← Strengthen Research Knowledge Creation and Uptake for Our Knowledge Society | Home Page | Engagement of TE Os with Industry for Knowledge Creation and Transfer →

Implementation of PBRF

In 2003 the quality of research conducted in participating TEOs was assessed by a series of subject-based panels. Following the quality evaluation, the new funding system is being progressively phased in, and will be fully implemented by 2007. Under the new funding regime, 60 percent of the available funding will be allocated on the basis of the results of periodic quality evaluations, 25 percent on the basis of research degree completions and 15 percent on the basis of external research income.

The evaluationof the implementation of the PBRF¹ found that it was carried out successfully despite a very tight timeline. While there were problems due to rapid implementation, none of these posed an immediate risk to the implementation of the policy. Some will need to be resolved to ensure the longer-term goals of the policy are met.

There was general support from TEOs and stakeholders for the process, with suggestions for improvement. The evaluation found a high degree of trust and co-operation among TEOs, their staff and the TEC, with an understanding of the enormous demands of putting such a scheme into place and of the limitations inherent in an assessment of research quality.

The expectation from TEOs is that, before the next quality evaluation round in 2006, greater consensus will be developed around what the standards are and how they are understood and interpreted, so that there is improved fairness and consistency in the next round.

Results of PBRF quality evaluation

New baseline indicator

The results of the quality evaluations undertaken by the PBRF panels provide a view of the quality of research across the tertiary education sector.

As mentioned earlier in the report, the quality evaluation found that just under half of the research staff who produced sufficient quality and quantity of research over the previous six years to be assessed (that is, staff rated ‘A’, ‘B’ or ‘C’) were producing research of national or international reputation.

Ninety-five percent of staff rated ‘A’, ‘B’ or ‘C’ were based in universities, with 2 percent each in polytechnics and PTEs, 1 percent in colleges of education and less than 1 percent in wānanga. However, only one wānanga and two polytechnics decided to be involved in the PBRF in this initial round.

Distribution of research staff (in FTEs) rated ‘A’, ‘B’ or ‘C’ in the PBRF quality evaluation by sub-sector 2003

Source: Tertiary Education Commission

The panel areas that had the highest average quality scores in the PBRF were sciences, engineering, technology and architecture, and medicine and public health. Around 42 percent of research staff rated ‘A’ or ‘B’ (i.e. of national or international reputation) worked in these four areas.

The areas with the largest numbers of ‘A’ or ‘B’ rated staff were humanities and law, biological sciences and social sciences and other cultural and social studies.

PRBF quality evaluation results by panel, number of research staff (in FTEs) rated ‘A’ or ‘B’ and overall quality score (FTE basis) 2003

Source: Tertiary Education Commission

¹ Centre for Research on Work, Education and Business Ltd, Phase 1 Evaluation of the Implementation of the PBRF and the Conduct of the 2003 Quality Evaluation, July 2004. (↑)

← Strengthen Research Knowledge Creation and Uptake for Our Knowledge Society | Home Page | Engagement of TE Os with Industry for Knowledge Creation and Transfer →

• Table of Contents

• The State of Play

• Cross Strategy Indicators

• Raise foundation skills

• Skills for our knowledge society

• Strengthen research and knowledge creation

• Te rautaki mātauranga Māori

• Pacific people’s development and success

• Capability and quality

• Technical and Data Definitions