Designing more inclusive funding calls

The XR Stories team responsible for leading and delivering the XR Network+ project has undertaken an audit of XR Network+ funding processes to support the design of more inclusive funding calls.

The work forms part of XR Stories’ ongoing activities and interventions to help shape a creative technology sector where a wider range of people can access the opportunities that extended reality (XR) technologies and experiences can bring.

The structured audit 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.

The 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.

Alongside the audit, the team carried out a targeted, research-informed review of evidence on barriers to participation in research funding and ran training for colleagues in equitable project design delivered by Ida XR Studio.

The team 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, the team 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.

The work informed a set of 16 changes across the following areas of the funding process. The changes were implemented for the most recent XR Network+ funding call, the XR Labs Fund

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.

Read the full research report to find out about the audit findings, the impact of the changes, limitations and plans for next steps.

Published on 14 May 2026