Intersectionality in Educational Research

Dannielle Joy Davis, James L. Olive, Rachelle J. Brunn-Bevel, James L. Olive, Dannielle Joy Davis, Rachelle J. Brunn-Bevel

• Publisher: Stylus Publishing
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781620360989
• Topic: Éducation
• Subtopic: Recherche dans l'éducation

The purpose of this work is to advance understanding of intersectional theory and its application to research in education. The scholars whose work appear in this volume utilize intersectional theory and research methods to work in fields and disciplines such as Education, Sociology, Women's Studies, Africana Studies, Human Development, Higher Education Administration, Leadership Studies, and Justice Studies. The book illustrates how intersectional theory can be used in both quantitative and qualitative education research on college student access and success, faculty satisfaction and professional development, and K-12 educational issues such as high school dropouts and bullying. This book is unique, as no other book ties intersectionality to the research process.Key Features: * Readers will learn the basic tenets of intersectionality and how it can be useful in education research.* Readers will learn how intersectionality can be used to analyze both quantitative (large scale survey) and qualitative (interview, participant observation, and ethnographic) data.* Lastly, readers will learn how intersectionality can be particularly useful in examining the experiences of diverse groups of students attending elementary schools, high schools, colleges and universities, and faculty working at post-secondary institutions.Intersectionality is increasingly being used in research and education. This theory holds great promise in exploring students' experiences in terms of access, success, and outcomes for marginalized groups. In essence, application of the theory promotes critical complex thinking regarding the intersectionality of race, class, and gender and their outcomes.

Part One

Intersectionality and Methodologies

1

Queering the Intersectional Lens

A Conceptual Model for the Use of Queer Theory in Intersectional Research

James L. Olive

As can be seen from the other chapters in this book, intersectionality provides a framework that facilitates analyses across multiple identity structures. Another strength of intersectionality is its complementary nature and the ease with which it can be used in conjunction with other theoretical approaches. In this chapter, I discuss one such union in which the lens of intersectionality is used with that of queer theory. I begin with a brief history of intersectionality, which leads to a discussion of two paradigms that have emerged since its introduction via Crenshaw’s (1989) seminal piece regarding the challenges women of color face. The next section is a historical account of queer theory and an explanation of its underpinnings. Following the overviews of these theoretical frameworks, I present a conceptual model to demonstrate the ways in which queer theory and intersectionality can be used in tandem. Using this model and portions from an earlier ethnographic study, I conclude the chapter with a guided analysis of one participant’s experiences.

The Paradigms of Intersectionality

Intersectionality provides a systematic means by which to critically analyze and deconstruct the interrelations among gender, sex, race, class, ethnicity, and sexuality. Crenshaw first introduced the concept of intersectionality due to her perceived need to address the experiences and struggles that women of color faced that were not being addressed by feminist and antiracist literature. Since that time, the applications of an intersectional framework have become just as diverse as the topics it seeks to address. At this point, “it is not at all clear whether intersectionality should be limited to understanding individual experiences, to theorizing identity, or whether it should be taken as a property of social structures and cultural discourse” (Davis, 2008, p. 68). As such, two paradigms (or strands) have emerged within intersectional research.

The first intersectional paradigm has focused primarily on exclusion. Duong (2012) refers to this line of intersectional research as “descriptive representation” (p. 372), as its focus is on the multiple dimensions of identity. Studies conducted within this paradigm address exclusion in one of two ways. The first approach calls attention to circumstances or situations in which certain identities are being excluded. Examples of such research can be found in the work produced by Black feminist theory scholars who have addressed the exclusion of women of color in White, feminist literature (see Anthias, 1998; Collins, 2000; hooks, 1981). The second approach taken within this paradigm analyzes contexts in which one identity is marginalized in favor of another—for instance, when an individual privileges gender at the expense of sexual orientation.

The second intersectional paradigm endeavors to show how social structures such as racism, poverty, and classism reify essentialized identities and, in doing so, marginalize the inherent diversity within a select group. Research conducted within this paradigm critically analyzes intersecting, hegemonic structures of power rather than human characteristics. As Duong (2012) explains, “rather than responding with inclusion via attention to exclusion, the response from the critical approach is to attend to structures and processes that render the world resistant to fundamental emancipation” (p. 374). Though the primary focus of the previous paradigms may differ, the underlying purpose of intersectional research remains the same—to increase understanding of how certain identities intersect, to illuminate the various ways in which people navigate their identities, and to advocate for recognition and inclusion of all identities.

Queer Theory

Since a comprehensive account of queer theory is beyond the scope of this chapter, what I provide in this section is a brief overview of its history as well as a working definition. Originally used as a title for a conference held in February 1990, the term queer theory was coined by Professor Teresa de Lauretis of the University of California, Santa Cruz (1991). ­Halperin (2003) explains that, from the very beginning, de Lauretis fashioned the term queer theory as a tool whose intention was to upset the complacency perceived to exist within lesbian and gay studies at that time. While de Lauretis may have created the term queer theory, much of what serves as its theoretical foundation rests upon Michel Foucault’s earlier work on the interplay between knowledge and power (Foucault, 1979, 1990).

de Lauretis’s (1991) research focused primarily upon the perpetuation of gender hierarchies since the scholar viewed the terms lesbian, gay, and homosexual as intrinsically chauvinistic. de Lauretis posited that queer theory would provide a tool to critically analyze and circumnavigate the predominantly male hegemonic structures prevalent throughout society. She believed that “the term queer allowed for the possibility of keeping open to question and context the element of race—or class, age or anything else—and its often complicated, unpredictable relationship to sexuality” (Turner, 2000, p. 133).

Foucault’s work related to queer theory focused on the concept of power. One of the scholar’s central tenets was that power is not a tangible item that can be wielded by a dominant group or majority (Foucault, 1979, 1990; Spargo, 1999; Turner, 2000; Watson, 2005). Rather, power is the result of relationships and interactions that occur between individuals or groups, assumes many forms, and is in a state of continuous flux. Foucault theorized that knowledge plays a fundamental role in the distribution of power when it resides on only one side of a conversation. In reflecting on society’s past, Foucault scrutinized the means by which religion, science, and dominant groups made use of their superior knowledge to oppress those perceived to be morally, ethically, mentally, or physically inept. Discourses of the past, or the various cultural “messages” passed down through history, have served as the medium through which new, oppressive identities have emerged for groups looked upon by the majority as deviant. That is to say, rather than actions or behaviors being labeled as abnormal, the oppressed individual is assigned a completely new identity—one society views collectively as inherently inferior and subject to corrective action by those perceived as most knowledgeable or powerful (i.e., police, doctors, etc.) (Watson, 2005).

Though coined by de Lauretis and subsequently built upon Foucault’s theoretical structure, what serves as the crux of queer theory originates from two seminal texts: Eve Sedgwick’s (1990) Epistemology of the Closet and Judith Butler’s (1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. The impetus for Sedgwick’s text stemmed from her desire to address an ongoing debate taking place around the same time between gay and lesbian scholars. This debate involved differing views of sexual identity development, with one side favoring essentialism and the other finding value in social constructionism. Queer theory provided Sedgwick with a much-needed alternate view on human sexuality and desire. Central to this new perspective was the belief that each person’s lived experience is distinctive, so no two individuals share the exact same sexual identity. Judith Butler (1990) expanded the purview of queer theory by asserting that a basic understanding of biology is based on a flawed culture, which considers one gender as superior to the other. In Gender Trouble, Butler used queer theory to argue that the heteronormative nature of society is best challenged through the use of reverse discourses conveyed via forms of satirical actions (i.e., drag). An additional outcome of Butler’s Gender Trouble was the idea that gender, sex, and sexuality are inherently performative and established through repeated acts within society’s discourse.

By its very nature, the term queer resists defining. However, Jagose (1996) provides the following succinct and useful working definition:

Queer [theory] defines those gestures or analytical models which dramatise incoherencies in the allegedly stable relations between chromosomal sex, gender and sexual desire. Resisting that model of stability—which claims heterosexuality as its origin, when it is more properly its effect—queer focuses on the mismatches between sex, gender, and desire. (p. 3)

Those who conduct queer research maintain “an interrogative and, frequently, interventionist position taken on the basis of a skepticism toward the supposedly ‘natural’ undergirdings of human society such as sexuality, race, class, and gender” (Holmes, 1994, p. 53).

Queer Intersectional Analysis

Both queer theory and intersectionality seek to address marginalization in its various forms. When used in tandem, the combination of f...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Foreword
• Introduction
• PART ONE Intersectionality and Methodologies
• PART TWO Intersectionality and K-12 Education
• PART THREE Intersectionality and Postsecondary Education
• PART FOUR Intersectionality and Academe
• Conclusion
• Chapter Reflective Questions
• Editors and Contributors
• Index
• Adpage
• Backcover