# data[].attributes.body
NI currently ringfences funding for ECRs - the new schemes do not seem at first glance to do this. How will ESRC ensure that ECRs are not squeezed out of its new schemes by more experienced researchers? 'Grow' seems to be the closest scheme to NI, but it will be open to all career stages.

# data[].attributes.body
Are the five new opportunities (React, Connect, Grow, Explore, Challenge) replace the existing applicant-led opportunities (esp. standard grant)? If yes, will they be phased out? The announcement isn't clear, and some of our staff are worried about applications currently being developed. https://www.ukri.org/councils/esrc/guidance-for-applicants/types-of-funding-we-offer/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We provide a range of funding, covering smaller awards to support early career researchers and larger research awards enabling both individuals and larger teams to access funding through our applicant-led research grants and centres competitions.

We also provide funding for postgraduate training and fellowships. Our funding also supports UK data and infrastructure and methodological developments.

Find our latest funding opportunities.

Applicant-led research funding

We support applicant-led research which is researcher-driven and can cover any relevant ESRC topic or theme as long as it falls within ESRC's remit. Within these funding opportunities we currently have a highlight for applications in the area of artificial intelligence for social science. These funding opportunities have an open application date, so researchers can apply at any time:

ESRC is making important changes to our applicant-led mode schemes to ensure the brightest ideas can be pursued. The refreshed approach will encourage agility, innovation and excellence across all stages of research, from early-stage exploration to major programmes.

The key changes are:

more outcome-focused funding opportunities

more strategic management and curation of our applicant-led portfolio

greater support for novelty, disruption and responsible risk taking

faster funding for the best ideas

We will be launching five opportunities in a phased approach. Two pilots have already launched, and detailed pre-announcements for other opportunities are expected in September 2026. Our research grants, new investigator grants and secondary data analysis opportunities will remain open to applications, with no submission deadlines, until the new Grow and Explore opportunities are opened.

The new opportunities are:

React

launched spring 2026

six-month pilot awards

award range £50,000 to £100,000

React offers a fast route to fund projects that help address time-critical public-sector challenges. With rolling decisions and short-term support, it is designed to make a practical difference within six months.

Connect

launched spring 2026

six-month pilot awards

award range £50,000 to £150,000

Connect provides funding to test new or high-risk ideas and build collaborations in emerging areas. It helps researchers from different disciplines come together early, explore what is possible, and lay the foundations for future groundbreaking research.

Grow

launching autumn 2026

18-month to five-year awards

award value £100,000 to £500,000

Grow helps researchers build the skills, experience and confidence to take the next step in their career or move into a new area. It supports early career development and bold career pivots that can open up fresh directions for social science.

Explore

launching autumn 2026

up to five-year awards

award value £300,000 to £2 million

Explore backs individuals or small teams to advance knowledge with innovative and disruptive ideas. It gives researchers the freedom to use the approach that best achieves their aims, whether that means a research project, data initiative, or another route to push disciplinary, methodological or conceptual boundaries.

Challenge

launching early 2027

up to five-year awards

award value £2 million to £10 million

Challenge enables collaborations that tackle complex economic, societal or scientific problems that need work at scale. It supports ambitious programmes of research, innovation and infrastructure that bring people, expertise and ideas together to advance knowledge and improve lives.

Postgraduate funding

We are the largest UK funding organisation for research and postgraduate training in the economic and social sciences, directed mostly through Doctoral Training Partnerships and Centres for Doctoral Training.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We provide a range of funding, covering smaller awards to support early career researchers and larger research awards enabling both individuals and larger teams to access funding through our applicant-led research grants and centres competitions.

# data[].attributes.body
How will the new schemes relate to the joint funding agreements with Brazil, Luxembourg?

# data[].attributes.headline
Re. new schemes - will there be anything akin to the old secondary data scheme, encouraging use of UK Data Service repositories?

# data[].attributes.subject
Re. new schemes - will there be anything akin to the old secondary data scheme, encouraging use of UK Data Service repositories?

# data[].attributes.body
1) Will the 'challenge' strand of the new funding scheme be a single or multi-stage process for large centre applications?

2) What will the timeline be for the challenge scheme once a proposal for an ESRC centre has been submitted?

# data[].attributes.body
Regarding the use of Tiers to categorise proposals into: Tier 1 - Fundable, Tier 2 - Competitive, Tier 3 - Unfundable. You have said that Tier 2 is to be "curated" and subject to strategic decisions. Ostensibly this is to ensure that there is balance (e.g. ensure enough ECRs are getting funding), however it is unclear what the mechanism for this will be. It makes curiosity led research vulnerable to political decision making and this needs to be made fully transparent to allay fears.

# data[].attributes.body
The number of fantastic proposals that were top rated, but ultimately rejected and could not then be resubmitted is regrettable. With the closure of the responsive mode calls and the advent of the new suite of schemes there is an opportunity for an amnesty on the re-submission policy. Will you allow previously unsuccessful bids to be re-submitted under the new schemes? You could introduce a minimum score for re-submission. Looking ahead - what will the resubmission policy be?

# data[].attributes.body
Given the peer review burden and unmanageable volume of applications what will the applications assessment process look like? Will it be DPR like Connect and React, do you have another alternative in mind, or will it use the peer review/panel review system?

# data[].attributes.body
In the recent town hall, you noted explore was for small teams of up to 4. Can you confirm that larger teams will be be eligible for this scheme?

# data[].attributes.body
I appreciate ESRC feels it is removing workload from HEIs by making this an open scheme.

-Can you confirm total budget for this scheme and any plans for staggering this to prevent it all being spent in year 1.

-Will previous/current ESRC Centres be eligible to apply?

# data[].attributes.headline
Degrowth and alternative economic models

# data[].attributes.subject
Degrowth and alternative economic models

# data[].attributes.body
In light of bucket 1 focus on curiosity and applicant driven research - does ESRC stand by Stain Westlake previous assertion that ESRC will not prioritise research into degrowth? How does this fit with a so called applicant led model?

# data[].attributes.body
How much overlap do you envisage between the launch of Grow and Explore and the closing of the current responsive mode schemes?

# data[].attributes.body
For the Standard research grants previously the combined costs for specific project partners couldn't exceed 30% of the total FEC - with the new focus on teams and 3rd sector partners will this change?

# data[].attributes.body
The belief that applicant-led mode applications have to align with ESRC strategic priorities in order to be competitive is quite deeply held by some. It seems like this isn't the case. How will you communicate that clearly in the new opportunities?

# data[].attributes.body
At the previous Nov 2025 study tour you mentioned that there were a relatively high number of applications not getting to panel (over 50%), and you were going to look into the reasons/external factors driving this. Do you have any insights to share?

# data[].attributes.body
Do ESRC have strategic partner universities (like BBSRC, EPSRC...)? If so, who are they and what are the criteria?

# data[].attributes.body
With the scale of funding available through the new Challenge funding strand, how will ESRC manage the possibility of a number of competitive proposals being submitted in a close timeframe? Is there a risk that some institutions may submit a number of high value applications to this call? Is there a risk that funding could all be awarded to a small amount of institutions (say in the 'golden triangle')?

# data[].attributes.body
The five new strands look like a great way to ensure an entry point for every researcher. The range of funding for each strand has increased to enable researchers to apply for more funding eg ESRC New Investigator currently limited to £350,000 and now potentially up to £500,000 in the 'Grow' strand. With the maximum value increasing, does this mean that fewer applications will be awarded by ESRC as the amount of funding available for all applicant-led funding has not increased enough (especially with the new Challenge strand)?

# data[].attributes.body
AHRC Large Grants will use team convening approaches to deliver this scale of funding (Thrive Principals). Will ESRC introduce these approaches into some of the schemes (eg Challenge funding)?

# data[].attributes.body
Will the application form (i.e. the Vision, Approach, etc. format in TFS) change?

# data[].attributes.body
I think what these comments/ questions show is that 6 weeks notice before closing existing schemes (as noted in recent town hall), is really not sufficient when so many details of new schemes unclear. Will ESRC consider revising up these timings?

# data[].attributes.body
You have said you don't want a sudden influx of applications trying to beat the deadline for closure of the old schemes. Would you then explicitly advise against submitting beyond a certain date or period? If someone has been preparing a submission for several months and they submit in September as they had planned will that inevitably be viewed as someone trying to beat the deadline regardless of intention?

# data[].attributes.body
What was the process involved in the development of these schemes?

Were any universities involved?

Were there any advisory groups representing different stakeholders (for example ECRs) consulted as part of the process?

# data[].attributes.body
I would like to hear a definitive statement on the role of non-academic impact in evaluation of proposals (under all the new schemes). The AHRC has recently reiterated the centrality of impact, but Stian Westlake had previously intimated that non-academic impact may become less important for the ESRC grants.

# data[].attributes.body
Are there likely to be any new ESRC Fellowships, or other schemes that would fund 100% fte for an ECR who does not have a post?