Thinking Intersectionally and Why Difference (Still) Matters in Feminist Leisure and Sport Research

  • Beccy Watson


This chapter examines methodological practice in feminist leisure and sport scholarship underpinned by a view of “thinking intersectionally”. Despite an increase in publications detailing and/or engaging intersectionality over recent years across social science research more broadly, intersectionality is not yet prevalent in leisure and sport scholarship. Black feminist perspectives are central to informing discussion on the challenges of researching difference and inequalities. The potential and possible ways of thinking intersectionally for future research engagement are explored, drawing on examples from the author’s feminist leisure research practice. The contexts of space and embodiment, as significant aspects of thinking intersectionally, along with ongoing feminist debates regarding reflexivity and insider–outsider issues, are given consideration in relation to how we identify the overall context of our research as well as the multiple contexts within which our research is carried out.


  1. Ahmed, S. (2004). Declarations of whiteness: The non-performativity of anti-racism. Borderlands e Journal, 3(2). Retrieved from
  2. Aitchison, C. C. (2000). Poststructural feminist theories of representing others: A response to the “crisis” in leisure studies’ discourse. Leisure Studies, 19(5), 127–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexander, C. (2006). Mapping the issues. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 29(3), 397–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amos, V., & Parmar, P. (1981). Resistances and responses: The experiences of black girls in Britain. In A. McRobbie & T. McCabe (Eds.), Feminism for girls: An adventure story. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  5. Amos, V., & Parmar, P. (1984). Challenging imperial feminism. Feminist Review, 17, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Babbie, E. (1995). The practice of social research (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wandsworth.Google Scholar
  7. Best, A. (2003). Doing race in the context of feminist interviewing: Constructing whiteness through talk. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(6), 895–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bhopal, K. (1995). Women and feminism as subjects of black study: The difficulties and dilemmas of carrying out research. Journal of Gender Studies, 4(2), 153–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bhopal, K. (2001). Researching south Asian women: Issues of sameness and difference in the research process. Journal of Gender Studies, 10(3), 279–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bilge, S. (2013). Intersectionality undone. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 10(2), 405–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Birrell, S. (1989). Racial relations theories and sport: Suggestions for a more critical analysis. Sociology of Sport Journal, 6, 212–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brah, A. (1996). Cartographies of diaspora. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Broom, D. H., Byrne, M., & Petkovic, L. (1992). Off cue: Women who play pool. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 28(2), 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Buford May, R. A. (2014). When the methodological shoes is on the other foot: African American interviewer and white interviewees. Qualitative Sociology, 37, 117–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cho, S., Crenshaw, K., & McCall, L. (2013). Toward a field of intersectionality studies: Theory, applications and praxis. Signs, 38(4), 785–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Christian, B. (1987). The race for theory. In Cultural critique: The nature and context of minority discourse, Spring No. 6, pp. 51–63.Google Scholar
  17. Crenshaw, K. W. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersections of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracial politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 139–167.Google Scholar
  18. Crossley, N. (2005). Mapping reflexive body techniques. Body and Society, 11(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Denzin, N. K. (1994). The art and politics of interpretation. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 500–515). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Denzin, N. K. (1997). Interpretive ethnography: Ethnographic practices for the 21st century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Finch, J. (1984). “It’s great to have someone to talk to”: The ethics and politics of interviewing women. In C. Bell & H. Roberts (Eds.), Social researching: Politics, problems, practice (pp. 70–87). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  23. Fiske, J., Hodge, B., & Turner, G. (1987). Myths of Oz: Reading popular culture. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  24. Frankenberg, R. (1993). White women, race matters: The social construction of whiteness. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Frankenberg, R. (1997). Displacing whiteness: Essays in social and cultural criticism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Frankenberg, R. (2004). On unsteady ground: Crafting and engaging in the critical study of whiteness. In M. Bulmer & J. Solomos (Eds.), Researching race and racism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Grant, J. (1987). I feel therefore I am: A critique of female experience as the basis for a feminist epistemology. Women and Politics, 7(3), 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harding, S. (1987). Feminism and methodology. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Hill-Collins, P. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness and the politics of empowerment. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Holland, J., & Ramazanoglu, C. (1994). Coming to conclusions: Power and interpretation in researching young women’s sexuality. In M. Maynard & J. Purvis (Eds.), Researching women’s lives from a feminist perspective (pp. 125–148). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  33. hooks, b. (1984). Feminist theory: From margin to center. Boston, MA: South End Press.Google Scholar
  34. hooks, b. (1989). Talking back: Thinking feminist, thinking black. London: Sheba.Google Scholar
  35. hooks, b. (1991). Yearning: Race, gender and cultural politics. Boston: Southend Press.Google Scholar
  36. Intemann, K. (2010). 25 years of feminist empiricism and standpoint theory: Where are we now? Hypatia, 25(4), 778–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kivel, B. D., Johnson, C., & Scraton, S. (2009). (re)Theorising leisure, experience and race. Journal of Leisure Research, 41(4), 473–493.Google Scholar
  38. Knowles, C., & Mercer, S. (1992). Feminism and antiracism: An exploration of the political possibilities. In J. Donald & A. Rattansi (Eds.), ‘race’, culture and difference (pp. 104–125). London and Newbury Park, CA: Sage/The Open University.Google Scholar
  39. Lather, P. (1988). Feminist perspectives on empowering research methodologies. Women’s Studies International Forum, 11(6), 569–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Lewis, G. (2009). Celebrating intersectionality? Debates on a multi-faceted concept in gender studies: Themes from a conference. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 16(3), 203–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lutz, H., Vivar, M. T. H., & Supik, L. (2011). Framing intersectionality: Debates on a multi-facteted concept in gender studies. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  43. Lykke, N. (2010). Feminist studies: A guide to intersectional theory, methodology and writing. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Marfelt, M. M. (2016). Grounded intersectionality: Key tensions, a methodological framework and implications for diversity research. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 35(1), 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1995). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  46. Maynard, M. (1994). Methods, practice and epistemology: The debate about feminism and research. In M. Maynard & J. Purvis (Eds.), Researching women’s lives from a feminist perspective (pp. 10–26). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  47. McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30(3), 1772–1800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McCorkel, J. A., & Myers, K. (2003). What difference does difference make? Position and privilege in the field. Qualitative Sociology, 26(2), 199–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McDonald, M. G. (2005). Mapping whiteness and sport: An introduction. Sociology of Sport Journal, 22(3), 245–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McDonald, M. G. (2009). Dialogues on whiteness, leisure and (anti)racism. Journal of Leisure Research, 41(1), 5–21.Google Scholar
  51. McDonald, M. G., Adams, M. L., Davidson, J., Helstein, M., Jamieson, K., Kim, K. Y., et al. (2016). Feminist cultural studies: Uncertainties and possibilities. Sociology of Sport Journal, 33(1), 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McRobbie, A. (2015). Notes on the perfect: Competitive femininity in neoliberal times. Australian Feminist Studies, 83(3), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mirza, H. S. (1997). Black British feminism: A reader. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Mooney, S. (2016). ‘nimble’ intersectionality in employment research: A way to resolve methodological dilemmas. Work, Employment and Society, 30(4), 708–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nash, J. C. (2008). Re-thinking intersectionality. Feminist Review, 89, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nava, M. (1992). Changing cultures: Feminism, youth and consumerism. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  57. Norris, M. (2015). The complexities of ‘otherness’: Reflections on embodiment of a young white British woman engaged in cross-generation research involving older people in Indonesia. Ageing & Society, 35(5), 986–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Oakley, A. (1981). Interviewing women: A contradiction in terms? In H. Roberts (Ed.), Doing feminist research. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  59. Olive, R., & Thorpe, H. (2011). Negotiating the ‘F-word’ in the field: Doing feminist ethnography in action sport cultures. Sociology of Sport Journal, 28, 421–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Phoenix, A. (1994). Practising feminist research: The intersection of gender and ‘race’ in the research process. In M. Maynard & J. Purvis (Eds.), Researching women’s lives from a feminist perspective (pp. 49–71). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  61. Puar, J. (2012). Coda: The cost of getting better: Suicide, sensation, switchpoints. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 18(1), 149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rojek, C. (2009). The labour of leisure. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  63. Scraton, S. (2001). Reconceptualising race, gender and sport: The contribution of black feminism. In I. McDonald & B. Carrington (Eds.), Race and sport in British society (pp. 170–187). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  64. Scraton, S., Caudwell, J., & Holland, S. (2005). ‘bend it like Patel’: Centring ‘race’, ethnicity and gender in feminist analysis of women’s football in England. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 40(1), 71–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Scraton, S., & Watson, B. (1998). Gendered cities: Women and public leisure space in the postmodern city. Leisure Studies, 17(2), 123–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sholock, A. (2012). Methodology of the privileged: White anti-racist feminism, systematic ignorance, and epistemic uncertainty. Hypatia, 27(4), 701–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Skeggs, B. (1998). Formations of class and gender. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  68. Smith, D. (1987). The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Spivak, G. C. (1987). In other worlds: Essays in cultural criticism. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  70. Stanley, L., & Wise, S. (1993). Breaking out: Feminist ontology and epistemology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  71. Strathern, M. (1987). The limits of auto-ethnography. In A. Jackson (Ed.), Anthropology at home (pp. 16–37). London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  72. Strickland, S. (1994). Feminism, postmodernism and difference. In K. Lennon & M. Whitford (Eds.), Knowing the difference: Feminist perspectives in epistemology (pp. 265–275). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  73. Tjora, A. H. (2006). Writing small discoveries: An exploration of fresh observers’ observations. Qualitative Research, 6(1), 429–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Valentine, G. (2007). Theorising and researching intersectionality: A challenge for feminist geography. The Professional Geographer, 59(1), 10–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Valentine, G., & Harris, C. (2016). Encounters and (in-)tolerance: Perceptions of legality and the regulation of space. Social & Cultural Geography, 17(7), 913–932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Villa, P. I. (2011). Embodiment is always more: Intersectionality, subjection and the body. In H. Lutz, M. T. H. Vivar, & L. Supik (Eds.), Framing intersectionality: Debates on a multi-facteted concept in gender studies (pp. 171–186). Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  77. Walby, S., Amstrong, J., & Strid, S. (2012). Intersectionality: Multiple inequalities in social theory. Sociology, 46(2), 224–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Watson, B. (2000). Motherwork, motherleisure: Researching difference in the context of young mothers’ leisure lives. PhD thesis, Leeds Metropolitan University.Google Scholar
  79. Watson, B., Lashua, B., & Trevorrow, P. (2016). What difference does dance make? Critical conversations across dance, physical activity and public health. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 8(4), 681–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Watson, B., & Ratna, A. (2011). Bollywood in the park: Thinking intersectionally about public leisure space. Leisure/Loisir, 35(1), 71–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Watson, B., & Rodley, I. (2015). Dazzling yet invisible: Boys in cheerdance. In C. Hallgren et al. (Eds.), Invisible boy: The making of contemporary masculinities (pp. 95–106). Sweden: Umea University Press.Google Scholar
  82. Watson, B., & Scraton, S. (2001). Confrominting whiteness? Researching the leisure lives of South Asian mothers. Journal of Gender Studies, 10(3), 265–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Watson, B., & Scraton, S. (2013). Leisure studies and intersectionality. Leisure Studies, 32(1), 35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Watson, B., & Scraton, S. (2017). Re-confronting whiteness: Ongoing challenges in sport and leisure reserach. In A. Ratna & S. Samie (Eds.), Race, gender and sport: The politics of ethnic ‘other’ girls and women (pp. 85–106). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  85. Watson, B., Tucker, L., & Drury, S. (2013). Can we make a difference? Examining the transformative potential of sport and active recreation. Sport in Society, 16(10), 1233–1247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wearing, B. (1998). Leisure and feminist theory. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wheaton, B. (2002). Babes on the beach, women in the surf: Researching gender, power and difference in the windsurfing culture. In J. Sugden & A. Tomlinson (Eds.), Power games: A critical sociology of sport (pp. 240–266). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  88. Wilson, J. (1988). Politics and leisure. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
  89. Winker, G., & Degele, N. (2011). Intersectionality as multi-level analysis: Dealing with social inequality. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 18(1), 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Wolfinger, N. H. (2002). On writing fieldnotes: Collection strategies and background expectancies. Qualitative Research, 2(1), 85–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Yuval-Davis, N. (2011). The politics of belonging – Intersectional contestations. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Beccy Watson
    • 1
  1. 1.Carnegie FacultyLeeds Beckett UniversityLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations