Study on the impact of the criteria for awarding federal funding on research excellence in Canada

The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) is the national voice of over 75,000 academic and professional staff at universities, colleges, and polytechnics across Canada. We defend academic freedom and work actively in the public interest to improve the quality and accessibility of post-secondary education in Canada. We thank the Committee for the opportunity to contribute to its study on the impact of funding criteria on research excellence.

Research holds immense public value, serving social, cultural, and economic needs. It must be supported by robust public investment, shielded from politicization, and assessed in ways that honour academic freedom and diverse knowledge pathways.

Federal funding is a vital driver of Canadian research excellence. It supports basic science, applied innovation, interdisciplinary collaboration, and public-interest inquiry. Yet funding levels are not meeting demand, with success rates in most granting programs declining. This heightens the importance of ensuring fair, transparent, and expert-driven allocation processes.

Peer review is the foundation of credible, high-quality research funding. It is the mechanism by which expert scholars assess each other’s work based on disciplinary standards, originality, and impact. It ensures that research excellence is defined by scholarly merit and protects against political interference. When funding decisions are made by scholars with relevant expertise—not politicians, bureaucrats, or interest groups—academic freedom is shielded, and research integrity is preserved.  Peer review encourages rigorous, independent, and sometimes disruptive inquiry—the very essence of scientific progress.

Equity frameworks play an essential role in ensuring fair and inclusive access for all scholars. CAUT supports strengthening peer review and promoting EDI in tandem—not as trade-offs, but as complementary safeguards of excellence and fairness.

Systemic discrimination inhibits good science and limits scientific advancement. When researchers face discrimination and barriers that prevent their full participation in their scientific endeavours, all research suffers as their knowledge remains underutilized and limited.

Canada’s granting agencies are leaders in promoting inclusive research excellence through programs like the Canada Research Chairs (CRC). The CRC program, however, unlike open competitions, begins with an internal institutional nomination process. This nomination process raises concerns about transparency and bias against equity-deserving groups.

Following a complaint in 2003 to the Canadian Human Rights Commission—and supported by CAUT—a settlement agreement required institutions to establish equity targets based on the available pool of qualified candidates. A 2019 addendum further strengthened these commitments, in collaboration with all parties, by aligning them with best practices and Canada’s evolving demographics to address systemic discrimination.

Critics have mischaracterized these frameworks as “ideological” or “quota-based.” In reality, institutions remain free to nominate any candidate who meets program criteria based on scholarly activity. Rather, the goal of the requirements is to ensure that institutions do not systematically exclude excellent researchers due to bias or discrimination. This is a legal obligation rooted in human rights law. Upholding human rights is not about imposing a particular ideology on the program and to characterize it as so undermines the rule of law and the moral foundation of democratic society.

Diversity enriches research. When researchers from varied backgrounds, perspectives, and lived experiences contribute to inquiry, the questions asked are broader, the methods are more inclusive, and the results are more meaningful to society. EDI is not a “political” add-on—it is a mechanism to ensure excellence, not dilute it.

Research excellence must be understood in its fullest sense. Traditional metrics like publication counts or journal impact factors do not capture the full range of valuable scholarship. Performance metrics can especially disadvantage members of equity-deserving groups, those publishing or disseminating knowledge in languages other than English, those who are on non-traditional career paths, as well as those who conduct unconventional teaching, research, creative activities, service, professional practice, and/or research. CAUT supports the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), which urges funders to evaluate research based on its substance and impact, not where it is published or how many times it is cited. DORA-aligned assessment supports innovation and fairness by valuing different forms of knowledge production.

The valuing of different forms of knowledge must be clearly reflected in the distribution of federal research funding. At present, the allocation remains heavily imbalanced: the social sciences and humanities (SSH), despite encompassing the majority of Canadian researchers, consistently receive less than 20% of federal research support. This inequity constrains the country’s ability to tackle the full spectrum of societal challenges, from democratic governance and Indigenous reconciliation to climate adaptation, public health, social equity, technological change, and more.

The imbalance is compounded by structural barriers in the funding system. Success rates for SSHRC Insight Grants, averaging around 34%, remain modest relative to the need, and many meritorious proposals are left unfunded due to limited resources. The problem is not one of quality but of underinvestment. Increasing and rebalancing the Tri-Council envelope so that SSHRC is strengthened, alongside permitting flexibility in the disciplinary allocation of Canada Research Chairs, would help ensure that federal funding better mirrors the breadth of research being undertaken.