Academy submission to the University Advisory Group’s phase 1 consultation

The University Advisory Group has been established by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to provide advice to the government on New Zealand’s university system.

To prepare this advice, submissions will be called in phases. Phase 1 consultation will consider the role of universities in New Zealand and the shape of the sector to inform the initial report to Government.

Academy Executive Committee submission 

What should be the primary functions of universities for a contemporary world?

First and foremost, universities have primary functions of teaching and research. In doing so, universities have a care of duty to:

• Support a wide range of disciplines across science, technology, and the humanities, which is vital to the cross- and inter-disciplinary ideals of a ‘universal’ education.
• Support all students across the wide range of backgrounds and cultures that comprise the population of New Zealand, encompassing the issues of equity, diversity and inclusiveness that are the foundations of New Zealand’s educational system, and which are essential to the future of New Zealand.
• Adhere in their mission to support the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
• Fulfil their unique role in New Zealand as centres of fundamental research, not all of which will be immediately applicable to practical outcomes or direct economic returns.
• Fulfil their role in teaching and research to encourage, support and produce the educated citizenry of tomorrow.

What are the barriers (excluding fiscal) that limit the universities from operating efficiently and effectively for the benefit of New Zealand?

Barriers that limit the universities from operating efficiently for the benefit of New Zealand include:

• Limited incentives for world class teaching, research and innovation. The Performance-Based Research Fund (PBRF) helped transiently in relation to research, but has become so diffuse now that the effects are lost.  There are few incentives for the universities to work, for example, with the Crown Research Institutes (CRIs) and Callaghan Innovation to enhance technology transfer because of the different funding mechanisms and reward systems.
• Per student funding as the main funding system incentivises competition for students and duplication of courses and subjects seen as likely to be financially successful, and loss of subjects that are nationally important (most recently seen in many humanities subjects).  This also exacerbates shortages in well qualified staff in these areas.
• No clear process for the coordinating of, or funding mechanism for, national research infrastructure, collections etc, leading to duplications and gaps.
• No national structure for supporting and funding early to mid-career future research-focussed academics.  It is cheaper to employ a junior teaching fellow than a research fellow, and easier to fund the salary from teaching EFTS than from non-existent research funding, so the objective of research-informed teaching is squeezed out from an early stage, and retaining the best and brightest is an ongoing challenge.  The new national research fellowship scheme is a potentially valuable contribution but so small in scale as to make little impact on the problem.
• Real costs of research are hidden and poorly understood, leading to erosion of research infrastructure and diversion of “research-informed teaching funding” to sustaining (inevitably constrained) research.  So called “full cost funding” applies to only a very small proportion of the research activities of universities, and this proportion is steadily diminishing.  Over the last decade most new research funding schemes have been exclusive of the “full cost” component, exacerbating the problem.
• There are also barriers related to teaching such as the Committee on University Academic Programmes (CUAP) Academic Approvals Process resulting in slow approval of new programmes in a fast-changing world. Only three approval rounds per year means that it can be a slow process for universities from conceiving of a new programme to having it approved and available to students.

Can the eight universities function better as a holistic system to meet New Zealand’s needs?

This model generally works well for expensive and resource-intensive disciplines like medicine and engineering. It is not necessarily a model that works well for ‘distributed disciplines’ that have academic bright spots in different universities, or when regional differences dictate the nature of specialties. There may be place-based needs, for example, for Maori students, students living rurally or regional differences in societal pressures, urban centres, environmental conditions, or histories.

There should be a holistic view of what our universities do and to structure the funding mechanisms in a way that facilitates and incentivises cooperative teaching across institutions.  This would mitigate the challenges of small foci of expertise in different institutions that risk being lost.  Joint teaching is difficult in the current competitive model. The positioning of CRIs or National Institutes in conjunction with our universities may help solve this dilemma of cooperative centres.  

How research-intensive do New Zealand universities have to be?

Our universities need to be research-focused and research-intensive. That is the only way to draw the best and brightest academics to work in New Zealand. Good academics want and need to do research, and strive to transfer knowledge nationally and internationally in the best journals and outlets. Without a doubt, strong research is an important factor underpinning strong teaching and the production of top-quality under- and post-graduate students. At the same time, not every researcher needs to have a high teaching load, or are excellent teachers, and a case can be made for having some academics more research-focussed and others more teaching-focused.

A collaborative model across institutions for at least some subjects would facilitate a strong research-teaching nexus by sharing the load and allowing foci of expertise to develop.  A staff member can only become the world expert in a narrow field if they are not burdened by a heavy teaching load across a broad range of fields because they are the only one in the discipline.

What are the most appropriate approaches to ensure excellence in teaching, research, knowledge transfer and community engagement?

The best way to ensure excellence across the board is to hire the very best academics. This means having attractive salaries, competing well in that regard with Australia, industry, and well-serviced infrastructure.

How well are universities performing in the role as critics and consciences of society?

The role of critics and conscience of society universities hold is critical for NZ society and for raising issues for public debate. Universities supporting the safety and wellbeing of those academics who undertake critic and conscience of society roles must be included as part of universities performance in this area.

How well are the universities complying with the requirements in the Education and Training Act 2020 with regards to the Treaty/Te Tiriti?

There has been an increased focus by universities on profiling Te Tiriti o Waitangi and is critical for improving outcomes for Māori staff and students and also meeting the development needs of whānau, hapū, iwi and hapori Māori. However, implementing policy intentions regarding Te Tiriti into the everyday working of universities will be an ongoing endeavour that involves supporting staff and students at all levels.