Practicing Intersectionality in Sociological Research: A Critical Analysis of Inclusions, Interactions, and Institutions in the Study of Inequalities
Practicing Intersectionality in Sociological Research: A Critical Analysis of Inclusions, Interactions, and Institutions in the Study of Inequalities
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1467-9558.2010.01370.x
复制
发表时间：
2010-06-01
影响因子：
4.4
通讯作者：
Ferree, Myra Marx
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Choo, Hae Yeon;Ferree, Myra Marx
在这篇文章中，我们问它意味着什么社会学家实践交叉性作为一种理论和方法论的不平等。对主题和工作风格的选择有何影响？我们区分三种风格的理解交叉性在实践中：集团为中心，过程为中心，系统为中心。第一个.强调将多重边缘化群体及其观点置于研究的中心。第二种，作为一个过程的交叉性，强调权力是关系性的，将变量之间的相互作用视为各个交叉点的多重压迫，并引起对未标记群体的关注。最后，将交叉性视为塑造整个社会系统的因素，会使分析远离将具体的不平等与独特的制度联系起来，而是寻找完全互动的、历史上共同决定的和复杂的过程。使用最近的几个例子，高度重视定性研究，我们提请注意比较，上下文和复杂的社会学分析，即使种族，阶级和性别被明确地放在一起，可能会丢失的尺寸。
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.