Article content continued

Much of the five-year, $399,625 grant was for continuing work on research the SSHRC has previously approved and funded; the last time, in 2012, was for the largest amount ever awarded to a psychologist.

The application, which runs to 41 pages, was for continuing research in three areas: the technical investigation of the structure of personality, particularly improving the mechanisms by which personality is measured; assessing personality and political beliefs; and for online interventions for people to improve performance at school and work.

It’s all the same to me … But it’s cut the legs out from under my graduate students

Well before Peterson erupted on to the public consciousness last fall with his YouTube videos questioning the current push for genderless pronouns and gender equity, he was recognized as a respected scientist.

He taught at Harvard University for six years.

His so-called “h-index,” for instance, is considered exceptional.

The h-index is the result of physicist Jorge Hirsch’s attempt to measure the quality of scientists, not just the number of times he or she was published.

In other words, both productivity and impact are measured.

According to Hirsch, after 20 years of research, an h-index of 20 is good, 40 outstanding; Peterson’s score is 49. His total citation count is almost 8,000.

“By multiple measures,” he said, “even if the ideas (in the grant application) were not of the highest calibre, and they were, I have the track record to show I’m more than capable of producing, including my ability to disseminate my ideas into the broader community.”

In fact, he’s indisputably a great communicator: His education videos have been viewed by eight million people, and he’s popular on Twitter.

The rejection has “zero impact on my income,” Peterson said. “It’s all the same to me … But it’s cut the legs out from under my graduate students.”

The rejection, he said, “is a seriously bad sign” that the vetting process may be becoming politicized.

But Gualtieri defended the merit process as “a transparent, in-depth and effective way to allocate public research funds.”

cblatchford@postmedia.com