Alongside Improving Research Quality: The results of the PBRF 2018 Quality Evaluation, there are two background reports:

• Report of the Moderation Panel and Peer-Review Panels (PDF 1.6 MB) – Overview of the process each panel undertook through the assessment, analysis of the results within a panel context and panel recommendations.
• TEC Project Report (PDF 2 MB) – Outline of the process the TEC undertook to implement the PBRF 2018 Quality Evaluation.

The below infographics summarise each subsector’s participation in the PBRF 2018 Quality Evaluation.

• Institutes of technology and polytechnic sector infographic (PDF 98 KB)
• Private training establishment sector infographic (PDF 98 KB) 
• University sector infographic (PDF 104 KB) 
• Wānanga sector infographic (PDF 98 KB) 

We have also developed an infographic that shows TEO participation across the four Quality Evaluation rounds (2003, 2006, 2012 and 2018).

• Quality Evaluation participation across four rounds (PDF 137 KB) 

We have developed a set of frequently asked questions (FAQs) about the PBRF 2018 Quality Evaluation.

• PBRF 2018 Quality Evaluation FAQs (PDF 373 KB) 

The final results for all four Quality Evaluation rounds (2003, 2006, 2012 and 2018) are available in two interactive charts:

• Quality Evaluation results by TEO and subject area
• Researcher demographics: results by subject area and demographic details (gender, ethnicity, age and employment status)

Things to note about the charts:

• The data is based on PBRF-eligible staff whose Evidence Portfolios were award a funded Quality Category (A, B, C, C(NE)). Figures are shown as full-time equivalent (FTE) weighted numbers and represented to two decimal places.
• The Pacific Research Panel was introduced  for the 2018 Quality Evaluation, so no comparative data exists from previous rounds.
• The new and emerging researcher status was introduced in 2006. This status recognises eligible staff who are new to research and just beginning to build a research platform.

For the 2018 Quality Evaluation round, we can show the types of content submitted in the researcher Evidence Portfolios (EPs). With this information, we have created  data visualisations that show the following.

• Research dissemination: Other types of research outputs, such as creative works, reports, discussion/working papers and intellectual property.
• Researcher collaboration: Journal articles with multiple authors.
• Author distribution: Average number of authors by subject area.  

Things to know about the data visualisations:

• This data set uses information provided in all submitted EPs. Other reporting outputs for the PBRF 2018 Quality Evaluation only report on funded Quality Categories.
• A researcher’s EP may include multiple research output types, so it may be represented in both the dissemination and collaboration interactive visualisations. For instance, an EP may include a published journal article with multiple authors and a commissioned report. In this example, each research output type from the researcher’s EP would be included under dissemination and collaboration.
• These visuals are only intended as a snapshot of New Zealand research at a point in time. There are limitations to the data available, as well as the need to ensure the privacy of individual researchers.