CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,698Feminist Theory and Gender StudiesGender, Health, and Social InequalityQualitative Comparative Analysis Research

Practicing Intersectionality in Sociological Research: A Critical Analysis of Inclusions, Interactions, and Institutions in the Study of Inequalities

Choo, Hae Yeon, Ferree, Myra Marx·2010·Sociological Theory
DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9558.2010.01370.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In this article we ask what it means for sociologists to practice intersectionality as a theoretical and methodological approach to inequality. What are the implications for choices of subject matter and style of work? We distinguish three styles of understanding intersectionality in practice: group-centered, process-centered, and system-centered. The first, emphasizes placing multiply-marginalized groups and their perspectives at the center of the research. The second, intersectionality as a process, highlights power as relational, seeing the interactions among variables as multiplying oppressions at various points of intersection, and drawing attention to unmarked groups. Finally, seeing intersectionality as shaping the entire social system pushes analysis away from associating specific inequalities with unique institutions, instead looking for processes that are fully interactive, historically co-determining, and complex. Using several examples of recent, highly regarded qualitative studies, we draw attention to the comparative, contextual, and complex dimensions of sociological analysis that can be missing even when race, class, and gender are explicitly brought together.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-9558.2010.01370.x

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The intersectional perspective emphasizes that status beliefs are not based solely on the applicant's gender but represent compounded beliefs about multiple groups.

    “A second conceptual framework concerning status beliefs is the intersectional perspective, which emphasizes that status beliefs are not based solely on the applicant's gender but rather represent compounded beliefs about multiple groups (Choo and Ferree 2010;Crenshaw 1989).”

    From Getting a Foot in the Door: A Meta-Analysis of U.S. Audit Studies of Gender Bias in Hiring (2025) · cites this paper as Choo and Ferree 2010

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Choo, H. Y., & Ferree, M. M.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Corresponding author
Choo, Hae Yeon
ORCID
Venue
Sociological Theory
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2010-06
Volume
28
Issue
2
Pages
129-149
ISSN
  • 0735-2751 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9558
DOI
10.1111/j.1467-9558.2010.01370.x
OpenAlex
W1985454503
Cited by
1,698
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 68 · 2025: 92 · 2024: 118 · 2023: 147 · 2022: 148 · 2021: 142 · 2020: 200 · 2019: 146 · 2018: 144 · 2017: 95 · 2016: 91 · 2015: 78 · 2014: 78 · 2013: 76 · 2012: 46
FWCI
106.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Sociological Theory (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Feminist Theory and Gender Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Gender, Health, and Social Inequality
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
Keywords
intersectionality, inequality, multiple marginalization, institutions, race, class, and gender, co-determination, comparative analysis, contextual analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review