Search results

The purpose of this paper is to review the literature on intersectionality and ascertain its potential for application to human resources (HR) research and practice. Particular attention is paid to its methodological issues involving how best to incorporate intersectionality into research designs, and its data issues involving the “curse of dimensionality” where there are too few observations in most datasets to deal with multiple intersecting categories.

The methodology involves reviewing the literature on intersectionality in its various dimensions: its conceptual underpinnings and meanings; its evolution as a concept; its application in various areas; its relationship to gender-based analysis plus (GBA+); its methodological issues and data requirements; its relationship to theory and qualitative as well as quantitative lines of research; and its potential applicability to research and practice in HR.

Intersectionality deals with how interdependent categories such as race, gender and disability intersect to affect outcomes. It is not how each of these factors has an independent or additive effect; rather, it is how they combine together in an interlocking fashion to have an interactive effect that is different from the sum of their individual effects. This gives rise to methodological and data complications that are outlined. Ways in which these complications have been dealt with in the literature are outlined, including interaction effects, separate equations for key groups, reducing data requirements, qualitative analysis and machine learning with Big Data.

Intersectionality has not been dealt with in HR research or practice. In other fields, it tends to be dealt with only in a conceptual/theoretical fashion or qualitatively, likely reflecting the difficulties of applying it to quantitative research.

The wide gap between the theoretical concept of intersectionality and its practical application for purposes of prediction as well as causal analysis is outlined. Trade-offs are invariably involved in applying intersectionality to HR issues. Practical steps for dealing with those trade-offs in the quantitative analyses of HR issues are outlined.

Intersectionality draws attention to the intersecting nature of multiple disadvantages or vulnerability. It highlights how they interact in a multiplicative and not simply additive fashion to affect various outcomes of individual and social importance.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first analysis of the potential applicability of the concept of intersectionality to research and practice in HR. It has obvious relevance for ascertaining intersectional categories as predictors and causal determinants of important outcomes in HR, especially given the growing availability of large personnel and digital datasets.

The purpose of this paper is to build on contemporary intersectional literature to develop a grounded methodological framework for the study of social differences.

A systematic literature review serves as the foundation for a discussion of the challenges associated with intersectional research. The findings assist in positioning the proposed methodological framework within recent intersectional debates.

The review shows a rise in intersectional publications since the birth of the “intersectionality” term in 1989. Moreover, the paper points to four tensions within the field: a tension between looking at or beyond oppression; a tension between structural-oriented and process-oriented perspectives; an apparent incommensurability among the macro, meso, and micro levels of analysis; and a lack of coherent methodology.

On the basis of the highlighted tensions in contemporary research as well as the limitations of that research, the present presents a methodological framework and a discussion of the implications of that framework for the wider diversity literature.

The paper suggests an empirically grounded approach to studying differences. This provides an opportunity, for scholars and practitioners, to reassess possible a priori given assumptions, and open up to new explorations beyond conventional identity theorization.

The paper suggests a need for an empirically grounded approach to studying social differences, which would not only create an opportunity to reassess common assumptions but also open up for explorations beyond conventional identity theorizations.

The framework departs from traditional (critical) diversity scholarship, as it is process oriented but still emphasizes stable concepts. Moreover, it does not give primacy to oppression. Finally, it adopts a critical stance on the nature of the macro, meso, and micro levels as dominant analytical perspectives. As a result, this paper focusses on the importance of intersectionality as a conceptual tool for exploring social differences.

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.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the concept of intersectionality. In recent management writing, a vocabulary has been introduced which enacts concepts such as assemblages, multiplicity, rhizomes, and becoming. Such a vocabulary is helpful when revising the theoretical models used in gender research.

Drawing on this fluid mode of thinking, which is fundamentally indebted to a process thinking that favours becoming and change over stability and fixed entities as the primary analytical categories, the concept of intersectionality is discussed.

It is suggested that intersectionality perspectives, a concept developed to enable the analysis of co‐existing and co‐operating registers of knowledge and power, may inform gender and diversity studies and organization theory in general. Rather than reducing all sorts of identities or subject‐positions to a single plane, intersectionality perspectives conceive of identity as being derived from different registers functioning as shifting planes, at times operating detachedly from one another; in other cases directly overlapping and even clashing.

Intersectionality thinking is capable of influencing a variety of organizational and managerial practices.

The paper seeks to bridge process thinking, gender theory, and diversity management literature through introducing the concept of intersectionality as a helpful tool when thinking of organizational practice.

The purpose of this study is to draw attention to the heuristic value of intersectionality by historicizing it as a framework appropriate for the use of studying discrimination and discriminatory practices in organizations over time.

Utilizing a fusion between amodernist historiography vis-à-vis the nascent ANTi-History approach and intersectional complexity, the authors draw upon historical narratives from archival materials British Airways to empirically examine the utility of, and turn to, intersectional history in historical organization studies.

Analysis of archival materials and commissioned corporate histories revealed subjectivities of socially constructing historicized intersectional identities. This suggests that certain identities have been and continue to “enjoy” privilege while others are marginalized and/or neglected through serial interconnected historical meanings. These processes of privileging and marginalization rely on the way a nexus of meaning is configured.

The research process relied and is dependent on limited archival materials within a single organization (British Airways) and industry (civil aviation). The critique herein should not be misinterpreted as judgment of the airline itself as an exemplar of discriminatory practices but rather for its longevity as an ongoing concern; its rich, colonialist history within the United Kingdom and accessibility of data. Archival traces are housed within a semi-public corporate archive which means those traces available for study have been professional and rhetorically curated.

From the perspective of workplace diversity, our aim has been to reveal to diversity professionals and activists not only the role of history in shaping discrimination but also, in particular, to be alert to the processes whereby the production of knowledge of the past takes place. The authors hope also to have drawn attention to the power of organizations in the generation of discriminatory historical accounts and the need to further explore how such accounts are produced as knowledge of the past. Finally, the authors introduce the notion of “nexus of meaning” to suggest that in the complexity of intersectionality, the authors need to explore not only how people experience different and combined forms of discrimination but also how those experiences are shaped in a complex series of meaning that owe much to past experiences.

The research directs attention to the nexus of meaning that constitute intersecting identities.

The research attempts to historicize intersectionality as a qualitative framework worthy of consideration in management and organization studies. From the perspective of studying discrimination in organizational life, the aim of this paper is to bring forward the role history plays in shaping discrimination as well as the processes whereby the production of knowledge of the past takes place. Attention is also drawn to the power of organizations in the generation of discriminatory historical accounts and the need to further explore how such accounts are produced. This study introduces the nexus of meaning analytic that understands how the experiences of different and combined forms of discrimination are shaped by meanings of the past.

The purpose of this paper is to explore intersectionality as accomplished in interaction, and particularly national difference as a component of intersectionality.

The authors use ethnographic, shadowing methods to examine intersectionality in-depth and developed vignettes to illuminate the experience of intersectionality.

National difference mitigated the common assumption in scientific work that tenure and education are the most important markers of acceptance and collegiality. Moreover, national difference was a more prominent driving occupational discourse in scientific work than gender.

The data were limited in scope, though the authors see this as a necessity for generating in-depth intersectional data. Implications question the prominence of gender and (domestic) race/gender as “the” driving discourses of difference in much scholarship and offer a new view into how organizing around identity happens. Specifically, the authors develop “intersectional pairs” to understand the paradoxes of intersectionality, and as comprising a larger, woven experience of “intersectional netting.”

This research draws critical attention to how assumptions regarding national difference shape workplace experiences, in an era of intensified global migration and immigration debates.

The study foregrounds the negotiation of national difference in US workplaces, and focusses on how organization around said difference happens interactively in communication.

This paper argues that intersectionality ought to be a vital tool to identify and recognise those who are refugees. It provides a useful way to distinguish refugees from migrants as well as making it possible to screen for asylum seekers who are at greater risk of experiencing specific vulnerable situations, such as sexual and gender-based violence. This study therefore argues that intersectionality is useful for risk assessment processes as well as for triggering special protection mechanisms.

This research article draws from a cross-cultural empirical study conducted in Greece, Uganda, and Israel on problems asylum seekers and refugees face in host countries.

It is argued that while it is important to identify and screen for asylum seekers who have survived or are at greater risk of experiencing sexual and gender-based violence to provide special protection, it may lead to what has been called a “categorical fetishism”, in this case, applied to vulnerability. Such stigmatising and disempowering perceptions of refugees and their experiences may lead to the view that there are “good” refugees and asylum seekers who are worthy of protection, as opposed to “others”.

This original empirical article provides a new way of examining issues of refugee status determination to ensure fairer ways of doing so.

This paper aims to outline the possibilities of intersectional history as a novel method for management history. Intersectional history combines intersectionality and the study of the past to examine discrimination in organizations over time. This paper explores the need for intersectional work in management history, outlines the vision for intersectional history and provides a brief example analyzing the treatment of Australian Aboriginal people in a historical account of Qantas Airways.

This paper contends that intersectionality is a discursive practice, and it adopts a relational approach to the study of the past to inform the method. This paper focuses on the social construction of identities and the enduring nature of traces of the powerful in organizations over time.

The example of Qantas Airways demonstrates that intersectional history can be used to interrogate powerful traces of the past to reveal novel insights about marginalized peoples over time.

Intersectional history is a specific and reflexive method that allows for the surfacing of identity-based marginalization over time. The paper’s concentration on identity as socially constructed allows a particular focus on notions or representations of the marginalized in traces of the past. These traces may otherwise mask the existence and importance of marginalized groups in organizations’ dominant histories.

This paper aims to examine operational policing practice and child abuse. The paper acknowledges the influence second-wave feminism has had on police practice in terms of recognising and addressing this crime type. However, child abuse is mostly considered within the context of a single incident, with those children who suffer repeat and poly-victimisation being overlooked. As a consequence, the application of intersectionality as a theoretical framework to underpin practice is considered.

The paper adopts a case study approach. By doing so, an examination of operational policing practice with regard to child abuse takes place.

Feminism, as a theoretical framework, for informing practice has its limitations, in particular with regard to operational policing practice. This is illustrated through the crime type of child abuse. With the onset of work by scholars such as Finkelhor, the importance of recognising and dealing with those who suffer from repeat and multiple forms of victimisation has become apparent. As a consequence, the policing of repeat and poly-victimisation of child sexual abuse victims needs to be enhanced. Intersectionality is considered as being a theoretical framework that can inform police practice in this area of work.

The implications for practice are, namely, intersectionality has an important role to play in informing an understanding of child abuse. Intersectionality is an appropriate framework for the police to use to enhance their response to child abuse as the cornerstone of both Intersectionality and police practice is to redress unjust treatment. A targeted and consistent approach by police, education, health and community services to prevent child abuse informed by intersectionality. Building on the success of a number of police-led initiatives designed to address child abuse.

Much that is written about child abuse is typically done so through the lens of social work. This piece provides a timely reminder of the importance of policing in the prevention, disruption and reduction of this crime type. Further to this, the paper takes a novel approach by applying intersectionality not only as a means of understanding and addressing child abuse but as a means of informing police practice in dealing with the crime.