Win $5,000 for Inclusive Literacy Research in Africa: Rebecca Rhodes African Inclusive Literacy Research Grant 2026

If you study how children and youth with disabilities learn to read — or if you work in classrooms, NGOs, or ministries trying to make reading actually happen for learners who have been left out — this prize was made for you. The Rebecca H. Rhodes African Inclusive Literacy Research Prize awards one individual up to $5,000 USD to support focused, practical research that improves foundational reading (and optionally writing) for learners with disabilities across West, Central, East, or Southern Africa.

This is small money with big potential. Five thousand dollars won’t pay for a nationwide randomized trial, but it will fund smart, context-aware studies: rigorous classroom observations, well-designed mixed-methods pilots, low-cost assessment tool validation, teacher training pilots with pre/post measures, or rapid, participatory research that centers caregivers and local teachers. The award also responds to a real gap: African researchers are underfunded, yet they are best placed to document what works where resources are tight. If you have a clear question, a feasible plan, and connections to the community you study, this prize can buy you the breathing room to gather evidence and make that evidence visible.

At a Glance

What This Opportunity Offers

This prize is intentionally modest and sharply focused: it provides one individual with up to $5,000 USD to cover research expenses tied directly to foundational literacy for children or youth with disabilities and special education needs. Think of the fund as seed money that makes a tightly scoped research activity possible and credible.

Beyond cash, the prize confers something harder to quantify: visibility. The award is administered by respected education networks (CIES and ADEA). A winning project becomes part of a conversation among researchers, practitioners, and policymakers working on inclusive education across the continent. That visibility can open doors to partnerships, larger grants, or invitations to present at regional forums. The prize also demands rapid turn-around: research must be completed and results shared within 18 months. That constraint forces focused designs that produce usable evidence quickly — exactly the kind of rapid-cycle research decision-makers can act on.

Practical examples of projects that fit this award:

• Validating a low-cost, locally adapted early-grade reading screener for children with visual impairment in a district in Uganda.
• A mixed-methods pilot testing a scaffolded, teacher-delivered intervention for decoding skills among learners with mild intellectual disabilities in Senegal.
• An ethnographic study documenting barriers to literacy for deaf learners in a regional special education classroom, with practical, low-cost solutions co-developed with teachers.
• Testing the feasibility of text-to-speech assistive devices and teacher training in a Kenyan primary school, including cost and maintenance data.

The prize does not fund institutional overhead or large equipment purchases. It’s for directly research-related costs: small stipends for field assistants, transport, printing and materials, transcription, basic assistive devices, data collection, translation, and dissemination (workshops, policy briefs, local language summaries).

Who Should Apply

This prize is explicitly for African citizens conducting research on literacy and disability in Africa. If you are an educator, researcher, speech-language pathologist, special needs teacher, NGO practitioner, or a graduate student with a faculty co-sponsor — read on. The primary applicant must be an individual (not an organization) and meet the residency and citizenship requirements. Preference goes to applicants from West, Central, East, or Southern Africa and to projects situated in those regions.

Real-world examples of good applicants:

• A classroom teacher in Ghana with three years’ experience who wants to test a low-cost decoding approach across two schools.
• A doctoral candidate in South Africa proposing a rapid validation of an adapted assessment for learners with dyslexia.
• An NGO field coordinator in the DRC documenting how multilingual education policies affect reading outcomes among learners with hearing impairment.
• A speech therapist in Rwanda piloting caregiver-mediated reading activities for children with cerebral palsy in community settings.

If you are a diaspora researcher living outside Africa but you hold African citizenship and can demonstrate recent residence (≥2 weeks in past 24 months) and an intent to return/work in Africa within 1–2 years, you remain eligible. Partnerships with local schools, ministries, and community groups strengthen your application. The key questions reviewers will ask: Do you have the relationships and on-the-ground capacity to complete the project in 18 months? Is the study focused and feasible with $5,000?

Insider Tips for a Winning Application

1. Scope tightly and be ruthlessly realistic. With $5,000 and an 18-month deadline, large samples or expensive instruments are a liability. Design a study that answers one precise question (e.g., “Does teacher coaching increase decoding fluency among Grade 2 learners with visual impairment?”) rather than several vague aims.

2. Prioritize rapid, mixed-methods designs. Combine a small quantitative component (pre/post measures, short standardized screener) with qualitative data (teacher interviews, classroom observations). The numbers give you measurable change; the narratives explain how and why change happened.

3. Demonstrate community and institutional buy-in early. Attach a short confirmation from a school principal, district education officer, or NGO partner. A one-paragraph letter that commits space, time, or access will convince reviewers you can do the work quickly.

4. Budget for essentials that reviewers can verify. Allocate funds for field assistant stipends, travel, printing of assessment forms, and local dissemination (one workshop or policy brief translation). Show unit costs and why each item is necessary.

5. Anticipate ethics and permissions. You’ll need local permissions and possibly institutional ethics approvals. If you don’t have them yet, explain the timeline and list the bodies you will approach. Include a short plan for informed consent, child assent, and data privacy.

6. Make dissemination concrete. Say who will receive your findings (district education office, teacher networks, local NGOs) and how (workshop, summary in local language, open-access brief). Funders like to see that research reaches decision-makers.

7. Write for non-specialist reviewers. Assume your reader knows inclusive education but not the technicalities of your subfield. Keep jargon minimal and explain assessment tools and outcome measures in plain language.

8. If you have pilot data, include it—briefly. Even a one-page table of preliminary scores or qualitative observations will make your proposal look grounded and feasible.

These tips are not optional; they’re what separates careful, believable plans from wishful thinking.

Application Timeline (Work backward from Feb 27, 2026)

Start now. Don’t assume you can sprint in the final week. A practical 8-week timeline looks like this:

• Week 0–1: Finalize your research question and core methods. Identify partner schools/organizations and request short confirmation letters.
• Week 2–3: Draft the application narrative (methods, timeline, budget) and assemble CV, proof of citizenship, and any preliminary data.
• Week 4: Secure ethics/permission letters or document where you will apply. Have your partner(s) send confirmation emails.
• Week 5: Circulate the near-final draft to two trusted reviewers (one local practitioner, one academic). Incorporate feedback.
• Week 6: Finalize budget and prepare single-file submission (Word/PDF). Ensure formatting: single-spaced, 12pt Times New Roman, 1-inch margins.
• Week 7: Proofread carefully and prepare attachments. Convert to PDF if requested or keep single Word file if easier for reviewers.
• Submit by Feb 25, 2026 at the latest. Aim for 48–72 hours earlier to avoid last-minute technical problems.

If you plan to rely on institutional ethics review, begin that process earlier; some boards take longer than you expect.

Required Materials

The application must be a single file in English or French and follow the formatting rules. Required components typically include:

• A concise project narrative (max 3–5 pages): clear research question, context, methods, sample, and an 18-month timeline. Use short headings and numbered steps for clarity.
• Budget and justification: itemize costs (transport, supplies, stipends, transcription, dissemination). Show per-unit costs and totals that add up to ≤ $5,000.
• Applicant CV or biosketch: 2–3 pages highlighting relevant publications, experience, and previous research or program work.
• Proof of citizenship and residency: scanned ID, passport page, or government document plus evidence of residence in the past 24 months if applicable.
• Letters or short confirmations of support (1 page max each): from partner schools, NGOs, or district offices confirming access and logistics.
• Ethics/permissions plan: note whether you have approval or provide a clear plan and timeline to obtain it.
• Data sharing and dissemination plan: explain how results will be shared locally and publicly (policy brief, workshop, repository).

Format everything carefully. Reviewers see sloppy formatting as a proxy for sloppy planning. Single-spaced, 12pt font, and clear headings help your application read crisply.

What Makes an Application Stand Out

First, clarity. Reviewers are busy and will reward proposals that make the research question and the route to answering it unmistakable. A strong title, a one-paragraph summary, and a short logic chain (“We will do X, which will measure Y, so we can answer Z”) go a long way.

Second, feasibility. Evidence of local relationships, a short and realistic sampling strategy, and an honest budget demonstrate you can deliver results within 18 months and on $5,000. Demonstrate you’ve thought about recruitment, attrition, data collection logistics, and contingency plans.

Third, local relevance and co-creation. Projects that involve teachers, parents, or local organizations as more than subjects — as collaborators — are more persuasive. Explain how stakeholders shaped your question or how findings will directly inform local practice or policy.

Fourth, ethical and inclusive practice. Show you understand consent, assent, confidentiality, and adaptations required when working with learners with different disabilities. Propose accessible dissemination formats (translated briefs, audio summaries for low-literacy audiences).

Fifth, measurable outcomes. Use clear, simple metrics (reading fluency words-per-minute, accuracy on a short probe, attendance) and pair them with qualitative indicators that explain mechanisms (teacher interviews, classroom observation notes).

Finally, communication. A project that promises to produce a short open-access brief, a policy note for the district, and a community presentation will outshine one that plans only an academic paper.

Common Mistakes to Avoid (and How to Fix Them)

Mistake 1: Overambition. Proposing a large-sample randomized design that needs $50k. Fix: Scale down. Choose a pilot sample that can demonstrate feasibility; propose a plan for scaling later.

Mistake 2: Weak partnerships. Asking to study a school without any documented agreement. Fix: Get at least an email confirmation from a school/NGO and attach it.

Mistake 3: No ethics plan. Waiting until you win to think about consent and approvals. Fix: Outline exactly where you’ll seek approval and how you’ll protect participants now.

Mistake 4: Vagueness about outcomes. Saying you’ll “improve literacy” without defining measures. Fix: Choose one or two clear, feasible indicators and explain how you’ll measure them.

Mistake 5: Poor budget justification. Listing lump sums without unit costs. Fix: Show per-day rates, number of days, and how each cost supports data collection or dissemination.

Mistake 6: Ignoring language and accessibility. Submitting a plan that doesn’t consider the language(s) learners use. Fix: Describe translations, interpreter needs, or adapted instruments.

Mistake 7: Late submission. Assuming email will work right at midnight before the deadline. Fix: Submit 48–72 hours early and confirm receipt.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Can an organization apply?
A: No. The prize is awarded to an individual as the primary applicant. Organizations can be partners but cannot be the applicant.

Q: If I live outside Africa but hold African citizenship, am I eligible?
A: Yes, if you have resided in an African country for at least two weeks in the past 24 months (from Feb 2026) or currently reside in an African country. You must also demonstrate an intention to work in an African country for the next 1–2 years.

Q: Can the research span multiple countries?
A: Yes. The proposal may include research in one or more countries within West, Central, East, or Southern Africa. Ensure logistics are realistic for $5,000 and the 18-month timeline.

Q: What can the funds be used for?
A: Direct research expenses: field assistants, travel, materials, transcription, basic assistive devices, translation, and dissemination. Large equipment purchases and institutional overhead are not the intended uses.

Q: Are applications in French accepted?
A: Yes. Applications in English or French are accepted.

Q: Will winners need to submit a final report?
A: Yes. The research must be completed and results made available within 18 months of the award. Prepare to share a short report and local dissemination materials.

Q: Can I reapply if I don’t win?
A: The call does not specify resubmission policies. If you’re interested in applying again, save reviewer feedback (if provided) and strengthen feasibility and partnerships.

How to Apply (Next Steps)

Ready to apply? Compile your single-file application (Word, Google Doc, or PDF) with the project narrative, budget and justification, CV, proof of citizenship/residency, letters of support, and ethics plan. Use single-spacing, 1-inch margins, and 12pt Times New Roman (or equivalent). Save everything as one document and email it to [email protected] before February 27, 2026. Aim to submit at least 48–72 hours earlier to avoid last-minute problems.

Full details and the official call are here: https://adeanet.org/en/call-applications/2026-rebecca-rhodes-african-inclusive-literacy-research-grant

If you need to prioritize your next move: 1) Clarify the single research question you can answer in 18 months with $5k; 2) secure a partner confirmation; 3) draft your budget line-by-line; 4) begin ethics/permission paperwork. Good applications tell a tight, realistic story that shows respect for participants, a plan for rapid, useful findings, and a clear route to influence local practice. If that sounds like your project, get your application in — scholarship funds like these are rare, and they reward focus and thoughtfulness.