Are funding agencies contributing to metascience studies? The case of the accountability of equity, diversity and inclusion data
Yohanna Juk
(University of Campinas)
Sergio Salles-Filho
(Universidade Estadual de Campinas - UNICAMP)
Karen E. F. Pinto
(Unicamp)
Evandro Coggo Cristofoletti
(University of Campinas)
Bernardo Pereira Cabral
Short abstract
Funding agencies (FA) play a crucial role in addressing inequality in research by collecting diversity data. This study maps ten FAs accountability initiatives using an original framework. Findings show varying transparency levels while others face greater obstacles and slower progress.
Long abstract
Fighting inequality in the research ecosystem has become a key concern for scientists, universities, editorial bodies, and research institutions. Funding agencies (FAs) play a crucial role in addressing these disparities, particularly in how they collect, monitor, and disseminate diversity data, contributing to metascience studies.
While Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) initiatives face increasing political scrutiny, such as the recent approach by the government of the US targeting EDI practices as discriminatory and wasteful, and removing EDI data and communication from federal government agencies, the literature demonstrates that accountability and public access to diversity data are essential for fostering research and informing policies that promote EDI in academia.
This study maps the accountability initiatives of FAs regarding diversity data. Based on a literature review and benchmarking of previous studies, we developed categories to assess whether and how ten FAs collect EDI data on applicants, grantees, reviewers, and decision boards, and whether and how aggregated data are publicly available.
Preliminary results suggest that the majority of the analyzed FAs are enhancing communication with stakeholders to improve transparency. Agencies from Australia, Canada, Chile, Switzerland, the UK, and the US report diversity data availability. Notably, FAs from the UK and Chile employ interactive platforms such as Tableau and Power BI, enabling intersectional evaluations, data visualization, and public data exportation. The absence of clear communication about EDI information and diversity data may suggest institutional immaturity in addressing inequality or indicate that EDI implementation faces greater obstacles and slower progress.
Accepted Paper
Short abstract
Long abstract
Fighting inequality in the research ecosystem has become a key concern for scientists, universities, editorial bodies, and research institutions. Funding agencies (FAs) play a crucial role in addressing these disparities, particularly in how they collect, monitor, and disseminate diversity data, contributing to metascience studies.
While Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) initiatives face increasing political scrutiny, such as the recent approach by the government of the US targeting EDI practices as discriminatory and wasteful, and removing EDI data and communication from federal government agencies, the literature demonstrates that accountability and public access to diversity data are essential for fostering research and informing policies that promote EDI in academia.
This study maps the accountability initiatives of FAs regarding diversity data. Based on a literature review and benchmarking of previous studies, we developed categories to assess whether and how ten FAs collect EDI data on applicants, grantees, reviewers, and decision boards, and whether and how aggregated data are publicly available.
Preliminary results suggest that the majority of the analyzed FAs are enhancing communication with stakeholders to improve transparency. Agencies from Australia, Canada, Chile, Switzerland, the UK, and the US report diversity data availability. Notably, FAs from the UK and Chile employ interactive platforms such as Tableau and Power BI, enabling intersectional evaluations, data visualization, and public data exportation. The absence of clear communication about EDI information and diversity data may suggest institutional immaturity in addressing inequality or indicate that EDI implementation faces greater obstacles and slower progress.
Money matters: funders & funding mechanisms
Session 1 Monday 30 June, 2025, -