Reflecting on the cancellation of New Zealand’s Performance Based Research Fund, Roger Smyth explores the origins of this policy change and what it might mean for the future prospects of the REF in the UK.

The UK general election looms just as universities and Research England start to prepare for the 2029 research evaluation under the Research Excellence Framework (REF). But Iain Mansfield, director of research at the Policy Exchange think tank, suggests that an incoming Labour government should scrap the coming REF, rather than allow it to continue in its proposed form: an “easy way for Labour to save half a billion,” he suggests. Meanwhile, Labour’s shadow science minister said she was concerned about the “bureaucracy associated with the REF” and stopped short of committing to retaining the REF in its current form.

The 2026 research quality evaluation was scrapped. Despite the years of work. Despite the 14 consultation papers and published guidelines.

Half a planet away, in New Zealand, something interesting was happening. A new government had come to power. A reference group had been beavering for two years, developing guidelines and specifications for the looming 2026 quality evaluation under the REF-like Performance Based Research Fund (PBRF). But then, the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) abruptly announced that it was all off. The 2026 research quality evaluation was scrapped. Despite the years of work. Despite the 14 consultation papers and published guidelines.

Why?

The PBRF –New Zealand’s answer to the REF

The New Zealand PBRF is like the REF, but only up to a point.  It’s a mixed model, where research funding is allocated to institutions on the basis of three measures – the number of research degree completions, the amount of external research income institutions win from industry and from competitive research funding rounds and … from the quality evaluation, held every six years or so. Two quantitative indicators and a quality evaluation in which panels review portfolios submitted by (individual) academics. Not by departments, not by research groups. Rather, every individual academic judged as research active by the employing institution submits a personal research evidence portfolio.

• Research degree completions – recognises the human capital role of university research, acknowledging that those who take research qualifications and enter the labour market contribute to innovation in our economy by improving the capacity of the firms they work for to absorb innovation.  And they create our future research workforce.
• External research income – which proxies the contribution the researchers make to the problems our society and our economy face, recognising that when firms, NGOs and government agencies commission research, they do so to solve technical, social or business problems. And when public good science funding agencies award research money, they do so to advance knowledge in nationally important areas.
• Quality evaluation, measures the excellence and the scale of an institution’s research by assessing each researcher’s individual portfolio. The quality evaluation underpins the other two measures and rewards excellent research in areas that struggle to win external funding.

The PBRF distributes funds to institutions which have the autonomy to spend that money as they see fit, to support early-career researchers, to foster the research culture of the organisation, on research equipment … to advance their own priorities.

PBRF has transformed higher education culture

Since its introduction in 2003, the PBRF has transformed the culture of New Zealand’s universities.  Previously, nearly all university revenue, including most research funding, was driven by enrolment numbers, with the consequence that institutions turned their attention to student recruitment, sometimes compromising the focus on research. The PBRF redressed the balance, putting a renewed focus on research performance.

Of course, funding is an important motivator of institutional behaviour. But, the real driver of the culture change was reputation. Institutional reputation, of course, but the lure of reputation drove individual academics, who (rightly) judged their careers would be enhanced by higher PBRF grades.

Peer review, used in the REF and the PBRF, has its critics (while, on the other hand, bibliometric indicators raise serious difficulties).

The system is cautiously supported by university managers who relish the effect of the PBRF on performance, but it is disliked by many academics, many of whom see it as demeaning, and most of whom resent the burden of having to compile evidence portfolios. And it is detested by the academics’ union which cannot abide the focus on the performance of individual academics in their research role.

Plus there are the usual arguments. Quality evaluation is held to discriminate: against research published in “local” or low-status journals, against research in disciplines where book publication is the traditional norm, against creativity in fields such as fine arts, theatre and music. Peer review, used in the REF and the PBRF, has its critics (while, on the other hand, bibliometric indicators raise serious difficulties).

So, the PBRF quality evaluation has been used four times and it’s been reviewed four times, leading to tweaks and refinements, but no substantial modification.

Is it still delivering?

Speaking to a parliamentary select committee, the chief executive of the TEC recently described the quality evaluation as “backbreaking”; he acknowledged that it has led to benefits for the system, but he argued it was now delivering “marginal” benefits, despite the inordinate effort. Is it worth it?

And now, the 2026 round has been cancelled, and the government has set up yet another review. This time to be delivered by a universities advisory group led by Sir Peter Gluckman, professor of the University of Auckland, one-time government chief science advisor, head of the Centre for Informed Futures, a think tank addressing long-term, complex problems. Gluckman, who also led the International Advisory Group in the most recent REF review and whose report advised:

The balance between outputs …, impact …, and environment (people, culture and environment) needs to change. We recommend each should be weighted in the next round at 33%.

In fact, it was he who proposed the very element that led Iain Mansfield to question the coming REF round and to suggest it should be cancelled.

Will the incoming government in the UK cancel 2029 REF? Will peer review survive the Gluckman review in NZ? Or will there be a simpler alternative?

An election and a review led to the abrupt cancellation of the PBRF, one of the cornerstones of New Zealand’s higher education landscape.

The perfect research funding system will never exist. Does it really matter whether the government recognises every single contributor to an institution’s research performance?  What each country really needs is a system that allocates bulk research funding to universities in a way that broadly reflects the scale and performance of the institution in research, that incentivises improvement, that can be applied to research according to the institution’s strategy and at the institution’s discretion, that can foster research, and that can complement research funding won from industry or research funding bodies.

An election and a review led to the abrupt cancellation of the PBRF, one of the cornerstones of New Zealand’s higher education landscape. As the UK election comes ever closer, the established fixtures of the British system may also begin to look less than permanent.

The content generated on this blog is for information purposes only. This Article gives the views and opinions of the authors and does not reflect the views and opinions of the Impact of Social Science blog (the blog), nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science. Please review our comments policy if you have any concerns on posting a comment below.

Image Credit: Westwind Image2 on Shutterstock.