Abstract
Purpose - The purpose of this study is to contribute to the debates of "doing" intersectionality in practice. The authors explore two of the primary approaches to researching from an intersectional perspective with the intention of critically reviewing the emancipatory potential of each. They argue for plurality and diversity of approaches in working toward a shared emancipatory goal.
Design/methodology/approach - The authors set up the debate via an exploration of emancipatory research principles. Based on their research experience the authors then critically reflect on the approaches to intersectionality research from the social constructionist and critical realist perspectives.
Findings - The authors find that both approaches to intersectionality research have benefits and limitations in achieving emancipation for disadvantaged people in organizations. A critical realist approach underpinned by quantitative analysis of patterns within fixed multiple identity categories offers a convincing emancipatory case which can stimulate management action. However, it does not give prominence to the dynamic and political nature of the construction of "difference" in organizations. Social constructionist approaches address this weakness, but the wider patterns of disadvantage tend to have less prominence in the analysis. Accordingly, the policy implications can be less clear and the case for action less convincing.
Research limitations/implications - The authors provide material that contributes to debates of how to "do" intersectionality as a method. They acknowledge limitations in their argument supporting a critical realist approach from both methodological and emancipatory perspectives.
Originality/value - They call for consideration of pluralism in research approaches to exploit the emancipatory potential of diverse forms of research.