The 2013-14 CoRE Funding Round – quick facts
·
26 CoRE (Centre of
Research Excellence) proposals to select from in the CoRE fund round 2013-2014.
·
4 current CoREs not
shortlisted, therefore not funded post 2015.
·
8 CoRE proposals short
listed for site visits, including 3 current CoREs
·
There are no Māori led
bids shortlisted, to be funded.
·
There is no Maori on
the selection panel or advisory committee, nor any individual with expertise in
mātauranga Māori or Māori research methods.
·
The assessment decision
and therefore decision not to fund NPM in future was merely based on the
assessment of one proposal.
Nga Pae o te Maramatanga (NPM) – quick facts and stats
·
NPM currently receives
$5.3 million per annum, with a total of $39.6 million over 7.5 years (2008 to
2015 inclusive). This follows a contract extension granted by TEC for 18 months
in lieu of expected delays in the CoRE selection round.
·
NPM’s National Maori
Post-graduate programme, MAI Te Kupenga, has over 550 students involved
currently, with many more being involved since its inception.
·
In addition to the MAI
TK programme NPM has provided over 670 grants and scholarships to support Māori
and Indigenous students and researchers working in its field of Indigenous
(Māori) Development and Advancement – this includes Post Graduate scholarships,
research internships, research projects, publishing and conference support
grants, research methods scholarships and Fulbright awards for international
research study.
·
NPM has over 95
research projects either completed or underway – these projects include are in
areas from education and healthy and prosperous families to environmental
restoration and optimising and understanding the Māori economy.
·
NPMs network spans all
Universities in NZ, Wananga, CRI, and national museum along with community
researchers, centres and other communities and Iwi authorities. NPM has
16 partner research entities formally signed and advising the Centre and Board
on NPM direction and activities, but the network and collaborators span much
further and internationally.
In 2010-11 NPM underwent a mid-term review of contract
performance and contribution by TEC – changes were agreed and the Centre
continued to be funded. In 2012 the Ministry of Education undertook a
review of the CoRE Fund Policy and CoREs. Their result was to conclude
that:
“The review found that the CoREs policy supports
high-quality research in a tertiary context, with positive social and economic
benefits to New Zealand.” (source: TEC website).
NPM updated its strategic direction and research programme
plan with TECs approval following the mid-term review – to move to the next
phase with greater research excellence focus on priority areas. This update was
agreed with TEC and the CoRE Contract varied accordingly.
Centre of Research Excellence Fund Round and Process
2013-14
Key points on process
Peer Review?
Was it reviewed by true peers knowledgeable and experienced
with research concerning Māori communities, Māori approaches and methodologies
and the work of Ngā Pae?
Selection panel members not named till after shortlist
notification
Royal Society was asked and then advised Selection Panel
members were not going to be named. Panel members were then identified on
Royal Society website during week commencing 3 March (shortlist notified 1
March). Why were they not named prior to this? And why were we advised they
will not be and then they were named publically on the Royal Society’s website?
Positive International/National Reviews
We received three positive international and national
reviews; one at least could be described as glowing. We had little to rebut.
Were these reviews taken into account fully?
Not role of Royal Society to ‘make funding decisions’
Here is a quote from the CoRE funding round guidelines:
It is not the role of the Royal
Society of New Zealand to make funding decisions. Rather, their role is one of
facilitation and “guardianship” of the assessment process, ensuring that the
process is credible and defensible. To achieve this, staff will: organise all
logistical aspects of the process;
·
assist
the Chair of the CoREs Advisory Committee in determining realistic timetables
for meetings and visits;
·
record
decisions and collate feedback for applicants;
·
record
any conflicts of interest and actions taken; and
·
forward
the final recommendations to the Tertiary Education Commission.
It is possible that the TEC did not see that an opportunity
had been given to the Royal Society to make what effectively amounts to a
funding decision. Nor that Royal Society expected this. However, by not
shortlisting have they made a funding decision?
Secondly, perhaps they did not see that the Royal Society
could make a decision of this magnitude (not to fund 4 existing CoREs)
without involving the funder, namely the TEC.
No indication in 2012/13 from TEC officials that
fundamental change is proposed
Throughout the rebid process, we received consistent
messages from Tertiary Education Commission officials that the Minister was
“generally satisfied with the CoREs” and was not seeking major changes to
them. We were lead to believe that the Minister was seeking greater
yields of value and productivity from them rather than fundamental change. The
fact that four CoREs will not be funded is a decision of extraordinary
magnitude and entirely contrary to the tenor of the discussions we had with TEC
officials.
Was it planned to consider existing CoREs in a different
way?
The CoRE guidelines state:
Recommendations
to the TEC
As part of the Government’s commitment to supporting
collaborative research the CoREs Fund was increased by 10%, bringing the total
annual fund to just under $35 million. The 2013/14 CoREs selection round is for
operating funding only, and is a fully contestable round.
The CoREs Advisory Committee will recommend
to the TEC which proposals it considers should be funded, and the level of
funding to award. The TEC Board will make the final decisions and report back
to Cabinet after the selection round in 2014 to seek agreement for further
operating appropriations for the Centres of Research Excellence, including
disinvestment decisions if relevant, prior to announcing the outcomes of the
selection round to the sector.
Perhaps there was some expectation that current CoREs would
be considered somewhat differently. Or at least get short listed and
their outcome included in the final decision for TEC Board ultimate decision
and consultation with Cabinet regarding funding or wind down funds if any. This
highlights the issue without considering context and significance of this
decision – particularly for Maori and Maori research. Note that TEC has not
advised CoREs not short listed, now known to have their funding cease at the
end of 2015 whether there is a wind down period or any requirements.
Suggesting it is unplanned/unknown at present.
Timeframe
CoREs were advised initially and formally (to be confirmed
communication and medium) from TEC that the CoRE rebid submission process would
be from September 2013- March/April 2014 (EOI to full proposal
submission). A decision was then made and concern create that the
timeframe then changed to 6 December 2013 for full final proposals – this
changing everyone’s strategies and plans. The reason one understood to be
the Minister wishing to make an announcement in June 2014 and prior to election
along with other science investments.
This reduced timeframe, took CoREs by some surprise.
Ngā Pae had and has a very busy and full contract, annual programme and thus
has to deliver current contracted and planned requirements while submit a
proposal under a new tight timeframe. Did the change in timeframe
adversely affect the CoREs, the process and research excellence required and
expected? Ngā Pae missed out, other CoREs did. What is the quality
of those that remain?
The timeframe also pushed the Advisory Committees meetings
and decision – there was very short turn around for review and consideration of
documents then discussion of these documents and recommendations prior to
having to announce the short list (those for site visit). Was there
adequate time to do justice to the process, the applications and consider the
right decisions for CoREs in NZ?
Short list number – why so
few? Are they a definite?
Only 8 proposals were short-listed by the Royal Society’s
Advisory Committe, yet it was indicated in the guidelines that 10-12 would be
short-listed.
See extract from Page 8, Advisory Committee guidelines for
CoREs Fund 2013/14, dated October 2013. Refer
They do also suggest that only
proposals demonstrating research excellence will go forward to the 3rd phase.
Why note visit Current CoREs?
Given the significance of the decision not to short list
current CoREs, therefore have a site visit and not fund them further,
jeopardizing their future and ceasing them as CoREs, why did current CoREs not
get a site visit? This means a decision to terminate 4 CoREs was made,
perhaps without consideration of the context, lost investment, potential and
huge effort to build and develop the collaborations and processes to get the
significant outputs and outcomes the CoREs provide. The decision was made
solely on paper, one written proposal – which was under time pressure and some
false understanding of performing well and no major changes expected/wanted.
The Royal Society Advisory Committee guidelines for CoREs
Fund 2013/14 state:
March
Site Visits
Following the February meeting, the Advisory Committee will
conduct site visits to each host institution of the short listed proposed
CoREs. These site visits will allow members of the Advisory Committee to ask
further questions and raise issues that are not readily addressed in the
written proposal. The visits also allow the Committee to assess the suitability
of the host organisation’s provision of facilities, and to observe interactions
between representatives of both host and partner organisations. Each site visit
is anticipated to last for approximately half a day.
This appears to recognise the significance of further
questions and information to address matters not included or requested in the
application/written proposal. Thus enabling questions of performance, how
issues raised in assessment are addressed or even understood to ensure the
correct and robust decision.
Scoring criteria - to be
funded by international agency!
Extract:
Grading System (Section 2; confidential)
In Section 2 of the report, please provide two grades. This
section consists of radio buttons on the online portal. Note that the grades
will not be made available to applicants, which is why this scale is included
in “confidential” information in Section 2.
Grade A is an overall grade for the proposed research of the
CoRE (the first criterion given above).
Please use the following scale:
Grade 1: Outstanding (almost certain to be funded by any
international agency)
Grade 2: Excellent (very likely to be funded by any
international agency)
Grade 3: Well above average (worthy of funding)
Grade 4: Average (to be funded only if money permits as
contains minor flaws)
Grade 5: Below average (unlikely to be funded as contains
moderate flaws)
Grade 6: Well below average (would not be funded as contains
serious flaws)
This to me totally had us out of the game - our distinct and
unique research will not get international funders or national for that
matter. Was it really the right criteria to apply - whether
internationally fundable by another agency. If that was the case - why fund
through CoRE Fund?
Some additional points:
Performance of CoREs
TEC notes on its website:
Review
of CoREs Funding
In
2012 and 2013, the Ministry of Education carried out a review of the CoREs
Fund.
The
review found that the CoREs policy supports high-quality research in a tertiary
context, with positive social and economic benefits to New Zealand.
As a
result of the review, a new performance monitoring framework is being developed
by the Ministry and the TEC to show the contribution CoREs are making. The
framework will provide for how the TEC will monitor each CoRE’s commitments.
This was a review of current CoREs, therefore showing the
performance to expected standards. If the independent selection panel and
committee recommend to support CoREs that do not achieve this we know the
process was flawed!
Funding round advice
TEC also notes on their website:
Funding round
2013/14 selection round
As
part of its commitment to supporting collaborative research, the Government is
holding a selection round for CoREs in 2013/14. The 2013 Budget allocation
increased the fund by 10%, bringing the total amount of annual funding to just
under $35 million. The CoREs funding is for operational costs and operational
expenditure only.
The
TEC has contracted the Royal Society of New Zealand to establish the necessary
processes to provide the TEC with recommendations for funding future CoREs. The
Royal Society of New Zealand provided similar support in previous CoREs
selection rounds, and is recognised for its independence and understanding of
research provision.
The above again highlights, as the Royal Society guidelines
did, that the role of the Royal Society was to make recommendations to TEC, not
funding decisions. And not short listing so out no CoRE funding post 2015
is a funding decision!
Associate Professor Leonie
Pihama (Te Ātiawa, Ngāti Māhanga, Ngā Māhanga ā Tairi)
Director, Te Mata Punenga o Te Kotahi, University of Waikato
Koi te mata punenga, maiangi te mata
pūihoiho!
Imagine the invisible | Explore
the potential | Defy
the impossible
.jpg)
