Escribir un comentario

Policy Brief: Breaking Barriers to International Research Funding in Latin America

Background

Latin American researchers continue to face multiple systemic challenges when competing for international research funding. These barriers are not only financial but also structural, linguistic, and institutional. They create an uneven playing field in which talented scientists from the region often struggle to access opportunities that could expand their research impact and strengthen global collaboration.

A recent mixed-methods study, combining an in-depth focus group with a regional survey of 202 participants from across Latin America, provides valuable insight into the nature of these barriers. The results reveal the many layers of disadvantage that shape the funding landscape and offer practical recommendations for both funders and institutions seeking to promote equity and inclusion in global research.

Key Findings

The study highlights that the most pressing challenge, identified by 92 percent of participants, is the high cost and limited access to international networking. Researchers described how scarce travel funds, limited institutional mobility programs, and the absence of structured collaboration opportunities restrict their ability to connect with global partners and co-develop competitive proposals.

Equally significant is the issue of restrictive eligibility criteria, which 81 percent of respondents reported as a major obstacle. These criteria—often based on citizenship, institutional type, or administrative requirements—automatically exclude many researchers before the scientific merit of their proposals can even be assessed.

Language and rhetorical differences emerged as another major challenge for 75 percent of participants. The dominance of English in grant writing, coupled with differences in scientific discourse and stylistic expectations, often disadvantages those trained in Spanish or Portuguese academic traditions. Many researchers noted that, despite strong ideas, they struggle to present proposals in the tone and structure expected by international reviewers.

Another striking theme was the sense of self-perceived disadvantage and low competitiveness, reported by nearly 69 percent of participants. Many researchers feel discouraged from applying, believing their proposals are less likely to succeed than those from high-income countries.  This psychological barrier compounds structural inequities and limits participation.

Administrative and legal obstacles also play a key role. Respondents described slow institutional processes, limited support from grant offices, and weak financial management systems that make it difficult to comply with international requirements. These gaps not only cause delays but also sometimes prevent institutions from accepting grants altogether.

Finally, the survey revealed a regional imbalance in representation, with most respondents (around 62 percent) coming from Argentina. While this reflects the country’s active research community, it also underscores disparities in capacity and access across Latin America, emphasizing the need for regionally balanced interventions.

Recommendations for Funders and Institutions

To address these challenges, the study proposes a coordinated response involving both funding agencies and research institutions. The first step is to adapt international calls to the realities of low- and middle-income countries. This means simplifying eligibility rules, recognizing diverse institutional models, and offering flexible overhead and administrative structures that reflect regional contexts.

At the same time, it is essential to invest in capacity building for researchers. Funders and universities should create dedicated mentorship and peer review-training programs to help researchers strengthen their proposals and better understand the expectations of international review panels. In addition, structured funding readiness initiatives—pairing early-career scientists with experienced mentors—can build confidence and enhance success rates.

A third priority is improving access to networking and collaboration. This includes providing travel grants, supporting virtual networking platforms, sponsoring partnership-building events, and encouraging South–South cooperation within Latin America. Strengthening regional collaboration networks can compensate for unequal access to traditional global funding hubs.

Language equity must also become a central concern. Allowing proposal submissions in Spanish or Portuguese, accompanied by English summaries, would lower one of the steepest barriers faced by Latin American applicants. Offering editorial and translation assistance would further enhance competitiveness and ensure that strong scientific ideas are not lost in translation.

Institutional capacity building is another essential pillar. Universities and research centers need stronger administrative systems, trained personnel, and simplified internal processes to manage international grants effectively. Shared templates, standardized documentation, and training for research managers could help reduce the administrative burden and improve compliance.

Finally, equitable funding requires transparency and accountability. Funders should systematically monitor inclusion metrics—tracking who applies, who receives funding, and what factors influence these outcomes. Regularly publishing this data will help identify persistent inequities and guide evidence-based policy reform.

Policy Message

Equitable access to international research funding is not an act of generosity; it is a matter of scientific justice. Removing linguistic, administrative, and structural barriers will unlock the creativity and expertise of Latin American scientists and enable them to participate fully in shaping global scientific agendas. A more inclusive funding system benefits everyone: it enriches scientific collaboration, broadens perspectives, and accelerates innovation that addresses global challenges in health, environment, and sustainable development.

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The author declares that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.