Dialogue: Competition earns top marks

Quality undergraduate learning should be viewed as of equal importance to research when funding is handed out, writes DR JOHN HINCHCLIFF*.

The suggestion that New Zealand should have only two, or at most three, elite universities, upon which Government research funding should be focused, should be treated with caution.

This idea was most recently put forward by Dr Graeme Fogelberg, vice-chancellor of Otago University, who envisaged the chosen universities being Auckland, his own and possibly one other.

His argument claims that since the research funding attracted by Auckland and Otago is significantly higher than the other six universities, the Government should enhance them even further with special funding.

But this implies that research funds should be given by some divine right. At present they are earned in competition with other applications from granting authorities. This seems to be an honourable and fair process.

Otago has been successful within this existing system. Why does it wish to prevent other universities from developing their expertise?

Is it expected that the Government should intervene and allocate all centres of research excellence to the two universities?

Such a process might backfire because some believe New Zealand can afford only one expensive research-intensive medical school, and, indeed, only one research-intensive university.

The recently announced CORE grants were given to applications hosted by three universities: Auckland, Victoria and Massey. Should Victoria and Massey be denied their right to compete for research funds? Would Auckland University expect to be handed its reward without effort and competition? I don't think so.

The advantage of the CORE funding process is that it nurtures inter-disciplinary and inter-institutional collaboration. Different research projects will attract different configurations of talent.

To expect all the talent to be locked up in two universities is unrealistic and would debilitate creativity in New Zealand.

Undoubtedly, Auckland and Otago should be more successful because they have medical schools which can attract significantly more research funding.

Also, they have a long history, rich assets and significant research excellence. It is wrong to deride this.

But it is equally wrong to deride the significant successes being achieved within other universities.

For example, Lincoln, New Zealand's smallest university, attracts as much research money per staff member as Otago and Auckland Universities - putting their medical schools aside in areas of crucial importance to New Zealand.

Auckland University of Technology (AUT) is developing a Centre of Research Excellence in Information Technology with outstanding researchers with international reputations, research connections to Stanford, Berkeley, and the University of Texas Medical School, relationships with research centres in Japan and Singapore and, the AUT Technology Park comprising 30 incubators mostly in information technology.

Similar stories can be told about Canterbury, Victoria, Massey and Waikato - all with some brilliant research initiatives. Should these be closed? Or denied funding?

Dr Fogelberg claims that we have structured our university system in an ill-fated attempt to be all things for all people.

However, there is a remarkable and encouraging diversity of programmes throughout the New Zealand universities. Each part of our university system contributes its own significant disciplines and research strengths. We should be cooperating and sharing these abilities, not closing them down.

Most universities will decide against introducing programmes which replicate other offerings. But interestingly, Otago University is competing by offering business programmes in Auckland.

What is implied in claiming that a university should be research-intensive and not be all the other things to all people? What would an elite university sacrifice? Would it continue recruiting as many undergraduates as possible, or perhaps restrict entry to A bursary students?

Hardly a popular move in a city economically dependent on large numbers of students. Would it mean not focusing on excellent teaching and learning? Or not going the extra mile to assist underprivileged students? Probably not.

So what would an elite research-intensive university cut out?

AUT does offer students in some fields the opportunity to staircase through certificates to diplomas to degrees. AUT also puts emphasis on quality student-focused learning in small classes.

So we do not aspire to be defined as an elite, research-intensive university. But these practices need not hinder the fact that we have an important research-intensive dimension to our university.

Aspiring to be defined as research-led or research-intensive should not demean an emphasis on the high-quality teaching of undergraduates.

Similarly, because AUT seeks to define itself pre-eminently as a student-focused and learning-centred, this does not mean that we will not support and encourage worthwhile centres of research excellence and require all degree-related teaching to be research based.

No one would wish to see research separated from all undergraduate teaching. This is required by law and is common international practice.

This debate ignores at its peril the fact that taxpayers funding and student fees are not given as a big blank cheque for academics to use by right for their own purposes.

Most of this money must go to support the very best learning opportunities for as many students as possible. The limited money available for research should be allocated, as is common practice, to the highest quality research centres, especially centres of research excellence that will enhance our community and connect with the learning of our students.

We should see our universities as having different emphases. Undergraduate learning that is of high quality is surely as important as research. Neither should claim to be elite or demand enhanced funding by Governmental fiat.

* Dr John Hinchcliff is vice-chancellor of the Auckland University of Technology.