As highlighted in the literature, RDAs are described using a wide range of terms and are designed to serve multiple purposes and outcomes. These range from awards primarily focused on individual career or skills development, to those intended to support community-engaged, collaborative, or capacity-building activity at team or institutional level. This variation in terminology and intent reflects differences in funding systems and contexts, but also creates challenges for evidence synthesis, as awards labelled similarly may differ substantially in purpose, scope, and expected outcomes. Prior to conducting the review (e.g., defining the key terms and conducting the academic searches) it was essential to establish a clear definition of what constituted an RDA. This clarity provided the foundation for developing the eligibility criteria for the review. •

Purpose of a RDA: Laying the groundwork for larger grants; proof-of-concept studies and proposal development; establishing collaboration and partnerships; building research capacity; supporting knowledge translation and community engagement.

Context

The context included UK, European, and international settings across all sectors, fields, and disciplines.

Participants

Any Research Funding Organisation (RFO) or institutional sector from any discipline or field of research. This also included Research Performing Organisations (RPOs), private sector businesses and enterprises, and public administrations that fund RDAs (e.g., funder perspective) or those that received a RDA (e.g., funded/researcher perspective).

Inclusion criteria

Articles were included if they were written in the English language (or could be translated into English), available in full text, and focused on team, partnership or collaborative awards rather than career, personal, or individual development awards such as fellowships. Table 1 outlines the original inclusion criteria used in the evidence synthesis in more detail (refer to extended data S1 Table: Descriptors for field and setting).

Exclusion criteria

Personal development awards, including any integrated clinical academic programmes, fellowship awards, career development awards, Public Health Intervention Responsive Studies Teams (PHIRST) awards, entrepreneurships, incubator awards associated to venture capital, funds or investment, and start-ups, including incubation centres.

The scoping review considered all types of study designs for inclusion (e.g., randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, before and after studies and interrupted time-series studies, analytical observational studies including prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case-control studies, analytical cross-sectional studies, descriptive observational study designs including case series, individual case reports and descriptive cross-sectional studies).

Qualitative studies that focused on qualitative data including, but not limited to, designs such as phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, qualitative description, action research and feminist research were also considered. In addition, systematic reviews, text and opinion papers that met the inclusion criteria were eligible for inclusion.

A broad range of publication data were required to be as inclusive as possible due to the diverse nature of how RDAs are reported and discussed in the public domain (and its associated parts in open research and open access). On that basis, the review included traditional academic outputs such as peer-reviewed journal articles, commentaries, editorials, opinion letters, perspectives and preprints, and grey literature such as policy documents, blogs, educational articles, guidance and newsletters, and reports.

The academic database searches were conducted on 9 May 2025 using Scopus and Web of Science. Grey literature was searched using Google Scholar and Sci-Space, including citation analysis of key articles. There were no study or language limits applied during the information retrieval process. However, the search strategy was limited to the last ten years (2015-2025), to capture developments influenced by the COVID pandemic.

The search strategy aimed to identify both peer-reviewed and unpublished research. An initial limited search of Google Scholar and Sci-Space was undertaken to identify relevant articles on the topic. Text words from titles and abstracts of relevant articles and reports, as well as index terms used to describe them, were used to develop the full search strategy. The search strategy, including all identified keywords and index terms, was adapted for each database (refer to extended data S1 Appendix: Search terms and keywords; S2 Table: Search strategies). The reference list of relevant/key papers included in the review was also screened for additional sources. The search strategy terms were checked and verified with team members and NIHR staff before the main searches were conducted, and the final search strategy was reviewed and approved by an information specialist librarian at the University of Southampton.

Following the search, all identified articles were collated and uploaded into EndNote version 21 (Clarivate Analytics, PA, USA). Duplicates were removed using the EndNote duplication identification function, followed by a manual check for consistency. To assess the eligibility criteria and agreement between the three authors (AJBJ, BG, HC), a pilot test of titles and abstracts was conducted on 20 articles.

As the definitions and descriptors central to the review were developed iteratively, part of the review process involved refining and enhancing these descriptors to ensure clarity and consistency in subsequent screening and extraction. NIHR staff were consulted during this stage to ensure the definitions and descriptors were relevant and appropriate to RDAs.

All articles were independently reviewed and screened by the reviewers (AJBJ, BG, HC) and notes were recorded in the EndNote library. Any record where the independent reviewer was uncertain, it was discussed with the other reviewers and decisions for inclusion or exclusion were made by consensus. At the full screening stage, if any of the citations were not accessible (e.g., due to a paywall or no full article or report) they were excluded from the review.

After the final screening, the list of included articles was exported to a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet where the labelling of articles matched the evidence to -

Characteristics of the articles (e.g., contributors, title, year, journal, country, source type, study type, field setting, and reporting type)

These fields were derived from the articles included in the scoping review and aligned with the five research questions. Data were extracted directly from the included articles into the spreadsheet to avoid returning repeatedly to the full texts and to ensure a consistent and transparent extraction process. Extraction from each full-text article was conducted by AJBJ and verified by other members of the team to ensure accuracy and efficiency in data capture. All evidence was mapped and categorised according to the relevant research questions, and the categorisation was discussed and reviewed at several stages throughout the data extraction process.

Due to using a scoping review methodology, there was no risk of bias or assessment of the quality of the included articles. The results of the search and the study inclusion process are reported in full in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) flow diagram (See Figure 1; extended data: Refer to S2 Appendix: PRISMA ScR checklist) .

Institutions, research funders, and professional organisations were explored to complement the scoping review, as these sources provided extensive coverage of the area under review. A list of relevant RFOs was compiled based on previous scoping reviews conducted by members of the team, including reviews focused on topics such as the use of preprints and the capabilities of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in research practices. ^{15– 18} The list of 36 organisations was subsequently verified through additional literature. ¹⁹ Search results were captured in a separate Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to document evidence from the grey literature, specifically relating to the type, purpose, and scope of awards or grants funded by RFOs. Searches were also complemented by using Microsoft Copilot. The Copilot prompt asked: “ What funding organisations give short-term research development awards for capacity building, fund larger studies like seed funding, application development awards, but not focused on career development?” The additional manual search used keyword searches of capacity building, seed funding, and application and development awards.

Across the 102 included articles, the number of publications increased steadily from 2015, with a notable rise from 2020 onwards. The highest rise was in 2024 (19/102, 18.6%), followed by 2020 (17/102, 16.6%), and 2022 (15/102, 14.7%), demonstrating a marked upward trend in outputs over this time period.

Included articles represented a broader geographic distribution; over half originated from the Americas (52/102, 50.9%), followed by Europe (29/102, 28.4%), with smaller contributions from Asia, Australasia, Africa, and the Middle East.

The articles covered a diverse range of fields, most commonly Health and Care (40/102, 39.2%), followed by Global Health (13/102, 12.7%), and Research and Development (8/102, 7.8%). Other fields also identified included Agriculture, Environmental Sustainability, and Technological Innovation.

In terms of publication type, half of the included items were original research articles (51/102, 50.0%). A substantial proportion were perspective journal articles (30/102, 29.4%), and a small number of evidence synthesis articles were identified (4/102, 3.9%).

Over half of the articles reported from a funder perspective (55/102, 53.9%), with a further 42 articles (41.2%) representing the funded perspective (e.g., those that were awarded RDAs). Articles classified as offering a funder perspective were mostly written by RFOs, groups acting on behalf of a funder (e.g., evaluation teams), and multi-stakeholder groups where the dominant viewpoint or purpose reflected funder priorities. Articles classified as the funder perspective were written by researchers or teams who received RDA funding and project partners (e.g., community groups, collaborators) reflecting on their experiences of having received RDA funding. A summary of these characteristics is presented in Table 2, with full details reported in the supplementary materials (refer to extended data Table S3: Full details of included articles).

As the review progressed, the evidence revealed a wider range of award purposes, outcomes, and RDA types than were originally anticipated. To ensure rigour, transparency, and relevance, the purpose and intended outcomes criterion used during screening was iteratively expanded. This refinement allowed for the inclusion of awards more accurately aligned with the diverse nature of activities supported under these funding schemes. The same iterative process was applied to the variations and types of RDAs, enabling a clearer and more comprehensive description of the different award/grant models reported in the current literature. This structured approach enhanced the precision of the eligibility framework and strengthened the consistency of decision-making throughout the conduct, analysis, and interpretation of the findings. Table 3 shows how the original descriptions were expanded into a more detailed, evidence-informed set of descriptors. These enhancements enabled the review to accurately capture the breadth and complexity of RDA mechanisms internationally. Each article was reassessed against the updated criteria to ensure full alignment with the refined framework, including explicit consideration of international variation in research contexts and terminology. This included attention to differences in how RDAs are labelled and conceptualised globally, such as the use of terms like ‘incubator’ to describe RDAs in some settings.

The evidence found in the database searches and grey literature were grouped based on the five research questions under three overarching theme areas, as illustrated in Figure 2 (Refer to extended data repository). -

The purpose and context of RDAs:

Across the themed areas, there was considerable variation in how RDAs were conceptualised, implemented, and reported. The distribution of articles did not easily map into single standalone themes, they spanned multiple areas of focus, reflecting the overlapping and multidimensional nature of RDAs. Similarly, a substantial proportion of articles reported more than one viewpoint, often combining reflections on what was being reported with broader system-level insights drawn from both the funder and funded positions. This overlap underscores the complexity of RDA mechanisms and highlights the interconnected roles of stakeholders involved in their design, delivery, and implementation.

To strengthen the analysis of the funder perspective, we also reviewed publicly available information from funding and professional organisations. These sources provided additional insight into how RDAs are conceptualised, prioritised, and operationalised within funding systems.

The sections below synthesise evidence from across the academic literature and organisational sources, structured around the thematic areas illustrated in Figure 2 ((Refer to extended data repository), beginning with the purpose and context of RDAs.

This section examines how the evidence describes the purpose of RDAs (RQ1) and the contexts in which they are considered most appropriate and effective (RQ3), including the settings, conditions, and funding environments in which RDAs are deployed within the wider funding landscape. RDAs were consistently described in the evidence as flexible, early-stage funding mechanisms designed to stimulate collaboration, strengthen research capacity, and catalyse innovation across a wide range of research settings. Although the terminology varied between countries, such as seed funding, catalyst awards, pump-priming, development grants, and application development awards, the core purpose remained broadly aligned. ^{20– 36} RDAs were primarily used to build the foundations necessary for more substantive, longer-term research programmes by supporting exploratory work, partnership development, and the generation of preliminary data or proof-of-concept. ^{31, 32, 37– 59}

A dominant theme in the evidence was the role of RDAs in building research capacity (32 references). ^{8, 9, 21, 22, 25, 27, 29, 31, 36, 39, 46, 47, 51, 56, 58, 60– 76} This included strengthening institutional readiness, providing opportunities for training and mentoring, supporting Early Career Researchers (ECRs), and enabling interdisciplinary teams to establish skills for future research. Much of this capacity strengthening was explicitly linked to preparing for larger grants, fostering research communities, and supporting methodological development.

Other commonly identified purposes were fostering collaboration (32 references) and catalysing innovation and research impact (30 references). ^{8, 20– 25, 27– 29, 31, 35, 37– 41, 47, 48, 50, 52, 55– 58, 61– 65, 69, 70, 73– 75, 77– 96} RDAs were frequently positioned as mechanisms to create or deepen relationships across academic, community, and policy settings. This included supporting cross-sector partnerships, multi-country collaborations (particularly in global health), and community-academic partnerships that required protected time and resources to establish trust, shared goals, and governance structures. ^{9, 21, 23, 27, 64, 94– 99} RDAs were viewed as important for addressing structural barriers to collaboration, such as the lack of time, funding, or organisational support for partnership development and co-production. ^{8, 24, 25, 29, 31, 41, 46, 55, 58, 67, 73, 80, 94, 100– 104} RDAs enable pilot studies, feasibility assessments, and high-risk exploratory work that could be considered too uncertain for larger funding opportunities. In this context, RDAs were seen as a pathway to help reduce the risk of innovative ideas and accelerate the translation of discoveries into research policy or practice.

Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) featured prominently across the included literature as a guiding framework for RDAs that prioritise equitable partnership working, power-sharing, and capacity building. CBPR-focused RDAs were consistently described as enabling early-stage relationship development between academic and community partners, supporting co-learning, shared agenda-setting, and trust-building prior to the pursuit of larger research grants. ^{7, 24, 25, 30, 40, 58, 63, 74} Several studies emphasised that seed or catalyst funding alone was insufficient, and that CBPR-aligned RDAs were most effective when combined with structured training, mentoring, technical assistance, and adequate time horizons to support the maturity of partnerships and sustainability. ^{7, 8, 55, 65, 66, 73, 105} Collectively, this literature highlights CBPR as both a purpose and an outcome of RDAs, particularly within community-engaged, public health, and global health contexts, while also illustrating the tensions that arise when short-term funding models are used to support inherently relational and long-term approaches to research development. ^{41, 106}

The evidence highlighted four broad areas in the context of where RDAs can be most suited. 1.

They are particularly valuable in resource-constrained environments, where flexible, short-term awards enabled teams to address technological, workforce, or infrastructure limitations. These awards often allowed progress using existing resources, supported local knowledge generation, and strengthened evidence-informed decision-making in settings lacking sustained research investment. ^{9, 25, 27, 28, 31, 38, 41, 44, 48, 52, 54, 58, 61, 69, 70, 77, 85, 88, 93, 94, 100, 107}

Overall, the evidence demonstrates that RDAs occupy a distinct and important role within the research funding landscape (see Table 4). Their value lies not only in providing small-scale, early-stage funding, but in enabling collaboration, nurturing inclusive and equitable partnerships, building foundational capacity, supporting methodological innovation, and responding to contextual challenges or opportunities. ^{9, 22– 25, 27, 28, 31– 33, 45, 47, 50– 52, 55, 58– 60, 62, 63, 66, 69, 72, 73, 75, 76, 79– 82, 87, 88, 94, 99, 103, 104, 106, 110, 111, 117, 118} RDAs appear to be most effective where flexibility, rapid mobilisation, and relational work are critical, particularly in resource-limited settings, interdisciplinary environments, and time-sensitive contexts. ^{7, 9, 27, 28, 31, 41, 42, 45, 47, 50, 58, 60, 61, 73, 87, 91, 93, 98– 100, 105, 107, 109, 112, 117} These findings illustrate the diverse and strategic purpose of RDAs and highlight their significance as a complementary mechanism alongside larger-scale research funding opportunities.

This section examines how the evidence describes the benefits and challenges associated with RDAs (RQ2), focusing on their intended value, potential contributions, and the barriers and limitations that influence their design, implementation, and effectiveness in practice. The evidence indicated that RDAs generate considerable value by building capacity, initiating collaboration, fostering equity, and catalysing innovation. ^{9, 21, 22, 24– 27, 42, 44, 45, 54– 56, 60, 64, 65, 67, 68, 71, 73, 74, 76, 80, 82, 84, 86, 92, 100} However, these benefits are highly dependent on project design, implementation context, funding flexibility, and administrative support. From the literature, RDAs were consistently described as mechanisms that create value by enabling early-stage research activity that would otherwise be challenging to support through traditional funding approaches, while also presenting challenges associated with their short duration, limited scale, and issues in evaluating longer-term impact (see Table 5).

Capacity building was highlighted in the evidence as a key consideration, where RDAs were widely reported to strengthen individual teams, and institutional research capacity through structured training, mentorship, and workplace learning. ^{9, 21, 22, 24– 27, 42, 44, 45, 54– 56, 60, 64, 65, 67, 68, 71, 73, 74, 76, 80, 82, 84, 86, 92, 100} Closely, related was the role of RDAs in initiating and strengthening collaborations and networks. ^{20, 23, 27, 32, 55, 57, 58, 64, 65, 69, 73, 75– 79, 81, 84, 94, 101, 107, 111} These benefits were especially evidenced in interdisciplinary and community-engaged research contexts, where RDAs supported skills development for equitable partnership working, methods, and applied research. ^{7– 9, 21, 23– 25, 27, 29, 33, 41, 43, 46, 47, 50, 51, 53, 55, 58– 65, 69, 70, 73, 74, 76, 78– 80, 94, 97, 99– 101, 104– 106, 114, 116, 117} At the same time, RDAs acted as effective catalysts for forming new partnerships across disciplines, sectors, and geographies, including community-academic collaborations, multi-country consortia, and Low and Middle Income Countries – High Income Countries (LMIC-HIC) partnerships. ^{8, 9, 23– 25, 27, 33, 47, 55, 59, 62, 64, 73, 76, 89, 94, 95, 97– 99, 104, 116} By providing protected time and early-stage resources, RDAs enable partners to build trust, clarify shared objectives, and establish governance arrangements, addressing common structural barriers such as limited time, resources, and funding for partnership development. For ECRs and research teams operating in resource constrained environments, RDAs were frequently described as a critical entry point into longer-term collaborative opportunities that later progressed to funded research. ^{9, 20, 21, 25, 27, 28, 31, 36, 40, 41, 44, 45, 54, 59, 61, 64, 66, 69, 73, 75, 84, 93, 109, 116, 118}

Overall, flexible funding structures such as RDAs allow teams to refine ideas, methods, and partnerships before committing to larger-scale investment. This agility was seen as particularly valuable for innovation, high-risk research, and work operating at the intersection of research, policy, and practice. ^{27, 28, 30– 32, 34, 36, 38, 39, 41, 44, 45, 47, 49– 51, 53, 54, 56– 58, 61, 62, 64, 66, 67, 69, 71, 73, 74, 77, 84, 86, 87, 92, 93, 96, 102, 103, 107, 117} RDAs are also shown to promote more inclusive and equitable research practices by resourcing early engagement, co-production, and power sharing, particularly in community-engaged and global research contexts. ^{8, 20, 25, 27, 28, 31– 33, 44, 45, 47, 50, 55, 60– 62, 66, 69, 72, 73, 75, 77, 79, 87, 92, 93, 97, 99, 100, 102, 111, 117} By reducing the barriers to early-stage innovation and enabling proof-of-concept work, RDAs create pathways to larger grants, sustained partnerships, and longer-term policy and practice impact, positioning them as a strategically important component of research funding portfolios that add value not through scale but through flexibility, relational work, and their ability to unlock future investment and impact. ^{8, 20, 21, 23, 25, 27, 31, 35, 36, 44, 45, 48, 50, 60– 62, 66, 69, 79, 86, 87, 99, 100, 107, 116}

Despite these benefits, the evidence consistently identified significant challenges associated with RDAs. The most frequently reported challenge was short duration and limited funding. ^{9, 25, 27, 29, 31, 36, 37, 39, 40, 44– 46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 57, 60, 66, 69, 74, 75, 77, 83, 89, 91, 93, 94, 96– 98, 100, 102, 106, 108, 109, 115– 118} Time limited awards, often ranging from six to twelve months, were widely viewed as insufficient for establishing meaningful partnerships, conducting robust engagement activities, or delivering sustained outcomes. ^{7, 8, 21, 25, 27– 29, 31, 41, 44, 45, 50, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 64, 66, 69, 73, 75, 83, 84, 86, 93, 96, 99, 100, 116, 117} Limited funding further constrained the scope of work, particularly for activities such as public and community engagement, international collaboration, and infrastructure development. ^{7– 9, 21, 23, 25, 27, 28, 31, 34, 40, 44– 47, 50, 51, 53, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 63, 67– 69, 73, 79, 84, 85, 87, 89, 92– 94, 100, 104, 106, 109, 116} As a result, many RDA funded projects were heavily dependent on securing follow-on funding to sustain research-related activities. ^{31, 60, 69, 80, 89, 94} A further major challenge concerned measuring impact, evaluation, and sustainability. ^{8, 21– 23, 25, 27, 31, 32, 34, 36, 40, 41, 50, 52– 55, 57, 58, 60, 64– 67, 73, 74, 76, 79, 81– 86, 88, 92, 96, 97, 100, 118} Traditional performance metrics, such as publications or short-term outputs, were frequently misaligned with the developmental, relational, and long-term aims of RDAs. The evidence identified persistent difficulties in capturing capacity gains, partnership quality, and systemic change, alongside limited mechanisms to track outcomes once initial funding ended. ^{21, 22, 25, 37, 50, 51, 60, 61, 68, 69, 79, 80, 84, 92, 99, 102, 109, 117} This misalignment reduced funders’ ability to demonstrate return on investment and limited the longer-term value of RDAs.

In summary, the challenges associated with forming and sustaining equitable partnerships, particularly in interdisciplinary, intersectoral, and international contexts, are compounded by power imbalances, unclear roles, and insufficient time for building trust. ^{23– 25, 28, 29, 31, 35, 39, 44, 45, 47, 53, 54, 60, 62, 63, 68– 70, 73, 80, 87, 100, 103, 114} These issues are further reinforced by cultural, administrative, and institutional barriers, including academic incentive structures that undervalue collaborative and co-productive work, limited infrastructure in some settings, and inflexible funding and reporting requirements. ^{7, 9, 26, 28, 29, 31, 37, 44, 47, 50, 52, 60– 62, 67, 69, 79, 93, 103, 116} Collectively, these challenges highlight that the effectiveness of RDAs is not inherent to the mechanism itself but is highly dependent on thoughtful funding design, adequate resourcing, proportional administration, and evaluation approaches that reflect the intended purpose of research development funding.

This last section examines the extent to which RDAs achieve the outcomes they are intended to deliver, focusing on both the types of outcomes RDAs are particularly well-suited to achieving (RQ4) and the degree to which these outcomes are realised in practice (RQ5). Given the exploratory, short-term, and relatively low-cost nature of RDAs, the evidence rarely framed success in terms of traditional end-point indicators alone, such as publications or immediate policy change. Instead, outcomes were more commonly described in relation to readiness, relationship building, capability development, and progression towards future research activity and funding. ^{7, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 31, 33, 36, 38– 41, 43– 46, 48, 50– 52, 57, 58, 63, 73, 76, 79, 83, 84, 87, 89, 92, 93, 99, 103, 107, 109, 113– 115} As such, the evidence reflects considerable variation in how success is defined, reported, and measured, emphasising the importance of aligning expectations of impact with the developmental purpose of RDAs within the wider research funding landscape. (see Table 6)

The evidence indicated that RDAs are particularly well suited to achieving early-stage, developmental, and relational outcomes, rather than immediate or standalone impact. From the literature, RDAs most consistently achieved outcomes related to research capacity building, partnership formation, and the generation of early outputs that enabled progression to subsequent stages of funding. ^{22, 24, 28, 35, 39, 44, 54, 57, 64, 69, 81, 83, 85, 86, 90, 93, 94} A substantial proportion of articles reported that RDAs successfully enhanced research capacity. ^{9, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 43– 46, 52, 56, 60, 62, 64, 67, 68, 71, 74, 80, 82, 86, 92, 100} Outcomes included improved methodological skills, increased confidence and readiness to conduct research, strengthened leadership and project management capabilities, and greater institutional preparedness for future funding. ^{31, 32, 37– 39, 41, 44, 46, 47, 55, 58, 61, 63, 69, 70, 73, 78, 84, 87, 91, 92, 99, 106} These benefits were often achieved through a combination of structured training, mentoring, and experiential learning embedded within funded activities. ^{7, 21, 24, 25, 27– 29, 31, 40, 44– 46, 50, 54, 55, 60, 65– 67, 69, 72– 75, 80, 83, 93, 99, 114, 115} Capacity gains were particularly evident in interdisciplinary, community-engaged, and applied research settings, where RDAs supported teams to develop new ways of working, adopt participatory approaches, and navigate complex research environments. ^{21, 46, 47, 53, 58, 61, 64, 69, 73, 76, 80, 114, 116}

When considering the extent to which RDAs achieved their stated aims, the evidence showed considerable variation. A subset of awards was described as fully achieving intended outcomes, particularly where funding was coordinated across multiple levels, institutional support was strong, and collaboration and knowledge exchange were central to the award design. ^{20, 23, 24, 37, 38, 43, 48, 60, 62, 64} A larger proportion of RDAs were reported as partially achieving their aims, typically delivering early outputs, strengthening partnerships, or improving infrastructure but struggling to sustain activity without follow-on funding. ^{8, 38, 40, 71, 86, 88, 97, 101, 105, 106} A smaller body of evidence indicated limited achievement, especially in cases where awards aimed to deliver longer-term or system-level change without sufficient time, resources, or evaluation mechanisms. ^{8, 26, 39, 40, 79, 85, 86, 105, 106}

Overall, the evidence suggests that RDAs are particularly well-suited to achieving developmental and relational outcomes, especially those related to capacity building, partnership formation, and early-stage research outputs. The strongest and most consistently reported achievements were improvements in research skills, methodological readiness, and collaborative capability, alongside the establishment of new networks and partnerships that often extend beyond the life of the funding award. ^{9, 20, 23– 25, 27, 28, 31– 33, 38, 41, 42, 44, 45, 47, 48, 50, 51, 53– 55, 57, 61, 62, 64, 69, 73– 76, 84, 93, 95, 96, 99, 100, 102– 104, 111, 113, 116} RDAs were also effective in generating proof-of-concept outputs and leveraging follow-on funding, enabling teams to progress early ideas into larger, more substantive research projects. However, the extent to which RDAs achieved their intended outcomes varied considerably. While many awards were reported as achieving or partially achieving their aims, sustained impact was frequently contingent on additional funding, supportive institutional contexts, and aligned evaluation frameworks. ^{7, 8, 21– 23, 25, 27– 29, 31, 37, 41, 45, 48, 50, 55, 57, 60– 62, 66– 69, 72– 76, 79, 80, 83, 84, 91, 96, 99– 101, 105, 107, 116, 117} Outcomes related to systemic change, long-term sustainability, and scale were less consistently achieved, reflecting the short-term and exploratory nature of RDAs. Collectively, the evidence indicates that RDAs are more effective when success is understood in terms of enabling readiness, strengthening relationships, and creating pathways to future opportunity, rather than delivering immediate, standalone impact.

To complement the scoping review findings, we examined publicly available information from a purposive sample of research funding and professional organisations. This review aimed to understand how RDAs, or conceptually similar mechanisms, are articulated, framed, and operationalised by funders, and to assess the extent to which these external descriptions align with the evidence identified in the academic and grey literature.

In total, websites from 36 research funding and professional organisations were screened, including national and international research councils, charities, innovation agencies, and professional or regulatory bodies. Of these, 20 organisations met the inclusion criteria (refer to extended data S6 Table: Funders and professional organisations). It should be noted that, due to the current international funding environment, some webpages identified through the manual searches displayed notifications indicating that the content may not be up to date because of temporary lapses in government funding, or that funding pages have been closed or archived. Organisations were included where there was clear evidence of short-term, early-stage funding mechanisms focused on research development, capacity building, collaboration, innovation, or application development, rather than individual career or fellowship-based awards. The organisations represented a broad geographical distribution, including the UK, Europe, North America, Australasia, and Asia, and spanned health, biomedical research, innovation, technology, and interdisciplinary research domains.

Across the included organisations, RDAs were described using a wide range of terminology, including seed funding, exploratory or development grants, capacity-building initiatives, networking or collaboration grants, application development awards, and early-concept funding. Consistent with findings from the scoping review, there was substantial variation in how these awards were defined, structured, and positioned within wider funding portfolios. The same terminology, such as ‘development awards’ or ‘capacity building’, were interpreted differently across organisations and countries, often referring to distinctly different funding purposes. In several cases, development awards identified through keyword searches were found exclusively on career development or training, highlighting the challenges of terminology inconsistency used across research funding systems.

Despite this variation, common features emerged across funder descriptions. Most funding /professional organisations emphasised the role of RDAs in strengthening institutional or collaborative research capacity, supporting early-stage or exploratory work, and enabling partnerships that could progress to larger, longer-term funding. For example, major national funders such as the National Institute of Health (NIH), US National Science Foundation (NSF), UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), and Wellcome positioned their exploratory, seed, or impact acceleration schemes as mechanisms to reduce the risk of innovation, test novel ideas, and bridge gaps between discovery and larger investment. ^{2– 6} Similarly, European funding/professional organisations including Horizon Europe, the European Innovation Council (EIC), European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST), and Interreg Europe highlighted networking, coordination, and capacity-building functions, often focusing on cross-border and interdisciplinary collaboration rather than individual researcher progression.

A strong emphasis on collaboration and partnership development was evident across many organisations, particularly in international and global health funding contexts. Funders such as European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP), Grand Challenges Canada, and regional development initiatives, framed RDAs as tools to foster equitable partnerships, support multi-county consortia, and strengthen research ecosystems in resource-constrained settings. ^{1, 119} These descriptions closely aligned with the review evidence highlighting RDAs’ roles in enabling relationship-building, shared agenda-setting, and institutional readiness for future funding.

However, the review of funding/professional organisations also reinforced the gaps identified in the literature. While many organisations clearly articulated the intent of RDAs, to build capacity, stimulate collaboration, and catalyse innovation, there was limited publicly available information evidencing outcomes, effectiveness, or longer-term impact of these awards. Few funder webpages reported formal evaluations, success metrics beyond follow-on funding, or systematic assessments of partnership quality, equity, or sustainability. In cases where impact was mentioned, it was often implied rather than demonstrated, with success inferred through progression to larger grants or alignment with strategic priorities.

Overall, the evidence from funding and professional organisations corroborates the scoping review findings, demonstrating that RDAs are widely used and strategically valued across diverse funding systems, but remain inconsistently defined and inadequately evidenced in terms of outcomes and impact. The lack of transparent evaluation and reporting mechanisms limits cross-funder learning and constrains the ability to develop evidence-informed best practice for RDA design and implementation. These findings reinforce the need for greater clarity in terminology, improved alignment between intended and measured outcomes, and more systematic approaches to monitoring and evaluating research development funding within the wider research funding landscape.

RDAs occupy a distinct position within research funding portfolios, operating as flexible, early-stage mechanisms intended to enable capacity building, partnership development, and innovation across diverse research settings. The evidence drawn from both the scoping review and the funding and professional organisations demonstrates that RDAs are commonly used to support exploratory activity, relationship-building, feasibility, and preparedness for larger-scale funding, rather than to deliver standalone or fully realised outcomes. As such, RDAs are best understood as part of a broader research funding opportunities in which their value lies in enabling progression, learning, and system-level development. The following section examines how the evidence describes the approaches used by both funders and funded research teams to shape, adapt, and support RDAs in practice, particularly in response to the structural and implementation issues identified across the literature.

Funder perspective (Research Funding Organisations (RFOs))

From the funder perspective (55 articles), the evidence highlights a growing recognition that RDAs require deliberate design features to mitigate well-documented challenges related to short duration, sustainability, and evaluation. Key funder-led initiatives emphasised the importance of staged and flexible funding models, often incorporating inception or catalyst phases that focus explicitly on partnership development, co-design, and readiness rather than predefined deliverables. For example, programmes such as Research for Evidence into Action for Clean Water (REACH), ²³ German Alliance for Global Health Research (GLOHRA), ⁶² and structured seed grant schemes described by Bailey et al. and Charles et al. illustrate how funders have sought to incorporate learning periods, iterative progression, and opportunities for follow-on support to address the limitations of single, short-term awards. ^{23, 60}

Funders also increasingly acknowledged the limitations of traditional evaluation metrics when applied to RDAs. ^{23, 26, 60, 80, 94, 99, 100, 105} Several key papers highlighted efforts to move beyond outputs such as publications or immediate policy change, instead adopting process-focused and relational indicators to capture capacity building, partnership quality, and enabling environments. ^{8, 23, 25, 40, 60, 62, 99} This included the use of advisory boards, qualitative reporting, milestone-based progression, and reflective evaluations designed to evidence incremental or foundational change. Nonetheless, the evidence indicates that such approaches remain unevenly applied, and many funders continue to struggle with demonstrating return on investment for RDAs whose value emerges over longer-time horizons.

Equity and partnership challenges were also addressed explicitly in the funder literature. Many funders articulated a commitment to equitable collaboration and sought to operationalise this through the design of RDA schemes, particularly in community-engaged, global health, and interdisciplinary research. These efforts included mechanisms such as joint governance arrangements, shared decision-making, mentoring, and technical assistance. However, the evidence suggests that these measures often coexist with structural constraints, such as inflexible contracting arrangements, administrative burdens, or unequal control over resources, that continue to undermine equitable intent. ^{8, 23, 25, 40, 62, 106} As a result, several funder analyses highlighted the need for clearer guidance, longer funding horizons, and enhanced alignment between funding rules and partnership principles. ^{8, 23, 25, 40, 60, 62, 94, 100, 106}

Funded perspective (Funded organisations or research teams)

From the funded perspective (42 articles), RDAs were widely viewed as valuable but inherently insufficient as stand-alone interventions, with many challenges arising after the award period ended. ^{8, 9, 21, 24, 25, 40, 41, 46, 60, 77, 78, 80, 100, 105, 106} Case studies such as Colchamiro et al. and Coombe et al. illustrated how short timelines constrained staffing, engagement, and evaluation, often requiring no-cost extensions or ad hoc resource mobilisation to complete intended activities. ^{24, 25, 40}

Funded researchers and partners also highlighted challenges related to administrative and temporal misalignment, including tight spending deadlines, inflexible reporting requirements, and limited support for non-traditional activities such as community engagement or co-production. In several studies, practitioners and community partners described the disproportionate burden placed on them by short-term awards, particularly where compensation, training, or infrastructure support was insufficient. ^{8, 24, 25, 40, 41, 78, 100, 105, 106} These constraints were seen as contributing to partnership fatigue and inequity, despite the developmental aims of RDAs.

Evaluation challenges were particularly salient in the funded perspective. Many teams reported difficulty evidencing success when outcomes were relational, or longer-term, and where evaluation frameworks did not reflect the purpose of the award. ^{21, 23, 25, 60, 62, 105} In response, some funded research teams developed alternative approaches to evidencing impact, including process mapping, collaboration metrics, narrative accounts, and tracking of subsequent funding or institutional change. However, the extraction shows that such approaches were often locally developed and rarely embedded systematically across funding schemes. ^{26, 40, 41, 60, 62, 80, 94, 106}

Convergence and divergence across perspectives

The extracted evidence suggests a strong convergence between funder and funded perspectives in how the role and value of RDAs are understood, even if their implementation varies in practice. Across both perspectives, RDAs are consistently positioned as enabling mechanisms that prioritise time, flexibility, relational work, and learning, rather than as instruments for delivering immediate or standalone research outputs. Both funders and funded teams recognised that RDAs function most effectively when situated within a wide funding ecosystem, supporting readiness, partnership formation, and progression to subsequent stages of research rather than operating as isolated interventions.

Where perspectives differed between funders and funded research teams was less in their intent and more in the operational processes and lived experience. Funders frequently articulated ambitions related to sustainability, equity, and longer-term impact, while funded research teams emphasised how these ambitions were mediated by funding design features such as award duration, evaluation expectations, and institutional constraints. Evidence from both sides suggested that misalignments between stated objectives and funding rules or reporting frameworks could limit the extent to which RDAs realised their full potential. Conversely, alignment between funding design, evaluation, and expectations, that are achieved for example, through staged or phased funding, embedded capacity-building support, and proportionate governance, was associated with fewer reported challenges related to sustainability, partnership quality, and uncertainty about outcomes across both funder and funded accounts. ^{21, 46, 47, 77, 99}

Importantly, the evidence demonstrates that RDAs were widely valued not only for what they produced, but for what they enabled. Success was frequently framed in terms of strengthened relationships, enhanced confidence and capability, institutional learning, and the creation of credible pathways to future funding, policy engagement, or practice change. ^{23, 27, 28, 31, 38, 41, 43– 46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 59, 83, 87, 89, 92, 93, 95, 96, 106– 108, 113, 115} This shared understanding challenges narrow conceptions of impact based solely on publications or short-term deliverables and instead highlights the importance of recognising developmental value, readiness, and pathway creation as legitimate and necessary outcomes of research development funding.

Overall, the synthesis suggests that maximising the effectiveness of RDAs depends less on resolving isolated challenges and more on embedding a coherent set of principles across funder strategies and funded practice. These include valuing relational and developmental work, acknowledging the temporal nature of capacity building and collaboration, and adopting evaluation approaches that reflect the intended purpose of RDAs. When these principles are consistently applied, RDAs are positioned not as marginal or preparatory add-ons, but as a strategically important component of the research funding landscape, capable of strengthening research systems, partnerships, and future impact.

This scoping review was designed to address fragmented and under-synthesised evidence on RDAs, rather than to evaluate the effectiveness of individual funding schemes. As such, its primary strength lies in the breadth and integrative nature of the synthesis, bringing together evidence across disciplines, sectors, and international contexts, and incorporating both funder and funded perspectives. To our knowledge, this is the first scoping review to examine RDAs in this cross-cutting way, moving beyond scheme-specific or discipline-bound analyses to identify shared principles, recurring challenges, and system-level implications for research funding practice.

A further strength is the inclusion of grey literature and publicly available funder documentation, which was essential given the limited number of formal evaluations of RDAs. Many insights into award purpose, design, and perceived value were not captured in academic journals but were articulated through reports, discussion documents, and reflective accounts produced by funders and research organisations. Including these sources enabled a richer understanding of how RDAs are conceptualised and operationalised in practice, particularly in relation to capacity building, partnership development, and research readiness.

The review also benefits from an explicit focus on context and purpose, rather than assuming RDAs represent a uniform intervention. By iteratively refining definitions and inclusion criteria during the review process, the synthesis reflects the diversity of mechanisms labelled as seed funding, catalyst awards, development grants, or application development funding. This approach strengthens the relevance of the findings for RFOs operating across different systems, whilst acknowledging that RDAs are inherently heterogeneous by design.

However, several limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings. First, as a scoping review, no formal appraisal of study quality was undertaken, in line with established methodological guidance. ¹⁴ The included articles varied widely in design and depth, and many relied on descriptive or reflective reporting rather than robust evaluation. This reflects the nature of the field rather than a shortcoming of the review, but it limits the extent to which causal claims about effectiveness can be made.

Second, the evidence base was unevenly distributed across disciplines and geographies, with a predominance of literature from health, global health, and Anglophone contexts. While RDAs are widely used across research systems, their reporting is influenced by disciplinary norms and publication practices, which may have shaped the visibility of certain perspectives. Similarly, funder-authored and evaluator-led publications were more common than independent empirical studies, potentially introducing a degree of reporting bias.

Third, the review was conducted during a period of unusual volatility in the international research funding environment, which affected the availability and completeness of publicly accessible information. During the manual searches of research funding and professional organisation websites, a small number of webpages displayed notifications indicating that content may not be up to date due to temporary lapses in government funding, organisational restructuring, or programme closures. In some cases, programme pages had been archived or removed, limiting access to detailed descriptions of research development or capacity-building awards. As a result, publicly available information for a small subset of funding schemes was partial or incomplete at the time of review, which may have constrained the visibility of recent funding developments in those cases.

Finally, despite the inclusion of funded perspectives, the review is constrained by the way in which RDA outcomes and experiences are reported in the literature. Many relational, developmental, and longer-term effects of RDAs are diffuse, emergent, and difficult to evidence, and are therefore under-represented in published accounts. As a result, the review is more informative about intended value, perceived benefit, and system-level alignment than about longer-term outcomes or comparative impact.

Taken together, these limitations reinforce rather than undermine the core findings of the review. They highlight that RDAs are widely valued and strategically important but remain weakly evidenced within conventional evaluative frameworks, underscoring the need for more proportionate, context-sensitive approaches to evaluation and reporting that reflect the developmental purpose of research development funding within wider research ecosystems.

The findings of this scoping review point to several important considerations for the future design, implementation, and study of RDAs. While RDAs are widely valued as flexible and enabling mechanisms, their increasing use across disciplines and funding systems highlights the need for greater conceptual clarity, more proportionate evaluation approaches, and improved alignment between intention and practice.

Clarifying the role of RDAs within funding ecosystems

A recurring theme across the evidence was that RDAs can be most effective when understood as components of wider funding ecosystems rather than as discrete, stand-alone awards. Future funding strategies may benefit from more explicit positioning of RDAs within multi-stage or sequenced funding pathways, clarifying how they connect to subsequent opportunities and what forms of progression or readiness they are intended to support. Greater transparency around the role of RDAs in funding portfolios, including their relationship to larger grants, fellowships, or implementation funding, could help manage expectations for both funders and funded teams and reduce tensions around sustainability and outcome attribution.

Developing evaluation approaches that reflect developmental purpose

The review highlights persistent misalignment between the developmental aims of RDAs and the evaluation frameworks used to assess them. Future work is needed to develop evaluation approaches that are commensurate with the purpose, scale, and timeframe of RDAs, particularly where awards focus on capacity building, partnership development, or exploratory work. Rather than relying solely on output-based metrics or follow-on funding as proxies for success, funders may wish to explore structured yet flexible approaches that capture relational, process-based, and readiness outcomes, while remaining proportionate to the size of the award. Embedding learning-oriented evaluation at funding level, rather than relying on ad hoc or locally developed approaches, may also support cross-scheme learning and more consistent evidence generation.

Strengthening evidence on longer-term and system-level effects

A key gap identified by this review concerns the longer-term and system-level effects of RDAs, including their contribution to sustained collaboration, institutional change, and research culture. Much of the existing literature focuses on immediate or short-term outcomes, reflecting both the nature of RDAs and the limitations of current reporting practices. Future research could use longitudinal or funding-level designs to explore how RDAs contribute to longer trajectories of research development, particularly in relation to equity, inclusion, and capacity strengthening in under-resourced settings. Such work would be particularly valuable in understanding the cumulative effects of repeated or coordinated RDA investments over time.

Addressing structural and contextual constraints

The evidence also suggests that the effectiveness of RDAs is shaped by broader structural and contextual factors, including institutional incentive systems, administrative requirements, and volatility in the research funding landscape. Future considerations for funders and policymakers include how RDAs can be better supported through aligned contracting arrangements, realistic timelines, and adequate resourcing for relational work, particularly in community-engaged, interdisciplinary, and international research. Attention to these contextual enablers may be as important as adjustments to award size or duration in determining the value derived from RDA investments.

Advancing conceptual coherence and shared language

Finally, the wide variation in terminology and descriptors used to describe RDAs presents challenges for synthesis, comparison, and learning across research funding systems. Future work could usefully focus on developing shared conceptual frameworks or typologies that distinguish between different types of research development funding based on purpose, context, and intended outcomes, rather than the award alone. Greater conceptual coherence would support more meaningful comparison across funding and enable RFOs to draw more effectively on the growing, but still fragmented, body of literature in this area.