MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4411107609 · doi:10.1108/edi-10-2024-0482

Rurality and intersectionality: a literature review

2025· review· en· W4411107609 sur OpenAlexaff
Sarah Redshaw, Catherine Thomas, Nathan Kerrigan, Branka Krivokapic‐Skoko, Susan Flynn

Notice bibliographique

RevueEquality Diversity and Inclusion An International Journal · 2025
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineAgricultural and Biological Sciences
ThématiqueRural development and sustainability
Établissements canadiensTrinity College
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRuralityIntersectionalitySociologyGender studiesGeographyPolitical scienceRural area

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Purpose The paper presents a literature review conducted to consider the range and focus of papers applying a stated intersectional framework to rural contexts. Design/methodology/approach With a specific interest in intersectionality studies that were connected to rural areas, a number of databases were searched for the term “intersectionality”, and from 492 identified papers, 21 papers met the criteria for review. Thematic analysis captured the range of themes within and across each paper. Findings Although all papers considered gender, race and their relation to identity, the strongest theme throughout was the concept of place. Place was often related to how identity is shaped within place. Multiple inequalities and intersecting identities related to race, ethnicity, class, sex and place, and their impacts were documented. The extent to which intersectionality was able to be employed in analysis and discussion is highlighted. The papers sought to acknowledge the complexity in these domains with some providing in-depth analysis of experiences in a number of domains and examining norms, values, power structures and the discourses and narratives that support these. Research limitations/implications This literature review discussed papers from the Global North. It was imperative to consider nations with similar systems and governance sophistication to undertake meaningful analysis. Future research could encompass articles from across the globe (specifically, from areas and regions of the Global South) to compare and contrast applications and interpretations of intersectional research and practice in more varied contexts. There could also be a greater focus on historical debates that have influenced the interaction of intersectionality and rurality such as feminist approaches as well as more focus on confronting privilege and how that frames analyses. Practical implications Intersectionality requires application as a complete framework to research and practice so as to better hear the voices expressing lived experiences of individuals, groups and communities within all social identifiers of which place is a vital component. This is further compounded when considering the impact of interpretations of rurality. The authors of this literature review acknowledge a need to de-whiten and decolonialise experiences encapsulated in the notions, concepts and application of intersectionality and rurality. Capturing the complexity that emerges in intersectional analysis is a challenge that has been embraced to varying degrees within the papers reviewed. Social implications Appreciation of the complex array of factors that contribute to rural contexts needs to be embraced in research through intersectional analysis. What is absent from some of the papers, is an explanation or need to challenge the urban-centric and white-dominated views of intersectionality and the application of intersectionality excluding other social indicators such as the impact of place. The notion of place within itself incorporates the social and without the social, then place would become merely space (Johnston, 2018). Originality/value The papers chosen presented a range of applications of intersectionality that allow us to consider an intersectional lens with a strong application indicating the use of interrelated themes throughout such as race and gender in relation to place and power structures.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies, Science ouverte
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Autre devis · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,992
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,997

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0040,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0010,014
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,045
Tête enseignante GPT0,333
Écart entre enseignants0,287 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeAutre devis
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations6
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEquality Diversity and Inclusion An International JournalMême sujetRural development and sustainabilityTravaux en français237 207