Dataset Information

Intersectionality in quantitative research: A systematic review of its emergence and applications of theory and methods.

ABSTRACT:

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 English-language quantitative or mixed-methods research or methods papers that explicitly applied intersectionality theoretical frameworks were included. Experimental studies on perception/stereotyping and measures development 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 intersectionality 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 intersectional 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 misinterpreted. 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 intersectionality analyses, (2) improve reporting practices for intersectional analyses, and (3) develop and adapt quantitative methods.

SUBMITTER: Bauer GR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8095182 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:RationaleQuantitative health disparities research has increasingly employed intersectionality as a theoretical tool to investigate how social characteristics intersect to generate health inequality. Yet, intersectionality was not designed to quantify, predict, or identify health disparities, and, as a result, multiple criticisms against its misapplication in health disparities research have been made. As such, there is an emerging need to evaluate the growing body of quantitative research that aims to investigate health disparities through an intersectional lens.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review from earliest records to January 2020 to (i) describe the scope of limitations when applying intersectionality to quantitative health disparities research, and (ii) identify recommendations to improve the future integration of intersectionality with this scholarship. We identified relevant publications with electronic searches in PubMed and CA Web of Science. Studies eligible for inclusion were English-language publications that used quantitative methodologies to investigate health disparities among adults in the U.S. while explicitly claiming to adopt an intersectional perspective. Out of 1279 articles reviewed, 65 were eligible for inclusion.ResultsOur review found that, while the value of intersectionality to the study of health disparities is evident, the existing research struggles with meeting intersectionality's fundamental assumptions. In particular, four limitations were found to be widespread: narrowing the measurements of intersectionality, intersectional groups, and health outcomes; placing primacy on the study of certain intersectional groups to the neglect of others; overlooking underlying explanatory mechanisms that contribute to the health disparities experienced by intersectional groups; and, lacking in the use of life-course perspectives to show how health disparities vary across different life stages.ConclusionIf the goal of health equality is to be achieved among diverse intersectional groups, future research must be assisted by the collection and examination of data that overcomes these limitations.

Project description:BackgroundThe implementation of a theoretical intersectionality framework into quantitative data analyses is gaining increasing interest in health research. The substantive foundation of intersectionality was established in the U.S., based on the claim of black feminists to broaden the scope of contemporary gender studies by considering the intersection between sex/gender and race/ethnicity more firmly. The aim of our scoping review with particular emphasis on sex/gender was to assess how intersectionality-informed studies in epidemiological research considered different social dimensions in their multivariable and multivariate analyses.MethodsFollowing the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR), we conducted a literature review in PubMed. Three distinct health-related fields were brought into focus: diabetes representing a frequent chronic disease, smoking as a wide-spread behavioural health determinant and physical activity as a central target for health promotion. Initially, we compared which and how different social dimensions were accounted for and how inter-categorical and intersectionality-informed analyses were conducted. Further, we assessed sex/gender sensitivity by comparing operationalisation of sex/gender, how sex/gender theories were used and which central theoretical sex/gender concepts were referred to when aiming at explanation of (intersectional) sex/gender differences.ResultsOur results suggest, that intersectionality-based analyses within the three selected health-related fields are mainly conducted in the U.S. and focused on the intersection between sex/gender and race/ethnicity by using them jointly as subgrouping variables and as parts of interaction terms in regression analyses. Income and education as proxies for social class as well as age are mainly used for adjustment in quantitative analyses. Other approaches for calculating interactions (i.a. synergy-index, CART-analysis) are an exception. Even though sex/gender was considered in every included study and Gender was the most frequent theoretical sex/gender concept referred to when theoretically explaining sex/gender differences, it was exclusively operationalised as binary and solution-linked sex/gender variables were hardly considered in quantitative analyses.ConclusionThe systematic integration of solution-linked variables indicating modifiable aspects of sex/gender-related living conditions and disadvantages could improve sex/gender sensitivity as part of intersectionality-based quantitative data analysis in health research.

Project description:Participation in and opportunities for physical activity (PA) and sports (PA inclusively hereafter) are known to vary across individuals with different social positions. Intersectionality theory may help us to better understand the complex processes of multiple interlocking systems of oppression and privilege shaped by intersections of individuals' social categories. The objectives of this systematic scoping review were (1) to summarize the findings of articles examining PA claimed operationalization of intersectionality and (2) to identify the scope and gaps pertaining to the operationalization of intersectionality in PA research. A search was conducted in September 2019 in seven electronic databases (e.g., SPORTDiscus, Scopus, Web of Science) for relevant research articles written in English. Key search terms included "intersectionality" AND "physical activity" OR "sport". Database searches, data screening and extraction, and narrative synthesis were conducted between September 2019 and May 2020. Of 16564 articles identified, 45 articles were included in this review. The majority of included articles used qualitative methods (n = 41), with two quantitative and two mixed-methods articles. The most frequently observed intersectional social position was sex/gender + race/ethnicity (n = 11), followed by sex/gender + race/ethnicity + sexuality (n = 6) and sex/gender + race/ethnicity + religion (n = 6). Most qualitative studies (n = 38) explicitly claimed operationalization of intersectionality as a key theoretical framework, and over half of these studies (n = 27) implicitly used intra-categorical intersectionality. Two quantitative studies were identified which examined a number of intersections simultaneously using inter-categorical intersectionality. Complex processes of individual and social-structural level factors that drive inequalities in PA opportunities and participation could be better elucidated with the operationalization of intersectionality theory. Intersectionality theory may serve as a useful framework in both qualitative and quantitative investigations. Advancement in quantitative intersectionality is critical in order to produce knowledge that could inform more inclusive PA promotion efforts.