Academy response to the University Advisory Group phase 3 consultation

Submission from the Academy of the Royal Society Te Apārangi

December 2024

The Academy of the Royal Society Te Apārangi welcomes the opportunity to comment on the third phase of the University Advisory Group consultation.

The mission of the Academy of the Royal Society Te Apārangi is to honour, recognise and encourage outstanding achievement in the sciences, technologies and humanities, as well as to assist and support the activities of Royal Society Te Apārangi, including providing independent and nonpartisan advice to government policy makers and the wider community on science, technology and the humanities.

This submission has been prepared by the Academy Executive Committee, who are elected by the Society’s Fellows, but it does not necessarily express the views of all the Academy’s Fellowship.

Question 8) How could the Performance-Based Research Fund (PBRF) best support a continued focus on research excellence, while minimising compliance costs and any other unintended consequences?

It is generally recognised that the PBRF system as we knew it has outlived its utility. While recognising that there needs to be a funding system, the main question is whether tweaking and modifying that system is the aim or if major reform is needed. This necessarily involves the distribution of funding and the need for a reduction in compliance costs. Any new funding system will need to incentivise, grow and reward research performance, innovation and excellence.

Options for minimising compliance and maximising benefits include:

1. Restricting the scope of eligible research institutions and research areas, necessitating a system-wide re-evaluation of institutional mission, where not all tertiary institutions should be incentivised to do research. This would require changes to the distribution of funding and mechanisms of funding to Tertiary education providers, so that those out of scope (e.g., due to being less research-intensive) are not overly penalised. 
2. Maintaining a focus on Quality Assurance so that research excellence is recognised and supported. This necessarily will entail some form of assessment and use of metrics that balance the quality and performance of research groups while also recognising excellence by individual researchers and smaller teams. This is in recognition that research excellence is widely distributed among institutions.
3. Recognising and supporting the key role of ECRs in performance excellence of research groups. In this context the current overhead model is not fit for purpose and provides a particularly strong disincentive for employing postdoctoral fellows on grants.  A complete overhaul is required of how overhead costs are budgeted and paid for.
4. One approach for some disciplines might be to consider the distribution of a significant proportion of funding on the basis of output metrics.  A previous pilot by the research committee of Universities New Zealand showed that distributing a large proportion of funding based on output metrics would result in a distribution almost identical to that achieved by individual submissions. However, proxies bring several biases (particularly gender and ethnicity) so they do not necessarily measure the quality of all research, even in disciplines that use metrics. Metrics can produce different results for the same publications with an article with a high ranking on Google scholar, not necessarily having the same ranking in Scopus or other systems. In addition, citations do not always mean cutting edge research, nor do they necessarily indicate real impact. For example, textbooks that are vital in any discipline may achieve high citation rates because everyone needs a basic tool. However, skillful research that is ahead of its time may take longer to be cited or have impact. There is a good argument, therefore, that a combination of metrics plus case studies, or qualitative impact assessment, will be needed.

Generative AI can be trained and used for compliance even though, in its present state, thorough checking will still be required.

9)  How might the Centres of Research Excellence (CoREs) scheme evolve to be responsive to new ways of doing research and allow new centres to emerge while not creating expectations for permanent support of earlier entrants?

CoREs are good models for bringing together national capability within the University sector with international partners to build a critical mass of excellence to address the “big” questions and provide “transformative” benefit to New Zealand. They have generally done this well in the past. If they are to evolve, however, there must be very clear guidelines and procedures for establishing them, prioritising or selecting CoRE disciplines, ensuring they perform to the level intended, and minimising administrative costs.

CoREs and their funding need to be agile and responsive to research priorities and need to have a sunset clause, as priorities or performance dictate. An initial period of 5-7 years (like MBIE research platforms) seems reasonable, with potential for extension in exceptional circumstances. If the new ‘PBRF’ and other research funding (internal and external) vehicles are functioning well within universities, and universities invest in strategic priorities, “proto-CoREs” should continuously be evolving so that they are ready for injection of CoRE funding support to develop national capability and widespread impact and benefit.

In some cases, national centres of research excellence have developed despite not being funded as “CoREs”. The goal of a CoRE, if it demonstrates a long-term need, should be to stand alone through having developed a sustainable business model with a combination of government and private funding. CoRE funding should not be allocated in perpetuity.

11) What changes would provide stronger incentives for universities’ “third mission” of contributing to social, environmental, cultural and economic outcomes?

The designation of "third" is often taken as a hierarchy, but it should not be so. A funding environment that incentivises collaboration with community, government, NGOs, SMEs, and other stakeholder types and facilitate interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research within and between institutions would help. For example, one working model is that funding from MBIE, MPI and Industry specify contributions to social, environmental and economic outcomes, and so these are integrated into the research programme.

Further information

This paper has been developed for the Academy of the Royal Society Te Apārangi. For further information, please contact academy@royalsociety.org.nz  or go to the Royal Society Te Apārangi web page: www.royalsociety.org.nz

Except for figures & the RSNZ logo, expert advice papers are licensed under a Creative Commons 3.0 New Zealand Licence.