Following a letter co-signed by four researchers on the criteria of equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) and the sustainable development goals (SDGs) imposed by the Fonds de recherche du Québec (FRQ)2, the Chief Scientist of Quebec and the three scientific directors of the FRQ have seen fit to respond to minimize the possibilities of deviations mentioned in the initial letter. Under cover of public service, the authors justify the criteria imposed on researcher-students by emphasizing the optional nature of the EDI and ODD principles.
However, being myself a doctoral student nearing the end of my studies, I applied for a postdoctoral fellowship to complete my training as a researcher in France next year.
In order to hope for a scholarship that barely covers living expenses, applicants are assessed on:
- Their academic record and their background (35 points);
- The quality of their research project (50 points);
- The relevance of their host environment (15 points).
While these categories seem able to separate the wheat from the chaff in terms of excellence in scientific projects, the FRQ have also specified what constitutes, in their view, good research projects. They must be original, contribute to the advancement of knowledge, have a clear and coherent problem and be achievable. However, these criteria are no longer sufficient in the eyes of the FRQ. A good research project should also consider the abstract principles of EDI and ODD which, the signatories assure us, would be “optional”.
In reality, as a scholarship applicant, I have to justify (it is indeed required) why my project on the history of the institutionalization of patenting in universities does not take into account the objectives of SDGs nor the EDI principles , and must therefore assert – at my own risk – that it is simply because my research problem does not concern these questions. This is also the “diversity” in research… However, the devil is in the details.
Since points are associated with these justifications, we cannot consider that they have no negative effect on the final rating! As a result, it can be expected that the contestants would prefer to knit a positive response to please the Funds rather than explain in the negative how their project does not contribute to the new virtue.
Curiously, the signatories justify their principles by mentioning in passing that studies on car accidents would benefit from using several types of impact dummies in order to avoid injuries suffered by women and the elderly or obese. But this is obvious and relates to the representativeness of a sample, which is a matter of scientific methodology. Ensuring that the methodology is fit for purpose goes without saying and has nothing to do with “EDI”. In fact, demanding that a person justify why he does not study a certain object with a certain method calls into question his freedom as a researcher.
At the end of their letter, the authors are nevertheless reassuring. They point out that the FRQ review their “evaluation criteria” annually. Following justified criticism, they say they have “eliminated the criteria on social mobilization” in 2021, even if in fact the reformulation of the questions indirectly includes it. Nonetheless, it suggests that FRQs can understand that students are already busy enough studying, researching, and working, without having to be forcibly mobilized on political and social issues. In fact, the public will be better served if the evaluation criteria focus on the internal standards of scientific activity (validity of knowledge, feasibility of the project evaluated, methodological rigor, research experience of the candidates, contribution of the project to knowledge, etc.) instead of asking researchers to explain why their objects do not respond to principles that are simply foreign to them.