Intersectional Perspective and Rural Poverty Research: Benefits, Challenges and Policy Implications

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Norris, Adele N.]On: 19 February 2010Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 919064626]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of PovertyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792306947

Intersectional Perspective and Rural Poverty Research: Benefits, Challengesand Policy ImplicationsAdele N. Norris a; Anna Zajicek b; Yvette Murphy-Erby c

a Department of Public Policy, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA b Department ofSociology & Criminal Justice, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA c School of SocialWork, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA

Online publication date: 03 February 2010

To cite this Article Norris, Adele N., Zajicek, Anna and Murphy-Erby, Yvette(2010) 'Intersectional Perspective and RuralPoverty Research: Benefits, Challenges and Policy Implications', Journal of Poverty, 14: 1, 55 — 75To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/10875540903489413URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10875540903489413

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792306947

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10875540903489413

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

55

Journal of Poverty, 14:55–75, 2010Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1087-5549 print/1540-7608 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10875540903489413

WPOV1087-55491540-7608Journal of Poverty, Vol. 14, No. 1, December 2009: pp. 0–0Journal of Poverty

Intersectional Perspective and Rural Poverty Research: Benefits, Challenges and Policy

Implications

Intersectional Perspective and Rural Poverty ResearchA. N. Norris et al.

ADELE N. NORRISDepartment of Public Policy, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA

ANNA ZAJICEKDepartment of Sociology & Criminal Justice, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville,

Arkansas, USA

YVETTE MURPHY-ERBYSchool of Social Work, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA

Traditionally, poverty scholarship in the U.S. focuses on the levels,trends, and effects of poverty across social categories broadly definedeither by race (minorities) or gender (women) or age (children).An intersectional perspective elucidates the complexity of people’ssocial locations by conceptualizing race, class, gender as simulta-neously interacting power relations. In this work, we suggest howan intersectional approach can benefit our understanding ofsocial inequalities in rural areas in an effort to better informrural poverty research and policies. A related goal is to encour-age a more thorough integration of class and age inequalities inintersectional scholarship. We conclude by discussing the benefitsof a dialog between rural poverty research and an intersectionalityperspective.

KEYWORDS rural poverty, intersectionality, sociology, inequalities

Poverty has long been recognized as a pervasive feature of modern societies(Cotter, 2002; Rank, Yoon, & Hirschl, 2003; Tickamyer & Duncan, 1990). In theUnited States, poverty is especially acute within population subgroups definedby gender, race, age, and residence (Albrecht & Albrecht, 2007; Schwalbe,

Address correspondence to Adele N. Norris, Department of Public Policy, University ofArkansas, P.O. Box 2390, Fayetteville, AR 72702, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Downloaded By: [Norris, Adele N.] At: 19:35 19 February 2010

56 A. N. Norris et al.

2000). For instance, in 2005, the poverty rate of rural populations stood at15.1% compared to the 12.5% poverty rate among urban populations (Jensen,2006). Importantly, while Whites constitute the majority of the rural poor(66.3% as opposed to 40.4% in urban areas), people of color living in ruralareas have higher poverty rates and more persistent experiences of povertythan their urban counterparts (Jensen, 2006, pp. 2-3). With regard to genderand age, in 2003, women accounted for 65% of the rural poor age 65 and older(Rogers, 2005). And, despite the recent changes in the geographic concentra-tion of the rural poor, the poor racial-ethnic minorities and the poor racialminority children still tend to live in high poverty areas (Lichter & Johnson,2007). Given that rural poverty has unique characteristics and rural areashouse a disproportionate share of the nation’s poor (see Cotter, 2002; Dun-can, 1996; Tickamyer & Duncan, 1990), rural poverty issues have recentlyresurfaced receiving significant interest from scholars and policymakers alike.

Traditionally, rural poverty research has focused on poverty’s connectionto human capital, family structure, and local economic conditions (Parisi,McLaughlin, Grice, & Gill, 2003). Over the past two decades, socio-economicconcerns, including the effects of globalization on rural populations, andthe questions regarding access to financial resources and labor markets,have emerged as the primary focal areas offering insights into the nature ofrural poverty (Cobb, 1992; Dewees, Lobao, & Swanson, 2003; Duncan,1996; Tickamyer & Duncan, 1990). In addition, issues related to increasingdiversity of rural populations, including the low-income and the poor, haverecently received due attention (Gimpel & Lay, 2008). Rural poverty scholarsare thereby challenged to more adequately capture the articulation of thesenew trends across diverse rural populations in order to better assess theirconsequences and to develop more targeted solutions.

Similarly, inequality scholars have been facing challenges emanatingfrom the calls to end the historical segregation of race, class, and genderscholarship in academic disciplines and subdisciplines (Collins, 2007).These calls have been accompanied by the recognition that the evaluationof these categories as separate entities operating independently of oneanother does not provide a sufficient lens into examining social inequalities(Collins, 1990, 2000; Crenshaw, 1991; hooks, 1984; King, 1988; Landry,2006). In sociology, this transformative scholarship (Banks, 1995)1gainedground in the 1990s, resulting in the emergence of an integrated race, class,gender subdisciplinary field (Collins, 2007). In this context, an intersectionalapproach, that is an approach that examines “the simultaneous interactionamong two or more dimensions of oppression and/or privilege” (Norris,Murphy-Erby, & Zajicek, 2007), has been identified as providing toolsnecessary to explore the complexity of inequalities and especially “theintricacy of poverty” (Wilkinson, 2003). Importantly, while over the yearsthe intersectionality perspective has provided an important lens for exploringthe mutual construction and interactions of race and gender, social class and


Intersectional Perspective and Rural Poverty Research 57

age inequalities have not been given the same attention (Zajicek, Calasanti,Ginther, & Summers, 2006).

Given this, our work has a twofold purpose. Our first and main purposeis to make a case for how an intersectional approach can benefit our under-standing of social inequalities in rural areas, leading to a more inclusiverural poverty research, especially at the policy level. Our second goal is toencourage a more thorough integration of class and age inequalities inintersectional scholarship.

We begin making our case for a more thorough integration of intersec-tionality in rural poverty scholarship with an exploratory analysis of howrace, gender, age, and class are conceptualized in recent articles concerningthe rural poor published in the Rural Sociology journal. Since discussions ofthe rural poor are dispersed throughout various journals, books, bookchapters, and conference proceedings, we include this review for illustrationpurposes only. Specifically, we discuss three tendencies in rural povertyscholarship: (a) a tendency to acknowledge the importance of race, gender,or age in shaping rural poverty; (b) a tendency to separate race, gender,and age; and (c) a tendency to treat them descriptive variables and not aspower relationships. Following our exploratory analysis, we discuss themain assumptions and tenets of the intersectionality perspective, pointing toits shortcomings with regard to integrating social class and age inequalities.Next, we briefly summarize the literature supporting the usefulness of using anintersectional lens in examining poverty in rural communities. We concludeby discussing how rural poverty research and policies would benefit fromintegrating an intersectional framework and by proposing a dialog betweenrural poverty research and intersectionality.

RACE, GENDER, AGE, AND CLASS IN RURAL POVERTY RESEARCH: A CASE STUDY OF THE RURAL SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL

In trying to provide a glimpse of current tendencies in how race, gender, ageand class are conceptualized in poverty research, we have followed thepractice of looking at leading disciplinary journals. First, the research pub-lished in leading journals generally defines what is important to study andwhich perspectives are likely to frame current research interest (Fishe, 1998;Ávalos, 1991). Second, the articles published in the leading journals areoften cited both inside and outside of the field (Borokhovich, Bricker, &Simkins, 2000; Borokhovich & Chung, 2000; Fishe, 1998). In sociology, leadingjournals are regarded as important and valued; articles published in leadingjournals are seen as indicative of the current state of the discipline (Grant,Ward, & Lan Rong, 1987). In order to establish the leading journal in ruralsociology, we consulted the 2004 SSCI2and found that Rural Sociology hadthe highest impact factor.



For our examination, we focused on the time period from 2000 to 2007.Our time-frame choice was dictated by the fact that prior to the end of the1990s intersectionality was almost exclusively confined to women’s studiesscholarship and Black feminism (see McCall, 2005). Also, the intersectionalityperspective was not widely recognized in sociology until the publication ofPatricia Hill Collins’ work (1990, 2000). Given this and the fact that a time-lagexists between the emergence of a new alternative perspective and its inte-gration into the mainstream journals and other types of publications, suchas textbooks, (Stacey & Thorne, 1985; Ferree & Hall, 1996), we examinedarticles published a decade later, that is, since 2000. We selected the articlesby searching for the keywords rural, non-metropolitan, poverty and poor inthe titles and/or abstracts of the articles published in Rural Sociology from2000 to 2007. After excluding book reviews, commentaries, and researchnotes, we were left with 21 full-length articles.

Second, in order to conduct our review, we had to decide whichdimensions of intersectionality to include. With regard to this issue, in ouranalysis, we explored three dimensions of intersectionality, race, genderand age, within the context of rural poverty, which represents the socialclass dimension of intersectionality. Our decision to include race, gender,and age was related to two factors. First, according to Landry (2007), insociology, social class, race/ethnicity, and gender, have been defined as thethree constitutive social relations. In fact, several scholars observe that overthe years, race, gender, and class issues have acquired a status of “holy trinity”in sociology (Andersen, 2005) and women’s studies (Delrosso, 2000). Withthe introduction of intersectional scholarship into sociology, race/ethnicityand gender, and to a lesser extent social class, have been viewed as centralintersectional dimensions (see also Andersen, 2005). Second, the inclusionof age as an analytical category was dictated by its empirical importance inrelation to how age influences the likelihood of experiencing povertyamong the rural populations (Rogers, 2005; Lichter & Johnson, 2007). Relatedly,from a process-oriented perspective, both advantages and disadvantagesacquired early in one’s life tend to compound over the lifetime (Dannfer,2003), leading to both individual and generational patterns of persistentpoverty, which is “overwhelmingly rural and is very geographically concen-trated” (Miller & Weber, 2003, p. 1)

Furthermore, we had define what constitutes an intersectional analysisof rural poverty and consider whether in our review we should distinguishamong different intersectional methodologies, that is, anti-categorical, intra-categorical, and inter-categorical types of intersectionality.3 With regard tothe latter issue, we decided against making the more specific distinctionsamong intersectional methodologies. This decision was based on twoconsiderations.

First, our main purpose is to provide an insight into the relationshipbetween intersectional scholarship and rural poverty research rather than to



empirically assess which intersectional methodology is used. Second, inter-sectional sociological scholarship, including rural poverty studies, tends tobe categorical (i.e., comparative, in nature). Specifically, when poverty studiesconsider the gender or race or age of the poor, they are most likely to drawcomparisons between intersectionally defined groups, that is groups definedby at least two, and preferably three intersectional dimensions (Landry, 2007).At the same time, since many poverty studies focus on the poor, whotypically defined by income level, other social classes are generally notincluded in the research design. Given the nature of poverty-focusedscholarship, we assumed that poverty studies will likely consider two inter-sectional dimensions of inequality but one of the two intersectionaldimensions (i.e., social class) will not vary.4

Importantly, although such studies provide valuable information aboutbroadly defined categories of the poor, they tend to perpetuate the problemof silencing the experiences of the poor whose social locations are definedby more than race or gender only. In this context, the poverty studies thatrepresent a more complex version of intersectionality (poor x gender x raceor poor x race x age) are less likely to contribute to the marginalization ofthe poor whose subordinate position is defined by more than one intersec-tional inequality. Also, the poverty research informed by the more complexintersectional model is more likely provide a more adequate insight intoexperiences of multiple groups.5

Finally, when examining a work for the presence of intersectionality itis essential to distinguish between intersectional studies that are conceptu-alized through the lens of an intersectional framework and those studiesthat include an intersectional data analysis only. This distinction is impor-tant in that the studies using an intersectional perspective will most likelyconceptualize race, gender, and age as relations of inequality and/orsystems of power (Weber, 2006). In contrast, studies that only include anintersectional data analysis, that is an analysis of data regarding intersec-tionally disaggregated groups and/or analysis of statistical interactionsamong independent variables,6 are likely to conceptualize race, gender,and age as demographic characteristics and/or variables only. In doing so,such studies will primarily focus on describing and reporting populationpoverty rates, factors associated with the risk of poverty, or poverty-relatedbehaviors. Furthering a theoretical understanding of how the intersectionsof structural inequalities and power relations reproduce poverty and createits different experiences across intersectionally defined populations will betheir secondary focus.

This distinction was substantiated in our exploration of the 21 ruralpoverty-related articles published in Rural Sociology. Specifically, we foundthat three of the 21 articles incorporated an intersectional perspectiveand two of the three articles also had intersectional titles, that is, titlesarticulating the incorporation of, at minimum, an intersectional data analysis.



For example, the article entitled “Household Composition and Povertyamong Female-Headed Households with Children: Differences by Race andResidence” (Snyder, McLaughlin, & Findeis, 2006) examines the prevalence ofpoverty as well as differences in household composition among female-headed households across various racial/ethnic groups. The authors ofthis study also discuss the broader institutional and structural arrangementsthat shape opportunity structures of minority populations, especiallywomen of color.

Additionally, the three intersectional studies recognized the significanceof intersecting inequalities in shaping the experiences and perceptions ofliving in poverty. Wells (2002), for example, purposefully explores theexperiences of a multiclass (middle class, upper-income working class andlower-income working class) sample of White rural women in an economi-cally depressed nonfarm rural Appalachia community. Wells’ premise is thatsocial location shapes the construction and experience of family life: “Thisresearch illustrates why sociologists have found social location to be a usefulconcept. Relevant to this research is the idea that social class locates individualsin society, giving them particular vantage points from which to describe,explain, or interpret a social context” (p. 249). From this study, Wells (2002)posits that “social reality looks different and is experienced differently byindividuals who are variously placed in society” (p. 249).

Of the remaining 18 articles, almost all studies noted that there is a rela-tionship between the categories race, gender and age, and being poor inrural areas. For example, in examining how community conditions affectparticipation rates in the local program Temporary Assistance for NeedyFamilies (TANF) in Mississippi, Parisi et al. (2003) found evidence of theprocesses of underinvestment and discrimination placing individuals fromrural areas in the Mississippi Delta region with high populations of Black-Black at a distinct disadvantage. The authors suggest that these disadvantagesare magnified in cases where poor economic conditions, low human capital,minority concentration, high inequality, and low civic engagement occursimultaneously. Still, in spite of such assertions, the same studies either usedthe categories of race, gender, and age separately or subsumed the conditionsmost likely affecting the specific sub-groups, such as White women or Blackwomen, under the conditions affecting the larger group as a whole (e.g.,Whites, ethnic minorities, etc.).

In the 18 articles, we noted three other tendencies in how race, gender,and age are conceptualized in rural poverty discussions. First, the studiesthat included predominately White and young or middle-age samplestended to generalize their findings to the rural poor populations as a whole.In such cases, race (e.g., White) and/or age was only mentioned in one ortwo sentences in the methods section. Conversely, those studies thatfocused on minority populations (e.g., Blacks) or the elderly were morespecific in denoting that the findings were specific to these populations,



hence not generalizable to other rural populations. Race, in such cases, wasassigned only to minority groups. This trend represents the tendency inAmerican sociology to mark the populations that differ from the “norm,”which remains unmarked (Brekhus, 1998).

Second, men were rarely mentioned in discussions of the rural poorunless analyses compared single female-headed households with twoparent and/or male-headed households. The focus was primarily onfemale-headed households with no consideration of how race/ethnicityand age change, or do not change, the experience of poverty within thispopulation. This finding was particularly interesting given the increasingnumber of grandmothers as caregivers, especially among elderly Blackwomen (Murphy, 2008).

Third, while some studies mentioned race/ethnicity, they did so in verygeneral terms by simply acknowledging that the most severe cases of povertyare experienced by minority populations, mainly Blacks. There was a dearthof contextual information (e.g., discrimination, structural inequalities, powerrelations, etc.) discussing the structural inequalities between minority andmajority populations. Also, regardless of the populations studied, rarelywere the categories/social markers of gender, race/ethnicity, or age discussedin relation to the local power structures, the political leadership, and thesocial context of rural communities. In the 18 articles, the social categoriesof race/ethnicity, gender, and age were treated as demographic characteristicsand/or descriptive variables.

The presence of the above tendencies is particularly interesting giventwo considerations. First, over the years, rural poverty scholars have recog-nized the vital role social contexts, institutions, and power structures play innot only setting the foundation for, but also the trajectory of poverty in ruralareas (Duncan, 1992). Second, during his 1990 presidential address to theRural Sociological Society, Gene F. Summers challenged rural sociologists torenew their interest in the plight of racial and ethnic minorities in ruralAmerica in an effort to identify the barriers that impeded progression inevery facet of society (Slack & Jensen, 2002). Given the recognition of theimportance of the broader inequalities and power relations, includingrace-based inequalities, by both the intersectional scholars as well as thediscipline of rural sociology, one could assume that the incorporation of anintersectional perspective into rural sociology should not constitute amajor challenge. Yet, based on our exploratory analysis it appears that thearticles regarding the rural poor published in the Rural Sociology journalbetween 2000 and 2007 have yet to more fully integrate the intersectionalperspective. In the next section, we discuss how the intersectional perspec-tive conceptualizes the intersections of race, class, and gender and how itapproaches race and gender as structures of power and inequality. In thiscontext, we also note how this perspective tends to gloss over social classand age inequalities.



THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: INTERSECTIONALITY

The roots of the intersectional perspective can be found in the theorizing bythe late 19th century women of color intellectuals, such as Stewart (1995/1831), Cooper (1892), and Harper (1995/1893), among others. Since then,the understanding of intersectionality has evolved, beginning with AnnaJulia Cooper’s (1892) analysis of racism and sexism, Davis’s (1971) analysisof race, gender, and class in Black women’s lives, King’s (1988) discussionof multiple jeopardy, Crenshaw’s (1991) conceptualization of structural andpolitical intersectionality, and Collins’ (1990) theorizing of the matrix ofdomination. Importantly, throughout these conceptual reiterations, certaintheoretical themes, such as the centering the experiences of the oppressed,the interconnectedness of oppressions, and commitment to social justice,have always been present (see Bonnie Thorton Dill as summarized in Collins,2007, p. 591).7

In general, the framework of intersectionality includes: (a) a conceptu-alization of social inequalities “to capture both structure and dynamicconsequences of the interaction between two or more axes of subordination”(Crenshaw, 2000, p. 9); (b) a view of people’s identities as multi-faceted andcontext-specific, wherein the meaning of people’s locations and identities aswell as their salience are the product of history, culture, and society; (c) arecognition that oppressive social relations mutually constitute one another,meaning that “each [oppressive relation] develops in the context of theother” (Glenn, 1992, p. 33); (d) a recognition that certain aspects of ouridentity, like race/ethnicity, may protect us from discrimination, while itsother dimensions, such as gender, may lead to discrimination and otherhuman right violations (Association for Women’s Rights in Development,2004); and (e) the challenge to various boundaries including the boundariesseparating activism, experiences, and knowledge making as well as thoseseparating different academic disciplines (Naples, 2009).

In more specific terms, conducting an intersectional analysis involvesthe conceptualization of “social inequalities as power relationships, notsolely as resource differences” (Weber, 2006, p. 26).8 In addition, the idea ofmutual constitution calls for a purposeful consideration of the simultaneousinteraction between two or more dimensions (social markers) of oppressionor inequalities. Simultaneity suggests that inequalities within the U.S. context,such as race and gender, cannot be analyzed separately as they are alwaysmutually shaping the context of people’s lives (Collins, 1993), even thoughone category may have salience over others in any giving situation (King,1988). And, while we can assume that, in any given historical period, allsocial situations are structured by society-specific structural inequalities, thesilence and the interactive effects of these identities and inequalities canonly be determined through empirical research (Landry, 2007).9 The conceptof racialized gender provides an example of the simultaneity principle. It



grasps the idea that gender ideologies, practices, and expectations operatedifferently across racial/ethnic groups (e.g., Black women vs. White women).For instance, although Black women and White women have experiencedgender discrimination within their racial/ethnic groups, historically, Whitewomen have been encouraged and expected to stay at home as economicallydependent wives and mothers, while Black women have been encouragedand expected to engage in breadwinning activities. The racialized expecta-tions towards women were both supported by and articulated via such pol-icies as the early minimum wage laws. These laws were “constructed topromote and expand a male-breadwinner family structure for specificgroups of native-born Whites and European-American immigrants” (Mutari,2002, p. 38). However, since Black men and women were employed in theoccupations that either were not covered in the minimum wage laws or hadmuch “lower levels of minimum wages” (Mutari, 2002, pp. 38-39), the Blackwomen’s identities could not be constructed solely in relation to their rolesas mothers and wives.

Policy-oriented scholars have also articulated other intersectional conceptsin an effort to conceptualize the different types of intersectional discriminations.Building on Crenshaw’s (1991, 1994) ideas over-inclusion and under-inclusion,Patel (2001) argues that policy initiatives often fail to adequately address theexperiences of intersectional discrimination, especially the specific problemsfaced by marginalized women because their experiences are often invisible.Over-inclusion pertains to situations where the racial dimensions of inequalityor experience are subsumed under a gender perspective (Crenshaw, 1994).The feminization of poverty thesis, which penetrated mainstream discoursesparticularly during the 1990s, provides an example of over-inclusion as itdefines the experience of poverty in relation to gender; thus, making thefact that Black women have historically had higher poverty rates thanWhite women invisible. Conversely, under-inclusion implies that thegender aspect of the situation is ignored and a given phenomenon is perceivedto be an issue of racial discrimination. The notion that Black women’spolitical and economic interests will be achieved by meeting the demandfor racial equality, which by silencing the gender inequalities in the Blackcommunity tends to privilege the interests of Black men, provides an exampleof under-inclusion. And, as our exploration of the Rural Sociology journalindicates, the majority of poverty studies we examined exemplify one of thetwo tendencies.

Crenshaw (1994) also defines two other intersectional concepts—structural and political intersectionality— that are of special interest to povertyresearchers. Structural intersectionality is useful to conceptualize howmembers of the subordinate groups living in rural areas find themselvesmarginalized because of structural barriers, including institutional racism andsexism, lack of adequate infrastructure, limited labor markets, and dependencyon one industry. Political intersectionality pertains to the situations wherein



a marginalized group may need “to split one’s political energies between twosometimes opposing political agendas” (Crenshaw, 1994, p. 98). Accordingto Crenshaw (1994, p. 98), this split is “a dimension of intersectional disem-powerment that men of color and White women seldom confront.” Theconcept of political intersectionality provides a useful tool to address the“twin problems” of over-inclusion and under-inclusion while examining theexperiences, consciousness, decision-making processes, and struggles ofintersectionally marginalized groups.10 The following section will elucidatein more detail how rural poverty studies can benefit from an intersectionalunderstanding of the simultaneous operation of structural inequalities. Therural poverty studies we discuss also suggest how the intersectionalityscholarship can benefit from a more thorough integration of class and ageinequalities as well as the explicit analyses of place into its analytical core.

RURAL COMMUNITIES, POVERTY, AND INTERSECTIONALITY

Although rural communities in the United States share some commonalities,the characteristics of rural areas and populations are very diverse. As a result,individuals living in rural areas face different obstacles contingent upon thebroader power relations and associated economic structures (Flora, 1994).Duncan (1992) and Flora (1994) identify and elaborate on two characteristicsof rural communities that result in high levels of persistent poverty: (a)those relying on a single industry either natural resources or manufacturing;and (b) those having rigid class stratification with power concentrated in thehands of the few. With regard to the former point, farming communities, forexample, do not experience the same challenges or suffer poverty in thesame way as localities with a single economic base that is owned by a singleindividual or company (Duncan, 1992). In turn, Duncan (1992) characterizesthe rigidly stratified communities as being both unstable and oppressivegiven that limited opportunities for steady work and income translate intosources of wealth and power for those having control over jobs. Hence,finding work often depends on either one’s family reputation or networkswhereby individuals from poor families are the least likely to have either thereputation or political connections necessary to find steady work (Duncan,1992). An example of different challenges related to the nature of the localeconomy and the power structure comes from Flora’s (1994) examination ofschool dropout rates in rural areas. Specifically, Flora found that in the ruralareas of the Midwest that were dependent on a single industry (agriculture)but that were also characterized by a relatively equal ownership of land andbusinesses, school dropout rates were lower in comparison to rural schoolslocated in the areas with high concentration of power in the hands of a fewindividuals. Also, poverty was found to be both higher and more persistentamong the latter communities.



Importantly, as extant literature suggests, in addition to class structure,other factors also influence the nature and the experience of poverty inrural areas, including the racial, age, and gender composition of both therural community and its political leadership (Hunt & Zajicek, 2008). Ruralareas in the lower Mississippi Delta region, for example, are very distinct inthat they are among the poorest in the nation and characterized by a relativelyhigh percentage of Black and elderly female population. In this region,poverty is more severe and prevalent among Black women than any othergroup. In addition, this area also experiences unprecedented populationlosses and maintains one of the widest economic gaps between the verypoor and the very rich (Gray, 1992). In this context, as a result of their inter-sectional locations within subordinate groups, Black women, and especiallypoor –Black women, may have political ideas, definitions of needs, as well assolutions that may be more inclusive (Barach & Baratz, 1962; Gaventa, 1982;Bookman & Morgen, 1988), serving “the multiplicity of constituencies thatdepend upon them for representation” (Ramirez et al., 2006, p. 7). Yet,“despite their numbers, Black women do not typically hold leadership posi-tions in the Arkansas Delta” (Hunt & Zajicek, 2008, p. 21), instead thesepositions are held by White men or Black men.

Poor White rural women’s experiences are also characterized bymarginalization, although the opportunities and/or constraints they expe-rience are quite different (Seitz, 1995; Naples, 1998). Specifically, theAppalachia is another region encompassing severely impoverished ruralpopulation. Although its inhabitants are predominately White, theirspecific racial location is not marked despite the fact that critical racetheory and intersectional scholars have stressed the significance of mark-ing Whiteness as an important location in shaping White people’s experi-ences (Brekhus, 1998). For example, in her study of the empowerment ofWhite rural Appalachian women, Seitz (1995) emphasizes that “[b]ecausethey were women, because they are working-class, and because they areethnically defined as Appalachian, these people have been relegated tothe margins of the social and political discourse that surrounds policymak-ers and scholars seeking to solve the economic, social and political crises”(p. 6). The Black and the White women in the lower Mississippi Delta andAppalachia regions, respectively, are among the poorest. The poorwomen in the Appalachia region may experience race-based privilegewhile being confronted with social class and gender oppressions; the poorBlack women in lower Mississippi Delta region are confronted with socialclass, gender and racial oppressions. And, using an intersectionalapproach, we also must recognize that, in both regions, the top politicalleadership is dominated by wealthy White men, while, at the same time,in the lower Mississippi Delta, Black men may occupy more critical posi-tions in local politics than the Black women. Given this, the importance ofapplying an intersectional analysis can be seen when we realize how it



can serve to provide a more comprehensive picture of local and broaderpower structures.

Importantly, in recent years, age has increasingly become a concernwith regard to rural poverty, presenting new social and policy challengesparticularly in relation to the future of social security, Medicare, and pensionprograms (Rogers, 2005; Savage, 2008). The growing attention to theeconomics and politics of age can be attributed to a rapidly aging ruralpopulation, with poverty being especially acute among rural women age 75and older who account for about three-fourths of the poor elderly (Rogers,2005). Also, across all age groups, children continue to have the highestoverall poverty rates, with children living in rural areas experiencingpoverty at a much higher poverty rate than children living in urban areas(Savage, 2008). However, an important difference between poor children inurban and rural areas is that the latter group is more likely to be White(O’Hare, 2009). And, as in the case of adult poverty, there are also regionaldifferences in child poverty. Specifically, while 74% of the poor children inAppalachia are non-Hispanic Whites, in the Mississippi Delta, the majorityof poor children are Black (O’Hare, 2009).

In all, our discussion reveals how rural poverty is complicated by socialcontext, political leadership, and social location varying by race/ethnicity,gender, and age. Illustrating the usefulness in applying an intersectionalperspective in conceptualizing “lived experiences” in rural areas, we notedthe contextual differences of rural communities, suggesting that the socialgeography of place shapes the intersectional articulation of inequalities.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Since the onset of the twenty-first century, rural areas have been facing newchallenges from social and economic restructuring brought on by globalization(Dewees et al., 2003) to an increasing growing diverse rural populationsalready affected by historical legacies of poverty. Researchers of rural povertyare thereby confronted with additional challenges to capture the articulationof new trends and historical legacies. Schwalbe (2000) contents that asociology that cannot provide insight into how inequality is created andsustained both strategically and inadvertently has little to offer those whoseek to change the world in the twenty-first century. In rural areas, theinteractions of race, gender, social class, and age inequalities underlie thecontinued reproduction of social hierarchies of power, access, and opportu-nities. This recognition is crucial as it challenges us to rethink how weapproach the questions of rural poverty in the twenty-first century.

In fact, the intersectionality perspective has played a paramount role in theEuropean Union (EU) efforts in tackling gender inequality issues (Verloo,2006), and is proving to be an effective framework in rectifying social



inequalities globally in regards to the United Nations’ human rights efforts(Bishwakarma, Hunt, & Zajicek, 2008; Patel, 2001). Given this, elevatingintersectional issues prevalent to rural areas to a level of salience in thepolicy-making process is an especially vexing problem. In this context,producing intersectional research is an important initial step in gaining abetter understanding of the causes and consequences of poverty. So, howmight the inclusion of an intersectional perspective contribute to ruralpoverty research and policies?

First, policymakers, specifically in the European Union and the UnitedNations, and scholars committed to addressing inequalities have recognizedthe intersectionality perspective as an essential instrument toward politicaland social change, especially as they are experienced by women(Bishwakarma et al., 2008; Patel, 2001; Verloo, 2006). Increasingly, inter-sectionality is gaining an acceptance, especially as a result of its usefulness(a) to elucidate the situation of the historically most marginalized populations;and (b) to connect the marginality of poor women, especially poor racial/ethnic women, with their invisibility to policymakers (Manuel, 2006). Withregard to the first point, since the interplay of social inequality markers con-tributes to social exclusion and oppression, policies that rely on traditionalways of thinking about inequalities as being separate and non-interactingperpetuate marginalization and poverty by not addressing the complexity ofpower systems (Crenshaw, 1991; King, 1988; Landry, 2006; Manuel, 2006;Verloo, 2006). With regard to the second point, the invisibility of marginalizedpopulations may be due, among other things, to the lack of empirical datashowing the operation of intersectional inequalities. Since the policy processbegins with problem definition and intersectionality points to the existenceof not two (e.g., women and men) but multiple groups of beneficiaries, anintersectional approach sheds light on the existence of specific needs of poorwomen, as opposed to women or poor people. Importantly, an intersectionalanalysis does not presume that intersectionally defined groups always havedifferent experiences, needs, or face different obstacles. Rather, it makes usask whether poverty is experienced differently by various social groups,and therefore, requiring an intersectional approach to problem definition. Inall, documenting and presenting the empirical data on the intersectionalcomplexities of poverty-related experiences is critical to making the experi-ences of marginalized populations visible to policymakers.

In this context, our exploratory analysis of how the categories race,gender, age and class hierarchies are articulated in discussions of rural povertyin the Rural Sociology journal, suggests that the intersectionality perspectivehas been underutilized in discussions of rural impoverished populations.For instance, we observed that discussions of rural poverty tend to focus onsocial groups marked by gender or race/ethnicity (e.g., women or minorities)without exploring how poverty may be experienced differently by intersec-tionally defined subgroups (e.g., Black women, White women) in rural



areas. Although our review of the rural poverty scholarship was limited topublications included in one journal, given the degree of influence flagshipjournals have over what is considered important and central to a particulardiscipline, our analysis suggests that there is a room for a more throughintegration of the intersectional approach into rural poverty studies.

At the same time, we realize that by recognizing the centrality ofsocial class and age in shaping the experiences of the U.S. rural popula-tions, rural poverty research can also strengthen intersectional scholarship.The focus on social class and age points to the importance of cumulativeadvantages/disadvantages (Dannefer, 2003) in shaping the experience ofrural poverty. Both advantages acquired and disadvantages experienced inearlier life compound over time, often leading to the increase of inequali-ties in old age, which in rural poverty contexts is substantiated by the highpoverty rates experienced by old women. Of course, these accumulationprocesses shape and are shaped by intersections of age, gender, race, andclass. The integration of the more life cycle-oriented approach would adda dynamic dimension to the intersectionality perspective, in that peopleand generations grow into the oppressed group, accumulating theirdisadvantages and privileges, in a manner unique to their social locations inthe matrices of power.

Given this, the final issue we would like to address here is the questionof the possible dialog between rural poverty and intersectional scholarships.According to Weber (2006), the recognition of the points of convergencebetween different scholarships provides a good starting point for a construc-tive dialog and collaboration. In our opinion, such a starting point exist inthat both the perspective of intersectionality and the ecological approachesto rural poverty studies emphasize the importance of broader powerstructures in shaping and mediating poverty in rural communities. That is,they approach poverty from both individual and structural perspectives,which is of particular importance given that oppression is perpetuated byindividuals as well as institutions (Richie, 1996). Also, recognizing theparamount role of policy in the persistence and severity of the poverty inrural America, similar to the intersectional scholars, some poverty scholarshave recognized that poverty is, in fact, an outcome of the combined effectof contextual factors, including past social and economic developmentpolicies (Tickamyer & Duncan, 1990). In this context, the question ofstructural influences as well as the significance of earlier policy decisionson future possibilities, so-called path dependency (Sydow, Schreyögg, &Koch, 2009), have become critical in addressing the nature of rural poverty.For instance, Duncan (1996) posits that successful community developmentefforts are contingent upon an in depth understanding of the historicalrelations within and between class and race.

Also, our review of selected intersectional rural poverty studies directsour attention to the importance of space in shaping the articulation of



intersectional inequalities. In fact, in recent years, feminist geographershave begun to attend to the interplay between social spaces and intersec-tionality. For instance, Valentine (2007) shows how the inclusion of theintersection of such categories as gender, class, sexuality and disabilitywould benefit social geography, on the one hand, and, on the other hand,illustrates how the theorization of intersectionality would be enhancedthrough the inclusion of “power-laden spaces.” Specifically, Valentine(2007, p. 19) contends that much of social science intersectional scholar-ship tends to focus on individuals and their shifting and fluid identities atthe expense of attending to how “in particular spaces there are dominantspatial orderings that produce moments of exclusion for particular socialgroups.” In this context, if rural areas are characterized by tighter andmore stable social networks (Hofferth & Iceland, 1998; Onyx & Bullen,2000), then rural residents may have a limited ability to reinvent and/orchange their identity-based social locations. At the same time, rural spacesare not socially homogenous. In their discussion of the intersection ofsocial class and Whiteness, Jarosz and Lawson (2002) argue that thesocial hierarchies and political economies characterizing different ruralspaces lead to various articulations of White rural poverty. They con-clude by emphasizing the importance of “constructing a human geogra-phy of discourses of White class differences” (Jarosz & Lawson, 2002, p. 23).And, according to Chih Lin and Danzinger (2000), it is also advantageousto evaluate policy proposals with respect to the social (and we might addspacial) context in an effort to not only anticipate policy obstacles, butalso anticipate its consequences. Chih Lin and Danzinger (2000) alsoassert that the attention given to social context allows policymakers totake advantage of the traits within a particular social context “so that theycan work in tandem with habitual practices and derive reinforcement fromexisting beliefs and relationships” (p. 263).

In conclusion, we see two opportunities for convergence revolvingaround the institutional and spatial analyses that point to the possibilities ofa dialog between the two the intersectional and rural poverty scholarships.However, although we would like to see both more dialog and a morethrough integration of intersectionality into poverty studies, we do notsuggest that intersectionality should be the only theory employed to studyrural poverty. Rather, this perspective can provide a critical lens for ruralpoverty scholars seeking to strengthen the empirical and theoretical insightsinto the complexity of poor people’s experiences. The tendency to portrayrural populations in a relatively homogenous manner, wherein the withingroups differences are rarely explored does not provide adequate view ofrural areas and can produce misleading results that potentially have seriouspolicy implications. Because rural environments are gendered and varyacross areas with high populations of African-Americans to rural Indianreservations, policy development should reflect the real economies of rural



United States (Pickering, 2000), including their gender, age, and racial/ethnic complexities, leading to policy objectives that address the complexneeds and obstacles faced by the rural poor. In fact, as Manuel (2006, p. 196)puts it:

Public policy scholars cannot offer real policy innovations that improvewell-being (particularly of marginalized groups) without first knowing agood deal about the social location of the people they are trying to help,and how their social locations structure their responsiveness to policychange. […] a first step toward moving to better policymaking is theproduction of research that can serve as the intellectual basis for morethoughtful deliberation and policymaking around social well-being. Inmore simple terms, good public policy takes stock of where people arelocated, where they want to be (the good life), and how the good societycan build bridges to help them get there.

We also hope that our work will inform researchers, educators and policymakers alike of the significance of an intersectionality perspective and promotefurther study and policy development initiatives employing this perspective inan effort to provide better insights into the challenges faced by intersectionallydefined social groups and better policy solutions.

NOTES

1. Following Banks (1995), we use the term transformative scholarship to refer to the scholarshipthat challenges many of the prevailing paradigms, concepts, and interpretations that are institutionalizedwithin the U.S. schools, colleges, and universities.

2. The Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) impact factor has been a prevailing measure of a journal’sinfluence or the major determinant of whether a journal is in fact classified as a leading journal in a particulardiscipline (Borokhovich et al., 2000; Borokhovich & Chung, 2000; Fishe, 1998).

3. According to McCall (2005), anti-categorical, approach deconstructs homogenous categoriessuch as women and men, challenging the validity and usefulness of such broadly defined categories.This approach helps researchers examine drawbacks in not recognizing the fundamental differencessuch traditionally defined analytical categories tend to conceal. The second, intra-categorical,approach inaugurated the study of intersectionality. Finally, the inter-categorical approach emphasizesthe hierarchal and/or relational nature of social inequalities. A key distinction between the intra andinter approaches is that the former analysis is illustrated by a single groups where the researcher selecta subset of at least two intersectional dimensions to define the parameters of the single group (e.g.,poor Black women). Conversely, the latter examination includes at least two intersectionally definedgroups.

4. Landry notes that to intersectionally define a group, one needs to use at least two, and preferablyall three intersectional dimensions. Landry (2007, p. 106) also notes that regardless of which intersectionaldimensions are considered, sociologists tend to use two types of intersectional models, reduced andsaturated. Reduced intersectionality occurs when two intersectional dimensions of inequality areconsidered but one of the two intersectional dimensions does not vary; saturated intersectionality occurswhen at least two intersectional dimensions are considered and they all vary.

5. See Collins (2007) for a discussion of advantages associated with learning about the experiencesof multiple, intersectionality defined groups.



6. For a more in depth discussion of the main rules of intersectional analyzes see Landry (2007,pp. 105-118).

7. The concepts such as double and triple-jeopardy have been criticized as being overly simplisticassuming that relationships are merely additive (race+gender+class) rather than multiplicative (race xgender x class; Landry, 2006). Collins (2004) asserts that additive analyses assume dichotomous, either/or, thinking in which ideas are conceptualized in terms of their opposites (e.g., Black/White and Man/Women) and are ranked. She argues that such studies are particularly problematic when applied to the-ories of oppression because every individual must be classified as being either oppressed or notoppressed.

8. For examples of power-based conceptualizations of inequality, see, for instance Crenshaw(1991), Weber (2006).

9. For instance, in their study of Black women’s policy and political attitudes, Gay and Tate(1998) found that Black women’s racial identity is a more salient component of these attitudes than theirgender identity.

10. Over the years, the intersectional perspective has been subject to various critiques. Forinstance, some critics (e.g., Kennelly, 2004) suggest that intersectional theories and frameworks tend tobe overly deterministic or structural (Kennelly, 2004) Others maintain that intersectionality has resultedin fragmentation of women’s collective identities as women (e.g., Zack, 2005). McCall (2005) raises somemethodological issues related to the difficulty in managing the complexities involved in evaluating thesimultaneous interaction of intersectional inequalities (e.g., race, gender, class, age, sexual orientation).Other scholars raise the issue of which intersectional dimensions should be included in sociologicalresearch (Andersen, 2005).

REFERENCES

Albrecht. D. E., & Albrecht, C. M. (2007). Income inequality: The implications of eco-nomic structure and social conditions. Sociological Spectrum, 27(2), 165–181.

Andersen, M. (2005). Thinking about women: A quarter century’s view. Gender &Society, 19(4), 165–181.

Association for Women’s Rights in Development. (2004). Intersectionality: A tool forgender and economic justice. In Women’s Rights and Economic Change AWID.Retrieved January 8, 2008 from http://www.awid.org/eng/Issues-and-Analysis/Library/Intersectionality-A-Tool-for-Gender-and-Economic-Justice

Ávalos, M. (1991). The status of Latinos in the profession: Problems in recruitmentand retention. Political Science and Politics, 24(2), 241–246.

Banks, J., A. (1995). Multicultural education and curriculum transformation. TheJournal of Negro Education, 64(4), 390–400.

Barach, P., & Baratz, M.S. (1962). The two faces of power. American Political Sci-ence Review, 56, 947–952.

Bishwakarma, R., Hunt, V., & Zajicek, A., M. (2008). Beyond one-dimensional policyframeworks: A practical guide for an intersectional policy analysis. HimalayaResearch Bulletin, 28(1–2), 19–30.

Bookman, A., & Morgen, S. (1988). Rethinking women and politics: An introductoryessay. In A. Bookman & S. Morgen (Eds.), Women and politics of empower-ment (pp. 3–29). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Borokhovich, K. A., Bricker, R. J., & Simkins, B. J. (2000). An analysis of financejournal impact factors. The Journal of Finance, 55(3), 1457–1469.

Borokhovich, K. A., & Chung, R. (2000). Financial research: Evidence from recentgraduates of doctoral programs. Financial Practice and Education, 10, 85–92.



Brekhus, W. (1998). A sociology of the unmarked: Redirecting our focus. SociologicalTheory, 16(1), 34–51.

Chih Lin, A., and S. Danziger (Eds.). (2000). Coping with poverty: The social contextsof neighborhood, work, and family in the African American community. AnnArbor: University of Michigan Press.

Cobb, J. C. (1992). The most Southern place on Earth: The Mississippi Delta and theroots of regional identity. New York: Oxford University Press.

Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and thepolitics of empowerment (1st ed.). Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Collins, P. H. (1993). Toward a new vision: Race, class, and gender as categories ofanalysis and connection. Race, Sex & Class, 1(1), 25–45.

Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and thepolitics of empowerment (Second ed.). New York: Routledge.

Collins, P. H. (2007). Pushing the boundaries or business as usual?: Race, class, andgender studies and sociological inquiry. In C. J. Calhoun (Ed.), Sociology inAmerica: A history (pp. 572–604). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cooper, A. J. (1892). A Voice from the South. Xenia, Ohio: Aldine.Cotter, D. A. (2002). Poor people in poor places: Local opportunity structures and

household poverty. Rural Sociology, 67(4), 534–555.Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and

violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.Crenshaw, K. (1994). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and

violence against women of color. In M. A. Fineman & R. Mykitiuk (Eds.), Thepublic nature of private violence (pp. 93–118). New York: Routledge.

Crenshaw, K. W. (2000). The intersectionality of race and gender discrimination.Updated version of paper presented November 21–24, Zagreb, Croatia.

Dannefer, D. (2003). Cumulative advantage/disadvantage and the life course: Cross-fertilizing age and social science theory. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences,58B(6), S327–S337

Davis, A. (1971). If they come in the morning: Voices of resistance. New York: ThirdPress.

Delrosso, J. (2000). Catholicism’s other(ed) holy trinity: Race, class, & gender inBlack Catholic School Narratives. NWSA Journal, 12(1), 25–43.

Dewees, S., Lobao, L., & Swanson, L. E. (2003). Local economic development in an ageof devolution: The question of rural localities. Rural Sociology, 68(2), 182–206.

Duncan, C. M. (1992). Persistent poverty in Appalachia: Scarce work and rigidstratification. In C. M. Duncan (Ed.), Rural Poverty in America (pp. 111–133).New York: Auburn House.

Duncan, C. M. (1996). Understanding persistent poverty: Social class context inrural communities. Rural Sociology, 61(1), 103–124.

Ferree, M. M., & Hall, E. J. (1996). Rethinking stratification from a feminist perspec-tive: Gender, race, and class in mainstream textbooks. American SociologicalReview, 61(6), 929–950.

Fishe, R. P. H. (1998). What are the research standards for full professor of finance?Journal of Finance, 53, 1053–1079.

Flora, C. B. (1994). Rural America and global restructuring information and ruralchange. Journal of Agricultural & Food Information, 2(3), 3–15.



Gaventa, J. (1982). Power and powerlessness: Quiescence and rebellion in an Appa-lachian Valley. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Gay, C., & Tate, K. (1998). Doubly bound: The impact of gender and race on thepolitics of black women. Political Psychology, 19, 169–184.

Gimpel, J. G., & Lay, C. J. (2008). Political socialization and reactions to immigration-related diversity in rural America. Rural Sociology, 73(2), 180–204.

Glenn, E. N. (1992). From servitude to service work: Historical continuities in theracial division of paid reproductive labor. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture& Society, 18(1), 1–43.

Grant, L., Ward, K. B., & Lan Rong, X. (1987). Is there an association between gen-der and methods in sociological research? American Sociological Review, 52(6),856–862.

Gray, P. (1992). Race relations in the Delta. In A.G. Cosby, M. W. Brackin, D. T.Mason, & E. R. McCulloch (Eds.), A social and economic portrait of theMississippi Delta (pp. 53–78). Starkville, MS: Social Science Research Center,Mississippi State University.

Harper, F. E. W. (1995/1893). Woman’s political future. In B. Guy-Sheffall (Ed.), Ananthology of African-American feminist thought (pp. 40–42). New York: TheNew Press.

Hofferth, S., & Iceland, J. (1998). Social capital in rural and urban communities.Rural Sociology, 63(4), 574–598.

hooks, b. (1984). Feminist theory from margin to center. Boston: South End Press.Hunt, V. H., & Zajicek, A. (2008). Strategic intersectionality and the needs of disad-

vantaged populations: An intersectional analysis of organizational inclusionand participation. Race, Class & Gender, 15(3–4), 180–203.

Jarosz, L., & Lawson, V. (2002). Sophisticated people versus rednecks: Economicrestructuring and class difference in America’s West. Antipode, 34(1), 8–27.

Jensen, L. (2006). At the razor’s edge: Building hope for America’s rural poor. RuralRealities, 1(1), 1–8. Retrieved September 19, 2008 from http://ruralsociology.org/pubs/RuralRealities/RuralRealities2001-2001.pdf.

Kennelly, I. (2004). The intermingling of race, class, and gender: A theoretical commence-ment. Unpublished Manuscript. Washington, DC: George Washington University.

King, D. (1988). Multiple jeopardy, multiple consciousness: The context of Blackfeminist ideology. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 12, 42–72.

Landry, B. (2006). Race, gender and class: Theory and methods of analysis. UpperSaddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Landry, B. (2007). Race, gender and class : Theory and methods of analysis. UpperSaddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Lichter, D. T., & Johnson, K. M. (2007). The changing spatial concentration ofAmerica’s rural poor population. Rural Sociology, 72(3), 331–352.

Manuel, T. (2006). Envisioning the possibilities for a good life: Exploring the publicpolicy implications of intersectionality theory. Journal of Women, Politics &Policy, 28(3/4), 173–203.

McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women inCulture & Society, 30(3), 1771–1800.

Miller, K. K., & Weber, B. A. (2003). Persistent poverty across the rural-urbancontinuum. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Rural Poverty Research



Center (RPRC). Retrieved December 4, 2006 from http://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/osruwp/18910.html

Murphy, S. Y. (2008). Voices of African American grandmothers raising grand-children: Informing child welfare kinship care policy-practice. Journal of Inter-generational Relationships, 6(1), 25–39.

Mutari, E., Power, M., & Figart, D. M. (2002). Neither mothers nor breadwinners:African-American women’s exclusion from U.S. minimum wage policies, 1912–38.Feminist Economics, 8(2), 37–61.

Naples, N. (1998). Community activism and feminist politics: Organizing acrossrace, class and gender. New York: Routledge.

Naples, N. A. (2009). Presidential address: Crossing border: Community activism,globalization and social justice. Social Problems, 56(1), 2–20.

Norris, A. N., Murphy-Erby, Y., & Zajicek, A. M. (2007). An intersectional perspectivein introductory sociology textbooks and the sociological imagination: A casestudy. Race, Gender & Class, 14(1–2), 333–344.

O’Hare, W. (2009). The forgotten fifth: Child poverty in rural America. CarseyInstitute: University of New Hampshire. Retrieved July 9, 2009 from http://carseyinstitute.unh.edu/publications/Report-OHare-ForgottenFifth.pdf

Onyx, J. A., & Bullen, P. (2000). Sources of social capital. In J. Onyx & P. Bullen(Eds.), Social capital and public policy in Australia (pp. 105–135). Melbourne:Australian Institute of Family Studies.

Parisi, D., McLaughlin, D. K., Grice, S. M., & Gill, D. A. (2003). TANF participationrates: Do community condition matter? Rural Sociology, 68(4), 491–512.

Patel, P. (2001). Notes on gender and racial discrimination: An urgent need to inte-grate an intersectional perspective to the examination and development of poli-cies, strategies and remedies for gender and racial equality. Paper presented atthe 45th Session: United Nations, Commission on the Status of Women.

Pickering, K. (2000). Alternative economic strategies in low-income rural communi-ties: TANF, labor migration, and the case of pine ridge Indian Reservation.Rural Sociology, 65(1), 148–167.

Ramirez, R., Martinez-Ebers, V., Fraga, L., & Lopez, L. (2006). Strategic intersectionality:Gender, ethnicity, and political incorporation. Paper WP2006.32. Berkeley, CA:University of California, Institute of Governmental Studies. Retrieved April 25, 2007from http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1128&context=igs

Rank, M. R., Yoon, H.-S., & Hirschl, T. A. (2003). American poverty as a structuralfailing: Evidence and arguments. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare,XXX(4), 3–29.

Richie, B. (1996). Shifting the intervention paradigm: anti-racism and culturallycompetent practice.

Rogers, C. C. (2005). Older women and poverty in rural areas: Economic researchservice/USDA. Retrieved September 9, 2008 from http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/September05/pdf/FindingsRASeptember2005.pdf

Savage, S. (2008). Children in central cities and rural communities experience highrates of poverty. Fact Sheet No. 12. Retrieved January 4, 2010 from http://www.carseyinstitute.unh.edu/publications/FS_RuralChildPoverty_08.pdf

Schwalbe, M. (2000). Charting futures for sociology: Inequality mechanisms, inter-sections, and global change. Contemporary Sociology, 29(6), 775–781.



Seitz, V. R. (1995). Women, development, and communities for empowerment inAppalachia. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Slack, T., & Jensen, L. (2002). Race, ethnicity, and underemployment in nonmetro-politan America: A 30-year profile. Rural Sociology, 67(2), 208–233.

Snyder, A. R., McLaughlin, D. K., & Findeis, J. (2006). Household composition andpoverty among female-headed households with children: Differences by raceand residence. Rural Sociology, 71(4), 597–624.

Stacey, J., & Thorne, B. (1985). The missing feminist revolution in sociology. SocialProblems, 32, 301–316.

Stewart, M. M. (1995/1831). Religion and the pure principles of morality, the surefoundation on which we must build. In B. Guy-Sheftall (Ed.), Words of fire: Ananthology of African-American feminist thought (pp. 26–29). New York: TheNew Press.

Sydow, J., Schreyögg, G., & Koch, G. (2009). Organizational path dependence:Opening the black box. Academy of Management Review, 34(4), 689–709.

Tickamyer, A. R., & Duncan, C. M. (1990). Poverty and opportunity structure inrural America. Annual Review of Sociology, 16(67–86).

Valentine, G. (2007). Theorizing and researching intersectionality: A challenge forfeminist geography. The Professional Geographer, 59(1), 10–21.

Verloo, M. (2006). Multiple inequalities, intersectionality and the European Union.European Journal of Women’s Studies, 13(3), 211–228.

Weber, L. (2006). Reconstructing the landscape of health disparities research: Promot-ing dialogue and collaboration between feminist intersectional and biomedicalparadigms. In A. J. Schultz & L. Mullings (Eds.), Gender, race, class, & health(pp. 21–59). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

Wells, B. (2002). Women’s voices: Explaining poverty and plenty in a rural communityRural Sociology, 67(2), 234–254.

Wilkinson, L. (2003). Advancing a Perspective on the Intersections of Diversity:Challenges for Research and Social Policy. Canadian Ethnic Studies.

Zack, N. (2005). Inclusive feminism: A third wave theory of women’s commonality.Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Zajicek, A., Calasanti, T., Ginther, C., & Summers, J. (2006). Intersectionality andage relations: Unpaid care work and Chicanas. In T. Calasanti & K. Slevin(Eds.), Age matters (pp. 175–198). New York: Routledge.D

ownloaded By: [Norris, Adele N.] At: 19:35 19 February 2010

Intersectional Perspective and Rural Poverty Research: Benefits, Challenges and Policy Implications

Documents

Transcript of Intersectional Perspective and Rural Poverty Research: Benefits, Challenges and Policy Implications