Skip to main content
. 2021 Dec 2;9:772301. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.772301

Table 1.

Intersectionality toolbox questions, main concepts, and suggested readings.

Question Key concepts to apply Suggested readings
1. What are the shared social, historical, and cultural characteristics of a social group? Understanding that social groups are not biologically or genetically bound; investigating the underlying social and cultural patterns that led to certain outcomes or disparities (1115)
2. Who is included and who is left out of this research? Careful assessment of the demographic profiles of who is included in research; assessment of who has been made invisible or whose experiences are not represented (1618)
3. What are the critical differences defining groups experiences (as opposed to outcomes)? Categorization of groups based on demographic or identity factors often leads to essentialization and a reduction to defining them solely as members of that group. An alternate approach asks what it is about being a member of a group that is important for this line of research? (1922)
4. Where is there variation within a particular group? Looking at within-group variability rather than comparing across groups reveals nuanced information and reinforces the idea that groups are not homogeneous (2326)
5. Where are there similarities between groups? In our quest to establish and track disparities, the focus is often on differences instead of similarities. Asking this question can reveal new and different information that would have otherwise been overlooked, and knowledge can be leveraged across groups. (2729)
6. What is the role of power, inequality, and oppression in understanding this issue? This is often a subtext that is not clearly stated or addressed in health disparities research. However, this is foundational to understanding not only how health disparities are framed, but also how language is used to place the onus on certain groups to address the issues. (3032)
7. Are there other perspectives or angles to consider to the research beyond what was assessed? Although this question may seem obvious, it's a good exercise to pause and consider (a) whose perspective is represented on the research team, (b) what factors or perspectives would enrich or potentially contribute to our understanding of a health issue or the population being studied. This is an invitation to go deeper and to search out nuance that is often missed in research based on mean comparison. (4, 3335)
8. What are the structural factors (laws, institutional practices, and policies) that impact someone's health? Culturally in the US there is a focus on individualism and individual approaches to managing health. This question invites a contextualization of the individual into their broader social fabric, wherein the laws, institutions, social norms, and policies shape and constrain individual behavior. In addition, this question considers how policies are made and might be changed based on an intersectional perspective [see (36) for more]. (3640)
9. What are the multiple social inequalities (e.g., racism, heterosexism, sexism, classism) that intersect to create and maintain health disparities? A core tenet of intersectionality is that social identities are not experienced singularly, and people's experiences depend on the intersection of identities they hold. Dovetailing this approach is understanding that discrimination and power are also experienced in an intersectional nature. Direct acknowledgment of this complexity will allow for these patterns and structures to be made visible and acknowledged in producing and maintaining health disparities. (4144)
10. What can we learn by looking at social groups as social processes rather than characteristics of the individual? Asking “what does it mean to be a member of a social group?” focuses on how that group membership is experienced by individuals in the group, rather than labeling the group and assuming what that membership means. This approach helps to center the experiences of people in minoritized groups and highlights information that may have otherwise been overlooked or assumed. (23, 4547)