Toward a Socially Just Diversity Science: Using Intersectional Mixed Methods Research to Center Multiply Marginalized Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC)

Abstract

Objectives:

Plaut’s breakthrough 2010 publication on diversity science – the study of meaningful human differences – set in motion a generative field of theory and research. Yet, to move diversity science forward, innovative methods that explicitly center the experiences of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) who encounter multiple forms of marginalization must be adopted. One such approach is intersectional mixed methods research – a methodological approach that uses intersectionality theory to guide the use of both quantitative and qualitative methods within a single study.

Conclusions:

We argue that intersectional mixed methods research includes four tenets: (1) research questions prioritize multiply marginalized BIPOC individuals, (2) the multiple realities of BIPOC individuals are honored and embraced, (3) identity-related variables (e.g., self-reported discrimination) are studied alongside systems-level variables (e.g., structural racism), and (4) scholars engage in critical self-reflexivity. We also propose that intersectional mixed methods research can advance scholarship on multiply marginalized BIPOC individuals by fulfilling one of five purposes: triangulation, complementarity, expansion, development, and initiation. We close with a discussion of tensions and recommendations.

Since Plaut’s (2010a) breakthrough publication on human differences, the field of diversity science has progressed. Plaut defined diversity science as “the study of the interpretation and construction of human difference—of why and how difference makes a difference” (Plaut, 2010b). Diversity science welcomes a broad approach to exploring differences across psychology subfields; yet, scholars continue to contend with how best to conduct psychological research to effectively illuminate difference and inform policies that eradicate inequities that maintain these differences (Miller et al., 2019; Stewart & Sweetman, 2018). In addition, diversity science is not immune to the systems of oppression it aims to interrogate, and it is vulnerable to reifying these systems as long as it lacks an explicit agenda to center individuals who occupy multiple social identities at the intersection of interlocking systems of oppression. In light of this, we argue that, in order to move diversity science within psychological inquiry forward, scholars must adopt innovative theories and methods that explicitly promote social justice – a set of values that emphasize equity, inclusivity, justice, and the well-being of all people through radical systemic change (Vasquez, 2012) – and adopt a methodological approach to research that centers the distinct, multifaceted experiences of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) who encounter multiple forms of marginalization.

BIPOC individuals who experience multiple forms of marginalization are individuals who possess more than one marginalized identity (e.g., Black, queer, low-income) and who are simultaneously impacted by multiple, interlocking oppressive systems (e.g., racism, heterosexism). Although some intersectionality scholars argue that intersectionality theory is not confined to the study of individuals who experience multiple forms of oppression (Buchanan & Wiklund, 2021), centering multiply marginalized BIPOC individuals specifically promotes social justice by safeguarding against the prioritization of individuals who are privileged within marginalized groups (e.g., White cisgender women). Also, focusing on multiply marginalized BIPOC individuals clarifies who is included in “diversity,” given that this term is often used as a broad, catch-all phrase in diversity science (Neblett, 2019). To center multiply marginalized BIPOC individuals effectively, the research must be guided by a theory that highlights intersecting identities and systems of oppression rather than focuses on a single identity (e.g., race, gender) apart from others. The research must also allow for methodological flexibility within a single study to illuminate how structural-level factors (e.g., institutional policies) intersect with individual-level (e.g., self-reported discrimination) and community-level (e.g., neighborhood context) variables relevant to BIPOC individuals. Thus, we put forth intersectional mixed methods research – a methodological approach that uses intersectionality theory to guide the use of both quantitative and qualitative methods within a single study – as a novel approach to propel psychological diversity science forward.

Our thesis aligns with those who have argued that intersectionality represents an opportunity to advance social justice within psychology (Buchanan & Wiklund, 2020; Rosenthal, 2016). We also agree that mixed methods research can promote social justice in psychological inquiry (Ponterotto et al., 2013). Further, we are not the first to articulate the benefits of combining intersectionality and mixed methods research (Bowleg & Bauer, 2016; Grace, 2014; Hankivsky & Grace, 2015; J. A. Lewis & Grzanka, 2016). However, existing conversations about intersectionality and mixed methods research have yet to provide a shared understanding of the tenets of intersectional mixed methods research or discuss how this approach can be applied to psychological diversity science to center BIPOC individuals. Therefore, we extend the literature by first outlining intersectionality’s Black feminist roots and its application in psychological research. We then discuss mixed methods research and its connection to social justice. Third, we outline the tenets of intersectional mixed methods research and illustrate how this approach can illuminate the experiences of multiply marginalized BIPOC individuals.

Intersectionality as a Research Framework

The herstory of intersectionality scholarship originates with Black women who challenged single identity issues by voicing their distinct experiences at the intersection of racism and sexism (Hancock, 2016; May, 2015). In the 1970s, the Combahee River Collective, a collection of Black feminists, called out feminist movements for narrowly focusing on gender, and civil rights movements for narrowly focusing on race; they argued that interlocking forms of race, gender, and class oppression warranted attention (Combahee River Collective, 1977). Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw (1989) then introduced the concept of intersectionality to capture limitations of antidiscrimination laws that failed to protect Black women who “experience discrimination as Black women – not the sum of race or sex discrimination, but as Black women” (p. 149). Intersectionality theory thus critiques single-identity analyses and offers a lens to illuminate interlocking systems of oppression.

An intersectionality framework has been utilized in psychology to provide a more accurate understanding of human phenomena that is not reflected when single identity dimensions (e.g., race) are considered in isolation (Buchanan & Wiklund, 2020). Yet, despite its growing popularity, scholars disagree about how best to apply intersectionality to psychological research (see Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016 for a review). Some scholars view additive (e.g., measuring race and gender separately and then adding them together), or interactional/multiplicative (e.g., measuring race and gender separately and then creating a statistical interaction term) approaches as sufficiently intersectional (Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016). However, others categorize these approaches as weak intersectionality given their exclusive measurement of social identities, rather than on interlocking systems of power and oppression. Weak intersectionality can thus be contrasted with strong intersectionality – the analysis of the link between multiple social identities and interlocking systems of oppression and power (Dill & Kohlman, 2012; Lewis & Grzanka, 2016). In addition, transformative intersectionality focuses on the links between social identities, interlocking systems of structural oppression, and social justice activism (Shin et al., 2017).

The intersectionality debates also include disagreements about the value of qualitative versus quantitative research (Bowleg, 2008; Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016). Early in intersectionality research, many scholars used qualitative methods with some even arguing that quantitative methods were incompatible with an intersectional lens. These sentiments were upheld by beliefs that intersectionality challenged hegemonic narratives about knowledge production, which included challenging the overreliance on methods historically aligned with postpositivist ways of knowing (McCall, 2005; Shields, 2008) – ways of knowing that emphasized a single reality that could be known and examined objectively (Ponterotto, 2005). Others argued that qualitative methods were optimal to use with an intersectionality framework because they allowed researchers to ask questions that considered experiences within a sociocultural context (Bowleg, 2008). Yet, scholars have recently denoted the benefits of quantitative methods in intersectionality research, and have put forth considerations on how to attend to epistemological and methodological fit in conducting quantitative intersectionality research (Bowleg & Bauer, 2016; Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016; Rouhani, 2014). Also, scholars have elucidated the value of combining both qualitative and quantitative research methods (i.e., mixed method research) in order to more effectively examine interlocking systems of oppression and privilege (Grzanka, 2018; Lewis et al., 2018). We also contend that when both quantitative and qualitative methods are embraced within intersectionality research, scholars can better investigate intersectional research questions that could benefit from a mixed methods design, ultimately advancing what we can come to know concerning multiply marginalized BIPOC individuals.

Mixed Methods Research and its Potential for Social Justice

Mixed methods research represents an array of disciplines and perspectives (Ivankova & Plano Clark, 2018). There are a plethora of approaches concerning the application of mixed methods research, with most approaches emphasizing the purposeful integration of methods in data collection, data analysis, and data interpretation (Ivankova & Plano Clark, 2018). For our purposes, we focus on a widely used definition of mixed methods research, which is mixing at least one quantitative method and one qualitative method within a single study to develop nuanced and comprehensive understandings of a phenomenon (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017).

Mixing qualitative and quantitative components within a single study can be undertaken for five main purposes: triangulation, complementarity, development, expansion, and initiation (Greene, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989). Triangulation, or the act of seeking convergence of results on the same research question from different methods, is a strategy to increase the validity of inquiry results by counteracting the limitations of single methods and by maximizing the strengths of mixing methods. Complementarity seeks to elaborate and enhance results from one method with results from another method. Similar to triangulation, the justification for this purpose is to increase interpretability and meaningfulness of results by taking full advantage of the strengths of mixing methods, but in contrast to triangulation, it permits attention to multiple facets of the same question. Expansion is a third mixed methods purpose; itseeks to extend the range of investigation by using different methods for different study elements. This purpose provides scholars the flexibility to use the most appropriate methods to assess multiple aspects of a phenomenon. Development involves using the results from one method to inform or develop another method, and ultimately extends the breadth and depth of a study. Lastly, scholars can mix methods for the purpose of initiation, or to identify paradoxes, contradictions, and new perspectives. This purpose can stimulate innovative directions in the domain of inquiry.

Scholars can also mix methods in different ways (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017; Plano Clark, 2019). A convergent mixed methods design involves implementing independent quantitative and qualitative study elements and then integrating the results by merging the quantitative and qualitative analyses and interpretations to reach more holistic and comprehensive conclusions. An exploratory sequential mixed methods design involves conducting an initial qualitative method followed by a subsequent quantitative method in order to build on or test initial qualitative results. Scholars can also use an explanatory sequential mixed methods design inwhich a quantitative element is used first and followed by a qualitative component contingent on and informed by the initial quantitative results. A value of this design is that it enables researchers to further explore the nuances and mechanisms that explain the quantitative results (Plano Clark, 2019).

Part of the appeal of mixed methods research is that it accommodates interdisciplinary research questions and designs (Greene, 2007). In particular, mixed methods research is well suited to address questions that require scholars to not only identify outcomes but to also contextualize outcomes. Additionally, mixed methods research is appropriate for when researchers aim to not only identify associations but also to explain such mechanisms implicated in those associations. Mixed methods research can also function to both test and generate hypotheses (Plano Clark, 2019).

Scholars have also noted several social justice-related advantages to using mixed methods research in psychology (Ponterotto et al., 2013). First, social justice underscores inclusion, or the act of creating environments where all individuals feel respected and fully able to participate (Ponterotto et al., 2013). Inclusion can be actualized in mixed methods research by fully reflecting the experiences of marginalized groups. For example, in a study about women of color’s experiences in the criminal justice system, combining qualitative and quantitative methods into a single study could illuminate and humanize the subjective experiences of women of color while also identifying factors that predict criminal justice trajectories. By making space for both women of color’s lived experiences and testable patterns and relations between relevant variables, the complexities of this phenomenon are fully welcomed, respected, and treated as equally meaningful.

Second, social justice encourages exposing and confronting how systemic injustice undermines well-being (Rosenthal, 2016). Mixing methods can be used as a strategy to exhibit how factors measured at one level (e.g., intrapersonal factors) are shaped by factors measured at other levels (e.g., systems of structural inequality). For example, quantitative assessments could reveal intrapersonal risk factors for criminal justice involvement. Qualitative archival methods could then explore changes in judicial legislation to highlight how these, or other risk factors, are framed in gendered ways, and how changing definitions of what constitutes “criminal behavior” have been used to more harshly penalize women for engaging in behaviors that transgress traditional femininity norms (Brown, 2011). Including methods that capture intrapersonal variables as well as changing gender norm expectations and judicial policies shows the dynamic interplay between individual-level factors (e.g., emotion regulation difficulties) and societal-level shifts, ultimately illuminating how women of color’s experiences in the criminal justice system are shaped by cultural norms and power dynamics. Thus, mixed methods research can contextualize data acquired across multiple levels of analysis (Ponterotto et al., 2013).

Despite these benefits and social justice implications, mixed methods research, like all methods, possesses limitations. Mixed methods research does not guarantee a study’s quality nor does it inherently uplift BIPOC individuals in research. Indeed, mixed methods research could be used to center White narratives and/or to reify Whiteness as normative, ultimately perpetuating exclusion rather than inclusion. It could also be undertaken in a manner that prioritizes values like objectivity and neutrality rather than equity (i.e., equal access and opportunity for all people) and social action. Thus, to ensure that mixed methods research aligns with social justice values, it must be guided by a framework that explicitly embraces social justice at its core.

Intersectional Mixed Methods Research and its Application to Diversity Science in Psychological Inquiry

We assert that intersectional mixed methods research is a distinct methodological approach that mixes quantitative and qualitative methods into a single study within an intersectionality framework. We also propose that intersectional mixed methods research includes various tenets and purposes that make it a premier methodology when it comes to centering multiply marginalized BIPOC individuals. In this way, intersectional mixed methods research is a promising and innovative contribution to diversity science in psychological inquiry.

First, consistent with its roots in Black feminism, we affirm that intersectional mixed methods research should prioritize research questions on BIPOC individuals who occupy multiple marginalized identities and social locations of disadvantage within society. We acknowledge that some intersectionality scholars have highlighted the importance of studying interlocking systems of oppression and privilege; in doing so, social locations and systems indicative of privilege can be investigated, challenged, and disrupted rather than ignored and reified as the norm (Moradi & Grzanka, 2017; Shields, 2008). Yet, given the dearth of research on BIPOC individuals in psychology broadly, we argue that intersectional mixed methods research can be used to center minority communities, like multiply marginalized BIPOC individuals, that have typically been underrepresented in psychological diversity science. This also avoids the pitfall of using a diversity focus to attend primarily to the experiences of marginalized groups with relatively more privilege, thereby reifying the systems of oppression that diversity science aims to dismantle. Additionally, centering multiply marginalized BIPOC individuals promotes equal access to representation and protects against intersectional invisibility, or the phenomenon in which individuals who occupy multiple social locations of disadvantage are rendered invisible in relation to those with a single marginalized identity (Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008). Given this tenet, intersectional mixed methods research is an approach that aligns with the social justice values of inclusion and equity.

Second, a tenet of intersectional mixed methods research is that the experiences of BIPOC individuals cannot be distilled into one single reality; rather, there are multiple, equally-valid realities about how intersecting oppressions shape one’s experiences (Bowleg, 2008; Cole, 2009). Intersectional mixed methods research also presupposes that these realities are shaped by structures of power and oppression – structures that are real and exist outside of one’s subjective awareness of them (Hankivsky, 2011). Thus, although power and oppression have been socially constructed over time, they are conceptualized as existing regardless of individual-level perceptions of them. In light of this, intersectional mixed methods research integrates qualitative and quantitative elements to appropriately explore both the subjective and objective aspects of oppression.

Third, and relatedly, intersectional mixed methods research demands that we move beyond studying identity-related variables only (e.g., self-reported discrimination) to also investigating systems-level variables (e.g., structural racism). Psychological research, including within the field of diversity science, has been heavily critiqued for its limited focus on individual-level variables (Moradi & Grzanka, 2017). Although individual differences determine, at least in part, people’s behaviors and attitudes, intersectional mixed methods research situates findings in historical, social, and cultural contexts, and employs both quantitative and qualitative methods within a study’s design to more effectively capture these systems and contexts (Lewis & Grzanka, 2016). Given this, intersectional mixed methods research aligns with a strong and/or transformative intersectionality framework.

Fourth, intersectional mixed methods research presumes that systems of inequality undergird the process of knowledge production itself (Collins, 2019; Moradi & Grzanka, 2017; Settles et al., 2020). For this reason, scholars who conduct intersectional mixed methods research are expected to undermine these power structures. One way this can be accomplished is through critical self-reflexivity that involves researchers removing the mantle of the objective, neutral expert and situating themselves in the research endeavor (Collins, 2019; Collins, 2000). This can include researchers identifying their positionality as researchers and acknowledging their multiple social identities and the interlocking systems of privilege and oppression that frame their interpretation of the data, their assumptions about the methods used, their frameworks for analyses, and the underlying purpose of their research topic. This challenges hegemonic presumptions that such dimensions can be suspended in the service of neutrality and objectivity. It is also imperative that scholars continuously engage in this reflexivity so that they share in the responsibility of ensuring that practices throughout the research endeavor adhere to the values of social transformation with research participants.

The five main purposes described previously (i.e., triangulation, complementarity, expansion, development, initiation; Greene et al., 1989) can each be used in the context of intersectional mixed methods research. Next, we highlight the application of each of these purposes to intersectional mixed methods research along with example research studies in order to illustrate how distinct research questions centering multiply marginalized BIPOC individuals using mixing methods can be addressed by this approach.

Triangulation

In mixed methods research, triangulation has different applications and its praxis is widely debated (Mertens & Hesse-Biber, 2012). Yet, most commonly, triangulation involves using a qualitative and quantitative method independently to assess the same phenomenon, with the goal of seeking convergence and increasing the validity of data findings (Greene, 2007; Greene et al., 1989). A main advantage of triangulation is its attempts to validate, or enhance the accuracy of, research findings by comparing different sorts of data on the same topic. Although the value of validity is debated across philosophical and methodological traditions, triangulation from a mixed methods perspective neither privileges quantitative or qualitative data (Hesse-Biber, 2012). Rather, both methods are viewed as different and legitimate perspectives on interpreting each source of data (Hesse-Biber, 2012).

An example of an intersectional mixed methods research study using a triangulation purpose could adopt a convergent mixed methods design to characterize the nature of gay men of color’s concerns regarding stigma in the context of seeking mental health treatment. Researchers could enroll gay men of color in a study where they are asked in an interview context about how their help-seeking stigma-related concerns have evolved over time. Questionnaires about stigma and help-seeking use could be administered across time points. Data findings could then be examined to assess points of convergence, with qualitative findings substantiating quantitative findings and vice versa. In the context of intersectional mixed methods research, ensuring the validity of data findings can also include involving data participants in the interpretation of quantitative and qualitative data (Torrance, 2012). This approach mirrors practices, like member checks, that are often employed in qualitative studies to ensure data accuracy (Torrance, 2012). A benefit of this approach is that it addresses issues of power by challenging a researcher’s “expert” ability to interpret data without participation from community members (Torrance, 2012). Moreover, if convergence is not achieved, quantitative and qualitative data can be put into dialogue with each other through the use of participant review groups who can offer improved interpretations on both sets of findings (Fielding, 2012). In this way, triangulation can be used to envision new ways to achieve validity in diversity science psychological inquiry – ways that balance data accuracy with community participation and ownership from multiply marginalized BIPOC individuals.

Complementarity

Complementarity involves using results from one method to elaborate on, illustrate, and/or enhance findings from another method. In a complementarity approach, the topics assessed using quantitative and qualitative methods largely overlap, but also have distinct elements (in contrast to a triangulation purpose). A complementarity approach can entail investigating both subjective and objective aspects of BIPOC individual’s experience, identify patterns as well as explain why these patterns exist, or characterize both common and distinct experiences among BIPOC individuals who experience multiple forms of marginalization. To illustrate this, we reimagine prior work examining the impact of the 2016 presidential campaign on preterm birth experiences in Latina women (Gemmill et al., 2019). If conducted as an intersectional mixed methods complementarity research study, the researchers could employ an explanatory sequential design in which quantitative surveys are administered to identify a link between election stress and preterm birth during this period for this population. These results could then be followed up by a qualitative visual content analysis method in which television news images and texts are analyzed with attention to the levels of meaning in reports about Latinx communities. Combining themes from visual images and texts with quantitative results contextualizes women’s experiences by highlighting how anti-immigration and racist media representations create a caustic environment for Latina pregnant women during election cycles.

A complementarity intersectional mixed methods research approach is useful for research on multiply marginalized BIPOC individuals specifically because it employs an intersectional framework to both identify patterns relevant to BIPOC individuals and explain why these patterns may exist in a single study. For example, the published quantitative data on this topic could establish a pattern between election stress and preterm births for Latina women whereas qualitative findings could further explicate the nature of incessant, racist media coverage during election cycles. This could inform the identification of innovative strategies to address election stress at the individual level, such as the creation of culturally-responsive compassion-based interventions. Yet, these findings could also inform novel strategies for addressing election stress at the system level, such as pushing policymakers to institute accountability measures for news outlets that disseminate racist rhetoric and images and/or to fund public messaging campaigns that teach national audiences how to protect themselves from misinformation. This attention to both individual-level and systemic-level phenomena is beneficial because it protects against placing the onus of responsibility for change on individuals rather than on systemic causes.

Expansion

Another purpose of intersectional mixed methods research is expansion – the extension of the breadth of inquiry by utilizing different methods for different inquiry components (Greene et al., 1989). This differs from complementarity, which aims to use different methods for similar inquiry components, and triangulation, which aims to use different methods for the same inquiry components.

A common application of the expansion purpose is program evaluation; in this context, qualitative methods are used to assess program processes (e.g., needs assessments, implementation) and quantitative methods can be used to evaluate program outcomes (Greene, 2007). Thus, intersectional mixed methods research with an expansion purpose could be used to an evaluation of prevention and intervention programs for multiply marginalized BIPOC individuals. For example, an evaluation of a community-based healthcare center’s ability to meet the needs of Latinx transgender clients could entail a convergent mixed methods design. Qualitative interviews with this client population could reveal client needs, and be analyzed with special attention to differences and similarities that arise within this population (Cole, 2009), especially across other aspects of identity, such as immigration status. Similarities could lead to the identification of shared needs as well as opportunities for coalition building across diverse Latinx transgender clients (Cole, 2009) whereas divergent findings across immigration status could inform priorities for addressing gaps in service provision. Moreover, evaluators could conduct quantitative surveys to examine differences in functional outcome attainment and to assess service utilization patterns for Latinx transgender clients served by the center as compared to other clients. Quantitative assessments could also be used to identify factors that predict and/or explain these differences and patterns.

Implementing these methods within a single study could provide a comprehensive understanding of the desired needs and services for this client group while also providing clear direction to the center for addressing gaps. Further, a study like this takes into account personal needs that emerge in light of one’s intersectional experiences while also moving beyond this level of analysis by incorporating the evaluation of setting level characteristics, like resource availability, of community centers. Thus, a study like this begins to offer insight regarding the extent to which community resource centers serve as “sites of radical possibility” (hooks, 1990, p.149) – sites that help people attenuate, circumvent, or resist the psychosocial consequences of oppression – and, if so, for whom.

Development

Development involves sequentially using the results from one method to inform a second method (e.g., to assist in methodological decisions). In intersectional mixed methods research specifically, scale construction studies provide multiply marginalized BIPOC individuals the opportunity to describe their distinct experiences in a way that might not be captured by existing measures that have either been normed on white individuals or developed without an intersectional lens. For example, utilizing an intersectional approach, Lewis and Neville (2015) first conducted qualitative focus groups with Black women to better understand their experiences of subtle forms of racism and sexism. They utilized themes generated from the qualitative focus groups to inform the development of a quantitative scale, the Gendered Racial Microaggressions Scale, which is a self-report instrument that measures the intersection of racial and gender microaggressions. Then, they psychometrically validated the scale and found that gendered racial microaggressions were positively associated psychological distress, perceived sexist events, and racial microaggressions. This approach allowed researchers to transform qualitative findings about subjective phenomena into a quantitative scale that could be used for prediction and inference about the effect of a phenomenon on people with multiple marginalized identities (Bandalos, 2018). In addition, Lewis and Neville (2015) found that their intersectional measure captured unique gendered racial microaggressions that were not captured by separate measures of subtle sexism or subtle racism, which highlights the importance of measuring intersectional phenomena.

This type of approach signals that the voices of multiply marginalized BIPOC individuals are to be represented and embraced rather than discarded as indicators of bias and error (Cho et al., 2013). It also centers the voices of these community members in the knowledge development process, which undermines existing power structures that prioritize the researcher’s viewpoints over that of the community’s (Moradi & Grzanka, 2017). When applied to scale development specifically, this approach captures the distinct experiences of multiply marginalized BIPOC individuals and challenges hegemonic notions of what constitutes valid aspects of the phenomenon. By recognizing the limitations of existing measures whose scopes do not extend beyond that of the dominant White culture or that do not take an intersectional lens, intersectional mixed methods scale construction studies for the purpose of development welcome the experiences of marginalized populations into the realm of psychological diversity science. As a result, differences are affirmed as valuable and legitimate rather than treated as problematic deviations from the norm.

Initiation

The mixed methods purpose of initiation involves using different methods to seek paradox and contradiction in order to engender new insights regarding a topic of inquiry. In keeping with this goal, scholars could undertake an explanatory sequential mixed methods design to perform a program evaluation of an after-school learning program serving low-income Black youth. Such a program evaluation could illuminate that, despite falling short of minimum metrics for success set by a government-funding agency, there are various ways the program is valuable beyond these metrics. For example, scholars could gather quantitative data on standard metrics, like staff experience (i.e., amount of time a staff member has worked with children) and education (i.e., a staff member’s degree attainment). Scholars could then invite students to share their perceptions of program features through a qualitative, participatory action research method, like Photovoice (Budig et al., 2018). Students could provide photographs and other images about their perceptions and participate in qualitative interviews regarding the applicability of the funders’ metrics to their lives as well as the ways that the program has made meaningful changes in their lives beyond these metrics. Quantitative metrics may indicate that staff have less experience and education than programs serving higher-income and White children (McNamara et al., 2020). However, photos and qualitative interview data could reveal the meaningful presence of same-race educators and staff given that schools characterized by high-poverty and higher enrollments of students of color are more likely to have higher percentages of teachers of color (Billingsley et al., 2019). Thus, quantitative results that favor staff experience may illuminate a deficit whereas qualitative results that emphasize the value of same-race teachers may highlight overlooked strengths. This approach could undermine the idea that metrics that are meaningful for other groups of youth necessarily have the same meaning for low-income Black youth, and highlight the strengths and value of culturally responsive programming.

A main advantage of the initiation purpose to intersectional mixed methods research on BIPOC individuals is that it permits the extension of our understandings outside of standard assumptions and opinions. This approach explicitly invites challenges to hegemonic narratives, including the researcher’s own narratives, but also the narratives and assumptions of funders, policymakers, and scientific theories. In doing so, this purpose can enrich the study of multiply marginalized BIPOC individuals by welcoming cultural humility into the research endeavor. It is also the mixed methods purpose that has the closest fit with an action orientation, which is inherent to intersectionality. Thus, researchers are encouraged to approach studies in a way that seeks to initiate social change for multiply marginalized BIPOC individuals.

Future Directions: Opportunities, Challenges, and Tensions

To date, the scholarship on intersectionality theory and the literature on mixed methods research have largely developed in silos with limited interdisciplinary conversation about the benefits of their integration. Intersectionality scholars have elucidated some advantages of combining statistical approaches with in-depth narratives (Bowleg & Bauer, 2016; Hankivsky & Grace, 2015; Hankivsky, 2011); yet, in practice, few studies have fully realized what is possible in intersectional mixed methods research, especially in regards to tackling complex questions concerning multiply marginalized BIPOC individuals. Thus, this paper aimed to highlight how intersectional mixed methods research could be used for several purposes to advance research on BIPOC communities and create a socially just psychological diversity science.

Despite its benefits, intersectional mixed methods research is not without its challenges. For one, it is resource-intensive: carrying out mixed methods research can require more time, money, and access to software and person power. This can create tensions for psychologists who feel pressure to “publish or perish” or to comply with traditionally narrow views about what counts as rigorous research. This may leave researchers in a bind in which they must choose between reducing the intersectional focus of their research or risking their ability to get published, promoted, and funded. Some immediate strategies for navigating these tensions include collaborating with interdisciplinary scholars, sharing resources, and incorporating small, manageable qualitative and quantitative aspects into studies.

Another difficulty in conducting intersectional mixed methods research is the fact that scholars may not receive thorough training in both quantitative and qualitative methods, or ways to combine them (Hesse-Biber, 2015). Similarly, scholars may not receive adequate education about social justice theories, like intersectionality, which can impede one’s ability to fully grasp the breadth and depth of the multiple levels of analysis emphasized in intersectional mixed methods research. To account for this, scholars are encouraged to collaborate with others who complement their skillset; scholars with quantitative expertise can collaborate with researchers with sophisticated qualitative training and vice versa and those with more exposure to structural level processes can work with those with less exposure.

Another tension in conducting intersectional mixed methods research is balancing different methodological practices related to reflexivity in research. Although qualitative researchers tend to be aware of the ways that one’s own social identities and positionality inform their research methods and interpretation of the data, it is far less common for quantitative researchers to engage in this process of reflexivity (Morrow, 2005). We argue that it is necessary for intersectional mixed methods researchers to engage in critical reflexivity in order to challenge dominant epistemologies within psychological science – epistemologies that have contributed to epistemic exclusion and the devaluation of certain forms of scholarship and knowledge production, including the unique lens and lived experiences that marginalized scholars bring to work on marginalized communities (Settles et al., 2020). Thus, critical reflexivity in intersectional mixed methods research entails researchers (a) explicitly naming their intersecting identities in research studies, (b) overtly describing how their social locations and positionality affect the research process and methodological decision-making, and (c) actively describing how their biases and blind spots have been addressed, especially when conducting research on multiply marginalized BIPOC individuals (Cole, 2020; Morrow, 2005; Yeh & Inman, 2007).

Another critical challenge is that the fields of intersectionality and mixed methods research are still evolving, which means their tenets and procedures are debated. This generative tension can lead to fresh perspectives, but it can also hinder consensus about best practices and evaluation criteria concerning design approaches, data analytic techniques, sampling procedures, and ways of data reporting and sharing. Yet, such guidelines are necessary for intersectional mixed methods research to gain momentum as a viable methodology in diversity science. Moreover, such guidelines are imperative to support researchers’ confidence and competence in using intersectional mixed methods research. We offer some considerations in Table 1, however, intersectionality scholars are encouraged to create best practice guidelines and evaluation criteria for intersectional mixed methods research while also ensuring that these remain dynamic as the fields of intersectionality and mixed methods research progress.

Table 1.

Checklist for Intersectional Mixed Methods Research

Generating the Intersectional Research Question
✓	Literature. In generating my research question(s), have I attended to the foundational interdisciplinary literature on intersectionality and Black feminism to inform my research design?
✓	Context. Does my research question fully reflect the experiences of multiply marginalized Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) by attending to the historical and structural processes that shaped their lives? Have I considered the historical-structural inequities that have contributed to the problem under investigation? Have I taken into account the context-specific factors, like unique cultural practices and beliefs, which influence the lives of the group members emphasized in my research?
✓	Methods. Does my research question require integrating qualitative and quantitative methods within a single study?
✓	Population of Interest. Does my research question center the experiences of multiply marginalized BIPOC? Does my scholarly investigation ensure equal access and opportunity for multiply marginalized BIPOC in diversity science psychological inquiry?
Selecting the Intersectional Mixed Methods Research Design
✓	Convergent mixed methods design. Is my research question best served by implementing independent quantitative and qualitative study elements and then integrating the results to reach more holistic and comprehensive conclusions?
✓	Exploratory sequential mixed methods design. Does my research question entail conducting an initial qualitative method followed by a subsequent quantitative method in order to build on or test initial qualitative results?
✓	Explanatory sequential mixed methods design. Is my research question best answered by administering a quantitative element first and then following with a qualitative component contingent on and informed by the initial quantitative results?
Identifying the Intersectional Mixed Methods Research Purpose
✓	Triangulation. Do I aim to use qualitative and quantitative methods independently in a single study to assess the same phenomenon with the goal of seeking convergence and increasing validity?
✓	Complementarity. Am I trying to use results from one method to elaborate on, illustrate, and/or enhance findings from another method for the same study question? Am I interested in investigating both subjective and objective aspects of multiply marginalized BIPOC’s experience?
✓	Expansion. Do I desire to extend the breadth of inquiry by utilizing different methods for different inquiry components within a single study?
✓	Development. Do I aim to sequentially use the results from one method to inform a second method (e.g., to assist in methodological decisions)?
✓	Initiation. Is my goal to use different methods to seek paradox and contradiction in order to engender new perspectives and insights regarding a topic of inquiry related to multiply marginalized BIPOC?
Embodying Social Justice during the Research Endeavor
✓	Critical Self-Reflexivity. Do I acknowledge my positionality as a researcher throughout the research process and in the published work? Do I interrogate how my multiple social identities and the interlocking systems of privilege and oppression frame my interpretation of the data, assumptions about the methods used, frameworks for analyses, and my underlying purpose for pursuing this research topic?
✓	Action. Do the implications of my research extend beyond my own research program? In what ways does my research inform social change agendas, movements, and policies? How can I use my work to contribute to radical systems change efforts to improve the lives of all people?
✓	Community. Have I invited members from the community under investigation to help with developing my research question(s), informing the data collection processes, or shaping my conclusion and steps for future research?

Note: This figure is informed by the Checklist for Intersectional Research on Perceived Racism created by Dr. Jioni A. Lewis and Dr. Patrick R. Grzanka (2016) in Applying intersectionality theory to research on perceived racism. In A. N. Alvarez, C. T. H. Liang, & H. A. Neville (Eds.), The cost of racism for people of color: Contextualizing experiences of discrimination (pp. 31–54). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

In conclusion, intersectional mixed methods research is one approach to systematically uncover the full range of human differences in a manner that does not reify historical inequities in diversity science psychological inquiry. Intersectional mixed methods research also provides us with a methodological tool to interrogate interlocking systems of power and privilege that maintain these inequalities for multiply marginalized BIPOC individuals. By uncovering and interrogating the multilevel factors that impact those who have been historically underrepresented in psychological diversity science, we move closer to using our science to inform social change that can dismantle interlocking systems of oppression in order to build an equitable society for all people.

Public Health Statement:

The term “diversity” can be used as a catch-all phrase without clear acknowledgement of who is included or excluded. This can lead to a disproportionate focus on the concerns of marginalized individuals with relatively more social privilege. Therefore, we argue that diversity science requires an innovative methodological approach, such as intersectional mixed methods research, that explicitly centers the experiences of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) who experience multiple forms of marginalization.