“Let’s Duck Out Of The Wind”: Operationalising Intersectionality To Understand Elderly Men’s Caregiving Experiences of Elderly Husbands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims is to demonstrate how Bourdieu’s conceptual tools of habitus, capital and field can facilitate the operationalisation of intersectionality. Following an appreciation of the methodological issues arising from the practical application of intersectionality, we introduce data from an Australian study of husbands caring for wives with dementia. With care often being constructed as a feminine practice, men’s care-giving experiences are frequently said to be in tension with many hegemonic masculine practices. However, men are not homogenous, rather their experiences are shaped by intersections of gender, age, class and other identity-defining categories. To help explore some of these intersections, 16 interviews, six of which were enhanced by photo-elicitation methods, were undertaken with a purposive sample of retired husbands caring for a spouse with dementia. Thematic analysis was then employed. In this paper, we present data and themes relating to the husband’s experiences around independence and self-sufficiency and coping strategies and emotional autonomy. However, the main purpose of the paper is not to focus on these empirical findings per se. Rather, we draw on these data to illustrate how Bourdieu’s work was utilised to help address some of the concerns that have been encountered when applying intersectional theory to empirical research; that is to say, this is primarily a methodological paper. The empirical findings highlight the complex and class influenced ways that husband carers look to sustain independence and autonomy. They further illustrate how the cultural capital accrued through past experiences facilitates or restrains coping mechanisms and associated emotional autonomy during their caregiving journeys. Methodologically, we use these empirical data to demonstrate how Bourdieu’s notions of habitus, capital and field can overcome three specific criticisms when applying intersectionality in research studies: (1) its supposed inability to adequately address agency and privilege; (2) its apparent lack of a heuristic device illustrating how time, location and context constrain and empower social actors; and (3) an alleged lack of methodological tools to illustrate the interrelated and generative nature of structure and agency.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".