1 October 2018
Level 9, 44 The Terrace
PO Box 27048
Wel ington, New Zealand 6141
P +64 4 462 5200
www.tec.govt.nz
Stuart Yeates
[FYI request #8445 email]
Dear Stuart
Thank you for your email of 6 August 2018 requesting data from the Performance-Based
Research Fund Quality Evaluation results under the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act).
Your request
You requested:
"
the fol owing details of portfolios submitted under the Performance-Based Research Fund.
…
(1) Al evidence portfolios (including evidence portfolio components, panels and etc) where
‘ContainsConfidentialResearch’ is false that have not been marked as deleted, including all
fields, excluding name and date of birth.
(2) Al researchers, including all fields, excluding name and date of birth.
(3) Al researchers, including all fields, excluding date of birth, where the researcher is part of
an evidence portfolios where ‘ContainsConfidentialResearch’ is true that have not been
marked as deleted.
…
(4) For each TEO contributing to PBRF:
(a) The name of the TEO,
(b) A count of the number of evidence portfolios submitted where
‘ContainsConfidentialResearch’ is true
(c) A count of the number of evidence portfolios submitted where
‘ContainsConfidentialResearch’ is false
(d) A count of the number of evidence portfolios submitted that have been marked as
deleted.
(e) A list of EvidencePortfolioID’s submitted by the TEO
…
(5) For each evidence portfolio:
(a) The associated Researcher name fields
(b) Any and all associated Researcher LocalIdentifier fields
(c) Any and all associated MainResearchObject URI fields
(d) Any and all associated SupportingObjectURI fields
(e) Any and all associated Bibliographic details/Description fields".
In relation to the information requested in items (1) to (3) above, you stated that:
"
Terminology used in this request is taken from the PBRF Schema Definition
http://www.tec.govt.nz/assets/Forms-temp... I request the data in XML format that meets
the schema definition to the extent possible while excluding fields I have explicitly asked to be
excluded. Raw SQL dump or similar is also acceptable, as is a spreadsheet of flattened data, if
all the data and relationships are present and can be read programmatically."
In relation to the information requested in items (4) and (5) above, you stated that:
"
The fol owing requested information does not naturally fit with the schema, so any directly
machine readable format (CSV, Word, Excel , etc) is acceptable (image-based PDF or similar
is not)."
After you made your request, we clarified with you that information in 4(d) could not be
provided because it does not exist.
Information that we are providing to you
We will provide you with the following count data set out in point 4(a) to (c) of your request:
“(4) For each TEO contributing to PBRF:
(a) The name of the TEO,
(b) A count of the number of evidence portfolios submitted where
‘ContainsConfidentialResearch’ is true
(c) A count of the number of evidence portfolios submitted where
‘ContainsConfidentialResearch’ is false."
However, it will take us some time to collate and prepare this information for release. We
intend to send you this information as soon as possible, and no later than 22 October 2018.
Information that we are not providing to you: item 4 (d) and 4(e)
We are declining your request for information sought in 4(d) under section 18(e) of the Act
as this information does not exist.
We are withholding the information in item 4(e) under section 9(2)(a) of the Act. That
section allows the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) to withhold information if necessary
to protect the privacy of natural persons.
The EvidencePortfolioIDs submitted by the TEOs is personal information, being information
held about identifiable individuals. It is not in the public domain.
Withholding the information is necessary to protect the privacy of individual researchers.
Releasing the information would reveal employment details about the persons to whom it
relates, which is information of a kind that most people would not usual y wish to have
disclosed.
The TEC has consulted with TEOs regarding the release of the information and many TEOs
have raised concerns about the release of information that could be used to identify
individuals.
The Ombudsman has stated that the circumstances in which the information is held by an
agency is relevant to the extent to which the disclosure of the information would infringe a
person's privacy. The information is held by the TEC as part of the confidential PBRF process,
which strengthens the privacy interest in the information.
We have considered whether the privacy interest identified is outweighed by other
considerations which render it desirable, in the public interest to make the information
available. We are of the view that the privacy interest is not outweighed by public interest
considerations.
Information that we are not providing to you: items (1) to (3) and (5)
We have decided to withhold the information in items (1) to (3) and (5) under sections
9(2)(a) and 9(2)(ba)(i) of the Act. These sections al ow the TEC to withhold information that
is necessary to protect the privacy of individuals, and information which is subject to an
obligation of confidence, where the making available of the information would be likely to
prejudice the supply of similar information, or information from the same source, and it is in
public interest that such information should continue to be supplied.
Information is subject to an obligation of confidence
The information is subject to an obligation of confidence. The TEC considers that there is a
mutual understanding between the suppliers of the information (individual researchers and
TEOs) and the agency receiving the information (the TEC) that the information wil be kept
confidential. Great care is taken to ensure that individual researchers are not identified at
any stage in the PBRF process. Researchers may request their own results, but the TEC will
only release results if it is satisfied of the researcher's identity (see page 18, "Performance-
Based Research Fund: A guide for staff members participating in the 2018 Quality
Evaluation"). Evidence portfolios, associated evidence, and assessment information related
to evidence portfolios, are defined by the TEC as confidential information, and panel ists in
the PBRF process must comply with the TEC's confidentiality policy. The TEC has systems
and processes to ensure the confidentiality of evidence portfolios, including that evidence
portfolios must be destroyed or returned to the TEC after the assessment process is
completed.
Release would prejudice the supply of similar information and information from the same
sources
The release of the information is likely to prejudice the supply of similar information and
information from the same sources.
The information being supplied is sensitive, and has been provided against the background
of academic research being competitive in nature. The TEC is concerned that researchers
may be deterred from providing information for their TEO to submit to the TEC (or would
provide information in less detail) if evidence portfolios were made public. This would
ultimately diminish the quality of the PBRF process and consequent funding decisions.
In addition, the TEC has consulted with TEOs regarding their views about release. The vast
majority of the feedback was that the information should not be released. Many TEOs
expressed strong concern that the release of the requested information would compromise
and threaten the current process and future PBRF rounds.
Given the high level of concern from TEOs regarding the release of the information, the TEC
is concerned that disclosing the information would be likely to jeopardise the relationship
between the TEC and the TEOs, because the TEOs may no longer trust the TEC to hold the
information in confidence. This may result in prejudice to the future supply of similar
information from individual researchers to TEOs and from TEOs to the TEC. As already
mentioned, this would diminish the quality of the PBRF process and consequent funding
decisions.
It is in the public interest that the information continued to be supplied
It is in the public interest that the information and evidence portfolios should continue to be
supplied. The TEC needs the information in evidence portfolios to assess the quality of
academic research being carried out in New Zealand and to make funding decisions. It is in
the public interests that those funding decisions are made in a robust way. There is also
public interest in the TEC being able to honour its implied promise of confidentiality to TEOs
and individual researchers.
Withholding interest not outweighed by other public interest considerations
We have considered whether the interest in withholding the information is outweighed by
other considerations which render it desirable in the public interest, to make that
information available. You have stated that there is public interest in the information
because of the cost of aggregating information for the purposes of PBRF (that is, that there is
public interest in ensuring accountability for the PBRF process). There is also public interest
in scrutiny for funding decisions made by the TEC.
We agree that there is public interest in those matters. However, we consider the public
interest is already met by information published by the TEC at the fol owing link
http://www.tec.govt.nz/funding/funding-and-performance/funding/fund-
finder/performance-based-research-fund/previous-quality-evaluation-rounds/.
In any case, any public interest in the application details is significantly outweighed by the
public interest in maintaining the integrity of the PBRF process and in the protection of the
researchers' continued career success through the protection of information about their
research.
Conclusion
We have consulted with you in an attempt to refine the request in way such that it could be
met by the TEC. However, you were unable to refine the request in a way that assisted us in
providing a feasible response. We remain willing to provide you with further assistance if
you are willing to refine your request.
You have the right to seek an investigation and review by the Ombudsman of this decision.
Information about how to make a complaint is available at
www.ombudsman.parliament.nz
or Freephone 0800 802 602.
If you wish to discuss this decision with us, please feel free to contact us.
Kind regards
Tim Fowler
Chief Executive
