Download the plan (Word)

This joint accessibility plan represents NSERC and SSHRC’s foremost commitment to become barrier-free organizations by 2040. It is both a roadmap and a reflection of our ongoing learning, and self-improvement, journey. The commitments outlined in this plan are aspirational and grounded in current knowledge, standards, policies and insights from consultations. We recognize that some commitments may change, as accessibility is a continuously evolving field. Other commitments, which are related to systemic barriers, may take sustained commitment and activities over more than one Accessibility Plan before they are fully achieved.

This plan is not an end in and of itself, but a guide to help us move forward thoughtfully, deliberately, and as we are informed by the lived experiences of persons with disabilities within the agencies and the broader research communities.

The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) know that the research ecosystem will be even stronger when our agencies, and the programs and services we deliver, are made as accessible, inclusive, equitable and diverse as possible. Members of the research ecosystem who are supported by the agencies contribute to Canada being the world’s leading hub for science and innovation and help identify and implement solutions to the many unprecedented challenges that the world faces. As federal research funding agencies, we know that a diverse and inclusive research ecosystem produces better, more innovative results because of the wide range of perspectives, experiences and expertise that are shared and brought together.

Society benefits when persons with disabilities have equal opportunities to contribute to and benefit from the research ecosystem, and have equal opportunities to work and be promoted. An accessible research ecosystem facilitates the full participation of persons with disabilities and strengthens research by providing access to a broader range of expertise, perspectives and life experiences. This further leads to a deeper understanding of complex issues and less biased conclusions. Accessibility is intrinsic to equity, diversity and inclusion and the agencies endeavour to demonstrate this through their work.

In developing and implementing this plan, we build on our previous commitment to accessibility, recognizing the progress we have made to date thanks to our staff and external partners and remain committed to becoming as accessible as possible in the way we work and serve the public. We know that we may not have captured all barriers and that others may emerge as we update or implement new programs, policies and systems, such as the Tri-Agency Grants Management Solution (TGMS). However, we commit to the continuous evolution of this plan, through regular engagement with persons with disabilities, including, but not limited to, our internal Persons with Disabilities Network (PwDN), and as we centre the perspectives of all those who experience accessibility barriers.

As a requirement of the Accessible Canada Act (ACA) and developed based on the Accessible Canada Regulations (ACR), NSERC and SSHRC’s joint accessibility plan supports our commitment to becoming barrier-free organizations by 2040. Through the Accessibility Steering Committee (ASC), NSERC and SSHRC decided to align their efforts and develop a joint 2026-2028 accessibility plan, which will create efficiencies by leveraging internal resources, and will provide a common and cohesive approach to staff and members of the agencies’ research communities.

This plan expands on the Tri-Agency Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Action Plan, on the agencies’ internal People Strategy and on the agencies’ 2023-2025 accessibility plans. A review of NSERC’s 2023 and 2024 Progress Reports, of SSHRC’s 2023 and 2024 Progress Reports, of SSHRC’s Advisory Committee on Accessibility and Systemic Ableism (ACASA) report and of feedback received on the agencies’ inaugural accessibility plans informed the development of the initial draft of this plan, which was used as the basis of our consultations. Regular meetings with colleagues from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and a review of accessibility plans published by other Government of Canada department and agencies also inspired the writing of some of the barriers and commitments.

The agencies acknowledge that systemic ableism—understood as the societal attitudes, beliefs, actions and practices that devalue and limit the potential of individuals with disabilities, and which may be found within institutions, policies, processes and practices—extends throughout various spheres, including the research ecosystem. Ableism impacts the support (or lack of) that persons with disabilities may access. This reality may be reflected in how the agencies have historically developed their programs and evaluation criteria, and how persons with disabilities were underrepresented as members of their research communities and among staff. Researchers with disabilities have also noted that, within their own institutions, they often receive insufficient support as they develop and submit their grant proposals and work on their research.

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.”

Terms such as “disability” or “barrier,” and descriptive phrases such as “persons with disabilities,” are used in this document, as they are defined or used in the Act. Departments and agencies are required to use this definition in their plans. However, the agencies recognize that the definitions in the Act contain problematic terminology (such as “impairment”), and that some people self-identify as disabled (disability-first language), while others regard their disability as secondary to who they are (person-first language). As well, some individuals who identify with certain communities, such as those who are Deaf or neurodivergent, may not identify as having a disability. The agencies are currently working collaboratively to reach a common definition of disability, which will replace the one presented in the Tri-Agency self-identification form.

For a full list of specialized terms and how we use them, see Appendix A.

The 2026-2028 NSERC and SSHRC Accessibility Plan describes accessibility barriers that persons with disabilities may face when interacting with the agencies, either as staff, or as members of the agencies’ research communities.

Per the ACR, the plan includes each priority area identified in section 5 of the Act (employment; built environment; information and communication technologies [ICT]; communications other than ICT; procurement of goods, services and facilities; design and delivery of programs and services; and transportation). The agencies added organizational culture as they reflected on and started implementing their inaugural accessibility plans.

First, the plan outlines the agencies’ commitments to increasing accessibility as well as the rationale for developing a joint plan. A description of how the agencies developed the plan and a “note on language,” to situate readers and explain decisions on terminology, are also included.

Second, the plan outlines the agencies’ feedback processes and how feedback is recorded and used. Contact information for questions, feedback, requesting a copy of the plan and of the feedback process description in alternate formats are also provided.

Third, the consultations with members of the research communities and with staff that informed the development of this plan are described. The agencies drew from this input to develop and/or refine the barriers and commitments. A summary of the main recommendations is provided.

Finally, the plan concludes with NSERC and SSHRC’s recognition that an intersectional accessibility lens must guide this work, and that, in terms of accessibility, the agencies and their respective communities have indeed made progress, although at a varied pace, in different areas. Next steps are then outlined, and the agencies provide a reminder that welcomes feedback as we move forward.

Members of the research communities, agency staff and the public can provide feedback through several channels. These include: email, mail, telephone, and a questionnaire found at this link. Feedback can be submitted anonymously.

When feedback is received, a response is provided in the same way the feedback was sent, except for anonymous submissions. For example, emails will be answered by email, mail correspondence that include a return address will be answered by mail, and individuals completing the online feedback form will see a message confirming that their response has been received after submission. Feedback is recorded in an Excel spreadsheet for review and stored in a repository with limited access, including scanned versions of any mail received.

De-identified feedback is shared with relevant teams for awareness or action, summarized in yearly progress reports, and is used to inform subsequent versions of the plan.

Contact information for asking questions and providing feedback in various forms is found below. You can use this contact information to request a copy of our accessibility plan and our feedback process description in these alternate formats: print, large print, Braille, audio or an electronic format that is compatible with adaptive technology that is intended to assist persons with disabilities. We will provide the format you ask for as soon as possible. Braille and audio formats may take up to 45 days. Print, large print and electronic formats may take up to 15 days.

• Title of position responsible for receiving feedback: NSERC Accessibility Coordinator
• Mailing address: 125 Zaida Eddy Private, 2nd floor, Ottawa, Ontario K1R 0E3
• Telephone: 1-855-275-1126
• Email address: accessibility-plan-accessibilite@nserc-crsng.gc.ca
• Feedback form

Ongoing engagement is essential to identifying barriers faced by agency staff and by members of NSERC and SSHRC’s research communities. When the agencies developed their inaugural accessibility plans (2023-2025) and worked on their 2023 and 2024 progress reports, they benefited from the expertise and experiences generously shared by members of the bi-agency Persons with Disabilities Network (PwDN). Externally, SSHRC initially formed the Advisory Committee on Accessibility and Systemic Ableism (ACASA), composed of individuals who are external to the agency; NSERC attended ACASA meetings, consulted with members of its research communities and from its Committee on Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (CEDI).

For their shared 2026-2028 accessibility plan, NSERC and SSHRC opted for joint consultations with members of their research communities and, internally, went beyond consulting exclusively with its PwDN. The draft and updated barriers and commitments, or a selection of the most relevant barriers and commitments for specific audiences, were shared as the basis for consultations.

Three virtual meetings were held with members of the bi-agency PwDN, in June and July 2025. Material was sent to members ahead of the meetings and each session was dedicated to specific priority areas (see Appendix B). These provided PwDN members with opportunities to comment on the proposed barriers and commitments, and to raise additional barriers, if applicable. While not all members of the network attended the sessions, some members were present at all three. Attendees provided suggestions on the barriers based on their experiences as persons with disabilities working for NSERC and SSHRC. Further, PwDN co-chairs provided more targeted, ongoing advice on addressing barriers and on various accessibility initiatives.

Following consultations with members of the PwDN, the draft plan was discussed with members of the bi-agency Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and Accessibility Advisory Committee (EDIA-AC). EDIA-AC serves as the principal consultation forum for informing equity, diversity, inclusion and accessibility initiatives in relation to the agencies as workplaces. One EDIA-AC committee seat is dedicated to each employee-led equity group, which includes the Black Employee Network, the Indigenous Employee Network, the PwDN, the Visible Minority Professional Network and the 2SLGBTQIA+ Pride Action Network, and attendance at meetings rotates between the chairs of each group. Members of the EDIA-AC received the draft plan in preparation for the hybrid meeting and were asked to respond to its proposed content.

MS Teams was used for all these staff meetings; everyone was invited to speak in the official language of their choice and were reminded to announce when changing language to allow participants using closed captioning to adjust the settings on their devices.

Finally, a survey (Appendix C) was sent out on July 30, 2025, seeking input from staff within NSERC and SSHRC, and particularly from persons with disabilities, on the format chosen for the plan and the barriers identified within it. Individuals had until August 22 to respond to the survey and the email to all staff included an invitation to meet with the accessibility coordinator (in-person or virtually) if they preferred this option to share their feedback. Twenty-six responses were provided to the online survey, which was hosted on GC Forms, an online platform designed with the goal of making accessibility the default. Some individuals also provided additional feedback by emailing the agencies’ accessibility plan inbox and three others reached out to the accessibility coordinator for a virtual meeting (one of them had filled in the survey; two hadn’t). From the 28 participants, 18 identified as persons with disabilities based on the definition from the Act; three identified as persons with disabilities, but not in relation to the definition provided in the Act; two preferred “not to answer”; and five did not identify as persons with disabilities.

Members of the PwDN were not asked to disclose their disabilities, and the survey did not include questions on disability type, to balance privacy protection with mindfulness of the need for input across diverse disability types. Specific lived experiences with mobility, vision, hearing, learning, pain and mental-health related disabilities were shared by many of the participants. We have also heard that persons with disabilities often have more than one disability and we were reminded that some disabilities are episodic, and that many disabilities are invisible. These comments further illustrate why organizations must recognize that persons with disabilities do not constitute a homogeneous group, with each individual experiencing disability in their own unique way.

Working with external consultants to lead the sessions, NSERC and SSHRC jointly convened six virtual discussion groups with members of the agencies’ research communities, during the first two weeks of July. Participants were identified in part by using the self-identification data provided to the agencies by applicants, peer reviewers and governance committee members, hoping that by including more individuals who self-identified as persons with disabilities, discussion groups would mostly be composed of persons with disabilities. In response to the demand, with 54 participants from NSERC and SSHRC’s research communities responding positively to the invitations, one French and five English sessions were held. The agencies retained services from an American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter for one of the sessions, based on the accessibility requirements identified by participants. Participants included agency-funded students, highly qualified personnel and principal investigators, peer reviewers and governance committee members. To supplement the virtual sessions, written feedback was sought from, and provided by, members of the research communities who were not in a position to attend a meeting.

Ahead of the sessions, participants received a selection of the most relevant barriers and commitments to the research communities. To further focus these external stakeholder discussions, participants were invited to share their thoughts on one barrier under ICT (including a question on TGMS), one barrier under communications, and all barriers regarding the design and delivery of programs and services.

Participants were reminded to share as much—or as little—about themselves and their lived experiences as they felt comfortable. Specific lived experience with mobility, vision, hearing, learning, pain and mental-health related disabilities were shared by many of the participants.

Overall, NSERC and SSHRC staff who provided input were mostly in agreement with the barriers identified in the draft. Participants often shared personal experiences that further illustrated the barriers and, from these testimonies as well as the comments that people left in the survey, the following priority areas appear to be a greater source of concern to staff with disabilities: organizational culture, employment, built environment, ICT, and communications, other than ICT. Suggestions for the plan included: clarifying barriers and commitments; using clearer and stronger language, as well as examples where appropriate; and aiming for full accessibility and not minimal compliance. There were also strong opinions regarding the need to explicitly acknowledge the work and expertise that persons with disabilities bring to the development of the plan as well as in identifying and implementing subsequent activities. In terms of next steps, participants suggested activities that could support the agencies in achieving their commitments and wanted to see a timeframe for addressing the barriers as well as clear accountability regarding their removal.

Similarly, members of NSERC and SSHRC’s research communities who took part in virtual discussions or provided written feedback generally agreed with the barriers identified, wanted to see clear accountability to ensure that change occurs, and suggested resources and activities that the agencies could consider as part of their accessibility commitments. Five themes consistently emerged and guided the revision of barriers, particularly under the “communications, other than ICT” and “design and delivery of programs and services” priority areas:

1. Systemic ableism extends throughout various spheres, including in the research ecosystem, through: a) the design and delivery of programs and services within the agencies; and b) researchers’ own institutions, where support to address barriers may be nonexistent.
2. NSERC and SSHRC could act as unifiers for researchers with disabilities; however, improvements to their communications practices (including with regards to plain language and transparency) are required to better connect with the community and to support connections, to the extent possible, within the community.
3. The agencies should question preconceived ideas around “productivity” and provide more flexibility regarding strict, and at times tight, application deadlines, in recognition of the fact that applicants with disabilities must dedicate significant time to seek and implement adaptive measures.
4. Dedicated funding could help a) mitigate the impact of these biases by providing funding to researchers with disabilities as a separate allocation process; b) address the higher costs of accessible research, which are most often funded from researchers’ grants; and 3) address and reduce biases against researchers with disabilities in application review processes by providing additional training for staff and reviewers.
5. Artificial intelligence is a double-edged sword. While it can assist persons with disabilities (ex. notetaking and closed captioning), it is not unheard of that such technology may disregard the needs of persons with disabilities in its development, may require disclosure, or may rely on biased and ableist perceptions.

NSERC and SSHRC wish to acknowledge how consultations with staff and members of their research communities played a crucial role in:

1. Validating the accessibility barriers to include in the plan;
2. Strengthening and clarifying some of the commitments, particularly with regards to using plain language, removing unclear statements and establishing accountability over the removal of barriers; and
3. Advancing the agencies’ identification of specific activities to addressing the accessibility barriers that were identified.

These consultations served as an important step in the development of this plan. The agencies value the suggestions and concerns raised and actively considered them in the revision of the plan. Participants from the consultations may notice that not every individual suggestion made it to the final version of the plan. We hope that by acknowledging that we were not in a position to include every suggestion in this plan we are fostering mutual trust, accountability and transparency, as well as illustrating and recognizing the agencies’ and participants’ joint investment in the consultations and in advancing accessibility more broadly.

Every accessibility-related activity and improvement, big or small, will strengthen the agencies’ accessibility confidence, laying the foundation for continuous improvements. As noted above, feedback on this version of the plan, and on other accessibility barriers, is welcome at any time.

Following the first three-year cycle of accessibility planning and reporting, NSERC and SSHRC recognized how important it was to include “organizational culture” as its own priority area in their renewed and joint accessibility plan, even though it is not currently listed as a priority area under the Accessible Canada Act (ACA). Organizational culture refers to an organization’s unique identity, and is defined by key elements, including the shared values, beliefs, attitudes, norms, assumptions and modes of operation that influence decision-making and employee behaviours within NSERC and SSHRC. Fostering a culture of accessibility and disability awareness, understanding and accountability supports the agencies in becoming accessibility-confident and barrier-free.

1. Barrier: Accessibility considerations, including engagement with persons with disabilities and disability experts, are not yet the default practice during organizational planning and resource allocation exercises.

   Commitment:

   1. Include accessibility in the agencies’ annual strategic and integrated business planning to ensure timely resource allocation and alignment with other corporate priorities.

2. Barrier: Insufficient accountability and unclear metrics to track progress can reduce persons with disabilities’ trust in the agencies’ obligations and commitments related to accessibility.

   Commitments:

   1. Develop an internal accessibility action plan, with associated timelines and activity leads, to support the agencies in meeting their commitments.
   2. Improve the collection of evidence-based data to measure progress in a timely, transparent and structured way, by refining key performance indicators (KPI).
   3. Establish a mechanism for regular reporting to senior management on the implementation of activities identified in the accessibility action plan, including where the agencies may be at risk of not meeting their commitments.

3. Barrier: Staff possess varying degrees of accessibility and disability awareness, comfort and competency, resulting in inconsistent knowledge and experience to address barriers, and prevent new barriers, in their work.

   Commitments:

   1. Raise staff awareness and understanding of accessibility as fundamental to their roles and responsibilities, regardless of their level.
   2. Encourage staff to prioritize accessibility learning by 1) promoting mandatory training to new hires and their managers; and 2) providing ongoing learning opportunities and resources to all staff.
   3. Review in-house training materials, as needed, based on feedback received from participants, and continue to address areas of improvement, such as ableist and non-inclusive language.
   4. Engage with the PwDN in the identification of in-house learning needs.
   5. Promote and celebrate accessibility and disability inclusion.
   6. Address stigma and hesitation when asked to self-identify through the available mechanisms, by developing strategies highlighting the benefits of self-identification for staff.

Employment includes an employee’s entire experience at NSERC and SSHRC. This includes recruitment, hiring, onboarding, learning and development, practical work experience, performance management, leave and benefits, career progression, transitions and offboarding from the agencies.

4. Barrier: Some hindrances persist in hiring, promotion and retention of persons with disabilities within the agencies, including adequate supports for supervisors through all these stages.

   Commitments:

   1. Continue to explore and promote the use of different strategies (for example, by including the types of accommodations that are available to candidates when advertising employment opportunities), programs and candidate pools to recruit persons with disabilities to address persistent underrepresentation gaps at NSERC and SSHRC.
   2. Continue to offer opportunities for staff with disabilities to participate in learning and development programs and activities to build leadership skills and readiness for career progression.
   3. Investigate additional measures and better practices that support the retention of persons with disabilities, including by facilitating access to, and use of, accessibility support measures and providing disability training, particularly to employees without disabilities.

5. Barrier: Accessibility obstacles may be created in the development, updating and interpretation of people management policies, processes and practices, such as those related to compensation, classification, labour relations, occupational safety and health, performance and talent management.

   Commitments:

   1. Engage with staff from equity-deserving groups through the internal Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and Accessibility Advisory Committee (EDIA-AC) during policy, program and system reviews aimed at identifying, removing and preventing accessibility barriers in employment-related situations. This broader approach will allow the agencies to consider simultaneous interactions between different aspects of social identity, thus reviewing policies through an intersectional lens.
   2. Continue to promote and offer accommodations to candidates during the recruitment process, to improve the staffing of persons with disabilities and to remove barriers in this first stage of the employment cycle.
   3. In relation to the Duty to Accommodate policy:
      1. Highlight this as a shared responsibility between employees and managers when navigating the accommodation process.
      2. Continue to promote the policy and its associated tools and resources for all staff.
      3. Continue to promote and offer the workshop for managers on accommodation measures, to better equip them to identify and remove barriers; implement solutions and measures consistently; and support staff in meaningfully and inclusively contributing to their respective roles.
      4. Evaluate the potential benefits, limitations, and feasibility of implementing a tool that streamlines the accommodation process and enables the portability of accessibility measures.

The built environment refers to the physical spaces that employees from NSERC and SSHRC interact with as part of their work, specifically the agencies’ headquarters. NSERC and SSHRC’s offices are located in Ottawa’s privately owned Zibi development; the lease is managed by the federal government.

6. Barrier: The open-space, non-assigned workplace Government of Canada model, designed to provide flexibility for staff who may need to perform different activities throughout the workday (collaborate, focus, learn, socialize) can negatively impact some persons with disabilities as it generally lacks individualized lighting controls; limits access to private spaces; can lead to higher noise levels; and can be the source of more frequent interruption by colleagues.

   Commitments:

   1. Continue to engage with interested parties to identify and advocate for the removal of barriers and further enhance the built environment.
   2. Use better practices or novel technologies to support accessibility in office space configuration. This could include considering modifications to floor plans to identify a dedicated work area with low lights and reduced stimuli factors and identifying strategies to support staff communicating needs for uninterrupted work or personal time.
   3. Provide information and dedicated training, as required, to Floor Emergency Wardens (FEW) to reinforce their knowledge of, and ease with, procedures to assist persons with disabilities in the event of an evacuation or emergency.

7. Barrier: The location of NSERC and SSHRC’s headquarter poses challenges in terms of vehicular access and access to amenities.

   Commitments:

   1. Improve communication around transportation options (for commuting to work).
   2. Engage with the PwDN on solutions to improve access to various amenities for staff working from the agencies’ headquarters.

Information and communication technologies (ICTs) include everything used to communicate, do business online and facilitate events. Examples of ICT include hardware, software, applications, web-based applications, artificial intelligence, virtual meeting platforms, assistive technology and websites for both external and internal facing systems for members of NSERC and SSHRC’s research communities and their staff. While NSERC and SSHRC develop and own some of their ICT, in other instances, the agencies rely on third-party vendors and service providers.

8. Barrier: The agencies currently rely on legacy digital platforms that have various degrees of accessibility compliance. For members of the research communities, digital accessibility obstacles make it challenging to access or obtain information about programs and services. For agency personnel, these obstacles impede their ability to accomplish their work independently and productively.

   Commitments:

   1. Assess the current state of ICT accessibility within the agencies, to establish a baseline and identify a pathway towards compliance.
   2. NSERC, SSHRC and CIHR will implement the Tri-agency Grants Management Solution (TGMS). TGMS will offer an improved user experience by replacing many legacy digital platforms that staff, applicants, recipients, administrators and reviewers currently use as part of program delivery. The following are its associated accessibility commitments:
      1. Apply an early and consistent accessibility lens by making the solution accessible by design, meeting the proposed accessibility requirements (as described in the proposed Regulations Amending the Accessible Canada Regulations, Part 1.1, Information and Communication Technologies).
      2. Through user testing by persons with various disabilities, confirm that the solution goes beyond meeting minimum accessibility requirements for technology, and considers usability and intuitiveness to meet the needs of staff and members of the research communities.
      3. Identify a resource (within the project team or from the research communities) with the responsibility of providing advice on accessibility considerations for TGMS. Their role will be to provide expert advice and demonstrate leadership, exercise influence and assist staff, from an accessibility perspective, when reviewing, developing and implementing TGMS.
   3. Publish and subsequently update accessibility statements, conforming with the requirements described in the proposed Regulations Amending the Accessible Canada Regulations, Part 1.1, Information and Communication Technologies.
   4. Ensure that when the agencies’ public-facing websites undergo periodic technical updates, they remain consistent with the Canada.ca Content Style Guide guidance and meet the accessibility requirements as described in the proposed Regulations Amending the Accessible Canada Regulations, Part 1.1, Information and Communication Technologies.
   5. Update the agencies’ intranet, as appropriate, to follow the Canada.ca Content Style Guide guidance and meet the proposed requirements as described in the proposed Regulations Amending the Accessible Canada Regulations, Part 1.1, Information and Communication Technologies.
   6. Require accessibility conformance assessments when purchasing products or services related to their webpages, mobile applications and digital documents.
   7. Explore other reasonable measures to address accessibility barriers in the agencies’ present day digital platforms and websites.

9. Barrier: As the agencies increasingly incorporate artificial intelligence (AI) into their services, systems and decision-making processes, there may be a lack of awareness concerning risks and impacts, particularly when it comes to persons with disabilities.

   Commitments:

   1. Provide, and regularly update, guidance to staff on the permitted uses of AI within the agencies, that includes an awareness section on biases, risks and impacts of using AI.
   2. Analyze how to implement the requirements from the ASC-6.2 Accessible and Equitable Artificial Intelligence Systems Draft Standard, and their associated requirements, so that internal AI training leads to the systemic change needed to achieve accessible and equitable AI. This will then ensure that:
      1. AI is accessible to persons with disabilities;
      2. AI systems are equitable to persons with disabilities; and
      3. NSERC and SSHRC implement the processes needed to achieve accessible and equitable AI.

Communications, other than ICT, refer to the ways people share and access information at NSERC and SSHRC. For example, it can include the choice of language used (messaging), whether it is signed, spoken or written; use of acronyms and abbreviations; interpreters; formal or informal meeting formats—either one-on-one or in groups (virtual, in person, over the phone, hybrid); special events; visual communications; and various document formats.

10. Barrier: Not all agency staff are equipped to provide information, organize and/or lead meetings or events, or develop content that is as accessible as possible for internal and external audiences.

    Commitments:

    1. Develop and promote accessible communication templates for staff to use both Internally and externally, as well as any necessary standards or guidance material.
    2. Encourage staff to leverage in-house communications expertise and to apply the training offered by the Canada School of Public Service when developing communication plans and products, such as all-staff emails.
    3. Promote the new Accessibility intranet pages that direct staff to resources such as services and tools for improving skills, practices and the accessibility of communication.

11. Barrier: Plain language is not the default practice employed in communications developed for agency staff and members of the research communities.

    Commitments:

    1. Empower staff to use plain language when writing in accessible formats (for example when preparing content for the internal and external facing websites, developing documents for internal or external use, sending mass emails, responding to individual emails).
    2. Examine the possibility of publishing simplified summaries of funding opportunities, which would allow members of the research communities to easily assess their eligibility and understand the principal requirements and deadlines.
    3. Programs and services subject matter experts to refer to the CAN-ASC-3.1:2025 – Plain Language Standard and call upon communications and language specialists to confirm that the information is clear before it is made public.

12. Barrier: When speakers alternate quickly between English and French during meetings, individuals who require closed captioning do not have sufficient time to adjust the settings of their devices to the new language.

    Commitments:

    1. Work towards implementing better practices, where speakers indicate that they are switching languages and then pause to provide time for people to adjust their device’s settings as required.
    2. Engage with software providers to encourage them to update their software so that it automatically detects when the language changes and promptly adjusts the language of the closed captioning.

Procurement refers to all the processes surrounding the purchase of goods and services, and of leasing facilities from external vendors and service providers. It includes the planning of specific procurement activities, bidding and contract awarding, contract management and close out.

13. Barrier: Limited accessibility awareness affects how procurement requirements are defined and how vendors’ and service providers’ proposals are assessed.

    Commitments:

    1. Provide additional direction and analysis to support procurement officers as they guide their clients (such as project and technical authorities) in considering accessibility, including when assessing whether goods and services meet accessibility requirements.
    2. Give more visibility to existing tools (such as the “Accessibility in procurement” resource) to raise clients’ awareness of accessibility in procurement. Review tools based on client feedback (is there a need for additional tools or to review current ones).

14. Barrier: Limited knowledge around the availability of goods and services with accessibility features hinders informed procurement decisions.

    Commitments:

    1. Explore and, when possible, leverage the work of other Government of Canada departments and agencies (including the Accessibility, Accommodation and Adaptive Computer Technology [AAACT] team at Shared Services Canada) to identify and experiment with adaptive solutions.
    2. Develop a resource to accompany managers as they respond to requests from their staff for accessible goods and services, in support of their work.

The design and delivery of programs and services to members of the research ecosystem are NSERC and SSHRC’s main purpose, as federal research funding agencies. Program design entails identifying the resources, objectives, eligibility criteria, submission protocols, funding levels and assessment approach for new funding opportunities. Program delivery refers to activities that occur after the launch of a funding opportunity. These activities are mostly related to the reception and processing of applications, preparation for assessment and post-competition administration including issuing grant payments. Addressing systemic ableism that students and researchers may face within the research ecosystem ensures maximum participation of talent in the research pool and increases the potential for research innovation and impact.

15. Barrier: Evidence points to limitations within postsecondary institutions in providing accessible environments to persons with disabilities – students, researchers and visitors, including agency personnel.

    Commitments:

    1. Continue to leverage existing programs and initiatives, such as Dimensions Canada and the Canada Research Chairs Program, to address ableism and drive deeper overall change in the research ecosystem, particularly to create inclusive, accessible and empowering environments for persons with disabilities.
    2. Establish a standard practice whereby, prior to accepting invitations to attend an event at a post-secondary institution, that staff enquire whether their accessibility needs, as applicable, can be met.
    3. Explore possible improvements to the agencies’ communication practices around accessibility- and equity-related activities (for example, updates to the self-identification form for members of the research communities). Improvements—and particularly some associated activities—could be leveraged to better connect members of the research communities who identify as persons with disabilities.
    4. Continue to promote the inclusion of equity, diversity and inclusion-related considerations in research design and research practices, and into a broader and fairer understanding of what makes research excellent.
    5. Review policies and programs to identify and clarify where and how funding can be used to better support persons with disabilities.

16. Barrier: Researchers with disabilities face system-wide obstacles when seeking funding from NSERC and SSHRC.

    Commitments:

    1. Program design:
       1. Commit to intersectional accessibility by design when new programs are developed and existing programs are being reviewed.
       2. Explore the feasibility of creating dedicated funding, or increasing amounts to cover eligible accessibility expenses, as direct cost of research, to support researchers with disabilities, to facilitate equitable access to research funds.
    2. Program policies:
       1. Strengthen the use of Gender-based Analysis Plus (GBA Plus) when reviewing new and existing policies, programs and funding opportunities, to identify and clarify how to make them as flexible and barrier free as possible.
       2. Continue to review the use of “delay” and “special circumstances” in program materials and provide more appropriate language to describe barriers faced by researchers with disabilities such as “extenuating circumstances.”
       3. Continue to raise awareness on agency windows for applying and explore options for flexibility around deadlines.
    3. Research assessment:
       1. Explore new and better practices to improve support for NSERC’s and SSHRC’s reviewers with disabilities (external reviewers, committee members, committee chairs).
       2. Continue to incorporate the principles of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) into the agencies’ merit review processes to ensure responsible and fair research assessment.
       3. Continue to develop detailed instructions and enhanced training for merit reviewers to fairly assess the impact of the disability tax on researchers with disabilities.

17. Barrier: Three linked barriers relate to the mandatory tri-agency self-identification form: 1) Researchers with disabilities often do not see themselves within the current definition of disability used by the agencies. 2) Many find the agencies are not transparent regarding how the information is used and whether evaluators will access their answers. These concerns can result in reluctance to complete the survey, which in turn leads to 3) the underreporting of persons with disabilities, which affects how the agencies can assess barriers and their impact and then adapting their programs to address underrepresentation.

    Commitments:

    1. Update self-identification questions, including the definition of disability; improve communications on the self-identification form for members for the research communities, particularly around privacy considerations (for example, how this information is not shared with an individual’s home institution); and emphasize how this data supports the agencies in their equity, diversity, inclusion efforts. Share aggregated data with the public in accessible formats.
    2. Continue to collect data and conduct the analysis needed to include equity, diversity, inclusion considerations in decision-making.

18. Barrier: NSERC and SSHRC are not yet accessibility confident service providers. Enhancing staff knowledge, experience and training in accessibility would reduce unconscious biases and strengthen our ability to design and deliver accessible policies and programs.

    Commitments:

    1. Continue to promote the accessible design of programs and policies, and the accessible delivery of programs and services, by equipping staff, as needed, with the proper training and supporting tools (such as forms, procedures and guidelines).
    2. Explore how the public, particularly members of the agencies’ research communities, may be invited to provide feedback on accessibility barriers they faced when seeking and applying to funding opportunities.

Transportation includes the accessibility of travel policies and procedures, and, where applicable, the accessibility of vehicles made available to staff (e.g., shuttle or taxi services, fleet vehicles) as well as transportation accessibility for members of NSERC and SSHRC’s research communities.

19. Barrier: When booking travel, the perception within NSERC and SSHRC is that minimizing transportation costs is required and always takes priority over other considerations— potentially limiting the ability to factor in accessibility needs.

    Commitment:

    1. Clarify that transportation is subject to cost as well as accessibility considerations.

20. Barrier: When attending events and in-person meetings on behalf of the agencies, staff and members of the research communities may be confronted with transportation barriers. These include the unavailability of accessible transportation services, travel difficulties associated with dealing with unexpected route changes, hearing or understanding announcements in transport terminals, interpreting maps, signage or schedules, and the lack of appropriate assistance when travelling or using self-service kiosks.

    Commitments:

    1. Raise awareness with employees and interested parties, such as members of the research communities, about the risk of accessible and inclusive transportation possibly not being available during their journey or upon arrival at their destination. Consider informing individuals who must travel to accomplish their work in the office, or travel on behalf of the agencies, of applicable accessible services where possible (and alternatives where available).
    2. Explore how the agencies may assist members of the research communities who face accessibility barriers related to transportation, when they are required to travel for NSERC or SSHRC business.

This shared accessibility plan for 2026-2028 outlined how NSERC and SSHRC will improve accessibility for members of their staff and research communities over the next three years. The agencies recognize that persons with disabilities are not a homogeneous group, as the way each individual experiences disability is unique and may be influenced by other elements of their identity (for example, gender, age, geography, race, ethnicity, income, etc.). The agencies note that while there is a great deal of overlap between their respective research communities, they are also distinct in many ways. Indeed, since 2023 (upon the publication of their inaugural accessibility plans), based in part on their particularities, the agencies and their respective communities have made progress at a varied pace and in different areas.

The next steps for NSERC and SSHRC are to develop a joint action plan to capture, for each commitment, the activities, their corresponding team leads and timelines for completion, and finalize their key performance indicators to validate whether accessibility goals are met and the barriers found in this plan are addressed. The agencies will publish progress reports on the implementation of this plan in December 2026 and 2027. In addition, progress on the plan will be tracked biennially by the bi-agency ASC and through various avenues, such as regular and structured engagement with members of the agencies’ research communities; Public Service Employee Survey (PSES) results; human resources staffing and retention data; training completion and feedback data; regular consultations and engagement with the PwDN and EDIA-AC; and comments received via the feedback mechanisms highlighted in this plan.

Everyone is invited to provide feedback on this plan, or on accessibility barriers not found in this plan, through several channels. These include: email, mail, telephone and a questionnaire found at this link. Feedback can be submitted anonymously. De-identified feedback will be shared with relevant teams for awareness or action, summarized in yearly progress reports and used to inform subsequent versions of the plan.

Thank you for taking the time to complete this employee survey.

This survey will provide a better understanding of the various barriers currently faced by NSERC-SSHRC employees living with disabilities. For additional context, please refer to the non-exhaustive list of definitions included at the end of this survey.

There will be further opportunities to engage in this discussion as we go along. The survey will remain open until August 22, 2025, and takes approximately 30-40 minutes to complete. Your answers are very valuable, as they will help us assess the state of accessibility at NSERC and SSHRC, following three years of implementing our inaugural accessibility plan. Your answers will also guide us in updating the accessibility plan for 2026-2028. If you prefer to answer these questions in a different manner (for example, via Teams call, or in person), please email the Accessibility Coordinator (accessibility-plan-accessibilite@nserc-crsng.gc.ca / accessibility-plan-accessibilite@sshrc-crsh.gc.ca).

Completing this survey is voluntary and you may answer as many or as few questions as you want. Your responses are confidential and anonymous. Please avoid providing additional personal information in the open text boxes.

The Accessible Canada Act defines disability as “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.”

1. Do you identify as a person with a disability as described in the Act? *

Yes, as defined in the Act / Yes, but not as defined in the Act / No / I prefer not to answer

2. Imagine NSERC-SSHRC as “barrier-free” agencies.
   Please remember to avoid providing additional personal information in the open text box; you may leave the text box empty, should you prefer not to answer.
   1. What does "barrier-free" mean to you?
   2. What is your vision for an accessible agency?
   3. What is your role in making NSERC-SSHRC "barrier-free"?
3. When thinking broadly about the seven priority areas described in the Accessible Canada Act (employment; built environment; information and communication technologies [ICT]; communications, other than ICT; procurement of goods, services and facilities; design and delivery of programs and services; and transportation), can you tell us what is working well in terms of accessibility?
4. ☐ The following is working well: Enter your response.
   ☐ The following has room for improvement: Enter your response.
   ☐ I do not know
   ☐ I prefer not to answer

4. NSERC-SSHRC’s updated accessibility plan for 2026-2028 now includes organizational culture as a priority area. It refers to the shared values, beliefs, attitudes and assumptions that influence organizational decisions and employee behaviours within NSERC and SSHRC. Please comment on the following two barriers that we identified under this priority area, thinking about these three questions: 1) Are these the right barriers? 2) Is there something else we need to address to adequately frame the barriers? 3) Do you have suggestions to refine the barriers?
   1. Barrier: Limited integration of accessibility considerations in organizational planning and resource allocation and unclear accountability and progress measures.
      Please remember to avoid providing additional personal information in the open text box; you may leave the text box empty, should you prefer not to answer.
   2. Barrier: Insufficient awareness, comfort, education and accountability related to accessibility, for staff to address and prevent barriers in their everyday work. 
      Please remember to avoid providing additional personal information in the open text box; you may leave the text box empty, should you prefer not to answer.
5. Employment is understood as encompassing an employee’s entire experience at NSERC and SSHRC, including recruitment, hiring, onboarding, learning and development, leave and benefits, progression, transitions and offboarding from the agencies. Please comment on the following two barriers that we identified under this priority area, thinking about these three questions: 1) Are these the right barriers? 2) Is there something else we need to address to adequately frame the barriers? 3) Do you have suggestions to refine the barriers?
   1. Barrier: Hiring, promotion and retention of persons with disabilities within the agencies.
      Please remember to avoid providing additional personal information in the open text box; you may leave the text box empty, should you prefer not to answer.
   2. Barrier: Accessibility obstacles may be created in the development and renewal of people management policies, processes and practices.
      Please remember to avoid providing additional personal information in the open text box; you may leave the text box empty, should you prefer not to answer.
6. For the purposes of this accessibility plan, the built environment is defined as including all physical spaces that employees from the agencies interact with as part of their work. Of note, NSERC and SSHRC are tenants, with their headquarters located in Ottawa’s privately owned Zibi development. Please comment on the following barrier that we identified under this priority area, thinking about these three questions: 1) Is this the right barrier? 2) Is there something else we need to address to adequately frame the barriers? 3) Do you have suggestions to refine this barrier?
   1. Barrier: Accessibility shortcomings identified in the built environment and with the open-space and non-assigned workplaces Government of Canada model.
      Please remember to avoid providing additional personal information in the open text box; you may leave the text box empty, should you prefer not to answer.

7. Information and communication technologies (ICT) include everything used to communicate and do business online. Examples of ICT include hardware, software, applications, web-based applications, artificial intelligence, virtual meeting platforms, assistive technology and websites for both external and internal facing systems for members of NSERC and SSHRC’s research communities and their staff. While NSERC and SSHRC develop and own some of their ICT, in other instances, the agencies rely on third-party vendors and service providers. Please comment on the following two barriers that we identified under this priority area, thinking about these three questions: 1) Are these the right barriers? 2) Is there something else we need to address to adequately frame the barriers? 3) Do you have suggestions to refine the barriers?
   1. Barrier: The agencies currently rely on legacy digital platforms that have various degree of accessibility compliance. For members of the research communities, digital accessibility barriers make it challenging to access or obtain information about programs and services. For agency personnel, these barriers negatively impact their ability to accomplish their work independently and productively.
      Please remember to avoid providing additional personal information in the open text box; you may leave the text box empty, should you prefer not to answer.
   2. Barrier: As the agencies increasingly adopt artificial intelligence (AI) in their services, systems and decision-making processes, they may not be fully aware of the risks and impacts, particularly for persons with disabilities.
      Please remember to avoid providing additional personal information in the open text box; you may leave the text box empty, should you prefer not to answer.
8. Communications, other than ICT, refer to the ways people share and access information at NSERC and SSHRC. This can include the choice of language used (messaging), be it signed, spoken or written; use of acronyms and abbreviations; support from interpreters; meeting formats (virtual, face-to-face, over the phone, hybrid); visual communications; and documents. Please comment on the following two barriers that we identified under this priority area, thinking about these three questions: 1) Are these the right barriers? 2) Is there something else we need to address to adequately frame the barriers? 3) Do you have suggestions to refine the barriers?)
   1. Barrier: Staff are generally not all well-equipped to deliver information, lead meetings or events, and develop content for internal and external audiences that are accessible and meet best and promising practices.
      Please remember to avoid providing additional personal information in the open text box; you may leave the text box empty, should you prefer not to answer.
   2. Barrier: Information is not accessible to many individuals, as it is often developed by subject matter experts and contains specialized language or jargon.
      Please remember to avoid providing additional personal information in the open text box; you may leave the text box empty, should you prefer not to answer.
9. Procurement of goods, services and facilities refers to all the processes surrounding the purchase of goods and services, and of leasing facilities from external vendors and service providers. It includes the planning of specific procurement activities, bidding and contract award, contract management and close out. Please comment on the following three barriers that we identified under this priority area, thinking about these three questions: 1) Are these the right barriers? 2) Is there something else we need to address to adequately frame the barriers? 3) Do you have suggestions to refine the barriers?)
   1. Barrier: Lack of accessibility awareness when defining procurement requirements and assessing vendors and service providers’ proposals.
      Please remember to avoid providing additional personal information in the open text box; you may leave the text box empty, should you prefer not to answer.
   2. Barrier: Limited knowledge around the availability of goods and services with accessibility features.
      Please remember to avoid providing additional personal information in the open text box; you may leave the text box empty, should you prefer not to answer.
   3. Barrier: Underemployment of persons with disabilities beyond the agencies.
      Please remember to avoid providing additional personal information in the open text box; you may leave the text box empty, should you prefer not to answer.

10. The design and delivery of programs and services are the raison d’être of NSERC and SSHRC as federal research funding agencies. The agencies provide funding to students, researchers and research organizations through various funding opportunities. The agencies recognize that accessibility increases the quality and scope of the researcher pool and also the quality and impact of research. Please comment on the following five barriers that we identified under this priority area, thinking about these three questions: 1) Are these the right barriers? 2) Is there something else we need to address to adequately frame the barriers? 3) Do you have suggestions to refine the barriers?)
    1. Barrier: Fragmented knowledge and limited training on accessibility in the design and delivery of policies and programs could lead to unconscious bias against persons with disabilities in the design and delivery of programs and services, including in supporting policies, forms and documentation.
       Please remember to avoid providing additional personal information in the open text box; you may leave the text box empty, should you prefer not to answer.
    2. Barrier: Self-identification hesitation can lead to the underreporting of persons with disabilities within agency programs. This hesitation may be due to a lack of transparency and understanding on data collection and subsequent usage, stigma, or concerns with terminology.
       Please remember to avoid providing additional personal information in the open text box; you may leave the text box empty, should you prefer not to answer.
    3. Barrier: Academia and the research culture may be inaccessible and experienced as discriminatory by researchers with disabilities.
       Please remember to avoid providing additional personal information in the open text box; you may leave the text box empty, should you prefer not to answer.
    4. Barrier: Lack of access to funding to support the participation of persons with disabilities in the research ecosystem (as researchers, highly qualified personnel, research participants).
       Please remember to avoid providing additional personal information in the open text box; you may leave the text box empty, should you prefer not to answer.
    5. Barrier: Inconsistent support to members of NSERC’s and SSHRC’s research communities who have disabilities (applicants, recipients, reviewers, governance committee members).
       Please remember to avoid providing additional personal information in the open text box; you may leave the text box empty, should you prefer not to answer.
11. Transportation includes the accessibility of travel policies and procedures, the accessibility of vehicles made available to staff (e.g., shuttle or taxi services, fleet vehicles), and, where applicable, transportation accessibility for members of NSERC and SSHRC’s research communities. Please comment on the following three barriers that we identified under this priority area, thinking about these three questions: 1) Are these the right barriers? 2) Is there something else we need to address to adequately frame the barriers? 3) Do you have suggestions to refine the barriers?)
    1. Barrier: The common perception, within NSERC and SSHRC, that minimizing transportation costs always takes priority over other considerations can inadvertently disregard accessibility needs.
       Please remember to avoid providing additional personal information in the open text box; you may leave the text box empty, should you prefer not to answer.
    2. Barrier: When attending events and in-person meetings on behalf of the agencies, staff may be confronted with transportation barriers, including the unavailability of accessible transportation services and lack of appropriate assistance when travelling or using self-service kiosks.
       Please remember to avoid providing additional personal information in the open text box; you may leave the text box empty, should you prefer not to answer.

12. For this updated plan, we decided to clarify what each priority area encompasses (providing a brief description of what is understood in each case). Do you find this helpful, to further understand and situate the barriers? Are the descriptions provided clear, or do you have suggestions on how to improve them?
    Please remember to avoid providing additional personal information in the open text box; you may leave the text box empty, should you prefer not to answer.
    1. Suggestions or comments on the description of organizational culture (which refers to the shared values, beliefs, attitudes and assumptions that influence organizational decisions and employee behaviours within NSERC and SSHRC).
    2. Suggestions or comments on the description of employment (which is understood as encompassing an employee’s entire experience at NSERC and SSHRC, including recruitment, hiring, onboarding, learning and development, leave and benefits, progression, transitions and offboarding from the agencies).
    3. Suggestions or comments on the description of the built environment (which is defined as including all physical spaces that employees from the agencies interact with as part of their work).
    4. Suggestions or comments on the description of information and communication technologies (ICT)identified as everything used to communicate and do business online) and accompanying examples (hardware, software, applications, web-based applications, artificial intelligence, virtual meeting platforms, assistive technology and websites for both external and internal facing systems for members of NSERC and SSHRC’s research communities and their staff).
    5. Suggestions or comments on the description of communications, other than ICT (which refer to the ways people share and access information at NSERC and SSHRC and can include the choice of language used [messaging], be it signed, spoken or written; use of acronyms and abbreviations; support from interpreters; meeting formats [virtual, face-to-face, over the phone, hybrid]; visual communications; and documents).
    6. Suggestions or comments on the description of procurement of goods, services and facilities (which refers to all the processes surrounding the purchase of goods and services, and of leasing facilities from external vendors and service providers. It includes the planning of specific procurement activities, bidding and contract award, contract management and close out).
    7. Suggestions or comments on the description of the design and delivery of programs and services (which are presented as the raison d’être of NSERC and SSHRC as federal research funding agencies, highlighting how we provide funding to students, researchers and research organizations through various funding opportunities).
    8. Suggestions or comments on the description of transportation (which includes the accessibility of travel policies and procedures, the accessibility of vehicles made available to staff [e.g., shuttle or taxi services, fleet vehicles], and, where applicable, transportation accessibility for members of NSERC and SSHRC’s research communities).
13. Drawing on lessons learned as we developed and published our inaugural accessibility plan, we have decided to identify broader commitments to address the barriers, instead of listing multiple activities in response to the barriers. This was done in hopes that the joint accessibility plan will speak to both NSERC and SSHRC staff, and members of their respective research communities, but also to give some flexibility to the agencies to define, internally, what activities would help support these commitments. What do you think about this approach (commitments instead of detailed activities)? Are there considerations that you would like to share with the team, as we finalize commitments for each priority area?
    Please remember to avoid providing additional personal information in the open text box; you may leave the text box empty, should you prefer not to answer.
14. Is there anything else you would like to share to help identify areas to be addressed in support of accessibility?
    Please remember to avoid providing additional personal information in the open text box; you may leave the text box empty, should you prefer not to answer.

SUBMIT

Thank you for taking the time to complete this employee survey. Please note that there will be further opportunities to engage in this discussion as we go along.

You can always share additional comments through the various means described on our websites (which includes the option to provide anonymous feedback):

• NSERC feedback process

NSERC and SSHRC will publish their Joint 2026-2028 Accessibility Plan on their respective websites before December 31, 2025.