Summary of feedback on Draft Strategic Plan 2013-2020
July 2012
A total of 79 formal submissions were received on the Draft Strategic Plan from various individuals and groups. In addition, feedback received at meetings
held with interested parties produced twelve sets of briefing notes.
This document summarises both types of feedback, arranged according to the Aspirations of the Plan.
Introduction and Aspirations
Introduction:
Total
submissions
Thinks all objectives should have numerical targets, and our ranking position target should be made explicit.
There should be a statement here on the intrinsic value of the Arts and Humanities, divorced from economic objectives
emphasise the role of large, multidisciplinary University projects in ‘making the world of the future’
Commented favourably on the first page of the Plan – “very aspirational, positive and stresses our role as part of the
communities we serve”.
How will Government react to our explicit commitment about the importance of the Arts?
Need to emphasise that the Arts have intrinsic value.
Importance of cross faculty, cross-disciplinary initiatives in “making the world of the future” - big projects. Universities
should enable the future.
Importance of brokering relationships to encourage cross-school collaborations.
Only 1-2 NZ universities can be in the top 50.
Need to support high performing staff.
Feels the second half of para 2 following achievement of our predecessors is vague. “... perhaps opportunity here to
discuss building on our traditional relationships with Europe and North America?”
Thinks the reference to ‘export education’ (Intro para 1) “detracts from the fine postgraduate education” provided at UoA.
Introduction 3rd para last sentence – insert reference to the Pacific after New Zealand – to be consistent with the
description later in the Plan of Auckland as the largest Pacific city in the world.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Supports the Plan’s opening statement. Aspirational tone is “admirable”.
Thinks the Introduction is missing “a broad statement of what constitutes the University community or “people”, and their
significance” and the importance of students in this community, who are “worthy of equal consideration to any other
group”. Suggests the following statement:
“The University is constituted of many groups, as expressed in the University of Auckland Act 1961,s 3. This includes
students, academic and professional staff and alumni. Part of the challenge in any Plan must be the way in which the
relationships between these groups are to be managed, while affording equal respect to each group”.
The Introduction captures the role and nature of a public university “nicely”.
Strengthen the argument that knowledge creation and dissemination is a good in itself, irrespective of economic value.
Critic and conscience role is essential in the current challenging times and should “infuse” the Plan.
1
1
Aspirations:
Internationalisation is sufficiently important to the success of the university to warrant its own standalone Objective,
strategy and measures.
International collaborations will raise our global profile and ranking, and potentially deliver research funding. It is an
opportune time to attract students who would have gone previously to Australian or UK institutions.
Aspirations are more national than international in emphasis. UoA needs to achieve the status of an international institute
but maintain its contribution to NZ.
A national/Asia-Pacific focus must be combined with a global perspective
There should be an aspiration which emphasizes our desire to maximize our ‘competitive advantages’, such as excellence
in engineering or medicine or our location in NZ
The list of Aspirations should start with Aspiration Three.
Role of AUP in fostering UoA objectives.
Welcomes the UoA’s role in “advancement of knowledge creation and dissemination”. Plan’s aspirations and objectives fit
well with AUP activities in a number of areas. Their major contribution is providing a forum for dissemination and
communication of research.
“Is there any mechanism for measuring aspiration, if it cannot be measured, then are we making the right progress?”
Suggests a new Objective with Measures and 4 Key Actions:
“To be a world-class research-led university of international standing that achieves a top 50 ranking overall with LSRIs in
the top 5 in their scientific field”.
Total
submissions
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
As it is the most important Aspiration, to “Be a public university of global standing etc” should be placed first. Be more
explicit about what we mean by “global standing”.
Suggests adjusting statement of Aspiration to reflect mission and value as a public university as follows:
- Some students pursue study for fulfilment, which is perfectly legitimate
- Quality research is not the only benefit to society. Move the mission and values to the front of the document.
Include something specific about academic freedom, the role “as a public institution that values and advances
knowledge:, and role as critic and conscience – this is our statutory function.
1
Re Aspirations1,2,3: Plan does not go far enough in promoting dissemination of our research; “leveraging the breadth of
our subject coverage” to encourage cross-disciplinary research; and improving infrastructure to support best practice
knowledge management and sharing.
1
1
Response to issues raised under the Introduction and Aspirations
There were a wide range of comments about the Introduction to the Plan and the Aspirations as a group, but few situations where a
number of those making submissions had a common point to make. There was also quite a degree of disparity in the comments: some
felt that the Introduction was very aspirational, others that it was not aspirational enough; some felt that there was a need to define
better the nature of the university community, others that the role and nature of a public university was captured well; some considered
that there was too little emphasis on the Pacific, others the reverse.
With respect to the Aspirations, many of the comments were about sequencing, e.g. that the Mission and Values should come first
(which they will do, but they were not being consulted on), that the third Aspiration (leadership) should come first, or that the last
Aspiration (global standing) should come first.
Overall, and having debated the sequence of Aspirations at length during the development of the Plan, we do not recommend any major
changes. However, we have: noted the very diverse nature of Auckland; referred to the fact that KPIs relating to staff and students will
be reported by equity group (to avoiding having to list the equity groups under each KPI); and amended, the wording of the Aspirations,
particularly to replace “very able students” (which some respondents read as “succeeded at school”) with “students of high academic
potential”.
3
Aspiration 1: “Accomplished and well supported staff’ and Objectives 1, 2, 3
General comments:
Total
submissions
A number of submitters expressed approval of the aspiration and individual objectives
There needed to be a stronger sense of the University’s staff as engaged in a joint endeavour towards the furtherance of
common goals, as opposed to one of individuals working on projects in isolation.
Recognise that different people and units make different contributions to the Plan.
Aspiration should stress the performance of groups and not only individuals.
5
4
Aspiration should place stress on the development of the creation of a true community.
1
Equity Issues:
Gender equity issues: University needs to engage with the values and life circumstances of female academic and general
staff eg preference for working collaboratively; assuming more diverse roles; and fulfilling caring responsibilities. Not
adequately recognised in the Measures and Key Actions. Suggests 4 initiatives to redress this.
Equity issues for Pasifika communities around staffing:
Lack of an Implementation Plan with strategies, targets, reporting etc.
Carry forward M+PI goals from the last SP into this one.
“Need a SWOT analysis of Pacific capacity and potential.”
No recruitment strategy for Pasifika academic or professional staff – look at models used in other institutions.
PRG needs to be equal partners with Equity in monitoring processes.
Where are the leadership roles for Pacific staff? Who is there to assist?
There should be a M+PI staff Recruitment and Capacity Development Strategy.
Proactive recruitment and retention of M+PI and female staff.
Include Obj 13 or something similar from previous SP in this Plan.
2
2
1
1
1
1
4
Predicated on a two-group system of Academic and Professional Staff. Consider career research fellows roles who do not
sit easily in either category, have limited career development opportunities but provide invaluable support for research.
Modify opening statement” “This will require staff who are….”. Reword Obj 1 accordingly: “We have to attract and
retain outstanding staff from New Zealand and internationally”.
Different ways of measuring “accomplished”.
A flourishing academic community must also include value for students.
Pleased to see HR objectives at the beginning of the Plan – sends the right message. Suggests rewording of Objectives to
emphasise i) increasing productivity through developing an outstanding work environment and staff experience, and
ii)thinking innovatively about employment practices.
Plan does not address problems of morale and confidence identified in the last staff survey. Approach based on
performance measurement and targets risks further eroding the relationship with management. [See further below].
How to create vacancies for “the influx of new highly talented people”?
Is there a process equivalent to Continuation for Professional staff?
Actions should come before Measures.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Objective 1: A highly productive, flexible work environment characterised by clear expectations, inclusiveness and a commitment to excellence, celebrating
success and rewarding performance.
Include job security in the wording of the Objective/ Measures or Key Actions.
The importance of remunerating staff at internationally competitive levels.
Recognise that the need for and types of support required by staff varies across the course of a career .
Need to acknowledge that the capacity for increased productivity is not infinite.
Recognise that specific support for high performing staff is important.
Objective contains a very wide range of ideas, mainly about means rather than ends. Needs to be a clearer outcome to
aspire to. Suggests: “Attraction and retention of high-performing staff, both academic and professional”. Change
measures accordingly (but retain those that measure high performance).
Total
submissions
3
3
2
(Notes are
from the
same
meeting)
2 As above
1
1
5
Concerned the list of desired outcomes will merely result in ‘tick box’ behaviour.
Is the balance between achievement and support correct?
Should there be a greater focus on the impact of citations on rankings? How much attention should rankings receive?
Role of staff training in supporting this Objective?
Experience of Uniservices processes around patents was discouraging.
Academic environment is deteriorating - classrooms are not equipped appropriately.
Plan focuses too heavily on academic staff, and over-emphasises monetarized research as a performance measure. Plan is
unbalanced in that it understates the value of “innovative, effective and research-informed teaching, supervision and
leadership”.
Elaborate on how flexibility will “support personal circumstances of staff and ‘high performance’ “?
Levels of casual staffing should not increase over time.
Promotion criteria should be broader and acknowledge excellent teachers and leaders in a devolved structure.
Should have a strategy that produces more diversity in professorial appointments. Targets needed for this?
Budget for annual salary increase for professional staff has declined.
Suggests new Objective: “Annually, invest at least 2% of the Professional Staff Budget into the Annual Salary Review
Process for salary increases”.
Deficiencies in the EVOLVE process.
Suggests new Objective: “Develop a Performance Pay Salary Model which is meaningful, transparent appropriately
funded and positively engages Professional staff”.
Suggests rewording Objective : “An innovative work environment etc”.
Recruitment and retention of early to mid-career researchers needs greater priority and resourcing. Suggests a postdoctoral
fellowship scheme, and a number of permanent positions for research fellows.
Given increasing demands and expectations, Plan should address workload protection.
MEASURES
There should be goals regarding the proportion of certain staff members:
o Those with international experience
o Maori and Pacific
Assess success and effectiveness more broadly, in a way that is commensurate with variability over the life cycle of
careers.
Reduce SSRs to raise international standing, and nominate targets in this Plan.
Measure academic staff to manager ratios, and nominate targets.
Sustainability- commit to recruiting and retaining “high performing research and teaching staff “ in this area.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
6
Disconnect between Objective and Measures, many of which are about revenue not creating a good working environment.
Include proportion of staff with disabilities in Measures.
Include student perceptions of academic and professional staff (via surveys) in the Measures. (Wording suggested).
Suggests Measures around i) budget allocation to salary review process for Professional staff and ii)professional staff
performance evaluation model.
New Measures suggested:
“New staff success- percentage of new staff who achieve high performance in year one reviews”
“Retention of key talent”.
“Percentage of remuneration paid as reward for achievement and/or performance”.
“Staff performance ratios”.
Add published PBRF scores for units/Faculties/UoA as a measure.
“Need to think about the balance of individual staff members vs the collective performance of the unit”.
How to measure “supportive”?
Move number of prestigious international awards higher on list as this influences standing in most ranking systems.
Measures such as citations, patents, commercialisation revenue are not appropriate for all disciplines.
Publications measure encourages quantity not quality.
Many factors affect doctoral supervisions.
Clarify quantification of some Measures eg how work flexibility will be measured, significance of teaching awards.
Supervision.
Measures should include contribution in service.
Consider “(Proxy) measures for a ‘flexible work environment’ and ‘inclusivity’ ”.
Disproportionate emphasis on academic staff.
KEY ACTIONS
Suggests additional Key Action: “Develop a coherent and balanced position on staff contribution and achievement and
commit to dialog with the Tertiary Education Union about performance standard or measures and the processes for
handling staff who do not meet those standards”.
Plan should have a stronger focus on increasing productivity through improving middle management and management
processes. Suggests a new Key Action : “To guide managerial practice, a set of outcomes and targets for managers will be
identified in accordance with the goals of the Strategic Plan”.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
Suggested additional Key Actions:
“Achieve an appropriate balance between funding and risk in terms of staffing”.
“Encourage staff development and programme development that maximise flexibility of permanent staff roles and create
opportunities for redeployment and career paths rather than relying on increased casualization”.
1
Spell out weight given to University strategy in “determining staff alignments of roles and career development”.
“How is ‘flexible’ to be interpreted ‘to support high performance’ “?
Final bullet point is repeated from Obj 1.
Add Key Actions to increase proportion of Maori academic staff“ Support Maori doctoral completions to ensure a clear and reliable pathway for Maori entry into academic positions”.
“Ensure Maori doctoral students are actively encouraged to apply for professional development opportunities such as the
Doctoral Academic Career Module”.
Clarify Key Actions round multicultural environment.
Proportions of M, PI and female staff at all grades (not just senior).
New Key Action suggested: “Ensure that all staff have clear performance expectations aligned to their roles and to their
prospects of career development in the context of the University’s strategy”.
New Key Action proposed: “ Grow the next generation of top lass academic and professional staff by providing
opportunities for early career staff to develop, through the provision of funding”.
Need Key Actions relating to increasing M+PI and female academic and professional staff eg. identifying students with
potential at this and other universities.
Concerned at lack of detail in Key Actions. Should be reworded to reinforce the importance of peer review by academics
in appointment and performance appraisal processes, and to acknowledge the many roles undertaken by academics within
and outside the institution.
1
OTHER WORDING CHANGES SUGGESTED, NOT MENTIONED ABOVE
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Objective 2: An outstanding staff experience and high levels of engagement.
Total
submissions
What are the criteria for “high performing staff”? Who sets the criteria?
Withdrawal of health service for staff is regrettable. [One submission provides staff survey data].
Combine this objective with Objective 1.
4
2
1
8
The language of this objective should be simpler and avoid the word ‘engagement’. Reword it as “A culture that supports
individual development and participation in decision-making”. Measures could be those to do with staff satisfaction with
career development and the opportunities they have to influence decisions.
Different measures for academic vs professional staff.
Inconsistency between the expectation that engaged staff contribute discretionary work (ie unpaid) vs intent to reward a
small number of researchers who bring in the major proportion of research income. “A more coherent position on
‘reward’ for contribution and achievement is required”.
Contribution of student associations and student voice to meeting this Objective is omitted.
Supports communication with staff.
Sceptical that managers and senior managers will pursue this Objective. How will UoA ensure that they do? Observes that
management fails to recognize consistently good work.
Suggest rewording Objective: “An outstanding staff experience where success is celebrated and high levels of engagement
achieved”.
“ - what is meant by ‘management’ (service?). Who is this aimed at”? Better positioned in Objective 3?
Last bullet point is repetitive.
MEASURES
In both ‘Measures’ and ‘Actions’, reference to staff surveys should come last.
How will the University measure improvements with respect to staff who are not currently well engaged?
Minor rewording of Measures suggested, plus additional Measure: “Internal mobility- reporting of promotion rates and
transfers within the University”.
Measures and actions proposed will not engender engagement or a collegial workplace.
Make two-way communication with staff a separate bullet point. Commit to creating opportunities for genuine staff
participation in decision-making.
High Quality Governance and Management section should follow on from Obj 2. Key Actions do not address frustrations
with lack of participation by staff in management and decision making. Strategic and operational planning is top down.
Re-order bullet points to give priority to participation and collegial practices.
Equity Measures should not be aggregated in a way that obscures the circumstances of a particular equity group.
KEY ACTIONS
Expresses concern about adequacy of management consultation with staff. Suggests new Key Action: “Ensure two-way
communication with staff and encourage involvement of staff in all stages of decision-making”.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
Plan should mention TEU as stakeholder in the University. Suggests additional Key Action: “Senior management
recognize the Tertiary Education Union as a stakeholder and commits to negotiate in good faith and pursue open and
meaningful consultation processes regarding significant changes, restructuring, or operational evaluations”.
What does “reward” mean? Who is it referring to? Does it fit better in Objective 3?
Offers suggestions re rewording of Key Actions.
Delete reference to staff surveys, which measure but do not enhance engagement.
1
1
1
Objective 3: An environment in which leadership is developed and valued.
Supports this Objective (whole or part).
Plan confuses leadership and management.
Leadership should be devolved. Plan “needs more precise wording outlining a distributed model of leadership”. Suggests a
new Key Action: “ Practice distributed leadership, recognising that staff perform leadership-type practice at all levels of
the organisation and supporting staff in the achievement of individual and collective excellence”.
Welcome support for contributions external to the University.
Sustainability- commit to recognising and rewarding leadership in research and teaching about sustainability.
“…staff leadership involves interaction with students”. Suggests new Key Actions: “Promote and develop leadership
initiatives that foster links between staff and students”.
University needs processes to identify staff in non-managerial positions who have potential for leadership.
Not all managers currently have management skills and talent - a poor use of skills and bad for morale.
Rewording suggested- delete “An environment in which..”
Objective is “well stated” but Measures and Key Actions are “two dimensional”. How to assess leadership in professions
and wider community, or for early and mid career academics. Suggests Key Action related to mentoring of academics.
Measures should be analysed by ethnicity and gender.
Plan should include “actions relating to developing leadership for students”.
What are the Measures for service/leadership? Suggests a discussion with staff about service, including value attached to
different aspects.
Recognise clinicians as role models – “this is not service but professional excellence”
Total
submissions
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
Response to issues raised under Aspiration 1
There was broad, but by no means universal, support for the approach taken under Aspiration 1 and for its position in the Plan as the first
Aspiration. There were also several comments related to the need to emphasise that University staff are engaged in a joint endeavour.
The introductory paragraph to this Aspiration has been amended to capture that point, along with the point that different people will
differ in their contributions to the University.
Many of the comments addressed the need for greater detail in regards to specific groups of staff – Māori, Pasifika, women, research
Fellows, staff with disabilities, high performing staff, professional staff, union/members etc. While we note that it is not possible (or
appropriate) to refer in the Plan to each and every group, the reference to the particular circumstances of individual staff has been
strengthened. Furthermore, our equity groups cover many of these issues. Concern was expressed in several quarters that reference to
“flexibility” in employment was code for greater “casualization”. The Objective 1 wording and text have been amended to make it clear
that “flexibility” relates to innovative employment practices and the personal circumstances of high performing staff. On a related note
there were calls for a commitment to greater job security. This has not been included because the reality in the present financial
environment is that job security cannot be guaranteed.
A number of those submitting comments questioned which criteria would define “high performing staff”. It is not possible to specify this
in the Plan because of the wide variability between groups of staff, academic disciplines and so on, but the other sections of the Plan give
a clear indication of the wide range of activities that are valued.
Under Objective 2, there was some discussion about the value of staff surveys as a measure. These have been retained because they are
one of the few ways we have of measuring engagement and its components.
Under Objective 3 there was a helpful suggestion that the term “distributed leadership” be used to distinguish between leadership at all
levels of the University and top down/management leadership. This has been included in the Objective and text.
11
Aspiration 2: “Able students, successful graduates and alumni” and Objectives 4,5,6,7,8
General:
Aspiration should mention the high standards of academic excellence and achievement expected of students
Total
submissions
1
Objective 4: The most able students possible entering the University, recognizing ability in the context of equity considerations
Generated considerable comment on the perceived tension between the two goals of achieving both excellence and equity in the student body. A second
theme was recognizing and encouraging the high quality teaching and learning environment.
Total
submissions
Ability vs potential:
Concern expressed about the wording of this Aspiration and wording of Objective 4. Should be about potential not
demonstrated ability. (For various reasons: does not reflect our equity obligations; concerning for disability groups; UoA
should be adding value to ALL students).
6
Suggested wording:
Aspiration: “The University will attract students of the highest academic potential, regardless of background and provide
them with an inclusive, intellectually stimulating and transformative educational experience so that they become
successful and influential graduates and loyal alumni”.
Objective 4: “ The University will attract students of the highest academic potential, regardless of background”.
Equity for M+PI communities
Some or all of the following arguments recur in submissions about M+PI equity:
7
M+PI students are not performing as well as they should in our compulsory education system.
UoA is underperforming in measures of M+PI staff and student equity.
12
Given the demographic profile, enhancing M+PI potential is key to the nation’s future economic prosperity and wellbeing.
Under-representation and under-achievement of M+PI communities is therefore “a strategic issue for the University”
rather than an equity issue.
There are opportunities for the University in engaging with diverse intellectual traditions.
Importance of engagement with equity groups at school level and closer collaboration with schools regarding entry
requirements.
2
Offer practical suggestions for increasing PI enrolments and/or retention at UoA .
2
UoA should take the lead in in respecting diversity. “ 90% of students in low decile schools are M+PI. We need to capture
their potential and also recognize the separate intellectual tradition of Maori”.
Supports Objectives 4, 11 and 12.
1
1
Sense that Plan subsumes Pacific staff and students into “Diverse student body” and “speaking only to partnerships with
Pacific communities”.
Plan should make explicit strategies to address M+PI under representation. Support thematic initiatives (e.g. Te Whare
Kura). Future growth in PG will be enhanced by better recruitment and success in M+PI UGs.
UoA should lead the training of the nation’s future M+PI leaders; and “persuade the Government of the economic
importance of doing so”. Failure to do so risks iwi and Maori authorities going to other institutions for their educational
needs.
1
Failure to rectify the poor performance of M+PI students at UoA risks alienating the support of these communities for an
institution that does not serve their needs.
Initiatives that enhance the performance of Maori will also benefit other students; ensure M+PI alumni advocate for the
University in their communities; provide future M+PI leaders (university, community, nationally and internationally).
Equity Objectives in earlier SPs have not been met. To lift UoA performance we need: “better targeted and defined
actions”; systems for tracking and monitoring progress; and accountability of appropriate offices and staff.
1
Need to develop an overall strategy to achieve proportional representation, which should include tracking performance,
using evidence to develop effective support methods; avoiding overlap and replication of programmes; focusing
particularly on the science-based faculties.
13
The SP lacks targets [suggested target is included in Measures below].
More analysis of the demographic projections for the Auckland region is “imperative, particularly in terms of the
University’s postgraduate objectives. As most postgraduate students have been UoA undergraduates, we need to
understand where the future domestic students are going to come from”.
Re-focus Objective on the strengths of a diverse student body.
To improve educational outcomes for M+PI communities, UoA needs to: change what we do; induce others to change
what they do; engage M+PI communities in change so that their expectations of educational success change; secure
Government and employer support.
“Full participation in the life of the University by MPI people must include participation by students, academic and
professional staff, and their communities”.
1
1
1
Recommends “a dedicated unit be established to lead development of a “whole of UoA” approach to increasing
participation by MPI students, academic and professional staff, their families and communities in the life of the
University”. The submission lists eight actions for this dedicated unit e.g. reviewing approaches to teaching; reviewing and
developing relations to schools; recruiting PhD-credentialled MPI graduates as role models and leaders, etc.
Engagement of students from the Kura Kaupapa system and its PI equivalents will: “do much to resolve some of the
critical wrongs of the past and unleash the potential of both Maori and Pacific Island people in New Zealand; enable both
of our nation’s intellectual traditions to flourish; and enhance the University and our society’s ability to lead the world in
the pursuit of knowledge”.
The submission includes a SWOT analysis, concluding that, “The University’s academic strengths combined with the
large numbers of young MPI people in our region represents an outstanding opportunity to make a significant difference to
the social, cultural, and economic future of the nation”.
Focusing on increasing MPI enrolments in a capped environment may be adversely perceived as special treatment. Such
misgivings are usually dissipated by an explanation of the benefits to all students.
Observed that numerical Equity objectives present in previous SP are omitted from this Plan/ UoA’s equity objectives in
the previous Plan were placed under “Excellent People”/ “equity language” has been removed.
Research approach to equity issues welcomed.
2
2
14
Numbers of PI students not the issue- focus on assisting students already enrolled to improve course completion, pass
rates, etc.
Engage with equity groups early in life (eg 10 yr olds)
More work is required to lift achievement of Maori and Pasifika achievement.
Final Plan should give greater emphasis to research that supports better outcomes for Māori and Pasifika learners.
General:
Obj 4- “widening participation” a good way to express this
Suggested Goal – ensure the top 20% of students in all schools succeed at university through research, collaboration with
schools, and University’s initiatives.
Suggests wording changes “ Excellent students, successful graduates and alumni”.
“The most significant impact that the University has on society results from the quality of its graduates”.
(Other wording changes suggested).
Strategies used to identify very able students should take ‘all round’ abilities into consideration.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
The importance of school engagement for attracting very able students.
Use of social media would assist in reaching potential target students, such as those in the South Island or international
students
1
1
Is our focus for recruitment extending beyond Auckland? Consider number of students going to study medicine in
Australia. Acknowledge different places/manners for future learning? Obj seems Auckland-focused- need to widen scope
to be a premier University.
Lack of full financial support and over-stringent entry requirements for our PhD programme deter top international
students in business.
Suggests rewording of the Aspiration; “Give students an outstanding experience so that they become successful and
influential graduates and loyal alumni which in turn attracts very able students”.
MEASURES
Need targets relating to recruitment and performance of equity groups.
1
Proportion of school leavers entering with GPE>5 is too blunt a Measure of success at attracting the most able students .
Suggestions made for finer measures.
If applicable to PG, need measures there also.
1
1
6
(2 from same
meeting)
2
15
Include measures of quality of equity initiatives- eg student surveys.
Link targets to measureable recruitment/retention strategies: “recruitment and retention to double the percentage of
entering Maori and Pasifika students by 2020”.
Measures in Objectives 4 and 11 should be proportions (not numbers)
Should have a target of increasing under-represented groups as a proportion of total students, aiming to match the
proportion in the Auckland-Northland population, within a specified time period. Suggests a graduated target, so that by
2020 the proportion of M+PI students reflects their proportion in the NZ population at least, “and to consider matching
Pacific representation to that of Auckland city”.
“There is little in the Plan specific to Pacific students”. SP should have Measures for proportional representation and
success of Pacific students.
To “assess whether students and staff from under-represented groups have equitable opportunities to succeed in the
University, proportionate measures are required”
2
1
1
1
Suggests additional Measure: “Proportions of Māori, Pacific and students from low SES backgrounds in the University’s
programmes, at all levels”.
Need a better measure than proportion of school leavers entering with GPE>5. The measure should also take account of
school’s decile rating.
Suggested additional measure: The number of school students from Maori and equity groups being positively affected by
University of Auckland research and school-based programmes”.
Proportion of M+PI school leavers entering with GPE>5. “Change text from ‘outcomes of research’ to ‘outcomes of
initiatives’”.
Proportion should be specified.
1
The UTAS and Maori and PI staff goals (academic and professional) should be proportional.
Proportion of M+PI is a crucial indicator of success which should be reported.
1
1
How to identify and stimulate best students?
Add Key Action : “Actively recruit students from equity groups for entry into masters and doctoral research programmes.”
Add Key Action- “Ensure that the University fully understands the financial social and cultural barriers that prohibit high
potential students from entering the University”.
Add Key Action: “Develop a strategy to maintain student interest in University study between the completion of Yr 13 and
the start of the University academic year”
Endorses second Key Action but wants it extended: “and provide as comprehensive information as is possible”
OTHER WORDING CHANGES SUGGESTED, NOT MENTIONED ABOVE
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
16
Objective 5: A student body growing at 1% per annum with increased proportions of international, postgraduate taught and postgraduate research students
Total
submissions
Increased PGT must be “resourced”.
2
Does growth in international students conflict with the University’s obligation to educate able local students? Same criteria
1
should apply. Targets for international students are unrealistic. No mention of associated costs eg additional staffing.
“…concerned at the equity implications of these measures”. Decrease in domestic UGs may impact on UoA commitments
1
to M+PI students.
Endorses Obj 5, but must be consistent with equity targets in Obj 4.
1
Bullet pt 3 should refer to target equity groups.
1
Growth in PG and raising UG entry requirements “must be developed with equity responsibilities as a core consideration”.
1
1% growth rate will encourage the growth of potential competitors such as AUT and Massey (Albany)
Proposed increase in post-graduate numbers should not come at the expense of reducing conjoints
1
1
Is rise in PGT desirable and realistic?
Are changes (other than PGT) projected adequately?
Should PhD growth target be higher?
Balance between PG and international is discipline specific. Some disciplines encourage students to undertake their PG
study overseas. Some disciplines also have limited local doctoral candidates and international applicants are not of
sufficiently high standard. Qualified supervisors maybe limited. Measures and Key Actions should reflect these disciplinesensitive realities.
More scholarships would be welcome.
Performance indicators should not be linked crudely to number of doctoral supervisions.
1
1
1
1
Significant cross-subsidisation from taught PG programmes to research programmes raises ethical issues about course
fees and student debt burdens. Other Universities in NZ provide more support for taught Masters students.
1
UoA should benchmark internationally beyond the Go8.
Major growth in PGT has come from converting UG provision to PG provision (eg BFA(Hons), March(Prof) and
BE(Hons). Look for opportunities for similar reorganization eg conjoints.
1
1
17
Manage risk of international recruitment through developing pathways from specific international institutions.
Engage with schools to attract international students
Should set upper limits on international students (eg 15%) as there is a hidden cost in the time staff spend in remedial
assistance for the “tail” of underperforming students .
1
1
1
Approves of Objectives 5 and 6 because they have numerical targets.
1
Elaborate on what the first proposed action involves.
Supports 4th Key Action.
Add another: “Support and encourage high potential undergraduate students to progress to postgraduate study”.
PG Dips can be important feeders into PGR- amend 4th Key Action to include PGDips.
Need Action specifying how we will increase our reputation.
Add Key Action - periodic review of UoA grants and stipend for inflationary impacts.
1
1
1
1
1
Objective 6: A substantial increase in annual completions of taught masters, research masters and doctorates
EoI/ enrolment process is frustrating and inefficient.
Can we support up to 2000 PhD students? Consider integrated support options- fees bursaries, partial stipends, PT
employment.
73 suggests amended Key Actions: Provide students with clear expectations as to the scope and duration of their studies,
including support to ensure that they complete their programmes within the allotted time”
: Support R PG students ..to ensure they can achieve the best possible outcomes in their
research and postgraduate experiences”.
“Address the disconnect between admission to the PhD programme, matching with a supervisor and project, provision of
financial support for both student and research project”.
“Increasing student numbers: what do we want students to do after graduating?”
Capacity to take on more students?
Recognise additional supervisory burden on staff. Consider needs for Advanced English and Writing support. No mention
of additional costs, eg staffing.
Additional measure suggested; “Seek to double the number of annual Māori doctoral graduands from 10 to 20”.
Supports Obj 6 and 3rd Key Action particularly.
Evidence of need to enhance processes for PhD supervisory training?
Total
submissions
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
18
KEY ACTIONS
Include equity targets for research degree completions in Measures. Add a Key Action: “Target resources towards timely
completions for students from target equity groups”.
Not apparent that Key Actions will produce a substantial increase - they are about supporting current students.
How will key actions be implemented?
First Key Action: Amend to include “and the quality of the research project”
Put more work into UoA website, bogs etc to attract new students.
1
1
1
1
1
Objective 7: A learning environment that maximises the opportunity for all our students to succeed
Understates the importance of the highest quality teaching and learning environment in supporting student success.
Total
submissions
6
Suggestions included either an additional Aspiration or re-wording of Aspiration 7 to remedy this plus supporting text and
measures e.g “A learning environment that maximizes the opportunity for all our students to succeed and provides them
with an inclusive, intellectually stimulating and transformative educational experience”; or “An excellent teaching and
learning environment that maximizes the opportunity for all students to succeed”.
Change in the staff/student ratio may be required to deliver this
Graduate profiles should be developed at Department level.
“Ensure that all academic staff are supported to retain an interest in research areas that enhance the quality of their
research-informed teaching”.
Measures should include times to completion.
Seems contradictory to encourage research but not permit PTFs to do any.
University should “…acknowledge and emphasise its responsibilities to communities in the Pacific”
Clarify what constitutes the international learning and research experience
International students need good mentoring and support systems.
Specify targets for completions.
How will an improvement in the quality of research-informed teaching be measured?
2
(same
meeting)
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
19
Separate objective for international education and students (measures suggested). [Related to first point about the T+L
environment. Submitter thinks the aspiration emphasises recruitment rather than “the importance of learning, in and of
itself”].
1
Endorses commitment to student feedback.
1
Actions- consider how we will extend the most able students.
“Additional Key Action: Provide a supportive environment for those students, including undergraduate students, who are
at risk of failing”.
Amend Key Action as follows: “Encourage integration of international experience and intercultural competence for all
students through exchange and study abroad programs as well as global citizenship programmes at the UoA. And provide
opportunities through scholarship and work study opportunities”.
Amend Key Actions to include:
“ Promote and support research-informed innovation in teaching and learning that enhances student achievement and
engagement, and that increases student retention and success”.
2
1
New Action: “Develop and make accessible databases that enable tracking of student progress, especially during the first
two years of degree study, and support the use of data by University staff to advise students and to target support”.
Amend bullet pt 8- “…support equity students to succeed in their studies at every level, from undergraduate to doctoral”.
Graduate profiles should reflect aspirations of Obj 7.
Separate key action 7 into new Obj related to international students.
Need to mention safe academic environment. Suggests additional Key Action : “Ensure that every student feels that they
can safely engage in the educational experience in an environment of academic autonomy”.
“…decline of postdoctoral positions and job-stability will negatively impact on Objs 5, 6 and 7. Reword Key Action:
“Provide all students with the opportunity at each level of study to interact with professionals and academic staff, from
postdoctoral scientists, through to more senior staff and researchers, and to ensure that they gain the educational benefits
of research-informed and research-based teaching”.
Embed “inclusivity” in the Key Actions.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Objective 8: A distinctive, high quality extracurricular experience that maximizes the value to our alumni of their university experience
Total
submissions
Concur that it is worthwhile to increase extra-curricular experiences.
2
20
Lack of effective orientation events which would develop both a sense of community and an understanding of the
University’s values
Important that there is no implication that the provision of student support is considered to be in opposition to
‘investment’ in the University.
1
Should University’s role as critic and conscience be included under Objectives 8 and 9, and what measures would apply?
Show commitment to student leadership and self-empowerment under Obj 8. [Wording suggested]. New Measure
suggested: “The success, frequency and profile of student-led extracurricular projects and initiatives”.
“Incorporating extracurricular activity into the Graduate Profile(s) risks creating an ‘extracurricular curriculum’.
Graduate Profiles only mentioned in Plan in relation to extra-curricular activities.
Suggests more details about student accommodation- unmet needs, costs.
1
1
Concerning Alumni
Plan doesn’t recognize adequately alumni who are not recent graduates- life cycle view of university membership not
relevant for them . Need vision for the relationship with alumni at each life stage.
Welcomes discussion of wider range of alumni roles.
Plan did not adequately recognize alumni as an increasingly important stakeholder group in the University. Suggests
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
additional Objective: “Lifelong, reciprocal relationships with alumni that connect them to the University and
each other”.
Relationship between University and alumni must be one of mutual benefit. UoA needs to increase investment in
relationship with alumni, understanding their needs in varying situations and life stages.
Review and broaden UoA definition of philanthropy and acknowledge publicly all forms of support.
Engage with alumni to raise their “sustainability consciousness”.
Suggests joining the alumni association should be automatic, necessitating an ‘opt-out’ if wished.
Alumni activities can assist with international recruitment. UoA should participate in yearly Taiwan Education Expo.
Would be helpful if UoA could include GPA and rank in official transcripts.
1
Student retention rate was suggested as a possible measure.
Endorses increased accommodation, but improve representation of different groups, especially M+PI.
“Philanthropic support per alumnus” is not an appropriate measure. “The goal of providing an extracurricular experience
should not be a revenue-based one”. Relocate measure.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
21
KEY ACTIONS
Additional key action: provision of student wellbeing services that remove personal barriers to achievement
Strongly supports action 4. Suggests “clubs and associations” be included after representatives.
1
1
OTHER WORDING CHANGES SUGGESTED, NOT MENTIONED ABOVE
5
Response to issues raised under Aspiration 2
The most common theme in regard to this Aspiration and associated Objectives (particularly Objective 4) was around equity – the
definition of target groups and measurement of success. There was concern that the target students should be those with potential as
opposed to demonstrated ability (in secondary school). This seems curious given statements already in the draft Plan which address this
point specifically – e.g. “Our objective of attracting the most able students possible must be achieved in ways that combine the pursuit of
excellence and equity, recognising that applicants do not all have the same opportunity to exhibit their innate ability before they enter
university.” However, the concern may reflect the related point that equity objectives/measures were not expressed in specific
proportional terms as they were in the earlier Plan. These have now been included (via the equity groups reference), but we do need to
recognise that many of the impediments to equal participation by members of various equity groups occur well before students might
have reached university and are susceptible to only limited intervention by the University. The Objective has also been rewritten to use
the term “high academic potential” as opposed to “most/very able”.
Comments to do with Objectives 5 and 6 involved mainly concerns about whether the ambitious postgraduate targets could be sustained,
and suggestions on operational changes that might be required to do this.
Objective 7 attracted several comments to the effect that it did not sufficiently emphasise the importance of a very high quality learning
and teaching environment although, aside from suggested wording changes to the Objective itself and some of the Key Actions (which
have been made) the suggestions on how this ought to be achieved were mainly of an operational nature.
The main concern expressed in regards to Objective 8 was in relation to alumni – whether the approach of connecting them to the “life
cycle” view of the student-alumnus relationship works for older alumni and whether they should be thought of in a philanthropic sense.
We have made amendments to the Objective (and to Objective 12 – “Partnerships”) but generally believe that the existing wording is
appropriate.
22
Aspiration 3: “High quality research that benefits society” and objectives 9, 10
General:
Total
submissions
Debate around separation of Objectives 9 and 10
Not in favour of the separation and feel that the integration of social, cultural, environmental and economic factors is
preferable.[See Obj. 10 below also].
Significant debate on this issue also occurred at one meeting with staff.
Include in the narrative reference to addressing social justice concerns [wording suggested].
Add: “Another important way is to encourage diverse intellectual traditions the (sic) provide innovative research,
international collaboration and a vibrant post-graduate research culture”.
Assert importance of academic freedom and public good role in this section. [And see below in Obj. 9].
Role of LSRIs/ research institutes/ research clusters/ large research projects
Importance of LSRIs in facilitating multidisciplinary research. More consideration of how we focus on inter- and
multidisciplinary research in general.
7
2
1
1
2
1
Suggests an additional Objective : “To establish research institutes or similar research clusters that bring researchers and
resources together to achieve critical mass on the international stage”.
Give greater visibility and priority in Plan to “formation of multidisciplinary groups that can reach critical mass and gain
international identity and compete well against international benchmarks”.
UoA needs a much more strategic and integrated approach to evaluating and resourcing major projects – such projects re
highly visible, lift the institution’s profile and attract students.
Funding of large capital equipment items should be adjudicated on the excellence of the project .
Need to invest in multidisciplinary teams and cross disciplinary research.
Be selective about entering into MOUs.
1
1
Miscellaneous
Role of university research in catalyzing change/development needs to be stressed more
UoA research needs to be more visible in the Plan/ important to promote our research success
2
2
1
1
23
Make explicit our aspirations in international rankings.
One submitter suggests another Objective: “To be among the top 100 public research-led universities in the world, as
measured by the various internationally accepted university ranking systems”.
Make the connection - great universities= great cities.
Counter problems of funding erosion and emphasis on return on investment by showing the University’s broad
contribution to the country, which “far exceeds direct economic return”. Could have an Objective that promotes the
“relevance and contribution of the university in today’s world”.
2
Change title of aspiration to “high quality research that advances fundamental knowledge and that benefits society”
Goals relating to increased external research funding are unrealistic. Such funding may not, in itself, assist in improving
the University’s ranking
Support for production of indigenous knowledge should be included - submission suggests additions to wording at various
points.
Blue skies vs STEM/non-STEM is another issue.
Value Arts as a discipline (not relegate it to an adjunct of Sciences)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Objective 9: Research that has the greatest possible impact on and value for the social, cultural and environmental development of New Zealand and the
world.
Total
submissions
General:
Ethics committees - processes and stringent requirements are restrictive.
2
Critic and conscience should appear under Objectives 8 and 9. What would measures be?
2
Importance of the availability of funding that is not attached to the potential application or profit, and the central position
1
this has to the position of the University as a true research institution.
[This comment follows a discussion about amalgamating UoA and AUT as a model for resolving business vs pure
research imperatives].
“Diversification” gives a better sense of multi-disciplinary approaches in the Creative Arts than “development”. (This may
1
relate to the first Action under Objective 9).
Areas of Opportunity
Opportunity to advance indigenous research and knowledge.
2
Another bullet point was suggested: “ Support research and research initiatives that maintain, protect and enhance
Indigenous Knowledges”.
24
Plan should recognize importance of research on sustainability and align this Obj with U21 Statement on Sustainability.
Green Growth is a major area of opportunity for research and teaching.
UoA can be a Pacific research leader and set benchmarks for other institutions in the region.
Opportunities for research into disease patterns in NZ, and risks/opportunities given developments in genetic and
molecular diagnosis?
More co-ordinated approach to the funding of health-related research and links to commercialisation needed (NB: This
comment may be addressing the national, rather than University, situation).
1
Healthcare research received no mention.
Other impacts of research not mentioned- eg FMHS clinics, engagement with end users of research
How will high quality research applications be rewarded?- relationship to promotion etc.
Open access journals as a way to maximize impact.
1
1
1
1
MEASURES
Suggests changes to wording of 4 measures. The most significant qualifies the number of peer reviewed outputs relative
to funding.
Should PBRF average quality score also be a measure?
Should the actions and measures be explicitly linked to staff career progression?
Measures and actions don’t reflect link between research and teaching.
Include Measure and Key Action that cover the activity of AUP in disseminating research [wording suggested]
Objective, Measures and Key Actions supported- suggested reordering to give priority eg to impact on public policy and
wider community, equity objectives.
Thinks opening statement and Measures are inconsistent as most Measures have costs associated
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
KEY ACTIONS
Suggests changes to wording of 3 Key Actions.
2
Discuss what constitutes core capital equipment for a research led university with large science and engineering faculties.
1
Need to strengthen Actions [not sure what is meant- perhaps related to building large cross-disciplinary research teams].
1
Objective 10: Research that has the greatest possible impact on and value for the economic development of New Zealand and the world.
Total
submissions
UoA ideally located to build Pacific partnerships, conduct relevant research, attract Pacific staff and students
2
25
University must accept some commercial imperatives as part of its research objectives as, for many funding councils, the
economic contribution of proposed research is a key factor in their decision making.
University should promote itself to the ‘enterprise community’ – particularly New Zealand’s trading partners – as a partner
in R &D. This would enhance the University’s international perspective
Economic benefit to be included in Objective 9, and Objective 10 could then focus on IP and highlight Uniservices: . “The
retention of intellectual property generated by research, where this is appropriate, and its economic exploitation for the
benefit of the University, its staff and New Zealand”.
Protect IP rights of staff and student researchers.
Make specific reference to relationships between UoA and CRIs?
Private good research should not be accorded the same value as public good research. Delete Objective 10 and replace
with: “Support high quality academic research that promotes partnerships with industry and commerce and impacts
positively on national economic development and in Maori, Pacific and other communities”.
Needs clear criteria to judge alignment of projects with UoA mission.
Potential for conflicts of interest between academic independence and commercialisation of privately funded research.
Amend wording - economic development should be “sustainable”.
Healthcare not mentioned anywhere.
MEASURES
Amend wording bullet pt 7: “Number of business people, particularly from equity groups, enrolling in….”
Impact on M+PI communities should rank higher on the list.
Should duplicate Measures from Obj 9. Should mention innovation.
Last measure: there is no way to measure the economic impact on M+PI peoples.
KEY ACTIONS
Plan needs Actions to increase the number of staff interested in research commercialisation.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
26
Response to issues raised under Aspiration 3
The major issue raised in regards to research was concern that separating the “Arts” and “STEM” disciplines into separate objectives (9
and 10) exposed, rather than emphasised protection of, research in the “Arts” disciplines (which had been the intention). This was
addressed by reorganising the objectives into one that focussed on growing our output of high quality research across all disciplines and
another that focussed on the dissemination of that high quality research and maximising the impact it had.
There was also concern that the wording should reflect the University’s commitment to the intrinsic value of knowledge. We agree with
this and have amended the text accordingly.
Related to the first point was a concern, expressed in a number of ways, that many of the major challenges to be addressed by research
required a multi-disciplinary approach and that the University should therefore emphasise the role of large scale institutes/research
clusters/large research projects. This has been addressed as one of the key actions under the new objective 10 rather than (as was
suggested in some cases) as a separate objective.
The third major issue that arose, and was the subject of quite diverse views, was the issue of whether the University should have a focus
on externally funded research and the commercialisation of research. While acknowledging that there are diverse and strongly held
views on this issue, we have retained it as a matter of importance in the Plan because it is one of the few avenues that the University has
to grow the resources needed to support our research activities.
27
Aspiration 4: “Treaty of Waitangi partnerships for mutual benefit” and Objective 11
Objective 11: Relationships in which the University and Maori work together to achieve their shared aspirations.
Total
submissions
General:
Express support for Runanga Papamahi submission.
5
Noted general approval of this objective.
Opposes “any raced based special treatment”.
1
1
The title of the objective should be Te Tiriti O Waitangi.
“Is the partnership word too formal – are we only talking about written agreements?” Will activities outside formal
agreements be supported?
1
1
“Partnership” has different meanings. Support this Objective. “In everything we do take account of TOW to develop
partnerships.”
Partnerships involve a lot of work. Could be challenging to decline some potential partnerships.
Change wording of Aspiration- ‘acknowledge” is “too weak” and should be replaced by “engage with”.
1
UoA should include a commitment to leading the wider discourse around Maori development – wording is suggested.
UoA is a long way from meeting its obligations under Te Tiriti. Prof Walker’s criticisms (via Runanga Report) need to be
addressed.
Suggests “the language of ‘partnerships for mutual benefit’ sits uneasily with the concept of Treaty obligation”.
Wants to see more discussion of how Aspirations 2 and 4 will be reconciled - 4 should have priority. Support staff and
recognise equity efforts- assisting students who are less well prepared for tertiary study puts a demand on middle level
academic staff.
Notes role of AUP in meeting this Aspiration.
Promote active appointment of Māori staff, and cover this better in the actions.
There needs to be an explicit focus on the University taking the lead in growing Maori enrolments.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
28
The Maori intellectual tradition will give University scholars important insights and unique advantages in their research.
Opportunities to utilize this tradition will increase as the numbers of students from the immersion schools entering
university grow. There should also be” significant nation-wide benefits if the University sets out to make a significant
contribution to change from the present situation.”
1
Note: This submission derives from discussions relating to goals in a 50-year planning timeframe.
1
Recommends that the 4 “pivotal post-Tiriti o Waitangi documents that help define the partnership between Maori and the
Crown” be included in the SP.
The University’s current targets for Maori students and staff are not aligned with demographic projections.
The Maori economy is growing exponentially. UoA has “a critical role to play” in training and development, and research
and development of mātauranga Māori.
Additional Strategic Goals for the University are suggested and may be summarised as: “in conjunction with Māori
peoples, University of Auckland shall take effective measures to recognize and protect the exercise of rights by Māori; The
University of Auckland shall not contravene Te Tiriti o Waitangi; in relation to Mātauranga Māori, the University of
Auckland, will be guided by its roopu kaitiaki; as custodians of knowledge, culture and heritage, the University of
Auckland has core responsibilities for the preservation and transmission of mātauranga Māori; The University of
Auckland will establish, in perpetuity, a Taumata for external Māori stakeholders; Māori peoples have the right to
participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in
accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own Māori decision-making institutions;
The Pro-Vice Chancellor Māori, University of Auckland, in consultation with Māori RŪNANGA and Taumata shall set
University performance targets for Māori; The University of Auckland will not without consultation with Pro-Vice
Chancellor Māori and Rūnanga, (i) reduce Māori staff numbers, (ii) reduce budgets controlled by Māori staff/groups, (iii)
diminish the direct reporting lines of Māori staff or (iv) diminish or reduce the academic standing of Māori staff through
process; That the University of Auckland shall ensure that the above goals are subject to regular review in consultation
with the RŪNANGA and Taumata.”
SP and Supporting Document are inconsistent in measures for Objs 4 and 11 – change target numbers to target proportions
for consistency.
1
29
Largely supports the SP, and especially Objectives 4, 11 and 12.
1
Anticipates changes in the relationship between Maori and institutions in the light of the Wai262 report. This will impact
on the University’s admin practices, and academic activities e.g. expectations around consultation, participation and IP in
the conduct of research; the necessity of boosting Maori research capacity and preservation of mātauranga Māori. UoA
has a responsibility to set the example for relationships with Māori in the new environment presaged by Wai 262.
There is a global need “for research and scholarship for the benefit of Indigenous peoples” as more communities negotiate
post-settlement economies and participate in developing relevant laws and protocols. Maori experience is relevant in this
global context, and UoA , “as the premier research university in Aotearoa/New Zealand, has much to contribute to
twenty-first century renegotiations and reiterations of Indigenous knowledges”.
MEASURES
“How do non-Maori parts of the University take up partnerships?”
“Need to measure staff involvement in Maori partnerships.”
What will the measures be?
Include Measures such as “the proportion of Maori compared to other student groups, other universities, and other TEO
types”.
Suggests two more Measures:
- “Research output addressing issues of particular concern to tangata whenua”
- “The profile of University staff and student public comment in relation to Maori and Tiriti issues”.
Measures in Objectives 4 and 11 should be proportions (not numbers).
Participation and success of Maori staff and students should be measured proportionately.
Need hard targets:
- “Number of formal agreements in place by 2020; number of Maori students in Foundation courses, UTAS,
scholarships; number of Maori faculty”.
Suggests as Measures:
- “Include data on the learning experience of Māori students; assess the degree to which the learning environment is
inclusive/safe”.
- Report on promotion of Māori staff (by grade and gender).
KEY ACTIONS
Recruitment and case management of students should be added to the final Key Action.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
30
Enlarge on bullet pt 6: Develop and implement strategies to improve Maori student participation, success, retention, and
completion rates in all disciplines, “and at all levels of study, from undergraduate to doctoral”.
Māori (and Pacific) students do not achieve as well as the rest of the student body. Issues of pedagogy and of course
content need to be considered but are not mentioned in the SP. Suggests actions to develop and deliver relevant Māori
content, and explore pedagogies that are more likely to lead to academic success.
Supports the commitment to developing the place of Maori within the community.
Suggest an additional Key Action: “Develop strategies to ensure a high level of research output, and public comment
which engages with te Tiriti o Waitangi and other issues relevant to tangata whenua”.
1
1
1
Response to issues raised under Aspiration 4
Several submissions addressed the wording of the Aspiration and Objective, suggesting that “partnerships” and “relationships” should be
replaced with “obligations”. However, the University’s legal obligation is to “acknowledge the principles of The Treaty of Waitangi” (s. 181
(b). Education Act 1989). Partnership is a key principle and therefore seems the appropriate word here. The Objective has therefore been
amended to reflect this.
An extensive submission from the Runanga received support from several respondents. That submission drew attention to issues
concerning Māori staff and student representation in the University (which is particularly relevant to Aspirations 1 and 2), the same issues
being raised in other submissions. The proposed measures have been amended to reflect the proportionality of Māori students and staff
in the university (as opposed to absolute numbers). The Runanga submission also proposed objectives for a fifty year strategy for Māori
in the University. These can be considered separately but they do not accord with the timing of the current draft Strategic Plan.
31
Aspiration 5: “Strong partnerships with key organisations and communities” and Objective 12
Objective 12: Strong relationships with key partners which have a positive impact on both parties.
Total
submissions
Direction of University partnerships and relationships
It is not merely about the University choosing communities to work with, but communities choosing to work with the
University.
Relationships should not only be ‘strategic’ but more holistically concerned with cementing the University’s place in the
community.
An explicit mention of the relationships between the University and professional bodies should be made. Consider how the
University can leverage these relationships.
Secondary schools should be included here as a key partner.
Ministry of Health is interested in engagement and leadership around workforce.
“Likes idea of framework for clinical leadership that goes across craft groups and vertically from undergraduate training to
specialists”.
Reiterate relationships with U21, Pacific Rim Universities etc. Look to U21 Statement on Sustainability to identify key
partners with shared aims.
Recognise TEU as a major stakeholder and partnership “of great importance”.
Pacific community:
Focus on Pasifika is under-developed - only get attention in Objective 12 under a generic heading.
Who are ‘Pacific peoples’? - not just the traditional peoples of the Pacific but people from a variety of backgrounds who
have made it their home.
“Communities of interest that may be anyone of Pacific heritage who expresses an interest to belong or attend the
University of Auckland”. Discusses how a sense of belonging to a university can be fostered.
Plan contains little that is specific to Pacific students. ( Notes Pacific Island communities are mentioned in the Supporting
Document under Objective 12). Submission recommends measures be set “for proportional participation and success of
Pacific students in the University”.
Plan lacks clear Measures and Key Actions around participation and success of Pacific students and proportional
representation of Pacific staff. This should be remedied by including explicit Measures and Key Actions under Objective
12. [Some wording suggested].
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
32
Plan “is not specific about the Pacific as a key community partner”.
Use of the term Asia-Pacific is problematic, and appears to shut out Pacific peoples.
UoA should develop key relationships and networks with Pacific institutions and communities here and in the Pacific
Islands.
“…the University’s current relationships with the Pacific community and Pacific professional and academic staff, students,
teaching and research are not adequately reflected in the term ‘partnership’ “. There should be a separate Objective.
General:
Should the text be changed to emphasise partnerships ‘of high value’?. Partnerships mean work, so have to be limited.
Does the word ‘partnerships’ suggest a more formal, legalistic meaning than is intended?
This objective should be connected with Objective 11 more strongly
Focus groups are a more effective way to consult than surveys.
How do we build “Community” across the objectives? Outreach issues should be mentioned.
Supports affirmation to serve local communities etc.
Need definitions of the terms key partners and key relationships .
Criteria should be congruent with University Charter.
Recognise the role of AUP in supporting this Objective.
Suggested change to wording: end of para 2, following Asian communities- add “In addition, it must capitalize on strong
existing links with partners in Europe and North America as well as developing links with new Pacific Rim partners”.
Need Key Action about developing strategies to engage Alumni in mutually beneficial relationships.
Should mention school partnerships in the second para of Obj 12.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
33
Response to issues raised under Aspiration 5
The comments under Aspiration 5 illustrate an issue with the submissions generally, namely that a significant proportion of them come
from the perspective of particular communities or interest groups. In relation to Objective 12 there are claims that a number of groups –
Pacific people, schools, professional bodies, partner universities, the TEU, alumni etc – are not adequately represented in the Objective
(or the Plan).
In fact, there is a quite specific reference to relationships with Pacific communities in Objective 12 (“The University’s location in Auckland,
the largest Pacific city in the world, both necessitates and provides opportunities for a particular relationship with Pacific peoples. The
strengthening and deepening of relationships which will contribute further to the intellectual, social, economic and cultural advancement
of Pacific peoples is an important component of the University’s engagement with its communities.”) and in several other places within
the Plan. Likewise, professional bodies are referred to explicitly, as are partner universities and alumni (elsewhere in the Plan). Reference
to alumni has, as noted earlier, been strengthened in this Objective, The compulsory education sector is an omission and has been
included but it does not seem appropriate to include an organisation (the TEU) which represents a proportion of staff.
34
Aspiration 6: “A sustainable, autonomous university” and objectives 13, 14, 15, 16, 17
General comments
Total
submissions
Sustainability should have an aspiration of its own, rather than being combined with autonomy.
The autonomy of the University from Government imperatives needs to be further stressed
“Are we being too formulaic- recognise uncertainty. Vaue entrepreneurial academic activities. Configure resources to meet
new challenges – needs strong leadership. How do new initiatives get introduced and supported?”
Should set a specific ranking target.
Approves of 13 and 15 as they have numerical targets.
1
1
1
1
1
Objective 13: A growing and increasingly diversified revenue base to support our activities.
Support creation of endowment funds.
It might be useful to state how the projected changes in government grants and other monies have been calculated.
“How far is the projected $414 million increase in total revenue by 2020 expected to lift the University in the rankings”?
“Is the dropping of reliance on government-funded activities insufficiently explicit?”
Concerned at emphasis on growing external research funding, and queries reliability of projections. Unconvinced
increasing research funds will improve rankings - a high ranking university has excellent academics who attract resources.
Improve rankings by diverting existing funding into highly targeted strategies that promote “excellence in teaching and
research and nothing else”. Improve publications and citations through international collaborations with top people,
incentivised with travel funding. PhD growth through more scholarships. Need simple policies and targets that will
improve our ranking.
Specify criteria for distinguishing acceptable and unacceptable commercial income. Recognise potential for conflicts of
interest between commercial imperatives and critic and conscience role.
Targets seem very high – domestic public good and commercial in particular - what is the strategy to achieve them?
International research targets could be higher- but what is the strategy?
Acknowledge growth rates are “challenging but we aspire to reach these”.
Total
submissions
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
35
Will need support or investment to help identify revenue sources- suggests amended Key Action: “Invest in actively
seeking revenue sources...”
Amend wording: Change key assets needed for research... into key resources (ie capital and operational spend)..
Concerned that wording suggests student support is seen as the biggest threat to the University rather than inadequate
government investment. Alternative wording proposed for first para: “.....lower per student cost. This policy has been
accompanied at times by under-investment directly in institutions. . The lack of government investment in institutions
,means that as the University of Auckland, we must grow our revenue...”
Review UoA’s definition of philanthropy. Acknowledge publicly all forms of support.
Consider how we could deliver programmes offshore as our current international fees schedule is very uncompetitive.
Importance of key assets for high research revenue areas eg engineering, medicine and science – a national issue.
One suggests “...develop a model new model which better supports key assets for research growth”. UoA could take the
lead in a national overhaul of the present restrictive system.
Supports the first 3 Key Actions and commends UoA for commitment to lobbying.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Objective 14: An infrastructure of the highest quality possible to support our teaching, learning., research , and community engagement.
Plan should take into account changes in communication and web technologies that may revolutionise teaching and
learning in the near future.
Plan needs to stress the efficient utilization of current technologies and uptake of new ones (all functions).
Prudent planning for major equipment purchases should be discussed. What is “core” equipment for UoA? Improve
targeting and process for procurement. Key equipment centres improve utilisation.
The green infrastructure of the University needs to be recognized as an asset along with the physical infrastructure, and
plans for maintenance and enhancement of it included here.
Describe plans for future of Tamaki campus.
Significant investment is required to remedy under-investment in buildings. Concerned about decisions being made “based
on the need to pay for our buildings rather than academic merit”.
Be cautious about becoming dependent on revenue from external usage of university facilities – priority should be
usefulness of facilities to staff.
Amend final sentence of Preamble: “....infrastructure of an appropriate scope and quality, that is mindful of equity
considerations...”
Amend first Key Action: “.....provided by peer international universities, by consultation with equity groups,..”
Total
submissions
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
36
Objective 15: Sustainable practices to make more efficient use of resources and enhance our environmental performance.
Inward-looking Objective and Measures. Key Actions should also recognise UoA has capability to a be a leader in
sustainability research and teaching. [A growing field internationally with opportunities for collaborations and funding].
The Plan’s view of sustainability is too narrow. The concept also needs to be taught in University courses.
The contribution of the University grounds to the sustainability of the University should be included specifically.
Queries 3rd Key Action- are rewards warranted? Suggests participants are recognised and data is published.
Supports commitment to leadership in sustainability.
Suggests additional Key Action: “Promoting awareness of sustainability challenges to the University and global
community, across the University and wider population”.
UoA “has huge untapped resources in its people and location”. Could become a Pacific research leader, setting
benchmarks for other institutions in the region.
Promote car pooling initiatives.
Total
submissions
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
Objective 16: A safe and healthy environment.
Add reference to mental health [of students in particular] in the general text and tie in with student experience, support.
One submission suggests wording for text, and additional Measure: “Number of withdrawals from study due to personal
health issues”.
Also suggests Key Action: Ensure we have adequate wellbeing support services for students that encourage healthy
lifestyles, detect mental and physical health concerns at an early stage and offer effective and accessible treatments to
avoid disruption to study”.
Include the following: “Ensure that all staff are aware of the University’s emergency management and disaster recovery
plans and that our readiness is tested on a regular basis”.
This Obj is inward-facing cf Obj 9 that is outward looking.
Include commitment to implementing recommendations of the independent Health and Safety Review.
Queries value of benchmarking – UoA should set the benchmark.
“Improve emergency management training, H&S in fieldwork operations, and procedures for staff (and contractors)
working in confined spaces and at heights”.
Total
submissions
2
1
1
1
1
37
Provide staff access to Student Health Services.
[See also comments under Obj 2 summary].
Recognise mental health aspects of a safe environment (stress, harassment, bullying).
1
Commit to increasing and resourcing FT H&S positions. Suggests review of best practice against Go8 universities.
Supports commitment to H&S. Extend scope of safety e.g. “Furthermore, the University remains committed to a campus
where every student and staff member is free from bullying, harassment and any other physical or emotional harm
inflicted by other people”.
Suggests a broader focus on health rather than just injury prevention. Policies on tobacco, alcohol, food etc .
1
1
MEASURES
Include a measure “related to a positive attribute which is expected to increase” e.g. “participation in workplace safety and
awareness activities”.
Include measures of current performance in SP, and set targets.
Additional Measures suggested:
“The reduction in harassment and bullying complaints received from staff and students”.
“The percentage of students and staff enrolled in primary healthcare”.
“Access to comprehensive and affordable health and counselling services”.
Near miss rates are unreliable and a poor measure of performance.
Are awards warranted? Sufficient to publish data. If there are awards, need to recognise H&S is a collective effort.
KEY ACTIONS
Over vigilance by security staff can reduce the sense of safety.
Suggests further Key Action: “Ensure that security measures do not affect the academic and political freedom of staff and
students”.
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
38
Objective 17: High quality governance and management practices consistent with the mission and values of The University of Auckland.
“Academic freedom” para should be the first para in this section.
Students needed to be exposed to courses on ethics.
Thinks the preamble is contradictory – implies top-down decision making but acknowledges devolution and collegiality.
Rationale also implies academic freedom is contingent on successful fiscal management.
Give higher priority to building the teaching and research capacity of the UoA’s Maori and Pasifika units, centres and
programmes. Pasifika sections in particular not well placed to meet SP’s objectives. Will need resourcing. Building
programmes on a group basis is the best strategy. PRG should be involved with Equity in monitoring.
Consultation:
Add in that high-quality governance involves consultation with stakeholders. [Wording suggested in 54].
Add another Key Action: “Ensure that effective consultation is carried out with members of the University community on
issues that affect them” [54].
Consultation with TEU, students and academic staff is required to clarify the relationship between devolved governance
and top-down policy alignment – Key Action is inconsistent.
Management should be accountable to feedback from academic staff.
Endorses inclusion of consultation with the Union for this objective.
Amend Key Action 6 re alignment of policies and procedures with the strategic direction of the University . Add “.....in a
manner consistent with the aims set out in the Education Act and the University Charter”.
Reference to the University as ‘critic and conscience’ should be under Objectives 8 and 9 instead.
Wants to see enhanced focus on continuous improvement.
Suggests New Measure: “Successful implementation of a culture of continuous improvement across the University”.
Also suggests a number of additional Key Actions, or changes to wording.
Recognise student leadership by amending the first Key Measure – “Public commentary e.g. numbers of staff and students
contributing”.
Supports recognition of academic freedom.
MEASURES
Measures and Targets for University managers should be specific.
Need Measures for professional staff efficiency. Benchmark against leading institutions.
Total
submissions
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
39
Response to issues raised under Aspiration 6
Several issues were raised by multiple submissions in regards to this Aspiration and the associated Objectives.
There was a view that the reference to autonomy should come earlier in the text and this amendment has been made.
There was support for the inclusion of an Objective to build an endowment for the University. This support came particularly from those
who have supported the University in its current Campaign and a new Objective has therefore been included.
There was a suggestion that the manner in which the projections in Objective 13 had been calculated should be explained. It is not
appropriate to provide details of calculations in a Strategic Plan and the underlying assumptions around EFTS, research revenue etc were
laid out in the Supporting Document.
In respect of Objective 14, several submissions suggested that there should be more detail of planning for new technologies in both
teaching and research. The rapid pace of technological change, particularly in research, makes this difficult, but the importance of
monitoring and adapting to new teaching technologies is referred to under Objective 7.
Under Objective 15 there were several comments to the effect that the approach to sustainability was too inward-looking and that the
University should have wider sustainability interests (e.g a focus in its teaching programmes). A new Key Action has been inserted to
reflect this, but we need to be aware that the University’s strategy does not generally specify what will be emphasised in teaching (and
what will not). The targets have been amended following further analysis by Property Services
Under Objective 16, several useful comments have been incorporated in regards to the importance of mental as well as physical health
and safety, and the University’s emergency management and disaster recovery procedures.
Comments in regard to Objective 17 focussed on the need for effective consultation. This point has been acknowledged by insertion of an
additional phrase, though one could hardly have “collegial decision-making structures and an exceptionally high degree of respect for the
expertise and endeavour of each member of the institution” (already referred to in the draft Plan) without it. Again, we have avoided
specifying precisely who should be consulted with because that will vary with the particular issue being addressed .
40
Aspiration 7: “A public university of global standing” and Objective 18
Objective 18: A network of peer institutions that will inform and support our overall mission and enable continuous improvement through partnership and
benchmarking.
Total
submissions
Our ranking does matter.
10
There should not be too strong a concern with rankings
5
Need to be more explicit in our ranking objective– for example, to be in the top 50 in the world, in the middle of the
5
Australian Go8 etc
Concentrate on what makes UoA distinctive- indigenous knowledge and engagement, leading edge use of technology,
4
creativity, international links.
Role of UoA in supporting the NZ university system and Pacific regional universities.
There is a gap between the Aspiration and the Objective.
Objective and Measures do not align.
Anglo-African and Indian universities need to be part of this benchmarking process
3
2
1
1
Benefits of Universitas 21 membership are important for this objective
1
NZ should one have world ranked university and it should be the UoA. Achieving that goal means doing some things
differently. If we could be explicit about what these things were, the Government might be persuaded to provide assistance
to meet this end. Suggests a brains trust to focus on lifting rankings to 30-50.
Mistrusts rankings generally, but UoA measures up well in relation to institutions in the UK, USA and Australia.
“Are incentives right to get desired behaviours? How can people be empowered? Need to let new ideas in teaching
develop.
Failing to test feasibility of new ideas is a problem as poor ideas may take a lot of resource”.
Doubts incremental changes proposed in the Plan will lift rankings. Suggests focusing on departments that are already
highly ranked and improving their rankings even further.
“Partnerships with other universities should be on the basis of genuinely shared staff interest (research, teaching and
learning, community service).‘Benchmarking’ could develop from this, but is a somewhat different objective”.
Excellence should be defined relative to the University’s own goals rather than by benchmarking to other institutions.
1
1
1
1
1
41
Make reference to U21 Statement of Sustainability. Suggests UoA “should take the lead in developing similar
commitments with universities in the other international groupings: APRU, WUN”.
UoA does not do a jood job promoting its work and talents to academics internationally - this kind of awareness is
necessary to raise rankings. No 1 in NZ carries no weight internationally. Suggests “an internationally-leading university
in the world’s most liveable city”.
Drive for top ranking is risky in this climate, and risks “burning off” academics further.
“..must not trade off what is right for NZ (to educate equitably)” for a higher ranking.
“…persuade philanthropists to donate for humanitarian, moral and educational reasons, not only gfor high-end research
outputs and rankings. Already we are the top at something- cost effective education – this should be trumpeted more!”.
Increased income does not necessarily lift ranking. Suggested strategies for raising ranking:
-Improve research impact which will result in increased citations
-allocate funds by prioritizing and weighting objectives using THES ranking calculation
-“make the boat go faster” by minimising drag (unnecessary admin, compliance etc)
-increase internal funding for top PhD students and researchers. Link high quality students to the best projects.
-use internal PBRF system to assist decision making.
External factors outside UoA control have a big impact on rankings eg employer ranking
Given importance of rankings, proposes an additional Objective:
“To be a world-class research-led university of international standing that achieves a top 50 ranking overall with LSRIs in
the top 5 in their field”.
Provides Measures and Key Actions to support this Objective.
Specify criteria for selection of benchmarking institutions (suggestions provided).
“How does the University sign MOUs? How do we contract to our few core institutions?”
In pursuit of global ranking, must not neglect service to NZ communities and duties to local students.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
42
Response to issues raised under Aspiration 7
The issues raised in regards to this Aspiration and the associated Objective were concerned primarily with the international rankings –
whether they have validity, whether the University should pursue improving its place in them, and whether the proposed actions would
lead to such improvements. There was also the comment that a gap exists between the Aspiration to be “A public University of global
standing” and the Objective “To develop a network of peer institutions….”
The question of whether the University should have targets around rankings is one of the more contentious matters discussed during the
consultation period. On balance, the views were probably in favour of targets because they give the University something tangible to
aspire to. There is also recognition that rankings are used increasingly by international (add more recently domestic) students, donors
and other supporters to judge the standing of the University. Against that, even those who were inclined to that view would acknowledge
that too strong an adherence to rankings is risky, partly because the New Zealand university system has a very low level of funding
compared to other systems (making it vulnerable to a rankings slide), partly because the different ranking system produce different
results and partly because changes in the ranking systems made by those who operate them can lead to instability in the results that is
difficult to explain.
In the 2005-2012 Strategic Plan we did not specify a rankings target but suggested that if we were successful in achieving the Plan
objectives we would be ranked among the top 50 of the world’s 7,000 universities. In fact, although many of those objectives were
attained, the “top 50” goal has proven elusive for the reasons outlined above.
In this revised Plan, and as a midpoint between the diverse views on rankings, we propose to Council a target that by 2020 the university
should be situated in the upper half of the Australian Group of Eight, the UK Russell Group and the Canadian U15 group. This would be a
stretch target, but one that would secure a place for us among the leading public universities in the systems most like our own.
The diagram below shows the current QS and THE rankings of The University of Auckland, Go8 universities, Russell Group and Canadian
U15 universities and (shaded region) where we would need to be to achieve this target.
43
44
Comment on Plan overall
Vision:
Total
submissions
General:
Insufficiently aspirational. Lacks clear strategies.
Assert our role as a public university serving our community.
Very little in the Plan, apart from scale, that differentiates UoA from other NZ universities.
More of the same - takes insufficient account of impacts on higher education of innovative trends in communication and
web technologies. Lacking imagination and innovation
Continue to assert autonomy of the university.
Need to better articulate the role we play in “enabling the future”.
National vs International Standing
Enhancing international standing should be among the higher priorities
A local focus (national and Asia-Pacific) may isolate us from global connections and research funding opportunities from
larger economies. UoA needs both a local and a strong international standing
Should we focus on “being the best University in New Zealand instead of the world, and setting achievable goals?” .
Embrace our “unique excellence” and state explicitly where we want to position ourselves
“Rather than following benchmarks and striving for world rankings, we believe a better vision for the UOA is to be
innovating and setting benchmarks for other institutions”[
Commitment to Universitas 21 statement on sustainability needs to be more comprehensively embedded in the Plan. This
provides a blueprint for an “excellent university in NZ and a world-leading university in the 21st century”
Commends goal to be one of the world’s leading universities. Focus on postgraduate aligns with Government’s intention
to create a stronger research sector and increase the value of export education services.
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
45
The University’s equity obligations:
Total
submissions
- Asia-Pacific term is problematic:
- suggests university has an equal relationship to both, which is not so.
- “vast and nebulous concept”. Understandings of what it encompasses vary, but often exclude Polynesia, which is what
makes us unique.
Oceania should be mentioned independently from Asia.
Thinks the Plan should claim “one of the university’s greatest points of distinctiveness and distinction: its location in the
Pacific”. Assert UoA’s Pacific distinctiveness in T+L and research across a range of disciplines in topics concerning the
South Pacific Ocean and its communities, in some of which UoA already has a world leading position.
Status of Pacific groups has changed relative to previous Plan. In this Plan, only a “potential partner”.
They suggest a Key Action indicating institutional responsibility is needed e.g. “Strengthen and further existing
relationships with key partners from Pacifc communities, and identify further avenues to advance these relationships in a
mutually beneficial way”.
Leading international universities contribute to national goals. Plan describes UoA’s special character by virtue of
location, ToW etc, and its commitment to social justice and equity- but equitable outcomes for M+PI “comes across as a
challenge rather than as a distinctive feature linked to national goals.” Recommends statements about “the positive
connections between equality and excellence, being at once local and global, the growing financial strength of the Maori
economy, and social benefits of equity”.
Equity obligations are not the only driver for change. Given its location, UoA Objectives should be broader and include
increasing the capacity of Pacific scholars and developing Pacific knowledge paradigms.
-Must insist on accountability from organizations/agencies that are funded to support equity student groups.
-Include measures for Pacific student success. UoA “needs to be more clear about its work in relation to increasing Pacific
student recruitment, retention and completion”.
-“Pasifika presence and contributions are marketable”.
-Removal of equity language: “Hoping the equity language hasn’t been taken out because of the failure of the last strategic
plan to deliver on Maori and Pasifika imperatives”.
- How can the UoA support Pacific institutions, and high quality students from the Pacific to study here?
Affirms the way the Plan recognises the interests of Pacific peoples in Objs 1,2,4,7, and 12 and in the Supporting
Document.
4
3
2
1
1
1
46
Plan does not commit to redressing under-representation of Pasifika staff and students. Suggests an Objective relating to
representation, pass rates, completion and retention of M+PI students could assist.
Retain and expand Obj 13 from the previous Strategic Plan: “ Recruit and retain a high-quality staff and student bdy,
striving to create equal opportunities for all those of ability to success in a university of high international standing”.
Supporting actions form previous plan should also be adopted.
Pasifika-related research is poorly co-ordinated within the UoA – we do not have a strategy for co-operation, we work in
isolation and there are too few Pacific staff to provide capacity. We are losing what should be the leading position in this
area to other institutions.
1
Plan does not give sufficient prominence to Maori and Pacific peoples.
1
1
Omissions and Understatements:
Internationalisation should have its own “dedicated section”.[From Intro and Aspirations]
Under what objectives do the AUP and the Gus Fisher Gallery fall?
Importance of high quality teaching is understated.
Needs to elaborate on the richness of the community, and how we want to reflect and enhance our community.
Commitment to sustainability underdeveloped.
Total
submissions
3
1
1
1
1
No mention of equity for women, in either employer or educator role.
1
“...the proposed contribution of the University to the Government’s priorities for the economy, and details of how it
intends to enhance this role, is relatively under-developed...”.
Suggests final version of the Plan could outline how the University will respond to the Government’s focus on increasing
enrolments in STEM subjects.
1
47
Other:
Total
submissions
How do we support and promote interdisciplinary research?
Operating in NZ financial climate. Address costs of labour in comparison to Australia.
Utilise the influence of social media via in-house technology and social media strategy to promote the university.
Plan must engage “key people to drive the shared vision”.
1
1
1
1
Values of collaboration, competence and trust characterise management and governance in a public university.
Monetary incentives are not the only way to monitor and support performance.
Supports TEU submission.
1
Expand definition of Asia Pacific to include Pacific rim. Emphasise expanding relationships with traditional partners in
Europe and North America and emerging relationships with Latin America.
1
1
Structure of the Plan:
Too long, too many goals, too much detail, repetitive.
Actions should be placed before the measures.
Consider setting a maximum number of key actions/objective and letting faculties prioritise them.
Needs an overarching statement about our ambition.
All aspirations should include measures for measuring progress.
Emphasise links between Aspirations.
It would be helpful to have a one page diagram that summarises the key strategic focus – provides an example.
Total
submissions
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
Broad support for the Plan:
Generally support the directions, aspirations
“comprehensive and well focused”.
Total
submissions
2
1
48
Comments on Mission and Values
Total
submissions
It is people rather than things “who really count”. The Mission could be worded this way: “To provide students with
world-class educations that promote personal growth and increase their value or society, and to enable talented researchers
to create innovative knowledge for the advancement of mankind”. Values look more like Objectives and should be
renamed. Add the values of “integrity; excellence; respect; collaboration; and enablement”.
1
Supports Mission but suggest another value- “Recognising and addressing social injustice through its research, teaching
and creative works”.
Remove ‘equal opportunity’ and word point 6: “Providing equity of opportunity to all who have the potential…..”
Mission and Values should appear at the beginning of the document “and should inform what follows’.
1
1
1
Response to issues raised under the “Comments on the Plan overall”
There were a number of comments about the Plan overall concerning, in particular, the balance between national and international
standing, the University’s equity objectives (particularly in regards to Pasifika) and some complaints that the Plan is too long and
repetitive (a contrast with the many individual respondents who wanted addition aspirations, objectives, actions or measures included).
We consider that the major issues identified here have been addressed in earlier sections.
49