CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 13Qualitative Research Methods and EthicsFeminist Epistemology and Gender StudiesGender and Feminist Studies

The Role of Intimate Relationship Status, Sexuality, and Ethnicity in Doing Fieldwork Among Sexual-Racial Minority Refugees: An Intersectional Methodology

Karimi, Aryan·2020·Sociological Inquiry
DOI 10.1111/soin.12316
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Feminist researchers from a range of disciplines have called for consolidation of intersectionality as a methodology. In this article, I contribute to the literature on intracategorical intersectional methodology by drawing on my experiences of conducting fieldwork with 19 gay male Iranian refugees in Canada. Also, by merging the research on intersectionality, sexuality, and refugee studies, I take intersectionality beyond its traditional application on the lives of women of color. I particularly focus on relations between intimate relationship status and insider status, sexuality and internal gatekeepers, and ethnicity and obtaining signed consent forms. Assuming that ethnographers, albeit marginally, participate in or become part of their participant group during fieldwork, I demonstrated the utility of intracategorical intersectional methodology for a systematic examination of power dynamics and the interactions between participants’ and researchers’ markers of identity. I argue that intracategorical intersectionality challenges static definitions of insiderness in qualitative research and provides researchers with nuanced and non‐hegemonic analyses of research process.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/soin.12316

Cites

86 of 86 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?

  • Purposive sampling via a wide network of NGOs and community centres captured rich, nuanced experiences, though this non-probability design limits generalizability to broader refugee populations.

    “Purposive sampling via a wide network of NGOs and community centres captured rich, nuanced experiences, though this non-probability design limits generalizability to broader refugee populations (Ahmad and Wilkins 2025; see Karimi 2020 on similar challenges of snowball sampling).”

    From Wages of whiteness contra refugee in the twenty-first century: Afghan and Ukrainian women’s self-identification as (non)refugees in Canada (2026) · cites this paper as Karimi 2020

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 87 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Karimi, A.
Affiliations
University of Alberta (CA)
Corresponding author
Karimi, Aryan
ORCID
Karimi, Aryan
Venue
Sociological Inquiry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-07-22
Volume
90
Issue
4
Pages
971-992
ISSN
  • 0038-0245 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-682X
DOI
10.1111/soin.12316
OpenAlex
W2964037541
Cited by
13
References
87
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 2
FWCI
2.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
Sociological Inquiry (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Feminist Studies
Keywords
intersectionality, Iranian refugees, insider status, gatekeeping, informed consent, ethnicity, researcher-participant relationship, power relations, fieldwork ethics

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