The academically rich will get richer

By STUART DYE

Universities are the financial winners with other tertiary providers becoming their poor cousins under the new Government funding system.

The first attempt to create a new process for rewarding research excellence instead of student numbers will give seven of the eight universities more cash than under the old funding formula. All but three of the other organisations - private training establishments, wananga, colleges of education and polytechnics - lose out.

While the University of Auckland will take the lion's share, the University of Otago is the bigger winner. Thanks to the new formula it receives $1.8 million more than it would previously. Auckland, the second big winner, gets an extra $1.59 million.

At the other end, the biggest loser is Auckland University of Technology which will see its funding depleted by $250,000.

The figures are relatively low, as only 10 per cent of the total $180 million available from the Government is being distributed through the performance-based research fund (PBRF) this year. That will gradually increase until, in 2007, the entire amount is determined by the quality of research.

At the present performance rate, that would mean Otago receiving an extra $18 million, while AUT would lose out to the tune of $2.5 million.

"We gambled $2.3 million and came out with that and an extra $1.8 million which is an excellent outcome," said Otago acting vice-chancellor Dr Phil Meade.

He said the money was not earmarked for anything, but there was a desire to put it back into the successful research departments.

In the long term the differences would lead to a huge gulf between universities and other tertiary providers, Meade said.

Dr John Hood, vice-chancellor at the University of Auckland, said in the future the money would be invested in research facilities, staff and training. It was a much fairer system than the former one, which gave the same funding to the most research-intensive institutions as to teaching-only institutions. "You have to appreciate the irony in that."

Dr Bill Rosenberg, president of the Association of University Staff, said the league table came out as expected.

Unsurprisingly, he said the results showed that the best place to invest resources was in the universities.

"In a country where tertiary money is short, the Government needs to put money into institutions that are capable of quality research," he said.

The situation will dismay some other tertiary providers, which will need to find different ways of attracting funding.

Independent Tertiary Institutions, which represents five of the private training establishments involved in PBRF, said an assessment of research quality was necessary.

"But we look forward to when assessments of teaching quality and graduate outcomes are also carried out and published," said ITI executive director Dave Guerin. "When that happens, students and others will have a complete range of information to make study decisions."

Whitecliffe College of Arts and Design - one of the smallest institutions in the assessment - is represented by ITI. Under the PBRF system it will lose more than $25,000 this year.

"It would be highly disadvantageous for anyone to judge any tertiary institute solely on the basis of its research," said chief executive Frances Hartnell. "The lower than expected recognition of design, an important tertiary growth area, does leave the assessment process wanting in our opinion."

One of the surprise winners was Te Wananga o Aotearoa, which will see a small funding rise of almost $2500.

But the institution says the money means very little and is an added bonus.

Associate academic director Shane Edwards said the institution never set out to compete against others. "We want to create our own research culture, unique to what others are doing.

"We can engage in fields of research, such as Maori knowledge and community development, that are profoundly important in our society but are different to other universities' research."

Unitec and Waikato Institute of Technology were the only two polytechnics to enter the PBRF.

Professor Jacqueline Rowarth, Unitec's Director (Research), said the results confirmed Unitec's place as New Zealand's only dual-sector institution.

"Our results clearly position us between the university sector and polytechnic sector and we are the only institute without university status to have a staff member receive an 'A' rating. This further demonstrates that we are a different type of institute."

Jim Doyle, executive director of Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics of New Zealand, said the rest of the country's polytechnics had chosen not to participate as they provided an alternative to research-based university learning.

"Obviously we are not going to compete favourably in those circumstances."

Instead, the organisation was in consultation with the Government to create a different funding mechanism to reflect polytechnics' status.

"We are not trying to be universities and have no difficulty with that," he said.

The University Students' Association echoed calls for investment to ensure the quality of teaching did not suffer as a result of the introduction of PBRF.

"It is important to encourage excellence in research, but this must not come at the expense of high-quality teaching in our public tertiary institutions," said Fleur Fitzsimons, association co-president.