European Union

While in Hanoi, Prime Minister Takaichi Sanae also laid out her revamped vision for the "Free and Open Indo-Pacific" strategy.

Anger over an American media report referring to the country as “Scambodia” needs to be redirected to the root cause of an old pun.

Analyzing Hanoi’s foreign policy from the perspective of its relationship with a single major power misses the forest for the trees.

Unpacking the recent Congress.

Tokyo should take two-step approach to support safe passage in the Strait of Hormuz, starting by leveraging its existing force in the region.

Britain recognized a genocide, then did nothing to stop it.

The Iran war is forcing India to confront the tension between strategic autonomy and its commitment to the Indo-Pacific framework. 

On the 25th anniversary of the Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders Version 3 (CCMD-3), we revisit the widely repeated claim that China “removed” homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in 2001 – and make the case for retiring it.

BRICS is a climate-critical grouping whether it chooses to be or not.

In niche corners of the Chinese internet, discussions of the very first dynasty stand in for critiques of today’s China.

The Bangladesh Air Force risks becoming a paper tiger, if it isn’t already. 

Amid China-U.S. competition over critical minerals, Kazakhstan is positioned to become a key partner for Washington. 

It's not about the economy at all: In a system that defines not struggling as a crime, opting out is a public offense.

Considerable attention has been paid to the threat of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, but analysts have arguably overlooked a more immediate danger facing the Ryukyu Island chain.

The summit is unlikely to deliver decisive breakthroughs. Instead, its importance lies in how it helps manage competition under pressure.

Despite plans to go from zero to four nuclear power plants by 2050, Kazakhstan’s strategy comes with significant challenges.

Ask any academic about how they have come to their present station in their careers and they will talk at some point about the role of chance. The conversation in a queue at a coffee break at a conference, the sitting in on a departmental seminar series, the email on a disciplinary mailing list: the joining of ideas, the crossing of peoples’ paths.

Out of these moments has much research emerged. To take one example, the 2004 volcanic ash cloud that closed transatlantic air transport for over a week, trapping hundreds of European international relations scholars in Canada as their conference was ending, reputedly produced dozens of articles, funding bids and collaborative networks as people found they had time to sit, talk, brainstorm and advance ideas that might otherwise have been lost to the constant pressures of managing a regular workload.

All of which is to say that the advancement of knowledge through research doesn’t follow a straight or foreseeable path. And the growing focus of funding bodies on strategic priorities risks undermining the valuable possibilities that come from a rich and supportive research environment.

The move towards funding priority topics is partly understandable by the desire of funders to demonstrate their direct contribution to areas of political and public interest: research for gain instead of research for its own sake, if you will. In an age of tightening budgets, performance metrics and stakeholder accountability the incentives are clear.

But we now find ourselves at risk of moving too far in this direction.

Firstly, the world moves fast and uncertainly. If priorities are updated too slowly, then we risk missing important new agendas, but if they move too quickly, there is a danger that funding never lasts long enough to allow for the production of sufficiently deep analysis and findings. Supporting researchers to follow many paths – that may for time to time becoming more salient – actually improves the ability to speak to changing needs.

Secondly, priority relies on the existence of a pool of experienced researchers who can bid into designated pots of funding. But if there isn’t the support to allow such people to learn and develop in the absence of targeted monies, then the upsides of prioritisation are severely eroded.

And finally, research has never been just about material benefits. The pursuit of knowledge – in all its forms – is a human endeavour, with intrinsic value. Just as higher education can’t be simply a vehicle for getting a better-paid job, so too must research retain its wider purpose of supporting our understanding of the world and of ourselves.

That means we need to protect funding streams both within individual institutions and from external funders to allow researchers the opportunity to pursue their own agendas and ideas, and to be able to share, discuss and develop them with their communities of practice.

Having been a chair of UACES, which brings together European Studies researchers from across the world and from multiple disciplines, I have been repeatedly delighted and educated by what the rich tapestry of a vibrant and mutually supportive research environment can bring to my own work and to the full range of stakeholders, from politicians to the general public, activists to journalists.

If we can continue to preserve the value of supporting research in the broadest sense then we can not only make targeted funding work more effectively and sustainably, but also ensure that the broadest values of research are protected and shared with everyone.

Simon Usherwood is Professor of Politics and International Studies at the Open University and former Chair of UACES.

The post Why Research Needs a Supportive Environment as Much as Funding Priorities appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Committee meetings, Brussels

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Industry leaders describe a war for talent.

It's clear what the United States is getting out of its new critical minerals initiative, but less obvious how Manila stands to gain from it.