ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Sevenfold weighting boost for New Zealand indigenous research

<ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ class="standfirst">Funding changes will help generate ¡®intellectual infrastructure¡¯, but universities harbour reservations
November 7, 2021
Makirau Haurua in traditional costume being carried on throne during investiture as a metaphor for New Zealand gives indigenous research big weightings boost
Source: Alamy

New Zealand is pressing ahead with a decision to encourage research by and about M¨¡oris and Pacific islanders by giving it up to seven times its current weighting in a major annual funding allocation.

A reference group has finished on the design of the next iteration of the research quality evaluation exercise, the Performance-Based Research Fund (PBRF), which guides the distribution of NZ$315?million (?166?million) in research grants ¨C making it the second biggest centrally administered tertiary education fund.

On from a 2019 review chaired by Linda Tuhiwai Smith, chair of New Zealand¡¯s M¨¡ori Centre of Research Excellence and a pioneering critic of colonialism in education, the government will adopt a ¡°more capacious¡± definition of research excellence.

The definition will ¡°support diverse research cultures¡± by encompassing ¡°the production of research, engagement and impact¡±, according to a from education minister Chris Hipkins. University staff will be able to demonstrate it by including ¡°traditional outputs¡± in the evidence portfolios they submit for assessment.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

ADVERTISEMENT

The government will also increase the ¡°subject area weighting¡± for M¨¡ori-related research from one to three. The weighting, which reflects the relative costs of research in different disciplines, helps to determine each university¡¯s share of PBRF funding.

The change means that M¨¡ori research will be deemed more costly than any other type of research, including in clinical medicine, pharmacy and veterinary science. Its influence on funding will be further amplified through a new ¡°funding weighting¡± of two-and-a-half for evidence portfolios submitted by M¨¡ori staff.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

ADVERTISEMENT

Mr Hipkins said these changes would ensure that the PBRF fostered the ¡°intellectual infrastructure¡± to support ¡°m¨¡tauranga M¨¡ori¡±, or M¨¡ori knowledge, in the education system. Pacific research and researchers will be similarly supported with a?subject area weighting of two-and-a-half and a funding weighting of?two.

The government¡¯s decisions exceed the recommendations of the review panel, which advocated a subject area weighting of two-and-a-half for M¨¡ori research to help address the ¡°critical undersupply¡± of researchers. Just 4.8?per cent of participants in the 2018 assessment exercise identified as M¨¡ori, who comprise about 17 per cent of the national population.

While M¨¡ori participation had risen from 3.7?per cent in the 2012 exercise, tertiary education consultant Dave Guerin said progress had been too slow. ¡°Universities have been expected to increase the number of M¨¡ori and Pacifica staff for 30 or 40?years, so the government [is putting] a stronger lever in place. Universities tend to chase money wherever it?is.¡±

The changes reflect a perception that ¡°Western¡± science¡¯s claims to be universal and objective have enabled its advocates to uncritically value it above other knowledge systems.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

ADVERTISEMENT

But representative group Universities New Zealand warned of ¡°unintended negative consequences¡± of using a fund ¡°that rewards excellence¡± to boost M¨¡ori participation, unless extra funding was provided. ¡°Equity issues in research must be addressed, [but] the PBRF should [not] be the only mechanism to do so,¡± it said in .

¡°A shift away from research outputs as the key evidence of ¡®excellence¡¯ is problematic,¡± it added.

University of Auckland sociologist Elizabeth Rata said the changes risked diverting M¨¡ori and Pacifica researchers into an approach ¡°that doesn¡¯t follow the scientific principles and methods¡±, under the misapprehension that this would ¡°lead to success¡± in the globally connected higher education world.

Such students would obtain doctorates, ¡°begin their early careers, receive recognition and have their work valued. Then at a certain point, they¡¯ll come across the fact that their work is circumscribed by its limitations.¡±

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

ADVERTISEMENT

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com

<ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ class="pane-title"> POSTSCRIPT:

Print headline:?New Zealand gives indigenous research big weightings boost

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Register
Please Login or Register to read this article.
<ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ class="pane-title"> Related articles
<ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ class="pane-title"> Related universities
<ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ class="pane-title"> Reader's comments (1)
This article presupposes that the PBRF is some reliable and effective system for rewarding 'high-quality' research. These auditing exercises (PBRF, REF, etc.) are a proven waste of time and money, biased and damaging to research and academics. Just think: we could get even more funding to indigenous researchers if we just canned the PBRF and employed some sane means to distribute this money! The PBRF exercise consumes an astonishing amount of money and researcher time, which comes at the expense of actual productive research and provides the very opposite of what it claims to encourage (see: perverse incentives). But, alas, a small group masquerading as allies of a noble agenda will now manipulate the game's rules to make themselves the winners of PBRF 2025---it's the ultimate self-fulfilling prophecy. Just speak to the academics who must endure this PBRF nonsense, who universally (indigenous and non-indigenous researchers alike) agree it's an abomination.
<ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ class="pane-title"> Sponsored
<ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ class="pane-title"> Featured jobs
ADVERTISEMENT