

Wednesday, April 17, 2024 1:00 – 2:00 p.m. ET

REGISTRATION REQUIRED!

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is simplifying the framework for the peer review of most Research Project Grant (RPG) applications, effective for due dates on or after January 25, 2025. These changes are designed to address the complexity of the peer review process and mitigate potential bias. Make plans to hear the latest updates, timelines, and how these changes will impact existing and new funding opportunities. A Q&A with NIH experts will follow the presentation to address additional questions.

Reasonable Accommodations: This webinar will be closed-captioned and will include an American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter. Requests for reasonable accommodations should be submitted at least five days before the event to [email protected].

Webinar Resources: The PPT will be posted here 24 hours before the webinar. This event will be recorded.

Related Topic Website: (Scroll down for more information): Simplifying Review of Research Project Grant Applications

 #NIHGrantsEvents

research project funding

Virtual Event Overview

Date: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 Time: 1:00-2:00 PM ET (Eastern Time Zone) Registration Required

Presentation Resources:

  • PowerPoint: To be posted approximately 24 hours before the webinar.
  • Accessible Video & Transcript: To be posted approximately seven business days after the event concludes.

Related Resources

  • Simplifying Review of Research Project Grant Applications
  • Previous Webinar (11/3/2023): Online Briefing on NIH's Simplified Peer Review Framework for NIH Research Project Grant (RPG) Applications and Impact to New and Existing Funding Opportunities
  • Video Recording (YouTube)
  • Transcript (PDF)
  • Additional resources available soon.

Agenda Format

  • Introduction
  • Overview of changes
  • Live Q&A with NIH Policy Experts

The presentation team for this event is currently being finalized. Please check back for updates prior to the webinar.

name

To be announced

Executive Implementation Committee co-chair email

research project funding

Reasonable Accommodations and/or questions related to this event should be submitted no less than five business days prior to the event to: [email protected]

This page last updated on: March 20, 2024

  • 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

IMAGES

  1. Project Funding Infographic 10 Steps Stock Vector

    research project funding

  2. Four Steps to Find Funding for Your Research

    research project funding

  3. How to Construct a Compelling Grant Proposal

    research project funding

  4. How to Get Funding for Research Projects: the Complete Guide for

    research project funding

  5. 6 Tips On Getting Funding for Your Engineering Research

    research project funding

  6. Research Funding

    research project funding

COMMENTS

  1. Funding at NSF

    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. Search for funding. Search funded projects (awards)

  2. Types of Grant Programs

    Provides limited funding for a short period of time to support a variety of types of projects, including pilot or feasibility studies, collection of preliminary data, secondary analysis of existing data, small, self-contained research projects, development of new research technology, etc. Generally, limited to two years of funding.

  3. Research Grants and Research 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 ...

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

    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.

  5. Grants & Funding

    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 ...

  6. Research Funding—Why, When, and How?

    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. This is an art which can be learnt only by practising and we intend to throw light on ...

  7. Grant Proposals (or Give me the money!)

    The title page usually includes a brief yet explicit title for the research project, the names of the principal investigator(s), the institutional affiliation of the applicants (the department and university), name and address of the granting agency, project dates, amount of funding requested, and signatures of university personnel authorizing ...

  8. Funding

    NIH offers funding for many types of grants, contracts, and even programs that help repay loans for researchers. Learn about these programs, as well as about NIH's budget process, grant funding strategies, and policies, and more. ... NIH supports Research Training and Career Development programs to help prepare individuals for careers in ...

  9. NIH Grants & Funding website

    Find Grant Funding. NIH offers funding for many types of grants, contracts, and even programs that help repay loans for researchers. Learn about these programs, NIH funding strategies, and more. ... Access reports, data, and analyses of NIH research activities, including information on NIH expenditures and the results of NIH-supported research ...

  10. How to Write a Research Proposal

    Research proposal examples. Writing a research proposal can be quite challenging, but a good starting point could be to look at some examples. We've included a few for you below. Example research proposal #1: "A Conceptual Framework for Scheduling Constraint Management".

  11. How to Get Funding for Research Projects: the Complete Guide for

    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.

  12. What is research funding, how does it influence research ...

    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 ...

  13. Comparing Popular Research Project Grants—R01, R03, and R21

    R21 projects are usually high-risk/high-reward and require a high degree of innovation. R03 projects are usually descriptive and are used to generate hypotheses and data to support them. Is an R01 Right for You? An R01 is for mature research projects that are hypothesis-driven with strong preliminary data.

  14. Research grants databases

    Research grants databases. UKCDR and GloPID-R have developed a live database of funded research projects on COVID-19, as part of the COVID CIRCLE initiative, that will help funders and researchers identify gaps and opportunities and inform future research investments or coordination needs. World RePORT is an open-access, interactive mapping ...

  15. How to Get Research Funded

    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.

  16. Fund Your Project

    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 ...

  17. A Guide to Finding Funding

    The office also provides tips for finding opportunities, writing applications, and securing funding. The Faculty Aide Program is a good place to start. This program subsidizes up to $1,500 in student wages as a way to encourage professors to hire undergraduate research assistants. The following list highlights some of the many research grants ...

  18. How to Find the Best Funding Sources for Your Research Projects

    Moreover, industry and private sector companies such as Google, Pfizer, and Boeing may fund research projects with potential commercial applications or benefits. Finally, academic institutions and ...

  19. NIH Charts Trends in Research Project Grant Costs Over Time

    The distribution of research project grant costs is shifting toward both the high and low ends—NIH is funding a larger proportion of relatively expensive and relatively inexpensive awards. To explore Dr. Lauer's graphs, charts, and tables and review his analysis in full, follow the link above to the Open Mike blog.

  20. Research Funding

    Apply for Research Funding. Most grant applications submitted to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for research or research training are investigator-initiated proposals. ... Funded Programs and Projects. NHGRI's programs and projects support research in one of six domains to advance the field of genomics and improve human health. View ...

  21. NIH Research Project Grant Program (R01)

    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.

  22. Research and Project Grants

    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. Deadline. 03 April 2024. Country where tenable. Science- and technology-lagging countries.

  23. Department of Defense Announces Fiscal Year 2024 University Research

    The Department of Defense today announced $221 million in awards for basic defense-related research projects as part of the Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative (MURI) program.

  24. University Grants Commission: Research Funding and Projects

    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 ...

  25. Government of Canada invests in 7,700 world-class researchers and

    Funding supports groundbreaking research in key branches of science, engineering and humanities. March 13, ... Minister of Health, announced support for 7,700 researchers and research projects all across Canada. Over $1.7 billion in funding has been allocated to researchers and students, which reflects the government's steadfast support for ...

  26. Mission Office Innovative Solutions Openings

    Mission Office-specific Innovative Solutions Openings (ISOs) funding opportunity now open. To enhance our ability to support initiatives that align with our mission and Strategic Plan, the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) is now accepting submissions to its Mission Office-specific ISOs.

  27. Funding Available for Research in Cell and Tissue Metabolism

    The AIMRC pilot project program is designed to provide funding for faculty to generate data for publications and for competitive grant applications to NIH or other federal agencies. Successful Pilot Project applications will be collaborative, interdisciplinary and should expand the applicant's research focus.

  28. Controlled-environment agriculture research sees innovation through

    Preliminary results from this work led to a $2.7 million grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI). Industry partners matched the funding, bringing the total to $5.4 million. The project, known as OptimIA (Optimizing Indoor Agriculture), has three major goals:. Define optimal profitability based on yield and other high-value attributes of the ...

  29. CU Boulder research and innovation leaders visit DC, talk quantum

    CU Boulder vice chancellor for research and innovation and dean of the institutes Massimo Ruzzene met with congressional and federal leaders in Washington, D.C. this month to advocate for robust funding, ensure effective coordination on ongoing projects, and proactively explore opportunities for future collaborations.

  30. NIH Simplified Peer Review Framework for Research Project Grants (RPG

    Wednesday, April 17, 2024 1:00 - 2:00 p.m. ET. REGISTRATION REQUIRED! The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is simplifying the framework for the peer review of most Research Program Grant (RPG) applications, effective for due dates on or after January 25, 2025.