We are surprised by the remarks of a group of university colleagues about Bill 23 and its presumed deleterious effects on scientific production in education. We are also surprised to see a kind of misinformed “trial of intent” circulating on the aims of the National Institute of Excellence in Education (INEE) that the Minister wishes to create.
According to this group, such an Institute would only aim at the domination of a single kind of epistemological attitude towards science, and this, even if the report of the working group at the origin of the project explicitly affirms the contrary. It seems appropriate to reframe certain facts.
1. The creation of the INEE in no way affects the academic freedom of scholars to carry out research according to the methods and problems and on the subjects of their choice, nor to disseminate their results in the frameworks and by the means of their choice. .
2. The creation of the INEE in no way affects the mandate, powers and autonomy of the Fonds de recherche du Québec (FRQ) which finance university research, in the sciences of education as in other fields.
3. It is important to read very carefully several elements of the bill itself which correctly shed light on things:
First, Article 4 of the future INEE Act requires the Institute to “exercise [sa] mission while respecting the values of rigor, objectivity, transparency and cooperation with organizations that can contribute to it”. On this point, our colleagues could contribute constructively to the debate by proposing to add “and with respect for academic freedom as defined by the Act respecting academic freedom in the university environment”.
Next, Section 8 provides for a Board of Trustees consisting of a chair separate from management, as well as the chief scientist, independent members, and the chairperson of the Council on Higher Education (or Council superior of education), which will prevent the INEE from being a plaything or a pharmacy in the hands of the minister.
Then, sections 11 to 13 provide for obligations of transparency and the creation of a separate scientific committee, according to formulas that have already proven themselves empirically in other comparable organizations, both in Quebec (such as INESSS) and elsewhere.
Finally, section 14 on training programs leading to a teaching license only grants the minister powers that he already had.
4. Current good practices concerning evidence and their mechanisms, such as the INEE, already explicitly provide for the promotion of a pluralism of approaches. The empirical reality of Quebec and elsewhere confirms this. The creation of the INEE will not prevent the pluralism of approaches, especially since all academics remain free to make their personal choices to direct their research activity and especially since any attempt to impose an orthodoxy will inevitably come up against to the strongest resistance and will end up failing, as the history of science abundantly demonstrates.
5. All professionalized sectors of activity understand that a better structured use of scientific results is a good thing. It is a vehicle both for professional development for the workers and for social justice for the students, especially the most vulnerable.
In short, the construction of scientific knowledge is a dynamic and autonomous process that the creation of the INEE will certainly not affect negatively: it is up to academics in education to contribute to it through the quality and relevance of their research.
Moreover, Bill 23 is a government choice and it is up to the legislators to dispose of it. Under these conditions, pressuring the chief scientist to oppose it publicly would ruin all his future authority with the government and render him incapable of defending science and its demands, the first victim of which would be the scientific community. Quebec. The current consultations will allow the government, we have no doubt, to make the appropriate adjustments to achieve the targeted targets.
But as researchers, we wish to recall that, ultimatelyour task with decision-makers is to advise elected officials by soberly and humbly reporting on the state of knowledge and its implications, and certainly not to try to confuse the political process with unfounded remarks.