News

The Performance-Based Research Fund is set to undergo changes in an effort to save time and reduce compliance costs for researchers. In a 26 August press release, Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment, Steven Joyce, confirmed that a review is underway.

The Government plans to increase investment in the PBRF scheme from $250 million to $300 million per annum by 2016 or 2017.

To make sure that the Government gets “the best value possible for this investment,” several objectives have been outlined. The research assessment process is to be simplified, reducing costs and saving time. Universities will be encouraged to employ and invest in new researchers. Particular emphasis will be placed on universities that attract research income from non-government investors.

According to Joyce, the PBRF’s purpose is to “reward and encourage excellent tertiary education research by assessing research quality, allocating funding based on results, and publishing information on research performance.” He added that the fund “supports the Government’s wider science and innovation objectives by supporting research that provides and develops new talent.”

The PBRF awarded the University of Otago $53 million for 2013. This amounted to 20.34 per cent of total PBRF funding, 10.32 per cent less than was awarded to the University of Auckland.

The fund has been accused of facilitating an academic culture that encourages research at the expense of teaching. Among its critics is Associate Professor Gordon Sanderson, the recipient of John Key’s $30,000 Supreme Tertiary Teaching Award. After receiving his award earlier this year, he told lecturers that “[Otago] University is not very enthusiastic about teaching.”

The PBRF has also been accused of incentivising creative accounting on the part of universities, who in the past have often drawn up contracts in order to maximise the amount of research occurring during the PBRF review period. Victoria University of Wellington took this approach in the latest round of PBRF, and ended up topping two of the four measures of research quality.

Otago’s Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Research and Enterprise, Richard Blaikie, agrees that adjustments to the PBRF may be necessary. “The PBRF has been in place for a decade now, so a review is timely.”

Regarding the University’s participation in the review, Blaikie added that “students and the OUSA should also be encouraged to consider submitting their views into the process either formally or informally by talking to the staff members,” as “one of the purposes of the PBRF is to support world-leading research-led teaching and learning at degree and postgraduate levels.”

Blaikie addressed the issue of compliance costs associated with the PBRF in particular. “Compliance costs are high for the six-yearly quality evaluation component of the PBRF, which accounts for 60 per cent of the funding. However, the research degree completion and external research income components, which are evaluated annually through institutional returns, have very low compliance costs.”

Blaikie acknowledged the time-consuming nature of PBRF rounds. “For the quality evaluation, the time required for academic and general staff to prepare evidence portfolios, enter and verify research publication data and meet other submission requirements has also grown in recent rounds, so we support the principle of the current review to seek ways to reduce both the financial costs and time-consuming nature of the exercise.”

Addressing Otago University’s probable participation in the review process, Blaikie stated that “views from the University community” would be consulted. This would include “individuals, academic departments and schools, and service divisions.”

Blaikie criticised the PBRF’s efforts in 2012, admitting that the process was “more time-consuming and cumbersome than it should have been.

“Other flaws or potential improvements, which may be related to specific technical aspects of the process or discipline-specific issues, will be raised through the internal discussions that are currently being held in response to this consultation document.”

OUSA President Francisco Hernandez supports the move, but has called for a similar fund to encourage excellence in teaching. “Funding for research is always good, but we think there should be a PBTF; some sort of performance based teaching fund that incentivises, encourages and rewards good teaching.

“Good teachers lead to good research, as they inspire and encourage people to go on to postgraduate work. The link between them is quite clear. We don’t know why the government isn’t doing more to incentivise good teaching.”