The Asymmetric Playing Field: Cross-Cultural Grant Writing in Higher Education

Picture this: A Colombian doctoral student has just had her manuscript rejected for the third time. Not because of flawed methodology or weak data, but because of "issues with English grammar." She'll now spend between one-quarter and one-half of her entire monthly salary on professional editing services—just for a chance at resubmission.

This isn't an isolated incident. In Colombia, where over 90% of researchers publish in English despite low national English proficiency, 43.5% of doctoral students report having articles rejected specifically due to English grammar. Another 33% don't even try—they self-select out of international conferences entirely because presentations must be in English. This same linguistic barrier affects researchers applying to Horizon Europe, Marie Curie fellowship programs, and other international funding opportunities.

These aren't just anecdotes. They're symptoms of a systemic problem that filters researchers based on economic background and geographic origin rather than scientific excellence. Whether you're crafting a grant proposal template or preparing for a major submission, understanding these barriers is crucial. The question isn't whether this bias exists—the data proves it does. The real question is: how do you navigate it?

Understanding Barriers to International Research Funding: The Three-Headed Beast

International researchers applying to Horizon Europe, Marie Curie fellowships, and similar programs face three interlocking challenges that compound each other. Understanding them separately is the first step to developing an effective strategy for cross-cultural grant writing in higher education. These barriers affect everything from NIH foreign research grants to European funding mechanisms.

Barrier #1: The Rhetorical Divide—When "Clear Writing" Is Cultural

Here's the uncomfortable truth: what an Anglo-American grant reviewer calls "unfocused" or "disorganized" might be perfectly logical writing—just in a different cultural-rhetorical tradition.

In 1966, linguist Robert Kaplan noticed that different cultures organize arguments differently. Anglo-American writing follows a straight line—state your point, support it, conclude. But Romance languages allow for enriching digressions. Asian rhetorical traditions often build toward the main point indirectly, "turning and turning in a widening gyre." This language barrier becomes particularly acute in grant writing for higher education, where rhetorical expectations are rarely made explicit.

Grant proposals—whether for Horizon Europe or ERC Starting Grant programs—are hyper-linear documents. When a reviewer encounters a "Statement of Need" written in an indirect or digressive style, they don't think "interesting rhetorical approach"—they think "lacks cohesion" and move to the next proposal. The scientific content never gets a fair hearing because the rhetorical delivery pattern failed to match expectations.

Notice what this reveals: the system rewards confidence and directness. Hedging—valued in many academic papers to show nuance and respect—doesn't help in grant proposals. For researchers from high-context cultures where modesty is a scholarly virtue, this creates a profound double bind in grant writing in higher education. Your cultural training in academic politeness becomes a scoring penalty in international grant competitions. Understanding these dynamics is crucial whether you're navigating English-only funding limits or managing the complexities of cross-cultural academic writing.

Barrier #2: Geographic Bias in Horizon Europe and International Programs

Even with perfect English, you're playing against a stacked deck. An analysis of 204,718 journal submissions proved what researchers have long suspected: reviewers from the same country as the author are 4.78 percentage points more likely to review positively than other reviewers assessing the identical manuscript. This geographic bias is particularly relevant for Horizon Europe applications, where reviewer panels draw heavily from Western European institutions.

This "home bias" wouldn't matter if the reviewer pool were geographically diverse. But it's not. The international reviewer pool is heavily dominated by the United States, China, and India. Authors from these countries are 8 to 9 times more likely to be assigned a same-country reviewer than authors from underrepresented countries—and thus receive that 4.78pp boost automatically. For researchers applying from emerging economies, this structural disadvantage compounds linguistic barriers.

Here's the disturbing part: double-anonymization (hiding author names and institutions) doesn't fix this. The bias persists. Why? Because reviewers are detecting authors' origins from linguistic cues left in the text—subtle word choices, rhetorical patterns, research topics. The out-group detection happens unconsciously, triggered by the very elements we discussed in Barrier #1.

This connects linguistic and geographic biases into a unified system. It's not just that your English is "non-native"—it's that your non-native markers signal you're from the out-group, which triggers unconscious negative bias even when your proposal is blinded.

Barrier #3: Institutional Prestige—The Advantage You Can't Earn

Affiliation with a prestigious Western institution provides a measurable, unearned advantage. The Arnold and Mabel Beckman Foundation discovered this in their own review process—and then proved it could be fixed. Similar institutional bias affects Horizon Europe evaluations, where institutional reputation often unconsciously influences reviewer assessments.

In 2020, they "blinded" the first stage of their Young Investigator awards. Applicants had to omit their name, gender, and all institutional information from initial Letters of Intent. The result? The distribution of invited applicants immediately shifted from prestigious institutions to less-recognized ones. The trend continued through to final awards.

This proves institutional prestige bias was actively skewing outcomes—preventing the foundation from allocating resources based on scientific merit. For most international researchers, their "non-Western institution" is automatically perceived as "less prestigious" by Global North reviewers, making this a primary mechanism through which geographic bias operates. Understanding this dynamic is essential when preparing your grant proposal template for international funding competitions.

The Deepest Cut: Epistemic Injustice

There's a fourth barrier that's rarely named but underlies all the others: epistemic injustice—when your way of knowing itself is devalued. This affects not only Horizon Europe applications but also Marie Curie fellowship submissions where research paradigms outside Western frameworks are often questioned.

The dominant grant-review standard is rooted in Western epistemologies: individualistic, anthropocentric, positivist. This isn't stated explicitly in Horizon Europe calls for proposals, but it's the unstated paradigm against which all research is judged. For more on navigating international funding frameworks, see our guide on mastering international research funding.

This creates a cascading effect:

• → Because Western epistemology is dominant and assumed universal...
• → Its preferred language (English) became science's lingua franca...
• → Which created the "linguistic penalty" and "rhetorical divide"...
• → While its institutions (Harvard, Cambridge) became the standard of "prestige"...
• → Creating institutional bias...
• → And its scholars came to dominate the reviewer pool...
• → Creating geographic representation bias.

This integrated model reveals the totality of the challenge. You're not just fighting poor English or an unknown institution—you're navigating a system designed to see your language, your institution, and your fundamental way of knowing as inherently inferior.

Strategic Navigation for Horizon Europe Success: The Pragmatist's Toolkit

Understanding the system is step one. Navigating it successfully is step two. Whether you're applying for Horizon Europe, an ERC Starting Grant, or a Marie Curie fellowship, here's what the data says actually works for cross-cultural grant writing.

Strategy #1: Master the Anglo-American Persuasive Structure

The most pragmatic strategy—especially for early-career, high-stakes funding—is to master the dominant linear structure that reviewers expect. A successful grant proposal template follows five specific "moves":

But structure alone isn't enough. You need the specific linguistic style the data proved successful:

• Direct & Concise: Brevity is an imperative. No reviewer rewards lengthy digressions.
• Confident: Use certainty words ("will," "demonstrates," "proves") and causal language ("therefore," "because," "thus").
• Narrative: Tell a compelling story supported by data, research findings, and specific evidence.

This is a conscious act of rhetorical assimilation. You're temporarily suppressing your native rhetorical style to adopt the confident, linear approach the system rewards. For more on effective proposal structures, see our narrative arc guide. It's pragmatic, but it comes at a cost to authenticity.

Strategy #2: "Code-Meshing"—Resistance from the Inside

What if you don't want to fully assimilate? Scholar Suresh Canagarajah offers a third path: "code-meshing."

Unlike code-switching (separating languages for different contexts), code-meshing merges local varieties, dialects, and rhetorical strategies with Standard Written English in the same text. The goal is to "gradually pluralize academic writing" by "inserting oppositional codes gradually into existing conventions"—resisting from the inside.

In practice:

• Epistemic Meshing: Use the Territory-Gap-Goal structure but frame the Gap using non-Western scholarship. Centrally cite Indigenous and Global South scholars alongside the Western canon.
• Lexical Meshing: Strategically use a term from your L1 because it captures a crucial concept English lacks. Define it explicitly and argue for its methodological necessity.
• Rhetorical Meshing: Employ narrative style but draw from Indigenous storytelling traditions while still hitting the linear beats reviewers expect.

This is a high-wire act. You're trying to satisfy reviewer expectations for "rigor" while challenging the epistemic injustice that defines rigor in purely Western terms. It's not for every grant or every career stage—but it's a way to maintain voice while navigating the system.

Strategy #3: Reframe "Local" as "Unique Access"

To overcome institutional bias in Horizon Europe applications, you must proactively build credibility in the "Means" section—where you prove you're capable of doing the work.

A researcher from a "less prestigious" institution can't compete on name recognition. But they often have what prestigious institutions don't: irreplaceable local access. This is particularly valuable for Marie Curie fellowship applications where unique research environments and partnerships are highly valued.

You're making yourself an irreplaceable asset rather than positioning as an underdog. This reframing transforms what Global North reviewers perceive as a weakness (local, not global) into a methodological strength.

Strategy #4: Strategic Collaboration (But Watch for Neo-Colonial Dynamics)

Perhaps the most powerful strategy for Horizon Europe success is equitable international collaboration. When executed properly, it functions as a "Trojan Horse" to bypass systemic barriers:

• Solves Institutional Bias: Partnering with a researcher from a prestigious US/EU institution gives your proposal credibility by association.
• Solves Linguistic Penalty: Co-writing with a native English speaker neutralizes language-based rejection.
• Solves Geographic Bias: Submission from the US/EU partner dramatically increases the chance of receiving that 4.78pp "home advantage."

But this strategy is fraught with risk. One key challenge for Global South authors is that "international collaborations often position Global South scientists in supporting roles rather than as lead authors." This creates "data extraction" dynamics—where you do the work while the Global North partner gets the grant and lead authorship. For more on building effective partnerships, see our Horizon Europe consortium guide.

The solution: Set expectations early. Before any work begins:

• Have explicit discussions on roles, contributions, and timeline
• Create written agreements on authorship criteria and intellectual property rights
• Leverage your unique local access as bargaining power to ensure co-equal PI status

The AI Paradox: A Leveling Tool or Just a New Bias?

Many have heralded AI tools like ChatGPT as the solution to the linguistic penalty. Funders themselves have expressed hope that "this will help [non-native speakers] level the playing field."

But new research suggests AI is a double-edged sword. A Stanford study titled "'You Cannot Sound Like GPT'" found that peer reviewers are now actively attentive to LLM use—and may infer that AI usage is related to the author's country of origin. This inference "may consciously or unconsciously bias reviewers' scientific assessments."

The linguistic penalty doesn't disappear with AI—it shifts. The bias moves from "this grammar is flawed" to "this 'perfect' prose sounds like GPT," which reviewers then associate with non-native speakers, reactivating out-group bias. Many researchers turn to academic writing software to address language barriers, but this introduces new challenges in maintaining authentic voice while meeting Western rhetorical expectations.

There's a deeper threat: AI as an engine of rhetorical assimilation. An AI trained on a dominant corpus of Anglo-American text will "correct" your code-meshing attempts, erasing the authentic rhetorical patterns and epistemic pluralism you're trying to preserve. It fixes the linguistic penalty by enforcing conformity. For a balanced perspective on AI tools in grant writing, see our guide on AI for researchers.

The Path Forward: Succeeding in Horizon Europe and Beyond

Here's the uncomfortable truth: there is no perfect solution. The Horizon Europe funding system, like other international programs, is structurally biased, and no individual strategy eliminates that reality.

But understanding the mechanics of these biases gives you agency when applying for Horizon Europe, Marie Curie fellowships, or ERC Starting Grants. You can choose:

• Full Assimilation: Master the Anglo-American playbook, maximize funding chances, establish your career—then use that platform to advocate for systemic change.
• Strategic Code-Meshing: Gradually insert your authentic voice and epistemology while satisfying enough dominant conventions to stay competitive.
• Equitable Collaboration: Partner with Western institutions but negotiate co-equal status from the start, using your irreplaceable local access as leverage.

The choice depends on your career stage, your risk tolerance, and what you're willing to sacrifice. Early-career researchers applying for their first major grant might prioritize pragmatism. Established researchers with institutional support might have room to experiment with code-meshing.

What you can't do is ignore the reality of these barriers and hope merit alone will carry you through. The data proves it won't.

The 43.5% of Colombian doctoral students whose articles were rejected for grammar weren't failing because their science was weak. The 33% who self-selected out of international conferences weren't avoiding them because they had nothing to contribute. They were casualties of a system that conflates linguistic conformity with scientific quality, geographic origin with credibility, and Western epistemology with universal truth.

Your job isn't to accept this system as fair. Your job is to navigate it strategically while working—through your own successful research, your collaborations, and your eventual influence—to change it.

Because the ultimate goal isn't just to win Horizon Europe funding for yourself. It's to create a system where the next generation of international researchers doesn't have to spend half their salary on editing services just to get their science heard.