Norwegian writing methodology increases approval rate of scientific funding proposals by 30%

Courses at the Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research reverse the traditional approach, posting approval rates of between 15% and 30%

Gilberto Stam

A person typing at a laptop. The room is neutrally lit, with an organized desk and scattered notebooks, suggesting a research or university settings.

For early-career researchers, the first funding proposal is a decisive moment: rejection can discourage them from future attempts, and in extreme cases it can even lead to them giving up on a scientific career. The traditional trial-and-error approach offers little hope of overcoming this obstacle.

To address the problem, the Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research in Bergen, Norway, has spent the last 10 years developing a training methodology for funding proposal writing that is capable of raising approval rates to between 15% and 30%—well above the average for the major funding calls targeted by the participants. The results were presented in an article published in Ecology and Evolution.

The methodology is organized into two complementary formats: a workshop and a course. The two-day, in-person workshop, with a maximum of 15 participants, is intensive and aims to transform raw ideas into structured project concepts. The classroom-based course is more in-depth: five months of weekly hybrid classes, in which each participant individually develops a full proposal, ready for submission.

Both formats are based on the learning needs of each student, collaborative co-creation of content between teachers and students, and active learning strategies. They can be taken independently or one after the other.

The five pillars of the methodology

1. Idea pitching: Before the course begins, each participant submits a concise presentation of their research idea. Teachers give feedback before the first session.
2. From "why" to "what": The proposal is planned in reverse from end to beginning: first the impact and objectives (the “why”), then the plan and budget (the “what”).
3. SMART goals: Specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and targeted. Instead of listing tasks, the researcher defines measurable goals with clear success criteria.
4. Stress test with a mentor: A senior researcher assesses whether the proposal is groundbreaking, ambitious, and feasible. Proposals not passing this stage can be paused, preventing weak submissions.
5. Mock evaluation: Two weeks before the submission deadline, mentors and teachers evaluate the proposal using the actual criteria of the targeted call.

“Strong research proposals start by explaining what you will achieve when the project is successful, which problems you will have solved, and why this matters in a broader context,” the authors say.

The methodology thus reverses the traditional order: it begins with the objectives and impact of the research (the “why”) and ends with the schedule and budget (the “what”). Throughout the course, students rewrite the proposal several times based on ongoing feedback.

The first step—and the hardest for most beginners—is defining the problem in a broader context before planning how to solve it. To do this, teachers encourage the use of SMART goals, which stands for specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and targeted. Instead of a simple task list, which shows reviewers what will be done but not its importance, students develop measurable objectives that demonstrate the value of the project.

Multiple versions, multiple perspectives

After initial adjustments, students present their proposals to senior researchers in the field and choose a mentor, who later conducts a stress test, assessing whether the project is groundbreaking, ambitious, and feasible, and proposing changes. Once approved at this stage, the proposal can be used to connect with potential collaborators and partners, and to present the initiative to colleagues and leadership at the institution.

Finally, two weeks before the submission deadline, mentors and teachers perform a mock evaluation of the final proposal. Mentors focus on scientific excellence and methodology; teachers evaluate structure, readability, consistency, clarity, and whether there is sufficient information on impact and implementation.

The results confirm the effectiveness of the approach. From a typical class of 15 to 18 participants, between 10 and 15 submit a proposal within 12 months of completing the course, and 2 to 3 secure funding within the same year or the next. For comparison, the approval rate for the ERC Starting Grant in 2024 was 14%, and for the Research Council of Norway’s Early Career Grant in 2025, it was 15%.

During the course, two alumni with successfully approved proposals are invited to share their experiences, including early versions of their texts that did not make the grade. According to the authors, this reduces anxiety among participants and increases their confidence.

If a proposal is not good enough at the end of the process, students can postpone submission, avoiding frustration and ensuring the quality of the final text.

“The course is effective and easy to implement. If it is not feasible, however, we recommend providing a space for regular writing seminars organized by the students, supervised by a senior scientist or research adviser,” the authors explain.

After ten years of offering the course, the researchers noticed a cultural change at the Bjerknes Centre: students became more involved in proposal writing and submitted proposals to funding agencies earlier, some even during their PhDs. According to the authors, this engagement benefits both researchers and institutions, scientifically and economically.

* This article may be republished online under the CC-BY-NC-ND Creative Commons license.
The text must not be edited and the author(s) and source (Science Arena) must be credited.