Reckons vs Research
One of the fundamental reasons research is so important is that it allows us to discern things that are true, but not intuitive from things that are false, but seem intuitive.
While reading through the submissions, I was reminded of concerns that I had during the 2019 Research, Science, and Innovation Strategy development. One of those concerns was around how submissions that were not (well) supported by research would be compared with those that were. Some of the documents relate personal experiences that are not likely to be in the research literature. Others make assertions -- sometimes with support, sometimes not.
One example of a well supported submission is from a group of Early Career Researchers from the University of Otago Department of Psychology. (https://www.mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/21039-ecrs-otago-university-psychology-te-ara-paerangi-future-pathways-green-paper-submission-pdf) Their submission had 22 citations of primary literature over 7 pages. Doug Edmeades' submission (https://www.mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/21783-doug-edmeades-te-ara-paerangi-future-pathways-green-paper-submission-pdf)was literally a copy of a peer reviewed article he published in the New Zealand Science Review. This anonymous submission(https://www.mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/21015-anonymous-respondent-te-ara-paerangi-future-pathways-green-paper-submission-pdf), covering a broad range of issues, has numerous primary literature citations as well as hyperlinks (which did not make it through the release process).
The examples above are the work of either individuals, or a small group of people -- working on their own time and with their own energy, without remuneration. There are many other well researched examples in the 458 released submissions.
In contrast the Universities New Zealand submission (https://www.mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/20919-universities-new-zealand-te-ara-paerangi-future-pathways-green-paper-submission-pdf)(which ran to 14 pages with 13 footnotes), had no references to primary literature. Similarly, the Science NZ (Organisation for championing and supporting the contribution of CRIs) had 25 footnotes over 44 pages. (https://www.mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/20832-science-new-zealand-te-ara-paerangi-future-pathways-green-paper-submission-pdf)Like the Universities New Zealand submission, there were no references to primary literature. Together, these organisations represent the institutions which make up most of the publicly funded research capability in Aotearoa New Zealand. They are also on the reference group for Te Ara Paerangi. The contrast between the previous examples and these two is puzzling. If any groups would have the resources to present thoroughly researched submissions, one might expect it to be these two. So, why didn't they?
One submission (which I am unable to put my finger on at the moment) asserted something along the lines of 'We should do more of what we are good at -- primary industries." Returning to my first point, I'll leave you with this video from Sir Paul Callaghan whose research will allow you to understand some things that are true, but not intuitive.
