New Zealand cancels research quality evaluation

The same comments can be applied to other countries that blindly followed the UK in adopting RAE Will other countries sit up and take notice [that include the UK]?

After another PBRF 'review' and the SRG 'consultation' process, we ended up with the same old PBRF with some minor tweaks. These people seemingly ignored all the glaring issues with the quality evaluation exercise, prescribing that 2026 would be yet another evaluation based on individual portfolios. In what industry does some third party assess individuals (with little regard for their day-to-day employment expectations), especially where the output (research) requires a multi-faceted team effort? It's akin to claiming that Jim from marketing is more important than Sally in engineering; both are integral members of the company, and neither is more crucial to its success. In the same way, the PBRF attacks younger researchers and anybody with heavier teaching loads while heaping all the glory on old professors (who coincidentally are the same people writing the PBRF rules). Sadly, even when something exceeds its use-by date, a handful of people will always be determined to see it continue unchanged. Someone had to step in and do something, and I applaud the new government for taking bold action.

PBRF was opposed by academics from the get go. In the early years it proved its worth, showing up academics holding senior positions who had woeful research track records (largely now cleaned out). Yes, there is a law of diminishing returns, but if you want to keep track of your achievements for the purposes of making grant applications, applying for promotion, or going for another job, wouldn't it be useful to have the (research) details available and on hand - and then update them when the time comes? The authorities could have made the exercise less onerous, and they did. For example, although people have to have a complete portfolio, they present just their best four publications for full evaluation. Academics are on the taxpayer's tab and there should be some accountability for quality and performance, but maybe it does not have to be this onerous. Also, with New Zealand trying to make its luck internationally it needs to be sure it has top talent in key research positions, and exercises like PBRF are part of making sure that is the case (in my view anyway).

Another PBRF round might have worked. However, the quality evaluation required an appropriately revised approach. Having worked at two institutions in New Zealand in the last 15 years, I witnessed the toxic side effects of the PBRF progressively amplified with each round. These include bullying and exploitation of junior researchers, counterproductive elitism and faculty politics, and the devaluing of teaching. The bureaucracy associated with the PBRF seemed to me the least of its flaws. Sure, there may have been some gains in early PBRF rounds. Yet, the exercise has never adapted from a system for identifying senior academics with "woeful research track records" to a system that effectively nurtures and supports a healthy, holistic academic and research culture. The consultation group never seemed genuinely interested in changing anything, repeatedly ignoring sensible suggestions for modifications to improve the exercise.