Depth and breadth of Canadian military, Veteran and family research: The first decade of Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research Forums

Author(s):  
James M. Thompson ◽  
Dianne Groll ◽  
Stéphanie Bélanger ◽  
David Pedlar
2014 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 393-420 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katelin E. Albert

In 2009, Canadian social science research funding underwent a transition. Social science health-research was shifted from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) to the Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR), an agency previously dominated by natural and medical science. This paper examines the role of health-research funding structures in legitimizing and/or delimiting what counts as ‘good’ social science health research. Engaging Gieryn’s (1983) notion of ‘boundary-work’ and interviews with qualitative social science graduate students, it investigates how applicants developed proposals for CIHR. Findings show that despite claiming to be interdisciplinary, the practical mechanisms through which CIHR funding is distributed reinforce rigid boundaries of what counts as legitimate health research. These boundaries are reinforced by applicants who felt pressure to prioritize what they perceived was what funders wanted (accommodating natural-science research culture), resulting in erased, elided, and disguised social science theories and methods common for ‘good social science.’


2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
R. Deonandan ◽  
E. Y. Liu ◽  
B. Kolisnyk ◽  
A. T. M. Konkle

We examined patterns of Canadian Institute for Health Research (CIHR) funding on autism spectrum disorder (ASD) research. From 1999 to 2013, CIHR funded 190 ASD grants worth $48 million. Biomedical research received 43% of grants (46% of dollars), clinical research 27% (41%), health services 10% (7%), and population health research 8% (3%). The greatest number of grants was given in 2009, but 2003 saw the greatest amount. Funding is clustered in a handful of provinces and institutions, favouring biomedical research and disfavouring behavioural interventions, adaptation, and institutional response. Preference for biomedical research may be due to the detriment of clinical research.


2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 102-107
Author(s):  
Patrick Martin ◽  
Mohamed Sami Rakha ◽  
John Whitnall

Author(s):  
Maya Eichler

Lay Summary For a long time, it has been assumed that to study military members and Veterans means to study men. Further com-pounding the problem, military and Veteran health research has historically neglected sex and gender issues. This has resulted in systemic biases and gaps in military and Veteran health research that perpetuate existing inequities. How-ever, as this Perspectives piece argues, equity should be a key objective of military and Veteran research. Equity means that the diverse needs of all in the military and Veteran population are considered and addressed. Equity helps ensure fairness and justice in the military and Veteran sector. One of the best ways to advance the goal of equity in research and beyond is to apply an intersectional sex and gender lens. This means, for example, to make visible women’s specific experiences and health outcomes, as well as those of sub-groups of women, men, or gender-diverse military members and Veterans. The author provides tools and considerations for the application of an intersectional sex and gender lens in military, Veteran, and family health research.


2021 ◽  

We hear how Dr. Yasmin Ahmadzadeh helped to set up the Twins Early Development Study, CoTEDS, her research on genetically informed methods to examine the intergenerational transmission of psychopathology, advice for those considering a part-time PhD, and anti-racism in mental health research.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document