Search results

This chapter addresses the growing need to analyze the relationship between COVID-19 vulnerability and disability status at the national scale in the US. It presents a quantitative study that seeks to determine whether US counties more vulnerable to the COVID-19 pandemic contain significantly higher percentages of people with disabilities (PwDs), in general, and socially disadvantaged PwDs (based on their ethnicity/race, biological sex, age poverty, and employment status), in particular.

Vulnerability to COVID-19 is measured using the COVID-19 Pandemic Vulnerability Index (PVI) model developed by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, which integrates multiple variables into relevant indicators that are weighted and combined to formulate a county-level PVI score. These scores are linked to a wide range of disability-related variables from the 2019 American Community Survey five-year estimates. Statistical analyses are based on multivariable generalized estimating equations that extend the generalized linear model to account for spatial clustering.

US counties more vulnerable to the COVID-19 pandemic are characterized by significantly higher percentages of PwDs, when vaccination is considered in estimating the PVI. These counties also contain significantly higher percentages of ethnic/racial minority, female, below poverty, and unemployed PwDs, in multiple timeframes of the pandemic.

The findings provide important insights and new knowledge on the relationship between COVID-19 vulnerability and socially disadvantaged PwDs in the US. The county-level associations highlight the need for additional data and more detailed analysis to examine the differential impacts of this pandemic on PwDs, as well as formulate appropriate intervention strategies.

The focus of this chapter is intersectional bullying and harassment in the rail sector in Britain, where the workforce is male-dominated, gender-segregated and ethnically diverse. There have been significant gender and race equality issues in the sector that have resulted in a number of high profile legal cases. The authors draw on data from a trade union survey of members (Transport and Salaried Staffs Association) focussing on their experiences achieving equality at work. The survey received 1,054 useable responses. The authors have used both additive and multiplicative data analysis methods to capture the methodological debates concerning intersectional analysis. The analyses provided some varied responses, depending on the methods used, but an enduring factor was that older, ethnic minority women were the group who were most likely to feel that they had suffered bullying and harassment. The authors discuss these findings in relation to the limited legal interventions for intersectional bullying and harassment. The authors argue that employers and trade unions must develop proactive institutional responses to mitigate its damaging consequences.

The purpose of this paper is to explore what it means to do intersectional research in an organisational ethnographic case study addressing gender, race, power and change. The main contribution of this paper is a methodological one. The focus is on the relevance and experience of adapting two qualitative research methods – diary study and photographic method.

The paper describes the design, implementation and impact of the diary and photographic methods. Both research methods combine personal reflection with group dialogue. The case study is framed by feminist analysis of the gendered organisation and examines subjectivities and gender power relations embedded in organisational culture.

Insights from the case study indicate the importance of participatory methodologies for deepening organisational research in the context of an organisational ethnography; the adaptability of the diary and photo methods; the effectiveness of open questions for reflecting on race and gender when participants know the research context; the significance of reflexive practice; the importance of a process approach for organisational analysis and change.

The case study findings are generalisable. The adaptations of the two key methods are applicable for research in practice. The concrete methodologies are significant for intersectional research inside organisations. The choice of intersections to be studied will depend on the research context.

The case study shows methodological refinements for researching gender, power and difference inside organisations.

The paper provides methodological insights into how to conduct intersectional and deep organisational research.

This chapter explores the challenges for the application of the concept of disability to other categories of oppression utilized in the notion of intersectionality.

The concept of intersectionality argues that oppression occurs within the contexts of class, race/ethnicity, religion, gender, and sexual orientation. We raise questions about the applicability of intersectionality to persons with disabilities. Using a Symbolic Interactionist approach to understand the matrix of domination or subordination, we examine how well disability as a category of disadvantage applies to intersectionality.

We argue that the fluid, heterogeneous, and discordant status characteristics, physicality, and diagnostic ambiguity of disability present a considerable challenge for the application of intersectionality as a useful paradigm for disability studies. While several ascribed statuses may contribute to the oppression of persons with disabilities, disability itself offers many unique challenges to understanding the intersection of these traits in the lives of these same people.

The conceptual uniqueness of disability produces rather complex methodological circumstances for understanding the social identity of persons with disabilities who are simultaneously members of additional categories of oppression. These complex and challenging methodological issues can best be met qualitatively, i.e., by approaching disability as lived experience.

For students of intersectionality, this chapter offers a comprehensive analysis and assessment of the concept of disability as a category of oppression.

The purpose of this paper is to make a case for empirical research for British Pakistani managerial and professional women, a group who have remained invisible in organization studies; to give voice to their experiences, to highlight the issues and challenges they are facing as women who have careers, their perceptions of what they are and how they have reached where they are and where do they think they would be going while taking an all‐inclusive view of the historical/social/culture/religious context.

The paper undertakes a comprehensive re‐examination of the intersectional approach. An approach of gender with ethnicity and with religion and nationality or diaspora is suggested, in order to capture identities and focuses on relationship between gender and other categories of difference, in particular gender.

A review of race/ethnicity in organization studies in the UK reveals the homogenizing of ethnicities and a gap, as there is a lack of focused research on a large ethnic group in the United Kingdom. The paper then argues for intersectionality as being the most valid method as a means of analysis of a complex phenomenon, as it bridges partly the theoretical gap between critical theory and liberalism or deconstructionist tradition.

Empirical research on this marginalized group of women will highlight the structures and systems that are created and maintained. These may be self‐created and self‐perpetuated, but unless and until voice has been given to their experiences they will remain unknown.

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.

The growth in women’s entrepreneurship that has been witnessed recently in regions such as the USA has been lauded by scholars and policymakers alike. However, women continue to start businesses in sectors that reflect the kind of work that women do in the home, such as cooking, cleaning and catering. Research shows that women’s ‘choices’ for female-typed businesses are driven by their need to accommodate domestic responsibilities – that is, caring for children. This raises questions about whether women without such responsibilities are freer to start businesses in the types of industries (e.g. high technology) that have long been dominated by men. Furthermore, given pronatalist assumptions, there are questions about the extent to which childfree women operating businesses in male-dominated sectors are perceived as legitimate by their business relations. Taking these questions as a starting point, this chapter examines the way in which the intersections of parental status (mother/other) and gender role (in)congruence (congruent/incongruent) make the entrepreneurial experiences of women working in male-dominated/masculinised industries and sectors qualitatively different from the experiences of women working in female-dominated/feminised industries. Focus is upon the resources (i.e. social capital) that women entrepreneurs are able to secure from their social network, for the ability to secure such resources is a prerequisite to business success.

The focus of this article is on gender justice with respect to opportunities (educational) and outcome (earnings). The main research question is whether educational opportunities are positively converted into fairness of income, and for whom and where this is the case. The importance of this study lies in the understanding that the subjective feeling of justice is a significant measure of quality of life, of the individual's subjective feeling of happiness and of the fulfilment of the goals people have reason to value.

The study takes a micro-macro approach, combining macro-level data taken from official statistics and micro-data from the 2018 European Social Survey for 25 European countries; the authors also apply multilevel modelling to the data analysis.

At individual level the authors found gender differences in the associations between education and fairness of educational opportunities. With regard to the scope of fairness, the authors emphasise that fairness of educational opportunities and net pay in European countries is less likely to be felt by someone who has a lower educational level. Higher educational expenditures are positively correlated with fairness of educational opportunities but not with fairness of net pay.

This article contributes to theoretical, empirical and policy-relevant gender justice research on the link between inequalities and justice perceptions. The authors have expanded the theoretical understanding of the concept of gender justice by taking into account the role of a specific gender norm on fairness perceptions. The norm, when asked about in a gender-neutral way, is not associated with fairness of pay, but when posed as a question specifically to women, has a negative relationship with perceptions of fair pay. The empirical contribution consists in the evaluation of individual and country mechanisms from a gender justice perspective. The policy contribution consists in questioning the belief that longer paid maternity leave is beneficial for women. In countries with long paid leave available to mothers, women reported even lower levels of fairness of net pay than men.

Contemporary governmentality combines biopolitical and necropolitical logics to establish social, political and physical borders that classify and stratify populations using symbolic and material marks as, for example, nationality, gender, ethnicity, race, sexuality, social class and/or disability. The social sciences have been prolific in the analysis of alterities and, in turn, implicated in the epistemologies and knowledge practices that underpin and sustain the multiplication of frontiers that define essential differences between populations. The purpose of this paper is to develop a strategy that analyze and subvert the logic of bordering inherent in the bio/necropolitical gaze. In different ways, this paper examines operations of delimitation and differentiation that contribute to monolithic definitions of subject and subjectivity.

The authors question border construction processes in terms of their static, homogenizing and exclusionary effects.

Instead of hierarchical stratification of populations, the papers in this special issue explore the possibilities of relationship and the conditions of such relationships. Who do we relate to? On which terms and conditions? With what purpose? In which ethical and political manner?

A critical understanding of the asymmetry in research practices makes visible how the researcher is legitimized to produce a representation of those researched, an interpretation of their words and actions without feedback or contribution to the specific context where the research has been carried out. Deconstructive and relational perspectives are put forward as critical strands that can set the basis of different approaches to research and social practice.