CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 103Disability Rights and RepresentationFeminist Theory and Gender StudiesGender, Health, and Social Inequality

Weaving Intersectionality into Disability Studies Research: Inclusion, Reflexivity and Anti-Essentialism

Open access
Tina Goethals, Elisabeth De Schauwer, Geert Van Hove·2015·DiGeSt. Journal of Diversity and Gender Studies
DOI 10.11116/jdivegendstud.2.1-2.0075
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Tina Goethals, Elisabeth De Schauwer, Geert Van Hove, Weaving Intersectionality into Disability Studies Research: Inclusion, Reflexivity and Anti-Essentialism, DiGeSt. Journal of Diversity and Gender Studies, Vol. 2, No. 1-2 (2015), pp. 75-94

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.11116/jdivegendstud.2.1-2.0075

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Transportation limitations and inaccessible fieldwork sites create compounding exclusions, particularly affecting researchers with multiple marginalized identities.

    “Transportation limitations and inaccessible fieldwork sites create compounding exclusions [16, 67], particularly affecting researchers with multiple marginalized identities [11, 30].”

    From "I Don't Trust Any Professional Research Tool": A Re-Imagination of Knowledge Production Workflows by, with, and for Blind and Low-Vision Researchers (2026) · cites this paper as [30]

    The introduction (p. 2) and Concluding Thoughts (p. 15) discuss intersecting identities and the exclusion of people with disabilities from research, but not transportation or inaccessible fieldwork sites. Searches for transport, mobility, accessibility, and fieldwork found no passage linking those barriers to exclusions affecting researchers with multiple marginalized identities. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. Buitelaar, M. (2006). I Am the Ultimate Challenge. European Journal of Women's studies, 13 (2), 259-296.
  2. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble . London: Routledge.
  3. Claes, L. (2014). Mensen met een verstandelijke beperking in een vastgelopen situatie: onderzoek naar levenstrajecten vanuit een kruisbestuiving van theoretische perspectieven (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Proefschrift ingediend tot het behalen van de academische graad van Doctor in de Pedagogische Wetenschappen, Universiteit Gent.
  4. Corker, M., & French, S. (1999). Disability Discourse. Buckingham: Open University Press.
  5. Cuádraz, G. H., & Uttal, L. (1999). Intersectionality and In-depth Interviews: Methodological Strategies for Analyzing Race, Class, and Gender. Race, Gender & Class, 6 (3), 156172.
  6. Davies, B., & Gannon, S. (2006). Doing Collective Biography . Maidenhead: Open University Press.
  7. Deleuze, G. (1995). Negotations: 1972-1990 (M. Joughin, Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.
  8. Fine, M. (2007). Feminist Designs for Difference. In S. Hesse-Biber (Ed.), Handbook of Feminist Research: Theory and Praxis . Sage, Thousand Oaks.
  9. Price, J., & Shildrick, M. (1998). Uncertain Thoughts on the Disabled Body. In M. Shildrick, & J. Price (Eds.) Vital Signs: Feminist Reconfigurations of the Biological Body. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  10. Rinaldi, J. (2013). Reflexivity in Disability Research: Disability between the Lines. Disability Studies Quarterly, 33 (2).
  11. Tillman-Healy, L. M. (2003). Friendship as Method. Qualitative Inquiry, 9 (5), 729-749.
  12. Using a Feminist Participatory Action Research Process to Analyse Voices and Debates from the Global South and North. Social Science & Medicine, 74 (11), 1825-1832.
  13. Villa, P. (2011). Embodiment is Always More: Intersectionality, Subjection and the Body. Framing Intersectionality. In H. Lutz, M. T. Herrera Vivar & L. Supik (Eds.) Framing Intersectionality: Debates on a Multi-faceted Concept in Gender Studies. Farnham: Ashgate.
  14. Walmsley, J. (2001). Normalisation, Emancipatory Research and Learning Disability, Disability and Society , 16 (2), 187-205.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Goethals, T., Schauwer, E. D., & Hove, G. V.
ORCID
Venue
DiGeSt. Journal of Diversity and Gender Studies
Publisher
Ghent University
Published
2015
Volume
2
Issue
1-2
Pages
75
ISSN
2593-0273 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.11116/jdivegendstud.2.1-2.0075
OpenAlex
W2460749820
Cited by
102
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
FWCI
0.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • DiGeSt Journal of Diversity and Gender Studies (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Rights and Representation
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Feminist Theory and Gender Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Gender, Health, and Social Inequality
Keywords
intersectionality, disability studies, inclusion, reflexivity, anti-essentialism, research methodology

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