ºìÐÓÊÓƵ

Topic

A critical discourse analysis: Comparing how governments and non-government organizations operationalize intersectionality within gender-based analysis plus

School of Public Administration

Date & location

• Friday, April 11, 2025
• 11:00 A.M.
• Virtual Defence

Examining Committee

Supervisory Committee

• Dr. Walter Lepore, School of Public Administration, University of Victoria (Supervisor)
• Dr. Astrid Pérez Piñán, School of Public Administration, UVic (Member)

External Examiner

• Dr. Mehmoona Moosa-Mitha, School of Social Work, UVic

Chair of Oral Examination

• Dr. Athena Madan, Department of Sociology, UVic

Abstract

The population in Canada has become increasingly diverse, prompting both governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to consider how to effectively address the diverse needs and interests of the populations they serve. One approach governments and NGOs have adopted to create more responsive policies, programs, and services has been the use of Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+). GBA+ incorporates an intersectional lens to assess the impacts of policies, programs, legislation, projects, and more with consideration to gender and diversity (Women and Gender Equality Canada [WAGE], 2022). Since its introduction within the federal government of Canada, challenges—mainly related to capacity and resources—have hindered the full implementation of GBA+ across federal departments and agencies (Office of the Auditor General of Canada [OAG], 2022). While the application of intersectionality within GBA+ has been well-studied at the federal level (Cameron & Tedds, 2023; Johnstone & Momani, 2019, Johnstone & Momani 2022; Manning & Levac, 2022; Lefroy & Stacey, 2022; Scala & Paterson, 2017), there remain gaps in understanding intersectionality within GBA+ among other levels of government and within NGOs. This study addresses two main research questions: how is intersectionality within GBA+ operationalized by NGOs in comparison to government organizations; and how do service providers apply GBA+ to support identifying the impacts of programs, services, policy and projects in consideration of gender and diversity in comparison to public servants?

Purpose and Objectives: This study explores how intersectionality within GBA+ was operationalized among other levels of government and NGOs, to support a better understanding of its implementation, and whether discrepancies in the aspects used to identify its various dimensions exist across sectors. Operationalization is the processes and techniques used to implement norms in ways that can be measured (Huelss, 2017; Bhandari, 2022; Newsome, 2016; Loseke, 2017). Comparing how different levels of government and NGOs prepare their staff to operationalize intersectionality can provide insight about the similarities and differences in their training and capacity building strategies.

This study uses a critical discourse analysis (CDA) to examine GBA+ training materials of different levels of government and NGOs to understand how institutional and sociocultural contexts, as well as power dynamics, influenced discourse on intersectionality within GBA+. The rationale for focusing on training materials is that it is a non-obtrusive approach which can reduce ethical concerns, as extracting information from governments and NGOs on organizational processes can be obtrusive. Also, training is an important part of supporting change management (Sartori, Constantini, & Tommasi, 2018), which is necessary if governments and NGOs want to facilitate transformative and social justice-oriented change. Both of these often involve systemic and structural change within organizations (Cameron & Tedds, 2022; Johnstone & Momani, 2019; Scala & Paterson, 2017).

This study also aimed to explore how public servants apply intersectionality within GBA+ to assess the impacts of policies, programs, and initiatives, in comparison to service providers, to make sense of the similarities and differences in their understanding and approaches. A critical epistemology was used to identify how social and cultural ideologies, sociohistorical contexts, and subjectivity influenced knowledge construction (McGregor, 2018; Farias Laliberte Rudman, & Magalhães, 2016). A critical ontology was applied to explore how perceptions, social constructions, interconnected systems (Demirbaga, 2024), political values, and power dynamics shape reality (McGregor, 2018). This may influence the way governments and NGOs train their staff to operationalize intersectionality within GBA+.

Research methods: The methods used included a CDA of training materials and interviews. The CDA provided an opportunity to explore how governments and NGOs build capacity for the operationalization of intersectionality, as well as semi-structured interviews to understand how public servants apply GBA+ in comparison to service providers. The document analysis was used to analyze publicly available and online training materials and resources of the various levels of governments and of NGOs, such as transcripts of recorded training sessions, guidelines and online courses about GBA+. This supported the investigation of language and discourse used to describe intersectionality within GBA+. Interviews were conducted with individuals with experience as either a public servant and/or service provider, who were also trained and experienced using GBA+. The interviews provided context on how intersectionality within GBA+ is applied when considering the impacts of policies, programs and initiatives. The combination of approaches supported triangulating the findings.

Findings: This study suggests that governments and NGOs’ capacity building strategies to implement intersectionality within GBA+ are inconsistent . Using a revised version of Christoffersen’s (2021) typology of five applied concepts of intersectionality and Cameron & Tedds’ (2022) Adapted intersectionality visual as a conceptual framework, this study found that governments and NGOs used different applied concepts of intersectionality within GBA+ which resulted in discrepancies in the operational definition for intersectionality. For example, intersectionality was operationally defined by some governments and NGOs to include all three components of Cameron & Tedds’ (2022) framework, which considered individual identities and experiences, systems of oppression (e.g., racism, sexism, and colonialism) and sites of power (e.g., media, organizations, and government), while others included only some components, such as focusing on identity factors (e.g., race, sex, income, and gender).

In addition, the findings indicated that the analysis of power dynamics and relationships was not incorporated clearly incorporated within training materials. Discursive strategies, like euphemisms, diverted the focus from exploring power dynamics and relationships between intersectional components. This means that public servants and service providers are not being trained on key aspects of intersectionality which also contributes to its depoliticization. For instance, the lack of discourse on power reinforced specific narratives and discourse which legitimized institutional power rather than confronting it. In these situations, governments and NGOs did not provide an opportunity to create transformative changes, such as paradigm shifts and cultural shifts within an organization. Additionally, the lack of discourse that specifically described social justice as part of intersectionality resulted in governments and NGOs focusing less on how they would support social justice-oriented change. Intersectionality was not portrayed as meeting its full potential in government and NGO training materials because it was not depicted as supporting transformative and social justice-oriented change. Instead, governments and NGOs demonstrated the organizational benefits to implementing intersectionality. For example, GBA+ helped to look at how they could improve organizational processes and prevent misinformation and generalizations about specific identity groups.

During interviews, government and NGO participants could not provide direct examples of how they applied intersectionality within GBA+ due to their confidential work or GBA+ still being in the development stages within their sector. However, in alignment with the document analysis, both government and NGO participants indicated that analyzing power dynamics and relationships was important when applying GBA+. For instance, participants reflected on the power dynamics within and between organizations that influenced the implementation and quality of GBA+, and the types of knowledge production used for GBA+. Additionally, NGO participants highlighted how it was necessary to situate GBA+ within its context, for example, by acknowledging that it is applied through a colonial lens, to identify the existing challenges of supporting transformative and social justice-oriented change.

Recommendations: To fully realize the potential of intersectionality within GBA+, governments and NGOs should consider utilizing Cameron & Tedds' Adapted intersectionality visual (2022) as a framework. This tool can guide the application of GBA+ to ensure that training materials provide a comprehensive understanding of intersectionality. Specifically, more attention should be given to power dynamics and the relationships among individual identities and experiences, systems of oppression, and sites of power. This focus will also help integrate sociopolitical and historical contexts, reducing the risk of stigmatizing identity groups as having inherent deficitsFinally, clarifying how governments and NGOs plan to foster social justice-oriented change through GBA+ is essential to promoting transformation that aligns with Canada’s population’s diverse needs and interests.