Empirical Analysis of Intersectionality

Dubrow, Joshua Kjerulf.  2008.  “How Can We Account for Intersectionality in Quantitative Analysis of Survey Data?  Empirical Illustration of Central and Eastern Europe.”  ASK: Society, Research, Methods 17: 85-102.

Socially stratified political participation is an ideal subject to explore intersectionality.  Research in political participation consistently show that disadvantaged groups – measured in terms of their gender, ethnicity, and class — participate less, and thus have lesser influence in government policy and legislation (APSA Task Force 2004, Gallego 2008).  The main question is, to what extent do intersections of disadvantage within gender, ethnicity and class groups influence participation? The main hypothesis is that intersectional identities influence political participation, so that it is lower for those with cumulative disadvantage. 

Cumulative disadvantage implies that the more disadvantaged categories represented by individuals, the lower the probability of political protest.   Cumulative disadvantage is what some intersectionality scholars call the additive approach, where “each dimension of disadvantage creates some distinct advantages and disadvantages that combine by adding onto one another” (Weldon 2006: 242). Other scholars argue for considering explicitly the combination of categories, though this, too, can incorporate the concept of cumulative disadvantage by comparing levels of disadvantage among types of intersections. I examine data according to these two approaches.

NOTE:  The additive approach has been criticized in the feminist literature on intersectionality.  For a discussion of the additive properties of intersections, see Bowden (2008) and Warner (2008).