Un/Doing intersectionality: A critical scoping literature review of intersectional policy in Higher Education and Research

Intersectionality is increasingly used to examine (in)equality within Higher Education and Research organizations (HE&R). However, we have limited knowledge on how to incorporate an intersectional approach into policies and practices (Christoffersen, 2021). The goal of this critical scoping review on research conducted on intersectionality in equality policies in HE&R (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005) is to identify this literature's main theoretical and methodological approaches and its knowledge gaps. Based on a sample of sixty-one scientific articles (n=61), we distinguish three types of studies and knowledge gaps. The first, and largest, stream of studies (n=40) focuses on the target group of intersectional policies. It uses a socio-psychological lens to give voice to minoritized students and staff in academia, mainly intersecting gender and race. These studies draw on respondents’ lived experiences to critique current equality policies' ineffectiveness in addressing intersectional inequalities. Facing micro-aggressions and a lack of support to build community and “counterspaces” (Blosser, 2020), individuals remain feeling a sense of non-belongingness in academia. While individual experiences are crucial to envisioning intersectional policies, we argue this focus could lead to a first type of political intersectionality gap (Crenshaw, 1991), as it is insufficient to show how policies could be designed or implemented to address both individual levels and structural levels of oppression. The second stream (n=12) examined policies from an intersectional perspective. They show that intersectionality is rarely mentioned, measured, or enacted upon, downplaying the university’s accountability and individualizing the responsibility to tackle intersectional discrimination. We argue that this maintains a second political intersectionality gap (Crenshaw, 1991), preventing us from knowing how to ensure shared responsibility and collective accountability to address intersectional forms of oppression. The final stream (n=9) depicts how universities operate as inequality regimes (Acker, 2012) that tackle discrimination in siloed policies. This prevents from bridging a critical praxis gap (Collins, 2015) and ensures the design and effective implementation of equality policies that focus on dismantling the interlocking systems of oppression and privilege in Higher Education & Research organizations.