Promoting quality research

3 - Background

The Performance-Based Research Fund (PBRF) was introduced in 2004 to replace the previous system of allocating research funding to tertiary education organisations (TEOs) via the number of domestic enrolments at degree level and higher. The majority of PBRF funding (60 percent) is distributed through the results of the Quality Evaluations, where the quality of research by staff in participating TEOs is assessed and measured by panels of experts. Staff who are assessed as producing research of higher quality attract more funding via the PBRF, providing a financial incentive for TEOs to maximise the quality of research produced by their staff.¹ In addition, the results of the Quality Evaluation are published by the Tertiary Education Commission, providing a further incentive for TEOs to improve the quality of their research.

The PBRF funding to TEOs is distributed in the form of a bulk fund, with TEOs having discretion over how they allocate this funding within the institution. Therefore, the TEOs determine whether and how individual academics get rewarded for better research quality.

Adams (2008) provides an overview of how TEOs allocate PBRF funding and reward staff for higher research quality. Through a series of interviews with staff at various TEOs, Adams found that although some TEOs had a well-developed strategy for monitoring funding allocations and strategic research support, this did not happen everywhere. Adams stated that:

“This matters, because the influence of a policy of rewarding excellence and incentivising research strategy is reduced if it is not felt throughout the system, if it is filtered out at an institutional level.” Adams (2008: 37).

The review also found that some institutions use the results of the PBRF Quality Evaluations directly in their performance appraisal systems. Therefore, there is the potential for a direct link between research quality as measured in the PBRF and promotion. However, this practice was strongly criticised by Adams as being inappropriate and was an abdication of the responsibility of managers to assess their staff in place of proper staff development programmes.² Adams (2008: 71) states that “…the acknowledged inaccuracies in scoring at individual level, which individuals cannot appeal, raise serious doubts about the value of information in this format” (Adams 2008: 71). He recommended that the results of individual staff members not be provided to TEOs in future Quality Evaluations to avoid this problem.

While Adams’ view of the use of actual PBRF scores in promotion has reasonably wide acceptance among academics, there is also widespread agreement that TEO promotions processes should assess academics’ performance. This means that the quality of an academic’s research performance is something that should count towards his/her career advancement. For this reason, the Gibson et al paper raises issues that deserve further analysis.

Academic promotion procedures differ in detail between universities. However, they tend to have a number of common features. To win promotion, an academic staff member usually needs to make a formal written application which is considered by a promotions committee normally comprising managers and senior academic staff, with union representatives having observer status. Academics applying for promotions are usually advised to include in their applications information about their most important research outputs – including citation information if appropriate – and about distinctions they have achieved, as well as about their teaching performance. Promotion is often competitive – with a fixed sum allocated for the promotions round.

Footnotes

1. In 2007, around $124 million was distributed to TEOs based on the results of the Quality Evaluation.
   
2. Ashcroft (2005) also argued that using PBRF Quality Evaluation results to determine academic appointments and promotion could have dire repercussions. He argues that using the PBRF results to aid in promotions could create an environment which reduced collegiality, increased anxiety for academics and more narrow focused research.