New Zealand has cancelled the upcoming round of its national research assessment, in what is widely regarded as a death blow for the decades-old exercise.

Tertiary education minister Penny Simmonds has decided not to proceed with data collection for the Performance-Based Research Fund (PBRF), which guides the allocation of NZ$315?million (?150?million) of block grants each year.

The decision, by the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC), coincided with the announcement of a?higher education review whose include a ¡°particular focus¡± on the PBRF.

Originally scheduled for this year, the quality evaluation had already been delayed until 2025 and then 2026 by the former Labour government.

91ÇÑ×Ó

Data collection for the first PBRF occurred in 2003, with subsequent rounds in 2006, 2012 and 2018. Asked whether the TEC had ¡°now served its purpose¡±, TEC chief executive Tim Fowler said it was an ¡°open question¡±.

¡°We¡¯re getting to the point where¡­very marginal gains are being made in comparison to what we saw for the first decade,¡± Mr Fowler told the Education and Workforce Select Committee in February.

91ÇÑ×Ó

¡°It has¡­provided us with really good, robust evidence of the quality of the research that has been delivered across our institutions. On the downside, it¡¯s extremely compliance-heavy for us to run it. It¡¯s a back-breaking six-year gestation period every round. The institutions themselves have to put in a lot of administrative effort to make it work.¡±

Universities New Zealand chief executive Chris Whelan said the cancellation was ¡°sensible¡± in the context of the higher education review and a concurrent science appraisal.

¡°Both¡­will consider the role of the PBRF and, between them, are likely to suggest different ways of measuring and assessing effectiveness and impact,¡± Mr Whelan said.

The advisory groups conducting the two reviews are both headed by former prime ministerial science advisor Peter Gluckman, who led a 2021 evaluation of the UK¡¯s Research Excellence Framework (REF). His advice helped shape a?massive shake-up of the REF, with individual academics no longer obliged to participate in the exercise.

91ÇÑ×Ó

In Australia, a review by Queensland University of Technology vice-chancellor Margaret Sheil led to the scrapping of that country¡¯s national research exercise last August, a year after the government had postponed the exercise.

Higher education policy analyst Dave Guerin said he expected the same fate for the PBRF. ¡°I suspect that the evaluation of academics¡¯ portfolios will go,¡± said Mr Guerin, editor of the Tertiary Insight?newsletter.

¡°It¡¯s a huge compliance exercise and it provides little value these days. The early evaluations provided some value in changing behaviour, but the behaviour has changed, and we¡¯re adding a huge amount of compliance costs on academics and research managers for little impact.¡±

Mr Guerin said the PBRF had been among several UK-influenced exercises introduced decades ago when the absence of research performance measures had aroused public scepticism. ¡°A lot of people said: ¡®What are all these academics doing?¡¯

91ÇÑ×Ó

¡°But those problems have been addressed. The management systems of institutions have changed. There isn¡¯t the mythical academic who¡¯s just twiddling their thumbs. That stereotype has gone ¨C instead you¡¯ve got the mythical academic filling in lots of forms.¡±

John Egan, associate dean of learning and teaching at the University of Auckland, that the workload ¡°burden¡± generated by the PBRF impeded rather than enhanced research productivity.

91ÇÑ×Ó

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com