Advertisement

Why Should We Account for Intersectionality in Quantitative Analysis of Survey Data?

  • Joshua Dubrow

Zusammenfassung

While in the social sciences most of the empirically-based research on intersectionality employs qualitative techniques such as in-depth interviewing and archival work, there is a small, but steadily growing, literature that employs quantitative statistical techniques on national and cross-national survey data.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Blumberg, Rae Lesser. 2007. Gender Bias in Textbooks: A Hidden Obstacle on the Road to Gender Equality in Education. Background paper prepared for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2008 Education for All by 2015: will we make it? http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001555/155509e.pdf Accessed July 4, 2010.
  2. Blumer, Herbert. 1956. Sociological Analysis and the ‚Variable.‘ In: American Sociological Review 21(6): 683–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bowleg, Lisa. 2008. When Black + Lesbian + Woman ≠ Black Lesbian Woman: The Methodological Challenges of Qualitative and Quantitative Intersectionality Research. In: Sex Roles 59: 312– 325.Google Scholar
  4. Brambor, Thomas; Clark, William Roberts, and Golder, Matt. 2006. Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses. In: Political Analysis 14: 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braumoeller, Bear F. 2004. Hypothesis Testing and Multiplicative Interaction Terms. In: International Organization 58: 807–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Choo, H, and Myra Ferree. 2010. Practicing Intersectionality in Sociological Research: A Critical Analysis of Inclusions, Interactions, and Institutions in the Study of Inequalities. In: Sociological Theory 28(2): 129–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis, Kathy. 2008. Intersectionality as Buzzword: A Sociology of Science Perspective on What Makes a Feminist Theory Successful. In: Feminist Theory 9(1): 67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis, Murray S. 1971. That’s Interesting! Towards a Phenomenology of Sociology and a Sociology of Phenomenology. In: Philosophy of the Social Sciences 1: 309–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DiPrete, Thomas A., and Eirich, Gregory M. 2006. Cumulative Advantage as a Mechanism for Inequality: A Review of Theoretical and Empirical Developments. In: Annual Review of Sociology 32: 271–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dubrow, Joshua Kjerulf. 2008. How Can We Account for Intersectionality in Quantitative Analysis of Survey Data? Empirical Illustration of Central and Eastern Europe. In: ASK: Society, Research, Methods 17: 85–102.Google Scholar
  11. Duru-Bellat, Marie; Kieffer, Annick, and Reimer, David. 2008. Patterns of Social Inequalities in Access to Higher Education in France and Germany. In: International Journal of Comparative Sociology 49(4–5): 347–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ganzeboom, Harry B.G.; De Graaf, Paul, and Treiman, Donald J. (with De Leeuw, Jan) 1992. A Standard International Socio-Economic Index of Occupational Status. In: Social Science Research 21(1): 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hancock, Ange-Marie. 2007. When Multiplication Doesn’t Equal Quick Addition: Examining Intersectionality as a Research Paradigm. In: Perspectives on Politics 5(1): 63–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heyns, Barbara. 2005. Emerging Inequalities in Central and Eastern Europe. In: Annual Review of Sociology 31: 163–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jacobs, Jerry A. and Scott Frickel. 2009. Interdisciplinarity: A Critical Assessment. In: Annual Review of Sociology 35:43–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McCall, Leslie. 2005. The Complexity of Intersectionality. In: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 30(3): 1771–1800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Purdie-Vaughns, Valerie, and Eibach, Richard P. 2008. Intersectional Invisibility: The Distinctive Advantages and Disadvantages of Multiple Subordinate-Group Identities. In: Sex Roles 59: 377–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sidanius, Jim, and Pratto, Felicia. 1999. Social Dominance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Sidanius, Jim, and Pratto, Felicia; vanLaar, Colette; Levin Shana. 2004. Social Dominance Theory: Its Agenda and Method. In: Political Psychology 25(6): 845–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Walby, Sylvia. 2007. Complexity Theory, Systems Theory, and Multiple Intersecting Social Inequalities. In: Philosophy of the Social Sciences 37(4): 449–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Walby, Sylvia. 2009. Globalization and Inequalities: Complexity and Contested Modernities. Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  22. Warner, Leah R. 2008. A Best Practices Guide to Intersectional Approaches in Psychological Research. In: Sex Roles 59: 454–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Weber, Max. 1946. Class, Status, Party. In: Gerth, Hans, and Mills, Wright C. (eds). From Max Weber, Oxford: Oxford University Press: 180–195Google Scholar
  24. Weldon, S. Laurel. 2006. The Structure of Intersectionality: A Comparative Politics of Gender. In: Politics & Gender 2(2): 235–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joshua Dubrow
    • 1
  1. 1.WarsawDeutschland

Personalised recommendations