Win £5,000 for Promoting Diversity in STEM: Royal Society Athena Prize 2026 Guide

If your team is quietly changing the culture of STEM in the UK — building more inclusive departments, designing programmes that keep underrepresented groups in science, or scaling approaches that other institutions can copy — the Royal Society Athena Prize 2026 is the kind of recognition that both validates that work and amplifies it. This is a biennial prize awarded to teams in UK academic and research communities that have made substantial, demonstrable progress on diversity and inclusion in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). Winners receive a medal and a cash award of £5,000.

This article is written like the colleague who nudges you across the finish line: blunt when needed, generous with examples, and strategic about the things that reviewers actually care about. Below you’ll find a clear breakdown of who should apply, what to include in a nomination, a realistic timeline for preparing your submission, and practical advice that increases the odds your work will be taken seriously by the Royal Society panel.

Read this and you’ll know whether your project belongs in the running — and if so, exactly how to package it so the judges see the depth, reach and staying power of your work.

At a Glance

What This Opportunity Offers

The Athena Prize does more than hand a cheque to the winners. It recognizes and celebrates teams whose work has produced measurable, positive change in how STEM operates — who are making it fairer, more accessible and more representative. The prize rewards leadership in practice: initiatives that demonstrably improve recruitment, retention, career progression, working culture or the visibility of underrepresented groups across a broad portion of the UK STEM community.

Beyond the £5,000 and the medal, the prize is a signal. It elevates the methods and tools you’ve proven effective, and it can make it easier to secure further institutional support or external funding. Winning brings credibility that helps spread successful approaches to other departments, universities or research organisations. The Royal Society often publicises winners, which means your model can reach peers and policy-makers who might adopt or endorse what you have developed.

The award specifically values teams — not lone heroes. That means collaborative programmes, departmental transformations, cross-institution networks, or working groups that combine academic leadership with staff and student participation are in the sweet spot. The judges look for lasting impact (not one-off events), clear evidence, and ways the work can be scaled or adapted elsewhere.

Who Should Apply

Teams that should seriously consider applying include, but are not limited to:

• University STEM departments that have implemented systemic recruitment and progression policies leading to measurable increases in diversity among staff and postgraduate students.
• Cross-institution networks that have rolled out mentoring, sponsorship or career development programmes and can show regional or national uptake.
• Project teams who redesigned curricula or lab practices to reduce barriers for underrepresented students and can prove improved retention or attainment.
• Groups who have changed hiring panels, job advertisement practices, or promotion procedures and can document an effect on candidate pools and outcomes.
• Units that ran ambitious outreach programmes which resulted in clear pipelines for underrepresented students into STEM degree programmes.

Real-world examples: A physics department that changed lab access policies and doubled the proportion of women completing lab-heavy modules; a network of life-sciences PIs that instituted a national mentoring scheme with demonstrable increases in promotion rates for Black and minority ethnic researchers; a bioengineering team that introduced flexible postgraduate arrangements and reduced attrition for carers.

You should not apply if your work is limited to a short-term event with no follow-through, or if you cannot name the team members and provide evidence of sustained change. Emerging projects can apply if they have tangible outcomes and measurable reach — theory without measurable impact is unlikely to win.

Insider Tips for a Winning Application

Think of the nomination like a short documentary: show — don’t just tell — and give the judges a clear, evidence-based story they can hang on to. Here are tactical steps that make your application stand out.

1. Lead with impact: Start your narrative with the concrete outcomes. State, in a single paragraph, the change you achieved: numbers, percentages, and timelines. Judges read many entries; the quicker they understand scale and impact, the better.

2. Define the team and roles with precision: List every team member and their role. Explain who made decisions, who implemented, and who measured outcomes. If you’re a department, name the leads and the working group. If a network, identify the steering team.

3. Provide before-and-after evidence: Numbers matter. Show baseline metrics (representation, retention, promotion rates) and follow-up data. If you have limited hard data, use qualitative evidence: structured surveys, independent evaluations, and documented testimonials.

4. Explain methodology and evaluation: Describe how you measured success. Don’t hide after-the-fact rationales. If you used external evaluators or pre-registered targets, say so. If you used mixed methods — quantitative trends supplemented by interviews or focus groups — explain why that mix gives a fuller picture.

5. Highlight scalability and dissemination: Judges want to know whether other institutions can adapt what you did. Provide examples of replication, guideline documents, training modules you shared, workshops delivered, or uptake metrics from outside your institution.

6. Balance storytelling and rigor: Use a compelling narrative (who you were trying to help, the barriers, the intervention, the results) but avoid emotional appeals without data. Concrete stories (e.g., a student who progressed through a mentorship scheme into a fellowship) are persuasive when paired with numbers.

7. Use independent corroboration: Letters from institutional leaders, beneficiaries, or external evaluators carry weight — but they must add new information. Avoid generic praise. Ask letter writers to cite specific outcomes they observed.

8. Keep accessibility in mind: The panel will not necessarily be specialists in your niche. Write plainly, define acronyms, and avoid jargon. A clear one-page executive summary helps busy reviewers see the essentials fast.

9. Show longevity and maintenance plans: Say how the work will survive staff changes or funding cycles. Evidence of budget lines, policy adoption, or embedded processes indicates sustainability.

10. Start early and iterate: Good nominations are revised multiple times. Peer review from colleagues outside your project will reveal blind spots.

Those tips alone won’t guarantee a win — but they will put you in the top tier of entries.

Application Timeline (Realistic — work backwards from 22 February 2026)

Begin at least 10 weeks before the deadline. A strong nomination takes coordination.

• Week 10 (mid-December 2025): Decide to apply and nominate a lead nominator. Inform institutional leadership and secure any internal permissions.
• Week 9–8 (late December to early January): Gather baseline and outcome data. Request letters of support from external partners and beneficiaries; these can take 2–4 weeks to write.
• Week 7 (mid-January): Draft the nomination narrative and an executive summary. Prepare team member list and brief bios.
• Week 6–5 (late January): Circulate the draft to reviewers: one senior colleague, one evaluator or data-savvy reviewer, and one non-specialist for clarity.
• Week 4 (early February): Revise based on feedback. Finalise attachments and evidence files (charts, evaluation reports, testimonials).
• Week 2 (mid-February): Final proofing — check names, figures, and links. Ensure letters are on headed paper and signed where appropriate.
• Week 0 (by 20 February 2026): Submit at least 48 hours before the deadline to avoid portal hiccups.

If your institution has internal deadlines or requires sign-off from a research office, pad your timeline accordingly.

Required Materials (What you’ll likely need and how to prepare them)

The Royal Society’s nomination portal is the official place to submit, and you should check the portal for the precise checklist. Typical materials that strengthen a nomination include:

• A concise project summary that opens with key outcomes (one page).
• A detailed nomination narrative explaining context, intervention, evaluation methods and results (2–4 pages recommended).
• A list of all team members with roles, affiliations and short bios (who did what).
• Data tables or graphs showing baseline and follow-up outcomes (e.g., representation by level, retention rates, promotion statistics).
• Letters of support (institutional leadership, external partners, beneficiaries, or independent evaluators). Ask letter-writers to cite concrete impacts.
• Evidence of dissemination: copies of toolkits, training materials, workshop attendance lists, or records of replication in other settings.
• If available, independent evaluation reports, impact assessments, or published outputs.
• A sustainability statement outlining how the work will be maintained (policy changes, institutional funding lines, integration into job descriptions).

Prepare all documents as clean, clearly labelled files. Use headings in long documents so reviewers can skim and find the evidence that supports your claims.

What Makes an Application Stand Out

Three qualities consistently distinguish winners: clarity of impact, rigour of evidence, and replicability. Judges are searching for initiatives that made measurable differences and left behind a model others can use.

Clarity of impact: Winners don’t bury their results in dense prose. They present a crisp “what changed and by how much” statement early in the nomination.

Rigour of evidence: The strongest applications include both numbers and credible evaluation. They show the size of the effect, the timeframe, and how outcomes were measured. If you can show pre/post comparisons, control groups, or external validation, that’s compelling.

Replicability and reach: A one-site pilot is credible only if there is a clear plan and proof the idea can be scaled. Applications that include implementation guides, training materials deployed in other institutions, or evidence of adoption regionally or nationally demonstrate impact beyond the original site.

Finally, teams that show leadership — by influencing policy, changing job descriptions, or creating sustainable funding lines — are often favoured. The prize looks for work that not only helped people, but changed systems.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

1. Weak evidence: Anecdotes without data leave judges unconvinced. If you don’t have quantitative metrics, use systematic qualitative evidence (standardised surveys, structured interviews) rather than random testimonials.

2. Vague team descriptions: Saying “we” won’t do. Name people and roles. Show accountability.

3. Overclaiming scale: Don’t inflate reach. If you ran a workshop series for one faculty, don’t claim national impact. Instead, explain potential for scaling and any early uptake.

4. Late logistics: Waiting until the last week to gather letters or data often leads to weak or missing attachments. Start early and allow time for revisions.

5. Jargon-heavy submissions: Use plain language. If the panel can’t easily understand your method, they won’t trust the results.

6. Forgetting sustainability: Short-term projects with no plan to continue look less impactful. Show how your work will be maintained.

Each of these pitfalls is fixable — but you’ll need time and honest feedback to correct them.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Can a department apply?
A: Yes. University STEM departments and faculties are explicitly eligible. Make sure the department is presented as a clearly defined team with named leads and contributors.

Q: How large can the team be?
A: There’s no limit to team size, but you must list all members by name. If you manage a large network, identify the core leadership team rather than listing every member of the network.

Q: Can past individual winners apply?
A: Previous individual or team winners cannot reapply. However, someone who was part of a winning team may be included in a different nominated team.

Q: Are international teams eligible?
A: The prize is for teams working in UK academic and research communities. If international collaborators are involved, the core work and nominated team should be based in the UK.

Q: What kinds of evidence are persuasive?
A: Quantitative indicators (changes in recruitment, retention, promotion), independent evaluations, replication/adoption records, and structured feedback from beneficiaries are all persuasive. Mix data with well-chosen case studies.

Q: Do unsuccessful applicants get feedback?
A: The Royal Society’s public materials don’t promise detailed feedback for every unsuccessful nomination. Use the process to refine your documentation and try again if appropriate.

Q: Is the prize only for gender equality work?
A: No. While Athena historically has connections to gender equity, the prize recognizes advances across diversity and inclusion more broadly in STEM.

Q: What is the prize payment used for?
A: The £5,000 is a gift to the recipients. Winners often use funds to sustain or expand their initiatives, support dissemination, or offset administrative costs. Outline an intended use if you think it strengthens your case.

Next Steps / How to Apply

Ready to apply? Take these immediate actions:

1. Convene your core writing team and nominate a single point of contact for the Royal Society portal.
2. Collect and freeze the key metrics you’ll cite (baseline, post-intervention, dates). Make sure data sources are auditable.
3. Request letters of support now — name the specific points you want letter writers to address. Provide templates and deadlines.
4. Draft a tight one-page summary that begins with your headline impact (e.g., “In 3 years we increased female PhD completion from 45% to 67% across X department and two partner institutions.”).
5. Visit the Royal Society nomination portal and read the official guidance carefully to confirm required files and formats.

Ready to apply? Visit the official nomination portal and submit your entry here: https://portal.royalsociety.org/my-home/nominations-nominator/

If you want feedback on a draft narrative before submission, ask colleagues outside your immediate project to read it with two questions: “What changed?” and “How do you know?” If they can answer both clearly, you’re in good shape.

Good luck. The Athena Prize rewards practical leadership in creating fairer STEM environments — and if your team has done that work, a well-crafted nomination can amplify it across the whole sector.