Tom Baker, an associate professor in Human Geography at the University of Auckland (and a researcher who has benefited from the fund at the centre of his article), is perturbed by Science Minister Judith Collins’ decision to cut social sciences and humanities research from the Marsden Fund.
His concerns are expressed in an article published by Newsroom today under the heading
Marsden Fund cuts a win for ‘convenient’ evidence.
The article then declares:
Cutting social sciences and humanities from NZ’s ‘blue skies’ research funding means dark times for independent thought
Baker acknowledges that details are scarce about what will happen, but the press release announced that Government is refocusing the Marsden Fund “on core scientific research that helps lift our economic growth and contributes to science with a purpose”.
Two moves were signalled:
- changing the terms of reference to mandate that 50 percent of funds go to supporting “proposals with economic benefits to New Zealand”, and
- to cut funding to social sciences and humanities altogether.
These changes are alarming on several levels. I could make an impassioned plea for thinking there’s something intrinsically important about the humanities and social sciences – fields often referred to as the ‘heart’ and ‘conscience’ of society. I could despair about what this means for the research sector’s ability to see value in attracting and retaining talented social scientists and humanities scholars. Yet, I’ll leave that to others.
His focus is on the implications for independent thought and critique in New Zealand.
In a place like New Zealand, reducing the ability of social scientists and humanities scholars to pursue projects and generate evidence independent of government agendas is arguably more concerning than it would be in other nations.
Non-governmental research organisations in this country are heavily dependent on government contracts, Baker points out.
The business-oriented New Zealand Initiative think-tank stands as an exception to the rule.
Even the Royal Society Te Apārangi, a peak body for New Zealand researchers, is deeply compromised in criticising this Government’s recent announcement. It too is dependent on government contracts. A large proportion of its budget comes from its contract with Judith Collins’ very own ministry to manage and disperse, ironically, the Marsden Fund. Its ability to provide frank policy advice now sits in fraught tension with its need to stay in the good graces of its most important client – government.
Baker notes that last month, $14.7m was allocated to social science and humanities projects in the 2024 Marsden Fund round, about one-fifth of the total funds awarded.
In the context of total public research funding, redirecting that money to physical science will hardly register.
But in a nation where the ecosystem of independent evidence and critique is already thin, the Government’s recent announcement is most convenient.
What’s missing from Baker’s article is any suggestion that maybe some Marsden Fund grants might invite questioning, regardless of whether the findings they generate are politically convenient or inconvenient to a government.
The Taxpayers’ Union, on the other hand, in June looked more critically into the Marsden Fund, which is managed by the Royal Society of New Zealand.
The Marsden Fund is reserved for top-tier research funding. The Fund (according to the Society’s website) “Supports excellence in science, engineering, maths, social sciences and the humanities in New Zealand by providing grants for investigator-initiated research“.
The Marsden Fund is supposed to be the crème de la crème of New Zealand academia, showcasing the highest standards of scholarly excellence and innovation. Managed (apparently) with the utmost integrity and a steadfast commitment to advancing knowledge, the Marsden Fund stands as a beacon of academic prestige and intellectual rigour.
Among the grants highlighted by the TU were:
Grant ID: 23-UOA-164
Recipient: Dr A Pasley, University of Auckland
Co-designing and Decolonising Gender Education: Exploring What It Means for Gender Diverse Students to Thrive in Schools
“Collaborating with gender diverse students, this research operationalises whole-school approaches to gender diversity-affirming education… Fundamentally, this research acknowledges the colonial inheritance of gender norms, providing gender diverse young people with a platform to decolonise conventional approaches to sexuality education and how gendered expectations permeate education”
Approved funding: $360,000
The TU commented:
You read that right. Gender norms (i.e. “boys” and “girls”) being, in fact, just an inheritance of colonisation is, we understand, a very widely held view by those in charge of New Zealand’s premier scientific fund.
Grant ID: 23-UOO-037
Recipient: Dr ES Chisholm, Otago University
Making a home in employer-provided housing
Across the world, people in a broad range of professions live in housing provided by their employers. Yet little is known about life in employer-provided housing. This project will draw on theories of power to investigate how a single relationship that secures both housing and employment affects experience of homes, and analyse differences over time and between different sectors of working.
Approved funding: $360,000
The TU commented:
360 grand to interview people on “their life” and “experience” in an employer-owned home! Crème de la crème research, indeed.
Grant ID: 23-MAU-082
Recipient: Dr HL Black, Massey University
Kua kī taku puku, ko te waha o raro kei te hiakai tonu: The de-sexualisation of te reo Māori domains
“…founded on tikanga Māori and kaupapa Māori, this research will identify how sexuality was traditionally expressed and defined by examining… harihari kai (happy eating), pao (singing), haka, pūrākau (legendary, mythical stories), ngeri (chanting) and idiomatic expressions… contribut[ing] to a body of mātauranga on te reo Māori and sexuality by investigating how sexuality, food, identity, and socialisation are all part of a complex and interwoven Māori cultural worldview.”
Approved funding: $360,000
The TU commented:
Now for this one, the only explanation is that someone has selected the random words “sexuality”, “food”, “identity”, and “socialisation” and, somehow, by putting it in a word blender (AI perhaps?) submitted it for a grant.
And for the effort, they won a 360 grand grant! Creative, yes! Worthy? Scientific? Enlightening? You be the judge.
Grant ID: 23-VUW-122
Recipient: Associate Professor JT Smit, Victoria University of Wellington
Seeding Hope: The Diverse Roles of Indigenous Women in Food Systems
“Women are the key seed savers, knowledge keepers and advocates in Indigenous food systems which acknowledge the sovereign capacities of nature, treat food as medicine, as a teacher and a relative. Yet there is little research that investigates the work Indigenous women do within these food systems. We develop a mana wahine analysis that draws on kōrero from Indigenous food growers and advocates across five diverse Indigenous food systems (Aotearoa, Hawaii, India, Peru and Turtle Island). Our global approach offers a new Indigenous-to-Indigenous framework to more deeply understand Indigenous women’s roles, values and practices regarding food, seed and soil sovereignty.”
Approved funding: $861,000
The TU commented:
Before you say $861,000 is too much, remember that this research will necessarily involve having to (god forbid) travel (business class, of course) to India, Hawaii, Peru, and Turtle Island (Fiji) to speak to indigenous woman and try their food.
Grant ID: 23-UOO-218
Recipient: Professor BJ Schonthal, Otago University
Mapping Buddhist Law in Asia
“Despite decades of scholarship documenting the influences of Christian law on Western legal culture, scholars have ignored… Buddhist law on legal cultures in Asia. This project… produc[es] the first comprehensive account of Buddhist law as a complex transhistorical, transregional legal tradition… [and] will yield crucial new knowledge about a tradition of law that has shaped human societies…”
Approved funding: $660,000
The TU commented:
Who knew Buddha had in mind New Zealand’s taxpayers when he said “Give, even if you only have a little.”
Grant ID: 23-UOW-011
Recipient: Associate Professor N Daly, University of Waikato
Picture Books in Aotearoa: The design and content of picture books reflecting indigenous language, culture and evolving national identities
“Picturebooks are a powerful form of children’s literature… Our project… explor[es] best practice for authentic respectful representations of Indigenous languages and identities throughout the publishing process. Our interdisciplinary team will… undertak[e] a Kaupapa Māori driven investigation, to document and explore the ways in which Indigenous voices are and can be authentically represented in picturebooks.”
Approved funding: $660,000
The TU commented:
So indigenous language but in picture books? The poor Associate Professor got $660,000 to discover that there are not a lot of words or language in picture books (that’s kind of the point, eh?).
The TU report harked back to legislation introduced in 2010 when Labour MP, Grant Robertson, put up the rather innocuous-sounding Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill.
Eventually unanimously passed in 2012, the main thing it did was to change the Object of the Royal Society from “the advancement and promotion of science and technology…” to “the advancement and promotion in New Zealand of science, technology, and the humanities.”
It defined “humanities” to include “languages, history, religion, philosophy, law, classics, linguistics, literature, cultural studies, media studies, art history, film, and drama”.
That change has given academics carte blanche to get funding for all manner of ‘research’ projects that simply don’t bring any return on investment to the taxpayers who pay for them.
On Homepaddock, Ele Ludemann says she was a trustee and is still a supporter of a cancer charity. She knows how very difficult it is to get funds for research into better treatments and an eventual cure.
Diverting scarce research funds to “esoteric projects” is a travesty, Ludemann contends.
She is grateful the Minister has recognised this and is directing the money to where it has a much better chance of making a positive difference to people’s lives and the country’s economy.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
3 comments:
A life-long student of the humanities, I am also a fervent member of the TU. I think this would once have been compatible, but these days.......?
The issue with Marsdens is the vague "blue skies" research. Better would be to ask how proposed projects address or engage with major scholarly debates. One can predict the conclusions in all the Marsden projects listed.
Just like pigs in a trough, all the 'humanities researchers' are crying crocodile tears because their airy fairy pet projects have been cut off at the knees. All Judith has done is return the Marsden Fund to its original intent until Robertson hijacked it. Well done I say
Post a Comment