APSC is launching the Rewrite the Rules Fund, a new pilot funding opportunity supporting APSC faculty to advance interdisciplinary research, experiential learning, and creative partnerships aligned with Applied One and APSC's strategic plan commitments.
Applied One is underway, and needs your leadership and advice.
The Rewrite the Rules Fund supports the development of testable concepts, models and relationships that meaningfully transform how we work, what we research and how we partner. While Applied One the building takes shape, this is where the work begins.
The Fund supports proposals at four scales, from short-term Seeds to multi-year Catalyst awards, addressing the Grand Challenges identified in Transforming Tomorrow.
Applied One envisions a Faculty of Applied Science committed to leveraging places, programs, and our collective imagination to transform ourselves, and to meet challenges too massive, too complex, and too interconnected to be solved by a single discipline.
While a physical Applied One advances through UBC's Capital Projects process, we can begin defining and testing the new programs, activities, and relationships the building will eventually enable.
The Rewrite the Rules Fund supports the development of testable concepts, models, and relationships that meaningfully transform ourselves, our agendas, our practices, and our partnerships toward the scalable, lasting change we expect to realize in Applied One.
We are asking ourselves:
Transforming Tomorrow identifies three world-facing Grand Challenges — Solutions for People, Thriving Cities and Communities, and Planetary Health — and three inward-facing ambitions: University for the Future, Future of Work, and Inclusive Leadership and Respectful Engagement. Responding to these requires an authentic commitment to interdisciplinary collaboration and deep engagement with the communities we serve.
The intention of this pilot funding opportunity is to uncover ways the Faculty of Applied Science can facilitate transformative research and impact across our departments. We are seeking proposals that are stimulating and generative, not fully resolved. Uncertainty, exploration, and ambition are acceptable.
Rewrite the Rules will support innovative proof-of-concept initiatives and scalable programs that deliver the interdisciplinary research, experiential learning, and creative partnerships that accelerate the Faculty's commitment to address 21st century global challenges.
This opportunity encourages faculty to extend their reach: to pitch early-stage or mid-stage ideas that may not fit a traditional mould of research and funding parameters,but achieve impact through exploration, collaboration, and engagement in Applied One.
LARGER SCALED · 01
Up to $100,000 per year, max 2 years. Mature, multi-faculty research initiatives with rapid impact potential and pathways to sustainable operation.
MID-SCALED · 02
Up to $50,000, max 2 years. Partnership-based research, knowledge mobilization, and curriculum work alongside community partners.
SMALLER SCALED · 03
Up to $20,000, max 1 year Exploratory symposia, knowledge exchanges, white papers, and case studies that incubate early ideas.
MICRO SCALED · 04
Up to $10,000, two intakes per year. Short-term opportunities such as visiting speakers, event support, and unexpected expenses on funded work.
Lower barriers to ambitious work.
Successful proposals expand who is involved, across disciplines and across roles. Partnerships are crucial; collaborations are fundamental.
A steering committee plays an active role in identifying opportunities, connecting collaborators, and supporting early-career faculty, students, and those new to interdisciplinary work.
Pre- proposal, proponents can consult with the Steering Committee reviewers. Post-proposal, the Selection Committee, can recommend refinement, collaboration between similar proposals, or phased funding.
Awardees are encouraged, but not required, to propose collaborative pivots during their award terms and pool funds to facilitate shared initiatives when appropriate.
From seed-scale events to multi-year catalyst projects, with deliberate pathways between them. Awardees in smaller tiers can scale up; larger projects can stack with related awards.
Designed to be low-overhead for applicants and reviewers alike. Phase one is a short expression of interest. Phase two is a two-page narrative, a one-page budget and a public verbal or illustrated pitch.
This is a pilot. Year 1 informs Year 2. Awardees are invited to meet with the Steering Committee on completion to share experiences and inform the next cycle.
Awardees are offered opportunities to engage with academic peers and potential project partners through facilitated introductions and structured workshops and events.
Three big questions to ask yourself.
If you can answer "yes" to these three questions, your project is the kind of work this Fund is designed to support. If you are unsure, the Steering Committee can help you talk it through before you submit an expression of interest.
Our strategic plan identifies three world-facing Grand Challenges — Solutions for People, Thriving Cities and Communities, and Planetary Health — and three inward-facing ambitions: University for the Future, Future of Work, and Inclusive Leadership and Respectful Engagement — we are committed to addressing. Projects must speak to one or more.
We are looking for projects that integrate across applied science, health, social science, and the humanities. The work should model the kind of interdisciplinary practice that will define the next generation of applied professionals.
We are looking for projects that deepen relationships with our communities (internal and external) and push us to think differently about how we collaborate, where we look for answers, and what counts as impact.
If your answer is "yes" to all three, this Fund is for you. If you are unsure, the Steering Committee can help you find the right pathway. Reach out before submitting your expression of interest.
Find the right fit for your Proposal.
Each tier varies in objective, funding, eligibility, duration, and outcome. Read through to find the right match for the stage and scale of your idea.
Larger-Scaled Projects - Tier 01
Up to $100K/yr - Maximum 2 years
Catalyst Awards for Research Leadership bring co-applicants together to advance existing, maturing, strategically aligned initiatives that promise rapid impact, visibility, and sustainable operation. These are research and scholarship driven, may require an endorsing Department or School partner and evidence of sustainable future funding, and can be stacked with other related awards.
Groups of two to five faculty members spanning two or more APSC disciplines. Endorsing Department or School partner may be required. Evidence of sustainable future funding strengthens the application.
Up to $50K - Maximum 2 years
Community-Engaged Collaborations facilitate transformative research, partnership development, and knowledge mobilization with one or more professional or community partners. They align with Grand Challenges identified in Transforming Tomorrow and produce sustainable, replicable actions and tangible outputs.
One or more faculty members, one or more internal partners, and one or more external partners pursuing participatory community-engaged learning, research, training, and events. Requires an endorsing Department or School partner and evidence of sustainable future funding. Can be stacked with other related awards.
Smaller-Scaled Projects - Tier 03
Up to $20K - Maximum 1 year
Interconnections projects are exploratory, bidirectional exchanges through which proponents develop current opportunities and explore emerging ones, and incubate promising ideas or concepts at an early stage. They may be academic, research, scholarship, or community-service driven.
One or more faculty members. Open to early-stage ideas without fully developed partnerships or proposals.
Micro-Scaled Projects - Tier 04
Up to $10K - Two intakes per year
Seed awards support short-term, time-limited, unbudgeted á la carte initiatives or opportunities when they arise, such as special events or visitors. Seeds can also supplement other funded projects when they incur necessary but unexpected expenses, like a visiting scholar or event catering.
One or more faculty members. Seeds operate on two intake windows per year so the program can manage commitments responsibly while still responding to time-sensitive opportunities.
Who can apply, and what funds can be used for.
Eligibility is broad across APSC, and eligible expenses are designed to support the realities of community-engaged and exploratory work, not just conventional research outputs.
APSC faculty members, full-time lecturers and research staff are invited to express their interest now by contacting Ron Kellett, Special Advisor, AppliedOne Academic Programming. rkellett@sala.ubc.ca.
Applicants should ensure the support of their Department Head or School Director before applying. Departmental cash and in-kind contributions to a proposed project are welcomed and may be considered favourably during review, but are not required.
If you have a question about eligibility, including discretionary expenses such as creative media production, compensation for Knowledge Holders, or direct payments to partners, please contact the program lead before submitting.
A Five-step process, by design simple.
The application process is deliberately lightweight at the front end and consultative at the back. The first stage is a short expression of interest. From there, the Steering Committee will invite promising proponents to refine and advance proposals.
Questions? Drop by to learn more about the Fund, ask questions, and connect with potential collaborators across the Faculty. Multiple sessions will be scheduled across departments. Sessions run through September 11; contact rkellett@sala.ubc.ca to book a time.
Submit an Expression of Interest (EOI). Email rkellett@sala.ubc.ca to request the form; in return, you will receive a link to a personal folder in Microsoft Teams where you complete it — nothing needs to be emailed back. The form takes under an hour. Deadline: Monday, September 21, 2026. Preview the form here.
If selected for Stage Two, submit a two-page pitch narrative summary (with tier-specific guidance) and a one-page outline budget. Templates and detailed requirements are provided following Stage One selection for Stage Two. Final proposals are due November 12, 2026.
In Stage Two, make a short, public, verbal or illustrated pitch to the Selection Committee. Format and length vary by tier. Pitches will be designed to be shareable and to contribute to the broader Faculty conversation about Applied One.
Funding is allocated based on dialogue, judgement, and the pitch presentation. Successful applicants are invited to a follow-up meeting to discuss collaborative pathways, unique project needs, and tailored support available through the Faculty. Decisions are announced the week of December 7, 2026.
A companion to the Expression of Interest: read this before you begin.
Applied One is one of the principal ways the Faculty of Applied Science will cultivate a community, a culture, and ways of seeing, thinking, working and engaging in a living laboratory that includes architecture, landscape architecture, planning, engineering and design together with our communities of interest. The Fund supports faculty-led initiatives that develop and test those ideas, collaborations and ways of working. One ambition sits behind everything: building the knowledge base for a new generation of Applied Science professional, a critical thinker and active listener who can integrate ethical, design, technical and social knowledge, and thrive in a culture that is ethical, experiential, engaged and entrepreneurial. Proposals will be read with that ambition in mind. The strongest will not simply do good work; they will show the Faculty something about how its future could look and work.
Six questions will guide the evaluation of every proposal. They are intentionally broad. The Selection Committee will apply them through a more detailed rubric, adapted to each funding category, but the rubric stays inside these six areas; nothing you read here will be replaced by something you have not seen.
The Expression of Interest includes one section for each point below, in the same order.
Will the initiative help build the culture and scope Applied One anticipates? We are looking for projects on the human-centred built environment (at the scale of buildings, landscapes, cities, infrastructure or systems) that is integrative across applied science, health, social sciences and the humanities, and that joins design, technology, policy and community engagement rather than treating them separately.
Does the initiative advance the Faculty's strategic plan? That may mean the world-facing Grand Challenges (Solutions for People, Thriving Cities and Communities, Planetary Health) or the inward-facing ambitions of University for the Future, Future of Work, and Inclusive Leadership and Respectful Engagement, including the attributes of a new APSC professional. Name the priorities your work serves and show the connection.
Will the initiative produce significant impact: to research, scholarship or creative practice in the field, and to the Faculty? The form asks how you would define and measure that impact.
We value concepts, models and methods that can be sustained, replicated or scaled, and that demonstrate new collaborative processes, learning or research communication.
Are the proponents qualified and prepared to carry a proposal through? Tell us how the team's experience, composition and commitments position it to succeed with the work as proposed. Name your co-investigators within UBC, and any collaborators and partners beyond it.
Is the proposal realistically scoped? Are the resources requested the right type and amount to sustain it? A well-judged budget calibrated to the work counts. Resources leveraged from other sources strengthen a proposal.
Ready to begin? Submit an Expression of Interest. Stage 1 is short and asks only what the six questions above describe; selected proponents are invited to Stage 2. Support is available at any point. Questions: rkellett@sala.ubc.ca
Indicative dates for the pilot year. Exact dates confirmed with the launch announcement.
Seeds tier operates on two intakes per year, separate from this cycle shown the second one will be announced in spring.
Dialogue and judgement over scoring.
The review emphasizes vision, promise, and impact potential ahead of numerical scoring. The six points of evaluation above guide every selection decision.
✓ A recommendation to refine the proposal before final submission
✓ A suggestion to collaborate with another proposal addressing a similar question
✓ A proposal for phased funding to support staged development
✓ A recommendation on ways to increase available funding by stacking awards
✓ Outline expectations for a final proposal submission
✓ Offers of augmented research facilitation support
If the Rewrite the Rules Fund is not the right vehicle for your project, here are other UBC funding pathways that may align with your work. The Steering Committee can also help you identify a bettersuited opportunity if you reach out before applying.
Contact your Department Head or School Director for guidance on internal opportunities.
A fuller landscape of UBC funding opportunities is being compiled. Contact the program lead for the current list.
Yes. Faculty focus groups shaped the funding categories, the application and evaluation process, and the design of this first cycle.
The Fund is built to learn from experience. Each cycle refines the next: what we learn from the first will shape the second.
The Steering Committee sets direction for the Rewrite the Rules Fund. It identifies opportunities, connects potential collaborators, supports applicants as they develop proposals, and meets with awardees at the end of their projects to shape the next cycle.
The Committee that developed the Fund's initial terms of reference comprises James Olson (Dean, Faculty of Applied Science), Jody Swift (Executive Director, Strategy and Planning), Ron Kellett (Special Advisor, Applied One Academic Programming) and Kyra Laverdiere (Senior Manager, Research Partnerships).
The Steering Committee is distinct from the Selection Committee.
The Selection Committee reviews and critiques proposals and makes funding decisions.
Its members are Professor Vicky Bungay (Associate Dean, Research and Graduate Studies, Faculty of Applied Science), Associate Professor Sara Stevens (School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture), Professor Steven Rogak (Department of Mechanical Engineering), Professor Naoko Ellis (Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering), Professor Chad Sinclair (Department of Materials Engineering) and Associate Professor James Connolly (School of Community and Regional Planning).
This is the first cycle of the Fund, and we are treating it as a genuine experiment: launch, test, refine.
We do not yet know which funding categories will draw the strongest proposals, where the biggest gaps lie, where the application process gets in applicants' way, or what the Selection Committee will find most useful in evaluating a proposal. The first year will tell us more. Subsequent years will reflect what we learn.
“Pilot” is also a signal to you. We are not looking only for safe, fully resolved proposals. Ambition, exploration and a degree of risk, where appropriate to a proposal, are of interest and are encouraged.
Transforming Tomorrow, the Faculty's strategic plan, sets out a vision of thriving people, places and planet. Its world-facing Grand Challenges are Solutions for People, Thriving Cities and Communities, and Planetary Health; its inward-facing ambitions are University for the Future, Future of Work, and Inclusive Leadership and Respectful Engagement. Your proposal must speak to at least one of them.
Beyond that, applicants have considerable latitude. Alignment should be more than a box to tick. It is an invitation to ground your proposal in the questions to which the Faculty has committed, and to show how your proposal moves them forward in a way that would not otherwise happen.
If you are unsure whether your work aligns, the Steering Committee is willing to talk it through before you submit an Expression of Interest. Contact rkellett@sala.ubc.ca.
No. The Fund and the space allocation process for the Applied One building run on separate tracks, and that process is not yet underway. A Rewrite the Rules award does not inherently create a claim on space in the future building.
The two are connected in a different way. Projects funded through Rewrite the Rules can demonstrate how the limited floor space of the shared, interdisciplinary environments proposed for Applied One could be used, and can inform how they might eventually be programmed. Alternatively, there may be opportunities in other suitable Applied One-adjacent spaces.
Consult your Department Head or School Director before you apply.
For the Interconnections and Seeds tiers, your Head or Director should be aware of your proposal, but formal endorsement is not required unless unit resources — space, people or money — are implicated.
For the Catalysts and Community-Engaged Collaborations tiers, endorsement from your Department or School, and from external partners where applicable, is required. An email is sufficient at the Expression of Interest stage; commitments are verified in Stage Two.
Evidence of departmental cash or in-kind contribution is viewed favourably during selection but is not required, and its absence will not count against a proposal.
Rewrite the Rules is designed to make applying straightforward.
The first step is a short Expression of Interest (EOI) form, designed to take under an hour.
If your Expression of Interest is invited to advance, the second stage expands the EOI to roughly two pages, supplemented by a one-page budget. Guidelines will be provided for selected proposals. That is the whole package — no long-form application, no detailed workplan, and no required letters of support beyond short acknowledgements of agreement to collaborate to the degree appropriate.
Selected proposals are then pitched to the Selection Committee in an open setting. The pitch can be short and need not be polished. We would rather evaluate a compelling idea presented clearly and plainly than a rehearsed performance. Guidelines are provided when proposals are invited.
A short, scheduled session in which you present your proposal to the Selection Committee alongside other proponents. You can use slides, sketches, a video, physical objects, or simply talk. Format and length vary by tier and will be confirmed in advance.
“Public” means you will not be pitching to the Selection Committee alone in a closed room. Other applicants and interested faculty will be present. This is intentional. The pitch sessions are a moment when the Faculty gets to see what colleagues in other disciplines are doing and thinking about, and where collaborations nobody planned can be inspired.
Pitches are not expected to be formal presentations. Come with a clear idea and a willingness to discuss it. Guidelines are provided when proposals are invited.
Awardees meet with the Steering Committee at the end of their project to talk through the experience, including what did not work. We are more interested in an honest account of a project that ran into difficulty than a polished summary that tells us little. This is a pilot, and the shortcomings are as useful to us as the successes. Those conversations feed directly into the next cycle.
Project outcomes would ultimately appear in a Rewrite the Rules gallery in formats to suit the project- a short executive summary drawn directly from the proposal, a video, images, or a public event.
Yes, in specific circumstances. Stacking means adding a Rewrite the Rules component to work already supported from another source, rather than combining two Rewrite the Rules awards. Catalysts and Community-Engaged Collaborations awards may be stacked with other related awards where synergistic. Be sure to highlight the Applied One elements.
Awardees are also encouraged, but not required, to propose collaborative pivots during their award term, and to pool funds with other awardees to support shared effort, engagement or student participation.
The Selection Committee may recommend phased funding, where a proposal is supported in stages rather than all at once, and may also recommend that two proposals addressing similar or complementary questions consider joining forces. These are recommendations, not conditions.
APSC tenured and tenure-track faculty are invited to express their interest now by contacting Ron Kellett, Special Advisor, Applied One Academic Programming.
UBC is located on the traditional, ancestral and unceded territories of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm people (Musqueam; which means 'People of the River Grass') and Syilx Okanagan Nation. The land has always been a place of learning for the Musqueam and Syilx peoples, who for millennia have passed on their culture, history and traditions from one generation to the next.