4.5 Review

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

期刊

SSM-POPULATION HEALTH
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100798

关键词

Intersectionality; Epidemiology; Research methods; Systematic review; Statistics

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Institute of Gender and Health [MOP130489]
  2. Sex and Gender Science Chair [GSB-171372]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A characterization of quantitative research applications of intersectionality from 1989 to mid-2020 revealed challenges in applying intersectionality theoretical frameworks in quantitative research, with about one in four articles failing to define intersectionality and about one in six including intersectional position components not reflective of social power. Quantitative methods were found to be simplistic and often misapplied or misinterpreted, highlighting the need for further work in understanding key features of quantitative intersectionality analyses and improving reporting practices.
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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据