Skewing Marsden
Skewing Marsden -- QPEC Response
7 Dec 2024
It is outrageous that Minister Judith Collins has removed funding for humanities and social sciences from the Marsden Fund.
The Marsden provides basic funding for highly creative, innovative and necessary research into critical and complex areas of knowledge and life in NZ. This research is often interdisciplinary. Humanities research can be very wide-ranging and inclusive. Social science research can span both quantitative (numbers and counting) and qualitative (quality and nature of existence) procedures.
Given the complexity of NZ life and scholarship, it is not for the Minister to prioritise areas of knowledge for researchers, scholars and academics.
The Minister focuses on economic benefit from the Fund, which is simply tunnel vision in assessing the needs of the nation.
Even so, it has long been recognised that the humanities and social sciences add richly to the economy of the country.
But it is just as important to understand that both the humanities and social sciences contribute constantly and necessarily to our understanding of life nationally and around the world. This is vital in a highly complex, diverse and increasingly dangerous world.
We should take note of the breadth of research covered in the Royal Society's response to the change in funding. Looking back over the 30 years of the Marsden, the Society says:
Over that time, New Zealand researchers have excelled across the whole range of research disciplines, including the study of culture, indigenous knowledge, history, religion, philosophy, psychology, economics, education, law, classics, linguistics, literature, Māori studies, media studies, art history, and languages.
The Minister's policy suggests a disturbing Government outlook that seriously undervalues the benefit of critical social sciences and humanities across the range of human activity.
We urge the Minister to reverse her decision. And we urge other organisations and individuals to push her to do so.
David Cooke, National Chair, QPEC (Quality Public Education Coalition)
Hi David. Minister Collins's idea of making research serve the goal of economic growth is, of course, narrowly and absurdly utilitarian. And I'm sure many scholars in humanities and social sciences feel angry about their panels being dumped. On the other hand, this will relieve them of a lot of time-wasting, stess and pressure as applicants (or supplicants) for funding. They won't have those academic gatekeepers and powerbrokers controlling what they do. They won't have to second-guess what the committee might think as they massage their proposals. Although Collins never meant it this way, ending those funding panels may allow scholars to be more free to undertake open critical inquiry. And there's no shortage of free material to study these days. I never once applied to Marsden, and I'm glad I didn't waste my time. My results may not have been all that impressive (see my Google scholar profile) but I was productive – without having to ask the permission of a funding committee. Along with the scrapping of the invidious PBRF assessment, I see this policy, counter-intuitively, as potentially reducing bureaucratic interference in academic freedom. There's a silver lining. Cheers, Grant.