Table of Contents
What is significant research? How should funding institutions determine whether to provide funding to research proposals or not? Are there guidelines to increase a researcher’s chance to avail of research funds?
Let’s look into the issue and explore the basis of research funding as viewed by governments and funding institutions in general.
This article describes 8 criteria for significance of a research undertaking as viewed by institutions giving research grants for a particular purpose or governments seeking to improve the delivery of its services to its constituents.
But before we discuss the criteria for determining the significance of a research issue or problem, let us define what we mean by significant research.
What is Significant Research?
What makes research significant then? From the perspective of a funding or government institution aiming to improve the quality of life of its citizens, a highly significant research topic is one that promises measurable, meaningful, and sustainable impact.
A highly significant research topic is one that promises measurable, meaningful, and sustainable impact.
The term measurable is emphasized because it serves as a critical indicator of whether a research or research-based extension initiative has made a tangible impact on the target clientele or community. Without measurable outcomes, it becomes difficult to justify claims of effectiveness or success.
A purely descriptive account of outcomes is insufficient. Therefore, conducting a baseline study is essential to establish the initial conditions. Baselining is a foundational step that allows researchers to identify specific interventions needed to achieve significant, quantifiable impact over time. Impact may be achieved on the short-term (less than one year), medium-term (1-5 years), or long-term (5+ years).
Funding agencies—including government and private institutions—must allocate limited resources judiciously. To ensure cost-effectiveness and maximize returns, they apply evidence-based criteria to determine whether a proposed problem or issue is worth funding. Projects that demonstrate measurable outcomes are more likely to receive support.
Here is a comprehensive criteria framework used to assess the significance of a research issue from the perspective of funding or government institution.
8 Criteria for Determining the Significance of a Research Issue
Here is a list of 8 criteria to determine whether a research proposal is worthy of funding.
1. Relevance to National or Societal Priorities
- Does the issue align with current national development plans, policy agendas, or strategic goals?
- Does it address core public concerns such as health, education, food security, climate change, digital transformation, or inclusive economic growth?
2. Magnitude of the Problem
- How widespread is the issue?
- How many people are affected? Are particular vulnerable populations (e.g., low-income groups, women, indigenous communities) at greater risk?
- Is the problem growing in severity or urgency?
3. Potential for Positive Impact
- Can the research lead to meaningful change, policy reform, or innovative solutions?
- Does it have the potential to create tangible improvements in people’s lives, well-being, or productivity?
4. Evidence Gap or Knowledge Deficiency
- Is there a clear lack of existing data, evidence, or understanding about the issue?
- Would research in this area close critical knowledge gaps that hinder effective decision-making or program design?
Related post: Knowledge Gap: 3 Important Points to Generate a Research Topic
5. Feasibility of Research and Implementation
- Is the research practically achievable within a reasonable timeframe and budget?
- Are there existing capacities, infrastructure, or partnerships that support the execution and use of the research findings?
6. Sustainability and Scalability
- Can solutions derived from the research be maintained and scaled over time?
- Will the outcomes contribute to long-term resilience or development, rather than short-term fixes?
7. Equity and Inclusiveness
- Does the issue have implications for equity, justice, or inclusion?
- Will research help address disparities or empower marginalized groups?
8. Alignment with International Commitments
- Does the research support international goals such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)?
- Can it contribute to regional cooperation, global knowledge, or international competitiveness?
To sum it up, a significant research issue is one that addresses a pressing and widespread need, promises real and lasting benefits, fills a crucial knowledge gap, and aligns with both national priorities and global development goals.
A significant research addresses a pressing and widespread need, promises real and lasting benefits, fills a crucial knowledge gap, and aligns with both national priorities and global development goals.
Government or funding institutions evaluate topics not only on scientific merit, but more importantly on their societal value, economic return, and ability to inform evidence-based policymaking.
If you’re developing a proposal or assessing a topic, you can score or rank candidate issues based on these criteria to prioritize which ones deserve support.
The following section shows an evaluation rubric based on the 8 criteria.
Evaluation Rubric: Significance of a Research Issue
The following rubric lists the 8 criteria with their corresponding description, score range, and scoring guide that will determine whether a research issue/problem is worth funding or prioritizing, based on its relevance, impact, and feasibility.
| Criteria | Description | Score Range | Scoring Guide |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Relevance to National or Societal Priorities | Alignment with current government agendas, development plans, or public concerns. | 1–5 | 1 = Not aligned at all 3 = Partially aligned 5 = Strongly aligned with priority issues |
| 2. Magnitude of the Problem | Extent and severity of the issue; number of people affected; urgency. | 1–5 | 1 = Affects few; low urgency 3 = Moderately widespread 5 = High urgency, affects large or vulnerable populations |
| 3. Potential for Positive Impact | Potential to improve lives, influence policy, or generate practical benefits. | 1–5 | 1 = Limited or unclear impact 3 = Moderate or indirect impact 5 = High, direct, and measurable impact |
| 4. Evidence Gap or Knowledge Deficiency | The issue lacks sufficient research or data; potential to advance knowledge significantly. | 1–5 | 1 = Well-researched area 3 = Some gaps exist 5 = Major evidence or knowledge gap identified |
| 5. Feasibility of Research and Implementation | Practicality of conducting research; availability of resources, timeframe, and expertise. | 1–5 | 1 = Unfeasible or high-risk 3 = Some feasibility concerns 5 = Highly feasible and realistic |
| 6. Sustainability and Scalability | Likelihood that outcomes will be sustainable and/or scalable across regions or populations. | 1–5 | 1 = Temporary or limited-use solutions 3 = Some potential for scale 5 = Highly sustainable and scalable solutions likely |
| 7. Equity and Inclusiveness | Contribution to reducing inequality or addressing the needs of marginalized groups. | 1–5 | 1 = No equity consideration 3 = Moderately inclusive 5 = Strong focus on equity and inclusiveness |
| 8. Alignment with International Commitments (e.g., SDGs) | Relevance to global development goals or international agreements. | 1–5 | 1 = Not aligned 3 = Some alignment 5 = Strongly aligned with specific SDG targets or international frameworks |
Given a well-defined evaluation rubric, individuals or committees responsible for managing limited resources—such as research funds, personnel, and institutional support—can make informed and objective decisions. A rubric provides a standardized framework that minimizes bias and subjectivity in proposal evaluation.
By aligning research proposals with institutional priorities and measurable outcomes, decision-makers can more confidently determine which projects offer the highest potential for success and return on investment. In resource-constrained environments, this process is essential for ensuring that funds are allocated to initiatives that address pressing problems and generate meaningful, evidence-based impact on the target community.
