How to Craft a Winning Research Proposal for the CNRS Permanent Researcher Position

December 27, 2025 12 minute read

After the CNRS research synthesis, the research project is the second pillar of your CNRS application. If the synthesis answers “who am I as a researcher?”, then the project answers “what am I going to do if you hire me?”

In this post, we focus entirely on how to write a strong CNRS project, how it differs from the research synthesis, and what the committee expects to see in those four pages.

1. A Quick Reminder: The Application Documents

A CNRS application consists of four documents, as we described in more detail in this article:

a research synthesis
a research project
a CV
a commented list of publications

We go into detail about the research synthesis in a separate blog post here. The key point to remember for this article is simple:

The research project should be four pages long.

Just like for the synthesis, the Section 19 committee itself does not impose a template. The only formal constraint is the page count (8 pages total for research synthesis + research project). Everything else, the structure, the tone, the level of detail, is shaped by committee expectations and long-standing practice.

A small but important aside: this is not quite the same for the CNAP. For the CNAP, you actually receive a fairly explicit project template to follow. We plan to write a separate post on CNAP projects in the future.

2. The Core Difference Between the Project and the Research Synthesis

The research synthesis looks backward: what I have done, what I am good at, how my work fits together. The project, on the other hand, is explicitly forward-looking.

The introduction of your project must not be a recycled version of your synthesis introduction. The committee has already read that. What they want now is where you are going scientifically, what questions you want to tackle next, why now is the right moment, and why you are the right person to do this.

Think of the project as a commitment: you are telling the committee how you will spend the next ~five to ten years of your career if they give you a permanent position. Why five to ten years? This is the approximate time frame in which permanent researchers get re-evaluated and also build a new body of work, so the committee is looking for candidates who are able to project themselves to do high-quality research over approximately that time period. Obviously they are hiring into life-time positions, but it is also normal not to have a full research plan for the next 20-25 years, so the general projection is very important.

3. The Typical Structure of a CNRS Research Project

While there is no official template, successful projects almost always follow the same high-level structure.

3.1. Introduction: Forward-Looking and Project-Driven

The introduction sets the scientific stage, but with a different emphasis than the synthesis. Instead of summarizing past achievements, you should briefly situate the field as it exists now, identify the open problems or bottlenecks, explain why they matter in the medium to long term, and state what your project will bring that is new. You can rely on the reviewers already having read the introduction of your past research, so you do not and should not repeat the basic state of the field anymore. Instead, you can build on the introduction of your research synthesis, and really focus on the problems and limitations you are aiming to address in your future career.

3.2. Scientific Content: Main Project and Additional Directions

This is the largest part of the document. In most cases, there is one main project that takes up the majority of the space. It is also common to include one or several secondary directions or mini-projects. This signals flexibility and long-term depth, as long as the project remains coherent.

A useful internal structure for each project block is:

executive summary, highlighted
brief field context
clear problem statement
proposed solution or approach
what you will actually do, in what time frame

Following this logic makes the project easier to read and evaluate.

3.3. Insertion/Adequacy with your proposed host institution

This section is the final part of the project, and it plays a very specific structural role within the document. After the scientific content has established what you want to do and how you plan to do it, this section explains where and with whom this work will realistically take place. It serves as the point where the project stops being an abstract research plan and becomes anchored in a concrete institutional environment, making the transition from scientific ambition to practical feasibility. In the overall structure of the project, it functions as the closing argument that ties your scientific vision, your timeline, and your collaborations together into a coherent and credible whole. This is such an important part of the project that we dedicate a full section to it further below.

4. Short-Term vs. Long-Term: Make the Timeline Explicit

The committee is hiring you permanently, and as opposed to other countries and systems, there is no tenure track or tenure system. The committee needs to be convinced that you have a clear, concrete plan for the next one to three years, and a credible vision for the next five to ten years and beyond.

Spell this out explicitly. Use formulations like “In the short term, I will…” and “In the long term, I will…”. The short-term plan should be concrete and task-oriented. This can be very similar to how you would be writing a postdoctoral fellowship project, with as much detail as you can and with a good portion of realism. The long-term plan can be broader and less detailed in terms of concrete action points, but it still needs to feel real and grounded. Note that it can be difficult but it is important to have a good balance between the short and long term paragraphs: do not neglect one over the other.

5. People Matter: Say Who You Will Work With

Your project should never sound like something you will do alone. Whenever relevant, name specific people in your host laboratory, mention groups or teams you will interact with, and explain how collaborations will work in practice. This shows that your project is realistic and that you will integrate smoothly into the lab. Beyond your host institution, you can spell out the concrete people and institutions elsewhere you plan to collaborate with - but always mention them in the context of your proposed work.

6. Connecting the Project to French Research Priorities

Your project must clearly connect to French national research efforts, major infrastructures, or long-term strategic priorities. This aspect is far more important in the project than in the synthesis, and it is something the committee reads very carefully.

In practice, this means that your project should never look like an isolated, purely individual research program. You need to show that what you propose naturally plugs into the French research landscape as it exists today and as it is expected to evolve over the next decade. This can take many forms: contributions to major national or European instruments, involvement in large collaborative programs, participation in long-term infrastructure development, or alignment with nationally identified scientific priorities.

Successful projects usually make this connection explicit by naming concrete programs, instruments, consortia, or initiatives and explaining what role the candidate will play within them. The emphasis is not on listing everything France is involved in, but on clearly articulating how your expertise strengthens existing national efforts and helps France maintain or develop leadership in a given area. If your work contributes to preparation phases, upgrades, long-term R&D, or methodological developments that will underpin future facilities, say so explicitly.

This is also the place where the committee expects to see that your project is realistic in a French context: that the necessary infrastructure exists (or will exist in a tangible time frame), that there are active groups working on related problems, and that your work will generate synergies rather than duplication. A strong project makes it obvious that hiring you is not just beneficial for your own career, but that it meaningfully reinforces French research at a national and international level.

7. Always Anchor Your Project to a Clear Scientific Question

One of the most important points when writing the project is consistency:

Everything you propose should be clearly tied back to the main scientific question or goal you introduce at the very beginning of the document.

Whether you plan to develop or extend theoretical models, implement large-scale computational simulations, carry out observations, analyse data, or contribute to the design and construction of instruments, you should always make explicit how this work serves your central research objective. The committee should never be left wondering why a particular task, method, or development is useful. Each component of the project needs to earn its place by contributing to the bigger picture.

A good mental check is to ask yourself, for every section or sub-project

“How does this help me answer my main research question?”

If the link is not obvious on the page, it will not be obvious to the reviewers either. Making these connections explicit helps the committee see the coherence, relevance, and ambition of your project, and it shows that you are thinking strategically rather than assembling a list of disconnected activities.

8. Adequacy with the Host Laboratory: A Non-Negotiable Section

Every strong project includes about half a page on what is often called “insertion”, “adequacy”, or “integration” into the host laboratory. This section is absolutely non‑negotiable, and the committee pays very close attention to it.

At its core, this section must answer two questions clearly and symmetrically. First, what does the host laboratory gain if you are hired? Second, what do you gain, scientifically and structurally, by joining this laboratory rather than another one? Both perspectives matter equally.

On the laboratory side, you should explain concretely what you bring in. This can include specific expertise, methodologies, software or experimental know‑how, leadership on particular topics, or the ability to connect existing activities within the lab. Strong adequacy sections often show how the candidate complements existing strengths rather than duplicating them: filling a missing skill gap, reinforcing a strategic research axis, or enabling new directions that were previously difficult to pursue. If your presence allows the lab to strengthen its role in a national or international project, say so explicitly.

On your side as a candidate, you should explain why this laboratory is the right place for your project to succeed. This is where you highlight concrete elements such as access to unique infrastructure or data, existing experimental platforms, strong theoretical or technical expertise in the team, or long‑standing involvement in major collaborations that your project naturally connects to. The committee wants to see that your project is not abstract, but grounded in a very real research environment.

This section is also the right place to name people again. You should explicitly mention researchers, engineers, teams, or groups you will work with, and describe how different parts of your project interact with their expertise. Listing names is not only acceptable, it is expected. It demonstrates that your project has already been thought through in terms of integration and collaboration.

Beyond the host laboratory itself, you should project this integration outward. Highlight existing or planned national and international collaborations, explain how your work fits into broader networks, and show how your position in the lab will allow you to act as a bridge between institutions, projects, or communities. This is particularly important for projects linked to large instruments, long‑term infrastructures, or multi‑institutional programmes.

Overall, think of this section as a forward‑looking counterpart to the skills section in the research synthesis. Instead of describing what you are good at today, you explain how your expertise will be used, amplified, and embedded in a specific laboratory over the coming years. A strong adequacy section makes it obvious that hiring you is a strategic gain for the lab and the French scientific community alike, and that the lab is the natural place for your research to flourish.

9. Figures and Bibliography

Figures play the same role as in the synthesis: they clarify ideas and highlight key concepts. They should be readable, have clear captions, and be explicitly discussed in the text. If you have preliminary results for your proposed project, it is a great idea to show them in a figure! See what we said about figures for your past research document.

The bibliography follows the same rules as for the research synthesis. It counts toward the page limit, self-citations are expected, and work listed as “in preparation” should not appear. We discuss this in detail in the research-synthesis post, which we link here.

10. General Writing Advice for a Strong Project

Many of the general writing principles that apply to the research synthesis also apply directly to the project, and it is worth keeping them firmly in mind when you draft this document.

You should write in the first person throughout, be explicit about your role, and avoid vague or overly cautious formulations. Quantify your objectives whenever possible, be concrete about methods and expected outcomes, and do not hesitate to highlight what makes your profile stand out. Just like in the synthesis, clarity of structure matters a lot: use short executive summaries for sections, guide the reader through your logic, and make the document easy to skim.

Finally, remember that this is not a journal article but a job application. The goal is not to be exhaustive, but to be convincing, readable, and memorable for a committee that will read many projects in a limited amount of time.

11. Final Advice

The research synthesis and the project should read as two parts of the same story. The synthesis explains how you got here; the project explains where you are going. If you manage to make that link clear and coherent, your project naturally reinforces everything the committee has already learned about you. At that point, the document is no longer just a plan on paper, but a confident and credible statement that you are ready to grow into a permanent research position and to shape your field over the long term.

Share on

X Facebook LinkedIn Bluesky