Equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) mandates in Canadian research are resulting in lower productivity and a harmful focus on scholar-activist research, according to a new, first-of-its-kind study by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.
The equity-excellence trade-off: A study of EDI in the Canada Research Chairs Program by Eric Kaufmann, Leif Rasmussen, and Jonah Davids reveals that EDI has come at a steep cost in terms of research performance and quality.
To assess EDI's impact, Kaufmann, Rasmussen, and Davids analyzed all Canada Research Chairs (CRC) award holders using the h-index, a standard measure of research impact based on publications and citations.
"Our analysis of the research output in the Canada Research Chairs Program from 2016 to 2025 confirms that diversity is not merely neutral but can lower performance," the authors write.
The authors estimate that EDI policies cost the CRC approximately $36 million annually, and that broader costs associated with EDI-based hiring practices and scholar-activist research could reach approximately $100 million per year. The report also documents the rapid expansion of EDI terminology, including the use of "social justice" terms and phrases, throughout the CRC program.
The authors note that these changes have coincided with a dramatic transformation in the demographic composition of Canada's research chairs. For instance, between 2000 and 2025, the proportion of White male CRC chairs plummeted from 80 per cent down to just 25 per cent.
The EDI-mandated shift has, in turn, impacted CRC research productivity: the authors' research showed that White and Asian male researchers have the highest average h-index, at 38, compared with 28 for women and 18 for Black or Indigenous scholars.
The authors call on the federal government to end demographic targets and EDI requirements within research councils, halt funding for scholar-activist research, and restore the principle that publicly funded research should be devoted to the pursuit of truth not EDI or activism.
"The EDI ethos is politically toxic, racially and sexually discriminatory, and a waste of scarce public resources," warn the authors.
"The legitimacy of Canada's government-funded research base cannot be taken for granted."
