The recent government overhaul of tertiary institutions' research funding system has sparked a mix of cautious optimism and critical reflection among academics. This move, which replaces the Performance-Based Research Fund (PBRF) with the Tertiary Research Excellence Fund (TREF), is a significant shift in how research funding is allocated and evaluated. While the new system aims to reduce bureaucracy and streamline the process, it also raises important questions about the future of research in New Zealand.
One of the most notable changes is the elimination of the costly quality evaluation process. Under the PBRF, academics were required to compile portfolios of their research for grading by expert panels, a process that was both time-consuming and expensive. This change, as Tertiary Education Minister Penny Simmonds noted, will significantly reduce compliance costs for tertiary institutions. However, what makes this particularly fascinating is the potential impact on the diversity of research being funded. With the removal of the portfolio evaluation, there is a risk that certain disciplines, particularly those that emerged in the past 20 years and do not have prestigious research journals, may be disadvantaged.
For instance, Māori and indigenous studies, feminist studies, and digital studies could face challenges in securing funding under the new system. As Māori Garrick Cooper, national president of the Tertiary Education Union, pointed out, the use of citation measurement to allocate 30 percent of the fund could disproportionately affect these fields. This raises a deeper question about the criteria used to evaluate research excellence and the need for a more inclusive and diverse research landscape.
From my perspective, the new system's focus on five key measures - research degree completions, external research income, citations in research publications, commercialised research, and citation of research in government policy papers - is a step in the right direction. However, it is crucial to ensure that these measures do not inadvertently marginalise certain disciplines. One thing that immediately stands out is the need for a more nuanced approach to research evaluation, one that takes into account the unique contributions of different fields and the evolving nature of knowledge.
The Association of Scientists co-president Troy Baisden, while broadly supportive of the changes, also emphasised the need for more detail. This highlights the importance of ongoing dialogue and refinement of the new system. It is essential to ensure that the new TREF system provides sensible incentives for academics to pursue high-quality research, while also fostering an environment that encourages innovation and diversity.
In my opinion, the overhaul of the research funding system is a necessary step towards a more efficient and effective allocation of resources. However, it is crucial to remain vigilant and ensure that the new system does not inadvertently create barriers for certain disciplines. As the new system is implemented, it will be important to monitor its impact and make adjustments as needed to ensure that it serves the best interests of New Zealand's research community and the broader public.
What many people don't realise is that the future of research funding is not just about the allocation of resources, but also about the values and priorities that underpin that allocation. As we move forward, it is essential to consider the broader implications of these changes and the potential impact on the diversity and quality of research in New Zealand.
