American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) from the American Public Health Association (APHA) We’re Not All in This Together: On COVID-19, Intersectionality, and Structural Inequality, an article from American Journal of Public Health, Vol Issue

American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) from the American Public Health Association (APHA) Evolving Intersectionality Within Public Health: From Analysis to Action, an article from American Journal of Public Health, Vol 111 Issue 1

Intersectionality is a theoretical framework that investigates how interlocking systems of power and oppression at the societal level influence the lived experiences of historically and socially marginalized groups. Currently, there are no consistent or widely adopted quantitative methods to investigate research questions informed by intersectionality theory. The objective of this systematic review is to describe the current landscape of quantitative methods used to assess intersectionality and to provide recommendations on analytic best practices for future research. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Web of Science in December 2019 to identify studies using analytic quantitative intersectionality approaches published up to December 2019 (PROSPERO CRD42020162686). To be included in the study, articles had to: (1) be empirical research, (2) use a quantitative statistical method, (3) be published in English, and (4) incorporate intersectionality. Our initial search yielded 1889 articles. After screening by title/abstract, methods, and full text review, our final analytic sample included 153 papers. Eight unique classes of quantitative methods were identified, with the majority of studies employing regression with an interaction term. We additionally identified several methods which appear to be at odds with the key tenets of intersectionality. As quantitative intersectionality continues to expand, careful attention is needed to avoid the dilution of the core tenets. Specifically, emphasis on social power is needed as methods continue to be adopted and developed. Additionally, clear explanation of the selection of statistical approaches is needed and, when using regression with interaction terms, researchers should opt for use of the additive scale. Finally, use of methods that are potentially at odds with the tenets of intersectionality should be avoided.

Qualitative methods are not intrinsically progressive. Methods are simply tools to conduct research. Epistemology, the justification of knowledge, shapes methodology and methods, and thus is a vital starting point for a critical health equity research stance, regardless of whether the methods are qualitative, quantitative, or mixed. In line with this premise, I address four themes in this commentary. First, I criticize the ubiquitous and uncritical use of the term health disparities in U.S. public health. Next, I advocate for the increased use of qualitative methodologies—namely, photovoice and critical ethnography—that, pursuant to critical approaches, prioritize dismantling social–structural inequities as a prerequisite to health equity. Thereafter, I discuss epistemological stance and its influence on all aspects of the research process. Finally, I highlight my critical discourse analysis HIV prevention research based on individual interviews and focus groups with Black men, as an example of a critical health equity research approach.