Omar Flores (Unsplash License)
In this second post of the Seeds to Systems series, we explore how systems thinking can help us better understand the complexity of research funding landscapes and the different factors that shape sustainability for open science projects and communities.
Many open science projects, communities and initiatives have experienced the overwhelm of scattered funding calls, eligibility requirements, deadlines, and shifting funding priorities. Why is it so challenging to map and keep track of these opportunities and funding flows? When we look at the availability of grants only, we are paying attention to just one piece of a complex and interconnected research funding landscape that no single list can fully capture.
Systems thinking gives us tools to name this complexity (Meadows, 2009). In research funding, many actors (from funders to informal networks) operate at multiple scales (institutional to cross-regional), and are impacted by proximal and distant drivers (institutional review policies to geopolitical events). This systems view builds on the argument from our previous post that access to infrastructure, institutional support, and networks, all play a key role in project and community sustainability. The same funding call can represent very different opportunities depending on the project or community applying to it.
For open science projects and communities, sustainability might mean having a thriving volunteer community, or enough funding to cover access to a paid Zoom account or to pay a community manager next year. It could mean having a succession plan for core maintainers, clear governance processes, or perhaps the ability to pause.
In Seeds to Systems, we are using project and community sustainability in this broad sense. Rather than starting from a single definition, we are interested in how different initiatives understand what they need to continue, adapt, or transition. We hope that facilitating a conversation around a multiplicity of understandings can help projects and communities compare experiences and share learnings across common challenges.
The connection with environmental sustainability is also relevant for our work. Environmental sustainability and sustainability science as research fields have long grappled with questions around how complex systems change and how people build agency within them. We are borrowing practical tools and frameworks from these fields that are useful in designing action-oriented interventions.
One of these tools is the concept of leverage points: places within a system where a focused shift can produce significant impacts (see Meadows’ short paper on this concept). At DISC 2025, we piloted an activity to surface leverage points that have been impactful in securing funding across diverse organizational and individual pathways. Some examples that emerged through community discussions included strong community engagement, adaptability, strategic outreach, and access to mentorship.
We will continue refining this activity in an upcoming workshop, so that other communities can adapt the exercise to identify possible opportunities for intervention along their own journey towards project sustainability. As Meadows reminds us, leverage points are not shortcuts, but tools to reflect about systems change and to focus our efforts more strategically.
Leverage points as a framework also help us ask: within the wider research funding landscape, where can OLS intervene in ways that are practical, realistic, and connected to broader change?
Many grant writing resources already exist. Some help people structure proposals, understand grant review processes, interpret funder criteria, or apply AI responsibly. Others offer templates and examples of successful grant proposals. However, these resources are often scattered, highly context-specific, or most accessible to researchers already working within organizations with robust funding infrastructure. They may support specific parts of the research funding process, but not necessarily how those parts connect, and they rarely offer the practical support needed to move from awareness to action.
This is the gap we are exploring in Seeds to Systems. We are interested in capacity building as a lever for project and community sustainability. Peer learning, mentoring, guided reflection, localised case studies, and spaces for practice are all part of the infrastructure that helps projects and communities strengthen their sustainability. In the next post, we will share more about how we are translating our research into curriculum design, and opportunities to help us refine this work.
Meadows, Donella H. Thinking in Systems: A Primer. Earthscan, 2009.