Contextualising intersectionality: A qualitative study of East Asian female migrant workers in the UK

Abstract

Previous intersectional research on ethnic minority women has largely focused on inequalities and disadvantages associated with the intersection between their minority gender and ethnic identities. In this study, we challenge the static and dichotomous assumption of the existing intersectionality framework (e.g. privilege versus disadvantage) and adopt Holvino’s intersectional perspective of simultaneity as a theoretical lens through which to demonstrate the importance of understanding intersectionality within various levels of contexts, or contextualising social differences. Interviews with 43 female migrant workers from China, Japan and Korea living in the UK revealed that these women perceived disadvantage in terms of gender/ethnic stereotyping and discriminatory practices at work. At the same time, however, their accounts provided evidence of contextualised privilege, namely ‘relative privilege’ (privilege in comparison to multiple reference groups), ‘assigned privilege’ (privilege assigned by their employers and the host society), and ‘ambiguous privilege’ (privilege as a double-edged sword). Based on these observations, we suggest that the location of East Asian women is not fixed within the interlocking systems of oppression in the host country; rather, this location is dynamic and fluid within interpersonal, organisational and societal contexts in the home and host countries, moving back and forth between disadvantage and (limited) privilege.

Exploring work-life balance among professional women in mainland China: A qualitative study

“…Scholars have called for increasing the use of qualitative methods to study work-life balance issues (Phillips et al, 2016 ; Adisa et al, 2019 ; Dutta, 2020 ; Hwang and Beauregard, 2022 ). An interpretivist approach helps us understand the feelings and experiences of women (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2015 ).…”

“That's bang out of order, mate!”: Gendered and racialized micro‐practices of disadvantage and privilege in UK business schools

“…As such, the study enriches intersectional analyses of disadvantage (e.g., Bourabain, 2021;Strauβ & Boncori, 2020) and contributes to understanding the so far underexplored issue of gendered and racialized privilege in academia (Sang & Calvard, 2019). In contrast to previous research, the unique aspect of the contribution of this research is that while other studies have tended to focus on the experiences of members of minority groups, such as foreign women (e.g., Strauβ & Boncori, 2020) or East Asian women (e.g., Hwang & Beauregard, 2022), our analysis combines the narrated experiences of minority group members, such as women and ethnic minorities, as well as members of the dominant group, that is, White British men. In this way, the analysis has provided illustrations of the intersectional workings of micro-practices of both disadvantage and privilege.…”

“…Through this methodological contribution, we respond to calls for contextualized studies of intersectionality (Hwang & Beauregard, 2022;Tatli & Özbilgin, 2012). We offer an approach to generating insights into analogous micro-practices experienced by minority and majority group members, drawing attention to the fact that all these micro-practices are part of the same context in which gendered and racialized structural inequalities persist (Bhopal & Henderson, 2021).…”

“…Previous research has addressed the intersectional experience of disadvantage and privilege of organizational members from minority groups both in academia and in other types of organizations (e.g., Hwang & Beauregard, 2022;Rodriguez et al, 2016;Villesèche et al, 2018). However, with the exception of Sang and Calvard's (2019) study of migrant academics in Australia, little is known about the experiences of members of the dominant group, such as White British men in academia.…”

The psychology of diversity and its implications for workplace (in)equality: Looking back at the last decade and forward to the next

“…Individuals’ experiences in the workplace are produced by a complex intermingling of gender (identity), age, race and/or religion, class, (dis)ability, and sexual orientation; their outcomes cannot be fully understood without accounting for more than one demographic characteristic. Similar to RIT, contextualization is key; individuals interpret their multiple identities within the broader structures and institutions in which they are located, and thus power and inequality are dynamic and fluid within interpersonal, organizational, and societal contexts (Hwang & Beauregard, 2021). Working together with sociologists and organizational studies scholars, psychologists are uniquely qualified to extend the insights produced by our review regarding different forms of stereotypes and how these can be linked to organizational roles and practices (Burmeister et al, 2018; Dobai & Hopkins, 2021; Fernando & Kenny, 2018) by assessing individuals’ understanding of their social identities and helping to situate these in a wider context, drawing together multiple levels of analysis in one integrated framework.…”