Every research system must choose what to build, because no system can build everything.
The common failure is choosing implicitly — funding whatever is proposed and calling the resulting distribution a strategy.
What makes a priority achievable
- Existing capability to build on — priorities from nothing take a decade.
- People who can supervise in that area.
- Infrastructure that exists or can be maintained.
- A domestic problem or advantage that justifies the focus.
- Sustained funding over a long enough horizon.
- A priority missing any of these is an aspiration.
Where local advantage exists
- Problems specific to local conditions that others cannot study.
- Access to particular contexts, populations or environments.
- Existing industry or sector strengths.
- Regional relevance where findings apply across neighbouring systems.
- These are more defensible than competing on globally crowded topics.
The cost of not choosing
- Resources spread too thin to build depth anywhere.
- No critical mass, so no self-sustaining community.
- Infrastructure that serves nobody fully.
- Difficulty attracting collaborators, who look for depth.
- Not choosing is a choice, and usually a poor one.
What priorities should not become
- A restriction that blocks good work outside them.
- Fixed for so long that they outlive their justification.
- Set without the researchers who would deliver them.
- Chasing whatever is internationally fashionable.
- Priorities should concentrate effort, not exclude.
Implementing
- Fund for long enough to build something — short cycles produce nothing durable.
- Include training capacity, not only projects.
- Include infrastructure and its maintenance.
- Include support functions.
- Review periodically with real willingness to change.
Measuring whether it worked
- Is there more capability than before — people, not just papers?
- Is the area self-sustaining without special funding?
- Are people staying in it?
- Are others seeking collaboration in it?
- Output alone does not answer any of these.
One thing worth remembering
A priority without supervision capacity in that area is an aspiration rather than a plan.
Funding projects in a field where nobody can train the next generation produces output for a few years and nothing afterwards — which is the most common way priority-setting fails.
Câu hỏi thường gặp
What makes a research priority achievable?
Existing capability to build on, people who can supervise in that area, maintainable infrastructure, a domestic problem or advantage justifying the focus, and sustained funding.
Where does local advantage lie?
Problems specific to local conditions, access to particular contexts or environments, existing sector strengths, and regional relevance — more defensible than crowded global topics.
What is the cost of not choosing?
Resources spread too thin for depth, no critical mass or self-sustaining community, infrastructure serving nobody fully, and difficulty attracting collaborators who look for depth.
What should priorities not become?
A restriction blocking good work outside them, fixed beyond their justification, set without the researchers who would deliver them, or chasing international fashion.
What makes a priority an aspiration rather than a plan?
Lacking supervision capacity in that area — funding projects where nobody can train the next generation produces output for a few years and nothing afterwards.
