Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) can serve as an epistemological framework for conducting qualitative research. As it receives unprecedented attention, detailing how EDI is being incorporated into research may be particularly important, so that it is recognized as credible and may be reproduced. While the principles of EDI are well-defined, the exact methodological processes for applying them to qualitative research design and execution remain somewhat unclear. With the present paper, the authors share an approach to meaningfully incorporate EDI into qualitative research via methodologically reflexive practice to generate an intersectional sex- and gender-based analysis plus.

Keywords

equity,diversity,and inclusion intersectionality SGBA+qualitative research methods critical methodologies transferability

Equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) are receiving unprecedented attention. Despite current politics around equity and inclusion, the historical realities of diverse populations who experience more barriers to accessing resources and ongoing social injustices have never changed; therefore, it is arguably more important than ever to detail how principles of EDI are being incorporated into research so they are recognized as credible and can be reproduced. Informed by the authors’ experiences, strategies for building and applying an EDI lens as a dynamic tool in qualitative research will be shared. We propose a practical and epistemologically grounded approach to meaningfully integrating EDI principles into qualitative health research methodologies across the research cycle. We develop and introduce an EDI-focused lens that operationalizes intersectionality through the sex- and gender-based analysis plus (SGBA+) framework to substantiate its application as a tool for qualitative researchers. Our goal is to offer a methodologically reflexive lens that supports socially responsive research practices.

Background

EDI is an acronym that stands for equity, diversity, and inclusion. Although other acronyms such as IED and DEI are used to refer to the same set of concepts, we have chosen to use EDI for a few reasons. First, we prioritize equity because we conceive of diversity and inclusion as parts of enacting equity. From this viewpoint, equity serves as the foundation upon which diversity and inclusion efforts ought to be built. Second, EDI-focused work is inherently situated and contextual. Our team is rooted in Canada; we research, teach, and live within Canadian contexts, and our choice of terminology reflects this. In addition, the acronym EDI is widely used across Canadian institutions, including postsecondary and research organizations (Universities Canada, 2022). This usage is also represented at the federal level. For example, the Government of Canada uses EDI in its Guide on Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Terminology (2025), as does the Canadian Institute for Health Research in its official glossary of terms (2023). Other federal research organizations, such as the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, have also adopted this acronym (2021). The consistent use of the EDI acronym among universities, research institutions, and federal departments indicates a coordinated effort to standardize terminology and promote equitable practices throughout education, research, and public service. This is an effort in which we are committed to participating. Beyond the scope of this paper, readers are invited to contextualize EDI within the settings in which they conduct research. The application of institutional, governmental, and other relevant practices presented here—practices that shape our efforts to enact equity throughout the research cycle—is intended to serve as a guide to support the reader in this endeavor.

When researchers state that they employ EDI lenses or frameworks, they convey a commitment to systematically incorporating principles of EDI into their work. EDI contributes to the advancement of human rights and is understood to be a shared, society-wide responsibility (Fisher et al., 2024; Xuan & Ocone, 2022). It is worth noting that, in the current North American and international political climate—one which includes recent attacks on research practices prioritizing EDI principles (The White House, 2025)—it is crucial that we not only re-affirm the critical importance of EDI principles in research but also clarify how exactly we are applying them, for which purposes, and toward which ends. In his second term, US President Donald Trump’s administration has been systematically dismantling EDI protections in America. This includes eliminating EDI-related positions, programs, and initiatives; terminating grants that support EDI-focused research and projects; and censoring academic, scientific, and scholarly discourse on these topics (“Trump on DEI And Anti-Discrimination Law,” American Civil Liberties Union, n.d.; “Trump’s Executive Orders on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, Explained,” The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, 2025).

EDI is never a project completed but rather requires continual reassessment so that its application remains relevant and useful toward its emancipatory aims (Fisher et al., 2024). As such, the principles of EDI can guide the research process, including gap identification and literature review, question formation, team composition (recognition of resources and expertise needed for the research project), study design, data collection and analysis, dissemination of findings, and impact assessment (Government of Canada, 2021; Grasenick et al., 2021). Embedding EDI principles is meant to include not only consideration of EDI but also close and critical examination of the ways in which these considerations (and their intersections) impact each element of the research process. This embedding can happen by applying a lens that has a three-fold goal: first, to produce research which is useful and relevant for the groups to whom it is meant to apply; second, to uncover complexities of these populations’ lived experiences which have otherwise been obscured (Parson, 2019); and third, to place emphasis on groups who have been structurally and historically marginalized or excluded due to socially and institutionally imposed barriers (Beard et al., 2023).

The term equity connotes material, institutional, and political agendas of groups whose interests are often upheld by authorities, and is thus fluid, contextual, and relational (Johri, 2023). Equity in research includes recognizing systemic marginalization, committing to their dismantling, and promoting strengths-based approaches that actively respond to historical and structural factors impacting the research process (Beard et al., 2023; Johri, 2023). Diversity in research refers to attempts to capture a range of human experiences and conditions, including ontologies, epistemologies, and axiologies. Diversity holds transformative potential when it is understood critically—as a complex set of variables, including the number of individuals belonging to certain groups and describing them using cultural markers, as well as something that has economic benefits—and operates within stratified social hierarchies (Johri, 2023). In practice, this may include specific methods of data collection, although these are not well described in the literature (Beard et al., 2023). Lastly, inclusion in research is defined as significant engagement with a wide variety of groups, particularly those who have been denied equity (Beard et al., 2023). Inclusive research is conducted by those who pose critical questions that unravel histories and sociopolitical contexts that cause disconnections between a study’s intent and its impact when left unexamined (Johri, 2023). Taken together, these three considerations comprise EDI lenses (and/or “frameworks”). Whatever the goal, the ethical reasons for embedding EDI principles are of critical importance, particularly when “diversity is being lauded as a beacon for innovation” (Johri, 2023, p. 222).

The exact methodological processes for applying EDI lenses to research design and execution, however, remain unclear. This ambiguity may arise from challenges in application or insufficiently detailed approaches. The literature appears largely to contextualize EDI lenses among already established critical methodologies, perhaps to lend the methodological coherence required to produce actionable, applicable, or truly emancipatory research (Booysen et al., 2018). Notably, there are significant gaps in how qualitative research addresses EDI principles, and there is often a lack of explicit focus on EDI in study designs. According to a recent methodological review study, many qualitative studies implement a generic approach rather than explicitly focusing on EDI issues. For example, a study found that out of 43 qualitative reviews, only six justified their population focus in terms of EDI-related concerns, and only one included a knowledge user, indicating deficiencies in interest holder involvement (Don, 2024; Evans et al., 2025).

We acknowledge the weight and importance of traditions like critical qualitative inquiry (CQI), including those of Johnson and Parry (2016), Canella et al. (2015), and Pasque and Salazar Pérez (2015), and contend that the EDI-focused lens we propose here represents a distinct approach. CQI and EDI-informed approaches share several qualities, such as a commitment to interrogating power structures and bringing those from equity-denied groups to the fore. CQI is rooted in critical theory and, as such, emphasizes epistemological critique, deconstruction of dominant paradigms, and the pursuit of social justice through transformative inquiry (Denzin, 2015; Denzin & Giardina, 2016). In contrast, the lens we develop in this paper is grounded in policy and practice-level concerns and designed to be applied across all stages of the research process in ways that strengthen methodological rigor thereby driving actionable change.

Practicality is particularly salient in health research contexts, where EDI efforts are increasingly and rightfully required by funding bodies, institutional review boards, and government entities. In health research, EDI can go beyond commitment, constituting a procedural imperative. CQI largely commits to the realm of critique and theoretical engagement, while EDI approaches must translate into concrete methodological decisions about what is actionable in policy, procedure, education, and employment. We do this by adopting the federally endorsed SGBA+, a widely recognized approach that makes our structured approach to operationalizing intersectionality accessible, customizable to context, and consistent with government efforts to prioritize EDI in research, practice, and policy.

Moreover, while both CQI and EDI-informed research may pursue emancipatory goals, we see differences in their orientations and applications. CQI may center macro-level critiques of ideology and discourse, whereas EDI approaches in health research are frequently oriented toward improving access, representation, and outcomes for equity-denied populations within specific institutional and policy contexts. Where CQI approaches may critique neoliberal underpinnings informing healthcare systems, an EDI-focused approach may attend to issues of adequate representation in clinical trials or the meaningful incorporation of Indigenous knowledges into health policy and interventions. Both aims are invaluable and distinct in terms of how they serve different purposes and operate at different levels of abstractions and application.

Similarly, while social justice is a shared foundational value for both CQI and EDI-focused approaches, the two can advance distinct goals in health research. Social justice approaches in qualitative health research often emphasize resistance, activism, and larger, systemic transformation (Giacomini, 2010). EDI-focused approaches, particularly in the context of health research, may be more likely to attend to procedural fairness, inclusive representation, and mitigation of harm within existing systems and structures. A social justice model may seek to decenter or even dismantle biomedical models. An EDI-focused approach would acknowledge the harmful reproduction of cultural supremacies of biomedical models but work within that model to ensure that ethno-racialized patients are not excluded from care pathways or that data collection does not reproduce ableist assumptions. The two are not mutually exclusive but represent different strategies and institutional engagement.

As Booysen et al. (2018) emphasize, the integration of EDI principles within critical methodologies has at times lacked the explicit methodological clarity needed to ensure rigor and trustworthiness. The EDI lens we offer here is meant to be a pragmatically embedded methodological tool capable of producing actionable, contextually grounded insights. By positioning EDI principles as a means by which an intersectional SGBA+ can be generated from the onset of a study, we offer a feasible, replicable approach that is grounded and methodologically coherent for embedding these principles into qualitative health research processes.

Booysen et al. (2018) also provide an in-depth discussion on the integration of EDI principles within established critical methodologies. They emphasize the need for more explicit and detailed approaches in qualitative research to effectively incorporate EDI principles and address enduring issues of establishing rigor and trustworthiness in research. They argue that without these detailed approaches, the potential impact of EDI-focused research is undermined, and the research may fail to produce actionable and emancipatory outcomes. Therefore, since there appears to be no standalone EDI methodological lens, the present authors propose contextualizing the principles of EDI within an SGBA+ framework that operationalizes the concept of intersectionality. As intersectionality captures domains of power operating across multiple forms of oppression (Collins & Bilge, 2020), this approach offers a feasible application of EDI principles in qualitative research that generates an intersectional SGBA+. It is also particularly relevant because SGBA+ is an established analytical process used to advance EDI (Health Canada, 2017). By integrating EDI principles within SGBA+, researchers in Canada can ensure a more comprehensive and intersectional approach, addressing the unique experiences and needs of various populations using language that reviewers will recognize. This will hold true in other contexts where funding bodies encourage the integration of sex and gender in health research.

Sex- and Gender-Based Analysis

The SGBA+ framework operationalizes the concept of intersectionality, which emerges from Black feminist scholarship and connects identity categories with domains of power, including “the fundamental structures of social institutions such as job markets, housing, education, and health” (Collins & Bilge, 2020, p. 7) and “the increasing significance of ideas and culture in the organization of power relations” (Collins & Bilge, 2020, p. 9). The framework underscores a need to incorporate intersectionality into scientific methods (Bailey et al., 2019; Bowleg et al., 2023; Chan & Henesy, 2018; Fine et al., 2021; Guan et al., 2021) and highlights the importance of engaging broader systems of power that mutually constitute and reinforce structural inequalities within social systems and institutions (Collins, 1990).

The philosophical application of intersectionality, and the politics of identity, is called Intersectionality Theory and can be used to examine contextual operations of power (Collins & Bilge, 2020). Specific disparities, such as homelessness among military veterans, interpersonal violence among sexual and gender minorities, and Queer Youth of Color who use substances, have been addressed in the literature (Eichler, 2021; Eichler et al., 2021; Eisenberg et al., 2022; Subirana-Malaret et al., 2019). However, the historical practice of conducting research on homogenous sample populations (i.e., predominantly white males) reveals how errors, inaccurate conclusions, and irreproducible results set the stage for mistrust among populations that are not represented or prioritized by dominant cultures (e.g., white supremacist patriarchal cultures) (Dresser, 1992; Underwood, 2000; White et al., 2021). Dresser’s (1992) critical analysis highlights such a context (i.e., a patriarchal white supremacy), where the white male research subject prototype goes unquestioned. This occurrence, in itself, signifies the operation of power relations in social contexts within which research as such has been conducted. Select participation (or lack thereof) continues to shape research teams and the lens through which research questions are asked, studies are designed and funded, and methods are used (Fine et al., 2021; Fisher & Kalbaugh, 2011; Woitowich et al., 2020). This legacy continues to create blindspots within the research process that may contribute to historical injustices, a lack of understanding surrounding the harms that researchers can cause, and the significance of the SGBA+ framework.

Sex- and gender-based analyses were introduced as part of an international agreement; the United Nation’s Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action states an intent to promote progressive change by achieving equality for women and girls (Health Canada, 2017; UN Women, 2014). Despite the widespread acknowledgement of intersectionality by political activists, community organizations, corporations, academics, researchers, and governments (Hankivsky & Mussell, 2019; Manning & Levac, 2022), progressive change has been hindered by intersecting structural inequalities that are inextricably linked to gender inequality. The Government of Canada’s “sex- and gender-based analysis plus” (SGBA+) incorporates intersectionality into health research, policies, programs, and services to increase inclusivity and acknowledge gaps to improve resources and outcomes (Government of Canada, 2017). As such, social problems rooted in identity-related differences can be contextualized (Collins, 1990; Crenshaw, 1989).

The application of intersectionality in research promotes the production of knowledge from intersections of oppression by paying attention to social distinctions, structures, and institutions through which power operates (Collins, 1990; Collins & Bilge, 2020). However, for the most part, Intersectionality Theory is not critically embedded in SGBA+ approaches (McCarthy et al., 2017). This may, in part, be due to the prioritization of sex and gender by using a “+” to ostensibly represent all other social categories (e.g., race, Indigeneity, sexual orientation, disability, citizenship, and age) (Hankivsky & Mussell, 2019). Analyses that truncate the operationalization of intersectionality thus undermine meaningful inclusion, potentially obscure important differences, impede opportunities to examine social hierarchies that uphold cultural supremacies, and risk perpetuating historical injustices (Cameron & Tedds, 2022; Hankivsky & Mussell, 2019). Explicit application of EDI principles to the SGBA+ analytic framework can unravel the complexities that arise from intersections of oppression and privilege to avoid reductive pitfalls.

Building an EDI Lens

Intersectionality Theory can be used to integrate EDI principles into research design through SGBA+ incorporation for critical engagement and reflection, necessarily promoting consideration of who is involved in its methodological application and practical employment. An EDI lens is epistemological and not restricted in its use, but a team who understands the complexity of a concept like intersectionality may be more equipped to bring together EDI methods and intersectional methodology due to practice and their perspectives.

Acknowledging Positionality

Positionality statements are increasingly common in several areas of research, although they have a much longer and more established presence in qualitative social sciences research (Darwin Holmes, 2020). Such statements are meant to transparently acknowledge that all research is conducted by people with subjectivities and whose sociocultural positions necessarily impact their work (Savolainen et al., 2023). Positionality statements are commonly contextualized within standpoint theories, which argue that all knowledge is generated from power positions and are resultant from life experiences (da Silva & Webster, 2018). The spirit of positionality statements is often to trouble the notion that research can never be truly neutral, objective, or value-free (King, 2024) and to resist the academy’s “focus on positivism, objectivity, and […] white normative framework[s]” (Harris, 2021; King, 2024, p. 1). Positionality statements vary considerably in length and format but typically include information about authors’ professional and personal demographics as well as their social positioning vis à vis the topics addressed (King, 2024).

Several authors have persuasively criticized positionality statements in their common current form: “box-checking” lists of identity categories with which authors may or may not meaningfully engage (Martin et al., 2022, p. v). These types of lists miss the point, and decontextualize and depoliticize positionality statements by over-individualizing what are meant to be understood as “historically shared, group-based experiences” (Hill Collins, 1997, p. 375). Further, Gani and Khan (2024) argue that positionality statements may not fulfill their stated emancipatory goals but might instead serve to reproduce inequitable power relations by continuing to center those from privileged positions (e.g., white, male, and straight). Moreover, Martin et al. (2022) point out that, for some researchers, there may be personal and professional risks associated with disclosure of positionalities in these statements. We concur with fellow scholars that positionality statements should instead represent a part of a much deeper reflexive process with which the team engages at each step of the research process (Martin et al., 2022; Milner, 2007; Secules et al., 2021). We believe that an EDI lens can help to support and strengthen researchers’ reflexivity at every point in the research process and, ultimately, lead to more meaningful acknowledgement of their positionalities.

Bringing the Team Together

Assembling a diverse team via an intentional process of considering the phenomenon and population being studied is an advisable first step. Teams that represent the diversity that exists within the populations they are studying are best suited to conducting respectful research because the capacity to responsibly represent issues that they personally face also exists “in house” and is not solely being contracted out to those with relatively less power. This is a strategy that can be used to avoid placing a burden on team members who belong to equity-denied groups and may be called on to speak on behalf of the “marginalized” or teach other members of the team about issues or concerns that are beyond the limitations of their knowledge. Instead, a diverse team would collectively champion EDI and, through their rich experiential knowledge, integrate EDI into research design and guide a sustainably inclusive research environment.

One way the concept of intersectionality can be operationalized to carry out power-focused context-specific investigations (Bowleg & Bauer, 2016; Cho et al., 2013) is to construct an EDI lens that integrates intersectionality into research design, and thus all aspects of a study, including the SGBA+. This can be done by considering a study’s broader social context and adopting relevant identity-related categories as the building blocks of an EDI lens. Initial decisions about the contextual relevance of identity-related categories and how differences within each (i.e., intragroup differences) will be managed (McCall, 2005) can be made by the research team, which further highlights the advantage of having diversity among its members.

How an EDI lens is developed depends on various factors such as team size, study setting, and funding. For example, a rudimentary design may involve a simple questionnaire answered by potential participants (Lane, 2023). Robust instruments can also be developed and may serve different purposes, even in the same study. Such an instrument was developed and is currently being used in a mixed-methods general population study (Lane et al., 2024).

Lane et al. (2024) built a study-specific EDI lens. The process began with discussions between the principal investigator and members of a large team whose composite positionality reflected the diversity that exists within the study population. This resulted in the adoption of an initial set of identity categories and subcategories. After these initial discussions, the identity categories and subcategories were used to create a set of sociodemographic questions that all prospective participants would eventually be required to answer. The relevance of the identity categories and subcategories was explored with members of various equity-denied groups via a series of community networking events that were led by research team members belonging to said groups. Those who attended were asked to answer the questions and provide feedback on their inclusiveness and respectfulness in terms of capturing all important aspects of identity-related health-determining factors. The feedback was used to revise the sociodemographic questions after each event, and changes were iteratively made to the EDI lens. The questions coincided with identity categories and the answer options with identity subcategories. The final EDI lens includes 12 identity categories (i.e., age, appearance, beliefs, belonging, citizenship, disability, gender, place, race and ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic class). By operationalizing intersectionality, identity categories were adopted in a way that will generate an SGBA+ that upholds EDI principles. In this general population study, the EDI lens will inclusively and equitably unravel the sample population’s diversity.

Using an EDI Lens

Data collected using sociodemographic questions (that mirror a context-specific EDI lens) can inform recruitment strategies, support purposive sampling, promote the achievement of maximum variation across identity categories, and create points of comparison that become the grist for generating an intersectional SGBA+ that captures the complex interrelations of power operating within the broader context of the study (Charmaz, 2014; Lane, 2021, 2023; Lane et al., 2024). Establishing these points of comparison by way of a diverse sample population enhances data collection; however, the degree to which this happens depends on the effectiveness of strategies to recruit a diverse sample population that represents as many differences as possible, within and across identity-related categories that comprise an EDI lens. It is advisable to engage in robust recruitment efforts to ensure the number of people who express an interest in participating in a study exceeds the target sample size. This allows the researcher to select participants in such a way that a sample population represents as many differences as possible within and across identity-related categories.

Additionally, an EDI lens can be applied to a variety of settings where power and structural harm is possible, such as healthcare, education, and governmental organizations. Shah et al. (2024) demonstrate that using EDI-based programs in healthcare education and the assessment of healthcare professionals is correlated with higher levels of professionalism for healthcare providers across disciplines. Thus, utilizing such principles at an educational level has the potential to reshape healthcare, government, and society more broadly.

Methodological Reflexivity

Continued, collaborative, and complex practices through which researchers’ positionalities impact the research process are referred to as methodological reflexivity (Olmos-Vega et al., 2023). An EDI lens can serve to address researchers’ own positionality and acknowledge how it may impact the research process. As such, when researchers use an EDI lens, they can be more informed about where their expertise begins and ends, and when to yield to those with lived experience. As a framework for locating where knowledge is situated (Haraway, 1988), an EDI lens can be used to define who “we” are and be relied upon by researchers to avoid inadvertently prioritizing data, concepts, and themes emerging from subjective positions that are privileged or centered within the broader context of a study and thus coincide with normative or dominant perspectives. For example, researchers can apply an EDI lens to question why they are raising the significance of certain concepts and themes. If a concept or theme feels particularly significant, then an EDI lens can be utilized to explore similarities and differences in positionality between the researcher(s) and the participant(s). If subject positions are similar, then caution in raising concepts or themes that resonate with the researcher(s) may be warranted.

Further confirmation of significance may be obtained from other participants through such actions as member checks (Morse, 2015), perhaps ideally with participants in different subject positions, when possible. Ensuring team members who belong to equity-denied groups are not only involved in data analysis but that their interpretations are given equitable consideration is a way that the risk of introducing imbalanced power relations into the research process can be mitigated. When different opinions are held by those who belong to equity-denied groups, especially when they are outnumbered, then traditional consensus among members of the research team might have to be reconsidered to avoid reproducing oppressive viewpoints. An EDI lens could serve as a tool for justifying alternative approaches.

An EDI lens can also be used to identify and define limitations, serving as a tool that can be used a priori to help shape and evolve study methods (see Table 1 for examples of prompts for researchers to use at different stages of the research process). Such a lens can help researchers monitor the ways and directions in which power flows among participants, researchers, and social and/or institutional contexts (Mahadevan, 2012). If socially and institutionally dominant groups are considered as nodes of power, then networks of power relations may be more easily revealed. Considering the flow of power may help researchers move beyond identifying personal biases and reflect upon how systemic biases operating within the broader social context of the study might be influencing the research process. For example, researchers might do this by comparing the team’s positionality (i.e., a composite of each team member’s positionality) to that of the sample population’s and reflecting upon gaps in collective experience that may reproduce power imbalances.

Table 1.

Prompts to Guide the Use of an EDI Lens.

Prompt	Outcome	Example Relating to Sexual Minorities
What groups are represented by the research team?	Team members acknowledge potential biases and limitations in relation to disclosed subject positionality.	A team composed of mostly heterosexual researchers may overlook the significance of or misinterpret findings that relate to sexual minorities.
What social categories are relevant to the study population?	Adopt relevant social categories of identity as building blocks for a context-specific EDI lens.	Social categories relevant to a study population of sexual minorities include sexual orientation as well as other identity categories because sexuality cuts across populations (e.g., race, disability, and gender).
What intragroup differences within each adopted social category are relevant to the study population?	Complete building a context-specific EDI lens by including relevant intragroup differences within each adopted social category. Ideally, as many social categories as possible are adopted, but feasibility can place limitations on this.	Intragroup differences of sexual minorities would include lesbian, gay, bisexual, and other sexual minority groups as well as differences within other adopted social categories (e.g., African Descent, Asian, Indigenous, Middle Eastern, etc., for race; physical disability, mental illness, neurodiverse, etc., for disability; cisgender woman, cisgender man, trans woman, trans man, non-binary, etc., for gender).
What degree of detail on the sample population is desired?	Create a recruitment instrument that reflects the desired level of detail. In the final analysis, consider the number of participants recruited, the data generated, the topic under study, and which details should be provided in the final report, so to protect individual identities where needed.	The degree of detail on subgroups in a sample population should be explored with members of those groups through community engagement.
How many participants will be recruited for the study?	Purposively select participants from the prospective pool to promote maximum variation across adopted identity categories.	Select a sample that represents as many intragroup differences as possible. If there are three lesbians to choose from and only two spots left to fill, then use intragroup differences in other social categories to inform selections, such as lesbians with different racial identities and/or self-identifying differently in terms of disability and/or gender.
How does the positionality of research team members compare to that of the participants?	Use the EDI lens throughout the data analysis process to support methodological reflexivity and enhance qualitative trustworthiness	A team composed of mostly heterosexual researchers may have difficulty achieving methodological reflexivity and could produce knowledge that perpetuates negative assumptions about sexual minorities.
Is a concept or theme perceived to be significant?	Use the EDI lens to question the perceived significance. Determine relative positionalities between the researcher(s) and participant(s) from whom the data (that became the concept or theme) were collected. Raise concepts or themes to significance with caution when subject positions are similar, particularly if representation is largely limited to dominant groups.	If the data analysis and interpretation is being carried out by a cisgender straight white person, then the significance of findings that emerge from a cisgender straight white participant’s data may be scrutinized more than if either party’s positionality was different (e.g., gender diverse, sexual minority, and Person of Color, etc.)
To what degree does the collective experience of the research team and/or sample population represent subcategories within each identity category?	Use the EDI lens to identify and define study strengths and limitations. Underrepresented social categories and intragroup differences are limitations because a lack of insight into those subject positions could impact the transferability of findings.	A team composed of mostly heterosexual researchers is a study limitation if the study population includes sexual minorities.

An EDI lens can also be used to define study limitations in terms of the extent to which subcategories within each identity category are represented by the team and/or sample population. Conversely, if the data represent diverse experiences and perspectives, then this could be identified as a study strength. As such, an EDI lens can be used to contextualize findings within larger social forces that may cause narrow understandings of the topic being studied. Moreover, transparency regarding transferability may also be enhanced by an EDI lens. Deficiencies in team representation might be seen as a flow of power in and of itself that may have implications, including a lack of capacity to recognize power-based risks that are disproportionately experienced by those who belong to equity-denied group (participants and team members). These perceived risks could influence individuals’ decisions to contribute, the choices they make around what they will disclose, and, ultimately, qualitative trustworthiness and uptake of findings. Institutions can thus demonstrate a commitment to EDI principles by supporting diverse participation in research. This could be done by developing and implementing equitable and inclusive policies that address and support social distinctions as well as challenge structural inequalities that negatively impact people who belong to equity-denied groups for the benefit of those belonging to historically prioritized groups.

Conclusion

The exact use of EDI lenses will depend on the specifics of the qualitative research being done. In all cases, they can serve as approaches for conducting more equitable and inclusive research, particularly with diverse study populations. When there is a lack of lived experience with subject positionalities among members of a research team and/or sample populations, an EDI lens may be particularly helpful in building an awareness around how power relations in the broader context could influence the research process. Nevertheless, it is wise to engage a diversity of perspectives when building and applying EDI lenses to consider the degree to which power imbalances may be inadvertently introduced by way of lived experiences and systemic inequalities. Teams that lack such diversity should ask themselves whether their claim to conducting equity-related research is legitimate, and if so, how they will ensure they do it equitably.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Jennifer Lane

Emily K. Drake

Tatianna Bolton

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project is funded by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Catalyst Grant (#529435), Research Nova Scotia New Health Investigator Grant (#2023-2857), and Dalhousie University, Faculty of Health (Establishment Funds, Research Development Grant, and SSHRC Explore).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

American Civil Liberties Union . (n.d.). Trump on DEI and anti-discrimination law. https://www.aclu.org/trump-on-dei-and-anti-discrimination-law

Bailey

Steeves

Burkell

Shade

L. R.

Ruparelia

Regan

(2019). Getting at equality: Research methods informed by the lessons of intersectionality. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919846753

Beard

Tink

Lorenz

Rendon

(2023). Equity, diversity, and inclusion in research: An action plan. University of Alberta. https://www.ualberta.ca/en/research/media-library/ediinresearch_2023.pdf

Booysen

Bendl

Pringle

J. K.

(Eds.). (2018). Handbook of research methods in diversity management, equality and inclusion at work. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Bowleg

Bauer

(2016). Invited reflection: Quantifying intersectionality. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(3), 337–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684316654282

Bowleg

Malekzadeh

A. N.

AuBuchon

K. E.

Ghabrial

M. A.

Bauer

G. R.

(2023). Rare exemplars and missed opportunities: Intersectionality within current sexual and gender diversity research and scholarship in psychology. Current Opinion in Psychology, 49(6), Article 101511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101511

Cameron

A. I.

Tedds

L. M.

(2022). Canada’s GBA+ framework in a (post)pandemic world: Issues, tensions and paths forward. Canadian Public Administration, 66(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/capa.12508

Canadian Institute for Health Research . (2023). CIHR glossary of terms used in accessibility and systemic ableism. Government of Canada. https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/53446.html

Cannella

G. S.

Pérez

M. S.

Pasque

P. A.

(Eds.). (2015). Critical qualitative inquiry: Foundations and futures. Left Coast Press.

10.

Chan

C. D.

Henesy

R. K.

(2018). Navigating intersectional approaches, methods, and interdisciplinarity to health equity in LGBTQ+ communities. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 12(4), 230–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2018.1526157

11.

Charmaz

(2014). Constructing grounded theory. Sage.

12.

Cho

Crenshaw

K. W.

McCall

(2013). Toward a field of intersectionality studies: Theory, applications, and praxis. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38(4), 785–810. https://doi.org/10.1086/669608

13.

Collins

P. H.

(1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness and the politics of empowerment. Unwin Hyman.

14.

Collins

P. H.

(1997). Comment on Hekman’s “Truth and method: Feminist standpoint theory revisited”: Where’s the power? Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 22(2), 375–381. https://doi.org/10.1086/495162

15.

Collins

P. H.

Bilge

(2020). Intersectionality (2nd ed.). Polity Press.

16.

Crenshaw

(1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), Article 31.

17.

Darwin Holmes

A. G.

(2020). Researcher positionality—A consideration of its influence and place in qualitative research—A new researcher guide. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 8(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v8i4.3232

18.

da Silva

S. M.

Webster

J. P.

(2018). Positionality and standpoint: Situated ethnographers acting in on- and offline contexts. In Beach

Bagley

da Silva

S. M.

(Eds.), The Wiley handbook of ethnography of education (pp. 501–512). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118933732.ch22

19.

Denzin

(2015). What is critical qualitative inquiry? In Canella

Salazar Pérez

Pasque

(Eds.), Critical qualitative inquiry: Foundations and futures (pp. 31–50). Routledge.

20.

Denzin

Giardina

(2016). Introduction. In Denzin

Giardina

(Eds.), Qualitative inquiry through a critical lens (Vol. 11, pp. 1–16). Routledge.

21.

Don

(2024, September 5). Equity, diversity, and inclusion in health research: Gaps and opportunities in qualitative systematic reviews. Applied Clinical Trials. https://www.appliedclinicaltrialsonline.com/view/equity-diversity-inclusion-health-research-gaps-opportunities-qualitative-systematic-reviews

22.

Dresser

(1992). Wanted single, White male for medical research. The Hastings Center Report, 22(1), 24–29. https://doi.org/10.2307/3562720

23.

Eichler

(2021). Equity in military and Veteran research: Why it is essential to integrate an intersectional sex and gender lens. Journal of Military, Veteran and Family Health, 7(s1), 143–149. https://doi.org/10.3138/jmvfh-2021-0016

24.

Eichler

Smith-Evans

Spanner

Tam-Seto

(2021). Mind the gap: Sex, gender, and intersectionality in military-to-civilian transitions. Journal of Military, Veteran and Family Health, 7(s1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.3138/jmvfh-2021-0018

25.

Eisenberg

M. E.

Gower

A. L.

Watson

R. J.

Rider

G. N.

Thomas

Russell

S. T.

(2022). Substance use behaviors among LGBTQ+ youth of color: Identification of the populations bearing the greatest burden in three large samples. The Journal of Adolescent Health: Official Publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine, 71(3), 317–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2022.04.007

26.

Evans

Hassanein

Z. M.

Bains

Bennett

Bjerrum

Edgley

Edwards

Porritt

Salmond

(2025). Addressing equity, diversity, and inclusion in JBI qualitative systematic reviews: A methodological scoping review. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 23(3), 454–479. https://doi.org/10.11124/jbies-24-00025

27.

Fine

Torre

M. E.

Oswald

A. G.

Avory

(2021). Critical participatory action research: Methods and praxis for intersectional knowledge production. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 68(3), 344–356. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000445

28.

Fisher

J. A.

Kalbaugh

C. A.

(2011). Challenging assumptions about minority participation in US clinical research. American Journal of Public Health, 101(12), 2217–2222. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300279

29.

Fisher

O. J.

Fearnshaw

Watson

N. J.

Green

Charnley

McFarlane

Sharples

(2024). Promoting equality, diversity and inclusion in research and funding: Reflections from a digital manufacturing research network. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 9(1), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-024-00144-w

30.

Gani

J. K.

Khan

R. M.

(2024). Positionality statements as a function of coloniality: Interrogating reflexive methodologies. International Studies Quarterly, 68(2). Article sqae038. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqae038

31.

Giacomini

(2010). Theory matters in qualitative health research. In Bourgeault

Dingwall

de Vries

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative methods in health research (pp. 125–156). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446268247.n8

32.

Government of Canada . (2017, June 29). Sex- and gender-based analysis plus in action at health Canada [Program descriptions]. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/corporate/transparency/sex-gender-based-analysis-action.html

33.

Government of Canada . (2021). NSERC guide on integrating equity, diversity and inclusion considerations in research. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). https://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/NSERC-CRSNG/Policies-Politiques/EDI_guidance-Conseils_EDI_eng.asp

34.

Government of Canada . (2025). Guide on equity, diversity and inclusion terminology. https://www.noslangues-ourlanguages.gc.ca/en/publications/equite-diversite-inclusion-equity-diversity-inclusion-eng

35.

Grasenick

Trattnig

Romero

P. F.

(2021). Toolkit on equality in governance structures, procedures, and implementation. Edi Toolkit. https://www.edi-toolkit.org/

36.

Guan

Thomas

Vittinghoff

Bowleg

Mangurian

Wesson

(2021). An investigation of quantitative methods for assessing intersectionality in health research: A systematic review. SSM - Population Health, 16(4), Article 100977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100977

37.

Hankivsky

Mussell

(2019). Gender-based analysis plus in Canada: Problems and possibilities of integrating intersectionality. Canadian Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.3138/cpp.2017-058

38.

Haraway

(1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066

39.

Harris

J. L.

(2021). Black on Black: The vilification of “me-search,” tenure, and the economic position of Black sociologists. Journal of Economics, Race, and Policy, 4(2), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41996-020-00066-x

40.

Health Canada . (2017, June 29). Health portfolio sex and gender-based analysis policy [policies]. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/corporate/transparency/heath-portfolio-sex-gender-based-analysis-policy.html

41.

Johnson

C. W.

Parry

D. C.

(Eds.). (2016). Fostering social justice through qualitative inquiry (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315428253

42.

Johri

(Ed.). (2023). International handbook of engineering education research. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

43.

King

K. A.

(2024). Promises and perils of positionality statements. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 44, 118–125. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190524000035

44.

Lane

(2021). If Adorno met intersectionality theory: Reconceiving the method of negative case analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211045473

45.

Lane

(2023). Working through stigma: A constructivist grounded theory of delivering health services to diverse 2SLGBTQ populations. Qualitative Health Research, 33(7), 624–637. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323231167828

46.

Lane

Alizadeh

Cassidy

Forbes

McCulloch

Jarvis

Wong

Pennell

Wozney

Lane

Barber

Lackie

Oladimeji

Prince

S. M. K. Z.

Burchell

Doucette

O’Brien

LeRoy

MacEachern

Mcdonald

(2024). Advancing health equity in Nova Scotia by exploring gaps in healthcare delivery: A mixed methods protocol. Research in Health Services & Regions, 4(1), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43999-025-00062-4

47.

Mahadevan

(2012). Translating nodes of power through reflexive ethnographic writing. Journal of Organizational Ethnography, 1(1), 119–131. https://doi.org/10.1108/20466741211220714

48.

Manning

S. M.

Levac

(2022). The Canadian Impact Assessment Act and intersectional analysis: Exaggerated tensions, fierce resistance, little understanding. Canadian Public Administration, 65(2), 242–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/capa.12458

49.

Martin

J. P.

Desing

Borrego

(2022). Positionality statements are just the tip of the iceberg: Moving towards a reflexive process. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 28(4), v–vii. https://doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.2022044277

50.

McCall

(2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30(3), 1771–1800. https://doi.org/10.1086/426800

51.

McCarthy

Milne

Waite

Cooke

Cook

Chang

Sproule

B. A.

(2017). Sex and gender-based analysis in pharmacy practice research: A scoping review. Research in Social & Administrative Pharmacy: RSAP, 13(6), 1045–1054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2016.11.007

52.

Milner

H. R.

(2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers seen, unseen, and unforeseen. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 388–400. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07309471

53.

Morse

J. M.

(2015). Critical analysis of strategies for determining rigor in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Health Research, 25(9), 1212–1222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315588501

54.

Olmos-Vega

F. M.

Stalmeijer

R. E.

Varpio

Kahlke

(2023). A practical guide to reflexivity in qualitative research: AMEE guide no. 149. Medical Teacher, 45(3), 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2022.2057287

55.

Parson

(2019). Considering positionality: The ethics of conducting research with marginalized groups. In Strunk

K. K.

Locke

L. A.

(Eds.), Research methods for social justice and equity in education (pp. 15–32). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05900-2_2

56.

Pasque

Salazar Pérez

(2015). Methodologies that facilitate critical qualitative research. In Canella

(Ed.), Centering critical inquiry: Foundations and futures (1st ed., pp. 139–170). Routledge.

57.

Savolainen

Casey

P. J.

McBrayer

J. P.

Schwerdtle

P. N.

(2023). Positionality and its problems: Questioning the value of reflexivity statements in research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18(6), 1331–1338. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221144988

58.

Secules

McCall

Mejia

J. A.

Beebe

Masters

A. S.

L Sánchez-Peña

Svyantek

(2021). Positionality practices and dimensions of impact on equity research: A collaborative inquiry and call to the community. Journal of Engineering Education, 110(1), 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20377

59.

Shah

Behravan

Al-Jabouri

Sibbaid

(2024). Incorporating equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) into the education and assessment of professionalism for healthcare professionals and trainees: Ascoping review. BMC Medical Education, 24(1), 991. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05981-3

60.

Subirana-Malaret

Gahagan

Parker

(2019). Intersectionality and sex and gender-based analyses as promising approaches in addressing intimate partner violence treatment programs among LGBT couples: A scoping review. Cogent Social Sciences, 5(1), Article 1644982. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2019.1644982

61.

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights . (2025). Trump’s executive orders on diversity, equity, and inclusion, explained. https://civilrights.org/resource/anti-deia-eos/

62.

The White House . (2025). Ending radical and wasteful government DEI programs and preferencing. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-radical-and-wasteful-government-dei-programs-and-preferencing/

63.

Underwood

S. M.

(2000). Minorities, women, and clinical cancer research: The charge, promise, and challenge. Annals of Epidemiology, 10(8 Suppl), S3–S12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1047-2797(00)00200-3

64.

Universities Canada . (2022). Equity, diversity, and inclusion at Canadian universities: Universities Canada’s 2022 survey on equity, diversity and inclusion. https://univcan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/UC-2023-EDI-Report_EN_FA_Web.pdf

65.

UN Women . (2014). Beijing declaration and platform for action (p. 57). https://beijing20.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/Headquarters/Attachments/Sections/CSW/PFA_E_Final_WEB.pdf

66.

White

Tannenbaum

Klinge

Schiebinger

Clayton

(2021). The integration of sex and gender considerations into biomedical research: Lessons from international funding agencies. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 106(10), 3034–3048. https://doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgab434

67.

Woitowich

N. C.

Beery

Woodruff

(2020). A 10-year follow-up study of sex inclusion in the biological sciences. eLife, 9, Article e56344. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.56344

68.

Xuan

Ocone

(2022). The equality, diversity and inclusion in energy and AI: Call for actions. Energy and AI, 8, Article 100152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyai.2022.100152

Integrating Equity,Diversity,and Inclusion Principles Into Qualitative Research Design

Abstract

Keywords

Background

Sex- and Gender-Based Analysis

Building an EDI Lens

Acknowledging Positionality

Bringing the Team Together

Using an EDI Lens

Methodological Reflexivity

Conclusion

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

References