Intersectionality and Sociological (Feminist) Institutionalism: The Whats and Hows

This study examines how prescriptions about gender, race, sexuality, class, and other group identities influence behavior within organizations. These prescriptions often subtly intertwine with dominant logics of appropriateness, leading to systematic disparities in behavior and opportunities. This issue is especially pertinent in political settings, where strict adherence to established norms can affect career progression and contribute to enduring disparities in access to power and representation. The feminist institutionalist perspective posits that understanding these prescriptions is crucial for developing effective strategies to address them. However, accurately capturing both the dominant logic of appropriateness and the prescriptions that lead to deviations from the norms it embodies is challenging. Prescriptions can be elusive: some are widely recognized by social actors, while others remain tacit. Furthermore, they vary in scope, with some being broadly recognized at the societal level and others specific to particular contexts. Utilizing insights from political masculinities literature and early sociological feminist institutionalism, we introduce tools for scholars to analyze intersectional deviations from the dominant logic of appropriateness. We make a case for a situated abductive-retroductive research design, which enables the researcher to generate detailed and multifaceted empirical material about the tangible effects of various social prescriptions on behavior and discourse. This evidence is then methodically used to create and validate models explaining both dominant norms and the reasons behind deviations from them. This approach equips researchers with the knowledge needed to propose targeted interventions of appropriate scope for addressing inequalities between groups in organizational and political contexts.