Sex Roles

, Volume 59, Issue 5–6, pp 454–463 | Cite as

A Best Practices Guide to Intersectional Approaches in Psychological Research

  • Leah R. WarnerEmail author
Original Article


This paper serves as a “best practices guide” for researchers interested in applying intersectionality theory to psychological research. Intersectionality, the mutually constitutive relations among social identities, presents several issues to researchers interested in applying it to research. I highlight three central issues and provide guidelines for how to address them. First, I discuss the constraints in the number of identities that researchers are able to test in an empirical study, and highlight relevant decision rules. Second, I discuss when to focus on “master” identities (e.g., gender) versus “emergent” identities (i.e., White lesbian). Third, I argue that treating identity as a process situated within social structural contexts facilitates the research process. I end with a brief discussion of the implications for the study of intersectionality.


Intersectionality Identity Women’s studies Feminist Methodology 


  1. Baca Zinn, M., & Thornton Dill, B. (1996). Theorizing difference from multiracial feminism. Feminist Studies, 22, 321–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bowleg, L. (2008). When Black + Lesbian + Woman ≠ Black Lesbian Woman: the methodological challenges of qualitative and quantitative intersectionality research. Sex Roles, this issue.Google Scholar
  3. Browne, I. (Ed.). (1999). Latinas and African American women at work: Race, gender, and economic inequality. New York, NY: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Burman, E. (2001). Minding the gap: Positivism, psychology and the politics of qualitative research. In D. Tolman, & M. Brydon-Miller (Eds.), From subjects to subjectivities: a handbook of interpretive and participatory methods (pp. 259–275). New York, NY: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cole, E. (2008). Coalitions as a model for intersectionality: from practice to theory. Sex Roles, this issue.Google Scholar
  6. Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Crenshaw, K. W. (1994). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. In M.A. Fineman, & R. Mykitiuk (Eds.), The public nature of private violence (pp. 93–118). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Diamond, L., & Butterworth, M. (2008). Questioning gender and sexual identity: dynamic links over time. Sex Roles, this issue.Google Scholar
  9. Dotson, L. A., Stinson, J., & Christian, L. (2003). “People tell me I can’t have sex”: Women with disabilities share their personal perspectives on health care, sexuality, and reproductive rights. In M.E. Banks, & E. Kaschak (Eds.), Women with visible and invisible disabilities: Multiple intersections, multiple issues, multiple therapies (pp. 195–210). Binghamton, NY: Haworth.Google Scholar
  10. Dottolo, A. L., & Stewart, A. L. (2008). “Don’t ever forget now, you’re a Black man in America”: Intersections of race, class and gender in encounters with the police. Sex Roles, this issue.Google Scholar
  11. Ellison, R. (1995). Invisible man. New York, NY: Vintage.Google Scholar
  12. Glaser, B. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology.Google Scholar
  13. Goff, P. A., Thomas, M. A., & Jackson, M. C. (2008). “Ain’t I a woman?”: towards an intersectional approach to person perception and group-based harms. Sex Roles, this issue.Google Scholar
  14. Greenwood, R. M. (2008). Intersectional political consciousness: appreciation for intragroup differences and solidarity in diverse groups. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 36–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Greenwood, R. M., & Christian, A. (2008). What happens when we unpack the invisible knapsack? Intersectional political consciousness and inter-group appraisals. Sex Roles, this issue.Google Scholar
  16. Hegarty, P., & Pratto, F. (2001). The effects of social category norms and stereotypes on explanations for intergroup differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 723–735.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hegarty, P., & Pratto, F. (2004). The differences that norms make: empiricism, social constructionism and the interpretation of group differences. Sex Roles, 50, 445–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Helms, J. E., Jernigan, M., & Mascher, J. (2005). The meaning of race in psychology and how to change it: a methodological perspective. The American Psychologist, 60, 27–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hess, U., Beupre, M. G., & Cheun, N. (2002). Who to whom and why: Cultural differences and similarities in the function of smiles. In M.H. Abel (Ed.), An empirical reflection on the smile. Mellen studies in psychology, Vol. 4 (pp. 187–216). Lewiston, NY: Mellen.Google Scholar
  20. Hurtado, A., & Sinha, M. (2008). More than men: Latino feminist masculinities and intersectionality. Sex Roles, this issue.Google Scholar
  21. Kunda, Z., Miller, D. T., & Claire, T. (1990). Combining social concepts: the role of causal reasoning. Cognitive Science, 14, 551–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Landrine, H. (1985). Race x class stereotypes of women. Sex Roles, 13, 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mahalingam, R., Balan, S., & Haritatos, J. (2008). Engendering immigrant psychology: an intersectionality perspective. Sex Roles, this issue.Google Scholar
  24. Mahalingam, R., & Leu, J. (2005). Culture, essentialism, immigration, and representations of gender. Theory & Psychology, 15, 839–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marecek, J., Fine, M., & Kidder, L. (2001). Working between worlds: qualitative methods and social psychology. The Journal of Social Issues, 53, 631–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mattis, J., Grayman, N., Cowie, S., Winston, C., Watson, C., & Jackson, D. (2008). Intersectional identities and the politics of altruistic care in a low-income, urban community. Sex Roles, this issue.Google Scholar
  27. McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs, 30, 1771–1800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McIntosh, P. (1990). White privilege: unpacking the invisible knapsack. Independent School, 49, 31–36.Google Scholar
  29. Morrison, T. (1993). Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination. New York, NY: Vintage.Google Scholar
  30. Nakano Glenn, E. (1999). The social construction and institutionalization of gender and race: an integrative framework. In M. M. Ferree, J. Lorber, & B. Hess (Eds.), Revisioning Gender (pp. 3–43). London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Phoenix, A. (2006). Intersectionality. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 13, 187–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Purdie-Vaughns, V., & Eibach, R. P. (2008). Intersectional invisibility: The ideological sources and social consequences of the non-prototypicality of intersectional subordinates. Sex Roles, this issue.Google Scholar
  33. Ringrose, J. (2007). Troubling agency and ‘choice’: a psychosocial analysis of students’ negotiations of Black Feminist ‘intersectionality’ discourses in Women’s Studies. Women’s Studies International Forum, 30, 264–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Risman, B. J. (2004). Gender as a social structure: theory wrestling with activism. Gender & Society, 18, 429–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schneider, D. J. (2005). The psychology of stereotyping. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  36. Shields, S. A. (2008). Gender: an intersectionality perspective. Sex Roles, this issue.Google Scholar
  37. Stewart, A. J., & McDermott, C. (2004). Gender in psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 519–544.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded Theory methodology: an overview. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 1–18). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Sue, D. W., Bingham, R. P., Porche Burke, L., & Vasquez, M. (1999). The diversification of psychology: a multicultural revolution. The American Psychologist, 54, 1061–1069.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Townsend, T. G. (2008). Protecting our daughters: intersection of race, class and gender in African American mothers’ socialization of their daughters’ heterosexuality. Sex Roles, this issue.Google Scholar
  41. Valentine, G. (2007). Theorizing and researching intersectionality: a challenge for feminist geography. The Professional Geographer, 59, 10–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Weber, L. (2004). A conceptual framework for understanding race, class, gender, and sexuality. In S. N. Hesse-Biber, & M. L. Yaiser (Eds.), Feminist perspectives on social research (pp. 121–139). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Weldon, S. L. (2005). Rethinking intersectionality: Some conceptual problems and solutions for the comparative study of welfare states. Paper delivered at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, USA. Retrieved November 4, 2007, from
  44. West, C., & Fenstermaker, S. (1997). Doing difference. In S. Fenstermaker, & C. West (Eds.), Doing gender, doing difference (pp. 55–81). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Young, I. M. (2004). Gender as seriality: thinking about women as a social collective. Signs, 19, 713–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yuval-Davis, N. (2006). Intersectionality and feminist politics. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 13, 193–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Social Science and Human ServicesRamapo College of New JerseyMahwahUSA

Personalised recommendations