Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI/EDI) policies in Canada’s federal research system have weakened academic research and reduced overall academic performance at Canadian universities, according to a new report by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.
The report, released Sept. 1, bases its conclusions on an analysis of Canada Research Chair (CRC) holders from 2016 to 2025, comparing their research output and citation rates. The researchers also examined EDI-related language in chair descriptions and compared results across demographic groups and research fields.
The authors argue the increased emphasis on EDI targets in awarding Canada Research Chairs has resulted in an “equity-excellence trade-off.”
“Our analysis reveals that EDI has actively weakened Canadian research and reduced overall academic performance at Canadian universities,” writes the report’s authors Eric Kaufmann, Leif Rasmussen, and Jonah Davids.
The CRC program was formed by Ottawa in 2000 to assist Canadian universities in attracting and keeping leading researchers, and currently draws approximately $300 million in federal funding per year.
The chair funding is administered by three federal granting agencies, namely the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR).
CRC rules require universities to meet explicit targets in terms of the amount of representation for “racialized individuals,” indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities, and women and “gender equity-seeking groups” when filling the federally funded research chairs.
Institutions that don’t demonstrate they are meeting these targets are restricted to nominating only new candidates who self-identity as qualifying for a category that hasn’t met its quota. By December 2029, institutions that remain below their EDI targets will lose one chair allocation for every chair by which they fall short of a target.
The report notes that by 2025, women and “gender-equity seeking groups” comprised 61 percent of chairs, “racialized individuals” 40 percent, indigenous peoples 5.1 percent, and persons with disabilities 16 percent.
Chair-holders may belong to more than one EDI category, as the designations can overlap.
The report says that 88 percent of institutions with more than 40 chairs had met all their EDI representation targets for Tier 1 and Tier 2 CRC chairs by 2025.
Specific Findings
In their methodology, the researchers assessed the number of articles a scholar had published and the frequency with which their work was cited in other publications, known as the h-index. They obtained this data via OpenAlex, a large database of scholarly research.
The analysis was controlled statistically including for length of career, discipline, and whether the academic in question held a Tier 1 or Tier 2 CRC chair, as well as the year the chair had been awarded.
The report found average h-index scores of 18 for black or indigenous chairs, 28 for female chairs, and 38 for white or Asian male chairs. The authors said the differences were statistically significant after applying control factors such as discipline, career length, and chair tier.
As ethnicity data was not supplied by the CRC or reported by academics, the researchers said they inferred ethnicity from names and publicly accessible information using artificial intelligence and human review.
The study estimates that the differences in h-index scores associated with female, black, and indigenous chairholders represent a productivity loss equivalent to 12 to 15 percent of the average annual value of a chair.
The authors estimate that the productivity gap, combined with spending on EDI-oriented research they characterize as “scholar-activist,” amounts to about $36 million per year.
Furthermore, the report found that usage of EDI-linked terms in CRC appointee descriptions had doubled since 2016, with CRC research descriptions by chairs funded via the SSHRC 17 times more likely to contain EDI terminology than those funded by NSERC or CIHR.
In terms of research vulnerabilities, Kaufmann, Rasmussen, and Davids acknowledge that the h-index can be an imperfect way to measure research calibre. They also note that they did not have potentially mitigating information on the socioeconomic background of the scholars who were assessed, or other caregiving responsibilities they have that might detract from publication frequency.
The study says it finds no statistical proof that stronger post-2017 EDI targets led to a wider gap in h-index scores, and concludes this may indicate that EDI factors were already impacting CRC appointments significantly prior to when formal targets were put in place.
Meanwhile, an official CRC evaluation in 2023 reached a different conclusion, saying its bibliometric and altmetric analysis found that introducing equity targets did not reduce research excellence.
The government report said the baseline of excellence in the program is maintained because it enforces a strict, two-step peer-review process. It noted that though institutions first manage their internal recruitment, every nominee must still clear the rigorous evaluation standards of the Tri-Agency College of Reviewers to be awarded a chair.
CRC Requirements
The CRC program says every chairholder must first meet “stringent excellence requirements” as carried out by an institution and peer review, and says EDI targets help in this aim as “a diversity of perspectives and lived experiences is fundamental to achieving research excellence.”
EDI targets are needed as researchers from specific groups have dealt with “persistent systemic barriers” despite their research calibre, according to CRC.
NSERC has stated its support for EDI requirements, saying EDI policies are “foundational to research quality and impact” and removes barriers that might otherwise exist. The three federal granting agencies have jointly said that EDI boosts “the quality, social relevance and impact of research” by removing historical barriers and improving the integrity of research.
Kaufmann and his co-authors dispute this view in their report, concluding that program should get rid of EDI targets and return to “the disinterested pursuit of truth.”
English (US) · 
Turkish (TR) · 