Fund will bring changes for nursing research: a new, performance-based structure for funding research at universities may affect nursing research.

THE GOVERNMENT'S new structure for funding research in universities, the Performance-based Research Fund (PBRF), has received mixed reviews from nursing academics.

The fund is designed to "reward and encourage excellence in research" through evaluating the quality of research and re searchers, and allocating funds accordingly. All research staff have had to submit "evidence portfolios" which provide details of an individual's research outputs, peer esteem and contribution to the research environment. These are now being assessed by external peer review panels, selected by the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC), with results due in March. Each researcher will be rated from A to D: A is a researcher of international standing; B a researcher of national standing; C an active researcher; and R means research inactive.

The three components of research assessment are: evaluation of researchers (60 percent); the number of research degree completions (25 percent); and how much external research funding an institution receives. There are 5770 postgraduate researchers in New Zealand, according to TEC. Each university will receive a bulk fund according to its research assessment, which it is then free to distribute as it sees fit.

The PBRF is being phased in over ten years and replaces the equivalent full-time students (EFTS) funding. Up until 2006, it will affect only ten percent of the EFTS funding; from 2006 this will rise to 50 per cent; and by 2012 all research funding will be via the PBRF.

Nursing academics see pros and cons with the new structure. It will advantage those disciplines with an established re search track record and disadvantage those with a relatively new and developing research culture, eg nursing.

National co-ordinator of Nurse Educators in the Tertiary Sector (NETS) Ian Pearson says the PBRF supports the scientific model of research and those who have been doing research for a long time. "Emerging disciplines such as nursing are at a disadvantage because the formula is based on number of research outputs."

Head of Victoria University's Graduate School of Nursing and Midwifery, Jan Duke, said the PBRF formula was established around "pure rather than applied disciplines such as nursing. One of the challenges is that nursing generally doesn't have a great number of skilled researchers. It is a young profession in terms of building a research infrastructure."

The PBRF will mean substantial budget cuts for the school over a number of years--"we won't be recruiting a lot more staff"--but Duke believes there will be benefits. "It creates an environment that ensures staff are research active and it will ensure collaboration with practice, so research is relevant. It will also encourage collaboration between universities."

Pearson said in the long term, the PBRF may encourage more focused nursing research, and nurse researchers to work in teams. Most New Zealand nursing research was done as part of qualifications and was therefore individualistic and driven by a person's particular interest. "The PBRF formula encourages researchers to look at the bigger picture," she said.

Representatives of NETS met Health Minister Annette King and Tertiary Education Minister Steve Maharey earlier this year and outlined their concerns about the impact of PBRF on nursing schools within universities. Duke said the Ministers had promised an evaluation of the impact of PBRF on schools, "but some felt that might be too late to make a lot of difference".

Nursing is caught in a double bind in terms of the PBRF. The profession wants its masters-prepared nurses to also be clinically competent. And that's what the Government wants to deliver its health strategies. But applied masters degrees do not have a big research component--about 25 percent. Applied masters also have a higher practicum content, needing increased lecturer input. This means lecturers have less time for research.

As one nurse researcher said: "It's a one-size fits-all approach but it doesn't fit us."

Some others think the PBRF will encourage competition rather than collaboration between researchers within the same schools, as they vie to improve their individual research rating.

Most nursing schools are in polytechnics and most polytechnics are opting out of PBRF and this is a source of concern for NETS. "We don't want a tiered model of nursing education, with the belief that because universities are getting PBRF money, their courses are going to be better than polytechnic programmes," Pearson said.

Polytechnics have been in discussions with TEC and the Ministry of Education for six months about an alternative research fund. "We want a fund that would cover the applied research most polytechnics do," the manager of projects and research for the Association of Polytechnics in New Zealand Harry Doig said. He is confident money for such a fund will be in the 2004 budget.

NZNO president Jane O'Malley, who is a researcher in the Department of Psycho logical Medicine at the Christchurch School of Medicine, believes the PBRF will encourage collaboration. "There is a limited amount of money, a limited population and some specific health strategies. That should encourage strategic research."

She acknowledged nursing was a fledgling profession in term of a research culture "and nursing schools will have to be recognised as special cases" but she believes the PBRF could have positive spin off for nursing. "We'll be able to benchmark ourselves against other disciplines and we shouldn't be threatened by that."

UNITEC Institute of Technology is remaining within the PBRF. Its director of research and Dean of the Graduate School, Jacqueline Rowarth, said with 60 percent of its students in degree courses and five percent in postgraduate studies, unlike other polytechnics. "It is important our students are taught within a research culture and it is quite clear we must participate."

Before the PBRF began there had been considerable debate and discussion to en sure emerging disciplines would not be left out. "Nobody wants to penalise emerging disciplines, the idea is to enhance excellence in research," Rowarth said.