Federal Budget 2026 needs to fix Canada’s research funding model to ensure equitable allocation of federal research funds for all universities across the country, says the Alliance of Canadian Comprehensive Research Universities (ACCRU).

Ottawa should revised the current research funding model to address the disproportionate allocation to small and medium-sized universities, and address the increased complexity of research administration, ACCRU said in a pre-budget submission. Michel Caron (photo at right) is the executive director of ACCRU.

“By adopting a more equitable approach to research funding, Canada can optimize its research capacity, foster innovation and cultivate a diverse pool of research talent,” said ACCRU, which represents 45 small and medium-sized universities.

Data provided by the Canadian Association of Universities Business Officers indicate the large discrepancies in funding of research conducted by U15 Canada universities and the ACCRU members, ACCRU said.

These number show that ACCRU members have received, between 2017 and 2022, only 12 percent of Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council funding, 8.7 percent of Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council funding, two percent of Canadian Institutes of Health Research funding and 4.6 percent of Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) funding.

In contrast, the members of U15 Canada have received 62 percent, 69 percent, 92 percent and 78 percent from each of these agencies, respectively.

Also, the reliance on past success rates as a primary determinant of funding extends beyond grants to other crucial areas such as scholarships, Canada Research Chairs, and CFI allocations, ACCRU noted.

“This compounding effect exacerbates the existing imbalances in the research ecosystem,” the organization said.

The overreliance on past success rates as a primary determinant of research funding has created a systemic inequity, concentrating resources in a limited number of institutions, ACCRU said.

“This approach stifles innovation, limits the development of research talent, and hinders the ability of smaller institutions to contribute fully to Canada’s research landscape through discovery, regionally embedded research, and talent development.”

Small and medium-sized universities face significant challenges in competing for research funding, according to the submission.

Increased administrative burdens imposed by new compliance requirements, such as those related to important items including equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI), research data management  and research security, disproportionately impact these institutions.

The current Research Support Fund (RSF) allocation formula does not adequately reflect the actual costs incurred by these institutions to meet these obligations, resulting in notional and actual amounts disbursed that are misaligned with costs for administration, ACCRU said.

To address these issues, ACCRU recommended:

• Diversify funding criteria: Implement a more equitable funding allocation model that considers a broader range of factors, including institutional size, geographic location, research capacity and potential impact.
• Increase RSF allocation: Provide adequate RSF funding to support the administrative and infrastructure needs of all institutions, regardless of size.
• Re-evaluate eligibility thresholds: Remove or adjust RSF-based eligibility criteria for funding programs to ensure fair access for all institutions (e.g., Incremental Grants Program) or for new/emerging priorities (e.g., EDI, Research Data Management, and research security).

Inequitable research funding among Canada’s universities is a long-standing complaint

Smaller universities in Canada not receiving equitable public funding for research compared with large universities is a long-standing complaint.

A 2016 study by Canadian researchers, published in PLOS One, found that funding success and grant amounts for applications to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Discovery Grant program (2011-2014) were consistently lower for applicants from small institutions.

This pattern persists across applicant experience levels, is consistent among three criteria used to score grant proposals, and therefore is interpreted as representing systemic bias targeting applicants from small institutions, the researchers said.

“When current funding success rates are projected forward, forecasts reveal that future science funding at small schools in Canada will decline precipitously in the next decade, if skews are left uncorrected,” they said.

The disadvantage of early-career researchers in terms of both grant proposal funding success and funding levels is particularly troublesome, the researchers noted.

Small institutions, if they are to maintain a viable research capacity, require a comparable rate of successful recruitment of early-career researchers into the Discovery Grant program, they said. “Their ability to conduct research and training will be further eroded unless national research councils reverse contemporary trends that concentrate grant funding in the hands of select researchers and elite universities.”

[Editor’s note: NSERC now offers a complementary program, Discovery Development Grants, that specifically targets and supports researchers at smaller institutions. Nevertheless, as ACCRU’s pre-budget submission pointed out, between 2017 and 2022, ACCRU’s members received only 8.7 percent of NSERC funding].

The researchers who did the 2016 study pointed out that to support objective and robust review of grant applications, it is necessary for research councils to address evaluation skew directly, by adopting procedures such as blind review of research proposals and bibliometric assessment of performance.

“Such measures will be important in restoring confidence in the objectivity and fairness of science funding decisions,” the researchers said.

Research councils should ensure the integrity of science research funding by establishing procedures that entrench fairness and transparency in the evaluation process, they said.

This means that research councils should prioritize assessment and detection of grant proposal evaluation skew, determine whether skew is a result of systemic bias, and design policies and procedures to best minimize future skew, if skewed funding outcomes are unwanted.

“It follows that research councils may be further compelled to develop corrective measures to mitigate the impact of uncorrected evaluation skew on funding results,” the researchers said.

Systemic evaluation skew is increasingly evident among other national research councils, although in most cases it remains unclear to what extent such skew is attributable to differential merit and/or actual evaluation bias, according to the study.

The researchers noted that some small institutions probably contribute to low grant proposal funding success by failing to provide highly competitive research environments for their faculty.

In response, small institutions can be pro-active by developing policies that better reflect contemporary challenges and realities in an increasingly competitive and cash-limited research environment.

Established researchers at small schools should receive the necessary institutional support to maintain research success, the researchers said.

Examples include adjusted teaching loads, improved administrative support for research, and reduced institutional duties such that researchers have sufficient time to conduct research and publish papers, write competitive grant proposals, and train and manage personnel.

In a competitive research funding environment with limited funding, small institutions need to select strategic areas for research emphasis and development, and capitalize on synergies and economies of scale by supporting core groups of researchers who can collaboratively establish strong and dynamic research programs that will be competitive with those at larger schools, the researchers said.

Public support for science is an important trust and public research funds must be distributed appropriately and without bias, in order to fully advance knowledge and thereby benefit societal needs and expectations, their study said.

All applicants must have equal opportunity for success through an evaluation process that is based upon future research prospects, capabilities, and accomplishments rather than the applicant’s seniority, celebrity or institutional affiliation.

Such a diversified approach promotes breadth in a nation’s science training environment, scientific accomplishments, and overall productivity, the researchers said.
“Ultimately, elimination of systemic skew in grant proposal evaluation and funding is the responsibility of individual research councils and will improve a nation’s ability to maintain scientific excellence while attracting, training and retaining talented scholars.”

R$