A new report looking at the prevalence of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI and EDI) practices in federal research grant-funding agencies says the ideology has “come to dominate” the academia and government.
The report by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute studied how DEI appears in academic and research bodies, including three federal research granting agencies.
DEI has “taken root” at the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), and the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), the report says. It adds that the agencies have a combined budget of $3.95 billion.
“Rather than prioritizing research excellence, they are too often promoting and even rewarding political activism,” the report says.
Author Dave Snow, associate professor in the department of political science at the University of Guelph, says one of the ways DEI prevalence is evident is in preferential hiring practices and grant awarding considerations.
“There is no ‘hidden EDI agenda’ at the federal granting agencies,” he said. “EDI is front and centre at SSHRC, CIHR, and NSERC.”
Related Stories
CIHR’s definition of research excellence uses activist DEI language that shows health and medical research funding has become “politicized,” he adds.
Snow says some of the other ways DEI is prioritized at the agencies include: rolling out a DEI “Action Plan,” specialized grants for DEI-related topics, grants that prioritize funding on the basis of race, gender, and other “identify characteristics,” defining research excellence as one that is “anti-racist,” mandatory diversity and bias training modules, and guidelines that nudge applicants toward including DEI considerations in their applications.
“The net effect has been to harm the perception of political independence and unbiased research that is crucial to any research funding agency. The harm is not yet irreparable—but reform is necessary,” the report says.
Recommendations
The report doesn’t ask for DEI-focused research to be banned by the government, saying it can “contribute to the marketplace of ideas.” Rather, Snow said, the playing field for research needs to be made level.
“EDI-focused researchers should be required to make the case as to why their research is deserving of scarce taxpayer resources dedicated to objective knowledge creation, just as all other researchers do,” he said.
The report offers several recommendations to reduce the amount of DEI-driven research and favouritism.
First, grant-funding agencies need to be neutral, Snow wrote.
“They should avoid any indication that ideologically motivated research will be more successful in terms of receiving awards.”
A second recommendation is to remove references to equity, diversity, and inclusion from granting agency websites and supporting materials.
The agencies should also be required to end DEI-focused grants, he said.
“Grants with application instructions that contain statements like ‘Which mechanisms perpetuate White privilege and how can such privilege best be challenged?’ have no place in an ideologically neutral research funding agency,” he wrote.
Grants with that sort of application criteria are more focused on activism than “knowledge creation,” he said.
The report also recommends:
- Removing any application process DEI modules or statements;
- Removing “equity targets” and awards based on identity characteristics;
- Expanding the data that granting agencies collect from researchers looking for funding.
“They should collect information on other aspects beyond EDI-focused identity characteristics, such as religiosity, age, country of origin, province of origin, and even political orientation,” Snow wrote in the report.
His final recommendation is that DEI-driven research be “permitted” but not “promoted” as it currently is. “Activist-driven” researchers should be encouraged to apply for funding based on meritorious criteria such as commitment to research excellence.
