Setting Research Priorities Across Science, Technology, and Health Sectors: The Tanzania Experience
For which topic were research priorities identified?
science, technology and health
In which location was the research priority setting conducted?
Africa - Tanzania
Why was it conducted at all?
Identifying research priorities is key to innovation and economic growth, since it informs decision makers on effectively targeting issues that have the greatest potential public benefit. As such, the process of setting research priorities is of pivotal importance for favouring the science, technology, and innovation (STI)-driven development of low- and middle-income countries.
What was the objective?
to implement the first cross-sectoral nation-wide research priority setting effort in Tanzania bringing together the science, technology and health sectors
What was the outcome?
a list of 800 research areas
How long did the research prioritization take?
April 2011 - August 2011
Which methods were used to identify research priorities?
How were the priorities for research identified exactly?
Step 1: training of trainers workshop: 21 experts learning how to conduct workshops. Step 2: demonstration workshop: plenary presentations and discussion of research problems and questions, small group discussions to identify priority areas, by consensus list of priority areas compiled, participants were asked to rate each area, small group discussions, final plenary session for consensus. Step 3: priority setting workshops: same procedure as demonstration workshop
Which stakeholders took part?
Stakeholders from 42 sub-sectors in science, technology and health. Training of trainers workshop: 21 participants. Demonstration workshop: over 60 participants. Priority setting workshop: 302 participants.
How were stakeholders recruited?
COSTECH sent letters to the relevant affiliated ministry institutions, universities, and NGOs, asking them to identify participants.
Were stakeholders actively involved or did they just participate?
Stakeholders were mere participants of the research prioritization process; they were not actively involved in the process.