International ranking illegal says university

By STUART DYE, education reporter

The authors of a report ranking tertiary institutions acted unlawfully when they used data collected from New Zealand institutions to make comparisons with Britain, the High Court at Auckland was told yesterday.

Auckland University is seeking an injunction against the publication in full of a Tertiary Education Commission report ranking tertiary institutions by the quality of their research and the amount of external research income earned.

The rankings will be used to decide how much research money universities get. The new formula is called performance-based research funding.

The commission's 300-page report was to have been issued today, but it has been delayed by the Auckland University legal action.

The university's lawyer, Julian Miles, QC, told yesterday's hearing that the case was not about freedom of speech or the university's concerns over a fair comparison with others.

It was about the commission acting unlawfully in producing an appendix in its report that used the data provided by New Zealand institutions to compare them with British institutions.

Mr Miles said the commission started a three-year exercise after extensive consultation.

The aim was to measure the quality of research by individual academics in New Zealand so Government money could be allocated on the outcome of that process.

But at a very late stage - early this month - Auckland University was surprised to be told that the large amount of sensitive data it had given the commission would also be used for "a completely different process".

Mr Miles said it was "unlawful to use the data for a different enterprise" and the university would not have given the information had it known it would be used in an improper and inappropriate way.

He said the methodology used for the British comparison was fundamentally flawed and produced fundamentally flawed results. It did not compare like with like, and was likely to cause reputation and financial damage to the institutions that had given the data.

The Tertiary Education Commission said publication of the list was necessary to prevent ill-informed comparisons.

"It is inevitable comparisons would be made based on our data," said commission chairman Dr Andrew West. "Our informed comparison, based on clear assumptions, demonstrates that this system is operating to international standards."

A clear guiding principle when the Performance-Based Research Funding plan started was that international comparisons would be made, and universities had always known that. The comparison was not a hurried list and was ingenious and imaginative in making allowances for differences in the British and New Zealand systems.

An ill-informed comparison would have a far worse potential effect on tertiary institutions.

"The most frequent question asked by everyone from lay people, to business people, to academics, to media, is how do we compare," said Dr West. "This analysis will stop other, more damaging, comparisons being drawn."

The commission conceded that the comparison needed to be viewed with caution and was not perfect. But it had been done with the greatest degree of accuracy possible.

The commission should not be bound by laws which prevent it publishing something that anyone else could and would publish.

"Our international reputation is confirmed by our researchers being sought by foreign institutions and our research being published in foreign journals," said Dr West.

Justice Hugh Williams reserved his decision.

Research ranking

* Performance-Based Research Funding is a new method which uses the quality of a university's research as a basis for deciding how much money it will get.

* This year, 10 per cent - $18.2 million - of the research component of Government grants to tertiary institutes is being paid under the scheme.

* This will rise to 100 per cent - $185 million - of the research grants by 2007.

* The results of the first research rankings cannot be revealed - and the system cannot be introduced - because of a court challenge against a comparison between New Zealand and British universities .

- additional reporting: NZPA