Preparing Character Research for Private Foundation Grants

The Character Project's archive records research competitions and interdisciplinary studies supported by philanthropic funding. For scholars considering private foundation grants today, the useful starting point is a sharply defined research question and a careful reading of each funder's current rules. Those competitions provide examples, not an active application route. The following preparation checks address proposals about moral character, virtue and related questions across psychology, philosophy and theology.

Start With a Question a Funder Can Evaluate

“We want to study virtue” gives a reviewer little to assess. A stronger proposal might ask how people interpret honesty when telling the truth conflicts with protecting someone else's privacy, or how different social settings affect helping decisions. Identify the scholarly gap and the kind of answer the project can produce.

Foundation fit follows from this specificity. An early two-page research sketch can help a team decide whether a funder's questions, allowable activities and likely review criteria suit the project before any formal submission. A program interested in empirical character development may value measurable changes and a credible comparison strategy. A program emphasizing philosophical understanding may ask for a clearly argued conceptual contribution. Interdisciplinary calls still require coherent methods. Before drafting an application, compare the research aim with the funder's stated priorities and eligibility requirements, rather than assuming all charitable research has the same audience.

Describe the Evidence Before Promising Results

A character-research proposal needs an account of what the team will actually examine. For an interview project, that might mean a defined participant group, a reason for the sampling strategy and a transparent plan for analyzing responses. For a behavioral study, it might mean describing the situations participants encounter and how competing explanations will be considered. For conceptual scholarship, identify the texts, arguments or distinctions to be developed.

Explain what mixed findings would contribute. Suppose a study finds that responses vary sharply by setting. That can clarify the limits of a theory without demonstrating that moral character is an illusion. Bounded claims help reviewers assess the method. Where research involves people or sensitive data, researchers should describe relevant ethics-review and privacy arrangements without implying approvals they have not received.

Give Each Discipline a Clear Role

An interdisciplinary proposal improves when collaborators have defined responsibilities. Psychology may contribute study design or analysis; philosophy may specify competing accounts of virtue; theology may examine a tradition's understanding of moral formation. Roles will vary. The proposal should explain where the disciplines genuinely interact and where they address distinct questions.

Separate outputs from hoped-for influence. A peer-reviewed paper, an accessible research resource or a responsibly managed dataset can be a concrete deliverable when the plan supports it. Broad promises to transform public character are harder to verify. Our archive of the research questions our grant recipients pursued illustrates the value of specifying a manageable inquiry. Name plausible audiences and acknowledge uncertainty.

Match the Budget to Activities and Milestones

A defensible budget starts with tasks. If research assistants will code interviews, explain the work and estimated time. If collaborators must meet, identify the purpose of travel or remote coordination. Include data-management, access, dissemination and administrative costs only where they are justified and permitted. The funder controls allowable costs and documentation; another grant's template may mislead.

Link spending to a timetable the team can defend. Early stages might include preparing measures and seeking ethics approval where needed. Later phases might cover collection, analysis and publication. Allow time for setbacks and dissemination. A clear timeline helps a reviewer see whether the proposed activities, staffing and resources fit together.

Compare the Two Templeton Foundations Carefully

Although both names appear in the history of character research funding, John Templeton Foundation and Templeton World Charity Foundation are separate grantmakers. Their procedures should never be treated as interchangeable. Their public instructions currently show different routes for approaching a proposed project:

The John Templeton Foundation's application stages require attention to the specific funding calendar. Topic fit does not guarantee an open submission window. Applicants should also confirm whether their institution qualifies under the program's rules.

Templeton World Charity Foundation's current intake policy calls for a different first check. Before preparing a lengthy unsolicited request, establish whether a relevant open call exists and whether that call permits the proposed applicant and work. No one should infer an invitation from the foundation's general interest in a topic. Neither route guarantees an award.

Five Checks Before Investing in an Application

A brief decision record can prevent weeks of writing for an unsuitable opportunity. We recommend completing these checks before assembling a full proposal. They make the application decision easier to discuss with collaborators:

1. Name the precise research question and show how it fits the funder's current aims.
2. Verify the applying organization's eligibility and any required institutional approvals.
3. Confirm whether the intake route is open, invitation-only or limited to a specific call.
4. Connect methods, roles and verifiable outputs to the question being asked.
5. Match budget categories and milestones to the foundation's published rules.

If any answer remains uncertain, verify it with the funder's current public guidance before committing to an application. Adapt the record to each opportunity. It respects both the research team's time and the distinctive purpose of each grant program.

Funding priorities, eligibility, application windows, and review procedures may change. Verify current requirements directly with each foundation; this overview is not legal or financial advice.