Marsden Fund Evaluation 2005

Download Attachment:

Executive Summary

Main findings of the evaluation report

MoRST instituted an outcome and process evaluation of the Marsden Fund. The outcome evaluation found that the Marsden Fund is meeting all its objectives. The objectives are to:

  • enhance the underpinning knowledge base in New Zealand and contribute to the global advancement of knowledge;
  • broaden and deepen the research skill base in New Zealand; and to
  • enhance the quality of the research environment in New Zealand by creating increased opportunities for excellent investigator initiated research.

The evaluation showed that excellent ‘underpinning’ research is being funded. The evaluators also found evidence that an enhanced research environment with a broader/deeper skill base is being created. The evaluation reported instances of research which would not have started without Marsden funding.

The improvements in the research environment provide the bulk of the “benefits” from the investments.

The evaluation did not find any major problems in the Royal Society of New Zealand's (RSNZ’s) operation of the fund. There was no bias in favour of any research institution. Researchers from universities, CRIs and private agencies are treated equally. However, it was suggested that not all disciplines are funded equally e.g. fewer grants for social science, none for business and management. There appeared to be some confusion in the sector about what the Marsden Fund should properly be funding.

The evaluation reported that Marsden Fund Council administers the fund in a highly professional manner. There was no evidence of it being an “old boys’ club” that favours well-known researchers. It is also efficient for applicants, due to its two stage application process. At the first stage, the applicant has to submit a short outline proposal. Only the 20 per cent of applicants who are shortlisted are required to submit a full proposal.

Comparing the Marsden Fund with similar funds overseas, the evaluation reported that Marsden follows standard international practice for basic research funding. But compared to selected countries1, Marsden is smaller in size proportionate to Vote RS&T.

Summary of key recommendations

The consultants make seven recommendations. These are shown below.

  1. Increase the Marsden Fund to approach the international benchmark success rate of 30%
  2. MoRST develop and publish working definitions for the terms listed as problematic and a better understanding of the role that Marsden and other funds play within research and science policy
  3. MoRST to note the tension between funding excellent science and broadening and deepening the science skills base
  4. Future evaluations of Marsden should emphasize the building of networks and collaborations, and the development of new capabilities
  5. Marsden Council should review the disciplinary spread of the Marsden panels and the proportion of funding allocated to each
  6. Marsden Council should review the way it considers multidisciplinary research
  7. Marsden Council should review the processes for engaging with proposals that are supported or promoted by Maori agencies and iwi

How the evaluation was performed

MoRST contracted the evaluation to a joint team of WEB Research and Technopolis. WEB Research, a New Zealand company, was the prime contractor and was responsible for Stage 1 of the PBRF evaluation. The sub-contractor was Technopolis – a European firm, based in Brighton UK, that specializes in the evaluation of research.

WEB and Technopolis conducted 20 interviews with 27 researchers, research managers and other stakeholders. They also ran and analyzed an email survey that MoRST had designed. The survey was sent to 75 researchers, of which 57 replies were received.

1 UK, Germany, Netherlands, Finland, Norway, Canada

About Attachments...

Back To Top
Page updated 03 Aug 2006