Impact of COVID-19 on health research in New Zealand: a case study of a research-intensive campus

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to outline the impact Coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 has had on health research in New Zealand. We used data from the University of Otago, Christchurch, a research intensive satellite campus of the University of Otago with a large number of research only grant funded staff to highlight challenges and opportunities. All non-COVID-19 related laboratory and clinical research was suspended under New Zealand COVID-19 alert level 4 and the majority under level 3. To date, researchers predict that 95% of research projects have been affected. During the periods of lockdown research salaries continued to be paid from grants resulting in a 'salary gap' to support research staff (both academic and technical). Most funders have indicated there will be no additional funding to support researchers affected by the delays. Early and mid-career researchers have been particularly affected and are currently unable to travel for post-doctoral training and networking. A more robust career structure with adequate funding, particularly for early and mid-career researchers is required to ensure that New Zealand has a stable research work force to address the next health crisis.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on early career researcher activity, development, career, and well-being: the state of the art

“…Those with children saw a "more drastic impact on their work productivity" (p. 8), which the authors warned could lead to a "family gap" (p. 8) in the future, unless funders and employers adopt policies to account for the unequal circumstances faced by different groups during the pandemic. As suggested by Kappel et al (2021), this can be attributed mainly to lack of peer support and a loss of focus due to worry or stress, but for some ECRs (e.g., doctoral students, research associates, non-permanent jobholders) also due to unsuitable working environments (found also by Stamp et al, 2021); increased personal responsibilities, including those relating to caring for children or vulnerable adults, COVID-19 illness (or fear of becoming ill) for themselves or others within their households, and sometimes bereavement.…”

“…Across all articles reviewed, online questionnaires were the most commonly applied method of data collection. Online questionnaires were used (a) as a single datacollection method in eight studies (Adarmouch et al, 2020;Aubry et al, 2021;Camerlink et al, 2021;Guintivano et al, 2021;Kappel et al, 2021;Myers et al, 2020;Ramvilas et al, 2021;Stamp et al, 2021) and (b) in conjunction with other data sources in two studies that included email exchanges, mentor's notes, and papers co-authored by the mentor and doctoral researchers, as well as their perceptions of the effectiveness of the mentoring programme or website analytics and post-conference surveys (Raby and Madden, 2021). One of the papers involved data collection in the form of documents posted to an openaccess preprint repository for social sciences (Cui et al, 2022).…”

“…The number of participants per study varied from small (e.g., 11 participants in and medium (e.g., 55 participants in Adarmouch et al, 2020) to large (e.g., 4535 in Myers et al, 2020). The majority of the authors drew on data that were collected from researchers at different academic ranks but emphasising the experiences of ECRs (Aubry et al, 2021;Camerlink et al, 2021;Guintivano et al, 2021;Kappel et al, 2021;Stamp et al, 2021). Other papers were focused on a specific group of participants.…”

“…However, as the author noted, the mentoring programme may not have been a sufficient or appropriate option for those in some other disciplines (e.g., conservation studies where laboratory and field components are required to fulfil the study objectives of doctoral/postdoctoral researchers), necessarily affecting their opportunity to continue their studies according to original timelines (Ramvilas et al, 2021). Delayed thesis submissions were reported by Stamp et al (2021) who collected data via a qualitative survey completed by 15 doctoral students and another survey completed by 42 early and mid-career researchers in medical and health sciences, in New Zealand (while these categories are not separated in the discussion, this includes researchers and academics with fewer than ten years post PhD). The authors stressed that one negative effect for the doctoral researchers was that they had to acquire new funding to support themselves during the additional study period, as well international doctoral researchers had to apply for visa extensions (at additional cost).…”

“…Conversely, Camerlink et al (2021) demonstrated that doctoral students and ECRs (those up to seven years after obtaining their PhD degree) enjoyed increased networking opportunities due to the surge in online meetings and conferences, which they may not have been able to attend in the past (in-person) due to associated costs. Despite the expansion of online opportunities offered internationally, Stamp et al (2021) noted that few such activities accommodate New Zealand time zones.…”