Grant writing and narrative CVs: Barriers and facilitators

Applying for grant funding is a fundamental part of a researcher's career. However, data from UKRI (2021–2022) indicate that principal investigators who are white and male are more likely to receive funding than women and ethnic minority applicants.

These figures do not account for other underrepresented characteristics, such as gender identity beyond the binary, sexual orientation, religion, or non-native English proficiency. While biases in grant allocation are often highlighted, the issue is more complex—one key but underexplored factor is the grant writing process itself.

A successful application depends not only on the quality of the research idea but also on how the proposal is written. Our project examined the barriers faced by underrepresented and marginalized researchers in preparing grant applications, as well as the key facilitators that help them navigate the process.

As illustrated in the concept map, we identified two primary types of barriers: Self-related Barriers (researchers' expectations of biases and self-stereotyping tendencies affecting how they approach and prepare a funding application) and External Barriers (institutional obstacles or contextual difficulties they have encountered).

Although distinct, self-related and external barriers interacted to exacerbate the difficulties faced by researchers from marginalized groups. For example, time constraints can be internal (e.g., struggling to prioritize applications) or external (e.g., heavy workloads, bureaucratic delays, or tight funding deadlines).

This makes researchers feel overwhelmed, impacting on their ability to write the application and its quality. Moreover, researchers with disabilities, for whom bid preparation may require additional time, found that neither universities nor funders make adequate provisions for their needs.

While many researchers face these challenges, those from marginalized backgrounds experience an accumulation of barriers that make the process even more difficult. For instance, accessing informal peer networks for feedback and guidance is particularly difficult for researchers in competitive environments and for international scholars unfamiliar with U.K. funding structures, nuanced funder expectations, and funder-specific language—especially when English is not their first language.

Despite these challenges, researchers identified several factors that improved their experience: Identified Self-related Facilitators included confidence in their own expertise in the research area, passion for the subject, and proactively building supportive networks (including mentors and senior colleagues who shared marginalized identity). Developing a growth mindset in which rejections are treated as opportunities to learn and develop was also mentioned as a beneficial strategy.

External facilitators included access to structured support within universities, such as internal peer review processes, mentoring schemes, and access to successful application examples. Strong relationships between universities and funders were also considered helpful for researchers to gain insights into funding priorities beyond published calls.

We then examined how researchers approach writing Narrative CVs, which are becoming increasingly common in grant applications. Our findings suggest that many marginalized researchers appreciate their potential to highlight under-recognized skills and experiences. However, they also report several challenges (see the second concept map).

Barriers involved a lack of familiarity with the format and difficulties in structuring information. This was mentioned in relation to time constraints and the undue burden placed on researchers, who are expected to invest additional effort in learning and writing Narrative CVs. International researchers and non-native English speakers often mentioned struggling with the implicit expectations around writing style and emphasis. Additionally, there is skepticism about how funders and reviewers assess Narrative CVs, complicating things further.

As for facilitators, marginalized researchers reported benefitting from or wishing to receive training and guidance tailored to different research backgrounds, including clear examples of effective Narrative CVs for different career stages. Individualized feedback on drafts was also highly valued. Interestingly, some researchers noted that Narrative CVs align with new approaches to academic processes, such as writing promotion applications and appraisals. Engaging with these activities may help build the skills needed to write strong Narrative CVs.

These findings highlight where action is needed—both in addressing challenges and enhancing support for researchers.