Despite the warm spring weather, a research chill has settled on social science and humanities researchers at Western. I had the occasion at a recent Senate meeting to ask John Capone, Western vice-president (research), and author of the current rejigging of small research grants, a few questions about the new policy. Based on his responses, these are my observations.
It is obvious this policy revision was poorly conceived, has been poorly executed and will have many detrimental effects on faculty research productivity. Other than Capone’s perception the previous small grants were problematic, no metrics were provided to substantiate their removal. These grants were open to all faculty for peer-review competition and provided a lifeline for those unable to, or not needing to, secure large grants.
The domination of these small grants adjudication panels by administration members eliminates peer review. Capone’s response was that if problems arise, changes would be made. He failed to grasp the subtlety that undermining peer review is the problem. Capone had no reply to my suggestion he should have erred on the side of peer review.
The new process/criteria purposefully exclude many faculty, whereas the previous small grants programs did not exclude anyone. Again, he responded if problems were to occur, changes would be made.
It was clear Capone was already feeling heat from other avenues on this file as he, without question or prompt, retracted his previous requirement for matching funds from faculties. He had found out, well after the fact, that faculties do not have the funds to match the grant awards.
It is also clear to me with the university’s search for an identity via “government-approved research strands,” small-grant proposals that do not toe the line will not be approved. The alignment message will be pushed down from Capone’s research office to the majority administration panel members when they vet proposals. Proposals will not be vetted solely on their empirical merits; their connection to the strand will be paramount. This is a not subtle attempt to tell researchers what to research and those who do not ‘match-up’ will get no funding.
When analyzed in conjunction with the provost’s crystal-clear description (also at that same Senate meeting) of how securing more tri-council grants boosts the university’s overall financial picture, it is clear securing such grants will be the only metric used to measure faculty productivity. I strongly suggest Workload Committees think hard about how to mitigate the mostly negative effect this highly unfair criteria will have on faculty annual evaluations. And, before anyone trots out the old chestnut that securing a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) grant separates the best from the rest, I draw your attention to that huge sucking sound in the background; that’s the sound of ever-diminishing SSHRC funds rapidly circling the fiscal drain.
I have no argument with administration’s oft-stated ambition for excellence. That is what we should do. But, Western cannot expect to do it on the backs of research-strapped faculty.
All of the great universities Western aspires to be compared to, have, at some point, incurred debt; 3 per cent is the acceptable standard. What a shot in the arm that would be for our research.
Alan Edmunds
Senator, Faculty of Education