Intersectionality in quantitative research: A systematic review of its emergence and applications of theory and methods
Intersectionality in quantitative research: A systematic review of its emergence and applications of theory and methods
Key takeaways
Bibliography: Bauer, G.R., Churchill, S.M., Mahendran, M., Walwyn, C., Lizotte, D., Villa-Rueda, A.A., 2021. Intersectionality in quantitative research: A systematic review of its emergence and applications of theory and methods. SSM - Population Health 14, 100798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100798
Authors:: Greta R. Bauer, Siobhan M. Churchill, Mayuri Mahendran, Chantel Walwyn, Daniel Lizotte, Alma Angelica Villa-Rueda
Collections:: Gender Scale
First-page: 2
Background: Intersectionality is a theoretical framework rooted in the premise that human experience is jointly shaped by multiple social positions (e.g. race, gender), and cannot be adequately understood by considering social positions independently. Used widely in qualitative studies, its uptake in quantitative research has been more recent. Objectives: To characterize quantitative research applications of intersectionality from 1989 to mid-2020, to evaluate basic integration of theoretical frameworks, and to identify innovative methods that could be applied to health research. Methods: Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed articles indexed within Scopus, Medline, ProQuest Political Science and Public Administration, and PsycINFO. Original Englishlanguage quantitative or mixed-methods research or methods papers that explicitly applied intersectionality theoretical frameworks were included. Experimental studies on perception/stereotyping and measures devel opment or validation studies were excluded. We extracted data related to publication, study design, quantitative methods, and application of intersectionality. Results: 707 articles (671 applied studies, 25 methods-only papers, 11 methods plus application) met inclusion criteria. Articles were published in journals across a range of disciplines, most commonly psychology, sociology, and medical/life sciences; 40.8% studied a health-related outcome. Results supported concerns among inter sectionality scholars that core theoretical tenets are often lost or misinterpreted in quantitative research; about one in four applied articles (26.9%) failed to define intersectionality, while one in six (17.5%) included inter sectional position components not reflective of social power. Quantitative methods were simplistic (most often regression with interactions, cross-classified variables, or stratification) and were often misapplied or mis interpreted. Several novel methods were identified. Conclusions: Intersectionality is frequently misunderstood when bridging theory into quantitative methodology. Further work is required to (1) ensure researchers understand key features that define quantitative inter sectionality analyses, (2) improve reporting practices for intersectional analyses, and (3) develop and adapt quantitative methods.
content: "@bauerIntersectionalityQuantitativeResearch2021" -file:@bauerIntersectionalityQuantitativeResearch2021
Reading notes
Imported on 2025-04-27 17:39
⭐ Important
- & In adapting intersectionality for quantitative research, the works of Hancock and McCall are particularly influential. Hancock (2007) differentiates an intersectional approach from an “additive” approach that considers effects of social identities singly and assumes that effects at an intersection of identities can be understood as a sum of their parts. (p. 2)
- & McCall (2005) further differentiates between intracategorical approaches that focus on complexity of experience within a particular social position or inter section, intercategorical approaches that focus on heterogeneity across a range of intersections, and anticategorical approaches that critique rigid social categorization itself. (p. 2)
- & Scholars have expressed concern that repeatedly documenting inequalities, even in finer intersectional detail, can serve to reinforce ideas of inherent differences between groups rather than to point towards actionable solutions (Bauer, 2014; Bauer & Scheim, 2019b; Lofters & O’Campo, 2012). (p. 2)