Design research output was repeatedly cited as a concern in a December 2014 departmental review document obtained by the Otago Daily Times that preceded a proposal to close the department and get rid of the design programme.
As part of the proposal, more than half of the department's current staff would be made redundant, almost all of them from the design school.
The review documents show panel recommendations that design programme staff ''improve their research''.
As part of a restructuring in 2010 that saw the design studies department shuttered and re established within the newly created department of applied sciences, there was a mandated redesign of the curriculum.
''However, that is behind us now,'' Dr Waite said, ''and, before this proposal, I was confident of achieving my [future] research targets.''
Dr Waite said he was ''very proud of the strong and supportive design teaching and learning culture''.
''Research is at the centre of that,'' he said.
Data on the design programme's research income provided to the ODT by a design staff member show the steepest of drop offs in 2012 - design staff went from earning more than $100,000 a year in funding in previous years to nothing in 2012.
The documents also criticise some design research projects for having a ''lack of academic direction'', and say there is a ''systemic problem in design around lack of [performance based research funding] based research [that] predates the [2010 restructuring]''.
Performance based research funding (PBRF) is funding allocated by the Tertiary Education Commission based on academic research activity.
It was criticised by former design department head Thomas Bley last week as inappropriate for measuring design school success, because of a lack of peer reviewed design journals.
And former Otago Polytechnic design school head Alistair Regan said while he thought PBRF was ''a great system'', it did not ''particularly suit design as a way of working''.
''PBRF doesn't altogether recognise work that designers do, that's fine, it's the way it is. What it means is, we don't get income from PBRF that other disciplines do.''
The university responded to a list of questions about the review saying only that ''the PBRF process actually does evaluate the quality of creative outputs, which means it is a relevant measure for design'' and that it could not discuss any details ''at this point''.
The 2010 restructuring saw a quarter of the department's staff made redundant, and two full time staff members resign. Those staff were never replaced, which had its own effect on the workload of the department and its capacity to go after and acquire research funding, Dr Waite said.
The departmental review documents acknowledge that ''with the positions of staff who resigned not being replaced, inequitable teaching and teaching administration loads have been experienced''.
However, they say there had been ''no increase in student numbers that might support the recruitment of new staff''.
The documents state plainly ''ongoing development and success'' of the department of applied sciences ''in its current form is not going to be possible''.
''It is the panel's view that the formation of the department in 2011 was an interesting initiative that has not worked.''
It goes on to say ''challenging issues [in most part generated by the formation of the department] have created ongoing and debilitating problems for all of the department''.
Of the seven commendations the review gave the department, the design programme received only one, for Dunedin's Unesco city of literature bid. Design was included in two commendations of the entire department.
