with a research grant

• U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

• Virtual Tour
• Staff Directory
• En Español

You are here

Grants & funding.

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

three-scientists-goggles-test-tube.jpg

Grants Home Page

NIH’s central resource for grants and funding information.

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

Find Funding

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

calendar-page-square.jpg

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

submit-key-red-square.jpg

How to Apply

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

female-researcher-in-lab-square.jpg

About Grants

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

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

Policy & Compliance

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

blog-key-blue-square.jpg

Grants News/Blog

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

scientist-flipping-through-report-square.jpg

Explore opportunities at NIH for research and development contract funding.

smiling-female-researcher-square.jpg

Loan Repayment

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

Connect with Us

• More Social Media from NIH

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

How to Write a Successful Research Grant Proposal: An Overview

Writing a research grant proposal can be a challenging task, especially for those who are new to the process. However, a well-written proposal can increase the chances of receiving the necessary funding for your research.

This guide discusses the key criteria to consider when writing a grant proposal and what to include in each section.  

Table of Contents

Key criteria to consider  

When writing a grant proposal, there are five main criteria that you need to consider. These are:  

• Significance  
• Innovation  
• Investigators  
• Environment  

The funding body will look for these criteria throughout your statement, so it’s important to tailor what you say and how you say it accordingly.  

1. Significance  

Significance refers to the value of the research you are proposing. It should address an important research problem and be significant in your field or for society. Think about what you are hoping to find and how it could be valuable in the industry or area you are working in. What does success look like? What could follow-on work lead to?  

2. Approach  

Approach refers to the methods and techniques you plan to use. The funding body will be looking at how well-developed and integrated your framework, design, methods, and analysis are. They will also want to know if you have considered any problem areas and alternative approaches. Experimental design, data collection and processing, and ethical considerations all fall under this group.  

3. Innovation  

Innovation means that you are proposing something new and original. Your aims should be original and innovative, or your proposed methods and approaches should be new and novel . Ideally both would be true. Your project should also challenge existing paradigms or develop new methodologies or technologies.  

4. Investigators  

Investigators here refer to you and your team, or proposed team. The funding body will want to know if you are well-trained and have the right qualifications and experience to conduct the research . This is important as it shows you have the ability to undertake the research successfully. One part of this evaluation will be, have you been awarded grants in the past. This is one reason to start early in your career with grant applications to smaller funds to build up a track record.  

5. Environment  

Environment refers to the scientific environment in which the work will be done. The funding body will want to know if the scientific environment will contribute to the overall probability of success. This could include your institution, the building or lab you will be working in, and any collaborative arrangements you have in place. Any similar research work conducted in your institution in the past will show that your environment is likely to be appropriate.  

Writing the grant proposal  

It’s almost impossible to generalize across funders, since each has its own highly specific format for applications, but most applications have the following sections in common.  

1. Abstract  

The abstract is a summary of your research proposal. It should be around 150 to 200 words and summarize your aims, the gap in literature, the methods you plan to use, and how long you might take.  

2. Literature Review  

The literature review is a review of the literature related to your field. It should summarize the research within your field, speaking about the top research papers and review papers. You should mention any existing knowledge about your topic and any preliminary data you have. If you have any hypotheses, you can add them at the end of the literature review.  

The aims section needs to be very clear about what your aims are for the project. You should have a couple of aims if you are looking for funding for two or three years. State your aims clearly using strong action words.  

4. Significance  

In this section, you should sell the significance of your research. Explain why your research is important and why you deserve the funding.  

Defining Your Research Questions  

It’s essential to identify the research questions you want to answer when writing a grant proposal. It’s also crucial to determine the potential impact of your research and narrow your focus.  

1.Innovation and Originality  

Innovation is critical in demonstrating that your research is original and has a unique approach compared to existing research. In this section, it’s essential to highlight the importance of the problem you’re addressing, any critical barriers to progress in the field, and how your project will improve scientific knowledge and technical capabilities. You should also demonstrate whether your methods, technologies, and approach are unique.  

2. Research approach and methodology  

Your research approach and methodology are crucial components of your grant proposal. In the approach section, you should outline your research methodology, starting with an overview that summarizes your aims and hypotheses. You should also introduce your research team and justify their involvement in the project, highlighting their academic background and experience. Additionally, you should describe their roles within the team. It’s also important to include a timeline that breaks down your research plan into different stages, each with specific goals.  

In the methodology section, detail your research methods, anticipated results, and limitations. Be sure to consider the potential limitations that could occur and provide solutions to overcome them. Remember, never give a limitation without providing a solution.  

Common reasons for grant failure  

Knowing the common reasons why grant proposals fail can help you avoid making these mistakes. The five key reasons for grant failure are:  

• Poor science – The quality of the research is not high enough.  
• Poor organization – The proposal is not organized in a clear way.  
• Poor integration – The proposal lacks clear integration between different sections.  
• Contradiction – The proposal contradicts itself.  
• Lack of qualifications or experienc e – The researcher lacks the necessary qualifications or experience to conduct the research.  

By avoiding these pitfalls, you will increase your chances of receiving the funding you need to carry out your research successfully.  

Tips for writing a strong grant proposal  

Writing a successful grant proposal requires careful planning and execution. Here are some tips to help you create a strong grant proposal:  

• Begin writing your proposal early. Grant proposals take time and effort to write. Start as early as possible to give yourself enough time to refine your ideas and address any issues that arise.  
• Read the guidelines carefully . Make sure to read the guidelines thoroughly before you start writing. This will help you understand the requirements and expectations of the funding agency.  
• Use clear, concise language . Avoid using technical jargon and complex language. Write in a way that is easy to understand and conveys your ideas clearly. It’s important to note that grant reviewers are not likely to be domain experts in your field.  
• Show, don’t tell . Use specific examples and evidence to support your claims. This will help to make your grant proposal more convincing.  
• Get feedback . Ask colleagues, mentors, or other experts to review your proposal and provide feedback. This will help you identify any weaknesses or areas for improvement.  

Conclusion  

Writing a successful grant proposal is an important skill for any researcher. By following the key criteria and tips outlined in this guide, you can increase your chances of securing funding for your research. Remember to be clear, concise, and innovative in your writing, and to address any potential weaknesses in your proposal. With a well-written grant proposal, you can make your research goals a reality.  

If you are looking for help with your grant application, come talk to us at GrantDesk. We have grant experts who are ready to help you get the research funding you need.  

Related Posts

How Editage All Access is Boosting Productivity for Academics in India

How to Write a Dissertation: A Beginner’s Guide 

Reference management. Clean and simple.

How to write a grant proposal: a step-by-step guide

What is a grant proposal?

Why should you write a grant proposal, format of a grant proposal, how to write a grant proposal, step 1: decide what funding opportunity to apply for, and research the grant application process, step 2: plan and research your project, preliminary research for your grant proposal, questions to ask yourself as you plan your grant proposal, developing your grant proposal, step 3: write the first draft of your grant proposal, step 4: get feedback, and revise your grant proposal accordingly, step 5: prepare to submit your grant proposal, what happens after submitting the grant proposal, final thoughts, other useful sources for writing grant proposals, frequently asked questions about writing grant proposals, related articles.

You have a vision for a future research project, and want to share that idea with the world.

To achieve your vision, you need funding from a sponsoring organization, and consequently, you need to write a grant proposal.

Although visualizing your future research through grant writing is exciting, it can also feel daunting. How do you start writing a grant proposal? How do you increase your chances of success in winning a grant?

But, writing a proposal is not as hard as you think. That’s because the grant-writing process can be broken down into actionable steps.

This guide provides a step-by-step approach to grant-writing that includes researching the application process, planning your research project, and writing the proposal. It is written from extensive research into grant-writing, and our experiences of writing proposals as graduate students, postdocs, and faculty in the sciences.

A grant proposal is a document or collection of documents that outlines the strategy for a future research project and is submitted to a sponsoring organization with the specific goal of getting funding to support the research. For example, grants for large projects with multiple researchers may be used to purchase lab equipment, provide stipends for graduate and undergraduate researchers, fund conference travel, and support the salaries of research personnel.

As a graduate student, you might apply for a PhD scholarship, or postdoctoral fellowship, and may need to write a proposal as part of your application. As a faculty member of a university, you may need to provide evidence of having submitted grant applications to obtain a permanent position or promotion.

Reasons for writing a grant proposal include:

• To obtain financial support for graduate or postdoctoral studies;
• To travel to a field site, or to travel to meet with collaborators;
• To conduct preliminary research for a larger project;
• To obtain a visiting position at another institution;
• To support undergraduate student research as a faculty member;
• To obtain funding for a large collaborative project, which may be needed to retain employment at a university.

The experience of writing a proposal can be helpful, even if you fail to obtain funding. Benefits include:

• Improvement of your research and writing skills
• Enhancement of academic employment prospects, as fellowships and grants awarded and applied for can be listed on your academic CV
• Raising your profile as an independent academic researcher because writing proposals can help you become known to leaders in your field.

All sponsoring agencies have specific requirements for the format of a grant proposal. For example, for a PhD scholarship or postdoctoral fellowship, you may be required to include a description of your project, an academic CV, and letters of support from mentors or collaborators.

For a large research project with many collaborators, the collection of documents that need to be submitted may be extensive. Examples of documents that might be required include a cover letter, a project summary, a detailed description of the proposed research, a budget, a document justifying the budget, and the CVs of all research personnel.

Before writing your proposal, be sure to note the list of required documents.

Writing a grant proposal can be broken down into three major activities: researching the project (reading background materials, note-taking, preliminary work, etc.), writing the proposal (creating an outline, writing the first draft, revisions, formatting), and administrative tasks for the project (emails, phone calls, meetings, writing CVs and other supporting documents, etc.).

Below, we provide a step-by-step guide to writing a grant proposal:

• Decide what funding opportunity to apply for, and research the grant application process
• Plan and research your project
• Write the first draft of your grant proposal
• Get feedback, and revise your grant proposal accordingly
• Prepare to submit your grant proposal

• Start early. Begin by searching for funding opportunities and determining requirements. Some sponsoring organizations prioritize fundamental research, whereas others support applied research. Be sure your project fits the mission statement of the granting organization. Look at recently funded proposals and/or sample proposals on the agency website, if available. The Research or Grants Office at your institution may be able to help with finding grant opportunities.
• Make a spreadsheet of grant opportunities, with a link to the call for proposals page, the mission and aims of the agency, and the deadline for submission. Use the information that you have compiled in your spreadsheet to decide what to apply for.
• Once you have made your decision, carefully read the instructions in the call for proposals. Make a list of all the documents you need to apply, and note the formatting requirements and page limits. Know exactly what the funding agency requires of submitted proposals.
• Reach out to support staff at your university (for example, at your Research or Grants Office), potential mentors, or collaborators. For example, internal deadlines for submitting external grants are often earlier than the submission date. Make sure to learn about your institution’s internal processes, and obtain contact information for the relevant support staff.
• Applying for a grant or fellowship involves administrative work. Start preparing your CV and begin collecting supporting documents from collaborators, such as letters of support. If the application to the sponsoring agency is electronic, schedule time to set up an account, log into the system, download necessary forms and paperwork, etc. Don’t leave all of the administrative tasks until the end.
• Map out the important deadlines on your calendar. These might include video calls with collaborators, a date for the first draft to be complete, internal submission deadlines, and the funding agency deadline.
• Schedule time on your calendar for research, writing, and administrative tasks associated with the project. It’s wise to group similar tasks and block out time for them (a process known as ” time batching ”). Break down bigger tasks into smaller ones.

Now that you know what you are applying for, you can think about matching your proposed research to the aims of the agency. The work you propose needs to be innovative, specific, realizable, timely, and worthy of the sponsoring organization’s attention.

• Develop an awareness of the important problems and open questions in your field. Attend conferences and seminar talks and follow all of your field’s major journals.
• Read widely and deeply. Journal review articles are a helpful place to start. Reading papers from related but different subfields can generate ideas. Taking detailed notes as you read will help you recall the important findings and connect disparate concepts.

• Writing a grant proposal is a creative and imaginative endeavor. Write down all of your ideas. Freewriting is a practice where you write down all that comes to mind without filtering your ideas for feasibility or stopping to edit mistakes. By continuously writing your thoughts without judgment, the practice can help overcome procrastination and writer’s block. It can also unleash your creativity, and generate new ideas and associations. Mind mapping is another technique for brainstorming and generating connections between ideas.
• Establish a regular writing practice. Schedule time just for writing, and turn off all distractions during your focused work time. You can use your writing process to refine your thoughts and ideas.
• Use a reference manager to build a library of sources for your project. You can use a reference management tool to collect papers , store and organize references , and highlight and annotate PDFs . Establish a system for organizing your ideas by tagging papers with labels and using folders to store similar references.

To facilitate intelligent thinking and shape the overall direction of your project, try answering the following questions:

• What are the questions that the project will address? Am I excited and curious about their answers?
• Why are these questions important?
• What are the goals of the project? Are they SMART (Specific, Measurable, Actionable, Relevant, and Timely)?
• What is novel about my project? What is the gap in current knowledge?
• What methods will I use, and how feasible is my approach?
• Can the work be done over the proposed period, and with the budget I am requesting?
• Do I have relevant experience? For example, have I completed similar work funded by previous grants or written papers on my proposed topic?
• What pilot research or prior work can I use, or do I need to complete preliminary research before writing the proposal?
• Will the outcomes of my work be consequential? Will the granting agency be interested in the results?
• What solutions to open problems in my field will this project offer? Are there broader implications of my work?
• Who will the project involve? Do I need mentors, collaborators, or students to contribute to the proposed work? If so, what roles will they have?
• Who will read the proposal? For example, experts in the field will require details of methods, statistical analyses, etc., whereas non-experts may be more concerned with the big picture.
• What do I want the reviewers to feel, and take away from reading my proposal?
• What weaknesses does my proposed research have? What objections might reviewers raise, and how can I address them?
• Can I visualize a timeline for my project?

Create an actionable plan for your research project using the answers to these questions.

• Now is the time to collect preliminary data, conduct experiments, or do a preliminary study to motivate your research, and demonstrate that your proposed project is realistic.
• Use your plan to write a detailed outline of the proposal. An outline helps you to write a proposal that has a logical format and ensures your thought process is rational. It also provides a structure to support your writing.
• Follow the granting agency’s guidelines for titles, sections, and subsections to inform your outline.

At this stage, you should have identified the aims of your project, what questions your work will answer, and how they are relevant to the sponsoring agency’s call for proposals. Be able to explain the originality, importance, and achievability of your proposed work.

Now that you have done your research, you are ready to begin writing your proposal and start filling in the details of your outline. Build on the writing routine you have already started. Here are some tips:

• Follow the guidelines of the funding organization.
• Keep the proposal reviewers in mind as you write. Your audience may be a combination of specialists in your field and non-specialists. Make sure to address the novelty of your work, its significance, and its feasibility.
• Write clearly, concisely, and avoid repetition. Use topic sentences for each paragraph to emphasize key ideas. Concluding sentences of each paragraph should develop, clarify, or summarize the support for the declaration in the topic sentence. To make your writing engaging, vary sentence length.
• Avoid jargon, where possible. Follow sentences that have complex technical information with a summary in plain language.
• Don’t review all information on the topic, but include enough background information to convince reviewers that you are knowledgeable about it. Include preliminary data to convince reviewers you can do the work. Cite all relevant work.
• Make sure not to be overly ambitious. Don’t propose to do so much that reviewers doubt your ability to complete the project. Rather, a project with clear, narrowly-defined goals may prove favorable to reviewers.
• Accurately represent the scope of your project; don’t exaggerate its impacts. Avoid bias. Be forthright about the limitations of your research.
• Ensure to address potential objections and concerns that reviewers may have with the proposed work. Show that you have carefully thought about the project by explaining your rationale.
• Use diagrams and figures effectively. Make sure they are not too small or contain too much information or details.

After writing your first draft, read it carefully to gain an overview of the logic of your argument. Answer the following questions:

• Is your proposal concise, explicit, and specific?
• Have you included all necessary assumptions, data points, and evidence in your proposal?
• Do you need to make structural changes like moving or deleting paragraphs or including additional tables or figures to strengthen your rationale?
• Have you answered most of the questions posed in Step 2 above in your proposal?
• Follow the length requirements in the proposal guidelines. Don't feel compelled to include everything you know!
• Use formatting techniques to make your proposal easy on the eye. Follow rules for font, layout, margins, citation styles , etc. Avoid walls of text. Use bolding and italicizing to emphasize points.
• Comply with all style, organization, and reference list guidelines to make it easy to reviewers to quickly understand your argument. If you don’t, it’s at best a chore for the reviewers to read because it doesn’t make the most convincing case for you and your work. At worst, your proposal may be rejected by the sponsoring agency without review.
• Using a reference management tool like Paperpile will make citation creation and formatting in your grant proposal quick, easy and accurate.

Now take time away from your proposal, for at least a week or more. Ask trusted mentors or collaborators to read it, and give them adequate time to give critical feedback.

• At this stage, you can return to any remaining administrative work while you wait for feedback on the proposal, such as finalizing your budget or updating your CV.
• Revise the proposal based on the feedback you receive.
• Don’t be discouraged by critiques of your proposal or take them personally. Receiving and incorporating feedback with humility is essential to grow as a grant writer.

Now you are almost ready to submit. This is exciting! At this stage, you need to block out time to complete all final checks.

• Allow time for proofreading and final editing. Spelling and grammar mistakes can raise questions regarding the rigor of your research and leave a poor impression of your proposal on reviewers. Ensure that a unified narrative is threaded throughout all documents in the application.
• Finalize your documents by following a checklist. Make sure all documents are in place in the application, and all formatting and organizational requirements are met.
• Follow all internal and external procedures. Have login information for granting agency and institution portals to hand. Double-check any internal procedures required by your institution (applications for large grants often have a deadline for sign-off by your institution’s Research or Grants Office that is earlier than the funding agency deadline).
• To avoid technical issues with electronic portals, submit your proposal as early as you can.
• Breathe a sigh of relief when all the work is done, and take time to celebrate submitting the proposal! This is already a big achievement.

Now you wait! If the news is positive, congratulations!

But if your proposal is rejected, take heart in the fact that the process of writing it has been useful for your professional growth, and for developing your ideas.

Bear in mind that because grants are often highly competitive, acceptance rates for proposals are usually low. It is very typical to not be successful on the first try and to have to apply for the same grant multiple times.

Here are some tips to increase your chances of success on your next attempt:

• Remember that grant writing is often not a linear process. It is typical to have to use the reviews to revise and resubmit your proposal.
• Carefully read the reviews and incorporate the feedback into the next iteration of your proposal. Use the feedback to improve and refine your ideas.
• Don’t ignore the comments received from reviewers—be sure to address their objections in your next proposal. You may decide to include a section with a response to the reviewers, to show the sponsoring agency that you have carefully considered their comments.
• If you did not receive reviewer feedback, you can usually request it.

You learn about your field and grow intellectually from writing a proposal. The process of researching, writing, and revising a proposal refines your ideas and may create new directions for future projects. Professional opportunities exist for researchers who are willing to persevere with submitting grant applications.

➡️ Secrets to writing a winning grant

➡️ How to gain a competitive edge in grant writing

➡️ Ten simple rules for writing a postdoctoral fellowship

A grant proposal should include all the documents listed as required by the sponsoring organization. Check what documents the granting agency needs before you start writing the proposal.

Granting agencies have strict formatting requirements, with strict page limits and/or word counts. Check the maximum length required by the granting agency. It is okay for the proposal to be shorter than the maximum length.

Expect to spend many hours, even weeks, researching and writing a grant proposal. Consequently, it is important to start early! Block time in your calendar for research, writing, and administration tasks. Allow extra time at the end of the grant-writing process to edit, proofread, and meet presentation guidelines.

The most important part of a grant proposal is the description of the project. Make sure that the research you propose in your project narrative is new, important, and viable, and that it meets the goals of the sponsoring organization.

A grant proposal typically consists of a set of documents. Funding agencies have specific requirements for the formatting and organization of each document. Make sure to follow their guidelines exactly.

How to Write a Research Grant Proposal | Research Funding

5-tips-for-writing-a-successful-funding-application.

Helen Eassom, Copywriter, Wiley

January 27, 2022

How to Write a Research Grant Proposal

Most researchers in health and science come across grant proposals or applications at some point in their careers. In fact, many positions depend on them, whether they are doctoral students who require fellowships, postgraduates setting up relatively simple projects as they start employment, or more senior staff who need to have a steady stream of research projects. Although a significant amount of money is available from governmental bodies, charities and commercial organizations, there is a large pool of researchers, so competition can be very competitive. Developing a grant application can feel daunting at first, but with practice and good support, becomes easier with experience.

1. Get Visible – The Sooner, the Better!

It’s a good idea to start building up your profile within academia early on. Make use of all the resources available to you to showcase yourself, your research, and your achievements thus far. These include your page on your institution’s website, your personal website if you have one, and social media sites such as LinkedIn.

2. Collaboration Is Key

Try to build up your publication record as early as possible. This can obviously be tricky if you don’t have funding in the first place but think about collaborating with other academics who do have funding available to them. If you’re in the earlier stages of your career, you might consider applying for funding as a junior co-investigator with more senior academics. You might also want to think about making connections via social media, or through research networks, to establish relationships with potential collaborators.

3. Think Carefully About the Content

Your application will need to address some basics:

• Why is your research topic important?
• Why is further research needed in this area?
• Why am I the best person to carry out this research?
• What theories are you testing, or building upon, or contributing to?
• What would make funding your research worthwhile? What outputs will your research result in?
• What journals will you submit your research to, and what is the process to do it?

You’ll need to provide a clear justification for all costs, so think carefully about the time and resources needed to complete the research successfully within the specified period. Make sure you also devote enough space in your application to describing the research that you intend to carry out as well as the research design and methods that you will use.

If you’re unsure about what to include in your proposal, ask advice from senior or more experienced colleagues.

4. Review, Review, Review.

Make sure you leave plenty of time to review your application before submitting it.  Begin drafting your application as soon as possible – don’t leave it until just before the deadline!

The more people you can get to review your draft application, the better, especially those from outside your specific area of research. Remember that most members of funding panels will have their own areas of subject expertise, so you’ll want to write your application so that it can be understood by a broader audience. Keep your language clear, simple, and free of any jargon.

Don’t forget to check your spelling, punctuation, and grammar – you may have written a brilliant application but if it’s full of spelling errors or grammatical mistakes it’s likely to be rejected.

5. Don’t give up!

Many good funding applications get rejected for a myriad of reasons, so don’t be discouraged by your first (or fifth) rejection. You do need to be in it to win it. Make sure that you address any feedback received and refine your proposal accordingly ready to try again.

Watch our Webinar to help you get published

Please enter your Email Address

Please enter valid email address

Please Enter your First Name

Please enter your Last Name

Please enter your Questions or Comments.

Please enter the Privacy

Please enter the Terms & Conditions

Leveraging user research to improve author guidelines at the Council of Science Editors Annual Meeting

How research content supports academic integrity

Finding time to publish as a medical student: 6 tips for Success

Software to Improve Reliability of Research Image Data: Wiley, Lumina, and Researchers at Harvard Medical School Work Together on Solutions

Driving Research Outcomes: Wiley Partners with CiteAb

ISBN, ISSN, DOI: what they are and how to find them

Image Collections for Medical Practitioners with TDS Health

How do you Discover Content?

Writing for Publication for Nurses (Mandarin Edition)

Get Published - Your How to Webinar

Related articles.

User Experience (UX) Research is the process of discovering and understanding user requirements, motivations, and behaviours 

Learn how Wiley partners with plagiarism detection services to support academic integrity around the world

Medical student Nicole Foley shares her top tips for writing and getting your work published.

Wiley and Lumina are working together to support the efforts of researchers at Harvard Medical School to develop and test new machine learning tools and artificial intelligence (AI) software that can

Learn more about our relationship with a company that helps scientists identify the right products to use in their research

What is ISBN? ISSN? DOI? Learn about some of the unique identifiers for book and journal content.

Learn how medical practitioners can easily access and search visual assets from our article portfolio

Explore free-to-use services that can help you discover new content

Watch this webinar to help you learn how to get published.

Finding time to publish as a medical student: 6 tips for success

How to Easily Access the Most Relevant Research: A Q&A With the Creator of Scitrus

Atypon launches Scitrus, a personalized web app that allows users to create a customized feed of the latest research.

FOR INDIVIDUALS

FOR INSTITUTIONS & BUSINESSES

WILEY NETWORK

ABOUT WILEY

Corporate Responsibility

Corporate Governance

Leadership Team

Cookie Preferences

Copyright @ 2000-2024  by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., or related companies. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies.

Rights & Permissions

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Stanford Research Development Office

What Makes a Successful Proposal

Grant proposals are a distinct genre compared to other academic writing. At its heart, a compelling proposal focuses on posing an exciting research question or problem and offering a convincing narrative for how you will use grant funds to answer or solve it. 

Strong proposals typically exhibit several key characteristics:

• Define a specific, compelling, and carefully vetted concept.
• Explain its relevance to the academic community and society.
• Highlight the potential impact and why the research is timely and necessary.
• Present an innovative and original approach or access to a new corpus/data.
• Some funding programs are more interested in incremental accomplishments, while others (many that we work with) want more transformative potential.
• Provide a well-defined and practical plan for carrying out the project, including contingency plans.
• Clearly outline as applicable the research design, theoretical approach, data collection methods, analysis techniques, and include necessary preliminary data or proof of concept to demonstrate feasibility.
• Establish clear, achievable goals and objectives.
• Outline a realistic timeline with milestones.
• Provide a strategy for continuous evaluation and adaptation.
• Highlight the expertise of a well-rounded project team with clear roles and responsibilities in the project.
• Demonstrate strong collaboration and cohesion within the team, showcasing previous related work and publications to reinforce credibility.
• Tailor the proposal to align with the program’s objectives and priorities.
• Show how the research fits within the broader mission of the funding agency.
• Write concisely and avoid jargon. Define specialized terminology if necessary.
• Ensure that the proposal is accessible to a diverse audience, including non-specialists who may be involved in the review process.
• Use storytelling techniques to create a compelling narrative.
• Incorporate visual elements, such as graphics, charts, and figures, to effectively convey complex information.
• Provide a detailed and realistic budget, demonstrating a clear understanding of resource needs.
• Justify all expenses, showing how they support the project's success.
• Outline how you will share results with the academic community and beyond.
• Include plans for publications, conferences, and using other dissemination channels.
• Strictly follow the funder’s guidelines, ensuring all required components, including supporting documents and signatures, are included.
• Consider using strategic formatting elements, such as headers, bold text, and figures or tables, to make key elements easy to locate.

Addressing these key characteristics will help position your proposal for success. The Stanford Research Development Office is here to work with you throughout the process, from developing a compelling narrative to ensuring alignment with funder priorities. Our team offers expert guidance, resources, and support to enhance the competitiveness of your proposal for external funding.

Contact us at  [email protected] to learn how we can help you.

Created: 02/06/24

Updated: 09/12/24

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.

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

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

• About Grants
• Grants Basics

Types of Grant Programs

A comprehensive list of extramural grant and cooperative agreement activity codes is available, or you can search for specific codes below:

The following groupings represent the main types of grant funding we provide:

• Research Grants (R series)
• Career Development Awards (K series)
• Research Training and Fellowships (T series & F series)

Program Project/Center Grants (P series)

• Resource Grants (various series)

Trans-NIH Programs

• Inactive Programs (Archive)

Research Grants

The following represent frequently used research grant programs. A comprehensive list of all activity codes is also available.

Program project/center grants are large, multi-project efforts that generally include a diverse array of research activities. The following represents the most frequently used programs. ICs may vary in the way they use these programs. A comprehensive list of all activity codes is also available.  

Resource Grants

The following represent some of the more frequently used types of grant programs that provide research-related support or access to resources. A comprehensive list of all activity codes is also available.

NIH supports a variety of broad-reaching programs that are trans-NIH in nature. 

This page last updated on: April 11, 2023

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

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 J Orthop
• v.41(1); Jan-Mar 2007

How to write a grant proposal

Michael zlowodzki.

Division of Orthopedic Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

Anders Jönsson

* Association Internationale Pour l' Ostéosynthèse Dynamique, Nice, France

Philip J Kregor

** Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA

Mohit Bhandari

Academic success and promotion in medicine largely depends on the quality and quantity of received grants. Grant money brings prestige and notoriety to the writer and his institution. However, writing a grant proposal can be a challenging task especially for the inexperienced researcher. As research budgets are being reduced by many funding agencies and more researches are competing for it, it is becoming increasingly important to be able to write a grant proposal of high quality.

The purpose of this article is to give the reader guidance on how to organize a research proposal in order maximize chances to obtain the desired funding. Key aspects will be highlighted and practical tips emphasized. This article will primarily focus on writing a grant for a clinical study.

G ETTING S TARTED

Good research starts with a good idea! Once you have identified a good idea, you need to clearly define the problem that needs to be addressed and formulate a research question. Subsequently you need to ask yourself if that question is already answered [ Table 1 ]. A thorough literature review is therefore mandatory. If you have a truly good idea, you might find out that you are not the first one having it. You do not want to spend a lot of time and energy into a project only to find out later that there have been already 17 trials and a meta-analysis performed and your research question is answered.

It is not only important to know how much was already published on that topic, but also what the quality of the current evidence is. Rarely in medicine does a question have a definitive answer. If you are trying to compare two interventions for a certain disease, after performing a thorough literature search, you have to ask yourself the following questions: 1) Are there already multiple case series published on that topic? If yes, then it might not be worth it to add another case series to the literature. However, that might be your chance for the first comparative study (cohort study or randomized controlled trial). 2) Are there already multiple comparative studies? If yes, are they cohort studies or randomized trials (RCT)? If there is no RCT maybe you should do one. 3) Are there already multiple RCTs published? If yes, what are the results and what is their sample size? Maybe they were underpowered? If yes you might consider doing a meta-analysis of the existing RCTs and subsequently a larger trial.

After you decided to perceive with your study proposal, you need to determine how many study subjects you need, how much money you need and who your collaborators will be. In order to be successful in obtaining a grant you will need convincing data, which might require several preliminary studies and you will need to prove to the granting agency that you are capable of performing the study the way you propose it. The purpose of the research plan is to describe what will be done, why it is important and how the study will be conducted.

E LEMENTS OF A S TUDY P ROTOCOL

The key elements of the study protocol are the executive summary, specific aims, background and significance, preliminary results and research design and methods [ Table 2 ]. The research design and the methodology used in the process of planning and conducting the project should be described in detail. Prior work relevant to the proposed project should be included. Also if a pilot study was conducted, the results should be included.

Elements of a study protocol

Abstract (Executive summary)

The abstract is an important part of a study protocol because it is the first page that a reviewer reads. Reviewers of granting agencies may make their opinion based on the abstract alone. It may be difficult to overcome a bad first impression and conversely there may be a lot to gain with a good first impression. The purpose of the abstract is to describe succinctly every key element of the proposed project. It is good to be complete but concise.

Specific aims

The purpose of the specific study aims is to clearly describe what research question the investigators are trying to answer by conducting the study. What is the problem to be addressed? The investigators need to describe why the study is needed now. In detail, the hypothesis of the study and the primary and secondary goals should be stated. Typically, the study question should be formulated to include the following: 1) the population to be studied, 2) the intervention, 3) any comparison group to be studied (if relevant) and 4) the study outcomes. The study outcomes should be reported as the primary (main) outcome and any secondary outcomes.

Background and significance

The purpose of the background and significance section is to lay out the rationale for the proposed research project and to summarize currently available data in the literature that is relevant to the project. If no systematic review or meta-analysis was done on the topic, you should do one. Describe the magnitude of the problem to be addressed. What is the patient population you are targeting? What is the incidence of the problem? Is the problem likely to increase in the future (e.g. geriatric fractures)? You need to describe the historic management of the problem and whether or not there is any consensus on the current management of the problem. Are there any uncertainties about the treatment that need to be resolved? If you hypothesize that intervention A is better than intervention B you need to designate your primary outcome parameter and have some baseline data for a sample size calculation. Depending on the project, you might want to survey surgeons for their treatment preferences. Also consider surveying patients to find out about what outcome they consider to be important. There might be some disagreements between the surgeons and patients perspectives. 1 The purpose of the background and significance chapter is to justify the study you are proposing. Describe how the result of your study will benefit society. You need to convince the granting agencies that it is worth their money.

Study design

In order to answer the question you need to choose an appropriate study design. The main clinical study designs are interventional studies, observational studies and diagnostic studies - some overlaps may exist [ Table 3 ]. Which study design is most likely to answer the research question, which one is most feasible and which one gives the highest quality results? The choice of the study design has a significant implication on the magnitude of the required funding. Ethical considerations also need to be taken into account e.g. in some cases a certain study design might not be ethical. A clear description of the eligibility criteria (inclusion / exclusion) is essential. Also describe how outcomes will be measured during follow-up and what the follow-up schedule will be like (frequency and duration).

Types of clinical study designs

Sample size calculation

The sample size calculation is a crucial part of the study protocol. The required sample size has major implications on your required funding and the size of the team. Before you can calculate the sample size you need to designate the primary outcome. It is advantageous to choose an objective, reliable and highly validated outcome in order to limit bias. Ultimately, you should choose the clinically most important outcome that is feasible.

The sample size calculation is different depending on the type of the outcome; if you choose a categorical dichotomous outcome parameter (e.g. nonunion rate, infection rate) the sample size requirements are much higher than if you choose a continuous outcome like a score (e.g., SF-36, DASH, SMFA, pain score). 2 , 3 In order to perform a sample size calculation for dichotomous outcomes, you must have an event rate (e.g., nonunion rate) for your gold standard treatment (e.g., treatment A) and you must hypothesize by how much treatment B is going to decrease or increase that event rate. For continuous outcomes you need to have a mean value for the gold standard treatment and hypothesize a difference for the alternative treatment. Using an alpha error rate of 0.05 (=accepting the probability of a false-positive result) and a beta error rate of 0.20 (=accepting the probability of a false-negative result), which corresponds to a power of 80% is a commonly accepted standard.

You can obtain baseline numbers either from a pilot study or reports in the literature. Ideally the “hypothesized” differences should be in the magnitude of what you consider clinically significant. You can calculate the sample size by hand 4 or use one multiple tools to help with the sample size calculations 5 [ Table 4 ]. Be aware that the sample size calculation is based on assumptions; calculate the best-case and the worst-case scenario.

Useful Books, Software and Websites

The justification of the estimated sample size should be presented as a separate section in a grant proposal. Investigators can present estimates of sample size varying across different mean differences between groups. Alternative approaches are to present the study power across varying sample sizes and mean differences or the estimated mean differences of the outcome parameter across varying study power. 4

Protecting against bias

Study results can be negatively affected by multiple types of bias, mainly selection bias and measurement bias. Investigators need to describe proposed methods for protecting against bias. The most powerful techniques for protecting against bias are 1) randomization, 2) concealment of randomization, 3) blinding and 4) the choice of an objective outcome measure.

If you are comparing the effect of multiple interventions on a specific outcome, the best method of protecting against selection bias is random treatment allocation. Randomization balances known and unknown prognostic factors between groups. Additionally, you can use techniques like blocking and stratification in order to avoid random imbalances in small randomized trials. If you do not allocate treatment options randomly, you should account for imbalances in prognostic factors between groups, by matching the patients to the different treatment groups based on the known prognostic factors upon enrollment in your study or if that is not possible, account for it in the data analysis. However, the only way to balance unknown prognostic factors is randomization.

Blinding is another important technique for protecting against bias. Investigators should blind whoever they can: the patient, the physician (not possible in surgical trials), the outcome assessor and the data analyst. Lastly it is helpful to choose an objective outcome measure like a validated functional outcome scale. If the outcome parameter is subjective (e.g., union/nonunion), you should consider to have an adjudication committee to assess the outcome.

C ONCLUSION

Grants are critical for success in academic medicine. The key to a good grant is a good idea and the ability to “sell” your idea to the reviewers of the granting agency. In order to “sell” your idea, good background research, the appropriate study design and a well thought out methodology are imperative. It is also important to recognize that research is a team effort. Convincing the grant reviewer of your expertise is crucial; choosing experienced team members therefore improves the chances to obtain the desired grant. A successful pilot study and preliminary studies that serve as a justification for your study proposal can prove feasibility to the grant reviewers and be therefore a persuasive factor. You should propose an appropriate budget and a realistic timeline; otherwise failure is almost certain. Lastly, you should tailor their grant application towards the granting agency's goals and use the requested format for their application as that might differ from agency to agency. Targeting multiple government and industry-funded agencies increases the chance of getting funded.

Disclaimer: Michael Zlowodzki was funded by a clinical research fellowship grant of the Association Internationale pour l' Ostéosynthèse Dynamique (AIOD)

Source of Support: Nil

R EFERENCES

• Racial Justice
• Collections
• Climate Justice
• Health Justice
• CONTENT TYPES

Upcoming Webinars

• Complimentary Webinars
• Premium On-Demand Webinars
• Submissions

The Basics of Grant and Prospect Research

Kyle h. andrei.

It doesn’t matter how many foundations, individual donors, local and regional governments, and other funders believe in your organization and can donate financial support to it if those donors can’t find you and put you on their radar. Researching grants and prospects is the first step in the process, and navigating the upper levels of major-gift fundraising often requires a different approach than individual gift campaigns.

Grant research involves a certain amount of strategy and thoughtfulness, which no software can provide for you. But a number of tools on the market can facilitate your efforts to identify and research funders and make tracking your results more manageable.

For example, online search databases are essential to help you find new potential grants quickly by listing local and national foundations sorted by interest area, saving you time that would otherwise be spent poring over catalogs and directories. Some Web-based services can also help you locate the people in your area who are likely to make major contributions to your organization.

Foundation Grant Research

At its most basic, grant prospect research essentially consists of two major practices: researching various foundations’ grant cycles and giving histories, and managing your organization’s applications for each foundation. The former is an exercise in Web research—identifying a list of foundations that might give to your organization and locating them online to identify the types of organizations they’ve funded in the past, and with what size grants—and the latter is a matter of tracking and managing data.

Grant Research Tools

When looking up giving histories and grant cycles, websites like the Foundation Center’s Foundation Directory Online  database or  GrantStation  are invaluable. They allow you to search very detailed records of foundations by a variety of criteria, including past grants, focus areas, and giving interests. For example, an animal rescue shelter might identify a list of foundations dedicated to animal welfare or with a history of funding other shelters and animal rescue groups. You can access the Foundation Center database online with a monthly subscription ; the basic package starts around $20 a month, and full access costs around $180 monthly. GrantStation has a yearly subscription for $699, but may also be available at substantial discount through your state association.  GrantStation is also available through TechSoup’s product catalog  for qualified nonprofits and libraries. Alternatively, many regional or local philanthropy centers offer access as a benefit of membership, or free on location in their “grant research libraries.”

In addition, regional associations of grantmakers can be valuable sources of information (visit the Forum of Regional Associations of Grantmakers  for a full list). Most grantmaker associations, also known as philanthropy centers, will house a publicly available list of foundations specific to a geographic area. Some are print-only, but a number offer online databases as well. You can also find associations of grantmakers centered on a mission area, such as  Grantmakers in Film and Electronic Media , or by other criteria, like the  Association of Small Foundations . Searching member lists for these associations may help identify potential grant prospects.

Federal grants are another key source of funding for many organizations. While you won’t find these grants in private and corporate foundation databases, you can search for U.S. federal grant opportunities at  Grants.gov . State and local grant listings can most often be found on your municipality’s website. A basic Web search is also a great way to find out what grants nonprofits similar to your own have received, and that your organization may qualify for. Many nonprofits list foundation funders on their websites or in annual reports.

Once you’ve identified a list of foundations, you’ll need to determine their giving histories and grant capacities. Tax records are an important source of information on past grantees, overall budget, granting capacity, and the value of past grants. You’ll likely find a lot of this information through the Foundation Center database, but you may also need to search in other places to find everything you’re looking for.  GuideStar  lets you search a database that contains more than 5 million IRS Forms 990—the form the government uses to track financial information about organizations. A number of helpful sites can show you how to find the relevant data in a 990 form, including the  Nonprofit Coordinating Committee of New York  and this  archived article  at BusinessJournalism.org.

Tools for Managing the Grants Cycle

As you begin to gather information about prospective funders, you’ll need a place to store it. Smaller organizations with limited budgets and nonprofits just starting their grant research may find spreadsheet applications like  Microsoft Excel  or  Google Drive  to be terrific low-budget options for managing foundation prospect lists. If you choose to go this route, create columns to track such information as foundation names, website links, giving interests, and potential giving capacities, as well as dates of RFPs (requests for proposals) and their due dates. If your organization’s internal deadline for proposals is different from the foundation’s deadline, be sure to record both dates.

Most donor management databases, like any of those listed in Idealware’s  Consumers Guide to Donor Management Systems , let you manage your list of foundations just like any other giving prospects, and can track the RFP and proposal dates, the status of your proposals, and your proposal workflows.

In addition, it can be useful to supplement your deadline- and submission-date records with calendaring or task-management software that can function as a to-do list to ensure you don’t miss any deadlines.

Individual Prospect Research

Major gift prospects—typically wealthy individuals in either your geographic area or the community associated with your issue who have the capacity and interest in donating to your organization—can be as valuable to your organization as foundations.

Sign up for our free newsletters

Subscribe to NPQ's newsletters to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from NPQ and our partners.

Before you can start your research, you’ll need to create a list of current and potential donors.

• Start with your list of current donors. Who has been a good donor in the past? You may find through your research that these people have greater giving capacity than you expected.
• Ask your board members and other supporters to recommend people for the list.
• Identify a few key people in your community who aren’t currently on your list but are known to donate to other organizations.

While technology can help you better understand the giving potential of these donors, it can’t help you create this list.

Once you have your prospect list, you’ll need to create a profile for your potential donors that includes their contact and giving information, as well as their financial capacity. Much of this information can be found for free in public records like tax documents, property values, board affiliations, and publicly held stock portfolios. Depending on the size of your prospect list and your staff time capacity, it can be feasible to manually search for these records. Many documents, such as property value records from the assessor’s office, may require you to request this information in person; this is usually free, though there may be a small fee for photocopies. (Some high-level donors may own property in multiple states or municipalities, posing more of a record-gathering challenge.)

Wealth-Screening Services

Rather than searching manually, you could use a wealth-screening database to save staff time, which to many nonprofits is more valuable than the cost of one of these Web-based services—especially for a longer list of donors. Four of the most widely-used wealth-screening databases are  Donor Search ,  WealthEngine ,  LexisNexis Development Professionals , and  Blackbaud’s Target Analytics .

All four allow you to upload a list of potential donors in order to approximate their individual giving potential. This is similar to the process you would use to research individual prospects yourself. These services just pull information from the databases and public records to which you have access. The difference is the staff time you save by being able to run a list of thousands of names at once instead of manually searching one by one, as well as a honed ability to know where to look for detailed information.

While all of these tools tend to be expensive (prices are available only through a quote from the vendors), WealthEngine and LexisNexis cost more than DonorSearch or Target Analytics. Since they usually run on a subscription basis, you can either run large lists all at once, or smaller donor lists as needed. Many of these services will also filter your prospect list to identify the most likely donors, such as your top one percent or top one hundred prospects. Because the information used to create these donor profiles comes from public records, these services tend to use the same sources with minor variations among them. When choosing a tool, it can be helpful to arrange a trial list from the ones you’re considering by using a few names you already have up-to-date profiles on to judge the accuracy of the tools.

Now That You Have Your List…

As with foundation research, you’ll need a place to record and manage your individual prospects. This should be done using a donor management database, which will let you track each prospect and their giving histories, asset pools, giving interests, and the likelihood that they will give again. Many donor databases can also manage pledges and scheduled or recurring gifts, allowing you to keep track of large gifts spread out over a period of months or years—which can be an important source of reliable funding.

Once you’ve compiled a list of feasible prospects and put them through wealth screening, it’s time to start appending the records already in your database. If you’ve used a wealth-screening tool, you’ll find that some of them—WealthEngine or Blackbaud’s Target Analytics, for example—will integrate with your existing donor database or CRM, while others will require you to import the list manually. You also should check over the profiles you get back from these tools—to make sure, for instance, that the John Smith they’ve highlighted as your most likely prospect is the John Smith you think it is—before you import the list wholesale into your system.

It’s important to remember that these prospects are a starting point for cultivating new, high-value donors, not a piggy bank. If you don’t already have a relationship with your top potential donors, find a way to introduce your organization and take the time to build a relationship before soliciting thousands of dollars from them. You also may find from your research that your current long-term donors have greater capacity than you expected. Because you already have a relationship with them, you can consider asking them to increase their contributions.

As you can see, the technology exists to help you find available grants and track their grant cycle, but there still isn’t software to replace the human element—say, to write your proposals for you. And it’s the same with your individual prospects. Wealth-screening services can quickly track down information for your list that would take hours and hours of staff time, but they can’t sit down with each prospect and build a relationship. It’s still essential to have a seasoned fundraiser with the knowledge and capabilities to write good proposals and/or wine and dine potential donors. It’s a good idea to use the high-tech databases and wealth-screening services to help you find the door, but it’s still your job to get your foot in it.

This article was first published by TechSoup, who provided financial support for its creation. The author would like to thank the following nonprofit technology professionals for providing recommendations, advice, and other help: Robert Weiner ; Erin Baltes,  Thomas College ; Carolyn Appleton , Independent Nonprofit Fundraising Executive; Laura Jansen,  Pierce Family Foundation .

Copyright © 2014 TechSoup Global. This work is published under a  Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License .

About the author

Kyle H. Andrei is a research associate for Idealware, a nonprofit that provides thoroughly researched, impartial, and accessible resources about software to help other nonprofits make smart decisions. Visit www.idealware.org to find dozens of free articles, reports, and trainings about technology topics of interest to nonprofits.

Become a member

Support independent journalism and knowledge creation for civil society. Become a member of Nonprofit Quarterly.

Members receive unlimited access to our archived and upcoming digital content. NPQ is the leading journal in the nonprofit sector written by social change experts. Gain access to our exclusive library of online courses led by thought leaders and educators providing contextualized information to help nonprofit practitioners make sense of changing conditions and improve infra-structure in their organizations.

You might also like

Nonprofit Boards Remain Overwhelmingly White—Here’s How to Change That

Cracks in the Foundation: What Are We Learning?

How Understanding Endowment Law Is Key to Liberating Philanthropic Assets

How to Flip the Script on Foundation Reporting

Giving USA Report: Charitable Contributions Dip by 2 Percent

Why Investing in Girls and Gender-Expansive Youth of Color Is Critical: A Conversation with Monique Couvson

Remaking the Economy

Escaping Corporate Capture

Playing to Win: How Nonprofits Add 501c4's to Expand their Movement Impact

Advanced QuickBooks for Nonprofits

DESKTOP USERS

ONLINE USERS

• Privacy Overview
• Strictly Necessary Cookies

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.

How to Write a Successful Grant Proposal

You’re passionate about your research. Your work is crucial for scientific discovery and deserves to be carried out. We know that, and we love what you’re doing. So why can it be so challenging for academic researchers to obtain research funding? At Nicoya, we speak with researchers all over the world. We hear the same story about an amazing research project that can’t get funded. A worthy research proposal might not even get read by a reviewer if it lacks key elements stated in the grant requirements. Or, a well-structured grant proposal can fall short if the project isn’t a good fit for the grant that it was submitted to.

At Nicoya, we aim to improve human life by helping scientists succeed. We’re here to help you write a successful grant proposal to bring your next big idea to life. From grant prospecting to grant submission, we did our research to provide insight on each stage of the grant writing process. Let’s start at the beginning and choose the right grant for your project!

Choosing The Right Grant

If you’ve looked for academic funding before, you know that there is an alarming amount of publicly funded grants available. This overwhelming process is a lot easier when you know what you’re looking for. Before diving into open grants, take some time to identify the needs and focus of your research:

What will your research accomplish? Who directly benefits from the outcome of your research? This might sound like an obvious tip, but having a clear picture of the significance of your research will make it much easier to filter by the right research area. Choosing an appropriate audience from the beginning will also significantly increase your chances of success.

What are your credentials? If you’re a newer researcher, there are funding opportunities specifically tailored for you! These grants usually come with smaller budgets and timelines to help you get started. Alternatively, if you are a distinguished professor, you likely have a full team to support and a long project to carry out. This means that you will need a more competitive grant that offers significant funding and multiple years of support. Luckily, your previous experiences have set the stage for you to take on a larger project. Think about what size of budget and timeline fits well with your current career stage to help you be more selective of different grants.

So where should you look? If you’re based in the United States, here are some great places to start:

• grants.gov – A great general search engine that captures grant announcements from a number of different funding agencies.
• National Institutes of Health (NIH) – The largest funding body in the country. This page also includes important due dates associated with each grant.

If you are based in Canada, check out the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) . NSERC is the major funding source in Canada for natural science researchers – students and professors alike.

Writing The Research Funding Proposal

Now that you have selected some grants that fit your research and needs, it’s time to start working on the application. The next thing you should do – and I cannot stress this enough – is read through the grant application guidelines ( Grants.gov). These guidelines will cover the elements required in your proposal, the questions that the reviewers want answered, and how the application should be structured. We’ve summarized some tips for the most common elements of a proposal in a format that you can keep handy for later:

• Carefully follow your grant guidelines here for what information to include and how it should be formatted.
• In addition to a clear, explicit title, other elements such as your title, affiliations, and the funding agency are usually required as well.
• The most read section of your research funding proposal (The Writing Center, UNC).
• Be explicit, clear and concise. Make your project’s goals, significance (who does your research benefit?), and relation to the theme of the grant easy to find!
• Use future tense to summarize your plan to accomplish your goals.

Introduction

• Use this section to elaborate on everything you have stated in the abstract.
• Set the stage for your research: give a background on the research area, the knowledge gap you are addressing, and how your research is going to fill that gap. Start very general about the area of research and get increasingly more specific.
• Your introduction should sufficiently justify why your research is a good fit for this grant.

 Project Narrative

• The main section of your proposal. There is a lot of information here so organize your information into subheadings as necessary.
• Elaborate on the problem you’re addressing and its significance again – this is why the funding agency is giving you money after all.
• Break down step by step how you’re planning to solve this problem and justify each step. The more thorough you can be here, the more confidence your reviewer will have in you.
• Focus on techniques that will provide quantitative data to back your claims. Using surface plasmon resonance (SPR) to measure binding kinetics for any biomolecular interactions will significantly increase your credibility to a reviewer. Check out The Power of OpenSPR below to see how easily SPR can be included in your proposal.
• Finally, recheck your grant guidelines! Make sure that every question the reviewers had was answered sufficiently.
• The more specific you can be about how you plan to spend the money, the more credibility you will have.
• Include an itemized list of each anticipated expense. Think about instrument requirements, reagents, travel expenses, and personnel wages.
• Also, include a budget narrative explaining why each expense is crucial to your project and worth the funding agency’s money (The Writing Center, UNC).
• Follow the funding agency’s regulations closely here. Do your research to see what purchases they don’t cover and their limits around items such as air travel.

 Timeline

• Justify the time frame of your project and set some approximate deadlines for the various stages of your project.
• Using an itemized list or a visual representation of your timeline will keep your reviewers happy here (The Writing Center, UNC).

Cover Letter

• The bonus section! A cover letter likely is not explicitly required but is highly recommended (The Balance; Kurzweil Educational Systems, 2002).
• Treat this like the cover letter on your resume; its purpose is to sell your project.
• Introduce your research group, highlight the significance of your project, and state the budget you are requesting.

These are just some of the elements that are normally required in a grant application. Each grant application will have its required elements and structure, so follow your grant guidelines meticulously.

Taking Your Research Funding Proposal To The Next Level

Congratulations! You now have a draft of your proposal completed. Stretch your legs, grab a cup of coffee and settle in as we highlight a few more tips to increase the chances of getting your project funded substantially.

Don’t put all your eggs in one basket. While quality is better than quantity, applying for multiple grants will give you more opportunities to get funded. Since these proposals are incredibly time-consuming, write a general grant application for your project and then tailor it to each funding body.

Know your audience . It doesn’t matter how impactful your research is if it isn’t a good fit for the funding agency you’re applying to. The goals of your research should always circle back to the overall theme of the grant. This may require some rewording of your research outcomes to align better with the views of the funding agency. Check out our tips on publication writing for more advice on writing for your audience.

Use innovative techniques. As technology advances, so should your research techniques. For instance, using SPR to measure quantitative binding kinetics for your bio-molecular interactions will give you a huge advantage against your competitors. Since the OpenSPR is affordable and easy-to-use, we’ve had many researchers use the OpenSPR as leverage to get their grants approved. Check out The Power of OpenSPR below to see how easily SPR can be included in your proposal.

Review, review, review. Plenty of eyes should see your research funding proposal before the reviewers do. Consider getting your work reviewed by experts and non-experts in your field. It is also recommended to have a writing expert review your work for structure and style. If you let your proposal sit for a week and then pick it up again, you will be able to catch more mistakes with fresh eyes.

Read your grant requirements. Have we mentioned this already? A funding agency’s first screening of your proposal will be to see if you have followed their instructions. Just sticking to their guidelines will significantly increase your chances of success (Grants.gov; The Writing Center, UNC).

The Power of OpenSPR

With the finishing touches added to your award-winning grant proposal, we wanted to leave you with some closing thoughts on the difference SPR will make in your research. More and more reviewers (funding agencies and academic journals alike) are asking for quantitative binding kinetics data over simple yes/no binding confirmation for biomolecular interactions. SPR is a label-free technique that gets you this data in real-time and has never been more accessible with the OpenSPR . Your reviewers are going to love that you’ve chosen an instrument that provides the same quality of data of instruments over ten times its cost.

Let us help you take your grant proposal to the next level.

Request a quote today to see how easily the OpenSPR can be budgeted into your next project.

• The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Grant Proposals (or Give me the money!). Retrieved from https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/grant-proposals-or-give-me-the-money/
• Grants.gov. Grants 101 – Pre-Award Phase. Retrieved from https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/learn-grants/grants-101/pre-award-phase.html
• The Balance. How to Write a Winning Grant Proposal. Retrieved from https://www.thebalancesmb.com/how-to-write-a-grant-proposal-2501980
• Kurzweil Educational Systems (2002). Sample Grant Proposal. Retrieved from https://www.kurzweiledu.com/files/proof_resources_grant1.pdf
• Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT). Funding Facts. Retrieved from https://report.nih.gov/fundingfacts/fundingfacts.aspx

Meet the world's first digital high‑throughput benchtop SPR system.

Accelerate your drug discovery with Alto.

Introduction to Digital SPR and its use in assessing the binding kinetics of DART (Drugs Acutely Restricted by Tethering)

" * " indicates required fields

Streamlining characterization of biomolecular binding kinetics with Alto™ and OpenSPR®

Rising investigators in spr, detecting emerging viral variants, laboratory automation, navigating the post-covid research landscape, covid-19 diagnostics using spr, binding techniques, enter the nicosystem, publish faster with binding kinetics & affinity data.

Over 600 researchers worldwide are using OpenSPR™ to get the data reviewers are looking for. Read our brochure to learn more!

The future of drug discovery is Alto.

Interested in learning more about how Alto can accelerate your drug discovery? Fill out the form below to download a product brochure.

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

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

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

Sample Grant Applications

On this page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Laurel H. Carney, Ph.D., University of Rochester

“Developing and testing models of the auditory system with and without hearing loss”

• Full Application (3.53MB PDF)
• Summary Statement (2.7MB PDF)

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

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

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

Benjamin T. Crane, M.D., Ph.D., University of Rochester

“Multi-modal vestibular perception”

• Full Application (2.21MB PDF)
• Summary Statement (468.5KB PDF)

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

“Synaptic basis of perceptual learning in primary auditory cortex”

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

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

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

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

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

"Principles of zonal olfactory receptor gene expression"

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

Ryan W. McCreery, Ph.D., Boys Town National Research Hospital

“Complex listening skills in school-age hard of hearing children”

• Full Application (5.17MB)
• Summary Statement (1.32MB PDF)

Dan H. Sanes, Ph.D., New York University

“Social learning enhances auditory cortex sensitivity and task acquisition”

• Full Application (5.81MB PDF)
• Summary Statement (2.85MB PDF)

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

"Understanding otoacoustic emissions"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Auditory experience during the prenatal and perinatal period"

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Flexible representation of speech in the supratemporal plane”

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

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

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

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

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

“Ace2 in the healthy and inflamed taste system”

• Full Application (6.05MB PDF)

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

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

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

(link is external) .

How to write a research grant proposal

• September 2023
• Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology 49(9):100482
• 49(9):100482

• Tata Medical Center

• The University of Manchester

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Reza Yekdast

• Christina J. Qian
• James Hanley

• Elena Karampini

• Neil J. Saad
• Hendy Abdoul

• Philip Clarke

• J PUBLIC ECON
• Brian A. Jacob
• Lars Lefgren
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

How to apply for a research grant to fund your studies

If you’re planning to study for your PhD, or even a Master’s degree, you’ll likely want to apply for a research grant to help fund your studies. But how exactly do you do this?

Knowing exactly what to include in your research proposal, who to submit it to and when to apply won’t come easy for most of us, even if they are essential  to studying for your postgraduate qualification.

Fear not, however, we’ve got you covered.

Decide on your research proposal

If you want to apply for a research grant, you’re first going to need a fully formed research proposal. If you are currently in education looking to go onto further study, you can ask your current professor to help you with this. If not, don’t worry too much, you can still write it yourself.

The main thing a research funder wants to understand is the purpose and impact of your research. You need to convince them your research is worth investing into and they will get high ROI.

Finalising your proposal is the first step of applying for funding. Source: Shutterstock

This means you need a clear idea of the topic you are researching, an understanding of why you’re are studying it, and an estimate of the impact your research will have on society, the industry or the academic community.

Bear in mind, your funder will want to benefit from your research, so ensure you are choosing bodies within your field and that will see the value of your proposal.

Identify relevant bodies that might fund you

After fine-tuning your proposal to something you are genuinely passionate about, you can begin finding suitable research funders to make your study abroad dreams a reality – be wary of doing this step before finalising your proposal, or you may end up studying something that can be funded but you don’t genuinely enjoy.

Unlike with most university courses, where you study is likely to be determined where you can get funding. If you are committed to studying in a particular part of the world, only bother looking for funding bodies in these areas, but the more flexible you are, the more funding you can apply to.

Google is your friend when finding suitable funders. Source: Shutterstock

Most countries have research and development funds, so these can always be lucrative funders. Corporations in the field may also have a budget for research, and universities themselves can sometimes offer funding.

It’s also worth looking if governments, universities or businesses are advertising funded research, as the projects they may be investigating could overlap with yours.

Funding bodies will have established criteria on how to go about applying for a grant. This can be found on their website, and differ from body to body. A quick google of funding agencies in the area your in should bring up these pages. It’s worth taking time to read the different application criteria to see:

• If your research fits in with their funding criteria
• Your proposal meets their application guidelines.

The longer your list, the better for potential funders and thus, the better chance you have of receiving funding.

Submit your grant proposal

Once you have identified some potential funding bodies, you can begin submitting your proposal.

This involves tailoring your research plan to fit the investor you are writing to and making your research relevant to them.

https://twitter.com/SamanthaZY/status/1027583177148125184

Time is of the essence here, and you should spend as long as you need ensuring you have adequately met all the criteria they need. This might include budget, long-term and short-term impact, a progress timeline showing a which point you will complete key milestones and any added support you may need.

Some applications may be made online, while others may be written or require a face-to-face meeting.

To ensure you can start your research in a timely fashion, you should apply at least two months before you intend to begin your studies.

You can also follow your proposal up with an email to further explain your passion for contributing to the field. This will help you to stand out against other applicants and reinforce your commitment to your studies.

Wait for the response

Once you have formulated and submitted your proposal, you must then do the hardest part of all – wait for a decision. This can be nerve-wracking, especially if you applied online without a chance to speak to the funding bodies directly.

You are likely to hear back the same way you applied – however, some investors may prefer to speak on the phone to discuss the criteria of their funding and what is expected of you.

There is no objective timeframe as to how long you may be waiting to hear back, but it can be useful to check when the application closing date is, or when you said you would be starting your studies. This can provide a benchmark as to when you will hear, so you’re not unnecessarily panicking the entire time.

If you have any questions about student finance or postgraduate education, please email us at [email protected] and we will do our best to help.

Liked this? Then you’ll love…

5 ways university research has changed the world

Funding your studies: UK student finance and beyond

Popular stories

6 cheapest universities in europe to study medicine.

6 most affordable universities in Finland for international students

From ‘The Exorcist’ to ‘Legally Blonde,’ these unis are iconic film locations

10 degrees that guarantee high-paying progressive careers, and 5 that don’t

We need your support today

Independent journalism is more important than ever. Vox is here to explain this unprecedented election cycle and help you understand the larger stakes. We will break down where the candidates stand on major issues, from economic policy to immigration, foreign policy, criminal justice, and abortion. We’ll answer your biggest questions, and we’ll explain what matters — and why. This timely and essential task, however, is expensive to produce.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

• Future Perfect

Science has a short-term memory problem

Scientists are trapped in an endless loop of grant applications. How can we set them free?

by Celia Ford

Back in 2016, Vox asked 270 scientists to name the biggest problems facing science . Many of them agreed that the constant search for funding, brought on by the increasingly competitive grant system , serves as one of the biggest barriers to scientific progress.

Even though we have more scientists throwing more time and resources at projects, we seem to be blocked on big questions — like how to help people live healthier for longer — and that has major real-world impacts.

This story was first featured in the Future Perfect newsletter .

Sign up here to explore the big, complicated problems the world faces and the most efficient ways to solve them. Sent twice a week.

Grants are funds given to researchers by the government or private organizations, ranging from tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars earmarked for a specific project. Most grant applications are very competitive. Only about 20 percent of applications for research project grants at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which funds the vast majority of biomedical research in the US, are successful.

If you do get a grant, they usually expire after a few years — far less time than it normally takes to make groundbreaking discoveries. And most grants, even the most prestigious ones, don’t provide enough money to keep a lab running on their own.

Between the endless cycle of grant applications and the constant turnover of early-career researchers in labs, pushing science forward is slow at best and Sisyphean at worst.

In other words, science has a short-term memory problem — but there are steps funding agencies can take to make it better.

Grants are too small, too short, and too restrictive

Principal investigators — often tenure-track university professors — doing academic research in the US are responsible not only for running their own lab, but also for funding it. That includes the costs of running experiments, keeping the lights on, hiring other scientists, and often covering their own salary, too. In this way, investigators are more like entrepreneurs than employees , running their labs like a small-business owner.

In the US, basic science research, studying how the world works for the sake of expanding knowledge, is mostly funded by the federal government . The NIH funds the vast majority of biomedical research, and the National Science Foundation (NSF) funds other sciences, like astrophysics, geology, and genetics. The Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) also funds some biomedical research, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) funds technology development for the military, some of which finds uses in the civilian world, like the internet .

The grant application system worked well a few decades ago, when over half of submitted grants were funded . But today, we have more scientists — especially young ones — and less money, once inflation is taken into account. Getting a grant is harder than ever, scientists I spoke with said. What ends up happening is that principal investigators are forced to spend more of their time writing grant applications — which often take dozens of hours each — than actually doing the science they were trained for. Because funding is so competitive, applicants increasingly have to twist their research proposals to align with whoever will give them money. A lab interested in studying how cells communicate with each other, for example, may spin it as a study of cancer, heart disease, or depression to convince the NIH that its project is worth funding.

Federal agencies generally fund specific projects, and require scientists to provide regular progress updates. Some of the best science happens when experiments lead researchers in unexpected directions, but grantees generally need to stick with the specific aims listed in their application or risk having their funding taken away — even if the first few days of an experiment suggest things won’t go as planned.

This system leaves principal investigators constantly scrambling to plug holes in their patchwork of funding. In her first year as a tenure-track professor, Jennifer Garrison , now a reproductive longevity researcher at the Buck Institute , applied for 45 grants to get her lab off the ground. “I’m so highly trained and specialized,” she told me. “The fact that I spend the majority of my time on administrative paperwork is ridiculous.”

Relying on a transient, underpaid workforce makes science worse

For the most part, the principal investigators applying for grants aren’t doing science — their graduate students and postdoctoral fellows are. While professors are teaching, doing administrative paperwork, and managing students, their early-career trainees are the ones who conduct the experiments and analyze data.

Since they do the bulk of the intellectual and physical labor, these younger scientists are usually the lead authors of their lab’s publications. In smaller research groups, a grad student may be the only one who fully understands their project.

In some ways, this system works for universities. With most annual stipends falling short of $40,000 , “Young researchers are highly trained but relatively inexpensive sources of labor for faculty,” then-graduate researcher Laura Weingartner told Vox in 2016 .

Grad students and postdocs are cheap, but they’re also transient. It takes an average of six years to earn a PhD , with only about three to five of those years devoted to research in a specific lab. This time constraint forces trainees to choose projects that can be wrapped up by the time they graduate, but science, especially groundbreaking science, rarely fits into a three- to five-year window. CRISPR, for instance, was first characterized in the ’90s — 20 years before it was first used for gene editing.

Trainees generally try to publish their findings by the time they leave, or pass ownership along to someone they have trained to take the wheel. The pressure to squeeze exciting, publishable data from a single PhD thesis project forces many inexperienced scientists into roles they can’t realistically fulfill. Many people (admittedly, myself included , as a burnt-out UC Berkeley neuroscience graduate student) wind up leaving a trail of unfinished experiments behind when they leave academia — and have no formal obligation to complete them.

When the bulk of your workforce is underpaid , burning out , and constantly turning over, it creates a continuity problem. When one person leaves, they often take a bunch of institutional knowledge with them. Ideally, research groups would have at least one or two senior scientists — with as much training as a tenured professor — working in the lab to run experiments, mentor newer scientists, and serve as a stable source of expertise as other researchers come and go.

One major barrier here: Paying a highly trained scientist enough to compete with six-figure industry jobs costs far more than a single federal grant can provide. One $250,000/year NIH R01 — the primary grant awarded to scientists for research projects — barely funds one person’s salary and benefits. While the NIH has specialized funding that students, postdocs, junior faculty, and other trainees can apply for to pay their own wages, funding opportunities for senior scientists are limited. “It’s just not feasible to pay for a senior scientist role unless you have an insane amount of other support,” Garrison told me.

How can we help scientists do cooler, more ambitious research?

Funding scientists themselves, rather than the experiments they say they’ll do, helps — and we already have some evidence to prove it.

The Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) has a funding model worth replicating. It is driven by a “people, not projects” philosophy, granting scientists many years worth of money, without tying them down to specific projects. Grantees continue working at their home institution, but they — along with their postdocs — become employees of HHMI, which pays their salary and benefits.

HHMI reportedly provides enough funding to operate a small- to medium-sized lab without requiring any extra grants. The idea is that if investigators are simply given enough money to do their jobs, they can redirect all their wasted grant application time toward actually doing science. It’s no coincidence that over 30 HHMI-funded scientists have won Nobel Prizes in the past 50 years.

The Arc Institute , a new nonprofit collaboration among research giants Stanford, UC Berkeley, and UC San Francisco, also provides investigators and their labs with renewable eight-year “no-strings-attached” grants. Arc aims to give scientists the freedom and resources to do the slow, unsexy work of developing better research tools — something crucial to science but unappealing to scientific journals (and scientists who need to publish stuff to earn more funding).

Operating Arc is expensive, and the funding model currently relies on donations from philanthropists and tech billionaires. Arc supports eight labs so far, and hopes to expand to no more than 350 scientists someday — far short of the 50,000-some biomedical researchers applying for grants every year.

For now, institutional experiments like Arc are just that: experiments. They’re betting that scientists who feel invigorated, creative, and unburdened will be better equipped to take the risks required to make big discoveries.

Building brand-new institutions isn’t the only way to break the cycle of short-term, short-sighted projects in biomedical research. Anything that makes it financially easier for investigators to keep their labs running will help. Universities could pay the salaries of their employees directly, rather than making investigators find money for their trainees themselves. Federal funding agencies could also make grants bigger to match the level of inflation — but Congress is unlikely to approve that kind of spending.

Science might also benefit from having fewer, better-paid scientists in long-term positions, rather than relying on the labor of underpaid, under-equipped trainees. “I think it would be better to have fewer scientists doing real, deep work than what we have now,” Garrison said.

It’s not that scientists aren’t capable of creative, exciting, ambitious work — they’ve just been forced to bend to a grant system that favors short, risk-averse projects. And if the grant system changes, odds are science will too.

Most Popular

• 3 winners and 2 losers from the Harris-Trump debate
• Donald Trump lost the debate because he’s too online
• Wait, Kamala Harris owns a gun?
• How Kamala Harris goaded (and goaded and goaded) Trump into a debate trainwreck
• It happened there: how democracy died in Hungary

Today, Explained

Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day.

This is the title for the native ad

More in Future Perfect

It’s not just the Princess of Wales. More and more young people are getting cancer.

We buy stuff. We throw it away. There’s a system to stop this toxic cycle.

Introducing Your Mileage May Vary, an unconventional new advice column.

ChatGPT didn’t write this and I can prove it.

Is anything really “cruelty-free”?

From granola bars to chips, more studies are revealing that UPFs are tied to diseases like cancer and depression.

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.

Discovery Research PreK-12 (DRK-12)

View guidelines, important information about nsf’s implementation of the revised 2 cfr.

NSF Financial Assistance awards (grants and cooperative agreements) made on or after October 1, 2024, will be subject to the applicable set of award conditions, dated October 1, 2024, available on the NSF website . These terms and conditions are consistent with the revised guidance specified in the OMB Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance published in the Federal Register on April 22, 2024.

Important information for proposers

All proposals must be submitted in accordance with the requirements specified in this funding opportunity and in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) that is in effect for the relevant due date to which the proposal is being submitted. It is the responsibility of the proposer to ensure that the proposal meets these requirements. Submitting a proposal prior to a specified deadline does not negate this requirement.

Supports research and development to enhance STEM learning and teaching for preK-12 students.

The goal of the Discovery Research PreK-12 program (DRK-12) is to catalyze research and development that enhances all preK-12 teachers’ and students’ opportunities to engage in high-quality learning experiences related to the sciences, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). The program’s objectives are to: (1) build knowledge about how to develop preK-12 students’ and teachers’ STEM content knowledge, practices, and skills; (2) support collaborative partnerships among STEM education researchers,  STEM education practitioners and school leaders with the goals of extending relevant scientific literatures while developing more effective practice; and (3) build the field of STEM education by supporting knowledge synthesis, interdisciplinary interactions across fields and stakeholders, and the development of novel and robust ways of assessing teacher and student learning, engagement, and skills. Outcomes of DRK-12 projects can include but are not limited to promising, evidence-based products that can be used by others to support the success of all teachers and all students (e.g., curriculum, teaching and research tools, and models of collaboration).

The program solicits proposals along two strands: (1) Learning and (2) Teaching. While these strands certainly overlap and have synergy, proposals should identify one strand that is most consistent with the proposal’s objectives and research questions (e.g., are the project’s methods and outcomes focused primarily on teacher development and teaching or student development and learning?). Research project types under both Strands include exploratory, design and development, impact, implementation, measurement and assessment, and synthesis studies. The program also supports other project types including Partnership Development Grants and Workshops/Conferences.

Successful proposals demonstrate how they build on fundamental research in STEM education and on previous or current applied research and development efforts. They also explain their theoretical and empirical justification (e.g., Why is the project designed as it is?) and outline related specific aims and methods with potential to yield new understandings of STEM teaching and learning contexts, processes, and outcomes. The program welcomes proposals focused on teaching and learning in any STEM field(s) and on priorities identified in the National Science Foundation’s strategic plan . Efforts focused on facilitating the reciprocal exchange or mobilization of knowledge between the research and preK-12 formal education professional communities are strongly encouraged (see this Dear Colleague Letter https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2023/nsf23078/nsf23078.jsp ).

Updates and announcements

Cadre supports the drk-12 community, program contacts.

Awards made through this program

Organization(s).

• Directorate for STEM Education (EDU)
• Division of Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings (EDU/DRL)

Internet Explorer is no longer supported by Microsoft. To browse the NIHR site please use a modern, secure browser like Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, or Microsoft Edge.

24/106 Better Methods, Better Research (BMBR) Programme Researcher-led

11 September 2024

13:00 on 04 December 2024

Supporting Information

In order to apply for this call you will need to carefully review the  Guidance for Applicants .

The Better Methods, Better Research (BMBR) Programme is accepting applications to this funding opportunity.

The BMBR Programme is a collaboration between MRC and NIHR. It aims to ensure that optimal research methods are used to advance biomedical, health and care research, policy and delivery.

This opportunity covers the entire remit of MRC and NIHR, prioritising current rate-limiting methodological challenges for health research. Funding will be provided for projects that improve the methods used by others in biomedical and health research.

Project proposals can be up to a budget of £625,000 (100% full economic cost (FEC)). MRC and NIHR will usually fund up to 80% of your project’s FEC.

In order to apply for this call you will need to carefully review the Guidance for Applicants .

Background information

NIHR recently took on management of the BMBR Programme. You can find out more information about the transition of BMBR.  

More information on the BMBR Programme is also available by visiting the BMBR Programme page .  

Additional guidance

Applications to research funding must include a dissemination plan. This should outline the activities that support uptake, implementation and best use of methods by others beyond the project team.

Research outputs should be designed to maximise:

• their visibility, accessibility and informative value
• their benefits to those outside the project team, including other researchers
• their utility and research impact across broader research communities, sectors or systems

Research outputs may include, as appropriate to the method:

• code, including open-source code
• software, including open-source software
• research standards or checklists

Research outputs should be available and usable to the fullest extent. Open-source software and code are encouraged. Costs to support this are eligible under the NIHR Open Access publications funding guidance .

All projects should ensure their benchmarking and evaluation provides the necessary assurance for others. This means that other researchers, stakeholders and communities can understand and champion improved methods.

Applications may also focus on a specific and evidenced barrier to current use of better methods. For example, they may focus on better methods that are not widely understood or used. These applications must offer a clear pathway to improving uptake of optimal methods by other researchers.

Applications that solely focus on developing research outputs as case studies of potential value of a method or methods will be rejected. For all applications, we encourage you to learn from others where possible. We also welcome multidisciplinary teams or approaches.

A webinar will be held for potential applicants on Monday the 7th of October 2024. To sign up to the webinar please contact [email protected] .

• For Disabled Academics
• Policy & Advocacy
• A11y in Action

CREATE awarded $4.6M for research on AI risks, opportunities for people with disabilities

What risks do recent developments in artificial intelligence (AI) and generative artificial intelligence (GAI) pose for people with disabilities? And what opportunities might they offer for improving accessibility? For some time now, CREATE researchers have been exploring these pressing questions. We are excited to announce that CREATE has been awarded a five-year, $4.6 million grant to advance this crucial research!

CREATE will be leading a Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center (RERC) on participatory, assistive, inclusive, and responsible use of AI technology, funded by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR), a program of the Administration for Community Living, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The interdisciplinary team of researchers involved with this RERC come from the College of Engineering, the Allen School of Computer Science and Engineering, the Information School, Disability Studies, and Rehabilitation Medicine. Aligning with CREATE’s mission and vision, the CREATE-RERC projects will be guided, informed, and led by people with disabilities, toward the goal of creating accessible technologies.

Research projects

The CREATE-RERC research projects investigate bias, privacy, and security risks when GAI is used in assistive technology contexts and for accessibility, and they explore possibilities for addressing these risks. Both projects focus on multiply-marginalized people with disabilities. One research project collects the first-ever dataset about GAI’s inclusiveness and privacy and security risks. The other research project investigates the indirect risks for multiply-marginalized people with disabilities when GAI is used “on” them i.e., to rank their resumes . The project also explores methods that will allow people with disabilities to mitigate these risks.

Development projects

The development projects of the CREATE-RERC seek to place people with disabilities as full participants in the design of responsible AI and GAI. First, we will develop disability-led solutions for one of the biggest unmet needs in accessibility today: text simplification. Simply put, most documents are not accessible to people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, and current text-simplification efforts rely on the availability of people with text simplification expertise to check and validate the outputs.

“This award recognizes the research excellence that has defined CREATE since its inception four years ago. All members of our CREATE community—researchers, students, community partners, and industry partners—have contributed to putting CREATE at the front and center of efforts to advance accessible technologies. We are honored that NIDILRR has awarded CREATE, and by implication our community, the funding that supports our work ensuring that emerging technologies are accessible for everyone.” Dr. Jennifer Mankoff, Director of CREATE and the Richard E. Ladner Professor in the Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering

Our first development project aims for on-demand, self-directed text simplification that can also allow for independent fact checking and validation. Second, we incorporate AI to improve the accessibility of the creativity tool crucial in white-collar work, slideshow creation. Our third development project allows people with disabilities to generate multiple fabricated variations on proven solutions for home adaptation. The fourth project collects open-source accessibility supports at a hub that is easy for the disability community to find and that is accessible to use, at a11yhood.org . 

Read about recent accomplishments in our Annual Impact Report.

Collaborators

PI: Jennifer Mankoff , Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering (College of Engineering)

Co-PI: Mark Harniss , Associate Professor, Rehabilitation Medicine (UW Medicine)

Other team members: Anat Caspi , Director of the Taskar Center (Allen School, College of Engineering), Jacob O. Wobbrock (Information School), Olivia Banner (CREATE Operations, Disability Studies Program), Joshua Miele (Amazon Lab126 Accessibility Research), Tony Fast (Distinguished Project Jupyter Contributor), Kathleen Voss (CREATE Community Engagement and Partnerships), Liz Diether-Martin (CREATE Digital Communications)

President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and Donald Trump attend a 9/11 memorial service at Ground Zero.

• REMEMBERING 9/11

SC State professor receives $715,803 grant for prostate cancer research

by Abigail Quinn

ORANGEBURG, S.C. (WCIV) — A South Carolina State professor has been awarded over $700,000 for their prostate cancer research.

The National Cancer Institute has awarded Dr. Courtney Thomas a $715,803 grant for her prostate cancer research focused on a protein found in epithelial cells.

Thomas, an associate professor of biochemistry in SC State’s Department of Biological and Physical Sciences, is delving into the role calreticulin (CRT) may play in prostate cancer.

“Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in American males," Thomas said in the project’s abstract. "Although death rates have declined, it is still the most diagnosed cancer in males. Having a better understanding of prostate cancer will help decrease these rates.”

READ MORE | Make-A-Wish teams up with PMC for year-long fundraising campaign

According to the school, the grant represents a potential first time ever that an SC State researcher has received an independent National Institutes of Health (NIH) award.

"We are very excited about this grant from NIH to Dr. Courtney Thomas the 1st of its kind to SC State,” said Dr. Stanley Ihekweazu, dean of SC State’s College of Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics and Transportation. “The grant will provide an opportunity for Dr. Thomas to explore research in the area of prostate cancer and also build her career into a successful independent scientist."

SC State President Alexander Conyers has set a goal for the university to achieve Research II (R2) status in Carnegie classifications, which would position the university to compete for more federal and corporate funding for research-driven initiatives.

According to the university, this grant is a step in that direction.

Info for Morgan State University

• Future Students
• Current Students
• Faculty & Staff
• Parents & Families
• Alumni & Friends
• For the Media

Search Morgan State University

Commonly searched pages.

• Payment Plan
• Housing Application
• Comptroller
• News Releases
• Schools & Colleges
• Social Media
• Publications
• Photo Gallery

Morgan State University Receives $20.9 Million NIH/NIMHD Grant to Expand Groundbreaking Research on Urban Health Disparities

Grant extends critical health research conducted by rcmi center for urban health disparities research and innovation to address health issues of concern to underserved populations in baltimore and maryland.

BALTIMORE — Advancing highly essential examination of the determinants and impacts of health inequities in underserved urban populations, Morgan State University announces the award of a $20.9 million grant from the National Institutes of Health’s ( NIH ) National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities ( NIMHD ). The five-year grant will expand ongoing health research spearheaded by Morgan’s Research Centers in Minority Institutions ( RCMI ) Center for Urban Health Disparities Research and Innovation (RCMI@Morgan) aimed at progressing the reduction or elimination of health disparities within marginalized communities.

The grant extension affirms the significant advancements and contributions RCMI@Morgan has made to enhance health outcomes while fostering a better understanding of the measures necessary to prevent chronic diseases that disproportionately affect diverse populations in Baltimore—a city with 70% of its residents identifying as Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC). The continuance of RCMI@Morgan’s NIH/NIMHD-funded health research underscores Morgan’s commitment as an anchor institution to addressing the societal challenges most prevalent in urban communities.

“We extend our appreciation to the NIH and NIMHD for their continued endorsement of Morgan State University and the transformative work being carried out by RCMI@Morgan,” said David K. Wilson , president of Morgan. “This extension and recommitment of funding are a testament to the life-changing impact our researchers and their partners are making; their research not only delivers tangible health solutions to underserved communities but also fosters innovative discoveries that are shaping the future of urban health. Morgan remains committed to leading this charge and ensuring that our research continues to reflect who we are as an institution—a driving force for equity and change.”

The five-year NIH/NIMHD grant will enable RCMI@Morgan to build on its existing efforts by fostering a more robust biomedical research ecosystem. RCMI@Morgan has been acutely focused on examining solutions to chronic conditions such as cancer, diabetes, HIV, neurological disorders, and COVID-19, all of which disproportionately impact minority and underserved communities. Since its inception in 2019, the center has published 66 peer-reviewed articles, presented 160 papers at scientific conferences, and secured nearly $20 million in additional funding to support this critical work.

“This new funding will significantly accelerate the pace of scientific discoveries at Morgan, allowing us to deepen our exploration into the root causes of health disparities and evidence-based solutions,” said Willie E. May, Ph.D. , vice president for the Division of Research and Economic Development at Morgan. “The grant will allow us to expand our biomedical research infrastructure and continue to develop the next generation of scientists. This award also brings us closer to our goal of achieving R1 status while further cementing Morgan’s role as a hub for impactful, high-quality research.”

Key Goals and Program Initiatives

Scientific discoveries pursued at the RCMI@Morgan are making significant contributions to advancing the science of health disparity and minority health through understanding the causes and underlying mechanisms and developing cost-effective strategies to prevent and control health disparity diseases in urban settings. The new funding will bolster several key areas of Morgan’s biomedical research infrastructure

Strengthening Multiusers Core Laboratories – The grant will support the enhancement of core laboratories, including Analytical, Animal, Bioinformatics and Biostatistics, and Molecular and Cellular Biology labs, ensuring that MSU researchers have access to cutting-edge technology and expertise

Fostering Excellence and Enabling Innovation in Biomedical and Health Disparities Research – The grant will enable principal investigators of three funded research projects to address health disparities through groundbreaking biomedical, socio-behavioral, clinical, and translational research.

Implementing a Robust Pilot Project Program and Fostering Biomedical Research Career Development–  Rooted in developing the next generation of biomedical researchers, the grant will support career development programs and provide funding for junior investigators. This will enable early-stage researchers to transition to research independence while strengthening the critical mass of biomedical and health disparities researchers at Morgan.

Strengthening Community Engagement and Partnership – RCMI@Morgan will continue to foster community partnerships to improve health outcomes in Baltimore and beyond. Through participatory community-based research, the center translates scientific findings into actionable strategies that benefit local communities.

“The five years of additional funding will significantly elevate opportunities for our advanced degree researchers and postdocs, providing them with unparalleled resources to advance their work,” said Paul B. Tchounwou, D.Sc. , principal investigator and executive director of RCMI@Morgan, and dean of School of Computer, Mathematical, and Natural Sciences at Morgan. “The impact will be profound and far-reaching from fostering higher caliber multidisciplinary research, initiating novel programs and driving innovation in addressing health disparities. This investment ensures that Morgan continues to cultivate top-tier researchers who will lead in solving some of the most pressing challenges in urban health.”

Building a Legacy of Impactful Research

Since its launch, RCMI@Morgan has been a vital force in improving urban health outcomes. Research initiatives have explored the biological and socio-economic mechanisms behind health disparities, with projects addressing everything from cancer to HIV to social determinants of health. Collaborating with institutions like Johns Hopkins University and the University of Maryland, RCMI@Morgan has forged strong partnerships that enhance its research capabilities and broaden its reach.

“Our vision is to continue to develop and implement new approaches and cost-effective strategies that produce science-driven solutions for the prevention and control of health disparity diseases that plague our urban communities,” added Dr. Tchounwou.

“This NIH/NIMHD grant is a testament to the hard work and dedication of our researchers,” said Hongtao Yu, Ph.D. , provost and senior vice president for Academic Affairs at Morgan. “It positions Morgan as a major player in the national conversation on health disparities, and we are excited to continue pushing the boundaries of research to serve our community and beyond.”

About Morgan

Morgan State University, founded in 1867, is a Carnegie-classified high research (R2) institution offering more than 150 academic degree and certificate programs leading to degrees from the baccalaureate to the doctorate. As Maryland’s Preeminent Public Urban Research University , and the only university to have its entire campus designated as a National Treasure by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Morgan serves a multiethnic and multiracial student body and seeks to ensure that the doors of higher education are opened as wide as possible to as many as possible. For more information about Morgan State University, visit www.morgan.edu .

Media Contacts:

Larry Jones , Dell Jackson or Cheryl Stewart , for Morgan State University PR 443-885-3022

The National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities of the National Institutes of Health, under Award Number U54MD013376, supported the research reported in this announcement. The content is solely the authors' responsibility and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Information

Office of Public Relations & Strategic Communications 1700 East Cold Spring Lane McMechen Hall Rm. 635 Baltimore, Maryland 21251

[email protected]