Opinion – A restatement is needed about PL23 and its IOE

We were surprised by the observations of a group of university colleagues about Bill 23 and its supposed harmful effects on scientific production in education. We were also surprised to see a kind of unconscious “experiment of intent” circulating around the goals of the National Institute for Excellence in Education (INEE) that the Secretary wishes to create.

According to this group, such an institute only aims to control one type of epistemological attitude towards science, and that is, even if the report of the working group on the origin of the project expressly confirms the opposite. It seems appropriate to paraphrase some facts.

1. The establishment of INEE does not in any way affect the academic freedom of researchers to conduct research according to the methods and problems and on topics of their choice, nor to publish their results in the frameworks and by means of their choice. .

2. The creation of INEE does not in any way affect the mandate, powers and independence of the Quebec Research Fund (FRQ) which funds undergraduate research in education sciences as in other fields.

3. It is important that you carefully read several elements of the bill itself correctly highlighting things:

First, Section 4 of the INEE Futures Act requires the institute to “practice [sa] mission while respecting the values ​​of rigor, objectivity, transparency and cooperation with organizations that can contribute to this.” On this point, our colleagues can contribute constructively to the discussion by proposing to add “And with respect for academic freedom as defined by the law that respects academic freedom in a university environment “.

Then, Section 8 provides for a Board of Trustees consisting of a chair separate from the department, as well as a chief scientist, independent members and the chair of the Council for Higher Education (or SEC), which would prevent INEE from being a toy or pharmacy in the hands of the minister.

Subsequently, Sections 11 through 13 provide for transparency obligations and the creation of a separate scientific committee, according to formulas that have already proven themselves empirically in other similar organizations, whether in Quebec (eg IESSS) or elsewhere.

Finally, section 14 on training programs leading to a teaching license gives the minister only the powers he already had.

4. Existing good practices related to evidence and evidence mechanisms, such as INEE, already explicitly provide for the promotion of pluralism of approaches. This is confirmed by empirical reality in Quebec and elsewhere. The establishment of INEE will not prevent the pluralism of approaches, especially since all academics remain free to make their personal choices to guide their research activity, and especially since any attempt to impose an orthodoxy will inevitably meet the strongest resistance and will end. Even failure, as the history of science abundantly illustrates.

5. All professional sectors of activity recognize that a better organized use of scientific results is a good thing. It is a means for the professional development of workers and for the social justice of students, especially the most vulnerable.

In short, the construction of scientific knowledge is a dynamic and independent process and the creation of INEE will certainly not negatively affect it: it is up to academics in education to contribute to it through the quality and relevance of their research.

Moreover, Bill 23 is the government’s choice and it is up to the legislators to act on it. Under these circumstances, pressuring a chief scientist to oppose them publicly would destroy all his future authority with government and render him incapable of defending science and its claims, the first victim of which would be the scientific community, Quebec. The current consultations will undoubtedly allow the government to make appropriate adjustments to achieve the targeted goals.

But as researchers, we like to remember that, finallyOur job with decision makers is to advise elected officials through sober and modest reporting on the state of knowledge and its implications, and certainly not to try to confuse the political process with unfounded observations.

Let’s see in the video