Evidence of meeting #111 for Science and Research in the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was political.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Professor of Law, Queen's University, As an Individual
There are lots of possibilities. I'm not concluding this, but you're assuming—
Professor of Law, Queen's University, As an Individual
—that all the universities that exist should exist and expand. They expanded during one period, and now they're finding that, well, maybe they're too big now, because the international students are not there.
On the 40%, I want to be clear that—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Valerie Bradford
I'm sorry. That is the time.
We're going to turn to a five-minute round.
We'll start with MP Kitchen.
Conservative
Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you all for being here. Your presentations are greatly appreciated as we start this new study to look at how we can improve excellence.
As you might have heard, in a previous study we did, we were looking at the capstone and aspects of how to take federal funding and delegate that. What I'm hearing around the table, in various ways, are concerns about political biases that might be made as we move forward. Instead, we should be looking at what a scholar's individual merit is and what the quality of the proposed research is. We now talk about issues like EDI or DEI, depending on how we look at it. These are some of the aspects.
I'll go to you, Dr. Dummitt, to start.
What do we do to stop that? What suggestions would you have? How do we resolve this with professors, whether they're applying for these at big universities—the U15—or smaller universities?
Professor, Canadian Studies, Trent University, As an Individual
I'm sorry. Can I clarify what you mean? Is it stopping the political discrimination?
Professor, Canadian Studies, Trent University, As an Individual
The simple answer is this: You need a more diverse higher education sector, which I think is tricky to do. I think there are some reasons why, traditionally, certain kinds of people might be attracted to universities. They might be on the left, generally. I think the ratio is so skewed that it's hard to think other factors aren't involved. I would think that, at a host of levels, there are things you can't do, like job advertisements. But for things you can control, like research funding, you need to think about the way in which certain disciplines contain political assumptions within them and try to open those out to more diverse perspectives.
If you have a field in a funding agency in something like settler colonial studies, it comes with a whole host of political assessments. I mean, I'm fascinated by the history of settler colonial nations, but my perspectives are not welcome in settler colonial studies. If you're advertising a position in that area, it's not really open to diverse perspectives. Whether you're advertising jobs in these fields or advertising research funds, you have to include that kind of small-p political assessment to make sure you have institutional neutrality—
Conservative
Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Thank you. I'm sorry for interrupting. I appreciate that.
One suggestion we've had over time and from the reports that have been presented is that basically from a tri-council EDI aspect of policies, they should just be abolished. What are your thoughts on that?
Professor, Canadian Studies, Trent University, As an Individual
Well, I think that's unlikely to happen, but if they're going to exist, then I think they should include the viewpoints there as well. It shouldn't just be the other categories. If I were to reform them, I would have them be based not on the general population levels but on the funnel of applicants.
I understand it. At my university, when we're thinking about our percentage of Canada research chairs, we have to match the percentage of a certain identity group in the general population, regardless of whether the pipeline to provide us those applicants is open and diverse. It just doesn't make sense. That's just bad statistics. You want to look at how many people are there. If they're not there at the Ph.D. level, the problem isn't at our hiring level but why they aren't attracted to this level. Are there barriers further down the line?
I would reform them by thinking about it and not assuming that discrimination is the problem. Where is the problem? Is it discrimination? It might be, but it might be a whole host of factors that are just assumed under the current system.
Conservative
Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Thank you.
Dr. O'Donnell, I can tell you that I had the opportunity to tour the University of Lethbridge this past summer. I was golfing at the golf course right beside it. It's a great university.
We're talking about smaller universities here. Throughout, we're talking about researchers. Those researchers who are making those applications obviously put in a design of what they're doing. They may be looking at post-graduate students working with them. They may be post-doctoral students working. They're funding that. That's part of the agenda they put forward.
What about from the institution's point of view? Obviously, if they're doing research, they're using facilities at that institution. What are the costs to them to pay for using the labs, etc.? Is that a contract that's worked out individually?
Professor of English, University of Lethbridge, As an Individual
No, in Canada it's not. Worldwide, there's basically no research funding, whether it comes from a private institution or a government institution, that doesn't pay overhead. The reason is that the funders are paying for certain research, but the researchers are not building the labs themselves or paying for the heat. The university needs that. Actually, 40% is a bit low in some cases, such as medical. For instance, I have colleagues at UCLA, and 60% is what they can be charged on medical grants.
The universities do need that money. They're supplying me with a lab. They're supplying graduate students with services. That money in Canada, though, is from a tri-agency paid via a block grant. There are various tipping points, but I believe it's $7 million in funding in any one year. If you're above that, you then fall into essentially the category that Toronto and everybody belongs to, but that's quite a hard number to get, even for a university like the University of Lethbridge, with 600 faculty members. We're below that, which means we get kind of a base amount, plus some share of a percentage of the funding that we receive to go to overhead. It pays for the research administration staff. It pays for financial staff and everything.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Valerie Bradford
That was over the time, but I wanted you to fully explain it. That was important.
Professor of English, University of Lethbridge, As an Individual
Thank you.
Liberal
November 28th, 2024 / 5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Helena Jaczek Liberal Markham—Stouffville, ON
Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
Thank you to all the witnesses from both panels. This is a fascinating discussion.
Madam Chair, I'd like to go back to the purpose of our study, which is to look at the criteria used in the evaluation of research proposals and whether we would recommend any modifications. I would say that it would have been very helpful if we had started off our study with a really clear idea of what those criteria currently are.
Dr. O'Donnell, you have considerable experience. You've obviously been very successful in your career in achieving research funding. Could you help us and describe what the criteria specifically are that are looked for in an application?
Professor of English, University of Lethbridge, As an Individual
In my experience on funding panels, I've also done a fair bit of adjudication work. I think at SSHRC, I've done everything except for insight grants.
The criteria vary from grant to grant. Partnership grants, for example, which are about developing networks of researchers, will have an emphasis on buy-in from partners and on evidence of contributions. Conference grants will have an emphasis on evidence that there's other money coming in. It really varies from grant to grant.
On the whole, I think it's fair to say that you are adjudicated on capability, which is the evidence you can provide that you are able to deliver the kind of research you're planning to do. You're judged on the intrinsic, domain-specific merit of the research you're proposing to do, the overall research design and aspects like that.
When you're on a panel at SSHRC—which is, again, most of my experience; I've also done the frontiers fund—the criteria are presented to you on a piece of paper, like a restaurant menu, which you have in front of you as you talk. The committee goes around, essentially using this as a rubric. You have multiple readers. They have a discussion at the end. At the very end, once again, they put up a thing on the screen. They divide the categories into these infamous boxes at SSHRC. They ask, essentially, under “capability” or “training of students”, which is one that shows up, if it's excellent, good, satisfactory or poor, and the committee has to come to a consensus about that.
Liberal
Helena Jaczek Liberal Markham—Stouffville, ON
Is there any category in that box that says there's a need for some sort of acknowledgement of diversity, equity or inclusiveness? Is that a category?
Professor of English, University of Lethbridge, As an Individual
It shows up in the new frontiers in research program. That is where I've seen it. It's a tri-agency.... It's not one of the specific agencies. It's a group that goes beyond that. It's interdisciplinary. As part of that, you're asked to indicate how you are supporting, in essence, a diversity viewpoint in terms of creating a space for people who have non-traditional experiences to participate. The place where it really shows up, however, I would say, is in ensuring that you are not inadvertently shutting diversity down. A very common question that shows up is how you are going to create the space so that the people who feel like they are not being heard can report that.
Liberal
Helena Jaczek Liberal Markham—Stouffville, ON
Thank you.
Dr. Dummitt, do you find that reassuring, to a certain extent? You seem to be very conscious that some people are being excluded.
Professor, Canadian Studies, Trent University, As an Individual
As far as I understand it, when the assessors think about who is excluded or included in the research, they don't include viewpoint diversity in that. They're not thinking about political diversity, so no, I'm not reassured at all.
I think the assessments about whether the research design is good, whether it's interesting or whether it's solid contain a whole host of implicit assumptions. When 90% of the people on that panel—maybe higher in certain fields—are making assessments about merit, interest and how innovative the research design is, if they share political opinions and aren't asked to think about the way in which their assessments are based on their own political assessments, and they don't have people in the room who call them out on that, I'm not reassured at all.
Liberal
Helena Jaczek Liberal Markham—Stouffville, ON
Would you see the adjudication panel being expanded so that people could bring that viewpoint to the panel?
Professor, Canadian Studies, Trent University, As an Individual
Yes. I think two things. In fairness, I think the question is about having more diverse viewpoints on the panel. If assessments are going to be part of it, I think political viewpoints and viewpoint diversity should really be part of the assessment.