Around the world, research funding is being reshaped by political agendas, with increasing pressure to justify knowledge production through economic or ideological metrics. From direct legislative interventions in the United States, to proposed restructuring in the United Kingdom, these shifts take many forms.
In Aotearoa New Zealand, a more subtle but equally concerning transformation is underway: the government’s recent restrictions on research funding which are undermining the critical role of Indigenous knowledge, the social sciences, and the humanities alongside the natural sciences in addressing complex global challenges.
At the end of 2024, the government abruptly cancelled Marsden Fund eligibility for social sciences and humanities research, and introduced incentivisation for all remaining fields that at least 50 percent of funded projects must possess direct economic impacts. This interference with the country’s primary funder of blue skies research follows other political interventions in the academic and research environment. Though less explicitly malevolent than some recent interventions abroad, this instrumentalisation of research funding reflects a wider global trend: the subjugation of scholarly inquiry to reactionary political and economic imperatives.
Internationally, major funding bodies have long recognised the interdependence of the social sciences, humanities, and science in advancing knowledge for public good, and the value of curiosity-driven inquiry. Canadian federal funding, the Australian Research Council’s programmes, the European Research Council, the UK’s Leverhulme Trust and Advanced Research and Invention Agency, among others, all support basic research across a wide range of disciplines from the humanities to the sciences.
Though experiences in Australia and Canada have shown that such initiatives are always subject to threats at the margins, New Zealand’s decision to exclude key areas represents a stark deviation from long-standing best practices, risking isolation from global academic networks and undermining collaborations that drive transformative research.
The prioritisation of short-term economic returns in research funding reflects an increasingly utilitarian approach to knowledge production—one that devalues all inquiry that does not immediately translate into profit. This approach contradicts the very foundations of scientific progress, which often relies on long-term, exploratory research that cannot be neatly quantified in economic terms.
History shows that many groundbreaking discoveries have been serendipitous, emerging from structured, curiosity-driven research—exactly the kind of inquiry the Marsden Fund enables. By sidelining disciplines that provide context, critique, and deeper understanding of social and environmental issues and dynamics, such policies ultimately threaten the robustness and value of scientific inquiry, limiting the potential impact of research.
The consequences of this funding shift extend beyond academia. Scientific research without social science engagement makes meaningful societal, economic, and environmental outcomes less likely. For instance, climate science requires social research to ensure effective policy and behavioural change, and public health advances depend on societal insights into systemic inequalities. Without these intersecting dimensions, knowledge remains disconnected from the realities of implementation and impact.
Furthermore, the singular focus on economic impact belies a fundamental paradox: what is an economy without people? Economic benefit cannot be considered in isolation from social and environmental costs. A narrow economic framework ignores pressing concerns such as social cohesion, liveability, sustainability, cultural integrity, and housing affordability—all of which are central to the long-term wellbeing of societies.
As geographers spanning human and physical domains, our work highlights the interconnectedness of social, cultural, and environmental systems. Research into natural hazards and climate resilience, for example, has demonstrated that effective adaptation strategies require both physical science data on environmental change and social science insights into governance, local knowledge, and behaviour. Studies on biodiversity loss highlight that conservation efforts are more successful when they integrate Indigenous knowledge, societal practice, environmental science, and ecological research.
Urban resilience planning likewise depends on a fusion of environmental modelling and perception analysis to ensure equitable and sustainable development. The placement of roads, railways, and ports depends on terrain, river systems, and climate conditions, and human factors such as economic activity, population distribution, and political decisions influence the development, accessibility, and success of transport systems. These examples highlight the necessity of interdisciplinary approaches to global challenges, yet the current funding shift threatens to dismantle such integrative research efforts.
For Indigenous communities, this funding shift directly challenges the recognition and integration of Indigenous knowledge systems. Though framed as an economic decision, it subtly undermines mana motuhake (self-determination) and Indigenous research agendas. For example, in 2024 Māori researchers represented 13 percent of funded investigators.
However, without the social sciences and humanities funding panels, that number would have dropped to only 5.5 percent. Such policies reflect coded attacks on Indigenous scholarship, devaluing methodologies that do not conform to Western paradigms and research interests that do not align with political priorities.
This threatens the advancement of Indigenous knowledge and diminishes Aotearoa New Zealand’s ability to honour its commitments under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, alongside the important work done towards meaningful partnership and redressing harms caused by colonisation.
The medium and long-term effects are profound. The loss of critical social and interdisciplinary research risks a brain drain as scholars seek opportunities abroad. There is the very real possibility that New Zealand universities drop in international rankings, reducing their competitiveness and diminishing their ability to attract high-calibre researchers and students. Education itself—New Zealand’s third-largest industry—faces risks as declining international enrolments follow the erosion of research excellence.
These consequences extend beyond Aotearoa New Zealand, as similar funding shifts in other countries could lead to a global devaluation of research autonomy and interdisciplinary inquiry. The increasing vulnerability of research systems to political intervention undermines democratic governance and weakens the ability of universities worldwide to serve as independent voices in society. As Aotearoa New Zealand’s case indicates, short-term economic gains can come at the cost of long-term intellectual and social capital. This represents a precarious trajectory for research systems worldwide, as scientific agendas become increasingly dictated by political and financial whims rather than intellectual merit.
At its core, this move is an attack on the ability of academia to serve as the critic and conscience of society. In democracies, research should challenge, inform, and inspire—not merely serve economic imperatives. That such a policy shift occurred without consultation sets a troubling precedent for governance and transparency in decision-making.
A funding model that prioritises immediate economic returns over intellectual diversity and long-term societal benefits not only undermines academic independence but also threatens the integrity of global research collaboration. This is further compounded by cuts to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s Catalyst Fund—which funds international collaboration—and the removal of Horizon Europe top-ups for social sciences and humanities researchers.
These decisions not only devalue interdisciplinary and globally connected research but also risk further isolating New Zealand’s academic community—a challenge already exacerbated by our geographic location. Weakening mechanisms for international engagement undermines the ability of researchers to contribute to, and benefit from, the global research system, further limiting New Zealand’s capacity for transformative scholarship.
As New Zealand’s research landscape shifts, it serves as a cautionary example alongside more overt political interventions on research in the US and elsewhere. The exclusion of social sciences and humanities from national priorities ignores the reality that knowledge production is an interconnected ecosystem. Academics, policymakers, and the public must find critical, creative, and engaged ways to defend academic freedom, research autonomy, and contributions in hostile contexts, amplifying the value of diverse knowledges, and resisting efforts to reduce science to an economic instrument.
This article was originally published on Newsroom.
Mirjam Schindler, Marcela Palomino-Schalscha, and Brendon Blue are senior lecturers and Mairéad de Róiste is an associate professor in the School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences at Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington.
The following researchers also contributed to this article: Andrew Rees, Anya Leenman, Billy van Uitregt, Cathrine Dyer, Eduardo Salazar, James Renwick, Jamie Howarth, Maja Zonjić, Mike Joy, Polly Stupples, Sara Kindon, Valentine Ibeka, and Wokje Abrahamse.