New Frontiers in Research Fund



"It is expected that applicants will clearly demonstrate their strong commitment to EDI in their applications and in the implementation of their research projects, if funded."
"Applicants must clearly convey that they have a strong commitment to and an understanding of EDI and its importance in research, and must clearly explain how the best practices identified for each area were developed in consideration of the specific context of the research environment."

*Bibliographer’s notes in red.

If you feel so moved, you can offer suggestions for improvement of this guide at the following address: 

The NFRF program welcomes all feedback on how this guide can be improved. Please send your comments to edi-edi@chairs-chaires.gc.ca.

I’m not sure how one cuts through the bafflegab that constitutes most of this guide in order to make suggestions. And I’m not optimistic those suggestions would be understood by its authors. People who write in bafflegab tend to think in bafflegab. I’m also dubious that “all feedback” is welcomed. Some feedback surely is. “This guide is written in bafflegab”, although true, likely isn’t.

What’s more, I worry that applicants must employ bafflegab to “clearly demonstrate their strong commitment to EDI….”

Here’s a cursory stab at cutting through some bafflegab:

Re: the following excerpt. : There is tension between “there is no consensus on the use of terms such as…”underrepresented”” and “for the sake of clarity, the term “underrepresented” is used throughout this document ….” Clarity of what? A stipulative definition is fine if it manages to define something. The authors of this paper stipulate a tautology — the definiendum, the term to be defined, is in the definiens, that which does the defining. It’s trivially true that underrepresented is underrepresented. 

A note on language used in the template

There is no consensus on the use of terms such as “underrepresented,” “underserved,” “disadvantaged,” “marginalized,” “oppressed,” “underrepresented” and “equity-deserving.” None fully capture the harms, barriers and violence experienced by members of these communities. For the sake of clarity, the term “underrepresented” is used throughout this document. The term “underrepresented” here refers not only to a lack of diversity in research, but also to the inequity and exclusion that contribute to and are impacted by both historical and present-day underrepresentation.

Re: “The term “underrepresented” here refers not only to a (1) lack of diversity in research, but also to the inequity and exclusion that contribute to and are impacted by both historical and present-day (2) underrepresentation.”

(1) The guide defines diversity (subheading, What is EDI? un) as “the variety of unique dimensions, identities, qualities and characteristics individuals possess along with other identity factors….” Hence, by “underrepresented” is meant a lack of “the variety of unique dimensions….” ; i.e. Not only underrepresented is underrepresented.

(2)But also underrepresented is underrepresented.

best-practices-in-equity-diversity-and-inclusion-in-research-1Download