Gender and social class inequalities in higher education: intersectional reflections on a workshop experience.

Research about the experiences of underrepresented groups in higher education (HE) demonstrates the persistence of challenges, despite policies and institutional strategies to promote inclusion. Diversity and inclusion policies have been part of the HE agenda for several decades, yet most policies and interventions focus on (a) a given, isolated identity experience (e.g., based solely on gender, social class, or ethnicity) rather than more intersectional approaches to identity; and (b) top-down interventions that do not include participants insights in their design. In this paper, we report a case study of a workshop with students at an elite university that drew on an intersectional approach to social identities (IASI), specifically, looking at gender and social class. We explore three key themes: (a) the importance of group processes, (b) the use of visual techniques, and (c) the institutional tensions and the (de)politicisation of social psychology research. Reflecting on this case study we argue that approaches to identity and inclusion in HE can benefit from intersectionality beyond the use of multi and overlapping identity and social group categories. We argue that research in this space is not neutral and needs to acknowledge researchers' position about (a) inclusion and diversity, (b) perceptions of participants in research, and (c) the motivation and aims of institutions where the research is conducted. Finally, we discuss the theoretical and practical implications of integrating an intersectional approach within social identity research in HE when focusing on underrepresented groups.

Intersectional Invisibility in Women's Diversity Interventions.

Many diversity interventions for women are ineffective. One reason for this may be that the field that diversity interventions are usually based on, the social sciences, often do not consider intra-group differences among women. Specifically, differences by racialization may be excluded from such diversity interventions. The present research examines whether racially marginalized women have different diversity interventions needs than White women, and whether organizations are less likely to represent those needs (i.e., intersectional invisibility). Across an open-ended coding (n = 293) and a ranking study (n = 489), Black women noted a need to incorporate intersectional differences, Asian women prioritized methods to address challenges to their authority, and White women indicated a need to address agency perceptions. Improving work-life balance and networks was a shared concern among participants, though we theorized different racially gendered reasons for why these intervention needs are relevant to each group. In Study 3 (n = 92 organizations), we analyzed organizations' websites using word count and textual analysis. Organizations- including the Education, Science, and Research sector- most readily advocated for women through enhancing agency. They were also less likely to mention dealing with perceptions of excessive agency or addressing intersectional considerations. The organizations broadly mentioned other marginalized groups besides women, but rarely did they do so intersectionality. Taken together, our findings demonstrate different intervention priorities across differently racialized groups. We found evidence of intersectional invisibility where organizations were more likely to address agency-enhancing intervention needs while failing to include other intervention needs relevant for Black women and Asian women. We discuss the implications of these findings for organizations, in general, as well as potential implications for the field of academic social sciences.