Practicing Intersectionality in Sociological Research: A Critical Analysis of Inclusions, Interactions, and Institutions in the Study of Inequalities

TLDR

The article examines what it means for sociologists to practice intersectionality as a theoretical and methodological approach to inequality, and explores its implications for subject‑matter choices and research style. The authors distinguish three styles of practicing intersectionality—group‑centered, process‑centered, and system‑centered—each emphasizing different focal points from marginalized groups to relational power dynamics to systemic interactions. Through examples of recent qualitative studies, the authors highlight that even when race, class, and gender are explicitly combined, analyses can still miss comparative, contextual, and complex dimensions of inequality.

Abstract

In this article we ask what it means for sociologists to practice intersectionality as a theoretical and methodological approach to inequality. What are the implications for choices of subject matter and style of work? We distinguish three styles of understanding intersectionality in practice: group-centered, process-centered, and system-centered. The first, emphasizes placing multiply-marginalized groups and their perspectives at the center of the research. The second, intersectionality as a process, highlights power as relational, seeing the interactions among variables as multiplying oppressions at various points of intersection, and drawing attention to unmarked groups. Finally, seeing intersectionality as shaping the entire social system pushes analysis away from associating specific inequalities with unique institutions, instead looking for processes that are fully interactive, historically co-determining, and complex. Using several examples of recent, highly regarded qualitative studies, we draw attention to the comparative, contextual, and complex dimensions of sociological analysis that can be missing even when race, class, and gender are explicitly brought together.