University of Otago deputy vice-chancellor research and enterprise Prof Richard Blaikie’s comments come as tertiary institutions await the findings of the government’s independent review of universities.
The review, which is led by the former chief science adviser to the New Zealand prime minister Sir Peter Gluckman, has proposed overhauling the performance-based research funding (PBRF) scheme.
Prof Blaikie said the present funding system, while "in need of tweaking", was "relatively efficient to operate".
However, he said public discourse and ability to communicate across media should be considered as a component of the quality assessment.
"We want our research to inform product processes, services, policies or public discourse, things that are of interest to the public.
"That research we do that is publicly funded should be publicly accessible and used to inform the public or publics that it’s relevant to."
Prof Blaikie said for a great deal of research media uptake or impact could be measured.
He also acknowledged some research would not be "relevant to a large community".
"It might be very specific to a rare disease or a rare disorder that may affect some people’s lives very deeply.
"We’re going to have ways of capturing and not undervaluing those kinds of research [which are] very impactful for a small community."
The government postponed the next round of PBRF quality evaluation in 2026 pending the review. This meant although the funding would continue, the level of funding — $315 million a year — and its distribution, would be set at 2018 levels.
Otago University receives about $68m in PBRF funding annually, the second highest behind Auckland University.
PBRF has been used since the early 2000s, and it is also used to assign universities an overall ranking.
Funding levels have been eroded over several years, Otago University has submitted to government.
"At the minimum we propose a commitment to index PBRF funding to inflation."
The university has suggested rather than scrapping it entirely, it could instead simplify the quality evaluation component.
"If we believe in excellent research, PBRF needs to have a component that rewards this excellence."
Prof Blaikie said such a system was needed because recent changes to the Marsden Fund showed how "entire fields of research" could be denied the "opportunity to demonstrate excellence" because of "changing political priorities".
Universities Minister Dr Shane Reti said PBRF had driven improvements in research quality since its introduction.
"However, it is now perceived as delivering only marginal gains for a mature research environment.
"The university sector has provided clear feedback that the benefits of PBRF no longer justify the high level of compliance and stress associated with its quality evaluation component in particular."
