Search results

The chapter revisits and updates an earlier analysis to assess the extent to which sociological social psychology’s treatment of race has changed since 2000, and evaluates the degree to which issues of intersectionality and sexuality are engaged in social psychological scholarship.

The chapter provides a content analysis of articles published between 2000 and 2012 in Social Psychology Quarterly, a leading journal in sociological social psychology, and of chapters published in two influential handbooks in social psychology.

It documents a notable increase in the percentage of articles in Social Psychology Quarterly in which race/ethnicity is referred to, included in the analysis, or seriously engaged. Patterns vary by methodological approach used in these articles. Social psychological attention to intersectionality and sexuality, as measured by the percentage of articles that broach these topics, is minimal.

This chapter restricts its analysis to the leading journal in sociological social psychology, but still demonstrates that there is potential for greater movement toward the incorporation of race/ethnicity, intersectionality, and sexuality in social psychological scholarship.

It calls attention to core topics in sociology that would benefit from greater scholarly engagement by social psychologists.

Work-life flexibility policies (e.g., flextime, telework, part-time, right-to-disconnect, and leaves) are increasingly important to employers as productivity and well-being strategies. However, policies have not lived up to their potential. In this chapter, the authors argue for increased research attention to implementation and work-life intersectionality considerations influencing effectiveness. Drawing on a typology that conceptualizes flexibility policies as offering employees control across five dimensions of the work role boundary (temporal, spatial, size, permeability, and continuity), the authors develop a model identifying the multilevel moderators and mechanisms of boundary control shaping relationships between using flexibility and work and home performance. Next, the authors review this model with an intersectional lens. The authors direct scholars’ attention to growing workforce diversity and increased variation in flexibility policy experiences, particularly for individuals with higher work-life intersectionality, which is defined as having multiple intersecting identities (e.g., gender, caregiving, and race), that are stigmatized, and link to having less access to and/or benefits from societal resources to support managing the work-life interface in a social context. Such an intersectional focus would address the important need to shift work-life and flexibility research from variable to person-centered approaches. The authors identify six research considerations on work-life intersectionality in order to illuminate how traditionally assumed work-life relationships need to be revisited to address growing variation in: access, needs, and preferences for work-life flexibility; work and nonwork experiences; and benefits from using flexibility policies. The authors hope that this chapter will spur a conversation on how the work-life interface and flexibility policy processes and outcomes may increasingly differ for individuals with higher work-life intersectionality compared to those with lower work-life intersectionality in the context of organizational and social systems that may perpetuate growing work-life and job inequality.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the Special Issue developed from a joint research seminar of the Gender in Management and Identity Special Interest Groups of the British Academy of Management, entitled “Exploring the Intersectionality of Gender and Identity”. It also presents an introductory literature review of intersectionality for gender in management and identity/identity work researchers. The authors highlight the similarities and differences of intersectionality and identity approaches and introduce critiques of intersectional research. They then introduce the three papers in this Special Issue.

The authors review the intersectionality literature within and outside management and organisation studies and focus their attention on three intersectionality Special Issues (Sex Roles, 2008, 2013 and the European Journal of Women’s Studies, 2006).

The authors outline the ongoing debates relating to intersectionality research, including a framework and/or theory for identity/identity work, and explore the shared tenets of theories of intersectionality and identity. They highlight critiques of intersectionality research in practice and consider areas for future research for gender in management and identity researchers.

The authors provide an architecture for researchers to explore intersectionality and to consider issues before embarking on intersectional research. They also highlight areas for future research, including social-identities of disability, class and religion.

Gender in Management: An International Journal invited this Special Issue to make a significant contribution to an under-researched area by reviewing the shared and different languages and importantly the shared key tenets, of intersectionality, gender, identity and identity work from a multidisciplinary perspective.

Purpose – This chapter reflects on the interpretation and effects of the term intersectionality within the academy and across a broad spectrum of institutional and grassroots environments in which it is operationalized and deployed.

Design/methodology/approach – Based on the authors’ experiences within the academy and their respective participation as researchers and organizers within feminist, queer, and racial and economic justice movements, the chapter surveys the rhetorical, political, and organizational uses of intersectionality across these realms.

Findings – Five general challenges to intersectional practice are identified and described: misidentification, appropriation, institutionalization, reification, and operationalization. The authors trace these challenges across the academy, grassroots movements, and nonprofit organizations.

Originality/value – Offers a new articulation of intersectional practice as the application of scholarly or social movement methodologies aimed at intersectional and sustainable social justice outcomes.

Intersectionality research is normative; rooted in a desire to improve society as inspired by Sojourner Truth’s 19th century writings and Kimberlé Crenshaw’s ongoing contemporary legal crusade. Overlapping social identity dimensions which constitute every human individual must be recognized and multidimensionality of lived experiences among people embraced. These dimensions intersect such that no one is just a gender or an ethnicity or a (dis)ability or a sexual orientation or a social class or a religion, and so on. Furthermore, intersectionalities are not some collection of layers that are piled or added on. Humans possess many distinctive social identity qualities simultaneously and they interplay in unique ways.

Those who embrace multiplicity of social identity dimensions and explore how they intersect also posit that uneven power distribution in a society complicates situated identities by more firmly entrenching some people at the center and others in the margins. Researchers dedicated to dismantling infrastructures supporting inequality and desirous of elevating multi-textured voices of the disenfranchised are drawn to intersectional analyses. Overall, intersectionality scholars question perceived group homogeneity, essentialist categories, and argue that there are substantial intra-group differences.

Intersectionalities of social identity dimensions play a significant role in organizational work environments. Critiqued in this chapter are ways that organizations use the business case to gain advantages when thinking of social identity intersectionality in terms of “double dipping” and recruiting the “two-fer” in order to satisfy government-imposed policies. In particular, occupying a liminal space due to social identity intersectionality, stereotypes, and othering effects are explored. Chapter 3 examines these issues and more according to themes of: defining intersectionality, “unbending” social identity intersectionalities, applying intersectionality in organizations, and advancing intersectionalities scholarship.

This chapter examines the concept of intersectionality and its application to disability. It examines the historical background and evolution of the concept. The chapter suggests issues which emerge in its application to the interaction of disability with other social statues. It reviews the contributions in this volume and places them into the context of the study of intersectionality and disability.

This chapter is a review of relevant literature as well as a review of the chapters included in the volume.

The chapter reviews the history of the concept of intersectionality as well as some of its conceptual complexities. It compares race, gender and disability as types of statuses and shows how they are the same as well as how they are different. It shows that the fluidity of the status of disability is true to a lesser extent for race and gender. It sets the stage for the authors’ contributions to the volume.

The chapter shows that, in the same ways that race and gender as statuses work together to create inequality, disability and other statuses such as parenthood also work together to affect the lives of, and create inequalities for, persons with disabilities.

The chapter identifies the intellectual relationships of the concepts of master status and intersectionality and discusses some of the complexities of those concepts. It introduces a volume which begins to document the importance of the intersection of disability with other statuses.

Despite the burgeoning research on mass incarceration, women are rarely its focus. Racialised women, whose rates of incarceration have increased more rapidly than other groups, are at the best marginal within much of this literature. Within juvenile justice systems, racialised girls and young women are also disproportionately criminalised and remain markedly over-represented but are often overlooked. The absence of racialised women and girls from dominant accounts of punishment and incarceration is a matter of epistemological, ethical and political concern. Intersectionality offers one means to treat racialised women and girls as focal points for research and advocacy directed towards a reduction in criminalisation and incarceration. While intersectionality does not determine how the knowledge produced is deployed, recognising those who have been unrecognised is a necessary first step in striving to bring about positive change through praxis. Flawed mainstream accounts are unlikely to generate strategies that are well-aligned with the needs and interests of those who remain largely invisible.

This paper seeks to explore the difficult territory of intersectionality as it relates to inequality and disadvantage in the labour market of the arts and cultural sector. It aims to first examine the way Acker's concept of inequality regimes is located in the extant literature. Then, it aims to study the dynamics of intersectionality in the arts and cultural sector, which offers an ideal setting with interesting and counter‐intuitive outcomes of intersectionality.

The paper draws on a qualitative study which generated interviews with students, employers and higher education institutions which are involved in industrial placements (internships) in the arts and cultural sector in Britain.

In line with Acker, the paper also disputes a‐contextual and cumulative formulations of intersecting inequalities that rely on multiplying the unequal outcomes on the basis of traditional categories of disadvantage. Instead, it argues that multiplicity of identities and forms of disadvantage introduce complexity and contextual depth into the analysis of inequality if we are to understand interplay between different forms of disadvantage. In addition, the paper maintains that intersectionality produces surprising outcomes which vary across industrial contexts, in particular across different sectors of employment. It uses the case of work undergraduate and postgraduate placement practices in the arts and cultural sector, in order to demonstrate the unexpected nature of intersectionality in producing disadvantage.

The study draws on a selection of students, employers and higher education staff from London. A larger selection of institutions outside London could reveal differences between London and other cities and regions in Britain.

Intersectionality is an important concern for diversity and human resources management professionals. This paper provides an assessment of it in an unusual sectoral context.

There is need to develop an emic understanding of intersectionality in each sector.

In the literature, intersectionality is problematised at workplace and individual levels. This paper's view of intersectionality is original in the sense that it explores how intersectionality operates at a sectoral level. In doing so, it demonstrates that salience of a strand of inequality in terms of producing intersectional disadvantage depends on the context.

This chapter deals with the concept of intersectionality with particular reference to the interconnectedness of gender, class and caste discrimination in India. Even though much of the work on intersectionality has been carried out by scholars from the United States with specific emphasis on gender and race, this framework can be applied universally to understand the multiple axes of power within a society that results in further marginalisation of certain groups of women. The 16th December 2012 Nirbhaya rape case forms the core of this chapter as it resulted in one of the biggest gender movements in India.

In order to develop a critical analysis a case study approach was adopted and data collected by analysing online news reports, videos, articles on blogs and posts on social media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter.

The findings of the research showed interesting intersections of gender and class with relation to this case, which has not been deeply analysed in order to understand the reasons behind the public uprising which resulted in the government action.

It is important to look at gender violence in India through the lens of intersectionality since often it is the result of multiple levels of discrimination on the basis of class, caste, religion and geography. This is important to recognise in order to ensure that activism, education and changes in policy help to resolve problems related to extreme oppression and violence against women across the country.