Leaders from Canada’s major research funding agencies defended the importance of diversity requirements during a parliamentary committee meeting this week. They stressed the need to ensure that these measures do not sacrifice the quality or integrity of research conducted at Canadian universities. The conversation focused on the role that diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts play in enhancing the quality of research and ensuring that funding applications get through the approval process.
The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) provides large, direct funding opportunities to Canadian researchers. You could be awarded as much as $1.4 million over a seven-year period! This financial support is part of a broader commitment by the Canadian federal government through three main funding bodies: SSHRC, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Collectively, these agencies fund about $4.5 billion in research each year.
Diversity Criteria Under Scrutiny
In other words, recent criticisms have focused on how the use of diversity criteria might narrow the scope of viewpoints that are allowed to be represented in academic research. In an act of defiance against reality, SSHRC’s president, Ted Hewitt, soundly dismissed such assertions. He reiterated that money is not allocated according to the identity or membership of any constituency. Instead, it bets everything on the great proposal horse.
Thanks to Valerie Laflamme from SSHRC for passing this sharp idea along! That when artists and scientists from different cultural backgrounds work together, they produce extraordinary research results. She said that such policies work to address systemic barriers and biases. This levels the playing field, making it possible for every individual to contribute their unique perspective and experience to the research ecosystem.
Anne-Marie Thompson, vice-president at NSERC, echoed this point. Her comments included, “Equitable treatment of diversity and focus on inclusion are key to achieving high quality, impactful research.” Together, these leaders emphasized that diversity within the researcher community only adds to the overall research process, not take away from it.
Challenges Faced by Researchers
Critics among some academics claim that such diversity mandates risk ignoring qualified researchers. They caution that this might lead to worthy people losing out on funding opportunities. Significant concerns were heard about how this criteria would drive some researchers to look for jobs in other countries.
Paul Hébert, president of CIHR, acknowledged that while equity is vital, its importance can vary depending on the research area. He noted that, “No matter what issue we choose to work on, equity plays an incredibly significant role. This further highlights the challenges of enforcing diversity initiatives while simultaneously defending the enforcement of high-quality academic standards.
The parliamentary inquiry’s work goes a long way to addressing those long-held concerns. They have demanded disaggregated data by October 16th on all research proposals approved and denied since 2020, with particular emphasis on applicants from these equity-seeking groups. We hope that this request will go some way towards shedding light on how diversity criteria are being used in practice.
The Future of Research Funding
While these conversations play out, SSHRC, NSERC, and CIHR can’t backtrack on their diversity-action plans. This, they argue, allows for the better quality and relevance of research done in Canada by furthering the inclusion of researchers who reflect Canada’s diverse and multicultural society. Leaders from these agencies agreed on the need for diverse teams to help create the kind of collaborative atmosphere where transformative discoveries are made.
As Ted Hewitt, president of SSHRC, put it so well, “We work with all these perspectives. We don’t filter perspectives—we fund the best research that we can find at that moment in time.” This claim is intended to address concerns that diversity requirements will threaten academic freedom or suppress innovation.
Nevertheless, critics are not convinced about the adoption of these policy changes. Others point out that these muddled definitions of DEI allow groups to cherry-pick aspects to focus on. This, in turn, could undermine the integrity of scientific research. Dave Snow voiced his concerns: “The vague and shifting definition of [diversity, equity and inclusion] is a feature not a bug,” he stated, suggesting it enables agencies to justify their decisions under broad terms.
