EDI policies in research have yielded "minimal" returns, experts say

Policies and programs to promote equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) in research have been largely ineffective, according to experts at the recent RE$EARCH MONEY’s conference in Ottawa.

The Employment Equity Act came into force in 1996 to ensure federally regulated employers, including universities and colleges, provide equal opportunities to four designated groups: women, Aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and visible minorities.

Nearly 25 years later, “we have lots of data, we have identified gaps, we have been compliant, and there is not one university or college that doesn’t have a policy on equity inclusion, not to mention lots of committees, working groups, plans and frameworks,” said Jane Ngobia, senior adviser, Equity, Diversity and Inclusive Communities at Sheridan College. Yet, she called the return on investment “minimal.”

Ngobia was one of three panelists who discussed the role of policy in enforcing EDI practices. The others were Dominique Bérubé, VP, Research Programs at the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) and Mahadeo Sukhai, head of research and chief accessibility officer at the CNIB.

“One of the challenges from an institutional point of view is that equity has remained, for the most part, a goodwill activity," Ngobia said. "It’s a 'nice to do,' rather than a part of the core structure of an organization.”

Bérubé, who chairs the management committee of the Canada Research Chairs (CRC) program offered a case study of the impact of federal EDI policies. Fifteen years after the CRC program’s launch, she said the majority of post-secondary institutions still failed to meet its equity and diversity targets. As a result, in 2017, the secretariat that administers the CRC program on behalf of the three federal research funding agencies established an action plan that embedded equity and diversity into the program’s design. It also required participating institutions to develop their own EDI action plans and to meet the program targets by December 2019.

Those policy changes are beginning to deliver results, she said: In the most recent CRC competition, women accounted for more than 43% of nominations—a historic high.

“How did we make things move? We said [to institutions], 'If you do not meet your targets by December 2019, we will not be reviewing your nominations unless they contribute to the four designated groups,'” recounted Bérubé. “Without that stick, it wouldn’t have worked.”

Prescription for change

Making EDI policies more effective requires a perspective shift, said the CNIB's Sukhai. Policymakers must focus on the needs of end users—men, women, non-binary people, racialized groups, persons with disabilities—and ask: “What is the experience of the person on the other end of the policy going to look like?”

A willingness to change course is also essential, he said: “We have to be prepared to eat a policy, a process, a practice, and even the money that supports those things, if they don’t work.”

Ngobia echoed his view, saying, a highly selective, interventional approach is needed to bring about change. The strategies used to promote EDI should be based on the desired outcome, grounded in evidence, and measured, she said. “We need to be bold enough to change, to say, ‘This strategy isn’t working. We’ve got to do something else.’”

From institutions to researchers

Beyond the CRC program, Bérubé told the conference attendees that EDI policies are being implemented in other federally funded research programs. Notably, the Canada Research Coordinating Committee unveiled a draft Athena SWAN charter in February, which is intended to help address the systemic barriers that confront some Canadians undertaking research careers. However, barring major changes to the draft charter, participation in the Made-in-Canada Athena Swan will be voluntary.

According to Bérubé, policymakers are also looking at how to drive change among researchers and their teams, particularly on the issue of harassment and sexual violence in science.

Research funders globally are struggling to address this issue. A report released last June by the U.S. National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine found that sexual harassment in academia is significantly more common among students in engineering and medicine than students in non-STEM fields. In response, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences announced it will take aggressive action against members found guilty of sexual harassment.

A consortium of academic and professional societies, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, also formed in February to develop guidance and resources to combat sexual harassment in medicine and across the STEM fields.

R$