768504

other2018
RREXXX10.3102/0091732X18768504Review of Research in EducationTefera et al.: Introduction

Introduction
Intersectionality in Education: A Conceptual Aspiration
and Research Imperative

Adai A. Tefera
Virginia Commonwealth University
Jeanne M. Powers
Gustavo E. Fischman
Arizona State University

T he purpose of this volume is to contribute to education research by presenting

comprehensive and nuanced understandings of intersectional perspectives.
Researchers working within an intersectional framework try to account for the
dynamic and complex ways that race/ethnicity, class, gender, sexuality, religion, citi-
zenship, ability, and age shape individual identities and social life. We argue it is
essential to overcome simplistic, static, one-dimensional, and additive approaches to
education research by expanding the use of analytical categories and engaging the
multiplicities of people’s circumstances within and across teaching and learning set-
tings. This volume is our attempt to open a space for analysis, dialogue, and reflection
among scholars about intersectionality, and the possibilities of reimagining the
research tools used to address the complex demographic, social, economic, and cul-
tural transformations shaping education. Ideally, this conversation will reach audi-
ences outside of the academy.
Drawing from a long tradition of Black feminist theorizing and activism, Kimberlé
Crenshaw (1989, 1991) is credited with proposing the term intersectionality as an aca-
demic concept. Intersectionality was also nurtured by the theorizing of women of color
regarding race, gender, sexuality, and other forms of inequality that occurred as early as
the 1960s (Beale, 1970; Chun, Lipsitz, & Shin, 2013; Collins, 2000; Collins & Bilge,
2016; King, 1988; Lorde, 1984; Moraga & Anzaldúa, 2015; Yuval-Davis, 2006).
While it is evident that since its initial formulation there have been robust
academic debates about what intersectionality is and what it means in practice

Review of Research in Education

March 2018, Vol. 42, pp. vii­–xvii
DOI: 10.3102/0091732X18768504
https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18768504
© 2018 AERA. http://rre.aera.net

vii
viii  Review of Research in Education, 42

(Bilge, 2013; Collins, 2015; Levine-Rasky, 2011; Patil, 2013; Salem, 2016),
ideas associated with intersectionality gained particular relevance in the popular
media during and after the 2016 presidential election, which was part of the
zeitgeist that reenergized global political debates about race, gender, immigra-
tion, and religion, although activists were engaging in intersectional organizing
in the years preceding the election.1 As the chapters in this volume demonstrate,
the conceptual and methodological tools associated with intersectionality are not
just being used among academics but also resonating in union halls, nongovern-
mental organizations, civic and community organizations, and a growing num-
ber of conferences, symposia, and edited journal issues (e.g., Hancock, 2016),
including this one.
We consider intersectionality to be both a conceptual aspiration and a research
imperative for education researchers. Incorporating the multiplicity of intersecting
dimensions into our projects and pedagogical actions is becoming increasingly nor-
mative in education research as a field. Engaging with intersectionality in research
demands that our scholarship be oriented toward (a) accounting for the ways that
race/ethnicity, class, gender, sexuality, religion, citizenship, ability, and age, among
other things, shape the structural dynamics of power and inequality in social spaces
and individual identities (Carbado, Crenshaw, Mays, & Tomlinson, 2013; Collins,
2015); and (b) strengthening the synergy between critical inquiry and praxis.
Education researchers need to move beyond one-dimensional or single-axis analyses
that focus on a specific category (e.g., race, class, gender, or ability) or that treat other
categories as epiphenomenal more often. Instead, intersectionality opens up concep-
tual spaces to identify the gaps and silences of single-category analyses and approaches,
as well as the mutually constitutive relationships between categories (Clarke &
McCall, 2013; see also Carbado et al., 2013; Patton, Crenshaw, Haynes, & Watson,
2016).
While it is important to consider the promises of using intersectional analysis,
it is equally important to examine the conceptual and methodological challenges
associated with this approach. An important critique of intersectionality is that it
is narrowly focused on issues of identity. However, this criticism tends to misin-
terpret the role of identity in intersectional analyses. An intersectional approach is
fundamentally oriented toward analyzing the relationships of power and inequal-
ity within a social setting and how these shape individual and group identities.
That is, our identities are shaped by our experiences in social groups and how we
as members of those groups encounter institutionalized social structures. Within
this frame, identity is best understood as a starting point for intersectional analy-
ses and coalition-building, allowing academics and activists within and across
identity groups to address the “multiple grounds of identity” (Crenshaw, 1991, p.
1245; see also Guinier & Torres, 2002; Harris & Leonardo, Chapter 1, this
volume). In other words, intersectionality directs us to attend to both inter- and
intragroup social dynamics (McCall, 2005). This is a necessary step in the process
 Tefera et al.: Introduction  ix

of building social movements that draw on and acknowledge the connections and
disconnections created by participants’ experiences of “discrimination, marginal-
ization, and privilege” within and across different groups (Carbado et al., 2013, p.
306). As Harris and Leonardo (Chapter 1) also point out, engaging with the con-
cept of intersectionality reminds scholars and activists to “be humble and to look
for who is missing in the room” (p. 20).
Because intersectionality is widely understood as a framework to analyze the
experiences of women of color, some critics of the theory argue that it has limited
relevance for understanding the perspectives of other groups. The fact that intersec-
tional analysis was originally rooted in studies focused on the multiple forms of
marginalization that Black women face should not be understood as a limitation.
Rather, intersectionality provides a framework to deliberately account for and exam-
ine the different ways that intersecting social dynamics affect people within and
across groups. Nevertheless, some feminist scholars argue that as intersectionality
travels across time and space, the concept can lose its political and radical edge if it
is used without taking into account the structural inequalities and differential power
relations that contribute to inequality (Carastathis, 2016; Salem, 2016). Furthermore,
as Robert and Yu (Chapter 5) point out, an increasing number of scholars in the
Global South and East are also engaging in research aligned with an intersectional
perspective, demonstrating the potential for new transnational alliances and coali-
tions that include critical race feminism and decolonial thought (Carastathis, 2016;
Lugones, 2010).
Indeed, intersectionality as an aspiration continues to bring both academics and
activists together, because it provides much-needed language, ideas, and references
that are fundamental for finding respectful spaces that allow scholars and activists to
forge alliances aimed at overcoming the long-standing distance and mistrust between
them. We hope that this volume contributes to making this conceptual aspiration a
reality.

Cross-Cutting Issues And Themes

Reading across the chapters in this volume, there are a number of cross-cutting
issues and themes the authors take up that we want to highlight here.2 First, a num-
ber of authors in this issue use metaphors as a way to capture the complex social
locations that intersectional analyses aim to engage. The term intersectionality invokes
a metaphor first described by Crenshaw (1989)—the intersection with two (or more)
roads crossing—which aptly connotes how the convergence of multiple categories
leaves those at the intersection unprotected and thus harmed by the legal system.
Though it was less widely embraced (Carastathis, 2016), Crenshaw (1989) also used
the metaphor of the basement for how antidiscrimination law works, describing a
basement with a hatch; the hatch represents the remedies provided by antidiscrimina-
tion law. In this space, people are standing on top of each other, some on the floor
and others standing on shoulders in order of their disadvantages. The people
x  Review of Research in Education, 42

standing on the floor are multiply disadvantaged, while those at the top whose heads
“brush up against the ceiling” (p. 151) are singly disadvantaged (e.g., White women).
Only the people at the top are able to exit the basement through the hatch or benefit
from legal remedies. As Carastathis (2016) notes, the metaphor of the basement viv-
idly illustrates how the people “left in the basement” (p. 97) are those whose experi-
ences and claims are rendered invisible in the legal process. We find the use of
metaphors to be a particularly useful way of helping us think through the ways that
power, identity, and opportunity collide. Many of the authors in this issue use meta-
phors to expose the ways people who are often silenced, erased, and overlooked navi-
gate complex social realities.
For example, Butler (Chapter 2) draws on historical and contemporary notions of
space—tangible, hidden, and imagined—to bring attention to the spaces in which
Black girls and women live and learn. She defines space as both physical and episte-
mological, and asserts the importance of examining Black girls and women by “nam-
ing spaces where Black women are excluded or included and by whom” (p. 31).
Butler’s notion of “Black Girl Cartography”—the study of how and where Black girls
are physically and sociopolitically mapped in education—draws on mapping and
cartographic methods to elicit stories about place, race, and gender. Similarly, Bullock
(Chapter 6) and Ireland, Freeman, Winston-Proctor, DeLaine, McDonald Lowe, and
Woodson (Chapter 10) invoke the metaphor of figure hiding and (un)hidden figures
to “amend the dominant historical record to include the unlikely and unsung con-
tributors to developments in mathematics and science” (see Bullock, p. 123), includ-
ing those by Black women. On the other hand, Harris and Leonardo (Chapter 1)
interrogate the use of the intersection-as-road metaphor by outlining the limitations
of using a two-dimensional space to elicit such a complex concept. In Crenshaw’s
(1991) original formulation, the metaphor of the intersection helped us better under-
stand the inadequacies of single-axis analyses. These early metaphors can also be
restrictive when they come to structure how we understand the phenomena they are
used to describe. In addition, Harris and Leonardo’s use of their own metaphor, an
ellipse, to describe how “race and gender gravitationally tug on each other” (p. 15)
reminds us that reenvisioning metaphors can also be generative.
A second important theme is the ethical imperative of social justice. Intersectionality
demands both theoretical explorations and social interventions. Annamma, Ferri,
and Connor (Chapter 3) draw on DisCrit and one of its central tenets of intellectual
activism to move beyond singular and deficit views of students of color with disabili-
ties. Thus, the authors call on members of the research community to use DisCrit
and engage in intellectual activism by making visible systemic oppressions, particu-
larly those affecting students/people of color with disabilities. By doing this, they
argue, one finds important opportunities to “refute traditional ways of being in the
academy” (p. 62) and to highlight the “creative and ingenious strategies” (p. 62) that
youth who are multiply marginalized employ as they navigate and make visible com-
plex systems of marginalization. Similarly, Bullock (Chapter 6) argues that by
embracing intersectionality, critical mathematics educators can bridge what are
 Tefera et al.: Introduction  xi

currently siloed approaches to addressing inequalities in mathematics education,

because to “fully interrogate the matrix of domination” scholars will need to collabo-
rate across “ism groups” (p. 142). Bullock notes that these collaborations can serve as
the foundation for collaborative justice communities aimed at “directly confronting
the multiplicative effects of injustice and oppression” (p. 142). At the same time,
Robert and Yu (Chapter 5) caution us that intersectionality can also be “theorized
and re-theorized into academic talk” and that as the concept becomes more fre-
quently engaged by academics, it can become an empty “buzzword” (p. 97; see also
Davis, 2008; Harris & Leonardo, Chapter 1).
The ethical imperative of intersectionality also demands that scholars interrogate
our epistemological standpoints and recognize the contributions of seminal scholar-
ship, such as Black feminism, that opened up new ways of seeing and doing educa-
tion research. This requires critically reflecting on how we engage in one of the most
revered practices of the academy—citing other scholars’ work. In their review of how
the concept of intersectionality has been deployed in education, Harris and Leonardo
(Chapter 1, pp. 15) note that in “key instances,” authors’ engagement with the term
is aligned with Crenshaw’s (1991) formulation. Yet Agosto and Roland (Chapter 11)
found examples of citation practices in the field of educational leadership that did not
attribute intersectionality to central scholars such as Crenshaw (1991) and Collins
(2015). Robert and Yu (Chapter 5) observed that the intersectionality literature from
the southern hemisphere was largely disconnected from the seminal theoretical argu-
ments from the United States, which they suggest may reflect the need for local theo-
ries in these settings. This “lack of citation disconnects intersectionality from its
genealogical trajectory” (Agosto & Roland, Chapter 11, p. 275) and reaffirms “figure
hiding” (Bullock, Chapter 6) or the erasure of bodies that intersectionality so delib-
erately aims to make visible. Alternatively, Butler (Chapter 2) asserts the importance
of recognizing the work of “Black Girl Cartographers,” or Black Girl scholars, and the
researchers responsible for opening up spaces for intersectional Black feminism. The
concern with citation practices also highlights another dilemma that is posed as a
concept moves into new epistemological and analytical spaces: How do we extend
intersectionality as a knowledge project while also acknowledging the important and
foundational work that helped bring us to those spaces? That is, as intersectionality
travels, researchers engaging with the concept have to be careful that they do not erase
the significant contributions that Black women and other women of color have
made, historically and contemporarily, to the concept while simultaneously mapping
how it could enrich and extend seminal work in their own fields (McCall, 2005; see
also Bilge, 2013).
At the same time, Harris and Leonardo’s paired reviews of how intersectionality
has been taken up as an analytic framework in the fields of law and education vividly
illustrates how intersectionality has been engaged unevenly within and across fields
(Chapter 1). They observe that the voluminous legal literature on intersectionality
consists largely of secondary analyses by legal scholars; yet the concept and practices
implied by intersectionality have had little traction in the field. In other words,
xii  Review of Research in Education, 42

practitioners—lawyers, judges, and legislators—continue to view civil rights claims

in terms of a single dimension of discrimination. This is the central problem
Crenshaw (1989) identified in her seminal analysis of employment discrimination
cases published 29 years ago. In education, intersectionality was initially engaged as
an analogy in Ladson-Billings and Tate’s (1995) generative analysis of Whiteness in
education through the lens of critical race theory. Since then, education scholars
working within the critical race theory paradigm have used intersectionality as “a key
concept that unlocks the education house that race made” (Harris & Leonardo,
Chapter 1, p. 13).
Agosto and Roland (Chapter 11) observe that intersectionality has been under-
used in the field of educational leadership and has largely focused on analyzing indi-
viduals’ leadership experiences as they encounter and attempt to alter unequal social
structures in schools. The authors also explore the possible connections between
intersectionality and transformative leadership, both examples of oppositional knowl-
edge projects. They argue that a more extensive engagement with intersectionality
can deepen the work of transformative leadership by exposing anti-oppressive ways of
relating, knowing, being, and leading, which will help school leaders create more
equitable and socially just educational spaces. Similarly, Butler (Chapter 2) reaffirms
Crenshaw’s (1991) call for more complex analyses that include Black girl matters
within intersectionality, given the ways Black girls are often pushed to the margins of
educational spaces, rendering their experiences as invisible in education research. By
introducing Black Girl Cartography, Butler points to a vital and deliberate space for
seeing, hearing, and believing in Black girl matters.
Robert and Yu’s (Chapter 5) review of how intersectionality has been used to ana-
lyze globally circulating educational policies provides insights into how intersection-
ality has traveled to Eastern and Southern contexts and how these travels might
enrich the work of Western and Northern scholars. For example, they observe that in
China, because the state and civil society are dominated by elites, multiply marginal-
ized groups who challenge their relegation to the margins of politics are framed as
illegally challenging the state. Robert and Yu conclude that researchers outside China
can learn from this case that they may need to interrogate their own assumptions
about how social groups are positioned in relation to the state and civil society.
At the same time, Schudde (Chapter 4) observes that the concept of intersection-
ality has not traveled across the methodological divide between qualitative and quan-
titative research, in part because of logistical barriers such as the difficulties of
interpreting complex statistical models and the lack of secondary data with adequate
representation of the subgroups needed to conduct intersectional analyses using mul-
tiple categories. Taken as a group, these authors suggest that intersectionality is grow-
ing in acceptance but that in many subfields rich and deep intersectional research has
yet to be done.
A number of contributors also point to the ways that intersectionality can be used
to highlight significant problems within a subfield. Thai-Huy Nguyen and Bach Mai
Dolly Nguyen (Chapter 7) use intersectionality to complicate a key analytic category
 Tefera et al.: Introduction  xiii

in the field of higher education, the first-generation student. Nguyen and Nguyen
argue that the lack of clarity and consistency around the term first-generation student,
which paradoxically calls attention to an important and growing group, obscures our
understanding of who these students are and their experiences in higher education
institutions. Here, intersectionality is used to help us see aspects of these students’
experiences that are “rendered invisible” (p. 150). Because it requires researchers to
critically reflect on how individuals are captured in analytical categories, intersection-
ality can help researchers problematize how the category of first-generation student
has been deployed and think through how it can be reimagined to help improve
students’ lives. Similarly, Hernández-Saca, Gutmann Kahn, and Cannon (Chapter
12) call on education scholars more broadly and special education scholars specifi-
cally to build on the work of those in critical special education and disability studies
in education to examine inequities related to the intersections of ability, race, and
language, among others. Taking up the call for a sociohistorical approach to disability
at its intersections (Artiles, Dorn, & Bal, 2016), the authors carefully examine the
voices and perspectives of youth and young adults with disabilities who are multiply
marginalized, demonstrating the dexterity and resilience with which the youth navi-
gate a complex “matrix of oppression” (p. 302). Hernández-Saca and colleagues
thoughtfully push the field of education, particularly special education, to more
deliberately examine education inequities from an intersectional perspective.
Schudde (Chapter 4) identifies a methodological problem—how to incorporate
the rich insights from the large body of qualitative research that has engaged intersec-
tionality into quantitative analyses—and highlights how intersectionality shares
important commonalities with heterogeneous effects approaches in quantitative
research. More important, intersectionality and insights from qualitative research can
provide important theoretical justification for complex statistical models aimed at
furthering our understanding of how intersecting identities shape individuals’ educa-
tional experiences. Ireland and colleagues (Chapter 10) argue that three bodies of
scholarship can be fruitfully synthesized for a better understanding of the experiences
of Black women and girls in STEM fields: intersectional analyses of STEM education
and workforce development, research on the psychology of gender, and research on
the psychology of race. Alemán (Chapter 8) highlights the gaps in educational attain-
ment of Latinx youth compared to their White peers and reviews how scholars have
used intersectional frameworks to better understand how these students experience
and navigate educational settings. These studies have generated a rich set of concepts,
such as racist nativism, gendered familism, and the citizenship continuum, to denote the
complex ways that race, gender, and citizenship (among other things) shape students’
educational trajectories.
Finally, Souto-Manning and Rabadi-Raol (Chapter 9) identify a problem of prac-
tice, how quality has been defined in early childhood education, and use the insights
from critical race theory, critical pedagogy, and translanguaging to critique and reen-
vision the notion of quality. Their critical review highlights how the National
Association for the Education of Young Children’s definition of developmentally
xiv  Review of Research in Education, 42

appropriate practice, the dominant standard for quality in early childhood education,
disenfranchises multiply marginalized children. Souto-Manning and Rabadi-Raol
conclude by proposing intersectionally just design principles for quality in early
childhood education that honor the knowledges, experiences, practices, developmen-
tal trajectories, and intersectional identities of children from the global majority. This
is a critical intervention because it is focused on the assumptions and practices found
in the earliest school settings that students encounter.
Although intersectionality began as a way to examine marginalization, it has also
been used to analyze the complex ways that marginalization and privilege operate.
Robert and Yu (Chapter 5) draw on Choo and Ferree’s (2010) observation that when
intersectionality is used primarily to give voice to marginalized groups, it can also
leave the normative categories that define them as the other unmarked, thereby rein-
forcing deficit assumptions and leaving the structural dynamics that shape group
experiences underanalyzed. In Souto-Manning and Rabadi-Raol’s critique of the
National Association for the Education of Young Children’s articulation of develop-
mentally appropriate practice (Chapter 9), an approach to teaching that also serves as
the foundation for accreditation standards for early childhood programs, they high-
light how White monolingual and monocultural values and experiences are cast as
normative, while the family and cultural practices, knowledges, and experiences of
multiply marginalized students are framed as deficits. Bullock’s analysis of how inter-
sectionality has been used in critical mathematics education research highlights
numerous examples of the ways that privilege is relative and contextual. For example,
in reviewing an analysis of intracategorical intersectionality (McCall, 2005), Bullock
(Chapter 6) observed that English-speaking Latinx students experienced more oppor-
tunities to learn in their mathematics classes than did their emergent bilingual Latinx
peers because they could more easily understand curricular materials and communi-
cate with their teachers. Ireland and colleagues (Chapter 10) also note that there are
some STEM settings where Black women may experience advantage because of gen-
der, race, ability, or social class.

Concluding Thoughts
Taken as a whole, the chapters in this volume highlight how intersectional per-
spectives applied to education research are currently more of a conceptual aspira-
tion than a consolidated comprehensive framework. Thus, it is understandable
that, for some researchers, intersectionality may appear to be a fuzzy concept or a
vague idea that is difficult to accurately measure. The framing and application of
conceptual tools associated with intersectionality may be perceived by some in the
field as ideological posturing more than as a well-defined and systematic model of
inquiry. In short, advocating for the use of intersectionality in education research
may be seen as naive at best and as a dangerously wrong approach at worst. The
latter perspective will probably find fertile ground among those who voice the com-
mon complaints about our field’s lack of a unified and well-codified body of knowl-
edge (Mehta, 2013).
 Tefera et al.: Introduction  xv

Ultimately, we believe, as is demonstrated by the chapters in this volume, that one

of the strengths of intersectionality, as both a concept and an aspiration, is that it
requires researchers to account for complexity and diversity within and across learn-
ing spaces in ways that incorporate quantitative and qualitative methods and perspec-
tives. Instead of adjusting our scholarship and limiting our research questions to what
can be neatly described, counted, measured, and clearly defined, we want to reaffirm
our commitment to embracing the challenges of conducting research that accepts the
irreducible multiplicity of intersecting dynamics of educational contexts. As Carbado
and colleagues (2013) remind us, theory—including intersectionality—“is never
done, nor exhausted by its prior articulations or movements; it is always already an
analysis-in-progress” (p. 304). As an analysis-in-progress, this volume reflects our
moral commitment to contributing to the production of robust and usable knowl-
edge for advancing educational equity and justice.3

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank all of the authors for their time and effort in crafting the chap-
ters of this volume. We are also grateful to the reviewers who shared their expertise and
provided important advice to the authors. We are especially thankful to Vivian Gadsden,
Felice Levine, John Neikirk, and the American Educational Research Association Journal
Publications Committee for their support in making this volume possible, and to Keon
McGuire, Margarita Pivovarova, and Amelia Marcetti Topper for their helpful feedback on
the introduction.

Notes
1Organizations such as the African American Policy Forum are addressing the erasure of
Black women’s lives in social movements related to police brutality, powerfully demanding
the public to #SayHerName (African American Policy Forum, 2018). Similarly, the Black
Lives Matter (n.d.) movement, which was launched by three activists in 2013 in response to
the acquittal of George Zimmerman for the murder of Trayvon Martin, reflects the legacy of
the efforts by women of color to organize around a platform of intersectional justice (Khan-
Cullors & Bandele, 2018).
2This volume is not exhaustive of the topics that could have been included on intersec-

tionality. Our hope is that the chapters in this volume provide an impetus for scholarship
on additional intersectional topics, including LGBTQI (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender,
Queer or Questioning, and Intersex), Indigenous, and religious perspectives, among others.
3We use the term usable knowledge to refer to the intentional processes that enhance

access to and engagement with research-based knowledge, as well as affordances for inquiry
and implementation not restricted to the scholarly community (Fischman, Anderson, Tefera,
& Zuiker, 2018). In this sense, the usability of intersectional analysis could be advanced by the
development of explicit strategies promoting dialogue, reflection, and adaptation—within and
beyond disciplinary, professional, or technical communities—to foster and sustain processes of
conceptual inquiry and/or educational problem solving.

References
African American Policy Forum. (2018). #SayHerName. Retrieved from http://www.aapf.org/
sayhername/
xvi  Review of Research in Education, 42

Artiles, A. J., Dorn, S., & Bal, A. (2016). Objects of protection, enduring nodes of differ-
ence: Disability intersections with “other” differences, 1916–2016. Review of Research in
Education, 40, 777–820.
Beale, F. M. (1970). Double jeopardy: To be Black and female. In R. Morgan (Ed.), Sisterhood
is powerful (pp. 340–352). New York, NY: Random House.
Bilge, S. (2013). Intersectionality undone: Saving intersectionality from feminist intersection-
ality studies. Du Bois Review, 10, 405–424.
Black Lives Matter. (n.d.). Herstory. Retrieved from https://blacklivesmatter.com/about/her-
story/
Carastathis, A. (2016). Intersectionality: Origins, contestations, horizons. Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press.
Carbado, D. W., Crenshaw, K. W., Mays, V. M., & Tomlinson, B. (2013). Intersectionality:
Mapping the movements of a theory. Du Bois Review, 10, 303–312.
Choo, H., & Ferree, M. (2010). Practicing intersectionality in sociological research: A critical
analysis of inclusions, interactions, and institutions in the study of inequalities. Sociological
Theory, 28, 129–149.
Chun, J. J., Lipsitz, G., & Shin, Y. (2013). Intersectionality as a social movement strategy:
Asian immigrant women advocates. Signs, 38, 917–940.
Clarke, A. Y., & McCall, L. (2013). Intersectionality and social explanation in social science
research. Du Bois Review, 10, 349–363.
Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of
empowerment (2d ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Collins, P. H. (2015). Intersectionality’s definitional dilemmas. Annual Review of Sociology,
41, 1–20.
Collins, P. H., & Bilge, S. (2016). Intersectionality. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist cri-
tique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of
Chicago Legal Forum, 189, 139–167.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence
against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 46, 1241–1299.
Davis, K., 2008. Intersectionality as buzzword. Feminist Theory, 9, 67–85.
Fischman, G. E., Anderson, K. T., Tefera, A. A., & Zuiker, S. J. (2018). If mobilizing edu-
cational research is the answer, who can afford to ask the question? An analysis of faculty
perspectives on knowledge mobilization for scholarship in education. AERA Open, 4(1),
1–17.
Guinier, L., & Torres, G. (2002). The miner’s canary. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Hancock, A. M. (2016). Intersectionality: An intellectual history. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Khan-Cullors, P., & Bandele, A. (2018). When they call you a terrorist: A Black Lives Matter
memoir. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
King, D. K. (1988). Multiple jeopardy, multiple consciousness: The context of a Black femi-
nist ideology. Signs, 14(1), 42–72.
Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. F. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers
College Record, 97(1), 47–65.
Levine-Rasky, C. (2011). Intersectionality theory applied to whiteness and middle-classness.
Social Identities, 17, 239–253.
Lorde, A. (1984). Sister outsider: Essays and speeches. Berkeley, CA: Crossing Press.
Lugones, M. (2010). Toward a decolonial feminism. Hypatia, 25, 742–759.
McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs, 30, 1771–1800.
 Tefera et al.: Introduction  xvii

Mehta, J. (2013). How paradigms create politics: The transformation of American educational
policy, 1980–2001. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 285–324.
Moraga, C., & Anzaldúa, G. (Eds.). (2015). This bridge called my back: Writings by radical
women of color (4th ed.). Albany: SUNY Press.
Patil, V. (2013). From patriarchy to intersectionality: A transnational feminist assessment of
how far we’ve really come. Signs, 38, 847–867.
Patton, L. D., Crenshaw, K., Haynes, C., & Watson, T. N. (2016). Why we can’t wait:
(Re)examining the opportunities and challenges for Black women and girls in education.
Journal of Negro Education, 85, 194–198.
Salem, S. (2016). Intersectionality and its discontents: Intersectionality as traveling the-
ory. European Journal of Women’s Studies. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/
1350506816643999
Yuval-Davis, N. (2006). Intersectionality and feminist politics. European Journal of Women’s
Studies, 13, 193–209.