The board of the Canadian Language and Literacy Research Network (CLLRNet) will meet in the next few days to decide on a future course of action following its failure to secure continued funding from the Networks of Centres of Excellence (NCE) program. CLLRNet's inability to obtain a second, seven-year tranche of funding underlines the NCE program's abysmal track record of supporting social science-focused research.

Since the NCE's inception in 1989, no social sciences-based NCE has ever remained in the program for the full 14-years — a failure many view as the inability of the NCE to support research in the social sciences.

CLLRNet was denied second-phase funding by the NCE Selection Committee despite what its officials say was a positive review by an independent International Expert Panel. Funding expires on March 31/08, and unlike NCEs that run their full 14-year term, CLLRNet is not eligible for transitional funding of up to $500,000.b

The NCE secretariat will not divulge any information pending a public announcement, expected in about two weeks. But in an email to members and stakeholders, CLLRNet stated that "the NCE Selection Committee recommended against a second cycle of funding and we have been notified that this recommendation has been accepted by the NCE". The letter adds that "the NCE decision is extremely surprising, and we believe that it should be reconsidered". However, decisions by NCE Selection Committee cannot be appealed, as past Networks have discovered when they felt a decision is unwarranted. That leaves CLLRNet with few options.

"We are in the process of speaking to all of our board members to consolidate our response," says CLLRNet board chair Dr Lewis Slotin. "The community is in shock. There are always winners and losers but those who participated in the site visits felt very good. We have good partnerships developed, research has been done and a community has been formed."

CLLRNet was awarded $24.85 million between FY00-01 and FY07-08 for an average of just over $3.5 million a year. As one of the smallest NCEs, its research budget of about $2 million annually accounts for nearly 50% of research on literacy and language being conducted in Canada. The number is extremely low considering that more than $35 billion is spent annually on education.

The failure of CLLRNet to secure second phase funding marks at least the third time an NCE with a strong social sciences thrust has failed to move beyond seven years. Other social sciences NCEs that faced the same fate were the TeleLearning Network of Centres of Excellence (1995-2002) and the Health Evidence Application and Linkage Network (1995-2002).

Dr Donald Jamieson, CLLRNet's CEO and scientific director, says his network is doing excellent work to determine the root causes for low literacy rates and develop solutions. He says CLLRNet received an enthusiastic response from the International Expert Panel and is "seeking clarification" from the NCE program on the decision to deny further funding.

"We think it's a wrong decision and I don't think it should stand," says Jamieson. "It would be a terrible shame not to continue and a tragedy for Canada."

Jamieson points to a recent TD Bank study that demonstrates the impact that increased literacy rates can have on the economy. Released in early September, the report — Literacy Matters: A Call to Action by Craig Alexander, TD's VP and deputy chief economist — describes literacy as "the great enabler". It cites a 2004 Statistics Canada study which found that a 1% increase in literacy produces a 2.5% increase in productivity and a 1.5% increase in output per capita compared to other nations. That translates into a boost in national income of $32 billion, or close to the total annual cost of education in Canada.

The TD Bank report even calls for a "centre of excellence that collects best practices and acts as a repository for research and analysis".

"A high level of literacy is an absolute necessity for today's knowledge-based economy," states the report. "(The current) situation is not just unacceptable, it is critical in light of the evolving structure of the economy. Ever higher literacy skills will be needed in the future."

The NCE program has previously acknowledged that it has difficulty attracting and maintaining social sciences networks. That difficulty was the primary reason for creating the New Initiatives NCE (NI-NCE) pilot program (R$, April 14/06). The criteria for NI-NCEs were "tweaked" to place greater weight on research impacts and approaches to knowledge translation, with four of the five selected featuring strong social impact mandates.

CLLRNet was selected as part of a targeted competition, winning in the category that called for a Network in the area of early childhood development and its impact on society.

"We started from a very weak research base with a few good people but very little money," says Slotin. "The impact we have had on research and training is significant and we've had a huge impact on a small but growing community. A lot of disciplines are impacted. Research is not a strong part of the education culture."

While clearly social sciences in nature, CLLRNet was evaluated according to traditional NCE criteria, re-opening old questions about whether the NCE program is able to properly accommodate this kind of research.

"The managed approach to doing research and mobilizing knowledge generated is quite foreign to the social sciences as a group, although there are exceptions," says Slotin. "Networking, partnering, levering partner dollars is all relatively new ... We are looking at innovation and partnerships in a different sense. There are no measuring sticks that can help and we have begun to cultivate some."

Despite the awkward fit between the NCE program and the social sciences, early childhood education and literacy remain priority areas for research. CLLRNet addressed issues unique to Canada that involve geography, the rural-urban divide, immigration, Aboriginal youth and income levels.

"We are the only group coming at it from a research perspective, validating practice or identifying the need for new practices," says Slotin. "We can't do everything. From a networking point of view, 14 years is not a long time if you are developing a critical mass of people. You have to learn to crawl before you can walk."

For Slotin, CLLRNet's failure to receive funding for the maximum 14 years harkens back to his days at the Neuroscience Network (NSN) in the 1990s. As NSN's managing director, he had to contend with the NCE Steering Committee's decision to curtail funding after 10 years and was part of a futile attempt to get the NCE program to reverse its decision (R$, October 29 & December 17/97). But he asserts that there are striking differences between the two situations.

"With NSN, there were really tragic things that happened that were inappropriate," says Slotin. "There were politics involved. We had the biggest budget of any NCE at the time and the NCE program at that time was in trouble financially."

R$