Research in progress: Mapping the terrain of two applied ...

Research in progress: Mapping the terrain of
two applied institutional research cultures
Jennie Billot, UNITEC, New Zealand
Richard Smith, Auckland University of Technology
Introduction
This paper introduces and backgrounds a research project that is in progress in two tertiary institutions in
Auckland, New Zealand. Both institutions are trying to raise their research profile in response to the
changing external policy demands in the higher education (HE) sector. There have been a number of these
policy changes in recent years, with the result that institutions have had to react to meet the increasing
tensions between supporting research and the demands of teaching and learning. In particular, the newly
introduced funding regime, the Performance‐Based Research Fund (PBRF) that assesses research outcomes,
has altered institutional expectations and accountabilities (Ashcroft, 2005). There is now internal pressure
within institutions for staff to be more research ‘active’ and productive, influencing both their priorities and
academic identity (Codd, 2005, 2006a, 2006b; Middleton, 2005, 2006; Smith & Jesson, 2005a, 2005b). We
argue that in the current dynamic tertiary context, the working environment that supports teaching and
enhances staff research is critical to enabling positive outcomes.
Whilst acknowledging the impact of policy imperatives on the teaching environment, this paper focuses on
the changing research environment Firstly, the tertiary context for this project will be outlined and the
current educational policy structure will be stated. The tensions between teaching and research
responsibilities are noted and the impact on academic staff identified. Finally, we outline the research
project and possible implications that the findings may have for institutional strategy and academic identity.
The New Zealand tertiary context
The HE sector, internationally, has undergone significant change in the last two decades and this has
resulted in both a change in the policy and funding context for institutions and a subsequent and allied
change to the internal environment of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) as they move to respond to
external pressures. Within the UK and Europe, state policies have had a major impact on institutional focus,
their basic intention being to provide tertiary education for increasing numbers in financially viable and
capable units (Sjolund, 2002). Whilst this paper focuses upon issues related to research cultures within New
Zealand, many of the issues arising from sector restructuring bear international comparison. In this section
reference will be made to international examples of the changing tertiary sector, followed by an examination
of the characteristics of the New Zealand context. Finally the relationship between the sector structure and
an institutional research culture will be introduced.
In the UK and Australia, re‐regulation of the sector has meant that former polytechnics and institutes of
technology have made the transition from vocationally‐oriented training providers to research‐based
university‐like institutions. The resultant change in institutional focus has meant institutional restructuring,
with different demands being placed upon the nature of the work conducted and, just as importantly on
those who work within them. In the UK there has been significant institutional restructuring and Pratt
(1999) claims that the growth of the sector and the access to research funding has not occurred together, but
rather has resulted in an informal stratification of the sector whereby new universities (previously
polytechnics) are struggling to compete with the older established institutions.
Pratt’s assertions have resonance with the findings of Goedegebuure and Meek (1997), who identified the
1990s as having an increased focus on economic viability, resulting in institutional competition within a
market‐driven environment. In accord with the previous examples, Sjolund (2002) has noted that political

decisions play the major role in determining the structure of the tertiary sector. Although New Zealand has
had a lesser degree of restructuring than some of its international counterparts, an arguable decrease in the
diversity within the tertiary sector seems to have occurred through increased institutional autonomy and the
ability of non‐universities to offer degree course (Codling & Meek, 2003). The market‐driven education
sector, which was propelled by the economic policies of the Labour government in the 1980s and supported
by the actions of the National Government of the 1990s, has caused increased tertiary competition. Whilst
this has encouraged polytechnics and newer universities to emerge as stronger tertiary providers, (Pratt,
1999), they do so within an environment where older, established universities move to assert their sector
dominance.
While changes to sector structure have occurred in varied ways and to differing degrees, there has been an
associated shift in how academic research is facilitated and publicly funded. UK governments have adopted
the Germanic model of ‘integrating research into universities rather than separate institutes’ (Grant & Edgar,
2003, p. 319), a model that New Zealand has now followed. This integration is aimed at increased
coordination of academic research and has resulted in differing models whereby research may be separate
from teaching departments, or undertaken on a contractual basis, with teaching time being bought to allow
for research (Connell, 2004). The development of an effective institutional research culture thereby
contributes to the achievement of policy‐driven research outcomes.
Research culture
As political and policy‐initiative demands are effectively increasing the emphasis on accountability and
funding, institutions are being pressured to make strategic choices not only about organisational, human
resource and funding structures and resource allocation, but also the teaching‐research nexus (Hazelkorn,
2005). These choices have repercussions on the positioning and support of academic staff and so the resident
‘culture’ in which staff are situated, impacts upon their performance.
Hazelkorn (2005) observed, that alongside the governmental restructuring of the tertiary sector through
policy revision and institutional funding, it is both the quality and quantity of HE research that determines
the status and prestige of individual institutions. New Zealand institutions are recognising the need to
reinforce their position in the changing sector and as we have observed in our own institutions, to do this
involves strengthening their research capacity and capability This institutional focus has been seen as crucial
for the survival of some HEIs in the restructured environment (Hazelkorn, 2005). In practical terms, it would
appear logical that a research strategy is aligned with the structures for organisational management.
In New Zealand the government has separated HE funding between teaching and research activities, with
the latter being contested among institutions that conduct research. Research funding from Government
sources is based on the PBRF, whereby institutions receive income reflecting the PBRF graded status of their
individual members. This is in contrast to the UK where departments within an institution are allocated a
grade for funding (Blackmore & Wright, 2006; Lucas, 2006; Yates, 2006). The PBRF is effectively an
outcomes‐based model, where achievements rather than research inputs and related activities are
recognised. Research funding via the PBRF mechanism is being progressively introduced from 2004 to 2008.
Findings from an Organisation for European Cooperation and Development (OECD) study of twenty‐five
HEIs across 17 OECD and Non‐OECD countries provides us with insight into the characteristics of a
research culture (Hazelkorn, 2005) The consensus was that a research culture comprises an environment in
which research and teaching hold a significant inter‐relationship. The characteristics vary in degree from
being a culture where research underpins teaching, to one in which research enhances all areas within the
institution. A further study conclusion identified that for any development of a research culture, there needs
to be interaction within a critical mass of academic staff, research students and researchers who form a
collaborative community of scholars. A smaller study in New Zealand, involved a case study of the
development of a research culture in the School of Management Studies at the University of Waikato (Pratt,
Margaritis & Coy, 1999). It was found that progress on developing a research culture was related to a
decentralised management structure which enabled the school to direct its own resources to that goal.

It appears that any move to enhance a research culture requires an understanding of the multi‐dimensional
academic role and the multiplicity of ways in which different academic staff need to be utilised and
managed, elements of which are now discussed.
Teaching and research responsibilities and academic identity
New Zealand has historically had a climate that is less supportive of research. The tension between the push
for increased full time equivalent students (FTEs) and research is an obvious one, when FTEs have tended to
count for more than research achievements and research outputs (Elliott, 1996). Yet, more recent changes to
the HE sector that seek to increase the emphasis on research, inevitably pressures staff to re‐prioritise the
demands of teaching, administration and research.
Whilst policy drives much of institutional strategy, staff indicate that at a ‘more personal level’ they are
being influenced by the PBRF to re‐evaluate ‘their future goals, strategies and priorities’ (Middleton, 2005, p.
147). Research studies undertaken at Victoria University (Wellington) by Hall, Morris Matthews and
Sawicka (2004) and Hall and Morris Matthews (2006) are instructive. In both studies, it was noted that the
teaching commitments, service components and increasingly administrative duties associated with
academic labour have been shaped by the demands of the PBRF. This has also been reported in other New
Zealand small scale studies conducted by Middleton (2005, 2006) at Waikato University and Ashcroft (2006)
at the University of Otago.
Whilst there is argument that there is no single academic identity shared by all academic staff (Churchman,
2006) there is also an acknowledgement that academic staff do struggle in these times to ‘define their
identity and those of their colleagues’ (ibid, p. 5). Recent studies undertaken in New Zealand on the impact
of the PBRF on academic identities and academic staff morale parallel the ones undertaken in the UK about
the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). In the UK context which has had five rounds of the RAE there has
been considerable literature and critique (see Furlong and Oancea, 2006; Harris, 2005; Henkel, 2005; Lucas,
2006; McNay, 2003; Pritchard, 2000; and Sikes, 2006). Many of these studies and others have influenced
those undertaken in New Zealand about the effects of the PBRF including Ashcroft & Nairn, 2004; Ashcroft,
2005, 2006; Codd, 2005, 2006a, 2006b; Hall, et al., 2004; Hall & Morris Matthews, 2006; Middleton, 2005, 2006;
Roberts, 2006; and Smith & Jesson, 2005a, 2005b. All of these authors argue that the PBRF regime is shaping
academic identity and that in these environments the old adage ‘publish or perish’ has intensified.
The research project
In light of the complexities surrounding what comprises a ‘research culture’ we initiated a research project
in 2007, within two Auckland tertiary institutions, one a polytechnic (Institute of Technology) aiming for
university status, and the other, a more recently designated university. The selection of these institutions is
no coincidence, as we work as academic staff members within them and they provide examples of tertiary
providers aspiring to increased status. The project’s primary aim is to examine staff perceptions of the
research funding regime of the PBRF and its impact on their professional identity and research productivity.
It is not the intention to compare the findings with a more established university, but rather examine how
these institutions experience a working research culture. Three case studies were selected for the project’s
sample, namely the Schools of Education, Design and Nursing; these permit a comparison across differing
disciplines and between the two HEIs.
The research design includes initial interviewing (Dick, 1990) with the two institutional heads of research,
followed by a survey of all staff in the sample (about 240), using an online questionnaire through
SurveyMonkey. (A similar survey coincidentally occurred at the University of Auckland, see Waayer &
Hattie, 2007)) Semi‐structured interviews with about 30 staff across both institutions provide further
in‐depth data for the findings. These findings are still being analysed, but at this stage, early assessment
indicates some interesting observations. Preliminary analysis suggests that for some staff in both institutions
and across all three disciplines (Design, Education and Nursing) the imposition of the PBRF and internal
drivers to undertake research and to publish are resulting in a significant shift in academic roles and
responsibilities.

Implications for institutional strategy and academic identity
The evolving HE landscape has implications for both institutional identity and individual progress and
academic identity. While administration, teaching and research are all expected functions, staff research
confers a higher status and enhances possibilities of professional rewards such as promotion (Goddard,
Cranston & Billot, 2006, Greenbank, 2006). As every university (and increasingly other tertiary educational
organisations such as Polytechnics, Institutes of Technology and Te Whare W nanga) has criteria that
determine how staff are evaluated and provided with rewards (Meyer & Evans, 2003), the research culture
in which the academic is positioned is crucial to their research development and career.
While national economic and social policies directly and indirectly affect the tertiary sector, the response by
individual institutions may or may not be similar. Various types of tertiary providers will have differing
capacities for change and their ability to reframe their structural responses to policies, indicate inequality
across the sector. This inequality is particularly noticeable in New Zealand, between older established
universities and newer polytechnics and institutes of technology. Whilst the policy demands will be similar
for all providers, the different ways in which staff are supported to undertake research in the individual
institutions, affect the sustainability of staff contributions to fulfilling their employing organisation’s
responsibilities.
For HEIs the major imperative is raising the research output of staff which is particularly challenging in
institutions that ‘have their origins within applied and vocational disciplines where there is a stronger focus
on teaching than on research’ (Pratt, et al., 1999, p. 43). At the ‘national level, authorities are increasingly
defining research priorities for the country as a whole’ resulting in a need for institutions to ‘reposition
themselves within a fast evolving landscape’ (Connell, 2004, p. 25). So the ‘effective management of research
has become a key contemporary issue for HEIs’ (ibid, p. 15).
Summary
Notionally, HE research cultures provide environments that support, nurture and enhance the research
activities of academics. An effective culture needs alignment at all levels, to ensure relevant and appropriate
facilitation of initiatives that link teaching and research. If both are not carefully coordinated, then academic
staff may experience role conflict, which in turn undermines staff satisfaction, student success and
institutional health. In addition, academic staff assert the need for allocated research time so that it is not
given a lower priority
This in‐progress research has reported on a number of inter‐related issues in the domain of building
research cultures in applied institutions, drawing upon data from the research‐teaching nexus and the
associated shifting academic roles and responsibilities (Churchman, 2006). We advocate for a greater
understanding of what academic staff need to ensure stability of both institution and individual identity.
Future research aims to explore with staff, the ways in which their research profiles and career trajectories
may be enhanced.
References
Ashcroft, C. (2005). Performance based research funding: A mechanism to allocate funds or a tool for
academic promotion New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 40(1), 113‐129.
Ashcroft, C. (2006). Academics’ experiences of Performance‐Based Research Funding (PBRF): Governmentality and
subjection. Unpublished PhD thesis. Dunedin: University of Otago.
Ashcroft, C., & Nairn, K. (2004). Critiquing the tertiary education Commission’s role in New Zealand’s
teriary education sector: Policy, practice and panopticism. ACCESS, 23(2), 43‐54.
Blackmore, J., & Wright, J. (2006). The quality agenda and some issues for educational research and
researchers: an introductory essay. In J. Blackmore, J. Wright & V. Harwood (Eds). Counterpoints on the

quality and impact of educational research. Review of Australian Research in Education, 6, The Australian
Educational Researcher Special Issue, 1‐18.
Churchman, D. (2006). Institutional commitments, individual compromises: Identity‐related responses to
compromise in an Australian university. Journal of Higher Education, 28(1), 3‐15.
Codd, J. (2005). The PBRF as ideology: lessons from the British RAE. In R. Smith & J. Jesson (Eds.). Punishing
the disciplines‐ the PBRF regime: Evaluating the position of education –where to from here (pp. 58‐65). Auckland:
AUT University and the University of Auckland. ;
Codd, J. (2006a). Assessing research quality: the origins and outcomes of New Zealand’s Performance‐Based
Research Fund. In J. Blackmore, J. Wright & V. Harwood (Eds.), Counterpoints on the quality and impact of
educational research. Review of Australian Research in Education, 6, The Australian Educational Researcher Special
Issue, 43‐56.
Codd, J. (2006b). The Performance‐Based Research Fund and the production and commodification of
knowledge. In L. Bakker, J. Boston, L. Campbell & R. Smyth (Eds). Evaluating the Performance‐Based research
Fund: Framing the debate (pp. 215‐230). Wellington: Institute of Policy Studies, Victoria University of
Wellington.
Codling, A., & Meek, L. (2003). The impact of the state on institutional differentiation in New Zealand.
Higher Education Management and Policy, 15(2), 83‐98.
Connell, H. (2004). (Ed.). University research management: Meeting the institutional challenge. Paris, France:
OECD Publications.
Dick, B. (1990). Convergent interviewing. Chapel Hill, Australia: Interchange.
Elliott, G. (1996). Why is research invisible in further education British Educational Research Journal, 22(1),
101‐112.
Furlong, J., & Oancea, A. (2006). Assessing quality in applied and practice‐based research in education: a
framework for discussion. In J. Blackmore, J. Wright & V. Harwood (Eds). Counterpoints on the quality and
impact of educational research. Review of Australian Research in Education, 6, The Australian Educational
Researcher Special Issue, 89‐104.
Goddard, J. T., Cranston, N., & Billot, J. (2006). Making it work: Identifying the challenges of collaborative
international research. The International Electronic Journal of Leadership in Learning (IEJLL), 10(11),
www.ucalgary.ca/~iejll/.
Goedegebuure, L., & Meek, V. L. (1997). On change and diversity: the role of government influences. Higher
Education in Europe, 22(3), 309‐319.
Grant, K., & Edgar, D. (2003). Using the theory of policy networks and communities to explore who
determines the Scottish higher education research policy: Issue for educational managers. The International
Journal of Educational Management, 17(7), 318‐329.
Greenbank, P. (2006). The academic’s role: the need for a re‐evaluation. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(1),
107‐112.
Hall, C., Morris Matthews, K., & Sawicka, T. (2004). Performance‐Based Research Fund (PBRF): Policy and
practice. In I. Livingstone (Ed.). New Zealand Annual Review of Education: 13, (pp. 79‐104). Wellington: School
of Education, Victoria University.
Hall, C., & Morris Matthews, K. (2006). Impact of the Performance‐Based Research Fund on teaching and the
research‐teaching balance: Survey of a New Zealand university. In L. Bakker, J. Boston, L. Campbell & R.

Smyth (Eds.), Evaluating the Performance‐Based research Fund: Framing the debate (pp. 419‐476). Wellington:
Institute of Policy Studies, Victoria University of Wellington
Harris, S. (2005). ‘Rethinking academic identities in neo‐liberal times’, Teaching in Higher Education 10(4),
421‐434.
Hazelkorn, E. (2005). University research management: Developing research in institutions. Paris, France: OECD
Publications.
Henkel, M. (2005). Academic identity and autonomy in a changing policy environment. Higher Education, 49,
1255‐176.
Lucas, L. (2006). The research game in academic life. Buckingham: Open University Press
McNay, I. (2003). Assessing the assessment: An analysis of the UK Research Assessment exercise, 2001 and
its outcomes, with special reference to research in education. Science and Public Policy, 30(1), 1‐8.
Meyer, L., & Evans, I. (2003). Motivating the professoriate: Why sticks and carrots are only for donkeys.
Higher Education Management and Policy, 15(3), 151‐167.
Middleton, S. (2005). Disciplining the subject: The impact of PBRF on education academics. New Zealand
Journal of Educational Studies, 40(1), 131‐156.
Middleton, S. (2006). Researching identities: Impact of the Performance‐Based Research Fund on the
subject(s) of Education. In L. Bakker, J. Boston, L. Campbell & R. Smyth (Eds). Evaluating the
Performance‐Based research Fund: Framing the debate (pp. 477‐500). Wellington: Institute of Policy Studies,
Victoria University of Wellington
Pratt, J. (1999). Policy and policymaking in the unification of higher education. Journal of Education Policy,
14(3), 257‐269.
Pratt, M., Margaritis, D., & Coy, D. (1999). Developing a research culture in a university faculty. Journal of
Higher Education Policy and Management, 21(1), 43‐55.
Pritchard, C. (2000). Making managers in universities and colleges. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Roberts, P. (2006). Performativity, measurement and research: A critique of the performanced‐based
research funding in New Zealand. In J. Ozga, T. Popkewitz & T. Seddon (Eds.), World yearbook of Education
2006: Education, research and policy (pp. 185‐199). London: Routledge.
Sikes, P. 2006). Working in a ‘new’ university: in the shadow of the Research Assessment Exercise Studies in
Higher Education, 31(5), 555‐568.
Sjolund, M. (2002). Politics versus evaluation: The establishment of three new universities in Sweden.
Quality in Higher Education, 8(2), 173‐181.
Smith, R. & Jesson, J. (2005a, December). ‘Shaping academic identity: The politics and ‘performativity’ of
research under government accountability frameworks: Lessons from New Zealand’. In J. Barbara, M. Leach
& L. Walsh (Eds.), Refereed Conference Proceedings of The politics of recognition: Identity, respect and justice,
conference 30‐31 July 2005, (pp. 220‐244), Melbourne: Deakin University Press.
Smith, R. & Jesson, J. (Eds.). (2005b). Punishing the disciplines‐ the PBRF regime: Evaluating the position of
education –where to from here Auckland: AUT University and the University of Auckland.
Waayer, D. & Hattie, J. (2007). Research and teaching in New Zealand universities. Auckland: Faculty of
Education, The University of Auckland.

Yates, L. (2006). Is impact a measure of quality Producing quality research and producing quality
indicators in Australia. In J. Blackmore, J. Wright & V. Harwood (Eds.), Counterpoints on the quality and
impact of educational research. Review of Australian Research in Education, 6, The Australian Educational
Researcher Special Issue, 119‐132.