Academy submission to the University Advisory Group phase 2 consultation

The mission of the Academy of 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 policymakers 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.

In responding to this consultation, it is acknowledged that there is a need for a better differentiated and coordinated higher education system to reduce competition and inefficiencies. Key issues include:

• The review is addressing universities, but polytechnics and other components are missing and need to be included in any national coordination effort.
• Much closer administrative and teaching coordination required between different higher education providers, especially in the regions. For example, aligning or merging infrastructure between polytechnics and their local university, with a pipeline arrangement where appropriate, as is the case with the US State College system.
• Academic leadership of universities has been hollowed out and needs to be revived and reinforced, including at governance level

Quality Assurance

Could the current arrangements for quality assurance be improved? 

There is a need to ensure that our universities and university programmes operate at an international level, and that these meet the needs of our nation. We therefore recognise that with much of our university activities publicly funded there is a clear need for a quality assurance system to operate to maintain public confidence that our universities are meeting our needs.

Quality assurance could be improved in the following ways:

1)      Technological Integration: Utilise Artificial Intelligence (AI) and advanced IT systems for better data management and assessment tracking to reduce errors and improve efficiency. For example, use AI to reduce the workload for academics and research offices on the parts of the process that would be better done by AIs. One of those would be developing the kinds of assessment rubrics that will work to give a wholistic assessment of research within any given disciplinary context. A major problem with the PBRF was that it was extremely intense on time. One beauty of AI, well used, is that it can automate parts of the process that do not require individualised human input.

2)      Incorporate selected elements from the UK’s Research Excellence Framework (REF) and Australia’s Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) processes in order to more effectively use the assessment process as a large-scale research development tool:

a)       Using the UK’s REF (Research Excellence Framework) Process as a model:

i)        The focus on three main areas was already there in the PBRF (Output, Impact, and Environment). But the weightings were controversial and the final result of the feedback process in 2023–24 still had ‘outputs’ strongly weighted above ‘impact’ or ‘environment’.

ii)       Mitigation: Impact Case Studies could be added, at an institution level, to showcase how research has influenced the economy, society, culture, and public policy, emphasising real-world applications of research. Contributions to the research environment such as research leadership, building collaborations, developing networks and supporting and mentoring ECRs should be more highly and explicitly valued in the process. This is forward-looking, so that the assessment rounds also become a developmental tool.

iii)     Instead of evaluating individual researchers, assess research units or departments to encourage collective excellence and collaboration.

b)      Using the Australian ERA (Excellence in Research for Australia) Process:

i)        National Report: Produce a national report summarising the state of research quality across institutions, providing benchmarks and identifying areas for improvement

ii)       Continuous Improvement: Implement a system for continuous improvement, where institutions receive feedback and are encouraged to develop action plans for addressing identified weaknesses.

iii)     However, ERA’s metrics-based assessment—used alongside peer review to provide quantitative data on research performance, such as citation analysis, publication counts, and research income—is highly problematical for Humanities and Creative Arts. Assessment models should be tailored to achieve the appropriate balance of qualitative and quantitative data appropriate to the given discipline or interdisciplinary areas.

Ultimately, the quality assurance system becomes a competition for a fixed pool of funding. The risk is that unhealthy competition and “gaming” the system drives up submission / compliance costs and undermines the accuracy and value of the exercise. It would be better to have some flex in the fixed pool. Set benchmarks and fund accordingly, so as quality goes up, the pool also increases over time.

Beyond quality assurance, what incentives or policies are needed or desirable to promote excellence in teaching, research and knowledge transfer?

Excellence in teaching, research and knowledge transfer is a hallmark of our universities. Incentives and policies should be weighted to promote excellence in teaching, research and knowledge transfer in accordance with the goals of the overall system and balanced by each institution’s part in the system.  These priorities should be very transparent, so that the universities can provide a record of their peoples’ performance relevant to national priorities. 

Different universities should have different priority weightings – some have engineering schools, some vet schools, some medicine, some teach large numbers, some much fewer.  If the government wants to drive the system to a particular value of excellence, it should be clear about what that excellence looks like.

The government should incentivise excellent performance through policies and incentives.  However, it should be up to the universities, as autonomous entities with academic freedom, to determine how to achieve excellence. To achieve this, Universities New Zealand should agree about what excellence is, and then develop t internal systems in line with those agreed descriptors. Differences in disciplines and size should not preclude agreement about excellence.

Specific suggestions include:

Teaching

• Establish further national and institutional teaching awards to recognise outstanding educators, including a specific categories for teaching-led research, and research-led teaching.
• Offer further grants and fellowships specifically for innovative teaching projects, along the lines of the US Spencer Foundation, who explicitly promote innovation and collaboration.
• The quality assurance of academic programmes currently rests with the Committee for University Academic Programmes (CUAP), a sub-delegation from Universities New Zealand. CUAP, or any future committee or process for assuring the quality of academic programmes in New Zealand needs to respect university autonomy but also ensure a common framework that enables peer review of proposals. This is a strength of the current university system in New Zealand which needs to be continued whether this is through CUAP or some other process.
   

Research

• Develop fair and comprehensive research performance metrics that recognise diverse research outputs, including publications, patents, and community impact
• Promote partnerships between universities and industry through collaborative research projects, internships, and joint ventures. Seed funding to incentivise such projects could be part of the national science, technology and innovation landscape.
• Strengthen technology and social transfer offices and guidance to facilitate the commercialisation and socialisation of research findings.
   

Policy Setting

Are the policy-setting structures and arrangements for higher education optimal? Are there options for improvement?

One problem is policy fragmentation. The separation of responsibilities between the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) can lead to fragmented policies and strategies, particularly where education and innovation overlap. Ensuring effective communication and coordination between these ministries can be challenging, potentially resulting in delays or misalignment in policy implementation. There can also be duplication of efforts in areas where education, research, and innovation intersect, leading to inefficient use of resources.

Further, consideration could be given to:

• Developing and implementing strategic frameworks that align the goals of both ministries and incorporate the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.
• Considering the creation of an independent Higher Education and Research Council co-governed by Māori and non-Māori members to provide ongoing, expert advice on aligning education, research, and innovation policies.
• Exploring the feasibility and benefits of creating a unified ministry or a dedicated coordination