Bob Edlin: Mixed reaction to Dr Reti’s prescription for universities....

Mixed reaction to Dr Reti’s prescription for universities includes call for a funding injection to boost research

With a heavy sigh, a friend of PoO said it was a shame that Dr Shane Reti has failed to recognise that universities are different from the rest of the tertiary sector.

But he welcomed the news that the government will develop a new tertiary education strategy, change the system for allocating $315 million a year from the Performance-Based Research Fund, and make changes to regulatory and governance settings.

Our friend from the halls of academia was reacting to the announcement that the Government is making changes to New Zealand’s universities

“… to give students the best possible opportunities, making sure they’re developing the skilled workforce New Zealand needs and driving cutting-edge research that powers economic growth”.

Universities Minister Shane Reti announced a package of initiatives “to modernise the sector and ensure taxpayer investment delivers real impact for New Zealanders”.

His press statement featured the sort of huff and puff that’s to be expected from the Beehive’s Ballyhoo Brigade on these occasions:

“Our universities are world-class – in the top three per cent globally – but they must evolve to meet the demands of a fast-changing society and economy,” Dr Reti says.

“These changes will help universities focus on what matters: developing the workforce we need now and in the future, and delivering excellent research and innovation that creates real value for New Zealand.”

Then he delivered the nitty-gritty, saying the initiatives include:

• A new Tertiary Education Strategy, aligning teaching and research with New Zealand’s future skills and innovation needs.
• A University Strategy Group to strengthen collaboration between universities, government, industry and global experts.
• A simplified Tertiary Research Excellence Fund to replace the $315 million Performance-Based Research Fund – cutting red tape while rewarding quality teaching and impactful research.
• Stronger quality assurance systems to maintain academic excellence, support international competitiveness, and enhance student mobility.
• Updated governance and accountability rules to ensure universities are well-led and focused on quality teaching and qualifications.

Reti did not elaborate, but fell back on puffery to say

“… the reforms will set universities up to compete on the world stage while ensuring research investment supports economic growth and delivers benefits at home.”

And:

“These changes are about working together, simplifying where it makes sense, and strengthening leadership and quality,” says Dr Reti.

“Collectively, they will make sure our universities continue to deliver opportunities for students, impact for businesses, and growth for New Zealand’s economy.”

The new initiatives have been informed by a report by the University Advisory Group, led by Chair Sir Peter Gluckman.

They will be rolled out in consultation with universities, other tertiary education organisations, students and industry, with further details to come in the months ahead.

The advisory group’s report can be read HERE.

Our friend from academia was disappointed that Reti’s proposal to set up a University Strategy Group and not the New Zealand Universities Council proposed by the AUG “smacks of increasing bureaucracy and reduced independence”.

UAG is clear on this:

“There is a need to distinguish the universities from the other components of the tertiary sector in policy development, funding and oversight. Their needs are distinct, and it is misleading to suggest that they are closely integrated with other components of post-primary education. Their missions are distinct.”.

Hmm. Did the vice-chancellors dissuade the Minister from taking that advice?

There wasn’t much room for them around the NZUC table under the UAG proposal for seven appointed members and two ex-officio members: 

• The chair;
• Three senior academics in New Zealand universities who do not hold university administrative roles;
• three independent persons of distinguished standing who understand the university and research sectors;
• two ex officio members – the Secretary of Education or nominee and a member of the Board of the proposed National Research Council.)

But let’s welcome the announcement that the University Strategy Group would address issues such as increasing differentiation and reducing duplication between universities.

On the other hand, let’s note that Lincoln University vice-chancellor Grant Edwards has drawn attention to universities’ funding being challenging, especially for domestic students.

“Since 2018, during a period when inflation has risen 29 percent, funding subsidies for teaching has increased only 18 percent and funding for research has not increased at all, meaning a real decline of 29 percent in the activity that the government agreed was core to economic growth with the release of the Science System Advisory Group Review report earlier this year,” he said.

And with economic growth in mind, let’s be mindful that the Research. Science and Technology funding system is still fundamentally broke – the consequence of under- investment across the board.

PoO’s contacts in the agricultural and horticultural science sector say there is a special need to lift extremely low investment in their patch, if the primary sector is to remain the backbone of our economy. 

Click to view

The Science Media Centre has been seeking reaction, too, to Reti’s announcement that the Government will be changing aspects to New Zealand’s higher education system, informed by the recently released report by the University Advisory Group.

Changes include a new strategy for all of New Zealand’s tertiary education sector; a strategy group to help improve collaboration between universities, government, and industry; and replacing the way the $315 million Performance-Based Research Fund works with a more simplified way of assessing research performance.

• The Science Media Centre received these responses to its requests for comment: Professor Richard Easther, Department of Physics, University of Auckland, comments:

“I certainly want to see universities maximise the contributions they make to the society that supports them and universities are the foundation for the value-chain of a knowledge-based economy. However, after seeing this government weaken the Marsden and Endeavour Funds it seems that they do not understand the linkages between deep research excellence and economic value, so I am concerned about their ability to achieve this in practice.

“It’s great for the sector to have more certainty and we’ve been waiting for this for a long time. However, this is still a plan to get a plan and the devil is always in the details.

“For example, replacing PBRF portfolios with ‘metrics’ will save a lot of academics a lot of time, but the current system involves a human assessment of excellence and impact. All metrics can create perverse incentives to produce large amounts of lower quality work, so quantitative assessments will need to be done with care.”

No conflicts of interest.

• Dr Sereana Naepi, Associate Professor Sociology, University of Auckland, and Rutherford Discovery Fellow, comments:

“The signals in today’s release show our government will continue to push forward with their economic agenda no matter the evidence. This government has chosen to follow the same devastating path we’ve watched unfold in Australia and the UK where economic rationale has been used to dismantle the social sciences and humanities. The evidence from both Australia and the UK shows that this approach doesn’t even achieve its stated economic goals, it just creates unsustainable institutions that serve neither students nor communities well. I’m not anti-innovation or anti-economic development, but I am against the false choice that says we must gut social sciences and humanities to fund STEM fields; instead we need to invest in our university systems to enable all of our community to thrive. Our tertiary education strategy needs to ensure that we don’t sacrifice the social sciences and humanities in our search for economic growth as we have seen in the research sector.

“As someone whose research focuses on how universities can better serve all learners and communities, I see a fundamental misunderstanding in these reports about what universities are for. The Draft Tertiary Education Strategy’s objective is “A tertiary education system that enables people to succeed with knowledge and skills that advance an innovative, high-productivity economy, and improve quality of life.” But universities aren’t just about economic productivity. They’re where we preserve cultural knowledge, where we ask difficult questions about justice and equity, where we develop the critical thinking skills needed for democratic participation. When we reduce ourselves and our children to economic outputs, we lose something essential about what makes us human. In my research, I often talk about relational logic versus economic logic. Economic logic asks: what’s the cheapest way to produce job-ready graduates? Relational logic asks: how do we create educational institutions that serve our communities and help people reach their full potential?

“What we need is a tertiary education strategy that recognises universities’ multiple roles: yes, they train graduates for the workforce and contribute to the creation of new technologies, but they also preserve knowledge, challenge injustice, support community development, and help create informed citizens. We need investment that strengthens both economic and social outcomes, not policies that sacrifice one for the other. The government still has time to choose a different path and to learn from international failures rather than repeating them. But this will only be possible if we’re willing to have an honest conversation about what kind of society we want our universities to help create and I’m not sure we have created the environment and pathways to have that conversation.”

No conflicts of interest.

• Prof Sir Peter Hunter FRS, KNZM, University of Auckland, comments:

“There are a number of important recommendations in this report. I strongly endorse the call for a Higher Education Council (HEC) to facilitate much greater collaboration between the universities and with the new Public Research Organisations. The research sector would be more effective in generating social, economic and environmental benefits for New Zealand if we had more coordination and less competition between the research providers. We need to strongly guard the role of individual academics to pursue their own research agenda (since this is the seed of new ideas for future outcomes) but broader collaborative facilities and skills are often needed to turn those ideas into outcomes that benefit the taxpayers who have supported that basic research. We are a small (in population), remote country a long way from the research and economic powerhouses in Europe, Asia and the US. We really do need to overcome those disadvantages by being smarter in the way we collaborate. I also support the call for stronger academic governance as the current lack of engagement between university Councils and academic Senates (as opposed to the executive) is a barrier, at least in Auckland, to setting and achieving strategic goals. There are many other excellent recommendations in the report but those are the ones I want to highlight.”

No conflicts of interest.

• Dr Troy Baisden, Co-President, New Zealand Association of Scientists, comments:

Note: Dr Baisden is also Principal Investigator in Te Pūnaha Matatini Centre of Research Excellence, Affiliate at Motu Research and two universities, but is speaking in his role as NZAS Co-President.

“The Government has announced what it will do with the University Advisory Group’s (UAG) recommendations, which when combined with a separate group looking at the research system, the original cabinet paper declared it would be ‘surprising if the advisory groups did not recommend fundamental change.’

“Alas, despite recommendations made, there will be little change in universities.

“The problem is that the success of our universities is the product of the many successes of individual researchers and fields of study. This reality has been buried in efforts not to disrupt the ministry and institutions, so actions being taken up by the government will bury the strategic recommendations that would have led to major improvements.

“The strategic intent was clear in the Interim Report, initially produced a year ago, which is more valuable and should be more enduring than the operational recommendations in the final report.

“So, what can we expect not to change?

“Perhaps most poignantly, we will be happy that all our universities rank in the top 30% globally in the most favourable ranking. We’ll dismiss concerns that our best university is struggling to rank among Australia’s 8 top universities in this survey, and falls behind in the two other widely used rankings. [The Minister’s press release will also place us in the 3% (sic) globally, presumably a typo showing a lack of attention to facts that matter.]

“We’ll offer kind words to collaborations between universities and the rest of our research system, as well as the tech and innovation sector, but continue to study whether any actual action or funding might be needed.

“We’ll acknowledge the sector is struggling with funding but kick any actions into the competition for next year’s Budget initiatives. We’ll continue to embrace international students as a source of revenue.

“We’ll continue to launch teams to study many of the trickier challenges in the system, particularly those emanating from two of the 11 recommendations in the Interim UAG Report that pointed to the need to reduce growing managerialism and bureaucracy.

“We’ll continue to acknowledge that excessive competition between universities is unhelpful, while taking little or no action to encourage collaboration to retain scholarship and teaching in areas becoming less popular or needed to maintain post-graduate learning important for areas unique to New Zealand.

“We’ll rebrand the Performance-Based Research Fund as the Tertiary Research Excellence Fund, replacing the controversial quality evaluation component and with citation metrics. What remains to be seen is if the recommendation for off-the shelf institutional metrics is adopted, what will ensure individual academics remain valued and employed? Will a meaningful suite of metrics be adopted and prove durable and attractive?

“We’ll continue to embrace the ideas of institutional autonomy and academic freedom, while at the same time doing too little to protect them as the space for healthy debate and innovation. Just for example, that would help us find win-win solutions to our recurring hand-wringing about the economy versus the environment, particularly around agriculture and forestry where universities appear to be losing critical mass.

“In some cases UAG is also at fault for failing to carry its strategic case through to operational recommendations. Two odd instances stand out. In the first case, it found no workable solution to New Zealand’s anomalously high overheads, where levying the full costs of running institutions means that at least $1.10 goes to the institution for every dollar that goes directly to research. Europe has capped this at 25 cents and Donald Trump wants it cut to 15 cents in the US.

“In addition, funding for Centres of Research Excellence (CoREs) has become the only way to support enduring capacity around areas of national significance after National Science Challenges were decommissioned. Yet, like National Science Challenges, UAG recommends CoREs be defunded and left behind in name only after 12 years, nominally so funding can support new areas. This is remarkable given that most great developments require support for about 2 decades to succeed.

“One question remains from the Science System Advisory Report still being considered by Cabinet. Will we see any significant changes to funding or the interactions between the PROs and Universities, particularly in the area of Advanced Technology?

“That remains the last hope that there could be fulfilment of expectation for fundamental changes quoted from Cabinet in the Preamble to the year-old Interim UAG report. The Preamble’s quote reads, ‘Our public research system, Crown Research Institutes and universities, face enduring structural challenges that get in the way of it delivering value to New Zealand. The system is fragmented, with poor visibility of the effectiveness of current investments, and suffers from duplication, inefficiency, and poor use of resources.’”

Conflict of interest statement: “Troy receives funds from Centres of Research Excellence funding, has been a university professor, and could contribute to the citation impact of affiliated universities in the replacement for PBRF.”

Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.