Reconfiguring research in New Zealand: education, politics and performativity

Abstract

Introduced a decade ago, the Performance-Based Research Fund (PBRF) has had a substantial impact on research in New Zealand universities. The PBRF now provides the primary means for supporting research in tertiary education institutions, having replaced a system where funding was tied to student numbers. The PBRF is based on the principle of peer review, with expert panels in twelve different disciplinary groupings assigned the task of grading evidence portfolios (EPs) submitted by individual researchers. EPs comprise three main sections: (i) a list of research outputs (books, articles, conference papers, and so on), four of which are nominated by the researcher as his or her best; (ii) a section on ‘Peer Esteem’; and (iii) a component for ‘Contributions to the Research Environment’. The weightings in determining the final assessment are 70 % for the ‘outputs’ section, with 15 % each for the other two parts. In addition to the review of EPs via the quality evaluation exercise (accounting for 60 % of the total PBRF funding allocation), participating institutions and organisations are assessed on the basis of research degree completions and external research income. Three quality evaluation rounds—in 2003, 2006 (a partial round) and 2012—have been completed to date. Seddon and her colleagues have noted that, under Australia’s Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) initiative, research in Education has been assessed as ‘below world standard’ (Seddon et al. 2012, p. 5). Education has also received a comparatively low subject area ranking in the latest round of the PBRF: 34th out of 42 (Tertiary Education Commission 2013, Appendix A, p. 89, Section 11). From the beginning, one of the key stated aims of the PBRF was to improve the quality of research in New Zealand. According to the Tertiary Education Commission, this goal is being achieved: ‘The measured research quality of the sector has increased over time: the new average quality score ... in 2012 is 4.66 compared to 4.40 in 2006 and 4.30 in 2003’ (p. 7). There was little change in the average quality score for Education