The Bias PUIs Face in the Grants Landscape

It is no secret, and in fact common knowledge, that undergraduate campuses and PUIs have faced an uphill struggle when competing for federal and private research grants. For that matter, it is essentially a foregone conclusion among academics that undergraduate campuses should, without rationale, be expected to receive less funding than their research-intensive counterparts, without due consideration of the faculty’s caliber or capacity to engage in original scholarship. The issue is not simply proposal quality, but the structural bias embedded in the grant review system that is not properly acknowledged or even debated. Most reviewers are drawn from large research-intensive universities (R1s), where light teaching loads, reduced service expectations, and established research infrastructures are the norm. By contrast, PUIs are teaching-focused campuses where faculty balance heavy course schedules, extensive service assignments, and undergraduate mentoring, while sustaining scholarship with fewer resources.

This mismatch often leaves PUI proposals undervalued. Reviewers accustomed to the R1 model may struggle to see the merit of research designed around undergraduate engagement, local impact, or broader educational integration. The output metrics favored in R1 settings (such as publication volume, large lab staffing, and federal funding track records) simply do not capture the unique strengths of PUIs or the importance of their mission to the overall development of the community they serve.

Encouragingly recent trends (the past 5 years) there is indication that progress is being made, albeit to a slower pace. Agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have introduced mechanisms that acknowledge the PUI mission. NSF’s RUI (Research in Undergraduate Institutions) program specifically supports faculty who integrate research with undergraduate education, while NIH’s AREA (Academic Research Enhancement Award, R15) program funds projects at institutions that receive little NIH support, with a strong emphasis on student training. Both agencies also encourage the inclusion of at least one PUI faculty member on their review panels, ensuring the realities of PUI scholarship are represented.

Yet, significant gaps remain. Other funding bodies such as the Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Defense (DOD), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rarely offer programs explicitly crafted for PUIs. On the humanities and arts side, the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) similarly operate without clear pathways tailored to the PUI context, despite the fact that these campuses serve as critical cultural and intellectual anchors in their communities.

The result is a funding landscape where PUIs must fight harder for recognition and support. While federal rhetoric often emphasizes “broadening participation” and “expanding access,” the practical mechanisms for equitable distribution of research funding remain uneven. Until there is a consistent expectation across agencies that PUI perspectives are included in review processes, and until more programs are crafted with the teaching–research balance in mind, this imbalance will persist.

The progress made at NSF and NIH demonstrates that change is possible when agencies listen. The challenge now is for DOE, DOD, EPA, NEH, and NEA to adopt a similar mindset. For PUIs, the call is not for preferential treatment, but for fair recognition of their distinctive mission and impact in shaping the next generation of scholars, professionals, and engaged citizens.