It has implications for the quality of research in the long term, but also for the legitimacy of the system, if the restriction of academic freedom is unjustified. In the New Zealand context, the unjustified restriction violates Section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA). Before the authors elaborate on the scope of the researcher's academic freedom in the New Zealand context, comparative research already outlines a universally agreed core of the researcher's right to academic freedom.
Research and science are allies in the fight for public order, which is part of the safety valve function of freedom of expression. According to the authors, based on commentary and case law, the scope of the researcher's academic freedom rests on four broad paradigms of independence: economic, institutional, social and professional, and content.64. Lecturers are entitled to complete freedom in the research and publication of the results, subject to adequate fulfillment of their other academic duties.
Institutional independence protects the researcher against a narrowing of the researcher's research sphere by the university or the research institution. Curiosity emphasizes the researcher's private passion as the sole determinant of what is worth investigating. The conclusion is that academic freedom means the freedom of the individual researcher to pursue his or her concept of desirable research without financial, social or institutional pressure to conform to any other agenda.
The danger lies in the curtailment of the researcher's choices regarding his or her research activity.
IV LIMITATION ON RESEARCH
This is the function of peer review and how it works, which we discuss in the next section. The issues surrounding the use of peer review are complex and there will be many different views. We can find statements of both types: either that peer review is "the most efficient and respected way to assess the quality of research results"101 or that "peer review is biased, unfair, irresponsible, incomplete, easily corrected, often offensive, usually ignorant, occasionally stupid, and often wrong."102.
At the same time, senior management at the institutional level has indicated a desire to select winners and develop a range of initiatives to improve outcomes across all PBRF components. 101 Royal Society of London "Response to the RCUK consultation on the efficiency and effectiveness of peer review lt;http://royalsociety.org>. Likewise, a recent report commissioned by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) found the whole concept of measuring performance through peer review to be problematic. 104.
Another recent article examined the peer review procedure used by the National Health and Research Council of Australia to award research grants. That peer review promotes the orthodox is proven in respect of medical research where (orthodox) peer review is deliberately used to evaluate research to protect patients' safety and well-being.107 The level of existing scientific knowledge and medical experience are extreme considerations before allowing medical research involving the "use of" patients.108 Recognition of the patient's profession is a cornerstone of the profession109 is a cornerstone of patient research. small steps to protect patients. As mentioned above, the compliance costs of the PBRF are high and a transfer of funds from the polytechnics to the universities could be more easily achieved.
In any event, the PBRF is a qualitative intensification of the more general assessments of peer review and peer review, and does not always reaffirm their pre-existing provisions or ethos. This problem is exacerbated when a country's scientific elite is cohesive and also controls project funding through peer review. An infringement of freedom of inquiry does not require all researchers to be influenced by peer review.
The importance of research freedom, as underlined above, means that even a subtle infringement of the researcher's freedom constitutes a prima facie infringement of academic freedom and must be justified by the state.
V IS THE LIMITATION THAT THE PBFS PLACES ON THE RESEARCHER'S FREEDOM JUSTIFIED?
The generally accepted importance of university research for the well-being of the country dictates that the restriction must still allow the researcher to conduct research without real or perceived pressures affecting the way he conducts research. Therefore, the non-arbitrary and impartial differential systems of government funding of the tertiary sector in general and the PBRF in particular are important enough to justify a prima facie restriction by 14 BORA, freedom of research. But even if it is conceded that funding systems are important and justify limiting the right to freedom of research, this is an issue.
126 See for New Zealand and the PBRF objective Jonathan Boston "The Rationale for the Performance-Based Research Fund: Some Personal Reflections" in Leon Bakker et al (eds) Evaluating the Performance-Based Research Fund (Institute for Policy Studies, Wellington, 2006). The Ministry of Education used the bibliographic citation indicator to measure quality.130 Using this indicator, the Ministry found that the quality of research in New Zealand has increased since 2003.131 The Ministry's analysis at first glance suggests that there is a rational connection between the use of the PBRF and the improvement of research quality. What the ministry's quality indicator does not measure is the innovation of the research, which has been ongoing since 2003.
The study from 2009 and the use in different methodology for PBRF quality score The Ministry of Education's quality study casts doubt (at least) on whether there is a sufficiently rational connection between the PBRF and its purpose of increasing the quality of research.136. High transaction and compliance costs were identified by Boston as one of the negative features of the PBRF.140. 136 Since the focus of the article is not a review of § 5 BORA, the article does not enter into a discussion of the threshold that must be met in relation to "rational context".
However, the paradigm within which the state can promote and promote research is limited by allowing a maximum of scientific expertise to unfold and the absolute autonomy of the researcher. Due to the importance of research for the state in general and the achievement of "unpredictable" research results, a limitation of the freedom of research can only be reasonable if it infringes the right as little as possible, that is, it is the authors' claim that the respect of the Folketing is limited due to the importance of the right. 142. As the authors have emphasized throughout this article, it is the use of peer review as a tool for quality assessment that creates the immediate violation of the freedom of the researcher, as it depends on the subjectivity of the evaluators.143 Any quality assessment that uses criteria that require a subjective assessment of the quality of the research and that is not based on objective assessment criteria seen in relation to the author's primary assessment criteria will follow the author's primary assessment criteria.
To protect the freedom of research to the fullest extent, funding decisions should not belong to the state, but rather to the individual university and its research community.152 The importance of research requires a state funding system that is blind to the "quality" (at the time of evaluation) of the individual researcher's research. A reproducible methodology and comprehensiveness of research would be the criteria that decide its value. Even if the quality of research in New Zealand has increased because of the PBRF, it does not follow that further rounds of the system are justified.
VI CONCLUSION
The authors also do not dispute that the state has the right to ration the funds for university research. However, because of the importance of research freedom, any funding system must restrict research freedom as little as possible. The authors argue that the PBRF in the first place probably does not have a sufficiently rational connection with the goal of allocating money to its best use.
The PBRF also fails the requirement to limit the right as little as possible, as other, non-peer review methods of awarding funds are available. Even if one were to accept an increase in research quality in New Zealand due to the PBRF over the past nine years, the question arises as to whether repeating the PBRF is warranted. Any consideration of continuing the operation of the PBRF to award university research funds should at least acknowledge the threat that the PBRF poses to research freedom.
These measures may include evaluating research against objective criteria, such as reproducible methodology and comprehensiveness of research alone. New Zealand's research orthodoxy would already be prized open if the panel truly included international experts coming from non-English speaking academic communities. Although there is only a weak relationship between an individual's PBRF grade and his/her access to research money, it should be remembered that the system carries influence through the effect of a grade on the academic standing of both the individual and the university, as much as it does in any distribution of money.
While there is no indisputable system of research funding, and while governments undoubtedly have the right to restrict the collection of research funds and introduce installment systems, the restriction of academic freedom imposed by the PBRF and its sister systems is unjustified and, in the New Zealand context, a breach of the right to academic freedom guaranteed by the BORA. The restriction is unjustified because of the importance of academic freedom, both in terms of its practical benefits and its constitutional status, and because alternative systems are available that do not restrict academic freedom to the same extent as the PBRF. If the PBRF continues, the authors argue that its effect on academic freedom should be recognized and addressed as much as possible.
A greater number of foreign experts, including from outside the English-speaking world, would challenge New Zealand orthodoxy.
