How to write a grant application that stands out

A grant application is a text type of its own, and writing one is a skill that can be developed. A strong grant application always starts by taking the funder’s guidelines and rules into account.

The first step in writing a good application is to check that your project fits the foundation’s purpose and the theme of the funding call. For the Nessling Foundation, this means showing how your project contributes to a sustainability transformation that safeguards natural systems. Applications that fail to make this connection are typically the ones that receive the lowest scores from reviewers. The same applies to other funders: if your application does not respond to the purpose of the call, it is unlikely to be funded.

If your project fits the call, the following tips can help you improve your application. They are intended mainly for researchers applying for research project funding, but they may also be useful for preparing any type of application.

Write clearly, convincingly and for your reader

A grant application is a text type of its own, and writing one is a skill that can be developed. Remember that you are not writing the application for your fellow researchers, but for a reviewer whose task is to read dozens of applications and who may not represent the same field as you. Keep your text coherent and do not be afraid to use a narrative approach. Research has shown that narrative elements can improve the clarity of application texts. Pay attention to the the grammar, regardless of the language in which you write it. Short, clear sentences are usually better than long and complicated ones.

The aim of the application text is to convince the reviewer that your idea connects to the theme defined by the funder, meets the funder’s other criteria, and that you are the best person or organisation to carry out the project. The more clearly you present your ideas, the easier it is for the reviewer to follow your thinking. Do not write as you would write a scientific article. Instead, build the text for the reader: explain clearly what you plan to do, why it matters and how you will carry it out. At the same time, you should still include the scientific terms, figures and concepts that are essential to your research. The key is to make the overall idea clear and easy to follow.

You may ask for help in making the text clearer, for example from a colleague in another field. Ask them to read your research plan and then summarise its main idea to you. If they are able to do this, your text is probably clear enough for the purposes of the application.

Put effort into the summary

A useful rule of thumb for the summary is: clearly said is clearly thought.

The summary is often the first part of your application that the reviewer reads. It gives them an initial understanding of your project and guides what they will look for in the rest of the application. Ideally, your summary should capture the core idea of your project in a way that allows the reviewer to understand the central challenge you are addressing, how you plan to do it, and the context in which the project sits. Aim to be concrete.

The summary may also be the one part of the application where using AI can genuinely add value. You can use AI to help sharpen the summary and make it more accessible, as long as you have first done the thinking yourself.

Write your research questions clearly

In a surprising number of research project applications, the research questions are hidden somewhere in the research plan or missing altogether. Your research questions are the foundation of your study. Write them out clearly and explain why you have chosen them.

Do not leave things between the lines

Make sure that the important points in your application are stated clearly. Do not assume that the reviewer will look for additional information on their own.

Avoid repetition and make use of the space available

Application texts usually have a maximum length. For example, in the Nessling Foundation’s research project applications, the research plan is limited to two or three pages, and the communication and interaction plan to one page. Do not exceed the page limits but also make full use of the space available. You give other applicants an advantage if you submit only half a page for your communication and interaction plan when a full page is available.

Try to use the available space and the different sections of the application form in a way that avoids unnecessary repetition. The project summary may repeat some information from the rest of the application, but elsewhere each section should add something useful.

Make sure you answer every question

This cannot be emphasised enough since in our experience, this is one of the points where applications can easily fall short. Read the instructions for the application carefully. In the case of the Nessling Foundation, also read the instructions for preparing the research or project plan and the communication and interaction plan.

Make sure you follow the instructions provided. Answer the questions clearly, and do not assume that the reviewer will read between the lines.

Get the budget right

Even an excellent application can fall short if the project budget has not been prepared according to the instructions. Funders may have different requirements and conditions for budgets, which is why it is important to read each funder’s guidelines separately. For example, the most common reason applications to the Nessling Foundation are rejected is that the applicant applies for a personal grant that differs from the amount stated in the call.

Funders also differ in whether applicants may apply for other expenses in addition to a personal grant. From the Nessling Foundation, applicants may apply for expense funding, for example for travel or communication, but this must always be applied for together with the personal grant. It is not possible to apply for additional expenses after funding has been awarded.

Recommendations matter

The Nessling Foundation requires applicants for doctoral thesis funding to include at least one supervisor’s statement as part of the application. One of the most common reasons for rejecting an application is that the supervisor’s statement does not arrive by the deadline. Make sure your supervisor knows the deadline and has received the link from the application system for submitting the statement.

For other applications, recommendations are optional. However, they can still make a difference, especially if your application is being compared with another strong application. A good recommendation, or several good recommendations, can tip the balance in your favour.

Think carefully about who would be best placed to support your application. If your project involves working with young people, could you ask young people themselves for recommendations? Or if your work is artistic and relates to the sustainability transformation, could you ask not only someone from your own field, but also a professor familiar with sustainability transformation to comment on the importance of the theme and your expertise?