INST Committee Report

CHAPTER TWO: SMALL AND REGIONAL UNIVERSITIES AND THE ALLOCATION OF
FEDERAL RESEARCH FUNDS

In its June 2001 report, the Committee expressed some concerns about the nationwide distribution of federal research grant funds. It was particularly troubled by the relatively weak research capacity of small universities and the subsequent concentration of federal research funds in a few large institutions. Many researchers from small universities claim that they have more difficultly in obtaining research grants from the federal granting agencies than do researchers at larger universities. Additionally, certain regions of the country (e.g., Atlantic Canada and some parts of western Canada), in part because of the higher proportion of small institutions there than in other parts of the country, receive relatively low levels of federal research grant funding. The Committee recognized that the apparent lower success rates and/or funding levels of researchers from small universities were not because these researchers are of inferior quality to researchers at larger universities. Instead, barriers such as high teaching loads, small graduate programs, inadequate infrastructure, and in many cases, low levels of regional, value-added industrial activity probably have a greater impact on the research capacity of small institutions.

The Committee wished to explore further the reasons why researchers from small institutions are not faring as well as their large university counterparts under the present system of allocating research funds, and whether there are any inherent biases against researchers from small institutions in the decision-making processes of the federal granting agencies.

Funding of Researchers at Small Universities

During the course of its hearings, the Committee heard from several witnesses who suggested that researchers from small and regional universities face special difficulties in securing funds from the federal granting agencies to conduct their research. The granting agencies did not present any data on success rates or funding levels of researchers at small (or regional) institutions as compared to their large university counterparts, although suggestions were made that the agencies are beginning to examine the issue:

[W]e are aware that small and some medium-sized universities in some regions of Canada aren’t succeeding as well as they would like. NSERC senior management takes this very seriously, and last year we visited 16 universities in the Atlantic and prairie provinces to investigate the issue a bit further. We found that there are indeed barriers in some universities to research productivity, which can in turn significantly affect their ability to compete in an excellence-based peer review system. [Elizabeth Boston, NSERC, 39:15:35]

The Committee compiled data provided by the granting agencies (for their major research grants programs¹⁹) and the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (numbers of faculty at each institution) to construct its own figures on the allocation of funds by size of institution (Fig. 1) and by region (Fig. 2) for the three agencies. These figures provide an overview only of funding patterns since they represent a single competition year (2001) for all three agencies combined, and institution size was estimated by counting the number of full-time faculty (not all of whom are active researchers) at each university.²⁰ Nevertheless, the data do provide a representative snapshot of recent funding patterns at the three agencies. Since there are differences among agencies in funding levels and patterns, it is important to also examine the breakdown of funding patterns by agency (see Appendix 2). The data support the anecdotal evidence that researchers at small universities tend to have less success in granting agency competitions (Fig. 1a and Appendix 2), and receive smaller grants, on average (Fig. 1b and Appendix 2), than their large university counterparts. Consequently, funds are concentrated in a few, large institutions (Fig. 1c). Differences in success rates among the institutions classified by size are most prominent for SSHRC and CIHR (Appendix 2), and are not as noticeable when data for all three agencies are pooled (Fig. 1a).

In terms of the regional distribution of funds, researchers from Atlantic Canada tend to have slightly lower success rates and smaller grant sizes, on average, than researchers from other regions, which is correlated with the relatively high proportion of small institutions in Atlantic Canada (see Appendix 2d). Furthermore, of the 16 Faculties of Medicine in Canada, only two are located at institutions (Dalhousie University and Memorial University) in Atlantic Canada; a correspondingly small proportion of CIHR research grants goes to fund medical researchers at these two facilities (see Appendix 2c). The regional distribution of federal research funds also mirrors the pattern of investment by the provinces and/or the private sector in R&D; Ontario and Quebec have the largest provincial GERD,²¹ and receive the largest proportion of research funds from the federal granting agencies.

Fig. 1. Success Rates and Average Annual Grant Size for NSERC, SSHRC and CIHR Applicants Combined (Competition Year 2001²²)

The concentration of government research funds in a few large or research-intensive institutions is a phenomenon witnessed in other countries (e.g., the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia), and is not unique to the Canadian context. In the United Kingdom, some smaller universities are attempting to attract more research funding by examining the possibility of merging or forming “strategic alliances” (to share equipment and laboratory space) with larger universities.²³ The Committee notes this trend, but points out that in a geographically large country like Canada, mergers and the sharing of infrastructure would, in most cases, be difficult to implement.

In terms of the success of researchers from small and regional institutions in Canada in obtaining research funds, a representative from SSHRC made the following observation:

We have three categories of recommendations that are made by committees. One is “recommended and funded.” The second is, “recommended, but unfortunately SSHRC does not have the money.” The third category is, “not recommended at
all.” That second group, recommended but not funded, is where you find a lot of the small universities and a lot of the universities over which there are regional concerns. [Ned Ellis, SSHRC, 39:15:50]

The granting agencies contend that low success rates and/or small grants reflect the low overall levels of funding provided to the granting agencies by the federal government.

Roots of the Funding Problem for Researchers at Small Institutions

Most witnesses reinforced the suggestion made during the Committee’s last study on innovation that weak research capacity and lack of resources are the major barriers preventing researchers from small institutions in competing effectively for research funds with researchers from large universities. When these institutions are located in regions of the country with low levels of value-added industrial activity and/or low levels of provincial investment in R&D, the problems are exacerbated:

One of the fundamental problems we face as smaller institutions [in obtaining grant funds] … is that when we meet the test of excellence and when we submit proposals, whether it’s to granting councils or within other types of programs, the level of resources available to support those excellent proposals is often the problem, as opposed to built-in biases [in the selection process]. [Bonnie Patterson, President, Trent University, 51:09:50]

… As smaller institutions, they have less well-developed, if any, research and development offices, commercialization facilities, and partnerships with national or international institutions or organizations. Their capacity to develop any of these aspects of research and innovation may be further limited by the financial resources of the province in which they are located. [Jacquelyn Thayer Scott, Advisory Council on Science and Technology and President and Vice-Chancellor, University College of Cape Breton, 55:09:45]

Most witnesses argued that research capacity at small institutions has to be improved in order that researchers from small universities can compete on a “level playing field” with their large university counterparts:

It’s not a matter here of a bias in the system, which is fundamentally founded on quality and excellence. I think those are values that we absolutely have to preserve. The issue is, how do we make sure that different institutions with different capacities are able to compete with one another effectively? [Tom Traves, President, Dalhousie University, 51:09:50]

Increasing Research Capacity at Small Institutions

The Committee heard several suggestions as to how research capacity can be increased, which would (according to the witnesses) correspondingly increase the success rates of researchers in securing research funds at small and regional universities. These suggestions included paying the indirect costs of federally funded research, providing programs through the federal granting agencies (or other bodies) that are targeted to building research capacity in small or regional universities, ensuring that small and regional universities find their research “niches,” increasing funding levels to SSHRC, and increasing overall federal funding levels to the federal granting agencies.

Payment of Indirect Costs

University representatives argued that the most important first step in “levelling the playing field” between small and large institutions would be to establish a permanent program to support the payment to universities of the “indirect costs” of federally funded research. Indirect costs are those involved with providing the services and physical environment necessary for the conduct of research but that are not associated directly with a specific project (e.g., expenses associated with providing lighting, central computing services, library and research archiving, research administration, and technology transfer and commercialization offices). Direct costs include salaries of research associates, equipment and supplies, travel and subsistence, and communication of research results. The salaries of principal investigators are considered to be included in the operating grants provided to the universities by the provinces.

Universities suggest that the indirect costs of research are increasing as more university-based research and researchers are funded. In Canada, the indirect costs associated with federally funded research are paid from university operating budgets; the federal government pays only for the direct costs of research. In the United States, universities claim a large portion of a researcher’s grant (negotiable with the U.S. granting councils on a university-by-university basis) to cover indirect costs. Canadian universities and university associations have been pressing the federal government to establish a permanent program to support the payment of indirect costs:

As someone from a medium-sized university with a very active research environment, I experience first-hand the dilemma that universities face in trying to deal with increased enrolment on the one hand, and the increasing complexity of research support programs, accountability, or regulatory requirements for research with human subjects, animals, and biohazards on the other. A major step forward would be for the federal government to reimburse universities for the indirect costs they incur in conducting research funded by the granting agencies. [Wayne Marsh, President, Canadian Association of University Research Administrators, 43:09:10]

The Advisory Council on Science and Technology (ACST) has proposed that funding for indirect costs should be provided to the universities by the federal government. It suggested that each university eventually receive 45 percent of the level of funding provided to the university by the three federal granting agencies (based on a rolling three-year average of funds received). Under the proposal, smaller institutions that receive lower amounts of funding from the granting agencies would receive a larger percentage (up to 95%) of these amounts to account for an inability to achieve inherent economies of scale in research activities. This increased percentage for small universities should directly reduce the implicit cross-subsidy obtained from teaching activities and indirectly increase their research capacity which should, in turn, help to leverage more funds from the granting agencies for the direct costs of research. At the time the ACST released its report (September 2000), it estimated that the final cost of delivering the program would be in the range of $450 million annually.

This Committee, in its June 2001 report, recommended that the government, in discussion with the provinces, address the issue of payment of the indirect costs of federally supported research. In its December 2001 budget, the federal government announced a one-time $200 million payment, with a promise of ongoing support, to help support indirect costs at universities and research hospitals:

Looking ahead, the Government will work with the university community on ways to provide ongoing support for indirect research costs that is predictable, affordable and incremental to existing support. [The Budget Plan 2001, Department of Finance, December 2001]

The federal government made its first announcements about the distribution of the one‑time payment at the end of February 2002. The Canada Research Chairs Secretariat is administering the monies. The formula used to calculate the size of the indirect costs grants resembles a “reverse income tax” model, where the first $100,000 of research funding from the three federal granting agencies is supported at a level of 80% for all universities.²⁴ The next $900,000 is supported at a rate of 50%, the following $6 million at 40%, and the remainder at slightly less than 20%. The government’s Innovation Strategy²⁵ released in February 2002 indicates that supporting the indirect costs of federally supported research is one of its priorities for improving the university research environment and Canada’s knowledge performance.²⁶ The Committee deems that the permanent support of the indirect costs of research by the federal government as being very important. It believes that the formula used to calculate the one-time payments is appropriate since the differential costs between small and large universities are recognized, but encourages the government to look at other models (e.g., that of ACST) when designing any permanent program. The Committee thus recommends:

RECOMMENDATION 1

That the Government of Canada, in consultation with the provinces and territories, instate a permanent program for the support of the indirect costs of federally funded research in its next budget, and that the formula used to calculate the grant to each institution take into account the differential costs between large and small institutions.

Programs Directed to Small and Regional Institutions

Some witnesses appearing before the Committee suggested that more programs to build research capacity that are targeted to small and regional universities are necessary. Building research capacity should lead to an increase in the success rates and funding levels of researchers from small universities in national, open competitions for research funds:

More must … be done to foster and strengthen innovation capacity in smaller Canadian universities so that they can continue to strategically harness the innovation potential of the communities in which they are located. In advancing a new federal capacity building initiative, we acknowledge the need to recognize and build on the demonstrated flexibility of existing federal programs. The research capacity building initiative we propose also recognizes excellence as the fundamental criterion of funding allocation. [Robert Giroux, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, 51:09:10]

There are already some programs in place at CIHR and SSHRC that are specifically intended to assist small universities and/or certain regions of the country build research capacity. A description of these programs follows.

CIHR

CIHR has an obligation not only to support excellent health research, but also to ensure that there is robust health research capacity in all regions of Canada. The peer review system does not generally consider regional distribution as one of its criteria for evaluation, and we have developed other processes to try to ensure that there is good regional distribution of CIHR funds … [Mark Bisby, CIHR, 39:15:35]

In 1996, the former Medical Research Council of Canada began a program in response to a decline in funding to health researchers in Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Manitoba. The Regional Partnerships Program (RPP) was expanded in June 1999 to include Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research continues to offer this Program. In addition to funding health research, the RPP supports a local strategic planning process to establish research priorities and partnerships, emphasizing the recruitment and retention of promising and/or excellent researchers, building on local strengths and priority interests of the institutions.

Under the Program, research funding and personnel support applications that are judged to be of high scientific merit through peer review, but are below the funding capacity of CIHR’s base budget in regular competition, are eligible to receive funding if there is a partner to co-fund the proposal. The annual maximum CIHR co-funding is $1 million for each of the original four provinces (Manitoba, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan) on a 1:1 partner-funding ratio. For the Program’s newest provinces (Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick), funding has been set at a level of $200,000 per annum at a 1:1 partner funding ratio. CIHR’s current commitment to the Program is $4.4 million per annum. The Program has had positive effects in increasing the research capacity of institutions in the participating provinces in the area of health sciences:

[T]he Medical Research Council a number of years ago instituted a program, which … set aside a designated amount of what was essentially seed money ― small grants ― for a designated number of smaller institutions that allowed us to invest in our good ideas. So when we eventually did go forward to compete with scholars at much bigger and better funded universities, we had the same pre-investment in our project and had made the same progress as they had. So we were able to compete on a level playing field. Significantly our research grant results went up substantially as a result of that kind of support. [Tom Traves, President, Dalhousie University, 51:09:50]

CIHR also established the Institutional Establishment and Development Grants Program, which is intended to increase capacity in health research at Canadian institutions. The Development Grants portion of the Program is intended to permit certain “underdeveloped” institutions²⁷ to undertake activities that will increase their competitiveness in applications for CIHR funding. The Program provides a one-time grant of up to $100,000 per institution (expiring on March 31, 2002). At present, this Program is a “one‑time” funding opportunity for institutions, pending submission of final reports by the institutions and an evaluation of the Program’s outcomes in 2003. The rationale behind establishing Development Grants stems from the fact that most institutions have identified health research as a priority for development in their Canada Research Chairs Program (CRCP) strategic plans, yet investigators at many institutions currently receive very little funding from CIHR. Since CRCP allocations are based on past funding received from the three federal granting agencies, such institutions receive few or no CIHR-CRCP allotments. The purpose of development grants is to assist underdeveloped institutions to build and mobilize their health research capacity, which should, in turn, lead to CRCP allocations in health research and increased research growth.

SSHRC

The Aid to Small Universities Program offered by SSHRC is intended to help small universities develop and strengthen focused research capacity in the social sciences and humanities. Small institutional grants are awarded on a competitive basis for a three-year period and support such activities as start-up costs/partial funding of research centres; stipends to doctoral students; organization of colloquia or symposia; and seed funding for collaborative research or the development of partnerships. The maximum value of a grant is $30,000 per year for three years.

The SSHRC Institutional Grants Program, which is open to all eligible Canadian postsecondary institutions and helps to fund small-scale research activities by faculty in the social sciences and humanities, also assists universities in strengthening research capacity. Under the Program, SSHRC provides block grants (minimum of $5,000) for three-year periods to each eligible institution. The institutions use these funds to award, through their own competitive process, small individual grants to support research activities such as short-term research projects, research-related conference travel and organizing small seminars.

Other SSHRC policies indirectly ensure that funds in certain programs are shared among institutions across the country:

In certain programs sometimes we will introduce particular clauses, in the Community-University Research Alliance Program,²⁸ for instance, which was, of course, community-based and had a huge demand. What was nice about that program was that we specified that institutions could only get one Community‑University Research Alliance, which meant that it was much more widely spread across the country. [Ned Ellis, SSHRC, 39:15:45]

NSERC

Although NSERC has had programs directed to small universities in the past, no such programs exist today because of budget constraints. The agency is in favour of targeting resources to build the research capacity of small and regional universities that would allow these institutions to be more successful in national competitions:

[The universities] need targeted resources to bring their research facilities and capacity to a high level, to allow them to compete on a level playing field, and a relatively modest program to provide flexible infrastructure support could go a long way to achieving this goal. This advice has been made available to Industry Canada and the federal regional economic development agencies. [Elizabeth Boston, NSERC, 39:15:35]

Focusing on Research Strengths

The importance of small institutions identifying their areas of research strength and focusing their efforts in those areas was emphasized by several witnesses. Strategically focusing research efforts in an area of speciality allows a small university to build research capacity and productivity and to excel, both nationally and internationally, in that area:

In terms of capacity building for research, many of us find it is critically important to our success to be very niche-focused. We need to develop critical mass in particular areas. Some of the programs the federal government has put in place in fact are now allowing us to establish excellence at a critical mass level. [Bonnie Patterson, President, Trent University, Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, 51:09:30]

Another witness argued, however, that some small institutions because of their mandates and/or types of industry in the region might have difficulty expanding into other areas of research:

[R]esearch activities in smaller institutions with subregional development mandates are generally less well developed … Typically, they begin with involvement in some form of sectoral economic activity within their subregion that may support a very limited number of mid-sized or larger employers … It may be difficult for such institutions to move into other niche areas that will focus on assisting SMEs or helping to diversify the base for their local economy. [Jacquelyn Thayer Scott, Advisory Council on Science and Technology and President and Vice-Chancellor, University College of Cape Breton, 55:09:45]

Despite this caution, the Committee supports the idea that small institutions should strategically focus their research efforts in one area rather than trying to engage in “across the board” research activities. A suggestion was made that as part of any program intended to build research capacity at small or regional universities, the universities should be required to identify their areas of research strength, and to request funds to help promote research capacity in that area:

This is why we suggested a program that would target smaller universities. [The universities] would submit a plan to strengthen their capacity in one area and would outline their needs. This program could be available to finance the capacity-building side of university research. [Robert Giroux, AUCC, 51:09:40]

Within these programs, some witnesses made the point that excellence should still remain the primary selection criterion for the allocation of funds.

The Committee was encouraged to learn that some programs to help certain small and regional institutions are already in place at the granting agencies. These types of programs are essential in assisting these institutions build research capacity in areas of strength, and ultimately in helping their researchers to obtain a larger proportion of research funds, through open competition, from the granting agencies. The Committee therefore recommends:

RECOMMENDATION 2

That the Government of Canada, in consultation with the provinces and territories, set up targeted programs through the granting agencies  to assist “underdeveloped” small and regional institutions strengthen their research capacity in key areas, and that appropriations be made to the agencies to fund these programs.

Increased Funding for Research in the Social Sciences

The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada currently receives the lowest level of funding of the three granting agencies (projected base budget of $157 million for fiscal year 2002-03 as compared to $559 million for NSERC and $562 million for CIHR). The agency argues that it is under-funded since it represents 55% of all university researchers, but receives only about 13% of the federal investment in university-based research. The Committee notes this difference, but suggests that part of this funding gap may be explained by the lower costs, on average, of research in the social sciences as compared to much of the research in the natural sciences, engineering and health sciences. Differences in amounts of federal funding among different areas of research may also reflect differences in the socio-economic impact of the research. The Committee encourages SSHRC to place more effort into promoting to the public the impacts of SSHRC supported research on Canadian society.

A few witnesses appearing before the Committee suggested that since many smaller institutions have their research foci in the social sciences and humanities, providing adequate levels of funding in these areas is critical for ensuring that researchers in small institutions receive appropriate levels of federal funding for their work:

The second factor for many of us [at small universities] is that we are largely focused on the social sciences and humanities. At Trent, for example, our focus is approximately 60% in that area. Therefore, access to resources through such granting councils as SSHRC becomes fundamental to the ability of our universities to compete, not just regionally and nationally but internationally. [Bonnie Patterson, President, Trent University, 51:09:30]

… [W]e feel the time has come to address the historic underfunding of the SSHRC … Again, that Council plays a particularly important role at many smaller institutions in the country … [Wayne Marsh, President, Canadian Association of University Research Administrators, 43:09:10]

The Committee is concerned about the level of funding to SSHRC and especially its impact on researchers at smaller and regional universities. It notes that relatively low levels of funding at SSHRC have resulted in the suspension of some programs, and an inability for SSHRC to participate in certain initiatives. For example, SSHRC has been unable to provide any monies to follow up on recommendations made to NSERC and SSHRC by the Task Force on Northern Research to rebuild Canadian northern research capacity, whereas NSERC has been able to channel some of its funds to at least partially implement the recommendations.²⁹ To address the issue of differences in funding levels among agencies, the Committee recommends:

RECOMMENDATION 3

That the Government of Canada increase the level of funding to SSHRC, especially given the impact of this funding on researchers at small institutions.

The Committee believes that officials at Industry Canada, who are familiar with the agency’s mission and the outcomes and impacts of its programs, are in the best position to decide on the size of the increase to SSHRC’s budget.

Increased Funding to All Three Federal Granting Agencies

Some witnesses appearing before the Committee argued that low success rates and funding levels to researchers at small institutions reflect inadequate levels of funding to the three federal granting agencies, not flaws in the peer review system itself:

I think the real problem is not redistributing the dollars and not putting the finger on the problems of process as being the cause of the other problems. I think the problem is that we don’t spend enough on R&D in the country as a whole. [Michael Piva, Canadian Association of University Teachers, 43:10:00]

[T]he fundamental, underlying issue is the overall lack of funding in the granting councils in particular. You will therefore get situations in which people are writing good proposals time after time, but they’re not being funded. That’s because in the judgment of the people doing the reviews, is not that it’s not meritorious research, it just comes a little too far down on the scale and the funding doesn’t come down far enough to meet it. [Wayne Marsh, President, Canadian Association of University Research Administrators, 43:10:10]

The Committee appreciates that higher levels of funding are required for university-based research in Canada, and notes that this need is also recognized in the government’s Innovation Strategy.³⁰ The Committee believes that larger annual increases to the granting agencies (i.e., larger than the 7% increases awarded to SSHRC and NSERC in the December 2001 budget) are necessary to help meet the federal government’s target of doubling its annual investment in R&D by 2010. The Committee recommends:

RECOMMENDATION 4

That the Government of Canada immediately increase funding to all three granting agencies so that success rates and/or grant levels for excellent research can be increased.

The Committee encourages the government to consider a doubling of agency funding levels by 2010, and ensure that annual increases to the agencies reflect this long-term goal.

The Committee recognizes that the recommendations made in this section of the report will lead to results only if the institutions and regions involved also work towards the goals of improving regional and institutional research capacity. Issues such as the levels of provincial support for research (for both direct and indirect costs) and for universities, as well as institutional support for researchers, have an important impact on research capacity and productivity, independent of federal efforts in this area. Furthermore, the Committee notes that stronger collaboration between the provinces, territories and the federal government on such research funding problems would make it easier to find solutions. Similarly, increased collaboration on other issues related to research, development and innovation would improve the innovation performance of Canada, the provinces and the territories relative to their international competitors.

Potential Bias Against Small Institutions in Decision-making Processes

An argument was made that the present peer review system is biased towards supporting researchers at established, large institutions since the selection criteria focus on such factors as the quality of an applicant’s publication record and the numbers of highly qualified personnel trained, which are usually stronger for researchers at large universities. One witness argued that other evaluation standards need to be applied to researchers at small institutions, which are often newer and located in rural or remote regions of the country. The witness indicated that there are different and equal standards of excellence that are more appropriate to different contexts, and that separate funding programs, targeted to researchers at small institutions, are needed at the granting agencies:

That really is what the ACST has been saying in at least two of its reports, that we’ve been doing very good things related to strengthening the good things that already exist in Canada’s well-developed universities in metropolitan regions, but now we need to have separate programs that are equally excellent, but with different standards for the excellence appropriate to other communities that are at a different developmental stage. [Jacquelyn Thayer Scott, Advisory Council on Science and Technology and President and Vice-Chancellor, University College of Cape Breton, 55:09:45]

However, other witnesses argued that although many researchers from small universities do face problems in securing funds from the granting agencies, they did not want the selection criteria and peer-review processes altered. These witnesses suggested that the present excellence-based, competitive decision-making process is fundamental to the efficient allocation of research funds. Instead, they recommended that the issue of weak research capacity be addressed in order that researchers from small universities can compete in open competition with their large university counterparts:

… Peer review isn’t perfect, but it’s by far the best imaginable system. I stress that it’s the only one that can make us internationally competitive ... To make that reversal of our relative decline [in productivity] and to be economically competitive, you have to allow for a competitive system in the allocation of the grants. Yes, do the capacity building. Yes, do the special programs we’ve all been talking about, but my goodness, peer review is the heart of what translates the dollars into excellence. Give up on peer review and you give up on the excellence. [Paul Davenport, President, University of Western Ontario, 51:10:40]

The Committee recognizes the importance of maintaining a competitive system for the allocation of funds, but it encourages the granting agencies to ensure that the special situations of small and regional universities is taken into account in all aspects of the review process.

At this stage, the Committee believes that it is important to address the issues of the payment of indirect costs, disparities in research capacity between small and large institutions, and low overall funding levels to the granting agencies. The Committee will monitor the success rates and funding levels of researchers at small and regional institutions to see whether improvements in the aforementioned areas are correlated to improved results for these researchers in granting agency competitions. If major improvements are not witnessed, other factors (including, possibly, the peer-review process itself) are likely responsible for the relatively poor performance of researchers at these institutions. The Committee encourages the federal granting agencies to review their funding mechanisms to ensure that researchers from small and regional institutions participate actively in decision-making processes, and that, as far as possible, the review process take into account the difficulties faced by researchers at these institutions. The Committee will continue to monitor the situation and determine whether further investigation and changes are required.

The Canada Research Chairs Program and Small Universities

The Committee’s concerns about the allocation of Chairs under the Canada Research Chairs Program were two-fold: (1) the formula used to calculate the allocation of Chairs to universities is based on the past performance of universities in obtaining federal research grant funds which might reinforce the existing disparity in research capacity across the country; and (2) the Program might lead to the “poaching” by large universities of the best faculty from smaller universities thus augmenting even further the disparity in research capacity across the country. Some universities and university associations had the same concerns when the Program was launched in 2000.

In general, witnesses appearing before the Committee stated that their initial concerns about the Program have largely been erased. With respect to the allocation formula, witnesses suggested that the Program provides some flexibility in how the Chairs can be used by smaller institutions:

First of all, one of our experiences with the Program is that where there can be flexibility with the Chairs, the happier and easier it is in some particular disciplines to address issues. As we see some of our highest-end researchers approaching retirement, the ability, for example, to use a senior-awarded Chair in two particular areas as junior Chairs has been very helpful in our case. I would speak to the structure of the Program being fine as we’re moving forward. [Bonnie Patterson, President, Trent University, 51:10:00]

As for the issue of raiding, the Chair of the Association of Atlantic Universities made the following comments:

My region was certainly one that was very anxious about this. As I indicated, we have many small institutions. There was a great anxiety at the start of the Program that we would essentially be raided ― that the best people at our institutions would disappear into the better-funded, larger institutions across the country. That has not happened. At my university we’ve lost one person. But at the same time we’ve attracted people from other institutions. If you just see this in the context of the normal movement by people in terms of their careers, it fundamentally has not proven to be the kind of anxiety we worried about. [Tom Traves, President, Dalhousie University, 51:09:55]

The Committee is still concerned about the allocation of Chairs to small universities and encourages the Canada Research Chairs Secretariat to pay special attention to this issue in present and future reviews of the Program.