Securing third-party funding shapes many research careers, especially in systems built on temporary contracts and competitive calls. Yet applications often fail not because the idea is weak, but because strategy, timing, and framing fall out of sync. Drawing on insights shared by Sabine Preusse at the To Be Honest Conference 2025, this article outlines what effective grant strategies for researchers look like in practice. The focus is not on application forms, but on decisions researchers make long before submission.

Approaching research funding strategically starts with a mindset shift

One central observation is simple but not easy to act on: especially before a permanent position, you are not only doing research, you are also building the conditions that allow research to happen. You bring expertise, methods, and a problem to solve, and you ask a funder to invest in that plan.

This perspective matters because it reframes funding work. Exploring calls, shaping ideas, talking to hosts, and clarifying budgets is not time stolen from research. It is part of the research role itself.

The takeaway: treating funding strategy as real work makes it easier to plan deliberately, instead of pushing it into evenings and weekends.

Start outside the template so your idea can develop

A recurring pitfall Sabine highlights is opening the proposal template too early. Templates impose structure before a project’s internal logic is ready, which often leads to inconsistencies later.

She recommends separating thinking from formatting and moving through three distinct modes:

• Dreaming: generating ideas without worrying about feasibility or fit
• Planning: structuring ideas, identifying gaps, and building coherence
• Critiquing: inviting feedback, revising, and repeating the cycle

Working visually, with sticky notes or digital boards, keeps ideas flexible. Only once the logic holds together should the template enter the process.

The takeaway: develop the idea first, then adapt it to the form.

Match the project to the funding instrument

Even strong projects can fail when placed in the wrong funding context. Sabine draws an early distinction that helps avoid this trap.

• In top-down calls, the problem and expected impact are predefined. Your task is to show how your approach delivers what the funder already wants to achieve.
• In bottom-up calls, relevance is not given. You must explain why your question deserves attention among many unrelated projects.

Across both, the rule stays the same: design for the instrument. A fellowship foregrounds your development and environment. A research grant emphasizes feasibility and a clear work plan. A junior group leader proposal signals independence, leadership, and longer-term vision.

The takeaway: do not bend the project at the last minute, choose the instrument that fits the story you need to tell.

Treat eligibility windows as strategic constraints

Many funding schemes operate with academic age limits, often defined as years since the PhD. Sabine’s advice is pragmatic: check eligibility early and confirm it with the funder or host institution. Extensions may apply for caregiving or parental leave, but rules vary.

This is where career planning and grant strategy intersect. Researchers often juggle publishing, preliminary data, and proposal writing while eligibility windows close. In some programs, accepted but not yet published papers can already count, which can ease timing pressure.

The takeaway: eligibility is not fine print, it shapes your realistic options.

Make impact about the funder’s mission

Sabine reframes the impact section with a simple question: why does this funding agency exist? Funders pursue specific missions, and proposals compete on how clearly they contribute to them.

Some agencies prioritize research quality through competition, others early career development, international networks, or societal challenges. Understanding this “why” allows you to write impact sections that are precise rather than inflated.

A practical structure is to answer three questions:

1. Who will use or build on the results?
2. What becomes possible for them afterward?
3. What longer-term effect does this enable?

The takeaway: clarity about impact often matters more than ambitious language.

Work with host institutions as partners

Host institutions are not just a signature on a form. They provide infrastructure, administrative support, and an environment that shapes whether your project can succeed. They also decide whether hosting you makes sense for them.

Sabine recommends approaching potential hosts with a short project outline and being clear about what you contribute and what support you need. Funding offices should be involved early. Ask about internal timelines, required documents, and budget calculations. Some institutions require proposals weeks before the external deadline.

The takeaway: early coordination prevents last-minute stress and formal errors.

Write for reviewers who are expert and busy

Reviewers are knowledgeable, but rarely experts in your exact project. They also read selectively. Some start with the summary, others scan figures, and many form early impressions.

Sabine’s advice is practical: structure proposals so non-specialists grasp the core idea quickly, while specialists can find depth later. Name risks openly and explain how you address them. Ignoring risks undermines trust.

Feedback helps most when it comes from outside your niche. If a seemingly trivial question causes confusion, it likely points to a real weakness.

The takeaway: write for understanding first, persuasion second.

Plan for rejection and think in portfolios

Success rates are often low. Sabine stresses that rejection is structural, not personal. Many strong proposals are not funded in their first version.

Strategic researchers reuse their work. Projects can be resized, reframed, or redirected. Smaller grants can seed collaborations that later support larger applications. Network funding can prepare the ground for consortia.

The takeaway: effective grant strategies for researchers are not about winning one call. They are about building agency over time, across projects, and across career stages.

A brief recap

Grant strategy is not only about the next call. It is about how you position yourself over time, how you make choices under uncertainty, and how you protect space for good ideas to grow.

Approached this way, funding decisions become moments of orientation rather than constant pressure. They clarify priorities, open conversations, and shape trajectories.

That shift does not remove risk, but it restores agency. And for many researchers, that shift is what makes the work sustainable.