Equity in Research

As a signatory of the Dimensions: EDI Canada charter, Carleton University has committed “to foster increased research excellence, innovation and creativity within the post-secondary sector across all disciplines, through greater equity, diversity and inclusion.” As researchers, how can we put these beliefs in the value of equity, diversity, and inclusion into action? This resource is not meant to be prescriptive about how you design or conduct your research. It is intended to encourage reflection on potential ways that considering various dimensions, as appropriate to the nature of the project, of EDI can strengthen your research.

Increasingly, external funding agencies expect applicants to articulate how they are addressing EDI in their research or to explain why they are not applicable. As NSERC puts it, “we must create a culture where embedding [EDI] considerations into all aspects of research is second nature.” SSHRC distinguishes between EDI in research practice and in research design.

Research design relates to “elements of the research itself, such as why, how and with whom research is done; approaches to analysis; and how resulting knowledge is shared.” For some researchers, EDI implications of a project are obvious and straightforward based on their object of study or how they’re approaching it; others may have to work harder to ensure they’ve considered possible EDI dimensions of their research.

Conceptualization

Building on an intersectional, gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) framework, for example, the New Frontiers in Research Fund program recommends researchers ask themselves the following questions early in the research design process:

• Are gender considerations taken into account in the research design, methods, analysis and interpretation, and/or dissemination of research findings?
• Are race and ethnicity considerations taken into account in the research design, methods, analysis and interpretation, and/or dissemination of research findings?
• If the research is using population/sample data, can that data be disaggregated by identity factors to determine differences between groups?
• Is there diversity in the work consulted and referenced in supporting/secondary research?
• Are other identity factors taken into account in the research design, methods, analysis and interpretation, and/or dissemination of research findings?
• Does the research engage or involve Indigenous Peoples using best practices and established guidelines?

Put another way, Andrews, Parekh, and Peckoo (2019, 10) recommend conducting a “landscape assessment” and asking yourself the following questions:

• Who is affected – positively or negatively – by the issue you plan to study? Why? How?
• How is power distributed in the community? What power differentials exist?
• Which relationships are prioritized? Which are discouraged?
• How does the community like to be approached and through what gateway?
• How do you refer to individuals in the community?
• What are the historical and cultural antecedents of the community?

Scholarly Communication

Given longstanding criticisms of academic research as an extractivist enterprise, attention to where and how the knowledge that your project generates is disseminated is also an important part of ethical and equitable research design. This is especially true when research involves human subjects, community co-creation, or both: Can our research be accessed by the people who make our research possible and/or who could most benefit from it? Whenever possible, opt for open-access venues. Depending on your field, you may need to build budget lines for article processing charges into grant applications. Self-archiving in a personal or institutional repository can also be an effective strategy for making publications accessible, but your ability to do so many have conditions (e.g., an embargo period or stipulations on which version of the paper you can post); carefully examine contributor agreements and publishing contracts to understand your rights. Also consider alternative formats like blog posts, op-eds, or self-hosted reports that allow you to address specific audiences, perhaps in a more accessible, plain-language way.

When organizing events, pay attention to who is invited and what assumptions you’ve made about how they will participate. Women and Gender Equality Canada has a guide to inclusive event planning, and the Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences’ Igniting Change report includes best practices for accessible and inclusive in-person, hybrid, and online academic conferences. An option for remote attendance via video conferencing can help close several important equity gaps, though care should be taken to ensure that remote participants are actually able to participate meaningfully in the event.

As a participant in events, pay attention to equity and accessibility gaps, including all-male or all-white panels. If you are able, raise issues with organizers proactively, especially if you are a person with relative privilege in the situation.

Not every research project is about equity, but every project benefits from careful consideration of how taken-for-granted practices may reproduce systemic barriers or limit opportunities for researchers and trainees from historically marginalized and underrepresented communities. SSHRC defines research practice as “the research team’s composition and recruitment, as well as training, mentoring and decision-making in the research context.”

Research Team Composition and Recruitment

The research team includes co-investigators and collaborators, scholarly or community advisors, and student research assistants or other “highly qualified personnel” who may be hired to work on the research. These are special cases of more general issues around equitable and inclusive recruitment and hiring processes. The Canada Research Chairs Secretariat offers an online unconscious bias training module, and Carleton hosts monthly workshops on equitable and inclusive academic hiring.

If you are assembling a team of co-investigators and/or collaborators, you will likely rely on scholars you already know and whose work you know. As Henry et al. write, “Personal and institutional networks are fundamental to professional success and, at the same time, to maintaining a culture of standardization, replication, and maintenance of the prevailing order” (276). You may feel external pressure to diversify your team, but this can result in tokenism – recruiting a “diverse” team member for diversity’s sake – rather than genuine collaboration. The solution to both the lack of diversity among collaborators and the tokenistic overcorrection is to expand your network organically and proactively.

If you are hiring other personnel, including student research assistants, consider some of these practices to diversify your applicant pool and limit biases in the hiring process:

• Post positions (consider the Work Study and ACT to Employ programs) and actively recruit outside your usual networks
• Write job descriptions that (1) take care to use unbiased language and (2) clearly articulate both duties and qualifications
• If possible, consider anonymizing applications
• Have more than one person review applications
• Invite applicants to indicate any accommodations they need to participate in the interview process
• Use the same assessment processes for all applicants, ensuring that assessments (e.g., interview questions and evaluation rubrics) are meaningfully tied to the requirements of the position