The Research Funding Revolution: A Step Forward or a Missed Opportunity?
The world of academia is abuzz with the government’s recent overhaul of its tertiary research funding system. At first glance, the shift from the Performance-Based Research Fund (PBRF) to the Tertiary Research Excellence Fund (TREF) seems like a pragmatic move to streamline bureaucracy. But as someone who’s spent years navigating the complexities of academic funding, I can’t help but wonder: is this a genuine step forward, or just a reshuffling of the same old deck?
The End of the Portfolio Grind: A Relief or a Red Herring?
One of the most striking changes is the elimination of the costly six-year quality evaluation process, where academics compiled portfolios for expert panels. Personally, I think this is long overdue. The PBRF’s evaluation system was a bureaucratic nightmare, costing universities millions and diverting resources from actual research. But here’s the catch: while the new system promises to reduce compliance costs, it replaces one set of metrics with another. The question is, are these new metrics any better?
Metrics That Matter—Or Do They?
The TREF allocates funding based on five key measures: research degree completions, external research income, citations, commercialized research, and citation in government policy papers. On the surface, these seem like sensible indicators of research excellence. But if you take a step back and think about it, they’re not without flaws.
For instance, relying on citations for 30% of funding could disproportionately benefit disciplines with well-established journals. What many people don’t realize is that fields like Māori studies, feminist studies, and digital humanities often struggle to gain traction in mainstream academic publications. This raises a deeper question: are we inadvertently marginalizing emerging and interdisciplinary fields in the name of efficiency?
The Elephant in the Room: Stagnant Funding
While the new system aims to simplify funding allocation, it doesn’t address the elephant in the room—the overall size of the fund. As Māori Garrick Cooper, president of the Tertiary Education Union, pointed out, the $315 million pot hasn’t grown in years. Adjusted for inflation, it’s effectively shrinking. From my perspective, this is the real crisis. Without additional investment, even the most innovative funding model will struggle to sustain high-quality research.
Commercialization vs. Curiosity-Driven Research
Another detail that I find especially interesting is the emphasis on commercialized research (7.5% of funding) and citation in government policy papers (5%). This reflects a broader trend toward instrumentalizing research—prioritizing what’s immediately useful over what’s intellectually daring. Personally, I think this is a double-edged sword. While applied research has its place, we risk losing the kind of curiosity-driven inquiry that often leads to groundbreaking discoveries.
What This Really Suggests for the Future
If you ask me, the TREF overhaul is a mixed bag. It addresses some of the PBRF’s most glaring inefficiencies but introduces new challenges. What this really suggests is that the government is trying to balance accountability with agility—a noble goal, but one that may come at the expense of diversity and innovation.
Looking ahead, I’m particularly curious to see how non-university institutions fare under the new system. Will they opt into the citation-based metrics, or will they focus on building research capacity? Either way, the devil will be in the details.
Final Thoughts: A Step in the Right Direction, But Not Far Enough
In my opinion, the TREF is a step in the right direction—but it’s just that, a step. To truly transform the research landscape, we need more than a new funding model. We need a cultural shift that values intellectual curiosity as much as practical outcomes. We need sustained investment in the humanities and social sciences, not just STEM fields. And we need to stop treating academia like a business and start treating it like a public good.
What makes this particularly fascinating is that it’s not just about money—it’s about values. Are we funding research to drive economic growth, or to expand human knowledge? The answer to that question will shape not just our universities, but our society as a whole.
