What PNG Can Learn from Australia’s Pacific Research Program

By Bernard Yegiora

PNG often speaks about strengthening research capacity and improving the quality of higher education. What is less clear is how this ambition is translated into practice. One of the most effective models I have encountered comes not from PNG, but from Australia: the Pacific Research Program (PRP) administered by the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT).

The Pacific Research Program works because it treats capacity building as a system, not a slogan. It is deliberately designed around mentorship, exposure to high-quality research environments, and clear performance expectations. In doing so, it offers a practical template for how PNG could strengthen its higher education sector—if we are willing to engage with it strategically.

I have participated in several PRP-supported initiatives, including the Lowy Institute Emerging Leaders Dialogue, the Pacific Research Colloquium, and the Pacific Visitor Program at the Australian National University. What distinguishes these experiences is not prestige, but structure. Participants are not passive recipients of training; they are embedded in active research ecosystems.

Programs like the Pacific Research Program matter because they build research capacity through mentorship and measurable outputs. Experiences such as the Emerging Leaders Dialogue show how investing in academics strengthens institutions, not just individuals.

The key performance indicators are explicit and non-negotiable: produce outputs. Participants are expected to translate ideas into articles for The Interpreter, policy briefs through ANU platforms, and joint or individual publications in peer-reviewed outlets such as the Australian Journal of International Affairs. This is capacity building with accountability. Attendance alone is not enough; delivery matters.

Equally important is the mentorship model. Early- and mid-career Pacific scholars are paired with senior researchers who provide guidance on framing research questions, navigating peer review, and building publication strategies. Informal networks are converted into professional relationships. For scholars from small academic systems like PNG’s, this kind of mentorship is not a luxury—it is essential.

This is where the relevance to PNG becomes stark. One of the structural weaknesses in PNG’s higher education sector is the absence of strong, discipline-based mentorship pipelines, particularly at PhD level. Many academics pursue advanced research without access to senior national mentors in their fields. The Pacific Research Program demonstrates that this gap can be addressed deliberately, if it is treated as a policy priority rather than left to individual resilience.

The policy implication is straightforward. PNG’s Department of Foreign Affairs and DHERST should work closely with Australia’s DFAT to leverage the Pacific Research Program as a core capacity-building instrument, not merely as an individual opportunity. This means identifying PNG academics strategically, aligning participation with national higher-education priorities, and ensuring that research outputs feed back into PNG universities and policy debates.

Rather than spreading limited resources thinly across undergraduate and master’s scholarships, PNG should prioritise research-active academics, PhD candidates, and early-career scholars who can multiply impact through teaching, supervision, and publication. This aligns directly with PNG’s own National Standards for universities, particularly National Standard 7, which requires institutions to have staff with appropriate qualifications, experience, and skills.

From Australia’s perspective, programs like the Pacific Research Program deliver high returns because they build Pacific research capability that remains embedded in national institutions rather than migrating offshore. That logic should matter to PNG as well. PhD-trained, research-active academics anchor quality, mentor future scholars, and strengthen universities over the long term.

The Pacific Research Program shows that mentorship, exposure, and accountability can be integrated into a single, coherent framework. PNG does not need to reinvent this model. It needs to adapt it, partner with it, and embed it into a coordinated national strategy for higher education development.

If PNG is serious about lifting research standards, strengthening universities, and building long-term intellectual capacity, programs like this should sit at the centre of engagement between DFAT, PNG’s Department of Foreign Affairs, and DHERST—not at the margins. Capacity is not built through rhetoric. It is built through systems that demand output, reward collaboration, and invest in people who remain in the system.