New Zealand academics have accused their government of ¡°tinkering¡± after cabinet approved changes to the country¡¯s research assessment exercise.

Education minister Chris Hipkins said alterations to the Performance-Based Research Fund (PBRF) would boost recognition of M¨¡ori, Pacific, disabled and early career researchers. ¡°These changes reflect our commitment to equity and wellbeing¡­and our vision for a sustainable, diverse and representative research workforce,¡± he said.

¡°As the fund continues to evolve and change, New Zealanders will benefit from greater access to diverse research.¡±

But the changes have not satisfied academic representatives who believe the PBRF?marginalises locally focused scholarship?and saddles researchers with a huge administrative burden for little benefit.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

¡°Tinkering with a fundamentally broken system doesn¡¯t benefit the public, learners or staff,¡± said Tertiary Education Union national secretary Sandra Grey.

Julie Douglas, vice-president of the union¡¯s industrial and professional committee, said the reforms were disappointing. ¡°This is just another example of the entrenched ignorance of our academic workloads.¡±

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

The PBRF guides the annual allocation of NZ$315 million (?159 million) of research funds based on a six-yearly assessment of research quality, along with annual measurements of PhD completions and external research income. The changes follow an independent review, which reported in early 2020, and sector consultations from November.

They include boosting the share of funds driven by output from M¨¡ori and Pacific researchers, through adjustments to weightings used to calculate funding distributions. The external research income component, which comprises 20 per cent of PBRF funding, will also be reoriented to take greater account of overseas and non-government investment.

The government will also ask the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) and a ¡°sector reference group¡± to develop a broader definition of research that acknowledges efforts not easily categorised as basic or applied, with submission requirements changed to reflect the new definition.

The PBRF¡¯s objectives and guiding principles will also be strengthened. And the TEC will stop reporting ¡°average quality score metrics¡± of research intensity, which have been criticised as superficial and meaningless.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

Mr Hipkins¡¯??shows that most of the measures received lukewarm support in sector consultations, with some actively opposed. The only changes that attracted strong backing involved liberalisation of the ¡°extraordinary circumstances¡± criteria, which recognise disruption of academics¡¯ research output because of factors?such as family or community responsibilities, and simpler ¡°new and emerging¡± criteria for early career academics with relatively few publications behind them.

Mr Hipkins said he wanted to ¡°build on the successes¡± of the PBRF while prioritising ¡°continuity, stability and clarity¡± for the sector. ¡°I intend on striking a balance between system shifts and the cost of change,¡± his report says. ¡°This is particularly important as we continue to manage the complex challenges of Covid-19.¡±

The TEC has been charged with developing new PBRF guidelines by mid-2023, ahead of the next evaluation in 2025. The sector reference group is expected to be appointed by the end of July.

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com