Bauer Greta R, Churchill Siobhan M, Mahendran Mayuri, Walwyn Chantel, Lizotte Daniel, Villa-Rueda Alma Angelica
Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Western University, London, ON, Canada, N6A 5C1.
Computer Science, Western University, London, ON, Canada, N6A 5C1.
SSM Popul Health. 2021 Apr 16;14:100798. doi: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100798. eCollection 2021 Jun.
Intersectionality is a theoretical framework rooted in the premise that human experience is jointly shaped by multiple social positions (e.g. race, gender), and cannot be adequately understood by considering social positions independently. Used widely in qualitative studies, its uptake in quantitative research has been more recent.
To characterize quantitative research applications of intersectionality from 1989 to mid-2020, to evaluate basic integration of theoretical frameworks, and to identify innovative methods that could be applied to health research.
Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed articles indexed within Scopus, Medline, ProQuest Political Science and Public Administration, and PsycINFO. Original English-language quantitative or mixed-methods research or methods papers that explicitly applied intersectionality theoretical frameworks were included. Experimental studies on perception/stereotyping and measures development or validation studies were excluded. We extracted data related to publication, study design, quantitative methods, and application of intersectionality.
707 articles (671 applied studies, 25 methods-only papers, 11 methods plus application) met inclusion criteria. Articles were published in journals across a range of disciplines, most commonly psychology, sociology, and medical/life sciences; 40.8% studied a health-related outcome. Results supported concerns among intersectionality scholars that core theoretical tenets are often lost or misinterpreted in quantitative research; about one in four applied articles (26.9%) failed to define intersectionality, while one in six (17.5%) included intersectional position components not reflective of social power. Quantitative methods were simplistic (most often regression with interactions, cross-classified variables, or stratification) and were often misapplied or misinterpreted. Several novel methods were identified.
Intersectionality is frequently misunderstood when bridging theory into quantitative methodology. Further work is required to (1) ensure researchers understand key features that define quantitative intersectionality analyses, (2) improve reporting practices for intersectional analyses, and (3) develop and adapt quantitative methods.
交叉性是一种理论框架，其前提是人类经历是由多种社会地位（如种族、性别）共同塑造的，不能通过独立考虑社会地位来充分理解。它在定性研究中被广泛使用，在定量研究中的应用则较新。
描述1989年至2020年年中交叉性的定量研究应用，评估理论框架的基本整合情况，并确定可应用于健康研究的创新方法。
遵循PRISMA指南，我们对Scopus、Medline、ProQuest政治学与公共管理以及PsycINFO中索引的同行评审文章进行了系统综述。纳入明确应用交叉性理论框架的原创英文定量或混合方法研究或方法论文。排除关于感知/刻板印象的实验研究以及测量开发或验证研究。我们提取了与发表、研究设计、定量方法以及交叉性应用相关的数据。
707篇文章（671篇应用研究、25篇仅方法论文、11篇方法加应用论文）符合纳入标准。文章发表在一系列学科的期刊上，最常见的是心理学、社会学以及医学/生命科学；40.8%的研究涉及与健康相关的结果。结果支持了交叉性学者的担忧，即核心理论原则在定量研究中常常丢失或被误解；约四分之一的应用文章（26.9%）未定义交叉性，而六分之一（17.5%）纳入的交叉性地位成分未反映社会权力。定量方法过于简单（最常见的是带有交互作用的回归、交叉分类变量或分层），且常常被误用或误解。确定了几种新颖的方法。
在将理论融入定量方法时，交叉性常常被误解。需要进一步开展工作以（1）确保研究人员理解定义定量交叉性分析的关键特征，（2）改进交叉性分析的报告做法，以及（3）开发和调整定量方法。
