Operationalizing Intersectionality in Social Work Research: Approaches and Limitations

IF 1.2 3区 社会学 Q3 SOCIAL WORK
S. Matsuzaka, Kimberly D. Hudson, A. Ross
{"title":"Operationalizing Intersectionality in Social Work Research: Approaches and Limitations","authors":"S. Matsuzaka, Kimberly D. Hudson, A. Ross","doi":"10.1093/swr/svab010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Despite intersectionality’s relevance to social work, scholars have raised concerns that its misguided applications place it “in danger of being co-opted, depoliticized, and diluted.” This scoping review examined the use of intersectionality in empirical social work research, specific to the extent, contexts, and degree of responsibility with which it has been applied. Using the search term convention [“social work” OR “social services”] AND [“intersectional” OR “intersectionality”], 22 databases were searched for peer-reviewed research published between 2009 and 2019, yielding 153 articles. The 33 studies meeting inclusion criteria were examined according to two frameworks: (1) typologies for intersectional conceptual approach and (2) intersectionality responsible use guidelines (RUG). Most studies used an intracategorical approach (n = 24), while fewer used an intercategorical (n = 7) or a mixed intra- and intercategorical approach (n = 2). On average, studies met approximately half of the RUG. Studies most frequently (n = 29) aligned with the guideline “Recommend ways to promote positive social transformation and justice through research, teaching, and practice.” Studies least frequently (n = 3) conformed to the guideline “Credits Black feminist activist roots of intersectionality.” Responsible stewardship is recommended to address power in knowledge production, researcher positionalities, and social justice action.","PeriodicalId":47282,"journal":{"name":"Social Work Research","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Work Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/svab010","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIAL WORK","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Despite intersectionality’s relevance to social work, scholars have raised concerns that its misguided applications place it “in danger of being co-opted, depoliticized, and diluted.” This scoping review examined the use of intersectionality in empirical social work research, specific to the extent, contexts, and degree of responsibility with which it has been applied. Using the search term convention [“social work” OR “social services”] AND [“intersectional” OR “intersectionality”], 22 databases were searched for peer-reviewed research published between 2009 and 2019, yielding 153 articles. The 33 studies meeting inclusion criteria were examined according to two frameworks: (1) typologies for intersectional conceptual approach and (2) intersectionality responsible use guidelines (RUG). Most studies used an intracategorical approach (n = 24), while fewer used an intercategorical (n = 7) or a mixed intra- and intercategorical approach (n = 2). On average, studies met approximately half of the RUG. Studies most frequently (n = 29) aligned with the guideline “Recommend ways to promote positive social transformation and justice through research, teaching, and practice.” Studies least frequently (n = 3) conformed to the guideline “Credits Black feminist activist roots of intersectionality.” Responsible stewardship is recommended to address power in knowledge production, researcher positionalities, and social justice action.
社会工作研究中交叉性的操作化:方法与局限
尽管交叉性与社会工作相关,但学者们担心,它的错误应用将其置于“被增选、去政治化和稀释的危险之中”。这一范围审查检查了交叉性在经验性社会工作研究中的使用,具体到它被应用的程度、背景和责任程度。使用搜索词惯例[“社会工作”或“社会服务”]和[“交叉性”或“交叉性”],对2009年至2019年发表的同行评议研究进行了22个数据库的搜索,产生了153篇文章。符合纳入标准的33项研究根据两个框架进行了检查:(1)交叉概念方法的类型学(2)交叉负责使用指南(RUG)。大多数研究使用类别内方法(n = 24),而较少使用类别间方法(n = 7)或混合使用类别内和类别间方法(n = 2)。平均而言,研究满足大约一半的RUG。最常见的研究(n = 29)与“通过研究、教学和实践推荐促进积极的社会转型和正义的方法”这一指导方针保持一致。最不常见的研究(n = 3)符合指导方针“将交叉性归功于黑人女权主义活动家的根源”。负责任的管理建议解决权力的知识生产,研究人员的位置,和社会正义行动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Social Work Research
Social Work Research SOCIAL WORK-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: Social work research addresses psychosocial problems, preventive interventions, treatment of acute and chronic conditions, and community, organizational, policy and administrative issues. Covering the lifespan, social work research may address clinical, services and policy issues. It benefits consumers, practitioners, policy-makers, educators, and the general public by: •Examining prevention and intervention strategies for health and mental health, child welfare, aging, substance abuse, community development, managed care, housing, economic self-sufficiency, family well-being, etc.; Studying the strengths, needs, and inter-relationships of individuals, families, groups, neighborhoods, and social institutions;
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信