Amid cuts to basic research, New Zealand scraps all support for social sciences

Perceived value of social sciences

• Many argue social sciences are essential to understanding demographics, refugees, vaccine hesitancy, fertility decline, social media harms, and indigenous histories—i.e., questions no other discipline can answer well.
• Several note that key methods (meta‑analysis, preregistration, survey and interview techniques) originated or matured in social sciences and are now critical in medicine and other fields.
• Others are unconvinced there is evidence that publicly funded social science improves “balanced, happy societies,” and say proponents should demonstrate impact before demanding taxpayer support.

Critiques: rigor, ideology, and replication

• Reproducibility problems are heavily cited; some claim social sciences are the “worst offenders” and overly qualitative, politicized, or driven by identity politics.
• Counterpoints: replication issues affect many fields (including medicine, physics, computer science); cutting funding may worsen, not fix, methodological quality.
• Disagreement over whether social science is “real science,” with some seeing it closer to philosophy, others emphasizing its statistical and experimental components.

Economic & political context in New Zealand

• Multiple commenters describe NZ as fiscally constrained, with high living costs, underfunded infrastructure, and an austerity‑oriented right‑leaning government.
• Some say the shortfall is partly “manufactured” via tax cuts and budget re‑framing to justify slashing public services, including research.
• Others frame the move as an unavoidable triage: prioritize STEM and applied work with clearer economic payoffs.

Indigenous, identity, and social justice research

• Strong support for Māori‑led and colonization‑focused research as foundational for national identity, reconciliation, and informed policy toward disadvantaged groups.
• Opponents see “identity‑obsessed” projects (e.g., small‑N qualitative studies on gender or app use) as low‑value or even corrupt, and politically easy targets for cuts.

Funding priorities, ROI, and alternatives

• Debate over whether government research should be justified by direct economic return vs. broader public goods.
• Some advocate shrinking, not abolishing, social science funding and tightening quality/impact criteria; others favor moving such work to philanthropy or private funding.
• Concerns that using “ROI” narrowly biases toward tech and engineering and neglects governance, regulation, and long‑term social risks.

Brain drain and long‑term effects

• Commenters note an ongoing NZ “brain drain” to Australia and beyond; cuts are expected to accelerate departures and make rebuilding capacity expensive.
• Worry about a “ratchet effect”: each political swing alternately destroys and expensively rebuilds institutions, including research ecosystems.

Universities, humanities, and critical thinking

• Broader thread on philosophy, history, and humanities: some see them as luxuries or elite self‑indulgence; others credit them with teaching critical thinking, rhetoric, and resistance to propaganda.
• Fear that defunding social sciences/humanities undermines society’s capacity for critique and informed policymaking, even if short‑term savings look attractive.