xKiwiLabs xKiwiLabs

SoPS Research Workload Allocation Policy

Revised Draft — Staff Feedback (June 2026)

Thank you for your input during the May consultation. The Research Committee has revised the draft Research Workload Allocation Policy in response, and this short survey seeks your views on the revised draft. Please read it alongside the revised policy document circulated by email.

A reminder of the policy's purpose: it is a positive, opportunity-focused mechanism for staff to increase their research allocation to 50%, or exceptionally 60%. It does not assess, manage, or reduce anyone's standard 40% research allocation.

The survey takes about 8–10 minutes. Responses are confidential and reported in aggregate only. You may skip any question. Please respond by 9:00am Monday 15 June 2026.

About You

This information helps us understand how views vary across career stages and sub-disciplines. All fields are optional.

The Revised Approach

Please indicate your level of agreement with each element of the revised draft.

1. Positive, opportunity-focused framing

The policy is framed solely as an opportunity to increase research allocation, and no longer contains any assessment of the standard 40% allocation.

2. Allocation tiers (50% standard, 60% exceptional)

50% is the standard increased allocation; 60% is reserved for exceptional cases, and applicants may request it and make the case for it.

3. No mandatory stand-down — continuation by reassessment

The mandatory 1-year stand-down has been removed. To continue beyond a 2-year term, a holder applies for reassessment; continuation depends on sustained performance and capacity and is neither automatic nor guaranteed.

4. No fellowship cooling-off period

Staff returning from a fellowship may apply immediately, assessed on the same merit-and-capacity basis as any other applicant.

5. Equitable access through capacity and transparency

Equitable access is protected through the teaching-capacity ceiling, the Director-of-Research nomination pathway, and transparency — rather than by limiting how often an individual may hold an allocation.

6. Eligibility

Staff already above 40% research (e.g. via funding or a teaching arrangement) may seek a further increase of up to 10% from their service component; 60% is the overall ceiling; and staff who can fund a teaching buyout are encouraged to do so rather than rely on this policy.

7. Dual pathway for initiating cases

Staff may self-apply, and the Director of Research may also nominate candidates (with their consent).

8. Governance and conflict of interest

The Research Committee recommends an allocation tier; the Workload Committee makes the final decision based on capacity. Members who are applicants do not serve on the committee that cycle, and those with a close relationship to an applicant recuse from that case.

9. Transparency

The holders and general basis of increased allocations are published, while the identities of unsuccessful applicants are kept private.

10. Contribution and citizenship as part of the case

The case may take account of authorship/contribution (with a brief contribution statement) and a record of School and University citizenship, alongside research output, grants, supervision, and plans.

Discipline Fit

11. Are the indicative benchmarks and discipline modifiers appropriate for your sub-discipline?

Overall

14. Overall, how strongly do you support the revised policy?

Thank you for your time. Your feedback is valued.