Understanding psychology's resistance to intersectionality theory using a framework of epistemic exclusion and invisibility

Abstract

Although intersectionality has become part of the everyday lexicon, the field of psychology has demonstrated resistance to the theory, which we argue reflects epistemic exclusion. Epistemic exclusion is the devaluation of some scholarship as illegitimate and certain scholars as lacking credibility. We suggest that intersectionality has been epistemically excluded because it challenges dominant psychological norms about the scientific process and has been most readily endorsed by psychologists from marginalized groups. We provide evidence that epistemic exclusion has occurred through formal means (e.g., exclusion from mainstream journals) and informal processes (e.g., repeated misrepresentation of the theory). We use visibility theory to highlight the role of disciplinary power in this process, such that dominant psychologists act as gatekeepers. Finally, we discuss how the epistemic exclusion of intersectionality is a barrier to social issues scholarship and social justice in psychology, and offer structural recommendations for intersectionality's epistemic inclusion. Psychologists' awareness of intersectionality continues to grow as the tenets of the theory and the term itself form part of the everyday lexicon. Nevertheless, intersectionality scholars maintain

Intersectionality Research in Psychological Science: Resisting the Tendency to Disconnect, Dilute, and Depoliticize

“…Scholars must work to better embody true intersectional theory and practice rather than allowing intersectionality theory flattening to continue unabated. The dilution of intersectionality theory perpetuates an inaccurate standard that further marginalizes the work of those utilizing intersectionality theory as intended (Buchanan, 2020;Settles et al, 2020). As more work is published using this term the dominant authority on what is and what is not legitimate intersectionality shifts.…”

“…Psychological science has been slow to incorporate intersectionality as a concept and as a framework for conducting research (Settles et al, 2020;Warner et al, 2016). Although there has been an increase in the use of the term, it is rarely centered in mainstream psychology publications, is not taught as a research framework, and is commonly misunderstood and undervalued (Cole, 2009;Rosenthal, 2016).…”

Intersectionality Research in Psychological Science: Resisting the Tendency to Disconnect, Dilute, and Depoliticize

“…Although there has been an increase in the use of the term, it is rarely centered in mainstream psychology publications, is not taught as a research framework, and is commonly misunderstood and undervalued (Cole, 2009;Rosenthal, 2016). As both a theory and an analytic framework, intersectionality has been subject to epistemic exclusion, rendering it largely invisible in psychology and cast to the margins of the field (Settles et al, 2020). When intersectionality is brought into mainstream psychological research, it is depoliticized, disconnected from its social justice frame, and diluted (Alexander-Floyd, 2012;Collins, 2017), typically incorporating more than one social identity (e.g., race and gender) analytically, but failing to utilize the other core components of intersectionality (see Table 1).…”

“…Reviewing the works cited, there appears to be little drawn from the vast work robustly defining and centering intersectionality in its true form, nor work critical of psychology's (mis)use of intersectionality theory (examples include Grzanka et al, 2017;McCormick-Huhn et al, 2019;Settles et al, 2020;Warner et al, 2016). Without drawing on these bodies of work, which are rarely accepted in high impact psychology journals (Settles et al, 2020), and only focusing on mainstream psychology research that calls itself intersectional, the authors would only be exposed to the diluted or "flattened" version that they replicated (Alexander-Floyd, 2012). Being an intersectionality scholar requires reading outside our comfort zones and top tier mainstream psychology journals.…”

Embodied relational praxis in intersectional organizing: Developing intersectional solidarity

“…Grassroots organizing praxis is ahead of psychological theorizing and empirical research in terms of intersectional thinking broadly, and applications of intersectional solidarity specifically (Cole, 2008; Combahee River Collective, 1977/1995). One reason for this lag within our field specifically may be the epistemic exclusion of intersectionality in dominant psychologies (Settles et al., 2020).…”