Making AIMS Explicit: Establishing Intersectionality Criteria for Gender Equity Analyses

IF 1.2 3区 社会学 Q3 SOCIAL WORK Social Work Research Pub Date : 2021-09-03 DOI:10.1093/swr/svab013
Sara Goodkind, Rachel E. Gartner, L. Jacobs, Dominique Branson, Jorden King, Siera Meaux, Elizabeth Miller
{"title":"Making AIMS Explicit: Establishing Intersectionality Criteria for Gender Equity Analyses","authors":"Sara Goodkind, Rachel E. Gartner, L. Jacobs, Dominique Branson, Jorden King, Siera Meaux, Elizabeth Miller","doi":"10.1093/swr/svab013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Social work researchers often conduct population-level analyses of equity, sometimes focusing on how social and economic well-being are differently experienced depending on gender. In response to the United States’ refusal to ratify the United Nations’ Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, city-level campaigns began conducting gender equity analyses to highlight and address inequality. To date, these analyses have largely focused on gender alone, affording little attention to other axes of inequality. This article argues that theories of intersectionality offer a conceptual antidote to this narrow focus on gender. Drawing on extant literature, authors developed four criteria to guide intersectional gender equity analyses: (1) analyzes power, (2) interprets population and phenomena in context, (3) mutually constituted and interdependent category use, and (4) strategic and transparent social justice goals (which can be abbreviated as AIMS). Taking a metaevaluation approach, they applied the AIMS criteria to assess existing gender equity analyses. Results indicate ways in which these criteria can be met and the implications of taking intersectional approaches. Ultimately, the AIMS criteria offer guidance to social work research that can systematically and intentionally integrate core intersectionality principles and, in turn, support efforts to promote equity in our systems and institutions.","PeriodicalId":47282,"journal":{"name":"Social Work Research","volume":"79 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Work Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/svab013","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIAL WORK","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Social work researchers often conduct population-level analyses of equity, sometimes focusing on how social and economic well-being are differently experienced depending on gender. In response to the United States’ refusal to ratify the United Nations’ Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, city-level campaigns began conducting gender equity analyses to highlight and address inequality. To date, these analyses have largely focused on gender alone, affording little attention to other axes of inequality. This article argues that theories of intersectionality offer a conceptual antidote to this narrow focus on gender. Drawing on extant literature, authors developed four criteria to guide intersectional gender equity analyses: (1) analyzes power, (2) interprets population and phenomena in context, (3) mutually constituted and interdependent category use, and (4) strategic and transparent social justice goals (which can be abbreviated as AIMS). Taking a metaevaluation approach, they applied the AIMS criteria to assess existing gender equity analyses. Results indicate ways in which these criteria can be met and the implications of taking intersectional approaches. Ultimately, the AIMS criteria offer guidance to social work research that can systematically and intentionally integrate core intersectionality principles and, in turn, support efforts to promote equity in our systems and institutions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
明确目标:建立性别平等分析的交叉性标准
社会工作研究人员经常对公平进行人口层面的分析,有时关注社会和经济福祉如何因性别而不同。作为对美国拒绝批准联合国《消除对妇女一切形式歧视公约》的回应,城市一级的运动开始进行性别平等分析,以强调和解决不平等问题。迄今为止,这些分析主要集中在性别方面,很少关注不平等的其他方面。本文认为,交叉性理论为这种狭隘的性别关注提供了一种概念上的解药。根据现有文献,作者制定了四个标准来指导交叉性别平等分析:(1)分析权力;(2)在语境中解释人口和现象;(3)相互构成和相互依存的类别使用;(4)战略和透明的社会正义目标(可缩写为AIMS)。他们采用元评价方法,应用AIMS标准评估现有的性别平等分析。结果表明可以满足这些标准的方法以及采用交叉方法的含义。最终,AIMS标准为社会工作研究提供了指导,这些研究可以系统地、有意地整合核心交叉性原则,从而支持我们在系统和机构中促进公平的努力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Social Work Research
Social Work Research SOCIAL WORK-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: Social work research addresses psychosocial problems, preventive interventions, treatment of acute and chronic conditions, and community, organizational, policy and administrative issues. Covering the lifespan, social work research may address clinical, services and policy issues. It benefits consumers, practitioners, policy-makers, educators, and the general public by: •Examining prevention and intervention strategies for health and mental health, child welfare, aging, substance abuse, community development, managed care, housing, economic self-sufficiency, family well-being, etc.; Studying the strengths, needs, and inter-relationships of individuals, families, groups, neighborhoods, and social institutions;
期刊最新文献
Perspectives of South Asian Youth in the United States about Gender Norms and Healthcare Decision Making LGBTQ+ People’s Perceptions of Interactions with Outgroup Members: Implications for Social Work Education and Practice “The Air Is Being Sucked Out of the Room”: Experiences of Social Work Students of Color with Antiracism Education in the Classroom and Practicum Environmental Sensitivity Scale for Social Workers: A Scale Development Study A Qualitative Exploration of Social Workers’ Job Preparedness in Law Enforcement Agencies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1