The TEC convened the SRG to provide advice and recommendations to us on what operational changes should be made to the design of the PBRF, primarily the Quality Evaluation, before the implementation of the 2018 Quality Evaluation.

These recommendations were developed as part of a public consultation process. The agreed recommendations of the SRG formed the basis for the PBRF 2018 Quality Evaluation Guidelines.

View the PBRF Sector Reference Group Terms of Reference (PDF 46 KB) (PDF, 46 Kb)  

The members of the SRG and their organisations are as follows: 

• Emeritus Professor Ian Town (Chair), Independent
• Professor Richard Blaikie, University of Otago
• Dr Maxine Bryant, University of Canterbury
• Professor Donald Cleland, Massey University
• Professor Philippa Howden-Chapman, University of Otago 
• Mr Jonathan Hughes, Universities New Zealand
• Professor Kate Kearins, Auckland University of Technology
• Professor Robyn Longhurst, University of Waikato
• Dr Shireen Maged, Te Wānanga o Aotearoa
• Professor Janet McLean, University of Auckland
• Professor Kay Morris Matthews, Eastern Institute of Technology
• Professor Richard Newcomb, Plant and Food Research/University of Auckland
• Professor Tony Parker, Massey University
• Professor Steven Ratuva, University of Auckland
• Professor Jacinta Ruru, University of Otago
• Professor David Simmons, Lincoln University

The SRG consulted with the sector and other stakeholders on a range of implementation issues as part of the development of operational guidelines for the 2018 Quality Evaluation.

The decision documents with the SRG’s recommendations to the TEC and the stakeholder feedback summaries are available.

Consultations by date (all consultations are now closed):

1.       Consultation on the approach to the design of the 2018 Quality Evaluation. The consultation period was from 1 to 29 September 2014.

• Approach to the design of the 2018 Quality Evaluation (PDF 476 KB) (PDF, 476 Kb)
• PBRF 2018 design feedback summary (PDF 64 KB) (PDF, 64 Kb)

2.       Consultation to review of the staff eligibility criteria. The consultation period was from 31 October to 12 December 2014.

• Review of staff eligibility criteria (PDF 255 KB) (PDF, 255 Kb) 
• Staff eligibility feedback summary (PDF 110 KB) (PDF,110 Kb)
• In-principle decisions for staff eligibility criteria (PDF 286 KB) (PDF, 286 Kb)

3.       Consultation on developing Evidence Portfolios – operational guidance for the Research Contribution component. The consultation period was from 4 December 2014 to 11 February 2015.

• Developing Evidence Portfolios – operational guidance for the Research Contribution component (PDF 439 KB) (PDF, 439 Kb)
• Research Contribution feedback summary (PDF 398 KB) (PDF, 398 Kb)
• In-principle decisions for the Research Contribution component (PDF 116 KB) (PDF,116 Kb)

4.       Consultation on establishing a Pacific research peer-review panel. The consultation period was from 26 February to 9 April 2015.

• Establishing a Pacific research peer-review panel (PDF 203 KB) (PDF, 203 Kb)
• Pacific Research peer-review panel feedback summary (PDF 89 KB) (PDF, 89 Kb)
• Decisions for the Pacific research peer-review panel (PDF 80 KB) (PDF, 80 Kb)

5.       Consultation on peer-review panel establishment and conflict of interest. The consultation period was 10 March to 20 April 2015.

• Panel establishment and conflict of interest policy (PDF 385 KB) (PDF, 385 Kb)
• Panel and conflict of interest feedback summary (PDF 174 KB) (PDF, 174 Kb)
• Decision on the panel establishment and conflict of interest policy (PDF 121 KB) (PDF, 121 Kb)

6.       Consultation on developing Evidence Portfolios – operational guidance for the Research Output component. The consultation period was from 31 March to 8 May 2015.

• Developing Evidence Portfolios – operational guidance for the Research Output component (PDF 278 KB) (PDF, 278 Kb) 
• Research Output feedback summary (PDF 535 KB) (PDF, 535 Kb)
• In-principle decisions for the Research Output component (PDF 151 KB) (PDF, 151 Kb)

7.       Consultation to review the general and Canterbury earthquakes special circumstances provisions. The consultation period was from 2 June to 13 July 2015.

• Review of the general and Canterbury earthquakes special circumstances provisions (PDF 192 KB) (PDF, 192 Kb)
• Special circumstances feedback summary (PDF 72 KB) (PDF, 67 Kb)
• In-principle decisions for the general and Canterbury earthquakes special circumstances provisions (PDF 102 KB) (PDF, 97 Kb)

8.       Consultation to review the assessment framework – Part 1: Potential changes to the framework. The consultation period was from 13 July to 21 August 2015.

• Review of the assessment framework – Part 1: Potential changes to the framework (PDF 205 KB) (PDF, 205 Kb)
• Supporting document: Appendix to review of the assessment framework (PDF 271 KB) (PDF, 265 Kb)
• Assessment framework (Part 1) feedback summary (PDF 80 KB) (PDF, 80 Kb)
• In-principle decisions for the assessment framework (Part 1) (PDF 205 KB) (PDF, 197 Kb)

9.       Consultation to review the TEO audit process. The consultation period was from 13 July to 21 August 2015.

• Review of the TEO audit process (PDF 211 KB) (PDF, 211 Kb)
• TEO audit process feedback summary (PDF 79 KB) (PDF, 79 Kb)
• Decisions on the TEO Audit Process (PDF 117 KB) (PDF, 117 Kb)

10.       Consultation to review the technical specifications for the 2018 Quality Evaluation information technology system. The consultation period was from 13 July to 21 August 2015.

• Review of the technical specifications for the 2018 Quality Evaluation information technology system (PDF 235 KB) (236 Kb)
• PBRF technical specifications and sector Feedback Summary (PDF 68 KB) (PDF, 68 Kb)
• Decisions on the technical specifications (PDF 153 KB) (PDF, 151 Kb)

11.       Consultation to review the assessment framework – Part 2. The consultation period was from 30 November 2015 to 9 February 2016.

• Review of the assessment framework – Part 2 (PDF 297 KB) (PDF, 296 Kb)
• Assessment framework (Part 2) feedback summary (PDF 110 KB) (PDF, 110 Kb)
• Decisions on assessment framework – Part 2 (PDF 125 KB) (PDF, 126 Kb)