• Greta R Bauer and Ayden I Scheim.
• Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, London, Canada; Women's Studies and Feminist Research, Western University, London, Canada. Electronic address: gbauer@uwo.ca.
• Soc Sci Med. 2019 Apr 1; 226: 236-245.

RationaleIntersectionality as a theoretical framework has gained prominence in qualitative research on social inequity. Intercategorical quantitative applications have focused primarily on describing health or social inequalities across intersectional groups, coded using cross-classified categories or interaction terms. This descriptive intersectionality omits consideration of the mediating processes (e.g., discrimination) through which intersectional positions impact outcome inequalities, which offer opportunities for intervention.ObjectiveWe argue for the importance of a quantitative analytic intersectionality. We identify methodological challenges and potential solutions in structuring studies to allow for both intersectional heterogeneity in outcomes and in the ways that processes such as discrimination may cause these outcomes for those at different intersections.MethodTo incorporate both mediation and exposure-mediator interaction, we use VanderWeele's three-way decomposition methodology, adapt the interpretation for application to analytic intersectionality studies, and present a step-by-step analytic approach. Using online panel data collected from Canada and the United States in 2016 (N = 2542), we illustrate this approach with a statistical analysis of whether and to what extent observed inequalities in psychological distress across intersections of ethnoracial group and sexual or gender minority (SGM) status may be explained by past-year experiences of day-to-day discrimination, assessed using the Intersectional Discrimination Index (InDI).Results And ConclusionsWe describe actual and adjusted intersectional inequalities in psychological distress and decompose them to identify three component effects for each of 11 intersectional comparison groups (e.g., Indigenous SGM), versus the reference intersectional group that experienced the lowest levels of discrimination (white non-SGM). These reflect the expected inequality in outcome: 1) due to membership in the more discriminated-against group, if its members had experienced the same lower levels of discrimination as the reference intersection; 2) due to unequal levels of discrimination; and 3), due to unequal effects of discrimination. We present considerations for use and interpretation of these methods.Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

15 keywords...

hide…