Gender-based Analysis Plus research guide

What is GBA Plus

Gender-based Analysis Plus (GBA Plus) is an analytical tool used to support the development of responsive and inclusive policies, programs, and other initiatives. GBA Plus is an intersectional analysis that goes beyond biological (sex) and socio-cultural (gender) differences to consider other factors, such as age, disability, education, ethnicity, economic status, geography (including rurality), language, race, religion, and sexual orientation.  

Applying GBA Plus is an iterative and flexible process. In fact, robust GBA Plus is rarely linear and continuous analytical improvement is a normal part of the process. There is no “one point” of entry for the analysis.

If you are new to GBA Plus and intersectionality, we encourage you to complete “Introduction to Gender-based Analysis Plus (INC101)” before proceeding further with this research guide. before proceeding further with this research guide.

GBA Plus in Research: Going Beyond Gender

GBA Plus enables researchers to consider the following:

• multiple aspects of identity are dynamic and shaped by society (for example, gender, ethnicity, class, sexuality and ability are fluid and flexible)
• individual identity factors interact with group membership, social context, and systems of oppression to influence a person’s experience with policies, programs and other initiatives
• each issue or problem under investigation must consider how identity factors, group membership, social context, and systems of oppression combine to create unique challenges and barriers

GBA Plus demonstrates why and how certain social categories and social experiences should be included in any given research project.

The value of applying GBA Plus in research

GBA Plus supports researchers to:

• consider each person involved in their research through an intersectional approach
• recognize their own individual and intersecting factors and reflect on their assumptions and unconscious biases
• break down stereotypes by revealing the diversity within different groups
• analyze how social, historical, systemic, and power structures influence lived experiences and outcomes
• identify and mitigate barriers individuals with diverse intersecting factors experience when accessing programs, services, or benefits
• generate evidence on the needs, priorities, capacities, and experiences of diverse groups
• strengthen the relevance of findings to support inclusive and equitable policy and program development
• recognize differences and support all people in fully realizing their potential as members of Canadian society

The links between GBA Plus and other research approaches

GBA Plus has certain features in common with many other research methods, including the social determinants of health approach, community-based research, and Indigenous methodologies. In the realm of health, for example, a GBA Plus approach overlaps with well-established approaches to understanding and responding to health inequities.

The Public Health Agency of Canada recognizes twelve social determinants of health and health inequalities that represent a myriad of social, cultural, environmental, genetic and biological factors. For example, determinants include: income and social status; employment and working conditions; education and literacy; childhood experiences; physical environments; social supports and coping skills; health behaviours; access to health services; biology and genetic endowment; gender; culture; and race/racism.

Researchers and policy makers have long investigated the intersection of these determinants and their effects on people’s health outcomes. The World Health Organization recognized that the social determinants of health – broadly defined as the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age, and people’s access to power, money and resources – have a powerful influence on health inequities.

GBA Plus and the social determinants of health approaches thus both recognize the multiple dynamic factors that influence the lives of individuals. Both also recognize the need to understand and respond to these factors in overall efforts to eliminate inequality, including gender inequality. For more information, please visit: Institute of Gender and Health (IGH) Learning - Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR).

Applying GBA Plus in research: key questions

There is no universal formula or method for applying GBA Plus when conducting research. There are, however, several guiding questions that can assist in the design, implementation or evaluation of research, beginning with the development of the research question.

Literature review

To begin any research project, it is essential to conduct a literature review. Information and data required in literature reviews can be found in several ways, such as through Statistics Canada surveys including the Canadian Census, administrative databases, academic databases and 'grey literature,' e.g., scientific and technical reports, conference papers, internal reports, government documents, newsletters, fact sheets and unpublished theses and dissertations. Ideally, the information gathering process will draw on both quantitative and qualitative data and focus on developments within the last five years.

It is also important to consult, where possible and applicable, relevant internal and external stakeholders, including non-governmental organizations with relevant knowledge. In addition, important information can be obtained by consulting those with expertise in a wide range of fields, including people with a lived experiences of any given issue. Look beyond the “usual suspects” to ensure that your consultations are as inclusive as possible.

Once all the relevant information has been identified and obtained, a critical review of the evidence must occur to determine:

• what is known about the issue or problem and what are the gaps in knowledge about different populations of women, men and gender-diverse people
• the extent to which attention to diversity is reflected in the research and whether the analysis is objective or biased and perpetuating stereotypes
• which factors and aspects of identity have been considered
• the extent to which addressing diversity in the sample would have yielded different findings

A map of the available information will form the foundation for the development of the research design, including determining the exact focus of the proposed research.

Research questions

• What is the issue or opportunity under consideration? What do research, data, and evidence reveal about it?
• Which populations or groups are impacted, and how are they affected directly or indirectly?
• Which groups are more likely to experience negative impacts, exclusion, or barriers to access, and why?
• How might various demographic characteristics contribute to unequal and indirect benefits and negative impacts and barriers?
• What are the factors that contribute to the inequalities with respect to the issue at hand and which individuals or groups are most likely to experience it?
• What data gaps exist, and what new information will this initiative generate to address them?
• Do the data support the proposed options or recommendations?
• Where applicable, are the disparities rooted in historical or systemic factors that could inform the options?
• What are the priorities of those most affected, both positively and negatively, by this initiative?

Research tools and analysis

GBA Plus recognizes many forms of knowledge, including lived experience, research on diverse groups, and disaggregated data. It draws on quantitative and qualitative data, as well as Indigenous Knowledge, consults multiple sources, and engages with various groups and communities to identify gaps and produce relevant intersectional analyses.

Tools

• Can highly correlated individual factors be combined to explore statistical intersections (for quantitative research)?
• Does the sample represent the experiences of a diverse group of people for whom the issue under study is relevant?
• Do the research instruments support disaggregation of the gathered data?
• Is the tool suited to collecting micro or macro data or a combination of both?

Design

1. Does the research design explicitly identify and define how identity factors interact with group membership, social context, and systems of oppression to create unique experiences and barriers? Does it provide a rationale for their inclusion?
2. Does the research design assess both positive and negative impacts of an initiative based on various factors?
3. Does the research design adequately identify risks and challenges early on to develop effective mitigation strategies?
4. Does the research design innovate and address issues and policies in a more comprehensive and inclusive manner by considering diverse and intersecting identity factors?
5. Does the research design include qualitative research methodologies including seeking input from relevant academic, non-governmental organizations, affected communities, and other interested partners?

Quantitative methods

This empirical model examines the cause-and-effect relationship between independent factors (for example, gender, ethnicity, social class and so on) and dependent factors to produce macro level population data. The key challenges of a quantitative research approach for GBA Plus are the following:

1. concepts such as gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, ability and so on are socially constructed; new categories are constantly created and definitions are ever-changing
2. aspects of identity are usually analyzed separately for their relative impact on the phenomenon of interest, frequently at the cost of examining the intersection of independent and dependent variables of interest
3. while the power of intersectional evidence is widely recognized, the lack of disaggregated data continues to be raised as a barrier to rigorous GBA Plus assessment. Documenting data gaps and taking action to fill gaps is critical to continued progress
4. traditionally, the dominant group in a culture (for example, white males) is the comparison point for every other category, resulting in limited comparisons of sub-groups on the topic of interest

For quantitative methods to be consistent with the requirements of GBA Plus, researchers can use a variety of strategies.

1. Focus on traditionally neglected groups. Historically marginalized groups have faced disproportionately high rates of racism, discrimination, gender-based violence or other systemic problems. The list of these groups includes but is not limited to: Indigenous and racialized women and girls, persons without an official status in Canada, persons living with a disability, as well as members of rural, remote, and northern communities
2. There is no single point of entry for analysis. Collect disaggregated data on various population groups to identify who may unequally benefit, indirectly benefit, or may experience negative impacts on barriers to opportunities or to accessing support
3. In many cases sufficient disaggregated data might not exist to facilitate analysis around individuals, but a helpful alternative to address these gaps is to work with community-level data, especially in an Indigenous context

For data related to gender, diversity, and inclusion, researchers are encouraged to consult the Gender, Diversity and Inclusion Statistics (GDIS) Hub. The GIDS Hub is Statistics Canada’s central access point for disaggregated and intersectional data on gender, diversity and inclusion. The GDIS Catalogue offers a searchable database of tables, publications, and data visualizations.

Qualitative methods

The strength of qualitative methods such as community studies, participatory action research, historical analyses, structured interviews, textual analyses of media resources, and so on, allows for the in-depth study of individuals’ unique and intersectional social locations and experiences. The key challenges of a qualitative research approach for GBA Plus are the following:

1. how to ask questions that generate knowledge about intersecting experiences
2. the time required to analyze and interpret significant volumes of data
3. the quality of the data analysis, which is dependent on individual research knowledge on the importance and consequences of intersecting social categories and the socio-historical realities of traditionally marginalized groups
4. the need to emphasize the value of qualitative research for producing reliable evidence for policy and programs

At the same time, qualitative research is recognized for its potential to generate detailed information about individuals and their lived experiences, opinions and motivations. It therefore helps to provide a deeper understanding of how individuals’ intersecting identity factors, group membership, social context and systems of oppression inform their interaction with an initiative. The method, by drawing on individual experiences, is particularly effective for identifying differences and similarities among groups, and why they matter.

Mixed methods

Combining data obtained through both quantitative and qualitative analysis allows researchers to come to a better understanding of how certain life situations and social barriers affect social positions, experiences and needs.

Regardless of which method is chosen, in presenting research data and findings it is important to consider:

1. Data must be collected in a way that is respectful of the individuals it represents and does not cause harm or perpetuate existing inequalities.
2. How is the data presented and analyzed?
3. Can the data collected be disaggregated into sub-categories or intersections of these and other sub-categories to provide comprehensive contexts of the issue?
4. What are the identified data gaps, and how will you address these gaps?
5. What does the information convey about the positive or negative impact of the issue on impacted communities?
6. Are harmful stereotypes perpetuated? Are any particular groups unfairly stigmatized?

In summary, GBA Plus is a prerequisite to effective and efficient policy because it allows policymakers to anticipate the impacts of any given initiative, and to develop more inclusive programs. It also ensures public accountability and credibility. Without question, GBA Plus is a best practice in modern policy work.

Reference list

Bishwakarma, R., Hunt, V. H., and Zajicek, A. (2007). Educating Dalit Women: Beyond a One-Dimensional Policy Formulation, Himalaya, XXVII (1-2), 27-39.

Bowleg, L. (2008). When Black + Lesbian + Woman ≠ Black Lesbian Woman: The Methodological Challenges of Qualitative and Quantitative Intersectionality Research, Sex Roles, 59, 312–325.

Canada. Canadian Gender Budgeting Act, S.C. 2018, c. 27, s. 314. Assented to December 13, 2018. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-17.2/FullText.html.

Canada. Department of Finance. Budget 2021: Annex 4—Gender, Diversity, and Quality of Life Statement. Ottawa: Government of Canada, 2021. https://www.budget.canada.ca/2021/report-rapport/anx4-en.html.

Canada. Department of Justice. Policy on Gender‑Based Analysis Plus: Applying an Intersectional Approach to Foster Inclusion and Address Inequities. Ottawa: Government of Canada, n.d. Accessed March 20, 2026. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/abt-apd/pgbap-pacsp.html.

Canada. Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics. Tri‑Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS 2, 2022): Chapter 10—Qualitative Research. Ottawa: Government of Canada, 2022. Accessed March 20, 2026. https://ethics.gc.ca/eng/tcps2-eptc2_2022_chapter10-chapitre10.html. 

Clow, B., Pederson, A., Haworth-Brockman, M., and Bernier, J. (2009). Rising to the Challenge: Sex and Gender-based Analysis for Health Planning, Policy and Research in Canada, Halifax: Atlantic Centre of Excellence for Women's Health.

Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and Research in Psychology, American Psychologist, 64(3), 170-180.

Commission on Social Determinants of Health (2008). Closing the Gap in a Generation: Health Equity Through Action on the Social Determinants of Health, Final Report. Geneva: World Health Organization.

Hankivsky, O. and Cormier, R. (2009). Intersectionality: Moving Women's Health Research and Policy Forward, Vancouver: Women's Health Research Network.

Murphy, Y., Hunt, V., Zajicek, A. M. Norris, A. N., and Hamilton, L. (2009). Incorporating Intersectionality in Social Work Practice, Research, Policy, and Education, Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Public Health Agency of Canada (2010). What Determines Health?, Government of Canada. Retrieved Jan. 19, 2011.

Statistics Canada. About the Quality of Life Framework for Canada. Government of Canada. Retrieved March 20, 2026. https://www.statcan.gc.ca/hub-carrefour/quality-life-qualite-vie/about-apropos-eng.htm.

Statistics Canada. “Canada Up Close: What We Can Learn from Disaggregated Data.” The Daily, September 10, 2020. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/200910/dq200910g-eng.htm.

Statistics Canada. Gender-based Analysis Plus: optimizing data disaggregation and analysis. Catalogue no. 45‑20‑0002. Ottawa: Government of Canada, 2023. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/45-20-0002/452000022023004-eng.htm.

Wilkinson, L. (2003). Advancing a Perspective on the Intersections of Diversity: Challenges for Research and Social Policy, Canadian Ethnic Studies 35(3), 26-38.

Women in Employment Committee (2003). Gender and Diversity Analysis: Discussion Paper and Lens. Canadian Association of Administrators of Labour Legislation. Retrieved Jan. 19, 2011.