Intersectionality in research on equity, diversity, and inclusion in sport: A systematic review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research increasingly focuses on intersectionality to advance existing approaches to equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in sport. Intersectionality is a complex concept that has been defined and operationalized in various ways. Using a systematic review comprising 41 peer-reviewed publications, this paper examines the extent to which and how research on EDI in sport engages with intersectional thinking and practice. The authors used three theory-informed approaches to evaluate the intersectionality characteristics of the literature, attending to intersectionality categorization, styles, and modes of engagement. The findings show a recent increase in the use of the language of intersectionality in research on EDI in sport, especially since 2018. Most of the published scholarship is situated in the Global North and is predominantly qualitative. The findings suggest that intersectionality is more than a buzzword and is increasingly taken seriously in this research field, theoretically and empirically. There is room for greater engagement with intersectional research methodology and with calls for intersectionality as critical praxis.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.047 | 0.142 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".