The program invests approximately $311 million per year to attract and retain a diverse cadre of world-class researchers, to reinforce academic research and training excellence in Canadian postsecondary institutions. See more information.

How are the 2,285 Canada Research Chair positions in the program allocated to participating institutions?

The national reallocation process happens every five years, includes both regular and special chairs, and is based on the eligible research grant funding received by researchers from the three federal research funding agencies—the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC)—in the three years prior to the allocation process year. See the total number of allocations held by participating institutions.

Can an individual apply directly to the program to be a Canada Research Chair?

No. Only eligible, Canadian degree-granting institutions can apply to the program for funding. Individuals interested in being considered for a Canada Research Chair award must apply to a posting advertised by a participating institution. Institutions must advertise all chairholder opportunities following the program’s recruitment and nomination requirements. Many institutions advertise their open chair positions on this website.

How is the research excellence of Canada Research Chair nominees assessed?

All researchers who participate in the program must meet its stringent excellence requirements. Excellence is assessed through a rigorous two-step process: 1) at the recruitment stage, by the institution; and 2) through a peer review process administered by the program. Only individuals who pass this rigorous assessment process are awarded a Canada Research Chair. See more information.

Who is part of the program’s Interdisciplinary Adjudication Committee?

The Interdisciplinary Adjudication Committee (IAC) plays a key role in upholding the program’s high level of research excellence and prestige. In doing so, it ensures accountability to the Government of Canada and the research community. The IAC is made up of research experts representing the various research disciplines of the three funding agencies (CIHR, NSERC and SSHRC). It makes funding recommendations in cases where nominations do not receive consensus from the College of Reviewers.

Who approves the program’s research funding decisions?

All funding recommendations must be approved by the program’s Steering Committee, which is composed of the presidents of CIHR, NSERC, SSHRC and the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and the deputy ministers of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and Health Canada. See more information.

Who currently participates in the program as a Canada Research Chair?

At any given time, the program funds up to 2,285 Canada Research Chairs who are among the world’s most accomplished and promising researchers in health, natural sciences, engineering, social sciences and the humanities. See the database of currently funded chairholders and their areas of expertise.

Requirements for recruiting and nominating Canada Research Chairs

What recruitment and nomination requirements do institutions have to follow to fill their chair allocations?

Institutions must advertise all chairholder opportunities following the program’s recruitment and nomination requirements. Many institutions advertise their open chair positions on this website .

What is the purpose of Creating an Equitable, Diverse and Inclusive Research Environment: A Best Practices Guide for Recruitment, Hiring and Retention?

This best practices guide was developed based on recent research, and in consultation with equity experts and other national and international organizations. It is provided as a tool for institutions to use as they address their equity challenges, develop their action plans, and review and revise their processes, policies and procedures for the recruitment, nomination and support of chairholders. It is available on the program website and was last updated in March 2021.

Why are equity measures and equity targets within the program necessary?

The documented history of underrepresentation of women, gender-equity-seeking groups, racialized individuals, Indigenous Peoples and persons with disabilities during the program’s first 16 years (2000 to 2016) clearly demonstrates the need for the program’s equity measures. The strong progress made in addressing this underrepresentation since the launch of the program’s equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) action plan in 2017 further demonstrates the full breadth of research talent and excellence that was available in the research ecosystem and was previously not being tapped into and valued. Given the complexity of our global challenges, and the corresponding need for a strong, vibrant and innovative research system, Canada cannot afford to continue to overlook the excellence and research talent in its research ecosystem.

Do the program’s equity measures mean excellence is no longer the program’s main criterion?

Certainly not. All researchers who participate in the program must meet its stringent excellence requirements (see the related FAQ). The program’s equity measures directly support the program’s excellence requirements as they ensure that the largest pool of qualified researchers is considered for participation in the program. In the same way that bias in research methods should be mitigated as they can impact the validity and reliability of research findings and thus its excellence, bias and discrimination in decision making and evaluation processes in the program must also be mitigated to support its excellence objectives. Simply put, bias and discrimination are at odds with and directly counter research excellence.

What is strategic hiring?

Strategic hiring is used as a best practice by many organizations, in various sectors, to combat bias and ensure both excellence and diversity in their organization. Strategic hiring is a recruitment process that is used by organizations to both recruit individuals with the experience and expertise needed to fulfill its mandate and address underrepresentation in its workforce. As explained in the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s (CHRC) guide, “Substantive equality recognizes that mitigating the effects of historical disadvantage based on discrimination requires treating some people differently. This can include taking steps like implementing special programs or special measures to ensure historically disadvantaged groups have equal opportunities.” Strategic hiring, considered a special program by the CHRC, is most often used to address bias and discrimination in hiring faced by women, gender-equity-seeking groups, racialized individuals, Indigenous Peoples and persons with disabilities.

Why are some institutions using strategic hiring to recruit chairholders?

While institutions must meet the program’s equity targets, they are not required to use strategic hiring to meet their equity objectives. However, in alignment with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the program considers strategic hiring a best practice both to recruit excellent talent and address underrepresentation and systemic discrimination against women, gender-equity-seeking groups, racialized individuals, Indigenous Peoples and persons with disabilities.

Is strategic hiring “reverse discrimination”?

No. Strategic hiring is not reverse discrimination. As explained in the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s guide, “Substantive equality recognizes that mitigating the effects of historical disadvantage based on discrimination requires treating some people differently. This can include taking steps like implementing special programs or special measures to ensure historically disadvantaged groups have equal opportunities.”Special programs such as strategic hiring are often needed to address the persistence of bias and inequality in hiring.

How can participating institutions located in regions that may be less diverse meet the program’s equity targets?

The program’s objectives are both to recruit the world’s most promising researchers to Canada and to retain them in Canada. Therefore, the pool of potential candidates to the program is not limited to Canada or the geographic location of the institution.

Self-Identification

Why am I being asked to complete the self-identification questionnaire?

All participating institutions must set equity targets to ensure that recruitment and nomination decisions (i.e., decisions regarding who accesses and benefits from the program) are based on research excellence and that no one (including women and gender-equity-seeking groups, persons with disabilities, Indigenous Peoples and racialized minorities) is excluded for reasons unrelated to qualifications and ability.

To monitor the level of equity and diversity within the program and to ensure that institutions meet their targets, the program collects disaggregated demographic data from all nominees and chairholders, using a form developed by the three federal research funding agencies—the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

This data collection is necessary to understand whether there are any potential biases or systemic barriers within the program’s policies, practices, processes and systems. This helps the program identify areas where changes may be needed to address inequities.

These efforts also support the three federal research funding agencies’ commitment to equity, diversity and inclusion and to collecting self-identification data across all agency programs. An open letter to the research community from the presidents of the funding agencies communicates the rationale for this initiative.

If you have comments or suggestions regarding this data collection, send these to DataRequest@chairs-chaires.gc.ca.

Why should I self-identify?

It is important that your participation, as a nominee and potential chairholder to the Canada Research Chairs Program (CRCP), be reflected within the program’s statistics. All nominees and chairholders are asked to provide these data to ensure the program has an accurate picture of who is participating in the program. This is necessary to understand whether there are any potential biases or systemic barriers within the program’s policies and processes and where changes may be needed to increase the diversity of nominees and chairholders.

Can I identify in more than one group?

Yes. Individuals can and should self-identify in all groups that apply to them.

I have already provided my self-identification data to my institution and/or other federal research funding agencies. Why am I being asked to self-identify again?

In accordance with the Privacy Act, government institutions must collect personal information such as self-identification information directly from the individual. The government institution must inform the individual of the specific purposes for collecting their personal information and how it can be used and disclosed and must obtain their consent for the collection. Also, there may be differences in the way questions are asked by different organizations, and responses provided by respondents can change over time. Therefore, the program must collect this information from all nominees and chairholders.

Where do I find the questionnaire?

You will be required to fill out the self-identification questionnaire as you complete your chairholder nomination on Convergence. The program may also require active chairholders to occasionally update their self-identification data as part of data renewal exercises.

See a preview of the program’s self-identification form (PDF).

How can an active chairholder update their self-identification data if necessary?

Active chairholders may update their self-identification data at any time by logging into their account on the Convergence Portal. Under the “Awards” tab, they must choose their currently active CRC award (e.g., either their first nomination or their renewal nomination, as applicable). Under the ‘Action’ column, click on ‘Self-identification’ to make changes.

Why are there eight identification categories?

The questionnaire covers eight dimensions: age, gender identity, sexual orientation, Indigenous identity, racialized identity, population group, disability and language. While the questionnaire does not include every important diversity dimension, these eight dimensions cover aspects of identity that are generally recognized as being impacted by bias and discrimination in the postsecondary research sector.

How was the terminology in the questionnaire chosen?

The questions are primarily based on the current standards used by Statistics Canada in census questionnaires, and wording from federal legislation, including the Employment Equity Act and Accessible Canada Act. For some of the new or revised questions, current federal standards are either not available or not being used within the form as they would not suit the specific uses for this self-identification form (see Why am I being asked to complete the self-identification questionnaire?). The wording in the questions is based on research and analysis of current approaches to self-identification, as well as targeted engagement with stakeholders and experts. The terminology and approach to the questions seek to balance inclusion, respect for privacy and reportability.

The program recognizes that, for certain identities, terminology is not universally agreed on and continues to evolve. Feedback is welcomed. See Whom can I contact for more information or to provide feedback?

Age—Can you clarify what is being asked?

The age question asks the respondent to enter their date of birth. Date of birth distinguishes users with the same or similar names, and helps the program identify individuals who may have duplicate personal identification numbers (PINs).

Gender identity—Can you clarify what is being asked?

The gender identity question prompts the respondent to indicate the identity (or term) that best describes them at the present time.

Note: This question will be used by the program to monitor representation within the program, to monitor the institutions’ progress toward their equity targets for women and gender-equity-seeking groups and to monitor for potential bias in the program’s peer review process. Nominees who self-identify as women or members of other gender-equity-seeking groups in response to this question will be counted toward the nominating institution’s equity target for women.

“Gender identity” refers to a person’s internal sense of being a woman, man, both, neither or somewhere along the gender spectrum. It influences how people perceive themselves and each other, how they act and interact, and the distribution of power and resources in society. The question recognizes that gender identity can change over time.

The gender identity categories offered as potential responses represent the considerable diversity in how individuals and groups understand, experience and express gender identity.

The response options for this question are defined as follows:

Gender fluid refers to a person whose gender identity or expression changes or shifts along the gender spectrum.
Man refers to a person whose current gender identity aligns with characteristics conventionally associated with males.
Nonbinary refers to a person whose gender identity does not align with a binary understanding of gender such as man or woman.
Trans man refers to a person whose sex assigned at birth is female, and who identifies as a man.
Trans woman refers to a person whose sex assigned at birth is male, and who identifies as a woman.
Two-Spirit is a term used by some North American Indigenous Peoples to indicate a person who embodies both female and male spirits or whose gender identity, sexual orientation or spiritual identity is not limited by the male/female dichotomy.
Woman refers to a person whose current gender identity aligns with characteristics conventionally associated with females.

Sexual orientation—Can you clarify what is being asked?

The sexual orientation question asks the respondent to select how they currently identify.

Note: This question will be used by the program to monitor representation of persons from the 2SLGBTQIA+ community within the program and to monitor for potential biases in the program’s peer review process.

The response options for this question are defined as follows:

Asexual refers to a person who identifies as feeling very little or no sexual desire.
Bisexual refers to a person who identifies as being sexually attracted to people of their sex and/or gender and people of a different sex and/or gender.
Gay refers to a person who identifies as being sexually attracted to people of their sex and/or gender.
Heterosexual refers to a person who identifies as sexually attracted to people of a different sex and/or gender.
Lesbian refers to a person who identifies as a woman and as being sexually attracted to women.
Pansexual refers to a person who identifies as being sexually attracted to another person regardless of their sex or gender.
Queer refers to a person whose sexual orientation differs from the normative binary vision of sexuality.
Two-Spirit is a term used by some North American Indigenous Peoples to indicate a person who identifies as embodying both female and male spirits or whose gender identity, sexual orientation or spiritual identity is not limited by the male/female dichotomy.

Indigenous identity—Can you clarify what is being asked?

The Indigenous identity question asks the respondent if they identify as an Indigenous person. This question is about personal identity, not legal status or registration.

Note: This question will be used by the program to monitor representation within the program, to monitor the institutions’ progress toward their equity targets for Indigenous Peoples and to monitor for potential bias in the program’s peer review process.

How should an Indigenous individual from outside Turtle Island (North America) self-identify within the Canada Research Chairs Program?

Only Indigenous individuals from Turtle Island (encompassing Canada and the United States of America) can self-identify under the category of Indigenous Peoples within the program. The term “Indigenous Peoples” in the program’s self-identification form applies to the original peoples of North America and their descendants: i.e., First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples. Indigenous scholars from other parts of the world may self-identify as a member of a visible minority group in Question 5 of the form, and may indicate Indigenous in the “I identify as” section provided.

Visible minorities—Can you clarify what is being asked?

The visible minority identity question asks the respondent to indicate if they identify as a visible minority, as defined by the Employment Equity Act. The Act defines visible minorities as “persons, other than Aboriginal Peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour.”

Note: This question will be used by the program to monitor representation within the program, to monitor the institutions’ progress toward their equity targets for racialized individuals, and to monitor for potential bias in the program’s peer review process.

The term “visible minority” is still used in some federal government documents instead of “racialized individuals”. These terms will be updated during the next update of the self-identification form, expected to be finalized in 2024.

Population group—Can you clarify what is being asked?

The population group options listed are those used by Statistics Canada in the national census. Population group should not be confused with citizenship or nationality. Respondents may select all categories that apply.

Because this is a mandatory question, if a nominee or chairholder has already identified as an Indigenous person and does not identify with any other population group, they are asked to select “population group not listed above” and specify Indigenous.

Disability—Can you clarify what is being asked?

The disability question asks respondents to indicate whether they personally identify as having a disability, according to the definition provided by the Accessible Canada Act. According to the Act, disability means any impairment, including a physical, mental, intellectual, cognitive, learning, communication or sensory impairment—or a functional limitation—whether permanent, temporary or episodic in nature, or evident or not, that, in interaction with a barrier, hinders a person’s full and equal participation in society. Respondents may select all categories that apply

The question does not ask whether the respondent has ever qualified for a disability benefit under the Canada Pension Plan or other program. It also does not take into consideration whether a respondent has received accommodations.

Note: This question will be used to monitor representation within the program and to monitor the institutions' progress toward their equity targets for persons with disabilities and to monitor for potential bias in the program’s peer review process.

Language—Can you clarify what is being asked?

The language question asks respondents to identify which language they first learned and which language they use most often at home. Respondents may select all categories that apply.

The question does not ask which language the respondent prefers to use to communicate with the program or in which language the respondent submits a nomination to the program. This information is collected elsewhere in the application process.

Note: This question will assist the program in fulfilling its obligations under the Official Languages Act (Part VII). It will be used to monitor the participation and success rates of nominees based on language and to monitor for potential bias in the program’s peer review process. For example, these data will allow for analysis on how many applicants/nominees submit applications in their second language.

I am not comfortable responding to these questions. What should I do?

If you do not want to self-identify, you have the option to choose “I prefer not to answer” for each question. You must select this option and save your responses for your questionnaire to be marked as complete. Doing so fulfills the mandatory requirement for completing the questionnaire.

How will my information be used? How will it be stored?

The self-identification information is collected, used, disclosed, retained and disposed of in accordance with the Privacy Act. It may be used for the purposes of program operations (including future recruitment for peer review processes, where applicable), planning, performance measurement and monitoring, evaluation and audits, and in aggregate form to report to government or to the public. Self-identification statistics will always be reported in aggregate form to ensure confidentiality.

To protect the privacy of individuals, if the number of individuals who self-identified as women and members of gender-equity-seeking groups, persons with disabilities, Indigenous Peoples and racialized minorities—or with intersectional identity—is less than five, the data will not be publicly reported.

Appropriate privacy notices will be provided and consent obtained when self-identification information is collected.

For further information on how self-identification information is / will be used and stored by the program, contact staff directly at edi-edi@chairs-chaires.gc.ca.

For privacy-related issues, or where someone wishes to remain anonymous, contact Access to Information Act and Privacy (ATIP) staff at ATIP-AIPRP@SSHRC-CRSH.GC.CA.

Who will see my information? Will peer reviewers be able to access this information?

Access to these data is strictly limited to a small number of agency staff with the appropriate training and security clearance and on a need-to-know basis. Self-identification information is not part of your application and will be neither accessible to, nor shared with, external reviewers and/or selection committee members.

In addition to its program monitoring, the program shares aggregated self-identification data—about institutional representation of women and members of other gender-equity-seeking groups, Indigenous Peoples, racialized minorities and persons with disabilities—on an as-needed basis with host institutions to allow them to monitor their efforts in meeting their equity targets for the program. No data on sexual orientation or the subcategories of racialized minority groups or persons with disabilities will be shared with institutions for any purpose. The information will be securely transmitted to a specific, authorized individual at the respective institutions under strict confidentiality and privacy requirements.

Will my responses be tied to funding decisions in any way?

Choosing to self-identify or not will have no consequences for the peer review results of a chair nomination. The questionnaire is a tool that will allow the program to monitor progress toward increasing the level of equity, diversity and inclusion and to implement measures in support of this goal. However, if an institution is not meeting its equity targets following a deadline stipulated by the program, nominations will be restricted to individuals who self-identify as one or more of the four designated groups until such time as the targets are met.

Whom can I contact for more information or to provide feedback?

The program welcomes feedback from the research community on all aspects of this questionnaire. You may provide suggestions or comments by contacting program staff at edi-edi@chairs-chaires.gc.ca.

The program’s equity, diversity and inclusion measures

How does the program define equity, diversity and inclusion?

These terms are defined as follows:

Equity is the removal of systemic barriers and biases (see systemic barriers question below) enabling all individuals to have equal access to and to benefit from the program. To achieve this, the program and participating institutions must develop a strong understanding of the barriers faced by individuals from underrepresented groups (women and members of other gender-equity-seeking groups, persons with disabilities, Indigenous Peoples and racialized minorities) and put in place meaningful measures to address these, embracing both the value and excellence of their contributions.
Diversity is defined as differences in race, colour, place of origin, religion, immigrant and newcomer status, ethnic origin, ability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and age. Recognizing the need for and value of equity and diversity must be accompanied by concerted and meaningful efforts to ensure inclusion. A diversity of perspectives and lived experiences is fundamental to achieving research excellence.
Inclusion is defined as the practice of ensuring that all individuals are valued and respected for their contributions and are equally supported. Ensuring chairholders are included and supported by the program is also fundamental to achieving research and training excellence.

How does increased equity, diversity and inclusion lead to greater excellence in research?

Research^{Footnote 1} shows that teams of diverse researchers are more innovative, have a greater collective intelligence, and have more capacity to tackle complex issues and, ultimately, achieve excellence. For Canada to reach its full potential for innovation, there needs to be a diversity of perspectives to tackle issues and effectively respond to opportunities in ways that will have real impact. Moreover, to retain excellent research talent in Canada, diverse researchers need to feel meaningfully welcomed, supported, valued and included.

Research also shows that diversity is good for innovation. In 2017, Bessma Momani and Jillian Stirk released Diversity Dividend: Canada’s Global Advantage, a report based on extensive research. The report quantifies the benefits of a diverse workforce and outlines a number of measures needed to achieve a more diversified workforce. They show that a 1% increase in ethnocultural diversity is associated with an average 2.4% increase in revenue and 0.5% increase in workplace productivity.

What are examples of systemic barriers faced by underrepresented groups in research and academia?

The persistent systemic barriers faced by underrepresented groups within the CRCP reflect those that exist and are well documented within academia and Canada’s research ecosystem more broadly. Examples include the following:

The 2018 report published by the Canadian Association of University Teachers, Underrepresented and Underpaid: Diversity & Equity Among Canada’s Post-Secondary Education Teachers, highlights the lack of diversity in the academic workforce and wage gaps between men and women and between white, Indigenous and racialized staff.
The Equity Myth: Racialization and Indigeneity at Canadian Universities (PDF, 6.3MB), published in 2017 by Frances Henry, Enakshi Dua, Carl E. James, Audrey Kobayashi, Peter Li, Howard Ramos and Malinda S. Smith, discusses the barriers in academia faced by racialized and Indigenous faculty, including unconscious or implicit biases such as CV and accent bias, bias in letters of reference, citation and self-promotion bias, and affinity bias; precarious work; white normativity; tokenism; ineffective equity policies; wage gaps; and increased workloads (e.g., “the equity tax”).
The 2012 Council of Canadian Academies report Strengthening Canada’s Research Capacity: The Gender Dimension highlights the bias stereotypes, lack of role models and mentors, and barriers within institutional practices and policies faced by women in research that prevent their full participation.
Recent research conducted by Holly Witteman, Michael Hendricks, Sharon Straus and Cara Tannenbaum demonstrates a gender bias in peer review processes resulting in a 4% lower success rate for women when the focus of the review is on the calibre of the researcher versus the quality of the research being proposed.

What measures has the program taken to address the underrepresentation of individuals from the four designated groups?

Soon after the launch of the program in 2000, the CRCP recognized that a low number of women were being nominated to the program (14% of nominees) and began working with institutions to address the issue. Since 2006, TIPS has implemented the 2006 Settlement Agreement. In May 2017, in response to recommendations made in the 15th-year evaluation of the program, the Government of Canada launched the Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Action Plan. The plan stipulates that institutions must develop their own EDI action plans; publish information and data about the management of their chair allocations on public accountability and transparency webpages; and meet institutional equity targets by December 2019.

For more information, see an overview of the program’s equity, diversity and inclusion requirements and practices, and read the open letter to institutions outlining important milestones to date.

Why does the program have public accountability and transparency requirements?

Support provided by the CRCP is an investment by Canadian taxpayers. The program is accountable to stakeholders and the Canadian public for who receives support and how funds are used to meet the program’s objectives. To help ensure accountability to stakeholders (including researchers and Canadian taxpayers), institutions must (on their websites) publicly account for how they manage their chair allocations and report on their progress in implementing their action plans and meeting their equity and diversity objectives.

For a list of the information required of institutions, see the Chairs Administration Guide.

See the current Institutional Public Accountability pages.

What else has been done to date to address equity, diversity and inclusion within the program?

For details, see this overview of the program’s equity, diversity and inclusion requirements and practices, and read an open letter to institutions about important milestones achieved so far.

When was the Canadian human rights complaint that led to the 2006 Settlement Agreement first filed?

In 2003, a group of eight academics from across Canada filed human rights complaints alleging the CRCP discriminated against individuals who are members of protected groups under the Canadian Human Rights Act. In 2006, a settlement agreement was signed requiring the CRCP to implement specific measures to increase the representation of individuals from the four designated groups: women, persons with disabilities, Indigenous Peoples and racialized minorities. In 2017, the agreement was made a federal court order at the request of the equity-seeking plaintiffs because they considered that not enough progress had been made over the ensuing 11 years in improving the representation and addressing the barriers within the program. In 2018, mediation between the CRCP, the equity-seeking plaintiffs and the Canadian Human Rights Commission was held in lieu of federal court proceedings, and an addendum to the 2006 Settlement Agreement was subsequently signed in early 2019.

The CRCP recognizes the important contributions that Marjorie Griffin Cohen, Louise Forsyth, Glenis Joyce, Audrey Kobayashi, Shree Mulay, Susan Prentice, and the late Michèle Ollivier and Wendy Robbins have made to increase the level of representation within the program by way of their 2003 complaints and their concerted efforts in the mediation processes, which led to the 2006 Settlement Agreement and its addendum in 2019.

Are the 2006 Settlement Agreement and its 2019 Addendum legally binding?

Yes. The Tri-agency Institutional Programs Secretariat (TIPS) is required to implement the 2006 Settlement Agreement and the 2019 Addendum in good faith and could be brought to federal court for not implementing and enforcing them. TIPS and its governance committees comprising president and vice-president representatives of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and the Canada Foundation for Innovation, as well as deputy ministers and directors general of Health Canada, and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, are strongly committed to implementing the agreement in collaboration with eligible institutions participating in the program. Working together will ensure that the inequities within the program are addressed, building on the progress that has been made in recent years, and that meaningful EDI is achieved.

These efforts are aligned with the Canada Research Coordinating Committee’s priority area: “removing barriers faced by under-represented and disadvantaged groups to ensure equitable access across the granting agencies and establish Canada as a world leader in equity, diversity and inclusion in research.” They also build on the commitment and broader efforts being implemented by Canadian universities to reduce barriers within academia.

Why is it important that the level of diversity within the program generally reflect the level of diversity within the Canadian population?

Research demonstrates that achieving an equitable, diverse and inclusive work environment leads to increased excellence, innovation and impact (see How does increased EDI lead to greater excellence in research?). As the program is founded on the principles of excellence, it is imperative that its design and implementation be exemplary and that it not perpetuate the systemic barriers that exist in academia and the research environment for women and members of other gender-equity-seeking groups, persons with disabilities, Indigenous Peoples and racialized minorities.

The labour market availability approach to setting equity targets previously used by the program has been criticized as it can replicate the systemic barriers that underrepresented groups often face in employment. This new approach to setting diversity targets for the program will reflect the diversity within the Canadian population and will ensure that the CRCP benefits from the wide diversity of perspectives and lived experiences within the research ecosystem necessary to fostering inclusive research excellence and innovation.

What are the program’s equity target goals?

Staggered equity targets have been set by each participating institution incrementally for the program over 10 years (2020-29) to meet the new equity targets by December 2029 (see table below):

	Current representation (March 2023)	New targets (December 2029 deadline)
Women and members of other gender-equity-seeking groups	45.8%	50.9% (data source: 2016 census)
Persons with disabilities	6.3%	7.5% (data source: see persons with disabilities representation question below)
Indigenous Peoples	3.9%	4.9% (data source: 2016 Census)
Racialized individuals	26.1%	22% (data source: 2016 Census)

This data is available on the program representation statistics page and is updated twice a year.

Large institutions^{Footnote 2} will also be required to set targets for Tier 1 and Tier 2 chairs to ensure equity in both the established (senior) and emerging (early career researchers) ranks of chairholders (e.g., in 2019 only 24% of active Tier 1 chairholders were women, while 76% were men).

It is expected that institutions will be able to meet these increased equity targets by the 10-year goal of December 2029. It should be noted that the 2,285 Canada Research Chair allocations represent only 5% of full-time faculty in Canada. There are many excellent researchers from the four designated groups, in all disciplines, at both the emerging and established levels, who could, given the opportunity, participate in the program.

Why isn’t the 2016 Census data being used to set targets for persons with disabilities?

The target for persons with disabilities takes into account that when the 2019 Addendum was signed, the representation of persons with disabilities within the program was quite low (1.6%) and acknowledges that this may be due in part to low self-identification rates based on the reluctance of individuals with disabilities to self-identify in an employment setting. The labour market availability (LMA) data for persons with disabilities is 4.9%, based on Employment and Skills Development Canada Workforce Data^{Footnote 3}, while the 2016 Census population data is 14%. The target of 7.5% increases the program’s current target from 4% and moves beyond LMA, while acknowledging there may be specific challenges such as self-identification for this group.

What is meant by applying an intersectional lens to the program’s equity, diversity and inclusion work?

In 1989, Kimberlé Crenshaw, currently professor of law at Columbia Law School and the University of California, Los Angeles, introduced the term “intersectionality” in a paper for the University of Chicago Legal Forum entitled “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics” to explain how African-American women face overlapping disadvantages and discrimination related to sexism and racism. This approach or lens is a best practice and will assist the program and institutions to better understand and address the multiple barriers and disadvantages that individuals with intersecting social identities, such as race, gender, sexuality and class, face. Using an intersectional approach to develop policies and programs helps to better identify and address systemic barriers.

How will intersectionality be addressed for the program’s target-setting approach?

Institutions will be required to consider intersectionality in the allocation of their chairs moving forward, if they were not already doing so. This will involve reporting on the representation of diversity among their chairholders using an intersectional approach that looks at the qualitative and quantitative data informing institutions of the systemic barriers and lived experiences of not just the four designated groups, but individuals who identify across more than one group. Large institutions will be required to set targets for Tier 1 and Tier 2 chairs to ensure that there is diversity in both the emerging and established ranks of chairholders. Institutions with underrepresentation are expected to implement measures to better understand the lived experiences and address potential barriers faced by faculty with intersecting identities.

How does the Canada Research Chairs Program consider and support 2SLGBTQIA+ communities in its measures?

The program is implementing a number of measures to support the participation of 2SLGBTQIA+ faculty within the program, including:

collecting self-identification data; and
outlining best practices for the recruitment and retention of 2SLGBTQIA+ faculty within the program.

Many institutions have also included measures within their institutional action plans that are specific to the 2SLGBTQIA+ community.

How are the measures in the 2021 settlement agreement tied to the program’s existing equity, diversity and inclusion measures?

In 2017, when the program launched its Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Action Plan, the program stipulated that institutions were required to meet their EDI requirements (i.e., equity targets, public accountability and transparency, and institutional EDI action plans) by certain deadlines or consequences would be imposed. The agreement is in line with some of these existing program measures.

What are the consequences for not meeting the program’s equity, diversity and inclusion requirements?

See the summary of consequences for institutions that do not meet the program’s EDI requirements, in the Chairs Administration Guide.

Why is it necessary for the program to impose consequences?

Individuals from underrepresented groups face persistent systemic barriers in the program that also exist and are well documented in academia and in Canada’s research ecosystem more broadly. The program is founded on principles of excellence in research and research training. Such excellence can only be achieved in an environment that fully respects and promotes the principles of EDI. The program’s consequences for institutions that do not meet the program’s EDI requirements support its commitment to inclusive excellence.

Is the 2021 Settlement Agreement legally binding?

Yes. TIPS is committed to implementing the 2021 Settlement Agreement in good faith. See program representation statistics for statistics. See 2019 Addendum to the 2006 Settlement Agreement above for more on the program’s EDI measures.

What other measures are being implemented by Canada’s research funding agencies to address equity, diversity and inclusion within the research ecosystem?

The federal research funding agencies are working closely to harmonize the measures in place across the various EDI-related initiatives in fulfillment of one of the Canada Research Coordinating Committee’s mandated priorities to remove barriers faced by underrepresented groups and ensure equitable access to funding. These measures include the following examples of tri-agency initiatives:

the collection of self-identification data with a harmonized self-identification form;
the launch of Dimensions: Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Canada giving institutions an opportunity to undertake analyses of their environment and develop action plans, similar to what the CRCP has done for institutions’ chair allocations;
the EDI institutional capacity-building grants award up to $200,000 per year for up to two years to projects for the development and implementation of policies, plans, resources and training related to EDI;
SSHRC has adopted an Indigenous Research Statement of Principles. This commitment emphasizes the importance of Indigenous perspectives and knowledge systems to increase and expand our knowledge and understanding about human thought and behaviour; and
committing to ensuring diversity and inclusion is considered when organizing or participating in panels or events; and
the development and implementation of a tri-agency EDI action plan.

Further questions

If you have enquiries related to the program’s equity, diversity and inclusion requirements and practices, contact:

EDI-EDI@chairs-chaires.gc.ca

Footnotes

Footnote 1

C. Francoeur, R., Labelle, and B. Sinclair-Desgagné, “Gender diversity in corporate governance and top management,” Journal of Business Ethics, 81(1) (2008), 83-95;

A. Woolley, and T. Malone, “What makes a team smarter? More women,” Harvard Business Review, 89 (6) (2011), 32-33; and

C., Díaz-García, A. González-Moreno and F.J. Sáez-Martínez, “Gender diversity within R&D teams: Its impact on radicalness of innovation,” Innovation: Organization & Management, 15(2) (2013), 149- 160.

Return to footnote 1 referrer

Footnote 2

The University of British Columbia, the University of Alberta, the University of Calgary, the University of Saskatchewan, the University of Manitoba, the University of Waterloo, Western University, Laval University, the University of Ottawa, the Université de Montréal, the Université de Sherbrooke, McGill University, Queen’s University, the University of Toronto, McMaster University and Dalhousie University.

Return to footnote 2 referrer

Footnote 3

Employment Equity Act: Annual Report 2017

Return to footnote 3 referrer

Frequently Asked Questions

About the program

Requirements for recruiting and nominating Canada Research Chairs

Self-identification

The program’s equity, diversity and inclusion measures

About the program

What are the objectives of the Canada Research Chairs Program?

How are the 2,285 Canada Research Chair positions in the program allocated to participating institutions?

Can an individual apply directly to the program to be a Canada Research Chair?

How is the research excellence of Canada Research Chair nominees assessed?

Who is part of the program’s Interdisciplinary Adjudication Committee?

Who approves the program’s research funding decisions?

Who currently participates in the program as a Canada Research Chair?

Requirements for recruiting and nominating Canada Research Chairs

What recruitment and nomination requirements do institutions have to follow to fill their chair allocations?

What is the purpose of Creating an Equitable, Diverse and Inclusive Research Environment: A Best Practices Guide for Recruitment, Hiring and Retention?

Why are equity measures and equity targets within the program necessary?

Do the program’s equity measures mean excellence is no longer the program’s main criterion?

What is strategic hiring?

Why are some institutions using strategic hiring to recruit chairholders?

Is strategic hiring “reverse discrimination”?

How can participating institutions located in regions that may be less diverse meet the program’s equity targets?

Self-Identification

Why am I being asked to complete the self-identification questionnaire?

Why should I self-identify?

Can I identify in more than one group?

I have already provided my self-identification data to my institution and/or other federal research funding agencies. Why am I being asked to self-identify again?

Where do I find the questionnaire?

How can an active chairholder update their self-identification data if necessary?

Why are there eight identification categories?

How was the terminology in the questionnaire chosen?

Age—Can you clarify what is being asked?

Gender identity—Can you clarify what is being asked?

Sexual orientation—Can you clarify what is being asked?

Indigenous identity—Can you clarify what is being asked?

How should an Indigenous individual from outside Turtle Island (North America) self-identify within the Canada Research Chairs Program?

Visible minorities—Can you clarify what is being asked?

Population group—Can you clarify what is being asked?

Disability—Can you clarify what is being asked?

Language—Can you clarify what is being asked?

I am not comfortable responding to these questions. What should I do?

How will my information be used? How will it be stored?

Who will see my information? Will peer reviewers be able to access this information?

Will my responses be tied to funding decisions in any way?

Whom can I contact for more information or to provide feedback?

The program’s equity, diversity and inclusion measures

How does the program define equity, diversity and inclusion?

How does increased equity, diversity and inclusion lead to greater excellence in research?

What are examples of systemic barriers faced by underrepresented groups in research and academia?

What measures has the program taken to address the underrepresentation of individuals from the four designated groups?

Why does the program have public accountability and transparency requirements?

What else has been done to date to address equity, diversity and inclusion within the program?

When was the Canadian human rights complaint that led to the 2006 Settlement Agreement first filed?

Are the 2006 Settlement Agreement and its 2019 Addendum legally binding?

Why is it important that the level of diversity within the program generally reflect the level of diversity within the Canadian population?

What are the program’s equity target goals?

Why isn’t the 2016 Census data being used to set targets for persons with disabilities?

What is meant by applying an intersectional lens to the program’s equity, diversity and inclusion work?

How will intersectionality be addressed for the program’s target-setting approach?

How does the Canada Research Chairs Program consider and support 2SLGBTQIA+ communities in its measures?

How are the measures in the 2021 settlement agreement tied to the program’s existing equity, diversity and inclusion measures?

What are the consequences for not meeting the program’s equity, diversity and inclusion requirements?

Why is it necessary for the program to impose consequences?

Is the 2021 Settlement Agreement legally binding?

What other measures are being implemented by Canada’s research funding agencies to address equity, diversity and inclusion within the research ecosystem?

Further questions

Footnotes

Program Details