Intersectionality Theory and Practice

Intersectionality Theory and Practice  

Doyin Atewologun
Subject: Human Resource Management, Organizational Behavior, Research Methods, Social Is­
sues
Online Publication Date: Aug 2018 DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.48

Summary and Keywords

Intersectionality is a critical framework that provides us with the mindset and language
for examining interconnections and interdependencies between social categories and sys­
tems. Intersectionality is relevant for researchers and for practitioners because it en­
hances analytical sophistication and offers theoretical explanations of the ways in which
heterogeneous members of specific groups (such as women) might experience the work­
place differently depending on their ethnicity, sexual orientation, and/or class and other
social locations. Sensitivity to such differences enhances insight into issues of social jus­
tice and inequality in organizations and other institutions, thus maximizing the chance of
social change.

The concept of intersectional locations emerged from the racialized experiences of minor­
ity ethnic women in the United States. Intersectional thinking has gained increased
prominence in business and management studies, particularly in critical organization
studies. A predominant focus in this field is on individual subjectivities at intersectional
locations (such as examining the occupational identities of minority ethnic women). This
emphasis on individuals’ experiences and within-group differences has been described
variously as “content specialization” or an “intracategorical approach.” An alternate fo­
cus in business and management studies is on highlighting systematic dynamics of power.
This encompasses a focus on “systemic intersectionality” and an “intercategorical ap­
proach.” Here, scholars examine multiple between-group differences, charting shifting
configurations of inequality along various dimensions.

As a critical theory, intersectionality conceptualizes knowledge as situated, contextual, re­

lational, and reflective of political and economic power. Intersectionality tends to be asso­
ciated with qualitative research methods due to the central role of giving voice, elicited
through focus groups, narrative interviews, action research, and observations. Intersec­
tionality is also utilized as a methodological tool for conducting qualitative research, such
as by researchers adopting an intersectional reflexivity mindset. Intersectionality is also
increasingly associated with quantitative and statistical methods, which contribute to in­
tersectionality by helping us understand and interpret the individual, combined (additive
or multiplicative) effects of various categories (privileged and disadvantaged) in a given
context. Future considerations for intersectionality theory and practice include managing
Page 1 of 20

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT

(oxfordre.com/business). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is
strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 20 January 2020

Intersectionality Theory and Practice

its broad applicability while attending to its sociopolitical and emancipatory aims, and
theoretically advancing understanding of the simultaneous forces of privilege and penalty
in the workplace.

Keywords: intersectionality, identity, diversity, research, practice, method, theory

Intersectionality is a critical framework or approach that provides the mindset and lan­
guage to examine interconnections and interdependencies between social categories and
systems. This article presents an overview of the concept of intersectionality, its rele­
vance for management and organizations, the debates and tensions associated with the
theorization and practice of intersectionality, and considerations for intersectionality the­
ory and practice in the future.

In the social sciences, an intersection denotes the crossing, juxtaposition, or meeting

point, of two or more social categories and axes, or systems of power, dominance, or op­
pression. These categories and systems include social identities (e.g., woman, Pakistani),
sociodemographic categories (e.g., gender, ethnocultural), social processes (e.g., gender­
ing and racializing), and social systems (patriarchy and racism) (Dhamoon, 2011). One de­
finition from the United Nations (2000) presents intersectionality as a concept to capture:

the structural and dynamic consequences of the interaction between two or more
forms of discrimination or systems of subordination. (Intersectionality) specifically
addresses the manner in which racism, patriarchy, economic disadvantages and
other discriminatory systems contribute to create layers of inequality that struc­
ture the relative positions of women and men, races and other groups.

(UN Gender and racial discrimination: Report of the Expert Group Meeting)

Therefore, intersectionality draws attention to individuals’ and groups’ multiple position­

ality at micro (individual) and macro (sociostructural) levels. The difference between see­
ing parallels and seeing intersections is that intersectionality “makes clearer the arith­
metic of the various forces—the offsetting, ameliorating, intensifying, accumulating, or
deepening” (McIntosh, 2012, p. 198) impacts of power in individual lives and in societal
structures.

The multilevel aspect of intersectional thinking offers a breadth and complexity with
which organizational scholars and equality practitioners can engage. The power of inter­
sectionality as a framework for organizational studies is its potential to tap into theoreti­
cal, applied, and lived experiences (Brewer, Conrad, & King, 2002). Adopting an intersec­
tional approach lowers the risk of essentialism. Essentialist assumptions are (often implic­
it) ways in which individuals infer “real” value in attributes differentiating members of
different groups, such that these distinctions are interpreted as absolute differences be­
tween groups, and nothing much beyond this (Atewologun, 2011). For example, essential­
ism is the assumption that an individual’s ethnicity or gender constitutes them without

Page 2 of 20

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT

(oxfordre.com/business). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is
strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 20 January 2020

Intersectionality Theory and Practice

considering how other factors influence these (such as other identities, times, spaces, and
systems).

Intersectionality has conceptual similarities with the notion of fault lines, a perspective on
group process in which having members with multiple shared characteristics (e.g., age,
gender, and nationality) elicits within-group boundaries (Lau & Murnighan, 1998). Rather
than being a group level phenomenon per se, intersectionality emphasizes the configura­
tion of power, disadvantage, and privileged status at the level of the individual and soci­
etal structure. Intersectionality provides a means of conceptualizing that between-group
differences stem from multiple and parallel factors. Intersectionality also provides a
means of examining nuanced and complex within-group comparisons, while challenging
assumptions of within-group homogeneity. An illustration of this nuance is Meyer’s (2012)
intersectional analysis of experiences of homophobic violence. Meyers (2012) reveals the
racialized and gendered aspects of anti-queer violence such that black lesbians experi­
enced anti-queer violence differently from their white counterparts. Further, black and
Latino/Latina respondents often perceived anti-queer violence as implying that they had
negatively represented their racial communities, while this was relatively absent in white
respondents’ narratives (Meyer, 2012). Similarly, De Vries’ (2015) accounts of the experi­
ences of trans men reveal the inequalities within the criminal justice and labor market
system, based on interconnecting social positions. For example, presenting oneself as
white and middle class situationally muted the stigmatized position experienced by trans
Latinos, showing that “structural barriers are differentially permeable based on their in­
terconnecting social positions” (De Vries, 2015, p. 23). Such dynamic analyses demon­
strate how the very same categories (e.g., transgender man) may have differing implica­
tions in the context of other identities (such as class and ethnicity), and how these cate­
gories become more or less salient and have different meanings for the same people in
different contexts.

Intersectionality increases analytical sophistication and offers theoretical explanations of

the ways in which heterogeneous members of specific groups (such as women) might ex­
perience the workplace differently (as leaders, board members, line managers, construc­
tion workers, or IT engineers, for example) depending on their ethnicity, sexual orienta­
tion, and/or class, and other social locations. Sensitivity to such differences enhances in­
sight into issues of social justice and inequality in organizations and other institutions,
thus maximizing the potential impact of social change. Intersectionality is relevant be­
cause it helps individuals, scholars, and practitioners make sense of, and work with, the
complex experiences that occur at the juncture of these social categories and systems,
and the implications therein.

What Is Intersectionality?
Several review articles have sought to systematize current thinking and practices for in­
terrogating interdependent categories and systems of power/penalty. A central issue in
these reviews relates to what the term intersectionality signifies. Rodriguez, Holvino,

Page 3 of 20

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT

(oxfordre.com/business). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is
strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 20 January 2020

Intersectionality Theory and Practice

Fletcher, and Nkomo (2016) cite sources variously referring to intersectionality as a

metaphor (e.g., Acker, 2011), a concept (e.g., Knapp, 2005), a research paradigm (e.g.,
Dhamoon, 2011), an analytical sensibility, (i.e., a way of thinking about identity and pow­
er; Crenshaw, 2015), an ideograph (Alexander-Floyd, 2012), and a knowledge project
(Collins, 2015). These numerous conceptualizations could attest to the flexibility, breadth,
and complexity of the term on one hand, but also reflect its status as a relatively recent
conceptual framework.

Else-Quest and Hyde (2016) summarize three assumptions underlying most definitions of
intersectionality. The first assumption is a recognition that people are characterized si­
multaneously by their membership in multiple social categories (e.g., gender, ethnicity,
religion, sexual orientation, able-bodiedness, etc.) and by awareness that these categories
are intertwined such that the experience of one social category is linked to their member­
ship of other categories. In working groups, when multiple attributes (e.g., gender, age)
of group members come into alignment, diversity-related fault lines occur (Lau &
Murnighan, 1998). Fault lines split teams into relatively homogeneous subgroups, which
can increase team conflict and impede performance (Bezrukova, Spell, Caldwell, & Burg­
er, 2016; Thatcher, Jehn, & Zanutto, 2003). A second assumption underlying definitions of
intersectionality is that, embedded within each socially constructed category, is a dynam­
ic related to power and power interrelations. This makes attention to power an essential
component of intersectional analyses. The third assumption, presented by Else-Quest and
Hyde (2016), is that all social categories have individual and contextual facets to them.
That is, social categories are intrinsically linked to personal identities, as well as to wider
institutional processes/practices and structural systems. The entwined personal and
structural implications of intersectional thinking thus render the meaning and experi­
ences relating to social categories fluid and dynamic.

Hulko recommends viewing intersectionality thinking as a “paradigm” in reference to its

broad use (including the notion of interlocking oppressions) as “a cohesive set of theoreti­
cal concepts, method of analysis, and belief system” (2009, p. 44). Hulko (2009) then ad­
vocates the use of intersectionality as a “lens” or “perspective” to encompass approaches
at a relatively narrower, microscope of examining social identity multiplicity in a manner
that is neither additive nor reductive.

The History of Intersectionality

The notion of intersectionality is rooted in the racialized experiences of minority women

in the United States. Early criticisms of the artificial separation of gender and ethnicity in
women’s lives can be found in the black and Latina feminist movements of the 1970s and
early 1980s, which argued that (mainstream) feminism had advanced the cause for white
women while silencing the voices of minority women. For example, the Combahee River
collective comprising black lesbians emphasized the importance of understanding multi­
ple forms of subordination that comprise interlocking oppressions (Combahee River Col­
lective, 1986). Additionally, some of the titles from black feminist scholars are telling of
the sentiments behind the movement, such as bell hooks’ “Ain’t I a woman?” (1981) and

Page 4 of 20

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT

(oxfordre.com/business). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is
strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 20 January 2020

Intersectionality Theory and Practice

Hull, Scott, and Smith’s “All the women are white, all the blacks are men: But some of us
are brave” (1982).

The term intersectionality specifically derived from the work of critical legal scholar, Kim­
berley Crenshaw (1989), who sought to draw attention to how treatment of African Amer­
ican women within the law needed to be interpreted, analyzed, and understood through
the dual lenses of gender and race discrimination. Similar concepts drawing attention to
the implications of multiple positionality were the notions of interlocking oppressions
(Collins, 1990) and gendered racism (Essed, 1991).

Intersectionality has become the commonly adopted term to capture thinking around in­
terfaces, multiple oppressions, and mutual constitutions (see Tuori, 2014) that can be lo­
cated in legal, political, and sociological academic scholarship; and, in particular, the crit­
ical feminist streams of these disciplines. Intersectional thinking has gained increasing
prominence in work and organizational studies, primarily utilized as a specific framework
for analyzing positions and experiences within the “gendered and ethnicised occupational
hierarchy” (Bradley & Healy, 2008, p. 40).

Rodriguez and colleagues (2016) outline the history of intersectionality in work and orga­
nizations, from its focus on social identities to structural manifestations of workplace in­
equalities, such as the attention to gendered organizations (Acker, 1990) and inequality
regimes (Acker, 2006, 2009). Inequality regimes are “loosely interrelated practices,
processes, actions, and meanings that result in and maintain class, gender, and racial in­
equalities within particular organisations” (Acker, 2006, p. 443). The predominant focus
of intersectionality studies in business and management studies is on individual subjectiv­
ities and intersectional locations “to highlight the texture and consequence of inequalities
experienced by individuals and groups given their social membership” (Rodriguez et al.,
2016, p. 202). This emphasis on individual experiences and within-group differences has
been variously described as “content specialization” (Hancock, 2007) or an “intracategor­
ical approach” (McCall, 2005). In work and organization studies, a typical illustration of
this approach is Adib and Guerrier’s (2003) analysis of narratives of women working with­
in hotels. Their respondents’ intersecting identities are observed as fluid, as they position
themselves within institutional power arrangements according to race, ethnicity, national­
ity, and class. Rather than constructing their work experiences as an outcome of one type
of difference added to another, the women in Adib and Guerrier’s (2003) study construct­
ed narratives that revealed the simultaneous and shifting nature of their identities, as one
or more identities were emphasized or downplayed as a form of resistance.

The alternative to focusing on individual experiences and within-group differences in

work and organizations is highlighting systematic dynamics of power. This traditionally
more critical approach encompasses a focus on “systematic workplace disparities in the
control and power of organisational goals processes, resources, and
outcomes” (Rodriguez et al., 2016, p. 202). These approaches are clustered broadly by
Atewologun and colleagues (2016, p. 224) as studies that examine how “ideologies, struc­
tures, institutions and experiences interact to sustain societal inequalities and power re­

Page 5 of 20

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT

(oxfordre.com/business). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is
strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 20 January 2020

Intersectionality Theory and Practice

lations” that play out in the workplace. In this cluster is Choo and Ferree’s (2010, p. 135)
“systemic intersectionality,” examining “how inequalities span and transform structures
and activities at all levels and in all situational contexts.” Likewise categorized by Atewo­
logun and colleagues (2016) is McCall’s 2005 “intercategorical approach,” in which schol­
ars examine multiple between-group differences charting shifting configurations of in­
equality along various dimensions. Similarly, Dhamoon (2011) encourages analyzing
processes of differentiation (e.g., racialization and sexualization), through which subjec­
tivities are produced, and their corresponding systems of domination (i.e., racism and
sexism). Here, focus is not on individuals, categories, groups, or institutions, but on tech­
niques of power—that is, “doing difference” and “Othering” rather than “the Other.”

An illustration of this second cluster of approaches to intersectionality is the sociological

evaluation of Browne and Misra (2003) of the US labor market. The authors demonstrate
that a major influence on domestic work is global restructuring, which creates a pool of
immigrant women workers who perform housework and childcare for extremely low
wages to service high-paid professionals. Often, these immigrant workers hail from more
privileged backgrounds in their origin countries, yet their previous experiences and back­
grounds are frequently ignored by their employers. Additionally, their wages are kept low
based on prevailing societal assumptions that women are not breadwinners; and such ex­
ploitative wages may be justified and sustained by their employers’ beliefs that immi­
grants are “better off” in the United States earning low pay than in their home countries
(Browne & Misra, 2003). Thus, a sociological intersectional analysis of domestic labor
demonstrates the intertwining of race/ethnicity, gender, nationality/citizenship, and class.

Warner, Settles, and Shields (2016) advocate a both/and logic that integrates the com­
plexities and commonalities of intersectionality. This logic entails examining individual
identities and making group-level comparisons, while examining additional intersections
and the diversity of experiences therein. Thus, individual-level analyses would entail com­
paring individual identities to each other as well as considering intersections as systems
of inequality. They offer an illustration of how this can be done in their analysis of Risman
(2004)’s examination of Espiritu’s (1997) work on Asian male migrants to the United
States. In explaining how racism is gendered and classed, Risman (2004) acknowledges
that it is important to examine the patterns and commonalities in these men’s experi­
ences (e.g., the general stereotyping of Asian men as effeminate). However, scholars can
also go beyond this to examine differences (e.g., between Vietnamese and Chinese men’s
experiences) as well as the ways in which broader structures, across and within history
and society (such as immigration policies and propaganda during the war) have similarly
and differentially influenced these men’s experiences.

Another example of applying a “both/and” logic to intersectionality is analyses incorporat­

ing everyday lived experiences into broader socio-structural lenses. One such example is
Carrim and Nkomo’s (2016) work on South African Indian women’s managerial identity
work. These authors explicitly implicate the socio-political-historical context in analyzing
intersections among categories of difference. This impacts the managerial identities of
South African Indian women in various ways, such as growing up in a racialized apartheid

Page 6 of 20

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT

(oxfordre.com/business). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is
strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 20 January 2020

Intersectionality Theory and Practice

system infused with patriarchy and immersion in Indian culturalization, as well as the
women’s position in time as the first cohort of their kind to enter corporate South Africa.
Another adoption of a both/and logic requires engaging with cultural narratives at differ­
ent levels. Narratives are collective representations of disembodied types of actors, that
exist at the macro (cultural), meso (institutional and organizational), and micro (personal)
levels (Loseke, 2007). Intersectional analyses that adopt this framework could examine
(e.g., black men’s) personal stories of career experiences, their embeddedness in organi­
zational narratives, such as leadership narratives and diversity discourses, and could fur­
ther embed this in more macro cultural stories such as the stereotype of black men being
aggressive. A similar suggestion is Brewer, Conrad, and King (2002) two-pronged ap­
proach, which includes bottom up theorization, placing the experiences of “women of col­
or” at the center of analyses (e.g., Pompper, 2007), combined with top down approaches
investigating social structures and the political economy (e.g., Syed, 2007). This com­
bined approach is likely to elucidate the ways in which structure and agency work togeth­
er to account for the experiences of diverse groups in the workplace.

Theorizing Intersectionality
Theory is central to advancing our understanding of the world, distinguishing between
mere observations of a phenomenon and academic evidence and data around which new
knowledge can be constructed (Atewologun, 2011). Theorizing intersectionality entails
engaging with how we conceptualize problems of multiple positionality and interlocking
oppressions and then formulate social explanations for addressing these (Clarke & Mc­
Call, 2013). As a way of understanding and organizing new knowledge, intersectionality
may be best conceived as a critical theory (Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016). That is, intersec­
tionality acknowledges that power relations play a fundamental role in the construction of
thought, experience, and knowledge. According to Else-Quest and Hyde (2016), critical
theory is differentiated from a traditional falsifiable grand theory as it advances social
justice goals, in contrast to grand theories being more aligned with positivist traditions.
As a critical theory, intersectionality is best aligned with social constructionist and femi­
nist standpoint epistemologies (Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016).

Constructionist approaches to social inquiry reject the notion that interpretation and
meaning can be objectively understood (Atewologun, 2011). Social constructionism ac­
knowledges that meaning-making and interpretation occur in the context of the (social)
world into which we are born, including its historical and cultural influences. Social con­
structionism emphasizes that the “social and psychological worlds are made real (con­
structed) through social processes and interaction” (Young & Collin, 2004, p. 375). Simi­
larly, standpoint theory conceptualizes knowledge as situated and relational rather than
objective. Thus, theorizing through an intersectional lens means acknowledging that
much knowledge is contextual and reflective of political and economic power (De Vries,
2015). However, Warner, Settles, and Shields (2016) caution that standpoint feminist the­
ory applied to intersectionality runs the risk of essentializing. They recommend re­
searchers avoid the risk of essentializing by emphasizing how individual participants’
Page 7 of 20

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT

(oxfordre.com/business). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is
strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 20 January 2020

Intersectionality Theory and Practice

lived experiences offer rich insights into the particular dynamics at play in the given con­
text relative to the intersecting identities, rather than claim a universal advantage held by
oppressed groups in understanding power dynamics. Warner and colleagues (2016) also
recommend that specific insights from these intersectional locations be tested empirical­
ly.

In theorizing intersectionality, Clarke and McCall discuss the framework’s potential to of­
fer “different explanations of the same facts” (2013, p. 351). They advocate that even
projects that do not set out to be intersectional can benefit from applying an intersection­
al frame as a theoretical resource to craft “inclusive normative solutions to problems of
social inequality” (Clarke & McCall, 2013, p. 361). For example, the issue of women’s fer­
tility (which has implications for women’s careers) has traditionally focused on class-
based explanations. However, research cited by Clarke and McCall (2013) suggests that
class-based explanations of family formation experiences are racialized. Historically, in­
sights into women’s fertility that comes from connecting racial to class differences are of­
ten underplayed (according to Clarke & McCall, 2013), diminishing our capacity for un­
derstanding diametrically opposed experiences among educated women in this area.
Thus, social constructionist and standpoint perspectives on intersectionality reveal the
value of knowledge embedded in historical and cultural practices that emanates from the
position of multiple marginality.

While all intersectional scholars would agree about the centrality of multiple marginal
status for knowledge, a recurring challenge concerns the manner by which one decides
on which intersections, oppressions, categories, or identities to focus. Tatli and Ozbilgin
(2012) advocate an emic approach to contrast the predominant etic approaches of using
predefined multiple categories of identity. An emic approach would be more sensitive to
the relational and contextual dynamics of identities at work. It is also more likely to en­
able new categories of difference to emerge from the data. To operationalize this, Tatli
and Ozbilgin (2012) suggest applying Bourdieu’s theory of social capital to enable inter­
sectional diversity scholars to detect asymmetries in capital accumulation. Anthias (2013)
warns against reducing differences to identities, and points out the impossibility of at­
tending analytically to plurality and simultaneity, and the challenge of managing complet­
ing claims, of which marginalized positions are most important, and how many differ­
ences ought to be incorporated. To fulfill its call as a paradigm or method that explains
wide-ranging social phenomena, it is no use for intersectionality to focus just on the expe­
riences of a specific subordinated group. Thus, a fine balance is required to capture indi­
viduals’ lived experiences in a given context relative to certain intersecting identities
while avoiding the risk of collating an unending list of social categories to be included/ex­
plored as well as debates about how to prioritize them. Additionally, analyses of intersec­
tions ought to embrace theorizing around clusters of power and privilege, which may be
underplayed if sole focus is on giving voice to experiences relating to oppression and mar­
ginalization.

Page 8 of 20

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT

(oxfordre.com/business). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is
strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 20 January 2020

Intersectionality Theory and Practice

One approach that manages the tensions of giving voice versus deciding against compet­
ing social categories may be found in the De Vries (2015) study of transgender individu­
als, which offers further insight into how multiple marginal positions can be managed. De
Vries (2015) advocates a multifaceted and transparent prism that utilizes heuristic cate­
gories to analyze connections between social positions and institutional structural stratifi­
cation. De Vries’ (2015) approach takes on a complex, multifaceted analysis across 12
categories (race, gender, sexuality, class, nationality, ability, language, religion, culture,
ethnicity, body size, and age). In this working model, social categories are represented by
planes on the prism, and analyzed along multiple aspects comprising both subjective and
objective modes. For example, social class is analyzed according to one’s perceived/attrib­
uted class by others, one’s class identity, the individuals’ socio-economic status as well as
their cultural capital. This technique goes beyond examining binary experiences in which
categories are exclusive of each other; it also avoids the common situation in which un­
marked and privileged identities are not interrogated or subjected to enquiry and allows
for a continuum of categories that may embrace gender fluidity or able-bodiedness, or
shadism. Additionally, this approach challenges the assumed universality of experiences
(an illustration of this is how the mannerisms that help define gender are based on the
non-disabled body) (de Vries, 2015).

For De Vries (2015), tuning into multiple facets and the diversity within these concepts
revealed the limitations of previously adopted terms. For example, De Vries (2015) re­
vealed how Asian Americans (Chinese Americans, Korean Americans, and Japanese Amer­
icans) did not identify with the research call for transgender people of color, a term which
they associate with black and Latina/o populations.

De Vries (2015) also advocates the development of an intersectional narrative, as op­

posed to a list of identities, to situate oneself as a researcher. The model thus frames re­
searchers’ positionality, making explicit how various facets come into play and offer
strengths and limitations to the research context/content, focus and design. Indeed, the
intersectional researcher’s multiple positionality in their knowledge project is an impor­
tant, and perhaps underutilized frame. Atewologun and Mahalingam (2018) recommend
that researchers cultivate intersectional reflexivity, a mindset that is based on Yuval-
Davis’ (2013) advocacy of a “situated intersectional perspective” for studying everyday,
embodied intersections. Cultivating intersectional reflexivity entails first articulating in­
tersectionalities salient to the research project, then identifying in advance possible sites
of intersectional identity salience (see Atewologun, 2014), in intrapersonal, interpersonal,
and institutional domains. Last, cultivating intersectional reflexivity entails taking steps
to manage the emotions, knowledge, and experiences associated with heightened aware­
ness. According to Atewologun and Mahalingam (2018), this researcher mindset is criti­
cal at the start of the research project but also during the research process as partici­
pants and researchers co-produce data and knowledge.

Overall, advancing intersectionality thinking requires the ongoing development of theo­

ries and methodologies that are sensitive to its nuance and complexities. Some of the
ways to approach this have been discussed. Rodriguez et al. (2016) request a move away

Page 9 of 20

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT

(oxfordre.com/business). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is
strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 20 January 2020

Intersectionality Theory and Practice

from subjective identity-centered approaches to those in which individual experiences

and encounters are linked with structures and institutional arrangements in organization­
al and management practices. Thus, there is further need for techniques that stipulate
the mechanisms and conditions through which social identity categories intersect, that
provide enhanced understanding of the impact of these effects, and that demonstrate the
link between the insights from a macro, structural perspective with the lived experience
from a micro, individual focus.

Practicing Intersectionality
This section considers practice in wide terms including methods and methodology, as well
as implications for managers, practitioners, and educators.

Intersectionality as Research Practice

With regard to methodology, Rodriguez et al. (2016) summarize the steps for operational­
izing intersectionality for empirical examination. The process entails, first, making deci­
sions regarding what data to collect and how to collect it, then conducting analyses that
are sensitive to the range of diversities under examination and the nature of their interre­
lations; then outlining the structural factors at play while maintaining the fluidity and the
temporal and contextual dimensions of intersections. Intersectionality tends to be associ­
ated with qualitative research methods due to the central role of giving voice. Qualitative
methods often include focus groups, interviews, action research sessions, and observa­
tions, to elicit stories and narratives (Byrd, 2014). Intersectionality studies have also in­
volved thematic analysis, such as Cole, Avery, Dodson, and Goodman’s (2012) historical
evaluation of news articles concerning interracial and same sex marriage. Qualitative in­
tersectional researchers are urged to go beyond content specialization of black women
(Hancock, 2007) and begin to examine power and privilege; they could also acknowledge
the fluidity and social construction of social identities more explicitly in their design, and
interpret results in the context of social, historic, and structural inequalities. Further, Ate­
wologun and Mahalingam (2018) offer suggestions for how intersectionality can be used
as a methodological tool in qualitative research. They discuss five practical tools and
techniques for eliciting researcher and researched perceptions and experiences as they
cohabit socially constructed intersectional positions in a research project. These tools, to
be used throughout the entire research cycle include—an intersectional reflexivity mind­
set (earlier discussed), a privilege versus penalties board game, an intersectional identity
constellations graph, intersectional identity work journal, and participant-led audio data
collection method.

Although intersectionality tends to be associated with qualitative research, there are

strong advocates for its application and contribution within quantitative paradigms. The
tenets of quantitative research may have been perceived historically as impediments to
intersectional studies. Challenges of integrating intersectional thinking with quantitative
method incorporate logistics (i.e., finding adequate samples to test different conditions),

Page 10 of 20

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT

(oxfordre.com/business). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is
strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 20 January 2020

Intersectionality Theory and Practice

methodological complexity, and difficulties with interpreting findings theoretically (Goff &
Kahn, 2013). There are, however, a number of guidelines that business and management
researchers operating within positivist paradigms (in particular quantitative and mixed
method approaches) can embrace to integrate intersectional thinking into their work
(e.g., Cole, 2009; Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016; Goff & Kahn, 2013; Warner, 2008). The value
of intersectionality to quantitative research includes its potential to critique traditional
quantitative research and to produce excellent intersectional quantitative research (Else-
Quest & Hyde, 2016). Specifically, quantitative designs can offer insight into additive,
multiplicative, and intersectional effects of various identity categories. As with the rich­
ness offered by more qualitative approaches, detangling complex statistical effects will
enhance nuance regarding the interplay of identities and categories (Else-Quest & Hyde,
2016). Thus, the main contribution of quantitative studies to intersectionality is to under­
stand and interpret the individual, combined (additive or multiplicative) effects of various
categories (privileged and disadvantaged) in a given context. Additionally, methods to
supplement the traditional 2x2 experimental design, such as longitudinal and field stud­
ies, in combination with other qualitative approaches discussed earlier would be benefi­
cial (Goff & Kahn, 2013).

Intersectionality as Management Praxis

With such wide ranging and complex debates in academic scholarship, it is likely that
practical application of intersectionality is yet to reach its potential. Despite, or perhaps
because of this, intersectional scholars often advocate for a praxis of intersectionality
that embraces social justice outcomes beyond academia (e.g., Collins, 2015; Rodriguez et
al., 2016). Intersectionality, and its related concepts and ideas, was devised to challenge
assumptions of within-group homogeneity. The central purpose of intersectionality was to
foreground the experiences of marginalized individuals. Thus, its role in providing a phe­
nomenological understanding of organizational life at the margins is critical. As such, at a
level of practical utility, giving voice, and revealing experiences relating to oppression
and marginalization is a core function of intersectionality (Byrd, 2014). From a personal
perspective, the opportunity to disclose, in a safe space (e.g., workplace interviews, sur­
veys, or workshops), can be a cathartic experience. For example, participants in a study
on the intersections of gender, ethnicity, and senior-level status identities described the
experience as “cathartic,” “a revelation,” and “prompting new learning” (Atewologun et
al., 2016, p. 231). Safe spaces can provide the starting point for personal transformation
and micro-change (Collins, 1990). However, at the same time, in practice, intersectionali­
ty is helpful for elucidating differences and similarities between categories (Tuori, 2014)
and diversity-related work group fault lines. It is acknowledged that social categories are
analytically distinct, yet share common qualities in organizing the world and producing
certain identities (Tuori, 2014, p. 33). From the perspective of similarity, categories are
useful for analyzing their role in creating and sustaining boundaries between individuals
and groups and within organizations. Yet, some categories are more powerful than oth­
ers; some categories are more salient than others in certain circumstances (Tuori, 2014;
Yuval-Davis, 2013).

Page 11 of 20

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT

(oxfordre.com/business). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is
strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 20 January 2020

Intersectionality Theory and Practice

Beyond the critical issue of voice and empowerment, intersectionality also brings impor­
tant mainstream benefits to management and organization studies. The position of identi­
ty multiplicity and the presence of simultaneous power structures and processes affect a
range of organizational outcomes. For example, stereotypes about dominance affect black
and white women and men differently, such that black women (who are stereotyped as
sassy) are permitted to display as much (i.e., high) dominance as white men, while still
judged to be likeable and hirable. This is in contrast to the aggressive, hypermasculinized
stereotype facing black men (see Livingston & Pearce, 2009; Livingston, Rosette, & Wash­
ington, 2012), and the double bind facing (white) women in positions of authority as they
need to manage the tension of being seen both as warm and likeable and as competent
and assertive (e.g., Jamieson, 1995; also, see Kang & Bodenhausen, 2015, for review). De­
spite the practical implications of intersectionality at work, when people think about tar­
gets of gender discrimination, they imagine white women, and when they think of targets
of racism, they think of black men (Goff & Kahn, 2013), suggesting that many of these in­
tersectional effects may be overlooked in organizations.

Additionally, people with more than one disadvantaged identity suffer a significantly
greater pay penalty compared to those with a single disadvantage (Woodhams, Lupton, &
Cowling, 2015A). Also, men with disadvantaged identities (a disability or ethnic minority
status) are disproportionally more likely than other men, as well as their female counter­
parts, to be in female-dominated low-status work (Woodhams, Lupton, & Cowling, 2015B).
When multiple minority individuals are clustered in certain parts of the organization, em­
ployers and employees face such challenges as increased conflict, lower team satisfac­
tion, and lower performance (see Kang & Bodenhausen, 2015). Further, fault lines that
split teams into relatively homogeneous subgroups based on multiple simultaneous mem­
bership of specific groups are associated with conflict and lower performance (Bezrukova
et al., 2016; Thatcher et al., 2003). These practical issues around assessment bias, pay
differentials, performance, well-being, and conflict, surfaced by attention to intersection­
al praxis, are critical for HR practitioners and organizational leaders to address.

Finally, the significant value added by intersectionality is its capacity for real-world
change. Intersectionality offers the terminology and insights necessary to advance social
justice and to enact social change by promoting privilege awareness and encouraging ally
behavior. Ally behavior entails dominant group members taking action for social change
to challenge their own privilege at individual, community, and institutional levels (Case,
Iuzzini, & Hopkins, 2012). Importantly, evidence suggests it is not merely awareness, but
also a sense of self-efficacy and power to effect change that leads to ally behavior (Ste­
wart, Latu, Branscombe, Phillips, & Denney, 2012).

Page 12 of 20

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT

(oxfordre.com/business). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is
strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 20 January 2020

Intersectionality Theory and Practice

Future Considerations for Intersectionality

Theory and Practice
Despite the significant contributions intersectionality offers for theory and practice in
business and management, a central critique is that it has become a “catch all” (Salem,
2016). This case emerges because the framework straddles two domains of application,
on the one hand is its use as an empowerment tool that makes visible structural oppres­
sion; on the other hand, this is contrasted with its potential as a broad tool extending to
the center, for understanding simultaneous locations. Similarly, Nash calls out the uneasy
tension between whether intersectionality “is a theory of marginalised subjectivity or a
generalised theory of identity” (2008, p. 10). As highlighted previously, the benefits of an
identity-based approach to intersectionality is that it advances understanding of how peo­
ple position and are positioned by others with respect to multiple categories (Nash,
2008). Warner and colleagues (2016, p. 174) caution against the trend of mainstreaming
intersectionality, in which they accuse researchers of having flattened the term through
emphasis on individual identities, with little reference to its original sociopolitical and
emancipatory aims. Salem’s (2016) similar accusation is that as a “travelling theory” in­
tersectionality has lost its critical edge, and that power has disappeared. Her perspective
is that intersectionality has been co-opted by liberal feminism in a way similar to how di­
versity was embraced and commercialized under managerialism. Salem (2016) argues for
a need to bring power back to the core, and highlights the role of Marxist feminism
(which examines how social relations, including race and gender, are co-constituted and
how these relations are tied to production). She also advocates a turn to the Global South
for further insight due to this region’s experience of theorizing the role of the state and
nationalism and imperialism, among others, which are theorized and analyzed in transna­
tional Marxism. Additionally, to retain its relevance as an identity-based framework, the
future of intersectionality would entail grappling with non-binary categories, such as mul­
ti-racial heritage and non-binary gender/transgender identities, as well as the spectrum
of disabilities.

One perspective gained from treating intersectionality as a generalized theory of being

and positionality is that it acknowledges each individual’s multiple positionalities across
various axes of disadvantage and advantaged. This reveals the complicity of privilege in
experiences of oppression. Privilege is a relational concept pertinent to social groupings
and classifications and involves unearned benefits afforded to powerful social groups
within systems of oppression (Case et al., 2012); it is thus inescapably and intrinsically in­
tertwined theoretically with intersectionality. While intersectionality is established as a
useful framework for examining disadvantages and multiple oppressions, it has yet to
reach similar levels of success in theorizing about multiple privileges and the intertwin­
ing of marginality with unearned advantage. Despite the seminal work on privilege in the
1980s (McIntosh, 1988), there has been relatively little theoretical advancement of privi­
lege. Privilege and disadvantage are deemed “inseparable, as co-dependent structural
forces” (Case et al., 2012, p. 4). An area robust for future development is movement away
from the deficiency models of intersectionality, toward encouraging and analyzing mind­
Page 13 of 20

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT

(oxfordre.com/business). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is
strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 20 January 2020

Intersectionality Theory and Practice

fully the simultaneous forces of privilege and penalty in the workplace (Rodriguez et al.,
2016). Admittedly, grappling with privilege is challenging due to its invisibility. However,
forms of it may be more visible when examined in combination with marginalization (Ate­
wologun & Sealy, 2014). Current research suggests that psychological processes underly­
ing motivations to deny or acknowledge one’s dominant group privilege may be quite sim­
ilar across different identity domains, such as white ethnicity, male gender, and hetero­
sexual orientation (see Case et al., 2012). There remains much merit in expanding our no­
tions of intersectionality to consider the ways in which the location of individuals at the
nexus of multiple systems of oppression both empower and constrain experiences relative
to others (Smith & Seedat Khan, 2016). Although there are “history of whiteness” studies
in academic scholarship, much room remains for understanding parallel systems of privi­
lege as well as the intersection between advantage and disadvantage. This includes the
racial privilege that white feminists face and the class or educational privilege that
African American scholars face (Smith & Seedat Khan, 2016). Such analyses are lacking
in business, management and organizational studies.

Although privilege research can raise significant awareness in respondents to become ad­
vocates for social change, this may not be enough. Introducing the intersections of privi­
lege with disadvantage is a key lens for activating ally behavior. For example, raising ma­
jority awareness of “plural experiences within hierarchies” (McIntosh, 2012, p. 199) in­
creases empathy toward others’ experiences of oppression of which one may have been
previously unaware. This may also be the case for high status members of historically
marginalized groups, such as able-bodied, heterosexual, minority professionals and exec­
utives (Atewologun & Sealy, 2014). Focus on intersectional privileges is not without its
critiques, however. For example, Carastathis (2008, p. 28) points out the asymmetrical re­
sponse to black woman compared to white man, which is due to the fact that “whiteness
and maleness are already co-extensive or mutually implicated.” Therefore, in Caras­
tathis’ (2008) view, an intersectional analysis of white man is redundant, as it offers noth­
ing more to our understanding of the concept. Arguably, the need to engage with and sup­
port privilege studies is that what we know about society is at best, partial and even inac­
curate if privilege, in some form remains under-examined (McIntosh, 2012).

A final future consideration for intersectional analyses in business and management is to

extend beyond traditional organizational boundaries. Rodriguez and colleagues (2016)
highlight the importance of examining transnational processes and practices that sustain
marginalization and privilege more broadly. Thus, multidisciplinary insights abound from
migration, globalization, expatriation, varieties of capitalism, and transnational femi­
nisms, although these are still underutilized.

Conclusion
In conclusion, intersectionality continues to wield a breadth, depth, complexity, and nu­
ance in our understanding of how work and workplaces are experienced and organized.
As a theoretical framework and a practical tool, it makes a unique contribution to advanc­

Page 14 of 20

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT

(oxfordre.com/business). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is
strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 20 January 2020

Intersectionality Theory and Practice

ing understanding and empowering marginalized groups in the context of management,

organizations, and beyond. While this flexibility is embraced by its current adopters, per­
haps its applications across management research and practice will converge in scope
over time as the concept matures. There remains much potential to contribute to disman­
tling power structures, revealing the power of social context and untangling the complex­
ity of human behaviors using intersectionality in business and management theory and in
practice.

References
Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender
and Society, 4(2), 139–158.

Acker, J. (2006). Inequality regimes, gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender and
Society, 20(4), 441–464.

Acker, J. (2009). From glass ceiling to inequality regimes. Sociologie du Travail, 51(2),
199–217.

Acker, J. (2011). Theorizing gender, race, and class in organizations. In E. L. Jeannes, D.

Knights, & P. Y. Martin (Eds.), Handbook of Gender, Work, and Organization (pp. 65–80).
Chichester, UK: Wiley & Sons.

Adib, A., & Guerrier, Y. (2003). The interlocking of gender with nationality, race, ethnicity,
and class: The narratives of women in hotel work. Gender, Work, & Organization, 10(4),
413–432.

Alexander-Floyd, N. G. (2012). Disappearing acts: Reclaiming intersectionality in the so­

cial sciences in a post-Black feminist era. Feminist Formations, 24(1), 1–25.

Anthias, F. (2013). Intersectional what? Social divisions, intersectionality, and levels of

analysis. Ethnicities, 13(1), 3–19.

Atewologun, D. (2011). An examination of senior Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic

women and men’s identity work following episodes of identity salience at work. PhD The­
sis. Cranfield University, UK.

Atewologun, D. (2014). Sites of intersectional identity salience. Gender in Manage­

ment: An International Journal, 29(5), 277–290.

Atewologun, D., & Mahalingam, R. (2018). Intersectional reflexivity: Methodological chal­

lenges and possibilities for qualitative equality, diversity, and inclusion research. In R.
Bendl, L. Booysen, & Judith Pringle (Eds.), Handbook of Research Methods on Diversity
Management, Equality, and Inclusion at Work. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Atewologun, D., & Sealy, R. (2014). Experiencing privilege at ethnic, gender, and senior
intersections, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(4), 423–439.

Page 15 of 20

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT

(oxfordre.com/business). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is
strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 20 January 2020

Intersectionality Theory and Practice

Atewologun, D., Sealy, R., & Vinnicombe, S. (2016). Revealing intersectional dynamics in
organizations: Introducing ‘intersectional identity work’. Gender, Work & Organization,
23(3), 223–247.

Bezrukova, K., Spell, C. S., Caldwell, D., & Burger, J. M. (2016). A multilevel perspective
on faultlines: Differentiating the effects between group- and organizational-level fault­
lines. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(1), 86.

Bradley, H., & Healy, G. (2008). Ethnicity and gender at work: Inequalities, careers, and
employment relations. The Future of Work Series. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Brewer, R. M., Conrad, C. A., & King, M. C. (2002). The complexities and potential of the­
orizing gender, caste, race, and class. Feminist Economics, 8(2), 3–17.

Browne, I., & Misra, J. (2003). The intersection of gender and race in the labor market,
Annual Review of Sociology, 29(1), 487–513.

Byrd, M. Y. (2014). Diversity issues exploring “critical” through multiple lenses. Advances
in Developing Human Resources, 16(4), 515–528.

Carastathis, A. (2008). The invisibility of privilege: A critique of intersectional models of

identity. Ateliers de l’ethique, 3(2), 23–28.

Carrim, N. M. H., & Nkomo, S. M. (2016). Wedding intersectionality theory and iden­
tity work in organizations: South African Indian women negotiating managerial
identity. Gender, Work, & Organization, 23, 261–277.

Case, K. A., Iuzzini, J., & Hopkins, M. (2012). Systems of privilege: Intersections,
awareness, and applications. Journal of Social Issues, 68, 1–10.

Choo, H. Y., & Ferree, M. M. (2010). Practicing intersectionality in sociological research:

A critical analysis of inclusions, interactions, and institutions in the study of inequalities.
Sociological Theory, 28(2), 129–149.

Clarke, A. Y., & McCall, L. (2013) Intersectionality and social explanation in social science
research. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 10(2), 349–363.

Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist,

64(3), 170.

Cole, E. R., Avery, L. R., Dodson, C., & Goodman, K. D. (2012). Against nature: How argu­
ments about the naturalness of marriage privilege heterosexuality. Journal of Social Is­
sues, 68(1), 46–62.

Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics
of empowerment. New York: Routledge

Collins, P. H. (2015). Intersectionality’s definitional dilemmas. Annual Review of

Sociology, 41, 1–20.
Page 16 of 20

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT

(oxfordre.com/business). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is
strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 20 January 2020

Intersectionality Theory and Practice

Combahee River Collective. (1986). The Combahee River Collective Statement: Black fem­
inist organizing in the seventies and eighties. Albany, NY: Kitchen Table.

Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist
critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. University
of Chicago Legal Forum, 139–167. Reprinted in The Politics of Law: A Progressive Cri­
tique, 195–217 (2nd ed., edited by David Kairys, Pantheon, 1990).

Crenshaw, K. (2015, September 24). Why intersectionality can’t wait. Washington Post.

Dhamoon, R. K. (2011). Considerations on mainstreaming intersectionality. Political Re­

search Quarterly, 64(1), 230–243.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Admin­
istrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.

Else-Quest, N. M., & Hyde, J. S. (2016). Intersectionality in quantitative psychological re­

search II. Methods and techniques. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(2), 155–170.

Essed, P. (1991). Understanding everyday racism: An interdisciplinary theory (Vol. 2).

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Espiritu, Y. L. (1997). Asian American women and men: Labor, laws, and love. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Goff, P. A., & Kahn, K. B. (2013). How psychological science impedes intersectional think­
ing. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 10(2), 365–384.

Hancock, A. M. (2007). When multiplication doesn't equal quick addition: Examining in­
tersectionality as a research paradigm. Perspectives on Politics, 5(1), 63–79.

Hooks, B. (1981). Ain’t I a woman? Black women and feminism. New York: Routledge.

Hulko, W. (2009). The time- and context-contingent nature of intersectionality and inter­
locking oppressions. Affilia, 24(1), 44–55.

Hull, A. G., Hull, G. T., Bell-Scott, P., & Smith, B. (Eds.). (1982). All the women are white,
all the blacks are men: But some of us are brave. Black women’s studies. New York: Femi­
nist Press.

Jamieson, K. H. (1995). Beyond the double bind: Women and leadership. New York: Ox­
ford University Press.

Kang, S. K., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2015). Multiple identities in social perception and in­
teraction: Challenges and opportunities. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 547–574.

Knapp, G. A. (2005). Race, class, gender: Reclaiming baggage in fast travelling theories.
European Journal of Women’s Studies, 12(3), 249–265.

Page 17 of 20

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT

(oxfordre.com/business). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is
strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 20 January 2020

Intersectionality Theory and Practice

Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The composi­
tional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 325–
340.

Livingston, R. W., & Pearce, N. A. (2009). The teddy-bear effect: Does having a baby face
benefit black chief executive officers? Psychological Science, 20(10), 1229–1236.

Livingston, R. W., Rosette, A. S., & Washington, E. F. (2012). Can an agentic black woman
get ahead? The impact of race and interpersonal dominance on perceptions of female
leaders. Psychological Science, 23(4), 354–358.

Loseke, D. R. (2007). The study of identity as cultural, institutional, organizational, and

personal narratives: Theoretical and empirical integrations. The Sociological Quarterly,
48(4), 661–688.

McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture

and Society, 30(3), 1771–1800.

McIntosh, P. (1988). White privilege and male privilege: A personal account of coming to
see correspondences through work in women’s studies. Working Paper No. 189. Welles­
ley, MA: Wellesley Centers for Women.

McIntosh, P. (2012). Reflections and future directions for privilege studies. Journal of So­
cial Issues, 68(1), 194–206.

Meyer, D. (2012). An intersectional analysis of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender

(LGBT) people’s evaluations of anti-queer violence. Gender & Society, 26(6), 849–873.

Nash, J. C. (2008). Re-thinking intersectionality. Feminist Review, 89(1), 1–15.

Pompper, D. (2007). The gender-ethnicity construct in public relations organizations: Us­

ing feminist standpoint theory to discover Latinas’ realities. The Howard Journal of Com­
munications, 18(4), 291–311.

Risman, B. J. (2004). Gender as a social structure: Theory wrestling with activism.

Gender & Society, 18, 429–450.

Rodriguez, J. K., Holvino, E., Fletcher, J. K., & Nkomo, S. M. (2016). The theory and praxis
of intersectionality in work and organisations: Where do we go from here? Gender, Work,
and Organization, 23(3), 201–222.

Salem, S. (2016). Intersectionality and its discontents: Intersectionality as travel­

ing theory. European Journal of Women’s Studies.

Smith, R., & Seedat Khan, M. (2016). Gender. In J. Ferrante-Wallace, M. Seedat Khan, Z.
L. Jansen, & R. Smith (Eds.), Sociology: A South African perspective (pp. 98–123). Lon­
don: Cengage Learning (Emea).

Page 18 of 20

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT

(oxfordre.com/business). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is
strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 20 January 2020

Intersectionality Theory and Practice

Stewart, T. L., Latu, I. M., Branscombe, N. R., Phillips, N. L., & Denney H. T. (2012). White
privilege awareness and efficacy to reduce racial inequality improve white Americans’ at­
titudes toward African Americans. Journal of Social Issues, 68(1), 11–27.

Syed, J. (2007). “The other woman” and the question of equal opportunity in Australian
organizations. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(11), 1954–1978.

Tatli, A., & Özbilgin, M. F. (2012). An emic approach to intersectional study of diversity at
work: A Bourdieuan framing. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(2), 180–
200.

Thatcher, S. M., Jehn, K. A., & Zanutto, E. (2003). Cracks in diversity research: The ef­
fects of diversity faultlines on conflict and performance. Group Decision and Negotiation,
12(3), 217–241.

Tuori, A. (2014). Doing intersectional identity work: Social categories, inequalities,

and silences. PhD thesis, Hanken School of Economics.

United Nations. Gender and racial discrimination: Report of the Expert Group
Meeting, November 21–24, 2000, Zagreb, Croatia.

de Vries, K. M. (2015). Transgender people of color at the center: Conceptualizing a new

intersectional model. Ethnicities, 15(1), 3–27.

Warner, L. R. (2008). A best practices guide to intersectional approaches in psychological

research. Sex Roles, 59(5–6), 454–463.

Warner, L. R., Settles, I. H., & Shields, S. A. (2016). Invited reflection intersectionality as
an epistemological challenge to psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(2), 171–
176.

Woodhams, C., Lupton, B., & Cowling, M. (2015a). The snowballing penalty effect: Multi­
ple disadvantage and pay. British Journal of Management, 26(1), 63–77.

Woodhams, C., Lupton, B., & Cowling, M. (2015b). The presence of ethnic minority and
disabled men in feminised work: Intersectionality, vertical segregation, and the glass es­
calator. Sex Roles, 72(7–8), 277–293.

Young, R. A., & Collin, A. (2004). Introduction: Constructivism and social constructionism
in the career field. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(3), 373–388.

Yuval-Davis, N. (2013). A situated intersectional everyday approach to the study of bor­

dering. Working paper no. 2. Euroborderscapes. European Commission.

Doyin Atewologun

Queen Mary University, London School of Business and Management

Page 19 of 20

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT

(oxfordre.com/business). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is
strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 20 January 2020

Intersectionality Theory and Practice

Page 20 of 20

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT

(oxfordre.com/business). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is
strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 20 January 2020