By Adrian Leguina and Rhianna Garrett
Part I of the annotated bibliography offers an overview of the conceptualisation and operationalisation of intersectionality from a quantitative standpoint. The sources presented here establish the groundwork for understanding the statistical implications and limitations for developing analytical strategies that translate intersectionality into empirical research.
This list is not exhaustive and only provides a sample of influential work from various disciplines and traditions published over the last two decades. There is some overlap between them, so when using the annotated bibliography, students, lecturers, and researchers can choose those more closely related to their interests.
Bauer, G. R. (2014). Incorporating intersectionality theory into population health research methodology: Challenges and the potential to advance health equity. Social Science & Medicine, 110, 10–17.
In this paper, Bauer explores the application of intersectionality theory in population health research. The issue identified by the paper is the lack of theoretical models addressing health and disease inequalities at different intersections of identity, social position, oppression, and privilege. Challenges highlighted by the author include translating theories into methods, the value of intersecting characteristics, distinguishing between intersecting identities, social positions, policies and social structures, and understanding the appropriate scale for interactions. The paper includes an overview of methods used to describe and test intersectional hypotheses
Bowleg, L. (2008). When Black + Lesbian + Woman ≠ Black Lesbian Woman: The Methodological Challenges of Qualitative and Quantitative Intersectionality Research. Sex Roles, 59(5), 312–325.
In this article, Bowleg discusses the measurement, analysis, and interpretation challenges found in researching Black lesbians in psychological research. By referring to the way intersectionality challenges the conventional additive assumption (e.g., Black + Lesbian + Woman), the author makes a compelling case for the limitations of traditional methods (such as ANOVA with interaction terms) in accounting for the multiplicative nature of intersectionality. Bowleg emphasises that the interpretation of findings within their social and historical context becomes crucial for intersectionality researchers.
Choo, H. Y., & Ferree, M. M. (2010). Practicing Intersectionality in Sociological Research: A Critical Analysis of Inclusions, Interactions, and Institutions in the Study of Inequalities. Sociological Theory, 28(2), 129–149.
Choo and Ferree explore the implications of practising intersectionality from a theoretical and methodological point of view. Three ways of understanding intersectionality are identified by the authors: group (experiences of intersectionally marginalised groups), process (multiple oppressions and their relation to power) and system-centred (focused on social structures ) approaches. Referring to previous sociological research, the paper illustrates how intersectionality shapes research design and methodological choices. The authors propose that intersectionality should be used more widely to inform key sociological issues
Covarrubias, A. (2011). Quantitative Intersectionality: A Critical Race Analysis of the Chicana/o Educational Pipeline. Journal of Latinos and Education, 10(2), 86–105.
In this article, Covarrubias quantitatively analyses the educational outcomes of Mexican-origin people in the United States of America. The author approaches the analysis of large-scale survey data emphasising the importance of looking at race, class and gender intersectionally for understanding educational outcomes. Analytically, this is done by disaggregating data by educational attainment at race, class, gender, and citizenship status categories, revealing systemic disparities and challenges faced by Chicana/o students. Covarrubias’ exemplary work contributes to the quantitative inquiry of inequalities from intersectional and critical race theory perspectives.
Garcia, N. M., López, N., & Vélez, V. N. (2018). QuantCrit: Rectifying quantitative methods through critical race theory. Race Ethnicity and Education, 21(2), 149–157.
In this special issue introductory article, the authors present “QuantCrit,” a framework that bridges critical race theory (CRT) with statistics. QuantCrit critically engages with white supremacy and its role in the creation of quantitative methods and its perpetuation of the existence of objective and neutral research. The authors present a detailed historical overview of developments in the field, introduce articles on the issue and close with an invitation for continuing deracialising statistics. Special issue articles are recommended for those interested in CRT and QuantCrit, and more widely interested in a critical overview of quantitative methods from a CRT perspective.
Gillborn, D. (2010). The colour of numbers: Surveys, statistics and deficit‐thinking about race and class. Journal of Education Policy, 25(2), 253–276.
In this thought-provoking article, Gillborn critically examines the use of surveys and statistics in education research, particularly concerning race and class. Particularly relevant is the critique of ‘old’ statistical assumptions and practices that can perpetuate discrimination against minoritised groups and the challenge to the tendency to blame inequalities on identities rather than the social processes that assign them value. Gillborn argues that statistical data can perpetuate racial oppression if not interpreted contextually and calls for reflexivity and critical engagement in research methodologies.
Hancock, A.-M. (2007). When Multiplication Doesn’t Equal Quick Addition: Examining Intersectionality as a Research Paradigm. Perspectives on Politics, 5(1), 63–79.
Hancock examines research on race, gender and class across disciplines and proposes to think about intersectionality as a research paradigm. To do so, the author presents empirical research standards for intersectionality, which are the answers to six questions that motivate the author’s endeavours: How many categories, their relationship, their conceptualisation, their political makeup, level of analysis and methodological wisdom. Hancock’s work emphasises the need for developing methodologies that account for the multiple dimensions explored by intersectional research.
McCall, L. (2005). The Complexity of Intersectionality. Signs, 30(3), 1771–1800.
McCall highlights the complexities faced by researchers when studying intersectionality. The author acknowledges that traditional single-axis analyses (such as examining gender or race alone) fall short of capturing the multifaceted nature of identity. Intersectionality demands a more nuanced approach regarding the use of analytical categories, which McCall synthesises in three: Anti-categorical (oriented to the study of the experiences lived by neglected intersecting social groups), intracategorical (the study inequalities within different social groups) and intercategorical (to use existing analytical categories to study inequalities between different social groups). Researchers must critically consider questions of measurement, context, and methodology to fully understand how intersecting identities shape individuals’ experiences.
Misra, J., Curington, C. V., & Green, V. M. (2021). Methods of intersectional research. Sociological Spectrum, 41(1), 9–28.
In this paper, the authors guide designing intersectional research, focusing on key aspects of intersectionality to consider designing research, including its focus on power structures, relationality, complexity, comparison, deconstruction and context. The paper discusses qualitative, comparative, and quantitative strategies, calling for a more explicit link between theory, epistemology and methodology. The authors are motivated by the unlocked potential intersectionality offers to sociology and wider social sciences.
Spierings, N. (2012). The inclusion of quantitative techniques and diversity in the mainstream of feminist research. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 19(3), 331–347.
Spierings addresses the underrepresentation of quantitative methods in gender studies. The article introduces the ‘diversity continuum’ to assess their takes on diversity (no v. infinite) and type of diversity. Addressing this, the author suggests, can enhance our understanding of differences and similarities among individuals, help communication across fields and facilitate scientific knowledge. This article presents both negative and positive views of quantitative methods in feminist research, emphasising their potential contributions and highlighting good practices for understanding gender dynamics. The article is also recommended for those more widely interested in a critical overview of quantitative methods from a feminist perspective.
Warner, L. R. (2008). A Best Practices Guide to Intersectional Approaches in Psychological Research. Sex Roles, 59(5), 454–463.
In this paper, Warner provides a “best practices guide” for applying intersectionality empirically. Some of the key points include the necessity for identifying the identities to empirically study, the implications of focusing on single dimensions of identity (‘master’) and/or ‘emerging’ or compound categories that emerge by combining multiple identities, and the necessity for treating identity as a process occurring within social structures and specific contexts. In sum, this article offers practical insights for integrating intersectionality into psychological research which apply more widely to other disciplines, including methodological considerations.
Part II of the annotated bibliography will cover discussions from an empirical point of view, including the review and implementation of specific methods such as regressions and clustering.
