Explore more
Common elements of funding applications
Most applications have common features. Consider these before beginning your application.
Despite the enormous variety of schemes and application formats, it is possible to generalise about some commonly-recurring elements.
Key takeaways
- All funding applications are different, but there are common features to most.
- Funders want to support innovative research so make sure the project you are proposing is novel, but also feasible.
- Outline not only the significance of the problem your research will solve, but also the benefit, impact and benefit of the outcomes when realised.
- Consider your track record and that of the team you have assembled for the project (if relevant); it may impact what scheme is appropriate for your project.
- Ensure you have a clear and well-conceived project plan.
- Write your application persuasively but concisely.
Read time: 5 min
It’s important to check the scheme documentation to understand exactly what is required for any specific scheme you want to apply for. Nonetheless, here are a few common elements that you are likely to come across if you’re writing a competitive grant or fellowship application.
Innovation
No one will fund research if it’s too similar to what’s been done before. You have to propose something new, novel, different, unique, original – pick a synonym. Bear in mind also that something considered innovative in one discipline or field may be tried-and-true in another, so if assessors are outside your discipline/field, you will need to clarify this. In fact, you should always be explicit about innovation, explaining how your proposed research will offer something new and different as clearly as possible.
There can be several dimensions to innovation: conceptual, methodological, technological, etc. So think about how you might ‘maximise’ your claims for innovation.
Finally, recognise that innovation = risk. To counterbalance this, you should therefore try to reassure assessors that the proposed innovation is feasible and that risks can be managed (as far as possible).
Feasibility
Assessors will judge this based on, for example, previously-published research (your own and others’), preliminary data (your own), your (or your team’s) track record, the quality of the research design, and the resources, infrastructure, equipment and other support at your disposal. Some schemes ask applicants to include risk-mitigation measures (e.g. contingency plans), milestones and/or performance indicators. Even if a scheme doesn’t demand these things, it can be advantageous to include them.
Significance (of the problem)
You will always need to explain why the problem, issue or question you’re proposing to address really matters. This is sometimes referred to as the ‘So what?’ factor. Just because it matters to you doesn’t mean it will matter to your assessors. It is your job to persuade them.
There can be two dimensions to significance: (i) the importance of a real-world problem that you’re seeking to address; and (ii) the importance of a research challenge that you’re attempting to solve. Typically they’re interlinked, so it makes sense to discuss both. However, some fundamental research won’t have immediate or direct application to real-world problems. In these cases, you can focus exclusively on (ii), although it’s usually not impossible to explain an ultimate application to (i).
Benefit, impact, significance (of the outcomes)
These terms are interchangeable. Conceptually what matters is that this is not about the research itself but about what may happen as a result or consequence of the research. Essentially you have to gaze into a crystal ball and read the future. The trick is to do it convincingly.
This is partly about how persuasively you write, but it is also about understanding (and articulating) a viable pathway from the research outcomes to the potential benefits/impacts/significance. You should always be able to make the case that your research will have benefit/impact/significance for your discipline or field. You should try to make the case that it will also have real-world benefit/impact/significance (i.e. beyond academia). For help with this, you may want to look at Research Impact.
Track record
There is usually a discrete score for track record but it also counts towards feasibility, so it’s doubly important. For fellowships and sole-investigator research proposals, the only track record will be yours of course. Otherwise, it’s a team affair. There are several dimensions to the assessment of track record, which we can phrase as questions:
- Do the investigator(s) have the knowledge, skills and experience to conduct the proposed research?
- Have the investigators worked together successfully before? and if not, are they likely to collaborate effectively?
- How impressive are the investigators in terms of their previous achievements and standing/reputation in their field?
- Do the investigators have the influence, contacts and/or resources to translate the research outcomes into real-world impacts and benefits?
- If there are junior investigators, how effectively will they be mentored (especially if a junior investigator is leading the research)?
For more help with writing your track record, have a look at Writing about your track record.
Research plan
The core of most funding applications is of course the research plan itself. (We say ‘most’ because the core of fellowship applications tends to be the applicant’s track record.) If the research plan is poorly conceived, devised, constructed, or articulated, you won’t get funded, even if what you’re proposing would indeed be innovative, significant and beneficial and you have a great team. The research plan is, to put it colloquially, ‘where the rubber hits the road’. The best generic advice we can offer is that your research plan must be watertight. You need to ‘stress test’ every conceivable angle, second-guess every possible objection, substantiate every claim and justify every choice.
Writing persuasively and concisely
There is some affinity between writing funding applications and writing poetry: every word counts and there’s no room for waffle. But whereas poetry encourages open-ended possibilities of interpretation, funding applications should achieve the opposite: as far as possible, you want to lock down meaning, so that assessors understand from your words exactly what you want them to understand and nothing else.
In this respect, writing a funding application is like making a case in a court of law. You must be relentlessly logical, present convincing evidence, and carefully dismiss all possible objections. This courtroom analogy may also help you to remember that you are always addressing an audience. While a funding application is a kind of monologue, as you write it you should be thinking in terms of having a dialogue with your assessors.