Academics sign open letter against the sharing of Tri-Council EDI data

Over 5,000 academics have opposed a motion by a parliamentary committee to request demographic data collected through an equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) questionnaire collected by the Tri-Council Agencies. 

The Tri-Council Agencies includes three federal research organizations: the Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). The Tri-Councils are responsible for allocating billions of dollars in research grants to academics across Canada.

The Parliamentary Committee on Science and Research (SRSR) has been studying the “impact of criteria for awarding federal funding on research excellence in Canada.” On October 1, the SRSR passed a motion which included a request that the Tri-Council’s disclose demographic data it collects in EDI questionnaires. 

Committee used to “wage a battle against [EDI] in research,” open letter says

Following this, Ardath Whynacht, an associate professor and director of the health studies program at Mount Allison University, started an open letter against the disclosure of this data. 

The open letter states that “in recent weeks the Committee has become an arena for a targeted attack on equity, diversity, and inclusiveness in science and research. Conservative [Members of Parliament] and some high profile scholars such as Steven Pinker have used this committee to wage a battle against [EDI] in research.”

The Gateway could not reach Whynacht for an interview.

The letter is also linked to an analysis published in The Conversation by two University of Alberta PhD sociology students, Andrea DeKeseredy and Ping Lam Ip. The two analyzed data from SSHRC funding between the fiscal years of 2013–2014 and 2022–2023. They found EDI did not sway funding for research.

“They have no right to that data,” U of A professor says

Upwards of 80 U of A academics have signed onto the open letter. One of those academics is Cressida Heyes, a professor of political science and philosophy. They spoke with The Gateway about why they signed the letter and their concerns about the disclosure of EDI data.

One of Heyes’ primary concerns is the confidentiality of the data collected through the EDI questionnaire SSHRC uses. According to Heyes, the questionnaire is optional but the data is said to be confidential and aggregated. Heyes said the data includes personal information like ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, and other things.

 “What I see is a gross violation of confidentiality and research ethics,” Heyes said. “It’s very clear, the confidentiality guarantees on that EDI addendum that you complete, and you can refuse to complete it, which I imagine many people will do now.”

The motion requesting the disclosure of that data originally requested disaggregated data, but was later amended to ask for aggregated and anonymized data.

“A knee-jerk reaction that’s not grounded in understanding the history of Canadian academia,” Heyes says

The increased scrutiny around EDI also raised some concerns for Heyes. They said that historically, research councils haven’t paid enough attention to EDI.

“It’s hard to convey to young people, but I became an academic in the 1990s, and, of course, the discourse of equity in academia was present then, but you just watched people tapping each other on the shoulder for goodies. So there was no sense that the work that women, [Black, Indigenous, and people of colour] (BIPOC) scholars were doing was of value.”

Heyes described it as an old boys club and said that to understand the language of EDI now, you have to understand the history.

“This is not about undoing meritocratic decisions, this is about trying to get merit in because things just used to be handed out to people who had power on the basis of who they knew or how credible they were by certain mainstream standards of what constituted good research that completely excluded whole fields [of study].”

“It’s kind of shocking to look at the committee records, and just to see how little they seem to know about how all of this functions. How thoughtless it is, just following a knee-jerk reaction that’s not grounded in understanding the history of Canadian academia or the political issues that face us now.”

Tri-Councils provided aggregated self-identification data to committee

CIHR, NSERC, and SSHRC told The Gateway in an email that “the funding agencies submitted as much data as possible on November 4, while fully respecting our obligations under the Privacy Act and our commitment to upholding the integrity of the peer review process.”

They said they provided details about funding applications that is already available online, including researcher names, affiliations, project summaries, and funding amounts. They also provided aggregated self-identification data for funded and unfunded projects so individuals cannot be identified.

The U of A told The Gateway in a statement send over email that “The [U of A] respects Parliament’s oversight role and its commitment to transparency and accountability in federal research funding.

“The university has stringent policies to ensure the protection of personal and confidential information of researchers. We expect both the federal granting councils and the committee to take the necessary steps to ensure any sensitive information is protected.”

The Gateway also asked the Graduate Students’ Association (GSA) about the disclosure of this data. Aashish Kumar, the GSA president, would not comment.