Accepted on 18 Jan 2023            Submitted on 24 Aug 2022

Introduction

Child welfare researchers have examined the potential influences of a variety of social identities on the trajectories and outcomes of children and families involved in this system, including race, ethnicity, gender, and disability (e.g., Pelton 2015; Wilson & Kastanis 2015). We argue that considerations of the disability community within the child protection sector are well-served using an intersectional analytical lens. The concept of intersectionality is about the interrelatedness of our multiple social identities. Further, it is about how these combinations of social identities affect our self-perception and how we are viewed and treated by other individuals, groups, institutions, and larger social structures (Slayter 2016).

This paper intends to study the application of this theoretical framework as it relates to children and parents with disabilities by exploring how intersectionality is examined in the child welfare literature in the context of disability. It is our contention that the study of intersectionality as it relates to the disability community remains critical due to persistent scarcity of scholarship on the subject matter in a broad sense, and specifically in the child protection and welfare context (Flynn 2021). Intersectionality provides a framework for considering the person as a whole, their identities and complexities. No longer can a siloed approach be taken to policy and practice as it traditionally looks at social identities singularly which at times is counter intuitive to the well-being of the individual and broader disability communities. Accordingly, we examine the scope of scholarship to date addressing intersectionality and disability.

Intersectionality as a Conceptual Framework in Child Welfare and Child Protection Literature

The intersectionality framework theorizes that ‘people simultaneously occupy multiple positions within the socio-political and structural fabric of society’ (Ortega & Faller 2011: 31). Use of an intersectional lens may expose potential inequities in child welfare processes and outcomes that are not produced or maintained by a single factor (such as ableism or racism). Instead, inequities may exist due to the complex interactions between multiple manifestations of privilege and oppression or advantage and disadvantage at interpersonal and institutional levels (Lawrence & Keleher 2004).

The explicit use of intersectionality as framework is relatively recent in child welfare literature. The earliest point at which a critical mass of articles appears in the literature is around 2008 with primary focus on the intersections of race and gender as opposed to service response and need (Cho et al. 2013; Corus & Saatcioglu 2015; Steinfield et al. 2019). This is likely linked to the initial articulation of intersectionality within Black American feminism, or womanism, as a necessary co-consideration of racism and sexism (Howe 2009). As attention to intersectionality in child welfare has increased, inclusion of other identities, including disability, has grown (see, for example, Johnson et al. 2020; Wehbi & Lakkis 2010). This expanded inclusion of identities has also been influenced by the national and cultural contexts in which intersectionality in child welfare is being explored.

Most of the applications of intersectionality in the child welfare literature have focused on practice and theory (e.g., Ortega & Faller 2011). More recently published articles in this area include those employing intersectionality in statistical (e.g., Nadan et al. 2015) and policy (e.g., Williams-Butler et al. 2020) analyses. This growing body of literature addresses the ways in which ‘…intersectionality is important for understanding connections, client characteristics and behaviour, for service agencies for developing more holistic service provision, and for organisations in understanding and advancing equity’ (Thomas et al. 2021: 3).

Study aims

The present study is guided by two study aims. The first aim is to determine how intersectionality is listed in the child welfare literature in the context of disability. The second aim is to describe how and to what extent researchers integrate, embed, and engage intersectionality in the conduct of their research studies.

Methodology

The method of this paper was critical literature review informed by scoping review strategies, with qualitative thematic analysis to help us to produce descriptive patterns (Silverman 2017). Critical literature review is a desk-based method and form of secondary data analysis (Jesson & Lacey 2006; Jesson et al. 2011). As one sub-type of literature review, it involves analysis and synthesis of secondary data (Grant & Booth 2009). An a priori protocol for the review was developed, informed by the Joanna Briggs Methods Manual for Scoping Reviews (Peters et al. 2020), which went through several iterations. The central research question was ‘what is the conceptualization of intersectionality in child welfare and child protection practice globally in the context of disability?’ Both child welfare and child protection were included in the question as child welfare encompasses child protection, and in many practice contexts, these terms are used interchangeably. Development of the electronic database search strategy for the review utilised McGowan et al. (2016) PRESS guidelines. To assist with application of the PRESS Guidelines (McGowan 2016), a subject librarian was liaised with in February 2021. The subject librarian provided advice and guidance but did not undertake any of the searches for literature or carry out research work.

Predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to select the sample of documents for analysis and add transparency to the research (Tight 2019). Inclusion criteria comprised material based in qualitative and/or quantitative research strategies; literature of any publication status; and literature derived from peer-reviewed journal articles, books and book chapters, and reports. Exclusion criteria included publications older than 2010 that were not ‘seminal’ as defined in line with the Cambridge Dictionary as ‘containing important new ideas and having a great influence on later work’ (Cambridge University 1995). Researchers decided if an article contained important new ideas or influenced later work by reviewing the article and then discussing whether there was agreement about an article meeting these criteria. In practice, researchers showed strong consensus about this.

Material published in a language other than English and literature that focused on one or more identities without taking an intersectional approach as a central theme were excluded. Researchers determined if an article took an intersectional approach based on using their expertise on intersectionality. Finally, research studies deemed to be of insufficient quality as determined using the Caldwell, Henshaw, and Taylor (2011) research critique framework, as well as the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) framework (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme 2018) were omitted, as well as journals that required hand searching.

To improve the quality and reliability of the process, duplicate electronic database searches and duplicate data extraction work on a sample of two papers was undertaken to check for consistency in coding and searching across researchers, as well as perform a pilot test of the method. Specifically, this pilot test was undertaken by analysing two papers separately and then bringing together the findings to check if there was proper consistency between researchers who acted in isolation. Once satisfied that there was consistency and the method worked well, the researchers were confident that they would later be able to proceed to the main analysis of all articles. Electronic database searches of keyword, title, and abstract for the final sample were undertaken between April 7, 2021, and May 1, 2021. Electronic databases were searched from three universities in the United States of America, Australia, and Ireland using the following databases: Psychology and Behavioral Science Collection, PsychArticles, PsycINFO, PubMed, Academic Search Complete (ASC), Social Work Abstracts, Socindex, Taylor & Francis Online, Proquest, Applied Social Sciences Indexes and Abstracts (ASSIA), Primo Search (a higher education library search engine which uses a simple intuitive search function across databases and catalogues), and Social Science Premium Collection (SSPC). These databases are academic databases utilised by social science researchers and cover the scope of this scoping review. Keywords with truncation, phrasing and Boolean Operators within search strings are illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1 

Key words and search strings.

Retrieval of results within electronic database searches were recorded by each researcher with reference to the search date, database search terms, results retrieved and any comments. The reference management tool EndNote was used to collect the initial sample of 236 documents and to remove duplicates. To then refine the sample further, sources were ‘scan read’ in line with Fabianowska (2018) using Jesson and colleagues’ (2011) adaption of Hart’s (2003) questions:

What are the key sources? What are the key theories, concepts and ideas? What are the key epistemological and ontological grounds for the discipline? What are the main questions and problems that have been addressed to date? How has knowledge in the topic been structured and organised? How have approaches to these questions increased our understanding and knowledge? What are the origins and definitions of the topic? What are the major issues and debates about the topic? (p. 86)

Scan-reading and hand searching documents from the EndNote library, taking account of the study’s central research question and guiding questions, refined the existing sample down to 38 for analysis. At this stage, qualitative thematic analysis began by coding the sample toward producing themes (Bryman 2016; Silverman 2017). This involved applying a predetermined framework that had been pilot tested resulting in amendments. Each document was coded using the framework for 23 separate indicators, including identifying how disability was operationalised in the document and whether intersectionality was applied theoretically in the document. The researchers also engaged in additional moderation around disagreement about coding of presence of intersectionality versus depth of meaning/presence of intersectionality. Information extracted from documents under each indicator were inputted on an excel spreadsheet including, where relevant, excerpts and page numbers. The result was a visual chart, similar to that produced within the framework method of analysis (see Gale et al. 2013). At this juncture, researchers critically discussed the preliminary findings and identified that several documents within the sample did not sufficiently fall within the scope of the central research question. Therefore, the sample was refined further, leading to the exclusion of an additional 17 documents, resulting in 21 documents that met the full parameters of the study. Finally, themes were extracted and named based on the final reduced spreadsheet. The PRISMA-ScR 2018 (Tricco et al. 2018) was consulted to inform review reporting including presentation of findings in this paper. Findings were illuminating with interesting patterns and perceived omissions which will be presented later in this paper. Overall, the purpose of the method was to establish if there was a genuine intersectional approach taken to matters relating to disability and child protection practice in the articles that were analysed within the sample.

Summary of Final Sample

As could be expected, there was both variance and continuity presented in the final sample of articles (n = 21) insofar as all pertained to intersectionality, child protection and disability. Some articles had a criminogenic sub-focus in their subject matter such as Shade and colleagues’ (2011) examination of parenting and incarcerated adolescent fatherhood, and the exploration of African American youth cross over from child welfare to juvenile justice system presented by Marshall and Haight (2014). The latter focus on juvenile justice also presented in Lüdtke and colleagues (2018) who considered adolescent mental health, institutional placements, and youth welfare, whilst Goodkind and colleagues (2013) furnished a second examination of the transition from child welfare to juvenile justice, this time in terms of experiences. Alternatively, adoption was more pertinent in some studies such as Johnson and colleagues (2020), who examined adoption outcomes from foster care, and Harris and Ford (2017) who examined Single Mothers by Choice (SMC) and adoption.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning (LGBTQ) and other gender non-conforming identities were to the forefront in studies such as Robinson (2018), who considered youth homelessness, gender segregation, and instability. Similarly, Walls and colleagues (2019) examined transgender identities, discrimination, and likelihood of being a parent, whilst Mountz (2020) explored the families of origin of LGBTQ former foster youth and their trajectories throughout care.

Kobulskey and colleagues (2020) considered child protection investigations outcomes for maltreatment by fathers, whilst Middel and colleagues (2020) examined child protection decision making and post-investigation services in child welfare. Moreover, some studies focussed more on court processes like Bruno (2015) who examined Swedish court orders and Gupta and Featherstone (2016) who were concerned with Black fathers and family court systems alongside child protection.

Several papers placed parents and parenthood in the spotlight, such as Recto and Lesser (2020), who focussed on Hispanic adolescent fathers and Vadivelan and colleagues (2020), who looked at the challenges faced by caregivers of children with cerebral palsy. Specific identity markers were featured in papers, such as Collings and colleagues (2018), that examined differences between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal parents with intellectual disability in the New South Wales child protection system and Kildahl and colleagues (2019), who were concerned with attachment, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), intellectual disability, and inadequate care.

Variance in scope of focus across studies was also anticipated, with Flynn (2020) broadly examining ethnic minority status and childhood disability across Irish safeguarding work, and Cage and colleagues adopting a wider lens on maltreated youth involved with the child welfare system. Alternatively, Sawyer (2012) specifically focussed on the Swedish family assessment setting, whilst Lloyd Sieger (2020) explored reunification in the context of substance misuse. Overall, this final sample of 21 articles, insofar as they probed beneath the surface of intersectionality, child protection and disability, presented us with varied and rich lines of inquiry.

Findings

We report on our findings from the analysis of 21 articles that met our criteria. Of these studies, 42.9 percent were qualitative (n = 9), 23.8 percent were quantitative, 4.8 percent were mixed methods and 28.6 percent were unclear in their methodological approach. The articles came from twelve countries, although the majority were based in the United States (n = 12). Other countries included in the sample were Australia, Belgium, England, Germany, India, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Rwanda, Sweden, and Switzerland. Most of the articles were published in the latter three years of the time frame considered: 2018 (n = 3), 2019 (n = 2), and 2020 (n = 9). The disabilities referenced in the studies were primarily mental health disorders, at 61.9 percent of the sample. Our summary of the types of disabilities noted in these articles presented in Table 1 is characterized according to the way types were noted in the literature versus according to a standardized disability classification system. This is also the case for descriptive terminology utilized by original authors of the studies included in this review.

Table 1

Percentage (%) of Referenced Disabilities in Final Sample.

TYPE OF DISABILITY PERCENTAGE (%) Mental health 61.9 General children’s mental health concern or general impact of maltreatment on developmental outcomes 14.3 Generic disability mentions 9.5 Intellectual/developmental disability, including Autism spectrum disorder 9.5 Cerebral palsy 4.8

The focus of the studies in the sample varied a great deal as shown in Table 2. The largest grouping of studies focused on youth experiences in child welfare (28.6%, n = 6). This was followed by studies that looked at parenting courses, generic child welfare services, family court, child protection investigation, adoption, and parenting experiences at 9.5 percent each (n = 2 each). The topics of family assessment, child substance abuse removal status and reunification and post-investigation services each accounted for 4.8 percent of the areas of focus in the study sample (n = 1 each).

Table 2

Context of intersectional framework in sample articles.

A. ARTICLE ID – AUTHOR B. NATION C. YEAR D. DISABILITY DEFINITION E. CONTEXT OR ASPECT OF CHILD WELFARE (E.G., ADVOCACY, ASSESSMENT) F. WHICH FOCAL SOCIAL IDENTITIES ARE DESCRIBED AS THE INTERSECTIONS IN THIS LITERATURE? G. WHICH OTHER SOCIAL IDENTITIES ARE INCLUDED IN THIS LITERATURE? Shade, Kools, Weiss & Pinderhughes United States 2011 Mental Health Young fathers involved getting parenting classes SES, race, gender, hyperactive kid, school dropout, foster youth, street adolescent, drug dealer, and juvenile delinquent None Goodkind, Shook, Kim, Pohlig & Herring United States 2013 Mental Health and substance abuse Child welfare services Race and gender Mental health status, care- experienced status, age, criminal status, illicit substance user Marshall & Haight United States 2014 Mental Health African American youth cross over from child welfare to juvenile justice system Race/ethnicity and class Cultural variations in patterns of communication, poverty and differences between White and African American communities, low income Bruno Sweden 2015 Developmental Psychology Court orders Age, ethnicity and race and gender Socio-economic status. Gupta & Featherstone England 2016 Mental health (removal cause) Child protection and family court systems Gender, race, poverty status and immigration status Care-experienced status, age, criminal status Lüdtke, In-Albon, Schmeck, Plener, Fegert & Schmid Switzerland 2017 Mental Health Adolescent mental health and institutional placements, youth welfare, juvenile justice Age, gender and therapeutic treatment/mental disorders Placement type Harris & Ford United States 2017 Mental Health Adoption Race, gender and class Sexuality Collings, Dew, Gordon, Spencer & Dowse Australia 2018 Intellectual Disability Investigation triggers and outcomes where engaged in care proceedings Disability, race/ethnicity (Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal) Gender, age, socio-economic status, mental health Robinson United States 2018 Mental health, addiction, health/illness Experiences of LGBTQ homeless youth of child welfare Gender expression, sexuality, race None Cage, Corley & Harris United States 2018 Developmental outcomes Maltreated youth involved with the child welfare system Race, gender Age, ethnicity, socio-economic status. Kildahl, Engebretsen & Helverschou Norway 2019 Autism spectrum disorder, intellectual disability Attachment, ASD and intellectual disability, and inadequate care Disability – Autism Spectrum Disorder +Intellectual disability Age Walls, Kattari, Speer & Kinney United States 2019 Disability in general – not specified Parenting experiences of transgender and gender non- conforming individuals Gender, race and ethnicity, income, sexual orientation, age, educational level, relationship status, and disability status Nil Lloyd Sieger United States 2020 Child mental health, developmental disability Child substance – removal status and reunification Child race/ethnicity and age Parent substance abuse, disability Middel, Lopez, Flike & Grietens England, Netherlands, Germany 2020 Mental health/addiction Post-investigation services in child welfare Ethnicity, gender, immigration status Family mental health issues Kobulsky, Wildfeuer, Yoon and Cage United States 2020 Mental health, emotional and behavioural problems Child protection investigations outcomes Gender and race or care giver Relationship status of parent, age and gender of child Vadivelan, Sekar, Sruthi & Gopichandran India 2020 Cerebral palsy Parental stressors for caregivers Gender, poverty, rural background (low- to mid-income), mother of a child with a disability N/A Sawyer Sweden 2020 Mental health, addiction, health/illness Family assessment setting for child welfare Gender, race/ethnicity, class, Sexuality None Recto & Lesser United States 2020 Mental health/addiction Fatherhood program for people mandated by Child Protection or Juvenile Justice Services Race, ethnicity, age, mental health None Flynn Ireland 2020 Spectrum of disability Spectrum of child protection system work Race, ethnicity, disability Gender Slayter United States 2020 Disability – generic, mental health, emotional disturbance, medical Adoption outcomes from foster care Race, ethnicity, disability Age and gender Mountz & Capous-Desyllas United States 2020 Mental health/addiction Aging-out of child welfare care Sexuality, gender identity, gender Expression None

Within these studies, a range of different social identities beyond disability were considered. These were not consistent across the studies, although race and gender were the most drawn upon social identities. The full list includes race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, gender identity, sexuality, age, parenting status, nationality, poverty status, combined race/ethnicity, gender expression, immigration, juvenile delinquency status, drug dealer status, street adolescent status, foster youth status, school dropout identity, being a hyperactive child, mental health status, rural/urban, income, and educational level. Generally, there was hardly any analysis of disability as it intersected with other social identities.

Treatment of Intersectionality in Child Welfare Literature on Disability

The core of this research was to examine the treatment of intersectionality in child welfare literature on disability. An overview of findings is provided in Table 3 below. Given the rigour of the sample article selection, it was unexpected that less than half (47.6%) of the articles engaged in the intersectionality of child protection or child welfare and disability, and in only 23.8 percent or five of the sample articles was this explicitly engaged. For example, Lloyd Seiger (2020) considered the intersection of disability and child protection in relation to either reunification and/or removal, and Middel and colleagues (2020) articulated the need for consideration of children’s mental health status in and during child protection responses. A further 23.8 percent or five of the sample articles had minimal engagement, such as Kobulsky and colleagues (2020), who focused on the mental health wellbeing (or impact) of parents on both child development and maltreatment, or Mountz and Capous-Desyllas (2020), who covered the familial or intergenerational impacts of mental health within and in the transition from care. There were 11 articles (52.4%) that had no direct engagement with the intersection of child protection and disability, such as Harris and Ford (2017), who considered the intersections of adoptive parents’ identities and the impact on being successful in an adoption process. Of note was the article by Walls and colleagues (2019: 141–142), which had minimal engagement with the topic at hand by clearly stating ‘…More nuanced research unpacking the intersection of disability and gender in regard to transgender parenting might help shed light on these differences’ is required.

Table 3

Analysis of intersectionality content in study sample.

A. ARTICLE ID – AUTHOR H. IS INTERSECTIONALITY APPLIED AS A THEORETICAL LENS, TOOL FOR DATA ANALYSIS OR BOTH? I. INTERSECTIONALITY IN INTRODUCTION OR BACKGROUND J. INTERSECTIONALITY IN LITERATURE REVIEW K. INTERSECTIONALITY IN THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK L. INTERSECTIONALITY IN STUDY AIMS (OVERT OR IMPLICIT) M. INTERSECTIONALITY IN THE METHODS (INCLUDE SAMPLE SIZE) N. INTERSECTIONALITY IN DATA ANALYSIS (OVERT OR COVERT) 0. INTERSECTIONALITY IN FINDINGS (OVERT OR COVERT) IP. INTERSECTIONALITY IN DISCUSSION Q. INTERSECTIONALITY IN LIMITATIONS R. INTERSECTIONALITY IN CONCLUSIONS S. FUTURE RESEARCH T. OVERALL OVERT/COVERT DISCUSSION OF INTERSECTIONALITY Shade, Kools, Weiss & Pinderhughes TL YO YO YO YO YC N YC YO N N N EOC Goodkind, Shook, Kim, Pohlig & Herring YC YO YO YC YO YC YC YC YC YO N OO Marshall & Haight N N YC N N N YC YC YC YC YC YC OC Bruno DA YC YC YO YC YC YC YC YC N N N OC Gupta & Featherstone B YO YO YO YC YC YO YO YO N YO YO OO Lüdtke, In-Albon, Schmeck, Plener, Fegert & Schmid N N N N YC YO YC YC YC N YC YC OC Harris & Ford TL YC YC YC YC N YC YC YO N YO N OO Collings, Dew, Gordon, Spencer & Dowse B N YO YO YC YO YC YC YO N YO YO OO Robinson TL YO N N N N N YC YC N N N OC Cage, Corley & Harris B YO YO YO YO YO YO YO YO YO YC YO OO Kildahl, Engebretsen & Helverschou N N N N N N N N YC N YC YC OC Walls, Kattari, Speer & Kinney B YC YC N YC N YC YO YO N N YC OC Lloyd Sieger B YO YO YO YO YO YC YO YO YO YO YC OO Middel, Lopez, Flike & Grietens B YO YO N YO N N YC YO YO N N OO Kobulsky, Wildfeuer, Yoon and Cage B YO N N YO N YC YO YC YO YC YC OC Vadivelan, Sekar, Sruthi & Gopichandran TL YC N N YO N N N YO N N N OO Sawyer TL YO N N YO N N YC YC N N N OC Recto & Lesser TL N N N N N N YC N N N N OC Flynn TL YO YO YO YO N N YO YO N YO YO OO Slayter B YO YO YO YO N YO YC YO YO N YO OO Mountz & Capous-Desyllas TL YO YO YO N N N N N N N N OO Number n/21 8 TL/9 B/1 DA/4 N 16 14 11 16 8 12 18 19 7 11 11 1 EOC /11 OO/9 OC Overt 11 10 10 9 5 3 6 11 5 6 5 Covert 5 4 1 7 3 9 12 8 2 5 6

Legend

Theoretical Framework = TF; Theoretical Lens = TL; Data Analysis = DA; Both = B; No Mention = N; Yes – Covert = YC; Yes – Overt = YO; No mention = N; Overall Overt = OO; Equally Overt and Covert = EOC; Overall Covert = OC.

Use of Intersectionality Framework in Front Matter, Study Aims, and Literature Review

In the consideration of how study authors used the intersectionality framework in the front matter sections of their papers (Table 3, column H), we noted that 80.9 percent referenced the term. Further, we conducted an analysis to determine whether mentions of intersectionality were overt or covert and found that 70.5 percent of the mentions in these articles were overt. Examples of overt discussions of intersectionality in the front matter of the articles include a discussion by authors Harris and Ford (2017) talking about ‘the racialized, gendered, and classed aspects of our respective processes merited deeper consideration, which prompted us to take on the task of sociologically analysing our experiences through an intersectional lens’ (Harris & Ford 2017: 28).

Examples of covert discussions of intersectionality in the front matter of the articles, on the other hand, include Walls and colleagues’ (2019) commentary in the background section in which they talk generally about the concept. In this example, the authors talk about how ‘the purpose of this study was to examine the differences in the likelihood of being a parent within the U.S. transgender/GNC community and, among those who were assigned a male sex at birth (AMAB) and who are currently on the transfeminine spectrum (AMAB-transfeminine), identify differences in likelihood of parenting based on other identities, as well as describe different aspects of their parenting relationship’ (Walls et al.: 133).

Looking at the study aims sections of our sample of articles (Table 3, column L), we noted that 52.4 percent did not explicitly mention the intersectionality framework. Among the 38.1 percent of articles that did explicitly mention the framework, 62.5 percent gave it an overt mention. An example of an overt mention of intersectionality in the study aim section of the articles is ‘using the framework of intersectionality, this study seeks to determine if maltreated youth involved in child welfare system experience similar patterns of educational attainment as the youth in the general population’ (Cage et al. 2018: 551). An example of a covert mention of intersectionality in the study aim section of the articles is found in the following excerpt from Gupta and Featherstone’s (2016) article:

Drawing upon theories of social justice, this article explores the construction of black men as fathers and contextualises the discussion in relation to gender, race, poverty and immigration issues, as well as the current policy and legal context of child protection work in England. The article examines how beliefs and assumptions about black men can influence how they are constructed, and subsequent decision-making processes. (p. 77)

Our examination of the literature review sections of the 21 studies (Table 3, column J) revealed that 66.6 percent of them explicitly mentioned the intersectionality framework, sometimes labelling an entire section with this or a related term, such as ‘intersecting risk factors’ (Lloyd Seger 2020) or ‘intersections of disability, race and ethnicity’ (Johnson et al. 2020). Of these mentions, 71.4 percent were overt mentions, such as those named above. A covert mention might involve referencing multiple social identities, such as race, class, and gender (Harris & Ford 2017) or talking about ‘multifaceted issues’ (Marshall & Haight 2014: 84).

Use of Intersectionality as a Theoretical Framework, Methods, or Data Analysis Tool

Our review of the study sample included a judgement call about whether the article favoured the use of the intersectionality framework as a theoretical model, a data analysis tool, or as a combination (Table 3, column H). Our analysis revealed that study authors used the intersectionality framework in different ways with respect to this topic. Thirty-eight percent used it as a theoretical framework alone, while another 38 percent used it as a theoretical framework as well as a specific framework to guide data analysis. Nineteen percent of the studies reviewed did not explicitly mention the intersectionality framework as either a theoretical framework or as a tool for structuring data analysis. Four percent of the studies referenced the framework as a tool for data analysis only.

However, looking within the theoretical framework sections of these articles (Table 3, column K), we note that only 52.3 percent of the studies explicitly mention intersectionality, 90.9 percent of which are discussed overtly. An example of overt discussion of intersectionality in the theoretical framework section of the articles can be found in Gupta and Featherstone (2016), who state in the theories of social justice section that they

draw on concepts from critical race theory (CRT) and intersectionality to make a contribution to understanding how macro-level structur