Designing more inclusive funding calls

In June 2025, we published a blog post, Celebrating the value of all voices, in which we set out a commitment to reviewing our working practices around funding calls delivered through XR Network+. That work formed part of the Valuing Voices project and involved collaboration with external facilitators from IDA XR Studio and colleagues from the  University of York EDI Research Centre.

XR Network+ is a project led by XR Stories that operates within the UK’s creative industries research and innovation ecosystem. It provides funding to researchers working in virtual production and supports collaborations between academic researchers and industry. As such, the funding calls delivered through XR Network+ form part of a wider landscape of research and innovation opportunities within the creative industries.

Over the last six months, we’ve undertaken an audit of our own working practices alongside research into barriers to funding. We’ve examined how changes to funding call design can affect who applies for, and participates in, research and innovation funding opportunities. Drawing data from XR Network+ funding calls run between 2023 and 2025, alongside existing research on barriers to funding, we looked at:

• Which aspects of funding call design appear to matter
• Where there are early indications of change
• Where further work remains to be carried out.

This blog by Rosario Neyra, Research Associate at XR Stories, summarises the main findings from that work. A full account of the data, methods and analysis is available in the main report.

Why funding call design matters

Access to research and innovation funding is uneven, with applications and outcomes differing systematically by applicant characteristics. Evidence shows that women, people from racially minoritised groups, LGBTQ+ individuals and disabled people face persistent barriers across all stages of the funding process (Boland, 2019; Gladstone et al., 2022; Jebsen et al., 2020; Schneider et al., 2024). These barriers operate alongside broader structural inequalities within research and innovation environments, including uneven access to mentorship, familiarity with funding processes and institutional support (Sotiropoulou, 2022). Similar patterns of inequality have also been documented in the creative industries, where XR Network+ and XR Stories operate: entry, progression and access to opportunities are strongly shaped by informal networks and unequal access to social, cultural and financial capital (Carey et al., 2021, 2024).

Programme teams responsible for distributing funding often have limited control over these wider structural conditions. However, they do have direct influence on how funding calls are designed, communicated and reviewed. This includes aspects such as eligibility framing, application formats, timelines, reviewer guidance and decision-making processes. All these factors can have an effect on who feels able to apply and who received funding. As distributors of funding, our audit focused on these points of intervention. 

The funding calls

Between 2023 and 2025, we ran seven funding calls: Embedded R&D Grants Round 1 and Round 2 (June 2023 and June 2024), Prototyping, Impact and Accelerator (PIA) R&D Grants Round 1 and Round 2 (June 2023 and June 2024), XR Accelerator (March 2024), the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) R&D Challenge (August 2024) and the XR Labs Fund (September 2025). Across these calls, 169 applications were received, and 50 projects were funded.

The calls differed in scope and scale. Some, such as Embedded R&D and the RSC R&D Challenge, involved relatively high award values (£60,000–£75,000) and required established academic-industry partnerships. Others, including PIA and XR Labs, focused on earlier-stage prototyping or experimentation and offered smaller awards (£10,000–£25,000). XR Accelerator differed further in that it provided a structured development programme rather than direct grant funding.

Because of these differences, patterns observed across applications reflect a combination of grant size, eligibility criteria and programme design rather than any single factor.

What we changed for the XR Labs Fund

Ahead of the last XR Network+ funding opportunity, the XR Labs Fund, which closed in September 2025, we undertook a structured audit of our funding processes. This involved mapping nearly 70 touchpoints and decision points across the full lifecycle of a funding call, from scheme design and advertising through to review and decision-making.

Alongside this, we carried out a targeted, research-informed review of evidence on barriers to participation in research funding, alongside team training in equitable project design delivered by Ida XR Studio. This work focused on aspects of funding call design that programme teams can directly influence, including how eligibility is communicated, how applications are submitted, and how review processes are organised.

Together, this informed a set of 16 changes across the funding process, which we implemented for the XR Labs Fund call and are outlined below.

Encouraging broader participation

• The call guidance explicitly stated that the fund aimed to encourage applications from early career researchers and technicians.
• A dedicated EDI section was included in the guidance, setting out commitments and encouraging applications from a wide range of backgrounds.
• An additional question invited applicants to reflect on how their project considered equitable design (not scored, but available to reviewers to reflect on in their review).
• The application window was extended to eight weeks to allow additional time for applicants to arrange support and manage any interruptions.
• Greater flexibility was introduced in project delivery timelines, with an eight-week window for project start and end dates rather than fixed deadlines.

Accessibility of documents

• Guidance documents were revised to improve accessibility, including by using screen-reader-compatible headings, avoiding tables, and providing the application form as an editable document rather than a PDF.
• Google Forms was used as the submission platform, which is screen reader compatible and autosaves progress. Applicants could also download the form as a Word document and work on it offline before using the Google Form submission point.
• An infographic outlining the pre- and post-award process was included to improve transparency in the process.
• Applicants were given the option to request alternative submission formats, including video, or to request adjustments by contacting the team.
• One-to-one application support calls were made available to all applicants, several of whom took up this offer.

Review process

• The reviewer pool was refreshed and expanded to include individuals with freelance backgrounds and to have a broader geographic representation across the UK.
• Reviewers received structured guidance, including written materials, a briefing document and a video explaining the review process and addressing unconscious bias.
• Reviewers were paid for both engaging with training materials and reviewing applications, recognising the time required to assess proposals, and allowing for participation of those who would not otherwise be able to contribute their time.

Decision-making process

• An EDI observer from the University of York attended the shortlisting meeting to monitor discussions and prompt reflection where needed.

Outcome and follow-up

• Reviewer comments were reviewed before being shared with applicants to ensure appropriate tone, clarity and relevance.
• Reviewer feedback is also being compiled and anonymised to identify common themes. This will be published publicly and inform guidance for future applicants.

Taken together, these changes were intended to reduce barriers to participation, improve transparency across the funding process, and support more consistent and equitable decision-making.

Key findings

Who applies appears more sensitive to call design than who is funded

Across most characteristics, we found that the distribution of funded projects broadly mirrored the composition of the applicant pool. This suggests that there is no clear evidence that particular groups were systematically disadvantaged during the review stage.

For example, men accounted for 56.2% of applicants and 54.0% of funded projects, while women represented 30.8% of applicants and 38.0% of funded projects. Most applicants identified as White (68.1%), and this group accounted for 72% of funded projects. For disability status, 14.8% of applicants reported having a disability compared with 14.0% of funded projects.

Overall, the profile of funded projects closely reflects the profile of those who applied, indicating that differences in participation are more visible at the application stage rather than in the outcomes of the review process.

Grant size has an effect on who applies

Our audit revealed that grant size appears to be associated with differences in participation. For example, larger calls (£60,000 or more) received fewer applications from younger applicants and women. Additionally, applications from people identifying as working class were less common in higher-value funding schemes. For these characteristics, the XR Labs Fund, which offered £25,000 awards, tended to sit between smaller and larger schemes in terms of who applied.

These patterns likely reflect structural differences in access to the resources needed to pursue larger grants. Research suggests that larger awards often require stronger institutional support, established networks and greater administrative capacity (Jebsen et al., 2020; Gladstone et al., 2022). Early career researchers are less likely to have access to these resources, and women may also be less represented among applicants to larger schemes due to structural differences in access to encouragement, sponsorship and leadership opportunities. For applicants from working-class backgrounds, perceived financial risk may also play a role (Arbuckle et al. 2025).

Reduced non-disclosure responses may signal increased trust

For several sensitive characteristics, including disability and sexual orientation, we found that the XR Labs call was associated with lower levels of non-disclosure. The proportion of applicants identifying as LGBQ+ increased from 7.6% to 15.9%, while “Prefer not to say” responses declined. Also, the proportion of applicants reporting a disability increased from 11.3% to 20.6%, while non-disclosure also decreased.

Existing research shows that non-disclosure for sensitive characteristics is often linked to concerns about confidentiality and potential disadvantage (Tourangeau & Yan, 2007; Valentine & Wood, 2015). Reductions in non-disclosure could therefore reflect greater confidence in how monitoring data are collected and used, rather than a substantive change in the composition of the applicant pool.

Small but positive shifts in applications from under-represented groups

Across several characteristics, including ethnicity, disability and sexual orientation, we found that the XR Labs call saw modest increases in applications from groups that are often under-represented in research funding. For example, the proportion of applicants identifying as Asian or Asian British increased from 10.4% in earlier calls to 12.7% for XR Labs, while applications from those identifying as Black or Black British increased from 1.9% to 3.2%. The proportion of applicants reporting a disability increased from 11.3% to 20.6%, and the proportion identifying as LGBQ+ rose from 7.6% to 15.9%.

While these shifts are relatively small, in some cases they bring the composition of the applicant pool closer to sector-level workforce participation. For example, Black and Black British applicants represented 3.2% of XR Labs applications, compared with around 2.8% of the creative industries workforce. Nonetheless, the number of applications in some categories remains small. As a result, we have interpreted these changes cautiously because it is not possible to determine whether they are statistically significant.

Limitations

We also noted the following limitations to our findings: 

1. The funding calls varied substantially in their design and eligibility requirements. While we could examine some of these differences separately (for example, grant size), others are harder to isolate and may also shape who applies. 
2. The changes we introduced for XR Labs were implemented simultaneously, meaning that no single change can be linked to a specific outcome. 
3. Structural inequalities within academia and the creative industries continue to shape who is able to pursue research and innovation opportunities; changes to funding call design alone cannot resolve these wider inequalities.

Next steps

Despite the limitations, our findings suggest several priorities for future funding rounds:

1. The application stage should continue to be treated as the primary site of intervention, particularly for higher-value grants. Across the calls we analysed, the composition of funded projects broadly mirrored the composition of the applicant pool. This suggests that differences in participation arise primarily at the point of application.
2. Larger funding calls may benefit from being more explicit about who can apply and what is expected of applicants. This could include stating clearly whether early career researchers can lead projects, explaining what kinds of partnerships are required, and offering application support or examples of successful projects. These kinds of interventions may help reduce barriers for applicants who are less likely to apply to larger schemes, including women and people from lower socio-economic backgrounds.
3. Transparency and reflexivity should remain central not only to monitoring data but also to review and decision-making processes. Making review criteria and procedures visible, and creating space for reflection during decision-making, would help ensure that funding decisions are consistent with the principles set out in the call and allow potential sources of bias to be recognised and addressed.

Our review represents an early but essential step in understanding how funding call design affects participation. As more data become available, we will undertake further analysis to enable more confident interpretation of patterns and help refine future interventions.

Readers interested in more detailed analysis, including more detailed breakdowns across characteristics, can access the full report.

References

Arbuckle, K., Bethell, E. J., Hawthorn, D. J., Hunt, K., Khera, M., Lewis, Z., Mitchell, J., Nicholl, M. H., & Reynolds, L. A. (2025). Low socioeconomic status is an under-recognised source of challenges in academia. Journal of Zoology, 325(4), 267–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.13250

Boland, J. L. (2019). Accessibility in STEM: Barriers facing disabled individuals in research funding processes. OSF Preprints. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/uzsdk

Carey, H., Giles, L., O’Connor, K., Sissons, P. and Godwin, E.S. (2024). Beyond growth: promoting inclusive development of creative clusters in the UK, 2024. Creative PEC. Available at: https://pec.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Beyond-growth-promoting-inclusive-development-of-creative-clusters-in-the-UK-Creative-PEC-Research-Report-July-2024.pdf

Carey, H., O’Brien, D. & Gable, O. (2021). Screened out: Tackling class inequality in the UK Screen Industries. Class in the Creative Industries: Paper No.02. Available at: https://pec.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/PEC-and-ScreenSkills-report-Screened-Out-FINAL-April-2021.pdf

Gladstone, J., Schipper, L., Hara-Msulira, T., & Casci, T. (2022). Equity and Inclusivity  in Research Funding: Barriers and Delivering Change. University of Oxford. http://dx.doi.org/10.5287/bodleian:KZjBY77pO

Jebsen, J. M., Abbott, C., Oliver, R., Ochu, E., Jayasinghe, I., & Gauchotte-Lindsay, C. (2020). A Review of Barriers Women Face in Research Funding Processes in the UK. Psychology of Women and Equalities Review, 3(1&2). https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/27mdz

Ida XR Studio, Kurta, L. & Pernice, G. (2024). A Silenced Sector: Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Challenges in the Immersive & Virtual Production Industries. King’s College London. https://doi.org/10.18742/pub01-176

Schneider, S., Morgan, C., Magill, C., Hersh, M., Sang, K., & MacIntosh, R. (2024). Evidence review: Peer review bias in the funding process: Main themes and interventions. Heriot-Watt University. https://doi.org/10.17861/YDDH-B137

Sotiropoulou, P. (2022). Literature review on EDI barriers to postgraduate research relevant to funding. Advance HE. Available at: https://advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/literature-review-edi-barriers-postgraduate-research-relevant-funding

Tourangeau, R. & Yan, T. (2007). Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin, 133(5), 859–883. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.859

Valentine, G. & Wood, N (2015). The Experiences of lesbian, gay and bisexual staff and students in higher education (Equality and Human Rights Commission research summary 39). Manchester, Glasgow and Cardiff: Equality and Human Rights Commission. Available at: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/research-summary-39-experiences-of-lesbian-gay-bisexual-higher-education.pdf

XR Stories EDI vision

Read the XR Stories Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) vision.