Perspectives (Volume 1, number 9) (fwd)

[Richard Plant]

As the HSSFC representative from the Association for Canadian Theatre
Research/Association de la Recherche Theatrale au Canada I am sending you
the most recent issue of the HSSFC "Perspectives." However, I cannot let
the text go off to Candrama without adding a short editorial comment.
While this information on the new funding programme may not interest some
(many) of you at first glance, I draw your attention to the complete
absence of any apparent reference in the programme to projects which might
develop from the area of theatre -- or the arts and even many other areas
of the humanities which might find such a programme useful. This seems to
me another example of an unfortunate neglect -- which I do not believe is
necessarily conscious on people's part -- of the arts in the construction
of funding programmes. Theatre, for instance, might very well have many
types of study operating under the "science" model, but there is no
reference in this situation that such an application was even considered 
-- that is to say nothing about the overwhelming presence of often
inappropriate standard science models as the basis in the conception of
funding programmes which might apply to arts research.

But nothing will get changed unless people express their reaction to such
situations.

Richard Plant
Dept of Drama, Queen's University
and
Graduate Centre for Study of Drama, 
University of Toronto

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 12:13:37 -0500
From: Fedcan <fedcan at hssfc.ca>
Subject: Perspectives (Volume 1, number 9)

PERSPECTIVES
An electronic newsletter on research and science policy.  A pilot project of
the Humanities and Social Sciences Federation of Canada.

PERSPECTIVES will appear at regular intervals throughout the year and will
be posted on the Federation web site:
http://www.hssfc.ca/Pub/PublicationsEng.html.  Please address your comments
and suggestions to Jacqueline Wright, Executive Assistant, at:
jawright at hssfc.ca.

PERSPECTIVES (Volume I, Number 9)

Editor: Wayne Kondro

Table of contents:
i)	Introduction
ii)	Database eligibility
iii)	The Grey Zones
iv)	The steering effect and other possible consequences
v)	Other issues

DATABASES MADE ELIGIBLE FOR CANADA FOUNDATION FOR INNOVATION SUPPORT
Ongoing Concerns Underscore Need for Separate Social Sciences & Humanities
Infrastructure Program

Administrators of Ottawa's ballyhooed $800-million infrastructure program
have agreed to broaden eligibility criteria to include support for the
creation of databases by social scientists and humanists.

However, recently developed guidelines governing the inclusion of databases
still prohibit funding for the maintenance, upgrade and usage of research
databases.

But no one quite knows where database development ends and maintenance
begins, creating somewhat of a "grey zone" which will have to be clarified
by testing the competition waters.

When combined with a host of other ambiguities surrounding the Canada
Foundation for Innovation program, social scientists and humanists say they
remain concerned the federal scheme won't yield the same windfall for the
humanities and social sciences community that's projected to accrue to the
biomedical and natural sciences when the CFI finally shifts into award mode
next fall.

It underscores the need for the creation of a separate infrastructure
program devoted to the humanities and social sciences, either in the form of
a new foundation or targeted funding provided as a component of SSHRC
programming, several researchers argue.

"Rather than try to fit a square peg in a round hole," Ottawa should move to
develop a separate program which addresses the community's infrastructure
needs using a model suitable to the humanities and social sciences, says
Humanities & Social Sciences Federation of Canada president Dr. Chad Gaffield.

"We must more forcefully articulate our research infrastructure needs and
discontinue the tradition of trying to finance our research out of our own
pockets and basically feeling that it's virtuous," Gaffield adds.

"There's absolutely no question about it," adds University of Toronto Dean
of Arts & Sciences Dr. Carl Amrhein. "The social sciences face particularly
hard barriers in generating the data on which to base our research."

An infrastructure program dedicated to the humanities and social sciences
would help overcome funding barriers to the development of new research
tools such as the Data Liberation Initiative, he adds.

Laval geographer Dr. Serge Courville argues that a separate infrastructure
program for the social sciences is vital because the "model for supporting
infrastructure" is different than in the natural and biomedical sciences.
"The tools are different. The problematics are different. The way of doing
research is different."

"While the CFI has broadened its eligibility criteria to include databases,
there's still a perception that the community will be shortchanged over the
long term and that its' infrastructure needs aren't being adequately
addressed," adds University of Calgary vice-president (academic) Dr. Ron Bond.

"A more comprehensive definition of what is eligible would have been in the
national interest," he notes, adding that despite those limitations, the CFI
remains a proverbial "gift horse in the mouth" of the financially-strapped
university community.

Nevertheless, the limitations fail to ensure that there'll a balanced
response to the infrastructure needs of the various research communities.
"It's pretty clear that the question of accessibility is one that's going to
be settled in favour of the natural and biomedical sciences."

With the CFI constrained to providing support in four categories (ie.,
science, health, engineering and environment) and unwilling to redefine
‘science' in such a way as to make the social sciences more easily and
obviously eligible for support, a widespread sense of "exclusion" has been
created, says York sociologist Dr. Gordon Darroch.

DATABASE ELIGIBILITY
Although CFI officials indicated after the program was unveiled in the
Feb/1997 federal budget that databases would not be eligible for support,
sustained pressure from the HSSFC, SSHRC and other members of the social
sciences and humanities community have recently convinced administrators to
modify their stance.

Under the new guidelines, databases used "mainly for research purposes" will
be eligible, (with CFI adjudicators prorating eligible costs accordingly if
there's non-research use of the database). A database is defined as "a
systematic collection of information that is designed and structured for
access and exploitation as a research tool or for diverse uses including
research."

But "routine data collection and on-going maintenance normally considered to
be part of the operating costs of research," as well as access costs, are
ineligible. CFI support will be focussed on "time-limited design,
development or acquisition" of a database. 

Eligible components include personnel, travel and communications costs
related to database creation, along with "development, leasing or purchase
of the core data, software, computers, communications hardware and related
materials involved in the technical operation of a database, and personnel
costs associated with system integration." Routine longitudinal components,
such as the annual updating of data, are ineligible.

In assessing database applications, the CFI says it'll consider whether the
data can be: obtained elsewhere; is unique; has "specific Canadian
significance"; and will support peer reviewed research. There's also an onus
on applicants to demonstrate that the database wouldn't have "normally" been
developed through granting council programming.

THE GREY ZONES
CFI administrators openly admit they haven't yet got a handle on exactly
when database creation stops and maintenance begins.

"The line between them is not clear," says CFI vice-president (programs)
Carmen Charette. "You can cut it here or you cut it there and maybe both
would be appropriate. It's a question of deciding where to cut it. There are
guidelines and I think with experience, we'll find out if it works. And if
it doesn't, well, we'll look at it again. Nothing's written in stone."

Acting president Dr. Denis Gagnon says the CFI will seek to make the
definitions as inclusive as possible. While the CFI is prohibited from
supporting operating or overhead costs, "it all depends on the way you
define operating costs in relation to the database. So we'll try to be as
flexible as possible."

U. of Montreal sociologist Dr. Paul Bernard argues that distinctions based
strictly on database creation versus maintenance fail to take into account
the many modifications --such as changing computational variables, creating
sub-samples or indexes, and realigning raw data to answer new research
issues-- that are undertaken with each research project, depending upon the
nature of the inquiry.

It is those tools which "enable, enhance and structure the research" and
which are just as much a part of social sciences infrastructure as the raw
data itself, he says.

But on the face of it, such modifications to the original database are not
likely to qualify for CFI support, because they're generally considered part
of ongoing maintenance and operations.

Only somewhat less murky is whether CFI's definition of databases is broad
enough to include such things as virtual libraries and digitization projects.

CFI spokesperson Dr. Janet Halliwell says the governing board has ruled that
virtual libraries and journal digitization projects are absolutely precluded
from eligibility and that databases are only "eligible inasmuch as they are
not libraries."

Asked at what a point a library, or a database, starts and stops, Halliwell
said those precise distinctions have yet to be drawn. "There's going to be
some room for interpretive work here."

But Amrhein argues digitization projects and virtual libraries are implicit
in the very notion of databases and therefore should be eligible. He says
the social sciences community should push the edge of the envelop in early
applications in a bid to "test the limits" of CFI definitions. "My advice to
anyone applying would be to err on the side of broadening the definition and
let them decide."

"The opportunity is now there for people to make the case," adds Marcel
Lauzière, special advisor to SSHRC president Marc Renaud. "There are still
some grey zones that may make it more difficult for universities to push
these applications forward. But there's sufficient openness now that the
case could be made."
	
THE STEERING EFFECT AND OTHER POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES
While the CFI will likely become what Darroch calls a "magnet for funds,"
prompting universities and provincial governments to quickly ante-up so as
to attract the federal monies, several observers say they're concerned the
scheme will ultimately result in less monies being available for all
research that does have CFI infrastructure at its base. That's because
responsibility for operating and overhead costs associated with subsequent
research using the infrastructure is vested with the university. 

Both the matching and operational funds will have to come from somewhere and
there are many social scientists and humanists who're concerned that chasing
after CFI money will result in a "scorched earth" situation for everyone
left in the desolation, Gaffield says. 

"Not only will the humanities and social scientists not get the benefits
from the Foundation in a meaningful way but other sorts of resources will
have been steered, in a sense, to get the Foundation money. ...I'm concerned
that instead of freeing up money for other projects, it's going to tie it
up. You've got to have warm bodies to run it (the new infrastructure).
You've got to have technicians, etc.."

Darroch adds the potential "downside is that those of us who are not on that
boat are going to be out not only CFI money but a lot of the other matching
funds."

Another concern lies in the likelihood that the ambiguities surrounding
databases will force universities to focus on safer ‘best bests' in drafting
their priority infrastructure lists for submission to the CFI, rather than
projects like databases which may not easily obtain a green light. (In
submitting applications, universities are also being asked to provide --and
annually update-- institutional research plans outlining their "priorities
for research and research training" and describing how the proposed
infrastructures fits into their overall plan.)

"I think the reactions are going to be tipped well in favour of those that
are at the centre of the four areas, (science, engineering, health and
environment)," says Darroch. More "risky" projects that are at "fringe of
these definitional areas" are going to have difficulty obtaining
institutional funding support.

There will doubtless be a temptation to support primarily those projects
which easily fit into the mould of natural and biomedical infrastructure,
Bernard adds. "Why run with the horses that you don't quite know much about
while you have those straightforward medical/physical science infrastructure
projects that fit." 

When combined with the difficulties in obtain matching monies for social
sciences projects and in documenting the likelihood of "substantial" use of
the database when it becomes operational, it's altogether likely that many
database proposals won't rank high on university priority lists, Bond says.
"I think the database avenue is probably the main niche that people in the
humanities and social sciences have to occupy. But that niche is fairly small."

OTHER ISSUES

Peer review
Although CFI administrators stated when the program was formed that they
would be contracting peer review from the granting councils so as to prevent
duplicative administrative costs, a decision has been taken to create a
separate evaluation regime, complete with CFI-appointed interdisciplinary
peer review committees, to assess all applications.

Officials say an independent process is needed because of the uniqueness of
CFI's assessment criteria, ie., strengthening the national capacity for
innovation (including recruiting and retaining qualified personnel); quality
of research (including the infrastructure's effectiveness relative to the
nature of the research planned); and benefits to Canada (ranging from job
creation to networking).

In cases where an applicant has already had the scientific portion of his
infrastructure proposal assessed by a granting council or a provincial
research funding body, Gagnon says the CFI will "probably rely" on that
review. In such instances, the CFI will only examine the non-scientific
aspects of the application. To that end, applicants will be asked to sign a
waiver allowing the CFI complete access to information contained in
applications and reviews conducted by the granting councils.

All applications will be reviewed against one another, creating a proverbial
apples and oranges situation in which things like databases will be measured
against things like nuclear magnetic resonance devices.

But Gagnon says the CFI's multidisciplinary committees will have the
necessary expertise to make such comparisons. They'll "find out the way
these applications relate to our sets of criteria."

Gagnon also notes CFI's governing board wants to ensure no single sector
absorbs all of the money. But it will not allocate specific amounts to each
of the social, biomedical or natural sciences. However, if one begins to
gobble up most of the funds, "we'll have to take some drastic measures. I
don't know what but we'll have to look at this very carefully."

Application forms
The CFI is developing a special application form which will ostensibly
assist universities in prioritizing their proposed infrastructure projects
on the same conceptual grid the agency plans to use in evaluating proposals.
Applicants will be asked to plot projects against such criteria as job
creation, economic growth and scientific value.

The application form is projected to be posted on the CFI web page in early
February, ie.: http://www.innovation.ca

Research Development Fund
Given the ongoing concerns that smaller universities won't be able to
compete with larger counterparts having deep endowment pockets and strong
corporate ties, the CFI has set aside $40- million/5-years for 30
institutions to tap at their own leisurely pace.

The 30 were selected by virtue of having received less than one per cent of
total sponsored research funding in universities. In turn, the $40-million
pie has been divvied up among them using a formula based on such factors as
number of full-time faculty, graduates and average amount of sponsored
research revenue received between 1994-96. Maximum allocations range from a
low of $660,569 for Mount Saint Vincent University to a high of $2.5-million
for the University of Windsor.

None of the designated institutions are obligated to subscribe to the
Research Development Fund. But if an university opts for the program, it
will be precluded from entering other CFI competitions. Institutions which
use up their specified maximum allotment can then apply for eligibility with
respect to other programming.

Charette stresses institutional allocations (a revised allocation table for
the 30 is projected to be posted on the CFI web page) are not to be
construed as a minimum guarantee. "They have to meet certain norms and
standards. It's not guaranteed. They have to come forward with proposals
that qualify."


Editor:
Wayne Kondro is a freelance writer based in Ottawa.  The former Editor of
the "Science Bulletin", an independent newsletter on national S&T policy, he
is currently a regular contributor to such publications as "Science" and
"The Lancet".


Humanities and Social Sciences Federation of Canada
Federation canadienne des sciences humaines et sociales
151 Slater Street, Suite 415, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5H3
Tel:  (613) 238-6112; Fax:  (613) 238-6114
Email/Courrier electronique:  fedcan at hssfc.ca