Revising the Canadian Research and Development Classification (CRDC) 2020 Version 2.0 to CRDC 2026 Version 1.0 - Consultative engagement summary report

What we Asked and What we Heard

December 2025 

Introduction 

The CRDC is primarily designed to provide a standardized framework for collecting consistent statistical information on research and experimental development (R&D) conducted in Canada. It is used to compile, analyze, and communicate data on R&D activities, and can also serve as a reference for the broader study of R&D. It has also been developed to support the peer-review process, help federal research funding agencies monitor their grants and contributions, and support reporting conducted by the agencies and the Government of Canada and the measurement of R&D in Canada. The CRDC aims to promote consistency and comparability of research statistics across Canadian funding agencies and internationally, while meeting the needs of diverse users and highlighting areas of Canadian research strength.

The CRDC comprises three interconnected classifications: Type of Activity (TOA), Fields of Research (FOR), and Socio-economic Objective (SEO), which when used together, ensure that R&D statistics collected are useful to various stakeholders, including different levels of government, communities, national and international institutions, and educational organizations.  

The CRDC was jointly developed by the federal research granting agencies, including the Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), and Statistics Canada (StatCan) and has been maintained in partnership since the first edition published in 2020. Revision proposals are reviewed and analyzed by the Task Team on the revision of the CRDC (TT-CRDC), a group established by the federal research granting agencies and Statistics Canada to oversee the CRDC revision process and maintain the classification. In May 2024, the CRDC 2020 Version 2.0 was released. The CRDC 2026 Version 1.0 will be released in December of 2026. 

Revising the CRDC 2020 Version 2.0

In line with good statistical practice, the CRDC is reviewed and revised periodically to reflect changes in the R&D activities, ensuring continued relevance and accuracy. Regular revisions are planned on a 5-year cycle, and the release of CRDC 2026 Version 1.0 represents the first revision of that kind in this ongoing process.

In addition to the 5-year cycle, a 2-year cycle is in place to support improved coding and understanding of FOR and SEO classifications. In exceptional cases, when there is consensus between members of the CRDC revision Task Team, both real and virtual changes may occur outside the 5-year regular revision cycles, for example at the 2-year cycle, as it was done with CRDC 2020 Version 2.0.

Respondents may propose virtual or real changes during these revisions. Virtual changes do not affect the meaning or scope of a category and typically involve wording refinements or minor edits for clarity. Real changes, on the other hand, do impact the meaning or scope of a category and may include creating new categories, combining, or splitting existing categories, or removing categories altogether. Understanding the distinction between these two types of changes helps ensure transparency and consistency in the revision process.

In December 2024, Statistics Canada's Economic Standards Steering Committee (ESSC) approved a permanent consultation process for the CRDC. Proposals for changes can now be submitted and reviewed on an ongoing basis. A cut-off date for considering proposed changes for inclusion in a new version of the CRDC will be posted well in advance.

The CRDC consultation webpage was launched in January 2025. For CRDC 2026 Version 1.0, the cut-off date for submissions was set as August 31, 2025.

What we asked

The consultation aimed to gather feedback from users who have already implemented the classification, as well as other interested parties who might want to suggest updates or changes to the CRDC. Proposed changes could encompass any element of the classification, including the structure of the classification, titles, definitions, and addition of new fields of research or socioeconomic objectives. 

The invitation to propose revisions to the CRDC was extended to academics, researchers, producers and data users, representatives of business associations, government bodies at the federal, provincial, and local levels, and all other interested parties.

Engagement and Outreach activities included:

  • Posting the CRDC 2026 Version 1.0 review notice on:
  • Public consultation period at Statistics Canada: January to August 2025.
  • The federal research granting agencies also shared the invitation with their partners, including the research communities, mostly through Vice-President of Research offices in academic institutions.
  • Statistics Canada focal points such as provincial/territorial statistical departments, as well as Office of the Chief Science Advisor of Canada, were also invited by email to provide feedback or share the consultation information with whom it may be of interest.
  • Feedback was gathered through:
    • Ad hoc submissions via Statistics Canada and federal research granting agencies inboxes.

What we heard

Overview of proposed changes 

The table below summarizes the themes emerging from consultation and the key areas of proposed change and feedback.

Themes and Proposed Changes

General
  •  Over fifty change requests were submitted, covering both virtual changes (not altering meaning or scope of categories) and real changes (affecting meaning or scope of categories).
  • Virtual change proposals included updating FOR titles and refining FOR and SEO descriptions containing outdated terminology to enhance clarity, precision, and consistency and align better with academic and professional contexts.
  • Real change proposals included creating new FOR codes and establishing new divisions.
  • Feedback spanned multiple divisions within the CRDC (RDF10–RDF60), reflecting both emerging research areas and the evolving scope of existing fields.
  • Most proposed changes concerned the Social Sciences, with additional suggestions for the Humanities and Basic Medicine and Life Sciences.
  • In areas where new subclasses were proposed, participants indicated that more refined subclass distinctions would better represent research specialization, methodological distinctiveness, and evolving disciplinary boundaries.
  • Several crosscutting themes were identified, including recognition of Indigenous Knowledge Systems, need to address sensitive research areas across the classification, and the proposal to improve the treatment of interdisciplinarity, including a potential new high-level category for interdisciplinary research.
RDF50 – Social Sciences    
  • Participants suggested the addition of new areas such as Anti-Racism and Equity. 
  • Additional proposals sought to reflect the growing diversity of research within Sociology and Anthropology (e.g., Sociology of Culture, Media Anthropology, Anthropology of the Arts). 
  • Within criminology, suggestions such as the inclusion of Comparative Criminology and Penology were also put forward to capture developments in the scope of research in this.
RDF60 – Humanities    
  • Feedback supported broadening the Humanities to better represent inclusive historical perspectives and emerging cultural disciplines. 
  • Proposed new fields include Women’s History, Social & Cultural History, and History of Religions, along with the removal of terminology identified as outdated (e.g., “Eastern Religions” or in French “Religions orientales”).
  • It was also recommended to add subfields reflecting creative and digital research such as Digital Music, Circus Arts, Exhibition Curation, and Visual Semiotics. 
  • Further suggestions included refinement of terminology, a few updates to the French translations in the French version of the CRDC, and addition of new categories such as Semiotics/Semiology, Study of Sacred Texts, and Spirituality Studies.
RDF30 – Basic Medicine and Life Sciences    
  • Under this division, it was suggested to add Translational Research/Sciences to better capture research bridging basic and applied sciences addressing what the proposal identifies as a gap in the current classification structure.

Recommendations out of scope of previous revisions or pending further consultation, resubmitted/reconsidered for revision for 2026.

Field of Research Notes

Indigenous Knowledge Systems
  • The proposal to add a new division for Indigenous Knowledge Systems was previously outside the scope of the 2023 revision but has now been reintroduced for further examination.
Black Studies and Indigenous Studies
  • In the 2023 revision, both fields were provisionally placed under Other Social Sciences, with the understanding that their placement would be revisited in 2025.
  • Recent feedback emphasized the need to reconsider their position within the classification. Stakeholders noted that placing well-established fields such as Black Studies within a residual category can unintentionally signal marginal status.
Critical Disability Studies
  • Recent consultations revisited the 2023 proposal to introduce a Critical Disability Studies subclass, intended to cover areas such as Ableism and anti-ableism, Autistic Studies, ADHD Studies, Crip Studies, and Disability Justice.
  • Establishing this subclass would recognize Critical Disability Studies as a distinct research tradition within the Social Sciences division and allow related areas to be classified more accurately, differentiating it from Disability Studies.
Interdisciplinarity
  • Given the inherently interdisciplinary nature of several research domains, stakeholders again recommended the creation of a dedicated high-level category for interdisciplinary research to provide a more coherent and structured approach to classification.
Additional Proposed Subclasses Reintroduced for Consideration
  • Several proposed additions that were not advanced in the 2023 revision due to the need for broader consultation were also brought forward again.
  • These include addition of subclasses for Critical Race Studies, Thanatology, Political Economy.
  • These proposals were reconsidered with the expectation that the expanded scope of the 2026 revision offers a more suitable opportunity for detailed assessment.

Next Steps 

The Task Team is currently reviewing all proposals in accordance with the Statistical Classification Principles, the Underlying Concepts, and the Classification Criteria of the CRDC, as outlined in the Appendix of this report. Following this review, Statistics Canada will issue a public notice in June 2026 outlining the final approved proposals for inclusion in CRDC 2026 V1.0, with the public release of CRDC 2026 V1.0 scheduled for December 2026.

Appendix: Governing principles and underlying concepts and criteria

Statistical Classification Principles

Principle 1: Follow internationally accepted definitions and guidelines on how to classify type of activity, field of research and socioeconomic objectives for R&D (also see Canadian Research and Development Classification (CRDC) 2020 Version 2.0 – Introduction). Because the purpose of the CRDC is primarily to provide consistent statistical information on the R&D activities, it is important to specify the scope of each category in the classification. By following standard definitions and coding practices, Principle 1 support consistent and sound statistics to be produced and disseminated. The CRDC team and the working group uses this information to evaluate whether the proposed changes are properly placed in the classification structure. 

Principle 2: Respect of the internationally recognized statistical classification principles, being:

  • well defined universe: categories at each level of the classification structure must reflect a well-defined universe or scope;
  • classification is exhaustive: it covers all possible elements in the universe even if all examples of such universe are not provided in the publication; 
  • categories are mutually exclusive: no overlapping in the scope of each classification item or category (to avoid double counting);
  • classification structure is hierarchical: lower categories are dependent of their higher categories;
  • classification structure is rectangular: the classification has a code represented at every level across its whole structure, regardless of the scope of each category;
  • classification is comparable to other classifications (of the same domain);
  • classification categories are empirically significant;
  • classification is organized around one or few concepts (e.g., R&D; Field of research; Socioeconomic objective);
  • classification contains groupings meaningful to users;
  • classification is widely adopted.

Principle 3: the classification is related to data that is collectible and publishable (collectability and reportability): whether data can be collected and reported on the R&D activity by type of activity, field of research or socioeconomic objective. For a detailed field of research or socioeconomic objective to be included in the CRDC and expecting statistics to come out of it, Statistics Canada must be able to collect and report data, otherwise, categories will not provide opportunities to produce relevant statistics. Statistics Canada is responsible for producing data across the entire range of R&D activities in Canada and conducts comprehensive surveys that collect R&D data.

Collectability and reportability are partly a function of the size of the R&D activity and other measure of empirical significance (meaning the R&D activity must be large enough to be detected in sample of surveys). In evaluating collectability and reportability, however, the CRDC team and the working group will not use a specific R&D size cut-off. This is because small R&D activities or expenses that are concentrated in certain industries or geographic areas may be collectable and reportable, while R&D of similar or larger activities or expenses that are spread throughout the economy may not be collectable and reportable. Therefore, size is not the only consideration in collectability and reportability. Collectability and reportability are also related to the type of data collection used by surveys or statistical programs.

Principle 4: the classification supports the maintenance of time series continuity to the extend possible; that is, the ability to maintain data series over time without interruption due to classification changes. To the extent possible, new CRDC categories added for the 2026 version and beyond should be easily linked by appropriate correspondence to previous versions of the CRDC (e.g., CRDC 2020 V2 for CDRC 2026).

Principle 5: the classification continues to be relevant, that is, it must be of analytical interest, result in data useful to users, and be based on appropriate statistical research, subject-matter expertise and administrative relevance aligned with statistical classification principles and needs.

Principle 6: the prevalence of classification principles and statistical needs: the CRDC is designed primarily for statistical purposes. Although there can be various uses of the CRDC for non-statistical purposes (e.g., for administrative, regulatory, or public policy functions), the requirements of government agencies or private users that choose to use the CRDC for non-statistical purposes are responsible for such use of the classification. As a result, the CRDC team and the working group reviews comments and develops its recommendations based on established statistical classification principles and guidelines. Information provided unrelated to the accurate gathering of information for statistical purposes, such as perceived importance of R&D, does not determine the CRDC team and the working group recommendations. Similarly, the volume of comments does not determine what the recommendations will be, and just submitting a request for a change does not automatically result into a change in the CRDC.

Underlying Concepts and Classification Criteria of the CRDC

The statistical unit

The basic principle of the CRDC is R&D performed. The statistical unit or object being classified using the CRDC is the concept of R&D. R&D is defined according to the OECD standard (Frascati Manual 2015) as comprising creative work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of human, culture, society and environment, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications.

There are some inherent difficulties in formulating a definition of what constitutes a unit of R&D, due to the lack of uniformity in organizational structures and considerable variation in the way organizations allocate resources to R&D activities. From a statistical viewpoint it is desirable that R&D expenditure be reported in the smallest cluster that can be classified to a single TOA and FOR, which for the purposes of this classification is defined to be an R&D unit. The extent to which it is not practicable to provide this detail will reduce the validity and usefulness of the classification, and the resulting R&D statistics.

The most common real-world references to R&D activities are Research Program and Research Project. These focal units seldom approximate the idealized R&D unit as outlined above, although they could be regarded as an aggregation of these units.

The scope of the classification

The scope of the CRDC is all R&D activities. The CRDC provides a three-way matrix of classification, enabling each R&D activity to be classified by TOA, FOR, and SEO. 

CRDC Structure

The CRDC is organized using a hierarchical structure that allows users to classify research activities with varying levels of detail. The hierarchy consists of the following levels:

  1. Division – The broadest level, representing major domains of research.
  2. Group – Subdivisions within each Division that share a common methodology, knowledge domain, or perspective.
  3. Class – More specific subdivisions within each Group.
  4. Subclass – The most detailed level, providing the greatest specificity within each Class.

Application of the Structure Across CRDC Components

The three components of the CRDC—Type of Activity (TOA), Fields of Research (FOR), and Socio-economic Objective (SEO)—use this hierarchy differently:

  • Type of Activity (TOA): Uses only the Division level, organized into three high-level categories with no further breakdown.
  • Fields of Research (FOR): Uses the full four-level hierarchy (Division → Group → Class → Subclass) to classify research by discipline.
  • Socio-economic Objective (SEO): Uses two levels—Division and Group—to classify research by intended purpose or outcome.

More information about the CRDC can be obtained from the introduction to the Canadian Research and Development Classification (CRDC) 2020 Version 2.0
 

Date modified: