PBRF Sector Reference Group - Consultation Paper 5: Individual Researcher Circumstances and Staff Identification

Question Title

* 1. Please provide your contact details. Note that no identifying personal data will be made public, but we may contact you to follow up on your responses.

Name *

Company *

Job title

Email Address *

Question Title

* 2. If you are responding on behalf of an organisation, please tell us the name of that organisation

Question Title

* 3. If you are responding on your own behalf, it would be helpful to know your career stage (if applicable)

Early career

Mid career

Late career

Other (please specify)

Question Title

* 4. If you are responding on your own behalf, it would be helpful to know your ethnicity (and iwi/hapū if applicable)

Question Title

* 5. If you are responding on your own behalf, it would be helpful to know your gender identity

Female

Male

Gender Diverse

Prefer not to say

Other (please specify)

New and Emerging Researchers

Question Title

* 6. What should the criteria be for New and Emerging Researchers?

Option 1 - Refine the key principle to clarify the importance of the assessment period, reduce the number of criteria

Option 2 - Revise the key principle to focus on role, reduce the number of criteria

Another option: please provide details below

Extraordinary Circumstances

Question Title

* 7. Do you support renaming Extraordinary Circumstances as ‘Achievement Relative to Opportunity’?

Yes

Another option: please provide details below

Question Title

* 8. Do you support rewording the three existing Extraordinary Circumstances types?

Yes

Is there different wording you would like to propose?

Question Title

* 9. Do you support adding any of the proposed additional Extraordinary Circumstances types?

Career breaks or interruptions in employment

Force Majeure

Part-time or flexible working arrangements

None of the above

Are there other new types of Extraordinary Circumstances you think should be added?

Question Title

* 10. If Evidence Portfolio design was changed to require all Evidence Portfolios to have four Examples of Research Excellence unless specific exemptions apply (Option 2b in Consultation paper 3), would you support an option to formalise the relationship between the FTE fraction and the Evidence Portfolio submission requirements?

Yes

Another option: please provide details below

Recognising the ongoing impacts of the Canterbury Earthquakes

Question Title

* 11. Which of the following options for recognising the ongoing impact of the Canterbury Earthquakes do you prefer?

Option 1 - Standalone Canterbury Earthquakes provision is removed

Option 2 - Standalone Canterbury Earthquakes provision is retained, as in Quality Evaluation 2018

Option 3 - Canterbury Earthquakes impact types are combined into a single type of general Extraordinary Circumstances

Option 4 - Canterbury Earthquakes impact types are combined into a single type, which is included within a new Force Majeure category

Another option: please provide details below

Changing how Extraordinary Circumstances are declared

Question Title

* 12. Do you support the option proposed, whereby staff declarations of Extraordinary Circumstances are assessed by TEOs not panels?

Yes

Another option: please provide details below

Presentation of COVID-19 impacts

Question Title

* 13. Are there other ways of presenting COVID-19 impacts that the SRG should consider, aside from presenting them following a similar model to Extraordinary Circumstances?

Yes

Please provide any comments or suggestions

Question Title

* 14. If COVID-19 is treated with Extraordinary Circumstances, would it be more appropriate to have it as a separate category similar to Canterbury Earthquakes, or as a ‘type’ within the general Extraordinary Circumstances category?

As a separate category

As a 'type' within the general Extraordinary Circumstances category

Please provide any comments or suggestions

Question Title

* 15. If the new Force Majeure type proposed in this paper this was adopted, would it be appropriate to have COVID-19 impacts as an item within this new type?

Yes

Please provide any comments or suggestions

Question Title

* 16. Is there a different option you would like to propose for presentation of COVID-19 impacts?

Yes

Please provide any comments or suggestions

Eligible COVID-19 impacts

Question Title

* 17. Do you have any comments on the proposed list of eligible impacts? Are there any impact types you think should be reworded, or removed?

Question Title

* 18. Is there a different type of impact you would like to propose adding?

Declaring COVID-19 impacts in the PBRF Quality Evaluation 2025

Question Title

* 19. Do you support the approach of asking submitting staff in the PBRF Quality Evaluation 2025 to indicate in the Evidence Portfolio which, if any, of the list of eligible impact categories they have experienced?

Yes

Another option: please provide details below

Question Title

* 20. Should submitting staff also be asked to provide a statement in the Evidence Portfolio with further details such as dates/time periods and the consequences for their research outputs and activities?

Yes - submitting staff also be asked to provide a statement in the Evidence Portfolio with further details such as dates/time periods and the consequences for their research outputs and activities

Another option: please provide details below

Question Title

* 21. In developing internal processes for the PBRF Quality Evaluation 2025, should TEOs be expected to check all COVID-19 impact declarations, or only those that are not personal in nature?

Yes - TEOs be expected to check all COVID-19 impact declarations

No - TEOs be should only be expected to check COVID-19 impact declarations that are not personal in nature

Another option: please provide details below

Question Title

* 22. Is there a different option you would like to propose for declaring COVID-19 impacts?

Ensuring staff ethnicity data is collected fairly and transparently

Question Title

* 23. Which of the following proposed options do you support for ensuring staff ethnicity data is collected fairly and transparently in the PBRF Quality Evaluation 2025?

The PBRF Quality Evaluation 2025 Guidelines include a statement confirming that staff declarations of ethnicity remain voluntary.

The PBRF Quality Evaluation 2025 Audit approach includes looking at TEO processes for seeking staff ethnicity declarations and for recording and storing the data.

The chief executive officers of TEOs participating in the PBRF Quality Evaluation 2025 make a declaration that staff ethnicity data has been collected and reported in line with the Privacy Act 2020 and that processes for seeking staff ethnicity declarations were fair and transparent.

Another option: please provide details below

Ensuring Pacific staff can make appropriate ethnicity declarations

Question Title

* 24. Do you agree that the PBRF Quality Evaluation 2025 should continue to use Statistics New Zealand’s Level 3 ethnicity coding, which has been used since 2007?

Yes

Another option: please provide details below

PBRF Sector Reference Group - Consultation Paper 5: Individual Researcher Circumstances and Staff Identification

Question Title

* 1. Please provide your contact details. Note that no identifying personal data will be made public, but we may contact you to follow up on your responses.

Question Title

* 2. If you are responding on behalf of an organisation, please tell us the name of that organisation

Question Title

* 3. If you are responding on your own behalf, it would be helpful to know your career stage (if applicable)

Question Title

* 4. If you are responding on your own behalf, it would be helpful to know your ethnicity (and iwi/hapū if applicable)

Question Title

* 5. If you are responding on your own behalf, it would be helpful to know your gender identity

Question Title

* 6. What should the criteria be for New and Emerging Researchers?

Question Title

* 7. Do you support renaming Extraordinary Circumstances as ‘Achievement Relative to Opportunity’?

Question Title

* 8. Do you support rewording the three existing Extraordinary Circumstances types?

Question Title

* 9. Do you support adding any of the proposed additional Extraordinary Circumstances types?

Question Title

Question Title

* 11. Which of the following options for recognising the ongoing impact of the Canterbury Earthquakes do you prefer?

Question Title

* 12. Do you support the option proposed, whereby staff declarations of Extraordinary Circumstances are assessed by TEOs not panels?

Question Title

* 13. Are there other ways of presenting COVID-19 impacts that the SRG should consider, aside from presenting them following a similar model to Extraordinary Circumstances?

Question Title

* 14. If COVID-19 is treated with Extraordinary Circumstances, would it be more appropriate to have it as a separate category similar to Canterbury Earthquakes, or as a ‘type’ within the general Extraordinary Circumstances category?

Question Title

* 15. If the new Force Majeure type proposed in this paper this was adopted, would it be appropriate to have COVID-19 impacts as an item within this new type?

Question Title

* 16. Is there a different option you would like to propose for presentation of COVID-19 impacts?

Question Title

* 17. Do you have any comments on the proposed list of eligible impacts? Are there any impact types you think should be reworded, or removed?

Question Title

* 18. Is there a different type of impact you would like to propose adding?

Question Title

* 19. Do you support the approach of asking submitting staff in the PBRF Quality Evaluation 2025 to indicate in the Evidence Portfolio which, if any, of the list of eligible impact categories they have experienced?

Question Title

* 20. Should submitting staff also be asked to provide a statement in the Evidence Portfolio with further details such as dates/time periods and the consequences for their research outputs and activities?

Question Title

* 21. In developing internal processes for the PBRF Quality Evaluation 2025, should TEOs be expected to check all COVID-19 impact declarations, or only those that are not personal in nature?

Question Title

* 22. Is there a different option you would like to propose for declaring COVID-19 impacts?

Question Title

* 23. Which of the following proposed options do you support for ensuring staff ethnicity data is collected fairly and transparently in the PBRF Quality Evaluation 2025?

Question Title

* 24. Do you agree that the PBRF Quality Evaluation 2025 should continue to use Statistics New Zealand’s Level 3 ethnicity coding, which has been used since 2007?

Question Title

* 25. We welcome any other comments you have about Individual Researcher Circumstances and Staff Identification for Quality Evaluation 2025.