STIP (science, technology, and innovation policy/es) affect how rules, methods and practices are designed and applied to develop basic or applied research within national borders. Literature on STIP has been fertile in multiple streams, such as theoretical/conceptual frameworks for improving STIP. This study built on the literature stream by unveiling the underlying structure of STIP expressed in the key areas and research fields explicitly supported for the case of Colombia 2005–2018 via co-word network analysis. We empirically identify the changing STIP priorities between two government administrations. While government-A prioritized Physical Sciences and Life Sciences and gave room for bi-disciplinary field communities, government-B doubled Health Sciences presence and balanced the participation of all areas. Social Sciences and Humanities had transversal participation in research field clusters. There were three fields with the highest weighted degree in both governments: renewable energy, sustainability, and the environment; general agricultural and biological sciences; and general medicine. This study provides a novel view based on well-established techniques to empirically study the structure of STIP and the effect of the government agenda for managing national science, technology, and innovation capacities by providing direction through research-oriented funding and proposal calls.