Day 1: June 15, 2026, from 8:30 am - 4:00 pm

Attendance

Agenda

Day 1 Summary

1. Chairperson opening remarks – Benoit Dostie

Mr. Dostie opened the meeting by welcoming members and Assistant Chief Statisticians (ACS) and provided an overview of the meeting agenda.

2. Updates/Hot Files from the Chief Statistician – André Loranger

André Loranger briefed CSAC members on Statistics Canada's key priorities and challenges, including the Agency's financial and human resources situation. This included an update on the impacts of the Early Retirement Incentive, increased office presence requirements as of July 2026, and an agency-wide structural realignment driven by staff departures to support efficiency objectives. He also provided updates on the current strategic focus areas to Statistics Canada, including the Census of Population and Census of Agriculture, the TechStat program, the Agency's work on Official Statistics, and Artificial Intelligence (AI).

3. Defining Official Statistics at Statistics Canada: A response to the 2025 CSAC Annual Report – Christiane Laperrière, Kenza Sallier, Eric Rancourt

Kenza Sallier and Christiane Laperrière presented a high-level overview of the Agency's response to the 2025 CSAC Annual Report recommendation that "Canada needs a framework for defining and accrediting official statistics".

They noted that consultations have begun on the discussion paper, "Towards a Definition of Official Statistics," with internal stakeholders, other federal departments, provincial and territorial partners, as well as academic and international stakeholders.

Ms. Sallier presented preliminary findings at both the international and Canadian levels identifying emerging pillars of official statistics and outlining preliminary timelines for next steps.

Council members discussed how the current work aligns with the recommendations of the 2025 CSAC Annual Report. Members engaged in a discussion of opportunities and considerations regarding definitional alignment among federal, provincial, and territorial partners, as well as how accreditation would be implemented in practice.

4. Statistics Canada – Prioritization Framework – Lucy Chung

As the demand for statistical information grows, Statistics Canada faces the challenge of meeting the needs of Canadians and policymakers within constrained budgets. Lucy Chung presented Statistics Canada's Prioritization Framework, outlining the approach taken to prioritize agency programs and services and ensure that resources are appropriately allocated.

The framework is intended to support enhanced executive decision-making, strengthen the foundation for future exercises, and promote a balanced approach to reductions and reallocation.  

5. Statistics Canada – Strategic Plan – Sarah Crowell

Sarah Crowell presented Statistics Canada's 2026-2029 Strategic Plan.

Ms. Crowell outlined the plan and its alignment with StatCan 2030, Statistics Canada's long-term vision, by expanding on its three key priorities:

1. Build a future-ready statistical workforce capable of leading sustained transformation,
2. Safeguard quality and modernize statistical programs, and
3. Simplify and transform how statistics are produced.

Council members discussed the complementary roles of the Strategic Plan and the Execution Plan, emphasizing the need for staff alignment with strategic priorities to support effective execution and organizational performance.

6. Council Discussion (In camera) – All Council members

Council members held an in-camera session.

7. Chairperson closing remarks – Benoit Dostie

Mr. Dostie provided closing remarks for the day.

Day 2: June 16 2026, from 8:55 am - 1:00 pm

Attendance

Agenda

Day 2 Summary

1. Chairperson opening remarks – Benoit Dostie

Mr. Dostie opened the meeting by welcoming members and Assistant Chief Statisticians (ACS) and provided an overview of the Day 2 meeting agenda.

2. 2026 Census of Population – Patrice Mathieu

Mr. Mathieu provided an update on the Census of Population, outlining the 2026 Census collection plan and timeline, key updates and highlights, and next steps. He also presented an overview of the 2026 Census collection methodology and response rate assumptions. In addition, he shared an update on the first three weeks of Census collection, noting that response rates were strong and trending in the right direction.

The discussion focused on the effectiveness of engagement and follow-up activities in promoting participation and improving response rates.

3. Towards a Statistical Population Register for Canada – Christiane Laperrière, Kari Wolanski

Kari Wolanski presented considerations for a Statistical Population Register for Canada. The presentation outlined multiple drivers for revisiting Canada's Census approach, the social acceptability of a statistical register-based approach, and an initial proposition for a pathway toward a register, including key considerations.

During the discussion that followed, the presenters and Council members explored several risks and potential consequences, as well as positive outcomes, such as reduced respondent burden and lower costs due to the pre-existing administrative data infrastructure. It was noted that transitioning to a register-based Census would represent a fundamental change to the Statistics Canada ecosystem.

4. Council Discussion (In-camera) – All Council members

Council members held an in-camera discussion.

5. Chairperson closing remarks – Benoit Dostie

Mr. Dostie thanked CSAC members, the Chief Statistician, the Assistant Chief Statisticians and their teams, as well as the CSAC Secretariat, for their support.

Introduction

The Canadian Research and Development Classification (CRDC) is the common framework used to measure and report on research and experimental development (R&D) activities in Canada. Its objective is to ensure consistent classification of research across institutions, disciplines and funding programs, making it possible to compare results, track investments, and understand Canada's research landscape over time.

The CRDC is maintained through a partnership between Statistics Canada and the federal research funding agencies: the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). Together, these partners ensure that the classification reflects how research is categorized and reported across the country.

Research is not static. New fields emerge, established disciplines evolve, and the boundaries between domains continually shift. To keep pace, the CRDC is revised every two and five years. The next version, CRDC 2026 Version 1.0, is scheduled for release in December 2026.

In preparation for the release of this report, the partner agencies completed a revision cycle that drew on extensive consultations with stakeholders from government, academia, and the broader research community. The themes and feedback gathered during that engagement were summarized in the report "What We Asked and What We Heard," which was published in December 2025.

This follow-up report describes the upcoming revisions to the CRDC. It explains how stakeholder input was weighed, which proposals have been tabled for inclusion in the upcoming version, and which ones could not be included at this time and why.

The objective of the report is threefold: to make the revision process transparent; to demonstrate how stakeholder and community input shaped the outcome; and to give users time to plan for the changes ahead of the December 2026 release.

What we did

Every revision to the CRDC is grounded in recognized statistical classification principles and concepts. These principles, shared by national statistical offices around the world, ensure that the classification remains coherent, comparable over time and analytically useful. The revision process also follows the systematic documentation practices set out in the General Statistical Information Model (GSIM), which establishes how changes are categorized, tracked and described.

Each proposal received during the consultation was evaluated against these principles by the CRDC Task Team. The Task Team includes representatives of the federal research funding agencies and of Statistics Canada's Centre for Statistical Standards and Geomatics (CSSG)^{Footnote 1}.The federal research funding agency representatives contribute in-depth knowledge of the research communities that use the classification, while CSSG representatives conduct research to support decision-making throughout the revision cycle and ensure that the proposed changes align with the established statistical classification principles and guidelines. This combination of disciplinary insight and methodological rigour is central to how the CRDC is maintained.

Working from this shared foundation, the Task Team examined whether each proposed change addressed a genuine gap, whether the field of research it described was distinct enough to warrant its own category, and whether the change could be integrated without compromising the overall structure of the classification. Where proposals required clarification or additional supporting evidence, the Task Team followed up with the original submitters. For complex or emerging areas, subject-matter experts were also consulted to ensure that the decisions rested on sound disciplinary understanding.

The guiding philosophy was to minimize disruption to the existing classification wherever possible, as users rely on continuity to track trends over time and compare results across studies. At the same time, the Task Team recognized that more substantive changes are sometimes necessary, either to capture new areas of research or to correct structural weaknesses that affect data integrity. The 2026 revision reflects a careful balance between these two considerations.

In practice, this approach took several forms: refining existing fields of research; creating new subclasses and divisions; reorganizing categories within the classification structure; and updating content and terminology. The changes summarized in the next section are the outcome of this collaborative work, combining stakeholder input with the expertise of the Task Team to produce a classification that will better reflect Canada's evolving research and development landscape.

What is changing

The CRDC is made up of three interrelated classifications:

• Type of Activity (TOA), which describes the nature of the research being undertaken;
• Fields of Research (FOR), or which describes what is being studied; and
• Socioeconomic Objectives (SEO), which describes the broader societal purpose toward which the research is directed.

Together, these three classifications provide a complete picture of Canadian R&D activity.

In the 2026 revision, most changes will be made to Fields of Research, while Socioeconomic Objectives will see some changes. The Type of Activity classification will remain unchanged.

The six divisions that make up Fields of Research—Social Sciences; Humanities and the Arts; Natural Sciences; Agricultural and veterinary sciences; Engineering and Technology; and Medical, Health, and Life Sciences—will see varying degrees of changes, such as new subclasses to capture emerging fields, the reorganization of existing categories to improve coherence, and terminology updates to reflect contemporary academic usage and improve clarity.

The most notable change at the highest level of the classification will be the addition of a new division: Indigenous Knowledge Systems. This is the only structural change at the division level and merits particular attention.

A new division: Indigenous Knowledge Systems

The proposal to recognize Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) within the CRDC initially came from the SSHRC Advisory Circle on Indigenous Research during the 2023 revision cycle. At that time, it was put on hold until the major revision cycle, given that it would affect the highest level of the classification structure. It was proposed again in this cycle and underwent extensive review, given the importance of such a change.

The review was led by SSHRC management and supported by the management of the other federal research funding agencies, the CRDC Task Team and Statistics Canada. Consultations were also held with the Australian Bureau of Statistics and StatsNZ on how Indigenous-related research was considered for the Australia and New Zealand Standard Research Classification (ANZSRC). Statistics Canada also examined whether IKS-based research aligns with the definitions of research and development set out in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's (OECD) Frascati Manual, the international standard that underpins R&D reporting, drawing on guidance from the SSHRC Advisory Circle on Indigenous Research and Statistics Canada's Centre for Indigenous Statistics team.

The conclusion was clear: research grounded in Indigenous Knowledge Systems is consistent with the CRDC framework and deserves explicit representation within it. Therefore, Indigenous Knowledge Systems will be a new division (RDF70) in CRDC 2026 Version 1.0.

At this stage, the division will be introduced without different subcategories in scope. Identifying the appropriate subclasses requires further engagement and analysis, and it is more important to establish the division correctly than to fill it in prematurely. To support users in the meantime, the introduction to the CRDC 2026 V1.0 documentation will include a working definition of Indigenous Knowledge Systems together with coding guidelines. It is important to note that the new division does not replace the existing Indigenous-focused fields in other CRDC divisions, which mainly use Western research methodologies). Researchers will therefore continue to have access to all these fields.

Interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research

Research across disciplines is a defining feature of the contemporary research environment, and the CRDC has long accommodated such work by allowing multiple codes to be assigned to a single project. Similarly, federal research funding agencies typically ask applicants to identify multiple fields of research in their proposals to better capture interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approaches. The 2026 revision will not create a dedicated division for interdisciplinary research. Doing so would require restructuring the entire classification; due to the inherently project-specific and often temporary nature of interdisciplinary work, it does not warrant being a permanent division. The new version will provide clearer guidance on how to recognize and code this kind of research.

In particular, the new version will clarify two research areas that are often confused:

• Interdisciplinary research integrates theoretical frameworks, methodologies, and perspectives from two or more disciplines or knowledge systems throughout the research process, producing insights or solutions that would not emerge from a single discipline;
• Multidisciplinary research brings together multiple disciplines around a shared problem, with each discipline contributing its distinct expertise. The contributions remain parallel rather than being fully integrated.

This distinction has practical consequences for coding. Multidisciplinary projects naturally involve multiple Fields of Research, each one contributing separately, and the codes assigned should reflect that. In contrast, interdisciplinary projects require hierarchical weighting that reflects the depth of integration of the research areas and identifies the primary methodological framework. The introduction in the CRDC 2026 Version 1.0 will be updated to provide guidance on these distinctions and to offer coding examples to help users apply them consistently.

Given that interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research have become increasingly important in the Canadian research landscape, Statistics Canada is considering publishing a technical paper on this topic to provide users with more details on these two areas of research and specifically on how they should be interpreted while coding R&D using the CRDC.

Black Studies

Black Studies is a well-established field of research in Canada's current research and development landscape. In the 2023 revision of the CRDC, it was determined that, due to its interdisciplinary nature, Black Studies does not align neatly with a single CRDC division. As a temporary measure, the Black Studies subclass was placed under Other social sciences, n.e.c., with the intention of revisiting this decision in a future review.

In this revision cycle, the feedback received highlighted the need to rethink where this research area fits in the classification. To address this issue, two proposals were put forth. The first involves promoting Black Studies from a subclass to a full class within the Social Sciences division, while the second suggests renaming the parent class (currently called "Other social sciences, n.e.c.") to remove its residual framing. Neither proposal has been adopted. A consensus could not be reached on an alternative class title that would adequately reflect the diverse range of fields to be included in that category, and removing "Other" from the title would introduce inconsistencies in the CRDC's broader hierarchical structure. As a result, Black Studies retains its current classification code.

Additional work was done to assess the feasibility of distributing more specific research areas specific to Black peoples under existing research areas in relevant divisions, such as Humanities and the Arts, and Medical, Health, and Life Sciences. However, this would require further consultation with the research community and other stakeholders to ensure conceptual clarity and consistency in the classification. As a result, discussions on potential changes are ongoing.

Changes in the Fields of Research divisions

The most important changes in the new version will be in the individual divisions, where existing categories will be refined and new subclasses introduced.

During this cycle, the divisions Social Sciences and Humanities and the Arts received the most proposals for revision. The table below highlights the key adjustments and provides an overview of the number of virtual and real changes. All other changes will be described in the final classification and the correspondence table.

Natural Sciences (RDF10)

The "Insect biology" subclass will be renamed "Entomology," a more precise and widely used term. The change will be reflected both in the field title and the related exclusion clause.

Engineering and Technology (RDF20–21)

Nuclear engineering, which is currently a subclass of Engineering design, will become a class. This change recognizes the distinct technical foundations and growing prominence of the field. Several new subclasses will accompany the move, including Nuclear Plant Design, Systems, and Operations; Nuclear Reactor Heat Transport; and Fusion Reactors.

Medical, Health, and Life Sciences (RDF30)

The current subclass "Applied immunology (including antibody engineering, xenotransplantation and T-cell therapies)" will be updated to "Applied immunology (including immune-based therapies)." The new wording captures a broader conceptual scope and better reflects the rapidly expanding range of therapies emerging in this area.

Social Sciences (RDF50)

The Social Sciences division will see moderate changes. Several new subclasses will be introduced, and many existing subclasses see updates to their titles or definitions. The new subclasses to be introduced in this division are summarized in Table 2.

In addition, some combined fields whose joint code caused confusion will be split. For example, the Economic history and heterodox economics subclass will be separated: economic history will retain the current code, and heterodox economics will be assigned a new one.

In several cases, proposed fields will be incorporated existing subclasses through updated subclass definitions rather than through creating new categories. This approach was used where the proposed field was already implicitly covered and a new subclass would have added complexity without analytical value. For example, the following fields will be added to existing subclasses:

• Penology will be explicitly recognized within "Correctional theory, offender treatment and rehabilitation"
• Historical anthropology, media anthropology, and anthropology of the arts will be incorporated into "Social and cultural anthropology"
• Circus arts will be recognized within "Performing arts, n.e.c."

Furthermore, some titles will be changed. For instance, the subclass "Criminological theories" will be renamed "Criminological theories and comparative criminology" to reflect the explicit inclusion of comparative work, which had been requested by stakeholders.

Humanities and the Arts (RDF60)

The Humanities and the Arts division will see the most changes, including from the addition of new subclasses, recoding of some existing categories, corrections of typographical errors, and title updates to reflect current academic and professional usage. The new subclasses in this division are summarized in Table 3.

These new subclasses will include a definition. For example, sacred texts will be added to the definitions of religious studies categories, rather than creating a separate subclass for them. Based on this approach, the Jewish studies subclass will reference Jewish sacred texts, and Christianity studies will reference Christian sacred texts. With this change, "Biblical studies" can be removed from the title without affecting the underlying content.

In addition, several existing fields will be split or moved to improve clarity. The combined category "History and philosophy of specific fields" will be divided, with the history-based subclasses being moved to History, and the philosophy-based subclasses will remain under the current code. For example, the history of education will be moved to History, while the philosophy of education will stay in the current category. Similarly, Musicology and ethnomusicology will be moved from Performing arts to Music, a more natural category.

The History and Religious studies classes will be recoded and the subclasses reorganized into a more logical structure.

Finally, some titles in this division will be updated. "History and philosophy of specific fields" will become "Philosophy of specific fields," following the split described above. "Chinese language" will become "Chinese languages" to acknowledge linguistic diversity. Under Literature and literary studies, some titles will become singular to emphasize collective domains, while plural forms will be kept when diversity is the focus. Two titles in French will also be corrected: "Critical theory in philosophy" will be rendered as "Théorie critique en philosophie", replacing the inaccurate "Théorie du criticisme en philosophie", and "Eastern religions" will be translated as "Religions d'Asie", replacing "Religions orientales".

Indigenous Knowledge Systems (RDF70)

As described earlier, this new division will be added without separate or distinct subcategories in scope at this stage. Subcategories that mirror the parent division and maintain the same scope will be created. This aligns with the principle of a rectangular classification, in which a category has a code at every level of the structure, regardless of the scope of each category. Definitions and coding guidance will be provided in the introduction of CRDC 2026 Version 1.0.

Changes to Socioeconomic Objectives

Changes to the Socioeconomic Objectives classification will be minimal. They include updates to terminology to reflect current usage and expanded objective names to help users better code their work. The terminology changes include replacing "aged persons" with "older adults" in the English version only, while the corresponding French terminology remains unchanged. Additional revisions include replacing "disabled" with "persons with disabilities" in general contexts and "learners with disabilities" in educational settings.

Regarding socioeconomic objective titles, subclass RDS10701, "Human health procedures and pharmaceutical treatments," will be renamed "Human pharmaceutical treatments, including biologics, cell and gene therapies" to reflect the substantial growth of these treatment modalities. In addition, the illustrative examples under subclass RDS111 "Political and social systems, structures, and processes" will be expanded to include "anti-racism," a topic frequently raised during our consultations.

What is not changing

Not every proposal submitted during the consultation could be incorporated into the upcoming version of the classification. It is important to be transparent about the proposals that were not retained.

Each proposal was reviewed against the criteria that guide CRDC revisions, including empirical significance, evidence of distinct research activity, and alignment with CRDC principles. The proposals that did not result in changes fell into one of three categories or a combination thereof.

Covered in an existing category

Several proposals covered research areas that are already encompassed in existing categories:

• Proposals related to the sociology of work and labour were found to be covered in the Sociology of work subclass and in the subclasses under the Industrial relations and work relations class.
• Proposals related to e-commerce fall within the broader business and marketing fields.
• Visual semiotics proposed as a new subclass will go under Semiotics, which will be added as a new subclass.
• Biomanufacturing was proposed but is already covered under Industrial biotechnology.

Out of scope

Some proposals fall outside the current scope of the CRDC. For example, recognizing translational research would require modifying the underlying definition of research and development in the Frascati Manual, which is an international standard maintained by the OECD.

In the Frascati framework, R&D activities are classified based on the intended use of results. Translational research does not fit this approach because it is defined by the movement of knowledge across the research continuum. Its non-linear and iterative nature—moving between basic research, applied research, and experimental development—means it spans multiple types of established R&D activities rather than fitting into a single category.

Any modifications to the definition of R&D or the type of R&D activities would require external approval and could not be completed in a single revision cycle. In the meantime, coding guidelines for translational and preclinical research will be included in the CRDC 2026 Version 1.0 documentation pending further international discussion.

Similarly, Technology Readiness Levels and regulatory science fall outside the Frascati Manual's guidelines for R&D reporting and therefore cannot be included in the CRDC.

A related question was raised about the "Other social sciences, n.e.c." (not elsewhere classified) category, which currently comprises sensitive fields such as disability studies, Black studies, Indigenous studies, and critical disability studies. A proposal to reorganize this category under a new overarching class was carefully considered, but no consensus could be reached on an alternative title that would avoid creating challenges. Removing "Other" from "Other social sciences, n.e.c." would also have created inconsistency in the CRDC hierarchical structure, since "Other…, n.e.c." categories are a deliberate and necessary feature of statistical classifications. As a result, these fields will remain in their current location. It is worth noting that the use of "Other" in the CRDC is a structural convention and is not intended to diminish any population or field of study.

Deferred to future revisions

A few proposals were set aside for further consideration in future revision cycles (research agenda). For example, a more developed set of translational research subclasses will require further analysis to identify which fields are most commonly translational in practice.

In addition, disability studies in the humanities overlapping with disability studies in the social sciences raises significant interdisciplinary questions. At this time, this will be addressed through temporary coding on interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research, and a more comprehensive approach will be examined for the next revision. In addition, related research approaches, such as transdisciplinary research, may be further evaluated to improve the accuracy and consistency of coding research conducted under different research approaches.

The introduction of a new subclass, "Critical Disability Studies," in the current classification structure is intended to capture a range of related areas that had been proposed, including ableism and anti-ableism; autistic studies; ADHD studies; crip studies; disability justice; disability and social justice; disability, race, gender and sexuality; disability and the environment; disability cultures and histories; and mad studies and c/s/x* (consumer/survivor/ex-patient) studies, including the psychiatric survivors' movement. The potential creation of more specific subclasses in these areas may be reconsidered in future revisions once evidence is available on the use of the new Critical Disability Studies subclass and the existing Disability Studies subclass.

Looking ahead

CRDC 2026 Version 1.0 is scheduled for release in December 2026. It will include the revised classification structure summarized in this report along with the accompanying documentation, which will provide definitions, illustrative examples, coding guidelines for interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research, and concordances to support users in moving from CRDC 2020 Version 2.0 to CRDC 2026 Version 1.0.

This report is designed to give users—including funding agencies, research institutions, data analysts, and the wider research community—sufficient time to understand the upcoming changes and plan their adoption ahead of the December release of the classification. Once the classification has been published, it will be implemented by the federal funding agencies and Statistics Canada's data programs and supported by the documentation mentioned above and additional resources, as needed.

Statistics Canada and its partner agencies remain committed to producing a classification that is both stable enough to support consistent measurement over time and flexible enough to reflect the changing landscape of Canadian research. The changes summarized in this report reflect the input of stakeholders and experts at this stage of the process, and they will be formally approved in the new classification structure using the appropriate governance in place. Users who have questions about the upcoming release of CRDC 2026 Version 1.0 or suggestions that could inform future revisions are encouraged to keep up to date with Statistics Canada and the federal research funding agencies.

Appendix: Governing principles and underlying concepts and criteria

Statistical classification principles

Principle 1: Follow internationally accepted definitions and guidelines on how to classify the type of activity, field of research and socioeconomic objectives for R&D (see also 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 supports the production and dissemination of consistent and sound statistics. The CRDC team and the working group use this information to evaluate whether the proposed changes are properly placed in the classification structure.

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

• a 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 are collectible and publishable (collectability and reportability) (i.e., 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 (i.e., the R&D activity must be sufficiently prevalent or concentrated to be reliably observed and measured in survey samples). However, in evaluating collectability and reportability, 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 extent 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 to the 2026 version and beyond should be easily linked through appropriate correspondences to previous CRDC versions (e.g., CRDC 2020 Version 2 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 non-statistical uses of the CRDC (e.g., administrative, regulatory or public policy functions), the 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 review the comments and develops their recommendations based on established statistical classification principles and guidelines. Information unrelated to the accurate collection of information for statistical purposes, such as the perceived importance of R&D, does not contribute to the recommendations of the CRDC team and the working group. Similarly, the volume of comments does not determine what the recommendations will be, and submitting a request for change does not automatically result in a change in the CRDC.

Underlying concepts and classification criteria in the CRDC

Statistical unit

The basic principle of the CRDC is the R&D performed. The statistical unit or object being classified using the CRDC is the concept of R&D. According to the OECD standard (Frascati Manual 2015), R&D is defined 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 expenditures 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.

Scope of the classification

The scope of the CRDC is all R&D activities. The CRDC provides a three-way classification matrix, 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:

• Division – The broadest level, representing major domains of research.
• Group – Subdivisions within each division that share a common methodology, knowledge domain or perspective.
• Class – More specific subdivisions within each group.
• 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 Socioeconomic 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.
• Socioeconomic Objective (SEO): Uses two levels (Division and Group) to classify research by intended purpose or outcome.

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