The Excellence Dividend 

In the midst of an intensifying backlash against so-called “woke” policies, equity, diversity, inclusion, and accessibility (EDIA) in research are often dismissed as ideological distractions. Critics claim that EDIA undermines merit, weakens academic freedom, politicizes scholarship, or imposes bureaucratic burdens. This rhetoric has become a rallying point in the culture wars, shaping public policy debates, university governance and even research funding. 

Yet these critics rely on a false dichotomy between diversity and excellence. Far from diluting research quality, EDIA strengthens it. Across disciplines, diverse teams produce more novel, higher impact research; inclusive governance sustains collaboration and innovation; and accessibility broadens the talent pipeline, enhancing precision and creativity. EDIA is not an ideological add-on – it is an evidence-based driver of excellence in a globally competitive research ecosystem. 

A robust body of evidence demonstrates that EDIA is not a dilution of excellence but one of its most powerful engines, driving diverse and inclusive teams, producing more innovative ideas, generating higher-impact publications, and ensuring that knowledge serves a broader public.  

Diversity as a Catalyst for Innovation 

Large-scale bibliometric analyses confirm the “diversity bonus”. Freeman and Huang, studying over 2.5 million scientific papers, found that ethnically diverse research teams consistently produced work with higher citation impact. Similarly, AlShebli, Rahwan, & Woon, examining 9.1 million papers and 6.2 million scientists found that ethnic diversity within research collaborations increased novelty and long-term impact, with diverse teams producing papers that were more widely cited across fields. Gender diversity yields similar results: Mathias Wullum Nielson and colleagues found that gender-heterogeneous groups produced higher-quality science when institutions had inclusive practices to support collaboration. Lesley Campbell and co-authors combined field and observational evidence and similarly found that gender heterogeneous groups generated higher-quality science compared to all-men or all-women teams. These studies counter the meritocracy objection: the data show that diverse teams do not lower standards but rather advance both knowledge production and scholarly impact. 

 “The Diversity-Innovation Paradox in Science,” by Bas Hofstra and co-authors tracked 1.2 million doctoral recipients and 9.5 million dissertations and found that underrepresented women and minority scholars generated more novel research ideas than majority peers, yet their contributions were systematically undervalued and thus less likely to be adopted by the broader field – underscoring systemic bias, not lack of quality. Likewise, Freeman and Huang’s “Collaborating with People Like Me” revealed that homophily among co-authors correlated with lower impact, while diversity boosted higher citations. 

The evidence is unambiguous: diversity fosters more original, widely recognized and impactful science. Exclusion squanders innovation already being produced by underrepresented groups. 

Inclusion and Expanding the Talent Pool 

Equally important to research excellence, inclusion ensures diverse talent thrives. Organizational studies show the many benefits of meaningful inclusion. A study by Lesley Campbell and co-authors showed that inclusive governance fosters transdisciplinary collaboration, generating innovative breakthroughs that siloed teams could not achieve. Stressing “inclusion in practice,” a systematic review of 82 diversity-focused STEM programs found that mentoring, bridge initiatives, access to opportunities and cohort building improved academic performance and degree completion by underrepresented students, ensuring that diverse scholars and perspectives are retained rather than lost to attrition. 

Excellence depends not only on who produces knowledge but also on how institutions organize themselves to foster collaboration and retention. Research systems that privilege a narrow conception of merit risk excluding the very innovators who could propel the field forward. 

Read also: Inclusion is not a passing trend

Accessibility and Broadening Participation 

Accessibility, too often sidelined, is foundational to excellence. Universal design for learning (UDL) in post-secondary STEM both improves participation, retention and learning outcomes for students with disabilities – and enhances outcomes for all. An investigation on barriers such as inaccessible labs and accommodation supports for disabled students in undergraduate life science research found that when these were addressed, such as through flexible research structures and proactive mentorship, students with disabilities thrived and continued into graduate programs and research careers. Accessibility enabled students with disabilities to contribute unique insights and novel problem-solving approaches in scientific research, strengthening innovation capacity.  

These findings illustrate that accessibility is a strategic investment: by opening the pipeline, research systems capture talent that would otherwise be excluded. 

Case studies also highlight the strengths disabled scholars bring to the research ecosystem. Evidence from employment and organizational research underscores the productivity and excellence contributed by disabled scholars. The research evidence highlights that autistic adults, for example, bring exceptional strengths—attention to detail, focused cognition, reliability and unique perspectives—that enhance accuracy and creativity in research tasks. Organizational case studies, such as Auticon and Specialisterne, demonstrate these advantages in practice: autistic employees excel in quality assurance, software testing, and pattern recognition, consistently producing outputs with fewer errors and higher reliability than their neurotypical peers. Far from being a liability, autistic professionals provide strategic advantages in precision-driven, data-intensive research environments. 

Together, these studies show that accessibility and inclusion do more than reduce barriers: they unlock underutilized talent pools that actively enhance productivity, quality and innovation across the research ecosystem. 

The Path Forward 

Opponents of EDIA often raise three familiar objections: that it undermines merit, restricts academic freedom, and lowers standards. The evidence suggests the opposite: exclusion reduces the pool of talent, devalues innovation and lowers the quality of research.  

• Merit: Exclusion – not inclusion – is what distorts meritocracy. Diverse research teams are more productive, and their work is more widely cited, a direct measure of scholarly impact. In effect, EDIA widens the talent pool and makes the principle of merit real rather than rhetorical. 

• Academic freedom: Critics warn that EDIA imposes ideological conformity. In fact, research shows that scholars from marginalized groups are the ones most likely to self-censor and engage in what Timothy Snyder calls “anticipatory obedience” in exclusionary environments. Inclusive practices allow more scholars to pursue unconventional and groundbreaking lines of inquiry without fear of reprisal.  

• Standards: The claim that EDIA lowers standards collapse under scrutiny. Large-scale studies demonstrate that diverse teams produce higher-impact and more novel research than their homogeneous counterparts. Far from weakening rigour, EDIA strengthens it by reducing knowledge gaps, sharpening methods, and ensuring findings hold across contexts. The real threat to excellence is exclusion, which sidelines talent and wastes human potential.  

Put simply, diversity is not cosmetic—it is a measurable predictor of impact. Inclusion is not ideological—it is a condition for excellence. Access is not a bureaucratic burden—it is a gateway to untapped potential and a diversity dividend. 

If Canada and higher education research systems wish to remain globally competitive, embedding EDIA is indispensable for a sustainable path to innovation, impact and inclusive research excellence.