1 Introduction The Canadian based Metropolis Project attempts to facilitate the production of policy-relevant academic research on issues

related to immigrants and refugees. Its network of regional Centres of Excellence is coordinated by a national Centre in Ottawa. The Metropolis Project is funded by a consortium of federal government departments, the largest contributors being Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) and the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). Currently there are five Centres of Excellence in operation, each of which is composed of a partnership among community-based organizations, local universities, and all levels of government. The Centres operate through the efforts of academics who manage and coordinate research activities. The Metropolis Project is structured around the idea that regular, informal interaction between academics, policy-makers, and community members can effectively exchange knowledge to inform decision-making. By mobilizing the knowledge-based resources of academics, largely social scientists, the Project is designed to increase research capacity while making effective use of scarce financial resources. The Project is meant to provide a “shared strategic platform” from which to “improve policies for managing migration and diversity in major cities” (Metropolis Project 2004). The Project has an international component with affiliations in more than twenty of the largest immigrant-receiving countries. Annual international and national conferences bring participants together to share best practices, research, and successful policy, and to discuss the challenges posed to countries, cities, and communities by immigration. When I began my research on the Metropolis Project I was curious about the way research is transformed into policy; the role Metropolis may have had in facilitating this

2 process; and the part academics may play in this process. What appeared to be straight forward questions to me when I began doing research, soon seemed complex to answer. I was concerned my research would result in a program-evaluation of Metropolis if I continued to decipher the way in which policy is made in Canada and the impact Metropolis research may have on the process. Yet, what appeared at first to be an impasse soon became an avenue. Taking cues from those I interviewed, I modified my questions. Rather than solely querying the process of policy-making and the impact of research, I started to also examine the role of the Project as a funder of academic research. I then asked: how does the Metropolis Project fit into the history of academic research funding in Canada, and what role did social scientists play in contributing to the formation of social policy before the Metropolis Project? In the process of addressing these questions I was able to begin conceptualizing a theoretical framework that could account for the lack of involvement of academics in research for policy during the latter part of the twentieth century, and the current increase in participation in strategicallyoriented research. Drawing largely on Nikolas Rose and Peter Miller’s work on governmentality and analysis of neo-liberal forms of governance, I was able to conceptualize the relationship between academics and the Metropolis Project specifically and the Canadian state, as a research funder, generally, as an alignment of interests that facilitates the transmission and translation of knowledge to centres of calculation where political rationalities become technologies of government. Over the course of this thesis, I will attempt to demonstrate that the alignment of interests between academics and elements of governance has developed into, not only a goal-sharing exercise, but also a hegemonic process in which research is rationalized, legitimized and tailored according to strategically-oriented policy priorities.

3 The research process led me to undertake an extensive review of Metropolis Project documents available through the national and regional Centres’ websites; to carry out interviews with academics and other individuals affiliated with the Project; to volunteer at the Toronto Centre of Excellence; and to attend the Tenth International Metropolis Conference in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. While reviewing documents about the Metropolis Project I also read analyses of the history of academics in Canada, the development of the social sciences, and the role of academics in the formation of social policy in Canada. Upon reviewing and synthesizing many documents on the structure of the Project and the function of its committees, boards, and councils, it became clear that to answer the questions I posed about the alignment of interests, I would need to draw on the interviews I conducted with academics (mostly affiliated with the Toronto Joint Centre of Excellence for Research on Immigration and Settlement, CERIS), and with individuals who have extensive knowledge of the history, role, and function of the Project. I have attempted to shield the identities of my interviewees to the extent that the words I have quoted will be familiar to them but to no one else. If this has resulted in some vacuity regarding their personalities, relationships to the Project, or politics, it is due to my effort to ensure that no negative repercussions would arise from their participation in my research. Interviews were conducted between May, 2005 and April, 2006. Although I asked many of the same questions, all were open-ended and often based on the direction of the conversation rather than a fixed format. Many of the interviews were completed in-person but when it was impossible to meet, they were conducted over the phone. Two of the interviews were recorded and I took detailed notes for the rest. To the best of my knowledge and my abilities, I followed the ethics

and two number-entry security doors on either side of the elevator shaft separated the offices from the inner area where the Resource Room was located behind an additional locked door where I spent most of my time. five days a week at the Centre for approximately four months during the summer of 2005. and a small board room. fabric-covered dividers. George campus of the University of Toronto. In May of 2005. In addition to the Resource Room. and was able to access the materials housed in the Centre’s Resource Room.4 guidelines of the University of Western Ontario whose Research Ethics Board gave me approval to carry out my research project in the manner I outlined to its members in my application. within the St. the kitchenette. I spent a minimum of six hours per day. My initial meeting with the director of the Resource Room and the director of . and learning my way around. The four offices occupied by CERIS staff ran along the southernmost wall of the building. the view of Toronto from the board room windows was expansive. would be absent. Located on the top floor of the Faculty of Social Work. I volunteered to work for the Resource Room director. past the board room. I was assigned a numbered combination to ease my entry and exit from the Resource Room for the days the room’s director. I began volunteering at CERIS. the inner space behind the outer door was composed of other cubicle offices separated by tall. During the research process. meeting the people who shared the office space I would occupy. although most of my time was spent searching through documents in the Resource Room. The cubicle offices were occupied by researchers working on some long-term projects and. employed on a part-time basis. three more cubicles were reserved for visiting scholars and CERIS management board members. My first days at CERIS were spent getting acquainted with staff and facilities.

and evaluating all the results of research funding to ensure that all research products had been received by the Centre and were available in a number of formats. in action.5 the Centre was an opportunity for us to define the limits of my access while working within the Centre. I finished a comprehensive integration of old and new Resource Room documents while making plans to conduct interviews with academics associated with the Centre. My volunteer work at the Centre was followed by my attendance at the Tenth International Metropolis Conference in Toronto in October of 2005. one of the hallmarks of the Project. but I enthusiastically completed double the hours within my first two weeks. near all the documents. I spent almost every day at the Centre. disk copy and on-line version. In the interim before a new Resource Room director was hired I was often the only person in the room. I began to suspect that the political rationalities lurking behind the Project were those of the maximization of human capital. With my new strategic location. I also had new responsibilities. and when the Resource Room director departed for another job opportunity I took up a position at her desk as it had a faster computer than the one I had been using. I attended plenary and conference sessions daily. both from the academic world and from the economic sector. folders. The amount of volunteer time was set at no more than fifteen hours a week. and papers. I completed two notable tasks: compiling a comprehensive guide to all the Resource Room documents (which enabled me to become familiar very quickly with all the Room had to offer). and I became a resource person for information on the location of documents which were sometimes difficult to find. The conference was an opportunity to see knowledge dissemination. rather than the moral imperative of . and noted what seemed to be the tendency of presenters. to reduce the status of immigrants and refugees to their potential economic contribution to the country. including a hard copy.

one must examine the limits within which one has been thinking and conceptualizing issues and problems. shared Lord Parekh. As such. One must also be able. Thus.6 assisting those in need (see Lindquist 1994). the Canadian state and the Metropolis Project. the theoretical insights of Rose and Miller on the alignment of interests began to ring with clarity in my ears as I began examining the ways in which both the funding of academic research has changed. to allow questions of those limits. I became intent on examining the limits within which it became possible and desirable for academics to contribute to social policy. and the rationalization of university-based research through the increasing . I sensed a lack of humanity-based approach in the presentations. and began to wonder if they felt a moral imperative to make such contributions. and how the goals and interests of the Canadian government have changed as well. these ideas are only made possible through gathering knowledge about the subject of such policies. on the final day of the conference the presentations of John Ralston Saul and Lord Bhiku Parekh echoed my concerns and proposed that. Lord Parekh’s presentation had a profound effect on how I thought about the relationship between academics. However. Social science research in Canada has not always been useful for decision-makers. the types of ideas that have salience for decision-makers (a compound term I use over policymakers as it covers all those individuals with the power and authority to devise and instrumentalize policy) are conditioned by the role of the government with regards to intervening in the lives of its subjects. Ideas form the basis of what becomes policy and programs of government. The process that has made it helpful has been characterized by both the struggle of academics to be seen as legitimate by the government. Schooled in anthropology and aware of how power operates to maintain hegemony. in order to understand current immigration and migration issues.

. These currents have increasingly aligned the interests of academics and decision-makers to the extent that they understand the success of their goals (social justice for academics and economic integration for decision-makers) to be bound up in their mutual efforts. Then. I will describe and analyze the structure of the Metropolis Project. the site of the majority of my research. In the conclusion.7 control of funding for strategically-oriented research by the state. with particular emphasis on CERIS. I will briefly elucidate the complexities of developing policies in Canada. I will attempt to draw together the threads of my argument through my theoretical framework to illustrate the limits within which I have come to understand the relationship between academics and the Metropolis Project. this paper examines the history of social science funding in Canada since World War II. with particular emphasis placed on elucidating the growth in funding for strategically-oriented research to facilitate the development of government technologies. It would appear that a tenuous balance is created between the social scientist’s desire to continue to be a legitimate source of knowledge and the apparent need to tailor research to match the strategic interests of the state. Subsequently. and a framework for the inclusion of community organizations which facilitates the exchange of ideas and knowledge among representatives from community organizations. academics and government funders. The Metropolis Project provides a structure and infrastructure to bridge the gap between academics and decision-makers. with an emphasis placed on the mechanisms through which the formal system of policy-making is facilitated by the informal activities of agents. Following a description of the theoretical framework used.

Central to my exploration of the relationship between academics and the Metropolis Project in Canada are the analyses of Miller and Rose on ways in which interests between an agent and an organization are aligned so that one is able to convince the other that to achieve mutual success they are best served by working together (1990: 10).8 Chapter One: Theoretical Framework Theoretical conceptualizations of the relationship of individuals to the state have been enriched in recent decades by the work of Michel Foucault. One of the most notable revelations from his work is his writing on what he defined as governmentality. establishing ways of thinking can best be seen in the thematic and strategic direction of research funding competitions where freedom of choice of topic is constrained by the limits of the . also incorporate theoretical insights from the philosophy of science writings of Bruno Latour and Michael Callon. The synthesis they propose in their analysis of the dynamics of the power necessary for governmental rule is based on the understanding that government exists as a world of programs built with expert knowledge. and ways of thinking about issues and problems. and the growth of disciplinary systems. linked together through an exchange and relay of information from one locale to another (Miller and Rose 1990: 10). Occurring through a kind of translation. Peter Miller and Nikolas Rose. or on the institutional arrangements of the state which utilize different forms of knowledge to exercise complex forms of power. and between states and subjects. This entails establishing a mutual understanding of concepts. terms. One of the most influential writers in recent memory on topics such as the history of the modern state. building on Foucault’s concept of governmentality. Foucault created a foundation from which to examine the relationships between knowledge and power. sexuality.

effectively linking individuals into a network. This is a necessary function. for example. and as experts of community they become conduits for the translation of the real world (the world according to the social science techniques of rendering the world knowable). who are funded by the Metropolis Project. for the operation of government at a distance. reports. often at locales distant from the location where the knowledge was generated.9 competition. These interlaced concepts are central to my analysis of the alignment of interests between academics and the Metropolis Project. Government at a distance requires the relay of information from distant locales to inform decision-making in a central location. a concept adapted from Bruno Latour’s action at a distance. Miller and Rose examine the ways that information is gathered and transmitted between locales and centres of calculation where decisions are made. essential for the calculations of government are the types of knowledge that inform decision-making and the political will to utilize them. Fundamental for the development of policy and programs is the collection of information of various types which may include statistics. Academics. or consultations. say Miller and Rose. He locates this movement in the attempt to isolate population as a “field of intervention and as an . are enrolled as experts on their communities of study. Gathering information. This form ideally renders their knowledge amenable for informing the development of policy or programs. With the transfer and relay of information in mind. experts generate knowledge about people and places that contributes to the administration of “diverse aspects of conduct” (Rose and Miller 1992: 175). Foucault identified the increasing governmentalization of the state through which the disciplinary society was slowly supplanted by the society of government. and as such deserve a fuller treatment in order to elucidate and characterize the relationship between academics and the Metropolis Project. Therefore.

calculable subjects. according to Foucault. Occurring simultaneously with the isolation of population. experimentation and evaluation… [and] government is intrinsically linked to the activities of expertise. constitute governmentality.10 objective of governmental techniques” (Foucault 1991: 102). calculations. but of enacting assorted attempts at the calculated administration of diverse aspects of conduct through countless. Thus. . for government is a domain of cognition. analyses and reflections. governmentality is the “ensemble formed by the institutions. Systems of governance depend on the ability to develop and enact a complex arrangement of knowledges that inform and contribute to the development of apparatuses. is the identification of the economy as a “sector of reality. local tactics of education. is both internal and external to the state because it is through their schemes that the ability of governments to act on the social world is constantly redefined. These ways of thinking about social problems and the population at large reveal the capacity of the state to define the limits within which calculations and tactics for intervention can be devised to act upon the social world through implementation (Miller and Rose 1990: 2). health and happiness of populations” (1992: 174). Rose and Miller argue that the term “governmentality sought to draw attention to a certain way of thinking and acting embodied in all those attempts to know and govern the wealth. and political economy as the science and the technique of intervention of the government in that field of reality” (Foucault 1991: 102). it is knowledge that is: central to these activities of government and to the very formation of its objects. he suggests. Governmentality. procedures. whose role is not one of weaving an all-pervasive web of ‘social control’. which allow the exercise of this very specific albeit complex form of power” (Foucault. The accumulation and concentration of both apparatuses of government and the knowledges that underpin them in the West. the calculations and tactics. Moreover. persuasion. cited in Miller and Rose 1990: 2). calculation. and tactics. according to Foucault. often competing.

groups and communities (Miller and Rose 1990: 6. renders “aspects of existence thinkable and calculable. When used to intervene in the lives of the population. Government has become the articulation of actionable domains and thinkable thoughts. where knowledge rests at the juncture between systems of thought and systems of action (Rose and Miller 1992: 177). groups. A necessity for alignment of the interests of agents in a network is the ability to define or isolate those domains of social existence that can be acted upon. and amenable to deliberated and planful initiatives: a complex of intellectual labour involving not only the invention of new forms of thought. Central to the operation of this form of power which links agents into a network is the domain of political rationalities that. motivation and encouragement (Rose and Miller 1992: 175). Insofar as governments rely on knowledge. Language can be considered an intellectual technology that inscribes . They suggest that government operates through the mutuality of “political rationalities and governmental technologies” and depends on the multiplicity of delicate networks that link “individuals. it is the articulation through language of knowledge about objects of interest and objectives for intervention that makes it possible to translate political rationalities into technologies of government which are devised to act upon the social life of individuals. incitement. the expertise of knowledgeable agents is a valuable and essential tool for intervention (Rose and Miller 1992: 201).11 inducement. computation and evaluation” (Miller and Rose 1990: 3). through the development of policy. 8-9). and organizations to the aspirations of authorities” (Rose and Miller 1992: 176). knowledge is a vital resource for governments. but also the invention of novel procedures of documentation. for example (Miller and Rose 1990: 3). management. through knowledge. In other words.

calculation and intervention” (Miller and Rose 1990: 7). Inscribed information becomes programmatic in the sense that it provides the basis for identifying problems within the state. the knowledge of academics has rendered interpretations about communities of immigrants and refugees in such a way that policies and programs can be designed based on this knowledge to reflect political rationalities in the “world of persons” (Miller and Rose 1990: 8). drawings. The Metropolis Project attempts to generate policy-relevant research which can aid the development of policy and programmes that . or as problems or issues to be addressed.12 reality through rendering information into “written reports. such as statistics or census data. research by academic experts is encouraged through research funding competitions. Programs of government. The successful and rapid economic integration of immigrants and refugees is currently a central priority for the Project and. it can be transported over distances linking the domain in which it was gathered with the centre where decisions can be made as a result. graphs. pictures. Rendering inscribed information into stable and mobile forms. as such. Generated through the regional research process of the Metropolis Project. and posing solutions. statistics… [making the information] stable. as designs to achieve an ideal and desirable result. are often based on political rationalities which are informed by expert research that subjects reality to “procedures for rendering the world thinkable. mobile. can thus open the subject of inscription to “evaluation. produce research. Political rationalities in the case of the Metropolis Project manifest as policy priorities. taming its intractable reality by subjecting it to the disciplined analysis of thought” (Rose and Miller 1992: 182). served by regional Centres of Excellence that gather knowledge and. through funding competitions. numbers. combinable and comparable” (Miller and Rose 1990: 7). When information in stable forms becomes mobile. charts.

but also because one actor comes to convince another that their problems or goals are intrinsically linked. and finally. that each can solve their difficulties or achieve their ends by joining forces or working along the same lines (1990: 10). This process depends on a number of preconditions: a researcher must be able to identify who is and who is not an immigrant or refugee. as translation. Miller and Rose explain that the mechanism by which this occurs involves: alliances formed not only because one agent is dependent upon another for funds. that their interests are consonant. The inscription of reality through these techniques of recording and re-representation makes it possible. thus making it necessary to have a set of classificatory schemes to target the population of people to measure. according to Miller and Rose. adapting a concept from Bruno Latour and Michael Callon. but because they have come to construe their problems in allied ways and their fate as (sic) in some way bound up with one .13 will facilitate the economic integration of immigrants and refugees. Allied interests are created when: one actor or force is able to require or count upon a particular way of thinking and acting from another. they must be able to reproduce these results in a form that makes it possible to act upon them. legitimacy or some other resource which can be used for persuasion or compulsion. Miller and Rose draw from Bruno Latour’s description of action at a distance where he asks “how is it possible to act on events. places and people that are unfamiliar and a long way away?” (cited in Miller and Rose 1990: 9). They suggest that governing at a distance requires indirect mechanisms where calculations in one locale are connected to actions in another. The process that makes it possible for allied interests to align actors is elucidated by Miller and Rose. they must be able to measure the degree to which economic integration has been achieved and the barriers that may inhibit this process. hence assembling them into a network not because of legal or institutional ties or dependencies. to enable “government at a distance” (1990: 9).

Language plays an important part of this process when ways of talking and thinking about issues are shared through one agent’s ability to translate the objectives of his or her political rationalities into the ambitions of others. justice. a programmatic design that “presupposes that the real is programmable” (Rose and Miller 1992: 183). mutual responsibility. Hence persons. are also within the scope of the research interests of academics whose projects are funded by the Centres of Excellence. Translation also plays an integral role in rendering a political rationality into a form that it can become the basis of a research question. growth. they can draw in academics who also adhere to that type of morality or value system. The resulting research may then form the basis of a technology of government. which are discerned through consultations with government and community stakeholders. fair. [and] rationality” (Rose and Miller 1992: 179). time and formal boundaries can be brought into a loose and approximate. prosperity.14 another. economic efficiency. Inasmuch as political rationalities have a moral form and consider “the ideals or principles to which government should be directed [to be] freedom. The interests of academics are relatively consonant with the Project insofar as the outcome of the research dissemination and translation process facilitates equitable. 2005). just policy or positive results that benefit the communities with whom they work (Interview July 21. common sense. it is clear that the various objectives of the Project (such as the economic and social integration of immigrants and refugees into Canadian society). and always mobile and indeterminate. fairness. alignment (1990: 10). If we return to the Metropolis Project. entities and locales which remain differentiated by space. organizations. Political rationalities articulated through a distinctive kind of speech also manifest “as a kind of intellectual machinery or apparatus for rendering reality thinkable in such a way that it is amenable to political deliberations” (Rose and Miller 1992: 179). As an intellectual . equality.

the impetus for academics to become involved through applying for funding becomes a choice that reflects an imperative to contribute to social well-being and justice. to contribute something to their research communities. . defines the limits within which. insofar as political rationalities are composed in a moral form that utilizes language both shared between Metropolis Project’s government department funders and the social scientists who apply for funding and understood to describe common goals. based as it is on a kind of morality and fuelled by knowledge. to repudiate involvement in programs for intervention or research for pressing social issues becomes unthinkable. social problems and issues can be framed. or set of terms. the language of political rationalities. The moral imperative for academics to act. after rendering reality thinkable. although the provision and control of funding is a substantial component of the process. The means and methods for addressing an issue may be a highly divisive point between academics and political authorities. What has become thinkable is the involvement of academics with the state to address social problems through the creation of policy. completing research that is meant to inform policy development takes on the quality of common sense. Moreover. or theories among academics and the Metropolis Project is a more complex process than the act of providing funding.15 apparatus. Thus. while the unthinkable is articulated as inaction in the face of inequality. The alignment of interests depends on the ability to phrase social problems in common terms so that it becomes a moral imperative for both government and academics to act or intervene. Establishing a common language. When the development of policy is articulated by government and political authorities alike as an effective means for positive social intervention. when it becomes the basis for the delivery of programs. concepts. now supercedes abstaining from political or governmental policy-driven research.

academic involvement reflects understanding that an issue merits acknowledgment and action (Rose and Miller 1992: 184). At CERIS. the Metropolis Project has created an organizational framework that facilitates the face-to-face interaction of stakeholders. Academics who are acting as relays for information. Communities. the emphasis on links with communities also includes community organizations. and thus amenable to deliberations. through research and inscription by academic experts. as the new terrain for intervention. Nikolas Rose argues convincingly that: communities have been objectified by positive knowledges. The Metropolis Project idea has been premised on creating links between academic researchers and communities. become considered experts of community as the conduits for the flow of research. Academics.16 nonetheless. the exchange of ideas. or even municipal-level government councils that are involved in research partnerships (Murdie 1999). By establishing partnerships among decision-makers. opinion polls. academics and communities. and the translation of those ideas into the basis for research questions. subject to truth claims by expertise and hence become the object of political technologies for governing through communities…. citizens’ juries and… more have mapped out these new spaces of culture. who alone are permitted to be principal investigators in the research process. brought these values and virtues into visibility and injected them into the deliberations of authorities (1999: 189). market research. it is a precondition for funding proposal adjudication that community partners are a significant part of a collaborative research process (CERIS 2004: 2). Surveys of attitudes and values. [A] whole array of little devices and techniques have been invented to make communities real. member or advocacy groups. and translators of the world on the ground (CERIS 2004: 3). The flow of information through the partnerships is reciprocal in the sense that both community organizations and government representatives bring problems “to the table”. or translators between community . focus groups. are made thinkable.

With the production of new expert academic knowledge about community. or claim. or public stakeholder may gain access. information can be transported to any . and codes of conduct (Siemiatycki 1996). have access to this central pool of knowledge produced by academic experts. moral authority” (1999: 190). Policy. Thus. Rose argues that “to govern communities. are at least implicitly “on hand to advise on how communities and citizens might be governed in terms of their values. values. and the media. It may seem that all information flows to the head Ottawa Centre. programs and policies as technologies of government that are designed to affect both community-based and often national. it seems one must first of all link oneself up with those who have. Centre-based workshops and national and international conferences also satisfy this goal. but information is distributed via the public domain making it available to anyone with Internet access.and decisionmakers. Most importantly. share. and how their values shape the way they govern themselves” (Rose 1999: 189). federallevel action towards the goal of the integration of immigrants and refugees. The ways community organizations are governed by community members may also have important implications for revealing the dynamics of local governance. The importance of the inscription of information about communities is matched by the ability to transport. federal funder.17 members or organizations and the Metropolis Project. via the virtual library. One way this is accomplished is through knowledge-transfer initiatives at the regional Centres of Excellence which include the preparation of briefs and working papers. the Centres add research reports to the web-based virtual library of the Project to which any member of the community. Establishing networks for the flow of information is essential to this process. and disperse it to places where decisions on political rationalities are made and programs developed. decision-makers are enabled to create political plans of action.

by certain persons or groups. thus. Thus. because of the structure of its design. aggregate information. Regarding the Metropolis Project. To the extent that the information is used to make policy and programs. as Miller and Rose are suggesting. in the know about that which they seek to govern” (1992: 186). it can also be mobilized by those who wish to propose alternatives and formulate other possibilities. the “accumulation of inscriptions in certain locales. According to Miller and Rose. In the sense that the World Wide Web is accessible. audit. facilitates this process. and formulate decisions based on regionally-specific. the virtual library assembles lines of connection enabling the decision-makers to govern at a distance. Rose 1999: 52). local. I would suggest that the Metropolis Project is a current example of a process of alignment. The Metropolis Project. makes them powerful in the sense that it confers on them the capacity to engage in certain calculations and to lay a claim of legitimacy for their plans and strategies because they are. the possibility that the control of information is uncoupled from those with decision-making power and made widely available. The World Wide Web creates “networks of conduits for the detailed and systematic flow of information” (Miller and Rose 1992: 186. access. the centralization of power over knowledge through developing the research and knowledge-sharing capacity for decision making is mitigated only by the ways in which knowledge is disseminated by the Project. the capacity to generate and transfer knowledge for potential policy development confers the ability to make decisions and the legitimacy to do so.18 decision-making centre that possesses Internet access. The project brings . the virtual library as a site for the accumulation of inscribed information opens the possibility to be “in the know” to a wider public. and translated by academics. in a real sense. There is. community-based knowledge that is gathered. As a technology. to calculate. Returning to the idea of the alignment of interests. generated.

share problems. academics provided potential answers to the problem. regarding what constitutes relevant and important social issues worthy of discussion and deliberation. Although this tension may still exist. when the issue of strengthening border security was brought up. Unlike earlier periods in Canada’s history when academics and the state did not necessarily agree on what constituted important social issues. Issues worthy of attention and ideas that have salience for discussion have become shared by both academics and decision-makers.and policy-makers to sites where they can interact. discuss issues. maintenance and strengthening. conference participants agreed that it was worth talking about. This may indicate that the academic’s interest in affecting social change through contributing to policy development may potentially rest on the belief that government intervention through program or policy delivery will . including more fully integrating immigrants and refugees. tenuous as it may be. and exchange information. The moral imperative for academics to act on social issues in collusion with government decision-makers is a dramatic departure from the tense and contested relationship of previous decades. there are a significant number of academics who seek involvement with the Metropolis Project as a means of obtaining research funding. the reform of policy that governs border security.19 together both academics and decision. the current agreement (between academics and the Metropolis Project which is demonstrated by the involvement of academics). At the Tenth International Conference in Toronto. Insofar as the issue of security is defined in such a way that it is a platform for those involved to speak about its importance. The national and international conferences organized by Metropolis provide the venue for the interests of those involved to be articulated. has become a salient feature of the Metropolis Project as a funder of academic research. for example. and community involvement in security decision-making (Metropolis Project 2005a).

relies on the insights and knowledge of social science experts to help insure that local communitybased issues are exposed in such a way to support the capacity for elements of governance to develop policy and programs on broader issues such as national security. as a funder of strategically-oriented research. the Metropolis Project. Structured to provide knowledge that will potentially lead to the development of policies and programs that encourage and facilitate the integration of immigrants and refugees. One academic at the conference related his solution for both national security and for communities when he said. when they do not feel alienated or marginalized from the larger mainstream community” (Metropolis Project 2005a). . “National security will be achieved when individuals in a community feel secure.20 accomplish positive results for communities.

The first period is characterized by the provision of funding to Canadian social scientists by private U. funding was gathered from Canadian government and private corporate sources and distributed by the professional-collegial councils. was the archetypal figure for this period as he strongly advocated that a distance be maintained between academics in the university and decision-makers in government. Innis.21 Chapter Two: “Plucking the Fruit of Research from the Orchard of Knowledge”: A Brief History of Involvement Between Social Scientists and the Canadian State Social science research in Canada is primarily funded by the Canadian government. one of many social critics of the time. Harold A. the Canadian government became the primary funder of social science research of which the Metropolis Project is a part.S. itself funded by Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) and the Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). The Metropolis Project. The sources of funding for academic research projects in the social sciences have undergone significant shifts since the growth of the social sciences after World War II. The first period was characterized by the image of the ivory tower within which social scientists retained their autonomy over the types of research they pursued. These shifts can be grouped into three periods that reflect changes in the way funding was distributed yet do not necessarily reflect distinct changes in the attitudes and ideas of social scientists or the government about their respective roles and their relationship. corporations and distributed by the professional-collegial councils. This approach was exemplified by his . second. and third. is another funding option for research that is applicable to policy development on immigrant and refugee issues.

seems a pragmatic method by which to reveal the context that made the Metropolis Project possible. resulted in the full control over research funding by the government. Separating the periods of funding into three sections. it continues to be a majority funder for the Metropolis Project. the research funding process. albeit tenuous. demonstrated that the level of interest by the Canadian government in the knowledge of the social sciences and the realization of its potential benefit if used for the development of policy and programs had increased as the goals of the government changed. By assuming control of the funding process the government has enabled research to be directed towards the interests of the state and has lead to the development of policy and programs that govern at a distance. has increasingly rationalized the use of scarce financial resources. alignment. by being brought within the control of the government. and to investigate how interests of both government decision-makers involved in the Project and social scientists have come into increasing. . After almost twenty years after its creation. The third period. marked by the government’s increasing control over the research funding process through the creation of the CC. Thus. to explore the impact that the increasing control of funding by the government has had on the interests of social scientists. and witnessed the creation of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). The second period.22 position as one of the founders of the Canadian Social Science Research Council (CSSRC) that distributed research funding until the creation of the Canada Council (CC). Increasing government interest in and control over social science research funding demonstrates that decision-makers in government have come to rely on expert academic research to design and support new policies and programs.

through the representative professional-collegial council of the SSRC (later the Social Science Federation of Canada [SSFC]) were attempting to position themselves in line for government funding by emphasizing the potential contribution the social sciences could make to government decision-making. developed with the aid of scholarly academic research. Policy and program development can ostensibly accomplish these goals. the rationalization of both the research funding process for the research needs of the government and the perception by decisionmakers that the social sciences did indeed provide knowledge with the potential and capacity to influence the development of effective policy and programs. This analysis reveals that. had the capacity and potential to affect the social life of immigrants and . the social sciences. This occurred as a reciprocal shift in both the position of the social sciences vis-à-vis the government and the types of issues addressed by the state. Culminating in the Metropolis Project.23 While endeavoring to examine how the interests of academics in the social sciences have been increasingly aligned with the objectives of government decisionmakers through the Metropolis Project. This alignment of interests. it is useful to briefly examine the changing nature of funding in Canada. As the social sciences strove to be considered a legitimate source of expert advice on social issues to secure government funding. rested on the belief that policy as a technology of government. This shift was reflected in the increasing interest decision-makers showed for the social makeup and “culture” of the country of which the social sciences could contribute valuable expert knowledge if directed towards those ends. as the nature of funding changed. the interests of both social scientists and government decisionmakers became increasingly aligned. social scientists and government decision-makers appeared to have become increasingly focused on similar goals. as I have come to understand it.

The ways in which social scientists and government decision-makers have increasingly come to construe their problems in allied ways. sought to provide opportunities for self-improvement. in order to successfully and effectively integrate immigrants and refugees into life in Canada. policies and programs that intervene in and direct the process of integration should be developed by the government. The agency of individuals to strive to better themselves. and the types of knowledge resources it would require to do so. Leading up to the first period of funding. exemplified by the creation of the Metropolis Project. I will discuss the context in which the potential and capacity for the government to intervene in the lives of citizens became possible due to the changing ways of thinking about social problems and the role that government should play in addressing them.24 refugees in such a way that they could be integrated into life in Canada. during the post World War I period. . is interventionist insofar as through the development of policy and programs it seeks to affect the life chances of immigrants and refugees. The ideology underpinning this position of the government has been referred to by Doug Owram as a post-Hegelian idealism founded on the belief that personal reform was “an internal rather than an external matter [and as such] it must derive from an individual act of will rather than from external enforcement” (cited in Owram 1986: 5). whether as the basis of a research question or as an actionable idea for the development of policy. amounted to a state less concerned with intervention and more with providing opportunities for improvement. The Metropolis Project is premised on the idea that. The role of the government. given the right opportunities and incentives. The government has not always been characterized by intervention but rather. has resulted from processes that are illuminated by an examination of how the social sciences have been funded in Canada up until the creation of the Metropolis Project.

after the First World War. Canada had yet to become a “governmental” society in the Foucauldian sense.25 From this perspective. and procedures to act upon the social world (Miller and Rose 1990: 2). Scott 1998). Mobilizing knowledge. systems. Idealism. make that individual effort work toward the benefit of society. individual free-will was thought to be the result of social wellbeing. “the idealist assumption that man in society could work on the basis of reason and commitment to social betterment seemed challenged by the events of [those] four years” (1986: 104). Thus. the period of intense social unrest caused by the economic chaos of the 1930s and both World Wars placed increasing pressure on government decision-makers to become actively involved in directing the nation’s economy through government policy. the government could devise schemes. expertise and knowledge of intellectuals and academics as the need for knowledge grew with the level of the government’s social and economic intervention (see Scott 1998). According to Owram. the government that seeks to intervene in the lives of its population does so using intellectual technologies that render the social world legible and amenable to intervention (1992: 175. this was “a world in which the free will of man was untrammeled by the institutions around him. the early twentieth-century Canadian state was characterized by a belief in the combination of idealism and individualism. Allowing these forces to work themselves out was thus seen as the best means of achieving social improvement” (Owram 1986: 7). His moral sense and social leanings would. as it had been tied to the World War I effort unravelled and was challenged by the sacrifice of Canadians sent overseas. As a result. As both Miller and Rose and James Scott argue. the government called on and depended upon the insights. if properly directed. However. and subsequently through interventionist policies in the lives of citizens (Brooks and Gagnon 1988: 15). Owram remarks that. .

created a new perception of the university’s utility as a source of expertise and advice on social. Bradford 2000). This period of growth for the social sciences occurred concomitantly with the secularization of the university and an increase in student enrolment (Massolin 2001: 69). [And they] gained a new-found notoriety and prestige among government officials and society at large” (Massolin 2001: 109). was reflected in rising university enrolments (Massolin 2001: 109-111). “No longer centres of moral guidance and classical learning”. Accordingly after World War II. economic and scientific issues. World War II accelerated the demand for those who possessed specialized knowledge and thus universities were cast as “storehouses of technical personnel and as centres for industrial research…. The wars. Thus. demands increased for university-trained personnel. generally. traditionally responsible for social . The training of a specialized workforce needed by both government and private industry to assess and manage the results of the growing complexity of the economy. “universities.26 An example of the mobilization of knowledge would be the contribution of economists. to address the fiscal crises of the Depression years. Massolin argues. especially World War II. as the government was increasingly engaged in social planning. Action was taken to adopt new fiscal policies based on Keynesian economics (Massolin 2001: 73. there was also significant growth in the social science disciplines. including international trade. as idealism would have necessitated. prior to World War II. As the prominence of the expert grew within state circles. They were accorded a measure of approbation when their economic theory was of utility to the “real” economic issues facing Canada. especially during the Depression years. the government should take active steps to become more involved in directing the economy. many Canadian political economists made the argument that.

. society became accessible to the individual and the group alike…. social scientific analysis were the means to deal with change. manage and engender new types of behaviour among the Canadian populations which have made new types of analysis and observation necessary (18-9.27 issues. one that saw the key to a better social reality in the creation of a world of programs and policies which have increasingly become the favorite means of administration for government (Rose and Miller 1992: 175. Knowledge and. Canadian social sciences emerged as a means by which scholars and researchers could dispassionately assess socioeconomic change and remedy industrial problems” (2001: 69). to shape circumstances. such as unemployment. in conjunction with an increasingly interventionist state. When contentious issues. Knowledge is. see Shore and Wright 1997). of course.. Moreover. It has both legitimized social scientific research for use by government for the development of social policy and has become a means to render the social world knowable (Massolin 2001: 32). “through the social sciences and state interventionism. and to alter destinies” (Massolin 2001: 33). since World War II. have plagued the . 116). in interventionist policies that have been designed to modify. Expert knowledge. The growth of specialized social science expertise in Canada has had two main effects. came to represent a new kind of idealism. The relationship between power and knowledge is nowhere more evident than in the examination of the ways in which the Canadian government has gained control of the research funding process that does in fact generate knowledge and “ways of thinking” (Miller and Rose 1990: 2). strictly utilitarian alignment…. a key component of governing. Stephen Brooks and Alain Gagnon (1988) also argue that the growth of the social sciences in Canada has resulted from the increase. specifically. took on a new.

the flow of ideas. In other words. Thus. theories. concepts. This occurs insofar as “one actor comes to convince another that their problems or goals are intrinsically linked. the research of academics. and theories. The struggle of the social sciences for legitimacy in the eyes of funders has perhaps increased awareness that they do indeed have an important role. that each can solve their difficulties or achieve their ends by joining forces or working along the same lines” (Miller and Rose 1990: 10). Increasing control of funding has provided the government with a means to generate thematic or strategic research which is commensurate with its plans for social intervention. It is important to note. through a common language and set of terms. The increasing state control of research funding over the last fifty years has made it the task of representative bodies for the social sciences both to legitimize social science research and to lobby for funding. especially for the designs of government. research to support options to remedy the problem has been based on a mutual acknowledgment of the problem. Governing at a distance required just the sort of knowledge and expert advice that the social sciences could provide to the increasingly programmatic and interventionist state (Miller and Rose 1990: 9-11). however. In order to appear legitimate in the eyes of funders. a domain of life is rendered amenable for intervention. the social scientists in Canada have attempted to demonstrate their utility to government through conducting policy-relevant research on social issues. securing control of the funding process was but one element in bringing into alignment the interests of social scientists with the government. that their interests are consonant. with the collapse of the spaces between government and academics through the control of funding. . Research can facilitate this process when the goals of both academics and government are linked and appear consonant (Miller and Rose 1990: 10).28 government.

29 concepts and ways of seeing the world have been translated into government policy and planning language. The recent interest in social capital with regards to its social functions and applicability for policy development is but one example of a conceptual framework imported from academia (see Policy Research Initiative 2003 and Regan 2005). The first period of funding for the social sciences in Canada is represented by the efforts of the CSSRC to become the political voice of social scientists in Canada. Modeled on the structure of its United States counterpart, the CSSRC funded academic research mainly through grants from corporations in the United States such as the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations and the Carnegie Corporation for eighteen years prior to accepting Canadian state funding (Fischer 1991: 1; Brooks and Gagnon 1988: 13; Owram 1986). Unlike the social sciences in the United States, the Canadian social sciences needed encouragement, through systematic funding and support, to address specifically Canadian social issues (Fischer 1991: 5-6). The CSSRC was established in September of 1940 by Reginald G. Trotter (historian, Queen’s University), John E. Robbins (Education Branch, Dominion Bureau of Statistics), Harold A. Innis (political economist, University of Toronto), Robert A. Mackay (political scientist, Dalhousie University), and Frederick C. Cronkite (law, University of Saskatchewan) (Fischer 1991: 5). There were three significant factors that contributed to the formation of the CSSRC, according to Donald Fischer, in The Social Sciences in Canada: Fifty Years of National Activity by the Social Science Federation of Canada. First, when the Second World War began, two of the CSSRC’s founding members, Harold A. Innis and John E. Robbins, with increasing pressure on social scientists from the government to contribute expertise to war-related research, endeavored to create a funding council that would remain at “arms length” from the state by refusing

30 to accept government funds (Fischer 1991: 7). Fischer recounts that “[t]he Council (CSSRC) was approached directly by the government’s Rehabilitation and Reconstruction committees, and in each case declined to be involved. Instead of supporting these moves or diverting energies of the proposed CSSRC into war research, Innis and Robbins were clear that this was exactly the right time to push the organization of their Council forward” (1991: 7). Characteristic of Innis himself, the CSSRC’s move to refuse government funding reveals the belief of Innis and other social scientists of the time that the potential social benefits of the social sciences for society lay in their ability to maintain their autonomy from the government. Carl Berger also writes that, “Innis stood against the rising tide of demands on scholars to participate more directly in the political life of the country. He was critical of the [League for Social Reconstruction] LSR and the case for centralization of the Rowell-Sirous report, or even their joining the state bureaucracy, as disastrous threats to Canadian scholarship” (cited in Brooks and Gagnon 1988: 80). Second, the CSSRC faced competition for social sciences territory from other similar organizations such as the Royal Society of Canada (RSC), the National Research Council (NRC) (which was largely devoted to the natural sciences), and the Canadian Institute of Internal Affairs (CIIA). Both the RSC and the NRC in 1939 were potentially going to create divisions devoted to the social sciences. The CSSRC’s separation and autonomy for a time after was a product of these early attempts to retain autonomy and resist entanglement with larger organizations within Canada (Fischer 1991: 7). Third, due to the lack of substantial opportunities within Canada for study at the PhD level, or subsequent advancement in the field, many graduates left the country for postgraduate study in the United States or elsewhere, many never to return. This loss, the

31 subsequent shortage of talented young scholars coupled with a shortage of programs for them to attend and a lack of financial aid, according to the 1941 report by the CSSRC’s committee on Post-Graduate Training, posed serious problems for the future of the social sciences in Canada. After the 1941 report, the CSSRC began to apply a research funding program that would help develop the social sciences in Canada with support from funders in the United States. Funding in the form of grants, bursaries, and fellowships enabled the publication of many scholarly books, allowed academics to engage in research projects and take leaves of absence to finish projects delayed by the war, and facilitated the training of many post-graduates (Fischer 1991: 17-90). The CSSRC began a series of research projects, completed by member academics through the 1940s, which were designed to “provide knowledge on the regions of Canada and on the social problems that faced Canadian society” (Fischer 1991: 22). These projects began in 1942 with the development of a nationwide Canadian atlas. A subsequent project on the Canadian Arctic was designed to measure and record the economic resources in the North. Yet in the background of this project, there was increasing political pressure for research on the geography of the North to be undertaken in the event that armed forces stationed at weather stations in Germany or Japan launched attacks. Although discerning the problems and issues that faced Canadian society served a utility for solving social problems, the political uptake of research began to dissolve the discrete boundaries between academic and state involvements. Without explicitly tailoring projects for use by the government, the research was applicable for political purposes as was the case with the Arctic project. In 1945, a Biculturalism research project was created to investigate the relationship between English and French speakers in

The CSSRC’s main focus of supporting independent scholarship and training in Canada was dependent on grants provided by U. which alerted the CSSRC to the state of anthropological research in Canada. corporations and foundations. In response. in 1944. grants were allocated to fund graduate research on the “conditions and needs of the North American Indians in Canada” (Fischer 1991: 25). purposely funding research for use in the development of policy became a reality in a final sponsored project for the 1940s which aimed to encourage the discipline of anthropology to contribute to social science research in Canada. McIlwraith. This tension between the divergent interests of social scientists and government reflects the extent to which social problems were construed in allied ways during this period of funding. It was designed based on a report in 1942 by Thomas F.S. Kierstead. a historian from Columbia University.32 Canada. Bartlett Brebner. Burton S. The key figure on the project. This project was the first collaborative project by the CSSRC designed to have national policy implications (Fischer 1991: 25). J. the economist from the University of New Brunswick. an anthropologist from the University of Toronto. after being commissioned by the CSSRC and visiting nearly . remarked that the CSSRC “should never touch any social problems with important policy implications… [yet] conversely research will be sterile and meaningless if we refuse the responsibility of social science by deliberately choosing to investigate purely neutral and socially insignificant problems” (cited in Fischer 1991: 23). Kierstead’s remarks exemplify that for the CSSRC in this period there exists a discrepancy between the ideas of social scientists and government as to what constitutes issues worthy of research. However. However. owing to the continuing reluctance to accept funding from Canadian government sources due to the influence of Harold Innis’ ideas.

S. the CSSRC used the Brebner Report to leverage financial support from the Rockefeller Foundation to support fellowships. economics was a high-ranking discipline in the CSSRC in terms of influence. or those which were “too practical. From 1940 to the early 1950s. funding was secured by the CSSRC from such U. who will bring Canada brains and experience to bear on Canadian problems. or too closely tied to government policy making” (Fischer 1991: 10). sources as the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations and the Carnegie Corporation. and retain every scholar she can find. Until the creation of the CC in 1958. He suggested that “Canada needs to detect. sociology. released his report entitled Scholarship for Canada: The Function of Graduate Studies (and commonly known as the Brebner Report). political science. from funding for applied research. Despite being closely aligned with government policy-making. In an attempt to secure funding. Without control of the funding process. too professional. Retaining a distance from the government with regards to accepting funding was an important feature of the operation of the CSSRC and maintained the divide between the social sciences and the interests of government. the government could not actively direct the types of research being undertaken and the research questions asked. History. geography.33 every university in Canada in 1945. these three sources provided nearly all (90%) of the CSSRC’s . which cited massive flaws in the system as it was. encourage. The attempt to retain a distance from the Canadian government. was also mirrored in the exclusion of particular disciplines within the social sciences considered too applied. who will pass on to youth and to the nation at large the vital tradition from the past” (cited in Fischer 1991: 20). for they will constitute the principal group who will keep Canada up with a rapidly changing world. train. and psychology had successively smaller roles in its operation (Fischer 1991: 12).

S. Vincent Massey. The Ford Foundation did provide one final grant to ensure the financial survival of the CSSRC until . referred to by some as a “high-minded and defensive strain of Canadian cultural nationalism”. Pearson’s direction began the Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts. and a comprehensive strategy. emphasized that government funding for universities and research would be necessary to develop a nationally unique “Canadianism” (Massolin 2001: 195). the report directly impacted the willingness of U. Through its public hearings. hastened the arrival of a new era in which culture was recognized as a legitimate concern for government. Additionally. corporations to fund Canadian social science and began to close off the possibility of new funding as plans for the CC were announced. Suspended somewhere between government and the people and belonging wholly to neither.S. according to Litt. for local funds to be secured. Consequently. Thus. the release of the Massey Commission’s report precipitated the demise of extra-national funding sources for the social sciences and the increase in government interest in funding Canadian cultural content both through grants for research and direct funding for Canadian broadcasting (Massolin 2001: 194). especially from the Carnegie Corporation. and as such. the Massey Commission expedited an incipient change of attitude within Canadian political culture…. one that required serious attention. The CSSRC had tried unsuccessfully to raise funds locally and by the mid-1940s there was increasing pressure. Meanwhile. The Massey Commission’s report. Letters and Sciences which would later become known as the Massey Commission after its lead academic director. the Massey Commission.34 funding. philanthropy” (1991: 27-8). the arts council proposal was the bureaucratic embodiment of the cultural elite and its liberal humanist nationalism (cited in Massolin 2001: 329). coordinated management. the Canadian government under Lester B. Fischer also notes that “some social scientists doubted the appropriateness of a Canadian institution having to rely in U.

appealed to the government for assistance. it had been a ‘revolutionary departure’ in Canadian intellectual life. With the new terrain of culture open for inquiry. The significance of the creation of the Canada Council according to Philip Massolin rests on its symbolic as well as practical value. the available funding sources did not provide enough and the CSSRC. even if only subtly. the ability to direct. the Rockefeller Foundation discontinued their support doubting that the new leadership of the CSSRC would be as beneficent as Innis’s leadership had been (Fischer 1991: 27-8).35 the CC was fully implemented. he suggests that “financially. intellectuals and artists received state support for which they had longed for decades” (2001: 207). After the death of Harold Innis in 1952. In effect. had a more profound effect than solely enriching the cultural life of Canada: it also brought within the confines of the state the control over the financial allocation for research funding. the CSSRC appealed for funds and a small amount of money was regularly supplied.S. the government of Canada became the primary funder of social science research. (Massolin 2001: 195). through the council. as we shall see. the types of research funded. State support. When universities began receiving government funds in 1951-1952. the stage was being set for the intervention of the . As a precondition for the alignment of interests. Moreover. what occurred as a result of the recommendations of the Massey Commission was the development of a Canadian social science funding body that would have the capacity to encourage the enrichment of Canadian scholarship and enhance the image both nationally and internationally of Canada as a unique country with a culture and values distinct from the “pernicious ideas and social influences” that crossed the border from the U. for the first time. The request was denied and the CSSRC was told to wait until the implementation of the CC to receive more funding (Fischer 1991: 28-9). Ultimately.

The second period in funding under discussion begins during the first year of operation of the CC. A substantial amount of money had been awarded by Lester B.36 government. this included a startup award of . The CSSRC changed its name once the CC was created. to the Social Science Research Council of Canada (SSRC) to avoid any confusion with the CC (1991: 41). Northrop Frye argued that “with the Canada Council Act. into the cultural life of residents. The principles involved for culture are precisely the same…. and research funding which it would run through the established programs of the SSRC and HRC. according to Fischer. in 1957. it is of no surprise that. the legitimacy and potential use of social science research became apparent to the government as it was seen to possess the capacity to assist in the design of technologies for governing and to administrate this domain of social life that had fallen within the purview of decision-makers. their strategic use for state planning and policy development would increase from this period onwards. With culture identified as a “domain of cognition” (see Miller and Rose 1992: 175) that could be both enriched by scholarship and be potentially rendered open to intervention by government. began by holding a competition for research funds that had been endowed to it by the federal government. to a some extent academics from the humanities. Insofar as social scientists and. Pearson for the CC’s operation. through policy development. federal aid for universities is linked with federal aid for culture. The CC. It is logical to link the university and culture: in fact it could almost be said that the university today is to culture what the church is to religion: the social institution that makes it possible” (cited in Massolin 2001: 329-30). As culture entered the domain of political rationalities. were experts on the domain of culture. having built its procedures and programs for funding on the experiences of both the CSSRC and Humanities Research Council of Canada (HRC).

John E. himself a member of the government’s public service. the CC brought the adjudication of research funds within the confines of its organization. to an agency in service to the CC. Robbins (Chief of the Education Branch. as “increasingly… a matter of close. co-ordinated and stabilized collaboration” (cited in Fischer 1991: 43). was characterized by the two-term Chairman of the SSRC. until 1963. was appointed as the permanent Executive Secretary-Treasurer for the SSRC and tasked in 1957 with judging the funding competitions alongside the selection committees of the SSRC (Fischer 1991: 41).37 fifty million dollars with an additional fifty million from which only the interest could be spent (Fischer 1991: 36. The significance of this appointment and the duty of adjudicating research proposals left Robbins and the selection committee to provide a list of recommended winners which was for the most part approved by the CC. in addition to being a founding member of the CSSRC. The appointment of Robbins in 1957 to adjudicate research proposals. was a harbinger of events to come. Ostry 1962: 14). taking away the ability of both Councils (SSRC and HRC) to administer funds. This sentiment. Dominion Bureau of Statistics) who. SSRC members and chairmen worried that the SSRC had been reduced. the SSRC and the HRC. according to the Ostry . through this collaboration. The creation of the CC. The initial competitions from the late 1950s until the early 1960s drew considerable numbers of applications and the relationship between the CC. In 1963. The CC from that point on assumed full control of the adjudication of research proposals and the distribution of funds. Father Mailloux. did not reflect the views of all of the SSRC members. rather than the (relatively) autonomous organization that it had been. however. after the findings of two reports (the Clark Report in 1958 and the Ostry Report in 1962) that were critical of the way the CC was operating. nor did it reflect the increasingly coercive shape that collaboration was taking.

and from 1963 onwards. the next significant change to the funding of social science research was the creation of the Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) in 1977. had nearly eviscerated all forms of external funding. exemplifying the third period under discussion. It had yet to be cultivated as source of strategic knowledge for interventionist planning to the degree that it became later in the 1970s (Massolin 2001: 206-8). the government became the main funder of social science research in Canada. a number of significant events took place prior to the creation of the SSHRC that provides a context for how cultural and linguistic diversity became a domain rendered intelligible through social science research for administration. yet the emphasis for funding of this period was still placed on facilitating the development of the cultural character of the country. Ostry’s report outlined the challenges faced by social scientists in Canada in the pursuit for funding insofar as they would have more success aligning their interests with the CC if their research interests were complementary.38 report. The SSRC had moved from being a funding agency to the position of representative and government lobbying body in the wake of the creation and operation of the CC (Fischer 1991: 61-2. However. With the control of funding firmly within government control. A lack of options for funding no doubt affected the types of research funded. It was significantly outmatched by the funding dedicated to the NRC (National Research Council) for the natural sciences (Ostry 1962: 11-16). . A significant shift in the role of the SSRC had occurred after the creation of the CC and the subsequent removal of the SSRC’s powers to distribute research funds and adjudicate proposals. 73). The conditional legitimacy of social science research is explored by Stephen Brooks and Alain Gagnon with regards to the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism.

From an economic point of view. was initiated by Lester B. according to Brooks and Gagnon. Despite opportunities to demonstrate the applicability of the social sciences to national issues. Brooks and Gagnon also argue that: When analyses by social scientists were fundamentally critical of the socioeconomic system. and thus the provision of research funding was unstable. By rationalization of research.39 During the 1960s. The Laurendeau-Dunton Commission. as the commission “merely lent a veneer of intellectual legitimacy to the political reforms that were instituted with the passage of the Official Languages Act in 1969” (1988: 98). This affirmation was fleeting. or challenged powerful economic interests. the legitimacy of the social sciences for use by government was still in question. According to Brooks and Gagnon. the conditional legitimacy of social scientific advice in the eyes of Canadian governments was demonstrated very clearly (1988: 98). it “marked a significant stage in the relationship of social scientists to the state… [because it] affirmed both their role as experts… and the relevance of their disciplines to public policymaking” (1988: 97). as was the case with the Real Poverty Report and the Watkins Task Force on Foreign Ownership and the Structure of Canadian Industry. the rationalization of research referred to “the problems of how to . In 1972. the government was preoccupied with issues of national unity which precipitated a Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. for example. also called the Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. Further efforts to rationalize university research by the SSRC would be an attempt to prove the legitimacy and benefits for Canada of funding social science research. the AUCC Commission understood two general things. Pearson and completed its work in 1963. however. Furthermore. a report from the SSRC to the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada Commission (AUCC) was written on the rationalization of university research.

the study of what is clearly alien enlarges our view of what we might be and what we lack. of the European culture from which we have inherited) throws light upon what we are. another term which has been used in this context is ‘accountability’” (SSRC 1972: 2-3). their research. the authors of the report insisted that: if the study of what is clearly germane to our present society (e. Also revealed are the foundations for the study of cultural diversity which would become particularly important for the government’s agenda under Pierre Trudeau’s liberal government and continue to be of importance to the state culminating in the Metropolis Project. it is clear that the SSRC sought to emphasize how research can be accountable. To be seen as the bearers of expert knowledge that was socially applicable and therefore fundable. efficient and productive . This excerpt reveals that: the justification for funding research in the social sciences was as much a plea for disciplinary recognition and legitimacy as it was for the procurement of funding. It reflected the growing pressure during the 1970s on academics to justify. as human beings. The call for the rationalization of research by AUCC is significant because for the first time in Canada there was an attempt to delineate a process by which research funding could be systematized. we should concern ourselves (1972: 5).40 encourage the most efficient use of funds and human resources in the conduct of social science research” (SSRC 1972: 2). or rationalize. Quoting from a Senate Special Committee on Science Policy (the Lamontagne Committee) “that government funding agencies ‘assist only those (projects) that are relevant to the Canadian scene” (SSRC 1972: 4). This process of rationalizing research also referred to the “ ‘justification’ of research activities in the eyes of government and the Canadian community at large.g. and also of the nature and experiences of men of other cultures with whom.

Madame Sauvé. Thus. and therefore their funding. as Sauvé’s comments demonstrate. revealed the growing disenchantment with free or independent research. To this end the report emphasizes the concern of the SSRC by stating that: Independent research has the best chance of being useful and relevant from the academic point of view and in the conduct of such research the scholar can be most “productive”. the legitimacy of the social sciences. In 1973. inasmuch as the interests of social scientists were aligned with funders or decision-makers they relied on the government’s receptivity to the expert knowledge of academics and on the terrain of culture being a governable domain. But without constant and careful nurturing the orchard withers and fruit does not appear. Built on recommendations from the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism established by Lester B. if the universities do not participate in this wider opportunity to serve society. The introduction of the Multiculturalism Act in 1971 precipitated a new grants program called the Canadian Ethnic Studies Program (CESP). Governments naturally wish to pluck the ripe fruit of research from the orchard of knowledge. Thus. has depended on the extent to which their research interests have proved to have some import for state planning and policy development. Furthermore. . She stated that “we look forward to a shift toward research on societal problems and away from ivory tower research with respect to government-funded activity…. Some may argue that things are moving too fast but. there was increasing pressure on the social sciences from the government to orient their research towards societal problems. the government will continue to fund research at increasing levels in government laboratories or in cooperation with industry” (cited in Rowat 1976: 540). a statement from then minister of state for science and technology. Free research is still the best university research (SSRC 1972: 16).41 by contributing to cross-cultural social research initiated by scholars. at least the ones the government was interested in addressing.

rendering through study “aspects of existence [such as cultural diversity] thinkable and calculable. The program (CESP) materialized as an advisory council that would disperse research funds and act as liaison to government on policy issues. and the multidisciplinary nature of the research. With culture already a terrain of inquiry. there were no programs devoted to this research. “the Canadian Ethnic Studies Program. and was recognized by the commission. the program was based on the “recognition that the scholarly study of ethnicity in all its dimensions was necessary in… universities but had been neglected” (Heritage Canada 1993: i). With few academics doing research in the field of Ethnic Studies. for systematic and continuous study of Canada’s multi-ethnic society. linked institutions more firmly to ethnic constituencies. According to James Cameron. The Department of the Secretary of State will therefore undertake a detailed investigation of the problems concerned with the development of the Canadian ethnic studies program or centre(s) and will prepare a plan of implementation (cited in Cameron 2002: 2). The program (CESP) was launched in 1973 as a component of the Heritage. who declared that: The need exists.42 Pearson. devoted exclusively to the field of ethnicity. and amenable to deliberated and planful initiatives” (Miller and Rose 1990: 3). The committee was operated by no more than eight scholars chosen by staff of the Multiculturalism division of the Secretary of State. The Canadian Ethnic Studies Advisory Committee [CESAC] became a key section of the CESP (Cameron 2002: 3). Universities had become social institutions concerned with ethnicity as they had once been with culture. ethnicity was then included on the terrain as a topic about which the government needed to know. and strengthened the ethnic identity of institutions” (2002: 2). expanded university curricula. Chosen for their research and . Cultures and Languages Program of Multiculturalism and Citizenship Canada (Heritage Canada 1993: v). redirected or augmented faculty research programs. The goals of this program mirrored a statement by Trudeau.

scholars lent the program an air of credibility with their commitment to peer evaluation. or a voluntary organization in collaboration with a university.000. As the terrain of the social sciences. The university would have to provide a financial audit and a full evaluation after five years (Cameron 2002: 6). research plans. As a component of the social sciences. the study of cultural diversity in Canada became consolidated under this program. Adjudication of research proposals was based on “scholarly significance. the interest in ethnic studies signaled the recognition by the government that in order to govern a multicultural society. and bibliography” (Cameron 2002: 5). the Minister of Multiculturalism announced the creation of an Ethnic Studies Chair at the University of Toronto. demonstrated competence. appropriate library holdings. Operated by scholars. – then the government and university signed a contribution agreement.43 expertise in the field of ethnic studies. Its creation within the government signified the extent to which culture had . The successful applicant would be granted full autonomy over hiring and the chair’s plan of action. The endowment program proved to be attractive to many universities and encouraged the development of the field of Ethnic Studies.a tradition of studies in the area. If the organization matched or surpassed the government offer of $300. social or practical importance. according to Cameron. theoretical approach. to the surprise of his officials who then drafted supporting guidelines for establishing additional endowed chairs. a supportive ethnic community. the CESAC was able to maintain a distance from the government as an advisory body whose “decisions were rarely reversed by Multiculturalism officials” (Cameron 2002: 5). In 1978. The Endowment Assistance Program (EAP) meant that any Canadian university. and if the university satisfied other important criteria . new information and knowledge would have to be gathered. etc. could propose a chair of ethnic studies. a plan for future development. The introduction of the Multiculturalism Act and subsequent creation of the CESAC opened up a space for concentrated research on newcomers to the country and on the diverse cultural backgrounds and practices of citizens.

With social science research being funded solely by the government through the CC.4 million dollars to $12. Donald Rowat. The pace of research was. in 1976 disclosed figures supporting the conclusion that indeed the government had begun to fund internal government research over external university-based research by the mid 1970s. By being compelled to provide quick results for government-sponsored research projects. he suggested. whereby the interests of decision-makers and social scientists were to some degree aligned.44 become a “domain of cognition” that required new types of knowledge inscribed and transported to decision-making centres to inform the development of policy and programs (Miller and Rose 1992: 175). an increase of over 150 per cent in five years. president of the Political Science Association. He observed that “the in-house expenditures of the federal government for research and development in the human sciences have grown from $21 million in 1970-1 to over $53 in 1975-6. according to Rowat. Decision-making in government. was based on short term goals and quick results. one of the motivations for the government to favour in-house over university-based research. From my perspective. On the analysis of contract-based research. from 6. the traditional academic role of social and state critic was jeopardized. Rowat cited Hugh Thorburn on the role of political science in . the amount going to the university sector through the Canada Council has increased by less than 100 per cent. Despite the creation of the CESP. However. the impetus for governments to rely on the insights of social science experts is a direct reflection on the government’s willingness to fund research. was the government’s ability to set the direction of research projects and encourage their strategic importance for the development of policy and programs.5 million” (Rowat 1976: 541). By contrast. one fundamental component of this process. a degree of state control over this research was accomplished.

45 Canada. despite opposition and cautioning from the CC and AUCC. National Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC). to become the under-labourers searching out the data and arguments sought by people in positions of political power” (cited in Rowat 1976: 542-3). and. with the public support of the SSRC. and more important. It was in 1977. the tension inherent in the alignment of interests between social scientists and government decision-makers was publicly articulated. and the social and natural sciences in Canada. and the Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) consolidated the relationship between the state as funder. that three new councils emerged which became the conduits for the distribution of government funding for academic. Scholars [must] not be seduced. it encourages a kind of sympathetic understanding of the government’s point of view by a process of association and consequent co-optation…. in a time of financial stringency. university-based research in Canada. government contract research “takes up the uncommitted time and thought of many academics. government-sponsored and directed research was that it had the unfortunate effect. The significance of participation in contract-based. making the creation of the SSHRC an important step to orienting social science research in Canada towards strategic government goals. The CC became devoted solely to the funding . that “it shifts the interests of academics into narrow problems of immediate concern to the government and away from broad ones of long-term concern to society as a whole” (1976: 543). claimed Rowat. This shift of interests distracted academics from “one of the main functions of university researchers as analysers and critics of society… [who] try to foresee the problems of the future and the basic reforms that may be required” (Rowat 1976: 543). As in the previous periods of funding. as it had been by Harold Innis. The Medical Research Council (MRC). According to Thorburn.

it was necessary for the SSRC to change its name in response to the Social Science Federation of Canada (SSFC) (Fisher 1991: 80). was directed by government funders to provide research funds for work on national issues and of national concern. and the autonomy of the university-based academic. scholar-initiated research characteristic of the traditional social critic. the prevailing attitude of the government with regards to funding social science research was. according to Fisher. To try and rectify this tendency. fundable and important social resource. Formed to ensure the autonomy of academic researchers. the government regarded independent social science research as somewhat irrelevant to the productive.46 of the fine arts after the creation of the SSHRC (Canada Council 2006). and was suspicious of the tendency on the part of social scientists to be critical of the political system and of politicians. the leadership of the SSRC attempted to resist the rhetoric of effectiveness and accountability that was infusing public management systems. economic processes. Balancing between securing the recognition of government that social science research was indeed a legitimate. At the outset of the creation of SSHRC. He states that: [b]y 1980. The hegemonic appropriation of the name of SSRC (with the inclusion of the Humanities) signals an appropriation of the legitimacy and trust earned by the original SSRC through years of advocacy and lobbying for additional research funding. governments were more likely . the SSRC continued to negotiate a path between the increasing pressure from government for the production of socially valuable and policy relevant research and the autonomous. The SSHRC. one which questioned the relevance of social science research and viewed academics with suspicion. With the new SSHRC located within government. in its first organizing Act. Government funding would also support research through SSHRC in areas deemed strategic by the government (Fisher 1991: 90).

research projects can be directly applicable to the needs of government decision-makers. Together. The independent research interests of academics faced constraints in the midst of forces to align them with the strategic research goals and issues deemed socially important by the SSHRC. as a research funding body. in a much broader survey of academic involvement in research for government purposes one will find that it has not been lost on governments. a significant change in government perspective to view research as a tool to be harnessed which implies that if subtly directed. The first was entitled A Rationale for Federal Funding of University Research (1978) and the second. It is. that research and expert knowledge can be generally applicable and amenable to policy creation (see Owram 1986 and Massolin 2001). Although Fischer makes a pertinent observation. Increasing control over the funding process established an increasing hegemonic control over the types of research projects deemed worthwhile and fundable through the adjudication process within SSHRC influenced by government funders. first partially through the CC and then totally through the SSHRC. By removing the funding process from the control of academic councils and bringing it within the control of the state.47 to define social science research as a tool that ought to be harnessed for development rather than simply supported (Fisher 1991: 91-2 emphasis added). research could be potentially funnelled into the policy creation process. by describing the position of the government concerning funding academic research. A Human Sciences Policy Framework (1981). however. even from early in Canada’s history. The Ministry of State for Science and Technology produced two reports that outlined the direction that SSHRC was going to take. they outlined the government’s proclivity for funding research in both the social and natural sciences with the expectation that the social sciences contribute by addressing problem-oriented .

To promote and improve Canada’s economy. Released on June 22. and the heavy dependence on the SSHRC for research funds” (1991: 92-3) presented formidable problems for academics in a decade of fiscal restraint. a proposal in principle was released to the government for the five-year period of 1980-1985 on investment in the funding of research in the social sciences and humanities. situated in the Social Development envelope. even in the same policy areas. Fisher. As research funding demands increased into the 1980s.48 research questions (Fisher 1991: 92). in closer contact with the government. summarizing John Trent from the SSFC. This situation. bargaining and negotiating between politicians and bureaucrats. cabinet committees and the Treasury Board. In the midst of the efforts of the SSFC to collaborate with the SSHRC. the SSFC continued to lobby for a commensurate increase in research funding (Fisher 1991: 93). which lobbied on their behalf. the budgetary decisions of the SSHRC were scrutinized by ministers from the social development portfolios. the report outlined The Scientific Activities Act of 1976 that mandated that the SSHRC would “promote and assist research and scholarship in the social sciences and the humanities” (SSHRC 1979: 1). The 1980s found social scientists and the newly named Federation (SSFC). for a fixed sum of funding dollars. competed with some of the largest departments in the government. As a result of having to distribute scarce resources. recounts that “the increasing tendency towards encroachment and interference by the Government of Canada in the allocation of funds for social science research. the government announced a series of initiatives to expand the funding of the applied . The new 1980s ‘envelope system’ for distributing budgeted money within government produced increased competition. The SSHRC. according to Fisher “forced the SSHRCC to take government priorities seriously” (1991: 93). 1979.

accentuated the ability of the natural sciences to be used by man to manipulate the social world. The social sciences were not accorded this ability and instead tasked with developing an understanding of the changing complexities of human phenomena (SSHRC 1979: 3). that for the SSHRC the provision of funding was explicitly tied to maintaining and endorsing the appearance of legitimacy and rational use to the government of social science research as the SSRC had done before. This report described the role and objective of the SSHRC for the 1980s to be “to promote and assist excellence in Canadian research and scholarship in the social sciences and the humanities” (SSHRC 1979: 23). in a comparison of the social and applied natural sciences. to assist in and advise on maintaining and developing the national capacity for research. to encourage research on themes . The SSHRC recognized that the social sciences must be considered a legitimate source of information for the social development of the country if they were to increase their funding (SSHRC 1979: 3). Social science research in Canada. private organizations and individuals can reduce the uncertainty in decision-making and increase the probability that their actions will prove successful. The report. would enable the government to create successful courses of action demonstrating. Understanding of the complexity of social life and of the impact of technology research in the social sciences was estimated to provide “invaluable aid to responsible decisionmaking” (SSHRC 1979: 4). at least according to the SSHRC. The strategic priorities for the SSHRC for the 1980s included four areas: “to support such independent research as in the judgement of scholars will best advance knowledge. in this instance. Drawing on this research “and applying it… governments.49 sciences such as engineering and the natural sciences. Such research will not make decisions easier. but will help us understand the alternatives better” (SSHRC 1979: 4).

the research interests of social sciences in Canada had been increasingly brought into an often tense and unstable alignment as the government offered limited financial support for research on particularly Canadian issues. The interests of the government and the social sciences had yet to cohere in any significant way. and to facilitate the communication and exchange of research results” (SSHRC 1979: 24). This objective was reflected in the mandate of the SSFC to “contribute to the development of effective social science research policies in Canada. The objective of the SSFC in relation to the SSHRC and government became “to promote the development and interests of the social sciences in Canada” (Fischer 1991: 88). The authors of the report attempted to maintain a precarious balance between endorsing social science as a utility to government while advocating for the autonomy of the social science academics to determine the types of research they would pursue. .50 considered by the Council to be of national importance. This shifting ground upon which the SSHRC. In order to secure continued financial support. SSFC and other human science councils stood reflected the tension between creating alliances with government by advocating for the legitimacy and utility of the social sciences while attempting to simultaneously disentangle the alliances between social scientists and government decision-makers. [and] to develop the potential of the social sciences to contribute to the analysis and formation of social policies” (Fischer 1991: 88). which in turn would necessitate an increase to funding if they were perceived to be useful for government decision makers. the SSFC advocated for the social sciences by lobbying for their use in policy-making. Serving to legitimate the applicability of the social sciences to social issues. most of which related to the development of the natural sciences and technology (Fisher 1991: 94-6).

In response to an additional ten percent funding cut. and support for the infrastructure of the social science research community” (Fisher 1991: 95). To the government. own best interest to give greater autonomy to the SSHRC” (cited in Fisher 1991: 96). citing the internal capacity of government to conduct their own research (Fisher 1991: 95). and Canada’s. in the summer of 1981. Fortier devised a new plan that focused on “two related categories: Canadian related studies. themes or strategic research. in addition to a plea for an increase in funding by at least 25 million dollars to account for the increase in studies related to Canadian issues. The government relayed to the president of the SSHRC that it had no interest in funding ‘pure’ research.51 The year 1981 was a tumultuous one for both the fledgling SSHRC and the Federation with regards to mapping out an autonomous position for the funding of social sciences. the SSFC advocated for the autonomy of the SSHRC by stating that independent “research cannot be treated in the same manner as daily policy concerns. for regional studies. Canadian studies. was informed that unless the report of priorities was rewritten the SSHRC would not receive funding (Fisher 1991: 95). and Areas of Canadian Study that included the provision of funds to small isolated universities. were further divided into three types of initiatives: “independent research. The Office of the Minister of Communications. and that it is in its [government’s]. In consultation with the SSHRC. the SSFC conveyed its concern regarding a decrease in funding for independent research and advocated the possibility of cutting policy-oriented research from the SSHRC plan. in Fortier’s new report. André Fortier. and non-Canadian related studies” (Fisher 1991: 95). . the president of SSHRC. stated that the 1979 SSHRC plan for the 1980-1985 funding course no longer met the research needs of government and would have to be revised.

In the same year. “Focus on Strategies” called for increased support for “Spontaneous Initiatives” which were directed towards sponsoring research projects initiated by scholars if they fell within the criteria of the specific initiative. the lobbying activities of the SSFC were mainly directed towards the SSHRC. In this vein. the SSHRC committed continuing support for the program. the SSHRC began to emphasize funding research based on preset themes and through strategic grants. increasing the tension between the two organizations. Funds were to be allocated for the support of . with what had begun as a single thematic research program in 1979 on Population and Aging. to increasingly fund thematic or strategic research. government. the private and non-governmental sectors (Fisher 1991: 107). Control over setting themes for research was the focus of several reports prepared by the SSFC for the SSHRC that acknowledged the divergent and competing interests of policy-makers and social scientists but emphasized the necessity of investigator-initiated research (Fisher 1991: 105-6). “Focus on Strategies”. In 1987.52 While the autonomy of the SSHRC from government was in constant question in the SSFC. By the mid-1980s. the SSHRC was considered by the SSFC to be merely an “agent of government… [that was] determined to sacrifice independent research in favour of research in the shorter term national interest” (cited in Fisher 1991: 98). outlined three potential initiatives. Gilles Paquet was appointed chair of a Second Task Force of Priorities by the SSHRC to review prior strategic research efforts for the previous decade and to discern possible new directions. Contrary to the mandates of the SSFC which emphasized free and independent research both interdisciplinary and discipline specific. The resulting document. the SSHRC continued. after an initial review of the Strategic Grants program. These initiatives were designed to have a broad appeal and encourage collaborative engagement between researchers.

53 the creation of research networks or centres and for the areas titled “Concerted Action” (Fisher 1991: 107). Paquet’s report also suggested that research themes have a duration of five years (Fisher 1991: 107). Under a new SSHRC program that roughly coincided with the release of the Paquet report in 1989, Joint Initiatives were to receive $900,000 and be designed for the “encouragement of partnerships between the public, private, and university sectors by developing unified, multidisciplinary approaches to the study of national issues” (Fisher 1991: 108). For the Canadian Ethnic Studies Program (CESP), Canadian Ethnic Studies Assistance Committee (CESAC) and the Chair Endowment Assistance Program (CEAP), the 1980s proved to be a challenging period, yet one of growth for the CESP. On the success of the program, one official remarked that by “1984 it became increasingly clear that the ethnic-specific chairs could not fulfill (sic) the need for the cross-cultural, crossdisciplinary study of general issues of ethnicity, cultural identity, immigration, history, racism, inter-group relations and other important areas of study” (cited in Cameron 2002: 6). After a review and revision of the criteria for the program, the scope of the position was broadened. The CESAC recommended the provision of fellowships and a program was established to provide six awards annually. The Multicultural Studies Fellowship Program “divided [the awards] equally between junior and ‘more established’ scholars” (cited in Cameron 2002: 7). The election of Brian Mulroney’s Conservative government in 1984 and the passage of the Multiculturalism Act in 1988 served to renew enthusiasm for the study of ethnic diversity. After the passage of the Act, a new program was launched through the CESP that was meant to facilitate “advanced study and the development of academic resources relevant to Canadian multiculturalism” (cited in Cameron 2002: 7). The program was divided into four thematic sections: Race Relations

54 and Cross-cultural Understanding, Heritage Languages and Cultures, Community Support and Participation, and Cross-government Commitment (Cameron 2002: 7). The creation of a new Ministry of Multiculturalism and Citizenship by the Conservatives in 1991 heralded a review of CESP initiatives. In collaboration with SSHRC, the report entitled State of the Art Review of Research on Canada's Multicultural Society, along with similar reviews being conducted by the academics at the time, concluded that, despite some omissions in the research on ethnic diversity, Canada’s multicultural studies were quite substantial (Cameron 2002: 7). A year after the Liberals were elected in 1993, programs on multiculturalism were moved to the new Department of Canadian Heritage where a comprehensive review of all multicultural programs was undertaken in 1995-1996 to ensure that the programs remained effective “instruments in dealing with the needs of an evolving and diverse society” (cited in Cameron 2002: 8). With its many recommendations, the review stated that programs be reformed to reflect “ ‘a more formalized strategic planning and evaluation process for multiculturalism activities’ designed to further the policy objectives of identity, civic participation, and justice” (cited in Cameron 2002: 8). In the release of a SSHRC funding strategy in the early 1990s, the social, technological and environmental consequences of rapid technological change were priorities for research. Amidst advocating for research on rapid technological expansion, however, were the priorities of “how to build social harmony and justice in the midst of cultural and racial diversity; and, how to ensure the continuing development of a vibrant and distinctive Canadian culture” (SSHRC 1990: 1). The importance of locally-situated Canadian research was weighted towards developing the social capacity for individuals to contribute to international competitiveness. Also stressed was the capacity for the social

55 sciences to contribute to a knowledge base that would assist the oxymoronic “evolution of democratic control and freedom” (SSHRC 1990: 2). Through three types of granting programs, the SSHRC sought to reflect a commitment to quality. Through the administration of Research Grants, Strategic Grants and Research Communication and International Relations Grants, as well as Doctoral and Postdoctoral fellowships, the SSHRC intended to perform a “leadership role in research policy in Canada through consultations and liaison with government and the scholarly community” (SSHRC 1990: 3). As an advocate to the government and public at large for the utility and importance of the social sciences, the SSHRC five-year plan outlined the necessity for effectively utilizing human and financial resources while competing for scarce government funding. In relative terms, the budget of the SSHRC in 1990 only minutely exceeded the 1979 budget, with the Council receiving the least amount of funding of the three granting councils (NSERC, MRC, and SSHRC) (SSHRC 1990: 5). Funding, this plan suggested, was the key to enhancing research capacity and diversifying funding initiatives. With securing an increase to funding in the next budgetary allotment a primary concern, the report offered three priorities to meet the challenges of the 1990s. The priorities were designed to “strengthen the social sciences and humanities through an increased investment in the training of the next generation of researchers; to develop and promote research structures that will enhance research quality, productivity and relevance; and to find ways to enhance communication of research results” (SSHRC 1990: 7). The objectives on which these priorities were based reaffirmed the mandate that had been the basis of the SSHRC as a funding body since its inception and also

Unlike previous plans. Training opportunities also offered an opportunity for new researchers to learn what “constitutes excellence in research” and arguably. 3) to help ensure Canada’s national capacity for research and expertise in the social sciences and humanities by supporting advanced training in these disciplines. 2) to support strategic research in fields of national importance. The focus on collaborative research partnerships for the SSHRC extended to interdisciplinary research teams that provided an opportunity for the next generation of scholars to be trained. in its description of the way in which priorities were to be operationalized. Despite the similarity that these objectives bear to previous mandates. methods to satisfy the adjudication committees and secure funding (SSHRC 1990: 12). the plan for the 1990s.56 reflected the commitments of the earlier councils. Four objectives are listed as follows: 1) to enhance the advancement of knowledge by supporting basic research in the social sciences and humanities. Additionally. relationships that bolstered this process of creating enduring partnerships and collaborations were encouraged for their potential ability to satisfy the strategic research for decision-making needs of the state (SSHRC 1990: 10-1). both the SSRC and Canada Council. Training in this context was as much concerned with teaching new researchers how to conduct excellent research (read as research that is deemed excellent by an academic peer group . the strategic plans that describe the intentions of the SSHRC for the 1990s reflect a very different orientation to the relationship between social science and humanities research and its potential use by the state. made clear the intention that research of use to the state or private business for policy development was of prime importance (SSHRC 1990: 8-11). the public and private sectors and the general public (SSHRC 1990: 7). and 4) to facilitate communication among scholars in Canada and abroad and to promote awareness and use of SSHRC-funded research results within the academic community.

public and private sectors. Participating in all aspects of a research project. was a way to strengthen “the national capacity for research in the social sciences and humanities” (SSHRC 1990: 17). and international contributors was given special funding priority in the SSHRC guide to priorities for the 1990s (SSHRC 1990: 15). partners could contribute in various ways that would ideally promote a synergistic and effective use of resources.… a loan of premises or equipment. . Forming partnerships between researchers. private corporations.57 and by SSHRC). community members. noted as a drawback for the successful implementation of new forms of exciting research if it was inadequate. In line with this directive. They could provide “monetary assistance. an agreement was signed with Multiculturalism and Citizenship Canada in 1990 “for a state-of-the-art review in the area of multiculturalism… [which]. Joint Initiatives had the potential to “encourage government agencies. as an opportunity to bring new students into the system of competitive funding where they learn that they must design a project based loosely on the priorities of the SSHRC in order to be funded. or community organizations to collaborate with the SSHRC in co-developing and cofunding programs of research in areas of particular need” (SSHRC 1990: 16). Research infrastructure. depending on the outcome. a focus on creating innovative funding partnerships and new research networks and arrangements was advocated. pledging staff time to assist in the project or providing access to experts within the partner’s network of contacts” (SSHRC 1990: 15). Additionally. may lead to further cooperation between the two partners to fund additional research in this field” (SSHRC 1990: 16). In addition to research partnerships. Creating new institutional structures played a role in satisfying the funding agenda of the SSHRC regarding the formation of partnerships and collaborative research projects.

industry. where appropriate. the SSHRC’s strategy for the 1990s combined important elements such as an emphasis on partnerships and collaboration. Wrapped in an economic imperative to utilize resources effectively and in an innovative and knowledge-generating fashion. natural resources.58 Infrastructures. government. sponsored by the three funding councils and Industry Canada. information and communication technology. Under this imperative the Ministry of Multiculturalism backed the new Metropolis Project and its promise of policy-relevant research and solid dissemination strategies. the Networks of Centres of Excellence Program. The Endowment Assistance Program of the CESAC. Research centres “enable research teams to share the direct and indirect costs of research. the formation of centres of research activity. the twenty-two networks address four areas: “health. to benefit from economies of scale and to save other costs by using a common infrastructure for communicating research results” (SSHRC 1990: 19). With the potential to link regional centres to other international networks. was established in 1989 and rendered a stable program in 1997. formal affiliations with researchers in other parts of the world” (SSHRC 1990: 20). the Council proposed to “assist exceptional Canadian researchers and research teams to establish linkages and. and engineering and manufacturing” (Whelan 2001). Structured of partnerships among universities. despite having established twenty-eight research chairs across . In fact. training of future researchers. and non-governmental organizations. human development and biotechnology. such as networks of research centres across the country were professed to be a method to encourage the development of research agendas on current and surfacing issues but also to “consolidate research” (SSHRC 1990: 17). and effective communication of research results that materialized in the structure of the Metropolis Project in 1996.

through their involvement. was terminated in 1997 as an increasing amount of ethnic diversity research was being funded by the SSHRC (Cameron 2002: 8). Ethnicity and culture as areas of interest for government decision-makers made the Metropolis Project possible. social scientists. embodies the effort of the government since social science research began to be funded by the CC to strategically orient academic. to influence the creation of priorities for research. unlike any other attempt to concentrate research on an area of decision-making interest. If it can be said that the periods preceding the creation of the Metropolis Project were characterized by an ad hoc relationship between social scientists and government. The Metropolis Project.59 the country. . government. the Metropolis Project provided a unique opportunity for social scientists. rendered its research applicable for policy development insofar as the subjects of research (immigrants and refugees) were also a topic of interest of the political rationalities of decision-makers and were translated into the policy priorities that form the basis of research funding competitions. also different in the Metropolis Project was the opportunity through face-to-face. influence. Yet. person-to-person interaction could discern areas and issues for research on immigrants and refugees. coerce and cajole participants who were making the policy and research priorities that resulted in a hybridized (and perhaps contested) plan for research funding that emerged from discussion and negotiation. then Metropolis succeeded where other attempts to streamline the research interests of academics had failed. However. university-based research towards policy-relevant issues. person-to-person interaction between stakeholders to monitor. in its structure and design. and community representatives that through face-to-face. It brought together through its research funding process and many committees.

the increasing intervention of the government into the affairs of culture and ethnicity. It has also been marked by the attempts of the collegial-councils for the social sciences to make social science research appear as a legitimate source of knowledge for government decision-making to help guarantee sustained funding. through the three periods I have concentrated on. .60 The history of funding of social science research in Canada has marked. The effect of rationalizing social science research has been to ensure that funding inputs result in a value-for-money research output ideally applicable for policy development and relevant to social issues of the day that enable the government to govern at a distance.

the Project was created to maximize. Designed during a period of both departmental and financial cutbacks within government. it is essential to briefly elucidate the general process of federal level policy-making in Canada as it relates to the translation of central ideas. the Metropolis Project emerged from its founders as an idea for a small research-to-policy project that would be based on person-to-person interactions to facilitate knowledge sharing. was launched in 1996. and mobilize knowledge resources from the academic community to contribute to the development of policy and programs which would effectively integrate immigrants and refugees. economic integration. With strategic research funding priorities focused around the idea of integration. or political rationalities (e. The Metropolis Project.61 Chapter Three: A Brief Analysis of Policy-Making in Canada As the social science research funding process has been brought under the increasing control of the Canadian government. . see Nader 1997: 712. national analysis that would potentially inform the policy-making process at all levels of government. the Metropolis Project. through its Centres of Excellence would attempt to generate both regionally specific research and support macro-level. became a government department responsible for operations and service delivery of immigration and refugee programs in 1994.g. Miller and Rose 1992) into government technologies such as policy and programs. To demonstrate how the formal design of the Project through the informal person-to-person interaction between academics and representatives from government departments has served to tenuously align the interests of academics with those of the Project. soon after Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). as it now exists. there has been growth in direct funding for strategic research for policy development. as a funder of research on policy and for policy development. Called the research division of CIC. centralize.

was designed to provide a framework to strengthen the policy capacity of the government while “developing a strong policy community across government” (PCO 1997. and government funders (Metropolis Project 2004). the Task Force on Strengthening the Policy Capacity of the Canadian Government.62 In the mid-1990s a government program review produced dramatic cuts to jobs in the public service and the reduction or elimination of many programs and services (Savoie 2003: 211). relied on the development of partnerships and alignments between community organizations. This doesn’t require a central policy shop” (Smith 1996: 20). In 1995. their advocates have built the necessary alliances. not just in policy shops. A cabinet document. as a means to capitalize on scarce resources (the knowledge of expert academics) and develop policyrelevant research (through the modest grants of its funding competitions). The task force made several recommendations to enrich the government’s policy capacity and “urged a much stronger emphasis on a ‘horizontal and government-wide’ perspective on policy and closer ties with the external policy-research community” (Savoie 2003: 116). . the impetus for the Metropolis Project. demonstrated their political sensitivity. created by the Chief Statistician of Canada. they have made good connections. for example. Ivan Fellegi. networked. doesn’t have to be prepared by a policy unit. Resulting from these cuts was the recognition within government line-departments (departments of government vs. the ones that win approval are those that have been shopped around well. From the conference proceedings that influenced the final report of the Task Force. Savoie 2003: 116). a former Deputy-Minster commented that “policymaking happens everywhere. universities. Combined with cutbacks to funding. central agencies such as the Privy Council Office or Prime Ministers Office) that they would have to engage creative solutions to the complex processes posed by funding cuts.

63 The Project was designed to encourage the process of illuminating effective policy development with the understanding echoed by a former clerk of the Privy Council that policy development “depends on having a broad base of knowledge and an understanding of interrelated events” (PCO 1997). societal actors. The policy-making process itself. in an article for the Journal of Canadian Public Administration. consultative and porous” (Savoie 2004: 4). according to Donald Savoie. policy communities acted as a means for the exchange of ideas about strategic policy issues. was inflected with an informality that has resulted from the increasing complexity and interconnection of policy issues. these “knowledge workers” controlled a key resource for decisionmaking: knowledge (Public Service Commission 1997). and attentive publics whose behavior and attitudes matter. Policy communities were significant for the development of policy because they created a framework for the exchange of knowledge across government departments and such knowledge sharing was an attempt to harmonize the “definition of the public interest” (PCO 2001). as a result. and created personal contacts between policy practitioners (PCO 2001). He stated that: “policy issues no longer respect organizational boundaries and. differ between issues and policy . With the recognition that the “policy-making process is a fragmented process in which the state. From the task force emerged the idea of policy communities (groups of individuals responsible for developing and analysing policy and completing research for it) that could facilitate the process through sharing information. policy-making has now become horizontal. Through the efforts of the Public Service of Canada to bring together policy specialists. Thus. The Metropolis Project functioned as a result of the same impetus to create informal relationships and opportunities for interaction that resulted from the formalized structure of the organization: this is discussed in more depth in the following chapter.

2005). an analysis of policy-making must begin with the ways in which ideas matter for the policy development process (Brooks 1994: 2-6). neutral. policy is also a prescription for a course of action. from the perspective of elected or career officials. to intervene. “in politics perception is reality” (2003: 172). To add another element from a member of the Canadian public service. or chart a course for social action while being products of cultural and social circumstance. what I argue to be. Savoie 2003: 207). a translation process that attempts to cleanse the policy product of the underlying cultural values which inform its creation. and objectives as “discursive formations” of a fragmentary and porous process (Shore and Wright 1997: 7). Thus. As a broad statement. in the Anthropology of Policy. “all about optics” (Interview June 2005). morals. policies can direct. according to a former policy analyst with whom I spoke. “Policy-making is values-driven and pragmatic. and may appear (or be “spun” in such a way so as to appear) to be in the public interest (Doern and Phidd 1992: 89. according to an individual closely affiliated with the national Metropolis Project centre in Ottawa and who is a bureaucrat. recasting it in seemingly neutral . Policy is. legal-rational idioms in which they are portrayed” (1997: 8). and can reflect the normative values. modify. Not only must policy look good and sound good. The development of policy is tantamount to the recognition by the government that the issue upon which the policy is based is within the scope of the government. or as Donald Savoie phrases it.64 fields”. PCO 2001. a fundamental aspect of policy is. “a broad overarching statement. yet it is a feature of policies that their political nature is disguised by the objective. Policies result from. Cris Shore and Susan Wright. suggest that policies “are most obviously political phenomena. it must also be workable (Morris 1996: 16-7). Consequently. Effect is given to the policy through the development of programs” (Interview August 11.

through exchanges between individuals within . that it is based on political rationalities and aspirations and that it may result through the efforts of civil servants to bring an issue to the attention of decision-makers. post 9/11 security policy]. As this individual reveals. have to play a part in addressing the goal [as a] part of the picture to complete [e. policies codify sets of social and moral values which are cloaked in language that. as models of society. 2) interest groups bring an issue to everyone they can think of [e. [and] 4) long-term strategic goals for government where each department.65 language. and is of significant consequence to invest the resources of the public service to codify a plan for action.g.g. 2005). in Canada. is within the capacity of the government to act. issues. and articulate fundamental organizing principles of society. according to the above-mentioned Metropolis-affiliated individual. they also contain implicit (and sometimes explicit) models of society” (1997: 7).g. childcare]. policy development is initiated in response to four kinds of stimuli: 1) response[s] to a need [e. Further. issues that form the basis of policy can emerge from multiple sources and reflect both the political recognition that the issue is worth acknowledgement. that one policy may conflict with another. a new policy direction is taken and new policy is developed to address the statement [e. ideas and problems form the basis for the development of a policy response by the government. spread over both provincial and federal governments. 3) the incautious statements of politicians [in which] they make a statement… As a result. An analysis of policymaking reveals that policy is both developed quickly and incrementally. Shore and Wright argue that not “only do policies codify social norms and values. Millennium Scholarship Fund]. Therefore. as an intellectual technology. Within the political and bureaucratic levels of government and through the efforts of “interest groups”.g. Needs may be identified in a variety of ways such as through the media’s identification. conceptualizes and rationalizes the imperative for potential action. make Canada the best place to live in the world] (Interview August 11. Generally.

creating or contributing to the situation. or may be. With regards to the Metropolis Project. involves describing “how people are behaving or how they may behave in the future” (2001). then questions and . Taking a behavioural approach to the development of policy entails identifying the following factors: “1) the behaviour that is. 4) whether some behaviour. or through articulation in official government statements such as the Reply to the Speech from the Throne where the incoming government outlines their strategic priorities for their term in office (Doern and Phidd 1992: 91. and 6) what behavioural changes are desired to address the situation” (PCO 2001). or behaviour of some persons. 150). If the situation is perceived (by those with decision-making power to initiate policy both through the bureaucracy or through political channels) as a failure of immigrants and refugees to integrate.66 government departments and their contacts within the community. 2) who [are the people] engaging in the behaviour. Defining the situation that requires a policy response. according to the PCO. is more serious than others. The process of defining priorities for policy is fragmented by the compression of issues for a party’s political term in contrast with the issues originating from the permanent bureaucracy that is content to operate in an incremental and patient fashion (Savoie 2003: 171). 3) who is affected by the behaviour and what these effects are. the issue of developing the means through policy to integrate immigrants and refugees is a central policy priority that aims to modify behaviour through forms of integration. This is another opportunity for the bureaucracy (and the public to which they are responsible) to shape policy priorities (Kostiuk 2001: 11). 5) [the] external factors… influencing the behaviour. The Privy Council Office facilitates the process of setting the priorities through consultations with the government departments in the form of a call letter sent out twice yearly.

Most policy issues are forwarded into the federal policy-making process by a sponsoring government department or ministry that bears the responsibility of researching and drafting a document to be debated in the Caucus and assessed by a Cabinet Committee. there is also contact with outside interests and with other levels of government” (Kenny-Scherber 2003: 270). according to a former senior policy advisor. [and] highly formalized systems for ‘policy management’ and decision-making have not succeeded in Canada because they were inefficient means for transmitting information and ideas to cabinet” (1999: 2-3). Mark Schacter. Advisers consult with the Treasury Board and Department of Finance. policy advisers within a department “engage in discussions ‘up the tube’ to the minister through the deputy [minister] and across ministerial lines and central agency officials. to garner advice on the proposal to ensure that it passes through the next stages of approval and to ensure that the proposed policy is in line with the priorities of the government . Cabinet documents and memoranda are ideally. In the next stage of the policy-making process. Thus. within departments of government. bounded by a values framework” (Kenny-Scherber 2003: 270). the documents that enter the policy-making process are constituted by both a necessary formality and an implicit informality insofar as they are the result of consultation across policy communities. or through discussion with experts external to government. scientific and technical.67 ideas that inform the development of policy will concern the capacity for the government to encourage the process. “a mixture of verbal and written exchange of views. to assess the level of available funding for the proposal. Moreover. Frequently. suggests that “the Canadian system facilitates rapid and informal flows of information…. and the Privy Council Office. in a Policy Brief on decision-making for the Institute on Governance.

a vital resource in the policy process. it may be possible to influence their behaviour” (PCO 2001). but they do not have legal force. According to the PCO. guidelines or. creating an organizational structure to administrate . or information” (PCO 2001). is utilized on the basis that “by giving them [the subjects of the policy] specific information. voluntary codes or standards and self-imposed rules that usually apply to groups of people. can manifest as “Acts. Rules. the proposal is again debated by the Caucus. including charging fees. The civil servants who occupy positions with the PCO thus control information. if deemed acceptable. Capacity-building. as an instrument. a variety of results can be produced. programs for providing services. benefits. Information. collecting taxes or public expenditure. it is usually approved by the Cabinet. The choice of instrument for affecting change through policy is dependent on factors such as the appropriate role of government with regards to its political platform or a cost-and-benefit analysis that acknowledges the limited financial resources of government. If the proposed policy is successful after debate in the Caucus. Abrams 2001: 4-5). provides the means for the development of personal ability. which includes going beyond the provision of information. relying instead on persuasive or moral value” (PCO 2001). It may also result in “agreements. After the proposed policy is debated and discussed by a Cabinet Committee.68 (Bouwer and Meredith 2001: 14. Policy may be transformed into legislation which inscribes the policy into law in adherence to the Constitution (PCO 2001). The proposal is also delivered to the Prime Minister’s Office to be assessed by the government of the day for its endorsement. With the support of the Cabinet. Lastly. Economic instruments. as guide for behaviour. more generally. regulations or directives… contracts or agreements… guidelines. could involve the transfer of money from one area or level of government to another. there are five categories of policy instruments (2001).

it is government departments that implement or operationalize policy that may offer an opportunity for research to have an additional effect. it is worth inquiring as to the types of values implicated in the policy-making process. The departmental bureaucracy regularly is assigned discretion in interpreting how the law is applied” (1993: 93). “not a neutral one. by the Auditor General (PCO 2001. The implementation of policy is also.69 the use of policy instruments ensures that there are “departmental or agency structures to deliver programs” (PCO 2001). which the authors call the National Capital Region (NCR 82%) (Public Service . constrain. The survey reveals that the community is largely located in the Ottawa area. The values of policy-makers reflect the myriad of influencing and embodied social and cultural factors that have shaped them throughout their lives and may reflect the gendered and class-based segment of society from which they enter the public service. Thus. After the implementation of policy. or empower certain agents or entities” (1992: 189). Pal 2006: 319). more broadly. Brooks 1998: 84. According to a report published in 2003 by the Public Service Commission of Canada. according to political scientist Stephen Brooks. it is compared against the objectives that formed the basis of its framework by in-house program evaluation bureaus or. as it may inform the ways in which policy is enacted as a program. the characteristics of the policy community in Canada include some revealing insights into its composition. it is important to recognize that policymaking is a value laden exercise (Kenny-Scherber 2003: 270). in an attempt to measure its performance. To return to the idea of policy communities as composed of individuals with the ability and power to research and draft policy. As a value laden exercise. Rose and Miller suggest that “the enactment of legislation is a powerful resource… to the extent that law translates aspects of a governmental programme into mechanisms that establish.

Policy-making occurs. the policy-making process serves and reinforces the values of the majority through translating values into policy. Mitchell Evans concur that. Yet. as a product of new public management. there is an obvious tension in Canada . The community also consists of a larger proportion of women than men at a rate of forty-four percent and the “respondents from the policy community primarily belonged to occupational groups such as economics. mainly women. while the management of government operations has been decentralized and deregulated (e. itself a product of the intellectual technologies and histories of those with decision-making power. “within a complex of technologies. Thus.g. As a value laden exercise. Although Rose and Miller suggest that a centre emerges from its position within a complex of technologies such as this. It suggests that fewer than ten percent of policy-makers could be classed as “visible minorities” and there are even fewer Aboriginal people involved (Public Service Commission 2003: 2. ideas resulting from a shift to a neo-liberal paradigm have caused decision-making in Canada to be increasingly centralized in a “centre”. as the above discussion demonstrates. a picture emerges of the policy-making community in Canada as one composed of individuals.70 Commission 2003). norms. and agencies that make government possible” (Rose and Miller 1992: 189). 7). the aspect of the report that relates to the types of cultural and social values that infuse the policy development process is the most troubling finding of the report. sociology… statistics… and programme evaluation” (Public Service Commission 2003: 1). from the majority groups (as opposed to visible minorities) who inflect the policy-making process with values of the majority. so to speak. and morals within a seemingly technical and rational language. downloading of settlement services onto non-governmental Organizations [NGOs] that have to compete for project-based funding) (1998: 74-5). John Shields and B. while masking those values. agents.

effectiveness. In addition to the paradoxical centralization and decentralization identified by Shields and Evans. . agencies.71 under neo-liberalism and new public management regimes between centralization and decentralization which vests a select few with the control of knowledge and decisionmaking power and divests the operational side of the bureaucracy of its capacity to deliver programs by transferring responsibilities for implementation to private organizations outside of government (Shields and Evans 1998: 111). and while breaking down boundaries between the public service and citizens through the provider and payer relationship. Donald Savoie. corporate. These agents may be lower levels of government or some form of private-public partnership. made at the centre and apex of the administrative state. and business plans). think tanks. centres of influence (lobbyists. the new public management reflects the shift from a welfare to a neo-liberal state that values efficiency. However. Hierarchies have been decoupled. They have given way to hierarchies of documents (strategic. Accountability for fulfilling the state policy-makers’ intent is ensured by means of a contract between the state and the delivery agents” (1998: 111). on the current state of policy-making and operationalization. Shields and Evans suggest that “policy decisions. this shift to a managerial. and value-formoney in service delivery and policy development (Savoie 2003: 247). and there is plenty of evidence of this. business oriented paradigm has opened government to the expert advice of private consultants (and academics in the Metropolis Project) who benefit financially from providing advice on policy issues (Savoie 2003: 253). His analysis is worth quoting at length: The new policy environment groups together numerous departments. Furthermore. Citizens are recast as clients. provides a convincing assessment of how power and influence within government have been recently reformulated. are implemented by agents acting on behalf of the state. and stakeholders to pursue shared objectives in both policy formulation and in program delivery….

commissioner of official languages. and the Department of Finance and its minister) (2003: 266). Problematizing policy. through shared sets of objectives. Donald Savoie draws attention to an alignment of interests which manifest as shared objectives. an analysis of the Metropolis Project. as a product of particular social and cultural circumstances. Thus. It conceivably originates in the ways in which hierarchies of documents circulate between centres. A further translation of objectives occurs when. distributing knowledge throughout the network that is taken-up by those with either influence or power. the issues and ideas of relevance for government enter the research funding process of the Project. the relay of knowledge. relying on the inscriptions or documentation generated by individuals at various locations to provide them with translations of localized and regional realities.72 research institutes). through the inclusion of government representatives on the management and governance boards of the Metropolis Project and through the process of setting the policy priorities for the Project. oversight bodies and processes (access-to-information legislation. a tenuous alignment that results from the informality of the exchange of knowledge that is fundamental to the operation of governing at a distance. its formal structure that facilitates its informal operation. enables the government (those with decision-making power) to act at a distance. Office of the Auditor General). yet the process through which shared objectives become shared is still elusive. leads to the recognition that policy (and the policy-making process) can “reveal the structure of cultural systems” (Shore and Wright 1997: 8). will demonstrate that the alignment of interests between academics and the Metropolis Project . and centres of political power (the prime minister. especially with the adoption of world wide web based technologies. akin to the process of making policy in Canada. Thus. These delicate networks link together political rationalities with government technologies establishing. his or her office.

concepts. and shared objectives translated through informal person-to-person interaction. .73 results through a process occurring within a cultural system using terms.

2005). Concluding this chapter will be an in-depth consideration of the Joint Centre of Excellence for Research on Immigrant and Settlement Issues (CERIS). Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) was created bringing together the research and policy side of federal immigration with the program operationalization arm. former head of U. Following an examination of the origins of the Project. In 1994. colleague. National and Regional structures of the Metropolis Project will be analyzed in succession. in Toronto Ontario.S. and a U. the funding for which will be complete in 2007. The initiative they envisioned would provide a platform to share best-practices internationally between member countries on immigration and refugee topics (Interview December 2.74 Chapter Four: Making the Metropolis Project: The Bridge over Divided Shores The Metropolis Project commenced operations in 1996. The Metropolis Project. Dimetrios Papadimetrios. Meyer Burstein. entered its second phase of operation in 2002. After . Canada. the former head of research for Citizenship and Immigration Canada and initial Head of the Project. began discussing a plan to create a small international research project while attending a data committee meeting of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in Paris in the early 1990s (Interview December 2. the International. 2005). and unlike the modest ambitions of its organizers. has grown into a substantial national and international initiative that boasts five regional Centres of Excellence in Canada. the other for delivery of programs. and in more than twenty countries as members of the international arm (Metropolis Project 2005b). The founders of the Project. Department of Labour.S. after two program reviews. The Project was shaped at a time when Immigration issues were split between two departments: one responsible for operations.

the idea came from the: recognition that there existed a pressing need to come to grips with the challenges and to capitalize on the opportunities associated with migration and the integration of ethnic and religious minorities in large cities around the world. As a researcher for CERIS shared. 2005). would be knowledge workers in Metropolis. NGOs. it was designed from its inception to mobilize the knowledge resources.75 significant cutbacks to funding and a reduction to research capacity during the early 1990s. of academics working on immigrant and refugee issues. As it concerns research capacity. the ability to operate from a shared strategic platform. the private sector and the public at large…. the government faced public criticism over the handling of national immigration issues (Interview 9). bring within the policy development process the anticipatory knowledge of academics that. was not only a way to maximize scarce resources but to. “Immigration is the favourite ‘whipping boy’ [and the] Metropolis Project was seen as a saving grace” (Interview August 15. in a decade of cutbacks. What they lacked was knowledge and. Creating strategic alliances. The Project was shaped by the understanding that… they would need the active and coordinated support of all levels of government. Academics. Insofar as the Project had the potential to create a shared platform. in effect. who could provide help through the operation of the Centres of Excellence and knowledge through research. according to the Overview of the Project. The strategic alliances in conjunction with the creation of a shared platform had the effect of bringing together “help from other sectors” (Metropolis Project 2005b). consequently. through their connections to communities. in a hegemonic sense. 2005). not unlike the knowledge workers in the civil service. could channel . The idea to rebuild research capacity through creating a small project began to take shape (Interview December 2. [Also] affecting the Project’s design was a sharp curtailment in public spending which forced governments everywhere to reevaluate their priorities and to seek strategic alliances that would rationalize scarce resources and leverage help from other sectors (Metropolis Project 2005b emphasis added).

followed by Human Resources Development Canada. was a unique feature from the start. no matter who contributed the funds. but could anticipate and respond to academic critiques of immigration and refugee policy. the Solicitor General Canada. SSHRC was one of the first to be contacted. The ability to draw from a central research pool. 2005). or the creation of a “common discursive framework” that incorporated the knowledge of academics into the policy and program design process (Roseberry 1996: 81). Interview December 2. The idea was pitched to government departments affected by migration. Justice. bringing them within the confines of the government organization. and Status of Women Canada. not only could Metropolis strategically direct the research. Corrections Canada. After Citizenship and Immigration Canada. in addition to centralizing the flow of information. but not necessarily involved in the provision of services.76 valuable (and potentially cost saving) knowledge directly into the hands of decision makers. Health Canada. Timing was also a factor. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. By involving academics. Statistics Canada. Department of Canadian Heritage. A large coalition of departments agreed to contribute money into a central funding pool which totalled eight million dollars for the first six-year phase of the Project (Metropolis Project 2005b. 2005). This could potentially create a clear line of knowledge dissemination that would save CIC and the government from embarrassment with regards to their position and action on immigration and refugee issues. which could be described as a hegemonic incorporation process. as one organizer suggests: “getting SSHRC was timing and luck–the language we used meshed with what SSHRC was trying to do at the time–they [SSHRC] wanted more money and were being called to . It was the organizers’ persuasiveness that encouraged departments to work together and “at the core is the fact that everyone recognized that it was a good idea” (Interview December 2.

77 be more policy relevant at the time. remarked a civil servant who worked with the Metropolis Project for several years. there were only three Centres of Excellence proposed. Other meetings were held with the federal funders and with federal government representatives to identify the key issues for policy research from their perspectives. The international section of the Project was consolidated after. as the organizer suggested. called Metropolis International. developing. facilitated its creation. where they were asked to identify the key areas in which more research was needed. through interdisciplinary and international research. As a component of the burgeoning structure of the Project. The Atlantic Centre was the most recent centre to be created. 2005). even during the design of the Project. Additionally. the Metropolis Project provided a framework to legitimize and rationalize the social science research by virtue of its design which cohered well. both of which Metropolis had” (Interview 2. While money was being collected to launch the Project. a national competition was held for universities to submit applications to host Metropolis research centres and partner with the Project. In all. 2005). The international component of the project. organizers held large meetings to set the initial research scope. during the initial phase of the Project there were four Centres. “it had panache” (Interview December 2. or drawing on a common language. with the demands placed on SSHRC to provide policy relevant research. Thus. as one organizer relates. Initially. proved to be a good selling feature in that. Creating. but as an organizer remarked. there are currently five research . 2005). one was held with academics working on immigrant and refugee issues. “the prairies provided a superb bid and CIC had to ante up more money than they had anticipated spending” (Interview December 2. 2005). meetings were held across Europe to “frame the international project with a steering committee to build… [it] something like Canada’s” (Interview December 2.

The universities were required to have certain structures in place in their bid for a centre to receive funding: structures such as “committees that involved a representative from the policy community. with management boards operated by academics. Montreal. and Vancouver. . An organizer suggested that: what is unique about Metropolis. Edmonton. what has led to its success is the existence of the Metropolis Team….78 centres across Canada. The significance of the regional partnerships between universities lay in their parallel of the national partnerships between the Project and its federal funders which was about cost-sharing and spreading the financial responsibilities between multiple departments. 2005). located in Atlantic Canada. while each management or governance board was to include partners from all levels of government. NGOs and community representatives. Metropolis was formed around the central unit of the Metropolis Project Team. The university structures would be the regional component of a national structure and partnership orchestrated by the Metropolis Project Team based in Ottawa. Toronto. administrative and management structures. promoting it. 2005). each with its own allotment of federal money. The regional centres. [and] all must have a Metropolis Team member on the management committee in either a voting or exofficio position” (Interview December 2. The Metropolis Team was involved from the beginning with conceptualizing the project. was cost-saving regionally and nationally insofar as release time was granted by the universities for academics to sit on Centre boards and thus they received no additional income from involvement. Each Centre was designed to consist of a partnership of local universities. All those tasks by the project team make the Metropolis Project (Interview December 2. and creating opportunities for meetings… and for haranguing the Centres to open up and change whatever needed changing…. Nationally.

information is shared among all involved. The Team itself is constantly involved in national committee meetings and as a liaison for the regional centres. Metropolis is really about… develop[ing] the capacity to address issues… [which is] required on both sides of the divide. 2005). one worthy of analysis elsewhere) by building long-term relationships and opportunities for discussion through committee meetings or conferences. as a social scientist who has completed research for CERIS suggests. Through consistent opportunities to meet and discuss issues.… [and] create partnerships (Interview December 2.79 The Team coordinates and sets the strategic direction of the project and attempts to facilitate opportunities for stakeholders to meet often at the national and international conferences. and the investments in communication and planning are key…. according to a project organizer. A significant drawback of the Project. Metropolis’ structure facilitates communication and exchange (although the quality or openness of that exchange is a complex matter. This movement of people disrupts relationships that are a key component of creating alignments between individuals. is the constant movement of civil servants to different positions within government (Interview July 21. Sometimes we act as ‘goat-herders’ fostering long-term relationships and leveraging support… with enduring structures you can get people to invest in the brand. As this organizer suggests. Metropolis. A Metropolis Team member observed that there was also the view within government that the Ethnic Studies Chairs program had not delivered policy- . has more structure than any other program. Metropolis was designed to succeed where the Ethnic Studies Chairs had failed by providing a durable framework that would bring stakeholders together and that had the potential to deliver policy-relevant knowledge through strategically directing social science research. including the community partners and the Team’s contacts in government. 2005). research and policy have to learn to engage each other….

through creating the conditions for exchange. research] not just curiosity driven anymore… all three sectors sit together and discuss research questions” (Interview August 12. depends in large measure on the persuasiveness and capacity of individual agents (or groups of . the Project. Insofar as Metropolis can “bridge the divide”. attributes and ways of thinking and speaking attached to differences in cultural practices and processes. discussion and alignment of academics and decision-makers.80 relevant research because the research was scholar-generated and for the most part was not suitable nor amenable for policy development (Interview August 12. On the ability for Metropolis to accomplish its goals. made up of the national and regional Centres. facilitates the informal sharing of ideas.e. “Networks and rapid communication is a strength of Metropolis. at conferences and in smaller venues” (Interview August 12. 2005). Presupposing the existence of two distinct organizational cultures. boundaries fluid… it’s [i. a Project Team member remarked that “success depends on connecting people in a meaningful way… face-to-face interaction works the best. concepts and frameworks within which to address issues regarding the integration of immigrants and refugees. The aim of the Metropolis Project. we’ve found. according to Project documents. is to change “organizational cultures” by bringing together academics. the articulation of interests. so to speak. 2005). The formal structure of the project.” remarked a Project Team member. to align the interests of those involved. who continued by suggesting that “the lines between sectors are permeable. 2005). a variety of committees and sites for interaction. recognizes the nuanced meanings. and the conferences. decision-makers. and community partners through opportunities for face-to-face interactions that facilitate dialogue. and the establishment of a common set of terms.

a span bridge) by a vast expanse that can be crossed. if a common framework for discussion emerges. so that they become bound up . the parties involved can count on each other to think about problems in familiar ways. a discursive involution and translation facilitates the alignment of interests. so too the possibility increases that the interests of parties involved will be allied towards common goals. and overcome through informal person-to person contact made possible by the formal structure. 2005)..S. to assist those in need through the development of policy and programs. joined. Thus.81 agents) involved in the Project to convince other parties that their way of apprehending an issue is indeed the best way to conduct and produce policy relevant research. Metropolis is presented in a style that makes it possible to imagine a space for dialogue and exchange existing between two organizational cultures separated (if we reflect on the logo of the Project. especially when they are phrased in terms of the common good through a common discursive framework (Roseberry 1996: 81). Moreover. Also in play and necessary for interests to be aligned is the capacity for a consensus to be formed (see Nader 1997). to help. To the extent that dialogue occurs. based initially on the consensus (however fragile it may be) that there is a moral imperative to act. not in danger gets in quickly…” (Interview August 12. The consensus (as an organizational dogma or moral imperative) within the Metropolis Project is reflected upon by one Team member in the following way: “It is politically expedient and morally indefensible that so many refugees wait in camps where they are in danger and someone coming from the U. With allied problems and concerns. agreeing to agree on the moral indefensibility of the status of refugees who wait in camps to enter the country is proceeded by the assertion that social. economic and cultural integration is the best method for alleviating or forestalling the hardships of immigrants and refugees.

Metropolis Project 2002: 14). according to Metropolis International and consonant with the idea for Metropolis generally. through these operational assemblages. and seminars. to encourage comparative projects that connect countries. The international arm of the Metropolis Project is operated through the International Steering Committee and Secretariat. and. the most significant feature. Creating an international platform for sharing information was. made possible by conferences. these ideas include the belief that research. The International Steering Committee. an effective exchange of ideas for policy solutions to current issues and problems is designed to occur. if done well on timely issues.82 together in devising solutions to social problems (Miller and Rose 1990: 10). The opportunities for informal exchange between stakeholders facilitate the alignment of interests not unlike the informal knowledge-sharing that generally facilitates the process of creating policy. National. from a knowledge dissemination and bestpractice sharing standpoint. informs and strengthens the policy creation process. is the international conference held annually (SSHRC 2000: 3. Through the research to policy-bridging process. and do not stray from the ideology of the Canadian National Project. The International. Specifically. universities and organizations interested and engaged in research on the global movement of immigrants and refugees through an interactive and interpersonal approach to problem solving (Metropolis Project International 2005 and Metropolis Project International 2005a). an international journal. and Regional Structure of the Metropolis Project The central ideas that underscore the strategic direction of the international arm of the Project are focussed on the relationship between research and policy. . chaired by the Executive of Canada’s Metropolis Project and a representative from a European partner.

Through this person-to-person contact. or theories that are used as the basis for moral imperatives that induce states to act through the development of policy. the implicit endorsement of both research knowledge and paradigmatic conceptualizations. concepts. specifically. Moreover. as it travels across borders. this movement has a greater significance than that of merely sharing information (1983).83 coordinates the facilitation of networks of international academics and policy-makers and through consultation with member countries decides where the annual international conference will be held. and citizens. The effect of a deportation of ways of thinking and talking about immigration and refugee issues has significant consequences for the ways in which policy and programmatic responses are drafted. uprooted from their original contexts and transplanted onto foreign situations. The international conferences are a venue for the export and import of what Edward Said called travelling theories. and the type of content included. Miller and Rose indicate the possibility of an ontological alignment when they argue that the programmatic designs of technologies of . international sharing of knowledge and best-practices has the potential to create an ontological alignment. consequently. It represents a processual hegemonic dispersion of intellectual technologies. the theme. the common languages and set of terms. deports a specific kind of conceptualization of the relationship between the Canadian government and newcomers. generally. through the Metropolis Project. The conferences are a site for the interaction of upper-level government officials to meet and discuss with academics the important aspects and growing concerns of immigration. where a theory of reality is constituted through the contribution of academic expert knowledge that renders social problems in such a way that they are amenable to the intervention and direction of policy and programs. Thus. are extended out spatially to multiple international sights (Miller and Rose 1990: 10).

84 government presuppose “that the real is programmable” linking “systems of thought… [with] systems of action” (Rose and Miller 1992: 183. decision. 177). The robust structure of eight national committees ensures the informal exchange of ideas through regular meetings. and acts as a liaison with the regional Centres.” as one organizer suggests. and knowledge-transfer initiatives. The Metropolis Project Team provides the strategic leadership for establishing the direction for the Project. The Metropolis Project Team coordinates and facilitates all national research priority setting. the Metropolis Project Team oversees the knowledge dissemination activities of the Project which include setting the national policy priorities which form the basis of a portion of the research activities of the regional Centres (Metropolis Project 2002a). as successful examples of the transfer of knowledge to the policy development process. SSHRC 2000a: 15). to an international audience which emphasizes the capacity and potential of the Canadian section of the project to translate thoughts into action (SSHRC 2000: 10. and promoting Metropolis.and . Additionally. The international conferences are also an opportunity for the Canadian Centres of Excellence and their affiliated academics to present their research projects. At the national level. 2005). the Metropolis Project is housed in Ottawa with Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Their responsibilities include fostering opportunities and demarcating sites for interaction among academics. it does so by virtue of its capacity to establish. maintaining partnerships and projects. disperse and translate a distinctly Canadian comprehension of the problems and issues posed by immigration (Interview December 2. Its members are involved in planning. conferences. The national structure of the project facilitates communications among stakeholders through their participation in committees. Insofar as the international section of the Project “has panache.

John Biles. has a background in academia as well as in government. Barry Halliday. The Director of International and Francophone Liaison is Julie Boyer. completed a federal policy development program before joining the Metropolis Project Team. and an individual responsible for Document Management and Distribution. Financial and Administrative Officer. the Policy Research Analyst. Social Development Canada. in program evaluation. The Metropolis Project Team currently consists of a minimal staff of eight members: the Executive Head. Director of Partnerships and Knowledge Transfer. develops and promotes the Metropolis website and is engaged in an administration program at the Universite du Quebec (Metropolis Project 2006). a Senior Project Manager. by sharing research findings and policy work. the Policy Research Initiative. and Research and Evaluation)” (Metropolis Project 2006). coordinates the Interdepartmental Committee. Mr. Howard Duncan. The Senior Project Manager. Biles also works to disseminate Metropolis research as widely as possible. strategic planning and policy development (Metropolis Project 2006). Director of International and Francophone Liaison. the Department of Canadian Heritage. “he is [also] the Project Team liaison with the Atlantic Centre. the National Secretariat for Homelessness. a Policy Research Analyst. Director of Metropolis Institute and Justice Portfolio Liaison. The current Executive Head. Nathalie Ethier. the Director of Partnerships and Knowledge Transfer. and two branches at Citizenship and Immigration Canada (Integration. bringing together key players for Metropolis Conversation and other events” (Metropolis Project . He is the liaison for the Vancouver Centre of Excellence (RIIM) and also works to “strengthen linkages between research and policy on various facets of immigration. With multiple social science degrees to his credit and a background working with Canadian Heritage.85 policy-makers.

Steven Morris. In addition to directing the Metropolis Institute. came to Metropolis from the Canadian public service through the Policy Research Development Program after finishing a degree in political science. he also liaises with Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada. The Director of Metropolis Institute and Justice Portfolio Liaison. in effect. Statistics Canada. the Project Team is loosely aligning individuals by traversing formal organizational boundaries through informal person-to person interaction (Miller and Rose 1990: 10). Justice Canada and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Metropolis Project 2006). There are eight national committees that ensure that the Metropolis Project Team meets regularly with federal funders and with academics and community members at the . Clearly. the Metropolis Data Committees. He is also the liaison to the Toronto Joint Centre of Excellence for Research on Immigration and Settlement (CERIS). the position for Document Management and Distribution is vacant. The Director of the International Project. and the Selection and Communications branches of Citizenship and Immigration Canada” (Metropolis Project 2006). She is the Team’s liaison with the “Prairie Centre of Excellence. Erin Tolley. As liaisons to the regional Centres. Currently. Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. Project Team members connect and network the central national office with the locales in which knowledge is generated.86 2006). many of the Project Team members have experience in both government and academic domains which may facilitate their ability to translate the objectives of CIC into thematic issues that form the basis of research questions. Furthermore. has had a career in the public service in a variety of CIC divisions. She is also involved in planning the international conferences. the committees operated at the national level are designed to encourage a discursive framework through which issues and problems can form the basis of allied interests.

common policy issues requiring scientific research. This committee provides a direct link in the network of exchange for the translation of CIC’s current policy issues into potential research questions in the regional centres (Metropolis Project 2002: 8) The Interdepartmental Working Committee (IWC) is called to order roughly every three months by the Chair. on an on-going basis. Committee meetings provide an opportunity for dialogue on pressing and potential social issues. and non-government organizations. The committees involve the federal funders. for example. to provide input regarding Canada's participation in the international Metropolis . yet unable to participate during the meetings. the transmission and flow of information up from communities through NGOs and academics and down to academics from government representatives through the Project Team. to identify further opportunities for mutually beneficial joint research. The Metropolis Project Team is a secretariat for this committee. on the Interdepartmental Steering Committee (ISC). The purpose of this committee is to open a forum for discussion of policy directions and priorities and to provide funding partners with information on Metropolis’ new research activities (Metropolis Project 2002: 8). This is accomplished through the efforts of this committee to: develop and maintain effective ways to share information on immigration and integration. are representatives from the Centres of Excellence. with other levels of government in Canada. the chair is either the Executive Head of the Project or the CIC's Assistant Deputy Minister for Policy and Program Development (depending on who is delegated for the position). Metropolis’s Executive Head. to identify.87 regional Centres. Invited to committee meetings. within the federal government. This committee brings together representatives from the federal funders and other federal ministries with the Metropolis Project Team. part of the enduring structure of the Metropolis Project. Regular opportunities for exchange is said to build and facilitate partnerships. to facilitate linkage between research conducted in the Centres and the respective departmental policy agendas.

They are a means to coordinate. [it] has no influence…. while reflecting on the formation of policy. strategize. effectively creating the conditions for the development of projects which will inform national policy (Metropolis Project 2002: 910). and facilitate the transfer and exchange of data and knowledge across the country. both organizational and governmental. while the Inter-centre Planning and Exchange Committee is designed to provide an opportunity to plan comparative inter-Centre research projects and to exchange information among Centres. National policy is based on large data sets” (Interview December 2. and to provide key information. like the Joint Metropolis-SSHRC/Centres’ Directors Committee. and the Inter-centre Planning and Exchange Committee. coordinate the strategic direction of the Project. together to discuss the strategic direction of Project. and National Web Committee. Other national committees. meet to discuss the statistical needs of the Centres of Excellence and any issues pertaining to the operation of the Metropolis website respectively. make recommendations regarding the need for research in respect of strategic immigration. Committees proposed for the second phase of the Project are the Metropolis Advisory Committee. National Data Committee. “it’s hard to base national work on a small group. . The Advisory Committee brings Metropolis Project partners.88 agenda. 2005). the ISC and IWC are forums for developing and modifying the strategic direction of the project while facilitating the translation of political rationalities into policy priorities and their transmission to the regional Centres through the efforts of the liaising of Metropolis Project Team members. Together. integration and citizenship related public policy issues (Metropolis Project 2005: 1). [although] we need to know what the voices of six people say. As one Project organizer suggests.

it provides an opportunity for interested parties to become acquainted with key debates on migration and (re)settlement. students of the courses are connected with valuable information and experts in the field. The courses provide an opportunity for participants to create networks and connections with other practitioners in the policy or NGO field (Metropolis Institute 2003). launched in 2002. NGOs. JIMI is designed to promote the exchange of research among stakeholders. our state of knowledge and gaps in our research. and the annual national conference. integration and social issues (Metropolis International Background 2005a). the publication of the Journal of International Migration and Integration (JIMI). The Program of Migration and Diversity Studies. Through the use of multiple methods of information delivery. is designed based on both academic and practice-oriented experience and is available to government civil servants and NGOs upon successful registration through the Institute (Metropolis Institute 2005). and members of the policy-creation community. The annual national conference is hosted by a regional Centre of Excellence and is a venue “to identify critical issues. The Metropolis Institute is a training platform for civil servants. The Journal of International Migration and Integration is co-edited by a Canadian and international academics. as a traditional means of dissemination. Courses offered by the Institute aim to provide innovative and expert research on immigration and settlement issues. It is partnered with immigrant-serving organizations such as the Ontario Administration of Settlement and Integration Services (OASIS) and federally with CIC. this peer-reviewed journal brings together scholarly articles on current immigration and refugee settlement.89 The dissemination of knowledge on a national level includes initiatives such as The Metropolis Institute. to .

through an educational and discursive framework. person-to-person interaction is the most effective method to translate the objectives of funders into the research themes that guide the Centres. Regular contact also facilitates the multidirectional flow of information. Attended by academics and stakeholders. The members of the Metropolis Project Team. both between community organizations and political decision-makers and amongst regional Centres. researchers and research funders” (Metropolis Project 2006a). JIMI. through the federal government department representatives who sit on the national committees. Although the knowledge dissemination activities of the national centre listed above provide an indication of the types of opportunities for exchange that are facilitated by the Project team on a national scale. the conferences can open a forum for discussion of current issues affecting immigrants and refugees and their relationship to Canada (Metropolis Project 2006b) The national structure of the Metropolis Project. they are not meant to represent all initiatives undertaken through the national centre at any given time. which ideally enables policy-relevant research to be generated for the process of governing at a distance. and the national conference indicate is that. is based on the idea that face-to-face.90 establish strategic directions for the Project. composed of multiple committees. What the Metropolis Institute. as they liaise with the Centres of Excellence. to build a network of researchers and decision-makers. Committees also function as a means to advance particular objectives throughout the Metropolis organization by directly involving federal funders in the operation of the project. knowledge about . link the national centre with the regional centres facilitating the exchange of information and knowledge among them and the transmission of knowledge to centres of calculation. [and] to create momentum for the Metropolis Project attracting the attention of stakeholders and decision-makers.

is adjudicated in principle based on a list of policy priorities. During the renewal of funding for the second phase of the Project lasting from 2002-2007. take account of gender in research studies. new priorities were established nationally with advice garnered though consultation with federal partners and academics. thus. examine groups and organizations in addition to individuals. regard migrants (and the social contexts within which they live) as legitimate objects of study. identify best practices. . Eleven priorities emerged from these consultations and were distributed to the regional Centres which are expected to devote fifty percent of their research budget to examining these priorities. the policy priorities are discursively constructed using language indicative of positivist science owing. Of particular importance are pan-Canadian projects amenable to national policy development which coincides with the creation of the Inter-centre Planning and Exchange Committee. The direction of research. in part. As a process of translation. to the correlation of largescale statistical data with the creation of national policy (Interview December 2.91 immigrants and refugees is prized as the central component enabling the exercise of a governmental power that constructs objects of analysis through strategic consultation and the translation of political rationalities into policy priorities. and. and maintain a balance between small-scale qualitative and large-scale quantitative research (Metropolis Project 2002a: 2 emphasis added). The principles guiding these new priorities emphasize that research should: be based on good science. both at a national conference and in a focused meeting. investigate the role of policy in intervention. immigrants and refugees can become the basis for the development of policy and programmes that govern at a distance. Identifying migrants as objects of study reflects the process by which they are made calculable as objects. funded through regional annual competitions. 2005). be interdisciplinary whenever possible.

shifting the strategic direction of the Project ever so slightly through an additional process of translating political ambitions into suitable social science research questions. The creation of regional research Centres was based on the understanding. it does so through the endorsement and utilization by academics. They will also serve as focal points for research on immigration in Canada. and maintaining peaceful. according to SSHRC and CIC. Research conducted by the Centres will guide public and private institutions in developing effective approaches to managing immigration and integrating immigrants as full and equal members of society. and Montreal. coordinate. However. Toronto. providing the requisite infrastructure for such research (Metropolis Project 1998: 1). at least implicitly. ethnically-diverse neighbourhoods amidst the tension of rapid influxes of people. In the original proposal for the creation of regional Centres of Excellence. 2005). opening the subjects of research to intervention. the process through which political rationalities are translated into policy priorities that form the basis for research questions. In order to understand the needs of cities: [t]he Centres will promote. insofar as they undergo multiple processes of translation through the consultation process. When the Prairie universities provided an outstanding application. of methods that render knowledge in such a way that it may be translated into a calculable form. as the main immigrant receiving cities in Canada. CIC was inclined to fund an additional Centre (Interview December 2. service provision. After outlining the common features of . opens up the possibility that they may be again reformed and shaped through the individual actions of Metropolis regional Centre researchers. that cities that experience rapid demographic and social change as a result of immigration face challenges with regards to planning. according to Metropolis organizers. it was proposed that centres be established in Vancouver.92 Inasmuch as good science produces policy-amenable research knowledge. conduct and communicate multidisciplinary Canadian research in the areas of immigration and integration.

The original domains proposed covered topics such as: economics. Canada at which I completed the majority of my research. The management of the Centres depends on the creation of boards of academics from the consortium of universities. in accordance with funding guidelines. partnered universities and unique features (with the amount of information provided being dependent on the information publicly available on each Centre’s web site). active working relationships with organizations in the private and/or public sectors. All the Centres must have opportunities for training the next generation of scholars and plans in place for the dissemination of research findings which is mainly accomplished through a website. At the Centres. and involve the funders in the operation of the Centre. public services and . social issues. Each must involve a collaborative working relationship between universities. either through providing space and infrastructure for the offices or release time for directors. education. The host universities must all contribute financially to the operation of the Centre.93 the regional Centres. include a partnership with community organizations (NGOs) (where partnership is defined as “ongoing. excluding post-secondary institutions” [Metropolis Project 1998: 8]). including the setting of themes for researchfunding competitions. and university library access (Metropolis Project 1998: 6). several should be. The Centres all have similar structures. is then preceded by a detailed analysis of the Joint Centre of Excellence for Research on Immigration and Settlement (CERIS) located in Toronto Ontario. community organization participants. and stakeholders from the funders that oversee the direction and dissemination of research funded through the Centre (Metropolis Project 1998: 6). research areas are divided into domains decided upon by Metropolis in the initial plan for the organization of the Centres. Although not all domains proposed by Metropolis need to be covered at one time. an elucidation of the locations. citizenship and culture.

through committee. and educational participation and citizenship of immigrants and refugees (RIIM 2004: 1-2). The Centre currently has four . dissemination of research including participation in public (rather than academic) dissemination activities. or national meetings. research projects funded and completed. Research priority-setting meetings are held annually at the Centres to provide an opportunity for academics. governance/management. This yearly audit report is presented to Metropolis’s main funder. and in the case of some of the Centres. The Centres have had some discretion in setting the areas for domains as the research focus of the academics and funders involved has changed. is also posted on the website. All the Centres. As of 2004. funders and community organization representatives to come together and discuss the priorities for the upcoming researchfunding competitions. Also annually. and a physical infrastructure domain (Metropolis Project 1998: 3-5). and the social. regularly have an opportunity to become acquainted with the policy and program priorities of funders from all levels of government which “allow(s) the Centres to rationalize their research and to use scarce resources wisely” (Metropolis Project 1998: 2-3). economic integration of immigrants and refugees. policy-makers. the University of British Columbia and the University of Victoria partner to form the Vancouver Centre of Excellence (RIIM . The focus of research projects at RIIM concerns the movement of immigrants and migrants through Pacific Rim countries. the research priorities of the Centre included investigation into issues around migration. political.Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis). the annual budget and expenditures.94 politics. Centres must prepare extensive reports on their operations. training opportunities for graduate students. and the future plans for the Centre. SSHRC. hence the relevance of the acronym (RIIM 2005). Simon Fraser University.

and macro-economics.95 domains in operation: Economic. RIIM is partnered and affiliated with nationally and internationally-based institutes. and a Reference Library (PCERII 2002b). and MOSAIC (a settlement organization which provides a variety of job placement and language services to new immigrants). RIIM is also affiliated with the Carnegie-endowed Migration Policy Institute which is an independent policy development organization (RIIM 2005a). and Housing and Neighbourhoods (RIIM 2005). PCERII’s administrative space consists of twelve offices that are distributed between staff of the Centre. among other issues. Health. Social and Cultural. and Economic Domains (PCERII 2002). and acts as a central connection point for the consortium of affiliated universities. visiting academics and associates. Regina. and demography (RIIM 2005a). RIIM is affiliated with the Centre for Refugee Studies (CRS) at York University. Education. The Prairie Centre of Excellence (Prairie Centre of Excellence for Research on Immigration and Integration – PCERII) is located at the University of Alberta. Edmonton. There are six domains at PCERII with only five in active operation at one time. The objectives of this Centre are to direct research activities to address the need to develop strategies to effectively integrate immigrants and refugees (PCERII 2002). Saskatchewan. Nationally. Social. and Winnipeg all possess links to the main Centre at the University of Alberta. The Universities of Calgary. PCERII domains are divided into areas such as: Education. and institutions that focus on. Domain leaders lead activities in their domains and attempt to encourage intra-Centre research projects. They . political economy and science. Citizenship and Political. international labour markets. graduate students. Manitoba. micro. networks. the Laurier Institution (a group of community and business leaders in the Greater Vancouver area).

Immigration and Metropolis (IM). . selected for their relevance to the targeted problematics or actions. in Canada or elsewhere. The domains at IM have been significantly restructured since the program’s inception in 1995. The detailed objectives of this Centre are to: 1) Intensify exchanges and collaboration among the three institutions with regard to immigration and integration research and graduate student supervision. includes the partnered universities of Université de Montreal. the Quebec contexts. The current domain structure is divided into five areas plus a sixth data analysis group. multidisciplinary research on these issues in the Canadian and. public safety. and among other important duties. economic and linguistic aspects of immigration. 5) To ensure wider and more effective dissemination of research findings to decision makers. 3) To develop comparative studies with other metropolitan areas. culture and social climate (IM 2005: 5-7). the National Institute for Scientific Research . residential trajectories. with subsidiary offices at the two other institutions. Each of the first five domains is again divided into sub-domains that address narrower themes related to the main domain topic (IM 2005: 9-11). and McGill University. in particular. provide reports on the annual research activities in the domain for inclusion in the report to SSHRCC submitted every year (PCERII 2002a). and the general public (IM 2005: 4). The domains are divided as follows: 1) Demographic. 2) To promote the development of innovative.96 monitor the progress of projects within their domain. 4) To intensify or formalize existing links between researchers or organizations and public or non-governmental partners in these areas. social networks and management of community resources. and 5) Citizenship. 4) Health and social services. and justice.Urbanization (INRS-UCS). The central office is maintained at Centre d’études ethniques des universités montréalaises (CEETUM). the Metropolis Centre of Excellence in Montreal. 2) Neighbourhood life. 3) Education and training. professionals in the field.

this committee is expected to: (1) conduct research projects based on analysis of data exclusive to the Metropolis Project and innovative data on immigration (especially administrative data banks and longitudinal surveys). The main Centre is linked with the domain-divided subsidiary Centres whose researchers benefit from the resources of their own and the main Centre and between which the sharing of staff resources and joint events are organized (IM 2005: 5-8). Each partnered university administers the funds for research projects in the domains associated with the institution. yet are not the sole sources of funding to satisfy the additional research objectives of the Centre. (3) disseminate the results of Observatory research projects. the current exception being one of the two Domain leaders of domain number one. It is tasked with creating a dynamic picture of the results of immigration by undertaking a review of statistical information. and resources at each of the three universities.97 The Statistical Observatory acts as a sixth domain run from INRS-UCS by domain and partner representatives. administrative supplies. these sources of funding allow the Centre to fulfil strategic obligations. Each university also contributes in-kind support to the operation of accessory offices. IM is not limited to funding strategic. who is from the Université de Sherbrooke. Domain administration is divided as follows: two domains are associated with Université de Montreal. particularly on-line (IM 2005: 39). policy oriented research and can fund other types of research on immigrant and refugee issues (IM 2005: 7-61). By garnering and utilizing a variety of funds from a mixture of sources. two with INRS-UCS. IM is unique among Metropolis Centres in that it considers the funding sources from CIC and SSHRC as supplemental. In particular. and two with McGill. (2) encourage Immigration and Metropolis researchers to utilize research data on immigration and allow a fairly broad public fast access to immigration-related data. .

such as refugee flows. Canadian . The four lead universities that share responsibility for forming the AMC network are Saint Mary’s University. and create forums and materials for public education and debate. 5) ensure that federal partners and policy makers and service providers in Atlantic Canada are provided with timely research drawing on experiences in other regions and/or other countries. train graduate students. NGO partners include: Metropolitan Immigrant Settlement Association (MISA). Multicultural Association for the Greater Moncton Area. New Brunswick. and images of Atlantic Canada abroad (AMC 2004: 1-2). MultiCultural Association of Nova Scotia (MANS). Universite de Moncton and Saint Thomas University. 2) stimulate capacity-building for policy-relevant research on these issues in the region. Acadia University and Mount Alison University also maintain an accessory relationship within the network. additionally. Association for New Canadians (ANC) of Newfoundland. the Atlantic Centre attempts to foster the capacity of research on immigration and refugee issues that permeate the policy-creation process. New Brunswick Multiculture Council. the rate of integration. one in Halifax. community-based insight into the needs and lives of immigrants and refugees. Dalhousie University. [and] 6) provide a window on global developments that might impact the region. PEI Association for Newcomers. Moncton Intercultural Heritage Association (IHA). Nova Scotia and the other in Moncton.98 The Atlantic Metropolis Centre (AMC) opened in January 2004. 4) investigate the complex relationships between the size of immigrant communities. attitudes towards multiculturalism in other countries. and operates with two offices. The focus of the Centre is to: 1) Develop the Centre as a regional clearing-house for research on immigration and diversity. 3) enhance recognition of the rich history of migration and of cultural diversity in Atlantic Canada. NGO involvement is more prominent than municipal government participation with all the Atlantic areas providing a grass-roots. In a similar fashion to the other four Centres of Excellence. and the degree of cross-cultural dialogue.

Health and Well Being. Halifax Refugee Clinic. Penser L’intégration: Discours. Culture. The dissemination activities and knowledge transfer initiatives. Synoptic view of a Regional Centre: the Joint Centre of Excellence for Research on Immigration and Settlement The Toronto Centre of Excellence (Joint Centre of Excellence for Research on Immigration and Settlement – CERIS) was established in March. York University and Ryerson University. and… [disseminate] policy and . Each university contributes support to the operation of the Centre. Citizenship. The objectives of the Centre are to “promote research about the impact of immigration on the Greater Toronto Area and on the integration of immigrants into Canadian society. 1995.99 Council for Refugees (CCR). Gender. and the YMCA Newcomer Service (AMC 2004b). and Human Rights and Social Justice (AMC 2004a). langue et identité. Security and Justice. have been numerous and actively promote the vision of AMC specifically and Metropolis generally (AMC 2004c: 1-5). valeurs et attitudes. either directly in terms of office space or indirectly through granting release time for academics to pursue opportunities on the Governance Board of the Centre (CERIS 1997). It is located on the seventh floor of the Faculty of Social Work building on the University of Toronto’s St. George campus. despite the short length of time the Centre has been open. There are eight domains at AMC: Economics.… [provide] training opportunities. CERIS is a collaborative partnership between the University of Toronto. Education. Recorded for each domain are the results of the networking activities the researchers linked to that domain have undertaken to date. Halifax Immigrant Learning Centre (HILC). Migration and Diversity/ Immigrant Women.

100 program relevant research information” (CERIS 2005h. The Centre was established. There must be an ongoing commitment that will help ensure successful resettlement. Unique to CERIS is the Partnership Advisory Council that is a Council premised on the exchange of ideas and information between community partners and CERIS. On this process. CIC had an arrangement with SSHRC in terms of funding the Centres of Excellence across the country. to date. Principles to help guide this commitment include a recognition of the importance of family. and 6) Justice and Law (CERIS 2006). internal publications and workshops. The Centre is operated by a Governance Board although the Management. 4) Education. We must explicitly articulate a theme that. Research results from domain-specific funding competitions compose one type of knowledge that is disseminated by the Centre through a variety of means including conferences. Religion and Culture. 5) Health. an academic on the Governance Board at CERIS explains: I was actually involved at the very beginning… the international [arm] I guess would have just been born. Initially the idea was to fund three Centres of Excellence and… of course none of these things is predetermined. 2) Community. and compassion for the persecuted and threatened. they are predetermined because they want one in Vancouver. like all the Centres throughout the country. 3) Economics. has received insufficient recognition: our obligation to newcomers does not end after they arrive in Canada. Human Resources and Data Committees are also responsible for significant aspects of the Centre’s operation. a commitment to equity and mutual respect. The research focus of the Centre is currently organized into six domains that have grown from the original three with which the Centre started. Neighbourhoods and Housing. In an Immigration Legislative Review the mandate of CERIS is elaborated through the recognition that: Canada's immigration and refugee policies must be grounded in our national values. one . and of the need to actively promote integration (CERIS 1997a). through a proposal process. The domains are: 1) Citizenship. most particularly recognition of the value of immigration.

Members with the vote include three representatives from each university. Currently each university is represented by three academics who sit on the Governance Board alongside the ex officio members from SSHRC and the Metropolis Project Team. While speaking to another academic involved with the Centre about the creation of CERIS. The government stakeholders are represented by only two votes. the prairies did one and they were so impressed with it that… they actually landed on funding four Centres of Excellence (Interview June 30. and I guess the key thing at the outset [was] the requirement for the federal government that the universities cooperate. I then went away… and I came back and things changed quite dramatically in terms of the early evolution of CERIS in Toronto. Academics with the power to vote total ten. On the development of CERIS he says that: I was part of the… team initially that was developing the idea of Metropolis here in Toronto and of course it was a top down sort of thing.101 in Montreal. 2005). and the United Way of Greater Toronto. The Partnership Advisory Council. The City of Toronto has one voting seat for a representative (CERIS 2005a: 1-2). it was made clear to me that the collaborative partnership between universities. U of T. Ryerson and York. and this is not always a happy marriage shall we say (Interview July 21. it came from the federal government to the university environment. one in Toronto. 2005). and also community organizations. and I came back and found something rather different than what was envisioned at the outset. composed of . So I was involved at that point. and we all wrote proposals. the government funders and academics had been crafted according to a particular vision. one representative from the Community Social Planning Council of Toronto. Representing the Centre’s Domain leaders and the Partnership Advisory Council. the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants. while community organizations with voting privileges total three. amalgams of universities. Both Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) and the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration have one seat each. The board is composed of voting and non-voting members. are two additional voting members.

carry and second motions. the governance structure of the Centre has been built on the premise of partnership or a shared strategic and discursive platform which is designed to reflect the mandate and vision of the Metropolis Project (Metropolis Project 2004). they enable. the Social Science and Humanities Research Council and then sort of at arms length funds the Centres of Excellence…. it is noted that: [the] success of [the] CERIS research program depends on active support from a network of partnerships locally. through their participation with CERIS. Speaking on the distinctiveness of the project. This excerpt indicates that community organizations act as relays for information on local grass roots issues. and otherwise participate in discussions during board meetings (CERIS 2005b: 2-3). Even without voting privileges. members contribute to the functioning of CERIS as the structure is premised on its partnerships. I think it’s a fairly unique type of structure that I . to the extent that they transmit information. planning council. across Canada and internationally. More broadly. but in fact it is founded in terms of a partnership between government. are also a means for the collection of information which is one aspect of the process of knowing a community that enables Centre board members to be in the know (Miller and Rose 1990: 5. The past year has seen our links with potential partners begin to turn into productive collaboration in a number of areas including joint activities at the municipal level and invaluable input into our research agenda from community and government partners (CERIS 1998). a board member offered that: It [Metropolis] is not just a federal government initiative that brings in academics.102 community sector. the fluid transmission of information from communities into the CERIS structure. Miller and Rose 1992: 186). Despite an unbalanced partnership in board members with the power to vote. In a 1998 Annual Report to SSHRC from CERIS. and local representatives from federal funding bodies. Community organizations. members without voting privilege may voice their opinions. has one vote as does a representative from the City of Toronto.

With powers of voice. to direct research in such a way that it falls within the themes of the Centre and Metropolis nationally. Ontario’s Ministry of Training. and the Centre Coordinator comprise the non-voting section of the board (CERIS 2005b: 1-2). at least not in Canada. 2005). values and . one representative from the Metropolis Project Team. and to ensure that the Centre is operated in accordance with the mandate of Metropolis as a standard of purpose (CERIS 2005b: 1). Colleges and Universities. members who adhere to the oath must pledge an allegiance to the decisions of the board regardless of their agreement or support. the board attempts to focus the vision of the Centre. mandate. Over and above the fiduciary responsibilities for managing the finances of the Centre. The non-voting section of the board demonstrates the limited influence government department representatives have in the voting system of the Centre. One Director from each university also sits on this part of the board. while also “[c]ommitting to uphold CERIS’s mission.103 don’t think has parallels elsewhere. In order to encourage the support of research on immigrants and refugees through funding provided by CERIS. Although written by the board. but not voting in meetings. the Chair of the CERIS Data Committee. including setting funding levels and adjudicating proposals during the six annual meetings. This standard of purpose extends to the comportment of board members as they pledge in an oath to the Centre that they will represent “CERIS in a positive and supportive manner at all times and in all places” (CERIS 2005c: 1). Additionally. SSHRC. academics on the board must align themselves with the oath of the board at least in principle. So I think that makes it different from the Policy Research Initiative which… bends itself to government priorities… very directly and explicitly (Interview June 30. these members can inform voting members of their concerns and otherwise participate in discussions bringing their own perspectives to bear on the operation of the Centre. HRDC. the PAC.

Board members must additionally be transparent and open with the Centre’s stakeholders. This may contribute to forming loosely aligned networks by delineating a shared set of terms. attitudes.104 ideology” (CERIS 2005c: 1). The oath acts as a means to define the limits within which Governance Board members are expected to communicate about the Centre. values and expectations for the organization and for their role as a board . the understanding of all members of the scope of their power and source of their legitimacy. The oath also defines ways of talking about the activities of the Centre in an attempt to control the language that describes it. Criteria have been established to guide the successful operation of the board. comply with all of the policies that govern their action and educate “the local and wider communities about CERIS’s goals. a common language for description that if all Centres were to adhere to would ideally cohere the idea and image of the project publicly (Miller and Rose 1990: 7). set out the standards for assessment. They must relay a positive image. and publicize the Centre to the wider community. conduct themselves within the governance structure of the centre in accordance with the mission. values and ideology of the Centre. Periodically. These criteria are designed to ensure effectiveness and. the board assesses the effectiveness of its operations. mandate. and the competence of the board (CERIS 2005b: 2). objectives and functions” (CERIS 2005c: 2). Evaluated are the strengths of board leadership and management. This is accomplished in principle when the board can “establish what they need to put in place for optimal effectiveness and then to regularly monitor themselves against these criteria” (CERIS 2005b: 2). norms. their roles and responsibilities. The final criteria for effective management rests on the acknowledgement of the board’s culture or on the extent to which “members share their beliefs. as such. ensure the fiscal integrity of the Centre.

supports the operations of the Governance Board. and the Standing Committee. Headed by the Governance chair. may stem from a report presented in 2004 by a sub-committee of the Management Board that recommended that many CERIS operating documents be revised. The Management Committee. research outputs. Communications. appear in the overview of the organization of the Centre but are not mentioned in the 2004/2005 report to SSHRC. the committee drafts policy documents for the Centre based on the deliberations of the board. and Data committees are tasked with different aspects of the operation of the Centre. There are three central committees that complement the Governance Board: the Management. Based on these criteria. The ad hoc committees for Fundraising. and any other centre events.105 member” (CERIS 2005b: 2). Audit. Moreover. The logics and technical requirements of audit displace the internal logics of expertise…. The emphasis on increasing the effectiveness of the Governance board. Rose. in addition to the codification of practices (CERIS 2005d: 40). the board is to discern its particular formulation for effectiveness and audit its performance regularly. In addition to the assessment of the board. that the “audit is transformed from a relatively marginal instrument on the battery of control technologies to a central mechanism for governing at a distance…. the committee drafts the yearly . the Centre presents a yearly review to SSHRC which details the activities of the boards. following Power. Human Resources. as Power puts it. Rendering something auditable shapes the process to be audited…. adjudication process. drawing from Michael Power. is the control of control” (Rose 1999: 154). Nikolas Rose suggests. knowledgetransfer initiatives. committees. through consistent monitoring. Audits… have come to replace the trust that social government invested in professional wisdom and the decisions and actions of specialists (1999: 154). In addition. argues that: audit transforms that which is to be governed. formerly named Executive Committee.

who are academics from one of the three founding universities.106 budget report and organizes the annual retreat. are subject to review by the Human Resources Committee regarding their activities (CERIS 2005f: 2). The Directors. a sub-committee of the Governance Board. it is solely made up of board members. Chaired by the chair of the Governance Board. CERIS directors and Domain Leaders. and a spokesperson from one of the affiliated community organizations. In addition to establishing criteria of evaluation for the Coordinator. Reporting on and the assessment of staff and Centre activities is completed by the Human Resources Committee. This committee also amends the description of the position in the process of determining the eligibility for re-election of a current director. Potential Directors are nominated by the Vice-Presidents of their university and must be approved by the Governance Board. The Directors are elected on a three-year term with the possibility for re-election for an additional three years (CERIS 2005f: 2). A main preoccupation and function of this committee is the measurement and evaluation of performance of fellow employees. including two academics from partnered universities and a stakeholder from the community (CERIS 2005g: 1). a chair-designate or academic representative. In order to ensure the effective leadership of the Centre. the Governance Board drafted a mandate to . These members have voting privileges while the only member to be ex-officio is the CERIS Coordinator (CERIS 2005f: 1-2). Support for the chair is provided by the three Directors from their respective universities. or when initiating the nomination of a new director (CERIS 2005f: 2). the committee is also tasked with creating a working policy for the treatment of volunteers and employees. The Human Resources Committee has the direct responsibility for assessing the duties and tasks associated with the Director position.

They are also “jointly responsible for research oversight. it is evident that for this individual. I knew the governance structure of the organization quite well…. so what gets done by the Centres each year. one respondent commented: I guess I got my arm twisted a bit…. because we run an operating budget of around $320.… I get some relief time from my university to participate of course. to put my name in the hat for the position. It was suggested that in terms of senior scholars I guess I was one…. 2005). one wonders what other . Ideally. As this respondent reflects on becoming a Director. Copies are also sent to the three partner universities (CERIS 2005f: 1). On becoming a Director and reflecting on the financial resources of the centre. Directors should be dedicated to applied immigration research that is collaborative in focus and involves community organizations or agencies. provincial. fund-raising for grants. I got convinced to run. the coordination of the grant adjudication process. Then I became [a] director…. financial compensation was not a motivation as there was little available. Additionally. and the international community of immigration researchers” (CERIS 2005f: 1). We have nice offices [but] the budgets aren’t really very great for the Centres. thus. If approved by the board. We don’t really have a lot of money where we can entice people with in terms of research grants or anything like that. researchers in the Greater Toronto Area and across Canada.107 guide the Directors in their tasks. Directors must follow and implement the policy guidelines established by the Governance Board and provide annual reports that detail the activities of the Centre. but it’s still pretty thin on financing so it’s really kind of translated into a much bigger impact that those dollars would suggest (Interview June 30. and federal governments. I had a lot of close community contacts…. and sustained communication and collaboration with the local communities. now there’s support from the universities. policymakers in the municipal. with release time being the main reward for participation. So I mean it’s pretty thin funding. The tasks Directors are expected to undertake require a significant investment of time. the reports are forwarded to funders such as SSHRC and CIC.000 which is really not very much money….

This person is also an academic from a partnered university and must represent the committee at meetings of the National Data Committee. The third committee that operates at the Centre is the Data Committee. It is not clear from which City of Toronto department. The interests of both the Centre and individuals who participate in governing it are ostensibly consonant. thus enhancing social justice. “that each can solve their difficulties or achieve their ends by joining forces or working along the same lines” (Miller and Rose 1990: 10). or from which community. It is expressly the responsibility of the chair to “facilitate linkages among community researchers and appropriate academic partners . Two additional academics. which provides the basis for an understanding. each from one of the other two universities. A City of Toronto representative and a community organization member fill out the committees membership (CERIS 2005e: 1). These goals suggest that by completing quality research. generate equitable housing. I would suggest that a willingness to commit time to operating the Centre is based on the shared and endorsed understanding of the goals of the Centre. An ex officio member of the Governance Board serves as chair of the committee. It is a responsibility of the Governance Board that a Data Committee operates within the Centre to distribute data in an appropriate way.108 motivations may exist for committing time to an organization that does not necessarily financially reward its operators. it is possible to alleviate economic inequality through market inclusion. these two members come. The task of this committee is the “dissemination of statistical information about immigrants for research and teaching purposes” (CERIS 2005e: 1). join the chair. This suggests that the alliances formed are based on the articulation of the social problems facing immigrants and refugees and become shared by both CERIS board members and Directors and appeal to potential members. and advocate for minority rights.

now when it comes to making use of the core data… this is terribly frustrating for an academic that is not getting paid to do this research at all. Through this committee. the experiences of one academic with whom I spoke. it’s an extremely frustrating situation. the chair must also ensure that information about CERIS data sets is publicized via the CERIS website. Metropolis core data has been a struggle on two .. these have been produced. Moreover. a City of Toronto representative and one community member. money to hire research assistants but no compensation at all.fine. this committee is mandated to respond to and approve requests for CERIS datasets.109 regarding CERIS data analysis” (CERIS 2005e: 1). and develop policies for the dissemination of CERIS data sets. as a partner of the Metropolis organization. and with Metropolis was a challenge according to this academic. promote. In the process of getting a research project underway that was funded by a crown corporation and undertaken by an academic affiliated with Metropolis. Attempting to encourage the regional Statistics Canada centres to cooperate with each other. when put into practice. such as the Metropolis core data sets available to CERIS. The committee comes to a decision on the dispersal of the statistical data sets according to license agreements (CERIS 2005e: 1). I mean there is no compensation for me. control of the release of statistical data. Take. statistics from regional Statistics Canada offices was needed. they would produce some tabulations and cross-tabulations of the 2001 census that were not otherwise available. for example. with the crown corporation. access to the Metropolis core data sets was needed. the research from the study I’m engaged in is being funded by [another Metropolis partner].. the so-called Metropolis core data that I need access to. He says that: Dealing with that project and the data. play out in predictable ways when the use of the data is not entirely straightforward. The use of the longitudinal survey of immigrants to Canada and the so-called core data. Additionally for this study. this was Statistics Canada’s contribution to Metropolis. plus to manage. The policy governing the use and distribution of data sets may not. is left within the charge of academics. Above all other tasks. and Metropolis negotiated this with Statistics Canada. the 2001 census Metropolis core data.

2005). deliver[y] [of] specialized group training to help community agencies. Although it is likely that not all requests for the use of data sets result in frustration. In other words.110 fronts. and community/academic partnerships” (CERIS 2005i). and local representatives of the (Metropolis) federal funding partners” (CERIS 2005i). at least in the mind of this academic. This forum for discussion has identified the inability for some community organizations to access and effectively utilize the research products on immigrants and refugees in their program and service delivery. rather. “school boards and the education sector. use of the data and so on…. dissemination. [and to] increase the capacity of . Emerging from this relationship is the CIC-funded training project that is designed to ensure an increase to the “access by community organizations and their clients to immigration and settlement research resources. counselling the Governance Board on “research priorities and on the research process including adjudication. The council is built on a mandate of encouraging exchange between CERIS and community agencies. It’s a real struggle (Interview July 21. it is clear that in this case the commitment to the research was not premised necessarily on receiving compensation during the research process. the potential benefit for the segment of society on which the project was based may outweigh the aggravation of the research process. it concerns the interests of the academic insofar as the research may prove beneficial for immigrants. dissemination. At CERIS a Partnership Advisory Council (PAC) is composed of representatives from agencies and organizations that serve immigrants. and exchange of knowledge are central to the Metropolis Project. The transfer. [to] assist… agencies in the use of research for program planning and service delivery. in terms of access to the data. municipal government.

is what a state of crisis that system is in. the NGO sector has suffered. because of what I would argue is because of some of these changes that have occurred (Interview June 30. and acquire and interpret census information. these programs are a means to share methods developed to manage information on immigrants and refugees (CERIS 2005i). . conduct “Valid and Cost Effective House Research”. from what was previously a stable and long term base to short term project funding. Such education programs have the potential to equip the Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) sector with state-like management techniques which reflect the new roles and responsibilities of the civil society sector. With training programs that teach participants how to develop “Management Information Systems”. With increasing downloading of government-provided services onto NGOs in conjunction with new types of funding regimes. with regards to project funding: Increasingly almost all of the government money is directed in that way and it has really sort-of de-stabilized the sector. 2005). especially in the international circles. The academic member of the Governance Board with whom I spoke noted the changing nature of the NGO sector when he spoke about his own research on the “impact of government restructuring on NGOs and the effects that has had in terms of settlement” (Interview June 30. 2005). create “Client Databases”. My respondent suggests that.111 community groups to participate in the priority setting processes to identify potential CERIS funded immigration and settlement research” (CERIS 2005i) The training program named Knowledge for Action – Action for Knowledge is designed for settlement agencies and community organization volunteers and employees. We talk a lot in the international community and Canada about the Canadian model and how good the Canadian model is in terms of the use of NGOs and in terms of settlement and state sponsored… but through the third sector… what is usually not talked about.

Furthermore. NGOs become a node in a circuit “through [their] position within the complex of technologies. Introduction: How to Apply for Research Funds. Agents. by means of a passage though ‘the centre’…. to provide service providers with the tools they may need to cope with the new challenges of increased competition for funds and responsibilities regarding service provision. Hence the threat of withholding of funds can be a powerful inducement to other actors to maintain themselves within the network. is shared through collaboration between NGOs and academics the network of affiliated agents is “brought into a loose and approximate. collecting. as a particular locale [which] can ensure that certain resources only flow through and around these technologies and networks. agents and agencies that make government possible” (Rose and Miller 1992: 189). . This is not to suggest that agents within the network are solely relays for information or that they do not employ strategies and means for their own purposes. reaching particular agents rather than others. generated through utilizing certain methodological techniques. Other training modules. As this specific kind of information. Through a shift to project based funding schemes the federal government is established as centre. demonstrate the role and power of generating. Building Closer Academic – Community Collaboration and Introduction to Research Methodology in Immigration and Settlement. or an incentive for them to seek to convince the centre that their concerns and strategies are translatable and mutual (Rose and Miller 1992: 189). analysing and distributing particular kinds of knowledge about immigrants and refugees (CERIS 2005i).112 The Knowledge for Action – Action for Knowledge program is thus an attempt through training to help stabilize the NGO sector. including Using Research for Advocacy. suggest Rose and Miller. and always mobile and indeterminate alignment” (Miller and Rose 1990: 10).

Through creating a network of contacts within the government. Each actor. she suggests that using research for policy is really about the relationships between people. and hence a point of potential resistance to any one way of thinking and acting. or a point of organization and promulgation of a different or oppositional programme (Rose and Miller 1992: 190). Religion and Culture. The current domains are divided as follows: 1) Citizenship. for example. 4) Education. 2005). As an example of the potential for resistance. She indicated that the university ensures her freedom from state intervention and interference. despite government funding. are divided into domains. 5) Health. such as those that fall within community and housing sectors. 3) Economics.113 utilize and deploy whatever resources they have for their own purposes. Each one of the domains is led by an academic nominated by the Governance Board to coordinate the . each locale. and the extent to which they carry out the will of another is always conditional on the particular balance of force. on the shelter of the university. 2005). an advocate of equitable child care with whom I spoke rested her autonomy. and 6) Justice and Law (CERIS 2006). energy and meaning at any given time and at any point. she can make her research on the benefits of state-funded child care known even when the political climate does not warrant that particular course of action. Neighbourhoods and Housing. thus providing an oppositional and alternative program for consideration (Interview August 2. Domains at CERIS Social issues addressed by the research programs at CERIS. In the process of maintaining a relationship. while she advocates to government officials and policymakers about child care issues through creating and maintaining an informal relationship with them (Interview August 2. Currently at CERIS there are six research domains which are an elaboration of topics from the three domains established at the outset. 2) Community. is the point of intersection between forces.

there was no infrastructure. During my research and volunteer activities at CERIS I was asked to do just this. Domains. Once familiar with the Centre and the domains. I was instructed to prepare extensive bibliographies to identify academics conducting and publishing research in Canada on topics that. I wouldn’t include the Atlantic because it’s just getting under way. if divided by subject. who had been a domain leader. When I asked an academic. In other . Metropolis has evolved in different ways at the various centres. In the case of CERIS there was nothing here. but at the four Centres that have been there from the beginning these domains have evolved in quite different ways at various Centres…. to the extent that they operate successfully.114 research and knowledge dissemination activities of the domain. These bibliographies were going to be distributed during a board meeting to give board members a clear picture of potential academics to invite to the Centre to deliver lectures on their work. the domains have the potential to rationalize the investment in categorical research through explicitly excluding potential research projects that do not fall within the limits of a domain by merely identifying specific areas of inquiry. 2005). particularly at the four major Centres. define the limits within which research will be funded. there were some academics working on various issues concerning immigration and settlement. also centralize participating researchers. creating infrastructure where there was none before. through the establishment of set topics for inquiry. it was possible that the academics might apply for funding. about the domains at CERIS he responded that: The domains at CERIS to be honest never really amounted to much. shall we say. this would link them into the network. The domains in particular and CERIS in general. in a sense revealing those academics who are working on domain-specific issues. but… there was nothing to build on and I think for that reason it has become very difficult to establish any meaningful kind of domain structure in the CERIS operation (Interview July 21. would fall within the domains. In addition to centralizing participating researchers. and perhaps that’s a negative statement. and if successful. based on the degree to which a proposed project is representative of a domain category.

through the adjudication. by domain. in this case. or academics may be inclined to tailor their projects to appear applicable. does not solely go in one direction. The interests. there are very few endowments and they are usually very particular. This example reveals. elaborating a particular theme for the competition (CERIS 2004: 7). I would suggest additionally that the flow of ideas. of research proposals. to align their interests with those that fall within the funders’ purview. This leads us to the way in which funding is distributed at CERIS. yet the problem then becomes the relationship between power and knowledge and the ability for those with power to define the criteria for fundable inquiry. of this particular academic were aligned only insofar as was necessary to secure funding. As one academic who had received funding for a project from CERIS explained to me. Adjudication and Selection of Research Proposals Research projects at CERIS are adjudicated by domain by the six domain leaders and four representatives from community organizations who compose the Adjudication Committee. however.115 words. The exchange of ideas can have as much influence on funders as on academics looking for funding. potential research projects that are premised on the investigation of topics that do not fall within the domains may be excluded from funding. The process begins when the call for proposals is posted on the website. Themes are developed at the annual research retreat often attended by academics. the government has made it increasingly necessary for academics to “tailor” their projects. representatives . so sometimes it is necessary to tailor a project to fit the funding source” (Interview August 15. that through the control of funding both to CERIS and SSHRC. of what constitutes a relevant and fundable idea or issue. 2005). “nearly all funding in Canada is controlled by the government.

Each domain leader reviews all the submissions to their domain and then the Adjudication Committee meets to review all submissions in accordance with the terms in . Topics given priority. for funding include proposals that deal with the assessment of the economic performance of immigrants and refugees. in this instance. and what role information about Canada’s job market and employment opportunities could play pre-migration (CERIS 2004: 7). “Filipino Labour Market Integration and Workplace Experiences in Toronto” and “Women’s identities and food: Practices of settlement and resistance in immigrant Toronto”. In the 2005 Request for Proposals (RFP) competition process for example.116 from the federal funders. There is thus. and community organization representatives (CERIS 2004a: 1). Among a total of nine funded projects during the 2005 adjudication process. towards issues on the factors and processes of integration and on the institutions and organizations that provide settlement services and their difficulties in doing so (CERIS 2004a: 1). a measure of consistency with regards to the degree to which proposals submitted adhered to the theme indicating. “Local. the projects reflect the RFP guidelines with titles such as. Regional and Transnational Networks” and the “Integration and Settlement Dispersal of Filipino Immigrants”. the role of and challenges faced by Immigrant Serving Organizations (ISO). although not exclusively as other topics would be evaluated. the theme was set around issues of “Immigration and Settlement” based on the outcome of the consultations and presentations during the research retreat in 2004. at least provisionally that academics did during this research funding competition submit proposals that adhered to the general outline of the competition. Metropolis Project Team members. but not exclusivity. Above all this RFP theme was designed to direct research. the state of current immigration policies.

In particular. as long as they’re not funders. an academic on the Governance Board commented that: what we call for in proposals is that we strongly encourage but don’t necessarily require. because there would be a contradiction there. 2005).117 the Request for Proposals which includes some important guidelines. in this instance experts linked with communities. have a policy focus to it… how does one define that is another issue… that is very much part of our mandate. Community collaboration and participation was a key component during this competition. it’s highly informed by that. but the work was with labour unions who. and sometimes local government bodies that sit on those bodies. So. strong community linkages. So that’s very much been a central feature of our Centre from the beginning. scholars new to the funding process at CERIS were strongly encouraged to participate (CERIS 2004: 1-2). experts of community. didn’t want to affiliate themselves with the contents of a report that they had no control over… [so] it didn’t meet CERIS criteria” (Interview November 25. for good reason. a community partnership. He notes that he “submitted a proposal and the first one was rejected on the grounds that I didn’t have a community partner. but very strongly encourage and look on very favourably that they have a community. On the adjudication committees we have academics but also members from community agencies and what not. reveal the dynamics of local values. 2005). it is unlikely that we’re going to… fund such a thing (Interview June 30. codes of conduct and practices essential for making communities real for those in the know to govern . Describing the criteria for adjudicating research proposals. Necessary for governing at a distance. community involvement was perceived as a necessity for another academic with whom I spoke. that the piece that is going to be researched doesn’t have a policy focus. but also do absolutely require that the research be policy. Although only described as a “strongly encouraged” aspect of the proposal. Proposals are appraised for scholarly merit and applicability for policy development. Interdisciplinary and comparative proposals during the 2005 competition were encouraged.

It is also an opportunity for a student to learn about the research process which is part of the CERIS and Metropolis mandate (CERIS 2004: 6). communities. This vision emphasizes the necessity of partnership and collaboration among academics. This two-tier selection process results in a group of proposals being delivered from the Selection Committee to the Governance Board for the final selection and distribution of research funding (CERIS 2004: 7). disciplines.118 through communities. Researchers. if funded. the member is to withdraw from ranking and commenting on the proposal. In the post-adjudication phase of deliberations. After receiving and reviewing all the proposals. .or community-based research assistant to assist the principal investigator. the committee then ranks them. It consists of three sets of criteria on which the submissions are evaluated: the scientific merit. ranked selections are passed to a Selection Committee which completes another ranking process whereby some proposals are recommended for funding. CERIS also requires that… the Centre [be acknowledged] in all published works flowing from the funding source” (CERIS 2004: 3). Submissions are judged according to a SSHRC-approved process. are required by CERIS to submit both a final report and “a paper for consideration for the CERIS Working Paper series within one year of the completion of the funding period. thus revealed is the pivotal role as sources of expert knowledge academics play when they contribute research to policy development (Rose 1999: 189). Most proposals include a budgetary provision for hiring either a university. the support of CERIS’ Mandate. In the case of a Committee member who may be in a conflict of interest position with an academic submitting a proposal. and format of the submission are judged to be aligned with the CERIS vision. and universities on immigration and refugee issues.

beyond the sort of initial reports can be a little tricky as you lose track of people and then we have to bug them to tell us what they’re doing. as a part of the working paper series… and we’ve published quite a few of them now. (Interview June 30. book chapters and so forth. This is again reflected in the statements of an academic on the Governance Board: We want to encourage… obviously the widest dissemination of the material that comes out of that. These projects are chosen to address current policy needs and anticipate future concerns through consultations between the domain leaders (Metropolis Project 2003). The MRI committee meets when needed to assess potential projects. beginning in 1998. but basically what happens is that of course there’s the traditional academic routes in which these things get published. in the case of large proposals. now obviously that differs from project to project and how much we can entice the researchers to do it and tracking it sometimes. has also funded Major Research Initiatives (MRI). and national and international Metropolis conferences provide sites through which research can be circulated. but also of the Metropolis vision. But I guess more explicitly for us are the reports available on the website. The funding for MRI projects may come in part from CERIS but. in journal articles. but we also encourage people to convert their initial research into a working paper series. forty…. thirty-nine. CERIS produces Working Papers. MRI are projects that are either too large in scope or are not appropriate for the RFP competition. also from external funders upon application. . The academic conferences and of course the national Metropolis conferences and the international conferences are extremely important venues for dissemination…. often reporting the results of RFP competition research. books. The dissemination of research is a central component of not only the CERIS mandate.119 In addition to the RFP program. Knowledge Dissemination at CERIS The dissemination of knowledge from CERIS occurs in a number of ways. Like all of the regional Centres. CERIS. Information is available at specific sites: the Resource Room. the website. 2006).

Up to now we’ve been doing them monthly. now often using the author’s own words… so it’s still the author’s work and they double check it of course…. available for purchase at CERIS or for download on the website.120 The Working Papers at CERIS are written both by academics on their funded research and by academics who submit their papers to the Centre to be published. On the appeal of the Policy Matters Initiative. concise information on current immigration research and its implications for policy development” (Yee et al 2003: 1). so how can we sort of transfer that knowledge in a more readily accessible. The other thing we’ve done to sort of facilitate the Policy Matters piece is that we don’t let the authors do it themselves. given the work they need to do. preference is given to papers that emerge from funded research. is a publication called Policy Matters. After publication. The goal is to provide accessible. however. Drafts are submitted to the editor. a PhD student has been doing these who was actually a senior policy advisor… that I employed… to… translate them. the copyright is maintained by the author of the paper (Springer et al 2006). or been done. that’s been an important source of dissemination… we select the ones we do. an academic affiliated with the Centre. A large number of them were out of the working papers. useful fashion…. The papers. we actually have a graduate. They’re reduced existing work that’s being done. but also academics as well who are busy…. so last year we did twelve issues. some obvious policy relevance…. we want them to have some currency. Policy Matters “is a series of reports on key policy issues affecting immigration and settlement in Canada. Unique to CERIS. We wanted to distance it from the academic or community person whoever happens to be doing . it doesn’t always happen. a Director from the Centre relates that: A lot of policy-makers for example. and an example of a process of translation of academic research into a policy-friendly format. is. so I think we’re up to nineteen or something of that nature…. even reading a research–a working paper. although that’s not the only source in which we’ve done these and we’ve been publishing them on a monthly basis. or community folks. are often under one hundred pages in length and address issues central to the Centre’s concerns. The reaction we’ve gotten is that this is quite an important initiative that seems to have a big uptake among government and community folks. who selects manuscripts for publication.

Policy Matters make knowledge dissemination a rapid. with the Metropolis Project Team. and stakeholder involvement) are operationalized in regionally unique ways. although the words may stay roughly the same. To the extent that the Policy Matters documents identify problems it becomes possible for decision-makers to judge the state of the problem and devise ways to get from one state to another through devising policies and programs. very deliberately.then of course the thing we do very consciously. What is significant about that process is the emphasis and attention accorded to those aspects of the research that can inform technologies of government. policy implications. Perhaps translating research into a form that informs policy is understood by no one better than a former policy analyst who has been working towards a PhD. The features common to all the Centres (management boards. is highlight the policy relevance. reliable. it’s difficult work (Interview June 30. committees. Each of these Centres attempts to combine a national and regionally specific research funding plan by coordinating. and so we really do pull that out of the literature. Also common to all Centres are initiatives to disseminate research knowledge through the publication of a working paper series and the contribution of research reports to the online web library. By formalizing regular meetings between stakeholders in both . and if it’s not explicit we make it explicit…. of mobile and comparable information. the policy relevance is made explicit. that enable the exercise of a power to govern at a distance through the inscription. and in this case distillation. 2005). through committees and regular meetings. What is clear through the process of translating research into a Policy Matters document is that. and “systematic flow of information from individual locales… to a centre” (Rose and Miller 1992: 186). Everybody’s been wildly enthusiastic about that because… it’s difficult for many people to find the time to do that kind of translation. and what are.121 the research… because it’s difficult… if you’re that closely involved to sort out… what are the bare essentials.

122 the national and regional structure of the project, the result is the informal exchange of knowledge between academics and decision-makers. Regular contact is meant to collapse the organizational culture divide by creating working relationships that are designed to enhance and bolster research capacity (Metropolis Project 1998a: 1). Regular contact and discussion also facilitate the alignment of interests insofar as political rationalities can be translated into an idiom that is both amenable to the creation of technologies of governing and to the generation of research themes and questions that fuel the funding process (Rose and Miller 1992: 179). As systems of thought and ways of thinking act as intellectual machinery for government to “render reality thinkable” (Rose and Miller 1992: 179), so too is the goal of Metropolis, through its Centres, to create a machine – an enduring research capacity that is external to government [in the sense that research is completed by university affiliated academics], that genuinely informs decision-making, that can phrase questions in ways which have not yet engaged the bureaucracy or which may prove embarrassing to defenders of the existing order (Metropolis Project 1998a: 1). The Centres translate systems of thought through research with communities and on immigrants and refugees and through collaboration with front-line NGOs and community organizations, but also translate the political rationalities as expressed by government department funders. Academic researchers, with an imperative through their research to generate a positive impact for the communities with which they work, act as cross-translators for both communities and government while standing between the two. They act as facilitators for this translation process in fact enabling the thoughts, feelings, aspirations, desires, and needs of immigrants and refugees to be understood by government decision-makers. Such understanding has both positive and negative connotations. Although sharing information may result in increased social service

123 provision, policy reform, or local initiatives to increase the well-being of immigrants and refugees, it also facilitates another process. Centres of Excellence as parts of a knowledge-generating network facilitate the transmission of knowledge used, as Rose and Miller suggest, for governing at a distance (1992: 181). The government, dependent on knowledge for its operation, accumulates knowledge on immigrants and refugees for purposes of devising policies that establish schemes for enabling the integration and management of people. Knowledge thus enables the translation of political rationalities into technologies of government (Rose and Miller 1992: 187). Government is capable of mobilizing this knowledge only insofar as power can be stabilized in the enduring network. This can occur: to the extent that the mechanisms of enrolment are materialised in various more or less persistent forms – machines, architecture, inscriptions… techniques for documenting and so forth. These stabilize networks… [to the extent that] ‘power’ is the outcome of the affiliation of persons, spaces, communications and inscriptions into a durable form (Rose and Miller 1992: 184). The structure of Metropolis and the regional Centres satisfies these criteria. The Centres have become part of a stabilized network through the development of a dense infrastructure that facilitates contact between academics and stakeholders. The power to extract knowledge from this network results from the coordinated effort of the Metropolis Project Team to solidify the affiliations of the national and regional Centres through consistent interaction to the extent that the relationships become durable.

124 Conclusion I began this thesis by inquiring about the limits within which it became possible for social science academics to contribute to social policy and if they felt a moral imperative to do so. I have attempted to argue and articulate the specific processes that have facilitated a tenuous alignment of interests between academics and the Metropolis Project. Since social science research was not readily recognized for its applicability to policy development, I began by investigating the processes through which it became not only desirable, but of strategic importance. Through the increasing control of funding by the government, combined with the attempts of social scientists to demonstrate their utility for government decision-making thereby legitimizing the necessity of their funding, and processes that have rationalized social science research, there has been an increase in government funding for strategic research (that is, research for policy development or of use to decision-makers). I have also attempted to demonstrate that the increase in strategic research funding has coincided with the increasing intervention of the government into the areas of culture and ethnicity in accord with rising levels of immigration and an interest in managing cultural diversity through policy development. These themes are articulated in the federal policy priorities of the Project which provide a framework for the research funding process at the regional Centres. In this exploration of the ways in which political rationalities can become technologies for governing at a distance through the utilization of knowledge about communities, it was necessary to briefly reflect on the process of policy-making. Policymaking, according to a federal civil servant, “is an art; there is no formula for it, nor can it be assumed that anyone with the ‘right’ information and analysis is capable of making decisions in the executive suite. Individual factors such as temperament affect the

When it comes to rethinking policy. According to Shore and Wright.and too often overlooked” (Smith 1996: 12-3). policy-making is to some extent an interpretive and artistic process whereby knowledge. beliefs. policies can “reveal the structure of cultural systems” (1997: 8). morals. but intuition and judgment are also important . As this civil servant indicates. analysis and information are important. provides a knowledge base. when strategically-oriented. although not the only reason why social scientists choose to conduct research for the Metropolis Project. and a host of other factors. My analysis of the alignment of interests between academics and the Metropolis Project has been based on the proposal that a moral imperative to act and to assist the government in addressing social issues has become an actuality. The Project’s formal structure. thereby opening a space for a discursive framework (as limits within which stakeholders agree to discus issues) where social issues can be translated into research questions. comparable to the formal structure of the policy-making process. is translated by the policy maker’s judgement and intuition and. and the result has been the utilization of social science research which. and the discursive frameworks that underpin them. The increasingly interventionist state has made the development of effective policy of prime importance. is with no doubt a potential . This moral imperative. in the case of immigrants and refugees. I would add.125 capacity to make policy. values. yet they can also reveal the limits within which ideas have salience for agents within both the political and non-partisan areas of government. The process of rendering knowledge into a course of action is inflected with the cultural and social moorings within which it occurs. facilitates the informal person-to-person or faceto-face interaction of stakeholders. The Metropolis Project epitomizes the ability to set the limits within which strategic research is funded.

it is also fragile (Roseberry 1996). have served to increasingly. 2005) which open spaces for alternative discourses. with the government generally. the possibility exists that academics through strategic research can contribute to the creation of new forms of state-craft that recognize a multiplicity of social histories. and through the increase in funding for strategic research. occupies a point at which two sets of processes converge. I recognize that insofar as this alignment is processual. and hegemonic. Using the Metropolis Project as a platform for publishing. discursive. Yet. The second set of processes. Akin to the suggestion by Miller and Rose that “ ‘government’ is a congenitally failing operation” (1990: 10). borne out in chapters three and four. operate with some success as a result of . align the interests of academics with those of funding providers specifically. despite their formality. while I am positing that interests are aligned through the processes mentioned above. as I have come to comprehend it. and the utility the social sciences have had for decision-making as the interests of the government became directed away from idealistic encouragement of social responsibility to active social and economic intervention (see Brooks and Gagnon 1988). and the critique of state policy. although conceivably articulated differently in Quebec than the rest of Canada as a result of the Quiet Revolution. albeit tenuously. These processes. values. represented by the macro-social and historical information I provided in chapter two.126 incentive to conduct research for policy development. concern the micro-local systems that. I would hasten to add that the alignment of interests is ever only provisionally successful insofar as they are susceptible to fragmentation and rearticulation through the “flow of ideas” (Interview August 12. and conceptions of morality. The first set of processes. The Metropolis Project. serve to identify the pragmatics of the increasing control over funding by the government.

and situated individuals (see Heyman 1995). the macro-social and microlocal. as it is a majority funder. I also endeavored to explore how the process of making policy is a value laden exercise that is informed by knowledge. will affect the role and function of the Project. The recent announcement that the SSHRC is taking on the role of a “knowledge council” rather than a “granting council” coheres with considerable ease with the ideology of the Project. As operators of the Centres of Excellence. These become important considerations when analysing the Metropolis Project in chapter four. these two sets of processes. In chapter three I attempted to problematize policy as a product of a cultural system that is. Moreover.127 their informality. The third phase of the Metropolis Project. but it remains to be seen if this shift in perspective for the SSHRC. their moral imperative to act must also include the identification and exposition of structures and relations of power that underpin the use of academic research for strategic purposes. The SSHRC. and who. outlines the plans to create the conditions in which social science research can be utilized to its fullest extent by decision-makers faced . academics have a responsibility to recognize the processes and means through which their participation leads to the creation of policy and the potential impact it may have. lest we forget. in its strategic plan for 2006-2011. cultured. Thus. to some degree. will begin in 2007. if funding is secured. have become centralized in the Metropolis Project which exemplifies neo-liberal forms of knowledge (and resource) mobilization characteristic of the “new economy” which recognizes knowledge as a fundamental resource for national economic success (see Sweetman 2003). inflect the policy process with their nuanced and embodied selves as gendered. produced by agents of the state who are citizens of the country. academics are more than solely researchers or experts of community in the Project.

political and social change has convinced leaders in key sectors that social sciences and humanities research is vital to building a just. A strong emphasis will be placed on the development of strategic research plans that will mobilize knowledge. Canada. His discursive . Yet. Additionally. innovative. it is believed that policy based on the knowledge and research of academics will be more effective. the virtue of the Project is its ability to circulate the tools to reformulate problems through an educational framework (which. there is the potential that. has at its core the recognition that policy is about social engineering through intervention. and. 2005). It is without doubt that immigration and refugee issues will continue to occupy a prominent place on the list of priorities for the government and political party in power and. As an organizer of the Project suggests. and create a prosperous nation. putting it to work. moreover. generated by the Metropolis Project. insofar as this occurs between academics and other stakeholders. more than developing the policy capacity of elements of governance or the ability to govern at a distance. as happens. in March 2006. academics are well equipped to do. prosperous and culturally vibrant world” (SSHRC 2005: 9). Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. that is–educate) (Interview December 2. made a speech seductively espousing the duty and responsibility of academics to contribute research to policy development. the transmission of knowledge will educate decisionmakers about the lived realities of migration. what is unique about the Metropolis Project is the recognition that informal dialogue and interaction facilitates the exchange of knowledge. In a speech for the Eighth National Metropolis Conference in Vancouver. The translation of political rationalities into technologies of government through the use of knowledge. Monte Solberg. it is noted that the “complexity of global economic. as such. will garner financial support in some capacity.128 with complex problems.

Solberg’s comments demonstrate clearly that the neo-liberal political rationalities underpinning the centralization and mobilization of academic knowledge are premised on . Which is why we can’t make those decisions based on news-cycles or newspaper headlines. Again. and I suspect it is why you are here today. saturated with emotive language of a moral invective.129 idiom. Solberg does so without actually revealing the nature of the political interests of the state. that I draw from a political official to conclude my research on the alignment of interests between academics and the Metropolis Project. Canadians and newcomers alike have a lot at stake in the issues you’ll be discussing. To conclude. it is ironic to me. He states that: This Metropolis conference is a good example of how we can bring people together to talk about the issues and search for solutions that ultimately shape the government policies that help people. yet. his speech demonstrates unmistakably that the imperative to act is felt deeply by academics and clearly understood by the political powers that be. You care about those people. at least. elucidates interests that breach the boundary between the organizational cultures of academics and decisionmakers. Rose and Miller suggest that “personal autonomy is not the antithesis of political power. the terms within which it has become possible for academics to contribute research products for social intervention through policy development. but a key term in its exercise. I thank you for that… (CIC 2006). immigration policy is always about people which is why I am so honoured to be the Minister. Their hopes and dreams are on the line. and you care about Canada. In other words. The decisions the Government of Canada makes today will affect Canadian society tomorrow. yet he does define the limits within which a coercive control is enacted through consensus (see Nader 1997) and poses an agreement on a set of defined terms of reference. In this attempt to convince academic participants at the conference that their interests are best served working together. the more so because most individuals are not merely the subjects of power but play a part in its operations” (1992: 174).

the translation of political rationalities into an ethos that resonates in the social science academic community is a key component in the operation of a political power which is based within and materialized through neo-liberal discourses for the effective mobilization of knowledge as a resource for state planning. Therefore.130 the tenuous control and subtle manipulation of discourses of moral ethics and values that predominate in an era of state funding shortfalls and few alternative funding sources. .

Electronic document.%2 02004-2005. Overview of the Canadian System: Players and Processes.131 Bibliography Abrams.pdf.%2 02004-2005.metropolis. AMC 2004 Atlantic Metropolis Centre First Annual Report.metropolis.atlantic.atlantic. In Restructuring and Resistance: Canadian Public Policy in an Age of Global Capitalism.%2 02004-2005. . ___ 2004c Report on Knowledge Transfer Activities. Marshall and David Cashaback eds.net/FormsDocs/AMC%20First%20Annual%20Report.net/FormsDocs/AMC%20First%20Annual%20Report.net/FormsDocs/AMC%20First%20Annual%20Report.pdf.atlantic. Processes. Electronic document.metropolis. eds. Mike Burke. Processes. In Atlantic Metropolis Centre First Annual Report. Colin Mooers. accessed November 3. Neil 2000 The Policy Influence of Economic Ideas: Interests. 2005. Claire E.metropolis. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing. Electronic document. Bradford. Martin 2001 Overview of the Canadian System: Players and Processes. Institutions and Innovation in Canada. http://www.ca/publications/centrald-making. Neil and Daphne Meredith 2001 PCO in the Policy Process. accessed November 3.pdf. and John Shields. In Atlantic Metropolis Centre First Annual Report. http://www. 2005 ___ 2004a Appendix 1. Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Brooks. ___ 2004b Appendix 4.pdf. http://www. Electronic document. accessed November 22.net/FormsDocs/AMC%20First%20Annual%20Report.ca/publications/centraldmaking.%2 02004-2005. Gagnon 1988 Social Scientists and Politics in Canada: Between Clerisy and Vanguard. Institutions: Central Agencies in Decision Making. Marshall and David Cashaback eds. http://www. Electronic document. 2005. Institutions: Central Agencies in Decision Making. http://www.atlantic. accessed November 22. Stephen and Alain G.pdf. 2005. Claire E.iog. Players. Electronic document. accessed November 3.pdf. 2005. http://www. In Atlantic Metropolis Centre First Annual Report. 2005. Bouwer.iog. Players. accessed November 3.

metropolis. 2005. Stephen 1998 Public Policy in Canada: An Introduction 3rd Edition. 2005. CERIS 2006 CERIS Domains. accessed May 29. Electronic document. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart Inc. _____ 2005b Document No. 2002 Ethnicizing Atlantic Canadian universities: the regional impact of the Canadian Ethnic Studies Program. accessed November 8. 2005.metropolis. _____ 2005a Document No. 1973-1997. accessed November 8. _______ 1993 Public Policy in Canada: An Introduction 2nd Edition.ceris.html. Toronto: Oxford University Press _____. http://www.pdf. Westport. _____ 2005 Annual Activities Report to SSHRC: Phase II Metropolis Project: Fiscal Year 2004-2005. 2005.net/CERIS%20Policies/GovBoardMembership. pdf. 2006. 2006.metropolis.net/CERIS%20Policies/FunctionsOfBoards.pdf. .ceris. 4: Functions of the CERIS Governance Board.html. Electronic document. Cameron. http://www. _____ 2005c Document No. In The Political Influence of Ideas: Policy Communities and the Social Sciences.metropolis.metropolis.canadacouncil.ceris. James D. Canada Council 2006 A brief history of the Canada Council for the Arts.132 Brooks. Connecticut: Praeger. accessed November 8. _______ 1994 Introduction: Policy Communities and the Social Sciences.3: Governance Board Membership: Membership and Quorum for Meetings. Canadian Ethnic Studies 34(2): 1-24. http://www. http://www.ceris. http://www. Electronic document.ca/aboutus/history/.net/CERIS%20Policies/GovBoardStatementOfCommitment. http://www. accessed November 4. Electronic document.net/researchpolicy/research_content/domain_e.net/annual%20reports/04_05Report/04_05Report. _____. 5: Governance Board Statement of Commitment. Electronic document.ceris. Electronic document. accessed June 30.

_____ 2005i PAC Training Project: Knowledge for Action – Action for Knowledge. http://www. Electronic document. In Annual Activities Report to SSHRC Phase II Metropolis Project: Fiscal Year 2003-2004. accessed July 8.ceris.133 _____ 2005d Document No. _____ 2005h General Info: A Brief Overview of the Centre.metropolis.metropolis. accessed November 8.htm.ceris. accessed November 8. http://www.net/pac/pac_main.ceris. Electronic document.net/CERIS%20Policies/CERISDirectors.metropolis. 7: The CERIS Directors. _____ 2005g Document No.pdf. http://www. 2005.metropolis. http://www. 2005. 2005.net/CERIS%20Policies/MgmtCommitteeMembership.ceris.pdf. http://www. _____ 2005e Document No. _____ 2005f Document No. http://www. Electronic document. Electronic document. http://www. accessed February 18. .pdf. Electronic document. _____ 2004 Annual Activities Report to SSHRC Phase II Metropolis Project: Fiscal Year 2003-2004: Appendix I-A: RFP 2004 Request for Proposals and Frequently Asked Questions. 2005. accessed July 8. Electronic document.metropolis.net/annual%20reports/0304%20report/appendix%20I/App%20IJ. 11 CERIS Human Resources Committee. 8: Data Committee.ceris.metropolis.net/annual%20reports/0304%20report/appendix%20I/App%20IA. Electronic document.pdf. 2005.ceris. accessed November 8. 2005.html.pdf. http://www.metropolis.net/CERIS%20Policies/DataCommittee.ceris.ceris. accessed February 18. 9: CERIS Management Committee Membership: Membership and Quorum for Meetings. _____ 2004a Appendix I-J CERIS Research Retreat 2003.metropolis.net/CERIS%20Policies/HRCommittee.pdf. accessed November 8.net/generalinfo/info_content/overview. Electronic document. 2005. 2005.

ceris. accessed June 28. accessed June 28. _____ 1997 Activities Report: CERIS Toronto March 1997. http://im. Heritage Canada 1993 Research Results of Projects funded by the Canadian Ethnic Studies Program 1973-1988: A Bibliography. Graham Burchell. 2005. Colin Gordan. Electronic Document. eds.html.134 _____ 1998 Annual Activities Report to SSHRC. Electronic document. 2005. Bruce and Richard W. http://www. Electronic document. Toronto: Nelson.html. Structure. Michel 1991 Governmentality. http://www. Canada.htm. accessed June 28. Citizenship and Immigration Canada 2006 News Brief: Notes for an Address by the Honourable Monte Solberg Minister of Citizenship and Immigration at the Eighth National Metropolis Conference Vancouver. 2005.metropolis. accessed November 2. In The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality with Two Lectures by and an Interview with Michel Foucault. Phidd 1992 Canadian Public Policy: Ideas. 87-104. accessed July 5. Chicago: Chicago University Press and Harvester Press.net/generalinfo/info_content/act-rep_e.net/frameset_e. Process. Electronic Document. Current Anthropology 36(2): 261-287. http://www. G. Donald 1991 The Social Sciences in Canada: 50 Years of National Activity by the Social Science Federation of Canada. March 26. . _____ 1997a Immigration Legislative Review. 2005.net/research-policy/research_content/immlegreview_e.metropolis. 2006. IM 2005 Annual Report 2004-2005 and Project Review 2002-2005 presented to SSHRC.html.C. Heyman. B.metropolis.gc. Electronic Document. 2006.net/research-policy/annualreport98/annual_report. Fischer.ceris. Josiah McC.metropolis. http://www.ca/english/press/speech2006/metropolis-8. Canadian Heritage: Ottawa. and Peter Miller. Foucault. Doern.ceris.cic.html. Pp. 1995 Putting Power in the Anthropology of Bureaucracy: The Immigration and Naturalization Service at the Mexico-United States Border. Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier Press.

Electronic document. 2005.html.net/index_e. the Tory Tradition.iog. 19391970. Electronic document.htm. and the Challenge of Modernity. Electronic document. http://www. _______________ 2005a Metropolis Project Conference-Daily Brief. Processes. Anne Westhues. Players. In Canadian Social Policy: Issues and Perspectives 3rd Edition.html. 2005. accessed November 22.metropolis. ed. Metropolis Institute 2005 General Information. Phillip 2001 Canadian Intellectuals. _______________ 2005b The Metropolis Project: An Overview. 2006.html. Overview of the Canadian System: Players and Processes.metropolis.net/generalinfo/sub/phonlis_e.net/generalinfo/sub/bakgrou_a.metropolis. _______________ 2005 Interdepartmental Working Committee: Terms of Reference.html. Electronic document. Waterloo. Kostiuk. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Carol 2003 Active Citizenship. http://institute.ca/publications/centrald-making. Social Workers. Massolin.cfm?cid=243&nid=3422. Toronto: Tenth International Metropolis Conference. Metropolis Project 2006 Metropolis Project Team at Citizenship and Immigration Canada.net/generalinfo/sub/idcworking_e. _______________ 2006a Events. accessed June 18. Institutions: Central Agencies in Decision Making. Thursday October 20.confmanager. http://canada. 2005.com/main.metropolis. accessed June 30. http://canada. 2005. 2006. 2006. Claire E.135 Kenny-Scherber. accessed June 30. Electronic document. accessed June 30.pdf. Http://canada.net/events/index_e. . http://canada. Ontario: Wilfred Laurier Press. http://www.metropolis. Nadia 2001 Machinery of Government. Electronic document. Marshall and David Cashaback eds. 2006. Electronic document. accessed February 15. accessed November 17. _______________ 2006b Eighth National Metropolis Conference. and Social Policy.

Ottawa: Metropolis Project Team.metropolis. 2005. http://canada.net/publications/newsletter/newslet21_e. accessed November 17.html.htm. Peter and Nikolas Rose 1990 Governing Economic Life. http://canada. accessed November 8. Electronic document. 2005. ______________ 1998 Initial Announcement -1996 Immigration and the Metropolis: Centres of Excellence for Research on Immigration and Integration.net/generalinfo/policypathway/policypathways_e. accessed November 3. ______________ 2002a Appendix H: Policy Priorities. Electronic document. http://canada. http://canada.net/generalinfo/researchpathway/researchpathways_e.metropolis. 2005.net/generalinfo/background/background_english. Electronic document.metropolis. http://international. 2005.net/generalinfo/sub/rfp_e.html.html. http://international. 2005. 2005. accessed November 1.net/Renewal/index%20renewal. ______________ 1999 Policy Pathways: A Guide to Federal Partners’ Organization around the Metropolis Project.net/generalinfo/index_e.metropolis. accessed June 2.metropolis.net/Renewal/index%20-renewal. Electronic document. accessed November 17. . 2005. In Memorandum of Understanding Between the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC).html. Metropolis Project International 2005 International Metropolis Project: An Introduction. Electronic document. Electronic document.html. Metropolis Newsletter 2 (1). Economy and Society 19(1): 1-31.metropolis. http://canada. _________________________ 2005a Overview. accessed November 8. accessed November 1.metropolis. Electronic document.htm.136 ______________ 2003 Research Pathways. ______________ 2002 Memorandum of Understanding Between the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). 2005. http://canada. ______________ 1998a Reinventing Policy-Research. Electronic document. Miller.metropolis.html.

Electronic document.ceris. Current Anthropology 38(5): 711-737. 2005. http://pcerii.137 Morris. Murdie. Electronic document.net/researchpolicy/index_e. Conference Proceedings. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Electronic document. Canadian Centre for Management Development. http://www. Canada: Minister of Supply and Services. Doug 1986 The Government Generation: Canadian intellectuals and the state 1900-1945. accessed November 3. Nader. accessed November 3.htm#5. 2005. accessed November 3. ______ 2002b Overview. Ottawa: The Humanities Research Council of Canada and The Social Science Research Council of Canada.net/generalinfo/info_content/1a. Robert 1999 Pathways to Housing: The Experiences of Refugees in Accessing Permanent Housing in Toronto. http://pcerii. Owram. Electronic document. accessed November 3. Leslie A.html. CERIS RFP Project.html.metropolis. 2006. 8: Rethinking Policy: Strengthening Policy Capacity. Electronic document. accessed June 30.metropolis.net/generalinfo/info_content/1b. 2005.html. . 2005. Ostry. 2006 Beyond Policy Analysis: Public Issue Management in Turbulent Times. ______ 2002 Domains.html. Bernard 1962 Research In the Humanities and in the Social Sciences in Canada: A Report of the First Annual Survey of Canadian Research Problems and Needs in these Fields.metropolis. http://pcerii. PCERII 2005 Notes on the Management Structure. Claire 1996 Explorations No. Laura 1997 Controlling Processes: Tracing the Dynamic Components of Power.metropolis. ______ 2002a Internal Agreement. http://pcerii.net/research-policy/annualreport99/99rfp. Toronto: Nelson.net/generalinfo/info_content/1b(vi). Pal.metropolis.

_______________________________ 1997 The Public Service of Canada at a Glance. http://policyresearch.gc. ____ 2005a Partners and Affiliates.metropolis.htm. Electronic document.gc.ca/deafult. 2005.ca.ca/page. http://riim.gc. Policy Research Initiative 2003 Social Capital as a Public Policy Tool. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. accessed February 20. .metropolis. ____ 2004 RIIM Research Priorities and Polices.asp?Page=Publications&Language=E&doc=5rept97/chapt2_e. 2005. accessed November 3.gc. RIIM 2005 Management Board.pdf. Nikolas and Peter Miller 1992 Political power beyond the State: problematics of government. Electronic document. 2006.net/partners/affiliates. Rose. Electronic document.htm. accessed November 3. British Journal of Sociology 43(2): 172-205. accessed June 16.pcobcp.ca/default. 2006. 2005.gc. 2006. 2006. accessed November 3.ca/research/ps_overview/ps_overview_e.asp?pagenm=v6n3_index. Electronic document.htm.net/generalinfo/generalinfo2/Manag_e.psc-cfp.htm. http://riim.bcp. Electronic document. Nikolas 1999 Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Public Service Commission of Canada 2003 Preparing for the Future: Executive Succession in the Policy Community. http://www. http://pco. accessed February 2.psccfp.metropolis. http://www. PCO 1997 Putting the Public Interest First. http://riim.asp?Language=E&Page=Publications&doc=legislation/lmgto c_e. Electronic document. Electronic document. Horizons 6(3).138 PCO 2001 Guide to Making Federal Acts and Regulations 2nd Ed. accessed January 26. 2006.net/researchpolicy/Grant%20Applications/Research_Priorities_and_Policies%202006. Rose. Electronic document.html. http://www. accessed February 20.

Janet 1996 Explorations No. Edwin N. Springer. Terry Roswell and Janet Lum 2006 Pathways to Homelessness Among Caribbean Youth Aged 15-25 In Toronto.139 Roseberry. Electronic document. Joseph. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing. and the Critic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Schacter. _____. Wilmsen and Patrick McAllister. John and B. In Anthropology of Policy: Critical Perspectives on Governance and Power. 44.asp?area=10&sideNav=28#pub_65. and Languages of Contention. Rowat. Institute on Governance Policy Brief No. Edward W. the Text. Canadian Journal of Political Science 9(4): 537-547. Shields. In The Politics of Difference: Ethnic Premises in a World of Power.ca/view_publication_section. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Mitchell Evans 1998 Shrinking the State: Globalization and Public Administration “Reform”. 2004 Searching for accountability in a government without boundaries. . Pp 1-7. Said. Canada: Minister of Supply and Services. Mark 1999 Cabinet Decision-Making in Canada: Lessons and Practices. Shore. Savoie. Canadian Centre for Management Development. February 2006. In The World. 8: Rethinking Policy: Strengthening Policy Capacity. Conference Proceedings. 2005. 1976 The Decline of Free Research in the Social Sciences. Canadian Public Administration 47(1): 1-15. eds. Smith. CERIS Working Paper Series No. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. New York: Routledge. Donald J. Power. James 1998 Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. Ministers and Parliament. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1997 Policy: A new field of anthropology. William 1996 Hegemony. http://www. Scott. Donald C. accessed November 22. 1 April.iog. 1983 Traveling Theory. Cris and Susan Wright eds. Electronic document. ______ 2003 Breaking the Bargain: Public Servants.

CERIS Working Paper Series No. Ottawa: SSHRC. Electronic document. Regan 2005 Social Capital and the Significance of Pre-migration context among Burmese Refugee Communities in Canada.sshrc. accessed June 30. . Myer 1996 Immigration. 2005. accessed June 30.metropolis. 2005. Urban Citizenship and Municipal Governance in the Greater Toronto Area. 2006. Electronic document. http://www.net/generalinfo/info_content/fund-prod_e.pdf. http://www. Arthur 2003 Immigration and the “New Economy”.metropolis. Siemiatycki. accessed November 3. April 2003: 21-22. http://www. Ottawa: SSHRC. Electronic document. Ottawa: Canada.ca/web/about/publications/metropolis_e. SSHRC 2000a SSHRC Evaluation: Metropolis Project: Appendix 1 Chapter 5.metropolis.ceris. Sweetman.ceris.140 http://www.sshrc.pdf. 2006. SSHRC 1990 A Vision for the Future: A Five Year Strategy from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.net/Virtual%20Library/WKPP%20List/WKPP2006/CWP44_ Springer_final_colour. accessed November 3.ca/web/about/publications/metropolis_e. Ottawa: SSHRC. Suzuki. SSHRC 2005 Knowledge Council: SSHRC 2006-2011. CERIS RFP Project. Electronic document. SSHRC 2000 SSHRC Evaluation: Metropolis Project. http://www. accessed November 17.net/Virtual%20Library/WKPP%20List/WKPP2005/CWP36_ Suzuki_Final. SSRCC 1972 ‘Brief’ Submitted to the AUCC Commission to study the Rationalization of Research by the Policy and Finance Committee of the Social Science Research Council of Canada. Canadian Issues. 2005.pdf. SSHRC 1979 A Proposed five-year plan for the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.pdf. 36.html.ceris.

Carolyn M. Ottawa: Government of Canada. Johns. http://ceris. . CERIS Policy Matters No. Science and Technology.pdf. 2005.net/policymatter/2003/PolicyMatters1. Electronic document. Yee. June Y. 2003 Apprenticeship Opportunities and Barriers for Immigrant Youth in the Greater Toronto Area.1 November 2003.141 Whelan. et al. Susan 2001 A Canadian Innovation Agenda for the Twenty First Century: Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Industry.metropolis. accessed November 17.