Transdisciplinarity and Intersectionality
Aim of this session
The aim of this session is to introduce intersectionality as a concept and a methodology that shares critical epistemological concerns with transdisciplinarity. Both concepts aim to integrate different forms of knowledge, and both are critical tools for knowledge production. Despite the fact that the ‘traveling of concepts’, in this case intersectionality, might mean that the concept is losing its critical potential (Salem 2016), combing intersectionality and transdisciplinarity can be very fruitful, especially when focusing on social inequalities. Therefore, the aim is to introduce intersectionality as a concept as well as a methodology before discussing its relevance in the different phases of a transdisciplinary endeavor (see section 1, session 3).
Links to transdisciplinary research and teaching
This session is primarily about intersectionality, thus also the reading (Hunting, 214) is about intersectionality. (Note: It is expected that transdisciplinarity as a concept has already been introduced in the previous section.) Intersectionality is presented here as a methodology which helps to conceptualise a transdisciplinary project. Intersectionality can assist with: discussing and deciding whose meaningful participation and knowledge is needed in a transdisciplinary project, reflecting on the relevance of social categories; and advancing the understanding in transdisciplinary projects how, for example, ethnic or gender expressions and meanings are co-constituted by other social locations (like age, sexuality, ethnicity, geography, political context etc.).
However, this presentation can also be used as an introduction into intersectionality, which could be done focusing primarily on the slides about intersectionality.
Summary of main points
To introduce intersectionality as a concept and methodology
To present and discuss similarities between intersectionality and transdisciplinarity
To show in which phases of a transdisciplinarity project an intersectional approach can and should be applied
To initiate reflections about social categories and its relevance when conceptualising research projects
Use of reading material
The articleby Gemma Hunting 2014: Intersectionality-informed qualitative research: a primer. Vancouver, BC: Institute for Intersectionality Research & Policy, SFU, focuses on how to apply intersectionality as a methodology, and thus does not so much deal with intersectionality as a theoretical concept. Regarding the session’s aim to present intersectionality as a methodology, this article gives a very good overview and presents many case studies. The participants should read the article before the session takes place. However, the session is only partly based on the article, and thus can be understood without having to read the article. If the presenter wants to focus more explicitly on the theoretical background, then the article by Angelucci Alba 2017: From Theory to Practice. The Intersectional Theory as a Research Strategy. University of Vienna, IfS Working Paper 2 (soz.univie.ac.at/forschung/working-papers), gives a very dense and comprehensive introduction and discussion, and should be read beforehand by the participants.
There is no article focusing specifically on how to connect the two approaches. Therefore, no paper or article bringing these concepts together can be provided.
Additional comments to the presentation
The PowerPoint focuses on intersectionality as a concept as well as intersectionality as a methodology. This gets introduced and explained in detail. If the participants are familiar with transdisciplinarity, it should not be a problem for them to follow the presentation. As far as the presenter is concerned, it might be helpful if, depending on the participants, some slides from the sessions in section 1 get copied and included so as to repeat the main features of transdisciplinarity (e.g. two summary slides of session 1 in section 1). Regarding intersectionality, a lot of teaching material can be found online, since the approach is used in different areas and is increasingly popular. In addition, exercises can be found online. There is a lot of material available, which can be added or used depending on the participants’ backgrounds and interests.
Concluding remarks
On the last slide, additional literature is mentioned which discusses the history of intersectionality, its theoretical embeddedness, methodological reflections and challenges, as well as topics, which are discussed in the presentation.
Reflections
The PowerPoint focuses, on one hand, on intersectionality, and on the other hand, it tries to connect the concepts of intersectionality with transdisciplinarity. If the presentation is used in this way (i.e. presenting intersectionality as a methodology for conceptualizing a transdisciplinary project), then this session will be very demanding, especially since only intersectionality will be discussed in detail, while it is assumed that transdisciplinarity was already introduced and discussed. Therefore, it is important to plan at least 1,5 hours for the presentation, including a Q&A section, as well as the two exercises. If the presenter thinks that a short introduction into transdisciplinarity would be necessary, then the presenter have to add more time to the presentation to revisit the most important aims and features of transdisciplinary referring to the sessions in section 1.
The first exercise(slide 14) is very interactive. The aim is that the participants realize that they do have multi-faceted identities and are belong to different social categories, which intersect and lead to certain privileges, but also result in being discriminated against, depending on the context. This self-attributing exercise is important to reflect on the idea that in research projects we tend to focus often only on one category when we develop a research project, without realizing how this category intersects with others (as discussed in the presentation).
To conduct the exercise, printoutsof the slide (the chart) should be distributed. Each participant should mark (with a colored marker or pencil) where he or she falls on each axis. This exercise calls upon their personal judgment on where the participants stand in each category/axis listed. It is also worthwhile to note that not all social factors are included in this graphic. Some minutes should be giving for the marking.
After marking in the graphic, ask the following questions:
How does the graphic represent intersectionality?
What does marking in the intersectionality graphic tell you about yourself?
Does shading in the intersectionality graphic help you better define and understand the term of intersectionality? If so, how?
These questions can best be discussed in small groups, for 10 to 15 minutes, after which the results can then be discussed in the bigger group. The presenter can summarize the discussion by pointing out again that the concept of intersectionality intends to show that social categorizations are interconnected and that people struggle daily with inequalities and privileges that come with their multi-faceted identities. It does not, however, dictate that individuals are any more or less diverse. (The exercise is adapted from Bonner Curriculum: Exploring Diversity and Intersectionality: http://bonner.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/19289075/Exploring%20Diversity%20%26%20Intersectionality.pdf).
The second exercise (slide 28) is a discussion about a case study summarized in the article by Hunting (2014). Each participant should get a copy of slide 28, read it carefully, and then discuss in small groups the following questions:
What could an intersectional approach avoid here?
What does such an approach make us reflect about?
What could an intersectional approach facilitate?
The aim of this exercise is discuss, again in the bigger group, the aim of an intersectional approach. Therefore, the following points should be presented as they are in slide 29:
Intersectionality cautions against thinking in categories – i.e. making direct links between singular categories of identity (e.g., culture, gender, etc.) and complex social phenomena like violence – which the example reveals. Such direct linkages overlook how categories are mutually constituted as well as how both micro and macro factors (e.g., underemployment, immigration status, colonialism, gender discrimination, etc.) shape domestic violence and barriers to care.
Researchers tend to overlook the intersectional nature of culture, and addressing culture as significant to family violence demands critical reflexivity with respect to:
one’s assumptions or knowledge behind why culture is an important category of analysis (and how this has been shaped);
how culture will (or will not) be addressed in light of this knowledge; and
how this might influence the research agenda, findings or research uptake (e.g. will relations of inequity be addressed or reinforced?).
Importantly, qualitative intersectionality-informed work demands reflectivity. This has facilitated critical insights as to why research problems and populations are often framed the way they are (e.g. the role of power), the implications of this, and how expanding these framings can better address the complexities of health and social issues.
This exercise is a good starting point for the final discussion and Question & Answer round. The final discussion could be started with the questions: did the participants related to the case study? Does the case study have any relevance for them? and What could an intersectional approach mean for their own transdisciplinary or disciplinary research?