Approaches to External Funding Acquisition Vary Among University Alliances, According to a Survey by ENGAGE.EU

University alliances recognise the need to diversify their funding sources and secure sustainable financing for their activities in the future. However, they differ significantly in how they have organised their efforts to obtain external funding. This variation is partly linked to the fact that alliances were established at different points in time and are therefore at different stages of development.

In 2025, a task team in ENGAGE.EU conducted a brief survey among six university alliances to gather insights on how alliances should approach funding applications and organise them internally. The survey addressed whether specific funding channels are prioritised, how funding support is organised, how calls are communicated internally, how researchers are encouraged to apply, and how submitted applications are monitored.

Survey results

Across the six alliances surveyed, the most frequently used strategy is to build a structured pipeline from shared priorities to consortia formation and proposal development. This typically means:

• internal seed funding that enables early collaboration and reduces the opportunity cost of drafting
• systematic matchmaking and thematic networking
• distributed “research support networks” connecting institutional grant offices to mobilise opportunities, partners and proposal expertise

Roadmapping of funding support is uneven. A small number of alliances describe a structured framework (notably action plans or research agendas) that links intended activities to likely funding routes; more commonly, alliances use strategic framing to guide selection while retaining flexibility at call level. In practice, decisions on funding opportunities are mostly guided via governance and coordination channels and then implemented through thematic communities and institutional support services. Practical support is most developed where there is an identifiable coordination function and a stable interface to member research support services.

Communication and motivation mechanisms are largely pragmatic and service‑oriented: calls and partnership opportunities are shared through alliance governance, thematic work packages or mission structures, and then disseminated through member universities’ research support channels.

Conclusion

While the survey sample is limited and does not capture the full diversity of practices, it highlights the range of approaches currently in use. The coming years will show which models prove most effective. A key factor for success, however, is already clear: university alliances benefit from a shared strategic understanding of which funding instruments to prioritise.

Authors: Sirpa Aalto (Hanken School of Economics) and Ursula Schlichter (University of Mannheim)