Denouncing Gender Inequalities in the Recognition of Scientific Excellence


Julien Larregue, Université Laval

The Canada Research Chairs (CRC) program, established in 2000, was designed to strengthen the competitiveness of Canadian universities in the emerging global knowledge economy. The program aims to retain research talents and pursue academic excellence by annually rewarding researchers identified as the most deserving in their field. However, from the very first cycles of nominations, women have been disproportionately disadvantaged within the CRC program. The gap in the proportion of women holding academic positions compared to the number of CRCs granted to women researchers is notable. Based on this observation, and presuming that this disadvantage also operated according to other marginalized identities like Indigenous origin, visible minority status, and/or ability - eight researchers filed a complaint against the CRC program (Cohen et al. v. Industry Canada, 2003) with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC). Our study identifies the reasoning and arguments used by the parties involved in the debate surrounding gender inequality within Canadian academia and analyzes the characteristics of the arguments deemed legitimate by the CHRC. By doing so, we identify elements that make an argument publicly defensible and contribute to improving understanding on the processes involved in denouncing gender discrimination in academia. This study utilizes qualitative content analysis on a corpus of academic papers, press articles, the complaint filed with the CHRC, and its settlement. Moreover, we also conducted in-depth interviews with various individuals who have taken a public stance on gender inequalities in science around the time of the settlement and afterwards. Preliminary analysis reveals a gradual broadening of the discourse on the discriminatory impact of the CRC program. First, the denunciations of the program before the CHRC mainly concerned its effects and structure. Complainants focused on elements perceived to be legally valid and binding (e.g., issues of equality). For instance, the absence of actual measures to enforce compliance with the Canadian Human Rights Acts (CHRA) and the lack of statistical monitoring to document non-compliance are denounced as shortcomings of the CRC program. Over time, the debate surrounding gender inequalities within Canadian universities has shifted to reveal a tension between the notions of excellence and equity. According to program officials, gender inequalities in the allocation CRC may be due to the fact that women have not yet proven themselves and that they fall short of the scientific excellence criterion upon which the program was built. If we are to follow their reasoning, imposing quotas and equity policies would contradict the programs objective of excellence. In reaction, some scholars counterargued that the notion of excellence, when use as a measure of scientific performance, can only reinforce the disadvantage experienced by researchers from marginalized groups. Broadly speaking, the various issues raised by the CRC program highlight the difficulties encountered by individuals who attempt to denounce social injustice in professional settings.

Non-presenting authors: Elisa Gicquiaud, Université Laval; Lyn Hoang, University of Manitoba

This paper will be presented at the following session: