Welcome to the Submission Sharing Space
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. -- T. Jefferson
Please read the How to Participate in Submission Sharing here before you post anything. This will help keep the author's intent clear and make the posts in this group copy and paste ready.
What is the aim of this space?
To get the best ideas possible for improving the research system to MBIE's submission process by the 16th of March.
How will we do that?
By having discussions and making posts in this space of single topic submission 'snippets' with pre-approval for anyone to use, share, and remix those snippets. A snippet can then be used by themselves or with other snippets to build a submission to MBIE by anyone. In this way, the original writer's ideas can be amplified by others who use them. This also allows more people to make submissions on things they care about, especially if they do not have the time to write the submission on their own.
We encourage sharing of the snippets via social media to push the ideas out as widely as possible. You can do that easily for Twitter and Facebook with the share button on each post.
What is a snippet?
A snippet is a piece of text on one topic or idea. It is written for a general audience. It has a clear descriptive title. It may or may not have references. It may describe a problem, and (if possible) include a proposed solution! It is as concise as possible. It may be a summary of a much longer piece. It is exactly what you make it to be.
How can snippets be pre-approved?
They are pre-approved for reuse by the CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication that every poster in this space agrees to apply to their posts.
Can I get credit for the snippet that I posted?
The post with the snippet will have your profile name. In this way others will know who posted it. Members can like posts, which is some measure of how many people support the ideas in the snippet. When the snippet is used by others in a submission to MBIE, the CC0 dedication does not require giving credit. Perhaps the most satisfying form of 'credit' one might get for a snippet is for the ideas in it to become part of the policy shaping the research system of the future. The more your snippet is used in submissions, the likelier it is your idea will be noticed.
What if I am concerned about using my real name for posting?
Users may create multiple profiles so that they can post pseudonymously.
Is the Te Ara Paerangi Community going to do more than this?
Absolutely! This is just the beginning. We plan to build a community that works together over the span of the Te Ara Paerangi - Future Pathways project. In a sense, one could think of this effort as a chance to invent the ways we will collaborate across the system and just go ahead and do it.
This is a PUBLIC group. Anyone can view the contents of this group
This space is where submissions (or submission snippets) are posted for sharing. So that others can reuse and remix the submissions (or submission snippets) posted here, permission is granted for any use without attribution, all posts in this group are licensed under the CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. By posting in this group, the poster affirms that they have the right to post the material and that they waive their copyright under CC0 as described below.
To the extent possible under law, the te-ara-paerangi.community contributor has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to the works posted in the Posts section of theSubmission Sharing Space. This work is published from: New Zealand.
Aotearoa New Zealand’s high research overheads are internationally anomalous, and are over 100% of directly accounted for research costs such as salary, consumables and operating expenses. This means that the majority of taxpayer-derived funding provided by the Government to public institutions is difficult or impossible to properly account for. They also serve as a constant source of tension and confusion for all international migration and collaboration in the research sector.
Link to full brief and citeable content: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6360794
Reference:
Baisden, Troy, & Patel, Sneh. (2022). New Zealand's High Research Overheads: An International Anomaly. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6360794
Hashtags:
Georgia Carson
Postdoctoral Research Fellow and Māori Engagement Advisor, Malaghan Institute of Medical Research,
Early Career Researcher Representative, New Zealand Association of Scientists
This submission proposes that MBIE develop a formal, regular curriculum on Te Tiriti and mātauranga Māori for all researchers in Aotearoa who apply for government funds. We propose that this course be a requirement for funding, both base funding and project specific streams. More in-depth, optional, specialised courses would be offered for those researchers who work directly with human resources, be that communities, individuals, sensitive information related to communities or individuals, clinical samples, cell lines or data such as genomes or gene expression patterns; or for all researchers who work in Aotearoa with endemic and native non-human species; or for researchers who are involved in applying for funding for projects in Aotearoa that include any of the above. This programme would mirror similar training requirements enforced by the Ministry of Primary Industries regarding responsible animal use as per the Animal Welfare Act 1991 and the Environmental Protection Authority under Ministry for the Environment biosecurity protocols required for genetically modified organisms as per the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996, for example. We consider ethical research with, by and on Māori to be of equal importance, justifying widespread minimum basic training. Such minimum basic training has been proposed by the National Science Challenges and Ngā Pae o te Māramataka Rauika Māngai in the ‘Guide to Vision Mātauranga’ report from 2020 (pg. 11, 69).
It would address the following question in the Green Paper:
- Key Question 5: What are your thoughts on how to enable and protect mātauranga Māori in the research system?
The programme would consist of a short seminar (basic training) or a longer detailed programme (sector specific), to be completed before initiation of projects and a refresher course every 12 months. It could be carried out by an authorised in-house cultural advisor, or an external contracted party, and would involve post-seminar quizzes on basic cultural competency. It would consist of the following topics, with optional exploration of sector relevant information in the detailed programmes:
- General topics
- Basic content of Te Tiriti and relevance to research in modern day Aotearoa.
- Basic explanation of mātauranga Māori and unique value to research.
- Sector specific topics
- Basic te reo terms relevant to their sector.
- Basic overview of Māori inequities in the researcher audience sector.
- Brief history of Māori community relationships with research in their sector.
- Code of conduct when engaging with Māori and Māori communities in the course of research, whether that be as:
- External community collaborator (e.g. iwi sharing research relevant mātauranga/knowledge on e.g. local waterway)
- External service provider (e.g. field guide)
- Research subject (e.g. clinical trial patients and whānau)
- Fellow researcher (e.g. PhD student)
- Group lead/Funding applicant specific topic
- Best practices and behaviour to avoid in incorporating mātauranga Māori into existing or proposed research (e.g. Vision Mātauranga in funding applications, project design considerations)
- Time for general questions and discussion on mātauranga, Māori communities, and research, which can take place in a space that does not put that burden on Māori colleagues.
This programme would, in the short term:
- Vastly and quickly increase the basic knowledge of the entire hierarchy of the Research Science and Innovation (RSI) system, especially amongst tangata Tiriti who lack cultural competency, and international researchers choosing to undertake research in Aotearoa. Many researchers are aware cultural competency is an area they need to improve in, but are unsure how best to go about this.
- Move Te Tiriti and mātauranga Māori from an optional career development upskill for those researchers already inclined to further knowledge on Te Ao Māori into a required key minimum competency for every researcher whose work impacts Māori.
- Decrease the chance of racist research being carried out, whether that be stealing Māori intellectual property, perpetuating racist stereotypes, inadequate consultation, or erecting barriers to Māori access to research outcomes such as medical therapies.
- Formalise, centralise and standardise already existing cultural training courses for researchers in Aotearoa. It is envisioned that this would reduce but not eliminate the need for already existing training programmes within institutions, as these could be reprioritised to give more industry specific (e.g. clinical, taonga species etc) or in-depth training. The course would also not replace the need for project-specific community engagement, but serve as foundational knowledge for that work to begin.
- Minimise rare Māori researchers having to work double shifts/aronga takirua to oversee research from their tangata Tiriti colleagues and make sure it is culturally ethical and safe, while also trying to carry out their own research. Especially for those Māori researchers where a cultural advisor role is not part of their designated job description.
This programme would, in the long term:
- Increase Māori trust in the RSI system, and therefore increase equity and diversity as Māori see the RSI system as a viable career choice.
- Improve connectivity between the RSI system and Māori communities and therefore lead to more and better collaborations and successful research.
- Normalise the consideration of tikanga and Te Ao Māori values in all sectors of research in Aotearoa, and lead to deeper general understanding among RSI workers and their associates of Te Tiriti, mātauranga Māori and Te Ao Māori in general.
- Serve as a pilot for efficient and effective cultural literacy and reciprocity training that reduces surprise scenarios for international collaborations.
Feasibility. A government programme that requires Aotearoa researchers to display minimum cultural competency would have some start-up costs required, and would take time to approve curriculum, publicise the new requirement, and train course providers. However, taking advantage of the training resources for similar already extant courses within several institutions, this set-up cost and time can be minimised. Examples of training programmes already in use are:
- Te Tiriti Course led by Robert Consadine based on material in his book (Consedine and Consedine, 2012)
- The Science for Technological Innovation (SfTI) Capacity Development Programme, which includes modules on Vision Mātauranga (Q.10, pg 14)
- University courses, for example:
- Various international graduate and undergraduate courses based on the book ‘Decolonising Methodologies’ by Linda Tuhiwai Smith (Smith, 2012) for instance in Australia, the UK and USA.
Conclusion. A government Te Tiriti and Mātauranga Māori programme for researchers would undoubtedly improve the research, science, and innovation system, with long-term benefits and reach beyond the RSI sector. Although it would require not insignificant set-up costs, the benefits both intangible and tangible would strengthen the RSI system as a whole and more than make up for this investment. This proposal would roundly improve the RSI system and support the aspirations of the Te Ara Paerangi – Future Pathways Programme as a modern, accessible, inclusive, and productive sector of Aotearoa.
Acknowledgements. Many thanks go to my fellow councillors of the New Zealand Association of Scientists (NZAS) for their constructive comments on this proposal.
A citable version of this proposal can be found at https://zenodo.org/record/6355132#.YjA2hlhBy3I
References
Australian National University. “Decolonising Methodologies and other Indigenous Perspectives on Research.” Programs and Courses, 2022, https://programsandcourses.anu.edu.au/course/INDG4001. Accessed 15 March 2022.
Consedine, Bob, and Joanna Consedine. Healing Our History: The Challenge of the Treaty of Waitangi. Penguin Books, 2012.
Haar, Jarrod, and William John Martin. “He aronga takirua: Cultural double-shift of Māori scientists.” Human Relations, April 2021. Sage Journals, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00187267211003955. Accessed 14 March 2022.
Manukau Institute of Technology. “Cultural competency - Te Tiriti o Waitangi workshop.” Manukau Institute of Technology, 10 February 2022, https://www.manukau.ac.nz/study/short-courses/maori-language-and-culture/cultural-competency-te-tiriti-o-waitangi-workshop. Accessed 15 March 2022.
Massey University. “Toro Mai.” Massey University, 29 July 2021, https://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/international/where-can-i-study/study-online/toromai/toromai_home.cfm. Accessed 15 March 2022.
Ministry for Primary Industries. “Animal welfare legislation | NZ Government.” Ministry for Primary Industries, 15 February 2022, https://www.mpi.govt.nz/legal/legislation-standards-and-reviews/animal-welfare-legislation/. Accessed 15 March 2022.
Ministry for the Environment. “Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996.” Ministry for the Environment, 5 April 2021, https://environment.govt.nz/acts-and-regulations/acts/hsno-act-1996/. Accessed 15 March 2022.
Rauika Māngai. A Guide to Vision Mātauranga: Lessons from Māori Voices in the New Zealand Science Sector. Rauika Māngai, 2020. Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga, http://www.maramatanga.co.nz/sites/default/files/Rauika%20Ma%CC%84ngai_A%20Guide%20to%20Vision%20Ma%CC%84tauranga_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 15 March 2022.
Science for Technological Innovation National Science Challenge. “Professional development.” Science for Technological Innovation, 2022, https://www.sftichallenge.govt.nz/for-researchers/professional-development/. Accessed 15 March 2022.
Science for Technological Innovation National Science Challenge. Te Ara Paerangi Future Pathways: Green paper consultation Science for Technological Innovation National Science Challenge submission. 2022. Science for Technological Innovation National Science Challenge, https://www.sftichallenge.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Download-PDFs/Te-Ara-Paerangi-Future-Pathways_-SfTI-submission.pdf. Accessed 15 March 2022.
Smith, Linda Tuhiwai. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Otago University Press, 2012.
The University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. “Decolonizing Methodologies - Graduate Certificate in Participatory Research.” Graduate Certificate in Participatory Research, 2022, https://participatoryresearch.unc.edu/decolonizing-methodologies/. Accessed 15 March 2022.
The University of Oxford School of Geography and the Environment. “Decolonising Research Methodologies | Graduate Degree Programmes | International Graduate School.” School of Geography and the Environment, 12 April 2021, https://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/study/graduate/decolonising-research-methodologies.html. Accessed 15 March 2022.
Victoria University of Wellington. “Māori research practices.” Victoria University of Wellington, Victoria University of Wellington, 2020, https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/research/support/maori-research-practices. Accessed 15 March 2022.
Hash Tags
Introduction
Genomics is a broad research discipline, covering things from COVID-19 sequencing to human health to the biological diversity which sustains the planet. To support the best possible genomics research, the research system of the future must be more nimble, encouraging rapid integration of changes that happen in this field while being mindful of the mature parts of the science that continue to underpin research capability. There are many ways we can approach this challenge. Here we will look at two key aspects of genomics research as examples: DNA sequencing and computational analyses.
DNA sequencing
In brief, DNA sequencing 'reads' the letters in DNA producing data composed of the base letters A, C, G, and T. There are many technologies that do this job. Each with its own particular best use case. Some of them produce small amounts of very accurate data. Here we are referring to Sanger Sequencing. This is one of the workhorses of molecular biology. The country has this capability now and will continue to need it in the future. There are other technologies (many different flavours) that produce lots and lots of sequence data. Some of these are big and expensive, but we have enough call for to have a reasonable number of in country for shared use. Other types of these instruments would be used so rarely, that a capital investment may not make sense. Still others, are very inexpensive and able to be deployed in the field rather than in a big institutional laboratory. Many more are yet to be invented. A one-size-fits-all policy would serve genomics science very poorly. What could serve genomics research and the communities it supports well is careful exploration of current capabilities and future possibilities within a flexible framework lead by researchers.
Computational analyses
There are many types of analyses done with genomic data. In computational infrastructure, like the different sequencing technologies, one size does not fit all. Our current menagerie of computing infrastructure is mainly based on technologies that are well past their prime. Changing this kind of infrastructure can be difficult due to the appearance of sunk costs and players who are comfortable working the current system. Alternatives to our current model already exist. It is time to empower researchers to choose the best approaches for the work that they are doing and let them push on the cutting edge. This can be done by providing the option of including computational costs in grants, rather than only including them in institutional overheads or a handful of publicly funded national institutions.
Conclusion
For genomics research to reach its potential benefits for all New Zealanders, we must avoid the narrow (and incorrect) a few-sizes-fits-many approaches to DNA sequencing and computational infrastructures. The private and NGO sectors in Aotearoa are already demonstrating how to do this, improving the science and innovating along the way. This is the case for the two example areas of genomics which we describe here and others as well.
Hash Tags
Vannevar Bush founded the successful post-war mission of the United States National Science Foundation on five fundamental principles.1 These included protection of basic research, and the institutions housing it, from direct control of the funder or immediate demands such as the race to applications Bush himself had overseen as director of the Manhattan Project. A relationship of trust grew by housing the entire funding apparatus within the US democratic system.
The intent extended to post-war New Zealand, but was embodied imperfectly in the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR), which was not independent of government. The Marsden Fund provides a more fitting implementation, beloved by the scientific community, but beset by the challenges of hypercompetition.
The concept of Bush’s compact between ‘Science and Society’ seems to be largely forgotten within the New Zealand Science Community. Reforging the fundamental basis for trust and stability in a nation’s political economy of science funding has required reconsideration since the end of the Cold War. In the 1990s, recognition grew that applied and fundamental science were complementary rather than competing endeavours.2 Grand challenges in climate change and the environment began to be invoked.3,4 More recently, recognition of the importance that gender, ethnic, and geographic diversity provide a better mirror between science and society has been echoed by the clear need to include social science in solving any large problem.5
In today’s New Zealand, the institutional hypercompetition for contestable research funds leaves little room for trust. An open debate about how to reforge trust and reciprocity deserves deep consideration. Concerns about ‘Silencing Science’ voiced by Hendy6 remain unsolved, and lost in a noisy new balkanisation that has emerged over whether science can embrace mātauranga and indigenous knowledge. A commission or body capable of developing the philosophy and ethics underlying the search for truths and utility from science and research may be needed. Delineation and trust is likely a prerequisite to the practical implementation of ethical standards by institutions, and along with efforts to more fill a long standing gap in the development of science policy for New Zealand.
Vannevar Bush’s full essay, “The Endless Frontier” can be found online, and the Five Fundamentals appearing at its end are reproduced here to inspire consideration.
https://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm#ch6.3
Five Fundamentals
There are certain basic principles which must underlie the program of Government support for scientific research and education if such support is to be effective and if it is to avoid impairing the very things we seek to foster. These principles are as follows:
- Whatever the extent of support may be, there must be stability of funds over a period of years so that long-range programs may be undertaken.
- The agency to administer such funds should be composed of citizens selected only on the basis of their interest in and capacity to promote the work of the agency. They should be persons of broad interest in and understanding of the peculiarities of scientific research and education.
- The agency should promote research through contracts or grants to organizations outside the Federal Government. It should not operate any laboratories of its own.
- Support of basic research in the public and private colleges, universities, and research institutes must leave the internal control of policy, personnel, and the method and scope of the research to the institutions themselves. This is of the utmost importance.
- While assuring complete independence and freedom for the nature, scope, and methodology of research carried on in the institutions receiving public funds, and while retaining discretion in the allocation of funds among such institutions, the Foundation proposed herein must be responsible to the President and the Congress. Only through such responsibility can we maintain the proper relationship between science and other aspects of a democratic system. The usual controls of audits, reports, budgeting, and the like, should, of course, apply to the administrative and fiscal operations of the Foundation, subject, however, to such adjustments in procedure as are necessary to meet the special requirements of research.
Basic research is a long-term process - it ceases to be basic if immediate results are expected on short-term support. Methods should therefore be found which will permit the agency to make commitments of funds from current appropriations for programs of five years duration or longer. Continuity and stability of the program and its support may be expected (a) from the growing realisation by the Congress of the benefits to the public from scientific research, and (b) from the conviction which will grow among those who conduct research under the auspices of the agency that good quality work will be followed by continuing support.
Reference:
Baisden, Troy. (2022). Understanding and Reforging the 'Compact Between Science and Society'. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6354908
Hashtags
This is a fact sheet reporting bullet pointed findings that extend a previous working paper.
Additional tables from the StatsNZ R&D Survey were obtained from StatsNZ Infoshare to produce these results.
Current and future gains from increased Business R&D may be limited by a large and growing gap between employment of PhD-qualified researchers in Business R&D. Positions for 4300 PhD-qualified researchers would be needed to bring the Business R&D sector to one PhD FTE per $0.5 m R&D expenditure, currently. At this ratio, twice this estimate (8600 FTE) will be required for R&D to reach 2% of GDP.
Full brief and citeable content: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6354873
Reference:
Baisden, W Troy. (2022). 8. Training-Workforce Mismatch for New Zealand Doctorates. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6354873
Hashtags:
In response to the Te Ara Paerangi Future Pathways Green Paper Consultation, this paper reviews the case that the current funding environment is hypercompetitive, with negative implications on research and the well-being and diversity of the research workforce. Evidence for hypercompetition includes impacts on the workforce such as accumulating precarity across PhD student and post-doctoral funding, poor diversity outcomes that resist policies aimed at improvement, and funding rates in the 10% range for contestable proposal systems. It may be important to avoid positive feedback causing the rich-get-richer Matthew effect, such as avoiding overlap between funding mechanisms that can amplify a cycle of more researchers applying to contestable funding, undermining the potential to increase funding in response to low funding rates. Recommended solutions include well designed base funding, fellowships, reform of competitive funding mechanisms, and smaller funding packages, along with direct collaborative or international exchanges. Ensuring more effective and equitable future research funding through more anticipatory science policy may be achieved by improved monitoring focusing on the success, connectivity and responsiveness of independent research organisation and the early career tracks of researchers.
Link to full brief and citeable content: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6354888
Reference:
Patel, Sneh, Baisden, Troy, Stewart, Lucy, & Yee, Grace. (2022). 5. Hypercompetition: Observations and Remedies. Zenodo.
Hashtags
Analysis preceding and developed for Aotearoa New Zealand’s Te Ara Paerangi Future Pathways Green Paper Consultation can be combined with a systems perspective to suggest Aotearoa’s Research, Science and Innovation (RSI) system does not prioritise or respond as well as it should, and lacks coordinated strategies to address major issues. How can we assess concerns that potentially successful ideas and innovation are being stopped unnecessarily at systemic barriers, which could be removed in the current push for systemic reform? Ostrom’s eight principles for managing common pool resources provide a well-designed framework that can overcome the high level barriers, which may arise from hypercompetition and other dilemmas born out of the institutional structures and funding systems. There are at least three good options for implementing Ostrom’s principles in high level institutional and funding structures. These provide enabling conditions for ensuring that efforts to address workforce career issues, funding stability, and improved funding mechanisms lead to a more effective and responsive RSI system. A more compelling basis for enhanced funding levels, trust and self-organising prioritisation can come from: 1) a well-implemented base funding system, 2) implementation of Ostrom’s principles and values-driven approaches to rebuild trust, and 3) fellowships support that addresses the stress, connectivity and responsiveness issues currently observed.
Link to full brief and citeable content: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6354852
Reference
Hash Tags
Previous briefs addressing Te Ara Paerangi Future Pathways Green Paper evolve from awareness that the pandemic has raised serious concerns about the sustainability of today’s research institutions and funding systems. Aotearoa’s highly contestable funding raises concerns that our system may be among the most unstable internationally and prone to the problems observed in increasingly hypercompetitive research systems worldwide. Hypercompetition is associated with poor behaviours and mediocrity, undermines diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), and reduces the likelihood of funding innovative projects and careers. How can we build more collaborative, connected careers within research systems appropriate for taking society on innovative journeys to solve the biggest challenges such as climate change and protecting endangered biodiversity? This paper and previous work describes analysis to arrive at design suggestions for an innovative base funding proposal that better achieves the historical intentions to meet national research needs that have evolved considerably over 30 years. The proposed system would reallocate existing and possibly additional government funding to support 30–50% of researchers’ salaries and related costs. The intent is to enhance the overall well being of the research workforce and knowledge systems by creating or incentivising a number of features that overcome current dilemmas, improving the responsiveness, connectivity and use of research within Aotearoa New Zealand, though self-organisation following Ostrom’s principles of common resource pool allocation. The proposed scheme has advantages over the current highly contestable system, and is expected to outperform tenure-driven systems.
Link to full brief and citeable content: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6324775
Reference
Hash Tags
Te Ara Paerangi Future Pathways Green Paper seeks a major transformation of Aotearoa New Zealand’s research, science and technology (RS&T) system and places ‘prioritisation’ at the head of its consultation process. Work to date has found that prioritisation is the most challenging topic, yet one that can provide a powerful test of whether proposed changes in all other categories can transform Aotearoa New Zealand’s research system as desired. This work analyses the potential to use more effective prioritisation as a target for transformational and feasible reform by sequentially applying frameworks identified by Meadows and Ostrom, to prioritise interventions in systems and manage common pool resources, respectively. The analysis identifies how to reframe the historic paradigms driving reform to prioritise and maximise the appropriation of well-being benefits of RS&T expenditure within Aotearoa, using an ‘NZ inc’ perspective. The analysis supports reframing and managing the nation’s RS&T institutions, infrastructure and funding as a common resource pool.
Link to full brief (and citeable content): https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6300595
Reference
The New Zealand Government has announced the Te Ara Paerangi Future Pathways consultation, based on a Green Paper outlining concerns about the state of the nation’s research funding, institutions and workforce. This working brief spearheads analysis by Te Pūnaha Matatini Centre of Research Excellence and the New Zealand Association of Scientists, combining efforts to examine the consultation themes, public consultation sessions, and possible frameworks for transformational change. We recommend a base funding system to support people as the foundational step to address all consultation themes, and sharing of briefs to support a wide range of stakeholders to develop a more trusted, open and effective model for public good research support as a common resource.
For the full Brief (and citeable content): https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5952845
Reference
Hash Tags
Ideally relationships with Māori and other communities involved in ‘benefit return’ need to be held by supervisors rather than students or fixed-term workers (to whom these relationships can then be extended). This is because if the supervisors have not cultivated these relationships – the students/fixed-term workers are left in the position of developing these relationships instead of doing their science, which then comes at a professional cost to them (in terms of fewer publications). Because publications are what are rewarded in the current system, this rewards bad behaviour (from a Te Tiriti standpoint), in that the science is prioritized over relationship building.
Hash Tags:
We need to make sure that students have the ability to match their skills and passions to downstream careers in the RSI sector. One way to achieve this would be to mandate internships for students with other entities in the RSi sector (e.g. private industry, CRIs, local government, iwi, central government) and/or placement at regional hubs. The co-location of government agencies, universities, and wānanga at regional hubs could potentially follow the model of shared campuses of government agencies and universities in the United States. This regional hub model is likely to facilitate benefit return and knowledge return to communities, but in addition, this needs to be explicitly required by all funding streams.
Hash Tags:
